Free Additional Attachments to Main Document - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

evaporation, leakage or discharge, the installation and use of such control methods, devices or equipment shall be mandatory. [Emphasis added.]
Rule 34.
E.

Organic Solvents

Except as provided in paragraph C.2 [governing dry cleaning establishments], no person shall discharge more than 15 pounds of organic materials into the atmosphere in any one (1) day from any machine, equipment, incinerator, device, or other article in which any organic solvent or any material containing organic solvent comes into contact with flame or is baked, heat-cured, or heat-polymerized, in the presence of oxygen.

F.

No person shall discharge more than 40 pounds of organic material into the ^atmosphere in any one (1) dav from any machine, 'equipment, incinerator, devicg or other article used under conditions other than described in paragraph E of this rule for employing, applying, evaporating or drying any photochemicallv reactive solvent as defined in paragraph I of this

G.

Emission of organic materials into the atmosphere required to be controlled bv paragraphs E and F. of this rule shall be reduced bv: 1. Incineration, provided that ninety percent ( 0 ) 9% or more of the carbon in the organic material being incinerated is oxidized to carbon dioxide, or 2. Adsorption, or 3. Processing in a manner not less effective than in Subsection G.I. or G.2. above.

TM
· j^ » · ^

H.

The provisions of this rule shall not apply to:
1.
2.

^ · 9 H p
--

The manufacturer of organic solvents, or the
The use of equipment for which other requirements

transport or storage of organic solvents or materials containing organic solvents. are specified by Rule 33 [storage and handling of petroleum products]. 3. The spraying or other employment of insecticides, pesticides or herbicides. I. For the purposes of this rule, a photochemically reactive solvent is a solvent with an aggregate of more than twenty percent ( 0 ) of its total volume 2% composed of the chemical compounds classified below or which exceeds any of the following individual percentage composition limitations, referred to the total volume of solvent:
i. 1. M A comoi nation combination or of nyarocaroons, hydrocarbons, an-anuti, alcohols,

*

· ·

m*

aldehydes, esters, ethers, or ketones having an hers
-2-

I

I
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 81-14 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 1 of 18

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

olefinic or cyclo-olefinic type of unsaturation: five percent (5%); 2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight

(8) or more carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: eight percent (8%); 3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene: twenty percent (20%).
Whenever any organic solvent or any constituent of an organic solvent may be classified from its chemical structure into more than one of the above groups or organic compounds, it shall be considered as a member of the most reactive chemical group, that is, that group having the least allowable percent of the total volume of solvents. [Emphasis added.] On or about July 15, 1988, *the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

adopted a revised version of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control

Regulations.

(These regulations are

developed

by the Maricopa County

Department of Health Services, Bureau of Air Pollution Control, but it is the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors that votes to adopt the regulations as
law.) Regulation III, Rule 320, Section 300 now provides the standards for the In pertinent part, Rule 320

emission of odorous and gaseous air contaminants.

(replacing Rule 32-C) provides:
SECTION 101 PURPOSE: To limit the emission of odorous and

other gaseous air contaminants into the atmosphere.
SECTION 300 - STANDARDS: No person shall omit gaseous or odorous air contaminants from equipment, operations or premises under his control in such quantities or concentrations as to cause air pollution.
SECTION 302 MATERIALS CONTAINMENT: Materials including. but not limited to, solvents or other volatile compounds.

paints, acids, alkalies, pesticides, fertilizer and manure
shall be processed, stored, used and transported in such a manner and bv such means that they will not unreasonably evaporate, leak, escape or be otherwise discharged into the ambient air so as to cause or contribute to air pollution. Where means are available to reduce effectively the contribution to air pollution from evaporation, leakage or discharge, the installation and use of such control methods, devices or equipment shall be mandatory. [Emphasis added.]

-3Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 81-14 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 2 of 18

Regulation III, Rule 330, Section 300 now provides the standards for the discharge of volatile organic compounds ("VOCs"). regulation (replacing Rule 34) provides:
SECTION 301 LIMITATIONS - OPERATIONS INVOLVING HEAT: No

In pertinent part, this

person shall discharge more than 15 pounds ( . kg) of 68 volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere in any one day from any machine, equipment, device or other article in which any organic solvent or any material containing organic solvent comes into contact with flame or is evaporated at temperatures exceeding 200 degrees F ( 3 3 9. degrees C) in the presence of oxygen, unless such discharge has been reduced by at least 85 percent.
SECTION 302 LIMITATIONS - NON-COMPLYING SOLVENTS: No.

persons shall discharge more than 40 pounds (18 kg) of volatile organic compounds Into the atmosphere in anv one day from any machine, equipment, device or other article used under conditions other than described in Section 301 of this Rule for employing, applying, evaporating or drying any non-complying solvent as defined in Section 201 of this Rule, or material containing such non-complying solvent, unless its discharge has been reduced bv at least 85 percent. SECTION 305 REDUCTIONS REQUIRED: Emission of organic materials into the atmosphere required to be controlled by Section 301 or 302 of this Rule shall be reduced by; 305.1 Incineration, provided that 90 percent or more of the carbon in the organic material being incinerated is oxidized to carbon dioxide, or " 305.2 Adsorption, or 305.3 Processing in a manner not less effective than in Subsection above 305.1 or 305.2 of this Rule. [Emphasis added.] EPA's Position The proposed PGA air stripping tower will not release more than 10

tt m w, · · m £

^ · ·
Jj

pounds of TCE emissions per day, and will emit at that level for only a
relatively short time. During most of twenty year operating period, emissions

g

will be around 2.5 pounds per day. See Exhibit A attached hereto.
The EPA contends that Rule 32(C), a general regulation relating to
odors and gaseous air contaminants, applies to the air stripper at the PGA site and imposes a separate mandatory requirement for carbon adsorption emission

I
·

-4-

I I

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 81-14

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 3 of 18

I I I I I I
f
I I I I I I
_
*

controls.

The EPA contends that Rule 32(C) (now Section 302 in Rule 320)

requires Goodyear to install expensive carbon adsorption emission controls for
volatile organic compounds even where such carbon adsorption otherwise would not be required under Rule 34(F) (now Section 302 of Rule 330), the rule

specifically addressing VOCs.
controls will be required.
ARGUMENT

Rule 34(F) (now Rule 330) establishes a

threshold VOC emission level of 40 pounds per day before carbon adsorption

1. Even if Rule 32(C] fnow Rule 32CH did apply, the EPA should defer to Maricooa County's interpretation that this Maricooa County regulation does not require carbon adsorption for the'air stripping tower.

Maricopa County's Bureau of Air Pollution Control has reviewed the
data concerning expected emissions from the air stripping tower and it has determined that carbon adsorption control devices are not required at the PGA

site.

In a letter dated October 3, 1988*, Lawrence M. Crisafulli, a Public

Health Engineer of the Maricopa County Bureau of Air Pollution Control, stated that, based on his examination of the probable emission of VOCs from the planned air stripper, the Bureau has concluded Goodyear is not required to
install carbon adsorption control devices pursuant to Rule 320 [the present

version of Rule 32(C)] or any other applicable regulation.

This conclusion

rests on the Bureau's interpretation of Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320), a regulation

that was developed by the Bureau itself. So long as Goodyear complies with a
few unrelated permit conditions, Maricopa County's Bureau of Air Pollution Control will allow air stripping to proceed without any carbon adsorption emission controls. The EPA should defer to the interpretation of the Maricopa County Bureau of Air Pollution Control. The Bureau wrote the regulation at issue

I I I I I

A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit 8. Exhibit B refers to another letter dated September 29, 1988, which is attached as Exhibit C hereto.
-5Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 81-14 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 4 of 18

(Rule 32(C)) in the first place and can better discern the intent of its own
rules. The Bureau clearly has decided Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320) does not

require carbon adsorption emission controls in the PGA air stripper.

In interpreting an administrative regulation, great deference is given the appropriate agency's understanding of that regulation. If the agency
is interpreting regulations it drafted itself, deference is even more clearly
called for. Sierra Pacific Power Company v. United States Environmental

Protection Agency,. 647 F.2d 60, 65 (9th Cir. 1981). An agency's interpretation of its own- rule is normally given controlling weight unless it is plainly
erroneous. Tele-Media Corp. v. FCC.' 697 F.2d 402 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing

H
*

Uda.11 v. Tallman. 380 U.S. 1 1965) );

see also Sainberg v. Morton. 363 F.

I

Supp. 1259 (D. Ariz. 1973) (Secretary of Interior's , construction of own

agency's regulation controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation itself). If the agency's interpretation is merely one among
several reasonable alternatives, it should stand even if another interpretation

f| .
TM

might appear more reasonable. Alien H. Campbell Construction Company General
Contractors. Inc. v. Llovd Wood Construction CompanvT 446 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1971).

I

|

The EPA frequently requests a court or other agency to defer to EPA's
interpretation of any EPA regulation. EPA similarly should defer to Maricopa
County's interpretation of a Maricopa County regulation. No carbon adsorption

«
ft

controls are required.
2. The EPA's interpretation of Rule 32CO. oart^ of a, general regulation on odorous and gaseous contaminants, is so broad it would render other, more specific regulations directly relating to carbon adsorption of VOCs superfluous and without meaning. ft

« ·

Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320) is a very broad and general section addressing "material containment" of a variety of odorous and gaseous TM ft

materials. It does not require specific levels of emission reduction nor does

-6-

I
Filed 06/27/2006 Page 5 of 18

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 81-14

it specify a particular type of technology (i.e.. carbon adsorption) to be employed in controlling emissions. The regulation on odorous and gaseous

contaminants generally forbids any "unreasonable" discharge of "materials",
including VOCs, into the air. It then provides that if means ("containment")

are available to reduce any such "unreasonable" contribution to air pollution, the use of these means shall be "mandatory."
Maricopa County's Bureau of Air Pollution Control has already

determined that the anticipated discharges of VOCs from the air stripper (less

than 10 pounds per day) are not "unreasonable" and therefore do not require
emission controls such as carbon adsorption. Furthermore, Rule 34(F) (now Rule 330) sets a threshold of 40 pounds per day before carbon adsorption emission controls will be required, clearly indicating that daily discharges that are well below that amount (i.e.. 10 pounds) would be considered "reasonable" in

the absence of carbon adsorption.
ft « ft Under EPA's interpretation of Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320), however, any facility that releases VOCs into the air, even if well under the 40 pound limit

set by Rule 32(C), must install carbon adsorption control devices to reduce
even a de minimis level of air emissions whenever carbon adsorption would be

"effective." ft
m

Such a reading of the general regulation on odorous and gaseous

air contaminants would render the specific 40 pound emission threshold
(Maricopa County's judgment of the appropriate level at which to require carbon

adsorption) completely superfluous.
ft
require ft simple "containment"

EPA's interpretation also distorts the
to the reduce like, emissions not to from VOCs, carbon

intent of Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320), which was to permit Maricopa County to
measures and

pesticides, fertilizer, manure,

require

I I I

adsorption.2 Lawrence Crisafulli of the Bureau of Air Pollution Control explained that Rule 32(C)'s (now Rule 320's) general purpose is to ensure that simple and -7Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 81-14 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 6 of 18
2

The particular 40 pound limit of Rule 34(F) (now Rule 330) was carefully arrived at. It represents Maricopa County's assessment of discharge

·

levels of VOCs which are "reasonable" in the absence of carbon adsorption.
EPA's reading of Rule 32(C) to require every single "feasible" reduction of VOC

m
g

emissions would make the 40 pound "carbon adsorption" threshold in the VOC regulation (Rule 34(F), now Rule 330) a complete nullity. If EPA were correct ft

in its interpretation, every emission below 40 pounds per day of VOCs would have to have carbon adsorption controls (regardless of cost) if carbon adsorption would be "effective." If this were'true, there would be no need for the 40 pound threshold in Rule 34(F) (now Rule 330). jf _ "

Maricopa County's interpretation of its own regulations is consistent
with generally accepted principles of statutory and regulatory construction.3 "Fundamental maxims of statutory construction require that a specific statutory m

·

section qualifies a more general section and will govern, even though the
general provisions, standing alone, would encompass the same subject." «·
V Trustees of Amalgamated Insurance Fund v. Geltman Industries. Inc.. 784 F.2d
926, 930 (9th Cir.), cert, denied. 107 S. Ct. 90 (1986). Accord Union Central

Life Insurance Company v. Wemick. 777 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1985) (refusing to read one section so as to render another superfluous); Pima County v. Heinfeld. 134 Ariz. 133, 654 P.2d 281 (1982) fen band (if two statutes deal with the

·

m

same subject, more specific statute controls); Whitfield Transportation v.

M

Brooks. 81 Ariz. 136, 141, 302 P.2d 526, 529 (195.6) (if "there are two

provisions applicable to the same subject, one general in its scope and the

£

----.,,,---- .-,,.w>j

, . ,, . . , . ._ ,,,,,.-

....-- .»---

~.

. >.·----~,,,3

,,...... ..,,.-..

. . > . v ,, . - .

. . ,,.,,,_ . . .

"material containment") are implemented even where expected emissions are below 40 pounds per day.
3

·

Those same principles of construction that apply to statutes apply with equal force to rules and regulations promulgated by administrative bodies. Marlar v.
State. 136 Ariz. 404, 410, 666 P.2d 504, 510 (App. 1983).
--O~

m
^&-

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 81-14

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 7 of 18

other covering a limited portion only of the subject included in the general

one,

the special statute is to be considered as governing the exception")

(citation omitted).

The authorities cited above reiterate the logical proposition that a general regulation should not override a more specific regulation with which it
is inconsistent. Therefore, Rule 34(F) (now Rule 330), the specific regulation on when to require carbon adsorption for VOC emissions, must govern with

respect to the issue of carbon adsorption emission controls at the PGA site.
No carbon adsorption controls are required because VOC emissions will be well below the 40 pounds per day threshold. Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320) does not govern because it is a less specific regulation and therefore cannot override
Rule 34(F) (now Rule 330) on the issue of carbon adsorption. 3. Even if Rule 32fG (now Rule 320) did apply to Goodvear's tower, the requirement of carbon adsorption control devices would be unreasonable within the meaning of the Rule.
Rule 32(C) requires only that the processing, storing, use or

transportation of VOCs be "in such a manner and by such means that they will not unreasonably evaporate, leak, escape or be otherwise discharged"; and that
where such "unreasonable" emissions otherwise would result, control methods

shall be mandatory. This second clause in Rule 32(C) mandating control methods applies where means are available to "reduce effectively" any contribution to

air pollution. The EPA's interpretation is based on reading this second clause
in a "vacuum," standing completely by itself. This clause, however, also must be read in conjunction with the preceding clause in Rule 32(C) and its explicit
reference to reasonableness.4 Virtually any activity that contributes to air

pollution can be further reduced, if enough money is committed to the effort. As already discussed above, the clause in Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320) must also be read in conjunction with Rule 34(F) (now Rule 330). When read in conjunction with Rule 34(F), it is clear that carbon adsorption is not required unless VOC emissions are 40 pounds per day. -94

I
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 81-14 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 8 of 18

Rule 32(C)

only mandates controls in the sec_ond clause if the emissions are

V

initially determined to be "unreasonable" pursuant to the first clause of Rule

Goodyear's proposed tower will not result in any such unreasonable

discharges for two reasons.

First, as already noted, the discharges are well

M

under the "reasonable" threshold of 40 pounds provided for in the rule
specifically addressing control of VOCs by carbon adsorption (Rule 34(F), now

Rule 330);

by the definition of Maricopa County, these discharges are thus "Second, the very

reasonable in the absence of carbon adsorption controls.

concept of reasonableness implies a* balancing of costs and benefits.
no significant health or environmental gain would be realized.
carbon adsorption, on the other hand, are significant.

The

benefits of reducing VOC emissions below these already low levels are minimal;

The costs of
B

Installation of a

carbon adsorption unit is estimated

at between $350,000 and 5500,000.

Operating costs would increase by approximately $88,000 per year, or $1,760,000 over a projected 20 year project life. Measured against the minimal good

f§ g

achieved by carbon adsorption in this case, such an expenditure appears

exorbitant and unwarranted. According to Mr. Lawrence Crisafulli, a balancing of costs and benefits is absolutely essential prior to any determination that carbon adsorption should be mandated pursuant to Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320),

V m

p

particularly since carbon adsorption was not the intended thrust of Rule 32(C). At present, preliminary cost evaluations indicate a carbon adsorption unit
installation cost for the PGA air stripper would range from $350,000 to

V

$500,000. In addition, operating costs are projected to increase from 16$ per 1,000 gallons of water treated to 30$ per 1,000 gallons of water treated. At

·

I I

-10-

i
Filed 06/27/2006 Page 9 of 18

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 81-14

the projected flow rate of 1,200 gpm, the air stripper operating cost would
increase from $100,900/year to $189,000/year. See Exhibit C. If operating costs are considered alone, the cost of VOC air

emissions controls is approximately $98,000 per ton of VOC removal.

I. d.

In

light of this cost data, it was the Maricooa County Bureau of Air Pollution
Control's unequivocal opinion that Rule 32(C) [now Rule 3201 does not require carbon adsorption emission controls for an air stripper unit with emission

levels such as those anticipated for the PGA site. See Exhibit B. - Under Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320), it is Maricopa County's Bureau of Air Pollution Control that should decide if the additional benefits of carbon adsorption control methods in a situation involving VOC emission levels below 40 pounds per day are outweighed by the excessive additional costs of achieving further pollution reduction. By promulgating Rule 34(F) (now Rule 330), which

explicitly states that emission level for VOCs below 40 pounds per day typically will not result in carbon adsorption controls, and by ruling that no
further control device is necessary on the proposed air stripping tower at the

PGA site, Maricopa County has concluded that the minimal benefits of carbon adsorption emission controls at the PGA site are easily outweighed by the

prohibitive costs.

The ERA should defer to the Maricopa County Bureau of Air

Pollution Control when it comes to determining whether levels of VOC emissions

in this situation would be "unreasonable" in the absence of carbon adsorption pursuant to Rule 32(C).
4. Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320) does ^ not apply at all to Goodvear's proposed air stripping tower because Goodvear is not processing, storing, using or transporting the VOCs.

The EPA has focused only on the second clause of the sentence that comprised Rule 32(C), which stated as follows:

"and where means are available to reduce effectively the contribution to air pollution from evaporation, leakage or -11Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 81-14 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 10 of 18

discharge, the installation and use of such control methods, devices or equipment shall be mandatory."
The initial portion of Rule 32(C), however, makes it clear that it should apply

· *
jft

only

to

regulated

materials

that

are

"processed,

stored,

used

and

transported." 32(C)

(The same language now exists in Rule 320, which replaced Rule The thrust of the regulation is to require

·

after July 15, 1988.)

"containment"

of materials that are being

"processed, stored, used

or

m.
m

transported," words that imply a commercial context.

The TCE at the PGA site will not be stored, used, or transported, nor will it be processed within the meaning of Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320). The term
"process" connotes treating raw materials, chemically or physically, in

ft

§.
«

Security Commission of Arizona v. Brown. 109 Ariz. 183, 507 P.2d 108 (1973) fen

bane) (vacuum cooling plant employees involved in "processing" lettuce because
cooling the lettuce helps prepare it for market); Krienke v. Southwestern
Superior Products Corporation. 376 S.W.Zd 936 (Tex. Civ. App. 1964) (citing

M

with approval a definition of "process" based on subjecting raw materials to "process" applies generally in the context of commercial use (consistent with the general commercial context of the juxtaposed terms "stored, used or
transported"), Goodyear1s emissions of VOCs from an air stripping tower should

If * · i|
*·

manufacture, development, and preparation for the market). Given the fact that

not be considered "processing" of those VOCs within the meaning of Rule 32(C)
(now Rule 320).
Rule 32(C) (now Rule 320) should not apply to the air stripping tower

as Goodyear is not processing, using, storing or transporting volatile organic
compounds.

·

I
-12-

i
Filed 06/27/2006 Page 11 of 18

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 81-14

AIR DISCHARGE OF ICE

(Ibs/clay)
\.\

Tolnl: 292.000 ll)f

30
TJ if)

uj

20

O h-

10

a to

Tolal: 0,31 Gibs
0

20

Years

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 81-14

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 12 of 18

I

I t

Maricopa County

Department of Health Services
DIVISION Of PUBLIC HL-.LTH
Lnvi.'onmcr.iiil Services

1845 us! Roosevelt S'.reci
phocniv i.rt.'ona S5006

(602)253-6351 Octobe

i I I 1 i i i i t I i t t

t t I

Kr. Dale Papajcik

The G o o d y e a r T i r e & R u b b e r Company liii i. Karket Street A k r o n , OH A4315
Dear Kr. P a p a j c i k : The f - ' a r i c o o a C o u n t y B u r e a u o f A i r P o l l u t i o n Control ( B u r e a u ) h a s reviewed t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s u b m i t t e d r e g a r d i n g i n s proposed a i r s t r i p p e r f o r treatment o f contaminated crouncwater at the Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Suoerfund s i t e .

Based upon the a p p r o x i m a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l e m i s s i o n s of v o l a t i l e o r g a n i c comoounds from the air s t r i p p e r , as submitted in your September 29, 1933 c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , tne air s t r i p p e r may oe proposed without a control d e v i c e .
There is a requirement that Goodyear apply for an i n s t a l l a t i o n permit p u r s u a n t to the B u r e a u ' s R u l e 210 ('copy enclosed). I have a l s o enclosed an i n f o r m a t i o n request o u t l i n e d e f i n i n g the p e r t i n e n t d a t a r e q u i r e d to be submitted as part of the a p p l i c a t i o n for the p e r m i t . There are normal p e r m i t c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h t h e B u r e a u requires r e g a r d i n g m o n i t o r i n g t h e d i s c h a r g e o f t h e a i r s t r i p p e r . These p e r m i t c o n d i t i o n s a r e f o r y o u r i n f o r m a t i o n a n d d o not need to be s i g n e d and r e t u r n e d at t h i s t i m e .

S h o u l d you h a v e any q u e s t i o n s regarding, the above, p l e a s e c o n t a c t me at ( 5 0 2 )
Si n c e r e l y ,

/

L a w r s n c e -u.. Cr: si' P u b l i c Health Engineer B u r e a u of Air P o l l u t i o n Control
LMC:sn

enc. P.ule 200, 210; I n s t a l l a t i o n I n f o r m a t i o n Request; Sample Permit Concisions cc: Kr. R o l f vpn O p p e n f e l d , Fennemore C r a i g

Vv horizons IF

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 81-14

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 13 of 18

Maricopa County

Department of Health Services
DIVISION Of PUBLIC HEALTH
Environmental Services

1845 Cast Rooscvcll Sired Phoenix. Arizona S5006 (CO2V25S-63SI

OPERATING PERMIT CONDITIONS

I I i I I f I I
I I I I I

The s o i l v e n t i n g system s e r v i n g the Phoenix-Goodyear Airport s i t e l o c a t e d at ( ), Phoenix, Arizona is subject to the f o l l o w i n g Permit C o n d i t i o n s ( M a r i c o p a County B u r e a u of Air P o l l u t i o n Control R e g u l a t i o n s , R u l e 200, Section 302).

1. .A t e s t s h a l l be made of the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of h y d r o c a r b o n s e m i t t e d to the atmosphere from the v a p o r d i s c h a r g e vent to d e t e r m i n e tne e m i s s i o n rate in p o u n d s per d a y . T h i s test s h a l l be conducted one (1) month a f t e r the i n i t i a l s t a r t u p d a t e o f t h i s system. T h e f o l l o w i n g components s h a l l b e a n a l y z e d f o r : benzene, t o l u e n e , x y l e n e , ethyl benzene, m i s c e l l a n e o u s a r o m a t i c s and t o t a l h y d r o c a r b o n s . A w r i t t e n copy of the test r e s u l t s s h a l l be s u b m i t t e d to the B u r e a u for review. 2. A f t e r t h e i n i t i a l test i s c o m p l e t e d , f u t u r e tests s h a l l b e conducted quarterly and w r i t t e n copies of these test r e s u l t s s u b m i t t e d to the B u r e a u for review. The components tested for shall be the same as in the i n i t i a l test.

The o p e r a t i n g permit issued s h a l l be renewed a n n u a l l y , subject to c o m p l i a n c e with 'these Permit Conditions and all other a p p l i c a b l e r e g u l a t i o n s of tr,= Bureau. The Permit Conditions that are enumerated above are understood and agreed to by the u n d e r s i g n e d permittee. Please s i g n and return with y o u r I n s t a l l a t i o n Permit A p p l i c a t i o n .

Signed: Title:

Date:

£NSn:35/sh

;V(?\v Horizons in Hzzlir:

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 81-14

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 14 of 18

I
1

I

I I I I I I 1 I f I I t I I I I

THE GOODYEAR TIRE 4 R'J5 3ER COX?ANV

1 · 4 -i Z. Marker Street: Akrcn, Ohio 44315

September 29, 1968
HAND DELIVERE

Kr . Lawrence I-'.. Crisafulli Public H £ a 1 1 n Engineer * Bureau of Air Pollution Control Maricops County Health Department IS-. 5 E. Roosevelt Phoenix, AZ S5006

Re:

Air Emissions from future Air Stripping Tower Phoer.ix-Goodyear Airport ("?GA")) Superfund Site Goodyear, Arizona

Dear Mr. Crisafulli:

As you are aware, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ("Goodyear Tire") has entered into an agreement in the for- of a Consent Decree with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("E?A") to treat grcur.dwatsr beneath the Phoer.ix-Gocdyear Airport Superfund site. The agreement requires Goodyear Tire to install a groundwater withdrawal and trsatr.ent systen to treat water frothe subunit A acuifsr and remove excess concentrations cf VOCs , principally trichlcroezhylene ("TCE"). At present cur ir.vestiwithdrawn frc.T. subunit A and treated by rr.eans of a packed tcv;er air stripper. Attached fcr your use is a graph illustrating the projected ' total daily er.ission of TCZ fro.- the sir stripping unit. Projected total \7OC emissions represent cr.ly a miner increase over the TCZ emission rates. cf Karicopa County Rscula 230, Section 2C2, an air stripper f the type being ccnsicerec ""*'"*** a **· -- *·'·" err. ission cent: requirement for vocs unless the" un it emits a quantity of VGCs excess cf 40 Ibs./day. If my int rpretaticn is correct, then air emissions ccntro'ls would" be r ecuired bv Mariccca Count" Basad upon my understanding

EXHZBIT C

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 81-14

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 15 of 18

Mr. Lawrence M. Crisafulli September 29, 1958 Page 2

'

-

^ ·

the ?GA site unit. The unit will only emit, -at a maximum, 'elatively somewhere in the vicinity of ten pounds per cay over a relatively short oeriod of time as shown on the graph, ~ I understand, however, that Regulation III, Rule 320, Section 302 also allows Maricopa County some discretion on "containment" of air emissions from sources which "emit less than 40 Ibs./cay V'OCs . The regulation requires "material containment" such that VQCs "will not unreasor.ably evaporate, leak, escape cr be otherwise discharged." (Zm.phasis added.)

j§

I ^
K m *

At present our preliminary cost evaluations indicate a carbon absorption unit installation cost range from 5350,000 .to _ S50-0/COO. In addition, operating costs are projected to increase · from 15c per 1,000 gallons of water treated to-30c per 1,000 TM gallons cf water treated. At the projected flow rate cf 1,200 gprn, the air stripper operating cost would " increase from fl £100,9CO/yaar to SI 39,OCO/year. If operating costs ar* · considered alone, the cost of V'OCs air emissions controls is approximately S9S,OCO per ton of VOC removal. In light of this · cost data, it appears to me that the Secticn 302 provision was g not intended to apply to air stripper units of the type proposed for the ?GA sits. »

I respectfully request that you review the attachment and ~y discussion above together with your air emissions control policy. If the facts indicate that air emissions"controls should not be mandatcrv or otherwise rscuired fcr the crcoosed air stripper, please respond appropriately to me as soon as you are able. Resolution cf this issue is very important to Goodyear Tire. Your cooperation will be kindly appreciated-. Sincerely,

-

I t I I

CC

Dale r. Papajcik

m

I I I I
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 81-14 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 16 of 18

AIR DISCHARGE OE ICE

(Ibs/clay)

Tolnl: 202.000 Ih:

'10

30 ;u HI O
nl

20

10

(O (O
CO

CO

to

C1)

CX)

0 0

12

1C

Years

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 81-14

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 17 of 18

I

I I I I I I I

CKMHILL
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Black & Veatch
1CF PRC

Ecology and Environment

Document 81-14

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 18 of 18