[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: 94-28548]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 18, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[IL12-9-5167; FRL-5107-9]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 29, 1990, the USEPA promulgated Federal stationary 
source volatile organic compound (VOC) control measures representing 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for emission sources 
located in six northeastern Illinois (Chicago area) counties: Cook, 
DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will. The USEPA also took final 
rulemaking action on certain VOC RACT rules previously adopted and 
submitted by the State of Illinois for inclusion in its State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). Included in the USEPA's rules was a 
requirement that the Viskase Corporation's (Viskase) cellulose food 
casing facility in Bedford Park (Cook County) be subject to the 
``generic'' rule for miscellaneous fabricated product manufacturing 
processes and the ``generic'' rule for miscellaneous formulation 
manufacturing processes. On July 19, 1990, Viskase requested that USEPA 
reconsider its rule as applicable to Viskase's food casing 
manufacturing operations and, as a result, the USEPA convened a 
proceeding for reconsideration. The USEPA has considered the issues 
raised by Viskase and is presenting in this proposed rule both a 
discussion of these issues and a newly proposed rulemaking applicable 
to Viskase's food casing manufacturing operations. The USEPA is also 
proposing rulemaking on a site-specific SIP revision for Viskase that 
has been submitted by Illinois. The USEPA solicits public comments on 
the USEPA's proposed rulemaking action.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by December 19, at 
the address below. A public hearing, if requested, will be held in 
Chicago, Illinois. Requests for a hearing should be submitted to J. 
Elmer Bortzer by December 19, 1994 at the address below. Interested 
persons may call Randolph O. Cano at (312) 886-6036 to see if a hearing 
will be held and the date and location of the hearing. Any hearing will 
be strictly limited to the subject matter of this proposal, the scope 
of which is discussed below.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed 
to J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Comments should be strictly limited to the subject matter of this 
proposal.
    DOCKET: Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(B) and (N) of the Clean Air 
Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1)(B) and (N) (1991), this action is 
subject to the procedural requirements of section 307(d). Therefore, 
the USEPA has established a public docket for this action, A-93-37, 
which is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. 
and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following addresses. We 
recommend that you contact Randolph O. Cano before visiting the Chicago 
location and Rachel Romine before visiting the Washington, DC location. 
A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Regulation Development 
Branch, 18th Floor, Southwest, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 
60604.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. A-93-37, Air Docket 
(LE-131), room M1500, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 
20460, (202) 245-3639.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Regulation 
Development Branch, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, (312) 886-6052, at the Chicago address indicated above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In an effort to comply with certain requirements under Part D of 
the Act, as amended in 1977, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (1990),1 the 
Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) adopted an organic emission 
``generic'' rule on April 7, 1988. The purpose of the generic rule was 
to satisfy the USEPA's requirement that Illinois adopt rules for major 
(100 tons per year (TPY) and greater) non-CTG sources.2 This 
requirement is discussed in the April 4, 1979, General Preamble for 
Proposed Rulemaking (44 FR 20372).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The Clean Air Act was amended on November 15, 1990. Pub. L. 
101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q (1991). 
However, the USEPA's obligation to promulgate a Federal 
implementation plan for the Chicago nonattainment area arose under 
the pre-amended Act, as did Illinois' obligation to submit the SIP 
RACT rules that the state submitted in 1988. Therefore, while the 
USEPA is procedurally subject to the amended Act in this proposed 
rulemaking, the USEPA must refer to the pre-amended Act 
requirements. To clarify these references, the amended Act will be 
referred to as the ``Act'' and the pre-amended Act will be referred 
to as the ``1977 Act''.
    \2\Control techniques guideline (CTG) documents have been 
prepared by the USEPA to assist States in defining RACT for the 
control of VOC emissions from existing stationary sources. Each 
individual CTG recommends a presumptive norm of control considered 
reasonably available to a specific source category. Sources in 
categories for which no CTG exists are termed ``non-CTG sources.'' 
See 44 FR 53762 (September 14, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) first proposed 
to the IPCB to control VOCs through a ``generic rule'' on May 12, 1986. 
The first hearings on this rule were held in October 1986. A revised 
and second revised generic rule were subsequently submitted by IEPA. 
Hearings on the generic rule were held February 10 and 11, 1987, and 
April 23 and 24, 1987. At the April 23, 1987, hearing, IEPA presented a 
fourth proposal (alternative generic proposal), and recommended that it 
be adopted rather than the original or either of its two revisions.
    On August 6, 1987, the IPCB adopted the IEPA's alternative generic 
proposal for First Notice of Adoption, which was published in the 
August 28, 1987, Illinois Register. On November 2, 1987, the Illinois 
Department of Energy and Natural Resources filed an Economic Impact 
Study (EcIS). Two hearings were held on the EcIS (December 14, 1987, 
and December 18, 1987). On February 4, 1988, the IPCB adopted the 
alternative rule for Second Notice, and on April 7, 1988, the IPCB 
adopted, as a final rule, the alternative proposal.
    Under the adopted generic rule, Subpart PP, ``Miscellaneous 
Fabricated Manufacturing Processes,'' regulates ``a manufacturing 
process involving * * * viscose solutions for food casings,'' and 
Subpart QQ, ``Miscellaneous Formulation Manufacturing Processes,'' 
regulates ``a manufacturing process which compounds * * * viscose 
solutions.'' These subparts require that sources either comply with an 
emission limit of 3.5 pounds volatile organic material (VOM) per gallon 
coating (which only applies to coating sources and therefore doesn't 
apply to Viskase because it isn't a coating source) or 81 percent 
reduction in VOM emissions from uncontrolled levels;3 or that they 
procure an Adjusted RACT emission limitation from the IPCB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\The State of Illinois uses the term ``VOM'' in its 
regulations. For the purposes of this RACT analysis, this term is 
considered equivalent to USEPA's term ``volatile organic compounds 
(VOC).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 5, 1988, Viskase filed a Petition for Adjusted RACT 
Emissions Limitation with the IPCB. Under the generic rule's adjusted 
standards procedures, Viskase was required to show that an 81 percent 
reduction in uncontrolled VOM emissions is not RACT for Viskase, and 
that the emission levels proposed by Viskase are RACT and would not 
interfere with the State's plan for achieving ambient air quality 
standards.
    On January 5, 1989, the IPCB ruled that an 81 percent reduction of 
uncontrolled emissions would not constitute RACT for Viskase's Bedford 
Park facility. The IPCB determined that a 33 percent reduction in 
allowable VOM emissions (to a level of 994 tons per year) constitutes 
RACT for the Bedford Park facility and would not interfere with the 
State's progress toward achieving attainment of the ambient air quality 
standards.
    At that time, the IPCB adopted the following emission standards 
applicable to Viskase's Bedford Park plant.
    1. The volatile organic material (VOM) emissions from Viskase's 
Bedford Park plant shall not exceed 994 tons per year. In addition, VOM 
emissions, computed on a monthly average basis, shall not exceed the 
following: 2.22 tons per day for each month during the period from June 
through August; and 3.30 tons per day for each month during the period 
from September through May.
    32. Emissions of VOM, including carbon disulfide, from the Bedford 
Park plant shall be determined from raw material consumption and plant-
specific emission factors. These factors shall be developed using the 
methods and procedures for testing contained in 40 CFR Part 60 (1988), 
including Appendix A, Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 15, 25, 25A and 25B, as 
appropriate. The methodology for computing a monthly average from daily 
emission values will be determined by the permit, issued to Viskase by 
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which prescribes the 
emission standards set forth herein.
    3. In accordance with the applicable methodologies, Viskase shall:
    (a) Maintain a monthly record of raw material consumption by each 
process or group of processes subject to a different emission factor; 
and
    (b) Calculate and record monthly VOM emissions, daily VOM 
emissions, average daily VOM emissions in tons/day, on a monthly basis.
    4. (a) Records of testing shall be retained by Viskase at its 
Bedford Park facility for at least 5 years following the date last 
relied upon for calculating emissions; and
    (b) Raw material consumption records, VOM emission calculations, 
and VOM emission records shall be retained by Viskase at its Bedford 
Park facility for at least 2 years following the date prepared.
    The IEPA submitted this adjusted standard to USEPA as a proposed 
revision to the Illinois SIP4 on February 24, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\Under Illinois' regulatory procedures, IEPA does not have the 
authority to adopt regulations, but must submit recommended 
proposals for adoption to the IPCB, an independent rulemaking body. 
IEPA is, however, responsible for submitting such regulations to 
USEPA as proposed SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 1, 1987, the State of Wisconsin filed a complaint in the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin 
against the USEPA and sought a judgment that the USEPA, among other 
requested actions, be required to promulgate revisions to the Illinois 
ozone SIP for northeastern Illinois. Wisconsin v. Reilly, No. 87-C-
0395, (E.D. Wis.). On January 18, 1989, the District Court ordered that 
USEPA promulgate an ozone implementation plan for northeastern Illinois 
within 14 months of the date of that order. On September 22, 1989, the 
USEPA and the States of Illinois and Wisconsin signed a settlement 
agreement in an attempt to substitute a more acceptable schedule for 
promulgation of a plan for the control of ozone in the Chicago area. On 
November 6, 1989, the District Court vacated its prior order and 
ordered all further proceedings stayed, pending the performance of the 
settlement agreement.
    The settlement agreement called for the use of a more sophisticated 
air quality model, allowed more time for the USEPA to promulgate a 
Federal implementation plan (FIP) using the model5, and requires 
interim emission reductions while the modeling study is being 
performed. The interim emission reductions consisted of Federal 
promulgation of required VOM RACT rules for Illinois to remedy 
deficiencies in its State regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\USEPA is no longer required to promulgate a FIP using the 
modeling results because the settlement agreement relieves USEPA of 
such responsibility in the event that amendments to the Act 
establish new deadlines for States to achieve attainment of the 
ozone standard. The primary responsibility for developing any 
remaining revisions to Illinois' State implementation plan belongs 
to Illinois because the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 establishes 
such new deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 27, 1989, (54 FR 53080) USEPA proposed to disapprove 
the Illinois generic rules (Subparts AA, II, PP, QQ, RR of Part 215: 
Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations) largely because 
the applicability criteria were not consistent with the USEPA RACT 
guidance for major non-CTG sources. On that date, the USEPA also 
proposed a number of RACT rules, including generic rules which covered 
all of Viskase's cellulose food casing manufacturing operations. On 
March 2, 1990, Viskase submitted comments to USEPA, raising a number of 
issues on the proposal.
    On June 29, 1990, (55 FR 26814), the USEPA took final action to 
disapprove the Illinois' generic rules and promulgate the proposed 
Federal rules, including the generic ``Miscellaneous Fabricated 
Manufacturing Processes'' and ``Miscellaneous Formulation Manufacturing 
Processes'' rules. However, the USEPA stated at that time that the need 
to promulgate Federal regulations, under the tight timeframe ordered by 
the District Court, had prevented the USEPA from being able to consider 
fully Viskase's comments, including the merits of the proposed, 
alternative site-specific limits for Viskase. Consequently, the USEPA 
deferred the effective date of the applicable rules with regard to 
Viskase for six months. 55 FR 26846.
    On July 19, 1990, Viskase filed a formal request that USEPA 
reconsider the Federal rules for Viskase, and stay the compliance date 
until at least one year after the USEPA has (1) fully considered the 
State's rules and Viskase's comments, and (2) has either promulgated a 
site-specific rule or formally refused to promulgate such a rule. As a 
result, the USEPA convened a proceeding for reconsideration pursuant to 
section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B) (56 FR 463 and 
56 FR 24722). And on August 22, 1990, Viskase filed a petition for 
review of the USEPA's June 29, 1990, rulemaking in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Nine other parties filed 
petitions for review, which were ultimately consolidated by the Court 
as Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group (``IERG'') et al. v. Reilly, 
No. 90-2778.
    On January 4, 1991 (56 FR 460), the USEPA announced a three-month 
partial stay pending reconsideration for Viskase and two other 
petitioners. Elsewhere in the January 4, 1991, Federal Register (56 FR 
463), the USEPA proposed to extend the stay beyond the three-month 
period, only if and as necessary to complete reconsideration of the 
subject rules (including any appropriate regulatory action), pursuant 
to the USEPA's authority to revise the Federal rules by following 
rulemaking procedures in sections 110(c) and 301(a)(1) of the Act, 42 
U.S.C. 7410(c) and 7601(a)(1). Two of the rules for which the stay was 
proposed were the ``Miscellaneous Fabricated Manufacturing Processes'' 
and ``Miscellaneous Formulation Manufacturing Processes'' rules only as 
applied to Viskase's cellulose food casing manufacturing operations, 
codified at 40 CFR 52.741(u) and (v), as well as the July 1, 1991, 
compliance date, codified at 40 CFR 52.741(u)(4) and (v)(4).
    On May 31, 1991, (56 FR 24722), the USEPA responded to public 
comments on the proposed extension of the partial stay, and took final 
action to extend the stay as long as necessary to complete 
reconsideration of the rules identified in the proposal. Today's 
notice, in effect, presents the results of the USEPA's reconsideration 
of the Federal generic rules as they apply to Viskase, and proposes 
rulemaking based on these results.

II. Discussion of Viskase's Manufacturing Operations

    Viskase's Bedford Park facility manufactures sausage casings and 
related food packaging materials using the viscose process. The viscose 
process, which produces regenerated cellulose food casings, is also 
used to produce rayon and cellophane as well as cellulose food casings.
    Production of cellulose food casings by the viscose process begins 
with the reaction of a cellulose material, either cotton or wood pulp, 
with an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution to produce alkali cellulose. 
After aging, the alkali cellulose is reacted with carbon disulfide to 
form an intermediate compound, cellulose xanthate, which is 
subsequently dissolved in a dilute caustic solution to form a viscous 
fluid called ``viscose.'' After aging and filtering, the viscose is 
extruded into precision-sized tubes which are passed through a series 
of acid baths where the cellulose is regenerated. The extruded 
regenerated cellulose film is then purified, dried, and reeled and 
finished.
    Gaseous emissions from the viscose process consist primarily of 
carbon disulfide and hydrogen sulfide. These gases evolve during the 
xanthation, coagulation, regeneration and purification stages of the 
process. Smaller volumes of carbon disulfide are also emitted during 
carbon disulfide unloading and transfer operations. In 1972, the 
Bedford Park plant installed a wet scrubber system to remove hydrogen 
sulfide from the exhaust gas stream.

III. Viskase RACT Analysis

    The IPCB's January 5, 1989, opinion on Viskase's adjusted RACT 
petition states that Viskase is currently permitted to emit 1,476 TPY 
of VOM and that its emission reduction proposal entails a reduction in 
allowable emissions down to 994 tons per year, or a reduction of 482 
TPY. This proposed reduction in allowable emissions is to be 
accomplished by process changes and not add-on control. Viskase claims 
that it has obtained a 12.4 percent reduction in carbon disulfide 
emissions by switching from cotton to wood as a cellulose source.
    In extensive comments submitted to USEPA on March 2, 1990, Viskase 
contends that an 81 percent overall VOM reduction is not RACT due to a 
number of reasons, including:
    1. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has recently 
reduced the Permissible Exposure Level for carbon disulfide from 20 
parts per million (PPM) to 4 PPM. Viskase anticipates increasing the 
plant exhaust rate from 220,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM) to 250,000 
CFM. This will increase the cost of add-on control, which is primarily 
based on the flowrate.
    2. No other viscose cellulose food casing manufacturer in the world 
is presently required to control carbon disulfide emissions.
    3. Of the five different technologies which are generally 
considered to be applicable to VOC emission control, i.e., material 
substitution, condensation, carbon adsorption, chemical scrubbing and 
thermal incineration, only thermal incineration is potentially feasible 
to control the Bedford Park plant carbon disulfide emissions to the 
level required by the proposed Federal rule. An incineration control 
system to be utilized at the Bedford Park plant to control carbon 
disulfide emissions however would be enormously expensive according to 
Viskase, who estimates that the annual costs of control would be $7,890 
per ton of carbon disulfide removed.
    4. In addition to unreasonable economic costs, the cross-media 
environmental impact of an incinerator would also be substantial. 
Incineration would produce sulfur dioxide as an incineration product, 
in amounts more than twice the amount of carbon disulfide destroyed. 
Incineration of the Bedford Park plant's carbon disulfide emissions 
would also result in the incinerator being considered a new ``major 
source'' of sulfur dioxide under the Clean Air Act, and would require 
Viskase to install and operate sulfur dioxide control equipment. That 
equipment would, in turn, result in the discharge with the Bedford Park 
plant's wastewaters of 3.9 pounds of sodium sulfate for each pound of 
carbon disulfide incinerated, or more than 7,000,000 pounds per year of 
sodium sulfate, which would not otherwise be discharged to the waters 
of Illinois. In addition to sulfur dioxide, incineration would also 
produce approximately 17.4 pounds of carbon dioxide for each pound of 
carbon disulfide destroyed, or 28,000,000 new pounds of carbon dioxide, 
which would not otherwise be emitted.
    5. The IPCB's January 5, 1989, opinion states that carbon disulfide 
has substantially less ozone producing capability than a typical VOM.
    After reviewing Viskase's comments, USEPA has determined that an 81 
percent reduction of uncontrolled VOM emissions would not constitute 
RACT for Viskase's Bedford Park facility. The USEPA has also determined 
that a 33 percent reduction in Viskase's allowable emissions to 994 
tons per year is RACT for Viskase.
    However, the control requirements established by the IPCB in its 
January 5, 1989, order are not approvable for the following reasons:
    1. There are no short-term emission limitations. Viskase is limited 
to 994 TPY and 2.22 tons per day, on a monthly average, from June 
through August, and 3.30 tons per day, on a monthly average, for the 
remaining months of the year. The USEPA's January 20, 1984, policy 
memorandum, titled ``Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission 
Limits--SIP Revision Policy'' clarifies USEPA's policy regarding 
emission time averaging for existing sources of VOC. The objective of 
USEPA's national VOC emissions control program is the timely attainment 
and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. 
Therefore, averaging times must be reasonably consistent with 
protecting the short-term ozone standard. Further, since SIPs and 
associated VOC control programs contemplate the actual application of 
RACT, regulatory actions that incorporate longer term averages to 
circumvent the installation of overall RACT level controls cannot be 
allowed. Therefore to protect the ozone standard and ensure RACT, this 
policy prohibits longer than daily averaging unless source operations 
are such that daily VOC emissions cannot be determined or where the 
application of RACT is not economically or technically feasible. In 
those cases in which daily emissions cannot be determined or in which 
daily averaging is not feasible, longer averaging times can be 
permitted if the conditions specified in this policy memorandum are 
followed. However, Viskase has neither demonstrated that daily VOC 
emissions cannot be determined, nor demonstrated the infeasibility of 
complying on a daily basis. In addition, Viskase has not satisfied the 
other conditions in this policy memorandum nor explained why such 
conditions should not be applicable. The general need for daily 
averaging is also stated on page 2-10 of ``Issues Relating to VOC 
Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,'' a May 25, 1988, 
USEPA guidance document.
    2. The IPCB's order states that emissions of VOM, including carbon 
disulfide, from the Bedford Park plant shall be determined from raw 
material consumption and plant-specific emission factors and these 
factors are to be developed using the test methods in 40 CFR Part 60, 
including Appendix A, Methods 2, 2A, 2B, 15, 25, 25A and 25B, as 
appropriate. While this is a generally reasonable approach, a specific 
method is required for review to ensure that the daily VOM emissions 
are determined in a consistent and accurate manner.
    3. The recordkeeping requirements in the IPCB's order are too 
general to be enforceable.
    On February 9, 1994, representatives from Viskase met with 
representatives from USEPA to discuss daily emission levels and 
recordkeeping practices, and provided USEPA with technical information 
about its process operations and emissions.
    The USEPA has determined, based upon the previously discussed 
information, that RACT for Viskase consists of the following:
    1. VOM emissions shall never exceed 3.30 tons per day.
    2. VOM emissions shall not exceed 2.22 tons per day, on a monthly 
average, during June, July, and August.
    3. VOM emissions shall not exceed 2.44 tons per day during June, 
July, and August.
    4. Compliance with the emission limits in items 1-3 above, and the 
records in item 5 below, shall be determined using an emission factor 
of ``0.72 pounds of VOM emissions per pound of carbon disulfide 
consumed.''
    5. Viskase must keep the following daily records:
    (a) The pounds of carbon disulfide per charge for its fibrous 
process. If charges with different levels of carbon disulfide per 
charge are used the same day, a separate record must be kept for each 
level of carbon disulfide per charge.
    (b) The pounds of carbon disulfide per charge for its NOJAX 
process. If charges with different levels of carbon disulfide per 
charge are used the same day, a separate record must be kept for each 
level of carbon disulfide per charge.
    (c) The number of charges per day, for each level of carbon 
disulfide per charge, used in Viskase's Fibrous process.
    (d) The number of charges per day, for each level of carbon 
disulfide per charge, used in Viskase's NOJAX process.
    (e) The total quantity of carbon disulfide used per day in 
Viskase's Fibrous process, the total quantity of carbon disulfide used 
per day in Viskase's NOJAX process, and the daily VOM emissions 
resulting from use of the carbon disulfide.
    (f) The monthly use of carbon disulfide, and the monthly VOM 
emissions resulting from use of the carbon disulfide, during June, 
July, and August.
    6. Any violation of the emission limits in items 1, 2, or 3 above 
must be reported to USEPA within 30 days of its occurrence.
    7. In order to determine daily and monthly VOM emissions, the test 
methods in section 52.741(a)(4) may be used in addition to, and take 
precedence over, the emission factor cited in item 4 above. Method 15 
is to be used instead of Methods 18, 25, and 25A when the test methods 
in section 52.741(a)(4) are used to determine VOM emissions from 
Viskase's cellulose food casing facility.
    Compliance with these requirements is required three months from 
the date this action becomes final. This will allow time for Viskase to 
develop its recordkeeping procedures.

IV. SIP Revision Proposed by Illinois for Viskase

    On February 24, 1989, Illinois submitted a proposed revision to the 
Illinois SIP. This revision consists of an adjusted RACT Standard for 
Viskase, docketed as AS-88-1 by the IPCB.
    On January 5, 1989, the IPCB adopted an opinion and order for this 
proceeding. This IPCB Order limits VOM emissions to 994 TPY, 2.22 tons 
per day, on a monthly average, for June, July, and August, and 3.30 
tons per day, on a monthly average, for the remaining months.
    The USEPA is proposing to disapprove this requested SIP revision 
for the following reasons: (1) monthly averaging is inconsistent with 
USEPA policy regarding RACT; (2) there are no specific procedures for 
calculating daily emissions; and (3) there are no specific 
recordkeeping requirements.

V. Summary and Conclusions

    USEPA is proposing to disapprove the requested SIP revision 
submitted by IEPA because of the reasons provided in the above 
paragraph. USEPA is also proposing to promulgate RACT VOC emission 
limits generally consistent to what was adopted by the IPCB. However, 
USEPA has added daily emission limits and recordkeeping requirements 
which will make the RACT limits enforceable. Also, USEPA is proposing 
to withdraw the May 31, 1991, stay.
    USEPA is taking this action pursuant to its authority under section 
110(k)(6) of the Act to correct through rulemaking any plan or plan 
revision.6 USEPA is interpreting this provision to authorize the 
USEPA to make corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown 
to USEPA's satisfaction that the information made available to the 
USEPA at the time of promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to have 
been clearly inadequate, and other information persuasively supports a 
change in the regulation. See 57 FR 6762 at 6763 (November 30, 1992). 
In this case, the information made available to USEPA during the 
rulemaking for Viskase was inadequate for the development of a site-
specific RACT determination.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\Since USEPA is taking this action pursuant to section 
110(k)(6), USEPA believes that section 193 of the Act (the savings 
clause) is inapplicable. By its terms, section 110(k)(6) does not 
require any additional submission or evidence. Section 193 requires 
an assurance of equivalency for any revision and, in order to 
provide for equivalency, the State would need to provide for 
compensating reductions. USEPA believes that this conflict should be 
resolved concluding that section 110(k)(6) is not constrained by the 
savings clause requirement of equivalent reductions. USEPA believes 
that the State and the sources within the State should not have to 
bear the burden of additional reductions where USEPA lacked 
important site-specific information at the time of an initial 
promulgation. This is particularly true in the case of FIPs, where 
USEPA takes the lead in developing the regulations and is not merely 
acting on State-submitted regulations.
    \7\As discussed earlier, USEPA was required to promulgate the 
June 29, 1990, regulations under the tight timeframe ordered by the 
Court in Wisconsin v. Reilly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public comment is solicited on this proposal for Viskase. Public 
comments received by the date shown above will be considered in the 
development of USEPA's final rule.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the 
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, the 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.
    This action involves only one source, Viskase Corporation. Viskase 
is not a small entity. Therefore, the USEPA certifies that this RACT 
promulgation does not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

    Dated: November 10, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that part 52, 
chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations be amended as 
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart O--Illinois

    2. Section 52.741 is amended by adding a new paragraph (u)(8) and 
removing and reserving paragraph (z)(1) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.741  Control strategy: Ozone control measures for Cook, DuPage, 
Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties.

* * * * *
    (u) * * *
    (8) The control, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this 
paragraph apply to the cellulose food casing manufacturing operations 
at the Viskase Corporation plant in Bedford Park, Illinois (Cook 
County) instead of the requirements in paragraph (v) of this section, 
the other parts of paragraph (u) of this section, and the recordkeeping 
requirements in paragraph (y) of this section. Unless otherwise stated, 
the following requirements must be met by Viskase on and after three 
months after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register.
    (i) VOM emissions shall never exceed 3.30 tons per day.
    (ii) VOM emissions shall not exceed 2.22 tons per day, on a monthly 
average, during June, July, and August.
    (iii) VOM emissions shall not exceed 2.44 tons per day during June, 
July, and August.
    (iv) Compliance with the emission limits in paragraphs (u)(8)(i) 
through (iii) of this section, and the records in paragraph (u)(8)(v) 
of this section, shall be determined using an emission factor of ``0.72 
pounds of VOM emissions per pound of carbon disulfide consumed.''
    (v) Viskase must keep the following daily records:
    (A) The pounds of carbon disulfide per charge for its Fibrous 
process. If charges with different levels of carbon disulfide per 
charge are used the same day, a separate record must be kept for each 
level of carbon disulfide per charge.
    (B) The pounds of carbon disulfide per charge for its NOJAX 
process. If charges with different levels of carbon disulfide per 
charge are used the same day, a separate record must be kept for each 
level of carbon disulfide per charge.
    (C) The number of charges per day, for each level of carbon 
disulfide per charge, used in Viskase's Fibrous process.
    (D) The number of charges per day, for each level of carbon 
disulfide per charge, used in Viskase's NOJAX process.
    (E) The total quantity of carbon disulfide used per day in 
Viskase's Fibrous process, the total quantity of carbon disulfide used 
per day in Viskase's NOJAX process, and the daily VOM emissions 
resulting from use of the carbon disulfide.
    (F) The monthly use of carbon disulfide, and the monthly VOM 
emissions resulting from use of the carbon disulfide, during June, 
July, and August.
    (vi) Any violation of the emission limits in paragraphs (u)(8) (i) 
through (iii) of this section must be reported to USEPA within 30 days 
of its occurrence.
    (vii) In order to determine daily and monthly VOM emissions, the 
test methods in Sec. 52.741(a)(4) may be used in addition to, and take 
precedence over, the emission factor cited in paragraph iv above. 
Method 15 is to be used instead of Methods 18, 25, and 25A when the 
test methods in Sec. 52.741(a)(4) are used to determine VOM emissions 
from Viskase's cellulose food casing facility.
 * * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-28548 Filed 11-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6360-50-P