[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29297-29299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14196]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX-73-1-7316a, FRL-5830-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans, Texas; Alternate
Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for Bell
Helicopter Textron, Incorporated; Bell Plant 1 Facility
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a site specific revision to the Texas
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Bell Helicopter Textron,
Incorporated (Bell) of Fort Worth. This revision was submitted by the
Governor on April 18, 1996, to establish an alternate reasonably
available control technology (ARACT) demonstration to control volatile
organic compounds (VOC) for the surface coating processes at the Bell
Plant 1 facility. The EPA has determined that the control strategy,
solvent and coating emission limits, submitted by Bell and the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), demonstrate
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the Bell Plant 1
facility. This ARACT demonstration is approvable because Bell has
demonstrated that it is not cost effective to control their VOC
emissions to the presumptive norm set forth in the EPA's Control
Technique Guidelines (CTG) document (EPA 450/2-78-015), and the
alternate emission rate at the facility is the lowest that is
economically reasonable and technically feasible.
DATES: This action is effective on July 29, 1997, unless notice is
received by June 30, 1997 that someone wishes to submit adverse or
critical comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will
be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's request and other information relevant
to this action are available for inspection during normal hours at the
following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
Anyone wishing to review this petition at the EPA office is asked
to contact the person below to schedule an appointment 24 hours in
advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt. Mick Cote, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Part D of the Clean Air Act (the Act) requires ozone nonattainment
plans to include regulations providing for VOC emission reductions from
existing sources through the adoption of RACT. The EPA defined RACT in
a September 17, 1979, Federal Register notice (44 FR 53762)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.
Through the publication of CTG documents, EPA has identified
pollution control levels that EPA presumes to constitute RACT for
various categories of sources. Where the State finds the presumptive
norm applicable to an individual source or group of sources, the State
typically adopts requirements consistent with the presumptive norm.
However, States may develop case-by-case RACT determinations. The EPA
will approve these RACT determinations as long as the State
demonstrates they will satisfy the Act's RACT requirements based on
adequate documentation of the technical and economical circumstances of
the particular source being regulated. Texas adopted the CTG, entitled
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, as the presumptive norm for VOC
limits on aerospace surface coating processes.
These VOC limits were adopted as part of 30 TAC Sec. 115.421,
Emission Specifications. The presumptive norm for the exterior of
aircraft in Dallas and Tarrant Counties is 6.7 pounds per gallon of
solids delivered to the application system.
The EPA developed a guidance document entitled Guidance for
Developing an Alternate Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Demonstration for the Tulsa Aerospace Industry, dated October 2, 1989.
This document applies to the aerospace industry and was applicable to
Bell's ARACT analysis as well. This document was issued for States and
industries to follow in developing documents to justify deviation from
the recommended CTG approach. The EPA has reviewed the Bell ARACT
proposal based on this guidance.
Bell manufactures helicopters and helicopter parts for private,
commercial, and military use at its Fort Worth, Texas facility, also
known as Bell Plant 1. As part of its manufacturing operations, Bell
coats helicopters, rotors, and helicopter parts with extreme
performance coatings.
Bell was issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) by the TNRCC Region 4
Office on September 25, 1992, for exceeding 6.7 pounds of VOC per
gallon of solids limit on an individual line basis. Bell submitted an
ARACT application on December 22, 1993, as allowed under 30 TAC Chapter
115, section 115.423(a)(4) to resolve the NOV. An Agreed Order was
signed on November 18, 1994, which requires Bell to obtain this ARACT.
On April 18, 1996, the State of Texas submitted to the EPA its request
for an ARACT approval for surface coating operations at the Bell Plant
1 facility. This site-specific SIP revision was submitted to meet RACT
for Bell's surface coating operations. The EPA believes that Bell and
the State of Texas have provided adequate documentation that the
emission limits developed under this site-specific SIP revision are
RACT based on consideration of economical reasonableness and technical
feasibility. Since case-by-case RACT determinations are allowable under
EPA's definition of RACT, Bell and the State opted for this ARACT
approach to fulfill compliance requirements.
II. Alternate RACT Analysis
Bell investigated the options available for reducing emissions from
its surface coating operations. Among those were coating reformulation,
enhanced application techniques that would improve transfer efficiency,
facility redesign, and add-on control equipment to reduce VOC
emissions.
Bell has evaluated control options for the ARACT sources. Bell has
already put VOC emissions control devices on two booths which are the
most reasonable sources to be controlled. Bell installed a carbon
incineration system (KPR), which achieves an overall VOC destruction
efficiency of 90 percent, to control the VOC emissions from the Blade
Paint Shop (see Provision 17). The emissions from the Blade Paint Shop,
if released uncontrolled to the
[[Page 29298]]
atmosphere, would represent nearly half of the total ARACT source VOC
emissions. The controlled VOC emissions from this shop now represent
only 7.7 percent of the total ARACT source VOC emissions. In addition
to the KPR system, Bell installed four carbon canisters in the Rotor
Touch-Up Booth, which has a manufacturer guaranteed minimum VOC removal
efficiency of 85 percent. The emissions from Rotor Touch-Up Booth are
small compared to the emissions from the Blade Paint Shop, but in case
of KPR failure, the work load from the Blade Paint Shop will be routed
through the Rotor Touch-Up Booth and the emissions will be controlled
by the carbon canisters.
Bell has submitted a cost summary for a number of add-on control
options for further add-on controls. The least expensive option for an
individual painting booth is estimated to have an annualized cost of
$22,424 per ton of VOC emissions reduced, and therefore, considered
cost prohibitive. Besides the add-on control options, Bell also
evaluated several facility redesign options such as, the recirculation
of exhausts, the reduction of air flows and the consolidation of ARACT
sources, which all turned out to be technically or economically
infeasible at this time.
Bell has, and will continue to, investigate and test compliant
coatings to replace currently utilized non-compliant coatings and
implement them when feasible. To date, Bell has found some possible
substitutes in lacquers, epoxy primers and urethane enamels coating
categories and has been successful in its efforts to replace epoxy
primers, which represents 20 percent of the total coatings used at
Bell, with water-based primers.
Bell has demonstrated in their application that the coatings being
used at the facility have the lowest feasible VOC contents. Safety,
performance and specifications prevent Bell using all compliant
coatings at their facility. The coating operation which has the largest
VOC emission rate is the Adhesive Prime Booth, in which coating
materials are used to hold the helicopter's metal rotor blades
together. These coatings must have special physical properties in order
to ensure the safety of helicopters. Bell's helicopters are required to
have a specific operating temperature range from -67 deg.F to 180 deg.F
which very few commercially-available coatings meet. Finally, most of
the coating activities at Bell are conducted in support of the military
production line and coating parameters are strictly regulated by
military specifications.
The VOC limitations on each coating are governed by Provision 11
and Table II of the State submittal. As this ARACT must be reviewed
every two years, EPA or TNRCC may, at that time, request information on
any new, lower VOC coatings that may have been developed during the
interim.
III. Other Measures To Reduce Emissions
Bell will be implementing several equipment, coatings and solvent
changes to reduce VOC emissions as far as possible without more add-on
controls. Bell will purchase and install 10 enclosed gun cleaners for
the washing of ARACT source spray equipment within three months of the
final ratification of this ARACT. Bell will also purchase and install
plural component mixing systems at the Conveyor Prime and Blade Paint
Shop within six months of the final ratification of this ARACT. These
mixing systems will replace both the existing pressure pot system at
the Conveyor Prime Booth and the prime and topcoat pressure pot systems
at the Blade Paint Shop. The new mixing systems will provide
substantial savings in both paint and thinner use. Bell indicated in
their application that high transfer efficiency application equipment
is used to apply the coatings at their facility when feasible. Bell
currently uses high volume/low pressure, electrostatic and air brush
application equipment all with a transfer efficiency of at least 60
percent which reduces the amount of coatings used, and subsequently
reduced the VOC emissions.
Bell will substitute low vapor pressure solvents for the higher
vapor pressure solvents currently used for the wipedown of parts and
assemblies in some of the booths, where feasible. Bell will begin
production testing of low vapor pressure (<5 mmHg) solvents as soon as
Permit R-1996 is approved. The EPA Aerospace National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities allows wipe solvents up to 45 mmHg
vapor pressure to be used. Bell will be expected to comply with the
primer, topcoat, and operating practices included in this NESHAP (60 FR
45948).
IV. Final Rulemaking Action
The EPA has reviewed the information developed by Bell and agrees
that the majority of the costs should not be considered cost effective
in this situation relative to the cost effectiveness assumed in the CTG
for miscellaneous metal parts and products. The EPA's review of the
information submitted by both the State of Texas and Bell indicates
that, at this time, low VOC coatings for certain applications and
processes are not commercially available. Furthermore, the cost
effectiveness of controls on emissions from certain processes at this
facility are not economically feasible. The EPA finds that the
requirements in the recommended CTG are not reasonable for certain
processes and that the proposed source specific alternate RACT
determinations in the SIP submittal should be considered RACT in this
case.
In this final action, EPA is approving the revision to the Texas
SIP and adopting the Bell site-specific SIP revision as RACT for the
Bell Plant 1 facility. This revision was submitted by the Governor to
EPA by letter dated April 18, 1996.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This action has been classified for signature by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a July 10, 1995,
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget 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. See 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.
The SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, I
[[Page 29299]]
certify 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 Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State
action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. See Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66
(1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, 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.
The 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
preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal 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. Sec. 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 this rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. Sec. 804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 29, 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) of the Act.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping, and Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 12, 1997.
Jerry Clifford,
Acting Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 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 SS--Texas
2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (100) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of Plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(100) A revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
adopt an alternate control strategy for the surface coating processes
at the Bell Helicopter Textron, Incorporated (Bell) Plant 1 Facility.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(a) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Agreed Order for
Docket No. 95-1642-SIP, issued and effective April 2, 1996, for Bell's
Plant 1 facility.
(b) A letter from the Governor of Texas dated April 18, 1996,
submitting to the EPA the Agreed Order and the site-specific SIP
revision for Bell.
(ii) Additional material.
(a) The site-specific revision to the Texas State Implementation
Plan for Bell, dated January 16, 1996.
(b) The alternate reasonably available control technology
demonstration prepared by Bell, dated December 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-14196 Filed 5-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P