UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document for EPA ’ s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan

EPA ’ s Evaluation of

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Qualit y Management District, Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 8

- Hour Ozone Standard

– Adopted October 26, 2006

“ 2006 RACT SIP TSD ”

Prepared by: Jennifer Blonn , Ja mes Shears, and Stanley Tong

November 201 5- 2

- RULE IDENTIFICATION

-

Agency: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (S M AQMD)

SIP Approved Version : There is no previous version of this document in the SIP

Subject of this TSD: S M AQMD Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 8

- Hour Ozone Standard ( “ 2006 RACT SIP ” ) Adopted

– October 26 , 2006 Submitted

– July 11 , 2007

SMAQMD Analysis of Reasona bly Available Control Technology for the 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan

– September 6, 2006 Staff Report ( “ 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report ” )

BACKGROUND

-
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight can lead to the formation of ground

- level ozone or “ smog ” which can result in significant impacts to human health and the environment

. Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires areas that are classified as moderate or above for ozone nonattainment to imp lement reasonably available control technology (RACT) for specific types of sources. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (S M AQMD) falls under this requirement as it is classified as a se vere 1 ozone nonattainment area under the 1997 8

- hour national ambient air quality standard ( “ NAAQS ” ) for ozone ( 40 CFR 81.305).

Under CAA § 182(b)(2) and (f), S MAQMD must, at a minimum, adopt RACT level controls for sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document and for any major stationary source of VOC or NOx

. The following provides a brief discussion of RACT and how it differs from other types of control standards such as those for new sources

. EPA defines RACT as the “ lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capa ble of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and

1 On May 5, 2010 (75 FR 24409), EPA granted the State of California’s request to reclassify the Sacramento Metropolitan ozone nonattainment area from “serious” to “severe

- 15”. EPA evaluated SMAQMD’s 20 06 RACT SIP submittal as a serious ozone nonattainment area since the District adopted its 2006 certification based on that classification.

On January 21, 2009, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District submitted an updated RACT SIP certifyi ng its rules meet newly issued CTGs and that major sources of VOC and NOx that emit or have a potential to emit at least 25 tpy were subject to RACT level controls for a severe ozone nonattainment area. Our evaluation of the 2009 updated RACT SIP submittal is contained in a separate TSD.- 3

- economic feasibility. ” 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979)

. A RACT analysis should, therefore, take into account the technological and economic feasibility of controls, and may differ from source to source and location to location.

RACT applies to existing sources in nonattainment areas and differs from the more stringent lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) controls required for new and modif ied major sources in nonattainment areas

. LAER is defined in CAA Section 171(3) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xiii)

as “ the most stringent emissions limitation which is contained in the implementation plan of any State for such class or category of source

... or ... the most stringent emissions limit which is achieved in practice by such class or category of stationary sources. ”

Unlike LAER, RACT allows for consideration of the economic impact of the controls

. Therefore, if a certain type of emission control or emiss ion limitation is determined to be too costly in light of the amount of emission reduction it achieves, that control might not be considered RACT

. Also, as economic factors may vary within a State and between different States, a control technology or emiss ion limitation approved as RACT in one location does not necessarily define RACT for another location

. RACT also differs from Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT), which is the level of control required for sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP s) in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAPs ) set by EPA. CAA Section 112(d)(3) requires that control requirements for a NESHAP shall not be less stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in practice by the best c ontrolled similar source for new sources, and the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent for existing

sources (commonly known as the “MACT floor”)

. Accordingly, a NESHAP is generally expected to be as stringent as RACT

. Howe ver, there are a few instances where this may not be true. These cases include situations where the NESHAP was promulgated a number of years ago and has not been updated, where the NESHAP has a higher applicability threshold (e.g., applies only to major so urces of HAPs) or where it applies only to a limited number of compounds (e.g., only HAPs and not all VOCs).

Section IV.G of EPA ’ s final rule to implement the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS ( 70 FR 71612

, November 29, 2005) discusses RACT requirements

. It states in part that where a RACT SIP is required, State SIPs implementing the 8

- hour standard must assure that RACT is met, either through a certification that previously required RACT con trols represent RACT for 8

- hour implementation purposes or through a new RACT determination

. 70 FR 71612 at 71655.

The preamble to the final rule further explains that “ many areas s ubject to the major source RACT requirement under the 8

- hour ozone standard have previously addressed the RACT requirement with respect to the 1

- hour ozone standard.... We believe that, in many cases, a new RACT determination under the 8

- hour standard would result in the same or similar control technology as the initial RACT determination under the 1

- hour standard because the fundamental control techniques, as described in the CTGs and ACTs, are still applicable. ” 70 FR 71612 at 71654.

It adds that “ States and other interested parties should consider available information that may supplement the CTG and ACT documents. In cases where additional information is presented,- 4

- for example, as part of notice

- and

- comment rulemaking on a RACT SIP submittal, States (and EPA) would necessarily consider the additional data in reviewing what control obligation is consistent with RACT... The State should submit a certification as part of its SIP revision , with appropriate supporting information, such as consideration of new data, that these sources are already subject to SIP

- approved requirements that still meet the RACT obligation. ” 70 FR at 71612 at 71655.

To help California and its local air districts with their RACT SIP certifications, on March 9, 2006, EPA Region IX sent a letter to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local air districts discussing EPA Region IX ’ s un derstanding of what might constitute a minimally acceptable RACT SIP submittal

. In that letter we reminded States that we believed they must consider new information that has become available and certify that a 1

- hour RACT determination, even where control s were required, still represent an appropriate RACT level of control for the 8

- hour ozone program

. The letter offered the following suggestions to be included in a RACT SIP analysis and indicated that the more rigorous the analysis and aggressive the requ irements, the more likely that EPA would be able to approve them:

• Describe efforts to identify all source categories within the District requiring RACT, including CTG sources (i.e., covered by an EPA Control Techniques Guidelines document) and major non

- C TG sources.

• Submit negative declarations where there are no facilities (major or minor) within the District covered by a CTG.

• For all categories subject to RACT, list the state/local regulation that implements RACT

.

• Describe the basis for concluding th at the regulations fulfill RACT

. Documents useful in establishing RACT include CTGs, Alternative Control Technique guidance (ACTs), MACT standards, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), California Suggested Control Measures (SCM) and RACT/Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) determinations, regulations adopted in other Districts, and guidance and rules developed by other states and local agencies.

• Where a District relies on the California Air Pollution Control Officer Association ’ s (CAPCOA ’ s) September 2003, Potential All Feasible Measures (AFM) Report to help demonstrate RACT, the RACT SIP should certify that the local regulations are equivalent to AFM, justify the assumption that the AFM fulfilled RACT in 2003, and include a certification /demonstration that no additional controls have become more reasonably available since then.

Where public commenters submit specific information to a State about controls that are reasonably available in light of technological and economic feasibility, th e State should consider such information in developing its RACT SIP

. EPA generally considers controls that have been achieved in practice by a significant number of sources to be technologically and economically feasible.- 5

- SUBMITTAL SUMMARY

–

The Distri ct adopted the 2006 RACT SIP on October 26, 2006 and CARB subm itted it to EPA on July 11, 2007. At that time, the SMAQMD was classified as a serious ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard. On February 14, 2008, CARB requested that EPA reclassify the Sacramento Metropol itan ozone nonattainment area from “ serious ” to “ severe

15 ” . On May 5, 2010 EPA approved California ’ s request. See 75 FR 24409

.

SMAQMD ’ s submit tal included the following documents :

a. “ Staff Report

- Analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP), ” September 26, 2006. b. Resolution AQM 2006

- 073, “ Ozone State Implementation Plan Revision Rea sonably Available Control Technology as Applicable to the 8

- H our Ozone Standard, ” adopted on October 26, 2006.

c. “ Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 8

- Hour Ozone Standard, ” Octo ber 26, 2006.

EPA EVALUATION

– EPA evaluated t he following elements of SMAQMD ’ s RACT SIP Analysis as listed in o ur March 9, 2006 letter to CARB.

• Efforts to identify all source categories within the District requiring RACT

• N egative declarations where ther e are no facilities subject to a CTG

• List of the S tate / local regulations that implement RACT

• The bases for concluding that all referenced regulations fulfill RACT

T he following documents were also used to support our review:

• “ Final Rule to Implement the 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

– Phase 2 ” (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).

• “ State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ” (57 FR 13498; April 16, 1992).

• Enforcea bility

- Section 110(a) of the CAA requires enforceable emission limitations and other control measures. Several EPA guidance documents are used to evaluate rule enforceability, including “ Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Devi ations

, ” EPA, M ay 25, 1988 (The Blue Book), and “ Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, ” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

• “ State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble f or the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ” (57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992) ( “ the NOx Supplement ” ).

• Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, (May 18, 2006),

“ RACT Qs & As

– Reasonably Available C ontrol Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers ”

.

• RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX ’ s understanding of what constitutes a minimally acceptable RACT SIP.- 6

- • Letter dated April 4, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) listing EPA ’ s current CTGs, ACTs, and other documents which may help to establish RACT.

• EPA ’ s CTGs and ACTs : http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html

• CARB ’ s emissions inventory database http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php

• SMAQMD , CARB

, and EPA R egion IX databases of SM AQMD rules SMAQMD : http://www.airquality.org/rules/index.shtml CARB: http://www.arb.ca.gov/rldb/rldb.htm EPA: http://www2.epa.gov/approved

- sips/approved

- sips

- region

- 9

The following summarizes SM AQMD actions to address RACT requirements and EPA ’ s evaluation of those actions.

1. Efforts to ide ntify all source categories within the District subject to RACT

. RACT is required for source categories covered by an EPA Control Techniques Guidelines document ( “ CTG sources ” ) and all sources that are not covered by a CTG document but are

“ major sources ” (i.e., for SMAQMD, “ non

- CTG sources ” that emit or have the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year of VOCs or NOx .) 2

Sacramento action: SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report included a table (Table 1) listing all CTG source categories and matching tho se CTG categories with corresponding District rules which implement RACT

. SMAQMD also searched its d atabase of permitted sources and the telephone yellow pages for any potential sources belonging to those CTG categories for which the District d id not have rules

. The District concluded that there were no CTG source
cate gories in which the District had sources but no applicable rule.

Given its designation as a serious ozone nonattainment area, S M AQMD was also required to analyze RACT for all major non

- CTG so urces that emit or have the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year of VOCs or NOx (CAA 182(c ))

. Table 2 of S M AQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report listed the District ’ s major sources

. The 2006 RACT SIP further stated that some of the identified major sour ce facilities also had sources that did not fall into any of the CTG categories

. Table 3 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report lists non

- CTG major source s (e.g., landfill gas) that were analyzed for RACT

, the corresponding district rule s , and the SIP
status of those rules

.

2 Because the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area was classified as “serious” nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS at the time that California submitted the 2006 RACT SIP to EPA, we are evaluating this submission in accordance with the 50 tpy major source threshold that applies in serious nonattainment areas. However, as noted above, SMAQMD has submitted an updated RACT SIP that applies the 25 tpy major source threshold for a severe ozone nonattainment area. Our ev aluation of the updated RACT SIP submittal is contained in a separate TSD.- 7

- EPA evaluation: EPA reviewed CARB ’ s emissions inventory database f o r poten tial CTG and/or major non

CTG sources not included in the SM AQMD analysis

. Based on this review, no obvious CTG source category or major sources in the District wer e identified as requiring RACT but missing from the analysis

. The District ’ s efforts to identify all source c ategories requiring RACT appea r to be thorough

.

2. Submit negative declarations where there are no facilities subject to a CTG

Sacramento action : In lieu of adopting RACT rules, Districts can adopt negative declarations for CTG source categories if there are no sources in the District covered by the CTG

. 3

SM AQMD conclud es that there are no sources subject to 14 C TG documents after reviewing it s records for permitted sources, its enforcement program for u n permitted

sources , and the telephone yellow pages

.
Negative Declarations

CTG Source Category CTG Document Title Automobile Coating EPA

- 450/2

- 77

- 008

- Control of Volatile Organic Emissio ns from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light

- Duty Trucks Dry Cleaning (Petroleum Solvent) EPA

- 450/3

- 82

- 009

- Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners Graphic Arts (Rotogravure) EPA

- 450/2

- 78

- 033

- Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VIII: Graphic Arts

– Rotogravure and Flexography Large Appliance Coating EPA

- 450/2

- 77

- 034

- Control of Volatile Organic E missions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances Magnetic Wire Coating EPA

- 450/2

- 77

- 033

- Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume IV: Surface Coating for Insulation of Magnetic Wire Metal Coil Coating EPA

- 450/2

- 77

- 008

- Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light

- Duty Trucks Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing EPA

- 450/2

- 83

- 007

- Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants Paper and Fabric Coating EPA

- 450/2

- 77

- 008

- Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume II: Surface Coating of C ans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light

- Duty Trucks Resin Manufacturing (High

- Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene) EPA

- 450/3

- 83

- 008

- Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High

- Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins

Refineries EPA

- 450/2

- 77

- 025

- Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,

3 See, e.g., RACT Qs & As

– Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Questions and Answers, May 18, 2006 Note from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, page 7.- 8

- CTG Source Category CTG Document Title Wastewater Separators and Process Unit Turnarounds

EPA

- 450/2

- 78

- 036

- Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment Rubber Tire Manufacturing EPA

- 450/2

- 78

- 030

- Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires Ship Coating 61 FR 44050

- Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coati ng) Wood Coating (Flat Wood Paneling) EPA

- 450/2

- 78

- 032

- Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling

EPA evaluation: EPA reviewed SMAQMD ’ s emissions inventory and did not identify so urces that were covered under the above CTGs

. Accordingly, we agree that it was appropriate for SMAQMD to include negative declarations for these CTGs as part of its RACT SIP

.

3. List the S tate/local regulations that implement RACT and 4. Describe the basis for concluding that all regulations fulfill RACT

Sacramento action: SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report separated its RACT analysis into four sections which provided a RACT demonstration for : Appendix A

– RACT Analysis of CTG S ource C ategories Appendix B

– RACT Analysis of n on

- CTG S ource C ategories Applicable to M ajor S ources Appendix C

– RACT Analysis of Major Sources Appendix D

– Permit to Operate 17359 for the Kiefer Landfill Flare

a. Appendix A

- RACT Analysis of CTG Sou rce Categories.

Appendix A of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff R eport contains an analysi s for each CTG source category for which there is a District rule

. For each s ource category , SMAQMD provides : (1) a summary of the recommendations or requirements specified in the CTG and other RACT guidance documents and/or relevant regulations; (2) a summary of the relevant District SIP

- approved rules; and (3) a comparison of the requirements specified in District rules to those specified in RACT guidance documents and/or rel evant regulations

. Based on this comparison, SMAQMD concludes that its rules meet or exceed RACT

.

EPA largely agrees with SMAQMD ’ s analysis and finding that its rules satisfy RACT with the except ion of Rule 455, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing . This rule la cks test methods and recordkeeping requirements which are needed for the rule to be enforceable and therefore preclude s full approval of the 2006 RACT SIP

.
(1) Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing- 9

- Page 33 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report compares Rule 455

, Pha rmaceuticals Manufacturing

, against the Pharmaceuticals CTG ( EPA

- 450/2

- 78

- 029, December 1978), the NESHAP for Pharmaceuticals Production (40 CFR P art 63 S ubpart GGG) and concludes Rule 455 satisfies the RACT requirements for this source category.

EPA Eval uation Rule 455

, Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing

, (11/29/83 and 9/5/96) 4 lacks test methods, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements which are necessary to ensure the enforceability of the rule. The se are deficiencies listed in EPA ’ s “ Blue Book ” (Issues R elating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, May 25, 1988, revised January 11, 1990) and should be corrected. Alternatively, if Rule 464, Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations

, is used to demonstrate compliance with the Pharmaceu ticals Manufacturing CTG, Rule 464 would also need to be amended to incorporate elements missing from the rule (e.g., surface condenser requirements) to satisfy RACT

.
( 2 ) Solvent Cleaning (Degreasers) Page 36 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report explains tha t Rule 454

, Degreasing Operations

, specifies design and work practice standards for non

- vapor degreasers, vapor degreasers, remote reservoir degreasers , and conveyorized degreasers

. The 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report further explains that Rule 454 requires equ ipment design and work practice standards that are equivalent to, or more stringent than

, the CTG or ACT for halogenated solvent controls

. Although Rule 454 exempts

sources using VOCs covered under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart T

– National Emission Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning ( “ Halogenated Solvents NESHAP ” ), the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report points out that sources within the District that are subject to the NESHAP are required to comply with the NESHAP

, and that since the District has been delegated 5 authority to enforce the NESHAP , Rule 454, in combination with the District ’ s NESHAP authority

, satisfies RACT.

EPA evaluation On September 25, 2008, SMAQMD adopted several revisions to Rule 454 including lowering the degreasing solvent limit from 50 gra ms per liter to 25 grams per liter and removing the provision that facilit ies covered under the NESHAP would be exempt from the rule

. EPA agrees amended Rule 454 satisfies RACT and approved the revis ed r ule on April 9, 2010 ( 75 FR 18068 )

.
( 3 ) Organic Chemical Manuf acturing: Process Vents fr om Reactor Processes, Distillation Operations, and Other Separation and Production Equipment Page 40 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report explain s that th e District only has one

source covered under the Organic Chemical Manufacturing category

. It point s out that the source is also covered under the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical

4 Rule 455 (amended 11/29/83 ) is currently in the SIP. EPA has not acted on the 9/5/96 amendments to Rule 455. A s discussed above , both versions lack enforceable requirements.

5 40 CFR 63.99(a)(5)(i)(A), http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9nsps.nsf/ViewStandards?ReadForm&Part=63- 10

- Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF)

, which is more stri ngent than the relevant rule (Rule 464 , Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations ) in

some respects

. Similar to Rule 454, the District concludes that Rule 464 in combination with the District ’ s authority to implement and enforce the NESHAP

, satisfies RACT.

EPA evaluation For the Organic Chemical Manufacturing Category, Sacramento ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report lists the following applicable EPA RACT guidance documents : 1

. Control of VOC

- Air Oxidation Processes

– EPA 450/3

- 84

- 015 (CTG) 2

. Control of VOC

- R eactor Processes and Distillation Ops in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry

- EPA 450/4

- 91

- 031 (CTG) 3

. Control of VOC Emissions from Batch Processes EPA 453/R

- 93

- 017 (ACT)

Discussions with the District revealed that previously three facil ities were covered under Rule 464, but only one currently remains in the District (Procter and Gamble)

. Since there are no air oxidation processes at th is facility , the Air Oxidation CTG does not apply

.

T he Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations C TG indicates that the presumptive norm to determine when RACT must be applied to a vent stream is when the “ total resource effectiveness ” (TRE) for that vent stream is < 1

. 6 The TRE is a measure of the cost per unit of VOC emissions reductions and is normal ized so that the decision point has a defined value of 1.0

. SMAQMD ’ s September 23, 1998 staff report for Rule 464 indicates the TRE at all potentially affected vent streams is > 1, so the Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations CTG do es not apply.

T he last document, Control of VOC Emissions f rom Batch Processes is an ACT. The draft ACT (p 6

- 27 and Table 6

- 4) 7 provides a recommendation that RACT is 90 percent control, the same control level that is required by Rule 464

. T able 6

- 4 is referenced in the text of the final ACT, but do es not actually appear in the final ACT, possibly due to a publication error 8

. Therefore, based on Rule 464 ’ s 90 percent control level and the other analysis summarized above, EPA agrees that Rule 464 as adopted o n July 23, 199 8 satisfies RACT for this category

.
Rule 464 was amended on September 25, 2008 to further reduce the VOC content limit from 50 grams per liter down to 25 grams per liter for solvents used to perform maintenance cleaning. This amendment was approved into the SIP on October 3,

6 C ontrol of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, EPA 450/4

- 91

- 031 (August 1993), page 6

- 4.

7 http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.EXE?ZyActionL=Register&User=anonymous&Password=anonymous& Client=EPA&Init=1 enter search term: 453R93017

8 http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctg_act/199402_voc_epa453_r

- 93

- 017_batch_processes.pdf- 11

- 2011 ( 76 FR 61057 ) . This current version of Rule 464 continues to satisfy RACT for this category.

( 4 ) Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer M anufacturing Page 43 of SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report explains that there is only one

source (Procter and Gamble) in the District for which RACT must be demonstrated for this category and that th is source is also covered under the Miscellaneous Organ ic NESHAP

. The 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report further states that the applicable rule (Rule 443

, Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing) i s more stringent than the CTG ( Control of VOC

- Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing Equipment

. EPA

- 450/3

- 83

- 006 (CTG), March 1984 ) , but less stringent than the NSPS and the NESHAP with regard to monitoring frequency (monthly vs quarterly) and the threshold for defining a leak (500

– 1000 parts per million ( ppm ) vs 10,000 pp m) . However, the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report points out that Rule 443 is more stringent than the NSPS and NESHAP in that it requires annual monitoring of flanges and requires leaking equipment to be repaired more quickly (within 2 working days). Therefore

, the RACT SIP conclude s that Rule 443, in combination with the District ’ s NESHAP authority, satisfies RACT

.

EPA evaluation We agree that Rule 443 is more stringent than the CTG ( Control of VOC

- Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufactu ring Equipment . EPA

450/3

- 83

- 006 , March 1984 ) , but we do not agree that it is less stringent than the NSPS ( 40 CFR Part 60 S ubpart VV) and the NESHAP ( 40 CFR Part 63 S ubpart FFFF) with respect to VOC emissions from the Procter and Gamble facility , the only source in the district covered by the CTG . In particular, SM A QMD h as found that the Procte r and Gamble facility is exempt from the requirements of the NSPS ( 40 CFR Part 60 S ubpart VV )

. 9 Accordingly , the NSPS is not more stringent than Rule 443 with respec t to this facility. Moreover, the NESHAP ( 40 CFR Part 63 S ubpart FFFF)

, while more stringent than Rule 443 in certain respects, is less stringent in other respects. Accordingly, we do not believe the NESHAP is necessarily more stringent than Rule 443 with respect to VOC s emissions from the Procter and Gamble facility

. Therefore, we propose to find that Rule 443 satisfies RACT for this category.

EPA recommendation We note that Ventura County APCD ’ s Rule 74.7, Fugitive Emissions of Reactive Organic Compound s at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants, (amended 10/10/95) defines a minor gas leak as 1,000 ppm and requires repair within 14 days and since 1997, Bay Area AQMD Rule 8

- 18, Equipment Leaks, has required leaks greater than 100 ppm at petroleum refine ries and chemical plants (e.g., large facilities) to be minimized within 24 hours and repaired within 7 days.

9 See Statement of Basis, Title V Federal Operating Pe rmi t Administrative Amendment, SMAQMD Permit No: TV2008

- 02

- 03A (December 28, 2012), pages 22

- 23.- 12

- While EPA agrees that Rule 4 43 satisfies RACT

, to further strengthen Rule 443

, SMAQMD should consider leak thresholds adopted by: Bay Area Regula tion 8

- 18 Equipment Leaks and South Coast Rule 1173

, C ontrol of V olatile Organic Compound Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical Plants

.
For information, s ome States and California air districts, particularly, the South C oast AQMD, are investigating the use o f remote optical sensing instrumentation similar to a specialized camcorder to detect VOC emissions

. It is noted however, that although remote sensing t echnolog y can be helpful as a screening tool to identify leaks, it can be expensive

. Further, the portable remote optical sensing VOC instrumentation EPA Region 9 has seen only provides a qualitative indication of a leak and does not report VOC concentration s

. A remote sensing camera may be a useful tool to identify leak s in certain situations

. See 40 CFR 60.18(g), (h) and 73 FR 78199 (December 22, 2008).

b

. Appendix B

- RACT Analysis of n on - CTG Source Categories Applicable to Major Sources

Appendix B of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report contains an analysi s for each non

CTG source category found at one or more major sources within the District

. Each source category analysis contains: (1) a summary of recommendations or requirements sp ecified in A C T (s)

, federal and state RACT guidance documents

, and/or relevant regulations ; (2) a summary of relevant District rules; and (3) a comparison of requirements specified in District rules to those specified in RACT guidance documents and/or relevant regulations

. Based on this comparison, SMAQMD concludes that

, for the most part, its major non

- CTG sources are covered by District rules which meet or exceed RACT

. Appendix B provides a RACT analysis for the following non

- CTG categories.

Non

- CTG Category Amended SIP Approved EPA Comments

Rule 442 Architectural Coatings 9/5/96 5/24/0 1 9/24/15* 11/09/98 Area source

- not subject to RACT

Rule 411 Boilers 8/23/07 5/6/09 Satisfies RACT Rule 413 Stationary Gas Turbines 3/24/05 1/10/08 Satisfies RACT Rule 412 IC Engines 6/1/95 4/30/96 Satisfies RACT Rule 485 Municipal Landfill Gas 7/23/9 8

- - - Rule 485 is not in the SIP. It exempts landfills subject to WWW Rule 464 Organic Chemical Manufacturing

- Process Tanks, Liquid Transfer, and Storage Tanks (≤40,000 gallons) 9/25/08 10/3/11 Satisfies RACT- 13

- Non

- CTG Category Amended SIP Approved EPA Comments

Rule 464 Organic Chemical Manufacturing

– Wastewater Rule 466 Solvent Cleaning (other than Degreasers) 10/28/10 9/29/11 Satisfies RACT

* Rule 442 was amended in 2001 and 2015. The current version meets CA RB’s latest suggested control measure for architectural coatings

. Rule 442, Architectural Coatings, is an area source a nd is not subject to RACT. Rule 411, Boilers, and Rule 413 , Stationary Gas Turbines, were amended shortly after SMAQMD adopted its 2006 RACT SIP and were approved into the SIP as satisfying RACT. Rule 412, IC Engines, while adopted and approved into the SIP a number of years ago, subjects IC Engines to Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) limits, which we believe satisfies RA CT. 10

The District also found that some of its rules were less stringent than some NSPS and NESHAPs. However, since SMAQMD was delegated authority to implement and enforce NSPS and NESHAP requirements by EPA, the District asserted that the combination of i ts rules and its delegated authority to implement the NSPS and NESHAP meet RACT for the following non

- CTG major source categories: (1) Municipal Landfill Gas, (2) Organic Chemical Manufacturin g

– Process Tanks, Liquid Transfer, and Storage T anks (≤40,000 gallons), and (3) Organic Chemical Manufacturing

– Wastewater.

(1) Municipal Landfill Gas Page 59 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report explains that there is only one major

source , the Kiefer Landfill, for which RACT is required for the Municip al Landfill Gas category

. The source is subject to the NSPS for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills , 40 CFR Part 60 S ubpart WWW ( ( March 1996) and the NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste Landfil ls, 40 CFR Part 63 S ubpart AAA A ( January 2003) , which SMAQMD staff con clude s meet or exceed RACT by containing the most stringent requirements that are applicable to municipal landfill gas.

EPA Evaluation As stated in SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report

, there is no CTG or ACT for landfills

. SMAQMD ’ s Rule 485

, Municipal Landfill Gas

, exempts landfills covered under the NSPS , 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart W WW

. Although SMAQMD has been delegated authority to enforce the NSPS (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart WWW) , as well as the relevant NESHAP (40 CFR Part 6 3 Subpart AAAA ), these requirements have not been incorporated into the SIP and therefore may not be relied upon to fulfill RACT. 11

10 See Rule 412 discussion in section 3 of the companion RACT SIP Update TSD evaluating SMAQMD’s Updated RACT SIP dated September 22, 2008.

11 See RACT Qs & As

– Re asonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Questions and Answers, May 18, 2006 Note from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, page 2.- 14

- Accordingly, there are no provisions in the SIP implementing RACT for VOC for the Kiefer landfill. There fore, we are proposing to disapprove SMAQMD’s determination that its SIP implements RACT for VOC for the Kiefer landfill. In order to correct this deficiency, we recommend that SMAQMD submit the permit provisions that implement the NSPS requirements for VO C for the Kiefer Landfill as a source

- specific SIP revision.

(2) Organic Chemical Manufacturing

– Process Tanks, Liquid Transfer, and Storage Tanks ( < 40,000 gallons) Page s 60

- 62 of SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report states there are no CTGs or ACTs f or process tanks, liquid transfer operations or storage tanks < 40,000 gallons

. It further states that the following requirements cover p rocess tanks and liquid transfers (40 CFR Part 63 S ubpart FFFF

– Miscellaneous Organic Chemical NESHAP ), and storage ta nks (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Kb

– Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels) greater than approximately 20,000 gallons

. The analysis indicates there is only one major source (Procter and Gamble) in the District for which RACT is r equired for the Organic Chemical Manufacturin g category and that the facility is subject to Rule 464 and the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart FFFF) . The 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report gives a brief description of the requirements i n the NESHAP

, NSPS

, and Rule 464

. It concludes that in some respects

, the NESHAP and NSPS contain more stringent requirements (such as 95% control efficiency vs 90% control efficiency) than Rule 464

. SMAQMD concludes that Rule 464 in combination with the D istrict ’ s NESHAP authority satisfies RAC T.

EPA Evaluation As stated in SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report

, there is no CTG or ACT for the category of process tanks, liquid transfers

, and storage tanks ( < 40,000 gallons)

. One ACT, Control of VOC Emissions from Batch Processes ( EPA 453/R

- 93

- 017 )

, contains a discussion on liquid transfers

, storage tanks and wastewater, but is only applicable to process vents (page 7

- 5)

. Since there is no applicable CTG or ACT, a RACT evaluation is only required if SMAQMD has a major stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year ( tpy ) of VOC or NOx in this category

. 12 A RACT evaluation is not required for non

- major sources

. As noted in SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report , the District only h as one major stationary

source (Procter and Gamble) in the Organic Chemical Manufacturing category

. In addition to being subject to the requirements in Rule 464, t his facility is also subject to requirements in the NESHAP subpart FFFF, Miscellaneous Organi c Chemical NESHAP , and to requirements in the NSPS subpart Kb

, Organic Liquid Storage Vessels

. While SMAQMD notes that, in certain respects, the NESHAP and NSPS contain more stringent requirements than Rule 464

, in other respects, the NESHAP and NSPS are l ess stringent. For example, the NESHAP includes an exemption from various emission limits , including the limits for storage tanks during periods of

12 As noted above, our evaluation of the SMAQMD’s updated RAC T SIP, which applies the 25 tpy major source threshold for a severe ozone nonattainment area, is contained in a separate TSD.- 15

- startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). 13 The NSPS General Provisions include a similar exemption that appl ies to the limits in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Kb. 14 Therefore, we do not believe that the NESHAP and NSPS provisions are necessary to fulfill RACT for this source category.

EPA is proposing to find that RACT is met through the District ’ s implementation of SI P

- approved Rule 464 ( “ Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations ” ), as

a mended September 25, 2008

. (3) Organic Chemical Manufacturing

– Wastewater As stated in SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report , EPA ’ s draft Industrial Wastewater CTG EPA

- 453/D

- 93

- 056 was nev er issued as a CTG, but was updated and included as an attachment to the 1994 I ndustrial Wastewater ACT

.

SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report points out that Rule 464 ’ s criteria (concentration and flow rate) for determining which wastewater streams are subject to control requirements are more stringent than the draft CTG and the NESHAP

. Specifically, Rule 464 regulates any wastewater stream with a total VOC concentration of at least 5 parts per million by weight ( ppmw ) and a flow rate of at least 0.02 li ters per minute ( lpm ) , or a total VOC concentration of at least 10,000
ppmw at any flow rate

. The District points out that subpart FFFF requirements reference 40 CFR part 63 subparts F and G and apply to wastewater streams with HAP concentrations of at lea st 1,000 ppmw and a flow rate of at least 10 lpm or streams with 10,000 ppmw at any flow rate

. It also point s out that the emission suppression requirements for wastewater collection system components are more stringent than the ACT and are essentially the same as the NESHAP

. Full compliance with subpart FFFF is required by May 2008

. As noted by SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report , R ule 464 requires devices used to control vented emi ssions to achieve 90 percent destruction efficiency

, compared to the NESH AP ’ s 95 percent

. The NESHAP also requires removal of VOCs from wastewater streams while Rule 464 does not contain such a requirement

. Page 64 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report explains that there is only one major

source (Procter and Gamble) in the Distric t for which RACT is required for the Organic Chemical Manufacturing

– Wastewater category

. SMAQMD s taff conclude s that the combination of the requirements in R ule 464 and its delegated authority for the NESHAP subpart FFFF meet or exceed RACT.

13 See 40 CFR 63.2450(a) (“You must be in compliance with the emission limits and work practice standards in tables 1 through 7 to this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) . . .”).

14 See 40 CFR 60.8(c) (“Operations during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction shall not constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a performance test nor shall emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission limit during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction be considered a violation of the applicable emission limit unless otherwise specified in the applicable stan dard. ”).- 16

- EPA Evaluat ion We agree with SMAQMD that Rule 464 is more stringent than the NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63 S ubpart FFFF) in some respects and less stringent in other respects. We also note that the NESHAP includes an exemption from various emission limits, including the lim its for wastewater streams during SSM periods

, 15 whereas Rule 464 does not include such an exemption. Therefore, we do not believe that the NESHAP provisions are necessary to fulfill RACT for this source category.

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to find tha t RACT is met through the District ’ s implementation of SIP

- approved Rule 464

, Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations, as a mended September 25, 2008

.

c

. Appendix C

– RACT Analysis of Major Sources

Appendix C of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report identifi es ten major sources within the District. General facility information is provided along with potential to emit data

, details on c omponents that emit VOC and NOx, and air pollution control s and emission limits. Rules applicable to eac h facility are listed, and the RACT analysis for each of these rules is provided in Appendices A and B of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report

. One of the major sources listed in Appendix C is the Kiefer Landfill , which has a potential to emit of 472 tpy (VOC) and 108 tpy (NOx)

. T he 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report indicates the Kiefer Landfill has a system that captures the landfill gas and sends it to be combusted in a flare or to be used a s fuel in one of five internal combustion engines to produce electricity

. The facility also has thr ee non

- road diesel engines to drive : a trommel screen, a green waste grinder, and to provide auxiliary power to a street sweeper to operate a vacuum system and sweeping brushes

.
Page 88 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report states th at t here are no federal
st andards or SMAQMD rules that are applicable to the NOx emissions from the Kiefer Landfill flare , which is a major source of VOC and NOx within the District

. The 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report identified th is as a RACT deficiency. The District remedied this by submitting for inclusion in the SIP portions of the permit (Appendix D)

, including require ments for a NOx limit on the flare of 0.06 lb/mmBtu and associated testing and recordkeeping requirements. The 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report al so states that this NO x em ission limit is equivalent to the most stringent limits in effect in other California districts.

1

. Permit to Operate 17359 for the Kiefer Landfill Flare

. Appendix D of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report : (1) describes the permit , (2) lists conditions that w ill be added and amended to the permit at its next update, and (3) contains the portions of the permit that are being submitted for inclusion into the

15 See 40 CFR 63.2450(a) (“You must be in compliance with the emission limits and work practice standards in tables 1 through 7 to this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) . . .”).- 17

- SIP (o nly the p ortions needed to satisfy RACT are included )

. District commitments to modify the permit in clude : stipulating that the RACT provisions approved by EPA remain a part of the SIP until they are replaced by a SIP action, regardless of the permit expiring or being reissued; establishing that the emission limit satisfies the RACT requirement; requirin g that copies of source tests remain at the facility for 5 years; and specifying the source test method s acceptable for determining compliance with the NOx limit.

EPA Evaluation

For NOx controls, EPA is satisfied with the inclusion of portions of the Pe rmit to Operate 17359 for the Kiefer Landfill Flare in the SIP submittal. The portions submitted into the SIP make the NOx 0.06 lbs/mmBtu limit on the flare and the associated recordkeeping and source test methods federally enforceable
rega rdless of whethe r the permit expires or is reissued

.
On April 12, 2011, ( 76 FR 20242 ), EPA approved t he relevant portions of the Kiefer Landfill Flare permit into the SIP.

5. Public Comments

SM AQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report analysis w as made available for public comment

. N o public comments were received by the SMAQMD during the public workshop or during its 45

- day comment period

.

6

. EPA Comments and SMAQMD responses on the Draft 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report

On October 23 , 2006, EPA provided the following general c omments to a September 2006 version of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report

. Responses to EPA ’ s comments were provided in a letter dated October 26, 2006 from SMAQMD ( Aleta Kennard ) to EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel)

.

a

. EPA commented that t he CTG, “ Control of VOC Leaks from Petroleum Ref inery Equipment ” EPA

- 450/2

- 78

- 036 appeared to have been left out of the District ’ s analysis. Resolved

. SMAQMD added this CTG to its Negative Declaration s

. The addition did not change the District ’ s conclusion that there were no refineries in the District and it d id not anticipate any in the future

.

b

. EPA commented that p articularly where the last RACT determination for specific source categories occurre d many years ago, the Staff Report should demonstrate that no additional controls are required to satisfy RACT

. Specifically, analysis of Rule 446, Storage of Petroleum Products, could be expanded to discuss how the rule is considered to meet RACT. Resolve d

. SMAQMD ’ s October 26, 2006 letter to EPA explained that in addition to the RACT requirement, the D istrict has been required to achieve emission reductions beyond RACT in federal and state air quality plans designed to meet ozone air quality standards

. Th e letter stated that in its ongoing search for emission reduction- 18

- strategies, the District has not identified additional emission reduction s with cost effectiveness values that could be considered RACT

. Where significant cost effective reductions could be achieved, the letter state s that the District has adopted standards that exceed RACT.

In addressing EPA ’ s concerns regarding Rule 446, the letter explained that there is only one major source that would be impacted by lowering the exemption threshold for Rule 4 46 to 10,000 gallons, and this source is already subject to more stringent controls than those contained in Rule 4 46 under the Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations, and the Miscellaneous Organics NESHAP

. Further, the District states that it bel ieve s there would be zero emission reductions from lowering the gas

- tight threshold in Rule 4 4 6

. SMAQMD ’ s current requirement and threshold are the same as San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Rule 4623 , Storage of Organic Liquids, and Ventura County APCD Rule 70 , Storage and Transfer of Gasoline

. No further action is needed on this item.

c

. EPA list ed ten rules which had newer versions than those approved into the SIP or which had never been submitted for SIP approval and requested that the District submit

a ny rules which were needed for RACT

. Resolved

. Eight of the required rules have been submitted

. The remaining two rules, Rule 442

, Architectural Coatings

, and Rule 485

, Municipal L andfill Gas

, are not required for RACT and are discussed below

. SMAQMD also determined that there

are no major Polyester Resin source s in the District and since there is no CTG for this category, Rule 465 is not required to meet RACT.

Rule Adopted/ Amended Submitted SIP Approval / Notes

413 Stationary Gas Turbine 3/24/05 9/6/07 1/10/08 ( 73 FR 1819 )

442 Architectural Coatings 9/24/15

- - N ot subject to RACT

450 Graphic Arts Operations 10/23/08 4/29/09 4/9/2010 ( 75 FR 18068 ) 451 Miscellaneous Metal Parts 10/28/10 4/5/2011 11/21/2011 ( 76 FR 71886 )

– revised to meet 2007/2008 CTGs 454 Degreasing Oper ations 9/25/08 9/15/09 4/9/2010 ( 75 FR 18068 ) 456 Aerospace Coating 10/23/08 9/15/09 7/14/2010 ( 75 FR 40726 )

– Below CTG applicability threshold 463 Wood Products Coatings 9/25/08 9/15/09 4/9/2010 ( 75 FR 18068 ) 465 Polyester Resin Operation 9/25/08 9/15/09 7/26/11 ( 76 FR 44493 ) not required for RACT 466 Solvent Cleaning 10/28/10 4/5/11 9/29/2011 ( 76 FR- 19

- Rule Adopted/ Amended Submitted SIP Approval / Notes

60376 ) 485 Mun icipal Landfill Gas 7/23/98

- - Rule exempts landfills subject to part 60 subpart WWW

Rule 456, Aerospace Coatings

. S ubsequent to its 2006 RACT analysis, the District submitted a negative declaration for the Aerospace Coatings category based on an eval uation that their only source is below the CTG ’ s potential to emit applicability threshold

. EPA approved the negative declaration for Aerospace Coatings on April 18, 2012 (75 FR 23130). No further action is required for this category

.
Rule 485, Municipal Landfill Gas, exempts sources covered by NSPS subpart WWW and is not currently in the SIP

.

d

. EPA previously commented that p age 101 of the 2006 RACT SIP Staff Report lists specific conditions to be added and amended to the Kiefer Landfill Flare permit

. These conditions should be included in the final package submitted to EPA for inclusion into the SIP. Resolved

. The District updated the Kiefer Landfill permit submitted for SIP approval as suggested

. EPA reviewed the updated permi t and found it to be suf ficient and approved the relevant portions of the permit into the SIP on April 12, 2011 (76 FR 20242)

.

7

. Summary

With the exception of Rule 455, Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing, and VOC requirements for the Kiefer landfill

, SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP Staff Re port largely support s the District ’ s assertion that its regulations meet or exceed RACT

.

Rule 455 does not meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) because it lacks test methods, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements which are necessary to

ensu re that the rule is enforceable . These are deficiencies listed in EPA ’ s “ Blue Book ” (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, May 25, 1988, revised January 11, 1990) and need to be corrected . Therefore, under CAA section 1 10(k)(3)

, EPA proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP. We propose to approve SMAQMD ’ s certification that its rules satisfy RACT , with the exception of Rule 455 and VOC requirements for the Kiefer landfill . We propose t o disapprove SMAQMD ’s certification that Rule 455 satisfies RACT because Rule 455 does not satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)

. We also propose to disapprove SMAQMD’s determination that its SIP implements RACT for VOC s for the Kiefer landfill because there are no provisions in the SIP that limit VOC emissions from this source

.- 20

- Final disapproval will result in offset and highway sanctions unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting Rule 455 or an alternative rule to satisfy the Pharmaceutic als Manufacturing CTG and provisions fulfilling RACT for VOC at the Kiefer landfill within 18 months of the effective date of the disapproval. See CAA section 179(b) and 40 CFR 52.31. We will not finalize this partial disapproval, however, if we fully appr ove a rule satisfying the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing CTG and provisions fulfilling RACT for VOC at the Kiefer landfill before finalizing action on SMAQMD ’ s 2006 RACT SIP. EPA is committed to working with CARB and the District to resolve th es e RACT defici enc ies , and we encourage the State and District to submit a SIP revision correcting the identified deficienc ies as expeditiously as practicable. A revised 2006 RACT SIP demonstration will not be necessary if the submitted rule amendments and permit provisi ons correct the identified deficiencies

. In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years after finding that a State has failed to make a required submission or disapproving a SIP s ubmission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies within that two

- year period.

8. Suggestions for Improvement

a . Rule 455, Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing, In addition to addressing test methods, recordkeeping and monitoring, please review South Coast AQMD Rule 1103, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics Manufacturing Operations, and the following suggestions f or potential rule improvements :

1) Section 200: Please define production equipment exhaust system, l eak, an d any other newly added terms.

2) Section s 301.1 , 301.4, 310.4 allows the use of “ equivalent control s ”

. The rule should specify how the District will determine equivalency or require District and EPA approval of the equivalent control s

. (e.g., see SCAQMD Rule 1103(c)(1)(b)).

3 ) Section 310.5: Please specify a time limit for completing the repair after detection. For example, see SCAQMD Rule 1103 (d)(5): “ ...within 24 hours after the detection of the leak. ”

b. If additional emission reductions are needed beyond RACT , the District may want to investigate:

1) Rule 443, Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing Consider adopting more stringent component leak thresholds similar to Bay Area 8

- 18 or South Coast 1173

. 2) Composting emi ssion s

– See San Joaquin Rule 4566 or South Coast Rules 1133, 1133.2

– 1133.3 and San Joaquin ’ s solar pow e red aeration project:- 21

- http://www.valleyai r.org/Grant_Programs/TAP/documents/C

- 15636

- ACP/C

15636_ACP_FinalReport.pdf

3) Confined animal facilities

– See San Joaquin Rules 4565 and 4570.

4) Warm mix asphalt as an option to hot mix asphalt

– See San Joaquin discussion on pages C

- 218

– 226 http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/PM25

- 2015/C.pdf

5) Bay Area Rule 8

- 33 limits gasoline bulk terminal emissions to 0.04 lb per 1000 gallons loaded while SM Rule 447 allows 0.08 lb / 1000 gallons loaded.

c. Submit the latest version of Rule 442, Architectural Coatings, for SIP approval. 16

REFERENCES

-

1. SM AQMD Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) as Applicable to the 8

- Hour Ozone Standard

– Adopted

– October 26, 2006 ; Submitted

– July 11 , 2007

.

2. SMAQMD Analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan

– September 6, 2006 Staff Report.

3. RACT SIPs, Letter dated Mar ch 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel ) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX ’ s understanding of what constituted a minimally acceptable RACT SIP

.

4. RACT SIPs, Letter dated April 4, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karper os) listing EPA ’ s current CTGs, ACTs, and other documents which may help to establish RACT.

5. RACT Qs & As

– Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Questions and Answers, May 18, 2006 Note from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Divis ion, to Regional Air Division Directors. http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ractqanda.pdf

6. Comment letter dated October 23 , 2006 on the 8

- hour Ozone Reasonably Available Contr ol Technology

– State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) Analysis, draft Staff Report dated September 26, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to SM AQMD ( Kevin Williams ).

7. SMAQMD Rule 464 Staff Report dated July 23, 1998 documenting the total resource effe ctiveness >1 ; cover page and page 22.

16 In October 2015, SMAQMD submitted Rule 442 ( amended 9/24/2015) to CARB to submit to EPA.- 22

- 8. Transmittal of Alternative Control Technology Documents

– Industrial Wastewater http ://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctg_act/199404_voc_%28nrid %29_industrial_wastewater(act).pdf

9. “ Final Rule to Implement the 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

– Phase 2 ” (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).

10. “ Issues Relat ing to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, ” (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988.

11. “ Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, ” (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001.

12. “ State Implem entation Plans, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ” (57 FR 13498; April 16, 1992).

13. “ State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ” (57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992) ( “ the NOx Supplement ” ).

14. EPA ’ s CTGs and ACTs http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ ctgs.html

15. CARB ’ s emissions inventory database http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php

16. SMAQMD, CARB, and EPA Region IX databases of SMAQMD rules SMAQMD: http://www.airquality.org/rules/index.shtml CARB: http://www.arb.ca.gov/rldb/rldb.htm EPA: http://www2.epa.gov/approved

- sips/approved

- sips

- region

- 9

17. Procter and Gamble Title V Federal Operating Permit Administrative Amendment, SMAQMD Permit No: TV2008

- 02

- 03A (December 28, 2012), pages 22

- 23. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/air/epss.nsf/735056a63c1390e08825657e0075d180/e1ce42 32e98b979688257afb0075bf31/$FILE/TV200 8

- 02

- 03A%20SOB%20

- %20Administrative%20Amendment.pdf