[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17746-17748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8607]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
