02/28/86
Responses to Four VOC Issues Raised by the Regional Offices and
Department of Justice
28 FEB 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Responses to Four VOC Issues Raised by the Regional
Offices and Department of Justice
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Region IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
In the attachments, I am transmitting responses to four VOC issues
identified by the Regional Offices and DOJ through the VOC Compliance
Workgroup. As you may know, absence of policy addressing these VOC issues
was being presented as an impediment to Regional and State efforts in
returning VOC violators to compliance.
On June 27, 1985, the first draft of the attached responses, as well
as draft responses to many other VOC issues, were circulated for comment.
On August 21 and 22, various Regional and Headquarters representatives met
to discuss these first drafts. A second draft of each issue was
circulated to the Regional Offices under two separate memoranda, dated
October 25 and December 12. The attached responses incorporate the
various comments received.
- 2 -
Under previous correspondence issued January 31, 1986 from SSCD and
January 17, 1986 from OECM, four other responses have been transmitted to
you. Therefore, eight issues have been addressed to date. Many of the
remaining proposed responses raise significant policy issues which need to
be addressed. We are working to expedite these responses and to assure
any necessary coordination with the work of the Ozone Task Force.
I appreciate the efforts of the Regions in commenting on the various
drafts of the attached four issues and hope that you find them helpful in
resolving some of the issues concerning VOC enforcement.
Attachments
cc: VOC Compliance Workgroup
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
Issue
What is the Agency's enforcement response for sources subject to
pending bubbles, specifically for bubbles in areas lacking an approved
attainment demonstration?
Response
The June 28, 1984 guidance on "timely and appropriate" enforcement
response for significant air violators addressed the situation of timely
enforcement for sources subject to SIP revisions. The guidance states
that EPA will routinely issue NOVs, if not already issued, 120 days
following the violation ( or shortly after ) if the violation is not
resolved in accordance with the guidance. Follow up to the NOV is
warranted unless EPA determines, in consultation with the State, that
continued deferral to the State activity will produce timely compliance.
Where the State activity is a SIP revision ( bubbles are SIP
revisions ), the revision must, by day 120, at least have been scheduled
for a State hearing and EPA staff-level review shows it likely to be
approved. Where the SIP revision is unlikely to be approved, EPA is
obligated under the "timely and appropriate" guidance to issue a NOV on
day 120 and follow up with its own enforcement action as appropriate.
Sources subject to SIP revisions in areas that are classified as
attainment are not subject to the "timely and appropriate" guidance unless
a specific State-EPA agreement addresses such sources. However, such
sources remain subject to enforcement by EPA. The criteria for deferral
outlined in the "timely and appropriate" guidance may be useful for
addressing such situations even though the timelines may not be
applicable.
____________________________________________
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
28 FEB 1986
______________________
Date Signed
- 2 -
Issue: Are there any site-specific RACT limits being set?
Response: Site-specific RACT determinations are required for GT 100
T/yr stationary sources not covered by a CTG where (1) sources are located
in urbanized areas that did not attain by 1982 and (2) for urbanized areas
that have requested an extension until 1987. In addition, case-by-case
RACT determinations are allowable where the CTG suggested limit has been
found to be technologically or economically infeasible. These case-by-
case RACT determinations must be approved by EPA as source-specific SIP
revisions.
Site-specific RACT determinations have been made for a number of GT 100
T/yr stationary source categories not covered by CTG's. Examples of this
are Region IV RACT determinations for aluminum foil plants, woodworking
plants, etc. Region I reportedly is making RACT determinations for a
large number of sources. For example, more than 30 site-specific non-CTG
RACT determinations in the State of Massachusetts will be submitted as SIP
revisions to EPA in the near future. Also, a number of case-by-case RACT
determinations have been made for CTG site-specific sources in
Massachusetts in the past.
Case-by-case RACT determinations are allowable under EPA policy for
both CTG and non-CTG source categories where appropriate.
The VOC RACT Clearinghouse is available and should be used for
ensuring Regional consistency in RACT determinations for similar site
specific source categories.
___________________________________________
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
28 FEB 1986
- 3 -
Issue
What baseline year should be used for determining VOC percent
emissions reductions as per State SIP regulations?
Response
o There is no one particular year that can be considered to be the
baseline year for compliance purposes for all source categories. The
baseline year is generally considered to be the effective date of the
emission control regulation for the source category.
o The SIP itself, however, should be checked to determine if it
contains language affecting baseline year determinations. It is possible
that in approving the SIP either EPA or the State commented on this issue,
thus providing guidance to sources. If there is no contrary guidance in
the SIP, the general rule stated above should take effect.
o The stated issue and response relate to individual source
compliance rather than to a SIP planning baseline or emissions trading
issue. SIP baselines are defined in current policy and the issue of
baselines relative to trading is covered in the various Agency policy
documents on trading.
o The issue is only applicable to "percent reduction" types of
regulations. A regulation based strictly on "VOC content" ( e.g., lbs
VOC/gal coating or percent solvent regulations, etc. ) or add-on control
equipment percent requirements, would not require a baseline date as
compliance would be based only on a comparison against the SIP emission
limits.
o The "percent reduction" requirement applies to the emission rate as
expressed in terms of VOC content, not to total VOC emissions. That is,
the percent reduction applies against the pre-control coatings/inks
formulations, not to the emissions in mass per unit of time. This is
consistent with the intent of the CTG's. The pre-control coatings/inks
formulations used as the baseline in determining percent reductions must
be representative of the coatings/inks in use at the time the regulation
became effective.
_______________________________
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
28 FEB 1986
______________________________
Date Signed
- 4 -
ISSUE
Is an exemption for use of incinerators in non-ozone season
appropriate? How can we justify suing sources for failure to utilize
controls during non-ozone season in SIPs where there is no exemption?
RESPONSE
The origin of the policy on seasonal controls began when EPA issued
guidance on July 28, 1976 which authorized procedures for the approval of
SIP revisions allowing seasonal operation of certain gas-fired
afterburners. Such revisions could be accomplished without a detailed,
time-consuming analysis of air quality impact so long as the seasonal
shutdown period was consistent with that delineated in a staff study
( "Oxidant Air Quality and Meteorology," February 6, 1976 ) and if the
existing air quality showed no past violations in the months during which
the afterburners were shut down.
On December 1, 1980, in a memorandum to the Regional Offices titled
"Revised Seasonal Afterburner Policy" ( attachment 1 ), EPA further stated
that any plan revision which provided for after-burner shutdown in the
period of November through March outside of southern California and the
Gulf Coast should be proposed for approval.
It is important to note that the policy applies to gas-fired
afterburners installed to control emissions of volatile organic compounds
( VOCs ) for the purpose of reducing ambient ozone concentrations. It does
not apply to flares ( which do not use natural gas as an auxiliary fuel ),
VOCs vented to boilers, afterburners operated principally for odor
control, or afterburners operated to control toxic or hazardous
substances. It is also important to note that the policy on seasonal
control of afterburners can only be implemented through the SIP process.
The EPA does not have a general exemption regarding seasonal controls of
VOC gas-fired afterburners.
A second category of sources to which seasonal controls can be applied
through the SIP process are cutback asphalt facilities. In some SIPs,
control of these facilities is required only during the summer months.
In 1984, EPA, through the Office of Air and Radiation considered
whether to expand the categories of sources to which such seasonal
policies could apply. ( "Seasonal Volatile Organic Compound ( VO ) Control
and Phillips Petroleum," dated September 21, 1984 ( attachment 2 ) ) The
decision was made not to expand the scope of the policy primarily because:
- Only a relatively small additional cost savings could
be expected from any expansion of the policy.
- 5 -
- Exposure to toxic emissions might increase.
- Pursuing such an initiative could disrupt VOC control
efforts at a time of uncertain implementation.
- Scarce resources might have to be diverted from current
programs to prepare the necessary administrative actions.
- The control flexibility in the program already available
might be jeopardized since Section 302(K) of the Clean
Air Act, passed subsequent to EPA's seasonal afterburner
policy, requires controls on a "continuous basis."
It was for the above reasons that the recommendation was made to
implement the existing policy as presently written.
Thus, the policy concerning seasonal control of afterburners can be
implemented only if a State submits, and EPA approves, a SIP provision
providing for seasonal operation. In the absence of such a provision,
sources are obligated under State and federal law to continuously operate
afterburners as necessary to meet applicable emission limits. EPA expects
sources to meet their legal obligations, and is directed by Sections 113
and 120 of the Clean Air Act to take corrective enforcement action if a
source fails to do so. The justification for enforcing SIP requirements
providing for the continuous operation of afterburners rests with this
directive in the Clean Air Act. SIP standards are initially developed by
the States and can be more stringent than required by the Clean Air Act
and EPA policy. Once federally effective, the SIP requirements are to be
met by sources and enforced by the States and EPA.
_______________________________
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
28 FEB 1986
______________________________
Date Signed
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: DEC, 1980
SUBJECT: Revised Seasonal Afterburner Policy
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( MD-10 )
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I-X
On July 28, 1976, the Agency issued its policy on the
"Seasonal Operation of Natural Gas-Fired Afterburners." This
policy authorized the approval of SIP revisions without a
detailed, time-consuming analysis of air quality impact if the
seasonal shutdown period was consistent with that delineated
in a staff study ( "Oxidant Air Quality and Meteorology,"
February 6, 1976 ) and if existing air quality showed no
past violations in the months during which the afterburners
were shut down. Because of the nation's continuing need to
conserve energy resources and because of the revision to the
national ambient air quality standard for ozone, we have
reconsidered a portion of this policy.
An analysis of available ambient air quality data
concluded that exceedances of the revised national ambient
air quality standard for ozone do not occur in the November
through March period, except for areas of southern California
and the Gulf Coast. As a result of this analysis, it is
appropriate at this time to modify the "seasonal afterburner
policy" to state that any plan revisions which provide for
afterburner shutdown in the period of November through March
outside of southern California and the Gulf Coast should be
proposed for approval. All other portions of the original policy
remain unchanged, namely:
(1) The policy applies to gas-fired afterburners installed
to control emissions of volatile organic compounds
( VOCs ) for the purpose of reducing ambient ozone
concentrations. It does not apply to flares ( which
do not use natural gas as an auxiliary fuel ), VOCs
vented to boilers, afterburners operated principally
for odor control, or afterburners operated to control
toxic or hazardous substances; and
(2) A policy to seasonally control afterburners can only be
implemented through the SIP process. The attached
staff report, supported by air quality data, should be
adequate technical support for approving a SIP revision
allowing for seasonal shutdown of afterburners in a
given location.
It is recommended that you notify the State agencies in your
Region that EPA supports a policy which permits sources to shut
off afterburners during the months of November through March
except for areas of southern California and the Gulf Coast.
Should you have any questions in this regard, please contact
Mr. Richard G. Rhoads, Director, Control Programs Development
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards at
FTS 629-5251.
Attachment
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Seasonal Volatile Organic Compound ( VOC ) Control
and Phillips Petroleum
FROM: Joseph A. Cannon, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation ( ANR-443 )
TO: Milton Russell, Assistant Administrator
for Policy, Planning, and Evaluation ( PM-219 )
This is with regard to your memorandum of June 15, 1984, discussing
seasonal VOC control and the Phillips Petroleum Federal Register notice.
Your memorandum suggests that expanding seasonal VOC control beyond the
existing afterburner policy offers significant promise as a control cost-
savings initiative. You also expressed concern that the Office of Air and
Radiation ( OAR ) was attempting to revoke the existing seasonal afterburner
exemption in the Phillips Petroleum package. I would like to address
these two issues separately.
SEASONAL CONTROL
We can understand your perspective regarding expanded seasonal VOC
control since intuitively it is quite appealing to not control pollutants
if they clearly are not causing an air pollution problem. However, such a
seemingly simple approach has a number of potential pitfalls which need to
be considered prior to pursuing such an initiative. The Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards' ( OAQPS' ) review of your recommendations
has reached the following conclusions:
- Substantial control flexibility already exists under the current
policy in the area of greatest payoff; hence, only relatively
small additional cost savings can be expected from an expansion.
- Exposure to toxic emissions may increase.
- The basis for no further control in several listing decisions under
Section 112 may be undermined.
- Pursuing such an initiative at this time may disrupt VOC control
efforts at a time of uncertain transition to implementation.
- 2 -
- Resources in State, local, Regional, and Headquarters Offices may
need to be diverted away from current programs to prepare the
necessary administrative actions.
- The substantial control flexibility already available under the
current policy may be jeopardized.
Our basis for these conclusions is discussed below.
No Major Payoff Can Be Expected
The VOC emissions can be reduced through incineration, other add-on
controls, or low-solvent technology. While a few individual sources may
still realize significant savings through an expanded seasonal VOC control
policy, the bulk of the savings available has been addressed through the
existing seasonal afterburner exemption. The consultant study prepared by
your staff confirms our initial conclusions regarding the limited
potential for cost savings from expanding this policy. The following is
taken from that analysis:
Twenty-three (23) RACT source categories were
examined to determine whether any of them could be
major beneficiaries from an extended seasonal control
policy. This examination indicates that most sources
within these categories are unlikely to have major
savings directly attributable to discontinuance of
existing VOC control measures under such a policy
extension due to the following reasons:
- They employ control measures which are integral
to the process equipment ( e.g., submerged fill
pipes, floating roofs, etc. ) and which cannot be
disabled.
- RACT consists of switches to inherently low
polluting processes ( e.g., substitution of
solvent-based to low- or no-solvent coatings ).
Such sources are unlikely to switch back because:
(a) there is little financial incentive to do
so, (b) the quality of product using low or
no solvent coatings is acceptable, and (c) there
will be costs associated with a changeover.
- Several sources have no add-on or other controls
and, therefore, are unable to benefit from an
extended SCP because they currently use bubbles
as an effective method of complying with RACT.
This attests to the success of the bubble policy.
- Many sources that can benefit from a seasonal
control policy already do so since they are
equipped with natural gas fired incinerators.
These are exempt from wintertime operation under
- 3 -
the current SCP. However, it should be noted
that not all incinerators are able to use the
current exemption from natural gas fired incinerators
because: (a) some incinerators have dual fuel
capability and may, therefore, be ineligible for
exemption in certain jurisdictions, (b) some
sources seem to be unaware of the exemption, (c)
other sources have integrated their incinerator
into the general process and/or winter space
heating system so that the recovered heat from
the incinerator is now indispensable, and (d) as
is their prerogative under Section 116 of the
Clean Air Act, several State and local agencies
do not provide exemptions for natural gas fired
afterburners on a routine basis.
- For many sources, savings due to recovery of
VOCs are sufficiently high so that they have
no incentive to disable controls.
Major beneficiaries from any shutdown of controls
resulting from an extended seasonal control policy
will be those sources that use ( or will use ) end-of-pipe
control devices for RACT and can neither use,
sale nor burn recovered ( i.e., collected ) VOCs.
Based on this observation, the categories most likely
to benefit are: graphic arts ( especially flexography )
and paper coating.
With regard to flexographic and paper coaters, only those who install
incinerators without heat recovery could realistically expect to benefit
from the policy ( very few have ), and they have already been addressed
through the existing policy.
Toxic Emissions May Increase
The most visible adverse impact to the public will be the potential
increase in toxic emissions. The Agency has maintained that significant
reductions in toxic emissions will accrue through VOC control for ozone.
The majority of the chemicals being studied for toxicity as air pollutants
are VOC. Table I illustrates that 29 of the 37 substances under
assessment exist as VOC. Further, in some cases, it is not the primary
constituent of the VOC but simply one of many constituents. For example,
gasoline vapor is a major source of benzene. Also, coatings are
formulated with solvents composed of many compounds which can and are
changed. Hence it is not a simple task to determine whether a particular
source has n adverse toxics impact or whether in the future it will
continue to have an adverse impact. Given this complexity, toxic
emissions may likely be emitted from sources in increased quantities if
the policy is expanded indiscriminately. Even if this were not true, the
perception of its possibility would require greater reporting requirements
and/or technical support before the Agency could responsibly take such a
general step.
- 4 -
Basis for Section 112 Decisions Will be Undermined
Decisions regarding controlling or not controlling toxic chemicals
under Section 112 often hinge on the incremental environmental impact of
additional control requirements. The baseline considers the existing SIP
and whether there is a SIP requirement to provide some control. Expansion
of seasonal afterburners will undermine this basis. As an example, bulk
terminals are a significant source of gasoline vapor and benzene
emissions. Lifetime risk of cancer due to high exposure to gasoline in
the vicinity of uncontrolled terminals has a plausible upper bound of 1.2
X 10-3. This is the highest-risk source category in the gasoline
marketing chain for benzene and gasoline vapors. While the Agency has yet
to decide to control bulk terminals for benzene, the existence of SIP
requirements obviously mitigates the risk. This analysis using the SIP
baseline would be suspect if the Agency announced expansion of the
seasonal VOC policy allowing exemption periods for VOC. This same problem
will reoccur in a number of listing decisions presently being made.
Disruption of Present VOC Control Efforts
The less quantifiable but potentially greater adverse impact is the
additional disruption such a policy may cause State agencies. States
presently feel overwhelmed by the demands the VOC program has placed on
them. To add an additional requirement to an already complex regulatory
program may adversely affect SIP approvals and compliance.
Further, most of these regulations are to be implemented soon. Final
compliance dates have either passed or will pass in 1985. To provide
sources with a potential new vehicle to argue that compliance requirements
should be deferred may undermine the present Agency initiatives to move
away from planning and into implementation. This initiative runs the risk
of being the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.
Diversion of Resources
The administrative burden of preparing an expanded seasonal VOC policy
is not inconsequential. Rulemaking which could be as extensive as that
which is presently underway for the emission trading policy will be
necessary to formally promulgate the policy. Following issuance of the
policy, States will have to undergo individual rulemaking activity to
provide for seasonal controls in their plans. Subsequently, individual
Federal rulemaking will be required to incorporate the State rules into
the federal SIP. Therefore, even presuming no litigation, a significant
fraction of what we, the States and local agencies are presently expending
in the SIP planning exercises may have to be expanded on adopting and
implementing this initiative. This can only be accomplished by diverting
activity away from areas where environmental improvement is being
accomplished (e.g., inspections, compliance activity, Group III CTG
adoption). Once the policy is issued, processing SIP revisions is a
nondiscretionary duty. Significant allocations of resources will be
necessary to address what is a major administrative task.
- 5 -
While the administrative burden is not insurmountable, it is real and
could adversely affect compliance. It will take an investment on the part
of States and EPA to surmount these administrative demands. The available
resources are limited. Given the lack of identified benefits, it does not
seem to be worth the effort.
Jeopardizing the Present Policy
Proposing an expansion of the seasonal VOC policy for notice and
comment is not without risk. As it now stands the present policy provides
significant flexibility to those who most can use it--users of gas-fired
afterburners. Reopening the policy introduces the risk of a challenge to
the entire policy. The present exemption for gas-fired afterburners was
adopted as a narrow exercise of administrative discretion. The primary
basis for approval was the natural gas supply shortage which existed in
the mid-1970's. The energy availability situation has changed
significantly since that time. Hence, this basis may no longer be
available if this policy were reopened. Moreover, efforts were made in
the initial policy to distinguish this from intermittent control systems
previously used by sulfur dioxide sources. Since this policy was
initially issued, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 added Sections 123
and 302(k) to expressly require continuous controls. While neither
development necessarily invalidates the present policy, both result in
additional complexities. As your staff noted, there are those who would
like to see the present policy rescinded. By opening the issues, you may
provide them a vehicle to accomplish the very opposite goal you seek.
For these reasons, I recommend we continue to implement the existing
policy on seasonal control as it is presently written. For all its warts,
the present policy works. It provides significant flexibility for those
who can most use it, has been accepted, and can continue to be implemented
without significant additional rulemaking or resource burdens. The most
prudent course of action appears to be to leave the policy alone.
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM
The Office of Air and Radiation ( OAR ) had no intention of revoking the
existing seasonal afterburner policy in the notice. The original wording
of this Federal Register notice explained in some detail why the seasonal
afterburner policy did not apply in this instance, and did not place the
policy into its statutory context, even though the original wording
provided an adequate basis for disapproving this particular application.
Given the Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB's ) tendency to ask for a
statutory basis for EPA disapprovals when a policy is cited, I think it is
prudent to modify the disapproval language to reflect the statute rather
than explain why the afterburner policy does not apply in hopes of
avoiding extensive interplay with OMB on this package.
I do not believe it has any precedential value for any future
exemptions the Agency might wish to pursue since we would have to take
notice and comment on any policy change to expand the use of seasonal
controls. It is not clear what you mean by narrowing our basis for
disapproval since there is no policy to ever approve such an action.
- 6 -
Further, given the benzene/gasoline vapor toxicity issue discussed above,
using this action as a vehicle to announce consideration of expanding the
seasonal VOC policy seems ill advised. Based on the discussion above, I
have concurred on the disapproval package and have forwarded it to OMB.
Attachment
cc: Indur Goklany, RRS
Michael Levin, RRS
William Pedersen, OGC
Ed Reich, OAQPS
Gerald Emison, OAQPS
Darryl Tyler, OAQPS
Barbara Bankoff, OAR
Paul Stolpman, OAR
Table 1
37 Potentially Toxic Substances Under EPA Assessment
A. Substances that exist in the ambient air primarily as particles (8)
. Beryllium Maleic Anhydride*
Cadmium Manganese
. Coke oven emissions Nickel
Dioxin (2, 3, 7, 8-TC D)* Polychlorinated Biphenyls*
B. Substances that exist in the ambient air primarily as volatile
organic compounds (29)
. Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde
Acrolein Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
. Acrylonitrile Methyl Chloroform
Allyl Chloride Methylene Chloride
Benzyl Chloride Nitrobenzene
. Carbon Tetrachloride Nitrosomorpholine
Chloroenzene Perchloroethylene
. Chloroform Phenol
Chloroprene Phosgene
. Cresol Propylene Oxide
p-Dichlorobenzene Toulene
. Dimethyl Nitrosamine Trichloroethylene
Epichlorohydrin Vinylidene Chloride
. Ethylene Dichloride Xylene
Ethylene Oxide
* Although these organic compounds can exist in the ambient air as
either particles or gases, these substances will be considered
particles for the purposes of this analysis.
Return to Enforcement Policies