[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 131 (Monday, July 10, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35531-35535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16826]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OH21-1-6989; FRL-5255-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA is proposing approval of revisions to the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA) on March 15, 1993, and December 30, 1994. The USEPA's
proposal is based upon a revision request to satisfy the requirements
of the Clean Air Act, which was submitted by the State to the USEPA on
June 7, 1993, and February 17, 1995. The revisions concern Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-21, ``Carbon Monoxide, Ozone,
Hydrocarbon Air Quality Standards, and Related Emission Requirements,''
and this proposed action addresses volatile organic compound (VOC)
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for major sources not
covered by a control techniques guideline (CTG) located in the
Cleveland/Akron/Lorain and Cincinnati nonattainment areas. The USEPA
has evaluated the revisions to Rules 04 and 09, along with a letter
committing to publish Findings and Orders correcting deficiencies in
the rules, submitted by OEPA on June 21, 1995, and two permits to
install (PTI) which OEPA has committed to submit as SIP revisions.
USEPA proposes to approve the requested revisions, which establish
site-specific non-CTG VOC RACT regulations. The approval will not be
finalized until Ohio issues the completed Findings and Orders, and
allows public comment on them, and submits the permits to install as
SIP revisions. Subsequent to review of these Findings and Orders, USEPA
will take final action on the requested revisions through the letter
notice process. The effective date of this SIP revision will be the
date that the letter notice is issued.
DATES: Comments on this revision and on the proposed U.S.EPA action
must be received by August 9, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William L.
MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement
Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following address: United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-
17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and Office of Air and Radiation (OAR),
Docket and Information Center (Air Docket (6102) room M1500, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis Cain, Air Enforcement Branch,
Regulation Development Section (AE-17J), United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 15, 1990, amendments to the 1977 Clean Air Act (CAA)
were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C.
7401-7671q. Under the pre-amended CAA, ozone nonattainment areas were
required to adopt reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules
for sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. VOCs
contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. These
rules were required as part of an effort to achieve the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.
RACT, as defined in 40 CFR 51.100(o), means devices, systems
process modifications, or other apparatus or techniques that are
reasonably available taking into account (1) the necessity of imposing
such controls in order to attain and maintain a national ambient air
quality standard, (2) the social, environmental and economic impact of
such controls, and (3) alternative means of providing for attainment
and maintenance of such standard. The USEPA issued three sets of
control technique guidelines (CTGs) documents, establishing a
``presumptive norm'' for RACT for various categories of VOC sources.
Those sources not covered by a CTG were called non-CTG sources. The
USEPA determined that a given nonattainment area's SIP-approved
attainment date established which RACT rules the area needed to adopt
and implement. Under pre-amended section 172(a)(1), ozone nonattainment
areas were generally required to attain the ozone standard by December
31, 1982. Those areas that projected attainment by that date were
required to adopt RACT for sources covered by the Group I and II CTGs.
Those areas that sought an extension of the attainment date under
section 172(a)(2) to as late as December 31, 1987, were required to
adopt RACT for all CTG sources and for all major (i.e., having a
potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of VOC emissions) non-CTG
sources.
Section 182(b)(2) of the amended Act requires States to adopt RACT
rules for all areas designated nonattainment for ozone and classified
as moderate or above. There are three parts to the section 182(b)(2)
RACT requirement: (1) RACT for sources covered by an existing CTG,
i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990; (2) RACT for sources covered by a post-enactment
CTG; and (3) all major sources not covered by a CTG. The non-CTG
requirement includes unregulated emission units within a source if they
total more than 100 tons per year in the aggregate. Section 182(b)(2)
requires nonattainment areas that previously were exempt from RACT
requirements to ``catch up'' to those nonattainment areas that became
subject to those
[[Page 35532]]
requirements during an earlier period. In addition, it requires newly
designated ozone nonattainment areas to adopt RACT rules consistent
with those for previously designated nonattainment areas.
This proposed action addresses VOC RACT for site-specific non-CTG
sources located in the Cleveland/Akron/Lorain and Cincinnati
nonattainment areas. Non-CTG RACT for the other areas of Ohio
designated moderate or above, Toledo and Dayton-Springfield, has been
addressed in a separate rulemaking in the Federal Register on March 23,
1995 (60 FR 15235-15241) along with RACT for CTG sources.
The following is the USEPA's evaluation of the submitted revisions
to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-21 ``Carbon Monoxide,
Ozone, Hydrocarbon Air Quality Standards, and Related Emission
Requirements,'' including the following amendments: 3745-21-01,
Definitions, 3745-21-04, Attainment Dates and Compliance Time
Schedules, and 3745-21-09, Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Stationary Sources.
II. USEPA Evaluation and Action
In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, the USEPA must
evaluate the rule for consistency with the requirements of the Act and
USEPA regulations, as found in section 110 and Part D of the Act and 40
CFR part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans). A detailed analysis of the submittals and
discussion of the USEPA's basis for proposing approval is contained a
USEPA Technical Support Document (TSD) dated June 23, 1995.
This action addresses VOC regulations applying to non-CTG sources.
The USEPA finds that Ohio's non-CTG VOC RACT rules for sources located
in the Cleveland/Akron/Lorain and Cincinnati nonattainment areas are
approvable. These rules had previously been disapproved by USEPA in the
Federal Register for May 9, 1994 (59 FR 23796-23799) as a result of
deficiencies cited in the Federal Register on September 23, 1993 (58 FR
49458-49463). For four of the site-specific rules, approval is
contingent upon issuance by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) of Findings and Orders which correct deficiencies in the rules.
A rule establishing RACT for one additional company, Sprayon Products,
for which there is no current rule, will be contained in an additional
Finding and Order. In a June 21, 1995 letter to USEPA, OEPA has
committed to publish these Findings and Orders. Subsequent to review of
these Findings and Orders, USEPA will take final action on the
requested revisions through a letter notice to OEPA and the affected
sources. The effective date of the revisions will be the date that the
letter notice is issued. Interested parties wishing to comment on these
revisions or on USEPA approval by means of the letter notice must
submit written comments by August 9, 1995.
A discussion of these rules, contained in OAC 3745-21-09, follows.
(FF) Steelcraft Manufacturing Co., Cincinnati
The deficiency previously cited by USEPA (lack of sufficient
recordkeeping and reporting requirements) has been corrected by
subjecting this source to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
of paragraph (B)(3), previously approved by USEPA.
(GG) Chevron USA, Incorporated, Cincinnati Area
Recordkeeping requirements have been added to this rule to ensure
enforceability, thus correcting the deficiency previously cited by
USEPA.
(HH) Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Akron, Massillon Road
Recordkeeping requirements have been added to this rule to ensure
enforceability, thus correcting the deficiency previously cited by
USEPA.
(II) International Paper Co., Springdale
This source is an offset lithographic printer, a category for which
a draft CTG was published on December 12, 1992, although no final CTG
was published. A Finding and Order issued by OEPA will require that the
alcohol content in the fountain solution be no greater than 8.5 percent
by volume, and that the fountain be refrigerated to 60 deg.F, which
was determined to be RACT in the draft CTG. In addition, the rule
imposes limits on the VOC content of coatings and inks which were
determined to be the lowest available, based on correspondence between
the company and vendors of coatings and inks.
(JJ) Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Akron, Tech Way Drive
USEPA concerns about a provision allowing the use of an alternative
method and/or procedure to Goodyear Method E-826 (Revision 1, 1983) for
determining residual monomer content have been addressed by inclusion
in the rule of language requiring that this alternative method and/or
procedure be approved by the USEPA as a SIP revision. Another USEPA-
cited deficiency has been corrected by adding requirements for daily
analyses and recordkeeping on residual monomer content in polymer blend
tanks.
(KK) Morton Thiokol, Cincinnati
This rule requires the company to control VOC emissions from its
methyltin production processes through use of a VOC recovery system
which achieves at least 70 percent control efficiency. Control
efficiency must be calculated weekly, and failure to achieve adequate
control efficiency must be reported. In addition, the railcar unloading
process must be a closed-loop system which uses compressed VOC for
unloading, without any venting into the atmosphere. Previously cited
deficiencies have been corrected through addition to the rule of a
requirement that determination of VOC usage and recovery be performed
on a daily basis to calculate a weekly average for purposes of
compliance determination, and by an explanation by the company and Ohio
of the closed-loop unloading process.
(LL) Lubrizol Corporation, Painesville (Cleveland Area)
Recordkeeping requirements have been added to paragraph (3)(a) of
this rule to ensure enforceability, addressing a deficiency previously
cited by USEPA.
(MM) PPG Industries, Inc., Cleveland
A deficiency previously cited by USEPA (lack of sufficient
recordkeeping and reporting requirements) has been corrected by
subjecting this source to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
of paragraph (B)(4). In addition, a definition of the term ``control
system'' has been added to paragraph 3745-21-01(Q), eliminating another
previously-cited deficiency.
(NN) Midwest Mica, Cleveland
Midwest Mica creates electrical insulation products using mica
chips held together by resins. The rule requires emissions from each of
the coating or laminating lines to be vented to a control device
achieving 98 percent destruction of VOCs. However, the rule lacks a
requirement for capture efficiency. A Finding and Order issued by OEPA
will correct this deficiency by requiring 81 percent total control
efficiency (taking into account both capture and destruction) and
referencing USEPA test methods for determining capture efficiency.
Lines which employ less than five tons of VOCs per year are exempted
from this requirement, but the company must keep monthly records
documenting emissions from these lines, and report
[[Page 35533]]
emission levels which exceed five tons per year. Recordkeeping
requirements for the control device are covered by paragraph (B)(3).
(OO) Armco Steel Company, Middletown (Cincinnati Area)
RACT for this facility involves the use of rolling oil, rust
preventative oil, pre-lube oil and anti-galling material with the
lowest available VOC content. USEPA cited deficiencies in the rule as a
result of the company's failure to demonstrate that the VOC content of
rolling oil and anti-galling material used is the lowest available. For
anti-galling material, this deficiency has been corrected through the
use a water-based material. A Finding will state a new limit on pounds
of VOC per gallon of anti-galling material. For rolling oil, this
deficiency has been addressed through provision of correspondence with
vendors stating that the oil in use has the lowest VOC content
available. The Finding will correct the limit on VOC content per gallon
for rolling oil and rust preventative oil, and provide a VOC content
limit for pre-lube oil. Previous limits in the rule were based on an
incorrect application of ASTM method D2369-81 to the oils in use.
Actual emissions of VOCs per gallon of oil applied are a small fraction
of the total VOC content, since most of the oil is recovered and
recycled. Additional USEPA concerns about the lack of recordkeeping and
reporting requirements have been addressed by making Rule 09(OO)
subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in paragraph
(B)(3).
(PP) Formica Corporation, Cincinnati
The deficiency previously cited by USEPA (lack of sufficient
recordkeeping requirements) has been corrected by subjecting this
source to the requirements of paragraph (B)(3).
(QQ) DayGlo Color Corporation, Cleveland
This rule requires the company to use a vacuum system consisting of
a vacuum pump and condenser as a filtration system which separates
methanol from solid dye. Each mixing vessel larger than 400 gallons
must be completely covered at all times, except when the vessel is
empty or being emptied, and except for small openings for the mixer
shaft and for adding materials to the vessel.
(SS) Ritrama Duramark, Cleveland
Ritrama Duramark operates two lines which apply coatings to a
continuous web. Line 1 is a vinyl casting line and line 2 applies
adhesives to paper. Line 2 is covered by the paper coating rule--09(F).
The vinyl film casting line, covered by (SS), applies a vinyl organosol
to a paper substrate in order to create a vinyl casting. The vinyl is
then dried in an oven which is vented to an incinerator. The rule
requires 100 percent capture efficiency and 98 percent destruction of
VOCs from this line.
(TT) ICI Americas, Perry
The rule requires that emissions from stage 1 and stage 2 reactor
vent streams be vented to a flare which meets the requirement of OAC
3745-21-09(DD)(10)(d), and the diked area of the carbon disulfide tanks
must be completely covered by styrofoam sheets in order to reduce VOC
emissions. Control on distillation vents was determined to be
economically infeasible.
(YY) PMC Specialties Group, Cincinnati
PMC manufactures methyl anthranilate (MA), anthranilic acid (AA);
saccharin, and o-carboalkoxybenzenefulfoanamide (OCBS). The rule
requires that emissions from the MA and AA process reactor vent streams
be vented to an enclosed combustion device that is designed and
operated to achieve at least a 95 percent reduction in VOC emissions.
Under this rule, the OCBS manufacturing process is required to limit
its emissions to 12 pounds of VOC per 6,000 pounds of product, which
results in a 90 percent reduction in VOC emissions. Controls on
emissions from the saccharin manufacturing process were evaluated by
OEPA and found to be technically or economically infeasible.
(ZZ) Firestone Synthetic Rubber & Latex Company, Akron
All reactor process vent streams must be vented to an enclosed
combustion device achieving 98 percent reduction, or to a flare which
meets the requirements of paragraph (DD)(10)(d). An exemption is made
for process vent streams vented to a flare constructed prior to March
21, 1993, which is maintained in accordance with design specifications.
(AAA) Reilly Industries, Cleveland
Reilly refines crude coal tar, producing ``front end'' naphthalene
oil products, creosote oil, heavy (enamel) oil, electrode binder pitch,
pellet pitch, roofing tar, and road tar. The facility's major emissions
sources include: storage tanks for crude product; eight distillation
stills (in two ``batteries'' of four each--one battery for continuous
processing, the other for batch processing), and storage tanks for
refined products. The distillation stills are covered by OAC 3745-21-07
(G), which requires 85 percent destruction of VOCs emissions. USEPA
concerns about the enforceability of paragraph 07 (G) will be addressed
in a Finding and Order which affirms that the stills are covered by
this rule, and which clarifies the test methods to be used to measure
VOCs. The rule requires 90 percent control on each storage tank larger
than 40,000 gallons which contains crude coal tar, refined tar or front
end oil; this rule does not cover tanks containing creosote oil and
solution oil. However, the low volatility of these products leads to
low emissions, eliminating the need for add-on controls. Storage tanks
with controls built before July 1, 1992 are exempt from the 90 percent
control requirement, but must be operated and maintained in accordance
with design specifications.
(BBB) BF Goodrich, Akron Chemical Plant
The rule requires that emissions from the agerite resin D process
be vented to a control device which achieves 90 percent control
efficiency; emissions from the superlite (trademark) and diphenylamine-
based antioxidants process must be vented to control devices achieving
95 percent control efficiency.
The schedules for compliance with each of these rules are contained
in OAC 3745-21-04(C)(40-51,53,54,59-62). Rules (C)(42), (C)(43),
(C)(44), (C)(45) and (C)(47) were approved in the March 23, 1995
Federal Register (60 FR 15235-15241). The remaining schedules are
timely, and are approved.
In addition to the non-CTG VOC RACT rules contained in OAC 3745-21-
09, OEPA has committed to submit a Finding and Order for Sprayon
Products, in Bedford Heights, which establishes a generic VOC RACT
limit of 81 percent reduction from the 1990 baseline. This limit will
be based on VOC emissions per can filled, thereby allowing changes in
production not to affect the percent control limit. Operations which
already meet a federally-enforceable RACT requirement, or which have
combined annual emissions of less than five tons per year will be
exempt from the baseline and the 81 percent reduction requirement. The
facility will be allowed one year to petition OEPA and USEPA for an
alternative control plan if it can be demonstrated that the 81 percent
control requirement is not technically or economically feasible.
[[Page 35534]]
Along with its review of Ohio's non-CTG VOC RACT rules, USEPA
reviewed RACT studies for sources which are subject to the non-CTG RACT
requirement but for which Ohio has not submitted a non-CTG rule. Ohio
determined that no rule was necessary for these sources because no
controls beyond those already federally enforceable were technically or
economically feasible. USEPA concurs with this judgement. The
justification for not including a rule for these sources follows.
Excello Specialty Company, Cleveland
RACT for this facility is defined as the operation of control
devices with 85 percent overall control efficiency on its coating
lines, which is required by a permit to install (PTI).
Hilton Davis Company, Cincinnati
The company utilizes in-line condensers, vacuum pumps, and
scrubbers that have process functions as well as emissions control
functions. In addition, emissions at the company's wastewater treatment
plant are controlled by a thermal oxidizer which is required by a PTI.
Additional controls were evaluated by OEPA and found to be technically
or economically infeasible.
Monsanto Company, Addyston
Thermal incineration, catalytic incineration and carbon adsorption
of emissions from various processes at this source were evaluated by
OEPA and found to be technically or economically infeasible.
Proctor & Gamble, Ivorydale (Cincinnati Area)
Existing controls have process functions or serve primarily as
particulate matter control. Additional controls of VOC emissions from
this source were evaluated by OEPA and found to be technically or
economically infeasible.
General Electric Company, Euclid Specialty Coating, Cleveland
The facility utilizes condensers that have process functions as
well as emissions control functions. Additional controls at this source
were evaluated by OEPA and found to be technically or economically
infeasible.
BF Goodrich Company, Avon Lake
Add-on controls were evaluated at this source were evaluated by
OEPA and found to be technically or economically infeasible.
III. Proposed Rulemaking Action and Solicitation of Public Comment
The USEPA has evaluated the State's submittal for consistency with
the Act, USEPA regulations, and USEPA policy. The USEPA has determined
that the submitted non-CTG rules meet the Act's requirements, and with
this action proposes approval, under section 110(k)(3), of the
following rules:
OAC 3745-21-01: (Q); (T).
OAC 3745-21-04: (C)(40); (C)(41); (C)(46); (C)(48); (C)(49);
(C)(50); (C)(51); (C)(53); (C)(54); (C)(59); (C)(60); (C)(61); (C)(62).
OAC 3745-21-09: (FF); (GG); (HH); (II); (JJ); (KK); (LL); (MM);
(NN); (OO); (PP); (QQ); (SS); (TT); (YY); (ZZ); (AAA); (BBB).
Approval of OAC 3745-21-09 (II), (NN), (OO) and (AAA) is contingent
upon approval of Findings and Orders outlined in a June 21, 1995 letter
from OEPA to USEPA. Subsequent to USEPA review, the Findings and Orders
for International Paper, Midwest Mica, Armco (AK) Steel, Reilly
Industries, and Sprayon Products, along with permits to install for
Excello Specialty Company and Hilton Davis Company, will be approved
into the Ohio ozone SIP through a letter notice.
Public comments are solicited on USEPA'S proposed rulemaking
action. Public comments received by August 9, 1995, will be considered
in the development of USEPA's final rulemaking action. Notice of final
action on the requested revisions will be provided by letter to OEPA
and the affected sources, and a subsequent document of such action will
be published in the Federal Register.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.)
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the Act
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA must undertake
various actions in association with proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to the private sector, or to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of the state implementation plan or plan
revisions approved in this action, the State has elected to adopt the
program provided for under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. The rules
and commitments being approved in this action may bind State, local and
tribal governments to perform certain actions and also may ultimately
lead to the private sector being required to perform certain duties. To
the extent that the rules and commitments being approved by this action
will impose or lead to the imposition of any mandate upon the State,
local or tribal governments either as the owner or operator of a source
or as a regulator, or would impose or lead to the imposition of any
mandate upon the private sector, EPA's action will impose no new
requirements; such sources are already subject to these requirements
under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
The USEPA has also determined that this action does not include a
mandate that may result in estimated costs or $100 million or more to
State, local, or tribal
[[Page 35535]]
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q).
Dated: June 28, 1995.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-16826 Filed 7-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P