[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12769]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 25, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 100
Wednesday, May 25, 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL25-1-5289; FRL-4887-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Illinois
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
proposes conditional approval of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision request submitted by the State of Illinois 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). The SIP revision
request was submitted by the State to satisfy the Federal requirement
for an approvable nonattainment area PM SIP for the Lake Calumet,
McCook, and Granite City nonattainment areas. These areas were
designated nonattainment for PM and classified as moderate by the Clean
Air Act (Act), upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments (amended Act). The
Act requires that States submit plans by November 15, 1991 for those
areas designated nonattainment and classified as moderate for PM upon
enactment (the ``initial moderate nonattainment areas'').
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by June 24,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to:J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch
(AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Pohlman, Regulation Development
Branch, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3299.
Reference file IL25-1-5289.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM nonattainment
areas are set out in title I of the Act1. The USEPA has issued a
``General Preamble'' describing USEPA's preliminary views on how USEPA
intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under title I of the
Act, including those State submittals relating to moderate PM
nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April
16, 1992)). The reader should refer to the General Preamble for a
detailed discussion of the interpretations of title I and the
supporting rationale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The 1990 Amendments to the Act made significant changes to
the air quality planning requirements for areas that do not meet (or
that significantly contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby
area that does not meet) the PM national ambient air quality
standards (see Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399). References
herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part D of title I contains the provisions applicable to
nonattainment areas. Moderate PM nonattainment areas must meet the
applicable requirements of subparts 1 and 4 of part D. Subpart 1
contains provisions generally applicable to all nonattainment areas and
subpart 4 contains provisions specifically applicable to PM
nonattainment areas. At times, Subparts 1 and 4 overlap or conflict.
USEPA has attempted to clarify the relationship among these various
provisions in the General Preamble and, as appropriate, in this
proposed rule.
Those States containing initial moderate PM nonattainment areas
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 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 progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of
PM precursors except where the Administrator determines that such
sources do not contribute significantly to PM levels which exceed the
NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.
Some additional provisions are due at a later date. States with
initial moderate PM nonattainment areas were required to submit a
permit program for the construction and operation of new and modified
stationary sources of PM by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a) of the
Act). Such States also were required to submit contingency measures by
November 15, 1993 which become effective without further action by the
State or USEPA, upon a determination by USEPA that the area has failed
to achieve RFP or to attain the PM NAAQS by the applicable statutory
deadline (see section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-13544).
II. This Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing USEPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). USEPA proposes to
conditionally approve the plan revision request submitted to USEPA on
May 15, 1992, for the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City
nonattainment areas because it strengthens the existing SIP. Public
comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on USEPA's
proposed rulemaking action. The USEPA will consider any comments
received during the public comment period before taking final action on
the requested SIP revision.
A. Analysis of State Submittal
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans for submission to USEPA. 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.2 Section 110(d) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Illinois held a public hearing on October 21, 1991, in
Chicago, and on October 29, 1991, in Edwardsville, Illinois to
entertain public comment on the implementation plan for the Lake
Calumet, McCook, and Granite City nonattainment areas. Following the
public hearing the plan was adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control
Board on April 9, 1992. The plan was submitted to USEPA on May 15,
1992, as a revision to the SIP, with a request that USEPA approve the
revision.
The USEPA must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further USEPA review and action (see section
110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The USEPA's completeness criteria for SIP
submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended
by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The USEPA attempts to make
completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submittal.
However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a
completeness determination is not made by USEPA 6 months after receipt
of the submission.
The SIP revision was reviewed by USEPA to determine completeness
shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the completeness
criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended by 57
FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The submittal was found to be complete and
a letter dated June 25, 1992, was forwarded to the Manager, Division of
Air Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)
indicating the completeness of the submittal and the next steps to be
taken in the review process.
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. Further, for the attainment demonstration, the SIP
must contain a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of
allowable emissions in the area. Because the submission of an emissions
inventory is necessary to an area's attainment demonstration (or
demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain), the emissions
inventory must be received with the submission (see 57 FR 13539).
The emissions inventory for the three nonattainment areas contains
emissions data for over 1000 process and fugitive PM sources. The
emissions inventory was received with the submittal of May 15, 1992.
The base year for the emissions inventory is 1991. A review of the
emissions inventory has revealed that the emissions data for most
emission units are appropriate. However, USEPA has questioned the
emission rates for several sources. The USEPA believes that Illinois
has underestimated emissions from the roof monitors for the Basic
Oxygen Furnaces (BOFs) at Granite City Steel (GCS) and Acme Steel; the
quench towers at GCS, Acme Steel, and LTV Steel; the rotary kiln
incinerator at CWM Chemical Services; 3 coal fired boilers at CPC
International; and, 3 coal fired boilers at GM Electromotive Division.
For further information on the emissions rates, see the Technical
Support Documents (TSDs) dated January 10, 1994, and April 25, 1994,
available at the above address.
A detailed description of the process and methodologies used by the
IEPA to develop the emission inventory for the three nonattainment
areas was submitted in a report titled ``Emissions Inventory Report for
McCook, Lake Calumet, & Granite City PM Study Areas'' which is part of
the docket for this requested SIP revision. The report indicates that
industrial facilities were the primary concern in the three
nonattainment areas. These facilities include metal manufacturers,
mineral product manufacturers, food/agriculture facilities, and other
PM emitters.
3. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted, states which contain initial moderate PM nonattainment
areas must 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
USEPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57
FR 13539-13545 and 13560-13561). The USEPA's interpretation of this
requirement is set out here only in broad terms.
The State should first identify available control measures
evaluating them for their reasonableness in light of the feasibility of
the controls and the attainment needs of the area. A State may reject
an available control measure if the measure is technologically
infeasible or the cost of the control is unreasonable. The state must
demonstrate that its submitted provisions provide for attainment of the
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31,
1994 (unless the State demonstrates that attainment by that date is
impracticable). Therefore, if a State adopts less than all available
measures but demonstrates, adequately and appropriately, that RFP and
attainment of the PM NAAQS is assured, and application of all such
available measures would not result in attainment any faster, then a
plan which requires implementation of less than all available measures
may be approved as meeting the RACM requirement. As a suggested
starting point, USEPA has identified reasonably available control
measures for sources of fugitive dust, residential wood combustion, and
prescribed burning (see 57 FR 18072-18074 (April 28, 1992)). The State
should add to the list of available measures in an area any measures
that public commenters demonstrate may well be reasonably available in
a particular circumstance.
The RACT for a particular source is similarly determined. The
USEPA's longstanding definition of RACT is the lowest emission
limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of control technology that is reasonably available,
considering technological and economic feasibility (see 57 FR 13541).
Thus, USEPA recommends that available control technology be applied to
those existing sources in the area that are reasonable to control in
light of the attainment needs of the area and the feasibility of
controls.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\USEPA has issued technological and economic parameters that
should be considered in determining RACT for a particular source
(see 57 FR 18073-18074).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A State should submit a reasoned justification for partial or full
rejection of any available control measure (including any available
control technology) that explains, with appropriate documentation, why
each rejected control measure is infeasible or otherwise unreasonable
and, therefore, does not constitute RACM (or RACT) for the area. In
those PM nonattainment areas where mobile sources significantly
contribute to the PM air quality problem, States also must address the
section 108(f) transportation control measures (see 57 FR 13561).
The submitted control measures for point sources in the Lake
Calumet, McCook, and Granite City nonattainment areas include a general
grain loading limit of 0.03 grains per standard cubic foot (gr/scf), as
well as control measures for specific sources. The specific control
measures consist of regulations that impose grain loading limits,
pounds per ton limits, and pounds per million british thermal units
limits (lb/MMBTU). Other control measures for specific sources are
listed in sections 212.324, 212.362, 212.425, 212.458, and 212.464 of
Title 35: Environmental Protection; Subtitle B: Air Pollution; Chapter
1: Pollution Control Board, of the Illinois Administrative Code (35
IAC). The new regulations impose tighter and more enforceable limits
than the current SIP approved rules.
Compliance with the above mentioned point source limits will be
determined by Method 201 or Method 201A of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations 40 CFR part 51, appendix M or Method 5, 40 CFR part
60, appendix A. See 35 IAC 212.108.
The control measures for the area sources consist of opacity limits
for roadways, crushing and screening operations, storage piles, and
some material handling operations such as truck loading. Rule 35 IAC
212.316(b) imposes a 10 percent opacity limit on screening and crushing
operations. There is a 10 percent or 5 percent opacity limit on
roadways, depending on the roadway's location. Rule 35 IAC 212.316(d)
imposes a 10 percent opacity limit on storage piles. Rule 35 IAC
212.316(e)(2) imposes additional opacity limits for marine terminals,
including a 10 percent opacity limit on truck and railcar loading. Rule
35 IAC 212.316(f) imposes a 20 percent opacity limit for all sources in
the three nonattainment areas except for certain metal manufacturing
and agricultural sources. These regulations impose stricter limits than
the current SIP approved statewide 30 percent opacity limit.
Measurement of opacity from area sources other than roadways and
parking areas shall be determined by Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A. Opacity determinations for roadways and parking areas shall be
determined by taking 3 opacity readings for each vehicle pass. The
first reading will be taken at the point of maximum opacity. The second
reading will be taken 5 seconds later and the third reading will be
taken another 5 seconds later. After 4 vehicle passes, the 12 readings
will be averaged. See 35 IAC 212.109.
Illinois must resolve the emissions inventory issues raised in the
preceding section and provide a modeled attainment demonstration which
reflects revisions to the emissions inventory. The measures determined
to be necessary to demonstrate attainment will be evaluated by USEPA to
determine whether they meet the RACM/RACT requirement.
4. Attainment Demonstration
As noted, for its initial moderate PM nonattainment areas a state
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). Alternatively, the State must show that
attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable. In the General
Preamble, USEPA indicated that the attainment demonstrations for the
initial moderate areas must follow existing modeling guidelines for PM
or, if appropriate, may be developed consistent with the supplemental
attainment demonstration policy issued for initial moderate areas (see
57 FR 13539).
In the development of the three-area modeling analysis, IEPA
followed a modeling protocol which had been reviewed in 1990 by USEPA
and found to be consistent with USEPA guidance. The following is a
summary of the modeling details.
The Industrial Source Complex short and long term models (ISCST and
ISCLT, respectively) were chosen for this analysis for their ability to
handle different source types at multiple locations. ISCST version
90346 was used to perform the 24-hour PM analysis, and ISCLT version
90008 was used to predict annual PM concentrations. Based on land-use
analyses, IEPA used rural dispersion coefficients for the McCook and
Granite City areas, and urban dispersion coefficients for the Lake
Calumet area. As recommended by USEPA guidance, IEPA placed receptors
at a resolution of 100 meters at fencelines and in areas where high
impacts had been indicated.
For the Lake Calumet area, IEPA used 5 years of meteorological data
from two stations operated by the Lake County (Indiana) Attainment Task
Force in Hammond and Whiting, IN. These sites are representative of the
meteorological conditions at Lake Calumet, since they are nearby and
they account for the effects of Lake Michigan. If on-site
meteorological data is not available, USEPA requires the use of at
least 5 years of quality-assured data from the nearest or most
representative meteorological site. This practice ensures that
potential worst-case meteorological conditions will be identified and
considered in the modeling analysis. Five years of National Weather
Service data from Midway Airport was used for the McCook area, and five
years of data from the St. Louis, Missouri airport was used for the
Granite City area.
Illinois' emissions inventory included stack sources, process
fugitive sources, and open fugitive dust sources. Generally, Illinois
modeled process fugitive sources as volume sources and open fugitive
dust sources as area sources in the ISCST and ISCLT models. Building
downwash was considered for those sources affected by nearby building
turbulence. Roof monitors and coke ovens were modeled as series of
volume sources. Nonbuoyant process fugitive emission sources such as
crushers, screens, and conveyors were treated as area sources. Open
fugitive emissions caused by material handling and vehicle traffic on
both paved and unpaved roads were modeled as area sources.
IEPA used a screening procedure to evaluate the air quality impacts
of sources operating at load levels below maximum design capacity. Some
sources caused maximum impacts at loads less than full capacity. The
short term analyses for the final attainment demonstration employed
stack parameters and emission rates which represented the load levels
which gave the greatest ambient impacts. The annual analyses used stack
parameters and emission rates which represented average operating
conditions.
Background PM concentrations in the area were determined from local
monitored data. Three monitors are located in the McCook area, three
are located in the Lake Calumet area, and five are located in the
Granite City area. IEPA used wind direction information to eliminate
portions of the monitored data from the background calculations, in
order to avoid double-counting emissions due to sources explicitly
modeled. Growth factors which were developed using each county's
projected increases in vehicular traffic were applied to the background
concentrations. Daily background concentrations were then added to the
modeled 24-hour average concentrations to obtain the final predicted
totals. In the long term modeling, Illinois used a single annual
background value. The average annual background concentrations used
were 34.08, 28.39, and 29.99 micrograms per cubic meter (g/
m3) for the Lake Calumet, Granite City, and McCook nonattainment
areas respectively.
In the submitted modeled demonstrations, which use 5 years of
meteorological data, a violation of the 24 hour NAAQS is indicated when
six exceedances of the 24 hour standard are predicted. The 24 hour PM
standard is 150 g/m3. Each receptor's predicted sixth
highest 24 hour value is, therefore, compared to the standard. The
highest, sixth highest predicted 24 hour PM concentration at any
receptor in the McCook area was 145.6 micrograms per cubic meter
(g/m3), in the Lake Calumet area, 145.2 g/
m3, and in the Granite City area, 147.8 g/m3. Thus,
the modeling analysis predicts that the 24 hour NAAQS will be protected
for all three areas. A modeled violation of the annual PM standard is
indicated when any receptor's 5 year arithmetic mean annual PM
concentration exceeds the annual PM standard of 50 g/m3.
The highest arithmetic mean annual PM concentration predicted by the
modeling for the McCook area was 49.9 g/m3, for the Lake
Calumet area, 46.9 g/m3, and for the Granite City area,
49.0 g/m3. Therefore, the annual PM NAAQS will be
protected in these areas.
Because of the length of time it may take to determine whether an
area has attained the standards, USEPA recommends that PM nonattainment
area SIP submittals demonstrate maintenance of the PM NAAQS for at
least 3 years beyond the applicable attainment date. (See a August 20,
1991, memorandum from Fred H. Renner, Jr. to Regional Air Branch Chiefs
titled ``Questions and Answers for Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide,
and Lead'') While Illinois' submittal did take growth into account in
the modeling analysis, it did not adequately address maintenance of the
NAAQS for PM in the nonattainment areas.
The refined air quality modeling analysis supplied by IEPA in
support of the Illinois PM plan indicates that the NAAQS for PM will be
protected under the proposed PM control strategies. As mentioned
previously, Illinois must resolve the issues pertaining to the
emissions inventory and, where necessary, prepare a revised attainment
demonstration including a demonstration that the NAAQS will be
maintained for 3 years beyond the attainment date. The control strategy
used to control PM emissions is summarized in the section of this
notice titled ``RACM (including RACT)''. For a more detailed
description of the attainment demonstration and control strategy used,
see the TSDs prepared in support of this proposed rule.
5. PM Precursors
The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM must also apply to major stationary sources of PM
precursors, unless USEPA determines such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM levels which exceed the NAAQS in that area (see
section 189(e) of the Act). The control requirements that apply to
major stationary sources in PM nonattainment areas generally include
the following: reasonably available control technology, which applies
in moderate PM nonattainment areas; best available control technology,
which applies in serious PM nonattainment areas; and control
requirements under the applicable new source review provisions, such as
the lowest achievable emission rate. The General Preamble contains a
lengthy discussion on control requirements for PM precursors in
moderate nonattainment areas and on the type of technical information
USEPA will rely on in making any determinations under section 189(e)
(see 57 FR 13539-13540 and 13541-13542).
Weather stagnation is not characteristic of the three nonattainment
areas. Reduction of precursor concentrations would require reduction of
indeterminately located sources well upwind of the nonattainment area.
Control of precursors in the nonattainment area would have little if
any impact on particulate matter concentrations in the nonattainment
area. For this reason, it is appropriate to conclude that precursors do
not contribute significantly to particulate matter concentrations in
the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City nonattainment areas. Note
that while USEPA is making a general finding for this area, today's
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. The USEPA intends to issue future guidance
addressing such potential changes in the significance of precursor
emissions in an area.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
The PM nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating attainment
must contain quantitative milestones, which are to be achieved every 3
years, until the area is redesignated attainment. The plan must also
demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1), toward attainment by
December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act). Reasonable further
progress is defined in section 171(1) as such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required
by part D or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the
purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the
applicable date.
USEPA has indicated (see 57 FR 13539) that for the initial moderate
PM nonattainment areas, the emissions reductions progress made between
the SIP submittal due date of November 15, 1991 and the attainment date
of December 31, 1994, (only 46 days beyond the November 15, 1994
milestone date) will satisfy the first milestone requirement. The de
minimis timing differential makes it administratively impracticable to
require separate milestone and attainment demonstrations. In
implementing RFP for an initial moderate area, USEPA will review the
attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area and
determine whether annual incremental reductions different from those
provided in the SIP may reasonably be required in order to ensure
attainment of the PM NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)).
The control strategy for the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City
nonattainment areas went into effect on May 11, 1993. At this time, it
is unknown if RFP has been achieved because a revised attainment
demonstration is still pending. USEPA will make any such determination
in a separate action.
7. Enforceability
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable both
by the State and USEPA. See sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR
13556. The USEPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP
revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with
attachments) from the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,
et. al., entitled ``Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency'' and with an attached memo
with the same date and title which contained more detailed guidance
from the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air Enforcement et. al. (see
discussion at 57 FR 13541). The criteria include, for example,
applicability to sources, compliance date(s), compliance periods, test
methods, recordkeeping requirements, and any exemptions or variances.
In addition to enforceable requirements, nonattainment area plan
provisions must 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 are addressed
above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control
measures apply to the types of activities identified in that
discussion, including, for example, grain loading limits, pound per ton
limits, and lb/MMBTU limits for point sources and opacity limits for
roadways and storage piles. The SIP provides that these control
measures apply to the areas defined in section 212.324(a)(1). These
areas match the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City nonattainment
areas.
The State of Illinois uses two approaches to regulate PM emissions,
``testing'' and ``observation''. Testing is the common approach to
control particulate matter from large process emission sources. In this
approach the emission limit is set as allowable concentration, e.g.
grain/scf, or an allowable emission factor, e.g. lbs/ton throughput.
Compliance with the emission limit is evaluated by initial emissions
testing using an appropriate method. For PM, the appropriate test
methods are Method 201 and Method 201A of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M or
Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Method 202 of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix M is used if condensibles is also to be tested. Besides
emissions tests, compliance is determined by a combination of
techniques, including reviewing operating records, observation of stack
opacity, and monitoring of stack opacity. These techniques are used to
assure that the equipment is being operated in a manner that is
consistent with that used during testing. If the manner of operation
deviates significantly from that used during testing, the equipment
must be restored to the manner of operation used during testing or the
equipment must be tested again. There are recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that are used to help verify proper operation and
maintenance of the control equipment.
The second approach to control of particulate matter emissions,
relies solely on visual observation of the exhaust. This
``observation'' approach is particularly relevant where existing or
small sources are being considered. This approach determines whether or
not visible emissions from equipment have exceeded opacity limitations.
Upon review of Illinois' submittal, USEPA has identified several
enforcement concerns. They are as follows:
a. On December 29, 1992, USEPA approved general opacity limitations
for the State of Illinois. See 57 FR 61834. These opacity limitations
are found at subpart B under 35 IAC 212. Subpart B of 35 IAC 212 is a
recodification of the former Rule 202. These regulations impose a 30
percent opacity limit for most sources.
The coke oven regulations of the Illinois SIP exempt coke oven
sources from all of Rule 202 of the State of Illinois Air Pollution
Control Regulations. This exemption in the state regulations was
approved on September 3, 1981, (46 FR 44177) as Rule 203(d)(5)(B)(i)
and is now codified as 35 IAC 212.443(a).
Currently, PM emissions from coke oven combustion stacks in
Illinois are limited to 0.05 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf). USEPA conditionally approved this limit on September 3, 1981.
Currently, coke oven combustion stacks exist at LTV Steel, GCS, and
Acme Steel. The LTV combustion stack is limited to a 0.03 gr/dscf by a
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit.
USEPA inspectors have observed emissions of greater than 60 percent
opacity at the LTV Steel coke oven combustion stack. As recent stack
tests have confirmed, this stack is not in compliance with its mass
limit while emitting at this opacity. However, without the benefit of
an opacity limit, enforcement was delayed for months until stack test
results were obtained, even after high opacity emissions were observed.
An opacity limit on this stack will better assure compliance with the
grain loading limit.
To better assure compliance with the grain loading limit, the State
needs to impose an opacity limit on the coke oven combustion stacks
that is reflective of their mass emission limit.
b. USEPA considers the rules that apply to the electric arc furnace
roof vents at American Steel Foundries to be unenforceable because the
stacks can not be tested for compliance. IEPA should develop an
enforceable limit that is reflective of the emissions which are in the
modeled attainment demonstration.
c. Section 212.107, Measurement Methods for Visible Emissions,
states that Method 22 should be used for ``detection of visible
emissions''. This could be misinterpreted as requiring use of Method 22
for sources subject to opacity limits as well as sources subject to
limits on detectability of visible emissions. USEPA recommends revising
the language of the rule to state that ``For both process emission
sources and fugitive particulate matter sources, a determination as to
the presence or absence of visible emissions shall be in accordance
with Method 22 ...''.
d. Measurement methods for opacity, visible emissions, and ``PM''
are in section 212.110, and in separate sections 212.107, 212.108, and
212.109. The measurement methods in these sections are not always
consistent with each other. USEPA recommends that the measurement
methods in 212.107, 212.108, and 212.109 be integrated with section
212.110.
e. Several of the submitted rules contain language which exempts
sources with no visible emissions from mass emissions limits. It is
USEPA's understanding that the State intends for these exemptions to
apply to small, well-controlled sources. However, the way the
exemptions are worded, they could be misinterpreted to exclude many
other sources from mass emissions limits. The rules containing these
exemptions need to be more clear about exactly what sources are to be
exempt, and when.
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
were required to be submitted by November 15, 1993 for the initial
moderate nonattainment areas. On January 21, 1994, the USEPA made a
finding that Illinois had failed to submit the required PM contingency
measures. If Illinois does not make a complete submission of these
contingency measures within 18 months of the findings letter, USEPA
will be mandated to use its authority under section 179(a) of the Act
to impose at least one sanction identified in section 179(b) of the Act
in the affected nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should
consist of other available measures that are not part of the area's
current control strategy. These measures must take effect without
further action by the State or USEPA, upon a determination by USEPA
that the area has failed to make RFP or attain the PM NAAQS by the
applicable statutory deadline. The USEPA will take separate rulemaking
action on the contingency plan for the Lake Calumet, McCook, and
Granite City nonattainment areas.
III. USEPA's Proposed Rulemaking Action
The USEPA proposes to grant conditional approval to the plan
revision submitted to USEPA by the State of Illinois on May 15, 1992,
for the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City PM nonattainment areas.
Illinois' requested SIP revision does not include a complete and
accurate emissions inventory, which, in turn, leads to an unacceptable
attainment demonstration. However, the submitted regulations do require
stricter limitations than the current applicable SIP.
The conditional approval is based on the State's enforceable
commitment to meet five requirements within one year from the date of
final conditional approval. The State submitted a letter on March 2,
1994, committing to meet these requirements within one year of final
conditional approval. The first requirement is for the State to adopt
additional enforceable control measures, if necessary, that will
achieve attainment. The second requirement is for the State to submit a
complete and accurate emissions inventory (including corrected
emissions estimates, as well as any new control measures which may be
needed) and an acceptable modeled attainment demonstration. The third
requirement is for the State to impose an opacity limit for coke oven
combustion stacks which is reflective of their mass emission limits.
The fourth requirement is for the State to provide an appropriate
regulation for the electric arc furnaces at American Steel Foundries.
The fifth requirement is for the State to correct the three other
enforcement concerns listed above as c-e under the heading
``Enforceability''.
If the State ultimately fails to meet its commitment within one
year of final conditional approval, then USEPA's action for the State's
requested SIP revision will automatically convert to a final limited
approval/disapproval. The limited approval would entail approval of the
submitted regulations into the Illinois SIP for their strengthening
effect, and disapproval of the attainment demonstration and the
emissions inventory.
IV. Request for Public Comments
USEPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed rule.
As indicated at the outset of this notice, USEPA will consider any
comments received by June 24, 1994.
V. Processing Procedures
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). On January 6, 1989, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions
(54 FR 2222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order
12991 for a period of 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 is still applicable under Executive Order 12866. Nothing
in this action should be constructed as permitting, allowing, or
establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due
to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: May 12, 1994.
Michelle D. Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-12769 Filed 5-24-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F