[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 5, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24986-24992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-10095]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WV065-6034a; FRL-7653-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
West Virginia; Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Demonstration for the City of 
Weirton Including the Clay and Butler Magisterial Districts in Hancock 
County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of West Virginia. This revision contains 
enforceable emission limitations for the Weirton Steel Corporation, and 
the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation in Hancock County, West 
Virginia. The revision provides for, and demonstrates, the attainment 
of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for sulfur 
oxides, measured as sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the City of 
Weirton, including the Clay and Butler Magisterial Districts, Hancock 
County nonattainment area. EPA is approving these revisions to the West 
Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 6, 2004, without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse written comment by June 4, 2004. If EPA 
receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that 
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by WV065-6034 by one of the 
following methods:
    A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    B. E-mail: [email protected].
    C. Mail: Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, 
Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No.WV065-6034. 
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through Regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal Regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
Regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and 
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information 
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, DC 20460; and the West 
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air 
Quality, 7012 MacCorkle Avenue, SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304-
2943.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denis Lohman, at (215) 814-2192, or 
Ellen Wentworth, at (215) 814-2034, or by e-mail at 
[email protected] or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Following the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) of 1977, EPA published 
a list of areas identified by the States as nonattainment, attainment, 
or unclassifiable for SO2. The 1990 CAA Amendments provided 
for designations of areas based on their status immediately before 
enactment of the 1990 Amendments. For example, any area previously 
designated as not attaining the primary or secondary NAAQS for 
SO2 as of the date of enactment of the 1990 Amendments, was 
designated nonattainment for SO2 by operation of law upon 
enactment, pursuant to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the Act. In addition, 
any area designated as attainment or unclassifiable (or ``cannot be 
classified'') immediately before the enactment of the 1990 Amendments, 
was also designated as such upon the enactment of the Amendments 
pursuant to sections 107(d)(1)(C)(ii) and (iii) of the Act.
    As described above, EPA is authorized to initiate the redesignation 
of additional areas or portions of areas as nonattainment for 
SO2 pursuant to section 107(d)(3)(D) of the Act on the basis 
of air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other 
air quality-related considerations the Administrator may deem 
appropriate. On December 21, 1993 (58 FR 67334), EPA redesignated the 
City of Weirton, including the Clay and Butler Magisterial Districts of 
Hancock County, West Virginia to nonattainment for SO2 based 
upon monitored values in the Weirton, West Virginia area. This action 
required the State to submit a SIP revision for the Weirton area by 
July 20, 1995. On July 21, 1995, EPA received a SIP revision submittal 
for the Weirton area including the Clay and Butler Magisterial 
Districts of Hancock County, West Virginia. However, no applicable 
model was available at the time to handle the intricate topography of 
the area. Another major concern was the lack of comprehensive local 
meteorological data that was representative of such a complex terrain. 
Limited local meteorological data was obtained from the Browns Island 
meteorological tower operated by the State. EPA commented on the SIP 
submittal asking the West Virginia Department of Environmental 
Protection (WVDEP) to consider using a refined air quality model 
utilizing a new meteorological tower. A 60-meter meteorological tower 
and acoustical Sound Detection and Ranging (SODAR) were installed in 
Weirton, West Virginia as part of a Supplemental Environmental Project 
(SEP) between Weirton Steel Corporation and EPA.
    Additional air quality monitors were added to the area surrounding 
Weirton Steel based on ``hot spot'' modeling locations identified by 
EPA. Modeling

[[Page 24987]]

results indicated major contributors of SO2 in the local 
area to be sources located within Weirton Steel Corporation and 
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation. Modeled attainment of the NAAQS 
required the drafting of a Consent Order (CO) entered into between 
Weirton Steel Corporation and the WVDEP, and the modification of a 
permit for Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation issued by WVDEP to set 
enforceable allowable limits on specific units within each of the 
facilities.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On December 29, 2003, West Virginia submitted a formal SIP revision 
for the City of Weirton, including the Clay and Butler Magisterial 
Districts nonattainment area in Hancock County, West Virginia. The SIP 
revision consists of an enforceable operating permit for the Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, and an individual CO entered into by and 
between the State of West Virginia and the Weirton Steel Corporation in 
Hancock County, West Virginia, establishing SO2 emission 
limits for numerous emission points at both facilities. The SIP 
submittal also contains an air quality dispersion modeling 
demonstration that indicates that the allowable emission limits will 
provide for the attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 in the 
Weirton area including the Clay and Butler Magisterial Districts. A 
summary of the essential compliance provisions of the consent order and 
the operating permit are presented below:
    Table 1 summarizes the requirements imposed upon the Weirton Steel 
Corporation facility to reduce SO2:

   Table 1.--Weirton Steel Corporation, Weirton Facility SO2 Reduction
                                Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         SO2 emissions unit                   SO2 emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinter Plant.......................  Shall not be operated by the
                                      Company.
High Pressure Boilers 1 and 2......  Shall not be operated by the
                                      Company.
Low Pressure Boilers LP1, LP2, LP3,  Shall not be operated by the
 LP4, and LP15.                       Company.
Coal...............................  Shall not be fired at any boiler
                                      operated by the Company.
SO2 emissions from High Pressure     Shall be limited by restricting the
 Boilers 3, 4 and 5.                  firing of fuel oil to a rate
                                      dependent upon the sulfur content
                                      of the fuel oil fired as described
                                      in Appendix A to the Consent
                                      Order. The allowable fuel oil
                                      firing rate shall be the 3-hour
                                      block average derived from
                                      Appendix A expressed in total
                                      gallons of fuel oil fired at High
                                      Pressure Boilers 3, 4, and 5 over
                                      a 3-hour period.
The percentage of sulfur contained   Shall not exceed three percent.
 in the fuel oil purchased to be
 fired at the company's high
 pressure boilers.
Total fuel oil and sulfur content    Shall be limited to the product of
 fired at boilers 3, 4 and 5.         gallons per minute (gpm) x
                                      (percent Sulfur) being less than
                                      or equal to the emission factor of
                                      91.7 as per the curve in Appendix
                                      A of the Consent Order.
The BOP Waste Heat Boiler..........  Shall be pre-heated using steam
                                      sparging. Fuel fired at the Waste
                                      Heat Boiler shall be limited to
                                      Natural Gas, Mixed Gas, or steel
                                      making process gas.
Foster Wheeler Boilers 101  Shall have a combined limit of
 and 102.                    109.73 lbs. per hour of SO2. These
                                      boilers shall be limited to firing
                                      only blast furnace gas, natural
                                      gas, and mixed gas (comprised of
                                      approximately 70 percent natural
                                      gas and 30 percent air).
Hot Mill Reheat Furnaces,            Shall be limited to firing only
 Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration       natural gas and mixed gas
 Plant combustion sources, and        (comprised of approximately 70
 Annealing Furnaces.                  percent natural gas and 30 percent
                                      air).
Blast Furnaces designated 2 and 3.
Blast Furnace 1 Stoves....  Shall be limited to 60.1 lbs. per
                                      hour of SO2.
Blast Furnace 1...........  Shall be limited to 42.1 lbs. per
                                      hour of SO2.
Blast Furnace 4 Stoves....  Shall be limited to 60.1 lbs per
                                      hour of SO2.
Blast Furnace 4 Flare.....  Shall be limited to 42.1 lbs per
                                      hour of SO2.
Slag Granulator....................  Shall be limited to 50 lbs per hour
                                      of SO2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation's revised 
permit, as specified in Section B, Other Requirements, the permittee 
shall comply with all the applicable provisions of West Virginia 
regulations 45CSR4, 45CSR6, 45CSR10, 45CSR13, 45CSR14, and 45CSR30, 
provided that the permittee shall comply with any more stringent 
requirements as may be set forth under Section A, Specific 
Requirements, of the permit.
    The specific requirements of Section A of the operating permit 
issued by the WVDEP to Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (the 
permittee), are as follows:

A. Specific Requirements

    1. Maximum emissions to the atmosphere from the Excess Coke Oven 
Gas (COG) Flare (Emission Point 1EF) shall not exceed the limits listed 
in Table 2:

                                 Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Maximum hourly
                                            emissions         Annual
      Hourly emissions  (lbs./hr)           during the       emissions
                                         desulfurization       (tpy)
                                              outage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39.8...................................             *396          294.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annual emissions account for the desulfurization unit being down 672
  hours per year for scheduled maintenance and maximum hydrogen sulfide
  concentration of 479 grains per 100 cu. ft. of COG.

    2. In order to maintain compliance with the annual emission limit, 
the daily flow rate of COG to the excess COG flare (emission point 1EF) 
shall not exceed 7.1 MM standard cubic feet per

[[Page 24988]]

day over a thirty-day rolling average. The permittee shall keep daily 
records of the flow rate of COG to the flare and correct the measured 
flow rate to a standard temperature of 68[deg]F. Compliance shall be 
determined using a thirty-day rolling average.
    3. Maximum SO2 emissions to the atmosphere from boilers 
 6 and  7 (emission point) shall not exceed the 
limits listed in Table 3:

                                 Table 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Boiler       Boiler
                                                 6   7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly SO2 Rate (lb/hr).......................         20.4         20.4
Hourly SO2 Rate during Desulfurization Outage        *203.1       *203.1
 (lb/hr)......................................
Annual SO2 Rate* (TPY)........................        150.7       150.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Annual Emission accounts for the desulfurization unit being down 672
  hours per year for scheduled maintenance and maximum hydrogen sulfide
  concentration of 479 grains per 100 cu. ft. of COG.

    4. Boilers 5, 6 and 7 shall only combust COG.
    5. In order to maintain compliance with the SO2 emission 
limits specified in provisions 1 and 3 of the permit, 
the hydrogen sulfide concentration level in the COG stream from the by-
products plant shall not exceed 50 grains of hydrogen sulfide per one 
hundred (100) cubic feet of COG except as noted in provision  
6 below. Compliance with the allowable hydrogen sulfide concentration 
level shall be based on three (3) hour averaging periods.
    6. In order to maintain compliance with the SO2 emission 
limits specified in provisions 1 and 3 of the permit 
while the desulfurization unit is down for scheduled maintenance, the 
permittee shall calculate and record the hourly sulfur dioxide emission 
rate of the flare and boilers 6 and 7 over a 24-hour 
period using the recorded mean hydrogen sulfide concentration level and 
the recorded standard flow rate for the respective day. These records 
shall be kept on site for a period of at least five years.
    7. The permittee shall be limited to a maximum of twenty-eight (28) 
days in any calendar year for planned maintenance outages of the 
desulfurization unit in the coke-by-products recovery plant. No single 
outage period shall extend beyond 336 hours. The start of a planned 
maintenance shall begin at the time of the first hour of a three-hour 
average concentration that is greater than 50 grains of H2S/
100 cubic feet of COG. The planned maintenance shall be concluded at 
the time of the first hour of a three-hour average concentration that 
is less than or equal to 50 grains of H2S/100 cubic feet of 
COG.
    8. The permittee shall notify the Director in writing thirty (30) 
days prior to undertaking any planned maintenance outage of the 
desulfurization unit, which shall include a detailed explanation of 
each and every maintenance and/or repair activity intended to be 
undertaken.
    9. The permittee shall select the period for the planned 
maintenance outage that would prevent, to the greatest extent 
practicable, any violation of the NAAQS for SO2 using, at a 
minimum, air quality dispersion modeling to determine what periods 
represent the most favorable dispersion of excess SO2 
emissions. To ensure maintenance of the 24-hour NAAQS for 
SO2, a modeling target for SO2 concentrations for 
the high 24-hour value of 265 [mu]g/m\3\ shall be used to provide a 
margin of 100 [mu]g/m\3\ for other source impacts within the immediate 
vicinity of the facility.
    10. Prior to any planned maintenance outage of the desulfurization 
unit, the permittee shall prepare and submit an SO2 
mitigation plan to the Director outlining what measures the permittee 
will employ during the outage to ensure continued attainment of the 
NAAQS. This plan shall include the employment of all feasible control 
measures and process changes at the Follansbee facility to reduce 
SO2 from the facility, including, but not limited to 
reduction of the coke production rate at Coke Oven Batteries 
1, 2, 3, and 8.
    11. No later than thirty (30) days after completing a planned 
maintenance outage of the desulfurization unit, the permittee shall 
submit a report identifying the SO2 impacts associated with 
the planned outage. The report shall include any deviation of the 
SO2 mitigation plan that was submitted for the outage 
period.
    12. Visible emissions from the excess COG flare shall not exceed 
twenty percent opacity except upon the first eight (8) minutes of 
starting the thermal oxidizer. After this point, visible emissions from 
this emission point shall not exceed forty percent opacity for this 
time period. The permittee shall demonstrate compliance with this 
condition by taking visual observations using EPA Method 22 once a 
month. If the permittee observes visible emissions from the flare using 
Method 22, the permittee shall conduct an additional observation within 
24 hours using EPA Method 9 to determine the opacity of the visible 
emissions being emitted from the flare.
    13. The Sinter Plant shall not be operated by the permittee unless 
the proper permit is obtained from the Director prior to restarting the 
Sinter Plant.
    14. The permittee shall operate and maintain a continuous hydrogen 
sulfide monitor and recorder for the purpose of monitoring the hydrogen 
sulfide concentration of the sweetened COG before it is routed to any 
combustion unit or source utilizing COG. This monitor shall be 
installed and maintained in accordance with Performance Specification 7 
of Appendix B of 40 CFR 60.
    15. The permittee shall maintain in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions, flow-measuring devices for the purpose of 
measuring and recording the amount of COG consumed by the excess COG 
flare and Boilers 6 and 7. The permittee shall keep 
daily records of the amount of COG consumed by the above mentioned 
units. These units shall remain on site for a period of at least 5 
years.
    16. The permittee shall maintain the automatic re-ignition system 
in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
    17. The permittee shall not vent any noncombusted COG into the open 
atmosphere through the excess COG flare. The permittee shall record the 
date and time of an event when the flare was not in operation and COG 
was being emitted to the atmosphere through the excess COG flare. The 
permittee shall submit a report explaining the event and measures taken 
to prevent a recurrence of the event. These records shall be maintained 
on site for a period of at least five years.
    18. No later than ninety (90) days after issuance of the permit, 
the permittee shall continuously maintain a system around the facility 
to prevent public access to the facility.
    19. Compliance with the allowable emission limits of this permit 
shall be calculated using the appropriate amount of COG combustion by 
the excess COG flare on a volumetric basis, higher heat value of 568 
Btu/cu. ft. for COG, and the following factors: Carbon Monoxide (0.37 
lb/MM Btu), Nitrogen oxides (0.068 lb/MM Btu), Particulate Matter 
(0.012 lb/MM Btu), Particulate Matter 10 microns (0.012 lb/MM Btu), 
Volatile Organic Compounds (0.14 lb/MM Btu). The permittee shall 
determine the amount of each pollutant emitted on a monthly basis using 
the above mentioned information and appropriate engineering 
calculations. The permittee shall keep a 12-month rolling total for 
each of the above mentioned pollutants.

[[Page 24989]]

    20. In the event of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of 
the permittee during an approved planned maintenance outage, the 
permittee may exceed the SO2 emission limit for the flare as 
stated in provision  1 of this permit in order to prevent an 
anticipated excursion of the NAAQS for SO2 from occurring in 
the local area, which includes the city of Weirton, West Virginia. The 
permittee shall document in the Desulfurization System Outage Report, 
the unforeseen circumstances, the SO2 emissions rate 
calculation, and the modeling results, to document the necessity of the 
temporary increase in the flare's SO2 allowable emissions 
rate.
    21. Boiler  5 (emission point 1D S11) shall not be 
operated unless the permittee obtains the proper permit from the 
Director prior to restarting the boiler.
    22. The permittee shall fire only natural gas at coke plant boiler 
 8 (emission point 1D, S11), unless an applicable permit is 
obtained from the Director.
    23. Sulfur dioxide emissions from pushing Coke Oven Batteries 
1, 2, and 3 shall not exceed 10.48 pounds 
SO2 per hour (emission point SO5).
    24. Sulfur dioxide emissions from pushing at Coke Oven Battery 
8 shall not exceed 15.72 pounds per hour of SO2 
(emission point SO6).
    25. Compliance with the allowable emission limits established in 
provisions 23 and 24 of the permit shall be 
calculated using an emission factor of 0.1078 pounds per tons of coal 
charged and multiplied by the hourly average tons of coal charged to 
the batteries each month.

III. Evaluation of the State Submittal

    The CAA requires States to submit implementation plans that 
indicate how each State intends to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The 
1977 Amendments established specific requirements for implementation 
plans in nonattainment areas in part D, sections 171-178. The 1990 
Amendments did not change these requirements in any significant way 
with regard to SO2 nonattainment areas and existing guidance 
remains valid. On April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), EPA issued ``General 
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how it 
intends to interpret various provisions of title I, primarily those 
concerning revisions required for nonattainment areas. In order to 
approve the SIP revision, each of the part D requirements must be 
evaluated and the revision must ensure that: (1) The revised allowable 
emission limitations demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS for SO2 in the nonattainment area, (2) the emission 
limitations are clearly enforceable, and (3) that all applicable 
procedural and substantive requirements of 40 CFR part 51 are met.

A. Evaluation of the Part D Requirements as Described in the ``General 
Preamble''

1. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
    West Virginia's SIP revision provides for reasonable available 
control technology (RACT). The definition for RACT for SO2 
is that control technology which is necessary to attain and maintain 
the NAAQS. The technology must also be reasonably available considering 
technological and economic feasibility. Furthermore, RACT must be that 
technology which will provide for the achievement of the NAAQS within 
the established statutory time frames. The SIP revision indicates that 
SO2 emissions are controlled at the Weirton Steel 
Corporation and the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation through fuel 
specifications and operations. The revision establishes allowable 
SO2 emission limits and also defines allowable fuel usage 
for a number of processes. Modeling results indicate that major 
contributors of SO2 in the area to be blast furnaces and 
flares, high-pressure boilers, and Foster-Wheeler boilers at the 
Weirton Steel facility, along with boilers and coke ovens at the 
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation. The plan complies with the 
requirements to implement RACT by providing for immediate attainment of 
the NAAQS for SO2 through the emission limits and operating 
restrictions imposed on specific units within each of the facilities by 
the consent orders and permits. The SIP revision provides a 
demonstration that these limits will provide for the attainment of the 
NAAQS in the nonattainment area. Therefore, West Virginia has ensured 
that reasonably available control technology, fuel specification and 
operations modification is required, and that the control technology 
provides for achievement of the NAAQS.
2. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
    West Virginia's SIP revision provides for reasonable further 
progress (RFP). Sulfur dioxide emission reductions that provide for 
attainment in an area are achieved at a limited, readily-defined number 
of sources, using control measures that immediately improve air 
quality. Therefore, RFP for SO2 nonattainment implementation 
plans is defined simply as the ``adherence to an ambitious compliance 
plan.'' The SIP revision provides for RFP due to the immediate effect 
of the emission limits required by the plan.
3. Emissions Inventory
    West Virginia's SIP revision provides an adequate emissions 
inventory from Weirton Steel Corporation and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel 
Corporation, as well as from all relevant sources of SO2 in 
the nonattainment area. The revision contains an updated 2001 
inventory.
4. Identification and Quantification
    This information is unnecessary because the area has not been 
identified as a zone for which economic development should be targeted.
5. Permits for New and Modified Major Stationary Sources
    The Federal requirements for new source review (NSR) in 
nonattainment areas are contained in section 172(c)(5). Any new or 
modified source constructed in the area must comply with a state 
submitted and federally approved New Source Review Program (NSR). No 
modifications or installations have been made that detrimentally affect 
the modeling results. Presently, any major sources wishing to construct 
or make a major modification within the nonattainment area are required 
to obtain an NSR permit through SIP-approved State Regulation 45CSR19. 
Subsequent to redesignation of the area to attainment, any source 
wishing to construct or modify will be required to obtain a Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit through SIP-approved State 
Regulation 45CSR14. The PSD program would require that a modeling 
demonstration be performed to ensure continued NAAQS attainment and 
maintenance. These along with requirements of the minor source permit 
program covered under State Regulation 45CSR13 would assure the 
maintenance of the NAAQS.
6. Other Measures
    The plan provides for immediate attainment of the NAAQS for 
SO2 through the emission limitations, operating 
requirements, and compliance schedules that are set forth within the 
permits and consent orders.
7. Compliance With Section110(a)(2)
    This submission complies with section 110(a)(2). All of the 
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2) are

[[Page 24990]]

already met by West Virginia's Federally-approved SIP.
8. Equivalent Techniques
    The modeling for this SIP submittal was conducted using EPA's 
``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)'' (GAQM). Two models, 
AERMOD and CALPUFF are designed to handle complex terrain features. 
AERMOD was selected as the best performing model for this situation and 
was chosen as the appropriate model for this SIP demonstration.
9. Contingency Measures
    West Virginia's SIP revision provides for adequate contingency 
measures. The State's plan includes the continuous review of air 
quality monitoring data in the area of concern, the review of local 
monitored meteorological data, and the assessment of compliance of 
local targeted facilities to verify continued attainment of the area. 
The State will review the annual emissions inventory for the Weirton 
area at a minimum of once every three years. In the event of a 
certified violation, West Virginia intends to assess all source 
compliance with existing rules, regulations and permits, and assess 
fuel switching at fuel burning units. The supporting documentation 
(ambient air quality data) indicates that the Weirton, West Virginia 
area has shown attainment of the NAAQS for SO2 since the 
fourth quarter of 1994. At such time as West Virginia submits a 
redesignation request and maintenance plan for this area, the 
maintenance plan will also include a detailed contingency plan along 
with triggering indicators.

B. The Attainment Demonstration

    The SIP revision includes a dispersion modeling analysis which was 
performed to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS for SO2. 
The model used in the compliance analysis was the American 
Meteorological Society (AMS)/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). The AERMOD 
was proposed to be included as a preferred model in the ``Guideline on 
Air Quality Models'' at the 7th Conference on Air Quality Modeling held 
on June 28-29, 2000, in Washington, DC. Meteorological data collected 
on-site at Weirton Steel from June 1, 1997 through May 31, 1999, were 
processed with the AERMET preprocessor and used for the analysis. 
(AERMET is the meteorological pre-processor for AERMOD). Since the 
AERMOD model is not currently an approved model under the GAQM, but has 
been proposed for inclusion and is undergoing the regulatory process 
for inclusion, WVDEP made a request to EPA for the use of the AERMOD 
model for the Weirton SO2 SIP revision in a letter dated May 
25, 2001. The use of this model was approved by EPA in a letter dated 
July 2, 2001.
    The modeling inventory included all sources within the Weirton 
nonattainment area, and all sources within 100 kilometers of the area 
with a significant impact within the area. A significant impact was 
defined by the Federal significance criteria of 1 microgram per cubic 
meter ([mu]g/m3) annually, 5 [mu]g/m3 on a 24-
hour average, and 25 [mu]g/m3 on a 3-hour average. For 
Weirton Steel, four operating scenarios were evaluated to provide for 
flexibility with regard to fuel switching capabilities, fuel 
consumption rates and sulfur content. The four modeling scenarios are:
    a. Firing fuel oil containing 1.29% sulfur at HP Boilers 3, 4, and 
5 with Foster Wheeler Boilers 101 & 102 firing Blast Furnace Gas.
    b. Firing fuel oil containing 1.29% sulfur at HP Boilers 3, 4, and 
5 with Foster Wheeler Boilers 101 & 102 off-line and flaring excess 
Blast Furnace Gas.
    c. Firing fuel oil containing 1.81% sulfur at HP Boilers 3 and 5 
with Foster Wheeler Boilers 101 & 102 firing Blast Furnace Gas.
    d. Firing fuel oil containing 1.81% sulfur at HP Boilers 3 and 5 
with Foster Wheeler Boilers 101 & 102 off-line and flaring excess Blast 
Furnace Gas.
    The final dispersion modeling, based upon the SO2 
emission limits of sources amended through Operating Permits in 
addition to a representative background, demonstrates that the maximum 
SO2 impacts do not violate the NAAQS for SO2. The 
results of the modeling analyses indicate that no exceedances of the 
NAAQS for SO2 are expected in the City of Weirton, including 
the Clay and Butler Magisterial Districts nonattainment area when the 
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation and the Weirton Steel Company are 
operating at the emission rates contained in their respective operating 
permits and consent orders, and the other significant sources comply 
with their allowable emission rates. The maximum annual modeled 
SO2 was 70.82 [mu]g/m3, which includes the 
background of 5.24 [mu]g/m3 as compared to the 80 [mu]g/
m3 standard. The maximum modeled 24-hour SO2 
value was 360.46 [mu]g/m3 which includes the background of 
31.44 [mu]g/m3 as compared to the 365 [mu]g/m3 
standard. The maximum modeled 3-hour SO2 value was 1297.23 
[mu]g/m3 which includes the background of 81.22 [mu]g/
m3 as compared to the 1300 [mu]g/m3 standard. 
These modeling results demonstrate attainment with respect to the NAAQS 
for SO2.
    The modeled impacts with the maximum Weirton Steel scenarios, 
including background concentrations, are provided in Table 4.

                               Table 4.--Predicted Maximum Sulfur Dioxide Impacts
                                          [Micrograms per cubic meter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        NAAQS
                     Period                         Armed      Background     Total        NAAQS      (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Hour.........................................      1216.01        81.22      1297.23         1300        99.79
24-Hour........................................       329.02        31.44       360.46          365        98.76
Annual.........................................        65.58         5.24        70.82           80        88.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal regulations, 40 CFR 51.112, require nonattainment plans to 
include a demonstration of the adequacy of the plan's control strategy. 
This demonstration must include the following information: model 
selection and descriptions; model application and assumptions made 
during application of selected models; receptor grids; meteorological 
data; ambient air monitoring data and background concentration, model 
source input, and modeling results. This information is described in 
detail in the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared for this 
rulemaking.
    The SO2 monitoring network in the Weirton area consists 
of six monitors, Oak Street, Summit Circle, Maryland Heights, Williams 
Country Club, McKims Ridge and Skyview. A number of the monitors were 
added as a result of EPA modeled hot spots. Data collected and quality-
assured in

[[Page 24991]]

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded into EPA new ambient air 
quality data system known as the Air Quality Subsystem (AQS), indicates 
that there have been no monitored NAAQS violations recorded for a 
period of time nearing 10 years. These sites have monitored no 24-hour 
average values above 365 [mu]g/m3, no annual average values 
above 80 [mu]g/m3, and no monitored 3-hour average values 
above 1300 [mu]g/m3. Reductions in SO2 emissions 
from both the Weirton Steel and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel facilities 
have contributed significantly to these ambient monitored attainment 
values. Air quality measurements used in this analysis were performed 
in accordance with appropriate regulations and guidance documents 
including adherence to EPA quality assurance requirements. Monitoring 
procedures were determined in accordance with 40 CFR parts 53 and 58.
    EPA's review of the entire submittal indicates that West Virginia's 
SIP revision provides for the attainment of the NAAQS for 
SO2 in the City of Weirton, including Clay and Butler 
Magisterial Districts, Hancock County, and satisfies the requirements 
of part D of the Clean Air Act. The revision is supported by a modeling 
analysis which clearly demonstrates the adequacy of emission limits in 
providing for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for 
SO2 in the nonattainment area. The consent order between 
Weirton Steel Corporation and the permit between West Virginia and 
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, at the center of the SIP 
revision, establish enforceable SO2 emission limits at these 
two facilities. The submittal fulfills the procedural and substantive 
requirements of 40 CFR part 51. Therefore, EPA is approving the West 
Virginia SIP revision for the City of Weirton, including Clay and 
Butler Magisterial Districts, Hancock County SO2 
nonattainment area.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the SO2 SIP revision, including the 
modeled attainment demonstration, submitted by the State of West 
Virginia on December 29, 2003, for the City of Weirton, including the 
Clay and Butler Magisterial Districts nonattainment area in Hancock 
County. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's 
Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve 
as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are 
filed. This rule will be effective on July 6, 2004, without further 
notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by June 4, 2004. If EPA 
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take 
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so 
at this time.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not 
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct 
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. 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 July 6, 2004.
    Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this 
final rule, approving the SO2 attainment plan for the City 
of Weirton including the Clay and Butler Magisterial Districts 
nonattainment area in Hancock County, does not affect the finality of 
this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor

[[Page 24992]]

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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 20, 2004.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. Section 52.2520 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(59) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (59) Revisions to the West Virginia Regulations to attain and 
maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur 
dioxide in the City of Weirton, including Clay and Butler Magisterial 
Districts, in Hancock County, West Virginia, submitted on December 29, 
2003, by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of December 29, 2003, from the West Virginia Department 
of Environmental Protection, transmitting a revision to the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment and maintenance of the sulfur 
dioxide NAAQS for the City of Weirton, including the Clay and Butler 
Magisterial Districts in Hancock County, West Virginia.
    (B) The following Companies' Consent Order and Operating Permit:
    (1) Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, Operating Permit R13-
1939A, effective August 19, 2003.
    (2) Weirton Steel Corporation Consent Order, CO-SIP-C-2003-28, 
effective August 4, 2003.
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) Remainder of the State submittal pertaining to the revision 
listed in paragraph (c)(59)(i) of this section.
    (B) Letter of February 10, 2004, from the West Virginia Department 
of Environmental Protection providing clarification to permit R13-
1939A, condition B.4. issued to the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel 
Corporation.

0
3. Section 52.2525 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2525  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides.

* * * * *
    (b) EPA approves the attainment demonstration State Implementation 
Plan for the City of Weirton, including the Clay and Butler Magisterial 
Districts area in Hancock County, West Virginia, submitted by the West 
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection on December 29, 2003.

[FR Doc. 04-10095 Filed 5-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P