+(,121/,1(

Citation: 45 Fed. Reg. 46384 1980 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Thu Jul 26 12:30:37 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
46384 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. -134 / Thursday, July 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

submitted to EPA as proposed plan

revisions on July 3, 1978.

EPA reviewed the proposed plan

revisions to assess how much, if any,

PSD increment would be consumed.

This evaluation showed that the new

emission limits would cause a violation

of the PSD increments around some

sources. EPA requested the Mississippi

agency to revise the submitted emission

limits for those specific areas where

violations of the PSD 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:

S,so

Source/Permit No. Emission Umit

(Lbs./Hr)

Mobil Oil Corp 284 -00006 282.0

Amerada Hess Corp/2840-00001 .......... 78.4

Amerada Hess Corp/0440-00001: lare No. 1 ..... .20.8

Flare No. 2 . .............. .. 15.5

Hess Pipeline/2840-00021 ................ 242.4

American Quasar Petroeum/2840-0024. 28.2

Shell Oi Company/2500-00027 .......... _ 27.6

Getty Oil Company/1300-00012... ......... 0.8

Shell Oil Company/1300-00014................... 4.1

Pierremont Petroleum Co/.2420-0007...... 89.1

Shell Oil Co/0860-O0005-002........... 125.8

Pruett & Hughes/0400-00018 62.4

Getty 01 Co/0440-00l.. ti 2.1

Gelty Oil 13/0440-00012............

Getty Oil Co/0440-00014........... . 17.4

Crystal Oil Co/1 720-00043 .............. 65.0

Continental Oil Co/0440-0009 58.6

Shell Oil C/0860-00005-01..._..._... 169.0

EPA has determined that these

emission limitations are adequate to

protect both the PSD increments and the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

for sulfur oxides. Therefore, the

revisions are approved.

Under Executive Order 12044, EPA is

required to judge whether a regulation is "significant" and, therefore, subject to

the procedural requirements of the

Order or whether it may follow other

specialized development procedures.

EPA labels these other regulations "specialized". I have reviewed this

regulation and determined that it is a

specialized regulation not subject to the

requirements of Executive Order 12044.

(Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

7410)).

Dated: June 30, 1980.

Douglas M. Costle,

Administrator.

Part 52 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

Subpart Z-Mississippi

In § 52.1270, paragraph (c) is amended

by adding subparagraph (12) as follows:

§ 52.1270 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) The plan revisions listed below

were submitted on the dates specified.

(12) Revised regulation APC S-1,

Section 4.2(b), for emissions of sulfur

oxides from the incineration of gas

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 of Pollution Control

(see Federal Register of July 10, 1980).

iFR Dec. 80-20625 Filed 7-9-80; 845 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-01-M

40 CFR Part 52

[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 final 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 submitted by the

Governor of Nevada for incorporation

into the Nevada State Implementation.

Plan (SIP). The intended effect of this

action is to correct deficiencies in the

SIP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1980.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Louise P. Giersch, Director, Air and

Hazardous Materials Division,

Environmental-Protection Agency, 215

Fremont Street, San Francisco,

California 94105. Attn: Douglas Grano,

(415) 556-2938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On February 28, 1980 (45 FR 13132), EPA

published a Notfce of Proposed

Rulemaking for revisions 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 comment period. 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 of 40

CFR 51.16 and Appendix L. The new rule

provides that the termination of an

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 of the 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 445,576 of the

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).

Identical rules were submitted on

September 10, 1975 and final action to

approve them was taken on January 24,

1978. The December 29,1978 submittal Is

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 will

be taken in separate Federal Register

notices.

EPA is approving NRS 445.500,

445.511, 445.516, and 445.521, concerning

variance procedures. However, it should

be noted that each variance must satisfy

the requirements of Section 110 of the

Clean Air Act and Part 51 in order to be

approved as a revision to the SIP.

EPA is approving NRS 445.451, State

Environmental Commission. However, It

should be noted that the requirements of

Section 128, State Boards, of the Clean

Air Act are not completely satisfied.

EPA is approving the deletion of

Section 8.5, 17(1-4, 6, 7), 27, and 38 of

Senate Bill 275 submitted on January 20,

1972 since these rules are now obsolete.

(Section 110 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act

as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 7410 and 7601(a)))

Dated: June 30. 1980.

Douglas M. Costle,

Administrator.

Subpart DD of Part 52 of Chapter 1,

Title 40, of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

Subpart DD-Nevada

1. Section 52.1470 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(14) as follows:

§52.1470 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) * **

(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, 6.1.5, 6.5.2.2: Tables:

6.1, 6.2 (Stages 1, 2, and 3), 6.3; Air

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 46384 1980
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 134 / Thursday, July 10, 1980 / Rules and Regulations

Pollution Episode Notice; Episode

Communication Checklist.

(ii) Nevada Revised Statutes Policy

Declarations; Definitions: 445.401,

445.406,445.411A, 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: 445.486; Enforcement Provisions:

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,

445.581,445.586,445.596,445.598;

Penalties: 445.601; Deletions: Senate Bill

275, Sections 8.5,17(1-4, 6,7). 27,38. * * *k * *

2. Section 52.1477 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.1477 Nevada air pollution emergency plan.

Section 6.1.5 of the Emergency

Episode Plan submitted on December 29,

1978 is disapproved since termination of

the episode is left to the discretion of the

Control Officer and not specified criteria

and it does not meet the requirements of

40 CFR 51.16 and Appendix L The old

rule 6.1.5 submitted on January 28,1972

is retained.

[FR Doc -o -351 Filed 7-9-0 8:4s am]

BILUING CODE 6560-01-M

40 CFR Part 65

[FRL 1508-31

State and Federal Administrative

Enforcement of Implementation Plan

Requirements After Statutory

Deadlines; Delayed Compliance Order

for N.L Industries, Inc., Sayreville, N.J.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY. EPA hereby issues an order

under Section 113(d)(4] of the Clean Air

Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

("the Act') requiring N.L. Industries, Inc.

("NL"] to bring the emissions from its

Sayreville, New Jersey facility into

compliance with the New Jersey State

Implementation Plan regulations for the

control of particulate matter.

This regulation is a part of the

federally-approved New Jersey

Implementation Plan. The date for final

compliance established by the Order is

May 31,1980. Compliance by N.L.

Industries with the Order will insulate it

from further federal enforcement action

under Section 113 of the Act and from

citizen enforcement action under

Section 304 of the Act for violations of

the regulations covered by the Order

during the period the order is in effect.

DATES- This rule takes effect on July 10,

1980.

ADDRESSES- The administrative Order

and supporting material are available

for public inspection and copying during

normal business hours at: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 11, General Enforcement Branch,

Room 437,26 Federal Plaza. New York,

New York 10007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Samuel P. Moulthrop, Attorney, General

Enforcement Branch, Enforcement

Division, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,

New York 10007 (212) 264-1196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

Monday, April 21,1980, the Regional

Administrator of EPA's Region I

published in the Federal Register, 45 FR

26902, a notice setting forth the

provisions of a proposed administrative

Order to N.L. Industries, Inc. ("NL")

pursuant to Section 113(d) of the AcL

The notice solicited public comment and

offered the opportunity to request a

-public hearing on the proposed Order.

N11 Industries operates a titanium

dioxide manufacturing plant at

Sayreville, New Jersey. The Order

addresses particulate emissions from

digestion tanks 19 and 20 which are

subject to N.J.A.C. 7.27-6.2. This

regulation limits the emission of

particulate matter and is part of the

federally-approved State

Implementation Plan. The Order

requires final compliance with the

regulation by May 31,1980, and the

source has consented to its terms.

This DCO is issued in order for NL to

implement a new digestion process

which would eliminate excess

particulate emissions at digestion tanks

19 and 20. EPA has determined that the

company's proposed hand phase

digestion CPD") process constitutes a "new means of emission limitation"

within the meaning of Section 113(d)(4)

of the Act and that all other

requirements of Section 113d) (4) have

been met.

One comment was received on May

21,1980 from the Department of the

Public Advocate of the State of New

Jersey written by Mr. Michael Bryce,

Assistant Deputy Public Advocate. Mr.

Bryce made three comments, each of

which are addressed below.

Mr. Bryce noted that it would have

been more appropriate for the Delayed

Compliance Order to reflect the final

compliance date for the NL plant as set

out in the separate Consent Decree

negotiated between the company and

the US. government in resolution of

additional violations.

Mr. Bryce is correct that there is a

relationship between the DCO and the

Consent Decree, indeed, the Consent

Decree was noticed for public comment

on the Federal Register page

immediately following the notice for this

DCO (45 FR 28904). The DCO, however,

covers only the period of noncompliance extending up until the

completion and evaluation of NL's

prototype Liquid Phase Digestion

system. As noted, above, EPA considers

this a new means of emission control

eligible for issuance of a DCO under

113(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act. The

Consent Decree, by contrast, addresses

the period of non-compliance after May

31,1980 when the prototype will have

been completed and tested. After

completion of the prototype, expanded

use of the LPD system would no longer

constitute a new means of emission

control. Consequently, it would be

inappropriate for a DCO issued pursuant

to 113(d)(4) to reflect a compliance date

beyond the earliest time at which the

prototype LPD system could be

completed and evaluated.

Mr. Bryce, in paragraph 2 of his letter,

posed a number of specific questions: (a)

What is the size of the prototype LPD

process covered by the DCO?; (b) why

will the extension of the LPD process to

the balance of Ni's plant (addressed in

the Consent Decree) not take.place until

September. 1981?; and (c) is there a

technical basis for this delay? Mr. Bryce

also observed that the history of this

case argues against excessively lengthy

time schedules, and he further asserts

that the public has not been advised of

the compliance dates in the related

Consent Decree.

As indicated above, the Consent

Decree was the subject of a separate

Federal Register notice appearing on the

page following the notice for this DCO.

The Consent Decree sets forth the

capacity of the prototype LPD system as

35-40% of Ni's total digestor load. Since

the new system is technically complex

and extremely costly, it was

impracticable to build a prototype

facility large enough to handle the

plant's entire load, before the system

could be evaluated on a smaller scale.

This DCO represents the most

expeditious schedule for completion of

the prototype facility; the Consent

Decree similarly represents the most

expeditious schedule for the balance of

the plant's digestors.

Finally, Mr. Bryce expresses his

opinion that violations of either the

DCO or the Consent Decree should be

dealt with expeditiously and without

further time concessions. EPA will, of

46385

HeinOnline -- 45 Fed. Reg. 46385 1980