Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH102-1a; FRL-5675-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is

approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the

State of Ohio on August 30, 1996, which provides Ford Motor Company an

extended exemption from opacity limitations for start-up of coal-fired

boilers at its Cleveland Engine Plant 1. This revision extends the

exemption for these boilers from 3 hours to 6 hours after start-up.

DATES: The ``direct final'' approval is effective on April 28, 1997

unless adverse or critical comments are received by March 27, 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 Summerhays

at (312) 886-6067 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 Summerhays at (312) 886-6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In the first version of Ohio particulate matter regulations

approved by USEPA, i.e., Ohio's 1972 SIP submittal, Ohio's regulations

imposed a limitation on opacity without any exemptions for special

circumstances. However, as experience was gained enforcing this

limitation, the State identified a number of circumstances in which

compliance with the limitation could be considered an unreasonable

requirement. One type of such circumstances is the start-up of a

boiler, before stable combustion conditions have been achieved. In rule

revisions adopted in the early 1980s, the State exempted sources from

the opacity limitation for a period of six hours after start-up of a

boiler. USEPA accepted the principle of exempting boilers from the

opacity limitation for a period necessary to achieve stable combustion,

but objected to provision of an automatic six hour exemption. USEPA

recommended instead that Ohio provide a three hour exemption, with

provision that Ohio could request longer exemptions for specific

sources on a case-by-case basis.

Pursuant to USEPA's recommendation, Ohio in 1991 modified its rule

on opacity, Rule 3745-17-07, in accordance with USEPA's

recommendations. Paragraph (A)(3)(b)(ii) states that:

the visible particulate emission limitations established in

paragraph (A)(1) of this rule shall not apply to * * * the start-up

of * * * any fuel burning equipment which are uncontrolled or which

are equipped solely with mechanical collectors * * * , for a period

of not more than three hours from the moment of start-up, provided

that the director may incorporate a longer start-up time period in

the permit * * * for such source for which an applicant demonstrates

to the satisfaction of the director that the longer time period is

required.

Paragraph (D) of this rule then states that:

Any revision approved by the director in accordance with paragraph

(A)(3)(a)(ii) [et al.] shall not revise the federally enforceable

requirements of the state implementation plan until approved by the

U.S. environmental protection agency.

USEPA approved Rule 3745-17-07, including the above language, on

May 27, 1994, at 59 FR 27464.

II. Review of State Submittal

In this submittal, Ohio requests that the start-up exemption from

opacity limitations be extended from three hours to six hours for coal-

fired boilers at Ford's Cleveland Engine Plant 1, pursuant to

Paragraphs (A)(3)(a)(ii) and (D) of its Rule 3745-17-07. The

[[Page 8384]]

submittal provides various evidence in support of this extension. In

correspondence from an engineering consulting firm to Ford dated

November 27, 1991, evidence was provided that starting up these boilers

in less than six to ten hours (for a ``cold'' start-up) would be

injurious to the heat transfer tubes in the boiler and would thereby

create a safety hazard. A second type of evidence is data on the

duration of opacity in excess of baseline limits during routine start-

ups of these boilers. These data indicate that excess opacity

essentially always exceeds the baseline opacity limit for at least some

time after start-up, that excess opacity often occurs beyond three

hours and up to six hours after start-up, and that excess opacity

rarely occurs after 6 hours after start-up of these boilers.

Ohio's submittal includes a letter from USEPA, suggesting the

possibility of avoiding an extended period of excess opacity by

providing for use of natural gas as a fuel while the boilers are being

started up. The submittal also includes a response to this suggestion

from Ford's engineering consultant, dated March 10, 1995 (attached to

correspondence from a law firm representing Ford dated March 13, 1995).

This response provides cost estimates for installing burners capable of

gas firing during boiler start-up, supplementing information included

in the earlier document as to the historic frequency of start-ups of

these boilers, indicating that provision for use of gas firing during

start-up would impose high costs and would provide relatively little

emissions reduction.

The State's submittal further includes a comment received from the

Gas Research Institute during its public comment period. The Gas

Research Institute commented that gas firing during start-up can be

implemented at reasonable cost, and described selected cases where this

approach has in fact been implemented. Notably, the costs cited by the

Gas Research Institute in a case it describes are comparable to the

cost estimates developed by Ford's consultant. The principal difference

is that the Gas Research Institute notes that installation of gas-fired

alternative burners would minimize emissions during ash-pulling and

soot-blowing as well as during start-ups, and indicates that the costs

of gas burner installation are reasonable when one considers the full

range of benefits. Ohio did not provide an explicit review of this

comment; nevertheless, by virtue of its request for an extension of the

start-up exemption for Ford, the State can be presumed to have

continued to compare costs for gas firing only against the benefits of

start-up emissions reductions, and concluded that these costs would be

unreasonable and disproportionate to the relevant reduction in

emissions. In any case, USEPA has approved a State-wide exemption from

the general stack opacity limit during ash-pulling and soot-blowing for

certain classes of boilers that include Ford's boilers, and no

rationale has been provided that these exemptions should not apply to

Ford. Therefore, USEPA is comparing the costs of gas burner

installation solely against the benefits of emissions reductions during

start-up, and concludes that the cost of gas burner installation is not

warranted.

The State is authorized to adopt the extension to the exemption

from the opacity limit both as a condition in a permit to operate and

as a provision in an administrative order. Ohio adopted both

instruments, but requested USEPA action only on the administrative

order. USEPA is rulemaking only on the order, for consistency with the

State's request, and because the order does not expire.

USEPA guidance states that relaxations in particulate matter

limitations must be evaluated as to whether the relaxation creates the

potential for violation of the air quality standard. In this case,

although the revision would add three hours after start-up when

previously applicable opacity limits would no longer apply, the mass

emissions limitations for these boilers remain in effect throughout the

start-up period and thereafter. The extension of the exemption from the

opacity limit is judged not to significantly affect USEPA's ability to

assure achievement of the mass emissions level which has been shown to

suffice to assure attainment. Therefore, no additional analyses are

needed in this case to demonstrate that attainment remains assured

notwithstanding this extension of the opacity limit exemption.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

USEPA has reviewed the State's request for extending the exemption

from opacity limits for the boilers at Ford Motor Company's Cleveland

Engine Plant 1 from three hours to six hours after start-up, and has

reviewed the materials provided by the State in conjunction with this

request. USEPA concurs that as these boilers are currently configured,

start-up in a manner that would avoid exceedance of opacity limits

beyond three hours after start-up would cause unreasonable wear on the

equipment and an unreasonable risk to plant personnel. USEPA further

concurs that boiler modifications to accommodate natural gas firing

during start-up would impose unreasonable costs relative to the

quantity of reduction of start-up emissions that such modifications

would provide. Therefore, USEPA is approving the State's request to

extend the period of exemption from opacity limits for start-up of

Ford's Cleveland Engine Plant 1.

The USEPA is publishing this action 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, USEPA is publishing a proposal to approve the SIP

revision should significant adverse or critical comments which have not

been previously addressed be filed. This action will be effective April

28, 1997 unless, by March 27, 1997 such adverse or critical comments

are received.

If USEPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn by

publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw today's final

action. Public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent

final rule based on the proposed action published elsewhere in today's

Federal Register. 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 April 28, 1997.

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.

IV. 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 D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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., USEPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or

[[Page 8385]]

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 sections 110 and 301, 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,

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 USEPA 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, USEPA 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 the 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 April 28, 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))

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter.

Dated: January 30, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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

40 of the 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 by adding paragraph (c)(113) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(113) On August 30, 1996, Ohio submitted a request to extend the

exemption from opacity limits for the boilers at Ford's Cleveland

Engine Plant 1 to six hours after start-up.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Findings and Orders for boilers number 1 through number 5 at

Ford's Cleveland Engine Plant 1, signed by Donald Schregardus on May

31, 1996.

[FR Doc. 97-4522 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P