# Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-1022

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** January 15, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 2577

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-1022. Public record. Not legal advice.