[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1737]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 27, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[OH-16-1-5320; FRL-4830-4]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans for 
Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to 
conditionally approve revisions to the emission limitations, compliance 
methodologies, and compliance time schedules in Ohio's State 
Implementation Plan for sulfur dioxide (SO2) as it applies to 
sources in Hamilton County. These revisions are being proposed in 
response to modeling analyses which have predicted violations of the 
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) due to 
emissions from sources in Hamilton County.
DATES: Comments on this requested revision and on the proposed EPA 
action must be received by February 28, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William MacDowell, 
Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Air EnforcementBranch (AE-17J), 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Robinson, Air Enforcement Branch 
(AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    EPA's analysis is discussed in the following manner: I. Background; 
II. Attainment Demonstration; III. Compliance; and IV. Proposed Action.

I. Background

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved portions of the 
Ohio SO2 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Hamilton County on 
January 27, 1981 (46 FR 8481), and April 20, 1982 (47 FR 16784), and 
the remaining portion on May 13, 1982 (47 FR 20586). The portion of 
Hamilton County which was originally designated a nonattainment area 
for SO2 was redesignated to attainment on March 19, 1982 (47 FR 
11870). Hamilton County was divided into two separate attainment areas 
on May 13, 1982 (47 FR 20586). However, since the time of those 
rulemakings, three modeling analyses have been submitted to EPA which 
predicted violations of the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) due to SO2 emissions from existing sources that 
are located in Hamilton County, Ohio.
    Based on the predicted violations, EPA notified the Governor of 
Ohio on December 22, 1988, under section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Clean Air 
Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(H), that the SIP for SO2 is 
substantially inadequate to attain and maintain the SO2 NAAQS in 
Hamilton County. The notification provided the State with 60 days to 
submit a commitment and schedule for the development of an approvable 
SIP and up to 18 months from the date of notification to submit a fully 
State adopted SO2 plan for Hamilton County, which assures the 
attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS both in Hamilton 
County and the surrounding area.
    On June 28, 1991, Valdas V. Adamkus, Regional Administrator, EPA, 
sent a letter to Donald R. Schregardus, Director, OEPA formalizing an 
agreement between EPA and OEPA regarding action toward SO2 
attainment status for Hamilton County, Ohio. On September 9, 1991, OEPA 
sent EPA a proposed revision to the Hamilton County SO2 SIP. The 
signed State adopted rules were received by EPA on October 18, 1991. 
The rules package submitted for approval consisted of revisions to Ohio 
Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-18-03 Attainment Dates and Compliance 
Time Schedules, (OAC) 3745-18-04 Measurement Methods and Procedures, 
and OAC 3745-18-37 Hamilton County Emission Limits, as well as a 
modeling analysis intended to demonstrate that the limits in these 
regulations are sufficient to assure attainment of the NAAQS for 
SO2 in Hamilton County. A completeness review was performed and, 
on November 8, 1991, EPA determined that the package was complete.
    On May 7, 1992, William L. MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development 
Section-Region 5, EPA, sent a letter to Robert Hodanbosi, of the OEPA, 
detailing issues EPA had identified in the State's September 9, 1991 
submittal. On March 19, 1993, the State responded with a subsequent 
submittal which addressed the above mentioned issues, and included a 
Director's Finding and Order governing the operation of selected 
boilers at Cincinnati Gas and Electric's Miami Fort facility. 
Additional technical information supporting the March 19th submittal 
was received from OEPA by EPA on May 18, 1993.
    A major issue in the development of the revised submittal involved 
the incorporation of the Rough Terrain Diffusion Model (RTDM). The RTDM 
is one of many computer models available used to simulate the 
dispersion of air pollutants. A ``Model Evaluation and Comparison 
Study'' was conducted by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, in 
cooperation with the OEPA and EPA Region 5, in order to determine which 
model, or combination of models, (Industrial Source Complex (ISC) 
Short-term model or the RTDM) was most accurate in predicting SO2 
concentrations in Hamilton County. This study was conducted in 
accordance with a protocol that EPA agreed to on October 31, 1990, and 
in accordance with EPA document entitled ``Interim Procedures for 
Evaluating Air Quality Models (Revised),'' 1984. Based on the results 
of the study, EPA approved the RTDM model for use in modeling sulfur 
dioxide sources in Hamilton County in a June 9, 1992, letter from David 
Kee, Director, Air and Radiation Division, to Robert Hodanbosi, Chief, 
Division of Air Pollution Control. The model/monitor comparison study 
is discussed more completely in the Technical Support Document 
associated with this document.

II. Attainment Demonstration

    The principal requirement for the Ohio SO2 SIP under section 
110, as identified in the SIP deficiency notice, is that the plan 
provides sufficient enforceable measures to assure attainment of the 
NAAQS for SO2. As noted above, the State provided enforceable 
limits in the form of State regulations, supplemented by an 
administrative order for one source, along with an air dispersion 
modeling analysis which demonstrates that these limits assure 
attainment in the Hamilton County area. The modeling techniques used in 
the demonstration supporting this revision were based on procedures in 
the ``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised),'' July 1986, including 
``Supplement A,'' July 1987. The modeling methodology is discussed more 
fully in the Technical Support Document.
    The attainment demonstration incorporated three different air 
dispersion models: Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (ISCST), 
COMPLEX I (Valley Screen Mode for analyzing intermediate terrain), and 
the Rough Terrain Diffusion Model (RTDM). Some basic components of the 
modeling methodology are:

    Meteorological Data-The ISCST modeling used the most recent five 
years of meteorological data while RTDM used one year of meteorological 
data collected in Hamilton County.
    Rural/Urban Classification-Western Hamilton County sources were 
modeled in the Rural mode while sources in the east were modeled using 
Urban mode 3.
    Emission Inventory-The emission sources used in the modeling 
represent maximum short-term operating rates and stack parameters. 
Actual operating factors were gathered and used to evaluate annual 
SO2 predicted concentrations.
    Background Concentrations-The 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual averaging 
background concentrations were determined for both the eastern and 
western grids. The background values were based on monitoring data and 
are considered representative of SO2 concentrations being 
contributed from unmodeled sources in the Hamilton County area.
    Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack heights or actual stack 
heights, where appropriate, were used in Ohio's modeling in accordance 
with EPA guidance. However, a January 22, 1988, remand in a U.S. D.C. 
Court of Appeals case involving EPA stack height regulations remains 
unresolved1. It is possible that future resolution of this case 
will result in the State being required to revise the emission 
limitations for the CG&E Miami Fort facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Certain provisions of the July 8, 1985, stack height 
regulations were remanded to USEPA in NRDC v. Thomas (D.C. Cir. No. 
85-1488 et. al. (January 22, 1988)). These are grandfathering stack 
height credits for sources who raise their stacks prior to October 
2, 1983, up to the height permitted by GEP formula height (40 CFR 
51.100(KK)(2)), dispersion credit for sources originally designed 
and constructed with merged or multi-flue stacks (40 CFR 
51.100(hh)(2)(ii)(A)), and grandfathering credit for refined 
(H+1.5L) formula height for sources unable to show reliance on the 
original (2.5H) formula (40 CFR 51.100(ii)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the modeling for the attainment demonstration for Hamilton 
County, the State did not use the most recent version of the Industrial 
Source Complex model, known as ISC2. The ISC2 version of the Industrial 
Source Complex model was released after the State submitted its SIP to 
EPA, and well after the completion of the ISCST modeling used to 
determine appropriate SIP limits. Consequently, EPA proposes to accept 
analysis under the older model for the purpose of this SIP review. 
However, acceptance of the ISCST analysis for this reason should not 
apply to any other analysis of this area to support any future 
regulatory action.
    Although the majority of the attainment demonstration was comprised 
of output from ISCST, several areas of Hamilton County were modeled 
using RTDM. The RTDM modeling was performed in accordance with the EPA 
approved ``Model Evaluation and Comparison Study'' described earlier. 
The modeling demonstration accompanying the SIP revision submittal 
incorporated dispersion modeling output from the ISCST model in 
combination with RTDM.
    The issues identified in the May 7, 1992, letter from William L. 
MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section-Region 5, EPA to 
Robert Hodanbosi, of the OEPA, regarding the September 9, 1991 
submittal, needed to be resolved before EPA could approve the SIP 
revisions. One of those issues involved modeled SO2 violations 
near the Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc. (Seagram's) facility in 
Dearborn County, Indiana. These modeled violations were primarily due 
to emissions from the Seagrams facility in Indiana. However, CG&E, 
located in Hamilton County, Ohio, contributed to the critical 
concentration in that area.
    In response to the modeled violation, a commitment has been 
obtained from Seagram's, formalized in a letter from Seagrams to both 
the OEPA and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, dated 
September 1, 1992, agreeing to not operate its two boilers 
simultaneously on sulfur-bearing fuels without written permission from 
both State Agencies. Utilizing this commitment, the OEPA submitted 
supplementary modeling which demonstrated that areas near Seagrams, in 
Indiana, did not exceed the sulfur dioxide NAAQS. However, in order for 
the Seagrams limit to be federally enforceable, it must be incorporated 
into the Indiana sulfur dioxide SIP. Therefore, the Hamilton County 
SO2 SIP revision will be approved if the Seagrams commitment, 
described above, is adopted into the Indiana SO2 SIP within one 
year from the date of publication of the Hamilton County SO2 SIP 
revision final rulemaking. This issue and other issues addressed by 
Ohio's submittals of March 19, 1993, and May 18, 1993, are discussed in 
detail in the Technical Support Document.
    Based on the foregoing, EPA concludes that the results from Ohio's 
modeling demonstration, utilizing the ISCST and RTDM air dispersion 
models, show that when the applicable emission limits and other 
restrictions are imposed, attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 will be 
demonstrated in and around Hamilton County.

III. Compliance

    The general compliance determination method denoted in OAC 3745-18-
04(D)(7), which applies specifically to Hamilton County, utilizes stack 
gas sampling using Methods 1 through 4 and 6, 6A, 6B, or 6C, as 
specified in 40 CFR 60.46, for any fuel burning equipment. Additional 
compliance monitoring is required under OAC 3745-18-04(D)(8), which, on 
a source-specific basis, requires either daily or weekly coal sampling. 
EPA has determined, based on guidance contained in the ``General 
preamble for future proposed rulemakings,'' published in the Federal 
Register on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), that compliance methods 1 
through 4, 6, 6A, 6B, and 6C, in conjunction with regular fuel 
sampling, provide for continuous SO2 compliance monitoring. 
Additionally, documentation criteria listed in OAC 3745-18-04(I) 
requires sources subject to the Hamilton County emission limits to 
document and retain information needed to demonstrate compliance with 
applicable emission limits, emission tracking requirements, and/or 
operating limits.

IV. Proposed Action

    Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act contains general 
requirements for implementation plans submitted by a State. These are 
requirements which apply to all SIPs submitted by a State including 
attainment area plans, such as the plan for Hamilton County. A 
fundamental requirement of this section is that each plan must include 
enforceable emission limitations and other techniques necessary to meet 
the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA has determined 
that the emission limits and control measures listed in the SO2 
SIP revision for Hamilton County, when fully implemented, will be 
enforceable, and, will provide for attainment of the NAAQS for 
SO2, and thus satisfy the applicable requirements. As stated 
above, this determination is contingent upon the Seagrams limits being 
incorporated into the Indiana SO2 SIP and, as a result, made 
federally enforceable.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to 
Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) rules 3745-18-03, 3745-18-04, and 3745-
18-37. The OAC rules 3745-18-03 Attainment Dates and Compliance Time 
Schedules provide specific time schedules for sources receiving revised 
emission limits to implement necessary changes and demonstrate 
compliance. The OAC rules 3745-18-04 Measurement Methods and Procedures 
specify the compliance determination methodologies for sources 
receiving revised emission limits. The OAC rules 3745-18-37 Hamilton 
County Emission Limits amend the sulfur dioxide emission limits for 
Hamilton County. EPA is also proposing to approve the Director's 
Findings and Order containing a fuel quality limit for select sources 
at Cincinnati Gas and Electric's Miami Fort facility.
    Under section 110(k)(4), pertaining to conditional approval, the 
SIP elements regarding the Seagrams limits must be adopted by the State 
of Indiana, by a date not later than one year after the date of 
approval of the Hamilton County, Ohio SIP revision. In addition, the 
adopting State must submit these rules to EPA within a reasonable time 
after such adoption. In this case, if the State of Indiana fails to 
adopt or submit the necessary rules to EPA within the required time 
frame (one year from the date of final approval of the Hamilton County, 
Ohio SO2 SIP revision), this approval would become a disapproval 
upon USEPA notification of Ohio by letter. The EPA subsequently would 
publish a notice announcing this action in the Federal Register. If the 
State of Indiana adopts and submits the rule within the above 
timeframe, the conditionally approved rules would remain a part of the 
SIP pending final action on the new submittal.
    Public comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on 
EPA's proposal to conditionally approve. Public comments received by 
February 28, 1994 will be considered in the development of EPA's final 
rulemaking action.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP 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 2 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). On January 6, 1989, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 
2222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12866 for a 
period of 2 years. EPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver 
for Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. OMB has agreed to continue the waiver 
until such time as it rules on EPA's request. This request continues in 
effect under Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order 
12291 on September 30, 1993.
    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.
    Conditional 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.
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
section 110(k), based on a State's failure to meet the commitment, it 
will not affect any existing state requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect 
its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal 
does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies 
that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because itdoes not remove existing 
state requirements nor does it substitute a new Federal requirement. 
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 EPA to base its actions 
concerning SIPS on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 
246, (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: December 29, 1993.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-1737 Filed 1-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F