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

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