[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40287-40290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18870]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN96-1a; FRL-6401-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving temporary revised opacity limits for two
processes at ALCOA Warrick Operations, which were submitted by the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) on December 8,
1998, as amendments to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). ALCOA
Warrick Operations is a primary aluminum smelter located in Newburgh,
Indiana. The revised limits allow for higher opacity emissions during
fluxing operations at two holding furnaces for a period of one year.
The temporary limits for the #1 and #8 complexes expire on May 26,
1999, and June 15, 1999, respectively. Mass emissions limits are not
being changed.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 24, 1999, unless EPA
receives adverse written comments by August 25, 1999. If adverse
comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule
in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not
take effect.
ADDRESSES: You should mail written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
You may inspect copies of the State submittal and EPA's analysis of
it at: Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Pohlman, Environmental
Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3299.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' are used we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is the EPA approving?
II. What facilities/operations does this action apply to?
III. What are the provisions of the temporary opacity limits?
IV. What are the current limits on these sources?
V. What supporting materials did Indiana provide?
VI. What are the environmental effects of this action?
VII. EPA rulemaking action.
VIII. Administrative requirements.
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Executive Order 12875
C. Executive Order 13045
D. Executive Order 13084
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Petitions for Judicial Review
I. What Is the EPA Approving?
We are approving as SIP revisions temporary revised opacity limits
for two processes at ALCOA Warrick Operations, which were submitted by
IDEM on December 8, 1998. The revised limits allow for higher opacity
emissions during fluxing operations at two holding furnaces for a
period of one year. The temporary limits for the #1 and #8 complexes
expire on May 26, 1999, and June 15, 1999, respectively.
II. What Facilities/Operations Does This Action Apply to?
We are approving temporary revised opacity limits for two processes
at ALCOA Warrick Operations. ALCOA Warrick Operations is a primary
aluminum smelter located in Newburgh, Indiana. Molten aluminum is
transferred from the melt furnaces into the holding furnaces for final
fluxing, then cast into slabs. There are no particulate matter (PM)
control devices for these processes. Emissions are exhausted through
ventilation hoods to the exhaust stacks for each holding furnace. The
revised limits apply to the #1 Complex (the Horizontal Direct Chill
Casting, or HDC) and the #8 Complex (the Electromagnetic Casting, or
EMC).
[[Page 40288]]
III. What Are the Provisions of the Temporary Opacity Limits?
The temporary limits for both the #1 complex and the #8 complex
were contained in a variance issued by IDEM on May 8, 1998. The limit
on the #8 complex was revised on May 28, 1998. These revised limits
became effective in Indiana 18 days after being issued, and are
effective for one year. The temporary limits for the #1 and #8
complexes expire on May 26, 1999, and June 15, 1999, respectively.
The revised limits allow emissions with an opacity up to 80 percent
during the fluxing portion of the production cycle from the East and
West holding furnace exhaust stacks at the #1 Complex (HDC). This
opacity is allowed for no more than 6 six-minute averaging periods, and
only during fluxing. For all other portions of the production cycle,
the limit remains at 40 percent. Fluxing lasts approximately 12-15
minutes of the 5-10 hour production cycle for the HDC.
For the East and West holding furnace exhaust stacks at the #8
Complex (EMC), the revised limit allows opacity during fluxing up to 95
percent for 2 six-minute averaging periods, and up to 90 percent
opacity for an additional 4 six-minute averaging periods. During all
other portions of the production cycle, the opacity of emissions from
the EMC continues to be limited to 40 percent. Fluxing lasts
approximately 12-15 minutes of the 3-4 hour production cycle for the
EMC.
Mass PM emissions remain the same.
IV. What Are the Current Limits on These Sources?
These processes are currently covered by SIP rule Title 326 Indiana
Administrative Code, Article 5, Rule 1, Section 2 (326 IAC 5-1-2),
which provides a 40 percent opacity limit.
They are also covered by a SIP mass emission limit contained in 326
IAC 6-3-2. This regulation provides for a limit based on the process
rate.
V. What Supporting Materials Did Indiana Provide?
Indiana provided stack test data and opacity readings. Stack tests
were conducted by ALCOA to show that the revised opacity limit would
still be protective of the SIP mass PM emission limits. ALCOA conducted
two rounds of stack tests, and opacity readings were taken during
fluxing for many of the runs.
The first round measured emissions of PM over the entire production
cycle. (The production cycle lasts 5-10 hours for the HDC and 3-4 hours
for the EMC.) Nine test runs were conducted on each exhaust stack.
Fluxing was conducted for 35 minutes during each run, to approximate a
worst-case scenario. (Fluxing normally lasts only 12-15 minutes.)
These tests showed PM emission rates of 17-32 pounds per hour (lbs/
hr) and 1-3 lbs/hr for the HDC East and West holding furnaces,
respectively. This compares to SIP limits of 31-44 lbs/hr for the East
furnace and 14-28 lbs/hr for the West furnace. (Limits vary because
they are based on production rate.)
For the EMC, measured emissions ranged from about 4-7 lbs/hr for
the East holding furnace and about 4-10 lbs/hr for the West holding
furnace. Limits for the EMC were about 49 lbs/hr for the East
furnace and 47-53 lbs/hr for the West furnace.
During fluxing, 6-minute average opacity readings ranged from about
20-95 percent for the EMC, with an average of about 70 percent. For the
HDC, 6-minute average opacity readings ranged from about 10-80 percent,
with an average of about 50 percent.
The second round of tests was conducted for only one hour of the
production cycle each, including the fluxing portion of the cycle.
These tests were designed to show compliance with mass PM emissions
limits on a one-hour basis. The tests include the fluxing portion of
the cycle since fluxing produces the bulk of emissions from the holding
furnaces. 3-12 test runs were conducted on each exhaust stack. During
these tests, fluxing was also conducted for a ``worst-case'' time of 35
minutes. Opacity readings were taken during many of the runs.
These tests showed PM emission rates of 11-32 pounds per hour (lbs/
hr) and 8-13 lbs/hr for the HDC East and West holding furnaces,
respectively. This compares to limits of 17-37 lbs/hr for the East
furnace and 12-20 lbs/hr for the West furnace. (Limits vary because
they are based on production rate.) For the EMC, measured emissions
ranged from about 7-15 lbs/hr for the East holding furnace and about
10-15 lbs/hr for the West holding furnace. Limits for the EMC were
about 38-44 lbs/hr for the East furnace and 41-44 lbs/hr for the West
furnace.
The tests show that ALCOA can meet SIP mass emissions limits at the
EMC and HDC holding furnace stacks during fluxing. Even though opacity
was often high during fluxing, no violations of the SIP mass PM
emissions limits were measured. The tests indicate that the temporary
revised opacity limits will not allow violations of the mass limits for
these sources.
VI. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
While they are in effect, the temporary revised opacity limits will
allow darker smoke to be emitted than does the current SIP rule.
However, since no mass limits are being revised, and since the
temporary revised opacity limits are protective of the current mass
limits, this SIP revision should not jeopardize air quality.
VII. EPA Rulemaking Action
We are approving, through direct final rulemaking, temporary
revised opacity limits for two processes at ALCOA Warrick Operations.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view
this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in a separate document in this Federal Register publication,
we are proposing to approve the SIP revision should adverse written
comments be filed. This action will be effective without further notice
unless we receive relevant adverse written comment by August 25, 1999.
Should we receive such comments, we will publish a final rule informing
the public that this action will not take effect. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If
no such comments are received, you are advised that this action will be
effective on September 24, 1999.
It should be noted that the applicable period of these temporary
opacity limits is wholly in the past. Therefore, we must judge whether
the variance warrants inclusion as a codified element of the Indiana
SIP. We are undertaking an effort to revise the presentation of SIPs in
a manner that more clearly identifies the enforceable elements of each
SIP. Part of this effort is to eliminate referencing of temporary
limits that have expired. The temporary opacity limits for ALCOA alter
the opacity limits to be enforced for approximately one year, but have
no effect on the current regulations governing emissions at this
facility. Consequently, we are not codifying the temporary opacity
limits for ALCOA as part of the Indiana SIP.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
[[Page 40289]]
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.
13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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 Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and 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). EPA
is not required to submit a rule report regarding this rulemaking
action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain any information collection
requirements which requires OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary
[[Page 40290]]
consensus standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing
programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
J. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 24, 1999. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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 section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter.
Dated: July 9, 1999.
Francis X. Lyons,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 99-18870 Filed 7-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
