Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR-14-1-5535; FRL-5514-3]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA invites public comment on its proposed approval of a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oregon for

the purpose of bringing about the attainment of 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). The implementation plan was submitted by the State to satisfy

certain Federal requirements for an approvable moderate nonattainment

area PM-10 SIP for the Klamath Falls, Oregon, PM-10 nonattainment area.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked on or before July 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston,

SIP Manager, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), EPA, Docket #OR-14-1-

5535, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101.

Copies of the State's request and other information supporting this

proposed action are available for inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107),

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and the Oregon Department

of Environmental Quality, 811 SW., Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon

97204-1390.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rindy Ramos, EPA, Office of Air

Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, (206)

553-6510.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

A. 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act

The area within the Klamath Falls, Oregon, Urban Growth Boundary

(UGB), was designated nonattainment for PM-10 and classified as

moderate under Sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of

1990.1 See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 40 CFR 81.338. The

air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas are set out in Subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the Act.2 EPA

has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on

how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under Title

I of the Act, including those state submittals containing moderate PM-

10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498

(April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA is

describing its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader

should refer to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of

the interpretations of Title I advanced in this proposed approval and

the supporting rationale. In this rulemaking action for the PM-10 SIP

for the Klamath Falls nonattainment area, EPA's proposed action is

consistent with its interpretations, discussed in the General Preamble,

and takes into consideration the specific factual issues presented in

the SIP. Additional information supporting EPA's action on this

particular area is available for inspection at the address indicated

above. EPA will consider any comments received by the date indicated

above.

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

\1\ The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant

changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399.

References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (``the

Act''). The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code

at 42 U.S.C., Sections 7401, et seq.

\2\ Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment

areas generally and Subpart 4 contains provisions specifically

applicable to PM-10 nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and

Subpart 4 overlap or may conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the

relationship among these provisions in the ``General Preamble'' and,

as appropriate, in today's notice and supporting information.

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

Those states containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas

(those areas designated nonattainment under Section 107(d)(4)(B)) were

required to submit, among other things, the following provisions by

November 15, 1991:

1. Provisions to assure that Reasonably Available Control Measures

(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in

the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no

later than December 10, 1993;

2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the

plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no

later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by

that date is impracticable;

3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years

and which demonstrate Reasonable Further

[[Page 28532]]

Progress (RFP) toward attainment by December 31, 1994; and

4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to

major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary

sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines

that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which

exceed the NAAQS in the area. See Sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the

Act.

States with initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were

required to: 1) submit a permit program for the construction and

operation of new and modified major stationary sources of PM-10 by June

30, 1992 (see Section 189(a)); and 2) submit contingency measures by

November 15, 1993, which were to become effective without further

action by the state or EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area

has failed to achieve RFP or to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the

applicable statutory deadline (see Section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-

13544). Oregon has made submittals in response to both of the above

described requirements. EPA intends to address that submittal

containing the new source review permit program in a separate action.

B. Plan Development

The Klamath Falls Attainment Plan was developed by the Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in consultation with

officials of the City and County of Klamath Falls, the Oregon

Department of Transportation, the Oregon Department of Forestry, and

EPA.

The original Attainment Plan was developed under the CAA prior to

the amendments of 1990 and adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality

Commission (OEQC) on January 31, 1991. To address the 1990 Clean Air

Act Amendments, the Plan was initially revised and adopted by the OEQC

on November 8, 1991. This version of the Plan was submitted to EPA on

November 15, 1991. The Plan was revised again and adopted by the OEQC

on August 18, 1995, and submitted to EPA on September 22, 1995.

Therefore, the 1991 and 1995 submittals constitute the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment

area. This action will address the 1991 and 1995 submittals.

The 1991 Plan was revised for four main reasons. The first was to

update the Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) estimates and emission

inventory. The Oregon Department of Transportation has provided ODEQ

with more accurate information to determine the Plan's base year and

attainment year transportation emissions. These emissions are referred

to as the area's transportation emission budget.

The second reason was to account for additional emission reductions

due to the area's woodstove replacement program that were not accounted

for in the 1991 Plan. The 1991 Plan estimated that 325 woodstoves would

be replaced when, in reality, 743 stoves were replaced.

The third reason was to analyze what effect an increase in an

allowable emission limit has had on the Plan's attainment

demonstration. Since the Plan was first developed in 1991, the state

has revised Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 25,

Sections 305, 320, and 325, resulting in an increase in the allowable

emission limit for a Jeld-Wen hardboard plant located in the

nonattainment area. Because attainment of the NAAQS is determined based

on, among other things, allowable point source emissions, the State

needed to review the Plan's attainment demonstration to show that the

increase in allowable emissions would not jeopardize attainment of the

NAAQS.

In fact, the 1991 Plan already accounted for the revised limit.

During development of the 1991 attainment plan, ODEQ was aware that the

hardboard rule emission limit would be revised in the future. In

anticipation of the Division 25 revision (1995), ODEQ estimated that

Jeld-Wen's allowable emissions would increase by 129 pounds per day, up

to a maximum of 24 tons per year. Therefore, ODEQ allocated these extra

emissions to Jeld-Wen's inventoried emissions and used these

``adjusted'' emissions in the Plan's 1994 attainment demonstration.

When the hardboard rule was finalized (1995), the plant's emissions did

not increase by the estimated 24 tons per year. Instead, the revised

emission limit resulted in an allowable increase of only 13.1 tons per

year--10.9 tons per year less than the amount originally allotted in

the 1991 plan (24 tons per year estimated in 1991 minus 13.1 tons per

year finalized in 1995).

The revision to Division 25 was adopted by the OEQC on January 20,

1995, and became state-effective February 17, 1995. It was submitted to

EPA as a revision to the Oregon SIP on August 29, 1995, and will be

reviewed in accordance with the CAA in a separate technical support

document and rulemaking action.

The fourth main reason the 1991 Plan was revised was to use a 1995

dispersion modeling analysis to re-evaluate the effect a Weyerhaeuser

Company facility has on the Plan's attainment demonstration. The 1995

analysis indicates that the facility's impact, at the monitoring site

upon which the Plan's attainment demonstration is based, is not

significant. This analysis is discussed in more detail in the

Evaluation of Attainment Demonstration section of the Technical Support

Document (TSD) that corresponds with this action.

II. This Action

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's

review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In this action, EPA

is proposing to approve the plan revisions submitted to EPA on November

15, 1991, and September 22, 1995. EPA has determined that the

submittals meet all of the applicable requirements of the Act due on

November 15, 1991, with respect to moderate area PM-10 submittals.

Also, as described in Part II.5 below, EPA is proposing to grant the

exclusion from PM-10 control requirements applicable to major

stationary sources of PM-10 precursors. In addition, as described in

Part II.7 below, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted

on November 15, 1991, as meeting the requirement for contingency

measures.

Analysis of State Submission

1. Procedural Background

The Act requires states to observe certain procedural requirements

in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to

EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation

plan submitted by a state must be adopted after reasonable notice and

public hearing.3 Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that

each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state under the

Act must be adopted by such state after reasonable notice and public

hearing.

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

\3\ Also, Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan

provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of

Section 110(a)(2).

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

EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and

therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1)

and 57 FR 13565). EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are

set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. EPA attempts to make

completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission.

However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a

completeness determination is not made by EPA six months after receipt

of the submission.

[[Page 28533]]

The State of Oregon held a public hearing on the 1991 Plan on

October 24, 1991. This Plan was submitted to EPA for review on November

15, 1991. The Attainment Plan was subsequently revised in 1995. Public

hearings for this revision were held on June 16 and 20, 1995. This 1995

revision was submitted to EPA on September 22, 1995, as a revision to

the Oregon SIP.

The SIP revisions were reviewed by EPA to determine completeness

shortly after submittal, in accordance with the completeness the

criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. Letters dated May 7,

1992, and February 28, 1996, were forwarded to the Director of ODEQ

indicating the completeness of the submittals and the next steps to be

taken in the review process. In this action EPA is proposing to approve

the State of Oregon's PM-10 SIP submittal for the Klamath Falls PM-10

nonattainment area and invites public comment on the action.

2. Accurate Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan

provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of

actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the

nonattainment area. The emissions inventory should also include a

comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of allowable emissions

in the area. See, e.g., Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act. Because the

submission of such inventories is necessary to an area's attainment

demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot practicably

attain), the emissions inventories must be received with the submission

(see 57 FR 13539).

The base year for analysis was 1986 (July 1, 1986, through June 30,

1987). This year was chosen because it represents some of the most

severe air quality episodes the area has experienced. There were forty

days when monitored concentrations of PM-10 were above the 24-hour

standard. In addition to the base year inventory (1986), a design year

inventory (1994 attainment year), and a maintenance demonstration year

inventory (2004) were developed.

The 1986 inventory identified that, on a 24-hour, worst case day,

the major sources of PM-10 emissions are residential wood combustion

(80%), fugitive dust (winter road sanding) (8%), industry (7%),

transportation (4%), and other (1%). Annual emissions for the same

timeframe are residential wood combustion (61%), fugitive dust (10%),

industry (10%), solid waste disposal (which includes residential open

burning, on-site incineration, and agricultural burning) (9%),

transportation (8%), and other (2%).

After implementation of all control measures, ODEQ estimates that

the 24-hour 1994 attainment year inventory will be as follows: industry

(43%), residential woodburning (21%), transportation (18%), fugitive

dust (16%), other (2%), and solid waste disposal (0%). Annual emissions

for the 1994 attainment year are estimated to be: industry (30%),

residential woodburning (24%), fugitive dust (20%), transportation

(17%), other (6%), and solid waste disposal (3%).

The emission inventory was originally reviewed and commented on by

EPA in October 1991, when this SIP revision was in draft form. The

issues raised by EPA during October 1991 were resolved by ODEQ before

the November 15, 1991, SIP revision was submitted.

EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory because it

generally appears to be accurate and comprehensive, and provides a

sufficient basis for determining the adequacy of the attainment

demonstration for this area consistent with the requirements of

Sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA.4

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

\4\ The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories

prior to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form

of the 1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided

in this document appears to be consistent with the Act. See Section

193 of the Act.

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

3. RACM (Including RACT)

As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were

required to submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are

implemented no later than December 10, 1993 (see Sections 172(c)(1) and

189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion of

EPA 's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57

FR 13539-13545 and 13560-13561).

ODEQ performed a cost and technical analysis of the area's emission

sources to evaluate available control measures needed to bring the area

into attainment with the NAAQS. Results of the emission inventory and

Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) analysis indicated that, overwhelmingly,

emissions from residential wood combustion were the most significant

contributor to exceedances of the NAAQS on a 24-hour, worst case day

basis. This analysis also indicated that industrial emissions were

relatively minor (7%) when compared to residential wood combustion

(80%). ODEQ's analysis further showed that attainment of the NAAQS can

be demonstrated by controlling RACM sources (e.g., wood smoke, road

sanding, and open burning) instead of industrial sources.

It is EPA's policy that RACM (including RACT) does not require the

implementation of all available control measures where an area

demonstrates timely attainment and the implementation of additional

controls would not expedite attainment (see 57 FR 13540-13544). Based

on the available control measures adopted (described below), the SIP

demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. The

SIP also demonstrates continued maintenance of the NAAQS between

December 1994 and the year 2004. Accordingly, the attainment

demonstration does not include additional industrial controls beyond

those currently required by the Oregon SIP. However, ODEQ has included

additional point source controls as a contingency measure should the

area not attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994, or demonstrate RFP. The

Plan's attainment demonstration, contingency measures, and RFP are

discussed in more detail later in this document. In conclusion, EPA

proposes to approve the existing industrial controls as meeting the

RACM (including RACT) requirement.

Attainment of the 24-hour standard is based on the following: (1) A

mandatory woodstove curtailment program, (2) a woodstove certification

program, (3) a woodstove removal program, and (4) reduction in winter

road sanding emissions.

Attainment of the annual standard is based upon: (1) A mandatory

woodstove curtailment program, (2) woodstove certification program, (3)

a reduction in winter road sanding emissions, (4) a woodstove opacity

limitation, and (5) a year-round prohibition on agricultural open

burning. The following table summarizes the anticipated emission

reductions and their associated reduction credits.

[[Page 28534]]

Summary--Attainment Strategies

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

Credit requested Emission reductions

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

Number per Tons per

Attainment measures--1994 hour year

24-Hour Annual -------------------------

(24-Hour) (Annual)

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

Woodstove curtailment....................................... 86% 74% 16,625 938

Woodstove certification..................................... 24% 24% 582 78

Opacity restriction--20%.................................... (*) 5% ........... 12

Woodstove removal........................................... 53% (**) 973 ...........

Winter road sanding......................................... 60% 60% 1,265 17

Agricultural burning........................................ (***) 100% ........... 156

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

Total reductions...................................... ........... ........... 19,445 1201

Reductions needed by 12/31/94......................... ........... ........... 18,877 1035

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

Excess reductions..................................... ........... ........... 568 166

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

* Not applicable on a 24-hour worst case day basis: woodstoves would not be in use due to the curtailment

program.

** Not quantified.

*** Not applicable; this activity did not occur during exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS.

A. Mandatory Woodburning Curtailment Program

On July 31, 1991, the Klamath County Board of Commissions adopted

Ordinance No. 63 (codified as Chapter 406), establishing a mandatory

woodburning curtailment program. The City of Klamath Falls adopted

Ordinance No. 6630 on September 16, 1991, which grants Klamath County

the authority to implement the Klamath County Air Quality Program

(Chapter 406) within the city limits of Klamath Falls. The program

became fully implemented within the nonattainment area on November 1,

1991. Prior to the mandatory program, a voluntary program had been

operated by Klamath County since 1988. The following is a brief

discussion of the program's key elements. For a detailed analysis and

discussion, the reader is referred to the TSD that corresponds with

this action.

Daily wood heating advisories are disseminated by the County via

local television and radio stations. The County also maintains a

burning advisory telephone system which, during the 1990/1991

woodheating season, answered 122,000 public calls. An additional 5,000

calls were handled by the Klamath County Air Quality staff. During the

1992/1993 woodheating season, there were 160,311 public calls. The

increase in calls between the two seasons seems to indicate an increase

in public awareness of the wood heating advisory and of the purpose of

the curtailment program.

For a specified period of time, Klamath County Air Quality could

grant an exemption from complying with the curtailment program during

poor air quality periods provided that the solid fuel-fired heating

appliance is the sole source of heat for a specific residence. However,

after December 31, 1992, it became unlawful for a solid fuel-fired

heating appliance to be the sole source of heat in any nonowner

(tenant-occupied) dwelling. Exemptions to this phaseout can be granted

to landlords due to low income. This sole source, low income, nonowner-

occupied exemption terminates December 31, 1997. All sole source, low

income, nonowner-occupied dwellings must have a secondary source of

heat by that time. In addition, all sole source heat households, except

those that are tenant-occupied, had until December 31, 1995, to install

a secondary heat source. No exemptions will be issued after this date

unless the household (person) qualifies under a low income exemption.

A person who demonstrates economic need by certifying through proof

that his/her income is less than 1.2 times the low income guidelines

established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development, may be granted a low income exemption from installing a

secondary form of heat to be used during yellow and red curtailment

days. After December 31, 1995, no further exemptions will be granted.

Woodburning curtailment forecasts are made twice daily at 7 am and

4 pm during the woodheating season (October 1 through March 31). The

curtailment calls are based on a forecast algorithm using: National

Weather Service upper air and barometric pressure data; forecasts of

synoptic meteorology; surface temperatures; and wind speed and

direction. Nephelometer measurements of hourly light scattering and

local observations of air quality conditions are also used. (Appendix 7

of ODEQ's Attainment Plan contains a more detailed discussion).

Woodburning curtailment advisories are issued at three levels. A

green advisory is issued when NAAQS exceedances are unlikely.

Woodburning is unrestricted during these periods but the public is

asked to follow good woodburning practices. Green advisories are issued

when PM-10 concentrations are forecast to not exceed 80 g/

m3 for a 24-hour average.

A yellow advisory is issued when PM-10 concentrations are forecast

to exceed or are exceeding 81 g/m3 for a 24-hour average.

The public is asked to curtail all unnecessary woodburning. However,

permitted pellet stoves and certified stoves may be used; and dwellings

granted exemptions described above may burn.

A red advisory is issued when PM-10 concentrations are forecast to

exceed or are exceeding 150 g/m3 for a 24-hour average.

No person can operate any solid fuel-fired heating appliance, except

for a permitted pellet stove, during a red advisory, unless an

exemption has been granted by the County.

In addition, during a yellow or red advisory, all open burning,

including burn barrels/incineration is prohibited unless a variance has

been approved by Klamath County Air Quality.

The Klamath Falls curtailment program includes a surveillance and

enforcement element. A standard operating procedure and evaluation

measure has been developed to be used during yellow and red advisories.

During surveillance and effectiveness evaluations, infra-red detectors

are used at night to detect ``hot'' chimneys. Visible emission readings

are taken during the daytime hours.

[[Page 28535]]

When Klamath County Air Quality inspectors have visually observed

that a person has violated the Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance,

Ordinance Number 63, a Notice and Order setting forth the alleged

violation is required to be issued. The Notice will require the alleged

violator to take corrective action, such as to cease and desist from

operating the noncomplying appliance.

The violator is to notify Klamath County Air Quality that corrective

action has been taken.

In cases when a person has not complied with the Notice and Order,

the County is required to issue a Compliance Order and/or Summons and

Complaint with the Court of competent jurisdiction for violation of the

ordinance. The County may also obtain injunctive relief, abate the

nuisance, or otherwise correct the violation of the ordinance through

the Court.

Continued operation of a solid-fuel fired device without an

exemption, or performing open burning following the declaration of a

red or yellow advisory, will result in enforcement action. The

penalties which may be imposed upon conviction based on Summons and

Complaint for a violation of any provision of Chapter 406.100 (General

Rules and Regulations) and Chapter 406.150 (Pollution Prohibitions),

excluding Prohibited Materials Burning, of the ordinance are:

(1) First offense violators may receive a warning and be fined $25.

(2) Second offense violators shall be fined $100.

(3) Subsequent offense violators shall be fined a maximum of $250

per occurrence.

The County has conducted several curtailment surveys since the

1989/1990 woodheating season. During this voluntary compliance period

(the program was not a mandatory one until 1991), red advisory

nighttime compliance rates ranged from about 37% to 50% when compared

to the number of woodstoves being used during a green advisory

nighttime baseline. The green advisory nighttime baseline was also

established during the 1989/1990 woodheating season.

For the January 1993 and December 1993 to January 1994 periods,

five red advisory day surveys were conducted in the morning hours. When

compared to the 1989/1990 green advisory baseline, compliance rates for

the five red advisory days were about 95%. This comparison may not be

entirely applicable given the nighttime baseline and the morning

compliance survey. However, it does provide some indication of overall

compliance during red curtailment days.

During the 1994/1995 winter season, only two red advisory calls

were made. An evening red advisory occurred on November 22, 1994, and a

daytime red advisory occurred on January 17, 1995. During these two

events, the County did not conduct surveys. However, both red

advisories were preceded by yellow advisories; therefore, survey data

collected during the yellow advisories can give an indication of

compliance on red advisory nights. The data show compliance with the

yellow advisories, ranging from 84% to 97%.5

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

\5\ This discussion is based on information in a memorandum from

David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy Ramos, EPA Region 10, dated March 4,

1996.

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

Considering the above program elements, survey results, and the

phasing out of the sole source and low income exemptions, EPA believes

that the 86% credit requested by ODEQ on a 24-hour basis is achievable

and is being achieved and, therefore, accepts the credit claimed. EPA

also accepts ODEQ's annual credit of 74%. In acceptance of the credits,

EPA considered the fact that the nonattainment area has not had a

monitored exceedance of the 24-hour standard since January 1991, and

the area has not exceeded the annual standard since 1989.

B. Woodstove Certification

In 1983, the Oregon Legislature directed the ODEQ to require that

all new woodstoves sold in the State be certified through laboratory

testing. As a result, stoves sold after July 1986 were required to emit

particles at a rate at least 50% less than conventional woodstoves.

After July 1988, new woodstoves were required to have a particle

emission rate at least 70% less than conventional woodstoves.

The OEQC adopted on March 2, 1990, revisions to Oregon's Woodstove

Certification Program, making it consistent with EPA's New Source

Performance Standard (NSPS) 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAA. Currently, all

woodstoves sold in the State of Oregon must be both ODEQ and EPA-

certified. The SIP revision was approved by EPA as part of the Oregon

SIP on June 9, 1992 (see 57 FR 24373).

ODEQ estimates that the woodstove certification program provides a

24% credit against baseline 1986 woodstove emissions by 1994.6

Oregon has historically pursued an aggressive woodstove certification

program. Oregon was the first state in the Nation to adopt, implement,

and enforce a program of this type (1984). EPA promulgated the NSPS on

February 26, 1988, modeled after Oregon's program.

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

\6\ This estimate uses a 1986 baseline inventory and assumes or

relies on: 1) a 1% annual growth in firewood consumed by woodstoves;

2) information from building permit authorities in Klamath Falls

that essentially all permitted installations are certified stoves,

and that about 20% of these are pellet stoves; 3) a useful stove

life of 20 years; 4) the fact that typical certified woodstoves and

pellet stoves respectively emit 50% and 90% less PM-10 than a

conventional stove. EPA believes this is an accurate portrayal of

the situation in Klamath Falls.

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

The projected emission reductions in conjunction with a statewide

ban (OAR 340-34-010) on the sale of used uncertified stoves, a ban on

the installation of used uncertified stoves, and Oregon's model

woodstove certification program supports EPA's acceptance of Oregon's

woodstove certification credit claim.

C. Woodstove Removal and Home Weatherization Program

Between May 1990 and December 1993 the City and County of Klamath

Falls received funds totalling approximately $1.9 million from the

State of Oregon Community Block Grant funds for a home weatherization

and woodstove replacement program. Woodstoves in 743 low income, sole

source homes have been replaced by natural gas (90%), oil (6%),

electric (2%), certified stove (1%), and propane (1%) heating sources.

These funds were administered under Klamath Falls's Particulate Urban

Resources Effort (PURE) project. The average cost of converting and

weatherizing each home was $2,200.

For the 1994 attainment year, ODEQ estimates that total PM-10

emissions from low income, sole source homes have been reduced by 973

pounds per day, which equates to 67 tons per year. ODEQ therefore

requests a 53% credit for this strategy (973 lbs per day 1994

controlled/1843 lbs per day 1994 uncontrolled). This 53% credit is

calculated for replacing uncertified woodstoves as follows: Electric

heat (100% PM-10 reduction), natural gas (99% PM-10 reduction), propane

(99% PM-10 emission reduction), oil (99% PM-10 reduction), and

certified woodstoves (50% PM-10 reduction). Because of the demonstrated

success of the program, EPA proposes to accept the 53% credit requested

by ODEQ.

D. Winter Road Sanding Control Program

Winter road sanding has been shown to adversely affect the PM-10

levels throughout the Western United States, including Klamath Falls,

in areas that experience measurable snowfall. The silt-laden, friable

sand is placed on roads by local and state highway

[[Page 28536]]

departments to provide better traction on snow and ice. However, once

the snow has melted and the roads have dried out, the remaining dry,

silty road sand is easily resuspended by moving vehicular traffic.

In Klamath Falls, winter road sanding emissions peak during periods

when several inches of snow cover the area. During these periods, as

much as 70 cubic yards per day of aggregate are spread on roads within

the UGB. Because snow covers the roadways and landscape, it is ODEQ's

position that essentially all of the fugitive dust emissions (during

this time period) are assumed to originate from road sanding. Chemical

analysis of PM-10 samples collected on days exceeding the 24-hour NAAQS

indicated that 9% of the PM-10 mass was soil dust. Road sanding

emissions were therefore estimated to be of similar magnitude in the

emission inventory, or approximately 1,900 pounds per day during the 27

days per year when road sanding occurs. The worst case day emission

estimates provide the basis for the annual emission estimates for road

sanding.

Sanding materials used in the Klamath Falls area are obtained from

a gravel pit located near Merrill, Oregon, where volcanic cinders, pea

gravel, silts, and clays have been deposited. Nearly all of the

aggregate used within the UGB is applied by the Oregon Department of

Transportation Highway Division, mostly on US 97, South Sixth Street,

Alameda Bypass, and the South Side Bypass. The City, County, and State

all maintain sections of Washburn Way and other streets in south

suburban Klamath Falls. The City maintains streets within the Central

Business District.7

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

\7\ State Implementation Plan for PM-10 in Klamath Falls,

October 1991, Section 12.3.2.

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

Oregon requests a 60% credit for its winter road sanding control

strategy. The 60% credit is based on the Highway Division's commitment

to reduce winter road sanding by 60% through: (1) Replacement of

aggregate with a de-icing material; (2) a reduction in the amount of

aggregate applied; and (3) rapid cleanup using street washing or

sweeping of road sanding materials used on major thoroughfares. During

worst case winter days, ODEQ estimates that this strategy will reduce

emissions by 1,265 pounds per day and, on an annual basis, it will

reduce emissions by 17 tons per year. EPA proposes to accept ODEQ's

projection that the road sanding measures will reduce PM-10 emissions

from winter road sanding by 60%. See Appendix 4 of the SIP for

additional information.

E. 20% Woodstove Opacity Limitation

The Klamath County woodsmoke control ordinance (No. 63) provides

for a year-round 20% woodstove plume opacity limitation. Visible

emissions are not to exceed 20% opacity for a period or periods

aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour period. The

ordinance does, however, grant an exemption during a fire's start-up

period. Visible emission are exempt during a fifteen minute start-up

period provided they do not exceed 40% opacity. If the opacity is

greater than 40% during start-up, then the stove is in violation of the

ordinance.

The 5% emission reduction credit requested by ODEQ is reasonable

and is consistent with the recommendations in EPA's Guidance Document

for Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures and,

therefore, EPA proposes to approve it.

F. Open Burning Restriction

Chapter 406 of the Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance regulates

residential open burning, including burn barrels/incinerators and

agricultural burning. Residential open burning, including burn barrels/

incinerators, is prohibited during red and yellow advisories within

Klamath County unless a variance has been approved by Klamath County.

ODEQ does not request any credit for this strategy.

Agricultural open burning within the nonattainment area and within

one-fourth mile of the nonattainment area boundary is prohibited

throughout the year. ODEQ estimates that the elimination of

agricultural burning will reduce PM-10 emissions by 156 tons on an

annual basis and requests a 100% emission reduction credit for

elimination of this activity. EPA believes ODEQ's claim is reasonable

and, therefore, proposes to approve this control measure.

G. Other Sources

Where sources of PM-10 contribute insignificantly to the PM-10

problem in the area, EPA's policy is that it would be unreasonable and

would not constitute RACM to require the sources to implement

potentially available control measures (see 57 FR at 13540). The State

does, however, have in place the following measures which will further

reduce PM-10 emissions. The State does not request any emission

reduction credits for the measures.

1. Fugitive Dust--Paved and Unpaved Roads

ODEQ determined through their analysis of the nonattainment area,

on a 24-hour, worst case day basis, that PM-10 emissions of re-

entrained road dust from paved and unpaved roads are negligible due to

snow cover. The application of road sanding materials is the main

source of road traffic-related emissions. On an annual basis, emissions

from paved and unpaved roads account for 163 tons, or approximately 8%

of the 1986 annual emission inventory.

Even though reducing emissions from this source category is not

needed to attain the standard, the State does regulate this category.

Referencing the suggested available fugitive dust control measures

listed in Appendix C1 (57 FR 18072), rules requiring measures 1, 2, 3,

4, 10, 11, and 12 are currently part of the Oregon SIP and are

contained in OAR 340, Division 21. These rules are enforced under OAR

340-21-060. The rules were previously approved by EPA and are contained

in the State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program; Volume 2; The

Federal Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (and other State

Regulations).

2. Prescribed Burning

Historically, PM-10 emissions from prescribed burning and slash

burning have not significantly impacted on the nonattainment area on

either a 24-hour basis (zero emissions) or on an annual basis (zero

emissions); however, this activity does have the potential to

significantly impact on the area.

To address this issue, a voluntary smoke management program was

developed and implemented. The provisions of this program are

coordinated by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODOF) which provides

daily smoke management forecasts and advisories for Klamath County. A

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in 1991 by and between the

Klamath-Lake District of ODOF, Cavenham Forest Industries (Bend,

Oregon), Modoc Lumber Company, Thomas Lumber Company, Weyerhaeuser

Company (Klamath Falls), Whiskey Creek Timber Company, Winema National

Forest, Fremont National Forest, and the Bureau of Land Management

(Lakeview District). The MOU provides that the parties will abide by

the elements of the smoke management plan and is based on a cooperative

operations plan that was in effect January 10, 1990, between the above

parties.

EPA has reviewed ODEQ's submittals and associated documentation and

concluded that they adequately justify the control measures to be

implemented. Because all control measures were implemented by the

[[Page 28537]]

CAA RACM implementation date of December 10, 1993, implementation of

the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment plan control strategies has

resulted in meeting the requirement of the Act that the attainment of

the PM-10 NAAQS be achieved as expeditiously as practicable and no

later than December 31, 1994.

4. Demonstration

As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must

submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that

the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable

but no later than December 31, 1994 (see Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the

Act). The General Preamble sets out EPA's guidance on the use of

modeling for moderate area attainment demonstrations (see 57 FR 13539).

Alternatively, the State must show attainment by December 31, 1994, or

that attainment is impracticable. The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is 150

micrograms/cubic meter (g/m3), and the standard is

attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-

hour average concentration above 150 g/m3 is equal to or

less than one (see 40 CFR section 50.6). The annual PM-10 NAAQS is 50

g/m/3, and the standard is attained when the expected

annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50

g/m3 (id.).

Generally, EPA recommends that attainment be demonstrated according

to the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline (June 1987), which presents

three methods. Federal regulations require demonstration of attainment

``by means of a proportional model or dispersion model or other

procedure which is shown to be adequate and appropriate for such

purposes'' (40 CFR Section 51.112). The preferred method is the use of

both dispersion and receptor modeling in combination. The regulation

and the guideline also allows the use of dispersion modeling alone, or

the use of two receptor models in combination with proportional

rollback.

As indicated in the General Preamble, 57 FR at 13539, EPA has

developed a supplemental attainment demonstration policy for initial

PM-10 nonattainment areas such as Klamath Falls. The Preamble provides

additional flexibility in meeting the PM-10 attainment demonstration

requirements. An earlier April 2, 1991, memorandum titled, ``PM-10

Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final Staff Work Product,'' contained

``Attachment 5'' describing the same policy. The policy explains that

in certain circumstances a modified attainment demonstration may be

appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It may be reasonable to accept a

modified attainment demonstration in cases where ``time constraints,

inadequate resources, inadequate data bases, lack of a model for some

unique situations, and other unavoidable circumstances would leave an

area unable to submit an attainment demonstration'' by November 15,

1991. The policy further explains that its application is reserved for

those initial PM-10 nonattainment areas that have ``completed the

technical analysis * * * and made a good-faith effort to submit a final

SIP by their November 15, 1991, due date.''

During development of the Klamath Falls initial moderate area PM-10

attainment plan, ODEQ did not use dispersion modeling to estimate the

design values or in the attainment and maintenance demonstrations. This

was due to: (1) the lack of adequate historical meteorological data,

(2) the late receipt in the development process of spatially resolved

emission inventory data needed for modeling, (3) the intense and

extremely shallow inversions and calm winds (typical wind speeds during

exceedances days are less than one meter per second) are not conducive

to dispersion modeling (EPA does not have and has not developed an

approved guideline model for conditions of this type), and (4) the fact

that on winter days, when worst case air quality conditions occur, the

airshed is heavily dominated by emissions from woodstoves, fireplaces,

and road sanding.

ODEQ conducted an attainment demonstration based upon receptor

modeling proportional roll-back calculations to estimate the emission

reductions required in 1994 to achieve the NAAQS. Emission inventory

estimates were reconciled with Chemical Mass Balance (version 7.0)

receptor modeling. Results from two emission estimation methods,

emission inventory and receptor modeling, were in agreement that

woodsmoke and soil dust are the major sources of emissions on

exceedance days. According to the emission inventory, woodsmoke equals

80% and soil dust equals 8% of total PM-10 particulate. According to

the CMB analysis, woodsmoke equals 82% and soil dust equals 10.9% of

particulate.

EPA guidance on CMB modeling specifies that the apportionment

should account for at least 80% of the measured aerosol mass. ODEQ's

analysis accounted for 96% of the mass.

ODEQ determined the 1994 24-hour, worst case day design value

(without controls) to be 600 g/m3 based on monitored data

utilizing EPA's graphical procedure, including adjustments for emission

growth. The 1994 annual design value (without controls) was determined

to be 82, g/m3 calculated as an arithmetic average. Monitored

concentrations for the 3-year period July 1, 1986, through June 30,

1989, were used in both cases. Appendix 1 of the SIP lists the 24-hour

concentrations used to determine the design values, and Appendix 2

provides detailed information on the design value calculations,

including which concentrations were used when data from different

methods were collected on the same day.

The Attainment Plan has been criticized for not requiring

implementation of point source emission controls on a Weyerhaeuser

facility located outside, but near, the nonattainment area. As

discussed in the Area Designation History section of the Technical

Support Document (TSD), it was ODEQ's position, during establishment of

the Klamath Falls PM-10 Group I Areas of Concern, that the Weyerhaeuser

facility did not significantly impact on the Peterson School ambient

monitoring site during exceedance days (significant is defined as 5

g/m3). ODEQ took the same position, when by operation of

law, the Klamath Falls Group I area (as defined by the UGB), was

designated as a moderate nonattainment area on November 15, 1990. The

classification of the Klamath Falls area as a Group I area and, its

subsequent designation as a nonattainment area, was based on technical

information available at that time. This information did not indicate

that Weyerhaeuser significantly impacted on the Peterson School

monitoring site. To support ODEQ's position, ODEQ committed to

requiring Weyerhaeuser to dispersion model the plant's impact. A

preliminary 1992 modeling analysis was performed and followed by a

definitive 1995 modeling analysis. The model used was the EPA point

source guideline model-ISCST2. [ISCST3 was not yet available when the

modeling was performed.]

The 1995 analysis indicates that on exceedance days, the

Weyerhaeuser facility does not have a significant impact at the

Peterson School site, which is the site on which attainment with the

NAAQS is determined.8 The source's modeled 1995 allowable

emissions are drastically lower than 1992 allowable emissions. This is

due to, among other things, the facility forfeiting unassigned plant

site emission limits and replacing five hog fuel-fired

[[Page 28538]]

boilers with natural gas fired boilers. Furthermore, Weyerhaeuser's Air

Contaminant Discharge Permit, issued on November 20, 1995, reflects an

allowable pounds per hour limit of 111 (down from the previously

permitted limit of 152 pounds per hour). The analysis, and subsequent

permit, account for emission credits of 11.79 pounds per hour (down

from the previous permitted level of 332 pounds per hour). Forfeiting

of unassigned emission credits reduces allowable emissions alone by

over 600 tons per year to a 1995 permitted level of 371 tons.9

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

\8\ This statement is based on information in a letter from

David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy Ramos, EPA Region 10, dated February

6, 1996.

\9\ EPA is aware, however, that a recent (1995) modeling

analysis that looked at impacts from the Weyerhaeuser facility in

the area outside of the UGB indicates that the facility may be

causing an exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS at an unmonitored site.

EPA is working with the State to resolve this distinct and separate

issue.

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

Based on the previously discussed design values, ODEQ estimates

that 1994 worst case day emissions must be reduced by 75.6%, which

equals 18,877 pounds per day. Thus, percent reduction required=((1994

design value-24-hour standard)/(1994 design value-background) x 100);

or, [((60-1350 g/m3)/(600-7 g/

m3)] x 100=75.6%. Annual emissions for the projected 1994

attainment year must be reduced by 47%, which equals 1035 tons. Percent

reduction required=[((82-50 g/m3)/(82-15 g/

m3)] x 100=47%.

ODEQ estimates that 1994 24-hour, worst case day emissions must be

reduced by 18,877 pounds to attain the 24-hour NAAQS, and annual

emissions must be reduced by 1035 tons in order to attain the annual

NAAQS. The previously discussed control measures are designed to reduce

projected 1994 worst case day emissions by 19,445 pounds (568 pounds

beyond the level needed for attainment and annual emissions by 1,201

tons (166 tons beyond the level needed for attainment). According to

the principle of proportional roll-back modeling, a reduction of 19,445

pounds from the Klamath Falls PM-10 emission sources will result in a

1994 worst case day ambient concentration of 136.5 g/m3.

An annual reduction of 1,201 tons will result in an annual

concentration of 44.9 g/m3. Both values demonstrate

attainment with their respective standards.

EPA proposes to approve the attainment demonstration. It is EPA's

opinion that the appropriate air quality model was used and all

significant emission sources and impacts were considered. The

Attainment Plan demonstrates attainment by December 31, 1994. EPA has

also considered the fact that, based on monitored air quality for the

calendar years 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, the area has, in fact,

attained both the 24-hour and annual NAAQS. As to the adequacy of the

nonattainment area boundary, the UGB was established as the

nonattainment area boundary upon passage of the CAAA of 1990 and,

therefore, the existing nonattainment area boundary is defined in the

CAA itself.

5. PM-10 Precursors

The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary

sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10

precursors, unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute

significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see

Section 189(e) of the Act). The General Preamble contains guidance

addressing how EPA intends to implement Section 189(e) (see 57 FR

13539-13542).

As previously discussed, ODEQ's technical analysis of candidate

control measures indicated that emissions from industrial point sources

had substantially less of an impact on the 24-hour standard than

residential wood combustion (7% vs. 80%). Previous violations of the

24-hour standard occurred during periods of extensive poor ventilation

(stagnation conditions) and cold temperatures. In addition, the CMB

analysis indicates that secondary particulate is not a major component

of the area's PM-10 emissions. This analysis identified that, on an

average winter exceedance day, 3.2% of the mass (10.7 g/

m3) comprises secondary particulate. On an annual basis, 1.9% of

the mass (1.5 g/m3) comprises secondary particulate.

Therefore, EPA believes that sources of PM-10 precursors do not

contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS, and

hereby grants the exclusion from control requirements authorized under

Section 189(e) for major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors.

Note that, while EPA is making a general finding for the Klamath

Falls area about precursor contribution to PM-10 NAAQS exceedances,

this 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.

6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress

The PM-10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating

attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be

achieved every three years until the area is redesignated attainment

and which demonstrates RFP, as defined in Section 171(1), toward

attainment by December 31, 1994 (see Section 189(c) of the CAA).

While Section 189(c) plainly provides that quantitative milestones

are to be achieved until an area is redesignated attainment, it is

silent in indicating the starting point for counting the first 3-year

period or how many milestones must be initially addressed. In the

General Preamble, EPA addressed the statutory gap in the starting point

for counting the 3-year milestone, indicating that it would begin from

the due date for the applicable implementation plan revision containing

the control measures for the area (i.e., November 15, 1991, for initial

moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas) (see 57 FR 13539).

As to the number of milestones, EPA believes that at least two

milestones must be initially addressed. Thus, the submittal to address

the SIP revisions due on November 15, 1991, for the initial moderate

PM-10 nonattainment areas must demonstrate that two milestones will be

achieved (First milestone: November 15, 1991, through November 15,

1994; Second milestone: November 15, 1994, through November 15, 1997).

For the initial PM-10 nonattainment areas that demonstrate

attainment, the emissions reduction progress made between the SIP

submittal (due date of November 15, 1991) and the attainment date of

December 31, 1994 (46 days beyond the November 15, 1994, milestone

date) will satisfy the first quantitative milestone (see 57 FR 13539).

For areas that demonstrate timely attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, the

milestones beyond the attainment achievement date should, at a minimum,

provide for continued maintenance of the standards.10

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

\10\ Section 189(c) of the Act provides that quantitative

milestones are to be achieved ``until the area is redesignated

attainment.'' However, this endpoint for quantitative milestones is

speculative because redesignation of an area as attainment is

contingent upon several factors and future events. Therefore, EPA

believes it is reasonable for states to initially address at least

the first two milestones. Addressing two milestones will ensure that

the state continues to maintain the NAAQS beyond the attainment date

for at least some period during which an area could be redesignated

attainment. However, in all instances, additional milestones must be

addressed if an area is not redesignated attainment.

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

This SIP demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31,

1994, and maintenance of the NAAQS through the year 2004, satisfying

five milestones. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the submittal as

meeting the

[[Page 28539]]

quantitative milestone requirement currently due. Finally, once a

milestone has passed, the State will have to demonstrate that the

milestone was, in fact, achieved for the Klamath Falls area as provided

in Section 189(c)(2) of the Act.

7. Enforceability Issues

All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by

ODEQ and EPA (See Sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556).

EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP revisions

were stated in a September 23, 1987, memorandum (with attachments) from

J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et al.

(see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions must also contain

a program that provides for enforcement of the control measures and

other elements in the SIP (see section 110(a)(2)(C)).

The particular control measures contained in the SIP were addressed

above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control

measures apply to the types of activities identified in that

discussion, including woodstoves and other wood burning activities. The

SIP provides that the control measures apply throughout the entire

nonattainment area.

During EPA's review of a SIP revision involving Oregon's statutory

authority, a problem was detected which affected the enforceability of

point source permit limitations. Even though the SIP does not contain

additional point source controls to attain the standard, existing and

federally approved point source emission limitations are relied upon to

maintain and demonstrate attainment with the PM-10 NAAQS.

EPA determined that, because the five-day advance notice provision

required by ORS.126(1) (1991) bars civil penalties from being imposed

for certain permit violations, ORS 468 fails to provide the adequate

enforcement authority the State must demonstrate to obtain SIP

approval, as specified in Section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR

51.230. Accordingly, the requirement to provide such notice would

preclude federal approval of a PM-10 nonattainment area SIP revision.

EPA notified Oregon of the deficiency. To correct the problem, the

Governor of Oregon signed into law new legislation amending ORS 468.126

on September 3, 1993. This amendment added paragraph 468.126(2)(e)

which provides that the five-day advance notice required by ORS

468.126(1) does not apply if the notice requirement will disqualify the

State's program from federal approval or delegation. ODEQ responded to

EPA's understanding of the application of 468.126(2)(e) and agreed

that, if federal statutory requirements preclude the use of the five-

day advance notice provision, no advance notice will be required for

violations of SIP requirements contained in permits.

In regard to a separate enforceability issue, the following is a

summary of the city, county, and interagency commitments which EPA

proposes to approve as part of the SIP as either a required control

measure or SIP strengthening measure. The content of the two ordinances

and their relationship to the SIP control strategies are discussed in

more detail in the TSD.

City and County Ordinances

A. City of Klamath Falls--Ordinance No. 6630. The ordinance grants

Klamath County the authority to implement the Klamath County Air

Quality Program (Chapter 406) within the city limits of Klamath Falls

(authority to regulate--control measure).

B. Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance No. 63. This ordinance adds

Chapter 406 to the Klamath County Code and is entitled the ``Klamath

County Clean Air Ordinance.'' The provisions in Chapter 406 establish

the mandatory air quality program, area boundaries, and enforcement

controls (control measure).

C. Klamath County Air Quality Program--Resolution 89-116. This

resolution recognizes the need for establishing control strategies

(measures) to reduce PM-10 concentrations in Klamath County (SIP

strengthening measure).

Interagency Commitments

A. Winter Road Sanding Program, Oregon Department of Transportation

Highway Division--Memorandum of Understanding. This sets forth the

Highway Department's commitment to: (1) replace cinder sanding material

with a liquid de-icing agent, (2) minimize street sanding application

rates consistent with traffic safety objectives, (3) rapid cleanup of

sanding materials, and (4) ``review construction contract Standard

Specifications and Project Provisions for compatibility with local

ordinances concerning trackout. Tracking mud onto a highway is a

citable offense (control measure).

B. Voluntary Smoke Management Plans. EPA is proposing to approve

both of the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) contained in Appendix 4

of the SIP as SIP strengthening measures. One MOU is between members of

Klamath County's forestry community. The other MOU is between the

Klamath County Farm Bureau of Directors.

ODEQ's submittal and the TSD contain further information on

enforceability requirements. In addition, the TSD contains a discussion

of the personnel and funding intended to support effective

implementation of the control strategy.

8. Contingency Measures

As provided in Section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate

nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include

contingency measures. See generally 57 FR 13543-13544. These measures

must be submitted by November 15, 1993, for the initial moderate

nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should consist of other

available measures that are not part of the area's control strategy.

These measures must take effect without further action by the State or

EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to make RFP

or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. EPA

guidance recommends that the emission reductions expected from

implementation of the contingency measures equal twenty-five percent of

the total reduction in actual emissions in the plan's control strategy

(57 FR 13544). However, the CAA does not specify how many contingency

measures are needed or the magnitude of emissions reductions that must

be provided by these measures (see 57 FR 13511). EPA believes that,

consistent with the statutory scheme, contingency measures must at a

minimum provide for continued progress toward the attainment goal in

the interim period after an area fails to attain and while additional

measures required as a result of being reclassified to serious are

being adopted (see 57 FR 13511). The Klamath Falls nonattainment area

SIP contains the following contingency measures:

a. Uncertified woodstove removal: The 1991 Oregon Legislature

authorized by statute the removal and destruction of uncertified

woodstoves upon sale of a home within any area that fails to meet the

PM-10 SIP attainment date of December 31, 1994. EPA approved these

rules (OAR 340-34-200 through 215) as part of the Oregon SIP on June 9,

1992 (see 57 FR 24373).

b. Industrial Emissions: ODEQ developed an industrial contingency

plan designed to reduce industrial emissions should an area fail to

attain by the CAA attainment date. The regulations requiring emission

reductions, with specific source emission limits, are contained in OAR

340-21-200 through 245. EPA approved

[[Page 28540]]

these rules as part of the SIP on August 19, 1992 (see 57 FR 37468).

The rules apply to existing sources in all of Oregon's PM-10

nonattainment areas. The sources regulated include wood waste boilers,

wood particle dryers at particleboard plants, hardboard manufacturing

plants, and air conveying systems. The rules also require fugitive

emission control plans for large sawmills, plywood mills or veneer

manufacturing plants, hardboard plants, and charcoal manufacturing

plants. In addition, OAR 340-21-200 through 340-21-245 applies to a

major source located outside of a PM-10 nonattainment area which has a

significant impact upon a nonattainment area. According to OAR 340-21-

210(2)(b), upon request by ODEQ, the owner or operator of any source

with the potential to have a significant impact on a PM-10

nonattainment area shall conduct, prior to the attainment date required

in the Clean Air Act and in accordance with a study protocol approved

by ODEQ, a receptor and dispersion modeling study of the impact of

emissions from the source on the PM-10 nonattainment area. As

previously stated, significant impact is defined as 5g/

m63.

c. The continuation of the woodstove certification program after

December 31, 1994), will provide a net reduction in residential wood

burning emissions between the years 1994 and 2004, and on into the

future.

d. Chapter 406.650(1) through Chapter 406.650(9) of the Klamath

County Clean Air Ordinance delineates the contingency measures adopted

by Klamath County. They include, among other things, measures to

further reduce woodsmoke and fugitive dust.

As stated above, the industrial contingency rules apply to existing

sources in all of Oregon's PM-10 nonattainment areas. In actuality,

because of the PM-10 source mix in the area, the measures applicable to

the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment area include wood waste boilers,

wood particle dryers at particleboard plants, hardboard manufacturing

plants, air conveying systems, fugitive emission control plans, and the

analysis of the impact of emissions from a source outside the area

which has the potential to have a significant impact on the

nonattainment area (such as the Weyerhaeuser facility).

Also, as previously discussed, in 1995 ODEQ determined through a

dispersion modeling study that Weyerhaeuser does not have a significant

impact at the monitoring site of reference (Peterson School) during

NAAQS exceedance days, and therefore is not subject to the PM-10

industrial contingency measures.

ODEQ estimates that PM-10 emissions would be reduced an additional

108 tons per year by the year 2000 through implementation of the

woodstove contingency measures. Industrial emissions would be reduced

an additional 132 tons per year through installation of point source

controls to meet the industrial contingency measure requirement.

Additional reductions which cannot be quantified by the emission

inventory would be achieved through the fugitive dust control

contingency measures. Total reductions are estimated at a minimum of

240 tons per year (nonattainment area industries only), which is 23% of

the total annual emission reduction needed for attainment.

The SIP provides that each of the above contingency measures would

have taken effect without further action by the State or EPA had EPA

determined that the Klamath Falls nonattainment area has failed to

achieve RFP or to attain the PM-10 standard by the statutory attainment

date of December 31, 1994.

EPA is proposing to approve the Klamath Falls nonattainment area

contingency measures.

III. Implications of This Action

EPA is proposing to approve the 1991 Attainment Plan and the 1995

revision to the Plan as submitted to EPA for the Klamath Falls

nonattainment area on November 15, 1991, and September 22, 1995,

respectively. Among other things, ODEQ has demonstrated that the

Klamath Falls moderate PM-10 nonattainment area will attain the PM-10

NAAQS by December 31, 1994. In fact, the area has not experienced an

exceedance of the NAAQS since 1991. Note that EPA's action includes

approval of the contingency measures for the Klamath Falls

nonattainment area.

IV. Administrative Review

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA

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, EPA 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.

SIP approvals under Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D, of the

CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements

that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-

approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does

not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S. Ct. 1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to

the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted on by the rule.

EPA has determined that the proposed action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this

action.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP 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 3 action by the EPA

Region 10 Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management

[[Page 28541]]

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, and Particulate matter.

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

Dated: May 24, 1996.

Jane S. Moore,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-14120 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P