WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, JR. 

STATE OF TEXAS 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 

August 21, 1989 

GOVERNOR 

Mr. Robert E. Layton, Jr., P.E. 

Regional Administrator 

~ [g ~= ~---~- ~ -. -~ ' .. _, 

u. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

Dear Mr. Layton: 

SEP 05 1989 

,; 6T-AN 

Enclosed are proposed revisions to the Texas State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for inhalable particulate matter (PM10 > adopted by the 

Texas Air Control Board (TACB) on June 16, 1989, including 

revisions to the TACB General Rules and Regulation I. 

Certification that a public hearing was conducted prior to 

adoption, as required by 40 CFR 51.102(a), is also enclosed, as 

well as a copy of the public hearing record and Board Order 89-03. 

These proposed revisions apply to El Paso County, the only Texas 

area designated by the EPA as Group I. Because of the 

international nature of the pollution problem and the need for 

additional studies in El Paso and Juarez, Mexico, EPA is not 

requiring a complete Texas SIP submittal at this time. However, we 

are required to submit this interim Texas SIP to satisfy certain 

statutory requirements. The proposed Texas SIP includes an 

analysis of results from completed studies, a PM10 emissions 

inventory, commitments for a long-term study to characterize the 

nature of PM10 transport into the El Paso area, and certain rule 

revisions. 

I look forward to your expeditious review and approval of these 

proposed revisions to the Texas SIP. 

Sincerely, 

William P. Clements, J 

Governor 

WPC:SWB/rb/srf 

Enclosures 

cc: Mr. Dick Whit-t:-inryt-.nn, P.E., Chairman, TACB 

Mr. All<?n Eli Bell, Ex<?'"ll+ i·JE' UirE'ctor, TACB 

,.t 
EXAS AIR CONTROL BOAR 

6330 HWY. 290 EAST, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78723, 512/451-5711 

DICK WHITIINGTON, P .E. 

CHAIRMAN 

BOB G. BAILEY 

VICE CHAIRMAN 

ALLEN ELI BELL 

EXECliTNE DIRECTOR 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF TRAVIS 

} 

} 

JOHN L. BLAIR 

MARCUS M. KEY, M.D. 

aiTO R. KUNZE, Ph.D., P.E. 

HUBERT OXFORD, III 

WILLIAM H. QUORTRUP 

C. H. RIVERS 

MARY ANNE WY A TI 

Pursuant to Section 2.14 of the Texas Clean Air Act, 

Article 4477~5, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, this is to 

certify that the enclosed are true and correct copies of 

revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan adopted on 

June 16, 1989, pursuant to 40 CPR, Section 51.104. Prior 

to the adoption of these revisions, a public hearing was 

held pursuant to 40 CPR, Section 51.102(a) and notice of 

this hearing was given which conformed to the requirements 

of 40 CPR, Section 51.102(d). I am the custodian of the 

records of the Board. 

To certify which, witness my hand and the seal of the 

Texas Air Control Board, this the 27th day of July 

1989. 

(SEAL) 

Allen 

Execu 

Bell 

Director 
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD 

REGULATION I 

(31 TAC CHAPTER 111) 

CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION 

FROM VISIBLE EMcrSSIONS 

AND PARTICULATE MATTER 

REVISED JUNE 16, 1989 
Preface to Revised Regulation I 

This version of Regulation I incorporates changes adopted by the 

Texas Air Control Board on June 16, 1989 and effective on 

July 18, 1989. Pages are dated so that revised pages can be 

identified. In addition, numerous minor changes have been made 

to reconcile stylistic differences between the Texas Air Control 

Board version of these rules and the version published by the 

Texas Register and which appears in the Texas Administrative 

Code. 

Please contact the Texas Air Control Board regional office that 

serves your area if you have any questions about your compliance 

status under these rules. Information on permit requirements for 

construction of new facilities or for modification of existing 

facilities may be obtained from the Permits Division of the Texas 

Air Control Board, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin, Texas 78723, 

(512) 451-5711. If you have questions about the interpretation 

of these rules or suggestions for changes, please call the 

Compliance Division or the Control Strategy Division at the same 

address and telephone number. 
REGULATION I 

VISIBLE EMISSIONS AND PARTICULATE MATTER 

Rule Number Title Page 

OUTDOOR BURNING 

§111.101 General Prohibition------------------------------- 1 

§111.103 Exceptions to Prohibition of Outdoor Burning------ 1 

§111.105 General Requirements for Allowable Outdoor 

Burning------------------------------------------- 6 

§111.107 Responsibility for Consequences of Outdoor 

Burning------------------------------------------- 7 

VISIBLE EMISSIONS 

§111.111 Requirements for Specified Sources---------------- 8 

§111.113 Alternate Opacity Limitations--------------------- 13 

INCINERATION 

§111.121 Single-Chamber Incinerators----------------------- 14 

MATERIALS HANDLING, CONSTRUCTION, ROADS, 

STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PARKING LOTS 

§111.141 Geographic Areas of Application and Date of 

Compliance---------------------------------------- 15 

§111.143 Materials Handling-------------------------------- 15 

§111.145 Construction and Demolition----------------------- 16 

§111.147 Roads, Streets, and Alleys------------------------ 17 

§111.149 Parking Lots-------------------------------------- 18 

i 
REGULATION I 

VISIBLE EMISSIONS AND PARTICULATE MATTER 

Rule Number Title Page 

EMISSIONS LIMITS ON NONAGRICULTURAL PROCESSES 

§111.151 Allowable Emissions Limits------------------------ 19 

§111.153 Emissions Limits for Steam Generators------------- 22 

§111.155 Ground Level Concentrations----------------------- 23 

EMISSIONS LIMITS ON AGRICULTURAL PROCESSES 

§111.171 Emissions Limits Based on Process Weight 

Method-------------------------------------------- 23 

§111.173 Emissions Limits Based on Alternate Method-------- 24 

§111.175 Exemptions---------------------------------------- 24 

EXEMPTIONS FOR PORTABLE OR TRANSIENT OPERATIONS 

§111.181 Exemption Policy---------------------------------- 26 

§111.183 Requirements for Exemption------------------------ 26 

ii 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

OUTDOOR BURNING 

§111.101. General Prohibition. 

Page 1 of 28 

No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit any outdoor 

burning within the State of Texas, except as provided by §111.103 

of this title (relating to Exceptions to Prohibition of Outdoor 

Burning) . Outdoor disposal or deposition of any material capable 

of igniting spontaneously shall not be allowed without written 

permission of the Executive Director of the Texas Air Control 

Board. 

§111.103. Exceptions to Prohibition of Outdoor Burning. 

(a) Outdoor burning may be authorized by written permission 

from the Executive Director of the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) 

if there is no practical alternative and if the burning will not 

cause or contribute to a violation of any federal primary or 

secondary ambient air standard. The Executive Director may also 

specify procedures or methods to control or abate emissions from 

outdoor burning authorized pursuant to this rule by requiring 

that trenches be dug to align with prevailing winds, specifying 

time for burning, and other related factors. Authorizations to 

burn may be revoked by the Executive Director at any time if the 

burning is causing nuisance conditions, is not conducted in 

accordance with the specified conditions, violates any provision 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 2 of 28 

of an applicable permit, or causes a violation of any air quality 

standard. 

(b) Outdoor burning shall also be authorized in each of the 

following instances: 

(1) Training of fire-fighting personnel when requested 

by certified mail and when authorized in writing by the local air 

pollution control agency or local health unit. In the absence of 

such local entities, the nearest TACB Regional Office shall be 

notified. The burning shall be authorized if notice of denial 

from the local air pollution control agency, local health unit, 

or TACB Regional Office is not received within ten days of the 

request. In cases of repetitive, routine fire-fighting training, 

a yearly written notification, with 24-hour advance telephone 

notice for each training session is sufficient. Authorization to 

conduct outdoor burning under this provision may be revoked by 

the Executive Director if this provision is used to circumvent 

§111.101 of this title (relating to General Prohibition) and 

§111.103 of this title (relating to Exceptions to Prohibition of 

Outdoor Burning.) 

(2) Domestic waste burning at a property designed for 

and used exclusively as a private residence, housing not more 

than three families, when collection of domestic waste is not 

provided or authorized by the local governmental entity having 

jurisdiction, and when the waste is generated only from that 

property. 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 3 of 28 

(3} Campfires and fires used solely for recreational 

or ceremonial purposes, or in the noncommercial preparation of 

food, or used exclusively for the purpose of supplying warmth 

during cold weather. Such burning shall be subject to the 

requirements of §111.105(7} of this title (relating to General 

Requirements for Allowable Outdoor Burning} . 

(4} Diseased animal burning when such burning is the 

most effective means of controlling the spread of disease. 

(5} Rural area on-site burning of trees, brush, grass, 

and other dry plant growth when no practical alternative to burning exists for right-of-way maintenance, land-clearing operations, and for those forest, crop, and range management purposes 

not specifically governed by orders issued pursuant to subsection 

(a} of this section. Such burning shall be subject to the 

requirements of §111.105 of this title (relating to General 

Requirements for Allowable Outdoor Burning} . 

(6} Salt-marsh grass management burning may be conducted only in Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Chambers, Galveston, 

Harris, Jackson, Jefferson, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, Orange, 

Refugio, and San Patricio counties and only if the following 

requirements are met: 

(A) All land on which burning is to be conducted 

shall be registered with the appropriate Regional Office of the 

TACB and its location identified on a u. S. Geological Survey map 

or equivalent. The person who owns or controls the land must 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 4 of 28 

also submit a legal description of the land boundaries and 

identify significant points such as roads, canals, lakes, and 

streams, and the method by which access is made to the site. For 

large acreage, the map should be divided into manageable blocks 

not larger than a section, with numerical identification for each 

defined block. The information must be provided for review at 

least 15 days before the burning takes place. 

(B) Prior to any burning, approval must be 

obtained from the appropriate Regional Office. Notification of 

the burning may be verbal or written and must identify the specific area and block to be burned, estimated acreage, start and 

end time of the burn, and a person who can be contacted during 

the burn period. 

(C) The person responsible for the burning must 

provide access and transportation to the burn site upon request 

by the Regional Office. 

(D) Such burning shall be subject to the requirements of §111.105 of this title (relating to General Requirements 

for Allowable Outdoor Burning) . 

(7) Hydrocarbon burning from pipeline breaks and oil 

spills may be allowed upon proper notification as set forth in 

§101.6 of this title (relating to Notification Requirements for 

Major Upset), if the Executive Director determines that the 

burning is necessary to protect the public welfare. 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 5 of 28 

(8) Municipal solid waste burning may be conducted 

until such time as it is eliminated by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and as long as the following conditions are met: 

(A) Municipal solid waste burning may be conducted at Texas Department of Health (TDH) permitted Type II or 

III landfill sites (sites serving less than 5,000 population 

equivalent) located in any county with a population of 100,000 or 

less as determined by the latest United States population census 

if authorization is obtained from the Executive Director of the 

TACB. Any authorization provided hereunder must be consistent 

with all TDH regulations and in accordance with 40 CFR 257, 

Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 

and Practices. 

(B) Brush and demolition or construction wood 

waste burning may be conducted at TDH permitted Type IV landfill 

sites, as defined by the TDH, located in the counties described 

in subparagraph (8) (A) of this paragraph if authorization is 

obtained from the Executive Director of the TACB. Any authorization provided hereunder must be consistent with the criteria 

referenced in subparagraph (8) (A) of this paragraph. 

(C) Such burning shall be subject to §111.105(7) 

of this title (relating to General Requirements for Allowable 

Outdoor Burning) . 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 6 of 28 

§111.105. General Requirements for Allowable Outdoor Burninq. 

Outdoor burning which otherwise is permissible shall also be 

subject to the following requirements when specified in §111.103 

of this title (relating to Exceptions to Prohibition of Outdoor 

Burning) : 

(1) Prior to prescribed or controlled burning for 

forest management purposes, the Texas Forest Service shall be 

notified. 

(2) The burning must be outside the corporate limits 

of a city or town except when it is necessary to eliminate a 

naturally occurring fire hazard as determined by the local fire 

department. 

(3) Burning shall be commenced only when the wind will 

carry smoke and other pollutants away from any city, town, 

residential, recreational, commercial, or industrial area, navigable water, public road, or landing strip which may be affected 

by the smoke. Burning shall not be conducted when a shift in 

wind direction is predicted which could produce adverse effects 

to persons, animals, or property durinq the burning period. If 

at any time the burning causes or may tend to cause smoke to blow 

onto or across a road or highway, it is the responsibility of the 

person initiating the burning to post flag-persons on affected 

roads in accordance with the requirements of the Department of 

Public Safety. 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 7 of 28 

(4} The burning must be at least 300 feet (90 meters} 

from any adjacent properties which have residential, recreational, commercial, or industrial use. 

(5} The hours and wind conditions for burning shall 

comply with the following: 

(A) The initiation of burning shall commence 

after 9 a.m. Burning shall be completed on the same day as soon 

as is reasonably practical prior to 5 p.m. 

(B) Burning shall not be commenced when surface 

wind speed is predicted to be less than six m.p.h. (five knots) 

or greater than 23 m.p.h. (20 knots) during the burn period. 

(6) Burning shall not be conducted during periods of 

actual or predicted persistent (12 hours or more) low-level 

atmospheric temperature inversions (nonsurface based) or in areas 

covered by a current National Weather Service Air Stagnation 

Advisory. 

(7) Heavy oils, asphaltic materials, items containing 

natural or synthetic rubber, or any material which may produce 

unreasonable amounts of smoke must not be burned. 

§111.107. Responsibility for Consequences of Outdoor Burning. 

The authority to conduct outdoor burning under this regulation does not exempt or excuse any person responsible from the 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 8 of 28 

consequences, damages, or injuries resulting from the burning and 

does not exempt or excuse anyone from complying with all other 

applicable laws or ordinances, regulations, and orders of governmental entities having jurisdiction, even though the burning is 

otherwise conducted in compliance with this regulation. 

VISIBLE EMcrSSIONS 

§111.111. Requirements for Specified Sources. 

(a) Visible Emissions. 

No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit visible 

emissions from any source, except as follows: 

(1) Stationary Vents. 

Visible emissions from any vent shall not exceed 

the following opacities and must meet the following requirements: 

(A) Opacity shall not exceed 30% averaged over a 

six-minute period. 

(B) Opacity shall not exceed 20% averaged over a 

six-minute period for any source on which construction was begun 

after January 31, 1972. 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 9 of 28 

(C) Opacity shall not exceed 15% averaged over a 

six-minute period for any source having a total flow rate greater 

than or equal to 100,000 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) 

unless an optical instrument capable of measuring the opacity of 

emissions is installed in the vent in accordance with subparagraph (D) of this paragraph. Facilities utilizing such instrumec.ts shall meet opacity limits outlined in §111.111(a) (1) (A) or 

(B) as applicable. Records of all such measurements shall be 

retained as provided for in §101.8 of this title (relating to 

Sampling) . This provision shall not apply to vents having gas 

streams containing moisture which interferes with proper instrument operation, if so determined by the Executive Director. 

(D) Any opacity monitoring system installed as 

provided for in paragraph (C) of this paragraph must satisfy the 

New Source Performance Standards requirement for opacity continuous emission monitoring systems as contained in 40 CFR Part 60, 

Appendix B, Performance Specification 1. In order to demonstrate 

compliance with Performance Specification I, the system shall 

undergo performance specification testing as outlined in 40 CFR 

60.13. The facility will maintain records of all such testing 

for a period of not less than two years. Compliance determinations may be made based on results of monitoring with a certified 

opacity monitor or by a currently certified opacity reader, as 

described in §111.111(a) (1) (G). Compliance for vents with condensible particulate or water vapor shall be determined by a certified opacity reader. Compliance with this provision shall be 

accomplished within one year of the effective date of this rule. 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 10 of 28 

(E) Visible emissions during the cleaning of a 

firebox or the building of a new fire, soot blowing, equipment 

changes, ash removal, and rapping of precipitators may exceed the 

limits set forth in this section for a period aggregating not 

more than six minutes in any 60 consecutive minutes, nor more 

than six hours in any ten-day period. This exemption shall not 

apply to the emissions mass rate standard, as outlined in 

§111.151(a) of this title (relating to Allowable Emissions 

Limits) . 

(F) Compliance with paragraphs (1) (A), (B), and 

(C) of this subsection shall be determined by applying the following test methods, as appropriate: 

(i) Test Method 9 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A), 

or 

(ii) Equivalent test method approved by the 

Executive Director. 

(G) Current certification of opacity readers for 

determining opacities outlined in §111.111 (a) (1) (A), (B), (C), 

and (D) shall be determined by having completed the Texas Air 

Control Board Visible Emissions Evaluator's course within 180 

days of the opacity reading. 

(2) Gas Flares. 

(A) Visible emissions from a gas flare shall not 

be permitted for more than five minutes in any two-hour period 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

~egulation I 

Page 11 of 28 

except as provided in §lOl.ll(a) of this title (relating to 

Exemptions from Rules and Regulations). Acid gas flares, as 

defined in §101.1 of this title (relating to Definitions), are 

exempt from the provisions of this subsection, but are subject to 

the provisions of subsection (a) (1) of this section. 

(B) Compliance with paragraph (2) (A) of this 

subsection shall be determined by applying the following test 

methods, as appropriate: 

(i) Test Method 22 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A), 

or 

(ii) Equivalent test method approved by the 

Executive Director. 

(3) Motor Vehicles. 

Motor vehicles shall not have visible exhaust 

emissions for more than ten consecutive seconds. 

(4) Railroad Locomotives or Ships. 

Visible emissions shall not be permitted from any 

railroad locomotive, ship, or any other vessel to exceed an opacity of 30% for any five-minute period, except during reasonable 

periods of engine start-up. ~ 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

(5) Structures. 

Page 12 of 28 

Visible emissions shall not be permitted to exceed 

an opacity of 30% for any six-minute period from any building, 

enclosed facility, or other structure. 

(6) Other Sources. 

Visible emissions shall not be permitted to exceed 

an opacity of 30% for any six-minute period from all other 

sources not specified in §111.111 of this title (relating to 

Requirements for Specified Sources) . 

(A) Compliance with paragraph (a) (5) of this 

subsection shall be determined by applying the following test 

methods, as appropriate: 

(i) Test Method 9 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A), 

or 

(ii) Equivalent test method approved by the 

Executive Director. 

(b) Compliance Determination Exclusions. 

Contributions from uncombined water shall not be included in determining compliance with this section. The burden 

of proof which establishes the applicability of this subsection 

shall be upon the person seeking to come within its provisions. 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

§111.113. ~ternate Opacity Limitations. 

Page 13 of 28 

The owner or operator of any facility who is unable to meet 

the opacity limitations of §lll.lll(a) (1) (A) and (B) of this 

title (relating to Requirements for Specified Sources) with 

available and economically reasonable control technology may 

apply to the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) for approval of an 

alternate limit. Within 60 days after receipt of an application, 

the TACB staff will either determine that the application is 

complete or will determine that it is incomplete and provide a 

written list of deficiencies. There shall be no more than 180 

days between the initial application and the issuance of a certification of completeness by the Executive Director. Failure to 

obtain such certification shall result in a voiding of the application. Within ninety days after issuance of the certification 

of completeness, an adjudicative public hearing will be conducted 

in accordance with the requirements of §103.31 of this title 

(relating to Calling the Hearing), §103.32 of this title (relating to Petition for Hearing Other Than a Petition for the Adoption of Rules), §103.33 of this title (relating to Action on 

Request for a Hearing), §103.34 of this title (relating to Docket 

of Hearings) and the undesignated head of this title (relating to 

Adjudicative Hearings) . The application will be approved if the 

applicant provides for the hearing record a preponderance of 

evidence which substantiates that ~missions resulting from the 

alternate opacity limit will not result in an exceedance of any 

ambient air quality standard or other ambient air concentration 

limit prescribed by the TACB or exacerbate any existing exceedance or cause or contribute to a nuisance as defined in §101.4 of 

this title (relating to Nuisance) and that: 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 14 of 28 

(1) All applicable concentration and mass limitations are 

met; and 

(2) The facility has failed to meet the applicable opacity 

limitation during performance tests conducted with both the 

affected facility and the air pollution control equipment needed 

to comply with TACB regulations, and which were operating in a 

manner consistent with good engineering practice for minimizing 

the opacity of the emissions; and 

(3) It is technically impractical or economically unreasonable for the facility to comply with the established opacity 

limits. 

INCINERATION 

§111.121. Single-Chamber Incinerators. 

No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit the burning of 

garbage or rubbish in a single-chamber residential, publiclyowned, commercial, or hospital/pathological waste incinerator 

unless the incinerator has been demonstrated to provide equivalent performance to multiple-chamber incinerators and is approved 

by the Executive Director. 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 15 of 28 

MATERIALS HANDLING, CONSTRUCTION, ROADS, 

STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PARKING LOTS 

§111.141. Geographic Areas of Application and Date of 

Compliance. 

Section 111.141 of this title (relating to Geographic Areas 

of Application and Date of Compliance), §111.143 of this title 

(relating to Materials Handling), §111.145 of this title (relating to Construction and Demolition), §111.147 of this title 

(relating to Roads, Streets, and Alleys), and §111.149 of this 

title (relating to Parking Lots) shall apply to the following 

areas: the City of El Paso, unless otherwise specified; that 

portion of Harris County inside the loop formed by Beltway 8; and 

that area of Nueces County outlined in the Group II State Implementation Plan for Inhalable Particulate Matter adopted by the 

Texas Air Control Board on May 13, 1988. Compliance with these 

sections shall be as soon as practicable but no later than 

December 31, 1991. 

§111.143. Materials Hand1ing. 

No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit any material, 

except for abrasive material for snow and ice control, to be 

handled, transported, or stored without taking at least the following precautions to achieve maximum control of dust emissions 

to the extent practicable: 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 16 of 28 

(1) Application of water or suitable chemicals or some 

other covering on materials stockpiles and other surfaces which 

can create airborne dusts. 

(2) Installation, maintenance, and proper use of 

hoods, fans, and filters to enclose, collect, and clean the emissions of dusty materials; or 

(3) Application of water or suitable chemicals, or 

complete covering of materials contained in open-bodied trucks, 

trailers, or railroad cars transporting such materials which can 

create airborne particulate matter in areas where the general 

public has access. 

(A) Suitable wetting may be used as an alternative to covering in all areas except the City of El Paso. 

(B) Complete covering, at a minimum, is required 

in the City of El Paso. 

§111.145. Construction and Demolition. 

For the purpose of this section, the following restrictions 

apply if the area of land affected by the listed activities is 

more than one acre in size. No person may cause, suffer, allow, 

or permit a structure, road, street, alley, or parking area to be 

constructed, altered, repaired, or demolished, or land to be 

cleared without taking at least the following precautions to 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 17 of 28 

achieve maximum control of dust emissions to the extent practicable: 

(1) Use of water or of suitable oil or chemicals for 

control of dust in the demolition of structures, in construction 

operations, in work performed on a road, street, alley, or 

parking area, or in the clearing of land. 

(2) Use of adequate methods such as wet-sandblasting 

and enclosure of work areas to prevent airborne particulate 

matter during sandblasting of structures or other similar operations. 

§111.147. Roads, Streets, and Alleys. 

No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit any public, 

industrial, commercial, or private road, street, or alley to be 

used without taking at least the following precautions to achieve 

maximum control of dust emissions to the extent practicable: 

(1) Application of asphalt, water, or suitable oil or 

chemicals on the following unpaved surfaces: 

(A) Industrial Facility Roadways - all major inplant roads and all truck or other heavy-duty vehicle pathways. 

Major in-plant roads shall be defined as those which are designed 

to accommodate two-way traffic and are at least 30 feet wide at 

at least one point, measuring the distance from the edge of the 

undisturbed earth on either side of the established roadway. 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 18 of 28 

(B) Public Thoroughfares - all roads and streets 

to which the public has general access. 

(C) Commercial Roads - all roads which serve as 

access for more than 50 employees or as access to more than ten 

heavy-duty truck parking spaces. 

(D) Residential Roads - all roads which serve as 

access for more than 20 residences and/or apartment units. 

(2) Removal from public thoroughfares, as necessary, 

of soil or other materials, except for sand applied for the specific purpose of snow or ice control. In the City of El Paso, 

removal of soil shall be by mechanical sweepers or their equivalent. 

§111.149. Parking Lots. 

(a) No person may allow any vehicular parking surface 

having more than five parking spaces to be used unless dust is 

controlled by the appropriate application of asphalt, water, or 

suitable oil or chemicals. 

(b) In the City of El Paso, parking surfaces with more than 

five parking spaces shall be paved or uniformly covered with 

gravel. This provision shall not apply to temporary parking lots 

defined as lots used for less than one month, after which access 

is prohibited. Such temporary lots shall be required to apply 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board Page 19 of 28 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

water or suitable oil or chemical. Lots with more than 100 

parking spaces shall be paved or covered by an equivalent method 

determined by the Executive Director. An equivalent method shall 

not include the utilization of waste materials from industrial 

processes. 

(c) Parking surfaces having five spaces or less and parking 

surfaces at a property designed for and used exclusively as a 

private residence housing not more than three families are exempt 

from these requirements. 

EMISSIONS LIMITTS ON NONAGRICULTURAL PROCESSES 

§111.151. ~lowable Emissions Limits. 

(a) No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit emissions 

of particulate matter from any source to exceed the allowable 

rates specified in Table 1 as follows, except as provided by 

§111.153 of this title (relating to Emissions Limits for Steam 

Generators) . 

(b) If a source has an effective stack height less than the 

standard effective stack height as determined from Table 2 as 

follows, the allowable emission level must be reduced by multiplying it by: 

~ Effective Stack Height ~ 2 

~andard Effective Stack Heig~ 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

TABLE 1 

Page 20 of 28 

ALLOWABLE PARTICULATE EMISSION RATES 

Effluent Flow Rate 

acfm 

1,000 

2,000 

4,000 

6,000 

8,000 

10,000 

20,000 

40,000 

60,000 

80,000 

100,000 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1, 000, 000 

FOR SPECIFIC FLOW RATES 

Rate of Emission 

TSP lb/hr 

3.5 

5.3 

8.2 

10.6 

12.6 

14.5 

22.3 

34.2 

44.0 

52.6 

60.4 

92.9 

143.0 

184.0 

219.4 

252.0 

Interpolation and extrapolation of the data in this table shall 

be accomplished by the use of the equation E = 0. 048 q0

'

62 for 

total suspended particulate (TSP) where E is the allowable emission rate in pounds per hour (lb/hr) and q is the stack effluent 

flow rate in actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) . 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

TABLE 2 

STANDARD EFFECTIVE STACK HEIGHT 

BASED ON SPECIFIC FLOW RATES 

Page 21 of 28 

Effluent Flow Rate Standard Effective Stack Height 

acfm 

1,000 

2,000 

4,000 

6,000 

8,000 

10,000 

20,000 

40,000 

60,000 

80,000 

100,000 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1 000 000 

ft 

12 

15 

19 

22 

24 

26 

34 

43 

49 

55 

59 

75. 

96 

110 

122 

132 

Interpolation and extrapolation of the data in this table shall 

be accomplished by the use of the equation H. = 1. 05 q0 '

35 where Hz 

is the standard effective stack height in feet and q is the stack 

effluent flow rate in acfm. 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 22 of 28 

(c) Effective stack height shall be calculated by the 

following equation: 

Where: 

~-5 + 0.82 

h 1 = Effective stack height in feet (ft) 

h = Physical stack height above ground level in 

feet (ft) 

v 1 = Stack exit velocity in feet per second (ft/sec) 

D1 = Stack exit inside diameter in feet (ft) 

T1 = Stack exit temperature in degrees Rankine (•R) 

§111.153. Emissions Limits for Steam Generators. 

(a) Section 111.151 of this title (relating to Allowable 

Emissions Limits) shall not apply to any oil or gas fuel-fired 

steam generator with a heat input greater than 2500 million 

British thermal units (Btu) per hour or any solid fossil fuelfired steam generator. 

(b) No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit emissions 

of particulate matter from any solid fossil fuel-fired steam 

generator to exceed 0.3 pound of total suspended particulate per 

million Btu heat input, averaged over a two-hour period. 

(c) No person may cause, suffer, allow or permit emissions 

of particulate matter from any oil or gas fuel-fired steam generator with a heat input greater than 2500 million Btu per hour 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 23 of 28 

to exceed 0.1 pound of total suspended particulate per million 

Btu input averaged over a two-hour period. 

§111.155. Ground Level Concentrations. 

No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit emissions of 

particulate matter from a source or sources operated on a property or from multiple sources operated on contiguous properties 

to exceed any of the following net ground level concentrations: 

(1) Two hundred micrograms per cubic meter of air 

sampled, averaged over any three consecutive hours. 

(2) Four hundred micrograms per cubic meter of air 

sampled, averaged over any one-hour period. 

EMISSIONS LIMITS ON AGRICULTURAL PROCESSES 

§111.171. Emissions Limits Based on Process Weight Method. 

No person affected by §3.10(e) of the Texas Clean Air Act 

may cause, suffer, allow, or permit emissions of particulate 

matter from any or all sources associated with a specific process 

to exceed the allowable levels specified in Table 3 as follows, 

except as provided by §111.173 of this title (relating to Emissions Limits Based on Alternate Method) . Any affected person who 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 24 of 28 

does not request an alternate method and notify the Executive 

Director in writing shall be regulated by the process weight 

method. 

§111.173. Emissions Limits Based on ~ternate Method. 

Any person affected by §3.10(e) of the Texas Clean Air Act 

who does not wish to be regulated by the process weight method 

may request an alternate method of regulation which the Executive 

Director finds will provide equivalent emission control efficiency to §111.171 of this title (relating to Emissions Limits 

Based on Process Weight Method) . 

§111.175. Exemptions. 

Any person affected by §3.10(e) of the Texas Clean Air Act 

shall be exempt from the following: §111.111 of this title 

(relating to Requirements for Specified Sources), §111.141 of 

this title (relating to Geographic Areas of Application and Date 

of Compliance), §111.143 of this title (relating to Materials 

Handling), §111.145 of this title (relating to Construction and 

Demolition), §111.147 of this title (relating to Roads, Streets, 

and Alleys), §111.149 of this title (relating to Parking Lots), 

§111.151 of this title (relating to Allowable Emissions Limits), 

§111.153 of this title (relating to Emissions Limits for Steam 

Generators), and §111.155 of this title (relating to Ground Level 

Concentrations). All other provisions of this title shall apply. 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

TABLE 3 

ALLOWABLE RATE OF EMISSION 

BASED ON PROCESS WEIGHT RATE 

PROCESS WEIGHT RATE OF PROCESS WEIGHT 

RATE EMISSION RATE 

lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr 

1,000 1.6 16,000 

1,500 2.4 18,000 

2,000 3.1 20,000 

2,500 3.9 30,000 

3,000 4.7 40,000 

3,500 5.4 50,000 

4,000 6.2 60,000 

5,000 7.7 70,000 

6,000 9.2 80,000 

7,000 10.7 90,000 

8,000 12.2 100,000 

9,000 13.7 150,000 

10,000 15.2 200,000 

12,000 18.2 250,000 

14,000 21.2 500,000 

Page 25 of 28 

RATE OF 

EMISSION 

lb/hr 

24.2 

27.2 

30.1 

44.9 

59.7 

64.0 

67.4 

70.5 

73.2 

75.7 

78.1 

87.7 

95.2 

101.5 

123.9 

Interpolation of the data in this table for process weights up 

40,000 pounds per hour (lb/hr) shall be accomplished by the use 

to 

of the equation E = 3.12 (p0.i

85 ) , and interpolation and extrapolation of the data for process weight rates in excess of 40,000 

lb/hr shall be accomplished by use of the equation E = 25.4 

(p0

"

287

) where E = rate of emission in lb/hr and p = process weight 

rate in tons per hour. 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 26 of 28 

EXEMPTIONS FOR PORTABLE OR TRANSIENT OPERATIONS 

§111.181. Exemption Policy. 

All portable facilities and transient operations, such as 

portable rock crushers but excluding portable hot-mix asphaltic 

concrete facilities, engaged in public work projects in any 

county except Dallas, El Paso, or Harris are exempt from the 

requirements of §111.111 of this title (relating to Requirements 

for Specified Sources), §111.113 of this title (relating to 

Alternate Opacity Limitations), §111.151 of this title (relating 

to Allowable Emissions Limits), §111.153 of this title (relating 

to Emissions Limits for Steam Generators), and §111.155 of this 

title (relating to Ground Level Concentrations) if the conditions 

of §111.183 of this title (relating to Requirements for Exemption), are met. 

§111.183. Requirements for Exemption. 

(a) The facility shall be located at least one mile outside 

the nearest corporate limits of any city or town. 

(b) The facility shall be located at least one mile from 

any recreational area or any occupied building other than that 

located on the same property as the facility. 

(c) The facility shall be equipped with cyclones, or wet 

scrubbers, or water sprays at the material transfer points open 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 27 of 28 

to the atmosphere, or other equipment or systems approved by the 

Executive Director, properly installed, in good working order, 

and in operation. 

(d) The facility shall not operate on the same property for 

a period of more than six months. 

(e) The emissions from the facility shall not create a 

nuisance. 

Date Adopted: January 26, 1972 

Date Filed with Secretary of State: February 4, 1972 

Date Effective: March 5, 1972 

Amendment of §111.53 

Date Adopted: December 19, 1973 

Date Filed with Secretary of State: December 20, 1973 

Date Effective: January 19, 1974 

Amendment of §§111.1-111.4 

Date Adopted: October 31, 1975 

Date Filed with Secretary of State: November 5, 1975 

Date Effective: December 5, 1975 

Amendment of §111.2, §111.22, §§111.41-111.45, §111.91, and 

§111.92 

Date Adopted: March 30, 1979 

Date Filed with Secretary of State: April 6, 1979 

Date Effective: May 6, 1979 

Addition of §111.28 

Date Adopted: March 20, 1981 

Date Filed with Secretary of State: March 26, 1981 

Date Effective: April 16, 1981 

June 16, 1989 
Texas Air Control Board 

Control of Air Pollution 

from Visible Emissions 

and Particulate Matter 

Regulation I 

Page 28 of 28 

Amendment of §§111.61-111.65 (repealed and replaced by §§111.81-

111.83) 

§§111.71-111.76 (plus title change) 

§§111.81-111.83 (New) 

§111.92 

Date Adopted: January 8, 1982 

Date Filed with Secretary of State: February 24, 1982 

Date Effective: March 17, 1982 

Entirely repealed and replaced by §§111.101-111.183 

Date Adopted: June 16, 1989 

Date Filed with Secretary of State: June 27, 1989 

Date Effective: July 18, 1989 

June 16, 1989 
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD 

6330 HIGHWAY 290 EAST 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 

BOARD ORDER 

BO. 89-03 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 3.09 and 3.10 of the Texas Clean Air Act, 

Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act, and Section 

51.102 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Texas Air Control 

Board, after proper notice, conducted public hearings on February 1-2, 1989 for 

the purpose of considering proposed revisions to Texas Air Control Board 

Regulation I, (Control of Air Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate 

Matter), amendments to the General Rules, and, the State Implementation Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the Texas Air Control Board duly circulated to interested persons, 

the Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and all 

applicable local air pollution control agencies hearing notices of its intended 

action; and 

WHEREAS, interested persons were invited to submit data, views, and 

recommendations on the proposed amendments, either orally or in writing, at the 

hearing; and 

WHEREAS, copies of the proposed amendments were available for public 

inspection at the Board's Central Office and regional offices prior to the 

scheduled hearing; and 

WHEREAS, data, views, and recommendations of interested persons were 

submitted to the Board at the hearing and were considered by the Board as 

reflected in the attached Hearing Record, which is hereby incorporated and made 

a part of this Order; and 
BOARD ORDER NO. 89-03 

PAGE TWO 

WHEREAS, the Board finds that said Hearing Record includes the names of 

all interested groups or associations offering comment on the amendments and 

their position concerning the proposed amendments; and 

WHER!!A.S, Section 3. 09 (a) of the Texas Clean Air Act gives the- Board 

authority to make rules and regulations consistent with the general intent and 

purposes of the Act and to amend any rule or regulation it makes; and 

WHEREAS, the Board finds that the reasoned justification and factual bases 

for the amendments and the reasons why the Agency disagrees with party 

submissions and proposals are fully set out in the section titled Evaluation in 

the attached Hearing Record; and 

WHEREAS, the Board hereby certifies that the amendments as adopted have 

been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the Board's 

legal authority; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDER!m BY THE TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD THAT: 

1. The amendments to Regulation I, the General Rules, and the State 

Implementation Plan appended to this Order are hereby adopted and promulgated; 

and 

2. The Executive Director is instructed to file a certified copy of this 

Order, together with the adopted amendments, with the Secretary of State pursuant 

to Article 6252-13a, V.T.C.S.; and 

3. The Executive Director is instructed to transmit a certified copy of 

this Order together with the adopted amendments to the Governor of Texas for 

submittal to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as proposed 
.. 

BOARD ORDER NO. 89-03 

PAGE THREE 

revisions to the State Implementation Plan pursuant to Section 110 of the Federal 

Clean Air Act, as amended. 

PASSED AND APPROVED at the regular meeting of the Texas Air Control Board 

in Victoria, Texas, on this 16th day of June, 1989. 

TEXAS AIR CONTROL 

B~~~ (\), . ·L .. )UC 

Dick Whittington, P. E., vhaimn 

Marcu• ::::!!: • 6 Member 

ATTEST: 

u 

Executiv 

(SEAL) 
The staff agrees 

DIOXIDE 

to PM10 are made to this definition. Finally, a 

specific EPA test re~ renoe method is~ 

to the definition of • articulate matter emissions· in order to en ure strict acflerence to 

established sampling procedures. 

The amendment is ted under Texas Civil 

Statutes, Article 44n , §3. 09(a), which provide the TACB with the authority to make 

rules and regulations sistent with the general intent and purpo s of the Texas Clean 

Air Act and to amen any rule or reg'llation 

the TACB makes. 

board, the terms us by the Board have the 

meanings oommo y ·ascribed to them in the 

field of air polluti n control. In addition to 

the terms which defmed by Texas Civil 

Statutes, Article 4477-5, the following 

words and terms, hen used in this chapter 

shall have the fo lowing meanings, wtless 

the context clearl indicares otherwise. 

De m· · ·s impact-A change in 

ground level con entration of an air contaminant IS a res t of the operation of any 

new major stati source or of the operation of any exi g source which has un-

§101.1. Definilion.s. Unless specifically dergone a major ification, which does 

defmed in the Act in the rules of the not exceed the fo wing specified amounts. 

ANNUAL -HOUR 8-HOUR 3-HOUR 1-HOUR 

1.0 ug/m 3 5 ug/m3 

1.0 ug/m3 5 ug/m3 25 ug/m 

1.0 ug/m3 

0.5 mg/m3 2 mg/m3 

Domestic wastes - Particu ate matter (N~og_.cllaJog1tl..-.-l~---:-------

atter emissions-All cy's legal authority. as being lOr me proposal. 

fmely-divided solid r liquid material, other Issued in Austin, Texa , on June 26, 1989. No comments were receiwd regardng adopthan uncombined w er, emitted to the am- lion of the repeals. TRD-8905575 Eli BeU by EPA Reference tive Director 

at Part 60, Appendix Air Control Board 

al Regulations, modi-

. culate caught by 

equivalent or alternative method, as Jed at Part 51 of 40 

Code of Federal Re ulations; or by a lest 

method specified in approved stare implementation plan. 

PM I 0-Partic ate matter with an 

aerodynamic diame less than or equal to 

a nominal I 0 microm ers IS measured by a 

·reference method b on Appendix I of 

Part 50 of 40 Code o Federal Regulations 

and designated in rdance with Part 53 

of 40 Code of Federal egulations, or by an 

equivalent method gnated with that Part 

53. 

PMIO e · sions-Finely-divided 

solid or liquid ma al with an aerodynamic diameter less th or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers "tted to the ambient 

air IS measured by an applicable reference 

method, or an equi ent or alternative 

method specified in P 51 of 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations, by a rest method 

~ified in an approv stare implementation plan. 

Total suspend 

late matter as measur 

scribed in Appendix 

Code of Federal Reg ns. 

This agency hereby oer1i s that the rule as 

adopted has been review by legal counsel 

and found to be a valid ex rcise of the agen14 TerReg 3286 July 4, 1989 

I 

Effective date: July 18, 

Proposal publication 

1989 

te: Deoember 27, 

infonnation, please call: (512) 

• 

Chapter 111. Control of Air 

Pollution from Visible 

Emissions and Particulate 

Matter 

Outdoor Burning 

• 31 TAC §§111.1, 111.2, 111.3, 

111.4 

The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) adopts 

the repeal of §§111.1-111.4, without changes 

to the proposed text as published in the December 27, 1988. issue of the Texas Register 

(13 TexReg 6428). The purpose of the repeals are to remove material superceded by 

a new undesignated head, which is adopted 

in concurrent action. 

The Administrative Procedure and Texas 

Register Ad, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 

6252-138, §5( c)( 1 ), requires categorization of 

comments as being for or against a proposal. 

A commenter who suggested any changes in 

the proposal is categorized as against the 

proposal, while a commenter who agreed 

with the proposal in its entirety is categorized 

Teras Register • 

Copies of the hearing transcrip,_ are available 

for inspection at the central office of the 

TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

The repeals are adopted under Texas Civil 

Statutes, Article 4477-5, §3.09(a) , which provide the TACB with the authority to make, 

rules and regulations consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Texas Clean 

A"Jr AD. and to amend any rule or regulation 

the TACB makes. 

This agency hereby certifies that the rule as 

adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel 

and ~nd to be a valid exercise of lhe agency's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas. on June 26, 1989. 

TRD-8905567 Allen Eli Bell 

Executiw Director 

Texas Air Control Board 

Effective date: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication date: December 27, 

1988 

For further inrormation, please call: (512) 

451-5711, ext. 354 

• • 

Incineration 

• 31 TAC §111.11, §111.12 

The Texas Air ConlrOI Board (TACB) adopts 

the repeal of §111.11 and §111.12, without 

changes to the proposed text as published in 

the December 27, 1988, issue of the Texas 

Register (13 TexReg 6428). The purpose of 

the repeals are to remove material super-
ceded by a new undesignated head, which is 

adopted in concurrent action. 

The Administrative Procedure and Texas 

Regisler Ad, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 

6252-13&, §5(c)(1), require categorization of 

comments • being for or against a proposal. 

A oommenter who suggested any changes in 

the proposal. A commentsr who suggested 

any changes In the proposal is categorized as 

against 1he proposal, while a commenter who 

agreed with the proposal in its entirely is 

categoriad • being for the proposal. 

No comments were received regarding adoption of the repeals. 

Copies of the hearing transcript are available 

for inspection at lhe central office of the 

TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

The repeals are adopted under Texas Civil 

Statutes, Article .wn-s. §3.09(a), which provide the TACB with the authority to make 

Riles and regulations consistent with the general inlent end purpose of the Texas Clean 

Air Act and to amend any rule or regulation 

the TACB make&. 

This agency hereby certifies that the rules as 

repealed have been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the 

agency's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

1~5568 Allen Eli Bell 

E x&a.~tive Direc1Dr 

Texas Air Control Board 

Effective date: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication date: December 27, 

1988 

For further information, please call: (512) 

451-5711 ext 354 

• 

Visible Emissions 

• 31 TAC §§111.11, 111.22, 111.23, 

111.24, 111.25, 111.26, 111.17, 

111.28 

The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) adopts 

the repeal of §§ 111.21-111.28, without 

changes to the proposed text as published in 

the December 27, 1988, issue of the Teifas 

Register (13 Tex~ 6428). The purpose of 

the repeals are to remove material superceded by a new undesignated head, which is 

adopted in concurrent action. 

The Administrative Procedure and Texas 

Register Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 

6252-138, §5(c)(1), require categorization of 

comments as being for or against a proposal. 

A commenter who suggested any changes in 

the proposal is categorized as against the 

proposal, while a commenter who agreed 

with the proposal in its entirely is categorized 

as being for the proposal. 

No comments were received regarding adoption of the repeals. 

Copies of the hearing transcript are available 

tor inspection at the cenlral office of the 

TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

The repeals are adopted under Texas Civil 

Statutes, Article 44n-5. §3.09(a) • which provide the TACB with the authority to make 

rules and regulations consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Texas Clean 

Air Act and to amend any rule or regulation 

the TACB makes. 

This agency hereby certifies that the rule as 

adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel 

and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

TR()..8905569 Anen Eti Bell 

Executive Oireclor 

Texas Air Control Board 

' Effective date: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication date: December 27, 

1988 

For further information, please call: (512) 

451-5711, ext 354 

• • 

Particulate Matter from 

Materials Handling, 

Construction, Roads, Streets, 

and Alleys 

• 31 TAC §§111.41, 111.42, 111.43, 

111.44, 111.45 

The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) adopts 

the repeal of §§111.41-111.45 without 

changes to the proposed text as published in 

the December 27, 1988, issue of the Texas 

Register (13 TexReg 6428). The purpose of · 

the repeals are to remove material superceded by a new undesignated head, which is 

adopted in concurrent action. .,.. . . ' 

The Administrative Procedure and Texas 

Register Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 

6252-13a, §5(c)(1), require categorization of 

comments as being for or against a proposal. 

A oommenter '~'!tiP Sl'Q~€'sted 31lY cM!lges in 

the proposEd is w..~.<J-ri~j 'H ~-~t the 

proposal, while a cornmentsr who agreed 

with the proposal in its entirety is categorized 

as being for the proposal. 

No comments were received regarding adoption ol lhe repeals. 

Copies of the hearing transcript are available 

for inspection at the central office of the 

TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

The repeals are adopted under Texas Civil 

Stab.Jtes, Article 4477-5, §3.09(a) , which provide the TACB with the authority to make 

rules and regulations consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Texas Clean 

Air Act and to amend any rule or regulation 

the TACB makes. 

This agency hereby certifies that the rule as 

adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel 

and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

TR()..8905570 Allen Eli Bell 

Executive Director 

Texas Air Control Board 

Effective date: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication date: December 27, 

1988 

For further information, please call: (512) 

451-5711, ext. 354 

• • 

• Adopted Sections 

Particulate Matter 

• 31 T AC §§111.51, 111.52, 111.53 

The Texas A6 Control Board (TACB) adopts 

the repeal of §§ 111.51-111.53, without 

changes to the propoHd text as published in 

the December 27, 1988, issue of lhe Texas 

Register (13 TexReg 6428). The purpose of 

the repeals are to remove material superceded by a new undesignated head, which is 

adopled in concurrent action. 

The Administrative Procedure and Texas 

Register Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 

6252-138, §5(c)(1 ), require categorization of 

comments as being tor or against a proposal. 

A commenter who suggested 8li'J changes in 

the proposal is categorized as against the 

proposal, while a commenter who agreed 

with the proposal in its entirely is categorized 

as being tor the proposal. 

No comments were received regarding adoption of the repeals. 

Copies of the hearing transcript are available 

for inspection at the central office of the 

T ACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

The repeals are adopted under Texas Civil 

Statutes, Article 4477-5, §3.09(a) , which provide the TACB with the authority to make 

rules and regulations consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Texas Clean 

Air Act and to amend any rule or regulation 

the TACB makes. 

·This agency hereby certifies that the rule as 

adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel 

and found to be a valid exerciae of the agency's legal authority. · •· · • 

Issued in Aultin, Texa4, on June 26, 1989. 

TRD-8906571 Allen Eli Bell 

Executi.,. Direc10r 

Texas ~ Control Board · 

Effective date: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication date: December 27, 

1988 

For fur'ther information, please call: (512) 

451-5711, ext. 354 

• • 

Particulate Matter from 

Agricultural Processes 

• 31 TAC §§111.71, 111.72, 111.73, 

111.74, 111.75, 111.76 

The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) adopts 

the repeal of §§ 111.71-111.76, wilhuut 

changes to the proposed text as published in 

the December 27, 1988, Issue of the Texas 

Register (13 TexReg 6428). The purpose of 

lhe repeals are to remove material superceded by a new undesignated head, which is 

adopted in concurrent action. 

The Administrative Procedure and Texas 

Register Act. Texas Civil Statutes, Arli:le 

6252-13a, §5(c)(1 ), require categorization of 

comments as being for or against a proposal. 

A commenter who ·suggested any changes in 

the proposal is categorized as against the 

proposal, while a commenter who agreed 

with the proposal in its entirety is categorized 

as being for the proposal. 

July 4, 1989 14 TexReg 3287 
No commenta ..,. MC&ived regarding adop- ton of .. ...,...._ 

Copies of t. he.tng transcript are available 

lor npeclion at .. central office of the 

TACB, 1330 Highway 290 East. Austin. 

The repeals are adopted under Texas Civil 

SlaUes, Miele 4477-5, §3.09(a), which provide t. TACB with the authority to make 

rules end regulation• consistent with the general Intent 8lld purpose of the Texas Clean 

Air Am lnd to amend any rule or regulation 

the TACB makes. 

This agency hereby certifies that the rule as 

adopted hal been reviewed by legal counsel 

8lld found to be a valid exercise of the agenc( s legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

TRD-8905572 Allen Eli Bel 

E XeaJM Oirec1Dr 

TeJW Air Conii'OI Board 

Effec:tiwt dale: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication date: December 27. 

1H8 

for fur1her information, please call: {512) 

E1-5711, ext 354 

• • 

Exemptions 

• 31 TAC §§111.81, 111.82, 111.83 

The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) adopts 

the repeal of §§ 111.81-111 .83, without 

changes to the proposed text as published in 

the December 27, 1988, issue of the Texas 

Register (13 TexReg 6428). The purpose of 

the repeals are to remove material superceded by a new undesignated head, which is 

~:~ad. in concurrent action. 

The AdministrBtive Procedure and Texas 

Register Ad., Texas Civil Statutes, Article 

6252·13a, §5(c){1), require categorization of 

comments as being for or against a proposal. 

A commenter who suggested any changes in 

lhe proposal is categorized as against the 

proposal, whAe a commenter who agreed 

with the proposal in its entirety is categorized 

as being for the proposal. 

No comments were received regarding adoption of the repeals. 

Copies of the hearing transcript are available 

for inspection at the central office of the 

TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

The repeals are adopted under Texas Civil 

Statutes, Article 4477-5. §3.09{a), which provide fMt TACB with the authority to make 

Nlel and regulations consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Texas Clean 

Air Act and to amend any rule or regulation 

the TACB makes. 

This agency hereby certifies that the rule as 

adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel 

•• and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin. Texas. on June 26, 1989. 

TRD-a905573 Allen Eli Bell 

ExeaJtive OireciDr 

Texas Air Conlrol Board 

Effective date: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication date: December 27, 

1988 

14 TexReg 3288 July 4, 1989 

For fur1her inlormation, please cal: {512) 

451-5711, ext. 354 

• • 

Compliance 

• 31 TAC §111.91, §111.92 

The Texas Air Control Boaid {TACB) adopts 

the repeal of §§ 111.91-111.92, without 

changes to the proposecltuxt u p~iahed in 

the December 27, 1988, issue of lie Texas 

Regisrsr {13 TexReg 6428). The pUrpose of 

the repeals are to remove material superceded by a new undesignatled head, whic:tl is 

adopted in concurrent action. 

The AdministratiYe Procedure and Texas 

Register Act. Texas Civil Statutes, Article 

6252-138, §5(c){ 1 ), require categorization of 

romments as being for or against a proposal. 

A oommenter who suggesled lllf'/ changes in 

the proposal is categorized u against the 

proposal, while a oommenter who agreed 

with the proposal in its entirety is categorized 

as being lor lhe proposal. 

No comments were received regardng adoption of the repeals. 

Copies of the hearing transcript are available 

lor inspection at the central office of the 

TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

The repeals are adopted under Texas Civil 

Statutes, Article 4477-5, §3.09(a), which provide the TACB with the authority to make: 

rules and regulations consistunt with the gen- · 

eral intent and purpose of the, r9xas. Clean 

Air Act and to amend any rule · .;;r 1egulation · 

the TACB makes. 

This agency hereby certifies that the rule as 

adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel 

and found te ba a valid ex~~~ ;,'w .lg6P.-' 

cy' s legs I auio'lority. ·~ 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

TRD-8905574 Alen Eli Bell 

Executiw Director 

Texas Air ContrOl Board 

Effective datu: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication datu: December 27, 

1988 

For further information, please call: {512) 

451-5711, ext. 354 

• • 

Outdoor Burning 

• 31 TAC §§111.101, 111.103, 

111.105, 111.107 

The Texas AJr Control Board {TACB) adopts 

new §§111 101, 111.103, 111. 105, and 

111.107. New §111.103 is adopted with 

changes to the proposed text as published in 

the December 27, 1988, issue of the Texas 

Register{13 TexReg 6432). New §§111.101, 

111.1 05, and 111.1 07 are adopted without 

changes and will not be republished. In concurrent action, the T ACB adopts the repeal of 

previous §§111.1-111.4, conoeming outdoor 

burning. 

The new §111.101 establishes a restriction 

on outdoor burning and disallows the disposal 

or disposition of materials capable of igniting 

spontaneously. The new §111.103 enumerates circumstances under which outdoor 

Texas Register • 

burning can take place provicing ~ concitions are met The new §111.105 stipula_. 

.tditional concitions to be dealt with prior to 

conducting ouldoor burning. The new 

§111.107 specifies lhlit hi authority to conduct outdoor buming does not excuse any 

person from the responsibity for the oon.. 4 quences. 

The new sections are part of a series of 

substantial revisions to Chapter Ill, oonc:eming control of air pollution lrom visible emissions and particulatu matter. Since the 

changes are eX18nsive, the staff has determined that it would be administratively more 

efficient to concurrendy repeal Chaplllr 111 in 

its entirety 8lld add a new Chapeer 111. 

The Administrative Procedure lnd Texas 

Regisller Act. Texas Civil Statules, Article 

6252-13&. §5(c)(1), requires categorization of 

comments as being for or against a proposal. 

A commenler who suggest&d any changes in 

the proposal is categorized as against the 

proposal, while a commenlllr who agreed 

with the proposal in its entirety is categorized 

as being for the proposal. Six commenters 

(two privatu citizens, Texas Oil & Gas Company (TXO), Houston Ughling & Power 

(HL&P), the Electric Reliability Council of 

Texas (ERCOT), and TU Eledric) questioned 

the proposed rules concerning outdoor burning. (The TU Electric tustimony was in support of all ERCOT comments.) There were no 

commenters in favor of the proposal. 

• A complete summary of comments and a 

dscussion of issues follows. Copies of the 

written testimony Md hearin~ lranscript are 

available for inspection at the central office of 

the T ACB, 6330 .Highway 290 East, Austin. 

HL&P and ERCOT requested darilication that 

the proposed prohibition against storing maiJrlals · ajp3bla of ~niting spontaneously not ~ 

· i.lclude r_,utine storage of solid fuels at fa cAl- ~ 

ties such' as power plants. 

The proposed section concerning the storage 

of materials capable of spontaneous combustion· contains no substantive change in language from that which had been in effect for 

over 10 years. Previously ther& was no intunt 

to apply the section to the storage of solid 

fossil luels, and the.re is no change in intent 

now. 

Both private citizens suggested that firefighting training and salt-marsh fires be prohibitacl during the months of May-5eptumber 

when ozone levels are traditionaRy highest. 

The ozone season is generally considered to 

be the period April-October. Most salt-marsh 

grass burning ta!ws place in the fall in order 

to better establish new spring growth. Consequendy, there is little or no contribution at the 

time of higher ozone concentrations. Further· 

more, such burning does not relate well to ozone formation, and both marsh grass burning and fire-fighter training require approval 

by the local program or the TACB. Approval 

can be withheld if episodic conditions are 

imminent. 

TXO asserted that notifying the TACB about 

fire-fighting training when less than 25 individuals were involved was an unnecessary paperwork burden and suggested that such 

situations be exempted. ERCOT noted that 

there is no provision for whom to notify when 

there is no local air pollution control agency 

or health unit in the area and suggested that j 
the TACB R&gional Office be notified in such 

cases. HL&P and ERCOT also suggested 

that separate written notification for repetitive, 

routine fn-fighling training is unnecessary 

aid lhould be replaced by a yearty notification with 24-hou' advance telephone contact 

pior to each training session. Finally, HL&F 

end ERCOT noted that the proposed section 

prohibita such training within city limits and 

suggested Nle language to correct this oversight 

The staff believas that it makes little diHerenoe how many fir&- fighters are being 

trained. It is the fire and the resulting emissions that are of concern and the TACB 

needs to be informed of such activities. Furthermore, the proposed section does not represent a change from previous policy. 

ERCOT's suggestion that the T ACB Regional 

Office be notified when no local air pollution 

control agency or health unit exists appears 

useful. The staff also believes that a yearly 

notification and advance 24-hour telephone 

notice is sufficient in cases of routine, repetitive lint-fighting training, and that the prohibition of fire-fighting training within city limits 

should be removed, especially as it may 

cause hardships for municipalities conducting 

such training. To this end, the staff withdraws 

all references to §111.105, concerning general requirements for allowable outdoor burning, from the section in question (§ 111. 

103(b)(1 )). 

Both privalla cilizens argued against a exemption for domeslic waste burning in counties 

near or within ozone nonattainment areas. 

One cilizen also noted that the Nle language 

should specify that only clean-burning materials can be bumed in campfires and other 

recrealional fires. Both citizens also asserted 

lhat municipal solid waste burning should be 

banned. TXO maintained that having to notify 

the TACB executiva director of plans to bum 

oil spiUs may cause delays in dealing with 

upset condlions that could be detrimental to 

public health, and that a quick, on-the-scene 

ntSponse by igniting oil or gas leaks or spills 

is often necessary to mitigate potential health 

or environmental damage. TXO suggested 

addng Nle language aUowing emergency r&-

sponses to be made in such situations. Finally, TXO noted that the proposed distance 

requirements for allowable outdoor burning 

.-e vague and unworkable, because nearly 

all property can hava either residential, recreational, commercial, or industrial use. They 

suggested language that would limit such 

burning in the cases of residential and recr&-

alional property and allow burning necessilllted by emergency pipeline breaks or leaks. 

The limits on domestic waste burning wHI 

largely restrict the allowance to rural areas 

where there is no practical alternative. These 

circumstances are limited in number and represent insignificant poUulion sources. In addlion, most ozone nonattainment areas are 

either urbanized or affected by transport from 

an urban area. However, the restrictions on 

domes lie waste burning listed in §111.1 03 ····are limited to lhose which are consistent with 

the existing rule language. Campfires are alreadY limited as to the types of materials 

which must not be burned (see §111.105(7}). 

Municipal solid waste burning will soon be 

eliminated by the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In the meantime, 

the section restricts the circumstances under 

which such burning can occur. However, the 

restrictions on municipal solid waste burning 

listed in §111.103 are limited to those which 

are consistent with the existing rule language. 

There appears to be little merit to TXO's 

argument that changes to the proposed rule 

language are necessary to provide companies the necessary freedom to promptly ignited oil or gas spills or leaks when such 

action is needed to mitigate potential health 

or environmental damage. The section, which 

has been in effect for ovar 1 0 years, allows 

for such burning if the situation is •rranted, 

provided the TACB is notified consistent with 

§101.6. This section simply requires that notice be provided as soon as possible after the 

event occurs. The agency reserves the option, pursuant to §101.11(a), to subsequently 

determine whether the spill or leak was dealt 

with appropriately In the context of 

§101.11(a), igniting the spill or leak might 

then be considered to be necessary corrective action to minimize the consequences of 

the event. TXO's statement that dstance requirements for allowable outdoor burning are 

unworkable is not supported by experience. 

These requirements have been in effect since 

1975 with no history of being unreasonably 

restrictive to outdoor burning. 

The new sections are adopted under Texas 

Civil StaMas, Article 44n-5, §3. 09(a), which 

provide the TACB with the authority to make 

ten notification, with 2A-hour advance telephone notice for each training session is 

sufficient. Authorization to conduct outdoor 

burning under this provision may be revoked by the executive director if this provision is Uled to circumvent I 111.101 of 

this Iitle (relatin& to Gena-11 Prohibition) 

md f111.103 of this Iitle (relating \0 Exceptions to Prohibition of Outdoor Burning); . 

(2) domestic wute tUning Bl a 

property designed for md used exclusively 

as a private residence, housing not more 

than three families, when collection of domestic wute is not provided or authorized 

by the local governmental entity having jurisdiction, and when the wute is generated 

only from thal property; 

(3) campfrres md frres used 

solely for recreational or ceremonial purposes, or in the nonoommercill preparation 

of food, or used exclusively for the purpose 

of supplying w1m1th during cold weather. 

Such burning shall be subject to the requ~ 

ments of I 111.1 05(7) of this title (relating 

to General Requirements for Allowable 

· • Outdoor Burning); 

rules and regulations consistent with the ~n- , .: (4) diseased animal burning 

e~al intent and purpose of the Texas Ch~an ~,:,. when such burning is the most effective 

A•r Act and to amend any Nle or regula~n means of conttolling the spread of disease; 

the TACB makes. ·.~. • . 

(S) rurll area on-site burning of 

§JJ 1 .103. Exceptions to Prohibition of Out- · 

door B tuning. 

(a) Outdoor burning may be autho- · 

rized by written pennission from the execu-·. 

tive director of the Te.xas Air Conttol Board-

(fACB) if there is no pmctical alternative 

and if the burning will not cause or contribute to a violation of any federal primary or 

secondary ambient air standard. The executive director may also specify procedures or 

methods to control or abate emissions from 

outdoor burning authorized pursuant to this 

section by requiring that trenches be dug to 

align with prevailing winds, specifying time 

for burning, and other related factors. Authorizations to burn may be revoked by the 

executive director Bl any time if the burning 

is causing nuisance conditions, is not conducted in accordance with the specified 

conditions, violales any provision of an applicable pennit, or causes a violation of any 

air quality standard. 

(b) Outdoor burning shall also be 

authorized in each of the following instances: 

(1) training of frre-fighting personnel when requested by certified mail and_ 

when authorized in writing by the local air 

pollution control agency or local health 

unit In the absence of such local entities, 

the nearest T ACB Regional Office shall be 

notified. The burning shall be authorized if 

notice of denial from the local air pollution 

control agency, local health unit, or TACB 

Regional Office is not received within 10 

days of the request. In cases of repetitive, 

routine frre-fighting training, a yearly writ-

• Adopted Sections 

· trees, brush, grus, and otller d? plant 

-gnwth when no practical alt&native to 

burning exists for rlghl-of-way maintenance, land-clearing operations, and for 

r.hose forest, crop, and raage management 

f>!>y.>.;es mx S¥~ill"1Cl!lly governed bY or-

.;,n is:f~Wd pU1SUant iO subsection (a) of 

this section. Such burning shall be subject 

to the requirements of I 111.1 OS of this title 

(relating to General Requirements for Allowable Outdoor Burning); 

(6) salt-marsh grass management burning may be conducted only in 

Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Chambers, 

Galveston, Harris, Jackson, Jefferson, 

Kleberg, · MBlagorda, Nueces, Orange, 

Refugio, and San Patricio counties and only 

if the following requirements are met. 

(A) All land on which burning is to be conducted shall be registered 

with the app-opriate regional office of the 

T ACB and its location identified on a 

United States geological survey map or 

equivalent. 1be person who owns or controls the land must also submit a legal description of the land boundaries and identify 

significant points such u roads, canals, 

lakes and streams, add the method by which 

access is made to the site. For large acreage, the map should be divided intO manageable blocks not larger than a section, 

with numerical identification for each defmed block. The information must be provided for review 8l least 15 days before the 

burning takes place. 

July 4, 1989 14 TerReg 3289 
(B) Prier 10 any burning, appunl111U1l be oblained from the appropriate n:Jioul of6ce. Notificalion of the 

humin& .may be verbll or writlal and must 

identify abe apecifJC area and block 10 be 

burned. estimated acreage, 11art and end 

time of the bum, and a penon who cm be 

caatac:ted clurina the bum period-

(C) The penon responsible 

far the burning must p-ovide ICCeSS and 

transportation to the burn lite upon request 

by the regional office. 

(D) Such burning shall be 

subject 10 the requirements of §111.105 of 

Ibis title (relalin& to General Requirements 

far Allowable Outdoor Bumin&). 

(7) hydrocarbon burning from 

pipeline brelb Cld oil spills may be allowed upon proper notif~emon u 11et forth 

in §101.6 of this title, (relatina 10 Notification Requirements for Major Upset), if the 

e~tecutive director detetmines tha1 the burning is necessary 10 protect the public weifire; 

(8) municipal solid wute burning may be conducted until such time u it 

is eliminated by the Federal Resource Con-

.uvation and Recovery Act and u long u 

Jbe followin& conditions are meL 

(A) Municipal solid wute 

burning may be conducted at Te~tu Department of Health (TDH) permitted Type D or 

m landfill sitea (sitea serving less than 5, 

000 population equivalent) located in any 

county with a population of 100,000 or less 

as determined by the latest United States 

population census if authorization is obtained from abe e~tecutive direct.or of the 

TACB. Any authorization .p-ovided here~mclcr must be consistent with all TDH regulalions and in accordance with 40 Code of 

Federal Rqulations 257, criteria for clusifacation of solid waste disposal facilities 

and practKlel. 

(B) Brush and demolition or 

conslniCtion wood wasle burning may be 

conducted at TDH permitted Type IV landfill sites. as defmed by the TDH, located in 

the counties described in subparagr.pt (A) 

of Ibis paragraph if authorization is obtained from the e~tecutive direct.or of the 

TACB. Any authorization provided here~mder must be consistent with the criteria referenced in subparagraph (A) of this 

paragraph_ 

(C) Such burning shall be 

subject to §111.1 05(7) of this title (relllling 

to General Requirements for Allowable 

Ouldoor Burning). 

This agency hereby cer1ifies lhat lhe rule as 

adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel 

and found ID be a valid exerdse of lhe agency's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

TRD-8905566 Allen Efi BeD 

Executive Diractor 

r ... a. Air ConlrCII Board 

Efleetive date: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication date: December 27, 

1988 

For lurlher infonnation, please can: (512) 

451-5711, ext 354 

' • • •• 

Visible Emissions 

e 31 TAC §111.111, §111.113 

The TelC&s Air Control Board (TACB) adopts 

new §111.111 and §111.113. New §111.111 

is adoplled with changes ID the proposed 18xt 

as published in the December 27, 1988, issue 

of lhe Texas Register (13 TexReg 6433). 

New § 111.113 is adopted without changes 

and wiD not be republished. In coi'ICUITent 

action, lhe TACB adopts lhe repeal of previous §§111.21-111.28, concerning visible 

emissions. 

The new § 111. 111 lists a compliance date, 

lhe types of sources from which visible emissions are allowed, and enumerates opadty 

Hmits for each. It also specifies reference 

methods lor opacity monitor performance 

IBsting, requires facilities ID keep recorda of. 

such testing lor two years, and ou11ines oertilicalion requirements for opacity readers. The ~ 

new § 111. 113 enables a facility to operate 

under higher opacity rates if applicable,Miissions limitations can not be met, ambient air 

quality standards will not be exceeded, and 

lhe facility can prove it would be technically 

impractical or economically unreasonable to 

comply with established opacity limits. 

The new seaion s are part of a series of 

substantial revisions ID Chapter. 111, concerning control of air poUution from visible 

emissions and matter. Since the changes are 

extensiw, the staff has determined that it 

would be administratively more efficient ID 

concurren11y repeal Chapter 111 in its entirety 

and add a new Chapter 111. 

The Administrative Procedure and TelC&s 

Register kt, Texas Civil StaiUtes, Alticle 

6252-138, §5(c)(1), require categorization of 

comments as being for or against a proposal. 

A comrnenter who suggested any changes in 

the proposal is categorized as against the 

proposal, while a commenter who agreed 

with the proposal in its entirety is categorized 

as being for the proposal. 

Eight commenters (the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Texas Foreslry Assodation (TFA), two private dtizens, Houston 

Ughting and Power (HL&P), the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the American Lung Association (AlA), and Chevron) 

raised questions regarding 1he proposed visi-

• ble emissions rules. There were no 

comrnenters in favor of the proposal. 

A complete summary of comments and a 

discussion of issues follows. Copies of the 

written testimony and hearing lranscript are 

available for inspection at the central office of 

the TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

HL&P and ERCOT recommended that the 

term "stationary• be added to the proposed 

language regarding vents to be consistent 

14 Te.rReg 3290 July 4, 1989 Texas Register • 

with lhe previously-used term "stationary 

tlues" and to avoid confusion with mobile and 

other towe81. They also suggested that the 

propelled rule language be moclfiecl to apeclfy fMit new IOUI"C8 performance standards 

(NSPS) ar TACB permit provisions apply If 

IUCh provitlonl .. dflerent from lhe opacity 

awraging periods lsted in lhe rules. HL&P 

and ERCOT slldad hit, whle !hey agreed 

that lhe averaging times .tlould be changed 

from fiw to six-minute periods u proposed, 

many TACB permits contain hi five-minute 

lime period. They suggested that the TACB 

issue guidance through simple permit revisions that will allow theSe awraging periods 

to be changed. 

The adcltion of the word "stationary" to the 

proposed rules regardng vents to avoid con- tusion with mobile sources appears advantageous. HOW8Y8r, HL&P and ERCOT's 

asler1iona hit proposed opacity averaging 

periods need to be changed because of dffering NSPS and permit provisions appear to 

have 'ittle merit In cues where hi avera~ 

lng period in Regulation I differs from thole in 

Individual permits (go:--emed by Regulation 

VI) or NSPS, al wll haw to be met If necesurj, a facility can petition lhe TACB lor a 

pernit amendment The change from five to 

six-minute averaging times was proposed in 

order to be consistent with federal requir&-

ments. 

One private dlizen recommended lo.vering 

. lhe 30% opacity limit because of potential 

health impac:ta. Another citizen noted ·that 

weather conditiC'ns often interfere with opacity 

nadings and "'~GVested lhe TAOB inwsttgate lhe use of more ~- measurement 

methods, such as "Udir." EPA and lhe TFA 

pointed out that the proposed section does 

not specify an :lilowable opacity for use with 

CCil1inuous mo~ SY$tams -end sugg;nl'Dd t'.ah;.ili~U " .. ~ io ;r.;, ;action. ~ EPA further noiBd that lhe language concernIng certification of visible emission evaluaiDrs. 

should be relocated to indcate that lhe raquirernents apply to all opaaty determinations 

(§111. t 11 (A}( D)). FINIIIy, EPA suggested 

that 1he continuous opacity monitoring systems be required to undergo periodic performance 18sting as specified in lhe Code of 

Federal Regulations and that compliance records be furnished to lhe T ACB. 

The 30% opacity limit applies to IOUI'Cel conS1ruaed before 1972. Agency experience indcates that lhe 30% limit represents a 

reasonable standard of control for these older 

sources. While it is lrUe lhat weather conditions may sometimes impede nonmechanical 

opacity reatings, this rnelhod remains an effective tool in enforcement actions. "Lidar" is 

useful lor research applications, but is IDo 

expensiw lor widespread application. The 

staff believes the rule language requiring certification of opacity monitors will be mora enforceable than lhe previous section and thus 

should contribute ID improvements in air quality. EPA and TFA comments about the need 

ID specify opacity limits for use with continuous monitoring systems appear to be useful 

in order ID ensure lhat the correct opacities 

are achieved. AdditionaHy, EPA suggestions 

lhat language concerning certification of visible emission evaluaiDrs apply to all opacity 

determinations, and !hat continuous monitors 

be required ID undergo periodic perfonnance 

testing, appear to be meritorious. Howewr, ~ 

there does not appear to be a need for lacili- ~ 
ties to fl.mish the TACB with records of compliance lasting, as long as such records Mil 

kept on-.ile for two years. 

TFA, HUP. and ERCOT noted !hat the propoeed six-month time period for achieving 

compliance with the opacity monitoring re- quirement was insufficient because of the 

acan:lly of the vendors selling the equipment 

TFA recp.~elled !hat the compliance date be 

eldllndad to one year. HL&P and ERCOT 

IIU8I'I8d !hat reference to compliance deter· 

mination based on an opacity monitor should 

be deletad because it is inconsistent with 

ladaral NSPS regulations which &paCify 

methods based on factors IUd'l as source 

type, age, and size and with proposed language regarding li&st melhods 

(§11 U 1 1 (a)(1 )(F)). They alao maintained 

that inltalng or replacing monitors with new 

ayslltme wil resuh in significant economic 

001111 and .uggested deleting 1'18 r9(JJirement 

tor opecity moniiiOrl but retaining 1'18 propo.ed Tea Me1hod 9, except where It dffers 

tom tadnl NSPS regulations. EPA oonllndad that q variation from !he specified 

last method must be approved by both EPA 

and !he TACB. 

Thent appears to be a imiled number of 

wndors prod.lcing opacity monitoring equipment. Therefore, extanding !he compliance 

data for meeting continuous monitoring re- quirvmenls tom six months to one year appears to be reasonable. However, the staff 

does not believe !hat adcing the provision for 

de1amlining compliance with • 0911ified opacity monitor is inconsistent with NSPS regulationa. P.r of the purpose for the proposed 

ANislons was to add lelt me!hods and otherwise make !he rules more consistent with 

ladaral requirements. This was the basis for 

the proposed change in averaging lime from 

live to six minulls. Furthermore, !he use of 

opacity monitors was 'previously implied. The 

language simply darifies !his intent. The staff 

believes !hat variations to !he standard last 

methods which !he execullve drector would 

1ypicaiJ ~ve would be ldanlified at prelltst ~s and would constiiU18 minor 

c:hMges necessary to adapt to unique condlona at a specific facility. The time required to 

pin EPA approval of such variations would 

cretde UI'IW8I1'8flted delays, hinder compliMee efforts, and involve unnecessary staff 

f8IOUI'c:8l for both agencies. 

One privata citizen asser1ad !hat the sixminuiB 30% opacity limits should be reduced 

to three minutes, with a 20% opacity limit, 

and !hat !he six-minuta allowance during 

soot-blowing is a health hazard and should 

be phased out 1hrough retrofitting of facilities. 

Chevron reoommended deletion of the pro- f1018d language requiring facilities 10 meet 

the emission mass rate standard cilring sootblowing activities because compliance is impossible to demonstral8. 

The 30% opacity allowance during sootblowing applies only to facilities built before 

1972 and is !he opacity level such sources 

should be able to comply with if they are property maintained. The six-minute average 

ia consistent with the federal averaging time 

for opacity teedings. Additionally, the staff 

maintains !hat exempting excess emissions 

from certain necessary start-up and maintenance activities 10 six minutes per hour 

andt'or six hours in any 1 0-day period is sufficiently slringent to protect air quality. This is 

especially 1rue since the c::larifieation has 

been made that the hourly mass ra11a standard must be complied with at all times, even 

cilring periods when lhort·larm higher emissions result from certain maintenance acdvities. Stack tests during periods of iootblowing or any of the other activilles listed in 

the section have not led to dflicullies with 

compliance demonstrations. This ia because 

the sampling protocol averages lhe temporary higher mass levels during the shofl-181'm 

soot-blowing with normal lower qperating levels in a one-hour emission ~Uiement. 

ERCOT recommended !hat language regarding emissions from motor Y8hides be darified 

to note that the section applies to emissions 

from vehide exhaust systems. A privaiB citizen explained !hat this section could not be 

enforced because enforcement offic::el's can 

no longer gat vehicle-owner information from 

license plates because of a change in 1he 

slate privacy laws. Both citizens opposed 1he 

proposed 30% opacity ra11a from struc:tures. 

One said 1hat no emissions should be aJ.. 

lowed because of enforcement dffia.llty. The 

other, however, recommended a 20% opacity 

limit with a 1hree-minute maximum to protect 

public heallh. ERCOT recommended deleting 

!he proposed rule regarding visible emissions 

from "other sources• because of inftexibility. 

ERCOT argued that the rule was 10 aJJ.. 

indusive !hat it could apply to sources such; 

as cilst from fields, roads, and fi~· 

which ate already controlled by TACB peri'nlt 

and nuisance provisions or o1her rules: . . , .~-

Thete appears 10 be merit in ERCOT's reCommendation !hat the rule concerni~ motor 

vehides be clarified by specifying !hat emissions limits are applicable to vehicle exhaust 

systems. This would avoid confusion with potential emissions from other parts of vehicfes,. 

which Mil addressed in § 111.143(3) and 

§ 111. 145(3). Umits on vehicle opacity do not 

appear to be unenforceable because of !he 

dfficulty of getting vehicle ownership information from license plates. The change in the 

privacy law applies only 10 private cilizens, 

not to state and local governmental entities 

seeking the information for enforcement purposes. The comment !hat !he 30% opacity 

rate from slruclUres should be disallowed or 

recilc:ed to 20% was predcated on !he perception !hat the proposal was too lenient At 

the present lime, !he agency has no data to 

indicate !hat a stricter limit is necessary. 

Moreover, the proposal was designed 10 substantially improve enforceability relative to the 

previous section. The term "building" was re- placed by !he more inclusive •structure," and 

!he 30% opacity timit replaced the HI-defined 

term "excessive emissions. • Contrary to 

ERCOT's assertion !hat proposed language 

limiting emissions from "other sources• is inllexible. the staff believes that the broad applicability of the section provides considerable 

llexibllity by es tabr11hing a definitive limit for a 

variety of sources and an additional enforcement tool for regulators. 

EPA, ERCOT, ALA, and both private citizens 

also commented on the proposed alternate 

opacity provisions. EPA noted !hat such provisions need 10 have EPA, as well as TACB. 

approval. ERCOT suggested !hat the proposed 180-c:.lay application period may not be 

long enough because seasonal conditions 

may affect opacity testing. They asked that 

an option for time extensions be made available for completeness determinations. ALA 

• Adopted Sections 

and both private citizens maintained that !he 

alli&rnali& opacity pn:nlislons are unnecessary. 

not in !he best inlenlst of public health, and 

should be delned. 

Under existing drcumsllnces, EPA may disapprove a TAC~kppn:Ned alternate opacity 

application submitted as an SIP revision if 1he 

demonstration appears Inadequate. EPA wiD 

alto be no1itiad concerning. and may become 

a par1y to, adjudcathle hearings prior to 

board adion. Consequently, there appears to 

be little need to reoommend a change to !he 

proposal in responl8 to EPA:s comment. The 

slaff does not beliiMt that the 180 day application period should be extended to allow for 

fluctuating weather conditions. Facilities can 

perform approprlale opacity testing before 

they submit an altemata opacity application, 

or they can achecllle the IUbmission of !he 

application ., coincide with 1'18 general climadicJ concltlona they prefer. The staff beliews !hat lix months ia a reasonable amount 

of tme in which to make a decision. The 

application lime lnit was designed to prevent 

unnecessaty delays which can r&sult in excessive emi11ions whle !he application Is being processed. The ahernale opacity 

provisions spedfically raquire a demonstration 1hat it is technically Impractical or eco- nOinicaHy unreasonable for the facifrty to meet 

established opacity limits, !hat al ambient air 

quality standards wll be met. and !hat no 

nuisance condlions wil occur. Consequently, 

the argument !hat altemali& opacity is not in 

!he best interest of public heallh appears to 

be of limited concern. , 

The new sectiQftl Mil ado9;,q ~Texas 

Civil Slatutes, Article 44/7-fJ, {J. U9(a), which 

provide !he TACB With the QL;!hority to make 

rules and regulations consistent with 1he general intent and pwpose of 1he Texas Clean 

Air AtA and to amend airt. rul;l. !ll' regulation 

!he TACB makes. 

§ ll 1.111. Reqllire~Mnls for Specified 

Sollf'CU. 

(a) Visible emissions. No person 

may cause, suffer, llllow, or permit visible 

emissions from any 110t1tee. except ss follows. 

(1) Stationay vents. Visible 

emissions from any vent shall not exceed 

the following opacities and must meet the 

following requirements. 

(A) Opacity shall not exceed 

30% averaged over a six-minute period. 

(B) Opacity shall not exceed 

20% averaged over a six-miilute period for 

any source on which construction was begun after January 31, 1972. 

(C) Opacity shall not exceed 

15% averaged over a six-minute period for 

any source having a total flow rate greater 

than or equal to 100,000 actual cubic feet 

per minute (acfm) unless an optical instrument capable of measu:rin& the opacity of 

emissions is installed in the vent in accordance with subparagraph (D) of this paragraph. Facilities utilizing such instruments 

July 4, 1989 14 Te.rReg 3191 
shall meet opcity timils oullined in subsection (a)(l )(A) or (B) of Ibis section u appliclble. Records of aD such measurements 

shall be re&ained • povided for in §101.8 

of lhia tide (relatina r.o S.mpJ.in&). This 

provision lhlll DDt apply r.o venta having 

&• lb'ellnl conllinin& moisture which interferes with proper iDstnunenl operation, if 

10 cletamined by lhe executive director. 

(D) Any opKity monitoring 

system installed • provided for in 

subparagraph (C) of Ibis puagaph must 

satisfy the new soun:e performmce slllndards requirement for oplcity continuous 

emission moniiOfina sylleml 115 contained 

in 40 Code of Federll Regulations Put 60, 

Appendix B, Performam:e Specif'&e:ation 1. 

In order r.o demonstrate CXllllpliance with 

Perfonnance Spec:ification 1, the system 

shall undcrzo performmce spec::ificllion 

rating u outlined in 40 Code of Federll 

Regulllion 60.13. The facility will maintain 

recmds of aJl such rating for a period of 

not less than two yun. Compliance determinations may be made based on results of 

monitoring with a certified opacity monitor 

or by a currendy c:ertif'led opacity reader, 115 

described in subsection (a)(l)(G) of Ibis 

section. Compliance for vents with condensible particulate or water vapor shill be 

delermined by a certified opacity reader. 

Complimce with Ibis provision shaD be accomplished within one year of the effective 

dlle of Ibis sec:tion. 

(E) Visible anissions during 

lhe cleaning of a fuebox or the building of 

a new file, soot blowing, equipment 

changes, uh removal, and rapping of precipitllors may exceed the limits set forth in 

this section for a period aggregating not 

more thin six minutes in my 60 consecutive minuteS, nor more than six hours in any 

1 0-day period. This exemption shaD not 

apply r.o the emissions mass rate standard, 

115 outlined in § 111.1 S 1 (a) of this title (relllina r.o Allowable Emissions Limils). 

(F) Compliance with piUllppbs (l)(A), (B), and (C) of this subsection shaD be determined by applying the 

following test methods, as appropriate: 

(i) Test Method 9 (40 

Code of Federal Regulations 60, Appendix 

A); or 

(ii) equivalent test 

meahod llpPIOVed by the executive director. 

(G) Current certification of 

OP.BCity readers for determining opacities 

Outlined in subsection (a)(l)(A), (B), (C), 

IDd (D) of this section shaD be determined 

by having completed the Texas Air ConlrOl 

Board visible emissions evaluator's course 

within 180 days of the opacity reading. 

(2) Gas flares. 

14 TexReg 3292 July 4, 1989 

(A) Visible emissions from a 

gas flare shaD not be permitted for more 

than five minutes in any two-hour period 

except u provided in §lOl.ll(a) of this tide 

(relating to Exemptiona from Rules md 

Regulations). Acid g115 flares, 115 defined in 

UOl.l of this title (relating to Defmitions), 

are exempt from the provisions of this subsection, but are subject to the provisions of 

paragraph (1) of this subsection. 

c 

(B) Compliance with paragraph (2XA) of this subsection shill be 

determined by applying the following test 

methods, 115 appropriate: 

(i) Test Method 22 (40 

Code of Federal Regulations 60, Appendix 

A); or 

(ii) equivllent test 

method approved by the executive director. 

(3) Motor vehicles. Motor vehicles shaD not have visible exhaust emissions for more than 10 consecutive seconds. 

(4) Railroad locomotives or 

ships. Visible emissions shall not be permitted from any railroad locomotive, ship, or 

my other vessel to exceed an opacity of 

30% for any five-minute period. except diD'-

ing reasonable periods of engine start-up. 

(S) Structures. Visible emissions 

shall not be permitted to exceed m opecity 

of 30% for any six-minute period from my 

building, enclosed facility, or other structure. 

(6) Other sources. Visible emissions shall not be permitted to exceed an 

opacity of 30% for any six-minute period 

from all other soiU'ces not specified in this 

section. 

(A) Compliance with piUllgraph (S) of this subsection shaD be determined by applying lhe following test 

methods, 115 appropriate: 

(i) Test Method 9 (40 

Code of Federal Regulations 60, Appendix 

A); or 

(ii) equivalent test 

method approved by the executive director. 

(b) Compliance determination exclusions. Contributions from \UlCOmbined 

water shaD not be included in determining 

compliance with this section. The burden of 

proof which establishes the applicability of 

this subsection shall be upon the person 

seeking to come within its provisions. 

This agency hereby c:er1iftes that 1he rule as 

adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel 

and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

TR0.8905565 AUan EN BeD 

Executive Director 

Texas Air Control Board 

Effective date: July 18, 1989 

Texas Register • 

Proposal publication date: December 27, 

1988 

For fur1her information, please call: (512) 

451-6711, ext 354 · 

• • 

Incineration 

• 31 TAC §111.111 

The Texas AJr Control Board (TACB) adopts 

new §111.121, without changes to the proposed text as published in 1he Dec:ember 27, 

1988, issue of 1he T sus Register ( 13 

TexReg 6435). In concummt action, the 

TACB adopts 1he repeal of previous 

§§111.11-111.12, concerning incineration. 

The new § 111.121 eslablishea limitations on 

the burning of garbage or rubbish in residential, publicly-owned, commercial, or hospital/pathological waste incineraiDrs. 

The new I8Ciion is p.-t of a 1eries of substantial revisions 10 Chapter 111, c:onceming 

control of.air pollution from visible emissions 

and particulate matter. Since 1he changes are 

extensive, lhe slalf has determined thai it 

would be administratively more efficient to 

concurrently repeal Chapter 111 in its entirety 

and add a new Chapllllr 111. 

The Administrative Procedure and Texas 

Regisllllr Act. Texas Civil Slatul8s, Article 

. 6252-138, §5(c)(1), requires categorization of 

comments as being for or against a proposal. 

'ft. bOmmenter who suggested any changes in 

lhe proposal is categorized as against 1he 

proposal, while a commenllllr Who agreed 

with the proposal in its entirety Is categorized 

as being for the proposal! 

· Three commenters, all private citizens, testified against 1he proposed unclesignal&cl head. 

There were no commeniBrs in favor of the 

proposal. 

A complete summauy of comments and a 

dscussion of issues follows. Copies of 1he 

written lllslimony and hearing transaipt are 

available for inspection at 1he central office of 

the TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

0'18 citizen was conoemecl with incinerators 

in general and lhe fact that most are in or 

near residential areas. The comments of 1he 

other two citizens ware particularly aimed at 

hospital incineraiDI's. They noted that 1he 

burning of plastics, heavy metals, and organic 

hazardous materials are particularly dangerous to public health. One of these 

commenters as&erl&d that an incinerators 

should be required to undergo permit review 

and use best available control llech_nology. 

The slaff believes that there is merit 10 these 

convnents, and that 1he section would be 

more enforceable by being more explicit regarding equivalency with multiple-chamber 

incinerators. However, this change cannot be 

effected at this lime without conducting additional public hearings. The staff plans to rec- ommend a proposal in 1he future which would 

define lhe temperature, minimum residence 

lime, and destruction effiCiency of multiplechamber incinerators, with single-chamber incinerators being required to maintain equivalency. The stalf would also propose adding 

test methods to aid in evaluating singlechamber incinerators when there is a question of excessive emissions of particulates or 

hydrocarbons. 
The new aec:tions are adopted under Texas 

Civil Statum, Article 4477-5, §3. 09(a), which 

provide the TACB with the aulhorily to make 

ruleland regulations consistent with lhe general ln18nt lnCI purpose of the Texas Clean 

AJr Al::t and 11o amend any rule or regulation 

the TACB m-... 

Thll agency hereby oer1ifias lhat the rule as 

.topl8d hu been reviewed by legal counsel 

atd foundllo be a valid exercise ol lhe agenc:(a legal .,thority. 

Issued in Auatin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

TRD-8SI05Se4 Allen Eli Bell 

E x80Jtive Oirec!Dr 

T exu Air Control Board 

Effective date: July 18, 1989 

Propoaal publication date: December 27, 

1988 

For further information, please call: (512) 

451-5711, ext. 354 

• • 

Materials Handling, 

Construction, Roads, Streets, 

Alleys, and Parking Lots 

• 31 TAC §§111.141, 111.143, 

111.145, 111.147, 111.149 

The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) adopts 

new§§1111•1. 111.1.a.111. 145,111.147, 

and 111.149. New §§111.1.a, 111.145, 

111.147, and 111.149 are adopted with 

changes llo the proposed text as published in 

11.08 December 27, 1988, issue of the Texas 

Register(13 TexReg 6435). New §111.141 is 

adopted without changes and win not be re- published. In concurrent action, the TACB 

~· the repeal of previous §§111.41-

t11.45, conceming particulate matter from 

materials handling, construction, and roads, 

streets, and alleys. 

The new §111.141 establishes araas lor 

which the rulea would be applicable (portions 

of the cities of El Paso, Houston, and Corpus 

Christi), and a compliance date of December 

31 , 1991. The new § 111.1.a oudines dustcontrol measures on stockpiles and openboded lrucks, trailers, and railcars, and notes 

that equipment must be maintained and operating properly. The new §111.145 oudines 

dust-control measurements for construction, 

alteration, repairing, sandblasting, demolition, 

and lancklearing activities. A previouslypoposed requirement for wheel-washing in 

the El Paso area has been deleted. The new 

§111.147 oudines dust-<Xlntrol measures for 

major industrial facility roadways, defined as 

those roads which ara designed to accommodale two-way traffic and are at least 30 feet 

wide at least one point, public thoroughfares, 

and commercial and residential roads. Unpaved surfaces will be required to apply asphalt, water, or suitable oil or chemicals, and 

removal of soil and other materials from public paved surfaces will also be required. The 

- new § 111.149 specifies that lots with more 

than five parking spaces will be required to 

cont~ dust by application of asphalt, water, 

or su1table chemicals, and that in the City of 

El Paso, such lois are required to be paved or 

graveled. Private residential lots and those 

with less than five parking spaces ara exempted from these requirements, while temporary lots will be allowed to substibJte 

wetting for paving. 

The new sections are part of a series of 

substantial revisions to Chapter 111, conoeming control of air pollution from visible 

emission• and par1iculate matter. Since the 

changes are extensive, the staff haa determined that it would be administratively more 

efficient to concurrendy repeal Chapter 111 In 

Its entirely and add a new Chapter 111. 

The Administrative Procedure and Texaa 

Register Act, Texas Civil StaMBI, Anicle 

6252-138, §5(c)(1 ), require catego"¥tion of 

comments as being for or against a J*oposal. 

A commenter who suggested any changes in 

the proposal is categorized as against the 

proposal, while a commenter who agreed 

with the proposal in its entirely is categorized 

as being for the proposal. 

because of its Group I stabJs. While controls 

were proposed for portiona of El Paso outside 

of the Group I area oudined in the SIP, lhe 

atalf noiBI that moat auctl controla In being 

carried rNer from exlatlng leetlons. The 

EPCCHD requested thia continuation In order 

to preyent nuisance condition• and llo maklt 

enforcement aimpktr. The only new control• 

being popoaed were provilions for wheelwuhlng (Group I aree only), uae of street 

sweepers on public thorough,._,, paving of 

amall parking lots, and broadening requirements for pavement or covering of public 8nd 

major inplant roada. 

EPA maintained that the wording In the proposed &ec:tions was vague, and cilled examples of undefined IBrms such as "maximum 

control," "to the extent practicable." and •as Twenly-one commenters (Featherlite, the necessary.• EPA noted that the language 

Texas Forestry Association (TFA), two pri- needs to include apecific levels of emission 

valle citizens, Texas Aggregates and CoO- · crete Association (TACA), Chevron, El Paso reduction using informatiof) in the EPA guidaCily-Counly Health District (EPCCHD), El line document, Control of Urbsn Fugitive Dust Sources .. EPA slated that if the TACB enu- Paso Sand Products (EPSP), Dieter and merated the percentage of fugitive dustJames, Inc. (Dieter), Saunders Construction control required, EPA would, in tum, haw a 

Company (Saunders), Ideal Concrete (Ideal), basis for granting an emissions reduction 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), credit when evaluating compliance with fede.. 

El Paso Refining Company (EPRC), ASARCO, Pioneer Concrete (Pioneer), Asso- ral regulations. 

ciated General Contractors (AGC), COD In response to EPA's comments that the proConcrete (COD), Houston Ughting and posed sections should include specific, dePower (Hl&P), the Electric Reliabilily Council . monstrable levels of emission reductions in 

of Texas (ERCOT), Parker Brolhers & Com- ; 'order to be granted reduction credits, the staff 

pany (Pai'Ker) , and the Cily of Dallas (Dal- ·. · notes that there was no intent to claim reduclas)) expressed concern regarcing these tion crecits as part of the inrerim SIP because 

proposed rules. There were no commenters \he information necessary to calculate the . 

in favor of the proposal. reductions is currenlfy not available. The staff 

A complete summary of comments and a 

ciscussion of issues follows. Copies of th& 

written testimony and hearing transcript are 

available for inspection at the central offiCe of·. 

the TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

Featherlite asserted that the El Paso area is 

being targeted unfairly by the TACB because 

several of the sections deal specifically with 

El Paso. Similarly, ASARCO requested that 

the rule language be revised so that it would 

not impose stricter control measures in El 

Paso than on inhalable par1iculate matter 

(PM10) sources in the rest of the state. EPRC 

noted that the required controls are applicable throughout the Cily of El Paso, even 

though the slate implementation plan (SIP) 

oullines a specific area along the border as 

the source of fugitive PM10 emissions. Thus, 

EPRC slated, these controls should only be 

required in the border area. Similarly, HL&P 

and ERCOT contended that measures to reduce PM10 should be required only in areas 

where the standard is threatened, and noted 

that many areas covered by the proposed 

geographic description do not tit that circumstance, and therefore should not be required 

to comply. 

Monitoring data has shown that stricter controls are necessary in El Paso because it is 

the only area in the slate which exceeds the 

PM10 standard. Portions of Harris and Nueces counties are listed along with El Paso as 

geographic areas of application because they 

conlain former total suspended particulate 

nonattainment areas and part of the PM10 

strategy assumes thai existing particulate 

controls have helped lo mainlain the slandard. Therefore, existing particulate control 

measures are retained in these lwo counties. 

The only counly for which the staff proposed 

additional dust-control restrictions is El Paso, 

• Adopted Sections 

will consider the addition of emission reduction crecits after completion of lh8 ~ special 

sbJcfies being conducted in El Paso and Juarez. The staff agrees that some of the terms 

. in the sections are vague regarding the calculation of reduction aedits, but does not be- . 

lieve that will result in enforcement problems. 

Such terms have previously been utilized in 

TACB regulations without serious enforcement difficully. 

A private citizen, TFA, TACA, COD, Pioneer, 

Parker, EPSP, Dieter, and Ideal all objected 

to the proposed requirement for application of 

water, chemicals, or covering of slockpiles. 

The private citizen suggested lhat the sections relating to materials handing should 

have a reference requiring that all equipment 

be maintained and operated properly. TFA 

noted that there can be unusual conditions 

such as hurricane-force winds which may 

create airbome dusts and requested that the 

term "under normal conditions· be added to 

the provisions regarding watering or covering 

of stockpiles. TACA, COD, Pioneer, Parker, 

and Ideal noted that watering of stockpiles 

would be cosily and difficult to comply with 

because most of their stockpiles are small 

and watering them would damage the consistency of the aggregate, which would, in tum, 

lead to problems with meeting Highway Department specifications. Additionally, in the 

case of limestone stockpHes, runoff from such 

watering could be carried via trud<s onto public thoroughfares. EPSP wrote that the covering or wetting of all their stockpiles is 

"physically impossible." Ideal noted that in 

addition to runoff problems, watering limestone would "not lend itself to handling the 

material with a front-end loader," which most 

batch planls use. However, a private citizen 

asserted that such concrele batch plants ara 

capable of operating with sprinklers on their 

July 4, 1989 14 TerReg 3293 
11ockpiles if they are properly designed, and 

fie water can be recycled and thus prevented 

from being lrac:k.ed onto streets. He also 

nolld that suc:h plants can be extremely dirty 

.,d thai citizens should not haw to be exposed to fie nuiaanc:e conditions they can 

cause. 

The comment that the same section should 

contain a reference that all equipment must 

be maintained and operating properly would 

strengthen the control measure and thus appears to have merit. The term "under no""al 

conditions" is vague and undefined. By deleting the phrase, the staff intended to make the 

section more enforceable However, the staff 

agrees that conditions may OCQJr which 

would make watering or covering of stockpiles impossible. These conditions are outtined in the Texas Clean Air Act, §4.05, which 

states: "The liabifities which could otherwise 

be imposed by the AD. or any rule, regulation, 

variance, determination, or order issued under this AD. shaD not be imposed due to any 

violation caused by an ad of God, war, strike, 

riot, or other catastrophe." The staff does not 

believe that this language needs to be repeated in the section. The response to comments that watering stockpiles is costly, 

dilfirult to comply with, and can damage the 

consistency of the aggregate being stored is 

two-fold: (1) the requirement is a carry-over 

from existing section that haw been in effect 

for over 10 years and which have prown to 

be a useful and enforceable method of dust 

control; and (2) the section is Hexible to allow 

faci6ties to use alternate methods, such as 

covering or silo storage, to stabilize the stockpile if watering is not feasible. Regarding possible runoff problems with limestone 

11ockpiles, the slli'H notes that if this is the 

case, the facility should either recycle the 

water or use an alternate control such as 

covering in order to avoid exaoerbating the 

dust problem. COJI"'ments that cowring or 

wo;!ting iJf stockpiles is "physically impossible," and that watering limestone would make 

the use of front-end loaders difficult do not 

appear to be substantiated. This section has 

been in effect Iince 1979, and the staff is not 

aware of any problems resulting from its enforcement. 

Daftas and Dieter questioned the use of "suitable chemicals or oil" and noted that these 

chemicals could end up in underground wells. 

Ideal noted that IUch chemicals might affect 

quality and behavior characteristics of raw 

materials and would also require separate 

costly system to implement Dallas further 

noted that the installation of hoods, fans, and 

filters would be economically infeasible and 

would produce "dubious results lor outdoor 

operations." 

Chemical or oil sealants are designed to produce a thin crust on the surface being sealed. 

It is not cost-effedive to use the sealants in 

quantities that would cause run-off or would 

cause the surfactant to mingle with the material underneath, causing a loss of stockpile. 

Therefore, if the sealants are used properly, 

there will be no danger of contamination of 

· "flvells. Similarfy, Ideal's concern that such 

chemicals might affect the quality of the raw 

materials being stockpiled is not valid when 

the chemicals are used property. It is to the 

benefit of the facilities using these chemicals 

that 1hey be applied carefully and correcdy. 

The staff recognizes that it is economically 

infeasible to install hoods, fans, and filters in 

- 14 TexReg 3294 July 4, 1989 

many cases. Consequendy, the section was 

designed to provide options in the control of 

such emissions. Hoods, fans, and filters can also be the optimum control in other cases. 

TACA, EPRC, Ideal, Pal1cer, and ASARCO 

also commented on proposed requirements 

lor wetting or covering of open-bodied trucks, 

trailers, and railroad cars. Most commenters 

stated that this provision is oostly and impractical, particularly in the case of railroad cars 

since the cars are not owned by the industries which ship in them and it is unlikely that 

the covers could be retrieved !of reuse. 

Parker noted that such covering would hinder 

railcar owners' competition with off-shore 

shippers, who are not required to cover shipments. ASARCO maintained that the wetting 

or covering of open-bodied vehicles should 

be the obligation of the shippers of dustcausing materials, rather than the receivers of 

them, and submitted revised rule language to 

this effect EPRC further noted that such wetting or covering should be limited to Group I 

areas. Ideal asserted that coarse aggregates 

should not have to be wet or coverad because they emit little or no airborne dust. 

They also reiterated problems which can ocrur when fine aggregates are wet, and noted 

that the cost of concrete oould rise significantly as a result of the proposed controls. 

The requirement to cover open-bodied trucks, 

trailers, and railcars involves no substantive 

change from the section (§ 111.42) which has 

been in effect lor more than 10 years and has 

prawn to be a useful method of dust control. 

The staff also believes that such requirements should be in effect in the geographic 

areas listed, not just in the Group I $rea, 

because the section is designed to reduce 

nuisance potential and to help oontrol fugitive 

emissions in areas which have had particulate problems. While coarse aggregate is not 

as dusty as fine, the amount of dust on the 

surface of the aggregate depends on when 

and if the aggregate was washed. The staff 

anticipated problems with defining "coarse" 

aggregate and enforcing washing provisions 

and, therefore, made no change to the proposal. 

HL&P, ERCOT, EPRC, Chevron, and a private citizen commented on the proposed sections regarding watering and wetsandblasting and enclosure during construction and demolition activities. HL&P, ERCOT, 

EPRC, and Chevron noted that many demolition activities, such as demolition of steel 

structures, do not produce dust emissions. 

HL&P and ERCOT requested the phrase ·as 

necessary" be added to the .section to apply 

to dust-producing structures. They also recommended that proposed language relating 

to wet-sandblasting be modified to exempt 

operations associated with repair or maintenance of existing facilities, whose exemption 

would be "consistent with TACB Standard 

Exemption 170, • and noted that the cost of 

enclosures of outdoor abrasiw cleaning operations can exceed the cost of the cleaning 

operation itself. A private citizen requested 

that the proposed sandblasting controls be 

extended to blasting of bridges and road areas where dust is a problem. 

Comments that demolition of steel structures 

does not produce dust and should be exempted from the section governing 

sandblasting do not appear defendable. II no 

dust is produced by the demolition, no control 

Texas Register • 

is required. Otherwise, failure to take the dust 

control precautions is Uf1ustifiable. Regarding 

HL&P and ERCOrs assertion that the language should be modified ID be conaistant 

with TACB's llandard e118mption list, 1he controls are called lor only in the specific geographic areas outlined in the section. In these 

areas, controls may be more stringent than 

any potentialy-coritlicling s!Mdard exemption. The staff also believes that the cost of 

enclosure of outdoor abrali¥8 cleaning operations is a prudent and colt-effective method 

of dust control; howewr, eldending suc:h controls to the sanclllasling of bridges and road 

areas is too technically difficult and costly to 

be required at this time. 

Dieter, EPRC, Chevron, AGC, Featherlite, 

EPCCHD, Saunders, and EPA all commented against the proposed I&Ciion caDing 

for wheel washing of construction vehicles in 

the City of El Puo. Dieter, AGC, EPCCHD, 

and Saunders poinlld out that such requirements in the desert terrain of El Paso would 

be a waste of scarce water resources with 

~tile public benefit AGC, Chevron, Saunders, 

and EPRC aU noted that such requirements 

would be costly and would include building 

wheel-washing facilities and adcing personnel to oversee them. These commenters also 

noted that wheel-washing would exacerbate 

construction site problems by creating muddy 

bogs through which the trucks would have to 

pass and which could cause more mud and 

dirt to be deposited on ro~ays. Saunders 

asserted that requiring construction vehicles 

to be cleaned but not requiring cleaning of 

other off-pavement vehicles would be discriminatory. Finally, EPA voiced concern that 

such controls would 6e difficult to enforce and 

suggested that the rule lnsl8ad require paving 

of acoess roads near site exits. 

The staff recommended that the proposed 

wheel-washing provisions be withdrawn, 

agreeing with commeriters who noted that 

water is a SC8I'C8 resource in El Paso which 

should not be wasl8d on activities that may 

not be effective deeerrents to particulate problems. EPA's suggestion .of paving acoess 

roads near construction lites warrants further 

consideration. However, this measure was 

not previously proposed and must undergo 

public hearings before implementation. The · 

agency plans ID closely examine the results 

of the additional studies being carried out in 

the El Paso/Juarez area and may propose 

this and other controls if the studies indicate a 

beneficial and C9St-elfective result. 

EPSP, Chevron, HL&P, ERCOT, EPRC, 

EPA, and Dallas commented on proposed 

sections regarding roads, streets, alleys, and 

parking lots. EPSP asserted that paving 

quarry areas would create more dust because of the grinding action on hard surfaces. 

Chevron noted that sealed gravel chips would 

provide equivalent dust control with less cost 

than paving or asphalting and should be 

added to the sections as an option for major 

in-plant roads and parking lots. Chevron also 

requested a definition of "major" in-plant 

roads and projected that the cost of compliance with this paving requirement would be 

$1 million and would take two-three years to 

complete. They requested an extension of the 

compliance deadline for the rules in 

§§111.141-111.149. Chevron further maintained that redJc:ing speeds on such roads to 

20 miles per hour for light-duty vehicles and 

10 mph lor heavy-duty vehicles would be 
mont beneficial and easier to comply with 

flan paving. Additionally, Chevron stated that 

they haw been unable to find a streetaweeper contrac:IIDr in El Paso and noted that 

18ducing apeedl to 20 mph would eliminate 

lhe need for lhil control requirement for inplant roadl. HL&P and ERCOT argued that 

the proposed requirements for asphalting or 

wetting all major in-plant roads and 

WCMleavy-4ity pathway• tor roads used infrequently waa not warranted and requested 

that lhe language be mocified to refer only to 

roadl with more than 10 vehicle traversals 

per hour. Simlarly, EPRC stated that the application of dust-Qlt'llrol measures without regard to the number of vahicles or their speed 

was •excessiwly stringent" EPA noted that 

the proposed section regarding removal of 

IOil from paved surfaces should be revised to 

apecify lhe frequency of the removal. Dallas 

atalld that they haw sevaral miles of unpawd roads for crew acoess to levees and 

tult It would be economically impossible to 

paw them 01 reslric:t their usage. Dallas also 

mainlllined lhat the paving of residential 

rOIIdl with more than 10 vehicle traversals 

per hour waa unenforceable and unrealistic. 

They auggesl8d that if lhe section was re- lllined, it should only apply to new residential 

and apartment units. Finally, EPRC asserted 

that paving or graveling of p&OOng lots with 

more than fiw spaces should be 6mited to 

the Group I area in El Paso and that alternate 

dull-control measures such as wetting should 

be aDowed in lots that are infrequently used. 

1he statement that paving quarry areas 

would creaiB more d.!st because of the grindinq ~non hard surfaces does not appear 

\~li::. :-'aving such areas will reduce the 

~;tnount of maiBrialausoeptible to erosion that 

ean De reenlrained by vahicular traffic. The 

TACB has only approved use of gravel, rather 

~len paving or asptlalt, in areas with low 

lJ...q~ o;peeds end low traffic density. Gra.v-

~~,..W can help prevent reentrainment of dust, 

but high speeds and heavy traffic cause erosion of the gra\191 and subsequently higher 

lilat lewis. Therefore, graveling is not allowed lor ma;or in-plant roads or pari<ing lots. 

Chevron's assertion that it would be useful to 

.td a definition of •major" in-plant roads appears reasonable. Major in-plant roads are 

defined as those designed to accommodate 

two-way lraffic and at least 30 feet wide at 

any one point, measuring the distance from 

the edge of the uncisturbed earth on either 

aida of the established roadway. A single lane 

of lraffic is usually 10 feet wide, therefore, the 

stall beliews that any road or track that is 30 

feet wide can realistically be considered as 

major. ll~ staff also believes that such a 

definition will decrease paving costs. The 

staft also notes that lhe compliance dats for 

the aectiona dealing with materials handling is 

December 31, 1991, and maintains that this 

should be sufficient time to allow for implementation of needed controls. Requiring re- duced speeds on in-plant roads could be 

beneficial, but lhe enforcement of speed limits on in-plant roads would be difficult because of the limited number of regulatory 

·· •• atall. The intent of the street-sweeping rule 

was to require such cleaning for public paved 

thoroughfares, not private or in-plant roads. 

The aection was clarified to indicate this fact. 

Staff resources are also too limited to enforce 

a rule based on vehicle traversals per hour on 

private and industrial roadways. Consequ.ently, exempting such roads with less than 10 

vehicle traversals per hour from paving does 

not appear feasible. Again, lhe stall believes 

that a reasonable al18mative is to limit the 

applicabi6ty of the requirement to roads at 

least 30 feet wide. These ·wider roads are 

likely to have been built because of a demonstrated need for their existence and will generally be more frequently used. 

Implementation of EPA's recommendation 

that the section stipulate the frequency of lhe 

removal of soil from paved surfaces would 

not be expected to result in lower Jiartic:ulaiB 

emissions. In El Paso's desert environment, 

periods of high winds are intermittently interspersed with periods of relative calm and 

infrequent precipitation. Thus, under dry, 

windy concitions the specified frequency 

could be insufficient, while during calms or 

rainy periods the frequency could result in a 

wasts of time and resources. Consequently, 

no change in the section was made. The rule 

language doea not require paving of levee 

roads or roads designed for municipal maintenance. The staff does not believa that this 

exemption needs to be specificaHy defined 

and noiBs that, in any case, the rules do not 

apply to the Dallas area. The staff maintains 

that residential roads are a potential source of 

dust and as such warrant controls. A survey 

of affected municipalities indicated that the 

section will have a minimal impact on affected municipalities, because the majority of 

residential roads in these areas are already 

paved. In order to ensure that all reasonable . 

measures are taken to control fugitive dust 

and to limit the potential for future problems, 

existing requirements for paving of residential 

roads were retained. However, upon further 

analysis, the staff has determined that use of 

traffic. counts on public, commercial, and residential roads would be resource-intensive 

and difficult to enforce. Therefore, the staff 

withdrew the references to tralfic counts in 

these rules and changed the definition of public thoroughfares to "all f98ds and streets to 

which the public has general access. • Again, 

it should be noted !hat the section does not 

apply to the Dallas area. Since dust is not 

limited solely to the Group I area EPCCHD 

hopes that by extending such controls 

citywide, PM10 and particulate levels wiB not 

become a mont pervasive problem. The staff 

agrees that wetting would suffice in 18mporary parking lots where the lifetime of the lot 

will not exceed one month. 

The new sections are adopted under Texas 

Civil Statutes, Article 44n-s, §3. 09(a), which 

provide the TACB with the authority to make 

rules and regulations consisl8nt with the general intent and purpose of the Texas Clean 

Air Act and !!) amend any rule or regulation 

the TACB makes. 

§111.143. Materials Handling. No person 

may cause, suffer, allow, or permit any 

material, except for abrasive material for 

snow and ice control, to be handled. transported, or stored without taking at least the 

following precautions to achieve maximum 

conttol of dust emissions to the extent practicable: 

(1) application of water or suitable chemicals or some other covering on 

materials stockpiles and other surfaces 

which can create airborne dusts; 

(2) inslallation. maintenance, 

and p-op:r use of hoods, fans, and filters to 

enclote, collect, and clean the emissions of 

dusty mlterials; or 

(3) tpplication of water or suitable chemicals, or complete covering of 

mlteria1s coa.Wned in open-bodied trucks, 

tnilen, or railroad c.-a trlnSporting IUCh 

mlterials which can cnate airborne particulate matter in area where the general public 

hu acceas. 

(A) · Suitable wetting may be 

used as 111. alternative to covering in all 

areas except the City of El Paso. 

(B) Complete covering, at a 

minimum. is required in the City of E1 

Paso. 

§11JJ45. Corutr~~eriort and DemolitiOft. Far the purpose of this section. the 

following restrictions apply if the uea of 

land affected by the listed ICtivities is more 

thm one acre in size. No penon may cause, 

suffer, allow, or permit a structure, road, 

street. alley, or puking area to be construct-

' ed. altered. repaired. or demolished. or land 

·. to be cleared without taking at least the . 

following precautions to achieve maximum 

.control of dust emissions to the extent practicable: 

(1) use -of water br of ,suitable 

oil or chemicals for connol of aust in the 

demolition of struc:tUrd!, in consbUction operations, in work perfonned on a road, 

street. alley, or parlting area. or in the clearing of lmd; 

(2) use of adequate melhods 

such as wet-candblasting and enclosure of 

work areas to prevent ai!bome particulate 

matter during sandblasting of structures or 

other similar operations. 

§Ill .147. Roods. Streets. and Alleys. No 

person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit 

any public, industrial, commercial, or private road, SIJeet, or alley to be used without 

takina at least the following precautions to 

achieve maximum control of dust emissions 

to the extent pr1eticable: 

(1) application of asphalt, water, 

or suitable oil or chemicals on the following 

Wlpaved smfaces: 

(A) industrial facility roadways-all major in-plant roads and all t:ruck 

or other heavy-duty vehicle palhways. Major in-plmt roads shall be defmed as those 

which are designed tO accommodate twoway traffic and are at least 30 feet wide at 

least one point, measuriJl& the distance from 

the edge of the Wldisturbed earth on either 

side of lhe established roadway; 

(B) public thoroughfares-all 

roads and streets to which the public has 

general access; 

• Adopted Sections July 4, 1989 14 TexReg 3295 
(C) commercial roads-all 

.-, which ler\'e u .a:eu for more than 

50 emplo)'eea 01' u ICCels iD more than 10 

heaYy4aty lnJCk parkina ~pACe~; lnd 

(D) residential roads-all 

.-, which serve u .a:eu for mOI'e than 

20 residences uuJ/or apsrtment unita. 

(2) removal &om public thorouahfares, as neceaury, of soil or other 

materials, except for sand apPlied for the 

specific purpose of snow or ace control. In 

the City of E1 Puo, removal of 10il shall·be 

by mechanical sweepers or their equivalenL 

§JJJ.l49. Ptu/rilla Lots. 

(a) No person msy allow any vehicular parking surface having more than five 

parking spsca to be used unless dust is 

controlled by the appropriate application of 

asphalt. wa&er, or suitable oil or cl~emicals. 

(b) In the City of El Paso, parking 

surfaces with more thsn five parking spaces 

shall be paved or unifonnly covered with 

graveL 1bis provision shall not apply to 

temporary parking lots defined as lots used 

for less than one month, after which access 

is prohibited. Such temporary lots shall be 

required to apply wa&er or suitable oil. or 

chemical. Lots wilh :-:>.ore than 100 parking 

spK:es sball be '?'v~· or covered by an 

equivalent method dl'.termined by the executive director. An equivalent method shall 

not include the utilization of waste materials from industri~ pro~$CS. 

(c) Paricing £Uriaces having five 

spaces or less and parking surfaces at a 

property designed for and used exclusively 

as a privale residence housing not more 

than three families are exempt from these 

requirements. 

This agency hereby certifies that the rule as 

adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel 

and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

TR0-8905583 Allen Eli Bell 

E xeculive Director 

Texas Air ConllOI Board 

EffeciMt daiB: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication date: December 27, 

1989 

For further information, please call: (512) 

451-5711, Ext 354 

• • 

Emissions Limits on 

·· Nonagricultural Processes 

• 31 TAC §§111.151, 111.153, 

111.155 

The Texas Air Conlrol Board (TACB) adopts 

new §§111.151, 111.153, and 111. 155, without changes to the proposed text as published in the December 27, 1988, issue of the 

14 TexReg 3296 July 4, 1989 

Texas Register (13 TexReg 6437). In concurrent action, the TACB adopts the repeal of 

previous §§111.51-111.53, concerning partioula118 matter. 

The new § 111.151 enumera1181 particulate 

emissions ratas for speeific flow rall8s In relation to standard stack heighll. The new 

§ 111 153 exempts specified oil or gas fuelfired ".team generators from the provilions of 

§111. 151 and establishes separate emissions limits for solid fossil fuel-fi* steam 

generators. The new § 111.155 en~merall8s 

net ground level particulate standards be~ 

on three-hour and one-hour averaging 

periods. 

The new S8G1ions are part of a series of 1 

substantial revisions to Chapll8r 111, con- · 

ceming control of ~ir pollution ~ visible 

emissions and particulate matter. Since the 

manges are extensive. the staff has detarmined that it would be administratively more 

efficient to concurrently repeal Chapter 111 in 

its entirety and add a reN Chapter 111. 

The Administrative Procedure and Te~s 

Registar Act, Texas Civil StatuiBs, Article 

6252-138, §5(c)( 1 ), requires categorization of 

comments as being for or against a proposal. 

A commenter who suggested atrt changes in 

the proposal is categorized as against the 

proposal. while a commenter who agr:eed 

with the proposal in its entirety is categonzed 

as being lor the proposal. 

Five commentars (the Environmental Protec:-

lion Agency (EPA). Houston Lighting and 

Power (HL&P), the Electric Reliability Council 

of Texas (ERCOT), a private citizen, and the 

City of Danas (Dallas) testified against the. 

proposed undesignated head. There were no 

commenters in favor of the proposal. 

A complete summary ol comme~ts and a 

discussion of issues follows. Cop1es of the 

written testimony and hearing transcript are 

available for inspection at the cenlral office.of 

the TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Ausbn. 

EPA asserted that the proposed stack height 

formula in §111.151(b) needs to be evaluated 

to ensure its consistency with EPA regulalions and policies. HL&P and ERCOT suggested that a reference stating that steam 

generators are exempt from meeting ground 

level concentrations had been mistakenly,. 

omitted in §111. 153(a). HL&P and ERCOT 

also recommended that the one•hour and 

three-hour net ground level standards found 

in § 111. 155( 1) and (2) be deleted and replaced with federal primary and secondary 

ambient air standards in order to bring the 

section ·up to date with the latest scientific 

information. • A private citizen maintained that 

property-line sampling needs to measure 

specifically for inhalable particulate matter 

(PM10). Dallas urged that the five-hour 

ground level standard be retained because 

the city staff has used the standard for nearly 

20 years as an excellent enforcement tool._) 

The tables and equations contained in 

§111.151 (b) have not been changed since 

1972; however, the staff recommends that an 

evaluation. including consideration of EPA 

stack height regulations, be conducted and 

any recommended changes be made the 

subject of a public hearing at a future date. 

The staff fully intended to remove the exemption for steam generators. There is no indication that such action would cause undue 

hardships to affected sources. Since solid 

Texas Register • 

fossil fuel-fired generators also have the potential to procllc:e an unacceptable level of 

emissions oft the property, the ground leve 

standards should 8pply. HllP ~ ERCOT's 

recommendation 1hatlhe one n three-hour 

ground level standards be replaced with federal standardl does not appear to be justified, 

TN TACB atandlrds were ast.blished ID protact public heaJ1h 1nd u a guard againat 

nui1811C8 conditions. The standards have 

proyen to be effective enforcement tools durIng the 15 years they haY& been used. While I 

the total suspendesl particulate (TSP) stan- I 

dard has been replaced by PM10, removal of. 

the ground level s1andards would leave no 

particulate controls In place, which could aggravate nuisance conditions. The TACB's 

TSP standard was established to eliminate 

nuisance-level emissions, while the federal 

PM10 standard was designed ID protect pu~ 

lie health. The agency has the option of measuring both TSP and PM10. Currently, both 

kinds of measurements are made as condi- · 

lions wanant In no case can either standard 

be exceeded, and enforcement actions are 

initiatad to remedy violations of either stan- ' 

dent The staH does not believe there is a 

need to restate or lilt the PM10 standard in 

this section. The fiYIHlour ground level stan- : 

dard is resource-intensive and has been used 

only rarely for enforcement purposes. Reten- · 

lion of the one and three-hour standards a~ 

pearS to be adequate to protect public health_ 

and property. 

·The new sections are adopted under Texas 

Civil StatuiBS, Article 44n-5, §3. 09(a), which 

provide the TACB with the authority to make 

rules and regulations consisiBnt with the general iniBnt and purpose. of the Texas Clean 

Air Act and to amend any rule or regulation 

the TACB makes. ~ 

This agency hereby certifies that the rule as 

acloptad has been reviewed by legal counsel 

and found to be a vaHd exercise of the agency's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

TRD-8905562 Allen EH Bell 

Executive OlreCIDr 

T exaa A'K Control Board 

Effective date: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication date: December 27, 

1988 

For further information, please call: (512) 

451-5711, ext 354 

• • 

Emissions Limits on 

Agricultural Processes 

• 31 TAC §§111.171, 111.173, 

111.175 

The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) adopts 

new §§111.171, 111.173, and 111. 175, without changes to the proposed ~xt •• pu~ 

lished in the December 27, 1988, 1ssue of the 

Texas Register (13 TexReg 6443). In concurrent action, the TACB adopts the repeal of 

previous·§§ 111.71-111.76, concerning particulate matter from agricultural processes. 

The new §111.171 establishes that all 

sources affected by the Texas Clean Air Act 

(TCAA), §3.10(e), shall have allowable particulate emissions levels determined by the process weight method unless requesting an 
approved alternate method. The new 

§ 111.173 stipulates that a source affected by 

lhe TCAA, §3. 10(e), may request to be regulated by an approved alternate method. The 

new §111.175 enumerates lhe sections of 

this title from which agricultural processes are 

exempt 

The new sections are part of a series of 

substantial revisions to Chapter 111 , concerning control of air pollution from visible 

emissions and particulate matter. Since lhe 

changes are extensiw, lhe staff has determined that it would be administratiwly more 

efficient to concurrently repeal Chapter 111 in 

its entirety and add a new Chapter 111. 

The Administratiw Proc:edlre and Texas 

Register Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article 

6252-13&, §5(c)(1), requires categorization of 

comments as being for or against a proposal. 

A cc;~mmenter who suggested any changes in 

lhe proposal is categorized as against lhe 

proposal, whHe a commenter who agreed 

with lhe proposal in its entirety is categorized 

as being for lhe proposal. 

Three commenters (two private citizens and 

the Environmental Proteclion Agency (EPA)) 

testified against lhe propoged undesignated 

head. There were no commenters in favor of 

1he proposal. 

A complete summary of comments and a 

dscussion of issues follows. Copies of lhe 

written testimony and hearing transcript are 

available for inspection at lhe central office of 

lhe TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

Two private citizens protested allowing lhe 

exemptions for agricultural processe ... ~ 

lied in §§111.171-111.175. Both s""!id that 

SUch sources can have adverse imf18cts on 

public health and should be regulated. EPA 

ll8l8d that an altemate method as detailed in 

§111.173 shoulcl have EPA, as well 8!1 TA.CB, 

,approval. .. 

The agricultural processes exempted from 

most 18ctions of Regulation I were developed 

in response to lhe mandate of lhe TCAA. A 

revision to lhe legislation would be necessary 

before the exemptions could be deleted. EPA 

may take aclion to approw or disapprove any 

alternate method submitted by the state as a 

state implementation plan revision. Therefore, 

no c:hange to the section was made. 

The new sections are adopted under Texas 

Civil Statutes, Article 44n-5, §3. 09(a), which 

provide the TACB with the authority to make 

rules and regulations consistent with the general intent and purpose of the TCAA and to 

amend any rule or regulation lhe TACB 

makes. 

This agency hereby certifies that lhe rule as 

adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel 

and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

TfiD-8905561 Allen Eli Ben 

E xea~tiYe Director 

Texas Air Control Soard 

.. ··effective dale: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication date: December 27, 

1988 

For further information, please call: (512) 

451-5711, ext. 354 

" • • • 

Exemptions for Portable or 

Transient Operations 

• 31 TAC §111.181, §111.183 

The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) adopts 

new §111.181 and §111.183, without 

changes to lhe proposed text as published in 

the December 27, 1988, issue of lhe Texas 

Register (13 TexReg 6445). In concurrent 

action, lhe T ACB adopts lhe repeal of previous §§111.81-111.83, concemin~ exemptions. · · 

The new § 111. 181 exempts most portable 

facilities and transient operations, except 

those in the inhalable particulate maner 

Group I and Group II areas in Dallas, El 

Paso, and Harris counties, from the requirements of certain sections of this tille. The new 

§ 111.183 stipulates conditions which will 

have to be met in order to meet exemption 

requirements. 

The new sections ·are part of a series of 

substantial revisions to Chapter 111, conceming control of air pollution from visible 

emissions' and particulate matter. Since the 

changes are extensive, lhe staff has determined that it would be administratively more 

efficient to conc:urrendy repeal Chapter 111 in 

its entirety and add a new Chapter 111. 

The Administrative Procedure and Texas 

Register Act, Texas Civil Statutes, ArtiCle 

6252-13&, §5(c)(1), requires categorization.of · 

comments as being for or against a proposal. 

A commenter who suggested any changes in 

lhe proposal is categorized as against the 

proposal, while a commenter who agreed 

wilh lhe proposal in its entirety is categorized 

as being lor the proposal. · 

Two commenters, both private citizens, testi- · 

lied against lhe proposed undesignated head. 

Th;!re were no commenters in favor of the 

proposal. 

A complete summary of comments and a 

discussion of issues follows. Copies of the 

written testimony and hearing transcript are 

available for inspection atlhe central office of 

the T ACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. 

Both private citizens opposed exemptions for 

transient operations as oudined in §§ 111.181-

111.183. They stated that such sources can 

become nuisances and cause negative public 

impacts, and therefore should undergo permit 

review. 

The control methods, location, and length of 

operation of such facilities are narrowly defined to restrict such exemptions and provide 

protection for public health. Furthermore, the 

TACB sections which have been in effect for 

many years allow lhe agency to take action 

against a source which violates lhe conditions 

of an exemption or causes a nuisance condition. Therefore, no change was made ID the 

rule. 

The new sections are adopted under Texas 

Civil Statutes, Artide 44n-5, §3. 09(a), which 

provide lhe T ACB with the authority to make 

rules and regulations consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Texas Clean 

Air Act and to amend any rule or regulation 

the TACB makes. 

This agency hereby certifies that the rule as . 

adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel 

and found to be a valid exercise of the agen-

• Adopted Sections 

cy's legal authority. 

Issued in Austin, Texas, on June 26, 1989. 

TR0-81105560 Allen Eli Bell 

Executive Director 

Texu Air ConlrOI Board 

Effective date: July 18, 1989 

Proposal publication elate: December 27, 

1988 

For further information, please call: (512) 

451-5711, ext 354 

• • • Part IX. Texas Water 

Commission 

Chapter 305. Consolidated 

Permits 

Subchapter D. Amendments, 

Renewals, Transfers, 

Corrections, Revocation, and 

Suspension of Permits 

• 31 T AC §305.64 

The Texas Water Commission (TWC) adopts 

an amendment ID §305.64, with changes to 

, the proposed text as published in the January 

· 3, 1989, issue of lhe Texss Register ('14 

TexReg 39). 

6ection 305.64, Is amended to clarify and 

revise commission procedJres lor transferring permits. 

Under prior transfer !J,IIes, it w;s :unclear 

whether a oorpora18 name change required a 

transfer application. The amended rules re-

. fleet actual agency practice ... which is to reissue lhe permit under lhe new name without 

commission action. 

Provisions are IKided to the rules to allow 

transfer of the permit to an interim permittee 

and for involuntary transfer. When financial or 

other problems lead ID abandonment of a 

facility, lhe commission may transfer a permit 

to a temporary operator until a final decision 

is made. An Interim transfer ensures continuity of service and further environmental protection by maintaining lhe permit 

requirements. 

Involuntary transfer may ocx:ur under circumstances similar to those allowing revocation 

or suspension of a permit as stated in the 

Texas Water Code, §26. 029. If an existing 

permittee r.annot or will not comply with a 

permit, lhe commission may transfer a permit 

involuntarily all8r notice and an opportunity 

lor hearing. When a permit holder has failed 

to comply with a permits terms, damage to 

the environment can be minimized or eliminated by transferring the permit to an operator who can meet the permit requirements. 

Section 305.64(b), is amended to anow lhe 

transferee to fill out a permit application as 

well as lhe permill8e. The proposed amendment also requires a letter from lhe permittee 

consenting to the transfer. 

Section 305.64(h), is added to provide for lhe 

appointment of an interim permittee. The section delineates the circumstances under 

which this is allowed, specifically, where it 

appears lhatlhe current permiuee is about to 

July 4, 1989 14 TexReg 3297