[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17935]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 25, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WV 5-1-6307; FRL-4888-7]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
West Virginia: Limited Approval and Disapproval of PM-10 Implementation 
Plan for the Follansbee Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking simultaneous limited approval and limited 
disapproval action on a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of West Virginia. West Virginia submitted the 
plan revisions in order to achieve the national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter 
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10) and to fulfill 
other Clean Air Act (Act) requirements for the Follansbee, West 
Virginia area. The limited approval makes bilateral consent orders 
between the West Virginia Office of Air Quality and six companies 
federally enforceable and fulfills some of the requirements of the Act 
applicable to the Follansbee area. The limited disapproval disapproves 
West Virginia's submittal for the purpose of fulfilling its 
requirements under sections 172 and 189 of the Act to demonstrate that 
the SIP will provide for the attainment of the NAAQS. These actions are 
being taken under section 110 of the Act in light of EPA's authority 
pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations necessary to further 
air quality improvement by strengthening the SIP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective on August 24, 1994.

ADDRESSES: 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; Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460; 
and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air 
Quality, 1558 Washington Street, East, Charleston, West Virginia, 
25311.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Casey, (215) 597-2746.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The air quality planning requirements for 
PM-10 nonattainment areas, such as the Follansbee area, are set out in 
subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the Act. Among other requirements, the 
Act requires that SIPs provide for reasonably available control 
measures (RACM) including reasonably available control technology 
(RACT), emissions inventories, and demonstrations (including air 
quality modeling) that the SIP will provide for attainment of the NAAQS 
by the statutory attainment date.
    On January 7, 1994 (59 FR 988), EPA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPR) that proposed limited approval and limited disapproval 
West Virginia's November 15, 1991 PM-10 SIP submittal for the 
Follansbee, West Virginia PM-10 nonattainment area. The submittal is 
not fully approvable because it does not demonstrate attainment of 
NAAQS, and, therefore, does not satisfy the requirements of section 
189(a)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the modeling is 
unapprovable as a demonstration of attainment because of deficiencies 
in estimating emissions from coke oven batteries and other sources, the 
lack of an approvable analysis of intermediate terrain, and the 
nonguideline use of the Gaussian Plume Multiple Source Air Quality 
Algorithm (RAM) dispersion model in a meteorologically rural area.
    While the submittal does not meet specific provisions of Part D, it 
does contain some provisions (enforceable consent orders) which advance 
the NAAQS-related air quality protection goals of the Act. Therefore, 
EPA is approving the submittal for the limited purpose of approving the 
consent agreements and making them part of the SIP. EPA has evaluated 
the consent agreements for consistency with the Act and EPA regulations 
and has found that they provide State and federally enforceable 
provisions to decrease PM-10 emissions in the nonattainment area.
    While approving the consent orders for incorporation by reference 
into the SIP, EPA is taking no action at this time on the contingency 
measures contained therein with respect to the requirements of section 
172(c)(9) of the Act. The General Preamble to Title I of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments established a November 15, 1993 deadline for state 
submittal of contingency plans (57 FR 13498).
    In addition to the limited approval and limited disapproval, EPA 
proposed to determine that PM-10 precursors, such as sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds, do not contribute 
significantly to PM-10 concentrations in the Follansbee area. (See 
section 189(e).) EPA based this proposal an air quality data presented 
by West Virginia in its submittal.
    The rationale for today's action is presented in more detail in the 
NPR and in the Technical Support Document (TSD) which is available at 
the addresses indicated above.

Summary of Public Comments

    EPA received two letters of comment; comments were submitted by the 
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and by the 
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (WPS).
    1. In correspondence dated February 4, 1994, West Virginia 
described its ``planned action'' to correct the deficiencies in its 
submittal. West Virginia stated its intent to correct PM-10 emission 
rates, perform an analysis of intermediate terrain, and replace RAM 
with an approvable technique for modeling certain area sources under 
rural meteorological conditions. Additionally, West Virginia also 
related its intent to alter the characterizations of certain buoyant 
volume sources.
    EPA Response West Virginia did not comment on EPA's proposed action 
or its underlying rationale, so no response is necessary. EPA intends 
to provide technical guidance to West Virginia to assist in the 
submittal of a fully approvable SIP revision.
    2. EPA received comments from WPS dated February 4, 1994. WPS 
commented on and disputed deficiencies identified by EPA in the NPR. 
WPS also provided its own air quality analysis. WPS's comments are 
summarized and responses are provided below.

a. Coke Oven Emissions

    WPS Comment. WPS agrees that the coke oven emissions estimations 
are in error and provided revised estimates attributed to the West 
Virginia Office of Air Quality.
    EPA Response. As described above, EPA intends to provide technical 
guidance to West Virginia to assist in the submittal of a fully 
approvable SIP revision.

b. Intermediate Terrain1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\``Intermediate terrain'' is a term used to describe terrain 
with an elevation between stack height and plume height. It is a 
subset of complex terrain and is defined separately for each stack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WPS Comment. WPS comments that at the time of the West Virginia SIP 
submittal, there was no single, EPA-approved model applicable to 
intermediate terrain; that its consultant had developed a post-
processor to combine the results of simple and complex terrain models; 
and that EPA had approved the use of this post-processor in two permit 
applications in West Virginia in 1988. WPS continues to comment that 
its submittals to West Virginia and Ohio were consistent with EPA's 
intermediate terrain policy, including, in 1991, an analysis employing 
a model that integrates simple and complex terrain models. Finally, WPS 
comments that the deficiency relating to intermediate terrain is not 
identified in EPA's August 3, 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking for 
the Ohio PM-10 SIP (58 FR 41218).
    EPA Response. West Virginia's attainment demonstration did not 
address intermediate terrain as required by the Guideline on Air 
Quality Models as revised in 1986 (EPA-450/2-78-027R)2 and 
clarified in 1989.3 WPS's comments do not dispute this fact. The 
consultant's post-processor and integrated model were two of several 
approaches available at the time to implement EPA's intermediate 
terrain policy. (See, for example, EPA's widely available post-
processor, POSTIT). The development of these techniques by WPS or its 
consultant does not alter the fact that no such analysis was included 
in the West Virginia SIP submittal. Therefore, this comment does not 
affect today's action or its underlying rationale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\This document has subsequently been revised (Supplement B) 
and incorporated into federal regulations at 40 CFR part 51 appendix 
W.
    \3\June 8, 1989 memorandum from Joseph Tikvart to Alan 
Cimorelli.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As matter of clarification, EPA's August 3, 1993 notice for Ohio 
affected the regulation of PM-10 emissions state-wide.4 Today's 
action applies only to the West Virginia SIP. Because of the broader 
scope of that notice, some issues that were presented in the NPR for 
the Follansbee, West Virginia nonattainment area were relegated to the 
technical support document5 in EPA's rulemaking on the Ohio SIP. 
The NPR for the Ohio SIP clearly referred interested readers to the TSD 
for further information regarding EPA's underlying rationale for that 
notice, generally, and the deficiencies in Ohio's attainment 
demonstration, specifically. That TSD clearly articulated EPA's concern 
over Ohio's lack of an intermediate terrain analysis and other 
deficiencies in Ohio's November 4, 1991 and January 8, 1992 SIP 
submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\West Virginia and Ohio collaborated on parts of the 
attainment demonstration, but each submittal stands alone.
    \5\Memorandum from John Summerhays and Randall Robinson to 
``Files'' dated November 17, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. The Use of RAM

    WPS Comment. WPS commented that the use of RAM was discussed with 
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) before the West 
Virginia SIP was submitted. WPS also comments that this deficiency was 
not articulated in EPA's NPR for the Ohio PM-10 SIP referenced above 
(58 FR 41218).
    EPA Response. Conversations between WPS and OEPA do not exempt or 
ameliorate the deficiencies in West Virginia submittal or invalidate 
today's action or its underlying rationale. As noted above, EPA's 
notice regarding the Ohio SIP addressed this deficiency through its 
technical support document.

d. WPS's Air Quality Analysis

    WPS Comment. WPS supplied an alternative air quality analysis that 
concluded, ``Controls resulting in the PM-10 emissions in Attachment 2 
are shown to meet the NAAQS for PM-10 when naturally occurring buoyancy 
of several process fugitives is included in the dispersion modeling.'' 
Attachment 2 lists the PM-10 emissions rates for model input.
    EPA Response. Setting aside the problem that this analysis was not 
submitted by the State of West Virginia and, therefore, does not 
satisfy the requirement of section 189(a)(2), this analysis is not 
approvable as an attainment demonstration for at least two reasons.
    First, the emissions estimations used as model input are flawed. 
While an attempt was made to correct the unapprovable aspects of 
emissions from coke ovens, estimates of emissions from WPS's basic 
oxygen furnaces (BOF) in Mingo Junction, Ohio remain profoundly 
underestimated. Deficiencies in BOF emissions estimation were outlined 
in the TSD and described in more detail in EPA's notice and TSD 
regarding the Ohio SIP.
    Second, the buoyancy of emissions from certain large volume sources 
(coke oven battery fugitives, the BOF, and blast furnace cast houses) 
was only incorporated in the estimation of impacts at receptors 
(locations) where a more conventional methodology failed to show 
attainment. This approach is unapprovable because incorporation of 
buoyancy effects, by design, will disturb the spatial distribution of 
estimated PM-10 impacts. Therefore, it is necessary to model using a 
more extensive array of receptors than was employed in the WPS 
analysis.
    For these reasons, WPS's air quality analysis does not effect 
today's action or its underlying rationale.

Final Action

    EPA is approving West Virginia's submittal for the limited purpose 
of incorporating the enforceable provisions into the SIP and 
disapproving the submittal for the purpose of fulfilling the attainment 
demonstration requirements of Part D of Title I of the Act. EPA is also 
formally finding that PM-10 precursors do not contribute significantly 
to PM-10 concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the Follansbee area (see 
section 189(e)).6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Note that while EPA is making a general finding for this 
area, today's finding is based on the current character of the area 
including, for example, the existing mix of sources in the area. It 
is possible, therefore, that future growth could change the 
significance of precursors in the area. EPA intends to issue future 
guidance addressing such potential differences in the significance 
of precursor emissions in PM-10 nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This limited disapproval constitutes a disapproval under section 
179(a)(2) of the Act (see generally 57 FR 13566-67). As provided under 
section 179(a) of the Act, the State of West Virginia has up to 18 
months after a final SIP disapproval to correct the deficiencies that 
are the subject of the disapproval before EPA is required to impose 
either the highway funding sanction or the requirement to provide two-
to-one new source review offsets. If the State has not corrected its 
deficiency within 6 months thereafter, EPA must impose the second 
sanction. Any sanction EPA imposes must remain in place until EPA 
determines that the State has come into compliance. Note also that any 
final disapproval would trigger the requirement for EPA to impose a 
federal implementation plan within 24 months as provided under section 
110(c)(1) of the Act.
    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.
    This action has been classified as a Table 2 action for signature 
by the Acting 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. A future notice will 
inform the general public of these tables. On January 6, 1989, the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP 
revisions (54 FR 2222) from the requirements of Section 3 of Executive 
Order 12291 for a period of two years. The U.S. EPA has submitted a 
request for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The OMB 
has agreed to continue the temporary waiver until such time as it rules 
on U.S. EPA's request. This request continues in effect under Executive 
Order 12866, which superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 
1993.
    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 September 23, 1994. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of the Follansbee, 
West Virginia PM-10 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, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur oxides.

    Editorial Note: This document was received by the Office of the 
Federal Register on July 19, 1994.

    Dated: March 30, 1994.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 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. 7401-7642.

Subpart XX--West Virginia

    2. Section 52.2520 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(26) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (26) Bilateral consent orders between the West Virginia Air 
Pollution Control Commission and six companies to limit emissions of 
particulate matter. The effective date of the consent order with 
Koppers is November 15, 1991; the effective date of the five other 
orders cited in paragraph (i)(B), below, is November 14, 1991.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter dated November 12, 1991 from the West Virginia 
Department of Commerce, Labor, and Environmental Resources transmitting 
six consent orders.
    (B) Consent orders with the following companies (West Virginia 
order number and effective date in parentheses): Follansbee Steel 
Corporation (CO-SIP-91-31, November 14, 1991); International Mill 
Service, Incorporated (CO-SIP-91-33, November 14, 1991); Koppers 
Industries, Incorporated (CO-SIP-91-32, November 15, 1991); Standard 
Lafarge (CO-SIP-91-29, November 14, 1991); Starvaggi Industries, 
Incorporated (CO-SIP-91-34, November 14, 1991); and Wheeling-Pittsburgh 
Steel Corporation (CO-SIP-91-29, November 14, 1991).
    3. Section 52.2522 of chapter I, title 40 is amended by adding 
paragraph (f) to read as follows as follows:


Sec. 52.2522  Approval Status.

* * * * *
    (f) The Administrator approves West Virginia's November 15, 1991 
SIP submittal for fulfilling all PM-10-specific requirements of part D 
of the Clean Air Act applicable to the Follansbee, West Virginia PM-10 
nonattainment area, except for the section 189(a)(1)(B) requirement for 
a demonstration that the plan is sufficient to attain the PM-10 NAAQS, 
which the Administrator is disapproving, and the section 172(c)(9) 
requirement for contingency measures, which the Administrator has yet 
to act upon.

[FR Doc. 94-17935 Filed 7-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P