Air Plan Approval; OR; 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Interstate Transport Requirements, 29369-29377 [2020-10228]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
the language ‘‘§ 1.861–17(d)(4)(v)’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘§ 1.861–17(d)(4)(i)’’.
2. On page 69134, first column, the
second line from the bottom of the page
the language ‘‘245A(g)’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘245A(d)’’.
3. On page 69139, third column, the
eighth line of the second paragraph
under the caption ‘‘Applicability
Dates’’, the language ‘‘January 1, 2020,’’
is corrected to read ‘‘January 1, 2020 (or
taxpayers that are on the sales method
only for the last taxable year that begins
before January 1, 2020),’’.
4. On page 69139, third column, the
10th line of the second paragraph under
the caption ‘‘Applicability Dates’’, the
language ‘‘consistently’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘consistently with respect to such
taxable year and any subsequent year’’.
§ 1.861–17
[Corrected]
5. On page 69156, the third column,
in § 1.861–17, the third line from the
bottom of paragraph (g)(3)(i)(A), the
language ‘‘7(b)(1))’’ is corrected to read
‘‘7(b)(1)(ii)’’.
■ 6. On page 69157, the first column, in
§ 1.861–17, in the second line of
paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(B)(3), the language
‘‘(d)(5)(v)’’ is corrected to read
(d)(4)(v)’’.
■ 7. On page 69157, the second column,
in § 1.861–17, in the seventh line from
the bottom of paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(A), the
language ‘‘354’’ is corrected to read
‘‘364’’.
■
§ 1.960–1
[Corrected]
8. On page 69177, the second column,
in § 1.960–1, third line from the bottom
of paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A), the language
‘‘branch,’’ is corrected to read ‘‘branch
from the foreign branch owner,’’.
■
Martin V. Franks,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2020–08994 Filed 5–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
To view the docket for this
withdrawn rulemaking, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2020–
0074 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rule.
ADDRESSES:
If
you have questions about this notice,
call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital
Region; telephone 410–576– 2674, email
Ronald.L.Houck@uscg.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 31, 2020, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking entitled
‘‘Special Local Regulation; Choptank
River, Between Trappe and Cambridge,
MD’’ in the Federal Register (85 FR
5608). The rulemaking concerned the
Coast Guard’s proposal to establish
temporary special local regulations for
certain waters of the Choptank River,
between Trappe, MD, and Cambridge,
MD, effective from 9 a.m. through 1 p.m.
on May 30, 2020. This action was
necessary to provide for the safety of life
on these waters during an open water
swim event. This rulemaking would
have prohibited persons and vessels
from entering the regulated area unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Maryland-National Capital Region or the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
The proposed rule is being withdrawn
due to a regulated area no longer being
necessary following a cancellation of the
swim by the event sponsor.
Special Local Regulations; Marine
Events Within the Fifth Coast Guard
District
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
withdrawal.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
16:25 May 14, 2020
The Coast Guard is withdrawing
the proposed rule published January 31,
2020, as of May 15, 2020.
DATES:
Withdrawal
[Docket No. USCG–2020–0074]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
The Coast Guard is
withdrawing its proposed rule to
establish temporary special local
regulations for certain waters of the
Choptank River. The rulemaking was
initiated to establish a special local
regulations during the ‘‘Maryland
Freedom Swim,’’ a marine event to be
held on certain navigable waters of the
Choptank River between Trappe, MD,
and Cambridge, MD, on May 30, 2020.
The proposed rule is being withdrawn
because it is no longer necessary. The
event sponsor has cancelled the swim
event.
SUMMARY:
Jkt 250001
Authority
We issue this notice of withdrawal
under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70034.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29369
Dated: May 5, 2020.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2020–10203 Filed 5–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0057; FRL–10007–
86–Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; OR; 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide NAAQS Interstate Transport
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission from Oregon as meeting
certain Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate
transport requirements for the 2010 1hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). Specifically, the EPA
proposes to find that emissions from
Oregon sources will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with the maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 15, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No EPA–R10–
OAR–2016–0057 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from https://
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not electronically
submit any information you consider to
be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information the disclosure
of which 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
29370
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, or
hall.kristin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it means
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations
Background
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2
Interstate Transport SIPs
III. Oregon SIP Submission and EPA Analysis
A. State Submission
B. EPA Evaluation Methodology
C. EPA Prong 1 Evaluation—Significant
Contribution to Nonattainment
D. EPA Prong 2 Evaluation—Interference
With Maintenance
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established
a new primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75
parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations
(75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). The Clean
Air Act (CAA) requires that, after
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, states must submit SIPs to
meet applicable infrastructure elements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of
these elements, codified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to prohibit
emissions that will cause certain
impacts on other states. These interstate
transport requirements of the CAA are
also known as ‘‘good neighbor’’
requirements.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes
four distinct components, commonly
referred to as prongs. The first two
prongs, codified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain
adequate provisions which prohibit
emissions in one state from contributing
significantly to nonattainment of the
relevant NAAQS in any other state
(prong 1) and from interfering with
maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in
any other state (prong 2). The second
two prongs, codified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to
contain adequate provisions which
prohibit emissions in one state from
interfering with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in any other state (prong 3) and
from interfering with measures to
protect visibility in any other state
(prong 4).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
On October 20, 2015, Oregon
submitted a SIP to address prongs 1 and
2 of the good neighbor requirements for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS along with
the other infrastructure requirements.1
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
Designations Background
In this action, the EPA has considered
information from the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS designations process, discussed
in more detail in section III of this
document. For this reason, we have
included a brief summary of the EPA’s
designations process for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.2
After the promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to
designate areas as ‘‘nonattainment,’’
‘‘attainment,’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable’’
pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the
CAA. The process for designating areas
following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS is contained in section
107(d) of the CAA. The CAA requires
the EPA to complete the initial
designations process within two years of
promulgating a new or revised standard.
If the Administrator has insufficient
information to make these designations
by that deadline, the EPA has the
authority to extend the deadline for
completing designations by up to one
year.
The EPA promulgated the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2010. See
75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). The EPA
completed the first round of
designations (‘‘round 1’’) 3 for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS on July 25, 2013,
designating 29 areas in 16 states as
nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5,
1 The EPA approved the October 20, 2015 Oregon
submission as it relates to other requirements in
final rulemakings published May 16, 2016 (81 FR
30181), May 24, 2018 (83 FR 24034), and September
18, 2018 (83 FR 47073).
2 While designations may provide useful
information for purposes of analyzing transport,
particularly for a more source-specific pollutant
such as SO2, the EPA notes that designations
themselves are not dispositive of whether or not
upwind emissions are impacting areas in
downwind states. The EPA has consistently taken
the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
addresses ‘‘nonattainment’’ anywhere it may occur
in other states, not only in designated
nonattainment areas nor any similar formulation
requiring that designations for downwind
nonattainment areas must first have occurred. See
e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265
(May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76
FR 48208, 48211 (August 8, 2011); Final Response
to Petition from New Jersey Regarding SO2
Emissions From the Portland Generating Station, 76
FR 69052 (November 7, 2011) (finding facility in
violation of the prohibitions of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of designations for
that standard).
3 The term ‘‘round’’ in this instance refers to
which ‘‘round of designations.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2013). The EPA signed Federal Register
documents of promulgation for round 2
designations 4 on June 30, 2016 (81 FR
45039, July 12, 2016) and on November
29, 2016 (81 FR 89870, December 13,
2016), and round 3 designations 5 on
December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098, January
9, 2018).6
On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052),
the EPA separately promulgated air
quality characterization requirements
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the
Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The
DRR requires state air agencies to
characterize air quality, through air
dispersion modeling or monitoring, in
areas associated with sources that
emitted 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or
more of SO2, or that have otherwise
been listed under the DRR by the EPA
or state air agencies. In lieu of modeling
or monitoring, state air agencies, by
specified dates, could elect to impose
federally enforceable emissions
limitations on those sources restricting
their annual SO2 emissions to less than
2,000 tpy, or provide documentation
that the sources have been shut down.
The EPA expected that the information
generated by implementation of the DRR
would help inform designations for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS that must be
completed by December 31, 2020
(‘‘round 4’’).
In round 3 of designations, the EPA
designated Morrow County and all other
areas in Oregon as attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.7 There are no remaining areas
within Oregon that have yet to be
designated.
4 The EPA and state documents and public
comments related to the round 2 final designations
are in the docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0464 and at the EPA’s
website for SO2 designations at https://
www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
5 The EPA and state documents and public
comments related to round 3 final designations are
in the docket at regulations.gov with Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0003 and at the EPA’s
website for SO2 designations at https://
www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
6 Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case
No. 3:13–cv–3953–SI (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2015).
This consent decree requires the EPA to sign for
publication in the Federal Register documents of
the EPA’s promulgation of area designations for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by three specific
deadlines: July 2, 2016 (‘‘round 2’’); December 31,
2017 (‘‘round 3’’); and December 31, 2020 (‘‘round
4’’).
7 See Technical Support Document: Chapter 34
Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010
1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Oregon at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-12/documents/34-or-so2-rd3final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document:
Chapter 34 Intended Round 3 Area Designations for
the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Oregon at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/
documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010
SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs
Although SO2 is emitted from a
similar universe of point and nonpoint
sources, interstate transport of SO2 is
unlike the transport of fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) or ozone, in that SO2 is
not a regional pollutant and does not
commonly contribute to widespread
nonattainment over a large (and often
multi-state) area. The transport of SO2 is
more analogous to the transport of lead
(Pb) because its physical properties
result in localized pollutant impacts
very near the emissions source.
However, ambient concentrations of SO2
do not decrease as quickly with distance
from the source as Pb because of the
physical properties and typical release
heights of SO2. Emissions of SO2 travel
farther and have wider ranging impacts
than emissions of Pb but do not travel
far enough to be treated in a manner
similar to ozone or PM2.5. The
approaches adopted by the EPA for
ozone and PM2.5 transport are too
regionally focused and the approach for
Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed
to the source to serve as a model for SO2
transport. SO2 transport is therefore a
unique case and requires a different
approach.
In this proposed rulemaking, as in
prior SO2 transport analyses, the EPA
focuses on a 50 km-wide zone because
the physical properties of SO2 result in
relatively localized pollutant impacts
near an emissions source that drop off
with distance. Given the physical
properties of SO2, the EPA selected the
‘‘urban scale’’—a spatial scale with
dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km)
from point sources—given the
usefulness of that range in assessing
trends in both area-wide air quality and
the effectiveness of large-scale pollution
control strategies at such point sources.8
As such, the EPA utilized an assessment
up to 50 km from point sources in order
to assess trends in area-wide air quality
that might impact downwind states.
As discussed in section III of this
document, the EPA first reviewed
Oregon’s analysis to assess how the
State evaluated the transport of SO2 to
other states, the types of information
used in the analysis and the conclusions
drawn by the State. The EPA then
conducted a weight of evidence
analysis, including review of Oregon’s
submission and other available
8 For
the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
please see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4
(‘‘Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria’’). For further
discussion on how the EPA is applying these
definitions with respect to interstate transport of
SO2, see the EPA’s proposal on Connecticut’s SO2
transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:14 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
information, including air quality,
emission sources and emission trends
within the State and in bordering states
to which it could potentially contribute
or interfere.9
III. Oregon SIP Submission and EPA
Analysis
A. State Submission
On May 12, 2015, Oregon submitted
a revision to the Oregon SIP addressing
prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Oregon conducted a weight of
evidence analysis to examine whether
SO2 emissions from the State adversely
affect attainment or maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in downwind
states. Oregon’s analysis included a
review of: SO2 emissions source
categories; downwind monitoring sites
that are potential receptors in
neighboring states; industrial point
sources located near the border with
neighboring states; and SIP-approved
controls that limit SO2 emissions from
existing and future Oregon sources.
Oregon concluded that SO2 emissions
from Oregon sources will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
B. EPA Evaluation Methodology
The EPA believes that a reasonable
starting point for determining which
sources and emissions activities in
Oregon are likely to impact downwind
air quality in other states with respect
to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is by
using information in the EPA’s National
Emissions Inventory (NEI).10 The NEI is
a comprehensive and detailed estimate
of air emissions for criteria pollutants,
criteria pollutant precursors, and
hazardous air pollutants from air
emissions sources, that is updated every
three years using information provided
by the states and other information
available to the EPA. The EPA evaluated
data from the 2014 NEI, the most
9 This proposed approval action is based on the
information contained in the administrative record
for this action and does not prejudge any other
future EPA action that may make other
determinations regarding any of the subject state’s
air quality status. Any such future actions, such as
area designations under any NAAQS, will be based
on their own administrative records and the EPA’s
analyses of information that becomes available at
those times. Future available information may
include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and
modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the SO2
Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 21,
2015) and information submitted to the EPA by
states, air agencies, and third-party stakeholders
such as citizen groups and industry representatives.
10 The EPA’s NEI is available at https://
www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/nationalemissions-inventory.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29371
recently available, complete, and quality
assured dataset of the NEI.
In the submission, Oregon assessed
SO2 emissions source categories in the
State using 2011 NEI data, which was
the most recent, complete data at the
time the submission was developed.
Oregon found that power plants and
other industrial facilities that combust
fossil fuel are the primary emitters of
SO2 in the State. Smaller sources
include processes to extract metal from
ore and the combustion of sulfurcontaining fuels in locomotives, ships,
and non-road equipment.11 Because
most SO2 is emitted from industrial
facilities, Oregon focused its analysis on
the potential for SO2 emissions from
industrial point sources in the State to
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
The EPA’s review of more recent NEI
data confirms the State’s findings. We
note that the EPA released a complete
set of NEI data for 2014 addressing all
source categories. However, the EPA
has, to date, released a limited set of
emissions data for 2017 addressing
stationary sources only. Because the
data for 2014 are complete, we reviewed
and summarized 2014 NEI data in Table
1 of this document. The data indicate
that the majority of SO2 emissions in
Oregon originate from fuel combustion
at either electric utilities or other
stationary sources such as industrial
boilers, in addition to industrial and
other processes. These source categories
account for approximately 90% of SO2
emissions in 2014, therefore, we find it
reasonable to focus our evaluation on
potential downwind impacts of SO2
emissions from stationary fuel
combustion or industrial point sources
in Oregon, consistent with the State’s
submission.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2014 NEI
SO2 DATA FOR OREGON 12
Source category
Mobile—non-road .................
Mobile—on-road ...................
Fuel combustion—electric
generation .........................
Fuel combustion—other .......
Emissions
(tons)
471
307
7,535
2,607
11 See page 26 of the Oregon State
Implementation Plan Revision, Attachment C,
Addressing the Interstate Transport of Nitrogen
Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead, Fine Particulate
Matter, dated May 12, 2015, in the docket for this
action (the submission).
12 We derived the emissions information from the
EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
29372
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
ambient air quality for Oregon and
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF 2014 NEI
SO2 DATA FOR OREGON 12—Con- neighboring states; and (3) Analysis of
Permit Requirements, Dispersion
tinued
Modeling, and Source-Specific Controls.
A detailed discussion of Oregon’s SIP
Source category
submission with respect to each of these
points follows.13 As a result of our
Industrial and other procanalysis of this information, we believe
esses .................................
1,604 that the following factors indicate
emissions from Oregon are unlikely to
Total ...............................
12,524
impact a violation in any other state and
thus are unlikely to contribute
Based on the information detailed in
significantly to nonattainment of the
sections III.C.1 through 3 and III.D of
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
this document (available data on
state: (1) The combination of low
emissions sources and emissions trends, ambient concentrations of SO in
2
ambient air quality data, and permit
Oregon and neighboring states and the
requirements, available dispersion
downward trend in monitored
modeling results, and enforceable
concentrations; (2) our conclusions from
regulations) we propose that it is
our qualitative analysis of the identified
reasonable to conclude that SO2 sources sources of SO emissions in Oregon and
2
in Oregon will not contribute
neighboring states; (3) the downward
significantly to nonattainment (prong 1
trend in SO2 emissions from Oregon
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) or interfere
sources; (4) available modeling
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
information for specific SO2 point
SO2 NAAQS in any other state (prong
sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved
2). We evaluate each prong separately,
controls that limit SO2 emissions from
as discussed in the following
current and future sources. The EPA
paragraphs.
proposes, based on the information
C. EPA Prong 1 Evaluation—Significant available at the time of this rulemaking,
that these factors, taken together,
Contribution to Nonattainment
support the EPA’s proposed
Prong 1 of the good neighbor
determination that Oregon will not
provision requires SIPs to prohibit
contribute significantly to
emissions that will contribute
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
significantly to nonattainment of a
NAAQS in another state. In addition,
NAAQS in another state. Oregon asserts 2017 SO2 emissions for Oregon’s
in its SIP submission that emissions
sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2
from Oregon will not contribute
within 50 km of another state are at
significantly to nonattainment in any
distances that make it unlikely that
other state with respect to the 2010
these SO2 emissions could interact with
1-hour SO2 standard. To evaluate
SO2 emissions from the neighboring
Oregon’s satisfaction of prong 1, the
states’ sources in such a way as to
EPA assessed the State’s SIP submission contribute significantly to
with respect to the following
nonattainment in neighboring states.
information: (1) SO2 emissions
Finally, the downward trends in SO2
information from Oregon and
emissions and relatively low DVs for air
neighboring state sources; (2) SO2
quality monitors in Oregon and
Emissions
(tons)
neighboring states, combined with
federal regulations and SIP-approved
regulations affecting SO2 emissions of
Oregon’s sources, further support the
EPA’s proposed conclusion.
1. SO2 Emissions Analysis
a. State Submission
As discussed in section II of this
document, Oregon assessed SO2
emissions source categories using 2011
NEI data. Oregon found that power
plants and other industrial facilities that
combust fossil fuel are the primary
emitters of SO2 in the State. Because
most SO2 is emitted from industrial
facilities, Oregon focused its analysis on
the potential for SO2 emissions from
industrial point sources in the State to
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
Oregon’s submission also included an
analysis of specific sources located near
the Oregon border. The State focused its
evaluation on three large facilities
located near the border with
Washington, that are also listed in Table
3 of this document: The Boardman
Plant, the Wauna Mill, and the OwensBrockway Glass facility.
b. EPA Analysis
The EPA also analyzed SO2 emissions
trends in Oregon. Between 2002 and
2014, SO2 emissions from Oregon
sources were reduced significantly. NEI
data summarized in Table 2 of this
document illustrate this trend. SO2
emissions from Oregon sources fell
approximately 72% overall, and
emissions from specific source
categories also declined over this time
period. These trends are due in part to
the combustion of lower sulfur content
fuels.
TABLE 2—SO2 EMISSION TRENDS IN OREGON (TONS) 14
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Source category
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
SO2 reduction,
2002–2014
(%)
Mobile—non-road .....................................
Mobile—on-road .......................................
Fuel combustion—electric generation .....
Fuel combustion—other ...........................
Industrial and other processes ................
12,470
3,760
12,344
10,142
6,341
5,746
1,796
452
12,911
14,103
2,058
532
11,410
1,739
3,573
340
333
13,169
3,164
4,046
471
307
7,535
2,607
1,604
96
92
40
74
75
Total ..................................................
45,057
35,008
19,312
21,052
12,524
72
13 The EPA has reviewed Oregon’s submission,
and where new or more current information has
become available, is including this information as
part of the EPA’s evaluation of this submission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
14 We derived the emissions trends information
from the EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
29373
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Emissions trends, while important, do
not by themselves demonstrate that
sources in Oregon will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment in
neighboring states.
As discussed in section II of this
document, the EPA finds it appropriate
to examine the impacts of emissions
from stationary sources in Oregon in
distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km
from the facility, based on the ‘‘urban
scale’’ definition contained in appendix
D to 40 CFR part 58, section 4.4.
Therefore, we reviewed NEI data for
Oregon point sources with SO2
emissions greater than 100 tpy 15 in
2017 that are located up to 50 km from
State borders, as summarized in the
following table, Table 3.
TABLE 3—SO2 EMISSIONS TRENDS AT OREGON SOURCES WITHIN 50 KM OF BORDER 16
Distance *
(km)
Source name
Portland General Electric Power Plant (Boardman Plant) ..
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (Wauna Mill) ........
Portland International Airport ...............................................
EP Minerals, LLC .................................................................
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. (Owens-Brockway
Glass) ...............................................................................
2008
(tons)
2011
(tons)
2014
(tons)
2017
(tons)
17
1
2
33
11,303
858
96
1
13,103
707
115
141
7,439
571
125
66
3,298
540
215
182
4
142
119
119
118
*Approximate distance to nearest Oregon border.
The EPA assessed this information to
evaluate whether the SO2 emissions
from these sources could interact with
SO2 emissions from the nearest source
in a neighboring state in such a way as
to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in that state. The following
Table 4 lists the five sources in Oregon
that emitted greater than 100 tpy of SO2
in 2017 and are located within 50 km
of the State’s border.
TABLE 4—OREGON SO2 SOURCES EMITTING GREATER THAN 100 TPY NEAR NEIGHBORING STATES
Oregon source
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Portland General Electric
Power Plant (Boardman
Plant).
Georgia-Pacific Consumer
Products LP (Wauna Mill).
Portland International Airport.
2017
annual SO2
emissions
(tons)
Approximate
distance to
Oregon Border
(km)
Closest neighboring state
Approximate
distance to
nearest
neighboring
state SO2
source (km)
Nearest neighboring state
SO2 source & 2017
emissions
(>100 tons SO2)
3,298
17
Washington ...........................
83
Boise Paper (885 tons).
540
1
Washington ...........................
33
215
2
Washington ...........................
61
EP Minerals, LLC ..................
182
33
Idaho .....................................
286
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. (OwensBrockway Glass).
118
4
Washington ...........................
66
Nippon Dynawave Packaging
Co. (390 tons).
Longview Fibre Paper and
Packaging, Inc. (198 tons).
The Amalgamated Sugar
Company LLC—Twin Falls
(635 tons).
Longview Fibre Paper and
Packaging, Inc.
(198 tons).
Only one source emitting greater than
100 tpy in Oregon located within 50 km
of the State border is also within 50 km
of a source also emitting greater than
100 tpy in a neighboring state. The
Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill facility
(discussed in the following paragraphs)
is located 1 km from the State border
and 33 km from the nearest out-of-state
source emitting greater than 100 tpy,
Nippon Dynawave Packaging in
Washington. The EPA believes that the
distances greater than 50 km between all
remaining Oregon sources and the
nearest out-of-state source make it
unlikely that SO2 emissions from these
Oregon sources could interact with SO2
emissions from these out-of-state
sources in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in
Washington and Idaho. Further
discussion of all Oregon sources in
Table 4 can be found in section III.C.2.b
of this document.
15 We have limited our analysis to Oregon sources
emitting at least 100 tpy of SO2 because in the
absence of special factors, for example the presence
of a nearby larger source or unusual physical
factors, Oregon sources emitting less than 100 tpy
can appropriately be presumed to not be causing or
contributing to SO2 concentrations above the
NAAQS.
16 We derived the emissions information from the
EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories.
17 See page 14 (Table 2) of the submission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. Ambient Air Quality Data Analysis
a. State Submission
In its submission, Oregon identified
SO2 monitoring sites in the neighboring
states of California, Idaho, Nevada, and
Washington that are most likely to be
impacted by SO2 emissions from
sources in Oregon. The submission lists
each SO2 monitoring site considered to
be a potential downwind receptor and
the most recent monitoring data at the
receptor.17 Oregon found that the 2011–
2013 design value 18 at each identified
receptor was well below the 2010 118 The design value is a statistical representation
of SO2 in ambient air based on the 3-year average
of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily
maximum concentrations, measures in parts per
billion (ppb).
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
29374
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
hour SO2 NAAQS (75 ppb) and that SO2
emissions from Oregon were therefore
not significantly contributing to
nonattainment in any other state.
b. EPA Analysis
The EPA also evaluated ambient air
quality data in Oregon and neighboring
states to determine whether there were
any monitoring sites, particularly near
the Oregon border, with elevated SO2
concentrations that might warrant
further investigation with respect to
interstate transport of SO2 from
emission sources in Oregon. We
reviewed the most recent SO2
monitoring data available from the
EPA’s Air Quality System for the
following set of receptors: (1) All
monitors in Oregon; (2) the monitor
with the highest design value in each
neighboring state; (3) the monitor in
each neighboring state located closest to
the Oregon border; and (4) all monitors
in each neighboring state within 50 km
of the Oregon border.
The following table, Table 5, shows
that the Multnomah County, Oregon
monitoring site is the only SO2 monitor
in Oregon and is within 50 km of the
Oregon border. The most recent design
value at this monitor, for the years
2016–2018, is 3 ppb. This design value
is well below the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS (75 ppb). In addition, all
monitors identified in neighboring
states are below the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
TABLE 5—SO2 DESIGN VALUES FOR MONITORS IN OREGON AND NEIGHBORING STATES 19
State/county
Distance *
(km)
Site ID
California/Contra Costa ........................................................
California/Humboldt ..............................................................
Idaho/Ada .............................................................................
Idaho/Pocatello ....................................................................
Nevada/Clark .......................................................................
Nevada/Washoe ...................................................................
Oregon/Multnomah ..............................................................
Washington/Skagit ...............................................................
060131001
060231004
160010010
160050004
320030540
320310016
410510080
530570011
2014–2016
(ppb)
433
135
55
366
668
275
12
327
14
1
4
39
7
5
3
5
2015–2017
(ppb)
14
1
3
38
6
5
3
4
2016–2018
(ppb)
16
1
3
38
6
5
3
3
*Approximate distance to nearest Oregon border.
These air quality data do not, by
themselves, indicate any particular
location that would warrant further
investigation with respect to SO2
emissions sources that might contribute
significantly to nonattainment in the
neighboring states. Because the
monitoring network is not necessarily
designed to find all locations of high
SO2 concentrations, this observation
indicates an absence of evidence of
impact at these locations but is not
sufficient evidence by itself of an
absence of impact at all locations in the
neighboring states.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Analysis of Permit Requirements,
Dispersion Modeling, and SourceSpecific Controls
As previously discussed, Oregon
identified three sources (Boardman
Plant, the Wauna Mill, and the OwensBrockway Glass facility), for which the
State reviewed existing permitting
information and available dispersion
modeling, in addition to SIP-approved
controls that apply to the sources to
limit SO2 emissions. In the following
paragraphs, we have summarized the
source-specific analysis in the State’s
submission followed by the EPA’s
supplemental analysis where necessary
or where new information became
available after the submission was
developed.
19 We compiled the monitoring data from the
EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/airquality-design-values#report.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
a. State Submission
i. Boardman Plant
The Boardman Plant is a 575megawatt coal-fired power plant
operated by Portland General Electric,
located approximately 17 km from the
border with Washington. In its
submission, Oregon stated that the
Boardman Plant is subject to SIPapproved SO2 controls established to
meet regional haze planning
requirements for Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) (76 FR 38997, July
5, 2011). The SIP requires the Boardman
Plant to cease burning coal by December
31, 2020 and requires the use of dry
sorbent injection controls to further
limit SO2 emissions from the plant
during the time period leading up to the
shutdown date (2018 through 2020).
Based on this information, Oregon
concluded that SO2 emissions from the
Boardman Plant will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state.
ii. Wauna Mill
In its submission, Oregon evaluated
permit information for the Wauna Mill
including the air quality analysis
conducted during the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD)
permitting process for the facility. A
PSD air quality analysis assesses the
20 See
PO 00000
predicted impacts to ambient air
associated with the construction and
operation of a proposed major source or
major modification. The analysis is
designed to determine whether new
emissions from a proposed major
stationary source or major modification,
in conjunction with other applicable
emissions from existing sources
(competing sources), will or will not
cause or contribute to a violation of any
applicable NAAQS. PSD dispersion
modeling is conducted at a 50 km range
and includes any portion of the range
that may extend into neighboring states.
In its submission, Oregon stated that a
review of the modeling concluded
predicted impacts from the Wauna Mill
to ambient air were not expected to
cause or contribute to a violation of any
applicable NAAQS within Oregon or in
neighboring states.
iii. Owens-Brockway Glass
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.
is located in Portland, Oregon, 4 km
from the border with Washington.
Oregon’s submission stated that OwensBrockway Glass was evaluated during
PSD analyses for other major source
permitting actions.20 Oregon reviewed
the permitting analyses and stated that
the analyses demonstrated the proposed
source’s emissions considered in
conjunction with the emissions from
Owens-Brockway Glass and other
page 26 of the submission.
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
sources in the area do not cause or
contribute to a violation of any
applicable NAAQS within the 50-km
area evaluated. Oregon concluded that
this source will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
b. EPA Analysis
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
i. Boardman Plant
In accordance with the EPA’s SO2
Data Requirements Rule, Oregon
characterized the Boardman Plant by
conducting air dispersion modeling.
Oregon modeled the area using a
receptor grid that extended 50 km from
the source (which extended into the
neighboring State of Washington).
Oregon’s modeling accounted for
allowable potential emissions from the
Boardman Plant and 11 other Oregon
SO2 emissions sources in the area. The
State submitted the resulting model data
to the EPA and indicated that Oregon
found no modeled exceedances of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within 50 km
of the Boardman Plant. The maximum
modeled concentration was found to be
73 ppb and was projected to occur
southeast of the Boardman Plant, in the
opposite direction of the border with
Washington. The State recommended
the EPA designate the area around the
Boardman Plant as unclassifiable/
attainment.21 The EPA agreed and
designated the entire State of Oregon
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS (83 FR 1098, January
9, 2018).22
Based on the information provided by
the State and the additional information
available to the EPA, specifically the
modeling results for the area around the
Boardman Plant, we propose to concur
with the State’s conclusion that SO2
emissions from the Boardman Plant will
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
ii. Wauna Mill
The Georgia-Pacific Consumer
Products LP (Wauna Mill) is in
Clatskanie, Oregon and is located within
50 km of the Oregon border and within
50 km of two SO2 sources emitting
greater than 100 tpy in Longview,
Washington. Elevated levels of SO2, to
which SO2 emitted in Oregon may have
a downwind impact, are most likely to
be found near such sources. Therefore,
we believe it is appropriate to further
review permit information for the
21 See designation technical support document at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201708/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
22 See 40 CFR 81.338.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
Wauna Mill and SIP-approved
provisions that limit SO2 emissions
from the Wauna Mill, which we have
summarized in the following
paragraphs.
In 2010, the Wauna Mill was
evaluated as part of the Oregon Regional
Haze Plan and determined to be a
BART-eligible source. The Wauna Mill
underwent BART analysis by Oregon
and elected to take federally enforceable
SO2 limits to comply with BART
requirements promulgated in Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) and
approved by the EPA as part of the
Oregon Regional Haze Plan.23 The limits
were added to the facility’s title V
operating permit, and to achieve the
limits, the mill permanently reduced the
use of fuel oil and limited production
rates.24 Emissions at the Wauna Mill, as
shown in Table 3 of this document, are
declining. Based on this information
and the information provided by the
State, the EPA believes it is reasonable
to conclude that the Wauna Mill will
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in Washington or any other
state.
iii. Portland International Airport
The Portland International Airport is
located approximately 2 km from the
border with Washington. Oregon’s
submission did not specifically address
the airport; therefore, we have
conducted our own evaluation. In 2017,
SO2 emissions at the airport totaled
approximately 215 tons, as shown in
Table 4 of this document. While these
emissions are greater than some of the
industrial point sources evaluated, it is
important to distinguish SO2 emissions
at an airport from those at a typical
industrial point source, in part because
airport-related emissions tend to be
spread across large areas and operations,
including emissions from airplanes
departing from and arriving at the
airport and support vehicles that service
airplanes and transport passengers.
The distance between Portland
International Airport and the nearest
out-of-state source emitting greater than
100 tons, Longview Fibre Paper and
Packaging, Inc. in Longview,
Washington, is 61 km. In 2017,
Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging,
Inc., emitted 198 tons of SO2. Based on
the distance between these sources, it is
unlikely that SO2 emissions from
23 See Oregon Regional Haze Plan submitted on
December 20, 2010, approved by the EPA on July
5, 2011 (76 FR 38897).
24 See title V operating permit number 04–0004–
TV–01, issued June 18, 2009 and modified on
December 2, 2010, available online at: https://
www.deq.state.or.us/aq/aqpermitsonline.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29375
Portland International Airport could
interact with SO2 emissions from
Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging,
Inc., in such a way as to impact a
violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we
believe it is reasonable to conclude that
SO2 emissions from Portland
International Airport will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Washington
or any other state.
iv. EP Minerals Inc.
EP Minerals Inc. operates a
diatomaceous earth processing plant in
Vale, Oregon, approximately 33 km
from the Idaho border. The source
emitted approximately 182 tons of SO2
in 2017, as shown in Table 4 of this
document. The State submission did not
address this source therefore, we have
supplemented the State’s review with
the following assessment. EP Minerals
Inc. is a title V major stationary source
with kilns and dryers subject to SO2
emission limits.25 The source is subject
to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, as a condition
of operating the source. In addition, SIPapproved sulfur-in-fuel limits apply, as
well as Federal Standards of
Performance for Calciners and Dryers in
Mineral Industries.
The distance between EP Minerals
Inc., and the nearest out-of-state source
emitting greater than 100 tons, the
Amalgamated Sugar Company in Twin
Falls, Idaho, is 286 km. In 2017, the
Amalgamated Sugar Company—Twin
Falls emitted 635 tons of SO2. Based on
the distance between these sources, it is
unlikely that SO2 emissions from EP
Minerals Inc., could interact with SO2
emissions from the Amalgamated Sugar
Company—Twin Falls in such a way as
to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we
believe it is reasonable to conclude that
SO2 emissions from EP Minerals Inc.,
will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in Idaho or any other state.
v. Owens-Brockway Glass
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.
is located in Portland, Oregon, 4 km
from the border with Washington. The
distance between Owens-Brockway
Glass Container Inc., and the nearest
out-of-state source emitting greater than
100 tons, the Longview Fibre Paper and
Packaging, Inc., in Longview,
Washington, is 66 km. In 2017, the
Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging,
25 Title V operating permit number 23–0032–TV–
01, issued September 29, 2017, available online at:
https://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/aqpermitsonline.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
29376
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Inc., emitted 198 tons of SO2. Based on
the distance between these sources, it is
unlikely that SO2 emissions from
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.,
could interact with SO2 emissions from
the Longview Fibre Paper and
Packaging, Inc in such a way as to
impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we
believe it is reasonable to conclude that
SO2 emissions from Owens-Brockway
Glass Container Inc., will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Idaho or
any other state.
vi. TransAlta Central Generation Power
Plant
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
The TransAlta Central Generation
Power Plant (TransAlta) in Lewis
County, Washington, is located
approximately 66 km from the OregonWashington state border. TransAlta is
located approximately 78 km from the
nearest source in Oregon emitting
greater than 100 tons, the Wauna Mill,
which was further discussed earlier. In
2017, TransAlta emitted 1,689 tons of
SO2. TransAlta was required to be
characterized pursuant the DRR by the
State of Washington. The State of
Washington elected to characterize the
area around TransAlta through air
dispersion modeling. In Round 3 of SO2
designations, the EPA determined the
modeling supplied by Washington was
not sufficient to determine the area as in
attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore,
the EPA designated Lewis and Thurston
Counties in Washington as
unclassifiable.26 This unclassifiable area
is approximately 22 km from the
Oregon-Washington border. Due to the
distance between the Wauna Mill and
TransAlta, it is unlikely that SO2
emissions from Wauna Mill could
interact with SO2 emissions from
TransAlta in such a way as to impact a
violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we
believe it is reasonable to conclude that
SO2 emissions from Wauna Mill will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in Washington or any other
state.
26 See Technical Support Document: Chapter 42
Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/42-waso2-rd3-final.pdf. See also Technical Support
Document: Chapter 42 Intended Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-08/documents/43_wa_so2_
rd3-final.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, for prong 1, we believe
that the following factors indicate
emissions from Oregon are unlikely to
impact a violation in any other state and
thus are unlikely to contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state: (1) The combination of low
ambient concentrations of SO2 in
Oregon and neighboring states and the
downward trend in monitored
concentrations; (2) our conclusions from
our qualitative analysis of the identified
sources of SO2 emissions in Oregon and
neighboring states; (3) the downward
trend in SO2 emissions from Oregon
sources; (4) available modeling
information for specific SO2 point
sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved
controls that limit SO2 emissions from
current and future sources. The EPA
proposes, based on the information
available at the time of this rulemaking,
that these factors, taken together,
support the EPA’s proposed
determination that Oregon will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in another state. In addition,
2017 SO2 emissions for Oregon’s
sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2
within 50 km of another state are at
distances that make it unlikely that
these SO2 emissions could interact with
SO2 emissions from the neighboring
states’ sources in such a way as to
contribute significantly to
nonattainment in neighboring states.
Finally, the downward trends in SO2
emissions and relatively low DVs for air
quality monitors in Oregon and
neighboring states, combined with
federal regulations and SIP-approved
regulations affecting SO2 emissions of
Oregon’s sources, further support the
EPA’s proposed conclusion. Therefore,
we are proposing to approve the Oregon
SIP revision as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 for purposes of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
D. EPA Prong 2 Evaluation—
Interference With Maintenance
1. Summary
Prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation
of the potential impact of a state’s
emissions on areas in other states that
are not violating the NAAQS. This
evaluation is not limited to only former
nonattainment areas with EPA-approved
maintenance plans, but rather it focuses
on any areas that may have trouble
attaining and maintaining the standard
in the future. Our prong 2 evaluation for
Oregon builds on our analysis in the
prior prong 1 evaluation, regarding
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
significant contribution to
nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically, as
described in our prong 1 evaluation and
summarized in Table 3 of this
document, we have a sufficient basis to
conclude that there are no 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS violations in other states
near their shared borders with Oregon.
Moreover, we have a sufficient basis to
conclude that SO2 emissions from
sources in Oregon are highly unlikely to
increase sufficiently to alter this
situation, given the SIP-approved
controls limiting emissions from large
sources near the border.
2. Emissions Trends
Statewide SO2 emissions from Oregon
sources have decreased substantially
over time, as shown in the preceding
Table 2 of this document.27 From 2002
to 2014, total statewide SO2 emissions
decreased by approximately 72 percent.
This trend of decreasing SO2 emissions
does not by itself demonstrate that areas
in Oregon and neighboring states will
not have issues maintaining the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece
of this weight of evidence analysis for
prong 2, it provides further indication
(when considered alongside low
monitor values in neighboring states)
that such maintenance issues are
unlikely.
3. SIP-Approved New Source Review
Program
The EPA notes that any future major
sources of SO2 emissions will be
addressed by Oregon’s SIP-approved
PSD program.28 Future minor sources of
SO2 emissions will be addressed by
Oregon’s SIP-approved minor new
source review permit program.29 The
EPA believes that the permitting
regulations contained within these
programs should help ensure that
ambient concentrations of SO2 in
neighboring states are not exceeded as a
result of new facility construction or
modification occurring in Oregon.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, for prong 2, we
reviewed the technical information
considered for interstate transport prong
1, additional information about
emission trends, as well as the
requirements of Oregon’s SIP-approved
new source review program. We believe
that the following factors indicate
emissions from Oregon will not interfere
27 See additional emissions trends data at: https://
www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/airpollutant-emissions-trends-data.
28 The EPA recently approved revisions to the
Oregon new source review permitting programs on
October 11, 2017 (82 FR 47122).
29 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 95 / Friday, May 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state: (1) The
combination of low ambient
concentrations of SO2 in Oregon and
neighboring states and the downward
trend in monitored concentrations; (2)
our conclusions from our qualitative
analysis of the identified sources of SO2
emissions; (3) the downward trend in
SO2 emissions from Oregon sources; (4)
available modeling information for
specific SO2 point sources in Oregon;
and (5) SIP-approved controls that limit
SO2 emissions from current and future
sources. The EPA proposes, based on
the information available at the time of
this rulemaking, that these factors, taken
together, support the EPA’s proposed
determination that Oregon will not
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
In addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for
Oregon’s sources emitting over 100 tons
of SO2 within 50 km of another state are
at distances that make it unlikely that
these SO2 emissions could interact with
SO2 emissions from the neighboring
states’ sources in such a way as to
contribute significantly to
nonattainment in neighboring states.
Finally, the downward trends in SO2
emissions and relatively low DVs for air
quality monitors in Oregon and
neighboring states, combined with
federal regulations and SIP-approved
regulations affecting SO2 emissions of
Oregon’s sources, further support the
EPA’s proposed conclusion. Therefore,
we are proposing to approve the Oregon
SIP as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 for purposes of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
October 20, 2015, Oregon SIP
submission as meeting the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. The EPA is proposing this
approval based on our review of the
information and analysis provided by
Oregon in the State’s submission, as
well as additional relevant information,
which indicates that in-State air
emissions will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
This action is being taken under section
110 of the CAA.
V. 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.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 May 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
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:
• 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 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
it 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).
The proposed SIP would not be
approved to 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 proposed rule does not
have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
29377
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 dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 7, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020–10228 Filed 5–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2019–0449; FRL–10008–
59–Region 9]
Approval and Limited Approval and
Limited Disapproval of California Air
Plan Revisions; San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District; Stationary
Source Permits
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing action on
four permitting rules submitted as a
revision to the San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District (SDAPCD or
‘‘District’’) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are
proposing a limited approval and
limited disapproval of one rule and
proposing approval of the remaining
three rules. These revisions concern the
District’s New Source Review (NSR)
permitting program for new and
modified sources of air pollution under
section 110(a)(2)(C) and part D of title I
of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action
updates the SDAPCD’s applicable SIP
with revised rules that the District has
amended to address deficiencies
identified in a previous conditional
approval action. We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 15, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2019–0449 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 95 (Friday, May 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29369-29377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10228]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0057; FRL-10007-86-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; OR; 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Interstate
Transport Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from Oregon as meeting
certain Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport requirements for the
2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Specifically, the EPA proposes to find that
emissions from Oregon sources will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with the maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0057 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from https://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
electronically submit any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which
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
[[Page 29370]]
making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate
Transport SIPs
III. Oregon SIP Submission and EPA Analysis
A. State Submission
B. EPA Evaluation Methodology
C. EPA Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment
D. EPA Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). The Clean Air Act (CAA)
requires that, after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, states
must submit SIPs to meet applicable infrastructure elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2). One of these elements, codified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to prohibit emissions that will cause
certain impacts on other states. These interstate transport
requirements of the CAA are also known as ``good neighbor''
requirements.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components,
commonly referred to as prongs. The first two prongs, codified at CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions
which prohibit emissions in one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS in any other state (prong 1) and
from interfering with maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in any other
state (prong 2). The second two prongs, codified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions which
prohibit emissions in one state from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in any other state
(prong 3) and from interfering with measures to protect visibility in
any other state (prong 4).
On October 20, 2015, Oregon submitted a SIP to address prongs 1 and
2 of the good neighbor requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS along with the other infrastructure requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA approved the October 20, 2015 Oregon submission as
it relates to other requirements in final rulemakings published May
16, 2016 (81 FR 30181), May 24, 2018 (83 FR 24034), and September
18, 2018 (83 FR 47073).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
In this action, the EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS designations process, discussed in more
detail in section III of this document. For this reason, we have
included a brief summary of the EPA's designations process for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While designations may provide useful information for
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, the EPA notes that
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. The EPA has
consistently taken the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
addresses ``nonattainment'' anywhere it may occur in other states,
not only in designated nonattainment areas nor any similar
formulation requiring that designations for downwind nonattainment
areas must first have occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule,
70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,
76 FR 48208, 48211 (August 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from
New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland
Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (November 7, 2011) (finding facility
in violation of the prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to
issuance of designations for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required to designate areas as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or
``unclassifiable'' pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The
process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA
requires the EPA to complete the initial designations process within
two years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the
Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations
by that deadline, the EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for
completing designations by up to one year.
The EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2,
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). The EPA completed the first
round of designations (``round 1'') \3\ for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16
states as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See
78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). The EPA signed Federal Register documents
of promulgation for round 2 designations \4\ on June 30, 2016 (81 FR
45039, July 12, 2016) and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR 89870, December
13, 2016), and round 3 designations \5\ on December 21, 2017 (83 FR
1098, January 9, 2018).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round
of designations.''
\4\ The EPA and state documents and public comments related to
the round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov
with Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 and at the EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
\5\ The EPA and state documents and public comments related to
round 3 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003 and at the EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
\6\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13-cv-
3953-SI (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2015). This consent decree requires the
EPA to sign for publication in the Federal Register documents of the
EPA's promulgation of area designations for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS by three specific deadlines: July 2, 2016
(``round 2''); December 31, 2017 (``round 3''); and December 31,
2020 (``round 4'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), the EPA separately promulgated
air quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR
requires state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air
dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources
that emitted 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of SO2, or
that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by the EPA or state air
agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by
specified dates, could elect to impose federally enforceable emissions
limitations on those sources restricting their annual SO2
emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide documentation that the
sources have been shut down. The EPA expected that the information
generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS that must be completed by
December 31, 2020 (``round 4'').
In round 3 of designations, the EPA designated Morrow County and
all other areas in Oregon as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.\7\ There are no remaining areas within
Oregon that have yet to be designated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 34 Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oregon at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/34-or-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document: Chapter 34 Intended
Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oregon at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29371]]
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs
Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike
the transport of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone,
in that SO2 is not a regional pollutant and does not
commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment over a large (and often
multi-state) area. The transport of SO2 is more analogous to
the transport of lead (Pb) because its physical properties result in
localized pollutant impacts very near the emissions source. However,
ambient concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly
with distance from the source as Pb because of the physical properties
and typical release heights of SO2. Emissions of
SO2 travel farther and have wider ranging impacts than
emissions of Pb but do not travel far enough to be treated in a manner
similar to ozone or PM2.5. The approaches adopted by the EPA
for ozone and PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused and
the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed to the
source to serve as a model for SO2 transport. SO2
transport is therefore a unique case and requires a different approach.
In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior SO2 transport
analyses, the EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone because the physical
properties of SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant
impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance. Given the
physical properties of SO2, the EPA selected the ``urban
scale''--a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km)
from point sources--given the usefulness of that range in assessing
trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-
scale pollution control strategies at such point sources.\8\ As such,
the EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from point sources in order
to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact downwind
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
please see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
the EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see the EPA's proposal on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section III of this document, the EPA first
reviewed Oregon's analysis to assess how the State evaluated the
transport of SO2 to other states, the types of information
used in the analysis and the conclusions drawn by the State. The EPA
then conducted a weight of evidence analysis, including review of
Oregon's submission and other available information, including air
quality, emission sources and emission trends within the State and in
bordering states to which it could potentially contribute or
interfere.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This proposed approval action is based on the information
contained in the administrative record for this action and does not
prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other
determinations regarding any of the subject state's air quality
status. Any such future actions, such as area designations under any
NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records and the
EPA's analyses of information that becomes available at those times.
Future available information may include, and is not limited to,
monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the
SO2 Data Requirements Rule (80 FR 51052, August 21, 2015)
and information submitted to the EPA by states, air agencies, and
third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups and industry
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Oregon SIP Submission and EPA Analysis
A. State Submission
On May 12, 2015, Oregon submitted a revision to the Oregon SIP
addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Oregon conducted a weight of evidence
analysis to examine whether SO2 emissions from the State
adversely affect attainment or maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. Oregon's analysis included a
review of: SO2 emissions source categories; downwind
monitoring sites that are potential receptors in neighboring states;
industrial point sources located near the border with neighboring
states; and SIP-approved controls that limit SO2 emissions
from existing and future Oregon sources. Oregon concluded that
SO2 emissions from Oregon sources will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
B. EPA Evaluation Methodology
The EPA believes that a reasonable starting point for determining
which sources and emissions activities in Oregon are likely to impact
downwind air quality in other states with respect to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS is by using information in the EPA's National
Emissions Inventory (NEI).\10\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed
estimate of air emissions for criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant
precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air emissions sources,
that is updated every three years using information provided by the
states and other information available to the EPA. The EPA evaluated
data from the 2014 NEI, the most recently available, complete, and
quality assured dataset of the NEI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The EPA's NEI is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the submission, Oregon assessed SO2 emissions source
categories in the State using 2011 NEI data, which was the most recent,
complete data at the time the submission was developed. Oregon found
that power plants and other industrial facilities that combust fossil
fuel are the primary emitters of SO2 in the State. Smaller
sources include processes to extract metal from ore and the combustion
of sulfur-containing fuels in locomotives, ships, and non-road
equipment.\11\ Because most SO2 is emitted from industrial
facilities, Oregon focused its analysis on the potential for
SO2 emissions from industrial point sources in the State to
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See page 26 of the Oregon State Implementation Plan
Revision, Attachment C, Addressing the Interstate Transport of
Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead, Fine Particulate Matter,
dated May 12, 2015, in the docket for this action (the submission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's review of more recent NEI data confirms the State's
findings. We note that the EPA released a complete set of NEI data for
2014 addressing all source categories. However, the EPA has, to date,
released a limited set of emissions data for 2017 addressing stationary
sources only. Because the data for 2014 are complete, we reviewed and
summarized 2014 NEI data in Table 1 of this document. The data indicate
that the majority of SO2 emissions in Oregon originate from
fuel combustion at either electric utilities or other stationary
sources such as industrial boilers, in addition to industrial and other
processes. These source categories account for approximately 90% of
SO2 emissions in 2014, therefore, we find it reasonable to
focus our evaluation on potential downwind impacts of SO2
emissions from stationary fuel combustion or industrial point sources
in Oregon, consistent with the State's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ We derived the emissions information from the EPA's web
page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.
Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI SO2 Data for Oregon \12\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions
Source category (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile--non-road........................................ 471
Mobile--on-road......................................... 307
Fuel combustion--electric generation.................... 7,535
Fuel combustion--other.................................. 2,607
[[Page 29372]]
Industrial and other processes.......................... 1,604
---------------
Total............................................... 12,524
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information detailed in sections III.C.1 through 3 and
III.D of this document (available data on emissions sources and
emissions trends, ambient air quality data, and permit requirements,
available dispersion modeling results, and enforceable regulations) we
propose that it is reasonable to conclude that SO2 sources
in Oregon will not contribute significantly to nonattainment (prong 1
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). We
evaluate each prong separately, as discussed in the following
paragraphs.
C. EPA Prong 1 Evaluation--Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires SIPs to prohibit
emissions that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of a
NAAQS in another state. Oregon asserts in its SIP submission that
emissions from Oregon will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in any other state with respect to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard. To evaluate Oregon's satisfaction of prong 1,
the EPA assessed the State's SIP submission with respect to the
following information: (1) SO2 emissions information from
Oregon and neighboring state sources; (2) SO2 ambient air
quality for Oregon and neighboring states; and (3) Analysis of Permit
Requirements, Dispersion Modeling, and Source-Specific Controls. A
detailed discussion of Oregon's SIP submission with respect to each of
these points follows.\13\ As a result of our analysis of this
information, we believe that the following factors indicate emissions
from Oregon are unlikely to impact a violation in any other state and
thus are unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state: (1) The
combination of low ambient concentrations of SO2 in Oregon
and neighboring states and the downward trend in monitored
concentrations; (2) our conclusions from our qualitative analysis of
the identified sources of SO2 emissions in Oregon and
neighboring states; (3) the downward trend in SO2 emissions
from Oregon sources; (4) available modeling information for specific
SO2 point sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved controls
that limit SO2 emissions from current and future sources.
The EPA proposes, based on the information available at the time of
this rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support the EPA's
proposed determination that Oregon will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
In addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for Oregon's sources
emitting over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km of another state
are at distances that make it unlikely that these SO2
emissions could interact with SO2 emissions from the
neighboring states' sources in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the
downward trends in SO2 emissions and relatively low DVs for
air quality monitors in Oregon and neighboring states, combined with
federal regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting
SO2 emissions of Oregon's sources, further support the EPA's
proposed conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The EPA has reviewed Oregon's submission, and where new or
more current information has become available, is including this
information as part of the EPA's evaluation of this submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SO2 Emissions Analysis
a. State Submission
As discussed in section II of this document, Oregon assessed
SO2 emissions source categories using 2011 NEI data. Oregon
found that power plants and other industrial facilities that combust
fossil fuel are the primary emitters of SO2 in the State.
Because most SO2 is emitted from industrial facilities,
Oregon focused its analysis on the potential for SO2
emissions from industrial point sources in the State to contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
Oregon's submission also included an analysis of specific sources
located near the Oregon border. The State focused its evaluation on
three large facilities located near the border with Washington, that
are also listed in Table 3 of this document: The Boardman Plant, the
Wauna Mill, and the Owens-Brockway Glass facility.
b. EPA Analysis
The EPA also analyzed SO2 emissions trends in Oregon.
Between 2002 and 2014, SO2 emissions from Oregon sources
were reduced significantly. NEI data summarized in Table 2 of this
document illustrate this trend. SO2 emissions from Oregon
sources fell approximately 72% overall, and emissions from specific
source categories also declined over this time period. These trends are
due in part to the combustion of lower sulfur content fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ We derived the emissions trends information from the EPA's
web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
Table 2--SO2 Emission Trends in Oregon (tons) \14\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 reduction,
Source category 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2002-2014 (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile--non-road........................................ 12,470 5,746 2,058 340 471 96
Mobile--on-road......................................... 3,760 1,796 532 333 307 92
Fuel combustion--electric generation.................... 12,344 452 11,410 13,169 7,535 40
Fuel combustion--other.................................. 10,142 12,911 1,739 3,164 2,607 74
Industrial and other processes.......................... 6,341 14,103 3,573 4,046 1,604 75
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 45,057 35,008 19,312 21,052 12,524 72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29373]]
Emissions trends, while important, do not by themselves demonstrate
that sources in Oregon will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in neighboring states.
As discussed in section II of this document, the EPA finds it
appropriate to examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources
in Oregon in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility,
based on the ``urban scale'' definition contained in appendix D to 40
CFR part 58, section 4.4. Therefore, we reviewed NEI data for Oregon
point sources with SO2 emissions greater than 100 tpy \15\
in 2017 that are located up to 50 km from State borders, as summarized
in the following table, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ We have limited our analysis to Oregon sources emitting at
least 100 tpy of SO2 because in the absence of special
factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger source or
unusual physical factors, Oregon sources emitting less than 100 tpy
can appropriately be presumed to not be causing or contributing to
SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.
Table 3--SO2 Emissions Trends at Oregon Sources Within 50 km of Border \16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance *
Source name (km) 2008 (tons) 2011 (tons) 2014 (tons) 2017 (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Power 17 11,303 13,103 7,439 3,298
Plant (Boardman Plant).........
Georgia-Pacific Consumer 1 858 707 571 540
Products LP (Wauna Mill).......
Portland International Airport.. 2 96 115 125 215
EP Minerals, LLC................ 33 1 141 66 182
Owens-Brockway Glass Container 4 142 119 119 118
Inc. (Owens-Brockway Glass)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Approximate distance to nearest Oregon border.
The EPA assessed this information to evaluate whether the
SO2 emissions from these sources could interact with
SO2 emissions from the nearest source in a neighboring state
in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in that state. The following Table 4 lists the
five sources in Oregon that emitted greater than 100 tpy of
SO2 in 2017 and are located within 50 km of the State's
border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ We derived the emissions information from the EPA's web
page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.
Table 4--Oregon SO2 Sources Emitting Greater Than 100 tpy Near Neighboring States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearest
Approximate neighboring
2017 annual Approximate Closest distance to state SO2
Oregon source SO2 emissions distance to neighboring nearest source & 2017
(tons) Oregon Border state neighboring emissions
(km) state SO2 (>100 tons SO2)
source (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric 3,298 17 Washington...... 83 Boise Paper
Power Plant (Boardman Plant). (885 tons).
Georgia-Pacific Consumer 540 1 Washington...... 33 Nippon Dynawave
Products LP (Wauna Mill). Packaging Co.
(390 tons).
Portland International 215 2 Washington...... 61 Longview Fibre
Airport.. Paper and
Packaging,
Inc. (198
tons).
EP Minerals, LLC............. 182 33 Idaho........... 286 The Amalgamated
Sugar Company
LLC--Twin
Falls (635
tons).
Owens-Brockway Glass 118 4 Washington...... 66 Longview Fibre
Container Inc. (Owens- Paper and
Brockway Glass). Packaging,
Inc.
(198 tons).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only one source emitting greater than 100 tpy in Oregon located
within 50 km of the State border is also within 50 km of a source also
emitting greater than 100 tpy in a neighboring state. The Georgia
Pacific Wauna Mill facility (discussed in the following paragraphs) is
located 1 km from the State border and 33 km from the nearest out-of-
state source emitting greater than 100 tpy, Nippon Dynawave Packaging
in Washington. The EPA believes that the distances greater than 50 km
between all remaining Oregon sources and the nearest out-of-state
source make it unlikely that SO2 emissions from these Oregon
sources could interact with SO2 emissions from these out-of-
state sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in Washington and Idaho. Further discussion of all Oregon
sources in Table 4 can be found in section III.C.2.b of this document.
2. Ambient Air Quality Data Analysis
a. State Submission
In its submission, Oregon identified SO2 monitoring
sites in the neighboring states of California, Idaho, Nevada, and
Washington that are most likely to be impacted by SO2
emissions from sources in Oregon. The submission lists each
SO2 monitoring site considered to be a potential downwind
receptor and the most recent monitoring data at the receptor.\17\
Oregon found that the 2011-2013 design value \18\ at each identified
receptor was well below the 2010 1-
[[Page 29374]]
hour SO2 NAAQS (75 ppb) and that SO2 emissions
from Oregon were therefore not significantly contributing to
nonattainment in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See page 14 (Table 2) of the submission.
\18\ The design value is a statistical representation of
SO2 in ambient air based on the 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations,
measures in parts per billion (ppb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. EPA Analysis
The EPA also evaluated ambient air quality data in Oregon and
neighboring states to determine whether there were any monitoring
sites, particularly near the Oregon border, with elevated
SO2 concentrations that might warrant further investigation
with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from emission
sources in Oregon. We reviewed the most recent SO2
monitoring data available from the EPA's Air Quality System for the
following set of receptors: (1) All monitors in Oregon; (2) the monitor
with the highest design value in each neighboring state; (3) the
monitor in each neighboring state located closest to the Oregon border;
and (4) all monitors in each neighboring state within 50 km of the
Oregon border.
The following table, Table 5, shows that the Multnomah County,
Oregon monitoring site is the only SO2 monitor in Oregon and
is within 50 km of the Oregon border. The most recent design value at
this monitor, for the years 2016-2018, is 3 ppb. This design value is
well below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (75 ppb). In addition,
all monitors identified in neighboring states are below the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ We compiled the monitoring data from the EPA's web page
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
Table 5--SO2 Design Values for Monitors in Oregon and Neighboring States \19\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance * 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018
State/county Site ID (km) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California/Contra Costa......... 060131001 433 14 14 16
California/Humboldt............. 060231004 135 1 1 1
Idaho/Ada....................... 160010010 55 4 3 3
Idaho/Pocatello................. 160050004 366 39 38 38
Nevada/Clark.................... 320030540 668 7 6 6
Nevada/Washoe................... 320310016 275 5 5 5
Oregon/Multnomah................ 410510080 12 3 3 3
Washington/Skagit............... 530570011 327 5 4 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Approximate distance to nearest Oregon border.
These air quality data do not, by themselves, indicate any
particular location that would warrant further investigation with
respect to SO2 emissions sources that might contribute
significantly to nonattainment in the neighboring states. Because the
monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all locations of
high SO2 concentrations, this observation indicates an
absence of evidence of impact at these locations but is not sufficient
evidence by itself of an absence of impact at all locations in the
neighboring states.
3. Analysis of Permit Requirements, Dispersion Modeling, and Source-
Specific Controls
As previously discussed, Oregon identified three sources (Boardman
Plant, the Wauna Mill, and the Owens-Brockway Glass facility), for
which the State reviewed existing permitting information and available
dispersion modeling, in addition to SIP-approved controls that apply to
the sources to limit SO2 emissions. In the following
paragraphs, we have summarized the source-specific analysis in the
State's submission followed by the EPA's supplemental analysis where
necessary or where new information became available after the
submission was developed.
a. State Submission
i. Boardman Plant
The Boardman Plant is a 575-megawatt coal-fired power plant
operated by Portland General Electric, located approximately 17 km from
the border with Washington. In its submission, Oregon stated that the
Boardman Plant is subject to SIP-approved SO2 controls
established to meet regional haze planning requirements for Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) (76 FR 38997, July 5, 2011). The
SIP requires the Boardman Plant to cease burning coal by December 31,
2020 and requires the use of dry sorbent injection controls to further
limit SO2 emissions from the plant during the time period
leading up to the shutdown date (2018 through 2020). Based on this
information, Oregon concluded that SO2 emissions from the
Boardman Plant will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
ii. Wauna Mill
In its submission, Oregon evaluated permit information for the
Wauna Mill including the air quality analysis conducted during the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting process for
the facility. A PSD air quality analysis assesses the predicted impacts
to ambient air associated with the construction and operation of a
proposed major source or major modification. The analysis is designed
to determine whether new emissions from a proposed major stationary
source or major modification, in conjunction with other applicable
emissions from existing sources (competing sources), will or will not
cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS. PSD
dispersion modeling is conducted at a 50 km range and includes any
portion of the range that may extend into neighboring states. In its
submission, Oregon stated that a review of the modeling concluded
predicted impacts from the Wauna Mill to ambient air were not expected
to cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS within
Oregon or in neighboring states.
iii. Owens-Brockway Glass
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. is located in Portland, Oregon,
4 km from the border with Washington. Oregon's submission stated that
Owens-Brockway Glass was evaluated during PSD analyses for other major
source permitting actions.\20\ Oregon reviewed the permitting analyses
and stated that the analyses demonstrated the proposed source's
emissions considered in conjunction with the emissions from Owens-
Brockway Glass and other
[[Page 29375]]
sources in the area do not cause or contribute to a violation of any
applicable NAAQS within the 50-km area evaluated. Oregon concluded that
this source will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See page 26 of the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. EPA Analysis
i. Boardman Plant
In accordance with the EPA's SO2 Data Requirements Rule,
Oregon characterized the Boardman Plant by conducting air dispersion
modeling. Oregon modeled the area using a receptor grid that extended
50 km from the source (which extended into the neighboring State of
Washington). Oregon's modeling accounted for allowable potential
emissions from the Boardman Plant and 11 other Oregon SO2
emissions sources in the area. The State submitted the resulting model
data to the EPA and indicated that Oregon found no modeled exceedances
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS within 50 km of the Boardman
Plant. The maximum modeled concentration was found to be 73 ppb and was
projected to occur southeast of the Boardman Plant, in the opposite
direction of the border with Washington. The State recommended the EPA
designate the area around the Boardman Plant as unclassifiable/
attainment.\21\ The EPA agreed and designated the entire State of
Oregon attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS (83 FR 1098, January 9, 2018).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See designation technical support document at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
\22\ See 40 CFR 81.338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided by the State and the additional
information available to the EPA, specifically the modeling results for
the area around the Boardman Plant, we propose to concur with the
State's conclusion that SO2 emissions from the Boardman
Plant will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
ii. Wauna Mill
The Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (Wauna Mill) is in
Clatskanie, Oregon and is located within 50 km of the Oregon border and
within 50 km of two SO2 sources emitting greater than 100
tpy in Longview, Washington. Elevated levels of SO2, to
which SO2 emitted in Oregon may have a downwind impact, are
most likely to be found near such sources. Therefore, we believe it is
appropriate to further review permit information for the Wauna Mill and
SIP-approved provisions that limit SO2 emissions from the
Wauna Mill, which we have summarized in the following paragraphs.
In 2010, the Wauna Mill was evaluated as part of the Oregon
Regional Haze Plan and determined to be a BART-eligible source. The
Wauna Mill underwent BART analysis by Oregon and elected to take
federally enforceable SO2 limits to comply with BART
requirements promulgated in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) and
approved by the EPA as part of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan.\23\ The
limits were added to the facility's title V operating permit, and to
achieve the limits, the mill permanently reduced the use of fuel oil
and limited production rates.\24\ Emissions at the Wauna Mill, as shown
in Table 3 of this document, are declining. Based on this information
and the information provided by the State, the EPA believes it is
reasonable to conclude that the Wauna Mill will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in Washington or any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Oregon Regional Haze Plan submitted on December 20,
2010, approved by the EPA on July 5, 2011 (76 FR 38897).
\24\ See title V operating permit number 04-0004-TV-01, issued
June 18, 2009 and modified on December 2, 2010, available online at:
https://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/aqpermitsonline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Portland International Airport
The Portland International Airport is located approximately 2 km
from the border with Washington. Oregon's submission did not
specifically address the airport; therefore, we have conducted our own
evaluation. In 2017, SO2 emissions at the airport totaled
approximately 215 tons, as shown in Table 4 of this document. While
these emissions are greater than some of the industrial point sources
evaluated, it is important to distinguish SO2 emissions at
an airport from those at a typical industrial point source, in part
because airport-related emissions tend to be spread across large areas
and operations, including emissions from airplanes departing from and
arriving at the airport and support vehicles that service airplanes and
transport passengers.
The distance between Portland International Airport and the nearest
out-of-state source emitting greater than 100 tons, Longview Fibre
Paper and Packaging, Inc. in Longview, Washington, is 61 km. In 2017,
Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., emitted 198 tons of
SO2. Based on the distance between these sources, it is
unlikely that SO2 emissions from Portland International
Airport could interact with SO2 emissions from Longview
Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc., in such a way as to impact a violation
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we
believe it is reasonable to conclude that SO2 emissions from
Portland International Airport will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Washington or
any other state.
iv. EP Minerals Inc.
EP Minerals Inc. operates a diatomaceous earth processing plant in
Vale, Oregon, approximately 33 km from the Idaho border. The source
emitted approximately 182 tons of SO2 in 2017, as shown in
Table 4 of this document. The State submission did not address this
source therefore, we have supplemented the State's review with the
following assessment. EP Minerals Inc. is a title V major stationary
source with kilns and dryers subject to SO2 emission
limits.\25\ The source is subject to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, as a condition of operating the source. In
addition, SIP-approved sulfur-in-fuel limits apply, as well as Federal
Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral
Industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Title V operating permit number 23-0032-TV-01, issued
September 29, 2017, available online at: https://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/aqpermitsonline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The distance between EP Minerals Inc., and the nearest out-of-state
source emitting greater than 100 tons, the Amalgamated Sugar Company in
Twin Falls, Idaho, is 286 km. In 2017, the Amalgamated Sugar Company--
Twin Falls emitted 635 tons of SO2. Based on the distance
between these sources, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions
from EP Minerals Inc., could interact with SO2 emissions
from the Amalgamated Sugar Company--Twin Falls in such a way as to
impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in that
state. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that
SO2 emissions from EP Minerals Inc., will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in Idaho or any other state.
v. Owens-Brockway Glass
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. is located in Portland, Oregon,
4 km from the border with Washington. The distance between Owens-
Brockway Glass Container Inc., and the nearest out-of-state source
emitting greater than 100 tons, the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging,
Inc., in Longview, Washington, is 66 km. In 2017, the Longview Fibre
Paper and Packaging,
[[Page 29376]]
Inc., emitted 198 tons of SO2. Based on the distance between
these sources, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions from Owens-
Brockway Glass Container Inc., could interact with SO2
emissions from the Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc in such a
way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
that state. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that
SO2 emissions from Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc., will
not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Idaho or any other state.
vi. TransAlta Central Generation Power Plant
The TransAlta Central Generation Power Plant (TransAlta) in Lewis
County, Washington, is located approximately 66 km from the Oregon-
Washington state border. TransAlta is located approximately 78 km from
the nearest source in Oregon emitting greater than 100 tons, the Wauna
Mill, which was further discussed earlier. In 2017, TransAlta emitted
1,689 tons of SO2. TransAlta was required to be
characterized pursuant the DRR by the State of Washington. The State of
Washington elected to characterize the area around TransAlta through
air dispersion modeling. In Round 3 of SO2 designations, the
EPA determined the modeling supplied by Washington was not sufficient
to determine the area as in attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA
designated Lewis and Thurston Counties in Washington as
unclassifiable.\26\ This unclassifiable area is approximately 22 km
from the Oregon-Washington border. Due to the distance between the
Wauna Mill and TransAlta, it is unlikely that SO2 emissions
from Wauna Mill could interact with SO2 emissions from
TransAlta in such a way as to impact a violation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in that state. Therefore, we believe it is
reasonable to conclude that SO2 emissions from Wauna Mill
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Washington or any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 42 Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/42-wa-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document: Chapter 42 Intended
Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/43_wa_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, for prong 1, we believe that the following factors
indicate emissions from Oregon are unlikely to impact a violation in
any other state and thus are unlikely to contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state: (1) The combination of low ambient concentrations of
SO2 in Oregon and neighboring states and the downward trend
in monitored concentrations; (2) our conclusions from our qualitative
analysis of the identified sources of SO2 emissions in
Oregon and neighboring states; (3) the downward trend in SO2
emissions from Oregon sources; (4) available modeling information for
specific SO2 point sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved
controls that limit SO2 emissions from current and future
sources. The EPA proposes, based on the information available at the
time of this rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support
the EPA's proposed determination that Oregon will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in another state. In addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for
Oregon's sources emitting over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km
of another state are at distances that make it unlikely that these
SO2 emissions could interact with SO2 emissions
from the neighboring states' sources in such a way as to contribute
significantly to nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the
downward trends in SO2 emissions and relatively low DVs for
air quality monitors in Oregon and neighboring states, combined with
federal regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting
SO2 emissions of Oregon's sources, further support the EPA's
proposed conclusion. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon
SIP revision as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 1 for
purposes of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
D. EPA Prong 2 Evaluation--Interference With Maintenance
1. Summary
Prong 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation of
the potential impact of a state's emissions on areas in other states
that are not violating the NAAQS. This evaluation is not limited to
only former nonattainment areas with EPA-approved maintenance plans,
but rather it focuses on any areas that may have trouble attaining and
maintaining the standard in the future. Our prong 2 evaluation for
Oregon builds on our analysis in the prior prong 1 evaluation,
regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1).
Specifically, as described in our prong 1 evaluation and summarized in
Table 3 of this document, we have a sufficient basis to conclude that
there are no 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS violations in other
states near their shared borders with Oregon. Moreover, we have a
sufficient basis to conclude that SO2 emissions from sources
in Oregon are highly unlikely to increase sufficiently to alter this
situation, given the SIP-approved controls limiting emissions from
large sources near the border.
2. Emissions Trends
Statewide SO2 emissions from Oregon sources have
decreased substantially over time, as shown in the preceding Table 2 of
this document.\27\ From 2002 to 2014, total statewide SO2
emissions decreased by approximately 72 percent. This trend of
decreasing SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that
areas in Oregon and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this
weight of evidence analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication
(when considered alongside low monitor values in neighboring states)
that such maintenance issues are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See additional emissions trends data at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. SIP-Approved New Source Review Program
The EPA notes that any future major sources of SO2
emissions will be addressed by Oregon's SIP-approved PSD program.\28\
Future minor sources of SO2 emissions will be addressed by
Oregon's SIP-approved minor new source review permit program.\29\ The
EPA believes that the permitting regulations contained within these
programs should help ensure that ambient concentrations of
SO2 in neighboring states are not exceeded as a result of
new facility construction or modification occurring in Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The EPA recently approved revisions to the Oregon new
source review permitting programs on October 11, 2017 (82 FR 47122).
\29\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, for prong 2, we reviewed the technical information
considered for interstate transport prong 1, additional information
about emission trends, as well as the requirements of Oregon's SIP-
approved new source review program. We believe that the following
factors indicate emissions from Oregon will not interfere
[[Page 29377]]
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state: (1) The combination of low ambient concentrations of
SO2 in Oregon and neighboring states and the downward trend
in monitored concentrations; (2) our conclusions from our qualitative
analysis of the identified sources of SO2 emissions; (3) the
downward trend in SO2 emissions from Oregon sources; (4)
available modeling information for specific SO2 point
sources in Oregon; and (5) SIP-approved controls that limit
SO2 emissions from current and future sources. The EPA
proposes, based on the information available at the time of this
rulemaking, that these factors, taken together, support the EPA's
proposed determination that Oregon will not interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state. In
addition, 2017 SO2 emissions for Oregon's sources emitting
over 100 tons of SO2 within 50 km of another state are at
distances that make it unlikely that these SO2 emissions
could interact with SO2 emissions from the neighboring
states' sources in such a way as to contribute significantly to
nonattainment in neighboring states. Finally, the downward trends in
SO2 emissions and relatively low DVs for air quality
monitors in Oregon and neighboring states, combined with federal
regulations and SIP-approved regulations affecting SO2
emissions of Oregon's sources, further support the EPA's proposed
conclusion. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the Oregon SIP as
meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prong 2 for purposes of the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the October 20, 2015, Oregon SIP
submission as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing this approval based on our review of the
information and analysis provided by Oregon in the State's submission,
as well as additional relevant information, which indicates that in-
State air emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in any other state. This action is being taken under section 110 of the
CAA.
V. 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. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 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:
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 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 it 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).
The proposed SIP would not be approved to 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law 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 dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 7, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-10228 Filed 5-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
