Proposed Title

Grants Pass and Klamath Falls PM10 Maintenance Plans and Redesignation Requests

Proposed EQC Action

The Department recommends the Commission adopt:

1. The proposed Grants Pass PM₁₀ Maintenance Plan and request redesignation of Grants Pass Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to “attainment” by EPA;

2. The proposed Klamath Falls PM₁₀ Maintenance Plan and request redesignation of Klamath Falls UGB to “attainment” by EPA; and

amend the following proposed rules:

1.  OAR 340-200;

2.  OAR 340-204;

3.  OAR 340-222;

4.  OAR 340-224; and

5.  OAR 340-225.

Reason for Bringing Topic to EQC

Grants Pass and Klamath Falls Urban Growth Boundary Areas have a ten-year history of meeting the PM₁₀ standards. The proposed maintenance plans recognize the progress made by the citizens of these communities and allows for flexibility in industrial growth and ensures continuing compliance with the standards. Both communities have requested DEQ complete the maintenance planning process and request EPA redesignate their communities as “attainment” as quickly as possible.

Summary and Key Issues

The proposed rulemaking action would adopt plans (and associated rule amendments) for Grants Pass and Klamath Falls and their UGB areas that are designed to maintain compliance with the federal public health standards for particulate matter 10 microns and smaller (PM₁₀). This rulemaking action includes a request to EPA to change the federal designations of Grants Pass and Klamath Falls as in compliance with the PM₁₀ standards.

State Representative Bill Garrard and Todd Kellstrom, Mayor of Klamath Falls, requested a timeshedule for completion of the Klamath Falls PM10 Plan and submittal of the redesignation request. Both were concerned about limitations on economic development in the Klamath Falls area. In response to both requests, the Department sent a letter to Representative Garrard and copied Mayor Kellstrom stating the Department would complete the Emission Inventory by October 2001 and attempt to submit the plans to EPA including the redesignation request by July 1, 2002.

The Department asked both advisory committees if an additional 10 percent vehicle emission increase was appropriate to add to the transportation portion of the emissions budget. This would allow for unanticipated transportation projects that may be proposed in the future. In both cities, the advisory committees recommended that the 10 percent increase be included.

The Department asked both committees what limit or cap should be placed on ambient PM₁₀ concentrations modeled by industrial sources to protect the PM₁₀ health standards. In Grants Pass, the advisory committee decided to limit emissions to 80% of the standards. In Klamath Falls, the advisory committee did not have as significant a margin between the predicted 2015 concentration and the standards as Grants Pass and decided to limit emissions to 93% of the standards.

Public Comment

[Summarize public comment.]

Potential impact on small businesses and individuals

The impacts to individuals and small businesses for the most part have not changed.

•  The maintenance plans generally do not propose new requirements, but continue existing requirements and voluntary programs that limit PM₁₀ emissions from household and small business activities such as woodheating and open burning. These plans include recent updates of local requirements to more effectively protect the air quality.

•  The proposed rules do not change requirements for industrial sources that emit less than 15 tons of PM₁₀ per year. Small sources requiring an air quality permit are not required to offset their emissions under current rules or the proposed rules.

The proposed rules provide flexibility for larger sources emitting 15 tons or more of PM₁₀ emissions per year. As previously discussed, rules for nonattainment areas require offsets for new emissions. No offsets are required under the proposed rules for newly designated maintenance areas if sources show their emission will not exceed the applicable cap. In addition, the proposed rules allow sources to consider costs in determining appropriate control technologies. For comparison, a rock crushing plant or an asphalt plant might be considered a small business, and typically emits less than five tons a year of PM₁₀. A moderate-sized wood products plant might emit 30 tons of PM₁₀ in a year.

Alternatives for Addressing Issues

Several alternatives exist for addressing issues and most were ruled out as desirable. The following are alternatives considered:

1.  Adoption of the maintenance plans for both Klamath Falls and Grants Pass and amending the industrial source rules. This option is the Department preferred option. It provides flexibility in the industrial rules for the two communities when new industrial sources are sited. It provides flexibility for transportation planners to meet requirements for air quality. It continues the local and state strategies that improved the air quality for the next 10-year period. There will be relative assurance that these communities will remain in compliance with the federal health standards for at least ten years into the future. DEQ will request redesignation of these communities to attainment to remove the stigma of nonattainment from these communities.

2.  Adoption of one or more elements of the rulemaking. Partial adoption of the rulemaking package may result in EPA failing to approve an effective program to maintain compliance with the federal health standards for at least 10 years into the future. If one of the maintenance plans is not approved, that community will remain in nonattainment status with stringent industrial and transportation project-related rules continuing to apply. If the industrial source rules are not modified, there will be no “maintenance area” limits placed on industrial sources locating in maintenance areas and only the standard new source review requirements will be implemented.

3.  Adoption of a modified version of the plans or rules. Various scenerios for modification of the plans or rules can exist and the impact of the modifications will depend upon the modification.

4.  No adoption of the package. These communities will remain in “nonattainment” area status and current restrictions and rules will apply.

Schedule for Future Action

1.  The PM₁₀ Maintenance Plans for both Grants Pass and Klamath Falls will be submitted to EPA for approval pending EQC action. Anticipated submittal to EPA will be on October 1, 2002. EPA has 18 months to approve the plans

2.  Industrial rules included in this rulemaking will be submitted to the Secretary of State on October 1, 2002 and are anticipated to be published January 1, 2003. The rules will not be effective until EPA approves the plans and redesignates Grants Pass as well as Klamath Falls.

3.  Upon approval by EPA, the local governments, Oregon Department of Transportation and DEQ will implement the rules by continuing the existing strategies to reduce PM10 emissions, and evaluate future transportation projects and new sources of industrial emissions.

The rule implementation plan is available upon request.

Lead Manager

Annette Liebe

Lead Staff

Larry Calkins