Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0541-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Direct Final Approval of the Illinois; Greif Packaging, LLC Adjusted Standard
Posted Date: 2012-10-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64422-64425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25819]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0541; FRL-9733-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Illinois; Greif Packaging, LLC Adjusted Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving into the Illinois State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) an adjusted standard for the Greif Packaging, LLC facility 
located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in Naperville, Illinois (Greif). On 
June 20, 2012, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) 
submitted to EPA for approval an adjustment to the general rule, 
Organic Material Emission Standards and Limitations for the Chicago 
Area; Subpart TT: Other Emission Units, as it applies to emissions of 
volatile organic matter (VOM) from Greif's fiber drum container 
manufacturing facility. VOM, as defined by the State of Illinois, is 
identical to volatile organic compound (VOC), as defined by EPA. The 
adjusted standard replaces portions of the general rule for VOM 
emissions with site-specific Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT) requirements for the Greif facility.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 21, 2012, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 21, 2012. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final rule in the Federal Registerinforming the public that the 
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0541, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 408-2279.
    4. Mail: Doug Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Doug Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal 
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0541. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

[[Page 64423]]

the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This 
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen 
D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-1767 before visiting 
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental 
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767, 
dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's analysis of Greif's adjusted standard?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    Greif operates a fiber drum container manufacturing facility. In 
general, fiber drums are produced by cutting fiber material to the 
appropriate length, forming the material into a cylinder, and attaching 
a top and bottom to the cylinder. Some of the fiber drums require the 
addition of a polyethylene drum liner to meet customer specifications, 
particularly for storage and transport of food-grade products. Greif 
conducts quality control (QC) testing of these liners by spraying a 
test fluid into the interior of the drums. The test fluid is a 
denatured alcohol product, which is a VOC.
    EPA requires that existing VOC sources in certain ozone 
nonattainment areas meet a level of control referred to as RACT. See 42 
U.S.C. 7511a(b)(2). EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission 
limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the 
application of control technology that is reasonably available 
considering technological and economic feasibility.'' See 44 FR 53762 
(September 17, 1979). For many source categories, EPA has established 
guidance documents, referred to as Control Technique Guideline (CTG) 
documents, which fairly explicitly establish the level of control that 
represents RACT for a specific source category. The implementation of 
RACT is also required at major stationary sources for which EPA has not 
issued CTGs. Illinois has adopted a general rule applicable to these 
major sources at title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code (Ill. 
Adm. Code), part 218, subpart TT. Because neither a CTG document nor 
explicit guidance has been established for fiber drum container 
manufacturing facilities, the general rule at 35 Ill. Adm. Code subpart 
TT applies to the Greif facility. A source is subject to this rule if 
it has the potential to emit 22.7 Mg (25 tons) or more of VOM per year 
(35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.980(b)).
    Greif is subject to a Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit 
(FESOP) which limits VOM emissions from the QC test process to 22.8 
tons per year (tpy) and VOM emissions from the remainder of the plant 
to 1.4 tpy. This limits facility VOM emissions to an aggregate of 24.2 
tpy, below the 25 tpy threshold. However, Greif reported QC test 
process emissions of 35.2, 46.7, 19.1, 7.7, and 8.5 tpy for 2006, 2007, 
2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. The high emissions in 2006 and 2007 
put the source over the 25 tpy threshold, triggering the applicability 
of subpart TT. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.980(b)(1).
    Under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.980(d), subpart TT limits do not apply 
to emission units with emissions of VOC less than or equal to 2.5 tpy, 
providing that the total emissions from such emission units does not 
exceed 5.0 tpy. Therefore, the only emission unit at the Greif facility 
subject to limits under subpart TT is the QC test process. This process 
became subject to the requirement to reduce uncontrolled emissions by 
81 percent. (35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a))
    Greif filed a petition for an adjusted standard from 35 Ill. Adm. 
Code 218.986(a) on January 24, 2011, in accordance with section 28.1 of 
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. A final Opinion and Order of 
the Illinois Pollution Control Board granted Greif an adjusted standard 
on April 5, 2012.

II. What is EPA's analysis of Greif's adjusted standard?

    Greif evaluated emission control options for the QC test process to 
satisfy RACT control requirements in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a). 
Greif considered capture plus recuperative thermal oxidizers, capture 
plus carbon adsorbers, and capture plus biofilters and material 
substitution. Each of these control options could achieve compliance 
with the 81 percent reduction requirement, but were estimated to cost 
from $11,667-$17,672 per ton of VOM controlled.
    Given the high cost of add on controls, Greif looked at two options 
for reducing VOC emissions through material substitution, mixing the QC 
test fluid with acetone and mixing the QC test fluid with water. Mixing 
the QC test fluid with acetone was found to be technically infeasible 
because acetone would dissolve the gasket material that seals the 
bottom of the drum to the side walls. Greif found that the QC test 
fluid could be diluted with water to reduce VOC emissions, while 
continuing to satisfy product quality standards. Greif determined that 
a dilution of 45 percent denatured alcohol and 55 percent water was the 
highest dilution percentage that would allow the facility to meet 
customer quality assurance requirements. Using this dilution would 
result in a 55 percent reduction in VOM emissions. In addition, Greif 
determined that it could reduce the amount of test fluid sprayed on 
each drum to an amount not to exceed 48 grams. These modifications 
would reduce VOC emissions from Greif's QC test process by 70 percent 
on a unit basis and result in annual emissions below the 22.8 tpy limit 
in the FESOP.
    Greif concluded that achieving a capture and control rate of at 
least 81 percent from its QC test process was not economically 
reasonable, and that the water-diluted QC test process was the only 
technically feasible and economically reasonable alternative.
    The Illinois Pollution Control Board adopted a final Opinion and 
Order on April 5, 2012. In summary, the order required the following:
    (1) An automated, mechanical wand that is calibrated so that each 
spray releases approximately the same amount of QC test fluid;
    (2) Test fluid composed of no more that 45 percent denatured 
alcohol by weight and no less than 55 percent water by weight;
    (3) Calibration of the automated QC test process equipment to spray 
an average of no more than 48 grams of QC test fluid per drum, with 
compliance to be measured as least once per calendar quarter;
    (4) Limits on VOM usage from the QC test process of 2.3 tons per 
month and 22.8 tpy; and,
    (5) Limits on VOM emissions from the QC test process of 2.3 tons 
per month and 22.8 tpy.
    In addition the order contains detailed recordkeeping requirements 
and compliance determination procedures. EPA finds the requirements in 
the Illinois Pollution Control Board's Opinion and Order dated April 5, 
2012 to represent RACT for the QC test process at Greif.
    In addition, EPA's approval is based on consideration of whether 
the

[[Page 64424]]

adjusted standard meets the requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). To be approved, a SIP revision must 
not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment, 
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the 
CAA. The adjusted standard will not result in any increase in VOC 
emissions from the QC test process, therefore the adjusted standard 
will not interfere with attainment or any other applicable requirement 
of the CAA.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving into the Illinois SIP an adjusted standard for the 
Greif facility located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in Naperville. This 
Adjusted Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a) replaces the 
capture and control requirements in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a) for 
VOM emissions from Greif's fiber drum container manufacturing facility 
with the control requirements in the Illinois Pollution Control Board's 
April 5, 2012 Order.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse 
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective December 21, 
2012 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comments by November 21, 2012. If we receive such comments, we will 
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a 
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public 
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do 
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an 
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those 
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. 
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective 
December 21, 2012.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by December 21, 2012. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are 
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of 
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules 
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate 
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can 
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed 
rulemaking. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 13, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart O--Illinois

0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(193) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

[[Page 64425]]

    (193) On June 20, 2012, Illinois submitted an Adjusted Standard for 
the Greif Packaging, LLC facility located at 5 S 220 Frontenac Road in 
Naperville, DuPage County. This adjustment to the Standard at 35 Ill. 
Adm. Code 218.986(a) for Greif's fiber drum manufacturing facility 
replaces the VOM capture and control requirements in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 
218.986(a) with the control requirements in the Illinois Pollution 
Control Board's April 5, 2012 Order.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) April 5, 2012 Opinion and Order of the Illinois Pollution 
Control Board (AS 2011-01), effective April 5, 2012.

[FR Doc. 2012-25819 Filed 10-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P