[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28531-28541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14120]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OR-14-1-5535; FRL-5514-3]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA invites public comment on its proposed approval of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oregon for
the purpose of bringing about the attainment of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (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 moderate nonattainment
area PM-10 SIP for the Klamath Falls, Oregon, PM-10 nonattainment area.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked on or before July 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston,
SIP Manager, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), EPA, Docket #OR-14-1-
5535, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101.
Copies of the State's request and other information supporting this
proposed action are available for inspection during normal business
hours at the following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107),
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, 811 SW., Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon
97204-1390.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rindy Ramos, EPA, Office of Air
Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, (206)
553-6510.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
I. Background
A. 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act
The area within the Klamath Falls, Oregon, Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB), was designated nonattainment for PM-10 and classified as
moderate under Sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of
1990.1 See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 40 CFR 81.338. 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.2 EPA
has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on
how EPA intends to review SIPs 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)). Because EPA is
describing its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader
should refer to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of
the interpretations of Title I advanced in this proposed approval and
the supporting rationale. In this rulemaking action for the PM-10 SIP
for the Klamath Falls nonattainment area, EPA's proposed action is
consistent with its interpretations, discussed in the General Preamble,
and takes into consideration the specific factual issues presented in
the SIP. Additional information supporting EPA's action on this
particular area is available for inspection at the address indicated
above. EPA will consider any comments received by the date indicated
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant
changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399.
References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (``the
Act''). The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code
at 42 U.S.C., Sections 7401, et seq.
\2\ Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment
areas generally and Subpart 4 contains provisions specifically
applicable to PM-10 nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and
Subpart 4 overlap or may conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the
relationship among these provisions in the ``General Preamble'' and,
as appropriate, in today's notice and supporting information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those states containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
(those areas designated nonattainment under Section 107(d)(4)(B)) 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
[[Page 28532]]
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.
States with initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were
required to: 1) 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)); and 2) submit contingency measures by
November 15, 1993, which were to 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-
13544). Oregon has made submittals in response to both of the above
described requirements. EPA intends to address that submittal
containing the new source review permit program in a separate action.
B. Plan Development
The Klamath Falls Attainment Plan was developed by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in consultation with
officials of the City and County of Klamath Falls, the Oregon
Department of Transportation, the Oregon Department of Forestry, and
EPA.
The original Attainment Plan was developed under the CAA prior to
the amendments of 1990 and adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality
Commission (OEQC) on January 31, 1991. To address the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments, the Plan was initially revised and adopted by the OEQC
on November 8, 1991. This version of the Plan was submitted to EPA on
November 15, 1991. The Plan was revised again and adopted by the OEQC
on August 18, 1995, and submitted to EPA on September 22, 1995.
Therefore, the 1991 and 1995 submittals constitute the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment
area. This action will address the 1991 and 1995 submittals.
The 1991 Plan was revised for four main reasons. The first was to
update the Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) estimates and emission
inventory. The Oregon Department of Transportation has provided ODEQ
with more accurate information to determine the Plan's base year and
attainment year transportation emissions. These emissions are referred
to as the area's transportation emission budget.
The second reason was to account for additional emission reductions
due to the area's woodstove replacement program that were not accounted
for in the 1991 Plan. The 1991 Plan estimated that 325 woodstoves would
be replaced when, in reality, 743 stoves were replaced.
The third reason was to analyze what effect an increase in an
allowable emission limit has had on the Plan's attainment
demonstration. Since the Plan was first developed in 1991, the state
has revised Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 25,
Sections 305, 320, and 325, resulting in an increase in the allowable
emission limit for a Jeld-Wen hardboard plant located in the
nonattainment area. Because attainment of the NAAQS is determined based
on, among other things, allowable point source emissions, the State
needed to review the Plan's attainment demonstration to show that the
increase in allowable emissions would not jeopardize attainment of the
NAAQS.
In fact, the 1991 Plan already accounted for the revised limit.
During development of the 1991 attainment plan, ODEQ was aware that the
hardboard rule emission limit would be revised in the future. In
anticipation of the Division 25 revision (1995), ODEQ estimated that
Jeld-Wen's allowable emissions would increase by 129 pounds per day, up
to a maximum of 24 tons per year. Therefore, ODEQ allocated these extra
emissions to Jeld-Wen's inventoried emissions and used these
``adjusted'' emissions in the Plan's 1994 attainment demonstration.
When the hardboard rule was finalized (1995), the plant's emissions did
not increase by the estimated 24 tons per year. Instead, the revised
emission limit resulted in an allowable increase of only 13.1 tons per
year--10.9 tons per year less than the amount originally allotted in
the 1991 plan (24 tons per year estimated in 1991 minus 13.1 tons per
year finalized in 1995).
The revision to Division 25 was adopted by the OEQC on January 20,
1995, and became state-effective February 17, 1995. It was submitted to
EPA as a revision to the Oregon SIP on August 29, 1995, and will be
reviewed in accordance with the CAA in a separate technical support
document and rulemaking action.
The fourth main reason the 1991 Plan was revised was to use a 1995
dispersion modeling analysis to re-evaluate the effect a Weyerhaeuser
Company facility has on the Plan's attainment demonstration. The 1995
analysis indicates that the facility's impact, at the monitoring site
upon which the Plan's attainment demonstration is based, is not
significant. This analysis is discussed in more detail in the
Evaluation of Attainment Demonstration section of the Technical Support
Document (TSD) that corresponds with this action.
II. This Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In this action, EPA
is proposing to approve the plan revisions submitted to EPA on November
15, 1991, and September 22, 1995. EPA has determined that the
submittals meet all of the applicable requirements of the Act due on
November 15, 1991, with respect to moderate area PM-10 submittals.
Also, as described in Part II.5 below, EPA is proposing to grant the
exclusion from PM-10 control requirements applicable to major
stationary sources of PM-10 precursors. In addition, as described in
Part II.7 below, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted
on November 15, 1991, as meeting the requirement for contingency
measures.
Analysis of State Submission
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.3 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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. 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 six months after receipt
of the submission.
[[Page 28533]]
The State of Oregon held a public hearing on the 1991 Plan on
October 24, 1991. This Plan was submitted to EPA for review on November
15, 1991. The Attainment Plan was subsequently revised in 1995. Public
hearings for this revision were held on June 16 and 20, 1995. This 1995
revision was submitted to EPA on September 22, 1995, as a revision to
the Oregon SIP.
The SIP revisions were reviewed by EPA to determine completeness
shortly after submittal, in accordance with the completeness the
criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. Letters dated May 7,
1992, and February 28, 1996, were forwarded to the Director of ODEQ
indicating the completeness of the submittals and the next steps to be
taken in the review process. In this action EPA is proposing to approve
the State of Oregon's PM-10 SIP submittal for the Klamath Falls PM-10
nonattainment area and invites public comment on the action.
2. Accurate Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the 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. The emissions inventory should also include a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of allowable emissions
in the area. See, e.g., Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act. Because the
submission of such inventories is necessary to an area's attainment
demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot practicably
attain), the emissions inventories must be received with the submission
(see 57 FR 13539).
The base year for analysis was 1986 (July 1, 1986, through June 30,
1987). This year was chosen because it represents some of the most
severe air quality episodes the area has experienced. There were forty
days when monitored concentrations of PM-10 were above the 24-hour
standard. In addition to the base year inventory (1986), a design year
inventory (1994 attainment year), and a maintenance demonstration year
inventory (2004) were developed.
The 1986 inventory identified that, on a 24-hour, worst case day,
the major sources of PM-10 emissions are residential wood combustion
(80%), fugitive dust (winter road sanding) (8%), industry (7%),
transportation (4%), and other (1%). Annual emissions for the same
timeframe are residential wood combustion (61%), fugitive dust (10%),
industry (10%), solid waste disposal (which includes residential open
burning, on-site incineration, and agricultural burning) (9%),
transportation (8%), and other (2%).
After implementation of all control measures, ODEQ estimates that
the 24-hour 1994 attainment year inventory will be as follows: industry
(43%), residential woodburning (21%), transportation (18%), fugitive
dust (16%), other (2%), and solid waste disposal (0%). Annual emissions
for the 1994 attainment year are estimated to be: industry (30%),
residential woodburning (24%), fugitive dust (20%), transportation
(17%), other (6%), and solid waste disposal (3%).
The emission inventory was originally reviewed and commented on by
EPA in October 1991, when this SIP revision was in draft form. The
issues raised by EPA during October 1991 were resolved by ODEQ before
the November 15, 1991, SIP revision was submitted.
EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory because it
generally appears to be accurate and comprehensive, and provides a
sufficient basis for determining the adequacy of the attainment
demonstration for this area consistent with the requirements of
Sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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. See Section
193 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were
required to 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 13539-13545 and 13560-13561).
ODEQ performed a cost and technical analysis of the area's emission
sources to evaluate available control measures needed to bring the area
into attainment with the NAAQS. Results of the emission inventory and
Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) analysis indicated that, overwhelmingly,
emissions from residential wood combustion were the most significant
contributor to exceedances of the NAAQS on a 24-hour, worst case day
basis. This analysis also indicated that industrial emissions were
relatively minor (7%) when compared to residential wood combustion
(80%). ODEQ's analysis further showed that attainment of the NAAQS can
be demonstrated by controlling RACM sources (e.g., wood smoke, road
sanding, and open burning) instead of industrial sources.
It is EPA's policy that RACM (including RACT) does not require the
implementation of all available control measures where an area
demonstrates timely attainment and the implementation of additional
controls would not expedite attainment (see 57 FR 13540-13544). Based
on the available control measures adopted (described below), the SIP
demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. The
SIP also demonstrates continued maintenance of the NAAQS between
December 1994 and the year 2004. Accordingly, the attainment
demonstration does not include additional industrial controls beyond
those currently required by the Oregon SIP. However, ODEQ has included
additional point source controls as a contingency measure should the
area not attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994, or demonstrate RFP. The
Plan's attainment demonstration, contingency measures, and RFP are
discussed in more detail later in this document. In conclusion, EPA
proposes to approve the existing industrial controls as meeting the
RACM (including RACT) requirement.
Attainment of the 24-hour standard is based on the following: (1) A
mandatory woodstove curtailment program, (2) a woodstove certification
program, (3) a woodstove removal program, and (4) reduction in winter
road sanding emissions.
Attainment of the annual standard is based upon: (1) A mandatory
woodstove curtailment program, (2) woodstove certification program, (3)
a reduction in winter road sanding emissions, (4) a woodstove opacity
limitation, and (5) a year-round prohibition on agricultural open
burning. The following table summarizes the anticipated emission
reductions and their associated reduction credits.
[[Page 28534]]
Summary--Attainment Strategies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit requested Emission reductions
---------------------------------------------------
Number per Tons per
Attainment measures--1994 hour year
24-Hour Annual -------------------------
(24-Hour) (Annual)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodstove curtailment....................................... 86% 74% 16,625 938
Woodstove certification..................................... 24% 24% 582 78
Opacity restriction--20%.................................... (*) 5% ........... 12
Woodstove removal........................................... 53% (**) 973 ...........
Winter road sanding......................................... 60% 60% 1,265 17
Agricultural burning........................................ (***) 100% ........... 156
---------------------------------------------------
Total reductions...................................... ........... ........... 19,445 1201
Reductions needed by 12/31/94......................... ........... ........... 18,877 1035
---------------------------------------------------
Excess reductions..................................... ........... ........... 568 166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not applicable on a 24-hour worst case day basis: woodstoves would not be in use due to the curtailment
program.
** Not quantified.
*** Not applicable; this activity did not occur during exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS.
A. Mandatory Woodburning Curtailment Program
On July 31, 1991, the Klamath County Board of Commissions adopted
Ordinance No. 63 (codified as Chapter 406), establishing a mandatory
woodburning curtailment program. The City of Klamath Falls adopted
Ordinance No. 6630 on September 16, 1991, which grants Klamath County
the authority to implement the Klamath County Air Quality Program
(Chapter 406) within the city limits of Klamath Falls. The program
became fully implemented within the nonattainment area on November 1,
1991. Prior to the mandatory program, a voluntary program had been
operated by Klamath County since 1988. The following is a brief
discussion of the program's key elements. For a detailed analysis and
discussion, the reader is referred to the TSD that corresponds with
this action.
Daily wood heating advisories are disseminated by the County via
local television and radio stations. The County also maintains a
burning advisory telephone system which, during the 1990/1991
woodheating season, answered 122,000 public calls. An additional 5,000
calls were handled by the Klamath County Air Quality staff. During the
1992/1993 woodheating season, there were 160,311 public calls. The
increase in calls between the two seasons seems to indicate an increase
in public awareness of the wood heating advisory and of the purpose of
the curtailment program.
For a specified period of time, Klamath County Air Quality could
grant an exemption from complying with the curtailment program during
poor air quality periods provided that the solid fuel-fired heating
appliance is the sole source of heat for a specific residence. However,
after December 31, 1992, it became unlawful for a solid fuel-fired
heating appliance to be the sole source of heat in any nonowner
(tenant-occupied) dwelling. Exemptions to this phaseout can be granted
to landlords due to low income. This sole source, low income, nonowner-
occupied exemption terminates December 31, 1997. All sole source, low
income, nonowner-occupied dwellings must have a secondary source of
heat by that time. In addition, all sole source heat households, except
those that are tenant-occupied, had until December 31, 1995, to install
a secondary heat source. No exemptions will be issued after this date
unless the household (person) qualifies under a low income exemption.
A person who demonstrates economic need by certifying through proof
that his/her income is less than 1.2 times the low income guidelines
established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, may be granted a low income exemption from installing a
secondary form of heat to be used during yellow and red curtailment
days. After December 31, 1995, no further exemptions will be granted.
Woodburning curtailment forecasts are made twice daily at 7 am and
4 pm during the woodheating season (October 1 through March 31). The
curtailment calls are based on a forecast algorithm using: National
Weather Service upper air and barometric pressure data; forecasts of
synoptic meteorology; surface temperatures; and wind speed and
direction. Nephelometer measurements of hourly light scattering and
local observations of air quality conditions are also used. (Appendix 7
of ODEQ's Attainment Plan contains a more detailed discussion).
Woodburning curtailment advisories are issued at three levels. A
green advisory is issued when NAAQS exceedances are unlikely.
Woodburning is unrestricted during these periods but the public is
asked to follow good woodburning practices. Green advisories are issued
when PM-10 concentrations are forecast to not exceed 80 g/
m3 for a 24-hour average.
A yellow advisory is issued when PM-10 concentrations are forecast
to exceed or are exceeding 81 g/m3 for a 24-hour average.
The public is asked to curtail all unnecessary woodburning. However,
permitted pellet stoves and certified stoves may be used; and dwellings
granted exemptions described above may burn.
A red advisory is issued when PM-10 concentrations are forecast to
exceed or are exceeding 150 g/m3 for a 24-hour average.
No person can operate any solid fuel-fired heating appliance, except
for a permitted pellet stove, during a red advisory, unless an
exemption has been granted by the County.
In addition, during a yellow or red advisory, all open burning,
including burn barrels/incineration is prohibited unless a variance has
been approved by Klamath County Air Quality.
The Klamath Falls curtailment program includes a surveillance and
enforcement element. A standard operating procedure and evaluation
measure has been developed to be used during yellow and red advisories.
During surveillance and effectiveness evaluations, infra-red detectors
are used at night to detect ``hot'' chimneys. Visible emission readings
are taken during the daytime hours.
[[Page 28535]]
When Klamath County Air Quality inspectors have visually observed
that a person has violated the Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance,
Ordinance Number 63, a Notice and Order setting forth the alleged
violation is required to be issued. The Notice will require the alleged
violator to take corrective action, such as to cease and desist from
operating the noncomplying appliance.
The violator is to notify Klamath County Air Quality that corrective
action has been taken.
In cases when a person has not complied with the Notice and Order,
the County is required to issue a Compliance Order and/or Summons and
Complaint with the Court of competent jurisdiction for violation of the
ordinance. The County may also obtain injunctive relief, abate the
nuisance, or otherwise correct the violation of the ordinance through
the Court.
Continued operation of a solid-fuel fired device without an
exemption, or performing open burning following the declaration of a
red or yellow advisory, will result in enforcement action. The
penalties which may be imposed upon conviction based on Summons and
Complaint for a violation of any provision of Chapter 406.100 (General
Rules and Regulations) and Chapter 406.150 (Pollution Prohibitions),
excluding Prohibited Materials Burning, of the ordinance are:
(1) First offense violators may receive a warning and be fined $25.
(2) Second offense violators shall be fined $100.
(3) Subsequent offense violators shall be fined a maximum of $250
per occurrence.
The County has conducted several curtailment surveys since the
1989/1990 woodheating season. During this voluntary compliance period
(the program was not a mandatory one until 1991), red advisory
nighttime compliance rates ranged from about 37% to 50% when compared
to the number of woodstoves being used during a green advisory
nighttime baseline. The green advisory nighttime baseline was also
established during the 1989/1990 woodheating season.
For the January 1993 and December 1993 to January 1994 periods,
five red advisory day surveys were conducted in the morning hours. When
compared to the 1989/1990 green advisory baseline, compliance rates for
the five red advisory days were about 95%. This comparison may not be
entirely applicable given the nighttime baseline and the morning
compliance survey. However, it does provide some indication of overall
compliance during red curtailment days.
During the 1994/1995 winter season, only two red advisory calls
were made. An evening red advisory occurred on November 22, 1994, and a
daytime red advisory occurred on January 17, 1995. During these two
events, the County did not conduct surveys. However, both red
advisories were preceded by yellow advisories; therefore, survey data
collected during the yellow advisories can give an indication of
compliance on red advisory nights. The data show compliance with the
yellow advisories, ranging from 84% to 97%.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This discussion is based on information in a memorandum from
David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy Ramos, EPA Region 10, dated March 4,
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the above program elements, survey results, and the
phasing out of the sole source and low income exemptions, EPA believes
that the 86% credit requested by ODEQ on a 24-hour basis is achievable
and is being achieved and, therefore, accepts the credit claimed. EPA
also accepts ODEQ's annual credit of 74%. In acceptance of the credits,
EPA considered the fact that the nonattainment area has not had a
monitored exceedance of the 24-hour standard since January 1991, and
the area has not exceeded the annual standard since 1989.
B. Woodstove Certification
In 1983, the Oregon Legislature directed the ODEQ to require that
all new woodstoves sold in the State be certified through laboratory
testing. As a result, stoves sold after July 1986 were required to emit
particles at a rate at least 50% less than conventional woodstoves.
After July 1988, new woodstoves were required to have a particle
emission rate at least 70% less than conventional woodstoves.
The OEQC adopted on March 2, 1990, revisions to Oregon's Woodstove
Certification Program, making it consistent with EPA's New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAA. Currently, all
woodstoves sold in the State of Oregon must be both ODEQ and EPA-
certified. The SIP revision was approved by EPA as part of the Oregon
SIP on June 9, 1992 (see 57 FR 24373).
ODEQ estimates that the woodstove certification program provides a
24% credit against baseline 1986 woodstove emissions by 1994.6
Oregon has historically pursued an aggressive woodstove certification
program. Oregon was the first state in the Nation to adopt, implement,
and enforce a program of this type (1984). EPA promulgated the NSPS on
February 26, 1988, modeled after Oregon's program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This estimate uses a 1986 baseline inventory and assumes or
relies on: 1) a 1% annual growth in firewood consumed by woodstoves;
2) information from building permit authorities in Klamath Falls
that essentially all permitted installations are certified stoves,
and that about 20% of these are pellet stoves; 3) a useful stove
life of 20 years; 4) the fact that typical certified woodstoves and
pellet stoves respectively emit 50% and 90% less PM-10 than a
conventional stove. EPA believes this is an accurate portrayal of
the situation in Klamath Falls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projected emission reductions in conjunction with a statewide
ban (OAR 340-34-010) on the sale of used uncertified stoves, a ban on
the installation of used uncertified stoves, and Oregon's model
woodstove certification program supports EPA's acceptance of Oregon's
woodstove certification credit claim.
C. Woodstove Removal and Home Weatherization Program
Between May 1990 and December 1993 the City and County of Klamath
Falls received funds totalling approximately $1.9 million from the
State of Oregon Community Block Grant funds for a home weatherization
and woodstove replacement program. Woodstoves in 743 low income, sole
source homes have been replaced by natural gas (90%), oil (6%),
electric (2%), certified stove (1%), and propane (1%) heating sources.
These funds were administered under Klamath Falls's Particulate Urban
Resources Effort (PURE) project. The average cost of converting and
weatherizing each home was $2,200.
For the 1994 attainment year, ODEQ estimates that total PM-10
emissions from low income, sole source homes have been reduced by 973
pounds per day, which equates to 67 tons per year. ODEQ therefore
requests a 53% credit for this strategy (973 lbs per day 1994
controlled/1843 lbs per day 1994 uncontrolled). This 53% credit is
calculated for replacing uncertified woodstoves as follows: Electric
heat (100% PM-10 reduction), natural gas (99% PM-10 reduction), propane
(99% PM-10 emission reduction), oil (99% PM-10 reduction), and
certified woodstoves (50% PM-10 reduction). Because of the demonstrated
success of the program, EPA proposes to accept the 53% credit requested
by ODEQ.
D. Winter Road Sanding Control Program
Winter road sanding has been shown to adversely affect the PM-10
levels throughout the Western United States, including Klamath Falls,
in areas that experience measurable snowfall. The silt-laden, friable
sand is placed on roads by local and state highway
[[Page 28536]]
departments to provide better traction on snow and ice. However, once
the snow has melted and the roads have dried out, the remaining dry,
silty road sand is easily resuspended by moving vehicular traffic.
In Klamath Falls, winter road sanding emissions peak during periods
when several inches of snow cover the area. During these periods, as
much as 70 cubic yards per day of aggregate are spread on roads within
the UGB. Because snow covers the roadways and landscape, it is ODEQ's
position that essentially all of the fugitive dust emissions (during
this time period) are assumed to originate from road sanding. Chemical
analysis of PM-10 samples collected on days exceeding the 24-hour NAAQS
indicated that 9% of the PM-10 mass was soil dust. Road sanding
emissions were therefore estimated to be of similar magnitude in the
emission inventory, or approximately 1,900 pounds per day during the 27
days per year when road sanding occurs. The worst case day emission
estimates provide the basis for the annual emission estimates for road
sanding.
Sanding materials used in the Klamath Falls area are obtained from
a gravel pit located near Merrill, Oregon, where volcanic cinders, pea
gravel, silts, and clays have been deposited. Nearly all of the
aggregate used within the UGB is applied by the Oregon Department of
Transportation Highway Division, mostly on US 97, South Sixth Street,
Alameda Bypass, and the South Side Bypass. The City, County, and State
all maintain sections of Washburn Way and other streets in south
suburban Klamath Falls. The City maintains streets within the Central
Business District.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ State Implementation Plan for PM-10 in Klamath Falls,
October 1991, Section 12.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon requests a 60% credit for its winter road sanding control
strategy. The 60% credit is based on the Highway Division's commitment
to reduce winter road sanding by 60% through: (1) Replacement of
aggregate with a de-icing material; (2) a reduction in the amount of
aggregate applied; and (3) rapid cleanup using street washing or
sweeping of road sanding materials used on major thoroughfares. During
worst case winter days, ODEQ estimates that this strategy will reduce
emissions by 1,265 pounds per day and, on an annual basis, it will
reduce emissions by 17 tons per year. EPA proposes to accept ODEQ's
projection that the road sanding measures will reduce PM-10 emissions
from winter road sanding by 60%. See Appendix 4 of the SIP for
additional information.
E. 20% Woodstove Opacity Limitation
The Klamath County woodsmoke control ordinance (No. 63) provides
for a year-round 20% woodstove plume opacity limitation. Visible
emissions are not to exceed 20% opacity for a period or periods
aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour period. The
ordinance does, however, grant an exemption during a fire's start-up
period. Visible emission are exempt during a fifteen minute start-up
period provided they do not exceed 40% opacity. If the opacity is
greater than 40% during start-up, then the stove is in violation of the
ordinance.
The 5% emission reduction credit requested by ODEQ is reasonable
and is consistent with the recommendations in EPA's Guidance Document
for Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures and,
therefore, EPA proposes to approve it.
F. Open Burning Restriction
Chapter 406 of the Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance regulates
residential open burning, including burn barrels/incinerators and
agricultural burning. Residential open burning, including burn barrels/
incinerators, is prohibited during red and yellow advisories within
Klamath County unless a variance has been approved by Klamath County.
ODEQ does not request any credit for this strategy.
Agricultural open burning within the nonattainment area and within
one-fourth mile of the nonattainment area boundary is prohibited
throughout the year. ODEQ estimates that the elimination of
agricultural burning will reduce PM-10 emissions by 156 tons on an
annual basis and requests a 100% emission reduction credit for
elimination of this activity. EPA believes ODEQ's claim is reasonable
and, therefore, proposes to approve this control measure.
G. Other Sources
Where sources of PM-10 contribute insignificantly to the PM-10
problem in the area, EPA's policy is that it would be unreasonable and
would not constitute RACM to require the sources to implement
potentially available control measures (see 57 FR at 13540). The State
does, however, have in place the following measures which will further
reduce PM-10 emissions. The State does not request any emission
reduction credits for the measures.
1. Fugitive Dust--Paved and Unpaved Roads
ODEQ determined through their analysis of the nonattainment area,
on a 24-hour, worst case day basis, that PM-10 emissions of re-
entrained road dust from paved and unpaved roads are negligible due to
snow cover. The application of road sanding materials is the main
source of road traffic-related emissions. On an annual basis, emissions
from paved and unpaved roads account for 163 tons, or approximately 8%
of the 1986 annual emission inventory.
Even though reducing emissions from this source category is not
needed to attain the standard, the State does regulate this category.
Referencing the suggested available fugitive dust control measures
listed in Appendix C1 (57 FR 18072), rules requiring measures 1, 2, 3,
4, 10, 11, and 12 are currently part of the Oregon SIP and are
contained in OAR 340, Division 21. These rules are enforced under OAR
340-21-060. The rules were previously approved by EPA and are contained
in the State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program; Volume 2; The
Federal Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (and other State
Regulations).
2. Prescribed Burning
Historically, PM-10 emissions from prescribed burning and slash
burning have not significantly impacted on the nonattainment area on
either a 24-hour basis (zero emissions) or on an annual basis (zero
emissions); however, this activity does have the potential to
significantly impact on the area.
To address this issue, a voluntary smoke management program was
developed and implemented. The provisions of this program are
coordinated by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODOF) which provides
daily smoke management forecasts and advisories for Klamath County. A
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in 1991 by and between the
Klamath-Lake District of ODOF, Cavenham Forest Industries (Bend,
Oregon), Modoc Lumber Company, Thomas Lumber Company, Weyerhaeuser
Company (Klamath Falls), Whiskey Creek Timber Company, Winema National
Forest, Fremont National Forest, and the Bureau of Land Management
(Lakeview District). The MOU provides that the parties will abide by
the elements of the smoke management plan and is based on a cooperative
operations plan that was in effect January 10, 1990, between the above
parties.
EPA has reviewed ODEQ's submittals and associated documentation and
concluded that they adequately justify the control measures to be
implemented. Because all control measures were implemented by the
[[Page 28537]]
CAA RACM implementation date of December 10, 1993, implementation of
the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment plan control strategies has
resulted in meeting the requirement of the Act that the attainment of
the PM-10 NAAQS be achieved as expeditiously as practicable and no
later than December 31, 1994.
4. Demonstration
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 General Preamble sets out EPA's guidance on the use of
modeling for moderate area attainment demonstrations (see 57 FR 13539).
Alternatively, the State must show attainment by December 31, 1994, or
that attainment is impracticable. The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is 150
micrograms/cubic meter (g/m3), and the standard is
attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-
hour average concentration above 150 g/m3 is equal to or
less than one (see 40 CFR section 50.6). 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/m3 (id.).
Generally, EPA recommends that attainment be demonstrated according
to the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline (June 1987), which presents
three methods. Federal regulations require demonstration of attainment
``by means of a proportional model or dispersion model or other
procedure which is shown to be adequate and appropriate for such
purposes'' (40 CFR Section 51.112). The preferred method is the use of
both dispersion and receptor modeling in combination. The regulation
and the guideline also allows the use of dispersion modeling alone, or
the use of two receptor models in combination with proportional
rollback.
As indicated in the General Preamble, 57 FR at 13539, EPA has
developed a supplemental attainment demonstration policy for initial
PM-10 nonattainment areas such as Klamath Falls. The Preamble provides
additional flexibility in meeting the PM-10 attainment demonstration
requirements. An earlier April 2, 1991, memorandum titled, ``PM-10
Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final Staff Work Product,'' contained
``Attachment 5'' describing the same policy. The policy explains that
in certain circumstances a modified attainment demonstration may be
appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It may be reasonable to accept a
modified attainment demonstration in cases where ``time constraints,
inadequate resources, inadequate data bases, lack of a model for some
unique situations, and other unavoidable circumstances would leave an
area unable to submit an attainment demonstration'' by November 15,
1991. The policy further explains that its application is reserved for
those initial PM-10 nonattainment areas that have ``completed the
technical analysis * * * and made a good-faith effort to submit a final
SIP by their November 15, 1991, due date.''
During development of the Klamath Falls initial moderate area PM-10
attainment plan, ODEQ did not use dispersion modeling to estimate the
design values or in the attainment and maintenance demonstrations. This
was due to: (1) the lack of adequate historical meteorological data,
(2) the late receipt in the development process of spatially resolved
emission inventory data needed for modeling, (3) the intense and
extremely shallow inversions and calm winds (typical wind speeds during
exceedances days are less than one meter per second) are not conducive
to dispersion modeling (EPA does not have and has not developed an
approved guideline model for conditions of this type), and (4) the fact
that on winter days, when worst case air quality conditions occur, the
airshed is heavily dominated by emissions from woodstoves, fireplaces,
and road sanding.
ODEQ conducted an attainment demonstration based upon receptor
modeling proportional roll-back calculations to estimate the emission
reductions required in 1994 to achieve the NAAQS. Emission inventory
estimates were reconciled with Chemical Mass Balance (version 7.0)
receptor modeling. Results from two emission estimation methods,
emission inventory and receptor modeling, were in agreement that
woodsmoke and soil dust are the major sources of emissions on
exceedance days. According to the emission inventory, woodsmoke equals
80% and soil dust equals 8% of total PM-10 particulate. According to
the CMB analysis, woodsmoke equals 82% and soil dust equals 10.9% of
particulate.
EPA guidance on CMB modeling specifies that the apportionment
should account for at least 80% of the measured aerosol mass. ODEQ's
analysis accounted for 96% of the mass.
ODEQ determined the 1994 24-hour, worst case day design value
(without controls) to be 600 g/m3 based on monitored data
utilizing EPA's graphical procedure, including adjustments for emission
growth. The 1994 annual design value (without controls) was determined
to be 82, g/m3 calculated as an arithmetic average. Monitored
concentrations for the 3-year period July 1, 1986, through June 30,
1989, were used in both cases. Appendix 1 of the SIP lists the 24-hour
concentrations used to determine the design values, and Appendix 2
provides detailed information on the design value calculations,
including which concentrations were used when data from different
methods were collected on the same day.
The Attainment Plan has been criticized for not requiring
implementation of point source emission controls on a Weyerhaeuser
facility located outside, but near, the nonattainment area. As
discussed in the Area Designation History section of the Technical
Support Document (TSD), it was ODEQ's position, during establishment of
the Klamath Falls PM-10 Group I Areas of Concern, that the Weyerhaeuser
facility did not significantly impact on the Peterson School ambient
monitoring site during exceedance days (significant is defined as 5
g/m3). ODEQ took the same position, when by operation of
law, the Klamath Falls Group I area (as defined by the UGB), was
designated as a moderate nonattainment area on November 15, 1990. The
classification of the Klamath Falls area as a Group I area and, its
subsequent designation as a nonattainment area, was based on technical
information available at that time. This information did not indicate
that Weyerhaeuser significantly impacted on the Peterson School
monitoring site. To support ODEQ's position, ODEQ committed to
requiring Weyerhaeuser to dispersion model the plant's impact. A
preliminary 1992 modeling analysis was performed and followed by a
definitive 1995 modeling analysis. The model used was the EPA point
source guideline model-ISCST2. [ISCST3 was not yet available when the
modeling was performed.]
The 1995 analysis indicates that on exceedance days, the
Weyerhaeuser facility does not have a significant impact at the
Peterson School site, which is the site on which attainment with the
NAAQS is determined.8 The source's modeled 1995 allowable
emissions are drastically lower than 1992 allowable emissions. This is
due to, among other things, the facility forfeiting unassigned plant
site emission limits and replacing five hog fuel-fired
[[Page 28538]]
boilers with natural gas fired boilers. Furthermore, Weyerhaeuser's Air
Contaminant Discharge Permit, issued on November 20, 1995, reflects an
allowable pounds per hour limit of 111 (down from the previously
permitted limit of 152 pounds per hour). The analysis, and subsequent
permit, account for emission credits of 11.79 pounds per hour (down
from the previous permitted level of 332 pounds per hour). Forfeiting
of unassigned emission credits reduces allowable emissions alone by
over 600 tons per year to a 1995 permitted level of 371 tons.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This statement is based on information in a letter from
David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy Ramos, EPA Region 10, dated February
6, 1996.
\9\ EPA is aware, however, that a recent (1995) modeling
analysis that looked at impacts from the Weyerhaeuser facility in
the area outside of the UGB indicates that the facility may be
causing an exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS at an unmonitored site.
EPA is working with the State to resolve this distinct and separate
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the previously discussed design values, ODEQ estimates
that 1994 worst case day emissions must be reduced by 75.6%, which
equals 18,877 pounds per day. Thus, percent reduction required=((1994
design value-24-hour standard)/(1994 design value-background) x 100);
or, [((60-1350 g/m3)/(600-7 g/
m3)] x 100=75.6%. Annual emissions for the projected 1994
attainment year must be reduced by 47%, which equals 1035 tons. Percent
reduction required=[((82-50 g/m3)/(82-15 g/
m3)] x 100=47%.
ODEQ estimates that 1994 24-hour, worst case day emissions must be
reduced by 18,877 pounds to attain the 24-hour NAAQS, and annual
emissions must be reduced by 1035 tons in order to attain the annual
NAAQS. The previously discussed control measures are designed to reduce
projected 1994 worst case day emissions by 19,445 pounds (568 pounds
beyond the level needed for attainment and annual emissions by 1,201
tons (166 tons beyond the level needed for attainment). According to
the principle of proportional roll-back modeling, a reduction of 19,445
pounds from the Klamath Falls PM-10 emission sources will result in a
1994 worst case day ambient concentration of 136.5 g/m3.
An annual reduction of 1,201 tons will result in an annual
concentration of 44.9 g/m3. Both values demonstrate
attainment with their respective standards.
EPA proposes to approve the attainment demonstration. It is EPA's
opinion that the appropriate air quality model was used and all
significant emission sources and impacts were considered. The
Attainment Plan demonstrates attainment by December 31, 1994. EPA has
also considered the fact that, based on monitored air quality for the
calendar years 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, the area has, in fact,
attained both the 24-hour and annual NAAQS. As to the adequacy of the
nonattainment area boundary, the UGB was established as the
nonattainment area boundary upon passage of the CAAA of 1990 and,
therefore, the existing nonattainment area boundary is defined in the
CAA itself.
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). The General Preamble contains guidance
addressing how EPA intends to implement Section 189(e) (see 57 FR
13539-13542).
As previously discussed, ODEQ's technical analysis of candidate
control measures indicated that emissions from industrial point sources
had substantially less of an impact on the 24-hour standard than
residential wood combustion (7% vs. 80%). Previous violations of the
24-hour standard occurred during periods of extensive poor ventilation
(stagnation conditions) and cold temperatures. In addition, the CMB
analysis indicates that secondary particulate is not a major component
of the area's PM-10 emissions. This analysis identified that, on an
average winter exceedance day, 3.2% of the mass (10.7 g/
m3) comprises secondary particulate. On an annual basis, 1.9% of
the mass (1.5 g/m3) comprises secondary particulate.
Therefore, EPA believes that sources of PM-10 precursors do not
contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS, and
hereby grants the exclusion from control requirements authorized under
Section 189(e) for major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors.
Note that, while EPA is making a general finding for the Klamath
Falls area about precursor contribution to PM-10 NAAQS exceedances,
this 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.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress
The PM-10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every three years until the area is redesignated attainment
and which demonstrates RFP, as defined in Section 171(1), toward
attainment by December 31, 1994 (see Section 189(c) of the CAA).
While Section 189(c) plainly provides that quantitative milestones
are to be achieved until an area is redesignated attainment, it is
silent in indicating the starting point for counting the first 3-year
period or how many milestones must be initially addressed. In the
General Preamble, EPA addressed the statutory gap in the starting point
for counting the 3-year milestone, indicating that it would begin from
the due date for the applicable implementation plan revision containing
the control measures for the area (i.e., November 15, 1991, for initial
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas) (see 57 FR 13539).
As to the number of milestones, EPA believes that at least two
milestones must be initially addressed. Thus, the submittal to address
the SIP revisions due on November 15, 1991, for the initial moderate
PM-10 nonattainment areas must demonstrate that two milestones will be
achieved (First milestone: November 15, 1991, through November 15,
1994; Second milestone: November 15, 1994, through November 15, 1997).
For the initial PM-10 nonattainment areas that demonstrate
attainment, the emissions reduction progress made between the SIP
submittal (due date of November 15, 1991) and the attainment date of
December 31, 1994 (46 days beyond the November 15, 1994, milestone
date) will satisfy the first quantitative milestone (see 57 FR 13539).
For areas that demonstrate timely attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, the
milestones beyond the attainment achievement date should, at a minimum,
provide for continued maintenance of the standards.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Section 189(c) of the Act provides that quantitative
milestones are to be achieved ``until the area is redesignated
attainment.'' However, this endpoint for quantitative milestones is
speculative because redesignation of an area as attainment is
contingent upon several factors and future events. Therefore, EPA
believes it is reasonable for states to initially address at least
the first two milestones. Addressing two milestones will ensure that
the state continues to maintain the NAAQS beyond the attainment date
for at least some period during which an area could be redesignated
attainment. However, in all instances, additional milestones must be
addressed if an area is not redesignated attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SIP demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31,
1994, and maintenance of the NAAQS through the year 2004, satisfying
five milestones. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the submittal as
meeting the
[[Page 28539]]
quantitative milestone requirement currently due. Finally, once a
milestone has passed, the State will have to demonstrate that the
milestone was, in fact, achieved for the Klamath Falls area as provided
in Section 189(c)(2) of the Act.
7. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
ODEQ and EPA (See Sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556).
EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs 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 were addressed
above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control
measures apply to the types of activities identified in that
discussion, including woodstoves and other wood burning activities. The
SIP provides that the control measures apply throughout the entire
nonattainment area.
During EPA's review of a SIP revision involving Oregon's statutory
authority, a problem was detected which affected the enforceability of
point source permit limitations. Even though the SIP does not contain
additional point source controls to attain the standard, existing and
federally approved point source emission limitations are relied upon to
maintain and demonstrate attainment with the PM-10 NAAQS.
EPA determined that, because the five-day advance notice provision
required by ORS.126(1) (1991) bars civil penalties from being imposed
for certain permit violations, ORS 468 fails to provide the adequate
enforcement authority the State must demonstrate to obtain SIP
approval, as specified in Section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR
51.230. Accordingly, the requirement to provide such notice would
preclude federal approval of a PM-10 nonattainment area SIP revision.
EPA notified Oregon of the deficiency. To correct the problem, the
Governor of Oregon signed into law new legislation amending ORS 468.126
on September 3, 1993. This amendment added paragraph 468.126(2)(e)
which provides that the five-day advance notice required by ORS
468.126(1) does not apply if the notice requirement will disqualify the
State's program from federal approval or delegation. ODEQ responded to
EPA's understanding of the application of 468.126(2)(e) and agreed
that, if federal statutory requirements preclude the use of the five-
day advance notice provision, no advance notice will be required for
violations of SIP requirements contained in permits.
In regard to a separate enforceability issue, the following is a
summary of the city, county, and interagency commitments which EPA
proposes to approve as part of the SIP as either a required control
measure or SIP strengthening measure. The content of the two ordinances
and their relationship to the SIP control strategies are discussed in
more detail in the TSD.
City and County Ordinances
A. City of Klamath Falls--Ordinance No. 6630. The ordinance grants
Klamath County the authority to implement the Klamath County Air
Quality Program (Chapter 406) within the city limits of Klamath Falls
(authority to regulate--control measure).
B. Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance No. 63. This ordinance adds
Chapter 406 to the Klamath County Code and is entitled the ``Klamath
County Clean Air Ordinance.'' The provisions in Chapter 406 establish
the mandatory air quality program, area boundaries, and enforcement
controls (control measure).
C. Klamath County Air Quality Program--Resolution 89-116. This
resolution recognizes the need for establishing control strategies
(measures) to reduce PM-10 concentrations in Klamath County (SIP
strengthening measure).
Interagency Commitments
A. Winter Road Sanding Program, Oregon Department of Transportation
Highway Division--Memorandum of Understanding. This sets forth the
Highway Department's commitment to: (1) replace cinder sanding material
with a liquid de-icing agent, (2) minimize street sanding application
rates consistent with traffic safety objectives, (3) rapid cleanup of
sanding materials, and (4) ``review construction contract Standard
Specifications and Project Provisions for compatibility with local
ordinances concerning trackout. Tracking mud onto a highway is a
citable offense (control measure).
B. Voluntary Smoke Management Plans. EPA is proposing to approve
both of the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) contained in Appendix 4
of the SIP as SIP strengthening measures. One MOU is between members of
Klamath County's forestry community. The other MOU is between the
Klamath County Farm Bureau of Directors.
ODEQ's submittal and the TSD contain further information on
enforceability requirements. In addition, the TSD contains a discussion
of the personnel and funding intended to support effective
implementation of the control strategy.
8. Contingency Measures
As provided in Section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate
nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures. See generally 57 FR 13543-13544. 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 area'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. EPA
guidance recommends that the emission reductions expected from
implementation of the contingency measures equal twenty-five percent of
the total reduction in actual emissions in the plan's control strategy
(57 FR 13544). However, the CAA does not specify how many contingency
measures are needed or the magnitude of emissions reductions that must
be provided by these measures (see 57 FR 13511). EPA believes that,
consistent with the statutory scheme, contingency measures must at a
minimum provide for continued progress toward the attainment goal in
the interim period after an area fails to attain and while additional
measures required as a result of being reclassified to serious are
being adopted (see 57 FR 13511). The Klamath Falls nonattainment area
SIP contains the following contingency measures:
a. Uncertified woodstove removal: The 1991 Oregon Legislature
authorized by statute the removal and destruction of uncertified
woodstoves upon sale of a home within any area that fails to meet the
PM-10 SIP attainment date of December 31, 1994. EPA approved these
rules (OAR 340-34-200 through 215) as part of the Oregon SIP on June 9,
1992 (see 57 FR 24373).
b. Industrial Emissions: ODEQ developed an industrial contingency
plan designed to reduce industrial emissions should an area fail to
attain by the CAA attainment date. The regulations requiring emission
reductions, with specific source emission limits, are contained in OAR
340-21-200 through 245. EPA approved
[[Page 28540]]
these rules as part of the SIP on August 19, 1992 (see 57 FR 37468).
The rules apply to existing sources in all of Oregon's PM-10
nonattainment areas. The sources regulated include wood waste boilers,
wood particle dryers at particleboard plants, hardboard manufacturing
plants, and air conveying systems. The rules also require fugitive
emission control plans for large sawmills, plywood mills or veneer
manufacturing plants, hardboard plants, and charcoal manufacturing
plants. In addition, OAR 340-21-200 through 340-21-245 applies to a
major source located outside of a PM-10 nonattainment area which has a
significant impact upon a nonattainment area. According to OAR 340-21-
210(2)(b), upon request by ODEQ, the owner or operator of any source
with the potential to have a significant impact on a PM-10
nonattainment area shall conduct, prior to the attainment date required
in the Clean Air Act and in accordance with a study protocol approved
by ODEQ, a receptor and dispersion modeling study of the impact of
emissions from the source on the PM-10 nonattainment area. As
previously stated, significant impact is defined as 5g/
m63.
c. The continuation of the woodstove certification program after
December 31, 1994), will provide a net reduction in residential wood
burning emissions between the years 1994 and 2004, and on into the
future.
d. Chapter 406.650(1) through Chapter 406.650(9) of the Klamath
County Clean Air Ordinance delineates the contingency measures adopted
by Klamath County. They include, among other things, measures to
further reduce woodsmoke and fugitive dust.
As stated above, the industrial contingency rules apply to existing
sources in all of Oregon's PM-10 nonattainment areas. In actuality,
because of the PM-10 source mix in the area, the measures applicable to
the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment area include wood waste boilers,
wood particle dryers at particleboard plants, hardboard manufacturing
plants, air conveying systems, fugitive emission control plans, and the
analysis of the impact of emissions from a source outside the area
which has the potential to have a significant impact on the
nonattainment area (such as the Weyerhaeuser facility).
Also, as previously discussed, in 1995 ODEQ determined through a
dispersion modeling study that Weyerhaeuser does not have a significant
impact at the monitoring site of reference (Peterson School) during
NAAQS exceedance days, and therefore is not subject to the PM-10
industrial contingency measures.
ODEQ estimates that PM-10 emissions would be reduced an additional
108 tons per year by the year 2000 through implementation of the
woodstove contingency measures. Industrial emissions would be reduced
an additional 132 tons per year through installation of point source
controls to meet the industrial contingency measure requirement.
Additional reductions which cannot be quantified by the emission
inventory would be achieved through the fugitive dust control
contingency measures. Total reductions are estimated at a minimum of
240 tons per year (nonattainment area industries only), which is 23% of
the total annual emission reduction needed for attainment.
The SIP provides that each of the above contingency measures would
have taken effect without further action by the State or EPA had EPA
determined that the Klamath Falls nonattainment area has failed to
achieve RFP or to attain the PM-10 standard by the statutory attainment
date of December 31, 1994.
EPA is proposing to approve the Klamath Falls nonattainment area
contingency measures.
III. Implications of This Action
EPA is proposing to approve the 1991 Attainment Plan and the 1995
revision to the Plan as submitted to EPA for the Klamath Falls
nonattainment area on November 15, 1991, and September 22, 1995,
respectively. Among other things, ODEQ has demonstrated that the
Klamath Falls moderate PM-10 nonattainment area will attain the PM-10
NAAQS by December 31, 1994. In fact, the area has not experienced an
exceedance of the NAAQS since 1991. Note that EPA's action includes
approval of the contingency measures for the Klamath Falls
nonattainment area.
IV. Administrative Review
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 Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D, of the
CAA 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 regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs 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).
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany 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. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted on by the rule.
EPA has determined that the proposed action promulgated 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.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the EPA
Region 10 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 Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management
[[Page 28541]]
and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866
review.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, and Particulate matter.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: May 24, 1996.
Jane S. Moore,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-14120 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
