Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL161-1a; FRL-6216-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving a requested source specific revision to

the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone in the form of a

variance from the otherwise applicable SIP requirements for DB Hess

Company, Incorporated's lithographic printing plant which is located in

Woodstock, in McHenry County, Illinois. The variance took effect on the

State level on March 20, 1997 and expires on March 30, 1999. The

State's plan request was submitted to USEPA on September 3, 1997. In

the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, the USEPA is

proposing approval of, and soliciting comments on, this approval. If

adverse written comments are received on this action, the USEPA will

withdraw this final rule and address the comments received in response

to this action in a final rule based on the related proposed rule. A

second public comment period will not be held. Parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so at this time. This approval

makes the State's rule federally enforceable.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 16, 1999, unless USEPA receives

adverse written comments by February 16, 1999. If adverse comment is

received, USEPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take

effect.

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

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the plan and USEPA's analysis are available for

inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air

and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604. (Please telephone Randolph O. Cano at (312) 886-6036 before

visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph O. Cano, Environmental

Protection Specialist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-

6036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Description of the Affected Source

The DB Hess SIP revision request and USEPA's evaluation of it are

summarized below. More detailed information is contained in a technical

support document which was prepared in support of this action. It is

available from the Region 5 office listed above.

DB Hess owns and operates a lithographic printing plant located in

Woodstock (McHenry County), Illinois. The plant emits Volatile Organic

Material 1 (VOM) and is located within the Chicago-Gary-Lake

County ozone nonattainment area, which is classified as severe for the

one-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

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

\1\ The USEPA generally uses the term ``Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC)'' to refer to the hydrocarbon compounds that

participate in the chemical formation of ozone in the lower

Troposphere. The State of Illinois uses the term ``Volatile Organic

Material (VOM)'' to refer to the same hydrocarbon compounds. The

definition of VOM is identical to the definition of VOC. The two

terms can be used interchangeably.

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

The production equipment at DB Hess's Woodstock plant (the

Woodstock

[[Page 2578]]

plant) consists of (1) two heatset web offset lithographic printing

presses, presses 1 and 2, with VOM emissions controlled by the use of a

thermal oxidizer; (2) three heatset web offset presses, presses 3, 4,

and 5, whose VOM emissions are uncontrolled; and (3) two coldset

sheetfed presses. Each heatset web offset printing line includes a

drying oven, fired with natural gas. The exhausts from the drying ovens

for presses 3, 4, and 5 are vented through the roof of the Woodstock

plant.

VOM emissions from the Woodstock plant result from the use of

organic, solvent-born inks, fountain solution additives, and cleaning

solutions. The Woodstock plant currently uses fountain solutions which

are applied with a VOM concentration of less than 5 percent (by volume

or by mass not specified) and which contain no alcohol. The cleaning

solution used by DB Hess is diluted from a concentrate. Heatset inks

are formulated from solids, ink oils, and solvents, some of which

contain VOM.

In 1995, the Woodstock plant emitted approximately 9 tons of VOM,

with 5 tons of VOM emissions resulting from the use of heatset ink oils

and 4 tons of VOM emissions resulting from the use of cleaning

solvents. The Woodstock plant currently operates under a Federally

Enforceable State Operating Permit (FESOP) issued by the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) on December 11, 1995.

II. The Requested Rule Variance and Its Justification

DB Hess currently complies with Illinois' VOM rules for presses 1

and 2 and for the coldset sheetfed presses. DB Hess is requesting the

variance only for presses 3, 4, and 5. The variance requested concerns

Illinois's VOM rules for lithographic printing sources. Specifically,

DB Hess is seeking a variance from the State regulations found at Title

35: Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter I:

Pollution Control Board, Subchapter c: Emissions Standards and

Limitations for Stationary Sources, Part 218: Organic Material

Emissions Standards and Limitations for the Chicago Area, Subpart H:

Printing and Publishing of the Illinois Administrative Code (35 IAC)

218.407 (a) (1) (C), (D), and (E) and (35 IAC) 218.411 (b) (1), (2),

and (3) which are parts of Illinois' lithographic printing rules.

Section 218.407 (a) (1) (C), (D), and (E) require the instillation and

operation of an afterburner at subject heatset web offset lithographic

printing lines as well as continuous monitoring of its performance

while in use. Section 218.411 (b) (1), (2),and (3) specify

certification and recordkeeping and reporting requirements for heatset

web offset lithographic printing lines subject to emission control

requirements. The lithographic printing rules were tightened in 1995 to

provide VOM emission reductions needed to meet the requirements for

Rate-Of-Progress (ROP) in the Chicago-Northwest Indiana ozone

nonattainment area.

The FESOP, under which the Woodstock plant currently operates,

limits uncontrolled VOM emissions to less than 100 tons per year for

all heatset lines. The new lithographic printing rule requirements

apply if the source emits 100 pounds of VOM or more per day before

control from all printing processes. Because the VOM emissions at the

Woodstock plant exceed this emission limit, the Woodstock plant is

subject to the requirements of the lithographic printing rule. DB Hess

is complying with this rule for all presses except for presses 3, 4,

and 5.

On March 15, 1996, the compliance date for the lithographic

printing rule, DB Hess filed for a variance from the applicable control

requirements for presses 3, 4, and 5 with the Illinois Pollution

Control Board (IPCB). The variance was sought for the period of March

15, 1996 through March 30, 1999, during which DB Hess proposed to

implement an alternative plan to reduce its emissions using a phased

compliance approach. In lieu of purchasing and operating an afterburner

for presses 3, 4, and 5, DB Hess proposed to replace these presses with

compliant presses and to otherwise reduce VOM emissions from the

presses. The alternative compliance plan would employ the use of

cleaning solutions with lower VOM content. In addition, DB Hess

committed to eliminate press 3 by March 30, 1998, and to eliminate or

retrofit presses 4 and 5 to comply with the VOM requirements by March

30, 1999. DB Hess requested that the variance terminate when presses 3,

4, and 5 have ceased operation, have been replaced, or have been

retrofitted with emission control equipment, and have been tested and

shown to be in compliance with the applicable rules. Compliance with

the rules would be demonstrated by March 30, 1999.

To comply with the lithographic printing rule prior to March 15,

1996, DB Hess considered various VOM control systems and determined

that only thermal oxidation of VOM was a feasible control method.

However, DB Hess asserted that the environmental benefit from

controlling the emissions from presses 3, 4, and 5 was out weighed by

the high cost of VOM reduction using thermal oxidation. The cost of VOM

reduction via thermal oxidation was estimated by DB Hess to be in the

range of $48,000 to $69,000 per ton of VOM controlled, with an expected

VOM emission reduction of 3.5 tons per year. In addition, DB Hess noted

that these presses are nearing the ends of their average production

lives of 25 years. Requiring DB Hess to install an afterburner to

control VOM emissions would require DB Hess to make a substantial,

short-lived capital investment in excess of the expected value produced

by these presses during the remainder of the presses' lifetimes. The

VOM control costs for these presses would significantly exceed the

upper costs of VOM controls, $1,800 to $3,100 per ton VOM controlled,

believed by DB Hess to represent Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT). The IPCB found in a March 20, 1997 Opinion and Order

of the Board that to require immediate compliance with the lithographic

printing rules for these presses would impose an arbitrary and

unreasonable hardship on DB Hess.

DB Hess maintained that there will be no adverse environmental

impacts from its proposed compliance plan. DB Hess believed that the

VOM emission reduction to be gained from the implementation of an

afterburner on presses 3, 4, and 5 would have a negligible impact on

the ozone levels in this area. In addition, DB Hess agreed to limit its

potential to emit VOM to a level required by the lithographic printing

rule, 18 tons per year. (Note that actual VOM emissions at the

Woodstock plant are currently well below this level.) Therefore, DB

Hess believes its alternative control plan would provide a net benefit

for the environment.

Given DB Hess' commitment to limit the Woodstock plant potential

VOM emissions to 18 tons per year, the IEPA concluded that the

requested variance and alternative compliance plan will not adversely

impact the environment relative to the full impact that would have been

achieved by complete implementation of the lithographic printing rules.

The IEPA, however, disagreed with DB Hess' conclusions concerning the

implications of the local ozone monitoring data. The IEPA recognized

the potential for the DB Hess VOM emissions to contribute to high ozone

concentrations elsewhere in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. The

IEPA also indicated that DB Hess' commitment to reduce potential VOM

emissions to 18 tons per year confused the terms ``actual emissions''

and ``potential to emit.'' Reducing ``potential'' emissions does not

always

[[Page 2579]]

equate to a real environmental benefit, especially when, in fact, DB

Hess does not actually emit near its potential to emit.

The IEPA stated that denying the variance request would result in

an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship to DB Hess which would be

required to make a substantial, short lived capital investment if

required to install an afterburner on presses that are expected to be

shut down within three years because such an expenditure would be in

excess of the value of each press and the expected value produced by

those presses during their estimated useful life remaining. The IEPA

concluded that DB Hess qualified for a SIP revision and has met

applicable requirements for a SIP revision. The requirements of notice

and opportunity for public participation have been met through a public

hearing held in this matter on January 23, 1997.

Balancing the economic costs of the required VOM controls for

presses 3, 4, and 5 against the anticipated environmental impact of

complete rule implementation, the IPCB found that to require immediate

compliance with the rules for lithographic printing would impose an

arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on DB Hess. Therefore, the IPCB

issued a temporary variance for presses 3, 4, and 5 at the Woodstock

plant. This variance commenced on March 20, 1997, and was not made

retroactive to March 15, 1996 as requested by DB Hess. The variance

terminates on March 30, 1999. The following summarizes additional

conditions placed on the variance (the dates specified indicate the

latest start dates of compliance periods terminating on March 30, 1999,

when presses 3, 4, and 5 must be replaced by complying presses or must

be brought into compliance with the rules from which DB Hess seeks the

variance):

1. On or before March 20, 1997, the combined actual VOM emissions

from all of the presses in the Woodstock plant shall not exceed 18 tons

per year or 1.5 tons per month.

2. On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall use only cleaning

solutions with VOM concentrations less than or equal to 30 percent by

weight.

3. On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall use cleaning

solutions on presses 3, 4, and 5 that have a VOM composite partial

vapor pressure of less than 10 millimeters (mm) of Mercury (Hg) at 20

degrees Celsius. These cleaning solutions must comply with the

requirements of 35 IAC 218.407(a)(4).

4. On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall store and dispose of

all cleaning towels in closed containers.

5. On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall monitor presses 3, 4,

and 5 pursuant to 35 IAC 218.410 (b), (c), and (e).

6. On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall use fountain solutions

on presses 3, 4, and 5 that are less than 5 percent VOM by volume, as

applied, and which contain no alcohol.

7. On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall prepare and maintain

records pursuant to 35 IAC 218.411 (b), (c), and (d) for presses 3, 4,

and 5 and must show compliance with the requirements of 35 IAC

218.407(a)(1) (C), (D), and (E) and with the requirements of 35 IAC

218.411(b) (1), (2), and (3) for these presses.

8. On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall submit quarterly reports

to the IEPA's Compliance and Systems Management Section demonstrating

compliance with the terms of the IPCB order.

9. On or before March 30, 1998, DB Hess shall cease operation of

press 3.

10. On or before March 30, 1999, DB Hess shall either:

A. Cease operation of presses 4 and 5, and notify the IEPA of such

cessation; or

B. Retrofit presses 4 and 5 or replace presses 4 and 5 in

compliance with 35 IAC 218.407 (a)(1) (C), (D), and (E) and with 35 IAC

218.411(b) (1), (2), and (3). In this case:

(1) DB Hess must apply for and obtain necessary construction

permits by March 30, 1998, or six months before retrofitting or

replacing presses 4 and 5, whichever is earlier.

(2) DB Hess must send monthly status reports, due the 15th day of

each month, to the IEPA, covering the progress of the installation of

the presses and control equipment and testing of the control equipment.

11. On or before March 30, 1999, DB Hess shall cease operations at

presses 3, 4, and 5 except for those presses for which it has obtained

permits and installed controls, which have been tested and demonstrated

to be in compliance with applicable rules.

III. USEPA Review of the Variance Request

USEPA guidance covering various types of variance requests is

comprised of separate rulemakings on a number of widely ranging

variance requests. Generally, each variance request must be reviewed on

a case-by-case basis. This particular control variance is reviewed on

the merits of DB Hess's claim of unreasonable costs for implementation

of required controls and on the merits of the IPCB's final decision and

requirements. Of greatest concern is the enforceability and specific

temporary nature of the IPCB-granted variance.

Review of the cost data supplied by DB Hess leads to the conclusion

that DB Hess's claim of unreasonable emission control costs may be

justified. Assuming that presses 3, 4, and 5 are to be replaced in the

short term due to their ages and the fact that presses have finite

useful lifetimes and recognizing that afterburner (thermal oxidation)

control systems are relatively expensive, requiring long term uses to

provide reasonable emission control costs, leads to the conclusion that

DB Hess can justify relatively high emission control costs, well above

levels that might be expected should the afterburner systems be used

over much longer time periods. DB Hess is justified in seeking a

temporary variance if it plans to terminate or replace the presses in a

short time frame (within 3 years as planned).

The SIP variance requested places a definite ending point on the

variance. DB Hess is required to replace or terminate the use of the

three presses by March 30, 1999, or to bring the presses into

compliance with applicable regulations by that time. Failure to do so

would leave DB Hess subject to rule violation consequences if DB Hess

fails to comply by that time. The SIP revision also provides for

adequate tracking of DB Hess' progress of compliance. The variance is

enforceable on its face, since the State and USEPA can take actions to

enforce the applicable regulations after March 30, 1999. Approval of

the variance does protect DB Hess from enforcement between March 20,

1997, the date of the variance approval by the IPCB, and March 30,

1999. The variance is technically justified and enforceable.

USEPA approves the incorporation of this variance into the Illinois

SIP for the life of the variance.

USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because

USEPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal

Register publication, USEPA is proposing to approve the State Plan

should adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective

without further notice unless USEPA receives relevant adverse written

comment by February 16, 1999. Should USEPA receive such comments, it

will publish a final rule informing the public that this action will

not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public

is advised that this

[[Page 2580]]

action will be effective on March 16, 1999.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled

``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

Under E.O. 12875, USEPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or

tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments. If the mandate is unfunded, USEPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of USEPA's

prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and

tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires USEPA to

develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not

create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does

not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that

USEPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on

children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must

evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule

on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to

other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 13084, USEPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,

USEPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of USEPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires USEPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and

timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does

not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and of small entities because SIP approvals under section

110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA) do not create

any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, USEPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires USEPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

USEPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves

pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. USEPA will submit a report containing this rule and

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot

take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal

Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review

of this action must be filed in the United States

[[Page 2581]]

Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 16, 1999. 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 3, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 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 read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart O--Illinois

2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(144) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(144) On September 3, 1997, the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency submitted a temporary, site specific State Implementation Plan

revision request for the D.B. Hess Company, Incorporated's (DB Hess)

lithographic printing operations located in Woodstock (McHenry County),

Illinois. This variance took the form of a March 20, 1997, Opinion and

Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board issued in PCB 96-194

(Variance--Air). The variance which will expire on March 30, 1999,

grants DB Hess a variance from 35 Illinois Administrative Code Sections

218.407(a)(1)(C),(D),(E) and 218.411(b)(1), (2)and (3) for heatset web

offset presses 3, 4, and 5 which are located at the Woodstock (McHenry

County), Illinois facility.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

A March 20, 1997, Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board in PCB 96-194 (Variance--Air) which was effective on

March 20, 1997 and expires on March 30, 1999.

(ii) The variance is subject to the following conditions (the dates

specified indicate the latest start dates of compliance periods

terminating on March 30, 1999, when presses 3, 4, and 5 must be

replaced by complying presses or must be brought into compliance with

the rules from which DB Hess seeks the variance):

(A) On or before March 20, 1997, the combined actual volatile

organic material (VOM) emissions from all of the presses in the

Woodstock plant shall not exceed 18 tons per year or 1.5 tons per

month.

(B) On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall use only cleaning

solutions with VOM concentrations less than or equal to 30 percent by

weight.

(C) On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall use cleaning

solutions on presses 3, 4, and 5 that have a VOM composite partial

vapor pressure of less than 10 millimeters (mm) of Mercury (Hg) at 20

degrees Celsius. These cleaning solutions must comply with the

requirements of 35 IAC 218.407(a)(4).

(D) On or before March 20, 1997, DB Hess shall store and dispose of

all cleaning towels in closed containers.

(E) On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall monitor presses 3, 4,

and 5 pursuant to 35 IAC 218.410 (b), (c), and (e).

(F) On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall use fountain solutions

on presses 3, 4, and 5 that are less than 5 percent VOM by volume, as

applied, and which contain no alcohol.

(G) On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall prepare and maintain

records pursuant to 35 IAC 218.411 (b), (c), and (d) for presses 3, 4,

and 5 and must show compliance with the requirements of 35 IAC

218.407(a)(1) (C), (D), and (E) and with the requirements of 35 IAC

218.411(b) (1), (2), and (3) for these presses.

(H) On or before May 5, 1997, DB Hess shall submit quarterly

reports to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (IEPA's)

Compliance and Systems Management Section demonstrating compliance with

the terms of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Order.

(I) On or before March 30, 1998, DB Hess shall cease operation of

press 3.

(J) On or before March 30, 1999, DB Hess shall either:

(1) Cease operation of presses 4 and 5, and notify the IEPA of such

cessation; or

(2) Retrofit presses 4 and 5 or replace presses 4 and 5 in

compliance with 35 IAC 218.407 (a)(1) (C), (D), and (E) and with 35 IAC

218.411(b) (1), (2), and(3). In this case:

(i) DB Hess must apply for and obtain necessary construction

permits by March 30, 1998, or six months before retrofitting or

replacing presses 4 and 5, whichever is earlier.

(ii) DB Hess must send monthly status reports, due the 15th day of

each month, to the IEPA, covering the progress of the installation of

the presses and control equipment and testing of the control equipment.

(K) On or before March 30, 1999, DB Hess shall cease operations at

presses 3, 4, and 5 except for those presses for which it has obtained

permits and installed controls, which have been tested and demonstrated

to be in compliance with applicable rules.

[FR Doc. 99-1022 Filed 1-14-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P