Printed
on
100%
recycled/
recyclable
paper
with
100%
post­
consumer
fiber
and
process
chlorine
free.
Customer
Service
Hotline:
1­
800­
438­
2474
1
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
REGION
III
1650
Arch
Street
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
19103­
2029
SUBJECT:
Technical
Support
Document
for
the
Proposed
Rule­
West
Virginia;
PM­
10
Redesignation
Request
and
Limited
Maintenance
Plan
For
the
City
of
Weirton
in
Hancock
County,
West
Virginia
April
6,
2006
FROM:
Linda
Miller
/
s/
Air
Quality
Planning
Branch
TO:
File
THRU:
Makeba
Morris,
Chief
/
s/
Air
Quality
Planning
Branch
I.
BACKGROUND
On
May
24,
2004,
the
State
of
West
Virginia
submitted
a
request
that
EPA
redesignate
the
Weirton
nonattainment
area
(
Weirton
Area)
to
attainment
for
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),
and
concurrently
requested
approval
of
a
limited
maintenance
plan
(
LMP)
as
a
revision
to
the
West
Virginia
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP).
Nonattainment
areas
can
be
redesignated
to
attainment
after
the
area
has
measured
air
quality
data
showing
it
has
attained
the
NAAQS
and
when
certain
additional
requirements
are
met.
Section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)
of
the
Act
provides
the
criteria
for
redesignation.
These
criteria
are
further
clarified
in
the
"
General
Preamble
for
the
Implementation
of
Title
I
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990"(
57
FR
13498,
April
16,
1992,
as
supplemented
57
FR
18070,
April
28,
1992)
(
the
General
Preamble),
and
in
a
guidance
memorandum
from
John
Calcagni,
Director,
Air
Quality
Management
Division,
EPA
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
dated
September
4,
1992,
"
Procedures
for
Processing
Requests
to
Redesignate
Areas
to
Attainment."
The
criteria
for
redesignation
are:

(
1)
A
determination
that
the
area
has
attained
the
applicable
NAAQS;
(
2)
Full
approval
of
the
applicable
SIP
for
the
area
under
section
110(
k)
of
the
Act;
(
3)
The
state
containing
the
area
has
met
all
requirements
applicable
to
the
area
under
section
110
and
part
D
of
the
Act;
(
4)
A
determination
that
the
improvement
in
air
quality
is
due
to
permanent
and
enforceable
reductions
in
emissions
resulting
from
implementation
of
the
applicable
implementation
plan,
applicable
Federal
air
pollution
control
regulations,
and
other
permanent
and
enforceable
reductions;
and
(
5)
Full
approval
of
a
maintenance
plan
for
the
area
as
meeting
the
requirements
of
section
175A
2
of
the
Act.

The
Weirton
Area,
consisting
of
Hancock
County
and
part
of
Brooke
County,
West
Virginia,
was
designated
by
EPA
as
a
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
area
on
December
21,
1993
(
58
FR
67334).

On
May
16,
2001
(
66
FR
27034),
EPA
promulgated
a
final
rule
entitled,
"
Determination
of
Attainment
of
the
NAAQS
for
PM­
10
in
the
Weirton,
West
Virginia
Nonattainment
Area"
finding
that
the
Weirton
PM­
10
nonattainment
had
attained
the
NAAQS
for
PM­
10
by
its
applicable
December
31,
2000
attainment
date.

The
determination
was
made
based
on
certified
ambient
air
quality
data
for
the
years
1998
through
2000.
The
data,
in
which
each
quarter
sampled
had
at
least
85%
of
the
scheduled
data
samples,
met
the
quality
assurance
requirements
to
be
sufficient
to
determine
attainment.
The
maximum
annual
concentration
from
all
the
monitors
in
the
area
for
the
years
1998­
2000
was
35.2
:
g/
m
³
meeting
the
50ug/
m3
standard
specified
by
the
NAAQS.
The
maximum
24­
hour
concentration
was
130
:
g/
m
³
,
below
the
NAAQS
standard
of
150
:
g/
m
³
.
Both
the
annual
and
24­
hour
maximum
values
were
recorded
in
1998.
The
determination
of
attainment
became
effective
on
July
2,
2001.

In
order
to
be
redesignated
from
nonattainment
to
attainment,
West
Virginia
requested
that
EPA
apply
its
Clean
Data
Policy
to
the
Weirton
Area
in
a
letter
dated
October
14,
2003.
West
Virginia
submitted
a
request
to
redesignate
the
Weirton
Area
to
attainment
for
PM­
10
and
a
SIP
submittal
for
the
related
maintenance
plan
as
a
limited
maintenance
plan
on
May
24,
2004.

EPA
published
a
direct
final
rule
(
DFR)
and
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
(
NPR)
in
which
we
determined
that
certain
attainment
demonstration
requirements,
along
with
other
related
requirements
of
the
Act,
are
not
applicable
to
the
Weirton
Area.
In
the
same
October
27,
2004
DFR
and
NPR,
EPA
also
approved
the
request
from
the
State
of
West
Virginia
to
redesignate
the
Weirton
Area
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
of
the
NAAQS
for
PM­
10,
and
to
approve
the
10­
year
maintenance
plan
for
the
area
submitted
by
the
WVDEP
as
a
revision
to
the
West
Virginia
SIP.
(
October
27,
2004,
69
FR
62591
and
69
FR
62637
).

EPA
published
a
correction
notice
for
the
DFR
and
NPR
on
November
9,
2004
(
69
FR
64860)
to
include
additional
information
regarding
why
motor
vehicle
emissions
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
nonattainment
within
the
Weirton
Area.
The
correction
provided
clarification
on
PM­
10
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets,
for
purposes
of
transportation
conformity,
and
why
they
are
not
required
to
be
part
of
the
maintenance
plan
for
the
area.
The
ambient
impact
of
PM­
10
emissions
from
onroad
motor
vehicles
was
not
and
is
not
significant
as
it
has
been
and
continues
to
be
less
than
five
percent
of
the
total
PM­
10
ambient
concentrations
in
the
area.
Stationary
(
point)
source
emissions
are
responsible
for
the
remaining
impacts.

EPA
received
adverse
comments
on
the
October
27,
2004
DFR/
NPR
from
one
commenter.
3
Therefore,
EPA
withdrew
the
DFR
on
December
20,
2004
(
69
FR
75847).
The
withdrawal
of
the
DFR
converted
EPA's
action
to
a
proposal
based
on
the
October
27,
2004
NPR.

This
technical
support
document
has
been
prepared
to
support
a
new
proposed
rulemaking
which
will
provide
a
concise
rationale
for
EPA's
action
using
the
most
recent
data
available
at
this
time.
The
previous
NPR
(
69
FR
62637)
should
be
withdrawn
by
EPA
and
replaced
by
this
rulemaking.

As
noted
above,
the
Weirton
redesignation
request
relies
on
an
interpretation
of
the
CAA
requirements
As
defined
in
the
Clean
Data
Policy.
The
Region
3
Office
of
Regional
Counsel
provided
legal
interpretation
in
consultation
with
the
Office
of
General
Counsel.
A
discussion
of
EPA's
clean
data
policy
follows.

Clean
Data
Policy
In
some
designated
nonattainment
areas,
monitored
data
demonstrates
that
the
NAAQS
has
already
been
achieved.
Based
on
its
interpretation
of
the
Act,
EPA
has
determined
that
certain
requirements
of
part
D,
subpart
1
and
2
of
the
Act
do
not
apply
and
therefore
do
not
require
certain
submissions
for
an
area
that
has
attained
the
NAAQS.
These
include
reasonable
further
progress
(
RFP)
requirements,
attainment
demonstrations
and
contingency
measures,
because
these
provisions
have
the
purpose
of
helping
achieve
attainment
of
the
NAAQS.

The
so­
called
Clean
Data
Policy
is
the
subject
of
two
EPA
memoranda
setting
forth
our
interpretation
of
the
provisions
of
the
Act
as
they
apply
to
areas
that
have
attained
the
relevant
NAAQS.
EPA
also
finalized
the
statutory
interpretation
set
forth
in
the
policy
in
a
final
rule,
40
CFR
51.918,
as
part
of
its
Final
Rule
to
Implement
the
8­
hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
­
Phase
2
(
Phase
2
Final
Rule).
The
legal
bases
set
forth
in
detail
in
our
Phase
2
Final
rule,
our
May
10,
1995
memorandum
from
John
S.
Seitz,
entitled
"
Reasonable
Further
Progress,
Attainment
Demonstration,
and
Related
Requirements
for
Ozone
Nonattainment
Areas
Meeting
the
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard,"
and
our
December
14,
2004
memorandum
from
Stephen
D.
Page
entitled
"
Clean
Data
Policy
for
the
Fine
Particle
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards,"
are
equally
pertinent
to
the
interpretation
of
provisions
of
subparts
1
and
4
applicable
to
PM­
10.
EPA's
interpretation
of
how
the
provisions
of
the
Act
apply
to
areas
with
"
clean
data"
is
not
logically
limited
to
ozone
and
PM­
2.5,
because
the
rationale
is
not
dependent
upon
the
type
of
pollutant.
Our
interpretation
that
an
area
that
is
attaining
the
standard
is
relieved
of
obligations
to
demonstrate
reasonable
further
progress
(
RFP)
and
provide
an
attainment
demonstration
and
contingency
measures
pursuant
to
part
D
of
the
CAA,
pertains
whether
the
standard
is
PM­
10,
ozone
or
PM­
2.5.

The
reasons
for
relieving
an
area
that
has
attained
the
relevant
standard
of
certain
part
D,
subpart
1
and
2
(
sections
171
and
172)
obligations,
applies
equally
as
well
to
part
D,
subpart
4,
which
contains
specific
attainment
demonstration
and
RFP
provisions
for
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas.
As
we
have
explained
in
the
Phase
2
Final
Rule
and
our
ozone
and
PM­
2.5
clean
data
memoranda,
EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
interpret
provisions
regarding
RFP
and
attainment
4
demonstrations,
along
with
related
requirements,
so
as
not
to
require
SIP
submissions
if
an
area
subject
to
those
requirements
is
already
attaining
the
NAAQS
(
i.
e.,
attainment
of
the
NAAQS
is
demonstrated
with
three
consecutive
years
of
complete,
quality­
assured
air
quality
monitoring
data).
Three
U.
S.
Circuit
Courts
of
Appeals
have
upheld
EPA
rulemakings
applying
its
interpretation
of
subparts
1
and
2
with
respect
to
ozone.
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
99F.
3d
1551
(
10th
Cir.
1996);
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
375
F.
3d
537
(
7th
Cir.
2004);
Our
Children's
Earth
Foundation
v.
EPA,
N.
04­
73032
(
9th
Cir.
June
28,
2005)
(
memorandum
opinion).
It
has
been
EPA's
longstanding
interpretation
that
the
general
provisions
of
part
D,
subpart
1
of
the
Act
(
sections
171
and
172)
do
not
to
require
the
submission
of
SIP
revisions
concerning
RFP
for
areas
already
attaining
the
ozone
NAAQS.
In
the
General
Preamble,
we
stated:

[
R]
equirements
for
RFP
will
not
apply
in
evaluating
a
request
for
redesignation
to
attainment,
since,
at
a
minimum,
the
air
quality
data
for
the
area
must
show
that
the
area
has
already
attained.
A
showing
that
the
State
will
make
RFP
toward
attainment
will,
therefore,
have
no
meaning
at
that
point.
57
FR
at
13564.

EPA
believes
the
same
reasoning
applies
to
the
PM­
10
provisions
of
part
D,
subpart
4.

With
respect
to
RFP,
section
171(
1)
states
that,
for
purposes
of
part
D
of
title
I,
RFP
"
means
such
annual
incremental
reductions
in
emissions
of
the
relevant
air
pollutant
as
are
required
by
this
part
or
may
reasonably
be
required
by
the
Administrator
for
the
purpose
of
ensuring
attainment
of
the
applicable
NAAQS
by
the
applicable
date.
Thus,
whether
dealing
with
the
general
RFP
requirement
of
section
172(
c)(
2),
the
ozone­
specific
RFP
requirements
of
Sections
182(
b)
and
(
c),
or
the
specific
RFP
requirements
for
PM­
10
areas
of
part
D,
subpart
4,
section
189(
c)(
1),
the
stated
purpose
of
RFP
is
to
ensure
attainment
by
the
applicable
attainment
date.
Section
189(
c)(
1)
states
that:

Plan
revisions
demonstrating
attainment
submitted
to
the
Administrator
for
approval
under
this
subpart
shall
contain
quantitative
milestones
which
are
to
be
achieved
every
3
years
until
the
area
is
redesignated
attainment
and
which
demonstrate
reasonable
further
progress,
as
defined
in
section
7501(
l)
of
this
title,
toward
attainment
by
the
applicable
date.

Although
this
section
states
that
revisions
shall
contain
milestones
which
are
to
be
achieved
until
the
area
is
redesignated
to
attainment,
such
milestones
are
designed
to
show
reasonable
further
progress
"
toward
attainment
by
the
applicable
date",
as
defined
by
section
171.
Thus
it
is
clear
that
once
the
area
has
attained
the
standard,
no
further
milestones
are
necessary
or
meaningful.
This
interpretation
is
supported
by
language
in
section
189(
c)(
3),
which
mandates
that
a
state
that
fails
to
achieve
a
milestone
must
submit
a
plan
that
assures
that
the
state
achieve
the
next
milestone
or
attain
the
NAAQS
if
there
is
no
next
milestone.
Section
189(
c)(
3)
assumes
that
the
requirement
to
submit
and
achieve
milestones
does
not
continue
after
attainment
of
the
NAAQS.

If
an
area
has
in
fact
attained
the
standard,
the
stated
purpose
of
the
RFP
requirement
will
have
5
already
been
fulfilled.
EPA
took
this
position
with
respect
to
the
general
RFP
requirement
of
section
172(
c)(
2)
in
the
April
16,
1992
General
Preamble
and
also
in
the
May
10,
1995
memorandum
with
respect
to
the
requirement
of
section
182(
c)(
b)
and
(
c).
We
are
extending
that
interpretation
to
the
specific
provisions
of
part
D,
subpart
4.
In
the
General
Preamble,
we
stated,
in
the
context
of
a
discussion
of
the
requirements
applicable
to
the
evaluation
of
requests
to
redesignate
nonattainment
areas
to
attainment,
that
the
"
requirements
for
RFP
will
not
apply
in
evaluating
a
request
for
redesignation
to
attainment
since,
at
a
minimum,
the
air
quality
data
for
the
area
must
show
that
the
area
has
already
attained.
Showing
that
the
State
will
make
RFP
towards
attainment
will,
therefore,
have
no
meaning
at
that
point."
(
57
FR
at
13564).
See
also
"
Procedures
for
Processing
Requests
to
Redesignate
Areas
to
Attainment"
memorandum
from
John
Calcagni,
Director,
Air
Quality
Management
Division,
September
7,
1992
at
6.

With
respect
to
the
attainment
demonstration
requirements
of
section
189(
a)(
1)(
B)
an
analogous
rationale
leads
to
the
same
result.
Section
189(
a)(
1)(
B)
requires
that
the
plan
provide
for
"
a
demonstration
(
including
air
quality
modeling)
that
the
[
SIP]
will
provide
for
attainment
by
the
applicable
attainment
date.
.
.
."
As
with
the
RFP
requirements,
if
an
area
is
already
monitoring
attainment
of
the
standard,
EPA
believes
there
is
no
need
for
an
area
to
make
a
further
submission
containing
additional
measures
to
achieve
attainment.
This
is
also
consistent
with
the
interpretation
of
the
section
172(
c)
requirements
provided
by
EPA
in
the
General
Preamble,
the
December
14,
2004
memorandum
and
of
the
section
182(
b)
and
(
c)
requirements
set
forth
in
the
May
10,
1995
memorandum.
As
EPA
stated
in
the
General
Preamble,
no
other
measures
to
provide
for
attainment
would
be
needed
by
areas
seeking
redesignation
to
attainment
since
"
attainment
will
have
been
reached."
(
57
FR
at
13564).

Other
SIP
submission
requirements
are
linked
with
these
attainment
demonstration
and
RFP
requirements,
and
similar
reasoning
applies
to
them.
These
requirements
include
the
contingency
measure
requirements
of
section
172(
c)(
9)
and
182(
c)(
9).
We
have
interpreted
the
contingency
measure
requirements
of
section
172(
c)(
9)
and
182(
c)(
9)
as
no
longer
applying
when
an
area
has
attained
the
standard
because
those
"
contingency
measures
are
directed
at
ensuring
RFP
and
attainment
by
the
applicable
date."
(
57
FR
at
13564);
May
10,
1995
memorandum
at
5­
6.

Both
sections
172(
c)
and
189(
a)(
1)(
c)
require
"
provisions
to
assure
that
reasonable
available
control
measures"
(
i.
e,
RACM)
are
implemented
in
a
nonattainment
area.
However,
the
Weirton
Area
was
able
to
attain
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
without
any
additional
measures
being
implemented.
The
General
Preamble,
57
FR
13560
(
April
16,
1992)
states
that
EPA
interprets
section
172(
c)(
1)
so
that
RACM
requirements
are
a
"
component"
of
an
area's
attainment
demonstration.
Thus,
for
the
same
reason
the
attainment
demonstration
no
longer
applies
by
its
own
terms,
the
requirement
for
RACM
no
longer
applies.
EPA
has
consistently
interpreted
this
provision
to
require
only
implementation
of
potential
RACM
measures
that
could
contribute
to
reasonable
further
progress
or
to
attainment.
General
Preamble,
57
FR
13498.
Thus,
where
an
area
is
already
attaining
the
standard,
no
additional
RACM
measures
are
required.
EPA
is
interpreting
section
187(
1)(
c)
consistent
with
its
interpretation
of
section
172(
c)(
1).
Therefore,
there
is
no
requirement
for
the
West
Virginia
SIP
to
contain
RACM
for
the
Weirton
Area
in
order
for
EPA
to
redesignate
that
6
area
as
attainment
for
the
PM­
10
NAAQS.

The
suspension
of
a
requirement
to
submit
SIP
revisions
concerning
these
RFP,
attainment
demonstration,
RACM,
and
other
related
requirements
exists
only
for
as
long
as
a
nonattainment
area
continues
to
monitor
attainment
of
the
standard.
If
such
an
area
experiences
a
violation
of
the
NAAQS,
the
basis
for
the
requirements
being
suspended
would
no
longer
exist.
Therefore,
the
area
would
again
be
subject
to
a
requirement
to
submit
the
pertinent
SIP
revision
or
revisions
and
would
need
to
address
those
requirements.
Thus,
a
determination
that
an
area
need
not
submit
one
of
the
SIP
submittals
amounts
to
no
more
than
a
suspension
of
the
requirement
for
so
long
as
the
area
continues
to
attain
the
standard.
However,
once
EPA
ultimately
redesignates
the
area
to
attainment,
the
area
will
be
entirely
relieved
of
these
requirements
to
the
extent
the
maintenance
plan
for
the
area
does
not
rely
on
them.

As
established
in
our
prior
"
clean
data"
memoranda
and
rulemakings,
a
PM­
10
nonattainment
area
that
has
"
clean
data,"
should
be
relieved
of
the
part
D,
subpart
4
obligations
to
provide
an
attainment
demonstration
pursuant
to
section
189(
a)(
1)(
B)
the
RACM
provisions
of
189(
a)(
1)(
c),
and
the
RFP
provisions
established
by
section
189(
c)(
1)
of
the
Act,
as
well
as
the
aforementioned
attainment
demonstration,
RACM,
RFP
and
contingency
measure
provisions
of
part
D,
subpart
1
contained
in
section
172
of
the
Act.

II.
TECHNICAL
REVIEW
OF
THE
REQUEST
FOR
REDESIGNATION
The
Air
Quality
Analysis
Branch,
of
the
Air
Protection
Division,
Region
III
provided
technical
assistance
in
the
review
of
the
May
24,
2004
submittal.
A
discussion
of
the
analysis
of
the
redesignation
request,
based
on
the
criteria
for
redesignation
discussed
in
the
background
section
of
this
TSD,
is
discussed
below.

1.
A
determination
that
the
area
has
attained
the
applicable
NAAQS
The
primary
years
used
by
EPA
for
the
purposes
of
establishing
PM­
10
designations
and
classifications
were
1987
to
1989.
For
this
base
year
period,
the
Weirton
Area
24­
hour
average
PM­
10
design
value
was
198
:
g/
m
³
.
This
value
exceeded
the
NAAQS
of
150
:
g/
m3.
The
Weirton
Area
has
never
exceeded
the
annual
average
standard
of
50
:
g/
m3.
Data
provided
in
the
SIP
submittal
shows
that
for
the
2000
to
2002
period,
the
comparable
24­
hour
average
design
value
is
112
:
g/
m
³
and
the
PM­
10
annual
average
design
value
is
32
:
g/
m
³
.
Both
values
meet
the
NAAQS.
The
State
of
West
Virginia
certified
the
ambient
air
quality
data
(
2005
PM­
10
SLAMS
data)
for
the
monitors
in
Brooke
and
Hancock
Counties
in
a
letter
dated
February
16,
2006.
Based
on
quality
assured
data
through
the
end
of
2005,
no
exceedances
of
the
24­
hour
PM­
10
standard
or
the
annual
PM­
10
standard
have
been
recorded
since
1998.

There
are
four
monitoring
sites
(
with
one
co­
located
monitor)
within
the
Weirton
nonattainment
area.
The
results
of
the
monitoring,
obtained
from
the
EPA's
Aerometric
Information
Retrieval
System,
since
1995
are
summarized
in
the
table
on
the
following
two
pages.
7
PM­
10
Concentrations
1995
through
2005
Weirton,
West
Virginia
Summit
Circle
Site
(
540290009)

Year
1st
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
2nd
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
3rd
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
4th
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
Yearly
Estimated
Exceedances
3­
yr.
avg.
Estimated
Exceedances
Annual
Average
(:
g/
m
³
)

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
225
218
132
129
98
84
112
104
112
113
100
160
169
112
118
93
82
103
104
110
108
99
150
146
101
108
92
77
100
96
108
95
95
127
140
98
106
83
77
97
94
106
95
91
2.2
2.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.2
2.2
1.5
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
36
32
35
29
29
32
31
30
28
25
Marland
Heights
Site
(
540290011)

Year
1st
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
2nd
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
3rd
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
4th
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
Yearly
Estimated
Exceedances
3­
yr.
avg.
Estimated
Exceedances
Annual
Average
(:
g/
m
³
)

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
142
80
116
101
131
83
82
88
111
135
96
134
79
79
91
97
71
80
82
109
133
84
133
78
78
83
95
70
75
78
94
91
75
119
78
75
81
86
69
75
77
93
91
73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
27
24
28
27
26
29
28
28
29
25
8
Skyview
Site
(
540290014)

Year
1st
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
2nd
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
3rd
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
4th
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
Yearly
Estimated
Exceedances
3­
yr.
avg.
Estimated
Exceedances
Annual
Average
(:
g/
m
³
)

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
120
167
144
112
83
97
77
94
94
108
147
107
93
82
95
76
84
92
104
132
100
89
72
80
74
84
91
101
129
95
88
70
76
70
82
90
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
30
31
27
30
27
25
26
26
26
Oak
Street
1
Site
(
540291004)

Year
1st
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
2nd
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
3rd
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
4th
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
Yearly
Estimated
Exceedances
3­
yr.
avg.
Estimated
Exceedances
Annual
Average
(:
g/
m
³
)

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
187
221
110
119
102
101
87
89
121
96
69
148
129
105
110
88
77
85
89
88
90
61
136
125
102
108
85
77
68
73
63
73
58
127
107
84
94
62
72
53
72
57
68
46
1.2
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2
1.1
0.7
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
36
32
32
31
31
30
31
32
28
25
9
Oak
Street
2
Site
(
540291004­
co­
located
site)

Year
1st
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
2nd
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
3rd
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
4th
Max.
(:
g/
m
³
)
Yearly
Estimated.
Exceedances
3­
yr.
avg.
Estimated
Exceedances
Annual
Average
(:
g/
m
³
)

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
164
185
101
109
107
103
109
111
106
112
88
159
141
92
108
97
81
97
101
104
103
85
128
121
87
108
94
79
86
98
92
91
73
118
141
141
113
107
107
97
101
104
86
71
2.1
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.1
1.6
1.0
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
36
30
31
27
28
31
30
27
25
20
As
demonstrated
above,
the
Weirton
area
continues
to
attain
the
PM­
10
NAAQS.

2.
Fully
Approved
SIP
under
Section
110(
k)
of
the
Act
that
Meets
All
Requirements
Applicable
under
Section
110
and
Part
D
West
Virginia
has
met
all
SIP
requirements
applicable
for
purposes
of
redesignation
under
section
110
of
the
CAA
and
part
D,
Title
I
of
the
CAA.
EPA
has
analyzed
the
West
Virginia
SIP
codified
at
40
CFR
part
52,
subpart
XX,
and
determined
that
it
is
consistent
with
the
applicable
redesignation
requirements
found
in
section
110.

The
air
quality
planning
requirements
for
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
under
part
D
of
Title
I
of
the
CAA
are
outlined
in
subparts
1
and
4.
Subpart
1
of
part
D,
found
in
sections
172­
176
of
the
CAA,
sets
forth
the
basic
requirements
applicable
to
all
nonattainment
areas.
Subpart
4
of
part
D,
found
in
Section
189
of
the
CAA,
establishes
additional
specific
requirements
for
PM­
10
areas
depending
upon
the
area's
nonattainment
classification.

The
part
D
provisions
that
West
Virginia
must
evaluate
for
the
Weirton
Area
prior
to
redesignation
to
attainment
include
an
emissions
inventory,
conformity,
new
source
review
(
NSR),
Reasonably
Available
Control
Measure
(
RACM),
reasonable
further
progress
(
RFP),
an
attainment
demonstration,
and
contingency
measures.
Utilization
of
the
clean
data
policy,
as
discussed
in
the
background
section
of
this
TSD,
has
been
determined
to
be
appropriate
for
Weirton
redesignation
request.
Therefore,
RACM,
RFP,
attainment
demonstration
and
contingency
measure
requirements
are
not
applicable
to
the
Weirton
area
redesignation
request.
10
With
respect
to
the
conformity
analysis,
Section
176(
c)
of
the
CAA,
requires
states
to
establish
criteria
and
procedures
to
ensure
the
Federally
supported
or
funded
projects
"
conform"
to
the
air
quality
planning
goals
in
the
applicable
SIP.
The
requirement
to
determine
conformity
applies
to
transportation
plans,
programs,
and
projects
developed,
funded
or
approved
under
Title
23
U.
S.
C
and
the
Federal
Transit
Act
("
transportation
conformity")
as
well
as
to
other
Federally
supported
or
funded
projects
("
general
conformity").
State
conformity
revisions
must
be
consistent
with
Federal
conformity
regulations
relating
to
consultation,
enforcement
and
enforceability
that
the
CAA
required
the
EPA
to
promulgate.

As
upheld
in
Wall
v.
EPA,
265F
3d
426
(
6th
Cir.
2001),
the
conformity
SIP
requirements
have
been
interpreted
by
EPA
as
not
applying
for
purposes
of
evaluating
a
redesignation
request
under
107(
d)
because
state
conformity
rules
are
still
required
after
redesignation
and
federal
conformity
rules
apply
where
state
rules
have
not
been
approved.

As
for
the
emissions
inventory
requirement,
the
Calcagni
memo
notes
that
the
requirements
for
an
emission
inventory
will
be
satisfied
by
the
inventory
requirements
of
the
maintenance
plan.
An
attainment
year
emissions
inventory
(
2001)
for
the
Weirton
Area
has
been
included
in
the
maintenance
plan
submitted
with
this
redesignation
request
and
determined
to
be
approvable.

With
respect
to
the
NSR
program
requirement,
EPA
has
determined
that
areas
being
redesignated
need
not
have
an
approved
NSR
program
prior
to
redesignation,
provided
that
the
area
demonstrates
maintenance
of
the
standard
without
part
D
NSR
in
effect.
The
rationale
for
this
view
is
described
in
a
memorandum
from
Mary
Nichols,
Assistant
Administrator
of
Air
and
Radiation,
dated
October
14,
1994,
entitled
"
part
D
New
Source
Review
Requirements
of
Areas
Requesting
Redesignation
to
Attainment."
The
State
has
demonstrated
that
the
area
will
be
able
to
maintain
the
standard
without
part
D
NSR
in
effect,
and
therefore
the
State
need
not
have
a
fully
approved
part
D
NSR
program
prior
to
approval
of
the
redesignation
request.
The
State's
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
program
will
become
effective
in
the
area
upon
redesignation
to
attainment.

Based
on
the
Agency's
review
of
Weirton
redesignation
request
and
the
applicable
West
Virginia
SIP
it
has
been
determined
that
for
the
purposes
of
redesignation
of
the
Weirton
area
the
applicable
provisions
of
CAA
110
and
part
D
have
been
approved
into
the
West
Virginia
SIP.

3.
Air
Quality
Improvement
Is
Due
to
Permanent
and
Enforceable
Reductions
As
a
part
of
the
redesignation
request
the
State
must
be
able
to
reasonably
attribute
the
improvement
in
air
quality
to
permanent
and
enforceable
emission
reductions.
In
making
this
showing,
the
State
must
demonstrate
that
air
quality
improvements
are
the
result
of
actual
enforceable
emission
reductions.
The
control
measures
for
the
area,
which
were
responsible
generating
sufficient
emission
reduction
to
bringing
the
area
into
attainment,
are
contained
in
two
enforceable
documents;
one
between
the
West
Virginia
and
the
Weirton
Steel
Corporation
and
one
between
West
Virginia
and
Wheeling­
Pittsburgh
Steel
Corporation.
On
December
29,
2003,
Printed
on
100%
recycled/
recyclable
paper
with
100%
post­
consumer
fiber
and
process
chlorine
free.
Customer
Service
Hotline:
1­
800­
438­
2474
11
West
Virginia
submitted
a
sulfur
dioxide
(
SO
2
)
SIP
revision
for
the
City
of
Weirton
including
the
Clay
and
Butler
Magisterial
District
SO
2
nonattainment
area
in
Hancock
County,
West
Virginia.
The
SIP
revision
consisted
of
an
enforceable
operating
permit
for
the
Wheeling­
Pittsburgh
Steel
Corporation,
and
an
individual
consent
order
(
CO)
entered
into
between
the
State
of
West
Virginia
and
the
Weirton
Steel
Corporation
in
Hancock
County,
West
Virginia,
establishing
SO
2
emission
limits
for
numerous
emission
points
at
both
facilities.
The
SO
2
SIP
submittal
is
significant
because
many
of
the
operational
limits
to
control
SO
2
also
limits
the
emissions
of
PM­
10.
The
control
measures
and
emission
limits
established
in
the
CO
and
the
operating
permit
were
made
permanent
and
enforceable
when
EPA
approved
them
into
the
West
Virginia
SIP
on
May
5,
2004
(
69
FR
24986).
These
control
measures
resulted
in
a
reduction
of
1345.5
tons
per
year
of
allowable
PM­
10
emissions
and
a
reduction
of
886
tons
per
year
of
actual
PM­
10
emissions.

Control
Measure
1:
Weirton
Steel
Consent
Order
The
CO
stipulates
the
following
emission
limitations
for
the
Weirton
Steel
Corporation
facility:

Weirton
Steel
Corporation,
Weirton
Facility
SO
2
Emission
Limits
SO
2
Emissions
Unit
SO
2
Emission
Limit
Sinter
Plant
Shall
not
be
operated
by
the
Company
High
Pressure
Boilers
1
and
2
Shall
not
be
operated
by
the
Company.

Low
Pressure
Boilers
LP1,
LP2,
LP3,
LP4,
and
LP15
Shall
not
be
operated
by
the
Company.

Coal
Shall
not
be
fired
at
any
boiler
operated
by
the
Company.

SO
2
emissions
from
High
Pressure
Boilers
3,
4
and
5
Shall
be
limited
by
restricting
the
firing
of
fuel
oil
to
a
rate
dependent
upon
the
sulfur
content
of
the
fuel
oil
fired
as
described
in
Appendix
A
to
the
CO.
The
allowable
fuel
oil
firing
rate
shall
be
the
3­
hour
block
average
derived
from
Appendix
A
expressed
in
total
gallons
of
fuel
oil
fired
at
High
Pressure
Boilers
3,
4,
and
5
over
a
3­
hour
period.

The
percentage
of
sulfur
contained
in
the
fuel
oil
purchased
to
be
fired
at
the
company's
high
pressure
boilers
Shall
not
exceed
3%.
12
Total
fuel
oil
and
sulfur
content
fired
at
boilers
3,
4
and
5
Shall
be
limited
to
the
product
of
(
gpm
*
(%
S)
being
less
than
or
equal
to
the
emission
factor
of
91.7
as
per
the
curve
in
Appendix
A
of
the
CO.

The
BOP
Waste
Heat
Boiler
Shall
be
pre­
heated
using
steam
sparging.
Fuel
fired
at
the
Waste
Heat
Boiler
shall
be
limited
to
Natural
Gas,
Mixed
Gas,
or
steel
making
process
gas.

Foster
Wheeler
Boilers
#
101
and
#
102
Shall
have
a
combined
limit
of
109.73
lbs
per
hour
of
SO
2.
These
boilers
shall
be
limited
to
firing
only
blast
furnace
gas,
natural
gas,
and
mixed
gas
(
comprised
of
approximately
70%
natural
gas
and
30%
air.

Hot
Mill
Reheat
Furnaces,
Hydrochloric
Acid
Regeneration
Plant
combustion
sources,
and
Annealing
Furnaces
Shall
be
limited
to
firing
only
natural
gas
and
mixed
gas
(
comprised
of
approximately
70%
natural
gas
and
30%
air).

Blast
Furnaces
designated
#
2
and
#
3
Shall
not
recommence
operation.

Blast
Furnace
#
1
Stoves
Shall
be
limited
to
60.1
lbs.
per
hour
of
SO
2
.

Blast
Furnace
#
1
Shall
be
limited
to
42.1
lbs
per
hour
of
SO
2
.

Blast
Furnace
#
4
Stoves
Shall
be
limited
to
60.1
lbs
per
hour
of
SO
2
.

Blast
Furnace
#
4
Flare
Shall
be
limited
to
42.1
lbs
per
hour
of
SO
2
.

Slag
Granulator
Shall
be
limited
to
50
lbs
per
hour
of
SO
2
.

Control
Measure
2:
Wheeling­
Pittsburgh
Steel
operating
permit
The
essential
compliance
provisions
of
the
operating
permit
issued
by
the
WVDEP
to
Wheeling­
Pittsburgh
Steel
Corporation
which
directly
impact
the
emissions
of
PM­
10
are
listed
below.

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

Hourly
Emissions
(
lb/
hr)
Maximum
Hourly
Emissions
during
the
Desulfurization
Outage
Annual
Emissions
(
tpy)

39.8
396*
294.0
*
Annual
emissions
account
for
the
desulfurization
unit
being
down
672
hours
per
year
for
13
scheduled
maintenance
and
maximum
hydrogen
sulfide
concentration
of
479
grains
per
100
cu.
ft.
of
COG.

2.
.

3.
Maximum
SO
2
emissions
to
the
atmosphere
from
boilers
#
6
and
#
7
(
emission
point)
shall
not
exceed
the
following
limits:

Hourly
SO
2
Rate
(
lb/
hr)
Boiler
#
6
Boiler
#
7
20.4
20.4
Hourly
SO
2
Rate
during
Desulfurization
Outage
(
lb/
hr)
203.1*
203.1*

Annual
SO
2
Rate*
(
TPY)
150.7
150.7
*
Annual
Emission
accounts
for
the
desulfurization
unit
being
down
672
hours
per
year
for
scheduled
maintenance
and
maximum
hydrogen
sulfide
concentration
of
479
grains
per
100
cu.
ft.
of
COG.

4.
Boilers
#
5,
6
and
7
shall
only
combust
COG.

5.
.

6.
.

7.
.

8.
.

9.
.

10.
.

11.

12.
Visible
emissions
from
the
excess
COG
flare
shall
not
exceed
twenty
percent
(
20%)
opacity
except
upon
the
first
eight
(
8)
minutes
of
starting
the
thermal
oxidizer.
After
this
point,
visible
emissions
from
this
emission
point
shall
not
exceed
forty
percent
(
40%)
opacity
for
this
time
period.
The
permittee
shall
demonstrate
compliance
with
this
condition
by
taking
visual
observations
using
EPA
Method
22
once
a
month.
If
the
permittee
observes
visible
emissions
from
the
flare
using
Method
22,
the
permittee
shall
conduct
an
additional
observation
within
24­
hours
using
EPA
Method
9
to
determine
the
opacity
of
the
visible
emissions
being
emitted
from
the
flare.
14
13.
The
Sinter
Plant
shall
not
be
operated
by
the
permittee
unless
the
proper
permit
is
obtained
from
the
Director.

14.
.

15.
.

16.
.

17.
.

18.
No
later
than
ninety
(
90)
days
after
issuance
of
the
permit,
the
permittee
shall
continuously
maintain
a
system
around
the
facility
to
prevent
public
access.

19.
Compliance
with
the
allowable
emission
limits
of
this
permit
shall
be
calculated
using
the
appropriate
amount
of
COG
combustion
by
the
excess
COG
flare
on
a
volumetric
basis,
higher
heat
value
of
568
Btu/
cu.
ft.
for
COG,
and
the
following
factors:
Carbon
Monoxide
(
0.37
lb/
MM
Btu),
Nitrogen
oxides
(
0.068
lb/
MM
Btu),
Particulate
Matter
(
0.012
lb/
MM
Btu),
Particulate
Matter
10
microns
(
0.012
lb/
MM
Btu),
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(
0.14
lb/
MM
Btu).
The
permittee
shall
determine
the
amount
of
each
pollutant
emitted
on
a
monthly
basis
using
the
above
mentioned
information
and
appropriate
engineering
calculations.
The
permittee
shall
keep
a
12­
month
rolling
total
for
each
of
the
above
mentioned
pollutants.

20.
.

21.
Boiler
#
5
(
emission
point
1D
S11)
shall
not
be
operated
unless
the
permittee
obtains
the
proper
permit
from
the
Director
prior
to
restarting
the
boiler.

22.
The
permittee
shall
fire
only
natural
gas
at
coke
plant
boiler
#
8
(
emission
point
1D,
S11),
unless
an
applicable
permit
is
obtained
from
the
Director.

23.
.

24.
.

25.
.
**************************************

As
shown
above,
the
control
measures
for
the
area
are
permanent
and
enforceable.

4.
A
fully
approved
maintenance
plan
15
As
a
criteria
for
redesignation,
the
Weirton
Area
is
required
to
have
a
fully
approved
maintenance
plan
under
section
175A
of
the
CAA.
A
maintenance
plan
should
identify
the
level
of
air
emissions
from
cars,
industry
and
other
sources
which
is
sufficient
to
attain
the
NAAQS.
The
State
must
commit
to
re­
evaluate
the
maintenance
plan.
The
plan
must
also
show
that
the
area
will
maintain
clean
air
for
at
least
10
years
after
redesignation.
Additionally,
the
plan
must
include
a
list
of
contingency
measures
to
be
implemented
should
the
NAAQS
be
violated.
The
maintenance
plan
submitted
with
the
redesignation
request
has
been
evaluated
and
meets
the
requirements
for
full
approval.
A
discussion
is
found
in
the
next
section
of
this
TSD.

In
summary,
the
Weirton
Area
redesignation
request
meets
the
criteria
for
redesignation.

III.
REVIEW
OF
THE
LIMITED
MAINTENANCE
PLAN
West
Virginia
submitted
a
maintenance
plan,
entitled
"
PM­
10
Maintenance
Plan
for
the
Weirton,
West
Virginia
Area,
May
24,
2004",
for
approval
into
the
SIP.
The
maintenance
plan
references
use
of
the
Limited
Maintenance
Plan
Option.

On
August
9,
2001,
EPA
issued
guidance
on
streamlined
maintenance
plan
provisions
for
certain
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
seeking
redesignation
to
attainment
(
Memorandum
from
Lydia
Wegman,
Director,
Air
Quality
Standards
and
Strategies
Division,
entitled
"
Limited
Maintenance
Plan
Option
for
Moderate
PM­
10
Nonattainment
Areas.
"
This
memo
contains
a
statistical
demonstrates
that
areas
meeting
certain
air
quality
criteria
will,
with
a
high
degree
of
probability,
maintain
compliance
with
the
standard
10
years
into
the
future.
Thus,
EPA
has
already
articulated
the
procedure
for
developing
a
maintenance
demonstration
for
areas
that
meet
the
air
quality
criteria
outlined
in
the
Wegman
memo.
The
Wegman
memo
streamlines
the
full
maintenance
plan
requirements
and
establishes
the
LMP
option.
The
LMP
option
does
not
require
air
quality
modeling
estimates
that
attainment
can
be
maintained,
a
projection
of
emissions
into
the
future,
or
some
of
the
standard
analyses
to
determine
conformity
with
the
air
quality
standards.
The
Wegman
memo
identifies
core
provisions
that
must
be
included
in
the
LMP.
These
provisions
include
an
attainment
year
emission
inventory,
assurance
of
continued
operation
of
an
EPA­
approved
air
quality
monitoring
network,
and
contingency
provisions.

To
qualify
for
the
LMP
option,
the
area
must
have
attained
the
PM­
10
NAAQS,
and
the
average
annual
PM­
10
design
value
for
the
area,
based
upon
the
most
recent
5
years
of
air
quality
data
at
all
monitors
in
the
area,
should
be
at
or
below
40
:
g/
m3,
and
the
24
hour
design
value
should
be
at
or
below
98
:
g/
m3.
If
an
area
cannot
meet
this
test,
it
may
still
be
able
to
qualify
for
the
LMP
Option
if
the
average
design
value
(
ADV)
for
the
site
is
less
than
the
site­
specific
critical
design
values
(
CDV).
In
addition,
the
area
should
expect
only
limited
growth
in
on­
road
motor
vehicle
PM­
10
emissions
(
including
fugitive
dust)
and
should
have
passed
a
motor
vehicle
regional
emissions
analysis
test.

To
demonstrate
that
future
emissions
will
not
exceed
the
level
of
the
attainment
inventory,
the
16
WVDEP
determined
the
CDV.
The
CDV
is
a
statistical
technique
based
upon
the
average
design
value
and
its
observed
variability
to
estimate
the
probability
of
exceeding
the
NAAQS
in
the
future.
When
applied
specifically
to
the
Weirton
Area
24­
hour
data
for
the
years
2000
through
2004,
the
CDV
is
137
:
g/
m
³
.
The
actual
5­
year
average
design
value
for
the
Weirton
Area
is
96.8
:
g/
m
³
which
is
below
the
level
of
98
:
g/
m
³
established
for
the
LMP
option.
Furthermore,
the
maximum
site
average
design
value
of
105.2
:
g/
m
³
is
less
than
the
area­
specific
CDV
of
137
:
g/
m
³
.
These
values
qualify
the
Weirton
Area
to
use
the
LMP
option.

The
Weirton
Area
meets
the
applicability
criteria
for
using
a
LMP
for
redesignation.
The
LMP
does
not
require
a
modeling
demonstration
to
show
maintenance
of
the
NAAQS.
A
projected
emissions
inventory
is
also
not
required.
The
LMP
does
require
the
following:
1.
An
attainment
year
emissions
inventory
2.
Assurance
of
continued
operation
of
an
EPA­
approved
air
quality
monitoring
network
3.
Contingency
provisions.

The
May
24,
2005
Maintenance
Plan
SIP
submittal
was
reviewed
based
on
the
above
criteria
for
a
fully
approved
maintenance
plan
pursuant
to
the
Limited
Maintenance
Plan
option.

1.
Attainment
year
emission
inventory
The
May
24,
2004
submittal
included
an
inventory
of
allowable
emissions
of
sources
in
the
nonattainment
area.
The
following
inventory
will
be
approved
into
the
SIP
as
part
of
the
LMP.

2001
Weirton
PM­
10
Emission
Inventory
Source
AFS
ID
Enforceability
Allowable
Emission
Limit
(
lb/
hr)

Foster
Wheelers
029­
00018
FW#
1
R13­
515
11.00
FW#
2
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
11.00
Weirton
Steel
029­
00001
HP#
1
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
HP#
2
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
HP#
3
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
34.51
HP#
4
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
34.51
Source
AFS
ID
Enforceability
Allowable
Emission
Limit
(
lb/
hr)

17
HP#
5
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
38.34
LP#
15
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
LP#
1
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
LP#
2
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
LP#
3
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
LP#
4
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
BOP
Boiler
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
N/
A
BF#
1
Reg
7
3.48
BF#
2
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
BF#
3
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
BF#
4
Reg
7
3.48
BF#
1
Stoves
Reg
7
38.07
BF#
2
Stoves
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
BF#
3
Stoves
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
Weirton
Steel
(
Cont.)

BF#
4
Stoves
Reg
7
38.07
BF#
1,
#
2,
#
3
Flares
Reg
7
0.17
BF#
4
Flare
Reg
7
0.17
Desulf
Baghouse
Reg
7
6.73
BOF
Scrubber
Reg
7
36.19
Hot
metal
transfer
BH
Reg
7
5.72
Sinter
Plant
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28
0.00
Reheat
#
1
R13­
1310
60.70
Reheat
#
2
R13­
1317
60.70
Source
AFS
ID
Enforceability
Allowable
Emission
Limit
(
lb/
hr)

18
HCL
Plant
Reg
7
3.20
Blooming
Mill
Scarfer
Reg
7
0.00
CAS­
OB
R13­
1433
0.42
The
area
attained
the
standard
with
the
emission
represented
2001
inventory
submitted
as
part
of
the
plan.
The
requirement
for
a
prevention
of
significant
deterioration
(
PSD)
review
and
permitting
for
any
future
major
source
construction
or
modification
will
ensure
the
air
quality
is
not
adversely
affected
by
emissions
growth.

Because
the
Weirton
area
is
nonattainment
for
PM­
10
any
major
source
wishing
to
construct
or
make
a
modification
is
required
to
obtain
a
NSR
permit
through
State
Regulation
45CSR19.
Subsequent
to
redesignation
of
the
area
to
attainment
any
major
construction
or
modification
will
be
required
to
obtain
a
PSD
permit
through
State
Regulation
45CSR14.
The
PSD
review
would
require
a
modeling
demonstration
to
ensure
maintenance
of
the
NAAQS
as
well
as
compliance
with
applicable
PSD
increments.

The
primary
sources
of
PM­
10
in
the
Weirton
area
are
the
steel
manufacturing
and
processing
facilities
located
in
or
near
the
area.
Over
the
past
six
years,
when
the
area
has
been
monitoring
attainment,
facility
shutdowns
have
substantially
lowered
PM­
10
emissions.
The
shutdowns
were
made
permanent
and
enforceable
through
a
Consent
Order
(
CO­
SIP­
C­
2003­
28)
which
was
approved
as
part
of
the
West
Virginia
SIP
on
May
5,
2004.

No
new
growth
is
anticipated
to
impact
emissions
in
the
area.
There
is
a
projected
3.69%
decrease
in
population
for
the
metropolitan
area
for
the
years
1990
­
2025,
along
with
a
1.89%
decrease
in
occupied
households.
The
West
Virginia
Department
of
Transportation
has
provided
data
which
estimates
the
average
daily
traffic
in
the
area
has
slightly
decreased
since
1990.
In
a
letter
dated
April
6,
1995,
EPA
Region
3
confirmed
that
the
worst
case
impact
of
motor
vehicles
in
the
Weirton
area
is
less
than
5%
of
the
total
ambient
concentrations.

The
WVDEP
will
review
the
monitored
PM­
10
data
annually
to
verify
continued
attainment
in
the
area.
The
WVDEP
will
also
assess
compliance
of
local
targeted
facilities
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
State
regulations
and
Consent
Agreements.
The
PM­
10
emission
inventory
for
the
Weirton
area
will
be
reviewed
at
least
every
three
years.

2.
Continued
operation
of
air
quality
monitoring
network
The
LMP
includes
a
commitment
to
continue
to
monitor
PM­
10
in
the
Weirton
Area
throughout
19
the
10­
year
term
of
the
maintenance
plan
to
verify
continued
attainment
of
the
NAAQS.
The
monitoring
procedures
will
be
determined
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
53
and
58.

3.
Contingency
measures
Pursuant
to
section
175A
of
the
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
7505A,
a
maintenance
plan
must
include
such
contingency
measures,
as
EPA
deems
necessary,
to
promptly
correct
any
violation
of
the
NAAQS
which
may
occur
after
redesignation
of
the
area
to
attainment.
As
explained
in
the
Wegman
and
Calcagni
memos,
these
contingency
measures
do
not
have
to
be
fully
adopted
at
the
time
of
redesignation.

The
State
will
rely
on
monitored
ambient
air
data
to
determine
the
need
to
implement
contingency
measures.
In
the
event
of
an
exceedance
of
the
PM­
10
standard,
the
State
will
review
the
monitored
data,
the
local
meteorological
data,
and
the
compliance
of
certain
local
facilities
identified
in
the
maintenance
plan.
If
all
such
facilities
are
in
compliance
with
applicable
SIP
and
permit
emission
limits,
the
State
will
then
determine
the
additional
control
measures
the
state
will
need
to
impose
on
the
area's
stationary
sources
in
order
to
continue
to
maintain
the
NAAQS.

In
the
event
of
three
exceedances
of
the
24­
hour
PM­
10
standard
within
a
three­
year
period,
the
State
will
notify
the
stationary
sources
in
the
Weirton
Area
that
the
potential
exists
for
a
NAAQS
violation,
and
that
if
a
violation
occurs,
these
sources
will
need
to
implement
the
measures
previously
identified.
Within
six
months
of
receiving
notice
from
the
State,
the
stationary
sources
must
submit
a
detailed
plan
of
action
to
WVDEP
to
implement
the
identified
additional
control
measures
within
18
months
after
the
state
notifies
the
source
of
an
actual
violation
of
the
NAAQS.
The
sources'
additional
control
measure
plans
will
be
submitted
to
EPA
for
approval
and
incorporation
into
the
SIP.

Conformity
Requirements
The
transportation
conformity
rule
(
40
CFR
51
and
93)
and
the
general
conformity
rule
(
40
CFR
51
and
93)
apply
to
nonattainment
areas
and
maintenance
areas
covered
by
an
approved
maintenance
plan.
Under
either
conformity
rule,
an
acceptable
method
of
demonstrating
that
a
federal
action
conforms
to
the
applicable
SIP
is
to
demonstrate
that
expected
emissions
from
the
planned
action
are
consistent
with
the
emissions
budget
for
the
area.

While
EPA's
LMP
policy
does
not
exempt
an
area
from
the
need
to
demonstrate
conformity,
it
explains
that
the
area
may
demonstrate
conformity
without
submitting
an
emissions
budget.
Under
the
LMP
policy,
emissions
budgets
are
treated
as
essentially
not
constraining
for
the
length
of
the
maintenance
period
because
it
is
unreasonable
to
expect
that
the
qualifying
areas
would
experience
so
much
growth
in
that
period
that
a
violation
of
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
would
result.
For
transportation
conformity
purposes,
EPA
concludes
that
mobile
source
emissions
in
these
areas
need
not
be
capped
at
any
level
for
the
maintenance
period,
and
therefore
the
requirement
for
a
regional
emissions
analysis
would
be
considered
to
be
met.
Similarly,
Federal
actions
subject
20
to
the
general
conformity
rule
could
be
considered
to
satisfy
the
"
budget
test"
specified
in
section
93.158
(
a)(
5)(
i)(
A)
for
the
same
reasons
that
the
budgets
are
essentially
considered
to
be
unlimited.

For
Federal
actions
which
are
required
to
address
the
specific
requirements
of
the
general
conformity
rule,
one
set
of
requirements
applies
particularly
to
ensuring
that
emissions
from
the
action
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
new
violations
of
the
NAAQS,
exacerbate
current
violations,
or
delay
timely
attainment.
One
way
that
this
requirement
can
be
met
is
to
demonstrate
that
"
the
total
of
direct
and
indirect
emissions
from
the
action
(
or
portion
thereof)
is
determined
and
documented
by
the
State
agency
primarily
responsible
for
the
applicable
SIP
to
result
in
a
level
of
emissions
which,
together
with
all
other
emissions
in
the
nonattainment
area,
would
not
exceed
the
emissions
budgets
specified
in
the
applicable
SIP."
40
CFR
93.158(
a)(
5)(
i)(
A).

The
decision
about
whether
to
include
specific
allocations
of
allowable
emissions
increases
to
sources
is
one
made
by
the
State
and
local
air
quality
agencies.
These
emissions
budgets
are
not
the
same
as
those
used
in
transportation
conformity.
Emissions
budgets
in
transportation
conformity
are
required
to
limit
and
restrain
emissions.
Emissions
budgets
in
general
conformity
allow
increases
in
emissions
up
to
specified
levels.
West
Virginia
has
chosen
not
to
include
specific
emissions
allocations
for
federal
projects
that
would
be
subject
to
the
provisions
of
general
conformity.

While
areas
with
maintenance
plans
approved
under
the
LMP
option
are
thus
essentially
not
subject
to
the
budget
test,
the
areas
remain
subject
to
other
transportation
conformity
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
93,
subpart
A.
Thus,
the
metropolitan
planning
organization
(
MPO)
in
the
area
or
the
State
will
still
need
to
document
and
ensure
that:
(
a)
transportation
plans
and
projects
provide
for
timely
implementation
of
SIP
transportation
control
measures
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
93.113;
(
b)
transportation
plans
and
projects
comply
with
the
fiscal
constraint
element
per
40
CFR
93.108;
(
c)
the
MPO's
interagency
consultation
procedures
meet
applicable
requirements
of
40
CFR
93.105;
(
d)
conformity
of
transportation
plans
is
determined
no
less
frequently
than
every
four
years,
and
conformity
of
plan
amendments
and
transportation
projects
is
demonstrated
in
accordance
with
the
timing
requirements
specified
in
40
CFR
93.104;
(
e)
the
latest
planning
assumptions
and
emissions
model
are
used
as
set
forth
in
40
CFR
93.110
and
40
CFR
93.111;
(
6)
projects
do
not
cause
or
contribute
to
any
new
localized
carbon
monoxide
or
particulate
matter
violations,
in
accordance
with
procedures
specified
in
40
CFR
93.123;
and,
(
7)
project
sponsors
and/
or
operators
provide
appropriate
written
commitments
as
specified
in
40
CFR
93.125.

The
"
PM­
10
Maintenance
Plan
for
the
Weirton,
West
Virginia
Area,
May
24,
2004"
meets
the
requirements
for
a
fully
approved
maintenance
plan.
The
Weirton
area
maintenance
plan
will
be
reassessed
not
later
than
eight
years
after
the
area
is
redesignated
to
attainment,
provided
that
the
PM­
10
standard
continues
to
be
in
effect.

IV.
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDED
AGENCY
ACTION
21
The
West
Virginia
Redesignation
Request
and
Limited
Maintenance
Plan
for
the
Weirton
Area
fulfills
the
criteria
for
redesignation
to
attainment
with
the
PM­
10
NAAQS.
The
submitted
maintenance
plan
meets
the
requirements
of
the
Act,
and
the
Weirton
Area
fulfills
the
criteria
for
redesignation
to
attainment
for
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
based
on
the
State's
May
24,
2004
submission.
The
area
has
continued
to
attain
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
and
therefore
certain
attainment
demonstration
requirements,
along
with
other
related
requirements
of
Part
D
Title
I
of
the
CAA
as
set
forth
above,
are
not
applicable
to
the
area.
I
recommend
a
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
to
redesignate
the
Weirton
PM­
10
moderate
nonattainment
area
to
attainment
and
to
approve
the
West
Virginia
SIP
revision
for
the
10­
year
maintenance
plan
for
the
Weirton
Area,
submitted
on
May
24,
2004.
