[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29880]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 7, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[WI48-01-6711B; FRL-5112-8]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Rhinelander, 
Wisconsin Sulfur Dioxide Attainment and Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving the State of Wisconsin's revision to 
its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Rhinelander, Wisconsin 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area. This State revision 
request, dated October 21, 1994, was submitted to satisfy the 
requirements of section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act (Act), and 
regulates certain sources of SO2 in Rhinelander, Wisconsin.
    The rationale for this approval is set forth in this final rule; 
additional information is available at the address indicated below. 
Elsewhere in this Federal Register, USEPA is proposing approval of, and 
soliciting public comment on, this requested SIP revision. If a 
comment, or a notice of intent to comment is received on this direct 
final rule by January 6, 1995, USEPA will then use this rulemaking as a 
proposed rule. Comments received will be addressed in a separate final 
rulemaking. Unless this final rule is commented upon, no further 
rulemaking will occur on this requested SIP revision.

DATES: This final rule will be effective February 6, 1995, unless 
notice is received by January 6, 1995 that someone wishes to submit 
adverse comments. If the effective date is delayed due to adverse 
comments, notice withdrawing this final action will be published in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-
18J), USEPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 
60604-3590.
    Copies of the SIP revisions and USEPA's analysis are available for 
inspection during normal business hours at the following address. (It 
is recommended that you telephone Christos Panos at (312) 353-8328 or 
Sheila Breen at (312) 886-6053, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 
Radiation Division, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos/Sheila Breen, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-
18J), USEPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 
60604-3590, (312) 353-8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 1981 and 1983, exceedances of the primary SO2 NAAQS were 
monitored in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. On April 1, 1985 the State adopted 
Wisconsin State Rule NR 154.12(9), which regulated certain sources of 
SO2 constructed before April 1, 1985 located within the corporate 
boundaries of Rhinelander, Wisconsin. The Rhinelander Paper Company 
(source), a paper mill, was the only source affected by the State 
Rule's limits. These limits proved ineffective to protect the NAAQS 
after three more exceedances which were attributable to the source were 
monitored in 1985.
    On April 28, 1989 the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
(WDNR) submitted a revision to Wisconsin's SO2 SIP to USEPA, 
consisting of Wisconsin State Rule NR 418.07, to satisfy the 
requirements of section 110 and part D of the Act for the Rhinelander 
nonattainment area. The SO2 limits included in the State Rule are 
summarized in USEPA's January 5, 1993 (58 FR 326) notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPR). This rule was disapproved in final on May 13, 1993 
(58 FR 28362), because the State had not shown that the rule provided 
for attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. After the 1993 
final action of disapproval, USEPA notified the State of the 
commencement of sanctions clocks due to the disapproval. Further 
discussion is found within the August 30, 1994 Technical Support 
Document (TSD) from Sheila Breen to Gary Gulezian, the November 10, 
1994 addendum to the TSD from Christos Panos to Gary Gulezian, and the 
Federal Register documents, dated January 5, 1993 and May 13, 1993, and 
will not be discussed here.
    The latest SIP revision request dated October 21, 1994 includes 
Consent Order AM-94-38, effective August 22, 1994 and two letters 
(August 29, 1994 letter from WDNR to the source and an October 19, 1994 
letter from the source to WDNR), which clarify certain items found in 
the Order such as storage of test samples and definitions. This 1994 
SIP revision request was submitted to fulfill the requirements of 
section 110 and part D, and to cure the deficiency that led to the 
notification regarding sanctions.

II. Description and Analysis of State Submittal

    The USEPA has reviewed the August 22, 1994 Consent Order AM-94-38, 
the Monitoring Data, and letters that were submitted in conjunction 
with the Rhinelander SO2 SIP revision request, and is approving 
the SIP revision. Except for the emission limits for the stoker 
boilers, the limits for each SO2 source in the proposed SIP 
revision are summarized in Wisconsin State Rule NR 418.07 and were 
detailed in USEPA's January 5, 1993 NPR. Background information for 
USEPA's 1993 NPR is contained in the January 5, 1993 Federal Register 
and will not be repeated here.
    A technical review of the 1994 plan is further discussed within the 
August 30, 1994 TSD. The following discussion includes summaries of the 
1994 submittal's completeness determination, adherence to the Act's 
part D, section 172(c) nonattainment plan provisions, and the technical 
review that USEPA conducted.

(A). Completeness Determination

    States are required to observe certain procedural requirements in 
developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to 
USEPA. The Act provides that each implementation plan submitted by a 
State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. The 
USEPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and therefore 
warrants further USEPA review and action. The USEPA's completeness 
criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V 
(1991), as amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991).
    The State of Wisconsin held a public hearing on September 13, 1994 
to receive public comment on the implementation plan for the 
Rhinelander SO2 nonattainment area. Following the public hearing, 
the plan was adopted by the State and signed by the Governor's designee 
and submitted to USEPA on October 21, 1994 as a proposed revision to 
the SIP.
    The SIP revision was reviewed by USEPA to determine completeness 
shortly after its submittal, and was found to be complete. A letter 
dated November 8, 1994 was forwarded to the Director, WDNR, indicating 
the completeness of the submittal and the next steps to be taken in the 
review process.

(B). Nonattainment Plan Provisions (Act Part D, Section 172(c))

    With this submission, Wisconsin will have a fully approved SO2 
SIP meeting all of the applicable Part D requirements for the 
Rhinelander nonattainment area. The following discusses how the 
submission complies with the pertinent provisions of section 172(c), 
which sets forth the requirements for Part D SO2 SIPs.
    Section 172(c)(1) In General--The plan complies with the 
requirements to implement reasonably available control measures by 
providing for immediate attainment of the SO2 NAAQS through the 
emission limits and operating restrictions imposed on the source by 
Consent Order AM-94-38. By providing for immediate attainment, the plan 
also satisfies the requirements of section 192(b) that provide for 
attainment by November 15, 1995.
    Section 172(c)(2) RFP--Reasonable further progress is achieved due 
to the immediate effect of the emission limits and plantwide cap that 
is discussed within the plan.
    Section 172(c)(3) Inventory--An inventory of the actual SO2 
emissions from the stoker and cyclone boilers has been provided and is 
found to be acceptable.
    Section 172(c)(5) Permits for New and Modified Major Stationary 
Sources--Any new or modified sources constructed in the area must 
comply with a State submitted and Federally approved New Source Review 
program. The State currently has an approved Federally delegated 
program.
    Section 172(c)(6) Other Measures--The plan provides for immediate 
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS through the emission limits and 
operating restrictions that are set forth within Consent Order AM-94-
38. By adhering to more stringent limits for the stoker boilers and 
presently setting an overall plantwide emission cap, the area should 
continue to attain the SO2 NAAQS.
    Section 172(c)(7) Compliance with section 110(a)(2)--This 
submission complies with section 110(a)(2). With respect to section 
110(a)(2)(K), under which USEPA generally requires modeling in the case 
of SO2, USEPA notes that the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model 
used by WDNR has been shown to underpredict ambient SO2 
concentrations in the Rhinelander area, especially on known exceedance 
days. Therefore, as described in more detail below, in this instance, 
an alternative methodology using the rollback analysis was needed and 
has been used.
    Section 172(c)(8) Equivalent Techniques--Since modeling attainment 
of the SO2 NAAQS is not achievable, an alternative methodology 
using the rollback analysis to set a plantwide emissions cap was 
required. This is further discussed within the August 30, 1994 TSD.
    Section 172(c)(9) Contingency Measures--A plan should be provided 
for the implementation of specific measures if the area fails to make 
reasonable further progress (i.e., contingency measures), or to attain 
the primary NAAQS referenced above. The State Implementation Plans; 
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble), which was proposed within the 
Federal Register on April 16, 1992, provides guidance on SIP 
requirements for SO2 nonattainment areas. The General Preamble 
discusses contingency measures for SO2 controls that fail to 
attain the NAAQS. Therefore, USEPA interprets ``contingency measures'' 
for SO2 to include the ability to rely on comprehensive State 
programs to identify sources of violations and to undertake an 
aggressive follow-up program of compliance and enforcement. Wisconsin 
Administrative Code, State Rule NR 404.05(6) dictates that the NAAQS 
may not be exceeded within the State of Wisconsin. Wisconsin State Rule 
NR 404.08(2) allows the State to be more restrictive with emission 
limits than those prescribed within an implementation plan or air 
pollution control rules where emissions cause or substantially 
contribute to exceeding an air standard in a localized area.
    The USEPA notes that through the issuance of Consent Order AM-94-
38, the State has used these rules in context of the Rhinelander area 
SO2 exceedances. These exceedances were determined to be the 
result of excess SO2 emissions from the Rhinelander Paper Company. 
The USEPA believes that the existence of these state rules and WDNR's 
program to implement them satisfies the requirements of section 
172(c)(9).

(C). Review of Technical Merits of Plan

    (1). Emission Limits/Plantwide Cap: Due to ISC's apparent 
underprediction of ambient SO2 concentrations, the State used the 
rollback analysis to determine appropriate emissions limits for the 
source. A rollback analysis takes a monitored ambient exceedance 
recorded during a specific set of facility operating conditions and 
determines the amount of the exceedance due to each of the source's 
SO2 emitting operations in use at that time. These estimates are 
then linearly ``rolled back'' to acceptable SO2 emission limits 
which provide for attainment of the NAAQS under that set of operating 
conditions (refer to 58 FR 326).
    At the time of the exceedance, the source was operating its cyclone 
boiler and only two of its five stoker boilers. A rollback analysis 
only accounts for those operations that were running at the time of the 
exceedance. However, the source requires the flexibility of using 
multiple scenarios of boiler operations for economic reasons. 
Therefore, the source accepted an overall daily SO2 emission cap 
for the entire facility. This cap will assure protection of the 
SO2 NAAQS, while still allowing for operational flexibility. For 
further discussion on the rollback analysis, please refer to the August 
30, 1994 TSD.
    (2). Sampling/Testing and Additional Limits: Sampling and Testing 
of the coal and wood waste sludge is discussed within the August 30, 
1994 TSD. Sampling and testing followed USEPA methodologies and ASTM 
Practices. Net SO2 emissions were determined using AP-42 
Estimation Factors. Additional ``trigger limits'' were set for the 
boilers, which requires additional sulfur testing of prior fuel if the 
current fuel is found to exceed 90 percent of the enforceable SO2 
emission limit.
    (3). Monitoring: The source has agreed to conduct meteorological 
monitoring. The State will conduct additional ambient monitoring, which 
USEPA requested for additional background information on local 
conditions. The original hillside ambient monitor that recorded the 
original violations will be maintained indefinitely. No recorded 
exceedances have been monitored since the last SIP revision request was 
submitted to USEPA on April 28, 1989.

III. Final Action

    Because USEPA considers this action noncontroversial and routine, 
we are approving it without prior proposal. This action will become 
effective on Februray 6, 1995. However, if we receive a notice of 
intent to comment by January 6, 1995, USEPA will publish a document 
that withdraws this action, and will address the comments received in 
the final rule on the requested SIP revision, which has been proposed 
for approval in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register. 
The public comment period will not be extended or reopened.

IV. Miscellaneous

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. The USEPA shall consider each request for a revision to the SIP in 
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Order 12866

    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), as revised by an October 4, 1993 
memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 
and Radiation. The OMB has exempted this regulatory action from 
Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 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. This approval does not create any new requirements. Therefore, 
I certify that this action 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 the regulatory 
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of the State action. The Act forbids USEPA to base its 
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. 
U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).

D. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by February 6, 1995. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this 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 a rule. This 
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of Wisconsin was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: November 14, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
    40 CFR Part 52 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 YY--Wisconsin

    2. 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(79) to read as 
follows: Sec. 52.2570 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (79) On October 21, 1994, the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources (WDNR) submitted a plan modifying the SO2 emission 
limits applicable to Rhinelander Paper Company facility, located in the 
City of Rhinelander, Oneida County, Wisconsin.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) A Consent Order (AM-94-38), effective August 22, 1994 issued by 
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and signed by 
Donald F. Theiler for the WDNR and Melvin L. Davidson for the 
Rhinelander Paper Company. Rhinelander Paper Company is located in 
Rhinelander (Oneida County), Wisconsin. This Order limits the overall 
SO2 emissions from the Rhinelander Paper Company, and imposes more 
stringent SO2 limits for the source's stoker and cyclone boilers 
and vapor compression evaporator. Sampling and testing of fuel, as well 
as monitoring criteria are documented within the Order.
    (B) A letter dated August 29, 1994 from the WDNR to Jerry Neis of 
Rhinelander Paper Company, requesting clarification for sampling 
methodologies for all fuel and the source of the sludge used as a fuel 
source.
    (C) A response letter dated October 19, 1994 from Jerome T. Neis of 
Rhinelander Paper Company to the WDNR, detailing sampling methodologies 
for all fuel and clarifying the source of the sludge used as a fuel 
source.

[FR Doc. 94-29880 Filed 12-06-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P