Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On January 11, 1991, the Indiana Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) submitted amendments of its source monitoring rules

and sulfur dioxide (SO2) rules to the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) as State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions.

Because of unsupported emission limit relaxations and enforceability

deficiencies in the amended State regulations, USEPA is proposing to

disapprove this SIP revision request.

DATES: Comments on this revision and on the proposed USEPA action must

be received by March 10, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J),

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Onischak at (312) 353-5954. (It

is recommended that you telephone before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are available

for inspection at the following address:

Regulation Development Branch, Regulation Development Section (AR-

18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of State Submittal

On January 11, 1991, IDEM submitted its amended source monitoring

rules and sulfur dioxide (SO2) rules to USEPA as Indiana State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. The submittal amends 326 Indiana

Administrative Code (IAC) Articles 3 and 7. Because the rules contain

enforceability deficiencies and unsupported emission limit relaxations,

USEPA proposes to disapprove the January 11, 1991 submittal.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

Indiana's revised monitoring rule consists of 326 IAC 3-1.1, 3-2.1,

and 3-3. The revised sulfur dioxide rule consists of 326 IAC 7-1.1, 7-

2, 7-3, and 7-4. The following paragraphs describe the individual

rules.

326 IAC 3-1.1

326 IAC 3-1.1 requires continuous emission monitoring for sources

in several categories, including large fossil fuel-fired steam

generators, sulfuric acid producers, and catalytic cracking units.

Fossil fuel-fired steam generators of greater than 100 million British

Thermal Units per hour (MMBTU/hr) heat input capacity are required

under this rule to continuously monitor their emissions for opacity,

nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and oxygen or carbon monoxide content.

The rule allows IDEM's Commissioner to require additional sources to

use continuous monitoring equipment. This rule contains the minimum

emission monitoring requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix

P.

326 IAC 3-1.1 requires facilities to report excess emissions

quarterly, and allows 3-hour block averaging of gaseous measurements.

This averaging time is consistent with the SO2 National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Facility owners must keep all monitoring

records on file for 2 years. These requirements are consistent with 40

CFR part 51, appendix P. The rule requires facility owners to submit to

IDEM written standard operating procedures describing calibration and

quality control procedures for the operation of all required continuous

emission monitors. The rule also sets forth conversion factors to be

used with monitoring data.

326 IAC 3-1.1 refers to 40 CFR [part] 60, appendix B for the

performance specifications of the required monitoring equipment, and

specifies that where reference is made to the ``Administrator'' in 40

CFR [part] 60, appendix B, the term ``Commissioner'' is to be inserted

for the purposes of this rule. Such substitution is allowed by USEPA,

according to 40 CFR part 51, appendix P, paragraph 3.1. The USEPA has

set forth explicit criteria for the Commissioner's modification of the

rule's requirements in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. However,

``Commissioner's discretion'' language that USEPA finds unacceptable

for the reasons described in section III below appears in other

portions of 326 IAC 3-1.1, e.g., 326 IAC 3-1.1-1 (waivers) and 326 IAC

3-1.1-2 (alternate instrument response settings), and renders these

rules unapprovable.

326 IAC 3-2.1

326 IAC 3-2.1 provides reporting requirements and specifies the

facility operating conditions under which emission testing should be

performed. The rule also prescribes specific testing procedures for

particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile

organic compounds. It specifies that sources should use emission test

methodologies set forth in 40 CFR [part] 61, appendix A, and 40 CFR

[part] 61, appendix B. This is incorrect. The rule should cite 40 CFR

Part 60, appendix A, rather than 40 CFR [part] 61, appendix A. In

addition, the rule allows the State to authorize alternate emission

test methods, changes in test procedure, or alternate operating load

levels during tests. Such ``Commissioner's discretion'' is not

acceptable to USEPA, for the reasons described below in section III.

326 IAC 3-3

326 IAC 3-3 prescribes sampling and analysis procedures for coal

and fuel oil. Sources with total coal-fired capacity of 1500 or more

MMBTU/hr actual heat input must collect composite samples daily, in

accordance with specified American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) procedures. Sources with total coal-fired capacity between 100

and 1500 MMBTU/hr actual heat input must draw coal samples at least 3

times per day and at least once per 8-hour period, but may composite

and analyze these samples monthly. It is not acceptable for facilities

of this size to perform only monthly coal analysis to determine

compliance. Monthly analysis will not ensure that the short-term

SO2 NAAQS will be protected. 326 IAC 3-3 does not specify coal

sampling analysis procedures to be used by facilities with total coal-

fired heat input capacity less than 100 MMBTU/hr. These small

facilities are required by 326 IAC 7-2 to report coal analysis data, as

collected pursuant to 326 IAC 3-3, but it is not clear whether each

facility must use the coal sampling and analysis methods prescribed for

the larger facilities or is expected to provide its own alternative

method. This rule also allows ``Commissioner's discretion'' in

prescribing and in performing alternate fuel sampling and analysis

procedures. The USEPA believes that such discretion is unacceptable for

the reasons described below in section III of this document.

326 IAC 7-1.1

326 IAC 7-1.1 sets forth general SO2 emission limits for fuel

combustion facilities with a potential to emit 25 tons per year or 10

pounds per hour of SO2. Facilities are also required to comply

with specific emission limitations pursuant to 326 IAC 7-4, if

applicable. 326 IAC 7-1.1 introduces SO2 emission limits for oil-

burning facilities. Facilities combusting residual oil may not exceed

1.6 pounds SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU) of

SO2, and facilities combusting distillate oil may not emit more

than 0.5 lb/MMBTU of SO2. 326 IAC 7-1.1 continues to state that

facilities combusting coal may not emit more than 6.0 lb/MMBTU.

Facilities which use both coal and oil simultaneously as fuel must

adhere to the SO2 emission limit for coal alone. Facilities which

use both oil and any fuel other than coal simultaneously must not

exceed the SO2 emission limit for the oil alone. This rule allows

facilities to meet their SO2 emission limits by combining their

usual fuel with lower-sulfur fuels. However, this rule fails to couple

the lb/MMBTU emission limits with any applicable averaging time. The

rule should require compliance with the emission limits on at least a

three-hour basis in order to assure compliance with the short-term

SO2 NAAQS. Since the averaging time applicable to these emission

limits is not made clear either in this rule or in other portions of

Indiana's SO2 SIP, 326 IAC 7-1.1 cannot be approved.

326 IAC 7-2

326 IAC 7-2 specifies that compliance or noncompliance with

emission limits can be determined by a stack test in accordance with

the test methods in 40 CFR [part] 60, appendix A. Continuous emission

monitoring data collected pursuant to 326 IAC 3-1 may be used to

determine compliance with emission limits. 326 IAC 7-2 also requires

facilities to report the results of fuel sampling and analysis. Fuel

combustion sources with total coal-fired heat input capacity of 1500

MMBTU/hr or greater are to keep records of average daily coal sulfur

content and SO2 emission rate (in units of lb/MMBTU). Sources with

total coal-fired heat input capacity between 100 and 1500 MMBTU/hr need

only record and report average monthly coal sulfur content and SO2

emission rate. Monthly coal analysis is not acceptable for facilities

of this size. Long-term averaging does not assure compliance with the

short-term SO2 NAAQS, since shorter periods of high emissions may

not be detected. Sources with total coal-fired heat input capacity less

than 100 MMBTU/hr may submit either calendar month or annual average

coal sulfur content and SO2 emission data. While it may be

reasonable for very small sources to have less stringent sampling and

analysis requirements, the calculation and reporting of an annual

average alone is not acceptable. This would not be an acceptable

determination of continuous compliance.

326 IAC 7-2 specifies that SO2 emission rates for fuel

combustion sources should be calculated based on emission factors

published in AP-42, ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.''

If compliance is to be determined through fuel sampling and analysis,

USEPA prefers that SO2 emissions be calculated under the

assumption that 100 percent of the fuel sulfur content will be emitted

from the facility as SO2. The factors given in AP-42, however, are

acceptable. 326 IAC

7-2 also allows IDEM's Commissioner to approve alternate SO2

emission factors based on sulfur dioxide measurements, but the rule

does not specify the rigorous scientific support required, or that the

alternate emission factors will be included in site-specific SIP

revisions. Therefore, this rule cannot be approved. For compliance

determinations, USEPA cannot allow the Commissioner to have blanket

authority to accept emission factors other than the generally

applicable factors given in AP-42 for SO2 emission calculations

from fuel sampling data. To be approvable, 326 IAC 7-2 must set forth

any site-specific alternative emission factors allowed by the State,

and the State must compile sufficient technical support for the use of

those emission factors. Additional site-specific emission factors

should not be allowed except through site-specific SIP revisions, which

must support the alternate emission factors with data from a series of

emission tests and provide for periodic reverification of the emission

factors' accuracy. In any case, 326 IAC 7-2 should also clearly state

the approved emission factors and formulae to be used in calculating

SO2 emission rates from fuel analysis data.

326 IAC 7-3

326 IAC 7-3 requires that sources with total actual emissions of

SO2 greater than 10,000 tons per year install and operate ambient

SO2 monitors. The rule gives IDEM's Commissioner discretionary

authority to grant waivers of all or part of the requirements of this

rule. While the rule provides a set of criteria for reviewing these

petitions, the rule should also require that monitoring data be

provided in order to justify the waiver of requirements for further

monitoring. The rule should also provide for USEPA review of any

waivers.

326 IAC 7-4

326 IAC 7-4 sets forth facility-specific SO2 emission

limitations and recordkeeping requirements for Lake, Marion, Vigo,

Wayne, LaPorte, Jefferson, Sullivan, Vermillion, Floyd, Warrick,

Morgan, Gibson, Dearborn, and Porter Counties. The January 11, 1991

submittal contains minor revisions to 326 IAC 7-4, which primarily

consist of the removal of outdated interim compliance dates for various

sources. The rule also reflects facility name changes that have

occurred recently. However, in 326 IAC 7-4-1(c)(10), the emission

limits for Inland Steel in Lake County have been relaxed. Similarly,

the SO2 emission limits for Bethlehem Steel in Porter County have

been relaxed in 326 IAC 7-4-14(1)(C). In the case of Inland Steel,

which is located in an area currently designated as nonattainment for

SO2, section 193 of the Clean Air Act precludes approval of this

SIP revision. Section 193, the general savings clause, states that no

SIP requirements in effect in a nonattainment area before the date of

enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 may be relaxed unless

equivalent or greater emission reductions are made. No emission

reductions offsetting the Inland Steel relaxation have been identified

by the State. Both the Inland Steel and the Bethlehem Steel relaxations

are affected by section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits

USEPA from approving a SIP revision if the revision would interfere

with attainment. The USEPA can approve a SIP revision containing

relaxations to existing emission limitations only if the State provides

a modeled attainment demonstration performed according to USEPA

guidelines to show that the relaxed limits will continue to protect the

NAAQS. No information has been submitted to USEPA in support of the

relaxed emission limitations for Inland Steel or Bethlehem Steel.

Therefore, 326 IAC 7-4-1(c)(10) and 326 IAC 7-4-14(1)(C) cannot be

approved.

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

Rules containing ``Commissioner's discretion'' language allow

IDEM's Commissioner to remove or modify federally enforceable

requirements and restrictions for individual facilities.

``Commissioner's discretion'' language is found in 326 IAC 3-1.1, 3-

2.1, 3-3, 7-2, and 7-3. Such language is unacceptable because it does

not provide for USEPA review of rule modifications or exemptions made

after USEPA's approval of the original rule. Modifications to SIP rules

may affect an area's attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and may

compromise the federal enforceability of the SIP limits. In order for

``Commissioner's discretion'' language to be approvable, any subsequent

rule modifications made by the Commissioner must not hamper the SIP's

enforceability or ability to assure the protection and maintenance of

the standards. The USEPA may approve the rule if it provides that any

modifications will be submitted to USEPA as SIP revisions, or if the

rule explicitly states the criteria which the Commissioner will use to

evaluate any requests for rule modifications or exemptions. Without

such provisions, USEPA cannot be certain that each facility subject to

the original rule will comply with all of the rule's requirements.

Therefore, rules containing ``Commissioner's discretion'' language

without either federally approved criteria for the expected

modifications or provisions for USEPA review of the modifications

cannot be approved and incorporated into the SIP.

IV. Proposed Rulemaking Action and Solicitation of Public Comment

The USEPA is proposing to disapprove Indiana's January 11, 1991

submittal. The rules do not couple the general SO2 emission limits

with compliance methods or averaging times adequate to ensure

continuous compliance and maintenance of the NAAQS. 326 IAC 3-1.1, 3-

2.1, 3-3,

7-2, and 7-3 contain ``Commissioner's discretion'' language, which

could hamper USEPA's ability to enforce the State rules. 326 IAC 3-2.1

fails to properly cite the acceptable methodologies for source emission

testing. 326 IAC 7-4 contains emission limits which are less stringent

than the previously approved limits, and the January 11, 1991 submittal

failed to show that the relaxations continue to protect the NAAQS.

Because of these deficiencies, USEPA is proposing to disapprove the

January 11, 1991 submittal.

Public comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on

USEPA's proposal to disapprove. Public comments received by March 10,

1994 will be considered in the development of USEPA's final rulemaking

action.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing

or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any

SIP. The USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in

light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). A revision to the SIP processing

review tables was approved by the Acting Assistant Administrator for

the Office of Air and Radiation on October 4, 1993 (Michael Shapiro's

memorandum to Regional Administrators). A future notice will inform the

general public of these tables. Under the revised tables this action

remains classified as a Table 2. On January 6, 1989, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR

2222) from the requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for 2

years. The USEPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for

Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue the waiver

until such time as it rules on USEPA's request. This request continues

in effect under Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order

12291 on September 30, 1993.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.)

Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

The USEPA's disapproval of the State request under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal

requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its State

enforceability. Moreover, USEPA's disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new federal requirements. Therefore, USEPA certifies that

this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because it does not remove

existing requirements nor does it impose any new federal requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

Dated: January 26, 1994.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-2848 Filed 2-7-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P