Approval of Source Specific Revisions to the Tennessee SIP Regarding Volatile Organic Compounds

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TN159-1-9704(b); TN174-1-9726(b); TN175-1-9725(b); FRL-5859-5]

Approval of Source Specific Revisions to the Tennessee SIP

Regarding Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is taking action on three source

specific revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP)

which establish reasonably available control technology requirements

(RACT) for the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions

from certain operations at Brunswick Marine Corporation, Outboard

Marine Corporation, and Essex Group Incorporated. EPA is approving the

operating permits for these sources into the SIP with the exception of

the portion of one permit which allows the Tennessee Technical

Secretary to determine RACT which is being disapproved. These permits

were issued consistent with the alternate control plans which

established RACT requirements in accordance with the provisions of the

Tennessee SIP for developing VOC emission control requirements for

major sources for which there is no regulation or guidance for

determining RACT.

DATES: This action is effective September 19, 1997, unless adverse or

critical comments are received by August 20, 1997. If the effective

date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to

William Denman at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies

of documents relative to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the

visiting day. Reference files TN159-01-9704, TN174-01-9726, and TN175-

01-9726. The Region 4 office may have additional background documents

not available at the other locations.

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. William Denman, 404/562-

9030.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Air

Pollution Control, L & C Annex, 9th Floor, 401 Church Street,

Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Denman at 404/562-9030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 20, 1995, Tennessee submitted a

permit for Brunswick

[[Page 38910]]

Marine Corporation (permit number 743652P), and on June 3, 1996,

Tennessee submitted permits for Outboard Marine Corporation (permit

number 039845P & 044881P), and Essex Group Incorporated (permits

numbers 045011P, 045012P, & 045013P). These operating permits were

submitted to EPA for the purpose of establishing RACT requirements for

certain VOC emitting operations at these facilities. These permits

contain source specific RACT requirements which were established in

accordance with Tennessee rule 1200-3-18-.79 ``Other Facilities that

Emit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC's) of One Hundred Tons Per Year.''

This rule contains presumptive RACT requirements for major sources not

subject to an EPA control technique guideline (CTG). These requirements

include meeting presumptive RACT emission limits for certain

operations, installation and operation of an emission capture system

which achieves 90 percent capture, certification of compliance,

maintenance of records, and self reporting of exceedances. However, if

the implementation of the presumptive RACT measures listed in the rule

are determined to be either technically or economically infeasible this

rule provides for the development of an alternate control plan. This

alternative control plan must be approved into the SIP. For an

alternate control plan to be approved into the SIP, the State must

provide a demonstration that the presumptive RACT measures contained in

rule 1200-3-18-.79 are either technically or economically infeasible

for their application. The State provided to EPA a comprehensive

demonstration that it was either technically or economically infeasible

to implement the presumptive RACT requirements contained in rule 1200-

3-18-.79 for certain sources at these three facilities. These

demonstrations are part of the RACT determinations and are contained in

the technical support document developed for this action. The

demonstrations contain a comparison of control measures used at similar

facilities and other potential RACT measures. Some alternatives

investigated were technically infeasible and some were determined to be

economically infeasible. For the fiberglass boat manufacturers the RACT

determination is equivalent to the South Coast Air Quality Management

District of California's production rule 1162. VOC reductions will be

obtained through a combination of process modifications and material

substitutions. For the lubricant application operation at the Essex

Group facility, RACT was determined to be good housekeeping practices

to reduce fugitive emissions, use of non-VOC dri-lubes as permitted by

customers, and application of dri-lube through a proprietary wick

process. EPA has determined that these demonstrations adequately proved

that other RACT measures are infeasible and that the RACT measures

established for these operations meet the Agency's requirements for

alternative RACT. The specific RACT measures which were developed for

certain sources at these three facilities are described below.

I. Brunswick Marine Corporation Source Specific RACT Requirements

On April 13, 1994, the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board

approved an alternate control plan which established RACT requirements

for certain VOC emitting operations at the Brunswick Marine Corporation

facility located in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. On February 21, 1996,

Tennessee issued operating permit number 743652P to Brunswick Marine

containing the RACT requirements discussed above. EPA is approving this

permit into the SIP with the exception of the phrase ``unless

alternative factors can be established empirically and are approved by

the Technical Secretary'' contained in permit condition #18(1)(f) which

is being disapproved. The following RACT requirements were established

in the operating permit for certain VOC emitting operations at

Brunswick Marine facility.

1. Decks and Hulls Production:

a. In the laminating process of the decks only non-atomizing

techniques shall be used. These techniques include the use of airless

or air-assisted airless spray guns, which include wet out and

``chopper'' guns, and techniques such as use of pressure fed rollers.

b. Airless or air-assisted airless spraying equipment shall be

utilized where possible during the gelcoat application. This equipment

was installed and utilized for pigmented and clear gelcoats by January

1, 1995. However, during the application of polyflake gelcoats, air-

atomized techniques may be used.

c. In the laminating process of hulls, the dry glass reinforcement

shall be placed into the molds by hand and catalyzed resin shall be

applied to the dry glass using non-atomizing techniques such as

pressure fed rollers, wet out and ``chopper'' guns or bucket and brush

techniques.

d. Mix gelcoats contain VOC's including styrene, MEKP and MMA. The

MEKP content of gelcoat shall not exceed 2 percent by weight under

normal operating conditions. A maximum of 2.5 percent MEKP may be used

when necessary due to cold weather conditions.

e. The styrene content of lamination resins shall not exceed 37

percent by weight. The styrene content of gelcoat shall not exceed 48

percent by weight. The methyl methacrylate (MMA) content of gelcoat

shall not exceed 10 percent by weight.

f. Emissions of styrene may be determined quantitatively by using

the factors 18 percent by weight for spray operations and 10 percent

weight for hand lay up operations.

g. The styrene content of the gelcoat used for tooling purposes

shall not exceed 50 percent by weight, and shall be utilized only

during the construction and repair of molds.

2. Carpet Adhesive Application: Adhesives containing solvents which

are ozone depleting chemicals are being phased out of this operation

because of the adverse environmental effect of release of these

chemicals to the atmosphere. Adhesives containing volatile organic

compounds (VOC) are currently the only known technically feasible

materials, other than adhesives containing ozone depleting chemicals as

solvents, that can be used for this operation. Therefore, adhesives

containing VOC may be used in this operation. The allowable VOC content

of adhesives used in this operation shall be 4.4 lbs VOC/gallon with a

maximum usage rate of 313 gallons/month.

3. Miscellaneous: Total volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions

from other VOC emitting operations which are subject to Rule 1200-3-

18-.79 shall not be in excess of 3 percent of the total VOC emitted

from all operations subject to this rule. Compliance with this

requirement shall be on a calendar month basis.

II. Outboard Marine Corporation Source Specific RACT Requirements

On April 13, 1994, the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board

approved an alternate control plan which established RACT requirements

for certain VOC emitting operations at the Outboard Marine

Corporation's boat manufacturing facility located in Murfreesboro,

Tennessee. On July 27, 1995, and May 31, 1996, Tennessee issued two

operating permits (permit number 039845P & 044881P) to Outboard Marine

containing the RACT requirements for certain sources. EPA is approving

these operating permits into the SIP for the purpose of establishing

federally enforceable RACT measures. The RACT requirements contained in

[[Page 38911]]

the operating permit which were established for certain VOC emitting

operations at Brunswick Marine are as follows.

1. Decks and Hulls Production:

a. In the laminating process of decks larger than 21 feet in

length, only non-atomizing resin application techniques such as a flow

coater or pressure feed roller shall be used to apply the catalyzed

resin to wet the glass fibers and mold surfaces. In the laminating

process of decks smaller than 21 feet in length, techniques such as

airless or air-assisted airless spray guns, which include wet out and

``chopper'' guns, and pressure fed rollers and flow coaters shall be

used.

b. Only airless or air-assisted airless spraying equipment shall be

used for pigmented gelcoat application.

c. In the laminating process of hulls, the dry glass reinforcement

shall be placed into the molds by hand and catalyzed resin shall be

applied to the dry glass using non-atomizing resin application

techniques such as a flow coater or pressure fed roller.

d. Mixed gelcoat may contain the VOC's styrene, methyl methacrylate

(MMA) and MEKP. The MEKP content of gelcoat shall not exceed 2 percent

by weight under normal operating conditions. A maximum of 2.5 percent

MEKP may be used when necessary due to cold weather conditions.

e. The styrene content of lamination resins shall not exceed 35

percent by weight. The combined styrene and MMA content of pigmented

gelcoat shall not exceed 47 percent by weight and of the metal flake

clear gelcoat 53 percent by weight.

f. Emissions of styrene shall be calculated based on 18 percent by

weight for atomized spray operations and 10 percent weight for hand lay

up operations.

g. For tooling purposes only the styrene content of gelcoat and

resin shall not exceed 50 percent by weight, and shall be used only for

the purpose of building and repairing molds.

h. Tooling gelcoat shall be used only for the purpose of building

and repairing molds.

2. Carpet Adhesive Application: The VOC's emitted from this source

shall not exceed 1.2 pounds per gallon of glue applied. Glue usage at

this source shall not exceed 240 gallons per day.

3. Miscellaneous: Total VOC emissions from other VOC emitting

operations which are subject to Rule 1200-3-18-.79 shall not be in

excess of 3 percent of the total VOC emitted from all operations

subject to this rule. Compliance with this requirement shall be on a

calendar month basis.

III. Essex Group Inc. Source Specific RACT Requirements

On April 13, 1994, the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board

approved an alternate control plan which established RACT requirements

for VOC emission control on the lubricant application to enameled wire

at Essex Group, Incorporated's Franklin, Tennessee, Magnet Wire coating

facility. On May 31, 1996, Tennessee issued three operating permits

(permit number 045011P, 045012P & 045013P) to Essex Group containing

the RACT requirements for its magnet wire coating processes. In

addition to providing for RACT requirements pursuant to the Tennessee

regulation for the coating of magnet wire, the permits also contain

source specific RACT requirements for the lubrication application

process. EPA is approving these operating permits into the SIP for the

purpose of establishing federally enforceable RACT measures for the

lubrication application process. The specific RACT requirements

contained in the operating permit to control VOC emissions from the

lubrication application process are as follows.

1. Lubricant shall be applied by wick applicator only.

2. The VOC content of the lubricant shall not exceed 5.87 pounds

per gallon, as applied and excluding water and exempt compounds.

3. In addition to satisfying the requirements of paragraphs 1200-3-

18-.03 (1) and (3) of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations,

records shall be maintained of the quantity of lubricant used per

calendar month. Each record shall be kept for at least 3 years after

the date the record is created, and shall be made available to the

Technical Secretary upon request.

4. By March 31 of each year, a report shall be submitted to the

Technical Secretary of results of research and development in reducing

VOC emissions from the lubricant application operation (such as by

reformulation of the lubricant, improvement in application efficiency,

process changes to reduce or eliminate the need for lubricant

application, and installation of emission control systems), and of

reductions achieved by implementation of new emission reduction

methods.

Final Action

The EPA is approving these revisions to the Tennessee SIP with the

exception of the phrase ``unless alternative factors can be established

empirically and are approved by the Technical Secretary'' contained in

condition number 18 of permit number 743652P which is being disapproved

as discussed in the supplementary section of this document. The EPA is

publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views

this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should

adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be effective

September 19, 1997 unless, by August 20, 1997, adverse or critical

comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn

before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should

do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is

advised that this action will be effective September 19, 1997.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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. 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.

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

Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does

[[Page 38912]]

not impose any new requirements, the Administrator certifies 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 flexibility analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air

Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).

The portion disapproved only affects one source, Brunswick Marine

Corporation. Therefore, it does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, as explained in this

document, the portion of the request disapproved does not meet the

requirements of the CAA and EPA cannot approve the request. Therefore,

EPA has no option but to disapprove this portion of the submittal.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), 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

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.

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 pre-

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

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. 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 the rule in today's

Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 19, 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: July 3, 1997.

Michael V. Peyton,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 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 RR--Tennessee

2. Section 52.2220, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(156) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.2220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(156) Addition of six operating permits containing source specific

VOC RACT requirements for certain VOC sources at Brunswick Marine

Corporation, Outboard Marine Corporation, and Essex Group Incorporated

submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

on December 20, 1995 and June 3, 1996.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Marine Group Brunswick Corporation operating permit number

743652P issued February 21, 1996, (conditions number 2, 3, and 18).

(B) Stratos Boat Incorporated, D.B.A. Javelin Boats operating

permit number 039845P issued on July 27, 1995, (conditions number 2 and

3), and permit number 044881P issued on May 31, 1996, (conditions

number 2, 9, and 10).

(C) Essex Group Incorporated operating permit numbers 045011P,

(conditions 5, 10, 13, and 15), 045012P, (conditions 5, 10, 13, and 15)

and 045013P, (conditions 5 and 16) issued on May 31, 1996.

(ii) Other material. None.

[FR Doc. 97-19084 Filed 7-18-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P