[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10652]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OH-10-1-5677; FRL-48764]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: USEPA is approving and disapproving specific portions of a
revision to the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.
On April 9, 1986, the State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA), submitted amendments to the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)
Chapter 3745-21 to USEPA as proposed revisions to the SIP for Ozone.
OAC Chapter 3745-21 consists of emission limitations and control
requirements for sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC). The
amendments to OAC Chapter 3745-21 involve certain compliance deadlines
and source specific exemptions from otherwise applicable emission
limitations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on June 3, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for inspection at (It is recommended that you telephone
Maggie Greene, at (312) 886-6088, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air Enforcement Branch,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
A copy of this revision to the Ohio SIP is available for inspection
at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, 6102, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne E. Tenner, Regulation Development
Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-3849.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 9, 1986, the OEPA submitted
amendments to OAC Chapter 3745-21 and supporting data to USEPA as a
proposed revision to the ozone portion of its SIP. OEPA adopted these
rules in final form on March 21, 1986. OAC Chapter 3745-21, entitled,
``Carbon Monoxide, Photochemically Reactive Materials, Hydrocarbons,
and Related Materials Standards,'' includes Ohio's VOC Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT I and II) regulations.
Ohio's submittal included new VOC regulations for additional source
categories not specifically covered by Ohio's existing rules and a
site-specific revision for the Huffy Corporation. These other elements
of the April 9, 1986, submittal are not covered in this document.
Today's Federal Register document also does not address those
amendments to the ozone SIP that were previously submitted on March 28,
1983, to USEPA, and were addressed in a March 6, 1985 Federal Register
notice of proposed rulemaking (50 FR 9052) and in a January 18, 1989,
Federal Register final rulemaking (54 FR 1934).
The regulations subject to this rulemaking are embodied in OAC
Chapter 3745-21-01, Definitions; OAC Chapter 3745-21-04, Attainment
dates and compliance time schedules; OAC Chapter 3745-21-09, Control of
emissions of volatile organic compounds from stationary sources; and
OAC Chapter 3745-21-10, Compliance test methods and procedures.
USEPA is taking final action to approve these revisions, with the
following exceptions:
1. USEPA is disapproving the proposed relaxation for food can end
sealing compounds in 3745-21-09 (D)(1)(e) and (D)(2)(e) from 3.7 to 4.4
lbs VOC/gal.
2. USEPA is disapproving the proposed revision to the exemption, as
well as the entire exemption in 3745-21-09(N)(3)(e) for the application
by hand of any cutback asphalt or emulsified asphalt for patching or
crack sealing.
Ohio's high ratio of emulsified to cutback asphalt used in 1987 is
not a valid basis for exempting the hand application of cutback
asphalt. This exemption is inconsistent with USEPA guidance, and Ohio
has provided no data on the amount of additional cutback asphalt that
would be used in the ozone season as a result of the exemption.
In addition, USEPA is disapproving the recordkeeping requirements
in 3745-21-09 (N)(4) because they are inadequate with respect to the
time period during which records are required because paragraph 3745-
21-09 (N)(4) only deals with recordkeeping requirements and not when
cutback asphalt is allowed to be used. Ohio's SIP does not allow
cutback asphalt to be used from April 15 through October 15. Unless and
until the exemption period is changed (in 3745-21-09 (N)(3)), the
recordkeeping requirements must reflect the SIP requirements.
3. USEPA is disapproving the relaxation from 3.5 to 6.2 lbs. VOC/
gal for high performance architectural aluminum coatings in 3745-21-09
(U)(1)(a)(viii) because Ohio did not document the infeasibility of add-
on controls and powder coatings in support of its proposed relaxation.
USEPA will evaluate the merits of a compliance date extension if
submitted and supported by OEPA.
In addition, USEPA will repropose rulemaking on the relaxation for
miscellaneous metal parts, in 3745-21-09 (U)(1)(vii), and USEPA will
propose rulemaking on the exemption for new sources, in 3745-21-09
(U)(2)(f), in separate Federal Register documents.
Comments on the proposed SIP revisions contained in the May 30,
1989, rulemaking notice (54 FR 22915) are discussed below:
1. Can Regulations-Rules 3745-21-09(D)(1)(e) and (D)(2)(e)
A. Proposed Action
OEPA proposed a relaxation from 3.7 pounds of VOC per gallon of
coating (lbs VOC/gallon of coating, excluding water) to 4.4 lbs/gal for
food can end sealing compounds. OEPA's basis includes a September 13,
1985, letter and testimony to OEPA from Heekin Can; an April 13, 1984,
submittal from the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI) to USEPA; and
testimony presented by Campbell Soup Company before the OEPA on
September 12, 1985. The basis of the can industry's requests for a
relaxation is the purported unavailability of complying end sealing
compounds for food can ends, as well as the infeasibility of add-on
control.
USEPA proposed disapproval of this relaxation because data from a
San Diego source (Van Camp) indicates the possible feasibility of both
add-on control equipment and low solvent coatings, and Ohio had not
considered this information.
B. Comments on Proposed Disapproval
Heekin Can, Campbell Soup, Central States Company, OEPA, and the
Can Manufacturers Institute commented on the proposed disapproval.
Their comments, and USEPA's response to these comments are enumerated
below.
1. Campbell Soup Company Submitted the Following Comments on July 27,
1989
Comment 1: The Amendment should now be approved by USEPA in total:
The data cited by USEPA in the notice of proposed rulemaking is, on its
face, not an appropriate basis for rejection.
USEPA Response: The data cited by USEPA in its notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) provided a strong indication that use of add-on
control equipment may be feasible for controlling end seal compound VOC
emissions. However, after reviewing the comments, USEPA agrees that use
of add-on control equipment doesn't appear feasible. In addition, Van
Camp has switched over to a solventless, waterborne end sealing
compound for its pet food cans. However, USEPA has considered other
relevant information, as discussed in this notice, including comments
received, in conjunction with the data cited in the NPR, in its final
evaluation of the proposed relaxation. Therefore, any shortcomings, or
limitations, in the data cited in the NPR, have been taken into
consideration.
Comment 2: If the Amendment cannot now be approved in total, it
should at least be approved in part, by allowing relaxation of VOC
standards for the period when compliance would otherwise have been
technically and commercially impracticable, i.e., at least until May
1989.
``Only with Campbell's May 1989 conversion to a compliant end-
sealing compound, following extensive research and development efforts
funded by Campbell to develop and apply such a compound, is there
evidence that a 3.7 pound standard became technically and commercially
feasible for Campbell's Ohio facility.''
USEPA Response: USEPA can only act on a proposed revision that has
been submitted to it. Therefore, USEPA's only option is to approve or
disapprove a permanent relaxation of the food can end sealing compound
limit. It should be emphasized that as of May 1989 Campbell came into
compliance with the 3.7 pounds VOC per gallon food can end seal
compound limit. Therefore, USEPA does not believe approval of the
permanent relaxation is appropriate.
Comment 3: If relaxation of the VOC standard to 4.4 pounds for the
period ending May 1989, cannot now be approved for the entire food can
end sealing compound category, it should at least be allowed for such
period for the human food can end sealing compound category.
USEPA Response: As stated in the response to comment 2, USEPA can
only act on a proposed revision that has been submitted to it. The
submitted rule provides for a relaxation for the entire category and
cannot be approved.
Comment 4: In any case, if the Amendment cannot now be approved in
whole or in part, it should not now be rejected with prejudice. Rather,
OEPA should be given a chance to modify or supplement the Amendment.
``USEPA's proposed rulemaking notes that OEPA did not consider
certain Van Camp data, i.e., the Lake paper which, in fact, was only
publicly presented after the date the Amendment was submitted to USEPA.
Accordingly, if the Amendment cannot now be approved in whole or part,
and if such data is still deemed relevant by USEPA, these proceedings
should be remanded without prejudice to OEPA so that the data can be
considered, findings made, and, if deemed appropriate by OEPA, the
Amendment resubmitted to USEPA in the same or modified form after the
new data has been fully considered.''
USEPA Response: USEPA has an obligation to act on any pending SIP
revision request and does not have the authority to ``remand'' such a
submittal to the State. However, the State has the ability to withdraw
or amend a pending SIP revision request at any time prior to final
USEPA action. After USEPA takes final action on a SIP submittal, the
State still may submit revisions to the existing SIP. USEPA will act on
any proposed SIP revision submitted by Ohio in the future including
additional relaxation requests for end sealing compounds. Any
relaxation would need to be consistent with section 193 of the amended
CAA. Moreover, it should be noted that USEPA has considered comments
from OEPA on the Van Camp data in its final evaluation.
2. Heekin Can Submitted Comments on July 27, 1989
These comments include background information, comments on the
infeasibility of add-on controls, and comments on the unavailability of
low solvent compounds.
Comment 1: Before reviewing the infeasibility and unavailability
issues it should be recognized that the level of VOCs that was emitted
at the Heekin facility in 1987 as a result of following the food can
end seal regulation (4.4 pounds of VOC per gallon) instead of the
general VOC content end seal limitation (3.7 pounds of VOC per gallon)
amounted to only 27.89 tons of VOC. Total VOC emissions from the entire
end seal operation at the facility were 219.27 tons for 1987, while
plant-wide emissions (base coaters, litho presses, side seam strippers,
and end seal liner machines) were 652 tons per year after controls.
Thus, the level of emissions sought to be restricted by disapproving
the food can end seal VOC limit is only 4.2 percent of the emissions
from the facility.
USEPA Response: The level of control technology that constitutes
RACT is a function of technical and economical feasibility, and not
emission impacts. Furthermore, excess emissions of 27.89 tons of VOC
per year is not a negligible quantity.
Comment 2--Infeasibility of Add-on Controls: As a result of USEPA's
reliance on the Lake article and the Van Camp study, Heekin
commissioned a RACT study by Camp, Dresser, and McKee (CDM). CDM
focused on collecting VOCs from the application, conveying, and bagging
stages of the end seal lining process. Warehousing areas were
disregarded by Lake and CDM as being infeasible to control.
CDM performed a complete RACT analysis tailored specifically for
Heekin's Hamilton County, Ohio can manufacturing facility. A total of
five end seal lining processes (10 applicators) were considered for
control. Before discussing the results of CDM's RACT study, it should
be noted that CDM disregarded the carbon adsorption control option
because of the difficulties encountered with regeneration. Steam
regeneration of spent carbon creates a hazardous waste requiring costly
disposal. Hot air regeneration requires an incinerator which duplicates
the incinerator control technology option. Also, it is believed that
hexane, the major solvent in the end seal lining compounds, has a poor
adsorption efficiency. Thus, Lake's reporting of a cost effectiveness
figure for a carbon adsorption collection system is not supported by
CDM.
CDM focused on thermal and catalytic incineration as preferable
control options and determined that the capital cost for a catalytic
incinerator system was $1,854,600, approximately $320,000 higher than
the capital cost of a thermal incineration system. The annual operating
expense for the catalytic incineration system was estimated to be
$1,608,719 per year, $2,008,719 per year for thermal incineration.
Dividing the annual cost to operate the control system by the
quantity of VOC reduced yields the ``cost effectiveness'' of the
control system. CDM's analysis utilized three figures for the quantity
of VOC removed per year: (1) The quantity of VOC removed to reach
equivalence with the general end seal compound limit of 3.7 pounds of
VOC per gallon (i.e., 27.89 tons per year); (2) the quantity of VOC
removed assuming a 40 percent capture efficiency (i.e., 87.70 tons per
year); and (3) the quantity of VOC removed assuming that Perlis' 80
percent capture efficiency is correct (i.e., 175.4 tons per year).
Heekin does not believe that an 80 percent collection efficiency on the
system is possible but has calculated the ``cost effectiveness'' for
comparison purposes.
CDM determined the following ``cost effectiveness'' figures. For
scenario one, removal of sufficient VOCs to reach equivalence with the
3.7 pounds per gallon emission rate limitation, the ``cost
effectiveness'' is $71,597 per ton of VOC removed for thermal
incineration and $57,681 per ton of VOC removed for catalytic
incineration. For scenario two, removal of VOCs with a 40 percent
capture efficiency, the ``cost effectiveness'' is $23,235 per ton of
VOC removed for thermal incineration and $19,310 per ton of VOC removed
for catalytic incineration. For scenario three, removal of VOCs with an
80 percent capture efficiency, the ``cost effectiveness'' is $10,853
per ton of VOC removed for thermal incineration and $9,020 per ton of
VOC removed for catalytic incineration.
It should be noted that the above detailed ``cost effectiveness''
figures were calculated based on can end residence times through the
collection system reported by Lake. However, Heekin's actual residence
times are much shorter. Lake reported a total residence time for Van
Camp of 1.5 minutes. During the Perlis test, a residence time of 3.0
minutes was contrived to gain an 87 percent capture efficiency.
Heekin's process lines have a total residence time from lining to
stacking/bagging of only 20 to 65 seconds. The discrepancy between
Heekin's residence time and the Van Camp/Perlis residence times means
that the collection efficiencies for the capture system if it were to
be installed at Heekin would be much lower than the collection
efficiencies reported by Lake. Thus, the cost effectiveness figures
estimated by CDM are on the low side compared to what Heekin could
actually attain because the amount of VOCs removed would be much lower.
USEPA Response: Add-on control is not used on any end seal compound
coating lines. USEPA agrees that add-on control is not feasible for
this application.
Comment 3--Unavailability of Low Solvent Compounds: USEPA stated in
its proposed disapproval of Ohio's Food Can End Regulation that the
Lake article and the Van Camp data indicated ``possible feasibility''
of low solvent coatings. According to the article, Van Camp was
successful at replacing ``9101'' compound with a water-based end
sealing compound, ``480T''. The replacement compound was used by Van
Camp to manufacture ends to be used for pet food cans. Van Camp
continued to use the ``9101'' compound for its human consumption
product line, tuna fish cans. Thus, Van Camp came into compliance with
the 3.7 pounds of VOC per gallon limitation by averaging noncompliant
VOC emissions from ``9101'' usage with water-based emissions from
``480T'' usage. The Van Camp facility continues to operate in this
fashion.
Before addressing the viability of the low solvent coating option,
one must understand the distinction between a ``captive'' and a
``merchant'' can manufacturer. A ``captive'' can manufacturer supplies
cans only for one customer, itself. Conversely, a ``merchant'' can
manufacturer supplies cans for several customers according to the
customer's varied requirements and individualized specifications. Thus,
a ``merchant'' manufacturer has little control over the coatings it
must use to fabricate the cans.
Heekin is a ``merchant'' manufacturer. Van Camp was a ``captive''
manufacturer at the time of the Lake article. Thus, the feasibility of
a lower solvent coating for Heekin is complicated by additional
determining factors that Van Camp does not have (i.e., Heekin must
satisfy the customer's manufacturing requirements and Heekin has no
leverage or internal pressure by which to force a customer to make a
change).
Since the first promulgation of the RACT regulations, Heekin has
made a concerted effort at advising and steering its customers to
specifying coatings and compounds with low solvent formulations. With
regard to end seal liner compounds, however, Heekin is serving several
customers that have refused to accept a low solvent formulation as a
replacement to the end seal liner compound with VOC contents exceeding
3.7 pounds per gallon. The major customer in this category is Ross
Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio. Ross Laboratories is the nation's
largest producer of milk and soy protein infant formulas. They also
manufacture medical nutritional products for hospital and home use.
Ross has made the determination that ``1105'' compound is the only
suitable compound for fabricating cans for these highly sensitive
products. Other national food processing customers specifying ``1105''
and ``9101'' end seal compounds include: Quaker Oats Company, American
Home Foods, and Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson.
Disallowing the food can end seal regulation will put Heekin at a
disadvantage in the ``merchant'' can manufacturer's market. When
approached by Heekin representatives regarding the possibility that
Heekin may no longer be able to use ``1105'', the manager of the
purchasing department stated that an option for Ross Laboratories, if
the regulation is disapproved and Heekin no longer can supply ``1105''
ends, is to move its business to another ``merchant'' can manufacturer
that is not restricted by the end seal liner RACT regulation. Thus,
since low solvent end seal compounds are not an option for Heekin's
customers, Heekin must have the ability to continue to use the ``9101''
and ``1105'' compounds for food can ends.
USEPA Response: Heekin has not adequately demonstrated that 4.4 lbs
VOC per gallon is RACT for food can end sealing compounds for the
following reasons.
1. Other State regulations have a 3.7 lbs/gallon limit for end
sealing compounds.
2. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) amended
its can coating rules (in early 1990). These regulations specify 3.7
lbs/gallon for end sealing compounds for food cans.
3. Campbell Soup stated, in its comments, that in May 1989,
Campbell converted to a compliant end sealing compound, following
extensive research and development efforts funded by Campbell to
develop and apply such a compound. This is ``evidence that a 3.7 pound
standard became technically and commercially feasible for Campbell's
Ohio facility.''
4. There is no indication that 3.7 lbs/gallon end sealing compounds
are unavailable for certain type food cans, e.g., pet food cans and
fruit and vegetable cans.
5. Heekin has not demonstrated that it made a substantial effort to
develop and/or locate complying end seal compounds.
6. In its June 27, 1989, letter, Ross Laboratories states that
there are no qualified replacements, to Dewey and Almy's ``1105'' end
seal compound, available. The letter falls short of saying that they
would refuse to use any other suitable product, if it exists.
7. The fact that Heekin is a ``merchant'' manufacturer is not a
sufficient reason for it to have a less stringent limit. Job shops are
common in the coating industry and have not in the past been given
special consideration because they have to deal with a number of
customers. The feasibility of compliant end seal compounds for Heekin's
customers' cans is more relevant than its status as a ``merchant''
manufacturer.
However, USEPA does agree that 3.7 lbs/gallon end seal compounds
for certain applications may not be available. A July 12, 1989, letter
from Neil Moyer, (then) Director of Rule Development for the SCAQMD,
states that compliant end seal compounds are a problem for cans used
for tuna and other oily products.
Heekin may, in fact, have a problem with end seal compounds for
certain products. However, USEPA does not have the ability to create
exemptions for Heekin. The State has not submitted such a rule. The
State submitted relaxation (to 4.4 lbs/gallon) for all end seal
compounds is overly broad and cannot be approved. Furthermore, Heekin
has not adequately demonstrated the lowest VOC content feasible for its
end seal compounds for specified applications.
3. Central States Can Company Submitted Comments on July 26, 1989
Comment 1: We would be interested to know if there are any end
lines running with off-line controls that can maintain a reduction
efficiency of 76 percent (80% capture, 95% control) over a long period
of time. The type of control systems that could be used on end lining
systems would require a residence time of several hours and seem to be
totally impractical considering the size required and the operational
cost.
USEPA Response: USEPA is not aware of add-on control being used on
any end seal compound coating lines. USEPA agrees that add-on control
is not feasible for this application.
Comment 2: We note that the ``480T'' compound has been used on pet
food. OEPA (presumably commenter means USEPA) seems to be proposing its
use on all foods on the basis of tests with pet food. It should be
pointed out that many other products besides pet food (including infant
formula) are packed and should be considered before such a change is
made. The USEPA cannot ignore food safety in its proposed action.
USEPA Response: USEPA agrees that there appear to be some products
which cannot use 3.7 lbs/gallon end seal compounds. However, there
appear to be some food cans (e.g., pet food cans) which can use
compliant end seal compounds. It is the State's responsibility to
demonstrate that the requirements it submits are RACT. The burden is on
the State to show for which cans another limit (above 3.7) is RACT and
what is that appropriate limit. For example, an adequate demonstration
has not been made of the lowest VOC content feasible for end seal
compounds used for products such as infant formula. Because the State
has submitted a general relaxation of the end seal limit and has not
demonstrated that the relaxed limit is RACT for all end seal compounds,
USEPA cannot approve the relaxation.
Comment 3: While we are confident that other foods can successfully
use an alternate compound, it is important that these products be
tested prior to making such a change. It is not unreasonable that this
testing for all products may require as much as 5 years. It is,
therefore, requested that the Ohio proposed relaxation be approved.
USEPA Response: The need for testing does not, in itself, justify a
permanent relaxation. Central States Can has provided no specifics
about food safety testing, and it is therefore not possible to evaluate
the effects it would have. The nature and length of the testing is also
not specified. Furthermore, there are no details or support for the
Central States comment that ``It is not unreasonable that this testing
for all products may require as much as 5 years.''
4. The Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI) Submitted Comments on July 28,
1989
The CMI supports OEPA's action to raise the VOC end seal compound
limits. CMI's specific comments are as follows:
CMI's Position
CMI opposes the basis of USEPA's proposed denial of Ohio's revision
of end seal compound VOC limits. We believe USEPA's reliance on the
study of Van Camp's efforts in San Diego is misguided.
Additionally, CMI is concerned that the Agency is willing to risk
endangering the food supply or forcing Ohio-based can makers to
surrender business to obtain minuscule gains in the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The Van Camp Study by Michael Lake
In 1986, Michael Lake of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District, San Diego, California, presented a paper entitled ``VOC
Emission Control for Can End Sealing Compounds: A Case History.'' This
study outlines the Van Camp Company's experience in testing, qualifying
and running water-based end seal compound. It also broached the
possibility of using add-on equipment around end seal application
operations. USEPA cites Van Camp's narrow experience with add-on
control equipment and water-based end seal compound as the rationale
for denying Ohio's proposed rules 3745-21-09 (D)(1)(e) and (D)(2)(e).
Add-On Controls
The add-on control equipment referred to in the Lake study was not
installed on a permanent basis. The Van Camp plant managers in 1987
told CMI that initial tests of mock-up add-on equipment showed the
system was impractical from an engineering and production standpoint.
The Lake study cites three very serious concerns of Van Camp concerning
add-on control equipment:
1. The prototype VOC containment/capture system had not been tested
under rigorous, extended-production conditions;
2. The system might not allow sufficient visual and physical access
by line operators; and
3. Carbon adsorption was and still is an unproven technology for
control of VOC emissions from can end sealing lines.
CMI asserts that a theoretical system which did not prove
practical, safe or efficacious should not be used as a basis for USEPA
to deny a reasonable regulatory action by Ohio's environmental
authority.
Water-Based End Seal Compound
The use of the Van Camp Study on water-based end seal compound to
deny relaxation of the Ohio VOC limits wrongly assumes these test
conditions are acceptable to qualify end seal compound for other types
of packs and containers. The process required to safely qualify a new
end seal compound is linked to different packing and food conditions.
As a general rule, more testing is required for materials which are
used on a broad basis.
The successful use of a water-based end seal compound by Van Camp,
a division of the Ralston Purina Company, is limited to a very
specific, narrow category of food products--tuna and pet food. The Ohio
can manufacturers who would be subject to this rule produce containers
for a wide variety of products, including baby food, soups and
vegetables.
For USEPA to assume that uniformity exists between the processes
which Van Camp and Ohio can makers use to qualify end seal compounds is
to short change the factors which are necessary to ensure food safety
and shows a considerable lack of understanding of the delicate nature
under which food is processed and packaged. CMI is concerned that USEPA
is willing to risk the safety of the American food supply in order to
obtain minimal gains toward attainment of the NAAQS in Ohio.
Conclusion
In 1984 and 1985, CMI and its Ohio-based members asked OEPA to
relax the VOC end seal limits because they could not use lower solvent
end seal compound with the complete certainty that food safety would be
assured. If a catastrophic failure were to occur in a single canned
product which resulted in the illness or death of a consumer, the
integrity of all canned foods would be suspect.
USEPA Response: USEPA's position on these issues has been
previously stated in the response to Heekin's and Central States Can's
comments. In summary, it is agreed that add-on control has not been
demonstrated to be feasible for end seal compound application
operations. However, it has not been documented that 4.4 lbs/gallon is
the most stringent limit that is feasible for food can end seal
compounds in general. Furthermore, the CMI has not documented the
effect that food safety concerns have on using 3.7 lbs/gallon end seal
compounds. For example, if CMI's position is that 3.7 lbs/gallon end
seal compound cannot be used with canned vegetables (for example) due
to safety reasons, it has not supported its position.
5. OEPA Submitted Comments on July 31, 1989
Comment: The Michael Lake report (paper) was not provided to OEPA
during OEPA's public hearing on the eventual 1986 rulemaking.
Therefore, OEPA could not consider such information. Since USEPA has
added that report to the docket, USEPA must show that the report, which
pertains to a specific plant in a specific food industry, is applicable
to all food industries or at least the food industries in Ohio.
If complying end sealing compounds (at the ``3.7'' level) are or
will be available, OEPA asks that USEPA provide some guidance on the
proper date for compliance. The original RACT regulations, as
envisioned by USEPA, were to require compliance by the end of 1982 with
a time extension up through the end of 1985 for some can plants where
adequately justified. The Michael Lake paper shows that ``it may be
feasible and cost effective to control VOC emissions at the line with
carbon adsorption or incineration'' according to USEPA. At what level
of cost-effectiveness? Does that transfer to plants in Ohio?
USEPA Response: It is OEPA's responsibility to demonstrate that 4.4
lbs/gallon is the most stringent limit that is feasible for food can
end seal compounds. OEPA provides no basis for its statement that
``U.S. EPA must show that the report, which pertains to a specific
plant in a specific food industry, is applicable to all food industries
or at least the food industries in Ohio.'' It would be appropriate for
Ohio to provide adequate support for a relaxation that would make its
limit the least stringent in the country. Similarly, additional time to
achieve compliance with Ohio's end seal limit will only be considered
by USEPA if it is proposed and submitted by OEPA. As stated previously,
USEPA agrees that add-on control is not feasible for this operation.
Therefore, the cost-effectiveness issue is moot.
2. Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt-Rule 3745-21-09(N)(4)
A. Proposed Action
Ohio added paragraph 3745-21-09(N)(4) to establish recordkeeping
requirements for those persons using or applying cutback asphalt or
emulsified asphalt during the period from May 15 through September 15.
USEPA proposed disapproval because these recordkeeping requirements
are inadequate in that they do not apply to the appropriate SIP period
of April 15 through October 15. Although in its State regulations, Ohio
currently has an exemption period of September 15 through May 15, USEPA
disapproved that extended exemption period when it was submitted as a
SIP revision. 54 FR 1934. The applicable SIP exemption period is
October 15 through April 15.
Under the current USEPA approved regulations, the use or
application of cutback asphalt or emulsified asphalt during October 15
through April 15 is exempt from limitations. Thus, the recordkeeping
requirements are necessary for the remaining period: April 15 through
October 15.
B. Comments
OEPA's July 31, 1989 Comment: The recordkeeping requirements and
the September 15 through May 15 exemption period are considered
adequate in light of the USEPA Region VI's proposed approval of the
Texas regulation which had a September 15 through April 15 exemption
period in a much warmer spring-fall period.
USEPA Response: Paragraph 3745-21-09(N)(4) only deals with
recordkeeping requirements and not when cutback asphalt is allowed to
be used. Ohio's Federally approved SIP does not allow cutback asphalt
to be used from April 15 through October 15. Unless and until the
exemption period is changed (in 3745-21-09(N)(3)), the recording
requirements must reflect the SIP requirements. Therefore, Paragraph
3745-21-09(N)(4) should be finally disapproved.
3. Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt-Rule 3745-21-09(N)(3)(e)
A. Proposed Action
This paragraph states that the control requirements of (N)(1) and
(N)(2) shall not apply:
To the use or application by hand of any cutback asphalt or
emulsified asphalt for patching or crack sealing, provided the maximum
daily usage is less than one thousand gallons for any work crew.
USEPA proposed to disapprove this exemption (without the underlined
words) on March 6, 1985 (and finally disapproved this exemption on
January 18, 1989 (54 FR 1934)), and proposed to disapprove the rule as
revised in the May 30, 1989 Federal Register. This exemption is
supported by a November 3, 1982, letter from the Ohio Department of
Transportation which states that ``Our attempts at using emulsified
asphalt as crack sealers have not generally been satisfactory.'' The
County Engineers Association of Ohio, in a June 22, 1982, letter,
requested OEPA to ``Permit use of cutback asphalt for patching up to a
usage not to exceed 2,000 gallons per day at any time of the year''.
The County Engineers stated that this requested change ``would improve
the efficiency and economy of road paving and maintenance work.''
The language added to the end of (N)(3)(e) clarifies the exemption.
However, this clarifying language could result in substantially
increased VOC emissions because it clarifies that the one thousand
gallons per day refers to each work crew. Therefore, this clarifying
language, and the supporting documentation, does not change USEPA's
position on this exemption, for which an adequate basis has not been
provided. USEPA informed OEPA of this in its September 17, 1985,
comment letter.
B. Comments
OEPA's July 31, 1989 Comment: The hand application exemption for
crack sealers and road patching conforms to the best judgement of the
engineering staff at the Ohio Department of Transportation and the
County Engineers Association of Ohio. Ohio's record in the conversion
to acceptable emulsified asphalts is above the median level of the 35
regulated States. This exemption is certainly minor when considering
this fact.
USEPA Response: Ohio's ratio of emulsified to cutback asphalt used
in 1987 is not a valid basis for exempting the hand application of
cutback asphalt. This exemption is inconsistent with USEPA guidance and
its previous determination of RACT. Ohio has not adequately
demonstrated that this revised language causes this exemption to
constitute RACT and it has provided no data on the amount of additional
cutback asphalt that is used in the ozone season as a result of the
exemption.
4. Miscellaneous Metals-Rule 3745-21-09(U)(1)(a)(vii)
A. Proposed Action
This paragraph establishes a limitation of 4.8 lbs VOC/gallon of
coating, excluding water, for a heat resistant, anti-corrosion coating
applied to the interior of a motor vehicle directly above the catalytic
converter. This revision was proposed for disapproval because it is a
relaxation of approved VOC emission limits in Ohio's ozone SIP and Ohio
has not made a demonstration that this relaxation will not interfere
with attainment and/or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, the
July 29, 1983, memorandum titled ``Source Specific SIP Revisions'' by
Sheldon Meyers, former Director of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
addresses the issue of VOC SIP relaxations. This memorandum states that
approval of such a relaxation would require a data base and modeling
demonstration consistent with that applied in extension areas. The
sources subject to this relaxation are located in Lordstown and Dayton,
Ohio. There have not been any revised attainment demonstrations,
consistent with those done for extension areas, submitted for these
areas.
B. Comments
OEPA's July 31, 1989 Comment: The required demonstration will be
made as part of the upcoming post-1987 ozone SIP submissions. USEPA is
asked to accept such commitment on the part of OEPA. Region VI has
accepted such commitment for a future SIP impact assessment at 54 FR
23672 on June 2, 1989 (regarding Vulcan Materials Company, Geismar
Chemicals Plant).
USEPA Response: This requested rule relaxation is being reproposed
in a separate Federal Register notice which deals with corrections to
Ohio's VOC rules (as required by the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1990). The reason for this reproposal is that the revelant policy has
changed with the Amended Act.
5. Architectural Aluminum Coating-Rule 3745-21-09 (U)(1)(a)(viii)
A. Proposed Action
The VOC requirement in this paragraph establishes a limitation of
6.2 lbs VOC/gallon of coating excluding water for high performance
architectural aluminum coatings. OEPA considers this limitation to
constitute RACT. This relaxation is supported by a September 6, 1985,
letter from Reynolds Aluminum, to OEPA. This letter states that ``We
have been unable to convert our High Performance Architectural Aluminum
Coatings to a low solvent formulation.'' Reynolds attached a December
6, 1984, letter from PPG which states that its efforts to develop
compliant coatings for the architectural and recreational vehicle
markets have been unsuccessful. USEPA proposed to disapprove this
relaxation because OEPA has neither documented the infeasibility of
add-on control nor the potential use of powder coatings. Three of these
suppliers, Armstrong Products, Fuller O'Brien, and Polymer Corporation,
expect their coatings to pass the 5 year exposure test. Some of these
are currently in the third or fourth year of their 5-year testing
period. Therefore, a permanent relaxation for high performance
architectural aluminum coatings is not approvable.
B. Comments
OEPA's July 31, 1989 Comment: The USEPA purported availability of
compliant coatings for high performance architectural aluminum coatings
at 3.5 lbs VOC per gallon from Armstrong Products, Fuller O'Brien, and
Polymer Corporation should be documented in the docket. If a permanent
relaxation is not appropriate, does USEPA recommend a relaxation for a
specific year (e.g., up to 1989 or 1990)?
USEPA Response: Documentation of USEPA's conversations with powder
coating suppliers is in the Docket. The CTGs and Ohio SIP establish the
presumptive RACT for this source category. Ohio's comments provide no
support for its proposed relaxation. USEPA is only able to take actions
on proposed SIP revisions that are submitted to it. USEPA will evaluate
the merits of a compliance date extension if submitted and supported by
OEPA. Therefore, USEPA is disapproving this relaxation.
Final Action
OEPA had proposed a number of revisions to its RACT I, RACT II, and
general VOC rules. These are contained in OAC Chapter 3745-21-01,
Definitions; OAC Chapter 3745-21-04, Compliance and Schedules; OAC
Chapter 3745-21-09, Emission Limits; and OAC Chapter 3745-21-10, Test
Methods. A listing and short description of all of these revisions are
in USEPA's technical support documents, dated July 14, 1986, September
23, 1986, and July 27, 1988. Many of these revisions are minor.
Ohio submitted these regulations in 1986 in order to meet the RACT
requirement of the pre-amended Act and USEPA reviewed this submittal
against the general RACT requirement of the preamended Act, 1977 Act
Sec. 172.54 FR 22915 (May 30, 1989). Since USEPA did not issue a SIP
call with respect to the elements of this submittal, these revisions
are not required under the section 182(a)(2)(A) RACT fix-up requirement
of the Act. However, amended section 172 retains a general requirement
that States must adopt RACT for nonattainment areas. Therefore, USEPA
is taking final partial approval action as proposed under Section 110
and Part D of the Amended Act, with the exception of the following:
1. USEPA is disapproving the proposed relaxation for food can end
sealing compounds in 3745-21-09(D)(1)(e) (from 3.7 to 4.4 lbs VOC/gal).
2. USEPA is disapproving the proposed revision to the exemption, as
well as the entire exemption in 3745-21-09(N)(3)(e) for the application
by hand of any cutback asphalt or emulsified asphalt for patching or
crack sealing. In addition, USEPA is disapproving the recordkeeping
requirements in 3745-21-09(N)(4) because they are inadequate with
respect to the time period during which records are required.
3. USEPA is disapproving the relaxation (from 3.5 to 6.2 lbs VOC/
gal) for high performance architectural aluminum coatings in 3745-21-09
(U)(1)(a)(viii).
4. In the proposed rulemaking for this revision published at 54 FR
22915 (May 30, 1989), USEPA proposed to take no action on the exemption
for new sources in 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f). USEPA believes that the Amended
Clean Air Act affects this element and will repropose action on it
consistent with the amended Act in a separate Federal Register
document.
5. In the May 30, 1989, proposed rulemaking for this revision,
USEPA proposed to disapprove the relaxation for miscellaneous metals in
3745-21-09 (U)(1)(a)(vii). This requested rule relaxation will be
reproposed in a separate Federal Register notice because the relevant
policy has changed with the Amended Act.
As stated earlier, Ohio's April 9, 1986, State submittal included
new VOC regulations for additional RACT III source categories not
specifically covered by Ohio's existing rules and a site-specific
revision for the Huffy Corporation. This Federal Register document does
not address these other elements of the April 9, 1986, submittal. This
notice also does not address those amendments to the ozone SIP that
were previously submitted on March 28, 1983, to USEPA and for which
final rulemaking was taken on January 18, 1989 (54 FR 1934).
Under Executive Order 12866, this action is not significant. It has
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 5, 1994. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Ohio was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: April 13, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart KK--Ohio
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(90) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(90) On April 9, 1986, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) submitted amendments to the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)
Chapter 3745-21. The amendments are embodied in the following OAC
regulations: Definitions, Rule 3745-21-01; Attainment dates and
compliance time schedules, Rule 3745-21-04; Control of emissions of
volatile organic compounds from stationary sources, Rule 3745-21-09;
and Compliance test methods and procedures, Rule 3745-21-10. USEPA is
approving these amendments with the following exceptions: The proposed
relaxation for food can end sealing compounds in 3745-21-09(D)(1)(e)
and (D)(2)(e) (from 3.7 to 4.4 lbs VOC/gallon); the proposed revision
to the exemption in 3745-21-09(N)(3)(e) for the application by hand of
any cutback asphalt or emulsified asphalt for patching or crack
sealing; the recordkeeping requirements in 3745-21-09(N)(4); the
relaxation from 3.5 to 6.2 lbs VOC/gallon for high performance
architectural aluminum coatings in 3745-21-09(U)(1)(a)(viii); the
exemption for new sources in 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f); and the relaxation
for miscellaneous metals coatings in 3745-21-09(U)(1)(a)(vii).
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Amendments to Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-21-01,
effective on May 9, 1986.
(B) Amendments to Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-21-04,
effective on May 9, 1986.
(C) Amendments to Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-21-09,
effective on May 9, 1986, except for:
(1) 3745-21-09(D)(1)(e) and (D)(2)(e) (proposed relaxation for food
can end sealing);
(2) 3745-21-09(N)(3)(e) (proposed revision to the exemption for the
application by hand of any cutback or emulsified asphalt for patching
crack sealing);
(3) 3745-21-09(N)(4) (recordkeeping requirements);
(4) 3745-21-09(U)(1)(a)(viii) (relaxation from 3.5 to 6.2 lbs VOC.
gal for high performance architectural aluminum coatings);
(5) 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f) (the exemption for new sources); and
(6) 3745-21-09(U)(1)(a)(vii) (relaxation for miscellaneous metal
coatings).
(D) Amendments to Ohio Administrative Code Rule 3745-21-10,
effective May 9, 1996.
[FR Doc. 94-10652 Filed 5-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6580-50-P
