Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071-0170
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Washington; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Best Available Retrofit Technology for Alcoa Intalco Operations, Tesoro Refining and Marketing, and Alcoa Wenatchee
Posted Date: 2014-06-11T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33438-33456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13491]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071; FRL-9911-83-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Washington; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal 
Implementation Plan for Best Available Retrofit Technology for Alcoa 
Intalco Operations, Tesoro Refining and Marketing, and Alcoa Wenatchee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking 
final action to partially approve and partially disapprove a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Washington (State) 
on December 22, 2010, as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA 
or the Act) section 169 and federal regional haze regulations and to 
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the disapproved 
elements of the SIP. As described in Part I of this preamble, this 
final rule approves numerous elements in the SIP including the State's 
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for a number 
of sources. This action also: Disapproves the NOX BART 
determination and promulgates a Federal BART alternative for five BART 
emission units at the Tesoro Refining and Marketing refinery (Tesoro 
refinery) located in Anacortes, Washington; finalizes a limited 
approval and limited disapproval of the State's SO2 BART 
determination and promulgates a Federal BART alternative for the 
Intalco Aluminum Corp. (Intalco facility) potline operation located in 
Ferndale, Washington; and disapproves the State's BART exemption for 
the Alcoa Wenatchee Works located in Malaga, Washington (Wenatchee 
Works), determines that the Wenatchee Works is subject to BART, and 
promulgates Federal BART for all emission units subject to BART at the 
facility.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071. All documents in the 
docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed 
in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107, 
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA 
requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional 
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 
4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body at (206) 553-0782, 
Body.Steve@epa.gov, or at the above EPA Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized 
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of our Final Action
II. Background
III. Response to Comments
IV. Conclusion
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Summary of our Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially 
disapprove the Washington Regional Haze SIP submitted on December 22, 
2010. In this action, the EPA is approving the following provisions of 
the Washington SIP: The identification of affected Class I areas and 
determination of baseline conditions, the natural conditions and 
uniform rate of progress (URP) for each Class I area; the emission 
inventories; the sources of visibility impairment in Washington's Class 
I areas; the State's monitoring strategy; the State's consultation with 
other states and Federal Land Managers (FLMs); the reasonable progress 
goals (RPGs); the long-term strategy (LTS); and the commitment to 
submit the periodic SIP revisions and 5-year Progress Reports.
    In today's action, we are also approving the State's BART 
determinations for the BP Cherry Point Refinery, the Port Townsend 
Paper Company, the LaFarge North America facility, and Weyerhaeuser's 
Longview facility, as well as portions of the BART determinations for 
the Tesoro refinery and the Intalco facility. The EPA is disapproving 
Washington's NOX BART determination and promulgating a BART 
Alternative for five emission units at the Tesoro refinery. The EPA is 
also finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the 
State's SO2 BART determination for the potlines at the 
Intalco facility and promulgating an SO2 BART Alternative 
for the potlines, consisting of an annual limit of 80% of base year 
SO2 emissions. Finally, the EPA is disapproving the State's 
BART exemption for the Wenatchee Works and promulgating BART for 
SO2, NOX, and PM emissions at the facility.
    The resulting BART FIP for the Tesoro refinery, the Intalco 
facility, and the Wenatchee Works does not require the purchase or 
installation of new air pollution control equipment, but rather 
establishes BART based on existing control technology. Thus, the only 
additional costs incurred by these facilities will be minimal 
expenditures for monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. The benefit 
to the environment is the prevention of visibility degradation due to 
potential future increases in emissions from changes envisioned at the 
facilities.
    This final action is consistent with our proposed actions and meets 
the requirements of CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.

II. Background

    In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to 
protect and improve visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. 
See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the visibility provisions in the 
CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem of regional haze. See CAA 
section 169B. The EPA promulgated regulations in 1999 to implement 
sections 169A and 169B of the Act. These regulations require states to 
develop and implement plans to ensure reasonable progress toward 
improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \1\ (Class

[[Page 33439]]

I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); See also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, the EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' Id. 7602(i). When we 
use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a ``mandatory 
Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On behalf of the State of Washington, the Washington State 
Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted its Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plan (Regional Haze SIP or SIP) to the EPA on December 
22, 2010. In an action published on December 6, 2012, the EPA approved 
BART provisions for the TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC coal-fired 
power plant. 77 FR 72742.
    On December 26, 2012, the EPA proposed to partially approve and 
partially disapprove the remaining portions of the Washington Regional 
Haze SIP covering the first implementation period (77 FR 76714). In 
that action, the EPA proposed to approve the following SIP elements:
    We proposed to approve Washington's identification of affected 
Class I areas in the State. The State calculated the baseline 
visibility conditions in each Class I area using data from the 
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) from 
monitoring sites representing each Class I area.
    We proposed to approve the State's determination of natural 
conditions and the uniform rate of progress (URP) for each Class I 
area. Washington used the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) 
derived natural visibility conditions. In general, the WRAP based their 
estimates on the EPA guidance document titled, ``Guidance for 
Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze 
Program'' (EPA-45/B-03-0005 September 2003). However, the WRAP 
incorporated refinements into its estimates that the EPA believes 
provide results more appropriate for western states than the general 
EPA default approach.
    We proposed to approve the statewide emission inventory of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in the Class I areas. The WRAP, with data 
supplied by Washington, compiled emission inventories for all major 
source categories in Washington for the 2002 baseline year and for 
estimated emissions in 2018. Emission estimates for 2018 were generated 
from anticipated population growth, growth in industrial activity, and 
emission reductions from implementation of expected control measures, 
e.g., implementation of BART emission limitations and reductions in 
motor vehicle tailpipe emissions.
    We proposed to approve the State's identification of the sources of 
visibility impairment in each Washington Class I areas, which used the 
approach and modeling tools recommended by the WRAP. These modeling 
tools were state-of-the-science, and the EPA determined that these 
tools were appropriately used by WRAP for regional haze planning.
    We proposed to approve the State's monitoring strategy. The primary 
monitoring network for regional haze in Washington is the IMPROVE 
network. There are currently IMPROVE monitoring sites that represent 
conditions for all Class I areas in Washington. The State commits to 
rely on the IMPROVE network for future regional haze implementation 
periods. Data from the IMPROVE network will be used for preparing the 
5-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions.
    We proposed to approve the State's consultation with other states 
and FLMs. Through the WRAP, member states and the Tribes worked 
extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the Interior and 
Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the regional 
haze SIPs for the WRAP states. In addition, the State provided its 
proposed SIP to the FLMs for comment in March 2010. The State also 
consulted with the states of Idaho and Oregon, as well as the other 
WRAP member states and Tribes.
    We proposed to approve the State-identified visibility improvement 
anticipated by 2018 in each of the Class I areas as a result of the 
BART emission limits established in the SIP. The projected improvement 
was determined by using the results of the Community Multi-Scale Air 
Quality (CMAQ) modeling conducted by WRAP. The WRAP CMAQ modeling 
predicted visibility impairment in each Class I area based on 2018 
projected source emission inventories, which included federal and state 
regulations already in place (``on the books'') and BART emission 
limitations.
    We proposed to approve the State's LTS because it includes the 
documentation and control measures necessary to achieve the RPGs at all 
Class I areas affected by the State's sources. The State's LTS included 
consideration of all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment, 
including major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area 
sources. The anticipated net effect on visibility over the first 
planning period due to changes in point, area, and mobile source 
emissions is an improvement in visibility in all Class I areas in 
Washington.
    We proposed to approve the State's commitment to develop and submit 
a comprehensive Regional Haze SIP revision to the EPA by July 31, 2018, 
and every ten years thereafter. The State also committed to submit a 
report to the EPA every five years that evaluates the progress being 
made towards the RPGs and the need for any additional control measures.
    We proposed to approve the majority of the State's BART 
determinations. The State appropriately identified all BART-eligible 
sources located in Washington and, with one exception, appropriately 
identified those BART-eligible sources that are subject to BART. In 
this action, we are finalizing our approval of these SIP elements as 
proposed.
    In our December 26, 2012 and December 30, 2013 actions, we also 
proposed to disapprove the following SIP elements and promulgate a FIP 
to fill any gaps left by our partial disapproval:
    We proposed a limited disapproval of the State's SO2 
BART determination for Alcoa's Intalco facility potlines. The State 
determined that installing new control technology was not cost-
effective and that the level of existing control for the potlines was 
BART. We identified a number of errors with the State's cost analysis 
that rendered the State's control determination unreasonable. We 
conducted our own analysis and determined that limestone slurry forced 
oxidation (LSFO) was SO2 BART. However, Alcoa asserted that 
it could not afford LSFO at the Intalco facility and remain a viable 
business. In response, we conducted an affordability analysis, which 
included updated information as described in the December 30, 2013 
proposal, and proposed to concur that LSFO was not affordable at the 
Intalco facility. Alcoa offered a BART Alternative of implementing 
pollution prevention measures, primarily the requirement of 3% or less 
sulfur in the anode coke, and limiting potline SO2 emissions 
to 80% of base year emissions. We included this BART Alternative in our 
FIP. The BART Alternative makes Washington's pollution prevention 
requirements federally enforceable and makes the 20% SO2 
reduction from baseline permanent and federally enforceable.
    We proposed to disapprove the State's NOX BART 
determination for five emission units subject to BART at the Tesoro 
refinery. The State determined that NOX controls were not 
cost-effective. We determined the State's cost estimates were 
unreasonably high

[[Page 33440]]

because the State assumed that controls could not be installed when the 
facility is shut down for maintenance in the estimated 2017 turnaround 
cycle and still fall within the five year BART implementation period. 
Tesoro offered a BART Alternative consisting of exclusive use of low-
sulfur refinery gas in several non-BART heaters and boilers in lieu of 
installing the NOX BART controls. We included this BART 
Alternative in our proposed FIP.
    We initially proposed to approve the State's determination that the 
Wenatchee Works did not contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area and was therefore not subject to BART. During the comment 
period, however, we received adverse comments that the State's 
determination was based on visibility modeling that relied upon an 
unapproved and unproven fine-grid modeling protocol. Consequently, we 
issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on December 30, 
2013, and proposed to disapprove the State's determination that the 
Wenatchee Works was not subject to BART and also proposed a BART FIP 
(78 FR 79344). In that notice, we proposed to find that one of the four 
potlines at the Wenatchee Works, as well as some of the supporting 
emission units, are subject to BART. After evaluating various control 
technologies, we proposed to find that the costs of compliance and the 
anticipated visibility benefits did not warrant new controls at the 
facility. We therefore proposed that the existing controls at the 
facility were BART and proposed to adjust some emission limits in the 
facility's operating permit to reflect the level of emission reductions 
achievable by those existing controls.
    This final action is the result of our initial proposed action, the 
re-proposal for the Wenatchee Works, and our consideration of all 
public comments received. This final action is consistent with our 
proposed actions. However, as explained below in the response to 
comments we revised 40 CFR 52.2470(d) to correct the list of conditions 
which are applicable to BP Cherry Point. Additionally, we revised the 
NOX emission limit and made minor adjustments to the FIP 
provisions related to the Wenatchee Works. Finally, the compliance 
dates for the Wenatchee Works and the Tesoro refinery were slightly 
modified.

III. Response to Comments

    We are responding to comments received on both the initial proposal 
and the re-proposal. However, the re-proposal summarized and responded 
to some comments received on the initial proposal. 78 FR 79347-79355. 
Those comments and our responses will not be repeated here. The 
following are our responses to the remaining comments received on the 
initial proposal for which we have not yet responded and new comments 
received on the re-proposal. We are also responding to comments 
received on the additional information that was provided for public 
review in the re-proposal.

Comments:

A. BP Cherry Point Refinery BART Determination

    Comment: One commenter noted that the BART Order 7836 for the BP 
Cherry Point Refinery included BART emission limits for boilers 
6 and 7, despite the fact that these units were 
constructed in 2007 and are not BART-eligible emission units. These 
units should not be regulated in the BART Order. Thus, conditions 1.1, 
1.3.1, 2.1, 3.1, and 6.1 of the BART Order should not be approved into 
the Washington SIP.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the BP Cherry Point Refinery boilers 
6 and 7 are not BART-eligible and thus not subject to 
BART. Subsequent to the publication of the initial proposal, the State 
of Washington sent the EPA a letter dated July 31, 2013, requesting 
that conditions 1.1, 1.3.1, 2.1 3.1 and 6.1 and Finding B.c. be 
withdrawn from their SIP submittal. These conditions and Finding B.c. 
will not be incorporated by reference into the SIP.

B. Tesoro-BART Alternative

    Comment: Several comments were received on our initial proposal 
that the EPA should use dispersion modeling to demonstrate the 
visibility improvement from the proposed BART Alternative for the 
Tesoro Refinery and compare the results to the visibility improvement 
from BART.
    Response: Based on consideration of the comments, we concluded that 
additional modeling analysis was appropriate for the BART Alternative 
demonstration at the Tesoro Refinery. The EPA requested Tesoro provide 
such a modeling demonstration. The results of that modeling were 
presented in the December 30, 2013 re-proposal. The modeling protocol 
and results were posted in the docket for this action and the Federal 
Docket Management System (FDMS) site on December 30, 2013. The public 
was notified of its availability. 78 FR 79354-79355. The comments 
received on the initial proposal and our response regarding the need 
for dispersion modeling for the Tesoro BART Alternative, as set forth 
in the re-proposal, will not be reiterated here. The following is our 
response to the remaining comments received on the initial proposal, as 
well as new comments received on the re-proposal and the additional 
information that was provided for public review.
    Comment: One commenter inquired whether the EPA evaluated the model 
input and output files that Tesoro used in modeling for the BART 
Alternative. Such a review is needed to verify that the proper model 
settings have been used and that only the emission rates for the listed 
emission units have been changed from the original modeling.
    Response: The EPA reviewed the model input and output files and 
verified the proper settings were used.
    Comment: A commenter questioned why the EPA used the annual average 
concentration limit for total reduced sulfur (TRS) content of refinery 
fuel gas rather than the maximum 24-hour rate as required by the BART 
Guidelines. The justification to use the annual average vs. the 24-hour 
maximum rate needs to be clearly included in the administrative record. 
The commenter said that if the justification cannot be made, then the 
BART Alternative should be rejected and the NOX BART should 
be required.
    Response: As described in our December 30, 2013 proposal, the 
purpose of visibility modeling is to demonstrate whether the BART 
Alternative provides greater reasonable progress than BART considering 
the different atmospheric chemistry between SO2 and 
NOX. The modeling described in the BART Guidelines is for 
determining the maximum potential impact of a source at Class I areas 
and whether the source is subject to BART. The purpose of the more 
recent modeling here is to evaluate the relative visibility impacts 
from the atmospheric formation of visibility impairing aerosols of 
sulfate and nitrate. The absolute value of emission rates is not of 
concern, because we are evaluating the ratio of SO2 to 
NOX emission rates and the resulting relative visibility 
impairment.
    It should also be noted that the model used the maximum monthly 
average total reduced sulfur (TRS) emission rate during the time period 
2004-2006, not annual emission rates as stated by the commenter. See 
May 14, 2013 letter from Tesoro to the EPA.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that trading SO2 
emissions for NOX emissions does not meet the EPA's guidance 
on BART alternative programs. The commenter specifically references an 
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Q&A 
document, August 3, 2006, that states,

[[Page 33441]]

``The regulations, however, do allow States to adopt alternative 
measures in lieu of BART, so long as the alternative measures provide 
for greater reasonable progress than would be BART. Inter-pollutant 
trading is not allowed in a trading program alternative to BART.''
    Response: We believe the commenter has misunderstood the Agency's 
policy. The complete explanation of the policy is in the Federal 
Register action referenced in the Q&A document cited by the commenter. 
The Agency allows for inter-pollutant trading as long as it is based on 
a technically acceptable approach for demonstrating the BART 
Alternative provides for greater reasonable progress. The Federal 
Register action for the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.308) (RHR) 
explains:

    . . . interpollutant trading should not be allowed until the 
technical difficulties associated with ensuring equivalence in the 
overall environmental effect are resolved. Some other emissions 
trading programs (e.g., trading under the acid rain program) 
prohibit emission trades between pollutants. An emissions trading 
program for regional haze might also need to restrict trades to 
common pollutants. Each of the five pollutants which cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment has a different impact on light 
extinction for a given particle mass, making it therefore extremely 
difficult to judge the equivalence of interpollutant trades in a 
manner that would be technically credible, yet convenient to 
implement in the timeframe needed for transactions to be efficient. 
This analysis is further complicated by the fact that the visibility 
impact that each pollutant can have varies with humidity, so that 
control of different pollutants can have markedly different effects 
on visibility in different geographic areas and at different times 
of the year. Despite the technical difficulties associated with 
interpollutant trading today, EPA would be willing to consider such 
trading programs in the future that demonstrate an acceptable 
technical approach. 64 FR 35743.

    This guidance on BART alternatives is primarily envisioned for 
large statewide, or region-wide (multi-state) emissions trading 
programs where emissions could be traded across large, geographically 
separated areas. 64 FR 35741-35743. The technical difficulties 
discussed in the above policy statement also are focused on situations 
where a BART alternative trading program is based on emission reduction 
equivalency in determining Better-than-BART results. In such a trading 
program, when SO2 emissions are traded for NOX 
emissions, the demonstration that the BART alternative provides greater 
reasonable progress may be technically difficult, or impossible, due to 
spatial, temporal, climate and meteorological differences between the 
sources in the program. In particular, the OAQPS Q&A document refers to 
a regional trading program. However, in this specific situation for the 
Tesoro Refinery, the BART Alternative is not a state-wide or regional 
trading program, but rather trading within the same facility. 
Therefore, the technical difficulties that may be associated with 
interpollutant trading in a state-wide or regional trading program are 
of less concern.
    The Tesoro BART Alternative is confined to one facility with 
emissions of SO2 and NOX coming from essentially 
the same location. The CALPUFF model is used to estimate the impacts 
from all visibility impairing pollutants, including SO2 and 
NOX, and is the regulatory tool used to determine whether a 
BART-eligible source is subject to BART. We believe that the CALPUFF 
model used in Washington (and other states within EPA Region 10) to 
demonstrate visibility impacts on Class I areas to evaluate whether 
sources are subject to BART, is technically adequate to demonstrate 
whether or not a BART Alternative measure that relies on interpollutant 
trading results in greater reasonable progress. As described in the 
Federal Register preamble to the RHR (64 FR 35734), it may be difficult 
to assess the impacts of different pollutants due to the potential 
difference in light extinction for a given particle mass and due to 
seasonal and geographic variations. The CALPUFF model, using the 
approved modeling protocol, addresses the different light extinction 
properties of different pollutants. In the Tesoro Refinery case, the 
emissions from both the BART and the BART Alternative emission units 
are from the same facility. Thus, the potential concern regarding 
interpollutant trading of emissions from emission units separated by 
large distances is not present. Also, because the model includes the 
three year baseline period, seasonal variation is also not a concern in 
this instance.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that trading between BART and 
non-BART sources is not allowed.
    Response: The preamble to the RHR encourages both BART and non-BART 
sources to be included in a BART alternative. 64 FR 35743. 
Specifically, ``the regional trading program may include sources not 
subject to BART. Inclusion of such sources provides for a more 
economically efficient and robust trading program. The EPA believes the 
program can include diverse sources, including mobile and area sources, 
so long as the reductions from these sources can be accurately 
calculated and tracked.'' 64 FR 35743.
    Comment: One commenter states that the NOX controls for 
the five Tesoro Refinery emission units should be imposed as reasonable 
progress controls if they are not required as BART. The EPA should 
still require unit-specific NOX controls on the five BART 
units as reasonable progress controls.
    Response: The RHR provides states with the opportunity to establish 
alternative measures as an alternative to BART. As discussed 
previously, the RHR provides that a BART alternative measure can 
include non-BART emission units. This approach can result in a more 
cost-effective control strategy. Because we are proposing to approve 
the State's reasonable progress goals as providing sufficient progress 
for this planning period, we do not believe that any additional 
reasonable progress controls are necessary on the BART-eligible units 
at the Tesoro Refinery at this time. However, the State may consider 
these units for reasonable progress controls in the next regional haze 
SIP due for submittal to the EPA in 2018.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the CAA instructs states to issue 
SIPs requiring BART, and provides a process for exempting a source from 
BART. The statute does not authorize the EPA to allow a source to 
escape its BART obligations other than through the exemption process.
    Response: The commenter seems to be saying that by imposing a BART 
alternative, we are exempting Tesoro from BART. The Tesoro facility and 
the emission units associated with the BART Alternative are not exempt 
from BART. Rather, the facility is meeting its BART obligation through 
a BART Alternative measure as allowed under the RHR. 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(2).
    Comment: Several commenters suggested the SO2 emission 
reductions in the BART Alternative are not surplus reductions. They say 
the emission reductions were needed to meet other CAA requirements 
including Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements. 
They also cite the H2S concentration limit that is already 
part of a Federally enforceable permit. They also say the emission 
reductions were achieved prior to the SIP submittal.
    Response: The RHR requires that emission reductions resulting from 
the alternative measure must be ``surplus to those reductions resulting 
from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the 
baseline date of the SIP.'' 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). When promulgating 
this requirement in 1999, the EPA explained that emission reductions 
must be ``surplus to other Federal requirements as of the baseline date 
of the SIP, that is, the date of the emissions inventories on which the 
SIP

[[Page 33442]]

relies. See 64 FR 35714, 35742; see also 70 FR 39143. ``[W]hatever the 
origin of the emission reduction requirement, the relevant question for 
BART purposes is whether the alternative program makes greater 
reasonable progress.'' The Washington Regional Haze SIP relies on 
emission inventories in the baseline period 2002-2005. See Washington 
Regional Haze SIP, chapter 6, section 6.3, included in the docket for 
this action. Thus, reductions resulting from any measure adopted after 
2002 are considered `surplus' under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
    The EPA examined the permitting history for the Tesoro Refinery and 
confirmed that the emission reductions achieved through the 
installation and operation in 2007 of the flue gas desulfurization 
(FGD) system to remove sulfur from the refinery fuel gas (RFG) used to 
fire several heaters and boilers occurred after the emission inventory 
baseline and are surplus for the purposes of the alternative measure.
    Comment: A commenter noted that the SO2 reductions 
resulting from the modifications to the refinery gas system occurred 
for plant-specific reasons, not to meet a regulatory requirement. These 
reductions occurred in the past and will not be the result of imposing 
BART controls on any aspect of plant operations. The commenter requests 
that the EPA reject the BART Alternative in favor of the EPA BART 
proposal, which would result in additional reduction of nearly 500 tons 
of NOX.
    Response: As described previously, even if the emission reductions 
at this facility occurred for plant-specific reasons, the reductions 
may be considered surplus for purposes of a BART alternative. 
Additionally, as previously explained, the EPA has determined and 
confirmed with modeling that the reductions resulting from the now 
federally enforceable requirement to operate the FGD system result in 
greater reasonable progress towards meeting natural visibility 
conditions than the NOX controls that the EPA determined to 
be BART.
    Comment: A commenter cited a letter dated September 16, 2011, from 
the EPA Region 5 to the State of Wisconsin that describes what 
emissions are considered surplus. The commenter further explained that 
the Economic Incentive Program (EIP) defines ``surplus reductions to 
mean emission reductions that are not otherwise relied on in any of 
several programs, including reductions made to insure compliance with 
the NAAQS as well as reductions included in the relevant SIP.'' Thus 
the commenter stated that to the extent the SO2 emissions 
requirements have been incorporated into the Washington SIP and relied 
on to meet other applicable requirements, they are not ``surplus'' 
under the EIP.
    Response: As explained previously, we have determined that the 
emission reductions are surplus for BART alternative purposes and as 
such, this action is consistent with the EIP position that 
consideration (or credits) may only be given for surplus reductions. 
The SO2 emission reductions resulting from the combustion of 
low-sulfur RFG in these heaters and boilers have not been incorporated 
into the Washington SIP, nor have they been relied on to meet any other 
applicable requirements of the Act. In our final action on the 
Wisconsin SIP, we noted that, ``In cases like this where a subject is 
addressed by both the general guidance in the draft Economic Incentive 
Program Guidance and in program-specific guidance that more directly 
addresses specific statutory requirements, the EPA gives more weight to 
the regulatory provisions that are promulgated for the specific 
statutory requirements, in this case to the provisions of the regional 
haze rule. As noted above, the regional haze regulations promulgated in 
40 CFR 51.308 allow credit for reductions achieved after the baseline 
date of the SIP (2002), irrespective of any recommendations to the 
contrary in the draft Economic Incentives Program Guidance.'' 77 FR 
46592 (January 31, 2008.)
    Comment: A commenter requested that the EPA evaluate BART for the 
Tesoro Refinery flare, Unit X-819, including consideration of flare 
minimization efforts to reduce emissions from this unit.
    Response: BART is an emission limitation based on the five-factor 
analysis and considers the degree of reduction available through the 
application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for 
each pollutant that is emitted by an existing stationary facility. As 
reflected in our December 26, 2012, proposal, Unit X-819 is subject to 
BART and we agree with the State's BART determination. We considered 
the flare requirements of other regulatory air pollution agencies to 
determine whether there are any available control techniques for 
reducing emissions from flares. In particular we reviewed the 
California, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Reg. 12, 
Rule 12, which requires San Francisco Bay Area refineries to prepare a 
flare management plan (FMP), to reduce the frequency and magnitude of 
flaring events. The rule provides for no specific control technology. 
Rather, it requires refineries to minimize the need to flare gases 
through careful planning of maintenance, start-up, and shutdown of 
various refinery processes. However, should an upset condition occur, 
it does not prevent or otherwise restrict flaring. It does not appear 
that the requirement for a FMP would represent BART.
    Additionally, Tesoro and the State evaluated whether adding a 
second gas compressor to handle excess gas resulting from emergency 
vents and directed to the RFG system would be cost effective. See SIP, 
appendix L. Tesoro determined it would cost $21,960/ton of 
SO2 removed and reduce emissions by 10 tons/year. We find 
that it is not cost-effective to require the addition of a second gas 
compressor at this facility as BART.

C. Intalco Facility

    As part of the December 26, 2012 proposal, we proposed that Alcoa 
could not afford limestone slurry forced oxidation (LSFO) as the basis 
for BART. As explained in the re-proposal, we received comments on the 
affordability determination, requesting that we update the 
affordability assessment with current information and expressing 
concern with the use of information that was not publically available. 
We responded to these comments in the re-proposal and explained that we 
obtained updated information and revised the 2012 Affordability 
Assessment. The Revised Affordability Assessment and supporting 
documentation was made available to the public for review as part of 
the re-proposal. We received no further comment on the Revised 
Affordability Assessment. We believe the updated analysis continues to 
support our determination that installation and operation of LSFO at 
the Intalco facility is not affordable.
    A number of comments were received regarding our proposed BART 
determination for the Intalco facility. The comments focused on 
procedural issues, issues regarding the BART determination and the 
affordability analysis, and the BART Alternative.
    Comment: A commenter asserted that the EPA proposed BART for 
Intalco fails to comply with the public notice requirements of the CAA 
because it is impossible for the public to understand and comment on 
the affordability claim because critical information is not available. 
The CAA forbids the EPA from promulgating a rule that relies in whole 
or part on information not included in the docket. The commenter stated 
that critical information regarding

[[Page 33443]]

Alcoa's affordability claim had been excluded from the record, 
specifically Attachment 2 of Alcoa's June 2012 letter, and that the 
failure to disclose this information means that they are unable to 
provide meaningful comment on Alcoa's claim that they cannot afford 
LSFO controls. Finally the commenter claimed that that the EPA has 
failed to identify any support in the CAA that permits the EPA to 
ignore the requirements of the CAA for public review and comment.
    Response: The EPA recognizes the importance of making information 
available to the public so that the public can meaningfully comment 
upon proposed rules and, if they choose, ultimately challenge its 
rules. This task is somewhat more complicated when, as here, the 
rulemaking necessarily requires consideration of material claimed as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI). Nevertheless, the CAA, the 
EPA's implementing regulations, and other statutes impose stringent 
procedures for the use and availability of information claimed to be 
CBI, See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 7414, 33 U.S.C. 1318(b); 40 CFR 2.204, 2.205, 
and 2.301. As explained in the BART Guidelines, an economic analysis 
regarding how the installation of controls may impact the viability of 
continued plant operation must preserve the confidentiality of 
sensitive business information.
    Alcoa provided information to the EPA to support its claim that the 
company cannot afford the installation of LSFO. See June 22, 2012 Alcoa 
letter to the EPA. Alcoa requested that Attachment 2 of the letter be 
treated as confidential.
    Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, a company may assert a 
business confidentiality claim covering information furnished to the 
EPA. 40 CFR 2.203(b). Once a claim is asserted, the Agency must 
consider the information to be confidential and must treat it 
accordingly either until the EPA determines that the information is not 
subject to CBI protection or until the EPA determines that release of 
the information is relevant to a proceeding and in the public interest. 
40 CFR 2.205, 2.301(g). The EPA's regulations set forth the specific 
procedures that the EPA must follow when making a CBI determination. 40 
CFR 2.204, 2.205, and 2.301(g). Under the regulations, the EPA must 
provide the affected businesses with notice and, usually, an 
opportunity to comment on the impending CBI determination or release, 
including an opportunity to justify their CBI claims. See, e.g., 40 CFR 
2.204(e), 2.209(d), and 2.301(g)(2).
    Following the procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 2, the EPA 
requested that Alcoa substantiate its CBI claim. The company narrowed 
its CBI claim but informed us that portions of Attachment 2 were still 
claimed as CBI and provided a version of Attachment 2 with the CBI 
information redacted. The redacted information consists of six years 
(2008-2013) of ``after tax'' cash flow values. After consideration of 
applicable information, requirements and case law, the EPA completed 
its CBI determination and found that the redacted information in 
Attachment 2 constitutes CBI within the meaning of the CBI regulations. 
The final CBI determination is dated July 10, 2013. Accordingly, the 
information may not be disclosed to the public at this time.
    When the EPA assembled the record for this rulemaking, it 
physically separated the CBI portion of the record from the rest of the 
publicly available record. The EPA placed into the public record all 
information for which no claim of CBI was asserted. Any information or 
analyses based on CBI, was presented in such a way to avoid disclosing 
the underlying CBI. In addition, the EPA placed into the public record 
the Revised Affordability Analysis which included an extensive list of 
references to other publicly available information relevant to the 
economic analyses, such as company-specific public financial reports, 
cost information reported in trade journals and industry conference 
presentations, and price quotations obtained from vendors.
    Subsequent to the proposal and in response to comments, the EPA 
conducted additional analysis regarding Alcoa's affordability claim. 
More specifically, the EPA reviewed the recent long term power supply 
contract between Alcoa and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) 
which established the amount and rate at which electricity would be 
supplied to the Intalco facility. The EPA also conducted additional 
investigation to obtain publically available and updated financial 
information and economic forecasts regarding the aluminum industry. 
This new and additional information was placed in the docket and made 
available for public review on December 30, 2013. The docket also 
contains the June 22, 2011 Alcoa letter with the redacted version of 
Attachment 2. As is evident by the list of documents in the docket, a 
considerable amount of information regarding Alcoa's financial 
condition is included and has been made available for public review.
    The publicly available information taken together with the EPA's 
Affordability Analyses, and the description of our analysis in the 
prior Federal Register proposals are sufficient to support and explain 
today's final action. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the EPA 
believes that the public record is adequate to allow meaningful review 
of the EPA's decision regarding Alcoa's claim that they cannot afford 
LSFO controls.
    Comment: Referring to CAA section 110(k)(5), a commenter asserts 
that before the EPA may promulgate a FIP there must be a finding that 
the state implementation plan is substantially inadequate to comply 
with the CAA requirement. The commenter claims that because the 
Administrator has not made such a finding, has not notified Washington 
of the inadequacies of the SIP or that the SIP needs to be revised, and 
has not established a reasonable deadline to revise and submit a 
revised SIP, the proposed FIP is premature. This action is premature 
under CAA section 110(k)(5).
    Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment. Section 110(k)(5) of 
the CAA states ``[w]henever the Administrator finds that the applicable 
implementation plan for any area is substantially inadequate to . . . 
comply with any requirement of [the Act], the Administrator shall 
require the State to revise the plan as necessary to correct such 
inadequacies.'' This provision requires the EPA to issue what is known 
as a ``SIP call'' whenever the EPA finds that a state's existing SIP is 
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. Importantly, this 
provision bears no relation to the EPA's authority to review SIP 
submissions and revisions, which by definition are not incorporated 
into the state's existing SIP until they have been approved by the EPA. 
Rather, when the EPA receives a SIP submission or revision from a 
state, CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 110(l) provide that the EPA can only 
approve the SIP if it meets all CAA requirements and would not 
otherwise interfere with any applicable requirement of the Act. If the 
EPA determines that a SIP submission or revision does not comply with 
all applicable CAA requirements, then the EPA must disapprove the SIP 
in whole or in part. At that time, CAA section 110(c)(1)(B) provides 
the EPA with the authority ``to promulgate a Federal implementation 
plan at any time within 2 years'' of the disapproval. Additionally, the 
EPA has the authority to promulgate a FIP after finding that a state 
has failed to make a required SIP submission or revision entirely or 
that a state has submitted an incomplete SIP. CAA section 110(c)(1)(A). 
The EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP does not

[[Page 33444]]

expire unless the state corrects the deficiency, and the EPA approves 
the SIP before promulgating a FIP. CAA section 110(c)(1).
    Here, Washington's Regional Haze SIP was due on December 17, 2007. 
On January 15, 2009, the EPA published notice of its finding that 
Washington and 36 other States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands had failed to timely submit their regional haze SIPs. 74 
FR 2392 (January 15, 2009). The notice explained that the finding 
started the ``two year clock'' for the promulgation by the EPA of a 
FIP. The notice also explained that the EPA's FIP obligation would 
expire only if a state submitted a SIP and the EPA approved that SIP 
before the EPA had promulgated a FIP. At approximately the same time as 
the notice was signed, the Region 10 Administrator sent a letter to the 
Department of Ecology informing the Director that Washington had failed 
to make the required regional haze SIP submission and explaining that 
within two years, the EPA would need to either fully approve the 
Washington Regional Haze SIP or promulgate a FIP. EPA sent similar 
letters to the other states, the District of Colombia, and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands.
    Washington submitted its Regional Haze SIP on December 22, 2010. As 
we explained in the December 26, 2012 proposal, the EPA could not 
approve the entire SIP. 78 FR 79344. Thus, the EPA proposed to 
disapprove in part the Washington Regional Haze SIP and proposed to 
promulgate a FIP to fill the gaps left by the EPA's partial 
disapproval. See CAA section 302(y). Thus, based on both the EPA's 
prior finding of failure to submit and the EPA's partial disapproval of 
the Washington Regional Haze SIP, the EPA has the authority and 
obligation to promulgate a FIP. We also note that the EPA's authority 
to issue a FIP in these circumstances has been upheld recently by both 
the Eighth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal. North Dakota v. EPA, 730 
F.3d 750, 759 (8th Cir. 2013), Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1222-24 
(10th Cir. 2013).
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA's proposed action of 
limited approval and limited disapproval does not comport with the CAA 
or the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 51, subpart P. More 
specifically the commenter asserts that: (1) The CAA requires the 
Administrator to approve a state's implementation plan `in whole' if it 
meets applicable requirements; (2) Ecology dutifully executed its 
statutory and regulatory obligations by preparing and submitting a 
complete SIP, which included the requisite BART determinations, 
consistent with the CAA and promulgated regulations; (3) the EPA's 
partial disapproval is unfounded either because the EPA has not shown 
that Ecology's BART determination is not grounded in its thorough 
consideration of the five factors or because the EPA abused its 
statutory discretion with regard to rendering its analysis of the cost 
of compliance; and (4) it is the State's obligation to determine BART. 
The EPA does not have the authority to override Ecology's cost 
estimates and BART determinations.
    Response: As explained in our initial proposal, the Washington 
Regional Haze SIP does not meet all of the applicable CAA requirements. 
Therefore the EPA proposed a partial approval and partial disapproval. 
Specifically, the EPA does not agree that the State's BART 
determinations for the Intalco facility and the Tesoro Refinery are 
consistent with the EPA's regulations. The EPA agrees that in the first 
instance, it is State's obligation to determine BART, but contrary to 
the comment, the EPA does have the authority to disapprove Ecology's 
cost of compliance estimates and BART determinations when it finds that 
they are not in compliance with the applicable CAA requirements.
    The commenter's claim that the EPA has failed to show that 
Ecology's BART determination is not grounded in its thorough 
consideration of the five factors or that it abused its statutory 
discretion is not supported by the record. As explained in our initial 
proposal, and further described here, there are deficiencies in the 
State's cost of compliance calculations for the Intalco facility. As 
also explained, the State's BART determination for Tesoro is no longer 
accurate because it was based on the assumption that the retrofit would 
need to occur before the next scheduled maintenance shutdown period 
(turnaround) which would significantly increase the cost. This 
assumption is no longer valid because the retrofit may occur during a 
scheduled Tesoro turnaround and is now considered cost-effective. Also 
importantly, Intalco and Tesoro both requested that the EPA consider a 
BART Alternative. The EPA then found that each BART Alternative would 
result in greater overall reasonable progress towards attaining the 
national visibility goal than would requiring BART. We therefore 
proposed these BART Alternative measures instead of BART.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA Region 10 referenced 
sections of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual that are 
irrelevant to SO2 control technologies but then the EPA 
Region 10 disregarded an SO2-specific example in section 5 
of the Control Cost Manual which uses a 15-year equipment lifetime. The 
commenter further claimed that by using a 30-year equipment lifetime in 
the cost effectiveness calculations for the LSFO scrubber, the EPA 
Region 10 ignored agency precedent from the EPA Regions 4 and 8 and 
that on more than one occasion Region 8 has had sources reanalyze 
annualized costs for scrubbers using 15-years.
    Response: The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual \2\ (Cost 
Manual) states that the actual expected equipment lifetime of an air 
pollution control device should be used for purposes of cost 
calculations. Section 1, chapter 2 of the Cost Manual addresses the 
capital recovery factor (CRF), which is determined using the control 
equipment lifetime and interest rate. The Cost Manual clearly defines 
the control equipment lifetime as the entire life of the control. For 
example, on page 2-19, the Cost Manual states: ``For each alternative: 
calculate a discounting factor each year over the life of the equipment 
. . .'' and on page 2-21: ``In essence, annualization involves 
establishing an annual `payment' sufficient to finance the investment 
for its entire life, using the formula . . . [CRF] . . . where PMT is 
the equivalent uniform payment amount over the life of the control, 
`n', at an interest rate, `i.' '' The variable `n' in the CFR equation 
used to annualize total capital investment is thus the actual life of 
the control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control 
Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, January 2002. Section 1--Introduction, 
Chapter 2--Cost Estimation: Concepts and Methodology. p. 2-19 
through 2-21. EPA-452/B-02-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter provided no basis for the 15-year equipment lifetime. 
Rather the comment simply pointed to examples of different situations 
or types of control technologies where 15 years was used. The 
commenter's citation of specific equipment lifetimes within 
calculations in the Cost Manual implying that these specific lifetimes 
must always be used for a particular control technology is incorrect. 
The 15-year equipment lifetime contained within section 5 of the Cost 
Manual does not preclude the use of a different, better supported time 
period for the equipment lifetime of packed tower absorbers, the 
technology addressed in section 5.
    In this case, as explained in the proposal, we determined that 30 
years is a reasonable and well founded estimate of the expected life of 
wet FGD systems, such as LSFO. This determination

[[Page 33445]]

considered among other things standard cost estimating handbooks,\3\ 
published papers,\4\ and published EPA reports \5\ that report 30 years 
as a typical life for a scrubber as well as industry reports that 
identify specific scrubbers in operation since the 1970s and 1980s.\6\ 
Additional support for a 30 year scrubber life can also be found in the 
EPA Response to Comments for the final Oklahoma Regional Haze FIP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Vatavuk, W.M., Estimating Costs for Air Pollution Control. 
1990: Lewis Publishers. p. 198.
    \4\ Warych, J., Szymanowski, M., Optimum Values of Process 
Parameters of the ``Wet Limestone Flue Gas Desulfurization System''. 
Chemical Engineering Technology, 2002. 25: p. 427-432.
    \5\ Kaplan, N., Retrofit Costs of SO2 and 
NOX Control at 200 U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants, 
September 11, 1990.
    \6\ Electric Power Research Institute, Flue Gas Desulfurization 
Systems: Component Material Performance and Welding. December 2005.
    \7\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Response to Technical 
Comments for Sections E. through H. of the Federal Register Notice 
for the Oklahoma Regional Haze and Visibility Transport Federal 
Implementation Plan, December 13, 2011. Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-
0190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Region 10's use of a 30-year life is not inconsistent with other 
Agency decisions; the EPA Region 6 used 30 years for SO2 
spray dry scrubbing on energy generation units in the final Oklahoma 
FIP. The EPA Region 6 research included wet FGD technologies such as 
LSFO, and indicated that the 30-year lifetime was equally applicable to 
both wet and spray dry FGD scrubbing. The EPA action on the Oklahoma 
Regional Haze FIP occurred subsequent to the EPA Region 8 letters cited 
by the commenter. The Region 4 action cited by the commenter reflects 
the EPA approval of a case-specific BART determination made by the 
State of Tennessee, and does not necessarily reflect EPA endorsement of 
all aspects of the underlying BART analysis conducted by the facility 
in question.
    Combined, the EPA Region 6 research and analysis and the subsequent 
related work by the EPA Region 10 reflect a current and robust 
technical basis for both spray dry and wet scrubbing FGD equipment 
life. We therefore find that use of 30 years as the equipment life for 
LSFO in the Intalco BART analysis remains appropriate.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA Region 10 decision to use 
the lower of two vendor air pollution control cost quotes is arbitrary 
and instead we should have used the average of the two quotes. The 
commenter states that it is inconsistent that the EPA Region 10 would 
assert that it was improper for Washington to rely on the average of 
the two quotes when the EPA Region 4 concluded that Tennessee's BART 
analysis relying on the same average costs was reasonable. The comment 
also states that the EPA Region 10's use of the lower of the two quotes 
is inconsistent with an EPA Region 9 action that ``relied primarily on 
the highest of several cost estimates. . . .''
    Response: As described in the initial proposal and supporting 
documents, it is appropriate to base the cost of compliance calculation 
on the lower of the two vendor quotes. While not explicitly stated as a 
directive in section 1, chapter 2 of the Cost Manual (which discusses 
general methodology), the Cost Manual includes a discussion indicating 
support for the use of the most competitive, lowest responsive bid 
within cost effectiveness calculations. In Section 6, chapter 3, the 
Cost Manual states that ``[s]ignificant savings can be had by 
soliciting multiple quotes,'' \8\ and in section 4.2, chapter 1, the 
Cost Manual suggests that vendor quotes be ``compare[d] to other 
bids.'' \9\ These sections inherently recognize the practice of 
competitive bidding in the contracting process with the goal of 
procuring air pollution control equipment using the most cost effective 
option.\10\ That these statements are made within chapters of the Cost 
Manual that address specific control technologies does not reduce their 
applicability to cost effectiveness calculations in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control 
Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, January 2002. Section 6--Particulate 
Matter Controls, Chapter 3--Electrostatic Precipitators. p. 3-38. 
EPA-452/B-02-001.
    \9\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control 
Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, January 2002. Section 4.2--
NOX Post Combustion, Chapter 1--Selective Non-catalytic 
Reduction. p. 1-29. EPA-452/B-02-001.
    \10\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control 
Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, January 2002. Section 4.2--
NOX Post Combustion, Chapter 1--Selective Non-catalytic 
Reduction. p. 1-30. Chapter 2--Selective Catalytic Reduction. p. 2-
40. EPA-452/B-02-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two vendor quotes were from experienced, reliable equipment 
vendors, and the lower of the two quotes was in fact more robust and 
detailed.
    Using the lowest responsive bid also makes common sense from a 
contracting perspective. Given multiple responsive bids from well 
qualified equipment suppliers, it is reasonable to expect that the 
lower cost supplier is most likely to be chosen to provide the control 
equipment. The use of the average of multiple bids, as advocated by the 
commenter, is illogical since the resulting cost does not reflect the 
actual cost of control equipment from any supplier.
    We acknowledge that the EPA Region 4 approved the State's decision 
regarding the BART analysis for the Alcoa facility in Tennessee. 
However, Region 4 did not initiate this approach, but rather approved 
the State's approach. In instances where the EPA is conducting the BART 
analysis (rather than the EPA reviewing a state's analysis), we are 
consistent.
    Contrary to the comment, the Region 9 and Region 10 approaches 
regarding cost are consistent. The EPA Region 9 BART cost analysis for 
the Four Corners Power Plant (FCPP) was based on a combination of cost 
information submitted from equipment suppliers as well as information 
based on the Cost Manual. In the course of developing the FCPP FIP, the 
EPA Region 9 received three bids from the same vendor containing 
pricing information that was updated as the project proceeded. The 
second bid submitted was the highest cost bid. The EPA Region 9 used 
the second bid in their cost analysis because the third bid, which 
reflected lower costs, was submitted later in the BART analysis process 
and the overall difference between the three bids was not significant 
enough to affect the cost effectiveness determination.
    The EPA Region 9 statement in the action cited by the commenter 
\11\ was intended to communicate that the EPA Region 9 considered the 
costs to be conservatively high, which still resulted in the control 
equipment being determined to be cost effective. This position is 
stated more explicitly in the technical support document for the FCPP 
BART FIP developed by the EPA Region 9: ``. . . the EPA's revised cost 
information and our additional analysis that rely on the capital and 
annual costs are conservatively overestimated.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Source Specific 
Federal Implementation Plan Best Available Retrofit Technology for 
Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation. Final Rule. Docket Number 
EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683. 77 FR 51620.
    \12\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Rule: Source 
Specific Federal Implementation Plan Best Available Retrofit 
Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation, Technical 
Support Document. Docket Number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683, p. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we note that the EPA Region 9 did not accept the bid 
as submitted, but revised numerous cost elements based on independent 
research, competing equipment supplier bids for certain control 
equipment elements, and information contained in the Cost Manual. 
Therefore, the final cost numbers used in the EPA Region 9's analysis, 
while based on the highest of the three base vendor bids, were lower 
than the third vendor bid due to the changes made by the EPA Region 9.

[[Page 33446]]

    Thus, the EPA Region 9 action in fact relied on the principles of 
competitive bidding where appropriate, consistent with the EPA Region 
10 action.
    Comment: A commenter states that the EPA Region 10 cost analysis 
disregarded the fact that the EPA Region 10's internal economic 
analysis concluded that the gypsum by-product market is speculative and 
did not prove there would be a guaranteed market for the gypsum in the 
future. The commenter also states that the EPA Region 10 ignored 
relevant market information provided by Alcoa and that this biased the 
EPA Region 10's control cost estimate in favor of controls being deemed 
cost effective.
    Response: The EPA Region 10 continues to believe it is unreasonable 
to assume that the gypsum produced by LSFO would require disposal in a 
landfill given its suitability as a feedstock in many re-use 
applications and that it is appropriate to eliminate the disposal cost 
for purposes of the cost effectiveness analysis. The assumption that 
the by-product gypsum would be reused is consistent with the approach 
taken in a 2003 technology evaluation conducted by Sargent and Lundy, 
where a disposal cost of zero was used.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Sargent & Lundy LLC, Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization 
Technology Evaluation, January 2003. http://www.lime.org/documents/uses_of_lime/wet_fgdte2003.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the comment, the EPA Region 10 did consider all 
information submitted by Alcoa, including the letter dated June 22, 
2012. In this letter, Alcoa outlines technical challenges associated 
with re-use of the gypsum in various potential applications, but 
includes no discussion regarding potential resolutions of these 
technical challenges. The EPA Region 10 found that the financial 
incentive to avoid disposal costs for a re-usable product would 
encourage reuse. For example, although moist synthetic gypsum may be 
inappropriate for use in cement manufacturing, dry synthetic gypsum may 
be appropriate. In a cost analysis conducted by Sargent and Lundy for 
the LSFO scrubber built for the coal-fired power plant in Centralia 
Washington,\14\ it was assumed that the gypsum by-product would be re-
used, and a gypsum credit of $5/ton was assumed. In fact the gypsum 
produced by Centralia plant was re-used by local wallboard 
manufacturers.15 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Sargent & Lundy LLC, Cost Study for a 1,400 MW Flue Gas 
Desulfurization Unit, Centralia Units 1 & 2, October 1996.
    \15\ ``TransAlta and George Pacific Share Win-Win Situation''. 
Daniel Brunell. Association of Washington Business online article. 
July-August 2004. http://www.awb.org/articles/environment/transalta_and_georgia_pacific_share_win_win_situation.htm.
    \16\ ``Why Centralia Matters to Washington State''. TransAlta. 
April 2010. http://www.transalta.com/sites/default/files/Why-Centralia-Matters.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA Region 10 further believes that, were landfill disposal 
required, the disposal cost assumed in the original Alcoa BART analysis 
of $145/ton is excessively high. The 1996 Sargent & Lundy report cites 
landfill disposal costs of only $6/ton, and a more recent Sargent & 
Lundy paper cites landfill disposal costs of only $12/ton for a similar 
waste product from dry FGD.\17\ A disposal cost several times higher 
than that cited by Sargent & Lundy would not significantly impact the 
cost effectiveness determination for LSFO at Intalco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Sargent & Lundy LLC, Economics of Lime and Limestone for 
Control of Sulfur Dioxide, 2003. http://www.graymont-mx.com/technical/Economics_of_Lime_and_Limestone_Control_Sulfur_Dioxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, while recognizing some gypsum market uncertainty, we conclude 
that the gypsum disposal costs are properly excluded in the cost 
effectiveness calculation for LSFO.
    Comment: One commenter requested the EPA reject the affordability 
argument as the affordability claim is unprecedented and the EPA's 
reliance on affordability in this instance is inconsistent with the 
EPA's approach to BART determinations across the country. The commenter 
asserted that because the EPA has proposed and/or finalized BART 
determinations in other areas that have contributed to power plants 
shutting down because the electrical generating units (EGUs) were not 
profitable enough after accounting for the cost of pollution controls 
(e.g. New York, Oklahoma, Four Corners, Boardman, and TransAlta) that 
the EPA must explain the different outcome for this BART determination. 
Intalco is the only BART determination where a company is excused from 
complying with the law on the grounds that it cannot `afford' the law.
    Response: The BART Guidelines explain that, even where a control 
technology is cost-effective, ``there may be cases where the 
installation of controls would affect the viability of continued plant 
operations.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.E.3.1. In these 
unusual circumstances, the BART Guidelines allow states and the EPA to 
take into consideration how requiring controls could affect ``product 
prices, the market share, and profitability of the source.'' Id. 
section IV.E.3.2. Nevertheless, only when these effects are ``judged to 
have a severe impact on plant operations'' can they play a role in the 
ultimate control determination. The affordability analysis we conducted 
for Intalco was therefore proper. As explained in our re-proposal, the 
results of the analysis demonstrated that requiring controls at the 
Intalco facility would have a ``severe impact'' on the facility's 
ability to continue business operations. The examples cited by the 
commenter, on the other hand, are inapposite. In those instances, none 
of the sources submitted affordability analyses to the EPA as part of 
the BART evaluation process. While the sources may have determined that 
it was in their financial interest to cease operating certain EGUs 
rather than install pollution control technology, the EPA has no reason 
to believe that the sources could not afford the controls in question. 
Rather, the sources made voluntary business decisions that the benefits 
of continuing to generate electricity at the affected units were 
outweighed by a number of factors, which likely included the costs of 
controls, potential future regulatory requirements, market trends, the 
availability of alternative generating strategies, etc. The EPA has no 
evidence to suggest, however, that the costs of controls in those 
instances were so onerous that the sources simply could not afford them 
or that the sources' decisions to cease operations were in essence 
involuntary.
    Comment: One commenter requested the EPA's or Ecology's commitment 
to revisit the BART determination for the Intalco facility every 10 
years based on then current information. Two commenters recommended 
that the EPA explain how the Intalco facility will be reevaluated in 
the 5-year report or next SIP planning cycle to determine if LSFO does 
become affordable in the future.
    One commenter would like the EPA or Ecology to commit to revisiting 
the BART determination for Intalco in each round of revised regional 
haze SIPs (i.e., every 10 years) utilizing the technological and 
financial information that is current for this source at that time.
    Response: BART is a `one time' decision that is not required to be 
revisited in future planning cycles. However, the source could in the 
future be subject to an analysis of control to achieve reasonable 
progress, should a new breakthrough in technology occur and cost 
effective controls be identified. The RHR explains that ``After a state 
has met the requirements for BART, or implemented an emission trading 
program, or other alternative measure that achieves more reasonable 
progress than the installation and operation of BART, BART eligible 
sources will be

[[Page 33447]]

subject to the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section in the 
same manner as other sources.'' 40 CFR 51.308(e)(5).
    A commitment to revisit whether cost effective controls are 
available for a particular source in the future is not a required SIP 
element of this planning cycle and is not required for the EPA to 
approve the regional haze plan. A stated intention in the State's SIP 
submittal to revisit controls in the future is not an enforceable 
requirement. Accordingly the EPA's approval today is not conditioned 
upon the State's commitment to conduct future control technology 
reviews on a specific schedule.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA consider the number 
of Class I areas impacted.
    Response: The EPA considered the fact that Intalco had impacts 
greater than 0.5 deciview (dv) at six Class I areas. Additionally, we 
took into account Intalco's significant impact of over 1 dv at Olympic 
National Park. Thus, as explained in the proposal, the EPA considered 
cumulative visibility impacts, as well as the other BART factors in 
reaching its BART determination for this facility. See 77 FR 76191.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that it was improper to use baseline 
emissions rather than future (or even current) conditions to assess 
visibility improvement.
    Response: As previously described in our response regarding 
Tesoro's baseline emissions, the BART Guidelines (40 CFR part 51, 
appendix Y) provide, ``In general, for existing sources subject to 
BART, you will estimate the anticipated annual emissions based upon 
actual emissions from a baseline period.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, 
section IV.D.4.d.1. The baseline period in the Washington SIP submittal 
for emissions used in the BART analysis is 2002-2005. The BART 
Alternative analysis correctly used the highest 24-hour emission rate 
in the baseline period to assess visibility improvement.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA clarify that the 
modeled BART Alternative improvements are not improvements from current 
conditions.
    Response: Intalco has seen dramatic fluctuation in production over 
the last decade ranging from no production to production at 
approximately 80% of full operation. Thus, visibility improvement in 
Class I areas impacted by the Intalco facility will vary based on 
operating rates. The Intalco facility is currently operating at 
slightly less than 80% of full operation. As stated in the Federal 
Register proposal of December 26, 2012, the proposal to limit 
SO2 emissions to 80% of baseline, combined with making the 
other components in the BART Alternative permanent and federally 
enforceable, will prevent degradation if the Intalco facility increases 
production above 80%. 77 FR 76193.

D. Alcoa Wenatchee Works

    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Alcoa Wenatchee 
Works was improperly exempted from BART review. This comment is based 
on Ecology's use of refined air quality dispersion modeling (0.5 km 
grid) which the commenters believe underestimates visibility impact. 
The commenters asserted that the use of fine grid modeling 
inappropriately underestimates the Wenatchee Works impacts at the 
Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area to a level below the BART threshold thus 
allowing it to be improperly exempt from BART. Allowing the use of fine 
grid modeling is contrary to numerous prior statements by the EPA. The 
commenters requested that the EPA disapprove Washington's BART 
exemption determination and conduct a BART analysis for the Wenatchee 
Works.
    Response: In response to the comments, the EPA re-evaluated the 
dispersion modeling that the State used to exempt the Wenatchee Works 
from BART. On December 30, 2013, we published a proposed rulemaking 
action where we explained our rationale for proposing to disapprove the 
State's BART exemption determination, proposing that the facility was 
subject to BART, and proposing a BART FIP for the Wenatchee Works. 78 
FR 79344. The adverse comments on that re-proposal are addressed below.
    Comment: A commenter asserts that the EPA failed to address and 
resolve deficiencies in the Draft ``Modeling Protocol for the 
Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System Pursuant to the Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Regulation'' (the draft Three 
State Protocol) as identified by Alcoa to the EPA in a June 30, 2006 
letter to EPA Region 10. The commenter claimed that this failure 
adversely affected the subject-to-BART modeling activities and 
improperly determined visibility impairment within the State of 
Washington.
    Response: The major concern raised in the June 30, 2006 letter was 
that the draft Three State Protocol did not include a provision to 
allow for site specific protocols that include technical enhancements, 
such as better resolution and other site specific improvements. The 
June 30, 2006 letter requested that such enhancements be allowed in the 
BART exemption modeling and the BART determination modeling. It also 
stated that the 4 kilometer (km) grid resolution \18\ did not replicate 
on-the-ground terrain features such as valley flow and land/water 
boundaries. For purposes of this action, a 4 km grid is considered a 
course grid and a 0.5 km grid is considered to be a fine grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Grid resolution is the distance between points for which 
model data is established. In this case the data is the elevation 
above mean sea level. A course grid may miss changes in elevation in 
mountainous terrain (i.e. river valley features) and the model may 
not account for channeling of wind flow. The grid points are also 
the points where estimated pollutant concentrations and visibility 
impairment are calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final Three State Protocol provided for site specific 
protocols. Deviations from and site specific improvements to the Three 
State Protocol are allowed. The Modeling Protocol for Washington, 
Oregon, and Idaho: Protocol for the Application of the CALPUFF Modeling 
System Pursuant to the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 
Regulation (the final Three State Protocol) states in section 1.1 that:

    This modeling protocol is a cooperative effort among Idaho 
Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Oregon Department of 
Environmental Quality (ODEQ), and Washington Department of Ecology 
(WDOE) to develop an analysis that will be applied consistently to 
the Idaho, Washington, and Oregon BART-eligible sources. The U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest 
Service, and U.S. EPA Region 10 were consulted during the 
development of this protocol (EPA 2006a, b, c). This protocol adopts 
the BART Guideline and addresses both the BART exemption as well as 
the BART determination modeling. The three agencies are also 
collaborating on the development of a consistent three-year 
meteorological data set. Collaboration on the protocol and 
meteorological data set helps ensure modeling consistency and the 
sharing of resources and workload.

    As stated above, the development of the Three State Protocol was a 
collaborative effort that included seven government agencies. The Three 
State Protocol was viewed as guidance and not a prescription of how the 
modeling must be done in all cases. Consequently, if a BART-eligible 
source preferred to deviate from the Three State Protocol, such as 
generate its own predicted mesoscale meteorology simulations or employ 
a different grid resolution, as in the Wenatchee Works case, the state 
with jurisdiction would consult with the other six government agencies, 
including the EPA, before accepting the deviation. The purpose of the 
consultation is to resolve differing opinions on the deviation, ensure 
consistency and the integrity of the

[[Page 33448]]

Three State Protocol, and maintain fairness to the BART-eligible 
sources. The EPA's endorsement of significant deviations from the Three 
State Protocol is necessary to effectively evaluate the SIP for 
technical adequacy in this important case of exempting a source from 
BART. As described below, the EPA had concerns with the deviation.
    In July 2008, the EPA Region 10 communicated to Washington our 
concerns regarding use of fine grid modeling for the Wenatchee Works. 
In a July 8, 2008 email message to Ecology we stated, ``Nevertheless, 
R10 is willing to allow the use of new procedures, techniques or 
options as long as an acceptability demonstration is made in accordance 
with applicable guidance and is fully vetted by peers.'' The email also 
explained that, ``[t]he CALPUFF modeling system has never been 
evaluated or tested against tracer gas studies/experiments using a fine 
grid. As a minimum, Ecology and TRC should have submitted a protocol to 
R10 for acceptance to evaluate and test the sensitivity using a fine 
grid resolution in CALPUFF Version 5.8.'' The State failed to address 
these concerns.
    Comment: A commenter claims that the EPA ``cherry picked'' 
statements and portrayed out of context, portions of the EPA's 2009 
Modeling Clearinghouse Memorandum and misrepresented its relevance to 
the Wenatchee Works BART exemption modeling.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Modeling 
Clearinghouse Memorandum, dated May 15, 2009, was taken out of context 
to justify the rejection of the Wenatchee Works BART exemption 
modeling. The memorandum states in part that, ``. . . the Otter Tail 
Protocol presents no scientific evidence to support the claim that 1 km 
CALMET resolution increases the objective accuracy of the final wind 
field, especially in areas of relatively modest topographic relief, 
such as for each of the three proposed domains.'' Similarly, the 
commenter did not present any scientific evidence to support its claim 
that the proposed 500 meter grid resolution will adequately capture the 
terrain influenced wind flows (e.g., valley and slope) at its river 
valley location.
    CALMET is a diagnostic meteorological model that produces non-
steady-state hourly meteorological data but has limited ability to 
independently capture the full three-dimensional structure of complex 
wind flows at the Wenatchee Work's river valley location. Unlike the 
Otter Tail situation where the benefit may be limited, the EPA believes 
a network of meteorological monitoring stations (e.g., surface and 
upper air measurements) at the river valley location would better 
capture the three-dimensional, non-steady-state meteorology of this 
site. These data could be used to create a more accurate wind field 
that could then be used to more accurately predict the visibility 
impact from the Wenatchee Works.
    Comment: A commenter questioned the value of revising the PM 
emission limitations that are being required of various emission units 
at the Wenatchee Works. The commenter states that the potential 
visibility improvement resulting from the reduction in allowable 
emissions is below the capability of the model to determine. Any 
potential visibility improvement that may accrue from imposing the 
SO2 limit on Potline 5 would far exceed that of the direct 
PM2.5 being emitted by these stacks. However another 
commenter said, ``We support retaining the existing particulate matter 
limit of .005 gr/dscf.''
    Response: We acknowledge that tightening the particulate matter 
emission limits may have little effect on visibility improvement 
because the existing fabric filters are high efficiency control 
devices. However, in some instances the existing emission limits are 
well above the level that a properly operating fabric filter can 
achieve. BART is defined as an emission limit based on the degree of 
reduction achievable through the application of the best system of 
continuous emission reduction. The existing emission limits in some 
cases are not based on the degree of reduction achievable at this 
facility. The BART emission limits we are establishing reflect the 
achievable emission reductions for these units, and result in tighter 
limits.
    Comment: A commenter said that they have been unable to ascertain 
the source of the emission factor for NOX emissions from 
Potline 5. Additionally, they wonder about the value of an emission 
limitation based solely on the potline aluminum production rate and an 
emission factor. The commenter suggests three options; that the 
NOX emission limit be removed, the emission factor be 
substantiated, or the emissions be based on actual monitoring.
    Response: The EPA understands that this emission factor has been 
used by Alcoa to report NOX emissions to the Department of 
Ecology for years. However, we recognize the lack of substantiation for 
the emission factor and Alcoa has indicated that they cannot quickly 
provide the EPA with a basis for the factor. In response to this 
comment, the EPA has revised the NOX BART emission limit 
from the proposed 0.95 tons per calendar month to a ``test and set'' 
requirement that will require Alcoa to conduct source tests and develop 
a unit-specific NOX emission factor for Potline 5. That 
emission factor will then be used to establish a monthly NOX 
emission limit for Potline 5.
    Comment: A commenter states that the EPA erroneously asserts that 
there are ``no'' SO2 emissions associated with Ingot 
Furnaces No. 1, 2, and 11. The commenter requests that the statement be 
corrected to indicate there are trivial amounts of SO2 
created during the combustion of natural gas. Should the EPA elect not 
to withdraw its proposed actions and approve the Washington SIP, the 
commenter asks that the EPA determine that BART for SO2 for 
these furnaces be comparable to the BART limit proposed for 
NOX, which is a limitation on the type of fuel that may be 
combusted.
    Response: There are trivial amounts of SO2 emissions 
from the Ingot furnaces. The total SO2 emitted from the 
three Ingot furnaces is 0.014 t/yr. We consider these insignificant, 
but as requested by the commenter, we will establish a BART requirement 
for SO2. We agree with the commenter that BART for 
SO2 would be the continued combustion of natural gas in the 
Ingot Furnaces. Thus, we are requiring the combustion of natural gas as 
BART for NOX emissions and are adding a provision that 
requires the combustion of natural gas as BART for SO2 
emissions as well.
    Comment: A commenter suggests that the EPA appears to be 
inconsistent in the cost analyses produced for limestone scrubbing for 
SO2. The commenter explains that, in what appears to be the 
final cost analysis (document 501 in the docket), the EPA has 
included no costs for gypsum disposal, but that documents 503 
and 504 in the docket do contain a disposal cost for gypsum. 
Based on experience with similar useable waste materials the commenter 
states that the EPA should include a disposal cost for the gypsum 
produced by the limestone scrubbing system. The commenter has found 
that even a useful waste like gypsum cannot be disposed of or given 
away at no cost to the source. At a minimum, the company generating the 
waste material has to cover the cost of storage and transport to a 
user.
    Response: The commenter appears to be confusing cost analyses 
conducted by Alcoa (documents 503 and 504) with the 
EPA's cost analysis (document 501). A detailed response to the 
comment with regard to the inclusion of gypsum disposal cost in the 
cost analysis has been provided above addressing a similar comment 
regarding

[[Page 33449]]

the SO2 BART analysis for the Intalco facility.
    Comment: A commenter states that the EPA Region 10 ignored agency 
precedent and other factual information in the development of the 
Wenatchee Works cost of compliance analysis when it relied on the cost 
analysis for a similar scrubber at the Intalco facility. The commenter 
states that the EPA made the same flaws in the Wenatchee analysis that 
it made in the Intalco analysis specifically: Equipment life, use of 
vendor quotes, use of unsubstantiated costs, ignoring cost data 
provided by Alcoa, and using data that underestimate the cost of LSFO.
    Response: This comment for the Wenatchee Works is similar to a 
comment about the Intalco BART analysis addressed above. See our 
response regarding the cost of compliance calculation for the Intalco 
facility. The same rationale for our response to the Intalco BART 
analysis comment applies to this comment regarding the Wenatchee Works.
    Comment: A commenter suggests that the process description for the 
anode bake furnace at the Wenatchee facility is incorrect in the 
preamble to the December 30, 2013 re-proposal.
    Response: The commenter is correct in that the carbon anodes are 
not used in an electric arc furnace, rather the facility produces 
aluminum from alumina via an electrochemical reduction process that 
occurs in ``electrolytic reduction cells'' commonly known as (pots) 
using the Hall-Heroult process.
    Comment: A commenter said that provisions for alternative fuel use 
should be included, when a change to fuel use is permitted or required 
pursuant to governmental dictate.
    Response: We understand that Alcoa may change to an alternate fuel 
in the future. However, we cannot ensure that the requirement for BART 
is met by simply allowing for the use of an alternative fuel that is 
permitted or required by the government. If Alcoa choses to change to a 
fuel other than natural gas, the normal process would be to request the 
EPA to revise this rule and establish an appropriate BART emission 
limit for the alternative fuel. We do, however, believe that we can 
provide for the situation where the use of an alternative fuel may be 
approved in a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit. It 
is the EPA's position that a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 
emission limit for a pollutant established in a PSD permit will likely 
be at least as stringent as a BART emission limit for that pollutant. 
We have added a provision to this rule that would allow a federally-
enforceable BACT emission limit for NOX which is established 
in a PSD permit to supersede the BART emission limit for NOX 
established in this rule.
    Comment: A commenter notes there appears to be a discrepancy 
between the baseline SO2 emissions and emissions reduced 
through LFSO at Potline 5. The proposal states that Potline 5 has a 
baseline emissions rate of 1000.8 tons of SO2 per year. 
However, the supporting BART analysis appears to assume that an LFSO 
scrubber could reduce emissions by 1955 tons per year which would be 
greater than the annual baseline emissions.
    Response: The EPA does not agree that there is a discrepancy 
between the SO2 emission values for Potline 5 in the 
proposal and in the BART analysis. The 1000.8 tons per year value in 
the proposal is the baseline SO2 emission rate which 
represents the actual annual emissions from the Potline during the 
baseline period. The 1955 tons per year emission reduction in the BART 
analysis represents an estimate of the potential emission reduction 
from the maximum potential to emit from the Potline that could be 
expected from the application of LFSO.
    Comment: A commenter said that the EPA should consider ways to 
monitor and make more easily enforceable the proposed BART emissions 
limits. Most of the units at the Wenatchee Works do not have continuous 
emissions monitoring systems (``CEMS''), and for many of the units, the 
EPA is proposing limits based on the content of the fuel or emissions 
per unit of production. For Potline 5, the EPA proposes a BART limit 
expressed as pounds of SO2 per ton of aluminum produced, per 
calendar month. Potline 5 has the highest SO2 emissions of 
any BART-eligible unit at the Wenatchee facility, but it does not 
currently have a CEMS. To gather more accurate data on the unit's 
actual emissions and to ensure compliance with any emissions limit, the 
commenter believes that the EPA should require installation of a CEMS 
and express the emissions limit in terms of SO2 emitted per 
month, as a rolling 30-day average.
    Response: Emissions from primary aluminum plants have traditionally 
been regulated with emission standards in the form of pounds of 
emissions per ton of aluminum produced (see, e.g., the EPA's New Source 
Performance Standards for aluminum plants at 40 CFR part 60, subpart S, 
the EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards for aluminum 
plants at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL, and Ecology's emission limits for 
aluminum plants at WAC 173-415). The EPA believes that establishing 
BART emission limits in the same form as the limits for other 
pollutants set under other programs will both ensure enforceable limits 
on visibility impairing pollutants as well as provide a consistent set 
of requirements for the regulated sources. The EPA also believes that 
for SO2 emissions, a mass balance approach to demonstrating 
compliance, rather than CEMS, is appropriate for Potline 5. 
SO2 from Potline 5 is emitted both from the gas treatment 
centers air pollution control units (GTC) and the roof vents. Measuring 
SO2 emissions from the roof vents with CEMS is not feasible. 
In addition, a mass balance approach with frequent monitoring of the 
sulfur in the anodes adequately accounts for the SO2 
emissions from both the GTC and the roof vents. Similarly, restricting 
BART-eligible units to a particular fuel (e.g., natural gas) and then 
monitoring the fuel combusted in the units that have no other 
SO2 emission controls also adequately accounts for the 
SO2 emissions from those units.
    Comment: A commenter said that the EPA merged monitoring and 
compliance demonstration requirements in 40 CFR 52.2502(c)(1)(i) and 
created ambiguity that requires further clarification.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed rule merged 
the monitoring and compliance demonstration requirements for the sulfur 
limit for incoming coke in a way that was confusing. We have 
reformatted the provision to more clearly specify how compliance is 
demonstrated for the sulfur limit for incoming coke and the required 
monitoring to determine the sulfur content of incoming coke. Note that 
this SO2 BART limit for the anode bake furnaces does not 
affect the SO2 BACT emission limit in the 1982 EPA PSD 
permit (PSD-X82-04) for Potlines 1 through 3.
    Comment: A commenter notes that the emissions in excess of the 
various BART limits proposed throughout the final rule must not be 
exceeded one-hundred twenty days after the final rule is published in 
the Federal Register. The commenter claims a more appropriate 
compliance date for these emission limits is the requirement to comply 
with the BART limits ``within 120 days of the final rule becoming 
effective,'' not when the final rule is published in the Federal 
Register. The EPA should restate the compliance date for the BART 
requirements affected by this proposed regulation.

[[Page 33450]]

    Response: We have changed the compliance dates throughout the rule 
to reflect both the expected effective date of this action as well as 
to tie the compliance date to the effective date of the final rule. 
Specifically, the compliance date for the Intalco facility's calendar 
year SO2 BART limit is set at January 1, 2015. The 
compliance date for the NOX `test and set' emission limit is 
180 days after the effective date of the final rule. The compliance 
dates for all other BART emission limits are 120 days after the 
effective date of this action. The compliance date for the Tesoro 
refinery was also revised to 120 days after the effective date of this 
action.

IV. Conclusion

    EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially 
disapprove Washington's SIP for Regional Haze and to promulgate a FIP 
for the disapproved elements. The EPA is approving portions of the 
Washington Regional Haze SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308 for the first planning period and disapproving other portions. 
The disapproved portions are corrected with today's promulgation of FIP 
elements.
    As discussed above, promulgation of the FIP BART elements for the 
Tesoro refinery, the Intalco facility, and the Wenatchee Works does not 
require the purchase or installation new air pollution control 
equipment, but rather establishes BART based on existing control 
technology. Thus, the only additional costs incurred by the owners of 
these facilities will be minimal expenditures for monitoring, 
reporting, and recordkeeping. EPA expects that this action will prevent 
visibility degradation in the Class I areas by limiting potential 
future increases in emissions from changes at the facilities.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action finalizes approval of portions of the Washington SIP 
and a FIP for emission units subject to BART at three facilities. This 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of 
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 
not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 
3821, January 21, 2011). It is therefore not a rule of general 
applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the final FIP applies to 
just three facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See 
5 CFR 1320(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes 
of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on small entities, small 
entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small 
Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, 
town, school district or special district with a population of less 
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of 
today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The FIP that the EPA is finalizing for purposes of the 
regional haze program consists of imposing Federal controls to meet the 
BART requirements for three specifically identified facilities. The net 
result of this FIP action is that the EPA is finalizing emission limits 
on selected units at only three sources which are not considered small 
business. The sources in question are two aluminum smelters and a 
petroleum refinery. The final partial approval of the SIP merely 
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose 
additional requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, the EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in 
expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for 
inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a 
written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires the 
EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 
the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of the EPA regulatory actions with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Under 
title II of UMRA, the EPA has determined that this final rule does not 
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that exceed 
the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million ($150 in 2013 
when adjusted for inflation) by State, local, or Tribal governments or 
the private sector in any one year. The private sector expenditures 
that will result from the FIP, including BART emission limits, are 
insignificant. The BART emission limits for the Alcoa Intalco 
Operations and Alcoa Wenatchee Works do not involve installation of new 
control technology, but rather establish BART emission limits based on 
the existing control technology. The BART Alternative for the Tesoro 
refinery involves taking credit for voluntary SO2 emission 
reductions in-lieu of installing BART-level NOX control 
technology on emission units subject to BART. Thus, because the annual 
expenditures associated with the FIP are less than the inflation-
adjusted threshold of $150 million in any one year, this rule is not

[[Page 33451]]

subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This rule 
is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because 
it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism, (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) 
revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by state and local governments, or the EPA consults with 
state and local officials early in the process of developing the final 
regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism 
implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency consults 
with state and local officials early in the process of developing the 
final regulation. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on 
the states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because it merely addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation 
under the CAA to include in its SIP provisions to meet the visibility 
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA and to prohibit emissions 
from interfering with other states measures to protect visibility. 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the 
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have Tribal 
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 because the SIP and 
FIP do not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. The EPA nonetheless 
provided a consultation opportunity to Tribes in Idaho, Oregon and 
Washington in letters dated January 14, 2011. The EPA received one 
request for consultation. We followed-up with that Tribe and the Tribe 
does not think consultation is necessary at this time. On September 20, 
2012, EPA provided an additional consultation opportunity to seven 
Tribes in Washington near the facilities that would be regulated under 
the FIP. We received no requests for consultation.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO 
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 
subject to EO 13045 because it implements specific standards 
established by Congress in statutes. However, to the extent this final 
rule will limit emissions of NOX and PM, the rule will have 
a beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available 
and applicable VCS. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to the 
partial approval of the SIP that if merely approves state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. The FIP portion of this rulemaking 
involves technical standards. The EPA is using American Society for 
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Methods and generally accepted test 
methods previously promulgated by the EPA. Because all of these methods 
are generally accepted and are widely used by State and local agencies 
for determining compliance with similar rules, the EPA believes it 
would be impracticable and potentially confusing to put in place 
methods that vary from what is already accepted. As a result, the EPA 
believes it is unnecessary and inappropriate to consider alternative 
technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States. We have determined that this final 
action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health 
or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because 
it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected 
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any 
minority or low-income population.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the

[[Page 33452]]

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 
804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1) rules of 
particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or 
personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice 
that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-
agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not required to submit a 
rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is 
a rule of particular applicability.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by August 11, 2014. Pursuant to CAA section 
307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the requirements of CAA section 
307(d) as it promulgates a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Regional haze, Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 30, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. Section 52.2470 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d) by adding footnote 1 to the table and adding six 
entries to the end of the table.
0
b. In paragraph (e) by adding in TABLE 2--ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND 
OTHER PLANS an entry ``Regional Haze SIP'' at the end of the section 
with the heading ``Visibility and Regional Haze Plans.''

Sec.  52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                            EPA-Approved Washington Source-Specific Requirements \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
         Name of source           Order/permit number   effective    EPA approval date         Explanation
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BP Cherry Point Refinery........  Administrative          7/7/2010  6/11/2014 [Insert    The following
                                   Order No. 7836.                   page number where    conditions: 1.2,
                                                                     the document         1.2.1, 1.3, 1.3.2,
                                                                     begins].             1.3.3, 2.2,
                                                                                          2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3,
                                                                                          2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.3,
                                                                                          2,3,1, 2.3.2, 2.4,
                                                                                          2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.5,
                                                                                          2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.2.1,
                                                                                          2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.1.1.,
                                                                                          2.6.1.2, 2.6.2, 2.6.3,
                                                                                          2.6.4, 2.7, 2.7.1,
                                                                                          2.7.2, 2.7.3, 2.8,
                                                                                          2.8.1, 2.8.2, 2.8.3,
                                                                                          2.8.4, 2.9, 2.9.1,
                                                                                          2.9.2, 2.9.3, 2.9.4,
                                                                                          2.9.5, 2.9.6, 3., 3.2,
                                                                                          3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3,
                                                                                          3.3.1, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.2,
                                                                                          3.3.3, 3.3.4, 4, 4.1,
                                                                                          4.1.1, 4.1.1.1,
                                                                                          4.1.1.2, 4.1.1.3,
                                                                                          4.1.1.4, 5., 6, 6.2,
                                                                                          6.3, 6.4, 7.
Alcoa Intalco Works.............  Administrative          11/15/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The following
                                   Order No. 7837,                   page number where    conditions: 1, 2.,
                                   Revision 1.                       the document         2.1, 3., 4., 4.1,
                                                                     begins].             Attachment A
                                                                                          conditions: A1, A2,
                                                                                          A3, A4, A5, A6, A7,
                                                                                          A8, A9, A10, A11, A12,
                                                                                          A13, A14.
Tesoro Refining and Marketing     Administrative            7/7/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The following
 Company.                          Order 7838.                       page number where    conditions: 1., 1.1,
                                                                     the document         1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2,
                                                                     begins].             1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.5.1,
                                                                                          1.5.1.1,1.5.1.2,
                                                                                          1.5.1.3, 1.5.2, 1.5.3,
                                                                                          1.5.4, 1.5.5, 1.5.6,
                                                                                          2., 2.1, 2.1.1,
                                                                                          2.1.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3,
                                                                                          2.2, 2.2.1, 3. 3.1,
                                                                                          3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.2.1,
                                                                                          3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3, 3.2,
                                                                                          3.2.1, 3.2.1.1,
                                                                                          3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3,
                                                                                          3.2.1.4, 3.2.1.4.1,
                                                                                          3.2.1.4.2, 3.2.1.4.3,
                                                                                          3.2.1.4.4, 3.2.1.4.5,
                                                                                          3.3, 3.3.1, 3.4,
                                                                                          3.4.1, 3.4.2, 4., 4.1,
                                                                                          5., 5.1, 6., 6.1,
                                                                                          6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3,
                                                                                          6.1.4, 7., 7.1, 7.1.1,
                                                                                          7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.1.4,
                                                                                          7.1.5, 7.2, 7.2.1,
                                                                                          7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.2.4,
                                                                                          8. 8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2,
                                                                                          8.2, 8.2.1, 8.2.2,
                                                                                          8.2.3, 8.3, 8.3.1,
                                                                                          8.3.2, 9., 9.1, 9.1.1,
                                                                                          9.1.2, 9.2, 9.2.1,
                                                                                          9.39.3.1, 9.3.2,
                                                                                          9.3.3,9.4, 9.4.1,
                                                                                          9.4.2, 9.4.3, 9.4.5,
                                                                                          9.4.6, 9.5, 10, 11,
                                                                                          12, 13, 13.1, 13.2,
                                                                                          13.3, 13.4, 13.5,
                                                                                          13.6.
Port Townsend Paper Corporation.  Administrative          10/20/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The following
                                   Order No. 7839,                   page number where    Conditions:1, 1.1,
                                   Revision 1.                       the document         1.2, 1.3, 2, 2.1, 3,
                                                                     begins].             3.1, 4.

[[Page 33453]]

 
Lafarge North America, Inc.       Administrative           7/28/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The following
 Seattle, Wa.                      Revised Order No.                 page number where    Conditions: 1, 1.1,
                                   7841.                             the document         1.2, 2, 2.1, 2.1.1,
                                                                     begins].             2.1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 3,
                                                                                          3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2,
                                                                                          3.1.3, 3.2, 3.3, 4,
                                                                                          4.1, 5, 5.1, 5.1.1,
                                                                                          5.1.2, 5.2, 5.3, 6,
                                                                                          6.1, 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3,
                                                                                          7.4, 7.5, 8, 8.1, 8.2,
                                                                                          8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9, 10,
                                                                                          11, 12.
Weyerhaeuser Corporation,         Administrative            7/7/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The following
 Longview, Wa.                     Order No. 7840.                   page number where    Conditions: 1, 1.1,
                                                                     the document         1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3,
                                                                     begins].             1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,
                                                                                          1.2.3, 1.3, 1.3.1,
                                                                                          1.4, 2, 2.1, 3, 3.1,
                                                                                          4, 4.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA does not have the authority to remove these source-specific requirements in the absence of a
  demonstration that their removal would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any
  prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. Washington Department of
  Ecology may require removal by submitting such a demonstration to the EPA as a SIP revision.

    (e) * * *
* * * * *

                                Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable         State
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or      submittal    EPA approval date           Comments
                                   nonattainment area      date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Visibility and Regional Haze Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Haze SIP...............  State-wide.........     12/22/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The Regional Haze SIP
                                                                     page number where    including those
                                                                     the document         provisions relating to
                                                                     begins].             BART incorporated by
                                                                                          reference in Sec.
                                                                                          52.2470
                                                                                          `Identification of
                                                                                          plan' with the
                                                                                          exception of the BART
                                                                                          provisions that are
                                                                                          replaced with a BART
                                                                                          FIP in Sec.   52.2498
                                                                                          Visibility
                                                                                          protection., Sec.
                                                                                          52.2500 Best available
                                                                                          retrofit technology
                                                                                          requirements for the
                                                                                          Intalco Aluminum
                                                                                          Corporation (Intalco
                                                                                          Works) primary
                                                                                          aluminum plant--Better
                                                                                          than BART
                                                                                          Alternative., Sec.
                                                                                          52.2501 Best available
                                                                                          retrofit technology
                                                                                          (BART) requirement for
                                                                                          the Tesoro Refining
                                                                                          and Marketing Company
                                                                                          oil refinery--Better
                                                                                          than BART
                                                                                          Alternative., Sec.
                                                                                          52.2502 Best available
                                                                                          retrofit technology
                                                                                          requirements for the
                                                                                          Alcoa Inc.--Wenatchee
                                                                                          Works primary aluminum
                                                                                          smelter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.2475 is amended by revising the heading of paragraph (g) 
and paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2475  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (g) Visibility protection. (1) The EPA approves portions of a 
Regional Haze SIP submitted by the Washington Department of Ecology on 
December 22, 2010, as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act section 
169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308, with the exception of certain BART 
requirements for the Alcoa Intalco Works, the Alcoa Wenatchee Works, 
and the Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 52.2498 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.2498  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (c) The requirements of sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act 
are not met because the plan does not include approvable provisions for 
protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas, 
specifically the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirement 
for regional haze visibility impairment (Sec.  51.308(e)). The EPA BART 
requirements are found in Sec. Sec.  52.2500, 52.2501, and 52.2502.

0
5. Section 52.2500 is added to subpart WW to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2500  Best available retrofit technology requirements for the 
Intalco Aluminum Corporation (Intalco Works) primary aluminum plant--
Better than BART Alternative.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to the Intalco Aluminum 
Corporation (Intalco) primary aluminum plant located in Ferndale, 
Washington and to its successors and/or assignees.

[[Page 33454]]

    (b) Better than BART Alternative--Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
emission limit for potlines. Starting January 1, 2015, SO2 
emissions from all potlines in aggregate must not exceed a total of 
5,240 tons for any calendar year.
    (c) Compliance demonstration. (1) Intalco must determine on a 
calendar month basis, SO2 emissions using the following 
formula:

SO2 emissions in tons per calendar month = (carbon 
consumption ratio) x (% sulfur in baked anodes/100) x (% sulfur 
converted to SO2/100) x (2 pounds of SO2 per 
pound of sulfur) x (tons of aluminum production per calendar month)

    (i) Carbon consumption ratio is the calendar month average of tons 
of baked anodes consumed per ton of aluminum produced as determined 
using the baked anode consumption and production records required in 
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
    (ii) % sulfur in baked anodes is the calendar month average sulfur 
content as determined in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (iii) % sulfur converted to SO2 is 95%.
    (2) Calendar year SO2 emissions shall be calculated by 
summing the 12 calendar month SO2 emissions for the calendar 
year.
    (d) Emission monitoring. (1) Intalco must determine the % sulfur of 
baked anodes using ASTM Method D6376 or an alternative method approved 
by the EPA Region 10.
    (2) Intalco must collect at least four anode core samples during 
each calendar week.
    (3) Calendar month average sulfur content shall be determined by 
averaging the sulfur content of all samples collected during the 
calendar month.
    (e) Recordkeeping. (1) Intalco must record the calendar month 
SO2 emissions and the calendar year SO2 emissions 
determined in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
    (2) Intalco must maintain records of the baked anode consumption 
and aluminum production data used to develop the carbon consumption 
ratio used in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section.
    (3) Intalco must retain a copy of all calendar month carbon 
consumption ratio and potline SO2 emission calculations.
    (4) Intalco must record the calendar month net production of 
aluminum and tons of aluminum produced each calendar month. Net 
production of aluminum is the total mass of molten metal produced from 
tapping all pots in all of the potlines that operated at any time in 
the calendar month, measured at the casthouse scales and the rod shop 
scales.
    (5) Intalco must record the calendar month average sulfur content 
of the baked anodes.
    (6) Records are to be retained at the facility for at least five 
years and be made available to the EPA Region 10 upon request.
    (f) Reporting. (1) Intalco must report the calendar month 
SO2 emissions and the calendar year SO2 emissions 
to the EPA Region 10 at the same time as the annual compliance 
certification required by the Part 70 operating permit for the Intalco 
facility is submitted to the Title V permitting authority.
    (2) All documents and reports must be sent to the EPA Region 10 
electronically, in a format approved by the EPA Region 10, to the 
following email address: R10-AirPermitReports@epa.gov.

0
6. Section 52.2501 is added to subpart WW to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2501  Best available retrofit technology (BART) requirement 
for the Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company oil refinery--Better than 
BART Alternative.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to the Tesoro Refining and 
Marketing Company oil refinery (Tesoro) located in Anacortes, 
Washington and to its successors and/or assignees.
    (b) Better than BART Alternative. The sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) emission limitation for non-BART eligible process 
heaters and boilers (Units F-101, F-102, F-201, F-301, F-652, F-751, 
and F-752) follows.
    (1) Compliance Date. Starting no later November 10, 2014, Units F-
101, F-102, F-201, F-301, F-652, F-751, and F-752 shall only fire 
refinery gas meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this section 
or pipeline quality natural gas.
    (2) Refinery fuel gas requirements. In order to limit 
SO2 emissions, refinery fuel gas used in the units from 
blend drum V-213 must not contain greater than 0.10 percent by volume 
hydrogen sulfide (H2S), 365-day rolling average, measured 
according to paragraph (d) of this section.
    (c) Compliance demonstration. Compliance with the H2S 
emission limitation must be demonstrated using a continuous emissions 
monitoring system as required in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (d) Emission monitoring. (1) A continuous emissions monitoring 
system (CEMS) for H2S concentration must be installed, 
calibrated, maintained and operated measuring the outlet stream of the 
fuel gas blend drum subsequent to all unmonitored incoming sources of 
sulfur compounds to the system and prior to any fuel gas combustion 
device. The monitor must be certified in accordance with 40 CFR part 60 
appendix B and operated in accordance with 40 CFR part 60 appendix F.
    (2) Tesoro must record the calendar day average H2S 
concentration of the refinery fuel gas as measured by the CEMS required 
in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The daily averages must be used to 
calculate the 365-day rolling average.
    (e) Recordkeeping. Records of the daily average H2S 
concentration and 365-day rolling averages must be retained at the 
facility for at least five years and be made available to the EPA 
Region 10 upon request.
    (f) Reporting. (1) Calendar day and 365-day rolling average 
refinery fuel gas H2S concentrations must be reported to the 
EPA Region 10 at the same time that the semi-annual monitoring reports 
required by the Part 70 operating permit for the Tesoro oil refinery 
are submitted to the Title V permitting authority.
    (2) All documents and reports must be sent to the EPA Region 10 
electronically, in a format approved by the EPA Region 10, to the 
following email address: R10-AirPermitReports@epa.gov.

0
7. Section 52.2502 is added to subpart WW to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2502  Best available retrofit technology requirements for the 
Alcoa Inc.--Wenatchee Works primary aluminum smelter.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to the Alcoa Inc.--
Wenatchee Works primary aluminum smelter (Wenatchee Works) located near 
Wenatchee, Washington and to its successors and/or assignees.
    (b) Best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limitations 
for Potline 5--(1) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit. 
Starting November 10, 2014, SO2 emissions from Potline 5 
must not exceed 46 pounds per ton of aluminum produced during any 
calendar month as calculated in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
    (i) Compliance demonstration. Alcoa must determine SO2 
emissions, on a calendar month basis using the following formulas:

SO2 emissions in pounds = (carbon ratio) 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)

[[Page 33455]]

SO2 emissions in pounds per ton of aluminum produced = 
(SO2 emissions in pounds during the calendar month)/(tons of 
aluminum produced during the calendar month)

    (A) The carbon ratio is the calendar month average of tons of baked 
anodes consumed per ton of aluminum produced as determined using the 
baked anode consumption and aluminum production records required in 
paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
    (B) The % sulfur in baked anodes is the calendar month average 
sulfur content as determined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (C) The % sulfur converted to SO2 is 90%.
    (ii) Emission monitoring. The % sulfur of baked anodes must be 
determined using ASTM Method D6376 or an alternative method approved by 
the EPA Region 10.
    (A) At a minimum, Alcoa must collect no less than four baked anode 
core samples during each calendar week.
    (B) Calendar month average sulfur content must be determined by 
averaging the sulfur content of all samples collected during the 
calendar month.
    (2) Particulate matter (PM) emission limit. Starting November 10, 
2014, PM emissions from the Potline 5 Gas Treatment Center stack must 
not exceed 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic foot of exhaust gas.
    (3) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit. Starting January 7, 2015, 
NOX emissions from Potline 5 must not exceed, in tons per 
calendar month, the emission limit determined under paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Compliance demonstration. Alcoa must determine NOX 
emissions, on a calendar month basis using the following formula:

NOX emissions in tons per calendar month = (the emission 
factor determined under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section, in pounds 
of NOX per ton of aluminum produced) x (number of tons of 
aluminum produced in the calendar month)/(2000 pounds per ton).

    (ii) NOX emission factor development. By September 9, 2014, Alcoa 
must submit to the EPA a plan for testing NOX emissions from 
Potline 5 and developing an emission factor in terms of pounds of 
NOX per ton of aluminum produced. This plan must include 
testing NOX emissions from both the Gas Treatment Center 
stack and the potline roof vents along with measurements of volumetric 
flow and aluminum production such that mass emissions can be determined 
and correlated with aluminum production. Within 90 days after the EPA 
approval of the plan, Alcoa shall conduct the testing and submit the 
resultant emission factor to the EPA at the address listed in paragraph 
(i)(5) of this section.
    (iii) NOX emission limit. NOX emission limit in tons per 
calendar month = (the emission factor determined under paragraph 
(b)(3)(ii) of this section, in pounds of NOX per ton of 
aluminum produced) x (5546.2 tons of aluminum per month)/(2000 pounds 
per ton).
    (c) Best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limitations 
for Anode Bake Furnace #62--(1) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit. 
Starting November 10, 2014, the sulfur content of the coke used in 
anode manufacturing must not exceed a weighted average of 3.0 percent 
during any calendar month as calculated in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this 
section.
    (i) Compliance demonstration. The weighted monthly average sulfur 
content of coke used in manufacturing shall be calculated as follows:

Weighted average percent sulfur = 
[sum](C1-nxSC1-n/100)/[sum]C1-n*100

Where:

Cn is the quantity of coke in shipment n in tons
SCn is the percent sulfur content by weight of the coke 
in shipment n
n is the number of shipments of coke in the calendar month

    (ii) Emission monitoring. Alcoa must test each shipment of coke for 
sulfur content using ASTM Method D6376 or an alternative method 
approved by the EPA Region 10. Written documentation from the coke 
supplier certifying the sulfur content is an approved alternative 
method.
    (2) Particulate matter (PM) emission limit. Starting November 10, 
2014, the PM emissions from the anode bake furnaces stack must not 
exceed 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot of exhaust gas.
    (3) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit. Starting November 10, 
2014, the anode bake furnaces must only combust natural gas.
    (i) Compliance demonstration. Compliance shall be demonstrated 
through fuel purchase records.
    (ii) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) emission limit for an approved alternative fuel. Compliance with 
a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) emission limit for 
NOX for the anode bake furnaces, established in a Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit issued pursuant to 40 CFR 
52.21 or pursuant to an EPA-approved PSD program that meets the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.166, shall be deemed to be compliance with 
BART for a fuel other than natural gas.
    (d) Best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limitations 
for Ingot Furnace 1 (IP-1), Ingot Furnace 2 (IP-2), and Ingot Furnace 
11 (IP-11)--(1) Particulate matter (PM) emission limits. Starting 
November 10, 2014, the PM emissions from each of ingot furnaces IP-1, 
IP-2, and IP-11 must not exceed 0.1 grains per dry standard cubic foot 
of exhaust gas.
    (2) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit. Starting November 10, 
2014, each of the ingot furnaces IP-1, IP-2, and IP-11 must only 
combust natural gas.
    (3) Sulfur dioxide (SOX) emission limit. Starting November 10, 
2014, each of the ingot furnaces IP-1, IP-2, and IP-11 must only 
combust natural gas.
    (i) Compliance demonstration. Alcoa must demonstrate compliance 
through fuel purchase records.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (e) Best available retrofit technology (BART) particulate matter 
(PM) emission limitations for the Green Mill. (1) Starting November 10, 
2014, the PM emissions from the Green Mill Dry Coke Scrubber must not 
exceed 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic foot of exhaust gas.
    (2) Starting November 10, 2014, the PM emissions from the Green 
Mill Dust Collector 2 must not exceed 0.01 grains per dry standard 
cubic foot of exhaust gas.
    (f) Best available retrofit technology (BART) particulate matter 
(PM) emission limitations for alumina handling operations. (1) Starting 
November 10, 2014, the opacity from the alumina handling fabric filters 
(21M and 19C) must not exceed 20 percent.
    (2) Starting November 10, 2014, the PM emissions from the alumina 
rail car unloading baghouse (43E) must not exceed 0.005 grains per dry 
standard cubic foot of exhaust gas.
    (g) Source testing. (1) Alcoa must perform source testing to 
demonstrate compliance with emission limits established in this section 
upon request by the EPA Region 10 Administrator.
    (2) The reference test method for measuring PM emissions is EPA 
Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    (3) The reference test method for measuring opacity from the 
alumina handling fabric filters (21M and 19C) is EPA Method 9 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A).
    (4) The EPA Region 10 may approve the use of an alternative to a 
reference test method upon an adequate

[[Page 33456]]

demonstration by Alcoa that such alternative provides results 
equivalent to that of the reference method.
    (h) Recordkeeping. Except as provided in paragraph (h)(6) of this 
section, starting November 10, 2014, Alcoa must keep the following 
records:
    (1) Alcoa must retain a copy of all calendar month Potline 5 
SO2 emissions calculations.
    (2) Alcoa must maintain records of the baked anode consumption and 
aluminum production data used to develop the carbon ratio.
    (3) Alcoa must retain a copy of all calendar month carbon ratio and 
potline SO2 emission calculations.
    (4) Alcoa must record the calendar day and calendar month 
production of aluminum.
    (5) Alcoa must record the calendar month average sulfur content of 
the baked anodes.
    (6) Starting January 7, 2015, Alcoa must retain a copy of all 
calendar month potline NOX emission calculations.
    (7) Alcoa must record the sulfur content of each shipment of coke 
and the quantity of each shipment of coke.
    (8) Alcoa must keep fuel purchase records showing the type(s) of 
fuel combusted in the anode bake furnaces.
    (9) Alcoa must keep fuel purchase records showing the type(s) of 
fuel combusted in the ingot furnaces.
    (10) Records must be retained at the facility for at least five 
years and be made available to the EPA Region 10 upon request.
    (i) Reporting. (1) Alcoa must report SO2 emissions by 
calendar month to the EPA Region 10 on an annual basis at the same time 
as the annual compliance certification required by the Part 70 
operating permit for the Wenatchee Works is submitted to the Title V 
permitting authority.
    (2) Alcoa must report NOX emissions by calendar month to 
the EPA Region 10 on an annual basis at the same time as the annual 
compliance certification required by the Part 70 operating permit for 
the Wenatchee Works is submitted to the Title V permitting authority.
    (3) Alcoa must report the monthly weighted average sulfur content 
of coke received at the facility for each calendar month during the 
compliance period to the EPA Region 10 at the same time as the annual 
compliance certification required by the Part 70 operating permit for 
the Wenatchee Works is submitted to the Title V permitting authority.
    (4) Alcoa must report the fuel purchase records for the anode bake 
furnaces and the ingot furnaces during the compliance period to the EPA 
Region 10 at the same time as the annual compliance certification 
required by the Part 70 operating permit for the Wenatchee Works is 
submitted to the Title V permitting authority.
    (5) All documents and reports must be sent to the EPA Region 10 
electronically, in a format approved by the EPA Region 10, to the 
following email address: R10-AirPermitReports@epa.gov.

[FR Doc. 2014-13491 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P