[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23239-23241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11278]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WI76-01-7305; FRL-6004-7]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is
proposing to disapprove a site-specific volatile organic compound (VOC)
reasonably available control technology (RACT) State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision for the Amron Corporation facility located at 525
Progress Avenue in Waukesha. The SIP revision was submitted by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on February 21, 1997,
and would exempt the facility from the emission limits applicable to
miscellaneous metal coating operations.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received before May 28,
1998.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
Copies of the proposed SIP revision and EPA's analysis are
available for inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone Kathleen D'Agostino at (312)
886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886-1767.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 21, 1997, WDNR submitted a site-specific VOC RACT SIP
revision for the Amron Corporation facility located at 525 Progress
Avenue in Waukesha. Amron manufactures several different kinds of
projectiles for a United States Department of Defense (DOD) contractor.
Amron's work is exclusively DOD contracts.
The Amron facility is located in the Milwaukee severe nonattainment
area and is subject to rule NR 422.15 of the Wisconsin Administrative
code, which regulates miscellaneous metal coating operations. NR 422.15
has been approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) as meeting the RACT requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act).
Specifically, under NR 422.15(2)(a) and (b), when coating
miscellaneous metal parts or products using a baked or specially cured
coating technology, Amron may not exceed 4.3 pounds of VOC per gallon
of coating as applied for clear coats and 3.5 pounds of VOC per gallon
of coating as applied for extreme performance coatings. Under NR
422.15(3)(c), when coating miscellaneous metal parts or products using
an air dried coating technology, Amron may not exceed 3.5 pounds of VOC
per gallon for clear coatings.
II. Facility and Process Description
As noted above, Amron manufactures several different kinds of
projectiles for the DOD. Process P01 at Amron is the paint operation
which encompasses five different lines for coating numerous types and
shapes of military items, including the 25mm cartridge case, the M430/
M918TP, the M67/M69, the M56A4, and the M75 and M73 rockets. As a
contractor to the DOD, Amron is required to use certain paints which
are specified by the military. Each coating was specified by DOD for
its unique characteristics.
Exterior projectile coatings must protect against corrosion,
provide color identification and not chip, flake or rub off. Exterior
cartridge case coatings must protect against corrosion, provide a low
co-efficient of friction surface for feeding and extraction, as well as
not chip or rub off. Interior and exterior cartridge or projectile
coatings must protect against corrosion, provide a friction-free
surface between the steel body and high explosives during loading, and
be chemically compatible with the high explosives.
Below is a table listing the coatings used by Amron for the various
projectiles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Description Type Military specification VOC lb/gal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25MM......................... Olive Drab........ Polyamide-Amide 12013517 6.4
Teflon.
M430/M918.................... Red Oxide Primer.. Alkyd............ MIL-P-22332 4.52
Olive Drab Lacquer Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.94
Blue Lacquer...... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.94
M67.......................... Red Oxide Primer.. Alkyd............ MIL-P-22332 4.52
Off-White Primer.. Epoxy............ MIL-P-53022 4.229
Green Zenthane.... Polyurethane..... MIL-C-53039 3.491
M69.......................... Blue Lacquer...... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 (\1\)
M56A4........................ Asphalt Type I.... Asphalt.......... MIL-C-450C 3.744
Yellow Lacquer.... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.89
Red Lacquer....... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 5.0
M73.......................... Olive Drab Lacquer Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.94
Yellow Lacquer.... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.89
[[Page 23240]]
Clear Lacquer & Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-10287 5.07
Blue Tint.
M75.......................... Blue Lacquer...... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 (\1\)
Brown Lacquer..... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unknown.
III. RACT Evaluation
Amron hired a consultant to take bids for a catalytic oxidation
unit, a regenerative oxidation unit and a regenerative catalytic
oxidation unit. The cost ranged from $7,146 to $9,060 per ton to
control one coating line and $9,909 to $18,657 per ton to control the
five coating lines. USEPA agrees that the cost of add-on controls seems
to be economically unreasonable.
Amron has written letters to its prime DOD contractor seeking
permissible alternate coatings, but has received no reply. Therefore,
Amron contends that it needs an exemption from RACT requirements for
these painting operations. The variance submitted states that the VOC
content of the coatings used for a DOD contract shall not exceed the
DOD specification for that coating.
USEPA has reviewed the military specifications provided by Amron
and has independently investigated the availability of alternate
coatings. The coatings (above) used by Amron which are required to meet
MIL-L-11195 (actually MIL-L-11195D) range from 4.89 to 5.0 pounds of
VOC per gallon of coating. This military standard was replaced by MIL-
E-11195E which specifies a VOC content of 3.5 pounds per gallon and
would comply with RACT requirements. Amron should seek to modify its
contract to allow for the use of coatings complying with the updated
specification.
The off-white primer covered by specification MIL-P-53022 is listed
as having a VOC content of 4.229 pounds per gallon. MIL-P-53022,
however, requires coatings to meet a VOC content of 3.5 pounds of VOC
per gallon. Amron has not explained this discrepancy. The clear lacquer
and blue tint covered by MIL-L-10287 does not appear on the M73 drawing
provided by Amron. The company should indicate where this coating is
required so it will be possible to verify that no alternate
specifications are allowed. Finally, for the polyamide-amide Teflon
coating covered by specification 12013517, the red oxide primer covered
by MIL-P-22332, and the asphalt coating covered by MIL-C-450C, as well
as clear lacquer and blue tint coating covered by MIL-L-10287, Amron
should, at a minimum, demonstrate that it has investigated other
vendors and is using the lowest VOC content coating which meets the
applicable military specification.
Furthermore, the variance is unacceptable because it provides Amron
with no fixed applicable limits, and in most cases, no applicable
limits at all. Granting the variance would give Amron no incentive to
seek the lowest VOC content coating available. Also, while ``usage
records'' are required, no time frame, e.g. daily, is specified.
For the reasons discussed above, USEPA is proposing to disapprove
this SIP revision.
IV. Miscellaneous
A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
B. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. Secs. 603 and
604). Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
USEPA's disapproval of the State request under Section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing Federal
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its State
enforceability. Moreover, USEPA's disapproval of the submittal does not
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, USEPA certifies that
this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, because it does not remove
existing requirements or impose any new Federal requirements.
D. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, USEPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires USEPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
USEPA has determined that the disapproval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal disapproval action
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result.
E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 891 the
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). USEPA
is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under
section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.
[[Page 23241]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 15, 1998.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.
[FR Doc. 98-11278 Filed 4-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
