[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2848]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 8, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN5-1-5192; FRL-4835-5]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On January 11, 1991, the Indiana Department of Environmental 
Management (IDEM) submitted amendments of its source monitoring rules 
and sulfur dioxide (SO2) rules to the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (USEPA) as State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. 
Because of unsupported emission limit relaxations and enforceability 
deficiencies in the amended State regulations, USEPA is proposing to 
disapprove this SIP revision request.

DATES: Comments on this revision and on the proposed USEPA action must 
be received by March 10, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J), 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Onischak at (312) 353-5954. (It 
is recommended that you telephone before visiting the Region 5 Office.) 
Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are available 
for inspection at the following address:
    Regulation Development Branch, Regulation Development Section (AR-
18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of State Submittal

    On January 11, 1991, IDEM submitted its amended source monitoring 
rules and sulfur dioxide (SO2) rules to USEPA as Indiana State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. The submittal amends 326 Indiana 
Administrative Code (IAC) Articles 3 and 7. Because the rules contain 
enforceability deficiencies and unsupported emission limit relaxations, 
USEPA proposes to disapprove the January 11, 1991 submittal.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

    Indiana's revised monitoring rule consists of 326 IAC 3-1.1, 3-2.1, 
and 3-3. The revised sulfur dioxide rule consists of 326 IAC 7-1.1, 7-
2, 7-3, and 7-4. The following paragraphs describe the individual 
rules.

326 IAC 3-1.1

    326 IAC 3-1.1 requires continuous emission monitoring for sources 
in several categories, including large fossil fuel-fired steam 
generators, sulfuric acid producers, and catalytic cracking units. 
Fossil fuel-fired steam generators of greater than 100 million British 
Thermal Units per hour (MMBTU/hr) heat input capacity are required 
under this rule to continuously monitor their emissions for opacity, 
nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and oxygen or carbon monoxide content. 
The rule allows IDEM's Commissioner to require additional sources to 
use continuous monitoring equipment. This rule contains the minimum 
emission monitoring requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix 
P.
    326 IAC 3-1.1 requires facilities to report excess emissions 
quarterly, and allows 3-hour block averaging of gaseous measurements. 
This averaging time is consistent with the SO2 National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Facility owners must keep all monitoring 
records on file for 2 years. These requirements are consistent with 40 
CFR part 51, appendix P. The rule requires facility owners to submit to 
IDEM written standard operating procedures describing calibration and 
quality control procedures for the operation of all required continuous 
emission monitors. The rule also sets forth conversion factors to be 
used with monitoring data.
    326 IAC 3-1.1 refers to 40 CFR [part] 60, appendix B for the 
performance specifications of the required monitoring equipment, and 
specifies that where reference is made to the ``Administrator'' in 40 
CFR [part] 60, appendix B, the term ``Commissioner'' is to be inserted 
for the purposes of this rule. Such substitution is allowed by USEPA, 
according to 40 CFR part 51, appendix P, paragraph 3.1. The USEPA has 
set forth explicit criteria for the Commissioner's modification of the 
rule's requirements in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. However, 
``Commissioner's discretion'' language that USEPA finds unacceptable 
for the reasons described in section III below appears in other 
portions of 326 IAC 3-1.1, e.g., 326 IAC 3-1.1-1 (waivers) and 326 IAC 
3-1.1-2 (alternate instrument response settings), and renders these 
rules unapprovable.

326 IAC 3-2.1

    326 IAC 3-2.1 provides reporting requirements and specifies the 
facility operating conditions under which emission testing should be 
performed. The rule also prescribes specific testing procedures for 
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile 
organic compounds. It specifies that sources should use emission test 
methodologies set forth in 40 CFR [part] 61, appendix A, and 40 CFR 
[part] 61, appendix B. This is incorrect. The rule should cite 40 CFR 
Part 60, appendix A, rather than 40 CFR [part] 61, appendix A. In 
addition, the rule allows the State to authorize alternate emission 
test methods, changes in test procedure, or alternate operating load 
levels during tests. Such ``Commissioner's discretion'' is not 
acceptable to USEPA, for the reasons described below in section III.

326 IAC 3-3

    326 IAC 3-3 prescribes sampling and analysis procedures for coal 
and fuel oil. Sources with total coal-fired capacity of 1500 or more 
MMBTU/hr actual heat input must collect composite samples daily, in 
accordance with specified American Society for Testing and Materials 
(ASTM) procedures. Sources with total coal-fired capacity between 100 
and 1500 MMBTU/hr actual heat input must draw coal samples at least 3 
times per day and at least once per 8-hour period, but may composite 
and analyze these samples monthly. It is not acceptable for facilities 
of this size to perform only monthly coal analysis to determine 
compliance. Monthly analysis will not ensure that the short-term 
SO2 NAAQS will be protected. 326 IAC 3-3 does not specify coal 
sampling analysis procedures to be used by facilities with total coal-
fired heat input capacity less than 100 MMBTU/hr. These small 
facilities are required by 326 IAC 7-2 to report coal analysis data, as 
collected pursuant to 326 IAC 3-3, but it is not clear whether each 
facility must use the coal sampling and analysis methods prescribed for 
the larger facilities or is expected to provide its own alternative 
method. This rule also allows ``Commissioner's discretion'' in 
prescribing and in performing alternate fuel sampling and analysis 
procedures. The USEPA believes that such discretion is unacceptable for 
the reasons described below in section III of this document.

326 IAC 7-1.1

    326 IAC 7-1.1 sets forth general SO2 emission limits for fuel 
combustion facilities with a potential to emit 25 tons per year or 10 
pounds per hour of SO2. Facilities are also required to comply 
with specific emission limitations pursuant to 326 IAC 7-4, if 
applicable. 326 IAC 7-1.1 introduces SO2 emission limits for oil-
burning facilities. Facilities combusting residual oil may not exceed 
1.6 pounds SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU) of 
SO2, and facilities combusting distillate oil may not emit more 
than 0.5 lb/MMBTU of SO2. 326 IAC 7-1.1 continues to state that 
facilities combusting coal may not emit more than 6.0 lb/MMBTU. 
Facilities which use both coal and oil simultaneously as fuel must 
adhere to the SO2 emission limit for coal alone. Facilities which 
use both oil and any fuel other than coal simultaneously must not 
exceed the SO2 emission limit for the oil alone. This rule allows 
facilities to meet their SO2 emission limits by combining their 
usual fuel with lower-sulfur fuels. However, this rule fails to couple 
the lb/MMBTU emission limits with any applicable averaging time. The 
rule should require compliance with the emission limits on at least a 
three-hour basis in order to assure compliance with the short-term 
SO2 NAAQS. Since the averaging time applicable to these emission 
limits is not made clear either in this rule or in other portions of 
Indiana's SO2 SIP, 326 IAC 7-1.1 cannot be approved.

326 IAC 7-2

    326 IAC 7-2 specifies that compliance or noncompliance with 
emission limits can be determined by a stack test in accordance with 
the test methods in 40 CFR [part] 60, appendix A. Continuous emission 
monitoring data collected pursuant to 326 IAC 3-1 may be used to 
determine compliance with emission limits. 326 IAC 7-2 also requires 
facilities to report the results of fuel sampling and analysis. Fuel 
combustion sources with total coal-fired heat input capacity of 1500 
MMBTU/hr or greater are to keep records of average daily coal sulfur 
content and SO2 emission rate (in units of lb/MMBTU). Sources with 
total coal-fired heat input capacity between 100 and 1500 MMBTU/hr need 
only record and report average monthly coal sulfur content and SO2 
emission rate. Monthly coal analysis is not acceptable for facilities 
of this size. Long-term averaging does not assure compliance with the 
short-term SO2 NAAQS, since shorter periods of high emissions may 
not be detected. Sources with total coal-fired heat input capacity less 
than 100 MMBTU/hr may submit either calendar month or annual average 
coal sulfur content and SO2 emission data. While it may be 
reasonable for very small sources to have less stringent sampling and 
analysis requirements, the calculation and reporting of an annual 
average alone is not acceptable. This would not be an acceptable 
determination of continuous compliance.
    326 IAC 7-2 specifies that SO2 emission rates for fuel 
combustion sources should be calculated based on emission factors 
published in AP-42, ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.'' 
If compliance is to be determined through fuel sampling and analysis, 
USEPA prefers that SO2 emissions be calculated under the 
assumption that 100 percent of the fuel sulfur content will be emitted 
from the facility as SO2. The factors given in AP-42, however, are 
acceptable. 326 IAC
7-2 also allows IDEM's Commissioner to approve alternate SO2 
emission factors based on sulfur dioxide measurements, but the rule 
does not specify the rigorous scientific support required, or that the 
alternate emission factors will be included in site-specific SIP 
revisions. Therefore, this rule cannot be approved. For compliance 
determinations, USEPA cannot allow the Commissioner to have blanket 
authority to accept emission factors other than the generally 
applicable factors given in AP-42 for SO2 emission calculations 
from fuel sampling data. To be approvable, 326 IAC 7-2 must set forth 
any site-specific alternative emission factors allowed by the State, 
and the State must compile sufficient technical support for the use of 
those emission factors. Additional site-specific emission factors 
should not be allowed except through site-specific SIP revisions, which 
must support the alternate emission factors with data from a series of 
emission tests and provide for periodic reverification of the emission 
factors' accuracy. In any case, 326 IAC 7-2 should also clearly state 
the approved emission factors and formulae to be used in calculating 
SO2 emission rates from fuel analysis data.

326 IAC 7-3

    326 IAC 7-3 requires that sources with total actual emissions of 
SO2 greater than 10,000 tons per year install and operate ambient 
SO2 monitors. The rule gives IDEM's Commissioner discretionary 
authority to grant waivers of all or part of the requirements of this 
rule. While the rule provides a set of criteria for reviewing these 
petitions, the rule should also require that monitoring data be 
provided in order to justify the waiver of requirements for further 
monitoring. The rule should also provide for USEPA review of any 
waivers.

326 IAC 7-4

    326 IAC 7-4 sets forth facility-specific SO2 emission 
limitations and recordkeeping requirements for Lake, Marion, Vigo, 
Wayne, LaPorte, Jefferson, Sullivan, Vermillion, Floyd, Warrick, 
Morgan, Gibson, Dearborn, and Porter Counties. The January 11, 1991 
submittal contains minor revisions to 326 IAC 7-4, which primarily 
consist of the removal of outdated interim compliance dates for various 
sources. The rule also reflects facility name changes that have 
occurred recently. However, in 326 IAC 7-4-1(c)(10), the emission 
limits for Inland Steel in Lake County have been relaxed. Similarly, 
the SO2 emission limits for Bethlehem Steel in Porter County have 
been relaxed in 326 IAC 7-4-14(1)(C). In the case of Inland Steel, 
which is located in an area currently designated as nonattainment for 
SO2, section 193 of the Clean Air Act precludes approval of this 
SIP revision. Section 193, the general savings clause, states that no 
SIP requirements in effect in a nonattainment area before the date of 
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 may be relaxed unless 
equivalent or greater emission reductions are made. No emission 
reductions offsetting the Inland Steel relaxation have been identified 
by the State. Both the Inland Steel and the Bethlehem Steel relaxations 
are affected by section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits 
USEPA from approving a SIP revision if the revision would interfere 
with attainment. The USEPA can approve a SIP revision containing 
relaxations to existing emission limitations only if the State provides 
a modeled attainment demonstration performed according to USEPA 
guidelines to show that the relaxed limits will continue to protect the 
NAAQS. No information has been submitted to USEPA in support of the 
relaxed emission limitations for Inland Steel or Bethlehem Steel. 
Therefore, 326 IAC 7-4-1(c)(10) and 326 IAC 7-4-14(1)(C) cannot be 
approved.

III. Enforceability: ``Commissioner's Discretion''

    Rules containing ``Commissioner's discretion'' language allow 
IDEM's Commissioner to remove or modify federally enforceable 
requirements and restrictions for individual facilities. 
``Commissioner's discretion'' language is found in 326 IAC 3-1.1, 3-
2.1, 3-3, 7-2, and 7-3. Such language is unacceptable because it does 
not provide for USEPA review of rule modifications or exemptions made 
after USEPA's approval of the original rule. Modifications to SIP rules 
may affect an area's attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and may 
compromise the federal enforceability of the SIP limits. In order for 
``Commissioner's discretion'' language to be approvable, any subsequent 
rule modifications made by the Commissioner must not hamper the SIP's 
enforceability or ability to assure the protection and maintenance of 
the standards. The USEPA may approve the rule if it provides that any 
modifications will be submitted to USEPA as SIP revisions, or if the 
rule explicitly states the criteria which the Commissioner will use to 
evaluate any requests for rule modifications or exemptions. Without 
such provisions, USEPA cannot be certain that each facility subject to 
the original rule will comply with all of the rule's requirements. 
Therefore, rules containing ``Commissioner's discretion'' language 
without either federally approved criteria for the expected 
modifications or provisions for USEPA review of the modifications 
cannot be approved and incorporated into the SIP.

IV. Proposed Rulemaking Action and Solicitation of Public Comment

    The USEPA is proposing to disapprove Indiana's January 11, 1991 
submittal. The rules do not couple the general SO2 emission limits 
with compliance methods or averaging times adequate to ensure 
continuous compliance and maintenance of the NAAQS. 326 IAC 3-1.1, 3-
2.1, 3-3,
7-2, and 7-3 contain ``Commissioner's discretion'' language, which 
could hamper USEPA's ability to enforce the State rules. 326 IAC 3-2.1 
fails to properly cite the acceptable methodologies for source emission 
testing. 326 IAC 7-4 contains emission limits which are less stringent 
than the previously approved limits, and the January 11, 1991 submittal 
failed to show that the relaxations continue to protect the NAAQS. 
Because of these deficiencies, USEPA is proposing to disapprove the 
January 11, 1991 submittal.
    Public comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on 
USEPA's proposal to disapprove. Public comments received by March 10, 
1994 will be considered in the development of USEPA's final rulemaking 
action.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. The USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in 
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). A revision to the SIP processing 
review tables was approved by the Acting Assistant Administrator for 
the Office of Air and Radiation on October 4, 1993 (Michael Shapiro's 
memorandum to Regional Administrators). A future notice will inform the 
general public of these tables. Under the revised tables this action 
remains classified as a Table 2. On January 6, 1989, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 
2222) from the requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for 2 
years. The USEPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for 
Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue the waiver 
until such time as it rules on USEPA's request. This request continues 
in effect under Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order 
12291 on September 30, 1993.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.) 
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    The USEPA's disapproval of the State request under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing 
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal 
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its State 
enforceability. Moreover, USEPA's disapproval of the submittal does not 
impose any new federal requirements. Therefore, USEPA certifies that 
this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove 
existing requirements nor does it impose any new federal requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.


    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: January 26, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-2848 Filed 2-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P