Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH91-1-7265b; FRL-5401-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 3, 1995, Ohio submitted revisions to its

particulate matter plans for the Cleveland and Steubenville

nonattainment areas. These revisions were submitted to address plan

deficiencies identified by USEPA in a final limited disapproval of the

particulate matter plans published in the Federal Register on May 27,

1994, at 59 FR 27464. For the Cleveland area, these revisions provide

earlier attainment and correct the deficient test method. For the

Steubenville area, these revisions include an administrative order for

tightening controls at Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel's basic oxygen furnace

and provide a fully updated modeling analysis demonstrating that the

plan assures attainment. USEPA is proposing to approve these revisions.

On this basis, USEPA is by separate notice today making an interim

final determination that these revisions remedy the deficiencies

identified in the

[[Page 1728]]

rulemaking of May 27, 1994. As a result, the sanctions which could have

resulted from the May 1994 rulemaking shall not apply.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by February

22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AE-17J),

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State's submittal and USEPA's technical support

document of December 5, 1995, are available for inspection at the

following address: (It is recommended that you telephone John

Summerhays at (312) 886-6067, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division (AE-17J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Regulation

Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 886-6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Ohio submitted major revisions to its particulate matter

regulations on November 14, 1991, with supplemental submittals on

December 4, 1991, and January 8, 1992. USEPA proposed rulemaking on

these submittals on August 3, 1993, at 58 FR 41218, and published a

notice of final rulemaking on May 27, 1994, at 59 FR 27464, granting

limited approval/limited disapproval of these submittals. Although

USEPA approved most of Ohio's regulations, USEPA concluded that

selected requirements of the Clean Air Act applicable to the two Ohio

nonattainment areas, i.e., Cuyahoga County (including Cleveland) and

the Steubenville area, were not satisfied. This represented a

disapproval finding under Section 179(a)(2) and initiated a ``clock''

toward imposition of sanctions in these areas under Section 179(b).

Ohio submitted further revisions to its particulate matter plans on

November 3, 1995, seeking to remedy the deficiencies identified in

USEPA's May 1994 rulemaking. Today's notice discusses and proposes

action on Ohio's November 1995 submittal.

Ohio conducted a public hearing in connection with its Cuyahoga

County rule revisions but has not yet conducted a public hearing with

respect to revisions to the Steubenville area attainment demonstration.

USEPA has concluded that proposed rulemaking is warranted for both

areas' plan revisions. However, with respect to the Steubenville area

plan revisions, USEPA will publish final rulemaking only after Ohio has

solicited public comments and submitted evidence that any such comments

have been appropriately considered.

II. Cuyahoga County Issues

USEPA's rulemaking for the Cuyahoga County plan identified two main

deficiencies. First, the requirement for implementing reasonably

available control technology (RACT) by December 10, 1993, was not

satisfied, because the plan neither implemented all technologically

reasonable measures (the ``technology definition'' of RACT) nor

implemented sufficient measures to assure expeditious attainment (the

``attainment definition'' of RACT) by that date. Under this latter

option, if the State has adopted sufficient measures to assure

attainment by December 10, 1993, and application of further measures

would not result in earlier attainment, USEPA may conclude that the

State has required all measures that are reasonable to require. Further

discussion of these alternatives for satisfying the requirement for

RACT under Section 189(a)(1)(C) is given in the ``General Preamble for

the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990,'' published in the Federal Register of April 16, 1992. (See 57 FR

13543.) Second, Ohio's plan did not fully satisfy the requirement for

assuring attainment by the attainment deadline, as a result of

questions about the ability to enforce limits on emissions from coke

quenching due to deficiencies in the test method.

Ohio addressed the RACT issue by revising its rules such that all

compliance deadlines that were previously post-December 1993 were

changed to December 10, 1993. These rule revisions were accompanied by

minor shifts in limitations applicable to various units at Ford's

Cleveland Casting Plant. Ohio's submittal provides modeling evidence

that the revised limits provide for attainment by December 1993, and

thus implicitly argues that the ``attainment definition'' of RACT is

satisfied.

The modeling in Ohio's submittal is essentially identical to the

modeling submitted in Ohio's original 1991 SIP submittal, with the

exception of course of reflecting the modified limitations. USEPA

concluded in 1994 that Ohio's modeling satisfied applicable guidance.

Relevant guidance has in general remained the same, except that a new

version of the applicable model has become available subsequent to the

1991 submittal, i.e., the original Industrial Source Complex (ISC)

model has been superseded first with the ISC2 model and then with the

ISC3 model.

There are several reasons to ``grandfather'' Ohio's use of the ISC

model. First, the limits being evaluated are not a new set of limits

but rather reflect only a minor shift of limits for a small subset of

the modeled sources. Second, the modeling submitted in November 1995

was completed in April 1993 and was part of a series of analyses

starting in 1990 or 1991. Third, according to modeling conducted by

USEPA in evaluating Ohio's 1991 submittal, ISC2 predicts lower

concentrations than ISC in the vicinity of Ford's Cleveland Casting

Plant. (This finding is documented in a technical support document

dated February 8, 1993.) ISC3 would also be expected to estimate

concentrations below those of ISC. For all these reasons, it is

appropriate to grandfather this analysis. Thus, in sum, the modeling

analysis is judged to fully satisfy current guidance.

This modeling shows a design value of 149.5 micrograms per cubic

meter (g/m\3\), thus showing attainment of the 150 g/

m\3\ 24-hour average standard given in 40 CFR 50.6(a). Although the

recent submittal did not assess attainment of the annual average

standard, the changes in emissions limits are sufficiently

insignificant and the attainment margin in Ohio's 1991 submittal is

sufficient (a nearby design value of 38.5 g/m\3\ versus the

standard of 50 g/m\3\ given in 40 CFR 50.6(b)) that the

revised limits are also judged to assure attainment of the annual

average standard. Since the measures that are providing for attainment

are to have been in place by December 1993, Ohio's revised plan also

satisfies the requirement for RACT implementation by that date.

The second issue in Cuyahoga County pertains to the test method for

one of the limitations governing metallurgical coke-making facilities.

The particular limitation at issue is the limit on the solids content

of water used to quench hot coke, a process that causes particulate

matter emissions in relation to the quench water solids content. The

test method in the rules Ohio submitted in 1991 provided for monthly

averaging of water quality based on one water sample per week, which

does not adequately assure continuous compliance with the limitation.

Ohio's November 1995 submittal includes a revised rule which requires

weekly averaging based on samples for at least

[[Page 1729]]

five days per week, which is in accordance with standard practice for

such limits. Given that quench water quality generally varies slowly,

this revision is sufficient to provide adequate assurance of continuous

compliance with this limitation. Since the attainment demonstration is

based on allowable emissions, this revision also addresses the prior

concern with the area's attainment demonstration, insofar as USEPA can

now enforce a limit consistent with the previously modeled allowable

emission rate. In sum, Ohio's revisions address the previously noted

deficiencies and make the Cuyahoga County plan fully satisfy applicable

requirements.

III. Steubenville Area Issues

USEPA's limited disapproval of the SIP for Ohio's portion of the

Steubenville area was based on deficiencies in the attainment

demonstration. The May 1994 Federal Register included lengthy

discussion of deficiencies in the estimation of allowable emissions

from the basic oxygen furnace shop and from the coke ovens. The Federal

Register also noted that further deficiencies were identified in the

technical support document, which noted deficiencies in modeling

procedures used to demonstrate attainment as well as other deficiencies

in estimating allowable emissions.

The most significant deficiency in emissions estimation was the

underestimation of allowable fugitive emissions for Wheeling-Pittsburgh

Steel Corporation's basic oxygen furnace shop. These fugitive emissions

are limited by Ohio's rules to 20 percent opacity on a 3-minute average

basis. Unfortunately, there is uncertainty in how much emissions this

limit allows. Ohio's 1991 submittal assumed that the primary control

system captured 99.5 percent of emissions from oxygen blowing in the

furnaces and that less than a third of the remaining 0.5 percent was

actually emitted, with the remaining uncaptured emissions apparently

presumed to settle within the shop. The control system at the time was

judged inadequate to achieve that high a capture efficiency, and

settling was judged not to affect fine particulate matter emissions

significantly. Nevertheless, it was unclear whether the rule's limits

could be met by the existing control system or whether allowable

emissions should be assumed to reflect enhancement of the control

system.

The existing control system at the basic oxygen furnace shop has

proved inadequate to assure compliance with the 20 percent/3-minute

average limit. Therefore, Ohio undertook enforcement action and issued

an administrative order that requires significant improvements in the

control system to achieve compliance. This administrative order was

included in Ohio's November 1995 submittal. A review of the anticipated

effectiveness of the required control system supports Ohio's assumption

that the 20 percent/3-minute average limit and the administrative order

implementing that limit requires 99.5 percent emissions capture at this

shop. Ohio's new submittal also removes the unacceptable assumption

that any uncaptured emissions of fine particles settle in the shop or

otherwise fail to be emitted. The emissions estimate developed by Ohio

considering the control system enhancement required by the submitted

administrative order is acceptable.

The second emission estimation issue discussed in the May 1994

Federal Register concerned coke oven emissions. The procedure used by

Ohio relied on equations provided in the background information

document for the coke oven National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutant (NESHAP) relating fugitive emissions to leak levels.

USEPA objected to the use in these equations of actual leak rates

(reflecting long term average actual leak rates expected to correspond

to various short term allowable leak rates) rather than the allowable

leak rates. Calculation errors were also noted in the calculation of

the fine particle fraction of these emissions, effectively making an

improper assumption that much of the condensible particulate matter

emitted by these operations is not fine particles. The November 1995

submittal corrects these problems and provides fully acceptable

estimates of allowable coke oven emissions.

The technical support document for the prior rulemaking also

identified other issues relating to emissions estimation, including

consideration of condensible particulate matter emissions, need for

support of a low silt content used in estimating emissions from blast

furnace material storage piles, and the use of a higher allowable

emission rate that applies to certain boilers when firing residual oil.

Ohio's November 1995 submittal responded to these issues where

necessary. These issues are discussed in detail in the technical

support document for this rulemaking. In addition, USEPA review of the

significance of these issues is summarized below.

The May 1994 rulemaking also identified two deficiencies relating

to modeling. First, the State's prior modeling analysis did not

properly consider intermediate terrain. USEPA's intermediate terrain

policy requires that for any hour that a receptor is above stack height

but below plume height for a given source, both simple terrain modeling

and complex terrain modeling should be conducted and the more

conservative (higher) concentration estimate used. Ohio's prior

submittal included only a limited analysis, indicating that the more

conservative results were usually obtained from simple terrain modeling

but were occasionally obtained from complex terrain modeling. Second,

the State analyzed area source impacts using the RAM model, a model

which is inappropriate in areas such as Steubenville that are

categorized under modeling guidance as ``rural.''

Ohio addressed both of these issues by submitting an updated

analysis using the ISC3 model. This model inherently implements USEPA's

intermediate terrain policy by automatically performing both simple

terrain modeling and complex terrain modeling for any hour for any

source-receptor combination that involves intermediate terrain. This

model also has an upgraded algorithm for analyzing the impacts of area

sources for either ``urban'' or ``rural'' settings. Therefore, the use

of this model satisfies the above concerns.

Ohio's analysis reflected selected additional revisions. Although

the new analysis was based on the same underlying meteorological

measurements (i.e., 12 months of measurements in 1989/1990 at a tower

in Follansbee, West Virginia), the data were processed with an updated

meteorological data processor (i.e., the Meteorological Processor for

Regulatory Models) that was not available previously. This newer

processor in some cases estimated different values for some derived

parameters such as stability. This analysis also reflected correction

of various source parameters such as erroneous source locations,

misrepresented distributions of selected area sources, and understated

efficiency of road dust control at one source. These revisions are all

acceptable.

For some issues, the information provided by Ohio was not included

in the modeling analysis. In order to assess the significance of these

issues, USEPA conducted further, supplemental model runs. These

supplemental runs are discussed further in the technical support

document and use the same modeling approach and inputs as Ohio except

for inclusion of emission estimates reflecting the minor inventory

issues referenced above. As compared to the 24-hour average standard of

150 g/

[[Page 1730]]

m\3\, the State's modeling shows a design 24-hour average concentration

of 148.7 g/m\3\, and USEPA's supplemental modeling shows a

design concentration of 149.9 g/m\3\. As compared to the

annual average standard of 50 g/m\3\, Ohio's modeling shows a

highest concentration of 49.6 g/m\3\, and USEPA's supplemental

modeling also shows a highest concentration of 49.6 g/m\3\.

Thus, with or without consideration of the minor inventory issues,

Ohio's plan may be judged to assure attainment of the air quality

standards in the Steubenville area.

IV. Today's Action

With respect to Cuyahoga County, USEPA proposes to conclude that

the revised rules now provide for RACT by December 1993, that the

quench water test method issue and the associated attainment

demonstration issue has been resolved, and that the further revisions

to the limitation for Ford's Cleveland Casting Plant do not jeopardize

attainment. With respect to the Steubenville area, USEPA proposes to

conclude that the State has now submitted a fully approvable attainment

demonstration for the area. USEPA also proposes in particular to

approve the rule revisions for Cuyahoga County and the findings and

order requiring control system enhancements at Wheeling-Pittsburgh

Steel's basic oxygen furnace.

Based on the above proposed findings, USEPA proposes further to

conclude that Ohio's particulate matter plans for the Cuyahoga County

and Steubenville nonattainment areas now satisfy all applicable

requirements under Part D of the Clean Air Act (except for new source

review requirements, which are not addressed here or in the May 1994

rulemaking and are being addressed separately). More specifically,

USEPA proposes to find that the deficiencies identified in the May 1994

rulemaking have been remedied. USEPA is publishing this finding as an

interim final determination in a separate notice in the Rules section

of this Federal Register issue. As a result, the sanctions which were

to take effect December 27, 1995, are deferred and shall not be applied

pending further rulemaking on these issues. If USEPA's final action

finalizes the approval action proposed today, the sanctions clock shall

be fully stopped. Only if USEPA publishes proposed or final disapproval

action concluding that some deficiencies have not been remedied would

sanctions be applied.

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

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

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

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

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

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

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 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, 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 Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

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 Regional

Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or

final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.

EPA has determined that the approval action proposed today 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 proposes to

approve 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air Pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: December 13, 1995.

Gail C. Ginsburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-876 Filed 1-22-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P