[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28547]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 18, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL12-10-5171; FRL-5107-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 29, 1990, the USEPA promulgated Federal stationary
source volatile organic compound (VOC) control measures representing
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for emission sources
located in six northeastern Illinois (Chicago area) counties: Cook,
DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will. The USEPA also approved and
disapproved certain VOC RACT rules previously adopted and submitted by
the State of Illinois for inclusion in its State Implementation Plan
(SIP). Among the State rules that USEPA disapproved was Illinois' VOC
rule for ``Power driven fastener coating'' operations, which applied to
the Duo-Fast Corporation's (Duo-Fast) staple manufacturing operations
in Franklin Park, Illinois. As a result, Duo-Fast became subject to the
federally promulgated miscellaneous metal parts and products coating
rule, with more stringent emission limits, because its coating
operations belong to that source category. Subsequently, Duo-Fast
requested that USEPA reconsider its rules as they apply to Duo-Fast.
The USEPA has considered Duo-Fast's contentions concerning its coating
operations and is presenting in this document a discussion and analysis
of the principal issues and USEPA's basis for not exempting Duo-Fast
from the miscellaneous metal parts and products coating rule. USEPA
solicits public comment on this proposed rulemaking action.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by December 19, 1994.
A public hearing, if requested, will be held in Chicago, Illinois.
Requests for a public hearing should be submitted to J. Elmer Bortzer
by December 19, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed
to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Comments should be strictly limited to the subject matter of this
proposal.
Docket: Pursuant to sections 307(d)(1) (B) and (N) of the Clean Air
Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(1) (B) and (N), this action is subject to
the procedural requirements of section 307(d). Therefore, USEPA has
established a public docket for this action, A-94-06, which is
available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at the following addresses. We recommend that
you contact Randolph O. Cano before visiting the Chicago location and
Rachel Romine before visiting the Washington, DC location. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Regulation
Development Branch, Eighteenth Floor, Southeast, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6036.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Docket No. A-94-06, Air
Docket (LE-131), room M1500, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 245-3639.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Regulation
Development Branch, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, (312) 886-6052, at the Chicago address indicated above.
Interested persons may call Ms. Hattie Geisler at (312) 886-3199 to see
if a hearing will be held and the date and location of the hearing.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On December 30, 1982, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB)
adopted VOC rules for a number of source categories that are covered by
the second group (Group II) of Control Techniques Guideline (CTG)
documents.1 This includes the ``miscellaneous metal parts and
products'' (MMPP) category to which Duo-Fast's operations belong. The
MMPP coating limits2 in Illinois' rule, which are consistent with
the miscellaneous metal parts and products CTG, are:
\1\CTG documents have been prepared by USEPA to assist States in
defining RACT for the control of VOC emissions from existing
stationary sources. The Group II CTGs are those that were issued
between January 1978 and January 1979. RACT is defined as the lowest
emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting
by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available, considering technological and economic feasibility.
\2\Coating limits are expressed in terms of pounds of VOC per
gallon of coating (minus water and any compounds which are
specifically exempted from the definition of VOC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Clear Coating--4.3 pounds VOC/gallon of coating
(2) Air-dried coating--3.5 pounds VOC/gallon of coating
(3) Extreme performance coating--3.5 pounds VOC/gallon of coating
(4) All other coatings--3.0 pounds VOC/gallon of coating.
On December 22, 1987, the IPCB amended Section 215.204 to require
that exempt (non-VOC) material be treated like water, that is,
subtracted from the volume of coating in calculating the VOC content.
On the same date, the IPCB adopted a revision to Illinois' MMPP coating
limits. This revision to Section 215.204(j) established less stringent
coating limits for certain power driven fastener coatings. These limits
are:
(a) Nail coating...................... MMPP limits apply.
(b) Staple, brad and finish nail unit 5.3 pounds VOC/gallon of
fabrication bonding coating. coating.
(c) Staple, brad and finish nail 5.3 pounds VOC/gallon of
incremental fabrication lubricity coating.
coating.
(d) Staple, brad and finish nail 5.0 pounds VOC/gallon of
incremental fabrication withdrawal coating.
resistance coating.
(e) Staple, brad, and finish nail unit 5.3 pounds VOC/gallon of
fabrication coating. coating.
On March 28, 1988, Illinois submitted these rule revisions to USEPA.
Although USEPA found the treatment of exempt solvents to be acceptable,
it determined that the power driven fastener coating limitations, which
apply only to Duo-Fast, do not constitute RACT. USEPA, therefore,
proposed to disapprove the State's power driven fastener coating rule
(Section 215.204(j)(4)) on December 27, 1989 (54 FR 53080); and, after
a January 17, 1990, public hearing at which Duo-Fast provided comments,
took final action to disapprove the rule on June 29, 1990 (55 FR 26814
at 26847). On the same date, USEPA promulgated Federal RACT rules that
included coating limitations for MMPP, which it determined were RACT
for Duo-Fast. 40 CFR 52.741(e)(1)(i)(J), 55 FR at 26868.
In taking these final actions to disapprove the State rule and
establish Federal RACT limits for Duo-Fast, USEPA reviewed the State
record in detail. This included an examination of the efforts made by
Duo-Fast to attempt to comply with the MMPP coating limitations as
described in the State record. USEPA nonetheless concluded that, for
the most part, the State record arguments were conclusory and
technically unsupported. See July 19, 1988, Technical Support Document
(TSD) and 55 FR 26839-40 (June 29, 1990).
In its June 29, 1990, promulgation, USEPA required (just as the
IPCB did in its December 22, 1987, amendment to Section 215.204) that
for VOC emission limitations which are in terms of pounds of VOC per
gallon of coating, water and exempt compounds must be subtracted from
the volume of coating. USEPA's rationale for requiring that exempt
solvents be excluded from the calculation of the VOC content of
coatings is contained in a May 21, 1991, memorandum, prepared for USEPA
by Phil Norwood and Elizabeth Bowen of Pacific Environmental Services,
titled ``The Exclusion of Exempt Solvents from the Calculation of the
VOC Content of Coatings.'' As discussed in the RACT analysis below,
compliance with the MMPP limits is feasible without counting exempt
solvents as part of the coating (in calculating the pounds of VOC per
gallon of coating).
On November 27, 1990, Duo-Fast requested that USEPA convene a
proceeding for reconsideration of the Federal rules pursuant to Section
307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B). Duo-Fast's basis for
this request is USEPA's failure to respond to Duo-Fast's (apparently
misfiled) March 2, 1990, comments on the December 27, 1989, proposed
promulgation. USEPA agreed to reconsider the RACT rules for Duo-Fast,
and on July 23, 1991, it published a final rule in the Federal Register
staying the rules applicable to Duo-Fast for three months, pending
USEPA's reconsideration of those rules (56 FR 33712), and a proposed
rule to extend that three-month period, but only if and as long as
necessary to complete reconsideration (56 FR 37738). USEPA's notice of
final rulemaking to extend the stay was published in the Federal
Register on March 3, 1992 (57 FR 7549). This proposed rule presents the
results of the USEPA's reconsideration of the Federal RACT rules as
they apply to Duo-Fast, and proposes rulemaking based on these results.
II. Duo-Fast Ract Analysis
Duo-Fast operates a manufacturing facility in Franklin Park,
Illinois for the manufacture of ``power driven fasteners'' such as
nails, staples and brads. Its coating operations are carried out on a
large number of conventional staple-making machines and five newer
multi-wire staple-making machines. The five machines in Duo-Fast's
multi-wire staple-making operations utilize an organic solvent-based
combination cement. Depending upon the staple type, between 50 to 80
separate wires are brought together continuously and simultaneously to
be bonded into a single band with the combination cement material being
applied from a single reservoir. The conventional type machines use a
cement and up to two separate coating materials supplied from three
reservoirs per machine. Two wires are cyclically fed into the machine
in a typical operation.
As stated previously, Duo-Fast's operations fall under the general
category of MMPP coating. The USEPA had previously established that the
presumptive norms for RACT as provided in the MMPP coating CTG are
feasible for facilities in this category. These limits have been
subsequently incorporated in State VOC rules. However, to establish
RACT for Duo-Fast, USEPA has gone even further than comparing Duo-Fast
to other MMPP facilities by identifying and comparing Duo-Fast to those
MMPP facilities most similar to it. The USEPA believes that if control
technology is available to a comparable facility and no unique
conditions are identified which would prevent this technology from
being feasible at the subject facility, then RACT for the two companies
is the same.
A June 1992 ``RACT ANALYSIS FOR DUO-FAST CORPORATION'' was prepared
to determine RACT for Duo-Fast's power driven fastener coating
operations. This RACT analysis contains a comparison of other similar
companies with Duo-Fast and an evaluation of control equipment costs
for Duo-Fast.
(A) Comparison of Other Similar Companies With Duo-Fast
Senco Products (Senco), located in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Stanley
Bostitch (Bostitch), located in East Greenwhich, Rhode Island, are
similar to Duo-Fast (as indicated in the comparison below) and are
complying with more stringent emission limitations. A comparison of
these facilities and the emission limits with which these facilities
are complying follows.
(1) Products
The three companies compete directly in the power driven fastener
industry and their fasteners have the same end use. Their products can
be considered comparable.
(2) Processes
The companies all have multiwire-type machines that band numerous
wires together which are stamped into strips of staples. The
conventional type staple machines appear to be very similar at all
three facilities.
(3) Coatings and Adhesives
All three companies use coatings which have the same functions.
These functions are as an adhesive, as a lubricant to aid in
penetration, and as a retention coating to retard removal.
(4) Applicable Emission Limits
Duo-Fast
Bonding coating (adhesive)....... 5.3 lbs/gallon--water, exempt
compounds.
Lubricity coating................ 5.3 lbs/gallon--water, exempt
compounds.
Withdrawal resistance coating.... 5.0 lbs/gallon--water, exempt
compounds.
Unit fabrication coating......... 5.3 lbs/gallon--water, exempt
compounds.
Stanley Bostitch
Multiple wire winders:
Post-incinerator rating........ 2.9 lbs/gallon--water.
Maximum adhesive VOC content... 39.4 lbs VOC/gallon solids applied--
water.
Senco
Incinerator on bandlines......... 85% overall reduction with 97%
destruction.
Both Bostitch and Senco have entered into consent agreements with
environmental agencies and are subject to more stringent regulations
than the power driven fastener coating limits adopted by the IPCB.
(5) Methods of Compliance
Stanley Bostitch
The multiple wire winders control VOC emissions by the use of an
incinerator. Bostitch has demonstrated compliance with a stack test
which demonstrated that the incinerator achieves 95 percent destruction
efficiency, which meets the 2.9 lbs/gallon post-incinerator rating.
This incinerator controls emissions generated by the application of
adhesives and the application of withdrawal resistance/penetration
coatings.
Senco
Senco has a thermal incinerator on its bandlines which demonstrated
compliance (by stack testing) with its control efficiency limits (85
percent overall efficiency and 97 percent destruction efficiency).
Conclusions of Company Comparisons
Both Bostitch and Senco use add-on control devices to comply with
VOC control requirements. These facilities share similarities with Duo
Fast, including the products manufactured by these companies, the
processes used to make these products, and the types of coatings and
adhesives used by them. No difference in the process at Duo-Fast was
identified which would cause add-on control to be considered
technologically or economically infeasible. Due to the similarities
between Duo-Fast's operations and those of Bostitch and Senco, RACT for
Duo-Fast should include the use of add-on controls.
(B) Evaluation of Economic Feasibility of Add-On Control
In 1990, Duo-Fast contracted with Yates & Auberle, a consultant, to
determine the cost of add-on controls. Its study was submitted with
Duo-Fast's March 2, 1990, comments on the December 27, 1989, proposed
Federal RACT rules. This investigation examined the costs of the
installation and operation of a thermal oxidizer with a 95 percent
effective regenerative heat exchanger. This section includes an
evaluation of Duo-Fast's analysis in order to correctly determine the
cost-effectiveness of the control system that was investigated, and
whether such a control system constitutes RACT.
Duo-Fast obtained cost estimates from Smith Environmental
Engineering (Smith) and Reeco. The total capital investment was
$2,195,550 for a Smith system and $2,832,060 for a Reeco system.
However, Duo-Fast incorrectly based its annual reductions on a seven-
month basis. Although USEPA does not require gas-fired incinerators to
be used in the colder months of the non-ozone season, cost-
effectiveness3 must still be based on the reductions that would
occur over 12 months. Cost-effectiveness serves chiefly as a means of
comparing control strategies and, therefore, the bases must be
consistent to provide for a proper comparison. USEPA has based its
cost-effectiveness values, e.g., in the CTGs and support documents for
New Source Performance Standards (Section 111 of the Act), on emission
reductions resulting from year-round operation of control equipment. It
is not meaningful to compare cost-effectiveness values based on control
systems operating for only a portion of the year with cost-
effectiveness values based upon full year operation and correspondingly
greater emission reductions. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of any
control system must be based on costs and emission reductions for a 12-
month, and not a 7-month, period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Cost-effectiveness is the annualized cost of control divided
by the annual reductions (resulting from the control). Cost-
effectiveness is typically expressed in dollars per ton ($/ton).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the unit costs for factors contributing to the
annualized cost should be consistent with the values obtained from
USEPA's guidance document ``OAQPS Control Cost Manual Fourth Edition'',
EPA-450/3-90-006, January 1990 (OAQPS Manual), unless a different value
has been documented to be more appropriate. USEPA has corrected Duo-
Fast's costs in two steps. The first step was to revise the costs from
a seven to a twelve-month basis. The resulting annualized costs were
$745,743 for the Smith system and $1,076,273 for the Reeco system. The
second step was to compare the unit costs used by Duo-Fast to those
obtained from the OAQPS Manual. The generally lower unit costs (which
cover items such as interest, natural gas, electricity, and labor
rates) obtained from the OAQPS Manual were used because Duo-Fast had
not adequately justified its costs. Although the natural gas usage rate
presented by Duo-Fast appears to be inflated (resulting in higher
costs), its usage rates were used in determining annual costs.
As stated previously, Duo-Fast's cost-effectiveness values were
based on the emission reductions that would result from operating the
control system for seven months. The emission reductions were revised,
to reflect operating the control system for 12 months, by multiplying
the total annual emissions (324 tons VOC) by an overall control
requirement of 81 percent. This results in an annual emission reduction
of 262.1 tons of VOC.
The cost-effectiveness calculated by Duo-Fast, for seven months
operation, is $4,146/ton for the Smith system and $5,785/ton for the
Reeco system. The cost-effectiveness, based on Duo-Fast's unit costs
and 12 months operation, is $2,845 for the Smith system and $4,106 for
the Reeco system; and the cost-effectiveness, based on 12 months
operation and unit costs obtained from the OAQPS Manual, is $2,370/ton
for the Smith system and $3,222/ton for the Reeco system. Therefore,
Duo-Fast should be able to comply with the MMPP requirements for
$2,370/ton, which is consistent with RACT. A more detailed discussion
of this analysis is contained in the June 1992 ``RACT Analysis for Duo-
Fast Corporation.''
The CTGs developed by USEPA contain the presumptive norm for RACT
for the corresponding source categories. In each CTG, USEPA evaluates
various control technologies, including add-on control. These analyses
include a determination of the cost-effectiveness of using add-on
controls to achieve RACT. As stated previously, Duo-Fast's operations
are covered by the MMPP CTG. Because Duo-Fast claims that the cost-
effectiveness of add-on controls is beyond (more costly than) what RACT
requires, USEPA compared the cost-effectiveness values reported in the
MMPP CTG with those determined for Duo-Fast. One of the control
techniques considered in this CTG is incineration. The MMPP CTG
specifies incineration cost-effectiveness values of greater than
$6,000/ton. The cost-effectiveness value established by USEPA for
control of Duo-Fast's power driven fastener coating operations is
$2,370/ton. This is well below (that is, less costly than) values cited
in the MMPP CTG for the application of incinerators and is therefore
clearly consistent with RACT.
(C) Compliance Date
USEPA is proposing a compliance period of one year from the date of
final action on reconsideration, for Duo-Fast to comply with the MMPP
coating limits in the federally promulgated RACT rules for the Chicago
area. A one-year period is consistent with the amount of time allowed
sources to comply with more stringent emission limits in the federally
promulgated RACT rules.
III. Summary and Conclusions
The USEPA is proposing that RACT for Duo-Fast's power driven
fastener coating operations is the MMPP coating limits in the federally
promulgated RACT rules for the Chicago area. USEPA is also proposing
that Duo-Fast will have one year from publication of the notice of
final rulemaking to comply with the MMPP emission limits. Finally,
USEPA is proposing to withdraw the March 3, 1992, stay.
Public comment is solicited on this proposal for Duo-Fast's
facility. Public comments received by the date shown above will be
considered in the development of USEPA's final rule. Any hearing, if
requested, will be strictly limited to the subject of this proposal,
the scope of which is discussed in the proposal.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
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, USEPA 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. This action involves only one source, Duo-Fast Corporation.
Therefore, USEPA certifies that this RACT promulgation does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.
Dated: November 10, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that part
52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations be amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart O--Illinois
2. Section 52.741 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(5), removing
and reserving paragraph (z)(3), and adding paragraph (e)(11) to read as
follows: Sec. 52.741 Control Strategy: Ozone control measures for Cook,
DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(5) Compliance schedule. Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(7)
and (e)(11) of this section, every owner or operator of a coating line
(of a type included within paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section) shall
comply with the requirements of paragraph (e)(1), (e)(2) or (e)(3) of
this section and paragraph (e)(6) of this section in accordance with
the appropriate compliance schedule as specified in paragraph
(e)(5)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of this section.
(i) No owner or operator of a coating line which is exempt from the
limitations of paragraph (e)(1) of this section because of the criteria
in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section shall operate said coating line
on or after July 1, 1991, unless the owner or operator has complied
with, and continues to comply with, paragraph (e)(6)(i) of this
section. Wood furniture coating lines are not subject to paragraph
(e)(6)(i) of this section.
(ii) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall operate said coating line on
or after July 1, 1991, unless the owner or operator has complied with,
and continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(6)(ii) of
this section.
(iii) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section shall operate said coating line on
or after July 1, 1991, unless the owner or operator has complied with,
and continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(6)(iii) of
this section.
(iv) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of
paragraph (e)(2) of this section shall operate said coating line on or
after July 1, 1991, unless the owner or operator has complied with, and
continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(6)(iv) of this
section.
* * * * *
(11) Compliance schedule for Duo-Fast Corporation. Notwithstanding
any other provision of this subpart, the date by which the coating
operations at Duo-Fast Corporation's Franklin Park, Illinois,
manufacturing facility must comply with the miscellaneous metal parts
and products coating limits, codified at 40 CFR 52.741(e)(1)(i)(J), is
specified in this paragraph (e)(11). Compliance with the requirements
of paragraph (e)(1), (e)(2), or (e)(3) of this section and paragraph
(e)(6) of this section must be in accordance with the appropriate
compliance schedule as specified in paragraph (e)(11)(i), (ii), (iii),
or (iv) of this section.
(i) No owner or operator of a coating line which is exempt from the
limitations of paragraph (e)(1) of this section because of the criteria
in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section shall operate said coating line
on or after one year after date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, unless the owner or operator has complied with, and
continues to comply with, paragraph (e)(6)(i) of this section.
(ii) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of
paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall operate said coating line on
or after one year after date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, unless the owner or operator has complied with, and
continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(6)(ii) of this
section.
(iii) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section shall operate said coating line on
or after one year after date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, unless the owner or operator has complied with, and
continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(6)(iii) of this
section.
(iv) No owner or operator of a coating line complying by means of
paragraph (e)(2) of this section shall operate said coating line on or
after one year after date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register, unless the owner or operator has complied with, and
continues to comply with, paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(6)(iv) of this
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-28547 Filed 11-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P