[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2848]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: February 8, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN5-1-5192; FRL-4835-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 11, 1991, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted amendments of its source monitoring rules
and sulfur dioxide (SO2) rules to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) as State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions.
Because of unsupported emission limit relaxations and enforceability
deficiencies in the amended State regulations, USEPA is proposing to
disapprove this SIP revision request.
DATES: Comments on this revision and on the proposed USEPA action must
be received by March 10, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J),
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Onischak at (312) 353-5954. (It
is recommended that you telephone before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are available
for inspection at the following address:
Regulation Development Branch, Regulation Development Section (AR-
18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of State Submittal
On January 11, 1991, IDEM submitted its amended source monitoring
rules and sulfur dioxide (SO2) rules to USEPA as Indiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. The submittal amends 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) Articles 3 and 7. Because the rules contain
enforceability deficiencies and unsupported emission limit relaxations,
USEPA proposes to disapprove the January 11, 1991 submittal.
II. Analysis of State Submittal
Indiana's revised monitoring rule consists of 326 IAC 3-1.1, 3-2.1,
and 3-3. The revised sulfur dioxide rule consists of 326 IAC 7-1.1, 7-
2, 7-3, and 7-4. The following paragraphs describe the individual
rules.
326 IAC 3-1.1
326 IAC 3-1.1 requires continuous emission monitoring for sources
in several categories, including large fossil fuel-fired steam
generators, sulfuric acid producers, and catalytic cracking units.
Fossil fuel-fired steam generators of greater than 100 million British
Thermal Units per hour (MMBTU/hr) heat input capacity are required
under this rule to continuously monitor their emissions for opacity,
nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and oxygen or carbon monoxide content.
The rule allows IDEM's Commissioner to require additional sources to
use continuous monitoring equipment. This rule contains the minimum
emission monitoring requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix
P.
326 IAC 3-1.1 requires facilities to report excess emissions
quarterly, and allows 3-hour block averaging of gaseous measurements.
This averaging time is consistent with the SO2 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Facility owners must keep all monitoring
records on file for 2 years. These requirements are consistent with 40
CFR part 51, appendix P. The rule requires facility owners to submit to
IDEM written standard operating procedures describing calibration and
quality control procedures for the operation of all required continuous
emission monitors. The rule also sets forth conversion factors to be
used with monitoring data.
326 IAC 3-1.1 refers to 40 CFR [part] 60, appendix B for the
performance specifications of the required monitoring equipment, and
specifies that where reference is made to the ``Administrator'' in 40
CFR [part] 60, appendix B, the term ``Commissioner'' is to be inserted
for the purposes of this rule. Such substitution is allowed by USEPA,
according to 40 CFR part 51, appendix P, paragraph 3.1. The USEPA has
set forth explicit criteria for the Commissioner's modification of the
rule's requirements in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. However,
``Commissioner's discretion'' language that USEPA finds unacceptable
for the reasons described in section III below appears in other
portions of 326 IAC 3-1.1, e.g., 326 IAC 3-1.1-1 (waivers) and 326 IAC
3-1.1-2 (alternate instrument response settings), and renders these
rules unapprovable.
326 IAC 3-2.1
326 IAC 3-2.1 provides reporting requirements and specifies the
facility operating conditions under which emission testing should be
performed. The rule also prescribes specific testing procedures for
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile
organic compounds. It specifies that sources should use emission test
methodologies set forth in 40 CFR [part] 61, appendix A, and 40 CFR
[part] 61, appendix B. This is incorrect. The rule should cite 40 CFR
Part 60, appendix A, rather than 40 CFR [part] 61, appendix A. In
addition, the rule allows the State to authorize alternate emission
test methods, changes in test procedure, or alternate operating load
levels during tests. Such ``Commissioner's discretion'' is not
acceptable to USEPA, for the reasons described below in section III.
326 IAC 3-3
326 IAC 3-3 prescribes sampling and analysis procedures for coal
and fuel oil. Sources with total coal-fired capacity of 1500 or more
MMBTU/hr actual heat input must collect composite samples daily, in
accordance with specified American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) procedures. Sources with total coal-fired capacity between 100
and 1500 MMBTU/hr actual heat input must draw coal samples at least 3
times per day and at least once per 8-hour period, but may composite
and analyze these samples monthly. It is not acceptable for facilities
of this size to perform only monthly coal analysis to determine
compliance. Monthly analysis will not ensure that the short-term
SO2 NAAQS will be protected. 326 IAC 3-3 does not specify coal
sampling analysis procedures to be used by facilities with total coal-
fired heat input capacity less than 100 MMBTU/hr. These small
facilities are required by 326 IAC 7-2 to report coal analysis data, as
collected pursuant to 326 IAC 3-3, but it is not clear whether each
facility must use the coal sampling and analysis methods prescribed for
the larger facilities or is expected to provide its own alternative
method. This rule also allows ``Commissioner's discretion'' in
prescribing and in performing alternate fuel sampling and analysis
procedures. The USEPA believes that such discretion is unacceptable for
the reasons described below in section III of this document.
326 IAC 7-1.1
326 IAC 7-1.1 sets forth general SO2 emission limits for fuel
combustion facilities with a potential to emit 25 tons per year or 10
pounds per hour of SO2. Facilities are also required to comply
with specific emission limitations pursuant to 326 IAC 7-4, if
applicable. 326 IAC 7-1.1 introduces SO2 emission limits for oil-
burning facilities. Facilities combusting residual oil may not exceed
1.6 pounds SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU) of
SO2, and facilities combusting distillate oil may not emit more
than 0.5 lb/MMBTU of SO2. 326 IAC 7-1.1 continues to state that
facilities combusting coal may not emit more than 6.0 lb/MMBTU.
Facilities which use both coal and oil simultaneously as fuel must
adhere to the SO2 emission limit for coal alone. Facilities which
use both oil and any fuel other than coal simultaneously must not
exceed the SO2 emission limit for the oil alone. This rule allows
facilities to meet their SO2 emission limits by combining their
usual fuel with lower-sulfur fuels. However, this rule fails to couple
the lb/MMBTU emission limits with any applicable averaging time. The
rule should require compliance with the emission limits on at least a
three-hour basis in order to assure compliance with the short-term
SO2 NAAQS. Since the averaging time applicable to these emission
limits is not made clear either in this rule or in other portions of
Indiana's SO2 SIP, 326 IAC 7-1.1 cannot be approved.
326 IAC 7-2
326 IAC 7-2 specifies that compliance or noncompliance with
emission limits can be determined by a stack test in accordance with
the test methods in 40 CFR [part] 60, appendix A. Continuous emission
monitoring data collected pursuant to 326 IAC 3-1 may be used to
determine compliance with emission limits. 326 IAC 7-2 also requires
facilities to report the results of fuel sampling and analysis. Fuel
combustion sources with total coal-fired heat input capacity of 1500
MMBTU/hr or greater are to keep records of average daily coal sulfur
content and SO2 emission rate (in units of lb/MMBTU). Sources with
total coal-fired heat input capacity between 100 and 1500 MMBTU/hr need
only record and report average monthly coal sulfur content and SO2
emission rate. Monthly coal analysis is not acceptable for facilities
of this size. Long-term averaging does not assure compliance with the
short-term SO2 NAAQS, since shorter periods of high emissions may
not be detected. Sources with total coal-fired heat input capacity less
than 100 MMBTU/hr may submit either calendar month or annual average
coal sulfur content and SO2 emission data. While it may be
reasonable for very small sources to have less stringent sampling and
analysis requirements, the calculation and reporting of an annual
average alone is not acceptable. This would not be an acceptable
determination of continuous compliance.
326 IAC 7-2 specifies that SO2 emission rates for fuel
combustion sources should be calculated based on emission factors
published in AP-42, ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.''
If compliance is to be determined through fuel sampling and analysis,
USEPA prefers that SO2 emissions be calculated under the
assumption that 100 percent of the fuel sulfur content will be emitted
from the facility as SO2. The factors given in AP-42, however, are
acceptable. 326 IAC
7-2 also allows IDEM's Commissioner to approve alternate SO2
emission factors based on sulfur dioxide measurements, but the rule
does not specify the rigorous scientific support required, or that the
alternate emission factors will be included in site-specific SIP
revisions. Therefore, this rule cannot be approved. For compliance
determinations, USEPA cannot allow the Commissioner to have blanket
authority to accept emission factors other than the generally
applicable factors given in AP-42 for SO2 emission calculations
from fuel sampling data. To be approvable, 326 IAC 7-2 must set forth
any site-specific alternative emission factors allowed by the State,
and the State must compile sufficient technical support for the use of
those emission factors. Additional site-specific emission factors
should not be allowed except through site-specific SIP revisions, which
must support the alternate emission factors with data from a series of
emission tests and provide for periodic reverification of the emission
factors' accuracy. In any case, 326 IAC 7-2 should also clearly state
the approved emission factors and formulae to be used in calculating
SO2 emission rates from fuel analysis data.
326 IAC 7-3
326 IAC 7-3 requires that sources with total actual emissions of
SO2 greater than 10,000 tons per year install and operate ambient
SO2 monitors. The rule gives IDEM's Commissioner discretionary
authority to grant waivers of all or part of the requirements of this
rule. While the rule provides a set of criteria for reviewing these
petitions, the rule should also require that monitoring data be
provided in order to justify the waiver of requirements for further
monitoring. The rule should also provide for USEPA review of any
waivers.
326 IAC 7-4
326 IAC 7-4 sets forth facility-specific SO2 emission
limitations and recordkeeping requirements for Lake, Marion, Vigo,
Wayne, LaPorte, Jefferson, Sullivan, Vermillion, Floyd, Warrick,
Morgan, Gibson, Dearborn, and Porter Counties. The January 11, 1991
submittal contains minor revisions to 326 IAC 7-4, which primarily
consist of the removal of outdated interim compliance dates for various
sources. The rule also reflects facility name changes that have
occurred recently. However, in 326 IAC 7-4-1(c)(10), the emission
limits for Inland Steel in Lake County have been relaxed. Similarly,
the SO2 emission limits for Bethlehem Steel in Porter County have
been relaxed in 326 IAC 7-4-14(1)(C). In the case of Inland Steel,
which is located in an area currently designated as nonattainment for
SO2, section 193 of the Clean Air Act precludes approval of this
SIP revision. Section 193, the general savings clause, states that no
SIP requirements in effect in a nonattainment area before the date of
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 may be relaxed unless
equivalent or greater emission reductions are made. No emission
reductions offsetting the Inland Steel relaxation have been identified
by the State. Both the Inland Steel and the Bethlehem Steel relaxations
are affected by section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits
USEPA from approving a SIP revision if the revision would interfere
with attainment. The USEPA can approve a SIP revision containing
relaxations to existing emission limitations only if the State provides
a modeled attainment demonstration performed according to USEPA
guidelines to show that the relaxed limits will continue to protect the
NAAQS. No information has been submitted to USEPA in support of the
relaxed emission limitations for Inland Steel or Bethlehem Steel.
Therefore, 326 IAC 7-4-1(c)(10) and 326 IAC 7-4-14(1)(C) cannot be
approved.
III. Enforceability: ``Commissioner's Discretion''
Rules containing ``Commissioner's discretion'' language allow
IDEM's Commissioner to remove or modify federally enforceable
requirements and restrictions for individual facilities.
``Commissioner's discretion'' language is found in 326 IAC 3-1.1, 3-
2.1, 3-3, 7-2, and 7-3. Such language is unacceptable because it does
not provide for USEPA review of rule modifications or exemptions made
after USEPA's approval of the original rule. Modifications to SIP rules
may affect an area's attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and may
compromise the federal enforceability of the SIP limits. In order for
``Commissioner's discretion'' language to be approvable, any subsequent
rule modifications made by the Commissioner must not hamper the SIP's
enforceability or ability to assure the protection and maintenance of
the standards. The USEPA may approve the rule if it provides that any
modifications will be submitted to USEPA as SIP revisions, or if the
rule explicitly states the criteria which the Commissioner will use to
evaluate any requests for rule modifications or exemptions. Without
such provisions, USEPA cannot be certain that each facility subject to
the original rule will comply with all of the rule's requirements.
Therefore, rules containing ``Commissioner's discretion'' language
without either federally approved criteria for the expected
modifications or provisions for USEPA review of the modifications
cannot be approved and incorporated into the SIP.
IV. Proposed Rulemaking Action and Solicitation of Public Comment
The USEPA is proposing to disapprove Indiana's January 11, 1991
submittal. The rules do not couple the general SO2 emission limits
with compliance methods or averaging times adequate to ensure
continuous compliance and maintenance of the NAAQS. 326 IAC 3-1.1, 3-
2.1, 3-3,
7-2, and 7-3 contain ``Commissioner's discretion'' language, which
could hamper USEPA's ability to enforce the State rules. 326 IAC 3-2.1
fails to properly cite the acceptable methodologies for source emission
testing. 326 IAC 7-4 contains emission limits which are less stringent
than the previously approved limits, and the January 11, 1991 submittal
failed to show that the relaxations continue to protect the NAAQS.
Because of these deficiencies, USEPA is proposing to disapprove the
January 11, 1991 submittal.
Public comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on
USEPA's proposal to disapprove. Public comments received by March 10,
1994 will be considered in the development of USEPA's final rulemaking
action.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). A revision to the SIP processing
review tables was approved by the Acting Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Air and Radiation on October 4, 1993 (Michael Shapiro's
memorandum to Regional Administrators). A future notice will inform the
general public of these tables. Under the revised tables this action
remains classified as a Table 2. On January 6, 1989, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR
2222) from the requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for 2
years. The USEPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for
Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue the waiver
until such time as it rules on USEPA's request. This request continues
in effect under Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order
12291 on September 30, 1993.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., 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, 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.
The USEPA's disapproval of the State request under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its State
enforceability. Moreover, USEPA's disapproval of the submittal does not
impose any new federal requirements. Therefore, USEPA certifies that
this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing requirements nor does it impose any new federal requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: January 26, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-2848 Filed 2-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
