Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans, Texas; Revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan; Alternate Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for Air Force Plant 4 by Lockheed Corporation of Fort Worth, Texas

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX-34-1-6167; FRL-4824-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans, Texas; Revision

to the Texas State Implementation Plan; Alternate Reasonably Available

Control Technology Demonstration for Air Force Plant 4 by Lockheed

Corporation of Fort Worth, Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a site specific revision to the Texas

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Lockheed Corporation of Fort Worth.

This revision was submitted by the Governor on August 19, 1993, to

establish alternate reasonably available control technology (ARACT) to

enforce Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emission limits for the

surface coating processes at Air Force Plant 4 (AFP4), operated by

Lockheed Corporation of Fort Worth. The EPA has determined that these

emission limits represent Reasonably Available Control Technology

(RACT). This ARACT plan is approvable because Lockheed 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become effective on March 21, 1994,

unless notice is received by February 22, 1994, that someone wishes to

submit adverse or critical comments. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the Federal Register (FR).

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air

Planning Section (6T-AP), USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202-2733. Copies of the State's submittal and other information

relevant to this action are available for inspection during normal

business hours at the following locations:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch

(6T-A), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

Mr. Jerry Kurtzweg (ANR-443), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air

Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. Anyone wishing to

review these documents at the USEPA office is asked to contact the

person below to schedule an appointment 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mick Cote, Planning Section (6T-

AP), Air Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214)

655-7219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Part D of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) 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, FR 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, the EPA has identified

pollution control levels that the 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 CAAA 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 Texas Regulation V, 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

Lockheed'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 Lockheed

ARACT proposal based on this guidance.

Lockheed Corporation

Lockheed Corporation operates AFP4 in Tarrant County, Texas, at

which F-16 aircraft are produced and aircraft components are coated for

the U.S. Air Force. Lockheed recently purchased the contract and the

product from General Dynamics Corporation1. On August 19, 1993,

the State of Texas submitted to the EPA a request for an ARACT approval

for surface coating operations at Lockheed Corporation's AFP4 facility.

This site-specific SIP revision was submitted to meet RACT for AFP4's

surface coating operations. The EPA believes that Lockheed 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

the EPA's definition of RACT, Lockheed and the State opted for this

ARACT approach to fulfill compliance requirements.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\The research on the ARACT proposal was accomplished by

General Dynamics Corporation prior to the Lockheed purchase. The

operations of AFP4 have not changed significantly since the time of

the sale.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal History

A notice of violation (NOV) was issued by EPA to General Dynamics

on July 11, 1985, alleging violations of State Rule 115.191(9)(a)(iii),

which regulated ``extreme performance coatings'' applied to

miscellaneous metal parts and products, for both the PRC Prime

operation and the Chemical Milling Maskant operation. A second NOV was

issued by the EPA to General Dynamics on February 24, 1987, alleging

violations of Rule 115.191(9)(a)(iii) for the Adhesive Prime operation.

Both NOVs stated that VOC emission limits were being violated. An

agreed board order was entered on January 17, 1986, which intended to

provide for the full resolution of all violations alleged in the NOVs

issued by the EPA. The board order created a bubble under General Rule

Sec. 101.23, which allowed for control of emissions from an alternate

facility located on the affected property in lieu of compliance with

the requirement as prescribed in the regulation.

However, the EPA contended that the order was a departure from the

requirements of the Texas SIP. The EPA did not find the provisions

agreed to by the State and General Dynamics in the bubble as

acceptable, and sued General Dynamics to renegotiate their proposal. On

January 2, 1991, the U.S. District Court ruled that the State's

interpretation of the Texas SIP was not consistent with the Clean Air

Act because the board order would encourage the uncontrolled use of

VOC-emitting solvents. The court ordered General Dynamics to develop

and implement a suitable plan to meet the Texas SIP requirements no

later than January 1994. General Dynamics elected to pursue an ARACT,

discussed under section 115.423 of Texas Regulation V. For specific

details of the suit, see United States of America v. General Dynamics

Corporation, Civil Action Number CA-4-87-312-K dated February 23, 1990

(suit), and Civil Action Number CA-4-87-312-A, dated January 2, 1991

(ruling).

Alternate RACT Analysis

Lockheed2 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\Further discussions concerning ARACT development and analysis

will refer to Lockheed Corporation of Fort Worth, the current

operator of AFP4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lockheed investigated the use of low-solvent coating technologies.

Among those were high-solids coatings, water-borne coatings, and powder

coatings. The current suppliers of surface coatings to Lockheed were

contacted to determine if such coatings were either currently available

or soon to be available. Where substitute coatings were discovered,

these substitutes have been incorporated into the provisions of this

ARACT determination. For those coatings not replaced with low-solvent

coatings, individual coating limits have been established.

In addition to researching alternate low solvent coatings and

developing alternate VOC limits for other coatings, Lockheed

investigated several control VOC systems. Two permanent total

enclosures with a thermal incinerator system have been installed on the

adhesive prime booth and paint booth number four. Two degreasers were

replaced with an alkaline cleaning process that reduces the VOC

emissions by 106.5 tons per year (tpy), and a cloth management system

was developed to handle wipe solvent VOC emissions. This cloth

management system will reduce VOC emissions from cleaning operations by

50%. Air atomization has been eliminated as an application method and

replaced with a high volume low pressure application system with an

application efficiency of 60 to 80%. This application process results

in emission reductions of 14 tpy. Finally, the maskant operations have

all been subcontracted or phased out as of October 1, 1993. The

estimated VOC reductions are 133 tpy. Please refer to the EPA's

technical support document for a summary of the feasibility of various

control technologies, a precise listing of those suppliers contacted,

as well as a listing of the new coatings.

As mentioned above, Lockheed investigated the use of add-on control

equipment in its operations. Control technology vendors were contacted

to determine if such equipment could be suitable for Lockheed's

specific operations. Cost estimates for the various types of add-on

controls were prepared and analyzed for feasibility. Cost estimates

were developed based on tons per year of VOC removed. The actual

concentration of VOC in the exhaust stream and the total volume of air

to be treated are the primary factors considered when determining cost

effectiveness. Where those add-on control systems were deemed feasible,

the ARACT provisions reflect their implementation. Lockheed now emits

roughly 65 tpy. of VOCs from its approximately 20 separate paint

booths. One booth emits approximately 20 tpy., the rest each emit six

tpy. or less.

In order to meet RACT requirements for surface coating operations,

Lockheed would need to reduce its overall VOC emissions from the

coatings used by an additional 15.79 tpy. The required offset for

moderate nonattainment areas is 1.2 tpy., requiring a 17.3 tpy.

reduction to meet the presumptive norm for surface coatings. However,

the emission reductions from the cloth management system as well as the

implementation of low-VOC wipe solvent reduces the VOC emissions from

Lockheed's wipe solvent operation by 63.4 tpy.; this reduces the

overall emissions from the surface coating operations more than would

be required under RACT.

The EPA reviewed the information developed by Lockheed 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. Again, please refer to the

EPA's technical support document for a complete listing of the vendors

contacted, emission reduction calculations for various control systems,

as well as the cost determinations for add-on controls.

Summary

The EPA's review of the information submitted by both the State of

Texas and the current operator of AFP4, Lockheed Corporation, 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 Board Order Number 93-13 should be considered RACT in

this case.

Final Action

The EPA is approving Texas' source-specific RACT determination

issued by the State of Texas under Board Order Number 93-13 on June 18,

1993, as a revision to the Texas SIP. The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. This

action will become effective on March 21, 1994, unless notice is

received that adverse or critical comments will be received by February

22, 1994.

If such notice is received, this action will be withdrawn before

the effective date by publishing two subsequent notices. One notice

will withdraw the final action, and another will begin a new rulemaking

by announcing a proposal of the action and establishing a comment

period. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that

this action will be effective on March 21, 1994. The EPA has reviewed

this request for revision of the federally-approved SIP for conformance

with the provisions of the 1990 CAAA enacted on November 15, 1990. The

EPA has determined that this action conforms with those requirements.

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, economical, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the 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, under U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA may certify that the rule

will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small

entities (see 46 FR 8709). Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities with

jurisdiction over population of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D, of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) 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 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 CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review

of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for

the appropriate circuit by March 21, 1994. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See

section 307(b)(2).

Executive Order 12291

This action has been classified as a table three action by the

Acting Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the FR

on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). On January 6, 1989, the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) waived table two and three SIP revisions

from the requirements of section three of Executive Order 12291 for a

period of two years (54 FR 2222). The EPA has submitted a request for a

permanent waiver for table two and three SIP revisions. The OMB has

agreed to continue the waiver until such time as it rules on the EPA's

request. This request continues in effect under Executive Order 12866,

which superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmentalrelations, Reporting and

recordkeeping, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 22, 1993.

W.B. Hathaway,

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) (80) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(80) A revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan to adopt an

alternate control strategy for the surface coating processes at

Lockheed Corporation of Fort Worth.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Texas Air Control Board Order Number 93-13 issued and effective

June 18, 1993, for Lockheed Corporation, Fort Worth approving an

Alternate Reasonably Available Control Technology (ARACT). A letter

from the Governor of Texas dated August 19, 1993, submitting to the EPA

the ARACT demonstration.

(ii) Additional material-the document prepared by GD titled ``The

Proposed Alternate Reasonably Available Control Technology

Determination for U.S. Air Force Plant Number Four and Ancillary

Facilities of General Dynamics'' dated September 16, 1991.

[FR Doc. 94-1271 Filed 1-19-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F