Vol. 80 Thursday, 

No. 199 October 15, 2015 

Part IV 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants; Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62390 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797; FRL–9934–16– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ92 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the 

residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) conducted for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category 

regulated under national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP). In addition, we are taking 

final action regarding new and revised 

emission standards for various 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted 

by this source category based on the 

RTR, newly obtained emissions test 

data, and comments we received in 

response to the 2011 proposal and 2014 

supplemental proposal. 

These final amendments include 

technology-based standards and work 

practice standards reflecting 

performance of maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT), and related 

monitoring, reporting, and testing 

requirements, for several previously 

unregulated HAP from various 

emissions sources. Furthermore, based 

on our risk review, we are finalizing 

new and revised emission standards for 

certain HAP emissions from potlines 

using the Soderberg technology to 

address risk. We are also adding a 

requirement for electronic reporting of 

compliance data, eliminating the 

exemptions for periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunctions (SSM), and 

not adopting the affirmative defense 

provisions proposed in 2011, consistent 

with a recent court decision vacating the 

affirmative defense provisions. This 

action will provide improved 

environmental protection regarding 

potential emissions of HAP emissions 

from primary aluminum reduction 

facilities. 

DATES: This final action is effective on 

October 15, 2015. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of October 15, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797. 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., confidential business information 

(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 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room Number 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 

(EST), Monday through Friday. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this final action, contact 

Mr. David Putney, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

2016; fax number: (919) 541–3207; and 

email address: putney.david@epa.gov. 

For specific information regarding the 

risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. 

Jim Hirtz, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and 

email address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

the NESHAP to a particular entity, 

contact Mr. Patrick Yellin, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA WJC South 

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–2970; and email 

address: yellin.patrick@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and 

Abbreviations. We use multiple 

acronyms and terms in this preamble. 

While this list may not be exhaustive, to 

ease the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the EPA defines the 

following terms and acronyms here: 

AERMET AERMOD Meteorological 

Preprocessor 

AERMOD American Meteorological Society 

and EPA Regulatory Model 

As arsenic 

BLDS bag leak detection systems 

BLP Buoyant Line and Point source model 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS continuous emission monitoring 

system 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CRA Congressional Review Act 

CWPB1 center-worked prebake one 

CWPB2 center-worked prebake two 

CWPB3 center-worked prebake three 

D/F dioxins and furans 

dscm dry standard cubic meter 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

FR Federal Register 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

HEM3 Human Exposure Model version 3 

Hg mercury 

HQ hazard quotient 

IBR incorporation by reference 

ICR information collection request 

lb pound(s) 

lb/ton pound(s) per ton 

lb/yr pound(s) per year 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Ni nickel 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyls 

PM particulate matter 

PM2.5 p.m. with diameter of 2.5 microns 

and less 

POM polycyclic organic matter 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RDL representative detection limit 

REL reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

RTR Residual Risk and Technology Review 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

SWPB side-worked prebake 

TEQ toxicity equivalence 

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

mg microgram(s) 

mg/dscm microgram(s) per dry standard 

cubic meter 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper prediction limit 

VE visible emissions 

VSS2 vertical stud Soderberg two 

Background Information. On 

December 6, 2011, and December 8, 

2014, the EPA proposed revisions to the 

Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 

NESHAP based on our RTR and MACT 

review. After considering public 

comments, in this action, we are 

finalizing decisions and revisions for 

the rule. We summarize some of the 

more significant comments we timely 

received regarding the 2011 and 2014 

proposed rules and provide our 

responses in this preamble. A summary 

of all other public comments on the 

proposals and the EPA’s responses to 

those comments is available in the 

National Emission Standards for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62391 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants Summary 

of Public Comments and Responses 

document, which is available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797). A ‘‘track 

changes’’ version of the regulatory 

language that incorporates the changes 

in this action is also available in the 

docket for this action. 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is the Primary Aluminum 

Production source category and how 

does the NESHAP regulate HAP 

emissions from the source category? 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category in our December 6, 2011, 

proposal and December 8, 2014, 

proposal? 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category? 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to Clean Air Act sections 

112(d)(2) and (3) for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

D. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

SSM? 

E. What other changes have been made to 

the Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 

NESHAP? 

F. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards? 

G. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

H. What materials are being incorporated 

by reference? 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category? 

A. Residual Risk Review for the Primary 

Aluminum Production Source Category 

B. CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) 

Revisions for the Primary Aluminum 

Production Source Category 

C. Revisions to the Work Practice 

Standards for the Primary Aluminum 

Production Source Category 

D. What changes did we make to the 

control device monitoring requirements 

for the Primary Aluminum Production 

source category? 

E. What changes did we make to 

compliance dates for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action are shown in Table 1 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL

SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY

THIS FINAL ACTION

NESHAP and source category NAICSa

code 

Primary Aluminum Reduction 

Plants ........................................ 331312 

a North American Industry Classification 

System. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by the final 

action for the source category listed. To 

determine whether your facility is 

affected, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in the appropriate 

NESHAP. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of any aspect 

of this NESHAP, please contact the 

appropriate person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

Internet through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a 

forum for information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. Following signature 

by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will 

post a copy of this final action at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/alum/

alumpg.html. Following publication in 

the Federal Register, the EPA will post 

the Federal Register version and key 

technical documents at this same Web 

site. 

Additional information is available on 

the RTR Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

This information includes an overview 

of the RTR program, links to project 

Web sites for the RTR source categories 

and detailed emissions and other data 

we used as inputs to the risk 

assessments. 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

307(b)(1), judicial review of this final 

action is available only by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by December 14, 2015. 

Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 

requirements established by this final 

rule may not be challenged separately in 

any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by the EPA to enforce the 

requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

the EPA to reconsider the rule ‘‘[i]f the 

person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to the Administrator that it 

was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration 

should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this 

approach of implementing CAA section 

112(f)(2)(A). See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 

(D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA determines that the 

existing technology-based standards provide an 

‘ample margin of safety,’ then the Agency is free to 

readopt those standards during the residual risk 

rulemaking.’’). 

EPA WJC North Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, with a copy to both the 

person(s) listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, 

and the Associate General Counsel for 

the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office 

of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of HAP from stationary 

sources. In the first stage, we must 

identify categories of sources emitting 

one or more of the HAP listed in CAA 

section 112(b) and then promulgate 

technology-based NESHAP for those 

sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that 

emit, or have the potential to emit, any 

single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year 

(tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. For major sources, 

these standards are commonly referred 

to as MACT standards and must reflect 

the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements, 

and non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts). In developing 

MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) 

directs the EPA to consider the 

application of measures, processes, 

methods, systems, or techniques, 

including, but not limited to, those that 

reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP 

emissions through process changes, 

substitution of materials, or other 

modifications; enclose systems or 

processes to eliminate emissions; 

collect, capture, or treat HAP when 

released from a process, stack, storage, 

or fugitive emissions point; are design, 

equipment, work practice, or 

operational standards; or any 

combination of the above. 

For these MACT standards, the statute 

specifies certain minimum stringency 

requirements, which are referred to as 

MACT floor requirements and which 

may not be based on cost 

considerations. See CAA section 

112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT 

floor cannot be less stringent than the 

emission control achieved in practice by 

the best-controlled similar source. The 

MACT standards for existing sources 

can be less stringent than floors for new 

sources, but they cannot be less 

stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor under CAA section 

112(d)(2). We may establish standards 

more stringent than the floor, based on 

the consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

In the second stage of the regulatory 

process, the CAA requires the EPA to 

undertake two different analyses, which 

we refer to as the technology review and 

the residual risk review. Under the 

technology review, we must review the 

technology-based standards and revise 

them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years, pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the 

residual risk review, we must evaluate 

the risk to public health remaining after 

application of the technology-based 

standards and revise the standards, if 

necessary, to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health or to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect. 

The residual risk review is required 

within 8 years after promulgation of the 

technology-based standards, pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f). In conducting the 

residual risk review, if the EPA 

determines that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, it is not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(f).1 For more 

information on the statutory authority 

for this rule, see 76 FR 76259 and 79 FR 

72914. 

Today’s amendments involve rule 

changes pursuant to these authorities. 

Specifically, pursuant to CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and (3), and 112(h), the EPA 

is amending the NESHAP to add 

standards for HAP not previously 

addressed. In addition, pursuant to CAA 

section 112(f), the EPA is amending 

certain MACT standards already 

promulgated to address risk. The EPA 

also conducted a technology review and 

determined that no further changes to 

the rule are necessary (within the 

meaning of CAA section 112(d)(6)) to 

reflect developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies 

other than the work practices for anode 

bake furnaces and paste plants during 

startup periods, and work practices for 

potlines during normal operations (to 

help minimize POM, TF, and PM 

emissions), described in the 2011 and 

2014 proposals. 

B. What is the Primary Aluminum 

Production source category and how 

does the NESHAP regulate HAP 

emissions from the source category? 

The EPA promulgated the Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants NESHAP, 

which apply to the Primary Aluminum 

Production source category, on October 

7, 1997 (62 FR 52407). The rule was 

amended on November 2, 2005 (70 FR 

66280). The associated standards are 

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL. 

The Primary Aluminum Production 

source category consists of facilities that 

produce aluminum from refined bauxite 

ore (also known as alumina), using an 

electrolytic reduction process in a series 

of cells called a ‘‘potline.’’ The two 

main potline types are prebake (a newer, 

higher-efficiency, lower-emitting 

technology) and Soderberg (an older, 

lower-efficiency, higher-emitting 

technology). The raw materials include 

alumina, petroleum coke, pitch, and 

fluoride salts. According to information 

available on the Web site of The 

Aluminum Association, Inc. (http://

www.aluminum.org), approximately 40 

percent of the aluminum produced in 

the U.S. comes from primary aluminum 

facilities. The other 60 percent either 

comes from Secondary Aluminum 

Production facilities or is imported. 

Primary aluminum reduction facilities 

emit HAP from four basic processes: 

Pitch storage tanks, paste production 

plants, anode bake furnaces, and 

potlines. Operators form anode paste in 

the paste production plant from a 

mixture of petroleum coke and pitch. In 

a prebake facility, this anode paste is 

then formed into anodes and baked in 

an anode bake furnace. Operators 

subsequently place these ‘‘prebaked’’ 

anodes into a prebake potline where 

they are consumed via the electrolytic 

reduction process. Soderberg facilities 

do not have anode bake furnaces. 

Instead, the anode paste is fed directly 

into the Soderberg potlines and baked in 

place to form anodes, which again are 

consumed via the electrolytic reduction 

process. 

There are currently 11 facilities 

located in the United States that are 

subject to the requirements of this 

NESHAP: 10 primary aluminum 

reduction plants and one carbon-only 

prebake anode production facility. 

These 10 primary aluminum reduction 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62393 

plants have approximately 35 potlines 

that produce aluminum. Each of the 10 

primary aluminum reduction plants has 

a paste production plant and at least one 

anode bake furnace (for a total of about 

22 existing anode bake furnaces). 

However, not all existing paste 

production plants and anode bake 

furnaces are currently operating, as 

some facilities obtain their prebaked 

anodes from the carbon-only prebake 

anode production facility. All currently 

operating primary aluminum facilities 

use prebake potlines. 

At the time of the 2011 proposal, 

there were two facilities in the U.S. that 

used Soderberg potlines. One of those 

facilities (Massena East) was operating 

at that time, and the other (Columbia 

Falls) was idle. However, in 2014, 

before publication of the supplemental 

proposal, the Massena East facility was 

permanently shut down. Therefore, at 

the time we published the supplemental 

proposal, there was only one Soderberg 

facility (Columbia Falls) in the U.S., 

which was idle. After publication of the 

2014 supplemental proposal, we learned 

that the one remaining idle Soderberg 

facility located in Columbia Falls was 

permanently shut down. We also 

learned that one prebake facility (run by 

Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation) 

was shut down. Therefore, currently 

there are 10 existing facilities with 

potlines (all prebake facilities) in the 

source category plus the one facility 

without potlines that only produces 

anodes. 

The major HAP emitted by these 

facilities are carbonyl sulfide (COS), 

hydrogen fluoride (HF), particulate HAP 

metals and polycyclic organic matter 

(POM), specifically polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAH). 

The current Primary Aluminum 

Reduction Plants NESHAP (as they 

existed before today’s final action) 

included MACT standards (promulgated 

in 1997 and 2005) for emissions of total 

fluorides (TF) (as a surrogate for HF) 

from anode bake furnaces and potlines 

and for emissions of POM from paste 

production plants, anode bake furnaces, 

Soderberg potlines, and new pitch 

storage tanks. 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category in our December 6, 2011, 

proposal and our December 8, 2014, 

proposal? 

On December 6, 2011, and December 

8, 2014, the EPA published proposed 

rules in the Federal Register for the 

Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL, 

that took into consideration the RTR 

analyses and other reviews of the rule. 

In the proposed rules, we proposed 

several minor clarifications and 

corrections, and the items summarized 

in Table 2, below. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROPOSED PURSUANT TO ANALYSES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ACTION

Action Proposal As a result of which analysis 

2011 proposal (76 FR 76259) ......... COS emission limits for new and existing potlines ............................... CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). 

POM emission limits for new and existing prebake potlines and existing pitch storage tanks.

Work practices for anode bake furnaces during startup periods .......... CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology 

review. 

Work practices for potlines during startup periods ................................ CAA section 112(h). 

Revised POM emission limits for Soderberg potlines ........................... CAA section 112(f) Risk Review. 

2014 proposal (79 FR 72914) ......... Revised POM emission limits for new and existing prebake potlines .. CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). 

Emission limits for particulate matter (PM) for new and existing 

potlines, anode bake furnaces and paste production plants.

Revised work practice standards for potlines.

Reduced testing frequencies for potlines .............................................. CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). 

Work practices for paste production plants during startup periods ...... CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology 

Review. 

Nickel (Ni), arsenic (As) and revised POM emission limits for 

Soderberg potlines.

CAA section 112(f) Risk Review. 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category, finalizes our reviews of other 

aspects of the rule, and amends the 

Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 

NESHAP based on those determinations 

and reviews. The changes being 

finalized in this action include the 

following: The promulgation of MACT 

floor-based limits for previously 

unregulated HAP (e.g., COS and PM); 

emissions limits for POM, As, and Ni 

from Soderberg potlines to address risk; 

the addition of work practice standards 

for paste production plants, potlines 

and anode bake furnaces; and the 

removal of SSM exemptions. This final 

action includes several changes to the 

proposed requirements in the December 

2011 and December 2014 proposals 

based on consideration of comments 

and information received during the 

public comment periods as described in 

section IV of this preamble. 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

This section provides a summary of 

the final amendments to the Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants NESHAP 

being promulgated in this action 

pursuant to CAA section 112(f). 

To address risk, we are promulgating 

emission limits for POM, As, and Ni 

from existing vertical stud Soderberg 

two (VSS2) potlines at the following 

levels: 1.9 pounds (lb) POM/ton of 

aluminum produced, 0.006 lb As/ton of 

aluminum produced, and 0.07 lb Ni/ton 

of aluminum produced. 

To address risk, we are promulgating 

As and Ni emission limits for new 

Soderberg potlines at the following 

levels: 0.006 lb As/ton of aluminum 

produced and 0.07 lb Ni/ton of 

aluminum produced. New or 

reconstructed Soderberg potlines would 

also be subject to the POM limit of 0.77 

lb per ton of aluminum produced that 

we are promulgating for all new 

potlines. These emission limits for 

POM, Ni, and As for new and existing 

Soderberg plants being promulgated in 

this rule are the same as the limits 

proposed in the 2014 supplemental 

proposal. Additional information 

regarding the limits addressing risk is 

available in the Development of 

Emissions Standards to Address Risks 

for the Primary Aluminum Production 

Source Category Pursuant to Section 

112(f) of the Clean Air Act, which is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62394 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2From Soderberg potlines only. 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0797). As noted earlier, the 

last remaining Soderberg primary 

aluminum facility in the U.S. 

announced the permanent closure of 

that facility after publication of the 

supplemental proposal in 2014. 

Notwithstanding our well-supported 

expectation that this facility will not 

reopen and that no new Soderberg 

facilities will be constructed due to the 

less efficient and higher emitting nature 

of the Soderberg technology, we are 

finalizing, as proposed, the standards 

for POM, As, and Ni associated with 

Soderberg facilities in the final rule to 

address the risk from existing potlines at 

the Columbia Falls facility that have not 

yet been demolished and to ensure that 

risks would be acceptable and to 

provide an ample margin of safety in the 

very unlikely event that a new 

Soderberg facility is ever built. 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category? 

Based on our analyses of the data and 

information collected and our general 

understanding of the industry and other 

available information on potential 

controls for this industry, we have 

determined that there are no 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that warrant 

revisions to the MACT standards for this 

source category, other than the work 

practices for anode bake furnaces during 

startup periods (described in the 

December 2011 proposal), the work 

practices for paste plants during startup 

(described in the 2014 proposal) and 

work practices for potlines (to minimize 

emissions of PM, TF and POM) during 

normal operations (described in the 

2014 supplemental proposal). We are 

promulgating these work practices as 

proposed for anode bake furnaces and 

paste plants during startup periods, and 

for potlines during normal operations, 

under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. 

These standards apply to both new and 

existing sources using either of the 

production technologies. 

In summary, we are not revising the 

MACT standards under CAA section 

112(d)(6) other than the startup work 

practices for anode bake furnaces and 

paste plants described in the 2011 and 

2014 proposals, and the work practices 

for potlines during normal operations 

described in the 2014 supplemental 

proposal. Additional information is 

available in the Final Technology 

Review for the Primary Aluminum 

Production Source Category document, 

which can be found in the docket for 

this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0797). 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to Clean Air Act sections 

112(d)(2) and (3) for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

We are promulgating MACT emission 

limits for COS, PM (as a surrogate for 

HAP metals other than mercury (Hg)), 

Hg, and polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCB),2 all of which were previously 

unregulated HAP, pursuant to CAA 

sections 112(d)(2) and (3). In addition, 

we are promulgating MACT limits for 

emissions of POM from new and 

existing prebake potlines and existing 

pitch storage tanks, which were 

previously unregulated sources of POM. 

A summary of the promulgated MACT 

standards is provided in Table 3, below, 

and additional information is available 

in the Final MACT Floor Analysis for 

the Primary Aluminum Production 

Source Category document, which is 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0797). For more information on the 

MACT standards that the EPA 

promulgated and how they are different 

from those the EPA proposed, see 

section VI.B of this preamble. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF PROMULGATED MACT STANDARDS

HAP Source Promulgated MACT standard 

COS .................. New potlines .............................................................................. 3.1 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

Existing potlines ........................................................................ 3.9 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

POM ................. New potlines .............................................................................. 0.77 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

Existing potlines: 

CWPB1 .............................................................................. 1.1 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

CWPB2 .............................................................................. 12 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

CWPB3 .............................................................................. 2.7 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

SWPB ................................................................................. 17 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

Existing pitch storage tanks ...................................................... Minimum 95-percent reduction of inlet POM emissions. 

PM .................... New potlines .............................................................................. 4.9 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

Existing potlines: 

CWPB1 .............................................................................. 7.4 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

CWPB2 .............................................................................. 11 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

CWPB3 .............................................................................. 20 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

SWPB ................................................................................. 4.9 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

VSS2 .................................................................................. 26 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

New anode bake furnace .......................................................... 0.07 lb/ton of green anode produced. 

Existing anode bake furnace .................................................... 0.20 lb/ton of green anode produced. 

New paste production plant ...................................................... 0.0056 lb/ton of paste produced. 

Existing paste production plant ................................................. 0.082 lb/ton of paste produced. 

PCB .................. New and existing Soderberg potlines ....................................... 2.0 micrograms (μg) toxicity equivalence (TEQ) per ton of 

aluminum produced. 

Hg ..................... New and existing anode bake furnaces ................................... 1.7 μg per dry standard cubic meter (dscm). 

CWPB1 = Center-worked prebake one. 

CWPB2 = Center-worked prebake two. 

CWPB3 = Center-worked prebake three. 

SWPB = Side-worked prebake. 

VSS2 = Vertical stud Soderberg two. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62395 

3 If a new source standard is more stringent than 

the standard proposed, a new source may have 

three years to comply, provided it complies with 

Continued 

D. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

SSM? 

We are finalizing, as proposed in the 

2014 proposal, changes to the Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants NESHAP 

to eliminate the exemption in the 

present rules for emissions occurring 

during SSM operations. Consistent with 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008), the EPA is establishing 

standards in this rule that apply at all 

times. Appendix A to subpart LL of 40 

CFR part 63 (General Provisions 

applicability table) is being revised to 

change several references related to 

requirements that apply during periods 

of SSM. We are also eliminating or 

revising certain recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements related to the 

eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA 

also made changes to the rule to remove 

or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, 

or redundant language in the absence of 

the SSM exemption. We are also not 

adopting the affirmative defense 

provisions proposed in 2011, consistent 

with a recent court decision vacating the 

affirmative defense provisions in one of 

the EPA’s CAA section 112(d) 

regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F. 3d 

1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 

In addition, we are finalizing work 

practices for potlines, paste production 

plants, and anode bake furnaces during 

startup periods that will ensure 

improved capture and control of 

emissions from those sources. 

E. What other changes have been made 

to the Primary Aluminum Reduction 

Plants NESHAP? 

This rule also finalizes revisions to 

several other Primary Aluminum 

Reduction Plants NESHAP requirements 

as proposed, or in some cases with some 

modification, which are summarized in 

this section. 

1. Electronic Reporting Tool 

To increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and data accessibility, we 

are finalizing, as proposed, a 

requirement that owners and operators 

of sources subject to the Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants NESHAP 

submit electronic copies of certain 

required performance test reports 

through an electronic performance test 

report tool called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT). This requirement 

to submit performance test data 

electronically to the EPA does not 

require any additional performance 

testing and applies only to those 

performance tests conducted using test 

methods that are supported by the ERT. 

A listing of the pollutants and test 

methods supported by the ERT is 

available at the ERT Web site. 

2. Work Practice Standards 

We are finalizing work practice 

standards for all potlines (i.e. both 

prebake and Soderberg) and for anode 

bake furnaces that will ensure improved 

capture and control of TF, POM, and 

PM emissions from those sources. These 

work practice standards also address Hg 

emissions from all potlines, PCB 

emissions from prebake potlines and 

anode bake furnaces, and dioxins and 

furan (D/F) emissions from Soderberg 

potlines (see section IV.C of this 

preamble for additional discussion of 

these work practice standards). 

3. Control Device and Emissions 

Monitoring 

We are finalizing new twice-daily 

visible emissions (VE) monitoring 

requirements as an alternative to bag 

leak detection systems (BLDS) or PM 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems (CEMS) for control devices 

installed on existing sources (see section 

IV.D of this preamble for additional 

discussion of these monitoring changes). 

We are finalizing the inclusion of PM 

for the potline similarity option found 

in the current subpart LL at 40 CFR 

63.848(d). This section allows an owner 

or operator to use the monitoring of 

secondary TF and/or POM emissions 

from one potline to represent the 

performance of other ‘‘similar’’ potlines. 

Potlines are similar ‘‘if the owner or 

operator demonstrates that their 

structure, operability, type of emissions, 

volume of emissions and concentration 

of emissions are substantially 

equivalent.’’ Based on consideration of 

comments and information received in 

responses to the 2014 proposal, the EPA 

is amending the existing rule to allow 

potline owners or operators this same 

option for PM. That is, potline owners 

and operators now will have the option 

to establish ‘‘similarity of potlines’’ with 

respect to PM emissions. ‘‘Similarity’’ 

would be established based on the 

criteria already applicable with respect 

to TF and POM. See subpart LL at 40 

CFR 63.848(d). As with TF and POM, an 

owner or operator would have to make 

this demonstration to the applicable 

regulatory authority and obtain approval 

from that authority. 

4. Emission Averaging 

We are modifying 40 CFR 63.846 to 

allow emission averaging in the case of 

PM from potlines and anode bake 

furnaces. That section currently allows 

emission averaging in the cases of POM 

and TF from these process units with 

certain prohibitions (e.g., averaging 

between different pollutants or process 

units is not allowed). We are only 

adding PM to these existing provisions, 

and not reopening the core concept of 

allowing emission averaging. 

5. Alternative Emissions Limits for CoControlled New and Existing Anode 

Bake Furnaces 

We are also finalizing the alternative 

emissions limits for co-controlled new 

and existing anode bake furances as 

proposed in the 2014 supplemental 

proposal (79 FR 72949). 

6. Minor Technical and Editorial 

Revisions 

We are also finalizing other minor 

technical and editorial changes to the 

NESHAP in response to comments 

received during the public comment 

period for the proposal and 

supplemental proposal, as described in 

this preamble. 

F. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards? 

The revisions to the MACT standards 

being promulgated in this action are 

effective on October 15, 2015. 

The compliance dates for existing 

sources are: 

October 15, 2015 for the malfunction 

provisions and the electronic reporting 

provisions; 

October 17, 2016 for potline work 

practice standards and COS emission 

limits, for Soderberg potline PM and 

PCB emission limits, and for anode bake 

furnace and paste production plant 

work practices and PM emission limits; 

and 

October 16, 2017 for prebake potline 

POM and PM emission limits; for 

Soderberg potline revised POM 

emission limits and emission limits for 

Ni and As; for anode bake furnace Hg 

emission limits; and for pitch storage 

tank POM equipment standards. 

For more information on how we 

selected compliance dates for existing 

sources, refer to section IV.E of this 

preamble and the Final Rationale for 

Selection of Compliance Dates for the 

Primary Aluminum Production Source 

Category document, which can be found 

in the docket for this rulemaking 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0797). 

New sources must typically comply 

with all of the standards immediately 

upon the effective date of the standard, 

or upon startup, whichever is later. CAA 

section 112(i)(1).3 CAA section 112(a)(4) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62396 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the proposed standard during that 3-year period. 

CAA section 112(i)(2). 

indicates that a new source is one which 

commenced construction (or 

reconstruction) after the Administrator 

first proposes regulations under CAA 

section 112 for the source category. We 

have interpreted this date to be the date 

of the December 2014 proposal given 

the substantially new record set forth in 

that proposal. Consequently, for the 

purposes of compliance with the 

emission standards for PM, a new 

affected potline, anode bake furnace, or 

paste production plant is one for which 

construction or reconstruction 

commenced after December 8, 2014, the 

date on which the EPA first proposed 

the amendments finalized here. For the 

purposes of compliance with the 

emission standards for POM and COS, 

a new affected potline is one for which 

construction or reconstruction 

commenced after December 8, 2014. For 

the purposes of compliance with the 

emission standards for Hg or PCB, a new 

affected anode bake furnace or 

Soderberg potline is one for which 

construction or reconstruction 

commenced after December 8, 2014, 

although the compliance dates for these 

standards are October 16, 2017 for 

anode bake furnaces and October 17, 

2016 for Soderberg potlines, since these 

standards differ from the proposal (see 

CAA section 112(i)(2)). 

G. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

The EPA is requiring owners and 

operators of sources subject to the 

Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 

NESHAP facilities to submit electronic 

copies of certain required performance 

test reports [and any other reports, e.g. 

performance evaluation reports] through 

the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). As 

stated in the 2011 proposal preamble, 

the EPA believes that the electronic 

submittal of the reports addressed in 

this rulemaking will increase the 

usefulness of the data contained in 

those reports, is in keeping with current 

trends in data availability, will further 

assist in the protection of public health 

and the environment and will 

ultimately result in less burden on the 

regulated community. Electronic 

reporting can also eliminate paperbased, manual processes, thereby saving 

time and resources, simplifying data 

entry, eliminating redundancies, 

minimizing data reporting errors and 

providing data quickly and accurately to 

the affected facilities, air agencies, the 

EPA and the public. 

As mentioned in the preamble of the 

2011 proposal, the EPA Web site that 

stores the submitted electronic data, 

WebFIRE, will be easily accessible to 

everyone and will provide a userfriendly interface that any stakeholder 

could access. By making the records, 

data and reports addressed in this 

rulemaking readily available, the EPA, 

the regulated community and the public 

will benefit when the EPA conducts its 

CAA-required technology and riskbased reviews. As a result of having 

reports readily accessible, our ability to 

carry out comprehensive reviews will be 

increased and achieved within a shorter 

period of time. 

We anticipate fewer or less substantial 

information collection requests (ICRs) in 

conjunction with prospective CAArequired technology and risk-based 

reviews may be needed. We expect this 

to result in a decrease in time spent by 

industry to respond to data collection 

requests. We also expect the ICRs to 

contain less extensive stack testing 

provisions, as we will already have 

stack test data electronically. Reduced 

testing requirements would be a cost 

savings to industry. The EPA should 

also be able to conduct these required 

reviews more quickly. While the 

regulated community may benefit from 

a reduced burden of ICRs, the general 

public benefits from the agency’s ability 

to provide these required reviews more 

quickly, resulting in increased public 

health and environmental protection. 

Air agencies could benefit from more 

streamlined and automated review of 

the electronically submitted data. 

Having reports and associated data in 

electronic format will facilitate review 

through the use of software ‘‘search’’ 

options, as well as the downloading and 

analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. 

The ability to access and review air 

emission report information 

electronically will assist air agencies to 

more quickly and accurately determine 

compliance with the applicable 

regulations, potentially allowing a faster 

response to violations which could 

minimize harmful air emissions. This 

benefits both air agencies and the 

general public. 

For a more thorough discussion of 

electronic reporting required by this 

rule, see the discussion in the preamble 

of the 2011 proposal (see 76 FR 76280). 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development, and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data will save industry, air agencies, 

and the EPA significant time, money, 

and effort while improving the quality 

of emission inventories, air quality 

regulations, and enhancing the public’s 

access to this important information. 

H. What materials are being 

incorporated by reference? 

In this final rule, the EPA is including 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference (IBR). In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is incorporating by 

reference the following documents 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

63.14: 

• ASTM D4239–14e1, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Sulfur in the Analysis 

Sample of Coal and Coke Using HighTemperature Tube Furnace 

Combustion,’’ approved March 1, 2014; 

• ASTM D6376–10, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Trace 

Metals in Petroleum Coke by 

Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray 

Fluorescence Spectroscopy,’’ approved 

July 1, 2010; and 

• Method 428, ‘‘Determination Of 

Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxin 

(PCDD), Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran 

(PCDF), and Polychlorinated Biphenyle 

Emissions from Stationary Sources,’’ 

amended September 12, 1990. 

The following material will be 

referenced in 40 CFR 63.14 and as noted 

below. This material has already 

received IBR approval for subpart LL of 

40 CFR part 63. We are moving it from 

an IBR section established earlier within 

subpart LL to the centralized IBR 

section in § 63.14. 

• Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 

Recommended Practice, 22nd Edition, 

1995, Chapter 3, ‘‘Local Exhaust Hoods’’ 

and Chapter 5, ‘‘Exhaust System Design 

Procedure.’’ IBR approved for 

§§ 63.843(b) and 63.844(b). 

• ASTM D2986–95A, ‘‘Standard 

Practice for Evaluation of Air Assay 

Media by the Monodisperse DOP 

(Dioctyl Phthalate) Smoke Test,’’ 

approved September 10, 1995, IBR 

approved for section 7.1.1 of Method 

315 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63. 

The EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category? 

This section provides a description of 

what we proposed and what we are 

finalizing for several issues, the EPA’s 

rationale for the final decisions and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62397 

4Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish 

and game: Exposures of high end recreationists. 

International Journal of Environmental Health 

Research 12:343–354. 

5U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 

Edition (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/052F, 

2011. 

amendments, and a summary of key 

comments and responses. For all 

comments not discussed in this 

preamble, comment summaries and the 

EPA’s responses can be found in the 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants Summary 

of Public Comments and Responses 

document, which is available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797). 

A. Residual Risk Review for the Primary 

Aluminum Production Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f) for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we 

conducted a residual risk review and 

presented the results of this review, 

along with our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety, in the December 2014 

supplemental proposal for the Primary 

Aluminum Reduction Plants NESHAP. 

The EPA views the residual risk review 

associated with the 2011 proposal as 

superseded by the residual risk review 

associated with the 2014 supplemental 

proposal, and so is referring only to that 

later risk assessment. The results of the 

risk assessment for the 2014 

supplemental proposal are summarized 

in the preamble for that proposal and 

presented in more detail in the residual 

risk document, Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Primary Aluminum 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the 2014 Supplemental Proposal, 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. Table 4 below provides the 

estimated inhalation health risks from 

the supplemental proposal. 

TABLE 4—PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FROM

SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSAL

Maximum 

individual 

cancer risk 

(-in-1 million) a

Estimated population at increased 

risk levels of cancer 

Estimated 

annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI b

Refined maximum acute 

non-cancer HQ c

Actual Emissions 

70 .................. ≥1-in-1 million: 881,000 ...................

≥10-in-1 million: 65,000 

0.06 1 Cadmium and Nickel Compounds HQREL = 10 (Arsenic Compounds). 

≥100-in-1 million: 0 .......................... .................... .......................................................... Residential. 

Allowable Emissions d

300 ................ ≥1-in-1 million: 950,000 ...................

≥10-in-1 million: 76,000 

0.06 2 Nickel and Arsenic Compounds.

≥100-in-1 million: 200.

aEstimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 

b Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Primary Aluminum Production source category for actual emissions is the 

kidney and respiratory system and for allowable emissions is the respiratory, immunological, and developmental systems. cThe maximum off-site HQ acute value of 10 at a residential location for actuals is driven by emissions of As from the potline roof vents. See 

section III.A.3 of the December 8, 2014 supplemental proposal for explanation of acute dose-response values. Acute assessments are not performed on allowable emissions. dThe development of allowable emission estimates can be found in the memorandum titled Development of the RTR Revised Risk Modeling 

Dataset for the Primary Aluminum Production Source Category (Docket item number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797–0346). 

Based on actual emissions estimates 

for the Primary Aluminum Production 

source category supplemental proposal, 

the maximum individual risk (MIR) for 

cancer was estimated to be up to 70-in1 million driven by emissions of As and 

Ni compounds. The maximum chronic 

non-cancer target organ-specific hazard 

index (TOSHI) value was estimated to 

be up to 1 driven by Ni emissions. The 

maximum off-site acute hazard quotient 

(HQ) value was estimated to be 10 for 

As compounds and 2 for HF. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from this source category, based on 

actual emission levels, was 0.06 excess 

cancer cases per year, or one case in 

every 17 years. 

Based on MACT-allowable emissions, 

in the supplemental proposal, the MIR 

was estimated by the EPA to be up to 

300-in-1 million, driven by potential 

emissions of As, Ni, and POM from the 

one idle Soderberg facility (Columbia 

Falls), which is now permanently 

closed. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value was estimated to be 

up to 2, driven by Ni. The MIR due to 

allowable emissions from prebake 

facilities was estimated by the EPA to be 

up to 70-in-1 million, driven by As and 

Ni. 

The EPA also assessed the risks due 

to multipathway exposures to HAP 

emissions from the primary aluminum 

reduction plants. The assessment 

included tier 1 and tier 2 screening 

analyses and a refined analysis for the 

one Soderberg facility which was 

operational at the time recent emissions 

data for this source category were 

collected and this analysis was 

commenced, but which subsequently 

announced its permanent shut down in 

March 2014. 

The multipathway screens rely on 

health-protective assumptions about 

consumption of local fish and locally 

grown or raised foods (adult female 

angler at 99th percentile consumption of 

fish 4 for the subsistence fisherman 

scenario and 90th percentile for 

consumption of locally grown or raised 

foods 5 for the farmer scenario) which 

may not occur for this source category. 

The tier 2 assessment is less 

conservative than the tier 1 analysis. 

However, it is important to note that, 

even with the inclusion of some sitespecific information in the tier 2 

analysis, the multipathway screening 

analysis is still a very conservative 

health-protective assessment, and, in all 

likelihood, will yield results that serve 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62398 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

6 D/F emissions used in this analysis are likely to 

be overstated because the EPA imputed values for 

D/F congeners even from facilities and process units where those D/F congeners were not detected 

in the emissions tests. 

as an upper-bound multipathway risk 

associated with any facility in the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category. 

The highest cancer exceedance in the 

tier 2 analyses for dioxins was 40 times 

and 7 times for PAH for the subsistence 

fisherman scenario (total cancer screen 

value of 50 for the MIR site). Thus, these 

results indicate that the maximum 

cancer risks due to multipathway 

exposures to D/F and PAH emissions for 

the subsistence fisher scenario are less 

than 50-in-1 million under these highly 

conservative screening assumptions.6

The multipathway analysis for chronic 

non-cancer effects did not identify any 

persistent and bioaccumulative 

hazardous air pollutants (PB–HAP) that 

exceeded an HQ value of 1. For more 

information on the risk results, please 

refer to the residual risk document, 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Primary Aluminum Production Source 

Category in Support of the 2014 

Supplemental Proposal, which is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

For the supplemental proposal, we 

weighed all health risk factors in our 

risk acceptability determination, and we 

proposed that the risks due to potential 

HAP emissions at baseline from the 

Soderberg subcategory were 

unacceptable due mainly to the 

estimated cancer risks of 300-in-1 

million based on potential emissions 

from the one idle Soderberg facility 

were it to operate. 

Regarding the prebake subcategories, 

as explained in the supplemental 

proposal, the EPA had concerns 

regarding the potential acute risks due 

to As emissions (with a maximum acute 

HQ of 10). See 79 FR 72947. However, 

given the conservative nature of the 

EPA’s analysis of acute effects, and the 

facts that: (a) The inhalation cancer MIR 

was well below 100-in-1 million (MIR = 

70-in-1 million); (b) the chronic noncancer risks were low (e.g., hazard index 

(HI) = 1); and (c) given further that the 

multipathway assessment indicated the 

maximum cancer risk due to 

multipathway exposures to HAP 

emissions from prebake facilities was no 

higher than 50-in-1 million, we 

proposed that the risks due to emissions 

from the prebake subcategories are 

acceptable. See 79 FR 72947. 

2. How did the risk review change for 

the Primary Aluminum Production 

source category? 

The EPA carefully considered public 

comments regarding the supplemental 

proposal (and original proposal), but did 

not find any comments that resulted in 

a change in analysis. Thus, the EPA did 

not change the risk assessment due to 

actual emissions for the source category 

and made no changes in the overall 

results for prebake facilities from the 

December 2014 supplemental proposal. 

However, the estimated risks due to 

allowable emissions for the source 

category decreased significantly due to 

the permanent closure of the one idle 

Soderberg facility. For the supplemental 

proposal, we included the one idle 

Soderberg facility in our assessment of 

allowable risks because, at that time, the 

facility still had a permit to operate, had 

not formally announced plans to close, 

and, therefore, could have reopened. 

However, that facility is now 

permanently closed, and the EPA is no 

longer including it in the risk 

assessment. Therefore, the final rule 

considers only risks from prebake 

facilities. Nevertheless, as discussed in 

section III.A. of this preamble, we are 

promulgating the As, Ni and POM 

standards proposed in the supplemental 

proposal to address risk from Soderberg 

facilities in the very unlikely event that 

either this idle Soderberg facility is 

reopened or a new Soderberg facility is 

constructed. A summary of the risk 

assessment results for the final rule is 

provided in Table 5 below. The 

documentation and details for the final 

rule risk assessment can be found in the 

document titled, Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Primary Aluminum 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the September 2015 Risk and 

Technology Review Final Rule, which is 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0797). 

TABLE 5—PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR THE FINAL

RULE

[Prebake] 

Maximum 

individual 

cancer risk 

(-in-1 million) a

Estimated population at increased 

risk levels of cancer 

Estimated 

annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI b

Refined maximum acute non-cancer 

HQ c

Actual Emissions 

70 .................. ≥1-in-1 million: 881,000 ..................... 0.06 1 Nickel Compounds ................... HQREL = 10 (Arsenic Compounds) 

≥10-in-1 million: 65,000 ..................... .................... ...................................................... Residential 

Allowable Emissions d

70 .................. ≥1-in-1 million: 950,000 ..................... 0.06 1 Nickel Compounds.

≥10-in-1 million: 76,000.

aEstimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 

b Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Primary Aluminum Production source category for actual emissions is the 

kidney and respiratory system and for allowable emissions is the respiratory, immunological, and developmental systems. cThe maximum off-site HQ acute value of 10 at a residential location for actuals is driven by emissions of As from the potline roof vents. See 

section III.A.3 of the December 8, 2014, supplemental proposal for explanation of acute dose-response values. Acute assessments are not performed on allowable emissions. dThe development of allowable emission estimates can be found in the memorandum titled, Development of the RTR Revised Risk Modeling 

Dataset for the Primary Aluminum Production Source Category (Docket item number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797–0346). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62399 

7Refer to the May 2010, SAB response to the EPA 

Administrator (EPA–SAB–10–007); http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQOAR-2011-0797-0075. 

8Note that this question is distinct from the issue 

of consideration of emissions from co-located 

facilities, which emissions are fully reflected in the 

EPA’s analysis. See discussion in section IV.A.3 of 

this preamble, below, and 79 FR 72929/1 (emissions 

estimated for all emitting sources in a contiguous 

area under common control). 

For the final rule, we again weighed 

all health risk factors in our risk 

acceptability determination. The EPA 

had concerns regarding the potential 

acute risks due to As emissions (with a 

maximum acute HQ of 10). See 79 FR 

72947. However, given the conservative 

nature of the EPA’s analysis of acute 

effects, and the facts that: (a) The 

inhalation cancer MIR was well below 

100-in-1 million (MIR = 70-in-1 

million); (b) the chronic non-cancer 

risks were low (e.g., HI = 1); and (c) 

given further that the multipathway 

assessment indicated the maximum 

cancer risk due to multipathway 

exposures to HAP emissions from 

prebake facilities was no higher than 50- 

in-1 million, we have determined that 

the risks due to emissions from the 

source category are acceptable. See 79 

FR 72947. 

We also conducted an ample margin 

of safety analysis. As we described in 

the supplemental proposal, for prebake 

facilities we considered what further 

reductions might be obtained from 

technically feasible controls, further 

considering the cost of such controls 

and their cost-effectiveness. We 

identified no cost-effective controls 

under the ample margin of safety 

analysis to further reduce risks or 

environmental effects due to HAP 

emissions from prebake facilities. 79 FR 

72947–48. Therefore, we indicated in 

the supplemental proposal, and 

conclude again in this final rule, that 

the NESHAP for prebake facilities 

provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health and prevent an 

adverse environmental effect. 

With regard to Soderberg facilities, as 

mentioned in section III above, we 

proposed more stringent emission limits 

for Ni, As, and POM under CAA section 

112(f) to ensure that the cancer MIR 

would remain below 100-in-1 million, 

the level of risk we defined as 

acceptable for purposes of this rule. We 

did not propose more stringent 

standards under the ample margin of 

safety analysis since we identified no 

feasible controls that would yield risk 

reductions at reasonable cost. Id at 

72948. In this final action, we are 

promulgating these standards as 

proposed. Although these standards 

may not apply to any facilities, we are 

still promulgating the As, Ni and POM 

emissions limits for Soderberg facilities 

under CAA section 112(f) to address the 

shut down, but not yet demolished, 

existing Soderberg potlines, and the 

very unlikely scenario of construction of 

new Soderberg potlines. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the risk review, and what are our 

responses? 

The EPA received several comments 

regarding the revised risk assessment for 

the Primary Aluminum Production 

source category. The following is a 

summary of some key comments and 

our responses to those comments. Other 

comments received and our responses to 

those comments can be found in the 

document titled, National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants 

Summary of Public Comments and 

Responses, which is available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA’s determination of the 

emissions reduction required to reduce 

health risks to an acceptable level 

violates CAA section 112(f)(2) and is 

arbitrary. The commenter believed that 

the EPA’s acceptability determination 

for prebake facilities is flawed for the 

following reasons: 

• The EPA’s acceptability 

determination is unlawful and arbitrary 

because its risk assessment is 

incomplete and fails to follow the up-todate science to assess health risk; 

• The EPA’s acceptability 

determination fails to consider or 

prevent unacceptable levels of 

cumulative impacts; 

• Socioeconomic disparity in health 

risk from this source category makes the 

risk the EPA has found unacceptable, 

and the EPA must finalize a rule that is 

consistent with the principle of 

environmental justice (EJ); 

• The EPA has failed to provide a 

reasoned explanation for why the 

lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or 

more based on inhalation alone from 

this sector is acceptable; 

• After finding a level of acute risk 

that is 10 times the EPA’s safety 

threshold, the agency has failed to 

justify not requiring the reduction of 

acute health risk below 1; and 

• The EPA has failed to justify 

finding chronic non-cancer health risk 

to be acceptable. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter that the assessment is 

incomplete and fails to use up-to-date 

science. The dose-response values used 

in the risk assessment are based on the 

current peer reviewed Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) values, as 

well as other similarly peer-reviewed 

values. Our approach, which uses 

conservative tools and assumptions, 

ensures that our decisions are 

appropriately health protective and 

environmentally protective. The 

approach for selecting appropriate 

health benchmark values, in general, 

places greater weight on the EPA 

derived health benchmarks than those 

from other agencies (see http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/

healtheffectsinfo.pdf). This approach 

has been endorsed by the Science 

Advisory Board (SAB).7 The SAB 

further recommended that the EPA 

scrutinize values that emerge as drivers 

of risk assessment results, and the 

Agency has incorporated this 

recommendation into the risk 

assessment process. This may result in 

the EPA determining that it is more 

appropriate to use a peer-reviewed doseresponse value from another agency 

even if an IRIS value exists. 

With regard to the comment that the 

EPA failed to consider cumulative 

impacts, we note that while the 

incorporation of additional background 

concentrations from the environment in 

our risk assessments (including those 

from mobile sources and other 

industrial and area sources) could be 

technically challenging, they are neither 

mandated nor barred from our analysis. 

In developing the decision framework in 

the Benzene NESHAP used for making 

residual risk decisions, and now 

codified in CAA section 112(f)(2)(B), the 

EPA rejected approaches that would 

have mandated consideration of 

background levels of pollution in 

assessing the acceptability of risk, 

concluding that comparison of 

acceptable risk should not be associated 

with levels in polluted urban air (54 FR 

38044, 38061, September 14, 1989). 

Background levels (including natural 

background) are not barred from the 

EPA’s ample margin of safety analysis, 

and the EPA may consider them, as 

appropriate and as available, along with 

other factors, such as cost and technical 

feasibility, in the second step of its CAA 

section 112(f) analysis. As discussed in 

the 2014 supplemental proposal, the 

risk assessment for this source category 

did not include background 

contributions (that may reflect 

emissions that are from outside the 

source category and from other than colocated sources) because the available 

data are of insufficient quality upon 

which to base a meaningful analysis.8

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62400 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

This rule has been finalized 

consistent with agency EJ principles and 

analyses. To examine the potential for 

any EJ issues that might be associated 

with the Primary Aluminum Production 

source category, we performed a 

demographic analysis, which is an 

assessment of risks to individual 

demographic groups, of the population 

close to the facilities. In this analysis, 

we evaluated the distribution of HAPrelated cancer risks and non-cancer 

hazards from this source category across 

different social, demographic, and 

economic groups within the populations 

living near facilities identified as having 

the highest risks. The results of the 

demographic analysis are summarized 

in Table 6 below and indicate that there 

are no significant disproportionate risks 

to any particular minority, low income, 

or indigenous population. The 

methodology and the results of the 

demographic analyses are included in a 

technical report, Analysis of SocioEconomic Factors for Populations Living 

Near Primary Aluminum Facilities, 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket item number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0797–0360). 

TABLE 6—PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Nationwide 

Population 

with cancer 

risk at or 

above 1-in-1 

million 

Population 

with chronic 

hazard index 

above 1 

Total Population ........................................................................................................................... 312,861,265 881,307 0 

Race by Percent 

White ............................................................................................................................................ 72 80 0 

All Other Races ........................................................................................................................... 28 20 0 

Race by Percent 

White ............................................................................................................................................ 71.9 80.1 0 

African American ......................................................................................................................... 13 13 0 

Native American .......................................................................................................................... 1.1 0.9 0 

Other and Multiracial ................................................................................................................... 14 6 0 

Ethnicity by Percent 

Hispanic ....................................................................................................................................... 17 5 0 

Non-Hispanic ............................................................................................................................... 83 95 0 

Income by Percent 

Below Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... 14 14 0 

Above Poverty Level .................................................................................................................... 86 86 0 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without High School Diploma ................................................................................. 15 14 0

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ................................................................................... 85 86 0 

With regard to the comments that the 

EPA did not justify the determination 

that risks are acceptable, we generally 

draw no bright lines of acceptability 

regarding cancer or non-cancer risks 

from source category HAP emissions. 

This is a core feature of the Benzene 

NESHAP approach, now codified in 

CAA section 112(f)(2)(B). See 54 FR at 

38046, 38057; see also 79 FR 72933–34. 

It is always important to consider the 

specific uncertainties of the emissions 

and health effects information regarding 

the source category or subcategory in 

question when deciding exactly what 

level of cancer and non-cancer risk 

should be considered acceptable. In 

addition, the source category-specific or 

subcategory-specific decision of what 

constitutes an acceptable level of risk 

should be a holistic one; that is, it 

should simultaneously consider all 

potential health impacts—chronic and 

acute, cancer and non-cancer, and 

multipathway—along with their 

uncertainties, when determining the 

acceptable level of source category risk. 

Today, such flexibility is even more 

imperative, because new information 

relevant to the question of risk 

acceptability is being developed all the 

time, and the accuracy and uncertainty 

of each piece of information must be 

considered in a weight-of-evidence 

approach for each decision. This 

relevant body of information is growing 

fast (and will likely continue to grow 

even faster), necessitating a flexible 

weight-of-evidence approach that 

acknowledges both complexity and 

uncertainty in the simplest and most 

transparent way possible. While this 

challenge is formidable, it is 

nonetheless the goal of the EPA’s RTR 

decision-making, and it is the goal of the 

risk assessment to provide the 

information to support the decisionmaking process. 

Our acceptability decisions for the 

prebake subcategory presented in the 

supplemental proposal, and again in 

this final rule, are appropriate. The 

rationale for our acceptability decision 

for the prebake subcategory was clearly 

explained in the supplemental proposal 

and was based on full consideration of 

the health risk information and 

associated uncertainties, and we 

summarize it here: 

Regarding the prebake subcategories, 

as explained in the supplemental 

proposal, the EPA had concerns 

regarding the potential acute risks due 

to As emissions (with a maximum acute 

HQ of 10). See 79 FR 72947. However, 

given the conservative nature of the 

EPA’s analysis of acute effects—among 

them, an assumption of the unlikely 

confluence of peak emissions, worstmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62401 

9September 27, 2010, Memo to the EPA from 

EC/R Incorporated; ‘‘Draft Modeling Comparison of 

BLP and AERMOD for Primary Aluminum’’ 

available in the docket at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQOAR-2011-0797-0175. 

case-meteorology, and an exposed 

individual present at the precise point 

this occurs (see 79 FR 72943/1), and the 

facts that: (a) The inhalation cancer MIR 

was well below 100-in-1 million (MIR = 

70-in-1 million); (b) the chronic noncancer risks were low (e.g., HI = 1); and 

(c) given further that the multipathway 

assessment indicated the maximum 

cancer risk due to multipathway 

exposures to HAP emissions from 

prebake facilities was no higher than 50- 

in-1 million, we have determined that 

the risks due to emissions from the 

prebake subcategories are acceptable. 

Comment: A commenter stated 

support for the EPA’s risk assessment 

conclusion that the risk due to actual 

emissions from the prebake aluminum 

smelting subcategory is acceptable. The 

commenter stated that the modeled 

ambient concentrations that were used 

in the risk assessment likely overpredict 

actual concentrations since the Human 

Exposure Model version 3 (HEM3) uses 

the American Meteorological Society 

and EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) 

for air dispersion modeling to determine 

ambient concentrations. The commenter 

stated that the use of AERMOD is 

inappropriate for modeling stationary 

line sources like the potroom roof 

monitors of the facilities and 

overpredicts ambient concentrations 

from roof monitor emissions by a factor 

of about 30 times. The commenter 

recommended that the EPA use the 

Buoyant Line and Point source (BLP) 

dispersion model to correctly model the 

potline roof monitors. 

Response: The EPA disagrees that the 

BLP model needs to be used to correctly 

model potline roof monitors. An 

analysis performed by the EPA to 

compare the modeled estimates from 

AERMOD and the BLP model for a 

typical primary aluminum facility 

indicated that the maximum modeled 

concentrations from the BLP model 

were only 20 percent higher than those 

from AERMOD. Considering the 

uncertainties in release characteristics 

and emission rates—both inputs into the 

models—the results estimated by both 

HEM3 and BLP are the same within that 

range of uncertainty.9 The EPA 

concluded that this difference was not 

significant enough to warrant changing 

the RTR modeling methodology it uses 

for all source categories, which includes 

the use of AERMOD and meteorological 

data generated by the AERMOD 

Meteorological Preprocessor (AERMET). 

In addition, the 20 percent increase in 

maximum modeled concentrations 

would translate into an increase in the 

risk from 70-in-1 million to 80-in-1 

million. This level would still be within 

the range of acceptability and, if the 

EPA had determined that it was 

necessary to use the BLP, the Agency 

would have reaffirmed that risks are 

acceptable. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA must strengthen the risk 

assessment and proposed risk action in 

order to meet its responsibilities under 

CAA section 112(f)(2) to provide the 

requisite ‘‘ample margin of safety to 

protect public health.’’ The EPA also 

should find risk from the prebake 

subcategories to be unacceptable, 

instead of acceptable. The commenter 

stated that the combined health risks for 

these sources are substantial and stated 

that the EPA found that the allowable 

emissions-based cancer risk from 

inhalation exposure is 70-in-1 million, 

plus another 70-in-1 million from 

multipathway exposure (50-in-1 million 

for the ‘‘fisher’’ scenario, or fish-based 

exposure; and 20-in-1 million for the 

‘‘farmer’’ scenario, or farm-based 

exposure). The commenter stated that 

the 70-in-1 million inhalation risk, 

combined with the high acute and 

chronic risks the EPA found, is enough 

alone to find risk unacceptable. 

The commenter stated that in view of 

the EPA’s scientific policy of summing 

cancer risks, it should recognize that the 

most-exposed person’s combined 

multipathway and inhalation cancer 

risk is 70 + 70 or 140-in-1 million. The 

commenter stated that this is well above 

the EPA’s presumptive acceptability 

benchmark (which itself is insufficiently 

stringent, as explained in their 2012 

comments, incorporated by reference). 

The commenter also stated that the EPA 

should find the current cancer risk from 

inhalation and multipathway exposure, 

due to a combination of As, Ni, PAH, 

and dioxins, is unacceptable. The 

commenter stated that if viewed 

together with the high acute and chronic 

non-cancer risks the EPA found, as a 

result of As and Ni in particular, the 

data the EPA has compiled on risk show 

that the current health risks are 

unacceptable. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

has not assessed the additional 

multipathway risk from risk-driver 

pollutants, such as As and Ni. The 

commenter stated that, as discussed in 

their 2012 comments (to EPA’s original 

proposal), this is inconsistent with the 

scientific evidence showing these are 

persistent bioaccumulative toxics 

[PBTs], and it is, thus, unlawful and 

arbitrary and capricious for the EPA not 

to assess and address the multipathway 

risks they create. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter’s arguments for finding risks 

to be unacceptable. The thrust of the 

comment is that the risk analysis failed 

to combine risks from various scenarios 

and pathways, and that, added together, 

these risks are unacceptable. In fact, the 

analysis combines risk estimates to the 

extent that it is scientifically 

appropriate to do so. We consider the 

effect of mixtures of carcinogens 

consistent with the EPA guidelines and 

use a TOSHI approach for our chronic 

non-cancer assessments. We do not use 

a TOSHI approach for acute analyses, 

nor do we combine the results of our 

inhalation and multipathway 

assessments. (See the Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Primary Aluminum 

Production Source Category in Support 

of the September 2015 Risk and 

Technology Review Final Rule, which is 

available in the docket for this action 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0797)). 

In the multipathway screening 

assessment, we did not sum the risk 

results of the fisher and farmer 

scenarios. The modeling approach used 

for this analysis constructs two different 

exposure scenarios, which serves as a 

conservative estimate of potential risks 

to the most-exposed receptor in each 

scenario. Given that it is highly unlikely 

that the most-exposed farmer is the 

same person as the most-exposed fisher, 

it is not reasonable to add risk results 

from these two exposure scenarios (see 

Appendix 5 and Section 2.5 of the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Primary Aluminum Production Source 

Category in Support of the September 

2015 Risk and Technology Review Final 

Rule). 

We do not find it reasonable to 

combine the results of our inhalation 

and multipathway assessments for this 

source category. The multipathway risk 

assessment for prebake facilities was a 

screening-level assessment. The 

screening assessment used highly 

conservative assumptions designed to 

ensure that sources with results below 

the screening threshold values did not 

have the potential for multipathway 

impacts of concern. The screening 

scenario is a hypothetical scenario, and, 

due to the theoretical construct of the 

screening model, exceedances of the 

thresholds are not directly translatable 

into estimates of risk or HQs for these 

facilities. Rather, it represents a highend estimate of what the risk or hazard 

may be. For example, an exceedance of 

2 for a non-carcinogen can be 

interpreted to mean that we have high 

confidence that the HQ or HI would be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62402 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

10 10 Refer to the May 2010, SAB response to the 

EPA Administrator (EPA–SAB–10–007); http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQOAR-2011-0797-0075 

less than 2. Similarly, an exceedance of 

30 for a carcinogen means that we have 

high confidence that the risk is lower 

than 30-in-1 million. Our confidence 

comes from the health-protective 

assumptions that are in the screens: We 

choose inputs from the upper end of the 

range of possible values for the 

influential parameters used in the 

screens, and we assume that the 

exposed individual exhibits ingestion 

behavior that would lead to a high total 

multipathway exposure. It would be 

inappropriate to sum the risk results 

from the chronic inhalation assessment 

and the screening multipathway 

assessment. In addition to the 

constraints in the screening-level 

multipathway assessment described 

above, it is highly unlikely that the same 

receptor has the maximum results in 

both assessments. In other words, it is 

unlikely that the person with the 

highest chronic inhalation cancer risk is 

also the same person with the highest 

individual multipathway cancer risk. 

We agree with the commenter that we 

‘‘should look at the whole picture of 

cancer risk,’’ but we do so by assessing 

cancer and chronic non-cancer 

inhalation risk, acute risk, 

multipathway risk, and combining risk 

results where it is scientifically 

appropriate to do so, not by arbitrarily 

and indiscriminately summing risk 

measures in the absence of a valid 

technical basis. 

We currently do not have screening 

values for some PB–HAP, but we 

disagree that the multipathway 

assessment is inadequate because it did 

not include ‘‘all HAP metals emitted 

(such as arsenic and nickel).’’ We 

developed the current PB–HAP list 

considering all available information on 

persistence and bioaccumulation (see 

http://www2.epa.gov/fera/air-toxicsrisk-assessment-reference-libraryvolumes-1-3, specifically Volume 1, 

Appendix D). (The Air Toxics Risk 

Assessment Reference Library presents 

the decision process by which the PB– 

HAP were selected and provides 

information on the fundamental 

principles of risk-based assessment for 

air toxics and how to apply those 

principles.) In developing the list, we 

considered HAP identified as PB–HAP 

by other EPA program offices (e.g., the 

Great Waters Program), as well as 

information from the PBT profiler (see 

http://www.pbtprofiler.net/). 

Considering this list was peer-reviewed 

by the SAB and found to be 

acceptable,10 we believe it to be 

reasonable for use in risk assessments 

for the RTR program. 

Regarding the commenter’s assertion 

that we did not base the multipathway 

risk assessment on allowable emissions, 

we believe it is reasonable for the 

multipathway risk assessment to be 

based on actual emissions for this 

source category, and not the allowable 

level of emissions—i.e. the level that 

facilities are permitted to emit. The 

potline fugitive emissions, which drive 

the risks associated with this source 

category, vary in magnitude and 

location along the roofline due to 

normal operations, including, among 

others, replacement of anodes. We 

exacerbate the uncertainty associated 

with these variations in fugitive 

emissions when we scale up actual 

emissions to estimate allowable 

emissions. Also, there is considerable 

uncertainty associated with estimated 

allowable emissions from batch 

operations, such as pitch storage tank 

and pitch production, due to the nature 

of batch operations (e.g., estimating the 

number of batch operations possible or 

necessary during a period of time). 

Further uncertainty results when we 

consider that, in order to comply with 

the emission limits at all times, a 

source’s allowable emissions would 

need to be below the associated 

standard by an indeterminate amount 

during normal operations. Therefore, we 

conclude that the uncertainties 

associated with the multipathway 

screen along with uncertainties in the 

allowable emissions estimates would 

make a multipathway risk assessment 

based on allowable emissions highly 

uncertain and, thereby, not appropriate 

for use in making this regulatory 

decision. 

The commenter also argued for 

summing acute HQs from different HAP 

to assess acute non-cancer risk. We do 

not sum results of the acute non-cancer 

inhalation assessment to create a 

combined acute risk number that would 

represent the total acute risk for all 

pollutants that act in a similar way on 

the same organ system or systems 

(similar to the chronic TOSHI). The 

worst-case acute screen is already a 

conservative scenario. That is, the acute 

screening scenario assumes worst-case 

meteorology, peak emissions for all 

emission points occurring concurrently 

and an individual being located at the 

site of maximum concentration for an 

hour. Thus, as noted in the Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Primary 

Aluminum Production Source Category 

in Support of the September 2015 Risk 

and Technology Review Final Rule, page 

31, which is available in the docket for 

this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0797), ‘‘because of the 

conservative nature of the acute 

inhalation screening and the variable 

nature of emissions and potential 

exposures, acute impacts were screened 

on an individual pollutant basis, not 

using the TOSHI approach.’’ The EPA 

may conduct a reasoned screening 

assessment without having to adopt the 

most conceivably conservative 

assumption for each and every part of 

the analysis. 

Comment: One commenter stated that, 

as the EPA recognized in the secondary 

aluminum proposal, at least nine 

secondary aluminum facilities have colocated primary aluminum operations. 

The commenter stated that for both 

source categories, the EPA found that 

the facility-wide MIR is 70-in-1 million, 

driven by As, Ni, and hexavalent 

chromium, and that the TOSHI (chronic 

non-cancer risk) is 1, driven by 

cadmium. The commenter stated that 

the TOSHI number appears to consider 

only inhalation risk and stated that the 

TOSHI number must be viewed in 

context, as the EPA is aware that 

scientists have directed the EPA to do 

(and as previously explained and cited 

to the EPA in comments). The 

commenter stated that if considered in 

combination with the high secondary 

aluminum multipathway risk, and with 

the high inhalation and multipathway 

risks for primary aluminum, the facilitywide cancer risk provides additional 

evidence that risks from both source 

categories are unacceptable. The 

commenter asserts this is the case 

because the most-exposed person’s full 

amount of risk is the combined amount 

from the co-located primary and 

secondary aluminum, not just each 

source category separately. The 

commenter stated that it would be 

unlawful and arbitrary to consider each 

type of risk separately, when people 

near both sources are exposed to both 

kinds of risk at the same time and, thus, 

face a higher overall amount of risk. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

has not offered and can not offer a valid 

justification for not finding risk from 

both source categories (including 

primary aluminum prebake and 

secondary aluminum) to be 

unacceptable based on the co-located 

and combined risks. The commenter 

stated that the EPA has collected data 

from both source categories and is 

evaluating that data in rulemakings for 

both source categories. The commenter 

stated that the EPA may not lawfully 

ignore the full picture of risk that its 

combined rulemakings show is present 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62403 

for people exposed simultaneously to 

both source categories at the same 

facility. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

only assessed facility-wide risks based 

on so-called ‘‘actual’’ emissions, so the 

facility-wide risk number could be at 

least 1.5 to 3 times higher, based on the 

EPA’s recognition that allowable 

emissions from primary aluminum 

facilities are about 1.5 to 1.9 times 

higher and the fact that allowable 

emissions from secondary aluminum are 

at least 3 times higher. 

The commenter stated that it is 

important that the EPA is evaluating 

facility-wide risk from sources in 

multiple categories that are co-located. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

may not reasonably or lawfully then 

decide not to use the results of that 

assessment to set stronger standards for 

these sources. The commenter stated 

that this rulemaking is an important 

opportunity for the EPA to recognize the 

need to act based on data showing 

significant combined and cumulative 

risks and impacts at the facility-wide 

level. The commenter stated that the 

EPA is also required to do so to meet its 

CAA section 112(f)(2) duties, as 

explained in the 2012 comments and 

reincorporated by reference here. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that facility-wide risk 

assessment is appropriately considered 

in putting the source category risks in 

context. However, we disagree with the 

comment that we failed to appropriately 

consider or account for cumulative risk. 

We conducted facility-wide risk 

assessments for all major sources in the 

source category that were operating in 

2014, including the nine secondary 

aluminum production facilities colocated with primary aluminum 

reduction plants. See 79 FR 72929 

(emissions estimated for all emitting 

sources in a contiguous area under 

common control). 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

must find the risks unacceptable based 

on the whole-facility risks from colocated primary and secondary 

aluminum operations. The EPA does not 

typically include whole-facility 

assessments in the CAA section 112(f) 

acceptability determination for a source 

category. Reasons for this include the 

fact that emissions and source 

characterization data are usually not of 

the same vintage and quality for all 

source categories that are on the same 

site, and, thus, the results of the wholefacility assessment are generally not 

appropriate to include in the regulatory 

decisions regarding acceptability. 

However, in this case, we are 

developing the risk assessments for 

primary and secondary aluminum 

production at the same time. The data 

are generally of the same vintage and we 

have actual emissions data and source 

characterization data for both source 

categories. In response to the comment, 

we refer to the facility-wide risk 

assessment, which included the nine 

facilities with co-located primary and 

secondary aluminum operations. As 

discussed above and shown in Table 6, 

for the facility with the highest risk from 

inhalation, the facility-wide MIR for 

cancer from actual emissions is 70-in-1 

million. The facility-wide non-cancer 

hazard is 1. The highest facility-wide 

exceedance of the multipathway screen 

is 70. There was no facility-wide 

exceedance of a noncancer threshold in 

the multipathway screen. Considering 

these facility-wide results as part of the 

acceptability determination is thus 

corroborative of our determination that 

the risks are acceptable for the 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

source category. 

The commenter is correct that we 

based our facility-wide risk assessment 

on actual emissions rather than on 

estimated allowable emissions. Because 

the facility-wide allowable emissions 

estimates have not been subjected to the 

same level of scrutiny, quality 

assurance, and technical evaluation as 

the actual emissions estimates from the 

source category, and because of the 

larger inherent uncertainty associated 

with allowable emissions discussed 

above, facility-wide risk results based 

on allowable emissions would be too 

uncertain to support a regulatory 

decision, but they could remain 

important for providing context as long 

as their uncertainty is taken into 

consideration. 

The distinct issue of whether 

background emissions not associated 

with co-located emitting sources at the 

facility is discussed above. We reiterate 

that while the incorporation of 

additional background concentrations 

from the environment in our risk 

assessments (including those from 

mobile sources and other industrial and 

area sources) could be technically 

challenging, they are neither mandated 

nor barred from our analysis. In 

developing the decision framework in 

the Benzene NESHAP used for making 

residual risk decisions, the EPA rejected 

approaches that would have mandated 

consideration of background levels of 

pollution in assessing the acceptability 

of risk, concluding that comparison of 

acceptable risk should not be associated 

with levels in polluted urban air (54 FR 

38044, 38061, September 14, 1989). 

Background levels (including natural 

background) are not barred from the 

EPA’s ample margin of safety analysis, 

and the EPA may consider them, as 

appropriate and as available, along with 

other factors, such as cost and technical 

feasibility, in the second step of its CAA 

section 112(f) analysis. As discussed in 

the 2014 supplemental proposal, the 

risk assessment for this source category 

did not include background 

contributions (that may reflect 

emissions that are from outside the 

source category and from other than colocated sources) because the available 

data are of insufficient quality upon 

which to base a meaningful analysis. 

Comment: Some commenters 

recommended that the EPA should 

proceed with the required full 

multipathway risk assessment, as the 

data showed that the persistent and 

bioaccumulation screening emission 

rates were exceeded for POM. The 

commenters do not believe the risk 

analysis for this source category is final 

until this step is complete and disagree 

with the EPA’s explanation that the 

results are biased high and subject to 

significant uncertainties, arguing that 

the EPA cannot ignore the implications 

of this screening assessment. The 

commenter recommended that the EPA 

perform a full multipathway assessment 

to find a number it believes fully 

represents this risk, or use the number 

it has created as the best available 

number, without discounting the impact 

of that number. 

One commenter recommended 

conducting a full multipathway risk 

assessment for this source category that 

includes consideration of a child’s 

multipathway exposure in urban and 

rural residential scenarios. The 

commenter further stated that the failure 

of the EPA to assess an exposed child 

scenario as part of the cumulative risk 

assessment ignores the exposures that 

may pose the most significant risk from 

this source category. The commenter 

highlighted the risk to children from 

contaminated soils, noting that past risk 

assessments have relied on outdated 

estimates of incidental soil ingestion 

exposures and stated that the EPA must 

update these values. The commenter 

cited two EPA exposures factors 

handbooks and a journal article as 

resources to use for assessing risks. 

Response: We disagree with the 

comment that our multipathway risk 

assessment does not consider children. 

The multipathway screening scenario is 

intended to represent a high-end 

exposure for children via incidental soil 

ingestion. The 2011 Exposure Factors 

Handbook recommended ‘‘upperpercentile’’ soil ingestion rate (numeric 

percentile not specified) for children 

aged 3 to 6 years is 200 milligrams per 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62404 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

day (mg/d). The EPA also published the 

Child-Specific Exposure Factors 

Handbook (2008). No additional data or 

recommendations for child soil 

ingestion are presented in this source, 

and, in fact, an ‘‘upper percentile’’ value 

for this parameter is not provided. 

Based on these sources, a value of 200 

mg/d is used in the current RTR 

multipathway screening scenario for the 

child incidental soil ingestion rate. 

The multipathway risk assessment 

conducted for the proposal was a 

screening-level assessment. The 

screening assessment used highly 

conservative assumptions designed to 

ensure that facilities with results below 

the screening threshold values did not 

have the potential for multipathway 

impacts of concern. The screening 

scenario is a hypothetical scenario, and, 

due to the theoretical construct of the 

screening model, exceedances of the 

thresholds are not directly translatable 

into estimates of risk or HQs for these 

facilities. The scope of the assessment 

did not change across the tiers in the 

multipathway screening assessment and 

is described in the risk assessment 

documents (and related appendices) 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0797). 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach and final decisions for the risk 

review? 

As discussed above and in the 

preamble of the 2014 supplemental 

proposal, after considering health risk 

information and other factors, including 

uncertainties, we have determined that 

the risks from primary aluminum 

production prebake facilities are 

acceptable and that the current NESHAP 

provides an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health for prebake 

facilities given that the inhalation 

cancer MIR was well below 100-in-1 

million, the chronic non-cancer risks 

were low, and the multipathway 

assessment indicated the maximum 

cancer risk due to multipathway 

exposures to HAP emissions from 

prebake facilities was no higher than 50- 

in-1 million. In summary, our revised 

risk assessment indicates that cancer 

risks due to actual and allowable 

emissions from prebake facilities are 

below the presumptive limit of 

acceptability, and that non-cancer 

results indicate minimal likelihood of 

adverse health effects. We evaluated 

potential risk reductions as well as the 

cost of control options, but did not 

identify any control technologies or 

other measures that would be costeffective in further reducing risks (or 

potential risks) for prebake facilities. In 

particular, we did not identify any costeffective approaches to further reduce 

As, Ni, and PAH emissions and risks 

beyond what is already being achieved 

by the current NESHAP. 

Regarding the Soderberg facilities, as 

discussed above, since all existing 

Soderberg facilities are permanently 

shut down, we necessarily conclude the 

risks due to emissions from Soderberg 

facilities are currently acceptable. 

However, under our ample margin of 

safety analysis, we have determined that 

it is appropriate to promulgate 

standards for Ni, As, and PAH under 

CAA section 112(f) for the Soderberg 

subcategory potlines to ensure that 

excess cancer risk due to HAP emissions 

from any possible future primary 

aluminum reduction plant would 

remain below 100-in-1 million. We 

estimate the costs to comply with these 

standards for Soderberg facilities would 

be zero since there are no existing 

operating Soderberg facilities in the U.S. 

Furthermore, we expect any future new 

primary aluminum reduction plant 

would use prebake potlines since 

prebake potlines are more energy 

efficient (and lower-emitting) than 

Soderberg potlines. Therefore, we also 

estimate that these standards would 

pose no cost for any future new primary 

aluminum reduction plant. 

B. CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) 

Revisions for the Primary Aluminum 

Production Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category? 

We proposed several MACT standards 

in the December 2011 proposal pursuant 

to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), 

which are summarized in Table 7, 

below. 

We received significant comments on 

the 2011 proposal from industry 

representatives, environmental 

organizations, and state regulatory 

agencies. After reviewing the comments, 

and after consideration of additional 

data and information received since the 

2011 proposal, the EPA determined it 

was appropriate to gather additional 

data, revise some of the analyses 

associated with that proposal, and to 

publish a supplemental proposal. 

In support of the supplemental 

proposal, the EPA sent an information 

request to owners of currently operating 

primary aluminum reduction plants in 

March of 2013. The EPA received 

associated responses in May through 

August 2013. As part of this data 

collection effort, we received emissions 

data for PM, HAP metals (including 

antimony, As, beryllium, cobalt, 

manganese, selenium, Ni, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, and Hg), PCB, and 

D/F from potlines, anode bake furnaces, 

and/or paste production plants from 

every primary aluminum reduction 

plant that was operational at that time, 

including nine prebake-type facilities 

and one Soderberg-type facility. 

Based on evaluation of all the data, 

we proposed several revised and new 

MACT standards in the December 2014 

proposal pursuant to CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and (3), which are 

summarized in Table 7, below. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MACT STANDARDS

Proposal HAP Source Promulgated MACT standard 

2011 proposal (76 FR 76259) ................. COS .................. New potlines ..........................................

Existing potlines .....................................

3.1 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

3.9 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

POM ................. New potlines .......................................... 0.62 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

Existing potlines.

CWPB1 .................................................. 0.62 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

CWPB2 .................................................. 1.3 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

CWPB3 .................................................. 1.26 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

SWPB ..................................................... 0.65 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

VSS2 ...................................................... 3.8 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

HSS ........................................................ 3.0 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

Existing pitch storage tanks ................... Minimum 95-percent reduction of inlet 

POM emissions. 

2014 proposal (79 FR 72914) ................. POM ................. New potlines .......................................... 0.77 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

Existing potlines. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62405 

11Reference Method Accuracy and Precision 

(ReMAP): PHASE 1, Precision of Manual Stack 

Emission Measurements; American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers, Research Committee on 

Industrial and Municipal Waste, February 2001. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MACT STANDARDS—Continued 

Proposal HAP Source Promulgated MACT standard 

CWPB1 .................................................. 1.1 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

CWPB2 .................................................. 12 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

CWPB3 .................................................. 2.7 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

SWPB ..................................................... 19 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

PM .................... New potlines .......................................... 4.6 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

Existing potlines. 

CWPB1 .................................................. 7.2 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

CWPB2 .................................................. 11 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

CWPB3 .................................................. 20 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

SWPB ..................................................... 4.6 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

VSS2 ...................................................... 26 lb/ton aluminum produced. 

New anode bake furnace ....................... 0.036 lb/ton of green anode produced. 

Existing anode bake furnace ................. 0.068 lb/ton of green anode produced. 

New paste production plant ................... 0.0056 lb/ton of paste produced. 

Existing paste production plant .............. 0.082 lb/ton of paste produced. 

HSS = horizontal stud Soderberg. 

2. How did the proposed CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and (3) standards change for 

the Primary Aluminum Production 

source category? 

Commenters provided additional 

emissions data for POM from SWPB 

potlines and for PM from CWPB1 

potlines and anode bake furnaces, and 

identified areas where we had 

misinterpreted data used for the 

proposed PM and POM standards. 

Based on these comments and 

additional PM and POM emissions data, 

we re-evaluated the proposed PM and 

POM MACT standards and revised the 

following MACT limits: 

• POM emission limit of 19 lb/ton 

aluminum for existing SWPB potlines 

changed to 17 lb/ton aluminum; 

• PM emission limit of 7.2 lb/ton 

aluminum for existing CWPB1 potlines 

changed to 7.4 lb/ton aluminum; 

• PM emission limit of 4.6 lb/ton 

aluminum for existing SWPB potlines 

changed to 4.9 lb/ton aluminum; 

• PM emission limit of 4.6 lb/ton 

aluminum for new potlines changed to 

4.9 lb/ton aluminum; 

• PM emission limit of 0.068 lb/ton 

green anode for existing anode bake 

furnaces changed to 0.2 lb/ton green 

anode; and 

• PM emission limit of 0.036 lb/ton 

green anode for new anode bake 

furnaces changed to 0.07 lb/ton green 

anode. 

The EPA discussed at proposal 

whether to promulgate MACT standards 

at this time for HAP where much, most, 

or virtually all of the data showed levels 

below detection limits. See 79 FR 

72936. We received comments claiming 

that, in addition to the standards listed 

above, the EPA must promulgate 

standards for these HAP: Hg, D/F, and 

PCB. Based on these comments, and 

considering further reply comments 

from industry addressing this issue (see 

email, dated July 1, 2015, from Mr. Curt 

Wells of The Aluminum Association, 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0797)), we re-evaluated the 

data we had for PCB, D/F, and Hg to 

determine whether it would be 

appropriate to establish emissions limits 

for these HAP. Based on that evaluation, 

we determined that the emissions data 

for PCB from VSS2 Soderberg potlines 

are above detection limits and that 

numerical limits reflecting MACT can 

be set for these sources. Therefore, we 

are finalizing a MACT limit for PCB of 

2.0 mg TEQ/ton for existing Soderberg 

VSS2 potlines and new Soderberg 

potlines. These standards were 

developed based on the 99-percent 

upper prediction limit (UPL) for PCB 

emissions from the available emissions 

data and represent the MACT floor level 

of control. We also considered beyondthe-floor options, but did not identify 

any feasible or cost-effective beyondthe-floor options. 

Furthermore, we determined that the 

emissions data for Hg from anode bake 

furnaces are above detection limits and 

that MACT limits can be set for these 

sources. Therefore, we are finalizing a 

MACT limit for Hg of 1.7 mg/dscm for 

new and existing anode bake furnaces. 

These standards are equal to 3 times the 

representative detection limit (RDL) 

value for Hg. The RDL is the average 

method detection level (MDL) achieved 

in practice by laboratories whose data 

support the best performing 12 percent 

of a MACT category (or categories). We 

use an average value for the RDL 

because a decision for a new source 

floor may be based upon a test report 

where the laboratory chosen has better 

equipment and/or practices than other 

laboratories and, therefore, reported a 

lower MDL. Using that data to set the 

floor would result in requiring all new 

sources to choose that laboratory in 

order to demonstrate compliance with 

the new limit. We recognize the need to 

allow sources to conduct business with 

their local laboratories, or a laboratory 

of their preference; however, we limit 

the RDL to the best laboratory 

performers because we do not want to 

incentivize the use of the worst 

performing laboratories. The EPA policy 

is to set MACT standards for a pollutant 

at a level of 3 times the RDL level for 

that pollutant when the 99-percent UPL 

value for the available emissions data 

results in a value that is less than 3 

times the RDL level for that pollutant, 

which is the case for Hg emissions from 

anode bake furnaces. See, e.g., docket 

item number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0559–0157. 

We use the multiplication factor of 3 

to approximately reduce the 

imprecision of the analytical method 

until the imprecision in the field 

sampling reflects the relative method 

precision as estimated by the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME) study 11 that also indicates that 

such relative imprecision, from 10 to 20 

percent, remains constant over the range 

of the methods. For comparing to the 

floor, if 3 times the RDL were less than 

the calculated floor or emissions limit 

(e.g., calculated from the UPL), we 

would conclude that measurement 

variability was adequately addressed. 

The calculated floor or emissions limit 

would need no adjustment. If, on the 

other hand, the value equal to 3 times 

the RDL were greater than the UPL, we 

would conclude that the calculated floor 

or emissions limit does not account 

entirely for measurement variability. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62406 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

12For determining performance over time, the 

EPA used the UPL statistical methodology. That is, 

the best performers, and their level of performance, 

are determined after accounting for sources’ normal 

operating variability. The UPL represents the value 

which one can expect the mean of a specified 

number of future observations (e.g., 3-run average) 

to fall below for the specified level of confidence, 

based upon the results of an independent sample 

from the same population. See MACT Floor Memo 

and Memorandum, Use of the Upper prediction 

limit for Calculating MACT Floors (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797). 

Therefore, we substituted the value 

equal to 3 times the RDL for the 

calculated floor or emissions limit 

which results in a concentration where 

the method would produce 

measurement accuracy on the order of 

10 to 20 percent similar to other EPA 

test methods and the results found in 

the ASME study. 

Please refer to the Final MACT Floor 

Analysis for the Primary Aluminum 

Production Source Category, which is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0797), for more information 

regarding the new standards. 

Regarding the Hg and PCB emissions 

from the other process units (such as 

potlines and paste production plants), 

and D/F from all the process units, most 

(or all) of the emissions tests were below 

the detection limit. Therefore, we 

conclude it is not feasible to prescribe 

or enforce a numerical emission 

standard for these HAP emissions, 

within the meaning of CAA section 

112(h)(1) and (2). Specifically, measured 

values for these HAP would be neither 

duplicable nor replicable and would not 

give reliable indication of what (if 

anything) the source was emitting. 

Under CAA section 112(h)(2), the EPA 

may adopt work practice standards 

when ‘‘the application of measurement 

methodology to a particular class of 

sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic 

limitations.’’ As discussed more fully in 

section IV.C below, the EPA does not 

regard measurements which are 

unreliable, non-duplicable, and nonreplicable to be practicable. Simply put, 

the CAA simply does not compel 

promulgation of numerical emission 

standards that are too unreliable to be 

meaningful. Therefore, as discussed in 

section IV.C of this preamble, we are 

promulgating work practice standards 

for these HAP under section 112(h) of 

the CAA for various process units. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) 

proposed revisions, and what are our 

responses? 

Comment: Commenters identified 

POM and PM emissions data from 

prebake potlines and PM emissions data 

from anode bake furnaces that were 

incorrectly represented in the data sets 

used for MACT limit determinations. 

Commenters also provided additional 

PM data for prebake potlines and anode 

bake furnaces. Commenters requested 

the EPA to re-evaluate MACT floors and 

recalculate MACT limits for PM and 

POM based on the corrected and 

additional data. 

Response: We agree with commenters 

that the EPA misinterpreted certain data 

in the supplemental proposal. For 

example, we misinterpreted the PM and 

POM emissions from a single exhaust 

stack of a control device with multiple 

exhaust stacks to be the total PM and 

POM emissions from that source and 

misinterpreted the primary POM 

emissions from a potline to be total 

POM emissions from that potline (see 

pages 5 through 8 of the public 

comments provided by The Aluminum 

Association, which are available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797). The 

final rule reflects appropriate data 

corrections, and the additional data 

provided have been incorporated in the 

final limits promulgated for POM and 

PM from prebake potlines and PM from 

anode bake furnaces. Further 

information regarding the development 

of the final emission limits can be found 

in the document titled, Final MACT 

Floor Analysis for the Primary 

Aluminum Production Source Category, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA must set standards for all HAP 

emitted by primary aluminum reduction 

plants. The commenter explained that 

the EPA’s data collection found that 

primary aluminum reduction plants 

emit D/F, Hg, and PCB. Nevertheless, 

the EPA proposed not to set standards 

to limit these pollutants at all because 

‘‘many of the emissions tests were 

below detection limit’’ even though 

there are emissions data in the record 

above the detection limits for these 

pollutants for some sources. The 

commenter continued their argument by 

stating that the CAA and D.C. Circuit 

case law require the EPA to set limits for 

all emitted pollutants. As the D.C. 

Circuit has held, the EPA has a ‘‘clear 

statutory obligation to set emissions 

standards for each listed HAP [i.e., 

hazardous air pollutant]’’ under CAA 

section 112. 

Response: As explained above, based 

on consideration of this comment, 

industry comment, and re-evaluation of 

the data, we are promulgating numerical 

emissions limits for Hg from anode bake 

furnaces and PCB for Soderberg potlines 

because the data we have support the 

development of such numerical limits. 

Furthermore, regarding Hg, D/F, and 

PCB from the other process units, as 

described in section IV.C of this 

preamble, we are promulgating work 

practice standards under CAA section 

112(h) because most of the emissions 

data were below the detection limit for 

these HAP and process units. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the CAA sections 112(d)(2) 

and (3) revisions? 

All numerical MACT standards 

proposed and promulgated for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category reflect the MACT floor and 

were developed based on the 99-percent 

UPL of the available emissions data for 

this source category,12 except for the 

limits set for Hg emissions from anode 

bake furnaces which were set equal to 

a value of 3 times the RDL due to data 

limitations, as explained above. We 

considered beyond-the-floor options. 

However, we determined that no costeffective beyond-the-floor options were 

available. For more information 

regarding the development of the MACT 

standards for this source category and 

our analyses of beyond-the-floor 

options, see the document, Final MACT 

Floor Analysis for the Primary 

Aluminum Production Source Category, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0797). 

C. Revisions to the Work Practice 

Standards for the Primary Aluminum 

Production Source Category 

1. What work practice standards did we 

propose pursuant to CAA sections 

112(h) and/or 112(d)(6) for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

In 2011, we proposed work practice 

standards for TF and POM emissions 

from potlines during startup periods 

under 112(h) of the CAA because we 

determined that it is economically and 

technically infeasible to measure 

emissions of these HAP during these 

startup periods. Subsequently, in 2014 

we proposed to expand these standards 

to also apply to PM. 

In 2014, we also realized that these 

work practices could also help 

minimize emissions during periods of 

normal operation. Therefore, as 

mentioned above, under the technology 

review pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(6), in 2014 we proposed that 

these work practice standards for 

potlines would also apply during 

normal operations to ensure improved 

capture and control of TF, POM, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62407 

PM emissions from those sources. For 

potlines, the work practices included: 

(1) Ensuring the potline scrubbers and 

exhaust fans are operational at all times; 

(2) ensuring that the primary capture 

and control system is operating at all 

times; (3) keeping pots covered as much 

as practicable to include, but not limited 

to, minimizing the removal of covers or 

panels of the pots on which work is 

being performed; and (4) inspecting 

potlines daily. 

Regarding other emissions sources, in 

2011 we also proposed work practices 

for anode bake furnaces during startup 

periods under CAA section 112(d)(6) 

that will ensure improved capture and 

control of HAP emissions from those 

sources during startup periods. Then, in 

the 2014 supplemental proposal, we 

proposed work practices for paste 

production plants during startup 

periods under CAA section 112(d)(6) 

that will ensure improved capture and 

control of HAP emissions from those 

sources during startup periods. 

For anode bake furnaces and paste 

production plants, the proposed work 

practices included ensuring that the 

associated emission control system is 

operating within normal parametric 

limits prior to startup of the emission 

source and requiring that the anode 

bake furnace or paste production plants 

be shut down if the associated emission 

control system is off line during startup. 

2. What changes were made to the work 

practice standards developed for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category pursuant to CAA sections 

112(h) and/or 112(d)(6)? 

In the final rule, the work practices 

for potlines, anode bake furnaces, and 

paste production plants remain 

unchanged from the proposals. In the 

final rule, we added additional, more 

specific VE monitoring requirements, 

which are applicable during all periods 

of operation, for emission points that are 

not equipped with BLDS or PM CEMS, 

and thus, ensuring improved capture 

and control of emissions at all times. 

Furthermore, the work practice 

standards for anode bake furnaces 

address PCB emissions (under CAA 

section 112(h)) for these process units, 

and the work practice standards for 

potlines address Hg from all potlines, 

PCB emissions from prebake potlines, 

and D/F emissions from Soderberg 

potlines (under CAA section 112(h)) 

because in all these cases we 

determined that it is economically and 

technically infeasible to reliably 

measure emissions of these HAP from 

these process units. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

regarding work practice standards and 

what are our responses? 

Comment: As mentioned above, one 

commenter stated that the EPA’s data 

collection found that primary aluminum 

reduction plants emit D/F, Hg, and PCB. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

states that it is not proposing standards 

for these currently unregulated 

pollutants because ‘‘many of the 

emissions tests were below detection 

limit.’’ The commenter stated that the 

EPA has some emission data in the 

record above the detection limits for 

these pollutants for some sources. The 

commenter stated that the CAA and D.C. 

Circuit case law require the EPA to set 

limits for all emitted pollutants. 

The commenter stated that as the D.C. 

Circuit has held, the EPA has a ‘‘clear 

statutory obligation to set emissions 

standards for each listed HAP [i.e., 

hazardous air pollutant]’’ under CAA 

sections 112(d)(1)–(3). The commenter 

stated that these pollutants are some of 

the most potent and most harmful, even 

at extremely low levels of human 

exposure. 

The commenter stated that it would 

be internally inconsistent not to regulate 

these HAP, because in this rulemaking, 

the EPA has recognized the need to set 

emission standards for unregulated 

pollutants. The commenter stated that 

the EPA states that it may, but is not 

required to set emission standards for 

these pollutants, citing the Portland 

Cement decision (665 F.3d at 189). The 

commenter stated that the Portland 

Cement decision did not hold that the 

EPA may avoid setting limits for CAA 

section 112-listed pollutants emitted by 

a source category. The commenter stated 

that the Portland Cement decision 

affirmed that the EPA may set revised 

emission standards, including updated 

MACT floors, whenever it determines 

this is necessary, including as a result 

of a CAA section 112(d)(6) review, or 

more often. 

The commenter stated that the revised 

standards the EPA is proposing here 

must satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2)–(3). 

The commenter stated that the EPA may 

not ‘‘cherry-pick’’ the HAP when 

initially setting and revising standards. 

The commenter stated that if the EPA 

missed HAP that it is legally required to 

regulate in prior standards, then it has 

an ongoing obligation to set such 

standards, and it would be both 

unlawful and arbitrary and capricious 

for the EPA not to set such standards as 

part of this review and revision 

rulemaking under CAA section 112(d). 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

has recognized the need to assess health 

risks from these pollutants and has 

created a method to do so by assuming 

that the undetected emissions were 

equal to one-half the detection limit, 

which the EPA explains is ‘‘the 

established approach for dealing with 

non-detects in the EPA’s RTR program 

when developing emissions estimates 

for input to the risk assessments.’’ The 

commenter stated that the EPA may not 

ignore these pollutants under CAA 

section 112(d) when it acknowledges 

and has found a way to address them 

under CAA section 112(f)—even though 

some of the data in the record are below 

the detection level. 

The commenter stated that instead of 

ignoring the emissions data it has, the 

EPA must at least use the emission data 

that are above the detection level to set 

standards. Furthermore, the commenter 

stated that for the non-detect values, the 

EPA may not lawfully ignore these data. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

must recognize that some sources have 

achieved levels of emissions below the 

detection level and use an appropriate 

number at or below the detection level 

as part of its floor analysis, to satisfy the 

floor and beyond-the-floor requirements 

of CAA sections 112(d)(2)–(3). 

Response: As mentioned in section 

IV.B above, based on consideration of 

this comment, industry comment, and 

re-evaluation of the data, we are 

promulgating numerical emissions 

limits for Hg from anode bake furnaces 

and PCB from Soderberg potlines 

because the data we have support the 

development of such numerical limits. 

Furthermore, regarding Hg from 

potlines, PCB from prebake potlines and 

anode bake furnaces, and D/F from 

Soderberg potlines, as described in 

section IV.C of this preamble, we are 

promulgating work practice standards 

under CAA section 112(h) because most 

of the emissions data were below the 

detection limits for these HAP and 

process units. However, EPA is not 

adopting either numerical standards or 

work practice standards for these HAP 

from other process units because all of 

the associated emissions data were 

below the detection limit or otherwise 

unreliable (e.g., the test report indicated 

quality assurance problems). There is 

certainly no obligation under CAA 

sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the EPA to 

promulgate standards for HAP that are 

not emitted by a source category. 

Given these determinations, the 

commenter’s claims that the EPA is 

obligated to establish MACT standards 

for HAP at particular times, and that it 

must do so if it is making assumptions 

about emission levels as part of the CAA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62408 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

13We disagree with the commenter that standards 

are compelled at this time, given the EPA’s 

discretion regarding timing of revising MACT 

standards. See 79 FR 72936 at n. 35. The EPA is 

exercising its discretion in adopting these standards 

in the final rule. 

section 112(f) risk analysis, are no 

longer presented.13

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach regarding work practice 

standards under CAA sections 112(h) 

and/or 112(d)(6)? 

Based on comments received during 

the 2014 supplemental proposal public 

comment period, we determined that it 

was appropriate to re-evaluate the data 

we had for PCB, D/F, and Hg. For D/F 

from potlines, anode bake furnaces, and 

paste production plants; Hg from 

potlines and paste production plants; 

and PCB from prebake potlines, anode 

bake furnaces, and paste production 

plants, we found that more than half of 

the test data were below the detection 

limit. We maintain our December 2014 

proposed position that it is not 

appropriate to promulgate numerical 

MACT limits for these HAP from these 

process units. Instead, as explained 

below, we are promulgating work 

practice standards under CAA section 

112(h), when appropriate. 

Sections 112(h)(1) and (h)(2)(B) of the 

CAA indicate that the EPA may adopt 

a work practice standard rather than a 

numeric standard when ‘‘the 

application of measurement 

methodology to a particular class of 

sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic 

limitations.’’ As explained above, the 

majority of the data collected for Hg, D/ 

F, and PCB during the information 

request test program for these emissions 

points were below the detection limit. 

Under these circumstances, the EPA 

does not believe that it is 

technologically and economically 

practicable to reliably measure Hg, D/F, 

and PCB emissions from these particular 

sources. The ‘‘application of 

measurement methodologies’’ 

(described in CAA section 112(h)(2)(B)) 

means more than taking a measurement. 

It must also mean that a measurement 

has some reasonable relation to what the 

source is emitting, i.e., that the 

measurement yields a meaningful value. 

That is not the case here, and the EPA, 

therefore, does not believe it reasonable 

to establish a numerical standard for Hg, 

D/F, and PCB from these particular 

process units in this rule. Moreover, a 

numerical limit established at some 

level greater than the detection limit 

(which would be a necessity since any 

numeric standard would have to be 

measurable) could actually authorize 

and allow more emissions of these HAP 

than would otherwise be the case. The 

work practices for anode bake furnaces, 

paste production plants, and potlines 

discussed in section IV.C.1 of this 

preamble are those practices utilized by 

the best performing sources—the 

sources with the work practices in place 

that the EPA has evaluated as best 

controlling emissions of these HAP. 

In the cases of PCB from anode bake 

furnaces and prebake potlines, D/F from 

Soderberg potlines, and Hg from both 

Soderberg and prebake potlines, we 

determined that about 70 to 80 percent 

of the emissions data were below the 

detection limits. In previous cases (see, 

e.g., 76 FR 25046, 78 FR 22387, and 

docket item number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0291–0120) where test results 

were predominantly (e.g., more than 55 

percent of the test run results) found to 

be below detection limits, the EPA 

established work practice standards for 

the pollutants in question from the 

subject sources, since we believe 

emissions of the pollutants are too low 

to reliably measure and quantify. We are 

adopting that same approach here, for 

the same reasons, and are, therefore, 

finalizing work practice standards to 

address emissions of Hg from potlines, 

PCB from anode bake furnaces and 

prebake potlines, and D/F from 

Soderberg potlines. Specifically, we are 

finalizing the work practice standards 

presented in 40 CFR 63.847(l) and (m) 

and 40 CFR 63.854 of the 2014 

supplemental proposal to address 

emissions of Hg from potlines, D/F from 

Soderberg potlines, and PCB from 

prebake potlines. Further, the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.847(h)(1) and 

40 CFR 63.848(f)(1) of current subpart 

LL; the work practice standards 

proposed in sections 40 CFR 63.843(f) 

and 40 CFR 63.844(f) of the 2011 

proposal and 40 CFR 63.847(l) of the 

2014 proposal; and the enhanced VE 

monitoring of 40 CFR 63.848(g)(3) of the 

final rule address the PCB emissions 

from anode bake furnaces. 

However, as noted above, all of the 

emissions data for D/F from prebake 

potlines, anode bake furnaces, and paste 

production plants were either below the 

detection limit or otherwise unreliable 

(e.g., were flagged in the test report as 

having quality assurance issues). 

Therefore, we are not promulgating 

numerical emissions limits or work 

practices for these HAP since there is no 

reliable evidence that these sources emit 

them. 

D. What changes did we make to the 

control device monitoring requirements 

for the Primary Aluminum Production 

source category? 

1. What control device monitoring 

requirements did we propose for the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category? 

In the 2014 supplemental proposal, 

we proposed that the owner or operator 

of a primary aluminum reduction plant 

would need to install either a BLDS or 

a PM CEMS on the exhaust of each 

control device used to control emissions 

from a new or existing affected potline, 

anode bake furnace, or paste production 

plant. 

2. What changes did the EPA make to 

the proposed control device monitoring 

requirements developed for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

In the final rule, the control device 

monitoring requirements for new 

potlines, new anode bake furnaces, and 

new paste production plants remain 

unchanged. However, for existing 

potlines, existing anode bake furnaces 

and existing paste production plants, 

the owner or operators have the option 

to conduct enhanced VE monitoring as 

an alternative to the installation of 

BLDS or PM CEMS. This enhanced VE 

monitoring would include twice daily 

monitoring of VE from the exhaust of 

each control device, with those two VE 

monitoring events at least 4 hours apart. 

If VE are observed, then the owner or 

operator would need to take corrective 

action within 1 hour, including 

isolating, shutting down, and 

conducting internal inspections of any 

baghouse compartment associated with 

VE indicating abnormal operations and 

fixing the compartment before it is put 

back in service. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

regarding control device monitoring 

requirements and what are our 

responses? 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the proposed rule requires either 

the installation of PM CEMS or the 

installation of BLDS on stack emission 

points associated with fabric filter 

(baghouse) control systems for 

demonstration of continuous 

compliance with the PM limit. The 

commenters stated that the EPA has not 

considered the large number of stacks 

involved and the complexity, time, and 

cost for installing BLDS or PM CEMS 

monitoring systems on the baghouses of 

potline primary control systems. 

The commenters stated that there are 

significant and substantial issues with 

this requirement that merit rethinking. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62409 

14See Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F. 3d 976, 991 (D.C. 

Cir. 2004) (per Roberts, J.) (enhanced monitoring 

requirement in CAA section 114(a)(3) does not 

mandate continuous monitoring or create a 

presumption for such monitoring. Consistent with 

that reading, CAA section 504 (b) provides that 

‘‘continuous emissions monitoring need not be 

required if alternative methods are available that 

provide sufficiently reliable and timely information 

for determining compliance’’). 

The commenters stated that there is 

already a requirement in the 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart LL rule for a daily 

visual check for opacity on all stacks 

associated with baghouse control 

systems. The commenters stated that 

this serves the same function and 

purpose as the installation of BLDSs and 

has been working well in that manner 

since the time the original rules were 

finalized in 1997. 

The commenters stated that the EPA 

concluded ‘‘. . . that all existing 

prebake potlines will be able to meet 

these MACT floor limits for PM without 

the need to install additional controls 

because the performance of all sources 

in the category is similar, all of the 

potlines within each of the 

subcategories utilize very similar 

emission control technology, the 

average emissions from each source are 

well below the MACT floor limit and 

emissions data from every facility that 

performed emissions testing were 

included in the dataset used to develop 

the MACT floor.’’ The commenters 

stated that it is clear that the daily VE 

inspection, corrective action, and 

baghouse maintenance practices that 

facilities have already implemented in 

response to the enhanced monitoring 

requirements of current 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart LL are resulting in a level of 

baghouse performance that ensures 

ongoing continuous compliance with 

the proposed PM emission limits. 

The commenters stated that the EPA 

notes in the proposed rule that potline 

secondary PM emissions comprise by 

far the largest share of primary 

aluminum reduction plant PM 

emissions, and these would not be 

addressed with BLDS. The commenters 

cited test data to highlight this issue and 

stated that the EPA’s own analysis of 

control options on secondary PM 

emissions from potlines found them to 

not be economically feasible yet the 

resulting risks are still within acceptable 

risk limits. 

The commenters stated that the most 

common potline primary PM control 

system, the A–398 scrubber system, has 

multiple stacks associated with each 

control device, and there are multiple 

control devices for each potline. The 

commenters stated that a survey of U.S. 

primary aluminum facilities indicated 

that at present there are 388 potline 

stack emission points across seven 

operating plants that would need to 

install BLDS in response to this 

proposed new requirement. The 

commenters stated that there are 50 to 

100 individual stacks per potline at 

some of their facilities and provided a 

table of the affected sources. The 

commenters stated that the costs, 

complexity, and time required for 

installing BLDS or PM CEMS at a 

facility with over 100 potline control 

device stacks are formidable. 

The commenters provided a cost 

analysis of installation and operating 

cost for BLDS and estimated that 

industry-wide, this would result in 

cumulative $5.24 million of initial costs 

and $1.2 million of annual costs to 

comply with this requirement for 

potlines, not including the additional 

costs relative to compliance for anode 

bake furnaces and paste production 

plants. The commenters stated that none 

of these very significant costs are 

included in either the December 2014 

supplemental proposal preamble 

discussion of the costs/benefit 

calculation or the Revised Draft Cost 

Impacts for the Primary Aluminum 

Source Category document dated 

November 13, 2014. The commenters 

stated that inclusion of these bag leak 

detector costs alters the cost/benefit 

dynamic substantially such that it 

changes the calculation from a slight net 

benefit to a significant net cost. The 

commenters stated that the bag leak 

detector option is the most cost-effective 

of the two compliance options 

presented in the proposed rule (BLDS 

versus PM CEMS). The commenters 

urged the EPA to recalculate the revised 

cost estimate to address the installation 

of BLDS or PM CEMS on existing 

sources and to provide for the 

opportunity to comment on the changes. 

The commenters stated that the 

proposed requirements of 40 CFR 

63.848(o)(3)(i) require initiation of 

procedures to determine the cause of a 

BLDS alarm with 30 minutes. The 

commenters stated that the subpart LL 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.848(h) all 

require the initiation of corrective action 

within 1 hour. The commenters stated 

that the EPA should set the time frame 

for initiating a response to BLD events 

at 1 hour so as to be consistent with the 

other corrective action requirements. 

The commenters stated that the 

proposed timelines for compliance do 

not consider the time required to design, 

procure, and install and operate a BLDS 

or PM CEMS on each baghouse stack. 

The commenters stated that since the 

proposed requirement to install BLDS or 

PM CEMS on potline control devices is 

unnecessary and cost-prohibitive for 

existing potlines, they strongly 

recommend that BLDS and PM CEMS 

provisions be deleted from the final rule 

requirements in their entirety. 

The commenters stated that the EPA’s 

proposed requirements of 40 CFR 

63.848(o)(1) pertain to baghouse 

preventative maintenance requirements. 

The commenters stated that facilities 

already have to comply with similar 

requirements for proper operation and 

maintenance of emission control 

equipment under state or federal 

requirements as included in their title V 

air operating permits. The commenters 

stated that the EPA should tailor the 

proposed requirements to specifically 

address the development and 

implementation of procedures 

pertaining to the BLDS. 

The commenters recommended (in 

the event that BLDS is in the final rule) 

revisions to 40 CFR 63.848(o)(1) and 

(3)(i). 

Response: The EPA agrees that 

installation of BLDS or PM CEMS for 

certain existing emission control 

configurations would be both 

technically challenging and cost 

prohibitive for some facilities due to the 

large number of individual stacks 

supporting these control devices. We 

also agree with the commenters that PM 

emissions from potlines are dominated 

by secondary roof vent emissions. This 

is a result of effective emissions control 

on the primary stacks and the difficulty 

(technical and economic) associated 

with installation and operation of 

secondary roof vent emission controls. 

Moreover, we further find that under 

these circumstances, enhanced VE 

monitoring provides sufficiently reliable 

and timely information for determining 

compliance with the PM standards—in 

particular, the twice daily VE 

monitoring with requirement for 

initiation of corrective actions (if 

applicable), including isolation and 

internal inspection of a scrubber 

compartment, within 1 hour.14

Therefore, we are providing owners or 

operators of existing affected sources the 

options to monitor these sources with 

either BLDS, PM CEMS, or enhanced VE 

observations, as described above. 

Further, for those sources that do have 

BLDS, we agree that 1 hour is the 

appropriate length of time for initiation 

of root cause analysis for alarms and, 

therefore, are promulgating this 

requirement. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach regarding control device 

monitoring requirements? 

The final rule will require annual PM 

testing of the primary control device 

and continuous or frequent monitoring 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62410 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

with BLDS, PM CEMS, or VE 

observations. The EPA believes it is 

necessary that facilities conduct at least 

one of these monitoring measures to 

ensure that the primary control device 

is maintained in good working order 

throughout the year. As mentioned 

above, as an alternative to BLDS or PM 

CEMS, we are finalizing a third option 

of twice daily visual inspections of each 

exhaust stack(s) of each control device 

using Method 22 (at least 4 hours apart) 

for existing sources. Existing sources 

will have the option to perform Method 

22 inspections, install BLDS, or install 

PM CEMS. We believe that the twice 

daily visual inspection alternative will 

provide adequate assurance that the 

control devices are properly operated 

and maintained. 

We believe that future potline air 

pollution control systems will be 

constructed/installed with a newer 

technology (dry injection type), rather 

than the currently installed (older) 

technology A–398 type. The newer 

technologies have significantly fewer 

stack emission points than the many 

stacks of the A–398 systems. 

Consequently, the number of BLDS 

needed would be substantially less with 

those systems than for the A–398 

systems. For this reason, we are 

maintaining the requirement to install 

BLDS or PM CEMS on new sources. 

E. What changes did we make to 

compliance dates for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

1. What existing source compliance 

dates did we propose for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category? 

The proposed compliance dates for 

existing sources in the December 2014 

supplemental proposal were as follows: 

• Date of publication of final rule for 

the malfunction provisions and the 

electronic reporting provisions; 

• One year after date of publication of 

final rule for potlines subject to the COS 

and PM emission limits; prebake 

potlines subject to POM emission limits; 

the potline, paste production plant, and 

anode bake furnace work practices; 

anode bake furnaces and paste 

production plants subject to PM 

emission limits; and pitch storage tanks 

subject to POM standards; and 

• Two years after date of publication 

of final rule for Soderberg potlines 

subject to the POM, Ni, and As emission 

limits. 

2. What changes is EPA making to the 

proposed existing source compliance 

dates for the Primary Aluminum 

Production source category? 

The EPA has revised the compliance 

dates for existing sources in the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category 

from those proposed in 2014 as follows: 

• The compliance date was changed 

from 1 year after date of publication of 

final rule to 2 years after date of 

publication of final rule for prebake 

potlines subject to POM and PM 

emission limits and for pitch storage 

tanks subject to POM equipment 

standards; 

• The compliance date of 1 year after 

date of publication of final rule was 

added for Soderberg potlines subject to 

PCB emission limits; and 

• The compliance date of 2 years after 

date of publication of final rule was 

added for anode bake furnaces subject to 

Hg emission limits. 

For more discussion of the 

promulgated compliance dates, refer to 

the document, Final Rationale for 

Selection of Compliance Dates for the 

Primary Aluminum Production Source 

Category, which is available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797). 

3. What key comments did we receive 

regarding compliance dates and what 

are our responses? 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

concern with the compliance dates 

outlined in the supplemental proposal. 

The commenters stated that the 

compliance dates in the December 2014 

proposal are in marked contrast to the 

2011 proposal that included a 3-year 

compliance window for all changes. The 

commenters stated that they are 

concerned that the rationale used to 

dramatically shorten the compliance 

timelines is not reflective of actual onsite conditions and decision-making/

approval processes for the changes 

required for compliance. The 

commenters stated that new emission 

limits imposed on the affected facilities 

will require installation of additional 

emission controls and/or monitoring 

devices. 

The commenters stated that at least 

one facility will be required to install a 

Method 14 manifold or Method 14A 

cassette system in a currently operating 

potline for collecting roof monitor 

samples to determine emissions of PM 

and POM. The commenters stated that 

a number of facilities currently do not 

have an emission control system on 

their existing pitch storage tanks. The 

commenters stated that these facilities 

will be required to install and test (or 

certify) an emission control system to 

meet the 95-percent POM reduction 

requirement. 

The commenters stated that the effort 

involved in the determination of the 

exact changes that will be needed; the 

selection, installation, and startup of 

new controls and their associated 

equipment; and consideration of the 

business planning cycle for making 

significant new capital and operating 

expense monetary outlays all indicate 

that more than 1 year is needed to have 

the emissions control and monitoring 

devices installed and properly 

operational. 

The commenters requested an 

increased amount of time for 

compliance dates for malfunction and 

ERT provisions, work practices, and 

emission limits. 

Response: The EPA has received 

information from Alcoa that their 

Wenatchee facility currently has two 

potlines (potlines 2 and 3) that are not 

equipped with a Method 14 manifold or 

Method 14A cassette system. Either a 

manifold or cassette system is required 

to monitor secondary potline emissions 

and to demonstrate compliance with the 

potline PM and POM emission limits. 

Alcoa provided cost estimates for the 

installation of a Method 14 manifold 

and a Method 14A cassette system. 

These costs were estimated at $500,000 

(or approximately $55,000 per year 

annualized) for either system (see 

Installation of Method 14 or 14A 

Sampling Equipment at Alcoa 

Wenatchee, Docket item number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0797–0385). After 

considering this comment and after 

further evaluation, we agree that a 

compliance date of 2 years after 

publication of the final rule is 

appropriate for the demonstration of 

compliance with the potline emissions 

limits because some facilities may need 

to install Method 14 manifolds or 

Method 14A cassette systems to 

demonstrate compliance, and we 

believe that up to 2 years may be needed 

to plan, design, construct, and install 

such systems and complete the required 

testing and analyses. 

After further evaluation, the EPA 

determined that the appropriate 

compliance date for the 95-percent POM 

reduction requirement for pitch storage 

tanks is 2 years from the publication 

date of the final rule. The EPA agrees 

with the commenters that this 

additional time may be needed to 

install, test, and certify emission control 

systems. 

We are finalizing the proposed 

compliance dates for existing sources 

for the malfunction provisions and the 

electronic reporting provisions. 

We are finalizing a compliance date of 

1 year after date of publication of the 

final rule for potlines subject to the 

work practice standards and the COS 

emission limits, and for anode bake 

furnaces and paste production plants 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62411 

subject to work practices and PM 

emission limits. 

We are finalizing a compliance date of 

2 years after date of publication of the 

final rule for prebake potlines subject to 

POM emission limits; for Soderberg 

potlines subject to revised POM 

emission limits and emission limits for 

Ni, As, and PCB; for potlines subject to 

PM emissions limits; and for existing 

pitch storage tank POM equipment 

standards. 

We are finalizing a compliance date of 

2 years after date of publication of final 

rule for anode bake furnaces subject to 

Hg emission limits. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach regarding compliance dates? 

The EPA extended the compliance 

dates for prebake potlines subject to 

POM and PM emissions limits from 1 to 

2 years after date of publication of the 

final rule to give owners or operators an 

appropriate amount of time to install the 

manifolds or cassette systems necessary 

to sample the potline fugitive emissions. 

Monitoring of potline fugitive emissions 

will be required in order to demonstrate 

compliance with the promulgated POM 

and PM emissions limits unless the 

owner or operator can demonstrate 

potline similarity for purposes of these 

HAP pursuant to 40 CFR 63.848(d) of 

subpart LL, and the EPA finds that the 

2 year compliance time allows adequate 

time for owners or operators to apply for 

similarity determinations. 

Similarly, the compliance date for 

existing pitch storage tanks subject to 

POM equipment standards was 

extended by EPA from 1 to 2 years after 

date of publication of the final rule to 

give owners or operators an appropriate 

amount of time to install, test, and 

certify the emission control systems. 

The compliance date of 1 year after 

date of publication of the final rule was 

added for Soderberg potlines subject to 

a PCB emission limit or D/F work 

practice standards. We believe that 1 

year will be sufficient to demonstrate 

compliance with these requirements for 

existing Soderberg potlines, in the 

unlikely event that the existing 

Soderberg potlines are restarted, since 

the available data suggests that no 

modifications or additional controls are 

necessary to meet that limit. 

The EPA added a compliance date of 

2 years after date of publication of the 

final rule for anode bake furnaces 

subject to the Hg emission limit. We 

believe 2 years is justified in this case 

to provide industry sufficient time to 

schedule and perform testing and take 

appropriate subsequent steps to ensure 

compliance. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected sources? 

The affected sources are new and 

existing potlines, new and existing pitch 

storage tanks, new and existing anode 

bake furnaces (except for one that is 

located at a facility that only produces 

anodes for use off-site and is subject to 

the state MACT determination 

established by the regulatory authority), 

and new and existing paste production 

plants. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

We estimate that the promulgated 

lower VSS2 potline POM emissions 

limit would reduce POM emissions 

from the one Soderberg facility by 

approximately 53 tpy if the facility were 

to resume operation. Furthermore, we 

estimate that these standards would also 

result in about 1 tpy reduction of HAP 

metals and 40 tpy reduction of PM with 

diameter of 2.5 microns and less (PM2.5) 

if the one Soderberg facility reopened. 

We consider this very unlikely as the 

owner of that facility, Columbia Falls 

Aluminum Company, has publicly 

announced its permanent closure. 

However, we include this analysis 

because the potlines have not been 

demolished yet. 

Finally, we estimate that the addition 

of controls to the eight existing 

uncontrolled pitch storage tanks located 

at prebake facilities would reduce POM 

emissions by 1.55 tpy. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

Under the final amendments, facilities 

are subject to additional testing, 

monitoring, and equipment costs. 

Owners and operators are required to 

conduct semiannual tests for PM and 

POM emissions from potline roof vents, 

annual tests for PM and POM from 

potline primary emissions, annual tests 

of PM and Hg from anode bake furnace 

exhausts, and annual tests of PM from 

paste production plant exhausts. These 

testing costs are offset by reduced 

frequency of secondary potline TF 

emissions testing (from monthly to 

semiannual). In addition, all emission 

stacks not equipped with either BLDS or 

PM CEMS are subject to increased 

frequency (from daily to twice daily) VE 

testing. Additional monitoring to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with PM standards for anode bake 

furnaces and paste production plants is 

required by the rule. Eight owners or 

operators of facilities operating 

uncontrolled pitch storage tanks are 

required to install and operate controls 

on these tanks, and the owner or 

operator of one facility with two 

potlines (one idle and one in operation) 

not currently equipped with either a 

manifold or a cassette system may be 

required to install this equipment. 

These amendments result in a net 

estimated reduction in testing costs of 

$1.05 million, a net estimated increase 

in monitoring costs of $625,000, and a 

net increase in estimated annualized 

capital equipment costs of $260,000. 

Nationwide annual costs to industry are 

expected to decrease by an estimated 

$165,000 per year under these 

amendments. 

The memorandum, Final Cost Impacts 

for the Primary Aluminum Production 

Source Category, includes a description 

of the details and assumptions used for 

this analysis and is available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797). 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

We performed an economic impact 

analysis for the modifications in this 

action. That analysis estimates a net 

savings for each primary aluminum 

reduction facility based on the belief 

that the Columbia Falls Soderberg 

facility will not reopen. In March of 

2015, the Columbia Falls Aluminum 

Company announced the permanent 

closure of their Soderberg facility. For 

more information, please refer to the 

Economic Impact Analysis for National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Primary Aluminum 

Reduction Plants and Final Economic 

Impact Analysis for the Primary 

Aluminum Production Source Category 

documents, which are available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

E. What are the benefits? 

If the Columbia Falls Soderberg 

facility were to resume operations, there 

would be an estimated reduction in its 

annual HAP emissions (i.e., about 53 

tons) that would provide significant 

benefits to public health. In addition to 

the HAP reductions, which would 

ensure an ample margin of safety, we 

also estimate that this final rule would 

achieve about 230 tons of reductions in 

PM (including 40 tons of PM2.5) 

emissions as a co-benefit of the HAP 

reductions annually (again assuming 

resumption of plant operation). 

Further, we estimate that the addition 

of controls to the eight existing 

uncontrolled pitch storage tanks at 

prebake facilities would reduce POM 

emissions by 1.55 tpy. 

This rulemaking is not an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866 

because it is not likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62412 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

15U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08– 

139F. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment—RTP Division. Available on the 

Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 16U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter. Office of Air and 

Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available on 

the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/

regdata/RIAs/finalria.pdf.http://www.epa.gov/

ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/PMRIACombinedFile_

Bookmarked.pdf. 

17U.S. EPA, 2006. Integrated Risk Information 

System. http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html. 

18ATSDR, 2013. Minimum Risk Levels (MRLs) 

for Hazardous Substances. http://

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.html. 

19California Office of Environmental Health 

Hazard Assessment. Chronic Reference Exposure 

Levels Adopted by OEHHA as of December 2008. 

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels. 

million or more. Therefore, we have not 

conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) for this rulemaking or a benefits 

analysis. While we expect that these 

avoided emissions will improve air 

quality and reduce health effects 

associated with exposure to air 

pollution associated with these 

emissions, we have not quantified or 

monetized the benefits of reducing these 

emissions for this rulemaking. This does 

not imply that there are no benefits 

associated with these emission 

reductions. We provide a qualitative 

description of benefits associated with 

reducing these pollutants below. When 

determining whether the benefits of an 

action exceed its costs, Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 direct the Agency to 

consider qualitative benefits that are 

difficult to quantify, but nevertheless 

essential to consider. 

Directly emitted particles are 

precursors to secondary formation of 

PM2.5. Controls installed to reduce HAP 

would also reduce ambient 

concentrations of PM2.5 as a co-benefit. 

Reducing exposure to PM2.5 is 

associated with significant human 

health benefits, including avoiding 

mortality and morbidity from 

cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. 

Researchers have associated PM2.5

exposure with adverse health effects in 

numerous toxicological, clinical, and 

epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 

2009).15 When adequate data and 

resources are available and an RIA is 

required, the EPA generally quantifies 

several health effects associated with 

exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 

2012).16 These health effects include 

premature mortality for adults and 

infants, cardiovascular morbidities such 

as heart attacks, hospital admissions, 

and respiratory morbidities such as 

asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, 

hospital and emergency department 

visits, work loss days, restricted activity 

days, and respiratory symptoms. The 

scientific literature also suggests that 

exposure to PM2.5 is associated with 

adverse effects on birth weight, pre-term 

births, pulmonary function, and other 

cardiovascular and respiratory effects 

(U.S. EPA, 2009), but the EPA has not 

quantified these impacts in its benefits 

analyses. PM2.5 also increases light 

extinction, which is an important aspect 

of visibility. 

The rulemaking may prevent 

increases in emissions of other HAP, 

including HAP metals (As, cadmium, 

chromium (both total and hexavalent), 

lead, manganese, Hg, and Ni) and PAH. 

Some of these HAP are carcinogenic 

(e.g., As, PAH), and some have effects 

other than cancer (e.g., kidney disease 

from cadmium, respiratory and 

immunological effects from Ni). While 

we cannot quantitatively estimate the 

benefits achieved by reducing emissions 

of these HAP, we expect benefits by 

reducing exposures to these HAP. More 

information about the health effects of 

these HAP can be found on the IRIS,17

U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR),18 and 

California EPA 19 Web sites. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

To examine the potential for any EJ 

issues that might be associated with the 

Primary Aluminum Production source 

category, we performed a demographic 

analysis, which is an assessment of risks 

to individual demographic groups, of 

the population close to the facilities. In 

this analysis, we evaluated the 

distribution of HAP-related cancer risks 

and non-cancer hazards from this source 

category across different social, 

demographic, and economic groups 

within the populations living near 

facilities identified as having the highest 

risks. The results of the demographic 

analysis are summarized in Table 6 in 

section IV.A.3 of this preamble and 

indicate that there are no significant 

disproportionate risks to any particular 

minority, low income, or indigenous 

population (see the discussion in 

section IV.A.3 of this preamble). The 

methodology and the results of the 

demographic analyses are included in a 

technical report, Analysis of SocioEconomic Factors for Populations Living 

Near Primary Aluminum Facilities, 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (docket item No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0797–0360). 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because the Agency does not 

believe the environmental health risks 

or safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. The report, Analysis of SocioEconomic Factors for Populations Living 

Near Primary Aluminum Facilities, 

which is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking, indicates that the 

percentages for all demographic groups 

exposed to various risk levels, including 

children, are similar to their respective 

nationwide percentages. That report 

further shows that, prior to the 

implementation of the provisions 

included in this final rule, on a 

nationwide basis, there are 

approximately 900,000 people exposed 

to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 

million and no people exposed to a 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than 

1 due to emissions from the source 

category. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this rule have been submitted for 

approval to the OMB under the PRA. 

The ICR document prepared by the EPA 

has been assigned EPA ICR number 

2447.01. You can find a copy of the ICR 

in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797) and it is 

briefly summarized below. The 

information collection requirements are 

not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. 

We are finalizing changes to the 

paperwork requirements for the Primary 

Aluminum Production source category 

facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart LL. In this final rule, we are 

promulgating less frequent testing of TF 

emissions from potlines. In addition, we 

are removing the burden associated with 

the affirmative defense provisions 

included in the December 2011 

proposal. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62413 

We estimate 11 regulated entities are 

currently subject to CFR part 63, subpart 

LL and will be subject to this action. 

The annual monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards) as a 

result of the final amendments to 40 

CFR part 63, subpart LL (NESHAP for 

Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants) is 

estimated to be ¥$931,000 per year. 

This includes 361 labor hours per 

year at a total labor cost of $27,400 per 

year, and total non-labor capital, and 

operation and maintenance costs of 

¥$958,000 per year. This estimate 

includes performance tests, 

notifications, reporting, and 

recordkeeping associated with the new 

requirements for primary aluminum 

reduction plant operations. The total 

burden for the federal government 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standard) is 

estimated to be 181 hours per year at a 

total labor cost of $8,250 per year. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. There are no small entities in 

this regulated industry. For this source 

category, which has the NAICS code 

331312, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) small business 

size standard is 1,000 employees 

according to the SBA small business 

standards definitions. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action does not have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Primary Aluminum Production Source 

Category in Support of the September 

2015 Risk and Technology Review Final 

Rule, which is available in the docket 

for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0797). 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This final action involves technical 

standards. The rule requires the use of 

either ASTM D4239–14e1, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Sulfur in the Analysis 

Sample of Coal and Coke Using HighTemperature Tube Furnace 

Combustion,’’ approved March 1, 2014, 

or ASTM D6376–10, ‘‘Test Method for 

Determination of Trace Metals in 

Petroleum Coke by Wavelength 

Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence 

Spectroscopy,’’ approved July 1, 2010. 

ASTM D4239–14e1, approved March 1, 

2014, covers the determination of sulfur 

in samples of coal or coke by high 

temperature tube furnace combustion. 

ASTM D6376–10, approved July 1, 

2010, covers the x-ray fluorescence 

spectrometric determination of total 

sulfur and trace metals in samples of 

raw or calcined petroleum coke. These 

are voluntary consensus methods. These 

methods can be obtained from the 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, West 

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 

(telephone number (610) 832–9500). 

These methods were promulgated in the 

final rule because they are commonly 

used by primary aluminum reduction 

plants to demonstrate compliance with 

sulfur dioxide emission limitations 

imposed in their current title V permits. 

This final rule also requires use of 

Method 428, ‘‘Determination of 

Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxin 

(PCDD), Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran 

(PCDF), and Polychlorinated Biphenyle 

Emissions (PCB) from Stationary 

Sources,’’ amended September 12, 1990. 

Method 428, amended September 12, 

1990, covers the determination of PCDD, 

PCDF, or PCB from stationary sources. 

The standard is available from the 

California Air Resources Board, 1001 

‘‘I’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95812 

(telephone number (800) 242–4450) or 

at their Web site, http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 

testmeth/vol3/m_428.pdf. 

The EPA has decided to use EPA 

Method 29 for the determination of the 

concentration of Hg. While the EPA 

identified ASTM D6784–02 (2008), 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental, 

Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total 

Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from 

Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario 

Hydro Method),’’ ASTM International, 

West Conshohocken, PA, 2008, as being 

potentially applicable, the Agency 

decided not to use it. The use of this 

voluntary consensus standard would be 

more expensive and is inconsistent with 

the final Hg standard that was 

determined using EPA Method 29 data. 

Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 

63.8(f) of Subpart A of the General 

Provisions, a source may apply to the 

EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in this 

final rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62414 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

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, low-income or indigenous 

populations. For the Primary Aluminum 

Production source category, the EPA 

determined that the current health risks 

posed to anyone by actual emissions 

from this source category are within the 

acceptable range, and that this action 

will not appreciably reduce these risks 

further. 

These final standards will improve 

public health and welfare, now and in 

the future, by reducing HAP emissions 

contributing to environmental and 

human health impacts. These 

reductions in HAP associated with the 

rule will benefit all populations. 

To examine the potential for any EJ 

issues that might be associated with this 

source category, we evaluated the 

distributions of HAP-related cancer and 

non-cancer risks across different social, 

demographic, and economic groups 

within the populations living near the 

facilities where this source category is 

located. The methods used to conduct 

demographic analyses for this final rule, 

and the results of these analyses, are 

described in the document, Analysis of 

Socio-Economic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Primary Aluminum 

Facilities, which can be found in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket item 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0797– 

0360). 

In the demographics analysis, we 

focused on populations within 50 

kilometers of the facilities in this source 

category with emissions sources subject 

to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL. More 

specifically, for these populations we 

evaluated exposures to HAP that could 

result in cancer risks of 1-in-one million 

or greater. We compared the percentages 

of particular demographic groups within 

the focused populations to the total 

percentages of those demographic 

groups nationwide. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 10, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, Title 40, chapter I, of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is 

amended as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended: 

■ a. By redesignating paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (2) as paragraphs (b)(2) and (3), 

respectively, and adding new paragraph 

(b)(1); 

■ b. By redesignating paragraphs (h)(77) 

through (95) as paragraphs (h)(80) 

through (98), respectively; 

■ c. By redesignating paragraphs (h)(53) 

through (76) as paragraphs (h)(55) 

through (78), respectively; 

■ d. By redesignating paragraphs (h)(33) 

through (52) as paragraphs (h)(34) 

through (53), respectively; 

■ e. By adding new paragraphs (h)(33), 

(54) and (79); and 

■ f. By redesignating paragraphs (k)(1) 

through (4) as paragraphs (k)(2) through 

(5), respectively, and adding new 

paragraph (k)(1). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual 

of Recommended Practice, 22nd 

Edition, 1995, Chapter 3, ‘‘Local 

Exhaust Hoods’’ and Chapter 5, 

‘‘Exhaust System Design Procedure.’’ 

IBR approved for §§ 63.843(b) and 

63.844(b). 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(33) ASTM D2986–95A, ‘‘Standard 

Practice for Evaluation of Air Assay 

Media by the Monodisperse DOP 

(Dioctyl Phthalate) Smoke Test,’’ 

approved September 10, 1995, IBR 

approved for section 7.1.1 of Method 

315 in appendix A to this part. 

* * * * * 

(54) ASTM D4239–14e1, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Sulfur in the Analysis 

Sample of Coal and Coke Using HighTemperature Tube Furnace 

Combustion,’’ approved March 1, 2014, 

IBR approved for § 63.849(f). 

* * * * * 

(79) ASTM D6376–10, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Trace 

Metals in Petroleum Coke by 

Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray 

Fluorescence Spectroscopy,’’ Approved 

July 1, 2010, IBR approved for 

§ 63.849(f). 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(1) Method 428, ‘‘Determination Of 

Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxin 

(PCDD), Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran 

(PCDF), and Polychlorinated Biphenyle 

Emissions from Stationary Sources,’’ 

amended September 12, 1990, IBR 

approved for § 63.849(a)(13) and (14). 

* * * * * 

Subpart LL—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Primary Aluminum Reduction 

Plants 

■ 3. Section 63.840 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 63.840 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, the requirements of 

this subpart apply to the owner or 

operator of each new or existing pitch 

storage tank, potline, paste production 

plant and anode bake furnace associated 

with primary aluminum production and 

located at a major source as defined in 

§ 63.2. 

* * * * * 

§ 63.841 [Removed and reserved] 

■ 4. Section 63.841 is removed and 

reserved. 

■ 5. Section 63.842 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, a 

definition of ‘‘High purity aluminum’’; 

■ b. Removing the definition for 

‘‘Horizontal stud Soderberg (HSS) 

process’’; 

■ c. Adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions of ‘‘Operating day’’ and 

‘‘Particulate matter (PM)’’; 

■ d. Revising the definition for ‘‘Paste 

production plant’’; 

■ e. Adding, in alphabetical order 

definitions of ‘‘Polychlorinated 

biphenyl (PCB)’’, ‘‘Startup of an anode 

bake furnace’’, and ‘‘Toxicity 

equivalence (TEQ)’’; and 

■ f. Removing the definition for 

‘‘Vertical stud Soderberg one 

(VSS1)’’.The revisions and additions 

read as follows: 

§ 63.842 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62415 

High purity aluminum means 

aluminum produced with an average 

purity level of at least 99.9 percent. 

* * * * * 

Operating day means a 24-hour 

period between 12 midnight and the 

following midnight during which an 

affected source operates at any time. It 

is not necessary for operations to occur 

for the entire 24-hour period. 

Particulate matter (PM) means, for the 

purposes of this subpart, emissions of 

particulate matter that serve as a 

measure of total particulate emissions 

and as a surrogate for metal hazardous 

air pollutants contained in the 

particulates, including but not limited 

to: Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 

manganese, nickel and selenium. 

Paste production plant means the 

processes whereby calcined petroleum 

coke, coal tar pitch (hard or liquid) and/ 

or other materials are mixed, transferred 

and formed into briquettes or paste for 

vertical stud Soderberg (VSS) processes 

or into green anodes for a prebake 

process. This definition includes all 

operations from initial mixing to final 

forming (i.e., briquettes, paste, green 

anodes) within the paste production 

plant, including conveyors and units 

managing heated liquid pitch. 

* * * * * 

Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) 

means any or all of the 209 possible 

chlorinated biphenyl isomers. 

* * * * * 

Startup of an anode bake furnace 

means the process of initiating heating 

to the anode bake furnace. The startup 

or re-start of the furnace begins when 

the heating begins. The startup or restart concludes at the start of the second 

anode bake cycle if the furnace was at 

ambient temperature upon startup or 

when the anode bake cycle resumes if 

the furnace was not at ambient 

temperature. 

* * * * * 

Toxicity equivalence (TEQ) means an 

international method of expressing 

toxicity equivalents for PCBs as defined 

in U.S. EPA, Recommended Toxicity 

Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human 

Health Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8- 

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 

Dioxin-Like Compounds, EPA/100/R– 

10/005 December 2010. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 63.843 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text, and paragraphs (a)(1)(iv), (a)(1)(vi), 

and (a)(2)(iii); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (a)(1)(vii); 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(a)(1)(v), (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii); 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) 

through (vii); 

■ e. Redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as 

(a)(7) and adding new paragraphs (a)(3) 

through (6); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text, and paragraph (b)(1); 

■ g. Adding paragraph (b)(4); 

■ h. Revising paragraph (c); and 

■ i. Adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.843 Emission limits for existing 

sources. 

(a) Potlines. The owner or operator 

shall not discharge or cause to be 

discharged into the atmosphere any 

emissions of TF, POM, PM, nickel, 

arsenic or PCB in excess of the 

applicable limits in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (6) of this section. 

(1) * * * 

(iv) 0.8 kg/Mg (1.6 lb/ton) of 

aluminum produced for each SWPB 

potline; and 

(v) [Reserved] 

(vi) 1.35 kg/Mg (2.7 lb/ton) of 

aluminum produced for each VSS2 

potline. 

(2) * * * 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(iii) 0.85 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of 

aluminum produced for each VSS2 

potline; 

(iv) 0.55 kg/Mg (1.1 lb/ton) of 

aluminum produced for each CWPB1 

prebake potline; 

(v) 6.0 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of aluminum 

produced for each CWPB2 prebake 

potline; 

(vi) 1.4 kg/Mg (2.7 lb/ton) of 

aluminum produced for each CWPB3 

prebake potline; and 

(vii) 8.5 kg/Mg (17 lb/ton) of 

aluminum produced for each SWPB 

prebake potline. 

(3) PM limits. Emissions of PM shall 

not exceed: 

(i) 3.7 kg/Mg (7.4 lb/ton) of aluminum 

produced for each CWPB1 potline; 

(ii) 5.5 kg/Mg (11 lb/ton) of aluminum 

produced for each CWPB2 potline; 

(iii) 10 kg/Mg (20 lb/ton) of aluminum 

produced for each CWPB3 potline; 

(iv) 2.45 kg/Mg (4.9 lb/ton) of 

aluminum produced for each SWPB 

potline; and 

(v) 13 kg/Mg (26 lb/ton) of aluminum 

produced for each VSS2 potline. 

(4) Nickel limit. Emissions of nickel 

shall not exceed 0.07 lb/ton of 

aluminum produced from each VSS2 

potline at a primary aluminum 

reduction plant. 

(5) Arsenic limit. Emissions of arsenic 

shall not exceed 0.006 lb/ton of 

aluminum produced from each VSS2 

potline at a primary aluminum 

reduction plant. 

(6) PCB limit. Emissions of PCB shall 

not exceed 2.0 mg toxicity equivalence 

(TEQ) per ton of aluminum produced 

from each VSS2 potline at a primary 

aluminum reduction plant. 

(7) * * * 

(b) Paste production plants. The 

owner or operator shall install, operate 

and maintain equipment to capture and 

control POM and PM emissions from 

each paste production plant. 

(1) The emission capture system shall 

be installed and operated to meet the 

generally accepted engineering 

standards for minimum exhaust rates as 

published by the American Conference 

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

in Chapters 3 and 5 of ‘‘Industrial 

Ventilation: A Handbook of 

Recommended Practice’’ (incorporated 

by reference; see § 63.14); and 

* * * * * 

(4) PM limit. Emissions of PM shall 

not exceed 0.041 kg/Mg (0.082 lb/ton) of 

paste. 

(c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner 

or operator shall not discharge or cause 

to be discharged into the atmosphere 

any emissions of TF, POM, PM or 

mercury in excess of the limits in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) TF limit. Emissions of TF shall not 

exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of green 

anode; 

(2) POM limit. Emissions of POM 

shall not exceed 0.09 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ 

ton) of green anode; 

(3) PM limit. Emissions of PM shall 

not exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of 

green anode; and 

(4) Mercury limit. Emissions of 

mercury shall not exceed 1.7 mg/dscm. 

(d) Pitch storage tanks. Each pitch 

storage tank shall be equipped with an 

emission control system designed and 

operated to reduce inlet emissions of 

POM by 95 percent or greater. 

(e) COS limit. Emissions of COS must 

not exceed 1.95 kg/Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of 

aluminum produced for each potline. 

(f) At all times, the owner or operator 

must operate and maintain any affected 

source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62416 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

operation and maintenance records and 

inspection of the source. 

■ 7. Section 63.844 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text, and paragraph (a)(2); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(3) through 

(6); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (c); and 

■ e. Adding paragraphs (e) and (f). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.844 Emission limits for new or 

reconstructed sources. 

(a) Potlines. The owner or operator 

shall not discharge or cause to be 

discharged into the atmosphere any 

emissions of TF, POM, PM, nickel, 

arsenic or PCB in excess of the 

applicable limits in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (6) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(2) POM limit. Emissions of POM from 

potlines must not exceed 0.39 kg/Mg 

(0.77 lb/ton) of aluminum produced. 

(3) PM limit. Emissions of PM from 

potlines must not exceed 2.45 kg/Mg 

(4.9 lb/ton) of aluminum produced. 

(4) Nickel limit. Emissions of nickel 

shall not exceed 0.035 kg/Mg (0.07 lb/ 

ton) of aluminum produced from each 

Soderberg potline at a primary 

aluminum reduction plant. 

(5) Arsenic limit. Emissions of arsenic 

shall not exceed 0.003 kg/Mg (0.006 lb/ 

ton) of aluminum produced from each 

Soderberg potline at a primary 

aluminum reduction plant. 

(6) PCB limit. Emissions of PCB shall 

not exceed 2.0 mg TEQ/ton of aluminum 

produced from each Soderberg potline 

at a primary aluminum reduction plant. 

(b) Paste production plants. (1) The 

owner or operator shall meet the 

requirements in § 63.843(b)(1) through 

(3) for existing paste production plants 

and shall not discharge or cause to be 

discharged into the atmosphere any 

emissions of PM in excess of the limit 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(2) Emissions of PM shall not exceed 

0.0028 kg/Mg (0.0056 lb/ton) of green 

anode. 

(c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner 

or operator shall not discharge or cause 

to be discharged into the atmosphere 

any emissions of TF, PM, POM or 

mercury in excess of the limits in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) TF limit. Emissions of TF shall not 

exceed 0.01 kg/Mg (0.02 lb/ton) of green 

anode; 

(2) POM limit. Emissions of POM 

shall not exceed 0.025 kg/Mg (0.05 lb/ 

ton) of green anode; 

(3) PM limit. Emissions of PM shall 

not exceed 0.035 kg/Mg (0.07 lb/ton) of 

green anode; and 

(4) Mercury limit. Emissions of 

mercury shall not exceed 1.7 mg/dscm. 

* * * * * 

(e) COS limit. Emissions of COS must 

not exceed 1.55 kg/Mg (3.1 lb/ton) of 

aluminum produced for each potline. 

(f) At all times, the owner or operator 

must operate and maintain any affected 

source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records and 

inspection of the source. 

■ 8. Section 63.846 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (c); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) 

through (iv) and (d)(4)(i) through (iii); 

and 

■ d. Removing paragraph (d)(4)(iv). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.846 Emission averaging. 

* * * * * 

(b) Potlines. The owner or operator 

may average emissions from potlines 

and demonstrate compliance with the 

limits in Tables 1 through 3 of this 

subpart using the procedures in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Semiannual average emissions of 

TF shall not exceed the applicable 

emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart. 

The emission rate shall be calculated 

based on the total primary and 

secondary emissions from all potlines 

comprising the averaging group over the 

period divided by the quantity of 

aluminum produced during the period, 

from all potlines comprising the 

averaging group. To determine 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart 

for TF emissions, the owner or operator 

shall determine the average emissions 

(in lb/ton) from each potline from at 

least three runs per potline 

semiannually for TF secondary 

emissions and at least three runs per 

potline primary control system each 

year using the procedures and methods 

in §§ 63.847 and 63.849. The owner or 

operator shall combine the results of 

secondary TF average emissions with 

the TF results for the primary control 

system and divide total emissions by 

total aluminum production. 

(2) Semiannual average emissions of 

POM shall not exceed the applicable 

emission limit in Table 2 of this subpart. 

The emission rate shall be calculated 

based on the total primary and 

secondary emissions from all potlines 

comprising the averaging group over the 

period divided by the quantity of 

aluminum produced during the period, 

from all potlines comprising the 

averaging group. To determine 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limit in Table 2 of this subpart 

for POM emissions, the owner or 

operator shall determine the average 

emissions (in lb/ton) from each potline 

from at least three runs per potline 

semiannually for POM secondary 

emissions and at least three runs per 

potline primary control system each 

year for POM primary emissions using 

the procedures and methods in 

§§ 63.847 and 63.849. The owner or 

operator shall combine the results of 

secondary POM average emissions with 

the POM results for the primary control 

system and divide total emissions by 

total aluminum production. 

(3) Semiannual average emissions of 

PM shall not exceed the applicable 

emission limit in Table 3 of this subpart. 

The emission rate shall be calculated 

based on the total primary and 

secondary emissions from all potlines 

comprising the potline group over the 

period divided by the quantity of 

aluminum produced during the period, 

from all potlines comprising the 

averaging group. To determine 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limit in Table 3 of this subpart 

for PM emissions, the owner or operator 

shall determine the average emissions 

(in lb/ton) from each potline from at 

least three runs per potline 

semiannually for PM secondary 

emissions and at least three runs per 

potline primary control system each 

year for PM primary emissions using the 

procedures and methods in §§ 63.847 

and 63.849. The owner or operator shall 

combine the results of secondary PM 

average emissions with the PM results 

for the primary control system and 

divide total emissions by total 

aluminum production. 

(c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner 

or operator may average TF emissions 

from anode bake furnaces and 

demonstrate compliance with the limits 

in Table 4 of this subpart using the 

procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) 

of this section. The owner or operator 

also may average POM emissions from 

anode bake furnaces and demonstrate 

compliance with the limits in Table 4 of 

this subpart using the procedures in 

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

The owner or operator also may average 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62417 

PM emissions from anode bake furnaces 

and demonstrate compliance with the 

limits in Table 4 of this subpart using 

the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and 

(2) of this section. 

(1) Annual emissions of TF, POM 

and/or PM from a given number of 

anode bake furnaces making up each 

averaging group shall not exceed the 

applicable emission limit in Table 4 of 

this subpart in any one year; and 

(2) To determine compliance with the 

applicable emission limit in Table 4 of 

this subpart for anode bake furnaces, the 

owner or operator shall determine TF, 

POM and/or PM emissions from the 

control device for each anode bake 

furnace at least once each year using the 

procedures and methods in §§ 63.847 

and 63.849. 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The assigned TF, POM and/or PM 

emission limit for each averaging group 

of potlines and/or anode bake furnaces; 

(iii) The specific control technologies 

or pollution prevention measures to be 

used for each emission source in the 

averaging group and the date of its 

installation or application. If the 

pollution prevention measures reduce 

or eliminate emissions from multiple 

sources, the owner or operator must 

identify each source; 

(iv) The test plan for the measurement 

of TF, POM and/or PM emissions in 

accordance with the requirements in 

§ 63.847(b); 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Any averaging between emissions 

of differing pollutants or between 

differing sources. Emission averaging 

shall not be allowed between TF, POM 

and/or PM, and emission averaging 

shall not be allowed between potlines 

and anode bake furnaces; 

(ii) The inclusion of any emission 

source other than an existing potline or 

existing anode bake furnace or the 

inclusion of any potline or anode bake 

furnace not subject to the same 

operating permit; or 

(iii) The inclusion of any potline or 

anode bake furnace while it is shut 

down, in the emission calculations. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.847 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text, and paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(a)(3); 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (a)(5) through 

(9); 

■ d. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(6); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text, paragraph (c)(1), and paragraph 

(c)(2) introductory text; 

■ f. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(iv); 

■ g. Revising paragraph (c)(3) 

introductory text; 

■ h. Adding paragraphs (c)(3)(iii) and 

(iv); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (d) introductory 

text and paragraph (d)(1); 

■ j. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(d)(2); 

■ k. Revising paragraph (d)(4); 

■ l. Adding paragraphs (d)(5) through 

(7); 

■ m. Revising paragraph (e) 

introductory text, and paragraph (e)(1); 

■ n. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(2); 

■ o. Revising paragraphs (e)(3) and 

(e)(4); 

■ p. Adding paragraph (e)(8); 

■ q. Revising paragraph (f); 

■ r. Revising paragraph (g) introductory 

text, and paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (iv); 

■ s. Adding and reserving paragraph (i); 

and 

■ t. Adding paragraphs (j), (k), (l) and 

(m). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.847 Compliance provisions. 

(a) Compliance dates. The owner 

operator of a primary aluminum 

reduction plant must comply with the 

requirements of this subpart by the 

applicable compliance date in 

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(4) of this 

section: 

(1) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(2) 

of this section, the compliance date for 

an owner or operator of an existing 

plant or source subject to the provisions 

of this subpart is October 7, 1999. 

(2) The compliance dates for existing 

plants and sources are: 

(i) October 15, 2015 for the 

malfunction provisions of § 63.850(d)(2) 

and (e)(4)(xvi) and (xvii) and the 

electronic reporting provisions of 

§ 63.850(b), (c) and (f) which became 

effective October 15, 2015. 

(ii) October 17, 2016 for potline work 

practice standards in § 63.854 and COS 

emission limit provisions of § 63.843(e); 

for anode bake furnace startup practices 

in § 63.847(l) and PM emission limits in 

§ 63.843(c)(3); for Soderberg potline PM 

and PCB emission limits in 

§ 63.843(a)(3)(v) and (a)(6); and for paste 

production plant startup practices in 

§ 63.847(m) and PM emission limits in 

§ 63.843(b)(4) which became effective 

October 15, 2015. 

(iii) October 16, 2017 for prebake 

potline POM emission limits in 

§ 63.843(a)(2)(iv) through (vii); for 

Soderberg potline POM, As and Ni 

emission limits in §§ 63.843(a)(2)(iii), 

(a)(4) and (5); for prebake potline PM 

emission limits in § 63.843(a)(3); for 

anode bake furnace Hg emission limits 

in § 63.843(c)(4); and for the pitch 

storage tank POM limit provisions of 

§ 63.843(d) which became effective 

October 15, 2015. 

(3) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(5) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(a)(6) and (7) of this section, a new 

affected source is one for which 

construction or reconstruction 

commenced after September 26, 1996. 

(6) For the purposes of compliance 

with the emission standards for PM, a 

new affected potline, anode bake 

furnace or paste production plant is one 

for which construction or reconstruction 

commenced after December 8, 2014. 

(7) For the purposes of compliance 

with the emission standards for POM 

and COS, a new affected prebake potline 

is one for which construction or 

reconstruction commenced after 

December 8, 2014. 

(8) For the purposes of compliance 

with the emission standards for As, Ni 

and POM, a new affected Soderberg 

potline is one for which construction or 

reconstruction commenced after 

December 8, 2014. 

(9) For the purposes of compliance 

with the emission standards for Hg, a 

new affected anode bake furnace is one 

for which construction or reconstruction 

commenced after December 8, 2014. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(c) Following approval of the sitespecific test plan, the owner or operator 

must conduct a performance test to 

demonstrate initial compliance 

according to the procedures in 

paragraph (d) of this section. If a 

performance test has been conducted on 

the primary control system for potlines, 

the anode bake furnace, the paste 

production plant, or (if applicable) the 

pitch storage tank control device within 

the 12 months prior to the compliance 

date, the results of that performance test 

may be used to demonstrate initial 

compliance. The owner or operator 

must conduct the performance test: 

(1) During the first month following 

the compliance date for an existing 

potline (or potroom group), anode bake 

furnace, paste production plant or pitch 

storage tank. 

(2) By the date determined according 

to the requirements in paragraph 

(c)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of this section 

for a new or reconstructed potline, 

anode bake furnace, or pitch storage 

tank (for which the owner or operator 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62418 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

elects to conduct an initial performance 

test): 

* * * * * 

(iv) By the 30th day following startup 

of a paste production plant. The 30-day 

period starts when the paste production 

plant produces green anodes. 

(3) By the date determined according 

to the requirements in paragraph 

(c)(3)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of this section 

for an existing potline, anode bake 

furnace, paste production plant, or pitch 

storage tank that was shut down at the 

time compliance would have otherwise 

been required and is subsequently 

restarted: 

* * * * * 

(iii) By the 30th day following startup 

of a paste production plant. The 30-day 

period starts when the paste production 

plant produces green anodes. 

(iv) By the 30th day following startup 

for a pitch storage tank. The 30-day 

period starts when the tank is first used 

to store pitch. 

(d) Performance test requirements. 

The initial performance test and all 

subsequent performance tests must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of the general 

provisions in subpart A of this part, the 

approved test plan and the procedures 

in this section. Performance tests must 

be conducted under such conditions as 

the Administrator specifies to the owner 

or operator based on representative 

performance of the affected source for 

the period being tested. Upon request, 

the owner or operator must make 

available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(1) TF, POM and PM emissions from 

potlines. For each potline, the owner or 

operator shall measure and record the 

emission rates of TF, POM and PM 

exiting the outlet of the primary control 

system and the rate of secondary 

emissions exiting through each roof 

monitor, or for a plant with roof 

scrubbers, exiting through the scrubbers. 

Using the equation in paragraph (e)(1) of 

this section, the owner or operator shall 

compute and record the average of at 

least three runs semiannually for 

secondary emissions and at least three 

runs each year for the primary control 

system to determine compliance with 

the applicable emission limit. 

Compliance is demonstrated when the 

emission rates of TF, POM, and PM are 

equal to or less than the applicable 

emission limits in § 63.843, § 63.844, or 

§ 63.846. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(4) TF, POM, PM and Hg emissions 

from anode bake furnaces. For each 

anode bake furnace, the owner or 

operator shall measure and record the 

emission rate of TF, POM, PM and Hg 

exiting the exhaust stacks(s) of the 

primary emission control system. In 

accordance with paragraphs (e)(3) and 

(4) of this section, the owner or operator 

shall compute and record the average of 

at least three runs each year to 

determine compliance with the 

applicable emission limits for TF, POM, 

PM and Hg. Compliance is 

demonstrated when the emission rates 

of TF, POM, PM and Hg are equal to or 

less than the applicable TF, POM, PM 

and Hg emission limits in § 63.843, 

§ 63.844 or § 63.846. 

(5) Nickel emissions from VSS2 

Potlines and new Soderberg potlines. (i) 

For each VSS2 potline, and for each 

new Soderberg potline, the owner or 

operator must measure and record the 

emission rate of nickel exiting the 

primary emission control system and 

the rate of secondary emissions of nickel 

exiting through each roof monitor, or for 

a plant with roof scrubbers, exiting 

through the scrubbers. Using the 

equation in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section, the owner or operator must 

compute and record the average of at 

least three runs each year for secondary 

emissions and at least three runs each 

year for primary emissions. 

(ii) Compliance is demonstrated when 

the emissions of nickel are equal to or 

less than the applicable emission limit 

in § 63.843(a)(4) or § 63.844(a)(4). 

(6) Arsenic emissions from VSS2 

Potlines and from new Soderberg 

potlines. (i) For each VSS2 potline, and 

for each new Soderberg potline, the 

owner or operator must measure and 

record the emission rate of arsenic 

exiting the primary emission control 

system and the rate of secondary 

emissions of arsenic exiting through 

each roof monitor, or for a plant with 

roof scrubbers, exiting through the 

scrubbers. Using the equation in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the 

owner or operator must compute and 

record the average of at least three runs 

each year for secondary emissions and 

at least three runs each year for primary 

emissions. 

(ii) Compliance is demonstrated when 

the emissions of arsenic are equal to or 

less than the applicable emission limit 

in § 63.843(a)(5) or § 63.844(a)(5). 

(7) PCB emissions from VSS2 Potlines 

and from new Soderberg potlines. (i) For 

each VSS2 potline, and for each new 

Soderberg potline, the owner or operator 

must measure and record the emission 

rate of PCB exiting the primary emission 

control system and the rate of secondary 

emissions of PCB exiting through each 

roof monitor, or for a plant with roof 

scrubbers, exiting through the scrubbers. 

Using the equation in paragraph (e)(1) of 

this section, the owner or operator must 

compute and record the average of at 

least three runs each year for secondary 

emissions and at least three runs each 

year for primary emissions. 

(ii) Compliance is demonstrated when 

the emissions of PCB are equal to or less 

than the applicable emission limit in 

§ 63.843(a)(6) or § 63.844(a)(6). 

(e) The owner or operator shall 

determine compliance with the 

applicable TF, POM, PM, nickel, arsenic 

or PCB emission limits using the 

following equations and procedures: 

(1) Compute the emission rate (Ep) of 

TF, POM, PM, nickel, arsenic or PCB 

from each potline using Equation 1: 

Where: 

Ep = emission rate of TF, POM, PM, nickel 

or arsenic from a potline, kg/Mg (lb/ton) 

(or mg TEQ/ton for PCB); 

Cs1 = concentration of TF, POM, PM, nickel 

or arsenic from the primary control 

system, mg/dscm (mg/dscf) (or mg TEQ/ 

dscf for PCB); 

Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas 

corresponding to the appropriate 

subscript location, dscm/hr (dscf/hr); 

Cs2 = concentration of TF, POM, PM, nickel 

or arsenic as measured for roof monitor 

emissions, mg/dscm (mg/dscf) (or mg 

TEQ/dscf for PCB); 

P = aluminum production rate, Mg/hr 

(ton/hr); 

K = conversion factor, 106 mg/kg (453,600 

mg/lb) for TF, POM, PM, nickel or 

arsenic (= 1 for PCB); 

1 = subscript for primary control system 

effluent gas; and 

2 = subscript for secondary control system or 

roof monitor effluent gas. 

(2) [Reserved] 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15OC15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62419 

(3) Compute the emission rate (Eb) of 

TF, POM or PM from each anode bake 

furnace using Equation 2, 

Where: 

Eb = emission rate of TF, POM or PM, 

kg/mg (lb/ton) of green anodes; 

Cs = concentration of TF, POM or PM, 

mg/dscm (mg/dscf); 

Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, 

dscm/hr (dscf/hr); 

Pb = quantity of green anode material placed 

in the furnace, mg/hr (ton/hr); and 

K = conversion factor, 106 mg/kg (453,600 

mg/lb). 

(4) Compliance with the anode bake 

furnace Hg emission standard is 

demonstrated if the Hg concentration of 

the exhaust from the anode bake furnace 

control device is equal to or less than 

the applicable concentration standard in 

§ 63.843(c)(4) or § 63.844(c)(4). 

* * * * * 

(8) Compute the emission rate (EPMpp) 

of PM from each paste production plant 

using Equation 3, 

Where: 

EPMpp = emission rate of PM, kg/mg (lb/ton) 

of green anode material exiting the paste 

production plant; 

Cs = concentration of PM, mg/dscm 

(mg/dscf); 

Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, 

dscm/hr (dscf/hr); 

Pb = quantity of green anode material exiting 

the paste production plant, mg/hr (ton/ 

hr); and 

K = conversion factor, 106 mg/kg (453,600 

mg/lb). 

(f) Paste production plants. (1) Initial 

compliance with the POM standards for 

existing and new paste production 

plants in §§ 63.843(b) and 63.844(b) will 

be demonstrated through site 

inspection(s) and review of site records 

by the applicable regulatory authority. 

(2) For each paste production plant, 

the owner or operator shall measure and 

record the emission rate of PM exiting 

the exhaust stacks(s) of the primary 

emission control system. Using the 

equation in paragraph (e)(8) of this 

section, the owner or operator shall 

compute and record the average of at 

least three runs each year to determine 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits for PM. Compliance 

with the PM standards for existing and 

new paste production plants is 

demonstrated when the PM emission 

rates are less than or equal to the 

applicable PM emission limits in 

§§ 63.843(b)(4) and 63.844(b)(2). 

(g) Pitch storage tanks. The owner or 

operator must demonstrate initial 

compliance with the standard for pitch 

storage tanks in §§ 63.843(d) and 

63.844(d) by preparing a design 

evaluation or by conducting a 

performance test. The owner or operator 

must submit for approval by the 

regulatory authority the information 

specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section, along with the information 

specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this 

section where a design evaluation is 

performed or the information specified 

in paragraph (g)(3) of this section where 

a performance test is conducted. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) If an enclosed combustion device 

with a minimum residence time of 0.5 

seconds and a minimum temperature of 

760 degrees C (1,400 degrees F) is used 

to meet the emission reduction 

requirement specified in § 63.843(d) and 

§ 63.844(d), documentation that those 

conditions exist is sufficient to meet the 

requirements of § 63.843(d) and 

§ 63.844(d); 

* * * * * 

(iv) If the pitch storage tank is vented 

to the emission control system installed 

for control of emissions from the paste 

production plant pursuant to § 63.843(b) 

or § 63.844(b)(1), documentation of 

compliance with the requirements of 

§ 63.843(b) is sufficient to meet the 

requirements of § 63.843(d) or 

§ 63.844(d); 

* * * * * 

(i) [Reserved] 

(j) Carbonyl sulfide (COS) emissions. 

The owner operator must calculate, for 

each potline, the emission rate of COS 

for each calendar month of operation 

using Equation 4: 

Where: 

ECOS = the emission rate of COS during the 

calendar month, pounds per ton of 

aluminum produced; 

K = factor accounting for molecular weights 

and conversion of sulfur to carbonyl 

sulfide = 234; 

Y = the mass of anode consumed in the 

potline during the calendar month, tons; 

Z = the mass of aluminum produced by the 

potline during the calendar month, tons; 

and 

S = the weighted average fraction of sulfur in 

the anode coke consumed in the 

production of aluminum during the 

calendar month (e.g., if the weighted 

average sulfur content of the anode coke 

consumed during the calendar month 

was 2.5 percent, then S = 0.025). The 

weight of anode coke used during the 

calendar month of each different 

concentration of sulfur is used to 

calculate the overall weighted average 

fraction of sulfur. 

Compliance is demonstrated if the 

calculated value of ECOS is less than the 

applicable standard for COS emissions 

in §§ 63.843(e) and 63.844(e). 

(k) Startup of potlines. The owner or 

operator must develop a written startup 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15OC15.001</GPH> ER15OC15.002</GPH> ER15OC15.003</GPH>
62420 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

plan as described in § 63.854(b) that 

contains specific procedures to be 

followed during startup periods of 

potline(s). Compliance with the 

applicable standards in § 63.854(b) will 

be demonstrated through site 

inspection(s) and review of site records 

by the regulatory authority. 

(l) Startup of anode bake furnaces. 

The owner or operator must develop a 

written startup plan as described in 

paragraphs (l)(1) through (4) of this 

section, to be followed during startup 

periods of bake furnaces. Compliance 

with the startup plan will be 

demonstrated through site inspection(s) 

and review of site records by the 

regulatory authority. The written startup 

plan must contain specific procedures 

to be followed during startup periods of 

anode bake furnaces, including the 

following: 

(1) A requirement to develop an 

anode bake furnace startup schedule. 

(2) Records of time, date, duration of 

anode bake furnace startup and any 

nonroutine actions taken during startup 

of the furnaces. 

(3) A requirement that the associated 

emission control system be operating 

within normal parametric limits prior to 

startup of the anode bake furnace. 

(4) A requirement to take immediate 

actions to stop the startup process as 

soon as practicable and continue to 

comply with § 63.843(f) or § 63.844(f) if 

the associated emission control system 

is off line at any time during startup. 

The anode bake furnace restart may 

resume once the associated emission 

control system is back on line and 

operating within normal parametric 

limits. 

(m) Startup of paste production 

plants. The owner or operator must 

develop a written startup plan as 

described in paragraphs (m)(1) through 

(3) of this section, to be followed during 

startup periods for paste production 

plants. Compliance with the startup 

plan will be demonstrated through site 

inspection(s) and review of site records 

by the regulatory authority. The written 

startup plan must contain specific 

procedures to be followed during 

startup periods of paste production 

plants, including the following: 

(1) Records of time, date, duration of 

paste production plant startup and any 

nonroutine actions taken during startup 

of the paste production plants. 

(2) A requirement that the associated 

emission control system be operating 

within normal parametric limits prior to 

startup of the paste production plant. 

(3) A requirement to take immediate 

actions to stop the startup process as 

soon as practicable and continue to 

comply with § 63.843(f) or § 63.844(f) if 

the associated emission control system 

is off line at any time during startup. 

The paste production plant restart may 

resume once the associated emission 

control system is back on line and 

operating within normal parametric 

limits. 

■ 10. Section 63.848 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) 

introductory text, (d)(1)(ii), and (d)(7); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e); 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (f)(6) and (7); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (g); and 

■ e. Adding paragraphs (n), (o) and (p). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.848 Emission monitoring 

requirements. 

(a) TF and PM emissions from 

potlines. Using the procedures in 

§ 63.847 and in the approved test plan, 

the owner or operator shall monitor 

emissions of TF and PM from each 

potline by conducting annual 

performance tests on the primary 

control system and semiannual 

performance tests on the secondary 

emissions. The owner or operator shall 

compute and record the average 

semiannually from at least three runs for 

secondary emissions and the average 

from at least three runs for the primary 

control system to determine compliance 

with the applicable emission limit. The 

owner or operator must include all valid 

runs in the semiannual average. The 

duration of each run for secondary 

emissions must represent a complete 

operating cycle. Potline emissions shall 

be recorded as the sum of the average 

of at least three runs from the primary 

control system and the average of at 

least three runs from the roof monitor or 

secondary emissions control device. 

(b) POM emissions from potlines. 

Using the procedures in § 63.847 and in 

the approved test plan, the owner or 

operator must monitor emissions of 

POM from each potline stack annually 

and secondary potline POM emissions 

semiannually. The owner or operator 

must compute and record the 

semiannual average from at least three 

runs for secondary emissions and at 

least three runs for the primary control 

systems to determine compliance with 

the applicable emission limit. The 

owner or operator must include all valid 

runs in the semiannual average. The 

duration of each run for secondary 

emissions must represent a complete 

operating cycle. The primary control 

system must be sampled over an 8-hour 

period, unless site-specific factors 

dictate an alternative sampling time 

subject to the approval of the regulatory 

authority. Potline emissions shall be 

recorded as the sum of the average of at 

least three runs from the primary 

control system and the average of at 

least three runs from the roof monitor or 

secondary emissions control device. 

(c) TF, PM, Hg and POM emissions 

from anode bake furnaces. Using the 

procedures in § 63.847 and in the 

approved test plan, the owner or 

operator shall determine TF, PM, Hg 

and POM emissions from each anode 

bake furnace on an annual basis. The 

owner or operator shall compute and 

record the annual average of TF, PM, Hg 

and POM emissions from at least three 

runs to determine compliance with the 

applicable emission limits. A minimum 

of four dscm per run must be collected 

for monitoring of Hg emissions. The 

owner or operator must include all valid 

runs in the annual average. 

(d) Similar potlines. As an alternative 

to semiannual monitoring of TF, POM 

or PM secondary emissions from each 

potline using the methods in § 63.849, 

the owner or operator may perform 

semiannual monitoring of TF, POM or 

PM secondary emissions from one 

potline using the test methods in 

§ 63.849(a) or (b) to represent the 

performance of similar potline(s). The 

similar potline(s) must be monitored 

using an alternative method that meets 

the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (7) of this section. Two or more 

potlines are similar if the owner or 

operator demonstrates that their 

structure, operability, type of emissions, 

volume of emissions and concentration 

of emissions are substantially 

equivalent. 

(1) * * * 

(ii) For TF, POM and PM emissions, 

must meet or exceed Method 14 criteria. 

* * * * * 

(7) If the alternative method is 

approved by the applicable regulatory 

authority, the owner or operator must 

perform semiannual emission 

monitoring using the approved 

alternative monitoring procedure to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

alternative emission limit for each 

similar potline. 

(e) [Reserved] 

(f) * * * 

(6) For emission sources control 

device exhaust streams for which the 

owner or operator chooses to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

through bag leak detection systems you 

must install and operate a bag leak 

detection system according to the 

requirements in paragraph (o) of this 

section, and you must set your operating 

limit such that the sum of the durations 

of bag leak detection system alarms does 

not exceed 5 percent of the process 

operating time during a 6-month period. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62421 

(7) For emission sources control 

device exhaust streams for which the 

owner or operator chooses to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

through a PM CEMS, you must install 

and operate a PM CEMS according to 

the requirements in paragraph (p) of this 

section. You must determine continuous 

compliance averaged on a rolling 30 

operating day basis, updated at the end 

of each new operating day. All valid 

hours of data from 30 successive 

operating days shall be included in the 

arithmetic average. Compliance is 

demonstrated when the 30 operating 

day PM emissions are equal to or less 

than the applicable emission limits in 

§ 63.843, § 63.844, or § 63.846. 

(g) The owner or operator of a new or 

reconstructed affected source that is 

subject to a PM limit shall comply with 

the requirements of either paragraph 

(f)(6) or (7) of this section. The owner 

or operator of an existing affected source 

that is equipped with a control device 

and is subject to a PM limit shall: 

(1) Install and operate a bag leak 

detection system in accordance with 

paragraph (f)(6) of this section; or 

(2) Install and operate a PM CEMS in 

accordance with paragraph (f)(7) of this 

section; or 

(3) Visually inspect the exhaust 

stack(s) of each fabric filter using 

Method 22 on a twice daily basis (at 

least 4 hours apart) for evidence of any 

visible emissions indicating abnormal 

operations and, must initiate corrective 

actions within 1 hour of a visible 

emissions inspection that indicates 

abnormal operation. Corrective actions 

shall include, at a minimum, isolating, 

shutting down and conducting an 

internal inspection of the baghouse 

compartment that is the source of the 

visible emissions that indicate abnormal 

operations. 

* * * * * 

(n) PM emissions from paste 

production plants. Using the procedures 

in § 63.847 and in the approved test 

plan, the owner or operator shall 

monitor PM emissions from each paste 

production plant on an annual basis. 

The owner or operator shall compute 

and record the annual average of PM 

emissions from at least three runs to 

determine compliance with the 

applicable emission limits. The owner 

or operator must include all valid runs 

in the annual average. 

(o) Bag leak detection system. For 

each new affected source subject to a 

PM emissions limit, you must install, 

operate and maintain a bag leak 

detection system according to 

paragraphs (o)(1) through (3) of this 

section, unless a system meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (p) of this 

section, for a CEMS, is installed for 

monitoring the concentration of PM. 

(1) You must develop and implement 

written procedures for control device 

maintenance that include, at a 

minimum, a preventative maintenance 

schedule that is consistent with the 

control device manufacturer’s 

instructions for routine and long-term 

maintenance. 

(2) Each bag leak detection system 

must meet the specifications and 

requirements in paragraphs (o)(2)(i) 

through (viii) of this section. 

(i) The bag leak detection system must 

be certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 1.0 milligram per dry 

standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains 

per actual cubic foot) or less. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide output of relative 

PM loadings. 

(iii) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will alarm when an increase in 

relative particulate loadings is detected 

over a preset level. 

(iv) You must install, calibrate, 

operate and maintain the bag leak 

detection system according to the 

manufacturer’s written specifications 

and recommendations. 

(v) The initial adjustment of the 

system must, at a minimum, consist of 

establishing the baseline output by 

adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the 

averaging period of the device and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time. 

(vi) Following initial adjustment, you 

must not adjust the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time, except in accordance 

with the procedures developed under 

paragraph (o)(1) of this section. You 

cannot increase the sensitivity by more 

than 100 percent or decrease the 

sensitivity by more than 50 percent over 

a 365-day period unless such 

adjustment follows a complete PM 

control device inspection that 

demonstrates that the PM control device 

is in good operating condition. 

(vii) You must install the bag leak 

detector downstream of the PM control 

device. 

(viii) Where multiple detectors are 

required, the system’s instrumentation 

and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(3) You must include in the written 

procedures required by paragraph (o)(1) 

of this section a corrective action plan 

that specifies the procedures to be 

followed in the case of a bag leak 

detection system alarm. The corrective 

action plan must include, at a 

minimum, the procedures that you will 

use to determine and record the time 

and cause of the alarm as well as the 

corrective actions taken to minimize 

emissions as specified in paragraphs 

(o)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(i) The procedures used to determine 

the cause of the alarm must be initiated 

within 1 hour of the alarm. 

(ii) The cause of the alarm must be 

alleviated by taking the necessary 

corrective action(s) that may include, 

but not be limited to, those listed in 

paragraphs (o)(3)(ii)(A) through (F) of 

this section. 

(A) Inspecting the PM control device 

for air leaks, torn or broken filter 

elements, or any other malfunction that 

may cause an increase in emissions. 

(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(C) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media, or otherwise repairing the 

control device. 

(D) Sealing off a defective baghouse 

compartment. 

(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe, or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system. 

(F) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate emissions. 

(p) Particulate Matter CEMS. If you 

are using a CEMS to measure particulate 

matter emissions to meet requirements 

of this subpart, you must install, certify, 

operate and maintain the particulate 

matter CEMS as specified in paragraphs 

(p)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) You must conduct a performance 

evaluation of the PM CEMS according to 

the applicable requirements of § 60.13, 

and Performance Specification 11 at 40 

CFR part 60, Appendix B of this 

chapter. 

(2) During each PM correlation testing 

run of the CEMS required by 

Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix B of this chapter, 

collect data concurrently by both the 

CEMS and by conducting performance 

tests using Method 5, 5D or 5I at 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix A–3. 

(3) Operate and maintain the CEMS in 

accordance with Procedure 2 at 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix F of this chapter. 

Relative Response Audits must be 

performed annually and Response 

Correlation Audits must be performed 

every three years. 

■ 11. Section 63.849 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text, and paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7); 

and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(8) through 

(14), and (f). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62422 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 63.849 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) The owner or operator shall use 

the following reference methods to 

determine compliance with the 

applicable emission limits for TF, POM, 

PM, Ni, As, Hg, PCB and conduct visible 

emissions observations: 

* * * * * 

(6) Method 315 in appendix A to this 

part or an approved alternative method 

for the concentration of POM where 

stack or duct emissions are sampled; 

(7) Method 315 in appendix A to this 

part and Method 14 or 14A in appendix 

A to part 60 of this chapter or an 

approved alternative method for the 

concentration of POM where emissions 

are sampled from roof monitors not 

employing wet roof scrubbers. Method 

315 need not be set up as required in the 

method. Instead, when using Method 

14A, replace the Method 14A monitor 

cassette filter with the filter specified by 

Method 315. Recover and analyze the 

filter according to Method 315. When 

using Method 14, test at ambient 

conditions, do not heat the filter and 

probe, and do not analyze the back half 

of the sampling train; 

(8) Method 5 in appendix A to part 60 

of this chapter or an approved 

alternative method for the concentration 

of PM where stack or duct emissions are 

sampled; 

(9) Method 17 and Method 14 or 

Method 14A in appendix A to part 60 

of this chapter or an approved 

alternative method for the concentration 

of PM where emissions are sampled 

from roof monitors not employing wet 

roof scrubbers. Method 17 need not be 

set up as required in the method. 

Instead, when using Method 14A, 

replace the Method 14A monitor 

cassette filter with the filter specified by 

Method 17. Recover and analyze the 

filter according to Method 17. When 

using Method 14, test at ambient 

conditions, do not heat the filter and 

probe, and do not analyze the back half 

of the sampling train; 

(10) Method 29 in appendix A to part 

60 of this chapter or an approved 

alternative method for the concentration 

of mercury, nickel and arsenic where 

stack or duct emissions are sampled; 

(11) Method 29 and Method 14 or 

Method 14A in appendix A to part 60 

of this chapter or an approved 

alternative method for the concentration 

of nickel and arsenic where emissions 

are sampled from roof monitors not 

employing wet roof scrubbers. Method 

29 need not be set up as required in the 

method. Instead, replace the Method 

14A monitor cassette filter with the 

filter specified by Method 29. Recover 

and analyze the filter according to 

Method 29. When using Method 14, test 

at ambient conditions, do not heat the 

filter and probe, and do not analyze the 

back half of the sampling train; 

(12) Method 22 in Appendix A to part 

60 of this chapter or an approved 

alternative method for determination of 

visual emissions; 

(13) Method 428 of the California Air 

Resources Board (incorporated by 

reference; see § 63.14) for the 

measurement of PCB where stack or 

duct emissions are sampled; and 

(14) Method 428 of the California Air 

Resources Board (incorporated by 

reference; see § 63.14) and Method 14 or 

Method 14A in appendix A to part 60 

of this chapter or an approved 

alternative method for the concentration 

of PCB where emissions are sampled 

from roof monitors not employing wet 

roof scrubbers. 

* * * * * 

(f) The owner or operator must use 

either ASTM D4239–14e1 or ASTM 

D6376–10 (incorporated by reference; 

see § 63.14) for determination of the 

sulfur content in anode coke shipments 

to determine compliance with the 

applicable emission limit for COS 

emissions. 

■ 12. Section 63.850 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(4)(iii); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (e)(4)(xiv) and 

(e)(4)(xv); and 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (e)(4)(xvi), 

(e)(4)(xvii) and (f). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.850 Notification, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Performance test reports. Within 

60 days after the date of completing 

each performance test (as defined in 

§ 63.2) required by this subpart, you 

must submit the results of the 

performance tests following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

(b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section. 

(1) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html) at the time of the test, you 

must submit the results of the 

performance test to the EPA via the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (https://

cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in a file format generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you 

may submit performance test data in an 

electronic file format consistent with the 

extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site once the XML schema is available. 

If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI), you must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, including information claimed to 

be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, 

or other commonly used electronic 

storage media to the EPA. The electronic 

media must be clearly marked as CBI 

and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE 

CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same ERT or alternate file 

with the CBI omitted must be submitted 

to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site at the time of the test, you must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. 

(3) For data collected which requires 

summation of results from both ERT and 

non-ERT supported test methods in 

order to demonstrate compliance with 

an emission limit, you must submit the 

results of the performance test(s) used to 

demonstrate compliance with that 

emission limit to the Administrator at 

the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. 

(c) Performance evaluation reports. 

Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each continuous emissions 

monitoring system performance 

evaluation (as defined in § 63.2), you 

must submit the results of the 

performance evaluation following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

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

(1) For performance evaluations of 

continuous monitoring systems 

measuring relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) pollutants that are supported by 

the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s 

ERT Web site at the time of the test, you 

must submit the results of the 

performance evaluation to the EPA via 

the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed 

through the EPA’s CDX.) Performance 

evaluation data must be submitted in a 

file format generated through the use of 

the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may 

submit performance evaluation data in 

an electronic file format consistent with 

the XML schema listed on the EPA’s 

ERT Web site once the XML schema is 

available. If you claim that some of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62423 

performance evaluation information 

being transmitted is CBI, you must 

submit a complete file generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an 

alternate electronic file consistent with 

the XML schema listed on the EPA’s 

ERT Web site, including information 

claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 

flash drive, or other commonly used 

electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic storage media must be clearly 

marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ 

OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: 

Group Leader, Measurement Policy 

Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 

Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 

alternate file with the CBI omitted must 

be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s 

CDX as described earlier in this 

paragraph. 

(2) For any performance evaluations 

of continuous monitoring systems 

measuring RATA pollutants that are not 

supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on 

the EPA’s ERT Web site at the time of 

the test, you must submit the results of 

the performance evaluation to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. 

(d) Reporting. In addition to the 

information required under § 63.10 of 

the General Provisions, the owner or 

operator must provide semiannual 

reports containing the information 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of 

this section to the Administrator or 

designated authority. 

(1) Excess emissions report. As 

required by § 63.10(e)(3), the owner or 

operator must submit a report (or a 

summary report) if measured emissions 

are in excess of the applicable standard. 

The report must contain the information 

specified in § 63.10(e)(3)(v) and be 

submitted semiannually unless 

quarterly reports are required as a result 

of excess emissions. 

(2) If there was a malfunction during 

the reporting period, the owner or 

operator must submit a report that 

includes the number, duration and a 

brief description for each type of 

malfunction which occurred during the 

reporting period and which caused or 

may have caused any applicable 

emission limitation to be exceeded. The 

report must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with §§ 63.843(f) and 

63.844(f), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

(e) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iii) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(xiv) Records documenting any POM 

data that are invalidated due to the 

installation and startup of a cathode; 

(xv) Records documenting the portion 

of TF that is measured as particulate 

matter and the portion that is measured 

as gaseous when the particulate and 

gaseous fractions are quantified 

separately using an approved test 

method; 

(xvi) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e. process equipment) or the 

air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment; and 

(xvii) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§§ 63.843(f) and 63.844(f), including 

corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(f) All reports required by this subpart 

not subject to the requirements in 

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section must 

be sent to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If 

acceptable to both the Administrator 

and the owner or operator of a source, 

these reports may be submitted on 

electronic media. The Administrator 

retains the right to require submittal of 

reports subject to paragraph (b) of this 

section in paper format. 

■ 13. Section 63.854 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.854 Work practice standards for 

potlines. 

(a) Periods of operation other than 

startup. If you own or operate a new or 

existing primary aluminum reduction 

affected source, you must comply with 

the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (8) of this section during 

periods of operation other than startup. 

(1) Ensure the potline scrubbers and 

exhaust fans are operational at all times. 

(2) Ensure that the primary capture 

and control system is operating at all 

times. 

(3) Hood covers should be replaced as 

soon as possible after each potroom 

operation. 

(4) Inspect potlines daily and perform 

the work practices specified in 

paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) Identify unstable pots as soon as 

practicable but in no case more than 12 

hours from the time the pot became 

unstable; 

(ii) Reduce cell temperatures to as low 

as practicable, and follow the written 

operating plan described in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section if the cell 

temperature exceeds the specified high 

temperature limit; and 

(iii) Reseal pot crusts that have been 

broken as often and as soon as 

practicable. 

(5) Ensure that hood covers fit 

properly and are in good condition. 

(6) If the exhaust system is equipped 

with an adjustable damper system, the 

hood exhaust rate for individual pots 

must be increased whenever hood 

covers are removed from a pot, provided 

that the exhaust system will not be 

overloaded by placing too many pots on 

high exhaust. 

(7) Dust entrainment must be 

minimized during material handling 

operations and sweeping of the working 

aisles. 

(8) Only tapping crucibles with 

functional aspirator air return systems 

(for returning gases under the collection 

hooding) can be used, unless the 

regulatory authority approves an 

alternative tapping crucible. 

(b) Periods of startup. If you own or 

operate a new or existing primary 

aluminum reduction affected source, 

you must comply with the requirements 

of paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) and 

(b)(1) through (4) of this section during 

periods of startup for each affected 

potline. 

(1) Develop a potline startup schedule 

before starting up the potline. 

(2) Keep records of the number of pots 

started each day. 

(3) Inspect potlines daily and adjust 

pot parameters to their optimum levels, 

as specified in the operating plan 

described in paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section, including, but not limited to: 

alumina addition rate, exhaust air flow 

rate, cell voltage, feeding level, anode 

current and liquid and solid bath levels. 

(4) Prepare a written operating plan to 

minimize emissions during startup to 

include, but not limited to, the 

requirements in (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. The operating plan must 

include a specified high temperature 

limit for pots that will trigger corrective 

action. 

■ 14. Section 63.855 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.855 Alternative emissions limits for 

co-controlled new and existing anode bake 

furnaces. 

(a) Applicability. The owner or 

operator of a new anode bake furnace 

meeting the criteria of paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (2) of this section may demonstrate 

compliance with alternative TF and 

POM emission limits according to the 

procedures of this section. 

(1) The new anode bake furnace must 

have been permitted to operate prior to 

May 1, 1998; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62424 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) The new anode bake furnace must 

share a common control device with one 

or more existing anode bake furnaces. 

(b) TF emission limit. (1) Prior to the 

date on which each TF emission test is 

required to be conducted, the owner or 

operator must determine the applicable 

TF emission limit using Equation 6–A, 

Where: 

LTFC = Combined emission limit for TF, lb/ 

ton green anode material placed in the 

bake furnace; 

LTFE = TF limit for emission averaging for the 

total number of new and existing anode 

bake furnaces from Table 4 to this 

subpart; 

PE = Mass of green anode placed in existing 

anode bake furnaces in the twelve 

months preceding the compliance test, 

ton/year; and 

PN = Mass of green anode placed in new 

anode bake furnaces in the twelve 

months preceding the compliance test, 

ton/year. 

(2) The owner or operator of a new 

anode bake furnace that is controlled by 

a control device that also controls 

emissions of TF from one or more 

existing anode bake furnaces must not 

discharge, or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere, any emissions of TF in 

excess of the emission limits established 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(c) POM emission limits. (1) Prior to 

the date on which each POM emission 

test is required to be conducted, the 

owner or operator must determine the 

applicable POM emission limit using 

Equation 6–B, 

Where: 

LPOMC = Combined emission limit for 

POM, lb/ton green anode material placed in 

the bake furnace. 

(2) The owner or operator of a new 

anode bake furnace that is controlled by 

a control device that also controls 

emissions of POM from one or more 

existing anode bake furnaces must not 

discharge, or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere, any emissions of TF in 

excess of the emission limits established 

in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

■ 15. Table 1 to Subpart LL of Part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LL OF PART 63—POTLINE TF LIMITS FOR EMISSION AVERAGING

Type 

Semiannual TF limit (lb/ton) [for given number of potlines] 

2 lines 3 lines 4 lines 5 lines 6 lines 7 lines 8 lines 

CWPB1 ........................ 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 

CWPB2 ........................ 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 

CWPB3 ........................ 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 

SWPB ........................... 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 

VSS2 ............................ 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 

■ 16. Table 2 to Subpart LL of Part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART LL OF PART 63—POTLINE POM LIMITS FOR EMISSION AVERAGING

Type 

Semiannual POM limit (lb/ton) [for given number of potlines] 

2 lines 3 lines 4 lines 5 lines 6 lines 7 lines 8 lines 

CWPB1 ........................ 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 

CWPB2 ........................ 11.6 11.2 10.8 10.8 10.4 10.4 10.4 

CWPB3 ........................ 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 

SWPB ........................... 14.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 

VSS2 ............................ 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 

■ 17. Table 3 to Subpart LL of Part 63 

is redesignated as Table 4 to Subpart LL 

of Part 63 and revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART LL OF PART 63—ANODE BAKE FURNACE LIMITS FOR EMISSION AVERAGING

Number of furnaces 

Emission limit (lb/ton of anode) 

TF POM PM 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.11 0.17 0.11 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER15OC15.004</GPH> ER15OC15.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62425 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART LL OF PART 63—ANODE BAKE FURNACE LIMITS FOR EMISSION AVERAGING—Continued 

Number of furnaces 

Emission limit (lb/ton of anode) 

TF POM PM 

3 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.09 0.17 0.091 

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.077 0.17 0.076 

5 ................................................................................................................................................... 0.07 0.17 0.071 

■ 18. New Table 3 to Subpart LL of Part 

63 is added to read as follows: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART LL OF PART 63—POTLINE PM LIMITS FOR EMISSION AVERAGING

Type 

Semiannual PM limit (lb/ton) [for given number of potlines] 

2 lines 3 lines 4 lines 5 lines 6 lines 7 lines 8 lines 

CWPB1 ........................ 6.1 6.1 5.3 5.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 

CWPB2 ........................ 10.6 10.3 9.9 9.9 9.5 9.5 9.5 

CWPB3 ........................ 18.4 17.6 17.6 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 

SWPB ........................... 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 

VSS2 ............................ 25 24.1 24.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.1 

■ 19. Appendix A to Subpart LL of Part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART LL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) 

Reference section(s) Requirement Applies to subpart LL Comment 

63.1(a)(1) through (4) ............... General Applicability .................................. Yes.

63.1(a)(5) .................................. .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.1(a)(6) .................................. .................................................................... Yes.

63.1(a)(7) through (9) ............... .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.1(a)(10) through (12) ........... .................................................................... Yes.

63.1(b)(1) through (3) ............... Initial Applicability Determination ............... Yes .......................... (b)(2) Reserved. 

63.1(c)(1) ................................... Applicability after standard Established .... Yes.

63.1(c)(2) ................................... .................................................................... Yes .......................... Area sources are not subject to this subpart. 

63.1(c)(3) and (4) ...................... .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.1(c)(5) ................................... .................................................................... Yes.

63.1(d) ....................................... .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.1(e) ....................................... Applicability of Permit Program ................. Yes.

63.2 ........................................... Definitions .................................................. Yes .......................... Reconstruction defined in § 63.842. 

63.3 ........................................... Units and Abbreviations ............................ Yes.

63.4(a)(1) and (2) ...................... Prohibited activities .................................... Yes.

63.4(a)(3) through (5) ............... .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.4(b) and (c) .......................... Circumvention/Severability ........................ Yes.

63.5(a) ....................................... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability Yes.

63.5(b)(1) .................................. Existing, New, Reconstructed Sources 

Requirements.

Yes.

63.5(b)(2) .................................. .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.5(b)(3) and (4) ...................... .................................................................... Yes.

63.5(b)(5) .................................. .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.5(b)(6) .................................. .................................................................... Yes.

63.5(c) ....................................... .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.5(d) ....................................... Application for Approval of Construction/

Reconstruction.

Yes.

63.5(e) ....................................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction .. Yes.

63.5(f) ........................................ Approval of Construction/Reconstruction 

Based on State Review.

Yes.

63.6(a) ....................................... Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Applicability.Yes.

63.6(b)(1) through (5) ............... New and Reconstructed Source Dates ..... Yes .......................... See § 847(a)(6) and (7). 

63.6(b)(6) .................................. .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.6(b)(7) .................................. .................................................................... Yes.

63.6(c)(1) ................................... Existing Source Dates ............................... No ............................ See § 847(a). 

63.6(c)(2) ................................... .................................................................... Yes.

63.6(c)(3) and (4) ...................... .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.6(c)(5) ................................... .................................................................... Yes.

63.6(d) ....................................... .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

62426 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART LL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A)— 

Continued 

Reference section(s) Requirement Applies to subpart LL Comment 

63.6(e)(1)(i) ............................... .................................................................... No ............................ See §§ 63.843(f) and 63.844(f) for general 

duty requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) .............................. .................................................................... No.

63.6(e)(1)(iii) .............................. .................................................................... Yes.

63.6(e)(2) .................................. .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.6(e)(3) .................................. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Plan .. No.

63.6(f)(1) ................................... Compliance with Emissions Standards ..... No.

63.6(f)(2) ................................... Methods/Finding of Compliance ................ Yes.

63.6(g) ....................................... Alternative Standard .................................. Yes.

63.6(h) ....................................... Compliance with Opacity/VE Standards ... Only in § 63.845 ...... Opacity standards applicable only when 

incorporating the NSPS requirements 

under § 63.845. 

63.6(i)(1) through (14) ............... Extension of Compliance ........................... Yes.

63.6(i)(15) .................................. .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.6(i)(16) .................................. .................................................................... Yes.

63.6(j) ........................................ Exemption from Compliance ..................... Yes.

63.7(a) ....................................... Performance Test Requirements Applicability.Yes.

63.7(b) ....................................... Notification ................................................. Yes.

63.7(c) ....................................... Quality Assurance/Test Plan ..................... Yes.

63.7(d) ....................................... Testing facilities ......................................... Yes.

63.7(e)(1) .................................. Conduct of Tests ....................................... No ............................ See § 63.847(d). 

63.7(e)(2) through (4) ............... .................................................................... Yes.

63.7(f), (g), (h) ........................... Alternative Test Method ............................ Yes.

63.8(a)(1) and (2) ...................... Monitoring Requirements Applicability ...... Yes.

63.8(a)(3) .................................. .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.8(b) ....................................... Conduct of Monitoring ............................... Yes.

63.8(c)(1)(i) ............................... .................................................................... No ............................ See §§ 63.843(f) and 63.844(f) for general 

duty requirement. 

63.8(c)(1)(ii) ............................... .................................................................... Yes.

63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............................. .................................................................... No.

63.8(c)(2) through (d)(2) ........... .................................................................... Yes.

63.8(d)(3) .................................. .................................................................... Yes, except for last 

sentence.

63.8(e) through (g) .................... .................................................................... Yes.

63.9(a) ....................................... Notification Requirements Applicability ..... Yes.

63.9(b) ....................................... Initial Notifications ...................................... Yes .......................... Notification of re-start specified in 

§ 63.850(a)(9). 

63.9(c) ....................................... Request for Compliance Extension ........... Yes.

63.9(d) ....................................... New Source Notification for Special Compliance Requirements.Yes.

63.9(e) ....................................... Notification of Performance Test ............... No.

63.9(f) ........................................ Notification of VE/Opacity Test ................. No.

63.9(g) ....................................... Additional CMS Notifications ..................... No.

63.9(h)(1) through (3) ............... Notification of Compliance Status ............. Yes.

63.9(h)(4) .................................. .................................................................... No ............................ [Reserved]. 

63.9(h)(5) and (6) ...................... .................................................................... Yes.

63.9(i) ........................................ Adjustment of Deadlines ........................... Yes.

63.9(j) ........................................ Change in Previous Information ................ Yes.

63.10(a) ..................................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Applicability ...... Yes.

63.10(b)(1) ................................ General Recordkeeping Requirements ..... Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(i) ............................. .................................................................... No.

63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............................ .................................................................... No ............................ See §§ 63.850(e)(4)(xvi) and (xvii) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration 

of malfunctions and recordkeeping of 

actions taken during malfunction. 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) ............................ .................................................................... Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) ............... .................................................................... No.

63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xiv) ...... .................................................................... Yes.

63.(10)(b)(3) .............................. .................................................................... Yes.

63.10(c)(1) through (9) .............. .................................................................... Yes.

63.10(c)(10) and (11) ................ .................................................................... No ............................ See §§ 63.850(e)(4)(xvi) and (xvii) for recordkeeping of malfunctions. 

63.10(c)(12) through (14) .......... .................................................................... Yes.

63.10(c)(15) ............................... .................................................................... No.

63.10(d)(1) ................................ General Reporting Requirements .............. Yes.

63.10(d)(2) ................................ .................................................................... No ............................ See § 63.850(b). 

63.10(d)(3) and (4) .................... .................................................................... Yes.

63.10(d)(5) ................................ Startup-Shutdown and Malfunction Reports.No ............................ See § 63.850(d)(2) for reporting of malfunctions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 199 / Thursday, October 15, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 62427 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART LL OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A)— 

Continued 

Reference section(s) Requirement Applies to subpart LL Comment 

63.10(e) and (f) ......................... Additional CMS Reports and Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver.Yes.

63.11 ......................................... Control Device/work practices requirements Applicability.No.

63.12 ......................................... State Authority and Delegations ................ Yes.

63.13 ......................................... Addresses .................................................. Yes.

63.14 ......................................... Incorporation by Reference ....................... Yes.

63.15 ......................................... Information Availability/Confidentiality ....... Yes.

63.16 ......................................... Performance Track Provisions .................. No.

[FR Doc. 2015–25137 Filed 10–14–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2