[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 208 (Friday, October 27, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54946-54949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26656]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OH70-1-6780a; FRL-5302-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: USEPA is approving the plan revision that Ohio submitted to
address high lead concentrations measured near the Master Metals
secondary lead smelter in central Cleveland. This revision subjects
this smelter to strict emissions limits and operating restrictions and
will ensure that lead concentrations in this area are reduced
sufficiently to meet the health-based air quality standard.
DATES: This action is effective December 26, 1995 unless adverse or
critical comments are received by November 27, 1995. If the effective
date is delayed,
[[Page 54947]]
timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch
(AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the SIP revision and USEPA's analysis are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
addresses: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-17J), Chicago,
Illinois 60604; and Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Docket and
Information Center (Air Docket 6102) Room M1500, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Regulation
Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AE-17J), United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886-6067.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Review of State Submittal
On October 28, 1992, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) notified the Governor of the State of Ohio that its
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead for the unclassified portion
of Cuyahoga County was inadequate. This SIP call was based on
monitoring in the area showing quarterly average concentrations as high
as 28 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3), well above the
quarterly average air quality standard of 1.5 g/m3.
Announcement of the notification of SIP inadequacy and accompanying
call for a SIP revision (``SIP call'') was published in the Federal
Register on March 2, 1993, at 58 FR 11967. The remainder of Cuyahoga
County has no significant sources of lead, has no designation, and has
an adequate SIP.
Ohio submitted the required SIP revision on October 7, 1994. USEPA
notified Ohio that this was a complete submittal on November 17, 1994.
The primary cause of the high monitored concentrations is a
secondary lead smelter owned by Master Metals, Inc. This is the only
significant source of emissions in this area; other emissions are
appropriate to address as background contributors. On October 14, 1992,
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (``Ohio'') issued an order to
Master Metals providing that the facility would be shut down unless
various specified improvements in emissions control were implemented at
the facility. Master Metals failed to implement these improvements.
Therefore, on August 5, 1993, Ohio required an immediate shutdown of
the facility, and stated that no further operations were to occur at
the facility until the required improvements were made. This facility
remains shut down at this time. Therefore, the rules adopted by Ohio
will have practical effect only if the present owner or a future owner
elects to make the improvements demanded by Ohio.
Summary of Submittal
Attached to the cover letter of Ohio's submittal are eight
attachments. The first and most important of these attachments is the
adopted set of rules that limit lead emissions. Five attachments
pertain to the modeled demonstration that these limits assure
attainment. Specifically, the attachments include a summary of the
modeling analysis, documentation of the estimation of allowable
emissions and stack parameters, documentation of the analysis of
background concentrations, a copy of the model inputs, and copies of
the model outputs. Finally, the last two attachments address
administrative requirements, specifically a completed completeness
checklist and materials relating to the public hearing on the issue.
Ohio submitted four of the rules in Chapter 3745-71 of the Ohio
Administrative Code, a chapter of rules entitled ``Lead Emissions.''
The first rule is Rule 3745-71-01, entitled ``Definitions,'' which now
defines lead to include gaseous as well as solid lead and defines
calendar quarter. The second rule is Rule 3745-71-03, entitled
``Methods of ambient air measurement,'' which specifies the monitoring
method to be used to assess whether the ambient air quality standard is
being attained. The third rule is Rule 3745-71-05, entitled ``Emissions
test methods and procedures and reporting requirements for new and
existing sources.'' This rule provides that stack tests for lead
emissions are to be based on Method 12 in Appendix A of Title 40 Code
of Federal Regulations Part 60 (40 CFR part 60), and establishes
various reporting requirements and test methods that accompany
limitations established in Rule 3745-71-06 for the Master Metals
smelter. The fourth rule is Rule 3745-71-06, entitled ``Source specific
emission limits,'' which provides numerous emission and operational
limitations and currently exclusively addresses the Master Metals
smelter. Specifically, the rule sets emission limits for the rotary
furnaces, pot furnaces, and casting shop, requires enclosing all these
operations within a building maintained at ``negative pressure'' (i.e.
less that ambient pressure), requires venting these sources such that
their emissions pass through a secondary control system, sets a limit
on emissions from the secondary control system, requires no visible
emissions from materials handling, requires a specified road dust
suppression program, sets a status quo-based quarterly production cap,
and sets a five percent opacity limit on stack emissions. Although Ohio
also previously adopted Rule 3745-71-02 (setting the national ambient
air quality standard as a State standard as well) and Rule 3745-71-04
(setting a 1981 attainment deadline), these rules were not included in
this submittal nor approved previously by USEPA.
The rules adopted and submitted by Ohio provide clear and
enforceable limitations on emissions from the Master Metals secondary
lead smelter. Stack emissions are subject to specific emissions
limitations, to be measured by the method delineated and recommended by
USEPA in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The requirement for building
enclosure is straightforward. Although USEPA has not recommended test
methods for assessing reduced pressure inside enclosed space, Ohio has
included an appropriate method with its rule, and so the rule should
provide enforceable assurances that the specified operations are indeed
enclosed and that their emissions in fact pass through the secondary
control device. The road dust suppression program is adequately
specific, given the moderate control efficiency which the program is
designed to achieve. In summary, the rules satisfy the criteria for the
rules to be enforceable.
A second criterion that the rules must satisfy is that they limit
emissions sufficiently to assure attainment of the lead standard. As
noted above, Ohio submitted a modeling analysis assessing the adequacy
of its rules for assuring attainment. USEPA requires such analyses to
satisfy modeling guidance given in Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51.
Since lead has a quarterly average standard, Ohio used the Long
Term version of the Industrial Source Complex model (Version 2, known
as ISCLT2), run in regulatory default mode. Receptors were placed at a
spacing of 50 to 75 meters apart along the facility's fenceline, 100
meters apart on a rectangular grid out to about 500 meters in the four
main compass
[[Page 54948]]
directions from the facility, and an additional set of points 250
meters further out. For meteorological data, Ohio used quarterly
stability array (STAR) data from the Cleveland weather station for each
quarter from 1987 to 1991. Ohio developed a background concentration by
averaging concentrations for those days and monitors determined to
represent concentrations upwind of the Master Metals smelter, thereby
concluding that the background concentration was 0.222 (g/
m3).
Ohio's attainment demonstration necessarily reflects assumptions
about hypothetical emission rates and emission release characteristics
that would be expected were the facility to recommence operations. Ohio
of course assumed that resumption of operations would involve resumed
use of the existing two rotary furnaces, the existing two pot furnaces,
and the existing casting shop. Rule 3745-71-06 specifies limits both on
emissions per ton of lead product and on maximum total hourly emissions
from each of these sources and specifies a maximum quarterly lead
production rate reflecting historic production levels. Ohio's
attainment demonstration reflects a quarterly average allowable
emission rate based on the allowable emissions per ton of lead product
and the allowable quarterly production rate, and uses historic emission
release characteristics. Similarly, the analysis includes emissions for
the secondary control device based on its hourly emissions limit. More
speculative are the emissions release characteristics of this required
but currently nonexistent device, which Ohio based on a supplier's
proposed design. The attainment demonstration further reflects historic
levels of emissions from facility roadways, using the equation in AP-42
for estimating particulate matter emissions, assuming the particulate
matter emissions are 100 percent lead, and assuming 34 percent control
for the sweeping program mandated in Rule 3745-71-06.
Ohio used the dispersion model recommended for this situation in
USEPA guidance that was current at the time of its submittal. Although
USEPA has more recently modified its guidance to recommend a revised
version of ISC known as ISC3, USEPA's grandfathering policy clearly
provides that the use of ISC2 in this case is approvable. Ohio has used
emission inputs, meteorological inputs, and modeling procedures that
are also in accordance with USEPA guidance. This modeling shows a
maximum concentration of 0.430 (g/m3), at a receptor
approximately 100 meters from Master Metals' lead smelter.
Concentration estimates are lower at receptors farther from the
smelter. Therefore, Ohio has suitably demonstrated that its rules
assure attainment throughout the area of concern.
A third criterion that Ohio's submittal must satisfy is that proper
procedures were followed in adopting the rules such that they will
withstand legal challenge. Ohio's submittal includes materials
demonstrating that the public had suitable opportunity to comment on
draft rules and that other procedural requirements for State rule
adoption were also followed. This criterion has been satisfied.
II. Rulemaking Action
The regulations in Ohio's submittal impose strict limits on the
types of emissions that caused the previous high monitored
concentrations of lead. These regulations are enforceable, and Ohio has
demonstrated that these regulations assure attainment of the lead
standard in the area. Therefore, USEPA is approving Ohio's submittal,
and is concluding that Ohio's SIP for lead is no longer inadequate.
The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document
in today's Federal Register, which constitutes a ``proposed approval''
of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the rulemaking will
not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical comments are filed.
The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on December 26, 1995,
unless USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by November 27,
1995. If USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the approval
discussed above, USEPA will publish a Federal Register document which
withdraws this final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent rulemaking document.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP 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 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 (S.Ct. 1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
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 promulgated 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 approves
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.
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 December 26,
[[Page 54949]]
1995. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Note.--Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Ohio was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: September 13, 1995.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart KK--Ohio
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(106) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(106) On October 7, 1994, Ohio submitted four rules in Chapter
3745-71 of the Ohio Administrative Code, entitled ``Lead Emissions,''
and submitted a modeling demonstration that the limitations in these
rules assure attainment of the lead standard in central Cleveland.
(i) Incorporation by reference. Rules 3745-71-01, 3745-71-03, 3745-
71-05, and 3745-71-06, all adopted September 22, 1994, and effective
October 4, 1994.
(ii) Additional material. A submittal letter from the Director of
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, with attachments documenting
a modeling analysis of lead concentrations near the Master Metals
secondary lead smelter.
[FR Doc. 95-26656 Filed 10-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
