United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air Pollution Training Institute
MD20
Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA 450/2-81-012
March 1981
Air
APTI
Course 482
Sources and Control of
Volatile Organic Air Pollutants
Regulatory Documents
-------
J*
EPA 450/2-81-012 APTI Course 482
Air Pollutants
EPA 450/2-81-012 APTI Course 482 Sources and Control of Volatile Organic Regulatory Documents
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air Pollution Training Institute
MD20
Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA 450/2-81-012
March 1981
Air
APTI
Course 482
Sources and Control of
Volatile Organic Air Pollutants
Regulatory Documents
Prepared By:
APTI Engineering and Enforcement Section
Northrop Services, Inc.
P. O. Box 12313
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
. ,•;
Under EPA Contract No.
68-02-2374
EPA Project Officer
R. E. Townsend
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Manpower and Technical Information Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
Notice
This is not an official policy and standards document. The opinions and selections are
those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Every attempt has been made to represent the present state of the art as well
as subject areas still under evaluation. Any mention of products or organizations does
not constitute endorsement by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Availability
This document is issued by the Manpower and Technical Information Branch, Con-
trol Programs Development Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
USEPA. It was developed for use in training courses presented by the EPA Air Pollu-
tion Training Institute and others receiving contractual or grant support from the
Institute. Other organizations are welcome to use the document.
This publication is available, free of charge, to schools or governmental air pollution
control agencies intending to conduct a training course on the subject covered. Submit
a written request to the Air Pollution Training Institute, USEPA, MD-20, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Others may obtain copies, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), 5825 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
Sets of slides and films designed for use in the training course of which this publication
is a part may be borrowed from the Air Pollution Training Institute upon written
request. The slides may be freely copied. Some films may be copied; others must be
purchased from the commercial distributor.
-------
Table of Contents
I. Federal Register—Notices, Proposed and Final Rules concerning Volatile Organic
Compounds and Nonattainment Areas for Photochemical Oxidant (Excerpts)
July 1977-October 1980.
1. Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds (Federal Register/
Vol. 42, No. 131/Friday, July 8, 1977) 3
2. Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling (Federal Register/Vol. 44, No. ll/
Tuesday, January 16, 1979)
3. State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for Proposed Rulemakmg on
Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas (Federal Register/
Vol. 44, No. 66/Wednesday, April 4, 1979/Proposed Rules) 18
4. Air Quality; Clarification of Agency Policy Concerning Ozone SIP Revisions and
Solvent Reactivities (Federal Register/Vol. 44, No. 108/
Monday, June 4, 1979/Notices)
5 State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for Proposed Rulemakmg on
Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas - Supplement (on Revised Schedules
for Submission of Volatile Organic Compound RACT Regulations)(Federal Register/
Vol. 44, No. 168/ Tuesday, August 28, 1979/Proposed Rules) 20
6. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on
Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas-Supplement (on Control
Techniques Guidelines) (Federal Register/Vol. 44, No. 1817
Monday, September 17, 1979/ Proposed Rules) 21
7. Data Collection for 1982 Ozone Implementation Plan Submittals (Federal Register/
Vol. 44, No. 221/Wednesday, November 14, 1979) • • 23
8 Air Pollution Control; Recommendation for Alternative Emission Reduction Options
Within State Implementation Plans (Federal Register/Vol. 44, No. 239/
Tuesday, December 11, 1979/Rules and Regulations) 27
9 Issue Paper Concerning the Need for a Hydrocarbon Criteria Document;
Availability of First External Review Draft (Federal Register/Vol. 45, No. 48/
Monday, March 10, 1980/Notices) • • • • • 36
10. Improving Government Regulations; Agenda of Regulations (Federal Register/
Vol. 45, No. 52/Friday, March 14, 1980/Proposed Rules) 37
11 Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide,
' Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone, and Lead (PSD Set II)(Federal Register/Vol. 45, No. 90/
Wednesday, May 7, 1980/Proposed Rules) 40
12 Air Quality; Clarification of Agency Policy Concerning Ozone SIP Revisions and Solvent
Reactivities (Federal Register/Vol. 45, No. 97/Friday. May 16, 1980/Notices) 42
13 Air Quality Clarification of Agency Policy Concerning Ozone SIP Revisions and Solvent
' Reactivities (Federal Register/Vol. 45, No. 142/Tuesday, July 22, 1980/Notices) 43
14. State Implementation Plans; Approval of 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Plan
Revisions for Areas Needing an Attainment Date Extension (Federal Register/
Vol. 45, No. 191/ Tuesday, September 30, 1980/Proposed Rules) 44
15 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Addition of Reference
Methods 24 and 25 to Appendix A (Federal Register/Vol. 45, No. 194/65956-65973/
Friday, October 3, 1980) .7... 51
16. Organic Solvent Cleaners; Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources;
Proposed Rule and Notice of Hearing (Federal Register/Vol. 45, No. 114/
Wednesday, June 11, 1980) 71
-------
II. Federal Register SIP Revisions—Proposed and Final Rules (Excerpts) [A Random
Collection] 1977-1980.
1. Alabama 93
2. Arkansas 94
3. Colorado 96
4. District of Columbia 96
5. Georgia 97
6. Illinois 98
7. Iowa •• 10S
8. Louisiana , 104
9. Maine 109
10. Maryland ] 10
11. Michigan 113
12. Missouri 115
13. New Mexico n5
14. New York 116
15. North Carolina 121
16. Oklahoma 122
17. Pennsylvania 133
18. South Carolina 134
19. Texas : 135
20. Vermont 141
21. Virginia 142
22. Washington ..... •_. — ._ • -. • ••••'_ 144
III. EPA and State Memos
- 1. Implementation of RACT on Hyd/ocarbon Stationary Sources (February 2, 1978) 147
2. Test Methods and Procedures for Volatile Organic Compounds (May 25, 1978) 152
3. Procedures for ^Measuring Volatile Organic Compounds (July 10, 1978) 153
4. Comments on Auto Industry Proppsals'(October 6, 1978) 156
5. Magnitude and Sources of Natural Ozone (October 12, 1978) 165
6. Review of Answers to Questions in Houston's "Petition for Review of AAQS for
Photochemical Oxidants and Requirements for Control"—July, 1977
(October 12, 1978) 168
7. Cutback Asphalt—Acceptable RACT Regulation (December 19, 1978) 173
8. Determination of Reductions Necessary to Attain the Ozone Standard
(February 21, 1979) 177
9. Cutback Asphalt VOC Regulations (March 6, 1979) 183
10. Notice of New Pennsylvania Regulations Governing These Surface CoatingOperations
(August 7, 1979) Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 189
11. State Implementation Plans/Revised Schedules for Submitting Reasonably Available
Control Technology Regulations for Stationary Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCXAugust 22, 1979) 197
12. Clarification for Final SIP Actions on Asphalt Regulations (October 4, 1979) 199
13. VOC Test Methods or Procedures (November 15, 1979) 201
IV. Additional Material for APTI Course 482.
Control Technique Guideline Documents (Summary) 209
-------
Federal Register
Notices, Proposed and Final Rules
concerning
Volatile Organic Compounds
and
Nonattainment Areas for Photochemical Oxidant
(Excerpts)
July 1977—October 1980
-------
Recommended Policy on Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds
35314
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
IFBL 729-6]
MR QUALITY
Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds
PURPOSE
The purpose of this notice is to rec-
ommend a policy for States to follow on
the control of volatile organic compounds
(VOC), which are a constituent In the
formation of photochemical oxidants
(smog). This notice does not place any
requirements on States :J3tate Implemen-
Elfi which ofl
(SIP) provisions
offer
reasonable alternatives to this policy will
T»eIjy^rova>le.~Bowever, this policy will
be fofiSwMIJy EPA whenever it is re-
quired to draft State Implementation
Plans for the control of photochemical
oxidants.
BACKGROUND
Photochemical oxidants result from
sunlight acting on volatile organic com-
pounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen.
Some VOC, by their nature, start to form
ezidant after only a short period of Ir-
radiation in the atmosphere. Other VOC
may undergo irradiation for a longer
period before ttiey yield measurable
oxidant.
In its guidance to States for the prep-
aration, adoption, and submittal of State
Implementation Plans published in 1971,
the Environmental Protection Agency
emphasized reduction of total organic
compound emissions, rather than sub-
stitution. (See 40 CPR Part 51, Appendix
B.) However, in Appendix B, EPA stated
that substitution of one compound for
another might be useful where it would
result In a clearly evident decrease in
reactivity and thus tend to reduce photo-
chemical oxidant formation. Subse-
quently, many State Implementation
Plans were promulgated with solvent
substitution provisions similar to Rule
66 of the Los Angeles County Air Pollu-
tion Control District. These regulations
allowed exemptions for many organic
solvents which have now been shown
to generate significant photochemical
oxidant.
On January 29, 1976, EPA published
Its "Policy Statement on Use of the Con-
cept of Photochemical Reactivity of Or-
gaiiic Compounds in State Implementa-
tion Plans for Oxidant Control." The
notice of availability of this document
appeared in the FEDERAL REGISTER on
February 5, 1976 (41 PR 5350) .
The 1976_EOllcy_ statement emphasized
that tn^~gg.ctjvity_ concept was useful
as an interim measure only, ana would
not be considered a redU6Uon in organic
emissions for purposes of estimating at-
tainment of the ambient air quality
standard for oxidants. The document
also Included the following statement:
Although the substitution portions of Rule
M and similar rule* represent ft workable
and acceptable program »t the present time,
better substitution regulations can be de-
veloped, baaed on current knowledge of re-
•ettvlty and Industrial capability. EPA In
ooVabiMmaoB with State and Industry repre-
•ntBttvai wOR formulate in 1»7« an Im-
proved rule for national use.
SUMMARY
Analysis of available data and infor-
mation show that very few volatile or-
ganic compounds are of such low photo-
chemical reactivity that they can be
ignored in oxidant control programs.
For this reason, EPA's recommended
policy reiterates the need for positive
reduction techniques (such as the reduc-
tion of volatile organic compounds in
surface coatings, process changes, and
the use of control equipment) _ rather
than the substitution of compounds of
low (slow) reactivity in the place ol
more highly (fast) reactive compounds.
There are three reasons for this.-First,
many of the VOC that previously have
been designated as having low reactivity
are now known to be moderately or
highly reactive in urban atmospheres.
Second, even compounds that are pres-
ently known to have low reactivity can
form appreciable amounts of oxidant
under multiday stagnation conditions
such as occur during summer in many
areas. Third, some compounds of low
or negligible reactivity may have other
deleterious effects.
Of the small number of VOC which
have only negligible photochemical re-
activity, several (benzene, acekajijrile.
chloTjoXorm, carbon tetracnloride, ej&yl-
*ng rfif-Mm-yip gthylene dlbrornkte, and
Freon 114, and Freon 115, which are cur-
rently vied as aerosol propellants. The
Agency to planning to Investigate control
aysieuMi and substitutes for nonpropel-
lant uses under TSCA, as announced on
May U. Methyl chloroform is not a fully
balogenated chlorofluoroalkane. Rather,
ft k among the chlorine-containing com-
pounds for which the Agency has not
completed Its analysis; EPA has not yet
concluded whether it is or is not a threat
to the stratospheric ozone. Therefore, it
has been placed on this list as an accept-
able exempt compound. As new Informa-
tion becomes available on-these com-
pounds, EPA will reconsider the recom-
mendation.
The volatile organic compounds listed
in Table 2, while more photochemlcally
reactive than those in Table 1, never-
theless do not contribute large quantities
of oxidant under many atmospheric con-
ditions.
TABLE 1.—Volatile Organic Compounds o/
Negligible Photochemical Reactivity That
Should Be Xfemot From Regulation Under
State Implementation Plant
msttljlEae_£hlortde> have been identified
or implicated as being carcinogenic, mu-
tagenic, or teratogenic. An additional
compound, benzald£hx£e, while produc-
ing no appreciable ozone, nevertheless,
forms a strong eye irritant under irradia-
tion. In view of these circumstances, it
would be inappropriate for EPA to en-
courage or support increased utilization
of these compounds. Therefore, they are
not recommended for exclusion from
control. Only the four compounds listed
are. Tgrmnmended for CXClU-
.
sion from SIP regulations and, therefore.
irTsnot" necessary that they beJtaxen.-
totrea or controlled. In determining re-
ductionsrequires to meet oxidant
NAAQS, these VOC should not be In-
cluded in the base line nor should reduc-
tions in their emission be credited toward
achievement of the NAAQS.
. It is recognized that the two halo-
genated compounds listed In' Table 1
(methyl chloroform and Freon 113) may
cause deterioration of the earth'* ultra-
violet radiation shield since they are
nearly unreactive in the lower atmos-
phere and all contain appreciable frac-
tions of chlorine. The Agency has
reached conclusions on the effects of only
the fully halogenated chlorofluoroal-
kanes. The Agency on May 13, 1977 (42
FR 24542), proposed rules under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to
prohibit the nonessential use of fully
halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes as aero-
sol propellents. The restrictions were ap-
plied to all members of this class, in-
cluding Freon 113, since they are poten-
tial substitutes for Freon 11, Freon 12,
Ethane
1.1.1-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform) '
TOcblorotetnuoroethane (Freon 113) '
* These compounds nave been Implicated
as Having deleterious effects on stratospheric
osone and, therefore, may be subject to fu-
ture controls.
TABLE a. — Volatile Organic Compounds oj
Low Photochemical Reactivity
Propane
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methanol
Isopropanol
Methyl Benzoate
Tertiary Alkyl Alcohols
Methyl Acetate
Phenyl Acetate
Ethyl Amines
Acetylene
M, H-dUnethyl formamlde
Only during multiday stagnations do
Table 2 VOC yield significant oxidants.
Therefore, if resources are limited or if
"tne sources are located in areas where '
prolonged atmospheric stagnations are
priority should be given to
more reactive VOC first and
Table 2 oreanlcs later. Table 2 VOC are
'to be included In base line emlsston~5T-
vjentorles and reductions in tnemTwill be
jcredjted toward achievement of the
jjAAOjST Reasonably available control'
"technology should be applied to sigmn-~
"Sat sources of Table 2 VOC whereneces^
jsary to attain the NAAQS f of~oxldante:
Hew sources or aiese compounds will also
be subject to new source review require-
ments.
•" Eerchjoroethylene. the principal sol-
vent employed in the dry cleaning indus-
try! is also of low reactivity, comparable
to VOC listed in Table 2. It was not In-
cluded in Table 2 because of reported ad-
Terse health effects. Uses, environmental
distribution, and effects of perchloro-
ethylene currently are being studied In-
tensively by occupational health author -
ethylene currently are being studied In-
vestigations may have major Impact on
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 131—WIDAY, JULY 8, 1977
3
-------
NOTICES
35315
Industrial users. In designing control reg-
'nlations for perchloroethylene sources.
particularly dry cleaners, consideration
should be given to these findings as wen
as Industry requirements and the cost of
applying controls. Available control tech-
nology Is highly cost effective for large
perchloroethylene dry cleaning opera-
tions. However, for coin-operated and
small dry cleaners, the same equipment
would represent a heavy economic
burden.
As part of Its continuing program, EPA
will review new information relative to
the photochemical reactivity, toxhdty, or
effects on stratospheric ozone of volatile
organic compounds. Where appropriate,
additions or deletions win be made to the
lists of VOC in labels 1 and 2.
DISCUSSION
Most air pollution 'control regulations
applicable to stationary sources of VOC
to the United States are patterned after
Role 66 of the Los Angeles County Air
Pollution Control District (presently
Regulation 442 of fee Southern Califor-
nia Air Pollution Control District). Role
66 and similar regulations incorporate
two basic strategies to reduce ambient
oxldant levels, i.e., positive VOC reduc-
tion and selective solvent substitution
baaed on photochemical reactivity. Posi-
tive reduction schemes ouch as incinera-
tion, absorption, and the use of low-sol-
vent coatings are acknowledged means of
reducing ambient oxldant levels; they
should be retained in future VOC control
programs. In contrast, the utility of sol-
vent substitution strategies has been
questioned as more information on pho-
to chemical reactivity has emerged.
EPA acknowledged the shortcomings
of solvent substitution based on Rule 66
reactivity criteria in a 1976 policy state-
ment (41 PR 5350). Findings were cited
which indicated that almost aB VOC
eventually react in the atmosphere to
form some oxldant. Concurrently, EPA
Initiated an investigation to consider Im-
plications of revising the solvent eubsti-
taton aspects of Rule 66. Three separate
forms were conducted with representa-
tives of State and local ah- pollution
control agencies, university professors,
and Industrial representatives wKh
knowledge and expertise in the fields of
Mtnospherlc chemistry and Industrial
(solvent applications. In addition, nu-
merous discussions were held with ac-
knowledged experts in the field. Topics
of particular concern were:
Whether Rule M substitution criteria
could ba revised consistent with available
reactivity data and yet be compatible with
industrial processes and with product re-
quirements.
Whether some compound* are at suffl-
ctently low reactivity that they an not col-
dant precursors and can be exempted from
control under State Implementation Flans.
Whether the Imposition of reactivity re-
strictions hi addition to positive emission
lednctons wffl delay the development or
Implementation of promising technologies.
parttcubuty the use of water-borne and
Sdgh-eoUdt eurface coatings.
Investigation showed that:
1. Solvent subetmtton baaed on Rule
66 has been dtoectionally correct to the
aggregate and probably effects some re-
ductions In peak oxldant levels. How-
ever, because of the relatively high re-
activity of most of the substituted sol-
vents, the reduction is small compared to
that which can be accomplished wltti
positive reduction techniques. Revision
of Rule 66 ytyigt*"* with current knowl-
edge of reactivity would eliminate the
solvent substitution option for most
sources in which substitution is new- em-
ployed. Many of the organic solvents
which have been categorized as having
low photochemical reactivity are. In fact,
moderately or highly reactive; they yield
significant oxidant when subjected to
irradiation hi smog chambers designed to
simulate the urban atmosphere.
2. A few VOC yield only negligible
ozone when irradiated in smog chambers
under both urban and rural conditions.
Experiments conducted to date Indicate
that only methane and ethane, a group
of halogenated paraffins, and three other
organic*—benzene, bencaldehyde, and
acetonltrfle—can be so classified. These
compounds react very slowly yielding
little none during the first few days
following their release to the atmosphere.
Available data suggest that none of the
listed compounds contribute significant
oxldant even during extended irradiation
under multiday stagnation conditions.
The broad group "halogenated paraf-
fins'* includes Important Industrial
solvents, most of which are chlorinated
methanes and ethanes and chlorofluoro-
ethanes. They find use as metal cleaning
and dry cleaning solvents and as paint
removers. Halogenated paraffins also
serve as building blocks in the manufac-
ture of other halogenated organics;
these processes do not necessarily release
significant VOC to the atmosphere^
3. Besides focusing on VOC of
negligible reactivity, smog chamber
studies show that a few additional VOC
generate oxidant at a relatively slow rate.
Under favorable atmospheric conditions,
these VOC releases may not form oxldant
until they have been transported sub-
stantial distances and become greatly
diluted. However, under multiday stag-
nation conditions such as occur during
summer in many areas of the middle and
eastern United States, there is the
potential for these organics to undergo
appreciable conversion to oxidant. The
more important VOC in this category are
acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, parchloro-
ethylene, methanol, isopropanol, and
propane. All except propane are indus-
trial solvents. The latter, a gas under
normal conditions, is associated prin-
cipally with crude ofl and liquefied
petroleum gas operations.
4. The vast number of volatile organic
compounds—particularly nonhalogenat-
ed VOC—yield appreciable ocone when
Irradiated in the presence of oxides of
nitrogen. White there are measurable
variations hi their rates of ozone forma-
tion, an are significantly more reactive
than VOC Hated In Table 2. Quickly re-
active VOC Include almost all aliphatic
and aromatic solvents, alcohols, ke-
tones. glycols, and ethers.
5. Low photochemical reactivity is not
synonymous with low biological activity.
Some of the negligible or slowly reactive
compounds have adverse effects on hu-
man hi»«M;h- Benzene, acetonltrile, car-
bon tetrachloride, chloroform, perchlo-
roethylene, ethylene dichloride, ethylene
dibromide, and methylene chloride have
been Implicated as being carcinogens,
teratogens, or mutagens. In addition,
benzaldehyde, which produces no ap-
preciable ozone, nevertheless forms a
strong eye irritant under irradiation.
While their use might reduce ambient
oxidant levels, it would be unwise to en-
courage their uncontrolled release. Ad-
ditional halogenated organics are being
investigated for possible toxicity.
Most of the related health informa-
tion available at this time concerns acute
toxicity. Threshold limit values (TLV's)
have been developed for many VOC.
They are appropriate for the healthy,
adult work force exposed eight hours a
day, five days a week. Experts suggest
that more stringent levels should be
established for the general population.
Hazards represented by chronic and sub-
chronic exposure are much more diffi-
cult to quantify than acute toxicity. Ad-
verse health effects of the VOC cited
above are generally recognized although
not completely quantified. Chlorinated
solvents currently are under intensive
study.
6. Some VOC are of such low photo-
chemical reactivity that they persist In
the atmosphere for several years, even-
tually' migrating to the stratosphere
where they are suspected of reacting and
destroying ozone. Since stratospheric
ozone is the principal absorber of ultra-
violet (TJV) light, the depletion could
lead to an increase in UV 'penetration
with a resultant worldwide increase in
skin cancer. The only in-depth analysis
of this potential problem has focused on
the chlorofluoromethanes (CPM), FTeon
11 and Preon 12, because of their known
stability and widespread use in aerosol
containers. A report of the National
Academy of Sciences concerning envi-
ronmental effects of CPM's concluded
that:
• • • seletclve regulation of CFM uses
and releases Is almost certain to be necessary
at some time and to some extent of com-
pleteness.
In response to the report of the National
Academy of Sciences and other studies,
EPA on May 13,1977 (42 FR 24542), pro-
posed rules to prohibit nonessentlal use-
age of fully halogenated chlorofluoroal-
kanes as areosol propellants. The re-
strictions were applied to all members
of this class including Preon 113 since
they are potential substitutes for Preon
11, Preon 12, Preon 114, and Preon 115
which are currently used as aerosol
propellants.
Other stable halogenated solvents
which are released in volumes compara-
ble to the chlorofluoroalkanes also are
suspected of depleting the earth's UV
shield. Of major concern to the wfcle-
RDBUU. KGOTB. VOL 43. NO. 131—HIDAY. JULY «. 1977
-------
£316
NOTICES
spread substitution of methyl Chloroform
(1.1,1 trichloroethane) tor the photo-
rhemically reactive decreasing solvent
trtchloroethylene. Such substitution un-
der Rule 66 generation regulations has
already Influenced industrial degreasing
operations to the extent that methyl
chloroform production has surpassed
that of trtchloroethylene in the United
States. Any regulation in the area will
have a marked effect on the production
and atmospheric emissions of both sol-
vents. Endorsing methyl chloroform sub-
stitution would increase emissions, par-
ticularly in industrial States that have
not, heretofore, implemented Rule 66. On
the other hand, disallowing methyl chlo-
roform as a substitute or banning It alto-
gether would significantly increase emis-
sions of trichloroethylene even If de-
greasers were controlled to the limits of
available technology. Presently, tech-
nology is only able to reduce emissions by
approximately 50 percent. In metropoli-
tan areas which have already imple-
mented Rule 66, a return to trtchloro-
ethylene would have an adverse effect
on ambient oxidant levels. In addition to
being highly reactive, trichloroethylene
has beenjmplicated as a carcIHSgeTE
Alternatives to the above-cited choices
would be (1) development and applica-
tion of highly efficient degreaser control
systems and (2) replacement with an
intermediate solvent which is neither re-
active nor detrimental to the upper at-
mosphere. Major revisions would be
needed to degreaser designs to Improve
vapor capture above the current best
level. Anticipated design changes could
add materially to degreaser coste. No al-
ternative solvent is clearly acceptable
from the standpoints of photochemical
oxidant and stratospheric ozone deple-
tion. Neither methylene chloride nor
trichlorotrinuoroethane are reactive, but,
like methy] chloroform, are suspected of
causing damage to the stratospheric
ozone layer. In addition, methylene chlo-
ride is a suspect mutagen. Perchloro-
ethylene, the principal dry cleaning sol-
vent, does not present .a hazard to the
stratosphere but has been implicated as
being a carcinogen and also reacts slowly
in the atmosphere to form oxidant.
7. Organic solvents of low or negligible
photochemical reactivity have only
limited use in many industries. Most are
chlorinated organlcs that find principal
applications as cleaners for metals and
fabrics. A few nonhalogenated VOC such
as acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and
isopropanol are of low reactivity but
these can't possibly satisfy all the myriad
needs of the paint, plastics, pharmaceu-
tical, or many other industries. While
users of reactive VOC usually can employ
effective control equipment to recover or
destroy VOC emissions, they seldom have
the option of applying reactivity con-
siderations in choosing solvents. Applying
reactivity restrictions to the surface coat-
Ing Industry would be especially disad-
vantageous since It would greatly Inhibit
the development of low-solvent coatings;
essentially all of the organic solvents
used to constitute high-solids coatings
and water-borne coatings are, In fact,
highly reactive.
8. It is recognized that smog chamber
studies conducted to date are incomplete
because many organic compounds have
not been examined and it has been im-
possible to duplicate all atmospheric sit-
uations. For example, there has been
only limited examination of oxidant for-
mation under relatively high ratios of
VOC to NO, (30:1 and greater), compar-
able to rural conditions. Any policy on
photochemical reactivity necessarily has
to be open to revision as new information
is developed which may show specific
organic compounds to be more or less
photochemically reactive than indicated
by current data.
Dated: June 29, 1977.
EDWARD P. TUEKK,
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Watte Management.
(PR Doc.77-19385 Filed 7-7-77.8:45 »mj
Recommended Policy on Control of Votatlto
Organic Compounds
Correction
In FR Doc.. 19385 appearing in the
Issue of Friday, July 8, 1977, the 3rd
column, the last paragraph, the last four
sentences should read as follows:
"• • • Uses, environmental distribu-
tion, and effects of perchloroethylene
currently are being studied Intensively by
occupational health authorities and EPA.
Findings from these investigations may
have major Impact on industrial users.
In designing control regulations for per-
chloroethylene sources, particularly dry
cleaners; consideration should be given
to these findings as well as industry re-
quirements and the costs of applying
control!. Available control technology is
highly cost effective for large perchloro-
ethylene dry cleaning operations. How-
ever, for coin-operated and mall dry
cleaners, the same equipment would rep-
resent a heavy economic burden.".
On page S531S, in the 1st column, in
that portion of the document under the
heading, "Discussion", to the Srd sen-
tence, the word, -absorption" should
read, "adsorption"; also, in the last sen-
tence, the word, "photo chemical", should
read, "photochemical".
In the 2nd paragraph, the fourth sen-
tence, should read. "• • • Three separate
forums • • •".
In the paragraph "3". the 16th line,
the word, "parchloroethylene" should
read, "perchloroethylene".
In the Srd column, paragraph "16",
the small type, the first line should read:
"• • • •elective regulation of CFM
Buses'**".
Hetsrau VOL **, MO. 147—MONDAY. AUGUST 1.1*77
5
-------
Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling
FHKtAL RfWSlfX, VOL 44, NO. 11—TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1979 3274
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: This rule describes the
requirements for preconstruction
review which apply to large new (or
modified! air pollution sources^affect-
ing areas with air quality wore. J*»an
the levels set to nroteyt jfte pubUJT
Health and welfare. The action makes
"certain revisions to ERA'S Emission
Offset Interpretative Ruling of De-
cember 21. 1976 (41 PR 55524). These
revisions are a result of the public
comments (including four public hear-
ings) on the December 21, 1976, Inter-
pretative Ruling and changes required
by the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 (Pub. L. 95-95, note under 42
U.S.C. 7401).
DATES: These changes are applicable
to permits applied for on or after Jan-
uary 16. 1979. States may, tf-they so
desire, make these changes applicable
on a retroactive basis unless specified
otherwise in the Ruling. Comments on
specified issues should be submitted in
accordance with the proposal pub-
lished elsewhere in today's FEDERAL
REGISTER.
FOR FURTHER * INFORMATION
CONTACT:
D. Kent Berry, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Mail
Drop 11, Research Triangle Park,
North ' Carolina 27711, Telephone:
919-541-5341.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On December 21. 1976, EPA issued an
Interpretative Ruling (41 PR 55524)
addressing the Issue of whether and to
what extent national ambient air qual-
ity standards (NAAQS) established
under the Clean Air Act may restrict
or prohibit construction of major new
or modified gtfrtlqnftry aJr pollution
sources.fThe Ruling provides, in gener- }
W, Chat a major new source, which *
emits pollutants in excess of specified
amounts and would. otherwise contrib-
ute to an existing violation of a na-
tional standard, may be .constructed
only if stringent conditions can be
met. These conditions are designed to
insure that the new source's emissions
will be controlled to the greatest
degree possible; that more than equiv-
alent offsetting emission reductions
("emission offsets") will be obtained
from existing sources; and that there
will be progress toward achievement of
the standards. Where such A source
would otherwise cause a new violation
of an NAAQS. offsets or additional
control must be provided to prevent a
new violation of the standards.
I w
/*
/St
Killing was made im-
mediately effective, the Agency solicit-
ed written comments and held public
hearings in San Francisco, Dallas, Chi-
cago, and New York. The comments
received (Including a summary of
those comments) and the public hear-
ing records are available for public in-
spection and copying during normal
business hours at: Public Information
Reference Unit, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Room 2922 (EPA Li-
brary) 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
PERMITS REQUIRED FOR NEW OR
MODIFIED AIR POLLUTION SOURCES
The Federal Clean Air Act and most
State regulations require that new air
pollution sources and modifications of
existing sources which would Increase
air pollution emissions must obtain a
permit before construction is begun.
The State (or local) new source review
procedures apply to almost all new or
modified air pollution sources. This
review is intended to ensure that new
sources will meet all applicable air pol-
lution regulations adopted by the
States. In addition, larger sources
(which will have increased emissions
of 60 tons per year of any air pollut-
ant) ' will be subject to more stringent
requirements relating to the source's
impact upon air quality.
A given source may have air pollu-
tion impacts in an area which has
'The criteria for determining the applica-
bility of these mort stringent requirements
are actually more complex and can be found
in the specific regulations mentioned below.
clean air or in an area which has dirty
air. Some sources' can affect both
types of areas. The type of review re-
quirements that a new source must
comply with depends on whether the
source affects a dirty air or clean air
area. A source which impacts an area
where the air is cleaner than the na-
tional ambient ah* quality standards
(NAAQS) is subject to regulations for
preventing significant deterioration
(PSD) of air quality.1 The purpose of
these regulations is to keep clean air
clean and the primary focus is to limit
new emissions of sulfur oxides,, and
participate matter.
A new source that would affect a
dirty air area will also be subject to
EPA's Emission Offset Interpretative
Ruling, the main provisions of which
require the new source to meet the
lowest achievable emission rate for the
problem pollulanUs) and to obtain
more than equivalent offsetting emis-
sion reductions (emission offsets) from
existing sources. A source may be sub-
ject to PSD for one pollutant and to
the Offset Ruling for another pollut-
ant, or may affect both clean and dirty
areas for the same pollutant.
At the present time, the Offset
uling is generally carried out by the
States as part of their own new source
review procedures. In most areas,
EPA's Offset Ruling will terminate as
of July 1,1979, and will be replaced by
State-adopted new source review re-
quirements. However, if States fail to
adopt an acceptable plan to attain the
NAAQS by the dates specified In the
Clean Air Act, the Act requires that no
permits for major new sources applied
for after June 30,1979 be issued.
The PSD program is generally being
carried out by EPA through its Re-
gional Offices. Thus, large sources
must now get a preconstruction permit
from both the State (for offsets) and
EPA (for PSD). However, many States
will be developing their own PSD pro-
gram, allowing the air permit program
to be consolidated at the State level.
Until this occurs, major source owners
should obtain their State permit
before applying to EPA for a PSD
permit. It is recommended that source
owners consult with both EPA and the
States before submitting a permit ap-
plication to determine what require-
ments will be applicable and what kind
of information must be submitted. To
avoid delays, major source owners
should apply for a permit as early in
their planning process as possible and
should allow for a minimum of three
months from the date of application
for a permit to be issued.
IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE CHANGES RE-
SULTING FROM i»77 CLEAN AIR ACT
AMENDMENTS
1. Baseline. In the December 21,
1976 Rxiling, the baseline for deter-
•See Federal Register of June 19. 1978. pp
26380-26410.
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
3275
mining emission offset credit was the
SIP emission limitations in effect for
existing sources (i.e., control of exist-
ing sources beyond that required by
the SIP could be used to offset emis-
sions from new sources). However, for
areas where EPA had formally found
the State plan inadequate and had re-
quested revision, the baseline was the
emissions that would result from ap-
plication or reasonably available con-
trol measures (RACM) by existing
sources. Furthermore, even where the
baseline was the existing SIP rather
than RACM, the 1976 Ruling provided
for several adjustments to the baseline
to take account of unusual circum-
stances. Explicit provisions were in-
cluded to govern situations where
there was no applicable SIP require-
ment, where offset credit would come
from switching to cleaner fuels, and
where the permitted emission level ex-
ceeded the uncontrolled emission
factor of the source. 41 FR at 55529
cols. 2-3. In addition, EPA does not in-
terpret the 1976 Ruling as allowing
offset credit for tightening SIP re-
quirements for a source to reduce the
emission level allowed by the SIP
down to the level allowed for the
source by applicable new source per-
formance standards (NSPS) or nation-
al emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAPS) require-
ments (i.e., requirements under Sec-
tions 111 and 112, respectively, of the
Act). Any other approach would allow
offset credit for so-caJled "paper" re-
ductions, where the SIP is adjusted
but no actual tightening of requir-
ments under the Act occurs. These
special provisions all implement the
general principle behind the 1976
Ruling, that offsets must ordinarily
represent reductions in emissions
below the emissions allowed by exist-
ing requirements.
Section 129(a)(l) of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-
95 (note under 42 UJS.C. 7502)) states
that the 1976 Ruling, as it may be
modified, shall remain in effect,
except that the baseline for determin-
ing emission offset credit "shall be the
applicable implementation plan of the
State in effect at the time of applica-
tion for a permit * * *." The legislative
history indicates that this provision
was intended to eliminate the provi-
sion in the 1976 Ruling that the base-
line was RACM where EPA had called
for a SIP revision. But this provision
was not inntended to displace the pro-
visions under the 1976 Ruling to ac-
commodate special circumstances,
giving credit only for reductions below
the emissions allowed by existing re-
quirements.
.For the foregoing reasons, the ruling
is revised to eliminate the requirement
that the baseline be RACM where
EPA has called for SIP revisions.3 EPA
invites public comment on its policy
that the Ruling does not allow offset
credit for tightening SIP requirements
down to NSPS or NESHAPS levels,
and invites comment on whether the
language of the Ruling establishing
the baseline should be revised to make
this policy more explicit.
2. Nonattainme.nt requirements
under the amended Act—a. Amend-
ments-required by nonattainment pro-
visions of the Act. New Part D of Title
I of the Act4 requires States to revise
their SIP's for every area where an
NAAQS is not being met. For each
standard, areas were designated, under
Section 107(d) and 171(2) of the Act,
as either attaining the standard (at-
tainment areas), violating the stand-
ard (nonattainment areas), or areas
that cannot be classified on the basis
of available information (unclassifia-
ble areas).9 For areas initially desig-
nated as nonattainment areas,* the
deadline for States to submit required
SIP revisions is January 1, 1979. Re-
vised SIP's meeting the requirments of
Part D must be in effect by July 1,
1979. For areas initially designated as
attainment or unclassifiable but are
later found to be nonattinment areas,
additional time may be necessary for
development, submittal and approval
of the required SIP revisions.
The Act provides that the Ruling be
superseded after June 30, 1979—(a) by
preconstruction review provisions of
the revised SIP, if the SIP meets the
requirements of Part D, or (b) by pro-
hibition on construction under the ap-
plicable SIP and Section 110(a)(2XI)
of the Act, if the SIP does not meet
the requirments of Part D. The Ruling
is now being amended to reflect this,
and to state that the Ruling will
remain in effect to the extent not su-
perseded under provisions of the Act.
The above prohibition on major new
source construction does not apply to
a source whose permit for construction
or modification was applied for during
a period when the SIP was in compli-
ance with Part D, or before the dead-
line for having a revised SIP in effect
that satisifies Part D. The Ruling is
amended to reflect this.6
'The 1977 Amendments and legislative
history clearly call for this Amendment. See
123 Congressional Record at S 9165 col. 2
(daily ed. June 6, 1977). therfore, EPA has
determined that notice and public proce-
dure are unnecessary before making this
Amendment.
•Part D of the Act, which includes Sec-
tions 171 through 178 (42 U.S.C. 7501-7508).
'Initial designations were published by
EPA on March 3, 1978, 43 FR 8962. Revi-
sions to the initial designations were recent-
ly published for some States (43 PR 40412,
43 FR 40502. *nd 43 FR 45993. September
11 and 12. and October 5, 1978) and will
soon be published for other States. Designa-
tions are codified at 40 CFR 81.300 et seg.
'These amendments to the Ruling do no
more than state that the Act provides for
supersession of this Ruling. Furthermore, it
is important to have a clear statement at
b. Additional effects of nonattain-
ment requirements on this Ruling. By
its terms, this Ruling has always ap-
plied to proposed major sources and
major modifications anywhere in the
State that will cause or contribute to a
violation of an NAAQS, regardless of
whether the sources or modifications
were within an area determined in
general to be nonattainment. 41 FR
55528 col. 2. Designations of nonat-
tainment, therefore, do not limit the
areas within which this Ruling ap-
plies.
In EPA's view, the Act requires that
for any area disignated as monattain-
ment for any NAAQS, the precon-
struction review provisions under Part
D, or the prohibition on construction
under the applicable SIP and Section
110(a)(2XI), must apply to all major
sources within the State that will
cause or contribute to a violation of
the NAAQS within an area initially
designated as a nonattainment area.
Consequently, after July 1, 1979, the
Intrepretative Ruling will only apply
in the followng situations: (a) To
sources in one State which contribute
to a violation of an NAAQS only with
another State, (b) during the time al-
lowed for the development and ap-
proval and/or promulgation of revised
SIP in an area which is subsequently
determined to violate an NAAQS, and
(c) during any extended time allowed
under Section 110(b) for development
of a SIP revision of an area that vio-
lates only a secondary NAAQS. Also,
for sources in one State (which has an
acceptable SEP) that would contribute
to a violation in another State (which
does not have an acceptable SIP), the
restrictions on new source construc-
tion under the applicable SIP and Sec-
tion 110(a)(2XI) do not apply.
Under the preconstruction permit
requirements In Part U, Males have
two basic options for dealing with pro-
posed new major sources within a non-
attainment area that cause or contrib-
ute to a violation of an NAAQS. The
SIP may provide an allowance for
growth while assuring reasonaoie fur-
ther progress toward attainment, and
new yturces may be allowed that do
not result (indiviauaiiy or in me ag-
'yregat.e) in emissions that exceed the
allowance. If the prowtfl allowance is
used up. or if none is provided, the'
estate's otner option is to allow sources
opti
cted
to be constructed only it case-by-case"
_oltsets are obtained suiticient lo pro-
"vide lot1 ftJUKunaolfe further progress
towards attaining the NAAQS by the
aainment date prsuie under
lor the nonattainment
J. ii me
this time of the earliest possible application
of the prohibition on major new source con-
struction, to assist industrial planning. For
these reasons, EPA has determined that so-
liciting public comment before making these
amendments would be unnecessary and con-
trary to the public interest.
FEDHA1 RfttSm, VOL 44, NO. 11—TUESDAY, JANUAIY 14, 1979
-------
3276
RULES AND REGULATIONS
area is not being carried out, however,
no permits may be issued within the
area as required by Section 173(4).
The discussion in this notice of the
requirements for revised SIP's under
Part D. and for a prohibition on con-
struction under the applicable SIP and
Section 110(a)(2)(I), is provided to
place the Ruling in perspective, and
does not constitute regulations pro-
mulgated or final action taken by the
Administrator to establish or interpret
those requirements. Many of the ap-
proaches used by the Agency in revis-
ing the Ruling may be used by the
States as guidance in developing provi-
sions under Part D; but again, except
as noted below, this does not conslti-
tute regulations or final action estab-
lishing or interpreting requirements
for preconstruction review provisions.
The Agency's nationally applicable
policy summarizing the elements that
a SIP submittal must contain to meet
the requirements of Part D was pub-
lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER on
'May 19, 1978, 43 FR 21673. and the
discussion and guidance provided by
this notice merely supplement that
policy.
The only exception is that certain
terms in the Ruling are also used in
Sections 172(b)<6). 173, and 302(j) of
the Act to prescribe the requirements
for revised preconstruction review pro-
visions. Therefore, the definitions in
this ruling of the terms "source," "po-
tential." and "modification" (see dis-
cussion below on additional flexibility
in defining "modification") apply to
the statutory requirements for precon-
struction review provisions under Sec-
tions 110(aX2KI) and Part D as well as
under this Ruling. The discussion
below of "lowest achievable emission
rate," and of cut-offs to limit review of
small sources, also apply to State pre-
construction review programs under
Section 173 of the Act [although not
to the prohibition on construction
under Section 110(aX2XI)l.
MAJOR SOURCE ISSUES
1. Sources subject to review-^-*. Defi-
nition of "potential" to emit ana afn-
'nition of cutoff Points. Section 129(a)
7)1 the 1977 Amendments requires that
the offset requirements be applicable
to all major stationary sources (includ-
ing Federal facilities) as defined in
Section 302 of the Act (i.e., sources
with potential emissions of 100 tons or
more per year). The emission offset re-
quirements currently apply to sources
with allowable emissions greater than
100 tons per year. Since the 1877 Act
Amendments did not define potential
emissions and there has been some
question as to the Congressional
intent of this term, this change was
not made immediately effective. How-
ever, this issue was dealt with in EPA's
proposed regulations for preventing
significant deterioration (PSD) of air
quality (42 FR 26388). AS set forth in
the final PSD regulations, potential
emissions are defined in terms of un-
controlled emissions but sources are
exempt Irom the best available control
technology and the air quality related
tests if the source's allowable emis-
sions would be less than each of the
following cutoff points: 50 tons per
year, 1000 pounds per day or 100
pounds per hour. The short-term crite-
ria are included to ensure that a
source that operates seasonally or in-
termittently is adequately dealt with
regarding its impact on short-term air
quality. For the same reasons as are
discussed hi the preamble-to the PSD
regulations, the Emission Offset
Ruling is revised to require review of
sources based on their uncontrolled
emissions, but to exempt sources from
the major conditions of the Ruling if
the allowable emissions are less than
the above cutoff points.
It should be noted that any source
with allowable emissions less than the
above amounts which is exempted
from the offset requirements will use
up part of the State's allocation for
growth (see discussion in preceding
section) at the time such source begins
operation. Thus, a State plan may
need to require additional control of
existing sources (or more rapid compli-
ance) hi order to achieve the "annual
reasonable further progress toward at-
tainment" required by the Act.
b.Definition of "source^" A number
of tomm-enlw* Indicated the need for
a more explicit definition of "source."
Some readers found that it was un-
clear under the 1976 Ruling whether a
plant with a number of different proc-
esses and emission points would be
considered a single source. The
changes set forth below define a
source as "any structure, building, fa-
cility, equipment, installation, or oper-
ation (or combination thereof) which
is located on one or more contiguous
or adjacent properties and which is
owned or operated by the same person
(or by persons under common con-
trol)." This definition precludes a
large plant from being separated into
individual production lines for pur-
poses of determining applicability of
the offset requirements.
The revised definition of "source" is
only a clarification, and represents no
change from EPA's intent in the De-
cember 1976 Ruling and the way the
Ruling has been implemented. The
definition is consistent with the use of
this term in other SIP-related regula-
tions (e.g., 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix
C), and is Identical to the approach re-
cently adopted for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) regu-
lations (see 40 CFR 52.21
-------
comment on the requirements for
modifications, and since this amend-
ment clarifies the original language
without changing the substance, EPA
has determined that additional notice
and public procedure before making
the amendment are unnecessary.
If the Ruling were amended in the
suggested manner, a source owner
could construct of substantially
modify a facility by obtaining only
part of the offsets ordinarily required
and avoiding the other conditions re-
quired for major pollution sources in
nonattainment areas prior to there
being an adequate Part D implementa-
tion plan. This would conflict with sev-
eral of the basic purposes of the
Ruling, which are to assure that suffi-
cient offsets be obtained to represent
reasonable progress toward attain-
ment of the applicable standard, that
the new facilities meet the lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER), and
that other sources owned by the appli-
cant be in compliance with the ap-
proved SIP or on acceptable compli-
ance schedules. The need to reduce
new emissions through these require-
ments is particularly great before re-
vised plans under Part D are adopted
and implemented. Therefore, it is not
enough that there be no net increase
in emissions; there are additional inde-
pendent requirements which must be
met. There is no reason to depart from
this principle simply because offsets
happen to come from a facility within
the same source. Since the facility will
be new or substantially modified, it
has an opportunity to employe LAER
and satisfy the other requirements
like any other source subject to the
Ruling. This has been the consistent
application of this Ruling.
Unlike this Ruling, EPA's recently-
published PSD regulations include an
exemption for modifications of exist-
ing facilities which are accompanied
by sufficient intrasource offsets that
there would be no net increase in emis-
sions (see discussion at 43 FR 26394,
June 19, 1978). EPA believes that the
need to reduce new emissions as much
as possible is greater under this Ruling
for an area where standards are violat-
ed than under the PSD requirements
for a clean area where deterioration is
the only concern.
Modifications of existing faculties
accompanied by sufficient intrasource
offsets so that there would be no net
increase in emissions may, however, be
exempted by the States from the new
source review procedures under Part D
that will supersede this Ruling. This
exemption would not be applicable
where a major facility is added to or is
reconstructed at a source, whether the
addition is to replace production ca-
pacity or for growth. The above ex-
emption is permitted under the SIP
because, to be approved under Part D,
RULES AND REGULATIONS
plan revisions due by Jsmuary 1979
must contain adopted measures assur-
ing that reasonable further progress
will be made. Furthermore,- in most
circumstances, the measures adopted
by January 1979 must be sufficient to
actually provide for attainment of the
standards by the dates required under
the Act, and in all circumstances meas-
ures adopted by 1982 must provide for
attainment. See Section 172 of the Act
and 43 FR 21673-21677 (May 19, 1978).
Also, Congress intended under Section
173 of the Act that States would have
some latitude to depart from the strict
requirements of this Ruling when the
State plan is revised and is being car-
ried out in accordance with Part D.
Under a Part D plan, therefore, there
is less need to subject a modification
of an existing facility to LAER and
other stringent requirements if the
modification is accompanied by suffi-
cient intrasource offsets so that there
is no net increase in emissions. Conse-
quently, for a plan approved and im-
plemented under Part D, it is accept-
able for the State to include the above
exemption for intrasource offsets in
its new source construction under the
State plan and Sections 110(a)(2)(I)
and 173(4) must apply to major modi-
fications regardless of intrasource off-
sets if the plan is found not to satisfy
Part D or is not being implemented,
because in those instances the plan
cannot be relied upon to assure rea-
sonable further progress and, eventu-
ally, attainment.
OTHER CHANGES TO THE RULING
1. Definition of "significant" air
quality impact Several commenters
requested that EPA provide specific
quantification as to the incremental
level of pollution that would be consid-
ered as contributing to an existing vio-
lation of an NAAQS. The Ruling has
been revised to include "significance
levels" which are generally based on
the Class I prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) increments con-
tained in Section 163 of the Act. A new
or modified source will not be consid-
ered -to cause or contribute to a viola-
tion of an NAAQS if the air quality
impact of the source is less than the
specified significance levels. The sig-
nificance levels are only applicable
when a major source is to be located in
a "clean" area (i.e., a locality where
both the primary and secondary
standards are being met), but would
impact an area that exceeds an
NAAQS some distance away. The sig-
nificance levels are not intended to be
used for PSD purposes where the
Class I increments are concerned, nor
are they to be used for implementing
Condition 4 of Section IV of the
Ruling (i.e., emission offsets must
result in a net air quality benefit). Sig-
nificance increments are not specified
3277
for photochemical oxidants, since at-
mospheric simulation models are not
adequate to predict the air quality
impact of a single source of volatile or-
ganic compounds (VOC). Further dis-
cussion of offsets for VOC sources ap-
pears below.
It is possible for a source with a good
engineering practice stack height and
substantial plume rise, and with very
good controls (e.g., paniculate matter
from fuel combustion sources) to not
exceed the significance increments at
any location. Thus, such a source
would be able to locate just at the
edge of a locality where the particu-
late standard is violated without being
subject to the Ruling. This situation
would be most common for particulate
matter (since controls exceeding 99%
are normal) and would rarely occur for
the other pollutants.
2. Relationship of offset require-
ments to designations of attainment
status. On March 3, 1978, EPA pub-
lished the attainment status of all
States in relation to the NAAQS. 43
FR 8962. However, as noted above,
this Ruling has always provided that
determinations be made on a case-by-
case basis independent of any general
determination of nonattainment. 41
FR 55528. Therefore, the determina-
tion under this Ruling of whether a
source will cause or contribute to a
violation of an NAAQS 'will continue
to be made on a case-by-case basis. A
source may try to prove that a locality
meets an NAAQS even if the locality is
part of a designated nonattainment
area. There are several reasons for
this. First, the initial determinations
were made on the basis of 1975 or 1976
air quality data, while the determina-
tion of whether a source would cause
or contribute to a violation of an
NAAQS must be made as of the new
source's start-up date. Thus, a source
locating in a nonattainment area
which is projected to be an attainment
area as part of an approved SIP con-
trol strategy by the source's start-up
date may not be subject to the require-
ments of the Offset Ruling. Also a
State may have designated a large
county or air quality control region
(AQCR) as nonattainment on the
basis of a localized violation of stand-
ards in a small portion of the county
or AQCR. The designations were de-
signed to provide a starting point for
State planning, and were not designed
to resolve issues of air quality for pur-
poses of individual permit applica-
tions. While not altering the require-
ment of the Ruling that air quality de-
terminations be made on a case-by-
case basis, EPA has amended the lan-
guage of the Ruling to explain the re-
lationship in practice between the
Ruling and the Section 107 designa-
tions.7
'Because these amendments are technical
and conforming, and do not change the sub-
Footnotes continued on next page
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 11—TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1979
-------
3278
MHiS AND REGULATIONS
a. Source* in attainment or undassi-
flable areas. Certain portions of the
Ruling may be applicable in areas des-
ignated as attaining the NAAQS or
which cannot be classified as to their
attainment status. A source locating in
such an area which would contribute
to a violation of an NAAQS anywhere
(i.e., exceed the above significance
levels at the site of the violation) must
meet Conditions 1. 2 and 4 of Section
IV of this Ruling. This is true regard-
less of the designation that applies to
the locality where the violation would
occur. Although full emission offsets
are not required, such a source must
obtain emission offsets sufficient to
compensate for its air quality impact
where the violation occurs. (States and
local agencies are free to require
larger offsets if deemed appropriate.)
Most such sources will be subject to
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) requirements, which include a
requirement for best available control
technology for all pollutants regulated
under the Act. In addition, after
August 7. 1978, many sources subject
to PSD must present air quality moni-
toring data at the proposed site as
part of their application to construct,
especially where there is good reason
to believe that a new source would
cause or worsen a violation of an
NAAQS. Thus, major sources applying
for a permit after August 7, 1978, will
not be exempt from the requirements
of this Ruling simply because no air
quality data are available to determine
whether the source would adversely
impact upon an NAAQS.
b. Sources locating in a "clean"por-
tion of a designated nonattainment
area. A source locating in a clean por-
tion (or which will be clean as of the
new source start-up date) of a desig-
nated nonattainment area may be
exempt from the requirements of this
Ruling if the source would not exceed
the significance levels discussed above
in the actual area of nonattainment
(as of the new source start-up date). If
such a source would exceed the signifi-
cance increments in the actual nonat-
tainment area, it is subject to the
same requirements applicable to
sources in designated attainment or
unclassified areas (i.e.. Conditions 1. 2
and 4).
C^ General impact of nonattainment
designations on Vie proceedings. It
will be assumed as tne starling point
in reviewing a permit application that
every location within a designated
nonattainment area will exceed the
NAAQS (as of the new source start-up
date), and that any source with allow-
able emissions exceeding 50 tons per
year. 1000 pounds per day. or 100
Footnotes continued from Ust page
stance of the Ruling, EPA has determined
that notice and public procedures on them
are unnecessary.
pounds per* hour locating in the area
will significantly contribute to a viola-
tion. However, if the applicant or any
other participant presents a substan-
tial and relevant argument (including
any necessary analysis or other docu-
mentation) why that assumption is in-
correct, then the applicability of this
Ruling would be determined by the
specific facts in the case.
3. Exemptions. The Ruling has been
revSeTr^o exempt temporary emis-
sions, such as pilot plants, portable
facilities which will be relocated away
from the nonattainment area after a
short period of time, and emissions re-
sulting from the construction phase of
a new source, from the emission offset
and net air quality benefit require-
ments (Conditions 3 and 4 of Section
IV of the Ruling). The LAER require-
ment and other conditions of the
Ruling are still applicable to such
sources. A similar exemption would
also be available to resource recovery
faculties utilizing municipal solid
waste (including refuse derived fuel
and/or sewage sludge from municipal
sources) to provide more than 50% of
the heat input for generating steam or
electricity. In addition, the use of
refuse derived fuel in an existing
boiler would not qualify as a modifica-
tion and would not be subject to the
Interpretative Ruling.
The exemption for temporary emis-
sions does not change the intent of the
original Ruling and is consistent with
interpretations issued under the origi-
nal Ruling. Emissions occurring for
less than two years within the nonat-
tainment area would generally be con-
sidered temporary: Emissions for
longer periods of tune might also be
considered to be temporary (such as
the emissions related to the construc-
tion of power plants and other large
sources), but should be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis.
Again, it should be noted that any
source which is exempted from the
offset requirements will use up part of
the State's allocation for growth at
the time such source begins operation.
Thus, a State plan may need to "re-
quire additional control of existing
sources (or more rapid compliance) in
order to achieve the "annual reason-
able further progress toward attain-
ment" required by the Act.
4. Geoyrepfttc cppPfff*""" **> nmfar
VO& sources. One of the Issues not to-
tally resolved in the December 21,
1976, Ruling was the determination of
the areas where offsets for sources of
volatile organic compounds (VOC)
would be required, especially since at-
mospheric simulation modeling tech-
niques are generally not available to
estimate the air quality impact on an
individual VOC source. For rural VOC
sources, as for other sources, offsets
and other conditions of the Ruling
were required for major sources that
would cause or contribute to a viola-
tion of an NAAQS. Any source locat-
ing within a major metropolitan area
(over 200.000 population) where the
standard was violated was assumed to
cause or contribute to the violation. 41
FR 55527 col. 1. However, no firm
rules were adopted for application of
the Ruling to sources outside of such
areas, or for determining where offsets
could be found for proposed sources in
or out of such areas. Reviewing au-
thorities were left with discretion to
determine, on a case-by-case basis.
whether any particular proposed rural
source would cause or contribute to a
violation, or whether any particular
emission reduction would constitute
an acceptable offset for a proposed
source.
The Ruling did refer to a discussion
of the rural oxidant problem pub-
lished in the same FEDERAL REGISTER
issue as the Ruling. 41 FR 55528 col 2,
55559-60. This discussion suggested
tentative reasons why proposed VOC
sources outside of major metropolitan
areas should not need offsets, and why
sources within such areas should
obtain offsets from sources that are
also within such areas, however, since
that discussion was contained in an ad-
vance notice of proposed rulemaking,
it was intended only to inform, not to
govern individual permit decisions.
On the basis of comments received
responding to the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking. EPA has devel-
oped the proposal for rural VOC
sources stated in the Ruling. Com-
ments are invited on this proposal.
Until final rulemaking on this issue is
completed, this proposal represents
EPA's interim policy for determining
under this Ruling whether a proposed
rural VOC source would cause or con-
tribute to a violation or whether an
emission reduction would constitute
an acceptable offset for a proposed
rural source.
Under the proposal, offsets will gen-
erally be required for VOC sources lo-
cated in or affecting any area that is
designated as nonattainment for oxi-
dant or is otherwise shown to be ex-
ceeding the NAAQS for oxidant.
There are many situations where a
source locating outside a nonattain-
ment area may adversely impact upon
a nearby locality where the standard
is violated. Since photochemical dis-
persion models are not available to es-
timate the air quality impact of a
single VOC source, it is necessary to
use a general approximation of the
area around a nonattainment monitor
where emissions would reasonably be
expected to have an impact on a meas-
ured violation. Unless specific data are
available to define the impact of a
VOC source, offsets should be re-
quired for VOC sources locating
HOOTER, VOC 44, MO. 11—TUCSOAY, JANUAJtT I*, 1*7*
10
-------
within 36 hours traveltime (under
wind conditions associated with oxi-
dant concentrations exceeding the
NAAQS for oxidants) of a nonattain-
ment monitor. This distance is based
on evidence which suggests that pre-
cursor emissions which occur within
36 hours traveltime of each other In-
teract to form oxidant.
In addition, the changes to the
Ruling provide the owner of a pro-
posed VOC source an opportunity to
show that the emissions from the pro-
posed source would have "virtually no
effect on any area that exceeds the ox-
idant standard" and therefore the
source would be exempt from the
Ruling. This exemption is only intend-
ed for remote rural sources whose
emissions would be very unlikely to in-
teract with other significant sources of
VOC or NO, to form additional oxi-
dant. Such a demonstration might in-
clude a showing that the proposed
source would be located in an area
that is not subject to multi-day stagna-
tion conditions and that VOC and NO,
emissions within the same AQCR or
within 36 hours traveltime are mini-
mal. Suggestions from the public are
invited on establishing specific criteria
or cut-offs to assist applicants in
making such a demonstration.
Generally, offsets will be acceptable
if obtained from within the same
AQCR as the new source or from
other nearby areas which may be con-
tributing to the oxidant problem af-
fected by the proposed new source. As
with other pollutants, it is desirable to
obtain offsets from sources located as
close to the proposed new source site
as possible. If the proposed offsets
would be from sources located at
greater distances from the new source,
the reviewing authority should in-
crease the ratio of the required offsets
and require a showing that nearby off-
sets were investigated and reasonable
alternatives were not available.
5. Changes to Section IV, Condition
2. In the original Ruling, the reviewing
authority was required to examine all
enforcement orders for other sources
owned by the applicant in the AQCR
to determine if more expeditious com-
pliance was practical. Some com-
menters pointed out that in interstate
AQCR's, the reviewing authority has
no control over compliance schedules
or enforcement orders in the adjoining
State(s). Also, in a very similar provi-
sion set forth in Section 173(3) of the
Act, the demonstration concerning
compliance by other sources owned by
the applicant is specified on a state
rather than an AQCR basis. Conse-
quently, the Ruling has been changed
to be consistent with the provisions in
the 1977 Act Amendments. The word-
ing of Condition 2 has also have been
changed in accordance with Section
173(3) to clarify the various forms of
RULES AND REGULATIONS
ownership and control covered by Con-
dition 2. Condition 2 is intended to be
applied in a broad sense so as to cover
subsidiaries controlled by the appli-
cant and to all facilities owned by any
individual business entity that con-
trols a Joint enterprise applicant.
For the time being, determinations
of what entities control, are controlled
by, or are under common control with,
the applicant will be made on a case-
by-case basis. However, to save time
and resources of both applicants and
decisionmakers, EPA proposes to es-
tablish criteria for determining issues
of control. For example, any person
with a ten percent voting interest in
an entity, or with the power to make
or veto decisions by the entity to im-
plement major emission-control meas-
ures, might be deemed to control the
entity. Such criteria would also be
used for determining whether facili-
ties are part of the same source, under
Section II.A.1. of this Ruling. Since
the definition of "source" is the same
under the Agency's PSD regulations as
well as this Ruling, the criteria for de-
termining whether facilities are part
of the same source are expected to be
identical. Comments and suggestions
are invited on such criteria for deter-
mining control.
6. Change to Condition 4. Condition
4 of the original Kuling required that
an emission offset must also result in a
"net air quality benefit" in the area
affected by the new source. In re-
sponse to questions as to whether an
air quality analysis is necessary for
VOC and NO, emissions pursuant to
the -"net air quality benefit" require-
ment, the Ruling is clarified to indi-
cate that fulfillment of the emission
offset requirements of Condition 3 will
be adequate to meet the requirements
of Condition 4 for these pollutants.
It should be noted that the "net air
quality benefit" test need not be inter-
preted as requiring an air quality im-
provement at every location affected
by the source. This condition is in-
tended to insure that the sources in-
volved in an offset situation impact air
quality in the same general area, but
the net air quality benefit test should
be made "on balance" for the area af-
fected by the new source.
7. Elimination of Condition JL Con-
dition 5 of the original Kuling con-
tained a prohibition on major source
growth after January 1, 1979, in areas
where EPA had called for a SIP revi-
sion, unless EPA had approved or pro-
mulgated the required SIP revision by
that date. EPA had issued 221 notices
of required SIP revisions in mid-1976.
One of the principal purposes of the
nonattainment provisions in the 1977
Amendments, however, was to revise
this administrative approach. Under
the Act, designation of an area as non-
attainment constitutes, in effect, a call
3279
for a SIP revision. The required con-
tents of the revision and the deadline
for submittal are specified in the Act.
The Act's revision requirements differ
from those established in the Agency's
1976 calls for revisions. Furthermore.
the limitation on growth that will
result from a failure of the State to
comply is set forth in Section
110(aX2XI) of the Act. The Adminis-
trator has, therefore, concluded that
the 1976 Calls for SIP revisions for
nonattainment areas were superseded
by the 1977 Amendments, as was the
limitation on growth provided in Con-
dition 5. Therefore, Condition 5 has
been deleted from this Ruling.*
H Rn.ipline where there is no mean-
ingful SIP requirement. Section IV.C.2
had previously provided that where
the particulate emission limit in the
SIP for fuel combustion exceeded the
uncontrolled emission rate for the fuel
being burned (as when a State has a
single emission limit for all fuels),
emission offset credit would be al-
lowed only for control below the ap-
propriate uncontrolled emission
factor. Since this situation may occur
for sources other than fuel combus-
tion sources, this provision has been
made more general and incorporated
in Section IV.C.l.
p Vi,fi /»/MHM»rMon The Interpreta-
tive Ruling as originally published,
provided that the use of an alternative
fuel would not be considered a modifi-
cation subject to the Ruling if, prior to
December 21, 1976, the sources could
accommodate such alternative fuel. In
an associated Advance Notice of Pro-
posed Rulemaking published on De-
cember 21, 1976 (41 FR 55558). com-
ments were solicited on whether this
exemption should apply to sources af-
fecting nonattainment areas. In the
Administrator's judgment, the most
appropriate way to handle fuel conver-
sions where no major physical modifi-
cation takes place is through the SIP
revision process. In particular, new
Section 124 of the Clean Air Act re-
quires States to review their plans to
ensure that they will be adequate to
attain and maintain the national am-
bient air quality standards in light of
known or anticipated fuel conversions.
Furthermore, under Section 172(b)(4),
emissions from fuel conversions must
be considered in determining periodi-
cally whether the plan is adequate to
assure attainment by the required
date. Therefore, the Ruling still
exempts a fuel conversion where the
source is designed to accommodate the
alternative fuel.
•Since there is no question but that Sec-
tion 110(aX2)(I) was Intended to supersede
Condition 5, and since in any event recisions
of the 1976 calls for SIP revisions eliminates
any effect of Condition 5, EPA has deter-
mined that notice and public procedure on
the elimination of Condition 5 are unneces-
sary.
FEOOAl REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 11—TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, W9
11
-------
3280
For purposes of controls to protect
air quality in clean areas, and controls
that States must adopt in ncnattain-
ment areas. Congress provided that
"modification" should not include a
conversion to an alternative fuel by
reason of an order under the Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordina-
tion Act of 1974 or a natural gas cur-
tailment plan pursuant to the Federal
Power Act. see Sections lll(a> (4) and
(8), 169(2KC). and 171(4), 42 U.S.C.
741 l(a) (4) and (8), 7479(2XC>. and
7501<4>. EPA therefore has decided
that it would be consistent with Con-
gressional intent to exclude such con-
versions from the definition of "modi-
fication" in this Ruling as well.
To further conform the Ruling to
the Act and avoid confusion. EPA has
also qualified the definition of modifi-
cation by adding the provision that a
switch to an alternative fuel by reason
of an order or rule under Section 125
of the Act (41 UJS.C. 7425) is not a
modification.*
In nonattainment areas. States must
deal with increased emissions from
fuel conversions in their 1979 revi-
sions. For conversions that are not
major modifications as defined in the
Ruling and for purposes of Part D, the
States may deal with increased emis-
sions by any means they choose. A
State may include in its control strat-
egy demonstration an assumption that
all sources, which could reasonably
convert to a dirtier fuel will do so. Al-
ternatively, the State may require fuel
conversions which are exempt as a
modification under the Ruling to
obtain a, permit prior to converting to
an alternate fuel. Such conversions
would then be required to obtain off-
sets on a case-by-case basis or would be
reviewed against the allowance for
growth provided for in the SIP under
Section 172(b)(5). Although conver-
sions that are not major modifications.
need not satisfy all of the conditions
of Section 173. in the interest of sim-
plicity the State may choose to deal
with the increased emissions by
making the conversions subject to
these conditions.
10. Banfanf. One of the issues that
was irequenuy raised in comments on
the Ruling involved "banking" of
emission reductions to allow for future
new source growth. Banking was re-
stricted by EPA because it was felt
that banking would create a difficult
accounting problem, probably would
not result in any environmental bene-
fit, and tended to dilute the potential
benefits of the offset policy. However,
the advocates of banking felt that if
the offsets obtained in a given situa-
tion were considerably greater than
the new source's emissions, some of
•EPA hu determined that notice and
public procedure prior to malting this minor
conforming amendment are unnecessary.
BIKES AND REGULATIONS
the "excess" emission reductions
should be "bankable" to allow for
future growth. The general argument
was that a "no-banking" rule would
have an adverse air quality impact (at
least in the short-term) by discourag-
ing early clean-up of sources. For ex-
ample, if a source were undergoing a
modernization program, and retiring a
number of obsolete facilities, a "no-
banking" provision might encourage
the owner to delay retirement of sev-
eral of the facilities so that they could
be used in future offset situations.
Furthermore, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 modified this re-
striction by allowing States to incorpo-
rate provisions for growth-in SIP plans
for nonattainment areas. Under Sec-
tion 173(1) of the Act, emission reduc-
tions are compared to a "reasonable
further progress" goal, and reductions
beyond, the minimum requirement
may be used to offset future growth.
In essence, the State becomes the
banker and must decide how to allo-
cate the banked emissions. Therefore,
the restriction on banking in the
Ruling has been removed for offsets
approved after the date of publication
of these changes in the FEDERAL REGIS-
TER. States which wish to allow bank-
ing'may do so. as long as it is recog-
nized that there will be changes in the~
basis for approval of major new"
inureea after June 30. 1979.
A reviewing authority may allow
banked offsets to be used under the
preconstruction review program re-
quired by Part O, as long as these
banked emissions are identified and
accounted for in the SIP control strat-
egy. So long as the pollution control
requirements under the Act are satis-
fied, the State is free to govern owner-
ship, use, sale, and commercial trans-
actions in banked emission offsets as it
sees fit. A reviewing authority may not
approve the construction of a source
using banked offsets if the new source
would interfere with the SIP control
strategy or if such use would violate
any other condition set forth for use
of offsets. To preserve banked emis-
sion reductions, the reviewing authori-
ty must identify them in either a SIP
revision or a permit. Furthermore, the
reviewing authority should provide a
registry to identify the person, private
entity, or governmental authority that
has the right to use or allocate the
banked emission reductions, and to
record any transfers of, or liens on.
this right that the reviewing authority
may allow. Additional comments on
how banking should be implemented
are solicited.
11. ffOurce shutdowns and
-------
that the phrase "achieved in practice
by such class or category of source"
(under Section 17K3)) prohibits tech-
nology transfers from other types of
sources. If pollution-control technol-
ogy can feasibly be transferred from
one type of source to another, then for
purposes of determining LAER, EPA
will consider both types of source to
be in the same "class or category of
source." Comments on this interpreta-
tion and whether it is necessary or ap-
propriate to revise the regulatory defi-
nition are solicited.
}4 Fugitive dust. As noted above, an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemak-
ing was published on December 21,
1976 (41 FR 55558) which dealt with
several issues closely related to the In-
terpretative Ruling published on the
same date. Comments were urged to
be submitted on both notices in a con-
solidated fashion.
One of the issues raised related to
how fugitive dust, particularly rural
fugitive dust which may significantly
contribute to violations of the NAAQS
for paniculate matter, should be ac-
counted for in performing new source
reviews. This issue was also raised in
conjunction with EPA's proposed PSD
regulations. On the basis of comments
received responding to the Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA
has developed the proposal for fugi-
tive dust associated with major sources
stated in this Ruling. Comments are
invited on this proposal. Until the
final rulemaking on this issue is com-
pleted, this proposal represents EPA's
interim policy for dealing with fugitive
dust associated with a major source.
ynder l^p prnnnsal. fugitive dust asso-
ciated with major sources locating in
clean portions of nonattainment areas
or in attainment or unclassified areas
would be subject only to applicable re-'
quirements for preventing significant
deterioration of air quality (see 40
TJFR "52.21). Under the PSD regula-
tions, fugitive dust associated with a
majoinsaurce 15 SUBject to ItW Bear
available control technology require-
'merits, but is~exempt from a review
"against the NAAQS and PSD incre^
ments. Fugitive dust associated with'
major sources locating in an actual
nonattainment area" (and which is
not exempt as a temporary source)
would be subject to Conditions 1, 2
and 3 of Section IV.A. of this Ruling.
is fjeeonda.ru emissiOTts. The origi-
nal Ruling required that if a major
new source would result in secondary
"Under existing EPA policy, a rural area
that exceeds the NAAQS lor paniculate
matter primarily because of fugitive dust
emissions is not necessarily considered as
nonattainment for purposes of SIP develop-
ment and new source review (see "Fugitive
Dust Policy: SIP's and New Source Review,"
available from EPA, Air Pollution Technical
Information center, MD-35, Research Tri-
angle Park, N.C. 27711.)
RULES AND REGULATIONS
emissions which could be accurately
quantified, such emissions should also
be dealt with under the Ruling (see
footnote 3 at 41 FR 55528). Questions
have arisen on the Agency's intent re-
garding secondary emissions, and fur-
ther clarification is provided in the
changes published today. A more spe-
cific definition is added as follows:
"Secondary emissions" means emissions
from new or existing sources which occur as
a result of the construction and/or oper-
ation of a major source or major modifica-
tion, but do not come from the source itself.
For purposes of this ruling, secondary emis-
sions must be specific and well defined,
must be quantifiable, and must impact the
same general nonattainment area as the
major source which causes Hie secondary
emissions. Secondary emissions may include,
but are not limited to:
a. Emissions from ships or trains coming
to or from a refinery, terminal facility, etc.
b. Emissions from off-site support facili-
ties which would be constructed or would
otherwise increase emissions as a result of
the construction of a major source.
The Ruling indicates that secondary
emissions need not be considered in
determining whether the emission
rates in Section II.C. wonld be exceed-
ed. However, if a source is subject to
the Ruling on the basis of the direct
emissions from the source, the applica-
ble conditions of this Ruling must also
be met for secondary emissions.
The requirement that secondary
emissions must impact the same gener-
al nonattainment area as the major
source which causes the secondary
emission means different areas for dif-
ferent pollutants. For all pollutants,
however, the test is whether, in the
actual area of nonattainment, there is
any overlap between the areas of
impact of the direct emissions and the
indirect emissions. This is a pollutant-
by-pollutant analysis. In other words,
the conditions of the Ruling must be
met for secondary emission of a partic-
ular pollutant only if the major source
is subject to the Ruling conditions on
the basis of direct emission of that
same pollutant.
For nitrogen oxides, particulates,
carbon monoxide, and SO* the areas
of impact ran he determined by model-
ing. If the source and the permitting
authority disagree as to whether the
secondary emissions impact the same
area as the direct emissions, the
source has the burden of proving jt is
correct by performing the necessary
modeling. For VOC emissions, the
areas of impact should be consistent
with the treatment given to the direct
emissions (see previous discussion on
VOC sources). Under the proposal for
VOC sources, the area of impact would
be the areas to which the pollutants
could be transported in 36 hours from
the sources, assuming wind conditions
associated with oxidant concentrations
exceeding the NAAQS for oxidants
3281
(unless more specific data on source
impacts are available).
A corollary of this aspect of the defi-
nition is that secondary emissions
must be traceable to particular facili-
ties. If this were not true, it would be
impossible to determine the area of
Impact of the indirect emissions. Thus,
for example, a new steel plant necessi-
tates more electric power being pro-
duced; but if the power is supplied
from a grid covering many States, the
emissions could not be quantified and
would not impact the same general
nonattainment area. On the other
hand, increased particulate emissions
from a coke plant near the same steel
plant would be considered to be sec-
ondary emissions if certain conditions
were met. Those conditions would be
that the emissions came from an exist-
ing coke plant which was not previous-
ly subject to the Ruling for those
emissions, the coke plant emissions
were increased above historical levels
as a result of additional demand from
the steel plant, and the coke plant was
situated near the steel plant. The coke
plant emissions are specific, quantifi-
able, and impact the same general
nonattainment area as the direct emis-
sions.
Since the 1976 Ruling invites public
comment on the treatment of second-
ary emissions, and since this amend-
ment to the Ruling only clarifies the
language without altering the sub-
stance, EPA has determined that addi-
tional notice and public procedure
thereon are unnecessary.
16. Applicability of Riding to new OIL
revised NAAQS. While this Ruling
technically does not apply to new
sources of lead emissions which would
cause or contribute to a violation the
newly established NAAQS for lead (43
FR 46246) during the period before
the revised lead SIP's are submitted
and approved, it is clear that such
sources will be required to abate their
emissions after construction if neces-
sary to attain and maintain the lead
standard. In addition, excessive lead
emissions from a new source could
result in health problems. According-
ly, States are urged to use their availa-
ble authorities to review new sources
of lead to protect against violations of
the lead standard. The Ruling will
continue to apply to VOC sources
which cause or contribute to violations
of the NAAQS for photochemical oxi-
dant (ozone) which will be revised
shortly (see proposal of June 28, 1978,
43 FR 26962). Specific proposals for
dealing with new sources of pollutants
subject to new or revised NAAQS in
the context of the revised SIP's will be
included in upcoming changes to 40
CFR 51.18.
FSOEtAL REWS1H. VOL 44, NO. 11-WESBAY, JANWAIY 16, W9
13
-------
3282
RULES AND REGULATIONS
SEVERABIUTY
EPA intends that the changes made
by this notice be treated as severable.
If a court should rule that one or more
of the changes is not valid, EPA in-
tends that the other changes remain
in effect and that the provisions of the
December 1976 Ruling, that would
have been amended by the invalid
changes be in effect, unless the court
rules that some other disposition is le-
gally required.
The Agency finds good cause to
make the changes announced today ef-
fective for permit applications filed on
or after today, because the normal
processing time between permit appli-
cation and source construction pro-
vides adequate lead time for compli-
ance with new requirements in the
Ruling.
AUTHORITY
The Administrator has determined
that this rulemaking is nationally ap-
plicable and is based on determina-
tions of nationwide scope and effect.
This rulemaking is issued under Sec-
tion 129(a) of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. 95-95, 91
Stat. 745, August 7, 1977 (note under
42 U.S.C. 7502) and Section 301 of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7601).
Dated: December 29,1978.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.
The Interpretative Ruling published
by EPA on December 21, 1976. at 41
FR 55524, is revised and codified as a
new Appendix S to 40CFR Part 51. In
the footnote to 40 CPR 51.18 "41 FR
55528, December 21, 1976," is deleted
and "Appendix S" is inserted in its
place. As revised Appendix S reads as
follows:
APPENDIX S—EMISSION OFFSET
INTERPRETATIVE RULING
i. nrntoDtrcnov
This appendix sets forth EPA's Interpre-
tative Ruling on the preconstruction review
requirements for stationary sources of air
pollution (not including indirect sources)
under 40 CFR 51.18 and Section 129 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L.
95-95, (note under 42 tLS.C. f 7502). A major
new source or modification which would
contribute to a violation of a national ambi-
ent air quality standard (NAAQS) may be
allowed to construct only if the stringent
conditions set forth below are met. These
conditions are designed to insure that the
new source's emissions will be controlled to
the greatest degree possible; that more than
equivalent offsetting emission reductions
("emission offsets") will be obtained from
existing sources; and that there will be prog-
ress toward achievement of the NAAQS.
For each area designated as exceeding an
NAAQS (nonattalnment area) under 40
CFR 81.300 et teg., this Interpretative
Ruling will be superseded after June 30,
1979—(a) by preconstruction review provi-
sions of the revised SIP, if the SIP meets
the requirements of Part D, Title 1. of the
Act; or (b) by a prohibition on construction
under the applicable SIP and Section
110UX2XI) of the Act, if the SIP does not
meet the requirements of Part 0. The
Ruling will remain in effect to the extent
not superseded under the Act. This prohibi-
tion on major new source construction does
not apply to a source whose permit to con-
struct was applied for during a period when
the SIP was in compliance with Part D, or
before the deadline for having a revised SIP
in effect that satisfies Part D.
, n. nrrriAL SCREENING ANATLSES AND
DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS
A. Definitions. For purposes of this
Ruling:
1. "Source" Means any structure, building,
facility, equipment, installation or operation
(or combination thereof) which is located on
one or more contiguous or adjacent proper-
ties and which is owned or operated by the
same person (or by persons under common
control).
2. "Facility" means an identifiable piece
or process equipment. A stationary source is
composed of one or more pollutant-emitting
faculties.
3. "Potential" to emit-means the maxi-
mum capacity to emit a pollutant absent air
pollution control equipment. "Air pollution
control equipment" includes control equip-
ment which is not, aside from air pollution
control laws and regulations, vital to pro-
duction of the normal product of the source
or to its normal operation. Annual potential
shall be based on the maximum annual
rated capacity of the source, unless the
source Is subject to enforceable permit con-
ditions which limit the operating rate or
hours of operation, or both. Enforceable
permit conditions on the type or amount of
materials combusted or processed may be
used in determining the potential emission
rate of a source.
4. "Major source" means any source for
which the potential emission rate is equal to
or greater than 100 tons per year of any of
the following pollutants: paniculate matter,
sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, volatile or-
ganic compounds, or carbon monoxide.
5. "Major modification" means any physi-
cal change in, change in the method of op-
eration of. or addition to a stationary source
which increases the potential emission rate
of any air pollutant specified in Section A. 4.
above (including any not previously emitted
and taking into account all accumulated in-
creases in potential emissions occurring at
the source since February 16, 1979, or since
the time of the last construction approval
Issued for the source pursuant to this
Ruling, whichever time is more recent, and
regardless of any emission reductions
achieved eleswhere in the source) by 100
tons per year or more.
(i) A physical change shall not include
routine maintenance, repair, and replace-
ment.
(11) A change in the method of operation,
unless previously limited by enforceable
permit conditions, shall not include:
(a) An Increase In the production rate, if
such increase does not exceed the operating
design capacity of the source;
(b) An increase in the hours of operation;
(c) Use of an alternative fuel or raw mate-
rial. If on December 21, 1976, the source was
capable of accommodating such fuel or ma-
terial:
(d) Use of an alternative fuel or raw mate-
rial by reason of an order in effect under
Sections 2 (a) and (b) of the Energy Supply
and Environmental Coordination Act of
1974 (or any superseding legislation), or by
reason of a natural gas curtailment plan in
effect pursuant to the Federal Power Act;
(e) Use of an alternative fuel by reason of
an order or rule under Section 125 of the
Act;
(f) Change in ownership of a source: or
(g) Use of refuse derived fuel,generated
from municipal solid waste.
6. "Allowable emissions" means the emis-
sion rate calculated using the maximum
rated capacity of the source (unless the
source Is subject to enforceable permit con-
ditions which limit operating rate, or hours
of operation, or both) and the most strin-
gent of the following:
(i) Applicable new source performance
standards or standards for hazardous pollut-
ants set forth to 40 CFR Part 60 or 61:
(ii) Applicable SIP emission limitation; or
Uii) The emission rate specified as an en-
forceable permit condition.
7. "Lowest achievable emission rate"
means, for any source, that rate of emis-
sions based on the following, whichever is
more stringent:
(i) The most stringent emission limitation
which is contained in the implementation
plan of any State for such class or category
of source, unless the owner or operator of
the proposed source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable; or
(ii) The most stringent emission limitation
which is achieved in practice by such class
or category of source.
This term, applied to a modification,
means the lowest achievable emission rate
for the new or modified facilities within the
source. In no event shall the application of
this-term permit a proposed new or modi-
fied facility to emit any pollutant in excess
of the amount allowable under applicable
new source standards of performance.
8. "Fugitive dust" means particulate emis-
sions composed of soil which is uncontamin-
ated by pollutants resulting from industrial
activity. Fugitive dust may include emis-
sions from haul roads, wind erosion of ex-
posed soil surfaces and soil storage piles and
other activities in which soil is either re-
moved, stored, transported, or redistributed.
9. "Reconstruction" will be presumed to
have taken place where the fixed capital
cost of the new components exceed 50 per-
cent of the fixed capital cost of a compara-
ble entirely new facility. However, any final
decision as to whether reconstruction has
occurred shall be made in accordance with
the provisions of 40 CFR 60.15-<3>. A
reconstructed facility will be treated as a
new facility for purposes of this Ruling.
except that use of an alternative fuel or raw
material by reason of an order in effect
under Sections 2 (a) and (b) of the Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (or any superseding legislation).
by reason of a natural gas curtailment plan
in effect pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
or by reason of an order or rule under Sec-
tion 125 of the Act. shall not be considered
reconstruction.
In determining LAER for a reconstructed
source, the provisions of 40 CFR 60.15(f)(4)
shall be taken into account in assessing
whether a new source performance standard
is applicable to such source.
FtDHtAL KWSTER, VOL 44. NO. 11—TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1979
14
-------
10. "Fixed capital cost" means the capital
needed to provide all the depreciable com-
ponents.
11."Secondary emissions" means emissions
from new or existing sources which occur as
a result of the construction and/or oper-
ation of a major source or major modifica-
tion, but do not come from the source itself.
For purposes of this Ruling, secondary
emissions must be specific and well defined.
must be quantifiable, and must impact the
same general nonattainment area as the
major source which causes the secondary
emission. Secondary emissions may include,
bui are not limited to:
a. Emissions from ships or trains coming
to or from a refinery, terminal facility, etc.
b. Emissions from off-site support facili-
ties which would be constructed or would
otherwise increase emissions as a result of
the construction of a major source.
12. "Resource recovery facility" means
any facility at which solid waste is processed
for the purpose of extracting, converting to
energy, or otherwise separating and prepar-
ing solid waste for reuse. Energy conversion
facilities must utilize solid waste to provide
more than 50% of the heat input to be con-
sidered a resource recovery facility under
this Ruling.
B. Reriew of all sources for emission limi-
tation compliance. The reviewing authority
must examine each proposed major new
source and proposed major modification ' to
determine if such a source will meet all ap-
plicable emission requirements in the SIP,
any applicable new source performance
standard in 40 CFR Part 60. or any national
emission standard for hazardous air pollut-
ants in 40 CFR Part 61. If the reviewing au-
thority determines that the proposed major
new source cannot meet the applicable emis-
sion requirements, the permit to construct
must be denied.
C. Review of specified sources for air Qual-
ity impact. In addition, for each proposed
major new source with allowable emissions
exceeding 50 tons per year, 1000 pounds per
day, or 100 pounds per hour, whichever is
most restrictive, the reviewing authority
must determine if the source will cause or
contribute to a violation of an NAAQS.2 A
proposed source which would not exceed
any of the above emission levels needs no
further analysis under this ruling, provided
such a source meets the requirements of
Section II. B.
Where a source is constructed or modified
in increments which individually do not
emit more than the above amounts and the
increments have not been offset in accord-
ance with this Ruling, the allowable emis-
sions from all such increments granted a
permit to construct after December 21, 1976,
RULES AND REGULATIONS
shall be added together and this Ruling
may be applicable when a proposed incre-
ment would cause the sum of the allowable
emissions which have not been offset to
equal or exceed 50 tons per "year, 1000
pounds per day, or 100 pounds per hour. If
the total modification would cause or con-
tribute to a violation of the NAAQS, all of
the provisions of this Ruling are then appli-
cable to each increment. If any of the incre-
ments has not prejriously been subject to
Condition 1 of Section IV-A. (requiring the
source to meet the lowest achievable emis-
sion rate), such determination must consid-
er the stage of construction of such incre-
ment and the ability of the source to install
additional control equipment.
For "stable" air pollutants (i.e., SO,, par-
ticulate matter and CO), the determination
of whether a source will cause or contribute
to a violation of an NAAQS generally
should be made on a case-by-case basis as of
the proposed new source's start-up date
using the source's allowable emissions in an
atmospheric simulation model (unless a
source will clearly impact on a receptor
which exceeds an NAAQS).
For sources of nitrogen oxides, the initial
determination of whether a source would
cause or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS for NO, should be made using an
atmospheric simulation model assuming all
the nitric oxide emitted is oxidized to NO,
by the time the plume reaches ground level.
The injtial concentration estimates may be
adjusted if adequate data are available to
account for the expected oxidation rate.
For photochemical oxidants. sources of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) locating
in areas designated under 40 CFR 81.300 et
seg. as nonattainment for photochemical ox-
idant or otherwise shown to be in violation
'Hereafter the term "source" will be used
to denote both any source and any modifica-
tion.
'Required only for those pollutants for
which the increased allowable emissions
exceed 50 tons per year, 1000 pounds per
day, or 100 pounds per hour, although the
reviewing authority may address other pol-
lutants if deemed appropriate. The preced-
ing hourly and daily rates shall apply only
with respect to a pollutant for which a na-
tional ambient air quality standard, for a
period less than 24-hours or for a 24-hour
period, as appropriate, has been established.
3283
of the NAAQS for oxidant shall be subject
to the provisions of Section IV of this
Ruling. In addition, VOC sources locating
within 36 hours travel time (under wind
conditions associated with" concentrations
exceeding the NAAQS for oxidants) of a
nonattainment monitor shall also be subject
to Section IV of this Ruling. However, a
VOC source may be exempt from these re-
quirements if the source owner can demon-
strate that the emissions from the proposed
source will have virtually no effect upon
any area that exceeds the NAAQS for pho-
tochemical oxidant. This exemption is only
intended for remote rural sources whose
emissions would be very unlikely to ir.ieract
with other significant sources of VOC or
NO, to form additional oxidant.3
As noted above, the determination as to
whether a source would cause or contribute
to a violation of an NAAQS should be made
as of the new source's start-up date. There-
fore, if a designated nonattainment area is
projected to be an attainment area as part
of an approved SIP control strategy by the
new source start-up date, offsets would not
be required if the hew source would not
cause a new violation.
D. Sources locating in a "clean" portion of
a designated nonattainment area. A source
locating in a clean portion (or which will be
clean as of the new source start-up date) of
a nonattainment area designated pursuant
to Section 107 of the Act may be exempt
from the requirements of this ruling if the
allowable emissions from the source or fa-
cility (not including any emission reductions
achieved elsewhere in the source) would not
cause the following significance levels to be
exceeded in the actual area of non-attain-
ment (as of the new source start-up date):
Averaging Time
Pollutant
Annual
24-Hour 8-Hour 3-Hour 1-Hour
SO,
TSP:
NO,
CO
1.0 |ig/
1.0 tig/
1.0 (is/
0.5mg/m3
No significance increments are applicable
for hydrocarbons or photochemical oxi-
dants. If the source would exceed the sig-
nificance levels in the portion of the desig-
nated nonattainment area where the
NAAQS is actually violated (actual area of
nonattainment). all requirements of this
Ruling (except Condition 3 of Section IV.A.)
would be applicable.
It will be assumed as the starting point in
reviewing a permit application that every lo-
cality in a designated nonattainment area
will exceed the NAAQS (as of the new
source start-up date), and that any major
source locating in the area will significantly
contribute to the violation. However, if the
applicant or any other participant present*
a substantial and relevant argument (includ-
ing any necessary analysis or other demon-
stration) why that assumption is incorrect,
then the applicability of this Ruling would
be determined by the specific facts in the
case.
E. Sources in attainment or unelassifiable
anas. For areas designated under 40 CFR
81.300 et SfQ. as attainment or unelassifia-
ble for the NAAQS, sources locating in such
areas which would exceed the above signifi-
cance increments at any locality that does
not meet the NAAQS are subject to this
Ruling However, such a source may be
exempted from Condition 3 of Section IV.A.
of this Ruling.
F. Fugitive dust sources.' Fugitive dust as-
sociated with major sources locating in
clean portions of designated nonattainment
areas or in designated attainment or unelas-
sifiable areas shall be subject only to appli-
cable requirements for preventing signifi-
cant deterioration of air quality (see 40 CFR
52.21). Fugitive dust associated with major
sources locating in an actual area of nonat-
tainment shall be subject to Conditions 1, 2
and 3 of Section IV-A. of this Ruling.
G. Secondary emissions. Secondary emis-
sions need not be considered in determining
whether the emission rates in Section II.C.
above would be exceeded. However, if a
'The discussion in this paragraph is a pro-
posal, but represents EPA's interim policy
until final rulemaking is completed.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 11-TUESOAY, JANUARY 16, 1979
15
-------
3284
source is subject to this Ruling on the basis
of the direct emissions from the source, the
applicable conditions of this Ruling must
also be met for secondary emissions. Howev-
er, if the secondary emissions are not under
the control of the applicant, such secondary
emissions may be exempt from Conditions 1
and 2 of Section IV. Also, since EPA's au-
thority to perform or require indirect source
review relating to mobile sources regulated
under Title II of the Act (motor vehicles
and aircraft) has been restricted by statute,
consideration of the indirect impacts of
motor vehicles and aircraft traffic is not re-
quired under this Ruling.
III. SOURCES LOCATING IH "CLEAN AREAS",
HOT WOULD CAUSE A NEW VIOLATION OF AN
NAAQS
If the reviewing authority finds that the
emissions from a proposed source would
cause a new violation of an NAAQS, but
would not contribute to an existing viola-
tion, approval may be granted only if both
of the following conditions are met:
Condition 1. The new source is required to
meet a more stringent emission limitation •
and/or the control of existing sources below
allowable levels is required so that the
source will not cause a violation of any
NAAQS.
Condition 2. The new emission limitations
for the new source as well as any existing
sources affected must be enforceable in ac-
cordance with the mechanisms set forth to
Section V below.
IV. SOURCES THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO
CONCENTRATIONS WHICH EXCEED A» NAAQS
A. Conditions for approval If the review-
ing authority finds that the emissions from
a proposed source would contribute to con-
centrations which exceed an NAAQS as of
the source's proposed start-up date, approv-
al may be granted only if the following con-
ditions are met:
Condition 1. The new source is required to
meet an emission Limitation • which speci-
fies the lowest achievable emission rate for
such source.*
Condition 2. The applicant must certify
that all existing major sources1 owned or
operated by the applicant (or any entity
controlling, controlled by. or under common
•If the reviewing authority determines
that technological or economic limitations
on the application of measurement method-
ology to a particular class of sources would
make the imposition of an enforceable nu-
merical emission standard infeasible. the au-
thority may instead prescribe a design, oper-
ational or equipment standard. In such
cases, the reviewing authority shall make its
best estimate as to the emission rate that
will be achieved and must specify that rate
in the required submission to EPA (see Part
V). Any permits issued without an enforce-
able numerical emission standard must con-
tain enforceable conditions which assure
that the design characteristics or equipment
will be properly maintained (or that the
operational conditions will be properly per-
formed) so as to continuously achieve the
assumed degree of control. Such conditions
shall be enforceable as emission limitations
by private parties under Section 304. Here-
after, the term "emission limitation" shall
also include such design, operational, or
equipment standards.
•Subject to the provisions of section IV.C.
below.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
control with the appplicant) In the same
State as the proposed source are in compli-
ance with all applicable emission limitations
and standards under the Act (or are in com-
pliance with an expeditious schedule which
is Federally enforceable or contained in a
court decree).
Condition 3. Emission reductions ("off-
sets") from existing sources in the area of
the proposed source (whether or not under
the same ownership) are required such that
there will be reasonable progress toward at-
tainment of the applicable NAAQs.1 Only
Intrapollutant emission offsets will be ac-
ceptable (e.g., hydrocarbon increases may
not be offset against SO, reductions).
Condition 4. The emission offsets will pro-
vide a positive net air quality benefit In the
affected area (see Section IV.D. below).«At-
mospheric simulation modeling is not neces-
sary for volatile organic compounds and
NO,, Fulfillment of Condition 3 and Section
IV.D. will be considered adequate to meet
this condition.
B. Exemptions from certain conditions.
The reviewing authority may exempt the
following sources from Condition 1 under
Section III or Conditions 3 and 4. Section
IV.A.: (1) Resource recovery faculties burn-
ing municipal solid waste, and (11) sources
which must switch fuels due to lack of ade-
quate fuel supplies or where a source is re-
quired to be modified as a result of EPA reg-
ulations (e.g., lead-in-fuel requirements) and
no exemption from such regulation is avail-
able to the source. Such an exemption may
be granted only if:
1. The applicant demonstrates that it
made its best efforts to obtain sufficient
emission offsets to comply with Condition 1
under Section III or Conditions 3 and 4
under Section IVJV. and that such efforts
were unsuccessful;
2. The applicant has secured all available
emission offsets: and
3. The applicant will continue to seek the
necessary emission offsets and apply them
when they become available.
Such an exemption may result in the need
to revise the SIP to provide additional con-
trol of existing sources.
Temporary emission sources, such as pilot
plants, portable facilities which will be relo-
cated outside of the nonattainment area
after a short period of time, and emissions
resulting from the construction phase of a
new source, are exempt from Conditions 3
and 4 of this Section.
C. Baseline for determining credit for
emission and air quality offsets. The base-
line for determining credit for emission and
air quality offsets will be the SIP emission
limitations in effect at the time the applica-
tion to construct or modify a source is filed.
Thus, credit for emission offset purposes
may be allowable for existing control that
goes beyond that required by the-SIP. Emis-
sion offsets generally should be made on a
pounds per hour basis when all facilities in-
volved in the emission offset calculations
are operating at their maximum expected or
allowed production rate. The reviewing
agency should specify other averaging peri-
ods (e.g.. tons per year) in addition to the
pounds per hour basis if necessary to carry
out the intent of this Ruling. When offsets
are calculated on a tons per year basis, the
baseline emissions for existing sources pro-
viding the offsets should be calculated using
the actual annual operating hours for the
previous one or two year period (or other
appropriate period if warranted by cyclical
business conditions). Where the SIP re-
quires certain hardware controls in lieu of
an emission limitation (e.g.. floating roof
tanks for petroleum storage), baseline allow-
able emissions should be based on actual op-
erating conditions for the previous one or
two year period (i.e., actual throughput and
vapor pressures) in conjunction with the re-
quired hardware controls.
1. No meaningful or applicable SIP re-
quirement. Where the applicable SIP does
not contain an emission limitation for a
source or source, category, the emission
offset baseline involving such sources shall
be the actual emissions determined in ac-
cordance with the discussion above regard-
ing operating conditions.
Where the SIP emission limit allows
greater emissions than the potential emis-
sion rate of the source (as when a State has
a single particulate emission limit for all
fuels), emission offset credit will be allowed
only for control below the potential emis-
sion rate.
2. Combustion of fuels. Generally, the
emissions for determining emission offset
credit involving an existing fuel combustion
source will be the allowable emissions under
the SIP for the type of fuel being burned at
the time the new source application is filed
(i.e.. if the existing source has switched to a
different type of fuel at some earlier date,
any resulting emission reduction [either
actual or allowable] shall not be used for
emission offset credit). If the existing
source commits to switch to a cleaner fuel at
some future date, emission offset credit
based on the allowable emissions for the
fuels involved is not acceptable unless the
permit is conditioned to require the use of a
specified alternative control measure which
would achieve the same degree of emission
reduction should the source switch back to a
dirtier fuel at some later date. The review-
ing authority should ensure that adequate
long-term supplies of the new fuel are'avail-
able before granting emission offset credit
for fuel switches.
3. Operating hours and source shutdown.
A source may be credited with emission re-
ductions achieved by shutting down an ex-
isting source or permanently curtailing pro-
duction or operating hours below baseline
levels (see initial discussion to this Section
C) provided, that the work force to be af-
fected has been notified of the proposed
shutdown or curtailment. Emission offsets
that involve reducing operating hours or
production or source shutdowns must be le-
gally enforceable, as In the case for all emis-
sion offset situations.'
4. Credit for hydrocarbon substitution. As
set forth in the Agency's "Recommended
Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Com-
pounds" (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977), EPA
has found that almost all non-methane hy-
drocarbons are photochemically reactive
and that low reactivity hydrocarbons even-
•Source shutdowns and curtailments in
production or operating hours occurring
prior to the date the new source application
is filed generally may not be used for emis-
sion offset credit. However, where an appli-
cant can establish that it shut down or cur-
tailed production after August 7. 1977, or
less than one year prior to the date of
permit application, whichever is earlier, and
the proposed new source is a replacement
for the shutdown or curtailment, credit for
such shutdown or curtailment may be ap
plied to offset emissions from the new
source.
16
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
3285
tually form as much photochemical oxidant
as the highly reactive hydrocarbons. There-
fore, no emission offset credit may be al-
lowed for replacing one hydrocarbon com-
pound with another of lesser reactivity,
except for those compounds listed in Table
1 of the above policy statement.
5. "Banking" of emission offset credit For
new sources obtaining permits by applying
offsets after January 16. 1979, the reviewing
authority may allow offsets that exceed the
requirements of reasonable progress toward
attainment (Condition 3) to be "banked"
(i.e.. saved to provide offsets for a source
seeking a permit in the future) for use
under this Ruling. Likewise, the reviewing
authority may allow the owner of an exist-
ing source that reduces its own emissions to
bank any resulting reductions beyond those
required by the SIP for use under this
Ruling, even if none of the offsets are ap-
plied immediately to a new source permit. A
reviewing authority may allow these banked
offsets to be used under the preconstruction
review program required by Part D, as long
as these banked emissions are identified and
accounted for in the SIP control strategy. A
reviewing authority may not approve the
construction of a source using banked off-
sets if the new source would interfere with
the SIP control strategy or if such use
would violate any other condition set forth
for use of offsets. To preserve banked off-
sets, the reviewing authority should identify
them in either a SIP revision or a permit,
and establish rules as to how and when they
may be used.
D. Location of offsetting emissions. In the
case of emission offsets involving volatile or-
ganic compounds (VOC), the offsets may be
obtained from sources located anywhere in
the broad vicinity of the proposed new
source. Generally, offsets will be acceptable
if obtained from within the same AQCR as
the new source or from other areas which
may be contributing to the oxidant problem
at the proposed new source location. As
with other pollutants, it is desirable to
obtain offsets from sources located as close
to the proposed new source site as possible.
If the proposed offsets would be from
sources located at greater distances from
the new source, the reviewing authority
should increase the ratio of the required
offsets and require a showing that nearby
offsets were investigated and reasonable al-
ternatives were not available.1
Offsets for NO, sources may also be ob-
tained within the broad area of nonattain-
ment. This is because areawide oxidant and
NO, levels are generally not as dependent
on specific hydrocarbon or NO, source loca-
tion as they are on overall area emissions.
Since the air quality impact of SO,, particu-
late and carbon monoxide sources is site de-
pendent, simple areawide mass emission off-
sets are not appropriate. For these pollut-
ants, the reviewing authority should consid-
er atmospheric simulation modeling to
ensure that the emission offsets provide a
positive net air quality benefit. However, to
avoid unnecessary consumption of limited,
costly and time consuming modeling re-
sources, in most cases it can be assumed
that if the emission offsets are obtained
from an existing source on the same prem-
ises or in the immediate vicinity of the new
source, and the pollutants disperse from
substantially the same effective stack
height, the air quality test under Condition
4 of Section IV.A. above will be met. Thus,
when stack emissions are offset against a
ground level source at the same site, model-
ing would be required. The reviewing au-
thority may perform this analysis or require
the applicant to submit appropriate model-
ing results.
E. Reasonable progress towards attain-
ment. As long as the emission offset is great-
er than one-for-one. and the other criteria
set forth above are met, EPA does not
Intend to question a reviewing authority's
judgment as to what constitutes reasonable
progress towards attainment as required
under Condition 3 in Section IV.A. above.
This does not apply to "reasonable further
progress" as required by Section 173.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
The necessary emission offsets may be
proposed either by the owner of the pro-
posed source or by the local community or
the State. The emission reduction commit-
ted to must be enforceable by authorized
State and/or local agencies and under the
Clean Air Act, and must be accomplished by
the new source's start-up date. If emission
reductions are to be obtained in a State that
neighbors the State in which the new
source is to be located, the emission reduc-
tions committed to must be enforceable by
the neighboring State and/or local agencies
and under the Clean Air Act. Where the
new facility is a replacement for a facility
that is being shut down in order to provide
the necessary offsets, the reviewing authori-
ty may allow up to 180 days for shakedown
of the new facility before the existing facili-
ty is required to cease operation.
A. Source initiated emission offsets. A
source may propose emission offsets which
involve: (1) Reductions from sources con-
trolled by the source owner (internal emis-
sion offsets); and/or (2) reductions from
neighboring sources (external emission off-
sets). The source does not have to investi-
gate all possible emission offsets. As long as
the emission offsets obtained represent rea-
sonable progress toward attainment, they
will be acceptable. It is the reviewing auth-
ority's responsibility to assure that the
emission offsets will be as effective as pro-
posed by the source. An internal emission
offset will be considered enforceable if it is
made a SIP requirement by inclusion as a
condition of the new source permit and the
permit is forwarded to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office.' An external emission
offset will not be enforceable unless the af-
fected source(s) providing the emission re-
ductions is subject to a new SIP require-
ment to ensure that its emissions will be re-
duced by a specified amount in a specified
time. Thus, if the source(s) providing the
emission reductions does not obtain the nec-
essary reduction. It will be in violation of a
SIP requirement and subject to enforce-
ment action by EPA, the State and/or pri-
vate parties. „
The form of the SIP revision may be a
State or local regulation, operating permit
condition, consent or enforcement order, or
any ether mechanism available to the State
that is enforceable under the Clean Air Act.
If a SIP revision is required, the public
hearing on the revision may be substituted
for the normal public comment procedure
required for all major sources under 40 CFR
51.18. The formal publication of the SIP re-
vision approval in the FEDERAL REGISTER
need not appear before the source may pro-
ceed with construction. To minimize uncer-
tataity that may be caused by these proce-
dures, EPA will, if requested by the Slate.
propose a SIP revision for public comment
in the FEDERAL REGISTER concurrently with
the State public hearing process. Of course.
any major change in the final permit'SIP
revision submitted by the State may require
a reproposal by EPA.
B. State or community initiated emission
offsets. A State or community which desires
that a source locate in its area may commit
to reducing emissions from existing sources
(including mobile sources) to sufficiently
outweigh the impact of the new source and
thus open the way for the new source. As
with source-initiated emission offsets, the
commitment must be something more than
one-for-one. This commitment must be sub-
mitted as a SIP revision by the State.
VI. POLICY WHERE ATTAINMENT DATES HAVE
HOT PASSED
In some cases, the dates for attainment of
primary standards specified in the SIP
under Section 110 have not yet passed due
to a delay in the promulgation of a plan
under this section of the Act. In addition
the Act provides more flexibility with re-
spect to the dates for attainment of second-
ary NAAQS than for primary standards.
Rather than setting specific deadlines. Sec-
tion 110 requires secondary NAAQS to be
achieved within a "reasonable time". There-
fore, in some cases, the date for attainment
of secondary standards specified in the SIP
under Section 110 may also not yet have
passed. In such cases, a new source which
would cause or contribute to an NAAQS vio-
lation may be exempt from the Conditions
of Section IV.A. so long as the new source
meets the applicable SIP emission limita-
tions and will not interfere with the attain-
ment date specified in the SIP under Sec-
tion 110 of the Act.
(Sec. 129(a). Pub. L. 95-95 (note under 42
U.S.C. 7502), and Sec. 301 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 0.S.C. 7601).)
[PR Doc. 79-1423 Filed 1-15-79; 8:45 am)
'The emission offset will, therefore, be en-
forceable by EPA under Section 113 as an
applicable SIP requirement and will be en-
forceable by private parties under Section
304 as an emission limitation.
FEDERAL IEGISTEB, VOL. 44, NO. II—TUESDAY, MNUAtY 16, 1979
17
-------
State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for Proposed Rulemaklng on
Approval of Plan Revisions for
Nonattainment Areas
/ VoL 44. No. 66 / Wednesday, April 4. 1979 / Proposed Rule*
3. Ozone Control Strategy. Although
an ozone SIP must assure reasonable
further progress and attainment in all
nonattainment areas, the SO? need not
include a specific demonstration of
reasonable further progress and
attainment in rural areas. (A designated
nonattainment area may consist of one
or more "urbanized areas" surrounded
by "rural areas.")"Such a
demonstration in all urbanized areas.
along with at least the minimum
stationary-source requirements
described below, should assure
reasonable further progress and
attainment in the rural areas by
minimizing the pollutants transported
from urbanized to rural areas.
Because it is often difficult to develop
precise ozone control strategies, and
because sections 172(a)(2) and (b)(3)
require minimum levels of control
" Section 172(c) of the Art establishes a July 1.
1983 deadline for the SIP 10 contain nil enfonceeble
measure* necessary for attainment by the end of
1987. The )u!y 1.1962 deadline applies only to
measure* not reasonably available earlier The
slate may not delay adoption and implementation of
measures that are reasonably available earner on
account of section 172(c). See dean Air
Amendments of 1977. Conference Report to
accompany HJL 8181. H.R. Rep. No. 8S-5M. «Sth
Cong.. 1st Sess. 157 (August 3.1977).
r- For purposes of oxone plan development
"urbanized area" means a central city and
surrounding closely settled anas with population of
200.00 or more, according to the 1B70 Census. plu»
any adjacent fringe anas of development Any
other area is a •rural area."
Smte reasonable further progress and atta'nment
need not be demonstrated in a rural area, ozone
SIP* that satisfy all Part D requirements under EPA
guidance for a rural ana and for the urbanized
areas that cause the nonattainment problem in the
rural area Kill provide an inherent emissions
growth allowance for new major source* in the rural
area. Thii means that a permit may be issued for
major sources of VOC in such rural areas, under
section 173 of the Act without a specific
demonstration that the new emissions will be
accommoddtrtl under section 173(1) (See discussion
in subsection lO.a below, on Pncomtniction
Rn-e»:\ If extensive growth changes the
de.T-uKraphic character of an area from rural to
urbanized, a demonstration of reasonable further
pru«rr»6 and uttainment may then be called for in
lh<- ni -»l> urlximzed area.
technology, the m»"'«"""« acceptable
level of stationary source control for
ozone SIPs is the following: Ozone SIPs
being revised now must include adopted
RACT requirements for VOC sources
covered by Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTGs) that EPA issued by
January 1978, and schedules to adopt
and submit by each future January
additional requirements for the sources
covered by CTGs issued by the previous
January. For SIPs with attainment dates
after 1982, these RACT requirements
must apply in urbanized areas to all
sources covered by each CTG, and in
rural areas to all "major" sources (that
is. over 100 tons/year potential
emissions)"covered by each CTG.
(Such SIPs must also provide for the
control of additional sources where
necessary to achieve reasonable further
progress, as discussed below.) For SIPs
with attainment dates before the end of
1982 that do not use photochemical
dispersion modeling, these RACT
requirements must apply to all major
sources covered by each CTG, and in
urbanized areas to enough additional
sources covered by each CTG to provide
for reasonable further progress and
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable. In SIPs with attainment
dates before the end of 1982 that do use
photochemical dispersion modeling.
these RACT requirements must apply to
enough sources covered by each CTG to
provide for reasonable further progress
and attainment as expeditiously as
practicable.*4
""Potential" to emit means the maximum
capacity to emit a pollutant absent air pollution
control equipment Sue sections I1.A.1 through 5 of
the Offset Ruling, note 3 above.
The above sets forth the minimum level of
stationary source control that must be included not
onl> in the SIP. but slso in the demonstration that
attainment is impossible by the end of 1982 despite
implementation of all reasonably available
measure*, which is necessary under section
172UH21» qualify for an attainment date after UM>
end oMSK.
Linear rollback technique* for determining
needed emission reductions an acceptable for use
in 1979 SIP submittal*. Plans with attainment dates
after 1982. however, must be revised by July 1.1982
to jse more rigorous techniques.
"That is. the STP must do the following to the
extent necessary to achieve straight-line reductions
at the «nd of 1982: (1) Include all RACT. including
RACT for source categories in addition to those that
will be covered by EPA s CTG series, and. for
source categories that will be covered by CTGs.
adopt RACT requirements sooner than would be
required by EPA a CTG program described in the
text above: (2) provide for especially expeditions
and ambitious reasonably available transportation
control measures; and (3) permit new major sources
and major modifications only with caw-by-case
offsetting emission reductions (SOT discussion on
fmconstructioa Review in subsection 10 below of
the teitl. As a practical matter, a SIP that requires
application of all RACT and includes no emissions
growth allowance for new major sources should
assure straight-line reductions at the end of 1982 for
even the most seriously polluted area.
as the revised SIP meets all
requirements for the 0.12 level.
Being a relaxation, the revision to the
ozone standard does not affect the
schedule for submittal of SIP revisions
required under Part D. Section 110(a)(l)
of the Act requires that SIP revisions be
submitted within 9 months after a
standard is revised. This refers only to
SIP revisions legally required because of
the revision to the standard. However.
where a standard is relaxed, no SIP
revision is required by law, since states
may have more stringent controls than
necessary if they choose.*' It is optional
with the state whether to relax new
requirements back to the 0.12 level, and
the state may therefore determine its
own schedule for accomplishing this.
The relaxation of the ozone N AAQS
may allow some areas now designated
nonattainment to have their
designations changed, under section
107(d)(S) of the Act. hi order to clear up
any questions about what is a
nonattainment area before the July 1,
1979 deadline for having approved Part
D SIPs." states are urged to promptly
submit lists of areas that may be
redesigns ted, along with supporting
documentation. EPA will then
promulgate the revised lists as soon as
possible, with any necessary
modifications.
18
-------
32042
Air Quality; Clarification of Agency
Policy Concerning Ozone SIP
Revisions and Solvent Reactivities
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 108 / Monday. June 4. 1979 / Notices
ACTION: This notice is published under
the authority of section 101(b) and
section 103 of the Clean Air Act The
notice clarifies EPA's "Recommended
Policy on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds." 42 FR 35314 (July 8.1977).
STATEMENT: The July 1977 Policy
Statement noted that only reactive
volatile organic compounds participate
in the chemical reactions that form
photochemical oxidants. Currently
available information suggests that
negligibly photochemically reactive
volatile organic compounds as defined
in that Statement including methyl
chloroform and methylene chloride, do
not appreciably affect ambient ozone
levels. Hence, EPA will not disapprove
any state implementation plan or plan
revision for its failure to contain
regulations restricting emissions of these
compounds.
Although these substances need not
be controlled under state
implementation plans for the purpose of
achieving ambient ozone standards,
nothing in this memorandum is intended
to modify past EPA expressions of
concern about the uncontrolled use of
"methyl chloroform and methylene
'ChlQndg.j\s noted in the above
referenced policy and the clarification
presented in memoranda of August 24,
1978 and March 6,1979, there is
suggestive evidence that both
compounds are potentially carcinogenic
"aBd methyl chloroform is suspected of
contrlbmmgto depleboiLoLI
stratosplieric ozone. See, for exami
he following studies:
Simmon, V. F., Kauhanen, K. and
Tardiff, R. G., "Mutagenic Activity of
Chemicals Identified in Drinking Water"
in Progress in Genetic Toxicology, ed. I.
D. Scott, B. A. Bridges, and F. H. Sobels,
at 249-258 (Elsevier, 1977);
Price, P. G., Hassett, C. M. and
Mansfield, O. I., "Transforming
Activities of Trichloroethylene and
Proposed Industrial Alternatives" In
Vitro 14:3, at 290-293 (1978);
Theiss, J. C., Stoner, G. D., Shimkin, M.
B., et a]., "Test for Carcinogenicity of
Organic Contaminants of United States
Drinking Waters by Pulmonary Tumor
Response In Strain A Mice," Cancer
Research, 37(8 Pt. 1): 2717-20, (August
1977);
The EPA Carcinogen Assessment
Group's Preliminary Risk Assessment on
Methyl Chloroform, Type I—Air
Program, (January 17,1979);
The EPA Carcinogen Assessment
Group's Preliminary Risk Assessment on
Methylene Chloride, Type I—Air
Program, (January 17,1979);
Conference on Methyl Chloroform and
other Halocarbon Pollutants, sponsored
by Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, February 27-28,
1979, Washington, D.C. (proceedings in
press).
Jjjecause both methyl chloroform and
trjpthylpnp rhlnride are potentially
harmful. EPA recommends that these
chemicals not be substituted for other
solvents in efforts to reduce ozone
J7gf[?v.ntratinna. EPA further
recommends that the states control
these compounds under the authority
reserved to them in section 116 of the
Clean Air Act. Moreover, there is a
strong possibility for future regulation of
these compounds under the Clean Air
Ant. " '•
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
• Joseph Padgett, Director, Strategies and
Air Standards Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, MD-12
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711 (919) 541-5204.
Dated: May 25,1979.
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 79-17264 Filed 6-l-7ft &45 am]
BILLMG CODE 6560-01-M
19
-------
State Implementation Plans; Qaneral
Preamble for Propoeed Rutemaktag on
Approval of Plan Revision* for
Nonattaimnent Areas—Supplement
(on Revised Schedules for Submission
of Volatile Organic Compound Ract
Regulations)
Federal Register / Vol. 44, We. 168 / Tuesday, Auprst 28, MT9 / Proposed Rides
50371
ACTION: General Preamble for proposed
rulemaking—Supplement. ,
SUMMARY: Proviaioas of the Clean Air
Act enacted in 1977 resjeires States sa
revise «>«•*> fl*»*? Implementation Plans
for all areas that ha*e ant attained
National AraWent Air Quality
Standards. States arc tokaveaafaaritted
the neocBBOjy plan revtsreas to EPA by
January 1.1979. The Agency is «oir
publishing proposals ktvffing paaiie
comment on whether each of m*
submtttals should be approved, in me
April 4,1979 issue of the Festers!
Register, EPA p**mshed a Genesal
Preamble identifying aad Mmmanziag
4me major considerations mat w*B guide
EPA's'evahwtion of the suhmittais (44
FR20372I.J
informaUba oatfae revised sqJe
adoption of regalattoas I
categories
votMttie organic
compouns | vCKiJ covere
second set of
-Guidelines fCTGs).
hTIOM OOMTACR
The appropriate EPA Regional Office
listed on the first page of the General
Preamble (44 FR 20372) or the feHuiving
Headquarters office: G. T. Hekas, Chief.
Control Programs Operations Branch,
Control Programs Development Division,
EPA Office of Air Quafiry Planning and
Standards (MD-15), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 277M, (919) 541-
5365 or 541-5228.
siiPPLEMdmutY MFORSMTION: The
background is set out at length in the
April 4 General Preamble. This
Supplement address an issue that needs
explanation.
The Administrator's memorandum of
February 24.1978, pabfisbed m me
Federal Register at 43 FR 21073 (May It.
1978), stated tint the 1979 phm
subnuesJoa for ozone nonartainmeat
areas," . . . must includes, as a
minimum, legally enforceable
regulations to reflect the application of
reasonably available confrol technology
(RACT) to those sonross for whk* EPA
has published a Control Technique
Guideline (CTG) by January 1978, and
provide for me adoption aad submitad
of additional legally enforceable RACT
regulations on an annual basis
beginning in January 1980 for those
CTGfl that have been published by
January of the preceding year."
It is now apparent mat the regulatory
adoption ppscess may be more lengthy
man first anticipated. Additional tine
mayfee necessary to accommodate
public, administrative, and legislative
review, te order to realistically address
this problem, yet to continue meeting
our responsibilities to attain me ambient
standards as expedltioBsly as
practicable, EPA is revising by six
months tfce dewMuns for sobmittBi of
the RACT regeJatiens for (be second set
of CTGs. Tht
for the adoption and submfttal of
~aattttonal tegafiy emevcesMe
regulations by Jaly 1. MM for the
'Mowing Source categoriesT
Factory Surface Coating of Flstwsod
Petroleum Refinery Fugitive Emission (Leaks)
Pharmaceutical Manufactvn
Rubber Tire Manufacture
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts
Graphic Arts (PrtntinK)
DryC3»«nin8.PerchJan>elhyleiie
GMOiine Tank Trucks, Leak Pnventton
Petroleum Liquid Storage, Floating Roof
Tanks
If this revision to the adoption
schedule of RACT regulations requires
alteration of any comments on a plan for
which the comment period has already
ended, the commenter should contact
the appropriate EPA Regional Office
immediately so that the issue can be
appropriately dealt with,
N«te.— Under Executive Order 12044 EPA
is required to judge whether a regulation is
"significant" and therefore, subject to the
procedural requirements of the order or
whether it may follow other specialized
development procedures. EPA UbeU these
other regulations "specialized." I have
reviewed this regulation and determined that
it is s specialized regulation not subject to the
procedural requirements of Executive Oder
12044. [Sees. 110(«). 172. dean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C 74W(«), 7602)].
Dated: August 21. 1970.
Edward F.Tnsrk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise,
aad Radiation.
(PR Doc 7S-H79S FIbd S-P-7S: Mt am]
SmUNQ COM SMS-SMI
20
-------
State Inptementattoft Plans; Gmerat
Preamble for Proposed Rutemaking on
Approval of Pfan Revisions for
Nonartainment Areas—Supplement
(on Control Techniques Guidelines)
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 181 / Monday, September 17, 1979 / Proposed Rules
53761
ACTION: General preamble for proposed
nrtemakmg—Supplement.
SUMNANT Provision* of tfce Clean Air
Art enacted in 1877 nqaae states to
revise tkeir Stale Implementation Plans
for all areas tbat have not attained
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. States «re to have submitted
the necessary plan revisions to EPA by
January 1,197a The Agency is now
publishing proposals iwviring public
comment on whether each of the
submrttals shoold be approved. These
are followed by final actions on the
submirtals. In the April 4,1979 issue of
the Federal Register, EPA published a
General Preamble identifying and
summarizing the major considerations
that will guide EPA's evaluation of the
submittais (44 FR 20372). This was
followed by a correction of a
typographical error on April 30 [44 FR
2524?) and Supplements on July 2 (44 FR
38583] and August 28 (44 FR 50371).
Today's Supplement provides further
discussion on Control Techniques
Guidelines for stationary sources of
volatile organic compounds.
Far Further Information Contact: The
appropriate EPA regional office listed on
the first page of the April 4,1979
General Preamble (44 FR 20372} or the
following headquarters office: G. T.
Helms, Chief, Control Programs
Operations Branch, Control Programs
Development Division, EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards
(MD-15), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. (919) 541-5365 or 541-
5226.
Public Comment As explained m the
April 4 General Preamble, EPA Regioaal
Administrators are publishing Federal
Register proposals inviting comment on
whether the individual plan submittais
should be approved. The General
Preamble, the July 2 Supplement, the
August 2ft Supplement, and this
Supplement are notices of proposed
ruleraaking. applicable to each decision
by EPA whether to approve a state plan
submittal. EPA's final action will be in
the form of a ruling approving or
disapproving the individual plan
subnrittaL If the discussion in this
Supplement requires alteration of any
comments on a pkn for which the
comment period has already ended, the
commenter should contact the
appropriate EPA Regional Office
immediately so that tbe i*ne can be
appropriately resolved
Supplementary Information: General
background information is. set out at
length in the April 4 General Preamble.
This Supplement provides further
discussion on the Control Techniques
Guideline! {CTGs) issued by EPA for
sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOC). fYOC is a chemical precursor of
ozone, and is therefore controlled in
plans for the ozone ambient standard).
In several proposals involving
particular state plan submittais, EPA
has stated that the submitted regulations
for control of sources of VOC were not
supported by the information in the
CTGs. Where EPA noted a problem, the
Agency proposed that the State would
have to provide an adequate
demonstration that its regulations
represent reasonably available control
technology (RACT), or amend the
regulations to be consistent with the
information in the CTGs. The purpose of
the following discussion is to explain
generally the legal and policy
considerations supporting these
proposals, and to discuss in general the
purpose of the CTGs.
1. RACT for Ozone Plans. In the 1977
amendments to the Clean Air Act,
Congress specified that, in order for a
state implementation plan (SIP) to
satisfy the requirements of Part D of
Title I of the Act (Part D), the SIP must
provide for application of all reasonably
available control measures, which
includes RACT for all stationary
sources.1 In using the term "reasonably
available control technology," Congress
apparently adopted EPA's pre-existing
conception of the term.2
1 Sections 172(b)(2H3) of the Act (42 U.S.C.
7502(b)(2H3)).
'Congress did not adopt its own definition of
"RACT." and was well aware of how EPA used the
term. See. e.g.. Hearings on H.R. 4151, H.R. 4758, and
H.R. 4444 before the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment of the House Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce. 95th Cong., 1st Sess., Part 2
at 1808, 1825 (Serial No. 95-59. March S-ll and April
18. 1977).
'EPA articulated its definition of RACT in a
memorandum from Roger Strelow. Assistant
Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to
Regional Administrators. Regions I-X on
"Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-attainment Areas." section l.a
(December 9.1976). reprinted in (1976) 7
Environmental Reporter. Current Developmenta
(BNA) 1210 col. 2; and in EPA's publication
Workshop on Requirements for Non-attainment
Area Plans—Compilation of Presentations 154
(OAQPS No. 1.2-103. revised edition April 1978).
21
EPA has defined 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.3
RACT for a particular source is
determined on a case-by-case basis,
considering the technological and
economic circumstances of the
individual source.
EPA regulations provide that less
stringent emission limitations than those
achievable with RACT are acceptable
only if the State plan shows that the less
stringent limitations are sufficient to
attain and maintain national ambient air
quality standards, and show reasonable
further progress during the interim
before attainment.4 Otherwise, RACT
limitations are required, as discussed in
detail in the April 4 General Preamble.5
2. EPA s Control Techniques
Guidelines. In the 1977 amendments to
the Act, Congress instructed States to
begin revising their plans to assure
attainment of standards, and also
instructed EPA to prepare guidance
material to assist states in their efforts
to develop ozone plans. While EPA's
main effort was to prepare material on
control of transportation sources,
Congress also required the Agency to
publish, and make available to State air
pollution control agencies, information
on control of emissions from non-
transportation sources including fuel
transfer and storage operations and
operations using solvents.6 Congress
stated its intent that these documents
were "to be a basic resource available
to State and local governments in
determining the measures to be included
in plans to achieve and maintain the
national ambient air quality
standards." ' While deliberating on the
1977 amendments to the Act containing
these specific instructions, Congress
was aware that EPA had already begun
preparing a series of CTGs to provide
guidance to States and industry on
controlling stationary sources of VOC.8
•40 CFR Sl.l(o)(lJ. The regulations refer only to
attainment and maintenance. The analogous
requirement for the SIP to show reasonabie further
progress was established by the 1977 amendments.
See 44 FR 20375 col. 3 (Apnl 4. 1979).
s 44 FR 20375-20377.
•Section 108(f)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act (40 USC
7 Report to accompany S. 252, S. Rep. No. 95-127,
95th Cong., 1st Sess. 24, (May 10, 1977).
'See Hearings, note 2 above. Part 2 at 1427-32.
EPA's authority to publish information and
recommended levels of control is provided by
section 103(b)(l) (40 USC 7403(b)(l)), which
generally authorizes EPA to publish "information,
including appropriate recommendations" to assist
air pollution control agencies, in addition !o section
-------
Each CIO aescnoes tecnniques
available for reducing emissions of VOC
from a category of sources, and states
recommended levels of control. There
were 11 such CTG's published before
January 1978, and 9 published during
1978. EPA intends the CTG's to serve the
following functions:
a. Informing the States. The primary
purposes of each CTG is to inform the
State and local air pollution control
agencies of air pollution control
techniques available for reducing
emissions of VOC from the class of
sources covered by the CTG. This
information, involving the capabilities
and problems general to the industry,
should be useful to both control
agencies and industry in developing
needed emission limitations for
stationary sources within the State.
b. Establishing the Deadline for
Submitting SIP Requirements. EPA
believes that States will be able to make
more technologically sound decisions in
adopting emission limitations if they are
permitted to defer adoption until after
the information in the CTGs is available.
Therefore, EPA has stated that a SIP
revision due January 1,1979 is
acceptable if it includes necessary
emission limitations for source
categories covered by CTGs published
by January 1978.'Emission limitations
for source categories covered by CTGs
published between January 1978 and
January 1979 must be adopted and
submitted to EPA by July 1.1980."
c. Recommendation to States. Along
with information, each CTG contains
recommendations to the States of what
EPA calls the "presumptive norm" for
RACT, based on EPA's current
evaluation of the capabilities and
problems general to the industry. Where
the States finds the presumptive norm
applicable to an individual source or
group of sources, EPA recommends that
the State adopt requirements consistent
with the presumptive norm level in order
to include RACT limitations in the SIP."
•44 FR 20376 col. 3 (April 4,1979); 43 FR 21678
(May 3.1978).
"See memorandum from David G. Hawkins. EPA
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise and
Radiation, to Regional Administrator. Regions l-X,
on "State Implementation Plans/Revised Schedule*
for Submitting Reasonably Available Control
Technology Regulations for Stationary Sources of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)" (August 22.
1979). The July 1.1960 deadline is six months later
than the deadline EPA had announced in the '
statements cited in footnote ft Since the process of
adopting regulations appears more lengthy than first
anticipated, additional time may be necessary to
accommodate public, administrative, and legislative
review.
Adoption of emission limitations may not be
deferred until after publication of CTCs when
deferral would result in failure to achieve
reasonable further progress. See 44 FR 20377 n. 25
(April 4.1979).
" Or requirements that deviate imperceptibly
(e.g.. up to 5 percent less control) from the
recommended presumptive norm.
However, recommended controls are
based on capabilities and problems
which are general to the industry; they
do not take into account the unique
circumstances of each facility. In many
cases appropriate controls would be
more or less stringent. States are urged
to judge the feasibility of imposing the
recommended controls on particular
sources, and adjust the controls
accordingly.
The presumptive norm is only a
recommendation. For any source of
group of sources, regardless of whether
they fall within the industry norm, the
State may develop case-by-case RACT
requirements independently of EPA's
recommendation. EPA will propose to
approve any submitted RACT
requirement that the State shows will
satisfy the requirements of the Act for
RACT, based on the economic and
technical circumstances of the particular
sources being regulated. .
d. Basis for the EPA Decision on
Approval. EPA sought information from
the relevant industries in preparing the
CTGs. and EPA believes that the
information in the CTGs is highly
relevant to the decision whether to
approve State regulations. For SIPs that
must include RACT limitations, each
CTG will be part of the rulemaking
record on which EPA's decision will be
based."However, the CTG does not
establish conclusively how issues must
be resolved. In reviewing an individual
regulation, EPA will consider not only
the information in the CTG, but also any
material included in the State submittal
and in public comments on the
submittal.
For emission limitations that are
consistent with the information in the
CTGs, therefore, the State may be able
to rely solely on the information in the
CTG to support its determination that
the adopted requirements represent
RACT. Where this is not the case, EPA
believes that the State must submit
justification of its own, to support its
determination. EPA will then consider
the information submitted by the State,
together with the information in the
CTG and public comment.
Note: Under Executive Order 12044 EPA is
required to judge whether a regulation is
"significant" and therefore subject to
procedural requirements of the Order or
whether it may follow other specialized
development procedures. EPA labels these
other regulations "specialized." I have
reviewed this regulation and determined that
it is a specialized regulation not subject to the
procedural requirements of Executive Order
12044.
(Sees. 110(a), 172, Clean Air Act. as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7410{a), 7502)).
Dated: September 5,1979.
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 79-M7OT Filed 9-14-79: 8 45 am|
MLUNO CODE 6560-01-M
"This is what was meant by EPA's statement
that "the criteria for SIP approval rely heavily upon
the information contained in the CTG." 44 FR 21676
(May 19.1978).
22
-------
Data Collection for 1982 Ozone
Implementation Plan Submittals
Federal Register / Vol 44. No. 221 / Wednesday. November 14. 1979
1FRL 1349-7; Docket A-79-43]
Data Collection for 1982 Ozone
Implementation Plan Submittals
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is initiating efforts which will
lead to the development of control
strategies and implementation plans to
attain the ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard by 1967 for those
areas needing an extension beyond 1982
in accordance with the requirements of
Section 172 of the Clean Air Act as
amended. As a first step in this process,
the Agency has prepared preliminary
information and guidance for the
collection of'emission, air quality, and
meteorological data. This guidance
identifies the data presently believed to
be necessary to complete modeling
analyses and plan development in the
time period and to the degree expected
to be necessary to complete these tasks.
This guidance should not be construed
as a requirement in a regulatory sense.
Rather, it should be regarded as the
Agency's preliminary estimate of the
data necessary to prepare a plan. While
the Agency has already distributed this
information, primarily for initial
planning purposes, the Agency is
soliciting comments on this guidance.
Docket No. A-79-43, containing
material relevant to this action is
located in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Centra! Docket
Section, Room 2903B, 401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket may
be inspected between B:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. on weekdays and a reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. John Calcagni, Environmental
Scientist, Environmental Protection
Agency (MD-15), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone:
[919) 541-5365.
Dated: October 24.1979.
David C. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise, and
Radiation.
Environmental Protection Agency
October 23.1979.
Subject: Du'a Collection for the 1982 Ozone
Implementation Plan Submittals.
From: David G. Hawkins, Assistant
Aclmminstrator for Air. Noise, and Radiation.
Memo to: Regional Administrator, Regions
I-X.
As you are aware, the Clean Air Act
Amendments nf 1477 require s State which
needs an extension of the attainment date for
the National Ozone Ambient Air Quality
Standard to submit a revision to its
implementation plan by July 1,1962. A
principal component of this submittal will be
the demonstration of attainment. In most
cases, if a State is to prepare its plan revision
in a timely manner, the data collection effort
will have to be completed during the fiscal
year 1980. Hence it is essential that data
collection programs be initiated this fall.
In order to assist you and your States in
preparing the necessary data collection plans
for this effort, a summary of the anticipated
air quality and emission data requirements
for trip more comprehensive models is
attached. (Attachment 1.) In addition, the
anticipated level of modeling for each of the
major urban areas (over 200X100 pop. 1970
census} requesting an extension of the
attainment date is delineated in
Attachment 2.
The data requirements summarized in
Attachment 1 have been divided into four
levels based upon four generic types of
models: (1) Photochemical dispersion models,
(2) Simplified trajectory models, (3) City-
specific EKMA. and (4) Standard EKMA. The
Attachment provides a description of the
analysis technique, emissions data
requirements, air quality data requirements.
and meteorological data requirements for
each level. These date requirements vary
depending upon the complexity and
comprehensiveness of the model. Generally,
the most severe problem areas will require
application of the most comprehensive
models and therefore the most extensive data
bases. Areas with lesser problems will
require less comprehensive models and
correspondingly simpler data bases.
With regard to the urban areas delineated
in Attachment 2 and the level of modeling
expected, it should be noted that this was
derived based on consideration of the
complexity and magnitude of the air quality-
problem as projected by the 1979 State
Implementation Plan Submittals and data
reviews conducted by Headquarters and
regional staff. Should there be any
discrepancies between our expectations for a
particular city and the State plans for that
area, it should be discussed with the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards before
you commit to accept a different level of
analysis.
The above efforts will likely result in a
need for additional resources beyond those
included in the FY 80 budgets for thos^
agencies responsible for collecting the data.
The Agency has made sp?cial allocations of
Sections 105 and 175 funds to accomplish the
above tasks. The Section 105 funds have
already been allocated to the Regional
Offices for distribution to the appropriate
agencies. The Section 175 funds are being
held in Headquarters and will be allocated to
each Regional Office for distribution,
preferably to Metropolitan Planning
Organizations. These special funds are being
provided primarily for level 1 and 2 data
collection activities. Level 3 and 4 data
collection should be accomplished within the
scope of the general Section 105 allocation.
Final decisions on distribution of funds
should be based upon an integrated workplan
for the 1982 ozone SIP.
In order to assure thorough dissemination
of these requirements. I am having this
memorandum published in the Federal
Register.
Attachments
cc: D. Bickart, Director, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division. Regions I-X. Director,
Surveillance and Analysis Division,
Regions I-X
Attachment 1.—Summary of Data Input
Requirements for Various Levels of Ozone
Modeling
The following pages provide summaries of
data input requirements for four levels of
ozone modeling analysis:
23
-------
65668 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 221 / Wednesday. November 14. 1979 / Notices
(a) Level I—Photochemical Diapersion
Models
(b) Level D—Simplified Trajectory Model*
(c) Level ITJ—Photochemical Dispenion
Models
(d) Level IV—Standard EKMA
It most likely will be neceaaary to plan and
execute a (pedal field sampling program
during the smog season (e-g.. typically June-
September) to collect die air quality and
meteorological data needed for the various
level) of analysis. The level of effort needed
to carry out such a field study can vary
widely, depending upon the level of modeling
analysis required and the size an»
distribution of the existing ambient network.
Generally, a larger effort would be required
for Levels I and 0 than for ffl or IV. For
Levels III and IV. current ambient data
collection activities should provide much of
the data input required for the modeling
analyse*.
Estimates of the number of monitors/
stations which are made herein are general
ones which are useful in estimating resource
requirements. In the final design of
environmental monitoring networks for
individual cities however, care must be taken
to consider such factors a* roughness of
terrain, local meteorology, size and shape of
the urban area and the nature and
distribution of the city's emissions. Although
available guidance and User's Manuals
provide a useful framework for the design
and interpretation of information forthcoming
from the different levels of analysis, the
advice of modelers, meteorologists and other
air pollution specialists familiar with the area
being modeled is likely to be essential,
particularly for Levels I and II.
For additional information please contact
Mr. John Calcagni of the Standard*
Implementation Branch at FTS 629-5365.
Level I: Photochemical Dispersion Models
Description of Analysis. This level of
sophistication requires the application of
validated photochemical dispersion models.
The procedure is to apply one of several
available photochemical dispersion models to
the urban area, encompassing the area of
major emissions and the downwind area of
maximum ozone concentration*. In order to
validate the model and to specify the critical
meteorological scenariofs) associated with
the design level ozone concentration it is
necessary to conduct a rather extensive field
study during an ozone season. The extent and
density of the environmental data collection
network in this field study depends on the
expected spatial/temporal variability of the
data within the area and on the sensitivity of
the model to the data. It is also necessary to
assemble or derive spatially/temporally
resolved emissions inventories of VOC
classes and NO/NO* for (1) the base year
(corresponding to the field study); (2) for one
to two projection years (effect of regulations
"on the books" plus growth); and (3) for the
various control strategy scenarios to be
tested. Expertise in air pollution meteorology.
photochemical modeling, air pollution
monitoring, and emissions inventories are
generally required to design the data
collection effort and to conduct the modeling
analysis.
A. Emissions Data Requirements
1. Spatial Resolution. These models require
the use of a gridded VOC NO, and CO
emission* inventory. Grid *quares are
typically one kilometer to five kilometer* on
• aide. County-wide area sources are
allocated to the grid square* using various
activity indicator*. Roadway emissions are
calculated by link and assigned to the
appropriate grid. Smaller point sources are
generally allocated to the appropriate grid as
an area source, whereas major point source*.
with stack parameters, are located exactly.
Emission inventory guidance is available in
EPA 490/4-79-18.
2. Temporal Resolution. All emissions must
be temporally resolved on an hourly basis for
a typical ozone simulation day. Roadway
emissions are temporally resolved from
traffic data. Information on the diurnal
variability of point source emissions is
obtained directly from the sources. For area
sources, local information on the source
categories is used to derive the diurnal
emission behavior.
3. Pollutant Splits. VOC emissions must be
split into three to six hydrocarbon classes
(specific to the model used); NO, emissions
are split into NO/NO. Information on
pollutant splits is available in EPA 450/3-78-
119.
B. Air Quality Data Requirements
1. Ozone Monitors. Typically 10-20 sites
are required in the modeling area. One to
three upwind sites are needed to establish
incoming transport and five or more sites,
generally located 15-40 kilometers downwind
to encompass the area of maximum
concentrations, are needed for model
validation purposes. The number and
location of the upwind and downwind sites
should be dependent on the wind direction
during periods of high concentration. The five
to 12 remaining sites should be distributed
over the modeling region in such a fashion
that a reasonably accurate depiction of the
ozone concentration field can be derived
using interpolation.
2. NO/NO,. Typically six to 12 sites are
required, usually collocated with O> monitors
and with THC/CH. monitors. The NO/NO,
sites should be concentrated in the urban/
suburban and near downwind areas. The
data are used in an analogous fashion to the
ozone data.
3. THC/CHt. Three to six lite* are required
and should be collocated with NO/NO,
monitors in high emission density area*
within the modeling region.
4. Species. A total of approximately 200
•ample* should be taken and analyzed for
hydrocarbon specie* (Ci through C» plus
aramalics) during the field study. These data
are used to derive the mix of pollutants
within the modeling region. Samples should
be taken at one or two upwind sites to
provide an estimate of incoming transport
and at two to three sites within the urban
area where pollutant mixea might be
expected to be different. Some sample*
should be taken at the THC/CH, site* for
comparison with the THC/CH. data. If
possible, approximately 50 sample* should be
collected aloft (see B6 below).
5. Carbon Monoxide. Data from six to 10
cite* within and downwind of the city should
24
be collected. The data from these site* an
helpful in troubleshooting any initial poor
performance of the model in that estimate*
for an inert pollutant such a* CO allow the
dispersion aspects of the model to be isolated
from the photochemical aspects. Thus the
sites should be located such that the data are
representative of an average concentration
.over a grid and not a hot spot within the grid.
6. Aircraft Data. Ozone. NO,, and
hydrocarbon grab samples should be taken
by aircraft These data are used to provide an
estimate of upper-level transport into and out
of the modeling region and the downward
transport of pollutants from aloft. Aircraft
flight patterns should consist of vertical
profiles over key ground stations and
horizontal flights: (1) In the early morning,
upwind and over the city to measure
incoming transport and initial conditions
aloft; (2) mid-morning over and near
downwind of the city tc measure rapid
changes during inversion dissipation; and (3)
afternoon over a broad area downwind up to
80 kilometers to assess the pattern of highest
ozone concentration and verify the maximum
value. The two to four vertical profiles over
key stations in each of these flights should
include temperature data used in C3 below.
C. Meteorological Data Requirements
1. Surface Winds. A total of 10-25 sites
should be distributed over the modeling
region in such a fashion that the data can be
spatially interpolated to derive wind vectors
for each grid.
2. Upper Level Winds. Data from one or
two radiosonde sites and two to three
movable pibal sites are required to derive the
upper level wind fields as a function of space
and lime. These sites should take advantage
of existing radiosonde sites (usually at an
airport) but should generally encompass the
entire modeling region.
3. Temperature Data. Data from five to 15
surface temperature sites (usually collocated
with wind sites) and the radiosonde and
aircraft soundings mentioned above are
needed to spatially/temporally derive the
mixing height and/or stability inputs to the
model.
4. Solar Radiation. Continuous data from
two to three surface sites are needed as input
to the kinetics module. It is preferable to use
an ultraviolet pyranometen a net solar
radiometer can often be substituted.
D. Other Data Requirements
Some models require the specification of
other variables which may require ambient/
meteorological/emissions data. The modeler
should consult the user/planning manuals for
the specific photochemical dispersion model
to determine the required input parameters.
Level II: Simplified Trajectory Model
Description of Analysis. Level II analysis it
essentially the application of the city-specific
EKMA approach using a more comprehensive
and detailed data base than required for
Level 111 analysis. The larger data base
provides added confidence in (a) defining
ambient level* of ozone, (b) determining
control requirement*, and (c) testing various
control strategies.
The procedure involve* calculating
backward trajectories from the site(s)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 221 / Wednesday. November 14. 1979 / Notices
65669
observing a high hourly ozone concentration.
Atmospheric chemistry it simulated within a
uniformly mixed parcel of air a* the parcel
moves along the calculated trajectory. Fresh
emissions encountered along the trajectory
and pollutants entrained from aloft are
considered as well. For a given trajectory, the
simulation is repeated a number of times for
different VOC and NO, emission levels. An
ozone isopleth diagram it thus obtained. The
EKMA procedure (described in EPA-450/2-
77-021 a and b and EPA-#»/8~78-14a) is
then applied to estimate needed controls and
test the effectiveness of control strategies. A
similar procedure is followed usirg
trajectories corresponding with other
observed high ozone concentrations as well.
More detailed guidance on aelectiug specific
trajectories and applying the EKMA
approach in this mode will be available in
summer 1980. prior to the time the analysis
will need to be applied for 1962 ozone SIPs
A Emissions Data Requirements
1. Spatial Resolution. Level II analyses
require the use of a gridded VOC and NO,
emission inventory with a network of grid
squares approximately 10 km on a side.
Gridded CO emissions are also highly
desirable and are used with ambient CO data
to test the dispersion aspects of the model.
The area covered by the grid should at least
encompass all of the air quality monitors
deployed in accprdance with paragraph B.
Distinction should be made between point
and area sources for each grid square. Line
sources are treated as area sources. In order
to provide satisfactory emission projections
in accordance with EPA-450/4-79-18, it is
useful to idrntify emissions from each major
kind of VOC, NO, and CO source in each grid
square.
2. Temporal Resolution. Hourly emission
estimates are required for each source
category in each grid square between the
hours of 8:00 a.m.-6.00 p.m. LOT inclusive for
a typical summer day. Procedures to compile
such an emission inventory are contained
within EPA-450/4-79-18.
3. VOC Splits. Consideration of reactivity
is not required for Level II analysis. However,
consideration is being given to making
available an option which would allow the
user !o assess the impact of changing
reactivity more satisfactorily. In order to
exercise such an option. VOC emissions from
each source category would need to be
divided into several lumped categories.
Guidance contained in EPA-450/3-78-119
should be utilized in making estimates of
VOC emissions by lumped species if it is
desired to exercise such an option.
B. Air Quality Data Requirements
I. Ozo e Monitors (7-11 sites) Since it may
be necessary to simulate several trajectories,
ozone monitors should be located in the
prevailing wind direction during the smog
season and in other wind directions
frequently observed to cause high ozone
levels. Ozone monitors should be located at
(a) one site upwind of the urban area, (b) one
site downtown, (c) 1-3 sites on the downwind
edge of the city, and (d) 4-6 sites 15-40+ km
downwind of the urban area to encompass
the areas of maximum ozone concentration.
2. NO/NO, Afomtore (4-4 Rites). NO/NO,
monitors should be (a) located at one upwind
Bite, (b} collocated with THC/CH, continuous
monitors in two (or more) representative
locations likely to observe high
concentrations of precursors (i.e., downtown
Bites, industrial areas, etc.), and (c) collocated
with ozone monitors on the downwind edge
pf the city.
3. Organic Compounds. Two continuous
THC/CH4 monitors should be collocated with
NO/NO, monitors in areas with high
precursor levels (e.g., downtown or industrial
sector). An optional third site on the
downwind edge of the city is desirable. In
addition, a number of integrated grab
samples should be taken upwind of the city
(at the same site where continuous O™and
NO/NOT* monitors are deployed) for a
period of several weeks during the early
morning hours during the smog season.
Species data thus obtained should be
summed to estimate upwind VOC being
transported into the urban areas.'
4. CO Dora. Although CO data are not
required in Level II analysis, they can be
extremely useful in trouble shooting model
performance. CO data are used to test the
dispersion aspects of the model. To the
extent possible, it is recommended that CO
monitors be collocated with all NO/NO,
monitors CO measurement! should be
indicative of areawide representativeness
rather than hot spot concentrations.
C. Meteorological Data Requirements
1. Surface Winds. Because Level II requires
simulation of specific trajectories, it is
important to define the wind Held as
carefully as possible. It is difficult to specify
what number of properly sited surface wind
stations is sufficient because this will depend
on such factors as terrain, surface roughness
and the presence of complicating factors such
as large bodies of water. As a rule of thumb,
the number of surface wind measurements
should be about the same number as the
number of air quality monitoring stations (i.e.,
about 8-12 sites).
2. Upper Air and Surface Temperatures. , 4
Hourly estimates of mixing height between
6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. are needed. These
estimates should be made using local
rawinsonde and surface temperature data. If
there are no suitable rawinsonde data being
collected, these measurements should be
made at least twice a day for at least 60 days
during the smog season, at one site.
Generally, an airport location should suffice.
Surface temperature data should be
collocated at 4-6 sites where surface wind
data are being collected.
Level 111: City-Specific EKMA
Description of Analysis. City specific
EKMA allows consideration of local sunlight
intensity, temporal and spatial VOC and NO,
emission patterns and transported ozone and
precursors in constructing an ozone isopleth
diagram. Such a diagram is constructed using
a published user's guide and a widely
available computer program (EPA-600/8-78-
014a and b). Control requirements are
* See discussion in Level III for rationale of using
grab samples at upwind location.
estimated by using the ozone design value
and prevailing 6-0 a.m. NMHC/NO, rations
to identify a starting point on the isopleth
diagram. Control requirements are estimated
using procedures described in EPA-450/2-77-
021a, b. The impact on peak oeone
concentrations resulting from gross changes
in temporal or spatial emission patterns and/
or pollutants transported into the city can be
assessed as described in EPA~450/2-77-021a
and EPA-600/8-78-014a.
A. Emission Data Requirements
1. Temporal Resolution of VOC and NO,
Emission Patterns. Diumal patterns of
emissions (on an hour-by-hour basis) are
superimposed over the seasonal adjusted
annual emission rate for each broad source
category identified in the discussion of Level
FV analysis. Only emissions between 8:00
a.m. LDT and 6:00 p.m. LDT are considered.
2. Spatial Disaggregation of Emission.
Cross spatial disaggregation of emissions and
growth rates can be considered. For example,
urban area emission patterns could be
disaggregated into component counties, and
surrounding rural counties. Alternatively,
existing information, such as land use maps.
or population distribution could be used as a
rough basis for spatial disaggregation of
emissions. It is not required to obtain a
gridded inventory for Level III analysis.
B. Air Quality Data Requirements
1. Ozone Monitors (3 sites}. Ozone
monitors should be located at (a) one upwind
site, (b) one monitor on the downwind edge
of the city, and (c) one monitor 15-40 km
downwind of the city.
2. 7HC/C//.NO, Monitors (1 site required.
2 sites desirable). Guidance presented in
EPA-450/2-77-021b should be followed.
Upwind Precursor Data. Optional air
quality data for Level III are measurements of
ambient NO, and THC/CH. at one site
upwind of a city. These data are only needed
if explicit account of transported precursors
is to be taken in the analysis. Most studies
have indicated that transported ozone is of
greater significance than transported
precursors in contributing to urban problems.
Because of the imprecision attendant with
NMHC estimates from continuous THC/CI-U
measurements, use of these instruments at
upwind sites is not recommended. It is
preferable to collect a limited number of grab
samples and analyze these
chromatographically and sum species to
estimate upwind NMHC. Continuous
measurement of NO/NO, is appropriate.
C Meteorological Data Requirements
1. Upper Air and Surface Temperature
Data. Estimates of the morning (8 a.m.) and
maximum afternoon mixing heights are
required. Preferably, estimates should be
obtained using National Weather Service
rawinsonde data (if available) at a nearby
airport in conjunction with hourly surface
temperature data. If rawinsonde data are not
available, morning and afternoon mixing
heights can be estimated using AP-101.
2. Surface Wind Data. Surface wind data at
two sites (one site located in an area of high
precursor emissions in audition to the airport
site) are desirable. The wind data are used in
25
-------
65670 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 221 / Wednesday. November 14. 1979 / Notices
helping to assure that the recorded design
value if downwind of the city.
Level IV: Standard EKMA
Description of Analysis. Level IV analysis
entails the use of published ozone isopleth
curves. Two pieces of input information are
needed: (1) the O> design value; and (2)
prevailing 6-8 ajn. NMHC/NO, ratios
downtown. In order to be reasonably assured
that representative levels of high ozone and
appropriate NMHC/NO, ratios are observed.
it is highly desirable that data be collected
for at least one smog season (e.g., June-
September). The procedure for utilizing the
isopleths has been described in EPA-450/2-
77-021 a. In order for estimated control
requirements to be translated into meaningful
control programs, comprehensive, current
seasonably adjusted VC C and NO. emission
inventories are needed.
A. Emission Data Requirements
1. Spatial and Temporal Resolution of VOC
and NO, Emissions. Seasonally adjusted
VOC and NO, inventories for the county
(counties] comprising the urban area. It is not
necessary to grid the inventory. Procedures to
compile the emission inventory are contained
within EPA-450/4-79-18. Hourly emission
estimates are not necessary.
2. Disaggregation Among Source Types.
Although not required, it is desirable to
disaggregate VOC and NO, emissions into
major source categories such as light-duty
vehicles, stationary area sources, heavy-duty
vehicles, stationary point sources, etc. Such
disaggregation is likely to prove highly useful
in making projections of future aggregated
emissions.
B. Air Quality Data Requirements
1. Ozone Monitors (2 sites). At least one
site should be deployed 15-40 km in the
prevailing downwind direction and one site
at the downwind edge of the commercial
district or in the inner downwind suburbs. In
order to estimate transported ozone, an
upwind monitor is highly desirable.
2. 7HC/CH. and NO. Monitors (1 site).
THC/CH. and NO/NO, monitors should be
collocated at at least one site in the city's
major commercial district, following the
guidance in EPA-«50/2-77-021b.
C Meteorological Data Requirements
Although no meteorological data are
required by the standard EKMA procedure, to
enhance credibility, it is desirable to show
that the wind carries emissions from the city
to the monitoring site on the design value
day. In many cases, such a rough assessment
can be made using wind data which are
collected at a local airport.
Reference*
1. fses, Limitations and Technical Basis
for Quantifying Relationships between
Photochemical Oxidants and Precursors.
EPA-450/2-77-021a, US. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. November 1977.
2. Procedures for Quantifying
Relationships between Photochemical
Oxidants and Precursors: Supporting
Documentation. EPA-450/2-77-021b. U.S.
Environment*! Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1978.
User's Manual for Kinetics Model and
Ozone Isopleth Plotting Package. EPA-600/B-
78-014a. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, July 1078.
4. Kinetics Model and Ozone Isopleth
Plotting Package Computer Program. EPA-
800/8-7B-014b, U.a Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina, July 1978.
S. Procedures for the Preparation of
Emission Inventories for Volatile Organic
Compounds—Volume I. EPA-450/4-77-028,
US. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
December 1977.
6. Procedures for the Preparation of
Emission Inventories for Volatile Organic
Compounds—Volume 11: Emission Inventory
Requirements for Photochemical Air Quality
Simulation Models. EPA-450/4-79-18. US.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. September
1979. (in print)
7. G. C Holzworfa, Mixing Heights, Wind
Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution
Throughout the Contiguous United States.
AP-101. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina, January 1972.
8. Volatile Organic Compound (VOCJ
Species Data Manual. EPA-450/3-78-119.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina,
December 1978.
Attachment 2.—Anticipated Level of Ozone
Modeling for Major Urban Anas Requesting
Extension
Level J
Boston, MA
New York. NY/NJ
Philadelphia. PA/NJ
Baltimore, MD
Washington. DC/MD/VA
Level 2
Springfield MA
Pittsburgh, PA
Wilmington. DE
Cleveland. OH
Cincinnati. OH/KY
Level 3
Worcester, MA
Providence. RI
Hartford. CT
New Haven. CT
Bridgeport. CT
Trenton, NJ
Allenlown. PA
Scranton,PA
Richmond. VA
Louisville. KY/IN
Nashville. TN
Chicago, U./IN
Houston. TX
St. Louis. MO/U.
IXM Angelei. CA
Detroit. Ml
Milwaukee. WI
Sacramento. CA
San Diego. CA
Veniura-Oxnard. CA
Youngstown. OH
Dayton. OH
Indianapolis. IN
Denver. CO
Salt Lake City. UT
Phoenix. AZ
San Francisco. CA
Fresno, CA
San Bernardino. CA
Seattle. WA
Portland. OR/WA
Level 4
None identified at this time.
[FR Doc. 79-W02S Filed 11-13-79: t*5 am)
•XLLMO COOf SMO-4VM
26
-------
Air Pollution Control;
Recommendation for Alternative
Emission Reduction Options Within
State Implementation Plans
71780 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 11.1979 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
(FRL 1360-3]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Policy Statement
SUMMARY: The policy statement set forth
below (1) outlines how states can revise
their State Implementation Plans to
permit sources to place a greater burden
of control where the marginal cost of
control is low and to reduce control
requirements where the cost is high and
(2) encourages states to be receptive to
proposals from sources seeking to
employ a more economically efficient
mix of controls.
This policy statement, commonly
referred to as the "bubble" concept, is
one in a series of steps designed to
produce a coherent, easy-to-use system,
which we have sometimes called
"controlled trading." Other steps have
included the offset and banking policies.
This system will reconcile improved air
quality with economic growth at the
least possible cost, encourage firms to
develop new ways to control pollution,
and enable government and industry to
solve problems more flexibly.
EFFECTIVE DATE December 11,1979.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General inquiries regarding the policy
may be directed to:
Deborah Taylor, Office of Planning and
Evaluation (PM-220), EPA Headquarters,
401 M Street SW., Washington. DC 20460.
(202) 755-2770.
Leo Slander. Control Programs Operations
Branch. Control Programs Development
Division. EPA. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (MD-15). Research
Triangle Park. NC 27711. [919) 541-5365.
Inquiries regarding specific proposals
for alternative control strategies should
be directed to the appropriate regional
contact:
Linda Murphy. Chief. Stationary Source
Section. Air Branch, EPA Region I, JFK
Federal Building. Boston. MA 02203. (617)
233-4448 (Connecticut. Maine,
Massachusetts. New Hampshire. Rhode
Island. Vermont).
Kennth Eng, Chief, Air and Environmental
Applications Section, Permit*
Administration Branch, EPA Region tt. 28
Federal Plaza. New York. NY 10007. (212)
264-4711 (New York. New Jersey. Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands).
Glen Hanson, Chief. PA, DE, WV Section, Air
Planning Branch, EPA Region III. Curtis
Building, Sixth and Walnut Streets,
Philadelphia. PA 19106, (215) 597-8173
(Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania.
Virginia. West Virginia, District of
Columbia).
Roger Pfaff. Technical Advisor, Air Programs
Branch, EPA Region IV, 345 Courtland
Street, ME., Atlanta. GA 30308, (404) 881-
3286 (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky,
Mississippi. North Carolina. Tennessee.
South Carolina).
Ronald Van Mershbergen, New Source
Review Coordinator, Air Programs Branch.
EPA Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street.
Chicago, IL 60604. (312) 886-6037 (Indiana.
Illinois, Michigan. Minnesota, Ohio,
Wisconsin).
Randy Brown, Chief, Technical Support
Section, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region
VT 1201 Elm Street. Dallas, TX 75270. (214)
767-2742 (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
New Mexico, Texas).
Gale Wright. Chief. Technical Analysis
Section, Air Support Branch. EPA Region
VU, 324 East llth Street, Kansas City, MO
64106, (816) 374-3791 (Nebraska. Iowa.
Kansas, Missouri).
Elliot Cooper, Planning and Operations
Section, Air Programs Branch. EPA Region
VIII. 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, CO 80295,
(303) 837-3711 (Montana. Utah, North
Dakota. South Dakota, Wyoming.
Colorado).
Wally Woo, Engineering Section, Air
Technical Branch, EPA Region UC. 215
Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105. '~
(415) 556-8063 (California. Nevada.
Arizona, Hawaii, American Samoa. Guam.
Northern Mariana Islands).
Dave Bray, Technical Support and Special
Projects Section. Air Programs Branch (M/
S 625]. EPA Region X. 1200 Sixth Avenue.
Seattle. WA 98101 (206) 442-1125 (Alaska.
Washington, Oregon. Idaho).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary of Key Changes
EPA has extensively evaluated the
alternative emission control approach
and has considered comments submitted
regarding the proposed policy. As a
result, the Agency has made three key
changes in the policy: (1) Sources may
use alternative strategies involving more
than one plant (2) states may consider
open dust trades in some circumstances,
though EPA will closely scrutinize such
requests and will require conclusive
demonstrations of equivalence before
granting approval; and (3) EPA may
approve compliance date extensions in
special cases. The policy also contains
many clarifications and less significant
changes. These are discussed in the
summary of comments, which follows
the policy statement
This policy statement does not
establish conclusively how EPA will
resolve issues in individual cases. The
Clean Air Act and the Administrative
Procedure Act guarantee the opportunity
27
for public comment in each proceeding
that places alternative control
requirements into effect as a State
Implementation Plan revision.
Therefore, although the public has had
the opportunity to comment on the
issues in this policy statement. EPA will
consider additional comment on these
same issues in individual proceedings.
Policy Statement on Alternative
Emission Reduction Options Within —
State Implementation Plans
Introduction
The Clean Air Act requires states to
develop State Implementation Plans
(SDPs) and source-specific compliance
schedules to attain and maintain
ambient air quality standards. In
developing these plans, states establish
emission limits which, when applied to
emission points contributing to the
ambient air problem, are calculated to
ensure that the standards are met. In
making these decisions, states regularly
take into account the nature and amount
of emissions from each emission point.
the control technology available, and
the time required for its installation.
SIPs, however, are not always as
economically efficient as they could be.
and current regulations and policies do
not prompt companies to seek
innovations in control technology. For
these reasons, the Environmental
Protection Agency is adopting this
policy explaining how plants can reduce
control where costs are high in -
exchange for a compensating increase in
control where abatement is less
expensive. We strongly recommend that
the states (1) inform sources that the
alternative emission reduction approach
is available. (2) explain this policy's
advantages and conditions of use, and
(3) be receptive to proposals from
sources that want to use a more cost-
effective mix of controls. Properly
applied, this policy should promote
greater economic efficiency and
increased innovation by providing plant
managers with an economic incentive to
develop new control strategies. This is a
rare opportunity to provide such positive
incentives.
It is important to note, however, that
with one exception EPA can only
approve alternative control strategies in
areas where states have successfully
demonstrated that they can meet air
quality standards by the statutory
deadlines. Therefore, EPA will not allow
sources to use the alternative approach
in a way that jeopardizes attaining
requirements of the Clean Air Act by
permitting degradation of air quality in
excess of the SIP requirements or by
weakening enforcement. To avoid these
-------
/ Vol 4* !fe. 239 f Tfeesday. December 11. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 71781
probfcM, EPA fee* carefully stipulated1
the BBC of Ac sitenialfve approeeo, M
described n detail rathe body of this
statement
With thtspooey, we are orging state*
to be receptive to alternative enrisstos
redaction application* whenever eligible
sources propose them and particularly
when the states ace drawing up or
revising SIPs.1 EPA will work with the
states in expediting the SIP revision
process, especially where the trades are
straightforward The Agency iff
committed to promptly reviewing
alternative proposals so that the
maximum benefits can be derived front
this policy.
The Alternative Emisatoa Reduction
Concept
A. What If the Concept?
The primary tests to which EPA
subjects State Implementation Plans
include: *
• Do their provisions ensure the
attainment and maintenance of ambient
air quality standards as expeditiously as
practicable?
• Do their provisions ensure
reasonable farther progress toward
attainment?
* Are their provisions enforceable?
If the control method adopted meets
these requirements, EPA generally does
not stipulate the degree to which a
source must control individual emission
points.
Under the alternative emission
reduction concept a source with
multiple emission points (stacks, vents,
ports, etc.}—each of which is subject to
specific emission limitation
requirements under an approved SIP—
may propose to meet the SIP'S total
emission control requirements for a
given criteria pollutant with a mix of
controls that is different from that
mandated by the existing or proposed
regulations. Sources wiQ have the
opportunity to come forward with
alternative abatement strategies that
would result in the same ait quality
impact but at less expense by placing
relatively more control on emission
points with a low marginal cost of
control and less on emission points with
a high cost.
Of coarse, these strategies are subject
to restrictions that might apply under
the Clean Ah- Act such as National
Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants (NESHAPS) or rules for me
'Under me Chm Air Act to certain cam.
may draw op or (nte* SIP*, b SMM* «*ee; w
advise eligible sources and will be reoptte tench.
*a»4»ni aarofcr •
discussion.
Prevention of Signfficant Detertoratfcnr
(PSDf.
EPA fen already introduced'the
concept of trading1 emissions hi previous
policies-. For example, the concept is
generally similar to the offset policy (40
CPU Part St. Appendix S>.
B. Eligibility
1. AppTicatatity. Sources may apply
for alternative emission approaches for
existing * emission ftmtaHon*
established under Section 110 and/or
Part D as part of the SIP. Sources may
also propose alternative approaches for
SIP requirement* that are wider
development This poficy statement
does not apply to or supersede the
conditions that sources mnst meet under
nonattasBBtent or PSD permit programs,
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS). NESHAPS «, or other conditions
that the Act specifically requires for
new or modified sources. Separate
Federal Register notices • discos*
requirements for trading under permit
programs tor new or modified stationary
sources.
2. Demonstration of Attainment by
Statutory DetuBiaa. Sources may use
alternative eiBtssian reduction
approaches only m areas that can
demonstrate attainment by the statutory
deadlines (and reasonable farther
progress toward attainment) for those
pollutants included in emission
redaction alternatives. An adequate
demonstration may include
commitments, to specific control
measures on a specified schedule.
However, trades involving emission
points that Witt be regulated in the
furore under such commitments may not
be undertaken until the state adopts the
measures; A state may submit an
alternative control strategy involving
these i laisniiTn points at the same timsi
or after it sabonts Us newly adopted
general regulation to EPA for approval
There is one exception to the
condition mat areas demonstrate
attainment before alternative control
strategies are allowed. Under certain
circumstances, ozone SIPs ntay be
approved by EPA despite a failure to
—TJisMut' laMJsalnn Hirttirltnnr trr *T
requirements that •>• stale ku adopted or EPA ha*
promulgated' at the time a source proposes an.
alternative strategy. State* may submit aftenwttve
strategic* to EPA at *• saoe tin* or after *sy
submit thete appskabts aewrf adapted staki
regulations.
'Under limited dKumstances. seurces may
include poirotanta that are ttoted or regulated under
Stefan IMfcallaimSJiu eantrel sfcategfee. 8eeBoa
D.1.C- discusses Sals ferine,
' Se» the frahiien Pass* Iia»|ii»taa»e »atta» 40
CFR Part 51. Appends* S,aa revised 44 FR 333*
Qanuary IS. fST^proposed rale, 4* PR 51924
(Septembers; lSffl>
demonstrate attainment by 1982. Such
SIPs must require use of Reasonably^
Availabfe Control Technology (RACTJ
for sources of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) included in Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
categories. These sources may use
alternative control strategies to meet
RACT, but only for those emission
points that are within the same CTG
category.*
3. Effect of Compliance Status.
Sources that wish to use an alternative
approach to existing SIP requirements
will be requesting that emission
limitations and compliance schedules
for individual emission points be
changed, m order to properly evaluate
whether the alternative approach is
equivalent to (he existing requirement, it
is necessary to have established
compliance agreements for all of the
emissioa points affected by the
alternative approach. Thus, any source
that is adhering to its compliance
agreements for the emission points
included in the alternative approach,
regardless of any past history of
noncompliance, is eligible to apply.
In the absence of such compliance,
consideration of SIP revisions setting
forth alternative control strategies-
would only protract and confuse efforts
to enforce the SIP. Sources that have
successfully deferred compliance would
be tempted to use the alternative
approach to argue for further delay or to
alter emission requirements so as to
frustrate enforcement efforts. Permitting
use of the alternative approach in such
instances wonld only serve to continue
unlawful pollution and increase the
inequity between sources that have
incurred the expense and difficulty of
compliance and those that have so far
avoided compliance.
Accordingly, sources that wish to use
an alternative control strategy, bot have
not yet reached an EPA-approved
agreement with the state (or reached
agreement with EPA as appropriate) on
their compliance schedules for all of the
emission points mchided in the
alternative approach' or are not
complying wife these agreements, may
apply for the alternative approach onfy
if they?
i. Come into compliance; or
ii. Meet OB EPA-approved compliance
schedule; or
iti Become sobfect to court decree: (1)
In an aettoit in which EPA was a party
or which decree EPA has roond to be
CTGs. See 44 FR 53782-83.
'Of C
i ilari nil ii|iplyU
those emissien point* lor wmcli EPA os the state
have not required1 control*
28
-------
71782 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 11, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
satisfactory, and (2) which decree
recognizes the possibility of SIP revision
and allows for timely modification of the
decree without delay in the final
compliance date.
To be acceptable, any compliance
schedule under ii and any decree under
iii (1) must set out a timetable and
emissions limitations with which the
source has agreed to comply (i.e., is not
appealing or otherwise contesting), (2)
must provide for a resolution of penalty
issues and other sanctions, and (3) must
not contain any provisions allowing the
source to delay its compliance or to
avoid sanctions for noncompliance with
the existing requirement until EPA has
promulgated the alternative proposal as
a SIP revision.
C. Implementing the Alternative
Approach
I. Sources Initiate Alternatives. It is
the regulatee's responsibility to come
forward with the alternative control
approach. EPA encourages the states
also to require the regulates to
demonstrate satisfactorily, entirely at
its expense, that the proposal is
equivalent to the existing SIP
requirements in enforceability and
environmental impact Because of the
cost, we advise sources to discuss the
demonstration requirements with
control agencies before preparing the
demonstration. Control agencies,
however, should not begin to formally
review proposals until the source has
completed the demonstrations. In this
way the resource demands on control
agencies are limited primarily to
deciding what kind of demonstration is
required and to reviewing the results. To
minimize the possibility of subsequent
delays, EPA also encourages control
agencies to discuss issues with EPA as
they arise.
The process of approving alternative
control strategies will differ depending
on whether the source is proposing an
alternative to existing SIP requirements
or to requirements that are under
development. Where existing SIP
requirements are concerned, overall
emission limits and compliance
deadlines are known. Once a plant
comes forward with a promising
alternative proposal that seems capable
of attaining the goals of the current
compliance schedule, the control agency
will decide on a test to verify the
equivalency of the proposed trade. If the
source is able to present evidence-that
the control agency judges to be
sufficient, the control agency may
submit the alternative approach to EPA
as a SIP revision.
Although sources may propose an
alternative for existing SIP requirements
at any time, it is clearly to their
advantage to do so as early as possible.
Control agencies should expect sources
to meet the requirements of their
existing schedules on time until EPA
approves the alternative approach. In
some ca"ses, a source may have to make
a pollution control investment that it
would not have to make under the
alternative approach. By presenting
alternative proposals as early as
possible (preferably during the
engineering and design period that is
provided at the beginning of most
compliance schedules), sources can
avoid such conflicting investments.
When a state (or EPA) is developing a
new SIP, sources may present a
counterproposal in anticipation of
overall emissions limits or in response
to limits being proposed. The source
would then have to show that its
alternative mix of controls would be
environmentally equivalent to the
process-specific standards. If the
demonstration is successful, the state
can adopt the counterproposal as part of
the SIP.
The SO, regulation for the Cincinnati
Gas and Electric Company's Beckjord
Power Plant in Ohio provides one
example of how a source can use the
alternative emission reduction
approach. This SIP regulation contains
an alternative set of limits that the
power plant ma^y use in lieu of a uniform
limit at each of Its five boiler stacks. The
plant still must meet specific limits at its
individual stacks, but it can select these
limits by using equations that make the
air quality effects of the emissions under
the emission reduction alternative equal
to the air quality impact permitted under
the uniform emissions limit This
flexibility allows the power plant to
apply the lowest-cost mix of low sulfur
coal, and/or stack gas cleaning controls
among the plant's five boilers. In this
case, a clear and conclusive
demonstration has been made that
differences in emissions from each of
the stacks will not result in overall
differences in ambient air quality
attainment or maintenance.
Another situation where a source can
apply this approach is in different stages
of a plant's production process that emit
the same kind of pollutant. For example,
the surface coating and miscellaneous
metal categories within an automotive
assembly plant are both sources of
hydrocarbons. A source may want to
continue using lacquer in its repair
operation within the assembly plant By
applying greater control to the
miscellaneous metal category (such as
switching to powder coating) the source
could reduce the amount of control
needed for the auto assembly category.
This approach would allow the source to
achieve the same overall emissions
requirement at a lower cost.
2. SIP Revisions Required Each
alternative approach must be adopted in
a SIP revision approved or promulgated
by EPA.'
D. Conditions for Using the Alternative
Approach
States applying the alternative
approach must continue to ensure (1)
attainment and maintenance of ambient
air quality standards as expeditiously as
practicable, (2) reasonable further
progress, (3) enforceability, and (4)
compliance with all other requirements
of the Act To assist states in achieving
this basic requirement, EPA has
established certain conditions that an
alternative approach must meet before it
can be approved.
1. Air Quality Considerations.—a. Air
quality standards must be met. The
overriding command of the statute is to
attain and maintain ambient air quality
standards. Many states have been
required to submit revised SIPs because
existing regulations were insufficient to
meet this basic condition of the Act
Where the revised plans are inadequate
to meet the statutory deadlines
contained in the Clean Air Act, as
amended, states may not approve
alternative control strategies except as
discussed in Section B, Eligibility.
Furthermore, if attainment is not
achieved as expected in the areas where
the revised plans were approved,
control agencies may require sources to
install more stringent controls on
emission points where the requirements
were relaxed under this policy.
The treatment of certain low-emitting
processes deserves special mention with
regard to ensuring that attainment is
achieved as expected. Some existing
emission points may be releasing less
pollutants than existing SIP regulations
allow, for example, because they are
burning a clean fuel or operating at less
that full capacity. Sources may not use
the difference between the SIP-
allowable emissions and the lower
actual emissions to increase emissions
from another emission point unless they
can show that the SIP is not relying on
the actual emissions of the low-emitting
process to attain and maintain the
ambient air quality standard and
achieve reasonable further progress
toward attainment in the interim.
Similarly, if a source proposes to include
an emission point in an alternative
'Revisions to construction or operating permits
are not adequate unless they are made part of the
SIP.
29
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 239 / Tuesday, December 11, 1979 / Rules and Regulation* 71783
control strategy that is not accounted for
in the state's control strategy, the source
must demonstrate that consideration of
the additional emission does not affect
the state's demonstration of attainment
States must also disapprove proposal*
where controlling one emission point
less and another more might violate a
basic condition of attainment even
though total emissions do not increase.
For example, participates emitted from a
stack might have a totally different and
more harmful impact upon ambient air
quality than road dust stirred up by
trucks within the plant site.
EPA will insist on an adequate
equivalency demonstration proving that
the alternative emission reduction
approach will result in attainment and
maintenance of standards and will
comply with Prevention of Significant
Deterioration requirements. The greater
the difference in the types of emissions
to be traded, the more detailed the
demonstration must be. Thus, a trade
between a stack emission and a fugitive
emission will require a more detailed
demonstration of equivalence than
would a trade between two emissions of
a more similar nature, such as two
closely located stacks of the same
height.
This condition will apply with
particular force to trades involving open
dust emissions (such as emissions from
roads and storage piles). It is especially
difficult to ensure equivalent effects on
air quality for such trades because of (1)
the uncertainty in determining emission
rates from open dust sources, (2) the
difficulty of predicting the effectiveness
of control technology, and (3) die
shortcomings of air quality models for
this type of source. In addition, the
adequacy of modeling techniques has
not been verified for certain situations.
As a result there is substantial
uncertainty regarding the accuracy of
some model projections, such as for the
complex interaction between open dust
sources and structures at industrial
sites, although these techniques may be
verified and improved in the future. In
such situations, EPA believes that the
economic benefits that might result from
a reduced marginal cost of control are
not sufficiently great to outweigh the
risk of having trades approved that
would not adequately protect air quality
standards. Therefore, EPA generally will
not approve any proposed alternative
emission strategy based on a modeling
demonstration that proposes to
substitute controls on open dust
emissions for reasonable controls on the
more significant sources of process
emissions.
Sources may use modeling
demonstrations for open dust trades that
do not affect the use of such process
controls. These modeling
demonstrations must be particularly
comprehensive, and states should
review them with special care. The
diffusion models used for open dust
demonstrations are generally more
complex and more sensitive to input
data than those used for stack
emissions. EPA will insist on a thorough
justification and explanation of the
basis for all critical inputs to the
emission and air quality calculations.
There are a number of factors that
control agencies should keep in mind
when evaluating open dust modeling
demonstrations.
•Control agencies should require that the beat
and most appropriate models be used, such
as the Industrial Complex Source Model
Both annual and short-term concentrations
mast be examined, and particle deposition
and fallout should be taken into account
•Control agencies should ensure that the
emission factors of different sources
involved in trades are of equal reliability.
Where they are not and a range of values is
possible, the more conservative values in
the range should be used. This
determination should include consideration
of any relative uncertainty in the
effectiveness of control technology and of
any expected variation uTemissions with
plant utilization.
•In demonstrating the adequacy of a
particular mix of controls to attain the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
the modeling must use the maximum
emission rates that are legally enforceable.
As an alternative to modeling, sources
may demonstrate the equivalency of the
trades by installing the open dust source
controls and monitoring the results. In
making this showing sources and control
agencies should be sure that monitors
are properly sited and that data are
collected over an appropriate period of
time.
b. All emissions under the alternative
approach must be quantifiable, and
trades among them must be even. A
source that wishes to control one
emission point less in exchange for
controlling another emission point more
must demonstrate that the trade will in
fact be even. This can only be done if
the emissions from both emission points
(and increases and decreases hi them)
can be acceptably quantified and
related to ambient air quality
considerations. Direct measurement is
preferred, although indirect
quantification is acceptable if a source
establishes a clear and convincing link
between the emissions and other
quantifiable measures, such as
application rates, work practices, or
equipment standards. Section FV.C of
EPA's Emission Offset Ruling contains
guidance on such items as operating
rates, source shutdowns, and averaging
times in determining whether a trade
will result in equal emissions.
The test for equivalence will generally
be consistent with the SIFs
demonstration of attainment. Some SIP
demonstrations are based on
atmospheric simulation modeling, while
others are based on more simplified
techniques, such as linear rollback or an
"example" region approach. Sources in
areas where a simplified demonstration
of attainment has been used may show
equivalence by establishing that the
overall emissions level will not increase
if the alternative approach is
implemented.
Where the alternative strategies
involve more than one plant EPA will
always require air quality modeling to
demonstrate that die increases and
decreases in plant emissions will not
adversely affect air quality in the area
affected by die sources. Such
demonstrations are described in the
offset policy (see Federal Register.
January 16.1979, pp. 3274-62).
In those cases where the SIP
requirements are derived through
modeling, EPA will require a modeling
demonstration to ensure that the trades
will result in the same air quality level
overall, and emissions may vary
accordingly. Ideally, in all instances,
total emissions levels will also be
equivalent However, more than one-for-
one emissions trades may be necessary
in some cases to protect ambient air
quality. This could occur, for example,
where stack heights are different or
where emissions are so difficult to
quantify or model that a margin of
safety is necessary.
EPA recognizes that the Clean Air Act
permits states to revise their SIPs to
allow increases in total emissions. There
are significant restrictions on this
authority: The revised SIP must
demonstrate attainment and
maintenance of the standards; die
requirements for reasonable further
progress in reducing emissions and for
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable must be satisfied; and the
revisions must not interfere with the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program. However, the fact that the Act
does not completely prohibit SIP
revisions that increase overall emissions
does not lead EPA to encourage such
revisions as an element of this policy
statement
hi EPA'a opinion there are important
policy reasons to discourage SIP
revisions that Increase overall
emissions. A growing number of serious
air quality problems are now recognized
as covering broad regions of the country:
Ozone violations, elevated sulfates and
30
-------
71784 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 11, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
"acid rain," and visibility reduction. SIP
revisions that permit significant
increases in total emissions of the
criteria pollutants can exacerbate some
or all of the current wide-scale air
quality problems. Therefore, EPA does
not encourage by this policy, or as a
more general matter. SIP revisions that
result in overall emissions increases.
More specifically, EPA will not approve
such SIP revisions to the extent
consistent with its current legal
authority.
c. The pollutants under the alternate
proposal must be comparable. Clearly,
sources cannot apply trade-offs across
criteria pollutant categories, e.g., they
cannot trade SO* against hydrocarbons.
Further, even within a category,
pollutants that pose significant health
hazards cannot be traded against less
harmful pollutants. For example:
i. Coke oven participate emissions,
because of their carcinogencity, should
not be traded against particulate
emissions from any other source.
ii. Some criteria pollutants are also
hazardous pollutants (e.g., vinyl chloride
and benzene are hydrocarbons that
have been designated as hazardous
under section 112). Emissions of criteria
pollutants that contain hazardous
pollutants can be used in alternative
emission control strategies subject to the
following restrictions;
• In all cases, sources must meet
applicable section 112 regulations.
Except as permitted under specific
NESHAPS regulations, a source may not
use an alternative emission control
approach to meet section 112 regulations
{as discussed in Eligibility), and a source
may not increase emissions regulated
under section 112 beyond the levels that
the applicable section 112 regulation
allows. Furthermore, when new section
112 regulations become effective,
sources must comply with those
regulations, notwithstanding any
previously approved trades.
• The emission of asbestos, beryllium.
vinyl chloride, or benzene, which are
listed under section 112, may be
increased at one emission point (subject
to the above constraints) only as long as
there is a compensating decrease in the
emission of the same pollutants at
another emission point at the same
location or at a contiguous location. For
example, a source may increase one
vinyl chloride emission as long as there
is an equal decrease in another vinyl
chloride emission. Since EPA believes
that the limited number of pollutants it
expects to list over the next several
years under section 112 will be
significantly more hazardous than
others in the same criteria pollutant
category, restraints on trading similar to
those discussed above will apply when
such pollutants are listed. Should EPA
list a pollutant that it judges to be less
hazardous than those currently listed,
EPA will indicate what pollutant-
specific trading restraints are
appropriate. Trading restrictions will not
apply to alternative emission control
strategies that EPA has approved before
the announcement of the trading
restraints. As noted above, however,
even previously approved trades may
not be continued if they conflict with
section 112 regulations when they
become effective.
• In addition, where the hazardous
pollutant is an insignificant contaminant
of the emission, exception* to the
trading restraints may he appropriate.
This is likely to be me case when the
source is not using the hazardous
material in question as a raw material or
when the source is not producing the
hazardous material Control agencies
should consult EPA when considering
such exceptions.
• Sources may equally trade
hazardous pollutants with
nonhazardous pollutants in die same
criteria pollutant category only in those
cases where-the source decreases the
emission of the hazardous pollutant. For
example, a source may equally trade
vinyl chloride with any nonhazardous
hydrocarbon if it reduces the vinyl
chloride emission.
iii EPA will cWety examine the
comparability of particle size
distribution in particulate emission
trades because fine particles disperse
more widely in die air than coarse
particles and stay in the air longer.
Sources should also be aware that EPA
is considering an inhalable particulate
standard. If EPA promulgates such a
standard, some alternative approaches
that EPA has approved may no longer
be adequate to meet new standards.
Trades involving open dust sources are
of particular concern in this regard.
2. Enforcement Considerations. If the
alternative emission reduction policy is
improperly carried out, it could delay
compliance and impede effective
enforcement Therefore, to avoid any
additional grounds for legal challenges
to revised SIPs, delays in enforcement,
or any weakening of the enforceability
or sanctions of SB* requirements, EPA
has established the following conditions.
a. Specific, enforceable control
requirements are mandatory. EPA wiH
approve alternative proposals only if
they contain (1) enforceable, specific
emissions limits (including limits on
quantity of emissions or quantifiable
surrogates, such as equipment or work
practice standards) on each regulated
emission point or (2) an easily
enforceable technique for multiple
emissions points. Of course, these limits
must be accompanied by enforceable
testing techniques, which may include
specific control measures, performance
measures, and performance standards.
In general, the new limits must be at
least as enforceable as the existing
requirements. This applies with special
force to alternative control strategies
that involve-multiple sources.
b. Existing SIP provisions submitted
under Section 110 must not be replaced.
Litigation for SIP requirements
established under Section 110 of me
Clean Air Act has long since run its
course. In almost all cases these section
110 SIP. requirements are enforceable
and are being enforced. EPA will not
allow these SIP provisions to be
replaced by new alternative SIP
requirements that are subject to
litigation and that could result in a delay
or lapse in enforceability. Therefore,
states must incorporate any control
strategy that is an alternative to § 110
requirements as an addition to the SEP,
not as a replacement. This principle-of
coexisting old and new requirements is
consistent with EPA's guidance to the
states regarding the continuity of the
SIPs when establishing Part D SIP
revisions.'
It should be noted that under the
"continuity of the SIPs" policy, the
section 110 requirements can be
replaced only if a Part O requirement is
unavoidably incompatible with an
existing SIP. Alternative control
strategies to Part D requirements are
optional. Therefore, if the original part D
requirement is compatible with the
section 110 requirement, but the
alternative control strategy is not,
section 110 SIP provisions cannot be
replaced merely because they are
incompatible with the alternative
approach. Otherwise, sources might be
encouraged to develop incompatible
alternative strategies solely to avoid the
consequences of noncompliance with
section 110 requirements. Thus, EPA will
only approve alternative strategies to
section 110 requirements as additions to
the existing SIPs.
c. Compliance dates generally should
not be extended. Some sources have not
yet achieved final compliance with SIP
requirements that took effect several
years ago. States axe free if they wish,
subject to the conditions in this
statement, to apply the alternative
approach to these requirements as weiL
However, that revision should aot have
the effect of relieving sources of the
'See General Preamble (or Prepcaed Rulemaking
on the Approval of SIP Revisions for Nonallaimneol
Areas *4 FR 20373 (April 4.1979).
31
-------
Federal Register / Vol 44. No. 239 / Tuesday, December 11. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 71785
consequences of such delay. To make
sure of this, any such alternative
requirement should have the same SEP
compliance deadline as the existing
requirements. Of if the new requirement
allows controls that a source can adopt
more quickly than those included in the
existing compliance schedule, the states
should consider establishing earlier
compliance dates.
In some cases, it may be impossible
for a source to implement alternative
control strategies within the time frame
allowed in the existing schedule. EPA
does not have the statutory authority to
extend compliance schedules solely for
the purpose of implementing alternative
strategies. However, EPA's statutory
authority does provide for the extension
of compliance schedules for Part D
requirements under certain conditions.
Where sources need additional time to
implement the alternative approach and
where they qualify for a time extension,
they should apply for a time extension
for their existing Part D requirements
before or when they apply for the
alternative approach.
d. There will be no delay of existing
enforcement actions. Since sources may
not delay compliance with existing
schedules while awaiting the review of
the alternative approach, states should
continue to pursue enforcement actions
and seek compliance with the existing
SIP as expeditiously as practicable.
Further, until EPA approves the
alternative proposal, all noncompliance
penalties under authority of Section 113
or 120 of the Clean Air Act or equivalent
state provisions will be based on the
pre-alternative proposal definition of
cost Afterward, noncompliance
penalties will be based on the cost of
the alternative control strategy.
e. Requirements in some court
decrees should not be changed. Control
agencies in routine situations frequently
obtain court decrees to ensure
compliance. In these circumstances, it
may be appropriate to modify court
decrees if a source presents an
approvable alternative approach.
Over the past few years, control
agencies and EPA have devoted
considerable time and effort to arrive at
decrees with some important sources,
often involving several plants. EPA
considers such court decrees to be of
critical importance in achieving air
quality objective. Therefore, alternative
control strategies should not be used to
change the requirements specified in
these existing court decrees. The only
exception is the use of alternatives to
remedy the failure of control strategies
specified in the consent decrees to work
as expected.
In the future, important sources may
be involved in similar negotiations to
which the states and EPA have devoted
considerable resources. These sources
may wish to use the alternative
approach. Under these conditions,
sources should be sure either to: (1)
Come forward with their alternatives
and obtain agreement from the control
agencies that the proposal is acceptable
before entering into the court decree or
(2) include a provision in the decree that
explicitly allows for consideration of
alternatives. Otherwise they may well
find that the states and EPA will be
unwilling to modify the requirements of
the court decree to allow the use of an
alternative approach because of the
amount of effort already invested to
obtain a settlement Consent decree
negotiations now nearing completion
should not be delayed for the
formulation of alternative plans.
Conclusion
EPA believes that the alternative
emission reduction approach, properly
applied, will be of significant benefit to
the states and to industry. We therefore
encourage states to review the policy
carefully, to inform sources of the
options, to explain the policy's
advantages and conditions of use, and
to be receptive to industry proposals.
Summary of Comments
Many individuals and organizations
took the opportunity to comment on the
policy statement as it was proposed on
January 18.1979 (44 FR 3740). Our
responses to the issues raised follow.
Innovative Technology
The Environmental Protection Agency
believes that the alternative emission
reduction concept will promote
economic efficiency and increase
innovation, since it offers plant
managers an economic incentive to
develop new control strategies. Some
commenters expressed concent with the
statement in the proposed policy which
suggested that EPA could use the new
control strategies developed hi response
to this policy as a basis for setting
tighter standards in the future. They
mistakenly interpreted this to mean new
standards would be set regardless of
ambient air quality considerations.
Under the Clean Air Act. EPA cannot
limit emissions of criteria pollutants
from existing sources unless this is
necessary to meet the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or
NESHAPS. If an existing source is in an
area that has already attained the
standards or will attain them by the
statutory dates, then EPA will not
require further control However, if a
source is in an area where the State
cannot make a satisfactory
demonstration of attainment by the
statutory date, then a source may have
to meet tighter standards which may
necessitate using innovative technology.
One comment suggested that EPA
exempt a plant that develops an
innovative control technique from any
new emission limitation that may be set
as a result of that technique. EPA is not
in a position to do this, since it is usually
the state that sets specific source
emission limitations in the State
Implementation Plan (SEP). However, if a
state chooses to exempt a source and
this exemption does not violate the
statutory requirements of the Clean Air
Act then EPA will approve it
Resource burden
In the proposed policy, the Agency
specifically solicited comments on the
resource burden that final adoption of
an alternative emission reduction policy
might place on state air pollution control
agencies. In addition, EPA contacted 38
states to further explore this question.
We found that the expected volume of
alternative proposals and the resulting
resource requirements vary widely.
Some states believe they may
experience resource problems because:
(1) They may receive a large number of
applications, including some complex
ones that could take a lot of time to
review; (2) processing the applications
through case-by-case SIP revisions is a
lengthy process, and rejected proposals
may tie up resources with appeals; and
(3) it may take more time and testing to
determine compliance with an
alternative plan than if the source used
a traditional control approach.
Recognizing that some states' resource
burdens may increase, the Agency has
tried to incorporate safeguards into the
proposed policy and has made some
changes to the final policy to further
reduce any additional demands on the
states. EPA has taken measures to avoid
overloading the state staffs with
alternative approach applications that
are not well prepared. First, the Agency
has tried to minimize demands on state
resources by specifying that the source
must initiate the proposal if it wishes to
use an alternative approach. EPA also
encourages states to require that the
source pay for all demonstrations
relevant to its proposal and that the
proposal be complete before the state
review process begins. There are also
provisions that help to screen out
applications submitted for the purpose
of delaying compliance. For instance,
the policy does not create any new
opportunities for extensions of
compliance schedules beyond those
32
-------
71786 Federal EagSster / VoL 44. No. 239 / Taesday. December 11. 1979 / Rules and Regulationa
already available wider existing law*.
Additionally, enforcement sf existing
requirements continues while the .
applications are under review.
Applicants do not (putty for stays
against their compliance prh»Ait» at
exemptions from noncorapUance fee*
(unless they otherwise would under the
law). It should be noted that the section
110 SIP requirements can be replaced
only if a Part D requirement is
unavoidably incompatible with an
existing SIP. However, since
alternatives to Part D reqiaiwnients are
optional, existing SIP provisions cannot
be replaced merely becaase they are
incompatible with the alternative
approach. Therefore, alternative
strategies to section HO requirements
may only be adopted as an addition to
the SIP, not as a replacement.
Some states thought that enforcing an
alternative approach might be more time
consuming since (1] such an approach
requires that tbe enforcement staff
become familiar with the source-specific
plan, as opposed to relying on
knowledge of traditional means of
control, and (2) there may be an
increased need for testing because,
under traditional approaches, states
infrequently test installations whose
emissions are well below their
allowable limit. In some cases
enforcement may be more time
consuming, but we feel the differences
will be small Although states may have
to initially invest some additional time
to learn about an alternative approach.
once familiar with the source's
alternative plan, they can proceed as
rapidly as before with testing and
enforcement On the other hand, some
alternative approaches will require leu
enforcement resources. For example,
alternative control strategies may lead
sources to focus their control efforts on
fewer emission points so that the overall
frequency of testing may be reduced. In
any event, if a state does believe that
reviewing or enforcing a particular
alternative approach would require
excessive resources, the state is free
under Section 116 of the dean Air Act
to reject the approach on that basi*.
Some commenters requested guidance
for evaluating equivalency among
pollutants and means of quantifying
emissions. EPA does not think a new
guidance document is necessary. In
general, the Agency will require the
same type of demonstrations that were
necessary for comprehensive SIP
revision*, except where trades involve
open dust source emustoa*. increases in
overall emission*, or multiple plants, in
those cases. EPA may reqture addjfcooal
monitoring deU or source-specific
modeling data (these reqrfremeeto are
spelled out in the policy). EPA k,
however, taking measures to ease any
problems thai might arise ca
implementing this policy. First, we will
hold workshops around the country to
explain the pokey. Second, we have
apppcantfid coordinators to answer any
questions about the policy. We have
also designated a contact person m each
Regional office to answer technical
questions. These people are tisted at the
beginning of this pokey statement
Clarifications
1. Definition of terms ami relationship
to other paliciet. la die proposed policy,
some readers found that such terras as
source, facility, plant and site were
unclear or inconsistent with definition*
used in other EPA air-related
regulations. We believe these terms are
commonly understood aad the precise
definitions are not important since this
policy is no longer restricted to a single
source, facility, plant or site.
Several commenters also asked how
this policy affected Best Available
Control Technology (BACT), New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
(LAER), and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD). Thu policy applies
only to emission limitations approved or
promulgated as part of a SIP. It does not
apply to BACT. LAER NSPS. or other
conditions specifically required by the
Act for new ot modified sources.
However, EPA is applying a similar
"bubble" policy to some conditions for
new and modified sources. (See footnote
5 of the policy.) PSD concerns are
explicitly mentioned in the policy where
appropriate.
One commenter requested
clarification of the relationship between
this policy statement and the RACT
emission limitations recommended in
the Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG). The policy states that k to
essential to have specific limits for each
of the emission points included ia
alternative control strategy. Under some
circumstances, states must require the
use of RACT in establishing these limits
and must establish these RACT
requirements in EPA-cpprawed
regulations. EPA published ia the
Federal Register (see 44 FR 5X702-83)
the role of CTGs in the development and
approval of the state RACT regulations.
2. Specific emissioa limit*. One
canmenler ntk>rl which emission p"*ri*<
must have a specified eeuasian limit if a
scarce use* an alternative plan. The "
policy require* that the source specify
an emiasioa limitation only far those
points actually involved in the
alternative trades. For example, it a
source has five emission points mat earit
SO2 but want* to use an alternative
approach that involves only three of
them, then for the purposes of this policy
the source has to specify an emissioa
limitation for those three points only.
The other emission points would
continue to be subject to the level of
control (if any) specified in the SIP.
3. Compliance status. Commenters
frequently misunderstood the intent of
the policy regarding the restrictions oa
eligibility for noncomplying source*. To
clarify our intent, there is a new section
in die policy entitled "Eligibility."
Basically, the alternative approach does
not prevent those sources not now in
compliance widi emission limitations
from ever using a bubble. Rather, the
policy requires that a source agree to a
legally enforceable schedule for
achieving the appropriate standards in
order to establish an adequate basis for
considering alternative control
strategies. Without such an agreement
consideration of an alternative approach
can only lead to further delay* in
compliance. A source can apply for an
alternative approach to achieve
compliance after it agrees to an
appropriate schedule.
Processing Alternative Proposals
L SIP revisions. Some commenters
suggested that EPA would not need to
use a case-by-case SIP revision for
alernative approaches if the state
incorporated a general regulation for
alternative control strategies in its SIP
that EPA has approved. Instead. EPA
should depend on spot audits to
determine if the state is faithfully
adhering to the requirements of the
general SIP revision.
In response, the Agency believes that
case-by-case SIP revisions are
necessary for an alternative approach to
be legally enforceable. The Clean Air
Act requires EPA to review and process
all SIP revisions, and this cannot be
eliminated or delegated. Additionally, a
spot audit would not be a practical
means of oversight, since any errors it
would turn up are not easily reversible.
EPA realizes that promptness in
processing die SIP revisions is necessary
if the maximum benefits are to be
derived from this policy. Therefore, the
Agency is committed to expediting the
SIP revision process, especially for those
proposals where the trades are
straightforward.
There was some question concerning
EPA's authority to impose conditions on
the use of alternative approaches. EPA
has carefully evaluated each of the
conditions in this statement and is
convinced that each condition is
-------
Federal Registsr / VoL 44. No. 239 / Tuesday. December 11. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 71787
necessary to protect air quality and is
fully consistent with the Clean Air Act
2. Actual vs. SIP allowable emission
limits. Some existing installations may
be emitting a lesser amount of poQutaats
than existing SIP regulations allow
because, for example, they may be
burning a clean fuel, such as natural gas.
Several commenters were concerned
that the policy would allow a source to
use the difference between such a low-
emitting installation's actual emissions
and the SIFs allowable emissions to
offset any proposed higher emissions
from another installation, with a
resulting increase in overall emissions
from this source.
EPA's primary concerns in any
alternative approach ar* that the trades
will be equal and result in attainment
and maintenance of air quality
standards as demonstrated by the SIP.
In those cases where the SIPs
demonstration of attainment is implicitly
or explicitly based on the source
maintaining the actual emission level.
even though that level is lower in
practice than what die SIP allows, that
source cannot use the difference to
increase its emissions through trading.
But EPA will consider alternative
approaches where the SIP can
demonstrate attainment using the
difference between the emission levels
to offset proposed higher emissions from
another installation. However, states
should realize if they approve such
trades they wiH be consuming part of
their margin for growth and snnnld
explicitly take that into consideration
before approving the trades.
3. Testing technique* and
determination of specific emission
limits. The proposed policy stated that
each emission point must have a specific
emission limit, and the limit must be tied
to enforceable testing techniques.
Several commenters pointed out that
these requirements would prevent some
sources, such as those that emit Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs), from using
the alternative approach. EPA did not
intend to preclude the use of
quantifiable surrogate measures that
would allow such sources to use the
alternative approach. Therefore, the .
policy now states that enforceable
testing techniques can include specific
control measures, performance
measures, and performance standards.
4. Attainment and aonattainment The
alternative emission reduction approach
may be used in those areas currently in
attainment or in areas where EPA has
judged the SIP adequate to achieve
attainment by the future statutory
deadlines (this means use of the
alternative approach is allowed for
control of oxidants beyond 1962 for
states that obtain an extension of the
deadline, if the SIP can demonstrate
attainment by 1887). The alternative
approach can also be used within CTG
categories in areas that fail to
demonstrate attainment (see Section B.2
of tile policy).
Some commenters asked what
happens to me sources that are using an
alternative approach if attainment is not
achieved as expected in the area where
the source U located. If such a situation
arises, the sources may have to install
more stringent controls on facilities
where the requirements have been
relaxed under the alternative approach
because the statute requires that aU
reasonable control measures have to be
taken in an effort to meet NAAQS.
5. Limited review period. A few
commenters mentioned that by inaction
on an alternative proposal, EPA or a
state could cause a source to come into
compliance late. Consequently, they
suggested that the policy specify a
reasonable time limit during which the
state and EPA must act on the proposal.
Although EPA agrees mat prompt
review is needed, it does not believe it
can limit this process to a specific time
period. The amount of time necessary to
review an alternative approach depends
on many factors, such as the complexity
of the proposal and the quality of the
demonstration the source submits. EPA
will handle the alternative approach
proposals as quickly as possible, bat it
must have enough time to ensure that
these proposals are consistent with air
quality goals. The Agency will male*
every attempt to expedite the processing
of those proposals 1hat are
straightforward. The Agency is asking
the states to work with it in expediting
the SIP revision process.
8. Time extension*. As originally
proposed, die alternative emission
reduction policy stated that existing
compliance dates could not be extended
in any case. Several commenters argued
that tins stipulation is unfair because in
some cases ft may be impossible for a
source to implement alternative control
strategies within the time allowed in the
existing schedule. They also felt that
equity requires EPA to consider delaying
dstes in some instances.
since the states can establish earlier
dates when the alternative approach
can be implemented more quickly than
the existing compliance schedule.
EPA a«ees Out for some it may be
difficult to implement an alternative
approach on the existing schedule. This
is an iuipuitent reason for sources to
submit their alternative proposals as
early as possible. However, EPA does
not bm the authority to extend
compliance schedules for the purpose of
implementing alternative strategies.
Nevertheless, there are circumstances
where sources can obtain time
extensions for Part D requirements
under existing law.
For example, a Part D SIP submission
may have established a new participate
requirement for a source with an
immediately effective compliance date.
Assuming that immediate compliance is
not truly practicable for thai source
(except by shutdown), the Clean Air Act
would allow a new schedule with a final
compliance date no later than December
31,1982, to be established for the source
as long as the new schedule requires
compliance as expeditioualy as
practicable and reasonable further
progress is not jeopardized. An
alternative emission limitation could be
adopted for that source with an
expeditious compliance date even
though that expeditious date is later
than the immediately effective
compliance date for the existing SIP
requirement.
The policy for alternative emission
reduction approaches is not intended to
prohibit sources from applying for time
extensions where they would otherwise
qualify for them under the law. Thus.
under some circumstances sources may
be able to obtain additional time to
implement alternative approaches for
meeting Part D requirements.
Applications for time extensions should
be made prior to or simultaneously with
the application for the alternative
strategy.
Several commenters objected to the
requirement that they agree in writing
not to seek stays of compliance with the
existing requirement or avoidance of
sanction if the alternative proposal is
disapproved, challenged, or delayed.
EPA no longer asks this. However.
before considering alternative
approaches, we will require sources to
come to an agreement with the control
agency regarding compliance with
existing SIPs. These agreements must
not contain provisions that grant the
source stays or waivers of sanctions to
consider an alternative approach.
There were requests for guidance in
handling noncompliance penalties
associated with an alternative approach.
Under Section D.2. of the policy,
paragraphs b, c and d deal with penalty
fees. The appropriate regional contact
person can answer questions that arise
in conjunction with a particular
application.
7. Comparable trades. The alternative
emission reduction policy only allows
trading of comparable pollutants. Some
commenters said that when determining
comparability of pollutants the poHcy
must consider that pollutants within the
34
-------
71788 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 239 / Tuesday. December 11. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
sa^ne criteria category may have
different effects on air quality. However,
other commentere were of the opinion
that without any specific standards for
individual pollutants within a criteria
category, EPA cannot prevent trades
between pollutants in the same
category. EPA recognizes that pollutants
in the same category may have different
impacts, and will take this into
consideration to the extent legally
possible when reviewing proposed
trades.
B. Open dust source trades. The
proposed policy did not allow trading
particulate emissions from open dust
sources against particulate emissions
from stacks or industrial processes.
Many commenters objected to this
prohibition and the reasoning that EPA
used to support its decision. EPA has
reviewed this issue and has decided to
no longer categorically prohibit open
dust trades. However, the Agency still
believes it is especially difficult to
ensure equivalent air quality impacts for
such trades. Due to the shortcomings of
air quality models for open dust sources.
EPA will insist on a thorough
justification and explanation of all
critical inputs to the emission and air
quality calculations for any proposals
based on modeling demonstrations.
Generally. EPA will not approve any
proposed alternative emission strategy
based on a modeling demonstration that
proposes to substitute controls on open
dust emissions for reasonable controls
on the more significant sources of
process emissions. EPA will accept good
modeling demonstrations for trades that
do not affect the use of basic controls.
As an alternative to modeling, sources
can propose trades without these
restrictions if they demonstrate the
equivalency of the trades by installing
open dust source controls and
monitoring the results.
9. Hazardous pollutant trades. Several
commentere suggested that the policy
should allow trades between the same
hazardous pollutant We have clarified
our position on this matter and have
stated that the emissions of pollutants
that are currently listed under Section
112 (but not specifically regulated) may
be increased at one emission point only
as long as there is a compensating
decrease in the emission of the same
pollutant at another point. For those
pollutants listed under 5112 in the
future, similar trading restraints will
apply. However, in all cases, sources
must comply with applicable Section 112
regulations and they cannot use an
alternative emission control to do this.
10. Trades between criteria pollutant
categories. Other commenters urged
EPA to consider allowing trades
between criteria categories if the results
will be beneficial, e.g., trading a
decrease in a pollutant seriously
violating NAAQS for an increase in a
pollutant with a minor violation. EPA
cannot consider any trades involving
pollutants from different criteria
categories because the Clean Air Act
requires SIPs to provide for attainment
for every standard. EPA may not
approve a revision that makes a
violation worse for one standard,
regardless of any offsetting benefits for
another standard.
11. Equal emissions. There were
comments that suggested that it was
unduly restrictive to require trades
under an alternative approach to be
equal, since in some cases this is more
control than is necessary to protect
ambient air quality. One commenter
thought that the policy should not
prevent VOC sources from increasing
emissions because, unlike other
pollutants, they do not create a localized
nonattainntent problem.
EPA recognizes that the Clean Air Act
permits states to revise their SIPs in
ways that allow increases in total
emissions from a source, a plant, or an
area. But there are significant
restrictions on this authority; The
revised SIP must demonstrate
attainment and maintenance of the
standards; the requirements for''
reasonable further progress in reducing
emissions and for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable must be
satisfied; and the revision must not
interfere with the Prevention of-
Significant-Deterioration program.
However, the fact that the Act does not
completely prohibit SIP revisions that
increase overall emission does not lead
EPA to encourage such revisions as an
element of this policy statement
In EPA's opinion there are important
policy reasons to discourage SIP
revisions that increase overall
emissions. A growing number of serious
air quality problems are now recognized
as covering broad regions of the country:
ozone violations, elevated sulfates and
"acid rain," and visibility reduction. SIP
revisions that permit significant
increases in total emissions of the major
criteria pollutants can exacerbate some
or all of the current wide-scale air
quality problems. Therefore, EPA does
not encourage by this policy, or as a
more general matter. SIP revisions that
result in overall emission increases. In
particular, EPA will not approve such
SIP revisions to the extent consistent
with its current legal authority..
12. Multiplant emissions trades.
Several commenters said that use of an
alternative approach should not be
restricted to a single plant. They said
that this restriction creates an arbitrary
boundary for trading emissions since the
policy already requires a source to
demonstrate that the alternative
strategy will not harm air quality.
EPA has changed the policy to allow
more than one plant in the same area to
be included in an alternative emissions
abatement strategy. However, EPA will
require modeling (except in the case of
hydrocarbons and ozone) to show that
air quality will be protected.
Other Issues
1. Worker exposure. The Agency
received a recommendation thai it
disapprove any alternative approach
that will increase the concentration of
pollutants to which any group of
workers is exposed. EPA has
specifically forbidden trades involving
coke oven particulate emissions. In
many instances emissions close to
ground level, where workers are located.
may have to be weighed differently than
emissions from high stacks. While EPA
does not have the statutory authority to
specifically prohibit a trade because of
increased worker exposure, we
encourage states to examine this issue
and avoid decisions that would increase
worker exposure.
2. Energy management. There was a
suggestion that the alternative emission
policy should encourage innovative
energy management approaches by
providing for greater flexibility in the
use of alternative fuels to meet SIP
requirements. EPA feels that the
alternative approach provides flexibility
for fuel switching to balance emission
limits, and to the extent that energy is a
growing component of the cost of
meeting pollution control requirements.
sources will seek to minimize energy
use. However, EPA does not have the
authority to take into account such
factors as energy savings or choice of
fuel when it reviews alternative
strategies.
Dated: November 29.1979.
Douglas M. Costle.
Administrator.
(FR Doc. 7»-37M4 Fifed 12-10-79: R45 un|
BILLING CODE (5CO-01-M
35
-------
15262
Issue Paper Concerning the Need for a
Hydrocarbon Criteria Document;
Availability of First External Review
Draft
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 48 / Monday, March 10, 1888 / Notfces
Section 109(d)(l) of the Clean Air Act.
as amended. 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)[l),
requires that the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) established
in 1971 and the air quality criteria
documents on which they are based be
reviewed by the Administrator, and, if
appropriate, be revised not later than
December 31,1980. This notice describes
EPA's review of the air quality criteria
document for hydrocarbons to date.
announces the availability of a draft
report produced in connection with the
review, and invites comments on the
draft. As previously announced (45 FR
13191 (February 28,1980)), the draft
report wiU DC considered at a meeting of
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) of EPA's Science
Advisory Board starting at 9:15 am on
March 17,1980, to be held in Room 1101
West Tower, EPA. 401, M St., S.W..
Washington. D.C.
For purposes of reviewing the criteria
document for hydrocarbons. EPA's
Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office (ECAO) initiated appropriate
literature survey and review procedures
in 1979. At this preliminary stage it
int avai'ln^" H°'° "**—
i do not substantially alter.
.in most respects, the scientific position
~bn hydrocarbons that prevailed when
' the existing criteria document was ~
written in ISTfl. Furthermore. ELAU's
^preliminary review of the criteria
developed in 1970 and of the data base
on hydrocarbons compiled since then
has called into question the need for
revising the existing criteria document.
Instead, die review suggested that the
Agency should prepare an issue paper
that would serve as the basis on which
the Agency can decide whether (1) to
make an appropriate regulatory decision
without revision of the existing criteria
document; or (2) to prepare a revised
criteria document that will serve as a
basis for a subsequent regulatory
decision.
Accordingly, ECAO has prepared a
draft report entitled "Facts and Issues
Associated with the Need for a
Hydrocarbon Criteria Document." This
paper is based on a thorough review of
pertinent health and welfare effects
information but is not intended to be an
exhaustive treatment of all aspects of
hydrocarbon pollution. Instead, the
paper focuses on: (1) aspects of
hydrocarbons and the NAAQS for
hydrocarbons that distinguish them from
the other criteria pollutants and the
corresponding NAAQS; (2) a review of
the key criteria for hydrocarbons
developed in 1970 and used in the
standard-setting process in 1971: and (3)
1970-79 data on hydrocarbons, pertinent
to those key criteria.
Comments are invited on the draft
report copies of which are available aa
discussed below. As indicated above,
the draft report will also be considered
at a meeting of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee of EPA's Science
Advisory Board. EPA plans to revise the
draft report, if appropriate, in light of
any comments received from the public
or from the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee.
Copies of the draft report may be
obtained by writing to Ms. Diane
Chappel, Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office, MD-52, U.S.'
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. To
place a telephone request, dial (919)
541-3746. Copies will also be available
at the March 17 CASAC meeting.
Comments should be directed to Dr.
Robert M. Bruce or Ms. Beverly E. Tilton
at the address given above. The
deadline for receipt of comments is May
1.1980.
Dated; March fl, 199ft
Stephen). Gags. FU).
Assistant Administrator for Research and
Vevelopmeat
|R Doc. 80-7511FIM »-tO-Mt MS nil
36
-------
Improving Government Regulations;
Agenda of Regulations
16832
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 52 / Friday. March 14.1980 / Proposed Rules
W, are developing performance stendards to control emissions from the foli|o£![nB_'l>d^*^**_
" " " * ' •-"•««"— —
uiwto
th*
•r«
P*ng p*lIUf inainGfi MoM»*J*iru* w wwnuwa. viiu»wv»e> ••»»• «-w .Ww.—"W ..... ••- ..v. ^.evilurtA tvt, *u» twiMsrtiAA
Administrator develop and penodicalh/ update New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for stotoMry .ources '^"^~f*»^^^J^^o^*w sources .nd
based on the best systema demonMrated to continually reduce emissions, taking into account cost. a«« ai^Kgy re«|uiren»nt.. Tr« stanclarei w,B *r^ to both r«w sources and
existing sources which are modified after approval of tha regulation. .
SIGNIFICANT EPA REGULATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION-
Summary
NSPS-Pftrolfum Liquid Sung* Veev
Mil (SAN No. 1006. Docket No.
OAQPS 78-2)
A. DocripMon Th* nviMtf nandard propoaaa th* uu of
doubla aaato rathar than lingla aaala on floating roofa. It
win aliminata ona of tha two typaa of aaal currently in uav.
S. OiairrlclOon Routine.
C. tlaunmyAutherhy CAA 111
D. CM Chang*: Reunion to 4OCFR60.
Don Goodwin
EPA (MO-13)
Raiairch Thangla Park.
NC 27711
FT& t-«29-6271
919-541-5271
NPRM: 43FR216ie(S/18/78)
nc a/to
NSPS: Gin* MlnulKTunng (SAN
No. 1O07. Oockat No. OAQPS 79-2)
Oaaiilpllnn Thi* ragulation addraaaaa th. problem of
paniculate emiaiiona from new glaaa manufacturing fur-
nacea. The Governor of New Jersey requested that EPA
develop national itandarda.
daaarneatlon: Routine.
Statutory Authority: CAA 111.
CFR Change: 40 CFR 6O.
Analyaia EIS.
Don Goodwin
EPA (MD-13)
Research Triangle Perk.
NC 27711
FTS S-629-5271
Comm: 919-541-5271
NPRM 44FR348XCX6/15/79)
fR:' S/80
NSPS lnl*fi<*l Combustion fngintt
(SAN No IOCS Docket No. OAQPS
79-SI
Deechption: Theie regulations will require tha applica-
tion of ben demonstrated technology to control nitrogen
onde emissions from stationary internal combustion
engines.
CtoaaifteetioR: Routine.
Statutory Authority: CAA 111.
CFR Change 40 CFR 60
Analyst EIS
Don Goodwin
EPA (MO-13)
Retesrch Triangle Park.
NC 27711
FTS: 8-629-5271
Comm: 919-541-5271
NPRM: 44FR43173I7/23/79)
FR: 9/80
NSPS Non-Miullic Miner*/ Oper*-
IiOfrsfSANNo 10O9)
A Description: This regulation will control paniculate emis- Don Goodwin
sions from quarrying operations .nd related facilities. EPA (MO-13)
B daaaitlcation: Routine Research Triangls Park.
C StetutoryAuthority CAA 111 NC «71'
D CFRO«nge:40CFH60 FTS J-6":5"'
E. Aneh/eie:EIS Comm: 919-541-5271
NPRM 4/80
FR: 3/81
NSPS Oryinic SonwrT C/e*nav>
(SAN No 101O. Docket No OAQPS
78-12)
A. riserilptlon This rule will control evaporative amiasions
from metal cleaning and degreasing operations. It will
also require Statas to act under section 11 l(d) to control
. some specific solvent emissions from existing sources.
B Claaaifieation: Routine.
C. Statutory Authority: CAA 111.
O. CFR Change 40 CFR 60
E. Anetysie. EIS.
Don Goodwin
EPA (MD-13)
Research Trisngla Pa|k.
NC 27711
FTS: 8-629-5271
Comm: 919-541-5271
NPRM: 3/80
FR: 11/80
HSPS Induarifl Svrftc* Catting:
Automob,!* AfttmWr Plfntt (SAN
No 1 111)
A. Deerjripllon This regulation will control volatile organic
compound emissions from coating operations in the auto
and light-truck Industrie*.
B. Claaaifieation: Routine.
C. Statutory Authority: CAA 111.
0. CFR Change 40 CFR 60
E. Anan/aie: EIS.
Don Goodwin
EPA (MD-13)
Research Triangle Park.
NC 27711
FTS: 8-629-5271
Comm: 819-541-5271
NPRM: 44FR57792(10/5/79|
FR: 9/80
NSPS Synrt>*nc Orglmc C>t»mic*i
MtnutKtuhrtQ—Fugitive fatiwon*
(SAN No 1112)
A. Deacription This rule will control fugitive emissions from
the manufacture of organic chemicals. There will be other
synthetic organic chemical manufacturing standards. The
first process standard is scheduled for proposal in Janu-
ary'61.
B. Claaalfkation: Routine.
C. Statutory Authority: CAA IU.
O. CFR Change 40 CFR 6O
E. Anah/sis EIS.
Don Goodwin
EPA (MD-13)
Research Triangle Park.
NC 27711
FTS: 6-629-5271
Comm: 919-541-5271
NPRM: 9/80
FR: 7/81
HSPS Indultntl Surface Cotting:
C«nf(SANNo. 1113)
A. Deaciiption: This regulation will establish emission stan-
dards for volatile organic amisaions from can-coating
operations.
B. Cleeaiftaattori Msjor.
C. Statutory Authontr CAA It I.
0 CFM Cheng*: 40 CFR 6O.
E Aneryaie EIS.
Don Goodwin
EPA (MD-13)
Research Triangle Park.
NC 27711
FTS: 6-629-5271
Comm: 919-541-5271
NPRM: 9/80
FR: 7/81
-------
EM REOUUTOOWS UNDER
TM-
Coat**
Timatabia
AM
MSPS. /noVflri* Surffcf CofUmf
Pnnan Sf**>tnf rtpft t*d 1*6**
(SAN NO. 1 « 4. Dockot No. A-79-31)
A. Daatilirtlaii: Thia ngulatHHi will astabliih .mission tun. Don Goodwin
danto for volstila organic amiMiora from prassura- EPA (MD-13)
sansittva tapaa and laball coating oparatkms. Rasaarch Tn.nal. Park ,
B. ClaaamcattBr.: Routina. "C 27711
C. Statutory AU*orit»:CAAt It. FTS: f-*2?:5"'
0. CFRChango:40CFR6a Comm. 919-S41-5271
E.
NPRM:
FR:
3/»0
''8'
NSPS Inform*! Surttc* Coring:
/MMMAwmlimlSANNo ItlSI
*• OMBripteK: This ragirintion «in «ubli«l\ Miuuion M«n-
- d«»* tor »ol«til« organic amiMWMlromiiMrtalfuraiiuf*
oparation*.
•. Claaaificattoo H
Statu
ry Au
rrtrC A* 111.
CFRChanoa 40CFB60.
Ana*yaia EIS.
Don Goodwin
EPA (MO- 13)
Rasaarch Triantfa Park.
NC 27711
FTS: »-629-5271
Comm 919-541-5271
NPRM:
F":
5/»O
3/81
Maa/CoittlSANNo. 159*1
TM. nito w*
mHHaj Das Cu«»i.l«
N»HM »/M
C •M
D. CW
: CAA til
*iial>aH.EIS.
40CFRaO.
NC
rrs:
C
»-«2»-«2>t
t1»-S«1-S*Tt
toduOri* Sutttef COfOuf
Lay* at^mfMgAM No. 1S19)
TM» ragulatkH> oiH
i fcoia Industrial surfaca coattno, o»- EPA HHO-13»
FH:
•/•»
7/»1
C. MMM
0
E.
tCAAItT.
NC 27711
FTS: *-«2«-«27t
HSfS tawMo
tw» /S4/W MR
OAQPS79-1)
0oc**r No.
Puoi»HiB. TMa r«ou)atk)«» will aatapfca). jtandarda tor
amrfacturina
». Ctaaain
C. t»»l»mi
D.
E.
CAA Ttt.
Don Goodwin
EPA (MO- 13V
Raaaarch TriaaaHk Para.
NC 227 1»
FTS: »-«2»-S271
NPNM: 4SFR27»O(1/14/»O>
(SANMe. till. OodiatNaxOAOP*
7»-«
A. PinHjilliii. TMa i»gulatioi. will control OM tminio* of Oon Goodwin
parbculataiaattar from pho»plwta rot* proeataaa. EPA (MO-13)
•. Caminoailon nimliiia Raaaarc* Triangta Pa*.
C. tlaialai , AuOorKy CAA 1 1 T. NC 27711
D. CMChOfl««40CF«80 FTS: i-«2»-6271
t
NWMfc 44H62«MitVV7»*
Fit
HSfS: Or, Ctftmimg (SAN No. 1 1 19. A. Oiipilatl.il TM« rayulatioo will c
Don Goodwin
EPA (MB-tll
6/tO
4/.1
rlty CAA 111.
f AnalyaistElS
NC 27711
FTS:
CoaMc » 19-64 1-627 »
«a(SAHNo. 11201
TH» raoalMloo wiN
•. flaiilH Ro«tmo.
C. •t»m>»uAmlio«>«> CAAItt
9X CfHChniit)>- Pa*.
NC 27711
"S: »-«29-5271
Comm: 8 1»-»4 1-6271
NPP.M: 10/8O
S8
-------
SIGNIFICANT EPA REGULATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION—Continued
Summary
Timetable
AIH—Continued
NSPS: AmtnoniuHtSuHitm Produc-
tion (San No. 1587. DockM No. A-
79-31)
A Daacriullaa This rub win control particulata amiaekMia
from th« production of ammonium aulfat*.
B. deaaincabon Boutin*
C. Statutory Authority: CAA lit.
O. CFRCheoge 40CFR6O.
E. Aneryala EIS.
Don Goodwin
EPA (MO-13)
Research Triangle Part.
NC 27711
FTS: (-629-527 f
Comm: «1»-S41-6271
NPRM: 45FR7758(2/4/SO)
F* 11/80
NSPS: Ammonium Nrtrfl* Fertr/irar
Production ISAM No. If SB)
NSPS Bulk Sttolin* Ttrmintlt (SAN
No 15»» DockM No. OAQPS 7«-2)
A Oeeeriptioa Thie nil* wiN control particulatt amieeioM
from production of ammoniumnitrata fertilizer
B. Ctaaaification Routine.
C. Statutory Authority. CA A III.
O. CFR Change: 40 CFR SO.
E. Andy**: EIS.
A Oaacription: Thia rula will control volatila organic com-
pound amisaionafrom gasolinedietribution operation*.
B. Cfeaaificatien: Routina.
C. Statutory Authority CAA 111.
0. CFRChang*:40CFR6O.
E. Anarr*aEIS.
Oon Goodwin
EPA (MO-13)
Reeaarck. Triangl* •»*.•
NC 2771*
FTS: *-629-S2?f
Comm: 919-641-6271
Don Goodwin
EPA (MD-13)
Research Triangle Park.
NC 27711
FTS: 8-629-S27I
Comm: 919-541-6271
NPRM: 11/80
FK: 8/8!
NPRM: 1Q/SO
FH 6/»1
NSPS: Sodium ClrooatM Utnulte-
fur* |S AN No. 1590>
A. Oaacription: Thia ragulation will control particular* amnv
aiona from production of aodium carbonata.
B. Claaaificatian: Routina.
C. Statutory Authority CAA 111.
D. CFft Change: 40 CFR 60.
E Analyaia: EIS.
Oon Goodwin
EPA (MD-13)
Raaaarch Tnangla Park.
NC 27711
FTS: 5-«2»-5271
Comm: 919-S41-S271
NPRM 8/80
FR: 6/81
HSPS AtptaH Roofing Utnultctun
(SAN No. IS9t.OockatNo.A-7BT30>
A Daacriptkin: Thia rula will control particulata amiaaiona
from tha manufactura of aaphalt roofing. »
B. Claaaification: Routina
C. Statutory Authority: CAA 111.
O. CFR Chang*. 40 CFR 6O
E. Anatyaia. EIS.
Oon Goodwin
EPA (MD-13)
Raaaarch Tnangla Park.
NC 27711
FTS: (-629-5271
Comm: 9l»-64t-5271
NPRM: 4/80
FR. 3/81
NSPS (In* Production (SAN No.
IS92)
A Daaeription Thu nil* win control particulata amiaaiona •
from tha production of uraa.
B. daaaificatioiv Routina.
C. Statutory Authority CAA 111
0. CFftChano*:40CFR60.
E. AnarralKElS.
Oon Goodwin
EPA (MO-13)
Raaaarch Triangl* Park,
NC 27711
FTS: 8-829-5271
Comm: 919-641-5271
NPRM 9/80
FR: 7/81
We ara developing amiaaioo atandardt for hazardoua air pollutanta undar Section 112 of the CAA Thu aaction requires that tha Adrmniatrator develop National Emiasion "
Standard! for Hazardous Air Pollutanta (NESHAPS) for amiaaiona that caua* or contribute to air pollution which raaulta in an incraaaa in mortality or in aarioui or incapacitating
.linen. Tha atandarda will apply to both mwaourcaa and exieting toureae.
NCSHAPS: Pltroltum *ar/M>y/C*.
. 1129>
A. Daaciiption: Thia regulation will control tha amiaaion of
banzan* from fugitive amiaaion source* such aa pumpa
and valvaa at chemical planta and petroleum refinarte*.
B Ctaaaifioation Routine.
C Stannary Authority^CAA 112.
D CFR Change: 40 CFR 61
E. Analyeitt EIS.
Don Goodwin
EPA (MO-131
Research Triangl* Park,
NC 27711
FfS: 8-829-5271
Comm 919-641-5271
NPRM: 9/80
FR: 8/81
HfSHAPS: UilfK AithnMOm /W«/w
'•cn,ra(SANNo 1127)
A Oaecilption Thia ragulation will control th* amiaaion of
benzene from process vanta in tha manufacture of maleic
C. StatutoryAuthorfty CAA 112
Oon Goodwin
EPA (MO-13)
NPRM: 3/80
FR: I2/8O
VFSH4PS
Mtnulfctun (SAN No. 112$
1129. DockM No. A-79-49)
A Deacriptwn This regulation will control tha emission of Oon Goodwin
benzene from procoxe v*nta in th* manufacture of athyt- EPA (MD-131
. b»nMB«»nd»«V'">« Research Triangle Park.
B. deaaification: Routine. N-
C. StatutoryAuthortty CAA M2 FTS.
NPRM: 6/80
FR: 4/81
HESHAPS Btnnaf Stonot (SAN
No 1593)
A Oaaerlptfen: This ragulation will control benzene emis-
sions resulting from the storage of pure banian*.
B. Ctwarfication: Routine.
C. Statutory Authority: CAA 112.
Or CF* Change: 4O CFR at
E. AnafyaiK EIS.
Don Goodwin
EPA (MO-13)
Research Triangle Park.
NC 27711
FTS: 8-829-5271
Comm: 919-541-5271
NPRM: 9/80
FR: 8/81
HfSHAPS listing of Armmnif mf t
Hiimntovt Air PoHuUM (SAN N*>.
UOO)
A Oeacription EPA ia conducting a hearth risk assaaament
of arsenic emissions If the Agency determines that theaa
emiaaions (primarily from copper smarten) are hazardous.
then it will liat anenic under section 112 aa a hazardoua
air pollutant and propose emiasions standards.
B. Oaaaifieation. Routine.
C Statutory Authority CAA 112.
D. CfM Change: 40 CFR 01
J9
Joe Padgett
EPA (MO 12|
Research Triangl* Park.
NC 27711
FTS: 8-829-5204
Comm 919-541-5204
NPRM: 9/80
-------
30088
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
for Hydrocarbons. Carbon Monoxide.
Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone, and Lead
(PSD Set II)
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. DO / Wednesday. May 7. 1980 / Proposed Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington. D.C.
ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking.
SUMMARY: Part C Title I of the Clean Air
Act requires the prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality.
Section 163 of this Act provides for the
establishment of air quality increments
to restrict the maximum allowable
increase in ambient concentration of
sulfur dioxide and particulate matter
(Set I pollutants). Section 166 requires
the Administrator to conduct a study
and promulgate regulations to prevent
significant deterioration resulting from
other criteria pollutants. The other
criteria pollutants now include
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, ozone,
nitrogen oxides, and lead (Set D
pollutants).
EPA proposes to undertake the study
mandated by section 166 of the Act and
solicits comments on specific issues and
aspects related to this contemplated
action.
DATE: Comments received on or before
July 7.1980, will be considered by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
: Comments should be
submitted to: Cental Docket Section (A-
130), Environmental Protection Agency,
Attn.: Docket No. A-79-34,401M Street
S.W.. Washington, D.C. 20460.
Docket No. A-79-34. containing
material relevant to this rulemaking, is
located in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Central Docket
Section, Room 2903B, 401M Street. S.W,
Washington. D.C The public may
inspect this docket between B.-00 a jn.
and 4:00 pjn. on weekdays, and a
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Nancy Mayer, Environmental Protection
Agency (MD-15), Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina 27711; phone (91§r
541-5497.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA
intends to undertake a study and
develop regulations in compliance with
section 166 of the dean Air Act Section
166 requires prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality caused by
the emission of Set II pollutants. In
section 163 of the Act Congress
established air quality increments to
restrict the maximum allowable ambient
concentration increases of sulfur
dioxide and particulate matter (Set I
pollutants). These two pollutants are
primarily of stationary source origin, are
relatively stable, and are generally
characterized by more accurate
modeling and better data availability
than me Set D pollutants. In recognition
of these differences, section 166 does
not restrict EPA to an increment system
for Set II pollutants, but does still
require that numerical measures be
developed that are at least as effective
as the increment system established in
section 163 would be. Section 166 further
adds that the system developed "may
contain air quality increments, emission
density requirements, or other
measures."
This notice informs interested parties
of EPA'e intent to begin a process which
will result in EPA's and States' plans to
prevent the significant deterioration of
air quality caused by the emission of Set
II pollutants.
EPA is now reviewing a range of
regulatory alternatives which appear the
most reasonable at this time. Many of
these alternatives are obviously more
directly applicable to some pollutants
than to others. The alternatives
currently under consideration include
the following:
A. Emission Controls Only. This
system would rely primarily on the
requirements for best available control
technology (BACT) on major new
stationary sources and the Federal
standards for motor vehicle emissions
with the possible addition of inspection
and maintenance requirements. Control
requirements under this system would
not vary as a function of ambient
concentrations or the proximity of
sources so long as the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards were not
violated.
40
B. Ambient Air Quality Increments.
This would call for developing an area
classification system establishing
numerical limits for allowable ambient
air quality degradation. This system
would be similar to that already in effect
for particulates and sulfur dioxide but
not now applicable to Set II pollutants.
C Emission Density Zoning (EDZ).
An EDZ system would set theoretical air
quality increments to serve as a
guideline for establishing maximum
allowable emission limits per unit land
area. Once these limits were
established, emission limits rather than
ambient air quality would determine all
preconstruction review and enforcement
actions under PSD.
D. Inventory Management. This
system would require State and local
agencies to develop and maintain
detailed emission inventories, with the
provisions for mandatory periodic
public review whenever the local
emission inventory increased by a
preestablished quantity or percentage.
This public review would be required
prior to allowing any further incremental
increase in emissions and could include
an environmental analysis, a public
education program, a public hearing,
and a vote by elected officials from the
potentially impacted area.
E. Statewide Emission Limitation
(Bubble). This system would set
areawide emission limitations to insure
that there would be no net increases in
emissions. This area could be defined as
a State, a portion of a State or possibly
more than one State. Every local
increase (after some fixed time) would
require an offsetting decrease
somewhere else within the defined area.
F. Avoidance of Co-located HC and
NO* Sources. This approach would
prevent significant deterioration
resulting from the formation of ozone.
Such a program would focus special
attention on the HC/NO. ratio and
prevent the juxtaposition of HC and
NO, sources within a certain fixed
distance of each other.
G. Emission Fees. A fee system would
strengthen the requirements for BACT
on new major stationary sources. A fee
levied against each source based on its
quantity of emissions would provide the
source an incentive to develop and
incorporate new technology.
H. Marketable Permits. Marketable
permits establish a permit to emit a
certain fixed quantity of emissions and
allow that permit to be bought and sold
in the market Like an emission fee
system, the cost of these permits
provides an incentive to the source to
minimize the quantity of emissions.
Furthermore, limiting the number of
marketable permits within an area can
-------
regulate the exact quantity of emissions
within that area.
L "De mininuis " Level This
alternative would not require PSD
review in areas that show sir quality
concentrations aad/or emissions below
a certain, "de minimus" level This
would eliminate periodic assessments hi
undeveloped areas.
J. Transportation ffACT. This
alternative would require means to
reduce emissions associated with motor
vehicle related sources. These neon*
could mvolv* specifications for road
systems or performance standard* for
public transportation systems, SBCH as
specified levels of service for pobtic
transportation. Additional criteria lor
existing transportation processes eouM
also be considered.
The issues EPA piesently .considers
important in developing a PSD Set n
program include:
A. How should the baseline be
defined? What should be the basetiae
date? What actions would be counted in
determining mcrement consumption?
How would the various alternatives
affect industrial, commercial and other
sources?
B. How can these regulations best
protect air quality in pristine areas
against significant deterioration in
situations where emissions from indirect
sources represent me most significant
threat?
C What type of additional control
requirements could or should these
regulations require for mobile sources?
What should be the balance between
control of mobile sources versus
stationary sources?
D. Given the difficulty of modeling
many of the Set II pollutants, what type
and level of detail of modeling can or
should EPA or a State require?
E. How much preconstruction
monitoring should EPA or a State
require? How much post-construction
monitoring?
F. What size and type of sources
should be subject to preconstructioa
review?
G. What size areas would be most
appropriate under an emission density
zoning system? Under an incraneat
system?
H. How much consistency should be
required between PSD Set 0 and other
programs, specifically, PSD Set I. New-
Source Review/Nonattainment and
Visibility? What is the true extent of
attainment vs. aooaUainment areas and
how will this affect the PSD Set O
program?
I. How will class I areas and
surrounding areas which impact them
best be treated?
J. What level of acfeii w« be most
appropriate for Federal tegtdattone
promulgated under this program aanl
what degree of flexibility should be left
to the States?
K. How should regahfen* handle
increment allocation when aa area
covers two ar aton States?
L. What methodologies, other Ifcaa
first-coma-first-served, exist tor
determining iocrenent allocation?
M. How myf^ data are available for
rural aceas? Which alternatives would
only need existing data and which.
would require substantially more data
than are currently available? What
•degree o£ accuracy is necessary lor ratal
emission inventories?
Special Analyse*
This regulation is classified as
significant/major and meets the criteria
cafling for a full regulatory analysis. AQ
analyses wiQ comply with guidance
contained in the May 28.1979 Federal
Register, "Improving Environmental
Regulations; Final Report Implementing
E. 0.12M4."
PublkParficipaUasj
EPA has traditionally pbeed a Riga
' priority on public participation in the
decision-making process and new seeks
to expand the opportunity tot the-pvbBc
to provide comments during the
regulatory development process by
holding public meetings prior IB
proposal.
State and local air potation programs
will receive aa opportunity to
participate through enamzatiens of
State and Territorial Mr Pothrttoa
Program Administrators and me
Association of Local Air Pofintian
Control Officials (STAPPA and
ALAPCO) respectively. EPA also plane
to conduct public meetings for review of
the proposed ratemaldpg.
Dated April 23,1380,
Douglas XlCMUa,
Administrator.
P* Doc. 10-14077 FIM «-•-•**« «mj
SHxaia coot us* si •
41
-------
32424
Mr Quality, Clarification of Agency
Policy Concerning Ozone SIP
Revisions and Solvent Reactivities
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 97 / Friday. May 16. 1980 / Notices
BACKGROUND: This notice is published
under the authority of S 101(b) and S 103
of the Clean Air Act The notice
provides further clarification of a policy
announced in EPA'8 "Recommended
Policy on the Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds," 42 FR 35314 (July 8,1977)
and "Clarification of Agency Policy
Concerning Ozone SIP Revisions and
Solvent Reactivities." 44 FR 32042 (June
4.1979).
DISCUSSION: The previous policy
statements on the control of volatile
organic compounds (VOC's) noted that
methyl chloroform and methylene
chloride are negligibly photochemically
reactive and do not appreciably
contribute to the formation of ozone.
Consequently, controls on emissions of
these two compound would not
contribute to the attainment and
maintenance of the national ambient air
quality standards for ozone.Jn the June
1979 policy statement EPA explained
that it would not disapprove any state
implementation plan (SIP) or plan
revision for its failure to contain
regulations restricting emissions of
methyl chloroform and/or methylene
chloride.
Today's statement clarifies EPA
policy regarding state implementation
plan submittals which do contain
regulations restricting emissions of the
two compounds. Section 110(a)(l) of the
Clean Air Act limits state
implementation plans to measures
designed to achieve and maintain the
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). Because current information
indicates That emissions 01 methyl"
chloroform and methylene chloride do
"hot appreciably anect ambient ozone
•levels, EPA cannot approve measures^
"specifically controlling emissions ol
'either or botft compounds as part of a
"federally enforceable ozone suj. m*A
"will take no action on any meaTures
specifically controlling emissions of the
two compounds which are submitted by
the states as ozone SIP measures for
EPA approval. If a state chooses to
control emissions of these compounds,
such measures will be considered as
state regulations only and not as part of
an ozone SIP. EPA will not enforce
controls on emissions of either methyl
chloroform or methylene chloride
adopted by the state as part of an
implementation plan for ozone.
States retain authority to control
emissions of these compounds under the
authority reserved to them under
Section 116 of the Clean Air Act For
further information relevant to the
exercise of this authority see the July 8,
1977 and June 4,1979 policy statements.
This policy notice should not be read as
a statement of EPA's views on the
desirability of controls on these
substances.
Finally, EPA wishes to point out that
this policy notice addresses only the
Agency's lack of authority to include in
federally approved SIPs controls on
substances whose emissions do not
contribute, either directly or indirectly,
to concentrations of pollutants for which
NAAQS have been established under
section 109 of the Act. This policy notice
does not address the question of SIP
measures which control substances
contributing to concentrations of
pollutants for which NAAQS have been
established, but which are contended to
be more strict than absolutely necessary
to attain and maintain the NAAQS. EPA
has no authority to exclude such
measures from SIPs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
G. T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs
Operations Branch (MD-15), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
(919) 541-5226, FTS 629-5226.
Dated: May 9,1980.
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise and
Radiation.
(FR Doc SO-15124 Filed 6-15-80; MS un|
MLLMG CODE M60-01-4I
42
-------
Air Quality; Clarification of Agency
Policy Concerning Ozone SIP
Revisions and Solvent Reactivities
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 142 / Tuesday. July 22, 1980 / Notices
48941
ACTION: Notice.
BACKGROUND: This notice is published
under the authority of section 101(b) and
section 103 of the Clean Air Act. The
notice provides further clarification of a
policy announced in EPA's
"Recommended Policy on the Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds," 42 FR
35314 (July 8,1977) and "Clarification of
Agency Policy Concerning Ozone SIP
Revisions and Solvent Reactivities," 44
FR 32042 (June 4,1979) and 45 FR 32424
(May 16,1980).
DISCUSSION: The previous policy
statements on the control of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) noted that
despite concerns about their potential
toxicity 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl
chloroform) and methylene chloride are
negligibly photochemically'reactive and
do not appreciably contribute to the
formation of ozone. Today's statement
expands the list (45 FR 32424) of organic
compounds (VOCs) of negligible
photochemical reactivity to include the
following chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) or
fluorocarbons (FC):
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11);
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12);
chlorodifluoromethane (CFC-22);
trifluoromethane (FC-23):
trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113);
dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114);
and chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115).
EPA has determined that these
halogenated compounds are no more
photochemically reactive than methyl
chloroform and methylene chloride and
do not appreciably contribute to the
formation of ambient ozone.
Consequently, controls on emissions of
these compounds would not contribute
to the attainment and maintenance of
the national ambient air quality
standards for ozone. EPA cannot
approve or enforce controls on thtse
compounds as part of a Federally
enforceable ozone State Implementation
Plan (SIP). EPA will take no action on
any measures specifically controlling
emissions of these compounds which
are submitted by the States as ozone SIP
measures for EPA approval. (See 45 FR
32424.)
However, EPA would like to reiterate
its continuing concern over the possible.
environmental effects from emissions of
these compounds. As such, EPA is not
precluding the possible future regulation
of these compounds.
It should be recognized that the two
halogenated compounds, methyl
chloroform and CFC-113. stated to be of
negligible photochemical reactivity in
the July 8,1977 Federal Register, have
been implicated in the depletion of the
stratospheric ozone layer. This layer is a
region of the upper atmosphere which
shields the earth from harmful
wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation that
increase the risk of skin cancer in
humans.
In response to this concern, the
Agency promulgated on March 17.1978
(43 FR 11318), rules under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) to
prohibit the nonessential use of fully
halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes as
aerosol propellants. Restrictions were
applied to all members of this class,
including CFC-113, since they are
potential substitutes for CFC-11. CFC-
12, CFC-114, and CFC-115, which are
currently used as aerosol propellants.
The Agency is investigating control
options and substitutes for
nonpropellant uses.
EPA has proposed new source
performance standards under Section
111 for organic solvent cleaners (45 FR
39768, June 11, 1980). These proposed
standards would limit emissions of the
reactive volatile organic compounds
trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene
as well as methyl chloroform, methylene
chloride, and trichlorotrifluoroethane
(CFC-113) from new, modified, or
reconstructed organic solvent
degreasers. If these standards are
promulgated, EPA will develop a
guideline document for States to use in
developing regulations required under
Section lll(d) for existing organic
solvent cleaners that use any of the
designated compounds.
Whether, and to what extent, methyl
chloroform and methyiene chloride are
human carcinogens or have other toxic
effects, and to what extent methyl
chloroform, CFC-113. and other CFCs
deplete the ozone layer, are issues of
considerable debate. Detailed health
assessments of methyl chloroform.
methylene chloride, anc! CFC-133 are
being prepared by EPA s Office of
Research and Development. These
assessments will be submitted for
external review, including a review by
the Science Advisory Board, prior to
promulgation of the regulations and the
proposal of EPA guidance to States for
developing existing source control
measures. The extent to which the
preliminary findings are affirmed by the
review process may affect the final
rulemaking for new as well as existing
sources.
Until these issues-of environmental
impact are fully resolved. EPA remains
concerned that if these chemicals are
exempted from regulation, the
substitution of exempt for nonexempt
solvents could result in large increases
of emissions of pollutants that may have
adverse health impacts.
The emissions of CFC-22 and FC-23,
also of relatively low photochemical
reactivity, are of continuing concern
with regard to possible environmental
effects. Consequently, EPA is not
precluding the possible future regulation
of these compounds as well.
Finally, EPA wishes to point out that
this notice addresses only the Agency's
lack of authority to include in Federally
approved SIPs controls on substances
whose emissions do not contribute.
either directly or indirectly, to
concentrations of pollutants for which
NAAQS have been established under
Section 109 of the Act. This policy notice
does not address the question of SIP
measures which control substances
contributing to concentrations.^
pollutants for which NAAQS have been
established, but which are contended to
be more strict than absolutely necessary
to attain and maintain the NAAQS. EPA
has no authority to exclude such
measures from SIPs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
G. T. Helms, Chief, Control Programs
Operations Branch (MD-15), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
(919) 541-5228. FTS 629-5228.
Dated: July 16.1980.
-------
State Implementation Plans; Approval of
1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Plan
Revisions for Areas Needing an
Attainment Date Extension
64856 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 191 / Tuesday. September 30.1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[FRL1604-6]
State Implementation Plans; Approval
of 1982 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Plan Revisions for Areas Needing an
Attainment Date Extension
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed policy.
SUMMARY: Provisions of the Clean Air
Act Amendments enacted in 1977
require states that have received an
extension of the attainment date for a
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for ozone or carbon monoxide
beyond 1982 to submit a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision by
July 1,1982. This proposed policy
describes the criteria that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
will use to review these 1962 SIP
submittals and also updates and
supplements the Administrator's
February 24.1978 memorandum.
"Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP
Revisions," (43 FR 21673).
DATES: Comments received on or before
December 1.1980, will be considered by
the EPA in preparing the final policy.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (A-130).
Environmental Protection Agency, Arte
Docket No. A-79-43,401M Street. S.W.,
Washington. D.C. 20460.
Docket No. A-79-43, containing
material relevant to this action, is
located at the EPA Central Docket
Section, West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1.
401M Street S.W- Washington. D.C.
20460. The docket may be inspected
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.tra
weekdays and a reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Additional information about the
proposed policy is available from the
following: General policy contact Mr.
David Stonefield. Standards
Implementation Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency (MD-15), Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711.
telephone (919) 541-5497.
Transportation policy contact Mr.
Gary C. Hawthorn. Office of
Transportation and Land Use Policy
(ANR-445), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street S.W..
Washington. D.C 20460, telephone (202)
755-0603.
Vehicle inspection and maintenance
contact Mr. Donald White, Motor
Vehicle Emission Test Lab,
Environmental Protection Agency. 2565
Plymouth Road. Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105, telephone (313) 666-4350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Proposed Policy
Introduction
In circumstances where a state has
received an extension beyond 1982 for
attaining a NAAQS for ozone or carbon
monoxide, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 [section 129(c) of
Public Law 95-95] require the state to
adopt and submit a SIP revision to the
Administrator of EPA by July 1.1982.
The states that include areas affected by
this requirement are listed in Appendix
A. The purpose of this notice is to
outline the criteria that EPA proposes to
use in evaluating the adequacy of the
1982 SIP revisions. These criteria fall
into four general categories: (1} control
strategies and attainment
demonstration. (2) SIP development
process, (3) data collection, and (4)
modeling.
The Clean Air Act of 1977 requires all
SIPs for the areas that have received an
extension beyond 1982 to demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQSs for ozone or
carbon monoxide as expeditiously as
practicable, but not later than December
31,1987. As a condition for extending
ambient standards attainment dates.
Congress also required that each SIP
contain certain control provisions
covering stationary sources, vehicle
inspection and maintenance [I/M) and
transportation measures. These
mjniTnmn measures and their
relationship to the plan's attainment
demonstration are described in Section
L Section I also discusses the approach
that EPA believes should be followed by
those few large urban areas air quality
problems are so severe that analyses
may indicate that attainment by 1987 is
not possible.
In addition to including a
demonstration of attainment the
development of the 1982 SIP must
conform to the process and follow the
procedures required by the Gean Air
Act and described in subsequent EPA
guidance. Section D identifies the major
steps in the SIP development process.
Selected EPA guidance documents for
the SIP process are listed in Appendix B.
Terms used in the transportation-air
quality process are defined in Appendix
C Also, the air quality and emissions
data bases to be used in developing the
1982 SIP must be updated. The data
requirements for both ozone and carbon
monoxide are explained in Section OL
The data base for the ozone portion of
the SIP must be sufficient to support
44
Level ED analysis are summarized in
Appendix D.
Finally, Section IV describes the
status of the various air quality models
and alerts states to anticipated modeling
requirements. EPA proposes
recommending application of the city-
specific Empirical Kinetic Modeling
Approach (EKMA) for developing the
ozone portion of the SIP. For the carbon
monoxide portion, EPA proposes
application of the models identified in
existing EPA guidance.
L Control Strategies and Attainment
Demonstration
A. Summary
The Clean Air Act requires the 1982
SIPs to contain a fully adopted
technically justified program that adopts
and commits to implement groups of
control measures that will result in
attainment of the ozone and carbon
monoxide NAAQSs no later than 1987
and that will provide reasonable further
progress in the interim. All plans must
contain the minimum control measures
described in this section. If these
minimum control measures are not
adequate to show attainment by 1987,
additional measures which can be
implemented by 1987 must be identified
and adopted. If all measures which can
be implemented by 1987 are not
adequate to demonstrate attainment by
1987, additional measures which can be
implemented after 1987 must be
identified and adopted and attainment
must be demonstrated by a specified
date.
Subsections B-D describe in detail the
minimum control measures which must
be contained in each plan submitted in
July 1982. The state must demonstrate
that adoption and implementation of
these elements will result in the
attainment of the ozone and carbon
monoxide standards by the most
expeditious date possible. Control
measures must be adopted in legally
enforceable form. The SIP submittal
must include implementation schedules
and commitments. Subsections E and F
describe reasonable further progress
and attainment demonstration
requirements. Subsection G describes
the conformity of federal actions
requirement
B. Stationary Sources
Section 172(a) of the Clean Air Act
requires states to implement all
reasonably available control measures
as expeditiously as practicable and, in
the interim, maintain reasonable further
progress, including such reduction in
emission from existing sources as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 191 / Tuesday. September 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 64857
determined by consultation among state
and local officials using the procedures
established under section 174 of the Act
2. All reasonably available
transportation measures and packages
of measures necessary for the
expeditious attainment of the
transportation emission reduction target.
Categories of reasonably available
transportation measures are identified
In section 108(f) of the Act The
submittal should present documentation,
based on technical analysis, of the basis
for not implementing any of the
measures identified in this section. The
1982 SEP submittal must contain
transportation emission reduction
estimates for adopted measures and
packages of measures for each year
between 1982 and the attainment date.
Any reasonably available transportation
measures that have been adopted
between the submission of the 1979
revision and the preparation of the 1982
revision should be included in the 1982
submittal along with the associated
emission reductions.
3. Commitments, schedules of key
milestones (no more than a year apart),
and where appropriate, evidence of
legal authority for implementation,
operation, and enforcement of adopted
reasonably available transportation
measures. Costs and funding sources for
planning, implementing, operating, and
enforcing adopted measures must be
determined for all measures. Tasks and
responsibilities of state and local
agencies and elected officials in carrying
out required programming
implementation, operation, and
enforcement activities associated with
adopted transportation measures must
be identified. The 1982 submittal must
also include documentation that state
and local governments are continuing to
meet the schedules and commitments for
the transportation measures included in
the 1979 SB?.
4. Comprehensive public
transportation measures to meet basic
transportation needs. The measures
must be accompanied by an
identification and commitment to use, to
the extent necessary, federal, state and
local funds to implement the necessary
improvements. Commitments and
schedules for the implementation of
these measures must also be submitted.
5. A description of public participation
and elected official consultation
activities during development of the
transportation measures.
6. A monitoring plan for regularly
assessing the extent to which
transportation measures are resulting in
the emission reductions projected and
the reasons for any s jort-falls in
reductions.
minimum, of reasonably available
control technology [RACTJ. In order to
complete the requirement to adopt all
reasonably available control measure,
states must (1) adopt regulations apply
RACT to all sources covered by a
control technique guideline (CTG), and
(2) adopt regulations on all remaining
major stationary sources (more than 100
tons/year potential emissions] as part of
the 1982 submittal.
The guidelines for the 1979 ozone
submittals permitted states to defer the
adoption of regulations until the CTG for
a source category was published.'This
delay allowed the states to make more
technically sound decisions regarding
the application of RACT. EPA
anticipates issuing a number of
additional CTGs in 1981 for various
source categories of VOCs. These
documents, in conjunction with the
previously issued CTGs, will address
most of the major source categories
which are of national importance.
Legally enforceable measures
implementing RACT for all sources
addressed by these documents must be
included in the July 1982 submittal.
There will remain numerous other
major sources of VOCs that may be of
local importance for which a CTG will
not be available. For the major sources
for which a CTG does not apply, a state
must determine whether additional
controls representing RACT are
available. EPA will require the submittal
to include either legally enforceable
measures implementing RACT on these
sources or documentation supporting a
determination by the state that the
existing level of control represents
RACT for each of these sources.
If application of RACT to all sources
covered by a CTG and all other major
sources does not result in attainment of
the ozone standards by 1987, then
additional stationary source controls
must be adopted by the state.
C. Vehicle Emission Inspection and
Maintenance
All major urban areas needing an
extension beyond 1982 for attainment of
a standard for ozone or carbon
monoxide were required to include
vehicle emission I/M as an element of
the 1979 SIP revision. States were
required at that time to submit only
evidence of adequate legal authority, a
commitment to implement and enforce a
program that will reduce hydrocarbon
and carbon monoxide exhaust emissions
from light duty vehicles in 1987 by 25
percent and a schedule for
implementation. Full implementation of
that program, in accordance with EPA's
I/M policy dated July 17,1878 and
subsequent guidance, is required in afl
cases by December 31,1982,
States with areas that have I/M
programs under development or
operational as part of their 1979 SIP
revisions were required to submit only
qualitative descriptions of their I/M
program elements in the 1979 SIP
submittal. The documentation discussed
below must be submitted by July 1982, if
not previously submitted as evidence of
compliance with the 1979
implementation schedule. The 1S82 SIP
revision must include rules and
regulations and all other I/M elements
which could affect the ability of the I/M
program to achieve the minimum
emission reduction requirements. More
specifically, the 1982 submittal must
include: (1) inspection test procedures;
(2) emission standards; (3) inspection
station and inspector licensing
requirements; (4) emission analyzer
specification and maintenance/
calibration requirements; (5)
recordkeeping and record submittal
requirements; (8) quality control, audit,
and surveillance procedures; (7)
procedures to assure that noncomplying
vehicles are not operated on the public
roads; (8) any other official program
rules, regulations, and procedures; (9} a
public awareness plan; and (10) a
mechanics training program if additional
emission reduction credits are being
claimed for mechanics training. EPA will
update guidance for determining the
adequacy of I/M programs. As part of
the 1982 SIP review process, EPA will
determine the overall adequacy of the
critical elements of each I/M program
and, therefore, the approvability of the
1982 SIP by comparing those elements to
this I/M guidance. I/M program
elements must be consistent with EPA
guidance or a demonstration must be
made that the program elements are
equivalent
State or local governments that have
I/M programs, but plan to increase the
coverage and/or stringency of the -
programs in order to achieve greater
reductions, must submit the program
modifications in legally enforceable
form through the 1982 SIP revision
process.
D. Transportation Measures
The portion of the 1982 SIP addressing
emission reductions to be achieved
through the implementation of
transportation measures must include
the basic provisions listed below.
Further guidance will be issued, as
necessary, to describe these
requirements in greater detail.
1. An updated emission reduction
target for the transportation sector. As
discussed below, the target must be
45
-------
64858
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 191 / Tuesday. September 30. I960 / Proposed Rules
7. Administrative and technical
procedures and agency responsibilities
for assessing, in response to section
176(c) of the Clean Air Act the
conformity of federal or federally
assisted transportation plans, programs,
and projects with the SIP.
8. A contingency plan for achieving
the implementation of additional
transportation measures beneficial to air
quality and delaying actions adverse to
air quality, if expected emission
reductions or air quality improvements
do not occur.
The Administrator's February 24,1978
memorandum. "Criteria for Approval of
1979 SIP Revisions," and the October
1978 SIP Transportation Checklist
identified the elements necessary for the
transportation portion of the 1979 SIP.
The provisions listed above supplement
the elements described in the earlier
guidance.
The guidance for 1979 placed primary
emphasis on the establishment of a
continuing air quality-transportation
planning process. This continuing
planning process must be used in
developing the transportation portion of
the 1982 SIP revision. The process is
described in the June 1978 EPA—
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Transportation—Air Quality Planning
Guidelines and the May 1.1980 EPA—
DOT Expanded Guidelines for Public
Participation. Where the process for an
area has changed from that described in
the 1979 submittal. an updated
description, including key planning,
programming, and funding decision
points, should be submitted in 1982.
Solutions to carbon monoxide
problems can be found through
areawide planning, as well as through
analyses of individual problem areas.
Evidence of specific carbon monoxide
problem areas is derived from modeling
and monitoring information. Although
the geographic area mat is
nona ttainment for carbon monoxide
may be small, the measures necessary to
meet standards may have to be applied
over a larger area. It is essential to
guard against selecting measures that
will solve the carbon monoxide problem
in a small geographic area, but that will
worsen the ozone problem or simply
transfer the carbon monoxide problem
to another area.
E. Reasonable Further Progress
The July 1982 submittal must
demonstrate that reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the ozone
and carbon monoxide standards will
continue to be made through regular,
consistent emission reductions
throughout the period of nonattainment
The annual emission reductions from the
1980 baseline must at least equal the
emission reductions that would be
achieved through a linear attainment
program to the attainment date. All
controls must be implemented aa
expeditiously as practicable.
Compliance with the reasonable further
progress requirement does not authorize
delays in implementation or adoption of
any measures.
The demonstration of reasonable
further progress must distinguish
between those emission reductions ,
projected to result from mobile sources
and stationary source measures. The
projected reductions to be achieved
from these source categories must be
consistent with the emission reduction
targets established through the
consultation process.
The criteria for approval of the 1979
submittal recognized that there would
be a lag in the early years in achieving
reasonable further progress because
most measures could not achieve
immediate reductions. By 1982, however,
a significant number of the stationary
source controls and transportation
measures included in the 1979 submittal
will be implemented, as will the vehicle
emission I/M program. Accordingly.
each plan must demonstrate reasonable
further progress for each year until
attainment is achieved. No lag period
will be allowed in 1982 and later years,
F. Additional-Control Measures
Required for Attainment
If the minimum control measures
described in subsections B-D are not
adequate to demonstrate attainment by
1987 or achieve reasonable further
progress the state must identify,
evaluate and adopt additional measures
which can be implemented by 1987.
Examples of such measures include the
following:
(1) requiring control of all major
stationary sources to levels more
stringent than those generally regarded
asRACT.
(2) extending controls to stationary
sources and source categories other than
those subject to the minimum control
measures described in subsection B,
(3) implementing a broader range of
transportation controls, and
(4) increasing the coverage and
stringency of the vehicle emission I/M
program.
If implementation of all measures
which can be implemented by 1987 will
still not demonstrate attainment by 1987.
the state should then analyze the
transportation and other measures
possible in a longer time frame that.
together with the measures already
evaluated, will result in attainment by a
specific (post-1987} date. State and local
governments must commit to
implements tin of such measures.
Given the additional time and
potential resources available to areas
with a post-1987 attainment date, more
extensive evidence will be required to
demonstrate that any of the measures
Identified in section 108(f) of the Clean
Air Act is not reasonably available.
Many transportation measures which
are not reasonable by 1987 will become
reasonable by a post-1987 attainment
date. The 108(f) measures ultimately
selected should, both individually and
collectively, be at least as ambitious as
applications of these measures in other
comparable areas. EPA, in consultation
with the DOT, will act as a
clearinghouse in identifying ambitious
performance levels for specific
measures.
The 1982 SIP revision to achieve a
post-1987 emission reduction target must
include a convincing demonstration that
the target cannot be achieved by 1987
and that the post-1987 date is the most
expeditious date possible. The
demonstration must identify the
minimum times needed for planning,
programming, and implementation of
adopted transportation and stationary
source control measures. In addition, the
demonstration must show that projected
resources from available sources
(federal, state, and local) are insufficient
for faster implementation of the
measures.
EPA will use the technical evaluation
prepared by a state to assess whether
areas are making all efforts possible to
attain the ozone and carbon monoxide
standards by 1987. If an area is unable
to attain the ozone and carbon
monoxide NAAQSs by 1987. then the
"most expeditious date beyond 1987"
must be agreed to by state and local
agencies. The transportation and
stationary source control measures
necessary for demonstrating attainment
by the most expeditious date must be
adopted as part of the 1982 SIP
submitted to EPA.
EPA believes that an approach which
requires a state to demonstrate
attainment by a certain date using
measures it is committed to implement
is more in keeping with the spirit of the
Clean Air Act than an approach which
would accept "paper" demonstrations of
attainment by 1987 which relied on
measures which would be virtually
impossible to implement EPA will not
approve plans which rely on such
"impossible" measures to demonstrate
attainment because such plans would
fail to meet the requirement that the
state must be committed to implement
and enforce the plan.
46
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 191 / Tuesday. September 30, 1980 / Proposed Rules 64859
EPA will review plans with post-1987
attainment dates in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. If
EPA concludes that the current
provisions of the Act do not allow
approval of a SDP that provides for
expeditious attainment of standard*
after 1987, EPA intends to seek
legislative changes that will allow such
an approval The nature of any
legislative change that the Agency may
request will be based on a careful
evaluation of the status of state efforts
to develop plans which attain the
standards on or before 1987. One option
for legislative change that EPA will
consider would provide area-specific
schedules and control requirements for
each of the areas that cannot
demonstrate attainment by 1987.
C. Conformity of Federal Actions
Section I76(c) of the Clean Air Act
requires all federal projects, licenses,
permits, financial assistance and other
activities to conform to SEP*. In addition,
section 316(b) requires that the direct
and indirect emissions associated with
any wastewater treatment facility
funded under the Clean Water Act be
accommodated in the SIP. States should
identify, to the extent possible, the
emissions associated with federal
actions, including wastewater treatment
facility grants, that will take place
during the period covered by the SIP. To
help enable determinations of
conformity, the population projection*
OQ which the 1982 SIP revision is based
should be capable of being
disaggregated at the time of project
analysis so that the areas affected by
individual federal actions can be
identified, if the actions are not
explicitly accounted for in the SIP.
0. SIP Development PTOCMB
The Clean Air Act as amended in
1977, and subsequent regulations,
policies and guidance from EPA have
defined specific procedural
requirements for developing SIP .
revisions for nonattainment areas.
Appendix B includes a list of selected
guidance documents that should be used
in the preparation of the 1982 SIP. EPA
regional offices will work with states
and affected local governments during
the preparation of the SIP to help assure
that procedural requirements are
satisfied and that interim products and
activities are completed on a schedule
that will enable the July 1,1982
submittal deadline to be met
A. Consultation Among State and Local
Officials
Section 121 of the Aot requires the
states to provide * process of
consultation with local governments,
organizations of local elected officials,
and federal land managers during
certain actions under the Act, including
preparation of SIP revisions for
nonattainment areas. Section 174 of the
Act requires a joint determination of the
roles that various governmental
agencies will take in the SIP
development, implementation, and
enforcement process. This division of
responsibilities should be completed
early in the process and must be
submitted as a port of die 1982 SIP
revision. Final regulations on sections
174 and 121 (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart M)
were published on lone 18,1979 (44 FR
35176).
B. Establishment of Emission Reduction
Targets
The control strategy for the 1982 SIP
must reflect agreement among affected
state and local officials on the emission
reductions to be achieved. It is
particularly important dial clear
objectives in terms of emission
reduction targets be established for both
stationary and mobile sources. In most
cases, the establishment of emission
reduction targets will occur soon after
the technical evaluation of reasonably
available stationary and mobile source
control measures.
C. Analysis of Alternatives and Their
Effects
In order for decision-makers and the
public to have adequate information
during SIP development alternative
control strategies, including measures
beyond the minimum level of required
controls (see Section I), should be
developed and analyzed. For example,
where a vehicle 1/M program and RACT
applied to ail major stationary sources
will not be sufficient in combination
with reasonably available
transportation measures, to attain
standards, a range of more stringent
stationary and mobile source controls
should be evaluated to determine the
best combination to achieve the
required emission reductions.
The Clean Air Act requires that SIP
submittals include an analysis of air
quality, health, welfare, economic,
energy, and social effects of the SIP and
of the alternative measures considered
during SIP development. EPA believes
that in assessing the effects of
alternative control measures, two
national concerns should receive special
emphasis. These concerns are (1)
conservation of petroleum and natural
gas, and (2) protection of the economies
of declining urban areas. Additional
emphasis on the effects of SIPs on
energy conservation and economies of
distressed urban areas will implement
the intent of Executive Order 12185,
Conservation of Petroleum and Natural
Gas (45 FR 8537, February 7,1880), and
the National Urban Policy.
m. Air Quality and Emission Data Bases
The.requirements for the 1979 SIP
submittal included use of the best data
available at the time of SIP
development Although states generally
complied with this provision, in many
cases the available data base had many
shortcomings. All states will have had
adequate time by 1982 to have an
updated data base.
States will need to have the data
necessary for SIP development
significantly before the July 1,1982
submittal date. To ensure that this effort
receives appropriate priority and
attention, EPA expects states to
complete data collection, analyses, and
documentation by December 31,1981.
Emission inventories should, where
possible, be prepared for a 1980 base
year and projected for the anticipated
year of attainment Population
projections and other forecasts used for
determining growth rates and area wide
emission estimates must be consistent
with the population projections
developed in accordance with the
Agency's cost-effectiveness guideline*
for wastewater treatment facilities (40
CFR Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix A).
The most recent three years of air
quality data from the state and local air
monitoring system network must be
reduced, validated, and summarized hi
the plan submittal. Generally, this will
include all data collected through the
third quarter of 1981. All data from
special studies implemented to support
the modeling effort must also be
compiled, reduced, and documented.
A. Data for Ozone SIP Revisions
EPA previously described the
minimum data that the Agency
anticipated would be necessary to
prepare an ozone modeling effort for
four levels of analyses (44 FR 65667,
November 14,1979). It now appears,
however, that many of the areas
requiring the more sophisticated levels
of modeling will not be able to complete
the more extensive data base collection
efforts required /or these models in rime
to support the 1982 SIP submittal.
Accordingly, every urban area must, at a
minimum, complete a data base
sufficient to support a Level III (city-
specific EKMA) modeling analysis. The
elements of this data base are
summarized in Appendix D.
EPA anticipates that states with
especially severe ozone problems will
need to apply a photochemical
47'
-------
64860 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 191 / Tuesday. September 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules
dispersion model or an equivalent
technique in subsequent modeling
analyses after 1982. Data collection
efforts should be structured to provide
for this contingency.
In order to ensure that all the data
bases will be compatible and that there
is a consistent level of documentation
and quality assurance, state submittals
of environmental data must be
consistent in format and content with
the EPA draft guideline document
Emission Inventory Requirements for
1982 Ozone SIPs.
B. Data for Carbon Monoxide SIP
Revisions
The emission inventory for carbon
monoxide must be of sufficient accuracy
and detail to provide the necessary
input to models, and to determine the
effectiveness of proposed control
measures. The inventory should
normally represent e typical week day
during the worst carbon monoxide
season and should cover the entire
urban area. More detailed inventories
for smaller areas ("hotspots") may be
needed for analyzing specifically
identified problems. The final
acceptability of the inventory developed
will be dependent on the modeling
approach selected and will be judged on
a case-by-case basis.
IV. Modeling
States will need to apply the best
tools available in their 1982 SEP
submittal. The air quality models that
EPA considers acceptable are identified
below.
A. Ozone Models
Photochemical dispersion models
have the greatest potential for
evaluating the effectiveness of ozone
control strategies. This potential arises
primarily from the ability to relate
emissions directly to ambient ozone
concentrations, taking into account
atmospheric chemistry and dispersion.
In most cases, however, data
requirements associated with applying •
these models by 1982 are prohibitive. Of
the generally available, less data
intensive models, only the various
applications of EKMA consider local
meteorological influences and
atmospheric chemistry in evaluating
control requirements. The dry-specific
EKMA approach is the most promising
for 1982 and we propose recommending
its use.
The inability of other simpler models
to adequately consider chemical kinetics
and meteorological parameters reduces
their ability to represent local situations.
Accordingly, EPA will not consider
plans based on linear or proportional
rollback to provide an adequate
demonstration of attainment
B. Carbon Monoxide Models
States and urban areas must estimate
the impact of local and regional control
strategies on carbon monoxide
nonattainment areas and demonstrate
attainment of the carbon monoxide
standard. The generally available
carbon monoxide models are described
in Guideline on Air Quality Models,
April 1978, EPA 450-2-78-027. These
guidelines, and any subsequent updates,
should be followed in preparing a
carbon monoxide attainment analysis.
The acceptability of models other than
those listed in the guideline will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Other models proposed for use must be
adequately documented and validated.
Dated: September 24, I960.
Douglas MCocUe,
Administrator.
AppenoJx A.—Status With Ants Requesting
in Extension Beyond 1982 lor Attaining the
Ozone end Carton Monoxide Standards
Comcttaut
M
. Wd
Onto
NMrMMOa
Appcmfix B-Seiected EPA Guidance for SIP
Development PraosM
The following list identifies selected
EPA guidance for SIP development A
compilation of major EPA guidance for
SIP development is included in the "Air
Programs Policy and Guidance
Notebook." which is distributed to state
and local agencies. Copies of the
notebook are available for copying at
the EPA Public Information Reference
Unit in Washington. D.C. and at each
EPA regional office.
1. Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP
Revisions, memorandum from Douglas
M. Costle, Administrator of EPA to
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X,
February 24,1978 (43 FR 21673).
2. Memorandum of Understanding
Between DOT and EPA Regarding the
Integration of Transportation and Air
Quality Planning, June 1978.
3. EPA-DOT Transportation-Air
Quality Planning Guidelines, June 1978.
4. Inspection/Maintenance Policy,
memorandum from David G. Hawkins to
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X.
July 17.1978.
5. Determination of Emission
Reduction Responsibilities,
memorandum from David G. Hawkins to
Regional Administrators, August 1,1978.
6. General Preamble for Proposed
Rulemaking. April 4.1979 (44 FR 20372).
7.40 CFR Part 51, Subpart M—
Intergovernmental Consultation. June 18,
1979 (44 FR 35176)
a EPA-DOT Expanded Public
Participation Guidelines, May 1,1980 (45
FR 42032).
9. DOT-EPA Procedures for
Confonnance of Transportation Plans.
Programs and Projects with Clean Air
Act State Implementation Plans, June 12,
1980.
10. Policy and Procedures to
Implement Section 316 of the Clean Air
Act as Amended, memorandum from
Douglas M. Costle to Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X July 23,
1980 (45 FR 53382).
Appendix C—Description of Terms Used in
the Transportation-Air Qualify SIP
Development Process*
Adopted Measures
A transportation measure, program, or
policy that state and local planning and
implementing agencies and governments
have agreed to include in the official SIP
submission.
Planning Process
The process defined in the September 17.
1975 Federal Highway Administration
(FHWAHJrfaan Mass Transportation
Administration (UMTA) regulations, the June
1978 EPA-DOT Transportation-Air Quality
Planning Guidelines, and the May 1.1980
EPA-DOT Expanded Public Participation
Guidelines. Through this process
transportation measures are introduced.
evaluated, placed in the Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) or long range
element of the urban transportation plan, and
advanced to the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and the annual element of the
TIP.
Programming Process
The process by which transportation
measures are advanced from the annual
element of the TIP to the capital programs
and budgets of implementing agencies and
then to funding by state and local
48
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 191 / Tuesday, September 30. 1980 / Proposed Rules 64861
governments, FHWA (through the statewide
105 program), or UMTA (through the section 3
and 5 program*).
Expeditious Attainment Date
The attainment date approved In the 1979
SIP submission. This date may be modified If
the analysis of alternatives done as part of
the development of the 1982 SIP submittal
shows that an earlier date is possible through
expeditious implementation of all reasonably
available control measures or that a later
date is necessary because the approved
attainment date cannot be achieved.
Reasonably Available Transportation
Measures
A measure that has been determined to be
beneficial to air quality and which will not
result in substantial and long-term adverse
impacts. These measures need to be adopted
by the affected state and local officials
participating in the planning and
programming processes. The process of
determining reasonably available
transportation measures is analytical,
participatory, and negotiatory, and involves
the public, as well as local, state, and federal
agencies and officials. The analytic part of
the process includes determinations of
technical and economic feasibility.
Expeditious Implementation of Reasonably
•Available Transportation Measures
Implementation by the earliest possible
date considering:
1. The minimum time required to advance
the measure through planning and
programming processes.
2. The minimum time required to obtain
implementation commitments.
3. The minimum time required to construct
(if needed) and begin operation of the
measures.
Implementation Commitments
Certification by those federal, state, and
local agencies with the ability to implement
SIP projects, that: (1) funds to implement the
measure are obligated; and (2) that all
necessary approvals have been obtained.
Identification by the implementing agency of
a date for start of construction (if
appropriate) and a date for start of operation.
Alternatively, the implementation
commitment may include a schedule that
identifies all responsible agencies and all
steps required to advance the measure
through the planning and programming
processes: obligate all federal, state, and
local funds; and obtain all approvals. The
implementing agency must identify a date for
start of construction (if appropriate) and a
date for start of operation.
See pages 5 to 8 of "Checklist for Review of
Transportation Component of 1979 SIP
Submission" for further details.
Justification for Not Adopting a Section JOSff)
Measure
Justification should include:
1. Documentation of air quality, health,
welfare, economic, energy, social and
mobility effects of the measure,
2. Determination that the adverse effects of
the measure will be substantial, widespread,
and long-term.
S. Determination that the measure is not
reasonably available,
4. Demonstration that the air quality
standards can b« expeditiously attained
without the measure.
Monitoring Plan
A monitoring plan provides for periodic
assessments of whether and why or why not
SIP transportation measures are achieving
their projected emission reductions. The
monitoring plan should include: (1)
transportation system performance indicators
that will be used to evaluate measures (e.g.,
regional vehicle miles of travel, regional trip
rates, transit ridership, auto occupancy,
traffic speeds and volumes on selected links),
(2) the frequency of assessments. (3) an
identification of transportation monitoring
data, (4) an identification of transportation
monitoring methods, and (5) a description of
how monitoring data and methods will be
used to assess achievement of projected SIP
transportation measures and to make
decisions on contingency measures.
Contingency Plan
A contingency plan of activities provides
for (1) the accelerated implementation of
additional measures beneficial to air quality
and/or (2) the delay of projects with negative
air quality impacts in the event that expected
emission reductions or air quality
improvements do not occur. The contingency
plan should identify: (1) contingency
measures to be analyzed. (2) analytical and
programming activities to be carried out
before and after a decision to implement a
contingency measure, (3) criteria for deciding
to implement contingency measures, and/or
to delay projects, and (4) commitments to
carry out contingency planning activities by
appropriate agencies. Preparation of this
contingency plan is necessary to carry out the
June I960 EPA-DOT Procedures for
Conformance, developed to implement
section I76(c) of the Clean Air Act
Appendix D—Summary of Minimum Level m
Data Requirements for 1982 Ozone Modeling
Submittal*
A. Emission Data Requirements
1. Spatial Resolution. County-wide
emission inventories for VOCs and nitrogen
oxides (NOJ are needed for a Level in
analysis.
2. Temporal Resolution. Seasonally
adjusted annual emission estimates are
required as part of the Level m data
submittal. Preparation of these estimates is
described in the draft guideline, Emission
Inventory Requirements for the 1982 Ozone
SIPs.
3. VOC Categories. Classification into
reactive species of VOCs is not required for a.
Level HI analysis.
4. Source Category Delineation. It is
necessary to separate the emissions
estimates according to major source
categories such as is described in the draft
guideline. Emission Inventory Requirements
for the 1982 Ozone SIPs. This disaggregation
of estimates is useful for making projections
of future aggregated emissions.
B. Air Quality Data Requirement*
1. Ozone Monitors. (3 sites). Ozone
monitors should be located at (a) one upwind
site, (b) one downwind site at the edge of the
urbanized area, and (c) one downwind site
approximately 15-40 kilometers from the
urbanized area.
2. THC/CH. NO, Monitors (1 site required,
2 sites desirable). Guidance presented in
EPA-450/4-80-011, Guidance for the
Collection of Ambient NMOC Data for Use in
1982 Ozone SIP Development, and Network
Design and Siting Criteria for the NMOC and
NOm Monitors, should be followed.
3. Upwind Precursor Data. Optional air
quality data for Level m are measurements of
ambient NO, and THC/CH at one site
upwind of an urbanized area. These data are
generally unnecessary and are needed only
for unusual cases when it is desirable to take
explicit account of transported precursors in
the analysis. Most studies have indicated that
transported ozone is of greater significance
than transported precursors in contributing to
urban problems. Because of the lack of
precision associated with nonmethane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) estimates from
continuous THC/Cm monitors at low
concentrations, use of these instruments at
upwind sites is not recommended. It is
preferable to collect a limited number of grab
samples, analyze these chromatographically.
and sum species to estimate upwind NMHC
Guidance presented in EPA-450/4-80-008,
Guidance for the Collection and Use of
Ambient Hydrocarbon Species Data in the
Development of Ozone Control Strategies,
should be followed. Continuous measurement
of NO/NO, is appropriate.
C. Meteorological Data Requirements
1. Upper Air and Surface Temperature
Data. Estimates of the morning (8:00 a.m.)
and maximum afternoon mixing heights are
required. Preferably, estimates should be
obtained using the nearest National Weather
Service radiosonde data (if available) in
conjunction with hourly urban surface
temperature data. If radiosonde data are not
available, morning and afternoon mixing
heights can be estimated using AP-101,
"Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Potential
for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the
Contiguous United States."
2. Surface Wind Data. Surface wind data at
two sites (one site located in an area of high
precursor emissions and another outside the
urban core) are required. The wind data are
used to help ensure that the recorded design
value is measured downwind of the city.
(n» Doc. 80-M2M FU«i t-s-n; S45 am)
MUJNO CODE SS60-91-H
49
-------
Friday
October 3, 1980
Part VII
Environmental
Protection Agency
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Addition of
Reference Methods 24 and 25 to
Appendix A
51
-------
65956
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 194 / Friday, October 3, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
40 CFR Part 60
[FRL 1525-7]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Addition of
Reference Methods 24 and 25 to
Appendix A
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action establishes two
new reference methods to be added to
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60,
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources. Reference Method
24 will be used to determine the volatile
organic compound (VOC) content of
coating materials, and Reference
Method 25 will be used to determine the
percentage reduction of VOC emissions
achieved by emission control devices.
These reference methods will be used in
several air pollution regulations for
industrial surface coatings which are
being developed for proposal and
promulgation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3,1980.
ADDRESSES: Background Information
Document. The Background Information
Document (BID) for the promulgated test
methods may be obtained from the U.S.
EPA ybrary (MD-35). Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
"Reference Methods 24 and 25—
Background Information for
Promulgated Test Methods," EPA-450/
3-79-O30C.
Docket. Docket No. A-79-05.
containing all supporting information
and public comments, is available for
public inspection and copying between
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 pm., Monday through
Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section,
Room 2902. Waterside Mall, 401 M
Street SW.. Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gene W. Smith, Standards
Development Branch (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541r5421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary of Reference Methods
Reference Method 24. "Determination
of Volatile Matter Content Water
Content, Density, Volume Solids, and
Weight Solids of Surface Coatings," is
used to determine the volatile matter
content water content, density, volume
solids, and weight fraction solids of
paint, varnish, or related surface
coatings. Several ASTM standard
methods which comprise Method 24 are
used to make these determinations. All
coatings are analyzed by the same
procedure except for the additional step
of measuring the water content of
waterborne (water reducible) coatings.
A data validation procedure is used to
establish precision limits for the coating
analysis. This verifies the ability of the
analyst and the analytical procedure to
obtain reproducible results for the
coatings tested. In addition for
waterborne coatings, the measured
parameters are modified by the
appropriate confidence limits based on
between-laboratory precision
statements.
Reference Method 25, "Determination
of Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organic
Emissions as Carbon," is used to
measure the total gaseous nonmethane
organics in source emissions. An
evacuated cylinder is used to withdraw
emission samples from the stack through
a chilled condensate trap. After
sampling is completed, the contents of
the condensate trap and evacuated
cylinder are analyzed separately. The
organic content of the condensate trap is
oxidized to CO2 which is quantitatively
collected in an intermediate collection
vessel; a portion of the carbon dioxide is
reduced to methane and measured by a
flame ionization detector (FID). A
portion of the sample collected in the
gas sampling tank is injected into a gas
chromatograph which separates the
nonmethane organics from carbon
monoxide, methane, and carbon dioxide;
the nonmethane organics are oxidized to
carbon dioxide, reduced to methane,
and measured by FID. The results of the
analyses are combined and reported as ,
total gaseous nonemethane organics.
Background
On October 5,1979, as an appendix to
the proposed standards of performance
for automobile and light-duty truck
surface coating operations, EPA
proposed reference methods for
analyzing the volatile organic compound
(VOC) content of coatings. These
proposed methods were Reference
Method 24 (Candidate 1) and (Candidate
2). Candidate 1 expresses the VOC
content of surface coating in terms of
mass of carbon. Candidate 2, based on
the use of several ASTM methods,
reports the mass of VOC. Both test
methods were proposed to obtain public
comment.
Reference Method 25 was proposed at
the same time. It measures the volatile
organic emissions in effluent streams
from stationary sources. When used to
measure the inlet and outlet streams of
an emission control device, the
efficiency of the device can be
determined.
These methods would normally be
promulgated with the standards of
performance for automobile and light-
duty truck surface coating operations
which are scheduled to be promulgated
in the fall of 1980. However, the methods
are being promulgated earlier because
several changes have been made to the
proposed methods, and several
regulations are being developed for
proposal in the near future which will
require the use of these methods. This
will allow>the public to have the
opportunity to comment on the use of
these final methods in their respective
industries.
Public Participation
During development of the test
methods, trade and professional
associations and individual companies
supplied information and data on these
methods. After proposal on October 5,
1979, comments were received from
coatings manufacturers and suppliers.
trade and professional associations, and
State air pollution control agencies. The
methods were also discussed at a public
hearing held on November 9,1979. The
public comment period was extended
from October 5,1979, to December 14,
1979.
Public Comments and Changes Made to
Proposed Reference Methods
Fifteen comment letters were received
on the proposed test methods. These
comments have been carefully
considered and, where determined to be
appropriate by the Administrator,
changes have been made in the
proposed test methods. A detailed
discussion of these comments is
contained in the background document
entitled, "Reference Methods 24 and
25—-Background Information for
Promulgated Test Methods," which is
referred to in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble.
General
The Administrator has rejected
proposed Reference Method 24
(Candidate 1) and selected proposed
Reference Method 24 (Candidate 2) as
the test method to be used to determine
the volatile organic content of coatings.
Conclusive data were presented by
commenters showing that certain
coatings representing a significant
portion of those in use could not be
distilled as required by proposed
Method 24 (Candidate 1). For this
reason, the Administrator concluded
that proposed Method 24 (Candidate 1)
is not applicable to all coatings and
should not be selected as the reference
method.
52
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 194 / Friday. October 3, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 65957
Several procedural and editorial
changes have been made to Reference
Method 24 (Candidate 2) and Reference
Method 25 as proposed in order to
clarify and to improve the sampling and
analytical procedures. These changes
are based on additional information
obtained by EPA from experience with
the methods and on the public
comments received.
Reference Method 24
The Following discussion summarizes
the procedural changes made to
proposed Reference Method 24,
Candidate 2. The procedures were
added to protect the source owner from
invalid results that might result from
poor analytical techniques, application
of the method to a coating not suitable
for analysis with Reference Method 24,
or imprecision in Reference Method 24
resulting from a high percentage of
water in the solvent.
The promulgated reference method
requires the analyst to complete
duplicate analyses on each sample
tested. A comparison is then made
between these results and the within-
laboratory precision statements for each
parameter. Duplicate analyses are made
until the results fall within the range
established for the within-laboratory
precision statements. The purpose of the
procedures is to verify that the analyst
can achieve a level of precision for the
coating under analysis equal to or better
than the precision obtained by
experienced analysts participating in the
ASTM studies of the method. Because of
the variety of coatings that may be
subject to analysis, it is possible that
certain coatings may not be amenable to
analysis using Reference Method 24;
that is, in certain cases it may not be
possible to achieve results which meet
the precision limits. In this case, the
method provides for a case-by-case
evaluation and development of a
suitable procedure.
An additional procedure for
waterborne coatings was added to the
promulgated reference method to protect
the source owner or operator from a
determination of noncompliance when
the owner is actually in compliance.
This procedure is needed because the
results of Reference Method 24 are
dependent on the difference between
the weight of total solvents and the
weight of water. As the percent weight
of water increases, the difference
decreases. As a result, any imprecision
in the measurement of the weight of
total solvent in water is magnified in the
calculation of organic solvent content.
For example, if the total solvent of a
coating is measured as 100±2 units and
the water content is measured at 90±2
units, the organic solvent content would
be in the range of 6 to 14 units. The
magnitude of the range, as a percent of
the true organic solvent content,
increases with increasing water content
and could, as shown in the example,
lead to a conclusion of noncompliance
even when the owner is in compliance.
The procedure added to Reference
Method 24 for waterborne coatings
protects the owner or operator from this
erroneous determination by minimizing
the calculated value for VOC content.
This is done, for example, by subtracting
the between-laboratory precision
statement from the average value of x
total solvent and adding file between-
laboratory precision statement to the
average value for water content. Thus, if
a source owner is in compliance based
on average coating values, the
compliance method will automatically
show a lower VOC content because of
the adjustment* made to the average
value* based on the between-laboratory
precision statements.
Based on comments from
manufacturers that ASTM 2897 has only
been shown to be applicable to
architectural coatings, the analytical
procedure for determining volume solids
has been eliminated from Reference
Method 24. The commenters stated that
this ASTM procedure was not
applicable to all the coatings that
Method 24 was intended to cover.
Therefore, Method 24 requires that the
volume solids be calculated from
manufacturer's formulation data.
The coatings classifications step in
the proposed method was eliminated
because industry comments indicated
that it was only necessary to separate
waterborne (water reducible) and
solvent-borne (solvent reducible)
coatings. Therefore, the "Procedure"
discussed in Section 4 of the proposed
method has been simplified.
Several commenters recommended
that the use of coatings manufacturers'
data be allowed in calculating VOC
content of coatings rather than required
Method 24. Coatings manufacturers'
data will be allowed in calculating VOC
content of coatings because this will
reduce the burden on the industry to
measure all coatings with Method 24.
Use of this method to calculate VOC
content of coatings will require
industries to closely monitor and record
all organic solvents added to the
coatings at the plant. Method 24 will be
the reference method.
One commenter suggested that EPA
should specify the volume fraction of
solids for the various types of coatings
similar to the way transfer efficiencies
were listed. Based on comments from
manufacturers that ASTM 2697 has only
been shown to be applicable to
architectural coatings, the volume
fraction of solids determination in
Method 24 has been removed. Method
24 specifies the use of manufacturer's
formulation data for calculating volume
fraction of solids.
Reference Method 25
The majority of the procedural
changes made to Method 25 relate to
calibration requirements and are meant
to improve quality assurance and at the
same time simplify the daily operation
of the analytical equipment. This is
accomplished by requiring performance
tests on the analytical equipment
(nonmethane organic analyzer and
condensate recovery and conditioning
apparatus) prior to initial use; specific
criteria for the performance tests are
provided. Routine daily calibrations
(much less time consuming than
previously required) are conducted and
the results are compared to performance
test reference values to determine
whether the performance of the
analytical equipment is still acceptable.
In the promulgated test method,
several important system components
are not specified; instead, minimum
performance specifications for these
components are provided. The method is
written in this manner to allow
individual preference in choosing
components, as well as to encourage
development and use of improved
components. Therefore, Addendum I
which lists specific information
regarding system components found to
be acceptable has been added to the
method to provide guidance for users.
Specifics of the most important
procedural changes that have been
included in the promulgated test method
are as follows:
1. Section 1.1. Applicability. This
section was rewritten to clarify the
applicability of Method 25 in relation to
several other organic measurement
methods.
2. Section 2.2.2 Nonmethane Organic
• Analyzer. The reference to the analyzer
is changed from "total gaseous
nonmethane organic analyzer" to
nonmethane organic analyzer (NMO).
The description is clarified to indicate
that the NMO analyzer is also used to
quantify COi from trap condensate
recovery. Furthermore, a requirement
that the NMO analyzer meet an initial
performance test with specific criteria is
added. Previously, only demonstration
of "proper separation, oxidation,
reduction and measurement" was
required.
3. Section 4.1.3 Pretest Leak Check.
The leak check procedure is simplified.
Instead of evacuating the sample train.
53
-------
65958 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 194 / Friday. October 3. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
the sample probe is plugged and then
the sample value is opened: the sample
tank vacuum gauge is monitored for a
change in vacuum.
4. Section 4.1.4 Sample Train
Operation. This section is clarified to
indicate that any probe extension used
must be positioned totally in the stack
effluent: any portion of the sample probe
outside the stack wall must be analyzed
as part of the condensate trap.
5. Section 4.1.5 Post Test Leak Check.
The leak check procedure is simplified
(see "3" above).
6. Section 4.3.3 Recovery of
Condensate Trap Sample. A
requirement for mixing auxiliary oxygen
with the carrier gaa just prior to the
catalyst is added. The procedures are
clarified to indicate that the condensate
trap is placed in a muffle furnace at
500°C (changed from 600*C) and that the
probe must be heated.
7. Section 5.1 Initial Performance
Check for Condensate Recovery and
Conditioning Apparatus. A requirement
is added for an initial performance test
of the system which includes a carrier
gas blank value determination (section
5.1.1), and oxidation catalyst efficiency
check (section 5.1.2), and an overall
system performance check via liquid
injections (section 5.1.3). Previously,
only a catalyst efficiency check was
required.
6. Section 5.2 Initial NMO Analyzer
Performance Test. The calibration
criteria for the NMO analyzer are
changed to include an initial
performance test. This performance test
requires an oxidation catalyst check
(5.2.1), and an analyzer linearity check
(5.2.2), determination of a NMO
calibration response factor (5.2.2),
determination of a CO* calibration
response factor (5.2.3), determination of
a NMO blank value (5.2.4) and a system
check using several gaseous organic
compounds (5.2.5).
9. Section 5.3 NMO Daily Calibration.
This section requires that a daily
calibration of the NMO analyzer be
conducted. The calibration involves one
CO, calibration gas and one propane
calibration gas. Response factors are
determined for both CO. and NMO, and
a NMO blank value is measured. This
calibration is conducted with the
oxidation and reduction catalysts in full
operation. The results obtained are
compared to the reference values
obtained during the initial performance
test in order to determine if the analyzer
performance is acceptable. This daily
calibration procedure is greatly
simplified compared to the procedure
previously required which included
bypassing the oxidation and reduction
.catalysts and using several different
concentration levels of methane, carbon
dioxide and propane calibration gases.
10. Section 6.2 Noncondensible
Organics. The calculation for the NMO
concentration of the contents of each
collection tank is changed by rewriting
the equation to include the subtraction
of the daily NMO blank value from the
measured concentration.
11. Section 6.3 Condensible Organics.
The calculation for the NMO
concentration of the contents of each
condensate trap is changed by rewriting
the equation to include the substraction
of the daily condensate recovery and
conditioning system carrier blank value
from the measured CO, concentration.
Other Comments
1. One commenter noted that the
drying time was different for ASTM D-
2369 and ASTM D-2697, and that these
procedures were not consistent with
each other. Since ASTM D-2697 has
been deleted, this comment is no longer
applicable.
2. Three commenters recommended
that the direct use of a flame ionization
detection (FID) system or similar
instrumentation systems be allowed
instead of Method 25. The specific
comments made and EPA's responses
are as follows:
a. Direct FID is simpler and more
precise. While the direct use of an FID
system is simpler than Method 25, it will
not give accurate results in many
situations because the instrument
response varies with different
compounds. Therefore, the FED system
cannot be considered an adequate
reference method, but may be
acceptable as an alternative compliance
procedure on a case-by-case basis as
allowed in 40 CFR 60.8(b).
b. The ability to conduct on-site
analyses and DOT restrictions
associated with shipping organic
samples from a source location to a
laboratory make the FID preferable. The
ability to use the FID system to conduct
on-site analyses is not in itself sufficient
• justification to allow the use of direct
flame ionization detection. DOT
regulations regarding shipment of
hazardous materials do require that
great care be taken in shipping the test
samples. The DOT regulations impose
strict packaging requirements on
flammable liquids and compressed
flammable gases. However, exemptions
for the strict packaging requirements are
permitted for most liquids if less than
one quart is shipped (see 49 CFR
172.101). In addition, the gas sample
tanks likely to be shipped from an on-
site location to a laboratory for analyses
do not meet the DOT definition of a
compressed flammable gas because the
sample tanks are not under high
pressure and. therefore, should not pose
a shipping problem (see 49 CFR 173.300).
Miscellaneous
This final rulemaking is issued under
the authority of Sections 111, 114, and
301 (a) of the Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7411, 7414, and 7601(a)).
Dated: September 25,1980.
Douglas M. Costie,
Administrator.
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60 is
amended by adding Reference Methods
24 and 25 as follows:
Appendix A—Reference Methods
Method 24—Determination of Volatile Matter
Content, Water Content, Density, Volume
Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of volatile matter content,
water content, density, volume solids, and
weight solids of paint, varnish, lacquer, or
related surface coatings.
1.2 Principle. Standard methods are used
to determine the volatile matter content.
water content, density, volume solids, and
weight solids of the paint, varnish, lacquer, or
related surface coatings.
2. Applicable Standard Methods
Use the apparatus, reagents, and
procedures specified in the standard methods
below.
2.1 ASTM D 1475-80. Standard Method of
Test for Density of Paint, Lacquer, and
Related Products.
2.2 ASTM D 2389-81. Provisional Method
of Test for Volatile Content of Paints.
2.3 ASTM D 3792-79. Standard Method of
Test for Water in Water Reducible Paint by
Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph.
2.4 ASTM Provisional Method of Test for
Water in Paint or Related Coatings by the
Karl Fischer Titration Method.
3, Procedure
3.1 Volatile Matter Content. Use the
procedure in ASTM D 2369-81 to determine
the volatile matter content (may include
water) of the coating. Record the following
information:
W,=Weight of dish and sample before
heating, g.
Wi=Weight of dish and sample after heating,
g-
Ws = Sample weight, g.
Run analyses in pairs (duplicate sets) for
each coating until the criterion in section 4.3
is met. Calculate the weight fraction of the
volatile matter (WT) for each analysis as
follows:
Eq. 24-1
Record the arithmetic average fWr).
54
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 194 / Friday, October 3, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 65959
3.2 Wdter Content. For waterborne (water
reducible) coatings only, determine the
weight fraction of water (Ww) using either
"Standard Method of Test for Water in Water
Reducible Paint by Direct Injection into a Gas
Chromatograph" or "Provisional Method of
Test for Water in Paint or Related Coatings
by the Karl Fischer Titration Method." A
waterborne coating is any coating which
contains more than 5 percent water by weight
in its volatile fraction. Run duplicate sets of
determinations until the criterion in section
4.3 is met Record the arithmetic average
(WJ.
3.3 Coating Density. Determine the
density (D,, kg/liter) of the surface coating
using the procedure in ASTM D 1475-60.
Run duplicate sets of determinations for
each coating until the criterion in section 4.3
is met. Record the arithmetic average (DJ.
3.4 Solids Content. Determine the volume
fraction (V.) solids of the coating by
calculation using the manufacturer's
formulation.
4. Data Validation Procedure
4.1 Summary. The variety of coatings that
may be subject to analysis makes it
necessary to verify the ability of the analyst
and the analytical procedures to obtain
reproducible results for the coatings tested.
This is done by running duplicate analyses on
each sample tested and comparing results
with the within-laboratory precision
statements for each parameter. Because of
the inherent increased imprecision in the
determination of the VOC content of
waterborne coatings as the weight percent
water increases, measured parameters for
waterborne coatings are modified by the
appropriate confidence limits based on
between-laboratory precision statements.
4.2 Analytical Precision Statements. The
within-laboratory and between-laboratory
precision statements are given below:
Within.
laboratory
Between-
laboratory
Volatile matter content W... 1 & pet W, 4.7 pet W,.
Water content W, 2.9 pet W, 7.5 pet W,,
Density. D, — 0.001 kg/liter... 0.002 kg/liter.
4.3 Sample Analysis Criteria. For W, and
Ww, run duplicate analyses until the
difference between the two values in a set is
less than or equal to the within-laboratory
precision statement for that parameter. For Dc
run duplicate analyse* until each value in a
set deviates from the mean of the set by no
more than the within-laboratory precision
statement. If after several attempts it is
concluded that the ASTM procedures cannot
be used for the specific coating with the
established within-laboratory precision, the
Administrator will assume responsibility for
providing the necessary procedures for
revising the method or precision statements
upon written request to: Director, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division, (MD-13)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
4.4 Confidence Limit Calculations fur
Waterborne Coatings. Based on the between-
laboratory precision statements, calculate the
confidence limits for waterborne coatings as
follows:
To calculate the lower confidence limit,
subtract the appropriate between-laboratory
precision value from the measured mean
value for that parameter. To calculate the
upper confidence limit, add the appropirate
between-laboratory precision value to the
measured mean value for that parameter. For
W, and DC, use the lower confidence limits,
and for Ww, use the upper confidence limit.
Because V. is calculated, there is no
adjustment for the parameter.
5. Calculations
5.1 Nonaqueous Volatile Matter.
5.1.1 Solvent-borne Coatings.
W0=WV Eq. 24-2
Where:
W0=Weight fraction nonaqueous volatile
matter, g/g.
5.1.2 Waterborne Coatings.
W0=W.-WW Eq. 24-3
5.2 Weight fraction solids.
W,=1-WT Eq. 24-4
Where: W,=Weight solids, g/g.
ft Bibliography
6.1 Provisional Method Test for Volatile
Content of Paints. Available from: Chairman,
Committee D-l on Paint and Related
Coatings and Materials, American Society for
Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. ASTM
Designation D 2369-81.
6.2 Standard Method of Test for Density
of Paint, Varnish, Lacquer, and Related
Products. In: 1980 Book of ASTM Standards,
Part 27. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania, ASTM
Designation D1475-60.1980.
6.3 Standard Method of Test for Water in
Water Reducible Paint by Direct Injection
into a Gas Chromatograph. Available from:
Chairman, Committee D-l on Paint and
Related Coatings and Materials, American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
ASTM Designation D 3792-79.
6.4 Provisional Method of Test Water in
Paint or Related Coatings by the Karl Fischer
Titration Method. Available from: Chairman,
Committee D-l on Paint and Related
Coatings and Materials, American Society for
Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Method 25—Determination of Total Gaseous
Nonmethane Organic Emissions as Carbon
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) as total gaseous
nonmethane organic! (TGNMO) as carbon in
source emissions. Organic paniculate matter
will interfere with the analysis and therefore,
in some cases, an in-stack particulate filter is
required. This method is not the only-method
that applies to die measurement of TGNMO.
Costs, logistics, and other practicalities of
source testing may make other test methods
more desirable for measuring VOC of certain
effluent streams. Proper judgment is required
in determining the most applicable VOC test
method. For example, depending upon the
molecular weight of the organics in the
effluent stream, a totally automated semi-
continuous nonmethane organic (NMO)
analyzer interfaced directly to the source
may yield accurate results. This approach has
the advantage of providing emission data
semi-continuously over an extended time
period.
Direct measurement of an effluent with a
flame ionization detector (FID) analyzer may
be appropriate with prior characterization of
the gas stream and knowledge that the
detector responds predictably to the organic
compounds in the stream. If present, methane
will, of course, also be measured. In practice,
the FID can be applied to the determination
of the mass concentration of the total
molecular structure of the organic emissions
under the following limited conditions: (1)
Where only one compound is known to exist;
(2) when the organic compounds consist of
only hydrogen and carbon; (3) where the
relative percentage of the compounds is
known or can be determined, and the FID
response to the compounds is known: (4)
where-a consistent mixture of compounds
exists before and after emission control and
only the relative concentrations are to be
assessed; or (5) where the FID can be
calibrated against mass standards of the
compounds emitted (solvent emissions, for
example).
Another example of the uae of a direct FID
is as a screening method. If there is enough
information available to provide a rough
estimate of the analyzer accuracy, the FID
analyzer can be used to determine the VOC
content of an uncharacterized gas stream.
With a sufficient buffer to account for
possible inaccuracies, the direct FID can be a
useful tool to obtain the desired results
without costly exact determination.
In situations where a qualitative/
quantitative analysis of an effluent stream is
desired or required, a gas chromatographic
FID system may apply. However, for sources
emitting numerous organics, the time and
expense of this approach will be formidable.
1.2 Principle. An emission sample is
withdrawn from the stack at a constant rate
through a chilled condensate trap by means
of an evacuated sample tank. TGNMO are
determined by combining the analytical
results obtained from independent analyses
of the condensate trap and sample tank
fractions. After sampling is completed, the
organic contents of the condensate trap are
oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO,) which is
quantitatively collected in an evacuated
vessel; then a portion of the CO, is reduced to
methane (CH«) and measured by a FID. The
organic content of the sample fraction
collected in the sampling tank is measured by
injecting a portion into a gas
chromatographic (GC) column to achieve
separation of the nonmethane organics from
carbon monoxide (CO), CO, and CH<; the
nonmethane organics (NMO) are oxidized to
55
-------
65960 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 194 / Friday. October 3. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
CO,, reduced to CH* and measured by a FID.
In this manner, the variable response of the
FID associated with different type's of
organics Is eliminated.
2. Apparatus
Hie sampling system consists of a
condensate trap, flow control system, and
sample tank (Figure 1). The analytical system
consists of two major sub-systems: an
oxidation system for the recovery and
conditioning of the condensate trap contents
and a NMO analyzer. The NMO analyzer is a
GC with backflush capability for NMO
analysis and is equipped with an oxidation
catalyst reduction catalyst and FID. (Figures
2 and 3 are schematics of a typical NMO
analyzer.) The system for the recovery and
conditioning of the organics captured in the
condensate trap consists of a heat source,
oxidation catalyst, nondispersive infrared
(NDIR) analyzer and an intermediate
collection vessel (Figure 4 is a schematic of a
typical system.) TGNMO sampling equipment
can be constructed from commercially
available components and components
fabricated in a machine shop. NMO
analyzers are available commercially or can
be constructed from available components by
a qualified instrument laboratory.
2.1 Sampling The following equipment is
required:
2.1.1 Probe. 3.2-mm OD (Vc-in.) stainless
steel tubing.
2.1.2 Condensate Trap. Constructed of 316
stainless steel: construction details of a
suitable trap are shown in Figure 5.
2.1.3 Flow Shut-off Valve. Stainless steel
control valve for starting and stopping
sample flow.
2.1.4 Flow Control System. Any system
capable of maintaining the sampling rate to
within ±10 percent of the selected Bow rate
(SO to 100 cc/min range).
2.1.5 Vacuum Gauge. Gauge for
monitoring the vacuum of the sample tank
during leak checks and sampling.
2.1.6 Sample Tank. Stainless steel or
aluminum tank with a volume of 4 to 8 liters,
equipped with a stainless steel female quick
connect for assembly to the •ample train and
analytical system.
2.1.7 Mercury Manometer. U-tube
mercury manometer capable of measuring
pressure to within 1 mm Hg in die 0-000 mm
range.
2.1.8 Vacuum Pump. Capable of
evacuating to an absolute pressure of 10 mm
Hg.
2.2 Analysis. The following equipment is
required:
2.2.1 Condensate Recovery and
Conditioning Apparatus. An apparatus for
recovering and catalyticafly oxidizing the
condensate tap contents is required. Figure 4
is a schematic of such a system. The analyst
must demonstrate prior to initial use that the
analytical system is capable of proper
oxidation and recovery, as specified in
section 5.1. The condensate recovery and
conditioning apparatus consists of the
following major components.
£2.11 Heat Source. A heat source
sufficient to heat the condensate trap
(including probe) to a temperature where the
trap turns a "dull red" color. A system using
both a propane torch and an electric muffle-
type furnace is recommended.
2.2.1.2 Oxidation Catalyst A catalyst
system capable of meeting the catalyst
efficiency criteria of this method (section
5.1.2). Addendum I of this method lists a
catalyst system found to be acceptable.
2.2,1.3 Water Trap. Any leak-proof
moisture trap capable of removing moisture
from the gas stream.
2L2.1.4 NDIR Detector. A detector capable
of indicating CO, concentration in the zero to
1 percent range. This detector is required for
monitoring the progress of combustion of the
organic compounds from the condensate trap.
2J2.1.5 Pressure Regulator. Stainless steel
needle valve required to maintain the trap
conditioning system at a near constant
pressure.
2.2.1.6 Intermediate Collection Vessel.
' Stainless steel or aluminum collection vessel
equipped with a female quick connect Tanks
with nominal volumes in the 1 to 4 liter range
are recommended.
23.1.7 Mercury Manometer. U-tube
mercury manometer capable of measuring
pressure to within 1 mm Hg in the 0-900 mm
range.
2.2.1.8 Gas Purifiers. Gas purification
systems sufficient to maintain CO, and
organic Impurities in the carrier gas and
auxiliary oxygen at a level of less than 10
ppm (may not be required depending on
quality of cylinder gases used).
2^2 NMO Analyzer. Semi-continuous
GC/FID analyzer capable of: (1) separating
CO, CO* and CH§ from nonmethane organic
compounds, (2) reducing the CO, to CH« and
quantifying as CH. and (3) oxidizing the
nonmethane organic compounds to CO*
reducing the CO, to CHt and quantifying as
CH.. The analyst must demonstrate prior to
initial use that the analyzer is capable of
proper separation, oxidation, reduction, and
measurement (section 5.2). The analyzer
consists of the following major components:
2.22.1 Oxidation Catalyst. A catalyst
system capable of meeting the catalyst
efficiency criteria of mis method (section
Sil). Addendum I of this method lists a
catalyst system found to be acceptable.
2.2,2.2 Reduction Catalyst A catalyst
system capable of meeting the catalyst
efficiency criteria of mis method (section
5.2.3). Addendum I of this method lists a
catalyst system found to be acceptable.
22.2.3 Separation Columnfs). Gas
chromatographic cohann(s) capable of
separating CO, CO* and CH. from NMO
compounds as demonstrated according to the
procedures established in this method
(section &2J>). Addendum I of this method
lists a column found to be acceptable.
»-» ?, * Sample Injection System. A GC
sample injection vahre fitted with a sample
loop properly sized to interface with the
NMO analyzer (1 cc loop recommended).
12A5 FID. A FID meeting the following
specifications is required.
22 2.M Linearity. A linear response (±
5%) over the operating range at demonstrated
by the procedures established in section 5JJS.
Range. Signal attenuators shall
be available to produce a minimum signal
response of 10 percent of full scale for a full
scale range of 10 to 50000 ppm CH,.
2.2.2.6 Data Recording System. Analog
strip chart recorder or digital integration
system compatible with the FID for
permanently recording the analytical results.
2.2.3 Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or
other barometer capable of measuring
atmospheric pressure to within 1 mm Hg.
2.2.4 Thermometer. Capable of measuring
the laboratory temperature within 1°C.
2.2.5 Vacuum Pump. Capable of
evacuating to an absolute pressure of 10 mm
Hg.
2.2.6 Syringe (2). 10 jJ and 100 ^illiquid
injection syringes.
2.2.7 Liquid Sample Injection Unit. 316 SS
U-tube fitted with a Teflon injection septum.
see Figure 6.
3. Reagents
3.1 Sampling. Crushed dry ice is required
during sampling.
3.2 Analysis.
3.2.1 NMO Analyzer. The following gases
are needed:
3.2.1.1 Carrier Gas. Zero grade gas
containing less than 1 ppm C. Addendum I of
this method lists a carrier gas found to be
acceptable.
3.2.1.2 Fuel Gas. Pure hydrogen.
containing less than 1 ppm C.
3.2.1.3 Combustion Gas. Zero grade air or
oxygen as required by the detector.
3.2.2 Condensate Recovery and
Conditioning Apparatus.
3.2.2.1 Carrier Gas. Five percent O, in N,,
containing less than 1 ppm C.
3.2.2.2 Auxiliary Oxygen. Zero grade
oxygen containing less than 1 ppm C.
3.2.2.3 Hexane. ACS grade, for liquid
injection.
3.2.2.4 Toluene. ACS grade, for liquid
injection.
3.3 Calibration. For all calibration gases,
the manufacturer must recommend a
maximum shelf life for each cylinder (i.e., the
length of time the gas concentration is not
expected to change more than ± 5 percent
from its certified value). The date of gas
cylinder preparation, certified organic
concentration and recommended maximum
shelf life must be affixed to each cylinder
before shipment from the gas manufacturer to
the buyer. The following calibration gases are
required.
3.3.1 Oxidation Catalyst Efficiency Check
Calibration Gas. Gas mixture standard with
nominal concentration of 1 percent methane
in air.
3.3.2 Flame lonization Detector Linearity
and Nonmethane Organic Calibration Gases
(3). Gas mixture standards with nominal
propane concentrations of 20 ppm, 200 ppm.
and 3000 ppm, in air.
3.3.3 Carbon Dioxide Calibration Gases
(3). Gas mixture standards with nominal CO,
concentrations of 50 ppm, 500 ppm, and 1
percent in air. Note: total NMO less than 1
ppm required for 1 percent mixture.
3.3.4 NMO Analyzer System Check
Calibration Gases (4).
3.3.4.1 Propane Mixture. Gas mixture
standard containing (nominal) 50 ppm CO, 50
ppm CHt, 2 percent CO,, and 20 ppm CsH.,
prepared in air.
3.3.4.2 Hexane. Gas mixture standard
containing (nominal) 50 ppm hexane in air.
'56
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 194 / Friday, October 3, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 65961
3.3.4.3 Toluene. Gas mixture standard
containing (nominal) 20 ppm toluene in air.
3.3.4.4 Methanol. Gas mixture standard
containing (nominal) 100 ppm methanol in air.
4. Procedure
4.1 Sampling.
4.1.1 Sample Tank Evacuation and Leak
Check. Either in the laboratory or in the field,
evacuate the sample tank to 10 mm Hg
absolute pressure or less (measured by a
mercury U-tube manometer) then leak check
the sample tank by isolating the tank from
the vacuum pump and allowing the tank to sit
for 10 minutes. The tank is acceptable if no
change in tank vacuum is noted.
4.1.2 Sample Train Assembly. Just prior to
assembly, measure the tank vaccuum using a
mercury U-tube manometer. Record this
vaccum (PJ, the ambient temperature (Tu),
and the barometric pressure (Pu) at this time.
Assuring that the flow shut-oft valve is in the
closed position, assemble the sampling
system as shown in Figure 1. Immerse the
condensate trap body in dry ice to within 2.5
or 5 cm of the point where the inlet tube joins
the trap body.
4.1.3. Pretest Leak Check. A pretest leak
check is required. After the sampling train is
assembled, record the tank vacuum as
indicated by the vaccum gauge. Wait a
minimum period of 10 minutes and recheck
the indicated vacuum. If the vacuum has not
changed, the portion of the sampling train
behind the shut-off valve does not leak and is
considered acceptable. To check the front
portion of the sampling train, assure that the
probe tip is tightly plugged and then open the
sample train flow shut-off valve. Allow the
sample train to sit for a minimum period of 10
minutes. The leak check is acceptable if no
visible change in the tank vacuum gauge
occurs. Record the pretest leak rate (cm/Hg
per 10 minutes). At the completion of the leak
check period, close the sample flow shut-off
valve.
4.1.4. Sample Train Operation. Place the
probe into the stack such that the probe is
perpendicular to the direction of stack gas
flow; locate the probe tip at a single
preselected point If a probe extension which
will not be analyzed as part of the
condensate trap is being used, assure that at
least a 15 cm section of the probe which will
be analyzed with the trap is in the stack
effluent. For stacks having a negative static
pressure, assure that the sample port is
sufficiently sealed to prevent air in-leakage
around the probe. Check the dry ice level and
add ice if necessary. Record the clock time
and sample tank gauge vacuum. To begin
sampling, open the flow shut-off valve and
adjust (if applicable) the control valve of the
flow control system used in the sample train;
maintain a constant flow rate (±10 percent)
throughout the duration of the sampling
period. Record the gauge vacuum and
flowmeter setting (if applicable) at 5-minute
intervals. Select a total sample time greater
than or equal to the minimum sampling time
specified in the applicable subpart of the
regulation; end the sampling when this time
period is reached or when a constant flow
rate can no longer be maintained due to
reduced sample tank vacuum. When the
sampling is completed, close the flow shut-off
valve and record the final sample time and
guage vacuum readings. Note: If the sampling
had to be stopped before obtaining the
minimum sampling time (specified in the
applicable subpart) because a constant flow
rate could not be maintained, proceed as
follows: After removing the probe from the
stack, remove the used sample tank from the
sampling train (without disconnecting other
portions of the sampling train) and connect
another sample tank to the sampling train.
Prior to attaching the new tank to the
sampling train, assure that the tank vacuum
(measured on-site by the U-tube manometer)
has been recorded on the data form and that
the tank has been leak-checked (on-site).
After the new tank is attached to the sample
train, proceed with the sampling until the
required minimum sampling time has been
exceeded.
4.1.5 Post Test Leak Check. A leak check
is mandatory at the conclusion of each test
run. After sampling is completed, remove the
probe from the stack and plug the probe tip.
Open the sample train flow shut-off valve
and monitor the sample tank vacuum gauge
for a period of 10 minutes. The leak check is
acceptable if no visible change in the tank
vacuum gauge occurs. Record the post test
leak rate (cm Hg per 10 minutes). If the
sampling train does not pass the post leak
check, invalidate the run or use a procedure
acceptable to the Administrator to adjust the
data.
4.2 Sample Recovery. After the post test
leak check is completed, disconnect the
condensate trap at the flow metering system
and tightly seal both ends of the condensate
trap. Keep the trap packed in dry ice until the
samples are returned to the laboratory for
analysis. Remove the flow metering system
from the sample tank. Attach the U-tube
manometer to the tank (keep length of
connecting line to a minimum) and record the
final tank vacuum (P,); record the tank
temperature (TJ and barometric pressure at
this time. Disconnect the manometer from the
tank. Assure that the test run number is
properly identified on the condensate trap
and the sample tank(s).
4.3 Condensate Recovery and
Conditioning. Prepare the condensate
recovery and conditioning apparatus by
setting the carrier gas flow rate and heating
the catalyst to its operating temperature.
Prior to initial use of the condensate recovery
and conditioning apparatus, a system
performance test must be conducted
according to the procedures established in
section 5.1 of this method. After successful
completion of the initial performance test, the
system is routinely used for sample
conditioning according to the following
procedures:
4.3.1 System Blank and Catalyst
Efficiency Check. Prior to and immediately
following the conditioning of each set of
sample traps, or on a daily basis (whichever
occurs first) conduct the carrier gas blank test
and catalyst efficiency test as specified in
sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of this method. Record
the carrier gas initial and final blank values,
Bu and Btf, respectively. If the criteria of the
tests cannot be met, make the necessary
repairs to the system before proceeding.
4.3.2 Condensate Trap Carbon Dioxide
Purge and Sample Tank Pressurization. The
first step in analysis is to purge the
condensate trap of any CO> which it may
contain and to simultaneously pressurize the
sample tank. This is accomplished as follows:
Obtain both the sample tank and condensate
trap from the test run to be analyzed. Set up
the condensate recovery and conditioning
apparatus so that the carrier flow bypasses
the condensate trap hook-up terminals,
bypasses the oxidation catalyst, and is
vented to the atmosphere. Next, attach the
condensate trap to the apparatus and pack
the trap in dry ice. Assure that the valves
isolating the collection vessel connection
from the atmospheric vent and the vacuum
pump are closed and then attach the sample
tank to the system as if it were the
intermediate collection vessel. Record the
tank vacuum on the laboratory data form.
Assure that the ND1R analyzer indicates a
zero output level and then switch the carrier
flow through the condensate trap;
immediately switch the carrier flow from vent
to collect. The condensate trap recovery and
conditioning apparatus should now be set up
as indicated in Figure 8. Monitor the NDIR;
when COi is no longer being passed through
the system, switch the carrier flow so that it
once again bypasses the condensate trap.
Continue in this manner until the gas sample
tank is pressurized to a nominal gauge
pressure of 800 mm Hg. At this time, isolate
the tank, vent the carrier flow, and record the
sample tank pressure (P0), barometric
pressure (Pu), and ambient temperature (Tu).
Remove the sample tank from the system.
4.3.3 Recovery of Condensate Trap
Sample. Oxidation and collection of the
sample in the condensate trap is now ready
to begin. From the step just completed in
section 4.3.1.2 above, the system should be
set up so that the carrier flow bypasses the
condensate trap, bypasses the oxidation
catalyst, and is vented to the atmosphere.
Attach an evacuated intermediate collection
vessel to the system and then switch the
carrier so that it flows through the oxidation
catalyst Switch the carrier from vent to
collect and open the valve to the collection
vessel; remove the dry ice from the trap and
then switch the carrier flow through the trap.
The system should now be set up to operate
as indicated in Figure 9. During oxidation of
the condensate trap sample, monitor the
NDIR to determine when all the sample has
been removed and oxidized (indicated by
return to baseline of NDIR analyzer output).
Begin heating the condensate trap and probe
with a propane torch. The trap should be
heated to a temperature at which the trap
glows a "dull red" (approximately 500°C).
During the early part of the trap "burn out,"
adjust the carrier and auxiliary oxygen flow
rates so that an excess of oxygen is being fed
to the catalyst system. Gradually increase the
flow of carrier gas through the trap. After the
NDIR indicates that most of the organic
matter has been purged, place the trap in a
muffle furnance (500°C). Continue to heat the
probe with a torch or some other procedure
(e.g., electrical resistance heater). Continue
this procedure for at least 5 minutes after the
NDIR has returned to baseline. Remove the
heat from the trap but continue the carrier
flow until the intermediate collection vessel
is pressurized to a gauge pressure of 800 mm
-------
65962 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 194 / Friday, October 3, 1980 / Rules and-Regulations
Bg (nominal). When the vessel is pressurized,
vent the carrier measure and record the final
intermediate collection vessel pressure (Pf) as
well as the barometric pressure flV). ambient
temperature (T,), and collection vessel
volume (VT).
4.4 Analysis. Prior to putting the NMO
analyzer into routine operation, an initial •
performance test must be conducted. Start
the analyzer and perform all the necessary
functions in order to put the analyzer in
proper working order, then conduct the
performance test according to the procedures
established in section 5.2. Once the
performance test has been successfully
completed and the CO, and NMO calibration
response factors determined, proceed with
sample analysis as follows:
4.4.1 Daily operations and calibration
checks. Prior to and immediately following
the analysis of each set of samples or on a
daily basis (whichever occurs first) conduct a
calibration test according to the procedures
established in section 5.3. If the criteria of the
daily calibration test cannot^be met, repeat
the NMO analyzer performance test (section
5.2) before proceeding.
4.4.2 Analysis of Recovered Condensate
Sample. Purge the sample loop with sample
and then inject a preliminary sample in order
to determine the appropriate FID attenuation.
Inject triplicate samples from the
intermediate collection vessel and record the
values obtained for the condensible organics
as CO- (C«J.
4.4 3 Analysis of Sample Tank. Purge the
sample loop with sample and inject a
preliminary sample in order to determine the
appropriate FID attenuation for monitoring
the backflushed non-methane organics. Inject
triplicate samples from the sample tank and
record the values obtained for the
nonmethane organics (C^).
5. Calibration and Operational Checks
Maintain a record of performance of each
item.
5.1 Initial Performance Check of
Condensate Recovery and Conditioning
Apparatus.
5.1.1 Carrier Gas and Auxiliary Oxygen
Blank. Set equal flow rates for both the
carrier gas and auxiliary oxygen. With the
trap switching valves in the bypass position
and the catalyst in-line, fill an evacuated
intermediate collection vessel with carrier
gas. Analyze the collection vessel for CO*
the carrier blank is acceptable if the CO,
concentration is less than 10 ppm.
5.1.2 Catalyst Efficiency Check. Set up the
condensate trap recovery system so that the
carrier flow bypasses the trap inlet and is
vented to the atmosphere at the system
outlet Assure that the valves isolating the
collection system from the atmospheric vent
and vacuum pump are closed and then attach
an evacuated intermediate collection vessel
to the system. Connect the methane standard
gas cyclinder (section 3.3.1) to the system's
condensate trap connector (probe end. Figure
4). Adjust the system valving so that the
standard gas cylinder acts as the carrier gas
and adjust the flow rate to the rate normally
used during trap sample recovery. Switch off
the auxiliary oxygen flow and men switch
from vent to collect in order to begin
collecting a sample. Continue collecting a
sample in a normal manner until the
intermediate vessel is filled to a nominal
gauge pressure of 300 mm Hg. Remove the
intermediate vessel from the system and vent
the carrier flow to the atmosphere. Switch the
valving to return the system to its normal
carrier gas and normal operating conditions.
Analyze the collection vessel for CO,; the
catalyst efficiency is acceptable if the CO,
concentration is within ±5 percent of the
expected value.
5.1.3 System Performance Check.
Construct a liquid sample injection unit
similar in design to the unit shown in Figure
6. Insert this unit into the condensate
recovery and conditioning system in place of
a condensate trap and set the carrier gas and
auxiliary oxygen flow rates to normal
operating levels. Attach an evacuated
intermediate collection vessel to the system
and switch from system vent to collect With
the carrier gas routed through the injection
unit and the oxidation catalyst, inject a liquid
sample (see. 5.1 J.I to 5.1.3.4) via the injection
septum. Heat the injection unit with a torch
while monitoring the oxidation reaction on
the NDIR. Continue the purge until the
reaction is complete. Measure the final
collection vessel pressure and then analyze
the Vessel to determine the CO.
concentration. For each injection, calculate
the percent recovery using' the equation in
section 6.6.
The performance test is acceptable if the
average percent recovery is 100 ± 10 percent
with a relative standard deviation (section
6.7) of less than 5 percent for each set of
triplicate injections as follows:
5.1.3.1 100 pi hexane.
5.1.3.2 10 fj hexane.
5.1.3.3 100 jii toluene.
5.1.3.4 10 id toluene.
5.2 Initial NMO Analyzer Performance
Test.
5.2.1 Oxidation Catalyst Efficiency Check.
Turn off or bypass the NMO analyzer
reduction catalyst Make triplicate injections
of the high level methane standard (section
3.3.1). The oxidation catalyst operation is
acceptable if no FID response is noted.
5.2.2 Analyzer Linearity Check and NMO
Calibration. Operating bom the oxidation and
reduction catalysts, conduct a linearity check
of the analyzer using the propane standards
specified in section 3.3. make triplicate
injections of each calibration gas and then
calculate the average response factor (area/
ppm C) for each gas, as well as the overall
mean of the response factor values. The
instrument linearity is acceptable if the
average response factor of each calibration
gas is within ± 5 percent of the overall mean
value and if the relative standard deviation
(section 6.7) for each set of triplicate
injections is less than ± 5 percent Record the
overall mean of the propane response factor
values as the NMO calibration response
factor (RFimo).
5.2.3 Reduction Catalyst Efficiency Check
and CO, Calibration. An exact determination
of the reduction catalyst efficiency is not
required. Instead, proper catalyst operation is
indirectly checked and continuously
monitored by establishing a CO, response
factor and comparing it to the NMO response
factor. Operating both the oxidation and
reduction catalysts make triplicate injections
of each of the CO, calibration gases (section
3.3.3). Calculate the average response factor
(area/ppm) for each calibration gas, as well
as the overall mean of the response factor
values. The reduction catalyst operation is
acceptable if the average response factor of
each calibration gas is within ± 5 percent of
the overall mean value and if the relative
standard deviation (section 6.7) for each sel
of triplicate injections is less than ± 5
percent. Additionally, the CO, overall mean
response factor must be within ± 10 percent
of the NMO calibration response factor
(RFmio) calculated in section 5.2.2. Record the
overall mean of the response factor values as
the CO, calibration response factor (RFcw>)
5.2.4 NMO System Blank. For the high
level CO, calibration gas (section 3.3.3)
record the NMO value measured during the
CO, calibration conducted in section 5.2.3.
This value is the NMO blank value for the
analyzer (BJ and should be less than 10 ppm.
5.2.5 System Performance Check. Check
the column separation and overall
performance of the analyzer by making
triplicate injections of the calibration gases
listed in section 3.3.4. The analyzer
performance is acceptable if the measured
NMO value for each gas (average of triplicate
injections) is within ± 12 percent of the
expected value.
5.3 NMO Analyzer Daily Calibration.
5.3.1 NMO Blank and CO,. Inject
triplicate samples of the high level CO,
calibration gas (section 3.3.3) and calculate
the average response factor. The system
operation is adequate if the calculated
response factor is within ± 10 percent of the
RFco, calculated during the initial
performance test (section 5.2.2). Use the daily
response factor (DRF^) for analyzer
calibration and the calculation of measured
CO, concentrations in the collection vessel
samples. In addition, record the NMO blank
value (BJ; this value should be less than 10
ppm.
5.3.2 NMO Calibration. Inject triplicate
samples of the mixed propane calibration
cylinder (section 3.3.4.1) and calculate the
average NMO response factor. The system
operation is adequate if the calculated
response factor is within ± 10 percent of the
RFmio calculated during the initial
performance test (section 5.2.1). Use the daily
response factor (DRFKMO) for analyzer
calibration and calculation of NMO
concentrations in the sample tanks.
5.4 Sample Tank. The volume of the gas
sampling tanks used must be determined.
Prior to putting each tank in service,
determine the tank volume by weighing the
tanks empty and then filled with deionized
distilled water weigh to the nearest 5 gm and
record the results. Alternatively, measure the
volume of water used to fill the tanks to the
nearest 5 ml
5.5 Intermediate Collection Vessel. The
volume of the intermediate collection vessels
used to collect OO» during the analysis of the
condensate traps must be determined. Prior
to putting each vessel into service, determine
the volume by weighing the vessel empty and
then filled with deionized distilled water:
weigh to the nearest 5 gm and record the
results. Alternatively, measure the volume of
water used to fill the tanks to the nearest 5
ml
BILLING CODE 6S60-01-M
58
-------
6. Calculations
Note: All equations are written using absolute pressure;
absolute pressures are determined by adding the measured barometric
pressure to the measured gauge pressure.
6.1 Sample Volume. For each test run, calculate the gas
volume sampled:
Vs « 0.386 V
M
vt Tti;
6.2 Noncondenslble Organlcs. For each sample tank, determine
the concentration of nonmethane organlcs (ppm C):
ptf
T*
ti
pt pti
: r
*A
S'8'
6.3 Condenslble Organlcs. For each condensate trap determine
the concentration of organlcs (ppm C):
\ c
BILLING CODE 6560-01-C
6.4 Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organlcs (TGNMO). To determine
the TGNMO concentration for each test run, use the following
equation:
c'Ct*Cc
6.5 Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organlcs (TGNMO) Mass
Concentration. To determine the TGNMO mass concentration as
carbon for each test run, use the following equation:
yo
a
6.6 Percent Recovery. To calculate the percent recovery for
the liquid Injections to the condensate recovery and conditioning
system use the following equation:
M Vv Pf Ccm
Z
P
S
£
p=
percent recovery -1.6 j- j- 77 -jr-
6.7 Relative Standard Deviation.
.100 JZ (X1 *
•a- V n -
%
o-
ff.
o
3
CO
8
-------
65964 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 194 / Friday. October 3. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
Where:
B.=Measured NMO blank value for NMO
analyzer, ppm C.
B^Measured CO, «-* «"- " «*—
uvd cMritfloalu tyium cutter n*. >pm CO(
C-total gaseous nonmethane organic
(TGNMO) concentration of the effluent,
ppm C equivalent
Cc=Calculated condensible organic
(condensate trap] concentration of the
effluent ppm C equivalent
Co.=Measured concentration (NMO
analyzer) for the condensate trap
(intermediate collection vessel), ppm
CO,.
C,=Calculated noncondensible organic
concentration (sample tank) of the
effluent ppm C equivalent
C^=Measured concentration (NMO
analyzer) for the sample tank, ppm NMO.
L= Volume of liquid injected, microliters.
M=Molecular weight of the liquid injected,
g/g-mole.
Me=total gaseous non-methane organic
(TGNMO) mass concentration of the
effluent mg C/dscm.
N=Carbon number of the liquid compound
injected (N=7 for toluene, N=B for
hexane).
P,=Final pressure of the intermediate
collection vessel, mm Hg absolute.
P,i = Gas sample tank pressure prior to
sampling, mm Hg absolute.
P,=Gas sample tank pressure after sampling,
but prior to pressurizing, mm Hg
absolute.
Pu=Final gas sample tank pressure after
pressurizing, mm Hg absolute.
T(—Final temperature of intermediate
collection vessel, "K.
T,,=Sample tank temperature prior to
sampling, *K.
T, =Sample tank temperature at completion
of sampling, "K.
Ttt=Sample tank temperature after
pressurizing *K.
V = Sample tank volume, cm.
V, = Intermediate collection vessel volume.
cm.
V.-Gas volume sampled, dscm.
n=Number of data points.
q -Total number of analyzer injections of
intermediate collection vessel during
analysis (where k=injection number. 1
-,.q).
r—Total number of analyzer injections of
sample tank during analysis (where
j = injection number. 1. . . r).
x,=Individual measurements.
X=Mean value.
p=Density of liquid injected, g/cc.
7. Bibliography
7.1 Salo. Albert E.. Samuel Witz, and
Robert D. MacPhee. Determination of Solvent
Vapor Concentrations by Total Combustion
Analysis: A Comparison of Infrared with
Flame ionization Detectors. Paper No. 75-33.2
(Presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the
Air Pollution Control Association. Boston,
MA, June 15-20.1975.) 14 p.
7.2 Salo. Albert E., William L Oaks, and
Robert D. MacPhee. Measuring the Organic
Carbon Content of Source Emissions for Air
Pollution Control. Paper No. 74-190.
(Presented at Ihr 67th Annual Meeting of the
Air Pollution Control Association. Denver,
CO. June 9-13,1974.) 25 p.
Method 25
Addendum I. System Components
In test Method 25 several important system
components are not specified; instead
minimum performance specifications are
provided. The method is written in this
manner to permit individual preference in
choosing components, as well as to
encourage development and use of improved
components. This addendum is added to the
method in order to provide users with some
specific information regarding components
which have been found satisfactory for use
with the method This listing is given only for
the purpose of providing information and
does not constitute an endorsement of any
product by the Environmental Protection
Agency. This list is not meant to imply that
other components not listed are not
acceptable.
1. Condensate Recovery and Conditioning
System Oxidation Catalyst %" ODxl4"
inconel tubing packed with B inches of
hopcalite' oxidizing catalyst and operated at
800*C in a tube furnace. Note: At this
temperature, this catalyst must be purged
with carrier gas at all times to prevent
catalyst damage.
2. NMO Analyzer Oxidation Catalyst. V4"
ODX14" inconel tubing packed with 6 inches
of hopcalite oxidizing catalyst and operated
at 800'C in a tube furnace. (See note above.)
3. NMO Analyzer Reduction Catalyst.
Reduction Catalyst Module; Byron
Instruments, Raleigh, N.C
4. Gas Chromatographic Separation
Column. % inch OD stainless steel packed
with 3 feet of 10 percent methyl silicone, Sp
2100 (or equivalent) on Supelcoport (or
equivalent), 80/100 mesh, followed by 1.5 feet
Porapak Q (or equivalent) 60/80 mesh. The
inlet side is to the silicone. Condition the
column for 24 hours at 200°C with 20 cc/min
N, purge.
During analysis for the nonmethane
organics the separation column is gperated as
follows: First operate the column at — 78°C
(dry ice bath) to elute CO and CH* After the
CH. peak operate the column at 0*C to elute
CO,. When the CO, is completely eluted,
switch the carrier flow to backflush the
column and simultaneously raise the column
temperature to 100'C in order to elute all
nonmethane organics (exact timings for
column operation are determined from the
calibration standard).
Note.—The dry ice operating condition
may be deleted if separation of CO and CH«
is unimportant
Note.—Ethane and ethyjene may or may
not be measured using this column; whether
or not ethane and ethylene are quantified will
depend on the CO, concentration in the gas
sample. When high levels of CO, are present.
ethane and ethylene will elute under the tail
of the CO, peak.
5. Carrier Gas. Zero grade nitrogen or
helium or zero air.
MLLMOCOM
•MSA registered trademark.
60
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 194 / Friday, October 3, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 65985
PROBE
EXTENSION
(IF REQUIRED)
•a-
STACK
WALL
11
VACUUM
GAUGE
FLOW
RATE
CONTROLLER
J^Sy VALVE
CONNECTOR
l__ „,,, „
CONDENSATE
TRAP
OUICK a
connEcrO
EVACUATED
SAMPLE
TANK
Figure 1. Sampling apparatus.
61'
-------
65966 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 194 / Friday. October 3,1980 / Rules and Regulations
CARRIER GAS
CALIBRATION STANDARDS.
SAMPLE TANK.
INTERMEDIATE
COLLECTION
VESSEL
(CONDITIONED TRAP SAMPLE)
SAMPLE
INJECTION
LOOP
HYDROGEN
COMBUSTION
AIR
Figure 2. Simplified schematic of non-methane organic (NMO) analyzer.
'62
-------
SAMPLE / CALIBRATION
TANK / CYLINDERS
SEPARATION
COLUMN
NONMETHANE
ORGANIC
(BACKFLUSH)
CATALYST
BYPASS
QUICK
CONNECT
ZERO
AIR
OR
5 percent
02/N2
COLUMN
BACKFLUS
VALVE
CATALYST
BYPASS VALVE
SAMPLE
INJECT
VALVE
OXIDATION
CATALYST
HEATED
CHAMBER
PURIFICATION
CATALYST
BYPASS
FLOW
REGULATOR
CATALY
BYPASS
VALVE
REDUCTION
CATALYST
HEATED CHAMBER
L
DATA
RECORDER
I
4.
o>
o
8"
cr
0)
FLOW
METER
50
5"
O3
0
o.
JO
I
5T
a
o
S
Figure 3. Nonmethane organic (NMO) analyzer.
8?
-------
65968 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 194 / Friday, October 3,1980 / Rules and Regulations
FLOW
^CONTROL
1 VALVES \
CONNECTORS^
4WAY
VALVES-'
SAMPLE
CONOENSATE
TRAP
CARRIER
IS percent
0?/N2
REGULATING
VALVE
* FOR MONITORING PROGRESS
OF COMBUSTION ONLY
QUICK
CONNECT
VALVE
VACUUM"
PUMP
H20
TRAP
MERCURY
MANOMETER
INTERMEDIATE
COLLECTION
VESSEL
FOR EVACUATING COLLECTION
VESSELS AND SAMPLE TANKS
(OPTIONAL)
Figure 4. Condensate recovery and conditioning apparatus.
64
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 194 / Friday. October 3. 1980 / Rul
CONNECTOR
EXIT TUBE. 6mm (V. in) 0.0.
NO.40 HOIE
(THRU BOTH WALLS)
PROBE, 3mm (1/8 in) 0.0.
INLET TUBE. Srarn 04 in) 0.0.
WELDED JOINTS
CRIMPED AND WELDED GAS TIGHT SEAL
BARREL 19mm I1/, in) O.D. X 140mm (5-% in) LONG,
1.5mm (1/16 in) WALL
(CQNH
CONNECTOR
^BARREL PACKING. 316 SS WOOL PACKED TIGHTLY
AT BOTTOM. LOOSELY AT TO/
HEAT SINK (NUT. PRESS FIT TO BARREL)
WELDED PLUG
MATERIAL: TYPE 316 STAINLESS STEEL
Figure 5 Condensate
-------
86970 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 194 / Friday, October 3,1980 / Rules and Regulations
INJECTION
SEPTUM
CONNECTING T
FROM
CARRIER
AffROX.
IS cm (6 in)
CONNECTING
ELBOW
TO
CATALYST
N
6 mm (1/4 in)
316 SS TUBING
Figure 6. Liquid sample injection unit.
66
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 194 / Friday, October 3,1980 / Rules and Regulations
65971
VOLATILE ORGANIC CARBON
FACILITY
LOCATION
DATF
TANK NUMBER
SAMPLE LOCATION
OPERATOR
R(IM NMMBFR
TRAPNUMfiFR
SAMPIFIPNIIMBFR
TANK VACUUM,
mm Hg cm Hg
PRETEST (MANOMETER)
POST TEST (MANOMETER)
(GAUGE)
(RAIIGF)
BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE,
mm Hg
AMBIENT
TEMPERATURE,
°C
LEAK RATE
cm Hg / 10 min
TIME
CLOCK/SAMPLE
PBFTFST
POSTTFST .
GAUGE VACUUM,
cm Hg
FLOWMETER SETTING
*
COMMENTS
'
Figure 7. Example Field Data Form.
-------
65972
Federal Restate / Vol. 45. No. 194 / Friday. October 3,1980 / Rules and Regulations
(CLOSED)
VACUUM**
PUMP
REGULATING
VALVE
(OPEN)
QUICK
CONNECT
MERCURY
MANOMETER
FOR MONITORING PROGRESS
OF COMBUSTION ONLY
«2°
TRAP
•FOR EVACUATING COLLECTION
VESSELS AND SAMPLE TANKS
(OPTIONAL)
Figure 8. Condensate recovery and conditioning apparatus, carbon dioxide purge.
<68.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 194 / Friday, October 3, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
65973
(CLOSED)
H20
TRAP
VACUUM
PUMP
MERCURY
MANOMETER
IIUTFRMEDIATE
' «««BMEI 31 ATE
•FOR EVACUATING COLLECTION
VESSELS AND SAMPLE TANKS
(OPTIONAL)
Figure 9. Condensate recovery and conditioning apparatus, collection of trap organics.
|FR Doc eo-30716 Hied 10-2-6a 6:45 am|
MLUNG CODE 6560-01-C
69
-------
Wednesday
June 11, 1980
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency-
Organic Solvent Cleaners; Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources;
Proposed Rule and Notice of Public
Hearing""
71
-------
39766
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11.1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPart60
FRL 1375-3]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources Organic Solvent
Cleaners
AGENCY: Environmental-Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.
SUMMARY: The proposed standards
would limit emissionsof volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and trichloroethylene
1,1.1-trichloroethane, perchloroethylene,
methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane from new,
modified, and reconstructed organic
solvent cleaners (degreasers) in which
solvents are used to dean (degrease)
metal, plastic, fiberglass, or any other
type of material. The proposed
standards would specify several
equipment designs and work practices
*" for controlling emissions from cold ~"
~ cleaners, open top vapor degreasers.
and conveyorizea degreasers. When
carbon adsoroer control systems are
used, a performance standard would
also apply. To determine the emissions
from carbon adsorbers, a new test
method. Reference Method 23. is _
'proposed to measure the concentration
of the a Dove mentioned halogenated~
compoundsTand R°ft'"'fflr» ^ofh"H ** _
which was proposed on October 5.1979
[44 r'K &r/U2j would be used to measure
emissions otvOc.~
- ihe proposed standards implement
the Clean Air Act and are based on the
Administrator's determination that
organic solvent cleaners contribute
significantly to air pollution. The intent
is to require new, modified, and
reconstructed organic solvent cleaners
to use the best demonstrated system of
continuous emission reduction.
considering costs, nonair quality health.
and environmental and energy impacts.
It is also proposed that standards be
developed under section 11 ltd) of the
Clean Air Act. as amended, for the
control of emissions from existing
facilities of the five halogenated organic
solvents listed above-EPA is not
Committed to'developingsectionlll(d)
standards unless, after review of public
comments, standards tor one or more oi
these five solvents are promulgated for
new, modified, or reconstructed
facilities. If such standards were
promulgated. EPA would develop a
guideline document that would require
States to develop emission control
regulations for existing organic solvent
cleaners which ase any of the five
halogenated solvents to which the
promulgated regulations would apply.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before August 25,1980.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held on July 24,1960, beginning
at 9:00 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
contact EPA by July 17,1980.
SSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted [in duplicate if
possible] to the Central Docket Section
(A-130), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401M Street S.W..
Washington, D.C 20460, Attention:
Docket No. OAQPS-78-12.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at Research Triangle Park.
North Carolina, in the EPA
Environmental Research Center
auditorium (Room B-102). Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
notify Deanna Tilley, Standards
Development Branch (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711, telephone number. (919) 541-5421.
Background Information Document.
The Background Information Document
(BID) for the proposed standards may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
* (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2777. Please refer to Organic
Solvent Cleaners—Background
Information far Proposed Standards
(EPA-450/2-78-045a).
Docket. Docket number OAQPS-78-
12, containing supporting information
used by EPA in development of the
proposed standards, is available for
public inspection between 8:00 a-m. and
4:00 pjn., Monday through Friday, at
EPA's Central Docket Section, Room
2903B. Waterside Mall 401M Street.
S.W.. Washington. D.C 20460.
POM Rumen INFOHMATION CONTACT:
Mr. John D. Crenshaw. Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13). Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. telephone number (919)
541-5421.
SUmjEMENTAHYMFOmiATIOM:
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards would limit
the emissions of organic solvents from
new. modified, and reconstructed
degreasers in which solvents are used to
clean and degrease metal, plastic,
fiberglass, or any other type of material.
Three types of degreasers would be
regulated: cold cleaners, open top vapor
degreasers, and conveyorized
degreasers. The proposed regulations
consist of a combination of design,
equipment work practice, and
operational standards that allow for the
best emission control and enforceability.
Each type of degreaser would be
required to have specific features for
effectively reducing emissions. Pollution
control devices for degreasers would
include covers, raised freeboards,
refrigerated freeboard devices and
carbon adsorption systems. Work
practices and operational procedures
would also be required for each type of
degreaser. These practices and
procedures would assure the maximum
effectiveness of a specific piece of
control equipment and would require
use of techniques that reduce solvent
emissions.
An inspection and maintenance
program would also be required to
prevent and correct solvent losses from
leaks and equipment malfunctions. An
operator training program is a proposed
requirement because proper equipment
operation and work practices play a
significant role in effective control of
solvent emissions from degreasers.
Finally, owners and operators would be
required to keep records on the amount
and type of solvent purchased for a
period of two years.
Summary of Environmental, Economic,
and Energy Impacts
Environmental Impact The proposed
standards would reduce emissions of
organic solvents (i.e., volatile organic
compounds, trichloroethylene, 1,1.1-
trichloroethane. perchloroethylene,
methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane) from all
degreasing units for which construction
was commenced after (date of proposal).
Affected facilities that come on-line
between 1980 and 1985 would emit an
estimated 332,000 megagrams (366.000
tons) of organic solvents in 1985, if the
degreaser units are uncontrolled. With
implementation of the proposed
regulations, controlled emissions from
these facilities would be 120,000
megagrams (132,000 tons) in 1985, which
constitutes a reduction of 64 percent
The only potentially adverse impact
on water quality of the proposed
regulation would derive from the solvent
dissolved in the steam condensate from
regeneration (solvent desorption) of
carbon adsorbers. Because the solubility
of solvent in the condensate is very
all, the amount of dissolved solvent is
72
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1960 / Proposed Rules 39767
slightly greater than one-tenth of one
percent (0.1%} of the amount which
would be discharged into the air if the
proposed controls were not
implemented. In a typical system, the
carbon adsorber has a solvent capacity
of 95 kilograms [210 pounds], and
requires 3 kilograms (6.8 pounds) of
steam to desorb each kilogram of
solvent. Although desorption generates
approximately 283 liters {10 cubic feet)
of steam condensate per cycle, most
solvent would be recovered by a water
separator. Only 74 grams (0.16 pound) of
solvent per day is expected to be lost in
the waste stream from a typical carbon
adsorber. The environmental impact of
the disposal of this small amount of
condensate is insignificant. Alternatives
are under consideration by EPA for
controlling the solvent in the effluent
from desorption of a carbon adsorber.
EPA may establish regulations
pertaining to these effluents in the
future.
The only solid waste impact due to
implementation of the proposed
standards would be disposal of the
spent carbon from the carbon adsorbers
used as air pollution control devices on
certain types of degreasers. With
replacement of spent carbon every 10
years, disposal of spent carbon from
carbon adsorbers on affected facilities
would amount to 243 megagrams (268
tons) nationwide starting in 1989 and
would increase to 271 megagrams (299
tons) in 1995. Therefore, the solid waste
impact from spent carbon would be
minimal.
Economic Impact The costs of
compliance with the proposed standards
are based on control equipment
currently in use and commercially
available. Economic analysis indicates
that, under most conditions, the capital
and annualized costs for the control
equipment can be fully recovered by
credits for the recovered solvent.
Consequently, no adverse economic
impact is anticipated to result from
implementation of the proposed
standards. The economic impact, may,
in fact, be positive in the sense that net
credits lead to lower production costs in
most, if not all, industries. Methods to
reduce solvent consumption and save
money generally have not been
accomplished in the past since
degreasing costs generally average less
than four-tenths of one percent of
industry output.
Energy Impact. Energy consuming
emission control devices for degreasing
operations would include (1)
refreigerated freeboard devices, (2)
carbon adsorption systems, and (3) •
distillation equipment. Operation of
these control devices in 1985 is
estimated to require about 0.27 million
kWh per day (equivalent to 440 barrels
of oil per day); however, the proposed
standards would result in the prevention
or capture of degreaser emissions. Based
upon the amount of energy that would
have been required to manufacture
replacement solvent, use of the required
control devices on new organic solvent
cleaners would conserve an estimated
3800 barrels of oil per day. Thus, the
proposed standards in 1985 would result
in a net conservation of energy
equivalent to an estimated 3350 barrels
of oil per day.
Rationale—Selection of Source for
Control
Organic solvent cleaners (degreasers)
have been identified as significant
sources of air pollutant emissions which
cause or contribute to the endangerment
of the public health or welfare.
Degreasing is not an industry but is an
integral part of many manufacturing,
repair, and maintenance operations.
Volatile organic compounds, as well as
1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichlorotrifluoroethane, methylene
chloride, trichlorethylene, and
perchloroethylene constitute the
emissions from organic solvent cleaners.
"There were an estimated 725,000
megagrams (800,000 tons) of organic
solvents emitted from organic solvent
cleaning operations in 1975. This
represents about 4 percent of the total
national volatile organic emissions from
stationary sources, making organic
solvent cleaners the fifth largest
stationary source category for organic
emissions. There are over 1,500,000
organic solvent cleaners currently in
operation. If the current growth rate of
4.1 percent per year continues as
expected, over 300,000 new organic
solvent cleaners would be subject to
these standards of performance by 1985.
Degreasing emissions include losses
due to evaporation from the solvent
bath, convection, carryout, leaks, and
waste solvent disposal. Thus, the
emissions from a degreaser are fugitive
in nature. Many of the degreasers
'currently in use are operated without
proper control emissions to the
atmosphere. Emissions from degreasers
may be controlled by the use of various
equipment options (including a cover,
extended freeboard, refrigerated
freeboard device, and carbon adsorber)
and specific work practices (involving
parts handling, proper use and
maintenance of equipment, preventing
drafts, and controlling the rate of the
degreasing operation).
Based on the large number of sources
and their wide geographic distribution
across the United States, the current
sales and projected growth rate in the
"industry" and the possible reduction in
adverse environmental and health
impacts which can be achieved, organic
solvent cleaners have been selected for
control through the development of
standards of performance.
Selection of Affected Facilities
Organic solvent cleaning is not a
specific industry but is an integral part
of many manufacturing, repair, and
maintenance operations. Practically
every business that works metal or has
maintenance or repair operations does
some type of degreasing. Degreasing
operations are often concentrated in
urban areas where there are a large
number of manufacturing facilities.
The solvents used in degreasing
operations include halogenated
hydrocarbons, petroleum distillates,
ketones, ethers, and alcohols. These
solvents are emitted as fugitive
emissions from each of the three types
of degreasers which would be regulated:
(1) a cold cleaner, in which the article to
be cleaned is immersed, sprayed or
otherwise washed in a solvent at or
about room temperature; (2) an open top
vapor degreaser, in which the article is
suspended in solvent vapor over a pool
of boiling solvent and the solvent vapors
condense on the article and dissolve or
wash soil and grease from it; and (3) a
conveyorized degreaser, in which
articles are conveyed on a chain, belt or
other conveying system either through a
spray or pool of cold solvent, or through
the vapor of a boiling solvent. In order
to achieve significant reduction in
volatile organic compound emissions
from degreasing operations, all types of
new, modified, or reconstructed
degreasers would subject to control.
The mode of disposal of waste solvent
can also contribute significantly to
solvent emissions. In the past, disposal
has generally been handled by the
owners of organic solvent cleaners. If
waste solvent disposal in 1985 were to
follow the pattern of waste solvent
disposal in 1974, about 43 percent of the
waste solvent from new sources would
be reclaimed, incinerated, landfilled and
the remaining 57 percent could be an
immediate source of air or water
emissions.
A number of alternatives for
regulating waste disposal have been
considered. These include requiring
incineration or reclamation, and
establishment of standards under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Because of the impact on
these small sources of requiring
reclamation or incineration, regulation
here is not now planned. Rather, the
7S
-------
39768
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11, 1980 / Proposed Rules
Administrator is deferring at tins time
on waste disposal requirements and is
pursuing this matter under RCRA. The
section on waste disposal is being
reserved, however, pending completion
of the evaluation and resolution of the
issues.
Selection of Pollutants and Regulatory
Approach
Among the solvents used in
degree sing operations, approximately 40
percent are non-balogenated
hydrocarbons and €0 percent are
halogenated hydrocarbons. Most of
these solvents are also reactive volatile
organic compounds (VOC). defined by
this proposal as organic compounds
which participate in atmospheric
photochemical reactions or which may
be measured by the applicable reference
method specified under any subpart of
40 CFR Part 60. Hie proposed standards
of performance apply to reactive VOC
(ozone precursors) used ax cleaning
solvents and to five halogenated
compounds for which mere is a
reasonable anticipation of public health
endangerment
Reactive Volatile Otgamc Compounds
(VOC).
The proposed standards require
control of any VOC demonstrated to be
precursors to the formation of ozone and
other photochemical oxidants in the
atmosphere. While not all compounds
are equally reactive, analysis of
available data indicates that very few
VOC are of such low photochemical
reactivity that they can be ignored in
oxidant control programs. EPA'a
"Recommended Policy on Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds" (42 FR
35314; July 8, 1977} affirmed that many
compounds which produced negligible
oxidant concentrations during initial
smog chamber tests were found to
contribute appreciably to ozone levels
when exposed to multiday irradiations
in urban atmospheres. In those
geographical areas where industrial and
automotive emissions are subjected lo
long hours of sunlight, or where air
stagnation occurs frequently, such low
reactivity compounds may become
significant source of photochemical
oxidant.
EPA is developing standards of
performance under section lll(b) Cor a
number of categories of sources which
emit these volatile organic compounds,
which are ozone precursors. Ozone air
pollution endangers the public health
and welfare, as reflected in the
Administrator's promulgation of a
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for ozone (44 FR 8202 February & 1979).
Emissions of ozone precursors from
these source categories cause or
contribute significantly to ozone air
pollution. Trichloroethylene and, to a
lesser extent perchioroethylene react to
form ozone and therefore would be
aubject to new source performance
standards for reactive VOC
The Administrator is also concerned
about certain other possible health
effects of perchioroethylene and
trichloroethylene, apart from their role
in ozone formation, and he believes that
regulation of existing emission sources
is necessary. Both substances have been
found to induce a high incidence of
hepatocellular carcinomas (liver tumors)
in mice and have shown positive results
in bacterial mutagencity assays (a
screening technique for potential
carcinogens}. The Agency's initial
evaluation of this information is that it
presents "substantial evidence" (41 FR
2140% May 25,1976] that both
substances are human carcinogens.
Consistent with EPA's proposed rules
for regulating airborne carcinogens (44
FR 58642; October 10,1979), if these
initial evaluations are sustained after
consideration of comments by EPA's
Science Advisory Board, it is likely that
perchioroethylene and trichloroethyleoe
will be classified as high-probability
carcinogens and, in light of the
significant emissions of each, regulated
as hazardous air pollutants under
section 112 of the Act. This regulation
would include both new and existing
emission sources.
. It is also possible that the
Administrator will ultimately conclude
that one or both of these chemicals is a
moderate-probability carcinogen rather
than a high-probability carcinogen. As
the proposed airborne carcinogen rules
explain, under the circumstances
presented here. EPA could then
"designate" the substance for regulation
of existing organic solvent cleaners by .
the States under section lll(d) of the
Clean Air Act The Act provides for the
designation of such substances for
regulation under section lll(d) if the
substances themselves have not been
listed previously under section 108 or
section 112. Because the evidence is
clearly sufficient for the Administrator
to conclude that both substances are at
least modtrate-probamliry carcinogens
and that their emission by organic
solvent cleaners causes air pollution
which endangers public health and
welfare, he is proposing designation of
these two substances under section
lll(d) at this time. Although a final
determination by the Agency of the
evidence of carcinogenicity would
normally precede me selection of a
regulatory alternative, the Administrator
is proposing designation of
perchioroethylene and trichloroethylene
today for two reasons. First, this will put
existing sources within the industry on
notice that perchioroethylene and
trichloroethylene would not be
unregulated substitutes for the other .
three solvents for which designation is
proposed today. Second, in the event
that the Administrator ultimately
concludes that perchioroethylene and
trichloroetbylene are moderate-
probability rather than high-probability
carcinogens, it will enable the section
lll(d] process to proceed without delay
as part of a coordinated regulatory
program for the organic solvent cleaning
industry. The Administrator intends to
make a final carcinogenicity assessment
for these two chemicals before
promulgating today's proposals.
NegJigibJy Reactive Haiogenated
Compounds.
In addition to reactive halogenated
compounds, the proposed new source
regulations would apply to three
additional halogenated solvents: 1,1,1-
trichlorethane, methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane. Since these
chemicals are acknowledged by EPA to
be negligibly reactive, they are not
ozone precursors and must be
designated under section lll(d) of the
Act. As described above, the
designation for the purpose of obtaining
coverage under new source standards
also requires the development under
section lll(dj of standards for existing
sources.
Both methylene chloride and 1,1,1-
trichlorethane have scored positive as
well as negative results in short-term
mutageniciry and cell transformation
tests. The weight of evidence has led the
EPA Carcinogen Assessing Assessment
Group to conclude in preliminary
assessments that both chemicals exhibit
suggestive evidence of human
carcinogenicity. Under EPA's proposed
airborne carcinogen policy, this rinding
would establish 1,1,1-trichlorethane and
methylene chloride as candidates for
regulation under section 111 as air
pollutants "reasonably anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare." In
addition, trichlorotrifluoroethane and
1,1,1-trichlorethane have been
implicated in the depletion of the
stratospheric ozone layer, a region of the
upper atmosphere which shields the
earth from harmful wavelengths of
ultraviolet radiation that increase akin
cancer risks in humans.
The judgments of whether and to
what extent lA,l-trichlopethane and
methyleoe chloride are human
carcinogens, and 1,1,1-trichlorethane
and trichlorotrifluoroethane deplete the
74
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1980 I Proposed Rules S9769
further through the implementation of
prescribed work practices. These work
practices would include: dosing the
cover when work is not being lowered
into or removed from the degreaser,
storing solvent in covered containers,
not exposing open degreasers to steady
drafts with velocities exceeding 40m/
min (131 ft/min). and not overloading
the degreaser.
The best system of emission control
for each type of degreaser was selected
on the basis of EPA tests of the
effectiveness of various controls used on
degreasers operating under different
conditions and using different solvents.
These are described as follows:
Cold Cleaners.—The emission control
system selected for cold cleaners (CO)
would consist of both control equipment
and a series of work practices. These
controls used in combination would
reduce solvent emissions from cold
cleaners by about 80 percent. The
equipment requirements would include a
cover, a drain rack, and a visible fill
line. The cover would be designed to be
readily opened and closed at any time.
External drain racks would lead the
drainage back to the tank. If the CC is
equipped with a parts basket, internal
books to permit suspension of the
basket above the solvent could be
substituted for the drain rack. One of the
work practices would require that the
solvent level not exceed the visible
internal maximum fill line. The proposed
standards would require that the
freeboard ratio for CC would be at least
0.7 if the solvent vapor pressure is
greater than 4.3 kPa (33 mm Hg or 0.6
psi) measured at 38* C (100* F). The
purpose for this is to prevent excessive
volatilization, i.e. vaporization. Higher
freeboard ratios impede excess
vaporization of highly volatile solvents
under normal operating conditions.
However, many solvents used in cold
cleaning operations do not volatilize as
rapidly as others. For solvents with a
vapor pressure of less than or equal to
4.3 kPa measured at 38* C (100* F], the
proposed standards would require a
freeboard ratio of 0.5.
The economic analysis for this
emission control system for cold
cleaners was based on a typical unit.
The uncontrolled cold cleaner was
assumed to be uncovered all the time,
whereas the controlled unit had a cover
that was used all but 2 hours per
working day (20 loads cleaned per day).
Based on these assumptions, the cover
would reduce emissions by 349
kilograms (769 pounds] per year at a
savings of $69.80. The drain rack would
reduce emissions by 36 kilograms (79
pounds) per year with a savings of $7.92.
ozone layer, are issues of considerable
debate. While the scientific literature
has been previously reviewed and
summarized in the docket prepared for
this rulemaking, more detailed health
assessments are currently in preparation
by EPA's Office of Research and
Development. These assessments will
be completed and submitted for external
review, including review by the Science
Advisory Board, prior to the
promulgation of the regulations and the
proposal of EPA guidance to States in
developing existing source control
measures. The extent to which the
preliminary findings are affirmed by the
review process may affect the final
rulemaking for new as well as existing
sources.
While the measure of concern is less
for these latter three solvents than for
perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene,
the Administrator has chosen to proceed
with the designation of 1,1.1-
trichlorethane, methylene chloride, the
trichlorotrifluoroethane at this time
because emissions from these sources
and the associated health risks can be
reduced at a very low cost This
decision reflects EPA's concern that
continued growth in uncontrolled
emissions of 1,1,1-trichlorethane,
methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane from solvent
cleaners may endanger public health.
and is reinforced by projections that
were these chemicals exempted from
regulation, the resulting substitution of
exempt for non-exempt solvents could
result in large increases in the emissions
of these pollutants.
The designation of 1,1,1-
trichloi ethane, methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane incorporates
these chemicals under today's proposed
new source standards and invokes
section lll(d) which requires States to
develop controls for existing sources. As
described in detail below, the new
source standards do not place
unreasonable economic costs on the
industry. While the impact of similar
controls on existing sources could be
more significant due to the technological
problems associated with retrofit, this
factor would be an important
consideration in determining the
appropriate control level for existing
sources. In view of the substantial
reduction in emissions which can be
achieved at low cost and the potential
for substitution between these five
compounds, the Administrator is
persuaded that the present approach
represents a prudent policy to protect
public health. It should be emphasized
that the health assessments discussed
here are not final. The Administrator is
aware of other relevant information that
may become available. All applicable
information will be carefully evaluated
prior to making the final regulatory
decision.
Summaries of the health basis for
designating perchloroethylene,
trichloroethylene. 1.1,1-trichloroethane.
methylene chloride, and
trichiorotrifluorethane are available in
the public rulemaking docket described
at the beginning of this notice.
Selection of Format for the Proposed
Standards
Under the Clean Air Act as amended.
there are two regulatory alternatives
available for establishing standards of
performance for new stationary sources.
Section lll(b) provides for establishing
emission limitations or percentage
reductions in emissions. However, when
such standards are not feasible to
prescribe or enforce, section lll(h) of
the Clean Air Act provides that EPA
may instead promulgate a design,
equipment work practice, or operational
standard, or combination thereof. In
either event the standards prescribed
would require new, modified, and
reconstructed organic solvent cleaners
to use the best demonstrated system of
continuous emission reduction
considering costs, nonair quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy
impacts. The emissions from organic
solvent cleaners are uncqnfined
(fugitive). Although techniques have
been developed to measure the solvent
lost from degreasing equipment (such as
mounting entire organic solvent cleaners
on scales), these methods are
unpractical for enforcement of
regulations due to the length of time
needed to accurately determine the
solvent losses and because of the
disruption this would cause in degreaser
operations. For this reason, an
equipment and work practice standard
has been selected since it is not feasible
to enforce emission limitations or
percentage reductions in emissions for
organic solvent cleaning operations.
Selection of the Best System of Emission
Reduction
Emissions of volatile organic
compounds from degreasers would be
reduced significantly by the use of
various pollution control devices, singly
or in combination, as would be
appropriate for each method of
degreasing. These controls would
include: cover, drain rack, raised
freeboard, refrigerated freeboard device,
downtime port covers, hanging flaps,
and drying runnel or lip exhaust in
conjunction with a carbon adsorber.
Degreaser emissions would be reduced
75
-------
W770
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
Remote Reservoir Cold Cleaner.—The
emission control system selected for
remote reservoir cold cleaners (RRCC) is
less stringent than that proposed for
conventional cold cleaners. During non-
use periods, the solvent is enclosed in a
reservoir and not subject to evaporation
loss to the atmosphere. While parts are
being cleaned, solvent is pumpted
through a sink-like work area which
drains back into the enclosed contaier.
Because the reservoir is remote from the
work area, this type of organic solvent
cleaner is not subject to the evaporation
losses suffered by conventional cold
cleaners. Therefore, the proposed
standards for remote reservoir cold
cleaners would not require dosable
covers, provided the solvent used has a
vapor pressure of less than or equal to
4.3 kPa (33 mm Hg or O6 psi) measured
at 38* C (100* F). but would require
covers if the solvent volatility was
greater than 4.3 kPa.
Open Top Vapor Degnaser.—The
emission control systems would be
required for all new, modified, or
reconstructed open top vapor degreasers
(OTVD) consists of covers, raised
freebacks, and refrigerated freeboard
devices or carbon adsorption systems.
EPA and industry tests have shown that
coven are the most effective control
device in reducing solvent emissions
during nonoperating conditions. Raised
freeboards have also been show to be
effective at reducing these emissions. By
raising the freeboard ratio from 0.5 to
0.75. solvent emissions are generally
reduced 25-30 percent during idling
conditions. Emission reductions are less
during actual operating conditions due
to the transference of loads through
vapor/air interface. Freeboard ratios .
larger than 0.75 may yield greater
emission reductions, however, higher
freeboards tend to icrease the difficulty
of transferring loads into and out of the
degreaser. The demonstrated ability of
covers and raised freeboards to reduce
solvent emissions, and the minimal cost
of these two control devices-have been
the primary reasons for requiring the use
of covers during nonoperating periods
and freeboards ratios of at least O75 for
all new. modified, and reconstructed
open top vapor degreasers.
Emission tests have also shown that
refrigerated freeboard devices and lip
exhausts connected to carbon adsorbers
are more effective at reducing solvent
emissions than raised freeboards.
During operating conditions, emission
reductions as high as 05 percent have
been demonstrated with the use of
carbon adsorbers, while refrigerated
freeboard devices have been
demonstrated to reduce solvent
emissions by at least 40 percent A
raised freeboard ratio of 1.0 has also
shown promise (55 percent reduction),
but its effectiveness under cross-draft
conditions has not been adequately
evaluated. It is expected that the cold
air blanket produced by a refrigerated
freeboard device would provide greater
control of cross-draft induced vapor
losses. For these reasons, all new,
modified, and reconstructed OTVD with
vapor/air interface areas greater than
one square meter would be required to
use refrigerated freeboard devices, or
have lip exhausts connected to carbon
adsorbers.
Reference Method 23, "Determination
of Halogenated Organic* from
Stationary Sources," would be the
required test method to measure
emissions of the regulated halogenated
compounds from carbon adsorbers. The
principle of the method is an integrated
bag sample of stack gas that is subjected
to gas chromatographic analysis, using
flame ionization detection. The range of
this method is 0.1 to 200 ppm. The
emission limitation proposed by these
standards of performance would be 25
ppm of any regulated halogenated
organic compound measured over the
length of the carbon adsorber cycle, or
for three hours, whichever is less. The
Administrator specifically requests
comments on this proposed test method
and emission limitation.
A cut-off size of one square meter was
determined to be the most effective for
OTVD, taking into consideration the
absolute reduction in solvent emissions
and economic analyses. Although the
capital expenditures for refrigerated
freeboard devices are greater than for
raised freeboards, solvent savings
would completely offset the added
capital expenditures, provided the
degreasers were operated properly.
However, for small OTVD (less than 1
m*in open top area), refrigerated
freeboard devices would not be a cost-
effective alternative. Taking into
consideration the small reduction in
solvent emissions and economics, small
open top vapor degreasers would not be
required to have refrigerated freeboard
devices.
EPA realizes that refrigerated
freeboard devices with sub-zero (0*C)
refrigerant temperatures are patented. If
any degreaser manufacturer is unable to
demonstrate alternative methods of
control, and certifies mat the licensing
terms for sub-zero refrigerated
freeboard devices are unreasonable,
relief under section 308 of the Clean Air
Act as amended can be sought
Although the proposed standards
require specific control technologies,
they do not preclude the use of other
control options which are demonstrated
to be equally effective in reducing
solvent emissions. After proposal of
these regulations, any person may
request an equivalency determination.
EPA expects to approve other methods
of continuous emission reduction when
they have been demonstrated to be as
, effective in reducing emissions as
refrigerated freeboard devices. The
Administrator will also welcome any
additional data and information
concerning the control efficiencies of
raised freeboards and refrigerated
freeboard devices. Tests are currently
being conducted to investigate the
effectiveness of refrigerated freeboard
devices and increased freeboard ratios
under cross-draft conditions.
Preliminary results of these tests have
shown varying test results for different
solvents. Because of possible variation
in test outcomes, additional tests are
planned. Tests are also being conducted
to evaluate the effectiveness of
automated covers which dose after the
workload enters the degreaser. These
test results and any additional
information and data submitted to EPA
during the public comment period will
be used to further evaluate the
appropriateness of the proposed
emission control options. Expansion or
deletion of these options will be
evaluated prior to promulgation. All
information obtained during the course
of this investigation and received during
the public comment period would be
placed in the docket for public review
and considered by EPA before taking
final action to promulgate standards for
new, modified, and reconstructed
, degreasers.
ConveyorizedDegreasers.—There are
two major types of conveyorized
degreasers: conveyorized vapor
degreaser (CVD) and conveyorized cold
cleaners (CCCJ. Conveyorized vapor
degreasers use the vapors of boiling
solvent to clean and degrease surfaces,
while conveyorized cold cleaners use
non-boiling solvent in the liquid phase
to dean surfaces. The emission control
system selected for conveyorized
degreasers consists of both control
equipment and a series of work
practices. Using these controls in
combination will reduce solvent
emissions from conveyorized degreasers
by 60 percent.
The two major emission control
requirements for CVD are carbon
adsorbers or refrigerated freeboard
devices, provided the CVD is greater
than 2 square meters (21.6 ft1) in vapor/
air interface area. This cutoff size was
determined to be the most effective,
taking into consideration the absolute
76
-------
39772
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1960 / Proposed Rules
for maintaining a simple record of the
disposition of waste solvent.
Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held to
discuss these proposed standards in
accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the
Clean Air Act. Persons wishing to make
oral presentations should contact EPA
at the address given in the ADDRESSES
Section of this preamble. Oral /
presentations will be limited to IS
minutes each. Any member of the public
may file a written statement with EPA
before, during, or within 30 days after
the hearing. Written statements should
be addressed to the Central Docket
Section (A-130), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street. SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention:
Docket No. OAQPS-78-12.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
and written statements will be available
for public inspection and copying during
normal working hours at EPA's Central
Docket Section, Room 2903B, Waterside
Mall, 401 M Street. SW., Washington.
D.C. 20460.
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA in the development of this proposed
rulemaking. The principal purposes of
the docket are: (1) to allow interested
parties to readily identify and locate
documents so that they can intelligently
and effectively participate in the
rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as
the record in case of judicial review
[section 307(d)(7)l.
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by section 111 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended,
establishment of standards of
performance for organic solvent
cleaners was preceded by the
Administrator's determination (40 CFR
60.16, 44 FR 49222, dated August 21.
1979} that these sources contribute
significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. In accordance
with section 117 of the Act publication
of this proposal was preceded by
consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and
Federal departments and agencies. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on all aspects of the proposed
regulation, including economic and
technological issues on the proposed
test methods.
It should be noted that standards of
• performance for new sources
established under section 111 of the
Clean Air Act reflect:
... application of the best technological
system of contunuous emission reduction
which (taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated [section lll(a)(l)]. -
Although there may be emission
control technology available that can
reduce emissions below those levels
required to comply with standards of
performance, this technology might not
be selected as the basis of standards of
performance due to costs associated
with its use. Accordingly, standards of
performance should not be viewed as
the ultimate in achievable emission
control. In fact the Act requires (or has
the potential for requiring) the
imposition of a more stringent emission
standard in several situations.
For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" for new or modified
sources locating in nonattainment areas,
i.e., those areas where statutorily-
mandated health, and welfare standards
are being violated. In this respect
section 173 of the Act requires that new
or modified sources constructed in an
area which exceeds the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
must reduce emissions to the level,
which reflects the "lowest achievable
emission rate" (LAER), as denned in
section 171(3) for such category of
source. The statute defines LAER as that
rate of emissions based on the
following, whichever is more stringent:
(A) the most stringent emission limitation
which is contained in the implementation
plan of any State for such class or category of
source, unless the owner or operator of the
proposed source demonstrates that such
limitations are not achievable, or
(B) the most stringent emission limitation
which is achieved in practice by such class or
category of source. -
In no event can the emission rate exceed
any applicable new source performance
standard [section 171(3)].
A similar situation may arise under
the prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality provisions of
the Act (Part G). These provisions
require Chat certain sources [referred to
in section 160(1)] employ "best available
control technology" (BACT) as defined
in section 169(3) for all pollutants
regulated under the Act Best available
control technology must be determined
on a case-by-case basis, taking energy,
environmental and economic impacts
and other costs into account. In no event
may the application of BACT result in
emissions of any pollutants which will
exceed the emissions allowed by any
applicable standard established
pursuant to section 111 (or 112) of the
Act.
In all events. State implementation
plans (SIP's) approved or promulgated
under section 110 of the Act must
provide for the attainment and
maintenance of NAAQS designed to
protect public health and welfare. For
this purpose SIP's must in some cases
require greater emission reduction than
those required by standards of
performance for new sources.
Finally, States are free under section
116 of the Act to establish even more
stringent emission limits than those
established under section 111 or those
necessary to attain or maintain the
NAAQS under section 110. Accordingly,
new sources may in some cases be
subject to limitations more stringent
than standards of performance under
section 111, and prospective owners and
operators of new sources should be
aware of this possibility in planning for
such facilities.
In order \o prevent duplicative
regulatory reuirements, and in order to
avoid conflicts in standard setting, EPA
has been in contact with representatives
of the Interagency Regulatory Liaison
Group (IRLG). This group, composed of
members from EPA, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) was formed in August, 1977, to
ensure that the agencies work closely
together in areas of common interest
and responsibility. In particular, EPA
has been in contact with OSHA to
ensure that the requirements for the
proposed standard do not conflict with
OSHA's requirements for ventilation of
open surface tank operations (29 CFR
1910.94).
Under EPA's sunset policy for
reporting requirements hi regulations,
the reporting requirements in this
regulation will automatically expire five
years from the date of promulgation
unless EPA takes affirmative action to
extend them. To accomplish this, a
provision automatically terminating the
reporting requirements at that time will
be included in the text of the final
regulations.
EPA will review this regulation four
years from the date of promulgation as
required by the Clean Air Act. This
review will include an assessment of
such factors as the need for integration
with other programs, the existence of
alternative methods, enforceability, and
improvements in emission control
technology.
Section 317 of the Clean Air Act
requires the Administrator to prepare an
n
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 /Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules 397?!
reduction in solvent emission and
economic analyses. For larger crossrod
and monorail CVD, carbon adsorbers
produce greater emission reductions at
higher savings than do refrigerated
freeboard devices. For owners or
operators of small crossrod and
monorail degreasers, the capital costs of
a carbon adsorber could be prohibitive.
Because of this, a refrigerated freeboard
device may be used instead of a carbon
adsorber. As with OTVD, the type of
conveyorized vapor degreaser, the type
of work being processed, and ambient
conditions would determine which
emission control system should be used.
For conveyorized cold cleaners, the
major emission control requirement
would be a carbon adsorber, provided
the CCC is greater than 2 square meters
(21.6 ft2) in solvent/air interface area.
Like CVD, this cutoff was determined to
be the most effective, taking into
consideration the absolute reduction in
solvent emissions and economic
analyses. Refrigerated freeboard devices
would not be an option for CCC since
they are only effective in reducing
emissions of warm solvent vapors.
Equivalent Systems of Emission
Reduction
These standards of performance do
not preclude the use of other degreaser
emission control equipment or
procedures of operation which can be
demonstrated to be equivalent in terms
of reducing solvent emissions, to those
prescribed in the proposed regulation.
For determination of equivalency, any
person may write the Administrator of
EPA and request approval of a test plan
for demonstrating equivalency. The test
plan must propose the use of specific
equipment test procedures, a date, and
a U.S. location at which the person
making the request wishes to
demonstrate equivalency. In order to
determine equivalency, the
Administrator must find a substantial
likelihood that the control technology
used in normal operations would
produce equivalent emission reductions
as the standards would require, at
approximately the same or less
economic, energy, or environmental
cost. An alternate equipment design
would not be considered equivalent to
the proposed requirements if it placed a
greater burden upon the personnel
operating the degreaser to manually
operate the emission capture device .
(e.g., use of an automated cover could
potentially be found equivalent to use of
refrigerated freeboard devices, but a
manually operated cover would not
qualify}. Automated operation of the
emission control system is required
because manual operation would be
burdensome due to the frequency with
which work enters and exits open top
vapor degreasers (cycle times of only 6
minutes are not unusual) and because
enforcement of these standards would
primarily depend upon equipment
certifications. Although work practices
could, not be substituted for equipment
design requirements, alternatives to the
work practices contained in the
proposed standards could also be
included in an equivalency
determination.
Selection of Enforcement Methods
More than 325,000 new degreasers are
expected to be in operation by 1885. The
large number of degreasers precludes
the inspection of all units on a periodic
basis. Therefore, enforcement must be
achieved through, a combination of
degreaser manufacturer certifications
and EPA random inspections. Because
EPA cannot inspect all degreasers that
will be in operation, adherence to the
work practices will basically depend
upon voluntary compliance. Although
the work practices are important the
equipment design requirements will be
the primary mechanism for ensuring the
control of organic solvent emissions
from degreasing operations. A random
inspection program would be designed
to inspect all degreaser design types
produced, but would cover only a
sample of shops using degreasing
equipment To facilitate this program,
the primary reporting burden would be
place upon the manufacturers of
degreasing equipment
Under section lll(a)(5J of the Clean
Air Act as amended, manufacturers of
degreasers would be considered owners
until the degreasers are sold. Thus, the
original manufacturer of a newly
constructed degreaser would be
responsible for making the proposed
reports. Section 114(a}(l) of the Act
specifies (hat the Administrator can
require owners or operators to report
information to EPA as may be
reasonably required. Manufacturers of
cold cleaners, remote reservoir cold
cleaners, open top vapor degreasers.
and conveyorized degreasers would be
required to notify the Administrator of
the date construction began on a new
degreaser. certain equipment features.
and the name, date and location to
whom the ownership of the degreaser
was transferred. This information would
be reported once for each degreaser
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
and the reports would be submitted
each quarter. If any manufacturer or
other owner or operator feela that the
information to be submitted is
proprietary in nature, a request for
confidential treatment can be submitted
with the report On September 1.1976,
EPA promulgated regulations (40 CFR
part 2) which govern the treatment of
confidential business information,
including that obtained under section
114 of the Clean Air Act
Under certain circumstances, the
operator of the degreaser rather than the
original manufacturer would be
responsible for making the report This
would occur when a modification or
reconstruction to an existing degreaser
was made by any person other than the
original manufacturer or when any
affected degreaser is resold.
Certification would be supplemented
by an EPA inspection program of
representative types of models of
degreasers from owners and operators
selected at random. This program would
determine compliance with the design
requirements for all new degreasing
equipment, and would determine
compliance with the work practice and
operational requirements by a random
sample of degreasing operations.
Inspection would include a visual check
of the operation and an examination of
the methods of waste solvent disposal.
This method of enforcement has been
selected as the best option considering
the savings in time and money for
effective enforcement As mentioned
previously, the large number of new
sources expected within the next five
years prohibits inspection of each unit
Effort has been made to reduce the
proposed reporting and recordkeeping
burdens to the minimum needed to
administer an effective enforcement
program. EPA also considered requiring
each degreaser operator to report
directly to EPA upon installation of a
new degreaser and to periodically report
work practice methods in use. However,
• the reporting requirements would have
caused an excessive burden to be
placed on each degreaser operator and
would have caused the generation of a
large number of reports. For these
reasons, the proposed reporting
requirements are minimized to include a
one-time report per degreaser of a few
basic items. In addition, spot checks of
representative types and models of
degreasers in operation were selected as
the best available option. Operators of
degreasing equipment would only be
required to keep records of solvent
usage and disposition and would not be
required to make written reports. These
records can be discarded after a two
year period. To further reduce the
impact of these requirements, operators
of small cold cleaners (leas than 1 a1),
such as are commonly used in gasoline
service stations, would be exempt from
any recordkeeping or reporting except
78
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11, 1980 / Proposed Rules 39773
economic impact assessment for any
new source standard of performance
promulgated under section lll(b) of the
Act. An economic impact assessment
was prepared for the proposed
regulations and for other regulatory
alternatives. All aspects of the
assessment were considered in the
formulation of the proposed standards
to insure that the proposed standards
would represent the best system of
emission reduction considering costs.
The economic impact assessment is
included in the Background Information
Document.
Dated: April 17,1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It ie proposed to amend Part 60 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
1. By adding alphabetically a
definition of the term "volatile organic
compound" to 5 60.2 of Subpart A—
General Provisions as follows:
(60.2 Definitions
"Volatile organic compound" means
any organic compound which
participates in atmospheric
photochemical reactions or is measured
by the applicable reference methods
specified under any subpart.
2. By adding Subpart JJ as follows:
Subpait I]—Standards of Performance for
Organic Solvent Cleaners
Sec.
60.360 Application and designation of
affected facility.
60.361 Definitions.
60.362 Standards for volatile organic
compounds, trichloroethylene, 1.1.1-
trichloroethane, perchloroethylene,
methylene chloride, and
trichlorotrinuoroe thane.
60.363 Equivalent method of control.
60.364 Reporting and Recordkeeping.
60.365 Waste disposal, (reserved).
60.366 Test method.
Authority: Sec. Ill, 301(a) of the Clean Air
Act as amended [42 U.S.C 7411.7801(a)]. and
additional authority ai noted below.
Subpart JJ—Standards of
Performance for Organic Solvent
Cleaners
{60.360 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to all organic solvent
cleaners for which construction was
commenced after (date of proposal)
which are used for organic solvent
cleaning (degreasing) of any materials.
{60.361 Definitions.
All terms used in this subpart but not
specifically defined in this Section shall
have the meaning given them in the Act
and in Subpart A of this part.
"Adsorption cycle" means a solvent
recovery process which begins when
solvent laden air is directed through an
activated carbon bed, resulting in the
capture of solvent vapors. An
adsorption cycle shall be considered
complete when the activated carbon bed
becomes saturated with solvent,
resulting in breakthrough of solvent
vapors.
"Carbon adsorber" means a device in
which an organic compound is brought
into contact with activated carbon and
is retained.
"Certification" means a written
statement signed by the owner or
operator of the affected facility.
"Cold cleaner" means any device or
piece of equipment which contains and
uses an organic solvent in the liquid
phase to clean surfaces.
"Conveyorized cold cleaner" means
any conveyorizer degreaser which uses
an organic solvent in the liquid phase to
clean surfaces.
"Conveyorized degreaser" means any
device which uses an integral,
continuous, mechanical system for
moving materials or parts to be cleaned
into and out of an organic solvent liquid
or vapor cleaning zone.
"Conveyorized vapor degreaser"
means any conveyorizer degreaser
which uses an organic solvent in the
vapor phase to clean surfaces.
"Dram rack" means any basket tray,
or sink located in, on, or exterior to a
degreaser, which permits excess or
condensed solvent to drain from the
parts after degreasing and to return to
the solvent bath.
"Drying tunnel" means an enclosed
extension of the exit from a
Conveyorized degreaser.
"Equivalent method of control" means
any method that can be demonstrated to
the Administrator to provide at least the
same degree of emission control as the
specified control.
"Extended freeboard" means an
addition to the sides of a degreaser to
increase the freeboard height
"Fill line" means a permanent mark in
a degreaser tank that indicates the
maximum operating liquid level
recommended by the manufacturer.
"Freeboard height" means, for a cold
cleaner, the distance from the liquid
solvent level in the degreaser tank to the
lip of the tank. For an open top vapor
degreaser it is the distance from the
solvent vapor level in the tank during
idling to the lip of the tank. For a
Conveyorized cold cleaner it is the
distance from the liquid solvent level to
the bottom of the entrance or exit
opening, whichever is lower^For a
Conveyorized vapor degreaser, it is the
distance from the vapor level to the
bottom of the entrance or exit opening,
whichever is lower.
"Freeboard ratio" means a ratio of the
freeboard height to the smaller interior
dimension (length, width, or diameter) of
the degreaser.
"Lip exhaust" means a device
installed around the lip of a degreaser
that draws in air and solvent vapor
emissions and ducts them away from
the degreaser area.
"Open top vapor degreaser" means
any open top device or piece of
equipment that contains and uses an
organic solvent at the boiling point of
the solvent and solvent vapor to clean
equipment surfaces.
"Organic solvent" means any liquid
substance which contains carbon and
has the power to dissolve, causing
solution.
"Organic solvent cleaner" or
"degreaser" means any cold cleaner,
remote reservoir cold cleaner, open top
vapor degreaser, and Conveyorized
degreaser equipment and their ancillary
components.
"Organic solvent cleaning" or
"degreasing" means those processes
using organic solvents to clean and
remove soils from the surfaces of
materials being processed.
"Refrigerated freeboard device"
means a device which is mounted above
the water jacket and the primary
condenser coils, consisting of secondary
coils which carry a refrigerant to
provide a chilled air blanket above the
solvent vapor to reduce emissions from
the degreaser bath. The chilled air
blanket temperature, measured at the
centroid of the degreaser at the coldest
point, shall be no greater than 30 percent
of the solvent's boiling point (°F).
"Remote reservoir cold cleaner"
means any device in which liquid
solvent is pumped through a sink-like
work area which drains back into an
enclosed container while parts are being
cleaned and in which the solvent in the
enclosed container is not subject to
evaporation losses to the atmosphere
during non-use periods.
(60.362 Standards for volatile organic
compounds, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trlchloroethane, perchloroethylene,
methylene chloride, and
trichtorotrrfluoroethane.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, an owner or operator
shall operate a cold cleaner, or a remote
reservoir cold cleaner only if it has a
cover that may be readily opened and
79
-------
39774
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11, 1980 / Proposed Rules
dosed. A fusible link dull not interfere .
with cover operation.
(b) An owner or operator shall
operate a cold cleaner only if it
. conforms to the following design
requirements:
(1) A drain rack. If an external drain
rack is used, it must allow the drained
solvent to return to the solvent bath in
the cold cleaner, if the cold cleaner is
equipped with a parts basket internal
hooks to permit suspension of the
basket above the solvent may be
substituted for the drain rack.
(2) A freeboard ratio of at least OS. If
the solvent used has a volatility greater
than 4.3 kPa (33 mm Hg or 0.6 psi),
measured at 38*C (100'F). the freeboard
ration shall be at least 0.7.
(3) A visible fill line.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this sectioa an owner or operator
shall not operate a cold cleaner without
meeting the following work and
operational practices:
(1) The solvent level shall not exceed
the fill line.
(2) When a flexible hose or flushing
device is used, the pressure of solvent
delivered by the pump may not exceed
09 kPa (10 psi), measured at the pomp
outlet and the pumped solvent shall be
delivered in a continuous stream and
not a droplet spray. Flushing shall be
performed only within the confines of
die cold cleaner.
(3) When an air- or pump-agitated
solvent bath is used, die agitator shall
be operated so as to produce a rolling
motion of the solvent but not observable
splashing against tank walls or parts
being cleaned.
(4) The cover shall be dosed when the
cold cleaner is not in use and when
parts are being cleaned by solvent
agitation.
(5) When the cover is open, the cold
cleaner may not be exposed to drafts
greater than 40 m/min (131 ft/min). u
measured between 1 and 2 meters
upwind and at the same elevation as the
tank lip.
(6) Solvent cleaned parts shall be
drained for IS seconds or until dripping
has stopped, whichever is longer. Parts
having cavities or blind holes shall be
tipped or rotated while draining.
(7) Waste solvent still, and sump
bottoms shall be collected and stored in
dosed containers. The dosed containers
may contain a device mat would allow
pressure relief, but would not allow
liquid solvent to drain from the
container prior to disposal
(B) Each owner shall provide a
permanent label for each cold deaner
which states the required work and
operating practices. If the freeboard
ratio on a cold deaner is less than 0.7,
the label shall state the types of solvents
which may be used in the cold cleaner.
Such solvents include xylenes, mineral
spirits, stoddard solvents, or other
solvents with a volatility less than or
equal to 4.3 kPa. The label shall be
placed near the front of the degreaser in
full view of the degreaser operator and
written in English, and any other
language that may be necessary for
comprehension by personnel operating
the degreaser. The label must be kept
visible and legible at all times. The plant
owner or operator shall ensure that each
person who operates a cold deaner
understands the instructions on the
label.
(9) Spills during solvent transfer shall
be wiped up immediately. The wipe rags
shall be stored in covered containers.
(d)(l) An owner or operator who
operates a remote reservoir cold deaner
which uses solvent with a volatility of
less than or equal to 4.3 kPa (0.6 psi or
33 mm Hg) measured at 38*C (100'F),
and which has a drain area less than 100
cm* (15.5 in1) shall be subject to the
provisions of paragraph (c)(2), (c)(5).
(cp). (c)(7), (c)(8). and (c)(9).
(2) An owner or operator who
operates a remote reservoir cold deaner
which uses solvent with a volatility
greater man 4.3 kPa (0.6 psi or 33 mm
Hg) measured at 38* C (100* F). or has a
dram area greater than or equal to 100
cm* (15.5 in*) shall be subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (d)(l). (c)(4),
and (a).
(e) An owner or operator shall operate
an open top vapor degreaser only if it
conforms to the following design
requirements:
(1) Each open top vapor degreaser
shall be equipped with a cover that may
be readily opened or dosed. If the open
top vapor degreaser is equipped with a
lip exhaust the cover shall be located
below the lip exhaust
(2) Each open top vapor degreaser
shall have a freeboard ratio of at least
0.75.
(3) Each open top vapor degreaser
shall be equipped with the following
devices:
(i) A device which shuts off sump heat
if sump liquid solvent level drops down
to the height of sump heater coils, and
(U) A vapor level control device which
shuts off sump heat if the vapor level
rises above the height of the primary
condenser.
(4) Each open top vapor degreaser
greater man 1.0 square meter (10.8 ft1)
shall be equipped with one or more of
the following equipment controls:
(i) A refrigerated freeboard device, or
(ii) A Up exhaust connected to a
carbon adsorber. The concentration of
organic solvent in the exhaust from mis
device shall not exceed 25 ppm of any
regulated halogenated organic
compound as measured by Method 23
for the length of the carbon adsorber
cycle or three hours, whichever is less. If
other volatile organic compounds are
used, then the emissions shall not
exceed an average of 25 ppm as carbon,
..measured by Method 25 for the length of
the carbon adsorber cyde or three
hours, whichever is less.
(f) An owner or operator shall not
operate an open top vapor degreaser
without meeting the following required
work and operational practices:
(1) The cover shall be dosed when
parts are not being degreased.
(2] When the cover is open, the open
top vapor degreaser shall not be
exposed to drafts greater than 40 m/min
(131 ft/min), as measured between 1 and
2 meters upwind and at the same
elevation as the tank Up.
(3) For any open top vapor degreaser
equipped with a lip exhaust, the exhaust
shall be turned off when the degreaser is
covered.
(4) Parts being degreased shall not
occupy more than 50 percent of the
vapor-air interface area.
(5) The vertical speed of a powered
hoist if one is used, shall not be more
than 3.3 m/min (10.8 ft/min) when
lowering and raising the parts.
(6} Spraying operations shall be done
within the vapor layer.
(7) Work shall not be lifted from the
vapor layer until condensation or
dripping has stopped. Parts having
cavities or blind holes shall be tipped or
rotated before being raised from the
vapor layer.
(8) During start up, the primary
condenser and the refrigerated
freeboard device, if one is used, shall be
turned on before the sump heater.
During shutdown, the sump heater shall
be turned off, and the solvent vapor
layer allowed to collapse before the
condenser water and refrigerated
freeboard device are turned off.
(9) Porous or absorbent material shall
not be degreased in an open top vapor
degreaser.
(10) A tontine inspection and
maintenance program shall be
implemented to reduce or prevent
solvent losses from dripping drain taps,
cracked gaskets and malfunctioning
equipment Leaks must be repaired as
aoon as they are discovered.
(11) Waste solvent still, and sump
bottoms shall be collected and stored in
dosed containers. The dosed containers
may contain a device that would allow
pressure relief, but would not allow
liquid solvent to drain from the
container prior to disposal.
80
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules 39775
(12) Each owner shall provide a
permanent label for each open top vapor
degreaser which states the required
work and operating practices. The label
shall be placed near the front of the
degreaser in full view of the degreaser
operator and written in English, and in
any other language that may be
necessary for comprehension by
personnel operating the degreaser. The
label must be kept visible and legible at
all times. The plant owner or operator
shall ensure that each person who
operates a degreaser understands the
instructions on the label.
(13) When sumps are drained, solvent
shall be transferred using threaded or
other leakproof couplings. •
(14) The carbon absorber bed shall
not be bypassed during desorption.
(g) An owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
operate a conveyorized degreaser only if
it conforms to the following design
requirements:
(1) Each conveyorized degreaser shall
have a freeboard ratio of at least 0.75.
(2) Each conveyorized degreaser shall
be equipped with a drying tunnel, a
rotating (tumbling) basked, hanging
flaps, or other device to prevent cleaned
parts from carrying out solvent liquid or
vapor. When a drying tunnel is used, the
air which moves through the tunnel to
enhance drying shall be exhausted to a
carbon adsorber. The concentration of
organic solvent in the exhaust from this
device may not exceed 25 ppm of any
regulated halogenated organic
compound as measured by Method 23
for the length of the carbon adsorber
cycle or three hours, whichever is less. If
other volatile organic compounds are
used, then the emissions shall not
exceed an average of 25 ppm as carbon,
measured by Method 25 for the length of
the carbon adsorber cycle or three
hours, whichever is'less.
(3) Each conveyorized degreaser shall
be equipped with downtime port covers
at the entrance and exit openings.
(4) Each conveyorized cold cleaner
with a solvent-air interface area of 2.0m*
(21.6 fU) or greater shall be equipped
with a carbon adsorber. The
concentration of organic solvent in the
exhaust from this device may not
exceed 25 ppm of any regulated
halogenated organic compound as
measured by Method 23 for the length of
the carbon adsorber cycle or three
hours, whichever is less. If other volatile
organic compounds are used, then the
emissions shall not exceed an average
of 25 ppm as carbon, measured by
Method 25 for the length of the carbon
adsorber cycle or three hours,
whichever is less.
(5) Each conveyorized vapor
degreaser with a solvent-air interface of -*
2.0m1 (21.6 ft*) or greater shall be
equipped with one or more of the^
following equipment controls:
(i) A refrigerated freeboard device, or
(ii) A carbon adsorber. The
concentration of organic solvent in the
exhaust from this device shall not
exceed 25 ppm of any regulated
halogenated organic compound as
measured by Method 23 for the length of
the carbon adsorber cycle or three
hours, whichever is less. If other volatile
organic compounds are used, then the
emissions shall not exceed an average
of 25 ppm as carbon, measured by
Method 25 for the length of the carbon
adsorber cycle or three hours,
whichever is less.
(6) Each conveyorized vapor
degreaser shall be equipped with the
following devices:
(i) A device which shuts off sump heat
if sump liquid level drops down to the
height of sump heater coils, and
(ii) A vapor level control device which
shuts off sump heat if the vapor level
rises above the height of the primary
condenser coils.
(7) Each owner shall provide a
permanent label for each conveyorized
degreaser which states the required
work and operating practices. The label
shall be placed near the front of the
degreaser in full view of the degreaser
operator and written in English and in
any other language that may be
necessary for comprehension by
personnel operating the degreaser. The
label must be kept visible and legible at
all times. The plant owner or operator
shall ensure that each person who
operates a degreaser understands the
instructions on the label.
(8) Waste solvent, still, and sump
bottoms shall be collected and stored in
closed containers. The closed containers
may contain a device that would allow
pressure relief, but would not allow
liquid solvent to drain from the
container prior to disposal.
(9) The carbon adsorber bed shall not
be bypassed during desorption.
(60.363 Equivalent method* of control
Upon written application, the
Administrator may approve the use of
equipment or procedures after they have
been demonstrated to his satisfaction to
be equivalent, in terms of reducing
solvent emissions to the atmosphere, to
those prescribed for compliance within
a specified paragraph of this subpart.
The application must contain a complete
description of the proposed testing
procedure and the date, time, and
location scheduled for the equivalency
demonstration.
(60.364 Reporting and reeordkeeplnfl.
(a) The owner or operator of any
degreaser affected by this subpart shall
furnish the Administrator with a single
report for each degreaser. These reports
shall be submitted each quarter for all
degreasers which were newly
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
and which were pieced in operation or
for which ownership was transferred in
the previous quarter. Each report shall
contain written notification
(certification) of the following:
(1) Date construction, modification, or
reconstruction of each degreaser was
commenced.
(2) Make and model of degreaser
(including the serial number if
applicable).
(3) Name, date, and location to whom
the ownership of the degreaser was
transferred.
(4) Dimensions of the solvent-air
interface area and the freeboard ratio.
(5) Specify whether a refrigerated
freeboard device or carbon adsorber has
been installed (if applicable) and certify
that the required controls (design
parameters), under section 60.362, are
part of the degreaser for which this
notification is required.
(6) The name, title, and signature of
the individual making the certification.
(b) Each owner or operator of an
affected facility subject to the provisions
of this subpart, except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section, shall
maintain records for a period of 2 years
of the following:
(1) The amount and date of each
purchase of new solvent.
(2) The name and/or type of solvent
purchased.
(3) The amount date, and method of
disposal for spent solvent, sump
bottoms, and/or still bottoms, as
applicable.
(c) Each owner or operator of a cold
cleaner with a solvent-air interface area
of less than 1.0 m* (10.8 ft1) is not
subject to the requirements of paragraph
(b) of this section, but is required to
maintain for a period of 2 years a record
of the method of waste solvent disposal.
(d) The reporting and recordkeeping
requirements under this section will
automatically expire 5 yean from the
date of promulgation of this regulation
unless affirmative action to extend them
is taken by EPA. (Section 114 of the
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
7414))
160.365 Waste disposal [Reserved]
860.366 Te*t method.
(a) Reference Method 23 or 25 of
Appendix A, as applicable, shall be
used to determine compliance with the
81
-------
39776 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 f Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
requirements under § 60.382 when
carbon adsorbers are used. The results
shall be reported as ppm of organic*
(Method 23) or ppm or carbon (Method
25). Each performance test shall consist
of 3 separate samples, and the
arithmetic mean of the S samples shall
be used to determine compliance.
(Section 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended
(U.S.C. 7414))
3. Appendix A to part 60 is amended
by adding reference method 23 as
follows:
Appendix A—Kefarence Methods
Method 23. Determination of Halogenated
Organ ics From Stationary Sources
Introduction
Performance of this method should aot be
•(tempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph. nor by
those who are unfamiliar with source
sampling because knowledge beyond the
scope of this presentation is required Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to hazardous emissions.
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of halogenated organics
such as carbon tetracholoride. ethyiene
dichloride. perchloroethylene.
trichloroethylene, Methylene chloride. 1.1.1-
trichloroethane, and trichlorotrifluoroethane
in stack gases from sources as specifiedd in
the regulations. It does not apply when the
halogenated organics are contained in
participate matter.
1.2 Principle. An integrated bag sample of
stack gas containing one or more halogenated
organics is subjected to gas chromatographic
(CC) analysis, using a flame ionization
detector (FID).
2. Range and Sensitivity. The range of this
method '.s 0.1 to 200 ppm. The upper limit may
be extended by extending the calibration
range or by diluting the sample.
3. Interferences. The chromatograph
column with the corresponding operating
parameters herein described normally
provides an adequate resolution of
halogenated organics; however. lesohtn'on
interferences may be encountered in some
sources. Therefore, the chromatograph
operator shall select the column best suited
to his particular analysis problem, subject to
the approval of the Administrator. Approval
is automatic provided that confirming data
are produced through an adequate
supplemental analytical technique, eg.
analysis with a different 4»Jim»t> or GC/atass
spectroscopy. This confirming data most be
available for review by the Administrator.
4. Apparatus.
4.1 Sampling (see Figure 23=-l). The
sampling train consists of the following
components: ,
4.1.1 Probe. Stainless steel Pyrex* glass.
or Teflon* tubing (as stack temperature
•Mention of bade Bams* or specific product*
doe> not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
permits), each equipped with a glass wool
•plug to remove paniculate Batter.
4.1.2 Sample Une. Teflon, 6.4-auBSMtside
diameter, of sufficient length to connect
probe to bag. Use a new unused piece for
each series of bag samples mat constitutes an
emission test, and discard upon completion of
the test
4.1.3 Quick Connects. Stainless steel,
male (2) and female (21 with ball checks (one
pair without), located as ahown in Figure 23-
1.
4.1.4 Tedlar or Aluminized Mylar Bags
100-liter capacity, to contain sample.
4.1.5 Bag Containers. Rigidleakproof
containers for sample bags, with covering to
protect contents from sunlight.
4.1.8 Needle Valve. To adjust sample flow
rate. ,
4.17 r^nnp-LesJc-free, with minimum of 2
liters/min capacity.
4.1.8 Charcoal Tube. To prevent
admission of halogenated oiganics to the
atmosphere in the vicinity of samplers.
4.1.9 Flow Meter. For observing sample
flow rate; capable of measuring a flow range
from 0.10 to 1.00 liter/min.
4.1.10 Connecting Tobing. Teflon. «.4-nnn
outside diameter, to assemble sampling train
(Figure 23-1).
42 Sample Recovery. Teflon tubing. 0.4-
pim outside diameter, to connect bag to gas
chromatograph sample loop is required for
sample recovery. Use a new unused piece for
•each series of bag samples that constitutes an
emission test and discard upon conclusion of
analysis of those bags.
44. Analysis. The following equipment is
needed:
44.1 Gas Chromatograph. With FID.
potentiometric gtrip chart recorder, and L0-
to ZJO-al sampling loop in automatic sample
valve. The chromatographic system shall be
capable of producing a response to 0.1 ppm of
the halogenated organic compound that is al
least as great as the average noise level
(Response is measured from the average
value of the baseline to the maximom of the
waveform, while standard operating
conditions are in use.)
4.3.2 Chromatogniphic Column. Stainless
steel 3.05 m by 3.2 mm. containing 20 percent
SP-2100/0.1 percent Carbowax 1500 on 100/
120 Supelcopoit The analyst may use other
columns provided that the precision and
accuracy of the analysis of standards are not
impaired and he has available for review
information conforming that there is
adequate resolution of the halogenated
organic compound peak. (Adequate
resolution is defined as an area overlap of
not more than 10 percent of the halogenated
organic compound peak by an inierferent
peak. Calculation of area overlap is
explained in Appendix E. Supplement A:
•Determination of Adequate
- Chromatographic Peak Resolution."
44.3 Flow Meters (2). Rotameter type. 0-
tc-100-ml/mm capacity.
44.4 Gas Regulators. Far reqared gat
cylinders.
444 Thermometer. Accurate to 1*C to
measure temperature of heated sample loop
at time of sample injection.
444 Barometer. Accurate to S mm Hg, to
measure atmospheric pressure around gas
chromatograph during sample analysis.
4.3.7 Pwnp. Leak-free, with a minimum of
100-ml/min capacity.
4.3.8 Recorder. Strip chart type, optionally
equipped with either disc or electronic
integrator.
4.3.9 Planimeter. Optional in place of disc
or electronic integrator (4.3.8], to measure
chromatograph peak areas.
4.4 Calibration. Sections 4.4.2 through
4.4.6 are for the optional procedure in Section
7.1.
4.4.1 Tubing. Teflon, 6.4-mm outside
diameter, separate pieces marked for each
calibration concentration.
4.4.2 Tedlar or Aluminized Mylar Bags
50-liter capacity, with valve; separate bag
marked for each calibration concentration.
4.44 Syringe, zs-fd. gas tight individually
calibrated, to dispense liquid halogenated
organic solvent. -
4.4.4 Syringe. 50-pl gas tight, individually
calibrated to dispense liquid halogenated
organic solvent.
4.4.5 Dry Gas Meter, with Temperature
and Pressure Gauges. Accurate to ±2
percent to meter nitrogen in preparation of
standard gas mixtures, calibrated at the flow
rate used to prepare standards.
4.4.6 Midget Impinger/Hot Plate
Assembly. To vaporize solvent.
S. Reagents. It is necessary that all
reagents be of chromatographic grade.
S.I Analysis. The following are needed*
for analysis:
5.1.1 Helium Gas or Nitrogen Gas. Zero
grade, for chromatographic carrier gas.
i.14 Hydrogen Gas. Zero grade.
5.14 Oxygen Gas or Air. Zero grade, as
required by the detector.
54 Calibration. Use one of the following
options: either 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. or 5.2.3.
5.2.1 Halogenated Organic Compound. 99
Mol Percent Pure. Certified by the
manufacturer to contain a minimum of 99 Mol
percent of the particular halogenated organic
compound: for ase in the preparation of
standard gas mixtures as described in
Section 7.1.
544 Nitrogen Gas. Zero grade, for
preparation of standard gas mixtures as
described ifl Section 74.
544 Cylinder Standards (3). Gas mixture
standards (200,100, and SO ppm of the
halogenated organic compound of interest in
nitrogen). The tester may use these cylinder
standards to directly prepare a
chromatograph calibration carve as
described in Section 744, if the following
conditions are met (a) The manufacturer
certifies the gas composition with an
accuracy of ±3 percent or better (see Section
544.1). (b) The manufacturer recommends s
maximum shelf life over which the gas
concentration does not change by greater
than ±5 percent from the certified value, (c)
The manufacturer affixes the date of gas
cylinder preparation, certified concentration
of the halogenated organic compound, and
recommended maximum shelf life to the
cylinder before shipment from the gas
manufacturer to the buyer.
544.1 Cylinder Standards Certification,
The manufacturer shall certify the
concentration of me halogenated organic
compound in nitrogen in each cylinder by (s)
directly analyzing each cylinder and (b)
82
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules 39777
calibrating his analytical procedure on the
day of cylinder analysis. To calibrate his
analytical procedure, the manufacturer shall
use. as a minimum, a three-point calibration
curve. It i« recommended that the
manufacturer maintain (1) a high-
concentration calibration standard (between
200 and 400 ppm) to prepare his calibration
curve by an appropriate dilution technique
and (Z) a low-concentration calibration
standard (between SO and 100 ppm) to verify
the dilution technique used. If the difference
between the apparent concentration read
from the calibration curve and the true
concentration assigned to the low-
concentration calibration standard exceeds 5
percent of the true concentration, the
manufacturer shall determine the source of
error and correct it, then repeat the three-
point calibration.
5.2.3.2 Verification of Manufacturer's
Calibration Standards. Before using, the
manufacturer shall verify each calibration
standard by (a) comparing it to gas mixtures
prepared (with 99 Mol percent of the
halogenated organic compounds) in
accordance with the procedure described in
Section 7.1 or by (b) having it analyzed by the
National Bureau of Standards, if such
analysis is available. The agreement between
the initially determined concentration value
and the verification concentration value must
be within ±5 percent. The manufacturer must
re verify all calibration standards on a time
interval consistent with the shelf life of the
cylinder standards sold.
5.2.4 Audi I Cylinder Standards (2). Gas
mixture standards with concentrations
known only to the person supervising the
analysis samples. The audit cylinder
standards shall be identically prepared a»
those in Section 5.2.3 [the halogenated
organic compounds of interest, in nitrogen).
The concentrations of the audit cylinders
should be: one low-concentration cylinder in
the range of 25 to 50 ppm, and one high-
concentration cylinder in the range of 200 to
300 ppm. When available, the tester may
obtain audit cylinders by contacting:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Quality Assurance Branch (MD-
77), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. If audit cylinders are not available at
the Environmental Protection Agency, the
tester must secure an alternative source.
6. Procedure
6.1 Sampling. Assemble the sampling
train as shown in Figure 23-1. Perform a bag
leak check according to Section 7.3.2. Join the
quick connects as illustrated, and determine
that ell connections between the bag and the
probe are tight. Place the end of the probe at
the centroid of the stack and start the pump
with the needle valve adjusted to yield a flow
that will more than half fill the bag in the
specified sample period. After allowing
sufficient time to purge the line several times,
connect the vacuum line to the bag and
evacuate the bag until the rotameter indicates
no flow. At all times, direct the gas exiting
the rotameter away from sampling personnel.
MU-IMG CODE tMO-Ot-M .
83
-------
39778
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11.1980 / Proposed Rules
Stack Wall
Filter
(Glass Wool)
Teflon
Sample Line
Vacuum Line
Quick
Connects
Female
Rigid Leak-Proof '
Container
Figure 23-1. Integrated-bag sampling train. (Mention
of trade names or specific products does not con-
stitute endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.)
MLLJNG CODE (MO-Ot-C
84
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11, 1980 / Proposed Rules
39779
Then reposition the sample and vacuum
lines and begin the actual sampling, keeping
the rate constant. At the end of the sample
period, shut off the pump, disconnect the
sample line from the bag, and disconnect the
vacuum line from the bag container. Protect
bag container from sunlight.
6-2 Sample Storage. Keep the sample bags
out of direct sunlight and protect from heat.
Perform the analysis within 1 day of sample
collection for methylene chloride, ethylene
dichloride. and trichlorotrifluoroethane. and
within 2 days for perchloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, 1.1,1-trichloroethane, and
carbon tetrachloride.
6.3 Sample Recovery. With a new piece of
Teflon tabing identified for that bag, connect
a bag inlet valve to the gas chromatograph
sample valve. Switch the valve to receive gas
from the bag through the sample loop.
Arrange the equipment so the sample gas
passes from the sample valve to a O-to-100-
ml/min rotameter with flow control valve
followed by a charcoal tube and a 0-tol-in.
HtO pressure gauge. The tester may maintain
the sample flow either by a vacuum pump or
container pressuhzation if the collection bag
remains in the rigid container. After sample
loop purging is ceased, allow the pressure
guage to return to zero before activating the
gas sampling valve.
6.4 Analysis. Set the colum temperature
to 100'C and the detector temperature to
225'C. When optimum hydrogen and oxygen
flow rates have been determined, verify and
maintain these flow rates during all
chromatograph operations. Using zero helium
or nitrogen as the carrier gas, establish a flow
rate in the range consistent with the
manufacturer's requirements for satisfactory
detector operation. A flow rale of
approximately 20 ml/min should produce
adequate separations. Observe the base line
periodically and determine that the noise
level has stabilized and that base-line drift
has ceased. Purge the sample loop for 30 sec
at the rate of 100 ml/min, then activate the
•ample valve. Record the injection time (the
position of the pen on the chart at the time of
sample injection), the sample number, the
sample loop temperature, the column
temperature, carrier gas flow rate, chart
speed, and the attenuator setting. Record the
barometric pressure. From the chart, note the
peak having the retention time corresponding
to the halogenated organic compound, as
determined in Section 7.2.1. Measure the
halogenated organic compound peak. area.
A_. by use of a disc integrator, electronic
integrator, or a planimeter. Record A. and
the retention time. Repeat the injection at
least two times or until two consective values
for the total area of the peak do not vary
more than 5 percent. Use the average value
for these two total areas to compute the bag
concentration.
6.5 Determination of Bag Water Vapor
Content. Measure the ambient temperature
and barometric pressure near the bag. From a
water saturation vapor pressure table.
determine and record the water vapor
content of the bag as a decimal figure.
(Assume the relative humidity to be 100
percent unless a lesser value is known.)
7. Preparation of Standard Cos Mixtures.
' Calibration, and Quality Assurance.
7.1 Preparation of Standard Gas Mixtures.
(Optional procedure—delete if cylinder
standards are used.) Assemble the apparatus
shown In Figure 23-2. Check that all fittings
are tight. Evacuate a 50-liter Tedlar or
aluminized Mylar bag that has passed a leak
check (described in Section 7.3.2) and meter
in about SO liters of nitrogen. Measure the
barometric pressure, the relative pressure at
the dry gas meter, and the temperature at the
dry gas meter. Refer to Table 23-1. While the
bag is filling, use the 50-pl syringe to inject
through the septum on top of the impinger,
the quantity required to yield a concentration
of 200 ppm. In a like manner, use the 25-ftl
syringe to prepare bags having approximately
100- and 50-ppm concentrations. To calculate
the specific concentrations, refer to Section
8.1. fTedlar bag gas mixture standards or
methylene chloride, ethylene dichloride, and
trichlorotrifluoroethane may be used for 1
day, trichloroethylene and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane for 2 days, and
perchloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride
for 10 days from the date of preparation.
(Caution: If the new gas mixture standard is a
lower concentration than the previous gas
mixture standard contamination may be a
problem when a bag is reused.)
WLUNQ CODE M4O41-M
85
-------
39780 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday, Tune 11.1980 / Proposed Rules
Syringe
Nitrogen Cylinder
Boiling
Water
Bath
Dry Gas Meter
Tedlar Bag
Capacity
50 Liters
Figure 23-2. Preparation of Standards.
(optional)
86
-------
TABLE 23-1. INJECTION VALUES FOR PREPARATION OF STANDARDS (Optional, See Section 7.1)
Compound
Molecular Density at
Weight 293eK
g/g-mole g/ml
ul/50 liters of N« required
for approximate concentration of:
200 ppm
100 ppm
50 ppm
Perchloroethylene C2C1^
THchloroethylene C2HC13
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane C2H3C13
Methylene Chloride CH2C12
Trlchlorotrlfluoroethane C2C13F3
Carbon Tetrachlorlde CCl^
Ethyl ene D1 chloride C9HAC19
165.85
131.40
133.42
84.94
187.38
153.84
98.96
1.6230
1.4649
1.4384
1.3255
1.5790
1.5940
1.2569
42.5
37.3
38.6
26.6
49.3
40.1
32.7
21.2
18.6
19.3
13.3
24.7
20.1
16.4
10.6
9.3
9.6
6.7
12.3
10.0
8.2
WLLINQ CODE 6MO-01-C
-------
39782
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 11. 1980 / Proposed Rules
7.2 Calibration.
7.2.1 Determination of Halogenated
Organic Compound Retention Time. (This
section can be performed simultaneously
with Section 7.2.2.) Establish chromatograph
conditions identical with those in Section 6.4.
above. Determine proper attenuator position.
Flush the sampling loop with zero helium or
nitrogen and activate the sample valve.
Record the injection time, the sample loop
temperature, the column temperature, the
carrier gai flow rate, the chart speed, and the
attenuator setting. Record peaks and detector
responses that occur in the absence of the
halogenated organic. Maintain conditions
(with the equipment plumbing arranged
identically to Section 6.3). flush the sample
loop for 30 sec at the rate of 100 ml/min with
one of the halogenated organic compound
calibration mixtures, and activate the sample
valve. Record the injection time. Select the
peak that corresponds to the halogenated
organic compound. Measure the distance on
the chart from the injection time to the time
at which the peak maximum occurs. This
distance divided by the chart speed is
defined as the halogenated organic
compound peak retention time. Since it is
possible that there will be other organic*
present in the sample, it is very important
that positive identification of the
Halogenated organic compound peak be
made.
7.12 Preparation of Chromatograph
Calibration Curve. Make a gas
chromalographic measurement of each
Standard gas mixture (described in Section
5.2J3 or 7.1) using conditions identical with
those listed in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. Flush the
sampling loop for 30 sec at the rate of 100 ml/
min with one of the standard gas mixtures
and activate the sample valve. Record Cj, the
concentration of halogenated organic
injected, the attenuator setting, chart speed.
peak area, sample loop temperature, column
temperature, carrier gas flow rate, and
retention time. Record the laboratory
pressure. Calculate A* the peak area
multipled by the attenuator setting. Repeat
until two consecutive injection areas are
within 5 percent then plot the average of
those two values versus C«. When the other
standard gas mixtures have been similarly
analyzed and plotted, draw a straight line
through the points derived by the least
squares method. Perform calibration daily, or
before and after each set of bag samples.
whichever is more frequent
7.3 Quality Assurance.
7.3.1 Analysis Audit Immediately after
the preparation of the calibration curve and
prior to the sample analyses, perform the
analysis audit described in Appendix E,
Supplement B: "Procedure for Field Auditing
GC Analysis."
7.3.2 Bag Leak Checks. While
performance of this section is required
subsequent to bag use. it is also advised that
it be performed prior to bag use. After each
use. make sure a bag did not develop leaks
by connecting a water manometer and
pressurizing the bag to 5 to 10 on HiO (2 to 4
in. Hfl). Allow to stand for 10 min. Any
displacement in the water manometer
indicates a leak. Also, check the rigid
container for leaks in this manner. (Note: An
alternative leak check method is to pressurize
the bag to 5 to 10 cm H>0 (2 to 4 in. H«0) and
allow to stand overnight A deflated bag
indicates a leak.) For each sample bag in its
rigid container, place a rotameter in lime
between the bag and the pump inlet
Evacuate the bag. Failure of the rotameter to
register zero flow when the bag appears to be
empty indicates a leak.
8. Calculations.
8.1 Optional Procedure Standards
Concentrations. Calculate each halogenated
organic standard concentration (C, ia ppm)
prepared in accordance with Section 7.1 as
follows: •
88
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11.1980 / Proposed Rules 39783
IP- (24.055 x TO3) . BD T
C • • 6.240x10* -
'c P M VmT Pm
u v 293 tn
T jtfC?}
Eq. 23-1
Where:
8 • Volume of halogenated organic Injected, pi.
D » Density of compound at 293°K, g/ml.
H « Molecular weight of compound, g/g-mole.
V * Gas volume measured by dry gas meter, liters.
m
Y « Dry gas meter calibration factor, dimensionless.
P • Absolute pressure of dry gas meter, ran Hg.
T * Absolute temperature of dry gas meter, °K.
m
24.055 * Ideal gas molal volume at 293° K and 760 mm Hg,
I1ters/g-mole.
103 • Conversion factor. I(ppm)(ml)]/ul.
8.2 Sample Concentrations. From the calibration curve
described 1n Section 7.2.2 above, select the value of Cc that
corresponds to A . Calculate C$, the concentration of
balogenated organic in the sample (in ppm), as follows:
C
s rT-S
5 M'r u wb'
Where:
C « Concentration of the halogenated organic
indicated by the gas chroma tograph , ppm.
P * Reference pressure, the laboratory pressure
recorded during calibration, mm Hg.
T4 • Sample loop temperature at the time of
analysis, °K.
P. » Laboratory pressure at time of analysis, mm Hg.
T « Reference temperature, the sample' loop temperature
recorded during calibration, °K.
S h » Hater vapor content of the bag sample, volume fraction.
HJJNO CODE 1M*«1 -C
89
-------
397B4 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 114 / Wednesday. June 11.1980 / Proposed Rules
9. References.
1. Feairheller. W. H., A. M. Kemmer. B. J
Warner, and D. Q. Douglas. Measurement of
Caseous Organic Compound Emissions by
Gas Chromatography. EPA Contract No. 68-
02-1404, Task 33 and 68-02-2818, Work
Assignment 3. January 1978. Revised by EPA
August 1978.
2. Supelico, Inc. Separation of
Hydrocarbons. Bulletin 747. Belleforte.
Pennsylvania. 1974.
3. Communication from Joseph E Knoll.
Percholoroethylene Analysis by Gas
Chromatography. March 8,1978.
4. Communication from Joseph E Knoll.
Test Method for Halogenated Hydrocarbons.
December 20,1978.
«••**•
(Sections lll(b). lll(d), 114. and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411.
7414. and 7601(a)))
|FR Do. fe-l»M Fifed 6-10-» « 45 am)
•ILLMG CODE t9*»-ei-M
90
-------
Federal Register
SIP Revisions—Proposed
and
Final Rules (excerpts)
[A random collection]
1977-1980
-------
Alabama
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 228 / Monday. November 26, 1979 / Rules and Regulation^
67375
EPA h»,s drtenr.ined that the VOC
Cor.troi Techniques Guideline .,
concerning conlro'. of petroleum storage
vessels prior to lease custody transfer
supports sn exemption of crude oil and
condensatp sto-aee vessels smeller than
1,630.000 liters. Therefore, the
conditional approval concerning the -
Alabama exemption is changed to full
approval.
The conditional approval for the State
Director-ap '-oved alternative VOC
control (6-i-i.2} v.-hich uses a plantwide
weekly wei^Med average is changed to
full approval It ir EPA's interpretation
of the Clean Air Act end relevant
regulations that if alternative control
strategies are allowed which were not
part of the SIP approval process, then
these individual alternative control
strategies must undergo the full SIP
revision process. EPA will soon place in
Public Comments
1. The following coniments concerned
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) f°r sources of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCJ.
Comment: The VOC RACT
regulalions should be limited to the
designated nonattainment areas. The
cornmenter doubts that EPA will allow
(based on written EPA policy and
regulations) exemptions from either pre-
construction monitoring or emission
offset requirements for new VOC
sources when a State has adopted .
statewide RACT regulations for VOC
sources. .
Agency Response: Statewide RACT
regulations for VOC sources are a
necessary requirement for a Statewide
"accommodative SIP" approach for new
VOC sources. An accommodative SIP
eliminates requirements for offsets for
new VOC sources locating in or near
nonattainment areas. In addition, under
this approach a new source locating in a
rural area which is unclassifiable for
ozone can assume nonattainment, install
LAER control, and perform the required
monitoring after the start of
construction. Otherwise, monitoring
would be required before issuance of the
permit to start construction.
Comment: The compliance schedule
deadlines for the VOC RACT regulation
should be extended as long as possible
while still meeting reasonable further
progress requirements. The cornmenter
is concerned that the time frame for
ordering, retrofitting or installing, and
testing control equipment will exceed
the time allowed on the compliance
schedules.
Agency Response: The State has
adopted regulations allowing alternative
compliance schedules. EPA will allow
alternative compliance schedules which
are approved by states under
. regulations which meet EPA
requirements.
2. The following comments addressed
questions concerning the control
strategy demonstration and adopted
regulations.
Comment: (Ozone-Jefferson County
and Mobile County) Air quality and
emissions data for photochemical
oxidants (ozone) and the compliance
modeling (linear rollback technique) are
based more on wishful thinking than
factual information and reliable
analysis.
Agency Response: The air quality
data has been collected in accordance
with approved reliable sampling
methods. The emissions data were
collected using standardized methods
and thus constitute reliable factual
information. The xise of the linear
rollback method determining the level of
control required to attain the national
ambient air quality standards is
acceptable. While EPA recognizes that
other models exist which involve a more
complex investigation of the ozone-
hydrocarbon reaction cycle, the rollback
method is still deemed reliable by EPA.
6. The commenter found the
discussion in the General Preamble of
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for VOC sources covered bv
Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) to
be confusing in that it appeared to
equate RACT with the guidance in the
CTGi. EPA did not intend to equate
RACT with the CTGs. The CTGs
provide recommendations to the States
for determining RACT. and serve as a
"presumptive norm" for RACT, but are
not intended to define RACT. Although
EPA believes its earlier guidance was
clear on this point, the Agency has
issued a supplement to the General
Preamble clarifying the role of the CTGs
in plan development See 44 FR 53761
(September 17.1979).
93
-------
Arkansas
44904
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 148 / Tuesday. July 31. 19?§ /' Proposed -ftules
PART O-SIP REQUIREMENTS
Ozone
In the March 3.1978 Federal Register,
at 43 Fed. Reg. 8969. the EPA identified
Pulaski County, Arkansas as a
nonattainment area for photochemical
oxidants (ozone) in accordance with
Section 107 of the Act. The geographic
area of nonattainment is Pulaski County
which includes the Little Rock
metropolitan area. The ozone design
value for Little Rock is 0.16 parts per
million (ppm). The State elected to use
the modified rollback model to
determine the amount of VOC
reductions required to show attainment
oftheNAAQS.
Present transport (T.) and future
transport (T,) values of 0.12 ppm. and
0.08 ppm were used with an additivity
factor of 0.5 to calculate the reductions.
The reduction necessary for Pulaski
County to demonstrate attainment of the
ozone standard is 20 percent Use by the
State of the modified rollback model,
present and future transport values, and
the additivity value are consistent with
EPA guidance. ^
The emission inventory data provided
in the SIP was developed by an EPA
contractor * and is considered adequate
to meet the requirements of the Act.
Base year (1977) emission inventory
summaries and 1982 emission
projections are provided, by VOC
source category, for Pulaski County. The
1982 emissions projections provide a
growth rate for area and mobile sources.
The plan points out however, that for
point sources (i.e., sources having
potential emissions of VOC greater than
100 tons per year] a growth rate of 1.0 is
assumed. The no growth projection in
major VOC sources is claimed based
upon the fact that permit data for the
past 10 yean indicates virtually no
growth for VOC sources. By the present
contribution of point source emissions (6
percent) relative to the total VOC
emissions, this assumption does not
appear to be unreasonable.
In addition to requiring a current .
emissions inventory, the Act and
subsequent EPA guidance also requires
that the State provide for annual
reporting of emission reductions so as to
evidence reasonable further progress
(RFP). The Arkansas agency has
1 EPA Review of Arkuwu SUte Implementation
Ran Revision, June 1978
'TRW Environmental Engineering Division,
Vienna. Virginia.
committed to provide EPA with such
information in their regular reporting
schedule. Their present reporting
schedule with respect to providing
information on emission inventory data
is semi-annual. This will be sufficient to
meet the annual reporting requirement.
The control strategy submitted by the
State of Arkansas is based on emission
reductions achieved through the
application of reasonably available
control technology (RACT) to existing
major stationary sources consistent with
Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs)
and the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program (FMVCP). The State has
committed to adopt additional VOC
control measures consistent with CTGs
published after January 1,1978, for
applicable major sources and has also
committed to adopt regulations for
source categories not included on EPA's
CTG lists, but for which the Arkansas
Air Pollution Control Commission
determines that RACT exist.
In applying controls to stationary
sources of VOC and accounting for
mobile source reductions, the State's
control strategy demonstrates an overall
26.5 percent reduction in VOC
emissions. This overall reduction is
comprised of a 4.7 percent reduction
from the application of RACT to
stationary sources and a 21.9 percent
reduction credited to the FMVCP.
According to the State's
demonstration the reduction from the
FMVCP will be 21.9 percent. EPA's
MOBILE 1 computer model was used to
calculate vehicle emissions for 1977 and
1982 with input data used in the model
being supplied by the Arkansas State
Highway and Transportation
Department
The reductions claimed in the State's
control strategy are considered by EPA
to be adequate to demonstrate
attainment In addition to demonstrating
attainment the Plan graphically sets
forth a reasonable further progress line
which indicates the rate at which total
emissions will be reduced from 1977 to
1982. This linear reduction rate depicted
in the plan is to be achieved through the
application of RACT regulations and the
FMVCP. Reductions claimed through
these programs, included with the State
commitment to adopt regulations for
future CTG categories and to adopt
additional regulations for non-CTG
categories, should be more than
sufficient to meet the requirement of
RFP.
The Arkansas "Regulations for the
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds"
specify both emission limits and
permitting requirements. The permitting
requirements will be discussed
elsewhere in this notice.
The Arkansas emission limitations for
VOC sources apply to gasoline storage
and marketing, petroleum liquid storage
and cutback asphalt. The State has
demonstrated that through the
application of these regulations an
additional 4.7 percent reduction in
hydrocarbon emissions can be .obtained.
These reductions are in excess of the
reductions needed, therefore, EPA
proposes to approve these regulations.
EPA points out, however, that the
definition for VOC compounds (i.e.,
compounds having a vapor pressure
greater than 78 millimeters of Hg) is
inconsistent with the EPA's definition
In order to be approvable, the State
would have to modify their definition of
VOC compounds should they adopt and
submit additional hydrocarbon
regulations.
The control requirements specified in
the Arkansas regulations address only a
portion of the source categories for
which CTG documents have been
specified. The Arkansas regulations do
not specify requirements for surface
coating operations for auto and light
trucks, cans, paper, fabric, metal
furniture, large appliances, magnet wire
and coils. Nor were requirements
specified for petroleum refinieries and
degreasing.
In order to meet the requirements of
Section 172(b)(2) the State must adopt
and submit regulations consistent with
the CTG's for the above described
source categories applicable to sources
which have a potential to emit 100 tons
or more per year of VOC. The exception
to this requirement is a certification by
the State that no major sources
applicable to a specific RACT regulation
exist within the nonattainment area.
It appears, based upon a review of
source categories shown in the emission
inventory summary, that the majority of
non-regulated sources described above
do not exist in Pulaski County.
However, in order for this portion of the
plan to be approvable the State must
make such a certification. Therefore,
EPA is proposing approval of this
portion of the plan provided that the
agency certifies, within 30 days after
publication of this notice, that those
specific categories of soucrces of VOC
to which CTG's apply do not exist in
Pulaski County.
The Arkansas Regulations include
exemptions for methyl chloroform and
methylene chloride. These organic
compounds, while not appreciably
affecting ambient ozone levels, are
potentially harmful. Both methyl
chloroform and methylene chloride have
94
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 148 / Tuesday. July 31. 1979 / Proposed Rules
been identified as mutagenic in bacterial
and mammalian cell test systems a
circumstance which raises the
possibility of human mutagenicity or
carcinagenicity. The EPA is concerned
that the State has chosen this course of
action without full consideration of the
total environemental and health
implication. However, the SIP will not
be disapproved if, after due
consideration, the State chooses to
maintain these exemptions. This policy
should not be interpreted as encouraging
the increased use of these compounds.
Furthermore, State officials and sources
should be advised that there is a strong
possibility of future regulatory action to
control these compounds. Sources which
choose to comply by substitution may
be required to install control systems as
a consequence of the regulatory action.
The Arkansas VOC regulations
specify an overall compliance schedule
for all existing sources subject to the
VOC emission control requirements. The
general compliance schedule requires
that the affected sources submit a
compliance schedule by October 1,1979.
The schedule of compliance must be
approved by the Arkansas Commission
of Pollution Control and Ecology by
February 1,1980, and must require that
the necessary controls be installed and
placed into operation prior to June 1,
1981.
The compliance schedule does not
establish a final compliance date. It
could be interpreted that since some of
the emission control requirements are
specified in terms of equipment
requirements (e.g., submerged fill pipe.
bottom filling, floating roof) that
installation and operation are
equivalent to final compliance in all
cases. However, because one of the
regulations is a mass emission
limitation, the compliance schedules
must specify a final compliance date to
be approvable. The Agency is
encouraged to establish the final
compliance date as June 1,1981, to
demonstrate attainment as
expeditiously as practicable.
EPA is proposing approval of this
portion of the plan provided that a final
compliance date is established in
Section 4.5(a) of the Arkansas
regulations and submitted to EPA within
120 days after publication of this notice
and further provided that the final
compliance date is adequate to
demonstrate attainment as
expeditiously as practicable.
Section 4.6 specifies requirements for
demonstrating compliance with the VOC
emission limitations. This Section, to be
approvable, must specify a sampling
method for determining VOC emission
rates.
In EPA's review of the regulations and
specific to Sections 4.2(b). 4.4(a). 4.4(b!
and 4.5.(a)(2). EPA points out that any
exemption or extension granted with
respect to these sections must be
submitted to EPA as revisions to the
plan. Such exemptions approved by EPA
will become part of the SIP. Any source
operating under such an exemption or
extension which has not been approved
by EPA shall be subject to enforcement
action under Section 113 of the Act.
Transportation Control Measures
The stretegy outlined in the SIP for
control of ozone in Pulaski County
satisfactorily demonstrates that the
NAAQS can be attained not later than
December 31,1982 in accordance with
provisions of Section 172(a)(l) of the
Act. Emission reductions necessary to
attain the ozone standard of 0.12 ppm
will be achieved primarily through the
FMVCP. VOC emissions from highway
vehicles in Pulaski County are projected
to decrease by more than 38 percent
(6,464'tons) by 1982 as a result of the
FMVCP. Reductions expected from the
FMVCP were estimated using the
Mobile 1 model and are comparable
with projections made for other urban
areas. The projected emissions from
highway vehicles in 1982 includes a
projected increase in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) of 17 percent. VMT
projections were obtained from the
Arkansas State Highway and
Transportation Department. Emissions
projections for 1982 in Pulaski County
are documented in EPA report
"Summary Report on Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance
Program for Pulaski County, Arkansas.
February. 1979".
Since an extension of the attainment
deadline beyond December 1982 is not
required it is not mandatory for the
ozone control strategy to include
provisions for the development of a
vehicle emissions inspection and
maintenance program or a
transportation control plan (TCP).
However, the State has acknowledged
the potential for additional reductions
due to transportation controls and has
included a commitment in the SIP to
perform a feasibility study of available
transportation control measures.
95
-------
27696
Colorado SIP Action
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 93 / Friday. May 11. 1979 / Proposed Rules
///. Volatile organic compounds.
According to Sections 172 and 108 of the
Clean Air Act and EPA guidance.
stationary sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) located in the
Larimer-Weld and Denver areas must be
subjected to reasonably available
control technology (RACTJ. EPA
reviewed the State's Regulation 7 and
found several major deficiencies in the
State's approach to the control of VOCs
from stationary sources. Hie specific
deficiencies are:
1. Hie definition of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) is less restrictive
than EPA's definition, which could result
in no control of some compounds.
2. The controls for surface coating,
cutback asphalt and degreasing are less
restrictive than EPA requirements as
noted in the Evaluation Report
3. The requirement for an approved
balanced vapor-recovery system should
specifically refer to the Colorado design
criteria. These criteria represent RACT
as defined by EPA.
4. The regulation provides an
exemption for barometric-type
condensers in use at petroleum
refineries prior to the effective date of
the regulation. The State must provide
an evaluation of how this exemption
affects the reductions achieved for this
source category.
4. New Major VOC Sources in
Unclassified Areas—In order to approve
a new VOC source in an unclassified
area for ozone the State will have to get
ambient air quality data (up to one year!
to determine the status of the area. If the
area is determined to be non-attainment
the federal emission offset policy will
apply until the state has an approved
SIP revision. In rural unclassified areas
where statewide control of all major
VOC source categories for which control
technology guidelines (CTG) documents
have been published has been applied,
sources can be approved prior to the
resolution of the attainment status. In
these cases LAER is required and the
attainment status can be determined via
monitoring subsequent to the
commencement of construction. This is
possible because regulations equivalent
to RACT for such major VOC source
categories is considered an approvable
plan in rural areas.
Proposed Action: On the basis of the
above deficiencies, EPA proposes to
conditionally approve the new source
review requirements of toe Vermont SIP
for non-attainment areas subject to
receipt of the specified regulatory
amendments and changes to the
narrative portions of the SIP on or
before November 1.1979. Upon receipt
of these changes, EPA will propose
action on the approvability of these SIP
revisions, and will provide opportunity
for public comment.
37236
District of Columbia
Federal Register / Vol 44. No. 124 / Tuesday. June 26. 1979 / Proposed Rules
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Oiona
Description ofSubmittal
EPA designated the entire District of
Columbia as a nonattainment area for
ozone. In response to the requirements
of Section 110 and Part D of the Act, the
District of Columbia officially submitted
a revised SIP on December 26.1978 for
the attainment of the ozone standard.
This SIP contains a set of proposed
relations nrnviding for ffiintml flf
Ynlatile organic compounds fVOC
VOiailie oryamt. uuumuu»u» i . ~~
emissions f™m stationary and mobile
sources^ For oxidant nonattainment
areas/EPA requires the adoption of
Reasonably Available Control
Technology ptAfTTTfor eleven fill VOC
source categories. TKe District regulates
In it- gn>"
f61 Of
solvent metal cleaning, tank truck
gasoline loaclng terminals, cutback
asphalt, bulk gasoline plants, gasoline
service stations (Stage I vapor controls).
and storage of petroleum liquids in fixed
*""* "" B"'"™B
roof fr1"
within the remaining five (51 categories
and therefore is not required at this time
to have regulations for such categories.
The five excluded categories are:
surface coating of large appliances;
surface coating for insulation of magnet
wire; surface coating of cans, coils,
paper, fabrics, automobiles, and light
duty trucks; petroleum refineries; and
surface coating of metal furniture. The
District however, has committed itself
to develop required regulations for those
VOC categories which would apply to
sources in the District of Columbia and
for which EPA may issue Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents
in the future. These may include
techniques for control of vapors when
refueling motor vehicles (Stage II Vapor
Recovery) which the District of
Columbia presently regulates.
The portion of the District SIP
covering emissions from mobile sources
will be discussed separately under the
section TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
MEASURES that follows later in this
notice.
Adoption After Reasonable Notice and
Hearing
The District of Columbia held public
hearings concerning the provisions of
the SIP on October 27,1978. The revision
contains sufficient documentation that
the appropriate procedures were
followed in providing notice and that
public hearings were held in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR Part
51.4. The regulations in the SIP submittal
have not yet been formally adopted by
the District of Columbia. The procedural
steps in the District's regulatory process
are continuing toward their formal
adoption to remedy this deficiency. EPA,
by letter of April 27,1979, has notified
the Mayor of the District of Columbia of
the need for City Council to adopt these
regulations expeditiously in order to
ensure final EPA approval at the earliest
possible date.
-------
Attainment Date
The District of Columbia does not
anticipate attaining the ozone standard
by the end of 1982. An extension of the
deadline for attaining this standard until
the end of 1967 has been requested. EPA
mayapprove mch a request provided
the District demonstrates that
attainment by 1982 is impossible.
'despite the implementation of RACT for
tEe applicable VOC stationary source ~
categories and tne implementation 01
~ transportation control measure^
including a motor vehicle inspection and_
maintenance program fl/M) as
discussed below.
Control Strategy and Demonstration of
Attainment
The District submittal was based upon
the 0.08 DPT" nviHant atandard. A new
0.12 ppm ozone standard was
promulgted by EPA on February 8.1979.
EPA noted in its review of the submittal,
that there was neither a clear
commitment to attain the 0.06 ppm
oxidant standard, nor was there a
commitment to attain the new ozone
standard of 0.12 ppm. The plan must
contain a commitment to achieve the
needed emission reductions necessary
for attainment of either of these
standards in order to be acceptable.
Emission Inventory
The District of Columbia submitted a
1976 emission inventory for VOC
emissions. EPA has requested the
District to expand this inventory to
include source-specific information for
the major point sources. Also, the
District must submit the calculations
and methods of estimation used in
developing the inventory before EPA
can evaluate the inventory for accuracy.
This is necessary to determine the
adequacy of the nonattainment plan.
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
The RFP presentation in the District of
Columbia submittal used the 6 a.m. to 9
a.m. VOC emissions instead of daily
(24-hourl values in determining the
required emission reduction to attain the
"ozone standard. To remedy thisj
^deficiency, the District has agreed to
Mhft RFP presentation to reflect
total daily emissions. Background data
including all calculations pertormeu in
developing the RFP diagram were not
submitted with the plan. However, on
May 3,1979, a new RFP diagram based
upon a 24-hour format was submitted
and is under review.
Margin for Growth
The District of Columbia in'-pn>f"'att'H
growth factors and projections in its SIP.
However, these growth estimates were
not adequately referenced for EPA to
evaluate their use. Also, a tracking
system for these emission growth rates _
jyas pmitted from the submittal. The
District has submitted references to the
sources of the growth estimates in its
letter of May 3,1979. However, the
question of a tracking system is still
unaddreftsed. Growth of major point
jiources will be accounted for by the pre-
construction review requirements of the
plan. This is discussed above for total
suspended particulates.
Reasonably Available Control
Technology as Expeditiously as
Practicable
The District submitted proposed
regulations for its VOC sources.
Generally, the RACT regulations are
adequate; however, the definition of
"emulsified asphalt" needs some
clarification. The regulation must state
the amount of solvent, if any, that is
allowed in these asphalt materials.
Generally emulsified asphalt should
contain little or no solvent. The District
of Columbia has allowed the use of
cutback asphalt during the season from
October to March,. This is acceptable
provided the District documentsjo EPA
that no violations of the ozone standard
have been recorded during these
"months.
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 91 / Wednesday. May 9. 1979 / Proposed Rules
With respect to Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) regulations, the State
has adopted statewide regulations
pertaining to those emission limitations
and process and equipment
specifications necessary to meet the
requirement that RACT be applied to
these sources. Categorical compliance
schedules are included. These
regulations are for sources in nine
categories which equal or exceed 100
tons of emissions per year.
Categories of sources controlled by
presently adopted regulations include:
(1) surface coating including (a) auto
and light duty truck manufacturing, (b)
can coating, (c) coil coating, (d) paper
coating, (e) fabric and vinyl coating; (2)
metal furniture coating; (3) large
appliance surface coating; (4) wire
coating; (5) petroleum liquid storage; (6)
bulk gasoline terminals; (7) cutback
asphalt; (8) petroleum refinery; and (9)
solvent metal cleaning (Georgia Rule
391-3-l-.02[2][t] through [ff]).
In addition the State is committed to
adopt VOC regulations for additional
RACT categories annually as they are
developed bv EPA.
97
-------
Illinois
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 86 / Thursday. February 21. 1960 / Rules and Regulations 11481
ACTION: Final rule.
Ozone
An adequate State Implementation
Plan for ozone requires sufficient
controls on the emission of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from
stationary and mobile sources to
provide for the attainment of the
standards by December SI, 1982. In
cases where attainment by 1982 cannot
be demonstrated despite the application
of all reasonably available control
measures, extensions of the attainment
date may be granted through December
31, 1987. Pursuant to section 172(b)(ll)
of the Acta SIP which provides for
attainmentof the ozone standard after
December 31. 1982 must contain a
specific schedule for tne implementation
of a vehicle emission control inspection
and inten ™01 H^Mi and
,
establish a program which requires an
analysis of alternatives prior to the
issuance of any permit for construction
or modification of a major emitting
facility. As discussed below. USEPA has
determined that the Illinois' controls on
stationary sources of VOC and specified
transportation control plans are'
conditionally approvable. USEPA has
also determined that the vehicle
Inspection and maintenance program
and specified transportation control ~
'plans'are approvable. Illinois has *
~ satisfied the requirement for a program
requiring analysis of alternatives in a
provision of its new source review rules.
Hydrocarbons From Stationary Sources
Section 172(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act
requires the application of reasonably
available control technology to
stationary sources of VOC in
nonattainment areas. USEPA has
developed Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTGs) which provide
information on available air pollution
control techniques, and contain
recommendations of what USEPA calls
the "presumptive norm" for RACT.
Where state regulations are not
supported by the information in the
CTGs, the state must provide an
adequate demonstration that its
regulations represent RACT, or amend
the regulations to be consistent with the
information in the CTGs. An
explanation of CTGs and their practical
effect is contained in a September 17,
1979 supplement (44 FR 53761) to the
General Preamble.
As noted in the General Preamble for
Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of
Plan Revisions for Nonattainment
Areas, (44 FR 20376) April 4,1979. the
minimum acceptable level of stationary
source control for ozone SIPs includes
RACT requirements for VOC sources
covered by CTGs the USEPA issued by
January 1978 and schedules to adopt
and submit by each future January
additional RACT requirements for
sources covered by CTGs issued by the
previous January. The Illinois submittal
includes a commitment from the State to
adopt and additional rules representing
RACT on stationary sources of VOC for
which USEPA issues CTGs. The
Administrator approves this
commitment by the State as part of the
federally approved Illinois State
Implementation Plan.
The submittal date for the first set of
additional RACT regulations was
revised from January 1,1980 to July 1,
1980 by Federal Register notice of
August 28.1979 (44 FR 50371). Today's
conditional approval of the ozone
portion of the Illinois' plan uis
contingent on the snbmittal of the
additional RACT regulations which are
due by July 1,1980 for CTGs published
between January 1978 and January 1979.
In addition, by each subsequent
January beginning January t, 1981.
RACT requirements must be adopted
and submitted to USEPA. The above
requirements are set forth in the
"Approval Status" section of the final
rule. If RACT requirements are not
adopted and submitted to USEPA
according to the time frame set forth in
the rule. USEPA will promptly take
appropriate remedial action.
The Illinois SIP includes a provision
'which exempts methylene chloride from
controls. This volatile organic
compound, while not appreciably
affecting ambient ozone levels, is
potentially harmful. Methylene chloride
has been identified as mutagenic in
bacterial and mammalian cell test
systems, a circumstance •which raises
the possibility of human mutagenicity
and/or carcinogenicity. USEPA is
concerned that the State has chosen this
course of action without full
consideration of the total environmental
and health implications. USEPA will not
disapprove the State's SIP submittal if
the State chooses to maintain this
exemption. USEPA is, however,
concerned that this policy not be
interpreted as encouraging the increased
use of this compound or compliance by
substitution. USEPA does not endorse
such approaches. Furthermore, State
officials and sources should be advised
that there is a strong possibility of future
regulatory action to control these
compounds. Sources which choose to
comply by substitution may well be
required to install control systems as a
consequence of these future regulatory
actions.
Statewide stationary source control
representing RACT for fifteen source
categories are contained in Rule 205 of
the Illinois Air Pollution Regulations. In
the July 2,1979 notice of proposed
rulemaking. USEPA noted five areas of
the rule which in USEPA's judgment
were deficient If the State made a
commitment to correct the deficiencies
• on a schedule to be negotiated between
the State and the USEPA Regional
Office, USEPA proposed conditional
approval of the rule. The following
discussion identifies the deficiencies,
summarizes the State's response and
any public comments, and contains
USEPA's response and final
determination.
1. Rule 205(k) exempts from controls
solvent cleaners which emit less than 15
Ibs. per day or 3 Ibs. per hour of volatile
organic compounds. This broad
exemption is neither technically
supported in the CTGs nor technically
supported by the State as representing
RACT.
State Response: The State of Illinois
has made a commitment to complete a
study which demonstrates that this
98
-------
11482 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 36 / Thursday, February 21. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
exemption represents RACT for existing
sources in the solvent metal cleaning
category, to submit the results of this
study to USEPA, and, if necessary, to
prepare draft regulations which
represent RACT for submittal to the
Illinois Pollution Control Board. The
State has made a commitment to fulfill
these conditions within nine months of
the effective date of this rulemaking.
USEPA Response and Final
Determination: Based on this
commitment and schedule, USEPA
conditionally approves the exemption
from controls for solvent cleaners which
emit less than 15 ibs. per day or 3 Ibs.
per hour of volatile organic compounds
in "Rule 205(k).
USEPA believes that the State's
commitment and schedule to submit any
necessary regulations to the IPCB is
adequate. USEPA recognizes that the
State cannot legally prejudge the
outcome of statutorily mandated
regulatory proceedings. Nonetheless, in
order to guarantee that the deficiencies
are adquately addressed and that the
plan is adequate to satisfy the
requirements of the Act USEPA
imposes the additional condition that
any necessary regulations be finally
promulgated by the State and submitted
to USEPA by November 30,1981.
In establishing the date by which any
necessary regulations must be
promulgated, USEPA has taken into
consideration the complex IPCB
rulemaking procedures which require
technical as well as economic hearings
and findings on all rulemaking actions.
A notice soliciting public comment on
the acceptability of this schedule will
appear in a separate Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to be published shortly.
2. Rule 205(n) contains an alternative
compliance option for owners and
operators of surface coating lines. The
alternative compliance option exempts
sources from the requirements for high
solid coating materials if VOC emissions
are controlled by an afterburner system
providing capture and destruction of the
nonmethane volatile organic materials.
The State's proposal differs from the
90% capture of emissions or 61% overall
control efficiency which represents the
presumptive norm for add-on control
equipment as technically supported in
the CTGs. The State did not submit
technical support for its choice of a
lower level of control as representing
RACT.
State Response: The State of Illinois
has made a commitment to complete a
study which demonstrates that level of
control in its regulation represents
RACT for existing sources of VOC, to
submit the results of the study to
USEPA. and if necessary, to submit
regulations representing RACT to the
Illinois Pollution Control Board. The
State has made a commitment to fulfill
these conditions within nine months of
the effective date of this final
rulemaking.
Public Comments: A commentor, a
national trade association of can
manufacturers, questioned the
availability of 90% capture systems with
respect to can manufacturing sources,
USEPA Response and Final
Determination: While the CTG
recommends that 90% capture systems
are RACT as a general matter, the CTG
does not address unique circumstances
which can be taken into account in
determining RACT on a case by case
basis. Therefore, the State is free to
determine RACT on an individual
source basis.
Based on the States commitment to
conduct a study, to submit the results of
the study to USEPA, and, if necessary,
to propose regulations representing
RACT to the Illinois Pollution Control
Board (IPCB USEPA conditionally
approves this provision. The State has
committed to fulfill these conditions
within nine months of the effective date
of USEPA's final rulemaking.
USEPA believes that the State's
commitment to submit any necessary
regulations to the IPCB is adequate.
USEPA recognizes that the State cannot
legally prejudge the outcome of
statutorily mandated regulatory
proceedings. Nonetheless, in order to
guarantee that the deficiences are
adequately addressed and that the plan
is adequate to satisfy the requirements
of the Act. USEPA imposes the
additional condition mat any necessary
regulations be finally promulgated by
the State and submitted to USEPA by
November 30,1961.
In establishing the date by which any
necessary regulations must be
promulgated, USEPA has taken into
consideration the complex EPCB
rulemaking procedures which require
technical as well as economic hearings
and findings on all rulemaking actions.
A notice soliciting public comment on
the acceptability of this schedule will
appear in a separate Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to be published shortly.
3. Rule 205(n)(4)(A) permits the use of
daily weighted averages for all lines at
all categories of coating plants. USEPA
indicated in the notice of proposed
rulemaking that the provision was
generally acceptable but requested the
State to provide the following
information: (1) A rationale for its
allowance of internal offsets in all
categories of coating plants; (2) The
methodology by which the internal
offset provision will be enforced; (3) A
clarification of the methodology in Rule
205(i) for determining control efficiency:
and (4) A clarification that the rule does
not allow non-RACT sources to provide
offsets.
State Response: (1) The State noted
that both USEPA and numerous
witnesses at State hearings encouraged
the State to utilize the "bubble concept".
Further, the State believes that failure to
extend the internal offset approach to
all categories would be arbitrary and
capricious when USEPA has specifically
approved the use of daily weighted
averaging for two categories, automobile
and can coating with similar needs and
problems. (2) The State commented
extensively on the mechanism for
enforcing Rule 205(n)(4)(A). According
to the State, Rule 205(n](4)(C) provides
that the bubble can be used only if the
operator of a source maintains adequate
records. If such records are not
maintained, then Rule 205(n)(l) applies
and the source must meet the emission
limitations for all coatings. Failure to
meet the emission limitations for all
coatings would be a violation of Rule
205(n)(l). (3) In response to USEPA's
inquiry about the specific test
methodology for determining control
efficiency, the State cited the
requirement in Rule 205(i). This
provision requires that a flame
ionization detector or other approved
method be used. (4) The State submitted
an August 23,1079 opinion of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board clarifying that
emission limits for non-RACT sources
may not be used to compute compliance
with the internal offset provision.
USEPA Response and Final
Determination: USEPA approves the
portions of Rule 205 which permit the
use of daily weighted averaging at all
coating plants because the State has
satisfactorily addressed USEPA's
concerns.
The following provides further
clarification on the methodology by
which the internal offset provision (Rule
205(n) alternative compliance) is to be
implemented. This "bubble" rule is
approvable only if the State follows the
provisions set forth in EPA bubble
policy, that is, each alternative
compliance scheme involving control
equipment (bubble) must be submitted
to EPA as a SIP revision. Therefore, in
those bubble situations where the
emissions to be used in a bubble
calcualtion are dependent on the
capture and control efficiency of a
control system, the emissions must be
determined through appropriate testing
procedures and the resulting overall
control efficiency for each specific piece
of add-on control equipment employed
99
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 38 / Thursday, February 21, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 11483
must be established. Establishing this
limit as part of the SIP will simplify
procedures required to determine
compliance. Additionally, critical
parameters of the control system most
be monitored during testing for
establishment of the emission rate and
continuous monitoring of these
parameters must be employed to allow
for the assessment of continued
performance at the established rate.
EPA would so like to address the
adequacy of the method for determining
control efficency given in rule 205(i).
While the flame ionization detector
prescribed by rule 205(i) is a suitable
technique, the State should be aware
that EPA has recently recommended/
proposed other techniques which would
be superior In October, 1978 OAQPS
published OAQPS No. 1.2—115.
Measurement of Volatile Organic
Compounds which describes an
oxidation-reduction method. This
method is also part of the proposed
NSPS (October 5.1979) for automobile
and light-duty truck surface coating
operations.
4. Rule 20S(q) allows seasonal
exemptions from the use of afterburners
and cutback asphalt. In its initial
submittal, the State did not provide
technical support demonstrating that the
standards would be protected with
these exemptions.
State Response: The State submitted
technical justification for the
exemptions using air monitoring data to
derive design values for use in the
EKMA computer dispersion model.
Existing city-specific isopleths from
Chicago and St. Louis demonstrate that
control requirements will be within
reasonable further progress limits for
reductions by 1982. Therefore, die State
contends it does not need to regulate
afterburner and cutback asphalt •
operations during the months of October
through April to show attainment as
expeditiously as practicable.
Public Comment One commentor, a
trade association for can manufacturers,
submitted a July 26.1979 memorandum
from Robert B. Faoro. USEPA Data
Analysis Section, on the subject of
ozone air quality standard violations
and seasonal afterburner shutdown. The
commentor states that this
memorandum clearly supports seasonal
afterburner shutdown provisions for a
period from November 1st through
March 31st.
USEPA Response and Final
Determination: Based on the State's
technical demonstration and on the
policy memorandum from Robert B.
Faoro. USEPA approves the seasonal
exemptions from the use of afterburners
and cutback asphalt contained in Rule
205(qJ.
5. Role 205(b)(l) of the 1972 federally
approved Illinois State Implementation
Plan required vapor collection systems
on the loading racks of bulk gasoline
terminals with a throughput of more
than 40,000 gallons per day. Rule 2D5(J]
of the 1972 federally approved Illinois
SIP required compliance with this
provision by December 31,1973. (In the
July 2,1979 Federal Register notice,
USEPA erroneously cited April, 1975 as
the final compliance date for this
provision.) The current Illinois SIP
submittal contains a new Rule 205. New
Rule 205[j) requires vapor collection
systems on the loading racks of bulk
gasoline terminals without regard to
throughput The new rule specifies that
final compliance for all affected
facilities must be achieved by July 1,
1981. USEPA will not approve the
extension of final compliance dates
when the substantive requirements of a
new rule are the same or less stringent
than the requirements of an existing
federally approved rule. Therefore,
USEPA published a list of sources which
it believed were required to be in
compliance with old Rule 205{b){l) by
December 31,1973 and would not be
allowed additional compliance time.
State Response: Citing "Train v.
NRDC" (95 act 1470,421 U.S. 59
(1975)), Illinois contends that USEPA
does not have the legal authority to
disapprove the compliance schedule in
Rule 2050) which extends the
compliance dates included in the
original SIP. The State claims that
although a December 1973 amendment
to Rule 205(b)(l) was never submitted to
USEPA, USEPA should have been
aware of the change in tins rule.
Consequently, die State believes that it
is unfair and inequitable for USEPA to
notify the State now that the amended
rule is deficient Finally, the State
suggests that if USEPA disapproves the
rule, it will leave those bulk gasoline
terminals against which enforcement
action is being taken with no final
compliance date.
USEPA Response: The federally
effective bulk gasoline terminal loading
rack rule in Illinois is Rule 205{b) which
was approved by USEPA in 1972. Hie
date for final compliance under the
provisions of the approved regulation
was December 31,1973. On December
20,1973, the Illinois Pollution Control
Board revised Rule 205(b). The Illinois
EPA did not submit the revised role to
USEPA for inclusion in the federally
approved Illinois SIP. Pursuant to
section 110 of the Clean Air Act, the
State must submit plans or revisions to
USEPA. Until the State submits a
revision to USEPA, the legally
enforceable SIP is the federally
approves SIP. Therefore, the prior
approved rule is the effective rule. The
State of Illinois, in its revision, merely
requires what the original rule required,
namely vapor recovery and disposal
systems, fa addition, the new rule
extends the date for final compliance to
July 1,1981.
All terminals which qualify for
regulation under the terms of federally
approved Rule 205(b)(l) are subject to
the requirements until a revision of the
rule is approved by USEPA. Extension
of the date for final compliance to July 1,
1981 is not authorized under the Clean
Air Act. The Clean Air Act specifies that
sources whose final compliance date is
passed, which are not in compliance by
July 1,1979 are subject to provisions of
section 120 (non-compliance penalties).
To allow sources to extend the date for
final compliance to July 1,1981 would
negate the impact of section 120 and the
intent of Congress.
Consequently, USEPA does not agree
with the State's comment that
disapproval of the compliance schedule
in Rule 205(j) will leave those bulk
gasoline terminals against which
enforcement action is being taken with
no final compliance date. For federal
enforcement, sources previously covered
by Rule 205{b). as federally approved in
1972, were to be in compliance by
December 31,1973. Sources which were
not previously covered by Rule 205(b)
but are newly covered under Rule 205(j)
must be in compliance by July 1,1981.
Public Comments and USEPA Response
1. Two commentors opposed USEPA's
proposed disapproval of the compliance
schedule in Rule 205(j) as it applies to
loading rack controls on bulk gasoline
terminals previously controlled in the
1972 federally approved SIP. One
commentor summarized the history of
Rule 205 and noted that on December 20,
1973 the State modified Rule 205(b)(l)
authorizing compliance with the rule by
means of submerged loading pipes or
• other equally effective devices. The
commentor contends that although
USEPA was aware of these actions, it
did not advise the State of its
disagreement with the rule until six
years later. For this reason and since
new Rule ZOSfoftZ) will require vapor
control equipment rather than
submerged fill, the commentor opposes
USEPA's proposed disapproval.
Pursuant to section 110 of the Clean
Air Act, the State must submit plans or
revisions to USEPA. Until the State
submits a revision to USEPA, the legally
100
-------
11484 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 36 / Thursday. February 21. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
enforceable SIP is the federally
approved SIP.
The other commentor notes that a
lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois raises the issue of whether the
Illinois proposal "extends the final
compliance date of Rule 205" and
suggests that USEPA disapproval of this
portion of the Illinois SIP is
inappropriate during the pendancy of
the litigation.
Pursuant to section 110 of the Clean
Air Act, USEPA is mandated to either
approve or disapprove state submitted
SIPs and revisions to SIPs within
specified timeframes. This mandate is
without regard to lawsuits or to other
contingencies. Consequently, USEPA
cannot withhold rulemaking until the
court makes a decision in this case.
Using the pendancy of litigation as a
basis for not acting on revisions to a SIP
would potentially promote frivolous
litigation to delay SIP action and
jeopardize the attainment and
maintenance of standards. Once the
court has rendered a decision in any
such case, appropriate steps can be
taken regarding the SIP.
2. Numerous corporations submitted
comments identifying errors in the list
USEPA published of bulk gasoline
terminals. Recognizing that errors were
made in the list and the likelihood that
any list of specific sources will be
inaccurate, USEPA retracts the list
published in the July 2,1979 Federal
Register. USEPA substitutes the general
language below in its final
determination to identify sources which
will not be permitted additional -"
compliance time.
USEPA Final Determination
On the basis of the above discussion,
USEPA disapproves the compliance
schedule in Rule 205(j] as it applies to
loading rack controls for all emission
sources subject to Rule 205(b)(l), as
approved by USEPA on May 31,1972,
which were required to be in compliance
by December 31,1973.
General Public Comments:
Several commentors raised both
general and regulation specific
questions about the ozone portion of the
Illinois submittal. One commentor, a
national trade association of can
manufacturers, enclosed comments filed
with the Illinois Pollution Control Board
and the Illinois EPA during the State's
rulemaking and asked that these
comments be considered in USEPA's
final rulemaking. In these comments, the
trade association asked that because of
technological infeasibility an interim
emission limitation be provided for end
seam compounds and that the final
compliance date for this category be
extended. USEPA believes that the
commentor raised this issue to the
appropriate forum when it submitted its
comments to the State of Illinois. The
states are free to choose the mix of
controls, including emission limitations
necessary to attain and maintain the
standards. 'Train v. NRDC." 421 U.S. 60,
95 S.Ct. 1470 (1975). In doing so. States
may consider technological and
economic feasibility. Once the State
chooses its mix of controls, however,
USEPA cannot disapprove that mix for
reasons of economic and technological
feasibility. "Union Electric v. EPA," 96
S.Ct. 2518 (1976). Therefore, USEPA has
no basis for disapproving the emission
limitations and compliance schedule in
the Illinois SIP for end seal compounds.
The State of New Jersey asked that
the Illinois SIP submittal be disapproved
because it does not contain appropriate
strategies to attain the ozone standard
in Illinois or to reduce its contribution to
nonattainment elsewhere. The
commentor notes that the proposed
Illinois SIP does not require statewide
RACT for existing sources, and lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER) and
offsets for new sources. USEPA believes
that the Illinois SIP submittal does
contain appropriate strategies to
demonstrate attainment. In addition, the
Illinois SIP requires RACT statewide on
existing VOC sources as well as LAER
and emission offsets for new sources.
Therefore, USEPA cannot disapprove
the ozone portion of the Illinois SIP on
this basis.
In addition, New Jersey argues as it
did in objecting to the Administrator's
ozone nonattainment area designations,
that entire States should be designated
nonattainment, thereby requiring Part D
SIP revisions statewide. The
Administrator considered all of New
Jersey's objections to the designations
and responded in the document entitled
"Technical Support Document for
Agency Policy Concerning Designation
of Attainment Unclassifiable, and
Nonattainment Areas for Ozone,"
January 1979. Availability of this
document was announced in the
February 1,1979 Federal Register (44 FR
6395). This document and the
Administrator's response to New
Jersey's comments are incorporated
herein by reference.
The Bi-State Metropolitan Planning
Commission asked that Illinois .
reconsider its requirement for RACT
statewide because of possible impacts
on growth in the Quad Cities Area
which encompasses Illinois and Iowa.
Iowa does not requires RACT statewide.
Section 172 of the Act requires RACT
only on existing sources in
nonattainment areas. Section 116 of the
Act, however, authorizes the state to
adopt or enforce more stringent
measures than the federal requirements.
Therefore, the State's decision to apply
RACT statewide is not a basis for
USEPA disapproval. Further, USEPA
believes that any economic disruption
caused by this requirement will be
minimal because RACT applies only to
existing sources. All new major sources
or major source modifications in both
Iowa and Illinois will be subject to
LAER, BACT or new source
performance standards.
Final Determination: USEPA
conditionally approves, with one
exception, the ozone portion of the
Illinois submittal subject to State
correction of the deficiencies identified
above in Rule 205 and the correction of
the deficiencies identified below in the
discussion of transportation control
plans. These deficiencies must be
corrected according to the schedules
committed to by the State in the SIP.
Public comment on these schedules will
be solicited in a notice of proposed
rulemaking to be published shortly.
USEPA takes no action on a change
made in rule 205{k) between USEPA's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and this
final rulemaking action. As discussed
above, USEPA believes that approval or
disapproval of the changed provision
will not alter the outcome of this
rulemaking. Public comment on the
change in Rule 205(k) will be solicited in
a separate Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
§52.722 Approval status.
With the exceptions set forth in this
subpart, the Administrator approved
Illinois' plan for the attainment and
maintenance of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under section 110
of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, the
Administrator finds the plan satisfies all
requirements of Part D, Title I of the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1977,
except as noted below. In addition.
continued satisfaction of the
requirements of Part D for the ozone
portion of the SIP depends on the
adoption and submittal of RACT
requirements by July 1,1980 for the
sources covered by CTGs between
January 1978 and January 1979 and
adoption and submittal by each
subsequent January of additional RACT
requirements for sources covered by
CTGs issued by the previous January.
101
-------
11494 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 36 / Thursday, February 21, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
A* queMy conkoJ cagon and nonattanMnl area
SO,
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
NO,
O,
Burtmglon Keoki* IKaiHUe (AOCR 65):
a Pnmary and Sacondaiy NmaBaiwnanl • g e e «
Anas
b naraaindar ol AOCR c c c c c e c
East Central Hhnoie mtaaiati (AOCR 66):
a Primaiy and Secondary NonaRanmen! g '
Areas
b Remainder ol AOCR: c c c c c c c
Metropolitan Chicago Interstate flndaruMUnors)
(AOCR 67):
a Pnmary and Secondary ftonsttahment e g e ' I
Areas
b Remainder of AOCR _ c c c c c c c
Metropolitan Dubuqua Maratata (AOCR 88):
a Primary and Sacondaiy Nonattanment 9
Areas-
b Remainder ol AOCR c c c c c c c
Metropolitan Quad C*es liimilall (AOCR 69):
a Pnmaiy and Secondary Nonattamment e g e
Areas
b Remainder o> AOCR - e c c c c c c
Metropolitan St Loua Interstate (Missouri-Illinois)
(AOCR 70)
a Pnmary and Secondary leonattainmenl e g f
Areas
b Hemartler o< AOCR c c c c c c c
Norm Cental Um tarasue (AOCR 71):
a. Pnmary and Seuindaiy Nonattainmerrt e g e
Areas
b Remainder ol AOCH _ c c c c c c c
S079B r/urimi «t~4~~. n^n. Peducah no«»Janaii«ai Oaloil (Wiaoonain) In-
cAticFiB^ terstale (AOCR 731
iS „ • P™"""/ •"> Sacondan/ Nonanainment g e
(l| The State conducts a study to Areas
demonstrate that the three pound per tJgZSZZSSjiSfti ' C
hour. 15 pound per day exemption for a Pr«nary and Secondary Nonaltainmem g e
solvent metal cleaners contained in Rule •
205[k) represents reasonably available
Control technology (RACT), submits the a Pnmary and Secondary Nonaflainment e s e
results of the study to USEPA and. b ^.^o,, o. AQOT e c c c c c c
submits any necessary revisions to the —_
regula tlOnS to the Illinois Pollution „ -n^ ,.„, *„, pi^, approv* „ oromulgaljon e Decerroe- 31 1932
Control Board, promulgates any » *> *>»»*< "we* presenny bekw primary standards or area ,s unciassrina ' OB""*'' 3', 1^1
necessary revised regulations and \ Zf$% ""* «""'*' b-0" "condaly "*"*"* " '"» * ur>CIMS'"ed ' ^^
Submits then to USEPA. NOTJ ^catg, „ lixunolet vdich are ilaaciiad are prescribed by tfw Adm.n*i-aio: Because me pan *d no! pfovi* a so*
(2) The State conducts a Study to ole date or me daw provJed was not acceptable These dates may be cnanged through njvawns to me SIP by me Stale
demonstrate that the 75% Overall control NOTE -Sources sublet te the plan raquraments and attainment dales estsowned unde- sectiy • llXa>(!)(A! pro' to the
emciencyrequu.mentinRule^n) -^ *«^^^^^ »-P, - —,,^,so, n,ear«, -
represents RACT, suomits the results of „««»„„« d^vMons. ^ to 40 CFR P,n si
th? s!udy to USEPA. submits any
necessary regulations representing
RACT to the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, promulgates and submits any
necessary regulations to USEPA.
(b) Part D—Disapproval—USEPA
disapproves the compliance schedule in
Rule 205{j) a* it applies to loading rack
controls for all emission sources subject
to Rule 20S(b)(l}. as approved by USEPA
on May 31.1972. which were required to
be in compliance by December 31.1973.
This disapproval does not in and of
itself result in the growth restrictions of
section 110fa)(2)(I).
102
-------
Iowa SIP
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 46 / Thursday, March 6, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
14563
c. Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC). Plans for ozone nonattainment
areas must include regulations requiring
RACT on those sources of VOC for
which EPA has issued a control
technique guideline (CTG) prior to
January 1,1978, and a commitment to
adopt RACT for other categories in the
future. For areas under 200,000
population EPA believes RACT is
mandatory only for large stationary
sources (over 100 tons per year). See 44
FR 20376, Footnote 22 (April 4,1979).
The CTGs provide information on
available air pollution control
techniques, and contain
recommendations of what EPA calls the
"presumptive norm" for RACT. There
are 11 categories for which CTGs were
issued prior to January 1,1978. The
submittal date for the second group of
RACT regulations was revised from
January 1,1980 to July 1,1980 by the
Federal Register notice of August 28,
1979 (44 FR 50371). Today's approval of
the ozone portion of the plan is
contingent on the submittal of the
additional RACT regulations by July 1,
1980. The State of Iowa has indicated it
will probably need more time. EPA will
consider this situation if, in fact,
regulations are not submitted by July 1,
1980.
In addition, by each subsequent
January beginning January 1,1981,
RACT requirements for sources covered
by CTGs published by the preceding
January must be adopted and submitted
to EPA. If RACT requirements are not
adopted and submitted according to this
schedule, EPA will promptly take
appropriate remedial action. -
Although the Iowa submission
contains no RACT requirements, EPA
proposed conditional approval, because
the plan demonstrates expeditious
attainment before 1982 even without the
RACT requirements.
The plan demonstrates that an 11
percent reduction in VOC emissions is
needed for attainment, 14 percent is
expected from the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program, and the RACT
requirements now due would result in
only a minor additional reduction.
Because emissions from existing VOC
sources in the first 11 categories are
minimal RACT requirements would
reduce emissions only about 200 tons
per year (tpy) out of a total inventory of
approximately 17,000 tpy. RACT is
needed despite the demonstration of
attainment because the demonstration
does not employ photochemical
dispersion modeling. See 44 FR 200376,
Col. 3 (April 4,1979). However, the plan
is sufficiently complete now to warrant
conditional approval.
EPA proposed conditional approval if
the state comitted to adopt regulations
by July 1,1980, for certain categories of
sources, and certify that there are no
large sources in the Linn County
nonattainment area in categories for
which regulations will not be adopted.
In a letter dated October 8,1979, the
Iowa DEQ confirmed that there are no
major sources in Linn County in other
categories than those for which RACT
regulations will be adopted. In its letter
of November 16,1979, the LAQC stated
that the submission date for legally
enforceable RACT rules should be
revised to December 31,1980
considering the time needed for
administrative procedures. No other
comments were received on the
proposal. Therefore, EPA grants the
conditional approval as proposed except
that the required submission date will
be December 31,1980, rather than July 1,
1980.
IbJ Cat-ban Monoxide (CO) and
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). As
noted in the proposal, the state
submission does not contain permit
requirements for CO or VOC. The Iowa
plan does not contain them because
there are no stationary source emission
standards for VOC*and CO in the plan.
The Air Quality Commission (AQC) in
its letter of September 27,1979. states
that the Department of Environmental
Quality does have the authority to
require permits for such new or modified
sources. However, the state must
evaluate such permits against an
emission standard. For some sources of
VOC, emission standards are not
practical. These sources would require
equipment standards or other
requirements for which the state has no
authority.
In the PRM a number of possible
courses were discussed and comments
were requested on all aspects of this
issue. The state has now committed to
adopt and submit permit provisions for
sources of CO and VOC. This cannot be
for VOC done before December 31,1980,
because legislation is needed for VOC
controls to be adopted.
A possible problem, discussed in the
PRM, is that of insuring that sources
meet the requirements of Section 173 in
the time between conditional approval
and final approval Because the state
has no adequate means of preventing
new sources of CO and VOC from
constructing in violation of Section 173
of the Clean Air Act, it is necessary for
EPA to disapprove the SIP in this
respect
New source construction is now
prohibited under Section 110(a)(2)(I) of
the Act This growth restriction is
explained in detail in the Federal
Register of July 2,1979, (44 FR 38471).
The growth restriction went into effect
on July 1,1979, and remains in effect
until the SIP is approved.
For participate matter Iowa has
provided for growth by an emission
offset rule whereby new sources cannot
be allowed to be built unless there are
corresponding reductions in emissions
from existing sources. For carbon
monoxide and VOC the margin of
attainment is such that new sources are
accommodated without source specific
offsets. This accommodation for new
sources is provided because existing
emissions will be reduced more than
needed for attainment of these two
pollutants.
103
-------
^ Louisiana Emission Offsets
FEDEKAL IHMSTEk, VOL 43, NO. ISS—TUESDAY, AUGUST IS, 1978
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency is proposing to approve
revisions to the Louisiana State imple-
mentation plan (SIP). The revision.
which was submitted to EPA by the
State, was for the purpose of allowing
the construction of a General Motors
(UM) plant in ShreVeporl La. by
he interpretative"n
*** yj**g**an— ^n^ac— .aaaaasaJSSJL^^^-L^— -^—
EPA ^missinn offset policy). --- ,
Is accomplished by orders of tne Lou-
isiana Air Control Commission for
emission reductions from specific ex-
isting sources to offset new emissions
from the proposed GM plant. The
EPA invites public comments on the
.proposal. Under existing regulations
changes in SIP's must be approved by
the EPA Administrator to insure com-
pliance with the Clean Air Act. as
amended.
DATES: Comments must be received
on or before September 14, 1978.
ADDRESS: Submit comments to: Air
Program Branch, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region VI. 1201 Elm
Street. Dallas, Tex. 75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Jack S. Divita, Chief. Air Program
Branch. Air and Hazardous Materi-
als Division. EPA-Region VI. Dallas,
Tex. 75270, 214-767-2742.
BACKGROUND
Under the Agency's interpretative
ruling published December 21. 1976 at
41 FR 55524, and amended by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of August
7, 1977, a major new source may locate
in an area with air quality worse than
a national standard only, if the follow-
ing conditions are met:
1. The new source's emissions will be con-
trolled to the lowest achievable emission
rate.
2. More than equivalent offsetting emis-
sion reductions will be obtained from exist-
ing sources.
3. There will be progress towards achieve-
ment of the standards.
On August 8. 1977. with a subse-
quent submittal on December 20. 1977,
General Motors Corp. (GMC) applied
to the Louisiana Air Control Commis-
sion for a permit to construct a-truck.
and yap itsspmhlv plant in Shreveport,
La. The proposed assembly plant
would emit more f*"*n inn tons per
year oT hydrocrbons and would be lo-
cated in an area which
the national ambient air quality stand-
ard (NAAQS) for hydrocarbon/oxi-
dant. The proposed truck and van as-
sembly plant was, therefore, subject to^
the Agency's interpretative ruling on
emission onsets.
The State of Louisiana determined
that the proposed GMC plant, using
technology which would result in the
lowest achievable hydrocarbon emis-
sions, """'1H mlt. tun ff.jjtima.ted 3.650
,
tons per yearbf hydrocarbons. These
emissions were based on mass balance
calculations (Le.. solvent in equals sol-
vent out), and actual emissions at simi-
lar existing GMC plants. Offsetting
hydrocarbon emissions totaling an es-
" timated 3,726 tons per year were
found. Letters of consent were ob-
tained by the State from the existing
sources to reduce hydrocarbon emis-
sions before the GMC assembly plant
target operation oate'flf February
1980. These letters of consent were
adopted by thfe commisslon
lase
Sled
commls-
of
were submitted by th.r
. to the Environ.
mental Protection Agency (EPA) on
January 25. 1978 for incorporation
into the Louisiana State Implementa-
tion plan (SIP). All requirements in 40
CFR 551.4 and 51.6 for notice and
public hearings for plan revisions were
met.
HYOROCARBOR OFFSETS
The hydrocarbon emission offsets
submitted by the State of Louisiana
consist of the following control meas-
ures which were adopted by the Lou-
isiana Air Control Commission as
Commission orders.
i Removal from service of a IMfljL
barrel capacity cruaroU storage tank.
at the Belcher Station of tne locxon
Pipeline Co.. Belcher, La., with a final
compliance date of January 1.1980.
2. Removal from service of a 55.000
Pipeline Co.. Near Minden. La., with a
final compliance date of January 1.
1980.
3. installation of emission control
oTitillate storage tanks,, at the Jones
'U'Bnen Inc., Keatcnle, LA., with a
final compliance date of January 1.
1978.
4. Installation of emission control
Bvstgms"on crude "" fit/mure tanks
TK.-43, TR-44, T-45 and T-49, and dis-
tillate tanks T-46 and T-50 at the
AtlasPrssfiS5ing_Co., Shreveport, La,.
with a final compliance date of Janu-
ary 2,1980.
5. T"rtn11nHnn nf fnV°gl"" Control
.
systems on crude oil storage tanks
TK-19-74. TK-HC-74, TK-571-74 and
TK-15-74 and agreement to store only
nonvolatile organic solvent in tanks
TK-F2-74, TK-41-74 and TK-40-74 at
the Cotton Valley Solvents Co..
Cotton Valley, La., with a final compli-
ance date of January 2,1980.
int.nimpntation and control
systems at the Kerr-McGee Corp..
Devon Corp., and Eason Oil Co.. Cal-
houn Plant, Calhoun. La., with a final
compliance date of July 1, 1978.
7. Discontinue use of residue gas in
pneumatic instrumenlalluii ttltU T!bn-
trol systems with a final compliance
date of July 1. 1978 and install emis-
sion control systems on distillate stor-
age tanks 2-7 and 2-13 with a final
compliance date of January 2, 1980 at
the Kerr-McGee Corp., Devon Corp.,
and Eason Oil Co., Dubach Plant,
Dubach, La.
8. Tnsta.na.Mori nf p—'"'"" control
gvstpny on n 37 ..yin.Hnrrg1 capacity
crude oil storage tank at Cities Service
Pipeline Co.. Oil City, La., with a final
compliance date of February 1, 1980.
9. Installation of emission control
systems on a 25rOOO-hn.nTi1 f*T""^t3
crude oil storage tank at Cities Service
Pipeline Co.. HaynesvilleTLa.. with a
final compliance date of February 1,
1980.
10. Installation of emission control
systems on a 10.000-barrei capacity
crude oil storage tank at Cities Service
Pipeline Co., Summerfleld. La,, with
final compliance achieved in August
1977.
11. Installation of emission control
H. 30.0OO-barrel capacity
. .
crude oil storage tank at the Scurlock
Oil Co., Lake End, La., with a final
compliance date of January 15. 1980.
12. Installation of emission control
systems on a "55,000-barrel capacity
crude oil storage tank at the Scurlock
Ofl Co., Dutchtown Oil Field near
Minden, La., with a final compliance
date of January 15, 1980.
13. Installalion Of omi^on control
systems on distillate storage tank No.
414 with a final compliance date of
September 1, 1979 and the removal
from service of tank No. 415 with final
compliance achieved on December 1,
1977, at the Texas Eastern Products
-Pipeline Company, Sarepta, La.
Control of these tanks will result in
estimated hydrocarbon emission re-
ductions of 3.726 tons per year based
on calculations using iiilvv's emission
factors in "Compilation of Air Pollut-
ant Emission Factors," February 1976
and April 1977, publication number
AP-42.
By incorporation of these emission
control requirements In the State im-
plemention plan, both the EPA and
the State of Louisiana consider the
offsets to be enforceable under section
113 of the Clean Air Act. The offsets
are also considered to be enforceable
by citizens under section 304 of the
Clean Air Act as "emission standards
or limitation."
104
-------
PROPOSED ACTION
The EPA agrees with the State of
Louisiana's determination that the
proposed GMC truck and van assem-
bly plant will use technology resulting
in lowest achievable emissions of hy-
drocarbons and that these emissions
will total an estimated 3,650 tons per
year. The hydrocarbon offsets from
existing sources, totaling an estimated
3,726 tons per year, are considered to
be valid and enforceable by the State
of Louisiana and the EPA. As a result
of the greater than one-for-one emis-
sion offset, the EPA considers that
there will be progress towards attain-
ment of the hydrocarbon/oxident
standard. Thus, the EPA considers
that all conditions stipulated under
the Agency's interpretative ruling of
December 21, 1976, published at FR
55524 and as amended by the Clean
Air Act Amendments of August 7,
1977. have been met for the GMC
truck and van assembly plant to locate
in Shreveport, La.
In this notice EPA is proposing the
approval of the hydrocarbon emission
offsets as discussed above, creditable
to GMC truck and van assembly plant.
for incorporation in the Louisiana im-
plementation plan.
The State of Louisiana has adopted
the emission offset agreements as
Commission orders. The State proce-
dures met all requirements of 40 CFR
Part 51 including section 51.4, the re-
quirement for adequate public partici-
pation. Therefore, the Administrator
does not plan to conduct further hear-
ings regarding these emission offsets.
Interested persons may still partici-
pate in this rulemaking, however, by
submitting written comments to: Air
Program Branch, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region VI, 1201 Elm
Street, Dallas. Tex. 75270.
Relevant comments submitted
within 30 days of this notice will be
considered. The material submitted by
the State of Louisiana is available for
inspection during normal business
hours at the above EPA regional office
and also at the following offices:
Environmental Protection Agency. Public
Information Reference Unit, Room 2932.
EPA Library, 401 M Street SW.. Washing-
ton, D.C. 20460.
Louisiana Air Control Commission, 325
Loyola Avenue. New Orleans, La. 70160.
This notice is issued under the au-
thority of section 110(a) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, 42 UJS.C. 7410-
(a).
Dated: July 28, 1978.
ELOY R. LOZANO,
Regional Administrator.
Part 52 of chapter 1, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulation is pro-
posed to be amended as follows:
Subport T— louitknw
1. In §52.970. paragraph
-------
44908
Louisiana
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 148 / Tuesday. July 31. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Part D—Requirements
Air Quality Problem.
Eighteen parishes in Louisiana were
orignally designated nonattainment for
ozone on March 3,1978 (43 FR 8998), in
'accordance with Section 107 of the Act
On September 11,1978 (43 FR 40425),
Bossier Parish was added, bringing the
total ozone nonattainment parishes to
19. Seven of these parishes are classified
as urban, and they constitute the
geographical boundaries of the three
urbanized areas of Shreveport, Baton
Rouge and New Orleans. The remaining
parishes are classified as rural. In urban
areas, the SIP must contain a control
strategy, using an EPA approved
reduction model, which demonstrates
attainment of the ozone standard, and
applies reasonably available control
technology (RACT) to major stationary
sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOC), if the strategy demonstrates
attainment by the end of 1982. In rural
areas, the demonstration of attainment
is not required, but RACT must be
applied to major stationary sources of
VOC. An adequate demonstration of
attainment of NAAQS in the urban
parishes and an assurance of reasonable
further progress are considered
sufficient for attainment and reasonable
further progress in rural parishes. The
rationale for this approach is discussed
in the Criteria for Proposing Approval of
Revision to Plans of Nonattainment
Areas published in the Federal Register
on May 19,1978 (43 FR 21675).
The parishes, size, and population lor
each urbanized area are shown in the
table below. The ozone design values
for Shreveport. Baton Rouge, and New
Orleans are 0.14 parts per million (ppm),
0.19 ppm, and 0.17 ppm respectively. The
State elected to use a modified rollback
model to determine the amount of VOC
reduction required to show attainment
of the NAAQS. Present transport (T.)
and future transport (TJ values of 0.10
ppm and 0.06 ppm were used with an
additivity factor of 0.5 to calculate the
reductions. These reductions were
determined to be 36 percent, 25 percent,
and zero for Baton Rouge, New Orleans,
and Shreveport respectively. Use by the
State of the modified rollback model
present and future transport values, and
the additivity value are consistent with
EPA guidance.
(Sq.
Baton Rouge
East Baton ReufaPaaati
Wnt Baton Rouge Pariah
New Orleans
Ortaans Parish
Jatfeison Parish
St. Bernard Parish
. >.7W MMM
.we ss»,0M
. >.on t.oeo.oou
M970C
Emission Inventories
Base year (1977) emission inventory
summaries, by VOC source category, are
provided in the SIP for all 19
nonattainment parishes. Projected
emission summaries are provided for
each urban nonattainment parish, along
with current and projected emissions for
specific point sources. The emission
inventory data provided in the SIP are
considered adequate to meet the
requirements of the Act. Louisiana
Regulation 17.12 requires that updated
emission inventory questionnaires be
submitted on a semiannual basis
whenever annual emission rotes of
individual source points change by more
than 10 percent. This reporting
requirement is considered to be
sufficiently frequent to allow the LACC
to determine if reasonable further
progress is being made and to address
the need fop additional emission
reductions that may be required to
assure attainment of the NAAQS by the
specified date. Emission data, including
any increases or decreases that occur,
must be reported to EPA. annually.
In the point source emission
summaries for Shreveport and New
Orleans, VOC from new or modified
sources completing construction
between 1977 and 1982 are included.
These new emissions amount to 3,650
tons per year in Shreveport and 1,117
tons per year in New Orleans. These
emissions were taken into account by
the LACC in the control strategy
development. No new emissions are
shown for Baton Rouge. The LACC
indicates in the SIP that the amount of
emissions between the level actually
achieved and that required to
demonstrate attainment will be used as
a growth allowance.
The SIP includes an exemption for
methyl chloroform and methylene
chloride. These organic compounds,
while not appreciably affecting ambient
ozone levels, are potentially harmful.
Both methyl chloroform and methylene
chloride have been identified as
mutagenic in bacterial and mammalian
cell test systems; a circumstance which
raises the possibility of human
mutagenicity or carcinogenicity. The
EPA is concerned that the State has
chosen this course of action without full
consideration of the total environmental
and health implications. However, the
SIP will not be disapproved if, after due
consideration, the State chooses to
maintain these exemptions. This policy
should not be interpreted as encouraging
the increased use of these compounds.
Furthermore, State officials and sources
should be advised that there is a strong
possibility of future regulatory action to
control these compounds. Sources which
choose to comply by substitution may
be required to install control systems as
a consequence of later regulatory action.
Control Strategy for Shre veport
fat the Shreveport vbanaed area,
1977 VOC emissions are shown in the
SIP to be just over 30,000 tons per year.
Of this total motor vehicle emissions
represent 02 percent while point source
emissions represent only 8 percent
These contribution* indicate a strong
dependence of the control strategy on
motor vehicle emission reductions for
the Shreveport area.
Using the modified rollback model
(see earlier discussion), no emission
reductions are required to demonstrate
attainment in the Shreveport urbanized
area. However, based on the State's
regulations and application of the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
(FMVCP), emissions are reduced by an
estimated 19 percent by 1982, which
allows a margin for growth.
For SIPs that demonstrate attainment
of the ozone NAAQS by 1982 by means
other than photochemical dispersion
modeling, RACT must apply to all major
sources covered by each Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG], and in
urbanized areas to enough additional
sources to provide for reasonable
further progress and attainment as
expeditiously as practicable. The
Louisiana regulations apply to all major
CTG sources in the Shreveport area
except refinery vacuum producing
systems and process unit turnarounds.
Since modified rollback was used
instead of the more exacting
photochemical dispersion modeling,
EPA policy requires enforceable
regulations for all major CTG sources.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the control
strategy for Shreveport based on
submitul by the State of RACT
regulations for refinery vacuum
producing systems tad process unit
turnarounds. The time required for
submittal is provided below ia the
discussion for Baton Rouge.
106
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 148 / Tuesday. ]uly 31. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Control Strategy for Baton Rouge
The 1977 VOC emissions for the Baton
Rouge urbanized area are shown in the
SIP to be 79,477.4 tons per year.
Emissions from motor vehicles represent
26 percent of the 1977 total VOC, and
those from point sources represent 59
percent. These contributions are
indications of the industrialization of the
Baton Rouge area.
Based on an ozone design value of
0.19 ppm, and using the modified
rollback model, an emission reduction of
36 percent (28.611.9 tons VOC) is
required to demonstrate attainment. In
the State's summary of expected
reductions, 28,623.6 tons of VOC are
shown as being reduced by 1982. Based
on the State's calculated value, 11.7 tons
of VOC will be available for growth
allowance. In the State's control
strategy summary, emissions for the
"other solvent use" category were
included. The State's emission inventory
shows this amount to be 1,299.4 tons per
year. This amount was included in the
1977 inventory, and in the projected
inventory for 1982. The State failed to
account for any growth for the "other
solvent use" category. If it is
conservatively assumed that the .
population for the Baton Rouge area
increases by only 1,000 per year for the
period between 1977 and 1982, an
additional 20 tons of VOC would be
included in the 1982 area source
inventory. As a result, the overall
emission reduction would be 28,603.6
tons, which is below the amount
calculated by the State as being needed
to demonstrate attainment.
As pointed out in the discussion for
Shreveport. the Louisiana regulations do
not include controls for refinery vacuum
producing systems and process unit
turnarounds. In addition, the State's
regulation for refinery wastewater
treatment exempts water separation
facilities which receive effluent water
containing less than 200 gallons of VOC
per day. EPA guidelines do not include
such an exemption. The CTGs provide
information on available air pollution
control techniques, and contain
recommendations of what EPA calls the
"presumption norm" for RACT. Based
on the information in the CTGs, EPA
believes the submitted regulations
represent RACT, except as noted. On
points noted, the State regulations are
not supported by the information in the
CTGs, and the State must provide an
adequate demonstration that its
regulations represent RACT.
The Louisiana control strategy
consists of current and projected
emission inventory summaries, and new
and revised regulations are included in
the SIP. However, it is not possible to
verify expected emission reductions
since detailed calculations are not a part
of the SIP, nor were they provided to
EPA previously. This verification is
especially important in those cases
where the adequacy of the
demonstration of attainment is
questionable.
Because of the shortfall of the 1982
attainment demonstration, EPA has
serious doubts concerning the adequacy
of the Baton Rouge control strategy.
However, EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the control
strategy for the Baton Rouge urbanized
area based on the State taking the'
actions listed below.
1. Adoption and submittal of
regulations representing RACT for
refinery vacuum producing systems and
process unit turnarounds within 120
days of this notice.
2. Submittal of a demonstration that
wastewater separators exempted in
Section 22.6 are minor sources (or other
justification) within 30 days of this
notice. Otherwise, revise Section 22.6 to
eliminate the exemption and submit the
revision within 120 days of this notice.
3. Submittal of the detailed
calculations used to estimate emission
reductions from the stationary VOC
source categories in the Baton Rouge
urbanized area within 30 days of this
notice.
Control Strategy for New Orleans
The 1977 VOC emission inventory for
the New Orleans urbanized area is
87,135.1 tons. Emissions from motor
vehicles and point sources are more
balanced than in Shreveport and Baton
Rouge. Contributions from these two
source categories are 34 percent and 43
percent respectively.
Based on an ozone design value of
0.17 ppm, and using the modified
rollback model, a reduction of 25
percent (21,783.8 tons) is required to
demonstrate attainment. The emission
reduction which the State expects to
achieve by 1982 is shown as 28,680.4
tons. This reduction would provide
approximately 7,000 tons of VOC for
growth allowance.
There are no RACT regulations which
apply to refinery vacuum producing
systems or process unit turnarounds. In
addition, calculations for verifying the
estimated emission reductions are
needed. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the control
strategy for the New Orleans urbanized
area based on the State submitting
RACT for the omitted CTG sources and
detailed calculations used to estimate
VOC emission reductions from
stationary source categories. The times
for completing these actions are
provided in the discussion for Baton
Rouge.
Hydrocarbon Control Regulations
A new Section 17.16 is being added to
the State's regulations, which addresses
the "bubble concept" of controlling
emissions. The language of Section 17.16
is general in nature, and as written, is
vague with respect to requirements that
must be met by sources wishing to
employ the bubble concept. EPA is
proposing to approve Section 17.16.
However, the State will be required to
submit proposed control plans to EPA
for a determination of consistency with
EPA guidance.
Section 22.12.4 exempts degreasing
sources which emit a combined weight
of VOC less than 100 pounds in any
consecutive 24-hour period from control
requirements. Such an exemption is
inconsistent with EPA guidance for
solvent metal cleaning. However, EPA is
proposing to approve Section 22.12.4
based on submittal of information by the
State which satisfactorily demonstrates
that the exempted sources affect less
than 5 percent of the emissions from the
solvent metal cleaning (degreasing)
category. This information is to be
submitted withn 30 days of publication
of this notice.
Louisiana's regulations for solvent
metal cleaning employ control system A.
This is acceptable if the State does not
seek an extension of the attainment
date, and if there are no sources in the
nonattainment areas which emit 100
tons per year or more of VOC. The first
condition is satisfied since Louisiana is
not seeking an attainment date
extension. With respect to the second
conditiqn, the baseline emission
inventory does not show any solvent
metal cleaning sources which emit 100
tons or more of VOC. However, the
State will be required to certify that
there are no such sources located in the
nonattainment areas. This certification
is to be submitted by the State on or
before August 30.1979.
107
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 148 / Tuesday. July 31. 1979 / Proposed Rules
On December 9,1977, the Governor
submitted revisions to the Louisiana SIP.
Part of the revision package included a
new Regulation 22.0 which combined the
requirements of existing Regulations
22.0, Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds from New Sources, and
A22.0, Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Existing Sources. On
March 2,1979 (44 Fed. Reg. 11798) EPA
proposed, inter alia, approval of
Sections 22.3 and 22.10, and disapproval
of Sections 22.8 (b) and (c). Prior to final
action on Regulation 22.0 EPA, the
Governor withdrew Sections 22.3, 22.8
and 22.10. Section 22.3 specifies control
requirements for VOC storage tanks,
which is a CTG source category. Section
22.8 concerns the control of waste gas
streams and Section 22.10 concerns
exemptions for certain VOC.
The Governor's submittal of April 30,
1979, includes revisions to those
sections of Regulation 22.0 which had
been previously withdrawn. This means
that revisions were submitted for
regulations that are no longer officially
before EPA. Therefore, EPA cannot act
on the material dealing with Sections
22.3.22.8 and 22.10 as it was submitted
on April 30,1979.
On May 22,1979 after notice and
hearing, the LACC adopted new
versions of Sections 22.3,22.8 and 22.10.
EPA has been advised that the new
sections address the problems identified
by EPA in the previously proposed
disapproval of March 2,1979. The new
sections will be submitted by the
Governor to EPA. Therefore, EPA is
proposing approval of the Louisiana SIP
based on adequate provisions for these
sections being submitted in their
entirety. Submittal is to be made no
later than August 30,1979.
Any exemptions granted under
Sections 22.9.1 or 22.9.3(e) of Regulation
22.0 will be considered revisions to the
SEP. Consequently, such exemptions
must be submitted to and approved by
EPA before they will become part of the
approved SIP. Any source operating
under an exemption which has not been
approved by EPA will be subject to
enforcement action under Section 113 of
the Act.
The State has not committed to adopt
additional VOC control measures
consistent with CTGs published by EPA
after January 1,1978, but rather has only
committed to "review and consider"
such measures for incorporation into the
SIP. However, EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the SIP based on
the State taking the actions listed below.
1. Submittal of adopted RACT
regulations by January 1980 for the
following source categories:
a. Vegetable oil processing.
b. Petroleum refinery leaks.
c. Gasoline tank trucks.
d. Perchloroethylene dry cleaning.
e. Pharmaceutical manufacture.
f. Miscellaneous metal parts and products.
g. Graphic arts.
h. Pneumatic rubber tire manufacture.
i. Flatwood paneling.
j. Floating roof tanks.
2. Submittal of adopted RACT
regulations by January 1981 which
control VOC emissions from additional
source categories for which EPA issues
a new CTG by January 1980.
3. Demonstration by certification that
there are no sources in the State for a
given VOC source category that is not
regulated.
This notice is issued under the
authority of Sections 110 and 171 to 178
of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §§ 7410 and 7501 to 7508.
Dated: June 12,1979.
ftfjma O. Knudson,
Acting Regional Administrator.
108
-------
Maine SIP
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 34 / Tuesday. February 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
10767
B. Ozone (O*)—1. Attainment Status
Designation for the Downcast AQCR. In
the May submittaj, the DEP requested
that EPA approve a redesignation of the
Downcast AQCR from non-attainment
to unclassified for ozone. This request
was based on EPA's revision of both the
national standard and the methodology
for calculating violations of the standard
in the February 8,1979 Federal Register
(43 FR 8202). According to the new
methodology, the Downcast AQCR is no
longer considered to be violating the
standard. Further, the DEP has
committed to monitor AQCR for two
ozone seasons to determine a status of
either attainment or non-attainment
according to EPA's new methodology. In
the NPR, EPA proposed to approve this
portion of the revisions.
One letter of comment expressed
concern about EPA's proposed
redesignation of the Downcast AQCR to
unclassified, based on data collected for
the Pittston Company's permit
application in 1976. The commenter
contended that since the data collected
in 1976 shows exceedances of the 0.12
parts per million (ppm) standard that
approval should not be allowed, that the
AQCR should remain non-attainment
and that the state should submit a
revision for that Region before further
growth is permitted in the area. In
response. EPA would point out that
although there are seven hourly values
which exceed the .12 ppm value, these
elevated values occurred between 7:00
pra and 1:00 am which EPA interprets to
indicate that transport must have been
largely responsible for the higher values.
Since these values happened to have
occurred before and just after midnight
a strict application of the EPA
methodology would indicate two days of
elevated readings, which constitutes a
violation. However, meteorologically the
data should be interpreted as showing
one air mass which lingered past the
midnight interval and therefore, as one
exceedance, would not constitute a
violation. More importantly, in the 60
days of data collected there were no
other days on which similarly high
values were recorded.
Action: In light of these technical
considerations and the commitment of
the DEP to monitor the area during the
next ozone season. EPA believes that
the data is not sufficient to warrant a
non-attainment designation or an
attainment designation, and is therefore
approving the redesignation of the
Downcast AQCR from non-attainment
to unclassified, under 40 CFR Part 81.
2. Ozone Control Strategy, a. The DEP
adopted two regulations to control
petroleum storage facilities: Regulations
111, Petroleum Liquid Storage Vapor
Control, and 112, Petroleum Liquids
Transfer Vapor Recovery. These
regulations control emissions from
gasoline storage terminals of 20,000
gallons throughput per day or greater by
requiring controls on fixed roof storage
tanks and the installation of vapor
control systems, respectively. In the
NPR, EPA proposed to approve this
portion of the revisions.
A letter of comment on the NPR
indicated that this portion of the
revisions should be approved
conditioned upon a commitment by the
state to review its emissions inventory
for volatile organic compounds and
update it within the year. The DEP has
agreed to review its inventory and to
submit it in National Emissions Data
System format, as stated in a letter
dated April 3.1979 from Mr. David
Tudor, DEP. to Mr. Donald White, EPA.
In addition, EPA and the DEP have
agreed in the Section 105 air program
grant to fund the upgrading and
submittal to EPA of the VOC source
inventory. Finally, the DEP has
developed a Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) demonstration which
must be annually updated to reflect
emission changes as they actually occur.
Another letter of comment was
received on the adequacy of the ozone
control strategies Maine had proposed,
but this comment was withdrawn in a
second letter.
Action: In light of these commitments
EPA has decided that a conditional
approval is unnecessary and is
approving these two regulations as part
of the ozone attainment plan.
b. The DEP issued Air Emission
Licenses to the S.D. Warren Company in
Westbrook and Eastern Fine Paper, Inc.
in Brewer. These sources are required to
control VOC emissions from their paper
coalers by application of best practical
treatment but no less than 90% reduction
in emissions. This degree of control is
consistent with EPA guidance. In the
NPR, EPA proposed to approve this
portion of the revisions. No letters of
comment were received on this portion
of the NPR.
As noted in the General Preamble for
Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of
Plan Revisions for Nonattainment
Areas, 44 FR 20376 (April 4,1979), the
minimum acceptable level of statonary
source control for ozone SIPs. such as
Maine's, includes reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements
for VOC sources covered by control
technology guidance (CTGs) the EPA
issued by January. 1978 and schedules to
adopt and submit by each future January
additional RACT requirements for
sources covered by CTGs issued by the
109
previous January. The submittal date for
the first set of additional RACT
regulations was revised from January 1,
1980 to July 1.1980 by Federal Register
notice of August 28.1979 (44 FR 50371).
Today's approval of the ozone portion of
Maine's plan is contingent on the
submittal of the additional RACT
regulations which are due July 1,1980
(for CTGs published between January,
1978 and January, 1979). In addition, by
each subsequent January beginning
January 1,1981, RACT requirements for
sources covered by CTGs published by
the preceding January must be adopted
and submitted to EPA. The above
requirements are set forth in the
"Approval Status" section of the final
rule. If RACT requirements are not
adopted and submitted to EPA
according to the time frame set forth in
the rule EPA will promptly take
appropriate remedial action.
Action: EPA is approving these
licenses as part of the ozone attainment
plan.
-------
SIP Revisions—Maryland
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 149 / Wednesday. August 1. 1979 / Proposed Rules
45195
Background
In accordance with Section 110 and
Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act the
State of Maryland, on January 19,1979,
submitted revisions to its
implementation plan for the designated
nonattainment areas.
EPA designated the Metropolitan
Baltimore Intrastate and the National
Capital Interstate AQCR's as
nonattainment areas for ozone. The
high-density traffic areas of the two
region: were designated as
nonattainment areas for carbon
monoxide.
A portion of the Metropolitan
Baltimore Intrastate AQCR was
designated as nonattainment for total
suspended particulates (TSP). The
Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate AQCR
is composed of Baltimore City and the
counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore.
Carroll. Harford and Howard. The
Maryland portion of the National
Capital Interstate AQCR includes
Montgomery and Prince Georges
Counties.
' In addition to the two major
metropolitan areas, the Maryland
portion of the Cumberiand-Keyser
Interstate AQCR also contains areas
designated by EPA as nonattainment.
Hagerstown and Cumberland were
both designated as nonattainment areas
for carbon monoxide. The SIP for
meeting the CO standard in these cities
indicates that the Federal Motor Vehicle
Control Program alone will be sufficient.
Election District No. 8 (Luke and
Westernport) was designated
nonattainment for TSP; however, no SIP
revision was submitted for this area.
The State has been in continuous
dialogue with EPA concerning this
designation and has requested that the
area be considered as unclassified. EPA
proposed changing the designation to
unclassified on April 23,1979 (A4 FR
23885 [1979]).
Likewise, no revision was submitted
for the Cumberiand-Keyser AQCR
which EPA designated as nonattainment
for ozone. Here the State contends
transported oxidants caused the air
quality violations and that control
measures would be ineffective in this
predominantly rural area. Furthermore,
the AQCR contains no major stationary
sources of volatile organic compounds
for which EPA control technology
guidelines have been published.
Therefore, no stationary source contrail
are necessary at this time. However,
EPA has noted that new source review
regulations in accordance with Section
173 of the Act are required but were not
developed for Cumberiand-Keyser
AQCR.
In accordance with Section 174 of the
Clean Air Act designated local and
regional agencies prepared portions of
die SIP. The Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments (COG) was
responsible for the transportation
element of the SIP and the stationary
source control development for the
Washington area, while the Regional
Planning Council (RPC) was responsible
for the transportation elements for the
Baltimore region. The Maryland
Department of Transportation (MDOT)
assisted the Section 174 agencies in
preparing the transportation portions of
the SIP, and in developing a motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program. The Maryland Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene
developed the stationary source controls
for die Baltimore area and coordinated
the entire plan development
For the Washington area
transportation measures, COG obtained
commitments from its member
jurisdictions to implement the following
measures by 1982:1. Incentives for high
occupancy vehicles such as park-and-
ride lota, improved rail transit
carpooling. vanpooling, preferential
parking for ridesharing vehicles, and bus
service improvements; 2. Measures to
reduce congestion-related emissions,
including traffic flow improvements, on-
street parking restrictions, reduction of
extended idling, encouragement of
bicycling, and residential parking
permits.
In its examination of transportation
measures for the Baltimore area, RPC
selected thirteen measures for
expeditious implementation. The
affected local governments and State
agencies have ratified the transportation
portion of the SIP except for some
reservations raised by Baltimore City
concerning parking restrictions and by
Harford County concerning the
efficiency of a motor vehicle inspection/
maintenance program. The Baltimore
plan includes measures similar to those
selected by COG for the Washington
area as well as measures to reduce
extended vehicle idling, promote
effective land use management, and
conduct a vigorous public education
program.
Both the Washington and the
Baltimore plans recommend the
establishment of a vehicle emissions
inspection/maintenance program.
Enabling legislation for an 1/M program
was passed by the Maryland legislature
on April 9.1979, and signed into law by
the Governor on May 30,1979.
In this Notice, there are references to
the terms "design value" and "rollback."
To avoid confusion or
misunderstanding, these terms are
defined below:
Design Value—the level of existing air
quality used as a basis for determining
the amount of change of pollutant
emissions necessary to attain a desired
air quality level.
Rollback—a proportional model used
to calculate the degree of improvement
in ambient air quality needed for
attainment of a national ambient air
quality standard.
The following are the highlights of the
changes made to the Maryland plan.
1. A State-wide regulation governing
malfunction of control equipment has
been revised to meet EPA requirements.
2. Regulations governing stationary
sources in the two metropolitan areas
have been revised to make them more
specific for several industrial and
commercial categories.
3. Emissions of volatile organic
compounds, which are oxidant
precursors, will be controlled by using
applicable "reasonably available control
technology" identified in EPA guidelines
for controlling volatile organic
compound emissions from stationary
sources.
no
-------
45396 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 149 / Wednesday. August 1. 1979 / Proposed Rules
In addition to existing regulations, the
following activities controlled by the
new regulations are solvent metal
cleaning, web printing, asphalt paving,
solvent disposal and the coating of
automobiles, cans, coils, fabrics, large
appliances, light-duty trucks, metal
furniture, paper and vinyl. In most
instances, the regulations require the
coating operations to switch to low-
solvent coatings. Although EPA did not
publish guidelines for the control of web
printing, these operations will be
required to control emissions as of July
1979 because of numerous complaints
concerning odors and visible emissions
from these sources.
4. A new regulation will affect new
sources that wish to locate within the
nonattainment areas. New sources
emitting over fifty tons of particulates or
volatile organic compounds will not be
permitted unless several criteria are
met. The new source must meet an
emissions limitation specifying the
"lowest achievable emission rate." The
owner or operator of the new source
mus! certify that other sources owned or
operated by him are in compliance with
regulations or are under an approved
compliance schedule. In addition,
emissions from existing sources must be
reduced such that when the new source
begins operation, reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the
particulate or ozone standard will be
achieved. Before construction of a large
source of volatile organic compounds
begins, an analysis must be made of
alternative sites, sizes, production
processes and environmental control
techniques. It must be demonstrated that
the benefts of the source being
constructed significantly outweigh the
environmental and social costs of its
construction.
5. With respect to carbon monoxide
and ozone in the two metropolitan
areas, attainment will not be achieved
by 1982. Maryland reached this
conclusion after first using a linear
rollback model to determine from air
quality data the percentage emission
reductions of carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbons from the base year
emissions inventory necessary to
achieve the NAAQS. These reductions
were compared with the anticipated
reductions from all contemplated control
measures, and a shortfall was
determined to exist; consequently,
Maryland requested an extension until
1087 to attain standards. The CO
standard should be achieved soon after
the 1982 deadline as the result of the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
and the Transportation Control
Measures. EPA is considering the State
request for an extension for attainment
of both the carbon monoxide and ozone
standard and will determine the final
attainment dates based upon the State
submitted support information. Major
reductions in emissions of volatile
organic compounds are to be
accomplished through the enforcement
of regulations requiring reasonably
available control technology and
through implementation of
transportation measures now planned or
under study for later implementation.
The State will submit an amended SIP
by July 1,1982 demonstrating how final
attainment of the two standards will be
achieved. In the interim, the SIP calls for
annual reports to be made to EPA
containing updated air quality,
regulatory, and emissions inventory
information. If reasonable farther
progress is not being maintained or if
attainment is jeopardized, corrective
measures should be taken to insure
attainment by the desired date.
6. The State proposes to achieve the
reductions in particulate emissions
needed to attain the primary TSP
standard by December 31,1982, through
the application of all reasonably
available control technology, the
continued enforcement of existing
regulations, and the development and
enforcement of compliance plans
negotiated as a result of the new
regulations. There are new regulations
included in the plan which will control
fugitive particulate emissions from grain
handling and unconfined sources by
requiring good engineering design and
operational practices.
On January 5,1978, the State
submitted to EPA a SIP revision which
consisted of newly promulgated steel-
making regulations and a compliance
schedule for the Bethlehem Steel
Corporation, Sparrows Point Plant.
Amendments to the SIP revision,
reflected in the compliance plan for the
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, are to be
submitted in the near future. When
submitted, these will constitute part of
the nonattainment SIP. The State has
requested a delay until July 1,1980, in
accordance with Section 110(b) of the
Clean Air Act to plan for the attainment
of the secondary NAAQS for TSP. EPA
is considering granting the extension.
The following are more detailed
comments on Maryland's plan
submittals. This notice will indicate
those items needing corrections or
clarification.
OBOOM
As noted above, EPA has designated
three nonartainment areas for ozone in
Maryland. These areas are the
Maryland portion of the National
Capital Interstate AQCR, the
Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate AQCR
and the Cumberland-Keyser Interstate
AQCR.
Plans were submitted for the two
metropolitan nonattainment areas.
However, a plan was not submitted for
the Cumberland-Keyser Interstate
AQCR, a rural nonattainment area. In
lieu of a plan, Maryland included a
statement that there were no major
sources, within the eleven applicable
VOC source categories, located in this
area. While no source controls are
required at this time for the
Cumberland-Keyser AQCR, the State
should adopt new source review
provisions in accordance with Section
173 of the Clean Air Act.
The SIP for the two metropolitan
areas contains provisions for controlling
volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from stationary and mobile
sources. For ozone nonattainment areas,
EPA requires the adoption of
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for eleven VOC
source categories for which there are
Control Technique Guideline
documents. Maryland regulates nine of
these categories in the SIP. The
Maryland SIP does not include
regulations for surface coating for
insulation of magnet wire and for
petroleum refineries, because no sources
above the RACT cutoff size within these
categories are located in the
nonattainment areas.
For a summary and review of the
transportation controls included in the
Maryland SEP, please refer to the
Transportation Control Measures
section below.
EPA has evaluated the State of
Maryland SEP and has communicated
the results of this analysis to the
Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene. A meeting attended by
EPA, the Maryland Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, the
Maryland Department of
Transportation, the RPC and COG was
held to discuss EPA's comments on the
plan.
Presented in the following paragraphs
is a discussion of the various elements
of the SB? submitted (for attainment of
the ozone standard} by the State of
Maryland.
Adoption After Reasonable Notice and
Hearing
Maryland adopted the regulations in
its plan after public hearings on
November 9.21, and 27,1978, conducted
in accordance with Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 51.4.
Ill
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 149 / Wednesday. August 1. 1979 / Proposed Rules 45197
Attainment Date
Maryland does not anticipate
achieving the ozone standard by the end
of 1962 for either of die metropolitan
ozone nonattainment areas, and has
requested an extension of the deadline
fo'r achieving this standard until the end
of 1967. EPA may approve such a
request provided Maryland
demonstrates that attainment by 1982 is
impossible, despite the implementation
of RACT for the VOC stationary source
categories and the implementation of
transportation control measures,
including a motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program fl/M).
Deficiencies in Maryland's RACT
requirements for some categories of
VOC sources exist. Maryland is
proceeding to remedy these deficiencies.
in accordance with EPA guidance.
Control Strategy and Demonstration of
Attainment
The Maryland SIP was developed on
the basis of the former 0.06 ppm oxidant
standard. A commitment to attain the
ozone standard by 1987 was provided.
Emission Inventory
Maryland has submitted a 1977
stationary source emission inventory for
the Metropolitan Baltimore AQCR. The
emission inventory used for the National
Capital region was for 1978. The State
should provide a 1977 inventory for the
National Capital region, in accordance
with EPA guidance and to be consistent
with the adjacent Jurisdictions in the
region.
Reasonable Rather Progress (RFP)
The RFP presentation in the plan used
6 am-8 am emissions instead of daily (24
hours) values in determining the
required ozone reductions. This is
deficient because the percent
contribution of mobile and stationary
sources is different in daily and 6 am-0
am calculations. Background data.
including all calculations performed in
developing the RFP, were not submitted
with the plan. For future emissions from
gasoline marketing facilities. Maryland
assumed mem to be constant in the
Baltimore area. The emissions in this
category should increase with growth.
EPA asked Maryland to recalculate
emissions using daily values, to reassess
the gasoline marketing growth
assumptions, and to submit these with
die relevant background data. Maryland
has since provided necessary
information to address the above
concerns.
Margin for Growth
Maryland has adequately addressed
growth factors and estimates.
Preconstruction Review
The growth of major point sources
will be governed by pre-construction
review regulations. These regulations
should meet the requirements of Section
173, a new section of the Clean Air Act.
EPA has informed Maryland of its
comments on the ozone, carbon
monoxide, and the total suspended
participate provisions. See the
discussion of total suspended
participates below, applies equally to
ozone and carbon monoxide.
RACT as Expeditiously as Practicable
Several sections of the regulations
requiring die use of RACT for stationary
sources of VOC emissions should be
improved. The Control Techniques
Guidance (CTG) documents provide
information on available air pollution
control techniques, and contain
recommendations of what EPA calls the
"presumptive norm" for RACT. Based
on the information hi die CTGs, EPA
believes that die submitted regulations
represent RACT, except as noted below.
On die points noted below, die State
regulations are not supported by die
information in die CTGs, and die State
must provide an adequate
demonstration diat its regulations
represent RACT. or amend die
regulations to be consistent with die
information in die CTGs. (1) The vapor
recovery provisions in Section J(2) of die
Maryland regulations do not represent
full application of RACT. However, EPA
had previously promulgated regulations
(38 FR 34252 [1973] and as subsequently
amended) which in conjunction with
Maryland's rules, are considered to be
RACT. In EPA's opinion, it would be
preferable for die State to adopt
regulations in accordance with die EPA
promulgation. (2) Maryland Regulation
Section K(10)(c) includes a temperature
exemption for use of cutback asphalt A
seasonal exemption is recommended by
EPA. for ease of enforcement In
discussion witi) Maryland, die State
indicated that it intends to justify die
temperature exemption and die
Regulation's enforceability for both
public and private uses. If EPA judges
dial Maryland's Regulation is
enforceable, tiien die Cutback Asphalt
Regulation will be acceptable. (3) In die
Gasoline Bulk Terminal Regulation
[Section )(2)(c)]. die cutoff size for
terminals built before January 1.1974 is
40,000 gallons per day instead of 20.000
gallons per day die figure recommended
by EPA. Maryland has stated there are
no sources in Maryland which fall
between these limits and will document
this statement. (4) Maryland's cutoff size
for fixed-roof storage tanks built January
1,1973 is 65,000 gallons capacity, EPA's
cutoff figure is 40,000 gallons. Maryland
has agreed to review tiiis regulation to
see if any sources fall between these
limits, and to inform EPA of the results
of this review in writing. (5) Maryland's
State Implementation Plan includes a
provision which exempts methyl
chloroform (1.1,1 trichloroethane) from
die definition of "organic material." This
volatile organic compound, while not
appreciably affecting ambient ozone
levels, is potentially harmful. Methyl
chloroform has been identified as
mutagenic in bacterial and mammalian
cell test systems, a circumstance which
raises die possibility of human
mutagenicity and/or carcinogenicity.
Furthermore, methyl chloroform is
considered one of the slower reacting
VOCs which eventually migrates to die
stratosphere where it is suspected of
contributing to the depletion of the
ozone layer. Since stratospheric ozone is
die principal absorber of ultraviolet light
(UV), die depletion could lead to an
increase of UV penetration resulting in a
worldwide increase in skin cancer. With
die exemption of this compound, some
sources, particularly existing degreasers,
will be encouraged to utilize methyl
chloroform in place of other more
photochemically reactive degreasing
solvents. Such substitution has already
resulted in die use of methyl chloroform
in amounts far exceeding that of other
solvents. Endorsing die use of methyl
chloroform by exempting it in die SIP
can only further aggravate die problem
by increasing die emissions produced by
existing primary degreasers and other
sources. EPA is concerned that die State
has chosen this course of action without
full consideration of die total
environmental and health implications.
EPA does not intend to disapprove die
State SIP submittal if, after due
consideration, die State chooses to
maintain diis exemption. However, we
are concerned that this policy not be
interpreted as encouraging die increased
use of diis compound for compliance by
substitution. EPA does not endorse such
approaches. Furthermore, State officials
and sources should be advised that
there is a strong possibility of future
regulatory action to control this
compound. Sources which choose to
comply by substitution may well be
required to install control systems when
future regulatory actions are taken.
112
-------
47352
Michigan SIP Revisions
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 157 / Monday. August 13. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Ozone
Thirty-eight counties in Michigan have
been designated as nonattainment areas
for ozone. On January 26.1979 (44 FR
8220), USEPA revised the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard from 0.08
parts per million (ppm) total
photochemical oxidants for a maximum
hourly average, to 0.12 ppm ozone for a
maximum hourly average. Part D of the
Clean Air Act'requires states to revise
their State Implementation Plan for all
areas that have not attained the
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. An adequate SIP for ozone is
one which provides for sufficient control
of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
from stationary and mobile sources to
provide for attainment of the standards.
For stationary sources, the plan must
include, as a minimum, legally
enforceable regulations reflecting the
application of reasonable available
control technology for those stationary
sources for which USEPA has published
a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG)
by January 1978. For mobile sources, the
plan must provide for expeditious
implementation of reasonably available
transportation control measures. In
addition to these requirements, any SIP
which provides for attainment of the
ozone standard after December 31,1982
must contain a specific schedule for the
implementation of a vehicle emission
control inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program.
The Michigan submittal contains
sections on stationary source control"
transportation plans, anH vehi"'p
jnpTw.tinn apd nmin'^av
The State of Michigan indicates in its
proposed SIP revision that because of
the relaxation of the ozone standard (44
FR 8220), additional time is required to
develop and adopt the ozone attainment
strategy portion of the SIP. Therefore,
the Michigan submittal does not contain
ozone design values for each
nonattainment area, determination of
the VOC reduction requirements for
'each area, or a demonstration of
attainment of the ozone standard.
USEPA had stated it opinion (44 FR
20372) that the revision to the ozone
standard does not affect the schedule
for submittal of SIP revisions required
under Part D. Section 110(a)(l) of the
Act requires that SIP revisions be
submitted within nine months after a
standard is revised. This refers only to
SIP revisions legally required because of
a revision to a standard. Where a
standard is relaxed, however, no SIP
revision is required by law, since states
may have more stringent controls than
necessary if they choose. Since it is the
State's option whether to relax new
requirements to the 0.12 ppm level, the
State may detemine its own schedule for
accomplishing this. In any case, a SIP at
least adequate to attain the 0.12 ppm
ozone standard must be approved by
USEPA prior to July 1,1979 as a
precondition for the construction or
modification of any major source of
VOC in a nonattainment area.
For a State Implementation plan to be
considered approvable. each individual
element of the submittal must be
approved as a revision to the SIP, and
the revised SIP as a whole must satisfy
the requirements of Part D of the Clean
Air Act. As discussed in the following
sections, USEPA has determined that
specified individual elements in the
stationary source regulations and
transportation plans are approvable,
conditionally approvable, and
disapprovable, and has proposed
specific rulemaking actions with respect
to those elements of the plan. If the
deficiencies specifically cited below are
corrected prior to USEPA final
rulemaking, USEPA will approve those
specified elements of the ozone portion
of the Michigan SIP. Alternatively, if the
appropriate State Official(s) provide
USEPA with assurances that the
deficiencies will be corrected according
to a schedule negotiated between the
State and the USEPA Regional Office
during the 60 day comment period
announced in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, USEPA will conditionally
approve those specified elements of the
Michigan Ozone SIP. If the State neither
corrects the deficiencies nor provides
the required assurances, USEPA will
disapprove those specified elements of
the Michigan Ozone SIP in its final
rulemaking. The plan as a whole,
however, contains omissions of such
significance that USEPA cannot propose
rulemaking on the adequacy of the
entire ozone SIP at this time. USEPA
will propose rulemaking upon State
submission of the omitted portions of
the plan.
USEPA specifically solicits public
comment with respect to this approach
and with respect to USEPA's proposal
for rulemaking on specific elements of
the stationary source regulations,
transportation plans, and inspection and
maintenance program. A detailed
discussion of each component and
USEPA proposed rulemaking is
contained in the following sections.
Hydrocarbons from Stationary Sources
Section 172(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act
requires the application of reasonably
available control technology to
stationary sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) in nonattainment
areas. The USEPA has developed
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs)
which provide, information on available
air pollution control techniques, and
which contain recommendations of what
USEPA calls the "presumptive norm" for
RACT. USEPA will approve VOC RACT
regulations which are marginally
different from the CTGs (within 5% of
the controlled emissions on a source
category basis) without requiring
additional technical support. Where the
State regulations are not supported by
the information in the CTGs, the State
must provide an adequate
demonstration that its regulations
represent RACT, or amend the
regulations to be consistent with the
information in the CTGs.
113
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 157 / Monday. August 13. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Michigan has submitted eighteen new
rules containing stationary source
controls representing RACT. These rules
provide emission limitations and
prohibitions for existing sources of
volatile organic compounds. Each new
rule is briefly described below.
Rule 336.601 defines an "existing
source" as any process or process
equipment which has been placed in use
or for which application was made to
the Commission prior to July 1,1979.
Rule 336.602 is a general provision
making it unlawful for a person to cause
or allow the emission of volatile organic
compounds from any existing source in
excess of the provisions of any rule or
the maximum allowable emission limit
specified in a permit, whichever is more
restrictive.
Rule 336.603 requires sources to
submit to the Commission either a
written program for compliance with
specified rules or evidence of
compliance with these rules. The written
program for compliance must be
submitted within one year of the
effective date of the rule if the final
compliance date for the source is on or
before December 31,1982 or within
eighteen months of the effective date of
the rule if the final compliance date is
after December 31.1982. The final
compliance dates are specified in the
rules containing stationary source
controls.
Rules 336.604 and 336.605 respectively
address the requirements for the storage
of organic compounds having a true
vapor pressure greater than 1.5 pounds
per square inch absolute (psia) but less
than 11 psia. and organic compounds
having a true vapor pressure of 11 psia
or greater in existing stationary vessels
of more than 40.000 gallons capacity.
Rule 336.606 provides requirements for
loading gasoline into existing stationary
vessels of more than 2000 gallons
capacity at dispensing facilities
handling 250,000 gallons or more per
year.
Rule 336.607 contains requirements for
loading gasoline into existing stationary
vessels of more than 2000 gallons
capacity at loading facilities.
Rule 336.608 specifies controls for
loading gasoline into existing delivery
vessels at loading facilities handling less
than 5,000,000 gallons per year.
Rule 336.609 specified controls for
loading existing delivery vessels with
organic compounds having a true vapor
pressure greater than 1.5 psia at loading
facilities handling 5.000,000 gallons or
more of such compounds per year.
Rule 336.610 specifies controls for
existing coating lines including
automobile and light truck coating, and
RACT emission limits for automobile
and light duty truck coating lines. These
schedules contain interim increments of
progress leading to compliance with the
volatile organic compound RACT
regulations between December 31,1982
and December 31,1986. The schedules
for General Motors Corporation and
Chrysler Corporation are based on plans
developed by these corporations to
comply nationally with RACT
requirements for automobile and light
duty truck assembly plants.
USEPA has reviewed these plans as
well as information in the submittal
relating to the Ford Motor Company
plants in Michigan and has determined
that the schedules are as expeditious as
practicable. USEPA specifically solicits
public comment on the proposed
compliance timetable in the automobile
and light duty truck VOC-RACT
regulations.
(3) Finally, Rule 336£10 proposes a
vinyl coating limit of 4.5 pounds of VOC
per gallon coating (minus water) as
applied. This limit represents a site
specific RACT determination for the
Ford Motor Company vinyl coating plant
in Mt. Clements, Michigan.
USEPA has reviewed the data which
the State considered in making this
determination and has noted a number
of discrepancies concerning the data.
These discrepancies relate to the
density of the coatings and the percent
of solids by volume contained in the
coatings. In addition. USEPA questions
the appropriateness of the information
supplied in this determination in light of
other information from plants engaged
in the coating of automobile and
industry related vinyl products. A
detailed discussion of the discrepancies
is contained in a technical memorandum
in the docket on this proposed SIP
revision.
USEPA is specifically soliciting
comments from all interested parties in
order to resolve the discrepancies in the
data and to determine the
reasonableness of this RACT
determination.
114
-------
Missouri Offset
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 208 / Thursday. October 25. 1979 / Notices
61455
Region Vtt, Approval of PSD Permit to
Metal Container Corporation
Notice is hereby given that on
September 28, 1979, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit to Metal Container
Corporation, a subsidiary of Anheuser-
Busch, Incorporated, for approval to
construct a new beverage can
manufacturing facility in Arnold,
Jefferson County, Missouri. This pprmil
under EPA's Prevention
reduced hy an
In
of Significant Air Quality Deterioration
'regulations (40 CFR 52.21) applicable to"
file new tacility subject to certain
clu
Tgnditions, including that emissions of
"volatile organic coinpounds from the I
Lianco Container Corporation plant in
"St. Louis County. Missouri must be
emissions from the new facility.
— "TKeTSlJ permit is renewable under
Section 307(b)[l) of the Clean Air Act
only in the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. A petition for review must be
filed on or before December 24, 1979.
Copies of the permit are available for
public inspection upon request at the
following locations:
Missouri Department of Nctunl Resources,
St Louis Regional Office, 8460 Watson
Road. SL Louis, Missouri 63139.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
HJio Missouri Boulevard, Jefferson City,
Missouri 65101.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agecny, Air
and Hazardous Materials Division, 324
East llth Street Kansas City, Missouri
64106.
Date: October 11. 1979.
Kathleen Q. Gamin,
Regional Administrator. Region VJI.
[FR Doc. 79-32875 Filed lO-Zf-TiftC raj
BILLING CODE S580-01-H
46898
New Mexico SIP Revision
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 155 / Thursday, August 9, 1979 / Proposed Rules
Photochemical Oxidant Nonattainment
Area
The Albuquerque urban area is the
only area in New Mexico designated
nonattainment for photochemical
oxidants (ozone). The designation was
based on violations of the previous 0.08
ppm oxidant standard, and the SIP
revision is based on attainment of this
standard.
The air quality design value is 0.11
ppm, which was recorded in 1976. Based
on this value, an emission reduction of
27 percent is required to demonstrate
attainment. Since mobile source
emissions account for approximately 88
percent of total 1977 emissions, the
control strategy is dependent primarily
on reducing motor vehicle emissions
through the FMVCP andjm I/M
program. Sincfe^ Stage I vapor recovery^
has already beehTmpTemBIiT5d-trr~~^
Albuquerque, no additional benefits
from this measure will be realized. Some
emission reduction will occur from
implementation of a regulation to
control the use of cutback asphalt.
Implementation of all measures is
predicted to result in a reduction of
hydrocarbon emissions of 28 percent by
1982. Consequently, the control strategy
is considered adequate to demonstrate
attainment of standards. EPA is
proposing approval of this portion of the
plan since a demonstration of
attainment of the old photochemical
oxidant standard (0.08 ppm) also results
in a demonstration of attainment of the
new standard (0.12 ppm).
115
-------
44556
New York
Federal Register /.Vol. 44. No. 147 / Monday, July &6, 1979 / Proposed Rules
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
The State indicates that national
ambient air quality standards for ozone
and carbon monoxide are or will be
attained in each of the five areas by
December 31.1982. The plans
demonstrate ozone attainment in the
urbanized portions of the areas.
Demonstrating attainment for an
urbanized area is consistent with EPA
policy and provides adequate technical
assurance of attainment for the whole.
larger area designated nonattainment,
including rural areas which, due to low
nitrogen dioxide levels, are not
conducive to ozone formation (44 FR
20376. April 4.1979).
It must be noted, however, that the
confidence which EPA places on the
State's attainment demonstrations is
lowered because of questionable
baseline data. Air quality data used in
these demonstrations is, as recognized
in the plans, not representative of worst
conditions: for ozone, monitors are
located in or near urban areas where
ozone levels are locally depressed; for
carbon monoxide, monitors are not
located in potential "hot-spot" areas.
Problems with the emissions data used
in the State's attainment demonstrations
are described under item (5) in this
section under the hearing. "Ozone/
Carbon Monoxide."
Because el these problems, the State
has committed itself to carrying out
several additional programs identified in
the plans so as to provide follow-up
studies of reasonable available
transportation control measures for
possible future implementation, to refine
analytic methods, and to improve its
emission inventories and its monitoring
network. On the basis of these
commitments, EPA proposes to approve
the plans as meeting this requirement.
It should be further noted that on
January 26,1979 (as published at 44 FR
8202. on February 8.1979). EPA revised
the ozone ambient air quality standard
from 0.08 ppm to 0.12 ppm. As described
in the April 4.1979 Federal Register at
44 FR 2037& the relaxation of this
standard allows some areas to be
redesignated to "attainment." The State
submitted, on May 2,1979. such a
request which may impact the ozone
plan revision requirements discussed in
this notice as regards the following
Bounties: Allegheny, Broome.
Cattaraugus. Chautauqua. Chemung.
Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Fulton.
Herkimer. Jefferson. Lewis Madison.
Montgomery. Oneida. Oswego, Otsego.
Saratoga. Schoharie, Schuyler, Steuben.
Sullivan, Tioga and Tompkins. This
issue will be addressed in a separate
Federal Register notice.
Also, since no clear commitment is
provided for adoption of future RACT
regulations to apply to source categories
for which CTGs were not published by
Januaryi978, EPA proposed to condition
its approval of the plans as follows:
•The State must submit, by January 1.
1980. adopted and legally enforceable
RACT regulations for each of the
following categories unless it
demonstrates by certification that for a
given VOC source category there are no
such sources in the State:
—vegetable oil processing
—petroleum refinery leaks
—gasoline tank trucks
—perchloroethylene dry cleaning
—pharmaceutical manufacture
—miscellaneous metal parts and products
—graphic arts
—pneumatic rubber tire manufacture
—flatwood paneling
—floating roof tanks
• The State must submit, by January 1.
1981, adopted and legally enforceable
RACT regulations for each of the
categories addressed by CTG
documents which are issued between
February 1979 and January 1980, unless
it demonstrates by certification that for
a given VOC source category there are
no such sources in the State.
The remainder of the discussion under
this item will deal with each of the
submitted regulations for the control of
volatile organic compounds (VOC's)
from the source categories for which
CTG documents had been published by-
January 1978. The Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG's) provide information
on available air pollution control
techniques, and contain
recommendations of what EPA calls the
"presumptive norm" for RACT. Based
on the information in the CTG's, EPA
believes that the submitted regulations
represent RACT, except as noted below.
' On the points noted below, the State
regulations are not supported by the
- information in the CTG's, and the State
must provide an adequate
demonstration that its regulations
represent RACT, or amend the
regulations to be consistent with the
information in the CTG's.
• Part 211—General Prohibitions
Part 211 contains a general prohibition
against polluting the air and regulates
visible emissions. It also contains a new
section (Section 211.4) which prohibits
the use of VOC's to liquify asphalt used
for paving purposes except under
certain circumstances.
The State has included an exemption
for cutback asphalt used in the
manufacture of asphalt emulsions with
low VOC content (less than 15% by
weight). In describing RACT for this
source category, EPA did not deem this
116
exemption necessary. However, the
State determined otherwise because of
certain application problems for
emulsions with no VOC content and the
inability of some asphalt manufacturers
to produce solvent-free emulsions
However, this is a genera! exemption
not restricted to specific applications
justified by the State. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve this
regulatory provision provided the State
commits to minimizing the solvent
content in all future emulsified asphalt
usage. On or before September 1,1979.
the State shall submit to EPA an
enforceable procedure for carrying out
this objective.
• Part 212—Process and Exhaust and/or
Ventilation Systems
Part 212 contains general limits
applicable to process sources for which
there are no specific regulations When
revisions to existing regulations or new
rules are promulgated, it is therefore
necessary for the State to amend this
Part by exempting those processes
covered by the revised or new rule. Such
a step was taken with regard to the
sources addressed by the regulations
discussed under this item.
• Part 223—Petroleum Refineries
In its revision of Part 223 the State has
combined into a single rule various
emission standards applicHble to
petroleum refinery air pollution sources.
Many of these standards existed
previously in other Parts of the State's
Code.
Of importance to the SIP revisions
discussed in this notice is the further
fact that the proposed regulation
address the control of VOC's from
refinery vacuum producing systems.
wastewater separators, and process unit
turnarounds. This Part requires all non-
condensable vapors from any vacuum
producing system to be piped to a
firebox or incinerator, or compressed
and added to refinery fuel gas. It would
require all forebays and separator
sections which recover 200 gallons per
day or more of VOC's to be covered. It
would also require all processing units
to be depressurized to 5 psig and the
VOC's vented to a recovery system, fuel
gas system, or flared when the unit is
being shut-down, inspected, repaired, or
started-up.
This Part allows the regulated sources
until June 1.1982. or such later date as
determined by an Order of the
Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Conservation (upon
submission of appropriate justification)
to achieve compliance with its VOC
emission limitation provisions. The
length of time allowed for compliance is
-------
considered by EPA to be generous for
these types of sources. However, since
the State has demonstrated attainment
of the ozone standard by December 31.
1982 with emission reductions from both
stationary and mobile strategies and has
addressed reasonable further progress
requirements, EPA proposes to find this
Part acceptable.
• Part 226—Solvent Metal Cleaning
Processes
Part 226 is a new rule with Statewide
applicability directed at controlling the
emissions of VOC's from solvent metal
cleaning (degreasing) operations. The
role contains three main sections:
"General Requirements," "Equipment
Specifications," and "Operating
Requirements."
Section 226.2, General Requirements.
requires solvents to be stored in covered
containers and disposed of properly.
equipment to be maintained properly,
operating procedures to be posted,
equipment covers to be closed when not
in use. and records of solvent
consumption to be kept. Section 226.3,
Equipment Specification, lists the
equipment required for each of three
types of degreasers: cold cleaning, open
top vapor, and conveyorized degreasers.
In the CTG document for Solvent Metal
Cleaning, two levels of control for each
type of degreaser were identified. The
State has selected control requirements
composed of those contained in the first
(less stringent) level plus elements of
those contained in the second (more
stringent) level. Section 226.4, Operating
Requirements, addresses the correct
operation of degreasing units to
minimize emissions.
The requirements for controlling
solvent metal cleaning operations meet
the reconimended control levels
contained within the guidance.
However, this rule contains provisions
which exempt methyl chloroform and
methylene chloride from control. These
exemptions were included by the State
because these two compounds do not
have an effect on atmospheric ozone
formation. Therefore, the State believes
that they should not be regulated under
a rule thatls concerned with reducing
ambient ozone levels. However, under 6
NYCRR Part 212, Process and Exhaust
and/or Ventilation Systems, methyl
chloroform and methylene chloride
emissions from metal cleaning processes
can be controHedif it is determined by
the State that these two compounds
have "toxic properties" (Section
..
EPA does not agree with this limited
interpretation of regulatory objective.
While it is true that these volatile
organic compounds do not appreciably
affect ambient ozone levels, they are
potentially harmful. Both methyl
chloroform and methylene chloride have
identified as mutagenic in bacterial and
mammalian cell test systems, a
circumstance which raises the
possibility of human mutagenicity and
carcinogenicity.
Furthermore, methyl chloroform is
considered one of the slower reacting
VOCs which eventually migrates to the
stratosphere where it is suspected of
contributing to the delpetion of the
ozone layer. Since stratospheric ozone is
the principal absorber of ultraviolet
light, the depletion could lead to an
increase of untraviolet light penetration
resulting in a worldwide increase in skin
cancer.
With the possible exemption of these
compounds, some sources, particularly
existing degreasers. may be encouraged
to utilize methyl chloroform in place of
other more photochemically reactive
degreasing solvents. Such substitution
has already resulted in the use of methyl
chloroform in amounts far exceeding
that of other solvents. Endorsing the use
of methyl chloroform by exempting it in
Part 226 can only further aggravate the
problem by possibly increasing the
emissions produced by existing primary
degreasers and other sources.
EPA is concerned that the State has
chosen this course of action without full
consideration of the total
environemental and health implications.
While EPA does not propose to
disapprove the State's SIP revisions if
the State chooses to maintain these
exemptions, EPA is concerned that this
policy should not be interpreted as
encouraging the increased use of these
compounds nor compliance by
substitution. EPA does not endorse such
apporaches. Furthermore, State officials
and sources are advised that there is a
strong possiblity of future regulatory
action to control these compounds.
Sources which choose to comply with
Part 226 by substitution may well be
required to install control systems as a
consequence of these future regulatory
actions or as a requirement of Part 212.
•Part 228—Surface Coating Processes
Part 228 is a new rule applicable in
areas of the State designated as
"nonattainment" for ozone and is
directed at controlling the emissions of
VOCs from surface coating processes.
Industries involved in the following
activities are required to comply with
this Part: large appliance coating lines,
magnet wire insulation coating lines,
metal furniture coating lines, metal can
coating lines, fabric coating lines, vinyl
coating lines, paper coating lines,
automobile assembly coating lines, and
coil coating lines. This rule specifies a
maximum permitted emission rate
(pounds of organic solvent, minus water,
per gallon of coating at application) for
each source category and allows the
source owner to choose the most
economical method of control to meet
the emission limitation specified. The
various control methods available to
sources are: reformulation of coatings—
use of "low-solvent" coatings (water-
borne, high-solids, and powder
coatings), "add-on" technology to
recover or destroy VOC's in exhaust
gases, and modification of processes to
reduce the quantity of VOC emissions.
EPA proposes to find this Part
acceptable.
•Part 229—Gasoline Storage and
Transfer
Part 229 is a new rule applicable in
areas of the State designated as
"nonattainment" for ozone and is
directed at controlling the emissions of
VOC's from: the storage of gasoline in
fixed roof tanks, the transfer of gasoline
at gasoline bulk plants, and the transfer
of gasoline at loading terminals. Since
the State has demonstrated attainment
of the ozone standard by December 31,
1982, controls are only required for
sources with potential emissions of 100 •
tons per year or greater. Fixed roof
tanks with capacities of 40,000 gallons
or greater located at a source with
potential VOC emissions of 100 tons per
year or greater are required to be
retrofitted with an internal floating roof
or equivalent vapor controls. Gasoline
bulk plants have two levels of control
depending on whether or not they
service a gasoline service station
equipped with vapor controls. All bulk
plants are required to have submerged
filling of gasoline transport vehicles.
Those servicing vapor control equipped
service stations (service stations in the
areas of New York State covered by this
Federal Register proposal are not
required to be so equipped) must install
vapor collection, vapor balance type
systems to control the gasoline vapors
generated during transfer operations.
Gasoline loading terminals are required
to have vapor collection and vapor
control systems in all cases.
Proposed Part 229 only partially
addresses the control requirements for
VOC emissions from fixed roof storage
tanks. The CTG document addressing
this source category did not limit itself
only to the control of gasoline storage as
does the State's proposed regulation;
rather, it defined RACT for fixed roof
tanks storing "petroleum liquids,"
117
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 147 / Monday, July 30. 1979 / Proposed Rules
the State must either hold public
hearings to revise Part 229 to cover all
petroleum liquid storage in fixed roof
tanks or provide an adequate
justification for not doing so. If the State
elects to revise Part 229, such revised
regulation must be adopted and
submitted to EPA by April 1,1980.
•Compliance Schedules
Each of the State's proposed
regulations contains a date by which an
affected source must submit a schedule
for achieving compliance with
provisions of the regulation and a date
for final compliance. Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, § 51.1(q) defines
acceptable "increments of progress"
described as those with a true vapor
pressure of greater than 10.5 kilo
Pascals.
The State believes that the storage of
gasoline accounts for the preponderance
of the VOC emission potential from this
source category. If the State had
demonstrated that its control of gasoline
storage will eliminate 95 percent or more
of the emissions that could have been
eliminated if all petroleum liquids were
subject to such control, according to
EPA policy, the State's proposed
regulation could be found fully
acceptable. However, because of its
limited scope without justification, EPA
is proposing conditional acceptance of
Part 229. On or before January 1,1980
New York State
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 84 / Tuesday. April 29. 1980 / Proposed Rul<#
toward compliance which are more
extensive than the two milestones
included in the State's regulations.
However, the State has provided written
assurance to EPA that the increments of
progress contained in 40 CFR 51.1(q) will
be established with each source owner
unless, because of the shortness of the
compliance schedule, such interim
milestones are not appropriate. EPA
proposes to find this assurance
acceptable.
28371
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is
to discuss in part the results of the
Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) review of a proposed revision to
the New York State Implementation
Plan for the Niagara Frontier area (Erie
and Niagara Counties] and ID invite
public comment on EPA's proposed
determinations regarding the adequacy
of this proposed revision. The Clean Air
Act as amended, requires that the State
Implementation Plan applicable to an
area not in attainment of a national
ambient air quality standard be revised
by January 1,1979 to provide for
attainment of the standard. The revision
received from New York State is
intended to meet this requirement with
regard to particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone in
designated portions of the Niagara
Frontier. Today's action, however, only
addresses the revision's approvability
with regard to attainment of the sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone
national ambient air quality standards;
a separate rulemaking proposal will be
published by EPA in die near future to
address the revision's provisions for
attainment of the particulate matter
standards.
2. Ozone/Carbon Monoxide. The
State indicates that national ambient air
quality standards for ozone and carbon
monoxide will be attained in the
Niagara Frontier by December 31,1982.
The plan demonstrates ozone
attainment in the urbanized portions of
the area. Demonstrating attainment for
an urbanized area is consistent with
EPA policy and provides adequate
technical assurance of attainment for
the whole, larger area designated
nonattainment, including rural areas (44
FR 20376. April 4,1979).
It must be noted, however, that the
confidence which EPA places on the
State's ozone and carbon monoxide
attainment demonstrations is lowered
because of questionable baseline data.
Air quality data used in these
demonstrations are, as recognized in the
plan, not representative of the worst
conditions which occur: For ozone,
monitors are located in or near urban
areas where ozone levels are locally
depressed; for carbon monoxide,
monitors are not located in potential
"hot-spot" areas. As described in
Subsection m.E.3 of this notice, EPA has
also found problems with the emission
data used in the State's attainment
demonstrations.
Because of the uncertainties
associated with its demonstration of
ozone and carbon monoxide standard
attainment, the State has committed to
carrying out several additional programs
identified in the plan revision so as to
provide a followup study of reasonably
available transportation control
measures for possible future
implementation, to refine analytic
methods, and to improve its emission
inventories and its monitoring network.
The State has provided EPA with an
acceptable schedule for these activities.
On the basis of these commitments, EPA
proposes to approve the plan revision as
meeting this requirement.
2. Ozone-Stationary Source Control
Measures.
For stationary sources, the 1979 ozone
SIP revisions for major urban areas must
include, as a minimum, legally
enforceable regulations to reflect the
application of reasonably available
volatile organic compound control
technology (RACT) to those stationary
sources for which EPA has published a
Control Technology Guideline (CTG)
document by January 1978, and provide
for the adoption and submittal of
additional legally enforceable RACT
regulations by July 1,1980 for those
sources covered by CTGs that have
been published between January 1978
and January 1979. Furthermore, it must
provide for the adoption and submittal
by each subsequent January of
additional RACT requirements for
sources covered by CTGs issued by the
previous January. For rural
nonattainment areas (and for urban
nonattainment areas demonstrating
attainment by December 31,1982), the
regulations must provide, at a minimum,
legally enforceable procedures for the
present and future control of large
volatile organic compound (VOC)
sources (i.e., those with 100 tons/year or
more potential emissions).
To meet this requirement, the State
has submitted to EPA revisions to 0
NYCRR affecting the following Parts:
Part ZOO—General Provisions,
Part 211—General Prohibitions,
Part 212—Process and Exhaust and/or
Ventilation Systems,
Part 223—Petroleum Refineries,
Part 228—Solvent Metal Cleaning Processes,
118
-------
Federal Register / Vol. ^45. No. 84 / Tuesday. April 29. 1980 / Proposed Rules 28375
Part 228—Surface Coating Processes, and
Part 229—Gasoline Storage and Transfer.
It should be noted that, with the
exception of Part 212, these regulatory
revisions have been legally adopted by
the State. Also, as previously noted, the
comments contained in this notice refer
to the approvability of the State's /
regulations only for the Niagara Frontier
despite the fact that several of the
regulations are applicable statewide.
The approvability of the regulations for
other portions of New York State has
been addressed in separate notices (44
FR 44556. July 30,1979; 44 FR 70754,
December 10,1979; and 45 FR 7803,
February 5,1980).
The remainder of the discussion under
this item will deal with each of the
submitted regulations for the control of
volatile organic compounds from the
source categories for which CTG
documents had been published by
January 1978. As discussed in a notice
appearing in the September 17,1979
issued of the Federal Register (44 FR
53761), the CTG documents provide
information on available air pollution
control techniques and contain
recommendations of what EPA calls the
"presumptive norm" for RACT. Based
on the information in the CTGs, EPA
believes that the submitted regulations
represent RACT, except as discussed
below. On the points noted below, since
the State regulations are not supported
by the information in the CTGs, the
State must provide an adequate
demonstration that its regulations
represent RACT or amend the
regulations to be consistent with the
information in the CTGs.
a. Part 200—General Provisions,
Part 200 contains definitions of the
terms used in the State's regulations and
general provisions which are applicable
to all regulations. The revision to this
Part defines "attainment area" and
"nonattainment area" which determine
the geographic applicability of the
various Parts in the State's Code.
b. Part 211—General Prohibitions.
Part 211 contains a general prohibition
against polluting the air and regulates
visible emissions. It also contains a new
section (§ 211.4) which prohibits, except
under certain circumstances, the use of
VOCs to liquify asphalt used for paving
purposes.
The State has included an exemption
for cutback asphalt used in the
manufacture of asphalt emulsions with
low VOC content (less than 15% by
weight). The State determined that this
exemption was necessary because of
certain application problems for
emulsions with no VOC content and the
inability of some asphalt manufacturers
to produce solvent-free emulsions.
However, EPA did not recommend such
an exemption in the CTG and the State
has not provided a valid justification for
the exemption. Therefore, EPA cannot
fully approve this proposed revision. As
a result of discussions by EPA and the
State regarding this problem, the State
has agreed to survey current asphalt
usage and use the resulting data to
either justify the current general
exemption or to make appropriate
revisions to Part 211. The State has
submitted a schedule for completing this
work. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve the proposed revision on the
condition that on or before May 1,1981
the State shall submit to EPA necessary
adopted revisions to Part 211 to
eliminate the general exemption or shall
submit adequate justification for not
making such revisions.
c. Part 212—Process and Exhaust
and/or Ventilation Systems.
Part 212 contains general limits
applicable to process sources for which
there are no specific regulations. When
revisions to existing regulations or new
regulations are promulgated to cover
specific processes previously covered by
Part 212, it is therefore necessary for the
State to amend this Part by exempting
those processes covered by the revised
or new specific regulation. Such a step
was taken with regard to the sources
addressed by the regulations discussed
in this notice.
However, in its review of the State's
SIP revision submittal, EPA noted that
Part 212 had been revised to a greater
extent than indicated by the State. This
apparent discrepancy results from the
fact that Part 212 had been previously
revised by the State without
incorporation of these revisions into the
SIP. Therefore, EPA and the State
currently are enforcing different
versions of Part 212. While, in order to
correct this situation, the State has
recently submitted as a SIP revision this
regulation in its entirety, only those
revisions to Part 212 exempting those
processes covered by revised or new
regulations are being addressed by EPA
in this notice. EPA proposes to find
these specific revisions to Part 212
acceptable.
d. Part 223—Petroleum Refineries.
In its revision of Part 223 the State has
combined into a single regulation
various emission standards applicable
to petroleum refinery air pollution
sources. Many of these standards
existed previously in other Parts of the
State's Code.
Of importance to the SIP revisions
discussed in this notice is the further
fact that the proposed regulation
addresses the control of VOCs from
119
refinery vacuum producing systems,
wastewater separators and process unit
turnarounds. This Part requires all non-
condensable vapors from any vacuum
producing system to be piped to a
firebox or incinerator, or compressed
and added to refinery fuel gas. It would
require all forebays and separator
sections which recover 200 gallons per
day or more of VOCs to be covered. It
should be noted that the 200 gallon per
day exemption is not justified by the
CTGs, however, the exemption is
consistent with the requirement to
address only those sources of 100 tons
per year potential emissions. It would
alsq require all processing units to be
depressurized to 5 psig and the VOCs .
vented to a recovery system, fuel gas
system, or flared when the unit is being
shut-down, inspected, repaired, or
started-up.
This Part allows the regulated sources
until June 1,1982, or such later date as
determined by an Order of the
Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (upon submission of
appropriate justification) to achieve
compliance with its VOC emission
limitation provisions. Such orders must
be submitted by the State to EPA as SIP
revisions. The length of time allowed for
compliance is considered by EPA to be
generous for these types of sources.
However, since the State has
demonstrated attainment of the ozone
standard by December 31,1962 with
emission reductions from both
stationary and mobile strategies and has
addressed reasonable further progress
requirements, EPA proposes to find this
part acceptable.
e. Part 226—Solvent Metal Cleaning
Processes.
Part 228 is a new regulation with
statewide applicability directed at
controlling the emissions of VOCs from
solvent metal cleaning (degreasing)
operations. The regulation contains
three main sections: "General
Requirements," "Equipment
Specifications" and "Operating
Requirements."
Section 226.2, "General
Requirements," requires solvents to be
stored in covered containers and
disposed of properly, equipment to be
maintained properly, operating
procedures to be posted equipment
covers to be closed when not in use, and
records of solvent consumption to be
kept. Section 226.3, "Equipment
Specification,'" lists the equipment
required for each of three types of
degreasers: cold cleaning, open top
vapor, and conveyorized degreasers. In
the CTG document for solvent metal
cleaning, two levels of control for each
-------
28376
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 84 / Tuesday. April 29. 1980 / Proposed Rules
type of degreaser were identified. The
State has selected control requirements
composed of those contained in the first
(less stringent) level plus elements of
those contained in the second (more
stringent) level. Section 226.4,
"Operating Requirements," addresses
the correct operation of degreasing units
to minimize emissions.
The requirements for controlling
solvent metal cleaning operations meet
the recommended control levels
contained within the EPA guidance.
However, this regulation contains
provisions which exempt methyl
chloroform and methylene chloride from •
control. These exemptions were
included by the State because these two
compounds do not have an effect on
atmospheric ozone formation. Therefore,
the State believes that they should not
be regulated under regulation that is
concerned with reducing ambient ozone
levels. However, under 6 NYCRR Part
212, "Process and Exhaust and/or
Ventilation Systems," methyl chloroform
and methylene chloride emissions from
metal cleaning processes can be
controlled if it is determined by the
State that these two compounds have
"toxic properties" (§ 212.8(k)).
EPA does not agree with this limited
interpretation of regulatory objective.
While it is true that these volatile
organic compounds do not appreciably
affect ambient ozone levels, they are
potentially harmful. Both methyl
chloroform and methylene chloride have
been identified as mutagenic in bacterial
and mammalian cell test systems, a
circumstance which raises the
possibility of human mutagenicity and
carcinogenic! ty.
Furthermore, methyl chloroform is
considered one of the slower reacting
VOCs which eventually migrates to the
stratosphere where it is suspected of
contributing to the depletion of the
ozone layer. Since stratospheric ozone is
the principal absorber of ultraviolet
light, the depletion could lead to an
increase of ultraviolet light the
depletion could lead to an increase of
ultraviolet light penetration resulting in
a worldwide increase in skin cancer.
With the possible exemption of these
compounds, some sources, particularly
existing degreasers, may be encouraged
to utilize methyl chloroform in place of
other more photochemically reactive
degreasing solvents. Such substitution
has already resulted in the use of methyl
chloroform in amounts far exceeding
that of other solvents. Endorsing the use
of methyl chloroform by exempting it in
Part 228 can only further aggravate the
problem by possibly increasing the
emissions produced by existing primary
degreasers and other sources.
EPA is concerned that the State has •
chosen this course of action without full
consideration of the total environmental
and health implications. As noted in a
June 4,1979 Federal Register notice (44
FR 32042], while EPA does not propose
to disapprove the State's SIP revision if
the State chooses to maintain these
exemptions, EPA is concerned that this
policy should not be interpreted as
encouraging the increased use of these
compounds nor compliance by
substitution. EPA does not endorse such
approaches. Furthermore, State officials
and source are advised that there is a
strong possibility of future regulatory
action to control these compounds.
Sources which choose to comply with
Part 228 by substitution may well be
required to install control systems as a
consequence of these future regulatory
actions or as a requirement of Part 212.
f. Part 228—Surface Coating
Processes.
Part 228 is a new regulation applicable
in areas of the State designated as
"nonattainment" for ozone and is
directed at controlling the emissions of
VOCs from surface coating processes.
Industries involved in the following
activities are required to comply with
this Part large appliance coating lines,
magnet wire insulation coating lines,
metal furniture coating lines, metal can
coating lines, fabric coating lines, vinyl
coating lines, paper coating lines,
automobile assembly coating lines, and
coil coating lines. This regulation
specifies a maximum permitted emission
rate (pounds of organic solvent, minus
water, per gallon of coating at
application) for each source category
and allows the source owner to choose
the most economical method of control
to meet the emission limitation
specified. The various control methods
available to sources are: reformulation
of coatings—use of "low-solvent"
coatings (water-borne, high-solids, and
powder coatings), "add-on" technology
to recover or destroy VOCs in exhaust
gases, and modification of processes to
reduce the quantity of VOC emissions.
EPA proposes to find this part
acceptable.
g. Part 229—Gasoline Storage and
Transfer.
Part 229 is a new regulation applicable
in areas of the State designated as
"nonattainment" for ozone and is
directed at controlling the emissions of
VOCs from: the storge of gasoline in
fixed roof tanks, the transfer of gasoline
at gasoline bulk plants, and the transfer
of gasoline at loading terminals. Since
the State has demonstrated attainment
of the ozone standard by December 31,
1982, controls are only required for
sources with potential emissions of 100
tons per year or greater.
Fixed roof tanks with capacities of
40,000 gallons or greater located at a
source with potential VOC emissions of
100 tons per year or greater are required
to be retrofitted with an internal floating
roof or equivalent vapor controls.
Gasoline bulk plants have two levels of
control depending on whether or not
they service a gasoline service station
equipped with vapor controls. All bulk
plants are required to have submerged
filling of gasoline transport vehicles.
Those servicing vapor control equipped
service stations (service stations in the
Niagara Frontier AQCR are not required '
to be so equipped) must install vapor
collection, vapor balance type systems
to control the gasoline vapors generated
during transfer operations. Gasoline
loading terminals are required to have
vapor collection and vapor control
systems in all cases.
Part 229 only partially addresses the
control requirements for VOC emissions
from fixed roof storage tanks. The CTG
document addressing this source
category did not limit itself only to the
control of gasoline storage as does the
State's regulation; rather, it suggests
control of "petroleum liquids," which
can be defined as any finished or
intermediate product manufactured or
extracted in a petroleum refinery and
with a true vapor pressure of greater
than 10.5 kilo Pascals.
Therefore, because of its limited scope
without justification, EPA is proposing
conditional acceptance of Part 229. On
or before August 1,1980 the State must
adopt and submit to EPA a revised Part
229. On or before August 1,1980 the
State must adopt and submit to EPA a
revised Part 229 which addresses all
petroleum liquid storage in fixed roof
tanks.
Compliance Schedules. Each of the
State's regulations contains a date by
which an affected source must submit a
schedule for achieving compliance with
provisions of the regulation and a date
for final compliance. Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Section 51.1(q)
defines acceptable "increments of
progress" toward compliance which are
more extensive than the two milestones
included in the State's regulations.
However, the State has provided written
assurance to EPA that the increments of
progress contained in 40 CFR Sl.l(q) will
be established with each source owner
unless, because of the shortness of the
compliance schedule, such interim
milestones are not appropriate. EPA
proposes to find this assurance
acceptable.
120
-------
26038
North Carolina
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 76 / Thursday, April 17, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
Ozone Plan
As indicated in the proposal notice of
Octobfer 23,1979 (44 FR 61055), the
ozone plan for Mecklenburg County
provides for the attainment of the
national ambient standard of 0.12 ppm
by December 31,1982, while providing a
margin of growth for sources of
hydrocarbon emissions. Emission
reductions are to come from the Federal
Motor Vehicle Control Program and
from the application of reasonably
available control technology (RACT) to
stationary sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC). The State adopted
regulations representing RACT for
eleven categories of VOC sources and
made a commitment to adopt RACT
regulations for added source categories
as EPA's control technique guideline
documents series is expanded. In its
proposal notice, EPA noted two
deficiencies in the State's VOC
regulations which preclude full approval
of the ozone plan for Mecklenburg
County: (1) regulation .0903
(Recordkeeping, Reporting, Monitoring)
must be revised so that it applies to
sources with potential (before control)
rather than actual emissions of 100 tons
per year, and (2) the cutback asphalt
regulation (.0931) must be amended to
specify the authoritative reference
source that will be used to determine
outdoor temperature since applications
made at a temperature below 50" F are
exempt. The ozone plan is approved on
condition that these corrections be
submitted by April 15,1980.
As noted in the "General Preamble for
Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of
Plan Revisions for Nonattainment
Areas", 44 FR 20376 (April, 1979), ozone
SIPs. such as North Carolina's, must
include RACT requirements for VOC
sources covered by CTGs EPA issued by
January, 1978. The General Preamble
also required such SIPs to contain
schedules to adopt and submit by each
future January additional requirements
for sources covered by CTGs issued by
the previous January. The submittal date
for the first set of additional RACT
requirements was revised from January
1,1980, by Federal Register notice of
August 28,1979 (44 FR 50371). Today's
approval of the ozone portion of the
North Carolina plan is contingent on the
submittal of these additional RACT
regulations by July 1, I960 (for CTGs
published between January beginning
January, 1979). Also, by each subsequent
January beginning January 1.1981.
RACT regulations for CTGs published
by the preceding January must be
included in the plan. The above
requirements are set forth in the
"Approval Status" section of this final
rule. If the RACT requirements are not
adopted and submitted to EPA
according to the time frame set forth in
the rule, EPA will take appropriate
remedial actions.
fa addition the following comments
are made on the VOC regulations:
1. The definition of VOC in regulation
.0901 includes organic compounds
(except those excluded) with a true
vapor pressure of 1.5 psia (77.6
millimeter of mercury) under actual
storage conditions.
This definition is superseded when
applicable by the test procedures in
regulation .0913, Determination of
Volatile Content of Surface Coatings.
That is, a VOC is regulated either if it is
presumed to have a true vapor pressure
of 1.5 psia under actual storage
conditions or if it is detectable using the
specified test procedure. Therefore, this
definition is as stringent as EPA's
definition, which is based on a true
vapor pressure of 0.1 millimeters of
mercury.
2. Regulation .0902(c) exempts
trichlorotrifluorethane (freon 113) from
control. This compound may be subject
to control in the future because of its
deleterious effect on the stratospheric
ozone layer, which shields the earth's
surface from some ultraviolet solar
radiation. Depletion of the layer is
linked to increased incidence of skin
cancer.
3. Any approval of alternative VOC
controls made under regulation .0905,
Petition for Alternative Controls, must
be submitted to EPA as a plan revision.
'121
-------
Oklahoma1
FEDEtAl ttGKTER, VOL 4J. NO. 150—IHUtSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1977
P.9416
8DPPI£MSNTARY INFORMATION:
Approval and Prof
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION : Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: General Motors Corpora-
tion's permit application to construct an
automobile assembly plant *" rtM«lygna
^-K^mission offset policy. pubUAed De-
cemSr 21. IB^e at KH i»!>524. as It per-
tains to major new sources seeking to
locate in non-attainment areas for the
hydrocarbon/oxidant standard.
The State of Oklahoma has obtained
the required hydrocarbon emission off-
sets and submitted them, In the form of
Consent Agreements from existing
sources, for incorporation Into the Okla-
homa Air Quality Implementation Plan.
jfre offsets, consist of control of hydro-
carbon emissions from dx jtodgoof.
'crude oil' storage teaks and two flxed^
"roof gasoline storage tanks by installa-
g551>raiherJlgatiP8 roofs or vapor re-
"epvery systems, or by .shut-down of fee
'janks. None of these sources require con-
tror\inder the currently approved State
Implementation Plan. This notice pro-
poses the approval of the State submit-
ted revision to the Oklahoma Air Quality
Implementation Plan In the form of
Consent Agreements for hydrocarbon
emission reductions creditable for offsets
JOT General Motors Corporation.
DATES: Comment must be received on
or before September 6. 1977.
ADDRESS: Submit comments to Air Pro-
grams Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VI, 1201 Elm Street, Dal-
las, Texas 75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
Oscar Cabra, Jr. .Chief, Technical Sup-
port Section. Air ft Hazardous Mate-
rials Division. EPA— Redan VI, Dallas,
Texas. 75270 (214-749-3837) .
Under the Agency's Interpretative Rul-
ing pfritghnd December 21, 1876 at FR
,
55524 a major new source may locate in
an area with air quality worse than a na-
tional standard only tf the following
conditions are met:
(1) The new source's emissions will be
controlled to the lowest achievable emis-
sion rate.
(2) More than equivalent offsetting
emission reductions will be obtained from
existing sources.
<3> There win be progress towards
achievement of the standards.
On January 21. 1977, with a subsequent
submlttal on February 4, 1977, General
Motors Corporation applied to the Okla-
homa City-County Health Department
for a permit to construct an automobile
assembly plant in Oklahoma City, Okla-
homa. The proposed assembly plant
would emit more than 100 tons per year
of hydrocarbons and would be located in
a city which is not attaining the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for hydrocarbon/oxidant. The proposed
automobile assembly plant was, there-
fore, subject to the Agency's Interpreta-
tive Ruling on emission offsets.
The State of Oklahoma determined
that the proposed General Motors (CM)
assembly -plant, with technology resulting
in the lowest achievable hydrocarbon
emissions, would emit an estimated 3240
tons per year of hydrocarbons. These
emissions were based on mass balance
calculations, i.e. solvent in equals solvent
out. Offsetting hydrocarbon emissions
totaling an estimated 5180 tons per year
were found by the State. Letters of con-
sent were obtained by the State from the
o-ristJng- sources to reduce hydrocarbon
emissions before the GM assembly plant
target operation date of November 1979.
These Consent Agreements were submit-
ted by the Governor of Oklahoma to the
Environmental protection Agency (EPA>
on March 28, 1977 for Incorporation into
- the Oklahoma Air Quality Implementa-
tion Plan (SIP) . All requirements to 40
CFR 51.4 and 51.6 for notice and public
hearings for plan revisions were met.
HYDROCARBON OFFSETS
The hydrocarbon emission offsets sub-
mitted by the State of Oklahoma consist
of the extension of requirements under
section 15.211 of the Oklahoma Air Pollu-
tion Control Regulation No. 15 (adopted
January 23, 1972) to the following exist-
ing storage tanks:
(1) Tanks 121 and 122 for crude oil
storage at the Sun Oil Company refinery
at Duncan, Oklahoma, with a final com-
pliance date of August 1, 1979.
(2) Tanks 118 and 119 for gasoline
storage at the Apco Ofl Corporation re-
finery at Cyrfl, Oklahoma, with a final
compliance date of February 1, 1979.
(3) Tank 286 for crude oil storage at
the Continental Pipe Line Company in
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (Section
S2-12N-3W) with a final compliance
date of February 1, 1979.
141 Three 80,000 barrel capacity crude
oil storage tanks at the Champlin Pe-
troleum Company, Noble Station, 13th
and Bryan Streets, Oklahoma City, Okla-
homa, with a final compliance date of
September 1,1979.
To meet the requirements «f Oklahoma
Regulation No. 15, these existing fixed
roof storage tanks must be equipped with
either floating roofs or vapor recovery
systems. Such control is not presently
required on these facilities under the ap-
proved SIP. Control of these tanks will
result in estimated hydrocarbon emission
reductions of 5180 tons per year based
on calculations using EPA's emission
factors in "Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors," February 1976, pub-
lication number AP-42.
By~ incorporation of these emission
control requirements in the State Imple-
mentation Plan, both the EPA and the
State of Oklahoma consider the offsets to
be enforceable under section 113 of the
Clean Air Act. The offsets are also con-
sidered to be enforceable by citizens un-
der Section 304 of the Clean Air Act as
"emission standards or limitations."
PROPOSED ACTION
The EPA agrees with the State of
Oklahoma's determination that the pro-
posed General Motors Corporation auto-
mobile assembly plant will use technol-
ogy resulting in lowest achievable emis-
sions of hydrocarbons and that these
emissions will total an estimated 3240
tons per year. The hydrocarbon offsets
from existing sources, totaling an esti-
mated 5180 tons per year, are considered
to be valid and enforceable by the State
of Oklahoma and the EPA. As a result of
the substantially greater than one-for-
one emission offset, the EPA considers
that there will be progress towards at-
tainment of the hydrocarbon/oxidant
standard. Thus, the EPA considers that
all conditions stipulated under the
Agency's Interpretative Ruling of De-
cember 21, 1976, published at FR 55524
have been met for the GM automobile
assembly plant to locate in Oklahoma
City. Oklahoma.
122
-------
In this notice EPA Is proposing the ap-
proval of the hydrocarbon emission off-
sets as discussed above, creditable to GM
automobile assembly plant, for incorpo-
ration In the Oklahoma Air Quality Im-
plementation Plan. The offset require-
ments are being proposed in a new sec-
tion to 40 CPR Part 52 to ensure their
enforceability under the Clean Air Act.
The State of Oklahoma has adopted
the emission offset agreements as Adden-
dum I to Chapter IV of the Oklahoma
SIP. The State procedures met all re-
quirements of 40 CFR Part 51 including
Section 51.4, the requirement for ade-
quate public participation. Interested
persons may participate in this rulemak-
ing by submitting written comments to:
Air Programs Branch, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region VI, 1201 Elm Street,
Dallas, Texas 75270.
Relevant comments submitted within
30 days of this notice will be considered.
The material submitted by the State of
Oklahoma is available for inspection
during normal business hours at the
above EPA regional office and also at
the following offices:
Environmental Protection Agency, Public
Information Reference Unit, Boom 3932,
EPA Library. 401 M Street, S.W., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20460.
Oklahoma State Department of Health,
Northeast 10th Street & Stonewall, Okla-
homa City, Oklahoma 73105.
This notice is issued under the author-
ity of Sections 110 and 301 of the Clean
Air Act, as amended (42 USC 1857C-5,
1857g).
Dated: July 14. 1977.
JOHN C. WHITE,
Regional Administrator, EPA.
Part 52 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
Subpart LL—Oklahoma
1. In ! 52.1920. paragraph (c) fa
amended by adding paragraph (10) as
follows:
§ 52.1920 Identification of plan.
• * • » •
(c) • • *
(10) Consent agreements creditable
as emission offsets submitted by the
Governor on March 28, 1977 as Adden-
dum I to Chapter IV of Oklahoma Air
Quality Implementation Plan.
2. Section 52.1931 is added to read as
follows:
§ 52.1931
trols.
Petroleum Storage Tank Con-
(a) Notwithstanding any provisions
to the contrary in the Oklahoma im-
plementation plan, the petroleum stor-
age tanks listed in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of this section shall be sub-
ject to the requirements of 5 15.211 of
the Oklahoma Air Pollution Control
Regulations and to the monitoring, in-
spection, reporting, and other procedural
requirements of the Oklahoma imple-
mentation plan and the Clean Air Act.
The owner or operator of each affected
facility shall secure compliance with
J 15.211 In accordance with the schedule
set forth below.
(b) Tanks 121 and 122 for crude oil
storage at the Sun Oil Company refinery
at Duncan, Oklahoma, shall be In com-
pliance with § 15.211 no later than Au-
gust 1,1979.
(c) Tanks 118 and 119 for gasoline
storage at the Apco Oil Corporation
refinery at Cyril, Oklahoma, shall be in
compliance with §15.211 no later than
February 1, 1979.
(d) Tank 286 for crude oil storage at
the Continental Pipe Line Company
property in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
(Section 32-12N-2W) shall be in compli-
ance with §15.211 no later than February
1, 1979.
(e) The three 80,000 barrel capacity
crude oil storage tanks at the Champlin
Petroleum Company, Noble Station, 13th
and Bryan Streets, Oklahoma City, Okla-
homa, shall be in compliance with
§ 15.211 no later than September 1,1979.
[PR Doc.77-22366 Filed 8-3-77:8:45 am]
123
-------
requirements is relatively insignificant.
Since the linear rollback technique
results in at least as stringent reduction
requirements, as the method which
accounts for present and future levels of
transported ozone, the use of this
method is considered to be acceptable.
The following table indicates the
design values, and the required
percentages of reduction resulting from
the linear rollback method.
T*M« 1.—Emission reduction requirements
NoratMnmenl couity
Dmgnvaiu* Percent
(ppm) reduction
required
TulM
0.13
0.17
8
29
B. Emission Inventories. Base year
(1977) emission inventory summaries, by
volatile organic compound (VOC) source
category, are provided in the SIP for
both nonattainment counties. The
emission inventory summaries for area
sources of VOC were developed by an
EPA contractor * and modified by the
State to reflect recent updates. The
projected 1982 inventories include the
effect of projected growth of new and
existing sources. According to the State,
growth rates used are considered to be
consistent with those of other area
planning agencies.
C. Control Strategy. The control
strategy submitted by the State of
Oklahoma is based on emission
reductions achieved through the
application of reasonably available
control technology (RACT) to existing
major stationary sources consistent with
Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs)
published prior to January 1,1978, and
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program (FMVCP).
The State has not committed to adopt
additional VOC control measures
consistent with CTGs published after
January 1,1978. However, the EPA
proposes to approve the SIP on the
following conditions:
1. The State submits adopted RACT
regulations for the following source
categories by January 1980:
a. Vegetable oil processing.
b. Petroleum refinery leaks.
c. Gasoline tank truck.
d Perchloroethylene dry cleaning.
e. Pharmaceutical manufacture.
f. Miscellaneous metal parts and products.
g. Graphic arts.
h. Pneumatic rubber tire manufacture.
i. Flatwood paneling. .
j. Floating roof tanks.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 148 / Tuesday, July 31. 1979 / Proposed Rules
raises the possibility of human
mutagenicity and/or carinogenicity.
With the exemption of these
compounds, some sources, particularly
existing degreasers, will be encouraged
to utilize methyl chloroform in place of
other more photochemically reactive
degreasing solvents. Such substitution
has already resulted in the use of methyl
chloroform in amounts far exceeding
that of other solvents. Endorsing the use
of methyl chloroform by exempting it in
the SIP can only further aggravate the
problem by increasing the emissions
produced by existing primary degreasers
and other sources.
The EPA-is concerned that the State
has chosen this course of action without
full consideration of the total
environmental and health implications.
The EPA does not intend to disapprove
the State SIP submittal if, after due
consideration, the State chooses to
maintain these exemptions. However,
we are concerned that this policy not be
interpreted as encouraging the increased
use of these compounds nor compliance
by substitution. The EPA does not
endorse such approaches. Furthermore,
state officials and sources should be
advised that there is a strong possibility
of future regulatory action to control
these compounds. Sources which choose
to comply by substitution may well be
required to install control systems as a
consequence of these future regulatory
actions.
3. Subsection 15.30 specifies emission
limitations for various types of coatings.
Based on the surface coating CTG
documents, emission limitations
consistent with RACT should be
specified for the various types of coating
lines (i.e., cans, coils, paper, etc.) not
each type of coating. Regulations
consistent with RACT for the various
coating operations must be developed,
unless the State can certify that there
are no major coating sources in the
nonattainment counties.
4. Subsection 15.50 should be revised
to reflect that the additional controls
discussed in the subsequent subsections
must apply to those areas designated as
nonattainment by the EPA, not the
Commissioner.
5. Subsection 15.522 exempts
stationary storage containers with
average daily throughputs less than
30,000 gallons from the control
requirements specified in this
subsection. Since RACT requirements
define a bulk terminal as any facility
with daily throughputs greater than
20,000 gallons, the effect of this
subsection is to exempt terminals
consisting of containers with
throughputs less than 30,000 gallons per
125
-------
Oklahoma Plan
0734 Fedteral Register / Vol. 45, Ko. 31 / Wednesday, February 13, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
Ozone
In the March 3,1978, Federal Register
at 43 FR 9037, EPA identified three
counties in the Slate of Oklahoma,
Tnlsa, Oklahoma, and Cleveland, which
•were not attaining the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
photochemical oxidants. Subsequent to
these designations. EPA promulgated
certain revisions to that standard (at 44
FR 8218, February 8,1979). As noted in
the July 31,1979, proposed rnlemaking,
the State reevaluated the air quality
data for these three nonattainment areas
and determined that concentrations in
Cleveland County no longer exceeded
the new standard. Therefore, the plan
did not address Cleveland County. EPA
notified the State that a formal request
for redesignation must be submitted and
approved by EPA before the State can
be relieved of the requirement to submit
a SIP for this area, and the State has
committed to do so. Therefore, EPA will
take no action in this area at this time.
In the July 31,1979, proposed
rulemaking. under the subsection
entitled "Rule and Regulations" (see 44
FR 41913), EPA noted that the State had
not submitted legally enforceable
regulations for, or certification verifying
the lack of any major source in the
following sources categories for which
EPA had published a Control Technique
Guideline (CTG) document by January 1,
197& large appliance manufacture;
magnet wire insulation; metal furniture
manufacture, and surface coating of
cans, coils, paper, fabric, automobiles
and light-duty trucks. OB August 22,
1979, the State submitted certification
that there are no major stationary
sources in the above named source
categories. Therefore, EPA approves this
portion of the SIP.
In addition, under this subsection of
the proposed rulemaking. EPA identified
eight points, on which the State's
Regulation No. 15 entitled "Control of
Emissions of Organic Materials," was
not supported by the information in the
CTGa, and for which the State did not
provide adequate justification. (See 44
FR 41913 col. 2 through 41914 col. 1). In
their comments of August 22.1979, the
State submitted further clarification or
committed to corrective action, as
follows.
1. The State has specified that while
its definition of "volatile organic
compound" (VOC) as specified in
Subsection 15.12.C, differs from that
which apeare in the CTGs, it is no less
stringent The State ha» elected to use
the term "organic materials" to be all
encompassing and then subdivides this
into a VOC class and an organic
material class. Therefore, the State feels
that between the two categories their
definition is in substantial alignment
with EPA'* definition. la addition,
should it be determined that «nder their
definition, eontrol is not being applied
where required, the State ftae specified
that it Witt justify non-control or take
remedial action. Therefore &A accepts
the State's definition of VOC
2. Subsection 15.12.D includes a
provision which exempts methyl
chloroform (1,1,1 trichloroethane) and/
or methylene chloride. These volatile
organic compounds (VOC). while not
appreciably affecting ambient ozone
levels, are potentially harmful. Both
methyl chloroform and methylene
chloride have-been identified as
mutagenic in bacterial and mammalian
cell test systems, a circumstance which
raises the possibility of human
mutagenieity and/or carsmogeiricity.
Furthermore, methyl chloroform is
considered one of the slower reacting
VOCs which eventnally migrates to the
stratosphere where it is suspected of
contributing to the depletion of the
ozone layer. Since stratosphere ozone is
the principal absorber of ultraviolet light
(UV), the depletion could lead to an
increase of UV penetration resulting in a
worldwide increase in skin cancer.
With the exemption of these
compounds, some sources, particularly
existing degreasers, wiH be encouraged
tootilze methyl chloroform in place of
more photochemicaily reactive
decreasing solvents. Such substitution
has alrady resulted in the use of methyl
chloroform in amounts in far exceeding
that of other solvents. Endorsing the use
of methyl chloroform by exempting it in
the SIP ean only further aggravate the
problem by increasing the emissions
produced by existing primary degree sere
and other sources.
The Agency is concerned that the
State has chosen this course of action
without full consideration of the total
environmental and health implications.
The Agency does not intend to
disapprove the State SIP submittal if,
after doe consideration, the State
chooses to maintain these exemptions.
However, we are concerned that this
policy not be interpreted as encouraging
the increased use of these compounds
nor compliance by substitution. The
Agency does not endorse such
approaches. Furthermore, State officials
and sources should be advised that
there is a strong possibility of future
regulatory action to control these
compounds. Sources which choose to
comply by substitution may well be
required to install control systems as a
consequence of these future regulatory
actions.
126
3, In regard to Subsection 15.30, the
State has certified that there are no
major coating sources in the
nonattainment areas in their comments
of August 22,1979. While the emission
limitations specified in mi* subsection
are not equivalent to RACT, the State
has verified that there are no applicable
sources and they are thereby relieved of
the requirement to develop emission
limitations consistent with RACT.
4. In their correspondence of August
22,1979. the State indicated that to
revise Subsection 15.50 in the manner
suggested in the July 31,1979 notice of
proposed rulemaking, would in the
State's opinion constitute a delegation of
the Commissioner's authority to EPA.
However, the State has agreed that all
subsequent designations will be
submitted to EPA for approval and
promulgation, and the subsection will be
revised.
5. With regard to EPA's interpretation
of Subsections 15.522 and 15.523, the
State has indicated that they concur
with it, and Subsection 15.523 overrides
Subsection 15.522 for loading facilities
with aggregate throughputs greater than
20,000 gallons per day.
6. With regard to Subsection 15.53. the
State has agreed with EPA that the
exemption for wastewater separators
receiving less than 100 gallons of VOC
per day is unjustifiable and committed
to revise the regulation accordingly.
7. Under Subsection 15.53, the State
has committed to revise the regulation
so as to.remove the words "if
necessary" and thereby clarify their
intent to require control of vapors from
hot wells and accumulators.
8i In regard to Subsection 15.563, in
their correspondence of August 22,1979,
the State submitted certification that no
conveyorized degreasers, located at a
single source and which collectively
would emit more than 100 tons per year.
were situated in the two ozone
nonattainment areas. Therefore, the
State indicated that there is no need to
revise the regulation to include Control
' System B.
EPA concurs with the State's findings
and actions on each of these eight
points, and has determined that such
action will be sufficient for the removal
of the noted deficiencies. Therefore,
EPA conditionally approves the
revisions to Regulation No. 15 provided
that the State adopt and submit the
regulation, revised in accordance with
the points enumerated above, by April
30,1980. EPA is promulgating this
deadline without prior notice and
comment for reasons stated elsewhere
in this notice.
As noted in the General Preamble for
Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 31 / Wednesday. February 13. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
9735
Plan Revisions for Nonattainment
Areas, 44 FR 2037B (April 4,1979), the
minimum acceptable level of stationary
source control for ozone SIPs, sach as
Oklahoma's, includes RACT
requirements for VOC sources covered
by CTGs the EPA issued by January
1978 and schedules to adopt and submit
by each future January additional RACT
requirements for sources covered by .
CTGs issued by the previous January.
The submittal date for the first set of
additional RACT regulations was
revised from January 1,1980 to July 1,
1980 by Federal Register notice of
August 28.1979 (44 FR 50371). Today's
approval of the OSSOBC portion of the
Oklahoma plan is contingent on the
submittal of the additional RACT
regulations which are due July 1.1960
(for CTGs published between January
1978 and January 1979). In addition, by
each subsequent January beginning
January 1.1981, RACT requirements for
sources covered by CTGs published by
the preceding January must be adopted
and submitted to EPA. The above
requirements are set forth in the
"Approval Status" section of the final
rule. If RACT requirements are not
adopted and submitted to EPA
according to the time frame set forth in
the rule, EPA will promptly take
appropriate remedial action. While EPA
proposed to conditionally approve the
ozone portion of the SIP based on the
above requirements, today's action in
adding the requirements to the
"Approval Status" section of the rule
provides similar assurance that the
regulations will be submitted in the
specified time frame.
Public Comments
This section discusses the relevant
comments received on the notices of
availability and proposed rulemaking,
and EPA's response to them.
Numerous comments were received
from the Tulsa City-County Health
Department (TCCHD). The comments
were submitted in the form of a report
which delineated a number of reasons
why the commentor felt that the SIP,
submitted by the State, did not meet the
needs of Tulsa County. Since the report
contains extensive comments, some of a
highly technical nature, the issues raised
will be addressed point by point.
Comment: With regard to the TSP
portion of the plan, the TCCHD stated
that based on high volume filter
analyses for the Tulsa area, industries
have the greatest impact on air quality
rather than fugitive dust. Therefore,
even though Regulation No. 9 will be a
beneficial method of control, the
TCCHD feels that more stringent
controls on the major point sources will
be needed in the eastern part of Tulsa
County to meet and maintain the federal
TSP standard.
Response: According to Agency
policy, TSP control strategies need only
to apply the degree of control necessary
to demonstrate attainment of the
standards, and States may develop
whatever mix of control measures they
deem appropriate, provided that they
have been officially submitted and are
legally enforceable. Therefore, EPA will
accept a control strategy based on the
control of fugitive dust sources, even if
there are significant point sources in the
area provided that the State can
demonstrate that control of only fugitive
dust sources will, indeed, result in
attainment of the standards.
Comment: The TCCHD stated that
under Regulation No. 15 which deals
with the control of hydrocarbon
emissions. Subsection 15.55 should
include that hot wells and accumulators
be covered, and vapors incinerated in
order to achieve the overall reduction
claimed by the State.
Response: EPA concurs with the
TCCHD and has noted this deficiency in
the July 31,1979 Federal Register notice
of proposed rulemaking at 44 FR 44914.
The State has indicated, in their
correspondence of August 22,1979, that
it will revise this subsection by
removing the phrase "if necessary" for
the purpose of requiring that hot wells
and accumulators will be controlled,
Comment: The TCCHD objected to the
exemption under Subsection 15.54(d)
which allows process unit turnarounds
to be accomplished without the controls
specified in the previous subparts during
the non-oxidant season, since they feel
that this will result in all turnarounds
occurring during the non-oxidant
season.
Response: The Agency feels that the
inclusion of such an exemption will not
result in all process unit turnarounds
occurring during the non-oxidant season
since the Commissioner must be notified
and approval given prior to the
scheduled turnaround.
Comment: The commentor noted that
the State's definition of VOC would
preclude from control, wastewater
separators located at the two refineries
in Tulsa County.
Response: In a comment addressed
above, EPA has responded concerning
the State's definition of VOC, and noted
the State's commitment that use of this
definition would not result in less
stringent control of VOC emissions. EPA
notes that the CTG covering wastewater
separators does not establish a vapor
pressure definition for VOCs, and that
actual emissions would depend on VOC
solubility, vapor pressure, surface
conditions, and current refiner practice.
EPA does not have sufficient
information concerning the volatility of
wastewater at these facilities to find
that this technical definition of the basis
for avoiding VOC control comparable to
the CTG, or use of controls less stringent
that RACT.
Comment: The TCCHD commented on
Subsection 15.24 which deals with
emissions from new pumps and
compressors, and the lack of control
measures for miscellaneous refinery
fugitive leaks.
Response: Since these control
measures, in the former case, are
applicable to new sources and therefore
not pertinent to the application of RACT
as specified under Part D of the Act, and
in the latter case not required to be in
place until July 1,1980, EPA will address
the comments concerning Subsection
15.24 in a separate Federal Register
notice dealing with the non-Part D items,
to be published at a later date.
Comment: The TCCHD stated that the
State had overestimated the reductions
that would be achieved from the
application of RACT to bulk gasoline
terminals. Under Subsection 15.523, the
State requires a minimum of 90 percent
efficiency on control equipment for such
facilities. In projecting emissions to
1982, the State took credit for an overall
reduction of 90 percent. In order to
127
-------
9736 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No, 31 / Wednesday, February 13, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
achieve an overall reduction of 90
percent, the TCCHD feels that the
efficiency of the control equipment must
be very high, and therefore believes that
232 tons per year is a more reasonable
1982 emission level, rather than the 136
tons per year as predicted by the State.
The TCCHD's figure represents an
overall reduction of approximately 83
percent.
Response: EPA concurs that, taking
into account downtime equipment
malfunction, etc., 83 percent is, in all
probability, a more realistic overall
reduction for bulk gasoline terminals.
However, increasing the total projected
emissions for 1982 by the amount
recommended by the TCCHD, reduces
the percentage of reduction achieved by
less than one-half of one percent.
Therefore, even with this increase in th'e
projected emissions for 1982, the control
strategy developed by the State is still
adequate to demonstrate attainment by
December 31,1982.
Comment: The TCCHD stated that
they felt that the State had taken a
provincial view of environmental
protection in exempting 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane,
trichlorotrifluoroethane, and methylene
chloride.
Response: EPA concurs with the
TCCHD's statement and has addressed
this issue in a previous section.
However, the State is not required to
control these compounds at this time.
The remainder of the report submitted
by the TCCHD consisted of a
comparison of the percentages of
reduction required using the modified
rollback method and the Empirical
Kinetic Modeling Approach (EKMA)
model employing both the city specific
and default values for the nonmethane
hydrocarbon/oxides of nitrogen
(NMHC/NO j ratios. According to the
TCCHD, these techniques result in 29.3
percent, 57.8 percent and 51 percent
respectively as compared to the 29
percent required reduction predicted by
the State using the traditional rollback
method. The TCCHD expressed concern
that controls applied in Tulsa County
may be ineffective unless controls are
applied to sources in the prevailing
upwind (southerly) direction and urged
that proposed and existing sources be
controlled in order to ensure that the
impact of such sources do not negate the
present efforts being undertaken for
attainment and maintenance of the
standards.
EPA agrees that the use of more
sophisticated models results in better
defined reduction requirements, as
compared to the traditional or modified
rollback models. It is for this reason that
Agency guidance has specified that for
SIPs with attainment dates before the
end of 1982 that do not use
photochemical dispersion modeling, the
State must apply RACT to all major
sources covered by each CTG (i.e. Set I
and Set II). EPA also believes that the
State's new source review program, in
conjunction with Regulation No. 15 and
the growth allowance provisions should
adequately maintain the standards.
Comments were also received from
the Dayton Tire and Rubber Company
and the Firetone Tire and Rubber
Company regarding the requirement that
the State must adopt and submit legally
enforceable RACT regulations for the
pneumatic rubber tire manufacturing
industry comparable to the control
measures discussed in the CTG
document for this source category. In
particular, they objected to the need for
adopting these additional control
measures in light of the fact that the
State demonstrated by using the
rollback method that Oklahoma County
would attain the standards by December
31,1982. They also commented on the
economics and feasibility of applying
the control measures.
EPA has addressed the issue of the
need for the adoption and ssbmittal of
legally enforceable regulations for the
second set of CTGs in the general
preamble and the September 17.1979 (44
FR 53761) supplement to the general
preamble. Because of the lack of
precision in the rollback method and the
Act's requirement of mininrnin levels of
control, EPA requires RACT regulations
for sources for which CTGs have been
published. Ozone SIPs being revised
BOW must include adopted RACT
requirements for VOC sources covered
by CTGs the EPA issaed before January
1978. EPA requires adoption of RACT
regulations for the next set of CTG
sources (those covered by CTGs
published between January 1978 aad
January 1979), including the rubber tire
Manufacturing sowces, by July af 1980.
In regard to the comnentor's
objections to the economics and
technical feasibility of applying controls
to rubber tire manufacturing sources,
EPA has consistently stated that RACT
is determined on a case-by-case basis.
The CTGs contain EPA's
recommendation of RACT or the
"presumptive norm" based on the
agency's evaluation of the capabilities
and problems general to the aidnstry.
However, the presumptive norm does
not take into account the unique
circumstances of the individual
facilities. Therefore, the States are free
to develop case-by-case determinations
of RACT independent of the CTG
recommendations. The State, however.
must support its determination that the
regulations are RACT.
Extensive comments were submitted
by the Oklahoma State Department of
Health, Air Quality Service (AQS).
which addressed both general and
technical issues. Several of the
comments are identical to those
submitted by the Honorable Wes
Watkins, member of Congress of the
United States, 3d District, Oklahoma.
These issues will be referenced and
addressed as presented in the AQS's
correspondence.
General Comment: The AQS objected
to the fact that criteria for approval of
the SIP was not issued until April 4,1979
(44 FR 20372) and June 28,1979 (at 44 FR
37679). Furthermore, the AQS objected
that the plan must address additional
requirements (i.e. the requirement for
die adaption of regulations concerning
those source categories covered by a
CTG document published by January 1,
1979) regardless of whether or not the
State's plan is adequate to demonstrate
attainment by December 31.1982.
Response: In regard to the SIP
approval criteria, the April 4,1979
Federal Register publication was a
summary of the principal requirements
specified m the Administrator's
memorandum (published May 19,1978 at
44 FR 21673) and was to be used by the
public as an aid in formulating public
comments. The requirements,
themselves, are contained in the Act, in
the regulations, and in additional
guidance, and were available to the
State long before the plan was due.
The June 28,1979 addendum to the
General Preamble (at 44 FR 37679) does
not address the criteria for approvability
of SIPs; rather, it is a statement of
Agency policy regarding the
applicability and timing of sanctions.
In regard to requiring additional
RACT, EPA has addressed this issue in
detail in response to a previous
comment.
Technical Comment 1: The AQS
objected to the implication in the
Proposed Rulemaking of July 31.1979
that the April 4,1979 General Preamble
had been incorporated into the
Oklahoma SIP by reference since this
Material had not been exposed to, nor
met the requirements of the Federal
Administrative Procedure Act.
Response: The general preamble was
issued to supplement EPA's proposal on
each Part D SIP revision, including
Oklahoma's, and is not a part of the
Oklahoma SIP. The general preamble
identifies the major considerations
guiding EPA's evaluation of the
subnrittals and was issued to assist the
public in commenting on the
approvability of the submittals.
128
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 31 / Wednesday. February 13. 1980 / Rules and Regulations 9737
Moreover, the public has a full
opportunity to comment on the general
preamble with each Part D revision
proposal.
Technical Conweat 2: The AQS
objected to the provision specified in
sub-paragraph C under the section
entitled "Ozone" in the July 31,1979
notice of proposed rulemaking, for the
following reasons: (1) the State does not
acknowledge EPA's right or propriety of
issuing conditional approvals; (2) the
State objects to the inference that CTGs
establish RACT: and 13} the State
questions EPA's authority to require
routine revisions to the SIP under the
Act.
Response: Under the above referenced
subparagraph, EPA described the
control strategy developed by the State
and proposed conditional approval
provided that the State adopt additional
VOC control measures representing
RACT for sources covered by CTGs
published after January 1,1978 (see 44
FR 44913).
In regard to the AQS's first objection,
the inherent authority of federal
agencies to grant conditional approvals
has been established. In McManus v.
Crvil Aeronautical Board, 286 F.2d 414,
419 (2d Or. 1961), the court expressly
upheld the power of the Board to
conditionally approve certain
agreements, saying:
Nor is the Board bound to approve or
disapprove agreements in their
entirety * * *. [T]he power to condition its
approval on the incorporation of certain
amendments is necessary for flexible
administrative action and is inherent in the
power to approve or disapprove.
Id. See also National Air Carrier
Association v. Civil Aeronautics Board,
436 F.2d 185,190 (D.C. Cir. 1970)
(applying the holding in McManus to
"closely parallel!*' situation). Similarly,
in Friends of the Earth v. EPA. 499 F.2d
1118,1124 (2d Cir. 1974), the court
upheld EPA's procedure of approving
transportation control plans which
lacked detailed regulations in cases
where EPA had been furnished
assurances that the regulations would
subsequently be 8*bmitted. The Second
Circuit found §uch a procedure, which
resemble* conditional approval, to be a
reasonable method of carrying out a
"difficult and complex job." 499 F.2d at
1124.
EPA feels that the nature of
conditional approvals is appropriate to
the STPs for the following reason. A
fundamental purpose of Part D of the
Act was to permit reasonable economic
growth in nonattaiamest areas at the
same time that reasonable further
progress is being made toward
attainment by the required deadlines.
Where a state plan substantially
satisfied the Part D requirements but
lacks minor portions that can be readily
supplied or corrected, it would be
contrary to' the intent of Congress to
impose the sanctions specified in the
Act. Thus, conditional approval
prevents the unnecessarily harsh
application of the sanctions in states
which have made good faith efforts and
submitted plans which have only minor
deficiencies. Therefore, the concept of
conditional approval is consistent with
the intent of the 1977 amendments, as
well as being within the inherent
authority of the Agency.
In regard to the AQS's second
objection, EPA will defer response here,
since this issue is dealt with in greater
detail under Technical Comment 4.
In regard to the AQS's third objection,
under Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Act,
EPA has statutory authority to require
revisions to the SIP.
Technical Comment 3: The AQS
objected to the 150-day schedule for the
adoption and submittal of legally
enforceable RACT regulations for those
CTG source categories not addressed in
the Oklahoma SIP, and the 30-day
schedule for submitting certification that
there are no major sources in those CTG
source categories.
Response: Under the July 31,1979
notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA
specifically stated that it was soliciting
comments on the deadlines proposed in
that notice. EPA recognizes the fact that
the State agency is precluded by state
law from adopting regulations when the
Legislature is not in session, absent on
emergency; and, due to the legislature's
schedule, the agency would be
precluded from revising or adopting
regulations prior to January 1980.
Therefore, EPA acknowledges that the
State cannot meet the 150-day deadline
specified in the notice of proposed
rulemaking, and inasmuch as no other
comments were received on this issue,
EPA is today promulgating a new
deadline date of April 30,1980, for
adoption and submittal of all regulation
revisions required to fulfill the
conditions of approval.
hi regard to the 30-day deadline for
submittal of all certifications, EPA
concurs with the AQS that this was in
error, since the proposed rulemaking
was subjected to a 60-day public
comment period. However, the State
submitted all necessary certifications in
its correspondence of August 22,1979.
Technical Comment 4: The AQS
objected to EPA's statement in the
proposed rulemaking, that certain
portions of the State's regulation (i.e.
Regulation No. 15) were not supported
by information in the CTGs and that the
State must demonstrate that its
regulations represent RACT. The AQS
stated that the State has primary
responsibility for determining RACT,
and that EPA must bear the burden of
proving that the State's action is less
than RACT. The AQS also objected to
the implication that, in order to have an
approvable SIP, the State must
accomplish "rubber stamp" adoption of
the CTGs.
Response: EPA has noted, in a
previous response that the CTGs contain
the "presumptive norm", based on the
Agency's current evaluation of the
capabilities and problems general to the
industry, and that they do not take into
account the unique circumstances of
individual facilities. EPA does not
endorse a "rubber stamp" approach,
since RACT for a particular source
should be determined on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account the
technological and economic
circumstances of the individual source.
However, if states should submit
emission limitations which result in less
stringent control than recommended in
the CTG, EPA policy has been that, in
order for the Agency to evaluate the
State's approach, the State must submit
adequate justification to support its
determination. EPA has fully addressed
this issue in the September 17,1979
Supplement to the General Preamble
(see 44 FR 53761).
Technical Comment 4A: The AQS
objected to EPA's statement concerning
the State's definition of VOC being less
restrictive than EPA's.
Comment: EPA has addressed this
issue in a previous section of this notice
and accepts the State's definition.
Technical Comment 4B: The AQS
objected to EPA's statement in the
proposed rulemaking concerning the
State's exemption of methyl chloroform
and methylene chloride.
Response: EPA has addressed this
issue in detail elsewhere in this notice,
under the section entitled "Ozone."
Technical Comment 4C: The AQS
objected to EPA's statement concerning
the State establishing regulations
consistent with RACT for the various
coating operations on the basis that the
State has traditionally written pollutant-
specific rather than industry-specific
regulations.
Response: EPA does not object to
pollutant-specific regulations in lieu of
industry-specific regulations, provided
that the regulation imposes controls
which constitute RACT. Even though the
limitations established by the State
were based on Oklahoma's paint
manufacturing industry's presentation of
the current state of paint manufacturing
technology, this does not automatically
129
-------
9738 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 31 / Wednesday, February 13. 1980 / Rules and Regulations
imply that it constitutes RACT. The
State should include justification for its
determination. However, EPA believes
this issue to be moot, since the State
certified that there are no major coating
sources in the nonattainment counties.
Technical Comments 4D, 4E, 4F, and
4G: These comments address specific
issues in regard to EPA's evaluation of
Regulation No. 15 in the July 31,1979
notice of proposed rulemaking, and
some of the comments contain
commitments to corrective action on
" certain of these issues. Therefore, a
discussion of the nature of these
comments and the Agency's response to
them is contained, under this notice, in
the section dealing with EPA's final
action on Regulation No. 15.
Technical Comment 4H: The AQS
objected to EPA's statement concerning
Subsection 15.563 of Regulation No. 15,
for which EPA stated that the subsection
must be revised to reflect that
conveyorized degreasers should be
subject to Control System B, as defined
in the CTG on degreasing. Their
objection was based on their belief, that
the CTGs are not sacrosanct, and that
EPA should bear the burden of proving
that the State's regulation is less than
RACT.
Response: EPA has responded to this
comment under the response to
Technical Comment 4A. In addition,
EPA agrees with the AQS that this is a
moot point since the State has certified
that there are no known conveyorized
degreasers in the nonattainment
counties.
Comments on the TSP Plan: The AQS
objected to the conditions for proposing
approval of the TSP control strategy and
Regulation No. 9, as specified at 44 FR
44915 (col. 1 through col. 3) in the July
31,1979 notice on the basis that the
State feels that they have satisfied all
the requirements for plans which
address nontraditional sources, as
specified in the May 19.1978 Criteria for
Proposing Approval of Revision to Plans
for Nonattainment Areas (44 FR 21673).
Response: A complete discussion of
EPA's rationale for granting conditional
approval is given in this notice under the
section dealing with EPA's final action
on the TSP plan.
The remainder of the comments from
the AQS are specific to EPA's review of
Regulation No. 14 concerning new
source review, and contain
commitments to corrective action
commensurate with EPA's conditions for
approval. Therefore, a complete
discussion of these comments is
contained in this notice, under the
section dealing with EPA's final action
on this regulation.
One commentor submitted extensive
comments and requested that they be
considered part of the record for each
state plan. Each of the points raised by
the commentor and EPA's response
follow. Although some of the issues
raised are not relevant to provisions in
Oklahoma's submission, EPA is
notifying the public of its response to
these comments at this time.
1. The commentor asked that their
comments, previously submitted on the
Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling as
revised on January 16,1979 (44 FR 3274),
be incorporated by reference as part of
their comments on each state plan. EPA
will respond to those comments in its
response to comments on Offset Ruling.
2. The commentor objected to general
policy guidance issued by EPA, on
grounds that EPA's guidance is more
stringent than required by the Act. Such
a general comment concerning EPA's
guidance is not relevant to EPA's
decision to approve or disapprove a SIP
revision since that decision rests on
whether the revision satisfies the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2).
However, EPA has considered the
comment and concluded that its
guidance conforms to the statutory
requirements.
3. The commentor noted that the
recent court decision on EPA's
regulations for prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality affects
EPA's new source review (NSR)
requirements for Part D plans as well.
(The decision is Alabama Power Co. vs.
Costle. 13 ERC1225 (D.C. Cir., June 18.
1979). In the commentor's view, the
court's rulings on the definition of
"source," "modification." and "potential
to emit" should apply to Part D as well
as PSD programs. In addition, the
commentor believes that the court
decision precludes EPA from requiring
Part D review of sources located in
designated clean areas.
The preamble to the Emission Offset
Interpretative Ruling, as revised January
16.1979, explains that the
interpretations in the Ruling of the terms
"source," "major modification," and
"potential to emit," and the areas in -
which NSR applies, govern State plans
under Part D. (44 FR 3275 col. 3 through
3276 col. 1, January 16,1979.) In
proposed rules published in the Federal
Register on September 5.1979, (44 FR
51924), EPA explained its views on how
the Alabama Power decision affects
NSR requirements for State Part D
plans. The September 5,1979 proposal
addressed some of the issues raised by
the commentor. To the extent necessary,
EPA will respond in greater detail to the
commentors' concerns in its response to
comments on the September 5,1979,
proposal and/or its response to
comments on the Offset Ruling.
As part of the September 5,1979
proposal, EPA proposed regulations for
Part D plans in section 40 CFR 51.18(j).
EPA also proposed, for now, to approve
an SIP revision if it satisfies either
existing EPA requirements, or the
proposed regulations. Prior to
promulgation of final regulations, EPA
proposed to approve State-submitted
relaxations of previously submitted
SIPs, so long as the revised SIP meets all
proposed EPA requirements. To the
extent EPA's final regulations are more
stringent than the existing proposed
requirements. States will have nine
months, as provided in Section 406(d) of
the Act, to submit revisions after EPA
promulgates the final regulations.
In some instances, EPA's approval of
a State's NSR provisions, as revised to
be consistent with EPA's proposed or
final regulations, may create the need
for the State to revise its growth
projections and provide for additional
emission reductions. States will be
allowed additional time for such
revisions after the new NSR provisions
are approved by EPA.
4. The commentor questioned EPA's
alternative emission reduction options
policy (the "bubble" policy). As the
commentor noted, EPA has set forth its
proposed bubble policy in a separate
Federal Register publication. 44 FR 3720
(January 18,1979). EPA will respond to
the comments on the "bubble" approach
in the final "bubble" policy statement.
5. The commentor questioned EPA's
requirement for a demonstration that
application of all reasonably available
control measures (RACM) would not
result in attainment any faster than
application of less than all RACM. In
EPA's view, the statutory deadline is
that date by which attainment can be
achieved as expeditiously as
practicable. If application of all RACM
results in attainment more expeditiously
than application of less than all RACM,
the statutory deadline is the earlier date.
While there is no requirement to apply
more RACM than is necessary for
attainment, there is a requirement to
apply controls which will ensure
attainment as soon as possible.
Consequently, the State must select the
mix of control measures that will
achieve the standards most
expeditiously, as well as assure
reasonable further progress.
The commentor also suggested that all
RACM may not be "practicable." By
definition, RACM are only those
measures which are reasonable. If a
measure is impracticable, it would not
constitute a reasonably available
control measure.
130
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 13, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 9739
6. The commentor found the
discussion in the General Preamble of
RACT for VOC sources covered by
CTGs to be confusing in that it appeared
to equate RACT with the guidance in the
CTGs. EPA did not intend to equate
RACT with the CTGs. The CTGs
provide recommendations to the States
for determining RACT, but and serve as
a "presumptive norm" for RACT, are not
intended to define RACT. Although EPA
believes its earlier guidance was clear
on this point, the Agency has issued a
supplement to the General Preamble
clarifying the role of the CTGs in plan
development. See 44 FR 53761
(September 17,1979).
7. The commentor suggested that the
revision of the ozone standard justified
an extension of the schedule for
submission of Part D plans. This issue
has been addressed in the General
Preamble, 44 FR 20377 (April 4,1979).
8. The commentor questioned EPA's
authority to require States to consider
transfers of technology from one source
type to another as part of LAER
determinations. EPA's response to this
comment will be included in its
response to comments on the revised
Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling.
9. The commentor suggested that if a
State fails to submit a Part D plan, or the
submitted plan is disapproved, EPA
must promulgate a plan under Section
110{c), which may include restricions on
construction as provided in Section
110[a)(2)(I). In the commentor's view, the
Section 110(a)(2)[I) restrictions cannot
be imposed without such a federal
promulgation. EPA has promulgated
regulations which impose restrictions on
construction in any nonattainment area
for which a State fails to submit an
approvable Part D plan. See 44 FR 38583
(July 2,1979). Section 110(a)(2)(I) does
not require a complete federally
promulgated SIP before the restrictions
may go into effect.
Another commentor, a national
environmental group, stated that the
requirements for an adequate permit fee
system (Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act),
and proper composition of State boards
(Sections 110(a)(2)(F)(vi) and 128 of the
Act) must be satisfied to assure that
permit programs for nonattainment
areas are implemented successfully.
Therefore, while expressing support for
the concept of conditional approval, the
commentors urged that restrictions on
construction under Section 110(a)(2)(I) of
the Act must apply.
Response: To be fully approved under
.Section 110(a)[2) of the Act, a State plan
must satisfy the requirements for State
boards and permit fees for all areas,
including nonattainment areas. Several
States have adopted provisions
satisfying these requirements, and EPA
is working with other States to assist
them in developing the required
programs. However, EPA does not
believe these programs are needed to
satisfy the requirements of Part O.
Congress placed neither the permit fee
nor the State board provision in Part O.
While legislative history states that their
provisions should apply in
nonattainment areas, there is no
legislative history indicating that they
should be treated as Part D
requirements. Therefore, EPA does not
believe that failure to satisfy these
requirements is grounds for conditional
approval under Part D, or for application
of the construction restriction under
Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the Act
Comments were also received from
the Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers
Association (AEMA) concerning the
availability of emulsified asphalts with
low solvent content for all applications
in all regions of the country. Although
same of the issues raised are not
relevant to the Oklahoma plan, EPA is
notifying the public of its response to
these comments at this time. AEMA's
main point is that no general rule
regarding solvent content of emulsified
asphalt for the nation is possible
because of varying conditions. AEMA
urges that EPA accept each State's
emulsion specification as RACT. AEMA
also incorrectly concludes that EPA has
been using a figure of 5 percent as
nationwide RACT for maximum solvent
content in emulsified asphalt.
EPA recognizes that varying
conditions may require different solvent
content asphalts. RACT for asphalt
should be determined on a case-by-case
basis in order to take varying conditions
into account. Therefore, EPA has not set
a nationwide standard.for the solvent
content of emulsified asphalt. However,
EPA has accepted a 5 perce.nl maximum
solvent content regulation where a state
has chosen to submit an across-the-
board regulation for emulsified asphalt,
rather than develop case-by-case RACT.
The'intent of EPA guidance has been for
states to specify in the regulations, and
justify, those emulsions and/or
applications where addition of solvent is
necessary. Since RACT can be
determined on a case-by-case basis,
states are free to specify necessary
solvent contents on the basis of
application or asphalt grade. Where a
state demonstrates that these are RACT,
EPA will approve the regulations. The
following maximum solvent contents for
specific emulsified asphalt applications
have appeared in EPA guidance and are
based on ASTM, AASHTO. and state
specifications and on information
recently received from the Asphalt
Institute.
UM
£••1 coats In early aphng or tate taN
Crap nets *twn duaiy or dWy aggregate » und
Mbong w/open graded aggregate thai la not wat
Mbttng w/oaoaa graded aggregate .
s
12
Attainment Dates
The 1978 edition of 40 CFR Part 52
lists in the subpart for Oklahoma the
applicable deadlines for attainment
ambient standards (attainment dates)
required by Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the
Act For each nonattainment area where
a revised plan provides for attainment
by the deadlines required by Section
172(a) of the Act the new deadlines are
substituted on Oklahoma's attainment
date chart in 40 CFR Part 52. The earlier
attainment dates under Section
110(a)(2)(A) will be referenced in a
footnote to the chart Sources subject to
plan requirements, and deadlines
established under Section 110(a)(2)(A)
prior to the 1977 Amendments remain
obligated to comply with those
requirements as well as with the new
Section 172 plan requirements.
Congress established new attainment
dates under Section 172(a) to provide
additional time for previously regulated
sources to comply with new, more
stringent requirements and to permit
previously uncontrolled sources to
comply with newly applicable emission
limitations. These new deadlines were
not intended to give sources that failed
to comply with pre-1977 plan
requirements by the earlier deadlines
more time to comply with those
requirements. As stated by
Congressman Paul Rogers in discussing
the 1977 Amendments:
Section 110(a)(2) of the Act made
clear that each source had to meet
its emission limits "as expeditiously
as practicable" but not later than
three years after the approval of a
plan. This provision was not
changed by the 1977 Amendments.
It would be a perversion of clear
congressional intent to construe
part D to authorize relaxation or
delay of emission limits for
• particular sources. The added time
for attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards was
provided, if necessary, because of
the need to tighten emission limits
or bring previouly uncontrolled
sources under control. Delays or
relaxation of emission limits were
131
-------
9740 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 13, 1980 / Rules and Regulations
not generally authorized or intended
under port D.
(123 Cong, Rec. H11958, daily ed.
November 1,1977).
To implement Congress' intention that
sources remain subject to pre-existing
plan requirements, sources cannot be
granted variances extending compliance
dates beyond attainment dates
established prior to the 1977
Amendments. EPA cannot approve such
compliance date extensions even though
a Section 172 plan revision with a later
attainment date has been approved.
However, a compliance date extension
beyond a pre-existing attainment date
may be granted if it will not contribute
to a violation of an ambient standard or
a PSD increment'
In addition, sources subject to pre-
existing plan requirements may be
relieved of complying with such
requirements only if a Section 172 plan
imposes new, more stringent control
requirements that are incompatible with
controls required to meet the pre-
existing regulations. Decisions on the
incompatibility of requirements will be
made on a case-by-case basis.
EPA finds that good cause exists for
making this action immediately
effective. EPA has a responsibility to
take final action on these revisions as
soon as possible in order to lift growth
sanctions in those areas for which the
state has submitted adequate plans in
accordance with Part D requirements.
Under Executive Order 10244 EPA is
required to judge whether a regulation is
"significant'' and therefore subject to the
procedural requirements of the Order or
whether it may follow other specialized
development procedures. EPA labels
these other regulations "specialized." I
have reviewed this regulation and
determined that it is a specialized
regulation not subject to the procedural
requirements of Executive Order 12044.
This notice of final rulemaldng is
issued under the authority of Sections
110 and 172 of the Clean Air Act as
amended.
Date: February a. 1980.
Batbata Bhim,
Acting Administrator,
Part 52 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
Subpart LL—Oklahoma
1. m § 52.1920, paragraph (c) is
amended by adding subparagraph (14)
as follows:
§ 52.1920 Identification of plan.
*****
(c) * ' '
(14) Revisions to the plan for
attainment of standards for ozone,
carbon monoxide, and participate
matter (Part D requirements) were
submitted by the Governor on April 2,
1979.
§52.1921 [Amended].
2. Section 52.1921 is amended by
changing the heading "photochemical
oxidants (hydrocarbons)" to "ozone."
3. Section 52.1922 is revised to read as
follows:
§52.1922 Approval status.
With the exceptions set forth in this
subpart, the Administrator approves
Oklahoma's plan for the attainment and
maintenance of the national standards
under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
Furthermore, the Administrator finds
that the plan satisfies all requirements
of Part D, Title 1, of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 19~7, except as noted
below. In addition, continued
satisfaction of the requirements of Part
D for the ozone portion of the SIP
depends on the adoption and submittal
of RACT requirements by July 1,1980 for
the sources covered by CTGs issued
between January 1978 and January 1979
and adoption and submittal by each
subsequent January of additional RACT
requirements for sources covered by
CTGs issued by the previous January.
J 52.1932 Control strategy and
regulations: ozone.
(a) Subsection 15.27c of Revised
Regulations 15 (effective date of
December 31,1974) is disapproved.
(b) PartD Conditional Approval. The
Oklahoma plan for ozone for Tulsa and
Oklahoma Counties is conditionally
approved until the following conditions
are satisfied:
(1) The State revise Subsection 15.50
in such a manner as to reflect that
subsequent designations will be
submitted to EPA for approval and
promulgation, and submit the revised
subsection to EPA by April 30.1980.
(2) The State revise Subsection 15.53
to remove the exemption for wastewater
separators receiving less than 100
gallons of VOC per day, and submit the
revision to EPA by April 30,1980.
(3) The State revised Subsection 15.53,
to remove the words "if necessary" in
order to require control of vapors from
hot wells and accumulators, and submit
the revised subsection to EPA by April
30.1980.
|FR Doc M-WM Ned 2-12-att K45 am)
BHJJNO CODE ISM 01-4H
Pollutant
Air quality control raox*
Particular matter
Primary Secondary Prrrary Secondary
Sulfur oxides Nmogen Carbon
dioxide monoade Ozone
Central OMahoim tntrastate (except Oklahoma
and Cleveland Counties).
Oklahoma County
Cleveland County
Northeastern Oklahoma Jnfraslate (except Mayes
are) Tutsa Counftes).
Tutea County „ „
Mayes County
Southeastern Oklahoma Interstate
North Central Oklahoma Intrastate
Southwestern Oklahoma tntrastate
Northwestern Oklahoma kitrastate .. .
fcftfruuuBian Fort Smith Interstate „ .
Shreveport-T«arfcana Ty*er Interstate
*
a
*d
•rf
b
b
m
*
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c a
c d
a
a
*
c
c
c
a Mr 1S7S.
b. Air quafty levels presently below primary standards
e Air guatty levels presently below secondary standards.
d December 31.1982.
•Desiojfflted am only (see 43 FR 9027, March 3,1978).
^N^-OMe»orloolix>«wh«*«reilaliciiedare
i^--So""*"**" «> Plan requirements and attainment dates established under Section 110(aK2)(A) pnor to the 1977
'SeeCom! Preamble far Proposed Rnfeaaldng.
44 FR 20373-4 (Apri! 4.1979).
132
-------
Pennsylvania Revision
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42. NO. 194—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1977
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: A revision to the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania's State Imple-
mentation Plan (SIP) is approved to in-
clude the requirement that the Pennsyl-
vania Department of Transportation
(Penn DOT) restrict the usage of liquid
bituminous cutback asphalt material in
the Penn DOT paving and road surface
maintenance program. This action is
taken by the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania in order to obtain non-methane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) emission offsets,
pursuant to the requirements of Section
HO of the Clean Air Act (as amended,
1977) and the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) December 21, 1976 In-
terpretative Ruling (41 FR 55524). for
the accommodation of the construction
and operation of the Volkswagen Manu-
facturing Company of America. Inc., au-
tomobile assembly plant in New Stan-
ton, Pennsylvania.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6,1977.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
Glenn Hanson, Regional Air New
Source Coordinator, Air and Hazard-
ous Materials Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region HI, Curtis
Building, 6th & Walnut Streets, Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, 19106 (215-597-
8170).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(as amended, 1977) and the EPA Decem-
ber 21, 1976 Interpretative Ruling, a
major new stationary source may locate
in an area currently exceeding any Na-
tional Ambient Air Quality Standard (s)
(NAAQS) provided certain conditions
are met. Those conditions include:
(1) Air pollutant emissions resulting
from the construction and operation of
the proposed new source must be con-
trolled to the lowest achievable emission
rate(s).
^2) For the pollutant(s) emitted by
the proposed new source which will cause
or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS (s), there must be a reduction in
similar emissions from existing sources
which will more than offset those emis-
sions resulting from the construction
and operation of the proposed new
source.
(3) The required emission offsets
must provide for some reasonable prog-
ress towards attainment of the
NAAQS(s).
On May 20. 1977, the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania submitted to EPA a pro-
posed amendment to the PennsylvanUH
SIP. The proposed amendment was sub-
sequently published by EPA in the FED-
ERAL REGISTER on June 14, 1977 (42 FR
30393) as a proposed revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP and written public
comments were solicited.
The purpose of this revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP is to provide for emis-
sion reductions or offsets In order to
accommodate the construction and oper-
ation of the proposed Volkswagen Man-
ufacturing Company of America, Inc.,
automobile assembly plant in New Stan-
ton, Pennsylvania. This revision is neces-
sary because the geographical area In
which the proposed Volkswagen facility
is to be located is an area currently ex-
ceeding the photochemical oxidant
NAAQS and it has been determined that
the operation of the proposed Volks-
wagen facility will result In an increase
in non-methane hydrocarbon air emis-
sions, primary contributors to the forma-
tion of photochemical oxldants. There-
fore, it is necessary that non-methane
hydrocarbon air emissions be reduced so
as to provide for some reasonable prog-
ress towards attainment of the photo-
chemical oxidant NAAQS as required
under conditions 2 and 3 as stated above.
Today's approved revision to the Penn-
sylvania SIP will provide for a net reduc-
tion in non-methane hydrocarbon emis-
sions of one thousand and twenty-five
tons (1025) per year. This reduction is
achieved through the requirement that
the Pennsylvania Department of Trans-
portation (Penn DOT) restrict theJisage.
of non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC)
'"based liquid bituminous cutback asphalts
In road surfacing and maintenance pro-
grams. TcT achieve this objective Penh
T5OT" will restrict the usage of NMHC
based liquid bituminous cutback asphalts
Co less than twentv(20) percent of the
'total amount of asphalt paving material
iis»d m the following sixteen (16) county
•'area in the southwest portion of the
State; Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver,
Butler. Cambria, Clarion, Fayette,
Greene, Indiana, Jefferson, Lawrence,
Mercer, Somerset, Venango, Washington
and Westmoreland Counties. Section
7.5.9.8 of the Penn DOT Pavement Main-
tenance Policy has been amended to in-
clude the above requirement.
In order to assure that reasonable fur-
ther progress towards attainment of the
photochemical oxidant NAAQS is pro-
vided for, the Volkswagen Company of
America. Inc.. construction and operat-
ing permit, issued by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources
and enforceable by EPAV requires that
at no time will NMHC air emissions ever
lt)UT>[77iB:«
-
Jjftft) tnm r*r T"" Further, the Volks-
wagen Company of America. Inc., has
committed to a program which will pro-
vide for a reduction to NMHC emissions
from slJTHunflrM and twenty (B2UJ M>hs
- n*r year to two hundred and
eighty (280) tons of NMHC's per year
"nvpr * three year period. These reduc-
"tions will be achieved through the sub-^
stitution of wj
lor ntatvj pasea painf in Volkswagen's
' automgDlIe~1paIhT~spraylng operations.
These reductions are based upon paint
spraying operations of eight hours per
day. five days per week, fifty weeks per
year.
During the written public comment pe-
riod, EPA did receive comments concern-
in? this revision. Some comments ad-
dressed the legal authority under which
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
would restrict the usage of liquid bitu-
minous cutback asphalts. The Penn DOT
is authorized by Pennsylvania statutory
law to formulate and implement the
NMHC emissions reduction program; Pa.
Stat. Ann., tit. 71, Sections 511. 515(b)
(Purdon). Today's approval of the
NMHC emissions reduction program; Pa.
a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP makes
the NMHC emissions reduction program
enforceable by EPA as well as by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Specific
provisions have been added in a new
section to 40 CFR Part 52 to ensure en-
f orceability by EPA).
EPA has assessed the issues relating
to the monitoring of compliance with
the Penn DOT NMHC emissions reduc-
tion i/roeram including the monitoring.
recording, and reporting of total visages
of liquid bituminous cutback asphalts.
A specific provision has been added to
40 CFR Part 52 requiring Penn DOT to
forward to the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources, on a quar-
terly basis, reports which list for each of
the affected counties the numbers of gal-
lons of each class of asphalt used. This
information will be used to compute the
total NMHC usage in each county. The
first quarterly reports will be submitted
In October 1977 for the period between
July 1, 1977 and September 30, 1977.
Copies of all reports will also be for-
warded to Region HI, EPA, and the
NMHC emissions data will be entered
into the EPA National Emissions Data
System.
After evaluation of the State's sub-
mlttal, the Administrator has determined
that the Pennsylvania revision meets the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (as
amended. 1977), the EPA December 21,
1976 Interpretative Ruling and 40 CFR
Part 51. Accordingly, this revision is ap-
proved as a revision to the Pennsylvania
Implementation Plan.
(Sec. 110, sec. 301. Clean Air Act, as amended,
(42 O.8.C., 1857C-S. 1857g))
Dated: September 29.1977.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.
Part 52 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as fol-
lows:
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
1. Section 52.2020(0. paragraph (15)
is revised to read' as follows:
§ 52.1120 Identification of plan.
» • • • •
(c) The plan revision listed below was
"submitted on the dates specified • • •
133.
-------
FEDEKAl KdSTEt. VOL. 42, NO. 194—THURSDAY, OCTOUft 6, 1977
54417
(15) Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation change to section 75.9.8
of the Paving Maintenance Manual
Creditable as emission offsets submitted
by the Secretary of the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources
on July 15.1977, as addenda to the Penn-
sylvania Air Quality Implementation
Plan.
2. Section 52.2054 is added to read as
follows:
§ 52.2054 Control of asphalt paving
material.
(a) Notwithstanding any provisions to
the contrary in the Pennsylvania Imple-
mentation Plan, the Pennsylvania De-
partment of Transportation shall re-
strict the annual usage of asphalts to the
limits listed below in the following six-
teen county area of Pennsylvania: Al-
legheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler,
Cambria, Clarion, Fayette, Green, In-
diana, Jefferson. Lawrence. Mercer,
Somerset, Venango, Washington, and
Westmoreland Counties:
(1) No more than twenty percent of
the total amount of liquid bituminous re-
phalt paving material used shall be cut-
back asphalt; and
(2) No more than 2,615,000 gallons of
cutback asphalts shall be used, of which
no more than 1,400,000 gallons may be
used for dust palliative work on road-
ways and shoulders; and
(3) No more than 2,500.000 gallons
total of emulsion Class E-4 and Class E-5
shall be used unless an equivalent reduc-
tion in the use of cutbacks is made to
balance the additional hydrocarbon
emissions from emulsions.
(b) The Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation is required to submit to
the Pennsylvania Department of Envi-
ronmental Resources, on a quarterly
basis, reports which list for each of the
affected Counties the number of gallons
of each class of asphalt used. The first
quarterly reports will be submitted in
October 1977 for the period between
July 1, 1977, and September 30, 1977.
Copies of all reports will also be for-
warded to Region m, EPA.
|FR Doc.77-29326 Filed 10-5-77;8:45 am]
South Carolina Emission Offset
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 185 / Friday, Q»Vfruber 21, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
54707
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On May 8,1979, the South
Carolina Board of Health and
Environmental Control adopted, after
public notice and hearing, revised
permit conditions for M. Lowenstein and
Sons, Inc.. Lyman Printing and Finishing
Division. EPA is today approving these
permits, which embody an emission
offset. The approval of this
implementation plan revision will have
no adverse effect on the attainment and
maintenance of the National Ambient
Air Qualtity Standards.
The provisions of the revisions were
described in a notice of proposed
rulemaking, in the Federal Register of
July 2,1979 (44 FR 38580). No comments
were received.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22,1979.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melvin Russell Air Programs Branch,
EPA Region IV. 345 Courtland Street.
N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308,404/881-
2864; FTS 257-2864.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
8,1979, the South Carolina Board of
Health and Environmental Control
adopted revisions in its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) as it relates
to permit requirements for M.
Lowenstein and Sons, Inc., Lyman
Printing and Finishing Division,
Spartanburg, South Carolina.
The purpose of this revision to the
South Carolina SIP, pursuant to Section
129{a)(l) of the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments (Pub.L. 95-95) and the EPA
January 17,1979 Interpretative Ruling
(IR) (44 FR 3274). is to offset
nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions
resulting from the operation of
equipment at R. R. Donnelley and Sons
Company, Spartanburg, South Carolina.
The revisions will have the following
effect on operations at M. Lowenstein
and Sons, Inc., Lyman Printing and
Finishing Division. The revisions cancel
operating permit number O/P-42-167
and reissues operating permit numbers
O/P-42-170 through O/P-42-179. The
implementation of this revision in the
South Carolina SIP will have no adverse
effect on the attainment and
maintenance of the national ambient air
quality standards.
Accordingly this revision is approved.
(Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7410(a)) and Section 129(a)(7) of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1977)
Dated: August 30.1979.
Douglas M. Costle.
Administrator.
Incorporation by reference provisions
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register May 18,1972. A copy of the
incorporated material is on file in the
Federal Register Library.
Part 52 of Chapter I, Title 40, of the
Code of Federal 'Regulations is amended
as follows:
Section 52.2120(c) is amended by
adding subparagraph (10) to read as
follows:
§52.2120 Identification of Plan.
*****
(c) The plan revisions listed below
were submitted in the dates specified.
*****
(10) Permit changes, specified below,
were submitted by the South Carolina
Department of Health and
Environmental Control on May 9,1979.
These changes provide emissions offset
for R. R. Donnelley and Sons Company,
and apply to M. Lowenstein and Sons,
Inc., as follows: ,».
(i) Operating permit number O/P-42-
167 for the operation of five (5) Kingsley
Roller Print Dryers (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7)
is cancelled with these dryers not to be
operated after June 1,1979.
(ii) Operating permit number O/P-42-
170 through O/P-42-179 for screen print
machine Nos. 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, 8,10.11, and 12
are reissued to reflect the total and
permanent transition from solvent-based
print pastes to water-based print pastes
on these machines as of June 1,1979.
Rationale for Approval/Disapproval,
South Carolina Plan Revision
On May 8,1979 the South Carolina
Board of Health and Environmental
Control adopted revisions to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) as it relates
to permit requirements for M.
Lowenstein and Sons, Inc.. Lyman
Printing and Finishing Division,
Spartanburg, S.C. The revisions meet
requirements of Section 129(a)(l) of the
1977 Clean Air Act Amendments (Pub.L.
95-95) and the EPA January 17.1979
Interpretive Ruling (IR) (44 FR 3274). The
implementation of this revision in the
South Carolina SIP will have no adverse
effect on the attainment and
maintenance of the national ambient air
quality standards. Therefore, approval
of the revisions is recommended.
|FR Doc 79-29280 Filed 9-2O-79: 8:45 am|
BILLING CODE 6560-01-M
-------
Texas
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 145-THURSOAY, JULY V. 1978
32440
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This rulemaking pro-
poses the approval, in part, of Texas
regulation V as submitted by the Gov-
ernor on July 20, 1977, for the control
of air pollution from volatile carbon
compounds. The purpose of this pro-
posal is to bring the State regulation
more in line with applicable Federal
regulations for Texas.
DATES: Comments on this proposal
must be received on or before August
28, 1978.
ADDRESS: Submit comments to: Air
Program Branch, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region VI, 1201 Elm
Street, Dallas. Tex. 7527O.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Jack S. Divita, Chief, Air Program
Branch, Air and Hazardous Materi-
als Division, EPA-Region VI, Dallas,
Tex. 75270, 214-767-2742.
BACKGROUND
On July 20, 1977 the State of Texas
formally submitted to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency a revised
regulation V, effective January 12,
1977, for control of- emissions of vola-
tile carbon compounds. If approved by
the EPA this regulation would amend
the Texas regulation V, effective May
12, 1973, which was submitted as part
of the State implementation plan on
April 13, 1973.
The revisions remove the previous
control exemptions for crude oil and
condensate storage tanks with certain
enumerated exceptions; extend regula-
tion V to Hardin and Tarrant Coun-
ties; and regulate the filling of gaso-
line storage vessels. Such revisions
would being the State regulation more
in line with applicable Federal regula-
tions proposed for Texas in the FEDER-
AL REGISTER of November 11, 1976, and
promulgated with some changes, on
July 21, 1977.
REVISION or REGULATION
The revised regulation V for control
of air pollution from volatile carbon
compounds extends the hydrocarbon
control requirements of the 1973 regu-
lation to sources in Hardin and
Tarrant Counties under rule 510.1.
The final compliance date by which
these sources must meet the regula-
tion's requirements is February 29,
1980. Specific interim compliance
dates will be set by the Texas Air Con-
trol Board on a source-by-source basis.
The final compliance date and area
coverage of this revision is consistent
with § 52.2283 of the federally promul-
gated regulations of July 21, 1977.
Rule 510.2 of revised regulation V re-
quires control of crude oil and conden-
sate storage tanks with a capacity
greater than 10,000 barrels (420.000
gallons)! Controls may consist of a
pressurized tank, a floating roof tank
if the vapor pressure of the material is
less than 11.0 pounds per square inch
absolute under actual storage condi-
tions, or a vapor recovery system. Rule
510.2 is applicable in Brazoria, Dallas,
El Paso, Oalveston, Harris, Jefferson,
Matagorda, Montgomery, Nueces,
Orange, San Patricio, Hardin and
Tarrant Counties of Texas. Final com-
pliance of sources is no later than Feb-
ruary 29 1980, with interim compli-
ance dates established by the Texas
Air Control Board. Rule 510.2 of re-
vised regulation V is comparable in
control requirements, area coverage
and compliance time to §52.2289 of
the federally promulgated regulations
of July 21, 1977.
Texas rule 510.3 of revised regula-
tion V governs the filling of gasoline
storage vessels with a capacity greater
than 1,000 gallons. The control re-
quirements consist of submerged fill-
ing of the container, and processing of
the displaced vapors from the storage
container by a vapor recovery system
or a vapor tight return line from the
storage container to the delivery
vessel. Exemptions from rule 510.3 re-
quirements include containers used ex-
clusively for the fueling of implements
of agriculture; containers having a ca-
pacity less than 2,000 gallons installed
prior to adoption of rule 510.3 (Dec.
10, 1976); transfers made to storage
tanks equipped with floating roofs or
their equivalent; and tanks located at
a facility dispensing less than 120,000)
gallons of gasoline per year.
Gasoline storage vessels in the fol-
lowing counties are subject to Texas
rule 510.3 with the indicated compli-
ance date: Bexar, Harris, Galveston,
and Brazoria, with final compliance by
August 31. 1978, and Dallas, Tarrant,
Denton, Travis, Nueces, Jefferson,
Orange and El Paso with final compli-
ance by February 29,1980.
The Texas rule 510.3 regulating the
filling of gasoline storage vessels dif-
fers from the Federal promulgation of
July 21, 1977, §§ 52.2285 and 52.2286, in
area coverage, exemptions, and com-
pliance dates. The Federal regulations
do not exempt storage vessels at facili-
ties dispensing less than 120,000 gal-
lons of gasoline per year. Compliance
with the Federal regulation governing
the filling of gasoline storage vessels
on Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort
Bend, Waller, Montgomery, Liberty,
Chambers. Matagorda, Bexar, Comal,
and Guadalupe Counties was required
by May 31, 1977. (The original regula-
tion governing these sources was pub-
lished Nov. 6, 1973). Compliance with
the Federal regulation for gasoline
storage tanks in Dallas, Tarrant,
Denton, Wise, Collin, Parker,
Rockwall, Kaufman, Hood, Johnson,
and Ellis Counties is required by Sep-
tember 30, 1978. Thus area coverage,
compliance date and exemption differ-
ences make the Texas rule 510.3 less
stringent than existing Federal regula-
tions.
PROPOSED ACTION
The EPA proposes to approve Texas'
revised regulation V as submitted by
the Governor on July 20, 1977, with
the exception of rule 510.3—Filling of
Gasoline Storage Vessels, and rule 507.
Rule 510.3 is proposed to be disap-
proved since it is less stringent in con-
trol requirements for certain facilities,
in area coverage, and in final compli-
135
-------
ance dates than an existing Federal
regulation.
Rule 507. although previously ap-
proved in the State implementation
plan, is proposed to be disapproved.
Rule 507 allows the executive director
of the Texas Air Control Board to
.exempt specific compounds or specific
waste gas streams from application of
regulation V. The State has the pre-
rogative to exempt these under State
regulations. To be exempt from the
federally promulgated State imple-
mentation plan regulations, however,
each State-exempt emission source
should have been submitted to the
EPA for review as a variance to the
Federal regulations. The approval of
rule 507 lias resulted in misunder-
standing by the State of this require-
ment. Therefore, rule 507 is proposed
to be disapproved.
The State adoption procedures for
revised regulation V met all require-
ments of 40 CPR part 51 including
851.4. the requirement for adequate
public participation. Therefore, the
EPA does not plan to conduct further
hearings regarding revision of regula-
tion V. Interested persons may still
participate in this rulemaking, howev-
er, by submitting written comments to
the address shown above.
Relevant comments submitted on or
before August 28. 1978. be considered.
The material submitted by the State
of Texas is available for inspection
during normal business hours at the
EPA office in Dallas and also at the
following offices:
Environmental Protection Agency. Informa-
tion Reference Unit. Room 2932. EPA Li-
brary. 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
D.C. 20460.
Texas Air Control Board. 8520 Shoal Creek
Boulevard. Austin. Tex. 78758.
In addition to the specific action
proposed on Texas regulation V. the
EPA proposes to amend §52.2270—
Identification of the Texas Plan, by
describing, rather than only listing.
past plan submittals.
The notice is issued under authority
of section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act.
as amended. 42 UJS.C. 741 CM a).
Dated: July 7.1978.
ADLEKE HARRISON.
Regional Administrator.
It is proposed to amend part 52 of
chapter 1. title 40 of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations as follows:
-T*xo>
1. Section 52.2270 is amended by re-
vising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§52.2270 Identification of plan.
(c) The plan revisions listed below
were submitted on the dates specified.
(1) Certification that statewide
public hearings had been held on the
plan was submitted by the Texas Air
Control Board (TACB) on February 8,
1972. (Nonregulatory.)
(2) A discussion of its policy concern-
ing the confidentiality of certain hy-
drocarbon emission data was submit-
ted by the TACB on May 2, 1972.
(Nonregulatory.)
(3) A discussion of the source sur-
veillance and extension sections of the
plan was submitted by the TACB on
May 3.1972. (Nonregulatory.)
(4) A discussion of minor revisions to
the plan was submitted by the Gover-
nor on July 31.1972. (Nonregulatory.)
(5) Revisions of section XI. para-
graph C.3; rule 9; regulation V and
control strategy for photochemical
oxidants/hydrocarbons in Texas desig-
nated regions 7 and 10; regulation VII;
and control strategy for nitrogen
oxides in regions 5. 7, and 8 were sub-
mitted by the TACB on August 8.
1972.
(6) A request that inconsistencies in
the plan concerning the attainment
dates of primary air standards be cor-
rected was submitted by the Governor
on November 10, 1972. (Nonregu-
latory.)
(7) Revisions to regulation IV, regu-
lation V. the general rules, and control
strategy for photochemical oxidants/
hydrocarbons, and a request for a two
year extension to meet Federal stand-
ards for photochemical oxidants was
submitted by the Governor on April
13.1973.
(8) Revisions to regulation IV (Con-
trol of Air Pollution from Motor Vehi-
cles) were adopted on October 30,
1973, and were submitted by the Gov-
ernor on December 11,1973.
(9) A revision of priority classifica-
tions for particulate matter, sulfur
oxides, and carbon monoxide was sub-
mitted by the Governor on March 21,
1975. (Nonregulatory.)
(10) Revisions to rule 23, concerning
compliance with new source perform-
ance standards, and rule 24. concern-
ing compliance with national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants.
were submitted by the Governor on.
May 9.1975.,
(11) Administrative revisions were
submitted by the TACB with the semi-
annual report in 1974 for sections I, II.
HI. IV, XI and XIII, and with the
semiannual report in 1975 for sections
I, n. XI, and X3L (Nonregulatory.)
(12) A revision of section EX, Air
Quality Surveillance, was submitted
by the Governor on August 2, 1976.
(Nonregulatory.)'
(13) Revisions to section IX, Air
Quality Surveillance Plan, which in-
clude changes of several air quality
monitoring sites were submitted by
the TACB on August 12. 1977.
(Nonregulatory.)
(14) Administrative revisions to sec-
tion X, The Permit System, were sub-
mitted by the TACB in 1973, 1974,
1975, and 1977. (Nonregulatory-)
(15) Revisions to regulation V for
control of volatile carbon compound
emissions were submitted by the Gov-
ernor on July 20,1977.
S5&2283 [Reserred]
2. Section 52.2283 is revoked and re-
served.
3. Section 52.2285 is amended by
adding paragraphs (b) and (c) as fol-
lows:
§ 52JB85 Control Strategy: Pbotoehemkal
oxidants (hydrocarbons).
(b) Rule 507 of revised regulation V
as submitted by the Governor on July
20.1977, is disapproved.
(c) Rule 510.3 of revised regulation V
as submitted by the Governor on July
20,1977, is disapproved.
§52.2289 [Reserved]
4. Section 52.2289 is revoked and re-
served.
CFR Doc. 78-20834 Piled 7-26-78: 8:45 am]
136
-------
29932
Texas Emission Offsets
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 101 / Wednesday. May 23. 1979 / Proposed Rules
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
SUMMARY: Corpiu Christ! Petrochemical
Company's permit applications to
construct an ethylene production plant
and barge dock in Corpus Christi,
Nueces County, Texas are subject to the
Interpretative Ruling (i.e., emission
offset policy), published December 21,
1976, in the Federal Register, and
amended by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of August 7,1977, as it
pertains to major new sources seeking
to locate in areas not attaining the ozone
standard.
Hydrocarbon emission offsets were
offered and agreed to by ChampUn
Petroleum Company and the State of
Texas submitted them in Texas Air
Control Board (TACB) Order No. 78-6
for incorporation into the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP). None of the
offsetting hydrocarbon emission
reductions are required control
measures under the currently approved
SEP. This notice proposes the approval
of the State submitted revision to the
Texai Implementation Plan in the form
of Board Order No. 78-6. for
hydrocarbon emission reductions from
the Champlin Petroleum Company
creditable for offsets for the Corpus
Christi Petrochemical Company project
DATE*: Comments must be received on
or before June 22.1979.
ADDRESS: Submit comments to: Air
Program Branch. Environmental
Protection Agency. Region 8,1Z01 Eta
Street Dallas'. Texas 75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Jerry M. StubberBeld. Chief.
Implementation Plan Section. Air and
Hazardous Materials Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6. Dallas, Texas 75270, (214) 767-
2742.
Background
Under the Agency's Interpretative
Ruling published December 21,1976 at
41 FR 55524, and amended by the Clean
Air Act Amendments of August 7.1977,
a major new source may locate in an
area with air quality worse than a
national standard only if the following
conditions are met
1. The new source's emission will be
controlled to the lowest achievable
emission rate.
2. More than equivalent offsetting
emission reductions will be obtained
from existing sources.
3. There will be progress towards
achievement of the standards.
On October 13,1978 and August 4.
1977, Corpus Christi Petrochemical
Company (CCPC) applied to the TACB
for permits to construct an ethylene
production plant and barge dock in
Corpus Christi, Texas.
The proposed sources would emit
more than 100 tons per year of
hydrocarbons and would be located in
an area which is not attaining the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for ozone. The proposed
sources were, therefore, subject to the
Interpretative Ruling on emission
offsets.
The TACB has required that the CCPC
sources be controlled to the lowest
achievable emission rate as evidenced
in Permits C-4682A and C-5633. Using
this technology, the proposed CCPC
project would emit an estimated 188.7
.tons per year of hydrocarbons.
Offsetting hydrocarbon emissions
totalling an estimated 246.6 tons per
year were offered and agreed to by
Champlin Petroleum Company from its
petroleum refinery located at Corpus
Christi, Nueces County, Texas. These
hydrocarbon emission reductions were
adopted by the Board as Board Order
No. 78-6 on June 28,1978, and submitted
by the Governor of Texas to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
on July 24.1978 for incorporation into
the Texas SIP. All requirements in 40
CFR 51.4 and 51.6 for notice and public
hearings for plan revisions were met
Hydrocarbon Offsets
The hydrocarbon emission offsets
submitted by the State of Texas consist
of the following control measures which
were offered and agreed to by the
Champlin Petroleum Company's refinery
located at Corpus Christi, Nueces
County. Texas, and adopted by the
TACB as a Board Order No. 78-6.
1. Removal from service of a 12,000
barrel per day (BPD) vacuum distillation
unit, with a final compliance date no
later than October 1.1979.
2. Dedication of gasoline storage tank
91-TK-3 to the exclusive storage of No.
2 Fuel Oil or any fluid with a vapor
pressure equivalent to, or less than that
of No. 2 Fuel Oil, with a final
compliance date no later than October 1.
1979.
These control measures will result in
estimated hydrocarbon emission
reductions of 246.6 tons per year.
By incorporation of these emission
control measures into the SIP. both the
DPA and the State of Texas considers
the offsets to be enforceable under
Section 113 of the Clean Air Act. The
offsets are 'also considered to be
enforceable by citizens under Section
304 of the Clean Air Act as "emission
standards or limitations".
Proposed Action
The EPA agrees with the State of
Texas' determination that the proposed
CCPC project will use technology
resulting in lowest achievable emissions
of hydrocarbons and that these
emissions will total an estimated 188.7
tons per year. The hydrocarbon offsets.
from Champlin Petroleum Company,
totalling an estimated 246.6 tons per
year, are considered to be valid and
enforceable by the State of Texas and
the EPA.
As a result of the greater than one-for-
one emission offset, the EPA considers
that there will be progress towards
attainment of the ozone standard. Thus,
the EPA considers that all conditions
stipulated under the Interpretative
Ruling of December 21,1976, published
at FR 55524 and as amended by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of August 7.
1977, have been met for the CCPC
project to locate in Corpus Christi,
Nueces County, Texas.
In this notice, EPA is proposing the
approval of the hydrocarbon emission
offsets as discussed above, creditable to
the CCPC project for incorporation into
the Texas SIP.
The State of Texas has adopted the
emission offsets in Board Order No. 78-
6. The State procedures met all
requirements of 40 CFR Part 51 including
Section 51.4, the requirment for
adequate public participation.
Therefore, the Administrator does not
plan to conduct further hearings
regarding these emission offsets.
Interested persons may still participate
in this rulemaking, however, by
submitting written comments to: Air ,
Program Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6,1201 Elm
Street Dallas, Texas 75270.
Relevant comments submitted within
30 days of this notice will be considered.
The material submitted by the State of
Texas is available for inspection during
normal business hours at the above EPA
regional office and also at the following
offices:
137
-------
Environment*! Protection Agency. Public
Information Reference Unit. Room 2932.
EPA Library. 401M Street S.W-
Washington. D.C 20460.
Tiaas Air Control Board, 8520 S»oal Creek
Boulevard, Austin. Texas 78758.
This notice is issued under die
authority of Section 110(a) of the Clean
Air Act, a> amended. 42 U.S.C. 7410-{a).
Dated. May 4.1978.
AoVmHuilNB.
Regional Administrator.
Part 52 of Chapter I Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
SubpartSS-Tsjxtt
1. In S 52-2270, paragraph (c) is
amended by adding paragraph (18) as
follows:
{52-2270 Mentmcationofptan,
(c) * * *
(16) Board Order No. 78-6, creditable
as emission offsets for the Corpus
Christi Petrochemical Company project
in Corpus Christi, was submitted by the
Governor on July 24,1978, as
amendments to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (see } 52.2275).
2. Section 52.2275 is amended by
adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) to
read as follows:
S52.227S Control strategy P***oct»mtea»
OJddants (hydrocarbons).
(d) Notwithstanding any provisions to
the contrary in the Texas
Implementation Plan, the control
measures listed in paragraph (e) of this
section shall be implemented in
accordance with the schedule set forth
below.
(e)(l) Removal from service of a 12.000
BPD vacuum distillation unit at the
Corpus Christi refinery of the Champlin
Petroleum Company. Corpus Christi,
Texas, with a final compliance date no
later than October 1,1979. This shall
result in an estimated hydrocarbon
emission reduction of at least 139 tons
per year.
(2) Dedication of gasoline storage tank
91-TK-3 located at .the Corpus Christi
refinery of the Champlin Petroleum
Company, Corpus Christi, Texas to the
exclusive storage of No. 2 Fuel Oil or
any fluid with a vapor pressure
equivalent to, or less than that of No. 2
Fuel Oil, with a final compliance date no
later than October 1,1979. This shall
result in an estimated hydrocarbon
emission reduction of at least 107.6 tons
per year.
(PR OK. 79-inta RM S-B-J* *
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 149 / Wednesday. August 1. 1979 / Proposed Rules 45207
In addition, the application of this
regulation must be extended to those
nonattainment counties in which the use
of cutback asphalt constitutes 100 tons
per year or more of VOC emissions on a
county-wide basis.
6. Subchapters 131.07.59.102-104
pertain to the control of VOC emissions
from degreasing operations. The
controls and exemptions specified are
not considered a.s RACT as noted in the
evaluation report.
7. Subchapters 131.07.60.101-104
establish emission limitations for
surface coating processes. The
subsection pertaining to can coating
provides for a phase compliance
schedule which extends final
compliance with the RACT required
emission limitations until December 31,
1985. A categorical compliance date
beyond December 31,1982 is not
approvable unless supported.
8. The State has not included test
procedures for determining compliance
with the surface coating or gasoline
terminal regulations.
9. Subchapter 131.07.62 addresses
VOC exemption status in ozone
nonattainment areas. This provision
exempts certain compounds from
control, cancels previous exemptions
granted pursuant to Regulation V,
establishes a new mechanism for
exempting vent-gas streams, and
provides a compliance deadline for
previously exempted sources. This
provision's allowance for a new
compliance date for sources which had
been exempted by the procedures
established in Regulation V is
acceptable as meeting the minimum
requirements for EPA approval. These
previously exempted sources are not at
this time covered by any Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG) issued by
the Agency. Since EPA believes that
States will be able to make more
technologicaOy sound decisions in
adopting RACT requirements for source
categories after publication of CTG,
States are permitted to defer adoption of
RACT requirements for sources until
after the publication of the applicable
CTG (if reasonable further progress can
otherwise be demonstrated). Therefore,
in the absence of a CTG document, any
control of these sources is within the
State's prerogative, assuming the State
can demonstrate that reasonable further
progress will be achieved and that
attainment will be achieved by 1982 or
such later date as is appropriate.
While EPA proposes to approve this
provision, it should be noted that the
TACB must submit any further
exemption under this rule to EPA for
approval as a SIP revision before that
exemption can become effective under
the SIP. In addition, since Subchapter
131.07.62.103 allows until December 31,
1979 for the submittal of a compliance
schedule it does not at this time contain
compliance schedules in satisfaction of
40 CFR 51.15, EPA proposes to
conditionally approve this provision on
condition that for all affected sources,
compliance schedules meeting the
requirements of that section be
submitted to EPA for approval no later
than March 31.1980.
10. Subchapter 131.07.62.101 exempts
methyl chloroform (1,1,1 trichloroethane)
and/or methylene chloride. These
volatile organic compounds (VOC),
while not appreciably affecting ambient
ozone levels, are potentially harmful.
Both methyl chloroform and methylene
chloride have been identified as
mutagenic in bacterial and mammalian
cell test systems, a circumstance which
raises the possibility of human
mutageniciry and/or carcinogenicity.
With the exemption of these
compounds, some sources, particularly
existing degreasers, will be encouraged
to utilize methly chloroform in place of
other more photochemically reactive
degreasing solvents. Such substitution
has already resulted in the use of methyl
chloroform in amounts far exceeding
that of other solvents. Endorsing the use
of methyl chloroform by exempting it in
the SIP can only further aggravate the
problem by increasing the emissions
produced by existing primary degreasers
and other sources.
The EPA is concerned that the State
has chosen this course of action without
full consideration of the total
environmental and health implications.
The EPA does not intend to disapprove
the State SIP submittal if, after due
consideration, the State chooses to
maintain these exemptions. However,
we are concerned that this policy not be
interpreted as encouraging the increased
use of these compounds nor compliance
by substitution.
The EPA does not endorse such
approaches. Furthermore, state officials
and sources should be advised that
there is a strong possibility of future
regulatory action to control these
compounds. Sources which choose to
comply by substitution may well be
required to install control systems as a
consequence of these future regulatory
actions.
The State has been advised of EPA's
review of Regulation V and has
committed to work with EPA to resolve
the deficiencies. EPA is proposing
conditional approval of Regulation V
provided that those portions of the
regulations are revised or additional
demonstrations in accordance with the
requirements set forth above, are
submitted within 120 days of the
publication of this notice.
139
-------
Texas
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 186 / Monday, September 24, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 55005
ACTION: Final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This rule approves the State
submitted revision to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) which was
submitted for the purpose of allowing
the construction of an ethylene
production plant and barge dock by the
Corpus Christ! Petrochemical Company
(CCPC) in Corpus Christi, Texas under
the Interpretative Ruling (emission offset
policy). Texas Air Control Board
(TACB) Order No. 78-6 was adopted for
emission reductions from specific
existing sources to offset new emissions
from the CCPC project
EFFECTIVE DATE Effective on September
24.1979.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerry M. Stubberfield, Chief,
Implementation Plan Section. Air and
Hazardous Materials Division.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, Dallas, Texas 75270. (214) 787-
2742.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
TACB required thatthe CCPC sources
be controlled to the lowest achievable
emission rate as evidenced hi Permits
C-4682A and C-5633. Using this
technology, the proposed CCPC project
would emit an estimated 188.7 tons per
year of hydrocarbons. Qffgfittinff
hydrocarbon emissions totalling an
estimated zw.61onsperyeaf
ottered ana agreed to Dy i ....
Petroleum Company from its petroleum
refinery located in Corpus Christi.
Texas.
These hydrocarbon emission
reductions were adopted by the Board
as Board Order No. 78-6 on June 28,
1978, so as to satisfy the EPA's
requirements under the Interpretative
Ruling published December 21,1976, at
41FR 55524 and as amended by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of August 7.
1977. The Board Order requires the
removal from service of a 12,000 barrel
per day (BPD) vacuum distillation unit,
and the dedication of gasoline storage
tank 91-TK-3 to the exclusive storage of
No. 2 Fuel Oil or any fluid with a vapor
pressure equivalent to, or less man that
of No. 2 Fuel Oil with a final
compliance date no later than October 1,
1979. Board Order No. 78-6 was
submitted by the Governor of Texas to
the EPA on July 24,1978 for
incorporation into the Texas SIP. The
State met all requirements of 40 CFR
51.4 and 51.6 for notice and public
hearings on State Implementation Plan
revisions.
The EPA published notice of proposed
approval of the State submitted revision
to the Texas SIP in the Federal Register
on May 23.1979. at 44 FR 29932.
Comments were requested by June 22,
1979. No comments were received.
Current Action
The EPA is approving a revision to the
Texas State Implementation Plan which
consists of Board Order No. 78-6 under
which the Champlin Petroleum
Company is required to reduce its
hydrocarbon emissions. The source
providing offngfa does not require
control under the currently approved SIP
and tne emission reductions are
creditable as hydrocarbon offsets under
the EPA's Interpretative Ruling for the
CCPC project in Corpus Christi, Texas.
The revisions are being promulgated as
proposed.
This final rulemaking is issued under
the authority of section 110(a) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
7410-{a).
Dated: September 18,1979.
Douglas M. Cattle,
Administrator.
Part 52 of Chapter 1. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
SubpwtSS—Texas
1. In S 52£270. paragraph (c) is
amended by adding paragraph (16) as
follows:
(522270 kwntMcationofPlan.
(cP**
(16) Board Order No. 78-6. creditable
as emission offsets for the Corpus
Christi Petrochemical Company project
in Corpus Christi, was submitted by the
Governor on July 24,1978, as
amendments to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (see $ 52^275).
2. Section 52^275 is amended by
adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) to
read as follows:
$5£2t7S
Ural Strategy:
wddants (hydrocarbons).
(d) Notwithstanding any provisions to
the contrary in the Texas
Implementation Plan, the control
measures listed in paragraph (e) of this
section shall be implemented in
accordance with the schedule set forth
below.
(e)(l) Removal from service of a 12.000
BPD vacuum distillation unit at the
Corpus Christi refinery of the Champlin
Petroleum Company. Corpus Christi,
Texas, with a final compliance date no
later than October 1,1979. This shall
result in an estimated hydrocarbon
emission reduction of at least 139 tons
per year.
(2) Dedication of gasoline storage tank
91-TK-3 located at the Corpus Christi
refinery of the Champlin Petroleum
Company, Corpus Christi, Texas to the
exclusive storage of No. 2 Fuel Oil or
any fluid with a vapor pressure
equivalent to. or less than that of No. 2
Fuel Oil with a final compliance date no
later than October 1.1979. This shall
result in an estimated hydrocarbon
emission reduction of at least 107.6 tons
per year.
|F* Dot 7»4Mtt RM t-Zl-7* MS Ml)
•LLJNQ CODE (Mt^l-H
1401
-------
40082
Vermont SIP Action
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 132 / Monday. July 9, 1979 / Proposed Rules
4. New Major VOC Sources in
Unclassified Areas—In order to approve
a new VOC source in an unclassified
area for ozone the State will have to get
ambient air quality data (up to one year)
to determine the status of the area. If the
area is determined to be non-attainment
the federal emission offset policy will
apply until the state has an approved
SIP revision. In rural unclassified areas
where statewide control of all major
VOC source categories for which control
technology guidelines (CTG) documents
have been published has been applied,
sources can be approved prior to the
resolution of the attainment status. In
these cases LAER is required and the
attainment status can be determined via
monitoring subsequent to the
commencement of construction. This is
possible because regulations equivalent
to RACT for such major VOC source
categories is considered an approvable
plan in rural areas.
Proposed Action: On the basis of the
above deficiencies, EPA proposes to
conditionally approve the new source
review requirements of the Vermont SIP
for non-attainment areas subject to
receipt of the specified regulatory
amendments and changes to the
narrative portions of the SIP on or
before November 1,1979. Upon receipt
of these changes, EPA will propose
action on the approvability of these SIP
revisions, and will provide opportunity
for public comment.
10778
Vermont SIP
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 34 / Tuesday. Febraary 19. 1980 / Rnles and Regulations
C. Ozone (O,)
The March 3,1978 Federal Register
designated the entire state as non-
attainment for ozone. Vermont's March
21,1979 SIP revisions requested that all
areas of the state be redesigns ted to
unclassifiable except for Chittenden,
Addison and Windsor Counties which
would maintain their original non-
attainment designations. The request for
redesignation was based on a lack of
monitoring data in any other county and
on an absence of major sources of
hydrocarbons.
EPA's NPR indicated that the strategy
Vermont proposed for attaining the
ozone standard in Windsor and Addison
Counties (the FMVECP) was sufficient.
Chittenden County would in addition,
however, be required to control the one
major hydrocarbon category that existed
in the state (Storage of Volatile Organic
Compounds) for which EPA had
published Control Technology Guidance
(CTG). Windsor and Addison Counties
have no such major sources. Although
Vermont submitted a regulation to
control these facilities, a regulation to
control the associated loading racks was
not submitted. EPA's NPR proposed
conditional approval of Vermont's ozone
control plan based upon the state's
snbmittal to EPA by November 1,1979 of
an approvable loading rack control
regulation.
On August 7,1979 Vermont requested
that a reevaraation be made of data
upon which the March 3.1978 ozone
non-attainment designation of
Chittenden County had been made and
that the area be reclassified attainment.
EPA agrees that a redesignation of the
area to attainment appears to be
justified. However, Vermont's request
that it now be classified attainment
cannot be approved at this time because
the one ozone monitor in the County is
not situated in compliance with federal
siting criteria. In a letter dated
December 11.1979. Vermont requested
that the County be redesignated to
unclassifiable. EPA will act on this
request in a separate Notice. EPA has
agreed that should approval to
redesignate Chittenden County to
unclassifiable be approved, the VOC
regulations currently required of sources
in that County would not be required for
the attainment plan and could be
withdrawn from the federally approved
SIP.
In the interim, Vermont has chosen to
submit the required loading rack
regulation. EPA review of that
regulation indicates that it is consistent
with EPA's CTG and is approvaWe as
RACT. No comments were received on
this portion of the NPR. .
As noted in the General Preamble for
Proposed Rutemaking on Approval of
Plan Revisions for Non-attainment
Areas, 44 FR 20376 (April 4.1979), fee
minimum acceptable level of stationary
source control for ozone SIPs, such as
Vermont's, includes RACT requirements
for VOC sources covered by CTGs the
EPA issued by January, 1978 and
schedules to adopt and submit by each
future January additional RACT
requirements for sources covered by
CTGs issued by the previous January.
The submittal date for the first set of
additional RACT regulations was
revised from January 1.1980 to July 1,
1980 by Federal Register notice of
August 28,1979 (44 FR 50371). Today's
approval of the ozone portion of the
Vermont plan is contingent on the
submittal of the additional RACT
regulations which are due July 1.1980
(for CTGs published between January,
1978 and January. 1979). In addition, by
each subsequent January beginning
January 1.1981, RACT requirements for
sources covered by CTGs published by
the preceding January must be adopted
and submitted to EPA. The above
requirements are set forth in the
"Approval Status" section of the final
rule. If RACT requirements are not
adopted and submitted to EPA
according to the time frame set forth in
the rule. EPA will promptly take
appropriate remedial action.
141
Action; 1. EPA is approving the
redesignation of the entire state except
Addison, Windsor and Chittenden
Counties from non-attainment for ozone
to unclassifiable under 40 CFR Part 81.
2. EPA is approving the ozone
attainment plans for Addison, Windsor
and Chittenden Counties.
Plan Revisions for Nonattainment
Areas, 44 FR 20376 (April 4,1979), the
minimum acceptable level of stationary
source control for ozone SIPs, suck as
Oklahoma's, indsdes RACT
requirements for VOC sources covered
by CTGs th* EPA issued by January
1978 and schedules to adopt and submit
by each future January additional RACT
requirements for sources covered by
CTGs issued by the previous January.
The swbmitial date for the first set of
additional RACT regulations was
revised from January 1.1980 to July 1,
1980 by Federal Register notice of
August 28,1979 (44 FR 50371}. Today's
approval of the ozone portion of the
Oklahoma plan is contingent on the
sabmittal of the additional RACT
regulations which are due )aly 1,1980
(for CTGs published between January
1978 and January 1979). In addition, by
each subsequent January beginning
January 1,1981, RACT requirements for
sources covered by CTGs published by
the preceding January most be adopted
and submitted to EPA. The above
requirements are set forth in the
"Approval Status" section of the final
rule. If RACT requirements are not
adopted and submitted to EPA
according to the time frame set forth in
the role, EPA will promptly take
appropriate remedial action. While EPA
proposed to conditionally approve the
ozone portion of the SIP based on the
above requirements, today's action in
adding the requirements to the
"Approval Status" section of the rule
provides similar assurance that the
regulations will be submitted in the
specified time frame.
-------
Virginia
RMtAL KHNSTER, VOL. 43, NO. 196-TUESOAY, OCTOKft 10, 1978
46554
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rulemaklng.
SUMMARY: On November 30, 1977.
the Commonwealth of Virginia sumit-
ted a proposed amendment to the Vir-
ginia State implementation plan (SIP),
under the Clean Air Act, and has re-
quested that this amendment be re-
viewed and approved as a revision to
the Virginia SIP. The proposed
amendment provides for the reduction
01 nonmethane hydrocarbon ^missions
a program of substitution of
_ asphalt for "cutpacfc
'material" (of nonmethane nvdrocar-_
'.bon based asphalts). Approval of the
proposed amendment would satisfy
the requirements of section 129(aXl)
of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amend-
ments and the EPA December 21.1976
ative ruling for the proposed
__ ^Energy Co. off refin-
*ery in Portsmouth. Va. ~
DATES: Comments must be received
on or before November 9,1978.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
sent to Mr. Howard Helm, Chief, Air
Programs Branch, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Region III,
Curtis Building. Sixth and Walnut.
Streets, Philadelphia, Pa. 19106.
Copies of the proposed revision of
the Virginia SIP and accompanying
support documentation are available
for public inspection during normal
business hours at the following loca-
tions:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Region UI. Curtis Building. Tenth Floor,
Sixth and Walnut Streets. Philadelphia,
Pa. 19106. attention: Mr. Glenn Hanson.
Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board.
Region VI. Pembroke One. Suite 610. 281
Independence Boulevard. Virginia Beach.
Va. 23462, attention: Mr. Luclen B. Mc-
Donald.
Public Information Reference/Unit. U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHJ2K INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr. Glenn Hanson, Air and Hazard-
ous Materials Division. 215-597-8170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The purpose of this proposed amend-
ment to the Va SIP, pursuant to sec-
tion 129
-------
44564
Virginia
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 147 / Monday. July 30. 1979 / Proposed Rules
8. RACT as expediliously as
practicable—Several sections of the
Commonwealth'* air pollution control
regulations for stationary sources of
hydrocarbon emissions are not
supported fay the information in the
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
documents issued by EPA. The CTG's
provide information OB available air
pollution control techniques, and
contain recommendations of what EPA
calls the "presumptive norm" for RACT
Based on the information in the CTG's.
EPA believes that the submitted
regulations represent RACT, except as
noted below. On the points noted below.
the State regulations are not supported
by the information in the CTG's, and the
State nmst provide an adequate
demonstration that its regulations
represent RACT, or amend the
regulations to be consistent with the
information in the CTG's.
[a] The emission limitations on
surface coating operations for the Ford
assembly plant in Norfolk, Virginia
(Section 4.55[e) of the regulations) are
not considered RACT. These
requirements are less stringent than the *
commitments made by automobile
manufacturers in other areas of the
nation.
(b) The emission limit for end seal
surface coating of cans (Section
4.55(f)(4)[iJ), is less stringent than RACT.
(c) The gasoline bulk loading—bulk
plant regulations (Section 4.56(e)),
require bulk plants with a throughput
equal to or greater than 4,000 gallons per
day to install a vapor control system
that will remove or destroy no less than
fifty (50) percent by weight of VOC. This
emission limit does not represent RACT.
(d) Section 4.56(d)(3)(ii) provides an
exemption from Stage I controls for
service stations with a throughput of
less than 20.000 gallons per month.
RACT requirements do not allow any
exemptions without specific
justification.
(e) Section 4.54(a)(4)(i) provides a
general exemption for sources of VOC
emissions less than 7.3 tons per year, 40
pounds per day, or 8 pounds per hour.
The Commonwealth has provided no
justification for this exemption.
Furthermore, this exemption allows a
large portion of the sources in the
solvent metal cleaning industry to go
uncontrolled. There are a large number
of small metal cleaning operations and
these sources should be regulated to
meet RACT.
(f) There are several deficiencies in
the asphalt paving regulations in
§ 4.57(b). First, an exemption to this
regulation on a seasonal basis is
preferable to a temperature cutoff in
order to enforce this regulation more
easily. Also, the inclusion of an
allowable solvent content in emulsified
asphalt does not satisfy the
requirements of RACT. EPA guidance
states that if such an emulsion is used in
place of cutback asphalt, and the
emulsion contains less solvent than the
replaced cutback, Virginia may allow
this emulsion only as an interim
measure until a switch can be made to
an emulsion containing five percent or
less solvent. Finally, the use of cutback
asphalt as a tack coat does not conform
to the requirements of RACT.
(g) Virginia's SIP includes a provision
which exempts methyl chloroform (1,1,1
trichlorethane) and methylene chloride
from the definition of "Nonmethane."
These volatile organic compounds
(VOC), while not appreciably affecting
ambient ozone levels, are potentially
harmful. Both methyl chloroform and
143
methylene chloride have been identified
as mutagenic in bacterial and
mammalian cell test systems, a
circumstance which raises the
possibility of human mutagenicity and/
or carcinogenicity.
Furthermore, methyl chloroform is
considered one of the slower reacting
VOCs which eventually migrates to the
stratosphere where it is suspected of
contributing to the depletion of the
ozone layer. Since stratospheric ozone is
the principal absorber of ultraviolet light
(UV), the depletion could lead to an
increase of UV penetration resulting in a
worldwide increase in skin cancer.
With the exemption of these
compounds, some sources, particularly
existing degreasers, will be encouraged
to utilize methyl chloroform in amounts
far exceeding that of other solvents.
Endorsing the use of methyl chloroform
by exempting it in the SIP can only
further aggravate the problem by
increasing the emissions produced by
existing primary degreasers and other
sources.
The Agency is concerned that the
State has chosen this course of action
without full consideration of the total
environmental and health implications.
The Agency does not intend to
disapprove the State SIP submittal if,
after due consideration, the State
chooses to maintain these exemptions.
However, we are concerned that this
policy not be interpreted as encouraging
the increased use of these compounds or
compliance by substitution. The Agency
does not endorse such approaches.
Furthermore, State officials and sources
should be advised that there is a strong
possibility of future regulatory action to
control these compounds. Sources which
choose to comply by substitution may
well be required to install control
systems when future regulatory actions
are taken.
-------
65084
Washington State
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 219 / Friday, November 9, 1979 / Proposed Rules
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
2. Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC):
Section 172(a)(2) and (b}(3) of the Act
require existing sources to install, at a
minimum, reasonably available control
technology (RACT) in order to reduce
emission!. EPA has defined RACT as
the lowest emission limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting
by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.
EPA has developed Control Technique
Guidelines (CFG) for the purpose of
informing state and local air pollution
control agencies of air pollution control
techniques available for reducing
emission* of VOC from various
categories of sources. This information
is designed to be useful to both control
agencies and industry in defining
appropriate RACT requirements for
VOC sources within the State.
Along with information, each CTG
contains recommendations to the States
of what EPA calls the "presumptive
norm" for RACT. This general statement
of agency policy is based on EPA's
current evaluation of the capabilities
and problems general to the industry.
Where the State finds the presumptive
norm applicable to an individual source
or group of sources, EPA recommends
that the State adopt requirements
consistent with the presumptive norm
level The State may, if it chooses,
require controls different from those
identified in die CTG as long as: (1) the
percentage of emission reduction from
each category of sources varies
insignificantly (within 5% of controlled
emissions); or (2) documentation is
provided mat the regulations do, in fact
represent RACT for mat sourcefs).
Ozone attainment strategies, as
discussed in the April 4 General
Preamble, must include control of
specified VOC sources (i.e.. those for
which CTGs were published prior to
January 1,1978) to the RACT
presumptive norm level Where
simplistic modeling techniques
(rollback. EKMA, or other methods less
sophisticated than atmospheric
dispersion modeling) are employed to
demonstrate adequacy of the strategy
for attainment beyond 1982, control of
all sources covered by the CTGs is
required. The State of Washington used
rollback as a "first cut" effort to
determine the minimum emission
reduction needed and is thus required to
adopt RACT regulations for the eleven
source categories for which CTGs have
been published to date. The State is also
required to commit to the adoption of
additional regulations as future CTGs
are published. The next group of sources
is presently scheduled to be covered by
July 1980.
Deficiencies in Washington VOC
Regulation WAG 173-490, are detailed
below. EPA proposes to conditionally
approve the VOC regulatory authority
contingent upon the State taking
corrective action in terms of the
preceding discussion and as implied by
the nature of each deficiency:
a. Cold Cleaning Degreasers. WAC
179-490. These sources, exempted from
the proposed state regulations, must be
controlled.
b. Petroleum Refineries. WAC 173-
490-040. Refineries with a crude oil or
feed stock capacity of less than 9000
barrels per day, and waste water
separators with VOC emission less than
25 tons per year, proposed for
exemption by the State, must be
controlled.
c. Bulk Gasoline Plants. WAC 173-
490-040. Sub-section (4}(e) must contain
specific provisions for controlling vapor
leaks occurring during loading and
unloading of transport trucks.
d. Gasoline Dispensing Facilities.
WAC 173-490-040(5). DOE regulations
exempt gasoline dispensing facilities in
major urban areas from the requirement
of a vapor balance system when loading
gasoline into existing stationary vessels
of more than 10.000 gallons capacity if
the throughput of the facility is less than
200,000 gallons per year. EPA believes
that vapor balance systems should be
required for all existing gasoline
dispensing storage tanks of 2,000 gallon
capacity or more regardless of
throughput EPA has promulgated such a
requirement hi the past under Section
110(c) of the Clean Air Act e.g., 40 CFR
52.336, 52.787, and 52.1144. The
widespread implementaton of vapor
balance systems on tanks of 2,000
gallons or greater demonstrates that this
control is reasonable.
e. Surface Coating. WAC 173-490-
040(6). All sources including those less
than 100 TPY. must be controlled
consistent with the presumptive norm
specified for these sources. Also the
control requirements for flashoff and
application areas, which emit a
significant portion of VOC in the surface
coating process, must be specified.
f. Open Top Vapor Degreasers. WAC
173-490-040(71. Three major areas of the
CTG are not adequately addressed:
(1) Open top vapor degreasers with
less than one square meter of vapor-air
interface must be regulated.
(2) Open top vapor degreasers with •
freeboard ratio greater than 0.75 must
have a power operated cover.
(3) There must be a method specified
for disposal of waste solvent
g. Conveyorized Degreasers. WAC
173-490-040(7). A "major control
device" on conveyorized degreasers
with greater than a two square meter
air-vapor interface must be required. In
addition, a method must be specified for
the disposal of waste solvent
h. Cutback Ashphalt. WAC 173-490-
040(9): The regulation prohibits the use
of cutback asphalt during June, July.
August and September unless the
temperature is below 50 degrees
fahrenheit Information justifying this
time period for prohibited use must be
provided, hi addition, methods for
determining compliance with the
temperature requirement must be part of
the SIP.
i. Schedule of Control. WAC 173-490-
070:
(1) All dates for control of regulated
sources are tied into EPA's acceptance
of the regulation. This is an approvable
provision only if the word "acceptance"
can be equated to conditional approval.
(2) Control schedules for small
refineries are more than twice as long as
those recommended in the CTG. This
time frame must be reduced.
j. Exemption of Methyl Chloroform
andMethylene Chloride. The
Washinton Regulations include
exemptions for methyl chloroform and
methylene chloride. The exemption is
based on the fact that these compounds
are photochemically unreactive and
therefore do not play a significant role in
ozone formation. Thus, the Washington
VOC regulation is approvable insofar as
this exemption is concerned. However,
both compounds may be subject to
future regulation, not to meet the O,
NAAQS. but because of evidence that
they may be a direct health hazard. This
possibility is stated here to put persons,
who may take advantage of the
exemptions, on notice regarding the
possibility of future controls before
conversion decisions are made.
144
-------
EPA Memos
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
«« PN- 1 72- 78- 02- 02- 00 1
iCCD 0
| L D -Tjn Hydrocarbon Stationary Sources
FROM- C* David ^lant Administrator
/y^ for 4ftr and waste Management
MEMO TO: ^ Regional Administrator, Regions I - X
As oart of the State implementation plan (SIP) revisior M»™ess ,
I want ^o personally emphasize the importance of the Development of
dequate oxicant olans which incorporate RACT for stationary sources.
One important effort in this process is the development of the Control
Techniques Guideline documents (CTGs).
T have erclosed -or your information a summary of the 11 completed
rTGc A The do uments define presumptive RACT for 11 ^urce categories.
'
ens
A- a-iin tre ST? revisions due in 1979 must contain RAoT for these
11 -atecories "n areas' where the attainment of the oxidant standard
cannct be 4'or,strated Dy 1932. Where economics or other circumstances
jus-' y -egulatory requirements less stringent than those contained
iithin the CTG's, such justification should be clearly documented in the
SIP submittal .
0 eas ^rs Ti-r riss£ °-
th.,e rtgulatfons.
Enclosure
147
-------
ENCLOSURE
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
Control techniques guidelines (CTG's) have been prepared for ten
VOC source categories. We plan to release sixteen more in 1978. They
are written in uncomplicated language and are not highly detailed.
Each CTG identifies the presumptive emission limits, operating prac-
tices, and/or equipment which are achievable through the application of
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT). RACT is defined as
the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of
meeting by tne application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility. It may
require technology tnat has been applied to similar but not neces-
»
sarily identical source categories. Limitations recommended in the
CTG's are basea en capabilities and problems which are general to the
industry; they ~ay not be applicable to every installation. In many
cases, appropriate controls will be more or less stringent. States are
urged to examine the impact of imposing these requirements through the
public hearing process. Where economics or other circumstances justify
regulatory requirements less stringent than those contained within
CTG's, such justification is to be clearly documented in tne SIP
submittal.
The recommended limitations are in the form of allowable VOC emis-
sion levels for surface coating operations and bulk gasoline terminals.
For cutback asphalt paving operations, the recommended control measure
is replacement to the extent possible of solvent cutback asphalt with
water-borne emulsions. For the remaining source categories--degreasing,
148
-------
refinery sources, petroleum storage tanks,, and "bulk plants—I imitations
are stated in terms of equipment standards with companion operating
requirements.
The format of each CTG limit was chosen on the basis of compat-
ibility with the most likely air pollution control technique. For
example, surface coating limits are presented in terms of the maximum
allowable solvent content of the coating, the assumption being that all
of the solvent will evaporate during application and curing. SIP regu-
lations should allow the use of equivalent control technology in all
cases. The burden of proving the equivalency of a new control tech-
nique will normally lie with the owner or operator. OAQPS will provide
guidance in the measurement of VOC emissions.
States are also required to adopt measures to control VCC from
the transfer of bulk gasoline to service station storage tanks (Stage I).
The necessary hardware is relatively simple and available. It nas been
usea successfully in several areas of the nation to provide 95 percent
or better control of gasoline vapors displaced during the loading of
these storage tanks. Criteria describing Stage I equipment and operating
requirements were prepared by OAQPS and have been distributed to the
regional offices.
Additional copies of CTG's and the Stage I design criteria may be
obtained from Mrs. Deborah McCarley at 919-541-5374.
149
-------
SlfrMARY OF RECOMMENDED I-MISSION LJMITMIONS
FOR STATIONARY VGC SOURCES
Recomnended Limitation
Surface Coating
Can Coating
Sheet basecoat
Two-piece can exterior
Two- & Uhrcc-piccc can
interior body spray
Two-piece end exterior
Side-sean spray
End sealing confound
Coil Coating
Fabric Coating
Vinyl Coating
Paper Coating
Auto & Light Duty Truck Coating
Priir£
Topcoat
Repair
Metal Furniture Coating
Magnet Wire Coating
Larp.c Appliance Coo t
Bulk Gasoline Terminal
Truck Londin,;
ikilk Gasolir.e Plants
Storage Tank Filling
0.34 kg/1 ot coating (nunus water)
0.51 kg/I of coating (minus water)
0.66 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.44 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.31 kg/1 of coating (minus water
0.35 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.45 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.35 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.23 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.34 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.53 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.36 kg/i of coating (minus water)
0.20 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
j.34 Ug/1 of conting ^minus water)
80 mg/i of gasoline loaded
Vapor balance system
150
-------
Truck loading
Service Stations
Storage Tank Filling (Stage 1)
Fixed-Roof: Storage of Peti'oleuni
Liquids
Petroleum Refining
Vacuum Systems
Wastewa'cer Separators
Process Unit Turnarounds
Cutback Asphalt Paving
Degreasir.s
Vapor balance system
Vapor balance system
Internal floating roofs
Vent noncondensables to boiler/
heater firebox
Install tight covers over
separators
Vent gases to a flare or other
combustion device during depressurizat
Substitute water crrulsions for solvent
cutback asphalt applications
Combination of control equipment and
operating requirements to minimize
solvent evaporation and solvent_
carryout. Roquircrvenls differ for
cold cleaners, open top vapor
degreasers and conveyorized degreasers
151
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-«. MAY 2 5 IS.- REG!OH v
ECT: jest Methods and Procedures for Volatile Organic Compounds
Robert L. Duprey, Directrfjr''
Air and Hazardous Materials D
TO: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Through a contractor, the Air Programs Branch of the Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, Region V, has drafted sample regulations for the
first 15 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) source cate-
gories. Copies of the draft were distributed to the state agencies at a
recent workshop in Chicago and were the subject of considerable discus-
sion and comments.
A key area of discussion and controversy was the lack of approved test
procedures for volatile organic compounds (VOC). While control tech-
nology guidelines provide for determination of volatile content in
surface coatings, they do not provide test methods or procedures for VOC
emissions from sources which install add-on control devices. The Enforce-
ment Division-specifies that "if a state fails to submit appropriate
test methods and procedures for their regulations, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency will disapprove that portion of their
plan unless methods and procedures in part 60 are appropriate and can be
utilized." A copy of Enforcement Division's position is enclosed here-
with.
Air Programs Branch is, therefore, requesting your assistance and exper-
tise in developing adequate testing procedures to enable the states to
expedite their state implementation pinns as early as possible. Re-»
sponse to this request may be forwarded to Lino Castanares of my staff
who can be reached at (312) 353-2205.
Thank you.
End soure
,152
-------
DAT*: 1 fl JUL V978
UECT: Procedures for Measuring Volatile Organic Compounds
.OM: Richard G. Rhoads, Di rector ^~~^~
Control Programs Development Division
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region V
In response to your memorandum of May 25, 1978, members of my staff
have contacted George Walsh of the Emission Measurement Branch of ESED
concerning the status of test procedures for measuring VOC emissions
from facilities with add-on control devices. Such procedures have been
completed but are in the process of being tested. Formal adoption of
the procedures is anticipated in early September, .1978.
»
Any State wishing to do so may develop regulations based on those
test procedures if time enough will remain after early September to
formally adopt the regulations and procedures. George is in the process
of writing a memorandum to you which will explain the conceptual basis
of the testing procedures.
It is assumed that some States have previously developed test ^
procedures for measuring VOC. Approaches for developing such procedures
were published in Section 5 of "Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume I; Control Methods
for Surface - Coating Operations" (EPA 450/2-76-028, OAQPS No. 1.2-067)
in Hoveir.ber 1976. State developed procedures may be used if determined
to be consistent with the approaches in the foregoing document.
The final version of our policy concerning test methods states:
"l.'here technically feasible, the SIP revision must include . . . speci-
fically designated F.ethod(s) for each emission limitation ..." This
policy appears on page 222 of the April 1978 edition of the nonattain-
ment area workshop manual. If neither of the alternatives discussed
above are appropriate, it is doubtful that it is technically feasible to
develop procedures in the time remaining before the January, 1979, sub-
mi ttal date. In such an instance, regulations that "loosely" specify
test procedures are preferable to no regulations at all.
Please feel free to contact me if further clarification on this
'issue is necessary.
cc: E. Reich"
Director, Air & Hazardous t'aterials Division, Regions I,III,IV,VI-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
J. McDonald
153
-------
In determining whether a SIP is enforceable, the
emission limiting and other regulatory parts of each plan
will be reviewed for clarity and specificity. EPA will
consider in this review such questions as whether emission
limitations and other controlling terras are well defined;
whether it is clear who is being regulated and whether the
dates on which actions are required to be taken are
clearly stated.
SIP Revision Requirements - Test Methods
f'.anv State implementation plans (SIPs) as originally
submitted did not adequately prescribe the test methods
which would be used when determining compliance with the
emission limitations adopted by the States. Compliance
determinations and enforcement proceedings made apparent
that this weakness existed in some SIPs. To correct this
deficiency, EPA promulgated in §52.12(c) a requirement
which states that,
"(S)ources subject to plan provisions which do not
specify a test procedure and sources subject to pro-
visions promulgated by the Administrator will 1.3
tested by means of the appropriate procedures and
methods prescribed in Part 60 of this chapter, unless
otherwise specified in this Part."
This does not solve all the problems which arise when
a State fails to designate a specific test method. A source
category could be regulated under a SIP for which none
"of the procedures and methods promulgated in Part 60 would
be appropriate.
Another problem which has arisen, deals with the
specificity of the emission limitation. While a certain
" regulation may apoly to a specific source category or group
of categories (process weight), it is often difficult to
ascertain the scope of the requirement. For example, doss
the emission limit apply only to the stack emissions, or
are the fugitive emissions and stack emissions combined in
order to determine compliance? A specific emission limit
and test method that applies to it will help to clarify
how compliance is to be determined.
For these reasons, it is essential that when developing
emission limitations, each requirement must specify the
appropriate test method and how compliance is to be deter-
mined. Since so much SIP analysis depends on an accurate
interpretation of the emission limitation and its associated
test method, it is extremely important that a clear under-
standing of both be realized.
Test methods which are included with SIPs should be
evaluated to determine their accuracy and consistency. States
are encouraged to use EPA reference methods whenever possible.
154
-------
Another option which states should be encouraged to
pursue is the utilization of continuous monitors as the
reference or compliance test method. It is EPA's intent to
require, in addition to the four source categories now v
covered in appendix P, additional sources to install contin-
uous monitors. Attainment and maintainance of NAAQS require
that sources continuously operate their control equipment in
a satisfactory manner. To maintain such compliance, an
effective way to insure this would be to utilize continuous
monitors as the compliance method thus providing continuous
compliance data which can be used in an appropriate enforce-
ment action. Therefore, the SIP revision must include «
the following:
1) Legally enforceable emission limitations, with
associated tests methods specifically designated
(7\ny language which leaves the test method
completely to the discretion of the Air Pollution
Control Officer is unacceptable. Minor changes
to designated test methods would, be approvable,
however).
2) Sufficient specificity in the regulation to
define exactly what emission points the
regulation covers.
3) Sufficient description of the applicable test
methods in order to evaluate their accuracy
and also to analyze the associated emission
limit in order to assess the Gtrir.^csicy of the
e-.nission limit an-il its impact on ?.LtGin-r.?nt.
States that use Part 60 methods and pro-
cedures will not be required to submit addi-
tional documentation.
4) The establishment of conversion factors or other
parameters and the monitoring of these parameters
which will transform test data into units of the
applicable standard.
5) The procedures which will be used to conduct the
test. (e.s. Does a test consist of the average of
three one-hour runs? etc.).
If a State fails to submit appropriate test methods
and procedures for their regulations, EPA will disaprove
that portion of their plan unless methods and procedures in
Part 60 are appropriate and can be utilized.
155
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TE: OCT 6 1978 ReS6arCh Tr1a"9le Park' "°rth Car°l1na 27711 PN-172- 73-10-06-008
SUBJECT: comments on Auto Industry Proposals
F*°": Richard 6. Rhoads,
Control Programs Development Division
T0 Director, A1r and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
A number of States and Regional Offices have requested OAQPS comments
on auto Industry proposals which differ from limits In the Control Technology
Guidelines (CTG). Rather than review each proposal individually, we have
aggregated the key issues raised in each and addressed it in the enclosed
memorandum. This memorandum should be considered a supplement to the CTG
and a clarification of EPA policy for the review of State SIP submittals.
Any questions or comments on this memorandum should be directed to
John Calcagni at FTS 629-5365.
Enclosure
EPA FOKM 1320-6 <*CV. S-7«l 156
-------
AUTOMOTIVE AND LIGHT TRUCK ASSEMBLY COATING OPERATIONS
A number of States have received suggestions and proposed standards
for the control of auto and light truck assembly operations. The principle
issues raised by these comments related to:
RACT for prime application
RACT for topcoat application
Averaging times for the emission limits
Case-by-case review
Compliance schedules
Our findings and guidance on these issues are as follows:
PRIME APPLICATION OPERATIONS
The prime coat serves the dual function of protecting the surface
from corrosion and providing for good adhesion of the topcoat. A combi-
nation of manual and automatic spray methods, with or without the use of
electrostatic techniques, is usually used to apply organic solvent-borne
primer.
Primers may also be applied by dipping techniques. The Chrysler
Corporation, for example, used water-borne dip primers for underbodies
at some of its plants. Because the dip-coated primer is not smooth, the
coating must be sanded or else be used only on areas where appearance
is not important.
Of most interest from a pollution control standpoint is a relatively
new priming process, electrophoretic (electrodeposited) water-borne dip.
The object to be coated-is immersed in a water-borne coating and an
157
-------
electric potential 1s Induced between the vehicle and the coating bath.
By correctly setting the electrical potential and the time of the bath,
the coating thickness can be controlled as des-ired. Corrosion protection
is excellent because coverage is more complete than can ever be obtained
by spray priming alone. The electrophoretic dip pr> cess is used at over
40 percent of U.S. assembly plants and 1s very widely used in Europe.
Because of the uniformity of the electrodeposited coating, it does
not "mask" imperfections in the substrate and additional primer must be
sprayed on those areas for subsequent sanding. This additional primer,
called "surfacer" or "guidecoat." is available as either a water-borne or
organic solvent-borne coating.
»
The EPA recommendation of 1.9 Ib/gal (less water) was based on a
weighted average of the two essential components in this system: .8 Ib/gal
coating used in the anodic electrodeposition (EDP) process then in use and
a 2.8 Ib/gal (less water) coating for the surfacing operation.
The Industry comments on the prime application operations have
questioned the availability of cathodic EDP coatings at the same solvent
content as anodic EDP. Cathodic EDP is a new development in EDP coating
and is considered to be a superior technology because it markedly improves
the corrosion resistance. Our investigation on this matter concluded:
Anodic EDP coatings are available at .8 Ib/gal (less water).
Presently used anodic EDP coatings are 1.2 Ib/gal (less water).
Presently used cathodic EDP coatings are between 1.8 and
2.1 Ib/gal (less water).
158
-------
Coating manufacturers have committed to providing cathodic EL
coatings at 1.2 Ib/gal (less water).
In terms of emissions/year, a typical EDP line (coating 40 i
mediate size vehicles per hour) using a .8 Ib/gal (less water) coa
consumes 15 tons/year while a 1.2 Ib/gal (less water) coating cons
26 tons/year and a 2.1 Ib/gal (less water) coating consumes 54 ton:
Test results have shown approximately two-thirds of this solvent c<
tion from an EDP process is removed from the system by the waste Wt
stream reducing the emissions from the oven and dip tank to a thirc
these values. Accordingly, State regulations should require EDP bu
less stringent limits than 0.8 Ib/gal. Based on the available data
believe a regulation which calls for EDP at 1.2 Ib/gal (less water)
. prime application would allow the use of either cathodic or anodic
even though cathodic EDP coatings at less than 1.8 Ib/gal (less wat.
are not commercially available today.
For surfacing operations, the EPA recommended limit of 2.8 Ib/t
equivalent to a 62 percent solids coating, is based on a conventions
applind water-borne coating which was in use in two plants in this c
We anticipate that conversion to a water-borne surface will be the p
compliance technique for approximately 50 percent of the industry.
In evaluating equivalence to the CTG, it is important to consid
transfer efficiency. Electrostatically sprayed coatings offer a mar
advantage over conventional spray coatings in that the overspray (or
material) is reduced from about 50 percent to 30 percent. Unfortunai
water-borne coatings are not presently applied electrostatically in 1
automotive industry because of some safety problems. Considering the
higher transfer efficiency, a 55 percent solids organic-borne surface
159
-------
applied electrostatically can be considered equivalent to the EPA-
recommended limit of 2.8 Ib/gal. Although a 55 percent solids prime
coat 1s not presently available, if it can be developed, it would be 1
preferred option for a significant fraction of the industry. It shou'
also be noted that a shortfall from the 55 percent solids coating pro!
can be made up through the addition of add-on c ntrols such as incine
of the prime oven emission, or carbon adsorption on the spray booth a
flash off areas.
TOPCOAT APPLICATION OPERATIONS
The area receiving the most comment has been the appropriate cor
levels for topcoat application. The EPA-recommended limit of 2.8 lb(
was based on a conventionally sprayed water-borne enamel coating pre
»
being applied at two automotive assembly plants in California. Cons
there can be no argument as to the technical feasibility of achievin
2.8 Ib/gal.
At many of its plants, General Motors uses lacquers for the top
Lacquers have an extremely high solvent content (= 88 volume percent
American, and Chrysler use topcoat enamels with 65 to 78 percent so'
by volume. Volkswagen expects to use topcoats with only 30 volume •
solvent equivalent by 1981.
A number of major process modifications are necessary, however
retrofit water-borne coating technology to an existing plant. This
the lengthening or addition of new ovens and flash tunnels, humidit
temperature controls in the spray booths, increased sludge handlinc
bilities, provisions for additional power, and use of more corrosi<
resistant materials in the piping and spray booth construction. Ti
160
-------
of this retrofitting will vary and one major variable will be the age of
the existing coating equipment. If near retirement, it may be better to
build entirely new spray booths and ovens. This was done at one of two
automobile plants which converted to water-borne coatings. If the coatinc
equipment is still relatively modern, however, retrofitting will entail
lengthening of ovens and modification of spray booths and conveyors.
This was the approach taken at the other automobile plant using water-
borne topcoats. While costs will vary from plant-to-plant, capital costs
for a retrofit to water-borne topcoats for the "model plant" were estimate
by EPA to be about $20 million (1975 dollars). For a plant where the
entire coating line is replaced, capital costs can be about twice this.
Incremental operating costs include increased electrical requirements
and maintenance labor. Coating material costs are approximately the same.
Higher oven temperature causes an increase in natural gas usage.
Actual conversion to water-borne coatings may not be the only way to
achieve the emission levels represented by 2.8 Ib/gal. For example, emis-
sions from electrostatic application of an organic-borne topcoat of
55 percent solids (with a transfer efficiency of 70 percent) is equivalent
to conventionally sprayed water-borne coating with 2.8 Ib/gal (less water)
of solvent. Electrostatic application of a 50 percent solids coating
(with a 70 percent transfer efficiency) would require an additional
16 percent reduction of the organic solvent through add-on controls in
order for it to emit no more than the water-borne. These reductions may b
achieved through .incineration of oven emissions and/or carbon adsorption
of a portion of the spray booth emissions.
161
-------
It should be noted that while carbon adsorption of the spray booth
emissions 1s technically feasible, no full-scale Installations are presently
In operation In automobile plants although the two major manufacturers
both have large scale pilot studies underway. If a coating with a
reasonably "-igh solids content (50-55 percent) becomes commercially
practicable for the automobile topcoat, the costs for add-on controls to
provide Incremental reductions would be significantly less than the cost
of converting to an all water-borne operation. Naturally, if future
organic-borne enamel coatings fall shcrr of 50 percent solids, a greater
reliance on add-on control would be necessary. For example, a 45 percent
solids coating with a 70 percent transfer efficiency would require a
31 percent reduction from add-on controls.
AVERAGING TIMES
The 2.8 Ib/gal (less water) limit chosen represents a typical color
being used. Some of the light metallic colors require greater solvent
content (as high as 3.1 Ib/gal). If the 2.8 Ib/g&l (less water) value is
interpreted as a maximum not to be exceeded, this would likely constrain
the availability of certain colors. Suggestions have been made by the
automotive industry that this should be an average. If a State regula-
tion expresses this limit as a daily weighted average or arithmetic
average of the colors in use (so long as the limit is unambiguously expressed
and legally enforceable), OAQPS would not regard that as being perceptibly
different than the recommended limit.
162
-------
CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW
Arbitrary variation from the recommended limits is not appropriate.
However, the recommended limits are presumptive norms for the category ii
question, not absolutes for each individual plant. If facility specific
problems unique to a given plant are identified, these should be conside
on a case-by-case basis. In any circumstance where the State requiremen
vary from the recommended limit, the SIP must provide adequate technical
information to support the modification. Individual source specific
regulations or variances are appropriate if:
1. The recommended limit is inappropriate for an individual
source because of specific circumstances unique to the particular
f a'c i 1 i ty;
2. The proposed level of control is the maximum reasonably attain-
able by the operation in question. Specific consideration should be giv
to the feasibility of development of technology to comply with a value
at or near the recommended value;, and
3. The reasonable further progress demonstration is not violated.
It should be noted that any change made after the initial submittal
will have to be a SIP revision and that the revision must provide a
means to account for the increased emissions in the SIP. This could be
through such measures as offsets by the sources, plans for additional
reductions to be obtained by the State beyond what the SIP called for, c
a reduction in the growth increment. In brief, the plan must continue
to demonstrate a program for attainment.
163
-------
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
Where source specific schedules cannot be proposed, OAQPS recommends
that the SIP contain categorical compliance dates for each source category.
A categorical schedule for any CT6 categories rust have Increments of
progress which are as expeditious as practicable. This schedule should
reflect the minimum reasonable time necessary for a typical individual
source to install controls. However, that is not to say that all sources
must comply by that date. Individual extensions beyond this date, but
not later than the attainment date, may be acceptable on a case-by-case
basis if:
1. The State demonstrates that it is physically impossible for the
operation in question to comply with the date.
2. That, by allowing additional time, innovative technology will
be applied and the reductions to be achieved will be significantly
greater than that from the CT6 RACT value (this ultimate limitation
must be legally enforceable).
3. Additional time is necessary to allow for the development of
low solvent systems rather than apply add-on controls.
4. The operation in question is part of a Statewide or multi-state
program to prioritize the sequence of installing controls at a number of
similar operations and that the overall compliance program has been
approved as being expeditious as practicable.
Note that any modification of the compliance schedule beyond
December 31, 1982, will need to be a SIP revision and will impact the
evaluation of reasonable further progress (RFP). In no case should
compliance with RFP be waived. Hence, an alternate schedule beyond
1982 can be approved only if the RFP program is modified to reflect
the delays.
164
-------
Utfice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
* »-'
SUBJECT: Magnitude and Sources of Natural Ozone
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air.Quality Plann-fng'
T0: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
Purpose:
At a recent meeting held to discuss the revised ozone standard,
various_questions were raised concerning natural background levels of
. ozone. The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss our understanding of
the magnitude and sources of natural ozone and their relationship to
control strategies for ozone.
Background:
Not all experts agree on the magnitude and sources of natural
ozone. However, there appears to be a general consensus such that
reasonable estimates of natural ozone can be made. A difficulty asso-
ciated with determining the magnitude of natural ozone is making meas-
urements in appropriate areas. Since anthropogenic ozone predominates
in urban areas "and can be transported over broad areas, one has to rely
on ozone measurements made in very remote areas to estimate the natural
background. In addition to measurements at remote sites, other obser-
vations have been made at sea, hundreds of miles off the West Coast.
Simultaneous measurements of Freon 11, a tracer of manmade activity,
have been made in some of these studies to assure that the impact of
manmade sources is not present.
Natural Ozone and SIP's:
In November, 1977, OAQPS examined the available data base to deter-
mine typical maximum hour concentrations of natural ozone that were ex-
pected to occur during the photochemical oxidant season. This exami-
nation lead to the determination that natural ozone was about 0.04 ppm,
with a probable range of 0.03-0.05 ppm. This is the level of natural
ozone that one would expect to measure at a remote location during the
early afternoon on a typical late summer-early fall day. Stratospheric
ozone is the primary component of natural ozone. Vegetative sources may
also contribute to natural ozone. However,'this contribution is believed
to be small, if not negligible.
While concent-rations of about 0.04 ppm of natural ozone are measured
at remote areas, the" effective impact of natural ozone in urban areas is
less than Op04 taomViC thi^lis'Because the NO which is available in urban
165
-------
areas (and not generally available in rural and remote areas) quickly
reacts with and scavenges ozone. The impact of scavenging is variable;
however, mathematical simulations suggest that the contribution of
natural ozone to the maximum ozone concentration measured in urban areas
is approximately 0.02 ppm.
There is a complicating factor with respect to the treatment of
natural background in certain SIP control strategy calculations. In
order to determine the equitable amount of control an urban area will
need to attain the standard, it is important to consider the ozone
transported into the urban area from upwind cities. Unfortunately, in
many areas, monitors to measure transported ozone into an urban area do
hot exist. As an alternative, it has been determined through mathe-
matical simulation that ignoring both upwind transport and natural ozone
in control strategy calculations provides a reasonable procedure for
estimating the amount of control needed for an urban area. This is
because the impact of natural ozone and changes in levels of upwind
transport, due to upwind controls, have apparently similar but opposing
effects on control requirements for an urban area. -.Consideration of
changes in upwind transport concentrations lessens the control require-
ments for an urban area while consideration of natural ozone increases
control requirements. Since natural ozone is ignored in this scenario,
for calculation purposes natural ozone is assumed to be zero.
Seasonal Variability of Natural Ozone:
' The discussion so far has dealt with concentrations of natural
ozone during the photochemical oxidant season (i.e., the late suiimier-
early fall months). Various measurements have indicated that there is
seasonal variability in natural ozone concentrations. This is primarily
due to the variations in the amounts of ozone transferred from the
stratosphere to the troposphere. Highest concentrations are measured in
spring, declining in the summer and reaching a seasonal minimum during
the fall. During the spring months, the maximum hourly values at remote
sites may approach or slightly exceed 0.08 ppm. Concentrations above
0.10 ppm are rare. Springtime concentrations of ozone from monitors
located in a number of National Forests indicate monthly averages of
0.05-0.06 ppm. These levels, however, nay not be solely representative
of natural ozone since the influence of manmade sources is unknown and
has not been directly accounted for.
In addition to the seasonal variation, there are occasions when
intense tropospheric weather phenomena (e.g., thunderstorms, jet streams,
fronts) may cause turbulent, rapid "intrusions" into the lower tropo-
sphere of unusually large quantities of ozone. Such intrusions are
sporadic and rare events. Also, the meteorological conditions that
accompany these acute intrusions are not generally conducive to ozone
formation and buildup from anthropogenic sources. -These weather phe-
nomena are most prominent during the late winter and early spring months.
166
-------
Ozone measurements at rural sites that seem to be associated with in-
trusions have exceeded 0.15 ppm for periods of from, a few minutes to an
hour or more. For urban oxidant control strategy planning, rare natural
events such as intrusions can be disregarded. Such data, like that'of
other sporadic natural.events (i.e., dust storms and forest fires for
particulate matter), may be excluded from strategy development by SIP
procedures.
Summary:
In summary, not all experts agree on the magnitude of natural
ozone. This is primarily due to the difficulties of measuring and
interpreting the data. During the photochemical oxidant season, about
0.04 ppm represents the best estimate of natural ozone measured at a
remote site, with a probable range of 0.03-0.05 ppm. The primary com-
ponent of this natural ozone is stratospheric ozone with a slight (if
any) impact from vegetative sources. Springtime levels of natural ozone
are' typically higher than in other seasons, with some hourly values
approaching or slightly exceeding 0.08 ppm. In addition, rare intru-
sions caused by intense weather phenomena cause concentrations that
exceed 0.15 ppm for periods of a few minutes to an hour or more. These
occasions are extremely rare and do not occur during periods of high
ozone associated with anthropogenic sources. High ozone concentrations
due to such phenomena may be excluded for control strategy development
by SIP procedures.
cc: Robert Meligan
* Basil Dimitriades
O'Connor
i chard Rhoads
Ed Tuerk
Joe Padgett
Steve Kuhrtz
Ron Campbell
Air and Hazardous Materials Division Director, Regions I - X
167
-------
OCT 121978
OBJECT Review of Answers to Questions in Houston's 'Petition for Review of
AAQS for Photochemical Oxidants and Requirements for Control" - July, 1977
Harold 6. Richter, Chemist
Technology Development Section/AMTB (HD-14)
TO: Oohn R. O'Connor, Chief
Pollutant Strategies Branch/SASD (MD-12)
Together with Ned Meyer, Basil Dimitriades and Joe Bufalini, I have
reviewed the answers which I made hastily to Houston's petition last year.
Enclosed is an updated version of the answers, one which is more appro-
priate for insertion in the record, if you need. We have attempted to
give a brief answer to the 'questions on eye irritation (page 24) and to
the best of our knowledge the information is correct. . If you want to
verify the accuracy, however, Paul Altshuller is the expert.
If you have any questions about these answers, please call me at
Extension 5486.
Enclosure
cc: N. Meyer
E. till is
B. Dimitriades
J. Bufalini
168
-------
[Answers to Questions in Houston1s "Petition for Review of AAQS for
Photochemical Oxidants and Requirements for Control" - July, 1977
Page 15;
1. There is no difference in the role of Houston sunlight from that in
Southern California in initiating photochemical reactions. The latitude
of Houston is about 3° south of Los Angeles, but this small difference
should have very little effect on the quantity of photochemical oxidants
produced from the same mix and concentration of precursors in the two
areas.
2. The mechanism of ozone formation on cloudy days does not differ from
that on sunny days. The quantity differs because the light intensity
and spectral distribution may differ under the two different circumstances.
It is not inconceivable that 0.1-0.15 ppm ozone can be formed on a "cloudy"
day from an optimum mix of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
3. There are few data for analysis to answer this question, but there is
no reason to think that there is any difference in the photochemical com-
plex on sunny or cloudy days. What may differ is the ratio of the indi-
vidual oxidant species (PAN, ozone, aldehydes, etc.) as a function of
time. This is a difference in quantity, however, not in kind.
4. There is a difference in photochemical reaction mechanism between 0%
and 100% relative humidity, but smog chamber experiments show that between
50% and 100% relative humidity, which is the range generally encountered
in the ambient atmosphere, only insignificant changes in final ozone con-
centrations occur.
Page 16:
1. EPA is aware of no unique relation between haze formation and the
various constituents of photochemical reactions. Hazs formation is an
extremely complicated phenomenon. It is possible to have high ozone
(or oxidant) readings and have no haze, and conversely, low oxidant
readings accompanied by low visibility. Sulfates are frequently found
associated with haze and probably are its single most probable cause.
It is possible, but unconsnon, to have haze formation even with low sul-
fate levels, if a mixture containing a large fraction of high-molecular.
weight hydrocarbons is photolyzed.- Also, haze may be formed in the
absence of sulfate when a hydrocarbon mixture having few high-molecular
weight compounds is photo!yzed in the presence of MOX and ammonia.
2. EPA has no analysis to answer this question. No observations have been
directed to this purpose.
169
-------
Pages 17-18;
1. The primary ambient air quality standard for photochemical oxidant is
based on health effects only. It has no relation to the formation of
ozone from natural precursors.
2. When there is reason to believe that appreciable concentrations of
ozone are produced from naturally occurring precursors, the concentrations
should Indeed be considered in developing plans to achieve the NAAQS.
Provisions for considering ozone from natural sources and for recognizing
that this natural ozone cannot be reduced to zero are suggested in EPA
guidance for the preparation of 1979 SIP's.
3. Stratospheric intrusions may result in occasional impact on ambient
concentrations of as high as 0.20 ppm. These events would be rare at any
particular location. They occur as a result of vigorous vertical mixing
events extending from ground level to the lower stratosphere. Usually,
they occur in late winter and early spring in association with strong
thunderstorms, weather fronts, jet streams and/or tropopause folding
events. These rare phenomena are usually readily identifiable and should
be omitted from consideration when preparing SIP's.
Page 20:
1. The relationship between reductions, in hydrocarbon emissions in
Houston (or any other city) and expected reductions in ozone levels is
probably not discernable in a short time frame. First, meteorological
differences over the short time span may obscure the relationship prin-
cipally because the maximum ozone concentrations do not always occur at
the monitoring stations. Second, the critical parameter to consider is
not hydrocarbon emissions - or reductions thereof - but rather the
ambient levels of hydrocarbons. There should be a relationship between
ambient levels of hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon emissions. If this is
not observed (possibly because-of incomplete inventories), a relation-
ship between hydrocarbon emissions and ozone concentrations may not be
easily seen within a short time.
2. This is a good question - there is no real way to know.
As the answer to the previous question stated, the important parameter
to consider is the ambient concentration of hydrocarbons. It is this
actual concentration of hydrocarbon compounds in the air which deter-
mines the final concentration of ozone formed, rather than a computed -
and potentially erroneous - concentration of hydrocarbons from emission
inventories.
170
-------
Page 22:
1. It is EPA's opinion that natural hydrocarbons and other organic consti-
tuents from vegetation and other sources figure in the hydrocarbon-ozone-NOx
relationship. However, the concentration of natural hydrocarbons in urban .
areas is very low, whereas non-methane hydrocarbons from anthropogenic ^
sources in those areas frequently exceed 1.0 ppmC. As discussed in the
answer to the nextf^uestion, under certain circumstances, natural emissions
sometimes are less?, effective in producing ozone than are some of the hydro-
carbon compounds emitted by man in urban areas. The foregoing suggests that
natural emissions may be relatively unimportant as precursors of ozone.
2. Most natural organic constituents in the atmosphere are photochemically
reactive. An important factor is the organic Compounds - nitrogen oxides
ratio (HC/NOX). When the HC/NOX ratio is high, 50/1 for example, naturally
emitted terpenes destroy ozone rather than produce it. Under conditions of
lower HC/NOX ratios, 15/1 as found in urban areas, terpenes may react
photoehemically to produce ozone. This has been observed only in smog
chamber experiments, however, not in urban areas where terpene concentra-
tions have never been measured above a few parts per billion.
Page 24:
1-6. It is difficult to see a correlation of eye irritation to ozone con-
centrations at low ozone levels. In the absence of an identifiable local
source of lachrymator, eye irritation suffered during periods of "high"
oxidant, concentration must be assumed to be caused by photochemical products.
There is no scientific basis for concluding that the photochemical mechanisms
and resulting products in the Houston area are different from those in
Southern California. Therefore, the specific (perhaps unknown) compounds
causing the discomfort in Houston are presumed to be the same as those in
Southern California. There is no basis for concluding that a reduction in
hydrocarbon emissions in Houston is leading to a different photochemical
mechanism for producing a different mixture of photochemical products. In
fact, smog chamber experiments show that the recognized eye irritants in
photochemical products are reaction chain terminators, unlike ozone.
Therefore, a reduction in hydrocarbon concentrations should produce a more
rapid reduction of these species than it does of ozone. The psychological
trait of paying little heed to a physical discomfort until an assumed
cause-effect relation is brought to one's attention may be important in
the recent reports of eye irritation in the Houston area.
Page 26:
1. PAN in the Houston area has been found at around the 10 ppb level.
However, there is no unique relation between ozone and PAN. The ratio
can be high or low, depending on the precursor mixtures. The PAN/ozone
ratio is usually lower in rural areas than in urban areas, due probably
171
-------
to the fact than PAN is a chain terminator, whereas ozone is not. (Thus,
PAN concentrations are dependent on a supply of RCOa radicals which, when
depleted, limit the final concentration of PAN, whereas 03 can be formed
from nany other species.)
2 Hydrocarbon reduction in Houston will reduce ozone concentrations as
well as PAN. There is no reason to think that vegetation damage will
increase with a decrease" in hydrocarbon concentrations.
- ^
Pages 27-28:
1. The reasons for variations in results between the KI and chemi lumines-
cent methods in the Houston area are probably the same as for those in
other areas: operator dependencies and the documented difficulties in
obtaining accurate results with KI methods unless experimental details are
scrupulously followed.
2. Since there is no experimental reason to assume that the mixture of
oxidants in the Houston atmosphere is different from mixtures in other
urban areas, there is no reason to expect adverse health and welfare
effects different from those found in other areas.
3. The chemi luminescent method is specific for ozone, which is considered
a surrogate for photochemical oxidants. At this time, there is no analytical
procedure for measuring accurately the totality of those compounds included
In the*ords "total oxidant11. Since we have not identified all the compounds
in the mixture, we have not developed a reliable method to measure them.
Iodide methods are known to be very operator dependent. With the proposed
change of the NAAQS to an ozone standard, as contrasted with a "photo-
chemical oxidant" standard, a technique for measuring this mixture of
compounds is not needed.
Page 31 :
1. The average molecular weight of hydrocarbons from mobile sources is
around 42; whereas it is around 60 from industrial sources. Therefore, for
a given weight of hydrocarbons, mobile sources contain about 50% more mole-
cules than do stationary sources. From equal quantities and a comparable
mix (ratio) of hydrocarbons, therefore, mobile sources should give a larger
quantity of ozone, but not 50* more, all other conditions being equal.
2. A detailed analysis of the contribution and distribution of mobile
and stationery sources would be needed in order to answer this question.
-3. If vehicle exhaust is a significant source of hydrocarbons in an area,
then a reduction in these emissions, by whatever method, will lead to a
reduction in ozone formation in that area or downwind.
V.
4. Yes. A complete emission inventory should be made of the area in
question. Based on this, decisions can be made as to the effectiveness
of various control strategies designed to reduce hydrocarbon emissions
by the required amount.
172
-------
DAT£ DEC 101978
SUBJECT Cutback Asphalt - Acceptable RACT Regul.il.ion
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Directory
Control Programs Development Division
TO Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
A number of issues have arisen concerning the Cutback Asphalt
Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) and the exemptions that are appropriate
for that CTG category. While it is late in the SIP revision process, I
believe that it is still in order to clarify the issue. This memo is
intended for that purpose.
To illustrate the exemptions issue, attached is a sample regulation
for limiting the use of cutback asphalt in road paving and maintenance
operations. The regulation is considered consistent with the CTG document
and, therefore, an approvable RACT regulation. It should not be construed
as a binding requirement on the States to adopt this sample.
The degree of use of emulsified asphalt varies widely across the
nation depending on factors such as the availability of competent emulsified
asphalt manufacturers and the experience and established policies of
highway engineers. Even though emulsified asphalt technology is available,
it may take an extended period of time for certain States with limited
or no experience with emulsified asphalt to phase its use into the
States' highway paving and maintenance programs. A transition period
would be necessary for manufacturers to gear up to producing the various
emulsions, highway engineers to obtain specifications and data applicable
to their climatic conditions, equipment operators to be trained, and
possible governmental issues to be resolved. In other words, a reasonable
transition period from cutback to emulsified asphalt for one State may
be unreasonable, or even impossible, for another State. Regional Offices
should recognize that the time periods for compliance with regulations
limiting use of cutback asphalt will justifiably vary from State to
State. The compliance date suggested by the Asphalt Institute is June 1, i980.
There are three specific problems associated with emulsified asphalt
that are common to most States. These are:
EPA Form 1320-6 (R.v. 3-76)
173
-------
1. Cannot be stockpiled for extended periods of time.
2. Limited experience with use as a penetrating prime coat.
3. Cannot be used during cold weather.
Cutback asphalts, and emulsions substituted for cutback, are used
either as sprayed liquids or as binder in a patch mix. The patch mix is
a mixture of the asphalt binder and an aggregate and is used for filling
potholes. Characteristically, the patch mix is stockpiled for periods
of from several months to a year. Current emulsions cannot be used in
such a stockpiled mix unless a solvent is added to keep the emulsion
from setting up. Emulsified asphalt in a liquid state can only be
stored for up to four weeks and then only in heated or insulated containers
preferably with some type of agitation. Liquid emulsions, however,
should be available on short notice alleviating the problem of long-life
.stockpiling. The example regulation contains provisions for use of
cutback asphalt where it can be demonstrated that long-life stockpiling
is necessary. Emulsion manufacturers are currently working on emulsions
that can be stockpiled for longer periods of time.
The cutback asphalts used for prime coats are low viscosity with
high diluent contents. There is, therefore, a high degree of VOC evapora-
tion from priming operations. At least one manufacturer makes a strong
claim to having satisfactorily solved the problem of getting good penetra-
tion with an emulsified asphalt. Until such time as this or other
priming emulsions are proven acceptable to users, an exemption for prime
coats may be necessary and will be approvable. Fortunately, prime coats
are used to prepare soil for new road construction which will most
likely occur in rural areas. In general, priming is not necessary for
city streets, driveways, and parking lots.
Emulsified asphalt does not set up properly at temperatures below
50° F. If roadway repair is necessary during colder periods, cutback
asphalt must be used. States may specify months during the year when
cutback asphalt may be used. These months should include the time of
the year when meteorological conditions are such that temperatures do
not linger above 50° F for periods of time adequate for emulsified
asphalt application and setting. These exempted periods will coincide
with the nonoxidant season and will, of course, vary nationwide.
The fourth exemption in the example regulation is in response to
the fact that some cutback asphalts apparently do not set up by VOC
evaporation. These are the very high viscosity cutbacks which are
heated during use and set up simply by cooling off. If there are no VOC
174
-------
emissions, there is no reason to prohibit the use of those cutbacks for
purposes of RACT. Thus, if a user can demonstrate through the manufacturers
data that no VOC emissions will occur, then the cutback may be used at
any time.
In some instances, manufacturers are adding solvent to emulsions to
improve the physical properties. If such an emulsion can be used in
place of a cutback, and the emulsion contains less solvent than the
replaced cutback, States may wish to allow the emulsion as an interim
measure until a switch can be made to a straight emulsion which contains
no solvent.
It is important to note that there may be other unique problems
that are not discussed in this memo. Since RACT is a case-by-case
determination, these should be discussed at the State level and exemptions
allowed as necessary. Please advise me if you do encounter any additional
requests for exemptions beyond those described in this memo.
Finally, the figures in the control techniques guideline document
for calculating VOC emissions from cutback asphalt were based on an
average solvent content of 35%. Information will be sent at a later
date for more accurately calculating emission rates for the various
cutbacks.
In summary, the attached sample regulation can be considered RACT
fgr controlling use of cutback asphalt'under the conditions specified
above concerning the exemptions. In keeping with our goal to achieve
consistency among State regulations, States should be encouraged but not
required to follow this sample as a guideline in developing their cutback
asphalt regulation.
If you have any questions, please contact Roger Powell at 629-5437.
Attachment
cc: W. Barber
175
-------
EXAMPLE RACT REi-'JLATION
CUTBACK ASPHALT
1. Definitions:
Asphalt: The dark-brown to black cementatious material (solid,
semisolid, or liquid in consistency) of which the main constituents are
bitumens which occur naturally or as a residue of petroleum refining.
Cutback Asphalt: Any asphalt which has been liquified by blending
with petroleum solvents (diluents) or, in the case of some slow cure
asphalts (road oils), which have been produced directly from the distilla-
tion of petroleum.
Penetrating Prime Coat: An application of low-viscosity liquid
asphalt to an absorbent surface in order to prepare it for paving with
an asphalt concrete.
2. Regulation:
(a) This regulation applies to the use of asphalt in highway
paving and maintenance operations.
(b) After June 1, 1980* no person shall cause, allow, or permit
the sale, offering for sale, use, or application of cutback asphalt, or
an emulsified asphalt containing petroleum solvents (diluents), except
as provided below:
(1) Where the use or application commences on or after (month) of
any year and such use or application is completed by (month) of the
following year;
(2) Where long-life (longer than 1 month) stockpile storage is
necessary;
(3) Where the asphalt is to be used solely as a penetrating prime
coat; or
(4) Where the user can demonstrate that there are no emissions of
organic compounds from the asphalt under conditions of normal use.
*This date should be negotiated on a State-specific basis.
176
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
f-'EB 21 1979
* -1 IJ/:3 PN-172-79-02-21-013
SUBJECT. Determination of Reductions Necessary to Attain
the Ozone Standard
->M; Richard G. Rhoads, Di
Control Programs Development Division'
TO Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The promulgation of the new standard for ozone has modified a
number of the assumptions used in determining the necessary reductions
to achieve *he ozone standard. If States are »evis1ng their plans
for the .12 ppm standard, the analysis should be consistent with the
enclosed, revised guideline. This memorandum updates and supersedes my
memorandum of August 16, 1978, entitled, "Clarification of Attainment/
Nonattainment Evaluation Guidance." States submitting plans based on
the .08 ppm standard can use the assumptions in the August 16, 1978,
version.
Please distribute this to all appropriate State and localJ9encies
)ur Region. If you hav
please contact John Calcagn
Enclosure
J G b C U I O L I I UU l-C LIIIJ o^uti o. ,^ r i v r • •
in -.-cur Region. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum,
Contact John Calcaqni at FTS 629-5365.
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
W. C. Barber
B. 0. Steigerwald
Joe Paisie, Region v
1320-6 (R«»- 3-76)
177
-------
DETERMINATION OF NECESSARY REDUCTION TO ATTAIN THE OZONE STANDARD
I. SELECTION OF DESIGN VALUE
Generally, the ozone design value should be developed in accordance
with the "Guideline for Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards"
(EPA-450/4-79-003, OAQPS 1.2-108), January 1979. Several special cases
are addressed below:
A. In the case where a major hydrocarbon control program has been
initiated and has resulted in significant actual emission reductions in
the 1975-1977 time period. In this case, the latest maximum value can
be used. However, the burden of proof is on the State to demonstrate
that significant actual emission reductions have occurred due to the
implementation (net simply the adoption) of a control program and that
the air quality improvements are consistent with, and can be attributed
to, the emission reductions. Generally, the emission reduction should
be equal or greater than the air quality improvement. It is not appro-
priate* to use the latest year's data rather than the last three years if
there has not been a commensurate reduction in emissions. (For example,
s 10 percent difference in air quality levels cannot be attributed to a
3 percent reduction in actual emissions.)
B. In certain situations where transport influences the design
value to a point that the design value is not the worst case. This case
is described in greater detail in Item V.
C. In cases where less than three years of data exist. In that
cf-.se, EPA will accept a design value based on the available years of
data.
D. In cases where the representativeness of the data set is
questionable. An input data set which is 75 percent complete for the
~»dk ozone season should be considered representative for that year. In
ceses where the input data set is less than 50 percent complete during
the peak ozone season or, during the monitoring period in the case of a
special study, then the data should be considered inadequate. Care
should be used in evaluating data sets that fall between these two
limits to assure representativeness. Data determined to be unrepre-_
sentative should be used only as a last resort when no other data exist
and should not be included in the routine statistical analysis with
other years. Care should be taken in the treatment of data to assure
that the number of valid data points (after adjusting for seasonal
monitoring) from each year do not vary by more than 20 percent. If they
do, the conditional probability technique discussed in Section 3.3(4),
page 26 of the guideline must be applied to guard against the excessive
weighting of any one year's data.
178
-------
Regardless of the technique applied, the chosen design value must
r-.eet the quick test for design values test discussed in Section 3.4,
page 28 of the guideline. Unless adequately substantiated, the design
values not meeting this quick test will not be considered valid.
II. SELECTION OF A PRESENT TRANSPORT VALUE
The procedure set forth in the Workbook for Nonattainment Planning
based on an upwind monitor is by far the most desirable technique for
selection of a transport value. This procedure is to use upwind data
collected on the day- of the design value. The most desirable surface
data to use are data collected shortly after the breakup of the nocturnal
inversion. Review of the ambient data from prirr rily rural areas suggests
that the IC-1? a.m. 1ST average value is appropriate. Alternatively, a
more precise fixed time of nocturnal inversion breakup can be determined
with the assistance of a meteorologist by reviewing specific local para-
meters such as time of sunrise, ambient air quality data, vertical
temperature profiles, and surface temperature.
In the absence of upwind air quality data, two less satisfactory
alternatives are available.
«
The first elterr.ctive is to assume that both future and present
transport are equal to background (.04ppm). This is most appropriate in
circumstan-ces where the urbanized area is isole.ted and not likely to be
subject to significant transport from other urban areas, but acceptable
for any urban area where transport is not an obvious major influence.
In circumstances where transport obviously is a major factor, the
recommended alternative approach is to consider 0, data collected at
rural sites shortly after breakup of a nocturnal Inversion (e.g.,
10-12 LST) on the highest 0-, day in the city under review. At least
five days should be considered. A range for the rural values is thus
determined. The median value of this range should be considered the
present transport value. This helps safeguard against the selection of
en unrepresentative value. For example, if rural data suggest transport
values ranging from .06-. 10 pom (.06, .07, .OS, .09, 10 ppm), a present
transport value of .03 ppm would b= assumed.
For evaluations made for the .12 ppm ozone standard, the alter-^
native of ignoring both present and future transport considerations is
no longer acceptable unless the net impact on control requirements is
relatively insignificant. Concurrent with the adoption of the new ozone
standard, 40 CFR 51.14(c) has been amended by the addition of paragraph
(8) which states: "In developing an ozone control strategy for a particular
area, background ozone and ozone transported into an area must be con-
sidered. States may assume that the standard will be attained in the
upwind area."
179
-------
III. SELECTION OF A FUTURE TRANSPORT VALUE
The generally acceptable range for future transport is .12-.04 ppm
(somewhere between attainment of the standard by the upwind urban area
and background). Isolated urbanized areas (at a distance greater than
36 hours travel time of an air parcel) whose air quality levels are not
influenced by air masses which have passed over major urban areas,
should use .04 ppm. The selection of a value within this range will be
a subjective judgment on the part of the State with concurrence by the
Regional Office with the isolation of the city in question as the key
criterion.
However, the choice of a future transport value must be logically
consistent with the determination made for the present transport value.
It is inappropriate to assume a major contribution from transport
Present and very low transport levels in the future Any reduction in
the future transport value from the present transport value must be
attributable to an anticipated control program in "Other upwind urban
area Generally, assumptions for the future transport value should not
b« less than 60 oercent of the present transport value. The only
possible exception to this is -:n those few circumstances wnore present
transport is so large that e 40 percent reduction is insurficient to
reduce future transport to the ozone standard of .12_ppm. In tnese cases
JS States may assume that the standard will be attained in the upwind
area. However, this situation will be quite unusual and should be
adequately documented.
IV. CHOICE OF AN ADDITIVITY FACTOR
A presumptive value of .45 (.5 to one significant figure) should be
assumed unless documentation can be presented supporting the use of a
different value.
Documentation supporting the use of another value could be based on
Guidance contained in £PA-450/2-77-021b or, better yet, througn si.nu-
istions with OZIPP (a computerized, city specv.ic version o, EIJ-A art-
600/3-73-OKa) using locally applicable data. However, if the cap-
ability for running OZIPP exists, consideration of transport can be made
u>re satisfactorily using OZIPP than by using the additivity concep,.
Because simulations to date suggest that edditivity may increase as
orecursor concentrations decrease and/or as NMHC/NO ratios decrease, it
is inlpprop?iate to assume an additivity value in f5ture years less than
the currently assumed one.
rf. CONSIDERATION OF A NUl-'.BER OF HIGH DAYS
A considaration in establishing the baseline air quality is the
desire to identify and base the plan on the ambient conditions which
wil result in attainment of the standard under all circumstances. In
180
-------
areas influenced significantly by transport, it may well be that the day
r&quiring the greatest percent reduction will differ from the statistically
predicted design value. For example, if the design value were .24 ppm
and transport on that day were .16 ppm, local control requirements would
be less stringent than a design day of .20 ppm with a transport value of
.06 ppm.
If an urban area intends to demonstrate attainment by 1982, then it
will be necessary to review a sufficient number of the high ozone days
to ensure'that the proposed plan provides for a sufficient level of
control to ensure attainment. Note that this analysis will be only
necessary in cases where upwind data which are specific for each day are
used in development of a transport value.
If an urban area is seeking an extension to 1987 based on an
evaluation of the design value determined in accordance with Section I,
the Region has the option to accept this demonstration. It will net be
necessary at this time to insist on the evaluation of a number of high
days to determine if the higher percent reduction is necessary since
the plan is subject to revision in 1982.
VI. APPROVABLE MODELING TECHNIQUES
Concurrent with the modification of the ozone standard, EPA
revised 40 CFR, Part 51, to rescind Appendix J and replace it with
four analytical techniques: (1) photochemical dispersion models,
(2) empirical kinetics modeling approach (EKMA), (3) empirical and
statistical mcdels, and (4) proportional rollback. States must use one
of the four techniques to determine the amount of hydrocarbon reductions
necessary to demonstrate attainment of the national ozone standard.
VII. APPROPRIATE NMHC/NO. RATIOS
A
If no data exist, the default value of 9.5:1 should be applied when
employing EKMA. If an area intends to develop a city specific value, the
evidence convince in EPA-45C/2-77-021b pp 3-21 th-o-jgh 3-24 should be
c^re'blly foV.ov^ci. There is a good deal of concern v.itn "cne use o. a
Dingle dev's Ni-V.-C data at a single site being used. This is especially
true if the NMHC values are less than 0.5 ppm C. Regions should carefully
review these data prior to accepting a city specific NMHC/NO rauio
different than 9.5:1. Given the past Isck of emphasis on mofiitoring o,
NO and nonmethane hydrocarbons, careful attention should oe paid to -he
representativeness of this data. In particular, Regions should carefully
evaluate siting and quality assurance procedures before accepting a
locally derived HKHC/NOy ratio. It is especially important to review
high NO data used in tfie derivation of this ratio since acceptance of
the dct§ may imply the possibility of N02 nonattainmant or maintenance
problems.
For estimates of future conditions, unless it can be clearly
demonstrated to the contrary, or unless major reductions are necessary
181
-------
to attain standards, States should presume that the change in NO con-
centrations are not likely to be significant. Therefore, it wilt be
appropriate to assume a constant HOX concentration (i.e., lower future
NMHC/NOX ratio).
VIII. SELECTION OF THE URBANIZED AREA
The urbanized area should generally conform to the boundaries
defined by the U.S, Bureau of Census although States, with Regional _
Off ce concurrence, do have a certain degree of flexibility in defining
the specific boundaries of the urban area. However, the areas must be
large enough to cover the entire urbanized area and adjacent Cringe
areL of development. In situations where urbanized areas are contiguous
or in close proximity, States should be encouraged to consolidate the
Srban areas for the purpose of attairroent/nonattainment demonstration.
In nS case should an urbanized area be divided into smaller subunits,
even if the urbanized area straddles more than one State.
182
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE:
MAR 6 1979
SUBJECT Cutback Asphalt VOC Regulations
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director,,
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS (MD 15)
T0: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
On December 19, 1978 a memorandum containing an example regulation
for controlling cutback asphalt was sent to each of you. That memo-
randum was prompted by misunderstandings of the complicated issue of
cutback asphalt; specifically, what exemptions are allowed and what is
an appropriate transition period from cutback to emulsified asphalt.
The memorandum contained information based on contacts with emulsified
asphalt manufacturers and users and with representatives of the Asphalt
Institute.
Attached is a summary of the draft regulations which were submitted
to CPDD prior to the December 19 memorandum. Even though the summarized
regulations were only drafts and have likely been revised, I feel it
worthwhile to point out the significant problems found during the review
of the regulations. An explanation of these problems is also attached.
The December 19 memorandum indicated that liquid emulsified asphalt
can be stored only up to four weeks in heated or insulated containers.
Information received since the memorandum was sent indicates that this
is an'error; liquid emulsified asphalt apparently can be stored for much
longer periods of time. This error, however, is only minor since it is
still true that an emulsified asphalt patch mix (mixture of aggregate
and liquid asphalt) cannot be stockpiled. Manufacturers, however, are
working on this problem and are trying to develop such an emulsion. If
solvent is added to the emulsion, long life stockpiling can be achieved,
but our definition of emulsified asphalt does not include emulsions
containing solvents.
The December 19 memorandum also indicated that more detailed
information for calculating emission rates from cutback asphalt will be
sent to the Regional Offices. At the present time an EPA contracted study
of emission rates from cutback asphalt is being reviewed by the Asphalt
Institute. The results of that review will be considered when the review
is completed in late March or early April. At that time a decision will be
made on the need for further study of cutback asphalt emission rates. For
the present, however, in developing control strategies for ozone and pre-
paring emission inventories for the 1979 SIP revisions, States should use
the evaporation rates contained in the control techniques guideline. These
rates are 80% for rapid cure, 70% for medium cure, and 25% for slow cure
EPA Form 1320-6 (R.v. 3-76)
183
-------
(except as discussed below). These r?tes should be used in conjunction
with solvent content values for the various cutbacks used in the State.
Solvent content values can be obtained from the cutback manufacturers.
If new emission rates are established at a later date, they will be
available for the next round of SIP revisions.
The fourth exemption in the example regulation sent December 19
allowed the use of any cutback for which the user can demonstrate that
no emissions will occur under conditions of normal use. Until further
studies are done on cutback emission factors, that demonstration should
be done as follows:
1 Obtain distillation data for the cutback from the manufacturer
or run a distillation test. (ASTM Method D-402, Distillation of Cutback
Asphalt Products.)
2. If less than 5% of the total solvent has evaporated up to and
including 500°F, the cutback will be considered one that has no VOC
emissions under field conditions.
We realize that distillation tests.cannot be directly related to
field conditions, however, we feel that any emissions from a cutback
passing the above test will be very minor. Also, for purposes of calcu-
lating emissions for control strategies or emissions offsets, cutbacks
passing the test should be considered as having no VOC emissions.
The December 19 memorandum indicated that there might be other
unique problems for which exemptions could be appropriate under a case-
by-case RACT determination. I would like to stress that if a State
requests an exemption to use cutback or an emulsified asphalt containing
solvent for any application other than those accepted in the example
regulation, it is up to the State to demonstrate that an emulsified
asphalt (containing no solvent) cannot be used. The demonstration must
contain evidence that the State has contacted emulsified asphalt manufac-
turers and emulsifying chemical manufacturers, and that the manufacturers
cannot develop an acceptable emulsion or cannot recommend an acceptable
alternative paving or repair procedure. As stated in the December 19
memorandum, please advise me of any additional requests for exemptions.
Attachments
184
-------
SUMMARY OF DRAFT VOC REGS. FOR CUTBACK ASPHALT
STATE
I
Mass.
NH
II
N.Y.
Ill
VA
WVA
MD
DEL
PA
COMPLIANCE
DATE
7/1/80
1
1/1/79.
12/31/80
not given
EXEMPTIONS
UJ
s:
t— 4
C£
O.
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
*HT
O
(J~>
<
UJ
I/O
1
1
X
Q.
•SL
LU
(—
V
A
1
X
i^M
LU
O
<=c
C£
O
H-
ir>
X
X
X
X
X
1 1
o:
LU
n:
t—
o
2
1
SIZE
CUTOFF
PE > 100
"" TPY
- 77 TPY
1
>10 Ibs/day
\or slbs/hr
LjJ
0
Z±i
LU
1—
<£
h-
LO
Y
X
X
2
?
1
X
X
COMMENTS
1. 10/30-5/1 for patching.
Total prohibition for paving of
roads, highways, or driveways.
N.H. has no urbanized areas. 1:
1. 10/16-5/1
2. Emulsified asphalt containing
less than 15% bv weight VOC.
1. 60 days after board adoption
or 9 months after promulation
of new 03 standard.
2. At a minimum, the non-
attainment areas! may be
adopted Statewide.
All cutback asphalt users and
manufacturers must register with
the Commission within 30 days
from the effective date of the
regulation. After the effective
date of the regulation, permits ^
are required for anyone commencing
operations subject to this
regulation.
1. Applies to the Baltimore
Metropolitan Area. There
are two other nonurban non-
attainment areas in MD.
1. Only for emergency repair of
potholes and/or filling cracks
in highway pavement. As
technology becomes available
all uses of cutback asphalt
will be discontinued.
1. Dust palliative tack coat, pre-
coating of aggregate and pro-
tective coating for concrete.
185
-------
STATE
IV
KY
(Louis-
ville)
N.C.
S.C.
TN
V
IL
IND
OH
MICH
wise
COMPLIANCE
DATE
eff. date
of reg.
10/1/80
5/1/81
2/1/81
12/31/80
1/82
not given
7/1/79
EXEMPTIONS
LU
t— i
ex.
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
to
to
2
1
1
1
.
D-
LU
1—
X
X
X
X
X
LU
CO
o:
o
to
X
X
X
X
X
2
rr
LU
h-
o
1
1
1
SIZE
CUTOFF
? 15 Ibs/day
or 3 Ibs/hr
7100 TPY for'
att. areas
1
,
>15 Ibs/day
or 3 Ibs/hr
LU
Q
F— 4
1 1 f
I—
eT
t—
3
X
X
?
V
?
X
X
COMMENTS
1. Exempts asphalt with less
than or equal to 10% by
weight VOC.
2. Jan. -Apr. for repair of
potholes or other damage to
roadways .
3. Louisville, Kentucky.
1. In urban areas, stationary
sources with potential
emissions greater than 10 TPY;
non-urban areas greater than
100 TPY.
1. Total prohibition in urban
counties. Use allowed in a
rural co. with the approval
of the director.
— •
1. 10/1-4/30.
.
1. Other than road paving, i.e.,
roofing or water proofing.
1. 10/1-4/30
1. non-ozone season 11/1-4/30
2. must be stored for 2 years
or longer.
186
-------
STATE
VI
ARK
OK
TX
VIII
CO
•
x
WASH
(Puget
Sound)
WASH
STATE
ORE
COMPLIANCE
DATE
7/21/79
24 mo.
after eff .
date of reg
12/31/80
not given
6/1/80
6/1/80
4/1/79
EXEMPTIONS
LU
»— 4
rv
Q.
X
1
1
1
3;
^~
o
LO
o:
I- i
DO
2
3
9
•
u
X
1
1,
4
UJ 1
tn
et ' tf
0
oo
X
X
3
1
1
UJ
n:
I —
o
1
2
4
SIZE
CUTOFF
UJ
[zj
~^
UJ
CO
X
.1
v
X
2
2
COMMENTS
1. Consent of the Commissioner
1. 7 nonattainment areas. Use
of cutback asphalt for
paving is restricted to no
more than 7% of the total
annual volume of asphalt used
or specified for use by any
State, municipal, or county
agency. All nonattainment
areas are not covered.
1. Also allows exemptions when
precipitation is anticipated
within 3 hrs. from time of
application.
2. Other conditions as approved
by the Division. Div. may
require invoices or other
records to verify use of cut-
back and emulsified asphalt^ __
1. Use of MC only.
2. Oct. -May.
3. Use of MC only.
4. SC
Reg. applies to Puget Sound
nonattainment area.
1. Allowed provided diluent has
a total vapor pressure of less
than 26 mm Hg at 20CC.
2. Nonattainment areas.
3. Oct. -May.
4. Forecast for 24 hr. period
following application is less
than 50*F.
Report required on use of cutback
asphalt during June-Sept.
1. MC only. '
2. Nonattainment areas.
187
-------
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PROPOSED ASPHALT REGULATIONS
AND EXAMPLE REGULATION 01 DECEMBER 19, 1978
1. Twelve regulations contain an exemption allowing the use of cutback
asphalt when the temperature is below 50°F. It is preferable for
enforcement purposes to establish a season during which cutback asphalt
may be used. The season would represent that portion of the year during
which temperatures do not linger above 50°F for periods of time adequate
for emulsified asphalt application and setting.
2. Several States specify a 100 TPY cutoff size. No criteria is
provided for defining a 100 TPY source with respect to cutback asphalt.
Our guidance defines cutback asphalt as an area source and any "100 Ton"
calculations should consider all State, local, and private uses of asphalt
in the area for which the control strategy demonstration is developed.
3. None of the 24 draft regulations prohibit the use of emulsified
asphalt containing solvent. Our definition of emulsified asphalt
includes only solvent-free emulsions.
4. Eight States exempt cutback asphalt from regulation for situations
other than the three prescribed in our guidance. These exemptions in the
draft regulations are unacceptable although there will be case-by-case
situations where other exemptions could be allowed.
188'
-------
August 7, 1979
TO ALL COMPANIES INVOLVED IN SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS
OF CANS. COILS, FABRIC, VINYL. PAPER. AUTOMOBILES, LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS
METAL FURNITURE, MAGNET WIRE. AND LARGE APPLIANCES
NOTICE OF NEW PENNSYLVANIA REGULATIONS GOVERNING
THESE SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS
PRESENTED BY THE
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania adopted regulations for the control of
solvent emissions from certain surface coating operations. The surface coating
operations which are controlled are coating of cans, coils, fabric, vinyl,
paper, automobiles, light duty trucks, metal furniture, magnet wire, and large
appliances. These regulations limit the amount of solvent which can be emitted
to the outdoor atmosphere per gallon of coating used. These sources and many
other sources of volatile organic compounds must be controlled in order to
achieve the health-related standard for photochemical oxidants as required
»
by the Federal Clean Air Act as amended. This notice explains the regulations,
how and when to comply with them, and who to contact for further information.
1. Who must comply with these regulations?
All owners or operators of surface coating operations for cans, coils,
fabric, vinyl, paper, automobiles, light duty trucks, metal furniture, magnet
wire, and large appliances in Pennsylvania. Any facility (plant of factory)
which has the potential (without air pollution control equipment) to emit less
then 500 pounds per day and less than 50 tons per year from all surface coating
operations (including operations not covered in the regulation) is exempted
from this regulation.
2. Hhat do the regulations require?
Section 129.52 of the regulation requires compliance with one of the
following requirements:
189
-------
a. The use of low solvent coatings where weight of volatile organic
compounds (solvent) per gallon of coating (minus water) is equal to or less than
the level specified in Table 1. "A gallon of coating (minus water)" means
the quantity of coating, after all water has been removed, which makes up a
gallon.
b. The reduction of the weight of volatile organic compound (solvent)
emissions by a specific percentage where the percentage is determiend as follows:
% reduction = 100 [l -
where x = pounds of VOC per gallon (minus water) for
coating which will be used*
y = pounds of VOC per gallon of coating (minus
water) found in Table 1
z = density of VOC in pounds per gallon for VOC
in coating which will be used*
The emission reduction can be achieved through the use of a vapor recovery
system, incineration, or any other method which in the judgment of the Department
provides equivalent reduction.
The regulation also requires that the owner or operator keep records
of the quantity and composition of the coating used on each regulated surface
coating line and that these records be retained for two years and be made
available to the Department upon request. Records of the composition of each
coating should include the pounds of VOC per gallon (minus water), percent
solids, percent solvents, percent water, and density of solvents.
3. You can choose alternative methods of reduction which are equivalent.
Section 129.53 allows you to determine the total emission reduction
required for all existing surface coating lines in your facility covered by the
*Section 129.52 of the regulations specifies that these numbers be obtained
from the present coating. However if a new coating formula is introduced,
it Lcome?lhe present bating and it is this coating formula upon which com-
pliance will ultimately be judged.
.190
-------
regulation and to achieve this reduction on those lines in the most cost-
effective way. For instance, if you achieved a slightly greater reduction than
is necessary to comply with the regulations on two surface coating lines, you
could propose that a third line achieves less than is required as long as the
overall control is equivalent to the regulation. Only surface coating lines
upon which construction or modification has commenced prior to August 1, 1979
and to which no new source performance standard is applicable may be included
in this alternative approach. This approach is called the bubble concept.
There are three ways in which this bubble concept can be used:
a. Under Subsection 129.53(b), the facility owner or operator may
assign a maximum allowable emission rate (in pounds per hour) to each surface
coating line covered by this regulation so long as the total emission rate from
these surface coating lines is equal to or less than E, where
n
E = I Ai x Bi
where E = allowable emission rate from the affected lines (in
pounds per hour),
A = the allowable emission rate in Table 1 for each surface
coating line,
B = the amount of coating material in gallons per hour
(excluding water) for each surface coating line.
The amount of coating material for each surface coating line, B,
can be determined from the following equation:
B = C x \1 + T^-
where C = amount of solids used in gallons per hour
y - pounds of VOC per gallon of coating (minus water) found
in table 1
z = density of VOC in pounds per gallon for VOC in coating
which will be used
191
-------
b. Under Subsection 129.53(c), the facility owner or operator does
not have to assign a maximum allowable emission rate to each surface coating line
covered by this regulation so long as the total emission rate (in pounds per
hour) is equal to or less than E (see above) and so long as the owner or operator
can demonstrate that this approach is as enforceable as the approach in
Subsection 129.53(b).
c. Under Subsection 129.53(d), the owner or operator may use either
of the above two approaches on a daily rather than an hourly basis so long as
he can demonstrate that this approach is as enforceable as the approach in
Subsection 129.53(b).
4. When do you have to comply?
a. Low solvent approach: If you choose to comply with the regulations
by reducing the-solvent level of your coating, you must achieve final compliance
with the regulations by April 9. 1982. You must submit a plan which states
how you will achieve compliance by October 9. 1979. There are a number of
intermediate steps which must be carried out between the dates of plan submittal
and final compliance and these steps are listed in Table 2. Please note that
for sources located in Allegheny County these dates will slightly different.
b. Pollutior, control equipment approach: If you choose to comply
with the regulations by any other method than solvent reformulation (e.g.,
incineration or solvent recovery), you must achieve final compliance with the
regulations by April 9, 1981. And you must submit final plans for emission control
equipment (and process equipment if applicable) together with a plan approval
application to the Department by October 9, 1979. There are a number of
intermediate steps which must be carried out between the dates of plan submittal
and final compliance and these steps are listed in Table 3. Please note that
for sources located in Allegheny County these dates will be slightly different.
192
-------
c. Sources employing both the low solvent approach and the pollution
control equipment approach: You may be asking yourself what date you have to
comply with if you are going to use a combination of low solvent technology
and pollution control equipment. Pollution control equipment must be installed
and used by April 9, 1981 and the final compliance date for reformulated
coatings is April 9, 1982 unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that
the pollution control equipment cannot be used until the reformulated coating
is used. If this demonstration can be made then the final compliance date for
reformulation and the application of pollution control equipment will be April 9,
1982.
d. Facilities which use internal offsets: The dates for compliance
of a facility will be considered on a source-by-source basis within the facility
in accordance with paragraphs 4a, 4b, and 4c above.
5. What Is the definition of your surface coating operation?
The definition of can coating, coil coating, fabric coating, vinyl
coating, paper coating, metal furniture coating, magnet wire coating, large
appliance,.automobile, and light duty truck can be found in alphabetical
order in Chapter 121.1 of the regulations. It should be pointed out that graphic
art processes are differentiated from paper coating processes by the uniformity
of the coating surface. If the paper web is covered with a uniform layer of
coating, the process is paper coating. If the source applies the coating (in
whole or in part) as a nonuniform layer such as a pattern, design, or print,
the source will be controlled under regulations for graphic art processes (to
be proposed in the fall of 1979). Graphic arts processes which are used in
any of the sources listed above except paper coating are to be controlled
under present regulations. For instance, if vinyl coating is applied using a
rotogravure method, it would still be controlled under the vinyl coating regulation.
193
-------
6. Where do you submit your plan and who do you call for more information?
a. In Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties: For all facilities in
these counties contact either Mr. Norman Glazer, Air Management Services,
Philadelphia Department of Public Health, 801 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103 (215-686-7895) or Mr. Donald Graham, Bureau of Air Pollution Control,
301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15201 (412-578-8115).
b. For the rest of the state: Please submit your plans to the
regional engineer for air quality in the region in which your source is located.
Figure 1 shows the area of the state covered by each region and lists all
regional engineers with their telephone numbers.
7. Are you allowed to turn off incineration equipment in the winter?
Volatile organic compounds (solvents) are controlled in order to
attain the photochemical oxidant standard. Photochemical oxidants do not
violate the standard during the months of December, January, and February
because'of meteorological conditions. Therefore, if the operation of incineration
equipment is not required for the purposes of occupational health and safety,
for the control of toxic substances or other regulated pollutants, or for the
prevention of odor nuisances, the Department may allow an operator to turn off
an incinerator in order to save energy. The Department's authorization must
be obtained in writii.g.
8. What if you need more time than is given in the compliance schedules?
Section 129.66(d) provides additional time up to June 30, 1985 in
order to comply with the surface coating regulations if the owner or operator
can show:
a. that it is physically impossible for the source to comply with
the regulations within the given time period;
b. that, by allowing a time extension, innovative technology can be
used which controls the pollutant emissions significantly better than what is
required in the regulations;
194
-------
c. that additional time is necessary to allow for development of low
solvent systems when the only alternative is the application of (energy intensive)
incinerators and vapor recovery systems; or
d. that the source is one of many sources in the state owned by the
same company and that the control of each source has been scheduled on a
prioritized basis.
In order to receive a time extension under Section 129.66(d) the owner
or operator must obtain a delayed compliance order (DCO) pursuant to Subsection
113(d) of the Federal Clean Air Act.
9. Are other surface coating operations and other sources of volatile
organic compounds required to reduce emissions?
Due to the magnitude of the effort, regulations for sources of volatile
organic compounds are being developed on an industry-by-industry basis over the
next several years. Regulations for nine surface coating operations, all
industrial degreasing operations, gasoline transfer and storage operations, and
cutback asphalt paving were developed this year. Regulations will be proposed
for all other sources of VOC on a phased basis over the next couple of years.
195
-------
TABLE I
AI*waae»Caa*antar
Sevface Coanagi fcjr Pfeceej
AlfcxMAfc VOCCewamf
Wrf* *f o/ VOCpar Volume ofCamting (mtouu wcf*rf
Swftc* Coating Pnctun fjnmdtpir kg. per
1. Can coating
(a) abeetbaaecoat tJJ4 0.84
(b> two piece can exterior *-84 0.34
(cl two & three piece can intarior body aprejr 4J» O-M
(d) twopiecacanandaztarior 4.25 0.61
(a) side-seam spray Wl 0.86
(0 end sealing compound 3.87 0.44
2. Coil coating Z40 O.S1
8s Fabric coating *« O.S6
4. Vinyl coating »-78 0.45
B. Paper coating SJ2 0.36
8. Automobile & light duty track coating
(a) prime coat 1.92 0.23
(b) topcoat "4 0.34
repair fi84 0.68
7. Metal furniture coating 8.00 0.36
8. Magnet wire coating l#l 0.30
9. Large appliance coating 184 0.34
TABLE 2
Compliance Schedule for Low Solvent Approach
Submit plans to Department October 9, 1979
Complete research and development on low solvent coatings April 9, 1980
Complete evaluation of product quality and commercial October 9, 1980
acceptance
Submit appropriate plan approval application October 9, 1980
Issue purchase orders for low solvent coatings January 9, 1981
Begin process modification April 9, 1981
Complete process modification and use of low solvent coatings January 9, 1982
Achieve final compliance April 9, 1982
TABLE 3
Compliance Schedule for Emission Control Equipment Approach
Submit final plans to Department October 9, 1979
Submit appropriate plan approval application October 9, 1979
Award contracts for emission control equipment or issue April 9, 1980
orders for purchase of component parts
Initiate on-site construction or begin installation of October 9, 1980
emission control or process equipment
Complete on-site construction or installation of emission January 9, 1981
control or process equipment
Achieve final compliance April 9, 1981
196
-------
y»«^ S172(a)(2)--Nonattainment SIP
V 4!\ \. UNITED STATES ENVlROWVffW^rl^S^^^^f^TAGENC^C
I ^N»/Z ° WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
vix
AUG 99 1Q7Q OFFICE OF
•T-» W O O IsJ/C/ AIR. NOISE. AMD RADIATION
SUBJECT: State Implementation Plans/Revised
Schedules for Submitting Reasonably Available
Control Technology Regulations for Stationary
Sources*-of VoTafrH^ Organic Compounds (VOC)
FROM: ,^DayJ^^^ft«wvns, Assistant Administrator
X* for Air, Noise, and Radiation
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
The Administrator's memorandum of February 24, 1978, published in
the Federal Register at 43 FR 21673 (May 19, 1978), stated that the 1979
plan submission for ozone nonattainment areas, ". . . must include, as a
minimum, legally enforceable regulations to reflect the application of
reasonably available control technology (RACT) to those sources for
which EPA has published a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) by January
1978, and provide for the adoption and submittal of additional legally
enforceable RACT regulations on an annual basis beginning in January
1980 for those CTGs that have been published by January of the preceding
year."
It is now apparent that the regulatory adoption process may be more
lengthy than first anticipated. Additional time may be necessary to
accommodate public, administrative, and legislative review. In order to
realistically address this problem, yet to continue meeting our respon-
sibilities to attain the ambient standards as expeditiously as practi-
cable, EPA is revising by six months the deadlines for submittal of'the
RACT regulations for the second set of CTGs. The SIPs-should now provide
for the adoption and submittal of additional legally enforceable regulations
by July 1, 1980 for the following source categories:
Factory Surface Coating of Flatwood Paneling
Petroleum Refinery Fugitive Emissions (Leaks)
Pharmaceutical Manufacture
Rubber Tire Manufacture
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Graphic Arts (Printing)
Dry Cleaning, Perch!oroethylene
Gasoline Tank Trucks, Leak Prevention
Petroleum Liquid Storage, Floating Roof Tanks
197
-------
In the immediate future, I will publish a Federal Register notice
announcing this policy change. I ask that you notify your States in
order to allow them to schedule their associated regulatory activities
in the most efficient manner possible.
cc: Marvin Duming
Joan Bernstein
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
198
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: -,Vf 11 I
suBjECT:darification for Final SIP Actions on Asphalt Regulations
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS (MD 15)
TODirector, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
On December 19, 1978, and March 6, 1979, guidance memoranda were
sent to the Regional Offices concerning criteria for determining acceptable
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) RACT regulations for cutback asphalt.
The example regulation in the first memorandum prohibited use of cutback
asphalt or emulsified asphalt containing solvent but provided certain
exceptions. The exceptions are: cold weather use; prime coat; stockpiling;
and demonstration of no VOC emissions from cutback. Both memoranda
pointed out that there might also be other unique problems for which
additional exemptions could be appropriate with adequate justification
such as applications of emulsified asphalt requiring the addition of
solvents or oils to improve the properties of the emulsion. I requested
that you advise our office of additional exemptions which the States
requested.
Now that most VOC SIP regulations have been submitted to EPA,
several remaining issues with cutback asphalt need clarification. The
following guidance is intended for your use as you finalize SIP approval/
disapproval actions and conditional approvals.
The approach recommended in the two previous memoranda was to
define an asphalt emulsion as a suspension of asphalt in water by means
of an emulsifying agent with no allowance for the addition of solvents
to the emulsion. The additional exemptions to the regulation were to be
the mechanism for allowing use of those emulsions containing solvent
where necessary. While most of the SIP submittals applying RACT to
asphalt operations have not addressed the acceptability of solvent in
emulsions, several States which have allowed solvent have not used the
mechanism 4 provided, but instead have allowed a maximum solvent content
in eSonl'sometimes up to 12 to 15 percent. "^mation we have
received on the subject of solvent content in emulsified aspha t does
not uppor? the allowance of a blanket solvent content for emulsified
*The solvent content is determined by ASTM distillation test D-244.
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
199
-------
allowed for specific uses or for specific grades of emulsified asphalt.
The following maximum solvent contents for specific emulsified asphalt
applications are based on ASTM, AASHTO, and State specifications and on
information recently received from the Asphalt Institute.
Use Max. Solvent Content
Seal coats in early spring or late
fall 3%
Chip seals when dusty or dirty
aggregate is used 3%
Mixing w/open graded aggregate that
is not well washed 8%
Mixing w/dense graded aggregate 12%
I wish to emphasize that these are maximum solvent contents and if
States are using emulsified asphalt with less solvent for these applications,
they should continue to do so. These are only the maximum solvent
contents that we feel current technology supports. Many emulsified
asphalt manufacturers are successfully using less solvent and achieving
the same acceptable results. The chemistry of emulsified asphalt and
the non-uniformity of the technology across the country prevents us from
specifying anything more than upper limits on solvent content. Lower
limits are certainly achievable in many States but must be determined on
a case-by-case basis.
Finally, in our contact with the emulsified asphalt industry we
find that many people are extremely apprehensive about defining an
emulsified asphalt as having no solvent. Should the exceptions which
allow emulsions containing solvent ever be removed from the regulation,
the industry might be unable to produce acceptable products for a number
of applications. An acceptable regulatory approach, therefore, will be
to allow defining emulsified asphalt as optionally containing solvent or
oils. The allowed solvent would be limited to the amounts specified
above (or lower if this can be negotiated) based on application. The
definition should be worded in such a way to clearly indicate that these
are the maximum solvent contents allowed and that they are allowed only
for the specific applications or grades of emulsified asphalt. All
other asphalt emulsions should not contain solvent. If States reject
this approach, as an alternative, we will accept blanket-type regulations
which allow maximum solvent contents in the range of 5 to 7 percent.
For those States who have submitted regulations with an unacceptable
blanket solvent content allowance, a conditional approval should be
qranted with time allowed to modify the regulations to follow the solvent
content guidance provided above or to lower the blanket solvent allowance
to 5 to 7 percent.
200
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Ouality Plannino and Standards
Research Trianale Park, North Carolina 27711
.DATE: NOV 15 1979
VOC Test Methods or Procedures
FROM Richard 6. Rhoads, Director^
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
T0 Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The Division of Stationary Source Enforcement (DSSE) has expressed
concern that in some instances the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions include test method regulatory language which is unenforceable
or totally lacking for the determination of compliance with the presumptive
norms cited in the control technique guideline (CTG) documents.
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize volatile organic
compound (VOC) test methods or procedures that should be included in the
SIP revisions to satisfy conditions of approval or otherwise obtain a
fully approved SIP.
EPA policy, as cited on Page 222 of the April 1978 edition of the
"Nonattainment Area Workshop Manual" and as reiterated in my memorandum
of July 10, 1978 to Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors,
states, in part, "Where technically feasible, the SIP revision must
include . . . specifically designated method(s) for each emission
limitation . . . ."
To assist the States in complying with this policy, where applicable,
the CTG documents cite test methods that can be used for determination
of compliance with the applicable emission limits. In addition, the
Emission Measurement Branch (EMB) of the Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (ESED) has published test procedures that are
applicable to source testing add-on control devices and for determining
halogenated organics from-stationary sources. State developed test
procedures may also be used if they are determined to be consistent with
those cited above.
The attached Table I (suggested by DSSE and reviewed by EMB)
includes a listing of the Group I CTG documents, the document numbers,
the applicable control options, the document citing test methods or
procedures, and where copies of the referenced test methods or procedures
can be obtained.
It is pointed out that Table I includes reference to several Group
II CTGs, such as "tank trucks" and "leaks from petroleum refinery
equipment." The test methods included in these CTGs provide means for
determining fugitive emission leaks from piping or equipment associated
with Stage I service stations, bulk plants, bulk terminals, petroleum
refineries, etc.
Regional Offices should work with their States to ensure that
enforceable test methods or procedures, such as those cited-in Table I
or their equivalent, are included in SIP revisions to satisfy conditions
EPAF.n.1 of approval or to otherwise obtain a full^approvable SIP.
201
-------
TABLE I
TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR GROUP I CT6S
Industry
Cans. Colls, Paper
Fabric, Automobiles
and Light-Duty Trucks
Metal Furniture
Magnet Wire
Coating
Large AppHcance
Coating
Bulk Terminals
q
Tank Trucks
CTG
Document Number
EPA-450/2-77-008
EPA-450/2-77-032
EPA-450/2-77-033
EPA-450/2-77-034
.EPA-450/2-77-026
EPA-450/2-77-051
Applicable
Control Options
LST1
Add-On2
LST1
Add-On2
Add-on2
LST1
1
LST
RCA,R,A,TOH
Maintenance
and repair
Document Citing
Test Method
CTG-Append1x A
"Measurement of
Volatile Organic
Compounds," EPA
450/2-78-041
CTG-pp. 5-1 to 5-5,
Appendix A; also
EPA 450/1-77-008
Same as above
(Cans, Colls, etc.)
Same as above
(Cans, Colls, etc.)
Same as above
(Cans, Coils, etc.)
CTG-pp 5-1 to 5-4,
Appendix A, also
EPA-450/2-77-008
CTG Appendix A
CTG, Appendix B
Document
May be
Ordered From
NTIS3
NTIS3
NTISJ
(Both
Documents)
NTIS*
NTIS'-
NTIS*
NTIS0
(Both
Documents)
NTIS3
NTIS3
-------
t-0
o
oo
Industry
Bulk Plants
Service Stations
Stage I
Fixed-Roof
Tanks
Petrol eutn
Refineries
1. Vacuum Producing
Systems, Waste-
water Separators,
and Process
Unit Turn-
arounds
2. Leaks from
Petroleum
Refinery Equip-
ment
CTG
Document Number
EPA-450/2-77-035
Design Criteria
Document (DCD)
EPA-450/2-77-036
EPA-450/2-77-025
EPA-450/2-78-036
Applicable
Control Options
Vapor Balance
System0
Vapor Balance
System
Internal ,
Floating Roof
Add-On2
Various
Equipment
Specifications
Inspection,
Monitoring and
Maintenance
Document Citing
Test Method
Equipment Inspec-
tion, CTG p. 6-3
Leak Tests - Same
as above (Tank)
Equipment Inspec-
tion, DCD pp. 3-6
Leak Tests - Same
as above
CTG p. 6-2
Same as above NTIS'
(Cans, Coils, etc.)
Document
May be
Ordered From
NT IS3
NTIS3
ESED-
NTIS3
CTG p. 6-2
CTG, Appendix B
NTIS-
NTIS"
-------
Industry
Cutback Asphalt
Degreaslng
CT6
Document Number
EPA-450/2-77-037
EPA-450/2-77-022
Applicable
Control Options
Water Emulsion
Solvent Content
Eaulpment/
Operating
Specifications
Carbon Adsorber
Document Citing
Test Method
Direct Observa-
tion by Inspector
ASTM Distillation
Test D-244
CTG-pp. 3-31, 3-33,
3-35, 7-1 to 7-7
Draft Test Method
Document
May be
Ordered From
ASTM
NTIS3
OAOPS
8
-------
Footnotes
: Low Solvent Technology
2Add-on: Incineration, Carbon Adsorbers, Refrigeration Units, etc.
30rder by Document No. from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (Nominal Fee Required)
4RCA,R,A,TO: Refrigeration-Compression-Absorption, Refrigeration,
Adsorption, Thermal Oxidizers
50rder from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Emission Standards and Engineering Division,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Document Title: Desl9^nteria
for Stage I Vapor Control Systems Gasoline Service Stations" November 1975
6Visual inspection except for leaks
7Visual inspection only
80rder from: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Test
SuDDort Section, MD-19, Emission Standards and Engineering Division,
Research Triangle Park', NC 27711. Method Title: "Dete^na ion of
Halogenated Organics from Stationary Sources" September 19, 1979
9These industries are included in the Group II CTGs
205
-------
Additional Materials
APTI Course 482
-------
APTI COURSE 482
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY GUIDELINE
DOCUMENTS
EPA-450/2-76-028 -
OAQPS No. 1.2-067
November 1976
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume I: Control Methods for Surface-Coating
Operations
EPA-450/2-77-008 -
OAQPS No. 1.2-073
May 1977
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper,
Fabrics, Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
EPA-450/2-77-022 -
OAQPS No. 1.2-079
November 1977
EPA-450/2-77-025 -
OAQPS No. 1.2-081
October 1977
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal
Cleaning
Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Waste water
Separators and Process Unit Turnarounds
EPA-450/2-77-026 -
OAQPS No. 1.2-D82
October, 1977
Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading
Terminals
EPA-450/2-77-032 -
OAQPS No. 1.2-086
December 1977
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
EPA-450/2-77-033 -
OAQPS No. 1.2-087
December 1977
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume IV: Surface Coating for Insulation of
Magnetic Wire
EPA-450/2-77-034 -
OAQPS No. 1.2-088
December 1977
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances
EPA-450/2-77-035 -
OAQPS No. 1.2-085
December 1977
EPA-450/2-77-036 -
OAQPS No. 1.2-089
December 1977
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline
Plants - Guideline Series
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum
Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks
209
-------
EPA-450/2-77-037 - Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Use of Cutback
OAQPS No. 1.2-090 Asphalt
December 1977
EPA-450/2-78-015 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
OAQPS No. 1.2-101 Sources - Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal
June 1978 Parts and Products
EPA-450/2-78-032 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
OAQPS No. 1.2-112 Sources - Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood
June 1978 Paneling
EPA-450/2-78-035 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of
OAQPS No. 1.2-110 Vegetable Oils
June 1978
EPA-450/2-78-036 - Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum
OAQPS No. 1.2-111 Refinery Equipment
June 1978
EPA-450/2-78-029 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of
OAQPS No. 1.2-105 Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products
December 1978
EPA-450/2-78-030 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of
OAQPS No. 1.2-106 Pneumatic Rubber Tires
December 1978
EPA-450/2-78-033 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
OAQPS No. 1.2-109 Sources - Volume VIII Graphic Arts - Rotogravure and Flexography
December 1978
EPA-450/2-78-047 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid
OAQPS No. 1.2-116 Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks
December 1978
EPA-450/2-78-050 - Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Perchloroethylene
OAQPS No. 1.2-117 Dry Cleaning Systems
December 1978
EPA-450/2-78-051 - Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank
OAQPS No. 1.2-119 Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems
December 1978
210
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA 450/2-81-012
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
APTI Course 482
Sources and Control of Volatile Organic Air Pollutants
Regulatory Documents
5. REPORT DATE
March 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
J. A. Jahnke, D. S. Beachler, G. T. Joseph, eds.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Northrop Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 12313
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
B 18A2C
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2374
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Manpower and Technical Information Branch
Air Pollution Training Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Regulatory Documents Manual
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-OANR-OAQPS
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer for this manual is R.E. Townsend, EPA-ERC, MD-17, RTF, NC 27711
16. ABSTRACT
The Regulatory Documents Handbook is to be used for the Air Pollution Training
Institute Course 482 "Sources and Control of Volatile Organic Air Pollutants". This
publication contains selected Federal Register Notices, Federal Register SIP
Revisions, EPA and State memos and a summary of the EPA Control Technique Guideline
Documents.
This publication is intended for use in conjunction with the Student Workbook
(EPA 450/2-81-011) and the Instructor's Guide (EPA 450/2-81-010) for APTI Course
482.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air pollution training
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
VOC regulations
Training Course
Regulatory Documents
13 B
5 I
68 A
18. DISTRIBUTION
Available from National Technical Informa-
tion Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd.
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
214
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
211
------- |