Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

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