as EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-453/R-96-003b
August 1995
Air
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Facilities (Surface Coating)
Background
Information for
Final Standards
-------
EPA 453/R-96-003b
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR FACILITIES
(SURFACE COATING)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR FINAL STANDARDS
Volume 2: Summary of Public Comments and Responses
Emission Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Aucust 1995
-------
f l
-------
NOTICE
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. Copies of this report may be downloaded
from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards' (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
The document is stored under the Clean Air Act Ammendments main menu - Rules, Policy, and
Guidance. The TTN access number is [919] 541-5742 and the voice help line is [919] 541-5384. Copies
of the document may also be obtained from the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161 [800] 553-NTIS.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL 1-1
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED REGULATION . 1-4
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 2-1
2.1 GENERAL (STRUCTURE OF THE RULE) 2-5
2.2 APPLICABILITY 2-17
2.3 MACT 2-21
2.4 AREA (SYNTHETIC MINOR) SOURCES 2-26
2.5 SOURCE SUBCATEGORIES 2-28
2.6 COATING CATEGORIES 2-29
2.7 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS ... 2-30
2.8 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 2-35
2.9 THINNING ALLOWANCES 2-37
2.10 COST AND ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPACTS . . 2-46
2.11 WORDING (DEFINITIONS) AND CLARITY OF EQUATIONS 2-51
2.12 UNITS OF THE STANDARD 2-56
2.13 TEST METHODS 2-58
2.14 COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES 2-60
2.15 COMPLIANCE DATES 2-67
3.0 ADDENDA
3.1 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2-75
ill
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
On December 6, 1994, the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposed national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for shipbuilding and ship repair
facilities (surface coating operations) (59 FR 62681) under
authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act). Public
comments were received from 22 sources consisting mainly of
States, shipyard owners/operators, marine coating manufacturers,
and industry trade associations.
All of the comments that were submitted and the responses to
these comments are summarized in this document. This summary is
the basis for the revisions made to the standards between
proposal and promulgation.
1.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL
Several changes have been made since the proposal of these
standards. Major changes include: elimination of compliance
option 1; elimination of the training requirements; reduction of
the reporting frequencies; extension of date of submittal of the
initial notification from 120 to 180 days; adoption of exemptions
for low-usage coatings at affected sources and aerosol cans;
exclusion of major sources with low-coating usage, addition of a
cold-weather thinning allowance; and revisions of the equation
required for calculating maximum allowable thinning ratios (now
based on volume solids) so that all thinning options use the same
equation. Other changes have been made to clarify portions of
the rule that were unclear to the commenters and to reduce the
recordkeeping and reporting burden. A summary of the major
changes is presented below.
1-1
-------
1. Several comments were made about the complexity of the
rule, with many commenters offering changes to clarify different
sections. Many of these recommendations have been incorporated
into the final rule. For example, Table 2, which contains the
volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) limits for the
various coating categories, has been simplified and now contains
only one set of units (metric).
2. Based on comments received, compliance option 1 was
eliminated from the final rule. The flow chart summarizing the
various compliance options was revised and simplified. All
training requirements related to painting/thinning, handling/
transfer of VOHAP-containing materials, and certification of all
personnel involved with surface coating operations have also been
eliminated from the final rule.
3. A definition of "pleasure craft" has been added to
ensure that the standards apply only to those coatings (and
solvents) used on commercial and military vessels. Some
commenters were concerned that, as proposed, the rule could be
interpreted to regulate coatings used on pleasure crafts. The
EPA never intended for these coatings to be included in these
standards. The following definition is included in the final
rule:
"Pleasure Craft means any marine or freshwater vessel
used by individuals for noncommercial, nonmilitary, and
recreational purposes that is less than 20 meters in
length. A vessel rented exclusively to, or chartered
by individuals for, such purposes shall be considered a
pleasure craft."
4. Some changes have also been made to the notification and
reporting schedules. The initial notification deadline has been
extended from 120 to 180 days. The frequency of reporting has
also been reduced from the proposed quarterly to a semi-annual
requirement to be consistent with the Title V operating permit
program. The first report is due 6 months after the compliance
date.
1-2
-------
5. The .definition of "affected source" was modified to
exclude any major source shipbuilding and/or ship repair facility
with surface coating operations involving less than 1,000 L
(264 gal) annual marine coating usage.
6. Several commenters recommended that EPA adopt some of
the provisions provided in various State rules that reduce burden
for low coating usage. The EPA evaluated the impact of those
provisions and adopted the following exemptions:
a. Any individual coating with annual usage less than
200 liters (52.8 gallons) is exempt from the requirements of the
standard (i.e., the applicable VOHAP limit). The total amount of
all coatings exempted in any given year cannot exceed
1,000 liters (264.2 gallons); and
b. Any coating applied via nonrefillable, hand-held aerosol
cans is exempt from the requirements of the standard.
7. The proposal preamble requested comments on how to
handle thinning issues for various climatic conditions. The EPA
reviewed the comments and did a follow-up information collection
request for both cold- and hot/humid-weather thinning practices.
As a result of this information, a second set of cold-weather
VOHAP limits was included as part of the final rule. If the
temperature falls below 4.5°C (40°F) and the source needs to thin
a coating beyond the normal limit, the date, time, and
temperature must be documented, and a more lenient set of limits
given in Table 1 of the rule may be used. The cold-weather VOHAP
limits are applicable only to coatings that contain, as supplied,
40 percent or more solids by volume (i.e., having VOHAP limits
less than 500 g/L of coating less water).
8. The equations used with compliance options 2 and 3
(proposed options 3 and 4) have been changed so that the
calculations used for thinning are based on volume solids
(nonvolatiles) . The revised equations require using the solids-
based VOHAP limits when determining maximum allowable thinning
ratios. Some of the terminology and variables associated with
1-3
-------
the equations were redefined accordingly. The term VOHAP^ is not
used in the final regulation.
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED REGULATION
The final standards will reduce nationwide emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from shipbuilding and ship repair
facilities by 318 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (350 tons per year
[tons/yr]), or 24 percent in 1997 compared to the emissions that
would result in the absence of the standards. No adverse
secondary air, water, or solid waste impacts are anticipated from
the promulgation of these standards.
The implementation of this rule is expected to result in an
overall annual cost of $2.0 million. The economic impact
analysis shows that the economic impacts from these final
standards are insignificant.
1-4
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 22 letters commenting on the proposed standards
and the background information document (BID) for the proposed
standards were received. Comments from the public hearing on the
proposed standards were recorded, and a transcript of the hearing
was placed in the project docket. A list of commenters, their
affiliations, and the EPA docket number assigned to their
correspondence are given in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.
For the purpose of orderly presentation, the comments have
been categorized under the following topics:
1. General (structure of the rule);
2. Applicability;
3. MACT;
4. Area (synthetic minor) sources;
5. Source categories;
6. Coating categories;
7. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements;
8. Training requirements;
9. Thinning allowances;
10. Cost and economic assumptions and impacts;
11. Wording (definitions) and clarity of equations;
12. Units of the standard;
13. Test methods;
14. Compliance procedures;
15. Compliance dates; and
16. Miscellaneous.
The comments, the issues they address, and EPA's responses are
discussed in the following sections of this chapter.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS
OF PERFORMANCE FOR THE SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR INDUSTRY
Docket Item
No.1
Commenter/Affiliation
IV-D-01
Mr. Bill Schulte
Facilities Manager
Marinette Marine Corporation
Foot of Ely Street
Marinette, Wisconsin 54143
IV-D-02
Mr. Donald Theiler
Director, Bureau of Air Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
1010 South Webster Street
Madison, Wisconsin 63707
IV-D-03
Mr. Langley Spurlock
Vice President, CHEMSTAR
Chemical Manufacturers Association
2501 M Street
Washington, D.C. 20037
IV-D-04
Mr. Ronald Hafner
Manager, Corporate Environmental Affairs
McDermott International, Inc.
20 S. Van Buren Avenue
Barberton, Ohio 44203-0351
IV-D-05
Dr. John Kelly
Technical Service Director
International Courtaulds Coatings, Inc.
6001 Antoine Drive
Houston, Texas 77210-4806
IV-D-06
Mr. Matthew Iwicki
Venable, Baetjer and Howard, LLP (BethShip)
1800 Mercantile Bank and Trust Building
Two Hopkins Plaza
Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2978
IV-D-07
Mr. Doyle Pendleton
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Air Quality
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Post Office Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
IV-D-08
Ms. Elsie Munsell
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
2211 Jefferson Davis Highway
CP#5, Room 644
Arlington, Virginia 22244-5108
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. (continued)
Docket Item
No.1
IV-D-09
IV-D-10
IV-D-11
IV-D-12
IV-D-13
IV-D-14
IV-D-15
IV-D-16
IV-D-17
Comment er/Af filiation
Mr. Robert Fletcher
Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch (SSD)
State of California Air Resources Board
2020 L Street
Post Office Box 2815
Sacramento, California 95814-2815
Mr. James Sell
Senior Counsel
National Paint & Coatings Associations
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, B.C. 20005-5597
Mr. Robert Colby
Chairman, ALAPCO Air Toxics Committee
Mr. David Theiler
Chairman, STAPPA Air Toxics Committee
444 North Capitol St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Mr. Chandra Sripadam
Environmental /Safety Coordinator
Trinity Marine Group
13601 Industrial Road
Houston, Texas 77015
Mr. Michael Huston
Corporate Counsel (Jeffboat)
Baker & Daniels
300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-1782
Mr. R. Page Ayres
Senior Environmental Engineer
Newport News Shipbuilding
4101 Washington Avenue
Newport News, Virginia 23607
Mr. Randy Frazier
Air Quality Engineer II
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, California 94109
Duplicate entry
Ms. Jennifer Parker
Manager, Environmental Operations
Bath Iron Works Corporation
700 Washington Street
Bath, Maine 04530
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1. (continued)
Docket Item
No."
Commenter/Affiliation
IV-D-18
Mr. Pat Leyden
Deputy Executive Officer (SSC)
South Coast Air Quality Management District
21865 E. Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765-4182
IV-D-19
Mr. Dennis Lencioni
Corporate Environmental Engineer
Trinity Industries, Inc.
2525 Stemmons Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75207
IV-D-20
Mr. Glen Crowe
Supervisor of Industrial Hygiene and Environmental
Quality
J. Ray McDermott, Inc.
Post Office Box 188
Morgan City, Louisiana 70381
IV-D-21
Mr. Dan Buell
Environmental Engineering Specialist
NASSCO
Post Office Box 85278 MS-22A
San Diego, California 92186-5278
IV-D-22
Mr. S. Nunn
Acting President, Shipbuilders Council of America
901 N. Washington Street, Suite 204
Alexandra, Virginia 22313
The docket number for the shipbuilding and ship repair NESHAP is
A-92-11.
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-2. INDIVIDUALS PROVIDING VERBAL COMMENTS AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PROPOSED NESHAP FOR SURFACE
COATING OPERATIONS AT SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR
FACILITIES
Docket Item
No.4
Commenter/Affiliation
IV-F-01
Mr. Frank Losey
Shipbuilders Council of America
901 W. Washington St., Suite 204
Alexandria, Washington 22314
IV-F-02
Mr. Dennis Lencioni
Corporate Environmental Engineer
Trinity Industries, Inc.
2525 Stammons Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75207
IV-F-03
Mr. Chandra Sripadam
Environmental Safety Coordinator
Trinity marine Group
Post Office Box 24399
Houston, Texas 77229-4399
The docket number for the shipbuilding and ship repair NESHAP
is A-92-11.
2.1 GENERAL (STRUCTURE OF THE RULE)
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-03, IV-D-15)
supported the format of the proposed rule. One commenter
(IV-D-01) said that the rule is based not on the purchase and MSP
of expensive control equipment, but on the modification of
procedures and materials. Surface coating at shipbuilding and
repair facilities often involve large ship modules or completed
ships and is often conducted outdoors. The commenter asserted
that equipment large enough to control emissions of VOHAP from
these processes would prove expensive and unwieldy. Another
commenter (IV-D-15) praised the standards for being based on mass
of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per unit volume of coating.
Another commenter (IV-D-03) supported the establishment of
identical limits for the HAP and VOC contents of marine coatings.
This approach recognizes that in coating applications, the use of
solvents listed as HAP--especially methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and
2-5
-------
methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)--may actually be the preferred
environmental approach because they are highly efficient solvents
that enable the formulation of coatings with lower VOC content.
Response: The EPA acknowledges and appreciates the
commenters support on the structure of the rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) supported the provisions
in the proposed rule that would allow add-on controls to be used
as an alternative means of limiting emissions from coating
operations. However, because the commenter was concerned that it
would be difficult and time consuming for a company to secure
approval of an alternative approach from EPA, the commenter urged
EPA to revise the final rule to allow the State or local
permitting authority to approve alternative compliance methods,
thereby establishing a level playing field among coating
selection and add-on control options.
Response: Because the use of add-on controls represents a
significant departure from the compliance procedures specified in
the NESHAP, the EPA maintains the requirement that affected
sources receive approval from the Administrator. The EPA cannot
anticipate the type of add-on control equipment that might be
installed and, therefore, maintains the requirement that sources
obtain approval for, at minimum, the compliance demonstration and
monitoring of the system. However, affected sources located in
States that have established an Administrator-approved HAP
program under Section 112 (1) of the Act may employ alternative
compliance methods, including add-on controls, if they receive
approval from the State agency.
Comment: Three comments were made regarding small pleasure
crafts. Commenter IV-D-06, noting that there is no rational
basis to exclude certain facilities based on the end-use of the
crafts they produce or repair, requested that all facilities,
including those constructing and servicing personal pleasure
craft, be regulated together. Commenters IV-D-09 and IV-D-18,
who support the exclusion of small pleasure craft from the
proposed rule, asked the EPA to define "commercial vessel" such
that it specifically excludes such a craft.
2-6
-------
Response: The definition of "commercial vessel" was removed
from the proposed rule and a definition of "pleasure craft" was
added to clarify the applicability of the rule. As originally
intended, the rule affects coatings applied to commercial and
military vessels and not coatings applied either to vessels used
by individuals for personal pleasure or to vessels rented for
such use. Coating operations involving these vessels will be
regulated by the boat building and repair NESHAP.
Information supplied to the EPA by several major sources
indicates that a pleasure craft is typically not repaired or
painted at those facilities affected by the shipbuilding NESHAP.
Another reason for not regulating pleasure crafts coatings under
the shipbuilding NESHAP is the fact that most "pleasure crafts"
are made of fiberglass and require paints uniquely different from
those used on metal-hulled ships.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) suggested that it would
better serve the regulated community and the regulatory agency to
combine the proposed rule with the architectural coatings MACT,
reasoning that a combined rule may eliminate redundancies and
conflicts, as well as provide better control for VOC and
particulate matter (PM10) emissions. . .
Response: The architectural and industrial maintenance rule
is a VOC rule, not a HAP-based standard. However, because three
of the four MACT compliance options allow the determination of
VOC content in the coating as a surrogate for volatile HAP
(VOHAP), the EPA will continue to maintain consistent limits
among overlapping coatings that could be affected by either the
marine coatings or AIM rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) objected to excluding
standards for particulate emissions. Surface preparation
operations (removing existing coatings and/or profiling the
surface) and surface coating operations usually go hand-in-hand
at shipyard facilities--that is, surfaces are usually coated
immediately after being prepared to prevent flash rusting,
especially near large bodies of salt water. It also seemed
2-7
-------
reasonable to the commenter that rules should apply to the types
of grit being used to remove coatings.
Response: Particulate emissions were initially considered
as part of the NESHAP since it was directed toward surface
coating operations and related activities. A scoping evaluation
was done to estimate the amount of nonvolatile HAP emissions
associated with blasting and paint overspray. It was determined
that actual HAP emissions resulting from the blast media, abraded
paint, and paint (solids) overspray are very low (i.e., less than
0.1 ton per year). These estimates were documented as part of
Attachments 1 through 3 to the BID published in February 1994.
The EPA also was required to determine best available
control measures (BACM) for particulate emissions as part of a
control techniques guidelines (CTG) document for this industry.
Although particulate controls such as tarps and curtains are in
use at some shipyards, resulting emission reductions have not
been quantified at this time to recommend as BACM. Also,
although there are more elaborate control systems currently in
development that might be available in the future, none are
sufficiently demonstrated at this time to recommend as BACM.
This information is further discussed in an alternative control
techniques document (ACT) that EPA published for this industry in
February 1994.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) did not believe that it is
appropriate to assume that VOC and HAP are synonymous and to
regulate them as if they were. As a general matter, the
commenter felt that non-HAP VOC should not be regulated by the
stringent standards that apply to HAP.
Response: The EPA understands that the HAP in marine
coatings are, in general, a subset of VOC and that not all VOC
are HAP. At the time the standards were developed and proposed,
there was no EPA-approved test method for measuring HAP in
coatings. This led to the adoption of the "VOC-surrogate"
approach where VOHAP content of marine coatings is limited by
some existing State VOC limits. If an EPA-approved test method
did exist, the standards of the NESHAP would not only apply
2-8
-------
strictly to HAP, but would be significantly more stringent than
they currently are, since the current compliance options 1, 2,
and 3, based on EPA Test Method 24, must account for all VOC.
However, under compliance option 4, shipyards may develop a HAP-
testing/certification method, obtain approval for the method, and
comply with the VOHAP limits on a HAP rather than a VOC basis.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07), noting that only 25 of
437 shipyards are subject to the rule, believed that the
estimated reduction in HAP of 300 tons/yr from these 25 sources
is very small in relation to the total amount of HAP emitted by
the industry. The commenter agreed that this small decrease in
nationwide VOC emissions does not justify the substantial
increase in rule and recordkeeping. Although the commenter
implied that the rule should apply to area sources, the commenter
specifically requested that the EPA defer permitting of area
sources in this category [per 40 CFR 70.3(b)(1)] because State
agencies have a significant burden in the permitting of major
sources and sources subject to area source standards will be
required to comply regardless of whether or not a permit is
issued.
Response: By law, the EPA is required to develop MACT
standards for major sources of HAP [See 42 U.S.C. § 7412(c)(1)].
Rule of area sources, however, is contingent upon the
Administrator's determination that these sources present a threat
of adverse effects of human health or the environment. At this
time, the EPA has not found the threat of HAP emissions from
shipbuilding and ship repair area sources significant enough to
justify their rule. In any case, compliant coatings are expected
to be available at approximately the same cost as existing
coatings; therefore, area sources are likely to reduce their
emissions to a level comparable to affected major sources,
especially since many area sources (located in both ozone-
attainment and -nonattainment areas) will be subject to identical
limits in order to control VOC emissions.
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-08, IV-D-11, IV-D-13,
IV-D-22) suggested that various exemptions be incorporated into
2-9
-------
the NESHAP. Three commenters (IV-D-08, IV-D-13, IV-D-22), noting
that the proposed NESHAP was based largely on a California rule,
requested that the exemptions within the California rule also be
incorporated into the proposed NESHAP. Such exemptions address
touch-up operations, low-usage coatings (<120 gallons per year
[gal/yr]), and instances in which the award of a repair or
coating contract is jeopardized by the cost of complying with the
rule. One commenter (IV-D-13) gave specific language that could
be added to the rule. Another commenter (IV-D-08) recommended
that EPA also include an exemption for aerosol container
applications.
Commenter IV-D-11 believed that some consideration should be
given to exempting trace amounts of HAP in coatings and thinners.
Such trace amounts are often introduced by way of contamination
or background presence. The commenter recommended that trace
amounts be defined as less than 0.1 percent of total formulation.
Response: The EPA agrees that coating operations using
nonrefillable, hand-held aerosol cans should be exempt and added
this exemption to the applicability section of the final rule.
The EPA also agrees with those comments regarding a minimum
annual usage exemption. The following wording was added to the
rule to address this issue:
"The provisions of this subpart do not apply to coatings
used in volumes of less than 200 liters (L) (52.8 gallons)
per year. The total volume of coating exempt under this
paragraph shall not exceed 1,000 liters per year
(264 gallons per year) at any facility. Coatings exempt
under this paragraph shall be clearly labeled as "low-volume
exempt," and the volume of each coating applied shall be
maintained in the facility's records."
Regarding trace contaminants (i.e., HAP metals), a level of
0.05 percent (by mass) of total formulation was discussed at an
industry meeting on September 1, 1993. The EPA has excluded the
concern of trace contaminant levels of HAP metals, pigments, and
other additives by only regulating volatile HAP (VOHAP).
2-10
-------
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-02, IV-D-11)--referring to
the 23 coating categories, the 11 different numerical limits, and
the multiple compliance options--complained that the rule creates
complex recordkeeping and compliance requirements, thereby
inhibiting compliance determinations by both industry and State
and local agencies. One commenter (IV-D-02) recommended
combining some of the categories.
Response: The proposed marine coating categories represent
the best classification of marine coatings by industry,
Department of the Navy - Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), EPA,
and State agencies that currently regulate shipyard emissions.
Some categories have identical limits because of NAVSEA's concern
that the general use limit of 340 grams per liter (g/L) will
eventually be lowered in some States and/or Districts. However,
there are certain applications that currently require VOC
contents close to 340 g/L. Thus, these "specialty coatings" were
identified separately to ensure that technically infeasible
limits are not imposed on them. Although the NESHAP contains
categories with identical limits, the EPA believes that a side
benefit of the promulgated categories is that they help maintain
consistency between Federal NESHAP and State VOC rules. The EPA
also believes that specifying multiple categories with identical
limits places no extra burden on affected sources since the same
compliance procedure(s) must be followed for each coating
regardless of whether certain categories are combined.
Commenter: Six comments (IV-D-11, IV-D-18, IV-D-19,
IV-D-20, IV-D-22, IV-F-01) were submitted concerning the issue of
averaging. Three commenters (IV-D-18, IV-D-19, IV-D-22) asked
the EPA to establish a method for averaging VOHAP contents for
compliance purposes. An averaging option would allow flexibility
in larger facilities that apply a wide range of coating types
with varying HAP contents. One commenter (IV-D-18) strongly
recommended that EPA grant State and local agencies the
discretion to allow or preclude sources from emission averaging
without having to request Section 112(1) rule approval. This
commenter noted that in some instances, a few facilities may need
2-11
-------
emission averaging in order to demonstrate compliance. The
commenter also noted that averaging would allow facilities to
comply at the least cost. One commenter (IV-D-19) suggested that
the EPA adopt a 1-month rolling average and that it establish a
sixth option under § 63.785 for the averaging procedure. The
third commenter (IV-D-22) suggested a "batching average." This
commenter also requested that shipyards be allowed to bank
emission credits generated from coatings with VOHAP
concentrations less than those stipulated in their corresponding
standards. Such a policy would provide shipyards with the
flexibility needed during unique and infrequent applications.
One commenter (IV-D-11) noted the complexity of the proposed
rule and strongly supported EPA's decision not to allow
averaging.
One commenter (IV-D-20) suggested that other methods of
compliance should be added to the rule, such as a mass balance
method with a permitted cap. This option could use a combination
of coating category VOHAP limitations and a maximum average
content limitation of 3.5 Ib/gal. Such an option would allow the
flexibility of thinning under extreme weather conditions.
One commenter (IV-F-01) requested that EPA use weighted
averages rather than nonweighted averages when setting category-
specific standards. That is, the standards should not be biased
downward to an unreasonable extent by low-VOHAP coatings applied
to a very limited extent.
Response: The EPA has continued to evaluate averaging as a
viable alternative throughout the development of the NESHAP. It
is important to note that a limited form of averaging is imbedded
in the final rule (compliance option 3) but that this averaging
is permitted only for simplifying recordkeeping and reporting
activities. Each individual coating, as-applied, must still
comply with the applicable limits.
The EPA found it difficult to adopt overall facility
averaging for at least two reasons. First, EPA would have to
reduce the maximum allowable limits given in Table 1 of. the
proposed rule in order to maintain the expected 24 percent
2-12
-------
reduction in HAP emissions, which is the reduction achievable by
the MACT standard. For example, according to data collected by
the EPA, the weighted averaged VOC content of general use
coatings is 368 g/L. Thus, a rule allowing averaging about a
340 g/L limit would yield only an 28/368 = 8.5 percent emission
reduction. In order to achieve the 24 percent reduction expected
through the proposed NESHAP, a rule based on averaging would have
to establish a general use standard of approximately
0.76 * 368 = 280 g/L. Although such an averaging policy would be
no less stringent than the MACT floor, it may be more restrictive
to certain shipyards, especially those that apply coating(s) with
VOHAP contents at or near limit(s). It would also require
wholesale restructuring of the regulation.
Second, a rule based on averaging about a given standard
would preclude on-the-spot enforcement activities. In other
words, the results of a Method 24 examination of an as-applied
coating could not be used to identify a violation since the
pollutants in the tested coating may be offset by future
applications.
In response to commenter IV-F-01, the VOHAP limits are based
on the limits associated with the best performing facilities
within the source category. The Act is very specific as to how
the MACT floor is to be calculated. When the various MACT floor
alternatives were developed earlier in the project, weighted
averages for each coating category were used to prevent the type
of bias suggested by the commenter.
The EPA initially categorized every paint reported by all
shipyards providing information in the project data base. After
the VOC and HAP contents of each coating were determined/
verified, each coating was ranked within its category (based on
VOC or HAP content--from lowest to the highest). Those coatings
comprising the best (i.e., lowest VOC or HAP content) 12 percent
of the total volume of each coating category were identified as
one of the MACT alternatives. Industry representatives quickly
pointed out that such an approach was flawed because the few
2-13
-------
coatings identified as MACT would not work for all applications
associated with a given category.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) believed that the handling
and transfer standard, at a minimum, should be revised to require
submerged filling for tanks and large vats that store materials
containing VOHAP.
Response: Based on information available to EPA, this
requirement does not seem realistic or appropriate for this
industry. Most of the paints and solvents used at shipyards are
dispensed from central, check-out points. Paints are supplied in
5-gallon buckets, 55-gallon drums, or large "tote" containers.
Thinners are typically supplied in similar containers, but only
small amounts are routinely used in daily painting operations.
Comment: Six commenters (IV-D-04, IV-D-06, IV-D-19,
IV-D-20, IV-D-21, IV-D-22) said the proposed NESHAP needs to be
amended to reduce the shipbuilder's liability for coatings
mislabeled by manufacturers and applied in good faith by
shipbuilders. One commenter (IV-D-19) stated that shipbuilders
rely on the content representations made by paint manufacturers.
If such representations should prove false during a shipyard
inspection, the shipbuilder could be held liable even though the
coating was applied in good faith. For this reason, commenter
IV-D-06 stated that Method 24 can not and should not be the
definitive method for determining compliance; rather, an option
should be included that permits the use of manufacturer-supplied
data. Another commenter (IV-D-21) believed that paint
manufacturers should be held liable and/or responsible for any
enforcement action resulting from compliance testing. According
to commenters IV-D-20, IV-D-21, and IV-D-22, shipyards do not
have onsite testing capabilities. Moreover, the testing would be
duplicative of the manufacturer's certifications, and the cost to
shipyards would be prohibitive with no resulting benefit to the
environment.
Response: Section 112(d) of the Act requires the EPA to
establish standards for HAP sources. Many shipyards are major
sources of HAP, and their rule cannot be substituted by
2-14
-------
regulating coating manufacturers. The issue of thinning, which
is routinely done at most shipyards, further complicates the
issue of liability and demands that a test method be available
for measuring the as-applied VOHAP contents at the point of
application. However, the rule has been revised to permit the
use of batch formulation data in lieu of Method 24 testing,
provided that the manufacturer or user demonstrates a
quantifiable and consistent relationship between such data and
Method 24 results (including the role of cure volatiles).
Moreover, the EPA encourages paint users to develop supplier
quality assurance (SQA) programs that will help minimize the risk
involved when using paint supplier information to determine or
verify compliance with the VOHAP limits. When used properly, SQA
programs result in cost savings for both the user and the
provider.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-04, IV-D-06, IV-D-20), two
of which (IV-D-06, IV-D-20) asked the EPA to regulate the
manufacture and sale of coatings, expressed concern that the
expected environmental benefits of the proposed NESHAP might not
be realized because noncompliant coatings can be applied at
smaller yards and at yards outside the U.S. To the extent that
noncompliant paints are cheaper than compliant paints, the
proposed NESHAP creates a competitive disadvantage for major
sources. Commenter IV-D-06 said that to the extent that only
compliant coatings are available on the market, compliance will
be easily and efficiently achieved, with lower administrative
costs; it would seem most appropriate to regulate the suppliers
of these products under Section 111 of the Act, like
manufacturers of residential wood heaters are regulated under
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAA, and Section 183 (e) (3) (rules to
require emission reductions from consumer or commercial
products).
Response: Section 112 of the Act requires the EPA to
regulate major sources of HAP emissions. Many shipyards qualify
as major HAP sources and must be regulated according to the law.
The EPA believes that use of noncompliant coatings at smaller
2-15
-------
yards and at yards outside the U. S. and, thus, creating an
unfair competitive advantage is an unlikely scenario. First,
compliant coatings for all categories of marine paints are
readily available and have been for the past couple of years.
The State rules that served as the basis for determining MACT
were successfully implemented without the type of effects
suggested. Second, many States are likely to be implementing VOC
limits similar (if not identical) to the VOHAP limits. When this
occurs, many additional shipyards will have to use compliant
coatings; currently, most shipyards are located in ozone
nonattainment areas. Coatings used in this industry will be
regulated under Section 183 (e) through either a national rule or
a CTG. The final requirements are scheduled for issuance by
March 1997.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-04, IV-D-22) considered the
timing of the shipbuilding and ship repair NESHAP to be improper
because paint manufacturers will be subjected to rules in 1997.
According to commenter IV-D-04, the EPA has argued that it is
without authority to regulate coating manufacturers under
Section 112 of the Act, yet it is recognized by the EPA that they
plan to promulgate rules for coating manufacturers under
Section 183(e).
Response: The commenter is correct in that the EPA does not
have the authority to regulate the sale and manufacture of marine
coatings under Section 112 (d) of the Act; the Act specifies that;
EPA is to establish emission standards for source categories
listed under Section 112(g). The EPA plans to address labeling
requirements for coating manufacturers under Section 183(e)
beginning in 1997. Also, the MACT standard addresses work
practices and uses of alternative/creative emission control, as
well as coating content, while Section 183(e) only addresses
coating content.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-23) noted that the proposed
NESHAP does not address painting done at shipyards by individuals
who work and reside on ships. The commenter believed that
2-16
-------
activities undertaken by these individuals should be considered
as part of the shipyard's overall operation.
Response: With the exception (exemption) of pleasure craft,
any shipbuilding or ship repair surface coating activities
occurring within the confines of the major source property
boundaries are considered to be part of the "facility's" overall
operations and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of the
standard. The rule is intended to apply to painting operations
conducted by ship personnel assigned to a ship while that ship is
docked at a shipyard because the resulting emissions would be
considered part of the shipyard emissions.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-12) claimed that paint
manufacturers would experience difficulty in producing compliant
coatings for certain categories. The commenter, therefore, asked
that the following standards be changed: change the antifoulant
standard from 3.33 Ib VOHAP/gal coating to 4.00; change the
inorganic zinc standard from 2.83 to 4.00; and change the
specialty interior standard from 2.83 to 3.20.
Response: The commenter did not provide any supporting
information on this issue. Without any technical justification
for such changes, the EPA does not agree that manufacturers will
have difficulties producing compliant coatings for certain
categories. This belief is supported by the fact that several
manufacturers are currently supplying compliant coatings to the
Navy and several shipyards located in States with existing limits
similar to the proposed limits.
2.2 APPLICABILITY
Comment: Five commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-08, IV-D-15,
IV-D-20, IV-F-02) were concerned that certain facilities and
military installations would be affected by the proposed rule
even though emissions resulting from coating operations are well
below the 10/25 tons/yr threshold. Commenters IV-D-01 and
IV-D-15 noted structural repair operations. Commenter IV-D-01
recommended modifying the statement in Section 63.781(a) to read
that affected facilities are major sources of VOHAP. Commenter
IV-D-15 recommended re-evaluating the applicable sources section
2-17
-------
and providing some clarification. Commenters IV-D-20 and IV-F-02
asked that the rule apply only to coating activities, not to all
activities within a shipyard.
Commenter IV-D-08 stated the proposed rule does not discuss
the potential impact on minor marine coating operations that
occur on facilities that are major HAP sources for emissions
unrelated to shipbuilding and ship repair. The commenter
believed that the EPA did not intend this rule to affect these
sources. However, unless the rule is modified to include an
exemption for low-volume users, the number of affected Navy
facilities alone will be in the hundreds because of the inclusion
of all military facilities that use marine coatings for any
reason.
Commenter IV-D-08 discussed how many military installations
may be treated more stringently than similarly-sized "cities" and
may be required to permit all industrial and nonindustrial
sources as a single source in determining the applicability for
Title V permits. This requirement is due to the military
installations' representation under SIC Code 9711, "National
Security."
With such unique circumstances in mind, commenter IV-D-08
believed a minimum production quantity or HAP emission threshold
below which applicability of this rule is unreasonable exists.
The Administrator has the authority [Section 112(d)] to determine
that some sizes should not be regulated by appropriately defining
the "affected source." The commenter also referenced VOC content
rules in California and some small number cutoff (i.e.,
120 gallons per year). Therefore, the commenter believes that it
also is proper for EPA to provide a small quantity exemption in
the final rule.
Response: Major-source determinations must consider all
operations. Commenter IV-D-08 was correct in assuming that the
EPA did not intend for this rule to affect those major sources of
HAP emissions with minor marine coating operations. Therefore, a
surface coating usage was incorporated into the definition of
"affected source" for this regulation. Those major source
2-18
-------
facilities with annual marine coating usage less than or equal to
1,000 liters are excluded (as nonaffected sources), and will
therefore not be subject to the requirements of the shipbuilding
NESHAP, except for maintaining coating records that document
annual usage. It should also be noted that compliant coatings
are readily available and can be used for any marine coating
application. Effective September 1, 1994, the Navy mandated that
only compliant coatings are to be used on Navy ships.
Noncompliant coatings hopefully will become obsolete once the
NESHAP and the State VOC rules become effective.
With respect to commenters IV-D-20 and IV-F-02, the rule
applies to owners and operators of major source facilities that
engage in shipbuilding or ship repair operations. However, the
rule only limits VOHAP contents of coatings and requires VOHAP-
containing coating containers and materials to be handled in a
responsible manner; it does not affect other activities at
shipyards.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-07, IV-D-13)
requested that the EPA regulate all shipyards, both large and
small. The commenters explained that, without this provision,
much of the expected emissions reductions will not occur since
noncompliant coatings may simply be applied at smaller yards.
The commenters also noted the competitive disadvantage that this
incentive would impose on larger shipyards.
According to the commenters, regulating all shipyards would
have many advantages. First, emissions would be reduced beyond
the 300 tons/yr expected from the proposed NESHAP. Second, an
incentive would be created to narrow the product market toward
compliant coatings, thereby reducing the possibility of mistaken
purchase and use of noncompliant coatings (especially at
companies with multiple shipyards), while also reducing the need
for extensive product monitoring and sampling at the source
level. Third, producers would narrow product lines, potentially
producing economies of scale in production and marketing.
Fourth, recordkeeping and reporting requirements would be less
burdensome because noncompliant coatings will be phased out of
2-19
-------
the market. And fifth, regulating all shipyards would create a
level playing field in the industry.
Commenter IV-D-13 believed the EPA has not presented any
justification for not regulating both large and small yards.
Rather, it appears that the EPA proposes to limit the NESHAP to
major HAP sources simply on the assumption that they can best
cope with the additional costs and administrative burdens. The
commenter claimed that this policy punishes the larger shipyards
without recognizing that several larger yards have already taken
significant steps to reduce VOHAP emissions, while many of the
smaller yards have done little. The commenter noted that the
EPA, if it desired, could reduce the notification, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements for the smaller shipyards, but that
they should be required to use the same marine coatings as used
by the larger yards.
Response: By law, the EPA is required to develop MACT
standards for major sources of HAP (see 42 U.S.C. § 7412(c)(1)).
Rule of area sources (which includes smaller shipyards), however,
is contingent upon the Administrator's finding that area sources
adversely affect human health or the environment. The EPA has
not made a finding at this time; thus, area sources are not
subject to the NESHAP requirements. The EPA believes that the
establishment of final BACM and CTG limits on the VOC contents of
marine coatings partially addresses the commenters' concern.
Another consideration involved the parallel CTG project,
which provides guidance for States in developing VOC rules. If
the States adopt similar VOC limits documented in the CTG/ACT as
final BACM (best available control measures), all VOC major
source shipyards located in ozone nonattainment areas will be
required to use compliant coatings and, thereby, will be required
to reduce HAP emissions beyond the 300 tons/yr. As the
commenters also recognized, this limitation also will cause the
paint manufacturers to focus their efforts on compliant coatings.
Some of the major manufacturers have indicated that they are
actively trying to reduce product inventories and will not
market/maintain low-usage products that are noncompliant.
2-20
-------
Regarding recordkeeping requirements, even if noncompliant
coatings are entirely phased out of the market, there is no
assurance that painters would not add additional thinner (VOHAP)
beyond the limits. Some type of system that checks the as-
applied coatings to verify compliance must exist.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) claimed that offshore
platforms represent a substantial percentage of the structures
that are repaired at shipyards in Texas. Therefore, they should
be included in the rule that specifically covers the ship repair
industry if the standard is to be effective. With their
inclusion, much confusion will be avoided, such as whether or not
the VOHAP-containing coatings used on offshore platforms should
be included in determining whether a company is a major source.
Response: Based on the information provided to the EPA from
those shipyards located in the Gulf Coast region, very few (if
any) of the yards repairing platforms as a significant part of
their business would qualify as major sources of HAP emissions.
The EPA visited several bargeyards and small shipyards in that
area and annual coating usage was very low compared to the
estimated usage at the 25 major source shipyards.
Platforms were excluded from the definition of "ship" to
minimize overlap with the Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance (AIM) coatings rule being developed under
Section 183(e) of the Act. However, the EPA strived to be
compatible in those coating category definitions and limits
common to both projects. Although the AIM rule pertains to VOC
and not directly to HAP, overall HAP emissions should decrease
since HAP are generally a subset of VOC.
2.3 MACT
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) thought EPA determined the
existing source MACT floor improperly. Assuming the accuracy of
EPA's determination that there are less than 30 sources in the
source category, the MACT floor for existing sources is to be
determined by "the average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 5 sources" [42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3))(B) (emphasis
added)]. The EPA recognized this average in the preamble to the
2-21
-------
proposed rule at 59 FR 62687 stating the MACT floor was
"calculated to be the arithmetic average (mean) of the emission
limitation achieved by the best performing five sources (emphasis
added). Yet in determining the MACT floor for existing sources,
EPA selected the emission limitation achieved by "the median
facility of the best performing five sources" (59 FR 62688). As
indicated in the preamble, only 3 of the estimated 25 major
sources are located in California, the State with the most
stringent emissions limitations. By selecting the median source
of the top five sources, EPA selected the California standards as
the MACT floor for existing sources, contrary to
Section 112(d)(3)(B). The EPA should properly calculate the MACT
floor by averaging these three sources' emissions limitations
with the emissions limitations achieved by the next two best
controlled sources. The resulting MACT floor will certainly be
lower (less stringent) than the California limitations.
The commenter requested that the MACT floor be properly
calculated and the resulting MACT standards be reproposed for
public comment.
Response: The EPA has interpreted "average" as meaning a
measure of central tendency. Such a measure may include either
the arithmetic mean, median, or mode [see 59 FR 29196 (June 6,
1994)]. In the case of the shipbuilding NESHAP, the EPA believes
that use of the median is most appropriate for developing the
MACT floor.
The limits associated with the median facility were adopted
as MACT based on the EPA's view that the median "set of limits"
would be more appropriate to use than trying to develop weighted
average (mean) limits for each of the 23 categories. Three of
the top (best) sources were located in California and two were in
Louisiana. To identify an intermediate limit (between the
California and Louisiana limits) would not be appropriate because
there is not a continuum of paints that could be used. Coating
manufacturers formulate paints to meet various requirements,
including VOC content limits.
2-22
-------
As a result of a different issue, the EPA recalculated the
MACT floor with 10 additional major sources (35 total) and
determined the floor to be the same as proposed. The following
analogy further explains the EPA's rationale on the MACT floor
decision. In several rulemakings, when candidate facilities use
different control devices and the intermediate limit does not
correspond to an existing technology, EPA has selected the median
approach because there is an associated technology and level of
control. The same reasoning applies to VOC limits where
manufacturers have developed lower VOC coatings based on the
latest technology (and requirements).
Another issue to be considered is that since the NESHAP
proposal date, the Navy has adopted VOC limits similarly based on
the California limits for all Naval shipyards and Navy-related
work. Since at least two of the Naval shipyards qualify as major
sources, if the MACT floor were to be recalculated today, the
limits would be identical to the proposed (and promulgated)
limits, regardless of the approach used to determine the mean or
median level of control. The Louisiana limits would not enter
into any of the floor calculations. This point is further
discussed in a later comment/response.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) was concerned over the
preamble discussion of a prototype portable enclosure and felt
that it was inappropriate to discuss capture systems that are in
the early developmental stages that may have very limited
applicability. The preamble should not contain an implicit
recommendation of unproven technology.
Response: The purpose of the preamble discussion was to
provide information. The "Compliant All-Position Enclosure" was
recently demonstrated at the Metro Machine Shipyard in Norfolk,
Virginia. While such a demonstration does not qualify as
"available" technology, the EPA thought that it was important to
provide information to the industry that such equipment is being
developed; this inclusion was not meant to be an implicit or
explicit recommendation for any new technology.
2-23
-------
It should also be noted that several shipyards currently use
tarps and curtains to reduce particulate and paint overspray
emissions. To the EPA's knowledge, none of those reductions have
been quantified and, therefore, cannot be recommended as best
available control measures (BACM).
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-11, IV-D-13, IV-D-20,
IV-D-22) believed that the EPA underestimated the number of major
sources affected by the rule. The first commenter (IV-D-11)
cited a local agency that reported at least three major sources
in its State, while the EPA's background information document
identifies only one within its State. This commenter believed
that it may be simpler to establish applicability based upon the
total gallons of coating and solvents used in a given year.
The second commenter (IV-D-13) said "it is difficult to
comprehend that only 25 such facilities would have the potential
to emit more than 25 tons annually of HAP. It does not require
much painting to actually generate more than 25 tons per year."
The commenter listed 22 other shipyards that may likely qualify
as major sources; most of these shipyards have not been
identified by the EPA as major sources.
Commenter IV-D-22 claimed that the 412 shipyards not
identified by the EPA as major sources emit more cumulatively
than the 25 targeted yards. This commenter also predicted that
emissions of HAP will simply shift from the major sources to
nonmajor sources.
Response: Section 112(d)(3) requires emission standards for
existing sources to be based upon the average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources
(for which the Administrator has emissions information) if there
are more than 30 sources in the source category, or the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources
(for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain
emissions information) if there are fewer than 30 sources in the
source category (42 U.S.C. §7412(d) (3)). To estimate the number
of major sources, the EPA assumed that coating operations are
responsible for all the VOHAP emissions. The EPA believes that
2-24
-------
this sufficiently characterizes this source category. Using the
best information and data available at the time the EPA developed
the proposed rule (1992-93), the EPA estimated that the average
VOHAP content of all marine coatings (weighted by annual usage
volumes reported in the data base) was 141 g/L (1.18 pounds per
gallon [Ib/gal]). A major source facility would have to emit a
minimum of 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of total HAP, or use an
estimated 160,933 L/yr (42,534 gal/yr):
(22.7 Mg/yr x 1,000,000 g/Mg) / (141 g/L) = 160,993 L/yr
(42,534 gal/yr)
When the as-applied coating volume was adjusted for thinning
volume added, the estimated paint usage of major shipyards ranged
from 132,500 to 151,400 L/yr (35,000 to 40,000 gal/yr). The EPA
used this range to initially identify shipyards as major sources
of resulting HAP emissions from coating operations. The
calculated values reflect average VOHAP content for all marine
coatings. Ship owners or shipyards may have specific coating
requirements that differ signficantly from the average value of
141 g/L (1.18 Ib/gal) used in the calculation. Individual
shipyards must determine their major source status and hence the
applicability of the MACT standards on the basis of their
potential VOHAP emissions.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-22) suggested that
the MACT determination is flawed on the basis that there are more
than 30 shipyards that .qualify as major sources. The MACT floor,
therefore, should have been based on the top 12 percent of the
sources and not on the best five sources.
Response: The MACT floor determination was based on the
best information available at the time EPA developed the proposed
regulation. After the close of the comment period some State
permit programs provided additional paint usage and VOC/VOHAP
emissions data for several shipyards, three of which reflected
1994 performance, rather than 1992-1993 performance (the period
on which EPA based the proposed standards). Using this new data,
EPA determined that there are ten additional shipyards (35 total)
that qualify as major sources -- i.e., their potential HAP
2-25
-------
emissions are greater than the 9.1/22.7 Mg (10/25 ton) cutoffs.
Since there are more than 30 sources in the category, EPA
calculated the MACT floor for the final rule using data from the
best-performing 12-percent of sources.
EPA also determined that the median of the best performing
12 percent of sources most accurately reflects the central
tendency of the data used to determine the MACT Floor, and thus
for this rule, is the appropriate interpretation of the term,
"average," in Section 112(d)(3) of the Act. (See 59 FR 29196
(June 6, 1994) for a general discussion of EPA's discretion in
interpreting "average" in section 112(d) (3).) Because 12 percent
of 35 is 4.2, the MACT floor (median of the best-performing 4
sources) is some average of the second and third best controlled
shipyards. This has no impact on the proposed MACT Floor limit
because all three best-performing shipyards in the category are
located in California, and they all use the same "level of
control." Accordingly, the MACT floor determination in the final
rule did not change from what was proposed. EPA believes that
this determination of the final MACT floor is reasonable and the
best use of the available data. The calculation also includes
some margin of error -- i.e., even if there are 45 major sources,
the best performing 12 percent is represented by the best
performing 5 shipyards (0.12 x 45 - 5.4 or the best performing 5
shipyards). The median of these five yards is the level of
control achieved by the third best performing shipyard, which is
located in California. Both the MACT floor and the associated
marine coating VOHAP limits would remain the same as the limit
promulgated in the final rule.
Recent indications from the Navy and other industry
representatives reveal that fewer affected sources exist today
because of base closings and consolidation efforts. The original.
estimation of 25 major source shipyards was based on annual paint
and solvent usage, type of work conducted (new construction
versus repair), number of employees, and type (size) of vessels
serviced. This information also was used in developing the model
plants and resulting emissions. Chapter 6 of the proposal BID
2-26
-------
describes the model plants, as well as the HAP content of paints
and solvents used in this industry. The (weighted) average HAP
concentration of all marine coatings mentioned in the previous
comment/response was an integral part of emissions estimates and
determining if a shipyard qualifies as a major source facility.
Other HAP-emitting processes at most shipyards such as welding,
metal forming/cutting, and abrasive blasting exist, but the vast
majority of HAP emissions come from organic solvents used in
marine paints and solvents used for thinning and cleaning.
It is also important to note that the existing marine
coating VOC limits in California and Louisiana (documented in
Table 3-9 in the proposal BID) have different limits for the
various coating categories. The 1991 California limits are more
stringent than the 1991 Louisiana limits in the general use
category and in only a few specialty categories, including
antifoulant (400 g/L vs. 440 g/L), high temperature (500 g/L vs.
650 g/L), military exterior (340 g/L vs. 420 g/L), and specialty
interior (340 g/L vs. 420 g/L). Louisiana also identified an
additional 11 specialty categories with limits ranging from 420
to 730 g/L. Seven of these categories are government
specifications and have military application. Since 1994, the
Navy, has required all shipyards doing Navy work to use coatings
that would be in compliance with the MACT limits. Information
from the Navy did not indicate that these additional coating
categories are needed or required or that there was a requirement
above the general use limit of 340 grams/liter. Therefore, EPA
has not created additional categories for these coatings.
2.4 AREA (SYNTHETIC MINOR) SOURCES
Comment: Six commenters (IV-D-02, IV-D-07, IV-D-08,
IV-D-19, IV-D-20, IV-F-02) offered statements about the ability
of a major source to change its status to a minor source. One
commenter (IV-D-02) stated that EPA's proposal to allow a
facility to become a "synthetic minor" source, thereby avoiding
the MACT requirements, is consistent with Wisconsin's position on
this issue. Should the facility later increase the potential HAP
emission rates, the NESHAP then would apply immediately.
2-27
-------
Conversely, if a major HAP source subject to the MACT
requirements later makes a change that reduces the potential HAP
emissions below the major levels, the facility should not be
allowed to get out of meeting the NESHAP requirements. The
commenter's position was stated as "once MACT, always MACT."
This approach is consistent with Wisconsin's approach to the VOC
RACT rules. The general idea is that if the facility was able to
operate under the NESHAP requirements using compliant coatings,
there is no justification for allowing these facilities to emit
VOHAP at higher levels.
Five commenters (IV-D-07, IV-D-08, IV-D-19, IV-D-20,
IV-F-02) believed that a facility should be able to alter its
status from a major to a minor or area source based upon changes
in its operations or emissions. One commenter (IV-D-08) believed
that a facility should be able to change from an "affected
source" to a "nonaffected source" based on a finding that the
annual VOHAP emissions are below established limits and that
projected future emissions will be below established limits. Any
subsequent change in excess of the reference year emissions or
the projected emissions should require reporting to the
appropriate regulatory agency and the reinstatement of
applicability.
Commenters IV-D-19 and IV-D-20 requested that the proposed
NESHAP include an option for facilities to apply for a permit as
a synthetic minor source of HAP. Under the Title V program,
facilities have the option to apply for a synthetic minor permit,
provided the facility has a potential to emit above major source
thresholds and can certify that actual emissions do not exceed
major source thresholds. Incorporating the Title V approach into
the proposed NESHAP would help resolve a long-standing debate
regarding applicability and the potential to emit. Commenter
IV-D-19 claimed that this option would benefit both industry and
the environment because it provides an incentive for industry to
reduce toxic emissions, while providing the flexibility offered
for minor source operations. Commenter IV-D-20 said this
2-28
-------
provision would allow some flexibility in a shipyard's decision
to limit product usage or schedule activities.
Commenter IV-F-02 said that if a shipyard's emissions are
reduced to a level below the major source threshold because of
State or Federal rules, the source should no longer be subject to
the NESHAP.
Response: The EPA has decided that facilities may switch to
area source status (including "synthetic minor" designation) at
any time until the "first compliance date" of the standard. The
"first compliance date" is defined as the first date a source
must comply with an emission limitation or other substantive
regulatory requirement in the applicable MACT standard.
Therefore, a potential major source can opt to become a
"synthetic minor" source if there are Federally enforceable
limits that restrict HAP emissions from exceeding the 9.1/22.7 Mg
(10/25 ton) thresholds. However, after the first compliance date
(1 year after promulgation), a source that is subject to a MACT
standard is permanently subject to that standard. This
requirement is consistent with the intent of the Act to ensure
that emissions reductions are permanent and that the health and
environmental protection provided by MACT standards is not
undermined.
2-28A
-------
2.5 SOURCE SUBCATEGORIES
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) suggested establishing
separate source categories according to average ambient
temperatures. This separation would allow different standards to
be set for yards located in climates demanding excess thinner
use.
Response: While there have been discussions concerning
various ways to classify shipyards by climatic location, the EPA
decided to use a general (and simple) thinning allowance for all
locations by providing cold-weather limits. Categorizing by
climate zone is impractical because even shipyards in warm
climates, on occasion, are required to thin as a result of cold
weather.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) suggested that
subcategorization could be used to distinguish shipyards that
perform routine coating operations from those, especially private
ones, that experience variable operations. The commenter
strongly recommends that flexibility be retained within each
category if such subcategorization should occur.
One commenter (IV-D-11) agreed with the EPA that there is no
basis for differentiating among different classes of operations
within the shipbuilding and repair industry, especially since
compliant coatings are reported to be readily available.
Response: The EPA does not believe that it is appropriate
to subcategorize on the basis of routine versus nonroutine work.
Such subcategorization could complicate enforcement. In
addition, the segregation of "routine" yards from nonroutine
yards may restrict routine yards from changing their operations
and accepting alternative workloads in the future. Finally, it
would be difficult to establish criteria defining a routine yard.
2.6 COATING CATEGORIES
Comment: One commenter pointed out that the Navy's coating
needs are driven by the requirements of ship operations,
maintenance schedules, and related costs. These requirements
determine what will be included in military specifications for
coatings.
2-29.
-------
Response: The EPA worked with NAVSEA personnel (and members
of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry) to develop this
rule and has become well acquainted with the various requirements
of coatings used on naval vessels. The EPA has accommodated
those needs by adopting separate limits for specialty categories
and adding a couple of additional coating categories (e.g., air
flask and rubber camouflage).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) noted that three coating
categories account for approximately 90 percent of VOHAP
emissions. To this commenter, it seemed that these three
categories could be identified as marine coatings (marine
topcoat, marine zinc, and marine antifoulant) and then regulated
at the source nationwide similar to the architectural coating
rule. This method of identification would be consistent across
the source category and would deter the supply of noncompliant
coatings.
Response: The commenter is correct that these three
categories account for the majority of sales and resulting
emissions. Limits, however, were set for several categories to
prevent miscategorization of coatings. The EPA does not view the
number of coating categories as a serious issue since the same
procedures and deadlines must be followed regardless of the
number of categories. Moreover, since many of the coating
categories are for specialty and military purposes, many
shipyards will not have to be concerned with the full spectrum of
coating categories.
2.7 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-09, IV-D-21)
regarded quarterly compliance reporting as excessive. One
commenter (IV-D-21) recommended semiannual or annual reporting.
Another commenter (IV-D-09) recommended that EPA require
owners and operators to submit an annual compliance status report
in lieu of a quarterly or semiannual report. An annual report,
according to this commenter, should be sufficient for compliance
purposes as long as records are made available for each
inspection.
2-30
-------
The third commenter (IV-D-21) recommended that reporting of
normal operating conditions (i.e., no exceedances) should be
required on an annual basis. According to this commenter,
quarterly reporting would prove time- and money-consuming for the
facility. In addition, the commenter stated that agencies
providing oversight and review could not possibly keep current
with reports on a quarterly or semiannual basis without hiring
additional personnel.
Response: The EPA has reduced the reporting requirement? of
affected sources. As stated in the final rule, shipyards must
submit reports every 6 months following the compliance date.
Furthermore, a source that violates the standard must submit
additional information, as specified in § 63.788(c)(1), for the
reporting period during which the violation(s) occurred. This
amendment will result in a cost savings to affected facilities,
and these savings have been reflected in the revised costs. The
EPA made the decision to be consistent with the Title V Operating
permit program. The Title V reporting requirements are given in
Section 504 (a) of the Act. Section 504 (a) requires permittees to
submit compliance reports to the permitting authority no less
often than every 6 months. (See 42 U.S.C. § 7661(c) (a).)
Comment: Five commenters (IV-D-02, IV-D-07, IV-D-08,
IV-D-09, IV-D-11) were concerned with the time allowed for
submitting the notification and compliance plans. The commenters
felt that more than 120 days will be needed to prepare and submit
the plans. Three commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-08, IV-D-11)
suggested 180 days, one (IV-D-07) suggested "greater than
180 days," and one (IV-D-09) suggested 180 days with the option
of extending the deadline an additional 180 days if the State or
local agency notifies the EPA that it plans to seek
Section 112(1) equivalency.
Response: The EPA has agreed to allow 180 days for the
submittal of the initial notification and implementation plans.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-08) did not concur with the
estimated recordkeeping burden of 845 hours per source per year
in the proposed rule. Based on previous experience, the
2-31
-------
commenter estimated the burden of the proposed rule ranges, at
minimum, from 2,000 to 4,000 hours per source per year.
Response: In response to comments on the burden of the
proposal the EPA revised the requirements. We have removed the
training requirement, limited the applicability to the use of
coatings in excess of 1,000 liters per year, provided for those
affected shipyards a low usage exemption of 200 liters (with a
total of 1,000 liters per shipyard), and revised the reporting
from quarterly to semi-annually. The mentioned changes plus the
flexibility in the final regulation should result in a lower
burden per source. The EPA developed its estimates of the burden
recognizing the fact that many shipyards already have tracking
systems in place for their paint/solvent operations. The EPA
estimates were developed using labor estimates for recordkeeping
provided by some shipyards.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-21) objected to the
requirement that shipyards retain records for a minimum of
5 years. One commenter (IV-D-21) noted that the local agency
requires a retention of only 3 years. Another commenter
(IV-D-09) recommended requiring record retention for 2 years or
until the next inspection, whichever is longer. This commenter
stated that records should be kept longer than 2 years only if
the facility has not been inspected within that time. This
commenter additionally noted that most facilities in its State
are inspected every 1 or 2 years.
Response: The requirement that records be retained for
5 years is based on the statute of limitations imposed on the EPA
in the Act and is consistent with the requirement in other rules,
such as the Operating Permits Rule--Part 70 of Title 40 of the
CFR.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) believed that basing
noncompliance on discrepancies between anticipated monthly
solvent usage and actual usage is unrealistic given the amount of
unscheduled repair work that occurs at shipyards. The commenter
2-32
-------
suggested modifying the proposed rule to acknowledge this aspect
of the industry and to specifically state how to incorporate
thinner usage for unscheduled repair work. One idea given by the
commenter would allow the facilities to document the unscheduled
repair work and to include that information with the required
quarterly report. The commenter also said it might be sufficient
to allow shipyards to adjust their allowable thinner volumes at
the end of the month to account for unscheduled repair work.
Response: The EPA understands that much of the repair work
that occurs in shipyards is unscheduled, and the text of the rule
has been modified to ensure that such repairs are not affected.
Specifically, compliance options 2 and 3 in the final rule state
that a shipyard shall designate thinners and determine maximum
allowable thinning ratios "prior to the first application of each
batch," rather than "prior to each month." The EPA's intention
throughout the NESHAP development was to ensure that shipyards
adequately monitor and manage thinning practices. Thus, it is
not necessary that shipyards perform calculations and notify
painters prior to each month, only that they take these actions
before a coating is applied.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) believed the proposed
NESHAP would impose significant and unnecessary burdens and costs
on shipyards. The commenter recommended that EPA subject all
shipyards to the proposed rule. Under such a scenario, there
would be no need for the burdensome recordkeeping and reporting
requirements because paint manufacturers--given no market for
noncompliant coatings--would, by necessity, develop only
compliant coatings. The commenter, however, recognized the
disproportionate costs that this scenario would impose on smaller
shipyards and noted that EPA may want to establish different
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for differently-sized
shipyards.
Response: The EPA does not agree with the commenter's
statement that the NESHAP will impose unnecessary burdens and
costs on shipyards. Because thinning is routinely done at most
shipyards, buying/using only compliant paints will not guarantee
2-33
-------
compliance with the VOHAP limits. In addition, U.S. coating
manufacturers may still produce noncompliant coating for export,
and foreign manufacturers may produce noncompliant paints that
might be used in the U.S.
The EPA does agree with the commenter's view that if only
compliant paints were sold/used within the U.S., the playing
field would be closer to "level" for all shipyards, regardless of
size and/or location. The CTG project was conducted in parallel
with the NESHAP because of the overlap involving coating limits.
Most shipyards are currently located in ozone-nonattainment
areas, and if States adopt similar VOC limits, there will be no
advantage to most of the area-source shipyards. Some States have
indicated that VOC limits will be enforced in both ozone-
nonattainment and -attainment areas.
Since most of the cost burden of the NESHAP is associated
with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements, compliant
coating costs versus current coating costs is a minor issue.
Smaller shipyards are just as likely to add thinners (and exceed
the VOHAP limits) as the major source shipyards, but the cost of
a paint/solvent tracking system would be far more significant to
small shipyards.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-18) urged the EPA to provide
flexibility to local agencies to allow for alternative
recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring procedures that are cost
effective and equally accurate in demonstrating compliance.
Response: Subpart A of Part 63 of the CFR (General
Provisions) already allows local permitting authorities to adopt
alternative monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting procedures.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-22) considered the
recordkeeping requirements to be needlessly excessive and micro-
managerial. The commenter suggested monitoring potential
emissions by counting the total quantity of paints, coatings, and
thinners that are brought into a shipyard, rather than requiring
each shipyard employee to perform on-the-spot complex
mathematical calculations.
2-34
-------
Response: The EPA has reduced the recordkeeping frequency
and has included a form of averaging (compliance option 3) to
provide additional flexibility. On-the-spot mathematical
calculations are not intended for any of the compliance options.
Any calculations to determine the maximum allowable thinning rate
are done once, when the paint is received. Calculations can be
performed using a spreadsheet or simple graphs based on
Equation 1 (see Appendix B of the rule). Each container of
coating is to be labelled with the maximum allowable thinning
rate so the painter knows how much thinner may be applied and
still meet the applicable VOHAP limit. Because thinning is
routinely conducted at most shipyards and because such thinning
could easily result in the application of a-noncompliant coating,
the EPA does not feel that the recordkeeping requirements are
needlessly excessive or micro-managerial.
Compliance option 3 (based on VOC) and compliance option 4
(based on VOHAP) are meant to provide affected sources with a
means of minimizing the recordkeeping burden by allowing
shipyards to group together coatings (for recordkeeping and
reporting purposes only) that use the same thinner. Also, to the
extent that many ship owners provide coatings directly to the
shipyard and require unused volumes to be returned to the ship,
thorough recordkeeping requirements are all the more imperative.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-02) asked the EPA to approve
certain types of report forms so that reports generated
internally by the shipyard do not need to be reformatted for the
permitting agency.
Response: Reports need to have all the necessary data
(e.g., coating identification, coating category, volume used,
VOHAP content, solids content, and test method) to determine
compliance in a format that is clearly understandable. In
addition, manufacturers and affected sources are required to
certify the VOHAP content of marine coatings. They may use a
form similar to that published as Appendix A in the promulgated
rule.
2-35
-------
2.8 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-15) suggested that a
general outline of training requirements be provided to ensure
some amount of uniformity and to prevent misinterpretation of the
standard. This training would assist facilities with developing
a program to train a professional person to maintain an effective
compliance and monitoring regimen.
Three commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-08, IV-D-14) did not concur
with the approach for ensuring that all personnel engaged in the
various aspects of painting adhere to the training certification
requirements. Commenter IV-D-01 stated that requiring each
employee who could be assigned to a coating operation to be
properly trained and informed of each operational and
recordkeeping requirement is "risky." The commenter suggested
that personnel in charge of coating operations (e.g., managers,
foremen) should be trained and certified. These personnel then
could be responsible for correctly conveying proper practices to
those involved in coating operations.
Commenter IV-D-08 said that training all military and
civilian personnel involved in painting operations is simply too
impractical. Annual training of this sort for all personnel
involved in painting operations poses numerous logistical
problems and unnecessary costs. The commenter recommended that
the EPA implement procedural controls rather than annual
training. The commenter stated several rationale, including high
turnover in personnel and uniformity with existing procedural
documentation (i.e., mil-specs, technical manuals, ship class
paint schedules, and repair work packages). This approach has
been validated by the commenter's experience in California wi:-/;.
procedural controls already have alleviated the need for
additional training.
Commenter IV-D-14 was not aware of guidance provided on the
extent of training which must be certified for "all personnel
involved with coatings, thinning of coatings, keeping coating
records, or handling/transferring VOHAP containing materials."
By a narrow interpretation of this provision, the commenter would
2-36
-------
have to train over 1,400 people yearly, in addition to many other
personnel who routinely handle VOHAP containing material but who
have nothing to do with coating operations. Although a great
many of these materials are regulated by previous legislation,
such as RCRA and OPA '90, the commenter also would like to make
certain that the language in this section applies only to
personnel involved in surface-coating operations.
Response: In light of these comments, the EPA has
reconsidered and decided to remove the training requirements from
the NESHAP. Although the EPA believes that it is important to
establish measurable and achievable standards, training of
personnel is an essential part of ensuring compliance, and the
EPA believes that shipyards will take appropriate steps to ensure
personnel handling coatings are properly trained.
2.9 THINNING ALLOWANCES
Comment: Eight commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-06, IV-D-07,
IV-D-08, IV-D-13, IV-D-17, IV-D-22, IV-F-02) expressed the need
for increased thinner usage during extreme weather conditions.
Five of these commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-07, IV-D-13, IV-D-17,
IV-D-22) explicitly requested a thinning allowance or an
alternative set of standards for extreme-weather applications.
One commenter (IV-D-01) stated that there is a valid need
for excess thinning solvents due to extremely cold weather. One
commenter (IV-D-06) said that simply thinning to suggested ratios
may not provide a low enough viscosity in cold weather to
successfully apply the coating. Commenter IV-D-07 said that it
was reasonable to assume that additional solvent would be needed
under extremely cold-weather conditions. Another commenter
(IV-D-08) stated that additional thinning can be compulsory,
depending on the severity of the low temperatures. Commenter
IV-D-13 said that its entire production process would be shut
down several days of the year if it is prohibited from adding
excess thinners during the winter. Commenter IV-D-17 expressed
concern that the VOHAP limits would be incompatible with thinning
requirements imposed by cold weather. Commenter IV-F-02 noted
that, even in Houston and in Mississippi, thinning sometimes is
2-37
-------
required in cold weather, and commenter IV-D-22 stressed the need
for a thinning allowance for both humid and cold weather.
Commenters IV-D-06 and IV-D-07 noted that if the coating is
not applied at the proper viscosity, the paint may not set
properly and may need to be removed and reapplied, resulting in a
quantity of emissions in excess of that amount that would have
occurred given an allowance for cold-weather thinning.
Response: The EPA recognizes that extreme weather
conditions may require adding thinning solvents to coatings,
making it incompatible with the proposed limits, especially since
those limits are based on California standards and California
experiences a very moderate climate. The EPA has, therefore,
conducted surveys of nine shipyards in cold climates, nine
shipyards in hot and/or humid climates, and four coating
manufacturers to ascertain the necessity of a thinning allowance.
Based on information provided by the commenters and the
survey responses, the EPA determined that excess thinning may
often be required in cold weather, but rarely, if ever, required
in hot and/or humid weather. Thus, the EPA included in the final
rule another set of (cold-weather) VOHAP limits for most coating
categories that permits a shipyard to abide by a second set of
limits during days in which the ambient temperature at the yard
is below 4.5°C (40°F) when coating(s) are to be applied. When
these conditions are met, the VOHAP limits at affected sources
are increased by an amount equal to 50 g/L of coating. This
allowance permits a general use coating with a VOHAP content of
340 g/L to be thinned at a rate of approximately 10 percent by
volume. This rate increases for lower-VOHAP general use coatings
and for coatings of categories with greater VOHAP limits. Thus,
depending on the particular coating to be thinned, the cold-
weather VOHAP limits include a thinning rate of at least
10 percent. When the cold-weather limit is not sufficient or
when thinning beyond the applicable VOHAP limit is desired but
can not be pursued because the specified weather conditions are
not fully satisfied, shipyards are expected to employ other
methods of viscosity reduction (e.g., heating), postpone or
2-38
-------
reschedule operations, or pursue other available means of coping
with the weather.
Shipyards that utilize the cold-weather VOHAP limits must
record and report: (l) the dates and hours during which
temperatures were below 4.5°C (40°F) , (2) the volume of each
batch (as supplied) applied during cold-weather days, and (3) the
maximum allowable thinning ratio. These requirements are
specified in the final rule.
Comment: Seven commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-05, IV-D-06,
IV-D-07, IV-D-08, IV-D-13, IV-F-02) discussed the effectiveness
of in-line heaters. One commenter (IV-D-08) said that heaters
for paint containers and in-line heaters can reduce viscosity and
alleviate some or all of the necessity for thinning. The other
comments were more skeptical of the ability of heaters to reduce
the need for excess thinning.
According to commenter IV-D-01, in-line paint heating for
viscosity control is an expensive option. Since extremely cold
conditions are infrequent and temporary, heaters would be unused
for long periods of time.
Commenter IV-D-05 noted that in-line heaters provide
sufficient viscosity control in some instances but do not solve
all of the application problems that can be experienced during
paint application in cold weather.
Another commenter (IV-D-07) noted that extremely low
temperatures could cause surfaces to act as heat sinks, thereby
inhibiting proper setting of the paint. Under such conditions,
paint heaters do not provide sufficient control of the coating
process.
Commenter IV-D-13 has investigated the use of in-line
heaters. According to its coating suppliers, no in-line heaters
are designed to handle large volumes of paint. Rather, in-line
heaters are normally used in connection with the application of
low volumes of special paints.
One commenter (IV-F-02) said that in-line heaters are often
impractical because they do not heat coatings in their storage
2-39
-------
containers. Therefore, thinners are still required in order to
transfer the fluid from storage to pumps and hoses.
Commenter IV-D-06 stated that although in-line heaters
reduce viscosity significantly, they are not widely used in the
shipbuilding industry or in any other metal finishing operations
for the following reasons. First, in high-solids,
multiple-component coatings, the reduction in VOC or VOHAP
content places the resin components in close proximity (less
dispersal in solvent) and speeds the reaction (shorter pot life).
Additional heating shortens the pot life even further (each 10CF
temperature increase doubles the reaction rate). If the painte_
stops applying a coating even for short periods, the coating may
harden inside the heater, hoses, or paint gun. This hardening
often will require scrapping the unit and other equipment. These
problems possibly could be avoided by adding a solvent purge to
the system (but significant amounts of solvent may be required).
This solvent would have to be collected and disposed of or
reclaimed in a solvent still. Second, the in-line heaters
require extensive cleaning and maintenance of the circulation
systems. Third, painters, application equipment, scaffolding,
and man-lifts must be moved frequently; in-line heaters add to
the amount of equipment that must be moved.
Response: The EPA considered the comments regarding paint
heaters when addressing the viscosity and curing limitations
imposed by extreme weather conditions. The EPA did not base MACT
on paint heaters, nor does it require paint heaters to be used as
a means of meeting the VOHAP limits. In response to a number of
concerns regarding the application of coatings in cold
temperatures, the EPA included in the final rule another set of
(cold-weather) VOHAP limits for most coating categories.
However, shipyards retain the freedom to meet the limits through
the use of heaters or heaters in combination with thinners,
alternative application methods, or other tools that may be
available.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) conducted laboratory
studies to assess the effect of temperature on the viscosity of
2-40
-------
several marine coatings. An example involving a high solids
epoxy coating was cited, and it was determined that the required
solvent addition to adjust the viscosity at 4.5°C (40°F) to that
at 70°F increased the VOC by about 50 grams/liter (0.42 Ib/gal).
The commenter believed that this example is typical of other
products used in the industry. The commenter further suggested
that EPA should consider allowing a maximum addition of 80 g/L
(0.67 Ib/gal) of thinner above the allowable limits to products
used in shipyards where coatings must be applied at temperatures
below 4.5°C (40°F).
The information provided to EPA indicated that all shipyard?
not located in warm/moderate climates (as well as several that
are) have to use additional thinning to compensate for viscosity
problems during periods of cold weather. The EPA views such
conditions and practices to be part of the MACT floor since
geographic/climatic conditions cannot otherwise be factored into
the coating limits associated with the shipyards located in
California or Louisiana.
Response: The EPA is providing another set of limits that
would be applicable when a painting operating is to occur when
the ambient temperature is below 4.5°C (40°F). The new limits
were derived by increasing the VOHAP limits by 50 g/L of those
coating categories published in the proposed regulation having
VOHAP limits equal to or less than 500 g/L. The VOHAP limits
were not increased by more than 50 g/L under any conditions
because: (1) EPA believes that the cold-weather limits will be
sufficient for most applications; (2) alternative means are
available for reducing viscosity and for coping with the weather;
and (3) a greater allowance might encourage excess thinning a:
shipyards. Coatings with VOHAP contents greater than 500 g/L
coating less water have sufficient solvent content that viscosity
should not be an issue, regardless of climate.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) said coating temperature
has a great effect on coating viscosity and that manufacturers
recommend maintaining a specific viscosity (for example
20 seconds with a No. 2 Zahn Cup) in order to ensure that the
2-43
-------
coating will pass through the gun at an acceptable rate and
provide proper atoraization. Proper atomization controls surface
finish and, to a lessor degree, film thickness. The issue of
film thickness is also related to the painter's application of
the coating. The painters can achieve consistent and acceptable
wet film thickness (a specified number of mils) if each coating
product has a consistent viscosity from use to use. Inconsistent
dry film thicknesses (resulting in runs or sags) and poor surface
finishes may require blasting the area again and reapplying the
coatings.
The issue of extreme weather conditions justifying excess
thinning is very much coating-dependent since some coatings may
need additional thinner for viscosity adjustment at 50°F, while
others may not need adjustment until temperatures are below 30°F.
It is clear, however, that as ambient temperature decreases,
coating viscosity will increase, and for some coatings this will
require additional thinning as ambient temperature drops.
Linking solvent addition to preapproved viscosity setpoints
would allow shipyards in cold climates the ability to use
additional thinner to successfully apply the coating. Of course,
the amount of thinner needed will vary from day to day depending
on meteorological conditions. In addition, the acceptable
viscosity is product-specific; therefore, no universal viscosity
setpoint could be established. Nonetheless, the commenter
approved the setpoint approach.
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input
regarding the value of a setpoint approach. This approach was
considered but was not required because of the lack of data
needed to determine viscosity setpoints, the variability of
target viscosities among coating products, and the increased
recordkeeping and reporting requirements inherent in such an
approach.
The EPA recognizes that thinning requirements vary according
to coating products and weather conditions, and it believes that
shipyards have adequate flexibility to cope with these variables.
Thinning, for example, is only restricted to the extent that the
2-42.
-------
VOHAP limits are not exceeded. Coatings with VOHAP
concentrations below the applicable standard may be thinned, so
long as the standards are met. During cold-weather days,
shipyards are granted additional latitude with respect to
thinning (see above comments/responses).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) indicated that it would be
too restrictive to require control of thinners at a central job
site. While recognizing that thinning prior to sending the
coatings to the application point will provide significant
control of thinner use, the commenter's experience indicated that
thinning at the application point often is required practically.
The commenter requested that EPA clarify that thinning at the
application point is permissible.
Response: Thinning up to the applicable VOHAP limit is
permissible at any location, including the application point.
However, maximum allowable thinning ratios must be indicated on
coating containers (via labeling or other documentation) and
thinner additions must be adequately documented.
Comment: Commenter IV-D-07 believed that it was
unreasonable to set specific limits on the amount of additional
solvent that may be added since target viscosities depend upon
numerous variables (type of coating, ambient temperature, surface
temperature, humidity, dew point, etc.). Specific limits also
would be difficult to enforce.
Response: The EPA surveyed both coating manufacturers and
shipyards with regard to thinning practices and thinning
necessities. The EPA used the responses to these surveys as the
basis for establishing the previously described thinning policy.
The EPA agrees that an allowance based on target viscosity is a
reasonable criterion. However, target viscosities depend on many
variables and for this reason the EPA sees no other response to
the issue of cold-weather thinning that does not impose
significant recordkeeping and reporting requirements or permit an
unlimited amount of thinning.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) believed that the proposed
NESHAP would halt its entire production process many days each
2-43.
-------
year because it could not use epoxy topcoatings that meet the as-
applied VOHAP content limits. The commenter claimed that the
final NESHAP must allow shipyards in colder climates to use more
thinner during cold weather than what is allowed under the
proposed NESHAP. The commenter recommended that these shipyards
be allowed to use 10 percent thinning by volume when the ambient
temperature is less than 40°F but greater than 20°F and
20 percent thinning by volume when the ambient temperature is
between 0°F and 20°F. According to the commenter, allowing the
use of additional thinner during cold weather will not have any
significant adverse environmental impact. The additional
thinners would be used relatively infrequently (only when the
ambient temperature is below 40°F), and the use of the additional
thinners would occur during the winter months, when ozone levels
are typically low.
Response: The EPA understands the commenter's circumstances
and has provided a second set of (cold-weather) VOHAP limits that
permit, at a minimum, 10 percent thinning during time periods in
which temperatures are less than 4.5°C (40°F). Depending on the
VOHAP content of the coating as-supplied and the VOHAP limit of
the coating category, a greater thinning rate may be permissible.
The commenter is encouraged to pursue innovative combinations of
thinning, heating, process alterations, and other methods in
order to comply with the limits at temperatures below -6.67°C
(20°F). Although it is helpful to know that such cold-weather
thinning will occur during periods when ozone formation is
typically low, it is not a consideration for a MACT standard; it
is more directly relevant to BACM and reducing overall VOC
emissions.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that the use of
alternate thinners (containing little or no VOHAP) may lower the
flash point of the resulting mixture, thus affecting production
from either the industrial hygiene standpoint or by prohibiting
"hotwork" (welding, cutting, etc.) on a hull that either is being
painted, or is within the same dock.
2-44
-------
Response: The EPA is aware that not all alternate thinners
are interchangeable with current applications. There is no
requirement to use alternate thinners, and each shipyard would
have to evaluate such products prior to implementation.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-17) resubmitted statements
written in 1993 regarding cold-weather thinning: "When
California and Louisiana promulgated their rules, it is our
concern that minimal attention had been given to extremely low
temperatures for a large portion of the year ... Consequently, we
exhibit concern with 'never to be exceeded' limits being bas.-
historical research that may have been limited to Californ- .- _a
Louisiana ... Perhaps the 'never to be exceeded' and 'as applied'
verbiage can be set to seasonal parameters that would allow a
greater maximum VOC content during cold-weather months."
Response: The EPA recognizes the commenter's concerns and
solicited information from shipyards and paint manufacturers in
order to craft a policy that accommodates the unique conditions
of shipyards subjected to extreme weather conditions. The
resulting cold-weather limits (see Table 2 in the final rule)
represent EPA's decision based on the information provided by the
respondents.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-22) thought it would be
appropriate to delegate to the States the responsibility to
regulate the use of thinners in a manner that will ensure a net
reduction in emissions.
Response: Under the CAA, States have the authority to issue
permits and to enforce the NESHAP standards. The Federal
Government (EPA), however, is responsible for issuing the
standards and cannot delegate such a specific part of this
responsibility to the States. The EPA also has provided
sufficient flexibility in the final standards with the addition
of cold-weather limits and compliance option 3 which allows
paints to be "grouped by thinner type" for recordkeeping
purposes.
2-45
-------
Comment: One comraenter (IV-F-02) asked that the EPA devise
a simpler way for painters to determine how much thinner they can
add.
Response: Shipyards may choose to adopt nomographs similar
to the one provided in Appendix B of the rule. As stated in the
final NESHAP, coating containers must clearly display whether any
thinner may be added to the coating, and, if applicable, the
maximum thinning ratio. Shipyards have the discretion, however,
to place additional information on these containers, such as the
maximum allowable volume of thinner (based on the maximum
allowable thinning ratio) that may be added to a particular
container.
2.10 COST AND ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPACTS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) was concerned that EPA's
economic analysis was limited to a national scope. The real
competition that the major sources face is from overseas
shipyards. Even without the proposed NESHAP, the commenter
stated domestic shipyards continually lose work to overseas
competitors for very small differences in price. The commenter
believed that the less than one percent increase in price
predicted by EPA will cause more work to be lost to overseas
competition that are subject to little or no environmental rules.
Commenter IV-D-14 agreed that even minor price impacts could
create a competitive disadvantage for U.S. shipbuilders.
According to commenter IV-D-06, while the economic impact
analysis considered the yards' abilities to deal with control
costs, it is unclear that the analysis considered the costs of
compliance. These costs include laboratory costs (Method 24
testing), additional clerical staff to manage the recordkeeping
requirements, the associated office and computer equipment, and
the additional notifications to the painters on maximum allowable
thinning. The commenter noted that all of these factors increase
the economic impact of the proposed rule and adversely impact
international competitiveness.
Response: The EPA considered several aspects of the overall
costs of compliance including: the costs associated with
2-46
-------
recordkeeping and reporting requirements,- the costs of using
compliant coatings in lieu of noncompliant coatings, which are
slightly less expensive in some cases; and the cost savings
achieved through the use of lesser volumes of thinner and coating
as a result of the greater solids (nonvolatiles) contents of
compliant coatings. The analysis of these costs are presented in
Chapter 8 of the BID of the proposed NESHAP.
There are two reasons why the cost analysis conducted by the
EPA does not consider shifts in business from major sources in
the U.S. to area sources in the U.S. or to sources outside the
country. First, most work conducted at major sources is related
to military vessels. This work is protected from foreign
competition by the Jones Act. Second, because the cost impacts
are expected to result in a price increase of less than
0.1 percent, distributional effects were considered negligible.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-14) raised the issue discussed
in the cost impacts section of the preamble that stated the use
of compliant coatings will not require different equipment. The
commenter was inclined to believe that lower-VOC coatings will
likely be thicker and require stronger application equipment
(i.e., airless vs. conventional air assisted systems, and perhaps
different aperture lines, wands, and guns). Paint heaters may
not be feasible to use depending on the length of the line from
source to application and resultant heat loss. Also, the size
and type of paint storage unit (e.g., paint "tote" vs. bucket),
as well as temperature effects on "pot-life" of a paint, may have
additional impacts on cost.
Response: The EPA was not provided with specific
information indicating that the compliant coatings will require
new equipment or different technologies. Compliant coatings have
been used successfully for the last several years, and sufficient
volumes of compliant (and equipment compatible) coatings can be
readily produced using current technology to cover the present
market requirements.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-20, IV-D-22) were
critical of EPA's cost impact analysis. One commenter (IV-D-13)
2-47 -
-------
believed that the total economic impact of the proposed rule has
been underestimated by the EPA as a result of its gross
underestimation of the total number of sources that would be
subject to the rule.
Another commenter (IV-D-20) claimed that the cost-benefit
analysis performed by the EPA does not appear to take into
account the potential jobs lost, the overall benefit to the
environment, the economic impact to the entire industry, or the
life cycle of the coating.
The third commenter (IV-D-22) said that the EPA's cost
impact analysis is grossly flawed and incomplete as it does not
include such items as the costs of shipyard mathematicians to do
paint and thinning calculations, storage, monitoring and
recordkeeping, HAP reduction and monitoring equipment, and
preparation of EPA reports. This commenter urged the EPA to
conduct a complete and accurate analysis of the shipyard industry
and the standards being proposed, despite the fact that this
analysis may trigger OMB review and may therefore cause EPA to
miss the deadline for promulgating the NESHAP.
Response: The EPA does not believe that it has grossly
underestimated the number of affected sources. In fact, when the
EPA proposed the rule, two major sources identified in the EPA's
database had become nonmajor sources--one through reduced
workload and one through a merger with another shipyard. In any
case, an underestimation of the number of affected sources does
not alter the costs per source, only the total industry costs.
Since this cost was estimated by the EPA to be $1.7 million per
year, it is very unlikely that a greater number of affected
sources—the individual size of which will tend to be smaller
than those identified by the EPA--will increase total industry
costs to a level that would prompt a review by the Office of
Management and Budget.
The EPA does not expect any job loss to result from
promulgation of the shipbuilding NESHAP, both because price
impacts are expected to be negligible (less than 0.1 percent),
and because much of the work that is performed at affected
2-48
-------
sources is military-related and protected from foreign
competition. Thus, the EPA disagrees with the conclusions
reached by commenter IV-D-20. The EPA used the total annual
costs in its Economic Impact Analysis to estimate potential
price, output, and employment impacts. The EPA has provided an
estimate of the environmental benefits by citing an expected HAP
emissions reduction of 272 Mg (300 tons) per year. However, a
dollar value was not assigned to these emission reductions.
Finally, the EPA has been very sensitive to the effects of
the proposed NESHAP on the life expectancy of compliant coatings
since a reduced life expectancy will result in more frequent
applications. The NAVSEA representatives also have been very
concerned about this effect. Both the EPA and the NAVSEA,
however, concluded that compliant coatings pose no significant
life cycle or life expectancy impacts.
Regarding the concerns raised by commenter IV-D-22, the EPA
has addressed several different kinds of costs (and cost savings)
and refers the commenter to Chapter 8 of the BID.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-20, IV-D-22) noted
that if the projected price impact of 0.1 percent is applied to
just a fraction of the work performed at shipyards, the costs
easily exceed the $1.7 million estimated by the EPA.
Response: The commenters asserted that the price impacts
presented in the Economic Impacts Analysis (EIA) led the reader
to conclude that the annual cost estimate of approximately
$1.7 million was inconsistent with the price impact estimates,
and, therefore, the annual cost estimate must have been
understated.
The EIA estimates that annual price impacts will range
between 0 percent and 0.3 percent, depending on the market
segment that is examined. The commenters concluded that this
range could be applied to the final price of a ship to calculate
the change in price that will result from the rule.
In general, this methodology is valid for ships that are
built or repaired within a 1-year period because all data
(e.g., control costs, value of shipments, etc.) used to calculate
2-49
-------
economic impacts are expressed in annual terms. For example, if
a small ship, priced at $5,000, is built within a 1-year period,
the price impact calculation would follow the formula:
$5,000 * 0.3 percent, where 0.3 percent is the estimated price
impact for the commercial construction market segment.
Accordingly, in this example, EPA would expect the price of a
small ship to increase by approximately $15 due to the rule.
However, there are exceptions to this methodology. When
large ships are built--such as an aircraft carrier--they are
usually built over a period of many years. Let us assume that an
aircraft carrier, priced at $4 billion, is built over a period of
7 years. It is unlikely that the entire $4 billion will be paid
at the end of the seventh year. Instead, the more likely
scenario is that the shipyard will receive payments for work
completed on a continuing basis throughout the 7-year period.
This scenario would be reflected in the annual value of shipments
data.
Continuing with the example and for simplicity's sake, let
us assume that 1/7 of the carrier is completed in the first year,
2/7 of the carrier is completed by the end of the second year,
etc. A more appropriate use of the data is to apply the price
impact estimates to the above scenario by using the following
formulas:
$4 billion = £5?0 mi]_ij_on j_n annual revenue
7 years
then,
$570 million x 0.001 = $570,000
where: 0.001 (0.1 percent) is the estimated price impact for
the military construction market segment.
The above calculations lead us to expect that the annual
price increase for constructing an aircraft carrier is
approximately $570,000. (Note that this simple illustration doe;s
not take into account interest rates or other factors which could
complicate the above calculations.)
2-50
-------
The above example illustrates that the control cost and
price impact estimates are consistent with one another. The
price increases for all ships or parts of ships constructed or
repaired in a given annual period should total approximately
$1.7 million. It should be stressed that the confusion regarding
the meaning of the price impact estimate arises only because the
construction or repair of some ships may exceed a 1-year period.
In these cases, the reader should keep in mind that all estimates
are presented in annual terms and only should be applied to other
data that are expressed in annual terms.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-01) noted that the EPA's
economic impact assessment cited negligible costs to government-
owned shipyards. The commenter, however, claimed that the
Federal Facilities Compliance Act, which requires shipyards to
comply fully with the proposed NESHAP, would impart significant
costs on the Navy, as well as private shipyards.
Response: The EPA received input from the U.S. Navy and the
U.S. Coast Guard and believe that any concerns about costs have
been adequately addressed. (See response to commenter IV-D-08.)
2.11 WORDING (DEFINITIONS) AND CLARITY OF EQUATIONS
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-13, IV-D-21)
suggested amending the definition of "weld-through (shop)
preconstruction primer." Commenter IV-D-05 suggested amending
the definition to read "and does not normally require removal
before application of the film building primers." These types of
coating sometimes need to be wholly or partially removed in
critical vessel areas, such as cargo tanks, and when inorganic
zinc high-build primers are used as the first coat in the coating
system.
Commenter IV-D-13 requested that "weld-through (shop)
primer" in Table 2 of the proposed rule be changed to "weld-
through (shop) preconstruction primer," so as to be consistent
with the definition of this coating category in § 63.782.
Commenter IV-D-21 suggested that the portion of the final
sentence defining weld-through (shop) preconstruction primers be
amended to read: "... and does not normally require removal
2-51
-------
before application of the film building primers." When
constructing new vessels and during the process in which weld-
through preconstruction primers are used, there may be
requirements for removal of "secondary surface damage" or
contamination prior to application of film building primers.
Response: Preconstruction primers are mainly applied in the
United States for short-term protection of steel, before it is
welded and cut to the required sizes. This primer coating is
usually removed by blasting before application of the full marine
coating system. Preconstruction primers used in the United
States are mainly inorganic zinc-rich formulations. The study
provided to EPA (Document No. 11-D-074 in Docket. No. A-92-11)
indicated that considerable cost saving would result if EPA
retained the relatively high VOC content 650 g/L for a
weld-through preconstruction primer (i.e., a primer that does not
need to be removed prior to welding). As a result, EPA set the
limits for weld-through preconstruction primers at 650 g/L and
the limits for high build zinc materials at 340 g/L. The EPA's
understanding of this newly introduced product produces three
benefits: (1) it becomes the base coat for the top coat system
and does not require removal; (2) it will be able to bypass
several of the preblasting steps resulting in an 85 percent
reduction of the particulate emissions from the production step;
and (3) the net VOC emissions per unit ship surface area painted
will be reduced even though a high VOC content primer was used.
The EPA does not wish to encourage the use of such high VOC
content coatings in areas that will require removal of the
primer. The rule has been amended so that "weld-through
preconstruction primer" is used in a consistent sense throughout
the rule. The definition of this term also has been modified to
address the fact that areas of a ship coated with weld-through
preconstruction primers sometimes require removal.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) made the following
comments regarding the definitions of § 63.782:
2-52
-------
a. "Batch." The second sentence of the definition is
superfluous and will only confuse the regulated community and
enforcement officials. It should be deleted.
b. "Bitumens." The second sentence of the definition
places unnecessary restrictions on the definition, and should be
deleted. It is of no regulatory concern whether the bitumens are
derived from "crude" oil, or "low grade" coal. Regardless of how
a bituminous compound is derived, it does the same thing \vhen
used in a coating.
c. "Container of coating." The last clause of the
definition should be amended to read: "... applied, including
but not limited to a bucket or pot." This clarification will
avoid any interpretation of the clause as limiting the definition
to only the examples mentioned.
d. "Epoxy." Both clauses beginning with "such as" should
be eliminated to avoid any misrepresentation of these examples as
limiting the definition.
e. "Maximum allowable thinning ratio." The parenthetical
at the end of the definition should be deleted as it is
redundant. Further, for the reasons stated elsewhere in these
Comments, the commenter objects to the use of Method 24 as
determining source compliance where a source is reasonably
relying on a content certification from a supplier.
f. "Nonvolatile." For purposes of clarity, the first
sentence of the defined phrase should be changed to "Nonvolatiles
or volume solids," and the last sentence of the definition should
be deleted.
g. "Ship." As discussed above, a facility building and
repairing personal "pleasure" watercraft should be included in
the source category and regulated along with the other types of
facilities covered by the proposal. In line with this approach,
the definition of ship should be expanded to include any such
vessel.
h. "Inorganic zinc (high build) coating." This definition
should be amended to delete the last sentence so that the
descriptive language regarding film thickness is not
misinterpreted as a regulatory requirement.
i. "Military exterior coating." For purposes of clarity,
the defined term should be changed to "Military exterior coating
or Chemical Agent Resisting Coatings ('CARC')," and the last
sentence of the definition should be deleted.
j. "Mist coating." The last clause of the definition
describing the functions of mist coating (i.e., "thus acting as a
sealer coat and preventing the formation of blisters or pinholes
2-53
-------
in the final coating system") should be deleted so as to avoid
the impression that such functions are regulatory requirements.
k. "Nuclear coating." This definition should be amended to
avoid vague standards and should require only that the coating
meet ASTM D4082-83 and ASTM 3912-80."
Response: The EPA reviewed each of comments regarding
definitions and made the following changes in the final rule:
In the final rule:
a. "Batch." The statement "is characterized by uniform
composition" was removed from the definition. The statement that
a batch may vary in composition from batches of the same product
is informational and was not deleted.
b. "Bitumens." The second sentence in the definition was
deleted to place no restriction on the source of the bitumens.
c. "Container of coating." The definition was amended to
read: "...applied, including but not limited to a bucket or
pot."
d. "Epoxy". For clarity, both clauses beginning with "such
as" were eliminated from the definition.
e. "Maximum Allowable Thinning Ratio." The parenthetical
sentence at the end of the definition was retained; although it
is not part of the formal definition, it serves to emphasize that
"content" certification of a supplier should also include
VOC/VOHAP materials that would contribute to emissions at the end
of the curing stage.
f. "Nonvolatile." The definition has been modified to
include the term "volume solids".
g. "Ship." The definition has been modified, but only to
clarify the exclusion of pleasure crafts from the applicability
of the shipbuilding and ship repair NESHAP, as originally
intended by the EPA. The term "pleasure craft" is also defined
in the final regulation.
h. "Inorganic zinc (high build) coating." Parentheses were
added to the last sentence to further clarify that this is not a
regulatory requirement.
2-54 •
-------
i. "Military exterior coating." The defined term was
changed to "Military Exterior Coating or Chemical Agent Resisting
Coating (CARC)."
j. "Mist coating." The last clause in the definition
(describing the functions) was deleted.
k. "Nuclear coating." Parentheses were added to the last
sentence in the definition to indicate that it is not part of the
formal definition.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-18) asked the EPA to
modify the definition of commercial vessel to exclude small
pleasure crafts. Although the EPA indicated that the proposed
standard is not intended to affect those facilities that build or
repair small pleasure craft, the current definition of a
shipbuilding and ship repair facility does not specifically
exclude facilities that build or repair these craft.
Response: The EPA does not define "commercial vessel" in
the final rule. Instead, it explicitly defines "pleasure craft"
and excludes such a craft from the definition of a ship, thereby
rendering coatings applied to such a craft exempt from the
shipbuilding NESHAP. The manufacture and coating of pleasure
crafts will be regulated by the forthcoming boat building and
boat repair NESHAP.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) believed that in Figure 1
of the proposed rule, a "greater than" inequality symbol
appearing in a decision block of the last compliance option
should be reversed.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter's observation
and has corrected this typographical error in the final rule.
Other changes have been made to the figure to enhance its
readability and to reflect precisely the text and terms that
appear in the rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) could not determine how an
"add-on control system" would come into play under the proposed
NESHAP. The commenter believed that the rule should be revised
to make it clear that a shipyard could, if it desired, use an
add-on control system in connection with the use of marine
2-55
-------
coatings that exceed the VOHAP content limits specified in the
NESHAP.
Response: A shipyard may use an add-on control system as an
alternative method for meeting the level of control associated
with the limits in the rule. The normal procedure for sources
that choose to use add-on controls to meet the standards requires
the source to submit information about the proposed control
system to the Administrator for approval. The source must
include with the submittal documentation that demonstrates how
the control system will achieve VOHAP reductions equal to or
greater than those that would be achieved with the use of
compliant coatings.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-20) remarked that the EPA did
not provide any discussion as to how EPA determined that BACM was
identical with MACT. Another commenter (IV-F-01) asked the EPA
to clarify why BACM and MACT have been defined identically, when
they have been identified separately in the CAA.
Response: The basis for that determination is provided in
the promulgation preamble in Part V. Control Techniques
Guidelines and in the separate notice for the CTG. There was a
summary discussion of the CTG included in the proposed NESHAP
directing the reader to an alternative control techniques (ACT)
document that EPA published in February 1994 to provide
information and guidance to States regarding BACM.
2.12 UNITS OF THE STANDARD
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-07, IV-D-15) asked that all
standards be expressed in the same units. Commenter IV-D-07
believed that the standards should be expressed in units of mass
of VOHAP per volume of coating. This standard is directly
related to the way coatings are purchased and applied. Commenter
IV-D-15 recommended that EPA provide some clarification to the
standards listed on Table 1. In particular, the commenter stated
that specific units need to be listed in terms of descriptive
materials (mass of VOC/volume coating or mass VOHAP/mass of
solids).
2-56
-------
Response: The EPA clarified the units issue in two ways.
First, Table 2 in the final rule lists all limits in terms of
metric units. This action is intended to minimize conversion
errors and to facilitate enforcement. Second, the EPA
understands that the amount of coating applied to a surface is
determined by the amount (volume) of coating film required. The
amount applied/required is also the basis for determining the
cost of a coating "system." The volume of coating film coverage
is based on the solids (nonvolatiles) volume within the coating.
For this reason, the EPA requires that all determination of
thinning allowances be based on the VOHAP solids limits.
Footnotes have been included in Table 2 to explain the
relationship between standards based on volume of coating and
standards based on volume of solids.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-07, IV-D-15) expressed
concern regarding the VOHAP.,,, standards. Commenter IV-D-07
believed that the reference to alternative VOHAP limits sets a
duplicative standard that is confusing as well as difficult to
calculate and enforce. This commenter did not understand the
need for a second VOHAP limit, and recommended that the EPA omit
the second VOHAP limit from the rule.
Commenter IV-D-15 recommended that EPA provide some
additional discussion of the alternate standard, which explains
why the standard was chosen and calculated. The commenter stated
that the calculation discussion also should show how to calculate
the standard for sample coatings.
Response: The EPA originally established the VOHAP^ limits
for compliance option 4 (formerly option 5). This option allows
affected sources to develop and implement a VOHAP test method to
allow a source to demonstrate compliance based on actual VOHAP
emissions rather than on VOC emissions, which serve as a
surrogate for VOHAP in options 1 through 3. (See
Document II-B-026 in the project docket for additional
information regarding the VOHAP limits expressed in terms of
applied solids.) All thinning determinations now are performed
2-57
-------
the same way, regardless of the option (i.e., VOC or VOHAP).
Affected sources located in ozone attainment areas may prefer to
use option 4 in order to comply with the NESHAP without facing a
VOC constraint. However, sources are free to use any of the four
options to demonstrate compliance.
The limits were expressed in terms of mass of VOHAP per
volume of applied solids (nonvolatile film forming material) in
order to base VOHAP emissions upon the actual activities
performed at a shipyard. For example, were the VOHAP limits
expressed only in units of g/L of coating, then a source seeking
to apply a noncompliant paint under option 4 could render the
paint compliant by diluting the coating using non-HAP VOC or
water and exempt solvents depending on the option selected.
Since the objective of a coating operation is to apply a given
volume of film forming material (solids), the total volume of
coating applied would necessarily increase resulting in an
increase in emissions of VOHAP.
Although options 2 and 3 also use VOC as a surrogate for
VOHAP, the EPA decided to require the use of the solids-based
limits in these options when any coating is thinned. This
decision eliminates the need for a specific equation (such as
Equation 2 in the proposed rule) and provides a clearer and more
intuitive basis for Equation 1 in the final rule. An example of
how the EPA determined the solids-based limits is given below:
General use limit = 340 g/L coating.
Assuming a solvent density of 839 g/L (the average
solvent density reported by shipyards and marine coating
manufacturers during the MACT development), the volume
fraction of solvents in a coating that just meets the
standard is : 340 g/L + 839 g/L = 0.405.
The volume fraction of solids (nonvolatiles) in the
coating, assuming it contains no water or exempt solvents,
is therefore:
1 - 0.405 = 0.595.
Thus, the general use standard expressed in units of
mass of VOHAP per volume of solids is :
2-58
-------
340 g H- 0.595 L = 571 g/L of solids.
2.13 TEST METHODS
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-09, IV-D-11,
IV-D-15) claimed that the proposed rule is too inflexible with
respect to the use of test methods. One commenter (IV-D-06)
objected to the principle that Method 24 should be the definitive
method for determining compliance. The commenter agreed that a
source should be able to reasonably rely on a certification of
VOC content obtained in good faith from a supplier. Furthermore,
the commenter stated that the use of formulation data to
demonstrate compliance with the proposed VOHAP limits
(§ 63.786(c)) should be acceptable without a source submitting an
application to the Administrator, because this method, on a
case-by-case basis, is extremely cumbersome and inconsistent with
the widespread use of formulation data by many States. The
commenter further noted that Method 24, Section 3.4, allows for
the determination of the volume fraction solids (nonvolatiles) of
a coating using the manufacturer's formulation.
One commenter (IV-D-09) recommended that the EPA allow the
use of test methods other than Method 24. The use of Method 24
was based on the assumption that VOC content was to be used as a
surrogate for VOHAP content. The VOHAP are a subset of VOC.
Therefore, Method 24 could lead to an overly conservative
estimation of VOHAP content. The commenter agreed that Method 24
could be used to determine whether a coating is in compliance,
but did not believe Method 24 was appropriate for determining
whether a coating is noncompliant. Therefore, the commenter
recommended that the EPA allow considerable flexibility to State
and local agencies in determining the most appropriate test
methods. The commenter further recommended that EPA add language
to this rule or to the general provisions that would allow the
State or local agency greater flexibility in the use of
alternative test methods.
One commenter (IV-D-11) noted prior discussions with the EPA
concerning certain technical difficulties with using Method 24.
2-59
-------
These difficulties pose potential enforcement difficulties to the
commenter, since the proposed rule stipulates that Method 24 is
the reference method and overrides the manufacturer's
certification.
One commenter (IV-D-15) suggested that EPA provide
additional comment on testing methods that can be used in place
of EPA Method 24. It was the commenter's understanding that EPA
has evaluated and accepted BAAQMD Test Methods 21 and 22 as
equivalent to EPA Method 24.
Response: Under the final rule, shipyards retain liability
despite applications made in good faith because (1) thinners may
have been added by the shipyard and (2) NESHAP are developed on
an industry-by-industry basis, thus the NESHAP must be enforced
upon sources (i.e., shipyards) and not upon third parties (i.e.,
coating manufacturers). The EPA, however, has revised the final
rule to permit the use of "batch" formulation data in lieu of
Method 24 results, providing the data are consistent with
Method 24 results (which may require accounting for cure
volatiles).
The EPA understands the conservative nature of using VOC as
a surrogate for VOHAP and established compliance option 4 as a
result. This option allows a shipyard to apply coatings with VOC
contents exceeding the VOHAP limits so long as an alternative
test method is approved that is capable of demonstrating the
actual VOHAP content does not exceed the VOHAP limits. Test or
certification data based on any EPA approved method can be used
in demonstrating compliance with options 1, 2, or 3.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) was concerned about the
requirement that the process for determining the VOHAP content
must include the mass of the exempt compound, unlike the
determination of the VOC content, which subtracts the mass of the
exempt compound. The commenter stated that EPA's methodology
destroys the relationship between VOC and VOHAP identified in the
proposed rule.
Response: Under most EPA rules, the mass of exempt
compounds is not included in the VOC determination. However, in
2-60
-------
this NESHAP, VOC is being used as a surrogate for measuring
VOHAP. It is therefore appropriate to require exempt compounds
appearing on the HAP list (such as trichloroethylene) to be
included in the determination of VOC. This requirement is
specified in § 63.786 of the final rule.
2.14 COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-04) stated this rule seems to
place an unrealistic burden on the worker actually applying the
paint to produce documentation and perform complicated
calculations in order to demonstrate compliance. The commenter
cited the following example to illustrate his point: the painter
has to use a trial and error methodology until the spray performs
properly; by the time the preferred performance is achieved, the
painter may have no idea what the exact formulation of the
coating is "as applied."
The commenter stated that although EPA has stated verbally
that a mass balance approach based either on the inventory of
coating materials purchased or on an inventory of total coating
materials actually used during a specified period of time is an
acceptable alternative under this rule, he was concerned that
unless this option, which is currently being used to demonstrate
compliance in the shipbuilding industry, is specifically
identified as a compliance method in the rule, States will be
hesitant to continue allowing this option when writing operating
permits. Therefore, the commenter felt that the mass balance
method of demonstrating compliance is much more realistic, would
alleviate the undue burden for detailed recordkeeping placed on
the person applying the coating and would, in the end, be more
accurate. The commenter further suggested that EPA needs to
recognize this method as viable and acceptable for demonstrating
compliance by specifically including it in the rule instead of
asking industry to rely on EPA's verbal assurances. Without
specific reference to this method in the rule, the commenter felt
that accurate recordkeeping (with the associated increase of
burdens in time, manpower, and liability) would be virtually
unobtainable.
2-61
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's views
regarding the .burden on the painter. As stated earlier in
response to commenter IV-D-13 (in Section 2.7 Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements), the EPA understands the trial-and-
error methodology followed by many painters and has designed the
NESHAP to accommodate such practices. The rule requires
shipyards to inform painters of the maximum allowable thinning
ratio of each coating for which he or she will be applying. This
ratio, multiplied by the volume of coating being thinned, yields
the maximum allowable volume of thinner that may be added to the
coating. The EPA believes that painters can easily determine and
track this volume. That is, the painter does not need to know
the final formulation of the paint but does need to know that the
volume of thinner added does not exceed the maximum thinner
allowable, as determined previously (upon receipt of the as
supplied material).
The EPA has maintained, and continues to maintain, that
demonstrating compliance via a mass-balancing approach is
completely acceptable. Moreover, this approach forms the basis
for compliance options 2 through 4, which allow affected sources
to demonstrate compliance by comparing the total volume of
thinner added to a coating or group of coatings to the maximum
allowable volume of thinner as determined by Equation 3. Thus,
an inventory of thinners and paints, organized by coating and
compared against maximum allowable thinning volumes, can serve as
the basis for demonstrating compliance. (A shipyard can
demonstrate compliance of coatings to which no thinner will be
added simply by certifying the coatings' VOC or VOHAP content,
as-supplied, and by notifying painters that no thinner may be
added.)
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) suggested that the coating
manufacturer provide information on the maximum VOC content of
the product as supplied on the product data sheet and/or product
label. This information then could be used by the shipyard/
applicator to determine compliance with the standard. Since VOC
is being used as a surrogate for HAP, compliance could be
2-62
-------
determined for both VOC and VOHAP limits. Similarly, commenter
IV-D-14 suggested that EPA provide guidance to manufacturers on
documenting coating ingredients.
Response: The EPA agrees that labels including the VOC and
VOHAP content of each paint would be helpful. However, the EPA
does not have authority under this NESHAP to require such
information from the coating manufacturers.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) raised issues involving
the calculation method required to determine compliance. The
commenter stated that in most cases, the VOC content of the
coating as-supplied usually is available from a Material Safety
Data Sheet (MSDS) or technical data sheet, but the volume
fraction solids (or volume fraction VOC) usually is not
available. This and other MSDS problems also are discussed in
the preamble to the rule (59 FR 62687). The commenter stated the
following problems exist for the average density of solvents in
the coating:
1. Wide ranges exist on the weight fraction of a solvent in
a coating;
2. It can be difficult to obtain accurate density data for
lesser-known solvents;
3. The volume of a solvent component in a coating is
difficult to obtain since coatings are manufactured on a weight
basis and not a volume basis; and
4. Coating manufacturers are very resistant to providing
the level of detail necessary (exact speciation and weight or
volume fractions) to perform the calculations since their
formulations are proprietary.
In addition, the commenter asserted that this method will
not work for coatings containing water or exempt solvents, and
suggested that EPA address this problem by including in the final
rule additional equations that provide VOHAP (VOC) levels on a
less-water and non-VOHAP basis.
Response: Although the proposed rule provided several
equations for determining the maximum allowable thinning ratio,
the final rule provides only one. Furthermore, this equation is
2-63".
-------
based on the volume fraction of solids (nonvolatiles) in the
coating rather than on the total coating volume. Thus, the water
and non-HAP-exempt-compound content of the coating are not
directly relevant to the calculations. Rather, it is necessary
for affected sources to know the volume fraction of solids (Vs)
in the coating. This information is often supplied by coating
manufacturers and does not constitute proprietary information.
If Vs is not supplied by the manufacturer, then affected sources
are to determine Vs with Equation 2, which should be applicable
in the vast majority of cases. Equation 2 requires shipyards to
know the average density of solvents within the coating. Again,
this information can be supplied by manufacturers without
revealing proprietary information.
Equation 3 in the final rule is to be used to calculate the
maximum allowable volume of thinner for a coating or group of
coatings during a month with cold-weather conditions [defined as
having temperatures below 4.5°C (40°F).]
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) indicated that it would be
impossible to choose the compliance procedure for a specific
coating prior to the beginning of each month as EPA requires.
Prediction can be difficult since yards often get rush jobs or
changes in the coatings with only 1 or 2 days' notice. The
commenter requested that EPA delete the prior monthly
determinations of compliance procedures, and allow shipyards to
choose the compliance procedure when the coating specification is
received.
Response: The only advance information needed by the
shipyard is the compliance options likely to be used. This
information will help ensure that the correct paint and thinner
data are collected in a timely fashion. Shipyards using
options 2 through 4 have 15 days following the end of the month
to compare the actual volume of thinner used to the maximum
allowable volume of thinner. Nevertheless, EPA modified the
language of the rule to stress that requirements such as
designating a thinner, determining maximum allowable thinning
2-64
-------
ratio, and notifying painters need to be fulfilled prior to each
application, rather than prior to each month.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) expressed three areas of
concern with the requirements in § 63.785(c), which require a
label or other means described in the implementation plan should
be used to notify persons responsible for applying the coatings.
The commenter first stated that EPA needs to provide more detail
in the rule that states what information needs to appear on the
labels, the location of the label, the size of the label, and how
it should be affixed to the container. The rule, as proposed,
leaves a large gap, which is subject to interpretation by the
shipyard and enforcement authorities, as to what is acceptable.
Second, the commenter stated that labels of any size can present
a problem on small containers since the labels may obscure some
of the manufacturer's labeling on the can concerning OSHA rules,
VOC content, ozone depleting compound content, and instructions
from the manufacturer concerning storage, mixing, thinning, and
safe handling procedures. Third, the commenter noted that EPA
needs to specify more notification options in the rule so fewer
custom plans need to be devised and approved in the
implementation plan.
Response: The rule (both proposed and final) requires
shipyards to inform painters of the designated thinner and
maximum allowable thinning ratio. This information need not be
supplied in the form of a label affixed to a can if approval is
granted for another form of notification through a source's
implementation plan. Moreover, the label may be affixed in a
manner that does not permanently obscure important coating
information. The EPA chose not to be overly prescriptive
regarding painter notification requirements so that shipyards may
retain maximum flexibility.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) pointed out that a
potential key to the various options for demonstrating compliance
lies with the manufacturers of the paints involved. To the
commenter's knowledge, no guidance has been issued to paint
manufacturers regarding certification and labeling requirements.
2-65
-------
In order for shipyards to be able to use VOC and' VOHAP content
information in thinning, application, and recordkeeping/reporting
activities, it is important that EPA-acceptable documentation
from manufacturers be available. The commenter stated that
guidance on what "certification" is acceptable should be a
prerequisite to commenting on the use of these data.
In addition, the commenter stated that parameters
constituting EPA-acceptable information upon which to base
certification of both VOC and VOHAP content in coatings will be
of considerable interest to the manufacturers because of the
direct impact on cost. Depending on the frequency and testing
involved, the requirement for coating certification could mean
equipment or staff additions to verify and list the required
information. The requirements for certification on a per can,
per batch, per paint, or per paint group basis will be as
critical as the necessity for empirical versus theoretical
concentrations in determining the feasibility of any proposed
compliance determination methodology.
Response: The EPA has decided to use the volume solids
based limits (units) for demonstrating compliance for any coating
or group of coatings that are thinned. With this decision, it is
suggested that all coating information be provided in terms that
allow shipyards the easiest means to demonstrate compliance. The
EPA cannot require manufacturers to test their coatings or to
supply certain HAP-related data, although such provisions by
manufacturers are expected to occur to facilitate sales to the
end-users (i.e., shipyards and ship owners). The EPA suggests
that the reader review compliance options 2 and 3 in the
promulgated rule to ascertain the specific information needed.
However, the certification data the EPA expects to see are
exemplified in Appendix A of the rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-08) noted inconsistencies in
the preamble regarding compliance options 1, 2, 3, and 4 in
paragraphs III.D. and VII.E. Additionally, the commenter made
the following statements concerning proposed compliance options 1
and 5 :
2-66
-------
Option 1 in paragraph VII.E., "Certification of
Each Container of Coating, as Applied," represents an
economically unsound proposition. Pragmatically this
option needs revisions or elimination because of the
high costs it would impose.
Option 5 in paragraph VII.E. cannot be considered
as a real possibility because it remains open-ended in
that the EPA has not provided requirements for sample
preparation and the performance specifications required
of an acceptable analytical procedure as stated in
paragraph III.D. Until details are developed by EPA,
we cannot agree to option 5 as it includes no
definitive option for sources in areas without VOC
limits. The rule should not be issued until option 5
methodology is defined and given appropriate review and
comment. Further, the confusion in options between
paragraphs III.D and VII.E in the preamble should be
corrected.
Response: The EPA agrees that option 1 (certification on a
container-by-container basis) is likely to be expensive and
unlikely to be used; this option was proposed, however, since it
might provide additional flexibility to shipyards. This option
has not been included in the final rule since commenters thought
it was not helpful and that its elimination helped to simplify
the overall rule.
The EPA also included proposed option 5 (now promulgated
option 4) to provide flexibility. This option was established to
allow shipyards and coating suppliers to develop their own test
methods for VOHAP.
Regarding the confusion in the preamble between paragraphs
III.D and VII.E, the EPA acknowledges the mix-up and has
clarified each of the compliance option descriptions,
requirements, and equations in both sections.
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-04, IV-D-13, IV-D-20,
IV-D-22) complained about the complexity of the compliance
options, especially if the options are to be followed by the
painter at the point of application.
Response: Although each painter needs to be cognizant of
the rules, the painter only needs to be concerned with the
following issues: (1) is the paint compliant? can thinner be
2-67
-------
added? and if so, how much? (2) how is the volume of coating and
thinner recorded? and (3) what are the required work practices?
The EPA does not believe these issues are too complex for
painters to follow.
2.15 COMPLIANCE DATES
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-08) recommended that the
appropriate timing of the applicability determination be
12 months after the effective date of the rule. The commenter's
recommendation was based on past experience collecting/analyzing
this type of data.
Response: The EPA has decided that the applicability
determination will coincide with the notification requirements,
which require submittal within 180 days of the effective date.
Considering that affected sources have 365 days to comply with
the rule, this requirement ensures that shipyards will plan
adequately for their compliance while providing ample time to
formulate that plan.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) urged the EPA to consider
a compliance date period that takes into account all of the
factors that may inhibit shipyards from meeting the proposed
schedule. Many, if not most, of the larger shipyards have the
U.S. Navy as their primary customer. The commenter stated that
changes in paint formulation or allowable thinning procedures
likely will require Navy approval, testing, equipment changes,
milspec changes, drawing alterations, and a considerable learning
curve for the applicators and development of a recordkeeping
system. From the commenter's experience, this cascade of
necessary changes certainly will take longer than 1 year to
implement. The commenter suggested a compliance date of 3 years
after the effective date of the rule.
Response: The Navy has indicated that effective
September 1, 1994, they have incorporated the new limits into
their qualified paint list (QPL), current specifications, and all
future contracts. Current inventories of non-compliant paints
are expected to be depleted before the compliance date.
Therefore, EPA believes the date is achievable.
2-68
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-09) believed that the
requirement to comply within 1 year after the effective date of
the standard was appropriate unless a State or local agency
submits a request for Section 112(1) equivalency prior to the
final compliance date. In such a case, the commenter believes
that the final compliance date should be 30 days after final
action by the EPA on the Section 112(1) equivalency request. The
commenter identified several districts that have existing rules
that address surface coatings of marine vessels. The commenter's
initial experience with implementing Section 112(1) indicated
that the process was time-consuming. If the final compliance
date for a Section 112(1) equivalent standard is not the
effective date of the equivalent standard, sources will have to
comply with dual rules.
Response: The EPA promulgated the final rule on Approval of
State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities
(58 FR 62262) under Section 112(1) of the Act on November 26,
1993. This final rule contains specific guidance relating to the
approval of rules or programs that States can implement and
enforce in place of certain Federal Section 112 rules and the
partial or complete delegation of Federal authorities and
responsibilities associated therewith. Submission of rules or
programs by the States under this subpart is entirely voluntary.
States seeking to implement and enforce some provisions of their
own programs in lieu of NESHAP under Section 112 need to obtain
approval under this rule. Once granted approval, State rules and
applicable part 70 operating permit conditions are federally
enforceable and substitute for the otherwise applicable Federal
requirements within a State or local jurisdiction.
The EPA recognizes the complex interactions that are the
consequence of regulating a community of sources with State and
Federal requirements and that accompany any division of
responsibility in such a joint effort. However, this regulation
allows an owner or operator of a stationary source to demonstrate
compliance using any of the four options or by using an
alternative method of compliance with the applicable VOHAP
2-6S'
-------
limits. The alternative method must achieve at a minimum an
equivalent reduction in emissions that would have been achieved
as a result of the applicable limits. The regulation does not
require the use of specific add-on controls or other equipment.
Since the provisions in 112 (1) do not permit a State, or local
agency to adopt limits that are less-stringent than those in the
Federal regulation, EPA does not believe that the final
compliance date should be changed.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) objected to EPA's decision
not to include the proposed regulatory text in the Federal
Register. It was the commenter's position that in a rulemaking
as extensive and technical as the proposed VOHAP MACT standard/
VOC CTG, and in light of the fact that sources often face
enforcement for technical violations that arise primarily from
the letter rather than the spirit of the law, EPA could fulfill
its obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act by
publishing a proposal in the Federal Register that includes the
proposed regulatory language. To the extent that EPA has
discretion to exclude the regulatory text from a proposal
publication, it was the commenter's position that EPA abused such
discretion in this case. The foisting of regulatory costs, such
as the cost of disseminating the proposed regulatory text, on the
regulated community, where the benefit of the proposed rule will
inure to the public at large is impermissible absent explicit
statutory authority [See, e.g., United States v. Rohm & Haas Co.,.
2F3d 1265 (3rd Cir. 1993)]. It would have been far more
efficient for EPA to publish the text than for each potentially
regulated entity and other interested person to incur separate
costs in obtaining the document.
Response: The EPA has reviewed its responsibility to
adequately inform the affected public of proposed actions. The
decision to reduce the amount of printed material in the
Federal Register and ensure that the material, including the
proposed regulatory text of the proposed rule, is accessible for
public comment and judicial review does not conflict with the
statutory requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act
2-70
-------
(APA), the Federal Register Act (FRA), nor the requirements of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Access to material that is
used as the basis of the proposed rule (officially located in the
Air Docket created by the Act) is identified in the preamble to
the proposals and promulgations of rules. Specifically, the EPA
clearly established and will continue to look for additional
connections and will include directions for obtaining the text of
information not printed in the Federal Register. Currently, this
information may be obtained through one of the following sources:
(1) the TTN's "Recently Signed Rule" bulletin board; (2) directly
from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center;
(3) distribution to trade associations; (4) plaintiffs in court
ordered regulatory actions; (5) contact with small business
ombudsman system in each State; and (6) if necessary, from the
contact person at the EPA. The response to this approach has
been positive as the process has aged.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) objected to EPA's request
that duplicate comments be sent to the "contact person" as well
as to the rulemaking docket. It would have been far more
efficient for EPA to assemble and send all comments to the
relevant employees than for each commenter to accomplish this
task separately. The cost of distributing comments within the
EPA should not be placed on the regulated community.
Response: This request was made in error and the EPA
apologizes for any inconvenience caused to the commenter(s).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) recommended that in the
preamble to the final rule, as part of the rationale for setting
identical standards for HAP and VOC, EPA should note that the HAP
solvents used in shipbuilding applications have relatively low
toxicity. The commenter stated that in terms of their potential
hazard, all HAP are not equal. The commenter further noted that
under Section 112(g) of the Act, EPA is required to rank the
relative hazard of all 189 chemicals listed as HAP. In its
recent Section 112(g) rulemaking, 59 FR 15504 (April 1, 1994),
EPA assigned methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and methyl isobutyl ketone
2-71
-------
(MIBK) two of the lowest toxicity scores (177 and 186,
respectively).
Response: The toxicity of commonly-used marine coating
solvents is not part of the rationale for setting equivalent VOC
and VOHAP standards. Standards developed under Section 112(d)
are technology based, not risk based. Standards under
Section 112(g) have a different emphasis and must consider
toxicity rankings.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) complimented the EPA for
including a compliance procedures flow diagram. These materials
aid regulatory agencies and industry in understanding the
provisions of the rule, especially when there are multiple
standards and compliance options.
Response: The EPA appreciates the comment regarding the
flow diagram and found it to be a useful tool for internal
discussions as well. The EPA further improved the flowchart by
correcting a typographical error, streamlining the graphics, and
clarifying some of the text.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) strongly recommended that
EPA require lower vapor pressures of cleaning solvents at major
sources. This shift would result in an increased demand,
stimulating manufacturers to develop environmentally friendly
substances that would be used at all facilities across many
different categories.
Response: As part of the MACT development process for this
industry, the EPA determined that HAP emissions associated with
cleaning solvents are minimal compared with emissions from
coatings and thinning solvents. Therefore, no effort was spent
comparing solvents or their associated emissions. However, the
EPA is requiring certain work practices that should prevent, or
at least minimize, pollution during handling of cleaning
solvents.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-20) said the EPA should
consider funding a project to create an EPA-approved computerized
data management system.
2-72
-------
Response: Commercial systems for data management are
available. The EPA does not believe that development of a data
management system for this industry would be an appropriate use
of EPA resources. One reason EPA does not fund such activities
is that these systems may have to be designed on a yard-by-yard
basis. Shipyards, however, are not restricted from cooperating
among themselves to develop a specific data management system.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) was concerned about the
potentially excessive monitoring requirements on processes with
add-on controls where the process is using a compliant coating.
The regulated site will have monitoring requirements identified
on their Permit to Operate. The monitoring requirements
identified in the proposed NESHAP should not be any different
from the monitoring conditions identified in the site's Permit to
Operate.
Response: The EPA agrees with the comment and references
the final rule promulgated under Section 112(1). States can
enforce limits from their own operating permit program that are
considered to be equivalent to the Federal requirements of this
NESHAP. The monitoring requirements for add-on controls are
consistent with other Federal rules and those associated with the
use of compliant coatings only involve as supplied and as applied
paperwork.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-01) suggested that the
proposed standards might force shipyards to apply paints with
shorter life expectancies, thereby requiring more frequent
painting and greater emissions over the lifecycle of the ship.
Response: The EPA has identified VOHAP limits (and
indirectly those coatings meeting those limits) that represent
the MACT floor for the shipbuilding and ship repair industry.
For this rule, EPA tried to identify MACT coatings that were both
technically feasible (proven) and commercially available. Paint
manufacturers and shipyards with existing limits similar to the
VOHAP limits have not reported the problem raised by the
commenter in their use of compliant coatings. Also, the Navy's
2-73
-------
QPL testing includes service life, and there are compliant
coatings in each category included on the QPL.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-01) noted that the
25 shipyards identified in the preamble as major sources have
been the ones to lead voluntary emissions reductions. It would
be unfair to set standards without recognizing the contributions
that these yards have already made to the environment.
Response: As requested by Section 112 of the Act, the MACT
floor determination was based on the best information available
to the EPA at the time (see 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)). Those yards
that were identified as part of the floor will have less
difficulty, and therefore, less of a cost impact, in complying
with the promulgated standards.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-01) believed that the EPA
surveyed very few of the 437 shipyards and that this limited data
gathering effort may have lead to an over-estimation of
environmental benefits and an underestimation of costs.
Response: The EPA collected information from approximately
50 shipyards through information collection requests, visits to
shipyards, and working with NAVSEA, the U.S. Coast Guard and
trade associations representing most of the larger shipyards.
The EPA made a concerted effort to collect information from a
representative cross-section of the industry by requesting
information from as many geographic and climatic locations as
possible. The Act requires EPA to base MACT standards on data
available to the Administrator. Based on that data, the EPA does
not believe that environmental benefits have been overestimated
or that costs have been underestimated.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-01) claimed that the proposed
rule, by stating that noncompliance is an enforceable violation,
criminalizes the rule. The focus should not be on
criminalization but on emission reductions.
Response: Unexcused deviations by a source are violations
of the rule, and the EPA will select the most appropriate
enforcement response to address the violation.
2-74
-------
3.0 ADDENDA
3.1 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
September 15, 1995
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Economic Impact Analysis: Addendum
From: Michele McKeever
Innovative Strategies and Economics Group
Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division (MD-15)
The purpose of this memo is to present revised economic impact
estimates for the shipbuilding National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Due to late changes in the
regulatory requirements of the shipbuilding rule, the estimated
number of affected facilities as employed in the economic impact
analysis (EIA) is incomplete. Therefore, the economic impacts
presented in the document must be updated.
The EIA was conducted based on the assumption that twenty-five
shipbuilding and repair facilities would be directly affected by
the rule. Current estimates now indicate that a total of thirty-
five facilities may be directly affected.
The methodology for estimating the revised economic impacts is
the same methodology presented in the original EIA. The NESHAP
is now estimated to affect a total of thirty-five facilities.
The additional ten facilities expected to be directly affected by
the NESHAP are all categorized as medium tier two facilities.
Three of these facilities are further classified as construction
facilities while the remaining seven are classified as repair
facilities. Due to time, resource, and data constraints, these
new facilities were assigned the same economic characteristics as
their corresponding market-segment counterparts. (Market
segments are detailed in the EIA.)
An increase in the number of affected facilities also leads to an
increase in the expected costs associated with the NESHAP. The
revised total annual cost of the NESHAP is estimated as
approximately $2 million (1991 $).
2-75.
-------
Market-Segment Impacts
The above information was used to recalculate market-segment
price increases. The original conclusion presented in the EIA -
that the additional cost of the rule is estimated to have
relatively small impacts on the final price of a repaired or
newly constructed ship - still holds true. The price impact of
the NESHAP on any market segment is estimated to be .3 percent or
less and some market segments show negligible price increases.
The new calculations also indicate that the NESHAP is expected to
have a negligible impact on the industry's total output and
employment and only a slight impact on the industry's revenue.
All market segments in the first tier are expected to experience
a .1 percent decrease in revenue while the military construction
market segment in the second tier is expected to experience a
.2 percent reduction in revenue. The other market segments in
the second tier are not expected to be affected.
Facility-Level Impacts
Facility-level impacts were also recalculated using the new data.
The results of the facility-level analysis indicate that all of
the facilities are expected to experience price increases of less
than one percent. Therefore, the conclusion of this analysis is
that implementation of the NESHAP is not expected to
significantly impact the thirty-five major-source facilities in
the shipbuilding and repair industry.
In addition to the above impacts, the conclusion of the small
business analysis has not changed. There are no significant
impacts on small businesses in this industry.
2-76
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO. 2
EPA-453/R-96-003b
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Facilities-Background Information for Final Standards
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard
Suite 350
Gary, North Carolina 27513
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
August 1995
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 1 . CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D1-0115
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
FJ>A/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
National emission standards for control of HAP emissions from surface coating operations at shipbuilding
and ship repair facilities were recently published in- 60 FR 64330, December 15, 1995. This regulation
was promulgated under the authority of Section 1 12 of the Clean Air Act. The Standards will reduce air
toxics form all major source shipyards (defined as those shipyards that emit 9. 1 Mg/yr [10 tons/yr] or
greater of any HAP material or 22.7 Mg/yr [25 tons/yr] or greater of any combination of HAP materials).
This document provides:
1) the basis for the revisions made to the standards between proposal and promulgation.
2) a summary of the comments submitted and the responses to these comments.
3) a summary of the changes made since proposal.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Surface Coating (Painting)
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution Control
19. SECURITY CLASS (Repon) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 85
20. SECURITY CLA$£!?«&A f" ' '\ \, 22. PRICE ~ :
Unclassified i! , ' . ,*
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rer. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |