Air Plan Approval; ID; 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure Requirements, 62679-62686 [2020-21741]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
§ 127.615
[Amended]
§ 127.1301
30. In § 127.615, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.617
§ 127.1302
■
[Amended]
■
§ 127.701
§ 127.1309
[Amended]
■
§ 127.701
§ 127.1311
■
■
■
■
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Amended]
[Removed]
§ 127.1315
38. Remove § 127.711.
[Amended]
51. In § 127.1315 remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.1101
[Amended]
39. Amend § 127.1101 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), remove ‘‘ASME
B31.3’’ and add, in its place, the text
‘‘ASME B31.3–2018 (incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003)’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (h), add
‘‘(incorporated by reference, see
§ 127.003)’’ after ‘‘API RP 2003’’.
■
■
§ 127.1102
§ 127.1317
[Amended]
40. In § 127.1102(a)(4)(ii), remove
‘‘ANSI B16.5’’ and add, in its place,
‘‘ASME B16.5–2017 (incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003)’’.
§ 127.1321
[Amended]
41. In § 127.1103, remove the word
‘‘existing’’ wherever it appears.
§ 127.1325
[Amended]
42. In § 127.1105, remove the word
‘‘existing.’’
§ 127.1401
[Amended]
43. In § 127.1107, add ‘‘(incorporated
by reference, see § 127.003)’’ after
‘‘NFPA 70’’.
§ 127.1203
[Amended]
44. In § 127.1203(a), remove ‘‘ANSI
S12.13, Part I’’ and add, in its place,
‘‘IEC 60079–29–1 (incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003)’’.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
■
§ 127.1207
Jkt 253001
§ 127.1403
[Amended]
57. In § 127.1403, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
[Amended]
58. Amend § 127.1405 as follows:
a. In the introductory paragraph,
remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add, in its
place, the word ‘‘must’’;
■ b. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the
word ‘‘and’’; and
■
■
45. In § 127.1207(c), remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
56. Remove the word ‘‘shall’’ and add,
in its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
§ 127.1405
[Amended]
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
[Amended]
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00065
[Amended]
60. In § 127.1409, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
§ 127.1501
[Amended]
61. In § 127.1501 (a), remove the word
‘‘existing.’’
§ 127.1503
[Amended]
62. In § 127.1503, add ‘‘(incorporated
by reference, see § 127.003)’’ after
‘‘NFPA 10’’.
■
§ 127.1511
[Amended]
63. In § 127.1511, remove ‘‘ASTM F
1121’’ and add, in its place, ‘‘ASTM F
1121–87’’.
■
§ 127.1601
[Amended]
64. In § 127.1601, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.1603
[Amended]
65. In § 127.1603, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.1605
[Amended]
66. In § 127.1605, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
Dated: September 18, 2020.
R. V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant
Commandant for Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020–21071 Filed 10–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
[Amended]
55. In § 127.1325, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
■
§ 127.1107
[Amended]
54. In § 127.1321, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
■
§ 127.1105
[Amended]
53. In § 127.1319, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
■
§ 127.1103
[Amended]
52. In § 127.1317, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
§ 127.1319
§ 127.1409
■
50. Amend § 127.1313 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (b), remove ‘‘Chapter
4 of’’ and add ‘‘(incorporated by
reference, see § 127.003)’’ after ‘‘NFPA
30’’.
37. Remove § 127.709.
§ 127.711
[Amended]
■
■
36. Remove § 127.707.
§ 127.709
■
§ 127.1313
[Removed]
[Amended]
59. In § 127.1407, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
■
49. In § 127.1311, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
35. Remove § 127.705.
§ 127.707
[Amended]
■
[Removed]
34. Remove § 127.703.
§ 127.705
■
[Removed]
§ 127.1407
■
48. In § 127.1309, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
33. Remove § 127.701.
§ 127.703
[Amended]
47. In § 127.1302, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears, and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
32. Remove the undesignated center
heading ‘‘Security’’ that precedes
§ 127.701.
■
c. In paragraph (b), add ‘‘(incorporated
by reference, see § 127.003)’’ after the
text ‘‘NFPA 51B’’.
■
46. In § 127.1301(b), remove the word
‘‘shall’’ wherever it appears and add, in
its place, the word ‘‘must’’.
31. In § 127.617, remove the word
‘‘shall’’ and add, in its place, the word
‘‘must’’.
■
[Amended]
62679
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0001; FRL–10014–
83–Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; ID; 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure
Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission from the State of Idaho
(Idaho or the State) that addresses the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62680
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate
transport requirements for the 2010
1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). In this action, the EPA is
proposing to determine that Idaho will
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state or the Fort
Hall Reservation. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to approve Idaho’s December
24, 2015, SIP submission as meeting the
interstate transport requirements for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Written comments must be
received on or before November 4, 2020.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2016–0001 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
electronically submit any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Claudia Vaupel at (206) 553–6121, or
vaupel.claudia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Table of Contents:
I. Background
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2
Interstate Transport SIPs
III. State Submission and EPA Analysis
A. State Submission
B. EPA Analysis
1. The EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation
2. The EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
I. Background
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established
a new primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75
parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations.1
The CAA requires states 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.
CAA 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,
which are codified in 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 another state (prong 1) and
from interfering with maintenance of
the NAAQS in another state (prong 2).
The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in 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 another state (prong 3) or
from interfering with measures to
protect visibility in another state (prong
4).
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve the prong 1 and prong 2
portions of the State of Idaho’s
December 24, 2015 SIP submission
because, based on the information
available at the time of this rulemaking,
the State demonstrated that Idaho will
not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
any other state or the Fort Hall
Reservation. All other applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for this
SIP submission have been addressed in
separate actions. See 79 FR 46707
(August 11, 2014).
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
1 75
PO 00000
FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 the 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, the EPA
focuses on a 50 km-wide zone because
the physical properties of SO2 result in
relatively localized pollutant impacts
near an emissions source that drop off
with distance. Given the physical
properties of SO2, the EPA selected the
‘‘urban scale’’—a spatial scale with
dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km)
from point sources—given the
usefulness of that range in assessing
trends in both area-wide air quality and
the effectiveness of large-scale pollution
control strategies at such point sources.2
As such, the EPA utilized an assessment
up to 50 km from point sources in order
to assess trends in area-wide air quality
that might impact downwind states.
As discussed in section III of this this
document, the EPA reviewed Idaho’s
analysis to assess how it evaluated SO2
transport to other states, the types of
information used in the analysis and the
conclusions drawn. The EPA then
conducted a weight of evidence
analysis, reviewing the submission and
other available information, including
air quality monitor data, emission
sources and emission trends within
Idaho and in bordering states to which
it could potentially contribute or
interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.3
2 For the definition of spatial scales for SO , see
2
40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4 (‘‘Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria’’). For further
discussion on how the EPA is applying these
definitions with respect to interstate transport of
SO2, see the EPA’s proposal on Connecticut’s SO2
transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
3 This proposed approval action is based on the
information contained in the administrative record
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62681
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
III. State Submission and EPA Analysis
On December 24, 2015, Idaho
submitted a SIP revision to the EPA
documenting that its SIP contains
provisions that address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
In this section, we provide an overview
of Idaho’s 2010 SO2 interstate transport
analysis, as well as the EPA’s evaluation
of prongs 1 and 2.
A. State Submission
Idaho conducted a weight of evidence
analysis to examine whether SO2
emissions from Idaho will adversely
affect attainment or maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states.
In the submission, Idaho identified one
2010 SO2 nonattainment area in
Billings, Montana, within Yellowstone
County, which has since been
redesignated to attainment.4 Idaho
reviewed 2014 SO2 emissions data from
the largest SO2 emissions sources in the
State and determined that emissions
from those sources were hundreds of
miles from the SO2 nonattainment/
maintenance areas. Idaho also reviewed
2012–2014 monitoring data from the 3
SO2 monitoring sites in its monitoring
network and from the 14 SO2
monitoring sites in neighboring states
for years 2011–2013. Idaho determined
that all design values were below the
2010 SO2 NAAQS.5 In addition, Idaho
provided 2009–2011 regional-scale
modeling for the State and found that
areas of increased SO2 concentrations
were localized in nature.
Based on the weight of evidence
analysis, Idaho concluded that
emissions within the State will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in any other state.
B. EPA Analysis
The EPA proposes to find that Idaho’s
SIP meets the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. We have analyzed the air
quality, emission sources and emission
trends in Idaho and neighboring states,
i.e., Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, Wyoming, and the Fort
Hall Reservation. Based on our analysis,
we propose to find that Idaho will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in any other state or the Fort Hall
Reservation.
1. The EPA’s Prong 1 Evaluation
The EPA reviewed SO2 emission data
from 2005 to 2017 for Idaho and the six
neighboring states.6 As shown in Table
1 of this document, SO2 emissions from
Idaho and neighboring states have
decreased substantially over time,
ranging from 37 to 89 percent.
Specifically, over this 13-year period,
Idaho’s statewide SO2 emissions
decreased by 72 percent.
TABLE 1—SO2 EMISSION TRENDS IN IDAHO AND NEIGHBORING STATES
[In tons per year]
State
2005
Idaho ........................................................................
Montana ...................................................................
Nevada .....................................................................
Oregon .....................................................................
Utah ..........................................................................
Washington ..............................................................
Wyoming ..................................................................
We also reviewed the most recent
certified air quality data available for 1hour SO2 design value concentrations at
monitors in Idaho and neighboring
states. In Table 2 of this document, we
have included the most recent 2017–
2019 design values for (1) all monitors
2008
35,452
42,085
72,474
37,204
52,999
59,651
122,454
2011
20,149
29,354
20,951
25,671
31,609
34,826
112,791
2014
13,791
29,452
13,578
30,285
27,839
30,492
83,256.1
in Idaho; (2) the monitor with the
highest design value in each
neighboring state; and (3) the monitor in
each neighboring state located closest to
the Idaho border. The EPA notes that no
neighboring state has an SO2 monitor
within 50 km of the Idaho border. To
2017
10,062
25,046
16,178
23,606
26,964
38,973
56,772
SO2 reduction,
2005–2017
(%)
10,007
18,580
7,793
19,325
15,442
37,488
52,354
72
56
89
48
71
37
57
assess how air quality has changed over
time, we also reviewed 2014–2016,
2015–2017, and 2016–2018 SO2 design
values for these monitors, as shown in
Table 2.
TABLE 2—SO2 DESIGN VALUES 7 IN ppb FOR AQS MONITORS IN IDAHO AND NEIGHBORING STATES
State/area
AQS site ID
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Idaho/Boise ..................................................................
Idaho/Pocatello ............................................................
Idaho/Caribou County ..................................................
Montana/Helena ...........................................................
for this action and does not prejudge any other
future EPA action that may make other
determinations regarding any of the subject state’s
air quality status. Any such future actions, such as
area designations under any NAAQS, will be based
on their own administrative records and the EPA’s
analyses of information that becomes available at
those times. Future available information may
include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and
modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the Data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Distance
to nearest
Idaho border
(km) *
160010010
160050004
160290031
300490004
Design value
2014–2016
55
102
45
180
Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-Hour SO2
NAAQS (80 FR 51052, August 21, 2015) and
information submitted to the EPA by states, air
agencies, and third party stakeholders such as
citizen groups and industry representatives.
4 The Billings, Montana 2010 SO nonattainment
2
area was redesignated to attainment on May 10,
2016 following the state’s SIP submission (81 FR
28718).
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2015–2017
4
39
26
2
3
38
30
3
2016–2018
3
38
31
5
2017–2019
3
40
35
5
5 The design value is the annual 99th percentile
of the daily maximum 1-hour concentration values,
averaged over three consecutive years. (See 75 FR
35520, June 22, 2010).
6 We derived the emissions trends information
from the EPA’s web page https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissionstrends-data.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62682
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—SO2 DESIGN VALUES 7 IN ppb FOR AQS MONITORS IN IDAHO AND NEIGHBORING STATES—Continued
State/area
AQS site ID
Montana/Billings ...........................................................
Nevada/Las Vegas .......................................................
Nevada/Reno ...............................................................
Oregon/Portland ...........................................................
Washington/Anacortes .................................................
Wyoming/Casper ..........................................................
Wyoming/Rock Springs ................................................
Distance
to nearest
Idaho border
(km) *
301110066
320030540
320310016
410510080
530570011
560252601
560370300
Design value
2014–2016
256
644
362
447
412
393
108
2015–2017
53
7
5
3
5
25
21
33
6
5
3
4
20
21
2016–2018
2017–2019
24
6
5
3
3
19
20
24
5
4
3
3
19
12
* All distances throughout this notice are approximations.
We reviewed ambient air quality data
in Idaho and neighboring states to see
whether there were any monitoring
sites, particularly near the Idaho border,
with elevated SO2 concentrations that
might warrant further investigation with
respect to interstate transport of SO2
from emission sources near any given
monitor. As shown in Table 2 of this
document, there are no monitors with
violating design values in Idaho or
neighboring states. Additionally, the
highest monitored 2017–2019 design
value in Idaho or neighboring states is
40 ppb, or approximately 54 percent of
the level of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
As discussed previously, Idaho
analyzed potential impacts to the
Billings, Montana area, which was still
designated nonattainment at the time of
Idaho’s submission. The EPA
redesignated the former Billings 2010
SO2 nonattainment area to attainment
following the permanent closure of the
PPL Corette Plant. See 81 FR 28718
(May 10, 2016). As noted by Idaho, the
Billings, Montana area is located far
from the nearest Idaho border (256 km).
Table 2 of this document also shows
that recent monitoring data in the
Billings area do not approach the level
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. For these
reasons, the EPA agrees with Idaho’s
conclusion that the emissions from
Idaho will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in the Billings, Montana
area.
The data presented in Table 2 of this
document show that 2017–2019 1-hour
SO2 design values in Idaho are between
4 and 54 percent of the 75-ppb level of
the NAAQS. The Caribou County SO2
monitor (AQS Site ID 160290031) is the
only Idaho SO2 monitor that is located
within 50 km of a state border—the
Idaho-Wyoming border. The 2017–2019
design value at the Caribou County SO2
monitor is 35 ppb or 47% of the
NAAQS. However, these air quality data
do not, by themselves, indicate any
particular location that would warrant
further investigation with respect to SO2
emission sources in Idaho that might
contribute significantly to
nonattainment in the bordering states.
Because the monitoring network is not
necessarily designed to find all
locations of high SO2 concentrations,
this observation indicates an absence of
evidence of impact at these locations
but is not sufficient evidence by itself of
an absence of impact at all locations in
the neighboring states. We have
therefore also conducted a sourceoriented analysis.
As noted, the EPA finds that it is
appropriate to examine the impacts of
emissions from stationary sources in
Idaho in distances ranging from 0 km to
50 km from the facility, based on the
‘‘urban scale’’ definition contained in
appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, section
4.4. Therefore, we assessed Idaho and
neighboring state point sources that
emit 100 tons per year (tpy) of SO28 or
more that are located up to 50 km from
an Idaho border.
There are four sources in Idaho that
emit 100 tpy of SO2 or more. These
sources are located in southeastern
Idaho and are listed in Table 3 of this
document. Two of the sources, P4
Production and Itafos Conda, are less
than 50 km from the Idaho-Wyoming
border, 45 km and 40 km, respectively.
TABLE 3—IDAHO SO2 SOURCES
[SO2 ≥ 100 tpy]
2017
Emissions
(tpy) 9
Idaho SO2 Source
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
J.R. Simplot Company—Don Siding Pocatello (Pocatello, ID) ................
The Amalgamated Sugar Company (Twin Falls, ID) ...............................
P4 Production (Soda Springs, ID) ............................................................
Itafos Conda (Conda, ID) .........................................................................
748
635
488
387
Distance to nearest
state border (km)/state border
101/ID–NV.
61/ID–NV.
45/ID–WY.
40/ID–WY.
The Naughton Generating Plant in
Lincoln, Wyoming, is the closest
neighboring state source to P4
Production and Itafos Conda. The EPA
has therefore assessed potential SO2
impacts from these Idaho sources to the
Lincoln, Wyoming area. Table 4 of this
document shows SO2 emissions and
approximate distances between the
sources. The EPA finds that the 131 to
134 km distance between the two Idaho
sources and the Wyoming source, more
than twice the 50-km distance the EPA
has focused on for this analysis, makes
it very unlikely that SO2 emissions from
7 Design values are from monitors with sufficient
data available in the EPA’s Air Quality System
(AQS) to produce valid design values. Data
retrieved from the EPA’s https://www.epa.gov/airtrends/air-quality-design-values#report.
8 We have limited our analysis to sources emitting
at least 100 tpy of SO2 because in the absence of
special factors, for example the presence of a nearby
larger source or unusual physical factors, Idaho
sources emitting less than 100 tpy can appropriately
be presumed to not be causing or contributing to
SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
the Idaho sources will interact with SO2
emissions from the Wyoming source in
such a way as to contribute significantly
62683
nonattainment in the Lincoln, Wyoming
area.10
TABLE 4—IDAHO SO2 SOURCES WITHIN 50 KM OF A STATE BORDER
[SO2 ≥ 100 tpy]
2017 SO2
emissions
(tpy)
Idaho SO2 source
Distance to nearest neighboring state
SO2 source
(km)/source
Itafos Conda (Conda, Idaho) ...........................................................
387
P4 Production (Soda Springs, Idaho) ..............................................
488
The EPA also reviewed the location of
neighboring state sources that emit 100
tpy of SO2 or more and are located
within 50 km of the Idaho border. This
is because SO2 emitted by sources in
Idaho are most likely to impact elevated
levels of SO2 in neighboring states near
such sources. As shown in Table 5 of
this document, there are two sources in
neighboring states that are located
134/Naughton Generating Plant, Lincoln,
WY.
131/Naughton Generating Plant, Lincoln,
WY.
within 50 km of an Idaho border, the
previously mentioned Naughton
Generating Plant in Lincoln, Wyoming,
located in southeastern Idaho, and EP
Minerals in Vale, Oregon, located in
southwestern Idaho. The shortest
distance between any pair of these
sources is 131 km, between the
Naughton Generating Plant and P4
Production. As just explained, this
Neighboring
state source
2017 SO2
emissions
(tpy)
4,048
4,048
distance makes it unlikely that SO2
emissions from the Idaho source will
interact with SO2 emissions from the
Wyoming source. This indicates that
there is no location in any neighboring
state that would warrant further
investigation with respect to Idaho SO2
emission sources that might contribute
to problems with attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
TABLE 5—NEIGHBORING STATE SO2 SOURCES WITHIN 50 km OF AN IDAHO BORDER
[SO2 ≥ 100 tpy]
2017 SO2
emissions
(tpy)
Neighboring state SO2 source
Naughton Generating Station, Lincoln, WY ............
EP Minerals, Vale, OR ............................................
4,048
182
46
32
Distance to nearest Idaho SO2 source
(km)
131 (P4 Production, Soda Springs, ID)
286/The Amalgamated Sugar Company,
Twin Falls, ID.
Idaho Source
2017 SO2
Emissions
(tpy)
488
635
On January 19, 2017, the EPA
determined that the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation were
eligible to be treated in the same manner
as an affected downwind state for
purposes of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(D)
and 126.11 Idaho submitted the SO2
interstate transport SIP before this
determination and the submission did
not analyze SO2 transport to the Fort
Hall Reservation. Therefore, the EPA
has conducted the following weight of
evidence analysis for potential Idaho
SO2 transport to the Fort Hall
Reservation.
The Fort Hall Reservation is located
in southeastern Idaho, mostly on the
high, flat, cultivated east banks of the
Snake River Plain which average around
4,500 feet above sea level. The east
portion of the Reservation rests on the
northern reaches of the Pocatello range
of mountains. The Fort Hall Reservation
is bordered on the east and south by the
rugged rocky hills of the Pocatello,
Chesterfield, and Caribou mountain
ranges. These ranges run north-south
with peaks rising from 6,000 to 9,000
feet above sea level, generally east and
south of the Reservation.
The EPA reviewed ambient air quality
data, particularly near the Fort Hall
Reservation borders, for any monitoring
sites with elevated SO2 concentrations
that might warrant further investigation
with respect to interstate transport of
SO2 from Idaho sources. The nearest
SO2 monitor to the Fort Hall Reservation
is in Pocatello, Idaho (AQS Site ID
160050004) and is approximately 2 km
from the nearest Reservation border.
Another SO2 monitor is located in
Caribou County, Idaho (AQS Site ID
160290031) and is approximately 37 km
from the southeastern border of the Fort
Hall Reservation. Although these
monitors are not sited to determine
maximum impacts at the Fort Hall
Reservation, monitoring data listed in
Table 6 of this document, indicate that
SO2 levels in those areas are relatively
low. The 2017–2019 design values at the
Pocatello and Caribou County monitor
9 Point source emissions data throughout this
document were obtained through the EPA’s
Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Gateway at
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/
emissions-inventory-system-eis-gateway.
10 In round 3 of 2010 SO designations, the EPA
2
designated Lincoln County in Wyoming as
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS based on modeling of the Naughton source
area. See ‘‘Technical Support Document: Chapter 45
Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Wyoming’’ at https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/45-wyso2-rd3-final.pdf. See also ‘‘Technical Support
Document: Chapter 45 Intended Round 3 Area
Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Wyoming’’ at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017–08/documents/45_wy_so2_
rd3-final.pdf.
11 The EPA’s determination that the ShoshoneBannock Tribes are eligible for treatment in the
same manner as a state for CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D) and 126 is available in the docket for
this action. See also https://www.epa.gov/tribal/
tribes-approved-treatment-state-tas.
The Fort Hall Reservation
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Distance to
Idaho border
(km)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62684
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
sites were 53 at 47 and percent of the
75-ppb level of the NAAQS,
respectively.
TABLE 6—IDAHO SO2 DESIGN VALUES 12 IN ppb FOR AQS MONITORS NEAR THE FORT HALL RESERVATION
Approximate
distance to
Fort Hall
Reservation
(km)
AQS monitor location
(AQS site ID)
Pocatello (160050004) .......................
Caribou County (160290031) ............
Design value
2012–2014
2
37
These air quality data do not, by
themselves, indicate any particular
location that would warrant further
investigation with respect to SO2
emission sources that might contribute
significantly to nonattainment at the
Fort Hall Reservation. However, data
from this monitoring network is not
necessarily representative of SO2 levels
throughout the Fort Hall Reservation
2013–2015
51
30
2014–2016
41
26
2015–2017
39
26
and we have therefore also conducted a
source-oriented analysis.
As discussed previously, the EPA
finds that it is appropriate to examine
the impacts of emissions from stationary
sources in Idaho in distances ranging
from 0 km to 50 km from the facility,
based on the ‘‘urban scale’’ definition
contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part
58, section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed
2016–2018
38
30
2017–2019
38
31
40
35
point sources with SO2 emissions of 100
tpy 13 or more within 50 km of the Fort
Hall Reservation to evaluate trends and
SO2 concentrations in areawide air
quality. We identified three such
sources, listed in Table 7 of this
document. We note that there are no
sources within the Fort Hall Reservation
that emit more than 2 tpy of SO2.
TABLE 7—SO2 EMISSIONS SOURCES WITHIN 50 km OF THE FORT HALL RESERVATION
[SO2 ≥ 100 tpy]
2017 SO2
emissions
(tpy)
SO2 Source 14 15
J.R. Simplot Company—Don Siding Pocatello (Pocatello, ID) ...............
P4 Production (Soda Springs, ID) ...........................................................
Itafos Conda (Conda, ID) ........................................................................
J.R. Simplot Company—Don Siding
Pocatello
The J.R. Simplot Company—Don
Siding Pocatello plant (Simplot Don
Siding Plant), in Pocatello, Idaho, is the
closest SO2 source to the Fort Hall
Distance to
Fort Hall
Reservation
(km)
748
488
387
<1
38
38
Reservation and has the highest SO2
emissions in the area with 748 tpy in
2017. The Simplot Don Siding Plant is
approximately 1 km from the boundary
of the Fort Hall Reservation and
approximately 1 km from the Pocatello
SO2 monitor (AQS Site ID 160050004).
Distance to
Caribou County
site
(AQS Site ID
160290031)
Distance to
Pocatello site
(AQS site ID
160050004)
1
80
82
80
1
7
The EPA reviewed SO2 emissions data
for the Simplot Don Siding Plant from
2010 through 2017. As shown in Table
8 of this document, SO2 emissions have
decreased considerably over time and
are less than half what they were in
2010.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 8—SIMPLOT DON SIDING PLANT SO2 EMISSIONS (tpy) FROM 2010–2017
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
1,634 ........................................................
1,647
1,563
803
795
732
735
748
The EPA reviewed data from the
meteorological station at the Pocatello
Regional Airport, which is
approximately 6 km west of the Simplot
Don Siding Plant. Prevailing winds are
from the southwest with an average
speed of 4.2 meters per second. Given
the close distance of the Pocatello SO2
monitor to the Simplot Don Siding
Plant, the low monitored SO2
concentrations, and the prevalent wind
direction, it is likely that SO2 emissions
from the Simplot Don Siding Plant will
be sufficiently dispersed before reaching
the Fort Hall Reservation.
12 Design values are from monitors with sufficient
data available in the EPA’s Air Quality System
(AQS) to produce valid design values. Data
retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/airquality-design-values#report.
13 We have limited our analysis to Idaho sources
emitting at least 100 tpy of SO2 because in the
absence of special factors, for example the presence
of a nearby larger source or unusual physical
factors, Idaho sources emitting less than 100 tpy can
appropriately be presumed to not be causing or
contributing to SO2 concentrations above the
NAAQS.
14 The Simplot Don Siding Plant, P4 Production,
and Itafos Conda are title V major stationary sources
subject to the applicable limits and controls in the
Idaho SIP, including Idaho’s SIP-approved
stationary source Permit to Construct program
(IDAPA 58.01.01.200 through 222). The Simplot
Don Siding Plant is owned or operated by J.R.
Simplot Company, which is a party to a Federal
Consent Decree to resolve CAA violations at the
company’s sulfuric acid plants. (Consent Decree,
USA et al. v. J.R. Simplot Company, Case No. 1:15–
cv–00562–CWD (Dist. Idaho 2015). On August 19,
2019, the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality issued a revised Permit to Construct to
incorporate the consent decree requirements into
the Simplot Don Siding Plant’s permit. (P–2016–
0055 Project 62103 issued pursuant to IDAPA
58.01.01.200 through 222.)
15 A schematic map of the sources and their
proximity to the Fort Hall Reservation is available
in the docket for this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62685
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
In addition to reviewing the 2009–
2011 regional scale SO2 modeling in
Idaho’s submission, the EPA examined
more recent regional-scale SO2
modeling for the Pocatello area using
the same tool Idaho used with updated
data from July 2014 to June 2017.16 The
highest design concentration identified
in the area is about 6.8 ppb, well under
the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb. On
the Fort Hall Reservation, the highest
design concentration identified in the
area is 6.3 ppb and occurs west of the
Simplot Don Siding Plant. This analysis
indicates that SO2 emissions impacts
from the Simplot Don Siding Plant to
the vicinity and the Fort Hall
Reservation are likely minimal. While
this regional-scale modeling is not
dispositive as to the determination of
whether impermissible SO2 transport is
occurring, it provides information that
along with other factors may be
considered in a weight of evidence
evaluation.
P4 Production and The Itafos Conda
The EPA also assessed potential SO2
impacts from other point sources near
the Fort Hall Reservation, P4 Production
and Itafos Conda, which are
approximately 7 km apart. These
sources are located in the Soda Springs
region on the east side of the high
Caribou Valley plain, along the west
flanks of the Caribou Range of
mountains. The rugged Blackfoot Lava
Fields and high, rocky Chesterfield
Range of mountains lie between the Fort
Hall Reservation and Soda Springs
region and rise to peaks exceeding 7,000
feet.
As shown in Table 7 of this
document, these sources are
approximately 38 km from the Fort Hall
Reservation. The closest SO2 monitor to
these sources is the Caribou County
monitor (AQS Site ID 160290031),
which is 1 km from P4 Production and
7 km from Itafos Conda. The EPA
reviewed SO2 emissions data for P4
Production and Itafos Conda from 2010
to 2017. As shown in Table 9 of this
document, SO2 emissions at P4
Production have decreased by almost
half since 2010. At Itafos Conda, SO2
emissions have not changed
substantially since 2010.
TABLE 9—P4 PRODUCTION AND ITAFOS CONDA SO2 EMISSIONS (tpy) FROM 2010–2017
Facility
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
P4 Production ..................
Itafos Conda .....................
2010
2011
936
341
2012
1169
302
2013
643
311
2014
615
410
Reservation. Based on this analysis, we
propose to determine that Idaho will not
contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in any other state or the Fort Hall
Reservation, per the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
With a 38 km transport distance over
complex, rugged terrain, and the low
monitored SO2 concentrations, it is
likely that SO2 emissions from P4
Production and Itafos Conda will be
sufficiently dispersed before impacting
the Fort Hall Reservation, and that any
impacts to the Reservation from these
sources would likely be minimal.
The EPA has reviewed SO2 sources
with emissions of 100 tpy or more
within 50 km of the Fort Hall
Reservation. Based on the available
information, the EPA is proposing to
find that Idaho will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for purposes
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the
Fort Hall Reservation.
We are proposing to conclude that,
based on our review of the Idaho
submission and our supplemental
evaluation, Idaho’s SIP meets the prong
1 requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for purposes of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. In summary, for
interstate transport prong 1, we
reviewed the Idaho submission and
conducted a supplemental analysis of
ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2
emission sources within Idaho,
neighboring states, and the Fort Hall
2. The EPA’s Prong 2 Evaluation
The EPA has reviewed available
information on SO2 air quality and
emission trends to evaluate Idaho’s
conclusion that emissions from sources
in the State will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
any downwind state. The EPA notes
that Idaho’s analysis does not
independently address whether the SIP
contains adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state, or the Fort
Hall Reservation. In remanding the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the
EPA in North Carolina v. EPA, the D.C.
Circuit explained that the regulating
authority must give the ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ clause of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ‘‘independent
significance’’ by evaluating the impact
of upwind state emissions on
downwind areas that, while currently in
16 The EPA used a tool developed and operated
by Washington State University as part of the NWAIRQUEST consortium. The tool estimates design
concentrations from a regionally optimized
photochemical air pollutant transport grid model
that uses meteorological data and computes air
pollutant emissions, transport, and chemistry using
the EPA’s CMAQ photochemical grid model. The
model simulates industrial source emissions from
point sources, including the Simplot Don Siding
Plant, assuming a constant hourly emission rate of
air pollutants based on the annual tons-per-year
emissions provided in the 2014 National Emissions
Inventory. The technical support document in the
docket for this action provides additional
information on the NW-AIRQUEST consortium’s
tool and the EPA’s analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2015
456
332
2016
467
438
2017
478
364
488
387
attainment, are at risk of future
nonattainment, considering historic
variability.17 While Idaho did not
evaluate the potential impact of its
emissions on areas that are currently
measuring clean data, but that may have
issues maintaining that air quality, the
EPA reviewed additional information,
which builds on the analysis regarding
significant contribution to
nonattainment (prong 1) to determine
potential impacts on areas that are
measuring clean data. Specifically,
because of the relatively low monitored
ambient concentrations of SO2 in Idaho
and neighboring states, the levels of SO2
emissions of Idaho sources, and the
large distances between cross-state SO2
sources, the EPA’s weight of evidence
evaluation shows that SO2 levels in
neighboring states near the Idaho border
do not indicate any inability to maintain
the SO2 NAAQS that could be
attributed, even in part, to sources in
Idaho.
Based on our review of the EPA’s
emissions trends data, as shown in
Table 1 of this document, SO2 emissions
from Idaho and neighboring states have
decreased substantially over time.18
From 2005 to 2017, total statewide SO2
emissions decreased by the following
17 North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910–11
(D.C. Cir. 2008). The Court held that the EPA must
give ‘‘independent significance’’ to each prong of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Id.
18 Additional emissions trends data are available
at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/
air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62686
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
proportions: Idaho: 72% decrease,
Montana: 56% decrease, Nevada: 89%
decrease, Oregon: 48% decrease, Utah:
71% decrease, Washington: 37%
Decrease, and Wyoming: 57% decrease.
This trend of decreasing SO2 emissions
does not by itself demonstrate that areas
in Idaho and neighboring states will not
have issues maintaining the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. However, as a piece of this
weight of evidence analysis for prong 2,
it provides further indication (when
considered alongside low monitor
values in neighboring states) that such
maintenance issues are unlikely. This is
because the large decrease in SO2
emissions covers a large geographic
area, which strongly suggests that it is
not a transient effect from reversible
causes and that there is low likelihood
that a strong upward trend in emissions
will occur that might cause areas that
are presently in attainment to violate the
NAAQS.
The EPA notes that existing sources
are subject to the control requirements
in the Idaho SIP discussed in our prong
1 evaluation, and any future new and
modified stationary sources of SO2
emissions will be subject to Idaho’s SIPapproved pre-construction permitting
(‘‘new source review’’ or ‘‘NSR’’)
program.19 The EPA believes that the
permitting regulations contained within
these programs will help ensure that
ambient concentrations of SO2 in
neighboring states will not be exceeded
as a result of new facility construction
or modification occurring in Idaho.
In conclusion, for interstate transport
prong 2, the EPA has incorporated
additional information into our
evaluation of Idaho’s submission, which
did not include an independent analysis
of prong 2. In doing so, we have
reviewed information about emission
trends, as well as the technical
information considered for our
interstate transport prong 1 analysis. We
find that the combination of low
ambient concentrations of SO2 in Idaho
and neighboring states, including near
the Fort Hall Reservation, the large
distances between cross-state SO2
sources, the downward trend in SO2
emissions from Idaho and surrounding
states, and SIP-approved control
measures designed to limit SO2
emissions from new and modified
stationary sources in Idaho, indicates
19 The
EPA approved a consolidated preconstruction permitting program, including both
major and minor source NSR, into the Idaho SIP on
June 23, 1986 (51 FR 22810). Since that time, we
have approved revisions to the program as
consistent with the CAA and Federal NSR
requirements codified at 40 CFR 51.160 through 40
CFR 51.166, most recently on August 20, 2018 (83
FR 42033).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
that Idaho sources will not interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state or the Fort
Hall Reservation. Accordingly, we
propose to determine that Idaho SO2
emission sources will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
any other state or the Fort Hall
Reservation, per the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
December 24, 2015 Idaho SIP as meeting
the interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. The EPA is
proposing this approval based on our
review of the information and analysis
provided by Idaho, as well as additional
analyses conducted by the EPA to verify
and supplement the Idaho SIP, which
indicates that Idaho will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state or the
Fort Hall Reservation. This action is
being taken under section 110 of the
CAA.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
it does not involve technical standards;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The proposed SIP would not be
approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not
have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA
provided a consultation opportunity to
the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
concerning the EPA’s action on this SIP
submission in a letter dated March 7,
2018. The EPA did not receive a request
for consultation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 25, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020–21741 Filed 10–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 193 (Monday, October 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62679-62686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21741]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0001; FRL-10014-83-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; ID; 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS Infrastructure
Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of
Idaho (Idaho or the State) that addresses the
[[Page 62680]]
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport requirements for the
2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). In this action, the EPA is proposing to
determine that Idaho will not contribute significantly to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in any other state or the Fort Hall Reservation. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to approve Idaho's December 24, 2015, SIP submission as
meeting the interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 4, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0001 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel at (206) 553-6121, or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents:
I. Background
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate
Transport SIPs
III. State Submission and EPA Analysis
A. State Submission
B. EPA Analysis
1. The EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation
2. The EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On June 2, 2010, the EPA established a new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\1\ The CAA requires states 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA 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, which are
codified in 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 another state (prong 1) and from interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and
fourth prongs, which are codified in 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 another state
(prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in
another state (prong 4).
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the prong 1 and
prong 2 portions of the State of Idaho's December 24, 2015 SIP
submission because, based on the information available at the time of
this rulemaking, the State demonstrated that Idaho will not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state or the Fort Hall
Reservation. All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for
this SIP submission have been addressed in separate actions. See 79 FR
46707 (August 11, 2014).
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 the 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, the EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone because the physical
properties of SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant
impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance. Given the
physical properties of SO2, the EPA selected the ``urban
scale''--a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km)
from point sources--given the usefulness of that range in assessing
trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-
scale pollution control strategies at such point sources.\2\ As such,
the EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from point sources in order
to assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact downwind
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2, see
40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
the EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see the EPA's proposal on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section III of this this document, the EPA reviewed
Idaho's analysis to assess how it evaluated SO2 transport to
other states, the types of information used in the analysis and the
conclusions drawn. The EPA then conducted a weight of evidence
analysis, reviewing the submission and other available information,
including air quality monitor data, emission sources and emission
trends within Idaho and in bordering states to which it could
potentially contribute or interfere with attainment or maintenance of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This proposed approval action is based on the information
contained in the administrative record for this action and does not
prejudge any other future EPA action that may make other
determinations regarding any of the subject state's air quality
status. Any such future actions, such as area designations under any
NAAQS, will be based on their own administrative records and the
EPA's analyses of information that becomes available at those times.
Future available information may include, and is not limited to,
monitoring data and modeling analyses conducted pursuant to the Data
Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS (80 FR
51052, August 21, 2015) and information submitted to the EPA by
states, air agencies, and third party stakeholders such as citizen
groups and industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62681]]
III. State Submission and EPA Analysis
On December 24, 2015, Idaho submitted a SIP revision to the EPA
documenting that its SIP contains provisions that address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. In this section, we provide an overview of
Idaho's 2010 SO2 interstate transport analysis, as well as
the EPA's evaluation of prongs 1 and 2.
A. State Submission
Idaho conducted a weight of evidence analysis to examine whether
SO2 emissions from Idaho will adversely affect attainment or
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in downwind states. In the
submission, Idaho identified one 2010 SO2 nonattainment area
in Billings, Montana, within Yellowstone County, which has since been
redesignated to attainment.\4\ Idaho reviewed 2014 SO2
emissions data from the largest SO2 emissions sources in the
State and determined that emissions from those sources were hundreds of
miles from the SO2 nonattainment/maintenance areas. Idaho
also reviewed 2012-2014 monitoring data from the 3 SO2
monitoring sites in its monitoring network and from the 14
SO2 monitoring sites in neighboring states for years 2011-
2013. Idaho determined that all design values were below the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.\5\ In addition, Idaho provided 2009-2011
regional-scale modeling for the State and found that areas of increased
SO2 concentrations were localized in nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Billings, Montana 2010 SO2 nonattainment area
was redesignated to attainment on May 10, 2016 following the state's
SIP submission (81 FR 28718).
\5\ The design value is the annual 99th percentile of the daily
maximum 1-hour concentration values, averaged over three consecutive
years. (See 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the weight of evidence analysis, Idaho concluded that
emissions within the State will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
B. EPA Analysis
The EPA proposes to find that Idaho's SIP meets the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. We have analyzed the air quality,
emission sources and emission trends in Idaho and neighboring states,
i.e., Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and the Fort
Hall Reservation. Based on our analysis, we propose to find that Idaho
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state or the Fort Hall Reservation.
1. The EPA's Prong 1 Evaluation
The EPA reviewed SO2 emission data from 2005 to 2017 for
Idaho and the six neighboring states.\6\ As shown in Table 1 of this
document, SO2 emissions from Idaho and neighboring states
have decreased substantially over time, ranging from 37 to 89 percent.
Specifically, over this 13-year period, Idaho's statewide
SO2 emissions decreased by 72 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ We derived the emissions trends information from the EPA's
web page https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
Table 1--SO2 Emission Trends in Idaho and Neighboring States
[In tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 reduction,
State 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2005-2017 (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho........................ 35,452 20,149 13,791 10,062 10,007 72
Montana...................... 42,085 29,354 29,452 25,046 18,580 56
Nevada....................... 72,474 20,951 13,578 16,178 7,793 89
Oregon....................... 37,204 25,671 30,285 23,606 19,325 48
Utah......................... 52,999 31,609 27,839 26,964 15,442 71
Washington................... 59,651 34,826 30,492 38,973 37,488 37
Wyoming...................... 122,454 112,791 83,256.1 56,772 52,354 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also reviewed the most recent certified air quality data
available for 1-hour SO2 design value concentrations at
monitors in Idaho and neighboring states. In Table 2 of this document,
we have included the most recent 2017-2019 design values for (1) all
monitors in Idaho; (2) the monitor with the highest design value in
each neighboring state; and (3) the monitor in each neighboring state
located closest to the Idaho border. The EPA notes that no neighboring
state has an SO2 monitor within 50 km of the Idaho border.
To assess how air quality has changed over time, we also reviewed 2014-
2016, 2015-2017, and 2016-2018 SO2 design values for these
monitors, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2--SO2 Design Values \7\ in ppb for AQS Monitors in Idaho and Neighboring States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to Design value
State/area AQS site ID nearest Idaho ---------------------------------------------------
border (km) * 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018 2017-2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho/Boise.................... 160010010 55 4 3 3 3
Idaho/Pocatello................ 160050004 102 39 38 38 40
Idaho/Caribou County........... 160290031 45 26 30 31 35
Montana/Helena................. 300490004 180 2 3 5 5
[[Page 62682]]
Montana/Billings............... 301110066 256 53 33 24 24
Nevada/Las Vegas............... 320030540 644 7 6 6 5
Nevada/Reno.................... 320310016 362 5 5 5 4
Oregon/Portland................ 410510080 447 3 3 3 3
Washington/Anacortes........... 530570011 412 5 4 3 3
Wyoming/Casper................. 560252601 393 25 20 19 19
Wyoming/Rock Springs........... 560370300 108 21 21 20 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All distances throughout this notice are approximations.
We reviewed ambient air quality data in Idaho and neighboring
states to see whether there were any monitoring sites, particularly
near the Idaho border, with elevated SO2 concentrations that
might warrant further investigation with respect to interstate
transport of SO2 from emission sources near any given
monitor. As shown in Table 2 of this document, there are no monitors
with violating design values in Idaho or neighboring states.
Additionally, the highest monitored 2017-2019 design value in Idaho or
neighboring states is 40 ppb, or approximately 54 percent of the level
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Design values are from monitors with sufficient data
available in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) to produce valid
design values. Data retrieved from the EPA's https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed previously, Idaho analyzed potential impacts to the
Billings, Montana area, which was still designated nonattainment at the
time of Idaho's submission. The EPA redesignated the former Billings
2010 SO2 nonattainment area to attainment following the
permanent closure of the PPL Corette Plant. See 81 FR 28718 (May 10,
2016). As noted by Idaho, the Billings, Montana area is located far
from the nearest Idaho border (256 km). Table 2 of this document also
shows that recent monitoring data in the Billings area do not approach
the level of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. For these reasons, the EPA
agrees with Idaho's conclusion that the emissions from Idaho will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment in the Billings, Montana
area.
The data presented in Table 2 of this document show that 2017-2019
1-hour SO2 design values in Idaho are between 4 and 54
percent of the 75-ppb level of the NAAQS. The Caribou County
SO2 monitor (AQS Site ID 160290031) is the only Idaho
SO2 monitor that is located within 50 km of a state border--
the Idaho-Wyoming border. The 2017-2019 design value at the Caribou
County SO2 monitor is 35 ppb or 47% of the NAAQS. However,
these air quality data do not, by themselves, indicate any particular
location that would warrant further investigation with respect to
SO2 emission sources in Idaho that might contribute
significantly to nonattainment in the bordering states. Because the
monitoring network is not necessarily designed to find all locations of
high SO2 concentrations, this observation indicates an
absence of evidence of impact at these locations but is not sufficient
evidence by itself of an absence of impact at all locations in the
neighboring states. We have therefore also conducted a source-oriented
analysis.
As noted, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to examine the
impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Idaho in distances
ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the ``urban
scale'' definition contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, section
4.4. Therefore, we assessed Idaho and neighboring state point sources
that emit 100 tons per year (tpy) of SO2 \8\ or more that
are located up to 50 km from an Idaho border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We have limited our analysis to sources emitting at least
100 tpy of SO2 because in the absence of special factors,
for example the presence of a nearby larger source or unusual
physical factors, Idaho sources emitting less than 100 tpy can
appropriately be presumed to not be causing or contributing to
SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are four sources in Idaho that emit 100 tpy of SO2
or more. These sources are located in southeastern Idaho and are listed
in Table 3 of this document. Two of the sources, P4 Production and
Itafos Conda, are less than 50 km from the Idaho-Wyoming border, 45 km
and 40 km, respectively.
Table 3--Idaho SO2 Sources
[SO2 >= 100 tpy]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Distance to nearest
Idaho SO2 Source Emissions state border (km)/
(tpy) 9 state border
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.R. Simplot Company--Don Siding 748 101/ID-NV.
Pocatello (Pocatello, ID).
The Amalgamated Sugar Company (Twin 635 61/ID-NV.
Falls, ID).
P4 Production (Soda Springs, ID)... 488 45/ID-WY.
Itafos Conda (Conda, ID)........... 387 40/ID-WY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Naughton Generating Plant in Lincoln, Wyoming, is the closest
neighboring state source to P4 Production and Itafos Conda. The EPA has
therefore assessed potential SO2 impacts from these Idaho
sources to the Lincoln, Wyoming area. Table 4 of this document shows
SO2 emissions and approximate distances between the sources.
The EPA finds that the 131 to 134 km distance between the two Idaho
sources and the Wyoming source, more than twice the 50-km distance the
EPA has focused on for this analysis, makes it very unlikely that
SO2 emissions from
[[Page 62683]]
the Idaho sources will interact with SO2 emissions from the
Wyoming source in such a way as to contribute significantly
nonattainment in the Lincoln, Wyoming area.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Point source emissions data throughout this document were
obtained through the EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Gateway
at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-eis-gateway.
\10\ In round 3 of 2010 SO2 designations, the EPA
designated Lincoln County in Wyoming as attainment/unclassifiable
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS based on modeling of the
Naughton source area. See ``Technical Support Document: Chapter 45
Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Wyoming'' at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/45-wy-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also ``Technical Support Document: Chapter 45
Intended Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour
SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Wyoming'' at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/45_wy_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
Table 4--Idaho SO2 Sources Within 50 km of a State Border
[SO2 >= 100 tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neighboring
2017 SO2 state source
Idaho SO2 source emissions Distance to nearest neighboring 2017 SO2
(tpy) state SO2 source (km)/source emissions
(tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Itafos Conda (Conda, Idaho).................. 387 134/Naughton Generating Plant, 4,048
Lincoln, WY.
P4 Production (Soda Springs, Idaho).......... 488 131/Naughton Generating Plant, 4,048
Lincoln, WY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also reviewed the location of neighboring state sources
that emit 100 tpy of SO2 or more and are located within 50
km of the Idaho border. This is because SO2 emitted by
sources in Idaho are most likely to impact elevated levels of
SO2 in neighboring states near such sources. As shown in
Table 5 of this document, there are two sources in neighboring states
that are located within 50 km of an Idaho border, the previously
mentioned Naughton Generating Plant in Lincoln, Wyoming, located in
southeastern Idaho, and EP Minerals in Vale, Oregon, located in
southwestern Idaho. The shortest distance between any pair of these
sources is 131 km, between the Naughton Generating Plant and P4
Production. As just explained, this distance makes it unlikely that
SO2 emissions from the Idaho source will interact with
SO2 emissions from the Wyoming source. This indicates that
there is no location in any neighboring state that would warrant
further investigation with respect to Idaho SO2 emission
sources that might contribute to problems with attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
Table 5--Neighboring State SO2 Sources Within 50 km of an Idaho Border
[SO2 >= 100 tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Source
2017 SO2 Distance to Distance to nearest Idaho 2017 SO2
Neighboring state SO2 source emissions Idaho border SO2 source (km) Emissions
(tpy) (km) (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naughton Generating Station, Lincoln, 4,048 46 131 (P4 Production, Soda 488
WY. Springs, ID).
EP Minerals, Vale, OR................ 182 32 286/The Amalgamated Sugar 635
Company, Twin Falls, ID.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fort Hall Reservation
On January 19, 2017, the EPA determined that the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation were eligible to be treated in the
same manner as an affected downwind state for purposes of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(D) and 126.\11\ Idaho submitted the SO2 interstate
transport SIP before this determination and the submission did not
analyze SO2 transport to the Fort Hall Reservation.
Therefore, the EPA has conducted the following weight of evidence
analysis for potential Idaho SO2 transport to the Fort Hall
Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The EPA's determination that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
are eligible for treatment in the same manner as a state for CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(D) and 126 is available in the docket for this
action. See also https://www.epa.gov/tribal/tribes-approved-treatment-state-tas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fort Hall Reservation is located in southeastern Idaho, mostly
on the high, flat, cultivated east banks of the Snake River Plain which
average around 4,500 feet above sea level. The east portion of the
Reservation rests on the northern reaches of the Pocatello range of
mountains. The Fort Hall Reservation is bordered on the east and south
by the rugged rocky hills of the Pocatello, Chesterfield, and Caribou
mountain ranges. These ranges run north-south with peaks rising from
6,000 to 9,000 feet above sea level, generally east and south of the
Reservation.
The EPA reviewed ambient air quality data, particularly near the
Fort Hall Reservation borders, for any monitoring sites with elevated
SO2 concentrations that might warrant further investigation
with respect to interstate transport of SO2 from Idaho
sources. The nearest SO2 monitor to the Fort Hall
Reservation is in Pocatello, Idaho (AQS Site ID 160050004) and is
approximately 2 km from the nearest Reservation border. Another
SO2 monitor is located in Caribou County, Idaho (AQS Site ID
160290031) and is approximately 37 km from the southeastern border of
the Fort Hall Reservation. Although these monitors are not sited to
determine maximum impacts at the Fort Hall Reservation, monitoring data
listed in Table 6 of this document, indicate that SO2 levels
in those areas are relatively low. The 2017-2019 design values at the
Pocatello and Caribou County monitor
[[Page 62684]]
sites were 53 at 47 and percent of the 75-ppb level of the NAAQS,
respectively.
Table 6--Idaho SO2 Design Values 12 in ppb for AQS Monitors Near the Fort Hall Reservation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate Design value
distance to -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQS monitor location (AQS site ID) Fort Hall
Reservation 2012-2014 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017 2016-2018 2017-2019
(km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pocatello (160050004).................................... 2 51 41 39 38 38 40
Caribou County (160290031)............................... 37 30 26 26 30 31 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These air quality data do not, by themselves, indicate any
particular location that would warrant further investigation with
respect to SO2 emission sources that might contribute
significantly to nonattainment at the Fort Hall Reservation. However,
data from this monitoring network is not necessarily representative of
SO2 levels throughout the Fort Hall Reservation and we have
therefore also conducted a source-oriented analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Design values are from monitors with sufficient data
available in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) to produce valid
design values. Data retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed previously, the EPA finds that it is appropriate to
examine the impacts of emissions from stationary sources in Idaho in
distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the
``urban scale'' definition contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58,
section 4.4. Therefore, we assessed point sources with SO2
emissions of 100 tpy \13\ or more within 50 km of the Fort Hall
Reservation to evaluate trends and SO2 concentrations in
areawide air quality. We identified three such sources, listed in Table
7 of this document. We note that there are no sources within the Fort
Hall Reservation that emit more than 2 tpy of SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ We have limited our analysis to Idaho sources emitting at
least 100 tpy of SO2 because in the absence of special
factors, for example the presence of a nearby larger source or
unusual physical factors, Idaho sources emitting less than 100 tpy
can appropriately be presumed to not be causing or contributing to
SO2 concentrations above the NAAQS.
Table 7--SO2 Emissions Sources Within 50 km of the Fort Hall Reservation
[SO2 >= 100 tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 SO2 Distance to Distance to Distance to
emissions Fort Hall Pocatello site Caribou County
SO2 Source 14 15 (tpy) Reservation (AQS site ID site (AQS Site
(km) 160050004) ID 160290031)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.R. Simplot Company--Don Siding Pocatello 748 <1 1 80
(Pocatello, ID).............................
P4 Production (Soda Springs, ID)............. 488 38 80 1
Itafos Conda (Conda, ID)..................... 387 38 82 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J.R. Simplot Company--Don Siding Pocatello
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Simplot Don Siding Plant, P4 Production, and Itafos
Conda are title V major stationary sources subject to the applicable
limits and controls in the Idaho SIP, including Idaho's SIP-approved
stationary source Permit to Construct program (IDAPA 58.01.01.200
through 222). The Simplot Don Siding Plant is owned or operated by
J.R. Simplot Company, which is a party to a Federal Consent Decree
to resolve CAA violations at the company's sulfuric acid plants.
(Consent Decree, USA et al. v. J.R. Simplot Company, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00562-CWD (Dist. Idaho 2015). On August 19, 2019, the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality issued a revised Permit to
Construct to incorporate the consent decree requirements into the
Simplot Don Siding Plant's permit. (P-2016-0055 Project 62103 issued
pursuant to IDAPA 58.01.01.200 through 222.)
\15\ A schematic map of the sources and their proximity to the
Fort Hall Reservation is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The J.R. Simplot Company--Don Siding Pocatello plant (Simplot Don
Siding Plant), in Pocatello, Idaho, is the closest SO2
source to the Fort Hall Reservation and has the highest SO2
emissions in the area with 748 tpy in 2017. The Simplot Don Siding
Plant is approximately 1 km from the boundary of the Fort Hall
Reservation and approximately 1 km from the Pocatello SO2
monitor (AQS Site ID 160050004). The EPA reviewed SO2
emissions data for the Simplot Don Siding Plant from 2010 through 2017.
As shown in Table 8 of this document, SO2 emissions have
decreased considerably over time and are less than half what they were
in 2010.
Table 8--Simplot Don Siding Plant SO2 Emissions (tpy) From 2010-2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,634................................................. 1,647 1,563 803 795 732 735 748
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA reviewed data from the meteorological station at the
Pocatello Regional Airport, which is approximately 6 km west of the
Simplot Don Siding Plant. Prevailing winds are from the southwest with
an average speed of 4.2 meters per second. Given the close distance of
the Pocatello SO2 monitor to the Simplot Don Siding Plant,
the low monitored SO2 concentrations, and the prevalent wind
direction, it is likely that SO2 emissions from the Simplot
Don Siding Plant will be sufficiently dispersed before reaching the
Fort Hall Reservation.
[[Page 62685]]
In addition to reviewing the 2009-2011 regional scale
SO2 modeling in Idaho's submission, the EPA examined more
recent regional-scale SO2 modeling for the Pocatello area
using the same tool Idaho used with updated data from July 2014 to June
2017.\16\ The highest design concentration identified in the area is
about 6.8 ppb, well under the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb. On
the Fort Hall Reservation, the highest design concentration identified
in the area is 6.3 ppb and occurs west of the Simplot Don Siding Plant.
This analysis indicates that SO2 emissions impacts from the
Simplot Don Siding Plant to the vicinity and the Fort Hall Reservation
are likely minimal. While this regional-scale modeling is not
dispositive as to the determination of whether impermissible
SO2 transport is occurring, it provides information that
along with other factors may be considered in a weight of evidence
evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The EPA used a tool developed and operated by Washington
State University as part of the NW-AIRQUEST consortium. The tool
estimates design concentrations from a regionally optimized
photochemical air pollutant transport grid model that uses
meteorological data and computes air pollutant emissions, transport,
and chemistry using the EPA's CMAQ photochemical grid model. The
model simulates industrial source emissions from point sources,
including the Simplot Don Siding Plant, assuming a constant hourly
emission rate of air pollutants based on the annual tons-per-year
emissions provided in the 2014 National Emissions Inventory. The
technical support document in the docket for this action provides
additional information on the NW-AIRQUEST consortium's tool and the
EPA's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P4 Production and The Itafos Conda
The EPA also assessed potential SO2 impacts from other
point sources near the Fort Hall Reservation, P4 Production and Itafos
Conda, which are approximately 7 km apart. These sources are located in
the Soda Springs region on the east side of the high Caribou Valley
plain, along the west flanks of the Caribou Range of mountains. The
rugged Blackfoot Lava Fields and high, rocky Chesterfield Range of
mountains lie between the Fort Hall Reservation and Soda Springs region
and rise to peaks exceeding 7,000 feet.
As shown in Table 7 of this document, these sources are
approximately 38 km from the Fort Hall Reservation. The closest
SO2 monitor to these sources is the Caribou County monitor
(AQS Site ID 160290031), which is 1 km from P4 Production and 7 km from
Itafos Conda. The EPA reviewed SO2 emissions data for P4
Production and Itafos Conda from 2010 to 2017. As shown in Table 9 of
this document, SO2 emissions at P4 Production have decreased
by almost half since 2010. At Itafos Conda, SO2 emissions
have not changed substantially since 2010.
Table 9--P4 Production and Itafos Conda SO2 Emissions (tpy) From 2010-2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P4 Production................................... 936 1169 643 615 456 467 478 488
Itafos Conda.................................... 341 302 311 410 332 438 364 387
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a 38 km transport distance over complex, rugged terrain, and
the low monitored SO2 concentrations, it is likely that
SO2 emissions from P4 Production and Itafos Conda will be
sufficiently dispersed before impacting the Fort Hall Reservation, and
that any impacts to the Reservation from these sources would likely be
minimal.
The EPA has reviewed SO2 sources with emissions of 100
tpy or more within 50 km of the Fort Hall Reservation. Based on the
available information, the EPA is proposing to find that Idaho will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS for purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in
the Fort Hall Reservation.
We are proposing to conclude that, based on our review of the Idaho
submission and our supplemental evaluation, Idaho's SIP meets the prong
1 requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for purposes of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. In summary, for interstate transport prong
1, we reviewed the Idaho submission and conducted a supplemental
analysis of ambient SO2 monitoring data and SO2
emission sources within Idaho, neighboring states, and the Fort Hall
Reservation. Based on this analysis, we propose to determine that Idaho
will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state or the Fort Hall Reservation,
per the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
2. The EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation
The EPA has reviewed available information on SO2 air
quality and emission trends to evaluate Idaho's conclusion that
emissions from sources in the State will not interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA notes
that Idaho's analysis does not independently address whether the SIP
contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state,
or the Fort Hall Reservation. In remanding the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) to the EPA in North Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit
explained that the regulating authority must give the ``interfere with
maintenance'' clause of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) ``independent
significance'' by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on
downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of
future nonattainment, considering historic variability.\17\ While Idaho
did not evaluate the potential impact of its emissions on areas that
are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues
maintaining that air quality, the EPA reviewed additional information,
which builds on the analysis regarding significant contribution to
nonattainment (prong 1) to determine potential impacts on areas that
are measuring clean data. Specifically, because of the relatively low
monitored ambient concentrations of SO2 in Idaho and
neighboring states, the levels of SO2 emissions of Idaho
sources, and the large distances between cross-state SO2
sources, the EPA's weight of evidence evaluation shows that
SO2 levels in neighboring states near the Idaho border do
not indicate any inability to maintain the SO2 NAAQS that
could be attributed, even in part, to sources in Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir.
2008). The Court held that the EPA must give ``independent
significance'' to each prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the EPA's emissions trends data, as shown in
Table 1 of this document, SO2 emissions from Idaho and
neighboring states have decreased substantially over time.\18\ From
2005 to 2017, total statewide SO2 emissions decreased by the
following
[[Page 62686]]
proportions: Idaho: 72% decrease, Montana: 56% decrease, Nevada: 89%
decrease, Oregon: 48% decrease, Utah: 71% decrease, Washington: 37%
Decrease, and Wyoming: 57% decrease. This trend of decreasing
SO2 emissions does not by itself demonstrate that areas in
Idaho and neighboring states will not have issues maintaining the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. However, as a piece of this weight of evidence
analysis for prong 2, it provides further indication (when considered
alongside low monitor values in neighboring states) that such
maintenance issues are unlikely. This is because the large decrease in
SO2 emissions covers a large geographic area, which strongly
suggests that it is not a transient effect from reversible causes and
that there is low likelihood that a strong upward trend in emissions
will occur that might cause areas that are presently in attainment to
violate the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Additional emissions trends data are available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that existing sources are subject to the control
requirements in the Idaho SIP discussed in our prong 1 evaluation, and
any future new and modified stationary sources of SO2
emissions will be subject to Idaho's SIP-approved pre-construction
permitting (``new source review'' or ``NSR'') program.\19\ The EPA
believes that the permitting regulations contained within these
programs will help ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2
in neighboring states will not be exceeded as a result of new facility
construction or modification occurring in Idaho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The EPA approved a consolidated pre-construction permitting
program, including both major and minor source NSR, into the Idaho
SIP on June 23, 1986 (51 FR 22810). Since that time, we have
approved revisions to the program as consistent with the CAA and
Federal NSR requirements codified at 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR
51.166, most recently on August 20, 2018 (83 FR 42033).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, the EPA has
incorporated additional information into our evaluation of Idaho's
submission, which did not include an independent analysis of prong 2.
In doing so, we have reviewed information about emission trends, as
well as the technical information considered for our interstate
transport prong 1 analysis. We find that the combination of low ambient
concentrations of SO2 in Idaho and neighboring states,
including near the Fort Hall Reservation, the large distances between
cross-state SO2 sources, the downward trend in
SO2 emissions from Idaho and surrounding states, and SIP-
approved control measures designed to limit SO2 emissions
from new and modified stationary sources in Idaho, indicates that Idaho
sources will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state or the Fort Hall Reservation. Accordingly, we
propose to determine that Idaho SO2 emission sources will
not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any
other state or the Fort Hall Reservation, per the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the December 24, 2015 Idaho SIP as
meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The EPA is
proposing this approval based on our review of the information and
analysis provided by Idaho, as well as additional analyses conducted by
the EPA to verify and supplement the Idaho SIP, which indicates that
Idaho will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state or
the Fort Hall Reservation. This action is being taken under section 110
of the CAA.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The proposed SIP would not be approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a
consultation opportunity to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes concerning the
EPA's action on this SIP submission in a letter dated March 7, 2018.
The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 25, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-21741 Filed 10-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
