State of Oregon
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Relationship to Federal Requirements
Adoption of Federal Air Quality Regulations
Answers to the following questions identify how the proposed rulemaking relates to federal requirements and potential justification for differing from, or adding to, federal requirements. This statement is required by OAR 340-011-0029(1).
1. Is the proposed rulemaking different from, or in addition to, applicable federal requirements? If so, what are the differences or additions?
Yes. This rulemaking involves the adoption of federal air quality regulations. For the most part, this rulemaking proposes to adopt these regulations by reference. However, this rulemaking also proposes to go beyond federal regulations for gasoline dispensing facilities, large municipal waste combustors, and coal-fired power plants, as follows:
• In December 2007, EPA promulgated regulations for gasoline dispensing facilities. These regulations, called the Gasoline Dispensing NESHAP, only require emission controls at the largest facilities. To further reduce benzene exposures in Oregon, this rulemaking proposes to go beyond the Gasoline Dispensing NESHAP by phasing-in emission controls at smaller facilities. This would be accomplished by reducing the federal volume trigger for stage I vapor controls from 100,000 gallons per month to 10,000 gallons per month, requiring that new tanks be equipped with stage I vapor controls, and requiring that any gasoline dispensing facility with stage I vapor controls use those vapor controls. Stage I vapor controls capture gasoline vapors that are normally emitted during the filling of gasoline storage tanks.
• EPA adopted amendments to the Emission Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors. The amendments tightened the emissions standards contained in the Emission Guidelines to reflect the actual performance levels being achieved by existing municipal waste combustors. Oregon has one municipal waste combustor, owned and operated by Covanta, and located in Brooks. Covanta is outperforming the newly tightened Emission Guidelines by a wide margin for dioxins/furans, cadmium, and lead. This rulemaking proposes to adopt standards that go beyond the federal Emission Guidelines for these pollutants.
• On December 15, 2006, the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) adopted the Utility Mercury Rule (UMR). UMR implements the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), a mercury cap-and-trade program, applicable to coal-fired power plants. UMR goes beyond CAMR by requiring coal-fired power plants to control mercury emissions by 90% by 2012; ending the trading of mercury credits starting in 2018, and capping statewide mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants also starting in 2018. On February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated CAMR. In response, this rulemaking proposes to remove the trading portions of the UMR but to retain the 90% control requirement and the State cap on mercury emissions.
2. If the proposal differs from, or is in addition to, applicable federal requirements, explain the reasons for the difference or addition (including as appropriate, the public health, environmental, scientific, economic, technological, administrative or other reasons).
Benzene, which naturally occurs in crude oil and is increased through refining to boost gasoline's octane rating, is a known carcinogen. Because benzene concentrations in many Oregon communities are above levels protective of human health, reducing benzene is a priority for DEQ. While several federal regulations and state initiatives promise to reduce benzene in our air over the next twenty years, DEQ is pursuing faster reductions.
In December 2007, EPA promulgated regulations for gasoline dispensing facilities. These regulations, called the Gasoline Dispensing NESHAP, only require emission controls at the largest facilities. To further reduce benzene exposures in Oregon, this rulemaking proposes to go beyond the Gasoline Dispensing NESHAP by phasing-in emission controls at smaller facilities.
Stage I vapor controls are currently required in Portland, Medford and Salem to control ozone. Outside of these areas stage I vapor controls are employed by some gasoline dispensing facilities but not all. Controlling gasoline vapors reduces benzene exposures at and near gasoline dispensing facilities and also contributes to continuing compliance with stricter ozone standards.
This rulemaking would reduce benzene emissions in Oregon by an estimated 17 tons per year and VOC emissions by an estimated 989 tons per year. (it would be helpful to also indicate the 17 and 989 tons and the gallons saved as a percentage- so the reader could better sense the improvement?) It would also save an estimated 320,000 gallons of gasoline per year statewide.
On May 10, 2006, EPA adopted amendments to the Emission Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors. The amendments tightened the emissions standards contained in the Emission Guidelines to reflect the actual performance levels being achieved by existing municipal waste combustors. Oregon has one municipal waste combustor, owned and operated by Covanta, and located in Brooks. (Most readers, including myself, probably have no ideal what waste combustion means. Maybe a sentence somewhere indicating the primary waste that the company incinerates?) Covanta is outperforming the newly tightened Emission Guidelines by a wide margin for dioxins/furans, cadmium, and lead. This rulemaking proposes to adopt standards that go beyond the federal Emission Guidelines for these pollutants. Covanta is currently meeting the proposed limits and would not need to install new controls to meet them.
Several water bodies in Oregon currently have fish consumption advisories issued by Oregon Department of Health Services (DHS) warning anglers to limit their intake of native fish species because of increased mercury concentrations in fish tissue. To ensure that mercury reductions are made in Oregon and to minimize the impacts of individual coal-fired power plants, this rulemaking proposes to remove the federal trading program provisions, that were recently vacated by the courts, but to maintain the mandatory control requirement and cap on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
3. If the proposal differs from, or is in addition to, applicable federal requirements, did the Department consider alternatives to the difference or addition? If so, describe the alternatives and the reason(s) they were not pursued.
Yes. For gasoline dispensing facilities, the Department considered requiring stage I vapor controls statewide within three years. However, this alternative would have an adverse impact on smaller facility owners, which are mostly small businesses. Instead, the Department proposes to phase in stage I vapor controls starting with facilities with throughput of greater than 10,000 gallons per month over a three year period and facilities that have already installed stage I vapor controls. Facilities with a throughput of less than 10,000 gallons per month would be required to install stage I vapor controls when they replace their tanks.
What about alternatives considered regarding emission guidelines for Covanta’s dioxins/furans, cadmium, and lead emissions? Did DEQ consider any other alternativeways of addressing these pollutants?
2007-06-22T16:24:00
[Info1]
Lisa L. Jones
In order to clearly identify the relationship between proposed rules and applicable federal requirements and facilitate consideration and rule adoption by the EQC, the Department, with assistance of advisory committees where appropriate, shall:
1. Consider and develop a response to the questions the questions set
forth below during the rule development process.
2. Include the questions and responses as an attachment in the
information package distributed to to the public prior to the
rulemaking hearing.
3. Include the questions and responses as an attachment in the final
staff report presented to the EQC when rule adoption is recommended.
This form uses a Macro <Alt><Z> to move to each successive location for entry of text. Hidden text will provde information to help in completing the form.