[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 144 (Monday, July 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45146-45154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15399]
[[Page 45146]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0590; FRL-10009-70-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; WA; Interstate Transport Requirements for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State
of Washington (Washington) demonstrating that the SIP meets certain
Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-
hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). In this action, EPA is proposing to determine that
emissions from sources in Washington will not contribute significantly
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve Washington's February 7, 2018 SIP submission as meeting the
interstate transport requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0590, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, EPA Region 10 Air and
Radiation Division, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206)-553-
1185, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to EPA. Information
is organized as follows:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate
Transport SIPs
III. State Submission
IV. EPA's Analysis
A. Prong 1 Evaluation
B. Prong 2 Evaluation
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Infrastructure SIPs
On June 2, 2010, EPA established a new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\1\ The CAA requires each state to submit, within 3
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, SIPs meeting the
applicable infrastructure elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One
of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions
to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states
due to interstate transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly
referred to as prongs, that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs, codified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require SIPs to contain adequate provisions that
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). The remaining prongs, codified at
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), require SIPs to contain adequate
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in any other state (prong 3) and from interfering with
measures to protect visibility in any other state (prong 4).
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 1 and prong 2
portions of the Washington's February 7, 2018 SIP submission because,
based on the information available at the time of this rulemaking,
Washington demonstrated that it will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state. All other applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements for this SIP submission will be addressed in separate
rulemakings.
B. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Designations Background
In this action, EPA has considered information from the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS designations process, as discussed in more detail
in Section III of this preamble. For this reason, a brief summary of
EPA's designations process for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is
included here.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While designations may provide useful information for
purposes of analyzing transport, particularly for a more source-
specific pollutant such as SO2, EPA notes that
designations themselves are not dispositive of whether or not upwind
emissions are impacting areas in downwind states. EPA has
consistently taken the position that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
addresses ``nonattainment'' anywhere it may occur in other states,
not only in designated nonattainment areas nor any similar
formulation requiring that designations for downwind nonattainment
areas must first have occurred. See e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule,
70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,
76 FR 48208, 48211 (August 8, 2011); Final Response to Petition from
New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland
Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (November 7, 2011) (finding facility
in violation of the prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS prior to
issuance of designations for that standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
to designate areas as ``nonattainment,'' ``attainment,'' or
``unclassifiable'' pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. The
process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA
requires EPA to complete the initial designations process within two
years of promulgating a new or revised standard. If the Administrator
has insufficient information to make these designations by that
deadline, EPA has the authority to extend the deadline for completing
designations by up to one year.
EPA promulgated the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on June 2,
2010. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). EPA completed the first round of
designations (''round 1'') \3\ for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
on July 25, 2013, designating 29 areas in 16
[[Page 45147]]
states as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See
78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). EPA signed Federal Register actions of
promulgation for a second round of designations \4\ (``round 2'') June
30, 2016 (81 FR 45039 (July 12, 2016)) and on November 29, 2016 (81 FR
89870 (December 13, 2016)), and a third round of designations (``round
3'') on December 21, 2017 (83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018)).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The term ``round'' in this instance refers to which ``round
of designations.''
\4\ EPA and state documents and public comments related to the
round 2 final designations are in the docket at regulations.gov with
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464 and at EPA's website for
SO2 designations at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
\5\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 3:13-cv-
3953-SI (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2015). This consent decree requires EPA
to sign for publication in the Federal Register documents of the
Agency's promulgation of area designations for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS by three specific deadlines: July 2, 2016
(``round 2''); December 31, 2017 (``round 3''); and December 31,
2020 (``round 4'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2015 (80 FR 51052), EPA separately promulgated air
quality characterization requirements for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the Data Requirements Rule (DRR). The DRR
requires state air agencies to characterize air quality, through air
dispersion modeling or monitoring, in areas associated with sources
that emitted 2,000 tons per year (tpy) or more of SO2, or
that have otherwise been listed under the DRR by EPA or state air
agencies. In lieu of modeling or monitoring, state air agencies, by
specified dates, could elect to impose federally enforceable emissions
limitations on those sources restricting their annual SO2
emissions to less than 2,000 tpy, or provide documentation that the
sources have been shut down. EPA expected that the information
generated by implementation of the DRR would help inform designations
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
In ``round 3'' of designations, EPA designated Lewis and Thurston
counties in Washington as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Washington selected the monitoring pathway
pursuant to the DRR for the areas surrounding two sources in Chelan and
Douglas, and Whatcom counties. These areas will be designated in a
fourth round of designations (``round 4'') by December 31, 2020. The
remaining counties in Washington were designated as attainment/
unclassifiable in round 3.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 42 Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/42-wa-so2-rd3-final.pdf. See also Technical Support Document: Chapter 42 Intended
Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Washington at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/43_wa_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Relevant Factors To Evaluate 2010 SO2 Interstate Transport SIPs
Although SO2 is emitted from a similar universe of point
and nonpoint sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike
the transport of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone,
in that SO2 is not a regional pollutant and does not
commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment over a large (and often
multi-state) area. The transport of SO2 is more analogous to
the transport of lead (Pb) because its physical properties result in
localized pollutant impacts very near the emissions source. However,
ambient concentrations of SO2 do not decrease as quickly
with distance from the source as Pb because of the physical properties
and typical release heights of SO2. Emissions of
SO2 travel farther and have wider ranging impacts than
emissions of Pb but do not travel far enough to be treated in a manner
similar to ozone or PM2.5. The approaches that EPA has
adopted for ozone or PM2.5 transport are too regionally
focused, and the approach for Pb transport is too tightly circumscribed
to the source to serve as a model for SO2 transport.
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case and requires a
different approach.
In this proposed rulemaking, as in prior SO2 transport
analyses, EPA focuses on a 50 km-wide zone because the physical
properties of SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant
impacts near an emissions source that drop off with distance. Given the
physical properties of SO2, EPA selected the ``urban
scale'', a spatial scale with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers (km)
from point sources given the usefulness of that range in assessing
trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-
scale pollution control strategies at such point sources.\7\ As such,
EPA utilized an assessment up to 50 km from point sources in order to
assess trends in area-wide air quality that might impact downwind
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For the definition of spatial scales for SO2,
please see 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.4 (``Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Design Criteria''). For further discussion on how
EPA is applying these definitions with respect to interstate
transport of SO2, see EPA's proposal on Connecticut's
SO2 transport SIP. 82 FR 21351, 21352, 21354 (May 8,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. State Submission
On February 7, 2018, the Washington State Department of Ecology
(Ecology) submitted a SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
prongs 1 and 2, of the ``good neighbor'' provisions, for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.\8\ The submission concluded that SO2
emissions from sources in Washington will not contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS in any other state. Washington arrived at this conclusion after
(1) reviewing SO2 emissions sources, (2) identifying
downwind monitoring sites as potential receptors in neighboring states,
(3) conducting an emissions over distance (Q/D) analysis, (4)
evaluating available SO2 modeling results for specific
sources, and (5) reviewing the current SIP for existing federally-
approved controls that limit SO2 emissions from existing and
future sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The February 7, 2018 SIP submission also addressed the 2015
ozone NAAQS. EPA approved the ozone-related portion of the SIP
submission on September 20, 2018 (83 FR 47568).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Sources
Washington reviewed preliminary 2014 emissions inventory data (the
most recent data available at the time the submission was
developed).\9\ Point sources, including electrical utilities and
industrial sources, account for the largest anthropogenic sources of
SO2 emissions as shown in Table 1. Washington's port and
shipping activities account for the second highest source category,
after point sources. Washington's conclusions about this source sector
are also further discussed in a later section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In Section III of this preamble, we have reviewed more
recent data released as part of the 2017 National Emissions
Inventory.
Table 1--Preliminary 2014 Emissions Inventory of Anthropogenic SO2
Sources in Washington \10\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions
Source category (short tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point sources........................................... 14,510
Commercial marine vessels............................... 11,316
Silvicultural burning................................... 1,177
Industrial, commercial, institutional combustion........ 1,095
On-road mobile.......................................... 591
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receptors in Neighboring States
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The top five categories and emissions numbers in table 1
are re-printed from page 9 (Table 5) of the Washington State
Implementation Plan Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide
and Ozone, February 2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The submission identified SO2 monitoring sites in Idaho
and Oregon, which are the only two states that border Washington. These
monitoring sites were selected as downwind receptors and further
evaluated for
[[Page 45148]]
potential impacts from Washington SO2 sources. The
submission included a table of downwind receptor monitored values for
2012 through 2016 (the most recent data available at the time the
submission was developed). The data presented in Table 2 is the 99th
percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations at the identified receptors, in parts per billion (ppb).
Table 2--99th Percentile for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS at Identified Downwind Receptors (ppb) \11\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Site ID 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ada County, ID........................... 160010010 6 11 5 3 4
Bannock County, ID....................... 160050004 73 40 38 45 33
Caribou County, ID....................... 160290031 35 31 23 23 32
Multnomah County, OR..................... 410510080 10 5 3 4 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The submission included a spatial analysis of these receptor
locations relative to the Washington State border, and relative to
stationary sources in Washington that are located within 50 kilometers
(km) of each receptor. After mapping the identified downwind receptors,
the Washington Department of Ecology found that the Multnomah County,
Oregon receptor (Site ID 41051008), which is the National Core (NCore)
site located in the Portland metropolitan area, warranted further
analysis because (1) it is within 50 km of the Washington border and
because (2) four Washington SO2 point sources are within a
50-km radius of the Multnomah County receptor. The submission states
that the sources within the 50-km radius are small (three of the four
sources emitted less than 10 tons SO2 in 2014, and the
fourth source emitted 17 tons in 2014). In addition, the Multnomah
County receptor has historically monitored low 1-hour SO2
99th percentile values, as shown in the prior table.
Washington identified two Washington SO2 sources with
annual emissions greater than 100 tons within 50 km of the Washington
border. These two sources, Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre,
are pulp and paper plants. Washington further evaluated these sources
to assess whether they may have a potential impact on the Multnomah
County receptor. The State reviewed monitoring data, local weather
data, and regional emissions modeling and found it is reasonable to
conclude that most of the SO2 monitored at the Multnomah
County receptor originates within the Portland metropolitan area of
Oregon.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The values in table 2 are re-printed from page 8 (Tables 3
and 4) of the Washington State Implementation Plan Revision
Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February 2018,
publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action. These are 99th
percentile values, rounded to the nearest whole number.
\12\ See page 13-14 of the Washington State Implementation Plan
Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February
2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington proceeded to conduct an emissions-to-distance analysis
of point sources (including Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre)
as described in the following section. Washington also reviewed
SO2 emissions from commercial marine vessels operating at
several Washington ports. Washington asserted that SO2
emissions from western-Washington ports are not likely to impact the
Multnomah County receptor (nor the Idaho receptors) in part because the
ports are located over 50 km from the Oregon border and also because
the port emissions are spread across large areas, vessels, and
operations, as opposed to emissions from stationary point sources.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid.
\14\ Ibid. Table was from the SIP submittal with added sources.
\15\ Most recent emissions data available at the time the State
developed the submission. In Section III of this preamble, we have
reviewed more recent data released as part of the 2017 National
Emissions Inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions-to-Distance Analysis
The submission included an emissions-to-distance (Q/D) analysis
used to prioritize point sources with potential impact on the closest
receptor in a neighboring state. Q/D is a common screening technique
used to estimate potential visibility impacts for purposes of Regional
Haze planning and to analyze predicted air quality impacts in the
context of major stationary source permitting in areas designated
attainment and unclassifiable (Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permitting). The submission included the following table of Q/D
results.
Table 3--Emissions-to-Distance (Q/D) Results \14\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Distance 2014 SO2
Facility Type County to border to receptor (short tons) Q/D
(km) (km) \15\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TransAlta Centralia General LLC......... Electricity Generation via Lewis..................... 68 141 3,037 21.5
Combustion.
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Works...... Primary Aluminum Plant..... Whatcom................... 292 373 4,794 12.9
Alcoa Primary Metals Wenatchee Works.... Primary Aluminum Plan...... Chelan.................... 164 281 2,935 10.5
Weyerhaeuser NR Company................. Pulp and Paper Plant....... Cowlitz................... 1 76 440 5.8
BP Cherry Point Refinery................ Petroleum Refinery......... Whatcom................... 296 377 917 2.4
Longview Fibre.......................... Pulp and Paper Plant....... Cowlitz................... 1 72 141 2.0
Boise Paper............................. Pulp and Paper Plant....... Walla Walla............... 150 100 186 1.85
RockTenn Mill Tacoma.................... Pulp and Paper Plant....... Pierce.................... 131 197 261 1.3
Cosmo Specialty Fibers.................. Pulp and Paper Plant....... Grays Harbor.............. 75 185 237 1.3
Puget Sound Refining Company............ Petroleum Refinery......... Skagit.................... 255 331 347 1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45149]]
The TransAlta Centralia Generation facility was the only source
that exceeded Washington's threshold ratio of 20 for the Q/D analysis
(Q/D = 21.5). As a result, it was the only source that Washington
evaluated further following the Q/D analysis.
Available SO2 Modeling Results
In the SIP submission, Washington explained their review of
published modeling data for the TransAlta facility and indicated that
the modeling showed limited SO2 impact outside of the
immediate area of the facility.\16\ Washington also provided plume
modeling data that indicated the facility's SO2 plume
distributes toward the south but would not be expected to reach the
area near the Multnomah County receptor in any significant
concentration.\17\ Washington further explained that the facility has
SO2 emissions at the facility of less than 1,350 pounds per
hour as of December 15, 2016.\18\ Based on this information, Washington
concluded that the TransAlta facility does not significantly contribute
to SO2 emissions at the Multnomah County Receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See page 12 of the Washington State Implementation Plan
Revision Interstate Transport of Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone, February
2018, publication 18-02-005, in the docket for this action.
\17\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/ecologytechnicalreporttransaltaso2modelingresults2017.pdf.
\18\ http://www.swcleanair.org/docs/permits/prelim/16-3202ADP.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing and Future SO2 Controls
Washington reviewed current and future enforceable emission limits
and controls that apply to SO2 sources in Washington. Most
of the limits and control requirements referenced have been approved
into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 52, subpart
WW, including the SIP and Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
requirements related to Regional Haze best available retrofit
technology (BART). These provisions and others listed below are
designed to limit SO2 emissions from existing and future
sources in the State:
40 CFR 52.2470(c) reasonably available control technology
requirements (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.94.154 and Chapter
173-400 Washington Administrative Code (WAC))
40 CFR 52.2470(c) kraft pulp mill regulations (173-405 WAC)
40 CFR 52.2470(c) sulfite pulp mill regulations (173-410 WAC)
40 CFR 52.2470(c) primary aluminum smelter regulations (173-
415 WAC)
40 CFR 52.2470(c) pre-construction permitting (WAC 173-400-111
and 720)
40 CFR 52.2470(c) gasoline vapor and volatile organic compound
emission regulations (173-490 and 491 WAC)
40 CFR 52.2470(d) BART requirements for TransAlta Centralia
(coal units BW21 and BW22 will permanently cease burning coal and be
decommissioned by December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2025,
respectively) \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The submission references Southwest Clean Air Agency
Regulatory Order 16-32 dated December 15, 2016. This regulatory
order was not submitted for approval and is therefore not addressed
in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 52.2470(d) BART requirements for BP Cherry Point
Refinery
40 CFR 52.2500 BART requirements for ALCOA Primary Metals
Intalco Works
40 CFR 52.2501 BART requirements for Tesoro Petroleum Refinery
40 CFR 52.2502 BART requirements for ALCOA Primary Metals
Wenatchee Works
Based on their analysis of monitoring and emissions data, the Q/D
analysis, and current and future SO2 controls, Washington
concluded that SO2 emissions from sources in Washington will
not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state. Therefore, Washington
requested EPA approval of the submission for purposes of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
IV. EPA's Analysis
EPA first reviewed the Washington submission to assess how the
State evaluated interstate transport of SO2, the types of
information Washington used in the analysis, and the conclusions drawn
by the State. We then conducted a weight of evidence analysis to
determine if we agree with the State's conclusion that SO2
emissions from sources in Washington will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.
A. Prong 1 Evaluation
Washington's submission focused on one downwind receptor and a
relatively limited source-oriented and spatial evaluation of potential
transport based on an emissions-to-distance analysis. As a result of
the emissions-to-distance analysis, Washington reviewed one source,
TransAlta, for potential transport. TransAlta is located approximately
70 km from the state border with Oregon.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As mentioned in Section I.B of this preamble, EPA
designated the area containing TransAlta, Lewis and Thurston
counties in Washington, as Unclassifiable in Round 3 of
SO2 designations. Washington submitted modeling for the
area, however, EPA identified deficiencies with the modeling as the
basis for the Unclassifiable designation. This Unclassifiable area
boundary is within 50 km of the Washington state border, however,
the only source emitting over 100 tpy in the area, TransAlta, is
located more than 50 km from the state border. Given the distance
between TransAlta and the state border, EPA did not evaluate this
source further for potential transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has performed a supplemental analysis to more fully evaluate
sources in Washington for potential transport to neighboring states. In
our analysis we reviewed: (1) Emissions inventory data and emissions
trends for point sources in Washington emitting greater than 100 tpy;
(2) SO2 ambient air quality data; and (3) spatial analysis
of point sources located within 50 km of the Washington state border.
1. Point Source Emissions Inventory Data
First, we compiled a list of Washington point sources emitting over
100 tons per year of SO2 according to the 2017 NEI. Then, we
added 2008, 2011, and 2014 NEI data, for reference, as listed in Table
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 2011, 2014, and 2017 National Emissions Inventory data for
point sources available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.
Table 4--Trends in SO2 Emissions (Tons per Year) From Point Sources in Washington \21\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Type County 2008 2011 2014 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Primary Aluminum Whatcom.......... 4,523 4,538 4,794 3,987
Works. Plant.
TransAlta Centralia Electricity Lewis............ 2,318 1,136 3,037 1,689
Generation, LLC. Generation via
Combustion.
Alcoa Primary Metals Wenatchee Primary Aluminum Chelan........... 1,810 2,906 2,935 .........
Works*. Plant.
BP Cherry Point Refinery...... Petroleum Whatcom.......... 1,764 1,007 917 808
Refinery.
[[Page 45150]]
Boise Paper................... Pulp and Paper Wallula.......... 780 793 186 885
Plant.
Weyerhaeuser NR Company Pulp and Paper Cowlitz.......... 512 582 440 390
(Nippon Dynawave). Plant.
Puget Sound Refining Company.. Petroleum Skagit........... 450 359 347 225
Refinery.
Longview Fibre................ Pulp and Paper Cowlitz.......... 281 202 141 197
Plant.
WestRock Tacoma Mill.......... Pulp and Paper Pierce........... 635 349 261 189
Plant.
Cosmo Specialty Fibers........ Pulp and Paper Grays Harbor..... -- 214 237 242
Plant.
Sea-Tac International Airport. Airport.......... King............. 192 243 261 506
Chemtrade..................... Chemical Plant... Skagit........... 123 155 215 203
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... ................. ................. 13,388 12,484 13,771 9,321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Curtailed since 2015.
The NEI data from 2008 to 2017 show decreases in SO2
emissions from certain sources, including two petroleum refineries: BP
Cherry Point and Puget Sound Refining Company. The data in Table 4 also
show a mix of slight increases and decreases at some large pulp and
paper plants and other sources categories.
2. SO2 Ambient Air Quality Data
Information from SO2 monitors near the borders between
Washington and its neighboring states of Idaho and Oregon is also
useful context for evaluating whether the SIP submission from
Washington satisfies prong 1. Tables 5 and 6 below summarize this
SO2 monitoring information for monitors in Washington and
the bordering states of Idaho and Oregon. We note that there are only
two monitors within approximately 50 km of the Washington State border,
and both monitors are located outside of the State (in Idaho and
Oregon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Data obtained on 11/13/2019 at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
\23\ Data obtained on 4/16/2020 at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
\24\ Data obtained from EPA's Outdoor Air Quality Database (11/
13/2019).
Table 5--Trends in 3-Year SO2 Design Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Washington \22\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ Distance to
Site ID Site name border (km) 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
530570011........... Anacortes-202 O 263 5................ 5................ 4
Ave.
530090013........... Cheeka Peak...... 240 2................ 2................ 1
incomplete....... incomplete
530730013........... Ferndale- 293 invalid.......... invalid.......... invalid
Kickerville Rd.
530730017........... Ferndale-Mountain 294 invalid.......... invalid.......... invalid
View Rd.
530070012........... Malaga-Malaga 228 invalid.......... invalid.......... invalid
Highway.
530330080........... Seattle-Beacon 167 6................ 5................ 6
Hill. incomplete....... incomplete....... incomplete
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
incomplete = Design value calculated based on data that does not meet completeness criteria.
invalid = Insufficient data collected to determine a valid 3-year design value.
Table 6--Trends in 99th Percentile Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors in Washington \23\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ Distance to
Site ID Site name border (km) 2017 2018 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
530570011................ Anacortes-202 O Ave.. 263 3 2 3
530090013................ Cheeka Peak.......... 240 1 1 1
530730013................ Ferndale-Kickerville 293 70 74 70
Rd*.
530730017................ Ferndale-Mountain 294 114 101 105
View Rd*.
530070012................ Malaga-Malaga 228 1 1 1
Highway**.
530330080................ Seattle-Beacon Hill.. 167 6 8 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These two monitors are source-oriented monitors that began operating in early 2017 to characterize air quality
around Alcoa Intalco Works.
** This monitor is a source-oriented monitor that began operating in early 2017 to characterize air quality
around Alcoa Wenatchee Works.
Table 7--Trend in 3-Year SO2 Design Values (ppb) for AQS Monitors Surrounding Washington \24\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ Distance to
Site ID County Border 2013-2015 2014-2016 2015-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160010010............. Ada County, Idaho.. 55 7.................. 4 3
incomplete.........
160050004............. Bannock County, 489 41................. 39 38
Idaho.
[[Page 45151]]
160290031............. Caribou County, 558 26................. 26 30
Idaho.
410510080............. Multnomah County, 12 4.................. 3 3
Oregon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
incomplete = Design value calculated based on data that does not meet completeness criteria.
Except for the Anacortes monitor, Washington SO2
monitors have either incomplete or invalid data during the last three
design value periods.\25\ However, in Table 6 of this document, we've
included the 99th percentile values for these monitors in Washington as
additional evidence that, generally, statewide monitored values are
below the level of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ To be comparable to the NAAQS, the design value must be
valid according to appendix T to 40 CFR part 50 which specifies
minimum data completeness criteria for the 1-hour 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three new SO2 monitors were established in Washington in
early 2017. These three monitors were established to characterize two
sources for purposes of the SO2 Data Requirements Rule
(DRR), namely Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Works and Alcoa Wenatchee
Works. These areas will be designated in Round 4 of SO2
designations. The data from these monitors (Site IDs 530730013,
530730017, and 530070012) was required to be certified by the State as
valid, 3-year design values by May 1, 2020. One of these monitors is
recording exceedances of the NAAQS. However, we note that all three
monitors (and the sources they were sited to characterize) are over 200
km away from the Washington border with neighboring states and are
therefore not likely to have an adverse impact on air quality in the
neighboring states of Idaho and Oregon.
Valid, complete data is available for the SO2 monitors
in Idaho and Oregon, and design values are well below the level of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, as shown in Table 7 of this document. As
described, there are no Washington monitors located within 50 km of a
neighboring state's border, however, there are two monitors in
neighboring states located within approximately 50 km of the Washington
border, and these monitors recorded SO2 design values well
below the level of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the most recent
valid design value periods. These monitored values do not, alone,
indicate any particular location that would warrant further
investigation with respect to SO2 emission sources that
might significantly contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring
states. However, because the monitoring network is not necessarily
designed to capture all locations of high SO2
concentrations, this observation indicates an absence of evidence of
impact at these locations and is insufficient to capture the impact at
all locations in the neighboring states. Therefore, we have also
conducted a source-oriented analysis.
3. Spatial Analysis of Point Sources
As noted, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to examine the
impacts of emissions from stationary sources in distances ranging from
0 km to 50 km from the facility, based on the ``urban scale''
definition contained in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, section 4.4. As a
result, we evaluated point sources of up to 50 km from the state border
for emissions trends and SO2 concentrations in areawide air
quality. In the absence of special factors, for example the presence of
nearby larger sources or unusual factors, sources emitting less than
100 tons per year SO2 can be appropriately presumed to not
be significantly contributing to SO2 concentrations above
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The list of sources emitting 100 tons
per year or more of SO2, based on 2017 point source data,
within 50 km of the Washington state border, are shown in Table 8.
Table 8--Sources Within 50 km of the Washington State Border With SO2 Emissions Greater Than 100 tpy and Nearest Neighboring State Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 SO2
2017 SO2 Distance from Neighboring State Source Emissions of
Sources Emissions the Border Neighboring State (Distance Between the Neighboring
(tons) (km) Sources) State Source
(tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser NR Company--Longview, 390 1 Oregon............................ Wauna Mill--Paper Mill-- 540
Washington. Clatskanie, Oregon (33
km).
Longview Fibre--Longview, Washington.... 197 1 Oregon............................ Wauna Mill--Paper Mill-- 540
Clatskanie, Oregon (38
km).
Boise Paper--Wallula, Washington........ 885 11 Oregon............................ PGE Boardman--Boardman, 3298
Oregon (82 km).
Portland International Airport-- 215 2 Washington........................ Longview Fibre--Longview, 197
Portland, Oregon. Washington (62 km).
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.-- 118 4 Washington........................ Longview Fibre--Longview, 197
Portland Oregon. Washington (66 km).
PGE Boardman--Boardman, Oregon.......... 3298 17 Washington........................ Boise Paper--Wallula, 885
Washington (82).
Wauna Mill--Paper Mill--Clatskanie, 540 <1 Washington........................ Weyerhaeuser NR Company-- 390
Oregon. Longview, Washington (33).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45152]]
The Washington sources listed are of interest with respect to
SO2 transport because of the possibility that they are
causing a violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in their locality
that extends into a neighboring state. There is also the possibility of
emissions from one or more of these sources in Washington and emissions
from a source in a neighboring state interacting in such a way as to
contribute significantly to a violation in the neighboring state. As
such, we have also included sources in neighboring states within 50 km
of the Washington state border as part of this analysis. The prior
table shows the distance from each of the sources listed therein to the
nearest source across the Washington state border emitting above 100
tons per year of SO2. Generally, a greater distance between
two sources reduces the likelihood that their emissions could interact
in such a way as to contribute significantly to a violation in the
neighboring state. Given the localized range of potential 1-hour
SO2 impacts, sources which are greater than 50 km from each
other would not warrant further investigation with respect to
Washington SO2 emission sources that might contribute to
problems with attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states. As shown, there are two sources in Washington which
are within 50 kilometers from a source in a neighboring state;
Weyerhaeuser NR Company and Longview Fibre in Longview, Washington,
located 33 and 38 km respectively, from the Wauna Mill in Clatskanie,
Oregon. Therefore, we have evaluated these sources further.
Longview, Washington, and Clatskanie, Oregon, comprise a cross-
border, uncombined metropolitan area. Currently, EPA does not have
monitoring or modeling information to indicate a violation or elevated
SO2 concentrations in this area. Given the distance between
the cross-state sources (over 30 km), the declining emissions at the
sources in Longview, Washington, as demonstrated in Table 4 of this
document, and the lack of evidence of violations or elevated
SO2 concentrations in the area; it is unlikely that
emissions from the two sources in Longview, Washington, could interact
with emissions from the Wauna Mill in Clatskanie, Oregon, in such a way
as to adversely impact a violation of the SO2 NAAQS in
Oregon. Based on these factors, we propose to concur with the state's
conclusion that SO2 emissions from sources in Longview,
Washington, will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in the neighboring state of Oregon.
EPA has also evaluated PGE Boardman, a DRR source located within 50
km of the Washington border. PGE Boardman is located in Boardman,
Oregon, and, as shown in Table 8 of this document, the nearest source
in Washington is Boise Paper in Wallula, Washington. Although these
sources are located 82 km apart, and it is unlikely that their
emissions could interact in such a way as to contribute significantly
to violations in the neighboring state, because emissions from PGE
Boardman near the Washington border are over 3000 tons per year, we
have further evaluated the source. The State of Oregon modeled the area
surrounding the facility, and the details are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9--Other States' Sources With DRR Modeling Located Within 50 km of Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled 99th
Approximate Other percentile
Distance From facilities daily maximum 1- Model grid
DRR source County (state) Source to included in hour SO2 extends into
Washington modeling concentration another state?
Border (km) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGE Boardman \26\........... Morrow (OR).... 17 11 sources in 73 (based on Yes, into WA
Oregon: PTE emissions). (portions of
Columbia Ridge Benton,
Landfill, PGE Klickitat and
Boardman Carty Yakima
Plant, ConAgra Counties, WA).
Foods Lamb
Weston, Inc.,
TMF Biofuels,
LLC, Hermiston
Power LLC,
Hermiston
Generating
Company,
Perennial-
Windchaser
LLC, Oregon
Potato
Company,
Finley
BioEnergy LLC,
Gas
Transmission
Northwest LLC,
Finley Buttes
Landfill.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State submitted the resulting model data to EPA and indicated
that Oregon found no modeled exceedances of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS within 50 km of the Boardman Plant. The State recommended EPA
designate the area around the Boardman Plant as unclassifiable/
attainment. EPA agreed and designated the entire State of Oregon
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (83 FR
1098, January 9, 2018).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Technical Support Document: Chapter 34 Final Round 3
Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oregon at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-08/documents/34_or_so2_rd3-final.pdf.
\27\ See 40 CFR 81.338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, Oregon's SIP requires PGE Boardman to implement a
phased reduction of operation and cease coal-fired operation by
December 31, 2020. Based on this analysis, as well as the modeling
results for the area around the Boardman plant and the federally
enforceable emissions reductions planned for the facility, we propose
to concur with the State's conclusion that SO2 emissions
from sources in Washington will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the area in Oregon
surrounding the PGE Boardman facility.
This spatial analysis of point sources within 50 km of the
Washington border, including available modeling results, weighed along
with the other factors in this document, support EPA's proposed
conclusion that sources in Washington will not adversely impact air
quality so as to significantly contribute to
[[Page 45153]]
nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other
state. Furthermore, EPA does not have any evidence of any violations of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the neighboring states to which
SO2 emissions from Washington could significantly
contribute.
Based on our review of the Washington submission and our weight of
evidence analysis, we propose to conclude that sources in Washington
will not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
B. Prong 2 Evaluation
Prong 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an evaluation of
the potential impact of a state's emissions on areas in other states
that may have trouble attaining and maintaining the NAAQS in the
future. Approval of a SIP for prong 2 requires a conclusion that
SO2 emissions from the State's sources will not interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another
state.
Our prong 2 evaluation for Washington builds on our analysis
regarding significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1).
Specifically, as explained in Section IV.A of this preamble, we have a
sufficient basis to conclude that there are no NAAQS violations in
other states near their shared borders with Washington (Idaho and
Oregon) and accordingly, we are proposing that sources in Washington
are not significantly contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in any
of those states. As explained in this section, we also have a
sufficient basis for concluding that SO2 emissions from
sources in Washington and other states near their shared borders are
highly unlikely to increase sufficiently to alter this situation.
Therefore, we are proposing to find that SO2 levels in
neighboring states (Idaho and Oregon) near the Washington border will
continue to be at or below the level of the SO2 NAAQS.
As presented in Table 4 in Section IV.A of this preamble,
SO2 emissions from larger point sources in Washington have
decreased by approximately 30 percent between 2008 and 2017. This
information on point source SO2 emissions trends does not by
itself demonstrate that SO2 emissions in the near-border
areas in Washington and neighboring states will not impact neighboring
states. However, as a component of our weight of evidence analysis for
prong 2, it provides an indication that such an increase is unlikely.
As described in the Washington Department of Ecology submission and
summarized in Section II of this preamble, there are multiple
provisions in the Washington SIP designed to control and limit
SO2 emissions from existing Washington sources. Future
stationary sources of SO2 emissions are subject to
Washington's SIP-approved pre-construction permitting program, also
known as New Source Review. New Source Review for major stationary
sources in areas designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS is called nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) and requires
lowest achievable emission rates and offsets in accordance with the
SIP-approved NNSR program for Washington State. New Source Review for
major stationary sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas is
called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and requires that
best available control technology be applied to any new major source or
major modification of a major source. Washington's SIP-approved PSD
program requires that new or modified major sources in attainment and
unclassifiable areas do not interfere with maintenance in any other
state, in accordance with federal regulations set forth in 40 CFR
51.165(b)(1). See 40 CFR 52.2497.
Turning to minor sources, such sources are covered by the State's
SIP-approved minor new source review permitting program. In accordance
with 40 CFR 51.160 through 164, subject sources may not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. We note that the neighboring
states of Idaho and Oregon also have SIP-approved PSD and minor source
permitting programs. See 40 CFR 52.683 and 52.1987, respectively. The
permitting regulations contained within these programs are designed to
ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in the neighboring
states of Idaho or Oregon are not exceeded as a result of new facility
construction or modifications occurring in the near-border areas of
these states.
In conclusion, for interstate transport prong 2, EPA has
incorporated additional information about emissions trends as well as
the technical information considered for interstate transport prong 1,
into our evaluation of Washington's submission, which did not include
an independent analysis of prong 2. We find that the large distances
between cross-state SO2 sources, combined with an overall
reduction in SO2 emissions from larger Washington sources
and SIP-approved measures designed to control and limit emissions from
SO2 sources in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon, taken along
with the other factors considered in this document support EPA's
proposed conclusion that there will be no interference with maintenance
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in neighboring states from sources in
Washington. Based on our weight of evidence analysis, we propose to
conclude that sources in Washington will not interfere with maintenance
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, per the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
V. Proposed Action
As discussed in Section III of this preamble, Washington concluded
that SO2 emissions from the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in any other state. EPA's analysis, discussed in
Section IV of this preamble, confirms this finding. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the Washington SIP as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations.\28\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role
is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely
[[Page 45154]]
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of the requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 10, 2020.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-15399 Filed 7-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P