# Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-28548

## Record

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

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-28548. Public record. Not legal advice.