Alcoa

 201 Isabella Street at 7th Street Bridge

 Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5858 USA

 Tel: 1 412 553 4545

 Fax: 1 412 553 4498

Delivered via Electronic Mail

R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov

body.Steve@epamail.epa.gov

2014 February 19

Mr. Steve Body

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region 10, Suite 900

Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98101

RE: Comments on Proposed Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of

Washington; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP); Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) for Best Available Retrofit Technology for Alcoa Wenatchee. 

Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071

Dear Mr. Body:

Alcoa, Inc. (Alcoa) is pleased to submit the following comments regarding the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) December 30, 2013 proposed rule, “State of 

Washington; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Best 

Available Retrofit Technology for Alcoa Wenatchee,” [Federal Register Volume 78, No. 250, 

79344]. Our comments herein are restricted to the portions of EPA’s proposal that are relevant 

to the limited approval and limited disapproval of Washington State’s Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) proposal that Wenatchee is 

subject to BART, the proposed federal plan imposing ‘‘BART’’ on Wenatchee, and the 

additional information regarding Alcoa’s ability to afford limestone slurry forced oxidation 

(LFSO) control technology at our Intalco Aluminum Co. operations.

By reference, Alcoa restates, in total, the comments submitted by Intalco Aluminum Corporation

(Intalco) in response to EPA’s Proposed Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

State of Washington; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP); Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) for Best Available Retrofit Technology for Alcoa Intalco Operations and Tesoro 

Refining and Marketing. Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071.

1

 1 Hullett, Barry S., Intalco Aluminum Corporation Comments to EPA Docket No. EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071. February 14, 2013.
Comments of Alcoa Inc.

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

February 19, 2014

2

EPA’s proposed action of a limited approval and limited disapproval of Washington 

State’s Regional Haze SIP, and EPA’s proposal to promulgate a BART federal 

implementation plan (FIP), does not comport with the Clean Air Act (CAA) or the 

regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 51, Subpart P that implement CAA Section 169A and 

169B.

Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110(k)(3) establishes a non-discretionary duty of the Administrator 

to approve a state’s implementation plan “in whole” if it meets applicable requirements of the 

Act.2

 In the case of the State of Washington’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)3, 

the implementation plan is required to contain a number of statutory and regulatory elements to 

be deemed complete. Washington State’s Regional Haze SIP was complete and contained all of 

the requisite information required by 40 CFR 51, Subpart P that implement CAA Section 169A 

and 169B. The submitted SIP contains information relevant to assurances of reasonable progress 

toward the visibility goals of the Act. [§51.308(d)(1)] It contains special provisions for each 

major stationary source which was in existence on the date of enactment of CAA Section 169A, 

and had not been in operation for more than fifteen years prior to that date. It contains baseline, 

natural, and current visibility condition calculations and long-term regional haze and monitoring 

strategies [§51.308(d)(2)] [§51.308(d)(3)]. The SIP contains BART determinations made 

pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51, §51.308(e), and EPA’s “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under 

the Regional Haze Rule.”4 It contains provisions for comprehensive periodic revisions of the 

Washington regional haze plan [§51.308(f)]; provisions for periodic reports on progress toward 

the visibility goals of CAA Section 169A(a)(1) [§51.308(g)]; provisions for determining the 

adequacy of the existing haze plan [§51.308(h)] during periodic plan reviews; and provisions for 

consultation and coordination with the Federal Land Managers [§51.308(i)]. Simply stated, the 

State of Washington dutifully executed its statutory and regulatory obligations by preparing and 

submitting a complete SIP, which included the requisite BART determinations that were made in 

a manner that is consistent with the CAA and EPA’s promulgated guidelines.

EPA’s proposal for a limited approval and further limited disapproval of the Washington SIP in 

response to comments is not based on a determination that the Washington SIP was either 

incomplete or did not contain sufficient information necessary to enable the Administrator to 

determine whether the plan complies with the provisions of the CAA. [CAA §110(c)(1)(a) and 

CAA §110(k)(1)(A)] EPA’s proposal to partially disapprove portions of Washington’s Regional 

Haze SIP is improper and unwarranted. EPA has not shown that the State of Washington’s 

BART determinations were based on unreasonable analyses; that Washington did not thoroughly 

consider the five statutory factors; or that the State of Washington abused its statutory discretion 

with regard to rendering its BART determinations. 

 2 Clean Air Act § 110, 42 U.S.C. § 7410. (3) Full and partial approval and disapproval. “In the case of any submittal on which the 

Administrator is required to act under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall approve such submittal as a whole if it meets all of the applicable 

requirements of this chapter. If a portion of the plan revision meets all the applicable requirements of this chapter, the Administrator may 

approve the plan revision in part and disapprove the plan revision in part. The plan revision shall not be treated as meeting the requirements of 

this chapter until the Administrator approves the entire plan revision as complying with the applicable requirements of this chapter.”

3 “Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Final December 2010,” Publication No. 10-02-41.

4 Appendix Y to Part 51, 70 FR 39156
Comments of Alcoa Inc.

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

February 19, 2014

3

In American Corn Growers Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.5

, the United 

States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the CAA gives the states

[Emphasis added] broad authority over BART determinations.6, 7 As cited in that ruling, the 

Conference Report on the 1977 amendments to the CAA documents that an agreement was 

reached wherein language was added to the legislation to make it clear that the states, not EPA, 

[Emphasis added] would make the BART determinations. That report 8

explained: “In 

establishing emission limitations for any source which impairs visibility, the State shall 

determine what constitutes ‘best available retrofit technology’.” [Emphasis added] 

In other CAA programs9, such as BACT, the statute confers greater authority to EPA than it does 

in CAA §169A.10 Even in those instances the United States Supreme Court has found that EPA 

is limited to determining whether a State’s action “is based on a reasoned analysis.”11 It is clear 

that the State of Washington based it’s BART determination on reasoned analyses, and EPA’s 

overzealous BART actions are clearly contrary to the limitations imposed on it by the CAA.

Absent the State of Washington’s failure to submit a complete SIP, a failure to provide sufficient 

information to enable the Administrator to make a determination regarding the SIP fulfilling the 

applicable requirements of the Act, or EPA establishing that the State of Washington was either 

negligent or arbitrary with respect to rendering its BART determinations, EPA has neither reason 

nor legal authority to overturn either of the State of Washington’s BART determinations for 

Intalco or Wenatchee. 

EPA’s proposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) action is premature and is not in 

accordance with the plain language of the CAA relating to “Calls for Plan Revisions.” 

[CAA §110(k)(5)] 

The CAA lays out a prescribed administrative procedure regarding how the Administrator is to 

manage the approval, or disapproval of a SIP before embarking on the issuance of a FIP. Prior to 

the Administrator’s promulgation of a federal implementation plan, there must be a finding that a 

state’s implementation plan is substantially inadequate to comply with the requirements of the 

CAA. The proceedings so far establish that there has been no finding by the Administrator that 

the Washington SIP was substantially inadequate to comply with the requirements of the CAA; 

the Administrator has not notified the State of Washington of any inadequacies in its regional 

haze implementation plan; the Administrator has not made known to the State of Washington 

that it is required to revise its regional haze implementation plan; and the Administrator has not 

 5 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002)

6 CAA § 7491(b)(2)(A) 7 CAA § 7491(g)(2) 8 H.R. CONF. REP. No. 95-564, (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1977 at pp. 1502, 1536, reprinted in 3 SENATE COMM. ON ENV'T 

AND PUB. WORKS, A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1977, at 535 (1978) [hereinafter "1977 

Legislative History"]

9 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA. 540 U.S. 461(2004)

10 42 USC 7491

11 State of Oklahoma v. USEPA, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, January 29, 2014.
Comments of Alcoa Inc.

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

February 19, 2014

4

established a reasonable deadline for the State to revise or re-submit its regional haze 

implementation plan. For these reasons the issuance of a FIP is premature and without statutory 

authority.

Proceeding with this FIP unlawfully usurps the authority and discretion afforded to the State of 

Washington by the CAA. The basis for the proposed FIP is grounded in opinion and 

supposition, rather than a deficiency in the SIP; therefore, because the record fails to substantiate 

that findings exist for the Administrator to factually determine that the Regional Haze SIP 

submitted by the State of Washington was either incomplete or did not judiciously consider the 

appropriate statutory factors with respect to the Intalco and Wenatchee BART determinations, 

there is no valid rationale for the promulgation of a FIP. Region 10 further invalidates its 

proposed actions by incorrectly asserting that its proposal is the vehicle needed to render the 

pollution prevention limitations of Washington’s BART determination and associated BART 

order federally enforceable. EPA need not take any action other than approving the Washington 

Regional Haze SIP, as submitted, to render BART pollution prevention limitations federally 

enforceable.

EPA’s failure to address and resolve deficiencies in the Draft “Modeling Protocol for the 

Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System Pursuant to the Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART)Regulation” [the Three State Protocol] adversely affected the subjectto-BART modeling activities and exasperated proper visibility impairment determinations 

within the State of Washington.

In June of 2006, EPA was informed via public comments submitted by Alcoa of a significant 

technical issue within the proposed Three State Protocol that compromised the reasonableness 

and accuracy of visibility impact forecasts produced by EPA’s recommended CALMET domain 

grid spacing. The emphasis of Alcoa’s technical review and 2006 comments on the draft protocol 

were three fold: to develop meaningful comments that would be constructive; to provide EPA 

with technical comments that affect the proper use of the CALPUFF Modeling System; and to 

provide comments that were focused on ensuring that sound scientific principles were used to

develop visibility forecasts when using the recommended modeling system.

As was explained in those comments12, the grid spacing of the draft protocol’s CALMET 

domain is too coarse to adequately resolve important terrain features such as valley flows (e.g., at 

the Alcoa Wenatchee site) and land/water boundaries. Our comments also recommend that EPA 

incorporate provisions into the Three State Protocol to allow technical enhancements and other 

site-specific protocol improvements to be allowed. The purpose for allowing site-specific 

protocol improvements was to ensure more accurate [Emphasis Added] forecasts of visibility 

impacts for both the BART exemption modeling and the BART determination. 

 12 Jones, James D. Alcoa Public Comment to Mr. Keith Rose. . “USEPA Region X, Oregon, and Idaho Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol Comments.” June 30, 2006. p. 2.
Comments of Alcoa Inc.

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

February 19, 2014

5

Correction of the identified technical issue, the incorporation of other technical components, and 

the need for provisions in the protocol to properly account for site-specific issues, were

necessary to adequately resolve complex terrain features, to address air flows influenced by local 

topographical features and to appropriately consider the mesoscale and microscale meterology of 

the local (e.g., at the Alcoa Wentachee site). EPA’s failure to resolve the inherent shortcoming 

of the Three State Protocol in situations where the terrain features are more pronounced than the 

size of the recommended grid cells and the State of Washington’s desire to base its Class 1 area 

visibility impact forecasts on sound scientific principles, led Washington to adopt a grid spacing 

for their BART modeling that is more suited to the complex terrain and the terrain influenced 

wind flows in the vicinity of the Alcoa Wenatchee Works facility.

Alcoa commends the State of Washington in its efforts to use tools better suited for and 

information most representative of the environmental setting being evaluated; its decision to 

pursue sound scientific principles in this regulatory action; its decision to render a BART 

determination on the basis of the best and most representative information at its disposal; and to 

have performed its visibility impact analyses using the proper and appropriately configured 

CALPUFF model. Alcoa admonishes EPA to follow Washington’s leadership and accept the 

fine grid modeling forecasts performed by the State of Washington.

EPA Region 10 “cherry picked” statements and portrayed portions of the 2009 modeling 

clearinghouse memorandum13 out of context and misrepresent its relevance to the 

Wenatchee BART modeling.

EPA mostly justifies its rejection of Washington’s fine grid modeling approach to determine if 

the BART eligible emission units at Alcoa Wenatchee Works are subject to BART through outof-context excerpts from the EPA Model Clearinghouse’s Otter Tail Power Big Stone Unit I 

Review of CALPUFF Modeling Protocol for BART memorandum. In the Federal Register 

proposal, [78 FR 79344] EPA cites text from the May 15, 2009 clearinghouse memorandum 

stating “... scientific evidence to support the claim that a 1km CALMET grid resolution 

increases the objective accuracy of the final wind field” is needed. What EPA failed to include 

as part of its direct quote from the memorandum was that this excerpt was made specifically in 

the context of the Otter Tail Protocol. The clearinghouse included further qualifying statements. 

The clarifying statement that was omitted says “... especially in areas of relative modest 

topographical relief, such as for each of the three domains proposed.”14 The omitted context is 

that the clearinghouse memorandum is articulating issues it noted with respect to a particular 

protocol in a relatively flat area, not in an area with severe and complex topographical relief. 

Neither the Otter Tail Protocol nor “relative modest topographical relief” come close to 

characterizing the Alcoa Wenatchee emission regime, the topographical setting, or complex wind 

patterns at and around the Alcoa Wenatchee location. 

 13 Fox, Tyler. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Memorandum. “Model Clearinghouse Review of CALPUFF Modeling 

Protocol for BART.” May 15, 2009. 14 Fox, p.4.
Comments of Alcoa Inc.

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

February 19, 2014

6

EPA erroneously asserts that there are “no” sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions associated with 

Ingot Furnaces No. 1, 2, and 11. 

EPA makes an absolute statement that “BART limits are not necessary because there are no SO2

emissions”15 associated with the ingot furnaces. This assertion is incorrect and should be 

corrected to reflect the presence of trivial amounts of SO2 that are created during the combustion 

of Natural Gas.16 As described in AP-42, emissions of SO2 from natural gas-fired combustion 

systems “are low because pipeline quality natural gas typically has sulfur levels of 2,000 grains 

per million cubic feet” and “sulfur-containing odorants are added to natural gas for detecting 

leaks, leading to small amounts of SO2 emissions.” 

Accordingly, since there will be some trivial amount of SO2 attributable to the combustion of 

natural gas in these furnaces, EPA should correct its erroneous statement and characterize the 

emissions in the same fashion as was done in its AP-42 discussion cited above. Additionally, it 

is recommended that should EPA elect not to withdraw its proposed actions and approve the 

Washington SIP, it should determine that BART for SO2 emitted from these furnaces be 

comparable to the BART limit proposed for NOx, which is a limitation on the type of fuel that 

may be combusted.

EPA establishes an improper compliance date in the proposed regulation. 

EPA establishes that emissions in excess of the various BART limits proposed throughout the 

regulation must not be exceeded after one-hundred and twenty (120) days after publication. This 

language effectively establishes a compliance date of 120 days after the final rule is published in 

the federal register. The more appropriate compliance date for these emission limits is the 

requirement to comply with the BART limits of a final rule “within 120 days of the final rule 

becoming effective,” not when the final rule is published in the Federal Register. EPA should 

restate the compliance date for the BART requirements affected by this proposed regulation.

EPA merged monitoring and compliance demonstration requirement in §52.2502(c)(1)(i) 

and created ambiguity that requires further clarification.

The compliance demonstration requirement at §52.2502(c)(1)(i) is ambiguous because it is a 

statement of the monitoring requirement rather than a compliance demonstration. 

Wenatchee is currently required to demonstrate compliance with all of its applicable SO2

limitations using data compiled on the basis of each calendar month.17

 15 78 FR 79352.

 Because of the 

interdependent relationship of the potline and baking furnace sources, data consistency is 

essential between the two sources. Accordingly, the monitoring data resulting from 

§52.2502(c)(1)(i) requirements should be consistent and based on the same data and averaging 

16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.” Section 

17 Title V Air Operating Permit No. 000068-0, Condition No. D-12. March 1, 2010.
Comments of Alcoa Inc.

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

February 19, 2014

7

interval that have been established for Potline #5 at [§52.2502(b)(ii)(B)]. Therefore to be 

consistent, compliance with the proposed baking furnace BART SO2 limitation should also be 

based on the average sulfur content (by weight) of all coke shipments received during each 

calendar month. 

In the “Anode Bake Furnace Section” of the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA provides 

an incorrect process description. 

EPA incorrectly describes where carbon anodes are used in the Process Description portion of 

the preamble. EPA explains that “Carbon anodes are used in the electric arc furnaces

[Emphasis added] (pots) used to produce aluminum.” [78 FR 79350] The facility produces 

aluminum from alumina via an electrochemical reduction process that occurs in “electrolytic 

reduction cells” commonly known as (pots) not electric arc furnaces. The particular process 

used to produce aluminum at Wenatchee is the Hall-Heroult process. EPA correctly identified 

the process in Section IV of the preamble [78 FR 7947]. Correction of the process description 

within the Anode Baking Portion of the preamble is needed to properly describe the Wenatchee 

operations. 

Provisions should be made for the use of an alternative fuel when permitted or required to 

change fuels pursuant to governmental dictate.

Permanently restricting the anode baking furnace fuel to natural gas, places the facility at risk of 

closure in the event of a mandated natural gas curtailment. Provisions should be built into any 

final rule to allow the use of an alternate fuel when properly permitted or when required to 

change fuels by a governmental entity.

EPA Region 10 ignored agency precedent and other factual information in the development 

of its Wenatchee control cost analysis.

EPA Region 10’s “Alcoa Wenatchee Works Cost Analysis for Limestone Forced Oxidation 

(LSFO) Scrubbing – Wenatchee Washington” memorandum 18 indicates that it is primarily based 

on the cost analysis it prepared in 2012 for a similar scrubber at Intalco Aluminum. Our review 

of this cost analysis indicates that EPA Region 10 made the same mistakes in this analysis that it 

made previously. EPA cost estimates are unsubstantiated, and are contrary to cost data that has 

been provided to the agency. As a result, EPA for the second time has produced a flawed cost 

analysis that grossly understates the costs associated with the installation and operation of 

limestone slurry forced oxidation (LSFO) scrubber control technology on an Alcoa potline 

operations. Although understated, EPA proposed to eliminate LSFO as BART “due to its high 

cost and limited visibility improvement.” 

 18 Hedgpeth, Zachery T. “Alcoa Wenatchee Works Cost Analysis for Limestone Forced Oxidation (LSFO) Scrubbing –

Wenatchee Washington.” September 18, 2013.
Comments of Alcoa Inc.

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

February 19, 2014

8

Although Alcoa continues to disagree with the EPA’s control cost estimates and the cost 

effectiveness estimates, we do agree with and support EPA’s decision to eliminate LSFO as 

BART for the Wenatchee Potline No. 5.

Alcoa is in agreement with and concurs with conclusions drawn from EPA’s “Revised 

Affordability Assessment” of LSFO at Intalco Aluminum Co.

Alcoa concurs with RTI’s conclusion as presented in this proposal19. [78 FR 79354] and 

continues to concur with EPA’s original affordability determination [77 FR 76191].

************************************************************************

Once again, we appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the State of Washington Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and

Federal Implementation Plan for Best Available Retrofit Technology for Alcoa Wenatchee and 

Intalco Aluminum. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate 

to contact me by phone at (865)-977-3071 or by electronic mail at jimmy.jones@alcoa.com. 

Very truly yours,

James D. Jones

Alcoa, Inc.

EHS Services

JDJ/jdj

Cc:

a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071

Body.Steve@epamail.epa.gov

Washington Department of Ecology, anew461@ecy.wa.gov

 19 “[W]hile we cannot definitively determine what business decisions Alcoa will make, should installation and operation of 

LFSO be required, it is our belief based on our analysis and sound business practices that Alcoa would seriously consider other 

options, such as shifting production to other facilities, rather than installing and operating LSFO and continuing aluminum 

production at Intalco.” RTI Revised Affordability Assessment at 5–1.