Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Virginia: Non-CTG Reasonably Available Control Technology for Philip Morris, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA36-1-6922; FRL-5185-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Commonwealth of Virginia: Non-CTG Reasonably Available Control

Technology for Philip Morris, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing conditional approval of a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of

Virginia. This revision establishes and requires the use of reasonably

available control technology (RACT) to control volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from the Philip Morris, Inc, (Philip Morris),

Manufacturing Center, in Richmond, Virginia, which is part of the

Richmond ozone nonattainment area. The SIP revision requires Philip

Morris to meet RACT by installing thermal incinerators on process units

that use ethanol-based flavorings. An exemption from this requirement

is provided if the company eliminates use of ethanol-based flavorings

and there is no net increase in VOC emissions. The intended effect of

this action is to propose approval of the SIP revision on the condition

that deficiencies in the exemption requirements are corrected and

submitted within one year of this approval. If the State fails to do

so, this approval will convert to a disapproval. This action is being

taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Marcia L. Spink, Associate

Director, Air Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, 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;

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,

Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Henry, (215) 597-0545.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 28, 1994, the Commonwealth of

Virginia submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The SIP revision consists of a Consent Order and Agreement (the Order)

between the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) of the

Commonwealth of Virginia and Philip Morris, Inc.. The Order was signed

by Philip Morris' Senior Vice President of Manufacturing on June 14,

1994 and the Director of DEQ on June 27, 1994. The Order became

effective on June 27, 1994.

In the Federal Register on November 24, 1987, EPA's Proposed Post-

1987 Policy for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide stated that air quality

monitors revealed continued exceedances of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and carbon monoxide in Virginia and

that a SIP call would be issued. (See 52 FR 45044). On May 26, 1988,

the Regional Administrator of EPA Region III notified the Governor of

Virginia that the Commonwealth's SIP was substantially inadequate to

achieve the ozone and carbon monoxide NAAQS for certain areas in

Virginia, including Henrico County in the Richmond-Petersburg

metropolitan statistical area, and therefore required a SIP revision.

As prescribed by the SIP call, Virginia is required to develop

reasonably available control technology (RACT) regulations in all its

nonattainment areas for all VOC sources with the potential to emit 100

tons per year (TPY) or more for which EPA has not issued a Control

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document. Such sources are known as non-CTG

sources. One of the non-CTG sources identified as requiring RACT is

Philip Morris, Inc.'s Manufacturing Center in Richmond, Virginia. The

City of Richmond is located in the Richmond area, which is currently

designated nonattainment for ozone. Therefore, Virginia is submitting

this Order as a SIP revision to fulfill part of its SIP call

obligation.

In addition, this SIP revision serves to fulfill one of the RACT

fix-up requirements of the Virginia SIP required by section

182(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act as amended by the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549. Areas classified as marginal

nonattainment areas for ozone pursuant to section 181(a) of the Clean

Air Act, as amended, are required to meet the RACT fix-up requirements.

Under section 182(a)(2)(A), a state is required to submit, within six

months of such classification, a SIP revision to correct requirements

in (or add requirements to) the plan concerning RACT, as interpreted in

guidance issued by the Administrator under section 108 of the Act

before November 15, 1990.

Summary of SIP Revision

The Philip Morris Manufacturing Center processes, flavors and

blends various types of tobacco for the production of cigarettes. The

operations include moisture addition, preflavoring, blending, cutting,

flavoring and cigarette-making. VOC emissions result primarily from the

application and evaporation of flavorings, particularly ethanol-based

flavorings. Total uncontrolled stack and fugitive VOC emissions are

estimated to be 1259 tons per year, based on 1990 throughput data.

To accommodate the number and diversity of stack emissions at the

Manufacturing Center, RACT was determined by grouping exhaust streams

in various combinations and evaluating the feasibility and cost of

installing control technology on the combined exhaust streams. Virginia

has determined that the only grouping amenable to control technology is

the combination of exhausts from the unit processes associated with

ethanol-based flavorings. These combined waste streams comprise 48% of

the uncontrolled stack emissions from the Manufacturing Center and are

made up of emissions from burley casing cylinders #1 and #2, aftercut

flavor cylinders #1 through #8, and aftercut dryers #1 through #4.

The Order establishes RACT for these units as the installation and

operation of two (2) 10,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)

thermal oxidation units having a VOC destruction efficiency of at least

95% on a mass basis. The thermal oxidation units are required to be

operated at the three-hour average minimum temperature that

demonstrates 95% destruction efficiency as determined by performance

testing. Thermal oxidation units must be interlocked with process

equipment and exhaust fans such that tobacco cannot be processed and

VOC laden exhaust air cannot flow to the incineration units until the

minimum temperature is achieved. In addition, the Order requires that a

negative pressure be maintained in the exhaust system as demonstrated

by continuous pressure monitors and reported as three-hour

[[Page 17747]] rolling averages. Based on 1990 throughput data, stack

emissions from the process lines using ethanol-based flavorings and

aftercut dryers will be reduced from 606 tons/year to 30 tons per year.

The Order allows an exemption from meeting these control

requirements if Philip Morris replaces the existing ethanol-based

flavorings with non-ethanol-based flavorings, provided that the change

does not result in a net increase in VOC emissions.

Virginia has determined that RACT for all other tobacco processing

operations shall be the use of low-VOC, non-ethanol based flavorings.

For more information on Virginia's RACT determination and the

specific provisions of the Order, please refer to the Technical Support

Document (TSD) prepared for this notice. A copy of the TSD is

available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the

Addresses section of this notice.

EPA's review of this material indicates that the requirements to

install, operate and maintain thermal oxidation units on the burley

case flavoring cylinders, the aftercut flavoring cylinders and the

aftercut dryers, and the use of low VOC flavorings on other tobacco

processes established by the Consent Order and Agreement between the

Virginia DEQ and Philip Morris, Inc. constitutes RACT for the

facility's VOC emitting processes. EPA has also determined that the

exemption from meeting the requirements of add-on controls through the

use of non-ethanol based flavorings does not impose enforceable

conditions that would ensure that there shall be no net increase in

emissions above the level established by RACT.

EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the non-CTG RACT SIP

revision for the Philip Morris Manufacturing Center pending corrections

to the exemption provided in the Order that allows the use of

reformulated flavorings in lieu of operating emission control

technology. RACT has been defined for burley casing cylinders #1 and

#2, aftercut flavor cylinders #1 through #8, and aftercut dryers #1

through #4 as 95% destruction efficiency of VOCs on a mass basis over a

three hour averaging period. Alternatively, the exemption from

operating add-on controls through the use of reformulated flavorings

requires that there shall be no net increase in VOC emissions. The

Order is deficient in that it does not require the facility to monitor

or report emissions from the affected units when non-ethanol-based

flavorings are used and the facility is exempt from operating the

thermal incinerators. The Order also fails to require a baseline to be

established for the purpose of measuring net increases or decreases in

emissions. Consequently, the requirement that there be no net increase

in emissions from the substitution of reformulated flavorings for add-

on control is unenforceable and does not impose the same level of

control that would be imposed by the Order as RACT without the

exemption.

In order to correct this deficiency, Virginia must amend and

resubmit the Order within one year of this conditional approval in one

of the following ways: (1) eliminate the exemption to use non-ethanol-

based flavorings in lieu of add-on controls; (2) restrict the

applicability of the exemption to the use of non-VOC based flavorings;

or (3) impose monitoring and reporting requirements sufficient to

determine net increases or decreases in emissions on a mass basis

relative to the emissions that would have occurred using add-on

controls on an average not to exceed thirty days. If Virginia fails to

revise and resubmit the Order within one year, the conditional approval

will convert to a disapproval.

Proposed Action

Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to

conditionally approve the Virginia SIP revision for the Philip Morris

Manufacturing Center, which was submitted on September 28, 1994.

Virginia must amend the Consent Order and Agreement with Philip Morris,

Inc, according to one of the three options described in this notice and

resubmit the Order to EPA. If Virginia fails to do so within one year

of the final conditional approval, the approval will convert to a

disapproval. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed

in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be

considered before taking final action. Interested parties may

participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written

comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this notice.

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.

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.

Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA 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 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).

If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it

will not affect any existing state requirements applicable to small

entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect

its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal

does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies

that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because it does not remove

existing requirements nor does it substitute a new federal requirement.

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

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 OMB has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the SIP

revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA

regulations in 40 CFR part 51. [[Page 17748]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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

Dated: March 22, 1995.

Stanley Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 95-8607 Filed 4-6-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P