[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 74 (Monday, April 19, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19097-19106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9723]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[FRL-6324-5]
Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for Andersen Corporation's
Facility in Bayport, Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments on draft final project
agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') is proposing to
implement a project under the Project XL program for the Andersen
Corporation (``Andersen'') facility located in Bayport, Minnesota. The
terms of the project are defined in a draft Final Project Agreement
(``FPA'') which is being made available for public review and comment
by this document. In addition, EPA is proposing a site-specific rule,
applicable only to the Andersen Bayport facility, to facilitate
implementation of the project. By this document, EPA solicits comment
on the proposed rule, the draft FPA, and the project generally.
This proposed site-specific rule is intended to provide regulatory
changes under the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or the ``Act'') to implement
Andersen's XL project, which will result in superior environmental
performance and, at the same time, provide Andersen with greater
operational flexibility. The proposed site-specific rule would change
some of the CAA requirements which apply to the Andersen Bayport
facility for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (``PSD'')
program, in particular existing synthetic minor limits that apply to
some VOC sources in the Bayport facility. ``Synthetic minor'' limits
are operational and control limitations which serve to limit the net
emissions increase associated with proposed new or modified units or
systems to less than the applicable significance level and thereby keep
them out of PSD review.
DATES: Comments. All public comments must be received on or before May
19, 1999. If a public hearing is held, the public comment period would
remain open until June 3, 1999
Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested, to
provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning this proposed rule to implement
Andersen's XL project. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak
at a public hearing by April 29, 1999, a public hearing will be held on
May 3, 1999. Additional information is provided in the section entitled
ADDRESSES.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact Ms. Rachel Rineheart at the EPA by April 29,
1999. Additional information is provided in the section entitled
ADDRESSES.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted in duplicate
to: Ms. Rachel Rineheart, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
[[Page 19098]]
West Jackson Boulevard (AR-18J), Chicago, IL, 60604-3590.
Docket. A docket containing supporting information used in
developing this proposed rulemaking is available for public inspection
and copying at U.S. EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604-3590, (312) 886-7017, 8:30 am-4:30 pm business days, and
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Room 3802, Washington, D.C. 20460, (202)
260-2601, during normal business hours, and at the Bayport Public
Library, 582 North Fourth Street, Bayport, Minnesota 55003, (651) 439-
7454. A reasonable fee may by charged for copying.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held in
Bayport, Minnesota. Persons interested in attending the hearing should
contact Ms. Rachel Rineheart at (312) 886-7017 to verify that a hearing
will be held.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rachel Rineheart, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard (AR-18J), Chicago, IL 60604-3590, (312) 886-
7017.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline of This Document
I. Authority
II. Background
A. Overview of Project XL
B. Overview of the Andersen XL Project
1. Introduction
2. Andersen XL Project Description
a. Background
b. Project Details
3. Environmental Benefits
4. Stakeholder Involvement
III. Clean Air Act Requirements
A. Summary of Regulatory Requirements for the Andersen XL
Project
B. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
C. Proposed Regulatory Changes
1. Synthetic Minor Limits
2. Duration
3. Duration of Flexibility
4. Summary
IV. Additional Information
A. Public Hearing
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Regulatory Flexibility
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental
Partnerships
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Authority
This regulation is being proposed under the authority of sections
101(b)(1), 110, 111, 161-169, and 301(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA has
determined that this rulemaking is subject to the provisions of section
307(d) of the CAA.
II. Background
A. Overview of Project XL
This proposed site-specific regulation will implement a project
developed under Project XL, an EPA initiative to allow regulated
entities to achieve better environmental results at less cost. Project
XL--``eXcellence and Leadership''--was announced on March 16, 1995, as
a central part of the National Performance Review and the EPA's effort
to reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 27282 (May 23, 1995).
Project XL provides a limited number of private and public regulated
entities an opportunity to develop their own pilot projects to provide
regulatory flexibility that will result in environmental protection
that is superior to what would be achieved through compliance with
current and reasonably anticipated future regulations. These efforts
are crucial to the Agency's ability to test new regulatory strategies
that reduce regulatory burden and promote economic growth while
achieving better environmental and public health protection. The Agency
intends to evaluate the results of this and other Project XL projects
to determine which specific elements of the project(s), if any, should
be more broadly applied to other regulated entities for the benefit of
both the economy and the environment.
Under Project XL, participants in four categories--facilities,
industry sectors, governmental agencies and communities--are offered
the flexibility to develop common sense, cost-effective strategies that
will replace or modify specific regulatory requirements, on the
condition that they produce and demonstrate superior environmental
performance. To participate in Project XL, applicants must develop
alternative pollution reduction strategies pursuant to eight criteria:
superior environmental performance; cost savings and paperwork
reduction; local stakeholder involvement and support; test of an
innovative strategy; transferability; feasibility; identification of
monitoring, reporting and evaluation methods; and avoidance of shifting
risk burden. They must have full support of affected Federal, state and
tribal agencies to be selected. For more information about the XL
criteria, readers should refer to the two descriptive documents
published in the Federal Register (60 FR 27282, May 23, 1995 and 62 FR
19872, April 23, 1997), and the December 1, 1995 ``Principles for
Development of Project XL Final Project Agreements'' document.
The XL program is intended to allow the EPA to experiment with
untried, potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess
whether they provide benefits at the specific facility affected, and
whether they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot
projects allow the EPA to proceed more quickly than would be possible
when undertaking changes on a nationwide basis. As part of this
experimentation, the EPA may try out approaches or legal
interpretations that depart from or are even inconsistent with
longstanding Agency practice, so long as those interpretations are
within the broad range of discretion enjoyed by the Agency in
interpreting statutes that it implements. The EPA may also modify
rules, on a site-specific basis, that represent one of several possible
policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, so long as
the alternative being used is permissible under the statute.
Adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the
context of a given XL project does not, however, signal the EPA's
willingness to adopt that interpretation as a general matter, or even
in the context of other XL projects. It would be inconsistent with the
forward-looking nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative
approaches prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining
whether or not they are viable in practice and successful in the
particular projects that embody them. Furthermore, as EPA indicated in
announcing the XL program, the Agency expects to adopt only a limited
number of carefully selected projects. These pilot projects are not
intended to be a means for piecemeal revision of entire programs.
Depending on the results in these projects, EPA may or may not be
willing to consider adopting the alternative interpretation again,
either generally or for other specific facilities.
The EPA believes that adopting alternative policy approaches and
interpretations, on a limited, site-specific basis and in connection
with a carefully selected pilot project, is consistent with the
expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the
environmental statutes (so long as the Agency acts within the
discretion allowed by the statute). Congress' recognition that there is
a need for experimentation and research, as well as ongoing re-
evaluation of environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of
statutory
[[Page 19099]]
provisions, such as sections 101(b) and 103 of the CAA.
B. Overview of the Andersen XL Project
1. Introduction
This proposed site-specific rule will facilitate issuance of a
consolidated permit which will contain Federal and State permits as
outlined in the Andersen Windows Project XL draft FPA. The draft FPA
was developed by the Andersen Community Advisory Committee (``CAC''),
Andersen, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (``MPCA''), Washington
County, and the EPA. The draft FPA is available for review in the
docket for today's action and also is available on the world wide web
at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl. The draft FPA outlines how the project
addresses the eight Project XL criteria, in particular how the project
will produce, measure, monitor, report, and demonstrate superior
environmental benefits. In today's action, the Agency is soliciting
comment on proposed site-specific regulatory changes to implement the
project.
The draft FPA contemplates issuance of a consolidated permit which
will contain Federal and State permits for Andersen's Bayport facility,
which MPCA would issue subsequent to the promulgation of a final rule.
The Andersen XL consolidated permit would be composed of a minor new
source review permit under the Minnesota State Implementation Plan
(``SIP''), a Title V permit under the Minnesota Title V program
approved under 40 CFR part 70, and a PSD permit under 40 CFR 52.21, as
proposed to be modified and made applicable to Andersen at 40 CFR
52.1246. Any such consolidated permit would be issued in accordance
with applicable public notice and comment, and administrative appeal
and petition provisions. In issuing a PSD permit, MPCA will be acting
as EPA's delegatee in accordance with 40 CFR 52.21(u) and 40 CFR part
124. EPA will send direct and timely notification of the public comment
period for the Andersen XL permit to any person who either comments on
this proposed rule, the draft FPA, or otherwise requests such notice.
EPA also seeks comment on the draft FPA (which is available on the
world wide web, in the docket file for today's action, and upon
request) in light of the criteria outlined in the Agency's May 23,
1995, Federal Register document (60 FR 27282) regarding Regulatory
Reinvention (XL) Pilot Projects. Those criteria are: (1) environmental
performance superior to what would be achieved through compliance with
current and reasonably anticipated future regulations; (2) cost savings
or economic opportunity, and/or decreased paperwork burden; (3)
stakeholder support; (4) test of innovative strategies for achieving
environmental results; (5) approaches that could be evaluated for
future broader application; (6) technical and administrative
feasibility; (7) mechanisms for monitoring, reporting, and evaluation;
and (8) consistency with Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice
(avoidance of shifting of risk burden).
2. Andersen XL Project Description
a. Background. The Andersen Corporation is a leading manufacturer
of durable, energy efficient, high performance clad wood windows and
patio doors. Andersen's main manufacturing plant is at 100 Fourth
Avenue North in Bayport, Minnesota (Fourth Avenue Site), along the St.
Croix River, a federally designated ``Wild and Scenic River,'' which
forms the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Operating in the St. Croix Valley since 1903, Andersen has
demonstrated a long-term ethic of stewardship. This ethic is reinforced
by the high level of environmental performance of the current Andersen
operations. Andersen employs approximately 3,000 people at its Fourth
Avenue Site. Existing Fourth Avenue Site manufacturing facilities are
located on 110 acres, consisting of 78 buildings, most of which are
interconnected. Manufacturing and related processes at Andersen include
wood cutting and milling, wood preservative application, painting,
vinyl processing, adhesive operations, by-product transfer, wood-fired
boilers, assembly operations, technology development, production
support and maintenance functions.
The Andersen West Site is located at 4001 Stagecoach Road North, on
the western boundary of Bayport. The Andersen West Site is located
approximately one mile West of the Fourth Avenue Site and is intended,
in part, to be a support operation for the Fourth Avenue Site. The
property was purchased by Andersen in 1994 to provide expansion space
for its various operations. The site is 245 acres in total size. Of
that acreage, approximately 150 acres are suitable for development. The
remaining acreage not able to be developed includes a wetland, a
bluffland tract that the Company has placed in a conservation easement,
and 3 probable Native American Burial sites. A site suitability study
is currently underway to identify the best possible use(s) for the
site.
Except as specifically described in this proposed rule and the
draft FPA, nothing in this proposed rule, draft FPA, or the Andersen XL
permits will waive, modify, or otherwise affect any obligations
Andersen may have under local, State, and Federal law with respect to
development of the Andersen West property.
b. Project Details. Andersen plans to expand its production
capacity for window components made using its special
FibrexTM technology, which is a combination of reclaimed
sawdust and vinyl that can be extruded into a variety of shapes without
the need for extensive milling or preservation treatment. In addition,
Andersen plans to expand the use of its waterborne treatment processes.
Both of these processes result in substantially fewer VOC emissions per
unit than traditional solvent-based wood treatment. To expedite this
expansion, Minnesota and EPA plan to allow Andersen to modify and add
VOC and milling and non-milling PM/PM10 sources without
additional PSD approvals and eliminate certain existing VOC synthetic
minor limits. Today's proposed rule would authorize, only within the
context of the Andersen XL project, the elimination of certain VOC
synthetic minor limits and establish a ten year contemporaneous period
for VOC and non-milling PM/PM10 emissions for the purpose of
determining net emission increases under the PSD program. All other
elements of the project will be incorporated in Andersen's XL permit
without the need for any change in applicable requirements.
The cornerstone of this project is the creation of a novel
performance ratio approach to the regulation of VOCs which limits VOC
emissions per unit of production. This approach, which could not be
imposed under existing law, is intended to ``lock-in'' existing
efficient manufacturing methods and processes while encouraging
continued improvement.
On a per period basis (13 periods per year) Andersen will calculate
the ratio of pounds VOC emitted per cubic foot of product shipped
(performance ratio) for the preceding 13 periods. That calculation will
be compared to the following series of tiered limits established as
part of this project:
CAC Limit--The CAC limit shall serve as the main limit for
evaluating Andersen's ongoing environmental performance. The CAC limit
is the average of the prior five years' performance ratios. The CAC
limit will be recalculated once every three years, will decline if
appropriate, but will increase only if the CAC approves the
[[Page 19100]]
change, with the concurrence of EPA and MPCA. If Andersen's annual
performance ratio exceeds the CAC limit, Andersen will be required to
provide a specific explanation of the exceedance to the CAC as well as
establish a CAC--approved corrective action plan to bring the
performance ratio back below the limit.
Enforcement Limit--A static enforcement limit for the ten-year
duration of the project will be established utilizing the initial CAC
limit plus two standard deviations. If the facility's annual
performance ratio exceeds the enforcement limit the company would
potentially be subject to the enforcement actions that are available
under current law.
Project Limit--The adjusting project limit will be set at two
standard deviations above the CAC limit. It will be the same as the
enforcement limit for the initial three-year period, but will be
adjusted at the same time as the CAC limit. The project limit will
never exceed the enforcement limit. If Andersen's performance ratio
exceeds the project limit (but is below the enforcement limit) the
project will end unless Andersen demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the CAC, EPA, and MPCA, each acting in its independent capacity, why
the project should continue.
Reward Limit--The reward limit will be set at two standard
deviations below the CAC limit. The reward limit will not increase and
will only decline if Andersen remains below it for three consecutive
years. The CAC limit could never go below the reward limit. If the
facility operates below the reward limit, it will potentially receive
rewards, depending upon the duration of reward performance, such as
formal recognition by U.S. EPA and MPCA, addition of Mini-Projects (to
be accomplished in accordance with the Section VI amendment provision
of the FPA, including any applicable public notice and comment
requirements), and extension of the Project duration which would be
treated as a modification of Andersen's XL Permit and be subject to
applicable rulemaking and permitting requirements.
Beyond the performance ratio, Andersen will accept enforceable caps
on VOC emissions at its Bayport facility and an enforceable cap on non-
milling PM/PM10 emissions. In exchange for accepting these caps, as
well as making the other project commitments discussed in this section,
Andersen will gain greater flexibility to make facility modifications .
This is especially important to a company such as Andersen that is
subject to fast-changing market conditions. Through greater
flexibility, Andersen will be able to quickly change its processes
based on changes in demand for its products.
Andersen's Title V permit, which will be included in the Minnesota
XL permit, will contain provisions approving in advance some changes
anticipated at the facility. An example of possible permit provision
for a pre-approved change is included in Attachment D to the FPA. Any
such provision will include sufficiently detailed descriptions of the
preauthorized changes for compliance purposes and to give the public
sufficient notice of the types of changes that will be authorized. The
descriptions will also identify all applicable requirements that would
apply to the proposed change, including requirements for periodic
monitoring and recordkeeping. Pre-approving changes will provide
Andersen with the advantage of being able to make modifications without
delay and respond to the fast-paced market conditions in the
construction industry. This privilege is subject to conditions that
will ensure that Andersen's facility modifications are documented for
purposes of Agency oversight and public accountability, and will result
in superior environmental performance.
In addition, Andersen will control all wood milling operations with
BACT baghouse units and monitor HAPs to ensure that they remain below
risk-based levels. Andersen will commit that new paint and preservative
processes will be at least as clean as their best performing existing
processes. If sufficient Fibrex and waterborne capacity exists,
Andersen will remove one of its two dip tanks within five years of the
project start.
Andersen is making a voluntary commitment to reduce its generation
of solid and hazardous waste. Minnesota plans to provide Andersen with
flexibility from State requirements relating to decommissioning and
disposal of certain process units. Andersen is committing to enhance
its existing groundwater remediation system.
3. Environmental Benefits
One of the primary purposes of this project is to allow Andersen to
continue to convert production of window and door components to more
environmentally efficient processes, such as extrusion of Fibrex
composite window components (versus milled and preservative treated
wood components), waterborne preservative treatment (versus solvent
based preservative treatment), and higher solids paint coatings. These
types of processes result in fewer VOC emissions per unit of production
than traditional solvent-based processes.
The Fibrex process, as compared to conventional wood milling and
preservation treatment processes, is environmentally beneficial for
several reasons. First, it reduces dependence on virgin wood materials
because it allows for the use of wood byproduct materials, rather than
the use of virgin wood. Second, the Fibrex process requires no wood
preservation treatment. Wood preservation treatment accounts for a
substantial amount of VOC air emissions from the Andersen facility.
Thus, expansion of the Fibrex process within Andersen's Bayport
facility will result in substantial reductions in the emissions of
Volatile Organic Compounds (``VOCs'') per unit of production. Refer to
Table 1 for a comparison of air emissions for the traditional vinyl
clad wood parts versus Fibrex composite produced parts.
Table 1.--Air Emissions Comparison: Vinyl Clad Wood to Fibrex Composite
[Based on 1,000,000 standard size window pieces]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinyl-clad Fibrex
profile air profile air
Type of emission emissions emissions
(tons) (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC........................................... 96.2 5.6
PM/PM10....................................... 0.69 1.88
HAP........................................... 0.19 0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to move away from solvent based wood preservation
treatment processes, Andersen worked with suppliers to develop water-
borne wood preservative formulations that provide the same product
performance as their solvent-based predecessors. The VOC content of
water-borne formulations is typically 10-30% that of the traditional
solvent based formulations. Since 1990, Andersen has converted or
installed 12 waterborne preservative wood treatment systems to replace
older solvent-based preservative processes. Greater than 50% of the
wood window and door frame components are now preserved with a
waterborne wood preservative formulation, which has reduced VOC
emissions by over 350 tons annually. This agreement will facilitate
increased use of existing waterborne wood treatment systems by removing
certain synthetic minor limits which restrict use of those systems and
the installation of additional waterborne wood treatment systems, as
well as the
[[Page 19101]]
possible phase-out of one of two of the company's remaining solvent
based wood preservation diptanks. Refer to Table 2 for a comparison of
air emissions per unit of production from traditional solvent based
wood preservation processes versus waterborne processes.
Table 2.--Air Emissions Comparison: Solvent-based to Waterborne Wood
Treatment
[(Based on 1,000,000 standard size window pieces]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent- Waterborne
based wood wood
treatment treatment
Type of emission air air
emissions emissions
(tons) (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC........................................... 87.0 13.3
HAP........................................... 0.16 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andersen window components manufactured from Fibrex composite offer
performance characteristics similar to the existing vinyl-clad wood
components. Currently, Andersen is using Fibrex composite technology in
their RenewalTM replacement window product line and has
introduced Fibrex composite components into some core product lines.
This Project XL agreement facilitates further expansion of Fibrex
composite production.
Fibrex composite creates a high value usage of certain Andersen
byproduct materials, and is itself completely recyclable into new
Fibrex composite components, thus completing a product stewardship
circle of Fibrex composite to Fibrex composite.
Andersen's conversion from VOC based processes to Fibrex and
waterborne preservation processes is, in part, limited by market
acceptance of Fibrex. The flexibility provided in this Project XL pilot
will allow Andersen to quickly react to increases in market demand or
to install additional waterborne preservation processes, whichever may
be most appropriate. In addition, removing the VOC synthetic minor
limits on the existing waterborne preservation processes will allow
Andersen to maximize use of those environmentally superior processes
while limiting the use of existing VOC-based preservation processes.
4. Stakeholder Involvement
Stakeholder involvement and participation is vital to the success
of the Andersen Project XL program. Andersen will continue to work with
the CAC which was established in December 1997. The CAC serves as the
primary contact with the community and other stakeholder groups,
conveying concerns to the community and forging an accountability link
between the community and the company.
In addition, the CAC will serve in an oversight role. For example,
if Andersen's annual performance ratio exceeds the CAC limit, Andersen
will be required to provide a specific explanation of the exceedance to
the CAC as well as establish a CAC--approved corrective action plan to
bring the performance ratio back below the limit.
The work of the CAC is based on the Stakeholder Involvement Plan,
which is included as an attachment to the draft FPA. Andersen will
continue outreach work with all Stakeholders using the strategies and
tactics contained in the plan. Andersen will also continue to be
responsive to community inquiries on operational matters including
traffic, noise and odor.
III. Clean Air Act Requirements
A. Summary of Regulatory Requirements for the Andersen XL Project
Implementation of the Andersen Project XL pilot requires only
limited regulatory changes. Specifically, Andersen's use of its
waterborne inline wood treatment systems is currently restricted by
certain VOC ``synthetic minor'' limits. The PSD program for the State
of Minnesota would prohibit relaxation of permit operating restrictions
which were established for the purpose of limiting potential to emit
without first meeting the requirements of the PSD program, which
includes the installation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
and an air quality impacts analysis. For the reasons discussed in this
preamble, EPA proposes to allow relaxation of certain VOC ``synthetic
minor'' limits as a part of the Andersen Project XL pilot.
In addition, the PSD program for the State of Minnesota would limit
the effectiveness of a plantwide applicability limit (PAL), referred to
as an emissions cap in the FPA, to 5 years. As described in the FPA,
the expected duration of the Andersen XL project, including the VOC and
non-milling PM/PM10 PALs, is 10 years. As explained below
(Section III.B.), EPA proposes to allow establishment of VOC and non-
milling PM/PM10 PALs for Andersen, which would be effective
in avoiding PSD for a 10 year period.
All other elements of the Andersen Project XL pilot, including the
ability to add or modify sources so long as emissions remain below the
VOC and non-milling PM/PM10 PALs which will be set at levels
to assure that no significant net emission increase will occur, would
not require regulatory amendments. The regulatory changes under this
proposed site-specific rule address only VOC and PM/PM10
emissions including the length of the contemporaneous period used to
determine the VOC and PM/PM10 PALs. Andersen will fully
comply with normally applicable regulations for all other pollutants.
In addition, Andersen will fully comply with provisions of any New
Source Performance Standards, the State Implementation Plan, including
minor New Source Review (``NSR''), and the Title V operating permit
program, that apply to its operations, and with all requirements for
the control of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), including any Maximum
Achievable Control Technology standards that would apply to the
facility. Andersen will also comply with all existing and future
environmental requirements not specifically amended pursuant to EPA's
site-specific rulemaking for this project or pursuant to the permits
expected to be issued by the MPCA.
While the draft FPA outlines the requirements that will be included
in the State of Minnesota XL permit (which will include the PSD
permit), a draft of that permit and the accompanying modeling and
analysis required by section 165 of the CAA have not been completed.
Therefore, a determination of whether the draft permit satisfies the
statutory PSD permitting criteria in section 165(a) of the Act will be
deferred until such time as the draft permit is made available for
public notice and comment. Because many of the details of the Andersen
Project XL pilot will necessarily be deferred until issuance of the
draft permit and in order to enhance participation in the Project XL
process, EPA will compile a list of persons wishing to receive direct
notice of the availability of the draft permit for review. Persons
desiring such notice may now submit a written request to EPA at the
address in the section entitled ADDRESSES.
Once the public comment period on this proposed rule has closed,
EPA will review any comments received and determine in consultation
with Andersen, MPCA, and stakeholders whether to proceed to development
of the draft permit and whether any changes are necessary to the draft
FPA. In any event, EPA does not intend to take final action on this
proposed rule until such time as the draft permit has been public
noticed and any comments are available for consideration in this
rulemaking.
[[Page 19102]]
B. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
As explained above, a determination of whether the draft Andersen
PSD permit meets the PSD requirements of the Act will be deferred to
such time as the draft permit is available for public review and
comment. However, for the purposes of this proposed rule which would
modify certain requirements of the PSD program, a brief description of
the PSD requirements may be useful to reviewers.
The PSD program is a preconstruction review and permitting program
applicable to new or modified major stationary sources of air
pollutants regulated under the Act. In attainment areas (i.e., areas
meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (``NAAQS'')) and
unclassifable areas, the requirements for the PSD program found in part
C of title I of the Act apply. The PSD provisions are a combination of
air quality planning and air pollution control technology program
requirements. Each SIP is required to contain a preconstruction review
program for the construction and modification of any major stationary
source of air pollution to assure that the NAAQS are achieved and
maintained; to protect areas of clean air; to protect Air Quality
Related Values (``AQRVs'') (including visibility) in national parks and
other natural areas of concern; to assure appropriate emission controls
are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development
consistent with the preservation of clean air resource; and to ensure
that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full
public consideration of all the consequences of such a decision. See
sections 101(b)(1), 110(a)(2)(C) and 160 of the Act. The Andersen
Bayport facility is located in an area that meets the NAAQS for all
criteria air pollutants except carbon monoxide (CO). The PSD program
under part C of title I of the Act applies to those criteria air
pollutants other than carbon monoxide (attainment area) while the major
non-attainment NSR program under part D of title I of the Act applies
to carbon monoxide.
Because the SIP for the State of Minnesota did not meet the PSD
requirements of section 160-165 of the Act, EPA promulgated a PSD
program for the State by incorporating by reference the provisions of
40 CFR 52.21(b) through (w) into the applicable state plan for the
State of Minnesota (see 40 CFR 52.1234). In addition, EPA delegated
authority to the MPCA as the PSD permitting agency in Minnesota.
Therefore, MPCA will, with EPA oversight, draft, accept public comment
on, and issue any Andersen PSD permit, subject to procedural
requirements in 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR part 124.
C. Proposed Regulatory Changes
1. Synthetic Minor Limits
During the period from 1990 to 1995, Andersen developed and
installed 12 waterborne inline wood treatment systems and, within the
door subplant, three solventborne paint systems. In order to avoid PSD
review, Andersen obtained two minor new source review permits from MPCA
containing operational and control limitations on each of these
systems. These limitations are sometimes called ``synthetic minor''
limits because they serve to limit the net emissions increase
associated with the proposed new units or systems to less than the
applicable significance level and thereby keep them out of PSD review.
As part of the Andersen Project XL pilot, Andersen seeks to replace
certain synthetic minor VOC limits with the tiered per unit of
production limits and the VOC PAL, as well as all the other aspects of
the project described in the draft FPA.
In order to meet the goals embodied in the tiered per unit of
production limits, Andersen needs to utilize its waterborne inline wood
treatment systems at a capacity level higher than presently allowed
under the synthetic minor limits. Accordingly, Andersen seeks relief
from the synthetic VOC operational limits on its waterborne inline wood
treatment systems. Andersen's existing waterborne systems are superior
in terms of VOC emissions per unit of production as compared to the
solvent-based systems (see Table 2).
Andersen also needs to fully utilize the three solventborne paint
systems within the door subplant, which are subject to both operational
and control limits (a catalytic oxidizer). According to information
provided by Andersen, assuming the catalytic oxidizer is in use, the
door plant paint lines emit approximately 1.6 pounds of VOCs for each
gallon of combined coatings applied. Other paint lines, which are not
subject to synthetic minor limits, emit approximately 4.5 pounds of
VOCs for each gallon of combined coatings applied. So, with respect to
use limits, the door subplant paint lines are lower emitting than
Andersen's other paint lines.
Under its existing permits, Andersen is required to control VOC
emissions from the door subplant paint lines by operating a catalytic
oxidizer. Andersen requests that it be allowed to shut the catalytic
oxidizer off so long as it is able to maintain compliance with the VOC
PAL and per unit of production limits. Andersen believes that beyond
any cost savings, this would give them the flexibility to use the
catalytic oxidizer to more effectively control VOCs elsewhere in the
facility or to address community concerns about odors, which may or may
not be associated with use of the catalytic oxidizer.
Andersen has explained that in order to maintain compliance with
the per unit of production limit it will need to reduce VOC emissions
on a per unit basis prior to shutting down the catalytic oxidizer. For
example, Andersen intends to convert the solvent based preservative
application systems, which account for approximately sixty percent of
VOC emissions from the door plant paint lines, to in-line waterborne
treatment systems. Still, Andersen believes that it will have to
further reduce VOC emissions from other sources within the facility
prior to shutting down the catalytic oxidizer.
EPA believes that under the following permit and FPA conditions,
Andersen may be allowed to shut down the catalytic oxidizer:
(1) Andersen must obtain MPCA's approval prior to shutting down the
catalytic oxidizer by demonstrating that:
(a) in accordance with the MPCA Health Risk Assessment described
in section II.D.1.e. of the FPA, shut down of the catalytic oxydizer
will not present an unacceptable risk to public health;
(b) Andersen's overall reduction of VOC emissions on a per unit
basis is sufficient to ensure continued compliance with the per unit
of production limit and the VOC cap; and
(c) the CAC has agreed to the shut down of the oxidizer.
(2) Once the oxidizer is shut down, Andersen may use it to control
VOC emissions elsewhere at the facility, leave it in place and
available for use on door plant paint line emissions, or, with MPCA
approval, dismantle it. If Andersen elects to dismantle the oxidizer,
it does so with the express understanding that it may be required to
reinstall the oxidizer or other appropriate control equipment if
necessary to comply with project emission limits during the project
term or applicable emission limits at the end of the project term. In
addition, costs associated with retrofitting or installing an oxidizer,
if necessary, will not be factors in determining whether an oxidizer is
appropriate or required.
(3) Cost savings associated with shutting down the oxidizer must be
shown to be reinvested in VOC emission reduction projects.
The applicable PSD regulations would not allow Andersen to relax
the
[[Page 19103]]
synthetic minor limits, unless Andersen subjected the systems to PSD
review. (See 40 CFR 52.21(r)(4), which has been incorporated into the
Minnesota SIP at 40 CFR 52.1234(b)). When a source or modification that
is minor because of enforceable operating limits later applies for a
relaxation of those limits, 52.21(r)(4) requires that PSD apply to the
source or modification as if the source or modification had not yet
been constructed.
The primary purpose of 52.21(r)(4) is to prevent a source from
circumventing PSD and NSR permitting requirements by obtaining a
synthetic minor limit for a new or modified emission unit and
thereafter seeking to relax the limit, without undergoing PSD review.
See 45 FR 52676, 52689 (Aug. 7, 1980). The provision is a broadly
designed safeguard to prevent sources from improperly disaggregating a
major modification into two separate parts--an initial synthetic minor
modification and a subsequent relaxation of the synthetic minor limit--
neither of which would be subject to PSD.
EPA believes it has broad discretion to tailor the safeguard
embodied in section 52.21(r)(4) based on relevant factors.
Specifically, the Andersen XL project will contain several distinctive
features which assure EPA that Andersen is not circumventing the PSD
requirements. In this context, EPA believes it may eliminate the
section 52.21(r)(4) safeguard, as it applies to certain synthetic minor
VOC limits at the Andersen facility. First, Andersen is voluntarily
adopting a plantwide cap of 2397 tpy of VOC emissions, which is based
on lower than actual emissions levels from a period representative of
normal source operation. The plantwide cap eliminates the historic
problem in the PSD program that sources sometimes are able to increase
emissions above representative actual emissions levels without
undergoing PSD review by adding small projects which by themselves do
not trigger PSD and are not subject to any cumulative plantwide limit
on emissions. The fact that Andersen's VOC cap is based on actual
emissions places it on an even footing with respect to sources which do
not take a PAL and ensures that Andersen does not gain emissions
credits merely for reducing allowable emissions. Second, Andersen's
annual VOC emissions have declined steadily and significantly over time
since 1990, so EPA believes it is important to recognize that Andersen
likely could have adopted a plantwide, actual emissions-based VOC PAL
immediately prior to the 1990 synthetic minor permits (when its actual
VOC emissions level was 3,753 tpy) and thereby avoided the need to
obtain and accept synthetic minor limits for each new waterborne system
and the door plant paint lines in 1990 and 1995. Although determining
what could have happened or would have happened if different choices
were made is always difficult, EPA believes with reasonable certainty
that the 2397 tpy VOC PAL is at least equivalent to what Andersen could
have done outside of Project XL and is overall better for the
environment. Third, the tiered performance ratio approach will serve to
provide incentives for Andersen to reduce emissions further. Finally,
EPA reserves the right to terminate the project if there is no
environmental improvement.
This limited replacement of the section 52.21(r)(4) safeguard is an
approach to preventing circumvention of the PSD program that, while not
the one generally adopted by the Agency, merits consideration on a
pilot project basis. If the project demonstrates that such an approach
leads to superior environmental and economic results and if EPA
determines that such an approach is transferable to other situations,
it could be considered for broader application. EPA emphasizes that
this innovative approach is not being adopted at this time for any
source other than the Andersen Bayport facility and indeed is being
adopted for Andersen only as to certain identified synthetic VOC
limits.
2. Duration of PALs
The expected duration of the Andersen Project XL pilot is 10 years.
Therefore, Andersen's XL project contemplates an effective period of 10
years for the PALs under the project. However, as discussed in further
detail below, applicable PSD requirements would limit the effectiveness
of Andersen's PAL to 5 years. Therefore, in order to implement the
Andersen Project XL pilot the PSD requirements must be modified to
allow the PAL to remain effective for 10 years.
In addition, the Minnesota XL permit will include Andersen's Title
V permit. The Title V permit term may not exceed 5 years. As a result,
EPA anticipates that the Title V permit will be renewed after the
initial five-year term. EPA also anticipates that the VOC and PM/
PM10 PALs will continue unchanged in the new permit.
Under present regulations, a source that adds or modifies a unit
that would result in a significant emissions increase may ``net'' that
particular change out of review if the new emission increase plus the
sum of all other contemporaneous credible increases and decreases at
the source is less than significant. Under current requirements, PALs
are considered a form of netting whereby a range of future changes at a
source is determined beforehand not to result in a net emissions
increase, such that these changes may occur without triggering PSD
requirements. The Federal PSD requirements at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(ii)(a)
limit the period within which changes may be considered contemporaneous
to 5 years and, therefore, limit the effectiveness of a PAL to 5 years.
States implementing a PSD or nonattainment NSR program under an EPA-
approved SIP may define a different reasonable contemporaneous period.
The current regulatory requirement regarding contemporaneity
derives from the interpretation of the Act's provisions governing
modifications set forth in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323
(D.C. Cir. 1979). Among other things, the court interpreted the statute
as providing for plantwide netting limited, however, to substantially
contemporaneous changes. The court explained that EPA retains
discretion to define ``substantially contemporaneous.'' Id. at 402.
Thereafter, EPA codified contemporaneity as a regulatory requirement.
See 45 FR 52676, 52700-52702 (August 7, 1980).
In the specific context of the Andersen Project XL pilot, EPA is
proposing a 10 year contemporaneous period to facilitate the 10 year
duration of the Andersen Project XL pilot. When issuing permits to
implement the VOC and non-milling PM/PM10 caps, MPCA will
set the cap limits so that any changes during the project term do not
result in a significant net emissions increase. Consequently, complying
with the cap would demonstrate that no significant net emissions
increase is occurring at the facility. In addition, EPA recognizes that
Andersen is voluntarily making several important commitments which will
result in superior environmental performance: (1) the VOC and non-
milling PM/PM10 caps, (2) the VOC performance ratio, (3)
control of all existing and future milling operations with baghouse
filters, (4) emission limits for new or reconstructed paintline or
preservative application equipment based on the current best performing
processes at Andersen, and (5) the health risk analysis for toxic air
emissions. Under these circumstances, EPA believes that a 10 year
contemporaneous period for the VOC and non-milling PM/PM10
PALs is appropriate.
[[Page 19104]]
3. Duration of Flexibility
This site specific rule will expire 10 years from the date it is
promulgated. The parties have described in the FPA a process for
winding down the Andersen Project XL pilot. At least two years prior to
the project's expected conclusion, Andersen, MPCA, and EPA will
initiate a process to evaluate the project. The goal of the evaluation
will be to establish a process to evaluate the project and to determine
the terms of the final permit for the facility at the end of the 10-
year project term. This evaluation shall conclude by no later than 18
months prior to the project's expected conclusion. The evaluation will
review the project's environmental results and impact, Andersen's
performance, and other relevant factors, as determined by all parties.
If the evaluation proves the project a success, Andersen may propose to
MPCA, EPA and the CAC to extend the project term and the XL permit
conditions described in this FPA through issuance of a final permit.
The final permit may incorporate limits similar to the limits
applicable during the project. If the parties do not agree to extend
the project, Andersen will submit an implementation schedule (as
discussed below) to achieve compliance with all requirements applicable
at the end of the 10-year project term.
If, based on the evaluation, the project should not be extended,
Andersen will submit to EPA and MPCA an implementation schedule
specifying how Andersen will transition into compliance with all then
applicable requirements at the end of the 10-year project term. No
later than 12-months prior to the expiration of the project term, the
parties will agree to a 12-month implementation schedule. The
implementation schedule is intended to reflect Andersen's best efforts
to transition into compliance with all then applicable requirements as
quickly as practicable within the 12-month transitional period. In no
event will the implementation schedule extend beyond the end of the 10-
year project term. The implementation schedule submitted by Andersen
must contain interim calendar, or milestone, dates for the purchase and
installation of any necessary equipment, performance testing, and other
necessary measures.
The enforceable limits established as part of the project (i.e.,
the VOC and PM/PM10 emissions caps, as well as the per unit
of production limit) will continue to be enforceable during the project
evaluation process and any transitional period as described above. In
any event, a final permit will be issued to either (1) extend the
project through the issuance of a final permit, or (2) transition
Andersen to compliance with all requirements applicable at the end of
the 10-year project term. The final permit will be based on the
permitting requirements, which are applicable at the conclusion of the
project. The applicable requirements that will govern the facility at
the end of the project's 10-year term will be included in the final
permit.
In addition, the Parties have agreed to include rewards as
incentives for Andersen to achieve superior environmental performance.
For performance below the reward limit for 13 tracking periods or more,
Andersen may request an extension of the duration of the current
project. If Andersen chooses this reward, Andersen would have to
demonstrate to U.S. EPA and MPCA that extension is not only consistent
with the goals of the current project, but also that the extension is
consistent with EPA rules and policy concerning the duration of plant-
wide applicability limit permits. Any such extension would be treated
as a modification of Andersen's Minnesota XL Permit which would be
accompanied by any necessary rulemaking by EPA. Both the modification
and rulemaking would be subject to applicable public notice and comment
requirements.
4. Summary
Therefore, under the specific circumstances at Andersen, within the
limited context of Project XL, and in advancement of the overall
purpose of the PSD program of the CAA, EPA proposes to modify the
applicable federally promulgated state plan for Minnesota so that MPCA
may issue Andersen a PSD (as EPA's delegatee), minor NSR, and Title V
permit: (1) relaxing certain existing synthetic minor VOC limits
without requiring PSD review, within the context of the Andersen XL
project, and (2) imposing VOC and PM/PM10 PALs based on 10
year contemporaneous periods.
IV. Additional Information
A. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide opportunity
for interested persons to make oral presentations regarding the
proposed regulation in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Clean
Air Act. Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the draft FPA or
proposed rule to implement the Andersen XL project should contact the
EPA at the address given in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Any
member of the public may file a written statement before, during, or
within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements should be sent to
EPA at the addresses given in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
If a public hearing is held, a verbatim transcript of the hearing and
written statements will be available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours at the EPA addresses given in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
B. Executive Order 12866
Because this rule affects only one facility, it is not a rule of
general applicability and therefore not subject to OMB review and
Executive Order 12866. In addition, OMB has agreed that review of site
specific rules under Project XL is not necessary.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities because it only affects one
source, the Andersen Bayport facility, which is not a small entity.
Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action applies only to one company, and therefore requires no
information collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act, and therefore no information collection request (ICR) will be
submitted to OMB for review in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local,
[[Page 19105]]
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the
final rule an explanation why the alternative was not adopted. Before
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
As noted above, this rule is limited to Andersen's facility in
Bayport, Minnesota. EPA has determined that this rule does not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Nevertheless, in
developing this rule, EPA worked closely with MPCA and received
meaningful and timely input in the development of this rule. EPA also
has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,''
as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This proposed action is not subject to E.O.
13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O.
12866, and it is based on technology performance and implements
previously promulgated health or safety-based ozone and particulate
matter Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
effects of ozone and particulate matter on children's health was
addressed in detail in EPA's rulemaking to establish these NAAQS, and
EPA is not revisiting those issues here.
G. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule. Nevertheless, in developing this
rule, EPA worked closely with MPCA and received meaningful and timely
input in the development of this rule.
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities. Today's rule does not significantly
or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. There
are no communities of Indian tribal governments located in the vicinity
of the Andersen facility. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b)
of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA'')
Section 12(d) of NTTAA, Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
[[Page 19106]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
Relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds
Dated: April 8, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 52 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart Y--Minnesota
2. Subpart Y is amended by adding a new Sec. 52.1246 to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1246 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality
for Andersen Corporation's facility in Bayport, Minnesota.
(a) Applicability. (1) This section applies only to the window and
patio door manufacturing facility, commonly referred to as Andersen
Windows, located at 4001 Stagecoach Trail and 100 Fourth Avenue, North,
Bayport, Minnesota.
(2) This section sets forth the prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality preconstruction review requirements for
volatile organic compound (``VOC'') and non-milling PM/PM10
emissions.
(3) For all other units and pollutants not specifically identified
in this section which are subject to regulation under the Act, the
preconstruction review requirements of Sec. 52.1234 still apply.
(b) Regulations for Preventing Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality.
(1) The provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(b) through (w) are applicable
and made a part of the state plan for the State of Minnesota, with the
exceptions and additions set forth in paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and
(b)(4) of this section.
(2) For the purposes of this Section, and in addition to paragraph
(b)(1) of this section:
(i) ``Existing waterborne inline treatment units'' shall mean the
following specific units at the Andersen facility:
(A) Five waterborne inline wood treatment systems in the main
facility, permit number 549-90-I/O-2.
(B) Five waterborne inline wood treatment systems in the door
subplant, permit number 549-90-I/O-2.
(C) Two waterborne inline wood treatment systems, permit number
16300001-017.
(ii) ``Existing door subplant paint lines'' shall mean the three
solventborne paint and pretreatment systems located in the Andersen
facility door subplant, permit number 549-90-I/O-2.
(iii) ``Milling operations'' shall be all those activities which
involve the cutting and shaping of wood or Fibrex except that shaping
by extrusion shall not be considered milling.
(iv) ``Non-milling operations'' shall be all those activities that
generate PM/PM10 emissions and which are not milling
operations.
(3) With respect to existing inline waterborne treatment units and
existing door subplant paint lines only:
(i) ``An increase in the hours of operation or in the production
rate.'' applies instead of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(f).
(ii) The requirements of 40 CFR 52.21(r)(4) shall not apply.
(4) With respect to VOC and non-milling PM/PM10
emissions, ``The date 10 years before construction on the particular
change commences; and'' applies instead of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(ii)(a).
(c) This rule expires [date 10 years from effective date of the
final rule].
[FR Doc. 99-9723 Filed 4-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
