[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1271]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 20, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX-34-1-6167; FRL-4824-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans, Texas; Revision
to the Texas State Implementation Plan; Alternate Reasonably Available
Control Technology Demonstration for Air Force Plant 4 by Lockheed
Corporation of Fort Worth, Texas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a site specific revision to the Texas
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Lockheed Corporation of Fort Worth.
This revision was submitted by the Governor on August 19, 1993, to
establish alternate reasonably available control technology (ARACT) to
enforce Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emission limits for the
surface coating processes at Air Force Plant 4 (AFP4), operated by
Lockheed Corporation of Fort Worth. The EPA has determined that these
emission limits represent Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT). This ARACT plan is approvable because Lockheed has demonstrated
that it is not cost effective to control their VOC emissions to the
presumptive norm set forth in the EPA's Control Technique Guidelines
(CTG) document (EPA 450/2-78-015), and the alternate emission rate at
the facility is the lowest that is economically reasonable and
technically feasible.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become effective on March 21, 1994,
unless notice is received by February 22, 1994, that someone wishes to
submit adverse or critical comments. If the effective date is delayed,
timely notice will be published in the Federal Register (FR).
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6T-AP), USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733. Copies of the State's submittal and other information
relevant to this action are available for inspection during normal
business hours at the following locations:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch
(6T-A), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Mr. Jerry Kurtzweg (ANR-443), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air
Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. Anyone wishing to
review these documents at the USEPA office is asked to contact the
person below to schedule an appointment 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mick Cote, Planning Section (6T-
AP), Air Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214)
655-7219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Part D of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) requires ozone
nonattainment plans to include regulations providing for VOC emission
reductions from existing sources through the adoption of RACT. The EPA
defined RACT in a September 17, 1979, FR notice (44 FR 53762) as:
The lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility.
Through the publication of CTG documents, the EPA has identified
pollution control levels that the EPA presumes to constitute RACT for
various categories of sources. Where the State finds the presumptive
norm applicable to an individual source or group of sources, the State
typically adopts requirements consistent with the presumptive norm.
However, States may develop case-by-case RACT determinations. The EPA
will approve these RACT determinations as long as the State
demonstrates they will satisfy the CAAA RACT requirements based on
adequate documentation of the technical and economical circumstances of
the particular source being regulated. Texas adopted the CTG entitled
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products as the presumptive norm for VOC
limits on aerospace surface coating processes. These VOC limits were
adopted as part of Texas Regulation V, Sec. 115.421, Emission
Specifications. The presumptive norm for the exterior of aircraft in
Dallas and Tarrant Counties is 6.7 pounds per gallon of solids
delivered to the application system.
The EPA developed a guidance document entitled Guidance for
developing an Alternate Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Demonstration for the Tulsa Aerospace Industry, dated October 2, 1989.
This document applies to the Aerospace industry and was applicable to
Lockheed's ARACT analysis as well. This document was issued for States
and industries to follow in developing documents to justify deviation
from the recommended CTG approach. The EPA has reviewed the Lockheed
ARACT proposal based on this guidance.
Lockheed Corporation
Lockheed Corporation operates AFP4 in Tarrant County, Texas, at
which F-16 aircraft are produced and aircraft components are coated for
the U.S. Air Force. Lockheed recently purchased the contract and the
product from General Dynamics Corporation1. On August 19, 1993,
the State of Texas submitted to the EPA a request for an ARACT approval
for surface coating operations at Lockheed Corporation's AFP4 facility.
This site-specific SIP revision was submitted to meet RACT for AFP4's
surface coating operations. The EPA believes that Lockheed and the
State of Texas have provided adequate documentation that the emission
limits developed under this site-specific SIP revision are RACT based
on consideration of economical reasonableness and technical
feasibility. Since case-by-case RACT determinations are allowable under
the EPA's definition of RACT, Lockheed and the State opted for this
ARACT approach to fulfill compliance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The research on the ARACT proposal was accomplished by
General Dynamics Corporation prior to the Lockheed purchase. The
operations of AFP4 have not changed significantly since the time of
the sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal History
A notice of violation (NOV) was issued by EPA to General Dynamics
on July 11, 1985, alleging violations of State Rule 115.191(9)(a)(iii),
which regulated ``extreme performance coatings'' applied to
miscellaneous metal parts and products, for both the PRC Prime
operation and the Chemical Milling Maskant operation. A second NOV was
issued by the EPA to General Dynamics on February 24, 1987, alleging
violations of Rule 115.191(9)(a)(iii) for the Adhesive Prime operation.
Both NOVs stated that VOC emission limits were being violated. An
agreed board order was entered on January 17, 1986, which intended to
provide for the full resolution of all violations alleged in the NOVs
issued by the EPA. The board order created a bubble under General Rule
Sec. 101.23, which allowed for control of emissions from an alternate
facility located on the affected property in lieu of compliance with
the requirement as prescribed in the regulation.
However, the EPA contended that the order was a departure from the
requirements of the Texas SIP. The EPA did not find the provisions
agreed to by the State and General Dynamics in the bubble as
acceptable, and sued General Dynamics to renegotiate their proposal. On
January 2, 1991, the U.S. District Court ruled that the State's
interpretation of the Texas SIP was not consistent with the Clean Air
Act because the board order would encourage the uncontrolled use of
VOC-emitting solvents. The court ordered General Dynamics to develop
and implement a suitable plan to meet the Texas SIP requirements no
later than January 1994. General Dynamics elected to pursue an ARACT,
discussed under section 115.423 of Texas Regulation V. For specific
details of the suit, see United States of America v. General Dynamics
Corporation, Civil Action Number CA-4-87-312-K dated February 23, 1990
(suit), and Civil Action Number CA-4-87-312-A, dated January 2, 1991
(ruling).
Alternate RACT Analysis
Lockheed2 investigated the options available for reducing
emissions from its surface coating operations. Among those were coating
reformulation, enhanced application techniques that would improve
transfer efficiency, facility redesign, and add-on control equipment to
reduce VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Further discussions concerning ARACT development and analysis
will refer to Lockheed Corporation of Fort Worth, the current
operator of AFP4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed investigated the use of low-solvent coating technologies.
Among those were high-solids coatings, water-borne coatings, and powder
coatings. The current suppliers of surface coatings to Lockheed were
contacted to determine if such coatings were either currently available
or soon to be available. Where substitute coatings were discovered,
these substitutes have been incorporated into the provisions of this
ARACT determination. For those coatings not replaced with low-solvent
coatings, individual coating limits have been established.
In addition to researching alternate low solvent coatings and
developing alternate VOC limits for other coatings, Lockheed
investigated several control VOC systems. Two permanent total
enclosures with a thermal incinerator system have been installed on the
adhesive prime booth and paint booth number four. Two degreasers were
replaced with an alkaline cleaning process that reduces the VOC
emissions by 106.5 tons per year (tpy), and a cloth management system
was developed to handle wipe solvent VOC emissions. This cloth
management system will reduce VOC emissions from cleaning operations by
50%. Air atomization has been eliminated as an application method and
replaced with a high volume low pressure application system with an
application efficiency of 60 to 80%. This application process results
in emission reductions of 14 tpy. Finally, the maskant operations have
all been subcontracted or phased out as of October 1, 1993. The
estimated VOC reductions are 133 tpy. Please refer to the EPA's
technical support document for a summary of the feasibility of various
control technologies, a precise listing of those suppliers contacted,
as well as a listing of the new coatings.
As mentioned above, Lockheed investigated the use of add-on control
equipment in its operations. Control technology vendors were contacted
to determine if such equipment could be suitable for Lockheed's
specific operations. Cost estimates for the various types of add-on
controls were prepared and analyzed for feasibility. Cost estimates
were developed based on tons per year of VOC removed. The actual
concentration of VOC in the exhaust stream and the total volume of air
to be treated are the primary factors considered when determining cost
effectiveness. Where those add-on control systems were deemed feasible,
the ARACT provisions reflect their implementation. Lockheed now emits
roughly 65 tpy. of VOCs from its approximately 20 separate paint
booths. One booth emits approximately 20 tpy., the rest each emit six
tpy. or less.
In order to meet RACT requirements for surface coating operations,
Lockheed would need to reduce its overall VOC emissions from the
coatings used by an additional 15.79 tpy. The required offset for
moderate nonattainment areas is 1.2 tpy., requiring a 17.3 tpy.
reduction to meet the presumptive norm for surface coatings. However,
the emission reductions from the cloth management system as well as the
implementation of low-VOC wipe solvent reduces the VOC emissions from
Lockheed's wipe solvent operation by 63.4 tpy.; this reduces the
overall emissions from the surface coating operations more than would
be required under RACT.
The EPA reviewed the information developed by Lockheed and agrees
that the majority of the costs should not be considered cost effective
in this situation relative to the cost effectiveness assumed in the CTG
for miscellaneous metal parts and products. Again, please refer to the
EPA's technical support document for a complete listing of the vendors
contacted, emission reduction calculations for various control systems,
as well as the cost determinations for add-on controls.
Summary
The EPA's review of the information submitted by both the State of
Texas and the current operator of AFP4, Lockheed Corporation, indicates
that, at this time, low VOC coatings for certain applications and
processes are not commercially available. Furthermore, the cost
effectiveness of controls on emissions from certain processes at this
facility are not economically feasible. The EPA finds that the
requirements in the recommended CTG are not reasonable for certain
processes and that the proposed source specific alternate RACT
determinations in Board Order Number 93-13 should be considered RACT in
this case.
Final Action
The EPA is approving Texas' source-specific RACT determination
issued by the State of Texas under Board Order Number 93-13 on June 18,
1993, as a revision to the Texas SIP. The EPA is publishing this action
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. This
action will become effective on March 21, 1994, unless notice is
received that adverse or critical comments will be received by February
22, 1994.
If such notice is received, this action will be withdrawn before
the effective date by publishing two subsequent notices. One notice
will withdraw the final action, and another will begin a new rulemaking
by announcing a proposal of the action and establishing a comment
period. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that
this action will be effective on March 21, 1994. The EPA has reviewed
this request for revision of the federally-approved SIP for conformance
with the provisions of the 1990 CAAA enacted on November 15, 1990. The
EPA has determined that this action conforms with those requirements.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or
establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economical, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Regulatory Process
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, under U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA may certify that the rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities (see 46 FR 8709). Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities with
jurisdiction over population of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D, of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) do not create any new requirements, but simply
approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore,
because the Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements,
I certify that it does not have a significant impact on any small
entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State
relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 21, 1994. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See
section 307(b)(2).
Executive Order 12291
This action has been classified as a table three action by the
Acting Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the FR
on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). On January 6, 1989, the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) waived table two and three SIP revisions
from the requirements of section three of Executive Order 12291 for a
period of two years (54 FR 2222). The EPA has submitted a request for a
permanent waiver for table two and three SIP revisions. The OMB has
agreed to continue the waiver until such time as it rules on the EPA's
request. This request continues in effect under Executive Order 12866,
which superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmentalrelations, Reporting and
recordkeeping, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 22, 1993.
W.B. Hathaway,
Acting Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart SS--Texas
2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (80) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(80) A revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan to adopt an
alternate control strategy for the surface coating processes at
Lockheed Corporation of Fort Worth.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Texas Air Control Board Order Number 93-13 issued and effective
June 18, 1993, for Lockheed Corporation, Fort Worth approving an
Alternate Reasonably Available Control Technology (ARACT). A letter
from the Governor of Texas dated August 19, 1993, submitting to the EPA
the ARACT demonstration.
(ii) Additional material-the document prepared by GD titled ``The
Proposed Alternate Reasonably Available Control Technology
Determination for U.S. Air Force Plant Number Four and Ancillary
Facilities of General Dynamics'' dated September 16, 1991.
[FR Doc. 94-1271 Filed 1-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
