Overview
Title
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for Whatcom County, WA 2010 SO2 Nonattainment Area
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA said yes to Washington's request to fix air pollution by changing a part of Whatcom County to be healthy again after a dirty factory closed, and they'll keep checking the air to make sure it stays clean.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has officially approved the State of Washington's request to redesignate a part of Whatcom County from a "nonattainment" area to an "attainment" area for sulfur dioxide (SO₂) air quality standards. This redesignation follows the closure of the Intalco Aluminum LLC smelter, which previously caused high SO₂ levels. Alongside the redesignation, EPA has approved Washington's maintenance plan to ensure the area continues to meet air quality standards, which includes monitoring strategies for future potential pollution sources. This decision was finalized on December 11, 2024, and becomes effective on January 16, 2025.
Abstract
On July 25, 2024, the State of Washington (WA) submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate to attainment a portion of Whatcom County immediately surrounding the now permanently closed aluminum smelter, Intalco Aluminum LLC, which the EPA designated nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Washington also submitted a request for the EPA to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the area. The EPA is taking the following final actions: we have determined that the Whatcom County (partial) SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area (Whatcom County area or area) is attaining the 2010 1-hour primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS; we are approving Washington's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2010 1- hour primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the area; and we are redesignating the Whatcom County area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour primary SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register announces the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to redesignate a section of Whatcom County in Washington from a "nonattainment" area to an "attainment" area under sulfur dioxide (SO₂) air quality standards. This change follows the permanent closure of the Intalco Aluminum LLC smelter, previously identified as the main source of SO₂ pollution in the area. As part of this action, the EPA has also approved Washington State’s plan to maintain air quality standards moving forward, which includes provisions for monitoring air quality to safeguard against future pollution.
General Summary
This action by the EPA signifies a positive shift in air quality for Whatcom County, as it now meets the national standards for sulfur dioxide levels, a significant pollutant. The decision comes after the cessation of operations at the Intalco smelter, which was once a significant emitter of SO₂. The State of Washington has developed a comprehensive plan to ensure continued compliance with air quality standards, accounting for future emissions and incorporating robust monitoring frameworks.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document is technical and dense with regulatory references, which can be difficult for the general public to understand. There is some ambiguity in defining the roles and responsibilities of state and local agencies concerning ongoing monitoring and enforcement of air quality standards. While the redesignation is a positive development, public comments express concerns over Washington’s ability to sustain this attainment status and adequately protect vulnerable communities from future emissions.
The contingency measures outlined lack specific actions or timelines, which could lead to public uncertainty regarding the state's readiness to respond to potential air quality violations. Additionally, the public comments noted limited discussion of environmental justice implications, as the action did not necessitate such considerations under regulatory requirements. This might be seen as a missed opportunity to address broader social and environmental impacts.
Broader Public Impact
This redesignation potentially improves the quality of life in Whatcom County by ensuring cleaner air, thereby benefiting public health. Residents who were previously at risk of exposure to higher levels of sulfur dioxide may now experience fewer health issues related to air pollution. Furthermore, this action exemplifies how regulatory measures and industrial changes can directly impact environmental health standards and community well-being.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For the local community, this change underscores improved environmental conditions and suggests economic opportunities for growth without the burden of significant air pollution from the now-closed Intalco facility. However, stakeholders concerned with environmental justice and community health may feel that the action does not adequately address long-term monitoring strategies or the explicit protection of historically marginalized communities from future pollutant sources.
Local industries might benefit from clearer air quality regulations, potentially making Whatcom County more attractive for businesses preferring to operate within areas adhering to national air quality standards. Conversely, stringent monitoring could deter industries with potential emissions from establishing themselves in the area unless they can ensure compliance with the rigorous monitoring framework outlined.
Overall, while the EPA’s decision reflects progress in air quality standards for Whatcom County, the document highlights the complexities of maintaining these standards, addressing community concerns, and ensuring that future actions align with both environmental and public health priorities.
Issues
• The document is highly technical and may be difficult for the general public to understand without a background in environmental regulations and air quality management.
• There could be a lack of clarity regarding who is responsible for future monitoring and the role of different state and local agencies in maintaining air quality standards.
• The comments suggest a concern about Washington's ability to verify continued attainment and protect vulnerable communities. The document does not specify clear criteria or processes for addressing these concerns.
• The response to contingency measures concerns seems to lack specific actions or timelines that the public can rely on, which may cause uncertainty.
• There is minimal discussion about environmental justice implications, although it's noted that these were not considered a requirement for this action, which could be a concern for those advocating for more inclusive environmental policies.
• The document does not detail any specific spending or financial implications, making it difficult to audit for wasteful spending or favoritism.
• The language in the document can be seen as overly complex due to extensive use of regulatory and legal references, which may not be easily interpreted without specialized knowledge.