Date
Submitted |
Short Title |
| 09/05/08 |
Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related
Values Work Group (FLAG) |
| 08/26/08 |
EPA Classification of Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Under the New Ozone NAAQS |
| 08/20/08 |
EPA's Proposed Rule to Implement the 1997
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard |
| 08/12/08 |
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; Texas; Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) From
Stationary Sources |
| 06/23/08 |
New Source Performance Standards Review for
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants |
| 05/27/08 |
NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Nine Metal
Fabrication and Finishing Source Categories |
| 04/14/08 |
Revisions to the General Conformity
Regulations |
| 02/20/08 |
Final Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards Designations for the Early Action Compact
Areas |
| 02/07/08 |
Midlothian Area Air Quality Part 1: Volatile
Organic Compounds & Metals |
| 01/30/08 |
Clean Air Act Reclassification of the
Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area; Texas
|
| 01/16/08 |
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Lead |
| 11/30/07 |
Determination of Nonattainment and
Reclassification of the Beaumont/Port Arthur 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area |
| 11/19/07 |
Prevention of Significant Deterioration for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers |
| 10/31/07 |
NESHAP from Petroleum Refineries |
| 10/16/07 |
NESHAP: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous
Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources |
| 10/09/07 |
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone |
| 08/07/07 |
Prevention of Significant Deterioration New
Source Review: Refinement of Increment Modeling Procedures
|
| 08/01/07 |
Standards of Performance for Petroleum
Refineries |
| 07/19/07 |
Model-Based Analysis and Tracking of Airborne
Mercury Emissions to Assist in Watershed Planning |
| 07/02/07 |
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From
Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines
|
| 06/14/07 |
Revisions to Definitions in CAIR/CAMR Program
Rules |
| 05/31/07 |
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments
|
| 04/10/07 |
Public Hearings and Submission of Plans
|
| 03/22/07 |
Control of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines—Heavy-Duty Vehicle and
Engine Standards; Onboard Diagnostic Requirements |
| 03/08/07 |
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: General Provisions |
| 03/06/07 |
Revisions of Standards of Performance for New
and Existing Stationary Sources |
| 01/08/07 |
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories |
| 10/03/06 |
EPA’s Proposed 30% cut in the IMPROVE
Monitoring Network |
| 09/05/06 |
Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of
Regulations for Printing Materials, Coatings, and Cleaning
Solvents |
| 09/05/06 |
Electric Generating Unit NOx Annual and
Season Allocations for the Clean Air Interstate Rule Federal
Implementation Plan Trading Programs |
| 08/11/06 |
Boutique Fuels List Under Section 1541(b) of
the Energy Policy Act |
| 07/10/06 |
Transition to New or Revised Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards |
| 06/05/06 |
Alternative Work Practice to Detect Leaks
from Equipment |
| 05/09/06 |
Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional
Events |
| 05/03/06 |
Air Emissions Reporting Requirements
|
| 04/17/06 |
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter |
| 04/17/06 |
EPA's 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58, Revisions to
Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations |
| 03/24/06 |
EPA's Draft 2006-11 Strategic Plan
Architecture |
| 01/31/06 |
Draft Guidance for Setting Reasonable
Progress under the Regional Haze Program |
| 01/31/2006 |
Proposed 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 Rule To
Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality
Standards |
| 12/19/05 |
Revision of Standards of Performance for New
and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units |
| 10/28/05 |
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Expansion
|
| 10/24/05 |
Petition from North Carolina to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone; Revisions to the Clean Air Interstate
Rule and the Acid Rain Program |
| 10/17/05 |
Determining the Emissions Reductions Achieved
in Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas from the
Implementation of Rules Limiting the VOC Content of AIM
Coatings |
| 07/06/05 |
Extension of the Deferred Effective Date for
8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Early
Action Compact Areas |
| 06/07/05 |
Pearl Crossing LNG Terminal |
| 05/26/05 |
Proposal to Exempt Area Sources Subject to
NESHAP From Federal and State Operating Permit Programs |
| 05/09/05 |
40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 Prevention of
Significant Deterioration for Nitrogen Oxides |
| 05/04/05 |
EPA’s Draft Air Quality Criteria for
Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants |
| 04/28/05 |
Comments on Potentially Inadequate Monitoring
in Clean Air Act Applicable Requirements and on Methods To Improve
Such Monitoring |
| 03/31/05 |
Second Draft Staff Paper for Particulate
Matter; Notice of Draft for Public Review |
| 03/21/2005 |
8-Hour Implementation Rule
Reconsideration |
| 03/21/05 |
Guidance on the Use of Models and Other
Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS |
| 03/07/05 |
Information Collection Request (ICR) for
Source Compliance and State Action Reporting |
| 02/07/05 |
Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Other Solid
Waste Incineration Units |
| 01/31/05 |
Proposed Rule on Options for PM2.5 and PM10
Hot-Spot Analyses in the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments
for the New PM2.5 and Existing PM10 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. |
| 12/21/04 |
Legislative Report on Rider 15, Big Bend Air
Haze Study |
| 10/29/04 |
Test Procedures for Testing Highway and
Nonroad Engines and Omnibus Technical Amendments; Proposed Rule
|
| 10/05/04 |
Nitrogen Oxides Exemption Guidance for the
Proposed Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard |
| 09/30/04 |
Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems Issues
Paper |
| 08/31/04 |
Proposed Rules for Control of Emissions of
Air Pollution From New Locomotive Engines and New Marine
Compression-Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder
|
| 08/16/04 |
Proposed Rule on Control of Emissions of Air
Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engines and Vehicles |
| 07/27/04 |
Supplemental Proposal for the Rule to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean
Air Interstate Rule) |
| 07/15/04 |
Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Proposed
Rule in 40 CFR 51 |
| 06/29/2004 |
Supplemental Notice for the Proposed
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in
the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and
Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units published in the March 16, 2004 Federal Register. |
| 06/29/04 |
Proposed Rule for National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed
Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units published in the January
30, 2004 Federal Register. |
| 03/30/04 |
Proposed Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Interstate Air Quality
Rule) |
| 01/20/2004 |
Air Toxic Assessment Library |
| 01/15/04 |
Deferral of Effective Date of Nonattainment
Designations for 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Early Action Compact Areas. |
| 01/13/04 |
Transportation Conformity Rule Revision
|
| 12/16/03 |
Proposed rule to control Air Pollution from
Aircraft and Aircraft Engines. |
| 11/05/03 |
Response to EPA's 8-hour Implementation Rule
Reopening Regarding Classification Alternatives |
| 10/28/03 |
First Draft Staff Paper For Particulate
Matter |
| 10/17/03 |
Executive Management Review and Signature for
a TDH Letter of Support regarding an application to EPA for the
Children's Environmental Health Protection State Level
Collaboration to Address Childhood Asthma Initiative |
| 10/8/03 |
Comments on Documents cited in 68 FR 52934:
USEPA, "Comparison of Regulatory Design Concentrations: AERMOD vs.
ISCST3, CTDMPLUS, ISC-PRIME" and USEPA, "AERMOD: Latest Features
and Evaluation Results" |
| 09/05/03 |
Draft Regulatory Text to Accompany the 8-hour
Implementation Rule Proposal |
| 08/20/2003 |
Proposal to Reclassify the Beaumont/Port
Arthur (BPA) Ozone Nonattainment Area |
| 08/20/03 |
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from
Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel, a proposed rule |
| 08/01/03 |
8-hour Implementation Rule Proposal |
| 05/02/03 |
Proposed Changes to the Routine Maintenance,
Repair, and Replacement Exclusion to the New Source Review in 40
CFR 51 and 52 |
| 02/21/03 |
Comments on the American Trucking Assoc.
Petition for Reconsideration of the Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and
Vehicles rule |
| 01/15/03 |
EPA's Proposed 8-hour Designation
Recommendation Schedule |
DATE SUBMITTED:
09/05/08
SHORT TITLE:
Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group
(FLAG)
SUBMITTED TO: National Park Service
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting,
Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Lisa
Martin
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) staff supports
all efforts to refine the FLAG Phase I Report - Revised. The TCEQ
agrees that a consistent, transparent approach is needed and TCEQ
comments are intended to provide the state perspective as well as
update the FLM on comments made to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency on related rule packages - Prevention of
Significant Deterioration New Source Review: Refinement of
Increment Modeling Procedures and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs)
and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC). The TCEQ has
targeted 11 areas of interest and included the necessary, specific
supporting information.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/26/08
SHORT TITLE:
EPA Classification of Ozone Nonattainment Areas Under the New Ozone
NAAQS
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Susana
Hildebrand, P.E.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
The TCEQ requests that the U.S. EPA develop a more sensible
classification system and proposes an option developed by TCEQ
staff that would allow nonattainment areas a more reasonable amount
of time to attain the standard.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/20/08
SHORT TITLE:
EPA's Proposed Rule to Implement the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Santos
Olizarez
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
The TCEQ finds that the proposal does not address how General
Conformity will be treated under the new requirements. Although
similar to Transportation Conformity requirements in that General
Conformity is only required in nonattainment and maintenance areas,
General Conformity determinations are based on emissions budgets
adopted in state implementation plans. The TCEQ recommends
developing comments requesting clarity on how General Conformity is
to be addressed in the Phase 2 rule.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/12/08
SHORT TITLE:
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Control
of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) From Stationary Sources
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Vincent
Meiller
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
EPA made a number of incorrect references in the Federal Register
notice that could imply that certain pre-existing Chapter 117 rules
were revised with substantive changes during the rulemaking or were
associated with the DFW eight-hour ozone attainment demonstration
SIP revision when in reality were associated with other
nonattainment areas. In several instances EPA refers to rules that
only apply in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria ozone nonattainment
area when discussing rules that result in reductions that will help
the DFW area. The proposal also makes overlapping references to the
new Chapter 117 East Texas Combustion rule for stationary rich-burn
gas-fired engines and to the existing Chapter 117 Utility Electric
Generation in East and Central Texas rules for electric generation
facilities in East and Central Texas. These incorrect references
may cause affected parties to assume substantive changes were made
to parts of Chapter 117 where no changes were made.
EPA proposed to approve the NOx emission specifications for
stationary diesel engines at major sources in DFW. However, EPA
excluded the diesel engine NOx emission specifications for the new
Chapter 117 DFW eight-hour ozone nonattainment area Minor Source
Rule.
In the list of sections to be excluded from the Texas SIP, a
non-existent subsection, §117.3010(e), is listed as being
withheld from the SIP. This error is the result of a typographical
error in the adoption preamble of the Chapter 117 reorganization
rulemaking and the appropriate citation from that section that
should have been withheld is §117.3010(2).
DATE SUBMITTED:
06/23/08
SHORT TITLE:
New Source Performance Standards Review for Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Compliance and
Enforcement
STAFF CONTACT: Joe
Janecka
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
TCEQ submitted edits to several portions of the proposed rule to
improve the practical enforceability of the following details:
proposed definition of "saturated material", 7-day notice on Method
9 tests, Table 2 readability (EPA is soliciting comments and TCEQ
submits an opinion), periodic water spray inspection and
corrections, electronic-only records, and clarification of
synthetic gypsum as a non-metallic mineral.
DATE SUBMITTED:
05/27/08
SHORT TITLE:
NESHAP: Area Source Standards for Nine Metal Fabrication and
Finishing Source Categories
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting,
Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Lisa
Martin
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
TCEQ supports the proposed rule and submits specific comments to
streamline the requirements for existing sources and make the
requirements more stringent for new sources. Specific comments
include suggestions regarding general applicability and compliance
with the proposed rule as well as comments regarding the specific
control requirements for dry abrasive blasting, dry grinding, and
spray painting operations.
DATE SUBMITTED:
04/14/08
SHORT TITLE:
Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Koy
Howard
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
EPA is proposing to add a new section to allow for a facility-wide
emission budget approach. Once this budget is approved, minor
actions under the control of the facility where an analysis
determines that the emissions are below a de minimis threshold
could proceed with no conformity determination. If the emissions
were determined to be above the de minimis threshold, the facility
could demonstrate that the emissions from the proposed action along
with the emissions at the facility are within the EPA approved
facility-wide emission budget and that no conformity determination
was necessary. The TCEQ supports this proposal which provides
facilities with flexibility in determining if new activities at the
facility are within their approved budget and within thresholds
that would not require conformity determinations.
EPA is proposing a new section to establish an early emission
reduction credit program and incorporate the use of early emissions
reduction credits into the regulations. If the credits are issued,
then a federal agency can use the credits to reduce the total of
direct and indirect emissions from a proposed action.
The TCEQ supports this proposal as the reduction credits would
have to be quantifiable, consistent with the SIP attainment and
reasonable further progress demonstrations, enforceable and
permanent within the timeframe established by the credit
program.
DATE SUBMITTED:
02/20/08
SHORT TITLE:
Final Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Designations for the Early Action Compact Areas
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Walker
Williamson
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) supports the
San Antonio areas designation as attainment for eight-hour ozone.
The TCEQ acknowledges and praises the areas proactive efforts,
which enabled it to reach attainment of the eight-hour ozone
standard without the restrictions of nonattainment status, and the
areas commitment to the protection of public health through
improved air quality.
DATE SUBMITTED:
02/07/08
SHORT TITLE:
Midlothian Area Air Quality Part 1: Volatile Organic Compounds
& Metals
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Tracie
Phillips, Ph.D.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
In general, there appear to be major errors in the interpretation
of TCEQs air monitoring data throughout the document, as well as
discrepancies with the numbers used for the evaluation. Comments
specific to the four reasons for the DSHS classification are:
1. These eighteen chemicals do not have toxicity values available
as they are considered relatively non-toxic. However, they can be
evaluated via other means (i.e., chemical surrogate and Cramer
Classification). The Toxicology Section (TS) conducted these
evaluations and found no adverse health effects would be expected
in association with these chemicals. Results of the TS evaluations
will be provided to DSHS.
2. The TS has previously provided DSHS with evidence (references
and data) showing it is not reasonable to assume that chromium(VI)
accounts for 100% of the total chromium concentration. EPA has
determined that the range which chromium(VI) represents of total
chromium is 0.4 to 70%. Also, ATSDR states that chromium(VI) is
rapidly reduced to chromium(III) in the atmosphere.
3. DSHS should be able to make conclusions regarding the
constituents included in this report (i.e., volatile organic
compounds, inorganic compounds, and metals) without additional
information relating to NAAQS compounds, which are to be included
in a separate report.
4. Routine VOC monitoring began in the Midlothian area in 1993 as
part of the Community Air Toxics Monitoring Network, and has
continued at up to three sites. Routine metals monitoring in that
area has been conducted for various periods of time (1981 to
present), depending at least in part on the particle size of
federal regulatory emphasis. Data gaps notwithstanding, the VOC and
metals air monitoring data from the Midlothian area compose an
impressively rich data set.
POTENTIAL IMPACT ON TCEQ:
The Indeterminate Public Health Hazard finding regarding air toxics
in Midlothian may lead citizens and elected officials to believe
the air quality is causing health impacts when air toxics
monitoring in the Midlothian area not only indicates acceptable air
quality but also better air quality than most monitored areas of
the country. This concern could lead to pressure on TCEQ to shift
resources from areas of concern in order to expend more resources
in the Midlothian area.
DATE SUBMITTED:
01/30/08
SHORT TITLE:
Clean Air Act Reclassification of the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria
Ozone Nonattainment Area; Texas
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Lola
Brown
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
The TCEQ supports the EPAs proposal to grant a voluntary
reclassification in accordance with the FCAA, §181(b)(3). The
TCEQ supports an April 2010 HGB SIP submittal date and attainment
of the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
June 15, 2019. The TCEQ does not support an earlier submittal
deadline. A December 2008 deadline would mean that all technical
work on the HGB SIP would be discontinued. The SIP revision would
contain little more than outdated modeling (2000 episode) and a
control strategy package that relies solely on fleet turnover from
federal rules.
It is imperative that the EPA provide the TCEQ adequate time to
develop a comprehensive and technically sound HGB eight-hour ozone
attainment demonstration. If the TCEQ does not have sufficient time
to include 2006 data, the HGB SIP and improvement in air quality in
the HGB area may be delayed because the TCEQ will not have adequate
data to support implementing appropriate rules as expeditiously as
practicable.
There are three principal components that are critical in
developing the eight-hour attainment demonstration for the HGB
area: photochemical modeling demonstration, control strategy
development, and the stakeholder process. The TCEQ plans to
complete these activities by April 2010.
SIP-relevant analyses from data collected as a part of TexAQS II
(Texas Air Quality Study) in 2005 and 2006 are now becoming
available. The April 2010 submittal date allows the state to
incorporate TexAQS II data related to emission inventory,
photochemistry, and meteorology into the technical work.
The TCEQ will use the 2006 Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) and VOC Emissions
Inventory (EI) year for control strategy development. However,
processing and quality assuring the 2006 EI, which is being
expedited for the HGB area, will not be complete until early 2008,
meaning some of the early aspects of control strategy development
cannot begin until spring 2008. The 2006 EI year will represent the
most accurate VOC EI for the HGB area to date, which is critical
considering the under representation of VOC emissions in previous
HGB SIP modeling.
Since the air quality challenges in the HGB area require emissions
reduction from all source categories and from local governments,
broad involvement and participation from different sectors of the
community will be needed. Providing enough time to prepare for and
involve interested parties will result in a more defensible
SIP.
DATE SUBMITTED:
01/16/08
SHORT TITLE:
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Jim
Price
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
There are multiple pathways for lead exposure, including lead in
food, consumer products, lead paint in old housing, and ambient
air. Because there are multiple pathways, meeting a NAAQS for lead,
no matter how low the standard is, cannot ensure protection of
public health from lead toxicity. Instead, a NAAQS for lead is only
one of a number of risk reduction steps that must be combined to
protect public health. If the EPA establishes a more stringent
NAAQS, the EPA should select a reasonable level that does not
divert public health resources from effective efforts to reduce
public exposure to lead from paint in houses, consumer products,
and contaminated soil.
Whether the EPA reaffirms the current NAAQS for lead, makes it
more stringent, or revokes it, EPA should adopt appropriate,
cost-effective monitoring requirements for ambient air at
potentially significant industrial sources, mainly primary and
secondary lead smelters, to ensure against toxicologically
significant exposure to lead through ambient air. If the EPA does
not have the authority to require this monitoring without a NAAQS
for lead, the EPA should retain a NAAQS for lead.
The EPA should either continue using the current calendar quarter
averaging period or change to a rolling three-month averaging time
whether the EPA keeps or changes the level of the standard. Instead
of shortening the NAAQS averaging time, a more appropriate way to
address the need for a quick response to short-term high ambient
air lead concentrations and to sudden increases in lead
concentrations is prompt enforcement of the National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standards and state/local rules and
permit requirements for upsets.
Depending on EPA's final action, enhanced monitoring may be
required which could increase capital and operating costs and work
load, affecting the TCEQs Monitoring Operations Division and
regional offices. A lowering of the standard could result in
nonattainment areas in Texas, and these nonattainment areas would
require SIP revisions.
DATE SUBMITTED:
11/30/07
SHORT TITLE:
Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the
Beaumont/Port Arthur 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Walker
Williamson
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
The TCEQ recognizes that the 2004, 2005, and 2006 eight-hour ozone
data indicate that the BPA areas design value was not below 0.08
parts per million (ppm). For any SIP revision, the most current and
robust technical work is optimal. However, due to the short
timeframe for submittal, if the TCEQ is required to submit an
attainment demonstration SIP revision for the area by January 1,
2009, use of existing and somewhat outdated technical work would be
necessary. The commission notes that the 2005, 2006, and 2007
eight-hour ozone data indicate that the area now attains the
standard.
While the TCEQ anticipates continued monitored attainment, the
TCEQ requests clarification regarding the following:
If, after notice and comment rulemaking, EPA determines that the
area does attain the standard at the end of 2007, the requirement
to submit SIPs related to attainment of the standard shall be
suspended until such time as (1) the area is redesignated to
attainment, at which time the requirements no longer apply; or (2)
EPA determines that the area has violated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(40 CFR 51.918).
It is unclear whether the EPA would publish notice and take
comment regarding a new SIP submittal deadline should the BPA area
violate the standard after the determination has been made that SIP
requirements are suspended.
DATE SUBMITTED:
11/19/07
SHORT TITLE:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Particulate Matter Less
Than 2.5 Micrometers
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting,
Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Beryl
Thatcher
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
Due to the complexity of the issues contained in the proposed rule
notice, the TCEQ has developed a detailed response that includes
comments on various issues. These issues include: options to
establish increments for PM2.5, SILs, options for PM2.5 SMC, and
the proposed effective dates and deadlines.
DATE SUBMITTED:
10/31/07
SHORT TITLE:
NESHAP from Petroleum Refineries
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Vincent
Meiller
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
EPA included language that appears to indicate that EPA would allow
the use of air stripping methods that determine strippable volatile
organic compounds (VOC) as an alternative surrogate approach to
monitoring. An air stripping method is commonly used in TCEQ
permitting requirements and in some TCEQ rules, e.g., 30 Texas
Administrative Code Chapter 115, §115.764, for cooling tower
monitoring of VOC. However, while one such air stripping method is
frequently referred to as the "El Paso Method," the term "VOC El
Paso" is not defined. TCEQ recommends that if EPA's intent is to
allow such air stripping methods then EPA should specifically cite
such methods or define "VOC El Paso."
EPA stated (Federal Register 50723) that existing industry
monitoring of surrogate parameters will only detect large leaks. In
general, TCEQ agrees with regard to surrogate parameters such as
total organic carbon, chlorine usage, and other similar methods.
However, TCEQ disagrees with EPA's characterization with regard to
air stripping methods such as the procedures mentioned above. Air
stripping systems coupled with gas chromatography analysis of the
stripped gas sample can achieve detection limits in some cases less
than 1.0 part-per-billion by weight in the cooling water. In
addition, air stripping systems have the advantage of being
enclosed stripping systems that eliminate potential loss of highly
volatile compounds such as 1,3-butadiene that could be lost during
the sample collection procedure of 40 CFR 61, §61.355(c)(1)
cited by EPA in the proposed regulation. TCEQ suggests that EPA
consider allowing air stripping methods coupled with speciation
techniques as an alternative to EPA Method 8260B for compounds that
the regulated entity can demonstrate comparable sensitivity to EPA
Method 8260B.
Some of the compounds listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 63 Subpart CC are
not listed on the target list of EPA Method 8260B. TCEQ recommends
that EPA reevaluate the appropriateness of Method 8260B for the
compounds on Table 1 and, if necessary, specify suitable
alternative methods for compounds that Method 8260B is not
appropriate.
DATE SUBMITTED:
10/16/07
SHORT TITLE:
NESHAP: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating
Operations at Area Sources
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting,
Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Beryl
Thatcher
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
Due to the complexity of the issues contained in the proposed rule
notice, the TCEQ has developed a detailed response that includes
comments on various issues, including the requirements to install
paint booths, testing methods, insufficient types of coating
application equipment allowed, and the cost of training for
operators.
DATE SUBMITTED:
10/09/07
SHORT TITLE:
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Neeraja
Erraguntla
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
Texas could experience significant economic impacts if the standard
is lowered. However, the epidemiological and clinical studies used
by EPA to support lowering the ozone NAAQS do not adequately
demonstrate attributing the adverse effects only to ozone.
Texas currently has twenty counties in three designated ozone
nonattainment areas, three counties in one deferred nonattainment
area with an Early Action Compact, and, ten counties in two other
areas with Early Action Compacts. (Increasing the precision of the
current standard would mean that an additional five counties would
exceed the standard.)
If the standard is lowered to 0.075 ppm, ten additional counties
would exceed the standard, resulting in four new nonattainment
areas. However, if the standard is lowered to 0.060 ppm, every
county in Texas that has an ozone monitor would exceed the
standard, resulting in twelve nonattainment areas.
Texas is using every opportunity to address its ozone problems. New
standards would be difficult to meet. The EPA should recognize that
much of the remaining emissions sources are mobile sources which
states are largely preempted from regulating.
At proposed levels, background ozone levels in Texas are already
high enough to make it difficult for many areas to attain the
proposed standard.
This proposal does not contain implementation guidance. The current
State Implementation Plan process must be thoroughly reconsidered
and revised to have any hope in meeting a new standard in a timely
manner. The process will need to place greater accountability on
the federal government to do their share to address interstate
transport and mobile sources. Because of the increased complexities
with the proposed standard, current funding provided to states from
the EPA will not be adequate to address any expected implementation
requirements.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/07/07
SHORT TITLE:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration New Source Review:
Refinement of Increment Modeling Procedures
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting,
Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Beryl
Thatcher
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
Due to the complexity of the issues contained in the proposed rule
notice, the TCEQ has developed a detailed response that includes
comments on various issues including the eight areas summarized on
page 31379 of the preamble and the 14 proposals contained in the
Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) Recommendations for
Improving the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program, May
2005. These issues range from procedures that address air
dispersion modeling techniques and guidance to rule changes that
amend the process used to calculate emission rates and require the
inclusion of mobile source and area source emissions in addition to
stationary source emissions in increment analyses.
DATE SUBMITTED:
08/01/07
SHORT TITLE:
Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Office of Permitting,
Remediation, and Registration
STAFF CONTACT: Tara
Capobianco
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
The TCEQ recommends a total particulate matter (PM) standard be
used in best available control technology (BACT) determinations
when permitting fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU) in Texas.
TCEQ supports a control requirement of 1.0 lb. total PM
(condensable and non-condensable) per 1000 lbs. coke burn and
encourages the EPA to continue to improve Method 202.
The TCEQ requests the EPA to clarify whether the intent is to set
stricter standards for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and
nitrogen oxides when oxygen enrichment is used for FCCUs. The EPA
acknowledged the availability of oxygen enrichment for FCCUs and
has adjusted the coke burnoff determination methods to accommodate
that possibility. However, the impact that oxygen enrichment might
have on concentrations of other pollutants has not been considered,
and the equation as written would result in stricter standards when
using oxygen enrichment. The TCEQ also requests the EPA to clarify
the intent in cases where oxygen enrichment is used for sulfur
recovery units.
The emission limitations include several long-term averaging
periods, including 7-day and 365-day periods. The TCEQ requests the
EPA clarify how compliance with these limitations should be
determined when startup, shutdown, and malfunction activities occur
during the averaging of time.
Regarding the coke burn-off rate Equation 2 on page 27210, the
definition of the K2 constant appears to incorrectly reference "%"
(concentration), when there is no "%" multiplier in the term K2Qa
in Equation 2 (Qa is a volumetric flow rate).
The TCEQ recommends that § 60.107a(b), Exemption from H2S
monitoring requirement for low-sulfur gas streams located on page
27217, be authorized with mandated records and testing instead of
being approved by the administrator.
DATE SUBMITTED:
07/19/07
SHORT TITLE:
Model-Based Analysis and Tracking of Airborne Mercury Emissions to
Assist in Watershed Planning
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Dave
Harper
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
The EPA plans to conduct additional modeling with updated emissions
from the 1999 2002 period modeled previously to represent the 2001
base year. The TCEQ is concerned that these emissions data are
outdated, and believes that any further mercury modeling conducted
by the EPA for this study should be based on emissions inventory
data developed and quality assured by the states for recent
years.
The TCEQ also has concerns about the methodology the EPA employed
for assigning mercury speciation profiles to sources, particularly
for electric generating units (EGUs). The EPAs methodology for
assigning speciation profiles to EGUs having stack test data
appears to be inappropriate in some cases, in that the EPA used
speciation profile averaging techniques instead of explicitly using
stack test data for each unit. For some units or plants, the EPAs
speciation procedure is not clear. The TCEQ recommends that EPA
should make documentation available explaining how speciation
profiles were developed for individual EGUs, units of other source
types, and plant-wide composites.
The TCEQ recognizes the EPAs report provides a demonstration of a
potentially useful source tagging methodology that can be used for
assessing mercury deposition attributable to specific sources or
source categories. The TCEQ looks forward to having the opportunity
to use the associated graphical analysis tool to determine its
usefulness for future planning.
The TCEQ recommends that the EPA caution users of information from
the study that the modeling is based on emissions inventory
information that is outdated, and that the reported results should
thus be regarded as largely a demonstration of the source tagging
methodology and not necessarily applicable to current mercury
deposition values or deposition spatial distributions.
Additionally, the TCEQ recommends that the EPA emphasize that
recent emissions inventories should be used for regulatory
planning.
DATE SUBMITTED:
07/02/07
SHORT TITLE:
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and
Marine Compression-Ignition Engines
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Morris
Brown
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
The EPA requested comment on whether to set emission standards for
existing large marine diesel engines when they are remanufactured.
The TCEQ supports establishing emission standards for
remanufactured compression-ignition marine engines with
per-cylinder displacement below 30.0 liters per cylinder that would
be similar to the emission standards proposed for remanufactured
and/or refurbished locomotive engines.
The EPA also requested comment on whether refurbished locomotives
should be required to meet more stringent standards than
locomotives that are simply remanufactured. The TCEQ believes the
emission standards for refurbished locomotives should be consistent
with those applicable to remanufactured locomotives since the only
real difference between these classifications is the amount of
previously used engine components being exchanged. The TCEQ
supports establishing emission standards that would require both
refurbished and remanufactured locomotives to meet the highest tier
of emission standards applicable to new line-haul or switch
locomotives as appropriate at the time of the locomotives
refurbishment.
The TCEQ encourages the EPA to proceed expeditiously toward final
adoption of the rules to provide states working toward compliance
with the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 much needed emissions reductions
as soon as possible.
DATE SUBMITTED:
06/14/07
SHORT TITLE:
Revisions to Definitions in CAIR/CAMR Program Rules
SUBMITTED TO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
DIVISION PREPARING:
Chief Engineer's Office
STAFF CONTACT: Kim
Herndon
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS:
General Comment
State specific air shed analysis for the effects of the proposed
rule was not provided. For Texas to make an informed decision and
meaningfully comment as to the proposed rule makings impacts on the
Texas air shed, analysis should have been provided to show the
impacts on the air shed of excluding biomass electric generating
units with the proposed revised efficiency exemption from
participation in CAIR and CAMR. In particular, there is no
information as to the number of existing units in the neighboring
states that may qualify for the proposed revised efficiency
exemption that would impact the Texas air shed.
Timing of the Proposed Rule Change
If additional rule changes to CAIR and CAMR are required for
states, Texas would need additional time to incorporate any federal
rule changes. The proposed rule would still require states to
provide allowance allocations to the EPA by October 31, 2007.
However, if this rule package is not finalized until sometime
during the summer or fall of 2007, Texas would not have adequate
time to make the necessary revisions. The plan and rule revision
process for Texas requires a minimum of nine months and that would
only allow a few months between finalizing EPAs rules and the
required submission date of the CAIR and CAMR allowance allocations
to the EPAs Clean Air Markets Division. If adequate time is not
provided to make the necessary changes, Texas will be forced to
continue under federal plans for both CAIR and CAMR. This result is
inconsistent with Texas' desired program for implementing these
important initiatives.
Allocation Amendments for CAIR and CAMR
The EPA has requested comments on the possibility of revisions to
states CAIR and CAMR budgets. Texas is opposed to any additional
changes to states budgets. The potential effect would cause Texas
to make amendments to our plans, as well as allocations that have
already been distributed to Texas sources. Texas sources have
already been made aware of their allocations and have planned
accordingly.
Definition Clarification for Total Energy Input
The EPA did not propose to change the model rule definition of
total ene
