Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana

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