Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

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