Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; SOINF2: New Manchester-Grant Magisterial District, Hancock County Implementation Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL-5644-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

West Virginia; SO2: New Manchester-Grant Magisterial District,

Hancock County Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State implementation plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision provides for,

and demonstrates, the attainment of the national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) for sulfur oxides, measured as sulfur dioxide

(SO2), in the New Manchester-Grant Magisterial District, Hancock

County nonattainment area. The implementation plan was submitted by

West Virginia to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

pertaining to nonattainment areas. This action is being taken under

section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This action is effective January 27, 1997 unless notice is

received on or before December 27, 1996 that adverse or critical

comments will be submitted. If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Makeba A. Morris, Chief, Technical

Assessment Section (3AT22), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

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; the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and, West Virginia

Division of Environmental Protection, 1558 Washington Street, East,

Charleston, West Virginia 25311.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Campbell, Technical

Assessment Section (3AT22), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107,

phone: 215 566-2196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 17, 1995, as amended on May 3,

1996, the State of West Virginia submitted a revision to its State

implementation plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2). The revision

pertains to the SO2 nonattainment area in New Manchester-Grant

Magisterial District, Hancock County, West Virginia.

[[Page 60192]]

Background

The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, required EPA to establish

the attainment status of areas with respect to the national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS). On March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962), as amended on

September 12, 1978 (43 FR 40502), EPA published the initial attainment

designations for each State in Region III. Areas within each State were

designated as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable and these

designations are depicted in 40 CFR part 81.

As part of EPA Region III's initial designations, the New

Manchester-Grant Magisterial District, Hancock County, West Virginia

was designated as nonattainment for the primary NAAQS for SO2. EPA

acted on the recommendation of West Virginia to designate this area as

nonattainment for SO2. The basis of the recommendation was ambient

air quality monitoring data collected at the New Manchester monitor

located in Hancock County that indicated violations of the primary

NAAQS for SO2 in the northern portion of the County.

The cause of the violations of the NAAQS was primarily attributed

to Ohio Edison Company's W. H. Sammis Power Plant in nearby Jefferson

County, Ohio. On July 24, 1979 (44 FR 43298) and August 14, 1980 (45 FR

54042), EPA proposed and finalized, respectively, a revision to the

West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) for SO2. The

revision contained a control strategy and attainment demonstration for

the New Manchester-Grant area.

The control strategy indicated that the New Manchester-Grant

Magisterial District nonattainment area would attain the NAAQS when the

Sammis Power Plant complies with the applicable SO2 emission

limitations of the Ohio SIP. This strategy did not require West

Virginia to revise its SO2 regulations. The control strategy was

supported by a modeling demonstration and air quality data which showed

that the area would attain the NAAQS if the Sammis Power Plant complied

with its SIP emission limitation. Although a SIP revision for the

nonattainment area was approved, the State did not submit a request for

redesignation to attainment.

On February 5, 1990, EPA issued a SIP call to West Virginia which,

in part, required the submission of a SIP revision to attain and

maintain the NAAQS for SO2 in all of Hancock County, including the

New Manchester-Grant nonattainment area. The SIP call was issued

because monitored violations of the NAAQS in Hancock County indicated

that the current SIP was inadequate. Later that year, the Clean Air Act

was amended and provided that any area designated with respect to the

NAAQS, as in effect immediately before November 15, 1990, shall retain

that designation ``by operation of law'' (section 107(d)(1)(C)).

Therefore, the New Manchester-Grant Magisterial District, Hancock

County, West Virginia remained classified as nonattainment for SO2

by operation of law after November 15, 1990.

Initially, EPA misinterpreted the new requirements of the Clean Air

Act as they applied to the New Manchester-Grant nonattainment area. EPA

had erroneously informed the State that a SIP revision for the

nonattainment area was due by May 15, 1992. On June 13, 1994, EPA

informed West Virginia of its misinterpretation of the Act and

established, via the SIP call authorities outlined in section 110(k), a

SIP submittal due date of December 1, 1994. EPA also explained that

section 192(c) is applicable in this situation and it mandates the

attainment of the NAAQS within five (5) years from the determination of

SIP inadequacy. Therefore, the required SIP must provide for attainment

by February 5, 1995.

On February 17, 1995, West Virginia submitted a formal SIP revision

for the New Manchester-Grant Magisterial District nonattainment area.

The SIP revision contains, among other things, individual consent

orders between West Virginia and Quaker State Refinery and Weirton

Steel Corporation limiting their SO2 emissions and allowing for

the demonstration of attainment in the New Manchester-Grant

nonattainment area. EPA determined that the submittal was

administratively and technically complete. Subsequent to this

determination, West Virginia identified potential minor errors with

regard to the emissions inventory for a number of sources located in

Ohio and the possible amendment of emission limits for two other Ohio

sources. On May 3, 1996, West Virginia submitted an amended attainment

demonstration that accounts for the identified changes in the Ohio

emissions inventory. The consent orders between the State and principle

sources did not require revision in order to demonstrate attainment.

It should be noted that the remainder of Hancock County, Clay and

Butler Magisterial Districts and the City of Weirton (the ``Weirton

Area'), was redesignated as nonattainment for SO2 on December 21,

1993 (58 FR 67334). This action required the State to submit a SIP

revision for the Weirton Area by July 20, 1995. On July 21, 1995, EPA

received a SIP revision submittal for the Weirton Area and that

submittal is currently under Agency review.

Summary of SIP Revision

On February 17, 1995, as amended on May 3, 1996, Mr. Laidley Eli

McCoy, Ph.D., Director, West Virginia Division of Environmental

Protection submitted to EPA Region III a SIP revision for the New

Manchester-Grant Magisterial District, Hancock County SO2

nonattainment area. The SIP revision consists primarily of consent

orders entered into by and between the State of West Virginia and the

Quaker State Refinery in Congo, West Virginia and the Weirton Steel

Corporation in Weirton, West Virginia. The consent orders establish

SO2 emission limits for numerous emission points at both

facilities. The submittal contains an air quality dispersion modeling

demonstration that indicates that the allowable emission limits will

provide for the attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 in the New

Manchester-Grant area.

The consent orders stipulate the following emission limitations for

the Quaker State Corporation refinery and the Weirton Steel Corporation

facility:

Quaker State Corporation, Congo Refinery SO2 Emission Limits

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

SO2 emission unit SO2 emission limit

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

Coal-fired, Fluidized-bed Boiler 1.2 lbs-SO2/MMBtu of heat input, at

No. 1. any time.

Coal-fired, Fluidized-bed Boiler 1.2 lbs-SO2/MMBtu of heat input, at

No. 2. any time.

Oil-fired Package Boiler A......... 1.2 lbs-SO2/MMBtu of heat input, at

any time.

Oil-fired Package Boiler B......... 1.2 lbs-SO2/MMBtu of heat input, at

any time.

Simultaneous operation of Coal- 192 lbs-SO2/hour, each boiler.

fired, Fluidized-bed Boilers Nos.1

and 2.

Simultaneous operation of Oil-fired 264 lbs-SO2/hour, combined.

Package Boilers A and B.

Simultaneous operation of one Coal- 264 lbs-SO2/hour, combined.

fired, Fluidized-bed Boiler and

one Oil-fired Package Boiler.

[[Page 60193]]

Process Heaters H-101 and H-102.... 1.1 lbs-SO2/MMBtu.

Process Heaters H-501/6 and H-601/4 0.8 lbs-SO2/MMBtu.

Vacuum Fractionator Heater H-701... Shall burn natural gas and/or

treated refinery gas that contains

10 grains of hydrogen

sulfide per 100 dry standard cubic

feet of gas, and 0.8 lbs-SO2/

MMBtu.

Process Heater H-201............... Shall burn fuel oil, desulfurized

fuel gas and/or natural gas, and

1.1 lbs-SO2/MMBtu.

Hydrogen Unit Heater H-605......... Shall burn natural gas only.

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

Weirton Steel Corporation, Weirton Facility SO2 Emission Limits

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

SO2 Emission Unit SO2 Emission Limit

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

High Pressure Boilers 1, 2, 3, 4... 1.6 lbs-SO2/MMBtu and 864 lbs-SO2/

hour, per boiler. No more than

three boilers may be operated

simultaneously.

High Pressure Boiler 5............. 0.8 lbs-SO2/MMBtu and 480 lbs-SO2/

hour.

Sinter Plant....................... 250 lbs-SO2/hour.

Slag Granulator.................... 100 lbs-SO2/hour.

Basic Oxygen Process Waste Heat 300 lbs-SO2/hour.

Boilers.

Hot Mill Reheat Furnaces, Foster- Shall burn blast furnace gas, mixed

Wheeler Boilers and combustion gas (approximately 70 percent

sources at the Hydrochloric Acid natural gas and 30 percent air),

Regeneration Plant, Continuous or natural gas.

Annealing Facility, Jumbo

Annealing Facility, and Blast

Furnace Stoves.

Low Pressure Boilers LP1, LP2, LP3, Shall be permanently shut down.

LP4 and LP15.

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

Evaluation of State Submittal

The Clean Air Act requires States to submit implementation plans

that indicate how each State intends to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

The 1977 Amendments established specific requirements for

implementation plans in nonattainment areas in part D, sections 171-

178. The 1990 Amendments did not change these requirements in any

significant way with regard to SO2 nonattainment areas and

existing guidance remains valid. On April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), EPA

issued ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' describing EPA's preliminary views

on how it intends to interpret various provisions of title I, primarily

those concerning revisions required for nonattainment areas.

In order to approve the SIP revision, each of the part D

requirements must be evaluated and the revision must ensure that (1)

the revised allowable emission limitations demonstrate attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS for SO2 in the nonattainment area; (2)

the emission limitations are clearly enforceable; and (3) that all

applicable procedural and substantive requirements of 40 CFR part 51

are met. The following is an evaluation of the part D requirements as

described in the ``General Preamble''; a more detailed evaluation is

provided in a Technical Support Document available upon request from

the Regional EPA office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

document:

1. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

West Virginia's SIP revision provides for reasonably available

control technology (RACT). The SIP revision indicates that SO2

emissions are controlled at the Quaker State Corporations facility in

Congo, West Virginia and the Weirton Steel Corporation facility in

Weirton, West Virginia largely through fuel specification and

operations modifications. The revision establishes allowable SO2

emission limitations at both plants and also defines allowable fuel

usage for a number of processes. With regard to Quaker State, the

revision includes a schedule for the construction of taller smokestakes

for emissions from a number of boilers at the facility. The limits

contained in the revision were effective upon execution of the

individual consent orders entered into with West Virginia by Quaker

State and Weirton Steel on January 9, 1995. The SIP revision provides a

demonstration that these limits will provide for the attainment of the

NAAQS in the nonattainment area by the statutory attainment date.

2. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

West Virginia's SIP revision provides for reasonable further

progress (RFP). The SIP revision provides that the allowable emission

rates are achievable by the required attainment date.

3. Contingency Measures

West Virginia's SIP revision provides for adequate contingency

measures. The SIP revision contains a comprehensive action plan to

quickly identify and address SO2 impacts that may affect

attainment of the NAAQS in the New Manchester-Grant area. The State's

plan includes the continuous review of air quality monitoring data in

the area of concern, including the two monitors located in the

nonattainment area. In the event of a certified violation, West

Virginia intends to contact all potential contributors to the

violations both locally and in neighboring Ohio and Pennsylvania. West

Virginia has provided assurances that appropriate mitigation measures

will be pursued to remedy the causes of any violations.

4. Stack Height Issues and Remand

West Virginia has adequately addressed any potential stack height

issues. The only stack height issues contained in the SIP revision

pertain to the construction of new smokestacks at the Quaker State

facility. In the consent order with Quaker State, West Virginia

requires that any modifications to the existing stacks or replacement

of those stacks shall comply with the provisions of federally-approved

West Virginia regulation 45CSR20 ``Good Engineering Practice as

Applicable to Stack Heights''. There are no stack height issues at the

Weirton Steel facility.

[[Page 60194]]

5. Existing Modeling Protocols

West Virginia's SIP revision is supported by a modeling

demonstration using regulatory air dispersion models as defined by 40

CFR part 51, appendix W--``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised),''

(hereinafter, the Guideline). The model protocol employed by West

Virginia to perform the attainment demonstration was developed by an

EPA contractor. The model protocol was amended and refined by West

Virginia and EPA as necessary. As mentioned, the allowable emission

limitations established by the SIP revision are supported by Guideline

modeling which indicates that the limits are adequate to attain and

maintain the NAAQS for SO2 in the nonattainment area by the

statutory attainment date. West Virginia employed the Guideline models

Integrated Gaussian Model (IGM) and CTSCREEN, the screening mode of

Complex Terrain Dispersion Model Plus Algorithms for Unstable

Situations (CTDMPLUS). The IGM modeling analysis relied on the

predictions of Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST2) for simple

terrain and COMPLEX1 and Rough Terrain Diffusion Model (RTDM) for

complex terrain predictions. The results of this demonstration will be

discussed below.

6. Test Methods and Averaging Times

West Virginia's SIP revision principally relies on the use of

continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) as the means of monitoring

compliance at the Quaker State and Weirton Steel facilities. The

revision stipulates short-term averaging times for determining

compliance with the allowable emission limits.

The SIP revision requires the Quaker State facility to operate

continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) systems to test for compliance

with the applicable SO2 emission limitations at each of its coal-

and oil-fired boilers. The SIP revision stipulates averaging times

based on rolling, 3-hour averages for the boilers. For Quaker State's

process heaters, fuel sampling and analysis is required to determine

compliance. The revision also requires that all refinery fuel gas

streams be monitored for hydrogen sulfide concentrations using a CEM

system. The SIP revision further stipulates that in the event of CEM

malfunction or outage, certain fuel specification requirements and

alternative compliance test methodologies must be employed to ensure

compliance. All CEM systems must be operated according to the relevant

portions of 40 CFR part 60.

At the Weirton Steel facility, the SIP revision also relies heavily

on CEM systems as the main test method. The principal emission sources

at the plant, the boilers, must operate CEM systems and must assure

compliance of the relevant emission limitations based on a rolling,

three-hour average. The SIP also provides contingency test methods in

the event that the CEM systems are inoperable. For the other emission

sources at the facility, the sinter plant and the slag granulator,

Weirton Steel must conduct a specified number of emissions tests in

accordance with the reference test procedures detailed at 40 CFR part

60, appendix A. Specifically, compliance testing should be conducted

according to Methods 6, 6A, 6B, 6C, and 19.

7. Emission Inventory

West Virginia's SIP revision provides an adequate actual emissions

inventory from all relevant sources of SO2 in the nonattainment

area. The revision contains a current inventory of actual emissions

data and stack parameter information for the Quaker State and Weirton

Steel facilities as well as numerous nearby emission sources in West

Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

Shortly after submitting the February 17, 1995 SIP revision, West

Virginia identified what it believed to be erroneous data contained in

the emission inventory for certain Ohio emission sources. At this same

time, the State of Ohio was pursuing a revision to its SIP with regard

to the Sammis Power Plant. The Sammis Power Plant significantly impacts

the New Manchester-Grant area. As a result of these two factors, West

Virginia acknowledged that the emission inventory for the attainment

demonstration would require revision to correct the errors and to

reflect any changes to the Ohio SIP with regard to the Sammis Plant

and/or any other relevant sources. As part of the May 3, 1996 SIP

revision amendment, West Virginia provided the appropriate corrections

and amendments to the emission inventory.

8. Attainment Demonstration

West Virginia's SIP revision provides an adequate attainment

demonstration, including appropriate air quality dispersion modeling.

EPA regulations, 40 CFR 51.112, require nonattainment plans to include

a demonstration of the adequacy of the plan's control strategy. The

demonstration must employ the applicable air quality models, data

bases, and other requirements specified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W--

``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)''. This demonstration must

include the following information: model selection and descriptions;

model application and assumptions made during application of selected

models; receptor grids; meteorological data; ambient air monitoring

data and background concentration; model source input; and modeling

results.

Model Descriptions--The air quality dispersion modeling analysis

performed for this demonstration employed the Integrated Gaussian Model

(IGM) and screening mode of the Complex Terrain Dispersion Model Plus

Algorithms for Unstable Situations (CTDMPLUS) named CTSCREEN. Both

models are considered recommended models according to Appendix W. IGM

is capable of calculating emission concentrations for simple,

intermediate and complex terrain situations. IGM is able to execute

algorithms from four other Guideline models to predict concentrations:

Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST2) for simple terrain and

COMPLEX1, Rough Terrain Dispersion Model (RTDM), and SHORTZ for complex

terrain. CTSCREEN is a Gaussian model that requires actual terrain

feature data as input. CTSCREEN is able to calculate concentrations

estimations using a data set of predetermined meteorological conditions

as input in lieu of recorded meteorological data.

Model Application--The area contained within the modeling domain,

comprising most of Hancock County, can be characterized as primarily

rural terrain with some intermediate terrain features. Three model

analyses were performed in the modeling domain. A domain-wide

application of IGM was used to characterize all non-Quaker State

emission sources in the inventory. In this IGM analysis, ISCST2 was

employed as the simple terrain model and RTDM or COMPLEX1, as

appropriate, was used as the complex terrain model. CTSCREEN was

applied in the complex terrain surrounding the Quaker State facility to

describe that source's impacts on the domain in complex terrain.

CTSCREEN does not predict concentrations at receptors located below

stack top, therefore, ISCST2 was run to determine concentrations at

those receptors. There were no intermediate terrain receptors in the

two Quaker State specific analyses.

Receptor Grids--The principal receptor grid covers the New

Manchester-Grant Magisterial District nonattainment area with one-

kilometer spacing between each receptor. A more refined receptor grid

was developed for the area surrounding the only

[[Page 60195]]

significant source located in the defined nonattainment area, Quaker

State. This refined grid augmented the one-kilometer grid by using 200-

meter receptor spacing. The entire receptor grid consisted of 245

receptors. The overall grid was developed to adequately assess the

impacts of the Quaker State facility as well as the other nearby

emission sources. The demonstration also included the required terrain

arrays employed by RTDM (within IGM) and the digitized terrain profiles

required as input for CTSCREEN. West Virginia developed these arrays

and profiles according to the appropriate procedures.

Meteorological Data--On-site meteorological data was not available

within the modeling domain, therefore, West Virginia relied on data

collected at the National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological site

located at Pittsburgh International Airport. Appendix W recommends that

the five most recent years of NWS data be employed if on-site data is

unavailable. West Virginia used data collected from 1989 through 1993.

A portion of the data collected in 1988 and 1991 were determined

incomplete by EPA. West Virginia replaced the missing data using a

substitution procedure approved by EPA.

Background Concentration--The demonstration uses monitored air

quality data for determining that portion of the background

concentrations attributable to sources other than those nearby that are

to be explicitly modeled. Seventeen SO2 monitoring sites in and

around the nonattainment area were available for evaluation. West

Virginia employed an appropriate methodology for using the data

collected at those monitors for developing hourly background

concentration values to be used as model input.

Source Inputs--The source inventory for the demonstration consists

of the two major sources of SO2 located in Hancock County, Quaker

State and Weirton Steel, as well as other significant sources located

in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. West Virginia explicitly

modeled all significant sources of SO2 located within 50

kilometers of nonattainment area. For all 20 sources included in the

emission inventory, model input data were developed for parameters such

as stack height, stack temperature, exit velocity, etc. Maximum

allowable emission rates were used for each source with continuous

operation assumed for evaluation of the short-term standards and actual

operation data was used to adjust the emission rates for evaluation of

the annual standard.

As mentioned above, certain changes were made to the emission

inventory relevant to a number of Ohio sources after initial submittal

of the SIP revision on February 17, 1995. Ohio Edison operates the

Sammis and Toronto Power Plants in nearby Jefferson County, Ohio. The

State of Ohio has recently proposed approval of a revision to its SIP

as it applies to these two plants to allow for new allowable SO2

emission limitations. Ohio has proposed to change the Sammis Plant's

allowable emission limits for units 1-4 from 1.61 lbs-SO2/

mmBtu and units 5-7 from 4.46 lbs-SO2/mmBtu to a single,

plant-wide emission rate of 2.91 lbs-SO2/mmBtu. For the

Toronto Power Plant, Ohio has proposed an emission limit reduction from

8.1 lbs-SO2/mmBtu to 2.0 lbs-SO2/mmBtu. While both

changes represent gross emission reductions, the change in operating

conditions at the Sammis Plant considering the variable stack

parameters at each unit requires that the new emission limits be

examined for their expected impacts on the New Manchester-Grant

nonattainment area. West Virginia re-visited its original attainment

demonstration to evaluate these revised conditions. West Virginia

provides modeling results that reflect both the current SIP allowable

conditions and the proposed conditions at the Sammis and Toronto

Plants.

Modeling Results--The results of the modeling analyses indicate

that no exceedances of the NAAQS for SO2 are expected in the New

Manchester-Grant nonattainment area when the Quaker State and Weirton

Steel Corporation facilities are operating at the emission rates

contained in their respective consent orders and the other significant

sources comply with their allowable emission rates.

The demonstration present results of analyses examining both the

current SIP situation for the Sammis and Toronto Power Plants and for

the proposed conditions. The emission inventory for all of the other

modeled sources remained constant for each scenario. Under both

scenarios, the demonstration indicates that the primary NAAQS, the

annual [80 g/m3] and 24-hour [365 g/m3]

standards will be attained under the terms of the SIP revision. The

three-hour [1300 g/m3] standard will also be protected at

all receptors under both scenarios.

Discussion of Weirton Area Nonattainment Area

On December 21, 1993, EPA promulgated the redesignation of areas as

nonattainment for SO2 and particulate matter (PM-10). The Federal

Register (58 FR 67334) document identifies the Clay and Butler

Magisterial Districts and the City of Weirton in Hancock County, West

Virginia, the ``Weirton Area'', as being redesignated as nonattainment

for SO2 under section 107 of the Clean Air Act. Pursuant to

section 191(a) of the Act, the State of West Virginia was required to

submit to EPA an implementation plan for this area within 18 months of

the effective date of the redesignation to nonattainment. The State

submitted a SIP revision for the Weirton Area on July 21, 1995 and the

revision is currently under Agency review.

As discussed briefly above, the basis of EPA's determination to

redesignate this area as nonattainment for SO2 was air quality

monitor data collected in the late 1980's and early 1990's that

indicated violations of the primary and secondary standards in Hancock

County. West Virginia and EPA were aware of the air quality issues in

the Weirton Area for some time and considered completing a County-wide

attainment demonstration and SIP revision. However, certain logistical

and technical issues arose such that it was determined that individual

SIP revisions for each nonattainment area would be the most prudent

course.

It is recognized that many of the sources that influence air

quality in the New Manchester-Grant nonattainment area will play a

significant role in the Weirton Area. This is particularly true for the

Weirton Steel Corporation's facility in Weirton, as well as, the Sammis

and Toronto Power Plants. Therefore, the contribution of these sources

on the Weirton Area nonattainment area will have to be closely assessed

in any attainment demonstration for the Weirton Area. There is a strong

potential that emission reductions above and beyond those contained in

the consent order in the New Manchester-Grant SIP revision may be

required from Weirton Steel in order to demonstrate attainment of the

NAAQS in the Weirton Area. It should also be noted that the currently

proposed emission limits for the Sammis and Toronto Plants may need to

be reconsidered if it is determined that these sources must play a role

in any control strategy for the Weirton Area. Based on the modeling

that is included in the New Manchester-Grant SIP revision, it is

doubtful that the Quaker State facility causes significant impact in

the Weirton Area and it is therefore unlikely that its emission

limitations will require future amendment. However, all sources in the

emission inventory that significantly impact the Weirton Area

nonattainment area

[[Page 60196]]

should not be excluded from consideration for control strategy

purposes. All of these issues will be more fully discussed during the

formal review of the Weirton Area SIP revision.

EPA's review of the entire submittal indicates that West Virginia's

SIP revision provides for the attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 in

New Manchester-Grant Magisterial District, Hancock County and satisfies

the requirements of part D of the Clean Air Act. The revision is

supported by a modeling analysis which clearly demonstrates the

adequacy of emission limits in providing for the attainment and

maintenance of NAAQS for SO2 in the nonattainment area. The

consent orders between West Virginia and Quaker State Corporation and

Weirton Steel Corporation at the center of the SIP revision establish

enforceable SO2 emission limits at these two facilities. The

submittal clearly fulfills the procedural and substantive requirements

of 40 CFR part 51. Therefore, EPA is approving the West Virginia SIP

revision for the New Manchester-Grant Magisterial District, Hancock

County SO2 nonattainment area.

EPA is approving this SIP revision without prior proposal because

the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates

no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal

Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be

effective January 27, 1997 unless, by December 27, 1996, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before

the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this

action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do

so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is

advised that this action will be effective on January 27, 1997.

Final Action

EPA is approving the West Virginia SIP revision for the New

Manchester-Grant Magisterial District, Hancock County SO2

nonattainment area.

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.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the 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 and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Clean Air Act 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, the Regional

Administrator certifies 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 flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

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

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 by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action proposed/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.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the

General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's

Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 January 27, 1997. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Regional Administrator of this

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 to approve a revision

to West Virginia's SIP for SO2 in New Manchester-Grant Magisterial

District, Hancock County 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, Incorporation by

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

[[Page 60197]]

Dated: October 17, 1996.

Stanley L. Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator, 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. 7401-7671q.

Subpart XX--West Virginia

2. Section 52.2520 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(35) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.2520 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(35) Revisions to the West Virginia implementation plan for sulfur

dioxide (SO2) in New Manchester Grant-Magisterial District,

Hancock County submitted on February 17, 1995, as amended on May 3,

1996 by West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of February 17, 1995 from Mr. David C. Callaghan,

Director, West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection

transmitting a SIP revision for the New Manchester-Grant Magisterial

District, Hancock County SO2 nonattainment area.

(B) Letter of May 3, 1996 from Mr. Laidley Eli McCoy, Ph.D.,

Director, West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection

transmitting an amendment to the February 17, 1995 SIP revision

submittal for the New Manchester-Grant Magisterial District, Hancock

County SO2 nonattainment area.

(C) Implementation plan document (as amended, May 3, 1996),

entitled ``Revision to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan to

Achieve and Maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Sulfur Dioxide in the New Manchester-Grant Magisterial District''.

(D) Consent order entered into by and between the State of West

Virginia and the Quaker State Corporation on January 9, 1995. The

consent order was effective on January 9, 1995.

(E) Consent order entered into by and between the State of West

Virginia and the Weirton Steel Corporation on January 9, 1995. The

consent order was effective on January 9, 1995.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Remainder of West Virginia's February 17, 1995 submittal, as

amended on May 3, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96-30324 Filed 11-26-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P