Alcoa

201 Isabella Street at 7 th Street Bridge Pittsburgh, PA 15212

- 5858 USA

Tel: 1 412 553 4 545
Fax: 1 412 553 4 498

Delivered via Electronic Mail

R10

- Public_Comments@epa.gov

b ody.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 Impleme ntation Plan (SIP) ; Federal Implementation

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

Docket ID No. EPA

- R10

- OAR

- 2010

- 1071

Dear M r. 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 propos al 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 propose d 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 Alumi num Co. operation s.

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 Implemen tation 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

– 20 10

– 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

- di scretionary 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 enact ment 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 reg ional 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 p rovisions 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 requ isite 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 de termination 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

consid er 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 meet s 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 39156Comments of Alcoa Inc.

Docket ID No. EPA

– R10

– OAR

– 20 10

– 1071

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency February 19, 2014

3 In A merican C orn G rowers A ssociation v. E nvironmental P rotection A gency , 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 determina tions. 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 programs 9 , 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 SI P, 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 a nd 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 inadequacie s in its regional haze implementation plan; t he 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 Stat e of Oklahoma v. USEPA, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, January 29, 2014.Comments of Alcoa Inc.

Docket ID No. EPA

– R10

– OAR

– 20 10

– 1071

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency February 19, 2014

4 established a reasonable deadline for the State t o 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 usurp s 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 o f 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 f or the Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System Pursuant to the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)Regulation ” [the Three State Protocol] adversely affected the subject

to

- BART modeling activities and exasperated proper visibility impairment determ inations within the State of Washington.

In June of 2006, EPA was informed via public comment s submi tted by Alcoa of a significant technical issue within the proposed Three State Protocol that compromised the reasonableness and accuracy of visibility imp act forecasts produced by EPA’s recommended CALMET domain grid spacing. The e mphasis of Alcoa’s technical review and 2006 comments on the draft protocol

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

with techni cal comments that affect the proper use of the CALPUFF Modeling System; and to provide comments that we re focused on ensuring that sound scientific principles were used to develop visibility forecasts when using the recommended m odeling s ystem

.

As was ex plained in those comments 12

, t he 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 recomme nd that EPA incorporate provisions in to 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

– 20 10

– 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 protoc ol 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 loc al (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 de sire 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 comme nds 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 t his 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 mode l

. 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 memorandum 13 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 out

of

- 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 memor andum 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 excer pt 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

– 20 10

– 1071

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency February 19, 2014

6 EPA erroneousl y asserts that there are “no” sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) 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 SO 2 emissions” 15 associated with the ingot furnaces. Th is assertion is incorrect and should be corrected to reflect the presence of trivial amounts of SO 2 that are created during the combustion

of Natural Gas. 16 As described in AP

- 42, e missions of SO 2 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 SO 2 emissions. ”

Accordingly, since there will be s ome trivial amount of SO 2 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 r ecommended that should EPA elect not to withdraw its proposed actions and approve the Washington SIP, it should determine that BART for SO 2 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 moni toring requirement rather than a compliance demonstration.

Wenatchee is currently required to demonstrate compliance with all of its applicable SO 2 limitations using data compiled on the basis of each calendar month. 17

15 78 FR 79352

. Because of the interdependent relat ionship 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

– 20 10

– 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 SO 2 limitation should also be based on the average sulfur content (by weight) of all coke shipments received d uring 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 preamb le. 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 pursu ant 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” m emorandum 18 indicates that it is primarily based on the cost analysis it prepared in 2012 for a similar scrubber at Intalco Aluminum. Our review

o f 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

o perations. Although understated, EPA p roposed to eliminate LSFO as BART “due to its high cost and limited visibility improvement.”

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

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

Docket ID No. EPA

– R10

– OAR

– 20 10

– 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 proposal 19 . [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 a pproval 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 analy sis 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 Asses sment at 5

– 1

.