Air Plan Approval; WA; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 45146-45154 [2020-15399]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45146
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 144 / Monday, July 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0590; FRL–10009–
70–Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; WA; Interstate
Transport Requirements for the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
Table of Contents
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission from the State of
Washington (Washington)
demonstrating that the SIP meets certain
Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport
requirements for the 2010 1-hour Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). In this
action, EPA is proposing to determine
that emissions from sources in
Washington will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
Washington’s February 7, 2018 SIP
submission as meeting the interstate
transport requirements for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 26, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2016–0590, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
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. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jul 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
John
Chi, EPA Region 10 Air and Radiation
Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98101, (206)–553–1185, chi.john@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to EPA. Information is
organized as follows:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations
Background
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2
Interstate Transport SIPs
III. State Submission
IV. EPA’s Analysis
A. Prong 1 Evaluation
B. Prong 2 Evaluation
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
On June 2, 2010, 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.1
The CAA requires each state to submit,
within 3 years after promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS, SIPs meeting
the applicable infrastructure elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these
applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to
contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to
prohibit certain adverse air quality
effects on neighboring states due to
interstate transport of pollution.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four
distinct components, commonly
referred to as prongs, that must be
addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs,
codified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain
adequate provisions that prohibit any
source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from contributing
significantly to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in any other state (prong 1) and
from interfering with maintenance of
the NAAQS in any other state (prong 2).
The remaining prongs, codified at CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to
contain adequate provisions that
prohibit emissions activity 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).
PO 00000
1 75
FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
In this action, EPA is proposing to
approve the prong 1 and prong 2
portions of the Washington’s February
7, 2018 SIP submission because, based
on the information available at the time
of this rulemaking, Washington
demonstrated that it will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
any other state. All other applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for this
SIP submission will be addressed in
separate rulemakings.
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
Designations Background
In this action, EPA has considered
information from the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS designations process, as
discussed in more detail in Section III
of this preamble. For this reason, a brief
summary of EPA’s designations process
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
included here.2
After the promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, 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
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, EPA has the authority
to extend the deadline for completing
designations by up to one year.
EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2010. See 75 FR
35520 (June 22, 2010). 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
2 While designations may provide useful
information for purposes of analyzing transport,
particularly for a more source-specific pollutant
such as SO2, EPA notes that designations
themselves are not dispositive of whether or not
upwind emissions are impacting areas in
downwind states. 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.’’
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 144 / Monday, July 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
states as nonattainment for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191
(August 5, 2013). EPA signed Federal
Register actions of promulgation for a
second round of designations 4 (‘‘round
2’’) June 30, 2016 (81 FR 45039 (July 12,
2016)) and on November 29, 2016 (81
FR 89870 (December 13, 2016)), and a
third round of designations (‘‘round 3’’)
on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098
(January 9, 2018)).5
On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052),
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 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.
EPA expected that the information
generated by implementation of the DRR
would help inform designations for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
In ‘‘round 3’’ of designations, EPA
designated Lewis and Thurston counties
in Washington as unclassifiable for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Washington
selected the monitoring pathway
pursuant to the DRR for the areas
surrounding two sources in Chelan and
Douglas, and Whatcom counties. These
areas will be designated in a fourth
round of designations (‘‘round 4’’) by
December 31, 2020. The remaining
counties in Washington were designated
as attainment/unclassifiable in round
3.6
4 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 EPA’s website for SO2
designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxidedesignations.
5 Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case
No. 3:13–cv–3953–SI (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2015).
This consent decree requires EPA to sign for
publication in the Federal Register documents of
the Agency’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’’).
6 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jul 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 that EPA has adopted for
ozone or 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, 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, 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.7
As such, 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.
III. State Submission
On February 7, 2018, the Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology)
submitted a SIP to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prongs 1 and 2, of the
‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions, for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-08/documents/43_wa_so2_
rd3-final.pdf.
7 For the definition of spatial scales for SO ,
2
please see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4
(‘‘Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria’’). For further
discussion on how EPA is applying these
definitions with respect to interstate transport of
SO2, see EPA’s proposal on Connecticut’s SO2
transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45147
2010 SO2 NAAQS.8 The submission
concluded that SO2 emissions from
sources in Washington will not
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state. Washington
arrived at this conclusion after (1)
reviewing SO2 emissions sources, (2)
identifying downwind monitoring sites
as potential receptors in neighboring
states, (3) conducting an emissions over
distance (Q/D) analysis, (4) evaluating
available SO2 modeling results for
specific sources, and (5) reviewing the
current SIP for existing federallyapproved controls that limit SO2
emissions from existing and future
sources.
Emissions Sources
Washington reviewed preliminary
2014 emissions inventory data (the most
recent data available at the time the
submission was developed).9 Point
sources, including electrical utilities
and industrial sources, account for the
largest anthropogenic sources of SO2
emissions as shown in Table 1.
Washington’s port and shipping
activities account for the second highest
source category, after point sources.
Washington’s conclusions about this
source sector are also further discussed
in a later section of this document.
TABLE 1—PRELIMINARY 2014 EMISSIONS INVENTORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC SO2 SOURCES IN WASHINGTON 10
Source category
Point sources ........................
Commercial marine vessels
Silvicultural burning ..............
Industrial, commercial, institutional combustion ...........
On-road mobile .....................
Emissions
(short tons)
14,510
11,316
1,177
1,095
591
Receptors in Neighboring States
The submission identified SO2
monitoring sites in Idaho and Oregon,
which are the only two states that
border Washington. These monitoring
sites were selected as downwind
receptors and further evaluated for
8 The February 7, 2018 SIP submission also
addressed the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA approved
the ozone-related portion of the SIP submission on
September 20, 2018 (83 FR 47568).
9 In Section III of this preamble, we have
reviewed more recent data released as part of the
2017 National Emissions Inventory.
10 The top five categories and emissions numbers
in table 1 are re-printed from page 9 (Table 5) of
the Washington State Implementation Plan Revision
Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone,
February 2018, publication 18–02–005, in the
docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
45148
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 144 / Monday, July 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
potential impacts from Washington SO2
sources. The submission included a
table of downwind receptor monitored
values for 2012 through 2016 (the most
recent data available at the time the
submission was developed). The data
presented in Table 2 is the 99th
percentile of the annual distribution of
daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations at the identified
receptors, in parts per billion (ppb).
TABLE 2—99TH PERCENTILE FOR THE 2010 SO2 NAAQS AT IDENTIFIED DOWNWIND RECEPTORS (PPB) 11
County
Site ID
Ada County, ID ................................................................................
Bannock County, ID .........................................................................
Caribou County, ID ..........................................................................
Multnomah County, OR ...................................................................
The submission included a spatial
analysis of these receptor locations
relative to the Washington State border,
and relative to stationary sources in
Washington that are located within 50
kilometers (km) of each receptor. After
mapping the identified downwind
receptors, the Washington Department
of Ecology found that the Multnomah
County, Oregon receptor (Site ID
41051008), which is the National Core
(NCore) site located in the Portland
metropolitan area, warranted further
analysis because (1) it is within 50 km
of the Washington border and because
(2) four Washington SO2 point sources
are within a 50-km radius of the
Multnomah County receptor. The
submission states that the sources
within the 50-km radius are small (three
of the four sources emitted less than 10
tons SO2 in 2014, and the fourth source
emitted 17 tons in 2014). In addition,
the Multnomah County receptor has
historically monitored low 1-hour SO2
99th percentile values, as shown in the
prior table.
160010010
160050004
160290031
410510080
2012
2013
6
73
35
10
Washington identified two
Washington SO2 sources with annual
emissions greater than 100 tons within
50 km of the Washington border. These
two sources, Weyerhaeuser NR
Company and Longview Fibre, are pulp
and paper plants. Washington further
evaluated these sources to assess
whether they may have a potential
impact on the Multnomah County
receptor. The State reviewed monitoring
data, local weather data, and regional
emissions modeling and found it is
reasonable to conclude that most of the
SO2 monitored at the Multnomah
County receptor originates within the
Portland metropolitan area of Oregon.12
Washington proceeded to conduct an
emissions-to-distance analysis of point
sources (including Weyerhaeuser NR
Company and Longview Fibre) as
described in the following section.
Washington also reviewed SO2
emissions from commercial marine
vessels operating at several Washington
ports. Washington asserted that SO2
emissions from western-Washington
2014
11
40
31
5
2015
5
38
23
3
2016
3
45
23
4
4
33
32
3
ports are not likely to impact the
Multnomah County receptor (nor the
Idaho receptors) in part because the
ports are located over 50 km from the
Oregon border and also because the port
emissions are spread across large areas,
vessels, and operations, as opposed to
emissions from stationary point
sources.13
Emissions-to-Distance Analysis
The submission included an
emissions-to-distance (Q/D) analysis
used to prioritize point sources with
potential impact on the closest receptor
in a neighboring state. Q/D is a common
screening technique used to estimate
potential visibility impacts for purposes
of Regional Haze planning and to
analyze predicted air quality impacts in
the context of major stationary source
permitting in areas designated
attainment and unclassifiable
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permitting). The submission
included the following table of Q/D
results.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 3—EMISSIONS-TO-DISTANCE (Q/D) RESULTS 14
Distance
to border
(km)
Distance
to receptor
(km)
2014 SO2
(short tons) 15
Facility
Type
County
TransAlta Centralia General
LLC.
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco
Works.
Alcoa Primary Metals
Wenatchee Works.
Weyerhaeuser NR Company ...
BP Cherry Point Refinery .........
Longview Fibre .........................
Boise Paper ..............................
RockTenn Mill Tacoma ............
Cosmo Specialty Fibers ...........
Puget Sound Refining Company.
Electricity Generation via Combustion.
Primary Aluminum Plant ..........
Lewis ...............
68
141
3,037
21.5
Whatcom ........
292
373
4,794
12.9
Primary Aluminum Plan ...........
Chelan ............
164
281
2,935
10.5
Pulp and Paper Plant ..............
Petroleum Refinery ..................
Pulp and Paper Plant ..............
Pulp and Paper Plant ..............
Pulp and Paper Plant ..............
Pulp and Paper Plant ..............
Petroleum Refinery ..................
Cowlitz ............
Whatcom .........
Cowlitz ............
Walla Walla .....
Pierce .............
Grays Harbor ..
Skagit ..............
1
296
1
150
131
75
255
76
377
72
100
197
185
331
440
917
141
186
261
237
347
5.8
2.4
2.0
1.85
1.3
1.3
1.0
11 The values in table 2 are re-printed from page
8 (Tables 3 and 4) of the Washington State
Implementation Plan Revision Interstate Transport
of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February 2018,
publication 18–02–005, in the docket for this
action. These are 99th percentile values, rounded to
the nearest whole number.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jul 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
12 See page 13–14 of the Washington State
Implementation Plan Revision Interstate Transport
of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February 2018,
publication 18–02–005, in the docket for this
action.
13 Ibid.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Q/D
14 Ibid. Table was from the SIP submittal with
added sources.
15 Most recent emissions data available at the time
the State developed the submission. In Section III
of this preamble, we have reviewed more recent
data released as part of the 2017 National Emissions
Inventory.
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
45149
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 144 / Monday, July 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The TransAlta Centralia Generation
facility was the only source that
exceeded Washington’s threshold ratio
of 20 for the Q/D analysis (Q/D = 21.5).
As a result, it was the only source that
Washington evaluated further following
the Q/D analysis.
Available SO2 Modeling Results
In the SIP submission, Washington
explained their review of published
modeling data for the TransAlta facility
and indicated that the modeling showed
limited SO2 impact outside of the
immediate area of the facility.16
Washington also provided plume
modeling data that indicated the
facility’s SO2 plume distributes toward
the south but would not be expected to
reach the area near the Multnomah
County receptor in any significant
concentration.17 Washington further
explained that the facility has SO2
emissions at the facility of less than
1,350 pounds per hour as of December
15, 2016.18 Based on this information,
Washington concluded that the
TransAlta facility does not significantly
contribute to SO2 emissions at the
Multnomah County Receptor.
Existing and Future SO2 Controls
Washington reviewed current and
future enforceable emission limits and
controls that apply to SO2 sources in
Washington. Most of the limits and
control requirements referenced have
been approved into the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 52,
subpart WW, including the SIP and
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
requirements related to Regional Haze
best available retrofit technology
(BART). These provisions and others
listed below are designed to limit SO2
emissions from existing and future
sources in the State:
• 40 CFR 52.2470(c) reasonably
available control technology
requirements (Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) 90.94.154 and
Chapter 173–400 Washington
Administrative Code (WAC))
• 40 CFR 52.2470(c) kraft pulp mill
regulations (173–405 WAC)
• 40 CFR 52.2470(c) sulfite pulp mill
regulations (173–410 WAC)
• 40 CFR 52.2470(c) primary aluminum
smelter regulations (173–415 WAC)
• 40 CFR 52.2470(c) pre-construction
permitting (WAC 173–400–111 and
720)
• 40 CFR 52.2470(c) gasoline vapor and
volatile organic compound emission
regulations (173–490 and 491 WAC)
• 40 CFR 52.2470(d) BART
requirements for TransAlta Centralia
(coal units BW21 and BW22 will
permanently cease burning coal and
be decommissioned by December 31,
2020 and December 31, 2025,
respectively) 19
• 40 CFR 52.2470(d) BART
requirements for BP Cherry Point
Refinery
• 40 CFR 52.2500 BART requirements
for ALCOA Primary Metals Intalco
Works
• 40 CFR 52.2501 BART requirements
for Tesoro Petroleum Refinery
• 40 CFR 52.2502 BART requirements
for ALCOA Primary Metals
Wenatchee Works
Based on their analysis of monitoring
and emissions data, the Q/D analysis,
and current and future SO2 controls,
Washington concluded that SO2
emissions from sources in Washington
will not contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
Therefore, Washington requested EPA
approval of the submission for purposes
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.
IV. EPA’s Analysis
EPA first reviewed the Washington
submission to assess how the State
evaluated interstate transport of SO2, the
types of information Washington used
in the analysis, and the conclusions
drawn by the State. We then conducted
a weight of evidence analysis to
determine if we agree with the State’s
conclusion that SO2 emissions from
sources in Washington will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
any other state.
A. Prong 1 Evaluation
Washington’s submission focused on
one downwind receptor and a relatively
limited source-oriented and spatial
evaluation of potential transport based
on an emissions-to-distance analysis. As
a result of the emissions-to-distance
analysis, Washington reviewed one
source, TransAlta, for potential
transport. TransAlta is located
approximately 70 km from the state
border with Oregon.20
EPA has performed a supplemental
analysis to more fully evaluate sources
in Washington for potential transport to
neighboring states. In our analysis we
reviewed: (1) Emissions inventory data
and emissions trends for point sources
in Washington emitting greater than 100
tpy; (2) SO2 ambient air quality data;
and (3) spatial analysis of point sources
located within 50 km of the Washington
state border.
1. Point Source Emissions Inventory
Data
First, we compiled a list of
Washington point sources emitting over
100 tons per year of SO2 according to
the 2017 NEI. Then, we added 2008,
2011, and 2014 NEI data, for reference,
as listed in Table 4.
TABLE 4—TRENDS IN SO2 EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR) FROM POINT SOURCES IN WASHINGTON 21
Facility
Type
County
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Works
TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC
Primary Aluminum Plant ..................
Electricity Generation via Combustion.
Primary Aluminum Plant ..................
Whatcom .............
Lewis ...................
4,523
2,318
4,538
1,136
4,794
3,037
3,987
1,689
Chelan ................
1,810
2,906
2,935
................
Petroleum Refinery ..........................
Whatcom .............
1,764
1,007
917
808
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Alcoa Primary Metals Wenatchee
Works*.
BP Cherry Point Refinery .................
16 See page 12 of the Washington State
Implementation Plan Revision Interstate Transport
of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February 2018,
publication 18–02–005, in the docket for this
action.
17 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2017-01/documents/
ecologytechnicalreporttransaltaso2modelingresults
2017.pdf.
18 https://www.swcleanair.org/docs/permits/
prelim/16-3202ADP.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jul 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
19 The submission references Southwest Clean
Air Agency Regulatory Order 16–32 dated
December 15, 2016. This regulatory order was not
submitted for approval and is therefore not
addressed in this action.
20 As mentioned in Section I.B of this preamble,
EPA designated the area containing TransAlta,
Lewis and Thurston counties in Washington, as
Unclassifiable in Round 3 of SO2 designations.
Washington submitted modeling for the area,
however, EPA identified deficiencies with the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2008
2011
2014
2017
modeling as the basis for the Unclassifiable
designation. This Unclassifiable area boundary is
within 50 km of the Washington state border,
however, the only source emitting over 100 tpy in
the area, TransAlta, is located more than 50 km
from the state border. Given the distance between
TransAlta and the state border, EPA did not
evaluate this source further for potential transport.
21 2011, 2014, and 2017 National Emissions
Inventory data for point sources available at https://
www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
45150
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 144 / Monday, July 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—TRENDS IN SO2 EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR) FROM POINT SOURCES IN WASHINGTON 21—Continued
Facility
Type
County
2008
2011
2014
2017
Boise Paper ......................................
Weyerhaeuser
NR
Company
(Nippon Dynawave).
Puget Sound Refining Company .....
Longview Fibre .................................
WestRock Tacoma Mill ....................
Cosmo Specialty Fibers ...................
Sea-Tac International Airport ...........
Chemtrade ........................................
Pulp and Paper Plant ......................
Pulp and Paper Plant ......................
Wallula ................
Cowlitz ................
780
512
793
582
186
440
885
390
Petroleum Refinery ..........................
Pulp and Paper Plant ......................
Pulp and Paper Plant ......................
Pulp and Paper Plant ......................
Airport ..............................................
Chemical Plant .................................
Skagit ..................
Cowlitz ................
Pierce ..................
Grays Harbor ......
King .....................
Skagit ..................
450
281
635
—
192
123
359
202
349
214
243
155
347
141
261
237
261
215
225
197
189
242
506
203
Total ..........................................
..........................................................
.............................
13,388
12,484
13,771
9,321
* Curtailed since 2015.
The NEI data from 2008 to 2017 show
decreases in SO2 emissions from certain
sources, including two petroleum
refineries: BP Cherry Point and Puget
Sound Refining Company. The data in
Table 4 also show a mix of slight
increases and decreases at some large
pulp and paper plants and other sources
categories.
2. SO2 Ambient Air Quality Data
Information from SO2 monitors near
the borders between Washington and its
neighboring states of Idaho and Oregon
is also useful context for evaluating
whether the SIP submission from
Washington satisfies prong 1. Tables 5
and 6 below summarize this SO2
monitoring information for monitors in
Washington and the bordering states of
Idaho and Oregon. We note that there
are only two monitors within
approximately 50 km of the Washington
State border, and both monitors are
located outside of the State (in Idaho
and Oregon).
TABLE 5—TRENDS IN 3-YEAR SO2 DESIGN VALUES (PPB) FOR AQS MONITORS IN WASHINGTON 22
∼ Distance
to border
(km)
Site ID
Site name
530570011 ......
530090013 ......
Anacortes-202 O Ave .....
Cheeka Peak ..................
263
240
530730013 ......
530730017 ......
Ferndale-Kickerville Rd ...
Ferndale-Mountain View
Rd.
Malaga-Malaga Highway
Seattle-Beacon Hill .........
293
294
530070012 ......
530330080 ......
228
167
2013–2015
2014–2016
2015–2017
5 ......................................
2 ......................................
incomplete ......................
invalid ..............................
invalid ..............................
5 ......................................
2 ......................................
invalid ..............................
invalid ..............................
4
1
incomplete
invalid
invalid
invalid ..............................
6 ......................................
incomplete ......................
invalid ..............................
5 ......................................
incomplete ......................
invalid
6
incomplete
incomplete = Design value calculated based on data that does not meet completeness criteria.
invalid = Insufficient data collected to determine a valid 3-year design value.
TABLE 6—TRENDS IN 99TH PERCENTILE VALUES (PPB) FOR AQS MONITORS IN WASHINGTON 23
Site ID
530570011
530090013
530730013
530730017
530070012
530330080
∼ Distance
to border
(km)
Site name
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
Anacortes-202 O Ave ..........................................................
Cheeka Peak .......................................................................
Ferndale-Kickerville Rd* ......................................................
Ferndale-Mountain View Rd* ..............................................
Malaga-Malaga Highway** ..................................................
Seattle-Beacon Hill ..............................................................
2017
263
240
293
294
228
167
2018
3
1
70
114
1
6
2019
2
1
74
101
1
8
3
1
70
105
1
6
* These two monitors are source-oriented monitors that began operating in early 2017 to characterize air quality around Alcoa Intalco Works.
** This monitor is a source-oriented monitor that began operating in early 2017 to characterize air quality around Alcoa Wenatchee Works.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 7—TREND IN 3-YEAR SO2 DESIGN VALUES (PPB) FOR AQS MONITORS SURROUNDING WASHINGTON 24
∼ Distance to
Border
Site ID
County
160010010 .....
Ada County, Idaho ...........................
55
160050004 .....
Bannock County, Idaho ....................
489
22 Data obtained on 11/13/2019 at https://
www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jul 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
2013–2015
7 ........................................................
incomplete ........................................
41 ......................................................
23 Data obtained on 4/16/2020 at https://
www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitorvalues-report.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
2014–2016
Sfmt 4702
2015–2017
4
3
39
38
24 Data obtained from EPA’s Outdoor Air Quality
Database (11/13/2019).
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
45151
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 144 / Monday, July 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—TREND IN 3-YEAR SO2 DESIGN VALUES (PPB) FOR AQS MONITORS SURROUNDING WASHINGTON 24—
Continued
∼ Distance to
Border
Site ID
County
160290031 .....
410510080 .....
Caribou County, Idaho .....................
Multnomah County, Oregon .............
558
12
2013–2015
2014–2016
26 ......................................................
4 ........................................................
2015–2017
26
3
30
3
incomplete = Design value calculated based on data that does not meet completeness criteria.
Except for the Anacortes monitor,
Washington SO2 monitors have either
incomplete or invalid data during the
last three design value periods.25
However, in Table 6 of this document,
we’ve included the 99th percentile
values for these monitors in Washington
as additional evidence that, generally,
statewide monitored values are below
the level of the NAAQS.
Three new SO2 monitors were
established in Washington in early
2017. These three monitors were
established to characterize two sources
for purposes of the SO2 Data
Requirements Rule (DRR), namely Alcoa
Primary Metals Intalco Works and Alcoa
Wenatchee Works. These areas will be
designated in Round 4 of SO2
designations. The data from these
monitors (Site IDs 530730013,
530730017, and 530070012) was
required to be certified by the State as
valid, 3-year design values by May 1,
2020. One of these monitors is recording
exceedances of the NAAQS. However,
we note that all three monitors (and the
sources they were sited to characterize)
are over 200 km away from the
Washington border with neighboring
states and are therefore not likely to
have an adverse impact on air quality in
the neighboring states of Idaho and
Oregon.
Valid, complete data is available for
the SO2 monitors in Idaho and Oregon,
and design values are well below the
level of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as shown
in Table 7 of this document. As
described, there are no Washington
monitors located within 50 km of a
neighboring state’s border, however,
there are two monitors in neighboring
states located within approximately 50
km of the Washington border, and these
monitors recorded SO2 design values
well below the level of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS for the most recent valid design
value periods. These monitored values
do not, alone, indicate any particular
location that would warrant further
investigation with respect to SO2
emission sources that might
significantly contribute to
nonattainment in the neighboring states.
However, because the monitoring
network is not necessarily designed to
capture all locations of high SO2
concentrations, this observation
indicates an absence of evidence of
impact at these locations and is
insufficient to capture the impact at all
locations in the neighboring states.
Therefore, we have also conducted a
source-oriented analysis.
3. Spatial Analysis of Point Sources
As noted, EPA has determined that it
is appropriate to examine the impacts of
emissions from stationary sources 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. As a
result, we evaluated point sources of up
to 50 km from the state border for
emissions trends and SO2
concentrations in areawide air quality.
In the absence of special factors, for
example the presence of nearby larger
sources or unusual factors, sources
emitting less than 100 tons per year SO2
can be appropriately presumed to not be
significantly contributing to SO2
concentrations above the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. The list of sources emitting
100 tons per year or more of SO2, based
on 2017 point source data, within 50 km
of the Washington state border, are
shown in Table 8.
TABLE 8—SOURCES WITHIN 50 KM OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BORDER WITH SO2 EMISSIONS GREATER THAN 100 TPY
AND NEAREST NEIGHBORING STATE SOURCES
2017 SO2
Emissions
(tons)
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Sources
Weyerhaeuser NR Company—
Longview, Washington.
Longview Fibre—Longview, Washington.
Boise Paper—Wallula, Washington.
Portland International Airport—
Portland, Oregon.
Owens-Brockway Glass Container
Inc.—Portland Oregon.
PGE Boardman—Boardman, Oregon.
Wauna
Mill—Paper
Mill—
Clatskanie, Oregon.
25 To be comparable to the NAAQS, the design
value must be valid according to appendix T to 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jul 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
Distance from
the Border
(km)
Neighboring State
Neighboring State Source
(Distance Between the Sources)
Wauna
Mill—Paper
Mill—
Clatskanie, Oregon (33 km).
Wauna
Mill—Paper
Mill—
Clatskanie, Oregon (38 km).
PGE Boardman—Boardman, Oregon (82 km).
Longview
Fibre—Longview,
Washington (62 km).
Longview
Fibre—Longview,
Washington (66 km).
Boise Paper—Wallula, Washington (82).
Weyerhaeuser NR Company—
Longview, Washington (33).
390
1
Oregon ..................
197
1
Oregon ..................
885
11
Oregon ..................
215
2
Washington ...........
118
4
Washington ...........
3298
17
Washington ...........
540
<1
Washington ...........
CFR part 50 which specifies minimum data
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2017 SO2
Emissions of
Neighboring
State Source
(tons)
completeness criteria for the 1-hour 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
540
540
3298
197
197
885
390
45152
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 144 / Monday, July 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The Washington sources listed are of
interest with respect to SO2 transport
because of the possibility that they are
causing a violation of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in their locality that extends
into a neighboring state. There is also
the possibility of emissions from one or
more of these sources in Washington
and emissions from a source in a
neighboring state interacting in such a
way as to contribute significantly to a
violation in the neighboring state. As
such, we have also included sources in
neighboring states within 50 km of the
Washington state border as part of this
analysis. The prior table shows the
distance from each of the sources listed
therein to the nearest source across the
Washington state border emitting above
100 tons per year of SO2. Generally, a
greater distance between two sources
reduces the likelihood that their
emissions could interact in such a way
as to contribute significantly to a
violation in the neighboring state. Given
the localized range of potential 1-hour
SO2 impacts, sources which are greater
than 50 km from each other would not
warrant further investigation with
respect to Washington SO2 emission
sources that might contribute to
problems with attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states. As
shown, there are two sources in
Washington which are within 50
kilometers from a source in a
neighboring state; Weyerhaeuser NR
Company and Longview Fibre in
Longview, Washington, located 33 and
38 km respectively, from the Wauna
Mill in Clatskanie, Oregon. Therefore,
we have evaluated these sources further.
Longview, Washington, and
Clatskanie, Oregon, comprise a crossborder, uncombined metropolitan area.
Currently, EPA does not have
monitoring or modeling information to
indicate a violation or elevated SO2
concentrations in this area. Given the
distance between the cross-state sources
(over 30 km), the declining emissions at
the sources in Longview, Washington,
as demonstrated in Table 4 of this
document, and the lack of evidence of
violations or elevated SO2
concentrations in the area; it is unlikely
that emissions from the two sources in
Longview, Washington, could interact
with emissions from the Wauna Mill in
Clatskanie, Oregon, in such a way as to
adversely impact a violation of the SO2
NAAQS in Oregon. Based on these
factors, we propose to concur with the
state’s conclusion that SO2 emissions
from sources in Longview, Washington,
will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in the neighboring state of Oregon.
EPA has also evaluated PGE
Boardman, a DRR source located within
50 km of the Washington border. PGE
Boardman is located in Boardman,
Oregon, and, as shown in Table 8 of this
document, the nearest source in
Washington is Boise Paper in Wallula,
Washington. Although these sources are
located 82 km apart, and it is unlikely
that their emissions could interact in
such a way as to contribute significantly
to violations in the neighboring state,
because emissions from PGE Boardman
near the Washington border are over
3000 tons per year, we have further
evaluated the source. The State of
Oregon modeled the area surrounding
the facility, and the details are
summarized in Table 9.
TABLE 9—OTHER STATES’ SOURCES WITH DRR MODELING LOCATED WITHIN 50 KM OF WASHINGTON
County
(state)
DRR source
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
PGE
Boardman 26.
Approximate
Distance From
Source
to Washington
Border (km)
Morrow
(OR).
17
The State submitted the resulting
model data to EPA and indicated that
Oregon found no modeled exceedances
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS within 50 km
of the Boardman Plant. The State
recommended EPA designate the area
around the Boardman Plant as
unclassifiable/attainment. EPA agreed
and designated the entire State of
Oregon attainment/unclassifiable for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS (83 FR 1098, January
9, 2018).27
26 See Technical Support Document: Chapter 34
Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jul 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
Other facilities
included in modeling
Modeled 99th percentile daily
maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration
(ppb)
Model grid extends into
another state?
11 sources in Oregon:
Columbia Ridge Landfill, PGE Boardman
Carty Plant, ConAgra
Foods Lamb Weston,
Inc., TMF Biofuels,
LLC, Hermiston Power
LLC, Hermiston Generating Company, Perennial-Windchaser
LLC, Oregon Potato
Company, Finley BioEnergy LLC, Gas
Transmission Northwest LLC, Finley
Buttes Landfill.
73 (based on PTE emissions) ...........
Yes, into WA (portions of
Benton, Klickitat and
Yakima Counties,
WA).
Furthermore, Oregon’s SIP requires
PGE Boardman to implement a phased
reduction of operation and cease coalfired operation by December 31, 2020.
Based on this analysis, as well as the
modeling results for the area around the
Boardman plant and the federally
enforceable emissions reductions
planned for the facility, we propose to
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.
27 See 40 CFR 81.338.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
concur with the State’s conclusion that
SO2 emissions from sources in
Washington will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in the area in Oregon
surrounding the PGE Boardman facility.
This spatial analysis of point sources
within 50 km of the Washington border,
including available modeling results,
weighed along with the other factors in
this document, support EPA’s proposed
conclusion that sources in Washington
will not adversely impact air quality so
as to significantly contribute to
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 144 / Monday, July 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state. Furthermore,
EPA does not have any evidence of any
violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in the neighboring states to
which SO2 emissions from Washington
could significantly contribute.
Based on our review of the
Washington submission and our weight
of evidence analysis, we propose to
conclude that sources in Washington
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in any other state, per the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Prong 2 Evaluation
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
may have trouble attaining and
maintaining the NAAQS in the future.
Approval of a SIP for prong 2 requires
a conclusion that SO2 emissions from
the State’s sources will not interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
Our prong 2 evaluation for
Washington builds on our analysis
regarding significant contribution to
nonattainment (prong 1). Specifically, as
explained in Section IV.A of this
preamble, we have a sufficient basis to
conclude that there are no NAAQS
violations in other states near their
shared borders with Washington (Idaho
and Oregon) and accordingly, we are
proposing that sources in Washington
are not significantly contributing to a
violation of the NAAQS in any of those
states. As explained in this section, we
also have a sufficient basis for
concluding that SO2 emissions from
sources in Washington and other states
near their shared borders are highly
unlikely to increase sufficiently to alter
this situation. Therefore, we are
proposing to find that SO2 levels in
neighboring states (Idaho and Oregon)
near the Washington border will
continue to be at or below the level of
the SO2 NAAQS.
As presented in Table 4 in Section
IV.A of this preamble, SO2 emissions
from larger point sources in Washington
have decreased by approximately 30
percent between 2008 and 2017. This
information on point source SO2
emissions trends does not by itself
demonstrate that SO2 emissions in the
near-border areas in Washington and
neighboring states will not impact
neighboring states. However, as a
component of our weight of evidence
analysis for prong 2, it provides an
indication that such an increase is
unlikely.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jul 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
As described in the Washington
Department of Ecology submission and
summarized in Section II of this
preamble, there are multiple provisions
in the Washington SIP designed to
control and limit SO2 emissions from
existing Washington sources. Future
stationary sources of SO2 emissions are
subject to Washington’s SIP-approved
pre-construction permitting program,
also known as New Source Review. New
Source Review for major stationary
sources in areas designated
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
is called nonattainment New Source
Review (NNSR) and requires lowest
achievable emission rates and offsets in
accordance with the SIP-approved
NNSR program for Washington State.
New Source Review for major stationary
sources in attainment and unclassifiable
areas is called Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and requires that
best available control technology be
applied to any new major source or
major modification of a major source.
Washington’s SIP-approved PSD
program requires that new or modified
major sources in attainment and
unclassifiable areas do not interfere
with maintenance in any other state, in
accordance with federal regulations set
forth in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(1). See 40 CFR
52.2497.
Turning to minor sources, such
sources are covered by the State’s SIPapproved minor new source review
permitting program. In accordance with
40 CFR 51.160 through 164, subject
sources may not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS. We note that the neighboring
states of Idaho and Oregon also have
SIP-approved PSD and minor source
permitting programs. See 40 CFR 52.683
and 52.1987, respectively. The
permitting regulations contained within
these programs are designed to ensure
that ambient concentrations of SO2 in
the neighboring states of Idaho or
Oregon are not exceeded as a result of
new facility construction or
modifications occurring in the nearborder areas of these states.
In conclusion, for interstate transport
prong 2, EPA has incorporated
additional information about emissions
trends as well as the technical
information considered for interstate
transport prong 1, into our evaluation of
Washington’s submission, which did
not include an independent analysis of
prong 2. We find that the large distances
between cross-state SO2 sources,
combined with an overall reduction in
SO2 emissions from larger Washington
sources and SIP-approved measures
designed to control and limit emissions
from SO2 sources in Washington, Idaho,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
45153
and Oregon, taken along with the other
factors considered in this document
support EPA’s proposed conclusion that
there will be no interference with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states from sources in
Washington. Based on our weight of
evidence analysis, we propose to
conclude that sources in Washington
will not interfere with maintenance of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state,
per the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
V. Proposed Action
As discussed in Section III of this
preamble, Washington concluded that
SO2 emissions from the State will not
significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
any other state. EPA’s analysis,
discussed in Section IV of this
preamble, confirms this finding.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve
the Washington SIP as meeting CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal
regulations.28 Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, 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 actions such as SIP
approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
28 42
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
27JYP1
45154
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 144 / Monday, July 27, 2020 / Proposed Rules
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of the requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does
not apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 10, 2020.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020–15399 Filed 7–24–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0678; FRL–10011–
93–Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Plans for Designated Facilities and
Pollutants: City of Philadelphia and
District of Columbia
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Jul 24, 2020
Jkt 250001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
negative declarations submitted to
satisfy the requirements of the Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills for the
City of Philadelphia, located in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
the District of Columbia. The negative
declarations certify that there are no
existing municipal solid waste landfills
in the City of Philadelphia or the
District of Columbia that are subject to
the requirements of 40 CFR part 60
subpart Cf.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 26, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2019–0678 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Opila.MaryCate@epa.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. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Willson, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The
telephone number is (215) 814–5795.
Mr. Willson can also be reached via
electronic mail at Willson.Matthew@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) establishes standards of
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
performance for certain existing sources.
Air pollutants included under this
section are those which have not
already been established as air quality
criteria pollutants via 42 U.S.C. 7408(a)
or hazardous air pollutants via 42 U.S.C.
7412. Section 111(d)(1) requires states to
submit to EPA for approval a plan that
establishes standards of performance.
The plan must provide that the state
will implement and enforce the
standards of performance. A Federal
plan is prescribed if a state does not
submit a state-specific plan or the
submitted plan is disapproved. If a state
has no designated facilities for a
standards of performance source
category, it may submit a negative
declaration in lieu of a state plan for
that source category according to 40
CFR 60.23a(b) and 62.06.
II. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Regulations
A municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfill is defined in 40 CFR 60.41f as,
‘‘an entire disposal facility in a
contiguous geographical space where
household waste is placed in or on
land.’’ Other substances may be placed
in the landfill which are regulated
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle D, 40 CFR
257.2. MSW landfills emit gases
generated by the decomposition of
organic compounds or evolution of new
organic compounds from the deposited
waste. EPA regulations specifically
delineate measures to control methane
and nonmethane organic compound
(NMOC) emissions, which can adversely
impact public health.
The Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills, as codified at 40 CFR
part 60 subpart Cf (subpart Cf, or
Emission Guidelines) apply to states
with MSW landfills that accepted waste
after November 8, 1987 and commenced
construction, reconstruction, or
modification before July 17, 2014. Such
landfills are considered to be ‘‘existing’’
landfills. In states with facilities
meeting the applicability criteria of an
existing MSW landfill, the
Administrator of an air quality program
must submit a state plan to EPA that
implements the Emission Guidelines.
The City of Philadelphia Air
Management Services (AMS) and the
District of Columbia Department of
Energy and Environment (DOEE) have
determined that there are no MSW
landfills in their respective jurisdictions
subject to Federal CAA landfill
regulations pursuant to part 40 CFR part
60 subpart Cf. AMS and DOEE have
submitted negative declarations to EPA
on March 15, 2018 and November 15,
E:\FR\FM\27JYP1.SGM
27JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 144 (Monday, July 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45146-45154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15399]
[[Page 45146]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0590; FRL-10009-70-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; WA; Interstate Transport Requirements for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State
of Washington (Washington) demonstrating that the SIP meets certain
Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-
hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that
emissions from sources in Washington will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve Washington's February 7, 2018 SIP submission as meeting the
interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0590, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information 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. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, EPA Region 10 Air and
Radiation Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206)-553-
1185, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to EPA. Information
is organized as follows:
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. State Submission
IV. EPA's Analysis
A. Prong 1 Evaluation
B. Prong 2 Evaluation
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
On June 2, 2010, 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.\1\ The CAA requires each state to submit, within 3
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIPs meeting the
applicable infrastructure elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One
of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly
referred to as prongs, that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs, codified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). The remaining prongs, codified at
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain adequate
provisions that prohibit emissions activity 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).
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 1 and prong 2
portions of the Washington's February 7, 2018 SIP submission because,
based on the information available at the time of this rulemaking,
Washington demonstrated that it will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state. All other applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements for this SIP submission will be addressed in separate
rulemakings.
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
In this action, EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS designations process, as discussed in more detail
in Section III of this preamble. For this reason, a brief summary of
EPA's designations process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
included here.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While designations may provide useful information for
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. 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, 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 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, EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing
designations by up to one year.
EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2,
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). 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
[[Page 45147]]
states as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See
78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). EPA signed Federal Register actions of
promulgation for a second round of designations \4\ (``round 2'') June
30, 2016 (81 FR 45039 (July 12, 2016)) and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR
89870 (December 13, 2016)), and a third round of designations (``round
3'') on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018)).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round
of designations.''
\4\ 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 EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
\5\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13-cv-
3953-SI (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2015). This consent decree requires EPA
to sign for publication in the Federal Register documents of the
Agency'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), 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 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. EPA expected that the information
generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
In ``round 3'' of designations, EPA designated Lewis and Thurston
counties in Washington as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Washington selected the monitoring pathway
pursuant to the DRR for the areas surrounding two sources in Chelan and
Douglas, and Whatcom counties. These areas will be designated in a
fourth round of designations (``round 4'') by December 31, 2020. The
remaining counties in Washington were designated as attainment/
unclassifiable in round 3.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 that EPA has
adopted for ozone or 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, 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, 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.\7\ As such,
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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
EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see EPA's proposal on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. State Submission
On February 7, 2018, the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) submitted a SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
prongs 1 and 2, of the ``good neighbor'' provisions, for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.\8\ The submission concluded that SO2
emissions from sources in Washington will not contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state. Washington arrived at this conclusion after
(1) reviewing SO2 emissions sources, (2) identifying
downwind monitoring sites as potential receptors in neighboring states,
(3) conducting an emissions over distance (Q/D) analysis, (4)
evaluating available SO2 modeling results for specific
sources, and (5) reviewing the current SIP for existing federally-
approved controls that limit SO2 emissions from existing and
future sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The February 7, 2018 SIP submission also addressed the 2015
ozone NAAQS. EPA approved the ozone-related portion of the SIP
submission on September 20, 2018 (83 FR 47568).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Sources
Washington reviewed preliminary 2014 emissions inventory data (the
most recent data available at the time the submission was
developed).\9\ Point sources, including electrical utilities and
industrial sources, account for the largest anthropogenic sources of
SO2 emissions as shown in Table 1. Washington's port and
shipping activities account for the second highest source category,
after point sources. Washington's conclusions about this source sector
are also further discussed in a later section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In Section III of this preamble, we have reviewed more
recent data released as part of the 2017 National Emissions
Inventory.
Table 1--Preliminary 2014 Emissions Inventory of Anthropogenic SO2
Sources in Washington \10\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions
Source category (short tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point sources........................................... 14,510
Commercial marine vessels............................... 11,316
Silvicultural burning................................... 1,177
Industrial, commercial, institutional combustion........ 1,095
On-road mobile.......................................... 591
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receptors in Neighboring States
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The top five categories and emissions numbers in table 1
are re-printed from page 9 (Table 5) of the Washington State
Implementation Plan Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide
and Ozone, February 2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The submission identified SO2 monitoring sites in Idaho
and Oregon, which are the only two states that border Washington. These
monitoring sites were selected as downwind receptors and further
evaluated for
[[Page 45148]]
potential impacts from Washington SO2 sources. The
submission included a table of downwind receptor monitored values for
2012 through 2016 (the most recent data available at the time the
submission was developed). The data presented in Table 2 is the 99th
percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations at the identified receptors, in parts per billion (ppb).
Table 2--99th Percentile for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at Identified Downwind Receptors (ppb) \11\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Site ID 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ada County, ID........................... 160010010 6 11 5 3 4
Bannock County, ID....................... 160050004 73 40 38 45 33
Caribou County, ID....................... 160290031 35 31 23 23 32
Multnomah County, OR..................... 410510080 10 5 3 4 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The submission included a spatial analysis of these receptor
locations relative to the Washington State border, and relative to
stationary sources in Washington that are located within 50 kilometers
(km) of each receptor. After mapping the identified downwind receptors,
the Washington Department of Ecology found that the Multnomah County,
Oregon receptor (Site ID 41051008), which is the National Core (NCore)
site located in the Portland metropolitan area, warranted further
analysis because (1) it is within 50 km of the Washington border and
because (2) four Washington SO2 point sources are within a
50-km radius of the Multnomah County receptor. The submission states
that the sources within the 50-km radius are small (three of the four
sources emitted less than 10 tons SO2 in 2014, and the
fourth source emitted 17 tons in 2014). In addition, the Multnomah
County receptor has historically monitored low 1-hour SO2
99th percentile values, as shown in the prior table.
Washington identified two Washington SO2 sources with
annual emissions greater than 100 tons within 50 km of the Washington
border. These two sources, Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre,
are pulp and paper plants. Washington further evaluated these sources
to assess whether they may have a potential impact on the Multnomah
County receptor. The State reviewed monitoring data, local weather
data, and regional emissions modeling and found it is reasonable to
conclude that most of the SO2 monitored at the Multnomah
County receptor originates within the Portland metropolitan area of
Oregon.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The values in table 2 are re-printed from page 8 (Tables 3
and 4) of the Washington State Implementation Plan Revision
Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February 2018,
publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action. These are 99th
percentile values, rounded to the nearest whole number.
\12\ See page 13-14 of the Washington State Implementation Plan
Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February
2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington proceeded to conduct an emissions-to-distance analysis
of point sources (including Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre)
as described in the following section. Washington also reviewed
SO2 emissions from commercial marine vessels operating at
several Washington ports. Washington asserted that SO2
emissions from western-Washington ports are not likely to impact the
Multnomah County receptor (nor the Idaho receptors) in part because the
ports are located over 50 km from the Oregon border and also because
the port emissions are spread across large areas, vessels, and
operations, as opposed to emissions from stationary point sources.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid.
\14\ Ibid. Table was from the SIP submittal with added sources.
\15\ Most recent emissions data available at the time the State
developed the submission. In Section III of this preamble, we have
reviewed more recent data released as part of the 2017 National
Emissions Inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions-to-Distance Analysis
The submission included an emissions-to-distance (Q/D) analysis
used to prioritize point sources with potential impact on the closest
receptor in a neighboring state. Q/D is a common screening technique
used to estimate potential visibility impacts for purposes of Regional
Haze planning and to analyze predicted air quality impacts in the
context of major stationary source permitting in areas designated
attainment and unclassifiable (Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permitting). The submission included the following table of Q/D
results.
Table 3--Emissions-to-Distance (Q/D) Results \14\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Distance 2014 SO2
Facility Type County to border to receptor (short tons) Q/D
(km) (km) \15\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TransAlta Centralia General LLC......... Electricity Generation via Lewis..................... 68 141 3,037 21.5
Combustion.
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Works...... Primary Aluminum Plant..... Whatcom................... 292 373 4,794 12.9
Alcoa Primary Metals Wenatchee Works.... Primary Aluminum Plan...... Chelan.................... 164 281 2,935 10.5
Weyerhaeuser NR Company................. Pulp and Paper Plant....... Cowlitz................... 1 76 440 5.8
BP Cherry Point Refinery................ Petroleum Refinery......... Whatcom................... 296 377 917 2.4
Longview Fibre.......................... Pulp and Paper Plant....... Cowlitz................... 1 72 141 2.0
Boise Paper............................. Pulp and Paper Plant....... Walla Walla............... 150 100 186 1.85
RockTenn Mill Tacoma.................... Pulp and Paper Plant....... Pierce.................... 131 197 261 1.3
Cosmo Specialty Fibers.................. Pulp and Paper Plant....... Grays Harbor.............. 75 185 237 1.3
Puget Sound Refining Company............ Petroleum Refinery......... Skagit.................... 255 331 347 1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45149]]
The TransAlta Centralia Generation facility was the only source
that exceeded Washington's threshold ratio of 20 for the Q/D analysis
(Q/D = 21.5). As a result, it was the only source that Washington
evaluated further following the Q/D analysis.
Available SO2 Modeling Results
In the SIP submission, Washington explained their review of
published modeling data for the TransAlta facility and indicated that
the modeling showed limited SO2 impact outside of the
immediate area of the facility.\16\ Washington also provided plume
modeling data that indicated the facility's SO2 plume
distributes toward the south but would not be expected to reach the
area near the Multnomah County receptor in any significant
concentration.\17\ Washington further explained that the facility has
SO2 emissions at the facility of less than 1,350 pounds per
hour as of December 15, 2016.\18\ Based on this information, Washington
concluded that the TransAlta facility does not significantly contribute
to SO2 emissions at the Multnomah County Receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See page 12 of the Washington State Implementation Plan
Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February
2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action.
\17\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/ecologytechnicalreporttransaltaso2modelingresults2017.pdf.
\18\ https://www.swcleanair.org/docs/permits/prelim/16-3202ADP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing and Future SO2 Controls
Washington reviewed current and future enforceable emission limits
and controls that apply to SO2 sources in Washington. Most
of the limits and control requirements referenced have been approved
into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 52, subpart
WW, including the SIP and Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
requirements related to Regional Haze best available retrofit
technology (BART). These provisions and others listed below are
designed to limit SO2 emissions from existing and future
sources in the State:
40 CFR 52.2470(c) reasonably available control technology
requirements (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.94.154 and Chapter
173-400 Washington Administrative Code (WAC))
40 CFR 52.2470(c) kraft pulp mill regulations (173-405 WAC)
40 CFR 52.2470(c) sulfite pulp mill regulations (173-410 WAC)
40 CFR 52.2470(c) primary aluminum smelter regulations (173-
415 WAC)
40 CFR 52.2470(c) pre-construction permitting (WAC 173-400-111
and 720)
40 CFR 52.2470(c) gasoline vapor and volatile organic compound
emission regulations (173-490 and 491 WAC)
40 CFR 52.2470(d) BART requirements for TransAlta Centralia
(coal units BW21 and BW22 will permanently cease burning coal and be
decommissioned by December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2025,
respectively) \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The submission references Southwest Clean Air Agency
Regulatory Order 16-32 dated December 15, 2016. This regulatory
order was not submitted for approval and is therefore not addressed
in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 52.2470(d) BART requirements for BP Cherry Point
Refinery
40 CFR 52.2500 BART requirements for ALCOA Primary Metals
Intalco Works
40 CFR 52.2501 BART requirements for Tesoro Petroleum Refinery
40 CFR 52.2502 BART requirements for ALCOA Primary Metals
Wenatchee Works
Based on their analysis of monitoring and emissions data, the Q/D
analysis, and current and future SO2 controls, Washington
concluded that SO2 emissions from sources in Washington will
not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, Washington
requested EPA approval of the submission for purposes of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
IV. EPA's Analysis
EPA first reviewed the Washington submission to assess how the
State evaluated interstate transport of SO2, the types of
information Washington used in the analysis, and the conclusions drawn
by the State. We then conducted a weight of evidence analysis to
determine if we agree with the State's conclusion that SO2
emissions from sources in Washington will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
A. Prong 1 Evaluation
Washington's submission focused on one downwind receptor and a
relatively limited source-oriented and spatial evaluation of potential
transport based on an emissions-to-distance analysis. As a result of
the emissions-to-distance analysis, Washington reviewed one source,
TransAlta, for potential transport. TransAlta is located approximately
70 km from the state border with Oregon.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As mentioned in Section I.B of this preamble, EPA
designated the area containing TransAlta, Lewis and Thurston
counties in Washington, as Unclassifiable in Round 3 of
SO2 designations. Washington submitted modeling for the
area, however, EPA identified deficiencies with the modeling as the
basis for the Unclassifiable designation. This Unclassifiable area
boundary is within 50 km of the Washington state border, however,
the only source emitting over 100 tpy in the area, TransAlta, is
located more than 50 km from the state border. Given the distance
between TransAlta and the state border, EPA did not evaluate this
source further for potential transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has performed a supplemental analysis to more fully evaluate
sources in Washington for potential transport to neighboring states. In
our analysis we reviewed: (1) Emissions inventory data and emissions
trends for point sources in Washington emitting greater than 100 tpy;
(2) SO2 ambient air quality data; and (3) spatial analysis
of point sources located within 50 km of the Washington state border.
1. Point Source Emissions Inventory Data
First, we compiled a list of Washington point sources emitting over
100 tons per year of SO2 according to the 2017 NEI. Then, we
added 2008, 2011, and 2014 NEI data, for reference, as listed in Table
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 2011, 2014, and 2017 National Emissions Inventory data for
point sources available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.
Table 4--Trends in SO2 Emissions (Tons per Year) From Point Sources in Washington \21\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Type County 2008 2011 2014 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Primary Aluminum Whatcom.......... 4,523 4,538 4,794 3,987
Works. Plant.
TransAlta Centralia Electricity Lewis............ 2,318 1,136 3,037 1,689
Generation, LLC. Generation via
Combustion.
Alcoa Primary Metals Wenatchee Primary Aluminum Chelan........... 1,810 2,906 2,935 .........
Works*. Plant.
BP Cherry Point Refinery...... Petroleum Whatcom.......... 1,764 1,007 917 808
Refinery.
[[Page 45150]]
Boise Paper................... Pulp and Paper Wallula.......... 780 793 186 885
Plant.
Weyerhaeuser NR Company Pulp and Paper Cowlitz.......... 512 582 440 390
(Nippon Dynawave). Plant.
Puget Sound Refining Company.. Petroleum Skagit........... 450 359 347 225
Refinery.
Longview Fibre................ Pulp and Paper Cowlitz.......... 281 202 141 197
Plant.
WestRock Tacoma Mill.......... Pulp and Paper Pierce........... 635 349 261 189
Plant.
Cosmo Specialty Fibers........ Pulp and Paper Grays Harbor..... -- 214 237 242
Plant.
Sea-Tac International Airport. Airport.......... King............. 192 243 261 506
Chemtrade..................... Chemical Plant... Skagit........... 123 155 215 203
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... ................. ................. 13,388 12,484 13,771 9,321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Curtailed since 2015.
The NEI data from 2008 to 2017 show decreases in SO2
emissions from certain sources, including two petroleum refineries: BP
Cherry Point and Puget Sound Refining Company. The data in Table 4 also
show a mix of slight increases and decreases at some large pulp and
paper plants and other sources categories.
2. SO2 Ambient Air Quality Data
Information from SO2 monitors near the borders between
Washington and its neighboring states of Idaho and Oregon is also
useful context for evaluating whether the SIP submission from
Washington satisfies prong 1. Tables 5 and 6 below summarize this
SO2 monitoring information for monitors in Washington and
the bordering states of Idaho and Oregon. We note that there are only
two monitors within approximately 50 km of the Washington State border,
and both monitors are located outside of the State (in Idaho and
Oregon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Data obtained on 11/13/2019 at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
\23\ Data obtained on 4/16/2020 at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
\24\ Data obtained from EPA's Outdoor Air Quality Database (11/
13/2019).
Table 5--Trends in 3-Year SO2 Design Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Washington \22\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ Distance to
Site ID Site name border (km) 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
530570011........... Anacortes-202 O 263 5................ 5................ 4
Ave.
530090013........... Cheeka Peak...... 240 2................ 2................ 1
incomplete....... incomplete
530730013........... Ferndale- 293 invalid.......... invalid.......... invalid
Kickerville Rd.
530730017........... Ferndale-Mountain 294 invalid.......... invalid.......... invalid
View Rd.
530070012........... Malaga-Malaga 228 invalid.......... invalid.......... invalid
Highway.
530330080........... Seattle-Beacon 167 6................ 5................ 6
Hill. incomplete....... incomplete....... incomplete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
incomplete = Design value calculated based on data that does not meet completeness criteria.
invalid = Insufficient data collected to determine a valid 3-year design value.
Table 6--Trends in 99th Percentile Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Washington \23\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ Distance to
Site ID Site name border (km) 2017 2018 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
530570011................ Anacortes-202 O Ave.. 263 3 2 3
530090013................ Cheeka Peak.......... 240 1 1 1
530730013................ Ferndale-Kickerville 293 70 74 70
Rd*.
530730017................ Ferndale-Mountain 294 114 101 105
View Rd*.
530070012................ Malaga-Malaga 228 1 1 1
Highway**.
530330080................ Seattle-Beacon Hill.. 167 6 8 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These two monitors are source-oriented monitors that began operating in early 2017 to characterize air quality
around Alcoa Intalco Works.
** This monitor is a source-oriented monitor that began operating in early 2017 to characterize air quality
around Alcoa Wenatchee Works.
Table 7--Trend in 3-Year SO2 Design Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors Surrounding Washington \24\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ Distance to
Site ID County Border 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160010010............. Ada County, Idaho.. 55 7.................. 4 3
incomplete.........
160050004............. Bannock County, 489 41................. 39 38
Idaho.
[[Page 45151]]
160290031............. Caribou County, 558 26................. 26 30
Idaho.
410510080............. Multnomah County, 12 4.................. 3 3
Oregon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
incomplete = Design value calculated based on data that does not meet completeness criteria.
Except for the Anacortes monitor, Washington SO2
monitors have either incomplete or invalid data during the last three
design value periods.\25\ However, in Table 6 of this document, we've
included the 99th percentile values for these monitors in Washington as
additional evidence that, generally, statewide monitored values are
below the level of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ To be comparable to the NAAQS, the design value must be
valid according to appendix T to 40 CFR part 50 which specifies
minimum data completeness criteria for the 1-hour 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three new SO2 monitors were established in Washington in
early 2017. These three monitors were established to characterize two
sources for purposes of the SO2 Data Requirements Rule
(DRR), namely Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Works and Alcoa Wenatchee
Works. These areas will be designated in Round 4 of SO2
designations. The data from these monitors (Site IDs 530730013,
530730017, and 530070012) was required to be certified by the State as
valid, 3-year design values by May 1, 2020. One of these monitors is
recording exceedances of the NAAQS. However, we note that all three
monitors (and the sources they were sited to characterize) are over 200
km away from the Washington border with neighboring states and are
therefore not likely to have an adverse impact on air quality in the
neighboring states of Idaho and Oregon.
Valid, complete data is available for the SO2 monitors
in Idaho and Oregon, and design values are well below the level of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, as shown in Table 7 of this document. As
described, there are no Washington monitors located within 50 km of a
neighboring state's border, however, there are two monitors in
neighboring states located within approximately 50 km of the Washington
border, and these monitors recorded SO2 design values well
below the level of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the most recent
valid design value periods. These monitored values do not, alone,
indicate any particular location that would warrant further
investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that
might significantly contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring
states. However, because the monitoring network is not necessarily
designed to capture all locations of high SO2
concentrations, this observation indicates an absence of evidence of
impact at these locations and is insufficient to capture the impact at
all locations in the neighboring states. Therefore, we have also
conducted a source-oriented analysis.
3. Spatial Analysis of Point Sources
As noted, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to examine the
impacts of emissions from stationary sources 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. As a
result, we evaluated point sources of up to 50 km from the state border
for emissions trends and SO2 concentrations in areawide air
quality. In the absence of special factors, for example the presence of
nearby larger sources or unusual factors, sources emitting less than
100 tons per year SO2 can be appropriately presumed to not
be significantly contributing to SO2 concentrations above
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The list of sources emitting 100 tons
per year or more of SO2, based on 2017 point source data,
within 50 km of the Washington state border, are shown in Table 8.
Table 8--Sources Within 50 km of the Washington State Border With SO2 Emissions Greater Than 100 tpy and Nearest Neighboring State Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 SO2
2017 SO2 Distance from Neighboring State Source Emissions of
Sources Emissions the Border Neighboring State (Distance Between the Neighboring
(tons) (km) Sources) State Source
(tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser NR Company--Longview, 390 1 Oregon............................ Wauna Mill--Paper Mill-- 540
Washington. Clatskanie, Oregon (33
km).
Longview Fibre--Longview, Washington.... 197 1 Oregon............................ Wauna Mill--Paper Mill-- 540
Clatskanie, Oregon (38
km).
Boise Paper--Wallula, Washington........ 885 11 Oregon............................ PGE Boardman--Boardman, 3298
Oregon (82 km).
Portland International Airport-- 215 2 Washington........................ Longview Fibre--Longview, 197
Portland, Oregon. Washington (62 km).
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.-- 118 4 Washington........................ Longview Fibre--Longview, 197
Portland Oregon. Washington (66 km).
PGE Boardman--Boardman, Oregon.......... 3298 17 Washington........................ Boise Paper--Wallula, 885
Washington (82).
Wauna Mill--Paper Mill--Clatskanie, 540 <1 Washington........................ Weyerhaeuser NR Company-- 390
Oregon. Longview, Washington (33).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45152]]
The Washington sources listed are of interest with respect to
SO2 transport because of the possibility that they are
causing a violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in their locality
that extends into a neighboring state. There is also the possibility of
emissions from one or more of these sources in Washington and emissions
from a source in a neighboring state interacting in such a way as to
contribute significantly to a violation in the neighboring state. As
such, we have also included sources in neighboring states within 50 km
of the Washington state border as part of this analysis. The prior
table shows the distance from each of the sources listed therein to the
nearest source across the Washington state border emitting above 100
tons per year of SO2. Generally, a greater distance between
two sources reduces the likelihood that their emissions could interact
in such a way as to contribute significantly to a violation in the
neighboring state. Given the localized range of potential 1-hour
SO2 impacts, sources which are greater than 50 km from each
other would not warrant further investigation with respect to
Washington SO2 emission sources that might contribute to
problems with attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states. As shown, there are two sources in Washington which
are within 50 kilometers from a source in a neighboring state;
Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre in Longview, Washington,
located 33 and 38 km respectively, from the Wauna Mill in Clatskanie,
Oregon. Therefore, we have evaluated these sources further.
Longview, Washington, and Clatskanie, Oregon, comprise a cross-
border, uncombined metropolitan area. Currently, EPA does not have
monitoring or modeling information to indicate a violation or elevated
SO2 concentrations in this area. Given the distance between
the cross-state sources (over 30 km), the declining emissions at the
sources in Longview, Washington, as demonstrated in Table 4 of this
document, and the lack of evidence of violations or elevated
SO2 concentrations in the area; it is unlikely that
emissions from the two sources in Longview, Washington, could interact
with emissions from the Wauna Mill in Clatskanie, Oregon, in such a way
as to adversely impact a violation of the SO2 NAAQS in
Oregon. Based on these factors, we propose to concur with the state's
conclusion that SO2 emissions from sources in Longview,
Washington, will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in the neighboring state of Oregon.
EPA has also evaluated PGE Boardman, a DRR source located within 50
km of the Washington border. PGE Boardman is located in Boardman,
Oregon, and, as shown in Table 8 of this document, the nearest source
in Washington is Boise Paper in Wallula, Washington. Although these
sources are located 82 km apart, and it is unlikely that their
emissions could interact in such a way as to contribute significantly
to violations in the neighboring state, because emissions from PGE
Boardman near the Washington border are over 3000 tons per year, we
have further evaluated the source. The State of Oregon modeled the area
surrounding the facility, and the details are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9--Other States' Sources With DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled 99th
Approximate Other percentile
Distance From facilities daily maximum 1- Model grid
DRR source County (state) Source to included in hour SO2 extends into
Washington modeling concentration another state?
Border (km) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGE Boardman \26\........... Morrow (OR).... 17 11 sources in 73 (based on Yes, into WA
Oregon: PTE emissions). (portions of
Columbia Ridge Benton,
Landfill, PGE Klickitat and
Boardman Carty Yakima
Plant, ConAgra Counties, WA).
Foods Lamb
Weston, Inc.,
TMF Biofuels,
LLC, Hermiston
Power LLC,
Hermiston
Generating
Company,
Perennial-
Windchaser
LLC, Oregon
Potato
Company,
Finley
BioEnergy LLC,
Gas
Transmission
Northwest LLC,
Finley Buttes
Landfill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State submitted the resulting model data to EPA and indicated
that Oregon found no modeled exceedances of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS within 50 km of the Boardman Plant. The State recommended EPA
designate the area around the Boardman Plant as unclassifiable/
attainment. EPA agreed and designated the entire State of Oregon
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (83 FR
1098, January 9, 2018).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 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/2017-08/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
\27\ See 40 CFR 81.338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, Oregon's SIP requires PGE Boardman to implement a
phased reduction of operation and cease coal-fired operation by
December 31, 2020. Based on this analysis, as well as the modeling
results for the area around the Boardman plant and the federally
enforceable emissions reductions planned for the facility, we propose
to concur with the State's conclusion that SO2 emissions
from sources in Washington will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the area in Oregon
surrounding the PGE Boardman facility.
This spatial analysis of point sources within 50 km of the
Washington border, including available modeling results, weighed along
with the other factors in this document, support EPA's proposed
conclusion that sources in Washington will not adversely impact air
quality so as to significantly contribute to
[[Page 45153]]
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state. Furthermore, EPA does not have any evidence of any violations of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the neighboring states to which
SO2 emissions from Washington could significantly
contribute.
Based on our review of the Washington submission and our weight of
evidence analysis, we propose to conclude that sources in Washington
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
B. Prong 2 Evaluation
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 may have trouble attaining and maintaining the NAAQS in the
future. Approval of a SIP for prong 2 requires a conclusion that
SO2 emissions from the State's sources will not interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another
state.
Our prong 2 evaluation for Washington builds on our analysis
regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1).
Specifically, as explained in Section IV.A of this preamble, we have a
sufficient basis to conclude that there are no NAAQS violations in
other states near their shared borders with Washington (Idaho and
Oregon) and accordingly, we are proposing that sources in Washington
are not significantly contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in any
of those states. As explained in this section, we also have a
sufficient basis for concluding that SO2 emissions from
sources in Washington and other states near their shared borders are
highly unlikely to increase sufficiently to alter this situation.
Therefore, we are proposing to find that SO2 levels in
neighboring states (Idaho and Oregon) near the Washington border will
continue to be at or below the level of the SO2 NAAQS.
As presented in Table 4 in Section IV.A of this preamble,
SO2 emissions from larger point sources in Washington have
decreased by approximately 30 percent between 2008 and 2017. This
information on point source SO2 emissions trends does not by
itself demonstrate that SO2 emissions in the near-border
areas in Washington and neighboring states will not impact neighboring
states. However, as a component of our weight of evidence analysis for
prong 2, it provides an indication that such an increase is unlikely.
As described in the Washington Department of Ecology submission and
summarized in Section II of this preamble, there are multiple
provisions in the Washington SIP designed to control and limit
SO2 emissions from existing Washington sources. Future
stationary sources of SO2 emissions are subject to
Washington's SIP-approved pre-construction permitting program, also
known as New Source Review. New Source Review for major stationary
sources in areas designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS is called nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) and requires
lowest achievable emission rates and offsets in accordance with the
SIP-approved NNSR program for Washington State. New Source Review for
major stationary sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas is
called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and requires that
best available control technology be applied to any new major source or
major modification of a major source. Washington's SIP-approved PSD
program requires that new or modified major sources in attainment and
unclassifiable areas do not interfere with maintenance in any other
state, in accordance with federal regulations set forth in 40 CFR
51.165(b)(1). See 40 CFR 52.2497.
Turning to minor sources, such sources are covered by the State's
SIP-approved minor new source review permitting program. In accordance
with 40 CFR 51.160 through 164, subject sources may not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. We note that the neighboring
states of Idaho and Oregon also have SIP-approved PSD and minor source
permitting programs. See 40 CFR 52.683 and 52.1987, respectively. The
permitting regulations contained within these programs are designed to
ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in the neighboring
states of Idaho or Oregon are not exceeded as a result of new facility
construction or modifications occurring in the near-border areas of
these states.
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, EPA has
incorporated additional information about emissions trends as well as
the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1,
into our evaluation of Washington's submission, which did not include
an independent analysis of prong 2. We find that the large distances
between cross-state SO2 sources, combined with an overall
reduction in SO2 emissions from larger Washington sources
and SIP-approved measures designed to control and limit emissions from
SO2 sources in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon, taken along
with the other factors considered in this document support EPA's
proposed conclusion that there will be no interference with maintenance
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states from sources in
Washington. Based on our weight of evidence analysis, we propose to
conclude that sources in Washington will not interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
V. Proposed Action
As discussed in Section III of this preamble, Washington concluded
that SO2 emissions from the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. EPA's analysis, discussed in
Section IV of this preamble, confirms this finding. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations.\28\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely
[[Page 45154]]
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of the requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 10, 2020.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-15399 Filed 7-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
