United States Office of Air Quality EPA-453/R-02-004 K"
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards April 2002
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw
S-EPA
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Source Category:
Large Appliances Surface
Coating Operations --
Background Information for
Promulgated Standards
-------
EPA-453/R-02-004
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Category:
Large Appliances
Surface Coating Operations -
Background Information for Promulgated Standards
April 2002
Emission Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air" Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North .Carolina 27711
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Large Appliances
Surface Coating Operations -
Background Information for Promulgated Standards
Prepared by:
Sally Shaver • (Date)
Director, Emission Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
1. The final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) will regulate emissions of hazardous air
pollutants from the storage and use of coatings, thinners,
and cleaning materials associated with the surface coating
of large appliance parts and products. Only those
operations that are part of major sources under section
112(d) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 will be
regulated.
2. Copies of this document have been sent to the following
Federal Departments: Labor, Health and Human Services,
Defense, Transportation, Agriculture, Commerce, Interior,
and Energy; the National Science Foundation; the Council on
Environmental Quality; members of the State and Territorial
Air Pollution Program Administrators; the Association of
Local Air Pollution Control Officials; EPA Regional
Administrators; and other interested parties.
3. For additional information contact:
H. Lynn Dail
OAQPS, Coatings and Consumer Products (C539-03)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Telephone: (919) 541-2363
4. Paper copies of this document may be obtained from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: (703) 487-4650. . •
iii
-------
U.S. EPA Library Services Office (MD-35)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Electronic copies of this document may be obtained from the
EPA Technology Transfer Network (TTN). The TTN is an
electronic bulletin board system which is free, except for
the normal long distance charges. To access this BID Volume
II document for the large appliances surface coating NESHAP:
• Set Internet Browser to:
http://www.epa.qoy/ttn/atw/lapp/lapplpg.html
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Summary 1-1
2.0 Changes to the Rule Following Proposal 2-1
3.0 Comments 3-1
3.1 Applicability/Scope of Category 3-1
3.2 Overlap with Other NESHAP Categories 3-13
3.3 Compliance Issues 3-18
3.4 Cost Analysis 3-25
3.5 Reporting Requirements 3-27
3.6 Definition of New Source 3-29
3.7 Format/Stringency of Standards 3-31
3.8 Determination of MACT Floor 3-37
3.9 Miscellaneous Issues 3-41
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1-1 List of Commenters on the Proposed NESHAP for
Large Appliance Surface Coating Operations 1-2
3-1 Potential Regulated Entities 3-4
VI
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
On December 22, 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposed national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutant (HAP) emissions from large appliance surface
coating operations at major source facilities (65 FR 81134).
These proposed standards implemented section 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). There were
17 comment letters on the proposal (see Table 1-1), and the
commenters consisted of trade associations, manufacturers,
associations representing State and local air pollution control
agencies, and U.S. Government agencies. Summaries of the
comments, and the EPA's responses, are presented in this
background information document (BID Volume II). This summary of
comments and responses served as the basis for the revisions made
to the rule between proposal and promulgation. Besides
summarizing the comments and responses, this document also
presents a summary of the significant rule revisions. This
document supplements BID Volume I, "National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Category: Large
Appliances Surface Coating Operations - Background Information
for Proposed Standards," September 2000, EPA Document No. EPA-
453/ROO-006 (Docket A-97-41, item III-B-1).
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE PROPOSED NESHAP FOR
LARGE APPLIANCE SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS
Item No. in
Docket A-97-41
IV-D-1
IV-D-2
IV-D-3
IV-D-4
IV-D-5
IV-D-6
IV-D-7
IV-D-8
IV-D-9
IV-D-10
IV-D-11
IV-D-123
V
Commenter and Affiliation
Ray Rusek
Maytag Appliances
Newton, IA
Elsie Munsell
Department of the Navy
Department of Defense (DOD)
Washington, D.C.
Robert Colby, Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials (ALAPCO) &
Bliss Higgins, State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators (STAPPA)
Washington, D.C.
Robert Nelson & Alison Keane
National Paint & Coatings Association (NPCA)
Washington, D.C.
Valerie Ughetta
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Washington, D.C.
Kimberly Bowden
Delphi Automotive Systems
Troy, MI
Karim Amrane
Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute (ARI)
Arlington, VA
David Foerter
Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC)
Washington, D.C.
Robert Streight
Visteon Corporation
Dearborn, MI
Steven Marks
General Electric Appliances (GEA)
Louisville, KY
Steve Rasmussen
Hill Air Force Base
U.S. Air Force (USAF)
Steve Bachellor
Lennox International Inc.
Richardson, TX
1-2
-------
TABLE 1-1. (Concluded)
Item No. in
Docket A-97-41
IV-D-13
IV-D-14
IV-D-15
IV-D-16
IV-D-17
IV-F-1 (A)
IV-F-1 (B)
Commenter and Affiliation
Allen Irish, NPCA
Karim Amrane, ARI
K.J. Kromer, Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (AHAM)
Washington, D.C.
Jonathan Pawlow
Office of Advocacy
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Washington, D.C.
Robert Karwowski
Whirlpool Corporation
Benton Harbor, MI
Robert Mulliner
The Trane Company
LaCrosse, WI
Janice Bardi
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
West Conshohocken, PA
Public Hearing Transcript
Robert Nelson
NPCA
Public Hearing Transcript
Karim Amrane
ARI
a This item was claimed by the commenter as confidential
business information (CBI), and is not available in the
public docket.
1-3
-------
2.0 CHANGES TO THE RULE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL
In response to public comments received on the proposed
standards, we made several changes in developing the final rule.
While some of the changes were designed to make our intentions
clearer, other changes had a direct effect on the degree of
coverage of the standards. The rationales for these rule changes
are discussed in more detail in Section 3.
In the proposal, we defined the regulated community for
these standards to be facilities that apply surface coatings to
large appliances or components of large appliances. In the
proposal BID and the table of regulated entities in the proposal
preamble (65 FR 81135), we stated that these facilities are
generally included under the following SIC codes (and their NAICS
code equivalents): 3631 (335221), 3632 (335222), 3633 (335224),
3639 (335228), 3585 (333415), and 3589 (333319). We cautioned
that some facilities and products with these codes do not fit
under the large appliance category, and similarly, there may be
facilities under other codes that do in fact coat large
appliances. Thus, these industrial codes were given as a guide
but were not intended to be used as the primary basis for
determining applicability of this rule.
The codes listed above are associated with household cooking
equipment, refrigerators/freezers, laundry equipment, and floor
vacuums and polishers (SIC 3639), and various types of commercial
and industrial heating, ventilation, and refrigeration equipment
(SIC 3585) . Table 2-1 in the proposal BID listed examples of
large appliances that are produced by facilities in these SIC
categories.
Several commenters stated that the scope of the category as
proposed was overly broatf and confusing. They also felt that we
had included several products not normally considered to be large
appliances, and that these products should be regulated under the
2-1
-------
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (MMPP) NESHAP currently
under development. As an alternative if EPA decided not to
change the mix of products defined to be large appliances, one
commenter suggested that we change the name of the source
category to better match the product mix being represented.
Our proposed definition of the large appliances source
category was formed using the six SIC/NAICS codes as a
foundation, and then including the products under those codes
that we believed should be included as large appliances. There
may have been confusion when comparing the preamble table to BID
Table 2-1. We have clarified our intent by including definitions
for large appliance product and large appliance part in the final
rule. These definitions include "white goods" appliances, as
well as certain heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC)
equipment used in commercial and industrial applications.
However, specifically excluded from the definition of large
appliance product are heat transfer coils, large commercial and
industrial chillers, and motor vehicle air-conditioning units.
These definitions list the parts and products intended to be
regulated under the final rule, and they supercede the listing in
Table 2-1. We also modified the proposal preamble table and are
including it in this BID. We have added Commercial Laundry
Equipment and have deleted Floor Waxing/Polishing and Motor
Vehicle Air-Conditioning, in keeping with our intention at
proposal. Finally, as discussed in Section 3.1, we have also
deleted heat transfer coils and large chillers from this table
and from coverage by this NESHAP.
A few commenters stated that the heat transfer coils used to
cool fluids in refrigeration and air-conditioning systems
typically have unique coating formulation requirements, and
suitable coatings are not available in a low-HAP formulation.
The need for special coatings arises from the complex geometry of
heat transfer coils, as well as exposure requirements in food
2-2
-------
processing and other special environments. The coating
information we collected and used to determine the MACT floors
did not contain any coatings used specifically for heat transfer
coils. We have examined the submitted information and comments
and have decided that the data analyzed since proposal offer
sufficient justification to warrant revising the proposal.
Therefore, we have excluded heat transfer coils from coverage
under the Large Appliances NESHAP.
One company and one trade association made the comment that
the proposed new source emission limit of 0.022 kg/liter (0.18
Ib/gal) would be impossible to meet for facilities coating
certain large HVAC equipment; specifically, commercial and
industrial chillers. They felt that these operations should
either be treated as a separate subcategory or be considered
under the MMPP category.
The commenters listed several factors in support of their
position. They said that these large HVAC products are produced
in much lower volumes than white goods, are often subjected to
outdoor environments, and have a longer expected life.
Commercial and industrial chillers are much larger than most
other large appliances and are usually painted after assembly.
Therefore, they cannot be put through a baking oven to cure the
coating (which precludes the use of powder coatings). The
commenters concluded that no operations of this type would be
constructed if the definition of large appliance contained these
large chillers and if the proposed new source limit applied to
these large chillers.
The EPA requested additional supporting data on large
commercial and industrial chiller equipment coating operations
and the available coatings. We also visited one of the few
facilities that manufacture this equipment. First, we determined
the applicability of large commercial and industrial chillers as
a large appliance component. We concluded that because of their
2-3
-------
unusual size and shape, heavy manufacturing techniques and
industrial applications, and the inability to match these
attributes into the definition as a large appliance, the EPA
should exclude large chillers from the large appliance category.
Therefore, the Large Appliances NESHAP will not apply to large
commercial and industrial chillers in the final rule.
We also clarified the applicability of certain coatings in
response to questions raised by commenters. The final rule
clarifies that porcelain enamels, powder coatings, and asphalt
interior soundproofing coating will be considered as coatings
subject to this subpart. However, phosphating (a form of
pretreatment) and metal plating are excluded from applicability
of this subpart.
We added several other new definitions to §63.4181 in
response to comments and to increase the clarity of the rule.
Newly defined terms include adhesive, large commercial and
industrial chillers, facility maintenance, heat transfer coil,
and month. Clarifying changes were also made to the proposed
definitions for coating operation, manufacturer's formulation
data, and surface preparation.
2-4
-------
3.0 COMMENTS
3.1 Applicability/Scope of Category
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-4 and IV-F-1(A),
IV-D-7) believed that the proposed scope of the large appliances
source category poses problems due to its broadness. The
commenters felt that this NESHAP should apply to the same product
group covered by the new source performance standards (NSPS) for
large appliances (40 CFR part 60, subpart SS). The NSPS affects
traditional "white goods" (i.e., ranges, ovens, refrigerators,
dishwashers, etc.) manufactured for household, commercial, or
recreational use. They felt that the inclusion of other items
such as smaller home appliances and heating and air-conditioning
equipment, confuses the regulated community.
One of the commenters (IV-D-1) recommended that the large
appliance source category be more definitive. The proposed
definition says that large appliance parts and products "include,
but are not limited to, heating and air conditioning units and
parts, chillers, household refrigerators and home and farm
freezers, household laundry equipment, household cooking
equipment, dishwashers, floor waxers and polishers, garbage
disposal units, trash compactors, and water heaters." The
commenter suggested that the EPA delete the phrase "but are not
limited to" in order to remove the ambiguity.
Response: The NSPS (47 FR 47778, October 27, 1982) defined
the large appliance category as consisting of appliances known
throughout the industry as "white goods." The NSPS source
category includes clothes washers and dryers, electric and gas
ranges and ovens, microwave ovens, refrigerators and freezers,
dishwashers, water heaters, and trash compactors. In the
proposed Large Appliances NESHAP, we used the NSPS definition as
a starting point but did not limit the definition of the category
to white goods. The proposed NESHAP identified heating and air-
3-1
-------
conditioning units and parts, chillers, floor waxers and
polishers, and garbage disposal units as additional components of
the large appliance category. In a table of Regulated Entities
in the preamble to the proposed rule (65 FR 81135), we also
included the product descriptions of household vacuum cleaners,
motor vehicle air conditioners, and service industry machinery.
While the large appliance definition in this rule is
different from the NSPS definition, the EPA does not believe
including surface coating processes for certain additional
manufactured goods that have similarities to white goods will
create confusion if the final rule clearly defines the source
category and the affected source. However, we agree with the
commenters that the proposed source category definition was too
broad, and we have deleted some of the products. For
clarification purposes, we have added definitions for large
appliance parts and products to the final rule, which
specifically indicate the types of appliances that are subject to
the rule. This language also lists specific items that are
included under the appliance SIC or NAICS codes, and yet are
excluded from coverage. The phrase "but are not limited to" has
been retained because it is not possible to list the full range
of existing and future products that qualify as large appliances.
The new definition for large appliance product is as follows:
"Large appliance product means, but is not limited to, any of the
following products (except as provided under §63.4081(d)(3))
manufactured for household, recreational, institutional,
commercial, or industrial use:
(a) cooking equipment (ovens, ranges, and microwave ovens,
but not including toasters, counter-top grills, and similar small
products);
(b) refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerated cabinets and
cases;
3-2
-------
(c) laundry equipment (washers, dryers, drycleaning
machines, and pressing machines);
(d) dishwashers, trash compactors, and water heaters; and
(e) heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) units,
air-conditioning (except motor vehicle) units, air-conditioning
and heating combination units, comfort furnaces, and electric
heat pumps. Specifically excluded are heat transfer coils and
large commercial and industrial chillers."
We believe that this definition in the final rule clearly
describes the universe of surface coating operations that this
rule is intended to cover.
In addition to developing this definition, we have modified
the preamble table showing potentially regulated entities, and we
are including the table in this document as Table 3-1. Note that
this table is not meant to indicate applicability on the basis of
the SIC or NAICS codes themselves, because some of the products
manufactured under these codes are not considered to be large
appliances for the purposes of the final rule. For instance,
Carnival and amusement park ride equipment manufacturing (SIC
3599), Flight simulator equipment manufacturing (SIC 3699), and
Automobile alignment and mounting machinery manufacturing (SIC
3559) are not considered large appliances in this rule.
Table 3-1 has been modified from the table in the proposal
preamble in the following ways:
(1) former item 5, Floor Waxing/Polishing and Household
Vacuum Cleaners (SIC 3639/NAICS 335212);
(2) clarified the inclusion of Commercial Laundry Equipment,
etc. (SIC 3582/NAICS 333312);
(3) inserted exclusion far Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning,
Large Chillers, and Heat Transfer Coils (SIC 3585/NAICS 333415);
and
(4) former item 7, Motor Vehicle AC (SIC 3585/NAICS 336391).
These changes are, discussed further in the responses below.
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1. POTENTIAL REGULATED ENTITIES
Product
Description
Household Cooking
Equipment
Household
Refrigerators and
Home and Farm
Freezers
Household Laundry
Equipment
Household
Appliances, not
elsewhere
classified, e.g.,
dishwashers,
water heaters and
garbage disposals
and compactors
Commercial
Laundry Equipment
Air-Condi tioning
and Warm Air
Heating Equipment
and Commercial/
Industrial
Refrigeration
Equipment
Service Industry
Machinery, not
elsewhere
classified, e.g.,
commercial ovens,
microwave ovens,
fryers, dryers,
dishwashers, and
garbage
disposals .
1987
SIC
Code
3631
3632
3633
3639
3582
3585
3589
Equivalent
1997 NAICS
Code
335221
335222
335224
335228
333312
333415
333319
Excluding
SIC codes:
3559
3599
3699
1997 NAICS Product
Description
Household Cooking Appliance
Manufacturing
Household Refrigerator and
Home Freezer Manufacturing
Household Laundry Equipment
Manufacturing
Other Major Household
Appliance Manufacturing
Commercial Laundry,
Drycleaning, and Pressing
Machine Manufacturing
Air-Conditioning (except
Motor Vehicle) and Warm Air
Heating Equipment and
Commercial /Indus trial
Refrigeration and Freezer
Equipment (except Large
Chillers and Heat Transfer
Coils) Manufacturing
Other Commercial and Service
Industry Machinery
Manufacturing
Examples of exclusions
include but not limited to:
carnival and amusement park
equipment, flight simulator
equipment and automobile
alignment and tire mounting
equipment .
3-4
-------
Comment: Commenters (IV-D-4 and IV-F-1(A)) urged the EPA to
modify the category definition by deleting those items
traditionally regulated as miscellaneous metal parts and products
(MMPP). At the least, the name of the source category should be
changed to match the items considered to be large appliances in
the proposal. The commenters suggested the following title:
"Large and Miscellaneous Appliances."
Response: The Agency agrees that clarification of the
source category is important. In the proposal we expanded the
scope and applicability of the category. We have clarified
definitions in the final rule to provide an immediate indication
that the Large Appliances NESHAP has broader coverage than the
NSPS definition. We believe any uncertainties about the products
that we consider to be large appliances will be eliminated when
the definitions are read by regulated sources. We have decided
to retain the original category name.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-7 and IV-F-1 (B), IV-D-16)
expressed concern regarding the inclusion of certain heating,
ventilating, air-conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC/R)
products in the Large Appliances NESHAP source category. These
commenters felt that products such as heat exchanger coils,
evaporative condensers, industrial refrigeration equipment, and
chillers should either be regulated as a subcategory within the
large appliance group or be considered not applicable to the
large appliance category and possibly regulated under a different
NESHAP category.
The commenters listed several factors that reflect the
different nature of these industrial heating and cooling products
in comparison to "white goods" appliances. They stated that
these products are produced in much lower volumes than white
goods, are often used outdoors, and" have a longer expected life.
Heat exchanger coils cannot be coated with powder coatings due to
3-5
-------
their complex geometry and, oftentimes, their corrosion
resistance requirements. Large commercial air conditioners such
as chillers are much larger than household appliances, are
assembled and manufactured differently in comparison to household
appliances, have complex configurations, and are painted post-
assembly; therefore, they cannot be painted on automated lines or
be put through a baking oven or subjected to infrared (IR) or
ultraviolet (UV) curing to dry the coating.
One of the commenters (IV-D-16) stated that the only option
available to large HVAC/R manufacturers for coating these
products is air-dried liquid coatings. Low-HAP formulations of
these coatings that meet the proposed emission limit for new
sources (0.022 kg HAP/liter of coating solids) are unavailable.
They concluded that, if the new source limit is finalized at its
proposed level, this would effectively prevent the future siting
of new surface coating operations for large HVAC/R equipment
anywhere in the United States.
Response: In general, the EPA agrees that some large HVAC/R
products have differences from traditional white goods
appliances. However, these differences are primarily related to
the size of the equipment and their specific applications (i.e.,
typically industrial or commercial settings), rather than to the
materials and processes used to apply surface coatings to them.
After making site visits and analyzing additional data we have
received, we maintain our belief that most HVAC/R equipment, even
though it is classified under different industrial codes from
white goods, have similar coating application processes, emission
characteristics, and coating formulations. Therefore, most
HVAC/R equipment should be considered to be large appliances for
the purposes of this NESHAP.
Following proposal, commenter IV-D-16 clarified that this
concern was specifically with large industrial and commercial
chiller equipment, due to the several structural and
3-6
-------
manufacturing differences that make the use of low-HAP coatings
infeasible. Large commercial and industrial chillers are an
integral part of cooling processes applicable to large
application/commercial indoor climate control and heavy
industrial applications not similar to operations of other
appliances cited in this rule. A significant number of large
chiller units are manufactured solely for industrial cooling
processes. These units are custom-made. One chiller
manufacturer applies coatings post-assembly at the plant;
however, a significant number of manufacturers deliver these
units without coatings. Because of their large size, mass,
construction materials, and shape (10 to 30 feet long, 6 to 15
feet high and weighing up to 50 tons with exposed piping and
heavy thick metal exteriors), coatings are applied by hand and
often at the site of an installation and not at the factory.
Large chillers require specialized heavy industrial equipment for
manufacturing, testing, product delivery and installation, unlike
other appliances in this category. EPA staff visited a large
chiller manufacturing facility, where the differences involved in
coating this equipment were observed.1 Based on this visit and a
review of the issues involved with coating this equipment, we
have determined that large commercial and industrial chiller
equipment is sufficiently different to be removed from the large
appliances source category. This exclusion has been included in
the definition of large appliance product.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-7) stated that several
requests have been submitted to the EPA in the past to have some
HVAC/R products excluded from the large appliances category,
which were accompanied by information and rationale. They felt
that the EPA had failed to either address their concerns o*
docket A-97-41,(item no. IV-B-01) for a description of
this site visit.
3-7
-------
provide its rationale for including all products covered under
SIC code 3585 in the large appliances category. Another
commenter (IV-D-12) asserted that the technology issues
associated with the coating of heat transfer coils are completely
unrelated to coating furnaces and air-conditioning systems and
other products that are being considered under the large
appliance definition.
Response: Commenters submitted information outlining the
coating requirements for heat transfer coils. Heat transfer
coils are installed in applications both subject and not subject
to the large appliance NESHAP. Heat transfer coils have over
21,000 different designs and, when coated, must be coated on the
entire surface, including inner surfaces. These coils are made
of metal tubing and metallic fins with a fin density as great as
24 fins per inch with a complex surface profile. Adequate
penetration and coverage is paramount to meet performance
criteria for corrosion resistance and often to meet other Federal
requirements regulating the food service industry. Coatings
capable of meeting the application, flow, and coverage
capabilities and performance requirements of heat transfer coils
and of not congealing in the fins are not available in
formulations that meet the emission limits of the Large
Appliances NESHAP. After reviewing the submitted information, we
have concluded that the surface coating of heat transfer coils
has significant differences from the coating of other large
appliance parts and products. The final rule excludes heat
transfer coils (in the definition of large appliance product)
from applicability under the Large Appliances NESHAP.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-5, IV-D-6, IV-D-9) stated
that the manufacturing of motor vehicle air conditioner (AC)
components should not be included in the Large Appliances NESHAP.
They stressed that these parts and products are designed to meet
3-8
-------
unique specifications as compared to many large appliances. For
example, vehicle AC components must resist high temperatures and
corrosion, and are subject to stringent safety standards that
other large appliance products do not have to meet. In addition
to these considerations, two automotive component manufacturers
(IV-D-6, IV-D-9) pointed out that they operate under SIC code
3714 and were not included in the EPA's survey for this standard,
and so were not included in the large appliance data base or in
the determination of the MACT floor. Furthermore, they could
find only one facility engaged in the coating of motor vehicle AC
components (facility 72) in the data base.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that motor
vehicle AC parts and products should not be included in the large
appliance category. We did not intend, in the original
development of the proposed rule, to include automotive air-
conditioning units. Therefore, the final rule clarifies (in the
definition of large appliance product) that automotive air-
conditioning parts and products will not be regulated by the
Large Appliances NESHAP.
Comment: Another commenter (IV-D-1) asked for a
clarification of the proposed definition of "coating", which
reads: "Coating means a material applied to a substrate for
decorative, protective, or functional purposes. Such materials
include, but are not limited to, paints, sealants, caulks, inks,
adhesives, and maskants. Decorative, protective, or functional
materials that consist only of protective oils, acids, bases, or
any combination of these substances are not considered coatings
for the purposes of this subpart." The commenter interpreted the
definition to include porcelain enameling processes, and felt
that it could also be construed to include processes such as
plating.
3-9
-------
Another commenter (IV-D-15) requested clarification on
whether the following coating materials are to be used in the
solids (compliance) calculation: (a) asphalt interior
soundproofing, (b) powder coatings, (c) phosphate coatings, and
(d) porcelain coatings. The commenter believed it was the intent
of the rule to include these materials as coatings, but felt this
should be made clear in the final rule.
Response: It was our intent for porcelain enamels to be
regulated by this rule because we consider them to be "coatings"
in the large appliance category. The EPA also considers asphalt
interior soundproofing and powder coatings to be "coatings" for
the purposes of the Large Appliances NESHAP. However, we did not
intend to include phosphating and metal plating processes, the
deposition of pure metal onto a substrate, as applicable
processes. Thus, applying porcelain, powder, or asphaltic
coatings is subject to the rule, and this is clarified in
§63.4081(c)(4). Phosphating and metal plating are not subject to
this subpart, and this is clarified in §63.4081(d)(5).
Comment: Another commenter (IV-D-10) expressed the view
that phosphating, a surface preparation activity that also
applies a corrosion resistant layer to the substrate, should
qualify as a coating process and be included in the standard.
Response: None of the information we obtained in the early
phases of this rule development indicated that the industry
considered the solutions used to perform metal phosphating
operations as "coatings." Thus, in our industry survey we did
not list this operation as a potential affected operation, nor
did any respondents include phosphating among their coating
processes. As a result, phosphating was not considered in the
calculation of total facility emissions (in units of mass of
HAP/volume of coating solids) or in the MACT floor determination.
Since no data from these processes are included in the emission
3-10
-------
limit reflecting MACT, we do not believe it would be appropriate
to include phosphating in the final rule for the purpose of
compliance demonstrations.
Comment: One -commenter (IV-D-10) requested clarification of
facility maintenance operations that are excluded. He suggested
the following definition:
"(3) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory
facilities, janitorial, building, and facility maintenance
operations (including paint booths used for maintaining
manufacturing equipment); or coating applications using hand-held
non-refillable aerosol containers."
Response: The EPA does not intend to subject facility
maintenance involving surface coating on tools, equipment and
structures to the requirements of this subpart. In the final
rule, EPA clearly defines facility maintenance. Furthermore, EPA
and has clarified the intent to exclude from the subpart,
facility maintenance (including surface coating) on the
infrastructure of the facility or when necessary to maintain
operational functions of the facility.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-2) supported the proposed
exemption for surface coating conducted for the purpose of
repairing or maintaining large appliances used by a facility and
not for commerce. In addition, the commenter stated that on-base
military installations and areas, such as hobby shops and housing
areas, also need a low-use exemption so that the coating of
personally-owned appliances by military members (for example,
prior to sale) would not be regulated even if the military
installation as a whole were a major source of HAP. Often,
members use hand-held nonrefillable aerosol containers. They
also felt that it would be inappropriate to regulate a private
facility that is a major HAP source due to other operations, but
3-11
-------
performs an insignificant amount of large appliance surface
coating.
The recommended low-use exemption would consist of a cutoff
between 200 and 1,200 gallons per year. A facility must maintain
usage records, but would not be considered an affected source if
its usage is below the threshold.
Response: The primary intent of the rule is to limit HAP
emissions from the coating of large appliance parts and products.
However, in the proposal, the use of hand-held nonrefillable
aerosol containers to coat large appliances was excluded from
this subpart, even when the military installation is a major
source. The case where individuals repair, refurbish, or recoat
large appliances or other types of products at military hobby
shops or base housing areas using hand-held nonrefillable aerosol
containers, does not compare to the coating activities performed
at facilities that apply coatings as a means of production and
manufacture. The EPA has chosen to clarify the aforementioned
exclusion to include coating activities at hobby shops rather
than establish a low-use exemption. Section 63.4081(d)(4) of the
final rule exempts research facilities, laboratories, facility
maintenance operations and hobby shops from meeting the
requirements of this subpart.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-3) recommended that the EPA
include provisions in the rule clarifying that the "once in,
always in" MACT policy will not apply in certain cases involving
qualifying sources. These sources would be those affected
sources that subsequently (generally thought to imply the period
after the compliance date) implement appropriate pollution
prevention (P2) approaches that produce emission reductions at or
beyond the levels required by the NESHAP and that make them
"natural minor" sources. The commenter felt that such provisions
3-12
-------
would provide sources with a powerful incentive to use P2
approaches that will produce superior emission reductions.
Response: The EPA, through discussions with STAPPA/ALAPCO,
has developed a tentative solution that may require changes in
the Part 63 General Provisions. We have been working to develop
regulatory options that would allow qualifying sources to satisfy
the MACT requirements through pollution prevention after the
compliance date if they achieve emission reductions that would
result in area source status. After concluding discussions of
the options, we will develop the appropriate regulatory language
and propose changes to the Part 63 General Provisions or existing
rules.
3.2 Overlap With Other NESHAP Categories
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-5, IV-D-6, IV-D-9) said
that many facilities typically coat a range of products besides
those listed as large appliances and these facilities should only
be subject to one NESHAP rule (preferably the MMPP rule). They
suggested that "opt-out" provisions for the Large Appliance
NESHAP, and "opt-in" provisions for the MMPP NESHAP be included
in these two rules. They also felt that the applicability of the
proposed rule was unclear. Proposed §63.4082 appears to cover
all of an affected source's coating operations, while proposed
§63.4081 could be interpreted as stating that only the surface
coating, associated surface preparation, associated equipment
cleaning, and other affiliated operations related to large
appliances would be covered by these standards.
Another commenter (IV-D-4) desired a level of compliance
flexibility for facilities affected by regulatory overlap among
the surface coating NESHAP for Large Appliances, Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products, and Plastic Parts and Products (PPP).
This flexible approach would allow facilities to opt specific
coating operations or product lines, which are collateral to
3-13
-------
large appliance coating operations, out of the Large Appliances
NESHAP and into either the MMPP or the PPP rule. The commenter
suggested that this alternative apply to operations that have
been categorized under NSPS as either miscellaneous metal or
plastic parts, or apply to specific facilities that do not reach
a certain level of large appliance coating operations.
Response: The proposed rule specified that one of the items
that comprises the affected source is Mall coating operations as
defined in §63.4181." The proposed definition for coating
operation in §63.4181 was not specific in restricting the
affected activities (i.e., surface preparation, cleaning, and
coating application) to large appliances. We have revised this
definition in the final rule to clarify that only those coating
operations associated with coating large appliance parts or
products are part of the affected source.
The EPA agrees that, in certain circumstances, it may be an
excessive recordkeeping and reporting burden to a facility to
comply separately with different applicable NESHAP, when those
NESHAP cover similar emitting operations. We have developed an
approach in the final rule that can be used by facilities that
perform operations subject to more than one surface coating
NESHAP (for the Large Appliance category, the primary overlapping
NESHAP are expected to be those for MMPP and PPP).
First, a facility could elect to comply separately with the
requirements of each applicable NESHAP for each regulated
operation. As an alternative, you may choose to be subject to
the requirements of the most stringent of the subparts for the
entire surface coating facility. The test for stringency is a
demonstration that your facility-wide HAP emissions from all
surface coating operations will be less than or equal to the
emissions achieved by complying separately with all applicable
subparts.
3-14
-------
As an example, consider a facility that coats clothes
washers and dryers. In one part of the facility, the company
also manufactures and coats hinges, some of which are used in the
appliances. The coating of the hinges would normally be
regulated under the MMPP NESHAP, and the washers and dryers
coating under the Large Appliances NESHAP. This facility will
have the option of considering these operations separately and
complying with each applicable NESHAP, or treating the coating
operation for the hinges as though it were a large appliance
coating operation and including this operation under the
compliance requirements for the more stringent Large Appliances
NESHAP. Note that if all of the hinges produced at this facility
were intended for use in large appliances, they would be
considered a large appliance part and would thus be subject to
the Large Appliances NESHAP. This issue is also addressed in the
next two comments and responses.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-10) commented on proposed
§63.4081(a)(1)(i), which reads: "The surface coating of small
items such as metal or plastic handles, hinges, or fasteners that
have a wider use beyond large appliances are not subject to this
subpart if the surface coating occurs at a facility that does not
apply coatings to other large appliance items." They felt that
this provision could be interpreted to mean that a plant making,
for instance, appliance motors would not be excluded unless: (1)
it did not coat any other large appliance items, and (2) the
appliance motor was also designed to work in a non-appliance
application. They said that this reading would not be consistent
with common manufacturing practices, and would result in an
overly broad application of the standard.
Motors or plastic handles used on large appliances typically
are manufactured in a plant and on a coating line that coats a
wide range of products. Only the MMPP or PPP MACT rule should
3-15
-------
cover those coating operations. To achieve that result the EPA
should change the proposed provision to make clear that it
excludes operations that coat the "type" of items that have a
wider use beyond large appliances, even if the specific item is
designed to work only on a large appliance.
This commenter also felt that the language needs to be
clarified to ensure that a plant that makes more than one large
appliance item, but otherwise fits within the exemption, is
excluded from the rule. For example, a facility may coat both
handles and hinges. Under the proposed language, because two
large appliance items are coated at the plant, it would
apparently no longer qualify for the exemption.
The commenter suggested the following revised rule language
for §63.4081(a)(1)(i):
"(i) The surface coating of the type of items that have a wider
use beyond large appliances, such as metal or plastic handles,
hinges, motors, compressors, or fasteners are not subject to this
subpart if the surface coating occurs at a facility that does not
apply coatings to large appliances."
Response: As discussed in the previous response, facilities
potentially subject to more than one coating NESHAP can elect to
comply either with each applicable MACT standard individually or
with only one of the MACT standards if that standard is the most
stringent among the applicable rules.
The EPA acknowledges that there are many facilities that
coat miscellaneous items intended for various applications which
may include large appliances. We agree with the commenter that
such operations should not be subject to coverage by the Large
Appliances NESHAP. We have made clarifying changes in
§63.4081(d)(1) of the final rule, which reads as follows: "The
surface coating of large appliance parts, such as metal or
plastic handles, hinges, or fasteners, that have a wider use
beyond large appliances is not subject to this subpart." Other
3-16
-------
items not specifically mentioned in the definition, such as
motors and compressors, may fall under this exclusion.
Facilities that apply coatings to parts that have uses beyond
large appliances will be subject to other appropriate NESHAP.
However, as noted in the previous response, if a facility is
applying coatings to both large appliance parts and these wider
use parts, the final rule allows the facility to "opt-into" the
large appliance category for all of its coating operations.
Comment: This commenter (IV-D-10) further felt that the
intent of the rule to exclude wider use parts should be explained
in the preamble or background information for the final rule
through illustrative examples. The following language was
suggested:
"1. A refrigerator manufacturing facility coats the
interior and exterior of the refrigerators and also makes and
coats the metal handles for the refrigerators. Because the
coating of the handles occurs at a facility that also coats large
appliances (refrigerators), the coating of the handles is subject
to the Large Appliance Surface Coating standard. It is not
subject to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products standard.
2. A supplier to an appliance manufacturing facility makes
motors for a variety of applications. One type of motor is used
only in refrigerators and is supplied to a particular
refrigerator manufacturer. The motor is coated prior to shipping
to the appliance manufacturing facility. The coating of the
motor at the supplier's facility is not subject to the Large
Appliance Surface Coating standard because the supplier facility
does not coat large appliances, and motors are a type of item
used in applications beyond large appliances.
3. The supplier in example 2 also ma.kes hinges for
refrigerator doors. The coating of the hinges at the supplier's
facility is not subject to the Large Appliance Surface Coating
3-17
-------
standard because it does not coat large appliances and hinges are
a type of item used in applications beyond large appliances."
Response: As indicated above, all surface coating of parts
with wider-use beyond large appliances applicability is excluded
from the final rule, even if it occurs at a facility that coats
large appliance parts or products. In practical terms, we
believe that a facility that manufactures appliances will choose
to comply facility-wide for all of its coatings with the Large
Appliances NESHAP. The commenter is correct in presuming that a
parts supplier performing coating of wider-use parts will not
fall under the large appliances rule.
3.3 Compliance Issues
Comment: Two commenters {IV-D-1, IV-D-10) expressed support
for the proposed 3-year compliance period outlined in
§63.4083(b). One of them (IV-D-10) stated that the time required
to evaluate compliance options, develop designs, order
appropriate equipment, obtain State and local permits, install
the controls or convert to lower HAP coatings, and test the
process changes will consume the full 3-year period and thus it
is critical for the EPA to retain this provision in the final
rule.
Response: The EPA has retained the 3-year compliance period
in the final rule. This is the maximum period allowed by the Act
and we agree that this period will be necessary to allow most
existing sources the time to achieve compliance.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-4, IV-D-10) offered
opinions on the three compliance options described in proposed
§63.4091. These compliance options, in order of presentation,
are: Option 1 - Compliant material option, Option 2 - Emission
rate without add-on controls option,'and Option 3 - Emission rate
with add-on controls option.
3-18
-------
One of the commenters (IV-D-10) felt that Option 1 should
not require coating operations that use only powder paint to
perform the calculations, monthly compliance determinations, and
recordkeeping, if their cleaning materials do not contain any
HAP. This commenter provided suggested language to be added to
§63.4141:
"(f) Coating operations that utilize this compliance option
and utilize only powder paint for coating materials, and
also do not use cleaners that contain HAPs, shall not be
subject to the provisions of 63.4110(b)(8)(i), 63.4120(d)(2)
and (3), 63.4130(c)(1), and 63.4141(a) through (e)."
They also suggested the addition of the following paragraph
to §63.4142:
"(e) For each compliance period, a coating operation
demonstrates continuous compliance if it meets the provisions of
63.4141(f). For each such operation, the semiannual report must
identify the coating operation and include a statement that only
powder paints were utilized as a coating material and that
cleaning materials did not contain any HAPs. The statement shall
also identify the compliance periods to which the statement
applies."
Response: The EPA agrees that calculations of coating
organic HAP content are unnecessary for powder coatings that
contain no organic HAP. The commenter suggested relevant
portions of the proposed requirements that he believed should not
be applicable to these powder coating operations. We have
reviewed the proposed calculations, compliance determinations,
and recordkeeping requirements for the compliant material option
and believe the commenter identified a need to clarify the rule
language. The proposed language would have required an affected
source choosing the compliant material option and using only
powder coatings and non-HAP cleaning materials to determine the
mass fraction of organic HAP, the volume fraction of solids, and
3-19
-------
the density for each coating, and then to determine the ratio of
organic HAP to coating solids. Records and certain reports would
have had to include such calculations. We did not intend to
require this unnecessary calculation for non-HAP coatings at
proposal. Clearly, if a coating contains no organic HAP, it is
not useful to record and report such calculations since the
result is obviously zero kg organic HAP per liter of coating
solids. Therefore, we have added a provision in §63.4141(a) and
(d) of the final rule specifying that if the mass fraction of
organic HAP in a coating is zero, as determined according to
§63.4141(a) (through test results or manufacturer's formulation
data), then the source is not required to determine the volume
fraction of coating solids and density, or to calculate the
organic HAP content. This new provision applies to all types of
coatings that contain no organic HAP, not just powder coatings.
For such a coating, §63.4141(d) of the final rule specifies that
the organic HAP content equals zero and no calculation is
required. The following notification, reporting, and
recordkeeping sections of the rule were also revised to fully
incorporate this provision: §63.4110(b)(8) and (b)(8)(i);
63.4120(d)(2); and 63.4130(c), (c)(l), (f), and (g). We believe
that these changes are responsive to the commenter's concerns and
that they retain only the requirements that are essential for
compliance and enforcement purposes.
Comment: Another commenter (IV-D-1) suggested that the rule
could be simplified by combining Option 1, Compliant material
option, and Option 2, Emission rate without add-on controls
option, using a generic formula. This commenter also took
exception to the restriction on using different compliance
options at the same time on the same coating operation. They
felt that it could be more economically efficient for a source to
3-20
-------
use a combination of options on one line rather than investing in
all lines to meet the emission limit.
Response: The three proposed compliance options appeared to
create some confusion among commenters on the proposed rule. The
three options were intended to cover three distinct scenarios and
to be applied separately from one another. Option 1 provides a
simplified approach for those operations where each individual
coating meets the applicable emission limit, and all thinners and
cleaning materials are HAP-free. Option 2 would be used if one
or more of the coatings were above the limit, or some of the
thinners or cleaners contained HAP. The commenter did not
identify any operational scenario where a combination of these
options would apply at the same time, or how such a combined
option would operate. Therefore, we have retained these two
options as separate compliance choices.
Options 1 and 2 cannot logically both be used on one coating
operation at the same time. If all coatings meet the limit and
all thinners and cleaners are HAP-free, then Option 1 would be
used. Otherwise, Option 2 applies (or Option 3 if an add-on
control device is in use).
Comment: A third commenter (IV-D-4 and IV-F-1(A)) found the
three compliance options confusing and the compliance
calculations complex. The commenter suggested that the EPA
combine Option 2, Emission rate without add-on controls option,
and Option 3, Emission rate with add-on controls option, and
modify the averaging scheme offered by the rule. The commenter
also felt that combining "unrelated" operations (cleaning,
thinning, and coating) into a "one number" emission limit ignores
the differences in those operations (i.e., thinners and cleaners
do not contain any solids). The commenter stated that this
format is contrary to common sense and to the intent of section
112 of the Clean Air Act. The commenter recommended a fourth
3-21
-------
compliance option that would allow sources to average across
coating lines and not include thinning and cleaning operations in
the calculations. They stated that enforcement would be
simplified under such an option.
Response: As discussed above, the three proposed compliance
options are intended to cover different situations and to be
applied separately.
The "one number" limits do not ignore differences in
emission sources, but recognize that coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials all have the potential to contribute to the
HAP emissions from a coating operation. Also, these limits were
developed by considering the total HAP emissions from all three
types of materials. We believe that this format makes sense and
is simple because it consolidates all emissions from an operation
into a single calculation. Option 2 provides enhanced
flexibility because a combination of compliant and noncompliant
coatings, thinners, and cleaners may be used as long as the
overall average emission rate meets the standard.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-4) endorsed the use of
formulation data to determine and certify compliance with the
requirements of the Large Appliances NESHAP. The commenter
pointed out that the EPA had stated in a January 7, 1998 letter
to the National Paint and Coatings Association that data
demonstrating a consistent and quantitatively known relationship
to EPA test methods could come from a variety of sources. The
commenter urged the EPA to clearly state (as in the proposed
Metal Coil Coating NESHAP, §63.5160(b)(3), 65 FR 44615, 7/18/00)
that formulation data may be used to demonstrate compliance with
the emission limits.
Response: The EPA agrees that formulation data from
manufacturers are useful and often the only information readily
available to determine the composition of coating and cleaning
3-22
-------
materials. The proposed rule allowed the use of information
provided by coating material suppliers or manufacturers in the
sections addressing notifications [§63.4110(b) (7)], reports
[§63.4120(d)(2), (e)(2), and (g)(2)]/ and records [§63.4130(b)].
In addition, proposed §63.4141 (a) (4) allowed reliance on
manufacturer's formulation data in determining the mass fraction
of organic HAP in coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials.
These allowances are retained in the final rule. It should be
noted that, if there is disagreement between such information and
the results of the test methods specified in the rule (i.e.,
Method 24, 311, or other referenced methods), the test results
will take precedence (see §63.4141). This is consistent with the
provisions in other coating rules.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-1) suggested that facilities
should be allowed to negotiate with the regulatory authority to
gain some flexibility concerning their specific compliance
period. Some facilities may not keep records on the basis of the
calendar month, and such flexibility would help to reduce some of
the recordkeeping burden by utilizing existing accounting
mechanisms at these facilities.
The commenter felt that the proposed rule was unclear as to
whether compliance would be determined on a month-to-month basis,
or if a 12-month rolling average would be required.
Response: The proposed rule stated that the initial
compliance period begins on the applicable compliance date
specified (3 years after the effective date for existing sources)
and ends on the last day of the first full calendar month after
the compliance date. Also, as stated in the proposed rule, each
calendar month following the initial compliance period was
intended to be a compliance period. The intent of these
provisions was to have compliance demonstrated on a month-to-
month basis, and not over the course of an entire year.
3-23
-------
To accommodate the concern of this commenter, however, we
have included in the final rule a definition for "month", which
broadens the meaning beyond a calendar month for cases where this
may expedite a facility's compliance reporting. The definition
in the final rule is: "Month means a calendar month or a pre-
specified period of 28 to 35 days, to allow for flexibility in
recordkeeping when data are based on a business accounting
period."
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-15) felt that a monthly
compliance requirement could lead to false violations due to
system maintenance schedules. They believed that off-day
(weekend) or other periodic cleaning schedules could impact some
monthly period reporting numbers. Also, emergency conditions
(line failures, spills) could cause reporting excesses. They
asked how such emergency emissions would be handled. To
accommodate these factors, they suggested that compliance
reporting be a 12-month rolling calculation.
Response: The commenter should note that facility
maintenance operations were excluded from the proposed rule.
This exclusion is meant to apply to cleaning and surface coating
activities that are not associated with a coating operation.
Cleaning emissions resulting from the periodic cleaning of
coating equipment are subject to the rule as are any and all
organic HAP emissions from coating operations, even if they are
caused by emergency conditions.
The coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials involved in a
spill or similar incident are not considered to be materials
"used" in a coating operation if the source accounts for its
materials at the coating operation level. Therefore, spilled
materials would not be recorded as material used or included in
the emission calculations a facility performs as part of its
compliance demonstration. However, for sources using purchase
3-24
-------
records at the facility level to track material used, a spill
could potentially lead to a violation of the emission limit.
Facilities that use such purchase records may deduct the amount
of a spill from their usage totals if the amount of the spill can
be quantified and documented.
In the absence of any information that large appliance
manufacturing has significant seasonal variations or other
reasons that would require a long compliance period such as the
12 months suggested by the commenter, we concluded that
facilities would find it possible to comply with the standards on
a monthly basis. No data were submitted, either in the industry
survey responses or in comments received from stakeholders, to
contradict this conclusion. Therefore, each month is a
compliance period in the final rule.
3. 4 Cost Analysis
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-4 and IV-F-1(A),
IV-D-7, IV-D-15) took issue with the EPA's cost analysis included
in the background information document for the proposed standards
(BID Volume I or proposal BID). They said that the EPA's
assumption that there would be no compliance costs in
reformulating to non-HAP coatings or in changing to non-HAP
thinning and cleaning solvents was in error. One commenter (IV-
D-15) stated that even the most minute material change is
extremely time-consuming and costly. Another commenter (IV-D-1)
felt that solvent costs would double in order to utilize a non-
HAP solvent with the existing formulations. There will also be
internal costs due to the life cycle testing and approval
processes that must be conducted within the company, as well as
costs incurred by the coating supplier.
Two other commenters (IV-D-7 and IV-F-1(A)) pointed out that
the EPA did not factor any costs for add-on control equipment
into its analysis, and that the times estimated for
3-25
-------
recordkeeping, reporting, and training were very low. These
commenters concluded that the cost analysis is weak and needs to
be revised. Finally, one commenter (IV-D-15) expressed
disappointment that the EPA chose not to submit its economic
assessment to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review.
Response: As we explained in Section 7.1 of the proposal
BID, our investigation of the costs for a facility to convert to
reformulated coatings showed that such costs can be highly
variable. While many facilities may encounter costs under the
rule that are beyond their usual expenditures for new coating
evaluations, there are often compensating increases in efficiency
or reduced costs due to lower coating waste production. We made
several contacts with industry to identify the cost elements
involved in switching coatings and to obtain some representative
cost figures. These queries produced little useful data. One
reason was that cost data are not readily available in terms of
coating HAP content. The data that were obtained showed higher,
lower, and unchanged costs for high-solids versus low-solids
(higher HAP) coatings. Therefore, due to the many site-specific
variables and the lack of a consistent trend in the cost
information, we made the assumption that there would be no net
change in costs for the population of facilities making changes
to comply with the NESHAP. Of course, individual facilities may
encounter up-front costs such as purchase of new application
equipment or modifications to existing equipment.
For thinners and cleaning materials, we did assume that the
non-HAP solvents used as replacements for HAP solvents would cost
twice as much as the HAP solvents, on an overall basis.
In our analysis we made the assumption that, due to the
availability of compliant coatings and the higher costs of
control equipment relative to those coatings, no large appliance
facility would be required to install add-on control equipment to
3-26
-------
comply with these standards. Therefore, we did not attribute any
cost impacts for new add-on controls in the analysis. We
identified only 5 facilities (about 2 percent) out of the 222
facilities in our survey that are currently using add-on control
equipment for their coating operations. These facilities would
incur costs for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, and
these costs were accounted for in the analysis.
None of the commenters submitted any specific cost data with
their comments for the Agency to consider. Thus, the commenters
gave us no specific recommendations on how the cost estimates
should be changed. The economic impact analysis was not
submitted to OMB because, as the preamble states, none of the
criteria in Executive Order 12866 for a "significant regulatory
action" were satisfied. However, the EPA's cost estimates (OMB
Form 83-1) for information collection (monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting) under the proposed standards were submitted to OMB
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (see proposal preamble, 65 FR 81148) .
3.5 Reporting Requirements
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-1) assumed that the NESHAP's
semiannual compliance reports would be equivalent to the
semiannual monitoring reports that are required to be submitted
by a title V permit holder. The commenter encouraged the EPA to
adopt similar formats for the title V and NESHAP reports so the
States operating title V programs can use the existing compliance
forms for the NESHAP or have the title V information deemed
equivalent to the information required by the large appliance
rule. They also felt that the NESHAP should be written such that
the compliance and reporting dates coincide with the dates
written into a title V permit.
Response: The coordination of the various compliance
reports that affected sources may be required to submit was
3-27
-------
addressed in the proposed rule. The rule allows facilities to
submit the NESHAP compliance reports on the same schedule as the
title V permit semiannual monitoring report (under 40 CFR part 70
or 71) if the title V schedule has been established before the
NESHAP becomes effective. Also, the deviations reported in the
NESHAP compliance report do not also have to be reported in the
title V monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance
report would not otherwise affect any obligation to report
deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority.
Comment: Another commenter (IV-D-15) referred to a preamble
passage (p. 81136), which says that "overlapping reporting,
recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements may be resolved
through your Title V permit." They asked whether the States
would have "the ultimate primacy on MACT reporting, similar to
what has been done with other air programs."
Response: The EPA may delegate the administration of this
and other MACT standards to State, local, or tribal agencies.
With that delegation, these agencies are directed to administer
the program in a manner that is flexible and workable yet no less
stringent than prescribed by Federal guidelines. These agencies
would then have primacy in most aspects of the NESHAP
implementation process. The final rule indicates authorities
retained by the U.S. EPA (in §63.4180(c)), including approval of
major alternatives to work practice standards, test methods,
monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-1) noted that the proposed
rule required each compliance report to list the compliance
option or options used on each coating operation during the
corresponding reporting period. The commenter believed that the
compliance option should be reported only if the option was
changed during the reporting period.
3-28
-------
Response: Identification of the compliance option or
options used for a coating operation in each compliance report
should not require any extra- effort by the source if the option
does not change from one monthly period to another, because these
reports are most likely going to be generated and recorded in
some type of computer software. In fact, deleting this
information from the report would seem to be a more burdensome
alternative. The EPA prefers that each report contain all of the
essential information about the source's compliance efforts so
that there is less chance for misunderstanding concerning the
activities at the facility. Therefore, we have retained the
proposed requirement in the final rule.
3.6 Definition of New Source
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-15) believed that
clarification was needed on whether a new coating line
constructed at an existing source would be required to meet the
existing source emission limit or the more stringent limit for
new sources. Another commenter (IV-D-4) supported the broad
definition of affected source contained in proposed §63.4082(b),
as the collection of all the affected operations at a major
source large appliance facility. However, they requested
clarification on what constitutes the affected source through a
new definition that could be added to the final rule. This
commenter suggested that language similar to that used in the
proposal preamble be added to the rule itself, listing the
activities that would and would not trigger NSPS and NSR
requirements. As an alternative, the commenter requested that
the rule clearly direct regulators to interpret the final rule
based on the definition contained in 40 CFR 63.2 (General
Provisions, Definitions).
Response: As indicated in the proposed rule, a new affected
source is a source that is constructed after December 22, 2000
3-29
-------
and is a "completely new" large appliance surface coating
facility where no such facility had previously existed.
Therefore, the commenters are correct in their interpretation
that a new coating line at an existing affected source would be
required to meet the emission limit for existing sources and not
the limit for new sources.
The proposed emission limit for new sources is applicable to
new and reconstructed sources. A source that is reconstructed,
according to the definition of "Reconstruction" in §63.2 of the
General Provisions, is considered essentially "new" and thus must
meet the limit for new sources. The definition for
"Reconstruction" is: "Reconstruction means the replacement of
components of an affected or a previously unaffected stationary
source to such an extent that:
(1) The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50
percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable new source; and
(2) It is technologically and economically feasible for the
reconstructed source to meet the relevant standard(s) established
by the Administrator (or a State) pursuant to section 112 of the
Act. Upon reconstruction, an affected source, or a stationary
source that becomes an affected source, is subject to relevant
standards for new sources, including compliance dates,
irrespective of any change in emissions of hazardous air
pollutants from that source." This means that, while adding a
new coating line would not trigger reconstruction, it is possible
to do so by replacing an old coating line with a new one
(especially for smaller sources) and in those cases the more
stringent new source limit would have to be met by the entire
affected source.
This commenter has requested that the final rule identify a
facility's activities that would make it a new source, or include
guidance for regulators on interpreting the rule. As discussed
3-30
-------
in Section 2 of this document, we have made several changes to
the wording of the rule to clarify its intent and to ensure that
regulators understand its implementation. The Agency is also
creating implementation materials such as applicability flow
charts and checklists to help agencies and affected sources in
properly understanding the application of the rule.
Comment: A fourth commenter (IV-D-10) requested that the
EPA clarify the definition of a new affected source as one that
is constructed after December 22, 2000, and that is of a
"completely new large appliance surface coating facility where
previously no large appliance surface coating facility had
existed." The commenter provided an example as follows to
illustrate the application of this approach, which they suggested
the EPA add to the preamble or background information for the
promulgated rule:
"A facility with four existing coating lines (1-4) intends
to make a capital investment in Line 1. The replacement cost for
one "line is $3 million and for all four lines is $12 million.
The proposed project would involve &n expenditure of more than 50
percent of the replacement cost for Line 1. Because the
investment in Line 1 is less than 50 percent of the $12 million
replacement cost for the large appliance surface coating facility
(i.e., the "affected source" is all four lines), the facility
will not trigger new source MACT but must instead comply with
existing source MACT on all four lines."
Response: The EPA agrees that the example provided by the
commenter accurately reflects the intent of our definition of new
affected source.
3.7 Format/Stringency of Standards
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-4 and IV-F-1(A), IV-D-11)
expressed concern over the units selected for the proposed
3-31
-------
emission limits [kilograms (pounds) of HAP per liter (gallon) of
coating solids used]. One of them (IV-D-4 and IV-F-1(A))
referred to the EPA's "equity" argument, that the specific gravity
of coatings tends to vary widely with the degree and type of
pigmenting employed and, thus, basing the limit on the mass of
solids used would effectively create a range of limits dependent
on the specific coating type being used. This commenter asked
why the EPA then used an "arbitrary" default coating density to
convert coatings in the data base from mass to volume units.
They felt that the use of a weight-to-weight unit would have
eliminated the EPA's need to use this default value in its
"convoluted" calculation process. Such a format would be easier
to understand, to calculate, and to verify.
Response: As explained in the proposal preamble (65 FR
81144), the unit of mass of HAP per volume of coating solids used
was selected to normalize the assessment of organic HAP emissions
across all affected sources. This unit was meant to relate
directly to production rates, on the assumption that average dry
coating film thicknesses are fairly constant across appliance
product types. We believe that the use of mass of solids in the
denominator of the standard would penalize operations using
lower-density pigment coatings (i.e., a lower denominator in the
emission calculation would lead to a higher apparent emissions
value), while providing an advantage to users of higher-density
coatings. An emission limit based on volume of coating solids
used was thus deemed to be more equitable.
To convert the facility coating data to units of volume
solids, we used actual coating density values where they were
available. Where they were not available (density data were not
provided for some of the coatings in the survey responses), we
used the averages of all the density values available for similar
types of materials. Therefore, these density values were not
3-32
-------
arbitrary, as claimed by the commenter, but were based on actual
large appliance coating data.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) pointed out that existing
rules that will overlap with this rule typically specify VOC
limitations as a surrogate for organic HAP. They felt that a
reliance on both VOC and HAP limits would complicate the
compliance effort due to the extreme effort involved in trying to
obtain HAP information for thousands of materials (which the
available MSDS typically do not contain). They concluded that a
rule containing this type of HAP determination scheme and its
high costs will far exceed the $100 million/yr cost threshold to
the industry and will require a full GAO evaluation.
Response: The proposed rule allowed sources to use EPA
Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile
matter in coatings and to use that value as a substitute for mass
fraction of organic HAP. Therefore, owners and operators wishing
to rely on this surrogate approach have been provided with such
an option.
Comment: The same commenter (IV-D-11) also expressed
support for the "Compliant Material" option as the most direct
and least costly approach, but stated that an averaging scheme
should also be included even with its increased recordkeeping
burden.
Response: The EPA agrees that the "Compliant Material"
option (Option 1) is the preferred approach for coating
operations in which each affected material satisfies the
standard. Recordkeeping is simple and consists of calculations
of the organic HAP content for each coating and documentation
that the thinners and cleaners used in the operation have no HAP
content. Options 2 and 3 represent averaging schemes that can be
3-33
-------
used when some individual coatings or other materials don't meet
the requirements of the standard.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-10) noted that the MACT floor
calculation might change after the data base has been reviewed
and companies have a chance to provide corrected information.
They believed that even if the floor is revised to be less
stringent, the MACT standard should continue to be set at the
floor level. The costs of installing controls or reformulating
coatings would be excessive if a standard more stringent than the
floor were imposed. Also, the EPA should revise' its cost
analysis to reflect actual costs if a standard above the floor is
selected for the final rule. They estimated that reformulating
cleaning materials to a non-HAP solvent for one small portion of
one plant would cost approximately $600/ton per year for the
increased material costs alone, not including the cost of any
accompanying equipment changes.
Response: The EPA did not receive any corrected facility
information after proposal, so no corrections were made to the
data base. We did review the original survey responses to verify
that the data were entered correctly, and we also confirmed the
accuracy of our calculations of total facility emissions. These
reviews did not change the identity of the MACT floor facilities
or their overall HAP emission rates.
Since no new information was received to indicate that the
standard should be set above the floor, the final emission limits
for existing and new sources are set at the floor as they were in
the proposal.
Comment: Another commenter (IV-D-8) advocated that the EPA
set a performance-based rule based on available cost-effective
controls and techniques and allow the market to respond. They
saw no reason for the EPA to reject a beyond-the-floor limit that
3-34
-------
can be achieved by capture and control technologies or by law
HAP/VOC or powder coating techniques. Further, they felt that
the EPA had underestimated the incremental HAP reductions that
could be achieved by available technologies that are capable of
beyond-the-floor performance.
Response: The Large Appliances NESHAP does include
performance-based emission limits which sources can achieve in a
variety of ways. As Section 5.5 of the proposal BID discusses,
we conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis to determine the impacts
of a more stringent emission limit for existing and new sources.
This analysis indicated unacceptably high incremental costs in
relation to HAP emission reductions that would result from going
beyond the floor (i.e., conversion from liquid to powder coating
lines or use of add-on controls). Another consideration in
determining whether to impose the extremely low emission limits
achievable with powder coatings (essentially zero emissions) is
that many product types, such as very large or heat-sensitive
items, cannot be coated with powder coatings. Thus, powder
coating technology is not available to all of the sources in the
category. As a result, we determined that the proposed and final
emission limits should be set at the MACT floor level.
Comment: The same commenter (IV-D-8) believed that the
proposed rule would not affect a significant amount of HAP
emissions (1,448 tpy, or 55 percent, of major source emissions
would not be affected). They urged the EPA to optimize the
current NESHAP rulemaking process to more fully reduce all HAP
emissions and promote the timely protection of public health.
Response: The EPA believes that the 45 percent reduction in
HAP emissions projected for this NESHAP is significant, and
therefore this rule promotes the protection of public health.
This reduction reflects MACT levels of control which we
3-35
-------
determined in accordance with section 112(d) of the Clean Air
Act.
Comment: The same commenter (IV-D-8) felt that the proposed
emission limits provide little if any incentive for existing
sources to apply add-on control devices to their coating
operations. Thus, the proposal misses the opportunity to control
at least an additional 250 tons per year of HAP emissions. They
contended that low-HAP/VOC coatings alone fall short of the cost-
effective reductions that can be achieved.
Response: The proposed rule included compliance options for
facilities using compliant materials as well as for those who
elect to apply add-on controls in order to meet the standard.
However, as we stated in the proposal preamble (65 FR 81145), the
Agency has a desire in this rulemaking to encourage the use of
pollution prevention (P2) technologies such as lower-emitting
coating technologies. Add-on controls may be used in a limited
number of cases where compliant materials that can fulfill the
needs of the coater are unavailable.
Our emphasis on P2 has its basis in the Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990 (PPA) . In Section 6602(a) , the PPA says, in part:
"(a) Findings. - The Congress finds that:
• • •
(2) There are significant opportunities for industry to
reduce or prevent pollution at the source through cost-effective
changes in production, operation, and raw materials use. Such
changes offer industry substantial savings in reduced raw
material, pollution control, and liability costs as well as help
protect the environment and reduce risks to worker health and
safety.
(3) The opportunities for source reduction are often not
realized because existing rules, and the industrial resources
they require for compliance, focus upon treatment and disposal,
3-36
-------
rather than source reduction; existing rules do not emphasize
multi-media management of pollution; and businesses need
information and technical assistance to overcome institutional
barriers to the adoption of source reduction practices.
(4) Source reduction is fundamentally different and more
desirable than waste management and pollution control. The
Environmental Protection Agency needs to address the historical
lack of attention to source reduction.
(b) Policy. - The Congress hereby declares it to be the
national policy of the United States that pollution should be
prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; ..."
It is in this context that we try to identify opportunities
for source reduction while recognizing that in some instances it
may be necessary or desirable for a source to apply emission
control equipment.
3.8 Determination of MACT Floor
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-10) believed that the EPA may
have committed errors in calculating the MACT floors by including
minor sources in the determination. It was their understanding
that only major sources are to be included in the floor
calculations.
Response: Section 5.2 of the proposal BID describes the
approach we took in determining the MACT floor for existing
sources. The BID notes that the data base of large appliance
facilities resulting from responses to our survey contains 95
potential major source facilities, 21 of which were identified as
"synthetic minor sources." These 95 "major sources" were made up
of the following groups: (1) those facilities that listed "major
source" or "synthetic minor source" as their title V status in
their response, (2) those facilities that reported their HAP
emissions under "maximum design capacity" as greater than 9.1
3-37
-------
Mg/yr (10 tpy), and (3) other facilities that we judged to have
the capacity to increase their HAP emissions to greater than 9.1
Mg/yr, based on their reported emissions.
In the Clean Air Act, Section 112 (a) defines a "major
source" as: "any stationary source or group of stationary sources
located within a contiguous area and under common control that
emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the
aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air
pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of
hazardous air pollutants." (Emphasis added.)
The EPA has taken the position that it is within our
discretion to include in the floor determination sources that
have some type of control equipment or other process change, even
if they ultimately are able to avoid being subject to the NESHAP
when promulgated because they can limit their potential to emit.
We are defining such "synthetic minor sources" as those
potentially major sources which, because of the presence of some
emission control devices, procedures, or materials (enforceable
limitations) , actually emit less than the 10/25 tpy level of HAP
emissions.
Secondly, we believe that the Act's phrases "best controlled
similar source" (new sources) and "best performing" sources
(existing sources) in Section 112(d) suggest that we look at
major sources' with controls in place that may make them synthetic
minor sources. To do otherwise would exclude very large HAP
emitting sources with the best controls from the MACT floor
determination.
We do, however, agree with the commenter that "true minor
sources" should not be used in determining the floor for a major
source category, and we did not knowingly include such sources in
our large appliance floor analysis. For our purposes here, we
are defining "true minor sources" as those sources whose
potential to emit is less than 10/25 tons per year of hazardous
3-38
-------
air pollutants, either because their processes are inherently low
emitting or because they are small production facilities with
resulting small HAP emissions even without controls.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-15) asserted that the MACT
floor should be set at the emission limitation achieved by the
source at the 12 percent point, not the average of the floor
facility emissions. This commenter pointed out that neither of
their two facilities that are in the top 12 percent group can
currently meet the proposed limits without radical changes.
Response: Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act sets forth
certain minimum levels of control for standards established
pursuant to that section. These minimum criteria are what we
call the "floor." The maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) floor for existing sources in a category or subcategory is
given as "the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing sources ... for categories
and subcategories with more than 30 sources." (Emphasis added.)
If a category or subcategory has fewer than 30 sources, the floor
Is "the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 5 sources." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the CAA clearly
establishes that the MACT floor must be based on an average of
the best performing (in terms of emissions reduction) sources.
In developing floors, we have primarily used the arithmetic
average (mean) or the median of the top sources as the
appropriate measure to use in calculating the MACT floor.
Selecting the average of the top 12 percent means, for a
group of sources with a fairly even performance distribution,
that roughly one-half of the sources making up the 12 percent
will not 'achieve the average. In Table 5-1 of the proposal BID,
the 12 (out of 95) facilities making up the floor group are shown
as shaded rows. Of these 12, 7 facilities emit less than the
floor average of 0.134 kg HAP/liter coating solids, while 5 have
3-39
-------
higher emissions than the average. The highest emitting facility
in this group will have to reduce its emissions by about 45
percent to achieve the floor. Several of the potential major
source facilities shown in the rest of the table will need to cut
their overall HAP emissions by 90 percent or more to achieve the
standard. Thus, for many of the affected large appliance
facilities significant changes in their coating operations will
be necessary.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-8) quoted the EPA's statement
in the proposal that "... four of the most recently constructed
facilities in the data base are using powder coatings extensively
and have HAP emission levels below the MACT level for new
sources." They asked why these emission levels were not
considered to be the best available for determining the MACT
limit for new sources. Since the EPA has stated that powder
coatings are used by most new sources, and are more durable and
cost-effective, the MACT limit for new sources should be more
stringent than the level that was proposed.
Response: The proposal BID discusses our selection process
for the facilities that were used in the MACT floor
determination. As described in Section 5.2 of the BID,
facilities reporting the predominant use of powder coating
technology (greater than 90 percent of all coating solids used)
were excluded from the MACT floor calculations. The reason is
that the use of powder coatings is not feasible for all large
appliance applications. This is especially true for larger (pre-
assembled) or heat-sensitive items. The need to bake and cure
powder coatings makes their use a practical impossibility in many
cases. Manufacturing or service industry machinery (SIC Code
3589) applied powder coatings nearly 99 percent of the time,
while the remainder of the appliance manufacturing industry
3-40
-------
indicated a moderate use of powder coatings ranging from none to
about 45 percent of their coatings.
The EPA expects that new large appliance facilities will
elect to use powder coatings to the greatest degree feasible for
their operations. Those that can use powder coatings extensively
(similar to the four facilities mentioned by the commenter) will
likely have an emission rate significantly below the new source
standard. Facilities whose operations limit the use of powder
coatings will have a HAP emission rate closer to the new source
limit.
3.9 Miscellaneous Issues
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-4 and IV-F-1(A),
IV-D-7 and IV-F-1(B), IV-D-14, IV-D-15) felt that the EPA had
failed to allow meaningful stakeholder involvement through much
of this rule's development. Two of them pointed out in
particular that the data base was changed and the final version
was released just before proposal, and critical facility-specific
information was not made available until 1 month after proposal.
As a result, there was inadequate time for industry to review the
information and verify the numbers used in the MACT floor
determination. Another commenter (IV-D-15) felt that the EPA had
provided the regulated community with misleading guidance
regarding information the Agency said would be posted on the TTN
website. The commenter said that nothing of substance was posted
since July 1999, and all development material was placed in the
docket and discovered only recently by the commenter. All of
these commenters stated that the public comment period from
December 22, 2000 to February 20, 2001 was not adequate to allow
a review of all the new information, and complained that the EPA
had repeatedly denied requests for an extension of the comment
period. One of the commenters (IV-D-14) asked, on the industry's
behalf, that the EPA grant a formal extension to the comment
3-41
-------
period, stating that industry needed at least 6 more weeks to
finish their review of the data base and to prepare meaningful
comments.
Response: The EPA believes that the time allowed for review
of this regulatory proposal was adequate. The Agency did allow
additional time for comment following the public hearing on the
proposed standards, which was held on February 9, 2001. A
meeting was held with several stakeholders immediately following
the hearing (see docket item IV-E-1), and a conference call was
held to discuss issues and concerns raised by stakeholders on
February 15, 2001 (docket item IV-E-2). During the February 15th
phone call, EPA staff clarified that additional information
corresponding to initial comments made on the proposal would be
accepted until March 20, 2001. Also, comments related to issues
raised at the public hearing could be submitted until March 9,
2001.
The EPA received no additional substantive comments, either
before or after these cutoff dates. In particular, no specific
comments were received on the large appliance data base (facility
survey response information).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-15) found discrepancies in the
data that the EPA released regarding one of the commenter's
facilities. For example, the data indicated emissions of 106,600
kg, while the commenter stated that the correct value is 133,000
kg. Use of this latter value would increase the computed
emission rate from 0.127 kg/liter to 0.142 kg/liter. Also, the
commenter said they could not reproduce the EPA's figure of
24,500 kg for emissions from cleaning operations at the facility.
The commenter also stated that the short timeframe allowed
to complete the EPA's survey left no time for the commenter to
perform adequate quality assurance. Thus, they requested that
the EPA initiate a competent QA/QC process on the 12 percent
3-42
-------
floor data used in developing the proposed emission limits. In
addition, the commenter felt that the EPA should verify the
sources of data used by responders. They wondered whether the
high, low, or median values of the MSDS ranges were used in the
responses to calculate species emissions.
Response: The EPA has performed quality checks since
proposal to ensure that the calculated HAP emission rate for each
surveyed facility accurately reflects the data they submitted to
us. This review included confirming that we transcribed data
correctly from the survey responses, and that individual HAP and
solids content values were added correctly to obtain the facility
totals. We were unable to reproduce the revised emission values
claimed by the commenter, and no further details of the
derivation of these values were submitted. Therefore, we have
retained our original calculation results for this facility.
The EPA has relied on the data that the industry provided in
response to the EPA survey. Every facility responding to this
survey had the flexibility to report their operations and their
HAP emissions using Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) or
manufacturer formulation data information, combined with purchase
or use records for the materials used in the coating operation.
When manufacturing facilities completed the surveys and submitted
them to the EPA, they were certifying that the data were accurate
and true. The EPA solicited specific comments on the data as we
reported it in our data base in an effort to correct any errors
in our analysis. We did not receive any additional data (other
than the revised emission rates submitted by this commenter).
Considering the timeline for promulgation and the limited
resources, the EPA is unable to perform further surveys and must
rely on the data that we have already received.
The MSDS typically list each hazardous component qf a
material as a range; e.g., 5-10 percent. When a range was given,
3-43
-------
we selected the median value between the low and high numbers
(for this case, 7.5 percent) to use in the emission calculations.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-10) expressed support for the
EPA's use of OSHA reporting thresholds for HAP content (0.1
percent by mass or more for carcinogens, 1.0 percent for other
HAP compounds), as proposed in §63.4141(a) (1) (i) and (a) (4).
They felt that this approach would minimize the cost of the rule
while ensuring compliance.
Response: The EPA agrees that use of the OSHA levels
minimizes the industry burden since they are already reflected on
MSDS sheets for materials and are familiar to material suppliers
and users.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-17) noted that five of the
ASTM standards referenced in the proposal as voluntary consensus
standards (preamble, Section V.H, 65 FR 81149) are out of date
and have been replaced by more current versions, as follows:
D 1475-90 is now D 1475-98
D 2369-95 is now D 2369-98
D 3792-91 is now D 3792-99
D 1979-91 is now D 1979-97
D 3154-91 is now D 3154-00.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for this
information. The commenter offers ASTM standards that have been
updated by ASTM and the year updated. Section 12(d) of the
National Transfer Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards developed or adopted by one or
3-44
-------
more voluntary consensus bodies. The EPA conducts searches to
identify standards compatible with EPA Methods, in this case EPA
Methods 24 and 311.
First of all, ASTM Standard D-3154-00 is now referenced as
ASTM D-3154-00, but still is not a standard we can reference as
an acceptable alternative in lieu of EPA's standard reference
Method.
The ASTM D1475-90, ASTM D2369-95, ASTM D3792-91, ASTM D4457-
85 (Reapproved 91) and ASTM D1979-91, are incorporated by
reference into Method 24. ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM
D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS9-94 are incorporated by
reference in EPA Method 311. These standards are already
acceptable procedures which were actually incorporated by
reference in Method 24 as they were established at the time of
EPA review.
However, the standards cannot be changed to reflect the
dates specified by the commenter. The EPA cannot cite the new
dates of the updated standards because it has not been able to
determine if these updated versions are technically the same as
the previously incorporated versions. If the updated versions of
these methods were technically different from the previously
incorporated versions, their use might change the applications of
the methods. This might in turn affect the stringency of the
emission limits that use Methods 24 and 311 to determine
compliance.
Comment: Another commenter (IV-D-4) questioned the
inclusion of two ASTM test methods, D2697-86 and D6093-97, for
the determination of volume solids in the compliance
calculations. They claimed that these two methods (referenced in
proposed §63.4141(b)(1)) are not routinely run (if at all) by
manufacturers of appliance coatings. They further stated that
the EPA had not commented in the preamble on the viability of
3-45
-------
these methods, which the commenter said they have continuously
questioned as unrealistic and unreliable for compliance
enforcement purposes.
Response: As discussed in the proposal preamble (65 FR
81148-50), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), section 12(d), directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) in our regulatory and procurement
activities if possible. The two ASTM methods referred to by the
commenter are examples of these VCS.
Section 63.4141(b) in the proposed rule provided three
options for determining the volume fraction of coating solids
(nonvolatiles) for each coating: (1) use of either of the two
referenced ASTM methods (D2697-86 (1998) or D6093-97), (2) use of
information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, or
(3) performing the calculations shown in paragraph (b)(3) of that
section. These options provide sources with the flexibility to
choose the approach that is compatible with their preferences as
well as the coating information available to them. We have
revised the rule to indicate that no one of these options takes
precedence over the others.
The commenter is reminded that the General Provisions, in
§63.7(f) of subpart A of Part 63, allow alternatives to the
specified test methods to be used if a validation and
justification are submitted for the alternative methods. The
commenter did not include any suggested alternatives to the
methods shown in the proposal. However, affected sources wishing
to use alternatives to the listed approaches may present- those to
the Agency for approval before using them for compliance
determinations.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-10) asked that the final rule
provide credit for recovery and reuse of materials.
3-46
-------
Response: The compliance equations provided in the proposed
standards are to be used by facilities for determining total HAP
emission rate in the units of the standards (kg organic HAP per
liter coating solids used). Only those HAP emissions directly
associated with large appliance surface coating operations are
considered in these calculations. Equation 1 in §63.4151(e)
includes an allowance for HAP-containing waste materials (such as
paint sludge) that are sent to a hazardous waste TSDF. This
recovered amount of HAP (Rw in the equation) can be subtracted
out in calculating the total HAP emissions from the facility.
Since the HAP in this waste are sealed in a drum or other
container for delivery to a TSDF, they are not included in the
inventory of a facility's organic HAP air emissions.
The commenter did not describe any particular scenarios for
which they felt credit was appropriate. The HAP which are used
during the compliance period must be included as emissions. The
term "used" has a meaning equivalent to "emitted." If certain
materials are utilized and then recovered for reuse (such as a
cleaning material used to clean lines that is collected and run
through a distillation process at the facility for reuse), then
only the portion not recovered (and, thus, assumed to be emitted)
would be counted in the compliance equations. The Agency
considers such recovery processes a positive step environmentally
because the facility is collecting excess HAP liquid rather than
allowing it to evaporate. The "credit" for these conservation
efforts is that the amount of HAP considered "used" is less than
the amount that was put into the process, and thus the facility
may find that it can achieve compliance -in a case where it may
not have otherwise been able to do so.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-1, IV-D-15) stated that it is
currently unclear how the EPA plans to handle the subject of
curing solvents. These HAP emissions result from cross-linking
3-47
-------
reactions in certain waterborne and powdercoat paints. One of
the commenters (IV-D-15) felt that, if curing volatiles are to be
considered as emissions contributors, EPA guidance is necessary
on how they will be managed in terms of the potential discrepancy
in reporting these emissions between Method 24 and Method 311.
In the case of such a discrepancy, will the EPA use the new data
retroactively for enforcement? The second commenter (IV-D-1)
felt that the EPA had discounted or chosen to ignore this
phenomenon in setting the standard. The view of these commenters
was that, if the regulated community was made to include curing
solvents in their compliance calculations, the EPA should reflect
this fact in the data base and recalculate the MACT floor and the
standard itself.
Response: Cure volatiles are the HAP that are formed and
emitted by chemical reaction when certain waterborne or powder
coatings are cured or dried at elevated temperatures. These HAP
are contrasted with the volatile HAP that are added to a liquid
coating when it is manufactured (and are listed in the
formulation data). The subject of cure volatiles is complex, and
data are limited and sometimes conflicting.
At the time that we requested data on coatings from
industry, there was no consensus method for quantifying emissions
of cure volatiles. The EPA's Method 311, for example,
specifically excludes these emissions, and notes that a "separate
or modified" test procedure must be used to measure cure
volatiles. Since coating-specific data were unavailable, we did
not consider cure volatiles as emissions contributors for the
purpose of developing the proposed emission limits. As a result,
cure volatiles need not be measured or reported in a facility's
compliance calculations.
If, at some future time, an accepted method is developed to
measure the HAP in cure volatiles, the EPA may decide to include
these emissions in emission limits where they are applicable.
3-48
-------
I
However, in order to do this, we would first have to reevaluate
the actual emissions from large appliance facilities and likely
make a nev MACT floor determination. Any changes to the rule
would involve a proposal and comment phase before becoming
effective. At this time, however, the presence of curing
volatiles is not taken into account in the emission limits and
will not be considered in the calculations used to determine
compliance.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-1) asked for clarification
regarding the work practice requirement proposed in §63.4093(d):
"Mixing vessels used for organic-HAP-containing materials must be
closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents."
They asked the following questions regarding the criteria
defining a "closed" mixing vessel:
(a) What type of interface is allowed between the shaft of the
mixer and the entrance to the mixing vessel?
(b) Is the vessel still considered closed if there is an annular
space between the shaft and the vessel top?
(c) Must the lid of the mixing vessel be sealed or clamped down?
Response: Due to the variety of mixing vessel
configurations, we have not specified the details of this work
practice requirement. Generally, "closed" means that a cover is
used which allows no visible holes, gaps, or other open spaces
into the interior of the vessel. The cover may be a separate
cover placed on the vessel or it may be an integral part of the
vessel's structural design. In either case, when the vessel is
in a closed condition no openings are allowed.
For mixing vessels designed with a space between the mixer
shaft and the vessel top, this annular space is acceptable only
during the actual mixing process. At all other times except when
materials are being added or removed, the vessel must be
3-49
-------
"closed." No clamping or sealing is required as long as the
vessel is maintained with no openings.
The purpose of this work practice standard is to minimize
losses of coating volatiles, which is already a goal of large
appliance facilities in their efforts to reduce costs and
optimize the production process. Thus, we believe that sources
will seek opportunities to apply this standard in the best way to
their own processes.
3-50
-------
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-453/R-02-004
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Source Category:
Large Appliances Surface
Coating Operations—Background Information for
Promulgated Standards
5. REPORT DATE.
January 2002
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Emission Standards Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
Task Order No. 045
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D6-0013
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Task Order Project Officer: H. Lynn Dail, ESD/CCPG
16 ABSTRACT
National emission standards for control of HAP emissions from large appliance surface coating operations
were proposed at 65 FR 81134 on December 22, 2000. This background information document (BID Volume
II) provides: a summary of the public comments submitted on the proposal and the Agency's responses to thes
comments; a summary of the changes made to the rule since proposal; and the basis for these changes.
1 7 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution Cleaning Operations
Large Appliances Surface Coating
(Painting)
Hazardous Air Pollutants
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
MACT
Coating Operations
Cleaning Operations
19 SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20 SECURITY CLASS (Page;
Unclassified
c COSATI Field/Group
21 NO OF PAGES
78
22 PRICE
EPA Form 1220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
480005/final/trd
------- |