[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 140 (Thursday, July 24, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34792-34812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13957]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0541; FRL-12449-01-R10]
Air Plan Approval; Washington; Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan for the Second Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by Washington on January 28, 2022, to address applicable
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze
Rule (RHR) for the regional haze program's second implementation
period. The EPA is proposing this action pursuant to the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 25, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2024-0541 at www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments may not be edited or removed from
regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be confidential business information or
other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about confidential
business information or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
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, the use of ``we''
and ``our'' means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of the Washington Regional Haze Plan for
the Second Implementation Period
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze SIP revision
submitted by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) on January
28, 2022, under the CAA and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the
program's second implementation period. Washington's SIP submission
addresses 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 SIP submission also addresses
other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of
the regional haze program. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to
CAA sections 110 and 169A.
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A detailed history and background of the regional haze program is
provided in multiple prior EPA proposal actions.\1\ For additional
background on the 2017 Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revisions, please refer
to Section III of this
[[Page 34793]]
publication. Overview of Visibility Protection Statutory Authority,
Regulation, and Implementation of ``Protection of Visibility:
Amendments to Requirements for State Plans'' of the 2017 RHR.\2\ The
following is an abbreviated history and background of the regional haze
program and 2017 RHR as it applies to the current action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 90 FR 13516 (March 24, 2025).
\2\ See 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017, located at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/10/2017-00268/protection-of-visibility-amendments-to-requirements-for-State-plans#h-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Regional Haze
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas. CAA 169A.
The CAA establishes as a national goal the ``prevention of any future,
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' CAA 169A(a)(1).
In CAA section 169A(a)(1), Congress established the national goal
of preventing any future and remedying any existing impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas that results from manmade
(anthropogenic) air pollution. The core component of a regional haze
SIP submission for the second planning period is a strategy that
addresses regional haze in each Class I area within the State's borders
and each Class I area outside the State that may be affected by
emissions originating from within the State, CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B),
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), and makes ``reasonable progress'' toward the
national goal based on consideration of the four statutory factors in
CAA section 169A(g)(1)--the costs of compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected
sources.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAA section 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH3)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric used by the RHR. Under many circumstances, a
change in one deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be the
same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction of
light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to its being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere.
Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used for
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters
(Mm-1). The formula for the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10
Mm-1). 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both States in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. CAA 169A(b)(2); see also 40 CFR 51.308(b),
(f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional haze SIP
revisions); (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999, at page 35768).
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR, (82
FR 3078, January 10, 2017), that apply for the second and subsequent
implementation periods. The reasonable progress requirements as revised
in the 2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are
codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f).
B. The Western Regional Air Partnership
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) \5\ is one of five
regional air quality planning organizations across the United
States.\6\ The WRAP functions as a voluntary partnership of State,
Tribal, Federal, and Local air agencies whose purpose is to understand
current and evolving air quality issues in the west. There are 15
member States, including Washington, and 28 Tribal and 30 Local air
agency members.\7\ Federal partners include the EPA, National Park
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of
Land Management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The WRAP website may be found at https://www.wrapair2.org.
\6\ See https://www.epa.gov/visibility/visibility-regional-planning-organizations for information about the regional planning
organizations, or RPOs, for visibility.
\7\ The WRAP membership list may be found at https://www.wrapair2.org/membership.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on emissions and monitoring data supplied by its membership,
the WRAP produced technical tools to support modeling of visibility
impacts at Class I areas across the west.\8\ The WRAP Technical Support
System for the second implementation period or ``TSSV2'' consolidated
air quality monitoring data, meteorological and receptor modeling data
analyses, emissions inventories and projections, and gridded air
quality/visibility regional modeling results. The TSSV2 is accessible
by members and allows for the creation of maps, figures, and tables to
export and use in developing regional haze plans and maintains the
original source data for verification and further analysis.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Technical information may be found at https://www.wrapair2.org/RHPWG.aspx/.
\9\ The WRAP TSS for the second implementation period may be
found at https://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Washington's Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period
On January 28, 2022, Ecology submitted a revision to the Washington
SIP to address regional haze for the second planning period. Ecology
made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's
regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308.
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
implementation period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021.
Each State's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays
out the process by which States determine what constitutes their long-
term strategies, with the order of the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) through (3) generally mirroring the order of the steps in
the reasonable progress analysis \10\ and (f)(4) through (6) containing
additional, related requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that we were
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' (82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadly speaking, a State first must identify the Class I areas
within the State and determine the Class I areas outside the State in
which visibility may
[[Page 34794]]
be affected by emissions from the State. These are the Class I areas
that must be addressed in the State's long-term strategy. See 40 CFR
51.308(f), (f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a State
must then calculate the baseline (five-year average period of 2000-
2004), current, and natural visibility conditions (i.e., visibility
conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for that area,
as well as the visibility improvement made to date and the ``uniform
rate of progress'' (URP).
The URP is the linear rate of progress needed to attain natural
visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of baseline visibility
conditions in 2004 and ending with natural conditions in 2064. This
linear interpolation is used as a tracking metric to help States assess
the amount of progress they are making towards the national visibility
goal over time in each Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each
State having a Class I area and/or emissions that may affect visibility
in a Class I area must then develop a long-term strategy that includes
the enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas.
A reasonable progress determination is based on applying the four
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility impairing
pollutants that the State has selected to assess for controls for the
second implementation period. Additionally, as further explained below,
the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five
``additional factors'' \11\ that States must consider in developing
their long-term strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that States
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A State evaluates potential emission reduction measures for those
selected sources and determines which are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Those measures are then incorporated into the State's long-
term strategy. After a State has developed its long-term strategy, it
then establishes reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for each Class I area
within its borders by modeling the visibility impacts of all reasonable
progress controls at the end of the second implementation period, i.e.,
in 2028, as well as the impacts of other requirements of the CAA. The
RPGs include reasonable progress controls not only for sources in the
State in which the Class I area is located, but also for sources in
other States that contribute to visibility impairment in that area. The
RPGs are then compared to the baseline visibility conditions and the
URP to ensure that progress is being made towards the statutory goal of
preventing any future and remedying any existing anthropogenic
visibility impairment in Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and (3).
There are additional requirements in the rule, including (Federal Land
Manager) FLM consultation, that apply to all visibility protection SIPs
and SIP revisions. See e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(i).
In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f)
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the
second implementation period must address the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing
progress towards the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements
for FLM consultation that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and
SIP revisions. See e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A State must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP
revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all
SIP revisions under the CAA and the EPA's regulations. See CAA section
169A(b)(2); CAA section 110(a). Upon approval by the EPA, a SIP is
enforceable by the Agency and the public under the CAA. If the EPA
finds that a State fails to make a required SIP revision, or if the EPA
finds that a State's SIP is incomplete or if it disapproves the SIP,
the Agency must promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) that
satisfies the applicable requirements. CAA section 110(c)(1).
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a State to
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders,
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the State. In the 1999
RHR, the EPA determined that all States contribute to visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area, 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999, at
pages 35720-22, and explained that the statute and regulations lay out
an ``extremely low triggering threshold'' for determining ``whether
States should be required to engage in air quality planning and
analysis as a prerequisite to determining the need for control of
emissions from sources within their State.'' Id. at 35721.
A State must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from all sources within the State The determination of which
Class I areas may be affected by a State's emissions is subject to 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 is relying to determine the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in
each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.''
B. Calculation of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility Conditions;
Progress to Date; and Uniform Rate of Progress
As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second
implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this section apply only to States having Class I areas
within their borders; the required calculations must be made for each
such Class I area. The EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance provides
recommendations to assist States in satisfying their obligations under
40 CFR 51.308(f)(1); specifically, in developing information on
baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, and in making
optional adjustments to the URP to account for the impacts of
international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires. See 82 FR
3078, January 10, 2017, at pages 3103-05.
The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or
current visibility conditions). The RHR provides that the relevant sets
of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20% clearest (the 20%
of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest values of the
deciview index) and 20% most impaired days (the 20% of monitored days
in a calendar year with the highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility
impairment). 40 CFR 51.301. A State must calculate visibility
conditions for both the 20% clearest and 20% most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current
visibility conditions). 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must also
calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most
impaired days, by estimating the conditions that would exist on those
two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data,
[[Page 34795]]
States must then calculate, for each Class I area, the amount of
progress made since the baseline period (2000-2004) and how much
improvement is left to achieve to reach natural visibility conditions.
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, States must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that
would need to be achieved during each implementation period to achieve
natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is used in
later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for informational
purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark against which to
assess a Class I area's rate of visibility improvement. Additionally,
in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA provided States the option of
proposing to adjust the endpoint of the URP to account for impacts of
anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or impacts of
certain types of wildland prescribed fires. These adjustments, which
must be approved by the EPA, are intended to avoid any perception that
States should compensate for impacts from international anthropogenic
sources and to give States the flexibility to determine that limiting
the use of wildland-prescribed fire is not necessary for reasonable
progress. 82 FR 3078, January 10, 2017, at page 3107, footnote 116.
The EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help
satisfy the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a
State's borders and each Class I area outside the State that may be
affected by emissions from the State. The long-term strategy ``must
include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules,
and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as
determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
The amount of progress that is ``reasonable progress'' is based on
applying the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an
evaluation of potential control options for sources of visibility
impairing pollutants, which is referred to as a ``four-factor''
analysis. The outcome of that analysis is the emission reduction
measures that a particular source or group of sources needs to
implement to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress may be either new, additional
control measures for a source, or they may be the existing emission
reduction measures that a source is already implementing. See 82 FR
3078, 3092-93. Such measures must be represented by ``enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures''
(i.e., any additional compliance tools) in a State's long-term strategy
in its SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
The regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements
for the four-factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails
selecting the sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures;
to this end, the RHR requires States to consider ``major and minor
stationary sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area
sources'' of visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor
control analysis. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this
step is which visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed.
While States have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a State's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a State has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\12\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA section 169A(g)(1). The EPA has explained that the
four-factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction
measures (i.e., control options) for sources: ``use of the terms
`compliance' and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1)
strongly indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to
be the requirements with which sources would have to comply to satisfy
the CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' 82 FR 3091 (January 10, 2017).
Thus, for each source it has selected for four-factor analysis,\13\ a
State must consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically feasible
control options for reducing emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants. Id. at 3088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA section 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to
four-factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or
source categories, a State may also consider additional emission
reduction measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g.,
from other newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and
measures for sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the
second implementation period.
\13\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires States to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, States have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on State policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each State.'' 82 FR
3088 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has also explained that, in addition to the four statutory
factors, States have flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably
consider visibility benefits as an additional factor alongside the four
statutory factors. Ultimately, while States have discretion to
reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what level of control is
needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a State ``must include in
its implementation plan a description of . . . how the four factors
were taken into consideration in selecting the measure for inclusion in
its long-term strategy.''
As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires States to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a State's long-term
[[Page 34796]]
strategy and in its SIP. If the outcome of a four-factor analysis is
that an emissions reduction measure is necessary to make reasonable
progress towards remedying existing or preventing future anthropogenic
visibility impairment, that measure must be included in the SIP.
The characterization of information on each of the factors is also
subject to the documentation requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
The reasonable progress analysis is a technically complex exercise, and
also a flexible one, that provides States with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a State to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the State relied upon to
determine what emission reduction measures must be in place to make
reasonable progress. The technical documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on
which the State relied to determine the measures necessary to make
reasonable progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)
separately provides five ``additional factors'' \14\ that States must
consider in developing their long-term strategies: (1) emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including
measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2)
measures to reduce the impacts of construction activities; (3) source
retirement and replacement schedules; (4) basic smoke management
practices for prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland
vegetation management purposes and smoke management programs; and (5)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in 40
CFR51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed in CAA
section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that States must
consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses State
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a State to consult with
other States that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area. If a
State, pursuant to consultation, agrees that certain measures (e.g., a
certain emission limitation) are necessary to make reasonable progress
at a Class I area, it must include those measures in its SIP. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A). Additionally, the RHR requires that States that
contribute to visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider
the emission reduction measures the other contributing States have
identified as being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own
sources. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a State has been asked to
consider or adopt certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately
determines those measures are not necessary to make reasonable
progress, that State must document in its SIP the actions taken to
resolve the disagreement. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). Under all
circumstances, a State must document in its SIP submission all
substantive consultations with other contributing States. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
In this proposed action, the EPA notes that it is the Agency's
policy, as announced in the EPA's recent approval of the West Virginia
Regional Haze SIP,\15\ that where the State has considered the four
statutory factors, and visibility conditions for a Class I area
impacted by a State are projected to be below the URP in 2028, the
State has presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second
implementation period for that area. The EPA acknowledges that this
proposed action reflects a change in policy as to how the URP should be
used in the evaluation of regional haze second planning period SIPs.
However, the EPA finds that this policy aligns with the purpose of the
statute and RHR, which is achieving ``reasonable'' progress, not
maximal progress, toward Congress' natural visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See proposed rule (90 FR 16478, April 18, 2025, at page
16483) and final rule (90 FR 29737, July 7, 2025, at pages 29738-
39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected
to be achieved by the control measures States have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor
analysis.'' 82 FR 3091 (January 10, 2017). For the second
implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028. Reasonable progress
goals are not enforceable targets, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii). While
States are not legally obligated to achieve the visibility conditions
described in their RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he
long-term strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for
an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the
baseline period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
clearest days since the baseline period.''
RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a State is making towards the national visibility goal. To
support this approach, the RHR requires States with Class I areas to
compare the 2028 RPG for the most impaired days to the corresponding
point on the URP line (representing visibility conditions in 2028 if
visibility were to improve at a linear rate from conditions in the
baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064).
If the most impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (i.e., if
visibility conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described
by the URP), each State that contributes to visibility impairment in
the Class I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis
required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission
reduction measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term
strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)
requires that each State contributing to visibility impairment in a
Class I area that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP
provide ``a robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria
used to determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated
and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken
into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-
term strategy.''
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires States to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this section apply either to States with Class I
areas within their borders, States with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. Compliance with the monitoring strategy
requirement may be met through a State's participation in the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, which is used to measure visibility impairment
caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by the
visibility program. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i) and (iv).
All States' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas, as well as a Statewide inventory
[[Page 34797]]
documenting such emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii) and (v). All
States' SIPs must also provide for any other elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, that are necessary for
States to assess and report on visibility. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a State's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a
State's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), (82 FR 3119, January
10, 2017). To this end, every State's SIP revision for the second
implementation period is required to assess changes in visibility
conditions and describe the status of implementation of all measures
included in the State's long-term strategy, including Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) and reasonable progress emission reduction
measures from the first implementation period, and the resulting
emissions reductions. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a State holds a public
hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, the State
must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement,
the RHR also requires that States ``provide the [FLM] with an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in
the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission
reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided
by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-
term strategy.'' 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). For the EPA to evaluate whether
FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has occurred, the
SIP submission should include documentation of the timing and content
of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA must also
describe how the State addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. 40
CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the State and FLMs regarding the
State's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of the Washington Regional Haze Plan for the
Second Implementation Period
A. Background on the Washington First Implementation Period Plan
Washington submitted its regional haze SIP for the first
implementation period (2008 through 2018) on December 22, 2010, and
submitted a supplemental SIP submission on December 29, 2011. The Clean
Air Act and 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e) required that the initial round of
regional haze plans include, among other things, a long-term strategy
for making reasonable progress and best available retrofit technology
requirements for certain older stationary sources, where applicable.
The EPA partially approved and partially disapproved Washington's first
implementation period SIP submission on June 11, 2014 (79 FR 33438),
issuing FIPs codified at 40 CFR 52.2500 Best available retrofit
technology (BART) requirements for the Intalco Aluminum Corporation
(Intalco Works) primary aluminum plant--Better than BART Alternative,
40 CFR 52.2501 Best available retrofit technology requirement for the
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company oil refinery--Better than BART
Alternative, and 40 CFR 52.2502 Best available retrofit technology
requirements for the Alcoa Inc.--Wenatchee Works primary aluminum
smelter to remedy the disapproved elements.
Subsequently, on November 6, 2017, Washington submitted a five-year
progress report, and the EPA approved the progress report on July 31,
2018 (83 FR 36752). In the action to approve the progress report, the
EPA determined that the Washington regional haze plan for the first
implementation period was adequate and required no substantive
revision.
B. The Washington Second Implementation Period Plan and the EPA's
Evaluation
On January 28, 2022, Washington submitted its regional haze plan
for the second implementation period (2018 through 2028).\16\
Washington made its January 28, 2022, submission available for public
comment on October 19, 2021 through November 23, 2021 \17\ and held a
public hearing on November 18, 2021.\18\ The State received and
responded to public comments and included the comments and comment
responses in the SIP submission.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Clean Air Act sections 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(f).
\17\ Appendix X of Washington's January 28, 2022, submission.
\18\ Appendix Y of Washington's January 28, 2022, submission.
\19\ Appendix W of Washington's January 28, 2022, submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections of this document describe the Washington
submission, including but not limited to air quality modeling
conducted, source selection and control measure analysis, assessment of
progress made since the first implementation period in reducing
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, and the visibility
improvement progress at Class I areas in Washington and other States
impacted by Washington sources. This document also contains the EPA's
evaluation of the Washington submission against the requirements of the
Clean Air Act and Regional Haze Rule for the second implementation
period of the regional haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each State in which any
Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in
a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. The RHR implements this statutory requirement
at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each State's plan ``must
address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located
outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the
State,'' and (f)(2), which requires each State's plan to include a
long-term strategy that addresses regional haze in such Class I areas.
The EPA concluded in the 1999 RHR that ``all [s]tates contain
sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
regional haze in a Class I area,'' 64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999, at page
35721, and this determination was not
[[Page 34798]]
changed in the 2017 RHR. Critically, the statute and regulation both
require that the cause-or-contribute assessment consider all emissions
of visibility impairing pollutants from a State, as opposed to
emissions of a particular pollutant or emissions from a certain set of
sources.
Washington Class I Areas
Washington has eight designated Class I areas, including three
national parks and five wilderness areas.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Section 169A of the Clean Air Act was established in 1977
to protect visibility in all wilderness areas over 5,000 acres and
all national parks over 6,000 acres. 156 such areas were designated
throughout the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olympic National Park
Olympic National Park includes a significant portion of the Olympic
Peninsula in northwestern Washington. It consists of two segments: the
Olympic Mountains, which form the mountainous core of the park, and a
coastal strip, stretching for 90 kilometers (km) (56 miles (mi)) along
the Pacific coast. Thirteen major rivers flow from the Olympic
Mountains in all directions.
North Cascades National Park
North Cascades National Park is set in the rugged mountains of the
Cascade Mountain Range in northcentral Washington, about 80 km (50 mi)
east of Bellingham. The area was set aside to preserve dramatic
mountain scenery, alpine areas, and glaciers. Mountain summits rise
abruptly 1,800-2,600 meters (m) (5,900-8,530 feet (ft)) above the
valley floor.
Mount Rainier National Park
Mount Rainier National Park became the nation's fifth national park
in 1899. One hundred km (62 mi) southeast of Seattle, Mount Rainier is
the highest of the chain of volcanoes comprising the Cascade Range. At
4,392 meters (m) (14,410 feet (ft)), Mount Rainier is the fifth tallest
peak in the contiguous 48 States. The massive mountain occupies more
than one-fourth of the park's area. The 27 major glaciers on its slopes
form the largest mass of year-round ice in the United States outside of
Alaska.
Glacier Peak Wilderness
Glacier Peak Wilderness includes more than 200 lakes, many unnamed
and tremendously difficult to access, in various cirques and hidden
basins. The wilderness straddles the northern Cascade Range roughly
between the Suiattle River on the west and Lake Chelan on the east.
Glacier Peak Wilderness is bordered to the North by North Cascades
National Park.
Alpine Lakes Wilderness
When Congress passed the 1976 Alpine Lakes Wilderness Act to
protect the area in its unique natural state, it created the Alpine
Lakes Wilderness. The name Alpine Lakes takes its origin from the
nearly 700 small mountain lakes nestled among the high rock peaks and
forested valleys of the region. The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National
Forest and the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest jointly administer
the wilderness.
Goat Rocks Wilderness
The Goat Rocks Wilderness is a portion of the volcanic Cascade
Range in southwestern Washington located between Mount Rainier and
Mount Adams. The Goat Rocks are remnants of a large volcano, which has
been extinct for some two million years. The cluster of rocks and peaks
in this area earned the title ``Goat Rocks'' because of the bands of
mountain goats that live there. The wilderness lies in both the Gifford
Pinchot National and the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests.
Mount Adams Wilderness
Congress designated the Mount Adams Wilderness in 1964. The
wilderness lies in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest on the crest of
the Cascade Range in southwestern Washington. Second in height only to
Mount Rainier statewide, 3,742 m (12,276 ft) Mount Adams looms over at
least 10 glaciers and a wilderness of forested slopes and subalpine
meadows. The volcanic bulk of the mountain takes up a considerable
portion of the Wilderness.
Pasayten Wilderness
The Pasayten Wilderness stretches across the crest of the Cascade
Range in northern Washington. The wilderness is bordered on the north
by 80 km (50 mi) of the Canadian border and on the west by the Ross
Lake National Recreation Area. The Pasayten Wilderness is in both the
Okanogan-Wenatchee and the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forests.
Washington Visibility Monitoring Network
Haze species in Washington are measured and analyzed via the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network.\21\ Table 1 of this document lists the IMPROVE air quality
monitors representing visibility at Washington Class I areas. Due to
the remote nature of the Class I areas, some areas share a common
IMPROVE station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ IMPROVE website at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve.
Table 1--Washington IMPROVE Stations and Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPROVE station Class I area Site sponsor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLYM1......................... Olympic National Park. National Parks
Service.
NOCA1......................... North Cascades National Parks
National Park, Service.
Glacier Peak
Wilderness.
SNPA1......................... Alpine Lakes U.S. Forest
Wilderness. Service.
MORA1......................... Mt. Rainier National National Parks
Park. Service.
WHPA1......................... Goat Rocks Wilderness, U.S. Forest
Mt. Adams Wilderness. Service.
PASA1......................... Pasayten Wilderness... U.S. Forest
Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification of Class I Areas in Other States
Ecology reviewed Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology
(PSAT) modeling conducted by the WRAP to determine potential visibility
impacts from Washington sources on Class I areas in other States.\22\
Chapter 6.8 Other Mandatory Class 1 Areas Impacted by Washington
Anthropogenic Emissions of Washington's submission identifies all out-
of-State IMPROVE stations where Washington anthropogenic sources are
expected to contribute at least 0.1% of the nitrate or sulfate light
extinction, based on the WRAP modeling results. Ecology further refined
the analysis to focus on significant contribution, defined as a 5% or
greater contribution of light extinction from nitrates or sulfates on
[[Page 34799]]
the most impaired days, identifying impacted Montana and Oregon Class I
areas. Specifically, these areas in Montana were the Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness, Glacier National Park, Bob Marshall Wilderness Area,
Mission Mountain Wilderness Area, Scapegoat Wilderness Area, Anaconda-
Pintler Wilderness Area, and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area. In
Oregon these areas were the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, Mt. Hood Wilderness,
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, Eagle Cap Wilderness, Mt. Jefferson
Wilderness, Mt. Washington Wilderness, and Three Sisters Wilderness. As
discussed in section IV.E of this document with respect to Washington's
long-term strategy, Ecology focused its planning efforts on improving
visibility at Class I areas in Washington for three primary reasons:
(1) for SO2, those sources that significantly impact Class I
areas in other States have either closed or are subject to existing SIP
requirements, (2) for NOX, the vast majority of modeled
impact to out of State Class I areas is from the mobile source sector
already addressed by controls in place, and (3) Washington did not
receive any requests for reductions from neighboring States during
State-to-State consultations.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Chapter 5 Regional Haze Modeling of Washington's January
28, 2022, submission.
\23\ See Appendix R of Washington's January 28, 2022,
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington's January 28, 2022, SIP revision satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), related to the identification of
Class I areas outside of Washington that may be affected by emissions
from within the State and consultation with affected States.
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires States to determine the following for
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State'':
baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the
option for States to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I
area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
Tracking Visibility in Washington
The Washington submission addresses baseline, current and natural
visibility conditions for each of the IMPROVE stations as required by
the 2017 Regional Haze Rule and the EPA's technical guidance on
tracking visibility progress. Ecology reviewed visibility data from
2000 through 2018 and determined that current visibility at all Class I
areas for both the clearest and most impaired days had improved since
the baseline period, satisfying the Regional Haze Rule requirement of
no degradation in visibility for the clearest days since the baseline
period. In addition, all areas met the 2018 URP for the most impaired
days as shown in Table 2 of this document. Additionally, most areas,
including Olympic National Park, North Cascades National Park, Glacier
Peak Wilderness, Mount Rainier National Park, Goat Rocks Wilderness,
and Mount Adams Wilderness, have already met the projected 2028 URP for
the most impaired days based on 2014 through 2018 monitoring data.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi), Washington used
modeling performed by the WRAP to adjust the URP for certain
international anthropogenic sulfate impacts on the most impaired days.
As noted in Chapter 9.1 of Washington's submission, ``Washington's
Class 1 areas are all affected by international anthropogenic
contributions that Washington cannot control. Source apportionment
results (Chapter 6) show that sulfates from international anthropogenic
sources are expected to impact visibility more than in-State sources at
all Washington Class 1 areas. Source apportionment results also show
that nitrates from international anthropogenic sources are expected to
impact visibility more than in-State sources at most Washington Class 1
areas, with the exception of Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area and Mount
Rainier National Park.'' Washington further explained that the
methodology used by the WRAP to adjust the glidepath was consistent
with methods described in the EPA's September 2019 regional haze
modeling Technical Support Document included in the docket for this
action. The EPA reviewed the 2028 URP adjustments and 2064 glidepath
endpoints calculated by WRAP and confirmed that the values were similar
to, but slightly lower than the corresponding 2028 URP adjustments and
2064 glidepath endpoints calculated by the EPA in our 2019 regional
haze modeling Technical Support Document (Table 5-2 and Appendix E,
respectively). Lastly, Washington did not adjust the glidepath to
account for the impacts of wildland prescribed fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Chapters 9.2 through 9.9 of Washington's submission.
``Adjusted 2064'' represents adjustment calculated by the WRAP to
account for international contribution of NOX and
SO2.
Table 2--Haze Indices (Deciviews) for Washington IMPROVE Stations on Most Impaired Days \24\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
Monitor ID Class I area Baseline 2018 URP conditions 2028 URP Adjusted Natural
2000-2004 2014-2018 2064 2064
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLYM1..................................... Olympic National Park............. 14.9 13.5 11.9 12.5 8.9 6.9
NOCA1..................................... Glacier Peak Wilderness Area; 12.6 11.6 10.0 10.8 8.2 6.9
North Cascades National Park.
SNPA1..................................... Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area...... 15.4 13.7 12.7 12.5 8.2 7.3
MORA1..................................... Mount Rainier National Park....... 16.5 14.7 12.7 13.5 8.9 7.7
WHPA1..................................... Goat Rocks Wilderness Area; Mount 10.5 9.9 8.0 9.5 8.1 6.1
Adams Wilderness Area.
PASA1..................................... Pasayten Wilderness Area.......... 10.4 9.8 9.5 9.4 8.0 6.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34800]]
Table 3--Haze Indices (Deciviews) for Washington IMPROVE Stations on the Clearest Days \25\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
Monitor ID Class I area Baseline conditions 2028 WRAP Natural 2064
2000-2004 2014-2018 projection (unadjusted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLYM1.......................... Olympic National Park... 6.0 3.6 3.4 2.7
NOCA1.......................... Glacier Peak Wilderness 3.4 2.5 2.4 1.9
Area; North Cascades
National Park.
SNPA1.......................... Alpine Lakes Wilderness 5.5 3.3 3.0 2.3
Area.
MORA1.......................... Mount Rainier National 5.5 3.9 3.7 2.6
Park.
WHPA1.......................... Goat Rocks Wilderness 1.7 1.0 0.9 0.8
Area; Mount Adams
Wilderness Area.
PASA1.......................... Pasayten Wilderness Area 2.7 1.6 1.5 1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to find that Washington has submitted a
regional haze plan that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)
related to the calculations of baseline, current, and natural
visibility conditions; progress to date; and the uniform rate of
progress for the second implementation period. We are also proposing to
approve Washington's adjustment to the uniform rate of progress as
consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Chapters 9.2 through 9.9 of Washington's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
The long-term strategy ``must include the enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to
(f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
The regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements
for the four-factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails
selecting the sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures.
While States have discretion to choose any source selection methodology
that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be reasonably
explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a State's
SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it used to
determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.'' The
technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a State has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\26\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' CAA 169A(g)(1). The EPA has explained that the four-
factor analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction
measures (i.e., control options) for sources; Thus, for each source it
has selected for four-factor analysis,\27\ a State must consider a
``meaningful set'' of technically feasible control options for reducing
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at 3088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source
categories, a State may also consider additional emission reduction
measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for
sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the second
planning period.
\27\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires States to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, States have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on State policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each State.'' 82 FR
3078, January 10, 2017, at page 3088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has also explained that, in addition to the four statutory
factors, States have flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably
consider visibility benefits as an additional factor alongside the four
statutory factors.\28\ Ultimately, while States have discretion to
reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what level of control is
needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a State ``must include in
its implementation plan a description of . . . how the four factors
were taken into consideration in selecting the measure for inclusion in
its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires States to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a State's long-term strategy and in its SIP. If the outcome
of a four-factor analysis is that an emissions reduction measure is
necessary to make reasonable progress towards remedying existing or
preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment, that measure
must be included in the SIP.
1. Selection of Sources for Washington's Long-Term Strategy
In its submission, Washington conducted technical analyses to
identify sources and source categories with the largest potential to
contribute to visibility impairment at visibility monitoring sites in
Washington and other States. Washington used a ``Q/d methodology.''
Specifically, Washington's submission determined ``Q/d'' where ``Q'' is
a source's emissions and ``d'' is the distance from the source to the
nearest Class I area. Washington calculated Q/d values for major and
non-major point sources using the sum of all actual emissions of sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and particulate matter less than 10
microns in diameter (as measured in tons per year), divided by the
distance to a Class I area (measured in kilometers from the facility to
the nearest boundary of the Class I area) for all Class I areas within
400 km of the source. Ecology used Washington's 2014 point-source
emissions data to calculate Q values, noting that the WRAP used 2014 as
the base year for modeling because it was the most recent year of
certified available data when the analysis was initiated. Washington
determined that major sources contribute 90 percent of the total Q/d
[[Page 34801]]
value from all stationary sources even though they represent only 10
percent of the total number of all stationary sources. Therefore,
Washington chose a Q/d >= 10 to capture major stationary sources that
contribute over 80 percent of haze-causing emissions from stationary
sources. Using this threshold, Washington selected 16 facilities for
further analysis.
Under the Washington Clean Air Act, Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 70A.15.2230 RACT requirements, Ecology is generally required to
evaluate emissions controls on a source category basis when there are 3
or more existing sources from the same category being considered for
controls.\29\ As shown in Table 4, in Washington there were two source
categories with three or more facilities above a Q/d=10, refineries (4
facilities) and the pulp and paper sector (6 facilities at the time of
the screening determination). Other source categories did not meet the
threshold of three or more sources above Q/d=10 (electricity
generation--1 facility, alumina refining and aluminum production--2
facilities, cement manufacturing--1 facility, flat glass manufacture--1
facility).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ ``Reasonably available control technology'' (RACT) means
the lowest emission limit that a particular source or source
category is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological
and economic feasibility. RACT is determined on a case-by-case basis
for an individual source or source category taking into account the
impact of the source upon air quality, the availability of
additional controls, the emission reduction to be achieved by
additional controls, the impact of additional controls on air
quality, and the capital and operating costs of the additional
controls. RACT requirements for a source or source category shall be
adopted only after notice and opportunity for comment are afforded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with this source category approach, to ensure that all
facilities in the State for the refinery sector and pulp and paper
sector were included in the screening, Washington added two additional
sources with a Q/d <= 10 to the source selection list. One facility was
Packaging Corporation of America (Q/d = 9.4), a paperboard mill, to
remain consistent with the 6 other pulp and paper facilities screened
in with a Q/d >= 10. Ecology also added U.S. Oil (Q/d = 3.2), an oil
refinery, to remain consistent with the 4 other oil refineries screened
in with a Q/d >= 10.
Table 4--Sources Selected for Evaluation in Washington's Long-Term
Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearest Class I
Facility Q/d area Source category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TransAlta Centralia 149.8 Mount Rainier Electricity
Generation, LLC. NP. Generation.
McKinley Paper Company...... 83.1 Olympic NP..... Pulp and Paper.
Alcoa Primary Metals 80.9 Alpine Lakes Alumina
Wenatchee Works. Wilderness. Refining and
Aluminum
Production.
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco 71.7 North Cascades Alumina
Works. NP. Refining and
Aluminum
Production.
BP Cherry Point Refinery.... 36.4 North Cascades Petroleum
NP. Refineries.
Tesoro Northwest Company.... 30.7 Olympic NP..... Petroleum
Refineries.
WestRock Tacoma............. 27.9 Mount Rainier Pulp and Paper.
NP.
Nippon Dynawave Packaging 25.3 Mount Adams Pulp and Paper.
Company Longview. Wilderness.
Puget Sound Refining Company 24.5 Olympic NP..... Petroleum
(Shell). Refineries.
Pt Townsend Paper 24.2 Olympic NP..... Pulp and Paper.
Corporation.
Ash Grove Cement Co, E 23.1 Alpine Lakes Cement
Marginal. Wilderness. Manufacturing.
Cosmo Specialty Fibers, Inc. 16.7 Olympic NP..... Pulp and Paper.
WestRock Longview, LLC...... 15.6 Mount Adams Pulp and Paper.
Wilderness.
Georgia-Pacific Consumer 14.4 Mount Hood Pulp and Paper.
Operations LLC. Wilderness.
Phillips 66................. 10.9 North Cascades Petroleum
NP. Refineries.
Cardinal FG Winlock......... 10.7 Mount Rainier Flat Glass
NP. Manufacture.
Packaging Corporation of 9.4 Eagle Cap Pulp and Paper.
America (PCA) Wallowa. Wilderness.
U.S. Oil & Refining Co...... 3.2 Mount Rainier Petroleum
NP. Refineries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to selecting and evaluating point sources for four-
factor analysis, Washington also used EPA emissions inventory data from
2014 and 2017 to review emissions from other source categories such as
on-road mobile sources, nonroad vehicles, commercial marine vessels,
home heating (wood) and other non-point area sources, agriculture and
fugitive dust, prescribed fire, and agricultural fire. The submission
addresses these sectors and their potential to contribute to visibility
impairment in Chapter 4 Emissions Inventory and Chapter 8 Long-term
Strategy for Visibility Improvement of Washington's submission.
2. The EPA's Evaluation of Washington's Long-Term Strategy Controls
The regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires States to
evaluate and determine the emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by applying the four statutory
factors to sources in a control analysis. These factors are the cost of
compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts, and the remaining useful life of any
potentially affected sources. As laid out in further detail in the
following paragraphs, the EPA is proposing to find that Washington's
January 28, 2022, submission satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating sources and determining the
emission reduction measures necessary for reasonable progress. EPA also
notes that, as depicted in Table 7 of this document, 2028 projected
visibility in all Class I areas impacted by sources in Washington are
below the URP. Indeed, current visibility (as reflected in Table 2 of
this document) in all but two Class I areas in Washington is already
below the URP. Thus, Washington has presumptively demonstrated
reasonable progress for the second planning period.
Mobile Source Sector
Washington's long-term strategy emphasizes the importance of
already enacted Federal and State mobile source controls, and ongoing
vehicle fleet turnover, in reducing regional haze precursors.\30\ With
respect to nitrate contribution, on-road mobile emissions accounted for
55% of anthropogenic
[[Page 34802]]
NOX emissions from Washington in 2014. Washington adopted,
and the EPA approved into the Washington SIP, Washington Administrative
Code (WAC), Chapter 173-423 Low Emission Vehicles (86 FR 61708,
November 8, 2021). The WRAP modeling projects on-road mobile emissions
to decline significantly from 130,500 tons per year in 2014 to 34,366
tons per year in 2028 due to the mobile source controls relied upon in
Washington's long-term strategy. Since the EPA has already approved
these rules into the SIP, there is no action to take at this time other
than acknowledging Washington's inclusion of mobile source controls as
part of the long-term strategy. Washington's mobile source program
addresses visibility impairment in Class I areas within Washington
State and Class I areas in other States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Washington's January 28, 2022, submission, Chapter 8. Long-
term Strategy for Visibility Improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oil Refinery Sector
Five petroleum refineries are located in northwest Washington. The
refineries are: British Petroleum Cherry Point (BP Cherry Point), Shell
Anacortes Refinery (Shell), Marathon Anacortes Refinery (Tesoro),
Ferndale Refinery (Phillips 66), and U.S. Oil Refinery (U.S. Oil). As
indicated in Table 4 of this document, Ecology selected the facilities
for four-factor analysis based on the Q/d screening process.\31\
Ecology notified each of these facilities that Ecology selected them
for analysis under the four factors via letters dated May 31, 2019.\32\
On November 27, 2019, Ecology requested that the facilities perform
four-factor analyses of equipment at the refineries, which all the
facilities submitted by Ecology's May 1, 2020, deadline.\33\ The
results of these four-factor analyses are listed in Table 5 of this
document with the determination that additional controls are not cost
effective; or in the case of low NOX burners (LNB) at
certain units at the Shell facility the four-factor analysis explains,
``Cost calculations are preliminary, and unit-specific engineering will
be required to determine technical feasibility and cost of
implementation. Additional engineering is expected to result in
substantial additional control costs that cannot be quantified based on
currently available information about modifications needed at these
units.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Appendix G of Washington's submission.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Appendix P of Washington's submission.
\34\ Appendix P of Washington's submission, at page P-147.
\35\ Selective catalytic reduction.
\36\ Ultra low-NOX burners.
\37\ Low-NOX burner.
Table 5--Four-Factor Cost-Effectiveness Determinations for the Refinery Sector
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Cost per annual
Facility Unit Pollutant Control technology ton reduction
reduction (TPY)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Petroleum Cherry Point (BP Crude Charge Heater...... NOX...................... SCR \35\........................ $32,049 421.5
Cherry Point). South Vacuum Heater...... NOX...................... SCR............................. 60,160 32.5
Naphtha HDS Charge Heater NOX...................... SCR............................. 70,260 19.0
Naphtha HDS Stripper NOX...................... SCR............................. 43,854 24.7
Reboiler.
#1 Reformer Heaters...... NOX...................... SCR............................. 24,378 321.1
#2 Reformer.............. NOX...................... SCR............................. 29,289 63.7
Hydrocracker R-4 Heater.. NOX...................... SCR............................. 23,194 26.2
#1 H2 Plant ((North and NOX...................... ULNB \36\....................... 49,432 66.1
South Furnaces).
NOX...................... SCR............................. 78,082 141.4
NOX...................... ULNB with SCR................... 84,156 141.4
Boiler 5................. NOX...................... SCR............................. 126,958 13.0
Ferndale Refinery (Phillips 66)....... Crude Heater 1F-1........ NOX...................... SCR............................. 12,225 159.1
NOX...................... LNB \37\........................ 14,271 26.8
#2 Crude Heater 1F-1A.... NOX...................... SCR............................. 40,111 37.6
NOX...................... LNB............................. 19,636 10.9
Alkylation Heater 17F-1.. NOX...................... SCR............................. 81,410 19.1
#3 Pretreater Heater18F-1 NOX...................... SCR............................. 127,630 9.1
NOX...................... LNB............................. 35,848 3.4
#3 Reformer Heater18F-21. NOX...................... SCR............................. 32,207 37.3
NOX...................... LNB............................. 15,998 5.4
18F-22 (Included with NOX...................... SCR............................. 32,207 37.3
Above for SCR). NOX...................... LNB............................. 15,998 5.4
#3 Reformer Heater18F-23. NOX...................... SCR............................. 32,207 37.3
NOX...................... LNB............................. 15,998 5.4
18F-24 (Included with NOX...................... SCR............................. 32,207 37.3
Above for SCR). NOX...................... LNB............................. 15,998 5.4
No. 1 Boiler 22F-1C...... NOX...................... SCR............................. 224,104 8.4
No. 2 Boiler 22F-1A...... NOX...................... SCR............................. 51,067 29.1
NOX...................... LNB............................. 9,643 8.5
No. 3 Boiler 22F-1B...... NOX...................... SCR............................. 42,634 37.1
NOX...................... LNB............................. 7,572 10.8
DHT Heater 33F-1......... NOX...................... SCR............................. 312,383 3.9
S-Zorb Heater 38F- NOX...................... SCR............................. 479,473 2.5
100(CNG).
Shell Anacortes Refinery (Shell)...... 1A-F5.................... NOX...................... SCR............................. 19,906 69.8
1A-F8.................... NOX...................... SCR............................. 45,593 11.2
15F-100.................. NOX...................... SCR............................. 30,859 18.9
7C-F4.................... NOX...................... SCR............................. 25,693 35.5
11H-102.................. NOX...................... SCR............................. 53,289 16.7
10H-101.................. NOX...................... SCR............................. 12,010 58.8
NOX...................... LNB............................. 2,758 17.2
[[Page 34803]]
10H-102.................. NOX...................... SCR............................. 12,010 58.8
NOX...................... LNB............................. 2,002 22.9
10H-104.................. NOX...................... SCR............................. 16,813 18.9
NOX...................... LNB............................. 4,354 10.2
ECB1..................... NOX...................... SCR............................. 12,774 164.2
NOX...................... LNB............................. 1,166 147.3
Marathon Anacortes Refinery (Tesoro).. FCCU/COBs................ NOX...................... SCR............................. 14,381 747.4
Crude Heater 2........... NOX...................... SCR............................. 16,086 125.7
NOX...................... LNB............................. 6,470 114.8
Vacuum Flasher Heater.... NOX...................... SCR............................. 35,276 51.4
CCU Feed Heater.......... NOX...................... SCR............................. 332,721 4.7
NOX...................... LNB............................. 172,807 3.4
DHT Feed Heater.......... NOX...................... SCR............................. 84,710 16.5
NOX...................... LNB............................. 50,296 11.1
Boiler 1................. NOX...................... SCR............................. 10,060 178.9
NOX...................... LNB............................. 8,682 113.9
Boiler 2................. NOX...................... SCR............................. 10,513 171.1
NOX...................... LNB............................. 9,491 104.2
Boiler 3................. NOX...................... SCR............................. 79,240 15.8
NHT Feed Heater.......... NOX...................... SCR............................. 114,739 14.0
NOX...................... LNB............................. 58,926 9.2
CR Feed Heater........... NOX...................... SCR............................. 21,196 137.1
NOX...................... LNB............................. 14,458 104.7
NHT Column C-6600 NOX...................... SCR............................. 103,459 15.4
Reboiler. NOX...................... LNB............................. 53,802 10.1
U.S. Oil Refinery (U.S. Oil).......... B-4...................... NOX...................... SCR............................. 21,847 22.5
NOX...................... LNB............................. 6,131 11.0
B-5...................... NOX...................... SCR............................. 44,584 9.4
NOX...................... LNB............................. 16,282 3.8
H-11..................... NOX...................... SCR............................. 18,387 28.4
NOX...................... LNB............................. 11,018 9.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 28, 2022, SIP submission, Washington considered the
four-factor analyses provided by the refineries and summarized in Table
5, of this document. According to the January 28, 2022, SIP submission,
Washington did not explicitly determine that controls on oil refinery
sources are necessary for reasonable progress, however, based on the
State's consideration of the four statutory factors, and considering
visibility conditions for Class I areas impacted by Washington are
projected to be below the URP in 2028, with ``on the books'' controls,
we have determined that Washington has presumptively demonstrated
reasonable progress for the second implementation period. Thus, no
additional measures for oil refinery sources are necessary to make
reasonable progress during the second planning period.
The EPA acknowledges that in Chapter 10 Future Planning Process and
Summary of the January 2022 submission Ecology stated its intent to
supplement the regional haze SIP with the findings of its State-
initiated RACT process to determine if additional controls may be
reasonable for this sector under the State's RACT statute (Revised Code
of Washington Section 70A.15.2230). This process is not yet complete.
Nevertheless, for the purposes of Regional Haze, the January 28, 2022
submission demonstrates that Washington has met its obligations under
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Chemical Pulp and Paper Sector
Chemical pulping processes use a combination of high temperature
and alkaline (kraft) or acidic (sulfite) chemicals to break the
chemical bonds of the lignin in the preparation of pulp, paper, and
paperboard. On September 10, 2019, Ecology requested four-factor
analyses from the seven chemical pulp mills operating in Washington
State at that time.\38\ The four-factor analyses submitted by the mills
all determined that additional emission controls are not
reasonable.\39\ The results of these four-factor analyses are
summarized in Table 6 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ An eighth facility, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations
LLC, was no longer operating as a Kraft mill in 2019 and would have
to apply as a new source if it ever wanted to become a chemical pulp
mill in the future, which would result in evaluation of emission
controls requirements under the new source review permitting
program.
\39\ Appendix O of Washington's submission.
\40\ Wet Electrostatic Precipitator.
\41\ Electrostatic Precipitator Upgrade.
\42\ Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction.
Table 6--Four-Factor Cost-Effectiveness for the Pulp and Paper Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per ton
Facility Unit Pollutant Control technology reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port Townsend Paper Recovery Furnace. PM10.............. WESP \40\................ $14,461
Corporation. PM10.............. ESP upgrade \41\......... 12,571
[[Page 34804]]
Lime Kiln........ PM10.............. WESP..................... 13,367
Power Boiler #10. NOX............... SNCR \42\................ 11,794
NOX............... SCR...................... 12,648
Package Boiler... NOX............... SNCR..................... 53,398
NOX............... SCR...................... 72,954
WestRock Longview Mill........ Recovery Furnace PM10.............. WESP..................... 15,687
#19. PM10.............. ESP upgrade.............. 13,952
SO2............... Wet scrubber............. 102,975
Recovery Furnace PM10.............. WESP..................... 23,247
#22. PM10.............. ESP upgrade.............. 20,527
SO2............... Wet scrubber............. 47,596
Lime Kiln #4..... PM10.............. WESP..................... 16,960
Lime Kiln #5..... PM10.............. WESP..................... 40,845
PM10.............. ESP upgrade.............. 24,807
Power Boiler #20. NOX............... SCR...................... 15,116
Nippon Dynawave Packaging Recovery Furnace PM10.............. WESP..................... 25,383
Company. #10. PM10.............. ESP upgrade.............. 21,726
SO2............... Wet scrubber............. 207,035
Hogged Fuel PM10.............. ESP upgrade.............. 13,086
Boiler #11.
Power Boiler #6.. NOX............... SNCR..................... 14,242
NOX............... SCR...................... 17,042
NOX............... LNB...................... 12,093
Power Boiler #7.. NOX............... SNCR..................... 11,603
NOX............... SCR...................... 13,884
NOX............... LNB...................... 9,543
Power Boiler #9.. NOX............... SNCR..................... 7,068
NOX............... SCR...................... 6,819
NOX............... LNB...................... 4,081
Boiler #11....... PM10.............. WESP..................... 15,391
SO2............... Wet scrubber............. 11,884
NOX............... SNCR..................... 5,672
NOX............... SCR...................... 6,198
PCA Wallula Mill.............. #2 Recovery PM10.............. WESP..................... 276,008
Furnace. PM10.............. ESP upgrade.............. 75,751
#3 Recovery PM10.............. WESP..................... 413,630
Furnace. PM10.............. ESP upgrade.............. 118,265
SO2............... Wet scrubber............. 27,910
Lime Kiln........ PM10.............. WESP..................... 14,985
Hogged Fuel PM10.............. ESP upgrade.............. 8,962
Boiler. NOX............... SNCR..................... 8,566
NOX............... SCR...................... 8,662
#1 Power Boiler.. NOX............... SNCR..................... 14,003
NOX............... SCR...................... 13,586
NOX............... LNB...................... 8,732
#2 Power Boiler.. NOX............... SNCR..................... 11,754
NOX............... SCR...................... 11,177
NOX............... LNB...................... 7,162
WestRock Tacoma Mill.......... Recovery Furnace PM10.............. WESP..................... 7,949
#4. PM10.............. ESP upgrade.............. 6,464
Lime Kiln #1..... PM10.............. WESP..................... 7,099
Lime Kiln #2..... PM10.............. WESP..................... 17,375
Power Boiler #6.. NOX............... SNCR..................... 5,615
NOX............... SCR...................... 5,639
Power Boiler #7.. PM10.............. WESP..................... 15,543
PM10.............. ESP upgrade.............. 12,050
NOX............... SNCR..................... 7,030
NOX............... SCR...................... 7,395
GP Camas...................... #5 Power Boiler.. NOX............... SNCR..................... 13,636
NOX............... SCR...................... 12,413
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the State's consideration of the four statutory factors,
Washington determined that additional controls are not necessary for
reasonable progress on pulp and paper sources during the second
planning period.\43\ Like the refinery sector, Ecology's January 28,
2022 submission discussed the potential for additional analysis or
possible additional controls under the State RACT process. The EPA
reviewed the four factor analyses in Washington's SIP submission and
proposes to agree that no additional controls on the selected pulp and
paper facilities are necessary for reasonable progress during the
second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Washington's January 28, 2022, submission, at page 179-180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34805]]
Cardinal Glass
Cardinal FG Company Winlock (Cardinal Glass) operates a flat glass
manufacturing plant in Lewis County, Washington. Ecology originally
selected this facility for review under the regional haze program
because it had a Q/d value of 10.7 for Mount Rainier National Park,
based on 2014 emissions inventory data. On February 11, 2021, Southwest
Clean Air Agency (SWCAA), the local clean air agency with direct
jurisdiction over Cardinal Glass, issued a final permit (Permit 20-
3409) and associated Technical Support Document (TSD) establishing a
minor source best available control technology (BACT) determination for
the Glass Furnace/Annealing Lehr unit at Cardinal Glass for
NOX control.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 207_2021_Cardinal_TSD.pdf and 206b_Cardinal Glass
permit_20-3409ADP.pdf included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This BACT determination included a selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) system with ammonia injection capable of reducing NOX
emissions by a minimum of 80%, low sulfur fuel and spray dryer system
using a sodium carbonate solution for control of SO2, and an
electrostatic precipitator for control of particulate matter. In
Chapter 7.4 Facility Specific Reasonableness Analyses, Ecology
considered the cost of compliance, time necessary for compliance,
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life at Cardinal Glass and determined that installing
SCR on the Glass Furnace to achieve 80% NOX reduction is
necessary for reasonable progress. SWCAA subsequently issued and
Washington submitted as part of its January 28, 2022 SIP submission a
permit requiring Cardinal Glass to install and operate SCR on the Glass
Furnace and to meet a NOX emission limit of 101.8 lbs.
NOX/hr (24-hr avg) during normal operations, using an
emissions factor of 1.63 lbs. NOX/per ton of glass (30-day
avg).
Washington's determination of the controls necessary for reasonable
progress at Cardinal Glass is consistent with the regional haze rule.
SCR is the top-level NOX control for industrial point
sources, obviating the need for Washington to consider less effective
controls. Thus, Washington was reasonable in aligning its consideration
of SCR with SWCAA's BACT determination in the agency's 2021 TSD.
By extension, Washington was reasonable in relying upon the
expertise of the local permitting authority in determining the
feasibility of SCR and the achievable emission rate when considering
installation of SCR under the four statutory factors. We acknowledge
comments submitted during the State public comment period that SCR has
been demonstrated to achieve upwards of 90% NOX control in
certain applications.\45\ However, installation of SCR on flat glass
furnaces is relatively rare and still a relatively new application of
the control technology in the glass industry. A search of the RACT/
BACT/LAER Clearinghouse identified only a single flat glass plant in
the U.S. equipped with SCR.\46\ This plant had undergone permitting
under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in
2014, and the resulting BACT determination for NOX was the
installation of SCR at 80% control efficiency.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Appendix U of Washington's submission, at page 29.
\46\ See 207b_20250304 RBLC search glass-NOx.pdf included in the
docket for this action.
\47\ See 207c_SJVAPCD Guardian permit C-598-4-21.pdf included in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash Grove Cement
Ash Grove Cement Company (Ash Grove) operates a cement kiln in the
Duwamish Industrial area of Seattle. The primary haze causing emissions
at the plant come from the cement kiln and its associated clinker
cooler baghouses. The existing particulate controls installed at the
plant meet the regulatory requirements for dry material handling. The
plant also complies with the Portland Cement Manufacturing National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). This standard
regulates particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for metals (40 CFR
part 63 subpart LLL). This NESHAP was last updated in 2018 when the EPA
determined that there were no developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies that warrant revisions to the Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standards for this source category (83 FR
35122, July 25, 2018).
SO2 emissions at the plant come from burning sulfur
containing fuels. The alkaline cement clinker removes some
SO2 from the combustion gases, which the facility uses as a
primary method of SO2 control. While the plant is capable of
burning coal, natural gas, and tire-derived fuels, the facility has not
used coal in recent years. Ecology noted that the primary focus of the
State's analysis was NOX because current NOX
emissions at the facility are 20 times greater than SO2
emissions.\48\ Nevertheless, the State analyzed under the four
statutory factors the feasibility of installing a wet scrubber at the
facility for SO2 control, determining that installation was
not cost effective due to space constraints and the ensuing capital
costs of facility rearrangement to accommodate a wet scrubber
system.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Appendix W of Washington's submission, at page 34.
\49\ Washington's submission, at page 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to NOX emissions, Ash Grove entered into a
consent decree with the EPA, Ecology, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
(PSCAA), and other State agencies in 2013.\50\ The consent decree
required the Seattle facility to submit an optimization protocol for
the Seattle Kiln. The purpose of the protocol was to optimize the
operation of the Seattle Kiln to reduce NOX emissions to the
maximum extent practicable from that kiln. The EPA reviewed the
optimization plan in consultation with PSCAA. On June 30, 2016, the
facility submitted the NOX demonstration period report and
data related to optimization. On August 25, 2016, the EPA, in
consultation with Ecology and PSCAA, reviewed the data and approved the
limit of 5.1 pounds of NOX per ton of clinker on a 30-day
rolling average. This ultimately resulted in the construction of
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) at Ash Grove.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Appendix E of Washington's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Chapter 7.4 Facility Specific Reasonableness Analyses of
Washington's January 28, 2022, submission, Ecology evaluated the cost
of compliance, time necessary for compliance, energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful
life in assessing potential additional controls. Ecology evaluated SCR
for control of NOX. Ecology concluded SCR was not reasonable
due to space constraints requiring significant facility reconstruction
and supporting equipment, which would increase costs to an unreasonable
level.\51\ Thus, Washington determined that no additional controls are
necessary at Ash Grove to meet reasonable progress in the second
planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Washington's submission, at page 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TransAlta Centralia Generation (TransAlta)
During the first regional haze planning period, TransAlta was
subject to BART (40 CFR 51.308(e)). In 2011, Ecology issued Order #
6426 to address BART requirements for NOX which the EPA
approved in 2012.\52\ Among other requirements, this 2011 order
required the installation of an SNCR emission control device as BART
for NOX. In
[[Page 34806]]
2020, Ecology revised Order #6426 to establish a more stringent
NOX emissions limitation. The EPA approved the revised Order
#6426 on May 7, 2021 (86 FR 24502). In considering this relatively
recent update to Order #6426, Ecology determined that existing controls
at TransAlta are adequate to meet reasonable progress. The EPA agrees
with this determination. We note that emissions controls on TransAlta
Centralia Generation address visibility impacts to Class I areas in
Washington and Class I areas in other States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 77 FR 72742 (December 6, 2012). The EPA previously approved
controls for SO2 and PM as meeting BART (68 FR 34821,
June 11, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Aluminum Production
Ecology used Washington's 2014 point-source emissions data to
calculate Q values for initial Q/d source screening. Therefore, Ecology
selected both Alcoa Primary Metals Wenatchee Works (Q/d = 80.9) and
Alcoa Primary Metals Intalco Works Ferndale (Q/d = 71.7) for
consideration under the four statutory factors. Subsequently, Alcoa
curtailed the Wenatchee facility in 2015 and the Ferndale facility in
2020, with announcements that Alcoa planned permanent closure at both
facilities. In response to these curtailments and the lack of current
emissions upon which to base a four-factor analysis, Ecology negotiated
and submitted for incorporation into the SIP agreed orders for both
facilities. Subsequently, both facilities closed permanently with
Ecology terminating the operating permits.\53\ Any future sources at
these sites would need to comply with the new source review permitting
process, including a determination of BACT for major sources, and
compliance with WAC 173-400-117 Special Protection Requirements for
Federal Class I Areas, as applicable. Therefore, the EPA is not
proposing to approve or incorporate by reference the obsolete orders
now that the two facilities are permanently closed. Also, as discussed
in section V.B of this document, the EPA is proposing to remove and/or
revise regulatory text in 40 CFR 52.2470(d), 52.2498, 52.2500, and
52.2502 related to these permanently closed facilities. The permanent
closure of these facilities will improve visibility in Class I areas in
Washington as well as Class I areas in other States. Visibility impacts
in other Class I areas were in part attributable to the SO2
emissions from these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See 203_Alcoa Ferndale permit termination.pdf and
204_AlcoaWenatchee-AirOperatingPermit-TerminationLetter.pdf,
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of the EPA's Evaluation of Washington's Long-Term Strategy
Based on the foregoing, Washington's long-term strategy contains
enforceable emission limitations the State determined are necessary for
reasonable progress based on consideration of the four statutory
factors. EPA also notes that as shown in Table 7 of this document, all
Washington Class I areas have 2028 visibility projections below the
URP, and all out-of-State Class I areas impacted by Washington have
2028 projections below the URP when adjusted for international
contribution.\54\ These 2028 projections include anticipated emissions
reductions from the revised Order #6426 at the TransAlta facility,
already approved in the SIP, as well as the Cardinal Glass controls
which Ecology determined were necessary for reasonable progress during
the second implementation planning period. Washington did not include
potential reductions that may ensue from the State's RACT process for
refineries and pulp and paper facilities in the 2028 projections.
Additional emissions reductions from this effort would further improve
visibility in impacted Class I areas beyond what the State determined
was necessary for reasonable progress in the second planning period. In
sum, Washington selected a number of sources, evaluated emissions
control measures, and considered the four statutory factors. In light
of these facts, the EPA is proposing to determine that Washington met
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ ``Availability of Modeling Data and Associated Technical
Support Document for the EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality
Modeling.'' EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (September 19, 2019). See
201_updated_2028_regional_haze_modeling-tsd-2019.pdf included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Additional Long-Term Strategy Requirements
The consultation requirements of section 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provides
that States must consult with other States that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinate emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require States to
consider the emission reduction measures identified by other States as
necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures
in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what
happens if States cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress.
The documentation requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides
that States may meet their obligations to document the technical bases
on which they are relying to determine the emission reductions measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress through an RPO, as long
as the process has been ``approved by all State participants.''
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the State has submitted triennial emissions data
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period
for newly submitted data.
Ecology participated in and provided documentation of the WRAP
intra- and inter-regional planning organization consultation processes.
Ecology also had direct consultations with Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon to
discuss potential impacts on Washington Class I areas and the potential
impacts of Washington sources on Class I areas outside the State, as
documented in Appendix R of the January 28, 2022, submission. Chapter
6.8 Other Mandatory Class 1 Areas Impacted by Washington Anthropogenic
Emissions of the January 28, 2022, submission contains the list of out
of State Class I areas potentially impacted by Washington.
In reviewing the contribution modeling of these out-of-State
impacted Class I areas, Ecology found that the majority of
anthropogenic emissions originating in Washington are from mobile
sources (nitrates) and non-electric generating units (sulfates). With
respect to sulfates, Ecology noted that 64% of the modeled
SO2 emissions (7,729 tons) were from the two permanently
closed aluminum facilities in Washington (Alcoa Wenatchee and Alcoa
Intalco) described in section IV.E.b of this document. In light of the
PSAT analysis and the cessation of emissions from the aluminum
facilities, Ecology determined that measures to address visibility
impacts in Class I areas within Washington were sufficient to address
significant impacts to Class I areas outside of Washington.
In making the determination above, Washington considered measures
already approved into the SIP that will have emissions reductions
during the 2018-2028 second planning period. These measures include
Order 6426, which imposed BART requirements at the TransAlta Centralia
facility. With respect to nitrate contribution, on-road
[[Page 34807]]
mobile emissions accounted for 55% of anthropogenic NOX
emissions from Washington in 2014, with dramatic reductions projected
during the planning period.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See Washington's January 28, 2022, submission, at page 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this analysis, Ecology determined that the controls
Washington considered as necessary for reasonable progress based on
impacts to Washington Class I areas are sufficient to address impacts
in out of State Class I areas. The Washington regional haze plan also
details the State's coordination under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) by
participating in the WRAP's consultation process and direct
consultation with Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon during which no
disagreements were raised by other States with respect to Washington's
planning efforts. In our review, Washington appropriately consulted
with other States regarding emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas. We are
therefore proposing to determine that Washington met the requirements
of section 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
As previously discussed in section II.B of this document,
Washington chose to rely on WRAP technical information, modeling, and
analysis to support development of its long-term strategy. The WRAP
technical analyses on which Washington relied are listed in the State's
submission and includes source contribution assessments and evaluations
of emission reductions based on the anticipated control measures.\56\
The anticipated emissions reductions for Cardinal Glass and TransAlta
were incorporated into the 2028 projections modeled by the WRAP.\57\ As
discussed in more detail in section IV.F of this document, the 2028
projections modeled by the WRAP for ``on the books'' controls (Cardinal
Glass and TransAlta) are below the 2028 URP glidepath for all
Washington Class I areas. Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that
the emissions information considered to determine the measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress include information on emissions
for the most recent year for which the State has submitted triennial
emissions data to the EPA (National Emissions Inventory or NEI).
Chapter 4 Emissions Inventory of Ecology's January 2022 submission
contains comprehensive emissions inventory data based on the 2014 and
2017 NEI data. Additional emissions inventory data, through 2021, is
available in the docket for this action.\58\ Therefore, the EPA
proposes to approve Washington's submission as meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ January 28, 2022 Washington SIP submission, Chapter 5
Regional Haze Modeling.
\57\ January 28, 2022 Washington SIP submission, at page 43.
\58\ See 202_Washington RH Emission Trends.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five Additional Factors
In developing its long-term strategy, a State must also consider
five additional factors set forth at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv). The
factors are: (1) emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities; (3) source retirement and replacement
schedules; (4) smoke management practices for agricultural and forestry
burning; and (5) anticipated net effect on visibility over the period
of the long-term strategy. The following paragraphs address each of the
five additional factors.
In Chapter 8 Long-Term Strategy for Visibility Improvement, of
Washington's submission, Ecology addresses the five additional factors
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) in developing its long-term strategy.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), Washington detailed the
existing and ongoing State and Federal emission control programs that
contribute to emission reductions through 2028. The Washington regional
haze SIP highlights the programs for mobile sources being implemented
in Washington State.\59\ Many of these same measures, as well as other
measures for the nonroad mobile source category, also mitigate the
impacts of construction activities as required by 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B).\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ January 28, 2022, Washington SIP submission, Chapter 8.2
Washington's approach to long-term strategy.
\60\ January 28, 2022, Washington SIP submission, Chapter 8.6
Controls on visibility-impairing pollutants not in previous RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), Washington addressed source
retirements and replacement schedules in Chapter 8.6 Controls on
Visibility-Impairing Pollutants not in Previous RH SIP of Washington's
submission. The primary source retirement considered in developing the
2028 emission projections was the implementation of Order 6426 at the
TransAlta facility, submitted as part of the regional haze plan for the
first implementation period (77 FR 72742, December 6, 2012).
In considering smoke management as required in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), Washington explained that it addresses smoke
management through its SIP-approved smoke management plan.\61\ The open
burning and agricultural burning rules under WAC 173-425 and WAC 173-
430 regulate the types of open burning within the State and imposes
requirements for mitigating the impacts on air quality. Washington also
has several existing measures that help improve visibility at Class I
areas including SIP-approved residential woodstove restrictions in WAC
173-433.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 88 FR 54240, August 10, 2023.
\62\ 79 FR 26628, May 9, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington considered the anticipated net effect of projected
changes in emissions as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E) by
discussing, in Chapter 5 Regional Haze Modeling of its January 28,
2022, submission, the photochemical modeling for the 2018-2028 period
it conducted in collaboration with the WRAP. Washington has reasonably
considered each of the five additional factors under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) in its January 28, 2022, submission. Accordingly, EPA
proposes to approve Washington's submission as meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
The regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements
pertaining to RPGs for each Class I area. The regulation at 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a State in which a Class I area is located to
establish RPGs--one each for the most impaired and clearest days--
reflecting the visibility conditions that will be achieved at the end
of the implementation period as a result of the emission limitations,
compliance schedules and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2)
to be in States' long-term strategies, as well as implementation of
other CAA requirements. The long-term strategies as reflected by the
RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility on the most impaired
days relative to the baseline period and ensure no degradation on the
clearest days relative to the baseline period. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)
applies in circumstances in which a Class I area's RPG for the most
impaired days represents a slower rate of visibility improvement than
the uniform rate of progress calculated under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi).
Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the State in which a mandatory
Class I area is located establishes an RPG for the most impaired days
that provides for a slower rate of visibility improvement than the URP,
the State must demonstrate that there are no additional emission
reduction measures for anthropogenic
[[Page 34808]]
sources or groups of sources in the State that would be reasonable to
include in its long-term strategy. The regulation at 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a State contains sources that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area in another State, and the RPG for the most impaired days
in that Class I area is above the URP, the upwind State must provide
the same demonstration.
Chapter 3 Current Visibility Conditions in Washington's Class I
Areas of Washington's January 28, 2022, submission summarizes baseline
visibility conditions (i.e., visibility conditions during the baseline
period) for the most impaired and clearest days, as well as information
on natural visibility conditions and the calculated uniform rate of
progress in 2018. Chapter 9 Reasonable Progress Goals shows the 2028
calculated uniform rate of progress and the anticipated 2028
projections modeled by the WRAP to represent reasonable progress goals
for the most impaired days. Washington's submission also compares the
modeled 2028 projections to the baseline for the clearest days. The
2028 projections are based on the WRAP's modeling of the significant
anticipated reductions from Washington's mobile source regulations
under the SIP approved WAC, Chapter 173-423 Low Emission Vehicles,\63\
as well as anticipated reductions from stationary source controls for
TransAlta and Cardinal Glass.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ 86 FR 61705 (November 8, 2021). Following the EPA's SIP
approval, Washington subsequently renamed Chapter 173-423 WAC to the
``Clean Vehicles Program'' following Washington's adoption of the
zero-emission vehicle standards effective December 30, 2021 (WSR 21-
24-059).
\64\ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's April 29, 2022, permit
modification to install and operate SNCR at the Ash Grove facility
occurred after the WRAP modeling, and these emission reductions
would be in addition to the emissions reductions calculated by the
WRAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that a
State in which a mandatory Class I area is located must establish
reasonable progress goals that reflect the visibility conditions that
are projected to be achieved by the end of the applicable
implementation period as a result of those enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures required under
the long-term strategy for regional haze that can be fully implemented
by the end of the applicable implementation period.
In developing the uniform rate of progress for comparison to the
reasonable progress goals, the 2017 Regional Haze Rule includes a
provision that allows States to propose an adjustment to the glidepath
to account for impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the U.S. if
the adjustment has been developed through scientifically valid data and
methods. The EPA's visibility guidance states ``to calculate the
proposed adjustment(s), the State must add the estimated impact(s) to
the natural visibility condition and compare the baseline visibility
condition for the most impaired days to the resulting sum.'' In 2019,
the EPA conducted modeling to assist States in the development of
Regional Haze SIPs for the second implementation period. In particular,
the modeling provided the EPA's first comprehensive estimate of
international anthropogenic emissions contributions to visibility
impairment at Class I areas.\65\ Washington used similar adjusted
glidepaths calculated by the WRAP to account for impacts from
anthropogenic sources outside the United States, which used a more
conservative 2064 endpoint adjustment relative to the 2019 modeling
conducted by the EPA. The calculated 2028 projections representing ``on
the books'' controls at the time of the WRAP modeling are all below the
unadjusted 2028 uniform rate of progress glidepath for all Washington
Class I areas, except the Pasayten Wilderness Area. In the case of the
Pasayten Wilderness Area, significant wildfire events influenced the
underlying 2014 to 2018 data used in the modeling, with corresponding
impacts to future year projections.\66\ However, once adjusted for
anthropogenic sources outside the United States, the 2028 projections
calculated for the Pasayten Wilderness Area also meet the 2028 URP as
shown in Table 7 of this document. For the most impaired days, the 2028
projections represent an improvement relative to both current
visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, as stipulated
in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The 2028 projections modeled for the most
impaired days are presented in Table 7 of this document, along with
unadjusted and adjusted 2028 uniform rate of progress as calculated by
the WRAP.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Availability of Modeling Data and Associated Technical
Support Document for the EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality
Modeling, September 2019.
\66\ Washington's January 28, 2022, submission at page 60.
\67\ Chapter 9.8 Summary of Washington's January 28, 2022,
submission.
Table 7--Modeled 2028 Projections for the Most Impaired Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2028
Current Unadjusted 2028
Baseline conditions WRAP 2028 glidepath Adjusted
Monitor ID Class I area 2000-2004 2014-2018 projections 20% most URP
(dv) (dv) (dv) impaired glidepath
days (dv) (dv) \68\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLYM...................... Olympic National 14.9 11.9 11.5 11.7 12.5
Park.
NOCA...................... Glacier Peak 12.6 10.0 9.8 10.3 10.8
Wilderness Area.
and North Cascades
National Park.
SNPA...................... Alpine Lakes 15.4 12.7 12.0 12.1 12.5
Wilderness Area.
MORA...................... Mount Rainier 16.5 12.7 12.0 13.0 13.9
National Park.
WHPA...................... Goat Rocks 10.5 8.0 7.6 8.7 9.5
Wilderness Area
and Mount Adams
Wilderness Area.
PASA...................... Pasayten Wilderness 10.4 9.5 9.2 8.6 9.4
Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the clearest days, the 2028 projections represent an
improvement relative to both current visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions, required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i), as shown
in Table 8 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Adjusted by the WRAP to account for international
anthropogenic contribution, as discussed further in section IV.F of
this document.
[[Page 34809]]
Table 8--2028 WRAP Projections for the Clearest Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
Baseline conditions WRAP 2028
Monitor ID Class I area 2000-2004 2014-2018 projections
(dv) (dv) (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLYM................................... Olympic National Park........... 6.0 3.6 3.37
NOCA................................... Glacier Peak Wilderness Area.... 3.4 2.5 2.38
and North Cascades National Park
SNPA................................... Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area.... 5.5 3.3 3.0
MORA................................... Mount Rainier National Park..... 5.5 3.9 3.68
WHPA................................... Goat Rocks Wilderness Area and 1.7 1.0 0.91
Mount Adams Wilderness Area.
PASA................................... Pasayten Wilderness Area........ 2.7 1.6 1.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 8.2 Washington's Approach to Long-Term Strategy of
Washington's January 28, 2022, submission, describes the regional haze
precursor reductions anticipated from SIP-approved regulatory updates
to Chapter 173-423 WAC Low Emission Vehicles.\69\ The emissions
reductions are anticipated to reduce NOX emissions from a
2014 baseline of 130,500 tons per year to 34,366 tons per year in
2028.\70\ These reductions are the primary factor in driving the
modeled 2028 projections well below the 2028 uniform rate of progress
for most Class I areas in the State, along with the State's
implementation of Order 6426 for BART at the TransAlta facility,
submitted as part of the regional haze plan for the first
implementation period. Consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i), these
enforceable emission limitations are adopted into Washington's SIP.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve Washington's submission as meeting
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ 86 FR 61705 (November 8, 2021), renamed to the Clean
Vehicles Program with subsequent State updates effective December
30, 2021, and January 19, 2023.
\70\ January 28, 2022, SIP submission at page 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because 2028 projections based on measures ``on the books'' are
already below the glidepath for Washington Class I areas, the
demonstration requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) is not
triggered. Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B), a State that contains
sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area in another State for which a demonstration
by the other State is required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) must
demonstrate that there are no additional emission reduction measures
that would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy.
Several Class I areas in Central and Southern Oregon had 2028
reasonable progress goals at or slightly above the unadjusted
glidepath. For policy reasons, the State of Oregon chose not to adjust
the glidepath to account for impacts from anthropogenic sources outside
the United States. However, Oregon determined based on an
SO2 analysis of these Class I areas that, ``contribution
seems to be significantly from international anthropogenic sources and
is projected to decrease by 77% as new standards for international
marine shipping fuels take effect in 2020.'' \71\ Using Oregon's Q/d
screening methodology to identify sources that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment, only the Mount Hood
and Eagle Cap Wilderness are potentially affected by Washington
sources.\72\ Both of these areas have reasonable progress goals well
below the unadjusted 2028 uniform rate of progress.\73\ Therefore,
Washington does not have an obligation under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B). We also note that Washington conducted State-to-
State consultation with Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, and the WRAP States
generally, and no disagreements under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) were
identified by any other State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, at page 17.
\72\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 3.3 Impact of
facilities in other States on Oregon Class 1 areas.
\73\ April 29, 2022 Oregon SIP submission, Chapter 5.1
Reasonable progress goals for Class I Areas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of
a State's regional haze SIP must contain or provide for certain
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and
report on visibility. A main requirement of this section is for States
with Class I areas to submit monitoring strategies for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting on visibility impairment. Compliance with
this requirement may be met through participation in the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network.
Chapter 10.1 Future Planning Process of Washington's submission
describes Washington's participation and continued commitment to
support the IMPROVE monitoring network to measure, characterize and
report aerosol monitoring data for long-term reasonable progress
tracking. Ecology ``will collaborate with the EPA, FLMs, other States,
Tribes, and the IMPROVE committee to ensure adequate and representative
data collection and reporting by the IMPROVE program.'' \74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ January 28, 2022, SIP submission at page 236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for
all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State are being
achieved. Regional haze data for Washington Class I areas are shown in
Table 1 of this document. The monitoring stations are primarily
operated and maintained by the U.S. Forest Service, except for the
OLYM1, NOCA1, and MORA1 IMPROVE monitoring stations operated and
maintained by the National Park Service. As noted in Washington's
monitoring strategy chapter, Washington would rely on the IMPROVE
Steering Committee to advise if conditions changed such that additional
monitors were necessary.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide for procedures by
which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within
and outside the State. Washington relied on the WRAP source
apportionment modeling and the weighted emission potential (WEP)
analysis to help discern the degree to which different sectors affect
visibility in each Class I area. The source apportionment and WEP
analysis are
[[Page 34810]]
based on data from WRAP's Technical Support System website \75\ for the
Round 2 regional haze analysis.\76\ Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not
apply to Washington, as it has Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ http://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/.
\76\ January 28, 2022, Washington SIP submission, Chapter 5.
Regional Haze Modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to provide for the
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in the State. As noted above, the
IMPROVE monitoring stations in Washington are operated and maintained
by the U.S Forest Service and the National Park Service. The monitoring
strategy for Washington relies upon the continued availability of the
IMPROVE network.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for a Statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of
future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Washington provides for emissions inventories
and estimates for future projected emissions by participating in the
WRAP regional planning organization (RPO) and complying with EPA's Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). In 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR
requires States to submit updated emissions inventories for criteria
pollutants to EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) every three years.
The emission inventory data is used to develop the NEI, which provides
for, among other things, a triennial Statewide inventory of pollutants
that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment.
Chapter 4. Emissions Inventory of Washington's submission includes
tables of NEI data.\77\ The source categories of the emissions
inventories are point sources, nonpoint sources, non-road mobile
sources, on-road mobile sources, and fire events. Washington included
NEI emissions inventories based on 2014 data, with updates to include
2017 data when it became available. Washington observed that Statewide
2014 NOX emissions are primarily from mobile sources, at
about 55% of the inventory, with another 25% of the inventory coming
from nonroad mobile sources. The SO2 inventory largely
consists of point source emissions at 51% of the 2014 baseline
inventory. However, this contribution will decline significantly with
Alcoa's determination to permanently close both aluminum smelters in
the State. SO2 emissions from commercial marine vehicles are
also anticipated to decline significantly from 35% of the baseline
inventory to 3% of the projected 2028 inventory due to low-sulfur fuels
and port electrification efforts.\78\ For particulate matter, depending
on the year, wildfires generate the majority of PM2.5
emissions in Washington. The primary anthropogenic sources are non-
point, including fugitive dust (agriculture, construction, and roads)
and residential wood combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ January 28, 2022, submission, at pages 68-72.
\78\ January 28, 2022, submission, at page 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires States to include estimates
of future projected emissions and include a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Washington relied on the WRAP 2028 emissions
projections for WRAP States. WRAP completed two 2028 projected
emissions modeling cases--a 2028 base case and a 2028 control case that
considers implementation of the controls, including point source
reductions at TransAlta and Cardinal Glass.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ January 28, 2022 Washington SIP submission, page 165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that Washington has met the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described in the preceding paragraphs of this
document, including through its continued participation in the IMPROVE
network and the WRAP and its on-going compliance with the AERR, and
that no further elements are necessary at this time for Washington to
assess and report on visibility pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
H. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
The regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic
comprehensive revisions of States' regional haze plans also address the
progress report requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The
purpose of these requirements is to evaluate progress towards the
applicable RPGs for each Class I area within the State and each Class I
area outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within
that State. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all States and require
a description of the status of implementation of all measures included
in a State's first implementation period regional haze plan and a
summary of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of
those measures. The regulation at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) applies only to
States with Class I areas within their borders and requires such States
to assess current visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative
to baseline (2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in
visibility conditions relative to the period addressed in the first
implementation period progress report. The regulation at 40 CFR
51.308(g)(4) applies to all States and requires an analysis tracking
changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment from all sources and sectors since the period addressed by
the first implementation period progress report. This provision further
specifies the year or years through which the analysis must extend
depending on the type of source and the platform through which its
emission information is reported. Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which
also applies to all States, requires an assessment of any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State have
occurred since the period addressed by the first implementation period
progress report, including whether such changes were anticipated and
whether they have limited or impeded expected progress towards reducing
emissions and improving visibility.
Washington's submission outlines the progress report requirements
under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and identifies the chapters where the relevant
information is addressed.\80\ Washington's 2017 5-year progress report
describes the Best Available Retrofit Technology controls already
imposed and implemented at BP Cherry Point Refinery, Intalco
(Ferndale), Tesoro, Alcoa Wenatchee Works, Lafarge Cement, Weyerhaeuser
Corporation (Longview), TransAlta, and Port Townsend Paper.\81\ None of
these controls changed since the 2017 progress report except the
installation of a neural network and a more stringent NOX
emissions limit at the TransAlta facility.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ January 28, 2022, submission, Chapter 1.3 Progress Report
Requirements.
\81\ 83 FR 36752 (July 31, 2018).
\82\ January 28, 2022, submission, pages 172 and 173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 4.3 Emissions Inventory Comparison of Washington's January
28, 2022, submission shows the most recent 2017 NEI data for sources
subject to control in the first implementation period and describes the
emissions decline anticipated from implementation of BART controls at
the TransAlta facility. The EPA proposes to find that Washington has
met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because the
submission, in
[[Page 34811]]
conjunction with the 2017 progress report, describes the measures
included in the long-term strategy from the first implementation
period, as well as the status of their implementation and the emission
reductions achieved through such implementation.
Washington's submission included summaries of the visibility
conditions and the trend of the 5-year averages through 2018 at Class I
areas in the State.\83\ As shown in Tables 2 and 3 of this document,
the submission included the 5-year baseline (2000-2004) visibility
conditions for the clearest and most impaired days. The submission also
included the current 5-year status (2014-2018) for the clearest and
most impaired days. The submission also illustrated in Chapter 3.1
Overview of Visibility Conditions in Washington the visibility metrics
levels at each Class I area, including the 5-year rolling average for
the clearest and most impaired days. The EPA therefore proposes to find
that Washington has satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ January 28, 2022, submission, Chapter 3. Current Visibility
Conditions in Washington's Class 1 Areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), Washington included a detailed
analysis of NOX, SO2, PM10,
PM2.5, VOCs, and NH3 emissions for 2014 and 2017
in the January 28, 2022, submission.\84\ Additionally, the RH Emission
Trends spreadsheet, included in the docket for this action, provides a
summary of emissions of NOX, SO2,
PM10, PM2.5, VOCs, and NH3 from all
sources and activities, including from point, nonpoint, non-road
mobile, and on-road mobile sources, for the time period from 2002 to
2021.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ January 28, 2022, submission, at pages 68-72.
\85\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reductions achieved by Washington's emission control measures
are seen in the emissions inventory. Based on Washington's submission,
and the supplemental information in the Washington RH Emission Trends
spreadsheet, NOX emissions have continuously declined in
Washington from 2002 through 2021, especially in the point, nonroad and
onroad mobile sectors. NOX emissions are expected to
continue to decrease as fleet turnover occurs and the older more
polluting vehicles and equipment are replaced by newer, cleaner ones.
During that period, onroad sources contributed 65% of the emissions,
followed by nonroad sources contributing 21%, and NEI point and
nonpoint sources contributing 13%.
Emissions of SO2 have shown a significant decline in
Washington over the period 2002 to 2021, particularly in the point, and
onroad and nonroad mobile sectors. NEI point and nonpoint emissions
have declined 83%. Onroad SO2 mobile source emissions have
declined 95% and nonroad sources have declined 97%. These reductions
are primarily from electric utility and industrial fuel combustion, as
well as low sulfur fuel regulations.
PM10 emissions declined 25% for the period from 2002 to
2021, with onroad mobile source emissions declining 52% and nonroad
sources declining 59%. Overall PM2.5 emissions declined with
the removal of wildfire emissions, with onroad mobile source emissions
declining 74% and nonroad sources declining 59% due to Federal engine
standards.
Overall VOC emissions declined, with onroad mobile source emissions
declining 75% and nonroad sources declining 62% due to Federal engine
standards. Ammonia (NH3) emissions increased from 2002 to
2021; however, this might be due to changes in the emissions inventory
reporting with the ``miscellaneous'' category experiencing significant
growth.
The EPA is proposing to find that Washington has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) by providing emissions information
for NOX, SO2, PM10, PM2.5,
VOCs, and NH3 broken down by type of source. The emissions
data in the submission \86\ and the supplemental trend information \87\
support the assessment that anthropogenic haze-causing pollutant
emissions in Washington have decreased during the reporting period and
that changes in emissions have not limited or impeded progress in
reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. The EPA is
proposing to find that Washington has met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ January 28, 2022, submission, Chapter 4. Emissions
Inventory.
\87\ Washington RH Emission Trends.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Section 169A(d) of the Clean Air Act requires States to consult
with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed regional haze
SIP, and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and
recommendations in the notice to the public. In addition, 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2)'s FLM consultation provision requires a State to provide
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the
State's policy analyses of its emission reduction obligation so that
information and recommendations provided by the FLMs' can meaningfully
inform the State's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the
consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing
or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be
deemed early enough, Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must
be provided at least sixty days before a public hearing or public
comment period at the State level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides
two substantive topics on which FLMs must be provided an opportunity to
discuss with States: assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I
area and recommendations on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3)
requires States, in developing their implementation plans, to include a
description of how they addressed FLMs' comments.
Chapter 1.4 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Development and
Appendix A of Ecology's January 28, 2022, submission discusses
Washington's consultation and coordination with Federal Land Managers.
The Federal Land Managers and Ecology are partners in the WRAP, and as
partners, engaged early in inter-State coordination calls and WRAP
technical support system development calls. Ecology provided a draft of
the regional haze plan to the U.S. Forest Service and National Park
Service on September 22, 2020. Additionally, Ecology met or held
conference calls with the National Park Service on June 9, 2017, August
8, 2017, March 14, 2018, July 16, 2020, and October 6, 2020. The U.S.
Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service participated in
many of these meetings and consultations, as well. Ecology received
comments from the National Parks service in several communications
between November 19, 2020 and June 29, 2021. Ecology summarized the
dates and topics of the National Parks Service comments received in
Appendix A of the January 28, 2022, submission along with Ecology's
responses.
Washington took the administrative steps to provide the Federal
Land Managers an opportunity to review and provide feedback on the
State's draft plan for the January 2022 submission. Therefore, we are
proposing to find that the submission meets the consultation
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).
[[Page 34812]]
V. Proposed Action
A. Proposed Approval of the Regional Haze Plan for the Second
Implementation Period
For the reasons set forth in this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to
approve Washington's January 28, 2022, SIP submittal as satisfying the
regional haze requirements for the second planning period contained in
40 CFR 51.308(f).
B. Proposed Revision to Incorporation by Reference and Federal
Implementation Plan
On June 11, 2014 (79 FR 33438), as part of the regional haze SIP
for the first planning period, the EPA approved Administrative Order
No. 7837, Revision 1, for the Alcoa Intalco Works facility located in
Ferndale, Washington. In the same action the EPA promulgated Federal
implementation plan (FIP) requirements under 40 CFR 52.2500 Best
available retrofit technology requirements for the Intalco Aluminum
Corporation (Intalco Works) primary aluminum plant--Better than BART
Alternative and 40 CFR 52.2502 Best available retrofit technology
requirements for the Alcoa Inc.--Wenatchee Works primary aluminum
smelter. Section IV of this document explains that the two Alcoa
aluminum smelters in Washington both permanently closed with
termination of the operating permits. Therefore, we are proposing to
remove from the incorporation by reference in 40 CFR 52.2470(d),
Administrative Order No. 7837, Revision 1, for the Alcoa Intalco Works
in Ferndale. We are also proposing to remove the FIP requirements for
both closed facilities in 40 CFR 52.2500 and 52.2502, along with
revising cross references to these provisions in 40 CFR 52.2498(c).
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
both incorporate by reference the source-specific provisions described
in section IV. of this document and to remove obsolete source-specific
provisions described in section V. of 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 document for more information).
VII. 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 Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not 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.
In addition, this action 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 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). Nevertheless, we provided an opportunity for consultation to all
Tribes in Washington in letters dated June 27, 2022, included in the
docket for this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
Dated: July 11, 2025.
Emma Pokon,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2025-13957 Filed 7-23-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P