Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Rhinelander, Wisconsin Sulfur Dioxide Attainment and Maintenance Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI48-01-6711B; FRL-5112-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Rhinelander,

Wisconsin Sulfur Dioxide Attainment and Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving the State of Wisconsin's revision to

its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Rhinelander, Wisconsin

sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area. This State revision

request, dated October 21, 1994, was submitted to satisfy the

requirements of section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act (Act), and

regulates certain sources of SO2 in Rhinelander, Wisconsin.

The rationale for this approval is set forth in this final rule;

additional information is available at the address indicated below.

Elsewhere in this Federal Register, USEPA is proposing approval of, and

soliciting public comment on, this requested SIP revision. If a

comment, or a notice of intent to comment is received on this direct

final rule by January 6, 1995, USEPA will then use this rulemaking as a

proposed rule. Comments received will be addressed in a separate final

rulemaking. Unless this final rule is commented upon, no further

rulemaking will occur on this requested SIP revision.

DATES: This final rule will be effective February 6, 1995, unless

notice is received by January 6, 1995 that someone wishes to submit

adverse comments. If the effective date is delayed due to adverse

comments, notice withdrawing this final action will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-

18J), USEPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604-3590.

Copies of the SIP revisions and USEPA's analysis are available for

inspection during normal business hours at the following address. (It

is recommended that you telephone Christos Panos at (312) 353-8328 or

Sheila Breen at (312) 886-6053, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos/Sheila Breen,

Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-

18J), USEPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604-3590, (312) 353-8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In 1981 and 1983, exceedances of the primary SO2 NAAQS were

monitored in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. On April 1, 1985 the State adopted

Wisconsin State Rule NR 154.12(9), which regulated certain sources of

SO2 constructed before April 1, 1985 located within the corporate

boundaries of Rhinelander, Wisconsin. The Rhinelander Paper Company

(source), a paper mill, was the only source affected by the State

Rule's limits. These limits proved ineffective to protect the NAAQS

after three more exceedances which were attributable to the source were

monitored in 1985.

On April 28, 1989 the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR) submitted a revision to Wisconsin's SO2 SIP to USEPA,

consisting of Wisconsin State Rule NR 418.07, to satisfy the

requirements of section 110 and part D of the Act for the Rhinelander

nonattainment area. The SO2 limits included in the State Rule are

summarized in USEPA's January 5, 1993 (58 FR 326) notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPR). This rule was disapproved in final on May 13, 1993

(58 FR 28362), because the State had not shown that the rule provided

for attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. After the 1993

final action of disapproval, USEPA notified the State of the

commencement of sanctions clocks due to the disapproval. Further

discussion is found within the August 30, 1994 Technical Support

Document (TSD) from Sheila Breen to Gary Gulezian, the November 10,

1994 addendum to the TSD from Christos Panos to Gary Gulezian, and the

Federal Register documents, dated January 5, 1993 and May 13, 1993, and

will not be discussed here.

The latest SIP revision request dated October 21, 1994 includes

Consent Order AM-94-38, effective August 22, 1994 and two letters

(August 29, 1994 letter from WDNR to the source and an October 19, 1994

letter from the source to WDNR), which clarify certain items found in

the Order such as storage of test samples and definitions. This 1994

SIP revision request was submitted to fulfill the requirements of

section 110 and part D, and to cure the deficiency that led to the

notification regarding sanctions.

II. Description and Analysis of State Submittal

The USEPA has reviewed the August 22, 1994 Consent Order AM-94-38,

the Monitoring Data, and letters that were submitted in conjunction

with the Rhinelander SO2 SIP revision request, and is approving

the SIP revision. Except for the emission limits for the stoker

boilers, the limits for each SO2 source in the proposed SIP

revision are summarized in Wisconsin State Rule NR 418.07 and were

detailed in USEPA's January 5, 1993 NPR. Background information for

USEPA's 1993 NPR is contained in the January 5, 1993 Federal Register

and will not be repeated here.

A technical review of the 1994 plan is further discussed within the

August 30, 1994 TSD. The following discussion includes summaries of the

1994 submittal's completeness determination, adherence to the Act's

part D, section 172(c) nonattainment plan provisions, and the technical

review that USEPA conducted.

(A). Completeness Determination

States are required to observe certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to

USEPA. The Act provides that each implementation plan submitted by a

State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. The

USEPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and therefore

warrants further USEPA review and action. The USEPA's completeness

criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V

(1991), as amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991).

The State of Wisconsin held a public hearing on September 13, 1994

to receive public comment on the implementation plan for the

Rhinelander SO2 nonattainment area. Following the public hearing,

the plan was adopted by the State and signed by the Governor's designee

and submitted to USEPA on October 21, 1994 as a proposed revision to

the SIP.

The SIP revision was reviewed by USEPA to determine completeness

shortly after its submittal, and was found to be complete. A letter

dated November 8, 1994 was forwarded to the Director, WDNR, indicating

the completeness of the submittal and the next steps to be taken in the

review process.

(B). Nonattainment Plan Provisions (Act Part D, Section 172(c))

With this submission, Wisconsin will have a fully approved SO2

SIP meeting all of the applicable Part D requirements for the

Rhinelander nonattainment area. The following discusses how the

submission complies with the pertinent provisions of section 172(c),

which sets forth the requirements for Part D SO2 SIPs.

Section 172(c)(1) In General--The plan complies with the

requirements to implement reasonably available control measures by

providing for immediate attainment of the SO2 NAAQS through the

emission limits and operating restrictions imposed on the source by

Consent Order AM-94-38. By providing for immediate attainment, the plan

also satisfies the requirements of section 192(b) that provide for

attainment by November 15, 1995.

Section 172(c)(2) RFP--Reasonable further progress is achieved due

to the immediate effect of the emission limits and plantwide cap that

is discussed within the plan.

Section 172(c)(3) Inventory--An inventory of the actual SO2

emissions from the stoker and cyclone boilers has been provided and is

found to be acceptable.

Section 172(c)(5) Permits for New and Modified Major Stationary

Sources--Any new or modified sources constructed in the area must

comply with a State submitted and Federally approved New Source Review

program. The State currently has an approved Federally delegated

program.

Section 172(c)(6) Other Measures--The plan provides for immediate

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS through the emission limits and

operating restrictions that are set forth within Consent Order AM-94-

38. By adhering to more stringent limits for the stoker boilers and

presently setting an overall plantwide emission cap, the area should

continue to attain the SO2 NAAQS.

Section 172(c)(7) Compliance with section 110(a)(2)--This

submission complies with section 110(a)(2). With respect to section

110(a)(2)(K), under which USEPA generally requires modeling in the case

of SO2, USEPA notes that the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model

used by WDNR has been shown to underpredict ambient SO2

concentrations in the Rhinelander area, especially on known exceedance

days. Therefore, as described in more detail below, in this instance,

an alternative methodology using the rollback analysis was needed and

has been used.

Section 172(c)(8) Equivalent Techniques--Since modeling attainment

of the SO2 NAAQS is not achievable, an alternative methodology

using the rollback analysis to set a plantwide emissions cap was

required. This is further discussed within the August 30, 1994 TSD.

Section 172(c)(9) Contingency Measures--A plan should be provided

for the implementation of specific measures if the area fails to make

reasonable further progress (i.e., contingency measures), or to attain

the primary NAAQS referenced above. The State Implementation Plans;

General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble), which was proposed within the

Federal Register on April 16, 1992, provides guidance on SIP

requirements for SO2 nonattainment areas. The General Preamble

discusses contingency measures for SO2 controls that fail to

attain the NAAQS. Therefore, USEPA interprets ``contingency measures''

for SO2 to include the ability to rely on comprehensive State

programs to identify sources of violations and to undertake an

aggressive follow-up program of compliance and enforcement. Wisconsin

Administrative Code, State Rule NR 404.05(6) dictates that the NAAQS

may not be exceeded within the State of Wisconsin. Wisconsin State Rule

NR 404.08(2) allows the State to be more restrictive with emission

limits than those prescribed within an implementation plan or air

pollution control rules where emissions cause or substantially

contribute to exceeding an air standard in a localized area.

The USEPA notes that through the issuance of Consent Order AM-94-

38, the State has used these rules in context of the Rhinelander area

SO2 exceedances. These exceedances were determined to be the

result of excess SO2 emissions from the Rhinelander Paper Company.

The USEPA believes that the existence of these state rules and WDNR's

program to implement them satisfies the requirements of section

172(c)(9).

(C). Review of Technical Merits of Plan

(1). Emission Limits/Plantwide Cap: Due to ISC's apparent

underprediction of ambient SO2 concentrations, the State used the

rollback analysis to determine appropriate emissions limits for the

source. A rollback analysis takes a monitored ambient exceedance

recorded during a specific set of facility operating conditions and

determines the amount of the exceedance due to each of the source's

SO2 emitting operations in use at that time. These estimates are

then linearly ``rolled back'' to acceptable SO2 emission limits

which provide for attainment of the NAAQS under that set of operating

conditions (refer to 58 FR 326).

At the time of the exceedance, the source was operating its cyclone

boiler and only two of its five stoker boilers. A rollback analysis

only accounts for those operations that were running at the time of the

exceedance. However, the source requires the flexibility of using

multiple scenarios of boiler operations for economic reasons.

Therefore, the source accepted an overall daily SO2 emission cap

for the entire facility. This cap will assure protection of the

SO2 NAAQS, while still allowing for operational flexibility. For

further discussion on the rollback analysis, please refer to the August

30, 1994 TSD.

(2). Sampling/Testing and Additional Limits: Sampling and Testing

of the coal and wood waste sludge is discussed within the August 30,

1994 TSD. Sampling and testing followed USEPA methodologies and ASTM

Practices. Net SO2 emissions were determined using AP-42

Estimation Factors. Additional ``trigger limits'' were set for the

boilers, which requires additional sulfur testing of prior fuel if the

current fuel is found to exceed 90 percent of the enforceable SO2

emission limit.

(3). Monitoring: The source has agreed to conduct meteorological

monitoring. The State will conduct additional ambient monitoring, which

USEPA requested for additional background information on local

conditions. The original hillside ambient monitor that recorded the

original violations will be maintained indefinitely. No recorded

exceedances have been monitored since the last SIP revision request was

submitted to USEPA on April 28, 1989.

III. Final Action

Because USEPA considers this action noncontroversial and routine,

we are approving it without prior proposal. This action will become

effective on Februray 6, 1995. However, if we receive a notice of

intent to comment by January 6, 1995, USEPA will publish a document

that withdraws this action, and will address the comments received in

the final rule on the requested SIP revision, which has been proposed

for approval in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register.

The public comment period will not be extended or reopened.

IV. Miscellaneous

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing

or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any

SIP. The USEPA shall consider each request for a revision to the SIP in

light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the 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 Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The OMB has exempted this regulatory action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. et seq., USEPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of any

proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).

Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000. This approval does not create any new requirements. Therefore,

I certify that this action does not have a significant impact on any

small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-

State relationship under the Act, preparation of the regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The Act forbids USEPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.

U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).

D. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review

of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for

the appropriate circuit by February 6, 1995. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of this 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 a rule. This

action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its

requirements. (section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation

Plan for the State of Wisconsin was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: November 14, 1994.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

2. 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(79) to read as

follows: Sec. 52.2570 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(79) On October 21, 1994, the Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (WDNR) submitted a plan modifying the SO2 emission

limits applicable to Rhinelander Paper Company facility, located in the

City of Rhinelander, Oneida County, Wisconsin.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) A Consent Order (AM-94-38), effective August 22, 1994 issued by

the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and signed by

Donald F. Theiler for the WDNR and Melvin L. Davidson for the

Rhinelander Paper Company. Rhinelander Paper Company is located in

Rhinelander (Oneida County), Wisconsin. This Order limits the overall

SO2 emissions from the Rhinelander Paper Company, and imposes more

stringent SO2 limits for the source's stoker and cyclone boilers

and vapor compression evaporator. Sampling and testing of fuel, as well

as monitoring criteria are documented within the Order.

(B) A letter dated August 29, 1994 from the WDNR to Jerry Neis of

Rhinelander Paper Company, requesting clarification for sampling

methodologies for all fuel and the source of the sludge used as a fuel

source.

(C) A response letter dated October 19, 1994 from Jerome T. Neis of

Rhinelander Paper Company to the WDNR, detailing sampling methodologies

for all fuel and clarifying the source of the sludge used as a fuel

source.

[FR Doc. 94-29880 Filed 12-06-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P