[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-CTG<SUP>1 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,<SUP>2 and requires interim emission reductions while 
the modeling study is being performed. The interim emission reductions 
consist of Federal promulgation of required VOM<SUP>3 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.<SUP>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.<SUP>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