[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8383-8385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4522]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OH102-1a; FRL-5675-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is
approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Ohio on August 30, 1996, which provides Ford Motor Company an
extended exemption from opacity limitations for start-up of coal-fired
boilers at its Cleveland Engine Plant 1. This revision extends the
exemption for these boilers from 3 hours to 6 hours after start-up.
DATES: The ``direct final'' approval is effective on April 28, 1997
unless adverse or critical comments are received by March 27, 1997. If
the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request are available for inspection
at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone John Summerhays
at (312) 886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays at (312) 886-6067.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the first version of Ohio particulate matter regulations
approved by USEPA, i.e., Ohio's 1972 SIP submittal, Ohio's regulations
imposed a limitation on opacity without any exemptions for special
circumstances. However, as experience was gained enforcing this
limitation, the State identified a number of circumstances in which
compliance with the limitation could be considered an unreasonable
requirement. One type of such circumstances is the start-up of a
boiler, before stable combustion conditions have been achieved. In rule
revisions adopted in the early 1980s, the State exempted sources from
the opacity limitation for a period of six hours after start-up of a
boiler. USEPA accepted the principle of exempting boilers from the
opacity limitation for a period necessary to achieve stable combustion,
but objected to provision of an automatic six hour exemption. USEPA
recommended instead that Ohio provide a three hour exemption, with
provision that Ohio could request longer exemptions for specific
sources on a case-by-case basis.
Pursuant to USEPA's recommendation, Ohio in 1991 modified its rule
on opacity, Rule 3745-17-07, in accordance with USEPA's
recommendations. Paragraph (A)(3)(b)(ii) states that:
the visible particulate emission limitations established in
paragraph (A)(1) of this rule shall not apply to * * * the start-up
of * * * any fuel burning equipment which are uncontrolled or which
are equipped solely with mechanical collectors * * * , for a period
of not more than three hours from the moment of start-up, provided
that the director may incorporate a longer start-up time period in
the permit * * * for such source for which an applicant demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the director that the longer time period is
required.
Paragraph (D) of this rule then states that:
Any revision approved by the director in accordance with paragraph
(A)(3)(a)(ii) [et al.] shall not revise the federally enforceable
requirements of the state implementation plan until approved by the
U.S. environmental protection agency.
USEPA approved Rule 3745-17-07, including the above language, on
May 27, 1994, at 59 FR 27464.
II. Review of State Submittal
In this submittal, Ohio requests that the start-up exemption from
opacity limitations be extended from three hours to six hours for coal-
fired boilers at Ford's Cleveland Engine Plant 1, pursuant to
Paragraphs (A)(3)(a)(ii) and (D) of its Rule 3745-17-07. The
[[Page 8384]]
submittal provides various evidence in support of this extension. In
correspondence from an engineering consulting firm to Ford dated
November 27, 1991, evidence was provided that starting up these boilers
in less than six to ten hours (for a ``cold'' start-up) would be
injurious to the heat transfer tubes in the boiler and would thereby
create a safety hazard. A second type of evidence is data on the
duration of opacity in excess of baseline limits during routine start-
ups of these boilers. These data indicate that excess opacity
essentially always exceeds the baseline opacity limit for at least some
time after start-up, that excess opacity often occurs beyond three
hours and up to six hours after start-up, and that excess opacity
rarely occurs after 6 hours after start-up of these boilers.
Ohio's submittal includes a letter from USEPA, suggesting the
possibility of avoiding an extended period of excess opacity by
providing for use of natural gas as a fuel while the boilers are being
started up. The submittal also includes a response to this suggestion
from Ford's engineering consultant, dated March 10, 1995 (attached to
correspondence from a law firm representing Ford dated March 13, 1995).
This response provides cost estimates for installing burners capable of
gas firing during boiler start-up, supplementing information included
in the earlier document as to the historic frequency of start-ups of
these boilers, indicating that provision for use of gas firing during
start-up would impose high costs and would provide relatively little
emissions reduction.
The State's submittal further includes a comment received from the
Gas Research Institute during its public comment period. The Gas
Research Institute commented that gas firing during start-up can be
implemented at reasonable cost, and described selected cases where this
approach has in fact been implemented. Notably, the costs cited by the
Gas Research Institute in a case it describes are comparable to the
cost estimates developed by Ford's consultant. The principal difference
is that the Gas Research Institute notes that installation of gas-fired
alternative burners would minimize emissions during ash-pulling and
soot-blowing as well as during start-ups, and indicates that the costs
of gas burner installation are reasonable when one considers the full
range of benefits. Ohio did not provide an explicit review of this
comment; nevertheless, by virtue of its request for an extension of the
start-up exemption for Ford, the State can be presumed to have
continued to compare costs for gas firing only against the benefits of
start-up emissions reductions, and concluded that these costs would be
unreasonable and disproportionate to the relevant reduction in
emissions. In any case, USEPA has approved a State-wide exemption from
the general stack opacity limit during ash-pulling and soot-blowing for
certain classes of boilers that include Ford's boilers, and no
rationale has been provided that these exemptions should not apply to
Ford. Therefore, USEPA is comparing the costs of gas burner
installation solely against the benefits of emissions reductions during
start-up, and concludes that the cost of gas burner installation is not
warranted.
The State is authorized to adopt the extension to the exemption
from the opacity limit both as a condition in a permit to operate and
as a provision in an administrative order. Ohio adopted both
instruments, but requested USEPA action only on the administrative
order. USEPA is rulemaking only on the order, for consistency with the
State's request, and because the order does not expire.
USEPA guidance states that relaxations in particulate matter
limitations must be evaluated as to whether the relaxation creates the
potential for violation of the air quality standard. In this case,
although the revision would add three hours after start-up when
previously applicable opacity limits would no longer apply, the mass
emissions limitations for these boilers remain in effect throughout the
start-up period and thereafter. The extension of the exemption from the
opacity limit is judged not to significantly affect USEPA's ability to
assure achievement of the mass emissions level which has been shown to
suffice to assure attainment. Therefore, no additional analyses are
needed in this case to demonstrate that attainment remains assured
notwithstanding this extension of the opacity limit exemption.
III. Final Rulemaking Action
USEPA has reviewed the State's request for extending the exemption
from opacity limits for the boilers at Ford Motor Company's Cleveland
Engine Plant 1 from three hours to six hours after start-up, and has
reviewed the materials provided by the State in conjunction with this
request. USEPA concurs that as these boilers are currently configured,
start-up in a manner that would avoid exceedance of opacity limits
beyond three hours after start-up would cause unreasonable wear on the
equipment and an unreasonable risk to plant personnel. USEPA further
concurs that boiler modifications to accommodate natural gas firing
during start-up would impose unreasonable costs relative to the
quantity of reduction of start-up emissions that such modifications
would provide. Therefore, USEPA is approving the State's request to
extend the period of exemption from opacity limits for start-up of
Ford's Cleveland Engine Plant 1.
The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, USEPA is publishing a proposal to approve the SIP
revision should significant adverse or critical comments which have not
been previously addressed be filed. This action will be effective April
28, 1997 unless, by March 27, 1997 such adverse or critical comments
are received.
If USEPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn by
publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw today's final
action. Public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent
final rule based on the proposed action published elsewhere in today's
Federal Register. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this action will be effective April 28, 1997.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from review under Executive Order
12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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
[[Page 8385]]
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 sections 110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D
of the Clean Air 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 CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state
action. The CAA forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on
such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66
(1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA must undertake various actions
in association with any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more. 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 the private sector, result from this action.
D. 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 April 28, 1997. 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
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.
Dated: January 30, 1997.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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)(113) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(113) On August 30, 1996, Ohio submitted a request to extend the
exemption from opacity limits for the boilers at Ford's Cleveland
Engine Plant 1 to six hours after start-up.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Findings and Orders for boilers number 1 through number 5 at
Ford's Cleveland Engine Plant 1, signed by Donald Schregardus on May
31, 1996.
[FR Doc. 97-4522 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
