[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13042-13045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6002]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL 12-36-6669; FRL-5167-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Illinois
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 29, 1990, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) which
contains 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. Included in
USEPA's rules was a requirement that major non-Control Technique
Guideline (CTG) sources be subject to 40 CFR 52.741 (s), (u), (v), (w),
or (x). The major non-CTG limits in 40 CFR 52.741(x) (would, if not for
this rule) apply to the hot and cold aluminum rolling operations at the
Reynolds Metals Company's (Reynolds) McCook Sheet & Plate Plant in
McCook, Illinois (in Cook County). On August 19, 1991, Reynolds
requested that USEPA reconsider the application of 40 CFR 52.741(x) to
its facility in McCook, Illinois, and on October 17, 1991, Reynolds
requested that USEPA promulgate site-specific RACT limits for its hot
and cold rolling mills. USEPA agreed to reconsider the RACT control
requirements for Reynolds' aluminum rolling operations and, on
September 22, 1993, proposed site-specific RACT control requirements
for these operations. In this rule the USEPA is promulgating these
site-specific RACT limits.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective April 10, 1995.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action (Docket No. A-92-67), which
contains the public comments, is located for public inspection and
copying at the following addresses. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. We recommend that you contact Randolph O. Cano before visiting
the Chicago location and Rachel Romine (202/245-3639) before visiting
the Washington, D.C. location.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Regulation Development
Branch, 18th Floor, Southwest, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois
60604.
Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket
6102), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. A-92-67, Room
M1500, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Regulation
Development Branch, USEPA Region 5, (312) 886-6052, at the Chicago
address indicated above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Part D of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., requires
that states adopt rules for major non-CTG1 sources.
[[Page 13043]] This requirement is discussed in the April 4, 1979,
General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking (44 FR 20372). On July 21,
1988, Illinois submitted a rule which covered major (100 tons per year
or more) non-CTG VOC sources. This rule was disapproved by USEPA on
June 29, 1990 (55 FR 26814), primarily because its applicability
provisions were inconsistent with USEPA requirements. Among other
defects, Illinois' non-CTG rule did not regulate the rolling operations
at Reynolds' McCook facility.
\1\Control techniques guideline documents have been prepared by
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 1, 1987, the State of Wisconsin filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
against USEPA and sought a judgment that 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 May 25, 1988, USEPA released a guidance document titled ``Issues
Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations''
(the ``Blue Book''). The purpose of this VOC guidance document was to
identify deficiencies which must be removed from existing State
Implementation Plans (SIP) and disapproved in any proposed SIPs. This
document specifies USEPA's non-CTG RACT requirements.
On January 18, 1989, the District Court in Wisconsin v. Reilly
ordered that USEPA promulgate an ozone implementation plan for
northeastern Illinois within 14 months of the date of that order. On
September 22, 1989, 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 USEPA to promulgate a FIP
using the model,2 and requires interim emission reductions while
the modeling study is being performed. The interim emission reductions
consist of Federal promulgation of required VOM3 RACT rules for
Illinois to remedy deficiencies in its State regulations.
\2\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' SIP belongs to Illinois because the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 establish such new deadlines.
\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 ``VOC.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 27, 1989, USEPA proposed major non-CTG rules consistent
with its May 25, 1988, VOC guidance (54 FR 53080). The non-CTG rules
proposed for promulgation by USEPA covered Reynolds' aluminum rolling
operations. On June 29, 1990, USEPA took final action to promulgate
major non-CTG rules. 55 FR 26814.
On August 29, 1990, Reynolds filed a petition for review of 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 August 19, 1991, Reynolds requested that USEPA reconsider the
FIP rule as it applies to its aluminum rolling operations and on
October 17, 1991, Reynolds requested the adoption of site-specific RACT
limits for its hot and cold rolling mills. On November 20, 1991, USEPA
announced its intention to reconsider its non-CTG rules as they apply
to Reynolds, and issued a three-month stay of the applicable rule
pending reconsideration, pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act,
42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B). 56 FR 58501. In addition, on November 20,
1991, USEPA proposed to extend the three-month stay, but only as long
as necessary to complete reconsideration. 56 FR 58528. On June 23,
1992, USEPA extended the stay beyond the 3-month period, for as long as
necessary to complete reconsideration of its non-CTG rules for
Reynolds' aluminum rolling operations. 57 FR 27935.
As a result of USEPA's decision to reconsider the Federal rules as
applied to Reynolds, USEPA reviewed information regarding Reynolds'
rolling operations and, on September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49254), proposed
to promulgate site-specific RACT control requirements for Reynolds'
aluminum rolling operations. On October 20, 1993, Reynolds submitted
comments in response to the proposed rule.
II. Discussion of Reynolds' Comments
Reynolds stated in its comments on the proposal that it supports
USEPA's promulgation of the site-specific RACT control requirements for
its aluminum rolling operations. However, it requested ``the following
minor changes to the proposed rule to better reflect our current
operations.'' These comments were clarified in a July 20, 1994,
discussion with the author of Reynolds' comments. Reynolds' comments
and USEPA's analysis of these comments follow.
A. Reynolds stated that the preamble should be made consistent with
the regulatory language regarding lubricant cooling requirements.
Reynolds requested that the part of the preamble titled ``RACT
Demonstration for Cold Rolling Operations'' be modified by stating that
``* * * RACT should reasonably require that sump oil temperatures be
maintained at 150 degrees F or less.'' instead of ``* * * RACT should
reasonably require that sump oil temperatures be maintained at 150
degrees F.'' USEPA agrees with the point of Reynolds' comment and
clearly intended for 150 degrees F to be a maximum temperature because
VOC emissions are reduced at lower temperatures. The regulation that
USEPA is promulgating for Reynolds is consistent with a maximum
temperature requirement of 150 degrees F.
B. In its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), USEPA specified the
use of ``severely hydrotreated mineral seal oil'' (a lubricant) for
Reynolds' cold rolling mills. USEPA further specified that the initial
and final boiling points of the lubricant must be between 460 degrees F
and 635 degrees F, as determined by a distillation range test using
ASTM method D86-90.
Reynolds requested that it be allowed some flexibility in the
specification of the cold rolling lubricant type that is allowed in
case improved lubricants become available. More specifically, it
requested the ability to use a low vapor pressure (as determined by the
distillation range test discussed above) organic lubricant and not be
limited to the use of ``severely hydrotreated mineral seal oil.''
Reynolds' request is reasonable because the lubricant emissions are a
function of the initial boiling point and it has not requested that the
initial boiling point of 460 degrees F be changed. This lubricant RACT
control requirement is, therefore, revised in this final rule,
consistent with Reynolds' request.
C. The proposed rule limits the inlet sump rolling lubricant
temperature to 150 degrees F for Reynolds' cold rolling
[[Page 13044]] mills and 200 degrees F for its hot rolling mills. In
its comments Reynolds states that, in some cases, the lubricant is
heated or cooled after the sump but prior to the lubricant nozzles.
Thus, measuring temperature in the inlet sump may not always be
representative.
USEPA agrees with Reynolds that the temperature of the inlet
lubricant supply measured after the inlet sump would be more reflective
of the as-applied lubricant temperature and, therefore, the final rule
allows temperature measurement after the inlet sump.
D. The proposed rule requires chart recorders for coolant
temperature monitoring and coolant temperature recording charts to
satisfy recordkeeping requirements. Although Reynolds has installed
chart recorders, it would like the option of moving to an electronic
data system in the future. USEPA agrees that the use of electronic
temperature recorders is an acceptable alternative, and could greatly
facilitate data review. Therefore, the final rule allows use of
electronic data recorders.
III. Specific RACT Control Requirements and Test Methods
A. Cold Rolling Mills
RACT for the aluminum sheet cold rolling mills Nos. 1 and 7 at the
McCook Sheet & Plate plant is the use of a low vapor pressure (as
determined by distillation range testing) organic lubricant and a
maximum inlet supply rolling lubricant temperature of 150 deg.F.
Compliance shall be demonstrated by a monthly distillation range
analysis of a grab rolling lubricant sample from each operating mill
and daily rolling lubricant temperature readings in the inlet supply
feeding each mill.
All incoming shipments of lubricant for the Nos. 1 and 7 cold mills
must be sampled and each sample must undergo a distillation range test
using ASTM method D86-90, ``Standard Test Method for Distillation of
Petroleum Products.'' The initial and final boiling points of the
lubricant must be between 460 deg.F and 635 deg.F. Also, for the cold
mills, samples of the as-applied lubricants must be taken on a monthly
basis to verify, using ASTM method D86-90, that the boiling points are
between 460 deg.F and 635 deg.F.
B. Hot Rolling Mills
RACT for the aluminum sheet and plate hot rolling mills, 120 inch,
96 inch, 80 inch and 145 inch mills, at the McCook Sheet & Plate plant
is the use of an oil/water emulsion (rolling lubricant) not to exceed
15% by weight of petroleum-based oil and additives and a maximum inlet
supply rolling lubricant temperature of 200 deg.F. Compliance shall be
demonstrated by a monthly analysis of a grab rolling lubricant sample
from each operating mill and daily temperature readings in the inlet
supply feeding each mill.
The lubricants at each hot mill must be sampled and tested, for the
percentage of oil and water, on a monthly basis. ASTM Method D95-83
(Reapproved 1990), ``Standard Test Method For Water in Petroleum
Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation'', shall be used to
determine the percent by weight of petroleum-based oil and additives.
C. Coolant Temperature Monitoring
Coolant temperatures shall be monitored at all of the rolling mills
by use of thermocouple probes and chart recorders or electronic data
recorders. The probes sense the coolant temperatures at the supply side
to the mills.
D. Recordkeeping
All distillation test results for cold mill lubricants, all percent
oil test results for hot mill lubricants, all coolant temperature
recording charts and/or temperature data obtained from electronic data
recorders, and all oil/water emulsion formulation records shall be kept
on file, and be available for inspection by USEPA, for three years.
IV. Compliance Date
A compliance date of four months from promulgation is required so
that Reynolds has adequate time to comply with revised recordkeeping
requirements.
V. Summary and Conclusions
This rule establishes site-specific RACT requirements, revised
recordkeeping requirements, and revised test methods for Reynold's
aluminum rolling mills. These requirements are consistent with USEPA's
notice of proposed rulemaking as modified by Reynolds' comments. The
use of lower VOC emitting lubricants and lubricant temperature control
has been previously approved by USEPA as RACT for another aluminum
rolling mill (55 FR 33904). Compliance with the revised emission limits
and recordkeeping requirements must be achieved four months from
USEPA's publication of this rule. Also, as proposed, the USEPA is
withdrawing the June 23, 1992, 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.4 The USEPA is interpreting this provision to authorize
USEPA to make corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown
to USEPA's satisfaction that the information made available to 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 Reynolds was clearly inadequate for the development of a
site-specific RACT determination.5
\4\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. 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.
\5\As discussed earlier, USEPA was required to promulgate the
June 29, 1990 FIP regulations under the tight timeframe ordered by
the Court in Wisconsin v. Reilly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
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.
This action involves only one source, Reynolds Metals Company.
(Reynolds is not a small entity.) Therefore, USEPA certifies that this
RACT promulgation does not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 9, 1995. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purpose of [[Page 13045]] 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, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.
Dated: February 28, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out 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. 7401-7671q.
Subpart O--Illinois
Section 52.741 is amended by adding a new paragraph (x)(7) and
revising paragraph (z)(4) as follows:
Sec. 52.741 Control strategy: Ozone control measures for Cook, DuPage,
Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties.
* * * * *
(x) * * *
(7) The control, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements in this
paragraph apply to the aluminum rolling mills at the Reynolds Metals
Company's McCook Sheet & Plate Plant in McCook, Illinois (Cook County)
instead of the control requirements and test methods in the other parts
of paragraph (x), and the recordkeeping requirements in paragraph (y)
of this section. All of the following requirements must be met by
Reynolds on and after July 7, 1995.
(i) Only organic lubricants with initial and final boiling points
between 460 degrees F and 635 degrees F, as determined by a
distillation range test using ASTM method D86-90, are allowed to be
used at Reynolds' aluminum sheet cold rolling mills numbers 1 and 7.
All incoming shipments of organic lubricant for the number 1 and 7
mills must be sampled and each sample must undergo a distillation range
test to determine the initial and final boiling points using ASTM
method D86-90. A grab rolling lubricant sample shall be taken from each
operating mill on a monthly basis and each sample must undergo a
distillation range test, to determine the initial and final boiling
points, using ASTM method D86-90.
(ii) An oil/water emulsion, with no more than 15 percent by weight
of petroleum-based oil and additives, shall be the only lubricant used
at Reynolds' aluminum sheet and plate hot rolling mills, 120 inch, 96
inch, 80 inch, and 145 inch mills. A grab rolling lubricant sample
shall be taken from each operating mill on a monthly basis and each
sample shall be tested for the percent by weight of petroleum-based oil
and additives by ASTM Method D95-83.
(iii) The temperature of the inlet supply of rolling lubricant for
aluminum sheet cold rolling mills numbers 1 and 7 shall not exceed
150 deg.F, as measured at or after (but prior to the lubricant nozzles)
the inlet sump. The temperature of the inlet supply of rolling
lubricant for the aluminum sheet and plate hot rolling mills, 120 inch,
96 inch, 80 inch, and 145 inch mills shall not exceed 200 deg.F, as
measured at or after (but prior to the lubricant nozzles) the inlet
sump. Coolant temperatures shall be monitored at all the rolling mills
by use of thermocouple probes and chart recorders or electronic data
recorders.
(iv) All distillation test results for cold mill lubricants, all
percent oil test results for hot mill lubricants, all coolant
temperature recording charts and/or temperature data obtained from
electronic data recorders, and all oil/water emulsion formulation
records, shall be kept on file, and be available for inspection by
USEPA, for three years.
* * * * *
(z) * * *
(4) 40 CFR 52.741(e), only as it applies to Riverside Laboratories
Incorporated, is stayed from June 12, 1992, until USEPA completes its
reconsideration for Riverside.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-6002 Filed 3-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
