Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Wisconsin

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI76-01-7305; FRL-6004-7]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;

Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is

proposing to disapprove a site-specific volatile organic compound (VOC)

reasonably available control technology (RACT) State Implementation

Plan (SIP) revision for the Amron Corporation facility located at 525

Progress Avenue in Waukesha. The SIP revision was submitted by the

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on February 21, 1997,

and would exempt the facility from the emission limits applicable to

miscellaneous metal coating operations.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received before May 28,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the proposed SIP revision and EPA's analysis are

available for inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone Kathleen D'Agostino at (312)

886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental

Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 886-1767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On February 21, 1997, WDNR submitted a site-specific VOC RACT SIP

revision for the Amron Corporation facility located at 525 Progress

Avenue in Waukesha. Amron manufactures several different kinds of

projectiles for a United States Department of Defense (DOD) contractor.

Amron's work is exclusively DOD contracts.

The Amron facility is located in the Milwaukee severe nonattainment

area and is subject to rule NR 422.15 of the Wisconsin Administrative

code, which regulates miscellaneous metal coating operations. NR 422.15

has been approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) as meeting the RACT requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act).

Specifically, under NR 422.15(2)(a) and (b), when coating

miscellaneous metal parts or products using a baked or specially cured

coating technology, Amron may not exceed 4.3 pounds of VOC per gallon

of coating as applied for clear coats and 3.5 pounds of VOC per gallon

of coating as applied for extreme performance coatings. Under NR

422.15(3)(c), when coating miscellaneous metal parts or products using

an air dried coating technology, Amron may not exceed 3.5 pounds of VOC

per gallon for clear coatings.

II. Facility and Process Description

As noted above, Amron manufactures several different kinds of

projectiles for the DOD. Process P01 at Amron is the paint operation

which encompasses five different lines for coating numerous types and

shapes of military items, including the 25mm cartridge case, the M430/

M918TP, the M67/M69, the M56A4, and the M75 and M73 rockets. As a

contractor to the DOD, Amron is required to use certain paints which

are specified by the military. Each coating was specified by DOD for

its unique characteristics.

Exterior projectile coatings must protect against corrosion,

provide color identification and not chip, flake or rub off. Exterior

cartridge case coatings must protect against corrosion, provide a low

co-efficient of friction surface for feeding and extraction, as well as

not chip or rub off. Interior and exterior cartridge or projectile

coatings must protect against corrosion, provide a friction-free

surface between the steel body and high explosives during loading, and

be chemically compatible with the high explosives.

Below is a table listing the coatings used by Amron for the various

projectiles.

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

Product Description Type Military specification VOC lb/gal

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

25MM......................... Olive Drab........ Polyamide-Amide 12013517 6.4

Teflon.

M430/M918.................... Red Oxide Primer.. Alkyd............ MIL-P-22332 4.52

Olive Drab Lacquer Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.94

Blue Lacquer...... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.94

M67.......................... Red Oxide Primer.. Alkyd............ MIL-P-22332 4.52

Off-White Primer.. Epoxy............ MIL-P-53022 4.229

Green Zenthane.... Polyurethane..... MIL-C-53039 3.491

M69.......................... Blue Lacquer...... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 (\1\)

M56A4........................ Asphalt Type I.... Asphalt.......... MIL-C-450C 3.744

Yellow Lacquer.... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.89

Red Lacquer....... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 5.0

M73.......................... Olive Drab Lacquer Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.94

Yellow Lacquer.... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.89

[[Page 23240]]

Clear Lacquer & Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-10287 5.07

Blue Tint.

M75.......................... Blue Lacquer...... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 (\1\)

Brown Lacquer..... Cellulose Nitrate MIL-L-11195 4.92

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

\1\ Unknown.

III. RACT Evaluation

Amron hired a consultant to take bids for a catalytic oxidation

unit, a regenerative oxidation unit and a regenerative catalytic

oxidation unit. The cost ranged from $7,146 to $9,060 per ton to

control one coating line and $9,909 to $18,657 per ton to control the

five coating lines. USEPA agrees that the cost of add-on controls seems

to be economically unreasonable.

Amron has written letters to its prime DOD contractor seeking

permissible alternate coatings, but has received no reply. Therefore,

Amron contends that it needs an exemption from RACT requirements for

these painting operations. The variance submitted states that the VOC

content of the coatings used for a DOD contract shall not exceed the

DOD specification for that coating.

USEPA has reviewed the military specifications provided by Amron

and has independently investigated the availability of alternate

coatings. The coatings (above) used by Amron which are required to meet

MIL-L-11195 (actually MIL-L-11195D) range from 4.89 to 5.0 pounds of

VOC per gallon of coating. This military standard was replaced by MIL-

E-11195E which specifies a VOC content of 3.5 pounds per gallon and

would comply with RACT requirements. Amron should seek to modify its

contract to allow for the use of coatings complying with the updated

specification.

The off-white primer covered by specification MIL-P-53022 is listed

as having a VOC content of 4.229 pounds per gallon. MIL-P-53022,

however, requires coatings to meet a VOC content of 3.5 pounds of VOC

per gallon. Amron has not explained this discrepancy. The clear lacquer

and blue tint covered by MIL-L-10287 does not appear on the M73 drawing

provided by Amron. The company should indicate where this coating is

required so it will be possible to verify that no alternate

specifications are allowed. Finally, for the polyamide-amide Teflon

coating covered by specification 12013517, the red oxide primer covered

by MIL-P-22332, and the asphalt coating covered by MIL-C-450C, as well

as clear lacquer and blue tint coating covered by MIL-L-10287, Amron

should, at a minimum, demonstrate that it has investigated other

vendors and is using the lowest VOC content coating which meets the

applicable military specification.

Furthermore, the variance is unacceptable because it provides Amron

with no fixed applicable limits, and in most cases, no applicable

limits at all. Granting the variance would give Amron no incentive to

seek the lowest VOC content coating available. Also, while ``usage

records'' are required, no time frame, e.g. daily, is specified.

For the reasons discussed above, USEPA is proposing to disapprove

this SIP revision.

IV. Miscellaneous

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing

or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any

SIP. The EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in

light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

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. Secs. 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.

USEPA's disapproval of the State request under Section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing Federal

requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its State

enforceability. Moreover, USEPA's disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, USEPA certifies that

this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities, because it does not remove

existing requirements or impose any new Federal requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205, USEPA 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 USEPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

USEPA has determined that the disapproval action proposed 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 disapproval action

imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,

local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result.

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 891 the

following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules

relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency

organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect

the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). USEPA

is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under

section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

[[Page 23241]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: April 15, 1998.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.

[FR Doc. 98-11278 Filed 4-27-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P