Air Plan Approval; WA; Excess Emissions, Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Revisions, 39210-39216 [2023-12700]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39210
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
regulated area by other federal, state,
and local agencies.
(e) Enforcement periods. This section
will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
on July 15, 2023, and, if necessary due
to inclement weather on July 15, 2023,
from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on July 16, 2023.
Dated: June 9, 2023.
David E. O’Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2023–12749 Filed 6–14–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2019–0647; FRL–10975–
01–R10]
Air Plan Approval; WA; Excess
Emissions, Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction Revisions
Table of Contents
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of
Washington, through the Department of
Ecology on November 12, 2019. The
revisions were submitted by
Washington in response to an EPA’s
June 12, 2015 ‘‘SIP call’’ in which EPA
found a substantially inadequate
Washington SIP provision providing
affirmative defenses that operate to limit
the jurisdiction of the Federal court in
an enforcement action related to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is
proposing approval of the SIP revisions
and proposing to determine that
removal of the substantially inadequate
provision corrects the deficiency
identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP call.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 17, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2019–0647, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not
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
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Jun 14, 2023
Jkt 259001
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Randall Ruddick, EPA Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue (Suite 155), Seattle, WA
98101, (206) 553–1999; or email
ruddick.randall@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ or ‘‘our,’’ is used, it refers to EPA.
I. Background
II. Analysis of SIP Submission
A. Geographic Applicability
B. The Provision Subject to the 2015 SIP
Call
C. Additional SIP Revisions Submitted But
Not Specified in the 2015 SIP Call
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background
On February 22, 2013, the EPA issued
a Federal Register notice of proposed
rulemaking outlining EPA’s policy at
the time with respect to SIP provisions
related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed
specific SSM SIP provisions and
explained how each one either did or
did not comply with the Clean Air Act
(CAA) with regard to excess emission
events.1 For each SIP provision that
EPA determined to be inconsistent with
the CAA, EPA proposed to find that the
existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements
and thus proposed to issue a SIP call
under CAA section 110(k)(5).2 On
September 17, 2014, EPA issued a
supplemental proposal revising what
the Agency had previously proposed on
February 22, 2013, in light of a D.C.
Circuit decision that determined EPA
1 State Implementation Plans: Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions
Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460
(Feb. 22, 2013).
2 The term ‘‘SIP Call’’ refers to the requirement for
a revised SIP in response to a finding by the EPA
that a SIP is ‘‘substantially inadequate’’ to meet
CAA requirements pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(5), titled ‘‘Calls for plan revisions.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
does not have authority under the CAA
to create or approve affirmative defense
provisions applicable to private civil
suits.3 EPA outlined its updated policy
that affirmative defense SIP provisions
are not consistent with CAA
requirements. EPA proposed in the
supplemental proposal document to
apply its revised interpretation of the
CAA to specific affirmative defense SIP
provisions and proposed SIP calls for
those provisions where appropriate.4
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA
section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized ‘‘State
Implementation Plans: Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement
and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy
Applicable to SIPs; Findings of
Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess
Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,’’ (80 FR
33840, June 12, 2015), hereinafter
referred to as the ‘‘2015 SSM SIP
Action.’’ The 2015 SSM SIP Action
clarified, restated, and updated EPA’s
interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are
inconsistent with CAA requirements.
The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that
certain SIP provisions in 36 states
(including Washington State) were
substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements and issued a SIP call to
those states to submit SIP revisions to
address the inadequacies. EPA
established an 18-month deadline by
which the affected states had to submit
such SIP revisions. States were required
to submit corrective revisions to their
SIPs in response to the SIP calls by
November 22, 2016.
In October 2020, EPA issued a SSM
Memorandum (2020 Memorandum).5
Importantly, the 2020 Memorandum
stated that it ‘‘did not alter in any way
the determinations made in the 2015
SSM SIP Action that identified specific
state SIP provisions that were
substantially inadequate to meet the
requirements of the Act.’’ Accordingly,
the 2020 Memorandum had no direct
impact on the SIP call issued to
Washington in 2015. The 2020
Memorandum did, however, indicate
EPA’s intent at the time to review SIP
3 The term affirmative defense provision means a
state law provision in a SIP that specifies particular
criteria or preconditions that, if met, would purport
to preclude a court from imposing monetary
penalties or other forms of relief for violations of
SIP requirements in accordance with CAA section
113 or CAA section 304. 80 FR 33839, June 12,
2015.
4 See79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014.
5 October 9, 2020, memorandum ‘‘Inclusion of
Provisions Governing Periods of Startup,
Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,’’ from Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM
SIP Action to determine whether EPA
should maintain, modify, or withdraw
particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
On September 30, 2021, EPA
withdrew the 2020 Memorandum and
announced EPA’s return to the policy
articulated in the 2015 SSM SIP Action
(2021 Memorandum).6 As articulated in
the 2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions
that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent
with CAA requirements and, therefore,
generally are not approvable if
contained in a SIP submission. This
policy approach is intended to ensure
that all communities and populations,
including overburdened communities,
receive the full health and
environmental protections provided by
the CAA.7 The 2021 Memorandum also
retracted the prior statement from the
2020 Memorandum of EPA’s plans to
review and potentially modify or
withdraw particular SIP calls. That
statement no longer reflects EPA’s
intent. EPA intends to implement the
principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action as the agency takes action on SIP
submissions, including the November
12, 2019 SIP submittal provided by
Washington in response to the 2015 SIP
call.
The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA’s
interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are
inconsistent with CAA requirements.
With regard to the Washington SIP, EPA
determined that, to the extent that
Wash. Admin. Code (WAC) 173–400–
107 was intended to be an affirmative
defense, it was not consistent with the
requirements of the CAA. Therefore,
EPA issued a SIP call with respect to
this provision. Washington
subsequently submitted a SIP revision
on November 12, 2019, in response to
the SIP Call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action. In its submission, Washington
removed WAC 173–400–107 from the
SIP in its entirety.
Washington also included SIP
revisions that are not subject to the 2015
SSM SIP in the 2019 SIP submittal.
These additional SIP revisions set
alternate emission standards for shortterm modes of operations of sources
such as startup, shutdown, and
scheduled maintenance for some source
categories; establish the process for
6 September 30, 2021, memorandum ‘‘Withdrawal
of the October 9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans and Implementation of the
Prior Policy,’’ from Janet McCabe, Deputy
Administrator.
7 See 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Jun 14, 2023
Jkt 259001
defining facility-specific alternate
emission standards; remove excess
emission provisions not consistent with
EPA’s 2015 SSM policy; revise crossreferences as necessary to align with
updates to the analogous Federal laws
or EPA’s 2015 SSM policy; and remove
some provisions in deference to equally
or more stringent relevant Federal laws.
Many of the revisions are conditioned to
only take effect upon the effective date
of EPA’s removal of WAC 173–400–107
from the Washington SIP.
II. Analysis of SIP Submission
A. Geographic Applicability
EPA’s analysis and proposed actions
related to WAC 173–400 in the 2019 SIP
submittal similarly apply to geographic
areas and source categories under the
direct jurisdiction of Ecology and
Benton Clean Air Agency (BCAA), a
local air agency in Washington, because
BCAA’s SIP-approved regulations state,
in Article 1, Section 1.03, that BCAA
implements and enforces WAC 173–400
‘‘as in effect now and including all
future amendments, except where
specific provisions of BCAA Regulation
1 apply.’’ The 2019 SIP submittal
contains no substantive changes to the
minor differences between the two
agencies’ jurisdictional applicability of
subparts of WAC 173–400.
B. The Provision Subject to the 2015 SIP
Call
In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA
identified WAC 173–400–107 as
inconsistent with CAA requirements
because it contained affirmative defense
provisions. Washington then submitted
a SIP revision on November 12, 2019,
that removed WAC 173–400–107 from
the SIP.
We are proposing to find that the
removal of WAC 173–400–107 from the
Washington SIP will satisfy the 2015
SIP Call because the removal of WAC
173–400–107 from the SIP will no
longer provide for an affirmative
defense.
C. Additional SIP Revisions Submitted
But Not Specified in the 2015 SIP Call
Washington adopted additional
revisions to the State’s excess emissions
provisions that were not specified in the
2015 SSM SIP Call. These revisions
were adopted in three different state
rulemaking actions, two in 2018 for
provisions in WAC 173–400, General
Air Regulations for Air Pollution
Sources, and one additional rulemaking
in 2019 revising WAC 173–405, Kraft
Pulping Mills; WAC 173–410, Sulfite
Pulping mills; and WAC 173–415,
Primary Aluminum Plants.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39211
WAC 173–400, General Air
Regulations for Air Pollution Sources.
In its November 12, 2019 SIP
submission, Washington requests
approval of revisions to WAC 173–030,
Definitions; WAC 173–400–040, General
Standards for maximum emissions;
WAC 173–400–070, Emission standards
for certain source categories; WAC 173–
400–081, Startup and Shutdown; WAC
173–400–082, Alternative emission
limit that exceeds an emission standard
in the SIP; WAC 173–400–107, Excess
emissions; and WAC 173–400–171,
Public involvement. Many of the
revisions are non-substantive changes.
WAC 173–400–030, Definitions.
Washington revised this section to aid
in implementation of provisions such as
those addressing transient (short-term)
modes of operation—including startup
and shutdown, and to clarify commonly
used ‘terms of art’ (such as ‘‘hog fuel’’).8
Most definitions in WAC 173–400–030
remain unchanged since our last
approval; 9 however, the addition of
new definitions resulted in changes to
the numbering sequence. Even though
the text of those definitions remains as
approved, the state effective date
changed to reflect the numbering
sequence changes. Therefore,
Washington requested EPA approve all
of WAC 173–400–030 as submitted on
November 12, 2019, except definition
(96) related to toxic air pollutants or
odors, because it is outside the scope of
CAA section 110 requirements for
SIPs.10 A complete redline/strikeout
analysis of the updated definitions in
WAC 173–400–030 is included in the
docket for this action.11 Updating the
state effective date for those definitions
in WAC 173–400–030 previously
approved into Washington’s SIP that
remain unchanged will have no effect
on emissions.
The two revisions to existing
definitions in WAC 173–400–030 were
to:
(32) 12 ‘‘Excess emissions’’: to clarify
that the term also includes emissions
8 For more details, see Chapter 2 of Washington’s
November 12, 2019, submission, included in the
docket for this action as 102_state submittal_SIP_
SSM_400_405_410_415.pdf.
9 EPA reviewed those definitions and approved
them in a previous action (85 FR 10302, February
24, 2020).
10 Definition (96) was excluded for the same
reasons in our February 24, 2020 approval.
11 See 102_state submittal_SIP_SSM_400_405_
410_415.pdf, included in the docket for this action.
12 ‘‘Excess Emissions’’ was previously codified as
WAC 173–400–030(30), state effective December 29,
2012. EPA approved the December 29, 2012
versions of Washington’s definitions of ‘‘excess
emissions’’ and ‘‘federally enforceable’’ in a
November 3, 2014 action (79 FR 59653). Since that
action, EPA has approved more recent versions of
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
Continued
15JNP1
39212
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
above limits established in permits or
orders, including alternative emission
limits. This definition comports with
our 2015 SSM Policy; 13 and
(38) 14 ‘‘Federally enforceable’’: to
include emission limitations during
startup and shutdown.
Washington also adopted several new
definitions which are discussed below:
‘‘ ‘Alternative emission limit’ or
‘limitation’ ’’: to clarify implementation
of the provisions for transient (shortterm) modes of operation such as
startup and shutdown provisions in
WAC 173–400–040(2), 081 and 082,
107, 108 and 109. This definition is
defined substantively the same as in our
2015 SSM Policy,15
‘‘Hog fuel’’ to define what has been
used as a ‘term of art’ for wood waste
especially hogged wood waste, utilized
for burning and to clarify
implementation of emissions standards
for boilers in WAC 173–400–040-(2) and
WAC 173-400-070(2). This definition,
while narrower, is generally in keeping
with the Federal definition for biomass
or bio-based solid fuel for boilers and
process heaters in EPA’s National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Major Sources:
Industrial, Commercial, and
Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 63,
Subpart DDDDD (hereinafter ‘‘Subpart
DDDDD’’); 16
(83) ‘‘Shutdown’’ and (89) ‘‘Startup:’’
to clarify the general meanings of the
terms 17 for purposes of implementation
of WAC 173–400. the meaning of these
terms is further clarified in WAC 173–
400–040–(2) in the context of startup
and shutdown requirements for boilers,
similar to these those terms are used in
Subpart DDDDD;
(97) ‘‘Transient mode of operation’’: to
include short-term operating periods,
including periods of startup and
shutdown. This term is used for
facilitating development of alternative
emission limitations (AELs) for startup
and shutdown periods, as well as other
short-term modes of operations such as
soot blowing (also known as boiler
lancing), grate cleaning, and refractory
curing, during which a source is unable
Washington’s definitions rule, but explicitly
excluded the definitions for ‘‘excess emissions’’ and
federally enforceable’’ from those actions. This
means the 2012 versions of these definitions are
currently effective for purposes of the Washington
SIP, and it is those versions that EPA is proposing
to revise in this action.
13 See 80 FR 33840, specifically page 33842.
14 ‘‘Federally enforceable’’ was previously
codified as WAC 173–400–030(36), state effective
December 29, 2012.
15 See 80 FR 33840, especially page 33912.
16 See specifically 40 CFR 63.7575.
17 40 CFR 63.7575.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Jun 14, 2023
Jkt 259001
to meet otherwise applicable emissions
limits;
(100) ‘‘Useful thermal energy’’: to
clarify implementation of WAC 173400-040(2)(e). The definition is nearly
verbatim from, and is substantively the
same as, EPA’s Boiler NESHAP.18
(103) ‘‘Wigwam’’ or ‘‘silo burner’’:
This definition clarifies the types of
units that are now prohibited under
WAC 173–400–070(1) 19
(104) ‘‘Wood-fired boiler’’: to clarify
implementation of regulations tailored
specifically for this unique subset of
boilers. This definition is similar to, but
more narrowly defined than, ‘‘boiler’’ in
40 CFR 63.7575 and in as much as it is
used to regulate boilers, comports with
the Federal CAA.
For the reasons stated above, EPA is
proposing to approve the above changes
to Washington’s definitions under WAC
173–400–030.
WAC 173–400–040, General
Standards for Maximum Emissions.
Washington made numerous revisions
to WAC 173–400–040, many of which
are non-substantive typographical and
stylistic changes that are not specifically
identified in this preamble. Several
revisions are conditioned to only take
effect upon EPA’s removal of WAC 173–
400–107 from the SIP, which as
mentioned above, we are proposing to
do in this action. In other words, the
redline/strike through version of
Washington’s SIP rules included in the
submittal set forth in some cases two
versions of the same rule, one of which
is intended to become effective upon
EPA removal of –107 from the SIP, and
the other intended to be automatically
rendered ineffective as a matter of state
law.
Substantive changes were made to
–040(2) Visible emissions. That
provision establishes a general limit on
visible emissions, prohibiting emissions
greater than twenty percent opacity for
more than three minutes during any
one-hour period, except as specified in
the rule. The effect of the State’s
November 12, 2019 submittal is to
remove some exemptions from WAC
173–400–040(2) and replace them with
AELs that apply during transient modes
of operation. In the 2015 SSM SIP
Action, EPA recommended states
consider seven criteria when developing
AELs to replace automatic or
18 See
specifically 40 CFR 63.7575 and 63.11237.
these definitions to WAC 173–400–030
does not constitute a prohibition, rather it is for
clarification purposes as the terms were not defined
elsewhere in WAC 173–400. However, the terms are
used in WAC 173–400–070(1) which previously
allowed the use of these units for disposal burning
of waste wood. Revisions in the 2019 SIP submittal
prohibit their use as of January 1, 2020.
19 Adding
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
discretionary exemptions from
otherwise applicable SIP requirements.
These recommended criteria assure the
alternative emission limitations meet
basic CAA requirements. The AELs in
Washington’s submittal are specific to
visible emissions (opacity) from certain
pre-existing biomass boilers 20 during
soot blowing, grate cleaning, and
planned startups and shutdowns as well
as boilers and lime kilns during
refractory curing.
EPA evaluated whether the alternative
requirements provided by Washington’s
2019 SIP submission are consistent with
the Agency’s 2015 SSM SIP Action,
including the seven criteria
recommended therein.21 In its 2019
submittal, Washington provided an
analysis of these criteria as applied to
the SIP revisions. For the reasons
explained below, EPA finds that the
proposed AELs in WAC 173–400–
040(2) 22 are consistent with the
recommended criteria set forth in that
policy. We are therefore proposing to
approve these provisions into the
Washington SIP.
Washington’s 2019 submittal includes
detailed analyses of potential impacts
from the proposed SIP revisions, which
EPA finds show compliance with
NAAQS and other CAA requirements
such as visibility should not be
negatively affected. This is, in part,
because the AELs do not equate to a
relaxation of limits or an increase in
emissions. Rather, provisions in
Washington’s SIP that serve to exempt
or otherwise excuse excess emissions
entirely (de facto unlimited emissions)
are being replaced with more stringent
emissions limitations. We find that
particulate matter (PM) emissions will
not increase as a result of the revisions
for two reasons: (1) Washington’s
revised rules require compliance with
AELs during transient modes of
operations, whereas the prior version of
the rules (including the SIP-called
version of WAC 173–400–107) allowed
sources to routinely avoid penalties for
excess emissions; and (2) the preexisting emissions limits remain in
place for non-transient modes of
operation for these sources.
20 Notably, applicability is limited to only hog
fuel or wood-fired boilers (defined in WAC 173–
400–030) that utilize only dry particulate matter
controls such as multiclone, fabric filter or dry
electrostatic precipitator (DESP).
21 See, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of
EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of
Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During
Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction’’ 80
FR 33840, section XI.D.
22 As provided in Washington’s 2019 SIP
submittal.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
As explained above, Washington’s
November 12, 2019 submittal includes
AELs applicable to three narrow
circumstances: soot blowing or grate
cleaning at hog fuel or wood-fired
boilers; emissions from startup or
shutdown at hog fuel or wood-fired
boilers; and curing of furnace refractory
in a lime kiln or boiler. EPA’s analysis
of each of the seven criteria as they
apply to these AELs is set forth below.
(1) The revision is limited to specific,
narrowly defined source categories
using specific control strategies (e.g.,
cogeneration facilities burning natural
gas and using selective catalytic
reduction).
WAC 173–400–040(2)(a), Soot
blowing and grate cleaning. The
applicability of this AEL for visible
emissions [opacity] is limited to hog
fuel or wood-fired boilers that use only
dry particulate controls. In addition,
soot blowing and grate cleaning are
work practice activities that decrease
emissions. If these activities are not
conducted, heat transfer efficiency
decreases resulting in stoichiometric
increases in emissions as more fuel
combustion is required per unit of heat
transferred. In addition, the increased
combustion shortens the expected
useful life of both the unit and control
device.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(e), Planned
startups and shutdowns. The
applicability of AELs for visible
emissions (opacity) is limited to hog
fuel or wood-fired boilers in operation
before January 24, 2018, that use only
dry particulate matter controls.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(f), Furnace
refractory curing. The applicability of
this AEL is limited to furnace refractory
in lime kilns and boilers. The AEL does
not specify a control strategy. However,
EPA believes control strategy specificity
is unnecessary because the requirement
to engage emission controls as soon as
possible, –040(2)(f)(v), is likewise
unspecific to type of control strategy.
(2) Use of the control strategy for this
source category is technically infeasible
during startup or shutdown periods.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(a), Soot
blowing and grate cleaning. During soot
blowing and grate cleaning activities, it
is not technically feasible to meet the
SIP’s general 20% opacity limit due to
operational and control device
limitations as permitted in compliance
with the CAA. EPA also notes this AEL
is not specific to startup or shutdown,
but instead applies to activities that are
themselves work practices and serve to
decrease emissions. If soot blowing and
grate cleaning activities are not
conducted, heat transfer efficiency
decreases resulting in stoichiometric
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Jun 14, 2023
Jkt 259001
increases in emissions as more fuel
combustion is required per unit of heat
transferred. In addition, the increased
combustion shortens the expected
useful life of both the unit and control
device. The control devices are not
designed to handle these activities in a
manner ensuring opacity is limited to
20%.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(e), Planned
startups and shutdowns. It is technically
infeasible, as reflected in (5)(c)(1) of
Table 3 in Subpart DDDDD, to engage
dry particulate control devices during
boiler startup and shutdown. Engaging
these controls risks damaging them as
per manufacturer’s instructions.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(f), Furnace
refractory curing. This AEL is not
specific to startup or shutdown.
However, the applicability of the AEL is
limited to only those periods when
compliance with the 20% opacity limit
would be impracticable due to the
inherent nature of conducting the curing
process consistent with manufacturer’s
instructions.
(3) The alternative emission limitation
requires that the frequency and duration
of operation in startup or shutdown
mode are minimized to the greatest
extent practicable.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(a), Soot
blowing and grate cleaning. This AEL is
limited in both duration and frequency.
Specifically, the AEL is limited to no
more than one fifteen-minute period in
any eight consecutive hours. The AEL
also requires the source schedule the
activity for the same approximate
time(s) each day and notify the
permitting authority in writing of the
schedule before using the AELs.
EPA also notes that this AEL is not
specific to startup or shutdown, but
instead applies to activities that are
themselves work practices and serve to
decrease emissions. If these activities
are not conducted, heat transfer
efficiency decreases resulting in
stoichiometric increases in emissions as
more fuel combustion is required per
unit of heat transferred. In addition, the
increased combustion shortens the
expected useful life of both the unit and
control device.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(e), Planned
startups and shutdowns. The durations
of these AELs are modeled after the
Federal AELs required for these types of
boilers under Subpart DDDDD.
Washington’s AELs do not impose a
frequency limit, but frequency is
intrinsically limited as affected types of
sources are mainly industrial or
commercial boilers operated to facilitate
production. Therefore, EPA anticipates
that operators will work to maximize
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39213
total operational hours and minimize
downtime as a practical matter.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(f), Furnace
refractory curing. This AEL is not
specific to startup or shutdown, but
duration is limited by the requirement
to engage the emissions controls as soon
as possible during the curing process
while following manufacturers’
instructions, and in no event more than
36 hours from the commencement of
refractory curing. Frequency is also
limited as a practical matter to the
installation or repair of refractory.
(4) As part of its justification of the
SIP revision, the state analyzes the
potential worst-case emissions that
could occur during startup and
shutdown based on the applicable
alternative emission limitation.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(e), Planned
startups and shutdowns. Washington’s
submittal estimates the potential worstcase emission scenario from this AEL
based on the potential for startup or
shutdown of a boiler coinciding with
the maximum four-hourly PM2.5
concentrations over a three-year period
from monitoring data, which was 130
mg/m3. In this scenario, Washington
estimates the probability of the AELs
resulting in an exceedance of the PM2.5
24-hour NAAQS is once in 810 days.
Washington also provides evidence in
its submittal demonstrating that the
assumed high value of 130 mg/m3 used
for this estimate is likely attributable to
wildfires and not anthropogenic
sources. Therefore, it is likely this
probability is an overestimate. The State
also noted that the estimates are based
on data from a time representing source
operations when emissions were likely
higher than would be expected under
the amended rules because less
stringent requirements applied during
these periods than would now be
required by the AELs. The results of
these conservative scenarios are that it
is unlikely the AELs will cause or
contribute to a violation of the PM2.5
24-hour NAAQS.23
23 Given PM
2.5 24-hour NAAQS is calculated
based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile
of valid data concentrations (see 40 CFR Appendix
N to Part 50 4.04.2(a)), exceeding up to 7 days per
year (if all 365 days are validated) in all three years
would not constitute a violation. Therefore,
potential to exceed once every 810 days is unlikely
to result in a violation that is calculated on a 1,095day cycle. Note: the 1 in 810 days probability is
based on a 4-hour average that is likely higher than
those caused by startups and shutdowns occurring
when exceptions that equated to no limit were easy
to obtain. Those exceptions are being removed from
the SIP and there is no reasonable expectation that
sources will increase emissions during these
transient modes of operation since the pre-existing
exceptions pathway offers no protection from
Federal enforcement.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
39214
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
WAC 173–400–040(2)(a), Soot
blowing and grate cleaning, and WAC
173–400–040(2)(f), Furnace refractory
curing. The State explained in its
submittal that these events should not
increase and emissions under the AEL
are likely to be lower than emissions
during the worst-case boiler startup and
shutdown scenario analyzed above. In
other words, EPA believes the results
are also representative of a worst-case
scenario for these AELs and indicate it
is unlikely the AELs will cause or
contribute to a violation of the PM2.5
24-hour NAAQS.
(5) The alternative emission limitation
requires that all possible steps are taken
to minimize the impact of emissions
during startup and shutdown on
ambient air quality.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(a), Soot
blowing and grate cleaning. The AEL is
limited in both duration and frequency
as discussed under criteria (3) above.
The AEL also requires sources schedule
the activity for the same approximate
time(s) each day and notify the
permitting authority in writing of the
schedule before using the AEL.
Additionally, any source utilizing the
AEL is required to maintain
contemporaneous records sufficient to
demonstrate compliance. EPA also notes
that soot blowing and grate cleaning are
relatively straightforward, but necessary
maintenance activities for the continued
operation of control equipment. In this
context, EPA believes the AEL
requirements represent all practically
available steps to minimize emissions
during these events.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(e), Planned
startups and shutdowns. This AEL
provides two options: comply with a
temporary forty percent opacity limit for
a period not exceeding three minutes in
any hour ((2(e)(vi)(A)); or comply with
each of the management practices in
(2)(e)(vi)(B)(I) through (V). EPA agrees
that allowing sources to increase opacity
to forty percent for short periods during
startup and shutdown represents a
reasonable application of this criterion.
Additionally, the option in (2)(e)(vi)(B)
requires developing and implementing a
plan to minimize startup and shutdown
according to manufacturer’s
recommended procedure,
(2)(e)(vi)(B)(V).
WAC 173–400–040(2)(f), Furnace
refractory curing. In addition to the forty
percent opacity limit, the AEL requires
all practical steps be taken to minimize
emissions. Specifically, sources must
engage emissions controls as soon as
possible while following manufacturers’
instructions and using clean fuel.
(6) The alternative emission limitation
requires that at all times, the facility is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Jun 14, 2023
Jkt 259001
operated in a manner consistent with
good practice for minimizing emissions
and the source uses best efforts
regarding planning, design, and
operating procedures.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(a), Soot
blowing and grate cleaning. This AEL
applies to activities that are themselves
work practices for maximizing
efficiency while minimizing emissions
and are conducted in part to facilitate
compliance with the otherwise
applicable emissions limitation. If these
activities are not conducted, heat
transfer efficiency decreases resulting in
stoichiometric increases in emissions as
more fuel combustion is required per
unit of heat transferred. In addition, the
increased combustion shortens the
expected useful life of both the unit and
control device. As discussed above, the
AEL is limited in both duration and
frequency and requires the source
schedule the activity for the same
approximate time(s) each day and notify
the permitting authority in writing of
that schedule before using the AEL. EPA
also notes that soot blowing and grate
cleaning are relatively straightforward,
but necessary maintenance activities for
the continued operation of control
equipment. In this context, EPA believes
the soot blowing and grate cleaning AEL
requirements represent all practically
available steps to minimize emissions
during these events.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(e), Planned
startups and shutdowns. The AEL
includes a requirement that a source
develop and implement a written
startup and shutdown plan that
minimizes the AEL period according to
manufacturer’s recommended
procedures, operate all continuous
monitoring systems, as well as
document how compliance conditions
were met.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(f), Furnace
refractory curing. The AEL requires
good practices for minimizing emissions
throughout the duration of the refractory
curing process. Specifically, sources
must engage emissions controls as soon
as possible while following
manufacturers’ instructions and using
clean fuel. Frequency of refractory
curing is also limited as a practical
matter to the installation or repair of
refractory.
(7) The alternative emission limitation
requires that the owner or operator’s
actions during startup and shutdown
periods are documented by properly
signed, contemporaneous operating
logs, or other relevant evidence.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(a), Soot
blowing and grate cleaning. Subsection
(2)(a)(ii)(C) requires the owner or
operator maintain contemporaneous
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
records sufficient to demonstrate
compliance which must include date,
start, and stop time of each occurrence,
and the results of opacity readings
conducted during the occurrence.
EPA also notes that, as stated above,
this AEL is not specific to startup or
shutdown, but instead applies to
activities that are themselves work
practices and serve to decrease
emissions.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(e), Planned
startups and shutdowns. Subsection
(2)(e)(vii) requires the facility to
maintain records to demonstrate
compliance including the start and stop
times of individual phases and
documentation of which AEL was
chosen and how the conditions of that
option were met.
WAC 173–400–040(2)(f), Furnace
refractory curing. This AEL includes
requirements to notify the permitting
authority at least one working day prior
to commencing the curing process,
engage the emissions controls as soon as
possible during the curing process,
follow manufacturer’s instructions
including temperature increase rates
and holding times, and provide a copy
of those instructions to the permitting
authority. It is in the source’s own
interest to follow manufacturer’s
instructions as failure to do so can cause
spalling or catastrophic failure of the
refractory resulting in additional
operation costs associated to repair or
replace the damaged refractory.
(8) EPA’s Proposed Conclusion
Regarding the AEL Criteria.24
Based on the analysis discussed
above, EPA is proposing to conclude the
three AELs included in Washington’s
SIP submittal are consistent with the
criteria set forth in our 2015 SSM
Policy. Therefore, we are proposing to
approve these revisions into the
Washington SIP.
WAC 173–400–070, Emission
standards for certain source categories.
Washington added language tying
effective dates to EPA’s removal of –107,
updated various cross-references, and
made numerous non-substantive
typographical, stylistic, and clarifying
revisions which we will not detail here.
Washington revised the provisions for
wigwam and silo burners rendering the
operation of them illegal statewide and
thereby reducing overall potential
emissions. The State also removed
visible emissions exemptions for
orchard heating devices and hog fuel
boilers. The exemption for hog fuel
boilers was replaced with the AELs in
24 Regarding the seven criteria analysis above, we
note ‘‘malfunction’’ was not mentioned because the
State did not submit any AELs for malfunctions.
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
WAC 173–400–040(2)(a)(ii) by
reference. The catalytic cracking unit
section was obsolete and subsequently
deleted because corresponding Federal
regulations, which the State adopts by
reference, have more stringent
requirements and to reduce unnecessary
duplication of Federal requirements.
WAC 173–400–081, Emission limits
during startup and shutdown. This
section establishes a case-by-case
technology-based permitting pathway
for establishing startup and shutdown
AELs. Numerous non-substantive
changes were made to clarify
applicability and requirements
associated with establishing AELs. The
most substantive change is the addition
of (4)(b) which requires the permitting
authority comply with the applicable
requirements in WAC 173–400–082.
Under WAC 173–400–081(4)(a), if an
emission limitation or other parameter
created increases allowable emissions
over levels already authorized in
Washington’s SIP, it will not take effect
unless it is approved by EPA as a SIP
amendment.
WAC 173–400–082 Alternative
emission limit that exceeds an emission
standard in the SIP. This is an entirely
new section establishing a process for
an owner or operator to request—and
the State to approve via a regulatory
order—an alternative emission limit that
would apply during a specified
transient mode of operation. This
process was designed to establish AELs
that meet the seven criteria discussed
above. Any AEL established under this
section only applies to the specified
emissions units at the facility requesting
the regulatory order. Moreover, any
such AEL only goes into effect if EPA
approves the new limit into the SIP.
WAC 173–400–171 Public notice and
opportunity for public comment. While
many changes were made to this
section, the only substantive change is
the addition of (3)(o) which requires
mandatory public comment periods for
orders (permits) establishing AELs
under WAC 173–400–081 or –082 that
exceed otherwise SIP applicable limits.
The State’s 2019 revisions also affect
these three source-specific regulations:
WAC 173–405, Kraft Pulping Mills;
WAC 173–410, Sulfite Pulping Mills;
and WAC 173–415, Primary Aluminum
Plants. The primary impact of these
revisions is to incorporate by reference
the AELs described above for hog fuel
boilers, wood-fired boilers, and
refractory curing into these sourcecategory specific rules. In other words,
these revisions do not create additional
exemptions or alternatives to the SIP’s
general opacity limit but reiterate the
requirement to comply with applicable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Jun 14, 2023
Jkt 259001
AELs as stated in WAC 173–400–040(2)
during corresponding transient modes
of operation.
Most of the revisions are analogous to,
and in several instances direct
adoptions of, the revisions in WAC 173–
400 discussed above, including:
removing exemptions for excess
emissions and references to state
enforcement discretion provisions,
updating cross-references, AELs for soot
blowing, grate cleaning, startup and
shutdown of hog-fuel boilers, and
refractory curing. The analyses provided
in the State’s submission as well as
EPA’s analyses stated above equally
apply to the sources regulated under
WAC 173–405, –410, and –415.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
the requested revisions for those
reasons.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve and
incorporate by reference into the
Washington SIP the revisions
Washington submitted on November 12,
2019. This action includes removal of
the provision WAC 173–400–107—
identified as inconsistent with CAA
requirements—from the Washington
SIP, as well as revisions to WAC 173–
400–030, –400–040, –400–070, –400–
081, –400–082, –400–171, –405–040,
–410–040, –415–030; the addition of
WAC 173–415–075; and the removal of
173–405–077, –410–067, and –415–070.
The proposed revisions, upon
finalization, will apply specifically to
the jurisdictions of Washington
Department of Ecology and Benton
Clean Air Agency. Under the
applicability provisions of WAC 173–
405–012, WAC 173–410–012, and WAC
173–415–012, BCAA does not have
jurisdiction for kraft pulp mills, sulfite
pulping mills, and primary aluminum
plants. For these sources, Ecology
retains statewide, direct jurisdiction
over these sources.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA proposes to
include in a final rule, regulatory text
that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA
proposes to incorporate by reference the
provisions described in sections II and
III of this document. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these documents
generally available through https://
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 10 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
The EPA is also proposing to remove
Washington Administrative Code 173–
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39215
405–077, –410–067, and –415–070, as
described in sections II and III of this
document, from the Washington State
Implementation Plan, which is
incorporated by reference under 1 CFR
part 51.
V. Statutory and Executive Orders
Review
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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 subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal
agencies to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
39216
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 115 / Thursday, June 15, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect
to the development, implementation,
and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further
defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ‘‘no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks,
including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’ The air agency did not
evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation.
EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and
did not consider EJ in this action. Due
to the nature of the action being taken
here, this action is expected to have a
neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no
information in the record inconsistent
with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for
people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land in
Washington except as specifically noted
below and is also not approved to apply
in any other area where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
Washington’s SIP is approved to apply
on non-trust land within the exterior
boundaries of the Puyallup Indian
Reservation, also known as the 1873
Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe
of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25
U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly
provided state and local agencies in
Washington authority over activities on
non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey
Area.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:34 Jun 14, 2023
Jkt 259001
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 8, 2023.
Casey Sixkiller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2023–12700 Filed 6–14–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 230418–0104]
RIN 0648–BJ85
International Affairs; Antarctic Marine
Living Resources Convention Act
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces the
reopening of the public comment period
for 15 days on the proposed rule to
revise its Antarctic Marine Living
Resources Convention Act regulations
that implement the trade-monitoring
program for frozen and fresh
Dissostichus species, commonly
marketed or referred to as Chilean
seabass or Patagonian toothfish. The
original 30-day comment period ended
on June 5, 2023. We received comments
in the final days of the comment period
requesting an extension. We are
therefore reopening the comment period
from June 15, 2023 to June 30, 2023 to
allow more time for submittal of public
comments. Comments previously
submitted need not be resubmitted.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by June 30, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2023–0022, by any of the
following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and enter
NOAA–NMFS–2023–0022 in the Search
box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Mi
Ae Kim, Office of International Affairs,
Trade, and Commerce, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Highway (F/IS5), Silver Spring, MD
20910.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on https://www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mi
Ae Kim, Office of International Affairs,
Trade, and Commerce, NMFS (phone
301–427–8365, or email mi.ae.kim@
noaa.gov).
On May 5,
2023, NMFS proposed revising
regulations that implement the trademonitoring program for frozen and fresh
Dissostichus species (88 FR 29043).
During the comment period, we
received requests to extend the public
comment period. As these requests were
received too late to allow for an
extension notice, we are reopening the
comment period from June 15, 2023 to
June 30, 2023.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: June 9, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–12804 Filed 6–14–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[RTID 0648–XC845]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Snow Crab
Rebuilding Plan in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery
management plan amendment; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council)
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15JNP1.SGM
15JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39210-39216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12700]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0647; FRL-10975-01-R10]
Air Plan Approval; WA; Excess Emissions, Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Washington, through the Department of Ecology on November 12,
2019. The revisions were submitted by Washington in response to an
EPA's June 12, 2015 ``SIP call'' in which EPA found a substantially
inadequate Washington SIP provision providing affirmative defenses that
operate to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal court in an
enforcement action related to excess emissions during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is proposing approval of
the SIP revisions and proposing to determine that removal of the
substantially inadequate provision corrects the deficiency identified
in the June 12, 2015, SIP call.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2019-0647, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not 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. 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: Randall Ruddick, EPA Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue (Suite 155), Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1999; or email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' or
``our,'' is used, it refers to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Analysis of SIP Submission
A. Geographic Applicability
B. The Provision Subject to the 2015 SIP Call
C. Additional SIP Revisions Submitted But Not Specified in the
2015 SIP Call
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
I. Background
On February 22, 2013, the EPA issued a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to
SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP
provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply with
the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to excess emission events.\1\ For
each SIP provision that EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA,
EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP
call under CAA section 110(k)(5).\2\ On September 17, 2014, EPA issued
a supplemental proposal revising what the Agency had previously
proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a D.C. Circuit decision that
determined EPA does not have authority under the CAA to create or
approve affirmative defense provisions applicable to private civil
suits.\3\ EPA outlined its updated policy that affirmative defense SIP
provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed in
the supplemental proposal document to apply its revised interpretation
of the CAA to specific affirmative defense SIP provisions and proposed
SIP calls for those provisions where appropriate.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 2013).
\2\ The term ``SIP Call'' refers to the requirement for a
revised SIP in response to a finding by the EPA that a SIP is
``substantially inadequate'' to meet CAA requirements pursuant to
CAA section 110(k)(5), titled ``Calls for plan revisions.''
\3\ The term affirmative defense provision means a state law
provision in a SIP that specifies particular criteria or
preconditions that, if met, would purport to preclude a court from
imposing monetary penalties or other forms of relief for violations
of SIP requirements in accordance with CAA section 113 or CAA
section 304. 80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015.
\4\ See79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' (80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015), hereinafter referred to as
the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states (including Washington State) were substantially inadequate
to meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to those states to
submit SIP revisions to address the inadequacies. EPA established an
18-month deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP
revisions. States were required to submit corrective revisions to their
SIPs in response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016.
In October 2020, EPA issued a SSM Memorandum (2020 Memorandum).\5\
Importantly, the 2020 Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any
way the determinations made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified
specific state SIP provisions that were substantially inadequate to
meet the requirements of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum
had no direct impact on the SIP call issued to Washington in 2015. The
2020 Memorandum did, however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to
review SIP
[[Page 39211]]
calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether
EPA should maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through
future agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 30, 2021, EPA withdrew the 2020 Memorandum and
announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action (2021 Memorandum).\6\ As articulated in the 2021 Memorandum, SIP
provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative defense provisions
are not consistent with CAA requirements and, therefore, generally are
not approvable if contained in a SIP submission. This policy approach
is intended to ensure that all communities and populations, including
overburdened communities, receive the full health and environmental
protections provided by the CAA.\7\ The 2021 Memorandum also retracted
the prior statement from the 2020 Memorandum of EPA's plans to review
and potentially modify or withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement
no longer reflects EPA's intent. EPA intends to implement the
principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the agency takes
action on SIP submissions, including the November 12, 2019 SIP
submittal provided by Washington in response to the 2015 SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
\7\ See 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified, restated, and updated EPA's
interpretation that SSM exemption and affirmative defense SIP
provisions are inconsistent with CAA requirements. With regard to the
Washington SIP, EPA determined that, to the extent that Wash. Admin.
Code (WAC) 173-400-107 was intended to be an affirmative defense, it
was not consistent with the requirements of the CAA. Therefore, EPA
issued a SIP call with respect to this provision. Washington
subsequently submitted a SIP revision on November 12, 2019, in response
to the SIP Call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. In its submission,
Washington removed WAC 173-400-107 from the SIP in its entirety.
Washington also included SIP revisions that are not subject to the
2015 SSM SIP in the 2019 SIP submittal. These additional SIP revisions
set alternate emission standards for short-term modes of operations of
sources such as startup, shutdown, and scheduled maintenance for some
source categories; establish the process for defining facility-specific
alternate emission standards; remove excess emission provisions not
consistent with EPA's 2015 SSM policy; revise cross-references as
necessary to align with updates to the analogous Federal laws or EPA's
2015 SSM policy; and remove some provisions in deference to equally or
more stringent relevant Federal laws. Many of the revisions are
conditioned to only take effect upon the effective date of EPA's
removal of WAC 173-400-107 from the Washington SIP.
II. Analysis of SIP Submission
A. Geographic Applicability
EPA's analysis and proposed actions related to WAC 173-400 in the
2019 SIP submittal similarly apply to geographic areas and source
categories under the direct jurisdiction of Ecology and Benton Clean
Air Agency (BCAA), a local air agency in Washington, because BCAA's
SIP-approved regulations state, in Article 1, Section 1.03, that BCAA
implements and enforces WAC 173-400 ``as in effect now and including
all future amendments, except where specific provisions of BCAA
Regulation 1 apply.'' The 2019 SIP submittal contains no substantive
changes to the minor differences between the two agencies'
jurisdictional applicability of subparts of WAC 173-400.
B. The Provision Subject to the 2015 SIP Call
In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA identified WAC 173-400-107 as
inconsistent with CAA requirements because it contained affirmative
defense provisions. Washington then submitted a SIP revision on
November 12, 2019, that removed WAC 173-400-107 from the SIP.
We are proposing to find that the removal of WAC 173-400-107 from
the Washington SIP will satisfy the 2015 SIP Call because the removal
of WAC 173-400-107 from the SIP will no longer provide for an
affirmative defense.
C. Additional SIP Revisions Submitted But Not Specified in the 2015 SIP
Call
Washington adopted additional revisions to the State's excess
emissions provisions that were not specified in the 2015 SSM SIP Call.
These revisions were adopted in three different state rulemaking
actions, two in 2018 for provisions in WAC 173-400, General Air
Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, and one additional rulemaking in
2019 revising WAC 173-405, Kraft Pulping Mills; WAC 173-410, Sulfite
Pulping mills; and WAC 173-415, Primary Aluminum Plants.
WAC 173-400, General Air Regulations for Air Pollution Sources.
In its November 12, 2019 SIP submission, Washington requests
approval of revisions to WAC 173-030, Definitions; WAC 173-400-040,
General Standards for maximum emissions; WAC 173-400-070, Emission
standards for certain source categories; WAC 173-400-081, Startup and
Shutdown; WAC 173-400-082, Alternative emission limit that exceeds an
emission standard in the SIP; WAC 173-400-107, Excess emissions; and
WAC 173-400-171, Public involvement. Many of the revisions are non-
substantive changes.
WAC 173-400-030, Definitions. Washington revised this section to
aid in implementation of provisions such as those addressing transient
(short-term) modes of operation--including startup and shutdown, and to
clarify commonly used `terms of art' (such as ``hog fuel'').\8\ Most
definitions in WAC 173-400-030 remain unchanged since our last
approval; \9\ however, the addition of new definitions resulted in
changes to the numbering sequence. Even though the text of those
definitions remains as approved, the state effective date changed to
reflect the numbering sequence changes. Therefore, Washington requested
EPA approve all of WAC 173-400-030 as submitted on November 12, 2019,
except definition (96) related to toxic air pollutants or odors,
because it is outside the scope of CAA section 110 requirements for
SIPs.\10\ A complete redline/strikeout analysis of the updated
definitions in WAC 173-400-030 is included in the docket for this
action.\11\ Updating the state effective date for those definitions in
WAC 173-400-030 previously approved into Washington's SIP that remain
unchanged will have no effect on emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For more details, see Chapter 2 of Washington's November 12,
2019, submission, included in the docket for this action as
102_state submittal_SIP_SSM_400_405_410_415.pdf.
\9\ EPA reviewed those definitions and approved them in a
previous action (85 FR 10302, February 24, 2020).
\10\ Definition (96) was excluded for the same reasons in our
February 24, 2020 approval.
\11\ See 102_state submittal_SIP_SSM_400_405_410_415.pdf,
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two revisions to existing definitions in WAC 173-400-030 were
to:
(32) \12\ ``Excess emissions'': to clarify that the term also
includes emissions
[[Page 39212]]
above limits established in permits or orders, including alternative
emission limits. This definition comports with our 2015 SSM Policy;
\13\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Excess Emissions'' was previously codified as WAC 173-
400-030(30), state effective December 29, 2012. EPA approved the
December 29, 2012 versions of Washington's definitions of ``excess
emissions'' and ``federally enforceable'' in a November 3, 2014
action (79 FR 59653). Since that action, EPA has approved more
recent versions of Washington's definitions rule, but explicitly
excluded the definitions for ``excess emissions'' and federally
enforceable'' from those actions. This means the 2012 versions of
these definitions are currently effective for purposes of the
Washington SIP, and it is those versions that EPA is proposing to
revise in this action.
\13\ See 80 FR 33840, specifically page 33842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(38) \14\ ``Federally enforceable'': to include emission
limitations during startup and shutdown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Federally enforceable'' was previously codified as WAC
173-400-030(36), state effective December 29, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington also adopted several new definitions which are discussed
below:
`` `Alternative emission limit' or `limitation' '': to clarify
implementation of the provisions for transient (short-term) modes of
operation such as startup and shutdown provisions in WAC 173-400-
040(2), 081 and 082, 107, 108 and 109. This definition is defined
substantively the same as in our 2015 SSM Policy,\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 80 FR 33840, especially page 33912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Hog fuel'' to define what has been used as a `term of art' for
wood waste especially hogged wood waste, utilized for burning and to
clarify implementation of emissions standards for boilers in WAC 173-
400-040-(2) and WAC 173-400-070(2). This definition, while narrower, is
generally in keeping with the Federal definition for biomass or bio-
based solid fuel for boilers and process heaters in EPA's National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Major
Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process
Heaters, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart DDDDD (hereinafter
``Subpart DDDDD''); \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See specifically 40 CFR 63.7575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(83) ``Shutdown'' and (89) ``Startup:'' to clarify the general
meanings of the terms \17\ for purposes of implementation of WAC 173-
400. the meaning of these terms is further clarified in WAC 173-400-
040-(2) in the context of startup and shutdown requirements for
boilers, similar to these those terms are used in Subpart DDDDD;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 40 CFR 63.7575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(97) ``Transient mode of operation'': to include short-term
operating periods, including periods of startup and shutdown. This term
is used for facilitating development of alternative emission
limitations (AELs) for startup and shutdown periods, as well as other
short-term modes of operations such as soot blowing (also known as
boiler lancing), grate cleaning, and refractory curing, during which a
source is unable to meet otherwise applicable emissions limits;
(100) ``Useful thermal energy'': to clarify implementation of WAC
173-400-040(2)(e). The definition is nearly verbatim from, and is
substantively the same as, EPA's Boiler NESHAP.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See specifically 40 CFR 63.7575 and 63.11237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(103) ``Wigwam'' or ``silo burner'': This definition clarifies the
types of units that are now prohibited under WAC 173-400-070(1) \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Adding these definitions to WAC 173-400-030 does not
constitute a prohibition, rather it is for clarification purposes as
the terms were not defined elsewhere in WAC 173-400. However, the
terms are used in WAC 173-400-070(1) which previously allowed the
use of these units for disposal burning of waste wood. Revisions in
the 2019 SIP submittal prohibit their use as of January 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(104) ``Wood-fired boiler'': to clarify implementation of
regulations tailored specifically for this unique subset of boilers.
This definition is similar to, but more narrowly defined than,
``boiler'' in 40 CFR 63.7575 and in as much as it is used to regulate
boilers, comports with the Federal CAA.
For the reasons stated above, EPA is proposing to approve the above
changes to Washington's definitions under WAC 173-400-030.
WAC 173-400-040, General Standards for Maximum Emissions.
Washington made numerous revisions to WAC 173-400-040, many of
which are non-substantive typographical and stylistic changes that are
not specifically identified in this preamble. Several revisions are
conditioned to only take effect upon EPA's removal of WAC 173-400-107
from the SIP, which as mentioned above, we are proposing to do in this
action. In other words, the redline/strike through version of
Washington's SIP rules included in the submittal set forth in some
cases two versions of the same rule, one of which is intended to become
effective upon EPA removal of -107 from the SIP, and the other intended
to be automatically rendered ineffective as a matter of state law.
Substantive changes were made to -040(2) Visible emissions. That
provision establishes a general limit on visible emissions, prohibiting
emissions greater than twenty percent opacity for more than three
minutes during any one-hour period, except as specified in the rule.
The effect of the State's November 12, 2019 submittal is to remove some
exemptions from WAC 173-400-040(2) and replace them with AELs that
apply during transient modes of operation. In the 2015 SSM SIP Action,
EPA recommended states consider seven criteria when developing AELs to
replace automatic or discretionary exemptions from otherwise applicable
SIP requirements. These recommended criteria assure the alternative
emission limitations meet basic CAA requirements. The AELs in
Washington's submittal are specific to visible emissions (opacity) from
certain pre-existing biomass boilers \20\ during soot blowing, grate
cleaning, and planned startups and shutdowns as well as boilers and
lime kilns during refractory curing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Notably, applicability is limited to only hog fuel or wood-
fired boilers (defined in WAC 173-400-030) that utilize only dry
particulate matter controls such as multiclone, fabric filter or dry
electrostatic precipitator (DESP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA evaluated whether the alternative requirements provided by
Washington's 2019 SIP submission are consistent with the Agency's 2015
SSM SIP Action, including the seven criteria recommended therein.\21\
In its 2019 submittal, Washington provided an analysis of these
criteria as applied to the SIP revisions. For the reasons explained
below, EPA finds that the proposed AELs in WAC 173-400-040(2) \22\ are
consistent with the recommended criteria set forth in that policy. We
are therefore proposing to approve these provisions into the Washington
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to
SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction'' 80 FR 33840, section XI.D.
\22\ As provided in Washington's 2019 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington's 2019 submittal includes detailed analyses of potential
impacts from the proposed SIP revisions, which EPA finds show
compliance with NAAQS and other CAA requirements such as visibility
should not be negatively affected. This is, in part, because the AELs
do not equate to a relaxation of limits or an increase in emissions.
Rather, provisions in Washington's SIP that serve to exempt or
otherwise excuse excess emissions entirely (de facto unlimited
emissions) are being replaced with more stringent emissions
limitations. We find that particulate matter (PM) emissions will not
increase as a result of the revisions for two reasons: (1) Washington's
revised rules require compliance with AELs during transient modes of
operations, whereas the prior version of the rules (including the SIP-
called version of WAC 173-400-107) allowed sources to routinely avoid
penalties for excess emissions; and (2) the pre-existing emissions
limits remain in place for non-transient modes of operation for these
sources.
[[Page 39213]]
As explained above, Washington's November 12, 2019 submittal
includes AELs applicable to three narrow circumstances: soot blowing or
grate cleaning at hog fuel or wood-fired boilers; emissions from
startup or shutdown at hog fuel or wood-fired boilers; and curing of
furnace refractory in a lime kiln or boiler. EPA's analysis of each of
the seven criteria as they apply to these AELs is set forth below.
(1) The revision is limited to specific, narrowly defined source
categories using specific control strategies (e.g., cogeneration
facilities burning natural gas and using selective catalytic
reduction).
WAC 173-400-040(2)(a), Soot blowing and grate cleaning. The
applicability of this AEL for visible emissions [opacity] is limited to
hog fuel or wood-fired boilers that use only dry particulate controls.
In addition, soot blowing and grate cleaning are work practice
activities that decrease emissions. If these activities are not
conducted, heat transfer efficiency decreases resulting in
stoichiometric increases in emissions as more fuel combustion is
required per unit of heat transferred. In addition, the increased
combustion shortens the expected useful life of both the unit and
control device.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(e), Planned startups and shutdowns. The
applicability of AELs for visible emissions (opacity) is limited to hog
fuel or wood-fired boilers in operation before January 24, 2018, that
use only dry particulate matter controls.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(f), Furnace refractory curing. The applicability
of this AEL is limited to furnace refractory in lime kilns and boilers.
The AEL does not specify a control strategy. However, EPA believes
control strategy specificity is unnecessary because the requirement to
engage emission controls as soon as possible, -040(2)(f)(v), is
likewise unspecific to type of control strategy.
(2) Use of the control strategy for this source category is
technically infeasible during startup or shutdown periods.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(a), Soot blowing and grate cleaning. During soot
blowing and grate cleaning activities, it is not technically feasible
to meet the SIP's general 20% opacity limit due to operational and
control device limitations as permitted in compliance with the CAA. EPA
also notes this AEL is not specific to startup or shutdown, but instead
applies to activities that are themselves work practices and serve to
decrease emissions. If soot blowing and grate cleaning activities are
not conducted, heat transfer efficiency decreases resulting in
stoichiometric increases in emissions as more fuel combustion is
required per unit of heat transferred. In addition, the increased
combustion shortens the expected useful life of both the unit and
control device. The control devices are not designed to handle these
activities in a manner ensuring opacity is limited to 20%.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(e), Planned startups and shutdowns. It is
technically infeasible, as reflected in (5)(c)(1) of Table 3 in Subpart
DDDDD, to engage dry particulate control devices during boiler startup
and shutdown. Engaging these controls risks damaging them as per
manufacturer's instructions.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(f), Furnace refractory curing. This AEL is not
specific to startup or shutdown. However, the applicability of the AEL
is limited to only those periods when compliance with the 20% opacity
limit would be impracticable due to the inherent nature of conducting
the curing process consistent with manufacturer's instructions.
(3) The alternative emission limitation requires that the frequency
and duration of operation in startup or shutdown mode are minimized to
the greatest extent practicable.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(a), Soot blowing and grate cleaning. This AEL is
limited in both duration and frequency. Specifically, the AEL is
limited to no more than one fifteen-minute period in any eight
consecutive hours. The AEL also requires the source schedule the
activity for the same approximate time(s) each day and notify the
permitting authority in writing of the schedule before using the AELs.
EPA also notes that this AEL is not specific to startup or
shutdown, but instead applies to activities that are themselves work
practices and serve to decrease emissions. If these activities are not
conducted, heat transfer efficiency decreases resulting in
stoichiometric increases in emissions as more fuel combustion is
required per unit of heat transferred. In addition, the increased
combustion shortens the expected useful life of both the unit and
control device.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(e), Planned startups and shutdowns. The
durations of these AELs are modeled after the Federal AELs required for
these types of boilers under Subpart DDDDD. Washington's AELs do not
impose a frequency limit, but frequency is intrinsically limited as
affected types of sources are mainly industrial or commercial boilers
operated to facilitate production. Therefore, EPA anticipates that
operators will work to maximize total operational hours and minimize
downtime as a practical matter.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(f), Furnace refractory curing. This AEL is not
specific to startup or shutdown, but duration is limited by the
requirement to engage the emissions controls as soon as possible during
the curing process while following manufacturers' instructions, and in
no event more than 36 hours from the commencement of refractory curing.
Frequency is also limited as a practical matter to the installation or
repair of refractory.
(4) As part of its justification of the SIP revision, the state
analyzes the potential worst-case emissions that could occur during
startup and shutdown based on the applicable alternative emission
limitation.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(e), Planned startups and shutdowns. Washington's
submittal estimates the potential worst-case emission scenario from
this AEL based on the potential for startup or shutdown of a boiler
coinciding with the maximum four-hourly PM2.5 concentrations
over a three-year period from monitoring data, which was 130 [mu]g/
m\3\. In this scenario, Washington estimates the probability of the
AELs resulting in an exceedance of the PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS
is once in 810 days. Washington also provides evidence in its submittal
demonstrating that the assumed high value of 130 [mu]g/m\3\ used for
this estimate is likely attributable to wildfires and not anthropogenic
sources. Therefore, it is likely this probability is an overestimate.
The State also noted that the estimates are based on data from a time
representing source operations when emissions were likely higher than
would be expected under the amended rules because less stringent
requirements applied during these periods than would now be required by
the AELs. The results of these conservative scenarios are that it is
unlikely the AELs will cause or contribute to a violation of the
PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Given PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS is calculated based on
the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of valid data
concentrations (see 40 CFR Appendix N to Part 50 4.04.2(a)),
exceeding up to 7 days per year (if all 365 days are validated) in
all three years would not constitute a violation. Therefore,
potential to exceed once every 810 days is unlikely to result in a
violation that is calculated on a 1,095-day cycle. Note: the 1 in
810 days probability is based on a 4-hour average that is likely
higher than those caused by startups and shutdowns occurring when
exceptions that equated to no limit were easy to obtain. Those
exceptions are being removed from the SIP and there is no reasonable
expectation that sources will increase emissions during these
transient modes of operation since the pre-existing exceptions
pathway offers no protection from Federal enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39214]]
WAC 173-400-040(2)(a), Soot blowing and grate cleaning, and WAC
173-400-040(2)(f), Furnace refractory curing. The State explained in
its submittal that these events should not increase and emissions under
the AEL are likely to be lower than emissions during the worst-case
boiler startup and shutdown scenario analyzed above. In other words,
EPA believes the results are also representative of a worst-case
scenario for these AELs and indicate it is unlikely the AELs will cause
or contribute to a violation of the PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS.
(5) The alternative emission limitation requires that all possible
steps are taken to minimize the impact of emissions during startup and
shutdown on ambient air quality.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(a), Soot blowing and grate cleaning. The AEL is
limited in both duration and frequency as discussed under criteria (3)
above. The AEL also requires sources schedule the activity for the same
approximate time(s) each day and notify the permitting authority in
writing of the schedule before using the AEL. Additionally, any source
utilizing the AEL is required to maintain contemporaneous records
sufficient to demonstrate compliance. EPA also notes that soot blowing
and grate cleaning are relatively straightforward, but necessary
maintenance activities for the continued operation of control
equipment. In this context, EPA believes the AEL requirements represent
all practically available steps to minimize emissions during these
events.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(e), Planned startups and shutdowns. This AEL
provides two options: comply with a temporary forty percent opacity
limit for a period not exceeding three minutes in any hour
((2(e)(vi)(A)); or comply with each of the management practices in
(2)(e)(vi)(B)(I) through (V). EPA agrees that allowing sources to
increase opacity to forty percent for short periods during startup and
shutdown represents a reasonable application of this criterion.
Additionally, the option in (2)(e)(vi)(B) requires developing and
implementing a plan to minimize startup and shutdown according to
manufacturer's recommended procedure, (2)(e)(vi)(B)(V).
WAC 173-400-040(2)(f), Furnace refractory curing. In addition to
the forty percent opacity limit, the AEL requires all practical steps
be taken to minimize emissions. Specifically, sources must engage
emissions controls as soon as possible while following manufacturers'
instructions and using clean fuel.
(6) The alternative emission limitation requires that at all times,
the facility is operated in a manner consistent with good practice for
minimizing emissions and the source uses best efforts regarding
planning, design, and operating procedures.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(a), Soot blowing and grate cleaning. This AEL
applies to activities that are themselves work practices for maximizing
efficiency while minimizing emissions and are conducted in part to
facilitate compliance with the otherwise applicable emissions
limitation. If these activities are not conducted, heat transfer
efficiency decreases resulting in stoichiometric increases in emissions
as more fuel combustion is required per unit of heat transferred. In
addition, the increased combustion shortens the expected useful life of
both the unit and control device. As discussed above, the AEL is
limited in both duration and frequency and requires the source schedule
the activity for the same approximate time(s) each day and notify the
permitting authority in writing of that schedule before using the AEL.
EPA also notes that soot blowing and grate cleaning are relatively
straightforward, but necessary maintenance activities for the continued
operation of control equipment. In this context, EPA believes the soot
blowing and grate cleaning AEL requirements represent all practically
available steps to minimize emissions during these events.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(e), Planned startups and shutdowns. The AEL
includes a requirement that a source develop and implement a written
startup and shutdown plan that minimizes the AEL period according to
manufacturer's recommended procedures, operate all continuous
monitoring systems, as well as document how compliance conditions were
met.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(f), Furnace refractory curing. The AEL requires
good practices for minimizing emissions throughout the duration of the
refractory curing process. Specifically, sources must engage emissions
controls as soon as possible while following manufacturers'
instructions and using clean fuel. Frequency of refractory curing is
also limited as a practical matter to the installation or repair of
refractory.
(7) The alternative emission limitation requires that the owner or
operator's actions during startup and shutdown periods are documented
by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant
evidence.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(a), Soot blowing and grate cleaning. Subsection
(2)(a)(ii)(C) requires the owner or operator maintain contemporaneous
records sufficient to demonstrate compliance which must include date,
start, and stop time of each occurrence, and the results of opacity
readings conducted during the occurrence.
EPA also notes that, as stated above, this AEL is not specific to
startup or shutdown, but instead applies to activities that are
themselves work practices and serve to decrease emissions.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(e), Planned startups and shutdowns. Subsection
(2)(e)(vii) requires the facility to maintain records to demonstrate
compliance including the start and stop times of individual phases and
documentation of which AEL was chosen and how the conditions of that
option were met.
WAC 173-400-040(2)(f), Furnace refractory curing. This AEL includes
requirements to notify the permitting authority at least one working
day prior to commencing the curing process, engage the emissions
controls as soon as possible during the curing process, follow
manufacturer's instructions including temperature increase rates and
holding times, and provide a copy of those instructions to the
permitting authority. It is in the source's own interest to follow
manufacturer's instructions as failure to do so can cause spalling or
catastrophic failure of the refractory resulting in additional
operation costs associated to repair or replace the damaged refractory.
(8) EPA's Proposed Conclusion Regarding the AEL Criteria.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Regarding the seven criteria analysis above, we note
``malfunction'' was not mentioned because the State did not submit
any AELs for malfunctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the analysis discussed above, EPA is proposing to conclude
the three AELs included in Washington's SIP submittal are consistent
with the criteria set forth in our 2015 SSM Policy. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve these revisions into the Washington SIP.
WAC 173-400-070, Emission standards for certain source categories.
Washington added language tying effective dates to EPA's removal of -
107, updated various cross-references, and made numerous non-
substantive typographical, stylistic, and clarifying revisions which we
will not detail here. Washington revised the provisions for wigwam and
silo burners rendering the operation of them illegal statewide and
thereby reducing overall potential emissions. The State also removed
visible emissions exemptions for orchard heating devices and hog fuel
boilers. The exemption for hog fuel boilers was replaced with the AELs
in
[[Page 39215]]
WAC 173-400-040(2)(a)(ii) by reference. The catalytic cracking unit
section was obsolete and subsequently deleted because corresponding
Federal regulations, which the State adopts by reference, have more
stringent requirements and to reduce unnecessary duplication of Federal
requirements.
WAC 173-400-081, Emission limits during startup and shutdown. This
section establishes a case-by-case technology-based permitting pathway
for establishing startup and shutdown AELs. Numerous non-substantive
changes were made to clarify applicability and requirements associated
with establishing AELs. The most substantive change is the addition of
(4)(b) which requires the permitting authority comply with the
applicable requirements in WAC 173-400-082. Under WAC 173-400-
081(4)(a), if an emission limitation or other parameter created
increases allowable emissions over levels already authorized in
Washington's SIP, it will not take effect unless it is approved by EPA
as a SIP amendment.
WAC 173-400-082 Alternative emission limit that exceeds an emission
standard in the SIP. This is an entirely new section establishing a
process for an owner or operator to request--and the State to approve
via a regulatory order--an alternative emission limit that would apply
during a specified transient mode of operation. This process was
designed to establish AELs that meet the seven criteria discussed
above. Any AEL established under this section only applies to the
specified emissions units at the facility requesting the regulatory
order. Moreover, any such AEL only goes into effect if EPA approves the
new limit into the SIP.
WAC 173-400-171 Public notice and opportunity for public comment.
While many changes were made to this section, the only substantive
change is the addition of (3)(o) which requires mandatory public
comment periods for orders (permits) establishing AELs under WAC 173-
400-081 or -082 that exceed otherwise SIP applicable limits.
The State's 2019 revisions also affect these three source-specific
regulations: WAC 173-405, Kraft Pulping Mills; WAC 173-410, Sulfite
Pulping Mills; and WAC 173-415, Primary Aluminum Plants. The primary
impact of these revisions is to incorporate by reference the AELs
described above for hog fuel boilers, wood-fired boilers, and
refractory curing into these source-category specific rules. In other
words, these revisions do not create additional exemptions or
alternatives to the SIP's general opacity limit but reiterate the
requirement to comply with applicable AELs as stated in WAC 173-400-
040(2) during corresponding transient modes of operation.
Most of the revisions are analogous to, and in several instances
direct adoptions of, the revisions in WAC 173-400 discussed above,
including: removing exemptions for excess emissions and references to
state enforcement discretion provisions, updating cross-references,
AELs for soot blowing, grate cleaning, startup and shutdown of hog-fuel
boilers, and refractory curing. The analyses provided in the State's
submission as well as EPA's analyses stated above equally apply to the
sources regulated under WAC 173-405, -410, and -415. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the requested revisions for those reasons.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference into the
Washington SIP the revisions Washington submitted on November 12, 2019.
This action includes removal of the provision WAC 173-400-107--
identified as inconsistent with CAA requirements--from the Washington
SIP, as well as revisions to WAC 173-400-030, -400-040, -400-070, -400-
081, -400-082, -400-171, -405-040, -410-040, -415-030; the addition of
WAC 173-415-075; and the removal of 173-405-077, -410-067, and -415-
070.
The proposed revisions, upon finalization, will apply specifically
to the jurisdictions of Washington Department of Ecology and Benton
Clean Air Agency. Under the applicability provisions of WAC 173-405-
012, WAC 173-410-012, and WAC 173-415-012, BCAA does not have
jurisdiction for kraft pulp mills, sulfite pulping mills, and primary
aluminum plants. For these sources, Ecology retains statewide, direct
jurisdiction over these sources.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA proposes to include in a final rule,
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA proposes to incorporate by
reference the provisions described in sections II and III of this
document. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
The EPA is also proposing to remove Washington Administrative Code
173-405-077, -410-067, and -415-070, as described in sections II and
III of this document, from the Washington State Implementation Plan,
which is incorporated by reference under 1 CFR part 51.
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11,
2023);
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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the
[[Page 39216]]
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines
environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' EPA
further defines the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of
people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and
risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental
consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or
programs and policies.'' The air agency did not evaluate environmental
justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such
an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider
EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here,
this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as
part of this action, and there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in
Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved
to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the
exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as
the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and
local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust
lands within the 1873 Survey Area.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 8, 2023.
Casey Sixkiller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2023-12700 Filed 6-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
