[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 8, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81361-81388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22603]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2023-0600, FRL-11593-02-R10]
Air Plan Approval; OR; Regional Haze Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
regional haze state implementation plan revision submitted by Oregon on
April 29, 2022, as supplemented on November 22, 2023, as satisfying
applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional
Haze Rule for the program's second implementation period. The Oregon
submission addressed the requirement that states must periodically
revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress
towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional
haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The Oregon submission also
addressed other applicable requirements for the second implementation
period of the regional haze program.
DATES: This final rule is effective November 7, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID
[[Page 81362]]
No. EPA-R10-OAR-2023-0600. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information the disclosure of which is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-0256 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'' or
``our'' is used, it means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. EPA Responses to Comments Received
A. National Park Service Comments
1. Federal Land Manager Consultation
2. Use of the Four Statutory Factors in Determining Reasonable
Progress
3. Use of Permitted Emissions Limits To Align Allowable
Emissions With Actual Emissions
4. Use of a Stipulated Agreement and Final Order (SAFO) Versus a
Unilateral Order
5. Compliance Deadlines
6. Standards for Emissions Unit Replacement
7. Wauna Facility--Biomass Fired Fluidized Bed Boiler
8. Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC--Final Control Determination
9. Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC--Emission Limit
10. Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC--Emissions Unit Replacement
11. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers--
SCR
12. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers--
LNB
13. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers--
Compliance Deadline and Emission Limit
14. International Paper--Springfield--Emission Limit
15. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.
B. Environmental Organizations' Comments
1. Stationary Source Contribution
2. Oregon's Regional Haze Rule Is Inconsistent With the CAA
3. Oregon's Use of PSEL Reductions as a Source Selection Method
4. Oregon's ``Alternative Compliance'' Pathways
5. Documentation of Oregon's Four-Factor Analysis Process
6. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.
7. Reasonable Progress Goals
8. Robust Demonstration Requirements
9. Environmental Justice
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On February 23, 2024, the EPA proposed to approve the regional haze
state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by Oregon on April
29, 2022, as supplemented on November 22, 2023, as satisfying
applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation period
(89 FR 13622).
The public comment period for our proposed action was originally
scheduled to close on March 25, 2024. However, on February 28, 2024, we
received a request to extend the public comment period an additional 30
days.\1\ On March 14, 2024, we published a document in the Federal
Register extending the public comment period end date from March 25,
2024, to April 24, 2024 (89 FR 18866).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This extension request letter may be found in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received four comments. We determined that two comments were not
germane to our action, for the following reasons. One commenter
expressed opposition to the cultivation of cannabis, asserting general
air pollution concerns. The commenter did not provide any tangible
connection to the regional haze requirements or the Oregon submission.
The EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns; however, the comment is
outside the scope of this action and does not indicate that the EPA's
approval of the SIP submission is inconsistent with the CAA. Oversight
of cannabis farms is unrelated to this regional haze action.
A second commenter cited some details from the Oregon regional haze
plan, asserting a connection to transmission of the coronavirus.
However, the commenter provided no logical basis for this assertion.
The EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns; however, the comment is
outside the scope of this action and does not indicate that the EPA's
approval of the SIP submission is inconsistent with the CAA. Potential
connections between air pollution and respiratory viruses on public
health is unrelated to this regional haze action.
We also received two germane comments. One was submitted by the
National Park Service (NPS). The second was submitted by Earthjustice
on behalf of a coalition of environmental organizations consisting of
Cully Air Action Team, National Parks Conservation Association,
Neighbors for Clean Air, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Oregon
Environmental Council, Sierra Club, and Verde (Environmental
Organizations). The full text of the comments may be found in the
docket for this action. We have summarized the comments and provided
our responses in section II. of this preamble. Under the Clean Air Act,
the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies
with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal
regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
II. EPA Responses to Comments Received
A. National Park Service Comments
1. Federal Land Manager Consultation
Comment: ``[W]e would like to make the EPA aware that the Oregon
SIP process did not meet the requirements for Federal Land Manager
(FLM) consultation . . . The NPS participated in early, informal
engagement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
regarding SIP development beginning in January of 2020. This productive
collaboration included a meeting, subsequent written documentation, and
staff-to-staff technical feedback on individual facility four-factor
analyses as documented in the Oregon SIP. The NPS appreciates the
extensive efforts that Oregon invested in early communication. However,
many of the draft conclusions and determinations presented to the NPS
during early engagement were not incorporated into the draft SIP
released for public review in late August 2021. In fact, the public
comment draft included substantial changes to the facility-specific
control determinations in comparison with what the NPS had reviewed
previously.''
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that
Oregon did not meet the requirements for Federal Land Manager (FLM)
consultation in 40 CFR 51.308(i). As described below, ODEQ met all of
the FLM consultation statutory and regulatory requirements.
Chapter 6.3 Consultations with Federal Land Managers of the April
29, 2022, SIP revision contained documentation of the extensive
outreach with the NPS. This included providing a May 5, 2021, draft of
the regional haze plan explicitly for the purpose of FLM consultation
(May 2021 FLM draft). A key element of 40 CFR
[[Page 81363]]
51.308(i)(2) is that consultation occur early enough in a state's
policy analyses of its long-term strategy so that information and
recommendations provided by the FLMs can meaningfully inform a state's
decisions on the long-term strategy. Chapters 6.3.3 Federal Land
Manager Review of Draft State Implementation Plan and 6.3.4 Federal
Land Manager Comments and DEQ Responses contained Oregon's responses to
all comments received as part of the May 2021 FLM draft review process
and prior consultation outreach. The NPS's characterization of this
effort as ``informal consultation'' is not consistent with the EPA's
regulations. The requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) contain no
bifurcation of ``informal'' versus ``formal'' consultation. Consistent
with the preamble of the EPA's 2017 Regional Haze Rule, the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) made a good faith effort to
involve the NPS early in development of the long-term strategy. The RHR
preamble specifically states that consultation should be used to inform
``decisions that are about to be made by the state on its long-term
strategy . . .'' (emphasis added).\2\ ODEQ used the comments and
feedback from the May 2021 FLM consultation draft to inform the final
control determinations contained in the draft provided for public
notice and comment period starting on August 27, 2021 (August 2021
public comment draft). The interpretation that all control
determinations must be finalized before initiating FLM consultation is
not supported by the text of 40 CFR 51.308(i), nor is it in keeping
with the intent of 40 CFR 51.308(i) to foster early engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017) at page 3116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the May 2021 FLM consultation draft process, ODEQ
provided opportunity for review and comment on the August 2021 public
draft. In response to public interest, ODEQ extended the public comment
period for an additional 30 days, going from August 27, 2021, to
November 1, 2021, so that all parties had adequate time to review the
technical determinations. The NPS used this opportunity to provide
additional comments which are included in Chapter 6.6 Public Comments
and Responses of the April 29, 2022, SIP revision, along with ODEQ's
responses to the comments.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Oregon's April 29, 2022, submission, pages 136-140
(comment numbers 6-9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, in response to NPS and Environmental Organizations' concerns,
ODEQ supplemented the regional haze SIP on November 22, 2023, with
appendices 1 through 6 (2023 supplement). These appendices contained
additional correspondence used by ODEQ in making control determinations
under the statutory four factors for Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--
Elgin Complex, Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Medford, Georgia
Pacific--Wauna Mill, Georgia Pacific--Toledo LLC, Cascade Pacific Pulp,
LLC--Halsey Pulp Mill, and International Paper Company--Springfield
Mill. As acknowledged by the NPS, ODEQ conducted FLM consultation on
the 2023 supplement and included NPS comments in Section 6: Response to
Federal Land Manager Review Comments.
For the reasons stated above, it is our determination that ODEQ
adequately conducted FLM consultation and has thus fulfilled the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).
2. Use of the Four Statutory Factors in Determining Reasonable Progress
Comment: ``The NPS recommends that states, including Oregon, base
reasonable progress control determinations on the four statutory
factors identified in Sec. 7491(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
NPS suggests that it may not be sufficient to consider the factors and
then select a less protective control measure (or permit reduction)
that is unrelated to the four-factor analysis. We recommend that
determinations not clearly based on the four factors should demonstrate
how the alternative measure is reasonable and/or equivalent to the
outcome of the four-factor analysis.''
Response: The EPA agrees with the NPS that reasonable progress
control determinations must be grounded in the state's consideration of
the four statutory factors identified in CAA section 169A and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2). In section IV.E.b of our proposed rulemaking, The EPA's
Evaluation of the Oregon Long-Term Strategy, we explained how the
Oregon process was grounded in the four-factor analysis (FFA)
process.\4\ However, the NPS's characterization that ODEQ's January
2021 ``Preliminary Determination of Cost Effective Controls for
Regional Haze'' letters constituted final four-factor determinations,
and all subsequent correspondence and action was outside the four-
factor framework is an inaccurate characterization of the Oregon
process.\5\ The EPA will reiterate key aspects from our proposed
rulemaking as well as details from Chapter 3.4 Four Factor Analysis of
Oregon's April 29, 2022, regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 89 FR 13622 (February 23, 2024) at page 13637.
\5\ Complete copies of the ``Preliminary Determination of Cost
Effective Controls for Regional Haze'' letters are included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Division 223 Regional Haze Rules
dictated the regulatory processes for determining the controls
necessary for reasonable progress. OAR 340-223-0110(1) required all
affected facilities to submit four-factor analyses. The required
contents of the four-factor analyses were specified in OAR 340-223-
0120, which mirrored the four statutory factors of CAA section
169A(g)(1). Of the 17 facilities that submitted four-factor analyses in
accordance with this rule, nearly all affected facilities submitted
detailed demonstrations developed by independent consulting firms and/
or certified professional engineers asserting that no feasible or cost-
effective controls were available in applying the four-factors.\6\ Only
2 facilities, Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. and Gilchrist Forest
Products found cost effective controls under the four factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Complete copies of the four-factor analyses are included in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than simply relying on these submissions to satisfy 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2), Oregon engaged with the affected facilities to identify
feasible control options. Specifically, ODEQ issued ``Preliminary
Determination of Cost Effective Controls for Regional Haze'' letters
proposing more stringent controls unless facilities could further
demonstrate that the measures were truly not cost effective or
technically feasible. This initiated the process between January 2021
and August 2021 when ODEQ assessed and determined final control
determinations under the four factors, primarily based on the technical
feasibility and cost correspondence documented in appendices 1-6.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Complete copies of appendices 1-6 were included in the
November 2023 supplement to the regional haze plan and are also
included in the docket for this action (document numbers 246-251).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, these preliminary letters did not replace the four factor
analyses submitted by the affected facilities. Nor were the preliminary
letters final determinations on what controls are feasible and
necessary for reasonable progress under OAR 340-223-120(4) or 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2). Rather, these preliminary determinations letters were a
result of ODEQ's initial adjustment of the four-factor analyses
submitted by the affected facilities based on
[[Page 81364]]
additional information and to aid in a consistent review across all
four-factor analyses.\8\ Consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and OAR
340-223-120(4), ODEQ determined the controls necessary for reasonable
progress after issuing the preliminary determinations and collecting
and analyzing additional information from the facilities regarding the
four statutory factors. As ODEQ explained in its response to comments
on the initial SIP submission, in some cases ODEQ agreed with
facilities that controls it preliminarily proposed were not technically
feasible or cost effective.\9\ Ultimately, Oregon's submission
demonstrates that it determined the controls necessary for reasonable
progress based on its consideration of the four statutory factors and
thus met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See OAR 340-223-0120(2) and (3).
\9\ See Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Meeting,
February 3-4, 2022, 1001_1.1_StaffReport_wAttachments Comment #17 at
Item C 000035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 of this preamble provides a comparison of the controls
evaluated in the four factor analyses submitted by the sources and the
controls Oregon ultimately included in its long-term strategy. The
exact facility-by-facility determinations are described in more detail
in the Proposal and in subsequent responses to facility-specific
comments in section II of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This table was created using the EPA's 2019 Guidance
recommendation to use projected actuals or recent actuals in cost-
effectiveness calculations.
\11\ The four-factor analysis raised technical feasibility and
cost barriers in the determination that, ``Based on the Four Factor
analysis presented above, no additional controls were determined to
be cost effective for the biomass boilers at the Elgin Mill.'' See
106_SAFOBCWoodProducts31-0006Elgin.pdf, at page 2-25. Correspondence
related to these issues is included in
246_3.3.2_Appendix1_Boise.Cascade.Elgin_Correspondence.pdf, included
in the docket for this action.
\12\ ODEQ did not pursue this control option, presumably because
associated potential PM10 emissions were low (69 tons per
year) relative to potential NOX emissions (367 ton per
year) and the significant difference between allowable PSEL
emissions (Q/d = 11.92) and actual emissions (Q/d = 3.57). ODEQ
instead proposed NOX controls in the January 2021
preliminary determination letter. See 120_haze-EVRAZ.pdf, included
in the docket for this action.
\13\ The four-factor analysis argued, ``A formal engineering
analysis would be required to ultimately determine if SNCR would be
effective on the boilers. This type of analysis would include
obtaining temperature and flow data, developing a model of each
boiler using computational fluid dynamics, determining residence
time and degree of mixing, determining placement of injectors, and
testing.'' See 132_haze-GeorgiaPacific-Toledo-FFA.pdf, at page 2-19.
\14\ In a letter dated September 11, 2020, Gilchrist agreed that
installation of an Electrostatic Precipitator on boilers B-1 and B-2
would be cost-effective, and provided a letter from a boiler vendor
indicating that retrofitting those boilers with Selective Non-
Catalytic Reduction was not technically feasible. See April 22, 2022
regional haze SIP at page 77.
\15\ Catalytic ceramic filter imposed on furnace D by separate
enforcement action. See 701_OwensBrockway2020-208MAO.pdf included in
the docket for this action.
Table 1--Comparison of Four-Factor Analysis Controls and Final Controls
[Please see the footnotes for technical feasibility issues identified in
the four-factor analyses]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controls below $10K/
per ton reduction
threshold in four-
factor analyses
submitted pursuant
Facility to OAR 340-223- Final controls
0110(1) using recent imposed by ODEQ
actual or projected
actual emissions (if
provided) \10\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biomass One, L.P............ None................ Installation of
continuous
emissions
monitoring system
(CEMS) and NOX
optimization plan
on North and South
boilers. If the
permittee is able
to finalize a new
power purchase
agreement, the
permitted must
evaluate
installation of
selective catalytic
reduction (SCR).
Boise Cascade Wood Products, Selective non- Installation of CEMS
LLC--Elgin Complex. catalytic reduction and NOX combustion
(SNCR) ($9,523) and improvement
SCR ($9,538).\11\ project.
Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC-- None................ Fuel restrictions
Halsey Pulp Mill. and power boiler
emissions unit
replacement.
EVRAZ Inc. NA............... Baghouse for slab Low NOX burners
cutting operations (LNB) on reheat
($7,301).\12\ furnace.
Gas Transmission Northwest None................ SCR or emissions
LLC--Compressor Station 13. unit replacement on
turbines 13C and
13D.
Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC. Low NOX burners with LNB/FGR and CEMS on
flue gas boilers 1, 3, and
recirculation (LNB/ 4, or unit
FGR) on boiler 1 replacement on one
($7,083). SNCR on or more boilers.
boilers 1 ($7,706)
and 4 ($7,630).\13\
Georgia Pacific--Wauna Mill. (LNB/FGR) on power LNB/FGR and CEMS on
boiler ($9,223). power boiler, LNB
for paper machine
5, and emissions
limits for paper
machines 6 and 7.
Gilchrist Forest Products... None \14\........... Installation of
electrostatic
precipitator on
units
B-1 and B-2.
International Paper-- None................ Fuel restrictions,
Springfield. installation of
CEMS on power
boiler, and
emissions limits.
Northwest Pipeline LLC-- Low Emission Emissions unit
Oregon City Compressor Combustion Retrofit replacement and
Station. ($8,809). emissions limit.
Owens-Brockway Glass Catalytic ceramic Furnace A shut down
Container Inc. filters for and PSEL limit
furnaces A ($5,256) imposed.\15\
& D ($5,035).
Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc. None................ ODEQ determined no
controls <$10K.
Roseburg Forest Products-- SNCR on boilers 1 Installation of CEMS
Dillard. ($4,363), 2 and imposition of
($4,170), and 6 emissions limits.
($3,635). Permittee must
install SNCR by
June 30, 2025, if
emissions limits
are not met.
Willamette Falls Paper None................ Fuel restrictions
Company. and Plantsite
Emissions Limit
(PSEL) reduction.
Woodgrain Millwork LLC-- None................ ODEQ determined no
Particleboard. controls <$10K.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 81365]]
3. Use of Permitted Emissions Limits To Align Allowable Emissions With
Actual Emissions
Comment: ``We note that the Oregon SIP process allowed some
facilities to accept permitted emission reductions to lower their
surrogate visibility impact (emissions over distance or Q/d) to just
below the threshold for selection rather than requiring implementation
of cost-effective emission controls that were identified through a
four-factor analysis . . . The NPS agrees that in cases where recent
actual emissions would not have triggered source selection, permit
adjustments may be an appropriate anti-backsliding measure. However, in
cases where recent actual emissions exceed the established selection
criteria (e.g., Kingsford Manufacturing Company and Owens-Brockway
Glass Container Inc.), we recommend that facilities not be allowed to
back out of selection by accepting permitted emission reductions in
lieu of implementing cost-effective emission controls identified
through four-factor analyses.''
Response: The EPA agrees that in cases where recent actual
emissions would not have triggered source selection, permit adjustments
are an appropriate anti-backsliding measure. As demonstrated in table 4
of our proposed rulemaking, this was the case for all facilities that
accepted Plant Site Emission Limits (PSELs) for nitrogen oxides
(NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and/or coarse
particulate matter (PM10), except the two cases noted by the
NPS, Kingsford Manufacturing Company and Owens-Brockway Glass Container
Inc.\16\ Information on Kingsford Manufacturing was included as a
footnote to table 4, ``ODEQ reviewed Kingsford Manufacturing Company
which originally screened into analysis with a Q/d = 8.39 based on
actual emissions as reported to the 2017 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) because a 2017 PSEL was not available at that time. However, in a
letter dated May 22, 2020, ODEQ acknowledged a 2019 permit modification
that had already lowered PSELs for NOX, SO2, and
PM10 to a Q/d = 4.02.'' ODEQ used this 2019 information, and
the accompanying PSEL conditions submitted in the Title V permit for
approval into Oregon's SIP, in making its May 22, 2020, determination
that ``that Kingsford is not required to perform a four factor analysis
for their Springfield facility during this round of the Regional Haze
program.'' \17\ In a case like Kingsford Manufacturing Company, where
contemporaneous information shows a significant, permanent change in
emissions, we believe it was reasonable for Oregon to reassess the
agency's source selection and control determination to incorporate more
recent information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 89 FR 13622 (February 23, 2024) at page 13639.
\17\ See 142_haze-KingsfordManufCo.pdf in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, ODEQ's evaluation of control for the Owens-Brockway
facility was influenced by contemporaneous events. Owens-Brockway was
one of the few facilities that identified feasible cost-effective
controls in the four-factor analysis process.\18\ As noted by the
commenter, in an October 27, 2020, letter ODEQ concurred with the
findings that combined control of NOX, SO2 and PM
by catalytic ceramic filters (CCF) was cost-feasible for glass-melting
furnaces A and D at the Owens-Brockway Portland facility.\19\
Subsequently, in June 2021, ODEQ initiated an enforcement response for
air quality violations unrelated to the regional haze program.\20\ The
enforcement response was still in progress during the summer of 2021,
therefore ODEQ could not rely on the remedy being negotiated to resolve
the human health violations (shutdown or imposition of pollution
controls on Furnaces D).\21\ Instead, ODEQ negotiated and submitted a
separate August 9, 2021, order focused specifically on reasonable
progress for regional haze program.\22\ This order enshrined the
shutdown of Furnace A and associated emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 149_haze-Owens-Brockway-FFA.pdf in the docket for this
action.
\19\ See 150_haze-Owens-Brockway.pdf in the docket for this
action.
\20\ See https://www.oregon.gov/deq/programs/pages/owensbrockway.aspx.
\21\ See 701_OwensBrockway2020-208MAO.pdf in the docket for this
action.
\22\ See 151_SAFOOwensBrockway0840001.pdf in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Regional Haze Rule
prohibits a state which selects sources based on allowable emissions
from refining its source selection based on permanent and enforceable
reductions in allowable emissions. ODEQ determined that sources with a
Q/d <5 based on PSELs are not significant contributors to visibility
impairment in Class I areas. Hence, controls on these sources are not
necessary for reasonable progress. This holds true regardless of when
in its SIP development process ODEQ made the determination. Most
importantly, ODEQ ensured the PSEL reductions upon which it relied to
determine that controls on Owen-Brockway were not necessary and were
permanent and enforceable by submitting a source-specific SAFO and
conditions from Owens-Brockway's title V permit.
4. Use of a Stipulated Agreement and Final Order (SAFO) Versus a
Unilateral Order
Comment: ``. . . Oregon proposed alternative compliance options for
several facilities in lieu of reasonable, cost-effective controls
identified through the four-factor review process. In general, the NPS
has concerns with this approach and previously shared this view with
Oregon in staff-to-staff meetings between 2020 and 2023, and in writing
via October 2021 public comments on the draft SIP and August 2023
consultation comments on the Oregon SIP supplement . . . The NPS also
agrees that alternative compliance measures can be considered
reasonable when accompanied by a technical demonstration that the
emission reductions achieved will be equivalent to or better than those
that would have resulted from requiring the controls identified through
four-factor analysis. The NPS recommends that EPA require a technical
demonstration detailing the actual emission reductions that will be
achieved through alternative compliance and why the alternative
compliance options are reasonable in light of the four statutory
factors.''
Response: The EPA disagrees that additional technical
demonstrations are required to justify ODEQ's determinations of the
controls necessary for reasonable progress. As explained in our
response to comment in section II.A.2 ``Use of the Four Statutory
Factors in Determining Reasonable Progress'' of this preamble,
characterizing the January 2021 ``Preliminary Determination of Cost
Effective Controls for Regional Haze'' letters as final four-factor
control determinations and all subsequent correspondence and decisions
after the preliminary letters as being outside the four-factor process
is not an accurate portrayal of the Oregon process. Under OAR 340-223-
0110(1), each affected facility was required to conduct a four-factor
analysis compliant with OAR 340-223-0120 Four Factor Analysis. Using
its authority under OAR 340-223-0120(3), ODEQ adjusted the four-factor
analyses for consistency with basic inputs such as interest rates,
equipment lifetime, and potential to emit (PSEL) in determining the
proposed cost-effective controls.\23\ However, it is clear from the
text that the January 2021 preliminary letters are not final
determinations nor
[[Page 81366]]
independent four-factor analyses in themselves, ``Based on the
information provided in the four factor analysis, the cost information
that you submitted, the additional information you provided, and the
process DEQ is proposing to use to screen facilities, DEQ estimates the
following controls are likely to be required at your facility . . . If
you disagree with or would like to discuss DEQ's preliminary
determination as outlined in this letter, we encourage you to reach out
to the DEQ now.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 89 FR 13622 (February 23, 2024) at page 13641.
\24\ See 108_haze-BosieCascade-Medford.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under OAR 340-223-0110(1), if a source accepted ODEQ's preliminary
determination, ODEQ could finalize the determinations in a unilateral
order under OAR 340-223-0130, SAFO under OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(B), or
other enforceable mechanism such as a permit modification.\25\ However,
since nearly all the affected facilities asserted no feasible cost-
effective controls in the four-factor analyses, this initiated a
process from January 2021 to August 2021 to review additional
information regarding the technological feasibility and cost of
controls pursuant to OAR 340-223-0120(2), to determine the controls
necessary to select sources and for reasonable progress, and impose
these controls either through a unilateral order or SAFO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See
136_GilchristNoticeofApplicationforESPinstall20210608.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the compliance options in OAR 340-223-0110(2) are either
part of Oregon's source selection methodology or grounded in the four-
factor analysis required by OAR 340-223-0110(1) and 0120. We do not
interpret OAR 340-223-0110(2) as permitting alternatives to the
requirements of the CAA or Regional Haze Rule. Rather, entering into a
SAFO (agreed order) is an alternative administrative mechanism to
impose controls necessary for reasonable progress that would have been
contained in a unilateral order.
Our review of Oregon's Regional Haze SIP submission indicates that
ODEQ continued to consider the four factors in its engagement with each
of the sources after issuance of the preliminary determination letters.
This is documented in appendices 1 through 6 of Oregon's November 22,
2023, SIP supplement.\26\ After considering the additional information
regarding technological feasibility, cost of controls, energy and non-
air quality impacts, and time necessary to impose the controls, ODEQ
determined the appropriate administrative mechanism to impose the
enforceable emission limitations. In most cases the most efficient and
effective mechanism was a SAFO issued under OAR 340-223-0120(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See documents 246 through 251b included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our review of the administrative record, the EPA does not
believe that the differences between the January 2021 preliminary
control determinations and the final four-factor control determinations
in the August 2021 SAFOs are a function of the enforceable mechanism
used (a unilateral order under OAR 340-223-0130 versus a SAFO issued
under OAR 340-223-0110(2)). Instead, as discussed in our facility-
specific responses to comment, the differences appear to be a result of
ODEQ's consideration of technical feasibility and cost as documented in
appendices 1-6 of the November 2023 supplement. Given that these SAFOs
are outgrowths of ODEQ consideration of the four factors, rather than
other factors, we disagree that additional evaluation is necessary.
5. Compliance Deadlines
Comment: ``In the 2023 SIP supplement, Oregon extended the
compliance deadlines for emission unit replacements (associated with
alternative compliance) from July 31, 2026, to July 31, 2031. This
extended deadline is well beyond the end of the current regional haze
planning period and will allow current emissions from affected
facilities to continue without mitigation for an additional five years.
In their 2019 regional haze guidance document, the EPA states that the
reasonable progress goals ``for the second implementation period are to
be based only on the combined effect of the LTS measures with
compliance dates on or before December 31, 2028.''
Response: The citation to the EPA's 2019 Guidance provided by the
commenter deals with modeling, and notes that states cannot claim
projected 2028 emissions reductions in the modeling if those control
measures are not in effect by 2028.\27\ This is not a regulatory
prohibition on controls outside the implementation period. The relevant
regulatory citation is 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), which requires that if a
state concludes that a control measure cannot reasonably be installed
and become operational until after the end of the implementation
period, the state may not consider this fact in determining whether the
measure is necessary to make reasonable progress. The clear implication
is that controls after the end of the implementation period are
allowable under the RHR if the determinations are reasonable. An
example is Oregon's regional haze plan for the first implementation
period which adopted regulatory provisions to cease coal-fired
electricity generation at the Boardman facility, however implementation
of the measures (closure of the coal-fired operations) would not occur
until the second planning period, in 2020.\28\ Another example is
Washington's regional haze plan for the first implementation period
which required closure of the coal-fired units at the TransAlta
facility, however closure of units was phased in 2020 and 2025, during
the second implementation period.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See 2019 Guidance, at page 46, Regional scale modeling of
the LTS to set the RPGs for 2028.
\28\ See 77 FR 50611 (August 22, 2012).
\29\ See 79 FR 33438 (June 11, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Oregon's determinations under the four factors,
some pollution controls were imposed under 340-223-0110(2)(b)(B) and
(C), which required installation of identified controls no later than
July 31, 2026. For a subset of units, ODEQ used authority under OAR
340-223-0110(2)(b)(E), which allowed replacement of an emissions unit
by no later than July 31, 2031. The comment, ``[i]n the 2023 SIP
supplement, Oregon extended the compliance deadlines for emission unit
replacements (associated with alternative compliance) from July 31,
2026 to July 31, 2031'' is a misreading of the Oregon regional haze
rules. The July 31, 2026, compliance deadlines under OAR 340-223-
0110(2)(b)(B) and (C) apply to retrofit options. Instead, ODEQ followed
the compliance deadline in OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(E) which applies to
emissions unit replacement. These regulatory provisions were adopted by
the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission after a full public comment
period from May 28, 2021, to June 30, 2021, and a hearing conducted on
June 28, 2021.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 702_staff report EQC
meeting_072321_ItemJ_RegionalHaze.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also believe that the comment, ``[i]n the 2023 SIP supplement,
Oregon extended the compliance deadlines for emission unit replacements
(associated with alternative compliance) from July 31, 2026 to July 31,
2031'' is a misreading of the record. An example is the Northwest
Pipeline Baker City facility. The original SAFO, effective August 9,
2021, did not include a concrete deadline for emissions unit
replacement.\31\ In response to EPA comment, as indicated in the
amended SAFO, ``DEQ received comments from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency on the Regional Haze State
[[Page 81367]]
Implementation Plan, requiring amendments to the SAFO,'' ODEQ added a
concrete compliance deadline for unit replacement and submitted the
amended SAFO as part of the 2023 supplement.\32\ In our review of the
record we see no evidence to suggest ODEQ modified compliance deadlines
without a clear basis under the four factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 146_SAFONorthwestPiplineBaker.pdf, included in the
docket for this action.
\32\ See 215_3.3.1_Attachment1.7.1_NWPipeline_Baker_01-0038-
A1_SAFO.pdf, included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, with respect to ODEQ's application of OAR 340-223-
0110(2)(b)(E), this must be viewed in the context of the overall mix of
timelines (most before 2028) and the other controls imposed (primarily
by July 31, 2026). ODEQ evaluated 43 emissions units and a total of 62
control devices.\33\ Of this universe, ODEQ determined that unit
replacement may be a reasonable control option for 10 units. Given the
complexity and logistical challenges of complete emissions unit
replacement, we believe ODEQ's selective use of the full compliance
deadline allowable under OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(E) is reasonable under
the four factors of CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2),
including the time necessary for compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ April 29, 2022, regional haze SIP, at page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Standards for Emissions Unit Replacement
Comment: ``New emission units generally have lower emissions than
older units. However, a wide variety of emissions are possible from new
units. In several places, the Oregon SIP requires that new units
``shall meet the most recent permitting standards and requirements for
new emission units (including but not limited to New Source Performance
Standards) in place at the time of submitting a permit application.''
As the NPS shared with ODEQ during SIP supplement consultation, this
may not be adequately protective because new source performance
standards (NSPS) are frequently less stringent than best available
control technology (BACT)-level controls or those that may be deemed
reasonable through a four-factor analysis.''
Response: As a fundamental matter, the EPA disagrees that best
available control technology (BACT) is an appropriate threshold for
evaluating Oregon's determinations of the controls necessary for
reasonable progress for the second planning period. For a source
recently permitted to BACT standards, it may be reasonable for the
state to argue that these controls are equivalent to or more stringent
than controls that would be derived under the regional haze four-factor
process.\34\ However, the inverse is not true. It is not the EPA's
expectation that controls derived under the regional haze four-factor
process necessarily meet the stringency level of BACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 2019 Guidance, at page 22-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the comment that Oregon's control determinations
may not be adequately protective because new source performance
standards (NSPS) are frequently less stringent than those that may be
deemed reasonable through a four-factor analysis, we disagree. Many of
the existing units that Oregon reviewed emit significantly more
NOX, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds than
new units meeting the emission limits in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Subpart JJJJ--Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition
Internal Combustion Engines.\35\ Thus, replacement of these existing
units with new units meeting the NSPS will result in substantial
emissions reductions. Therefore, we disagree that these standards are
not adequately protective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Most recently updated August 10, 2022 (87 FR 48606).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, under OAR 340-223-0110(1) all affected facilities
submitted four-factor analyses. These analyses were conducted by
independent consultants and/or certified professional engineers on
behalf of the sources. In all instances that ultimately resulted in
unit replacement, these independent consultants and/or certified
professional engineers provided four-factor demonstrations that there
were ``no feasible cost-effective'' controls. Rather than accepting
these ``no feasible cost-effective'' control demonstrations pro forma,
ODEQ used its authority under OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(E) to compel
significant future reductions (emission unit replacement) beyond the
initial four-factor analyses. The example of Northwest Pipeline, Baker
City is illustrative. This facility has three natural gas-fired
reciprocating engines dating from 1956 (EU1) and one engine dating from
1981 (EU2). The four-factor analysis asserted the only feasible
technology was low emission combustion retrofit with calculated cost-
effectiveness of $25,850 for EU1 and $24,243 for EU2. Considering the
significant emissions reductions from replacing these old engines, we
believe this is a reasonable approach to considering the four statutory
factors in determining the controls necessary for reasonable progress.
7. Wauna Facility--Biomass-Fired Fluidized Bed Boiler
Comment: ``The Georgia Pacific--Wauna Mill and Roseburg Forest
Products--Dillard have the highest cumulative impact on NPS Class I
areas. The NPS is generally satisfied with the outcome of the control
determinations for these facilities. However, we note that ODEQ has not
addressed the NPS recommendation to evaluate addition of low
NOX burners and flue gas recirculation to reduce
NOX emissions from the Georgia Pacific--Wauna Mill biomass-
fired fluidized bed boiler which could further reduce haze-causing
emissions from that facility.''
Response: The EPA reviewed Oregon's April 2022 and November 2023
submissions and associated documents. We found citations related to the
biomass-fired fluidized bed boiler at the Wauna facility. However, we
found no record of a prior comment by the NPS directly related to the
``NPS recommendation to evaluate addition of low NOX burners
and flue gas recirculation to reduce NOX emissions from the
Georgia Pacific--Wauna Mill biomass-fired fluidized bed boiler.'' Below
is a summary of the administrative record reviewed by the EPA.
On June 15, 2020, Georgia-Pacific submitted a four-factor analysis
that stated, ``LNB [low NOX burners] are not feasible for GP
Wauna's Fluidized Bed Boiler. The natural gas burners are only for
auxiliary use and do not drive NOX emissions from the unit.
The boiler already employs SNCR to reduce NOX emissions from
the bubbling fluidized bed.'' \36\ As part of the May 2021 FLM
consultation draft process, the NPS comments focused entirely on
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) cost calculations for this unit and
made no mention of LNB.\37\ In its October 29, 2021, comments NPS did
state, ``We recommend that ODEQ's draft SIP more thoroughly address
emissions from GP Wauna by including an analysis of emissions from the
Fluidized Bed Boiler.'' \38\ However, the contents of the comments
again focused exclusively on SCR costs, with no specific mention of LNB
at this unit. Additional comments submitted on August 29, 2023, as part
of the FLM consultation process for the November 2023 regional haze
supplement, make no mention of SCR or
[[Page 81368]]
LNB at this specific unit.\39\ In the absence of more concrete
information, we believe it was reasonable for ODEQ to rely on the
determination in the four-factor analysis that LNB was not feasible for
the Fluidized Bed Boiler (FBB) because ``natural gas burners are only
for auxiliary use and do not drive NOX emissions from the
unit'' \40\ and was, therefore, not put forward by ODEQ as a potential
control measure in the January 2021 ``Preliminary Determination of Cost
Effective Controls for Regional Haze'' letter for this facility.\41\
The comment does not present information that clearly refutes the
determination in the four-factor analysis that LNB/FGR is not feasible
for the FBB at the Wauna Mill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 129_haze-GeorgiaPacific-WaunaMill-FFA.pdf, at page 2-
10.
\37\ See Chapter 6.3.4 Federal Land Manager Comments and DEQ
Responses of Oregon's April 2022 submission, at page 126.
\38\ See 001_1.1_StaffReport_wAttachments, Attachment C.pdf, at
page 15 of 58.
\39\ See 703_NPS Oregon Regional Haze SIP Supplement
Consultation.pdf.
\40\ See 129_haze-GeorgiaPacific-WaunaMill-FFA.pdf, at page 2-
10.
\41\ 130_haze-GeorgiaPacificWauanMill.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC--Final Control Determination
Comment: ``We believe that selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
remains a feasible and likely more rigorous NOX emission
control option for this facility than either of the options proposed .
. . The NPS continues to recommend that ODEQ and EPA evaluate the
incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR versus the proposed low
NOX burners and flue gas recirculation control option.''
Response: The June 2020 four-factor analysis prepared by ALL4 on
behalf of the Georgia-Pacific Toledo facility calculated cost
effectiveness for LNB with flue gas recirculation (LNB/FGR), selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), and SCR, as shown in table 2.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See
249_3.3.2_Appendix4_Georgia.Pacific.Toledo_Correspondence.pdf., at
page 349 of the PDF.
Table 2--Cost-Effectiveness of Controls ($/Ton NOX) Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated using Calculated using
Control technology Unit PSEL 2017 actuals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB/FGR.................................... EU-11 No. 4 Boiler........... $9,717 $10,042
LNB/FGR.................................... EU-13 No. 1 Boiler........... 4,769 7,083
LNB/FGR.................................... EU-18 No. 3 Boiler........... 14,822 21,024
SNCR....................................... EU-11 No. 4 Boiler........... 6,613 7,630
SNCR....................................... EU-13 No. 1 Boiler........... 5,191 7,706
SNCR....................................... EU-18 No. 3 Boiler........... 8,569 12,126
SCR........................................ EU-11 No. 4 Boiler........... 11,067 12,173
SCR........................................ EU-13 No. 1 Boiler........... 8,623 12,681
SCR........................................ EU-18 No. 3 Boiler........... 13,579 19,057
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia-Pacific's June 2020 four-factor analysis indicates that SCR
may be cost-effective for the No. 1 Boiler when calculated using
permitted allowable emissions (PSELs) under ODEQ's methodology.\43\
However, as described in Section 5 of the November 2023 regional haze
supplement, Oregon found Georgia-Pacific's April 30, 2021, follow-up
four-factor analysis correspondence compelling with respect to both
cost of compliance and energy and nonair quality environmental impacts
of compliance.\44\ Therefore, Oregon issued its final control
determination to require LNB/FGR or unit replacement for all three
boilers under order number 21-0005, amendment A1.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See 132_haze-GeorgiaPacific-Toledo-FFA.pdf, at page 2-21.
\44\ See 201_RH_Round2_Supplement_Final.pdf, at page 17 and
249_3.3.2_Appendix4_Georgia.Pacific.Toledo_Correspondence.pdf, at
page 394 of the PDF.
\45\ See 241_3.3.1_Attachment5.8_21-
0005_SAFO_A1_GeorgiaPacific_Toledo (final signed).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that it was reasonable for ODEQ to appropriately weigh
the ``energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance''
as well as the cost of compliance considerations raised in the April
30, 2021, four-factor correspondence when determining the controls
necessary for reasonable progress.
9. Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC--Emission Limit
Comment: ``[I]t is unclear how the emission limit associated with
compliance option 1 was derived. We suggest that a four-factor analysis
or technical demonstration justifying the 0.09 lb/MMBtu emission limit
for NOX associated with the proposed control option would
improve the SIP.''
Response: The emissions limit associated with compliance option 1
was discussed in the April 30, 2021, four-factor analysis
correspondence, included in Appendix 4 of ODEQ's 2023 supplement.\46\
As stated in the April 30, 2021 letter, this limit was based on Georgia
Pacific's internal engineering experience and discussions with outside
vendors. In our review of the four-factor analysis, the 0.09 lb/MMBtu
emission limit for NOX represents a 68% reduction for boiler
1, a 45% reduction for boiler 3, and a 68% reduction for boiler 4.\47\
These reductions are generally comparable to the estimated emissions
reductions in the four-factor analyses (79% for boiler 1, 47% for
boiler 3, and 53% for boiler 4) which were calculated on a tons per
year basis.\48\ As calculated in our supporting memo included in the
docket for this action, the 0.09 lb/MMBtu emission limit for
NOX is comparable and slightly more stringent than the EPA's
emissions factors contained in AP-42: Compilation of Air Emissions
Factors from Stationary Sources for large wall-fired boilers controlled
with flue gas recirculation.\49\ Therefore, we believe ODEQ's selection
of the final emissions limit is adequately justified, documented, and
an acceptable means of refining the estimated emission rate contained
in the four-factor analysis for the purposes of characterizing the cost
of compliance.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See
249_3.3.2_Appendix4_Georgia.Pacific.Toledo_Correspondence.pdf,
included in the docket for this action.
\47\ See 713_GP Toledo_supporting memo.pdf, included in the
docket for this action.
\48\ Id.
\49\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors-stationary-sources and 711_AP42_1.4_natural_gas_combustion.pdf, included in the
docket for this action.
\50\ See 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at pp. 29-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC Emissions--Unit Replacement
Comment: ``Nevertheless, the NPS supports compliance option 1.
Installation of low NOX burners and flue gas recirculation
will secure a 64% NOX reduction from Georgia-Pacific--Toledo
LLC during the second implementation period (2018-2028). In contrast,
compliance option 2 would defer
[[Page 81369]]
emission reductions for an additional five years, beyond the end of the
planning period.''
Response: In the April 30, 2021, response letter to ODEQ, Georgia-
Pacific stated, ``The GP Toledo Mill has three affected power boilers
(Nos. 1, 3, and 4 Power Boilers) and needs flexibility in determining
if burners will be replaced in each unit or whether one or two new
boilers will be constructed to replace these three units . . . Steam
supply is a significant operational consideration for any pulp and
paper manufacturing facility. Each GP mill requires steam in the pulp
production process as well as the papermaking process. As such, changes
to steam producing assets require substantial consideration of and
planning for the assets themselves as well as the entire pulp and paper
manufacturing process to minimize disruptions to overall mill
operations. Both mills will need sufficient time to plan the boiler
projects with both internal and external engineering resources, and
then implement the changes with as little interruption to mill
operations as possible. Therefore, GP is requesting an extended
timeframe for implementation of these boiler projects.'' As noted in
the 2023 supplement to the regional haze plan, ODEQ considered this
correspondence in determining under CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2) ``the time necessary for compliance'' that a deadline of
July 31, 2031, was appropriate should complete emission unit
replacement be necessary.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See 201_RH_Round2_Supplement_Final.pdf, at page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has reviewed SAFO 21-0005, the subsequent amendment
effective December 5, 2022, and the associated four-factor analysis.
Based on the four-factor analysis, installing LNB and flue gas
recirculation based on 2017 actual emissions had cost effectiveness
figures of EU 11 = $10,042, EU 13 = $7,083, and EU18 = $21,024.\52\
Considering that for two of the boilers the cost effectiveness figure
exceed $10,000/ton, we believe it was reasonable for ODEQ to provide
flexibility on a unit-by-unit basis in providing the two compliance
options: (1) full unit replacement by 2031; or (2) installation of LNB
with flue gas recirculation by 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See 132_haze-GeorgiaPacific-Toledo-FFA.pdf, at page 2-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers--SCR
Comment: ``The Oregon SIP requires this facility to eliminate use
of no. 6 fuel oil by June 30, 2024, replace power boiler #2 with a new
emissions unit that will achieve a limit of 0.036 lbs NOX/
MMBtu as a 30-day rolling average no later than July 31, 2031, and,
upon replacement of power boiler #2, limit emissions from power boiler
#1 to no more than 27 tons of NOX per year . . . SCR may
still be a feasible and more rigorous NOX emission control
option for the power boiler #1 than the control determination requires.
In its Good Neighbor Plan, EPA recently determined that SCR is
technically feasible to control NOx emissions from natural gas-fired
industrial boilers at pulp and paper mills.''
Response: On June 15, 2020, Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC submitted a
four-factor analysis prepared by the environmental consulting service
ALL4 Inc.\53\ With respect to SCR, ALL4 calculated the cost
effectiveness of SCR ($/ton NOX reduced) on CPP Halsey power
boiler #1 to be $16,029 based on 2017 PSEL and $38,292 based on 2017
actual emissions. ALL4 calculated the cost effectiveness for CPP Halsey
power boiler #2 to be $28,349 based on 2017 PSEL and $204,083 based on
2017 actual emissions.\54\ Using its authority under OAR 340-223-
0120(3), ODEQ preliminarily adjusted the four-factor analyses using
conservative inputs such as interest rate (3.25%), equipment lifetime
(30 years), and potential to emit (PSEL). However, after these
adjustments, ODEQ did not find SCR cost-effective at the $10,000
threshold as evidenced by the agency's determination to propose LNB
with flue gas recirculation instead of SCR for power boiler #1 as part
of the ``Preliminary Determination of Cost Effective Controls''
letter.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See 110_haze-CascadePacificPulp-HalseyMill-FFA.pdf.
\54\ See 110_haze-CascadePacificPulp-HalseyMill-FFA.pdf, at page
2-21.
\55\ See 111_haze-CascasePacificPulp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our 2019 guidance, we recommend the use of recent actuals or
projected actuals rather than allowable emissions (PSELs) in
calculating cost-effectiveness.\56\ Considering the SCR cost
effectiveness at these units based on the recent actual emissions
contained in the four-factor analysis ($38,292 for power boiler #1 and
$204,083 for power boiler #2), we have no reasonable basis to dispute
Oregon's determination that SCR was not cost effective for these units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See 2019 Guidance, Selection of emissions information for
characterizing emissions-related factors, at page 30 and Use of
actual emissions versus allowable emissions, at page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers--LNB
Comment: ``It is unclear how the future emission limit associated
with the replacement of power boiler #2 was derived. We believe that a
four-factor analysis or technical demonstration justifying the 0.036
lbs NOX/MMBtu emission limit would improve the SIP.''
Response: The EPA acknowledges that ODEQ's decision-making for the
August 25, 2023, final control determination under SAFO 22-3501-A2
could have been clearer in the SIP submissions. However, ODEQ's SIP
submissions ultimately meet the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii)
to document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost,
engineering, and emissions information, on which the state relied to
determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary for
reasonable progress. With respect to Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey
Pulp Mill Power Boilers, ODEQ's November 2023 regional haze supplement
documents ODEQ's process for its reasonable progress determination.\57\
The 2023 supplement states that, on January 21, 2021, ODEQ proposed
that LNB with flue gas recirculation on power boiler #1 could be cost
effective and included this control as part of the ``Preliminary
Determination of Cost Effective Controls'' letter.\58\ On January 27,
2021, Cascade Pacific Pulp responded by questioning ODEQ's cost
analysis and submitting a revised cost analysis performed by ALL4
consulting service for power boiler #1.\59\ On August 9, 2021, Cascade
Pacific Pulp and ODEQ entered into SAFO 22-3501, establishing
installation of a LNB on power boiler #1.\60\ On February 1, 2022, the
parties agreed to amend the order to allow the option of unit
replacement for power boiler #1.\61\ On August 25, 2023, the parties
again amended the order to allow the unit replacement of power boiler
#2 instead of power boiler #1.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See 201_RH_Round2_Supplement_Final.pdf, at page 18.
\58\ See
248_3.3.2_Appendix3_Cascade.Pacific.Pulp_.Halsey_Correspondence.pdf
at page 579 of the PDF.
\59\ I.d., at page 581 of the PDF.
\60\ See 112_SAFO22-3501CPPHalsey.pdf.
\61\ See 201_RH_Round2_Supplement_Final.pdf, at page 18.
\62\ See 243_3.3.1_Attachment6.1_22-
3501_A2_SAFO_CPP_Halsey_Final_signed.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While ODEQ's documentation could have been more robust, the
commenter does not provide information to indicate that ODEQ's
determination was unreasonable or inadequate. ODEQ's January 21, 2021,
preliminary control determination and subsequent SAFO
[[Page 81370]]
modifications are direct outgrowths of ODEQ's review of and action upon
the June 15, 2020, four-factor analysis. This four-factor analysis (as
revised on January 27, 2021) asserted that LNB with flue gas
recirculation was not cost-effective for power boiler #1 ($10,559 per
ton reduced based on PSEL and $26,446 per ton reduced based on 2017
actual emissions).\63\ To the extent that LNB with flue gas
recirculation (as proposed in ODEQ's preliminary determination) may be
above Oregon's $10,000 per ton cost effectiveness threshold, as
asserted by the ALL4 analysis, or may be below Oregon's $10,000 per ton
threshold with a different assumption set, the EPA does not see a
compelling basis to dispute ODEQ's final control determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See
248_3.3.2_Appendix3_Cascade.Pacific.Pulp_.Halsey_Correspondence.pdf,
at page 581 of the pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, it is clear from our review of the administrative record
that ODEQ conducted a multi-year, extensive effort to evaluate control
options under the four statutory factors of CAA section 169A(g)(1).\64\
Second, Oregon's $10,000 per ton cost effectiveness threshold is one of
the highest in the nation, if not the highest, applied specifically
under the regional haze program. If the EPA were to conduct its own
independent cost analysis, the EPA would not necessarily use a $10,000
threshold for determining reasonable progress controls. Third, ODEQ
chose a more stringent methodology than the EPA's 2019 guidance
recommends in calculating cost effectiveness using allowable emissions
(PSELs). Use of recent actuals or projected actuals in accordance with
the 2019 guidance \65\ would almost certainly result in a less
stringent outcome than ODEQ's methodology. Lastly, as noted in a
previous response to comment, Oregon engaged in a rigorous process to
improve the accuracy of the facility submitted four-factor analyses,
rather than accepting the initial conclusions pro forma. In the case of
Cascade Pacific Pulp Halsey, Oregon's process resulted in significant
future emissions reductions (unit replacement) well beyond the four-
factor analysis submitted pursuant to OAR 340-223-0110(1) which
concluded there were no feasible cost-effective controls. More details
on the 0.036 lbs NOX/MMBtu emission limit imposed by ODEQ
are discussed in section II.A.13 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See
248_3.3.2_Appendix3_Cascade.Pacific.Pulp_.Halsey_Correspondence.pdf.
\65\ See 2019 Guidance, Selection of emissions information for
characterizing emissions-related factors, at page 30 and Use of
actual emissions versus allowable emissions, at page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers--
Compliance Deadline and Emission Limit
Comment: ``The NPS supports the elimination of #6 fuel oil.
However, replacing power boiler #2 on the identified schedule and
requiring emission reductions from power boiler #1 following power
boiler #2's replacement will defer emission reductions beyond the end
of the planning period (see above for additional discussion).''
Response: In a discussion with the EPA, ODEQ explained how the
agency's perspective regarding emissions unit replacement evolved
through the four-factor analysis process.\66\ ODEQ found that new,
purpose-built units with controls like LNB built in offered superior
emissions reductions compared to the limitations of retrofitting an
older unit. For units like the Halsey power boilers built in 1968, this
was particularly notable. ODEQ weighed the superior emissions
reductions of emissions unit replacement against the additional time
necessary for compliance (2031 for unit replacement versus 2023 for
retrofit in the original SAFO) and determined that this was a
reasonable trade-off in considering the significantly improved
emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See 712_CPP Halsey_supporting memo.pdf, included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA reviewed the four-factor analysis \67\ and the emissions
reductions expected to result from the LNB/FGR retrofit of power boiler
#1 as required in SAFO 22-3501 as well as the emissions reductions
resulting from replacement of power boiler #2 as required in SAFO 22-
3501-A2. As described in our supporting memo to the docket, and based
on our calculations, the LNB/FGR retrofit of power boiler #1 could
potentially be expected to result in a reduction in NOX
emissions of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, while complete emission unit replacement of
power boiler #2 as the primary steam production will result in a
reduction in NOX emissions of between 0.145-0.185 lb/MMBtu.
Replacement of power boiler #2 will therefore result in significantly
more reductions in NOX emissions than LNB/FGR retrofit of
power boiler #1. Therefore, the EPA believes this is a credible
rationale and indicates that the state appropriately considered the
four factors in determining the controls necessary for reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See 110_haze-CascadePacificPulp-HalseyMill-FFA.pdf,
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. International Paper--Springfield--Emission Limit
Comment: ``According to the four-factor analysis provided in the
Oregon SIP, the recent actual emission rate achieved by the
International Paper--Springfield power boiler is 0.22 lb
NOX/MMBtu. Therefore, this control determination, requiring
an emission limit of 0.25 lb NOX/MMBtu, may allow an
increase in emissions from the primary emission unit at the facility.
The Good Neighbor Plan limits NOX emissions from natural
gas-fired boilers like the power boiler to 0.08 lb/mmBtu. The NPS
recommends that EPA and ODEQ set a NOX emission limit
consistent with the Good Neighbor Plan. The current control
determination for this facility lowers the allowable permitted
emissions but will not actually reduce haze-causing emissions.''
Response: The EPA disagrees. The estimated recent actual emission
rate is not directly comparable to the prescribed emission limit. The
0.22 lb NOX/MMBtu emission rate cited by the commenter is
described in Appendix 6 of Oregon's November 2023 supplement, ``All
emissions used in the 4FA Report for 2017 were previously reported in
the 2017 Annual report to Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA)
with one notable exception. The Power Boiler NOX emissions
for the 4FA Report were determined by the Continuous Parameter
Monitoring System Formula per Title V, permit condition 186.g. The
NOX reported in the Annual report was based upon the maximum
emission factor of 0.46 lb/MMBtu. The weighted average emission factor
determined from the Continuous Parameter Monitoring System Formula is
0.2195 lb/MMBtu which was used to determine the actual NOX
tons for 2017 from the Power Boiler.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See
251b_Appendix6_InternationalPaper.SpringfieldMill_Correspondence.pdf,
at page 4 of the PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that the 0.2195 lb/MMBtu figure used in the 2017
Annual report is an annual average emission factor whereas the 0.25 lb
NOX/MMbtu emission limit is based on a 7-day rolling
average.\69\ Thus, ODEQ was reasonable in considering the emission rate
the Power Boiler could achieve averaged over a rolling 7-day period
rather than an annual period. Moreover, there are numerous variables
and assumptions inherent in the formula used in the prior Title V
permit to
[[Page 81371]]
derive the emissions factor. In particular, Condition 186.g of the
prior Title V permit included two emission factor formulas: one for
natural gas flow rate less than or equal to 380MSCF/Hr and one for
greater than 380MSCF/Hr. Each of these formulas contains a fixed
multiplier and fixed correction factor. Any variation in each of these
variables would yield a different emission rate. ODEQ was reasonable in
taking these circumstances into consideration when setting the emission
rate the company must achieve on a 7-day average basis. The EPA
disagrees with the assertion that this short-term emission limit will
lead to long-term emissions increases compared to recent actuals.
Moreover, ODEQ is requiring CEMS--a reliable method of monitoring and
recording emissions data.\70\ This data will assure compliance with the
emission rate and also inform later planning periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See 139_SAFODEQ-LRAPA-IP.pdf.
\70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the comments that ODEQ's reasonable progress
determination will not reduce emissions, we note that reasonable
progress has two prongs: the prevention of any future anthropogenic
visibility impairment and the remedying of any existing anthropogenic
visibility impairment.\71\ The commenter is assuming that recent
actuals are necessarily determinative of projected future actuals
through 2028. This is not necessarily the case. Without lower PSELs,
Springfield could ramp up production and emissions. Thus, ODEQ decision
to lower PSELs to align with recent actuals is consistent with the
Regional Haze Rule and CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period, July 8, 2021, at page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setting aside this meaningful difference in the monitoring and
compliance method, the process ODEQ used to determine the controls
necessary for reasonable progress for International Paper underscores
the ODEQ's reasonableness. Importantly, ODEQ calculated cost thresholds
based on allowable emissions (PSELs) versus recent actual emissions
(2017). This decision was a driving force behind ODEQ's preliminary
control determinations and enabled the state to adjust the initial
four-factor analyses to ultimately determine the controls necessary for
reasonable progress.
As noted in our response to comment in section II.A.11 Cascade
Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers--SCR of this
preamble, Oregon's decision to calculate cost thresholds based on
allowable emissions was much more stringent than the EPA's
recommendation in the 2019 guidance.\72\ For a facility like
International Paper, the difference between 2017 actuals (724 tons per
year NOX) \73\ and allowable PSEL emissions (1692 tons per
year NOX) \74\ resulted in dramatic differences in the cost
effectiveness of control calculations ($ per ton of NOX
reduced) as shown in table 3 of this preamble. On January 21, 2021,
ODEQ used PSEL cost effectiveness of controls to propose SCR for the
power boiler in the agency's ``Preliminary Determination of Cost
Effective Controls'' letter.\75\ On February 2, 2021, International
Paper objected to ODEQ using allowable PSEL emissions in determining
the cost effectiveness of controls.\76\ International Paper also raised
this issue in its September 18, 2020, letter to ODEQ stating, ``In
addition, we are concerned by DEQ's misdirected focus on reducing Plant
Site Emission Limits (PSEL) rather than focusing upon the impact to
visibility impairment of actual emissions. Focusing on PSEL in the
evaluation of cost effectiveness for controls compounds the inequity of
DEQ's approach to this process compared to other Western States. The
Springfield Mill's cost effectiveness for actual emission reduction is
well above the previously discussed threshold of $10,000/ton for all of
the pollution control units listed by DEQ.'' \77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See 2019 Guidance, Selection of emissions information for
characterizing emissions-related factors, at page 30 and Use of
actual emissions versus allowable emissions, at page 17.
\73\ See
251b_Appendix6_InternationalPaper.SpringfieldMill_Correspondence.pdf,
at page 2 of the PDF.
\74\ Id.
\75\ See 138_haze-InternationalPaper.pdf.
\76\ See
251b_Appendix6_InternationalPaper.SpringfieldMill_Correspondence.pdf,
at page 573 of the PDF.
\77\ Id, at page 557 of the PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper then provided a March 15, 2021, memorandum from
the ALL4 environmental consulting firm providing updated costs of
controls, mirroring the parameters used in ODEQ's preliminary control
determination (3.25% interest rate and 30-year equipment life).\78\ In
the same memorandum, ALL4 recommended that International Paper request
a 179 ton per year NOX PSEL and 0.25 lb NOX/MMBtu
emissions limit for the power boiler so that the calculation of cost
effectiveness based on PSEL will more closely align with cost
calculations based on actual emissions, yielding cost effectiveness of
controls calculated to be $10,956 (LNB/FGR), $10,239 (SNCR), and
$14,237 (SCR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Id, at page 576 of the PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODEQ's consideration of imposing SCR as part of the agency's
preliminary control determination was only possible by using allowable
emissions well above actual emissions, PSEL emissions (1692 tons per
year NOX) \79\ versus actual 2017 emissions (724 tons per
year NOX).\80\ In addition to the important fuel restriction
requirements noted by the NPS, SAFO 208850 (effective August 9, 2021)
was intended by Oregon as an anti-backsliding measure to prevent
International Paper from future emissions growth during the second
implementation period that may jeopardize reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Id.
\80\ See
251b_Appendix6_InternationalPaper.SpringfieldMill_Correspondence.pdf,
at page 2 of the PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, with respect to the commenter's recommendation that EPA and
ODEQ set a NOX emission limit consistent with the Good
Neighbor Plan, we note that Oregon is not subject to the Good Neighbor
Plan. This regulation was published on June 5, 2023 (88 FR 36654) to
address the specific issue of human health impacts from ozone
nonattainment, which has a different regulatory structure and
requirements than the regional haze program. The EPA already determined
that Oregon does not cause or contribute to ozone nonattainment in any
other state.\81\ For the specific set of states subject to the Good
Neighbor Plan,the rule established emission limits for a broad suite of
source categories including boilers in Iron and Steel Mills and
Ferroalloy Manufacturing, Metal Ore Mining, Basic Chemical
Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Mills.\82\ This is distinctively different than
the regional haze four-factor analysis process which often focuses on
source-specific factors in the evaluation. Another difference is that
the emissions limit cited by the NPS applies only during the ozone
season, directly for the purpose of addressing ozone nonattainment.
Lastly, the Good Neighbor Plan for ozone estimated average cost-
effectiveness per ton for pulp and paper facilities at $14,134,\83\
which is not necessarily comparable to the threshold for determining
the controls necessary for reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions. Therefore, the NPS would need to provide greater
detail to
[[Page 81372]]
demonstrate the site-specific assumptions used to assert that a 0.08
lb/mmBtu limit is technically feasible and cost-effective under the
four-factor regional haze analysis process, especially in light of the
information in table 3 of this preamble showing that LNB/FGR, SNCR, and
SCR were only possible for preliminary cost-effectiveness consideration
using allowable 2017 PSEL emissions (1,692 tpy NOX), well
above actual 2017 emissions (724 tpy NOX).\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See 84 FR 22376 (May 17, 2019).
\82\ On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States
issued a stay of the rule pending review in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Ohio et al. v. EPA,
603 U.S. __ (2024), available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf.
\83\ See 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023), at page 36740.
\84\ April 22, 2022, regional haze SIP submission, at page 172.
Table 3--Comparison of Cost-Effective Controls ($/Ton NOX) International Paper--Springfield Power Boiler
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2021 memorandum
June 2020 FFA June 2020 FFA (179 ton per year NOX
Control technology (PSEL) (2017 actual) PSEL to align with recent
actual emissions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB and FGR.................................... $2,928 $18,228 $10,956
SNCR........................................... 3,483 16,103 10,239
SCR............................................ 4,606 22,924 14,237
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.
Comment: ``In this specific case, the NPS is aware that ODEQ is
requiring the installation of controls outside of the regional haze
process because of violations of the facility's particulate matter and
opacity limits. The ODEQ issued a construction permit in November 2022
requiring installation of a new catalytic ceramic filter pollution
control system that must be installed by June 30, 2024. The system will
control multiple pollutants, including particulate matter,
NOX, and SO2. A draft title V operating permit,
currently undergoing public review, would impose new PSELs that will
limit the facility's Q to 127 tons after the controls are installed,
resulting in a Q/d of about 0.9 for the nearest NPS Class I area, Mount
Rainier National Park in Washington . . . This control technology was
also identified as reasonable based on evaluation of the four factors.
The NPS agrees that installation of the ceramic filter system is
reasonable and will result in meaningful reductions in haze-causing
emissions. The NPS recommends EPA require incorporation of this control
requirement into the regional haze SIP to ensure realization of
emission reductions from control installation in this planning
period.''
Response: The special case of the Owens-Brockway facility is
discussed in section II.A.3 this preamble. Permit modifications to
implement the human-health enforcement response are still ongoing.\85\
We see no basis for disapproval or continued delay of the regional haze
SIP action while Oregon completes its human health enforcement
response, especially considering the 75% emissions reductions from 2017
actuals and permanent shutdown of Furnace A imposed by ODEQ's August 9,
2021, regional haze-specific order.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See https://www.oregon.gov/deq/programs/pages/owensbrockway.aspx.
\86\ See 151_SAFOOwensBrockway0840001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Environmental Organizations' Comments
Complete copies of the Environmental Organizations' comments and
supporting attachments are included in the docket for this action. For
readability, we arranged the responses to generally mirror the timeline
of the Oregon process from site selection, review of controls, and
imposition of controls.
1. Stationary Source Contribution
Comment: ``We submitted public comments to Oregon's Department of
Environmental Quality (``DEQ'') on the state's draft SIP Revision on
November 1, 2021, and on October 21, 2023, raising several of the same
issues with Oregon's proposed regulation of stationary sources that
collectively contribute 80% of the state's regional haze-forming
emissions.''
Response: Stationary sources do not contribute 80% of the state's
regional haze-forming emissions. The emissions inventory analysis in
Chapter 2.3 of Oregon's 2022 submission shows data from the EPA's 2017
National Emission Inventory (NEI).\87\ Fuel combustion and process
emissions associated with stationary sources account for 11% and 6%,
respectively, of Oregon's PM10 emissions. Fuel combustion
and process emissions account for 14% and 4%, respectively of
NOX emissions, with mobile sources accounting for 79% of
NOX emissions. Fuel combustion and process emissions account
for 57% and 13% of the 2017 SO2 emissions inventory.
However, as noted by Oregon, ``The 2017 SO2 inventory is
largely overwhelmed by PGE Boardman's coal-fired power plant in Morrow
County. With the closing of the plant in October 2020, those emissions
have largely been eliminated, and the remainder of the emissions come
from fuel combustion and prescribed fires.'' \88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See April 22, 2022, regional haze SIP, at page 22-27.
\88\ See April 22, 2022, regional haze SIP, at page 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Organizations cite to Oregon's August 27, 2021,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the basis for the statement that
stationary sources contribute 80% of the state's regional haze-forming
emissions. However, the actual wording of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking states, ``Federally enforceable emission reductions and
pollution controls at Title V stationary sources that collectively
contribute 80% of Oregon regional haze-forming emissions from
stationary sources.'' (Emphasis added) \89\ The Environmental
Organizations' adaptation of this quote omits the important qualifier
``from stationary sources.'' In intent and practice, ODEQ was referring
to the EPA's draft regional haze guidance that recommended states set a
source screening level such that 80% of the stationary source emissions
inventory was captured. This formed the basis of Oregon's decision to
set the source screening level at a quantity over distance (Q/d) = 5.
This was not a statement that stationary sources contribute 80% the
state's regional haze-forming emissions. Based on the most recent 2023
National Emissions Inventory trends data,\90\ emissions categories
associated with stationary sources contribute at most 18% of the
cumulative anthropogenic PM10, NOX,
[[Page 81373]]
and SO2 inventory.\91\ While up to 18% is still a meaningful
percentage of the overall regional haze precursor inventory, there is
no evidence to support the claim that stationary sources collectively
contribute 80% of the state's regional haze-forming emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See 024_RHSIP2021.notice.pdf, at page 3, included in the
docket for this action.
\90\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
\91\ See 704_Oregon NEI data.xlsx and 705_Original NEI source
data.xlsx, included in the docket for this action. For the purpose
of this analysis, we conservatively assumed that all fuel combustion
was attributable to stationary sources, which likely overestimates
the contribution from stationary sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Oregon's Regional Haze Rule Is Inconsistent With the CAA
Comment: The Environmental Organizations assert that Oregon's
Regional Haze Rule codified at OAR Chapter 340, Division 223 is
inconsistent on its face with the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(f). The
Environmental Organizations make four arguments in support of this
comment: (1) neither the CAA nor RHR allow Oregon to unilaterally grant
itself broad authority to establish an alternative compliance process
that operates outside the Federal regional haze framework; (2) Oregon's
rules would prevent the state from fulfilling its Federal Regional Haze
obligations because they allow Oregon to provide a source with
alternative compliance options that the state has not assessed through
the four-factor analysis process; (3) Oregon's rules do not require
ODEQ to document the technical basis for its alternative compliance
decisions; and (4) Oregon's regional haze rule gives ODEQ the authority
to reevaluate and reject controls deemed necessary for reasonable
progress.
Response: For the reasons stated below, we disagree with each of
these comments. Before turning to each of the Environmental
Organizations' points, we note that these comments conflict with these
same Organizations' prior comments on Oregon's Regional Haze Rule.
Oregon's Regional Haze Rule was adopted by the Oregon Environmental
Quality Commission after a full public comment period from May 28,
2021, to June 30, 2021, and a hearing conducted on June 28, 2021.\92\
Earthjustice, on behalf of the Cully Air Action Team, Earthjustice,
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Green Energy Institute, Oregon
Environmental Council, National Parks Conservation Association,
Neighbors for Clean Air, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, and
Verde submitted comments supportive of the rulemaking stating, ``We
write in support of DEQ's proposed revisions to Oregon's Regional Haze
rules. The revised rules reflect a reasoned, well-grounded, and
pragmatic plan for implementing the Clean Air Act's visibility
requirements. They will also benefit many communities in Oregon that
are disproportionately burdened by pollution from emissions of PM,
SO2, and NOX and communities that are most
vulnerable to the most harmful effects of climate change. [The Clean
Air Act requires] each state's strategy must be based on an analysis of
emission control measures that are necessary to make ``reasonable
progress'' towards the goal of restoring natural visibility to Class I
areas. The emissions-reducing strategies in DEQ's revised Division 223
rules are consistent with EPA requirements for round II state
implementation plans. The revised rules provide a strong foundation for
Oregon's long-term strategy for reducing anthropogenic pollutants that
impair visibility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See 702_staff report EQC
meeting_072321_ItemJ_RegionalHaze.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the Environmental Organizations took full advantage of their
opportunity to raise concerns with Oregon's Regional Haze Rule during
the state public comment process. At that time, the Organizations were
highly supportive of the rule and gave ODEQ the clear impression that
their rule was consistent with the CAA. The Environmental Organization
do not address their stark change in position in their current comments
on EPA's proposal nor repudiate their prior position. This gives the
impression that the Environmental Organizations are concerned with
ODEQ's application of Oregon's Regional Haze Rule, rather than the rule
itself. Nevertheless, we address each of the Environmental
Organizations' arguments against Oregon's Regional Haze Rule.
First, we disagree that Oregon's Regional Haze Rule is disconnected
from or inconsistent with the Federal Regional Haze Rule. Oregon
adopted rules to implement the regional haze program at OAR Chapter
340, Division 223. The Division includes sections on source screening,
four-factor analysis, options for compliance, and final orders
requiring compliance. The source screening section establishes which
sources are subject to Oregon's regional haze rules. Under the rule,
all sources with a Title V operating permit and with a Q/d greater than
or equal to 5 based on PSELs are subject to the regional haze rule. All
sources subject to Oregon's regional haze rule must submit a four-
factor analysis to ODEQ in accordance with OAR 340-223-0110(1) that
meets the requirements of OAR 340-223-0120. The factors in OAR 340-223-
0120 mirror those in the CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i). As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, under
OAR 340-223-0120(2) and (3), ODEQ is authorized to adjust the four-
factor analysis to account for inaccuracies or insufficient
information, and for consistency purposes. The rule further authorizes
ODEQ to determine which controls would be cost effective and the time
period the controls can be implemented.
The regulations at OAR 340-223-0110 lay out the administrative
mechanisms for imposing regional haze controls. Under this section and
OAR 340-223-0130, ODEQ has the authority to order the source to install
controls that ODEQ determines are cost effective on a timeline that
ODEQ prescribes. Such orders are subject to appeal by the source.
Alternatively, ODEQ may offer sources subject to the regional haze
program the opportunity to enter into a SAFO. The rule provides five
compliance options if ODEQ elects to enter into a SAFO: (1) lower PSELs
to below Q/d equal to 5; (2) install controls identified by the source
in a four factor analysis as cost effective for that source, provided
ODEQ agrees that the controls will result in the greatest cost
effective reductions; (3) install controls or reduce emissions that
ODEQ determines, in its sole discretion, provide equivalent emissions
reductions to controls that would be identified as cost effective for
that source; (4) maintain controls that the source has already
installed or maintain reduced emissions that ODEQ determines in its
sole discretion have provided and will continue to provide equivalent
reductions to controls that would be identified as cost effective for
that source; and (5) replace emission unit with a new emission unit
that meets the emission limits and requirements of the most recent
applicable standard in place at the time of the permitting of the new
emissions unit.
Conceptually, nothing in the CAA nor the Federal Regional Haze Rule
requires that states promulgate a regional-haze-specific state rule at
all nor the form such a rule must take if a state elects to do so.
Rather, the CAA and Regional Haze Rule provide states discretion on the
manner in which they implement the regional haze program so long as the
state's long-term strategy includes the enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress as determined based on a
consideration of the four statutory factors and the state documents the
technical basis for its decisions on the controls necessary for
reasonable
[[Page 81374]]
progress. As we discussed in the proposal and herein, Oregon's SIP
submissions demonstrate that the state has done so.
Moreover, each of the compliance options in OAR 340-223-0110(2) are
either part of Oregon's source selection methodology or grounded in the
four-factor analysis required by OAR 340-223-0110(1) and 0120.
Throughout their comments, the Environmental Organizations reflect
concerns with the term ``alternative compliance'' used to describe the
administrative mechanism in OAR 340-223-0110(2) for ODEQ to enter into
a SAFO with a source rather than a unilateral order. We do not
interpret this as an alternative to the requirements of the CAA or
Regional Haze Rule. Rather, entering into a SAFO is an alternative
administrative mechanism to imposing controls necessary for reasonable
progress. Our review of the subsections of OAR 340-223-0110(2) shows
they are consistent with the CAA and Regional Haze Rule.
The option to lower PSELs is discussed at length in sections II.A
and II.B.3 of this preamble. This option is part of Oregon's method for
selecting sources to undergo review and is consistent with the Regional
Haze Rule. Each of the options in OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(B)-(D) make
clear that ODEQ references the four-factor analysis as the basis to
determine the acceptability of those options. For the option in OAR-
340-223-0110(2)(b)(E) regarding emission unit replacement, ODEQ
reasonably anticipated that sources would not evaluate unit replacement
as a control option in a four-factor analysis,\93\ but that unit
replacement may be more cost effective or provide significantly greater
emissions reductions than certain add-on controls or emissions
limitations in existing emission units. Therefore, contrary to the
Environmental Organizations' contention, these compliance options are
grounded in the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ 2019 Regional Haze Guidance at p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Organizations appear to center their concerns on
OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(C) and (D), which allow ODEQ to issue a SAFO
that requires the source to install or maintain controls that achieve,
in ODEQ's sole discretion, controls that provide equivalent emission
reductions to controls that would be identified as cost effective for
that source following the adjustment and review of the four-factor
analysis. Oregon is subject to state administrative procedural
requirements that require public review of the basis for its
decisions.\94\ In addition, we interpret Oregon's inclusion of the
phrase ``in its sole discretion'' in OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(C) and (D)
as necessary to preserve the durability of its SAFOs. Under OAR 340-
223-0110(2), ODEQ has discretion to offer sources the option to impose
controls necessary for reasonable progress through a SAFO rather than a
unilateral order. A benefit of the SAFO option is avoiding an appeal
under OAR 340-223-0130. Given this, Oregon was reasonable in
foreclosing the possibility of a source, after having signed a SAFO
agreeing to install controls, challenging whether the agreed upon
control was equivalent to the controls identified as cost effective
under four-factor analysis. Finally, we do not interpret OAR 340-223-
0110(2)(b) as overriding EPA's authority under CAA Section 110 to
determine whether the SIP submission meets CAA requirements nor the
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to document the basis for its
decisions. As discussed in sections II.A.1, II.A.2, II.A.4, and II.B.5
of this preamble, in practice, ODEQ included in its SIP submission all
of the correspondence that formed the basis for its determinations of
what controls are necessary for reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See 001_1.1_StaffReport_wAttachments.pdf at p. 19;
015_4.1.1 SOS.Notice.FilingReceipt.8.27.21.pdf; Oregon Revised
Statutes sections 183.310-183.690; OAR 340-011-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, with respect to the Environmental Organizations' argument
that Oregon's regional haze rule prevents the state from fulfilling its
regional haze obligations, ODEQ chose the compliance options in OAR
340-223-0110(2)(b) as the regulatory mechanism to effectuate its
determinations of the controls necessary for reasonable progress based
on the four factor analyses conducted under OAR 340-223-0120. As we
stated in the proposed rulemaking for this action, reasonable progress
analysis, including source selection, information gathering,
characterization of the four statutory factors (and potentially
visibility), balancing of the four factors, and selection of the
emission reduction measures that represent reasonable progress, is a
technically complex exercise, but also a flexible one that provides
states with bounded discretion to design and implement approaches
appropriate to their circumstances.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See 89 FR 13622 at 13629 (February 23, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, Oregon's regional haze rule requires ODEQ to make its
equivalency determination based on the outcome of the four-factor
analysis. Thus, we do not view Oregon's rules as permitting ODEQ to
determine the controls necessary for reasonable progress without
considering the four statutory factors but rather recognizing that in
practice a four-factor analysis may not always yield a single, obvious
control determination. As discussed in section II.A of this preamble,
in practice, ODEQ carefully considered the four factors in determining
the controls necessary for reasonable progress and the appropriate
regulatory mechanism under OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b).
Practically, the goal of the regional haze program is to impose
enforceable emission limits, where possible expressed as a numerical
emission limit.\96\ Oregon's rules allow it to impose such a limit
without rigidly adhering to a specific control technology. Nothing in
the CAA nor regional haze rule prohibits this approach to achieving
reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Clarifications Memo at pp. 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, regarding documentation requirements, we do not interpret
OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b) as circumventing ODEQ's state administrative
procedural requirements to include in its public record the basis for
its regulatory decisions.\97\ OAR 340-223-0120 requires ODEQ to include
in its record the additional information it uses to adjust the initial
four factor analysis. Moreover, Oregon is subject to the Regional Haze
Rule requirement to include in it SIP submission documentation of the
technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and
emissions information, on which the state is relying to determine the
emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.\98\ In
recognition of this requirement, ODEQ supplemented its initial SIP
submission with considerable documentation that informed the state's
determination of the controls necessary for reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See OAR 340-011-0010 and 0024; See also 40 CFR 51.102.
\98\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the EPA disagrees with the Environmental Organizations'
argument that Oregon's regional haze rule allows the state to
reevaluate and reject control measures deemed necessary for reasonable
progress. This comment is predicated on the Environmental
Organizations' incorrect interpretation of ODEQ's process for
determining the controls necessary for reasonable progress. The
Environmental Organizations presume that ODEQ's preliminary control
determinations
[[Page 81375]]
were its final control determinations. This is incorrect. See sections
II.A, II.B.4, II.B.5 and II.B.6 of this preamble for EPA's
interpretation and explanation of ODEQ's process.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action approves the submitted state regulations as
meeting Federal requirements.
3. Oregon's Use of PSEL Reductions as a Source Selection Method
Comment: The Environmental Organizations also commented that ODEQ's
application of Oregon's regional haze rule was inconsistent with the
CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. The Environmental Organizations took
issue with ODEQ's use of PSEL reductions stating: ``DEQ used Oregon's
alternative compliance process to offer facilities that screened into
the Regional Haze program an option to screen back out from the program
by agreeing to measures that would reduce their plant site emission
limits (``PSEL'') so that Q/d would be below 5.00. This resulted in
only 23 of the 32 screened-in sources completing the required four-
factor analyses and allowed four of those 23 sources to belatedly
screen back out from the program by reducing their PSELs so that Q/d is
below 5.00.''
Response: The regulatory provision cited by the Environmental
Organizations is ODEQ's application of Oregon Administrative Rules
(OAR) 340-223-0110(2)(b)(A) which allows a source to accept federally
enforceable reductions of combined plant site emission limits (PSELs)
of regional haze pollutants to bring the source's Q/d below 5. As
stated in section II.B.2 of this preamble, this regulatory provision
was adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission after a full
public comment period from May 28, 2021, to June 30, 2021, and a
hearing conducted on June 28, 2021.\99\ The Environmental Organizations
expressed support for Oregon's Regional Haze Rule, including the PSEL
reduction option at that time. We also note that the option to limit
PSELs aligns with Oregon's use of PSELs to initially select sources.
Given that the state based initial source selection on PSELs (i.e.
allowables), Oregon offered the option for sources to lower PSELs below
the significance threshold to satisfy reasonable progress (prevention
of future impairment) under the regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See 702_staff report EQC
meeting_072321_ItemJ_regionalhaze.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following reasons, we disagree with the Environmental
Organizations' comments with respect to ODEQ's use of enforceable and
permanent PSEL reductions as a means of refining source-screening or as
a means of addressing reasonable progress for facilities with actual
emissions below the screening threshold. As discussed in section II.A.3
of this preamble regarding similar comments submitted by the NPS,
Oregon chose to use a more stringent methodology than the EPA's 2019
guidance for source screening and cost analysis based on allowable PSEL
emissions rather than recent actual emissions or 2028 projected
emissions.\100\ Oregon intended this as (1) a method of initially
capturing a broad selection of sources potentially impacting visibility
in Class I areas and (2) as an anti-backsliding measure to ensure that
facilities which had a Q/d less than 5 based on 2017 actual emissions
(and would otherwise not be screened into analysis) do not have future
emissions growth (based on allowable PSEL emissions) that could
jeopardize reasonable progress. Pursuant to OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(A),
Oregon entered into SAFOs to reduce allowable PSEL emissions to align
with 2017 actual emissions. None of the facilities listed in table 4
would have been screened into review based on 2017 actual emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 2019 Guidance at page 17.
Table 4--Facilities Screened in Using 2017 PSEL Q/d \101\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2017 PSEL
Facility Actual Q/d Q/d Outcome
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cascades Tissue Group: A 3.02 63.72 No FFA--lowered
Division of Cascades Holding PSEL to Q/d <
US Inc. 5.00.
Timber Products Co. Limited 1.63 6.07 No FFA--lowered
Partnership. PSEL to Q/d <
5.00.
PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward 3.24 34.60 No FFA--lowered
I Plant. PSEL to Q/d <
5.00.
Roseburg Forest Products-- 2.10 5.29 No FFA--lowered
Riddle Plywood. PSEL to Q/d <
5.00.
Roseburg Forest Products-- 2.91 8.84 No FFA--lowered
Medford MDF. PSEL to Q/d <
5.00.
Boise Cascade Wood Products, 4.19 7.02 Conducted FFA--
LLC--Medford. then lowered
PSEL to Q/d <
5.00.
Gas Transmission Northwest 2.33 14.13 Conducted FFA--
LLC--Compressor Station 12. then lowered
PSEL to Q/d <
5.00.
JELD-WEN...................... 2.13 6.30 Conducted FFA--
then lowered
PSEL to Q/d <
5.00.
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Baker 4.02 14.81 Conducted FFA--
Compressor Station. then lowered
PSEL to Q/d <
5.00.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Organizations provided no compelling basis to
demonstrate that aligning allowable PSEL emissions with actual
emissions was a violation of regional haze requirements, especially
when 2017 actual emissions are below the Q/d = 5 screening threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 3.7
Facility-specific findings and results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the two special cases where 2017 actual emissions were above Q/
d = 5, Kingsford Manufacturing and Owens-Brockway, ODEQ had a reasoned
basis for imposing permanent and enforceable emissions reductions such
that the source's Q/d is less than 5. In the case of Kingsford
Manufacturing, the facility already had a 2019 permit modification
lowering emissions below Q/d = 5 prior to the development of four-
factor analyses.\102\ It was reasonable for ODEQ to consider this
contemporaneous 2019 emissions information in updating the agency's
source screening in 2020. The case of Owen-Brockway is more complex and
described in our response to comment in sections II.A.3, II.A.15, and
II.B.6 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See 142_haze-KingsfordManufCo.pdf included in the docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Organizations focus on Boise Cascade Wood
Products, LLC--Medford, Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--Compressor
Station 12, JELD-WEN, and Northwest Pipeline LLC--Baker Compressor
Station. These
[[Page 81376]]
facilities all conducted four-factor analyses under OAR 340-223-0120
and then subsequently took a PSEL limit under OAR 340-223-
0110(2)(b)(A). As we stated in section II.A of this preamble, Oregon
determined that controls on sources with a Q/d of less than 5 based on
PSELs are not necessary to make reasonable progress in the second
planning period. The Environmental Organizations do not challenge this
in their comments. Indeed, this is a particularly conservative source-
selection method. Thus, Oregon was reasonable in not imposing controls
based on a four-factor analysis for sources that have permanent and
enforceable emissions limits such that their Q/d values are less than 5
based on PSELs.
Moreover, as shown in table 5 of this preamble, there was only one
control identified in the submitted four-factor analyses that was below
the $10,000 cost per ton reduced threshold when calculated using PSEL
(SCR at Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--Compressor Station 12).
However, when calculated using 2017 actual emissions or projected
actual emissions, the cost per ton reduced of SCR increased to $32,071
and $15,386, respectively. Considering the EPA's guidance that
recommends the use of recent actuals or projected actuals in
calculating cost-effectiveness, it was reasonable for ODEQ to offer the
facility a PSEL reduction under OAR 340-223-0110(2)(b)(A) to align with
actual emissions, especially when 2017 actual emissions at the facility
were so far below the screening threshold (Q/d = 2.33).
Table 5--Cost-Effectiveness of Controls ($/Ton NOX Reduced) \103\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated using
Facility Control technology Calculated using Calculated using projected
2017 PSEL recent actuals actuals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC-- SNCR................. $10,196 ................ ................
Medford \104\.
SCR.................. 13,373 ................ ................
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC-- SCR (Unit A)......... 6,719 32,071 15,386
Compressor Station 12 \105\
SCR (Unit B)......... 11,449 51,869 26,514
JELD-WEN \106\..................... SCR--urea............ 19,969 ................ ................
SNCR--ammonia........ 18,135 ................ ................
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Baker Low emission control 25,850 ................ ................
Compressor Station \107\ (EU1).
Low emission control 24,243 ................ ................
(EU2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the lowering PSELs increases the likelihood that certain
sources will be subject to NSR. ODEQ uses PSELs to manage emissions
increases and decreases throughout the state to maintain the NAAQS and
protect visibility.\108\ Accordingly, changes to PSELs trigger Oregon's
state and Federal new source review programs.\109\ The applicability
trigger often hinges on the increase in emissions over the netting
basis.\110\ The regulations also allow for deduction of certain
unassigned emissions when determining whether an emission change
requiring NSR occurs.\111\ In several cases, ODEQ ordered the reduction
of PSELs, the zeroing out of unassigned emissions, and reduction of the
netting basis.\112\ This increases the likelihood that the source will
be subject to NSR and associated control technology review in the
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Under OAR 340-223-0120, ODEQ required calculation of cost-
effectiveness based on PSEL. However, Gas Transmission Northwest LLC
was one of several facilities to provide cost-effectiveness based on
recent actuals or projected actuals. To the extent supplementary
information was available for a facility, the EPA added it to our
analyses and tables.
\104\ See 107_haze-BoiseCascade-Medford-FFA.pdf in the docket
for this action.
\105\ See 122_haze-GasTransmissionNW-Station12-FFA.pdf in the
docket for this action.
\106\ See 140_haze-JELD-WEN-FFA.pdf in the docket for this
action. OAR 340-223-0120 required cost calculation based on PSEL.
\107\ See 144_haze-NorthwestPipeline-Baker-FFA.pdf in the docket
for this action.
\108\ See OAR 340-222-0010; 89 FR 22363, at page 22367 (April 1,
2024).
\109\ See OAR 340-224-0025.
\110\ Id.
\111\ See OAR 340-222-0055.
\112\ See 114 SAFO05-1849CascadesTissueGroup.pdf; 141a_Jeld wen
permit mod_18-0006-TV-01-PM_2022_1.pdf;
151_SAFOOwensBrockway0840001.pdf; OAR 340-224-0070, 0270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Oregon's ``Alternative Compliance'' Pathways
Comment: The Environmental Organizations asserted generally that
ODEQ's SAFOs were not outgrowths of ODEQ's considerations of the four-
factor analysis. In the introduction portion of their comments, the
Environmental Organizations asserted: ``And instead of ordering all 17
facilities that completed four-factor analyses to implement the
reasonable progress controls identified through those analyses, DEQ
chose to offer agreements to all but one of the facilities--enabling
them to evade the regional haze process. These agreements allowed
sources to accept alternative emission reduction measures that will
achieve far fewer reductions in haze-forming emissions than the highly
effective pollution controls that DEQ originally identified in its 2021
control letters. The emission reductions measures in the agreements
were not vetted through the four-factor analysis process. DEQ entered
into the agreements without analyzing, determining, or demonstrating
that they would result in emissions reductions equivalent to those
reductions that would have occurred had the sources been required to
install the controls identified through four-factor analyses.''
Response: The Environmental Organizations argue that all changes
from the January 2021 preliminary control determination letters to the
final August 2021 control determinations are attributable to
considerations other than regional haze. The EPA acknowledges that
ODEQ's process was challenging to follow. However, in our review of the
record, we have determined that ODEQ established these agreements
within the framework of the Regional Haze Rule and the four statutory
factors.
Under OAR 340-223-0110(1) all affected facilities were required to
submit four-factor analyses that comply with OAR 340-223-0120, which
mirrors the Federal statutory requirement to consider the four
statutory factors as outlined in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2). Except for Owens-Brockway and Gilchrist Forest Products,
twenty-one facilities provided four-factor demonstrations asserting
``no feasible, cost-effective'' controls were available. In issuing the
January 2021 preliminary determination letters, ODEQ began the process
of disputing the claims of ``no feasible, cost-
[[Page 81377]]
effective'' controls in the four-factor analyses. As discussed in
section II.A.2 of this preamble, these letters were not four-factor
analyses themselves or determinations of the controls necessary for
reasonable progress under OAR 340-223-120(4) or 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Rather, a plain reading of the letters and documentation provided by
ODEQ indicates these letters were interim steps in ODEQ's refinement of
the initial four-factor analyses. Given that ODEQ invited the
recipients of the letters to discuss the preliminary findings with
ODEQ, ODEQ clearly anticipated further refinements to the analyses. In
this context, ODEQ appropriately initiated this interim process by
asserting the most stringent measures that might be possible.
Furthermore, the Environmental Organizations appear to ignore or
mischaracterize the important correspondence included in appendices 1
through 6 included in both the state's docket for the 2023 regional
haze supplement and the docket for the EPA's proposed rulemaking.\113\
The initial four-factor analyses, ODEQ's refinement and preliminary
letters, and this supplemental information collectively formed the
basis for ODEQ's determination of the controls necessary for reasonable
progress. Each of these steps in the process and associated
documentation evince ODEQ's consideration of the four statutory factors
consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Documents 246 through 251 of the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Organizations argue that because ODEQ's
determination of the controls necessary for reasonable progress
differed in some cases from the preliminary determinations that its
final determinations could not have been based on a consideration of
the four statutory factors. The EPA disagrees. As detailed in our
facility-specific responses to NPS's comments, we have reviewed the
correspondence and confirmed that ODEQ considered the four factors in
making final control determinations. The supplemental correspondence
indicates that ODEQ focused extensively on the technological
feasibility of controls, cost of controls, and the time necessary for
compliance. As discussed in our responses to NPS's comments in section
II.A. of this preamble, ODEQ not choosing BACT-level controls or other
controls advocated by the NPS and the Environmental Organizations does
not mean that Oregon did not consider the four statutory factors.
Section II.A of this preamble details our facility-specific findings
under the four factors. In each case, Oregon had a rational basis under
the four factors in making final determinations.
Comment: In the analysis section of their comments, the
Environmental Organizations asserted: ``Neither the Clean Air Act nor
Regional Haze Rule allow EPA or Oregon to reject viable controls
identified through a four-factor analysis and offer sources alternative
compliance measures that have not been analyzed against the four
statutory factors, and which will not yield equivalent emission
reductions. EPA's proposal to approve Oregon's alternative compliance
agreements violates the principle that state determinations concerning
the selection and implementation of controls necessary to meet
reasonable progress requirements must be `reasonably moored' to the
Clean Air Act, including the four factors listed in the statute.''
Response: We agree with the general principle that a state's
reasonable progress determinations must be based on consideration of
the four statutory factors. As we stated in the proposal, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to determine the emission reduction
measures for sources that are necessary for reasonable progress by
considering the four statutory factors. We disagree with the
implication that Oregon did not do so. As we state in response to
similar comments, the Environmental Organizations' argument rests on
the premise that ODEQ's preliminary determination letters represented
the culmination of the ODEQ's consideration of the four statutory
factors and foreclosed any further consideration of those factors. This
is incorrect.
ODEQ's SIP submission makes clear that ODEQ concluded its
consideration of the four factors subsequent to these letters, after
the sources provided additional information regarding the availability
of controls, cost of compliance, energy and non-air quality impacts of
the controls, and time necessary to install the controls.\114\ The
commenters do not explain how ODEQ's consideration of the four factors
prior to the preliminary determination letters is acceptable, but its
consideration of the four factors after the letters is unacceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ See appendices 1-6 of Oregon's 2023 supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the information ODEQ included in the SIP submission
indicates that ODEQ's determinations of the controls necessary for
reasonable progress, particularly where its final determinations
differed from its preliminary determinations, reflect ODEQ's careful
consideration of technical feasibility and cost of controls--not an
attempt to circumvent the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) as the
commenters suggest. The EPA recognized in the proposal that reasonable
progress analysis, including source selection, information gathering,
characterization of the four statutory factors (and potentially
visibility), balancing of the four factors, and selection of the
emission reduction measures that represent reasonable progress, is a
technically complex exercise, but also a flexible one that provides
states with bounded discretion to design and implement approaches
appropriate to their circumstances.\115\ ODEQ's process of considering
the four factors and for determining the controls necessary for
reasonable progress reflect the technical challenges associated with
installing retrofit controls on diverse industrial processes. For each
source, the EPA is satisfied that ODEQ has done so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ 89 FR 13622 at 13629 (February 23, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The Environmental Organizations further asserted that ODEQ
did not follow its own rules in entering into SAFOs. The Environmental
Organizations asserted that ODEQ did not adequately determine whether
the emissions reductions expected from each SAFO were equivalent to the
emission reductions projected from the controls ODEQ preliminarily
determined were cost effective in its letters to the sources. The
Organizations stated: ``But nothing in the record suggests that DEQ
actually analyzed the emission reductions that would result from the
alternative compliance agreements or compared them to the emission
reductions that would result from installing controls identified
through four-factor analyses. Many of the agreements contain several
compliance options for the source that will not deliver equal emissions
reductions. But rather than analyze the emissions expected from each of
the compliance pathways, it appears that DEQ abandoned any effort to
quantify the reductions expected from the agreements, stating in its
response to comments that it did not have adequate information to allow
it to determine equivalency with precision.'' The Environmental
Organizations further asserted that based on their own analysis, ODEQ's
SAFOs will achieve far less emission reductions than the controls ODEQ
initially determined were cost effective in its preliminary control
letters to sources.
[[Page 81378]]
Response: First, the Regional Haze Rule requires that the state
determine the controls necessary for reasonable progress based on a
consideration of the four statutory factors. As we explained in the
Proposal and herein, Oregon's submission clearly demonstrates that it
considered the four statutory factors in determining the controls
necessary for reasonable progress.
Second, Oregon followed its own rules in determining the controls
necessary for reasonable progress. As stated above, the EPA disagrees
that the preliminary control determinations represented ODEQ's final
four factor analysis. Therefore, these preliminary determinations are
not the correct barometer to measure whether an emission control will
achieve equivalent emission reductions under OAR 340-223-0110(2)(C) or
(D).
A careful review of the SIP submission indicates that ODEQ invoked
OAR 340-223-0110(2)(C) once in the case of the International Paper--
Springfield Mill and OAR 340-223-0110(2)(D) once in the case of
Roseburg Forest Products--Dillard. We discuss at length the
appropriateness of ODEQ's reasonable progress determination for the
International Paper--Springfield Mill in section II.A of this preamble.
As documented in appendix 6 of ODEQ's 2023 regional haze supplement,
International Paper responded to ODEQ's preliminary determination in a
letter dated February 2, 2021, and a supporting memorandum dated March
15, 2021.\116\ This information was cited in ODEQ's 2023 supplement as
the basis for revising the preliminary determination, ``On February 2,
2021, IP Springfield submitted a letter in response to DEQ's
preliminary determination, explaining that the cost effectiveness of
SCR installation was above the $10,000 per ton threshold for
consideration.'' \117\ The Environmental Organizations provided no
analysis or review of this follow-up correspondence to support the
claim that ODEQ failed to ``provide equivalent emissions reductions to
controls that would be identified as cost effective for that source
following the adjustment and review of a four-factor analysis.'' SAFO
208850, effective August 9, 2021, requiring PSEL reductions,
installation of CEMS, and fuel restrictions is precisely what ODEQ
identified as cost effective for that source following the adjustment
and review of a four-factor analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ See
251b_Appendix6_InternationalPaper.SpringfieldMill_Correspondence.pdf,
included in the docket for this action.
\117\ See 2023 regional haze supplement, at page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Roseburg Forest Products, ODEQ did not issue a
preliminary determination letter to the source, but indicated in its
SIP submission that it initially approached the source with
installation of SNCR on Boilers Nos. 1-3. The SIP submission indicates
that the source and ODEQ then considered whether the Boiler Nos. 1, 2
and 6 could achieve a similar emission reduction by optimizing
operations of the boilers. This engagement culminated in a SAFO that
imposes an emission limit of 0.27 lb. NOX/mmBTU (7-day
rolling average) for Boiler No. 1 and 0.26 lb. NOX for
Boiler Nos. 2 and 6 (7-day rolling average).\118\ The SAFO gave the
facility the choice to achieve the emission limit either through
installing SNCR or through boiler optimization.\119\ As discussed in
section II.B.2 of this preamble, the goal of the regional haze program
is to impose enforceable emission limits, where possible expressed as a
numerical emission limit.\120\ Oregon's rules allow it to impose such a
limit without rigidly adhering to a specific control technology.
Nothing in the CAA nor Regional Haze Rule prohibits such a pragmatic
approach to achieving reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ See 157_SAFO20210809RFPDillard.pdf, included in the docket
for this action.
\119\ Id.
\120\ Clarifications Memo at pp. 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Documentation of Oregon's Four-Factor Analysis Process
Comment: ``Additionally, the portion of Oregon's SIP Revision that
EPA points to as supporting EPA's conclusion that Oregon adequately
considered the four statutory factors does not contain any analysis of
the alternative compliance measures. In this section of the SIP
Revision, [O]DEQ merely explains that it sent sources control letters
identifying cost-effective controls but later entered alternative
compliance agreements without explaining its decision to include
different and weaker controls in those agreements or how the agreements
reflect the four statutory factors. For some sources, DEQ generally
explains that the sources sent DEQ memoranda claiming that controls
identified in the 2021 control letters were not technically feasible or
cost-effective but DEQ does not include those letters in the SIP
Revision, preventing EPA and the public from reviewing the source
analyses. Nothing in the record supports a finding that Oregon analyzed
these alternative compliance measures based on the four statutory
factors.''
Response: Section 5 of Oregon's 2023 regional haze supplement was
added to explain changes from the January 2021 ``Preliminary
Determination of Cost Effective Controls for Regional Haze'' letters
(preliminary determinations) to the final four-factor determinations
imposed by the August 2021 SAFOs. The 2023 supplement also contained
appendices 1 through 6 that included the four-factor analyses submitted
pursuant to OAR 340-223-0110(1), ODEQ's January 2021 ``Preliminary
Determination of Cost Effective Controls for Regional Haze'' letters,
and the correspondence from facilities in response to the preliminary
determinations. As discussed in our facility-specific responses to NPS
comments, our review showed that ODEQ's consideration of the
correspondence in appendices 1 through 6 was grounded in the four
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) in making
final control determinations.
Contrary to the commenters' assertions, the documentation provided
in Oregon's SIP submissions provide important context for understanding
the Oregon process in comparing the final control determinations
imposed by the August 2021 SAFOs to the four-factor analyses submitted
to pursuant to OAR 340-223-0110(1). Except for Gilchrist Forest
Products and Owens-Brockway, all four-factor analyses developed by
environmental consulting firms and/or professional engineers on behalf
of the sources determined that no feasible, cost-effective controls
were available, or that further site-specific engineering analysis
would be necessary. Examples are the June 2020 four-factor analyses for
the Cascade Pacific Pulp--Halsey, Georgia-Pacific--Wauna, Georgia-
Pacific--Toledo, and International Paper--Springfield facilities.\121\
Chapter 2.3.1 Site-Specific Factors Limiting Implementation of the
four-factor analysis states, ``Currently known, site-specific factors
that would limit the feasibility and increase the cost of installing
additional controls include space constraints. A detailed engineering
study for each of the controls evaluated in this report would be
necessary before any additional controls were determined to be feasible
or cost effective.'' \122\ As documented in appendices 1-6 of the 2023
regional haze supplement, it was precisely these types of technical
feasibility and cost
[[Page 81379]]
concerns that ODEQ considered both before and after issuing the
agency's preliminary determinations in determining the controls
necessary for reasonable progress.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ See 110_haze-CascadePacificPulp-HalseyMill-FFA.pdf in the
docket for this action.
\122\ Id, at page 2-14.
\123\ See document numbers 246 to 251 in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.
Comment: The Environmental Organizations referenced ODEQ's
evaluation of the four-factor analysis and SAFO for the Owens-Brockway
Glass Container facility in support of its argument that ODEQ's
alternative compliance mechanisms are not reasonably moored to the four
statutory factors. The Organizations stated: ``In the case of Owens-
Brockway, for example, describing DEQ's alternative compliance
agreement simply as an ``agreed order to impose additional controls''
is an especially large distortion of what Oregon did. An order that
tracked the four-factor analysis for Owens-Brockway would have required
the installation of ceramic catalytic filters on its furnaces that
would have reduced the facility's NOX and SO2
emissions by 90% and PM10 emissions by 99%. Community
members had long been advocating for this kind of pollution control and
the much-needed reductions in pollution in an already overburdened
neighborhood that ceramic catalytic filters would have delivered. But
rather than order Owens-Brockway to install the filters, DEQ and Owens-
Brockway entered into an ``alternative compliance'' agreement that
consisted of reduced permit limits and a reiteration of a previous DEQ
order to retire Furnace A, which DEQ had imposed on the facility
earlier through an enforcement action. Because the permit limits that
were reduced in the agreement had been set at a level that covered two
furnaces (one of which was no longer operating), and because Owens-
Brockway had already been ordered to stop operating one of the
furnaces, Owens-Brockway's ``alternative compliance'' agreement will
not have an impact on the actual emissions from the facility.''
Response: In a four-factor analysis dated June 12, 2020, Owens-
Brockway Glass Container Inc. (Owens-Brockway) was one of the few
facilities in Oregon determining technically feasible, cost-effective
controls were available under the regional haze program.\124\ On
October 27, 2020, ODEQ concurred with Owens-Brockway's findings that
combined control of NOX, SO2 and PM by catalytic
ceramic filters is cost-feasible for glass-melting furnaces A & D.\125\
Subsequently, in 2021, ODEQ initiated an enforcement action at Owens-
Brockway to address exceedances of the total particulate matter and
opacity limits in the source's operating permit impacting human
health.\126\ While the enforcement action was pending, ODEQ initiated
and completed its public comment process for its Regional Haze SIP
(completed August 27, 2021). ODEQ elected not to impose the catalytic
ceramic filter requirement through a regional haze unilateral order or
SAFO because it did not want to circumvent its enforcement process for
the permit exceedances. Therefore, Oregon limited the scope of the
regional haze order (SAFO 26-1876) to permanently enshrine the shutdown
of furnace A (which had not operated since June 8, 2020) and lower the
PSEL to capture this reduction in emissions.\127\ The lowered PSELs
resulted in a Q/d of less than 5.0, below Oregon's regional haze rule
applicability threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ See 149_haze-Owens-Brockway-FFA.pdf, included in the
docket for this action.
\125\ See 150_haze-Owens-Brockway.pdf, included in the docket
for this action.
\126\ See https://www.oregon.gov/deq/programs/pages/owensbrockway.aspx.
\127\ See 151_SAFOOwensBrockway0840001.pdf, included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, ODEQ's enforcement action resulted in order AQ/V-NWR-
2020-208 (effective October 22, 2021) which required Owens-Brockway to
either shutdown furnace D or install catalytic ceramic filtration on
furnace D.\128\ The Environmental Organizations downplay the
significance of the enforcement response and ongoing permit
modification to impose catalytic ceramic filtration on furnace D.\129\
Given the circumstances, ODEQ was reasonable in calibrating its
regional haze SAFO to reduce PSELs, while deferring the human-health
driven relief to its enforcement response. ODEQ's prudence is evidenced
by the fact that it achieved both PSEL reductions and the installation
of catalytic ceramic filters on furnace D by leveraging both
authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ See 701_OwensBrockway2020-208MAO.pdf, included in the
docket for this action.
\129\ ``Current status: In April and May 2023, DEQ held a public
comment period and public hearing for Owens-Brockway's draft Title V
air quality permit. Following comments from EPA, DEQ is in the
process of revising this permit and will hold another public comment
period in the first quarter of 2024.'' Source: https://www.oregon.gov/deq/programs/pages/owensbrockway.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Reasonable Progress Goals
Comment: ``EPA wrongfully proposes to find that Oregon's SIP
Revision satisfies the Regional Haze Rule's requirements for reasonable
progress goals. In its proposal, EPA acknowledges that Oregon's
reasonable progress goals are based on ``modeling which represents
regulations on the books as of 2020 plus stationary source controls
recommended from DEQ's review of the four-factor analyses submittals.''
This confirms that the reasonable progress goals are based on Oregon's
2021 control letters, not the weaker controls in the alternative
compliance agreements that were ultimately incorporated into the long-
term strategy. EPA therefore cannot claim that Oregon satisfied the
reasonable progress goal requirements. As discussed above and in our
comments submitted to DEQ, the alternative compliance agreements will
achieve far fewer reductions in visibility-impairing pollution than the
controls identified in the 2021 control letters. As a result, Oregon's
reasonable progress goals are not reflective of the visibility
improvements that the long-term strategy controls will achieve, in
violation of the Regional Haze Rule.''
Response: We disagree with this comment. Oregon's reasonable
progress goals meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3). We note
initially that Oregon has made significant progress reducing regional
haze, as shown in table 6 of this preamble. In section IV.F of our
proposed rulemaking we addressed the reasonable progress goals (RPG).
We described the major factors that will continue to reduce regional
haze precursor emissions during the 2018-2028 implementation period. We
highlighted Oregon's mobile source regulations, because mobile sources
account for approximately 80% of the statewide NOX emissions
inventory.\130\ We also highlighted the impact of international marine
shipping and how these emissions (SO2) are projected to
decrease by 77% due to new standards for international marine shipping
fuels which became effective in 2020.\131\ With respect to stationary
sources we acknowledged the significant SO2 reductions from
the closure of Boardman facility (the only coal-fired electric
generating unit in the state).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ See 89 FR 13622 (February 23, 2024) at page 13646.
\131\ See International Marine Organization. 2020. A Breath of
Fresh Air. https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Documents/Sulphur%202020%20infographic%202%20page.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like other western states, Oregon used modeling from the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) to conduct RPG modeling. This included
`Future Year 2028 with On the Books Controls'' which forecasted
expected reductions from the Boardman facility
[[Page 81380]]
as well as anticipated mobile source reductions. The WRAP also modeled
``Future Year 2028 with Potential Additional Controls.'' Due to time
constraints in analyzing and assessing final four-factor
determinations, these RPG calculations were based on ODEQ's January
2021 preliminary determinations. However, as noted in our proposed
rulemaking we explained that in considering the dominance of the mobile
source and international marine shipping emissions source categories on
the overall inventory, it is unlikely that differences in the
stationary source controls selected by Oregon would significantly
impact the projected RPG modeling for the monitoring stations
associated with the respective Class I areas.\132\ This is borne out by
the data in table 6, drawn from publicly available information.\133\
The average difference between the ``Future Year 2028 with On the Books
Controls'' and the ``Future Year 2028 with Potential Additional
Controls'' RPG projections is 0.03 deciview for the six Oregon regional
haze monitoring sites. The claim that RPGs will be significantly
divergent because of the difference between the January 2021
preliminary determinations and the August 2021 final four-factor
determinations does not consider the overall emission source mix,
particularly for NOx which is dominated by mobile source emissions that
are driving the significant reductions predicted between 2018 and 2028
(approximately 80% of the 2017 inventory). Therefore, we do not believe
there is adequate basis to disapprove Oregon's use of the January 2021
preliminary determinations in projecting RPG because the August 2021
final determinations were not yet available when WRAP conducted its
modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See 89 FR 13622 (February 23, 2024) at page 13646.
\133\ See https://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/. Note: EPA
used the WRAP preset ``2028OTBa2 EPA w/o Fire Projection--MID'' for
on the books measures and ``PAC2 EPA w/o Fire Projection--MID'' for
the on the books plus additional measures calculation, which differs
slightly from the RPGs reported by Oregon and listed in our proposed
rulemaking.
Table 6--Reasonable Progress Goals (in deciviews)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRAP 2028 on Unadjusted
Baseline 2000- Current WRAP 2028 on the books plus 2028 glidepath
Class I area 2004 conditions the books additional 20% most
2014-2018 controls impaired days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mt. Hood Wilderness Area........ 12.10 9.27 8.49 8.44 9.90
Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, 12.80 11.28 10.73 10.70 10.60
and Three Sisters Wilderness
Areas..........................
Crater Lake National Park; 9.36 7.98 7.62 7.60 7.70
Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes,
and Gearhart Mountain
Wilderness Areas...............
Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area...... 13.34 11.97 11.43 11.40 11.13
Strawberry Mountain and Eagle 14.53 11.19 10.36 10.35 11.35
Cap Wilderness Areas...........
Hells Canyon Wilderness Area.... 16.51 12.33 11.25 11.19 12.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Robust Demonstration Requirements
Comment: ``EPA's claim that Oregon satisfied the ``robust
demonstration'' requirement is also incorrect. EPA explains that the
reasonable progress goals for eight of Oregon's 12 Class I areas are
projected to be above their 2028 unadjusted uniform rate of progress
glidepath, triggering the Regional Haze Rule's ``robust demonstration''
requirement. EPA's conclusion that Oregon satisfied this requirement
for the same flawed reasons it satisfied its long-term strategy
requirements fails for two reasons. First, because Oregon's reasonable
progress goals are based on incorrect assumptions about the emissions-
reducing control measures that screened-in sources would install, the
reasonable progress goals for these Class I areas are likely even
further above the 2028 uniform rate of progress than the SIP Revision
reflects. And there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the
alternative compliance measures Oregon offered to sources would provide
emission reductions that are equivalent to the controls identified in
the 2021 letters.
Second, there are readily available, feasible, and cost-effective
controls for multiple sources that Oregon failed to include in the SIP
Revision as necessary to make reasonable progress--namely, those
identified in the 2021 control letters that were not included in the
alternative compliance agreements. As long as there are other feasible
and cost-effective controls available that are not included in the SIP
Revision, Oregon cannot satisfy its robust demonstration requirement.''
Response: We disagree with this comment. According to WRAP modeling
data \134\ analyzed by the EPA, 4 of the 6 Oregon regional haze
monitoring sites have ``Future Year 2028 with On the Books Controls''
with projections below the 2028 uniform rate of progress as shown in
table 6.\135\ These are the emissions reductions that are already
predicted to occur, primarily due to the closure of the Boardman
facility and Oregon's aggressive mobile source regulations. These
projections do not include the controls listed in Oregon's January 2021
``Preliminary Determination of Cost Effective Controls for Regional
Haze'' letters. The two remaining monitors, THSI (representing Mt.
Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas) and KALM
(representing the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area), have ``Future Year 2028
with On the Books Controls'' projections marginally above the 2028
unadjusted glidepath but well below the EPA's 2028 default adjusted
glidepath to account for international emissions.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ See https://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/.
\135\ See 708_OR_RPG_Chart_Data.xlsx included in the docket for
this action.
\136\ Availability of Modeling Data and Associated Technical
Support Document for the EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality
Modeling, September 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted by the Environmental Organizations, Oregon chose not to
adjust the glidepath to account for international contribution.
However, as we discussed in the proposal, it is reasonable for the EPA
to consider our own modeling information in evaluating the Oregon SIP.
The EPA's modeling data appears to corroborate Oregon's assessment that
these monitors are significantly impacted by amonium sulfate from
international marine shipping.\137\ This assessment is further
corroborated by the EPA's review of Chapter 2.4 Pollutant Components of
Visibility Impairment, of Oregon's 2022
[[Page 81381]]
SIP submission. These graphs highlight the stark difference in ammonium
sulfate contribution between regional haze monitors in eastern Oregon
compared to southern coastal and central Oregon monitors more likely to
be impacted by international marine shipping. The only stationary
source with significant SO2 emissions was the now closed
Boardman facility; however, this facility was located far to the
northeast and is unlikely to have impacted the two affected monitors
along the southeastern Oregon coast and central cascades region. This
lends further credence to Oregon's determination that these monitors
were impacted by international marine shipping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ See April 22, 2022 Oregon regional haze SIP at page 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA included this data assessment in the proposal. The commenters
did not demonstrate that EPA's assessment of the data is flawed.
Rather, the commenters assume without supporting data the RPGs ought to
be higher because Oregon's long-term strategy (LTS) does not include
all the controls initially included in the model used to set the RPGs.
However, the EPA's assessment refutes this assumption. On-the-books
controls and international shipping are the dominant drivers for
Oregon's reasonable progress goals. Given this, Oregon's RPGs reflect
the visibility conditions that are projected to be achieved by the end
of 2028 as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
With respect to the Environmental Organizations' broader statement
that Oregon did not meet the robust demonstration requirements because
``other feasible and cost-effective controls available that are not
included in the SIP Revision,'' we disagree. Attachment A of the
Environmental Organizations' comments includes a comparison of the
proposed controls in ODEQ's January 2021 ``Preliminary Determination of
Cost Effective Controls for Regional Haze'' letters to the final
control determinations as proof that feasible cost-effective controls
were available. We do not agree with this argument for two reasons.
First, as described in sections II.B.4 and II.B.5 of this preamble,
the preliminary control determination letters are not four-factor
analyses. The four-factor analyses are the documents submitted pursuant
to OAR 340-223-0110(1) which ODEQ reviewed and analyzed under OAR 340-
223-0120, both before and after January 2021 in making final four-
factor determinations. Second, and more importantly, in section 5 of
Oregon's 2023 supplement, ODEQ provided a summary of the rationale the
agency used in making final control determinations based on ODEQ's
review the four-factor analyses and all relevant correspondence with
the facilities regarding the four-factor analyses (appendices 1 through
6). This information was added to the 2023 supplement specifically to
address concerns voiced by NPS and Environmental Organizations that the
2022 regional haze SIP did not contain adequate information to explain
the difference between the preliminary determinations and ODEQ's final
control determinations. Neither the Environmental Organizations'
comments, nor the attachments, cite to, reference, or analyse this
critical information. Therefore, we do not see a basis to claim that
other feasible and cost-effective controls were available when there is
no record to suggest the Environmental Organizations considered the
correspondence regarding the final four-factor determinations.
9. Environmental Justice
Comment: The Environmental Organizations submitted lengthy comments
regarding environmental justice, which are available in the docket for
this action. In summary, the Environmental Organizations commented that
(1) EPA is required under Executive Orders and EPA's own commitments to
consider environmental justice and (2) EPA ignores the environmental
justice impacts of Oregon's Regional Haze SIPs.
Response: The regional haze statutory provisions do not explicitly
address considerations of environmental justice, and neither do the
regulatory requirements of the second planning period in 40 CFR
51.308(f), (g), and (i). However, the lack of explicit direction does
not preclude the State from addressing EJ in the State's SIP
submission. As explained in ``EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental
Justice,'' \138\ the CAA provides states with the discretion to
consider environmental justice in developing rules and measures related
to regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ See EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, May
2022, available at www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf at 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance Oregon included an entire chapter, 3.6.1
Environmental Justice Analysis, ``[t]o better understand the potential
co-benefits of pollutant controls, DEQ undertook an environmental
justice analysis of communities surrounding the facilities that DEQ's
Regional Haze decisions will affect.'' \139\ This chapter provided
additional information from EJ Screen to calculate a ``Vulnerable
Populations Score'' and a ``Environmental Justice Score Methodology for
Oregon'' which helped inform the overall weight of evidence approach
which led ODEQ to conclude, ``that controls are both environmentally
beneficial and cost effective at many facilities evaluated by DEQ.''
\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ April 2022 Regional Haze SIP submission, pages 50-56.
\140\ Id, at page 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
For the reasons stated in our proposed action (89 FR 13622,
February 23, 2024) and in section II. of this preamble, we are
approving the Oregon SIP revision submitted on April 29, 2022, as
supplemented on November 22, 2023, as satisfying the regional haze
requirements for the second implementation period contained in 40 CFR
51.308.
The EPA is approving and incorporating by reference in 40 CFR
52.1970(c), Table 2--EPA Approved Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) the
following updates to Division 223 Regional Haze Rules, state effective
July 26, 2021:
340-223-0010 Purpose, for maintaining reasonable progress
and other requirements associated with Oregon's implementation of the
Federal Regional Haze Rule;
340-223-0020 Definitions, updating this section to account
for revised program requirements between the first regional haze
implementation period and the second implementation period;
340-223-0100 Screening Methodology for Sources for Round
II of Regional Haze, establishing the criteria for selecting sources
for review under the regional haze program;
340-223-0110 Options for Compliance with Round II of
Regional Haze, establishing requirements for sources and compliance
options under the regional haze program;
340-223-0120 Four Factor Analysis, establishing the
requirements for assessing potential controls for reasonable progress
under the regional haze program; and
340-223-0130 Final Orders Ordering Compliance with Round
II of Regional Haze, establishing ODEQ's unilateral order authority and
procedures for contested case hearings under the regional haze program.
We are removing from incorporation by reference in 40 CFR
52.1970(c), Table 2--EPA Approved Oregon
[[Page 81382]]
Administrative Rules (OAR) the outdated provisions from the first
regional haze implementation period contained in sections 340-223-0030,
340-223-0040, 340-223-0050, and 340-223-0080, state-effective December
10, 2010, because the site-specific requirements contained in those
revoked sections are no longer relevant.
In addition to the regulatory provisions, the EPA is approving and
incorporating by reference in 40 CFR 52.1970(d), EPA Approved Oregon
Source-Specific Requirements the following source-specific requirements
as part of Oregon's long-term strategy for regional haze:
Ash Grove Cement Company, Permit No. 01-0029-TV-01, state
effective October 16, 2020, permit conditions (3), (9) through (11),
(14), (16) through (28), (42), (45) through (76), (84) through (97),
(99), (100), and (102) only.
Biomass One, L.P., Order No. 15-0159, state effective
August 9, 2021.
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Elgin Complex, Order No.
31-0006, state effective August 12, 2021.
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Elgin Complex, Permit
No. 31-0006-TV-01, state effective December 5, 2016, permit condition
(56), (59) through (75), (77), and (78) only.
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Medford, Order No. 15-
0004, state effective August 9, 2021.
Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC--Medford, Permit No. 15-
0004-TV-01, state effective February 20, 2020, permit conditions (71),
(72), and (74) through (88) only.
Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC--Halsey Pulp Mill, Order No. 22-
3501-A2, state effective August 25, 2023.
Cascades Tissue Group: A Division of Cascades Holding US
Inc., Order No. 05-1849, state effective August 18, 2021.
Cascades Tissue Group: A Division of Cascades Holding US
Inc., Permit No. 05-1849-TV-01, state effective April 6, 2018, permit
conditions (24), (25), (27), and (29) through (43) only.
Collins Products, L.L.C., Permit No. 18-0013-TV-01, state
effective January 26, 2015, permit conditions (3), (14) through (16),
(19) through (24), (34 through (42), (63) through (75), and (77) only.
Columbia Forest Products, Inc., Permit No. 18-0014-TV-01,
state effective September 26, 2017, permit conditions (3), (8) through
(20), (22), (23), (34) through (52), (58) through (66), (67--
introductory paragraph), (67.a), (67.b.iii) through (67.b.v), and (68)
through (70).
EVRAZ Inc, Order No. 26-1865, state effective August 9,
2021.
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--Compressor Station 12,
Order No. 09-0084, state effective August 9, 2021.
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--Compressor Station 12,
Permit No. 09-0084-TV-01, state effective August 10, 2017, permit
conditions (32) through (34) and (37) through (50) only.
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--Compressor Station 13,
Order No. OAH CASE NO. 2021-ABC-04835/DEQ CASE NO. AQ/RH-HQ-2021-140,
state effective June 1, 2022.
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC--Compressor Station 13,
Permit No. 18-0096-TV-01, state effective July 11, 2018, permit
conditions (24) through (26), (32) through (35), and (37) through (44)
only.
Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC, Order No. 21-0005, Amendment
No. 21-005-A1, state effective December 5, 2022.
Georgia Pacific--Wauna Mill, Order No. 04-0004, Amendment
No. 04-004-A1, state effective December 5, 2022.
Gilchrist Forest Products, Permit No. 18-0005-TV-01, state
effective July 25, 2023, permit conditions (4), (5), (9), (10), (12)
though (19), (41) through (43), (45) through (59), and (61) only.
International Paper--Springfield, Order No. 208850, state
August 9, 2021.
International Paper--Springfield, Permit No. 208850, state
effective October 4, 2016, permit conditions (186) through (189),
(192), and (198) only.
JELD-WEN, Permit No. 18-0006-TV-01, state effective
December 01, 2021, permit conditions (55) through (77) and (80) through
(87) only.
JELD-WEN, Permit No. 18-0006-TV-01, Addendum No, 1, state
effective 8/11/2022, permit conditions 53 and 53b only.
Kingsford Manufacturing Company, Permit No. 204402,
addendum No. 2, state effective November 15, 2021, permit conditions
(71) through (73) and (75) through (91) only.
Klamath Energy LLC--Klamath Cogeneration, Permit No. 18-
0003-TV-01, state effective June 12, 2017, permit conditions (10)
through (16), (18), (24) through (28), (32) through (37), (39) through
(49), (51), (52), and (54), and (56) only.
Klamath Energy LLC--Klamath Cogeneration, Permit No. 18-
0003-TV-01, Addendum No. 1, state effective December 8, 2020, permit
conditions (3.a), (3.b), (61.l), and (66.b.xii).
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Baker Compressor Station, Order
No. 01-0038, amendment 01-0038-A1, state effective February 1, 2022.
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Baker Compressor Station, Permit
No. 01-0038-TV-01, state effective January 12, 2017, permit conditions
(27) through (30) and (32) through (43) only.
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Oregon City Compressor Station,
Order No. 03-2729, amendment 03-2729-A1, state effective February 1,
2022.
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Oregon City Compressor Station,
Permit No. 03-2729-TV-01, state effective February 19, 2013, permit
conditions (7), (19), (25) through (27), (38), (41), (45), and (50)
through (65).
Ochoco Lumber Company, Permit No. 12-0032-ST-01, state
effective June 25, 2019, permit conditions (1.1) through (1.3), (1.6),
(2.1) through (2.5), (4.1) though (4.4), and (5.1) through (6.2).
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc., Order No. 26-1876,
state effective 8/9/2021.
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc., Permit No. 26-1876-
TV-01, state effective December 10, 2019, permit conditions (33)
through (48) only.
Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc., Permit No. 08-0003-TV-01,
state effective December 30, 2019, permit conditions (3), (9), (10),
(12) through (19), (26) through (41), (56) through (71), and (73) only.
PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward I Plant, Order No. 05-2606,
state effective August 10, 2021.
PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward I Plant, Permit No. 05-
2520, state effective January 21, 2009, permit conditions (62) through
(66), (68) through (78), (79.a), (80) through (83), (85), (87), (88.a),
(89.d), (89.f), and (89.i) only.
Roseburg Forest Products--Dillard, Order No. 10-0025,
state effective August 9, 2021.
Roseburg Forest Products--Medford MDF, Permit No. 15-0073-
TV-01, state effective August 18, 2022, permit conditions (44) through
(46), (48) through (61), (63), and (64) only.
Roseburg Forest Products--Riddle Plywood, Permit No. 10-
0078-TV-01, state effective July 31, 2019, permit conditions (65),
(66), (68) through (81) only.
Swanson Group Mfg. LLC, Permit No. 10-0045-TV-01, state
effective June 12, 2017, permit conditions (4), (10) through (24),
(25--introductory paragraph), (25.a) through (25.c), (27) through (40),
(50) through (64), and (66) only.
Timber Products Co. Limited Partnership, Permit No. 15-
0025-TV-01, state effective June 23, 2022, permit conditions (70)
through (72) and (74) through (90) only.
[[Page 81383]]
Willamette Falls Paper Company, Order No. 03-2145, state
effective August 9, 2021.
Willamette Falls Paper Company, Permit No. 03-2145-TV-01,
state effective February 24, 2016, permit conditions (40) through (55)
only.
Woodgrain Millwork LLC--Particleboard, Permit No. 31-0002-
TV-01, state effective May 24, 2021, permit conditions (3), (12)
through (21), (22--introductory paragraph), (22.a), (22.e), (22.f),
(23), (25) though (28), (30) through (35), (37), (39) through (41),
(43), (44), (46), (48), (49), (51) through (72), (80) through (94), and
(96) only.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Oregon regulatory and source-specific provisions described in section
III. of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52
in this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials 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). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA
for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110
and 113 of the Clean Air Act as of the effective date of the final rule
of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the
next update to the SIP compilation.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in this document, the EPA is removing regulatory text from
incorporated by reference, as described in section III. of this
preamble.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this 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 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); and
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 Clean Air Act.
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 communities with environmental justice
(EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines 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.'' The 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 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality did evaluate
environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the
CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor
require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and
did not consider EJ in this action. 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 Executive Order 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for communities with EJ concerns.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and it will
not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 9, 2024. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
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.
Dated: September 26, 2024.
Casey Sixkiller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[[Page 81384]]
Subpart MM--Oregon
0
2. In Sec. 52.1970:
0
a. Amend paragraph (c) table 2 by revising the entries under the
heading ``Division 223--Regional Haze Rules'';
0
b. Revise and republish paragraph (d); and
0
c. Amend paragraph (e) table 5 under the heading ``Section 5--Control
Strategies for Attainment and Nonattainment Areas'' by adding an entry
for ``Oregon Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision for the
Second Planning Period (2018-2028)'' immediately after the entry for
``Regional Haze Progress Report.''
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1970 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Table 2--EPA-Approved Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State citation Title/subject effective date EPA approval date Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 223--Regional Haze Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
223-0010.......................... Purpose.............. 7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT
FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
223-0020.......................... Definitions.......... 7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT
FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
223-0100.......................... Screening Methodology 7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT
for Sources for FIRST PAGE OF
Round II of Regional FEDERAL REGISTER
Haze. CITATION].
223-0110.......................... Options for 7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Compliance with FIRST PAGE OF
Round II of Regional FEDERAL REGISTER
Haze. CITATION].
223-0120.......................... Four Factor Analysis. 7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT
FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
223-0130.......................... Final Orders Ordering 7/26/2021 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Compliance with FIRST PAGE OF
Round II of Regional FEDERAL REGISTER
Haze. CITATION].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(d) EPA approved state source-specific requirements.
EPA Approved Oregon Source-Specific Requirements \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit or order State effective
Name of source number date EPA approval date Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial Laundry & Dry 26-3025........... 12/9/1980......... 8/27/1981, 46 FR Air Contaminant
Cleaners. 43142. Discharge Permit.
VANPLY, Inc. & Spalding Pulp & Stipulation and 12/30/1980........ 8/27/1981, 46 FR Transfer by
Paper Co. Consent Final 43142. VANPLY, INC. of a
Order. VOC Offset to
Spalding Pulp &
Paper Co.
Spaulding Pulp and Paper Co..... 36-6041........... 12/11/1980........ 8/27/1981, 46 FR Air Contaminant
43142. Discharge Permit--
Addendum No. 1.
Weyerhaeuser Company--Bly, 18-0037........... 2/3/1981.......... 11/6/1981, 46 FR Air Contaminant
Oregon. 55101. Discharge Permit--
Conditions 5 and
6.
Intel Corporation............... 34-2681........... 9/24/1993 (State 7/18/1996, 61 FR Oregon Title-V
effective date of 37393. Operating Permit--
Title V Program). Page 11.
Cascade General (Port of 26-3224........... 10/4/1995......... 3/7/1997, 62 FR Air Contaminant
Portland). 10455. Discharge Permit--
Condition 19 of
Addendum 2.
White Consolidated Inc.......... 34-2060........... 8/1/1995.......... 3/7/1997, 62 FR Air Contaminant
10455. Discharge Permit--
Conditions 11,12
and 13 in
Addendum No. 2.
PCC Structurals, Inc............ 26-1867........... 4/4/1997.......... 6/20/1997, 62 FR Air Contaminant
33548. Discharge Permit--
Conditions 19, 20
and 21 in
Addendum No. 2.
Dura Industries................. 26-3112........... 9/14/1995......... 3/31/1998, 63 FR Air Contaminant
15293. Discharge Permit.
Ostrander Construction Company ACDP No. 19-0002.. 4/29/1998......... 9/21/1999, 64 FR Air Contaminant
Fremont Sawmill. 51051. Discharge Permit.
[[Page 81385]]
Ash Grove Cement Company........ Permit No. 01-0029- 10/16/2020........ 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (3), (9) through
FEDERAL REGISTER (11), (14), (16)
CITATION]. through (28),
(42), (45)
through (76),
(84) through
(97), (99),
(100), and (102)
only.
Biomass One, L.P................ Order No. 15-0159. 8/9/2021.......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Boise Cascade Wood Products, Order No. 31-0006. 8/12/2021......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
LLC--Elgin Complex. FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Boise Cascade Wood Products, Permit No. 31-0006- 12/5/2016......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit condition
LLC--Elgin Complex. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (56), (59)
FEDERAL REGISTER through (75),
CITATION]. (77), and (78)
only.
Boise Cascade Wood Products, Order No. 15-0004. 8/9/2021.......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
LLC--Medford. FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Boise Cascade Wood Products, Permit No. 15-0004- 2/20/2020......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
LLC--Medford. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (71), (72), and
FEDERAL REGISTER (74) through (88)
CITATION]. only.
Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC-- Order No. 22-3501- 8/25/2023......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Halsey Pulp Mill. A2. FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Cascades Tissue Group: A Order No. 05-1849. 8/18/2021......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Division of Cascades Holding US FIRST PAGE OF
Inc. FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Cascades Tissue Group: A Permit No. 05-1849- 04/6/2018......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Division of Cascades Holding US TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (24), (25), (27),
Inc. FEDERAL REGISTER and (29) through
CITATION]. (43) only.
Collins Products, L.L.C......... Permit No. 18-0013- 1/26/2015......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (3), (14) through
FEDERAL REGISTER (16), (19)
CITATION]. through (24), (34
through (42),
(63) through
(75), and (77)
only.
Columbia Forest Products, Inc... Permit No. 18-0014- 9/26/2017......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (3), (8) through
FEDERAL REGISTER (20), (22), (23),
CITATION]. (34) through
(52), (58)
through (66),
(67--introductory
paragraph),
(67.a),
(67.b.iii)
through (67.b.v),
and (68) through
(70).
EVRAZ Inc....................... Order No. 26-1865. 8/9/2021.......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC-- Order No. 09-0084. 8/9/2021.......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Compressor Station 12. FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC-- Permit No. 09-0084- 8/10/2017......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Compressor Station 12. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (32) through (34)
FEDERAL REGISTER and (37) through
CITATION]. (50) only.
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC-- Order No. 03-2729- 6/1/2022.......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT OAH CASE NO. 2021-
Compressor Station 13. A1. FIRST PAGE OF ABC-04835;
FEDERAL REGISTER DEQ CASE NO. AQ/RH-
CITATION]. HQ-2021-140.
[[Page 81386]]
Gas Transmission Northwest LLC-- Permit No. 18-0096- 7/11/2018......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Compressor Station 13. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (24) through
FEDERAL REGISTER (26), (32)
CITATION]. through (35), and
(37) through (44)
only.
Georgia-Pacific--Toledo LLC..... Order No. 21-0005, 12/5/2022......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Amendment No. 21- FIRST PAGE OF
005-A1. FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Georgia Pacific--Wauna Mill..... Order No. 04-0004, 12/5/2022......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Amendment No. 04- FIRST PAGE OF
004-A1. FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Gilchrist Forest Products....... Permit No. 18-0005- 7/25/2023......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (4), (5), (9),
FEDERAL REGISTER (10), (12) though
CITATION]. (19), (41)
through (43),
(45) through
(59), and (61)
only.
International Paper--Springfield Order No. 208850.. 8/9/2021.......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
International Paper--Springfield Permit No. 208850. 10/4/2016......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
FIRST PAGE OF (186) through
FEDERAL REGISTER (189), (192), and
CITATION]. (198) only.
JELD-WEN........................ Permit No. 18-0006- 12/01/2021........ 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (55) through (77)
FEDERAL REGISTER and (80) through
CITATION]. (87) only.
JELD-WEN........................ Permit No. 18-0006- 8/11/2022......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
TV-01, Addendum FIRST PAGE OF 53 and 53b only.
No, 1. FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Kingsford Manufacturing Company. Permit No. 204402, 11/15/2021........ 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
addendum No. 2. FIRST PAGE OF (71) through (73)
FEDERAL REGISTER and (75) through
CITATION]. (91) only.
Klamath Energy LLC--Klamath Permit No. 18-0003- 6/12/2017......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Cogeneration. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (10) through
FEDERAL REGISTER (16), (18), (24)
CITATION]. through (28),
(32) through
(37), (39)
through (49),
(51), (52), and
(54), and (56)
only.
Klamath Energy LLC--Klamath Permit No. 18-0003- 12/8/2020......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Cogeneration. TV-01, Addendum FIRST PAGE OF (3.a), (3.b),
No. 1. FEDERAL REGISTER (61.l), and
CITATION]. (66.b.xii).
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Baker Order No. 01-0038, 2/1/2022.......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Compressor Station. amendment 01-0038- FIRST PAGE OF
A1. FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Baker Permit No. 01-0038- 1/12/2017......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Compressor Station. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (27) through (30)
FEDERAL REGISTER and (32) through
CITATION]. (43) only.
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Oregon Order No. 03-2729, 2/1/2022.......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
City Compressor Station. amendment 03-2729- FIRST PAGE OF
A1. FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Northwest Pipeline LLC--Oregon Permit No. 03-2729- 2/19/2013......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
City Compressor Station. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (7), (19), (25)
FEDERAL REGISTER through (27),
CITATION]. (38), (41), (45),
and (50) through
(65).
Ochoco Lumber Company........... Permit No. 12-0032- 6/25/2019......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
ST-01. FIRST PAGE OF (1.1) through
FEDERAL REGISTER (1.3), (1.6), (
CITATION]. 2.1) through
(2.5), (4.1)
though (4.4), and
(5.1) through
(6.2).
[[Page 81387]]
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Order No. 26-1876. 8/9/2021.......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Inc. FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Owens-Brockway Glass Container Permit No. 26-1876- 12/10/2019........ 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Inc. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (33) through (48)
FEDERAL REGISTER only.
CITATION].
Pacific Wood Laminates, Inc..... Permit No. 08-0003- 12/30/2019........ 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (3), (9), (10),
FEDERAL REGISTER (12) through
CITATION]. (19), (26)
through (41),
(56) through
(71), and (73)
only.
PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward I Order No. 05-2606. 8/10/2021......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Plant. FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
PGE Beaver Plant/Port Westward I Permit No. 05-2520 01/21/2009........ 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Plant. FIRST PAGE OF (62) through
FEDERAL REGISTER (66), (68)
CITATION]. through (78),
(79.a), (80)
through (83),
(85), (87),
(88.a), (89.d),
(89.f), and
(89.i) only.
Roseburg Forest Products-- Order No. 10-0025. 8/9/2021.......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Dillard. FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Roseburg Forest Products-- Permit No. 15-0073- 08/18/2022........ 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Medford MDF. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (44) through
FEDERAL REGISTER (46), (48)
CITATION]. through (61),
(63), and (64)
only.
Roseburg Forest Products--Riddle Permit No. 10-0078- 07/31/2019........ 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Plywood. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (65), (66), (68)
FEDERAL REGISTER through (81)
CITATION]. only.
Swanson Group Mfg. LLC.......... Permit No. 10-0045- 06/12/2017........ 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
TV-0l. FIRST PAGE OF (4), (10) through
FEDERAL REGISTER (24), (25--
CITATION]. introductory
paragraph),
(25.a) through
(25.c), (27)
through (40),
(50) through
(64), and (66)
only.
Timber Products Co. Limited Permit No. 15-0025- 6/23/2022......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Partnership. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (70) through (72)
FEDERAL REGISTER and (74) through
CITATION]. (90) only.
Willamette Falls Paper Company.. Order No. 03-2145. 8/9/2021.......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT
FIRST PAGE OF
FEDERAL REGISTER
CITATION].
Willamette Falls Paper Company.. Permit No. 03-2145- 2/24/2016......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (40) through (55)
FEDERAL REGISTER only.
CITATION].
Woodgrain Millwork LLC-- Permit No. 31-0002- 5/24/2021......... 10/8/2024, [INSERT Permit conditions
Particleboard. TV-01. FIRST PAGE OF (3), (12) through
FEDERAL REGISTER (21), (22--
CITATION]. introductory
paragraph),
(22.a), (22.e),
(22.f), (23),
(25) though (28),
(30) through
(35), (37), (39)
through (41),
(43), (44), (46),
(48), (49), (51)
through (72),
(80) through
(94), and (96)
only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA does not have the authority to remove these source-specific requirements in the absence of a
demonstration that their removal would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any
prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. The Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality may request removal by submitting such a demonstration to the EPA as a SIP revision.
[[Page 81388]]
(e) * * *
Table 5--State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program--Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of SIP provision geographic or State submittal EPA approval date Explanations
nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5--Control Strategies for Attainment and Nonattainment Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Oregon Regional Haze State Statewide.......... 4/29/2022 and 11/22/ 10/8/2024, [INSERT
Implementation. 2023. FIRST PAGE OF
Plan Revision for the Second FEDERAL REGISTER
Planning Period (2018-2028). CITATION].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2024-22603 Filed 10-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P