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

# EXASAIRCONTROLBOAR 6330HWY. 290EAST,AUSTIN,TEXAS78723,512/451-5711

DICKWHITIINGTON,P.E. CHAIRMAN


### BOB G.

### BAILEY VICE CHAIRMAN 

### ALLENELIBELL EXECliTNEDIRECTOR



## THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS }
} JOHNL.BLAIR MARCUSM. KEY, M.D. aiTO

### R. KUNZE,Ph.D.,P.E. HUBERTOXFORD,III WILLIAM H. QUORTRUP 

### C.H.RIVERS MARYANNEWYA 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) D

1 

# = 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 .i85) , 

## 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 

# (\),

. ·L**B~~~**.. 

# )UC
Dick Whittington, P.E., 

## vhaimn

Marcu•

# ::::!!:• 

# 6

Member



### ATTEST: 

# u

Executiv

(SEAL)The staffagrees



## DIOXIDE to PM10 are madeto 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. Theamendmentis 

### tedunderTexasCivil Statutes,Article

## 44n ,§3.09(a), which provide the TACB with the authority to make rules andregulations sistent with thegeneral intent and purpo s of the Texas Clean Air Act and to amen any rule or reg'llation the TACB makes. board, theterms us bytheBoardhavethe meaningsoommo y·ascribed totheminthe field of

### air polluti n control. 

### In addition to the terms which defmed

### byTexas Civil Statutes, Article 4477-5, the following words 

### and terms, hen usedin

### this chapter 

### shall have the folowing meanings, wtless the context clearl 

### indicares otherwise. De m· · ·s impact-A change 

### in ground level con entration of an 

### air con

### taminant IS a

### res t oftheoperationof any new majorstati source orofthe operation ofany 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 notexceedthefo wing specified amounts.



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

1.0 ug/m3 

### 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 liquidmaterial, other Issued in Austin, Texa , on June 26, 1989. No commentswerereceiwdregardng adop

### than uncombined w 

### er, emitted to the am- lion of the repeals. TRD-8905575 Eli BeU 

### by EPA Reference tive Director atPart60, Appendix Air Control Board alRegulations,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. PMI0-Partic ate matter with an aerodynamic diame less than or equal to anominal I

### 0microm ers ISmeasured 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

### 40CodeofFederal egulations,or

### by an equivalentmethod gnated withthatPart 53. PMIO e · sions-Finely-divided solid or liquid ma al with an aerodynamicdiameterlessth orequal toa 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 adoptedhas been review by legal counsel andfound to bea valid ex rciseofthe agen

## 14 TerReg 3286 July 4, 1989I 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 repealof§§111.1-111.4, without changes to the proposed text as published in the 

### December27, 1988.issueofthe 

### TexasRegister (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), requirescategorization of commentsasbeing for oragainsta proposal. Acommenterwho suggested

### any changesin the proposal is categorized as against the proposal, while a commenter who agreed with the proposal in its entirety is categorized



## Teras Register • Copies ofthe 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 andregulationsconsistentwith thegeneral intent and purpose of the Texas Clean 

### A"JrAD. 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 bea valid exerciseof

### 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 changesto the proposedtext aspublishedin the December 27, 1988, issue of the 

### Texas Register (13 TexReg 6428). The purpose of the repeals are to remove material super-ceded bya 

### 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• beingfororagainst a proposal. 

### A oommenter

### who suggested any changes in the proposal. A commentsr who suggested any

### changes Intheproposal is categorizedas against

### 1heproposal, while a commenterwho agreed with 

### the proposal in 

### its entirely is categoriad • being for the proposal. Nocomments were received regarding adoption of 

### the repeals. Copiesofthe 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 consistentwiththegen

### eral 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 super

### cededby 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 oragainst a proposal. A commenter

### who suggested anychanges 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. Nocomments 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 rulesandregulations consistentwith 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 bea valid exercise ofthe 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 supercededby 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 fororagainsta 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. Nocommentswere 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 consistentwith thegeneral 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 bea valid exercise ofthe 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 TAC §§111.51, 111.52, 111.53 The Texas A6 Control 

### Board (TACB) 

### adopts the repeal of 

### §§111.51-111.53, without changes

### tothe propoHd textas published in the 

### December 27, 

### 1988, issue of lhe 

### Texas 

### Register(13 TexReg 6428). 

### The purpose of the 

### repeals 

### are 

### to remove material super

### ceded 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

### tororagainst a proposal. A commenterwho 

### suggested8li'Jchanges 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 ofthe 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,Article4477-5,§3.09(a) ,which

### provide 

### the TACB with the 

### authority to make rulesandregulations consistentwith the general intent and purpose of the Texas Clean AirAct 

### and to amend any rule or regulation the TACB makes. ·This agency hereby certifies thatthe rule as adopted 

### has been reviewed by legal counsel and foundto be a validexerciae ofthe 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 super

### cededbya newundesignated 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 asbeing for oragainst a proposal. A commenterwho·suggested anychanges 

### in the proposal is categorized as against the proposal, while a commenter who agreed withthe proposal in its entirety iscategorized as being for the proposal.



### July 4, 1989 14 TexReg 3287

### No

### commenta..,.MC&ived regarding adop- 

### ton of

.....,...._ Copies of

## t.he.tng transcriptare available lor 

### npeclion at

.. central office of the TACB, 1330 

### Highway 290 East. Austin. The 

### repeals are adopted under Texas Civil SlaUes,

### Miele4477-5, §3.09(a), whichpro

### vide 

## t. TACB with the authority to make rules

### end regulation•consistentwith thegeneral 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 

### 8lldfound to be a valid exercise ofthe 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 tothe proposed textas published in the December 27, 1988, issue of the Texas Register(13 TexReg 6428). The purpose of the repeals 

### are to remove material super

### cededby 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 oragainsta proposal. A commenterwho suggested any changes in 

### lhe proposal is categorized as against the proposal, whAe a commenter who agreed with the proposalin its entirety iscategorized as being for the proposal. Nocomments were received regarding adoption of the repeals. Copies ofthe 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 Nlelandregulations consistent with the gen

### eral intent and purpose of the Texas Clean AirAct

### 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 ofthe 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 bya

### new undesignatledhead,

### 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

### fororagainsta proposal. 

### Aoommenterwho suggesled 

### lllf'/changes in the proposal is 

### categorized 

### u against the proposal, while a oommenter who agreed with the 

### proposal inits entirety is categorized as being lor lhe proposal. No commentswerereceived regardng adoption of the repeals. Copies ofthe 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 consistuntwith thegen- · 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 aspublished in the December 27, 1988, issue of the Texas Register{13 TexReg 6432). New §§111.101, 111.105, and 111.107 are adopted without changes andwill not be republished. In concurrentaction, theTACB adopts the repeal of previous §§111.1-111.4, conoeming outdoor burning. The new §111.101 establishes a restriction on outdoorburning anddisallowsthedisposal ordisposition 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 dealtwith 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

### toconcurrendyrepeal 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

### oragainsta proposal. A commenlerwho 

### suggest&d any changes in the proposal is 

### categorized 

### as against the proposal, while a commenlllr who agreed with the proposal initsentirety 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), andTU Eledric)questioned the proposed rules concerning outdoor burning. (The TU Electric tustimony was in supportofall ERCOTcomments.)Therewere 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 atthe

### central officeof the TACB, 6330 .Highway 290 East, Austin. HL&Pand ERCOTrequesteddarilication that the proposed prohibition against storing maiJrlals·ajp3bla of**~niting** spontaneously not**~** ·i.lclude r_,utine storage of solid fuels 

### atfa

### cAl-**~** ties such'as power plants. 

### The proposedsection concerning 

### the storage ofmaterialscapableof spontaneous combustion· contains no substantive change in language from that which had 

### been in effect for over 10years. 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 isgenerally considered 

### to be the period April-October. Most salt-marsh grass burning ta!ws place in the fall in order to betterestablish

### new spring growth. Consequendy, there is little or nocontribution atthe time ofhigherozone concentrations. Further· more, such burning does not relate well 

### to ozoneformation, 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 lessthan 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 andsuggested that 

## j

### theTACB R&gional Office be notified in such cases. HL&P and ERCOT also suggested thatseparate

### written notification forrepetitive, 

### routine fn-fighling training is unnecessary 

### aidlhould be replaced 

### by a yearty notification with 24-hou' advance telephone contact 

### piortoeach training session. Finally, HL&F end ERCOT noted thatthe proposed section 

### prohibita such training within city limits and suggested Nle language

### to correctthis over

### sight The staff believas that 

### it makes little diHer

## enoe 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. Fur

### thermore, the proposed sectiondoesnotrepresent a change from previous policy. ERCOT's suggestion thattheTACB 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 noticeis sufficient in

### cases ofroutine, repeti

### tive lint-fighting training, and that the prohibi

### tion of fire-fighting training within city limits 

### should be removed, especially as it may 

### cause hardshipsformunicipalitiesconducting 

### such training.Tothis

### end,the staffwithdraws all references 

### to §111.105, concerning gen

### eral requirements 

### for allowableoutdoor burning, from the section in question (§111. 103(b)(1)). Bothprivallacilizensarguedagainst

### aexemp

### tion for domeslic waste burning in counties 

### near or within ozone nonattainment areas. One cilizen alsonotedthat the Nle language shouldspecifythatonlyclean-burning materials can be bumed in campfires and other recrealionalfires. Both citizens alsoasserted lhatmunicipal solid waste burning should be 

### banned. TXO maintainedthathaving 

### to notify 

### theTACB executiva directorofplans

### to bum oil spiUs may cause delays in dealing with upsetcondlionsthat could be detrimental 

### to public health, and thata quick, on-the-scene ntSponseby igniting oil orgas leaks

### orspills 

### is often necessary

### to mitigate potential health 

### or environmental damage. TXO suggested 

### addng Nlelanguage aUowing emergency r&- sponses

### to

### bemade

### in suchsituations. Final

### ly, TXO noted that the proposed distance requirements for allowable outdoor burning 

### .-e vague and unworkable, because nearly allproperty

### can havaeitherresidential, recreational, 

### commercial, or industrial use. They suggested language that would limit such burning in the casesofresidential andrecr&- 

### alional property and allow burning necessilllted byemergencypipeline breaks orleaks. The limits 

### on domestic waste burning wHI largely restrict the allowance 

### to rural areas wherethereis no practical alternative. These circumstancesare

### limitedin numberandrepresentinsignificant poUulion sources. In addlion, most 

### ozone nonattainment areas are eitherurbanizedoraffectedby transportfrom 

### an urban 

### area. However, the restrictions on domeslie waste burning listed in §111.1

### 03 ····arelimited

### to lhosewhich areconsistentwith



### theexisting rule language. Campfires are al

### readY limited as to the types of materials which mustnotbe 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 suchburning can occur. However, the restrictions on municipal solid waste burning listed in §111.103 are limited 

### to those which
areconsistentwith the existing rulelanguage. 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 orenvironmentaldamage.The section,which has been in effect for ovar 1 0 years, allows for such burning if the situation is 

### •rranted, provided theTACB is notified consistentwith §101.6. This section simply requires that notice beprovided assoon as possibleafterthe event occurs. The agency reserves the option, pursuant 

### to §101.11(a), 

### to subsequently determinewhetherthe spill orleakwasdealt 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 allowableoutdoorburning are unworkable is not supported 

### by experience. Theserequirements havebeen ineffectsince 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

### toconduct

### outdoor 

### burning under this provision may be re

### vokedby

### the executivedirector 

### ifthis

### provision is 

### Uled to circumvent 

## I111.101 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 

### notprovided or authorized by 

### thelocal 

### governmental entity havingjurisdiction, 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 offood, or

### used exclusively for 

### the

### purpose of supplying w1m1th during cold weather. Suchburningshallbesubject

### tothe**requ~** ments of

## I111.105(7) of 

### this title (relating to General Requirements for Allowable

·• Outdoor Burning); rules andregulationsconsistentwith 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** meansofconttolling 

### the spread ofdisease; the TACB makes.**·.~.** •
. (S) rurll area on-siteburning of 

### §JJ

### 1.103.Exceptions toProhibition 

## ofOut- · door 

### Btuning. (a) Outdoorburning may be autho- · rizedby writtenpennissionfrom the execu-·. tive directoroftheTe.xas

### AirConttol Board- (fACB) 

### if there is no pmctical alternative andifthe burning will notcauseorcontribute to a violation of any federal primary or secondary ambient 

### air standard.The executivedirector may also specifyproceduresor methods to controlor abate emissions from outdoor burning authorizedpursuant to this sectionbyrequiring thattrenchesbe dug to align withprevailing winds, specifying time for burning, and other related factors. Authorizations to burn may be revoked by the executivedirectorBl anytime iftheburning is causing nuisance conditions, is not conducted in accordance with the specified conditions, violales any provision of an applicablepennit,orcauses aviolationofany 

### air quality standard. (b) Outdoor burning shall also be authorized in each of the following instances: (1) training of frre-fighting 

### personnel whenrequestedbycertifiedmail

### and_ when authorized in writing by the local air pollution control agency or local health 

### unit In the absence of such local entities, the nearestTACB Regional Office shall be notified. The burning shall be authorized if notice ofdenial from the local air pollution control agency, local health unit, orTACB Regional Office is not received within 

### 10 days of the request. 

### In cases ofrepetitive, 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 

### totherequirements of

## I111.1OS ofthis 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 SanPatriciocounties andonly 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 TACB 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 descriptionofthelandboundariesandidentify significant points such u roads, canals, lakes 

### and streams, add the methodbywhich
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 8lleast 

### 15 daysbefore

### 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 beverbll or

### writlal and must identify abe 

### apecifJC area 

### and block 10 be 

### burned. estimated acreage, 11art and 

### end time

### ofthebum, 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), ifthe**e~tecutive** 

### director detetmines

### tha1 the 

### burning is necessary 10 

### protect the 

### public wei

### fire; (8) 

### municipal solid 

### wute 

### burning may 

### beconducted until such time u it 

### iseliminatedby 

### 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** 

### DepartmentofHealth (TDH)permittedTypeD or 

# mlandfill sitea (sitea serving less 

### than 

### 5, 000 population equivalent) located in any countywith

### a populationof

### 100,000 or

### less
as determined by the latest 

### United States population census 

### if authorization is ob

### tained 

### from abe**e~tecutive** 

### direct.or of the TACB.Any 

### authorization.p-ovided**here~m** 

### clcrmust

### beconsistentwithallTDHregulalions 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 atTDHpermitted

### TypeIV land

### fill sites. asdefmedby 

### theTDH,located in the counties 

### described 

### in subparagr.pt (A) 

### of Ibis 

### paragraph 

### if authorization 

### is ob

### tained 

### from the**e~tecutive** 

### direct.or of the TACB. Any 

### authorization provided**here~m** der

### mustbe 

### consistent with the criteriaref

### erenced in subparagraph 

### (A) of 

### this paragraph_

(C) Such burning shall be 

### subjectto 

### §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 andfound ID be avalid exerdse oflheagency'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 inthe 

### December27, 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, lhetypes 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. suchtesting 

### lortwoyears,andou11ines

### oertilicalion requirements for opacity readers. The**~** new §111.113 enables 

### a facility to 

### operate under higheropacity 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 seaions 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 inits 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 fororagainsta proposal. Acomrnenterwho 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. Eightcommenters (the Environmental 

### Protection Agency (EPA), the Texas Foreslry Assodation (TFA), two private dtizens, Houston Ughting and Power (HL&P), the Electric Reliability Council ofTexas (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 availablefor inspection atthecentral officeof 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 

### propelledrule languagebe

### moclfiecl

### to apeclfy 

### fMit 

### new IOUI"C8 performance 

### standards (NSPS) ar TACB permit provisions 

### apply If 

### IUCh provitlonl

..

### dflerentfrom 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 advanta

### geous. HOW8Y8r, HL&P and ERCOT's 

### asler1iona hit proposed 

### opacity averaging periods 

### need 

### to be changed because ofdffering 

### NSPS and

### permit provisions 

### appear

### to have 'ittle merit In cues where

### hi**avera~** lng period in Regulation I

### differs from tholein 

### Individual permits 

### (go:--emed by Regulation VI)orNSPS,

### alwll haw

### tobemet If

### neces

## urj, 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 

### weatherconditiC'nsofteninterferewith opacity nadings and**"'~GVested** lhe TAOB inwstt

### gate 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.

### ~ EPAfurthernoiBdthatlhelanguage

### concernIng 

### certification ofvisible emission evaluaiDrs. should be relocated to indcate 

### that lhe raquirernentsapply

### to allopaatydeterminations (§111.

### t11 (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 TACB. The 

### 30%

### opacity limitapplies

### to IOUI'Celcon

### S1ruaed before 1972. 

### Agency experience 

### indcates that lhe 30% limit represents a 

### reasonable standard

### ofcontrol

### for

### theseolder sources. While it is lrUe lhat weather conditions may sometimes impede nonmechanical opacity reatings, this 

### rnelhod remains an ef

### fective 

### tool in enforcementactions. 

### "Lidar" is useful lor research applications, but is IDo expensiw lor widespread application. The staffbelieves the rule language requiring certification 

### of opacity monitors will be mora en

### forceable than lhe previous section and thus shouldcontribute IDimprovementsinairquality. 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 visi

### ble emission evaluaiDrs apply to all opacity determinations, and !hatcontinuous monitors be required ID undergo periodic perfonnance testing, appear to be meritorious. Howewr,**~** there does notappearto be a need for lacili-**~**

### ties

### tofl.mish 

### theTACBwith records ofcompliance 

### 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

### ofthe

### vendors 

### sellingtheequipment 

### TFA**recp.~elled** 

### !hat

### thecompliance 

### date be eldllndad 

### to one 

### year. HL&P 

### and ERCOT 

### IIU8I'I8d !hat 

### reference to

### compliance deter· 

### minationbasedon 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 (§11U 1 1(a)(1)(F)). They alao 

### maintained that inltalng

### orreplacing 

### monitors 

### with 

### new ayslltme wil resuh in significant economic 001111

### and.uggesteddeleting 

### 1'18r9(JJirement tor opecity 

### moniiiOrl but retaining 

### 1'18 propo.ed

### TeaMe1hod

### 9, exceptwhere

### 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 ap

### pears to be reasonable. However, the staff does 

### not

### believe !hatadcing

### the provision for 

### de1amlining compliance

### with • 0911ified opac

### ity

### monitoris inconsistent

### with NSPS regulationa. 

### P.r of 

### the purpose for the 

### proposed 

### ANislons

### was to

### add leltme!hods

### andotherwise 

### 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 

### languagesimply 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

### ataspecificfacility.Thetimerequiredto 

### 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 sixminuiB30%

### 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 

### bephasedout1hrough retrofitting offacilities. Chevron reoommended 

### deletion of the 

### pro- 

## f1018d language requiring facilities 10 meet theemission 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'orsix hours 

### inany 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 stan

### dard must becomplied

### with atalltimes, 

### even cilring periods 

### when lhort·larm 

### higher

### emissions result from certain 

### maintenance acdvities. Stack 

### tests during periods 

### of ioot

### blowing orany ofthe 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 

### lowerqperating levels in a one-hour emission**~Uiement.** 

### ERCOT recommended !hat language regarding

### emissionsfrom 

### motor

### Y8hidesbedarified 

### 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, recommendeda20%opacity limit

### with a 1hree-minute maximum to

### protect public heallh. 

### ERCOTrecommendeddeleting !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.Thiswould 

### avoidconfusionwith po

### tentialemissionsfrom otherparts

### of

### vehicfes,. which Mil 

### addressed in 

### §111.143(3) 

### and 

### §111. 145(3). Umitsonvehicleopacity

### donot appear to 

### be unenforceable because 

### of !he dfficultyofgetting 

### vehicleownershipinformation 

### 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 !hatthe 

### proposal 

### was too lenient 

### At the 

### present 

### lime, !he

### agency has no data 

### to indicate 

### !hat a stricter limit is 

### necessary. Moreover, theproposal

### was designed 10 substantiallyimproveenforceability 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 applicabilityofthe

### section providesconsiderable llexibllity by

### estabr11hing adefinitive 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:.layapplication 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



## • AdoptedSections and both private citizens maintained that !he alli&rnali&opacity 

### pn:nlislons are unnecessary. not 

### in !he

### bestinlenlst of public health, and should 

### be 

### delned. 

### Underexisting drcumsllnces, EPA may dis

### approve a**TAC~kppn:Ned** 

### alternate 

### opacity applicationsubmittedasanSIP revision if1he demonstration appears Inadequate. 

### EPA wiD 

### altobe

### no1itiad

## concerning. and

### may become 

### a par1y to, adjudcathle hearings 

### prior 

### to board

### adion. Consequently,there

### appears

### to be 

### little needto

### reoommend

### a change to 

### !he proposal

### in responl8to 

### EPA:scomment. The 

### slaffdoes 

### notbeliiMtthatthe 

### 180 day application period should

### be extended to 

### allowfor 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 cli

### madicJ 

### concltlona they 

### prefer. The staff be

### liews !hat

### lixmonthsia

### areasonableamount of 

### tme in which to 

### make 

### a decision. The application 

### lime

### lnit

### wasdesignedto

### prevent 

### unnecessaty delays 

### which 

### can r&sult 

### in excessiveemi11ionswhle!he

### application Is 

### being processed. The 

### ahernale 

### opacity provisions 

### spedfically raquire 

## a demonstra

### tion 1hat it 

### is technically Impractical 

### or 

### eco- nOinicaHyunreasonablefor

### thefacifrtyto

### meet established opacitylimits, 

### !hat al ambientair quality standards 

### wll be 

### met. and 

### !hat no nuisance condlionswil

## 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 tomake 

### rules 

### andregulationsconsistentwith 

### 1hegeneral intent and pwpose 

### of 

### 1he Texas Clean Air 

### AtA and to amend

# airt. rul;l.!ll' 

### regulation !he 

### TACB makes.


### §

### ll1.111.**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 notexceed 

### 30% 

### averaged over a six-minute 

### period.


### (B) 

### Opacity shall 

### not exceed 

### 20% 

### averagedover a six-miilute 

### period for 

### any source on 

### which construction 

### was be

### gun 

### 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 

### instru

### ment capable of measu:rin& the opacity of emissions is 

### installed

### inthe vent 

### in accordance 

### with subparagraph (D) 

### of this para

### graph. Facilities utilizing such instruments



### July 4, 1989 14 Te.rReg 

### 3191

### shallmeetopcity

### 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 in

### terferes withproper

### 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

### 40Code 

### ofFederll Regulations 

### Put60, 

### 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.Thefacility will

### maintain recmds of 

### aJl such rating for a 

### period of not less than two 

### yun. Compliance deter

### minationsmay be 

### made based

### onresults of monitoring with a certified opacity monitor
orby

### acurrendy

### c:ertif'ledopacityreader, 115 described 

### in subsection (a)(l)(G) of 

### Ibis section. Compliance for vents with condensible particulateorwater vapor shill be 

### delermined by 

### a certified opacity reader. Complimcewith

### Ibis provision shaD be 

### accomplishedwithinone 

### yearofthe effective 

### dlle of 

### Ibis sec:tion.
(E) 

### Visible anissions during lhecleaning ofa fuebox orthe 

### building of 

### a new file, 

### soot blowing, equipment changes, uh removal, and rapping of precipitllorsmay

### exceedthe

### limits set

### forth in this section for a period aggregating not more thin six minutes in my 

### 60 consecu

### tive

### minuteS,normorethan

### sixhoursinany 

### 10-day period. This 

### exemption shaD 

### not apply 

## r.o the emissions 

### mass rate standard, 115 

### outlined 

### in §111.1

### S1 (a) 

### of this title (relllina 

## r.o Allowable Emissions Limils).
(F) Compliance with piUll

### ppbs (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 executivedirector.
(G) Current certification of 

### OP.BCity readers for 

### determining opacities 

### Outlined in subsection (a)(l)(A), (B), (C), IDd (D) 

### ofthis section shaD be 

### determined byhaving 

### completed theTexas 

### AirConlrOl 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 exceptu 

### providedin§lOl.ll(a)of

### this tide (relating to Exemptiona from 

### Rules md Regulations). Acid g115 flares, 

### 115 

### defined in UOl.l ofthis title (relating to Defmitions),
areexemptfrom theprovisions ofthis sub

### section, 

### 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 ofFederal Regulations 

### 60, Appendix A); 

### or (ii) 

### equivllent test method approved by

### theexecutivedirector. (3) Motor vehicles. Motor vehicles shaD not have visible exhaust 

### emissionsfor more than 

### 10consecutiveseconds. 

### (4) 

### Railroad locomotives or ships.

### Visible

### emissions shallnotbepermitted 

### from any railroad locomotive, ship, or my other vessel to exceed an opacity of 30% for any 

### five-minute 

### period. exceptdiD'- 

### ing reasonable periods of engine 

### start-up. (S) 

### Structures. Visibleemissions 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) 

### ofthis subsection shaD be 

### deter

### mined by applying lhe 

### following test methods, 115 appropriate: (i) Test Method 9 (40 Code ofFederal Regulations 60, Appendix A); 

### or (ii) 

### equivalent test method approved by 

### theexecutive director. (b) 

### Compliance determination exclusions. Contributions from \UlCOmbined water shaD not be 

### included in determining compliancewith this section.Theburdenof proofwhich 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 andfound to be avalid 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:ember27, 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

### garbageorrubbish in residen

### tial, 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 1hechangesare extensive, lhe slalf 

### has determined thai it 

### would be administratively more efficient 

### to concurrently repeal Chapter 111 initsentirety 

### and add a new Chapllllr 111. 

### The Administrative Procedure and Texas Regisllllr 

### Act. Texas Civil Slatul8s, Article

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

comments as being for

### oragainst a proposal. 

## 'ft. bOmmenterwho suggested

### any changes in lhe 

### proposal is 

### categorized as 

### against 

### 1he proposal, while 

### a commenllllr 

### Who agreed 

### with theproposalin 

### itsentirety Is 

### categorized as being 

### for the 

### proposal!

·Three commenters, all private citizens, testi

### fied against

### 1he proposed unclesignal&clhead. 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 availableforinspection at

### 1hecentral 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 burningofplastics, 

### heavymetals, andorganic 

### 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 10these convnents, and that 

### 1he section would be more enforceable 

### by being more explicit

### regarding equivalency with multiple-chamber incinerators. However, this

### change 

### cannotbe effectedatthis lime without conducting additional public hearings. The staff plans 

### to rec- ommend aproposal 

### in 

### 1he futurewhichwould define lhe temperature, minimum residence lime, and destruction effiCiency of multiplechamberincinerators,with single-chamberincinerators 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 CivilStatum,Article4477-5, §3. 09(a),which 

### provide the TACB with the aulhorily to make ruleland regulations consistentwith lhe gen

### eral 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

### hubeen 

### 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 Ex80Jtive Oirec!Dr Texu 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 TheTexas 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 textas published in 

### 11.08 December 27, 1988, issue of the Texas Register(13TexReg 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 beapplicable (portions ofthecities of El Paso, Houston, andCorpus Christi), 

### anda compliance date of December 31, 1991. 

### The new §111.1.a oudines dust

### control measures on stockpiles and 

### openbodedlrucks,trailers, and railcars, and notes thatequipmentmustbe maintained andoperating 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 thoseroads

### which

### aradesignedto accommo

### daletwo-way traffic and are at least 30 feet 

### wide at leastone 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 loisarerequiredto be pavedor 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 itwould be administratively more efficientto 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 oragainsta 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 proposedfor portionaof El Paso outside of the Group 

### I area oudined in 

### the SIP, lhe atalf noiBIthat moat auctlcontrola Inbeing 

### carried rNer from exlatlng leetlons. The EPCCHD 

### requestedthia continuation Inorder 

### 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 pavementorcovering 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 linedocument, ControlofUrbsn 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), creditwhen 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- ; 'orderto be grantedreduction credits, the staff pany (Pai'Ker) , and the Cily of Dallas (Dal- ·. · notes thatthere was no intentto claim reduclas)) expressed concern regarcing these tion crecits as partofthe inrerim SIP because proposed rules. There were no commenters \he information necessary to calculate the

. in favor of the proposal. reductions is currenlfy notavailable. 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 atthe 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 thatitwould not impose stricter control measures 

### in El Paso than on inhalable par1iculate matter (PM10)sourcesin

### therestofthe 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 re

### duce 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 ofapplication 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 lwocounties. The only counly for which the staff proposed additional dust-control restrictions is El Paso,



### • Adopted Sections will consider the 

### addition of emission reduc

### tion crecits after completion of 

### lh8**~**special sbJcfies being conducted in El Paso 

### and Juarez. The staff agrees that some ofthe terms

. inthe sections arevague regarding thecalculation of reduction aedits, 

### but does not be-

. lieve thatwill 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 requirementfor application of water, chemicals, or covering of slockpiles. The private citizen suggested lhat the sections relating to materials handing should have a reference requiring thatall 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 orcovering 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 andwatering themwoulddamage the consistency of the aggregate, which would, in tum, lead to problems with meeting Highway 

### Department specifications. Additionally, in the case oflimestone stockpHes, runofffrom such wateringcouldbecarriedvia trud<s onto publicthoroughfares. 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 329311ockpiles if 

### they are 

### properly designed, and 

### fiewatercan berecycledandthus prevented from being 

### lrac:k.ed onto streets. He also 

### nolld thatsuc: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. Theterm "under no""al conditions" is vague andundefined. Bydeleting thephrase, the staff intended

### to makethe section more enforceable However, the staff agrees that conditions may OCQJr which would make watering or covering of stockpiles impossible. These conditions are outtined intheTexasCleanAirAct, §4.05, which states: "The liabifities which could otherwise be imposedby the

### AD. orany rule, regulation, variance, determination, or order issued un

### der this

### AD. shaD notbe imposed due

### to any violationcaused

### by an adofGod, war, strike, riot, orother catastrophe." The staffdoes not believe that this language needs to be repeated in the section. The response 

### to comments that watering stockpiles is costly, dilfirultto 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 ineffect 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 coveringorsilostorage, to stabilize thestockpileifwatering is notfeasible. 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,"andthat watering limestonewould make 

### the use of front-end loaders difficult do not appear to be substantiated. This section has been ineffect Iince 1979, andthe staff is not aware of 

### any problems resulting from its enforcement. Daftas andDieterquestionedthe useof "suitable chemicals or oil" and noted that these chemicalscouldend

### up in undergroundwells. 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 oroil sealants are designed to producea thincruston the surface being sealed. 

### It is not cost-effedive to use the sealants in quantities that would cause run-off or would causethe 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 lorwetting orcovering ofopen-bodiedtrucks, trailers, 

### and railroad

### cars. Most commenters statedthatthis provisionis 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. Parkernoted that such coveringwould hinder railcar owners' competition with off-shore shippers, whoare 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, ratherthan the receiversof them, 

### and submitted revised rule language

### to thiseffect EPRCfurther noted that such wetting orcovering 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 ocrurwhen fine aggregates are wet, and noted that 

### the cost of concrete oould rise significantly as a result of the proposed controls. The requirement to coveropen-bodiedtrucks, trailers, and railcars involves no substantive change from the section (§111.42) which has been in effectlormore than 10years and has prawnto be a useful method ofdust 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 coarseaggregate 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 citizencommentedon the proposed sections regarding watering and wetsandblasting and enclosure during construction and demolition activities. HL&P, ERCOT, EPRC, andChevron noted that manydemolition 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 enclosuresofoutdoorabrasiwcleaning 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 dustis produced by the demolition, no control



### Texas Register • is required. Otherwise, failure

### totake the dust control precautions isUf1ustifiable. 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 

### geographicareasoutlined

### 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 ofoutdoorabrali¥8 cleaning 

### operations is a prudent andcolt-effective method ofdust

### control; howewr,eldending suc:h controls to

### the sanclllasling of bridges and road areas is 

### too technically difficultand costly 

### to be required at this time. Dieter, EPRC, Chevron, AGC, Featherlite, EPCCHD, Saunders, and EPA all commented against the proposed I&Ciion caDing forwheel washing ofconstruction vehicles in the City of El Puo. 

### Dieter, AGC, EPCCHD, 

### and Saunders 

### poinlld out that such requirements 

### in the desert

### terrain of El Pasowould 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 overseethem. Thesecommenters also noted that wheel-washing would exacerbate construction site problems by creating muddy bogs through which thetrucks 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, EPAvoicedconcern that such controlswould

### 6edifficult

### to enforceand suggestedthattherule lnsl8ad requirepaving 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 Pasowhich should not be wasl8d on activities that may notbe

### effectivedeeerrentsto particulate problems. EPA's suggestion .of paving acoess roads nearconstruction

### liteswarrantsfurther 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 thisandothercontrols if

### thestudiesindicatea 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 

### becauseofthe grinding actionon hard surfaces. Chevron notedthatsealedgravel chipswould 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 andwould take two-three years 

### to complete. They requested an extensionofthe 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 bemont beneficial and easier 

### to comply with 

### flan paving. Additionally, Chevron stated that they 

### haw been unable 

### to find a streetaweepercontrac:IIDr in El Paso andnoted 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 thatlhe language be mocified to referonly

### to 

### roadl with more than 10 vehicle traversals perhour. Simlarly, EPRC stated that the application ofdust-Qlt'llrol measures without regard

### tothe number ofvahicles or their speed was •excessiwly stringent" EPA noted that the 

### proposed section regarding removal of IOilfrom paved surfaces shouldberevised

### 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 pawthem 01 reslric:t

### their usage. Dallas also 

### mainlllined lhat 

### the paving of residential 

### rOIIdl with more than 10 vehicle traversals perhour waa unenforceable and unrealistic. 

### They auggesl8d that if lhe section was 

### re- lllined, itshould onlyapply to new residential andapartment 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

### andthatalternate dull-controlmeasuressuchaswetting should be aDowed 

### in lotsthat are infrequently used. 

### 1he statement that paving quarry areas wouldcreaiB mored.!stbecause ofthegrind

# inq**~non** hard surfaces does not appear**\~li::.** :-'aving such areas will reduce the**~;tnount**ofmaiBrialausoeptibleto erosion that 

## ean De reenlrained by vahicular traffic. The TACB hasonlyapproveduseofgravel, 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, buthigh speeds and heavy traffic cause erosion of 

### the gra\191 

### and subsequently higher lilat lewis. Therefore, graveling is not al

### lowed lor

## ma;or in-plant roads or pari<ing lots. Chevron'sassertion that it would be useful

### to 

### .tda 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 aidaofthe established roadway.A single lane oflrafficisusually 10feetwide, therefore, the stall beliews thatany 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 

### theaectionadealing with materials handling is December31, 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, butlheenforcementof 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

### torequire such cleaning forpublicpaved thoroughfares, not private or in-plant roads. Theaectionwas clarified to indicate this fact. Staffresources are alsotoo limitedto enforce a rule basedonvehicle traversals per houron privateandindustrial 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 havebeen builtbecauseofa demonstrated need for their existenceand will generally be more frequently used. Implementation of EPA's recommendation that the section stipulatethe 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, nochangeinthe section was made. The rule language doea not require paving of levee roads or roads designed for municipal main

### tenance. The staff does not believa that this exemption needs 

### to be specificaHy defined and noiBs that, inany case, the rules do not apply to the Dallas 

### area. The staff maintains thatresidential roadsarea potentialsourceof dust

### and as such warrant controls. A survey of affected municipalities indicated that the section will have a minimal impact on af

### fected 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 forfuture problems, existing requirements for pavingof residential roads were retained. However, upon further analysis, the staff has determined that use of traffic.countson 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 andchangedthedefinitionof 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 andparticulate levels wiB not become a mont pervasive problem. The staff agrees that 

### wetting would suffice in 18mporary 

### parking lots where the lifetime ofthe 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 consisl8ntwith the general intent and purpose of the Texas Clean AirAct and !!) amend any rule or regulation the TACB makes.


### §111.143. MaterialsHandling. 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 conttolofdustemissions to the extentpracticable: (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 ofhoods, fans, and filtersto enclote, collect, 

### and cleanthe emissions of dusty 

### mlterials; or 

### (3) tpplication of water or 

### suit

### able 

### chemicals, or complete covering of mlteria1s 

### coa.Wned in 

### open-bodied trucks, 

### tnilen, or railroad 

### c.-a trlnSporting IUCh mlterialswhich

### cancnateairborne

### particulatematter

### in

### areawhere

### 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

### bythe listed ICtivitiesis more 

### thm oneacre

### insize. No

### penon maycause, suffer, allow, or permit a structure, road, street. alley,or

### pukingarea tobe construct- ' ed. altered. repaired. ordemolished. or land

·. to be cleared without taking 

### at least 

### the

.

following precautions to achieve maximum .control ofdust emissions to the extent

### practicable: (1) use-of water br of,suitable oil or chemicals 

### for connol of

# aust in 

### the demolition ofstruc:tUrd!, inconsbUctionoperations, in work perfonned on a road, street. alley,orparltingarea. or intheclearing of lmd; 

### (2) use of adequate melhods such as wet-candblasting and enclosure of work areas to prevent 

### ai!bome particulate 

### matter during sandblasting ofstructures 

### or other similar 

### operations.
§Ill.147. 

### Roods. Streets. andAlleys. No 

### person may cause, 

### suffer, allow, or permit any public, industrial, commercial, or 

### private road, SIJeet, oralley to be used 

### without 

## takina at least 

### the following precautions to achieve maximum controlofdustemissions to the extent pr1eticable: (1) applicationofasphalt, water, orsuitableoilorchemicalsonthefollowing 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 leastonepoint, measuriJl& thedistancefrom 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 theCityofE1 Puo,removalof

### 10il shall·be by

### mechanical

### sweepers ortheir equivalenL
§JJJ.l49. Ptu/rilla 

### Lots. (a) No

### personmsyallow 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 withmore thsnfive parking 

### spaces shall 

### be paved or unifonnly covered with graveL 

### 1bis provision shall not apply to 

### temporary parking lots 

### defined as 

### lotsused 

### 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 materi

### als 

### 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 adoptedhas 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 Execulive 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 publishedin the December27, 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 efficienttoconcurrently 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 oragainst a proposal. A commenterwho 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. Fivecommentars (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 atthecenlral office.of the TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Ausbn. EPA assertedthat the proposed stack height formulain §111.151(b) needstobeevaluated 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 privatecitizen 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 staffhas usedthestandardfor 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. Thestaff fully intendedto remove theexemption 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 should8pply. HllP**~** ERCOT's 

### recommendation 1hatlhe

### one

# n three-hour 

### ground level 

### standards be

### replaced

### withfede

### ral standardldoes not

### appear

### to be justified, TNTACB

### atandlrds

### were ast.blishedID pro

### tact public 

### heaJ1h 1nd 

### u a guard againat 

### nui1811C8 conditions. The 

### standards have 

### proyen to beeffective enforcement

### tools dur

### Ing the 15

### years they

### haY& been used. While

# I the total suspendesl particulate (TSP) stan-

## I dard 

### has 

### been 

### replacedby 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 PM10standardwasdesigned ID 

### protect**pu~** liehealth.The agency has theoption 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 isresource-intensiveand

### has been used only rarely forenforcement purposes. Reten- · lion oftheone 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 consisiBntwith 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 foundto bea vaHd exercise ofthe 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 December27, 1988, 1ssueofthe 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 haveallowable particulate emissions levelsdetermined by the process weight method unless requesting anapproved alternate method. The new §111.173 stipulates that a source affected by lheTCAA, 

### §3. 10(e), may request

### to be regulated by an approved alternate method. The 

## new §111.175 enumerates lhe sections of 

### this

### titlefrom whichagricultural 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 itwould 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 fororagainsta 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 atlhe 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 

### ll8l8dthatan altemate methodasdetailed in §111.173 shoulcl have EPA,

### aswell 8!1 TA.CB, ,approval.

.. The agricultural processes exempted from most18ctionsofRegulation Iwere developed 

### in response 

### to lhe mandate of lhe TCAA. A revision

### to lhelegislationwouldbe necessary beforetheexemptionscould be deleted. EPA maytakeaclion

### to approwordisapproveany 

### alternate method submitted by the state as a state implementationplan revision. Therefore, no c:hange 

### to the section was made. The new sections 

### are adopted under Texas CivilStatutes,

### Article 44n-5,

### §3. 09(a), which 

### provide the TACB with the authority to make rulesand 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 adoptedhas been reviewed by legal counsel andfound

### tobe a valid exercise ofthe

### 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 lheproposedtext as published in the December 27, 1988, issue of lhe 

### Texas Register (13 TexReg 6445). In concurrent action, lhe TACB 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 requirementsofcertain sectionsofthistille. 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 itwould be administratively more efficienttoconc: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 · commentsas being fororagainsta proposal. A commenterwhosuggested 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- · 

### liedagainst 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 atlhecentral office of the TACB, 6330 Highway 290 East, Austin. Both private citizens opposed exemptions for transientoperationsasoudined in §§111.181- 111.183. They stated that such sources can become nuisances andcause negativepublic impacts, andtherefore 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 effectfor many years allow lhe agency 

### to take action againsta sourcewhichviolates lhe conditions ofan exemption orcauses a nuisance condition. Therefore, 

### no change was made ID the rule. The new sections are adopted under Texas CivilStatutes, Artide44n-5,

### §3.09(a), 

### which provide lhe TACB with the authority 

### to make rules andregulations consistent

### with thegeneral 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 ofthe 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 TAC §305.64 The Texas WaterCommission (TWC) adopts an amendment ID §305.64, with changes 

### to

,the 

### proposed text

### aspublished in

### theJanuary

· 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 whethera

### oorpora18

## name change

### required a transfer 

### application. 

### The amended rules re-

. fleet actual agency practice

... which is 

### to reissue lhe permitunder lhe

### new name without commission 

### action. Provisions are 

### IKided 

### to the rules 

### to allow transfer

### of the permit

### to 

### an interim permittee andforinvoluntarytransfer.

### When financial or other problems lead ID abandonment 

### of a facility, lhecommission maytransfera permit to a temporary operator until a final

### decision is made.

### An Interim transferensures 

### continuity of 

### service 

### and further environmental protection by maintaining 

### lhe permit requirements. Involuntary transfer mayocx:ur undercircumstances 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 maytransfer

### 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 amendmentalso requires a letterfrom lhe permittee consenting 

### to the transfer. Section 305.64(h), is added to provide for lhe appointmentofan interim permittee. Thesection delineates 

### the circumstances under which this is allowed, specifically, where it appears lhatlhecurrent permiuee is aboutto



### July 4, 

### 1989 14 TexReg 3297