Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH108-1a; FRL-5894-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA approves a State implementation plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Ohio on January 3, 1997, which changed the

sulfur dioxide limits for the Procter and Gamble Company, Hamilton

County, in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-18-37. The revised

limits provide an actual heat input cap of 922 million British thermal

units (BTU) per hour on the combination of all of the Procter and

Gamble Company boilers identified in OAC 3745-18-37(GG), to allow for

simultaneous operation.

DATES: The direct final approval is effective on November 21, 1997

unless significant adverse or critical comments which have not been

previously addressed are received by October 22, 1997. If the effective

date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request are available for inspection

at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region

5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone John Paskevicz at

(312) 886-6084 before visiting the Region 5 office.)

Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Paskevicz at (312) 886-6084.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On May 15, 1996, the EPA published a SIP revision completing the

approval of the Hamilton County, Ohio sulfur dioxide (SO2)

implementation plan. This plan was approved because it was demonstrated

to provide for attainment and maintenance of the SO2

national ambient air quality standard in Hamilton County. The plan

included all major SO2 sources in the County and listed out

each of the appropriate operating parameters in OAC 3745-18-37, as

needed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS as estimated

using a rough terrain dispersion model.

On January 3, 1997, Ohio EPA submitted for approval a revision to

the Hamilton County SO2 SIP requesting changes to OAC 3745-

18-37(GG), for the air emission sources owned and operated by Procter

and Gamble Company. This revision was requested because the original

SIP for Procter and Gamble did not provide for the simultaneous

operation of the main power boilers while backup boilers are brought on

line. The original SIP did not allow for flexibility in operation in

the event the main power boilers need to be shut down for maintenance,

repaired or operated simultaneously.

The four Procter and Gamble boilers are listed in the documentation

to the SIP submittal as having a total maximum heat input capacity of

1098 million BTU/hour. Boiler numbers 1 and 2 are limited to emissions

of a maximum of 1.1 pounds of SO2 per million BTU from each

boiler. Boiler number 3 is limited to emissions of a maximum of 1.50

pounds of SO2 per million BTU actual heat input and average

operating rate of 277 million BTU per hour for any calendar day. And

boiler number 4 is limited to emissions of a maximum of 2.0 pounds of

SO2 per million BTU using an average operating rate of 450

million BTU per hour for any calendar day.

II. Review of State Submittal

In this submittal, Ohio requests a revision to OAC 3745-18-37(GG)

Procter and Gamble sulfur dioxide limits. The revision changes the

limits to allow for simultaneous operation of all of the boilers. The

submittal provides technical support and includes some of the same

material provided for the Hamilton County SIP review submitted in 1993.

In the previous review of the Hamilton County SO2 SIP,

Ohio looked at each of the four boilers at Procter and Gamble

individually and made judgments regarding impact at full load of fuel

sulfur content on air quality concentrations. Ohio concluded that the

two backup boilers could not operate on oil when the main power

boilers, using coal, were in operation. Therefore, the backup boilers

were not allowed to emit SO2 and were given a 0.0 pounds of

SO2 per million BTU limit when the main boilers were

operating, as presumed, at full load.

In developing this new revision, the approach was to develop a

limit for boiler operation in a worst case situation by operating all

boilers at the maximum level. The backup boilers with short stacks were

operated fully on and then the main boilers, with taller stacks, were

brought on. From the State's analysis, Ohio established an allowable

cap for all four boilers, based on a concentration to capacity ratio to

an operating rate of 922 million BTU per hour daily average. Thus, when

in operation, boilers number 1 and 2 are to be limited to a maximum of

1.1 pounds of SO2 per million BTU actual heat input from

each boiler; Boiler number 3 is to be limited to a maximum of 1.50

pounds of SO2 per million BTU actual heat input at an

average operating rate

[[Page 49441]]

of 277 million BTU per hour; Boiler number 4 is to be limited to a

maximum of 2.0 pounds of SO2 per million BTU actual heat

input at an average operating rate of 450 million BTU per hour.

In addition, boiler number 4 shall use a stack no lower than 213

feet above ground level.

As a result of its analysis of Procter and Gamble's emissions, Ohio

believes that by capping the limit for all four boilers in any

combination of rate configurations, to 922 million BTU per hour the

result will continue to maintain air quality concentrations in areas of

maximum impact to below the short-term SO2 standards.

The material submitted by the State in support of this SIP revision

contained numerous references regarding the reason for the revision. In

addition to the stated need for operational flexibility, it was

reported that this revision was needed because the approved rule did

not allow for simultaneous operation during start-up and shut-down of

boilers during a maintenance or repair scenario. Throughout the

submittal there are references to ``* * * simultaneous operation of the

main power boilers while back-up boilers are brought on line * * *'',

or ``* * * simultaneous operation of boilers during start-ups while

maintaining an overall operational cap * * *'', or ``* * * ramping up

of the back-up boilers while main power boilers are shutting down for

maintenance or repair.'' In a letter to EPA dated February 25, 1994,

the apparent intent of the revision expressed by the State is more

explicit, ``* * * where boilers 3 and 4 are being taken off-line and

boilers 1 and 2 are being brought on line it is imperative for

production purposes that there be some degree of simultaneous operation

of the four boilers during the transition period * * *.'' It appears

from this material that the intent of the revision was for temporary

operation at the 922 million BTU per hour cap. However, the rule

submitted in this revision allows Procter and Gamble to operate the

boilers on a continual basis up to the 922 million BTU per hour cap.

This represents a substantial increase in sulfur dioxide emissions over

the originally approved rule in the Hamilton County SIP. EPA estimates

the emissions increase to be approximately 900 tons of sulfur dioxide

per year more under a scenario of continuous operation at the 922

million BTU per hour cap.

The State submits that the air quality analysis, performed by

Procter and Gamble and reviewed by Ohio EPA, while operating the

boilers at a 922 million BTU per hour cap, shows that the increase in

emissions will not affect the short-term air quality. The culpability

analysis for this revision, which was based on the original Hamilton

County SIP revision, shows that the air quality will not be adversely

affected in the short-term for sulfur dioxide. This analysis looked at

both the 3-hour and 24-hour standard. EPA had agreed, in the Hamilton

County modeling, that the short-term analysis was most critical for

this type of evaluation and that the culpability analysis submitted for

this revision appears to demonstrate protection of air quality.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

The EPA has reviewed the State's request to cap the operating heat

input capacity of the four boilers at Procter and Gamble to 922 million

BTU per hour daily average, and has reviewed the materials provided by

the State as part of the request. EPA agrees that restricting the total

overall capacity to 922 million BTU per hour is shown by modeling to

achieve the original ambient air quality goal of the Hamilton County

sulfur dioxide implementation plan yet provides the operator total

operating flexibility beneath the 922 million BTU per hour cap.

Therefore, EPA approves this revision to the Hamilton County plan.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory

action from review under Executive Order 12866.

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 301, 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, 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 flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The

CAA forbids the 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,

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must undertake various actions

in association with any proposed or final rule that includes a federal

mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or

more. 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 the private sector, result from this action.

D. 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 November 21, 1997. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the 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 may not be challenged later in proceedings

to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

E. Audit Privilege SIP Disclaimer

Nothing in this action should be construed as making any

determination or expressing any position regarding Ohio's audit

privilege and immunity law (Section 3745.70-3745.73 of the Ohio Revised

Code). EPA will be reviewing the effect of the Ohio audit privilege and

immunity law on various Ohio environmental programs, including those

under the Clean Air Act, and taking appropriate action(s), if any,

after through review and opportunity for Ohio to state and explain its

views and positions on the issues raised by the law. Today's action

does not indicate or imply that the regulations at issue would not be

affected by the audit privilege and immunity law, and, after review of

the effects of the law, the regulations at issue may be disapproved,

federal

[[Page 49442]]

approval for the Clean Air Act program under which they are implemented

may be withdrawn, or other appropriate action may be taken, as

necessary.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Sulfur dioxide.

Dated: September 9, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title

40 of Code of Federal Regulations 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 KK--Ohio

2. Section 52.1870 is amended as follows by adding paragraph

(c)(115) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(115) On January 3, 1997, the Ohio EPA submitted a revision to the

Hamilton County sulfur dioxide implementation plan for the Procter and

Gamble Company, Ohio Administrative Code 3745-18-37(GG)(2), which

limits combined average operating rate of all boilers (B001, B008,

B021, and B022) to a maximum of 922 million BTU per hour for any

calendar day. Boilers B001 and B008 are each allowed to emit 1.1 pounds

of sulfur dioxide per million BTU actual heat input. Boiler B021 is

limited to 1.50 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU; and boiler

B022 is limited to 2.0 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU average

heat input.

(I) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rule 3745-18-37(GG)(2), Hamilton

County emission limits, dated December 17, 1996, for Procter and Gamble

Company.

(B) Director's Findings and Orders in the matter of the adoption of

amended Rule 3745-18-37 of the Ohio Administrative Code, dated December

17, 1996.

(ii) Additional Materials.

(A) Letter from Ohio EPA Director Donald R. Schregardus to Regional

Administrator Valdas Adamkus, dated January 3, 1997.

(B) Letter from Ohio EPA Air Pollution Control Division Chief,

Robert Hodanbosi to EPA dated August 11, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-25105 Filed 9-19-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P