Air Plan Approval; OR; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, wherever “we” or “our” is used, it means the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. EPA Responses to Comments Received

A. National Park Service Comments

1. Federal Land Manager Consultation

2. Use of the Four Statutory Factors in Determining Reasonable Progress

3. Use of Permitted Emissions Limits To Align Allowable Emissions With Actual Emissions

4. Use of a Stipulated Agreement and Final Order (SAFO) Versus a Unilateral Order

5. Compliance Deadlines

6. Standards for Emissions Unit Replacement

7. Wauna Facility—Biomass Fired Fluidized Bed Boiler

8. Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC—Final Control Determination

9. Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC—Emission Limit

10. Georgia-Pacific—Toledo LLC—Emissions Unit Replacement

11. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers—SCR

12. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers—LNB

13. Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey Pulp Mill Power Boilers—Compliance Deadline and Emission Limit

14. International Paper—Springfield—Emission Limit

15. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.

B. Environmental Organizations' Comments

1. Stationary Source Contribution

2. Oregon's Regional Haze Rule Is Inconsistent With the CAA

3. Oregon's Use of PSEL Reductions as a Source Selection Method

4. Oregon's “Alternative Compliance” Pathways

5. Documentation of Oregon's Four-Factor Analysis Process

6. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.

7. Reasonable Progress Goals

8. Robust Demonstration Requirements

9. Environmental Justice

III. Final Action

IV. Incorporation by Reference

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

On February 23, 2024, the EPA proposed to approve the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by Oregon on April 29, 2022, as supplemented on November 22, 2023, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the program's second implementation period (89 FR 13622).

The public comment period for our proposed action was originally scheduled to close on March 25, 2024. However, on February 28, 2024, we received a request to extend the public comment period an additional 30 days. On March 14, 2024, we published a document in the Federal Register extending the public comment period end date from March 25, 2024, to April 24, 2024 (89 FR 18866).

We received four comments. We determined that two comments were not germane to our action, for the following reasons. One commenter expressed opposition to the cultivation of cannabis, asserting general air pollution concerns. The commenter did not provide any tangible connection to the regional haze requirements or the Oregon submission. The EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns; however, the comment is outside the scope of this action and does not indicate that the EPA's approval of the SIP submission is inconsistent with the CAA. Oversight of cannabis farms is unrelated to this regional haze action.

A second commenter cited some details from the Oregon regional haze plan, asserting a connection to transmission of the coronavirus. However, the commenter provided no logical basis for this assertion. The EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns; however, the comment is outside the scope of this action and does not indicate that the EPA's approval of the SIP submission is inconsistent with the CAA. Potential connections between air pollution and respiratory viruses on public health is unrelated to this regional haze action.

We also received two germane comments. One was submitted by the National Park Service (NPS). The second was submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of a coalition of environmental organizations consisting of Cully Air Action Team, National Parks Conservation Association, Neighbors for Clean Air, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Oregon Environmental Council, Sierra Club, and Verde (Environmental Organizations). The full text of the comments may be found in the docket for this action. We have summarized the comments and provided our responses in section II. of this preamble. Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.

II. EPA Responses to Comments Received

A. National Park Service Comments

1. Federal Land Manager Consultation

Comment: “[W]e would like to make the EPA aware that the Oregon SIP process did not meet the requirements for Federal Land Manager (FLM) consultation . . . The NPS participated in early, informal engagement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) regarding SIP development beginning in January of 2020. This productive collaboration included a meeting, subsequent written documentation, and staff-to-staff technical feedback on individual facility four-factor analyses as documented in the Oregon SIP. The NPS appreciates the extensive efforts that Oregon invested in early communication. However, many of the draft conclusions and determinations presented to the NPS during early engagement were not incorporated into the draft SIP released for public review in late August 2021. In fact, the public comment draft included substantial changes to the facility-specific control determinations in comparison with what the NPS had reviewed previously.”

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that Oregon did not meet the requirements for Federal Land Manager (FLM) consultation in 40 CFR 51.308(i). As described below, ODEQ met all of the FLM consultation statutory and regulatory requirements.

Chapter 6.3 Consultations with Federal Land Managers of the April 29, 2022, SIP revision contained documentation of the extensive outreach with the NPS. This included providing a May 5, 2021, draft of the regional haze plan explicitly for the purpose of FLM consultation (May 2021 FLM draft). A key element of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) is that consultation occur early enough in a state's policy analyses of its long-term strategy so that information and recommendations provided by the FLMs can meaningfully inform a state's decisions on the long-term strategy. Chapters 6.3.3 Federal Land Manager Review of Draft State Implementation Plan and 6.3.4 Federal Land Manager Comments and DEQ Responses contained Oregon's responses to all comments received as part of the May 2021 FLM draft review process and prior consultation outreach. The NPS's characterization of this effort as “informal consultation” is not consistent with the EPA's regulations. The requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) contain no bifurcation of “informal” versus “formal” consultation. Consistent with the preamble of the EPA's 2017 Regional Haze Rule, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) made a good faith effort to involve the NPS early in development of the long-term strategy. The RHR preamble specifically states that consultation should be used to inform “decisions that are about to be made by the state on its long-term strategy . . .” (emphasis added). ODEQ used the comments and feedback from the May 2021 FLM consultation draft to inform the final control determinations contained in the draft provided for public notice and comment period starting on August 27, 2021 (August 2021 public comment draft). The interpretation that all control determinations must be finalized before initiating FLM consultation is not supported by the text of 40 CFR 51.308(i), nor is it in keeping with the intent of 40 CFR 51.308(i) to foster early engagement.

In addition to the May 2021 FLM consultation draft process, ODEQ provided opportunity for review and comment on the August 2021 public draft. In response to public interest, ODEQ extended the public comment period for an additional 30 days, going from August 27, 2021, to November 1, 2021, so that all parties had adequate time to review the technical determinations. The NPS used this opportunity to provide additional comments which are included in Chapter 6.6 Public Comments and Responses of the April 29, 2022, SIP revision, along with ODEQ's responses to the comments.

Also, in response to NPS and Environmental Organizations' concerns, ODEQ supplemented the regional haze SIP on November 22, 2023, with appendices 1 through 6 (2023 supplement). These appendices contained additional correspondence used by ODEQ in making control determinations under the statutory four factors for Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC—Elgin Complex, Boise Cascade Wood Products, LLC—Medford, Georgia Pacific—Wauna Mill, Georgia Pacific—Toledo LLC, Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC—Halsey Pulp Mill, and International Paper Company—Springfield Mill. As acknowledged by the NPS, ODEQ conducted FLM consultation on the 2023 supplement and included NPS comments in Section 6: Response to Federal Land Manager Review Comments.

For the reasons stated above, it is our determination that ODEQ adequately conducted FLM consultation and has thus fulfilled the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).

2. Use of the Four Statutory Factors in Determining Reasonable Progress

Comment: “The NPS recommends that states, including Oregon, base reasonable progress control determinations on the four statutory factors identified in § 7491(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The NPS suggests that it may not be sufficient to consider the factors and then select a less protective control measure (or permit reduction) that is unrelated to the four-factor analysis. We recommend that determinations not clearly based on the four factors should demonstrate how the alternative measure is reasonable and/or equivalent to the outcome of the four-factor analysis.”

Response: The EPA agrees with the NPS that reasonable progress control determinations must be grounded in the state's consideration of the four statutory factors identified in CAA section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). In section IV.E.b of our proposed rulemaking, The EPA's Evaluation of the Oregon Long-Term Strategy, we explained how the Oregon process was grounded in the four-factor analysis (FFA) process. However, the NPS's characterization that ODEQ's January 2021 “Preliminary Determination of Cost Effective Controls for Regional Haze” letters constituted final four-factor determinations, and all subsequent correspondence and action was outside the four-factor framework is an inaccurate characterization of the Oregon process. The EPA will reiterate key aspects from our proposed rulemaking as well as details from Chapter 3.4 Four Factor Analysis of Oregon's April 29, 2022, regional haze plan.

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Division 223 Regional Haze Rules dictated the regulatory processes for determining the controls necessary for reasonable progress. OAR 340-223-0110(1) required all affected facilities to submit four-factor analyses. The required contents of the four-factor analyses were specified in OAR 340-223-0120, which mirrored the four statutory factors of CAA section 169A(g)(1). Of the 17 facilities that submitted four-factor analyses in accordance with this rule, nearly all affected facilities submitted detailed demonstrations developed by independent consulting firms and/or certified professional engineers asserting that no feasible or cost-effective controls were available in applying the four-factors. Only 2 facilities, Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. and Gilchrist Forest Products found cost effective controls under the four factors.

Rather than simply relying on these submissions to satisfy 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), Oregon engaged with the affected facilities to identify feasible control options. Specifically, ODEQ issued “Preliminary Determination of Cost Effective Controls for Regional Haze” letters proposing more stringent controls unless facilities could further demonstrate that the measures were truly not cost effective or technically feasible. This initiated the process between January 2021 and August 2021 when ODEQ assessed and determined final control determinations under the four factors, primarily based on the technical feasibility and cost correspondence documented in appendices 1-6.

Thus, these preliminary letters did not replace the four factor analyses submitted by the affected facilities. Nor were the preliminary letters final determinations on what controls are feasible and necessary for reasonable progress under OAR 340-223-120(4) or 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Rather, these preliminary determinations letters were a result of ODEQ's initial adjustment of the four-factor analyses submitted by the affected facilities based on additional information and to aid in a consistent review across all four-factor analyses. Consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and OAR 340-223-120(4), ODEQ determined the controls necessary for reasonable progress after issuing the preliminary determinations and collecting and analyzing additional information from the facilities regarding the four statutory factors. As ODEQ explained in its response to comments on the initial SIP submission, in some cases ODEQ agreed with facilities that controls it preliminarily proposed were not technically feasible or cost effective. Ultimately, Oregon's submission demonstrates that it determined the controls necessary for reasonable progress based on its consideration of the four statutory factors and thus met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).

Table 1 of this preamble provides a comparison of the controls evaluated in the four factor analyses submitted by the sources and the controls Oregon ultimately included in its long-term strategy. The exact facility-by-facility determinations are described in more detail in the Proposal and in subsequent responses to facility-specific comments in section II of this preamble.