[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 (SO<INF>2) 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 SO<INF>2 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 (SO<INF>2) as it applies 
to Madison County, and as such, address the previously modeled 
violations of the SO<INF>2 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 SO<INF>2. 
This proposed designation was based on modeled violations of the 
SO<INF>2 NAAQS. On December 21, 1993 (58 FR 67336), USEPA published its 
intent to defer the final SO<INF>2 designation of Madison County, 
Illinois while the State worked to revise its SO<INF>2 SIP. On March 
14, 1995, Illinois submitted a SO<INF>2 SIP revision request which 
consisted of SO<INF>2 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 
SO<INF>2 per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU), on an hourly 
basis. The SO<INF>2 and particulate emissions from the tea leaf burner 
are controlled by a flue gas desulfurization unit, and the tea leaf 
burner's SO<INF>2 emissions must not exceed 0.30 lb/MMBTU, regardless 
of the fuel burned. After April 1, 1996, the SO<INF>2 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 SO<INF>2 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 SO<INF>2 [35 IAC 214.161(a)]. Under the new FESOP requirements, the 
facility must burn only natural gas or distillate fuel oil, resulting 
in SO<INF>2 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 SO<INF>2. 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 (H<INF>2S), which converts to SO<INF>2 during 
combustion.
    The Granite City Steel FESOP imposes daily and annual SO<INF>2 
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 SO<INF>2 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 SO<INF>2 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 SO<INF>2 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 SO<INF>2 concentration 
predictions.
    The dispersion modeling study was used as a tool for developing the 
SO<INF>2 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 SO<INF>2 NAAQS. The final 3-hour, 24-hour, 
and annual modeling runs, which included all the Granite City area 
SO<INF>2 sources and background concentrations, showed that the entire 
Granite City area would attain the NAAQS for SO<INF>2.

[[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, SO<INF>2 
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