46304

- Federal Register 

## / Vol. 45, No. ‘134 

## I Thursday, July 10, 1980 

## / Rules and Regulations

submitted to EPA as proposed plan revisions on July 3, 1978.

EPA reviewed the proposedplan revisions to assess how much, ifany, PSI) increment would be consumed, This evaluation showed that the new emission lhnits would cause a violation ofthe PSI) increments around some

sources. EPA requested the Mississippi agency

## to revise the submitted emission limits for those specific areas where violations ofthe PSI) increment were predicted. Mississippi adopted the necessary changes and submitted them
to EPA’ on September 13, 1979. The affected sources and their emission limits are as follows:

so, Sourc/Pcrmit No, EmissIon Umit (l.bsiHr)

Mobil O Eop 2840—00006,...............,....._., 282,0 Amends Hess Eorp12840-0000l...........,.._ 78.4 Amerada Hess CorpfO44G-00001: Flare No. 1

........_._............. 20.8 Flare No.2

...._..,..._........._..,.__....,__..._....,.._ 15.5 Hess PipclineI2ll4Q—00021

.___ 242.4 American Quasar Pelroleum/2840-00024.........., 28.2 Shell Oil CompanyI2S0000027

, 27.6 Golly OIl CompanyIlOO-00012.............L....,., 0,8 Shell 01 Comparry/lllOO—00014.......,, 4.1 Picrrsrmont Petroleum Co2420-0007

........._ 89.1 Shell Oil Co18860—00005-002,.........,..,._..,.,,,...., 125.8 Pruolt & Hu9heaf0400-000l8,............ 6a4 GollyOtCoFo440000ll 1a1 GollyOtCoI0440—0O0l2 1B Gelty 01 Co1044000014,..........,.................,.......... 17.4 65.0 Gonlirmer,lal Oil Eo10440—01109

....,.,.....,.......,...,,..,.. 68.6 Shell OIl CoI0860CO00O0l._,,..........,......._ 169.0

EPA has determined that these emissionlimitations are adequate to protect both the PSI) increments and the National AmbientAir Quality Stdndards for sulfur oxides. Therefore, the revisions are approved.

UnderExecutive Order 12044, EPA is required to judge whether aregulation is “8ignificant” and, therefore, subject to the procedural requirements ofthe Order or whether it may follow other specialized developmentprocedures, EPA labels these other regulations “specialized”, I have reviewed this regulation and determined that it is a specializedregulationnot subject to the requirements ofExecutive Order 12044, (Section 110 ofthe Clean AirAct (42 U.S.C. 7410)).

Dated: June 30, 1980. Douglas M. CostIe,
Administralar.

Part 52 ofChapter 1, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
SubpartZ—Mlsslssippl

In § 52.1270, paragraph (a) is amended by adding subparagraph (12) as follows:
§ 52,1270 Identification ofplan.

* * * * * (o) The plan revisions listed below

were submilted on the dates specified.

(12) RevisedregulationAFC S—I, Section 4.2(b), for emissions ofsulfur oxides from the incineration ofgas streams containing hydrogen sulfide, submitted on July 3, 1978; and permits containing limits on sulfur oxide emissions from individual flares, submitted on-September 13, 1979, by the Mississippi Bureau ofPollution Control [see Federal Register ofJuly 10, 1980).

WR Dec. 80-20825 Filed 7-9-Oor &45 am]

81WHO CODE 6560-Ol-M

4OCFRPart52-

[FRL 1533-4]

Nevada State Implementation Plan Revision: Nevada Revised Statutes and the Emergency Episode Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes fmal action to approve and, where appropriate, disapprove or take no action on changes
to the Nevada Revised Statutes and the Nevada Emergency Episode Plan. These changes were submittedby the Governor ofNevada forincorporation into the Nevada State Implementation. Plan (SW). The intended effect ofthis action is to correct deficiencies in the SI.?’

EFFECTiVE DATE: August 11, 1980.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

- Louise P. Giersch, Director, Air and Hazardous Materials JJivisipn, EnvironmentaiProtection Agency, 215 Fremont Street, Sari FranciscO, California 94105. Attn: Douglas Grano, (415) 558—2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 28, 1980 (45 ER 13132), EPA published a NoiThe ofProposed Rulemaking forrevisions to the Nevada Revised Statutes and the Nevada Emergency Episode Plan submitted on December 29, 1978, by the Governor of

-

‘ Nevada for inclusion in the Nevada SIP, As discussed in the February 28 Notice, the revisions have been reviewed and found to be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 and EPA policy with certain exceptions. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking provided a 60-day public commentperiod. No comments

were received. Therefore, this notice takes final action to approve the revisions contained in the December 29, 1978 submittal, and incorporate them into the Nevada SIP, except as discussed below.

EPA is disapproving Section 6.1.5 of the Emergency Episode Plan since It does not meet the requirements of40 CFR 51.16 and Appendix L. The new rub provides that the termination ofan episode is left to the discretion of the control officer and not to specified criteria. Therefore, the rule is disapproved.

No action is being taken on Section 6.5.2.1 ofthe Emergency Episode Plan. Action will be taken in a separate Federal Register notice.

No action is being taken on 445.477, 445.481, 445.526, and 445.578 ofthe Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Identical rules were submitted on September 10, 1975 and final notion to approve them was taken on January 24. 1978. The December29, 1978 submittal lit identical to the previously approved rules and therefore, no action Is necessary.

No action is being taken on NRS 445.493, and 445.610—445.710. Action ivill be taken in separate Federal Register notices.

EPAis approving NRS 445.500, 445.511,445,518, and 445.521, concernIng variance procedures. However, it should be noted that each variance must satisfy the requirements ofSection 110 ofthe Clean AirAct and Part 51 in order to be approved as a revision to the SIP,

EPA is approving NRS 445,451, Slate Environmental Commission, Howevor, It should be noted that the requirements of Section 128, State Boards, ofthe Clean AirAct are not completely satisfied.

EPA Is approving the deletion of Section 8.5, 17(1—4, 8, 7), 27, and 38 of Senate Bill 25 submitted on January 20, 1972 since these rules are now obsoboto. (Section 110 and 3tYl(a) ofthe Clean AirAct

as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7410 and 7001(a)))

Dated: June 30, 1980. Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.

Subpart DD ofPart 52 ofChapter!, Title 40, ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:
Subpart DD—Nevada

1, Section 52,1470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(14) as follows:

§ 52.1470 IdentIfIcatIon ofplan.

* * * * *

(a) * * (14) Amendments to the Nevada Revised Statutes and the Nevada State Emergency Episode Plan submitted on December 29, 1978, by the Governor,

(i) Nevada State Emergency Episode Plan Sections: 6.1.4, 8.1.5, 8.5.2.2; Tables: 6.1, 6.2 (Stages 1, 2, arid 3), 6.3; Ak’Federal Register 

## / Vol. 45, No. 134 

## / Thursday, July 10, 1980 

## 1 Rules and Regulations 4385

PollutionEpisode Notice; Episode Communication Checklist.

(ii] Nevada Revised Statutes Policy Declarations; Deflnitions: 445.401. 445.406,445.411,445.416,445.421,445.424, 445.427,445.431.445.441.445.446; State Environmental Commission: 445.451, 445.456,445.461,445.466,445.471,445.472, 445.473,445.474,445.476; Local Hearing Boards: 445.485; EnforcementProvisions: 445.491,445.496.445.497, 445.498, 445.499. 445.501; Variances: 445.506, 445.511, 445.516,445.521; Hearings, Orders Respecting Violations: 445.529; Local Air Pollution Control Programs: 445.546, 445.551. 445.556, 445.561, 445.566; Miscellaneous Provisions: 445.571, 445.581,443.585, 445.596, 445.598; Penalties: 445.601; Deletions: Senate Bill 275, Sections 8,5, 17(1—4, 6, 7], 27,38.

* * * * *

2. Section 52.1477 is added to read as follows:
§ 52.1477 Nevada airpollution emergency plan.

Section 6.1.5 ofthe Emergency Episode Plan submitted onDecember29, 1978 is disapproved since termination of the episode is left to the discretion ofthe Control Officer andnot specified criteria and it does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 5t16 and Appendix L. The old rule 6.1.5 submitted onJanuary 28,1972 is retained,

D 8O-m351 Filed 7-9-5c S45 m eiwo cooa ssso-oi-u

40 CFR Part 65

[FRL 1508-31

State and Federal AdmTnistrative Enforcement of tmplementation Plan Requirements After Statutory Deadlines; Delayed Compliance Order for N.L Industries, Inc., Sayrevilte, N.J.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPAherebyissues an order under Section 113(d)(4) ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseg. (“the Act”) requiring N.L IndustrIes, Inc. (“NL”] to bring the emissions from its SayreviUe, NewJersey facility into compliance with the NewJersey State ImplementationPlanregulationsfor the control ofparticulate matter.

This regulationis a part ofthe federally-approved New Jersey Implementation Plan. The date for final compliance established by the Order is May 31, 1980. Compliance by Ni. Industries with the Orderwill insulate it from furtherfederal enforcement action under Section 113 ofthe Act and from citizen enforcement actionunder Section 304 ofthe Act forviolations of the regulations coveredby the Order during the period the order is in effect.

DATES: This rule takes effect on July10, 1980.

ADDRESSES The administrative Order and supporting material are available forpublic inspection and copying during normal business hours at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region U, General EnforcementBranch, Room 437, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel P. Moulthrop, Attorney. General EnforcamerrtBranch, Enforcement Division, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007 (212) 264—1196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION On Monday, April 21, 1980, the Regional Administrator ofEPA’s Region II published in the Federal Register, 45 FR
26902, a notice setting forth the provisions ofa proposed administrative Orderto N.L Industries, Inc. (“NI.”) pursuantto Section 113(d) ofthe Act. The notice solicitedpublic comment and offered the opportunity to request a public hearing on the proposed Order.

N1 Industries operates a titanium dioxide manufacturing plant at Sayreville, NewJersey. The Order addresses particulate emissions from digestion tanks 19 and 20 which are subject to N.J.A.C. 727-6.2. This regulation limits the emission of particulate matter and is part ofthe federally-approved State Implementation Plan. The Order requires final compliance with the regulationby May 31, 1980, and the

source has consented to its terms.

This DCO is issued in order forNI. La implement anew digestion process which would eliminate excess particulate emissions at digestion tanks 19 and 20. EPA has determined that the company’s proposed handphase digestion (“LPD”) process constitutes a “new means ofemission limitation”

Within the meaning ofSection 113(d)(4) ofthe Actand that all other requirements ofSection 113(d)(4) have been met.

One comment was received onMay 21. 1980 fromthe Department ofthe Public Advocate ofthe State ofNew Jersey written by Mr. Michael Bryce, Assistant Deputy Public Advocate. Mr. Bryce made three comments, each of which are addressedbelow.

Mr. Bryce noted that itwouldhave beenmore appropriate for the Delayed Compliance Order to reflect the final compliance date for the NLplant as set out in the separate Consent Decree negotiatedbetween the company and the U.S. governmentin resolution of additional violations.

Mr. Bryce is correct thatthere is a relationship between the DCO and the Consent Decree, indeed, the Consent Decree was noticed forpublic comment

on the Federal Registerpage immediately following the notice forthis DCO (45 FR 20904). The DCO, however

covers only theperiod ofnon compliance extending up until the completion and evaluation ofNL”s prototype LiquidPhase Digestion system. As noted, above, EPA considers this a new means ofemission control eligible forissuance ofaDCO under 113(d)(4) ofthe Clean AirAct. The Consent Decree, by contrast, addresses the period ofnon.cainpliance afterMay 31,1988 when the prototype will have been completed and tested. After completion ofthe prototype, expanded

use ofthe LPD systemwouldno longer constitute anew means ofemission control. Consequently, itwouldbe inappropriate for a DCO issuedpursuant to 113(d)(4) to reflect a compliance date beyond the earliesttime atwhich the prototypeLPD system could be completed and evaluated.

Mr. Bryce, inparagraph 2 ofhis letter, posed a number ofspecific questions: (a) What is the size ofthe prototype LPD process coveredby theDCC)?; (tb) why will the extension ofthe LPD process to the balance ofNL’s plant (addressedin the ConsentDecree) not take.place until September. 1981?; and (c) is there a technical basis forthis delay?Mr. Bryce also observed that the history ofthis

case argues against excessivelylengthy time schedules, andhe furtherasserts that the publichas notbeen. advised of the compliance dates in the related ConsentDecree.

As indicatedabove, the Consent Decree was the subject ofa separate Fedora] Registernotice appearing on the
page following the notice forthis IJCO. The Consent Decree sets forth the capacity ofthe prototype LPD system as 35-40% ofNL’s total digesterload. Since the new systemis technically complex and extremely costly, itwas impracticable to build aprototype facility large enough to handle the plant’s entire load, before the system couldbe evaluated on a smaller scale. This JJCO represents the most expeditious schedule for completion of the prototype fadility the Consent Decree similarlyrepresents the most expeditious schedule for the balance of the plant’s digestors.

Finally, Mr. Bryce expresses his opinion that violations ofeitherthe DCO or the Consent Decree shouldbe dealt with expeditiously andwithout furthertime concessions. EPA will, of