[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 988-993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-275]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 7, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WV 5-1-5149 A1-FRL-4823-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia: Limited Approval and Disapproval of PM-10 Implementation
Plan for the Follansbee Area
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA today proposes limited approval and limited disapproval of
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of West
Virginia for the purpose of bringing about the attainment of the
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM-10). The implementation plan was submitted by the State
to satisfy certain federal requirements for an approvable nonattainment
area PM-10 SIP for a portion of the Follansbee area, Brooke County,
West Virginia. The Act required that States make certain submittals by
November 15, 1991 for those areas designated nonattainment and
classified as moderate for PM-10 upon enactment (the ``initial moderate
nonattainment areas''). By today's action, EPA is proposing limited
approval and limited disapproval of the PM-10 SIP for the Follansbee,
West Virginia area.
DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before February 7,
1994. Public comments on this document are requested and will be
considered before taking final action on this SIP revision.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Thomas J. Maslany, Director, Air,
Radiation and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Copies of
the documents relevant to this notice are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the following locations:
Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107;
Public Information Reference Unit, 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, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III (3AT14), 841 Chestnut Building,
Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597-2746.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the
Act. The EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's
preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP revisions
submitted under Title I of the Act, including those State submittals
containing moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (see
generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,
1992)).
The Follansbee area of Brooke County, along with a portion of
Jefferson County, Ohio near Steubenville, was classified as a Group I
area on the basis of monitored PM-10 violations in Mingo Junction,
Ohio. Upon enactment of the CAAA, all Group I areas (and Group II areas
that had monitored violations before January 1, 1989) were designated
nonattainment by operation of law. A list of these initial
nonattainment areas, including the Follansbee area, was published on
March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101) with corrections on May 20, 1991 (56 FR
23105).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Follansbee, West Virginia nonattainment area was defined
in this notice as the area bounded on the north by the Market Street
Bridge, on the east by West Virginia Route 2, on the south by the
extension of the southern boundary of Steubenville Township,
Jefferson County, Ohio, and on the West by the Ohio/West Virginia
border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions
by November 15, 1991:
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology--RACT) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that
date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the
Act.
Some provisions are due at a later date. States with initial
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit
program for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)). Such
States also must submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993 which
become effective without further action by the State or EPA, upon a
determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. See
section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-44.
Responsibility for fulfilling the air quality planning requirements
for the Follansbee and Steubenville areas lies in different states:
West Virginia is responsible for the Follansbee area and Ohio is
responsible for the Steubenville area. The plans are linked in that,
according to their attainment demonstrations, emissions reductions in
both states are necessary to effect attainment in either area. (West
Virginia and Ohio corroborated on parts of the attainment
demonstration; West Virginia prepared much of the emissions inventory,
and Ohio performed the modeling analyses.) The submitted SIP revision
of each State, however, stands alone. Today's proposed rulemaking
applies only to West Virginia's SIP; EPA will act on Ohio's SIP
separately.
While this notice proposes limited disapproval and limited
disapproval of West Virginia's SIP revision, EPA will fully approve the
State's submittal without further notice, if the unapprovable aspects
of the State's submittal are corrected. The rationale for this proposal
is set out both in this notice and in the supporting Technical Support
Document (TSD) which is available at the address indicated below.
Summary of the SIP Revision and Criteria for Proposed Action
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.\2\ Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the
Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Also section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1)
and 57 FR 13565). EPA'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). EPA attempts to make completeness determinations
within 60 days of receiving a submission. However, a submittal is
deemed complete by operation of law if a completeness determination is
not made by EPA 6 months after receipt of the submission.
The State of West Virginia held a public hearing on October 30,
1991 to solicit public comment on the implementation plan for the
Follansbee nonattainment area. Following the public hearing, the plan
was adopted by the State and signed by the Honorable John M. Ranson,
Secretary, Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources on
November 12, 1991, and submitted to EPA on November 15, 1991 as a
formal request for revision to the SIP.
The State submittal revision was reviewed by EPA to determine
completeness, in accordance with the completeness criteria set out at
40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended by 57 FR 42216 (August
26, 1991). The submittal was determined to be complete, and a letter
dated January 22, 1992 was forwarded to the Governor of West Virginia
indicating the completeness of the submittal and the next steps to be
taken in the review process.
2. Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act requires that nonattainment
plan provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. This section of the notice describes the adequacy
of West Virginia's inventory of actual emissions as required by section
172(c)(3). The adequacy of the State's inventory of allowable emissions
used as input to the demonstration of attainment (as required by
section 189(a)) is discussed in a subsequent section of this notice.
West Virginia submitted an emissions inventory for base year 1990.
The West Virginia submittal shows that activities related to steel
making and shaping dominate the Follansbee area's emissions inventory.
There were some deficiencies related to the estimation of PM-10
emissions from coke oven batteries. Specifically, the calculations
relating emissions of benzene soluble organics (BSO) to emissions of
PM-10 are in error. The estimation of BSO-related PM-10 emissions
effects estimates of both actual and SIP allowable emissions (and,
consequently, the attainment demonstration). The error in BSO emissions
notwithstanding, the inventory of actual emissions is generally
comprehensive, accurate, and current, and therefore approvable as
meeting the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the
Act.\3\ Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of the SIP for the purpose
of satisfying the section 172(c)(3) requirement for an emissions
inventory. A more detailed discussion of the shortcomings in the
inventory of SIP allowable emissions used as input to dispersion models
is presented in section II.C.4 of the TSD.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior
to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the
1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided in this
document appears to be consistent with the Act.
\4\Calculations of emissions from leaking doors were also in
error. However, the error in the calculation of emissions from
leaking doors only affects the inventory of SIP allowable emissions
and has no bearing on the section 172(c)(3) requirement for an
inventory of actual emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented
no later than December 10, 1993 (see sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion of
EPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57
FR 13540-45 and 13560-61). Guidance on identifying RACT is found in the
supplement to the General Preamble (57 FR 18074); ``Procedures for
Identifying Reasonably Available Control Technology for Stationary
Sources of PM-10'' (EPA 450-R-93-001); and an August 7, 1980 memorandum
from Edward E. Reich, Director, Stationary Source Enforcement Division
to the regional air enforcement directors entitled ``Steel Technical
Support Options and Documents,'' (with the attached table entitled
``Particulate Emission Limitations Generally Achievable on a Retrofit
Basis'').
West Virginia submitted six Consent Orders for incorporation into
West Virginia's State Implementation Plan (SIP). By entering into the
Consent Orders, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation; Standard
Lafarge; Follansbee Steel Corporation; Koppers Industries,
Incorporated; International Mill Service, Incorporated; and Starvaggi
Industries, Incorporated have agreed to comply with reduced allowable
emission rates for PM-10. Table 1 presents a summary of the controls
required by the Consent Orders; more detail is provided by Tables 2
through 7. Consent orders with International Mill Service, Koppers
Industries, Standard Lafarge, Starvaggi Industries, and Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel provide for new or improved, specific dust control
measures. Consent orders with Follansbee Steel and Koppers Industries
require ``add-on'' control equipment.
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Process Control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follansbee Steel....... Terne Metal Coaters No. Process control
1,2. (probably an
electrostatic
precipitator).
International Mill..... Sinter Receiving Hopper Partial Enclosure &
Spray.
Sinter Hopper & Sinter Full Enclosure &
Screens. Spray.
Sinter Storage Piles... Water Spray.
Unpaved Areas.......... Dust Control Plan.
Koppers................ Pitch Dryer............ Baghouse.
Standard Lafarge....... Slag Processing Plant.. Reduce Fugitives 95%.
Slag Receiving Hopper.. Increase Wet
Suppression.
Paved & Unpaved Roads.. Dust Control Plan.
Starvaggi.............. Unpaved Areas.......... Dust Control Plan.
Wheeling-Pitt Steel.... Coal Crusher........... Full Enclosure.
Coke Sizing No. 1,2.... Full Enclosure.
Coke Pushing No. 1,2,3. Mass limit on
baghouse.
Coke Underfiring No. Mass limit on
1,2,3,8. combustion stacks.
Paved & Unpaved Roads.. Dust Control Plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--New Limits for Follansbee Steel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit(s)
Process Control -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit TSP (lb/hr) PM-10 (lb/hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terne Coaters No. 1, 2 Company has flexibility. No. 1..... 2.00 (approx. 53% control)................. 1.80 (approx. 53% control)
Will probably require a No. 2..... 1.80 (approx. 71% control)................. 1.66 (approx. 71% control)
new pollution control
device such as a
commercial precipitator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--New Limits for International Mill Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Control Limit(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinter Receiving Hopper.......... Partial Enclosure & Spray................ TSP 0.092 lb/hr, PM-10
0.046 lb/hr, 5%
opacity, 95% control efficiency.
Sinter Hopper.................... Full Enclosure & Spray................... Hopper--TSP (lb/hr) 0.092; PM-10
Sinter Screens (lb/hr) 0.046.
Screening--TSP (lb/hr) 1.84; PM-10
(lb/hr) 0.938.
10% opacity, 95% control.
Sinter Storage Piles............. Water Spray.............................. TSP 0.682 lb/hr; PM-10
0.596 lb/hr; 5%
opacity; 75% control of TSP & PM-
10.
Unpaved Areas.................... Dust Control Plan........................ Program is the responsibility of
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Company
under its consent order with
WVAPCC. International Mill
Service is also responsible
should Wheeling-Pitt, for any
reason, not implement the
program. (See Table 7.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--New Limits for Koppers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Control Limit(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pitch Dryer........... Baghouse.................. TSP 1.86 lb/hr (0.93 lb/ton).
PM-10 0.59 lb/hr (0.30 lb/ton).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--New Limits for Standard Lafarge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Control Limit(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slag Processing Plant.......... Company has flexibility.................. TSP 19.13 lb/hr.
PM-10 8.15 lb/hr.
10% opacity, 95% control.
Slag Receiving Hopper.......... Increase Web Suppression................. TSP 0.07 lb/hr.
PM-10 0.06 lb/hr.
5% opacity, 80% control.
Paved & Unpaved Roads.......... Chemical Dust Suppressant................ 90% control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6.--New Limits for Starvaggi Incorporated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Control Limit(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unpraved Roads & Parking Lots............. Chemical Suppressant................ 90% control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.--New Limits for Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Control Limit(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal Crushing..................................... Full Enclosure................... TSP 1.0 lb/
hr; PM-10
0.51 lb/hr; No visible
emissions; 90% Control
(PM-10).
Coal Sizing No. 1, 2.............................. Full Enclosure................... TSP 1.48 lb/
hr; PM-10
0.76 lb/hr; 5% opacity;
90% Control (PM-10).
Coke Pushing No. 1, 2, 3.......................... Existing Baghouse................ 2.14 lb/hr (approx. 0.022
lb/ton coal charged at
maximum operating rate).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approx. lb/ton of
Battery Stack (lb/hr) coal charged at
maximum capacity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Underfiring No. 1, 2, 3, 8................... None............................. TSP
No. 1........................ 1.40 0.044
No. 2........................ 1.40 0.044
No. 3........................ 1.58 0.046
No. 8........................ 6.93 0.048
PM-10
No. 1........................ 1.35 0.043
No. 2........................ 1.35 0.043
No. 3........................ 1.52 0.046
No. 8........................ 6.65 0.047
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unpaved & Irregular Paved Surfaces................ Chemical Suppression............. 95% Control.
Paved Roads....................................... Flushing and Vacuum Sweeping..... 95% Control.
EPA's longstanding definition of RACT is the lowest emission
limitation or percent reduction that a particular source is capable of
achieving by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility (see 57 FR
13541). Thus, EPA recommends that available control technology be
applied to those existing sources in the area that are reasonable to
control in light of the attainment needs of the area and the
feasibility of controls.
In addition to determining that the requirements of the consent
orders meet this definition of RACT, EPA also reviewed the requirements
of the six consent orders and found them consistent with the EPA
guidance documents on RACM referenced earlier in the notice. All of the
requirements identified by EPA in the previously referenced August 7,
1980 memorandum as being normally achievable for iron and steel sources
are in fact required by West Virginia. Although EPA has not developed
such specific PM-10 RACM guidance for other applicable point sources,
but the applicable control measures in the State's plan was found by
EPA to require the implementation of RACM for other sources in the
area.\5\ In addition, the plan requires implementation of RACM in all
cases by December 10, 1993. Consequently, West Virginia's plan is
judged to satisfy the RACM requirement in Section 189(a)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\The EPA has issued technological and economic parameters that
should be considered in determining RACT for a particular source
(see 57 FR 18073-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Attainment Demonstration\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\It should be noted that the modeling techniques used in the
attainment demonstration are based on the modeling guidelines in
place at the time the analysis was performed. EPA approval of this
analysis will not automatically apply to any other analysis of
Follansbee to support any further regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that
the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than December 31, 1994 (See section 189(a)(1)(B) of the
Act). The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic meter
(g/m\3\), and the standard is attained when the expected
number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration
above 150 g/m\3\ is equal to or less than one. The annual PM-
10 NAAQS is 50 g/m\3\, and the standard is attained when the
expected annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to
50 g/m\3\ (see 40 CFR 50.6). Alternatively, the State must
show that attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable.
West Virginia performed dispersion modeling for the Follansbee
area; this modeling is described in detail is section II.C.4 of the
TSD. The modeling is unapprovable as a demonstration of attainment
because of deficiencies in estimating emissions from coke oven
batteries, the lack of an approvable analysis of intermediate terrain,
and the nonguideline use of the RAM dispersion model in a
meteorologically rural area.
As described in the section of this notice entitled ``Emissions
Inventories,'' estimates of emissions from coke oven doors are in
error. Calculations of emissions from leaking coke oven doors were
based on an estimate of actual percent leaking doors leak rather than
the allowable leak rate, and the calculation of the relation between
BSO emissions and PM-10 emissions is in error.
EPA modeling guidance and policy require that receptors between
stack height and plume height must be modeled with both an appropriate
simple terrain model and an appropriate complex terrain model (see
EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (EPA-450/2-78-027R), and June 8,
1989 Memorandum from Joseph Tikvart to Alan Cimorelli). No
implementation of the intermediate terrain policy was included in the
State's submittal.
The State employed the Gaussian Plume Multiple Source Air Quality
Algorithm (RAM) to estimate the impacts of area sources such as
agricultural tilling and residential heating. The use of RAM in a
meteorologically rural area, such as the Steubenville, Ohio/Follansbee
West Virginia area, is inconsistent with the recommendations of the
Guideline on Air Quality Models.
Because of these deficiencies, EPA is proposing to disapprove the
SIP revision for the limited purpose of fulfilling the section 189(a)
requirement for a demonstration of attainment. For a more detailed
description of the attainment demonstration and the control strategy
used, see the Technical Support Document accompanying this notice. The
TSD also provides EPA's detailed rationale for determining that the
demonstration, as submitted, does not meet the criteria for approval.
5. PM-10 Precursors
The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM-10, also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10
precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see
section 189(e) of the Act).
An analysis of air quality and emissions data for the Follansbee
nonattainment area demonstrates that violations of the NAAQS are
attributable chiefly to direct particulate matter emissions from
industrial sources, and that sources of particulate matter precursors
SO2, and NOx contribute less than 8 g/m\3\.
Consequently, EPA is proposing to find that major sources of precursors
of PM-10 do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of
the NAAQS. The consequences of this finding are to exclude these
sources from the applicability of PM-10 nonattainment area control
requirements. Further discussion of the analyses and supporting
rationale for EPA's finding are contained in the Technical Support
Document accompanying this notice. 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 changes in the
significance of precursor emissions in PM-10 nonattainment areas.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
The PM-10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and
which demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(l), toward attainment
by December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act). Reasonable
further progress is defined in section 171(l) as such annual
incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
are required by Part D or may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable
NAAQS by the applicable date.
As stated previously, PM-10 plan revisions were due November 15,
1991, and RACM must be implemented no more than two years, 25 days
later, by December 10, 1993. It would be unreasonable, and therefore
not constitute RACT, to require a stationary source to install
successive, incremental controls during this short period. In
implementing RFP for the Follansbee area, EPA has reviewed the
attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area to determine
whether reductions different from those provided in the SIP should be
required in order to ensure attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December
31, 1994 (see section 171(l)). Each of the Consent Orders submitted by
West Virginia includes compliance dates for the various measures within
each order. While these dates vary, none are later than December 10,
1993 and many measures are required well before that date. EPA,
therefore, intends to approve West Virginia's submittal as fulfilling
the part D requirements for quantitative milestones and reasonable
further progress.
7. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
the State and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAAA and
57 FR 13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIP's
and SIP revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions
must also contain a program that provides for enforcement of the
control measures and other elements in the SIP (see section
110(a)(2)(C)).
The particular control measures contained in the SIP are addressed
above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control
measures apply to the types of activities identified in Table 1 of that
section including reduced emission limits on both stack and fugitive
emissions. Through consent orders, the SIP provides applicable control
measures on a source-by-source basis.
Consistent with the attainment demonstration described above, the
submittal requires that all affected activities must be in full
compliance with the applicable provisions by, in the latest case,
December 10, 1993. In addition to the control measures, the submittal
includes record-keeping requirements which are specified in the consent
orders. In addition, the submittal (specifically, each consent
agreement) sets out compliance schedules that include dates by which
the source(s) must, for example, purchase and install equipment and
commence dust suppression programs.
The State of West Virginia has a program that will ensure that the
measures contained in the submittal are adequately enforced. The
compliance schedules and associated test methods are described in
detail in the consent orders. Each consent order specifically describes
or references test methods or other means of determining compliance.
8. Contingency Measures
As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate
nonattainment area SIP's that demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures (see generally 57 FR 13543-44). These measures
must be submitted by November 15, 1993 for the initial moderate
nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should consist of other
available measures that are not part of the areas's control strategy.
These measures must take effect without further action by the State or
EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to make RFP
or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. In
their consent orders, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, International Mill
Services, and Follansbee Steel committed to develop contingency plans
(by July 1, 1992) to reduce mass emissions by quantities specified in
the consent orders. These companies agreed to the inclusion of these
plans into consent orders to be approved by the WVAPCC by December 31,
1992. Koppers Industries, which shares the use of some property with
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, agreed to comply with such contingency plans
in its consent order.
In the General Preamble to Title I of the CAAA, EPA established a
November 15, 1993 deadline for state submittal of contingency plans.
Consequently, West Virginia will have until November 15, 1993 to submit
a detailed contingency plan necessary to satisfy section 172(c)(9) of
the Act. This discussion of the contingency measures included in the
Follansbee SIP will not be grounds for disapproval in whole or in part
of the Follansbee SIP submittal.
Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to grant a limited approval and limited
disapproval of the plan revision for the Follansbee, West Virginia
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. Thus, EPA is
proposing a limited approval of the submittal to approve the consent
agreements and make them part of the SIP. EPA has evaluated the consent
agreements of West Virginia's SIP revision submittal for consistency
with the Act and EPA regulations and has found that the submittal
provides State and federally enforceable provisions to decrease PM-10
emissions in the nonattainment area. These measures, together with the
existing SIP, constitute RACM, including RACT.
Because the submittal does not meet the section 189(a)(1)(B)
requirement of Part D for an attainment demonstration and the section
172(c)(3) requirement for an accurate inventory of actual emissions
(for the reasons described previously in this notice) EPA cannot grant
full approval of this submittal under section 110(k)(3) and Part D of
the Act. Also, because the submitted revision is not composed of
separable parts which meet all the applicable requirements of the Act,
EPA cannot grant partial approval of the submittal under section
110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited approval of the submitted
rule(s) under section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA's authority pursuant to
section 301(a) to adopt regulations necessary to further air quality
improvement by strengthening the SIP.
If finalized, this limited disapproval would constitute 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 would have 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.
While this action proposes limited approval and limited disapproval
of West Virginia's SIP revision, EPA will fully approve the State's
submittal without further notice, if the unapprovable aspects of the
State's submittal are corrected.
EPA is proposing no action on the contingency measures with respect
to the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Act at this time.\7\ In
the General Preamble to Title I of the CAAA, EPA established a November
15, 1993 deadline for state submittal of contingency plans.
Consequently, West Virginia will have until November 15, 1993 to submit
a detailed contingency plan necessary to satisfy section 172(c)(9) of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\As noted above, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference
all of the submitted consent orders into the SIP in their entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301 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, EPA
certifies that it does not have a significant impact on any small
entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state
relationship under the Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility
analysis would constitute federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIP's on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A.,
427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
EPA's disapproval of the State request under section 110 and
subchapter I, Part D of the Act does not affect any existing
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its state-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not
impose any new federal requirements. Therefore, EPA certifies that this
proposed disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not impose any new
federal requirements.
Under Executive Order 12866, this action is not ``significant.'' It
has been submitted to OMB for review.
The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove West
Virginia's PM-10 SIP revision for the Follansbee nonattainment area
will be based on whether it meets the requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(A)-(K), 110(a)(3), and Part D of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, and Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671.
Dated: July 13, 1993.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-275 Filed 1-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
