[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1727-1730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-876]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[OH91-1-7265b; FRL-5401-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 3, 1995, Ohio submitted revisions to its 
particulate matter plans for the Cleveland and Steubenville 
nonattainment areas. These revisions were submitted to address plan 
deficiencies identified by USEPA in a final limited disapproval of the 
particulate matter plans published in the Federal Register on May 27, 
1994, at 59 FR 27464. For the Cleveland area, these revisions provide 
earlier attainment and correct the deficient test method. For the 
Steubenville area, these revisions include an administrative order for 
tightening controls at Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel's basic oxygen furnace 
and provide a fully updated modeling analysis demonstrating that the 
plan assures attainment. USEPA is proposing to approve these revisions. 
On this basis, USEPA is by separate notice today making an interim 
final determination that these revisions remedy the deficiencies 
identified in the 

[[Page 1728]]
rulemaking of May 27, 1994. As a result, the sanctions which could have 
resulted from the May 1994 rulemaking shall not apply.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by February 
22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AE-17J), 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State's submittal and USEPA's technical support 
document of December 5, 1995, are available for inspection at the 
following address: (It is recommended that you telephone John 
Summerhays at (312) 886-6067, before visiting the Region 5 Office.) 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division (AE-17J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Regulation 
Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 
(312) 886-6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Ohio submitted major revisions to its particulate matter 
regulations on November 14, 1991, with supplemental submittals on 
December 4, 1991, and January 8, 1992. USEPA proposed rulemaking on 
these submittals on August 3, 1993, at 58 FR 41218, and published a 
notice of final rulemaking on May 27, 1994, at 59 FR 27464, granting 
limited approval/limited disapproval of these submittals. Although 
USEPA approved most of Ohio's regulations, USEPA concluded that 
selected requirements of the Clean Air Act applicable to the two Ohio 
nonattainment areas, i.e., Cuyahoga County (including Cleveland) and 
the Steubenville area, were not satisfied. This represented a 
disapproval finding under Section 179(a)(2) and initiated a ``clock'' 
toward imposition of sanctions in these areas under Section 179(b).
    Ohio submitted further revisions to its particulate matter plans on 
November 3, 1995, seeking to remedy the deficiencies identified in 
USEPA's May 1994 rulemaking. Today's notice discusses and proposes 
action on Ohio's November 1995 submittal.
    Ohio conducted a public hearing in connection with its Cuyahoga 
County rule revisions but has not yet conducted a public hearing with 
respect to revisions to the Steubenville area attainment demonstration. 
USEPA has concluded that proposed rulemaking is warranted for both 
areas' plan revisions. However, with respect to the Steubenville area 
plan revisions, USEPA will publish final rulemaking only after Ohio has 
solicited public comments and submitted evidence that any such comments 
have been appropriately considered.

II. Cuyahoga County Issues

    USEPA's rulemaking for the Cuyahoga County plan identified two main 
deficiencies. First, the requirement for implementing reasonably 
available control technology (RACT) by December 10, 1993, was not 
satisfied, because the plan neither implemented all technologically 
reasonable measures (the ``technology definition'' of RACT) nor 
implemented sufficient measures to assure expeditious attainment (the 
``attainment definition'' of RACT) by that date. Under this latter 
option, if the State has adopted sufficient measures to assure 
attainment by December 10, 1993, and application of further measures 
would not result in earlier attainment, USEPA may conclude that the 
State has required all measures that are reasonable to require. Further 
discussion of these alternatives for satisfying the requirement for 
RACT under Section 189(a)(1)(C) is given in the ``General Preamble for 
the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990,'' published in the Federal Register of April 16, 1992. (See 57 FR 
13543.) Second, Ohio's plan did not fully satisfy the requirement for 
assuring attainment by the attainment deadline, as a result of 
questions about the ability to enforce limits on emissions from coke 
quenching due to deficiencies in the test method.
    Ohio addressed the RACT issue by revising its rules such that all 
compliance deadlines that were previously post-December 1993 were 
changed to December 10, 1993. These rule revisions were accompanied by 
minor shifts in limitations applicable to various units at Ford's 
Cleveland Casting Plant. Ohio's submittal provides modeling evidence 
that the revised limits provide for attainment by December 1993, and 
thus implicitly argues that the ``attainment definition'' of RACT is 
satisfied.
    The modeling in Ohio's submittal is essentially identical to the 
modeling submitted in Ohio's original 1991 SIP submittal, with the 
exception of course of reflecting the modified limitations. USEPA 
concluded in 1994 that Ohio's modeling satisfied applicable guidance. 
Relevant guidance has in general remained the same, except that a new 
version of the applicable model has become available subsequent to the 
1991 submittal, i.e., the original Industrial Source Complex (ISC) 
model has been superseded first with the ISC2 model and then with the 
ISC3 model.
    There are several reasons to ``grandfather'' Ohio's use of the ISC 
model. First, the limits being evaluated are not a new set of limits 
but rather reflect only a minor shift of limits for a small subset of 
the modeled sources. Second, the modeling submitted in November 1995 
was completed in April 1993 and was part of a series of analyses 
starting in 1990 or 1991. Third, according to modeling conducted by 
USEPA in evaluating Ohio's 1991 submittal, ISC2 predicts lower 
concentrations than ISC in the vicinity of Ford's Cleveland Casting 
Plant. (This finding is documented in a technical support document 
dated February 8, 1993.) ISC3 would also be expected to estimate 
concentrations below those of ISC. For all these reasons, it is 
appropriate to grandfather this analysis. Thus, in sum, the modeling 
analysis is judged to fully satisfy current guidance.
    This modeling shows a design value of 149.5 micrograms per cubic 
meter (g/m\3\), thus showing attainment of the 150 g/
m\3\ 24-hour average standard given in 40 CFR 50.6(a). Although the 
recent submittal did not assess attainment of the annual average 
standard, the changes in emissions limits are sufficiently 
insignificant and the attainment margin in Ohio's 1991 submittal is 
sufficient (a nearby design value of 38.5 g/m\3\ versus the 
standard of 50 g/m\3\ given in 40 CFR 50.6(b)) that the 
revised limits are also judged to assure attainment of the annual 
average standard. Since the measures that are providing for attainment 
are to have been in place by December 1993, Ohio's revised plan also 
satisfies the requirement for RACT implementation by that date.
    The second issue in Cuyahoga County pertains to the test method for 
one of the limitations governing metallurgical coke-making facilities. 
The particular limitation at issue is the limit on the solids content 
of water used to quench hot coke, a process that causes particulate 
matter emissions in relation to the quench water solids content. The 
test method in the rules Ohio submitted in 1991 provided for monthly 
averaging of water quality based on one water sample per week, which 
does not adequately assure continuous compliance with the limitation. 
Ohio's November 1995 submittal includes a revised rule which requires 
weekly averaging based on samples for at least 

[[Page 1729]]
five days per week, which is in accordance with standard practice for 
such limits. Given that quench water quality generally varies slowly, 
this revision is sufficient to provide adequate assurance of continuous 
compliance with this limitation. Since the attainment demonstration is 
based on allowable emissions, this revision also addresses the prior 
concern with the area's attainment demonstration, insofar as USEPA can 
now enforce a limit consistent with the previously modeled allowable 
emission rate. In sum, Ohio's revisions address the previously noted 
deficiencies and make the Cuyahoga County plan fully satisfy applicable 
requirements.

III. Steubenville Area Issues

    USEPA's limited disapproval of the SIP for Ohio's portion of the 
Steubenville area was based on deficiencies in the attainment 
demonstration. The May 1994 Federal Register included lengthy 
discussion of deficiencies in the estimation of allowable emissions 
from the basic oxygen furnace shop and from the coke ovens. The Federal 
Register also noted that further deficiencies were identified in the 
technical support document, which noted deficiencies in modeling 
procedures used to demonstrate attainment as well as other deficiencies 
in estimating allowable emissions.
    The most significant deficiency in emissions estimation was the 
underestimation of allowable fugitive emissions for Wheeling-Pittsburgh 
Steel Corporation's basic oxygen furnace shop. These fugitive emissions 
are limited by Ohio's rules to 20 percent opacity on a 3-minute average 
basis. Unfortunately, there is uncertainty in how much emissions this 
limit allows. Ohio's 1991 submittal assumed that the primary control 
system captured 99.5 percent of emissions from oxygen blowing in the 
furnaces and that less than a third of the remaining 0.5 percent was 
actually emitted, with the remaining uncaptured emissions apparently 
presumed to settle within the shop. The control system at the time was 
judged inadequate to achieve that high a capture efficiency, and 
settling was judged not to affect fine particulate matter emissions 
significantly. Nevertheless, it was unclear whether the rule's limits 
could be met by the existing control system or whether allowable 
emissions should be assumed to reflect enhancement of the control 
system.
    The existing control system at the basic oxygen furnace shop has 
proved inadequate to assure compliance with the 20 percent/3-minute 
average limit. Therefore, Ohio undertook enforcement action and issued 
an administrative order that requires significant improvements in the 
control system to achieve compliance. This administrative order was 
included in Ohio's November 1995 submittal. A review of the anticipated 
effectiveness of the required control system supports Ohio's assumption 
that the 20 percent/3-minute average limit and the administrative order 
implementing that limit requires 99.5 percent emissions capture at this 
shop. Ohio's new submittal also removes the unacceptable assumption 
that any uncaptured emissions of fine particles settle in the shop or 
otherwise fail to be emitted. The emissions estimate developed by Ohio 
considering the control system enhancement required by the submitted 
administrative order is acceptable.
    The second emission estimation issue discussed in the May 1994 
Federal Register concerned coke oven emissions. The procedure used by 
Ohio relied on equations provided in the background information 
document for the coke oven National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutant (NESHAP) relating fugitive emissions to leak levels. 
USEPA objected to the use in these equations of actual leak rates 
(reflecting long term average actual leak rates expected to correspond 
to various short term allowable leak rates) rather than the allowable 
leak rates. Calculation errors were also noted in the calculation of 
the fine particle fraction of these emissions, effectively making an 
improper assumption that much of the condensible particulate matter 
emitted by these operations is not fine particles. The November 1995 
submittal corrects these problems and provides fully acceptable 
estimates of allowable coke oven emissions.
    The technical support document for the prior rulemaking also 
identified other issues relating to emissions estimation, including 
consideration of condensible particulate matter emissions, need for 
support of a low silt content used in estimating emissions from blast 
furnace material storage piles, and the use of a higher allowable 
emission rate that applies to certain boilers when firing residual oil. 
Ohio's November 1995 submittal responded to these issues where 
necessary. These issues are discussed in detail in the technical 
support document for this rulemaking. In addition, USEPA review of the 
significance of these issues is summarized below.
    The May 1994 rulemaking also identified two deficiencies relating 
to modeling. First, the State's prior modeling analysis did not 
properly consider intermediate terrain. USEPA's intermediate terrain 
policy requires that for any hour that a receptor is above stack height 
but below plume height for a given source, both simple terrain modeling 
and complex terrain modeling should be conducted and the more 
conservative (higher) concentration estimate used. Ohio's prior 
submittal included only a limited analysis, indicating that the more 
conservative results were usually obtained from simple terrain modeling 
but were occasionally obtained from complex terrain modeling. Second, 
the State analyzed area source impacts using the RAM model, a model 
which is inappropriate in areas such as Steubenville that are 
categorized under modeling guidance as ``rural.''
    Ohio addressed both of these issues by submitting an updated 
analysis using the ISC3 model. This model inherently implements USEPA's 
intermediate terrain policy by automatically performing both simple 
terrain modeling and complex terrain modeling for any hour for any 
source-receptor combination that involves intermediate terrain. This 
model also has an upgraded algorithm for analyzing the impacts of area 
sources for either ``urban'' or ``rural'' settings. Therefore, the use 
of this model satisfies the above concerns.
    Ohio's analysis reflected selected additional revisions. Although 
the new analysis was based on the same underlying meteorological 
measurements (i.e., 12 months of measurements in 1989/1990 at a tower 
in Follansbee, West Virginia), the data were processed with an updated 
meteorological data processor (i.e., the Meteorological Processor for 
Regulatory Models) that was not available previously. This newer 
processor in some cases estimated different values for some derived 
parameters such as stability. This analysis also reflected correction 
of various source parameters such as erroneous source locations, 
misrepresented distributions of selected area sources, and understated 
efficiency of road dust control at one source. These revisions are all 
acceptable.
    For some issues, the information provided by Ohio was not included 
in the modeling analysis. In order to assess the significance of these 
issues, USEPA conducted further, supplemental model runs. These 
supplemental runs are discussed further in the technical support 
document and use the same modeling approach and inputs as Ohio except 
for inclusion of emission estimates reflecting the minor inventory 
issues referenced above. As compared to the 24-hour average standard of 
150 g/

[[Page 1730]]
m\3\, the State's modeling shows a design 24-hour average concentration 
of 148.7 g/m\3\, and USEPA's supplemental modeling shows a 
design concentration of 149.9 g/m\3\. As compared to the 
annual average standard of 50 g/m\3\, Ohio's modeling shows a 
highest concentration of 49.6 g/m\3\, and USEPA's supplemental 
modeling also shows a highest concentration of 49.6 g/m\3\. 
Thus, with or without consideration of the minor inventory issues, 
Ohio's plan may be judged to assure attainment of the air quality 
standards in the Steubenville area.

IV. Today's Action

    With respect to Cuyahoga County, USEPA proposes to conclude that 
the revised rules now provide for RACT by December 1993, that the 
quench water test method issue and the associated attainment 
demonstration issue has been resolved, and that the further revisions 
to the limitation for Ford's Cleveland Casting Plant do not jeopardize 
attainment. With respect to the Steubenville area, USEPA proposes to 
conclude that the State has now submitted a fully approvable attainment 
demonstration for the area. USEPA also proposes in particular to 
approve the rule revisions for Cuyahoga County and the findings and 
order requiring control system enhancements at Wheeling-Pittsburgh 
Steel's basic oxygen furnace.
    Based on the above proposed findings, USEPA proposes further to 
conclude that Ohio's particulate matter plans for the Cuyahoga County 
and Steubenville nonattainment areas now satisfy all applicable 
requirements under Part D of the Clean Air Act (except for new source 
review requirements, which are not addressed here or in the May 1994 
rulemaking and are being addressed separately). More specifically, 
USEPA proposes to find that the deficiencies identified in the May 1994 
rulemaking have been remedied. USEPA is publishing this finding as an 
interim final determination in a separate notice in the Rules section 
of this Federal Register issue. As a result, the sanctions which were 
to take effect December 27, 1995, are deferred and shall not be applied 
pending further rulemaking on these issues. If USEPA's final action 
finalizes the approval action proposed today, the sanctions clock shall 
be fully stopped. Only if USEPA publishes proposed or final disapproval 
action concluding that some deficiencies have not been remedied would 
sanctions be applied.
    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 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 section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 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 Act, 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP 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 3 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 H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
    Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, 
EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State, 
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed today does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to 
approve 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 to the private sector, result from 
this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air Pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: December 13, 1995.
Gail C. Ginsburg,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-876 Filed 1-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P