[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28486]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 18, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[IL25-2-6544; FRL 5097-4]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On May 25, 1994, the USEPA proposed to conditionally approve a 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) request for Lake Calumet, McCook, and 
Granite City, Illinois. The request was 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). Public comments were solicited on the proposed SIP 
revision, and on USEPA's proposed rulemaking action. The public comment 
period ended on June 24, 1994, and two public comment letters were 
received. This rulemaking action conditionally approves, in final, the 
SIP revision request for Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City, 
Illinois as requested by Illinois.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on December 19, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal, and other materials 
relating to this rulemaking are available at the following address for 
review: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air 
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 
60604.
    The docket may be inspected between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 12 
noon and from 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. A 
reasonable fee may be charged by the USEPA for copying docket material.
    A copy of this SIP revision is available for inspection at: Office 
of Air and Radiation (OAR), Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 
6102), room 1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20460.

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.
    Anyone wishing to visit the Region 5 offices should first contact 
David Pohlman.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (Act), as amended 
on November 15, 1990 (amended Act), certain areas (``initial areas'') 
were designated nonattainment for PM. Under section 188 of the amended 
Act these initial areas were classified as ``moderate''. The initial 
areas include the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City, Illinois, 
nonattainment areas. (See 40 CFR 81.314 for a complete description of 
these areas.) Section 189 of the amended Act required State submission 
of a PM SIP for the initial areas by November 15, 1991.
    Illinois submitted the required SIP revision for the Lake Calumet, 
McCook, and Granite City, Illinois, PM nonattainment areas to USEPA on 
May 15, 1992. 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.
    Upon review of Illinois' submittal, USEPA identified several 
concerns. Illinois submitted a letter on March 2, 1994, committing to 
satisfy all of these concerns within one year of final conditional 
approval. The concerns are as follows:
    1. 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.
    2. 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 
an 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.
    3. 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 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.
    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.
    4. 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. The Illinois Environmental 
Protection Agency (IEPA) should develop an enforceable limit that is 
reflective of the emissions which are in the modeled attainment 
demonstration.
    5. The following enforceability concerns:
    a. 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 * * *''.
    b. 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.
    c. 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 clearer about exactly what sources are to be 
exempt, and when.

Response to Public Comments

    The public comment period ended on June 24, 1994. A joint comment 
letter was submitted by Acme Steel Company, Granite City Division of 
National Steel Company, Illinois Steel Group, and LTV Steel Company 
(steel companies). Public comments were also received from the American 
Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago (ALAMC). The comments, and 
USEPA responses follow.
    Comment: The steel companies commented that, for various reasons, 
USEPA's method of estimating BOF roof monitor emissions (as described 
in the January 10, 1994, Technical Support Document) results in 
unrealistically high emissions rate estimations.
    Response: The State did not include emissions from BOF roof 
monitors in either the emissions inventory or the attainment 
demonstration. It is clear that these sources do emit significant 
amounts of PM. While USEPA believes the emissions estimates in the 
Technical Support Document to be reasonable, they are not meant to be 
prescriptive. The USEPA realizes that estimating BOF roof monitor 
emissions can be somewhat subjective, and that different methods and 
assumptions may be used. When Illinois revises the emissions inventory 
to include these sources, USEPA will determine the acceptability of 
Illinois' emissions estimates based on their particular technical 
merits.
    Comment: The steel companies believe that USEPA has miscalculated 
the emissions from quench towers by using a 3,000 milligram per liter 
(mg/l) Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentration to determine 
emissions. The steel companies believe that the rules establish a 
maximum TDS limit of 1,200 mg/l.
    Response: 35 IAC 212.443(h)(2) establishes a weekly average TDS 
limit of 1,200 mg/l for quench water. The Illinois rules do not 
establish a daily maximum concentration. The TDS concentration in 
quench water on any given day could greatly exceed 1,200 mg/l, without 
violating the weekly average limit. Because the NAAQS for PM is a 24 
hour standard, the State must use the maximum allowable daily TDS 
concentration to determine allowable quench tower emissions. The USEPA 
believes that 3,000 mg/l is a reasonable estimate of the maximum 
allowable daily TDS concentration in quench water under the weekly 
average rule.
    Comment: The steel companies comment that the current grain loading 
limit on coke oven combustion stacks is enforceable through stack 
tests, and excess opacity can be the basis for requiring stack tests. 
There is, therefore, no basis for requiring opacity limits on coke oven 
combustion stacks.
    Response: On December 29, 1992, USEPA approved general opacity 
limitations for the State of Illinois under 35 IAC 212 subpart B. See 
57 FR 61834. These regulations impose a 30 percent opacity limit for 
most sources. It was originally thought that the 30 percent opacity 
limit would apply to the combustion stack for the LTV coke ovens. 
However, the Illinois coke oven regulations of the State regulations 
exempt coke oven sources from the general opacity limitations. 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). While there are currently federally enforceable grain 
loading limits on coke oven combustion stacks, enforcement of these 
limits can be a lengthy process. Once high opacity is observed, it can 
still take months for stack test results to be obtained. An opacity 
limit would not necessarily be more stringent than the current grain 
loading limit, but would be more easily enforceable.
    Comment: The ALAMC comments that the growth rates used by the State 
to predict future increases in background concentrations are 
unrealistically low, and that USEPA should require the State to use a 
realistic growth rate for background PM levels.
    Response: The growth factors used by Illinois were calculated by 
averaging successive 5-year growth factors for the 5 years preceding 
the study. The USEPA agrees that this method does not result in a 
realistic future growth rate. As stated in this notice, the State will 
be required to submit, as part of the revised attainment demonstration, 
a demonstration that the NAAQS for PM will be protected for at least 3 
years beyond the December 31, 1994, attainment date. The State must use 
more realistic estimations of future growth, such as projected growth 
rates, for the maintenance demonstration.
    Comment: The ALAMC comments that the omission of mobile sources of 
PM from the emissions inventory is inconsistent with section 172(c)(3) 
of the Act and should be corrected.
    Response: When compared to the major industrial sources in 
Illinois' PM nonattainment areas, PM emissions from mobile sources 
represent only a small portion of the total PM emissions. Also, the PM 
air quality impacts of mobile sources is a relatively constant 
proportion of the peak impacts, due to the more widespread or regional 
nature of these emissions. For these reasons, it is more reasonable to 
include these sources as a portion of the area's background 
concentration than to specifically inventory and model mobile sources. 
Other sources which are not specifically modeled, but are included in 
the area's background PM concentrations are combustion for space 
heating, construction activities, reentrainment of roadway dust, and 
windblown dust.
    Comment: The ALAMC comments that reasonably available mobile source 
controls, including enforcement of the State's heavy duty diesel 
vehicle opacity limit, should have been considered or, if not 
considered, the State should give a reason for not doing so.
    Response: In Illinois' initial study of the nonattainment areas, 
the State found that industrial emission sources were the dominant 
sources effecting air quality in these areas. The State also found that 
impacts from non-industrial sources, such as automobiles and 
reentrained road dust on public roads and construction, were a much 
smaller component of peak air quality impacts. For this reason, 
Illinois concentrated its efforts toward quantifying emissions 
associated with industrial activities. Also, if the State adopts less 
than all available measures but demonstrates, adequately and 
appropriately, that Reasonable Further Progress (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.
    Comment: The ALAMC comments that certain monitors may show 
exceedances of the annual NAAQS for PM, but this data is not 
statistically acceptable. ALAMC states that USEPA should require 
Illinois to provide statistically acceptable data from its monitors.
    Response: The data requirements for determining attainment and 
nonattainment of the PM NAAQS can be found at 40 CFR part 50, appendix 
K. A minimum of 75 percent of the scheduled PM samples per quarter are 
required to use the computational formulas described. However, this 
criterion does not apply when less data is sufficient to unambiguously 
establish nonattainment. Nonattainment of the annual standard can be 
demonstrated on the basis of quarterly mean concentrations developed 
from observed data combined with one-half the minimum detectable 
concentration substituted for missing values. Therefore, even if the 
data doesn't meet the 75 percent requirement, it can still be used to 
show a violation of the annual standard.

Final Rulemaking Action

    The USEPA conditionally approves the requested Lake Calumet, 
McCook, and Granite City nonattainment area PM SIP revision submitted 
on May 15, 1992.
    The USEPA is not, at this time, taking action on 35 IAC 211.122. 
This rule, which contains definitions, has been repealed on the State 
level since being submitted to USEPA on May 15, 1992. The State 
consolidated and recodified its various definitions into other 
sections. These definitions have been submitted to USEPA, and USEPA 
approved their incorporation into the Illinois SIP on September 9, 1994 
(59 FR 46562). That approval is codified at 40 CFR 52.720(c)(100). The 
submittal addressed in this final rule includes the following new or 
revised rules:

35 IAC 211.101  Incorporation by Reference
35 IAC 212.107  Measurement Methods for Visible Emissions
35 IAC 212.108  Measurement Methods for PM-10 Emissions
35 IAC 212.109  Measurement Methods for Opacity
35 IAC 212.110  Measurement Methods for Particulate Matter
35 IAC 212.113  Incorporation by Reference
35 IAC 212.210  Emission Limitations for Certain Fuel Combustion 
Emission Sources Located in the Vicinity of Granite City
35 IAC 212.302  Geographical Areas of Application
35 IAC 212.309  Operating Program
35 IAC 212.316  Emission Limitations for Sources in Certain Areas
35 IAC 212.324  Process Emission Sources in Certain Areas
35 IAC 212.362  Sources in Certain Areas
35 IAC 212.425  Sources in Certain Areas
35 IAC 212.458  Sources in Certain Areas
35 IAC 212.464  Sources in Certain Areas
35 IAC 212  Illustration D McCook Vicinity Map
35 IAC 212  Illustration E Lake Calumet Vicinity Map
35 IAC 212  Illustration F Granite City Vicinity Map

    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 
and submit 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 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c).
    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. ``Limited'' approval would not mean that USEPA 
has approved the control measures as satisfying the specific Act 
requirement for the State to implement Reasonably Available Control 
Measures (RACM) (including Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT)) in moderate PM nonattainment areas. See sections 172(c)(1) and 
189(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Rather, a limited approval of these measures 
by USEPA would mean that the emission limitations and other control 
measure requirements become part of the applicable implementation plan 
and are federally enforceable by USEPA. The USEPA may grant such a 
limited approval under section 110(k)(3) of the Act in light of the 
general authority delegated to USEPA under section 301(a) of the Act 
which allows USEPA to take actions necessary to carry out the purposes 
of the Act.
    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), as revised by an October 4, 1993, 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The OMB has exempted this regulatory action from 
Executive Order 12866 review.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 17, 1995. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the Act.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 30, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to reads as 
follows:

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

Subpart O--Illinois

    2. Subpart O is amended by adding Sec. 52.719 to read as follows:


Sec. 52.719  Identification of plan--Conditional approval.

    The plan revision commitments listed in paragraph (a) of this 
section were submitted on the date specified.
    (a) On May 15, 1992, Illinois submitted a part D particulate matter 
(PM) nonattainment area plan for the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite 
City moderate nonattainment areas. This plan included control measures 
adopted in a final opinion and order of the Illinois Pollution Control 
Board, on April 9, 1992, in proceeding R91-22. The USEPA is 
conditionally approving the State's plan, contingent on fulfillment of 
the State's commitment to meet 5 requirements by November 20, 1995. The 
first requirement is for the State to adopt and submit 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 following three 
other enforcement concerns: First, 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''. Second, 
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. Third, 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 clearer about exactly what sources are to be 
exempt, and when. If the State fails to meet any portion of its 
commitment by the date listed above, the USEPA's conditional approval 
will automatically become a limited approval/disapproval without 
further regulatory action.

(1) Incorporation by reference.

    (i) Illinois Administrative Code Title 35: Environmental 
Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter 1: Pollution Control 
Board, Subchapter c: Emission Standards and Limitations for Stationary 
Sources, Part 211:
    Definitions and General Provisions, Subpart A: General Provisions, 
Section 211.101. Adopted at 16 Illinois Register 7656, effective May 1, 
1992. (ii) Illinois Administrative Code Title 35: Environmental 
Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter 1: Pollution Control 
Board, Subchapter c: Emission Standards and Limitations for Stationary 
Sources, Part 212: Visible and Particulate Matter Emissions, Subpart A: 
General, Sections 212.107, 212.108, 212.109, 212.110, 212.113; Subpart 
E: Particulate Matter Emissions from Fuel Combustion Sources, Section 
212.210; Subpart K: Fugitive Particulate Matter, Sections 212.302, 
212.309, 212.316; Subpart L: Particulate Matter from Process Emission 
Sources, Section 212.324; Subpart N: Food Manufacturing, Section 
212.362; Subpart Q: Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete Manufacturing, 
Section 212.425; Subpart R: Primary and Fabricated Metal Products and 
Machinery Manufacture, Section 212.458; Subpart S: Agriculture, Section 
212.464; Section 212 Illustration D: McCook Vicinity Map, Illustration 
E: Lake Calumet Vicinity Map, and Illustration F: Granite City Vicinity 
Map. Adopted at 16 Illinois Register 7880, effective May 11, 1992.
    (b) [reserved]

[FR Doc. 94-28486 Filed 11-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P