Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Alaska; Regional Haze Progress Report, 7002-7007 [2018-03269]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7002
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 2, 2018.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX.
[FR Doc. 2018–03270 Filed 2–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0749; FRL–9974–
59—Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans; Alaska;
Regional Haze Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Alaska Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan (SIP),
submitted by the State of Alaska on
March 10, 2016. Alaska submitted its
Regional Haze Progress Report
(‘‘progress report’’ or ‘‘report’’) and a
negative declaration stating that further
revision of the existing regional haze
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Feb 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
SIP is not needed at this time. Alaska
submitted both the progress report and
the negative declaration in the form of
implementation plan revisions as
required by federal regulations. The
progress report addresses the federal
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to
submit a report describing progress in
achieving reasonable progress goals
(RPGs) established for regional haze and
a determination of the adequacy of the
state’s existing plan addressing regional
haze. We are also proposing to approve
minor updates to the Enhanced Smoke
Management Plan, Long-Term Strategy,
and Commitment to Future 308 Plan
Revision sections of the regional haze
SIP, submitted concurrently with the
progress report.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 19, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2016–0749 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air
and Waste (OAW–150), Environmental
Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200
Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101;
telephone number: (206) 553–0256,
email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
I. Background
Alaska submitted its initial regional
haze SIP to the EPA on March 29, 2011,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for the first regional haze planning
period ending in 2018, which the EPA
approved on February 14, 2013.1 Five
years after submittal of the initial
regional haze plan, states are required to
submit progress reports that evaluate
progress towards the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I Federal area 2 (Class
I area) within the state and in each Class
I area outside the state which may be
affected by emissions from within the
state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also
required to submit, at the same time as
the progress report, a determination of
the adequacy of the state’s existing
regional haze plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h).
On March 10, 2016, the Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) submitted as a SIP
revision a report on the progress made
in the first implementation period
towards the RPGs for Class I areas. EPA
is proposing to approve Alaska’s
progress report on the basis that it
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308. We also propose to find that
Alaska’s progress report demonstrates
that the state’s long-term strategy and
emission control measures in the
existing regional haze SIP are sufficient
to enable Alaska to meet all established
RPGs for 2018.
II. Context for Understanding Alaska’s
Progress Report
To facilitate a better understanding of
Alaska’s progress report as well as the
EPA’s evaluation of it, this section
provides background on the regional
haze program in Alaska.
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
The EPA has established a metric for
determining visibility conditions at
Class I areas referred to as the ‘‘deciview
index,’’ which is measured in
deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301.
The deciview index is calculated using
monitoring data collected from the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network monitors. Alaska has four Class
I areas within its borders: Denali
National Park and Preserve, Tuxedni
National Wildlife Refuge, Simeonof
Wilderness Area, and the Bering Sea
Wilderness Area. In developing its
initial regional haze SIP, Alaska
determined, and the EPA in its approval
agreed, that due to lack of proximity to
other states, visibility in Alaska’s Class
I areas is not affected by emission
1 See
78 FR 10546.
designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81 subpart D.
2 Areas
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sources in other states. Likewise, Alaska
determined, and the EPA agreed, that
emission sources in Alaska do not affect
visibility in Class I areas in other states.
Therefore, Alaska’s progress report does
not address visibility impacts from
sources in other states or the visibility
impact of Alaska sources on Class I
areas in other states.
Under the RHR, a state’s initial
regional haze SIP must establish two
RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One
for the 20 percent least impaired days
and one for the 20 percent most
impaired days. The RPGs must provide
for an improvement in visibility on the
20 percent most impaired days and
ensure no degradation in visibility on
the 20 percent least impaired days, as
compared to visibility conditions during
the baseline period. In establishing the
RPGs, a state must consider the uniform
rate of visibility improvement from the
baseline to natural conditions in 2064
and the emission reductions measures
needed to achieve it. Alaska set the
RPGs for the Denali, Tuxedni, and
Simeonof Class I areas. In setting the
RPGs for these three Class I areas,
Alaska used atmospheric air quality
modeling based on projected emission
reductions from control strategies in
Alaska’s regional haze SIP, as well as
emission reductions expected to result
from other federal, state and local air
quality programs.
Alaska’s fourth Class I area, the Bering
Sea Wilderness Area, is extremely
remote, with no IMPROVE monitoring
site. Therefore, no RPG was established
for this area in Alaska’s regional haze
SIP, and Alaska’s progress report does
not address visibility progress in this
area.3
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Data Sources for Alaska’s Progress
Report
Alaska relied on the Western Regional
Air Partnership (WRAP) technical data
and analyses in a report titled ‘‘Western
Regional Air Partnership Regional Haze
Rule Reasonable Progress Summary
Report’’ (WRAP Report), dated June 28,
2013, included as an appendix in the
progress report. The WRAP Report
analyzes monitoring data collected in
Alaska during the 2005–2009 period,
and relies on emission data reported to
the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) for 2008. Alaska then
3 As explained in the EPA’s proposed rule to
approve Alaska’s RH SIP on February 24, 2012, the
Bering Sea Wilderness Area is 350 miles southwest
of Nome, Alaska and dominated by a harsh
environment. There is no electricity in the
Wilderness Area and the nearest major stationary
sources are located hundreds of miles away.
Accordingly, establishing and maintaining an
IMPROVE monitoring site in the area is
unnecessary and impractical. 77 FR 11022, 11028.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Feb 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
supplemented the information in the
WRAP report with more current 2009–
2013 visibility data for its Class I areas
as part of the progress report adopted by
the state in 2015.
III. The EPA’s Evaluation of Alaska’s
Progress Report
This section describes the contents of
Alaska’s progress report and the EPA’s
evaluation of the report, as well as the
EPA’s evaluation of the determination of
adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h)
and the requirement for state and
Federal Land Manager coordination in
40 CFR 51.308(i).
A. Status of Implementation of All
Measures Included in the Regional Haze
SIP
In its progress report, Alaska provides
a description of the control measures in
the state’s regional haze SIP that the
state relied on to implement the regional
haze program. According to the progress
report, Alaska relied in its regional haze
SIP upon, among other things, Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
controls, its Prevention of Significant
Deterioration/New Source Review
permitting program, and its smoke
management programs for agricultural
and forestry burning to achieve the
reasonable progress goals it established
for its Class I areas. Alaska included a
description of these programs in the
progress report, which are summarized
below.
1. BART-Level Controls
Alaska’s regional haze SIP imposed
BART-level controls on one source, the
Golden Valley Electric Association’s
(GVEA) Healy Power Plant, Unit 1. The
Healy Power Plant consists of two
power generating units. Unit 1 is a
nominal 25 megawatt (MW) coal-fired
electric generating unit. The EPA
approved the state’s BART
determination for this unit when we
approved the Alaska regional haze SIP.
Alaska determined that BART for Unit
1 included installation of Selective Non
Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) to reduce
nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions.
Accordingly, GVEA installed SNCR on
Unit 1 in August of 2016. Unit 2, also
referred to as the Healy Clean Coal
Project, is a nominal 50 MW coal-fired
electric generating unit not subject to
BART.4 At the time of Alaska’s regional
haze SIP submittal, Unit 2 had not
operated since test runs were completed
in the late 1990’s. GVEA started burning
coal at Unit 2 in August 2015; however,
Unit 2 ceased operation due to
operational problems in March 2016
4 78
PO 00000
FR 10546, February 14, 2013.
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7003
and then again a few days after a startup
attempt in November 2016.
On November 19, 2012, the United
States and GVEA entered into a consent
decree that specifies conditions on Unit
1 and Unit 2 at the Healy Power Plant,
separate from the BART-level controls
required by Alaska’s regional haze SIP.5
In particular, by December 31, 2022,
GVEA must elect to either permanently
retire Unit 1 by December 31, 2024, or
install Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR) on that unit to further reduce NOX
emissions and begin operation of SCR
by no later than December 31, 2024. In
addition, the November 19, 2012, decree
required GVEA to install SCR on Unit 2
by the later of September 30, 2015, or
24 months after it first fires coal, and to
comply with specified emission limits.
On August 8, 2017, the United States
and GVEA filed amendments to the
Consent Decree that require GVEA to
install SCR on Unit 2 no later than 120
unit operating days after restart.6 In its
progress report, Alaska provided an
assessment of, among other things, the
emissions limits that will be achieved
through installation of SCR on Unit 2
once it becomes operational.7
2. Major New Source Review (NSR)/
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)
Alaska’s progress report states that a
key regulatory program for addressing
visibility impairment from new or
modified industrial stationary sources is
the state’s Major New Source Review
(NSR)/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) rule. According to
Alaska, this rule protects visibility in
Class I areas from impacts from new or
modified major stationary sources.
Alaska’s regulations (18 AAC 50 Article
3) and the Alaska SIP require visibility
impact assessments and mitigation of
emissions from new and modified major
stationary sources through protection of
air quality related values (AQRVs).
AQRVs are scenic and environmentally
related values that may be adversely
affected by a change in air quality,
including visibility, odor, noise,
vegetation, and soils. These visibility
requirements were approved by the EPA
into the Alaska SIP in 1983.
3. Smoke Management
In its regional haze SIP, Alaska
predicted that implementation of more
5 United States v. Golden Valley Electric
Association, Inc. and Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority, Civ. No. 4:12–
cv–00025–RRB (D. Alaska).
6 United States v. Golden Valley Electric
Association, Inc., Civ. No. 4:12–cv–00025–RRB (D.
Alaska).
7 Appendix III.K10–38, Comment Section C2.d.
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
7004
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
effective smoke management techniques
in its Enhanced Smoke Management
Plan (ESMP) would mitigate impacts of
planned prescribed burning on visibility
in its Class I areas. ADEC developed and
implemented an ESMP, and included
this ESMP as part of the long-term
strategy approved as part of the initial
2011 regional haze SIP. According to the
progress report, Alaska continues to
implement the ESMP to reduce the
impact of prescribed burns on air
quality. The progress report contains an
assessment of the emissions reduced as
a result of prescribed fires. Alaska
concludes in the progress report that
prescribed fires have reduced the
emissions from the area burned to close
to half of what they would have been if
they had burned during a wildfire.
Additionally, On June 3, 2015, the
Alaska Wildfire Coordinating Group
approved a routine 5-year update to the
Alaska ESMP, which ADEC submitted
as a SIP revision along with the progress
report. The 2015 revisions to the ESMP
were generally minor in nature, such as
updating the summary text to note the
EPA’s approval of the initial regional
haze SIP and availability of additional
electronic tools for submitting
controlled burn applications developed
since the original ESMP. The most
substantive change to the ESMP was an
update of Chapter 6.2 ‘‘Public
Notification and Exposure Reduction’’
to reflect changes to Alaska’s air quality
episode and advisory regulations, which
the EPA approved in a separate action
on September 8, 2017 (82 FR 42457).
Alaska also submitted a minor update
to the long-term strategy, with two
sentences edited to reflect adoption of
the revised ESMP in 2015. The EPA is
proposing to approve this set of minor
revisions to the SIP.
B. Summary of Visibility Conditions
In addition to the evaluation of
control measures, Alaska documented
in the progress report the differences
between the visibility conditions during
the baseline period (2000–2004), the
first progress period (2005–2009), and
the most current five year averaging
period (2009–2013) available at the time
Alaska adopted the progress report in
2015. As part of our review, the EPA
supplemented this information with
current 2012–2016 data, as shown in
Table 1.8
TABLE 1—ALASKA CLASS I AREA VISIBILITY CONDITIONS ON THE 20% MOST AND LEAST IMPAIRED DAYS
Baseline
(2002–2004)
(dv) 9
Class I area
20% Most Impaired Days:
Denali Headquarters .........................
Trapper Creek (Denali) .....................
Tuxedni .............................................
Simeonof ...........................................
20% Least Impaired Days:
Denali Headquarters .........................
Trapper Creek (Denali) .....................
Tuxedni .............................................
Simeonof ...........................................
First progress
period
(2005–2009)
(dv)
Progress
report update
(2009–2013)
(dv)
Most recent
data
(2012–2016)
(dv)
2018
Reasonable
progress goal
(dv)
Natural
conditions
(dv)
9.9
11.6
14.1
18.6
10.6
11.9
13.5
18.5
10.2
10.7
12.2
17.7
9.2
10.0
* 12.4
17.0
9.3
10.9
13.4
17.9
7.3
8.4
11.3
15.6
2.4
3.5
4.0
7.6
2.4
3.9
4.1
8.0
2.5
3.8
3.9
7.9
2.3
3.4
* 3.8
7.5
2.4
3.5
4.0
7.6
1.77
2.71
3.15
5.28
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
* 2015–16 data not available, see discussion below.
Alaska’s concluded that for the 20%
most impaired days, five-year average
visibility remained about the same at
the Simeonof and Tuxedni sites for the
first progress period (2005–2009)
compared to baseline conditions, but
improved for the 2009–2013 averaging
period. At the Denali Headquarters site,
the visibility decreased during the first
progress period compared to the
baseline period, but showed an
improvement in visibility for the 2009–
2013 period. This improvement
continued in the 2012–2016 period with
the Denali Headquarters site now
meeting the 2018 RPG. The Trapper
Creek site showed a small visibility
decrease during the first progress period
compared to baseline conditions, but a
visibility improvement during the 2009–
2013 and 2012–2016 periods. Overall,
visibility conditions for Denali
Headquarters, Trapper Creek, Simeonof,
and Tuxedni are all meeting 2018 RPGs
for the 20% most impaired days based
on 2012–2016 data. Regarding the
visibility conditions on the 20% least
impaired days, the WRAP performed a
statistical trends analysis for the period
2002–2009, with only the 2005–2009
Trapper Creek monitoring data showing
a statistically significant increase from
the baseline.10 The most current 2012–
2016 data shows all monitors meeting
the 2018 RPGs for the 20% least
impaired days.
Regarding visibility monitoring,
Alaska intends to continue relying on
the IMPROVE network sites that
represent the state’s Class I areas for
complying with the monitoring
requirement in the RHR. As described in
the progress report, the Tuxedni
monitor discontinued operation in
December 2014, when the property
owner and site operator notified the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that he
would no longer be able to service the
site. The progress report also noted
efforts by the U.S. National Park Service
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
establish a new site across the Cook
Inlet, which they succeeded in doing
roughly 3 miles south of the community
of Ninilchik.11 EPA finds that Alaska
has adequately reviewed its visibility
monitoring strategy, and proposes to
determine that the strategy meets the
regulatory requirements and that no
modifications to the monitoring strategy
are needed at this time.
8 See ‘‘visibility data trends’’ included in the
docket.
9 For several Alaska Class I area sites, monitoring
began in late 2001; therefore, only three complete
years of monitoring data, 2002–2004, define their
baselines. See page III.K.4–2 of the 2011 regional
haze SIP.
10 Using an 85% confidence interval. Please see
the WRAP supporting documentation included as
Appendix D of the progress report for a full site by
site analysis.
11 See 2016 Air Quality Monitoring Plan,
included in the docket for this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Feb 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. Summary of Emissions Reductions
Alaska’s progress report summarizes
the emissions reductions attributable to
anthropogenic sources and attributable
to managing wildfire emissions.
Regarding anthropogenic sources, the
progress report summarizes reductions
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
7005
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
in sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, and PM2.5
emissions from implementation of the
measures discussed above, as well as
other emission reduction programs.
Statewide anthropogenic NOX and SO2
emissions showed a downward trend
between 2008 and 2013. These
reductions, according to the progress
report, are primarily attributable to (1)
replacement of electric generating units,
and (2) federal motor vehicle
requirements.
Regarding the replacement of electric
generating units, Alaska concludes that
some of the reductions in NOX and SO2
point source emissions during the 2009–
2013 period and beyond resulted from
electricity generation sources installing
cleaner generation units. Over the last
several years, power plant owners and
operators in south central Alaska have
brought new generation facilities online
and are reducing their use of older,
more polluting equipment; typically,
these older units have become reserves.
Specifically, Alaska described three
recent, significant changes made to the
electricity generation sector in south
central Alaska:
• Anchorage Municipal Light and
Power’s George Sullivan Plant Two’s
unit 1, a gas turbine generator rated for
480 million British thermal units
(BTU)/hour, was put into limited
operation as a reserve unit, resulting in
reduced emissions from this unit.
• Chugach Electric Association’s
Beluga plant’s units 3 and 5, both rated
for 940 million BTU/hour, were put on
reserve status, resulting in reduced
emissions from these units.
• In 2014, Alaska Electricity and
Energy Cooperative’s Nikiski plant
added a steamer unit to improve
efficiency, reducing overall fuel
requirements within the grid and thus
reducing emissions from this plant.
Overall, Alaska concluded that NOX
emissions show a downward trend for
the 2009–2013 period, from 43,896 to
41,930 tons per year. Similarly, the SO2
annual emissions generally decreased
with the exception of 2009, when
emissions were noticeably higher.
Alaska concluded that the SO2 increase
during 2009 was primarily driven by
operational changes at the North Pole
Power Plant. The quantity of fuel
combusted at this one power plant
dropped by almost half from 2009 to
2010. Alaska also determined that over
the same period, statewide PM10
emissions increased from 1,002 to 1,115
tons per year.
In addition, the progress report
includes a discussion of control
measures to attain and maintain the
particulate matter national ambient air
quality standards, such as wood smoke
reduction programs for Eagle River, the
Mendenhall Valley, and the Fairbanks
North Star Borough. Current control
measures in Fairbanks include an
opacity limit and mandatory
curtailment program for solid-fuel fired
heating devices, emission standards for
new wood-fired heating devices
installed in the area, a requirement to
burn only dry wood in wood heaters, a
woodstove changeout program, a
prohibition on open burning, and public
education, among other requirements.
Alaska noted in its progress report that
these control measures could potentially
reduce overall area source emissions
inventories in the future.
In addition to reductions of emissions
from anthropogenic sources, the
progress report describes emissions
reductions attributable to wildfire
management. Specifically, the report
states that in recent years, prescribed
fires have reduced the emissions from
the area burned by close to half of what
they would have been if they had
burned during a wildfire. According to
the progress report, over the period of
2007 to 2013, hundreds of tons of PM2.5
emissions were averted by using
prescribed burning to prevent wildfires.
The progress report also contains an
analysis tracking the change in
statewide emissions between 2002 and
2008. The 2002 inventory was used in
the development of the original Alaska
regional haze SIP. At the time Alaska
prepared the progress report, the 2008
inventory was the most recent year that
complete emission inventories were
available for the state. Alaska notes that
the differences between the 2002 and
2008 inventories for some source
categories do not accurately reflect a
change in emissions, as a number of
methodology changes and
enhancements have occurred between
the developments of the individual
inventories, as described in more detail
below. Summaries from the progress
report are included in Tables 2 and 3.
A more detailed description of each
inventory is provided in section 3.2.1 of
Appendix A to the progress report.
TABLE 2—SULFUR DIOXIDE, NITROGEN OXIDES, AND AMMONIA EMISSIONS
[Tons/year]
SO2
2002
NOX
2008
2002
Ammonia
2008
2002
2008
6,813
1,872
324
49
335
4,979
5,039
3,365
490
395
(*)
5,180
74,471
14,742
7,077
4,111
3,265
11,258
68,564
19,404
15,696
3,387
(*)
24,370
580
0
307
8
6
5
178
356
230
7
(*)
11
Total Anthropogenic ..........................
Fire ...........................................................
* 14,037
34,304
* 14,469
4,482
* 111,659
125,110
* 131,421
16,344
* 900
26,233
* 782
3,417
Total ...........................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Off-Road Mobile .......................................
Aviation ....................................................
Commercial Marine ..................................
* 48,341
* 18,951
* 236,769
* 147,765
* 27,133
* 4,199
* Sums and differences do not include aviation emissions, as 2008 inventory totals were not available from this source for comparison
purposes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Feb 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
7006
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND, FINE SOIL, AND COARSE MASS EMISSIONS
[Tons/year]
VOC
2002
Fine soil
2008
2002
Coarse mass
2008
2002
2008
Point .........................................................
Area ..........................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................
Off-Road Mobile .......................................
Aviation ....................................................
Commercial Marine ..................................
5,697
128,271
7,173
7,585
1,566
356
4,582
10,890
6,740
19,094
(*)
609
1,237
30,636
158
392
667
643
563
2,289
1,194
670
(*)
1,114
4,696
76,349
46
24
20
32
2,392
121
164
46
(*)
64
Total Anthropogenic ..........................
Fire ...........................................................
* 149,082
274,436
* 41,915
35,761
* 33,066
478,057
* 5,830
63,330
* 81,147
79,346
* 2,787
10,495
Total ...........................................
* 423,518
* 77,676
* 511,123
* 69,160
* 160,493
* 13,282
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
* Sums and differences do not include aviation emissions, as 2008 inventory totals were not available from this source for comparison
purposes.
Regarding emissions inventories,
Alaska made the following observations:
• Fire emission inventory estimates
decreased. Note that these differences
are not necessarily reflective of changes
in monitored data, as the five-year
baseline period is represented by a
2000–2004 average of fire emissions
developed by the WRAP, and the fiveyear progress period is represented by
fires that occurred in 2008.
• Point source inventories showed
decreases for all species.
• Area source inventories showed
increases in SO2 and NOX, but large
decreases in volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), fine soil, and coarse mass.
• On-road mobile source inventory
comparisons showed increases in SO2,
NOX, fine soil, and coarse mass, but a
decrease in VOCs. Off-road mobile
source inventories showed decreases in
NOX, but increases in VOCs. (See
section 6.1.2 of Appendix C.)
• Commercial marine sources showed
large increases in NOX inventories, and
only small changes in other parameters.
Alaska attributed this increase, at least
in part, to different emission inventory
methodologies.
Alaska also notes that during high fire
years, emissions from wildland fires can
make up a significant portion of the
state’s overall emissions for some
pollutants. Further, wildfire activity
varies greatly from year to year, and
unlike other emission sources, the
locations vary from year to year. Alaska
also notes that one contributing source
of anthropogenic emissions not
included in the emissions inventory is
international anthropogenic emissions.
According to the progress report, Alaska
receives a significant amount of globally
transported pollution, particularly from
Asia and Russia. Continued industrial
growth in these areas is likely to
increase emissions of pollutants that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Feb 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
contribute to regional haze in Alaska,
although the extent of this contribution
to haze in Alaska has not been
determined due to lack of accurate
international emission inventories.
D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR
51.308(h))
In accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1), ‘‘If the state determines [at
the time the five-year progress report is
submitted] that the existing
implementation plan requires no further
substantive revision at this time in order
to achieve established goals for visibility
improvement and emissions reductions,
the state must provide to the
Administrator a negative declaration
that further revision of the existing
implementation plan is not needed at
this time.’’ Within the progress report,
the State of Alaska provided a negative
declaration stating that further revision
of the existing implementation plan is
not needed. The basis for the state’s
negative declaration is the finding that
visibility on the 20% most impaired
days has improved, and 2018 RPGs
attained, at all Alaska IMPROVE
monitors, except for the Denali
Headquarters monitor, which shows a
slight decrease in visibility for the
current period compared to the baseline
due to smoke from wildfires in Alaska
in 2009.
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find
that Alaska adequately addressed the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its
determination that the existing Alaska
regional haze SIP requires no
substantive revisions at this time to
achieve the established RPGs for Alaska
Class I areas. We note in particular that,
based on the visibility conditions for the
most recent five-year period (2012–
2016), Alaska is meeting 2018 RPGs at
all Alaska IMPROVE monitors.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i),
the state must provide the Federal Land
Managers (FLMs) with an opportunity
for consultation, in person and at least
60 days prior to holding any public
hearings on an implementation plan (or
plan revision). The state must also
include a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by
the FLMs. The State of Alaska provided
an opportunity for FLM consultation at
least 60 days prior to holding any public
hearing on a draft progress report. This
progress report was submitted to the
FLMs on April 27, 2015, for review and
comment. Comments were received
from the FLMs on June 30, 2015. The
FLM comments and state responses are
presented in the progress report. In
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4),
Alaska’s progress report reaffirms the
state’ commitment to the regional haze
SIP procedures for continuing
consultation between the State of Alaska
and FLMs on, among other things, the
implementation of Alaska’s regional
haze SIP.
The EPA proposes to find that Alaska
has addressed the requirements in 40
CFR 51.308(i) to provide the FLMs with
an opportunity for consultation in
person and at least 60 days prior to a
public hearing on the progress report,
included a description of how it
addressed any comments from the
FLMs, and provided a commitment for
continuing consultation between the
state and the FLMs. FLM comments and
ADEC responses are provided in section
E of the progress report.
IV. Additional Revision to the Regional
Haze SIP To Reflect Adoption of
Progress Report
Concurrent with the progress report,
Alaska submitted an update to the
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules
‘‘Commitment to Future 308 Plan
Revisions’’ chapter of the regional haze
SIP. The revision notes the adoption
and submission of the progress report.
The EPA is proposing to approve this
revision to the regional haze SIP.
V. The EPA’s Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
Alaska Regional Haze Progress Report
submitted to the EPA on March 10,
2016, as meeting the applicable
requirements of the CAA and RHR, as
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA
proposes to find that the existing
regional haze SIP is adequate to meet
the state’s visibility goals and requires
no substantive revision at this time, as
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We
propose to find that Alaska fulfilled the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i)
regarding state coordination with FLMs.
Lastly, we propose to approve updates
to the Enhanced Smoke Management
Plan, Long-Term Strategy, and
Commitment to Future 308 Plan
Revision sections of the regional haze
SIP, submitted concurrently with the
Alaska Regional Haze Progress Report.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal
regulations.12 Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
12 42
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:02 Feb 15, 2018
Jkt 244001
they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements, and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because actions such as SIP
approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
7007
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
this rulemaking does not involve
technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does
not apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the EPA
or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
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, Visibility,
and Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 7, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018–03269 Filed 2–15–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\16FEP1.SGM
16FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7002-7007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03269]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0749; FRL-9974-59--Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Alaska;
Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Alaska Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Alaska on March 10, 2016. Alaska
submitted its Regional Haze Progress Report (``progress report'' or
``report'') and a negative declaration stating that further revision of
the existing regional haze SIP is not needed at this time. Alaska
submitted both the progress report and the negative declaration in the
form of implementation plan revisions as required by federal
regulations. The progress report addresses the federal Regional Haze
Rule (RHR) requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a
report describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals
(RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the state's existing plan addressing regional haze. We are
also proposing to approve minor updates to the Enhanced Smoke
Management Plan, Long-Term Strategy, and Commitment to Future 308 Plan
Revision sections of the regional haze SIP, submitted concurrently with
the progress report.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0749 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency--Region 10,
1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256,
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
I. Background
Alaska submitted its initial regional haze SIP to the EPA on March
29, 2011, for the first regional haze planning period ending in 2018,
which the EPA approved on February 14, 2013.\1\ Five years after
submittal of the initial regional haze plan, states are required to
submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the RPGs for
each mandatory Class I Federal area \2\ (Class I area) within the state
and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also
required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze
plan. 40 CFR 51.308(h). On March 10, 2016, the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) submitted as a SIP revision a report
on the progress made in the first implementation period towards the
RPGs for Class I areas. EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's progress
report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308. We also propose to find that Alaska's progress report
demonstrates that the state's long-term strategy and emission control
measures in the existing regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable
Alaska to meet all established RPGs for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 78 FR 10546.
\2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81 subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Context for Understanding Alaska's Progress Report
To facilitate a better understanding of Alaska's progress report as
well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background on
the regional haze program in Alaska.
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility
conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,''
which is measured in deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. The
deciview index is calculated using monitoring data collected from the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network monitors. Alaska has four Class I areas within its borders:
Denali National Park and Preserve, Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge,
Simeonof Wilderness Area, and the Bering Sea Wilderness Area. In
developing its initial regional haze SIP, Alaska determined, and the
EPA in its approval agreed, that due to lack of proximity to other
states, visibility in Alaska's Class I areas is not affected by
emission
[[Page 7003]]
sources in other states. Likewise, Alaska determined, and the EPA
agreed, that emission sources in Alaska do not affect visibility in
Class I areas in other states. Therefore, Alaska's progress report does
not address visibility impacts from sources in other states or the
visibility impact of Alaska sources on Class I areas in other states.
Under the RHR, a state's initial regional haze SIP must establish
two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20 percent least
impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs
must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most
impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent
least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the
baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the
uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural
conditions in 2064 and the emission reductions measures needed to
achieve it. Alaska set the RPGs for the Denali, Tuxedni, and Simeonof
Class I areas. In setting the RPGs for these three Class I areas,
Alaska used atmospheric air quality modeling based on projected
emission reductions from control strategies in Alaska's regional haze
SIP, as well as emission reductions expected to result from other
federal, state and local air quality programs.
Alaska's fourth Class I area, the Bering Sea Wilderness Area, is
extremely remote, with no IMPROVE monitoring site. Therefore, no RPG
was established for this area in Alaska's regional haze SIP, and
Alaska's progress report does not address visibility progress in this
area.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As explained in the EPA's proposed rule to approve Alaska's
RH SIP on February 24, 2012, the Bering Sea Wilderness Area is 350
miles southwest of Nome, Alaska and dominated by a harsh
environment. There is no electricity in the Wilderness Area and the
nearest major stationary sources are located hundreds of miles away.
Accordingly, establishing and maintaining an IMPROVE monitoring site
in the area is unnecessary and impractical. 77 FR 11022, 11028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Data Sources for Alaska's Progress Report
Alaska relied on the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)
technical data and analyses in a report titled ``Western Regional Air
Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report''
(WRAP Report), dated June 28, 2013, included as an appendix in the
progress report. The WRAP Report analyzes monitoring data collected in
Alaska during the 2005-2009 period, and relies on emission data
reported to the EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for 2008.
Alaska then supplemented the information in the WRAP report with more
current 2009-2013 visibility data for its Class I areas as part of the
progress report adopted by the state in 2015.
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Alaska's Progress Report
This section describes the contents of Alaska's progress report and
the EPA's evaluation of the report, as well as the EPA's evaluation of
the determination of adequacy required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) and the
requirement for state and Federal Land Manager coordination in 40 CFR
51.308(i).
A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional
Haze SIP
In its progress report, Alaska provides a description of the
control measures in the state's regional haze SIP that the state relied
on to implement the regional haze program. According to the progress
report, Alaska relied in its regional haze SIP upon, among other
things, Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls, its
Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review permitting
program, and its smoke management programs for agricultural and
forestry burning to achieve the reasonable progress goals it
established for its Class I areas. Alaska included a description of
these programs in the progress report, which are summarized below.
1. BART-Level Controls
Alaska's regional haze SIP imposed BART-level controls on one
source, the Golden Valley Electric Association's (GVEA) Healy Power
Plant, Unit 1. The Healy Power Plant consists of two power generating
units. Unit 1 is a nominal 25 megawatt (MW) coal-fired electric
generating unit. The EPA approved the state's BART determination for
this unit when we approved the Alaska regional haze SIP. Alaska
determined that BART for Unit 1 included installation of Selective Non
Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions. Accordingly, GVEA installed SNCR on Unit 1 in August of
2016. Unit 2, also referred to as the Healy Clean Coal Project, is a
nominal 50 MW coal-fired electric generating unit not subject to
BART.\4\ At the time of Alaska's regional haze SIP submittal, Unit 2
had not operated since test runs were completed in the late 1990's.
GVEA started burning coal at Unit 2 in August 2015; however, Unit 2
ceased operation due to operational problems in March 2016 and then
again a few days after a startup attempt in November 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 78 FR 10546, February 14, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 19, 2012, the United States and GVEA entered into a
consent decree that specifies conditions on Unit 1 and Unit 2 at the
Healy Power Plant, separate from the BART-level controls required by
Alaska's regional haze SIP.\5\ In particular, by December 31, 2022,
GVEA must elect to either permanently retire Unit 1 by December 31,
2024, or install Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) on that unit to
further reduce NOX emissions and begin operation of SCR by
no later than December 31, 2024. In addition, the November 19, 2012,
decree required GVEA to install SCR on Unit 2 by the later of September
30, 2015, or 24 months after it first fires coal, and to comply with
specified emission limits. On August 8, 2017, the United States and
GVEA filed amendments to the Consent Decree that require GVEA to
install SCR on Unit 2 no later than 120 unit operating days after
restart.\6\ In its progress report, Alaska provided an assessment of,
among other things, the emissions limits that will be achieved through
installation of SCR on Unit 2 once it becomes operational.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
and Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, Civ. No.
4:12-cv-00025-RRB (D. Alaska).
\6\ United States v. Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.,
Civ. No. 4:12-cv-00025-RRB (D. Alaska).
\7\ Appendix III.K10-38, Comment Section C2.d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Major New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
Alaska's progress report states that a key regulatory program for
addressing visibility impairment from new or modified industrial
stationary sources is the state's Major New Source Review (NSR)/
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rule. According to
Alaska, this rule protects visibility in Class I areas from impacts
from new or modified major stationary sources. Alaska's regulations (18
AAC 50 Article 3) and the Alaska SIP require visibility impact
assessments and mitigation of emissions from new and modified major
stationary sources through protection of air quality related values
(AQRVs). AQRVs are scenic and environmentally related values that may
be adversely affected by a change in air quality, including visibility,
odor, noise, vegetation, and soils. These visibility requirements were
approved by the EPA into the Alaska SIP in 1983.
3. Smoke Management
In its regional haze SIP, Alaska predicted that implementation of
more
[[Page 7004]]
effective smoke management techniques in its Enhanced Smoke Management
Plan (ESMP) would mitigate impacts of planned prescribed burning on
visibility in its Class I areas. ADEC developed and implemented an
ESMP, and included this ESMP as part of the long-term strategy approved
as part of the initial 2011 regional haze SIP. According to the
progress report, Alaska continues to implement the ESMP to reduce the
impact of prescribed burns on air quality. The progress report contains
an assessment of the emissions reduced as a result of prescribed fires.
Alaska concludes in the progress report that prescribed fires have
reduced the emissions from the area burned to close to half of what
they would have been if they had burned during a wildfire.
Additionally, On June 3, 2015, the Alaska Wildfire Coordinating
Group approved a routine 5-year update to the Alaska ESMP, which ADEC
submitted as a SIP revision along with the progress report. The 2015
revisions to the ESMP were generally minor in nature, such as updating
the summary text to note the EPA's approval of the initial regional
haze SIP and availability of additional electronic tools for submitting
controlled burn applications developed since the original ESMP. The
most substantive change to the ESMP was an update of Chapter 6.2
``Public Notification and Exposure Reduction'' to reflect changes to
Alaska's air quality episode and advisory regulations, which the EPA
approved in a separate action on September 8, 2017 (82 FR 42457).
Alaska also submitted a minor update to the long-term strategy,
with two sentences edited to reflect adoption of the revised ESMP in
2015. The EPA is proposing to approve this set of minor revisions to
the SIP.
B. Summary of Visibility Conditions
In addition to the evaluation of control measures, Alaska
documented in the progress report the differences between the
visibility conditions during the baseline period (2000-2004), the first
progress period (2005-2009), and the most current five year averaging
period (2009-2013) available at the time Alaska adopted the progress
report in 2015. As part of our review, the EPA supplemented this
information with current 2012-2016 data, as shown in Table 1.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See ``visibility data trends'' included in the docket.
Table 1--Alaska Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20% Most and Least Impaired Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First progress Progress Most recent 2018
Baseline (2002- period (2005- report update data (2012- Reasonable Natural
Class I area 2004) (dv) \9\ 2009) (dv) (2009-2013) 2016) (dv) progress goal conditions
(dv) (dv) (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Most Impaired Days:
Denali Headquarters................................. 9.9 10.6 10.2 9.2 9.3 7.3
Trapper Creek (Denali).............................. 11.6 11.9 10.7 10.0 10.9 8.4
Tuxedni............................................. 14.1 13.5 12.2 * 12.4 13.4 11.3
Simeonof............................................ 18.6 18.5 17.7 17.0 17.9 15.6
20% Least Impaired Days:
Denali Headquarters................................. 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.4 1.77
Trapper Creek (Denali).............................. 3.5 3.9 3.8 3.4 3.5 2.71
Tuxedni............................................. 4.0 4.1 3.9 * 3.8 4.0 3.15
Simeonof............................................ 7.6 8.0 7.9 7.5 7.6 5.28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2015-16 data not available, see discussion below.
Alaska's concluded that for the 20% most impaired days, five-year
average visibility remained about the same at the Simeonof and Tuxedni
sites for the first progress period (2005-2009) compared to baseline
conditions, but improved for the 2009-2013 averaging period. At the
Denali Headquarters site, the visibility decreased during the first
progress period compared to the baseline period, but showed an
improvement in visibility for the 2009-2013 period. This improvement
continued in the 2012-2016 period with the Denali Headquarters site now
meeting the 2018 RPG. The Trapper Creek site showed a small visibility
decrease during the first progress period compared to baseline
conditions, but a visibility improvement during the 2009-2013 and 2012-
2016 periods. Overall, visibility conditions for Denali Headquarters,
Trapper Creek, Simeonof, and Tuxedni are all meeting 2018 RPGs for the
20% most impaired days based on 2012-2016 data. Regarding the
visibility conditions on the 20% least impaired days, the WRAP
performed a statistical trends analysis for the period 2002-2009, with
only the 2005-2009 Trapper Creek monitoring data showing a
statistically significant increase from the baseline.\10\ The most
current 2012-2016 data shows all monitors meeting the 2018 RPGs for the
20% least impaired days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For several Alaska Class I area sites, monitoring began in
late 2001; therefore, only three complete years of monitoring data,
2002-2004, define their baselines. See page III.K.4-2 of the 2011
regional haze SIP.
\10\ Using an 85% confidence interval. Please see the WRAP
supporting documentation included as Appendix D of the progress
report for a full site by site analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding visibility monitoring, Alaska intends to continue relying
on the IMPROVE network sites that represent the state's Class I areas
for complying with the monitoring requirement in the RHR. As described
in the progress report, the Tuxedni monitor discontinued operation in
December 2014, when the property owner and site operator notified the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that he would no longer be able to
service the site. The progress report also noted efforts by the U.S.
National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a
new site across the Cook Inlet, which they succeeded in doing roughly 3
miles south of the community of Ninilchik.\11\ EPA finds that Alaska
has adequately reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy, and
proposes to determine that the strategy meets the regulatory
requirements and that no modifications to the monitoring strategy are
needed at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 2016 Air Quality Monitoring Plan, included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of Emissions Reductions
Alaska's progress report summarizes the emissions reductions
attributable to anthropogenic sources and attributable to managing
wildfire emissions. Regarding anthropogenic sources, the progress
report summarizes reductions
[[Page 7005]]
in sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, and
PM2.5 emissions from implementation of the measures
discussed above, as well as other emission reduction programs.
Statewide anthropogenic NOX and SO2 emissions
showed a downward trend between 2008 and 2013. These reductions,
according to the progress report, are primarily attributable to (1)
replacement of electric generating units, and (2) federal motor vehicle
requirements.
Regarding the replacement of electric generating units, Alaska
concludes that some of the reductions in NOX and
SO2 point source emissions during the 2009-2013 period and
beyond resulted from electricity generation sources installing cleaner
generation units. Over the last several years, power plant owners and
operators in south central Alaska have brought new generation
facilities online and are reducing their use of older, more polluting
equipment; typically, these older units have become reserves.
Specifically, Alaska described three recent, significant changes made
to the electricity generation sector in south central Alaska:
Anchorage Municipal Light and Power's George Sullivan
Plant Two's unit 1, a gas turbine generator rated for 480 million
British thermal units (BTU)/hour, was put into limited operation as a
reserve unit, resulting in reduced emissions from this unit.
Chugach Electric Association's Beluga plant's units 3 and
5, both rated for 940 million BTU/hour, were put on reserve status,
resulting in reduced emissions from these units.
In 2014, Alaska Electricity and Energy Cooperative's
Nikiski plant added a steamer unit to improve efficiency, reducing
overall fuel requirements within the grid and thus reducing emissions
from this plant.
Overall, Alaska concluded that NOX emissions show a
downward trend for the 2009-2013 period, from 43,896 to 41,930 tons per
year. Similarly, the SO2 annual emissions generally
decreased with the exception of 2009, when emissions were noticeably
higher. Alaska concluded that the SO2 increase during 2009
was primarily driven by operational changes at the North Pole Power
Plant. The quantity of fuel combusted at this one power plant dropped
by almost half from 2009 to 2010. Alaska also determined that over the
same period, statewide PM10 emissions increased from 1,002
to 1,115 tons per year.
In addition, the progress report includes a discussion of control
measures to attain and maintain the particulate matter national ambient
air quality standards, such as wood smoke reduction programs for Eagle
River, the Mendenhall Valley, and the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
Current control measures in Fairbanks include an opacity limit and
mandatory curtailment program for solid-fuel fired heating devices,
emission standards for new wood-fired heating devices installed in the
area, a requirement to burn only dry wood in wood heaters, a woodstove
changeout program, a prohibition on open burning, and public education,
among other requirements. Alaska noted in its progress report that
these control measures could potentially reduce overall area source
emissions inventories in the future.
In addition to reductions of emissions from anthropogenic sources,
the progress report describes emissions reductions attributable to
wildfire management. Specifically, the report states that in recent
years, prescribed fires have reduced the emissions from the area burned
by close to half of what they would have been if they had burned during
a wildfire. According to the progress report, over the period of 2007
to 2013, hundreds of tons of PM2.5 emissions were averted by
using prescribed burning to prevent wildfires.
The progress report also contains an analysis tracking the change
in statewide emissions between 2002 and 2008. The 2002 inventory was
used in the development of the original Alaska regional haze SIP. At
the time Alaska prepared the progress report, the 2008 inventory was
the most recent year that complete emission inventories were available
for the state. Alaska notes that the differences between the 2002 and
2008 inventories for some source categories do not accurately reflect a
change in emissions, as a number of methodology changes and
enhancements have occurred between the developments of the individual
inventories, as described in more detail below. Summaries from the
progress report are included in Tables 2 and 3. A more detailed
description of each inventory is provided in section 3.2.1 of Appendix
A to the progress report.
Table 2--Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and Ammonia Emissions
[Tons/year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX Ammonia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 6,813 5,039 74,471 68,564 580 178
Area.................................................... 1,872 3,365 14,742 19,404 0 356
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 324 490 7,077 15,696 307 230
Off-Road Mobile......................................... 49 395 4,111 3,387 8 7
Aviation................................................ 335 (*) 3,265 (*) 6 (*)
Commercial Marine....................................... 4,979 5,180 11,258 24,370 5 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic................................. * 14,037 * 14,469 * 111,659 * 131,421 * 900 * 782
Fire.................................................... 34,304 4,482 125,110 16,344 26,233 3,417
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... * 48,341 * 18,951 * 236,769 * 147,765 * 27,133 * 4,199
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Sums and differences do not include aviation emissions, as 2008 inventory totals were not available from this source for comparison purposes.
[[Page 7006]]
Table 3--Volatile Organic Compound, Fine Soil, and Coarse Mass Emissions
[Tons/year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Fine soil Coarse mass
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2008 2002 2008 2002 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 5,697 4,582 1,237 563 4,696 2,392
Area.................................................... 128,271 10,890 30,636 2,289 76,349 121
On-Road Mobile.......................................... 7,173 6,740 158 1,194 46 164
Off-Road Mobile......................................... 7,585 19,094 392 670 24 46
Aviation................................................ 1,566 (*) 667 (*) 20 (*)
Commercial Marine....................................... 356 609 643 1,114 32 64
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Anthropogenic................................. * 149,082 * 41,915 * 33,066 * 5,830 * 81,147 * 2,787
Fire.................................................... 274,436 35,761 478,057 63,330 79,346 10,495
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... * 423,518 * 77,676 * 511,123 * 69,160 * 160,493 * 13,282
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Sums and differences do not include aviation emissions, as 2008 inventory totals were not available from this source for comparison purposes.
Regarding emissions inventories, Alaska made the following
observations:
Fire emission inventory estimates decreased. Note that
these differences are not necessarily reflective of changes in
monitored data, as the five-year baseline period is represented by a
2000-2004 average of fire emissions developed by the WRAP, and the
five-year progress period is represented by fires that occurred in
2008.
Point source inventories showed decreases for all species.
Area source inventories showed increases in SO2
and NOX, but large decreases in volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), fine soil, and coarse mass.
On-road mobile source inventory comparisons showed
increases in SO2, NOX, fine soil, and coarse
mass, but a decrease in VOCs. Off-road mobile source inventories showed
decreases in NOX, but increases in VOCs. (See section 6.1.2
of Appendix C.)
Commercial marine sources showed large increases in
NOX inventories, and only small changes in other parameters.
Alaska attributed this increase, at least in part, to different
emission inventory methodologies.
Alaska also notes that during high fire years, emissions from
wildland fires can make up a significant portion of the state's overall
emissions for some pollutants. Further, wildfire activity varies
greatly from year to year, and unlike other emission sources, the
locations vary from year to year. Alaska also notes that one
contributing source of anthropogenic emissions not included in the
emissions inventory is international anthropogenic emissions. According
to the progress report, Alaska receives a significant amount of
globally transported pollution, particularly from Asia and Russia.
Continued industrial growth in these areas is likely to increase
emissions of pollutants that contribute to regional haze in Alaska,
although the extent of this contribution to haze in Alaska has not been
determined due to lack of accurate international emission inventories.
D. Determination of Adequacy (40 CFR 51.308(h))
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), ``If the state determines
[at the time the five-year progress report is submitted] that the
existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision
at this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility
improvement and emissions reductions, the state must provide to the
Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of the
existing implementation plan is not needed at this time.'' Within the
progress report, the State of Alaska provided a negative declaration
stating that further revision of the existing implementation plan is
not needed. The basis for the state's negative declaration is the
finding that visibility on the 20% most impaired days has improved, and
2018 RPGs attained, at all Alaska IMPROVE monitors, except for the
Denali Headquarters monitor, which shows a slight decrease in
visibility for the current period compared to the baseline due to smoke
from wildfires in Alaska in 2009.
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that Alaska adequately
addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(h) in its determination
that the existing Alaska regional haze SIP requires no substantive
revisions at this time to achieve the established RPGs for Alaska Class
I areas. We note in particular that, based on the visibility conditions
for the most recent five-year period (2012-2016), Alaska is meeting
2018 RPGs at all Alaska IMPROVE monitors.
E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (40 CFR 51.308(i))
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state must provide the
Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with an opportunity for consultation, in
person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearings on an
implementation plan (or plan revision). The state must also include a
description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. The
State of Alaska provided an opportunity for FLM consultation at least
60 days prior to holding any public hearing on a draft progress report.
This progress report was submitted to the FLMs on April 27, 2015, for
review and comment. Comments were received from the FLMs on June 30,
2015. The FLM comments and state responses are presented in the
progress report. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Alaska's
progress report reaffirms the state' commitment to the regional haze
SIP procedures for continuing consultation between the State of Alaska
and FLMs on, among other things, the implementation of Alaska's
regional haze SIP.
The EPA proposes to find that Alaska has addressed the requirements
in 40 CFR 51.308(i) to provide the FLMs with an opportunity for
consultation in person and at least 60 days prior to a public hearing
on the progress report, included a description of how it addressed any
comments from the FLMs, and provided a commitment for continuing
consultation between the state and the FLMs. FLM comments and ADEC
responses are provided in section E of the progress report.
IV. Additional Revision to the Regional Haze SIP To Reflect Adoption of
Progress Report
Concurrent with the progress report, Alaska submitted an update to
the
[[Page 7007]]
``Commitment to Future 308 Plan Revisions'' chapter of the regional
haze SIP. The revision notes the adoption and submission of the
progress report. The EPA is proposing to approve this revision to the
regional haze SIP.
V. The EPA's Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the Alaska Regional Haze Progress
Report submitted to the EPA on March 10, 2016, as meeting the
applicable requirements of the CAA and RHR, as set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g). The EPA proposes to find that the existing regional haze SIP
is adequate to meet the state's visibility goals and requires no
substantive revision at this time, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(h). We
propose to find that Alaska fulfilled the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(i) regarding state coordination with FLMs. Lastly, we propose to
approve updates to the Enhanced Smoke Management Plan, Long-Term
Strategy, and Commitment to Future 308 Plan Revision sections of the
regional haze SIP, submitted concurrently with the Alaska Regional Haze
Progress Report.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations.\12\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements, and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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,
Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 7, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-03269 Filed 2-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
