[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17746-17748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8607]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA36-1-6922; FRL-5185-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Commonwealth of Virginia: Non-CTG Reasonably Available Control 
Technology for Philip Morris, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing conditional approval of a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. This revision establishes and requires the use of reasonably 
available control technology (RACT) to control volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions from the Philip Morris, Inc, (Philip Morris), 
Manufacturing Center, in Richmond, Virginia, which is part of the 
Richmond ozone nonattainment area. The SIP revision requires Philip 
Morris to meet RACT by installing thermal incinerators on process units 
that use ethanol-based flavorings. An exemption from this requirement 
is provided if the company eliminates use of ethanol-based flavorings 
and there is no net increase in VOC emissions. The intended effect of 
this action is to propose approval of the SIP revision on the condition 
that deficiencies in the exemption requirements are corrected and 
submitted within one year of this approval. If the State fails to do 
so, this approval will convert to a disapproval. This action is being 
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Marcia L. Spink, Associate 
Director, Air Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available 
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air, 
Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; 
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, 
Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Henry, (215) 597-0545.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 28, 1994, the Commonwealth of 
Virginia submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
The SIP revision consists of a Consent Order and Agreement (the Order) 
between the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia and Philip Morris, Inc.. The Order was signed 
by Philip Morris' Senior Vice President of Manufacturing on June 14, 
1994 and the Director of DEQ on June 27, 1994. The Order became 
effective on June 27, 1994.
    In the Federal Register on November 24, 1987, EPA's Proposed Post-
1987 Policy for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide stated that air quality 
monitors revealed continued exceedances of the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and carbon monoxide in Virginia and 
that a SIP call would be issued. (See 52 FR 45044). On May 26, 1988, 
the Regional Administrator of EPA Region III notified the Governor of 
Virginia that the Commonwealth's SIP was substantially inadequate to 
achieve the ozone and carbon monoxide NAAQS for certain areas in 
Virginia, including Henrico County in the Richmond-Petersburg 
metropolitan statistical area, and therefore required a SIP revision. 
As prescribed by the SIP call, Virginia is required to develop 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) regulations in all its 
nonattainment areas for all VOC sources with the potential to emit 100 
tons per year (TPY) or more for which EPA has not issued a Control 
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document. Such sources are known as non-CTG 
sources. One of the non-CTG sources identified as requiring RACT is 
Philip Morris, Inc.'s Manufacturing Center in Richmond, Virginia. The 
City of Richmond is located in the Richmond area, which is currently 
designated nonattainment for ozone. Therefore, Virginia is submitting 
this Order as a SIP revision to fulfill part of its SIP call 
obligation.
    In addition, this SIP revision serves to fulfill one of the RACT 
fix-up requirements of the Virginia SIP required by section 
182(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act as amended by the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549. Areas classified as marginal 
nonattainment areas for ozone pursuant to section 181(a) of the Clean 
Air Act, as amended, are required to meet the RACT fix-up requirements. 
Under section 182(a)(2)(A), a state is required to submit, within six 
months of such classification, a SIP revision to correct requirements 
in (or add requirements to) the plan concerning RACT, as interpreted in 
guidance issued by the Administrator under section 108 of the Act 
before November 15, 1990.
Summary of SIP Revision

    The Philip Morris Manufacturing Center processes, flavors and 
blends various types of tobacco for the production of cigarettes. The 
operations include moisture addition, preflavoring, blending, cutting, 
flavoring and cigarette-making. VOC emissions result primarily from the 
application and evaporation of flavorings, particularly ethanol-based 
flavorings. Total uncontrolled stack and fugitive VOC emissions are 
estimated to be 1259 tons per year, based on 1990 throughput data.
    To accommodate the number and diversity of stack emissions at the 
Manufacturing Center, RACT was determined by grouping exhaust streams 
in various combinations and evaluating the feasibility and cost of 
installing control technology on the combined exhaust streams. Virginia 
has determined that the only grouping amenable to control technology is 
the combination of exhausts from the unit processes associated with 
ethanol-based flavorings. These combined waste streams comprise 48% of 
the uncontrolled stack emissions from the Manufacturing Center and are 
made up of emissions from burley casing cylinders #1 and #2, aftercut 
flavor cylinders #1 through #8, and aftercut dryers #1 through #4.
    The Order establishes RACT for these units as the installation and 
operation of two (2) 10,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) 
thermal oxidation units having a VOC destruction efficiency of at least 
95% on a mass basis. The thermal oxidation units are required to be 
operated at the three-hour average minimum temperature that 
demonstrates 95% destruction efficiency as determined by performance 
testing. Thermal oxidation units must be interlocked with process 
equipment and exhaust fans such that tobacco cannot be processed and 
VOC laden exhaust air cannot flow to the incineration units until the 
minimum temperature is achieved. In addition, the Order requires that a 
negative pressure be maintained in the exhaust system as demonstrated 
by continuous pressure monitors and reported as three-hour 
[[Page 17747]] rolling averages. Based on 1990 throughput data, stack 
emissions from the process lines using ethanol-based flavorings and 
aftercut dryers will be reduced from 606 tons/year to 30 tons per year.
    The Order allows an exemption from meeting these control 
requirements if Philip Morris replaces the existing ethanol-based 
flavorings with non-ethanol-based flavorings, provided that the change 
does not result in a net increase in VOC emissions.
    Virginia has determined that RACT for all other tobacco processing 
operations shall be the use of low-VOC, non-ethanol based flavorings.
    For more information on Virginia's RACT determination and the 
specific provisions of the Order, please refer to the Technical Support 
Document (TSD) prepared for this notice. A copy of the TSD is 
available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the 
Addresses section of this notice.
    EPA's review of this material indicates that the requirements to 
install, operate and maintain thermal oxidation units on the burley 
case flavoring cylinders, the aftercut flavoring cylinders and the 
aftercut dryers, and the use of low VOC flavorings on other tobacco 
processes established by the Consent Order and Agreement between the 
Virginia DEQ and Philip Morris, Inc. constitutes RACT for the 
facility's VOC emitting processes. EPA has also determined that the 
exemption from meeting the requirements of add-on controls through the 
use of non-ethanol based flavorings does not impose enforceable 
conditions that would ensure that there shall be no net increase in 
emissions above the level established by RACT.
    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the non-CTG RACT SIP 
revision for the Philip Morris Manufacturing Center pending corrections 
to the exemption provided in the Order that allows the use of 
reformulated flavorings in lieu of operating emission control 
technology. RACT has been defined for burley casing cylinders #1 and 
#2, aftercut flavor cylinders #1 through #8, and aftercut dryers #1 
through #4 as 95% destruction efficiency of VOCs on a mass basis over a 
three hour averaging period. Alternatively, the exemption from 
operating add-on controls through the use of reformulated flavorings 
requires that there shall be no net increase in VOC emissions. The 
Order is deficient in that it does not require the facility to monitor 
or report emissions from the affected units when non-ethanol-based 
flavorings are used and the facility is exempt from operating the 
thermal incinerators. The Order also fails to require a baseline to be 
established for the purpose of measuring net increases or decreases in 
emissions. Consequently, the requirement that there be no net increase 
in emissions from the substitution of reformulated flavorings for add-
on control is unenforceable and does not impose the same level of 
control that would be imposed by the Order as RACT without the 
exemption.
    In order to correct this deficiency, Virginia must amend and 
resubmit the Order within one year of this conditional approval in one 
of the following ways: (1) eliminate the exemption to use non-ethanol-
based flavorings in lieu of add-on controls; (2) restrict the 
applicability of the exemption to the use of non-VOC based flavorings; 
or (3) impose monitoring and reporting requirements sufficient to 
determine net increases or decreases in emissions on a mass basis 
relative to the emissions that would have occurred using add-on 
controls on an average not to exceed thirty days. If Virginia fails to 
revise and resubmit the Order within one year, the conditional approval 
will convert to a disapproval.
Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to 
conditionally approve the Virginia SIP revision for the Philip Morris 
Manufacturing Center, which was submitted on September 28, 1994. 
Virginia must amend the Consent Order and Agreement with Philip Morris, 
Inc, according to one of the three options described in this notice and 
resubmit the Order to EPA. If Virginia fails to do so within one year 
of the final conditional approval, the approval will convert to a 
disapproval. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed 
in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be 
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of 
this notice.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new 
requirements, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on 
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base 
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. 
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it 
will not affect any existing state requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect 
its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal 
does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies 
that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove 
existing requirements nor does it substitute a new federal requirement.
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by 
an October 4, 1993 memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation. The OMB has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
    The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the SIP 
revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA 
regulations in 40 CFR part 51. [[Page 17748]] 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: March 22, 1995.
Stanley Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 95-8607 Filed 4-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P