[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20147-20149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11196]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL129-1-7046a; FRL-5464-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 14, 1995, the Illinois Environmental Protection
[[Page 20148]]
Agency (IEPA) formally submitted three federally enforceable State
operating permits (FESOPs) to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA). These permits contained enforceable sulfur
dioxide (SO2) emission limitations for three industrial facilities
in the Granite City area of Madison County, Illinois. The limitations
are intended to address modeled violations of the SO2 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). USEPA has determined that the
three FESOPs are adequate as revisions to Illinois' State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) as it applies
to Madison County, and as such, address the previously modeled
violations of the SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: This action will be effective on July 5, 1996 unless adverse or
critical comments not previously addressed by the State or USEPA are
received by June 5, 1996. If the effective date is delayed, timely
notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the State's submittal and USEPA's analysis (Technical
Support Document) are available for inspection at the following
location: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604. (It is recommended that you telephone Mary Onischak at (312)
353-5954 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Onischak at (312) 353-5954.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On September 22, 1992 (57 FR 43846), USEPA proposed to designate
portions of Madison County, Illinois, including the Granite City area
(Granite City and Nameoki Townships) as nonattainment for SO2.
This proposed designation was based on modeled violations of the
SO2 NAAQS. On December 21, 1993 (58 FR 67336), USEPA published its
intent to defer the final SO2 designation of Madison County,
Illinois while the State worked to revise its SO2 SIP. On March
14, 1995, Illinois submitted a SO2 SIP revision request which
consisted of SO2 emission limitations for three facilities in
Madison County: the Nestle Beverage Company (Nestle), Reilly Industries
(Reilly), and the Granite City division of the National Steel
Corporation (Granite City Steel). Illinois' submittal, including
background information, demonstration of attainment, and enforceability
is discussed further in the technical support document.
II. Emission Limitations
A. Nestle Beverage Company
Nestle's FESOP covers three sources: the Nebraska boiler, Boiler
Number 5, and the tea leaf burner. Both boilers normally use natural
gas, but have the capability of burning fuel oil as well. The tea leaf
burner combusts ``spent'' tea leaves, with natural gas or oil as
support fuels. The FESOP conditions require that Nestle's fuels, except
for the tea leaves, must all meet a fuel quality rating of 0.30 pounds
SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU), on an hourly
basis. The SO2 and particulate emissions from the tea leaf burner
are controlled by a flue gas desulfurization unit, and the tea leaf
burner's SO2 emissions must not exceed 0.30 lb/MMBTU, regardless
of the fuel burned. After April 1, 1996, the SO2 emissions of the
tea leaf burner are to be measured and recorded hourly, using a
continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) system.
B. Reilly Industries
Reilly Industries emits SO2 from seven Stills. The facility
normally uses natural gas at these Stills, but keeps a supply of fuel
oil as a backup fuel. The facility originally was allowed to use
residual fuel oil, which the State of Illinois limits to 1.0 lb/MMBTU
of SO2 [35 IAC 214.161(a)]. Under the new FESOP requirements, the
facility must burn only natural gas or distillate fuel oil, resulting
in SO2 emissions of no more than 0.30 lb/MMBTU. Fuel which would
lead to emissions greater than 0.3 lb/MMBTU may not be burned by the
facility.
C. Granite City Steel
While most combustion units at Granite City Steel are primarily
fueled by natural gas, the plant maintains the ability to use several
different fuels: natural gas, blast furnace gas, fuel oil, and coke
oven gas (COG). Natural gas and blast furnace gas do not cause
significant emissions of SO2. Fuel oil, which contains sulfur, is
primarily used as a backup fuel. COG is produced at the facility and
must either be used as fuel or destroyed in a flare because it cannot
be stored at the site. Granite City Steel requested to be allowed
adequate flexibility to make use of the COG it generates. The COG
contains hydrogen sulfide (H2S), which converts to SO2 during
combustion.
The Granite City Steel FESOP imposes daily and annual SO2
emission caps on certain combustion units and unit groups at the
facility, with additional 3-hour emission caps on some units. Although
certain sources have been restricted to the use of natural gas alone,
or have been prohibited from using fuel oil, the SO2 emission caps
are generally independent of the fuel types used. Granite City Steel
continuously monitors its COG flow and COG sulfur content for the
calculation of SO2 emissions for compliance purposes. The Granite
City Steel FESOP limits were developed based on modeling which tested
both the company's most frequent fuel routing and worst-case fuel
routing.
III. Air Quality Analysis
The SO2 emission limits in the FESOPs for the three Madison
County facilities were all supported by air dispersion modeling.
Illinois used the Industrial Source Complex long- and short-term models
with the regulatory default options. The Granite City area is
considered rural, so rural dispersion coefficients were used. Other
nearby sources were explicitly modeled in addition to the three FESOP
sources. Worst-case building dimensions were used for downwash impacts.
A reduced load screening analysis was performed to determine the source
operating rates that resulted in maximum ambient impact. The receptor
arrays had a resolution of 100 meters in the areas of concern and at
the fencelines, and because the sources are near the border of Illinois
and Missouri, interstate impacts were taken into account. Five years of
meteorological data from St. Louis were used, and background
concentrations were added to the final ambient SO2 concentration
predictions.
The dispersion modeling study was used as a tool for developing the
SO2 emission limits at these sources. Setting and modeling the
emission limits for Nestle and Reilly was fairly straightforward, but
setting Granite City Steel's emission limits presented a challenge.
Because there are many different emission scenarios possible at Granite
City Steel, IEPA considered the relative impacts from each source group
separately. Illinois performed many modeling tests to evaluate the
different operating scenarios. Emission limits were placed on the
source groups so that any operation scenario used at the facility could
be expected to protect the SO2 NAAQS. The final 3-hour, 24-hour,
and annual modeling runs, which included all the Granite City area
SO2 sources and background concentrations, showed that the entire
Granite City area would attain the NAAQS for SO2.
[[Page 20149]]
USEPA has reviewed this modeling and determined that it is acceptable.
For further documentation of the dispersion modeling, see the technical
support document.
IV. Enforceability
Illinois established a set of specific recordkeeping and reporting
requirements as conditions within a federally enforceable operating
permit for the three Granite City facilities. On December 17, 1992 (57
FR 59928) Illinois' operating permit program was approved by USEPA and
incorporated into the Illinois SIP. Permits issued under this federally
enforceable State operating permit program may serve as part of the SIP
and may be used to address certain SIP deficiencies.
The FESOP for Nestle (Application No. 94110119) was issued on March
8, 1995. The FESOP for Reilly (Application No. 94040131) was issued on
February 24, 1995. The Granite City Steel FESOP (Application No.
94120017) was issued on March 7, 1995. The permits were given public
notice and were made available for public comment. The conditions of
the permits effectively limit emissions of sulfur dioxide from the
affected sources.
V. Final Rulemaking Action
The USEPA has determined that Illinois' March 14, 1995, SO2
SIP revision submittal satisfies section 110(A)(2) of the Clean Air Act
and is fully approvable. The FESOPs for Nestle, Reilly, and Granite
City Steel are expected to rectify the modeled ambient air quality
violations identified previously. USEPA's September 22, 1992 (57 FR
43846) proposed redesignation of the Granite City area of Madison
County, Illinois, is rendered moot as a consequence of this approval.
The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, the rulemaking will not be deemed final
if timely unaddressed adverse or critical comments are filed. The
``direct final'' approval shall be effective on July 5, 1996, unless
USEPA receives such adverse or critical comments by June 5, 1996. The
USEPA is now soliciting public comments on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. In
the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, USEPA is
publishing a separate document which constitutes a ``proposed
approval'' of the requested SIP revision. If warranted by comments
adverse to or critical of the approval discussed above, which have not
been addressed by the State or USEPA, USEPA will publish a Federal
Register document which withdraws the final action. The USEPA will then
address public comments received in a subsequent rulemaking document
based on the proposed approval.
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 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. 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.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of the State action. The Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.
USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, requires that the
USEPA prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the USEPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the USEPA must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The USEPA must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the USEPA explains why this
alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is
inconsistent with law.
This rule only approves the incorporation of existing state rules
into the SIP. It imposes no additional requirements. Because this final
rule is estimated to result in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments or the private sector of less then $100 million in
any one year, the USEPA has not prepared a budgetary impact statement
or specifically addressed the selection of the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because small governments
will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this rule, the USEPA
is not required to develop a plan with regard to small governments.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 5, 1996. 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, Air pollution control, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: April 18, 1996.
David Kee,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11196 Filed 5-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
