[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53242-53245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27124]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA-5029a, FRL-5904-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; VOC RACT for Phillip Morris, Hercules, Virginia Power 
Station, and the Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving six State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. These revisions establish 
and require volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) on six major sources located in Virginia. The 
intended effect of this action is to approve source-specific plan 
approvals and Consent Agreements that establish the above-mentioned 
RACT requirements in accordance with the Clean Air Act (the Act).

DATES: This action is effective November 28, 1997 unless notice is 
received on or before October 29, 1997 that adverse or critical 
comments will be submitted. If the effective date is delayed, timely 
notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Air, Radiation, 
and Toxics Division, Mailcode 3AT21, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available 
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air, 
Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; 
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and the 
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, 
Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Peck, (215) 566-2165, at the 
EPA Region III address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 9, 1996, August 8, 16, 19, 23, 
1996, and March 26, 1997, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted formal 
revisions to its SIP. These revisions consist of plan approvals and 
Consent Agreements, signed by the companies and the Virginia Department 
of Environmental Quality, to establish and impose source-specific VOC 
RACT requirements for major sources of VOC. Today's rulemaking proposes 
to approve the source-specific VOC RACT requirements for six companies. 
All of the sources are located in the Richmond moderate ozone 
nonattainment area.

I. Background

    Under the pre-amended Clean Air Act (i.e., the Act prior to the 
1990 Amendments), ozone nonattainment areas were required to adopt RACT 
rules for VOC sources. EPA issued three sets of control technique 
guideline documents (CTGs), establishing a ``presumptive norm'' for 
RACT for various categories of VOC sources. The Richmond, Virginia area 
was designated nonattainment under the pre-amended Act and was required 
to adopt RACT for all CTG categories as well as non-CTG VOC sources 
with a potential to emit 100 tons per year (TPY) or more. Under the 
1990 amendments to the Act, amended sections 172(c)(1) and 182(a)(2), 
required the Richmond, Virginia nonattainment area to correct its RACT 
requirements in effect prior to enactment of the 1990 amendments. 
Virginia submitted those RACT corrections as SIP revisions on May 10, 
1991 and June 20, 1991. Among the regulations in that SIP revision, was 
a provision (Rule 120-04-0407) establishing the legal basis for 
imposing RACT on all individual major VOC sources subject to RACT in 
the Northern Virginia and Richmond nonattainment areas not covered by 
an existing state adopted VOC control regulation. The RACT correction 
SIP was approved by EPA on March 31, 1994 (See 59 FR 15117). To 
implement Rule 120-04-0407, the Commonwealth must submit an enforceable 
RACT determination for all major VOC sources not otherwise controlled 
under existing VOC RACT regulations of the SIP.
    Sections 182(b)(2) (A), (B) and (C) of the Act require moderate and 
above areas to adopt standards for all sources covered by any CTG 
document issued by the Administrator after 1990 and before the area is 
required to attain the standard; all sources covered by any CTG before 
the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments; and all major sources 
of VOC not subject to a CTG. In addition, areas newly designated under 
the 1990 amendments as ozone nonattainment areas are required to adopt 
RACT rules consistent with those previously designated nonattainment. 
This provision of the Act makes nonattainment areas that were 
previously exempt from RACT requirements ``catch up'' to requirements 
during the earlier period, and therefore, is known as the RACT catch-up 
requirement. Because Rule 120-04-0407 imposed RACT on all major VOC 
sources in the Northern Virginia and Richmond nonattainment areas on an 
individual basis, this rule partially satisfied the RACT catch-up 
requirement. On November 6, 1992, Virginia submitted a SIP revision 
expanding the geographic boundaries of the VOC emission control areas 
to coincide with the revised boundaries of the Richmond and Northern 
Virginia ozone nonattainment areas resulting from the 1990 amendments. 
This SIP was approved by EPA on March 12, 1997 (59 FR 52701). To 
satisfy the RACT correction and catch-up requirements under sections 
182(a)(2) and 182(b)(2)

[[Page 53243]]

(A), (B) and (C), and implement Rule 120-04-0407, Virginia has 
submitted source specific VOC RACT determinations for the following six 
companies in the Richmond, Virginia ozone nonattainment area:
    (1) Philip Morris-Blended Leaf--2301 Everett Street, Richmond;
    (2) Philip Morris-Park 500 Facility--Chesterfield County;
    (3) Philip Morris-Tobacco Manufacturing Center--3601 Commerce Road, 
Richmond;
    (4) Virginia Electric and Power Station--Chesterfield County;
    (5) Hercules Incorporated, Aqualon Division--Hopewell; and
    (6) Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The details of the RACT requirements for the sources can be found 
in the docket and accompanying technical support document (TSD). Below 
is a summary of the facility type and the applicable RACT requirements 
for each source. Each SIP revision consists of a Consent Agreement 
signed by the source and the Virginia Department of Environmental 
Quality. The Consent Agreements are enforceable documents which include 
a description of the RACT technologies, control efficiencies, operating 
parameters, monitoring and reporting requirements. For further details 
on the sources' processes and how RACT was determined, refer to the TSD 
associated with this rulemaking. EPA is approving revisions to the 
Virginia SIP pertaining to the determination of RACT for six major 
sources of VOC. This action is being taken under section 110 of the 
Act.

1. Philip Morris--Blended Leaf, Richmond

    Philip Morris--Blended Leaf is a tobacco processing facility that 
has potential VOC emissions greater than 100 TPY. Tobacco by-products 
from other Philip Morris facilities are combined to form a continuous 
tobacco sheet at the Blended Leaf Plant. These by-products are combined 
with dry and liquid low-VOC flavorings, and mixed into a slurry. The 
slurry is dried in a natural gas-fired dryer, cut, and packed into 
hogsheads for shipment. There are three drying lines each consisting of 
two natural gas-fired dryers. The Plant operates 24 hours each day, 
seven days each week, and 50 weeks per year. Based on 1991 throughput 
data, the total uncontrolled stack VOC emissions from the facility were 
estimated to be 238.4 tons per year.
    RACT as prescribed in the Consent Agreement, Registration Number 
50080, dated February 27, 1996 is determined to be no controls as 
Virginia determined that add-on controls were not economically feasible 
or cost effective. The Consent Agreement does require the continued use 
of low-VOC flavorings as well as record keeping and reporting 
requirements.

2. Philip Morris--Park 500, Chesterfield

    Philip Morris--Park 500 is a tobacco processing facility that has 
potential VOC emissions greater than 100 TPY. The tobacco processing 
facility consists of two separate, distinct facilities which are 
located on adjoining property: the Reconstituted Leaf (R/L) Plant and 
the Bermuda Hundred Facility. At the R/L Plant, all VOC emissions are 
generated primarily from the tobacco drying processes and from the raw 
materials blending area. The uncontrolled stack VOC emissions from the 
R/L Plant are estimated to be 143 tons per year. At the Bermuda Hundred 
Facility, all VOC emissions are generated primarily from the tobacco 
drying processes and from the application of final flavoring to the 
tobacco. The uncontrolled stack VOC emissions from the Bermuda Hundred 
Facility are estimated to be 236.4 tons per year.
    RACT as prescribed in the Consent Agreement, Registration Number 
50722, dated March 26, 1997 is determined to be no controls as Virginia 
determined that add-on controls were not economically infeasible or 
cost-effective.

3. Philip Morris, Tobacco Manufacturing Center, Richmond

    Philip Morris, Incorporated is a cigarette manufacturing center 
that has potential VOC emissions greater than 100 TPY. RACT as 
prescribed in the Consent Agreement, Registration Number 50076, dated 
July 12, 1996 requires, among other provisions, that the VOC emissions 
from the flavor cylinders where high-VOC-emitting flavorings are 
applied and the aftercut dryers in Process Lines #1 and #2 shall be 
controlled by a thermal oxidation unit(s) having a destruction 
efficiency of at least 95% on a mass basis. Each thermal oxidization 
unit shall be equipped with a continuous temperature monitor, automatic 
control dampers which prevent the flow of VOC laden process exhaust air 
to each unit until the minimum temperature is attained, and a pressure 
gauge in the duct prior to the oxidation units) to continuously monitor 
and insure that a negative pressure is being maintained in the exhaust 
system. Data from the continuous monitoring devices shall be recorded 
as one-minute readings and reduced to 3-hour averages on a rolling 
basis. A minimum temperature requirement will be established using EPA 
Reference Method 25 within 180 days of initial startup of the thermal 
oxidation units.
    If Philip Morris desires to reformulate any flavorings associated 
with the flavor cylinders and the aftercut dryers in Process Lines #1 
and #2, the respective equipment in which the reformulated flavorings 
are implemented will be exempt from the thermal oxidation unit(s) 
provided the following conditions are met:
    (1) Emissions resulting from any such change in formulation must be 
verified by stack sampling using appropriate EPA test methods and 
material balance.
    (2) On a daily basis, Philip Morris shall track production and 
flavoring throughputs. Philip Morris must calculate the emissions, in 
pounds per day, emanating through the stack and the emissions that 
would have occurred on January 1, 1993 prior to the reformulation with 
the affected equipment being exhausted to the thermal oxidation 
unit(s). Philip Morris must compare the results of these two equations. 
Emissions from the reformulated flavoring must always be less than the 
emissions which would have been emanating had the reformulation had not 
occurred and the affected equipment were exhausted to the thermal 
oxidation unit(s).
    Philip Morris shall maintain records of all operating parameters 
necessary to demonstrate compliance. Pre-RACT facility-wide 
uncontrolled emissions were calculated at 1250 TPY. Post-RACT facility-
wide emissions are 684 TPY.

4. Virginia Power--Chesterfield Station, Chesterfield

    Virginia Power--Chesterfield Station is an electric utility that 
has potential VOC emissions greater than 100 TPY.
    RACT as prescribed in the Consent Agreement, Registration Number 
50396, dated May 30, 1996 requires, among other provisions, that the 
VOC emissions from boilers 3, 4, 5, and 6 be good combustion practices. 
Compliance shall be demonstrated by Implementation of a Work Planning 
and Tracking System (WATS). Virginia Power shall maintain records of 
operation, malfunctions, continuous monitoring and all completed 
scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, with the exception of minor 
repairs initiated and performed by individual employees in the conduct 
of their routine duties. No additional controls were determined to be 
economically feasible or cost-effective. Both pre-RACT and post-

[[Page 53244]]

 RACT annual VOC emissions calculate to 183.6 TPY.

5. Hercules, Incorporated--Aqualon Division, Hopewell

    Hercules, Incorporated--Aqualon Division is a synthetic organic 
chemical manufacturing facility that has potential VOC emissions 
greater than 100 TPY. RACT as prescribed in the Consent Agreement, 
Registration Number 50363, dated July 12, 1996 is as follows:
    1. VOC emissions from the Cloacal Process area shall be controlled 
by solvent recovery and process scrubbers having an overall control 
efficiency of at least 96% on a mass basis, respectively, calculated 
monthly as a six-month rolling average. VOC flow from the Cloacal 
Process area shall be measured and the totalized flow recorded for each 
batch.
    2. VOC emissions from the Ethyl cellulose (E.C.) Process area shall 
be controlled by solvent recovery and process scrubbers having an 
overall control efficiency of at least 90% on a mass basis, 
respectively, calculated monthly as a six-month rolling average.
    3. VOC emissions from the Carboxymethyl cellulose (CBC) Process 
area shall be controlled by solvent recovery and process scrubbers 
having an overall control efficiency of at least 98% on a mass basis, 
respectively, calculated monthly as a six-month rolling average. For 
the CBC area, VOC still output shall be continuously measured and the 
totalized flow recorded once per shift.
    4. VOC emissions from the Nitrosyl Process area shall be controlled 
by solvent recovery and process scrubbers having an overall control 
efficiency of at least 98% on a mass basis, respectively, calculated 
monthly as a six-month rolling average. For the Nitrosyl area, VOC 
still output shall be continuously measured and the totalized flow 
recorded once per shift.
    5. VOC emissions from the Monochloroacetic Acid (MCA) Process area 
and the Technical Facility shall be controlled by solvent recovery and 
process scrubbers. Each area, the MCA Process area and the Technical 
Facility, shall not exceed 15 tons of VOCs per year.
    Compliance from the Cloacal, E.C., CBC, and Nitrosyl process areas 
shall be demonstrated by specific equations designated in the Consent 
Agreement. Compliance for the MCA Process area and the Technical 
Facility require record keeping and reporting. Pre-RACT uncontrolled 
VOC emissions from this facility were calculated to be 246,743 TPY. 
Post-RACT controlled VOC emissions from this facility calculate to 5474 
TPY.

6. Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, Hopewell

    Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility has potential VOC 
emissions greater than 100 TPY.
    RACT as prescribed in the Consent Agreement, Registration Number 
50735, dated May 30, 1996 requires, among other provisions, that the 
VOC emissions from the Grit Chambers/Parshall Flume shall be controlled 
by a cover and vent. Total post-RACT emissions calculate to 225.6 TPY.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving all of the provisions in the plan approvals and 
Consent Agreements, for the six sources discussed above, submitted by 
the Commonwealth of Virginia as SIP revisions. All the Consent 
Agreements were effective on the date of signature by both signatory 
parties. The Consent Agreements do not contain expiration dates.
    EPA is approving this SIP revision without prior proposal because 
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates 
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be 
effective November 28, 1997 unless, by October 29, 1997, adverse or 
critical comments are received.
    If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before 
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a 
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this 
action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do 
so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective on November 28, 1997. If 
adverse comments are received that do not pertain to all documents 
subject to this rulemaking action, those documents not affected by the 
adverse comments will be finalized in the manner described here. Only 
those documents that receive adverse comments will be withdrawn.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
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, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the Commonwealth is already imposing. Therefore, 
because the federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, 
the EPA certifies 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 CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis 
would constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of 
state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions 
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 
U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact settlement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that

[[Page 53245]]

may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

D. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 15, 1997. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Regional Administrator of this 
final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes 
of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition 
for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the 
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to approve VOC RACT 
determinations for six individual sources in Virginia as a revisions to 
the Commonwealth's SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 26, 1997.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart VV--Virginia

    2. Section 52.2420 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(120 ) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (120) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted on April 
9, 1996, August 8, 16, 19, 23, 1996, and March 26, 1997 by the Virginia 
Department of Environmental Quality regarding non-CTG VOC RACT 
requirements for six sources:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letters submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental 
Quality transmitting source-specific VOC RACT determinations in the 
form of consent agreements on the following dates: April 9, 1996, 
August 8, 16, 19, 23, 1996, and March 26, 1997.
    (B) Consent agreements:
    (1) Philip Morris--Blended Leaf, City of Richmond, VA, Consent 
Agreement Registration No. 50080, effective on February 27, 1996.
    (2) Philip Morris--Park 500, Chesterfield County, VA, Consent 
Agreement Registration No. 50722, effective on March 26, 1997.
    (3) Philip Morris Tobacco Manufacturing Center, City of Richmond, 
VA, Consent Agreement Registration No. 50076, effective on July 12, 
1996.
    (4) Virginia Power--Chesterfield Station, Chesterfield County, VA, 
Consent Agreement Registration No. 50396, effective on May 30, 1996.
    (5) Hercules Incorporated--Aqualon Division, City of Hopewell, VA, 
Consent Agreement Registration No. 50363, effective on July 12, 1996.
    (6) Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, City of 
Hopewell, VA, Consent Agreement Registration No. 50735, effective on 
May 30, 1996.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Technical Support Documents submitted as part of the RACT 
determinations in paragraph (c)(120) (i) of this section by the 
Commonwealth of Virginia on April 9, 1996, August 8, 16, 19, 23, 1996, 
and March 26, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-27124 Filed 10-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P