Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

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