[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