# Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-28486

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** November 18, 1994

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-28486. Public record. Not legal advice.