[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 139 (Monday, July 21, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38909-38912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19084]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TN159-1-9704(b); TN174-1-9726(b); TN175-1-9725(b); FRL-5859-5]
Approval of Source Specific Revisions to the Tennessee SIP
Regarding Volatile Organic Compounds
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is taking action on three source
specific revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP)
which establish reasonably available control technology requirements
(RACT) for the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
from certain operations at Brunswick Marine Corporation, Outboard
Marine Corporation, and Essex Group Incorporated. EPA is approving the
operating permits for these sources into the SIP with the exception of
the portion of one permit which allows the Tennessee Technical
Secretary to determine RACT which is being disapproved. These permits
were issued consistent with the alternate control plans which
established RACT requirements in accordance with the provisions of the
Tennessee SIP for developing VOC emission control requirements for
major sources for which there is no regulation or guidance for
determining RACT.
DATES: This action is effective September 19, 1997, unless adverse or
critical comments are received by August 20, 1997. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to
William Denman at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air
Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies
of documents relative to this action are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. The
interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the
visiting day. Reference files TN159-01-9704, TN174-01-9726, and TN175-
01-9726. The Region 4 office may have additional background documents
not available at the other locations.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. William Denman, 404/562-
9030.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Air
Pollution Control, L & C Annex, 9th Floor, 401 Church Street,
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1531.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Denman at 404/562-9030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 20, 1995, Tennessee submitted a
permit for Brunswick
[[Page 38910]]
Marine Corporation (permit number 743652P), and on June 3, 1996,
Tennessee submitted permits for Outboard Marine Corporation (permit
number 039845P & 044881P), and Essex Group Incorporated (permits
numbers 045011P, 045012P, & 045013P). These operating permits were
submitted to EPA for the purpose of establishing RACT requirements for
certain VOC emitting operations at these facilities. These permits
contain source specific RACT requirements which were established in
accordance with Tennessee rule 1200-3-18-.79 ``Other Facilities that
Emit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) of One Hundred Tons Per Year.''
This rule contains presumptive RACT requirements for major sources not
subject to an EPA control technique guideline (CTG). These requirements
include meeting presumptive RACT emission limits for certain
operations, installation and operation of an emission capture system
which achieves 90 percent capture, certification of compliance,
maintenance of records, and self reporting of exceedances. However, if
the implementation of the presumptive RACT measures listed in the rule
are determined to be either technically or economically infeasible this
rule provides for the development of an alternate control plan. This
alternative control plan must be approved into the SIP. For an
alternate control plan to be approved into the SIP, the State must
provide a demonstration that the presumptive RACT measures contained in
rule 1200-3-18-.79 are either technically or economically infeasible
for their application. The State provided to EPA a comprehensive
demonstration that it was either technically or economically infeasible
to implement the presumptive RACT requirements contained in rule 1200-
3-18-.79 for certain sources at these three facilities. These
demonstrations are part of the RACT determinations and are contained in
the technical support document developed for this action. The
demonstrations contain a comparison of control measures used at similar
facilities and other potential RACT measures. Some alternatives
investigated were technically infeasible and some were determined to be
economically infeasible. For the fiberglass boat manufacturers the RACT
determination is equivalent to the South Coast Air Quality Management
District of California's production rule 1162. VOC reductions will be
obtained through a combination of process modifications and material
substitutions. For the lubricant application operation at the Essex
Group facility, RACT was determined to be good housekeeping practices
to reduce fugitive emissions, use of non-VOC dri-lubes as permitted by
customers, and application of dri-lube through a proprietary wick
process. EPA has determined that these demonstrations adequately proved
that other RACT measures are infeasible and that the RACT measures
established for these operations meet the Agency's requirements for
alternative RACT. The specific RACT measures which were developed for
certain sources at these three facilities are described below.
I. Brunswick Marine Corporation Source Specific RACT Requirements
On April 13, 1994, the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board
approved an alternate control plan which established RACT requirements
for certain VOC emitting operations at the Brunswick Marine Corporation
facility located in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. On February 21, 1996,
Tennessee issued operating permit number 743652P to Brunswick Marine
containing the RACT requirements discussed above. EPA is approving this
permit into the SIP with the exception of the phrase ``unless
alternative factors can be established empirically and are approved by
the Technical Secretary'' contained in permit condition #18(1)(f) which
is being disapproved. The following RACT requirements were established
in the operating permit for certain VOC emitting operations at
Brunswick Marine facility.
1. Decks and Hulls Production:
a. In the laminating process of the decks only non-atomizing
techniques shall be used. These techniques include the use of airless
or air-assisted airless spray guns, which include wet out and
``chopper'' guns, and techniques such as use of pressure fed rollers.
b. Airless or air-assisted airless spraying equipment shall be
utilized where possible during the gelcoat application. This equipment
was installed and utilized for pigmented and clear gelcoats by January
1, 1995. However, during the application of polyflake gelcoats, air-
atomized techniques may be used.
c. In the laminating process of hulls, the dry glass reinforcement
shall be placed into the molds by hand and catalyzed resin shall be
applied to the dry glass using non-atomizing techniques such as
pressure fed rollers, wet out and ``chopper'' guns or bucket and brush
techniques.
d. Mix gelcoats contain VOC's including styrene, MEKP and MMA. The
MEKP content of gelcoat shall not exceed 2 percent by weight under
normal operating conditions. A maximum of 2.5 percent MEKP may be used
when necessary due to cold weather conditions.
e. The styrene content of lamination resins shall not exceed 37
percent by weight. The styrene content of gelcoat shall not exceed 48
percent by weight. The methyl methacrylate (MMA) content of gelcoat
shall not exceed 10 percent by weight.
f. Emissions of styrene may be determined quantitatively by using
the factors 18 percent by weight for spray operations and 10 percent
weight for hand lay up operations.
g. The styrene content of the gelcoat used for tooling purposes
shall not exceed 50 percent by weight, and shall be utilized only
during the construction and repair of molds.
2. Carpet Adhesive Application: Adhesives containing solvents which
are ozone depleting chemicals are being phased out of this operation
because of the adverse environmental effect of release of these
chemicals to the atmosphere. Adhesives containing volatile organic
compounds (VOC) are currently the only known technically feasible
materials, other than adhesives containing ozone depleting chemicals as
solvents, that can be used for this operation. Therefore, adhesives
containing VOC may be used in this operation. The allowable VOC content
of adhesives used in this operation shall be 4.4 lbs VOC/gallon with a
maximum usage rate of 313 gallons/month.
3. Miscellaneous: Total volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
from other VOC emitting operations which are subject to Rule 1200-3-
18-.79 shall not be in excess of 3 percent of the total VOC emitted
from all operations subject to this rule. Compliance with this
requirement shall be on a calendar month basis.
II. Outboard Marine Corporation Source Specific RACT Requirements
On April 13, 1994, the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board
approved an alternate control plan which established RACT requirements
for certain VOC emitting operations at the Outboard Marine
Corporation's boat manufacturing facility located in Murfreesboro,
Tennessee. On July 27, 1995, and May 31, 1996, Tennessee issued two
operating permits (permit number 039845P & 044881P) to Outboard Marine
containing the RACT requirements for certain sources. EPA is approving
these operating permits into the SIP for the purpose of establishing
federally enforceable RACT measures. The RACT requirements contained in
[[Page 38911]]
the operating permit which were established for certain VOC emitting
operations at Brunswick Marine are as follows.
1. Decks and Hulls Production:
a. In the laminating process of decks larger than 21 feet in
length, only non-atomizing resin application techniques such as a flow
coater or pressure feed roller shall be used to apply the catalyzed
resin to wet the glass fibers and mold surfaces. In the laminating
process of decks smaller than 21 feet in length, techniques such as
airless or air-assisted airless spray guns, which include wet out and
``chopper'' guns, and pressure fed rollers and flow coaters shall be
used.
b. Only airless or air-assisted airless spraying equipment shall be
used for pigmented gelcoat application.
c. In the laminating process of hulls, the dry glass reinforcement
shall be placed into the molds by hand and catalyzed resin shall be
applied to the dry glass using non-atomizing resin application
techniques such as a flow coater or pressure fed roller.
d. Mixed gelcoat may contain the VOC's styrene, methyl methacrylate
(MMA) and MEKP. The MEKP content of gelcoat shall not exceed 2 percent
by weight under normal operating conditions. A maximum of 2.5 percent
MEKP may be used when necessary due to cold weather conditions.
e. The styrene content of lamination resins shall not exceed 35
percent by weight. The combined styrene and MMA content of pigmented
gelcoat shall not exceed 47 percent by weight and of the metal flake
clear gelcoat 53 percent by weight.
f. Emissions of styrene shall be calculated based on 18 percent by
weight for atomized spray operations and 10 percent weight for hand lay
up operations.
g. For tooling purposes only the styrene content of gelcoat and
resin shall not exceed 50 percent by weight, and shall be used only for
the purpose of building and repairing molds.
h. Tooling gelcoat shall be used only for the purpose of building
and repairing molds.
2. Carpet Adhesive Application: The VOC's emitted from this source
shall not exceed 1.2 pounds per gallon of glue applied. Glue usage at
this source shall not exceed 240 gallons per day.
3. Miscellaneous: Total VOC emissions from other VOC emitting
operations which are subject to Rule 1200-3-18-.79 shall not be in
excess of 3 percent of the total VOC emitted from all operations
subject to this rule. Compliance with this requirement shall be on a
calendar month basis.
III. Essex Group Inc. Source Specific RACT Requirements
On April 13, 1994, the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board
approved an alternate control plan which established RACT requirements
for VOC emission control on the lubricant application to enameled wire
at Essex Group, Incorporated's Franklin, Tennessee, Magnet Wire coating
facility. On May 31, 1996, Tennessee issued three operating permits
(permit number 045011P, 045012P & 045013P) to Essex Group containing
the RACT requirements for its magnet wire coating processes. In
addition to providing for RACT requirements pursuant to the Tennessee
regulation for the coating of magnet wire, the permits also contain
source specific RACT requirements for the lubrication application
process. EPA is approving these operating permits into the SIP for the
purpose of establishing federally enforceable RACT measures for the
lubrication application process. The specific RACT requirements
contained in the operating permit to control VOC emissions from the
lubrication application process are as follows.
1. Lubricant shall be applied by wick applicator only.
2. The VOC content of the lubricant shall not exceed 5.87 pounds
per gallon, as applied and excluding water and exempt compounds.
3. In addition to satisfying the requirements of paragraphs 1200-3-
18-.03 (1) and (3) of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations,
records shall be maintained of the quantity of lubricant used per
calendar month. Each record shall be kept for at least 3 years after
the date the record is created, and shall be made available to the
Technical Secretary upon request.
4. By March 31 of each year, a report shall be submitted to the
Technical Secretary of results of research and development in reducing
VOC emissions from the lubricant application operation (such as by
reformulation of the lubricant, improvement in application efficiency,
process changes to reduce or eliminate the need for lubricant
application, and installation of emission control systems), and of
reductions achieved by implementation of new emission reduction
methods.
Final Action
The EPA is approving these revisions to the Tennessee SIP with the
exception of the phrase ``unless alternative factors can be established
empirically and are approved by the Technical Secretary'' contained in
condition number 18 of permit number 743652P which is being disapproved
as discussed in the supplementary section of this document. The EPA is
publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register
publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should
adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be effective
September 19, 1997 unless, by August 20, 1997, adverse or critical
comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective September 19, 1997.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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. 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.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does
[[Page 38912]]
not impose any new requirements, the Administrator certifies that it
does not have a significant impact on any small entities affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).
The portion disapproved only affects one source, Brunswick Marine
Corporation. Therefore, it does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, as explained in this
document, the portion of the request disapproved does not meet the
requirements of the CAA and EPA cannot approve the request. Therefore,
EPA has no option but to disapprove this portion of the submittal.
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), 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
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 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 EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated 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 action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial 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 September 19, 1997. 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: July 3, 1997.
Michael V. Peyton,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart RR--Tennessee
2. Section 52.2220, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(156) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(156) Addition of six operating permits containing source specific
VOC RACT requirements for certain VOC sources at Brunswick Marine
Corporation, Outboard Marine Corporation, and Essex Group Incorporated
submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
on December 20, 1995 and June 3, 1996.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Marine Group Brunswick Corporation operating permit number
743652P issued February 21, 1996, (conditions number 2, 3, and 18).
(B) Stratos Boat Incorporated, D.B.A. Javelin Boats operating
permit number 039845P issued on July 27, 1995, (conditions number 2 and
3), and permit number 044881P issued on May 31, 1996, (conditions
number 2, 9, and 10).
(C) Essex Group Incorporated operating permit numbers 045011P,
(conditions 5, 10, 13, and 15), 045012P, (conditions 5, 10, 13, and 15)
and 045013P, (conditions 5 and 16) issued on May 31, 1996.
(ii) Other material. None.
[FR Doc. 97-19084 Filed 7-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
