[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17935]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 25, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WV 5-1-6307; FRL-4888-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia: Limited Approval and Disapproval of PM-10 Implementation
Plan for the Follansbee Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking simultaneous limited approval and limited
disapproval action on a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of West Virginia. West Virginia submitted the
plan revisions in order to achieve the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10) and to fulfill
other Clean Air Act (Act) requirements for the Follansbee, West
Virginia area. The limited approval makes bilateral consent orders
between the West Virginia Office of Air Quality and six companies
federally enforceable and fulfills some of the requirements of the Act
applicable to the Follansbee area. The limited disapproval disapproves
West Virginia's submittal for the purpose of fulfilling its
requirements under sections 172 and 189 of the Act to demonstrate that
the SIP will provide for the attainment of the NAAQS. These actions are
being taken under section 110 of the Act in light of EPA's authority
pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations necessary to further
air quality improvement by strengthening the SIP.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective on August 24, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107; Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460;
and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air
Quality, 1558 Washington Street, East, Charleston, West Virginia,
25311.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Casey, (215) 597-2746.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The air quality planning requirements for
PM-10 nonattainment areas, such as the Follansbee area, are set out in
subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the Act. Among other requirements, the
Act requires that SIPs provide for reasonably available control
measures (RACM) including reasonably available control technology
(RACT), emissions inventories, and demonstrations (including air
quality modeling) that the SIP will provide for attainment of the NAAQS
by the statutory attainment date.
On January 7, 1994 (59 FR 988), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPR) that proposed limited approval and limited disapproval
West Virginia's November 15, 1991 PM-10 SIP submittal for the
Follansbee, West Virginia PM-10 nonattainment area. The submittal is
not fully approvable because it does not demonstrate attainment of
NAAQS, and, therefore, does not satisfy the requirements of section
189(a)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the modeling is
unapprovable as a demonstration of attainment because of deficiencies
in estimating emissions from coke oven batteries and other sources, the
lack of an approvable analysis of intermediate terrain, and the
nonguideline use of the Gaussian Plume Multiple Source Air Quality
Algorithm (RAM) dispersion model in a meteorologically rural area.
While the submittal does not meet specific provisions of Part D, it
does contain some provisions (enforceable consent orders) which advance
the NAAQS-related air quality protection goals of the Act. Therefore,
EPA is approving the submittal for the limited purpose of approving the
consent agreements and making them part of the SIP. EPA has evaluated
the consent agreements for consistency with the Act and EPA regulations
and has found that they provide State and federally enforceable
provisions to decrease PM-10 emissions in the nonattainment area.
While approving the consent orders for incorporation by reference
into the SIP, EPA is taking no action at this time on the contingency
measures contained therein with respect to the requirements of section
172(c)(9) of the Act. The General Preamble to Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments established a November 15, 1993 deadline for state
submittal of contingency plans (57 FR 13498).
In addition to the limited approval and limited disapproval, EPA
proposed to determine that PM-10 precursors, such as sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds, do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 concentrations in the Follansbee area. (See
section 189(e).) EPA based this proposal an air quality data presented
by West Virginia in its submittal.
The rationale for today's action is presented in more detail in the
NPR and in the Technical Support Document (TSD) which is available at
the addresses indicated above.
Summary of Public Comments
EPA received two letters of comment; comments were submitted by the
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and by the
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (WPS).
1. In correspondence dated February 4, 1994, West Virginia
described its ``planned action'' to correct the deficiencies in its
submittal. West Virginia stated its intent to correct PM-10 emission
rates, perform an analysis of intermediate terrain, and replace RAM
with an approvable technique for modeling certain area sources under
rural meteorological conditions. Additionally, West Virginia also
related its intent to alter the characterizations of certain buoyant
volume sources.
EPA Response West Virginia did not comment on EPA's proposed action
or its underlying rationale, so no response is necessary. EPA intends
to provide technical guidance to West Virginia to assist in the
submittal of a fully approvable SIP revision.
2. EPA received comments from WPS dated February 4, 1994. WPS
commented on and disputed deficiencies identified by EPA in the NPR.
WPS also provided its own air quality analysis. WPS's comments are
summarized and responses are provided below.
a. Coke Oven Emissions
WPS Comment. WPS agrees that the coke oven emissions estimations
are in error and provided revised estimates attributed to the West
Virginia Office of Air Quality.
EPA Response. As described above, EPA intends to provide technical
guidance to West Virginia to assist in the submittal of a fully
approvable SIP revision.
b. Intermediate Terrain1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``Intermediate terrain'' is a term used to describe terrain
with an elevation between stack height and plume height. It is a
subset of complex terrain and is defined separately for each stack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WPS Comment. WPS comments that at the time of the West Virginia SIP
submittal, there was no single, EPA-approved model applicable to
intermediate terrain; that its consultant had developed a post-
processor to combine the results of simple and complex terrain models;
and that EPA had approved the use of this post-processor in two permit
applications in West Virginia in 1988. WPS continues to comment that
its submittals to West Virginia and Ohio were consistent with EPA's
intermediate terrain policy, including, in 1991, an analysis employing
a model that integrates simple and complex terrain models. Finally, WPS
comments that the deficiency relating to intermediate terrain is not
identified in EPA's August 3, 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking for
the Ohio PM-10 SIP (58 FR 41218).
EPA Response. West Virginia's attainment demonstration did not
address intermediate terrain as required by the Guideline on Air
Quality Models as revised in 1986 (EPA-450/2-78-027R)2 and
clarified in 1989.3 WPS's comments do not dispute this fact. The
consultant's post-processor and integrated model were two of several
approaches available at the time to implement EPA's intermediate
terrain policy. (See, for example, EPA's widely available post-
processor, POSTIT). The development of these techniques by WPS or its
consultant does not alter the fact that no such analysis was included
in the West Virginia SIP submittal. Therefore, this comment does not
affect today's action or its underlying rationale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\This document has subsequently been revised (Supplement B)
and incorporated into federal regulations at 40 CFR part 51 appendix
W.
\3\June 8, 1989 memorandum from Joseph Tikvart to Alan
Cimorelli.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As matter of clarification, EPA's August 3, 1993 notice for Ohio
affected the regulation of PM-10 emissions state-wide.4 Today's
action applies only to the West Virginia SIP. Because of the broader
scope of that notice, some issues that were presented in the NPR for
the Follansbee, West Virginia nonattainment area were relegated to the
technical support document5 in EPA's rulemaking on the Ohio SIP.
The NPR for the Ohio SIP clearly referred interested readers to the TSD
for further information regarding EPA's underlying rationale for that
notice, generally, and the deficiencies in Ohio's attainment
demonstration, specifically. That TSD clearly articulated EPA's concern
over Ohio's lack of an intermediate terrain analysis and other
deficiencies in Ohio's November 4, 1991 and January 8, 1992 SIP
submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\West Virginia and Ohio collaborated on parts of the
attainment demonstration, but each submittal stands alone.
\5\Memorandum from John Summerhays and Randall Robinson to
``Files'' dated November 17, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. The Use of RAM
WPS Comment. WPS commented that the use of RAM was discussed with
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) before the West
Virginia SIP was submitted. WPS also comments that this deficiency was
not articulated in EPA's NPR for the Ohio PM-10 SIP referenced above
(58 FR 41218).
EPA Response. Conversations between WPS and OEPA do not exempt or
ameliorate the deficiencies in West Virginia submittal or invalidate
today's action or its underlying rationale. As noted above, EPA's
notice regarding the Ohio SIP addressed this deficiency through its
technical support document.
d. WPS's Air Quality Analysis
WPS Comment. WPS supplied an alternative air quality analysis that
concluded, ``Controls resulting in the PM-10 emissions in Attachment 2
are shown to meet the NAAQS for PM-10 when naturally occurring buoyancy
of several process fugitives is included in the dispersion modeling.''
Attachment 2 lists the PM-10 emissions rates for model input.
EPA Response. Setting aside the problem that this analysis was not
submitted by the State of West Virginia and, therefore, does not
satisfy the requirement of section 189(a)(2), this analysis is not
approvable as an attainment demonstration for at least two reasons.
First, the emissions estimations used as model input are flawed.
While an attempt was made to correct the unapprovable aspects of
emissions from coke ovens, estimates of emissions from WPS's basic
oxygen furnaces (BOF) in Mingo Junction, Ohio remain profoundly
underestimated. Deficiencies in BOF emissions estimation were outlined
in the TSD and described in more detail in EPA's notice and TSD
regarding the Ohio SIP.
Second, the buoyancy of emissions from certain large volume sources
(coke oven battery fugitives, the BOF, and blast furnace cast houses)
was only incorporated in the estimation of impacts at receptors
(locations) where a more conventional methodology failed to show
attainment. This approach is unapprovable because incorporation of
buoyancy effects, by design, will disturb the spatial distribution of
estimated PM-10 impacts. Therefore, it is necessary to model using a
more extensive array of receptors than was employed in the WPS
analysis.
For these reasons, WPS's air quality analysis does not effect
today's action or its underlying rationale.
Final Action
EPA is approving West Virginia's submittal for the limited purpose
of incorporating the enforceable provisions into the SIP and
disapproving the submittal for the purpose of fulfilling the attainment
demonstration requirements of Part D of Title I of the Act. EPA is also
formally finding that PM-10 precursors do not contribute significantly
to PM-10 concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the Follansbee area (see
section 189(e)).6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Note that while EPA is making a general finding for this
area, today's finding is based on the current character of the area
including, for example, the existing mix of sources in the area. It
is possible, therefore, that future growth could change the
significance of precursors in the area. EPA intends to issue future
guidance addressing such potential differences in the significance
of precursor emissions in PM-10 nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This limited disapproval constitutes a disapproval under section
179(a)(2) of the Act (see generally 57 FR 13566-67). As provided under
section 179(a) of the Act, the State of West Virginia has up to 18
months after a final SIP disapproval to correct the deficiencies that
are the subject of the disapproval before EPA is required to impose
either the highway funding sanction or the requirement to provide two-
to-one new source review offsets. If the State has not corrected its
deficiency within 6 months thereafter, EPA must impose the second
sanction. Any sanction EPA imposes must remain in place until EPA
determines that the State has come into compliance. Note also that any
final disapproval would trigger the requirement for EPA to impose a
federal implementation plan within 24 months as provided under section
110(c)(1) of the Act.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action for signature
by the Acting Regional Administrator under the procedures published in
the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised
by an October 4, 1993 memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. A future notice will
inform the general public of these tables. On January 6, 1989, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP
revisions (54 FR 2222) from the requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291 for a period of two years. The U.S. EPA has submitted a
request for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The OMB
has agreed to continue the temporary waiver until such time as it rules
on U.S. EPA's request. This request continues in effect under Executive
Order 12866, which superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30,
1993.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 23, 1994. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of the Follansbee,
West Virginia PM-10 final rule does not affect the finality of this
rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides.
Editorial Note: This document was received by the Office of the
Federal Register on July 19, 1994.
Dated: March 30, 1994.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
40 CFR part 52, subpart XX of chapter I, title 40 is amended as
follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
Subpart XX--West Virginia
2. Section 52.2520 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(26) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(26) Bilateral consent orders between the West Virginia Air
Pollution Control Commission and six companies to limit emissions of
particulate matter. The effective date of the consent order with
Koppers is November 15, 1991; the effective date of the five other
orders cited in paragraph (i)(B), below, is November 14, 1991.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter dated November 12, 1991 from the West Virginia
Department of Commerce, Labor, and Environmental Resources transmitting
six consent orders.
(B) Consent orders with the following companies (West Virginia
order number and effective date in parentheses): Follansbee Steel
Corporation (CO-SIP-91-31, November 14, 1991); International Mill
Service, Incorporated (CO-SIP-91-33, November 14, 1991); Koppers
Industries, Incorporated (CO-SIP-91-32, November 15, 1991); Standard
Lafarge (CO-SIP-91-29, November 14, 1991); Starvaggi Industries,
Incorporated (CO-SIP-91-34, November 14, 1991); and Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel Corporation (CO-SIP-91-29, November 14, 1991).
3. Section 52.2522 of chapter I, title 40 is amended by adding
paragraph (f) to read as follows as follows:
Sec. 52.2522 Approval Status.
* * * * *
(f) The Administrator approves West Virginia's November 15, 1991
SIP submittal for fulfilling all PM-10-specific requirements of part D
of the Clean Air Act applicable to the Follansbee, West Virginia PM-10
nonattainment area, except for the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirement for
a demonstration that the plan is sufficient to attain the PM-10 NAAQS,
which the Administrator is disapproving, and the section 172(c)(9)
requirement for contingency measures, which the Administrator has yet
to act upon.
[FR Doc. 94-17935 Filed 7-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P