79344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

C. The Fraction of ORVR-Equipped 

Vehicles Where Stage II is Required in 

Texas 

The TCEQ reviewed vehicle 

registration data to determine what 

portion of the on-road vehicles in the 16 

counties are equipped with ORVR and 

what portion of the gasoline dispensed 

in these areas goes into ORVR-equipped 

vehicles. For these calculations, the 

TCEQ obtained 2011 vehicle registration 

data from the Texas Department of 

Motor Vehicles for each of the 16 

counties. The results indicate that by 

the end of 2012 more than 75% of 

gasoline was dispensed to ORVRequipped vehicles in each of the four 

areas where Stage II is required. In 

addition, by the end of 2013 at least 

75% of the vehicle population in each 

of these four areas is expected to be 

ORVR-equipped. We determined that at 

least 75% of ORVR coverage (percent of 

gasoline that will be dispensed into 

ORVR-equipped vehicles) is substantial 

enough to constitute widespread use (77 

FR 28772). The TCEQ does not have to 

demonstrate that ORVR is in 

widespread use because EPA’s action at 

77 FR 28772 provides a nationwide 

determination of widespread use 

effective May 16, 2012. However, the 

TCEQ’s findings do demonstrate that 

ORVR is in widespread use in all four 

areas and thus lend support to the 

revisions to decommission Stage II 

equipment. 

III. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Texas SIP that control 

emissions of VOCs and pertain to the 

maintenance and removal of Stage II 

vapor recovery equipment submitted on 

October 31, 2013. We are proposing to 

approve revisions to the following 

sections within 30 TAC 115: 115.240, 

115.241, 115.242, 115.243, 115.244, 

115.245, 115.246, 115.247, and 115.249. 

The EPA is also proposing to approve 

related revisions to the Stage II SIP 

narrative that address the maintenance 

and removal of Stage II equipment, and 

demonstrate that the removal of, or 

failure to install Stage II equipment in 

the BPA, DFW, and HGB areas, and in 

El Paso County, meets section 110(l) of 

the Act. The EPA is proposing to 

approve these revisions in accordance 

with section 110 of the Act and EPA’s 

regulations and consistent with EPA 

guidance. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 

this action merely proposes to approve 

state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: December 16, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31107 Filed 12–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071, FRL–9904–68– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Washington; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Best Available 

Retrofit Technology for Alcoa 

Wenatchee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

disapprove a Washington Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan (RH SIP) 

element submitted by the State of 

Washington (the State) on December 22, 

2010, that exempted Alcoa’s Wenatchee 

Works aluminum smelting facility 

(Alcoa Wenatchee facility or Wenatchee 

facility), located near Wenatchee, 

Washington, from the Clean Air Act’s 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) requirements. On December 26, 

2012, the EPA proposed to approve, 

along with proposed action on other SIP 

elements, the State’s determination that 

the Alcoa Wenatchee facility is exempt 

from BART requirements. The EPA 

received adverse comments regarding 

the dispersion modeling used for this 

determination. After further review, the 

EPA now proposes to disapprove the 

State’s determination that the facility is 

not subject to BART and proposes to 

find that the Wenatchee facility is 

subject to BART. The EPA is also 

proposing a BART determination for the 

facility through a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP). This Federal 

Register document also announces the 

availability of new information 

regarding Alcoa’s ability to afford 

limestone slurry forced oxidation 

(LSFO) sulfur dioxide (SO2) control 

technology at the Intalco Aluminum 

Corporation facility in Ferndale, 

Washington (Intalco). Also available for 

public review is new air quality 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79345 

dispersion modeling regarding the 

visibility improvement assessment for 

the BART Alternative for the Tesoro 

Refining and Marketing refinery in 

Anacortes, Washington (Tesoro). 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

must be received at the address below 

on or before February 20, 2014. 

Public Hearing: A public hearing is 

offered to provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present information and 

opinions to the EPA concerning today’s 

proposal. Comments are limited to the 

specific elements and new information 

discussed in today’s proposal and the 

comment period for other aspects of the 

Washington State Regional Haze Plan is 

not reopened. Interested parties may 

also submit written comments, as 

discussed below. If you wish to request 

a hearing and present testimony, you 

should notify Mr. Steve Body on or 

before January 8, 2014 and indicate the 

nature of the issues you wish to provide 

oral testimony during the hearing. Mr. 

Body’s contact information is found in 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

below. At the hearing, the hearing 

officer may limit oral testimony to 5 

minutes per person. The hearing will be 

limited to the subject matter of this 

proposal, the scope of which is 

discussed below. The EPA will not 

respond to comments during the public 

hearing. When we publish our final 

action, we will provide a written 

response to all written or oral comments 

received on the proposal. The EPA will 

not be providing equipment for 

commenters to show overhead slides or 

make computerized slide presentations. 

A transcript of the hearing and written 

statements will be made available for 

copying during normal working hours at 

the address listed for inspection of 

documents, and also included in the 

Docket. Any member of the public may 

provide written or oral comments and 

data pertaining to our proposal at the 

hearing. Note that any written 

comments and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as any oral comments presented at the 

public hearing. If no requests for a 

public hearing are received by close of 

business on January 8, 2014, a hearing 

will not be held; please contact Mr. 

Body at (206) 553–0782 to find out if the 

hearing will actually be held or if it was 

cancelled for lack of any request to 

speak. 

ADDRESSES: Public Hearing: A public 

hearing, if requested, will be held 

January 21, 2014, beginning at 6:00 p.m. 

at the Washington Department of 

Ecology Offices, Room #34–36, 300 

Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503. 

Comments: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2010–1071, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Steve Body, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Attention: Steve Body, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, AWT–107. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010– 

1071. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA, without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available (e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute). Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Body at telephone number (206) 

553–0782, body.steve@epa.gov, or the 

above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview and Summary of This Proposed 

Action 

II. Background for the EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

Related to this Proposal 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

IV. The EPA’s Analysis of the BART 

Exemption for the Alcoa Wenatchee 

Facility 

V. Proposed BART Determination for the 

Alcoa Wenatchee Facility 

VI. New Information Relevant to the EPA’s 

Previous Proposal 

A. Affordability Analysis of LSFO at 

Intalco 

B. Tesoro Modeling Demonstration for 

BART Alternative 

VII. What Action is the EPA Proposing? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview and Summary of This 

Proposed Action 

On December 22, 2010, the State of 

Washington submitted a RH SIP to 

address regional haze for the first 

implementation period. This plan was 

submitted to meet the requirements of 

Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 169A and 

169B and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 that 

require states to prevent any future and 

remedy any existing man-made 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas. On December 26, 2012, the 

EPA published a rule in the Federal 

Register proposing to approve the 

State’s determination that the Alcoa 

Wenatchee facility is exempt from 

federal BART requirements. 77 FR 

76174. At the same time, the EPA also: 

(1) Proposed to approve in part the 

Washington RH SIP as meeting most of 

the requirements of the regional haze 

program; (2) proposed a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of the 

SO2 Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) determination for Intalco 

Aluminum Corporation (Intalco) facility 

and proposed a Better-than-BART 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79346 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

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

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

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

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

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

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

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

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

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

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

Class I Federal area.’’ 

2See 64 FR at 35715. 

3 Id. 

alternative (BART Alternative); and (3) 

proposed to disapprove the BART 

determination for oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) for five BART emission units at 

the Tesoro Refining and Marketing 

refinery (Tesoro) and proposed a BART 

Alternative. 

The Wenatchee facility is a primary 

aluminum smelter, located 

approximately ten miles south of 

Wenatchee, Washington, on the 

Columbia River. The State’s BART 

exemption determination, that would 

exempt the Alcoa Wenatchee facility 

from BART requirements, was based on 

air quality dispersion modeling. As 

explained further below, the EPA 

received adverse comments on its 

proposal to approve the State’s 

determination to exempt the Wenatchee 

facility from BART requirements. After 

further review and consideration, we 

now propose to disapprove that 

exemption determination and propose 

that the facility is subject to BART. We 

are also proposing a BART 

determination for the facility. 

This Federal Register notice also 

announces new information available 

for public review regarding whether 

Alcoa can afford LSFO SO2 control 

technology as BART for Alcoa’s Intalco 

facility in Ferndale, Washington. As 

part of the December 26, 2012 action, 

we proposed that Intalco could not 

afford LSFO and referenced an 

affordability assessment of the Intalco 

facility and Alcoa Corporation. See 

Intalco BART SO2 Affordability 

Assessment, November, 2012 (2012 

Affordability Assessment). As explained 

in further detail below, we received 

adverse comments on the affordability 

determination requesting that we update 

the affordability assessment with 

current information and expressing 

concern with the use of information that 

was not publically available. In 

response to these comments, we have 

obtained updated information, revised 

the 2012 Affordability Assessment, and 

have made a final confidential business 

information (CBI) determination. See 

Revised Intalco BART SO2 Affordability 

Assessment, September 2013 and 

Intalco Final CBI Determination, 

respectively. This information, 

including the aforementioned 

documents, is in the docket for this 

proposed action and is available for 

public review and comment. 

We also received adverse comments 

regarding the proposed determination 

that the BART Alternative for the Tesoro 

refining facility in Anacortes, 

Washington, provides for greater 

reasonable progress than BART. The 

initial demonstration was based on 

comparing the emissions allowed under 

BART to the emissions allowed under 

the BART Alternative. The comments 

suggested that air quality dispersion 

modeling should be used to make this 

demonstration. As explained below, 

Tesoro conducted this dispersion 

modeling and it is now in the docket for 

this action and is available for public 

review and comment. 

The EPA will respond to all 

comments received on the December 26, 

2012 proposal, that are not discussed 

today, and will take final action on the 

remaining Washington RH SIP elements 

in a future Federal Register notice. 

II. Background for the EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

In the CAA Amendments of 1977, 

Congress established a program to 

protect and improve visibility in 

national parks and wilderness areas. See 

CAA section 169A. Congress amended 

the visibility provisions in the CAA in 

1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. 

The EPA promulgated regulations in 

1999 to implement sections 169A and 

169B of the Act. These regulations 

require states to develop and implement 

SIPs to ensure reasonable progress 

toward improving visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas 1 (Class 

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

also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 

FR 60612 (October 13, 2006). 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

Regional haze is impairment of visual 

range or colorization caused by 

emission of air pollution produced by 

numerous sources and activities, located 

across a broad regional area. The 

sources include, but are not limited to, 

major and minor stationary sources, 

mobile sources, and area sources, 

including non-anthropogenic sources. 

Visibility impairment is primarily 

caused by fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5), particles with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers, 

or secondary aerosol formed in the 

atmosphere from precursor gases (e.g., 

SO2, NOX, and in some cases, ammonia 

and volatile organic compounds). 

Atmospheric PM2.5 reduces clarity, 

color, and visual range of visual scenes. 

Visibility-reducing PM2.5 is primarily 

composed of sulfate, nitrate, organic 

carbon compounds, elemental carbon, 

and soil dust, and impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. PM2.5 can 

also cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans, and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication.2

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

Average visual range in many Class I 

areas in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds the visual range that would 

exist without manmade air pollution.3

Visibility impairment also varies day-today and by season depending on 

variation in meteorology and emission 

rates. 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

In section 169A of the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, Congress created a 

program for protecting visibility in the 

nation’s national parks and wilderness 

areas. This section of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in Class I areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ CAA section 169A(a)(1). On 

December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’. 45 FR 80084. These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. The 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling, and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713) (the Regional Haze Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79347 

4Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

5The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

or RHR). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations by adding 

provisions addressing regional haze 

impairment and established a 

comprehensive visibility protection 

program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in the EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section III of this notice. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.4 40 

CFR 51.308(b) required states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze 

SIPs Related to This Proposal 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and the EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. SIPs must also give 

specific attention to certain stationary 

sources that were in existence on 

August 7, 1977, but were not in 

operation before August 7, 1962, and 

require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 5 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

States are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, states 

also have the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides greater reasonable 

progress towards improving visibility 

than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, the EPA published 

the Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BARTapplicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts, a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility-impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM2.5. The 

EPA has indicated that states should use 

their best judgment in determining 

whether volatile organic compounds or 

ammonia compounds contribute to 

visibility impairment in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value to determine those BART-eligible 

sources that are not subject to BART. A 

BART-eligible source with an impact 

below the threshold would not be 

expected to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. In setting an exemption threshold, 

States should consider the number of 

emission sources affecting the Class I 

areas at issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. Generally, 

an exemption threshold set by the state 

should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews 

(dv). 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

BART-eligible sources, as well as those 

BART-eligible sources that have a 

visibility impact in any Class I area 

above the exemption threshold 

established by the state and are 

therefore subject to BART. States must 

document their BART control analysis 

and determination for all sources 

subject to BART. 

The term ‘‘BART-eligible source,’’ as 

used in the BART Guidelines, means the 

collection of individual emission units 

at a facility that together comprise the 

BART-eligible source. In making a 

BART determination, section 169A(g)(2) 

of the CAA requires that states consider 

the following factors: (1) the costs of 

compliance, (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source, 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

The regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 5 years 

after the date the EPA approves the 

regional haze SIP. CAA section 

169A(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART emission limits. States have the 

flexibility to choose the type of control 

measures they will use to meet the 

requirements of BART. 

IV. The EPA’s Analysis of the BART 

Exemption for the Alcoa Wenatchee 

Facility 

The Alcoa Wenatchee facility 

produces aluminum from alumina using 

an electrochemical reduction process 

commonly known as the Hall-Heroult 

process. The facility is capable of 

producing 184,000 metric tons of 

aluminum per year. The facility 

currently consists of a carbon anode 

production plant, four prebake 

aluminum potlines, and an ingot casting 

facility. It initially opened in 1952 with 

four potlines. These four potlines and 

associated processes were constructed 

prior to the BART window and are not 

BART-eligible. In 1967, a fifth potline 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79348 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

6The three-state modeling protocol was an 

agreement between Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, 

the FLMs and EPA-Region 10. This protocol was 

submitted with the RH SIP and is also included as 

a separate document in the docket for this action. 

7CALPUFF is a Gaussian puff dispersion model 

used to estimate pollutant concentrations. 

8We have included the correspondence in the 

docket as requested. 

9CALMET is a generalized-non-steady state air 

quality model used to characterize meteorology and 

is used in conjunction with CALPUFF to estimate 

visibility impacts from stationary sources. 

was added along with increased anode 

production capability and materials 

handling operations. The equipment 

associated with this expansion was 

constructed within the BART-eligibility 

window and is therefore BART-eligible. 

In 2004, one of the original potlines was 

decommissioned, resulting in the 

current operation of four potlines. 

The Alcoa Wenatchee facility is 

located in a river valley and sits on the 

banks of the Columbia River at an 

altitude of approximately 740 feet. The 

river valley is approximately 1.8 miles 

wide and is surrounded by bluffs rising 

to 760 feet above the valley floor 

immediately adjacent to the river. The 

Cascade Mountain Range is to the west 

and is generally running north to south 

with peaks reaching more than 9000 

feet. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area 

is located approximately 28 miles (45 

kilometers (km)) west of the Alcoa 

Wenatchee facility, at the crest of the 

Cascade Mountain Range, and is 

characterized by complex terrain. 

As explained above, the BART 

Guidelines allow states to exempt 

sources from a BART determination if 

the source cannot reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

The State of Washington established an 

exemption threshold of 0.5 dv as the 

level above which a BART-eligible 

source may reasonably be considered to 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. 

In the Washington RH SIP, the State 

determined that the Wenatchee facility 

is exempt from BART because the 

facility’s modeled visibility impact in 

all Class I areas was less than 0.5 dv. At 

the State’s request, Alcoa initially 

conducted dispersion modeling 

following the three-state modeling 

protocol 6 agreed upon by the EPA, 

Region 10 and using an EPA-approved 

version of the dispersion model 

CALPUFF,7 to model the visibility 

impact of the BART-eligible sources and 

to determine whether the facility is 

subject to BART. The State required all 

BART-eligible sources in Washington to 

follow the protocol to determine 

whether their impacts are greater than 

the BART exemption threshold. 

According to the agreed upon 

protocol, the modeling should be 

conducted with the surface wind field 

having a 4 km grid cell resolution. Alcoa 

completed the exemption modeling 

using CALPUFF version 6.112; Level 

060412. Model results showed that the 

98th percentile, or twenty-second 

highest visibility impact value, over a 

three-year period at Alpine Lakes 

Wilderness Area was predicted to be 0.6 

dv, exceeding the exemption threshold 

of 0.5 dv. As a result, the facility would 

be subject to BART. In the State’s view, 

however, the 4 km grid resolution did 

not provide realistic wind flow 

estimates between the Alcoa Wenatchee 

facility and the Alpine Lakes 

Wilderness Area. 

Alcoa re-ran the model using 

CALPUFF with 0.5 km grid resolution 

and the predicted visibility impact 

decreased to 0.4 dv, under the 0.5 dv 

exemption threshold. In Appendix I of 

the Washington RH SIP, the State 

provided information to explain why 

the finer grid resolution of 0.5 km was 

more appropriate. As explained in the 

Washington RH SIP, the State then 

determined that the facility was not 

subject to BART. 

In our December 26, 2012 action, we 

proposed to approve the exemption 

modeling for the Wenatchee facility and 

the State’s determination that the 

facility is exempt from BART. 77 FR 

76147. We received adverse comments 

on that part of the proposal. The 

comments claimed that the Wenatchee 

facility was improperly exempted from 

BART review and requested that EPA 

disapprove Washington’s determination 

that the Wenatchee facility is not subject 

to BART. The comments indicated that 

the use of fine grid modeling (0.5 km 

grid resolution) did not follow the 

agreed upon three-state protocol, that 

the higher grid resolution 

underestimates the visibility impacts, 

and that allowing its use in this instance 

is contrary to numerous prior statements 

by the EPA. One comment cited an 

exchange of communications between 

the EPA, FLMs, and the State that was 

critical of using 0.5 km grid cells as not 

technically justified or in accordance 

with the agreed upon modeling 

protocol, and requested that these prior 

communications be included in the 

public record.8

In response to these comments, the 

EPA reevaluated the State’s BART 

exemption determination. The EPA has 

previously addressed the use of 

CALMET9 horizontal grid resolutions 

less than 4 km. See, EPA, Model 

Clearinghouse Review of CALPUFF 

Modeling Protocol for BART, 

Memorandum from Tyler Fox, EPA, 

May 15, 2009. (May 15, 2009, Model 

Clearinghouse Memo). This memo 

discusses, among other items, the 

proper justification for adjusting the 

modeled wind field from the default 4 

km horizontal grid resolution to a finer 

grid resolution. While the May 15, 2009, 

Model Clearinghouse Memo does not 

automatically preclude the use of a 

higher (finer) resolution meteorological 

grid, it discusses two conditions that 

should be addressed in considering the 

use of a finer meteorological grid. First, 

the memo explains that higher 

resolution data does not necessarily 

improve the model performance, but 

may in fact degrade it for some 

predicted meteorological parameters. 

Therefore, the memo states that ‘‘. . . 

scientific evidence to support the claim 

that a 1 km CALMET grid resolution 

increases the objective accuracy of the 

final wind field’’ is needed. Second, 

because CALMET’s ability to 

independently capture the full three 

dimensional structure of complex flows 

is limited, there is the need for high 

resolution numerical weather prediction 

(NWP) data or a density of 

representative observational data to 

accurately simulate the meteorological 

fields. See May 15, 2009 Model 

Clearinghouse Memo at 4. 

Appendix I of the Washington RH SIP 

presents the State’s rationale for using a 

CALMET fine grid resolution of 0.5 km 

to model the Alcoa Wenatchee facility. 

However, Appendix I provides no 

objective evaluation of the fine grid 

modeling necessary for use in the RH 

SIP. The State’s justification discussed 

the two conditions contained in the May 

15, 2009, Model Clearinghouse Memo. 

To address the first condition, the State 

presented the wind fields layered onto 

topographic maps at 4 km and 0.5 km 

resolutions and concluded that at 0.5 

km, the wind fields conform to the 

topographic features better than at 4 km. 

The State also included a graphic of the 

terrain profile at 12 km, 4 km, 0.5 km 

and 0.1 km resolution, which showed 

that at each succeeding finer grid 

resolution the ridges and valleys were 

more resolved. When the State 

addressed the second condition, 

however, it acknowledged that there 

were no meteorological observational 

data between the Alpine Lakes 

Wilderness Area and the Alcoa 

Wenatchee facility. It further 

acknowledged that there is ‘‘no direct 

way to assess the improvement in the 

wind field by using the finer grid.’’ 

Washington RH SIP, Appendix I at I–4. 

Instead, the State provided a qualitative 

discussion based on a combination of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79349 

experience and scrutiny of the wind 

fields computed at the fine grid 

resolution and then concluded that the 

0.5 km grid resolution provided a more 

accurate result in this instance. But the 

State failed to provide either high 

resolution NWP data or a density of 

representative data. An objective 

evaluation of the performance of the 

NWP data set was not performed. 

Accordingly, the justification provided 

in the Washington RH SIP Appendix I 

fails to demonstrate that CALMET had 

adequately captured the non steadystate meteorological conditions. 

Consequently, the second condition in 

the policy memorandum was not 

satisfied by the State. See EPA’s 

Evaluation of Appendix I in the 

Washington Regional Haze State 

Implementation, November 21, 2013. 

We recognize the effort the State took 

to further assess the nuances of the 

complex meteorology, terrain, modeled 

wind fields and model grid spacing in 

an attempt to demonstrate that the 

results from the State’s non-guideline 

approach are more accurate than the 

results from the approved approach. 

The 4 km and 0.5 km grid modeling 

predict visibility impacts at the Alpine 

Lakes Wilderness Area of 0.6 dv and 0.4 

dv respectively from the Alcoa 

Wenatchee facility. This difference of 

just 0.2 dv may, or may not be 

significant in terms of the accuracy of 

the CALPUFF model in general, or in 

justifying the appropriateness of one 

meteorological wind field 

representation over another. In this case, 

however, the difference is determinative 

in demonstrating whether the facility is 

exempt from BART requirements. 

Without an objective evaluation of the 

fine grid modeling, as required by the 

Model Clearinghouse Memo, we believe 

that conservatism is warranted in this 

instance, where the purpose of the 

modeling is solely to determine if the 

source contributes to visibility 

impairment such that it should be 

subject to BART review. 

Consideration of the modeling 

conducted, EPA’s prior evaluations of 

CALPUFF and CALMET modeling using 

fine grid resolution, and the purpose for 

which the modeling was conducted all 

lead us to conclude that relying on the 

results from the fine grid modeling to 

exempt the facility from further BART 

review is not warranted in this instance. 

Therefore, we conclude that the State 

has not demonstrated that this facility is 

exempt from BART. We are proposing to 

disapprove the State’s determination 

that the facility is exempt from BART 

and propose that the Alcoa Wenatchee 

facility is subject to BART. 

Additionally, we are proposing a BART 

FIP for the Alcoa Wenatchee facility. 

V. Proposed BART Determination for 

the Alcoa Wenatchee Facility 

There are ten emission units at the 

Alcoa Wenatchee facility that are BARTeligible: potline 5, one anode bake 

furnace, three ingot furnaces, two cokehandling operations, and three aluminahandling operations, including rail car 

unloading. The emission rates for the 

BART-eligible units are presented in the 

exemption modeling report, ‘‘CALPUFF 

Modeling Report for BART Analysis at 

Alcoa Inc.—Wenatchee Facility in 

Washington,’’ September 2007, Table 2– 

3. The emission rates, converted to tons 

per year (t/y), are presented in the Table 

below. 

TABLE 1—BART-ELIGIBLE UNIT EMISSIONS

Source name PM t/y SO2 t/y NOx t/y 

Potline 5 Emissions ..................................................................................................................... 148.9 1000.8 4.6 

Ingot Furnace 1 ........................................................................................................................... 9.5 0.0 0.7 

Ingot Furnace 2 ........................................................................................................................... 9.9 0.0 0.7 

Ingot Furnace 11 ......................................................................................................................... 17.7 0.0 1.1 

Anode Bake Furnace ................................................................................................................... 0.4 250.3 34.8 

Dry Coke Scrubber ...................................................................................................................... 1.4 0.0 0.0 

Dust Collector #2 ......................................................................................................................... 11.5 0.0 0.0 

Alumina Handling 21 ................................................................................................................... 0.3 0.0 0.0 

Alumina Handling 19C ................................................................................................................. 0.3 0.0 0.0 

Alumina Handling 43E ................................................................................................................. 16.7 0.0 0.0 

Totals .................................................................................................................................... 216.6 1251.1 41.9 

BART Determination Approach 

The EPA completed a BART review 

for the BART-eligible emission units at 

the Alcoa Wenatchee facility. In making 

the BART determination for this facility, 

the EPA considered the following: 

• Existing air pollution controls for 

each BART emission unit; 

• Technically feasible and available 

control technologies with higher control 

efficiency than existing controls; 

• Costs of compliance; 

• Energy and non-air environmental 

impacts; and 

• Visibility improvement. 

A memorandum to the files included 

in the docket to this action contains the 

BART review. See memorandum dated 

December 10, 2013 from Steve Body, 

Alcoa Wenatchee Works BART 

Determination. This memorandum 

contains a more detailed discussion of 

our review and consideration of the five 

BART factors. The Alcoa Intalco facility 

in Ferndale, Washington and the Alcoa 

Wenatchee facility use the same 

aluminum smelting process with similar 

pollutant concentrations and exhaust 

gases temperatures. Because there are 

similarities between some of the BARTeligible units at the Alcoa Intalco 

facility and the BART-eligible units at 

the Alcoa Wenatchee facility, our BART 

determination for the Wenatchee facility 

uses, where appropriate, data and 

information from our Intalco BART 

analysis and the Washington RH SIP 

(which included an ENVIRON 

Corporation report (ENVIRON report) 

that contained a BART analysis for 

Intalco). In some instances, the data and 

information from the Intalco analysis 

was updated or scaled as needed for the 

Wenatchee facility. Additionally, as 

explained below, in some instances, the 

consideration of one factor alleviated 

the need for further evaluation of a 

control technology and a streamlined 

analysis was appropriate. For example, 

if an emission unit is currently 

controlled by the most stringent control 

technology available, additional 

technologies need not be considered 

and a comprehensive analysis of the 

remaining factors is not necessary. 

The Alcoa Wenatchee facility operates 

under a State-issued Title V operating 

permit, No. 000068–0, issued on March 

1, 2010 (Alcoa Wenatchee Operating 

Permit). Where a proposed BART 

determination is also a requirement in 

the current operating permit, but the 

requirement is not yet federally 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79350 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

enforceable, the proposed BART 

determination will make the 

requirement federally enforceable and 

consistent with the requirements in the 

permit. 

Anode Bake Furnace 

Process Description. Carbon anodes 

are used in the electric arc furnaces 

(pots) used to produce aluminum. They 

are manufactured on site from 

purchased calcined petroleum coke and 

anode butt material (residual anode 

material after its useful life and 

defective anodes) that is crushed and 

sized, mixed together with pitch, and 

formed into blocks called ‘‘green 

anodes.’’ The green anodes are then 

baked in the anode bake furnace to 

achieve the structural integrity 

necessary for use in the potlines. 

The Alcoa Wenatchee facility operates 

two anode bake furnaces, but due to 

their dates of construction, only one is 

BART-eligible. Both furnaces are fueled 

with natural gas and consist of a series 

of formed firebrick-lined pits. Exhaust 

gases from both furnaces are collected in 

an underground duct, combined and 

sent to the A446 anode bake scrubber. 

Thus, the exhaust gases from the BARTeligible and non-BART-eligible emission 

units are combined into a common duct 

and control device. The exhaust gases 

contain, among other pollutants, the 

visibility-impairing pollutants SO2, 

NOX, and PM2.5. 

Existing Control. The anode bake 

furnaces’ emissions are controlled by 

the A446 anode bake scrubber, a dry 

alumina scrubber followed by fabric 

filtration. Fabric filters generally reflect 

the highest level of control for PM2.5,

reducing emissions by more than 99 

percent. Recent source tests for PM2.5

emission rates from the A446 anode 

bake scrubber reflect a properly 

operating fabric filter. See CAA Site 

Visit Report, July 12, 2013, and Alcoa 

Wenatchee Works-Summary of 

Emission Test Data for BART-Eligible 

Emission Units. The A446 anode bake 

scrubber does not control for SO2 or 

NOX.

Control Options. Because the anode 

bake furnace emission characteristics 

(i.e. pollutant concentration and 

temperature) of SO2 and NOX are similar 

to those from the potlines, the SO2 and 

NOX BART control options considered 

for the potlines are also applicable to 

the anode bake furnace. However, the 

emission gas flow rates for the anode 

bake furnaces are significantly less than 

the potline emission gas flow rates, only 

a small fraction of the airflow volume of 

the Potline 5 Gas Treatment Center 

(GTC). Gas flow rate dictates the size 

(and cost) of a potential control 

technology. 

Due to the operational similarities and 

similar exhaust gas characteristics 

between the anode bake furnaces at the 

Wenatchee facility and the Intalco 

facility, control options for the anode 

bake furnaces at the Wenatchee facility 

rely in large part on the analytical work 

completed for the Intalco anode bake 

furnaces and potlines. See Appendix L 

of the Washington RH SIP, the 

ENVIRON Report, and the EPA’s 

proposed BART determination for the 

Intalco anode bake furnace. 

SO2 Control Options.After a review of 

the EPA’s proposed BART 

determination for the Intalco facility 

and the BART analysis in the ENVIRON 

Report, a wet scrubber was identified as 

the only technically feasible add-on 

control option for the Wenatchee 

facility. Emissions of SO2 from the 

Intalco anode bake furnaces are 181 t/ 

y, while emissions from the Wenatchee 

facility bake furnaces are 250 t/y. 

However, as discussed above, the 

Wenatchee emissions are from both the 

BART and non-BART units that are 

ducted to a common stack. 

At Alcoa’s Intalco facility, the 

ENVIRON Report (and Appendix L of 

the Washington RH SIP) estimated that 

the installed capital cost of a retrofit wet 

scrubber that would remove 95 percent 

of the SO2 from the anode bake furnace 

exhaust would be approximately $29.5 

million with a total annualized cost of 

$6.3 million per year. The ENVIRON 

report explained that these costs 

corresponded to a cost-effectiveness of 

$36,400 per ton of SO2 removed. See 

ENVIRON Report, Table 5–3; 

Washington RH SIP, Appendix L, pg. L– 

73. With the greater gas flow rate at the 

Wenatchee facility, the capital and 

annual operating costs would be higher, 

but the cost-effectiveness values would 

only be slightly lower. Other than the 

gas flow rate, there are no significant 

differences between the emission 

characteristics, current control 

technology, and physical design of the 

anode bake furnaces at the Intalco 

facility and at the Wenatchee facility 

that would lead to significantly different 

cost-effectiveness values. Consequently, 

we believe that wet scrubbing of SO2

would not be cost-effective for the 

Wenatchee anode bake furnace. 

In addition to wet scrubbing, a 

pollution prevention option would be to 

establish a maximum sulfur content of 

the anode coke at 3% for the anode bake 

furnaces and potlines. The sulfur limit 

in anode coke would limit the emissions 

from the anode bake furnaces and, 

because the anodes are consumed in the 

potlines, would also result in reduced 

SO2 emissions from the potlines. The 

current permit for the Wenatchee 

facility limits the sulfur content of 

anode coke for potlines 1, 2, and 3 to 

3%. See Alcoa Wenatchee Air Operating 

Permit, condition D.12. There is no such 

restriction on the anodes made for 

potline 5. We believe that requiring the 

same limit for coke used to make anodes 

for potline 5 would add no cost to the 

operation, but would ensure that SO2

emissions from the anode bake furnaces 

would always reflect the use of no more 

than 3% sulfur coke. 

PM Control Options. Dry alumina 

injection with fabric filtration currently 

controls PM emissions from the anode 

bake furnaces. The installed fabric filter 

reflects high efficiency control for PM. 

An electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is 

also a technically feasible control 

option, with a similar PM capture 

efficiency to fabric filtration. Because 

the control-effectiveness of these two 

options is largely equivalent, further 

evaluation of an ESP is not necessary. 

Other possible controls, such as 

cyclones, inertial separators, and wet 

scrubbers are less effective at removing 

small and submicron particles than 

fabric filters and ESPs. 

There is a current PM emission limit 

in the Alcoa Wenatchee Air Operating 

Permit of 0.1 grains per dry standard 

cubic foot (gr/dscf) for anode bake 

furnaces. See permit condition B.1. We 

believe this limit does not accurately 

represent the performance of a properly 

maintained and operated fabric filter. A 

review of source tests conducted in 

2011 to 2013 indicates that the A446 

scrubber consistently controls PM 

emissions to concentrations of less than 

0.01 gr/dscf. Therefore, because a BART 

emission limitation must be ‘‘based on 

the degree of reduction achievable 

through the application of the best 

system of continuous emission 

reduction,’’ see 40 CFR 51.301 

(emphasis added), we are proposing to 

set a PM BART limit of 0.01 gr/dscf for 

the anode bake furnaces. 

NOX Control Options.The evaluation 

of available NOX control options for the 

anode bake furnaces, including the 

control technology descriptions, is 

based on the BART determination 

contained in the Washington RH SIP, 

the ENVIRON Report, and the EPA’s 

proposed BART determination for the 

Intalco facility. 

The amount of NOX emitted from a 

natural gas-fired anode bake furnace 

varies depending on operating practices 

and burner design. The traditional 

methods of preventing NOX formation 

using staged combustion or low NOX

burners are not applicable for the Alcoa 

Wenatchee anode bake furnaces because 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79351 

of the unique configuration of the 

furnaces, with fuel injected at several 

points in narrow flues. However, 

advanced firing systems that measure 

and regulate fuel flow precisely using a 

computerized control system can reduce 

total fuel usage. By reducing fuel usage, 

advanced firing also reduces NOX

emissions. Prevention of NOX formation 

using a more efficient advanced firing 

control system is technically feasible for 

the anode bake furnaces. While specific 

cost estimates were not determined for 

an advanced firing system, we did 

determine that it would entail the 

purchase and installation of equipment 

and computers for measuring and 

metering a variety of parameters. Total 

gas usage could be reduced by up to 

20%, which would result in a 

corresponding 20% reduction in NOX

emissions, or approximately 7 t/y. This 

reduction represents a 0.05% reduction 

in emissions from all BART units that 

would result in negligible visibility 

improvement in any Class I area. Thus, 

we believe it is unreasonable to require 

an advanced firing system at the 

Wenatchee facility. 

The LoTOXTM system is the patented 

technology of Linde Industrial Gases. At 

a control efficiency of 90%, the 

resulting reduction in NOX emissions 

would be 31 t/y if it was installed at the 

Wenatchee facility. As explained in the 

Alcoa Wenatchee Works BART 

Determination memorandum, dated 

December 10, 2013, the cost per ton of 

removal is expected to be in excess of 

$18,000 per ton. Due to the extremely 

high cost and only a 31 t/y NOX

emission reduction, it is unreasonable to 

require emission limits based on 

LoTOxTM at the Wenatchee facility. 

BART is therefore proposed to be the 

existing operating conditions of firing 

the furnaces on natural gas. There is no 

information available that can be used 

to establish a numerical emission 

limitation, so the proposed NOX BART 

requirement for the anode bake furnace 

will be a fuel specification that requires 

that only natural gas may be combusted 

in the anode bake furnaces. 

Proposed BART Limits for the Anode 

Bake Furnaces 

PM: 0.01 gr/dscf 

SO2: 3% sulfur content in anode coke 

NOX: combust only natural gas 

Potline 5 

Process description. The potlines are 

where electrical current is passed 

through the alumina mix in a number of 

small ‘‘pots’’ or crucibles to produce 

aluminum. Because it is an electrical 

chemical heating process, and not a 

combustion process, very limited 

amounts of NOX are emitted. Thermal 

NOX is created when ambient air comes 

into contact with the hot surface of the 

alumina in the pots. Sulfur in the anode 

coke does react with the oxygen 

liberated from the alumina, resulting in 

emissions of SO2. Because of the high 

PM control efficiency of the potline 5 

GTC, minimal amounts of PM are 

emitted. 

Existing Control. Potline emissions at 

the Wenatchee facility are collected by 

hoods and ducted the GTC control 

device. The GTC consists of dry 

scrubbing with alumina followed by 

fabric filtration. This control system 

provides control of PM, fluorides, and 

polycyclic organic matter (POM). It 

provides no control for SO2 or NOX.

SO2 Control Options. As discussed in 

our proposed BART determination for 

the Intalco potlines, the Washington RH 

SIP Appendix L, and the ENVIRON 

report for the Alcoa Intalco facility, 

limestone slurry forced oxidation 

(LSFO) is a technically feasible add-on 

control option for SO2 emissions from 

the potlines. Several potential control 

technologies were evaluated by Alcoa 

for both the potlines and anode bake 

furnace, including LSFO, limestone 

slurry scrubbing with natural oxidation 

(LSNO), conventional lime wet 

scrubbing, seawater scrubbing, dual 

alkali sodium/lime scrubbing (dilute 

mode), conventional sodium scrubbing, 

dry injection, and semi-dry scrubbing. 

As described in the proposed EPA 

BART determination for Intalco and the 

ENVIRON Report, LNSO, conventional 

wet lime scrubbing and dual alkali 

sodium/lime scrubbing either have clear 

disadvantages or are likely to be more 

costly than LSFO. Dry scrubbing is 

technically infeasible for control of SO2

emissions from the potlines because dry 

scrubbing requires temperatures of 250– 

260 °F, whereas the potlines have a flue 

gas temperature of ∼205 °F. Spray dry 

control technology requires evaporation 

of the moisture introduced into the 

exhaust gas. Spray drying generally 

requires temperatures higher than those 

needed for dry scrubbing, thus spray 

drying is also technically infeasible for 

control of SO2 from the potlines. Due to 

the inland location of the Wenatchee 

facility, seawater scrubbing is infeasible. 

The infrastructure and associated 

capital costs for a sodium scrubber 

would be similar to that of LSFO, 

although sodium-based reagents are 

generally more expensive than 

limestone or lime. Thus, sodium 

scrubbing, while technically feasible, 

would be less cost-effective than LSFO. 

LSFO was determined to be a 

technically feasible retrofit control 

option for the potlines and the anode 

baking exhausts even though it is not 

ideally suited for scrubbing SO2

concentrations that are less than or 

equal to 105 parts per million, that is 

the case for the Wenatchee facility. 

The EPA conducted a cost analysis of 

LSFO scaled from the Intalco analysis to 

the Wenatchee facility. See ‘‘Alcoa 

Wenatchee Works Cost Analysis for 

Limestone Slurry Forced Oxidation 

(LSFO) Scrubbing—Wenatchee, 

Washington,’’ September 18, 2013. That 

analysis found that the costeffectiveness values for LSFO at the 

Wenatchee facility ranged from $7500/ 

ton to $8500/ton of SO2 removed. 

The cost-effectiveness values are at 

the high end of what the EPA would 

generally consider reasonable unless the 

controls would result in significant 

visibility improvement in one or more 

Class I areas. The dispersion modeling 

in this instance shows that the 

Wenatchee facility contributes to 

impairment in only one Class I area at 

about the level of the BART threshold. 

Thus, due to the high cost and limited 

visibility improvement, we are 

eliminating LSFO as BART for the 

Wenatchee facility. 

The operating permit for the 

Wenatchee facility currently controls 

SO2 from potlines 1, 2, and 3, by 

limiting the sulfur content of anode 

coke to a maximum of 3% and SO2

emissions are also limited to 46 pounds 

per ton of aluminum produced. See 

permit condition D.12. This permit 

condition (which represents Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) 

as established in an EPA PSD permit) 

does not apply to potline 5. The same 

coke is used for the anodes in all four 

potlines. Thus, EPA understands that 

potline 5 currently complies with both 

the 3% maximum coke sulfur content 

and the 46 pounds per ton of aluminum 

produced limit currently in effect for 

potlines 1, 2, and 3. As such, we believe 

there would be no cost involved in 

applying these same limits to potline 5. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing that SO2

BART is to limit sulfur in the anode 

coke for potline 5 to 3% and limit SO2

emissions from potline 5 to 46 pounds 

per ton of aluminum produced. 

NOX Control Options. The potlines are 

electrically heated and none of the raw 

materials used in the potlines contain 

significant quantities of nitrogen. As a 

result, the NOX emissions from the 

potlines are insignificant. Potline 5 NOX

emissions are just 4.5 t/y. We reviewed 

the ENVIRON Report and agree with its 

determination that there are no 

technically feasible options to control 

NOX from the potlines at Intalco. We 

believe that due to the similarities 

discussed above between the Intalco 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79352 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

and Wenatchee facilities, the 

conclusions regarding NOX controls for 

the potlines at the Intalco facility also 

apply to the Wenatchee facility. Current 

operating conditions therefore represent 

BART. Currently, the Wenatchee facility 

determines NOX emissions based on an 

emission factor of 0.34 pounds of NOX

per ton of aluminum produced. Based 

on the production capacity for potline 5, 

NOX emissions will be limited to 0.95 

tons per calendar month. 

PM Control Options. PM emissions 

from the potlines are currently 

effectively controlled by fabric filters. 

The existing Air Operating Permit limits 

PM emissions to 0.005 gr/dscf. See 

permit condition D.5. We believe that 

fabric filtration is the most effective PM 

control device for this source and a limit 

of 0.005 gr/dscf is an appropriate limit 

for a highly efficient fabric filter. We are 

proposing 0.005 gr/dscf as the BART 

emission limit for PM. 

Proposed BART Limits for Potline 5 

PM: 0.005 gr/dscf 

SO2: 46 pounds per ton of aluminum 

produced 

NOX: 0.95 tons per calendar month 

Ingot Furnaces 1, 2, and 11 

Process Description, Existing 

Controls, and Control Options. The 

ingot furnaces are natural gas-fired 

furnaces that heat molten aluminum 

after it has been siphoned out of the 

pots, prior to casting. The furnaces are 

used to remove aluminum dross from 

the molten aluminum. In the past, they 

also were used to create aluminum 

alloys by mixing other metals with the 

molten aluminum. There are a total of 

five ingot furnaces located in the 

casthouse, three of which were 

constructed or modified within the 

BART-eligibility window and are 

subject to BART. All ingot furnaces 

operate uncontrolled, and the emissions 

are periodically tested by facility 

personnel. 

Emissions of visibility impairing 

pollutants from the three ingot furnaces 

subject to BART are insignificant. In 

total, the furnaces emit 37.1 t/y of PM2.5, 

no SO2, and only 2.5 t/y of NOX. It is 

therefore unnecessary to control these 

three sources because their emissions 

are likely to have only a negligible 

impact on visibility. We are therefore 

proposing that BART for PM and NOX

is no additional controls beyond the 

continued use of natural gas as fuel. The 

current operating permit for the 

Wenatchee facility contains a PM 

emission limit of 0.1 gr/dscf. See permit 

condition G.1. We believe that this limit 

is appropriate for natural gas fired 

furnaces without add-on PM controls 

and propose to establish it as the BART 

emission limit for the ingot furnaces. 

For NOX BART, we propose to establish 

a fuel specification requiring the 

furnaces burn only natural gas. 

Proposed BART Limits for the Ingot 

Furnaces 

PM: 0.1 gr/dscf 

SO2: BART limit not necessary because 

there are no SO2 emissions 

NOX: combust only natural gas 

Green Mill 

Process Description. The green mill is 

where ‘‘green’’ anodes (i.e., un-baked) 

are formed from a mixture of coke and 

petroleum pitch. The coke and pitch 

mixture is placed into a vibratory 

anode-forming mold that uses elevated 

temperature of the raw materials, 

vibration, and pressure from an 

overhead weight to form the coke/pitch 

mixture into solid green anodes. The 

vibratory former was installed in 1972. 

All emissions from the green mill, 

including the vibratory forming unit, are 

collected and sent either to the dry coke 

scrubber or dust collector 2. 

Existing Controls. There are two air 

emission control devices currently 

operating for emissions from the green 

mill and vibratory forming unit. 

Emissions from various processes 

within the green mill are collected and 

sent either to the dry coke scrubber or 

dust collector 2. The dry coke scrubber 

is a dry scrubber using powdered coke, 

followed by fabric filtration. The dust 

collector 2 is a fabric filter. 

Proposed BART Limits for Dry Coke 

Scrubber. The dry coke scrubber uses 

fabric filters to capture PM from the 

green mill. There is no more efficient 

technology for PM, thus analysis of 

additional PM control options is not 

necessary. The State has established an 

emission limit for this unit of 0.005 gr/ 

dscf, which represents the capture 

efficiency for high efficiency fabric 

filters. See permit condition A–5. A 

recent source test shows this source is 

capable of meeting this limit. We 

therefore propose that 0.005 gr/dscf as 

the BART emission limit for PM for the 

dry coke scrubber. 

PM: 0.005 gr/dscf 

SO2: BART limit not necessary because 

there are no SO2 emissions 

NOX: BART limit not necessary because 

there are no NOX emissions 

Proposed BART Limits for Dust 

Collector 2. The dust collector 2 uses 

fabric filtration to capture PM from the 

green mill. There is no more efficient 

control technology for PM, so the 

existing technology is the basis for 

BART. Emissions from the dust 

collector 2 are 11.5 t/y. The State has 

established an emission limit for this 

unit in the operating permit for the 

facility at 0.1 gr/dscf. See permit 

condition A–9. However, this limit does 

not adequately represent the control 

efficiency for properly operated and 

maintained fabric filters. The EPA has 

obtained and reviewed recent source 

test data from the State for this emission 

point and finds that 0.01 gr/dscf is more 

representative of a properly operated 

and maintained fabric filter. Because 

BART must be ‘‘an emission limitation 

based on the degree of reduction 

achievable’’ by the selected control 

technology, 40 CFR 51.301, and because 

the available data demonstrates that the 

existing fabric filter in dust collector 2 

can readily achieve an emission limit of 

0.01 gr/dscf, we are proposing it as PM 

BART. 

PM: 0.01 gr/dscf 

SO2: BART limit not necessary because 

there are no SO2 emissions 

NOX: BART limit not necessary because 

there are no NOX emissions 

Alumina Handling Equipment 

Process Description, Existing 

Controls, and Control Options. There 

are two alumina handling emission 

points. The first is a very small fabric 

filter dust collector on an alumina 

conveyance line that is identified as 

unit 21M. The second is a small fabric 

filter dust collector controlling 

emissions from an alumina handling 

unit situated above an alumina storage 

silo that is identified as unit 19C. 

Combined emissions from 21M and 19C 

total less than 1 t/y. Because these PM 

emissions are currently controlled by 

fabric filters, which represent high 

efficiency PM control, an analysis of 

additional PM control options is not 

necessary. However, due to physical 

constraints, PM emissions from these 

two units cannot be tested or measured, 

therefore we are proposing to establish 

the PM BART limits for 21M and 19C 

in the form of an opacity standard 

instead of a PM emission limitation. 

Because there are no SO2 or NOX

emissions from alumina handling, 

BART for these pollutants is not 

applicable. 

Proposed BART Limits for Alumina 

Handling Equipment 21M and 19C 

PM: 20% opacity 

SO2: BART limit not necessary because 

there are no SO2 emissions 

NOX: BART limit not necessary because 

there are no NOX emissions 

Alumina Railcar Unloading Facility 

Process Description, Existing 

Controls, and Control Options. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79353 

10 ‘‘IP rate’’ means the Industrial Firm Power Rate 

contained in BPA’s 2012 Wholesale Power Rate 

Schedules. 

alumina railcar unloading facility is 

equipped with below-ground hoppers 

controlled by a large fabric filter and is 

identified as unit 43E. The PM 

emissions from unit 43E are 17 t/y. 

Because PM emissions are currently 

controlled by a fabric filter, which 

represents high efficiency PM control, 

analysis of additional PM control 

options is not necessary. The current 

PM emission limit for the railcar 

unloading facility is the statewide PM 

limit of 0.1 gr/dscf. However, Alcoa 

provided source test data that 

demonstrates that unit 43E can achieve 

a much lower limit representative of a 

high efficiency fabric filter. Based on 

this source test data, we are proposing 

a PM BART emission limit of 0.005 gr/ 

dscf. Because there are no SO2 or NOX

emissions from the railcar unloading 

facility, BART for these pollutants is not 

applicable. 

Proposed BART Limits for Alumina 

Railcar Unloading Facility 

PM: 0.005 gr/dscf 

SO2: BART limit not necessary because 

there are no SO2 emissions 

NOX: BART limit not necessary because 

there are no NOX emissions 

VI. New Information Relevant to the 

EPA’s Previous Proposal 

We received adverse comments on 

our proposed action on two FIP 

elements: Our analysis regarding the 

affordability of LSFO control technology 

for SO2 at the Intalco facility in 

Ferndale, Washington, and our 

demonstration that the BART 

Alternative for the Tesoro refinery in 

Anacortes, Washington provides greater 

reasonable progress than NOX BART. In 

response to the comments regarding 

these specific issues, new information is 

now available for public review, as 

discussed below. 

A. Affordability Analysis of LSFO at 

Intalco 

As explained in our prior proposal, 

the BART Guidelines provide that even 

if a control technology is determined to 

be reasonable after consideration of all 

five BART factors, there may be some 

cases where installation of the controls 

will affect the viability of continued 

plant operations. After we initially 

found that SO2 BART for the potlines at 

the Intalco facility was an LSFO control 

system, Alcoa indicated to EPA that it 

could not afford to install and operate 

LSFO. In response, we conducted an 

affordability analysis to confirm the 

company’s assertion. We contracted 

with RTI International (RTI) to conduct 

the requested affordability analysis. See 

2012 Affordability Assessment. In our 

December 2012 proposal, we concluded 

that the 2012 Affordability Assessment 

demonstrated that Alcoa could not 

afford to install LSFO at this time while 

maintaining the Intalco facility as a 

viable operation and requested 

comment. 77 FR 76191–76192. 

Several commenters questioned the 

sufficiency of the 2012 Affordability 

Assessment, suggesting that the analysis 

lacked an adequate explanation or basis 

for the affordability determination. The 

commenters alleged that the 2012 

Affordability Assessment did not 

provide a clear argument why Alcoa 

cannot afford the cost of LSFO at the 

Intalco facility. The commenters also 

argued that RTI improperly relied on the 

OAQPS Control Cost Manual to 

determine the rate at which Alcoa 

would have to borrow funds to install 

LSFO when RTI should have used sitespecific data. One commenter also said 

that the 2012 Affordability Assessment 

did not describe what the cost/sales 

ratio means, what ratio would suggest 

LSFO is affordable, or why the cost/

sales ratio is significant in determining 

affordability. The commenters also 

pointed out that the 2012 Affordability 

Assessment acknowledged that a longterm power contract with the Bonneville 

Power Administration, which had 

expired at the time of the analysis, 

would affect the affordability analysis. 

Because a new long-term power contract 

was signed and became effective shortly 

after the 2012 Affordability Assessment 

was finalized, the commenters asserted 

that it should be considered in a final 

affordability determination. The 

commenters claimed that the foundation 

for the EPA’s conclusion was factually 

incorrect because the determinative fact 

on which the affordability conclusion 

was based (the existence of a long-term 

power supply contract) substantially 

changed less than a month after the 

2012 Affordability Assessment was 

finalized. The commenters also argued 

that the 2012 Affordability Assessment 

failed to disclose what amount of power 

at the IP rate 10 is actually necessary for 

Intalco to run all 3 potlines. The 2012 

Affordability Assessment did not 

analyze whether LSFO would be 

affordable if Intalco were able to obtain 

power for two lines under a long-term 

contract and other power for the third. 

The commenters requested that the 

affordability analysis be redone in light 

of Intalco’s new long-term power supply 

contract and other facts absent from the 

2012 Affordability Assessment. 

In response to these comments, we 

asked RTI to update its Affordability 

Assessment based on the availability of 

new and updated information. RTI 

considered, for example, new 

information regarding commodity price 

forecasting for the aluminum market, 

updated investment ratings, the 

December 2012 Long-Term Power Sales 

Agreement between Alcoa and the 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) 

(2012 Power Sales Agreement), and the 

2012 Alcoa Annual Report. RTI 

completed its Revised Intalco BART SO2

Affordability Assessment in September 

2013 (Revised Affordability 

Assessment). The Revised Affordability 

Assessment includes an improved 

explanation of the various data used to 

determine financial health in the 

context of an affordability analysis for a 

BART determination. The Revised 

Affordability Assessment now 

specifically addresses the long-term 

power supply contract, cost/sales ratio, 

ability to borrow funds, the price of 

electricity, updated investment ratings, 

aluminum market conditions and other 

factors relevant to the affordability 

determination. 

RTI analyzed the information to 

determine the impact that requiring the 

LSFO control technology could have on 

the profitability of Alcoa and on the 

Intalco facility. RTI describes how it 

calculated the Intalco cost/sales ratio to 

be a range of 5.1% to 21.7%. This range 

of values depends on assumptions about 

control costs, capacity utilization, and 

aluminum prices. It further explains 

that the cost/sales ratios may be higher 

or lower depending on plant utilization 

and future aluminum prices, but that 

the ratios are high in even the most 

optimistic scenarios. RTI also suggests 

that even in the absence of requiring the 

LSFO technology, the profitability of 

operating Intalco is highly sensitive to 

external factors. The Revised 

Affordability Assessment describes the 

current demand for aluminum and the 

fact that several aluminum smelters in 

the northwest have shut down within 

the past 10 years. It also reviews the 

2012 Power Sales Agreement and the 

electricity price forecasts in the 

northwest. It concludes that Intalco’s 

ability to run at full capacity depends 

on the availability of affordable power, 

but explains that even with the longterm power contract, Intalco may not be 

able to operate profitably if additional 

regulatory costs are factored into the 

plant’s operating cost. Revised 

Affordability Assessment at 4–4 through 

4–6. 

The Revised Affordability Assessment 

also describes why Alcoa is unlikely to 

be able to pass the cost of controls on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79354 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

to consumers. As explained, aluminum 

is a commodity traded on global 

markets, such as the London Metal 

Exchange. Aluminum producers can 

affect the cost/sales ratio by negotiating 

long-term contracts with alumina 

suppliers, but have little control over 

product price. In the case of Intalco, the 

increased costs of installing and 

operating LSFO would affect only this 

one aluminum facility, so the increased 

costs would have little impact on global 

supply. Therefore, RTI concluded, the 

market price would remain essentially 

unaffected, and Intalco would be unable 

to pass much, if any, of its cost increase 

along to its customers. Intalco would 

experience increased costs due to LSFO, 

with little to no change in the price of 

its products. Revised Affordability 

Assessment at 4–7. As a result, its 

profits, per-ton and overall, could be 

reduced to unacceptable levels by LSFO 

that would likely lead to a business 

decision to close the facility. 

As explained in the Revised 

Affordability Assessment, RTI also 

analyzed Alcoa’s ability to fund using 

cash, or finance using debt, the control 

technology costs. As explained, the cost 

of installing and operating LSFO will 

represent approximately 5–21% of the 

facility’s sales revenue over the 30-year 

lifetime of the equipment at current 

utilization. Although limited cash 

reserves are available, the control 

technology expenditure would use over 

8% of Alcoa’s cash reserves. 

Additionally, as of 2013, the credit 

ratings provided by Standard & Poors, 

Moody’s, and Fitch showed that Alcoa’s 

financial outlook was negative or under 

review for downgrade. Alcoa’s 2013 

BBB–credit rating may also limit its 

ability to borrow money to purchase 

pollution control equipment. The 

Revised Affordability Assessment 

concluded that: 

[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. Revised Affordability Assessment at 

5–1. 

As previously explained in our 

December 2012 notice, Alcoa submitted 

financial information to the EPA in 

support of its affordability claim. A 

portion of the information, Attachment 

2 of the letter from Robert Wilt, Alcoa 

Inc., to Dennis McLerran, EPA Region 

10 Administrator, dated June 22, 2012, 

was claimed as confidential business 

information (CBI). Thus, Attachment 2 

was not available at that time for public 

review. Subsequently, in accordance 

with EPA regulations regarding CBI at 

40 CFR Part 2, the EPA asked Alcoa to 

substantiate its CBI claim. In response, 

Alcoa submitted a redacted version of 

Attachment 2 reducing the amount of 

information it claimed as confidential 

and providing substantiation for the 

redacted information. The information 

Alcoa continued to claim as confidential 

consists of several years of ‘after tax’ 

cash flow values. After considering the 

criteria specified in 40 CFR 2.208, the 

EPA made a final CBI determination 

finding that the redacted information 

constituted CBI within the meaning of 

the EPA’s regulations. The redacted 

Attachment 2, the substantiation, and 

the final CBI determination are included 

in the docket for this action and are 

available for public review. 

The additional and updated 

information regarding the affordability 

of LSFO at Intalco, including the 

Revised Affordability Assessment, is 

also included in the docket for this 

proposed action and is available for 

public review. Comments regarding this 

additional and updated information 

may be made in accordance with the 

procedures explained in the public 

comment section above. Other aspects 

of our previously proposed action 

related to Intalco are outside the scope 

of this notice. Accordingly, other 

comments we previously received in 

response to our December 2012 proposal 

related to the proposed Intalco BART 

and affordability determination will be 

responded to in a future Federal 

Register notice. 

B. Tesoro Modeling Demonstration for 

BART Alternative 

In our December 2012 notice, we 

proposed to disapprove the State’s NOX

BART determination for five BART 

emission units at the Tesoro Refining 

and Marketing refinery (Tesoro) and 

proposed a federal BART Alternative. 

The proposal explained that the EPA’s 

proposed BART Alternative provides for 

greater reasonable progress towards 

meeting natural visibility conditions 

than BART. 

The RHR provides two methods by 

which this demonstration can be made. 

First, if the distribution of emissions is 

not substantially different than under 

BART, and the alternative measure 

results in greater emission reductions, 

then the alternative measure may be 

deemed to achieve greater reasonable 

progress. Second, for disperse or widely 

distributed sources in a regional 

emissions trading program, dispersion 

modeling is to be used. 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3). Because in this case, the 

emission sources covered by BART and 

the BART Alternative are within the 

same facility and the distribution of 

emissions is not substantially different, 

applying the first method’s emissions 

test would meet regulatory 

requirements. The demonstration in the 

December 2012 proposal relied on the 

emission test. It compared the allowed 

emissions under BART to the emissions 

that would be allowed under the BART 

Alternative. We determined that the 

BART Alternative would reduce SO2

emissions by 1068 tons per year, which 

exceeds the 466 tons of NOX per year 

expected to be reduced under BART. 

Thus, in accordance with the RHR, 

because the alternative measure results 

in greater emission reductions, the 

alternative ‘‘may be deemed to achieve 

greater reasonable progress.’’ 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3). 

Several commenters stated that even 

with the greater SO2 emission 

reductions under the BART Alternative, 

the EPA made an inappropriate greaterreasonable-progress demonstration. The 

commenters explained that in cool 

moist climates (like the Pacific 

Northwest), the CALPUFF model 

predicts that the conversion of NOX to 

nitrate is enhanced in the winter 

months. The commenters suggested that 

dispersion modeling should have been 

used to demonstrate whether the BART 

Alternative truly resulted in greater 

reasonable progress. The dispersion 

modeling results would compare the 

visibility improvement expected from 

the proposed BART Alternative to the 

visibility improvement expected from 

source-specific NOX BART. The 

commenters asserted that it was not 

sufficient for the EPA to simply 

compare the emission reductions 

expected from BART with emission 

reductions expected from the BART 

Alternative. The commenters said that 

SO2 and NOX have significantly 

different chemical aerosol formation 

mechanisms in the atmosphere, 

depending on meteorology. They also 

said that the presence of more sulfate 

than nitrate at a Class I area does not 

necessarily indicate, without more 

analysis, that one ton of SO2 has more 

or less impact than one ton of NOX. One 

commenter specifically suggested that 

NOX emissions have a greater ‘‘per ton’’ 

impact on visibility than SO2 emissions. 

The commenters suggested that air 

quality/visibility dispersion modeling, 

similar to the modeling used in 

determining whether a BART-eligible 

source is subject to BART, should be 

conducted. Therefore, the commenters 

argued that the EPA had not adequately 

shown that the Tesoro BART 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79355 

Alternative was in fact ‘Better than 

BART’. 

After consideration and in response to 

these comments, the EPA decided that 

a modeling analysis was appropriate for 

the Tesoro ‘Better than BART’ 

demonstration. At the EPA’s request, 

Tesoro agreed to provide such a 

modeling demonstration. Tesoro used 

the ‘Modeling Protocol for Washington, 

Oregon, and Idaho: Protocol for the 

Application of the CALPUFF Modeling 

System Pursuant to the Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) Regulation’ 

that was used for determining which 

BART-eligible sources were subject to 

BART. That protocol, as supplemented 

with detailed information specific to the 

Tesoro ‘Better than BART’ 

demonstration, including the Class I 

areas to be evaluated, parameters used 

for comparison (i.e., 98th percentile 

change in daily haze index, and 

maximum change in the daily haze 

index), and emission sources, was 

approved by the EPA on March 28, 

2013. (The approved protocol is found 

in the April 11, 2013 letter from Tesoro, 

Appendix I). The modeling was 

conducted to assess whether the 

visibility improvement from the BART 

Alternative’s SO2 emission reductions 

would be greater than the visibility 

improvement from the BART NOX

reductions. The modeling assessed both 

pollutants’ chemical aerosol formation 

mechanisms and impacts on visibility. 

The modeling demonstrated that the 

visibility improvement associated with 

the SO2 reductions under the BART 

Alternative was greater than the 

improvements associated with the NOX

reductions under BART. 

The results of the modeling effort 

confirm that the BART Alternative 

provides greater reasonable progress 

toward natural conditions in all Class I 

areas within 300 km of the Tesoro 

facility over the three year baseline 

period. Tesoro April 11, 2013, letter 

Appendix 2. The Tables below show the 

Class I areas evaluated, the baseline 

impacts, the visibility impacts with 

BART controls, and the visibility 

impacts with the BART Alternative. The 

values shown in Table 2 are the number 

of days over the three-year period from 

2003 through 2005 that the Tesoro 

facility is predicted to cause visibility 

impacts of greater than 0.5 dv. 

TABLE 2—TESORO ‘BETTER THAN BART’ IMPACTS

[Number of Days With a Haze Index (Deciview (dv)) Above 0.5 dv 2003–2005] 

Class I area Baseline 

impact 

Impact with 

BART 

Impact with 

BART 

alternative 

Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area .................................................................................................... 94 39 28 

Glacier Peak Wilderness Area .................................................................................................... 111 48 33 

Goat Rocks Wilderness Area ...................................................................................................... 10 4 2 

Mt. Adams Wilderness Area ........................................................................................................ 9 4 1 

Mt. Rainier National Park ............................................................................................................ 44 21 8 

North Cascades National Park .................................................................................................... 128 58 47 

Olympic National Park ................................................................................................................. 116 78 73 

Pasayten Wilderness Area .......................................................................................................... 31 9 2 

Table 3 presents modeling results 

showing the 98th percentile visibility 

impacts of Tesoro over the same threeyear period (2003–2005) at the seven Class I areas within 300 km of the 

Tesoro facility. 

TABLE 3—TESORO ‘BETTER THAN BART’ IMPACTS

[Daily Haze Index (dv) 2003–2005, based on the 22nd highest value in three years within a Class I Area] 

Class I area Baseline 

impact 

Impact with 

BART 

Impact with 

BART 

alternative 

Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area .......................................................................................................... 0 .932 0 .639 0 .558 

Glacier Peak Wilderness Area .......................................................................................................... 0 .963 0 .649 0 .566 

Goat Rocks Wilderness Area ............................................................................................................ 0 .317 0 .212 0 .172 

Mt. Adams Wilderness Area .............................................................................................................. 0 .277 0 .168 0 .146 

Mt. Rainier National Park .................................................................................................................. 0 .737 0 .498 0 .394 

North Cascades National Park .......................................................................................................... 1 .035 0 .707 0 .666 

Olympic National Park ....................................................................................................................... 1 .736 1 .212 1 .106 

Pasayten Wilderness Area ................................................................................................................ 0 .575 0 .387 0 .332 

The dispersion modeling conducted 

for the Tesoro BART Alternative 

demonstrates that the BART Alternative 

provides for greater reasonable progress 

than NOX BART at all seven Class I 

areas. 

The new information regarding the 

Tesoro BART Alternative modeling 

demonstration, including the approved 

modeling protocol, Tesoro’s April 11, 

2013 letter explaining the modeling 

results, and the modeling results 

(including the input files), is included 

in the docket for this proposed action 

and is available for public review. 

Comments regarding this additional 

information may be made in accordance 

with the procedures explained in the 

public comment section above. Other 

aspects of our previously proposed 

action related to the Tesoro BART 

Alternative are outside the scope of this 

notice. Accordingly, other comments we 

previously received in response to our 

December 2012 proposal related to the 

Tesoro BART Alternative will be 

responded to in a future Federal 

Register notice. 

VII. What action is the EPA proposing? 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

Washington’s determination that the 

Wenatchee facility is not subject to 

BART, determine that the facility is 

subject to BART, and propose BART for 

the BART-eligible emission units 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79356 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

through a FIP. The EPA is also notifying 

the public of new information available 

in the docket for this action related to 

our BART affordability assessment for 

Alcoa’s Intalco facility and our 

previously proposed BART Alternative 

for the Tesoro refinery. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). The proposed FIP 

applies to only one facility and is not a 

rule of general applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a 

‘‘collection of information’’ is defined as 

a requirement for ‘‘answers to . . .

identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons . . .’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 

Because the proposed FIP applies to just 

one facility, the Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. An agency 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. The OMB control numbers for 

our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 

40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing 

the impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: 

(1) A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

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

a small organization that is any not-for 

profit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. After considering 

the economic impacts of this proposed 

action on small entities, I certify that 

this proposed action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FIP for the one Washington facility 

being proposed today does not impose 

any new requirements on small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on state, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to state, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted for 

inflation) in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 of UMRA do not apply when they 

are inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 

EPA to adopt an alternative other than 

the least costly, most cost-effective, or 

least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures that exceed the 

inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of 

$100 million by state, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector in any 

1 year. In addition, this proposed rule 

does not contain a significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandate as described 

by section 203 of UMRA nor does it 

contain any regulatory requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by state and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

-effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79357 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. This action does 

not have federalism implications. This 

rule will not have substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, 

because it merely addresses the state not 

fully meeting its regional haze SIP 

obligations established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 because the 

SIP and FIP do not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. EPA specifically 

solicits additional comment on this 

proposed rule from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. EPA 

interprets EO 13045 as applying only to 

those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it implements 

specific standards established by 

Congress in statutes. However, to the 

extent this proposed rule will limit 

emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM10 the 

rule will have a beneficial effect on 

children’s health by reducing air 

pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA proposes to 

use American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) Methods and 

generally accepted test methods 

previously promulgated by EPA. 

Because all of these methods are 

generally accepted and are widely used 

by State and local agencies for 

determining compliance with similar 

rules, EPA believes it would be 

impracticable and potentially confusing 

to put in place methods that vary from 

what is already accepted. As a result, 

EPA believes it is unnecessary and 

inappropriate to consider alternative 

technical standards. EPA welcomes 

comments on this aspect of the 

proposed rulemaking and, specifically, 

invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable voluntary 

consensus standards and to explain why 

such standards should be used in this 

regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. This 

FIP, if finalized, will limit air emissions 

from one facility. We have determined 

that this proposed rule, if finalized, will 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low income populations. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 13, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

For reasons discussed in the preamble 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart WW—Washington 

■ 2. Section 52.2498 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2498 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(c) The requirements of sections 169A 

and 169B of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include 

approvable provisions for protection of 

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas, specifically the Best Available 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
79358 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Retrofit Technology (BART) 

requirement for regional haze visibility 

impairment (§ 51.308(e)). The EPA 

BART regulations are found in 

§§ 52.2500, 52.2501, and 52.2502 

■ 3. Section 52.2502 is added to read as 

follows. 

§ 52.2502 Best available retrofit 

technology requirements for the Alcoa 

Inc.—Wenatchee Works primary aluminum 

smelter. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to the Alcoa Inc.—Wenatchee Works 

primary aluminum smelter located near 

Wenatchee, Washington and to its 

successors and/or assignees. 

(b) Best available retrofit technology 

(BART) emission limitations for Potline 

#5—(1) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission 

limit. Starting 120 days after 

publication, SO2 emissions from Potline 

#5 must not exceed 46 pounds per ton 

of aluminum produced during any 

calendar month as calculated in 

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

(i) Compliance demonstration. SO2

emissions, on a calendar month basis, 

shall be determined using the following 

formulas: 

SO2 emissions in pounds = (carbon 

ratio) x (tons of aluminum produced 

during the calendar month) x (% sulfur 

in baked anodes/100) x (% sulfur 

converted to SO2/100) x (2 pounds of 

SO2 per pound of sulfur) 

SO2 emissions in pounds per ton of 

aluminum produced = (SO2 emissions 

in pounds during the calendar month)/ 

(tons of aluminum produced during the 

calendar month) 

(A) The carbon ratio is the calendar 

month average of tons of baked anodes 

consumed per ton of aluminum 

produced as determined using the baked 

anode consumption and aluminum 

production records required in 

paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 

(B) The % sulfur in baked anodes is 

the calendar month average sulfur 

content as determined in paragraph 

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

(C) The % sulfur converted to SO2 is 

90%. 

(ii) Emission monitoring. The % 

sulfur of baked anodes shall be 

determined using ASTM Method D6376 

or an alternative method approved by 

EPA Region 10. 

(A) At a minimum, Alcoa must collect 

no less than four baked anode core 

samples during each calendar week. 

(B) Calendar month average sulfur 

content shall be determined by 

averaging the sulfur content of all 

samples collected during the calendar 

month. 

(2) Particulate matter (PM) emission 

limit. Starting 120 days after 

publication, PM emissions from the 

Potline #5 Gas Treatment Center stack 

must not exceed 0.005 grains per dry 

standard cubic foot of exhaust gas. 

(3) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission 

limit. Starting 120 days after 

publication, NOX emissions from 

Potline #5 must not exceed 0.95 tons per 

calendar month. 

(i) Compliance demonstration. NOX

emissions, on a calendar month basis, 

shall be determined using the following 

formula: 

NOX emissions in tons per calendar month 

= (0.34 pounds of NOX per ton of aluminum 

produced) × (number of tons of aluminum 

produced in the calendar month)/(2000 

pounds per ton). 

(c) Best available retrofit technology 

(BART) emission limitations for Anode 

Bake Furnace #62. (1) Sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) emission limit. Starting 120 days 

after publication, the sulfur content of 

the coke used in anode manufacturing 

must not exceed 3.0 percent by weight. 

(i) Compliance demonstration. Each 

shipment of coke must be tested for 

sulfur content using ASTM Method 

D6376 or an alternative method 

approved by EPA Region 10. Written 

documentation from the coke supplier 

certifying the sulfur content is an 

approved alternative method. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(2) Particulate matter (PM) emission 

limit. Starting 120 days after 

publication, the PM emissions from the 

anode bake furnaces stack must not 

exceed 0.01 grains per dry standard 

cubic foot of exhaust gas. 

(3) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission 

limit. Starting 120 days after 

publication, the anode bake furnaces 

must only combust natural gas. 

(i) Compliance demonstration. 

Compliance shall be demonstrated 

through fuel purchase records. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(d) Best available retrofit technology 

(BART) emission limitations for Ingot 

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

and Ingot Furnace 11 (IP–11)—(1) 

Particulate matter (PM) emission limits. 

Starting 120 days after publication, the 

PM emissions from each of ingot 

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

exceed 0.1 grains per dry standard cubic 

foot of exhaust gas. 

(2) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission 

limit. Starting 120 days after 

publication, each of the ingot furnaces 

IP–1, IP–2, and IP–11 must only 

combust natural gas. 

(i) Compliance demonstration. 

Compliance shall be demonstrated 

through fuel purchase records. 

(ii) [Reserved]. 

(e) Best available retrofit technology 

(BART) particulate matter (PM) 

emission limitations for the Green Mill. 

(1) Starting 120 days after publication, 

the PM emissions from the Green Mill 

Dry Coke Scrubber must not exceed 

0.005 grains per dry standard cubic foot 

of exhaust gas. 

(2) Starting 120 days after publication, 

the PM emissions from the Green Mill 

Dust Collector 2 must not exceed 0.01 

grains per dry standard cubic foot of 

exhaust gas. 

(f) Best available retrofit technology 

(BART) particulate matter (PM) 

emission limitations for alumina 

handling operations. (1) Starting 120 

days after publication, the opacity from 

the alumina handling fabric filters (21M 

and 19C) must not exceed 20 percent. 

(2) Starting 120 days after publication, 

the PM emissions from the alumina rail 

car unloading baghouse (43E) must not 

exceed 0.005 grains per dry standard 

cubic foot of exhaust gas. 

(g) Source testing. (1) Alcoa must 

perform source testing to demonstrate 

compliance with emission limits 

established in this section upon request 

by the EPA Region 10 Administrator. 

(2) The reference test method for 

measuring PM emissions is EPA Method 

5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 

(3) The reference test method for 

measuring opacity from the alumina 

handling fabric filters (21M and 19C) is 

EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A). 

(4) EPA Region 10 may approve the 

use of an alternative to a reference test 

method upon an adequate 

demonstration by Alcoa that such 

alternative provides results equivalent 

to that of the reference method. 

(h) Recordkeeping. Starting 120 days 

after publication Alcoa must keep the 

following records: 

(1) Alcoa must retain a copy of all 

calendar month potline #5 SO2

emissions calculations. 

(2) Alcoa must maintain records of the 

baked anode consumption and 

aluminum production data used to 

develop the carbon ratio. 

(3) Alcoa must retain a copy of all 

calendar month carbon ratio and potline 

SO2 emission calculations. 

(4) Alcoa must record the calendar 

day and calendar month production of 

aluminum. 

(5) Alcoa must record the calendar 

month average sulfur content of the 

baked anodes. 

(6) Alcoa must retain a copy of all 

calendar month potline NOX emission 

calculations. 

(7) Alcoa must record the sulfur 

content of each shipment of coke. 

(8) Alcoa must keep fuel purchase 

records showing the type(s) of fuel 

combusted in the anode bake furnaces. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 250 / Monday, December 30, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79359 

(9) Alcoa must keep fuel purchase 

records showing the types(s) of fuel 

combusted in the ingot furnaces. 

(10) Records must be retained at the 

facility for at least five years and be 

made available to EPA Region 10 upon 

request. 

(i) Reporting. (1) Alcoa must report 

SO2 emissions by calendar month to 

EPA Region 10 on an annual basis at the 

same time as the annual compliance 

certification required by the Part 70 

operating permit for the Alcoa plant is 

submitted to the Title V permitting 

authority. 

(2) Alcoa must report NOX emissions 

by calendar month to EPA Region 10 on 

an annual basis at the same time as the 

annual compliance certification 

required by the Part 70 operating permit 

for the Alcoa plant is submitted to the 

Title V permitting authority. 

(3) Alcoa must report the sulfur 

content of each shipment of coke 

received at the facility during the 

compliance period to EPA Region 10 at 

the same time as the annual compliance 

certification required by the Part 70 

operating permit for the Alcoa plant is 

submitted to the Title V permitting 

authority. 

(4) Alcoa must report the fuel 

purchase records for the anode bake 

furnaces and the ingot furnaces during 

the compliance period to EPA Region 10 

at the same time as the annual 

compliance certification required by the 

Part 70 operating permit for the Alcoa 

plant is submitted to the Title V 

permitting authority. 

(5) All documents and reports must be 

sent to EPA Region 10 electronically, in 

a format approved by EPA Region 10, to 

the following email address: R10- 

AirPermitReports@epa.gov. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30894 Filed 12–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0023; FRL–9903–69] 

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions 

Filed for Residues of Pesticide 

Chemicals in or on Various 

Commodities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of several initial filings 

of pesticide petitions requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 29, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number and the pesticide petition 

number (PP) of interest as shown in the 

body of this document, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert McNally, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) 

(7511P), telephone number: (703) 305– 

7090, email address: 

BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov; or Lois Rossi, 

Registration Division (RD) (7505P), 

telephone number: (703) 305–7090, 

email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov; 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. As part of the mailing 

address, include the contact person’s 

name, division, and mail code. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the division 

listed at the end of the pesticide petition 

summary of interest. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low-income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS