United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-453/R-98-007
August 1998
Air
&EPA
Response to Comments
On Section 183(e) Study
And Report to Congress
-------
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON SECTION 183(e)
STUDY AND REPORT TO CONGRESS
Emission Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
August 1998
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available from
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS 1-1
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 2-1
2.1.1 Ranking Process 2-5
2.1.1.1 Adequacy of the Section 183(e) Study and
Report to Congress 2-6
2.1.1.3 Subgroups Addressed by the Study and
Ranking Process 2-22
2.1.1.4 Consideration of the Impacts of
Regulatory Alternatives 2-25
2.1.1.5 Consideration of Cost-Effectiveness
2-29
2.1.1.6. Category Scoring Process and Public
Meeting 2-33
2.1.1.7 Ranking of Architectural Coatings . 2-42
2.1.2 Volatile Organic Compound Inventory . . . 2-52
2.1.2.1 Reportable Volatile Organic Compound
Concerns 2-52
2.1.2.2 Consideration of Biogenic Sources of
Volatile Organic Compounds 2-58
2.1.2.3 Accuracy of Inventory .... 2-63
2.2 REACTIVITY 2-69
2.2.1 Ranking Of Categories On Reactivity Basis For
Study 2-69
2.2.1.1 Reactivity Study Requirements . . . 2-69
2.2.1.2 Determination of Reactivity .... 2-80
2.2.1.3 Use of Relative Reactivity in Regulations
2-87
2.2.2 Potential Of Consumer And Commercial Product VOC
To Contribute To Ozone Nonattainment . 2-90
2.3 EPA'S REGULATORY STRATEGY 2-103
2.3.1 National Rule Versus Other Strategies . . 2-103
2.3.1.1 Necessity of Additional National
VOC Rules 2-104
2.3.1.2 Appropriateness of Additional
National Volatile Organic Compound Rules
2-106
2.3.1.3 Use of Control Techniques Guidelines
2-108
2.3.1.4 Most of the Nation is Already in
Attainment 2-116
2.3.1.5 Authority to Regulate Attainment
Areas 2-122
2.3.1.6 Role of National Rules in Achieving
Uniform Regulation 2-129
2.3.2 Nitrogen Oxides Versus Volatile Organic
Compounds Emissions Control Strategies . . . 2-132
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
2.3.2.1 Control Strategy is Flawed: Nitrogen
Oxide Control is Needed to Reduce Ozone
2-133
2.3.2.2 Contribution of Biogenic VOC Sources
versus Anthropogenic Sources to Ozone
Nonattainment 2-144
2.3.2.3 Role of Combustion Sources in Ozone
Nonattainment 2-150
2.3.2.4 The Role of Long-Range Transport of
Nitrogen Oxides in Ozone Nonattainment
2-155
2.3.2.5 A VOC Regulatory Approach Has Been
Based on Flawed Data 2-158
2.3.2.6 The EPA's Air Quality Models . 2-163
2.3.2.7 The EPA Study Incorrectly Evaluated the
Cost Effectiveness Ranking Criterion . 2-167
2.3.2.8 Effect of VOC Controls on Peak Ozone
Concentrations 2-171
2.3.3 Miscellaneous Regulatory Issues 2-172
2.3.4 Economic And Social Impacts Of National VOC
Rules 2-175
2.4 CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL ISSUES
2-177
2.4.1 Clean Air Act Issues 2-177
2.4.1.1 Ultra Vires Consideration of
Regulatory Criteria 2-177
2.4.1.2 No Legal Justification for
Regulation of Area Sources 2-178
2.4.2 Procedural Issues 2-179
2.4.2.1 Regulations Void Ab Initio . . 2-179
2.4.2.2 Conflict of Interest
2-181
2.4.2.3 Information Disclosure 2-182
2.4.3 Constitutional Issues 2-185
2.4.3.1 Regulation of Consumer and
Commercial Products is an Unconstitutional
Restraint on Trade 2-185
2.4.3.2 Violations of Due Process . . 2-187
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO
CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT
CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED 1-3
TABLE 1-2. LIST OF UNSUMMARIZED ITEMS RECEIVED BEFORE
PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS RULE
1-13
TABLE 1-2. LIST OF UNSUMMARIZED ITEMS RECEIVED BEFORE
PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS RULE
1-13
TABLE 2-1. VOC EMISSIONS IN 1990 (NATIONWIDE) 2-60
v
-------
ACRONYM LIST
Act Clean Air Act
BAG best available control
CARB California Air Resources Board
CASAC Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the Science
Advisory Board
CCP Composite Correction Plan
CSMA Chemical Specialities Manufacturers Association
CTG Control Technique Guidelines
EIA Economic Impacts Analysis
EO executive order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
IR Incremental Reactivity
MIR Maximum Incremental Reactivity
MOIR Maximum Ozone Incremental Reactivity
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAPCTAC National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory
Committee
NARSTO North American Research Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NO nitric oxide
N02 nitrogen dioxide
NOX nitrogen oxides
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OH hydroxyl radicals
02 oxygen
03 ozone
ORD Office of Research and Development
OTA Office to Technology Assessment
OTAG Ozone Transport Assessment Group
PAMS photochemical assessment monitoring stations
ppbv parts per billion, by volume
ppmC parts per million as Carbon
ppm~lmin~lper part per million per minute
RACT reasonably available control technology
Reg-Neg Architectural Coatings Regulatory Negotiations (1992 to
1994)
Report Section 183(e) report to Congress
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIR relative incremental reactivity
ROMNET Regional Ozone Modeling for Northeast Transport
RVOC Reportable VOC
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SIP State Implementation Plan
tpy tons per year
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
UAM Urban Airshed Model
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC volatile organic compounds
VI
-------
1.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS
A list of the commenters, their affiliations, and EPA docket
number assigned to their correspondence is given in table 1-1.
Comments on the section 183(e) report to Congress (Report) and
the list and schedule of consumer product categories to be
regulated were received in four different dockets: (1) the
consumer and commercial product Report docket (A-94-65); (2) the
architectural coatings rulemaking docket (A-92-18); (3) the
consumer products rulemaking docket (A-95-40); and (4) the
automobile refinish coatings rulemaking docket (A-95-18). Each
docket number listed in the table and referenced in this document
is preceded by a two or three letter code indicating the docket
in which the item may be found: AIM signifies the architectural
coatings docket, CCP signifies the docket for the consumer and
commercial product Report, CP signifies the consumer products
docket, and AR signifies the automobile refinish coatings docket.
Some letters were submitted to more than one docket or were
submitted multiple times to the same docket. Any duplicated
letter is listed once with alternate docket numbers listed in
parentheses underneath. Attachments are indented and designated
by a lower case letter following the docket number. When more
than 26 documents were attached, the additional documents are
designated by duplicate lower case letters following the docket
number i.e., aa, bb, etc. Some attachments included their own
attachments, which are numbered following the letter.
Table 1-2 lists an additional 17 docket items containing
comments on the Report that were received in the architectural
coatings docket before publication of the proposed architectural
1-1
-------
coatings rule. These items were reviewed but were not summarized
in this document because they contained no issues that were not
raised in subsequent letters listed in table 1-1.
1-2
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO
CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT
CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED
Docket number3
Attachments
Commenter and affiliation
AIM-IV-D-02
AIM-IV-D-05
AIM-IV-D-08
AIM-IV-D-16
AIM-IV-D-26
AIM-IV-D-28
AIM-IV-D-30
AIM-IV-D-32
AIM-IV-D-33
N.B. Kisner
President
Triangle Coatings, Inc.
San Leandro, California
W.A. Rostine
President
Cast-0-Magic
Springfield, Missouri
Richard Hardy
President
XIM Products, Incorporated
Westlake, Ohio
James S. Jennison
President
Jennison Industries
Burlington, Iowa
Alaistair MacDonald
Chief Executive Officer
Specialty Coatings & Chemicals, Inc.
North Hollywood, California
K.R. Schultz
Environmental Consultant
DuPont Automotive Products
Wilmington, Delaware
James G. Stilling
Vice-President and General Manager
W.R. Meadows, Incorporated
Elgin, Illinois
G.A. Green
Administrator
Air Quality Division
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
Portland, Oregon
B.A. Kwetz
Director
Division of Air Quality Control
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs
Department of Environmental
Protection
Boston, Massachusetts
1-3
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO
CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT
CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Attachments
Commenter and affiliation
AIM-IV-D-49
AIM-IV-D-49b
AIM-IV-D-50
AIM-IV-D-55
AIM-IV-D-82
AIM-IV-D-93
AIM-IV-D-96
AIM-IV-D-115
AIM-IV-D-117
AIM-IV-D-155
E.D. Edwards
Owner
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
Howard Herman, Esq.
Director of Regulatory Affairs
Representing the Dunn-Edwards
Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
L.A. Spurlock, Ph.D, CAE
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Arlington, Virginia
David Altena
President
Repcolite Paints, Inc.
Holland, Michigan
Arthur J. Fossa, P.E.
Director Division of Air Resources
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Albany, New York
L.R. Rogers
Director
Regulatory Compliance
Anchor Paint Manufacturing Company
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Susan S.G. Wierman
Executive Director
Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association
Baltimore, Maryland
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO
CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT
CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Attachments
Commenter and affiliation
AIM-IV-D-161
AIM-IV-D-162
AIM-IV-D-165
AIM-IV-D-166
AIM-IV-D-170
AIM-IV-D-175
AIM-IV-D-177
AIM-IV-D-177a
AIM-IV-D-178
AIM-IV-D-185
Madelyn K. Harding
Administrator, Product Compliance &
Registrations
Sherwin-Williams Company
Cleveland, Ohio
B.R. Appleman
Executive Director
M.J. Masciale
President
Steel Structures Painting Council
(SSPC)
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
R. Hardy
President
XIM Products, Incorporated
Westlake, Ohio
J.J. Jennison
President
Jennison Industries
Burlington, Iowa
M.P. Stock
Vice President
TK Products
Minnetonka, Minnesota
M. Uglem
Executive Vice President
Hirchfields Paint Manufacturing,
Incorporated
Minneapolis, Minnesota
E.D. Edwards
Futurist
Greenwood, Minnesota
Attached document entitled "Cause of
Ozone and Peak Ozone Exceedance"
N.B. Kisner
President
Triangle Coatings, Incorporated
San Leandro, California
N.S. Bryson
Crowell & Moring, LLP
for the Thompson-Minwax Company
Washington, District of Columbia
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO
CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT
CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Attachments
Commenter and affiliation
AIM-IV-D-189
AIM-IV-D-212
AIM-IV-D-212d
AIM-IV-D-212k
(AIM-IV-D-212p6h)
(AIM-IV-D-212mm)
(CCP-IV-D-06)
(CP-IV-D-35h)
(CP-IV-D-35k3)
AIM-IV-D-212p
(CCP-IV-D-04)
(CP-IV-D-35n)
AIM-IV-D-212p2
(CCP-I-D-13)
(CP IV-D-356)
AIM-IV-D-212p3
(CCP-I-D-14)
(CP-IV-D-35f)
AIM-IV-D-212p4
(CCP-I-D-18)
(CP-IV-D-35g)
AIM-IV-D-212p5
(CCP-IV-D-05)
(CP-IV-D-35v)
AIM-IV-D-212p6
(CCP-I-D-18)
(CCP-IV-D-02)
(CP-IV-D-35t)
R.J. Nelson
Director
Environmental Affairs
J. Sell
Senior Counsel
National Paint and Coatings
Association
Washington, District of Columbia
Dunn-Edwards Corp.
Los Angeles, California
Attached article from Environmental Week
entitled "Ozone Control Strategies
Flawed, Says EPA Scientist"
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO
CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT
CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Attachments
Commenter and affiliation
AIM-IV-D-212p6i
(CP-IV-D-35J)
AIM-IV-D-212p6q
(CP-IV-D-35S4)
AIM-IV-D-212p6r
(CP-IV-D-35S5)
AIM-IV-D-214
AIM-IV-D-214b
(CP-IV-D-07b)
AIM-IV-D-214C
AIM-IV-F-lc
AIM-IV-F-Id
AIM-IV-F-Ik
AIM-IV-F-11
AIM-IV-F-lo
CCP-I-D-17
(CCP-IV-D-03]
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
Attached letter from C.C. Cowan
Director
The National Values Center,
Incorporated
Denton, Texas
Attached document entitled,
"Stepping Stones" - a section of the
Values Center, Inc.
Smiland and Khachigian
Los Angeles, California
W.M. Smiland
Smiland and Khachigian
Los Angeles, California
C.G. Foster
Smiland and Khachigian
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
H. Berman
Wellborn Paints
D. Collier
Courtauld Coatings
R. Wendoll
for Ned Kisner
Triangle Coatings
J. Sell
National Paint and Coatings
Association
S.J.H. Manekshaw
Director
Environmental, Safety and Health
Affairs
Pennzoil Company
Houston, Texas
1-7
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO
CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT
CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Attachments Commenter and affiliation
CCP-IV-D-01 R.E. Mitchell
(CP-IV-D-35k) Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
CP-IV-D-01 J. Janeczek Jr., P.E.
Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.
New York, New York
CP-IV-D-02 R.D. Elliott
Executive Director
Southwest Air Pollution
Control Authority
Vancouver, Washington
CP-IV-D-04 G.F. Tappan
Section Chief
Regulatory Affairs
Block Drug Company, Inc.
Jersey City, New Jersey
CP-IV-D-06 A.W. Effinger, Esq.
General Counsel
American Pet Products
Manufacturers Association, Inc.
Greenwich, Connecticut
CP-IV-D-07 W.M. Smiland
Smiland and Khachigian
Los Angeles, California
CP-IV-D-07a W.M. Smiland
Smiland and Khachigian
Los Angeles, California
CP-IV-D-10 W.K. Lim
President
Aerosol Services Company, Inc.
City of Industry, California
CP-IV-D-11 B. Mathur
Chief
Bureau of Air
State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
Springfield, Illinois
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO
CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT
CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Attachments Commenter and affiliation
CP-IV-D-13 B.A. Kwetz
Director
Division of Air Quality Control
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental
Protection
Boston, Massachusetts
CP-IV-D-33 R. Engel, President
Chemical Specialties
Manufacturers Association
Washington, DC
CP-IV-D-34 L.A. Spurlock, Ph.D, CAE
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Arlington, Virginia
CP-IV-D-35 Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
CP-IV-D-35k R.E. Mitchell
(CCP-IV-D-01) Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
CP-IV-D-35m Attached document entitled, "Economic
Analysis" by Dunn-Edwards
Corp.
CP-IV-D-40 F.N. Romano
Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer
Key West Fragrance &
Cosmetic Factory, Inc.
Key West, Florida
CP-IV-D-42 I.S. Combe
Chairman
Combe Incorporated
White Plains, New York
CP-IV-D-44 M.A. Dirzis
Director
Government Affairs
Avon Products, Inc.
New York, New York
CP-IV-D-45 E.O. Sullivan
State of Maine
Department of Environmental
Protection
Augusta, Maine
1-9
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO
CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT
CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Attachments Commenter and affiliation
CP-IV-D-46 T.J. Donegan, Jr.
Vice President-Legal and General
Counsel
The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and
Fragrance Association
Washington, DC
CP-IV-D-48 R.N. Hiatt
Chairman
Maybelline, Inc.
Memphis, Tennessee
CP-IV-D-49 G.T. Blair
Haarmann & Reimer Corporation
Springfield, New Jersey
CP-IV-D-50 S.I. Sadove
President
Clairol
Stamford, Connecticut
CP-IV-D-51 E. Zeffren, Ph.D.
President
Helene Curtis, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
CP-IV-D-52 D.L. Stein
Senior Specialist
3M Corporate Product Responsibility
St. Paul, Minnesota
CP-IV-D-53 R.N. Sturm
Director
Professional & Regulatory Services
The Procter & Gamble Company
Cincinnati, Ohio
CP-IV-D-54 J.B. Hallagan
Law Offices
Daniel R. Thompson, P.C.
Washington, DC
CP-IV-D-56 S.P. Risotto
Director of Regulatory Affairs
Halogenated Solvents Industry
Alliance, Inc.
Washington, DC
CP-IV-F-la R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
1-10
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE SECTION 183(e) REPORT TO
CONGRESS AND LIST AND SCHEDULE OF CONSUMER PRODUCT
CATEGORIES TO BE REGULATED (CONTINUED)
Docket number3
Attachments Commenter and affiliation
CP-IV-F-lb M. Thompson
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
Association
CP-IV-F-ld T. Wernick
Gillette
CP-IV-F-lg B. Mercer
Prestone
CP-IV-F-lj B. Sabo
Apollo Industries
CP-IV-F-lk G. Brown
National Aerosol Association
AR-IV-F-1 H. Berman
Vice President
Jefferson Environment, Health, and
Safety Group
Denver, Colorado
a AIM = Docket A-92-18
CCP = Docket A-94-65
CP = Docket A-95-40
AR = Docket A-95-18
1-11
-------
TABLE 1-2. LIST OF UNSUMMARIZED ITEMS RECEIVED BEFORE
PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS RULEa
Docket number^
Commenter and affiliation
AIM-II-D-146
AIM-II-D-149
AIM-II-D-152
AIM-II-D-155
AIM-II-D-160 and
AIM-II-D-169
AIM-II-D-161
AIM-II-D-169 and
AIM-II-D-160
AIM-II-D-177
AIM-II-D-184
AIM-II-D-186 and
AIM-II-D-203
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
E.D. Edwards
Owner
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
1-12
-------
TABLE 1-2. LIST OF UNSUMMARIZED ITEMS RECEIVED BEFORE
PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS
RULEa(CONTINUED)
Docket number^
Commenter and affiliation
AIM-II-D-231
AIM-II-D-235
AIM-II-D-255
AIM-II-D-256
AIM-II-D-258
AIM-II-D-291
AIM-II-D-20
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
R.E. Mitchell
Chairman of the Board
Dunn-Edwards Corporation
Los Angeles, California
W.M. Smiland
Smiland Paint Company
AIM-II-D-203 and
AIM-II-D-186
AIM-II-D-332
W.M. Smiland
Smiland and Khachigian
Los Angeles, California
C.G. Foster
Smiland and Khachigian
Los Angeles, California
aThese items were reviewed for section 183(e) issues. These
letters contained no new issues so they were not summarized and
will not be referenced in the comment response document.
bAIM = Docket A-92-18
1-13
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 85 letters and 12 public hearing comments were
received on the section 183(e) study and report to Congress.
For purpose of orderly presentation, the comments have been
categorized under the following topics:
• Consumer and Commercial Products Study
• Reactivity
• EPA's Regulatory Strategy
• Legal Issues
2.1 CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS STUDY
Section 183(e) of the Act mandates a new regulatory program
for controlling VOC emissions. Through this provision, Congress
required EPA to conduct a study of emissions of VOC into the
ambient air from consumer and commercial products and to list for
regulation, based on the study, certain categories of products
that have the potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment.
The term "consumer and commercial products" is defined in
section 183(e) of the Act to mean:
...any substance, product (including paints, coatings, and
solvents), or article (including any containers or
packaging) held by any person, the use, consumption,
storage, disposal, destruction, or decomposition of which
may result in the release of volatile organic compounds.
The statutory definition of consumer and commercial products thus
includes a much broader array of products than those usually
considered to be consumer products (e.g., personal care products,
household cleaning products, or household pesticides) because it
encompasses all VOC-emitting products used in the home, by
businesses, by institutions, and in a wide range of industrial
manufacturing operations.
2-1
-------
The stated objectives of the consumer and commercial
products study mandated in section 183(e) of the Act were: (1) to
determine the potential of VOC emissions from consumer and
commercial products to contribute to ozone levels which violate
the ozone NAAQS; and (2) to establish criteria for regulating
consumer and commercial products. In establishing criteria for
regulating products, the Administrator was directed to consider
the following five factors: (1) the uses, benefits, and
commercial demand of products; (2) the health or safety functions
served by such products; (3) whether products emit highly
reactive VOC into the ambient air; (4) the relative
cost-effectiveness of controls for products; and (5) the
availability of alternative products which are of comparable
costs, considering health, safety, and environmental impacts.
Upon completion of the study, section 183(e) required EPA to
submit a report to Congress documenting the results of the study.
The statutory provision further required EPA to list those
categories of products that it determined, based on the study,
account for at least 80 percent of the total VOC emissions, on a
reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products
in areas that violate the ozone NAAQS. In addition,
section 183(e) required EPA to divide the list of products into
four groups establishing priority for regulation. Every 2 years
following publication of the list, EPA is required to regulate
one group of categories until all four groups are regulated.
Regulatory criteria and ranking of product categories.
As directed in section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA
developed the following eight criteria for use in establishing
the list of consumer and commercial product categories to be
regulated:
(1) Utility,
(2) commercial demand,
(3) health and safety functions,
(4) emissions of highly reactive VOC,
(5) availability of alternatives,
2-2
-------
(6) cost-effectiveness of controls,
(7) magnitude of annual VOC emissions, and
(8) regulatory efficiency and program considerations.
The first factor stipulated by section 183 (e) is reflected
in two criteria developed by EPA. Criterion 1 (utility)
considers uses and benefits and Criterion 2 addresses commercial
demand. The remaining four factors stipulated in section 183(e)
are addressed individually by Criteria 3 through 6.
Criteria 7 and 8 (magnitude of emissions and regulatory
efficiency) reflect additional considerations not specifically
prescribed in the Act. The EPA has exercised its discretion to
include these criteria, because EPA concluded that they are
important in prioritizing product categories for regulation in a
manner that best effectuates Congress's intent under Section
183(e). The EPA's interpretation of each of the five factors and
the rationale and intent of each of the eight criteria are
discussed in detail in the Report.
The EPA developed Criteria 1 through 7 to allow each product
category to be ranked numerically. The numerical ranking process
involved objective and subjective considerations. Criteria 2, 4,
6, and 7 are objective in nature and could be scored
quantitatively based on annual sales, VOC emissions, and cost of
control. Application of Criteria 1, 3, and 5 included some
subjective considerations. Scoring of these criteria could be
affected by the scorer's background, knowledge of the category,
or other considerations. In order to ensure consistency and
fairness, EPA convened the National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC) to assist the Agency in
application of these criteria. Because of the balance afforded
by the diversity of the NAPCTAC membership, EPA concluded that it
was an appropriate and convenient choice for the panel. The
panel met in July 1994 in Durham, North Carolina, to assign
preliminary scores for Criteria 1 through 7 to each of the
product categories. Results of the preliminary scoring exercise
are available in the docket (A-94-65; item I-B-2). The EPA used
2-3
-------
NAPCTAC to provide expert advice on the question of product
ranking, but excercised its own independent judgment to assign
the final ranking of products for regulation.
Once the initial ranking of products based on exercise of
Criteria 1 through 7 was completed, EPA applied Criterion 8,
regulatory efficiency and program considerations, to prioritize
the products in the schedule for regulation, and thereby identify
which product categories comprised at least 80 percent of VOC
emissions in nonattainment areas. As required by section 183(e)
of the Act, EPA grouped the listed categories of consumer and
commercial products into four groups for regulation in 2-year
intervals. Although the statute does not require that the
80 percent be divided into four equal groups, EPA placed product
categories into the four groups as equally as possible with the
goal of achieving VOC emission reductions as early as possible,
given available EPA resources. Thus, nearly two-thirds of the
cumulative emissions from consumer and commercial products result
from products in the first two groups of categories.
The EPA submitted the Report, including the required
criteria for regulation, on March 23, 1995. A summary of the
6-volume report (EPA-453/R-94-066-a through f) was published at
60 FR 15264. In the same notice, the list of products and the
schedule for regulation was published. The Act requires that the
Group I rules be promulgated within 2 years of the publication
date of the Report.
Regulations under section 183(e) of the Act. Regulations
under section 183(e) of the Act must reflect EPA's consideration
of best available controls (BAG) for the category of product. As
defined in section 183(e)(1) of the Act, BAG is
...the degree of emission reduction that the Administrator
determines, on the basis of technological and economic
feasibility, health, environmental, and energy impacts, is
achievable through the application of the most effective
equipment, measures, processes, methods, systems, or
techniques, including chemical reformulation, product or
feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use,
consumption, storage, or disposal.
2-4
-------
For any regulations under section 183(e) of the Act, the
regulated entities are defined as follows:
(i) manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or
(ii) manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers that supply the entities listed under clause
(i)with such products for sale or distribution in interstate
commerce in the United States.
Section 183(e) grants the Agency discretion to issue control
technique guidelines (CTGs) in lieu of regulations if the Agency
determines that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a
regulation in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment
areas. A CTG is a guidance document issued by the EPA. Whenever
a CTG is published, section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires that
States adopt (as part of their State implementation plans)
reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules for
stationary sources of VOC that are covered by a CTG. A CTG
includes a presumptive norm for RACT that EPA believes satisfies
the definition of RACT. By submitting a RACT rule that is
consistent with a CTG, a State does not need to provide
additional support to demonstrate that the rule meets the Act's
RACT requirement.
Since publication of the list and schedule for regulation,
the EPA has proposed regulations for three product categories
pursuant to section 183(e): architectural coatings
(61 FR 32729), automobile refinish coatings (61 FR 19005), and
consumer products (61 FR 4531). In addition, EPA has proposed
determinations that CTGs are substantially as effective as
regulations for three product categories: wood furniture
manufacturing coatings, aerospace coatings, and shipbuilding and
ship repair coatings (62 FR 44672).
2.1.1 Ranking Process
2-5
-------
2.1.1.1 Adequacy of the Section 183(e) Study and Report to
Congress.
Comment: Six commenters in nine documents (AIM-IV-D-212,
CP-IV-D-07a; CP-IV-D-35, CP-IV-F-la, AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b;
AIM-IV-D-178, AIM-IV-F-1[1], AIM-IV-D-170, AIM-IV-F-ld) claimed
that EPA failed to perform the study necessary to establish
criteria for regulating categories of consumer and commercial
products as mandated by section 183(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. One
commenter (CP-IV-F-la) claimed that instead of developing the
in-depth study requested by Congress, EPA conducted an inventory
of mass emissions from particular products. The commenter
contended that a "study" involves investigation, analysis, and
comparison, whereas an inventory involves counting and
identifying items.
One of the commenters (CP-IV-D-07a) stated that a complying
study is an essential precondition to preparing the Consumer and
Commercial Products list and schedule. Two commenters
(CP-IV-D-07a, CP-IV-D-35) concluded that until EPA completes the
required study, EPA is without authority to propose any
regulations under section 183(e) of the Act.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) contended that,
under section 304, a district court could enter a mandatory
injunction ordering EPA to perform its study and listing duties,
and also a prohibitory injunction ordering EPA not to propose any
rule until it performed those duties. The commenter cited
various court decisions regarding the performance of mandatory
and nondiscretionary duties in various contexts. The commenter
also listed remedies available under section 304 of the Act for
failure to perform a mandatory duty. In addition, the commenter
cited decisions in which courts prohibited actions until the
mandatory duties were performed.
One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-212p4/CP-IV-D-35g) contended that EPA failed to
implement the clear mandate of section 183(e) of the Act. The
commenter examined various parts of the business, the science,
2-6
-------
and the psychology that affected human health and contended that
the Report had not analyzed the health effects of regulation.
The commenter insisted that EPA adopt a broader sense of the
"health...function served by such...products" to include an
understanding that certain regulations would result in the loss
of jobs and that poverty, hunger, and stress would occur.
The commenter cited the articles "Risky Business" (Marshall
[AIM-IV-D-212p4b/CPIV-D-35g4] ), "Effects of Diminished Economic
Opportunities on Social Stress: Heart Attacks, Strokes and Crime"
(Merva and Fowles [AIM-IV-D-212p4a/CP-IV-D-35g3]), and "Human
Mortality, Air Pollution and Unemployment in Southern California"
(Haring and Vatarues [AIM-IV-D-212p4c]). The commenter used
these articles to argue that unnecessary regulations create costs
to business, thereby creating unemployment which has adverse
health effects. The commenter also noted that one study also
showed a strong correlation between adverse health effects and
unemployment and also showed a strong correlation between adverse
health effects and ozone concentrations. In addition to these
articles, the commenter also attached other documents which they
claimed support their contention that the Report ignores the
effects of VOC regulations on the sociological/psychological
health of the general population (loss of jobs due to VOC
regulations). The commenter recommended that section 4.3.1 of
the Report include a definition of "health" that considered both
the physical and mental well-being of a person. According to the
commenter, section 4.3.2 of the Report focuses on regulation, not
health or safety analyses. The commenter requested that the
Report be redone.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) maintained that EPA's failure
to list statutory priorities for regulation based on the criteria
established under sections 183(e)(2)(A)(ii) and (B) of the Act
had stark consequences for disfavored industries or industry
segments, such as the one to which local and regional
manufacturers belong, which have been targeted for immediate
regulation. The commenter contended that Congress intended that
2-7
-------
EPA would list certain categories for regulation in "the most
effective, least disruptive way."
One commenter (CCP-IV-D-03) supported EPA's findings stated
in the Report which promote several options for reducing VOC
emissions from consumer and commercial products. The commenter
asserted that allowing flexibility in the methods used to reduce
emissions will promote technological innovation and minimize
control and implementation costs. The commenter agreed that
emission reductions must be balanced with product efficacy,
consumer acceptance, and economic impacts, and that reducing
emissions from different categories of products may require
different regulatory strategies. The commenter also urged EPA to
consider safety and health effects issues when formulating
regulations for consumer and commercial products. The commenter
supported limiting the use of certain substitutes in products
sold to the general public because of their toxicity and
encouraged EPA to consider the toxicological data in determining
safe substitutes in consumer and commercial products.
Three additional commenters (CP-IV-D-46, CP-IV-F-lb,
CP-IV-F-ld) stated that EPA had fulfilled all necessary
requirements of section 183(e) of the Act. One commenter
(CP-IV-D-46) stated that based on the record established by EPA
in the preamble to the consumer products rule and the extensive
survey of consumer products in the Report, EPA acted entirely in
accordance with the requirements of section 183(e) of the Act and
within its authority as delegated by Congress through the
1990 Amendments to the Act. The commenter stated that EPA met
the requirements to perform a study and write a report of the
emissions of volatile organic compounds into the ambient air from
consumer and commercial products. This report was to determine
the potential of VOC emitted from consumer and commercial
products to contribute to ozone levels which violate the ozone
NAAQS and establish criteria for regulation under
section 183(e)(2)(A) of the Act. The commenter asserted that EPA
did this by undertaking the largest survey at the time of all
2-8
-------
consumer product manufacturers that sell products in the
United States, compiling the data, and reporting the results in
the Report submitted in March 1995. The commenter stated that
EPA met the requirement under section 183(e)(2)(ii) of the Act to
establish criteria for regulating consumer and commercial
products based on factors outlined in section 183(e)(2)(B) of the
Act by convening the NAPCTAC to apply the suggested criteria for
regulation. The commenter argued that 24 products chosen for
inclusion in the proposed consumer products regulation are
supported by the results of the NAPCTAC evaluation. The
commenter stated that EPA's Report was good because it included:
(1) a detailed section on why reactivity can be a relevant
consideration (2) how products were scored for reactivity and
(3) the NAPCTAC ranking sheets for each personal care product
which included a reactivity ranking as required under the
statute.
Response: The EPA believes that it has satisfied the
requirements of section 183(e) of the Act as they relate to the
Consumer and Commercial Products Study, the report to Congress,
and the listing of consumer and commercial products for
regulation. Therefore, EPA has authority to propose and
promulgate regulations under section 183(e) of the Act.
Contrary to the commenters' assertions, EPA conducted a
comprehensive 4-year study of consumer and commercial products.
The study involved identification of all consumer and commercial
products; development of VOC emission inventory; consideration of
photochemical reactivity of these VOC emissions; study of the
fate of products in wastewater and landfills; analysis of systems
of regulation; development of criteria for ranking products for
regulation; and listing of product categories responsible for 80%
of the VOC emissions and development of schedule for regulation.
The objectives of the study were to: (1) determine the potential
of emissions from consumer and commercial products to contribute
to the ozone nonattainment problem; and (2) establish criteria
for regulating consumer and commercial products as stipulated by
2-9
-------
the statute. One of the things EPA considered is that consumer
and commercial products account for 28 percent of the
anthropogenic VOC emissions and these emissions are largely
uncontrolled nationwide. In light of this, EPA examined in the
study the potential for emissions from these products to
contribute to ozone nonattainment.
A major element of the study was a comprehensive accounting
of VOC emissions from the full range of consumer and commercial
products subject to section 183(e) of the Act. To develop this
comprehensive emissions inventory, EPA used information from
existing regulatory efforts, conducted literature searches to
obtain emission information for certain products and conducted a
survey of consumer product manufacturers. The survey of consumer
product manufacturers obtained information on the total VOC
content (and the individual VOC ingredients) of products.
Another key element of the study was an analysis of
photochemical reactivity as it relates to VOC emissions from
consumer and commercial products. This effort investigated the
validity, uncertainties, and overall utility of available
reactivity data and evaluated methodologies by which relative
reactivity could be employed in implementation of section 183(e)
of the Act.
In another part of the study, EPA investigated the fate of
consumer and commercial product-related VOC in wastewater and in
landfills. The purpose of this effort was to determine whether
adjustments to VOC inventory data should be made to account for
the portion of the VOC content of consumer products that enter
landfills or wastewater and, due to physical or chemical
mechanisms, do not enter the ambient air.
Also as part of the comprehensive study, EPA analyzed
various systems of regulation, including product registration and
labeling, self-monitoring and reporting, prohibitions,
limitations, and economic incentives, that could be used to
achieve reductions in VOC emissions and resultant ozone
formation. Various measures such as reformulation, product
2-10
-------
substitution, repackaging, and consumer education were
investigated as possible methods of achieving VOC reductions. In
addition, the study included an in-depth analysis of aerosol
products and packaging systems.
One of the major objectives of the study was to establish
criteria for regulating consumer and commercial products under
section 183(e) of the Act. Pursuant to the statute, EPA
developed eight criteria based closely upon five factors that
Congress instructed EPA to take into consideration in
section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act. These criteria and the process
of applying them are discussed in more detail in section 2.1.1.6.
The five statutory factors for consideration by EPA in
establishing criteria are:
1. Uses, benefits, and commercial demand;
2. health and safety functions;
3. products which emit highly reactive VOC;
4. cost-effectiveness of control; and
5. availability of alternatives.
Utilizing the discretion allocated to the Agency in
section 183(e) of the Act, EPA established eight criteria based
upon its consideration of the statutory factors:
1. Product utility;
2. commercial demand;
3. health and safety functions;
4. emissions of highly reactive VOC;
5. availability of alternatives;
6. cost-effectiveness of controls;
7. magnitude of annual VOC emissions; and
8. regulatory efficiency and program considerations.
In March 1995, following completion of the 4-year
comprehensive study, EPA published and submitted to Congress a
report entitled "Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Consumer and Commercial Products - Report to Congress"
(EPA-453/R-94-066-A) and published five supporting documents as
follows:
1. "Comprehensive Emissions Inventory"
(EPA-453/R-94-066-B);
2. "Fate of Consumer Product VOC in Landfills"
(EPA-453/R-94-066-C);
2-11
-------
3. "Fate of Consumer Product VOC in Wastewater"
(EPA-453/R-94-066-D);
4. "Economic Incentives to Reduce VOC Emissions from
Consumer and Commercial Products" (EPA-453/R-94-066-E);
and
5. "Aerosol Products and Packaging Systems"
(EPA-453/R-94-066-F) .
On March 23, 1995, EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register [60 FR 15264] entitled "Consumer and Commercial
Products: Schedule for Regulation." This notice contained a list
of consumer and commercial products identified for possible
regulation and a schedule for promulgation of such regulations.
In accordance with section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act, EPA listed
those categories of consumer and commercial products, based on
the study, which account for at least 80 percent of the VOC
emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and
commercial products in ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA
divided the list into four groups, by priority, based on
application of the eight criteria established in the study. In
accordance with the statute, EPA scheduled a group to be
regulated every 2 years beginning in March 1997.
Having conducted the comprehensive 4-year study, established
criteria for regulating products, submitted the required report
to Congress, and published the consumer and commercial product
category list and schedule for regulation, EPA believes it has
satisfied the preconditions to regulation under section 183(e) of
the Act. With regard to the commenter's claims that EPA has
failed to complete the study and listing, EPA notes that a
U.S. District Court has recently rejected the commenter's claim
that the Agency failed to comply with a mandatory duty for lack
of jurisdiction under section 304 of the Act and the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has recently upheld that
decision. See Dunn-Edwards v. EPA. 1997 U.S. App.LEXIS 22891
(8/5/97). In addition, EPA notes that a number of courts have
held that the contents of reports to Congress, and the adequacy
of those contents, are not subject to judicial review. See,
e.g., NRDC v. Hodel. 865 F.2d288 (B.C. Cir. 1988).
2-12
-------
Concerning the allegation that EPA failed to analyze the
health effects of regulations as required by section 183(e), EPA
believes that the commenter misconstrued the
section 183(e)(2)(B)(ii) directive to consider health and safety
functions. The EPA considers the reference to health and safety
function in section 183 (e)(2)(B)(ii) to provide direction to the
Agency to take into consideration the health benefits of
products, such as asthmatic inhalers, when listing consumer and
commercial products for regulation. This provision does not
instruct the EPA to look at secondary health effects such as
those suggested by the commenter. Nevertheless, EPA does in fact
take into account factors such as economic impacts and potential
for closures and unemployment in consideration of the economic
impact associated with a rulemaking.
In establishing the ranking criteria, EPA did consider the
health and safety function in the application of Criterion 3.
Criterion 3 was designed to lower the priority for regulation of
products that contribute to the protection of health or safety.
A product with no health or safety function was assigned a
maximum score, under this criterion (higher priority for
regulation). A product marketed primarily for its health or
safety functions received a minimum score (lower priority for
regulation). A product whose health or safety functions are
secondary was assigned a mid-range score. By this process, EPA
recognized the health and safety benefits derived from the use of
consumer and commercial products and sought to ensure that these
benefits were not unduly or unnecessarily compromised.
With respect to the articles and other documents submitted
by the commenter, EPA disagrees that these items raise issues for
consideration at the time of the Study. The EPA examines the
economic impacts of regulations at the time of rulemaking because
it is only at that point that it is possible to evaluate such
impacts. In this case, the commenter presupposed that there are
significant adverse employment impacts of any rule and indicated
that there are secondary impacts associated with unemployment
2-13
-------
that are not accounted for by EPA's analysis. The EPA does not
agree that it is possible to anticipate the economic impacts and
benefits of any rules issued under section 183 (e) of the Act in
advance of development of the rules. The EPA has considered the
economic impact of the proposed standards for the automobile
refinish coatings rule, the consumer products rule, and the
architectural coatings rule in the rulemakings on these standards
rather than in the study.
Finally, EPA agrees that allowing flexibility in the methods
used to reduce emissions will promote technological innovation
and minimize control and implementation costs. The EPA also
agrees that its approach balances emission reductions with
product efficacy, consumer acceptance, and economic impacts and
recognizes that reducing emissions from different categories of
products may require different regulatory strategies. The EPA
also agrees that health and safety effects should be considered
when issuing regulations for consumer and commercial products.
In consideration of substitutes for products, EPA would of course
consider whether or not the reformulated product presented other
concerns, such as emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or
other health hazards. The EPA's consideration of health effects
would be in the decision on whether or not there are acceptable
substitutes.
Comment: One commenter claimed that EPA did not conduct the
proper required peer review of the section 183(e) study and the
report to Congress because the Agency wrongly concluded that peer
review was unnecessary.
Response: The EPA believes that the degree of peer review
conducted for the section 183(e) study and report to Congress was
within the discretion of EPA. The EPA's January 1993 Peer Review
Policy states that: "(A)gency managers within Headquarters,
Regions, laboratories and field components determine and are
accountable for the decision whether to employ peer review in
particular instances and, if so, its character, scope, and
timing. These decisions are made in conformance with program
2-14
-------
goals and priorities, resource constraints, and statutory or
court-ordered deadlines."
Although EPA conducted no formal peer review process for the
report to Congress, there was extensive peer involvement at
various stages of the section 183(e) study. For example, the
basis for chapter 3, Photochemical Reactivity, was a scientific
paper entitled, "Scientific Basis of the VOC Reactivity Issues
Raised by Section 183(e) of The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990."i (A-94-65, item IV-J-8) This paper was reviewed by
members of the National Academy of Sciences prior to publication
of the report to Congress. In addition, in October of 1996, this
approach was published as a technical paper in the Journal of Air
and Waste Management Association. As a published paper, it was
subjected to the same peer review policy as all other papers
submitted to this journal. The fact that, after meeting the peer
review requirements of the journal, it was published without
changes confirms its technical merit. In addition, in
September 1992 as part of the architectural coatings regulatory
negotiation process, EPA convened a meeting of photochemical
reactivity and modeling experts to obtain their input on the
state of the science of reactivity and the suitability of
reactivity to regulatory programs.
Other elements of the study and Report were developed with a
high degree of peer involvement by representatives of various
sectors of the consumer and commercial products industry.
Elements of the study that involved input from industry or were
reviewed by industry prior to publication of the report to
Congress included: draft and revised documents entitled,
"Criteria for Regulation of Consumer and Commercial Products
under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act"; the consumer products
survey questionnaire and results; and the report on aerosol
products and packaging systems (A-94-65, item I-A-6).2/3
Industry groups and regulatory agencies who provided input on
various topics included the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
Association; the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association;
2-15
-------
the Soap and Detergent Association; the National Paint and
Coatings Association; the Automotive Chemical Manufacturers
Council; the Adhesive and Sealant Council; California Air
Resources Board; New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection; New York Department of Environmental Conservation;
and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
With regard to the listing and scheduling of categories for
regulation, NAPCTAC, as well as members of the public, were
consulted and were provided an opportunity to participate in the
criteria ranking process in an open public meeting.
The EPA believes that peer involvement in the most
controversial and technical element of the study (reactivity),
the high degree of industry and State regulatory agency
involvement, and participation of the public and the NAPCTAC in
the ranking process all work together to satisfy the goal of
involving experts in the field, obtaining input from outside of
the Agency and ensuring policy decisions rest on sound, credible
science and data.
2.1.1.2 Addition of Two Criteria (Emission Magnitude, and
Regulatory Efficiency and Program Considerations).
Comment: Two commenters in seven documents (AIM-IV-D-55,
AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-214C, CP-IV-D-35, CP-IV-F-la,
AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t, AR-IV-F-1) stated that the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) did not have
the authority to add the "emission magnitude" and the "regulatory
efficiency and program considerations" criteria to the five
factors listed in section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act
(Act). The commenters claim that any Agency action relying on
these factors is illegal and invalid.
One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-214c,
AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) cited the following three court cases
to support its position: (1) Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assn.
v. State Farm Mutual. 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983); (2) Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v. U.S.E.P.A.. 861 F.2d 270, 274-277
(D.C. Cir. 1988); and (3) Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics
2-16
-------
Unit. 113 S. Ct. 1160, 1163 (1993). The commenter stated that
these cases demonstrate that: (1) Agency action was invalid where
the Agency relied on factors which Congress did not intend it to
consider; (2) decisions based on a criterion not authorized by
the Act are not in accordance with law; and (3) where Congress
enumerates specific factors for consideration, it is beyond an
agency's authorized discretion to consider additional factors not
specifically enumerated.
Another commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35)
supported this position by stating that the Act's use of the term
"shall" meant that EPA had no discretion to alter, ignore, or add
to these factors.
According to one commenter (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t), EPA unfairly altered the ranking
process by using the magnitude of volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions as an additional factor. The commenter alleged that
use of emissions magnitude effectively substituted a volume
factor for the relative reactivity determination of each VOC as
required by Congress.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) stated that the regulatory
efficiency and program considerations criterion severely
prejudices the ranking process against those products that have
current State and/or Federal regulations, such as architectural
coatings.
One of the commenters (CP-IV-F-la) asserted that the
efficiency factor was subjective and could be abused by EPA
because there is no standard definition of "efficiency."
Response: The EPA agrees that the Act requires EPA to
establish criteria for regulating consumer and commercial
products, taking into consideration certain listed factors. The
statute does not require, however, that EPA establish criteria
that precisely mirror the factors listed in section 183(e)(2)(B)
of the Act, nor does it require that EPA consider the list of
factors to be exclusive. Section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act only
requires that the criteria reflect consideration of the listed
2-17
-------
factors. Accordingly, the statute provides EPA discretion to
identify the relevant and necessary criteria for regulation. The
EPA fulfilled its duty to establish criteria and to consider each
of the five listed factors in developing its criteria. The
statutory factors and the criteria established by EPA are
discussed in more detail in sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.6.
The EPA exercised its discretion by establishing two
criteria that did not specifically mirror the five listed
factors, but which EPA believed were important for the purposes
of establishing priorities for regulation, as instructed by
Congress, and in keeping with the objectives reflected by
Congress in the factors listed for EPA consideration in devising
criteria. Because Congress gave EPA discretion to devise
appropriate criteria, taking into consideration certain factors
enumerated in section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA believes that
the commenter's reference to the decisions in Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Assn.. Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, and
Leatherman are inapposite. Those decisions are distinguishable
because the courts addressed instances in which entities relied
on factors not permitted by the applicable statutes. In this
instance, EPA's establishment of criteria was explicitly directed
by statute and the scope of EPA's authority to do so was not
limited to the factors or in other ways analogous to the cases
cited by the commenter.
Criterion 7, Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions, provided for
ranking of products based on their annual mass emissions of VOC
expressed in tons. As required by section 183(e) of the Act,
these mass emission estimates were adjusted on the basis of
relative reactivity. The procedure for this adjustment is
explained in detail in chapter 3 of the report to Congress.
Following the adjustment for relative reactivity, products with
higher annual reactivity-adjusted emissions received higher
scores, indicating a higher priority for regulation. The
criteria and scoring process are discussed in detail in
section 2.1.1.6 of this document and in chapter 4 of the report
2-18
-------
to Congress. Thus, EPA considered both volume and reactivity; it
did not substitute a volume basis for reactivity adjustment. The
EPA believes that it is preferable to regulate products taking
into consideration how much VOC they emit relative to other
products. The Agency's position of focusing on larger emission
sources is reasonable because the larger sources generally
provide a greater opportunity for emission reductions.
Criterion 8, Regulatory Efficiency and Program
Considerations, was established solely to assure that EPA
continues to use resources in the most effective manner to meet
the mandate of section 183(e) of the Act. It is reasonable for
EPA to consider whether a given consumer and commercial product
category has already been the subject of State or Federal
regulatory programs. Such categories typically would have been
fairly well-characterized, alternatives of control would have
been explored, and cost and economic impacts of regulation would
have been investigated. The EPA believes it is also reasonable
to consider the existence of this information in prioritizing
product categories for regulation because EPA must regulate the
first group of products in a relatively short period of time
(i.e., 2 years after the listing of products for regulation).
Giving these well-characterized categories higher priority allows
EPA more time to evaluate potential rules for categories that may
be less well understood at this time.
The architectural coatings industry was not adversely
affected by EPA's application of Criterion 8, Regulatory
Efficiency and Program Considerations. Comparison of the tabular
results of the product category ranking exercise (before
application of Criterion 8) and the resulting March 1995 schedule
for regulations (following application of Criterion 8) shows that
in only two cases were categories listed for regulation that fell
outside the categories accounting for at least 80 percent of the
emissions based on numerical score alone. These categories were:
(1) shipbuilding and repair coatings; and (2) a collection of
24 household consumer products which were currently regulated by
2-19
-------
California and several other States. Therefore, contrary to the
commenter's suggestion, the ranking of architectural coatings in
the top 80 percent was not a result of EPA's use of Criterion 8.
The EPA intends to exercise discretion in adjusting the
product category rankings, as necessary, to achieve an effective
and practical regulatory program. As a result, EPA may amend the
list and schedule for regulations as regulatory development
proceeds or as new information becomes available. For example,
while developing regulations for aerosol spray paints (listed for
regulation in 1997), EPA added acetone to the list of compounds
considered negligibly reactive and exempt from EPA's definition
of VOC. Acetone is a solvent used in the formulation of many
aerosol paint products. Consequently, EPA's analysis of best
available controls (BAG) conducted during the regulatory
development process for aerosol spray paints was no longer
accurate, and would have to be revisited. The EPA has determined
that additional time is required to consider the aerosol spray
paint category, and intends to exercise its discretion to amend
the schedule for regulations to move aerosol spray paints from
Group 1.
With regard to the commenter's assertion that Criterion 8 is
subjective and that there is no standard definition of
"efficiency," EPA believes that the existence of data, rules, and
studies on consumer and commercial products was a valid basis for
evaluating Criterion 8 and listing categories for regulation. As
explained in section 2.1.1.6, most of the criteria have elements
of subjectivity, and EPA believes this criterion is no less valid
than the other criteria. Therefore, EPA believes there is no
need for a definition for "efficiency."
Comment: Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214c,
AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) referred to EPA's acknowledgment in
the Report that products used in larger quantities may be given
"undue emphasis" to support the commenters' contention that EPA's
allegedly wrongful consideration of emission magnitude grossly
skewed subsequent regulatory decisions.
2-20
-------
Response: The phrase "undue emphasis" is not used with
regard to emissions magnitude. It is used at the top of page 4-4
of the Report in the discussion of Criterion 2 - Commercial
Demand. In explaining why total volume or weight sold was not
selected as an indicator of commercial demand, the Report states:
"Other indicators of commercial demand that were considered
include the total volume or weight sold, the number of units
sold, and price per unit. A measure of total volume or weight
sold may indicate the relative importance of the product to
consumers, as does the total annual sales. However, products
that are used in larger quantities may be given undue emphasis."
The phrase "undue emphasis" in this case refers to the fact that
although evaluating commercial demand based solely on total
volume or weight sold may have been used to indicate the relative
importance of the product to consumers, that approach could also
have biased the ranking toward products that take up large
volumes or are very heavy. For example, commercial demand for
underarm deodorant and hair spray may be equal but because
underarm deodorant has a different density than hair spray, using
the total volume or weight sold may not provide an equivalent
indication of commercial demand.
This issue of biasing the ranking toward products that take
up large volumes or are very heavy was discussed at the July 1994
National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee
(NAPCTAC) meeting (see section 2.1.1.6). Based on input from
members of the public and the Committee, EPA revised Criterion 2
to mitigate any bias this might have introduced. Criterion 2 was
redefined to be annual dollar sales divided by tons VOC emitted.
This approach tends to minimize any bias for or against high
sales volume products such as coatings. The EPA believes that
this modification in response to the NAPCTAC committee comments
addressed the commenter's concerns.
2-21
-------
2.1.1.3 Subgroups Addressed by the Study and Ranking
Process.
Comment: One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
CP-IV-D-35) contended that EPA misinterpreted the regulatory
approach of section 183(e)by regulating on an
industry-by-industry basis rather than on a product-by-product
basis. The commenter stated that section 183(e) of the Act
clearly made reference to regulation of products rather than of
industries and asserted that EPA was trying to rewrite the law.
Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) stated
that EPA improperly listed all categories of architectural
coatings in the first phase of regulations in Group I as though
they were one omnibus category. The commenters argued that EPA
should have listed products on a category-by-category basis and
that the list should have separated out each type of
architectural coating for separate listing.
The commenters cited EPA's section 183(e) study and report
to Congress which identified 46 categories of architectural
coatings and asserted that the Report failed to provide any
information about the VOC emissions from any one of the
46 architectural coating categories identified in the report to
Congress.
Response: In studying and listing product categories, EPA
selected categories based upon reasonable distinctions.
Architectural coatings have been defined by States and EPA
regulators as coatings applied to stationary structures in the
"field." Since architectural coatings are used for similar
purposes, i.e., to coat stationary substrates outside of a
manufacturing or shop application, EPA placed them in one group
for purposes of determining regulatory priority. The EPA
recognizes there is a continuum of possibilities for grouping
architectural coating products into product categories. However,
creation of architectural coating categories is intertwined with
the specifics of the regulatory option chosen. For example, one
approach pursued by EPA during regulatory development would have
2-22
-------
eliminated the need for category distinctions since the
requirements would have focused on a company average VOC content
for all "field applied" coatings manufactured by each company.
Conversely, more categories may be created as lower VOC content
levels are contemplated for a given category. During regulatory
development, decisions to subdivide a given category into more
specific subcategories is often a direct consequence of the VOC
content levels under consideration. Separating out a specific
"niche" product from a broader classification creates more
opportunities for emission reductions and avoids application of
emission limits that could not be achieved or would create an
unreasonable cost impact on the niche market. For example, in
the process of developing the proposed architectural coating
rule, EPA established over 50 categories with varying VOC content
requirements. This is significantly more categories than have
appeared in previous State rules affecting architectural coatings
and could not have been predicted prior to completion of EPA's
regulatory development efforts. Therefore, performance
requirements and other specific characteristics of individual
coating categories were taken into account during regulatory
development, even though EPA chose to consider all of these types
of products together for purposes of listing and prioritizing the
products for regulation.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's differentiation
between "product" and "industry" with regard to listing consumer
and commercial products for regulation. When a product (or
product category) is regulated under section 183(e) of the Act,
the regulated entity is the manufacturer, importer, processor, or
wholesale distributor of the product. Consequently, the listing
of a product or product category for regulation ultimately
affects the industry associated with that product or product
category.
With regard to the commenter's assertion that EPA improperly
listed all categories of architectural coatings in Group I as one
"omnibus" category, EPA was within the discretion accorded to it
2-23
-------
by section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act to list for regulation "those
categories of consumer or commercial products that the
Administrator determines, based on the study, account for at
least 80 percent of the VOC emissions" in areas that violate the
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The EPA
believes that section 183(e) explicitly accords the Agency broad
discretion to determine the best form of controls to achieve the
necessary VOC reductions and that it is reasonable to regulate
all similar products together as a single category of product for
purposes of regulation.
The commenter remarked that EPA presented 46 categories of
architectural products in the report to Congress, but failed to
present emission estimates for each of the 46 categories.
Section 5.4 of the Report contains brief descriptions of each
category of products in order to help the reader understand the
range of VOC-emitting products used in the various categories.
Accordingly, there is a one-page description of architectural
coatings presented on page 5-31 of the Report, that includes a
list of 46 types of architectural coatings. The page on
architectural coatings was merely descriptive, and was not meant
to imply that each product should be inventoried and ranked
separately.
For household consumer products, EPA selected 61 relatively
broad categories to include in the listing and prioritization
exercise. Similar to the architectural coatings rule, further
refinement of these categories was also possible, but EPA grouped
household consumer product categories according to similar uses.
For example, EPA grouped all general purpose cleaners in one
category and all hair sprays in another.
Since EPA imposed consistent considerations in selecting the
category of products as well as categories of household consumer
products for listing and ranking purposes, no bias against
particular architectural coating products was introduced into the
process that would have caused specific architectural coating
products to be regulated without cause.
2-24
-------
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) stated that
California considered architectural and industrial maintenance
coatings separately from consumer and commercial products. The
commenter pointed out that California published its data and
table of product categories approximately 4 months before EPA
completed its Report in March of 1995. Based on this and other
information, the commenter concluded that the report is based
substantially on biased and predetermined conclusions on the part
of EPA.
Response: The Act's definition of consumer and commercial
products is much broader than California's definition.
Section 183(e)(1)(B) of the Act specifically defines a "consumer
or commercial product" as "any substance, product (including
paints, coatings, and solvents), or article (including any
container or packaging) held by any person, the use, consumption,
storage, disposal, destruction, or decomposition of which may
result in the release of volatile organic compounds." Since the
statutory definition of consumer and commercial products
specifically includes paints and coatings, EPA considers
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to be within
the scope of authority of section 183(e) of the Act.
2.1.1.4 Consideration of the Impacts of Regulatory
Alternatives
Comment: Two commenters in three documents
(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, CP-IV-F-la, CP-IV-D-07) asserted that
an analysis of the economic and environmental effects of each
alternative method of regulation (exemption, substitution, etc.)
for each category was needed in order to rank and list categories
for regulation.
One of the commenters (CP-IV-D-07) asserted that the
decision to regulate a category should include consideration of
any environmental impacts associated with exempting categories as
well as the economic costs of regulating the category with
different methods and regulating the category in each of the four
possible phases for regulation.
2-25
-------
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) claimed that EPA's study of
VOC from consumer and commercial products did not identify the
availability of alternatives to such products which were of
"comparable costs" as required by section 183(e)(2)(B)(v) of the
Act. The commenter referred to EPA's statements in the Report
that it did not have information on the cost of alternative
products and promised that it would do so in developing
regulations. The commenter stated that if EPA had considered
economic costs in developing regulatory criteria, as mandated, it
would have been in a position to decide which forms of regulation
were appropriate, how much time to give manufacturers to meet any
reformulation limits, and whether substitution limits were
warranted at all. The commenter referred to less stringent
measures authorized by Congress such as: labeling regulations
containing directions for use or other disclosures; economic
incentives, such as marketable permits; and control technique
guidelines for State regulation in nonattainment areas.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-55) stated that establishment of the
four-part list of categories for regulation must be based on a
comparative analysis of both the environmental and economic
impacts of each VOC. The commenter asserted that EPA could not
regulate any category until it completed this comparative
analysis and determined the merits of other possible regulatory
options.
Response: Factors relating to economic and environmental
impacts are included under section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act for
the establishment of criteria to be used in prioritizing
categories of consumer and commercial products for regulation.
Here, EPA is required to consider two factors: (1) those
consumer and commercial products which are subject to the most
cost-effective controls (section 183(e)(2)(B)(iv)); and (2) the
availability of alternatives (if any) to such consumer and
commercial products which are of comparable costs, considering
health, safety, and environmental impacts
(section 183(e)(2)(B)(v)).
2-26
-------
The EPA disagrees with the commenters' interpretation that
this language mandates an in-depth analysis of impacts of all
regulatory alternatives for every product category at the time of
listing. The section 183(e) list and schedule for regulations is
a prioritization exercise to be completed upon submission of the
Report. It would have been impossible for EPA to conduct the
in-depth analysis suggested by the commenters for every category
of consumer and commercial products in the 3 years Congress
provided for the study in addition to completing the other
studies and determinations necessary to complete the Report (see
section 2.1.1.1 for a more detailed discussion of the study).
The EPA therefore believes that Congress could not have intended
the Agency to perform the actions advocated by the commenters
prior to the listing and scheduling of products for regulation.
To fulfill the requirements of section 183(e)(2)(B) of the
Act, EPA developed a practical approach based on using available
information. The EPA established Criterion 5, Availability of
Alternatives and Criterion 6, Cost-Effectiveness of Controls, to
provide consideration of these two factors. Criterion 5 provides
a higher score, meaning a higher priority for regulation, to
product categories for which alternatives were available at a
comparable cost, with acceptance by consumers (as indicated by
market share), and with comparable efficacy, health effects, and
environmental impacts. Criterion 5 provided a lower score,
meaning a lower priority for regulation, to product categories
for which no alternatives were available, or for which
alternatives were available but not at a comparable cost.
Criterion 6 is discussed in section 2.1.1.5. The EPA believes
this was a reasonable approach for purposes of scoring the
categories for regulatory priority.
As mentioned above, the EPA believes that a more
comprehensive analysis of alternatives and impacts is more
consistent with and appropriate for data collection and analysis
for the BAG determination required at the time of regulation
development, not at the time of listing. For the BAG
2-27
-------
determination, EPA would prefer to use the most current
information possible, rather than relying on information
developed at the time of the study. The EPA does not believe it
is reasonable to do such a resource-intensive analysis twice
(i.e., for listing and for regulation), especially in light of
the fact, as discussed below, that the list and schedule are not
final rulemaking actions. Accordingly, EPA has and will continue
to evaluate the effects of alternative methods of regulation when
each category is regulated. In addition, it should be noted that
EPA will also consider "economic feasibility" and "environmental
impacts" at the time of regulation as required under
section 183(e)(1)(A) of the Act.
Furthermore, in the Federal Register notice of the schedule
for regulation [60 FR 15264, March 23, 1995], EPA noted that the
list and schedule may be amended if further information becomes
available [60 FR 15264, 15265, 15268]. Thus, as individual
products and categories are further assessed and if relevant
information becomes available, EPA will consider changing the
prioritization for regulation under section 183(e) of the Act or
even removing a category from the listing if appropriate. For
example, as explained in section 2.1.1.1, EPA initially listed
aerosol spray paint in the first group for regulation. Following
an initial regulatory assessment, EPA intends to move the aerosol
spray paints category from Group I.
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that EPA
failed to demonstrate economic and technological feasibility of
BAG for each of the consumer and commercial product categories.
As a result, the commenter concluded that it was difficult to
compare the technological feasibility among consumer and
commercial products.
Response: As mentioned previously, the consumer and
commercial product list and schedule required by
section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act is a prioritization exercise, not
an analysis of the technology that should be selected as the
basis for the standards themselves. Determination of BAG is not
2-28
-------
required at the time of listing. The only reference to BAG in
section 183(e) of the Act relates exclusively to the regulations
established under the section. Section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act
states: "The regulations shall require best available controls
as defined in this section." Therefore, EPA concludes that a BAG
analysis is not required at the time of listing categories for
regulation. The EPA has and will continue to determine BAG when
each category is regulated.
2.1.1.5 Consideration of Cost-Effectiveness
Comment: One commenter in two letters
(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, CP-IV-D-07a) stated that EPA's
consideration of cost-effectiveness was inadequate for
establishing regulatory priorities. The commenter
(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) asserted that EPA failed to perform
the clear non-discretionary duty to list categories based upon
cost-effectiveness.
The commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) claimed that EPA failed to
consider those products which were subject to the most
cost-effective controls in establishing criteria for regulating
consumer and commercial products as mandated under
section 183(e)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. The commenter considered
this factor particularly crucial as a preparatory step to
subsequent rulemaking under section 183(e)(1)(A) and (3)(A) of
the Act. The commenter referred to a previous court ruling in
Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA. 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991),
for the proposition that EPA is required by statute to regulate
to the extent necessary to protect the public using the least
burdensome measures. The commenter also referred to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which the commenter contends
requires EPA to study, develop, and describe appropriate
alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal to
the fullest extent possible. Moreover, the commenter questioned
EPA's statement in the Report that it would evaluate information
on cost-effectiveness in developing specific regulations because
2-29
-------
"cost-effectiveness data are unavailable" for certain categories
at the time of listing.
Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-214c) questioned EPA's
assertion that "insufficient data exists" to conduct a
comparative study of the costs and cost-effectiveness of
regulating products under section 183(e) of the Act. One
commenter (AIM-IV-D-55) stated that cost-effectiveness data were
available for architectural coatings based on a formal study done
in Southern California by an economic consultant who found and
disclosed the economic impacts of VOC regulation for
architectural coatings.
Response: In-depth discussion of the consideration of the
impacts of regulatory alternatives is presented in
section 2.1.1.4. In establishing the criteria to prioritize
consumer and commercial products for regulation,
section 183(e)(B)(iv) of the Act requires EPA to consider
"[t]hose consumer and commercial products which are subject to
the most cost-effective controls." The EPA established
Criterion 6, Cost-Effectiveness of Controls, to implement
consideration of this factor. For this criterion, EPA used two
methods to evaluate cost-effectiveness of control measures which
varied depending on the availability of cost-effectiveness data.
First, for products with a known cost-effectiveness value, EPA
assigned a higher relative priority for regulation to products
for which controls are very cost-effective. Second, for products
for which cost-effectiveness data were unavailable, EPA developed
a matrix based on scores determined by application of
Criterion 5, Availability of Alternatives, and Criterion 7,
Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions, in order to evaluate
cost-effectiveness. The highest score, which corresponded to the
highest priority for regulation, was assigned to a product with
high emissions and for which reformulation was available at a
comparable cost to the current formulation. The lowest score,
which corresponded to the lowest priority for regulation, was
assigned to a product with low emissions and for which no
2-30
-------
alternative was available at any cost. This matrix is presented
and discussed more fully in section 4.6 of the Report. For
architectural coatings the cost-effectiveness estimate of
$260 per ton of VOC emissions reduction developed for the
architectural coatings rule was used to apply Criterion 6 to
architectural coatings. The EPA believes that it has considered
cost effectiveness as contemplated by section 183(e) of the Act.
As stated by the commenter, some study of the cost-effectiveness
of VOC regulation for architectural coatings has been done in
California. However, some of the data is not applicable for
extrapolation to a national level because of the assumptions used
in generating the data. Some of the proposed and promulgated VOC
content limits in California are significantly lower than limits
considered by EPA. These lower limits have significantly greater
costs and impacts than any limits considered by EPA. Thus, EPA
does not believe this data is applicable.
The March 23, 1995, notice did not represent a final agency
action on the listing determination. The notice announced that
the EPA would take comment on the listing in connection with its
rulemakings on emission standards for the categories on the
initial list, and that final agency action on the listing for
each product category would occur upon publication of a final
regulation for that category. At the time of each rulemaking,
EPA will conduct an in-depth analysis of costs and emissions
reduction. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA did
conduct an economic impacts analysis (EIA) to determine the cost
effectiveness of the controls required by the proposed
architectural coatings rule. The proposed architectural coating
VOC rule has an estimated cost of $260 per ton of VOC emissions
reduction. Based on information contained in the associated
EIAs, the proposed automobile refinish VOC rule has an estimated
cost of $136 per ton of VOC emissions reduction, and the proposed
consumer products VOC rule has an estimated cost of $289 per ton
of VOC emissions reduction. These EIAs were placed in the
dockets for the respective proposed rules, and the
2-31
-------
cost-effectiveness of each proposed rule is discussed in the
rule's preamble which was published in the Federal Register. See
the dockets for the architectural coatings rule, the automobile
refinish rule, and the consumer products rule (A-92-18, A-95-18,
and A-95-40, respectively).
The EPA believes that the commenters are mistaken as to
several legal conclusions they seek to assert. First, EPA
disagrees that the report to Congress required separate cost
effectiveness analyses under section 183(e), section 309 of the
Act, and Executive Order (EO) 12866. As discussed more fully in
section 2.3.2.7 of this document, EPA need only comply with the
language of section 183(e) of the Act at the time of the report
to Congress, and the Agency believes that it has performed an
appropriate analysis under this section.
Second, the commenters cite Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA.
947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991), for the proposition that the
Agency may only regulate to the extent necessary and using the
least burdensome means. The Agency notes that the case in
question dealt not with the Clean Air Act, but with the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), and that the case turned upon an
express statutory provision of TSCA that does not appear in the
Clean Air Act. See ID.. 947 F.2d at 1215. Reference to this
precedent is thus inappropriate. Section 183(e) of the Act
explicitly requires EPA to issue regulations based upon "best
available controls" as that term is defined in the statute. The
definition of best available controls empowers EPA to exercise
discretion to determine what method and degree of emission
control is appropriate, without reference either explicit or
implicit to choosing the means that is "least burdensome." In
fact, EPA believes that it has properly considered and mitigated
the burdens imposed by the regulations, but disagrees with the
commenters' allegation that it must choose the alternative that a
commenter considers least burdensome.
2-32
-------
Third, the Agency notes that, contrary to the assertion of
some of the commenters, NEPA does not apply to regulatory actions
of EPA under the Act. See 15 U.S.C. section 793(c)(1).
2.1.1.6. Category Scoring Process and Public Meeting
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that the
NAPCTAC meeting and its findings were groundless and without
merit and could not be the foundation for EPA's VOC study for the
following reasons: (1) EPA had no authority to add the two
factors to the ranking process; (2) the two additional factors
were not fair and equitable towards the paint and coatings
industry; (3) NAPCTAC had no expertise to assist EPA in the
ranking, as shown by EPA's own treatment of the group; and
(4) EPA acted in a biased fashion because it ignored reactivity.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) claimed that at a
public hearing before the NAPCTAC on July 18-19, 1994, one EPA
official responded to charges that EPA failed to consider
reactivity as required by section 183(e) of the Act, by claiming
that there was no appropriate scientific reactivity basis upon
which to determine reactivity at the present time. The commenter
stated that the EPA official did not intend to conduct reactivity
tests on solvent-borne products because he summarily concluded
that they were all reactive, and that highly reactive VOC
constituted a substantial portion of VOC contained in paint
products. The commenter stated further that in contrast to the
EPA official's statements, solvent-borne VOC are less reactive
than waterborne VOC, and on this basis, the EPA official
prejudged the issue without providing due scientific deference
and supporting analysis.
Response: The EPA's response to the comment concerning the
addition of two factors not listed in the Act is presented in
section 2.1.1.2. The EPA's response to the comment concerning
how addition of the two factors affected the paint and coatings
industry is presented in section 2.1.1.7. The EPA's response to
the comments concerning reactivity is presented in section 2.2.1.
2-33
-------
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA believes that
NAPCTAC had sufficient expertise to assist in the ranking, and
that the findings of the committee were valid and had merit. The
committee, as a standing advisory group, provides independent
views based upon the specialized knowledge and skills of its
members. The Committee advises the Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), on the latest available
technology and economic feasibility of alternative methods to
prevent and control air contamination to be published in air
quality control techniques guideline documents. It also advises
on air pollution control techniques and testing and monitoring
methodology for categories of sources subject to the provisions
of sections 111, 112, and 183 of the Act. In addition, the
Committee, through a subcommittee, periodically reviews Air
Quality Planning and Standards program accomplishment plans and
the associated contracts and grants awarded to carry out these
plans.
The committee consists of the Director of OAQPS, or his
designee, as Chairperson and 11 members appointed by the EPA
Deputy Administrator. Members serve overlapping terms of from
1 to 4 years. Members are selected from the chemical,
engineering, biomedical, and socioeconomic disciplines resident
in universities, State and local governments, research
institutions, and industry. Members are also selected for their
technical expertise and/or interest in the development of air
pollution control techniques. Because these members are
experienced environmental professionals, EPA believes NAPCTAC had
sufficient expertise to assist in ranking the categories of
consumer and commercial products.
To obtain balanced and unbiased input in the evaluation of
some relatively subjective criteria, EPA determined that an
independent panel should be involved in the ranking process. The
EPA considered NAPCTAC a logical choice for an independent and
technically qualified panel because of the balance afforded by
the diversity and expertise of such a group. Accordingly, the
2-34
-------
Committee was convened on July 18-19, 1994, in Durham,
North Carolina, for the purpose of assigning scores for
Criteria 1 through 7 to each of the consumer and commercial
product categories. The scoring process was conducted in an open
public forum. A discussion of the criteria is presented later in
this section.
Finally, EPA notes that nothing in section 183(e) of the Act
obligated EPA to utilize NAPCTAC or any other group to assist the
Agency in its application of the criteria in the listing process.
The EPA instituted this procedure to insure a fuller evaluation
of the criteria by qualified experts aided by public input in the
ranking procedure. The EPA utilized this procedure in accordance
with the discretion granted to the Agency in ranking the products
for regulation and used the conclusions of NAPCTAC only as a
guideline for the ultimate decision to rank products in a
particular fashion.
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that a
conflict of interest existed because the same EPA official who
chaired the architectural coatings regulatory negotiation process
also chaired the July 1994 NAPCTAC meeting. The commenter
(AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) demanded that the rankings be
reviewed, and that hearings be conducted by a non-biased official
so that additional public input could be used to develop more
accurate and complete information pertaining to regulated
products.
Response: As discussed above, the NAPCTAC charter
establishes that the Director of OAQPS, or his designee, serves
as Chairperson of the Committee. It is, therefore, always the
case that the Chairperson of the Committee is responsible for the
regulations discussed at each NAPCTAC meeting. In addition,
Mr. Bruce Jordan, the NAPCTAC Chairperson at the July 1994
hearing, served solely as a facilitator for the meeting and did
not participate in the scoring of any product category, including
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings. For this
2-35
-------
reason, EPA believes that Mr. Jordan's chairing of the meeting
did not constitute a conflict of interest.
Comment: A commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that members
of the architectural coatings industry were not properly notified
of EPA's regulatory intent, and were not provided with an
opportunity to participate in the July 1994 public NAPCTAC
meeting.
Response: The EPA disagrees that members of the industry
had inadequate notice of the NAPCTAC meeting, or an inadequate
opportunity to submit information to NAPCTAC. As explained
above, EPA convened NAPCTAC for the purpose of having an
independent panel assign scores to Criteria 1 through 7 for each
consumer and commercial product category. The meeting provided
the public, including industry representatives, an opportunity to
make statements regarding the products being scored and to
provide clarifying information to the panel. The EPA published
an announcement of the NAPCTAC meeting in the Federal Register on
July 5, 1994 [59 FR 34436] (docket A-94-65, item IV-F-2). In
addition to the time and place for the meeting, the notice
included a summary of the purpose of the meeting, a tentative
agenda, a statement that the meeting would be open to the public,
an explanation of the purpose and composition of the Committee,
and how members of the public could arrange to make presentations
at the meeting.
Throughout the meeting, and before scoring of each category
by the panel, the audience, including members of the
architectural coatings industry, was given an opportunity to ask
questions of EPA and the NAPCTAC panel and to provide information
on the categories being scored. Furthermore, several industry
representatives, including the commenter, were on the agenda and
made formal presentations. These presentations were placed in
Docket A-94-65 as part of the meeting minutes (item I-B-1).
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that NAPCTAC
was not independent because EPA prejudged the application of
2-36
-------
certain criteria and refused to allow the panel to make changes
to these scores, thereby lessening the role of the panel.
Response: As explained above, EPA convened NAPCTAC to
assist EPA in assigning criteria scores to each product category
because the Committee is an independent panel of environmental
experts. The overall scoring process involved assigning a value
from 1 to 5 for Criteria 1 through 7 for each of 105 consumer and
commercial product categories. These criteria are: Criterion 1,
Product Utility; Criterion 2, Commercial Demand (as indicated by
annual dollar sales in 1990); Criterion 3, Health or Safety
Functions; Criterion 4, Emissions of Highly-Reactive Compounds;
Criterion 5, Availability of Alternatives; Criterion 6,
Cost-Effectiveness of Controls; and Criterion 7, Magnitude of
Annual VOC Emissions. Criterion 8, Regulatory Efficiency and
Program Considerations, was applied by EPA subsequent to the
NAPCTAC meeting, and is discussed further in section 2.1.1.2.
The primary objective of the NAPCTAC meeting was for the
panel to assign a score to each criterion for each of the
105 product categories. Three of the seven scored criteria
(Criteria 2, 4, and 7) were objective criteria that could be
evaluated quantitatively, and four of the criteria were
subjective criteria requiring judgement. Preliminary scores for
the three objective criteria had been entered by EPA prior to the
NAPCTAC meeting. The EPA conducted research to develop the
quantitative information, and used that information to assign
tentative scores for the three objective criteria. These
tentative scores could have been revised by the NAPCTAC panelists
if they so desired.
The four subjective criteria (Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 6) were
scored by the NAPCTAC panel. The EPA prepared a score sheet for
each category which provided information to help the panel
understand the products in the category and the subjective
criteria being scored. Nevertheless, EPA made no recommendations
to the panel on what scores to assign to any particular category
2-37
-------
and made no changes to the individual scores assigned by the panel
The score sheets also displayed the scores previously
entered by EPA for the objective criteria and presented the data
that were the basis for the assigned scores. This provided an
opportunity for the NAPCTAC panel and members of the public
attending the open meeting to review and comment on the
preassigned scores for Criteria 2, 4, and 7.
The scoring process was conducted as follows for each of the
105 categories of products. First, EPA presented the information
entered on the score sheet to the NAPCTAC panel and to the
audience. The audience was allowed time to offer comments or
provide clarification. The panel was then given an opportunity
to discuss the category being scored. Each NAPCTAC panelist then
assigned a score for each of the four subjective criteria, and
was free to make corrections to preassigned scores. The EPA
collected the score sheets and averaged the panelists' scores for
each criterion. A composite score was compiled for the category
by adding the average scores for all seven criteria. This
process was repeated for each category.
In response to this comment, EPA has again reviewed all of
the original score sheets used by the panelists. There was no
indication on any score sheet that EPA had ignored a
recommendation from any panelist regarding scores of either
objective (EPA-scored) or subjective (panel-scored) criteria. In
fact, in two product categories - Other Metal Product Coatings
(later referred to as "Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings")
and Auto and Light Truck Assembly Coatings - EPA used scores that
several panelists had entered in place of the preassigned scores
for Criterion 4, Emissions of Highly Reactive Compounds. This
demonstrates that EPA did not refuse to change the preassigned
scores as the commenter asserts.
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that NAPCTAC
was not provided with all of the information that it needed to
make valid rankings.
2-38
-------
Response: As discussed above, score sheets were prepared
for each product category being scored. To the extent possible,
EPA provided information on the score sheets to facilitate the
committee in making informed decisions. In cases where EPA had
little or no data on specific criteria, EPA relied on the
expertise of the panel as well as input from members of the
public attending the meeting.
Prior to the July 1994 meeting, EPA mailed NAPCTAC members
packages of information containing background on section 183(e)
of the Act, documents discussing the criteria, and advance copies
of product category score sheets. Two teleconferences were
conducted in order to brief NAPCTAC on section 183(e) of the Act
and to prepare them for the July meeting. The EPA thus believes
that NAPCTAC had the necessary information to perform the scoring
exercise.
Comment: The commenter (AIM IV-D-212) further stated that
the committee was hindered in making valid decisions because it
was unclear to NAPCTAC whether the inventories excluded or
included compounds not classified as "reportable VOC" (RVOC).
The commenter further stated that the committee ranked the
products without considering the RVOC factor because they had no
knowledge that such a factor existed.
One commenter (CP-IV-D-35) stated that EPA considered
volatility of VOC instead of reactivity, which was not consistent
with the requirements of the Act.
Response: The EPA employed a volatility cutoff for purposes
of collecting information in the consumer product survey as
discussed in section 5.3 of the report to Congress. The term
"RVOC" was used exclusively in the household consumer products
survey. Respondents to the survey were instructed to report
those VOC's which had a vapor pressure of greater than
0.1 millimeter of mercury at 20 degrees Celsius (° C). This
cutoff was selected because existing State consumer product
regulations, as well as State surveys, employed this threshold.
As a result, EPA had emissions information in two forms. For all
2-39
-------
categories except household consumer products, the VOC emissions
inventory included all VOC; the VOC inventory data for the
61 household consumer product categories included only the RVOC.
The EPA agrees that no distinction was made on the score sheets
provided to the panel regarding this fact. To make a more direct
comparison with other categories, all VOC emissions should have
been included in the household consumer product VOC inventory,
not just the RVOC. This oversight, therefore, potentially
affects the scores for the 61 household consumer product
categories with respect to Criterion 7, Magnitude of Annual VOC
Emissions.
However, EPA believes that this did not affect the outcome
of the scoring exercise. After the commenter raised this issue,
EPA investigated to determine whether the scores for the
61 household consumer product categories would have been
significantly affected if all VOC emissions, not just RVOC, had
been counted in the inventory. To do this, EPA adjusted the
total VOC emission estimates to account for the missing VOC
content. Although detailed information concerning the magnitude
of RVOC found in consumer products as compared to total VOC
content is not available, EPA believes the portion of missing VOC
content to be no more than 10 percent. The EPA chose to evaluate
the impact of this oversight by using the very conservative
estimate that adding missing VOC back into the inventory could
potentially double the magnitude of annual emissions for each of
the 61 household consumer product categories scored. Based upon
this analysis, EPA determined that the outcome of the ranking
exercise would not have been significantly different. The result
of this exercise is discussed more fully in section 2.1.2.1.
The EPA disagrees that volatility was substituted for
consideration of photochemical reactivity in the ranking process.
The EPA's consideration of highly reactive compounds is discussed
previously in this section.
Comment: One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) stated that the Committee did not
2-40
-------
have adequate knowledge of the complete VOC inventory because the
presence of VOC in the ambient air due to emissions from these
products and thus availability for ozone formation of VOC from
consumer and commercial products was not substantiated by ambient
monitoring.
Response: The EPA believes that the VOC inventory
information provided to the NAPCTAC panel was adequate for
purposes of ranking categories for regulation. As explained in
section 2.1.2, because of the difficulty in tracking the fate of
individual compounds and their atmospheric transformations, and
in obtaining precise measurements of trace compounds involved in
ozone chemistry, EPA relies on the conservative assumption that
all VOC emitted by consumer and commercial products are available
in the atmosphere to react to form ozone.
Comment: Two commenters in three letters
(AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t, CP-IV-D-07, CP-IV-D-35) stated that
EPA exhibited prejudice in the listing of categories for
regulation. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) stated
that the rankings set forth by EPA were inaccurate, not based on
factual data, and possibly biased against certain industries and
products because of preconceptions and prejudgments by EPA
officials. The commenter (CP-IV-D-35) stated that a number of
consumer products were given high scores and yet did not appear
on EPA's list of products for regulation. The commenter cited
fragrances as an example. Another commenter (CP-IV-D-07)
asserted that numerous product categories with very high VOC
emissions escaped listing altogether which the commenter asserted
was highly prejudicial to all those categories which have been
listed.
Response: The ranking to which the commenter is referring
is the preliminary ranking that was based on Criterion 1
through 7 only. The scoring process and the input provided by
NAPCTAC is discussed in detail earlier in this section. The
result of the preliminary ranking is available in Docket A-94-65,
item I-B-2.
2-41
-------
Subsequent to the preliminary ranking by NAPCTAC, EPA
applied Criterion 8, Regulatory Efficiency and Program
Considerations, to identify which product categories should be
listed in the schedule for regulation (see section 2.1.1.2).
Application of Criterion 8 did cause some categories in the
preliminary ranking to be displaced by other categories. For
example, the 24 categories of household consumer products, many
of which were not among the preliminary set of categories
accounting for at least 80 percent of emissions in the
preliminary ranking were listed as a group. As a result,
personal fragrances, which was among those categories which
accounted for at least 80 percent of emissions in the preliminary
ranking table, were displaced in the final prioritized list. The
listing of the 24 categories of consumer products in Group I is
discussed in a Federal Register notice [60 FR 15264] which was
published on March 23, 1995 and is also discussed in the preamble
to the proposed household consumer products VOC rule
[61 FR 14531] published on April 2, 1996. The EPA notes that it
was within the Agency's discretion under section 183(e) of the
Act to determine which products to regulate in which phase of
regulations, taking into consideration the criteria developed for
making such determinations.
2.1.1.7 Ranking of Architectural Coatings
Comment: One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) stated that Mr. Bruce Jordan's
demeanor, attitude, and public statements gave some members of
the paint industry the impression that the industry must resign
itself to be regulated. The commenter implied that EPA was
determined to regulate the paint industry not on the basis of
science, but on EPA's prejudgment. The commenter contended that
"Administrator Jordan was in a position to adopt procedures and
factors so as to ensure that the architectural coatings industry
would be ranked within the first group for regulation." The
commenter concluded that the findings of the section 183(e) study
2-42
-------
were based substantially on biased and highly predetermined
conclusions on the part of EPA.
The commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that EPA utilized old
and unreliable information upon which to base its assumptions.
The commenter noted that in July 1992 when regulatory negotiation
started, the architectural coatings industry had not completed
its inventory, the section 183(e) study had not been completed, a
listing had not been made, and the statutory requirement of
commencing regulation 2 years after submission of the report to
Congress had not occurred. The commenter asserted that EPA
"jumped the gun" in its haste to regulate architectural coatings
based on biased assumptions from the 1989 Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA) report.4 The commenter claimed the OTA report
was inaccurate, incomplete, and lacking in merit and credibility.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) asserted that the
ranking of architectural coating products should not have
occurred until after all objective studies were conducted. The
fact that the architectural coatings regulatory negotiation
proceedings began before this point was allegedly demonstrable
evidence that EPA prejudged regulation of the architectural
coating industry before completion of all studies.
Response: The EPA did not prejudge the architectural
coatings category for regulation. The architectural coatings
category received a high priority for regulation through the
application of the criteria developed in accordance with
section 183(e) . (See section 2.1.1.6) . The architectural
coatings category received the highest score for Criterion 5,
Availability of Alternatives; Criterion 6, Cost-Effectiveness of
Controls; and Criterion 7, Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions.
The EPA did not use Criterion 8, Regulatory Efficiency and
Program Considerations, to adjust the ranking of architectural
coatings.
Prior to the ranking of architectural coating products, EPA
had initiated the regulatory negotiation process based on the
expectation that this relatively large source of VOC emissions
2-43
-------
would likely be regulated within the first group of consumer and
commercial products. This expectation was based on information
on this industry derived from past EPA studies and State
regulatory efforts. Even though architectural coating products
were included in the first group of products to be regulated, the
listing and schedule for regulation under section 183 (e) of the
Act are not final Agency actions. Accordingly, if during rule
development, it had been determined that emission estimates were
inaccurate, or that cost-effective controls were not available,
or if any other new information was received which affected the
ranking, EPA could alter the priority given to the product
category. However, to date, EPA has had no basis for making such
a finding for architectural coatings products. On the contrary,
the regulatory analysis for architectural coatings has confirmed
that architectural coatings are an emission source that warrants
early regulation under section 183(e) of the Act.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's claims that EPA
decided to regulate architectural coatings because of preliminary
reports, such as the 1989 OTA report, alluding to the possibility
of establishing Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) for
architectural coatings. As stated earlier, EPA anticipated that
the relatively large source of VOC emissions from architectural
coatings would likely be one of the regulated categories of
consumer and commercial products. This expectation was
reasonable not only because of the large amount of emissions, but
also because the availability of alternatives based on the number
of State and local rules under development or already
promulgated.
Comment: Two commenters in three letters
(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-214C,
AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) stated that considering emission
magnitude and regulatory efficiency was extremely prejudicial to
architectural coating manufacturers. The commenters asserted
that architectural coatings did not warrant early or severe
regulation under the five statutory factors. One commenter in
2-44
-------
two letters (AIM-IV-D-212p6i/CP-IV-D-35j,
AIM-IV-D-212p2/CP-IV-D-35e) stated that architectural coatings
should not have been included in the first category to be
regulated under section 183(e) of the Act because the amount of
emissions from these products was so insignificant that they did
not contribute significantly to ozone nonattainment. Another
commenter (AIM-IV-D-175) stated that architectural coatings
should not be regulated at all because there are much greater
sources of air pollution that EPA should be regulating instead.
By contrast, two other commenters (AIM-IV-D-28, AIM-IV-D-32)
asserted that architectural coatings clearly belong in the first
group of consumer and commercial products for regulation under
section 183(e) of the Act. One of these commenters (AIM-IV-D-32)
noted that architectural coatings are the single largest area
source category in the Portland, Oregon, Ozone Nonattainment Area
where they are responsible for 23 percent of all "Area Source"
VOC emissions and 6 percent of the total VOC generated by human
activity. The other commenter (AIM-IV-D-28) stated that although
the industry has historically made substantial voluntary,
market-driven VOC reductions in the past, the emissions of VOC
still comprise a substantial fraction of the total VOC emissions
inventory. This commenter agreed with EPA's justification for
placing architectural coatings in the first priority of
categories for regulation.
Response: The EPA believes that some commenters' assertions
that architectural coatings were treated prejudicially and that
they should not have been included in the first priority of
categories for regulation are unfounded. The rationale for the
use of Criteria 7 and 8 is presented in section 2.1.1.2. The EPA
believes that the application of the criteria indicated that
architectural coatings should be listed and should be regulated
in the first phase of regulations. The EPA contends that it
applied the criteria in a reasonable fashion to determine the
proper sequence for product regulation, and that to do so was a
2-45
-------
proper exercise of the discretion accorded to the Agency in the
statute itself.
Criterion 7, Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions, provided for
products with higher annual reactivity-adjusted emissions to
receive higher scores, indicating a higher priority for
regulation. The architectural coatings category received a score
of 5 (the top score) based on a 1990 nonattainment area VOC
emissions estimate of 315,000 tons per year (tpy),
reactivity-adjusted to 398,000 tpy, which is not an insignificant
amount. After receiving this and other comments, EPA re-examined
the initial estimate of highly-reactive compounds emitted from
architectural coatings and revised that estimate, bringing the
reactivity-adjusted emission total down to approximately
323,000 tpy. However, the revised estimate still would have
resulted in a score of 5 for Criterion 7. The correction of the
estimate of highly reactive compounds in architectural coatings
is discussed later in this section.
Of the 105 product categories ranked, 8 were assigned a
score of 5 (the highest score) for Criterion 7, only 3 of which
were paints and coatings - aerospace coatings, architectural
coatings, and other metal product coatings (later referred to as
miscellaneous metal products coatings). The remaining five
categories that received the top score for Criterion 7 were hair
sprays, lithographic printing, industrial cleaning solvents,
cutback asphalt paving materials, and flexible package printing.
There were 16 categories of paints and coatings that received a
score of 4 or less. Contrary to the commenters' assertion, EPA
applied the methodology to all of the coating categories in the
same manner as it applied the methodology to all product
categories. Thus, EPA treated the paint and coatings industry
fairly with regard to Criterion 7.
Application of Criterion 8, Regulatory Efficiency and
Program Considerations, was used to change the ranking of only
one category of paints and coatings - shipbuilding and repair
coatings. This category was brought forward to Group I (for
2-46
-------
regulation in 1997) from a later group because control techniques
guidelines for shipbuilding and repair were already under
development pursuant to section 183(a) of the Act, independent of
section 183(e). Criterion 8 is further discussed in
section 2.1.1.2.
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that EPA
manipulated the category rankings by double-counting reactive VOC
and other VOC using the added criterion of VOC volume. The
commenter asserted that EPA's interpretation of reactivity
considerations was faulty and incorrectly resulted in the
determination that architectural coating products emitted an
extremely high volume of reactive VOC.
Response: Contrary to the assertions of the commenter,
EPA's consideration of highly reactive compounds, as required in
the Act, was not substituted by addition of Criterion 7,
Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions. Before scoring Criterion 7,
EPA made an adjustment to the VOC emission estimates of
categories which emitted highly reactive compounds. The portion
of a category's VOC emissions that EPA determined consisted of
highly reactive compounds was given additional weight according
to the compound's relative reactivity. This methodology is
explained at length in section 3.5 of the report to Congress
(EPA-453/R-94-066-a).
The EPA believes the intent of Congress was to give
additional regulatory emphasis to emissions of highly reactive
compounds. The EPA accomplished this by including Criterion 4,
Emissions of Highly Reactive Compounds, and Criterion 7,
Magnitude of Annual Emissions, and by scoring Criterion 7 on a
reactivity-adjusted basis as explained above. The EPA does not
agree with the commenter that consideration of both magnitude of
emissions and emissions of highly reactive compounds is
double-counting. Instead, EPA believes that giving greater
regulatory emphasis to products that emit highly-reactive
compounds and to products that have a high amount of annual VOC
2-47
-------
emissions is consistent with the intent of section 183(e) of the
Act.
Comment: One commenter in three letters (AIM-IV-D-55,
AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) insisted that
architectural coatings should have received lower scores for:
(1) uses, benefits, and commercial demand; (2) health and safety
functions; (3) emissions of highly reactive VOC;
(4) cost-effectiveness of controls; and (5) availability of
alternatives. The commenter concluded that the ranking for
architectural coatings was, therefore, inaccurate, biased, and
wrong. The five factors referred to below and the eight criteria
that EPA established in consideration of them are discussed in
section 2.1.1.2 and in chapter 4 of the report to Congress.
Uses, benefits, and commercial demand. The commenter
claimed that architectural coatings' scores for uses, benefits,
and commercial demand, should be adjusted downward. The
commenter stated that the score should reflect that the primary
purpose of paints is to preserve and protect, and is not
decorative as contended by EPA. The commenter further claimed
that the annual dollar sales for architectural coatings was
exaggerated by EPA.
Health and safety functions. With regard to this factor,
the commenter also asserted that paints have health and safety
benefits in that they preserve a clean and healthy environment in
schools, hospitals, and food processing facilities, and traffic
and signaling paints are used to ensure public safety. The
commenter stated that the score the architectural coatings
category received for this factor did not reflect the high level
of health and safety functions that architectural coatings
provide.
Emissions of highly reactive volatile organic compound. For
this factor, the commenter stated that EPA's information
regarding highly reactive VOC in paints is inaccurate. The EPA's
score sheet for architectural coatings showed xylene as the only
highly reactive VOC in coatings and estimated the xylene content
2-48
-------
at 10 percent. The commenter contended that most architectural
coatings do not contain xylene. The commenter presented solvent
use data for 1994 and an article from "Environmental Science and
Technology", both indicating a xylene content of 1 percent in
architectural coatings (AIM-IV-D-212). The commenter pointed out
that EPA provided no documentation to support the estimate of
10 percent xylene content.
Cost-effectiveness of controls. As to this factor, the
commenter stated that EPA manipulated the ranking process by
claiming that the cost of controls for the architectural coatings
industry is $500 to $1,000 per ton, while the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) suggests the cost of
controls for architectural coatings is $16,400 per ton. (A
reference showing the SCAQMD control costs was attached to the
comment and is filed as CP-IV-D-35t6.) The commenter argued that
erroneous numbers for cost-effectiveness and emissions of highly
reactive compounds skewed the ranking results to the disadvantage
of the architectural coatings industry.
Availability of alternatives. The commenter insisted that
architectural coatings should have received lower scores for
availability of alternatives. The commenter did not explain the
basis for this opinion.
Responses: Uses, benefits, and commercial demand. Factor 1
(uses, benefits, and commercial demand of the product) was
accounted for by two criteria. The EPA established Criterion 1,
Product Utility, to represent "uses and benefits" of the product.
The EPA established Criterion 2, Commercial Demand, to reflect
commercial demand expressed quantitatively as annual dollar sales
divided by annual VOC emissions in tons. As explained in
section 2.1.1.6, Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 6 were subjective, and
therefore were scored by the panel at the NAPCTAC meeting with
subsequent EPA review of the results. With this independent
advice from NAPCTAC, EPA made its own separate determination that
the scoring was appropriate. The panel apparently viewed
architectural coatings as quite utilitarian, as the score
2-49
-------
assigned to Criterion 1 was only 1.9 out of 5, indicating a
relatively low priority for regulation with regard to uses and
benefits. The EPA considered the panel's recommendation and
agreed with it. Thus, EPA disagrees that paint received an
adverse ranking because of any alleged prejudice by EPA that it
is only "decorative."
For Criterion 2, Commercial Demand, EPA verified the annual
dollar sales estimate used in the ranking exercise. On the
criteria score sheet, EPA had indicated 1990 sales of
architectural coatings to be $6 billion. According to EPA's
reference for the figure, U.S. Department of Commerce's "Current
Industrial Reports: Paints and Allied Products, 1990," the value
shipped of architectural coatings for 1990 was $5.8 billion.
Although this figure had been rounded to $6 billion for use in
the ranking exercise, the rounding had no effect on the score
assigned for Criterion 2.
Health and safety functions. Health and safety functions of
products were not only considered under Criterion 1, Utility, but
were considered specifically under Criterion 3, Health or Safety
Functions. Criterion 3 was designed to lower the priority for
regulation of products that contribute to the protection of
health or safety. A product with no health or safety function
was assigned a score closer to 5 (higher priority for
regulation); a product marketed primarily for its health or
safety functions received a score closer to 0. The EPA noted on
the score sheet for this category that "(t)raffic marking
coatings have a primary safety function; others may have primary
or secondary health or safety functions." The NAPCTAC panel
assigned a score of 3.9 out of 5 to this subjective criterion,
presumably indicating that the health or safety functions were
not considered to be such a primary function of architectural
coatings and that their priority for regulation should not be
greatly reduced. The EPA has no basis on which to question this
judgement. Thus, EPA disagrees that the ranking failed to take
2-50
-------
into account any health and safety functions of architectural
coatings.
Emissions of highly reactive volatile organic compound. A
review of the data used to score Criterion 4, Emissions of Highly
Reactive VOC, performed in response to this comment, showed that
the tonnage of xylene emitted by architectural coating products
was overestimated. That figure has been adjusted based on
1990 data published in the National Paint and Coatings
Association's "1992 U.S. Paint Industry Database," and has been
changed to reflect the xylene content of architectural coatings
(1,000 tons), maintenance coatings (16,200 tons), and traffic
marking paints (450 tons). Therefore, the nationwide 1990 total
for all architectural coatings is 17,650 tons, or approximately
10,600 tons in ozone nonattainment areas. The revised figure is
about one-third the original figure of 30,000 tons.
After receiving this comment, EPA reviewed the scoring for
architectural coatings and discovered that the score for
Criterion 4 was recorded in error as a 3. The original score
sheets used at the NAPCTAC meeting reflected a score of 5, which
was the score assigned to products emitting greater than
1,000 tons of highly reactive compounds. Consequently, the
revised figure of 10,600 tons does not change the score of 5 that
should be assigned to Criterion 4 for architectural coatings.
Furthermore, the result of the mistake in recording is that the
corrected composite criteria score for architectural coatings
should be increased by two points, moving architectural coatings
from seventh-highest to third-highest ranked product category in
the preliminary ranking table.
Cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness for
architectural coatings at the time of ranking ($500 to $1,000 per
ton) was estimated from available data, and is of the same order
of magnitude as the cost-effectiveness calculated at proposal of
the architectural coatings rule ($260 per ton). This calculation
is documented in the EIA for the proposed architectural coatings
rule, and can be found in Docket A-92-18, item II-A-5.
2-51
-------
The SCAQMD cost-effectiveness estimate cited by the
commenter ($16,400 per ton) was based on an assumption of a
75 percent VOC reduction from 1997 levels over 13 years. This
reduction is well beyond the reduction contemplated by EPA for
national implementation. As more and more VOC emission reduction
is required, the cost is expected to become higher and higher per
ton of VOC reduced. Therefore, the comparison used by the
commenter is not meaningful.
Availability of alternatives. As discussed in
section 2.1.1.6, Criterion 5, Availability of Alternatives, was
one of the subjective criteria scored by the NAPCTAC panel at its
July 1994 public meeting. Quantitative information on the
availability and cost of alternative, lower-VOC products was
generally unavailable for the vast array of consumer and
commercial products subject to section 183(e) of the Act.
Consequently, EPA utilized the expertise of the NAPCTAC panel for
guidance, which assigned the score for Criterion 5 for each
category. In the case of architectural coatings, EPA believes
that the fact that several States had promulgated architectural
coating rules and that manufacturers were currently complying
with those rules may have been one valid factor justifying the
panel's collectively assigning a score of 4.4 out of 5 to this
criterion. In any case, EPA believes that the score was
reasonable compared to other product categories.
2.1.2 Volatile Organic Compound Inventory
2.1.2.1 Reportable Volatile Organic Compound Concerns
Comment: Two commenters in four documents
(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-55,
CP-IV-F-la) contended that EPA emission estimates were overstated
for architectural and industrial maintenance products in general,
and for solvent-borne architectural coatings products in
particular. The commenter stated that the solvent contents of
many of the consumer and commercial products were based on two
surveys, the architectural coatings survey and the consumer
products survey. However, the commenter asserted that the two
2-52
-------
surveys did not treat VOC content equally. The architectural
coatings survey reported all VOC as defined in EPA regulations
and the consumer products survey reported only a subset of VOC,
termed "RVOC" which excluded certain low-volatility VOC.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) asserted that the
difference in reporting of VOC by the two surveys overstated the
magnitude of VOC emissions attributed to architectural coatings
by 20 to 25 percent relative to other consumer and commercial
products. The two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b,
AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-55, CP-IV-F-la) stated that this
overstatement of VOC emissions caused EPA to put architectural
coatings within the first group of products scheduled for
regulation because EPA gave great weight to magnitude of annual
VOC emissions in setting priorities for regulation. The
commenter argued that as a result of this priority for regulation
of architectural coatings, manufacturers of solvent-borne paint
were at a disadvantage.
One commenter in two documents (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) further stated that besides
prejudicing the ranking process, if EPA had considered RVOC when
regulating architectural coatings, the resulting regulations
would be biased against solvent-borne coatings. Because
waterborne coatings are composed of materials with low
volatility, considering RVOC would essentially exclude waterborne
coatings from regulation.
The commenter explained that if waterborne coatings were
excluded from regulation, there would not be any VOC from
architectural coatings products left to regulate because
waterborne coatings constituted 80 percent of architectural
coatings. The remaining 20 percent were solvent-borne coatings
which the commenter asserted either did not actually emit any VOC
or emitted VOC with a low reactivity rate.
The commenter charged that EPA knew that if an RVOC
exemption were included in the architectural coatings rule, most
waterborne paint products would be exempted from regulation. In
2-53
-------
addition, the commenter stated that the RVOC concept was never
raised or discussed at the architectural coatings regulatory
negotiation meetings even though EPA was aware of the concept at
that time.
Response: The EPA agrees that the RVOC concept was used
solely for gathering VOC content information for the
61 categories of household consumer products and was not used in
gathering VOC content for any of the other 42 categories of
consumer and commercial products including architectural
coatings. The EPA disagrees that this methodology of gathering
RVOC data for a subset of consumer and commercial products
adversely affected the ranking and listing of architectural
coatings. Furthermore, EPA believes the use of RVOC for
gathering VOC emissions data and in the regulatory development
only for household consumer products was justifiable and
reasonable. The EPA included RVOC in the regulatory approach for
the category of household consumer products for reasons specific
to that category which are based on California's regulatory
development efforts at the time. The RVOC distinction was not
included for purposes of gathering data for any of the coating
categories including architectural coatings because EPA has a
test method for paints and coatings which is the ultimate arbiter
of what is or is not a VOC for a particular paint process. No
such test method is available for products covered by the
consumer products rule.
In collecting survey information on the VOC content of
household consumer products, EPA included a vapor pressure
cut-off which excluded those compounds with a vapor pressure of
less than 0.1 millimeter (mm) of mercury at 20 °C. The remainder
of VOC which were then reported in the survey were designated
RVOC. This approach was developed after analyzing California's
regulatory approach at that time which excluded compounds below
this vapor pressure cut-off from regulation. In addition,
manufacturers of household consumer products who participated in
development of the Consumer Products Survey argued that speciated
2-54
-------
product composition information was readily available on the
basis of RVOC in response to California's regulatory efforts
which focused solely on RVOC.
Reportable VOC was developed for categories of household
consumer products in California to better distinguish between
products to determine which emit less VOC. For example,
household consumer products often contain ingredients such as
heavy oils or waxes that have extremely low volatility (i.e., may
be a solid at room temperature). Since in some cases all similar
products may be of equal VOC content (100 percent), it makes
sense to compare the higher volatility VOC components to
distinguish the products that are lower emitting and can serve as
a basis for standard setting. This approach makes sense in light
of the fact that a test method, which is the recommended approach
for defining what is a VOC and for compliance determination, had
not yet been developed for most of the household consumer product
categories. The EPA followed California's regulatory approach at
that time and requested information on RVOC contents only in the
Consumer Products Survey since it appeared that these were the
VOC of interest for regulatory purposes.
It is arguable that for consistency in comparisons between
product categories, EPA should have included all household
consumer product VOC in the emissions inventory rather than just
reportable VOC or RVOC. To account for any potential bias that
this procedure may have caused to the ranking process, EPA
performed a sensitivity analysis by adjusting the VOC estimates
for consumer products. Since the commenter asserted that the
magnitude of VOC emissions attributed to architectural coatings
was overstated by 20 to 25 percent relative to other consumer and
commercial products, EPA, for purposes of the analysis, adjusted
the VOC content estimates for the 61 household consumer products
by doubling the existing RVOC data (which would more than account
for the 20-25 percent error claimed by the commenter), then
reranking all the consumer and commercial products using the
adjusted estimates. The analysis indicated that the use of RVOC
2-55
-------
for consumer products had no practical effect on the ranking.
Specifically, the criteria scores for aerosol spray paints,
non-automotive paint thinners, and several categories of
household adhesives would have been increased as a result of
doubling the RVOC values, but none of these categories would have
displaced any categories originally listed in Groups I through IV
from being listed for regulation. Based on this conservative
analysis, EPA contends that if an error was made in establishing
the emissions inventory for household consumer products, it was a
harmless error which did not affect the ranking of products for
regulation, including architectural coatings.
For architectural coating products, the RVOC concept is not
meaningful or necessary since EPA has a test method which is
designed to calculate the VOC content of coatings. The EPA
accounts for volatility of solvents through this test method
(i.e., Method 24). Specifically, in this test method, a sample
of paint is weighed, heated and then reweighed; basically, the
difference in weight is calculated to be the VOC content of the
coating after the weight of water and any exempt compounds is
subtracted out. Solvents that do not volatilize under the
temperature and time frame of the test method are not measured as
VOC. Since RVOC was not used in gathering emissions information
for the architectural coatings industry, none of the effects
cited by the commenter as adversely affecting manufacturers of
solvent-borne paint occurred. Namely, waterborne coatings were
not excluded from the ranking and the solvent-borne paint
manufacturers were not placed at a disadvantage in the ranking,
as the commenter asserts. In addition, EPA's proposed regulation
for architectural coating categories did not employ the concept
of RVOC for the same reason it was not used for purposes of
gathering VOC emissions data. Therefore, since for the reasons
stated in the architectural coatings proposal (61 FR 32729) EPA
did not propose to exclude waterborne coatings from regulation,
EPA is not obliged to consider what the resulting impacts on
solvent-borne coatings would have been as a result of this
2-56
-------
exclusion. The concept of RVOC was never brought up in the
architectural coatings regulatory negotiation process for the
reasons stated above.
The comments that solvent-borne coatings do not emit VOC or
that any VOC emitted has low reactivity are addressed in sections
2.1.2.3 and 2.2.1.1 of this BID.
Comment: One commenter in two documents (AIM-IV-D-212,
CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) stated that the RVOC classification
used in the consumer and commercial product survey was
technically inaccurate because the vapor pressure of individual
product components and the ability of the product to enter the
air in any appreciable degree are not related. The commenter
contended that it is the actual vapor pressure of the product
that is important and not the vapor pressure of the individual
product components. The commenter used waterborne coatings as an
illustration. The commenter stated that as the paints dry, the
low vapor pressure solvents enter the air just like the high
vapor pressure solvents. That is, EPA's argument that VOC which
are not RVOCs do not enter the air in any appreciable degree is
false.
Response: The EPA agrees that the partial pressures of a
product's ingredients determine the total pressure of the
mixture, and consequently a compound may volatilize at a
different rate as a pure solvent as compared to when it is
present in a mixture of solvents. However, for purposes of
simplifying the survey effort, and taking advantage of available
data within the industry, EPA established the RVOC vapor pressure
cutoff on a compound-by-compound basis. The RVOC cutoff helped
EPA focus both the survey and the regulatory development effort
on those compounds most likely to volatilize. Ideally, a test
method is the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not a VOC. In
the absence of available test methods, EPA relied on a vapor
pressure cutoff as a more crude, but still useful, technique to
estimate and regulate emissions. As VOC content test methods are
developed for household consumer products, EPA may reevaluate the
2-57
-------
use of a vapor pressure cutoff for any future regulatory
developments in this area.
Comment: In the definition of RVOC used in the Consumer
Products Survey for the purpose of establishing an inventory, the
commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p5/
CP-IV-D-35v) questioning why the vapor pressure for liquids was
required only at 20 °C and not also required at the liquid's
operating temperature (if the operating temperature was higher
than 20 °C). The commenter explained that if the ability of a
solid material to sublime must be measured at the use
temperature, the vapor pressure of liquids should also be
measured at the use temperature.
Response: The reference temperature of 20 °C was chosen
because it is a commonly used reference condition for measuring
and expressing vapor pressures, it is consistent with
California's vapor pressure cutoff, and it is a temperature at
which these household consumer products are expected to be used
(i.e., 68 degrees Fahrenheit).
2.1.2.2 Consideration of Biogenic Sources of Volatile
Organic Compounds
Comment: One commenter submitted three documents
(AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) stating
that it was essential for EPA to list in the Report the specific
sources of all VOC, including those from global background,
biogenic, and anthropogenic sources, along with the role that
each source played in ozone formation. Because EPA listed only
anthropogenic sources, the commenter submitted three documents
(AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p5/CP-IV-D-35v,
AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) suggesting that Congress was not
informed of the insignificance of anthropogenic emissions
compared to biogenic emissions and supported the claim by citing
statements from EPA's Comprehensive Emissions Inventory.
Rethinking the Ozone Problem, and EPA's section 185(b) report to
Congress.5;6 The commenter in three letters (AIM-IV-D-55,
AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) stated that excluding
2-58
-------
the 60 percent of VOC emissions that originated from biogenic
sources was contrary to the intent of Congress and to the express
language of section 183(e) of the Act. Therefore, the commenter
in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5)
concluded that EPA should submit a new section 183(e) study that
includes VOC emissions originating from biogenic sources.
Response: One objective of the section 183(e) study was to
determine the potential of consumer and commercial products to
contribute to ozone levels which violate the ozone NAAQS. To
assess the role of consumer and commercial product VOC emissions
in the ozone nonattainment problem, EPA compared VOC emissions
from consumer and commercial products to total anthropogenic VOC
emissions on a nationwide basis. This comparison is presented in
table 2-2 of the Report. The table includes VOC emission
estimates from mobile sources, petroleum marketing, stationary
source fuel combustion, forest and agricultural burning,
petroleum refineries, organic chemical manufacturing, industrial
manufacturing, and consumer and commercial products. Of the
21 million tons per year total, consumer and commercial products
were shown to account for 6 million tons, or about 28 percent.
The EPA believes that the inclusion of biogenic emissions in
the inventory of VOC emission sources is one possible approach,
but does not believe that such inclusion changes the proper
analysis for controlling VOC from consumer and commercial
products. The Agency estimates biogenic emissions in 1990 to be
about 34 million tons per year. Addition of biogenic emissions
would change the inventory as shown below in table 2-1.
Addition of biogenic emissions to the inventory would
decrease the relative contribution of consumer and commercial
products from 28 to 11 percent of all VOC emissions. However,
these biogenic emissions are not amenable to control, because
they emanate from sources for which there is no practical control
option (i.e., forests, swamps, grasslands, etc.); therefore, the
proportion of controllable VOC has remained unchanged.
Therefore, this 11 percent contribution from consumer and
2-59
-------
commercial products is still significant and represents a
significant source of potentially controllable emissions. Of the
21 million tons of anthropogenic VOC emissions emitted nationwide
in 1990, consumer and commercial products account for 6 million
tons, or about 28 percent. Therefore, consumer and commercial
products are still among the most significant federally
unregulated VOC sources for which additional VOC reductions are
achievable. Section 2.2.2 provides a detailed discussion on the
potential of consumer and commercial products to contribute to
ozone nonattainment.
TABLE 2-1. VOC EMISSIONS IN 1990 (NATIONWIDE)
Nationwide Emissions Share of Total
Emission Source Category (tons/yr) (percent)
Biogenic Sources
Mobile Sources (automobiles,
etc. )
Consumer and Commercial
Products
Petroleum Marketing
Fuel Combustion (stationary
sources)
Forest, Agricultural, and Other
Burning
Petroleum Refineries
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
Industrial Manufacturing
Total for All Sources
34, 000,
7, 920,
6, 000,
2,460,
2,300,
990,
820,
550,
400,
55, 440,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
61.
14.
10.
4 .
4 .
1.
1.
1.
0.
100.
.3
.3
.8
.4
.2
.8
.5
.0
. 7
.0
Comment: One commenter in five documents (CP-IV-D-35,
CP-IV-F-la, AIM-IV-D-55, CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-d-212p5,
AIM-IV-D-212) contended that the EPA inventory should have
accounted for all consumer and commercial products, including the
following man-controlled biogenic sources:
• All food and beverage products, including meats and
produce, as well as grocery items;
2-60
-------
• All nursery items, including plants, trees, flowers,
and seeds, in addition to landscaping materials and
other similar products used commercially;
• Fuel used in homes and businesses for heating and
cooking;
• All nursery items and wholesale nursery products used
outside of nonattainment areas that could be
transported into the nonattainment area; and
• All other human activities of the body involved in VOC
output from consumer and commercial products.
In two letters the commenter (CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-d-212p5,
AIM-IV-D-212) cited the broad definition of "consumer or
commercial product" supported by Congressional legislative
history, the requirements in section 183(e)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
and EPA's inventory results, as presented in chapter 5 of the
Report. The commenter (CP-IV-F-la) asserted that omitting these
items from the Report was a gross discrepancy and not in
compliance with the Act. The commenter contended that the
existing inventory is incomplete without these biogenic sources.
The commenter (CP-IV-D-35) contended that if EPA had included all
categories in the ranking, most product categories currently
slated for regulation would have been exempted.
Response: In addition to the contribution of biogenic VOC
to the overall inventory, the commenter raises the question as to
whether EPA should enumerate, rank, and possibly regulate plants,
shrubs, and other biogenic sources of VOC that could be
considered consumer and commercial products according to the
definition in section 183(e) of the Act. The EPA has generally
interpreted the statutory definition very broadly, and considers
products ranging from hair sprays to automotive coatings to
asphalt paving materials to fall within the definition of
consumer and commercial products. These products differ greatly
from the biogenic sources of VOC cited by the commenter.
In each of the categories enumerated by EPA to be consumer
and commercial products, the products share at least one
characteristic that sets them apart from biogenic sources. In
2-61
-------
every case, the products EPA has included as consumer and
commercial products are formulated and manufactured using
combinations of ingredients. The manufacturers have control over
the VOC contents of these products, and, therefore, can
reformulate or modify the products to emit less VOC. Conversely,
plants, trees, and shrubs are not manufactured and, therefore,
have inherent VOC emission characteristics, both in volume and
speciation of emissions. These naturally occurring sources
cannot be reformulated or modified to reduce VOC emissions.
Options to control VOC emissions from plants, trees, and shrubs
would be limited primarily to banning products from being sold or
distributed which EPA believes would not reflect Congress's
intent in enacting Section 183(e).
Once products are ranked and listed for regulation, any
regulations must require BAG. Section 183(e) of the Act defines
BAG as "the degree of emissions reduction that the Administrator
determines, on the basis of technological and economic
feasibility, health, environmental, and energy impacts, is
achievable through the application of the most effective
equipment, measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques,
including chemical reformulation, product or feedstock
substitution, repackaging, and directions for use, consumption.
storage, or disposal" (emphasis added). Clearly, applying BAG to
plants, trees, and shrubs would be limited primarily to a ban on
the sale or distribution of these items. The EPA does not
believe that a ban on such products would be appropriate.
The overriding conclusion is that regardless of whether
ranking of these sources was possible, VOC emissions from such
sources could not be mitigated through regulation. Accordingly,
it is highly unlikely that these sources would ever be listed for
regulation. Consequently, EPA's decision not to identify these
sources as consumer and commercial products under section 183(e)
of the Act has not affected the selection of nor the priorities
for those categories EPA did list for regulation.
2-62
-------
2.1.2.3 Accuracy of Inventory
Comment: A commenter (CP-IV-F-la) asserted EPA's ranking
was biased because the environmental fate of VOC were considered
for certain products (i.e., laundry detergents) and not for
others (i.e., paint products). The commenter asserted that just
as the VOC in laundry detergents ended up in wastewater and were
biodegraded rather than being emitted to the air and forming
ozone, the VOC in interior paint products were not necessarily
emitted to the air where they could react to form ozone.
Response: In developing a comprehensive VOC emissions
inventory for consumer and commercial products, EPA took into
account the ultimate fate of the VOC in products (i.e., what
portion of the VOC content typically enters the ambient air
during use, storage, and disposal and what portion is not emitted
due to biodegradation or other environmental fates). Typical use
and disposal practices associated with nearly 50 consumer product
categories (including paints, primers, and varnishes) were
studied to determine which of the categories were likely to enter
the wastewater stream. Several categories of household consumer
products (e.g., laundry detergents, mouthwashes, general-purpose
cleaners, tile and bathroom cleaners) were determined to have a
high potential for entering the wastewater stream and undergoing
biodegradation rather than being emitted to the air.
Conversely, paints, primers, and varnishes were determined
to have a low probability of entering the wastewater stream. The
EPA concluded that architectural coatings are not typically
disposed of by means of a sanitary sewer system. Consequently,
the portion of all architectural coatings that enter the
wastewater stream and are biodegraded was considered to be
insignificant.
Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, no bias against
architectural coating products was introduced because all
consumer and commercial products used indoors (e.g., hair sprays,
furniture polishes, etc.) were treated the same with the
exception of a few products (e.g., laundry detergents, tub and
2-63
-------
tile cleaners, etc.) that were expected to be largely washed down
the drain. Certainly, some waste from low-VOC water-based paints
is washed down drains, but it is not expected to be significant
enough to make a substantial difference in total emissions.
Solvents used in oil-based paints, even in the event that they do
enter the wastewater stream, normally would not undergo
biodegradation or another fate and, therefore, eventually enter
the ambient air.
With regard to the commenter's assertion that VOC emissions
from paints used indoors do not enter the ambient air, EPA
maintains that close to 100 percent of the VOC from paint is
eventually emitted to the ambient air and is available for ozone
formation. Recent EPA indoor air studies (A-94-65, items IV-J-12
and IV-J-13) have confirmed that all the VOC contained in paints
used indoors is eventually emitted, with long-term experimental
data indicating that it may take as long as 3.5 years for all the
VOC from waterborne paint applied to gypsum wallboard substrate
to be emitted. The same studies showed that greater than
90 percent of the VOC contained in solvent-borne paint is emitted
within the first 24 hours, regardless of the substrate.
Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that all the VOC
emissions within the house eventually reach the ambient air,
since paint container labels routinely recommend that the painted
space be thoroughly ventilated during and after the painting
operation. Thus, EPA believes that it is valid to assume VOC
emissions from architectural coatings are 100 percent available
in the atmosphere to react to form ozone.
Comment: A commenter in three documents (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-212p5/CP-IV-D-35v, AIM-IV-F-lc) stated that because EPA
failed to perform ambient monitoring tests, EPA's consumer and
commercial product inventory is unsubstantiated. The commenter
(AIM-IV-F-lc) stated that the section 183(e) study did not
address: how much VOC was emitted into an area from the use of a
consumer and commercial product, how the emitted VOC was
dispersed, nor the ultimate fate of any emitted VOC. The
2-64
-------
commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-212p5/CP-IV-D-35v) stating that ambient monitoring is
the only basis for measuring the potential of emissions to be
part of reactions that form ozone. The commenter stated that
indoor emissions are very unlikely to ever form ozone. Since EPA
assumed 100 percent availability of VOC both indoors and outdoors
without a study, and therefore assumed 100 percent of the
reportable VOC for air emission, the commenter contended that the
inventory was false and contrary to the letter and intent of the
Act. The commenter (AIM-IV-F-lc) concluded that as a result, EPA
had no justification for the architectural VOC regulations.
Response: The EPA recognizes the commenter's concern that
ambient monitoring is an important element in evaluating
contributions of sources to the ozone problem. The EPA initiated
a program in 1992 to phase in photochemical assessment monitoring
stations (PAMS) in serious, severe, and extreme ozone
nonattainment areas. These stations monitor VOC (56 hydrocarbons
and 3 carbonyls), oxides of nitrogen, and ozone as well as
surface and upper air meteorology. Use of these stations can
help nonattainment areas corroborate emission inventories,
evaluate what sources may be contributing to emissions, examine
the mechanisms of ozone formation within their area, and aid in
source receptor modeling. The data can be used to evaluate,
adjust, and provide input to the photochemical grid models
utilized by the States to develop ozone control strategies and
demonstrate their success. The PAMS provide information to
evaluate population exposure, expand the data base available to
confirm attainment/nonattainment decisions, and develop ambient
ozone and ozone precursor trends. The 1997 Federal operating
budget for this monitoring program is approximately $14.1 million
and all the monitors are expected to be in place by 1998.
These monitoring stations provide valuable feedback for
devising cost-effective ozone attainment strategies. However,
because of the difficulty in tracking the fate of individual
compounds and obtaining precise measurements of trace compounds
2-65
-------
involved in ozone chemistry, EPA relies on the conservative
assumption that all VOC emitted by consumer and commercial
products are available in the atmosphere to react to form ozone.
The particular sources of compounds emitted by consumer and
commercial products are difficult to identify because they can be
widely dispersed, their emissions may react quickly in the
atmosphere, and the sources may be masked by other emitters of
similar compounds. When conducting ambient monitoring, it is
often difficult to establish conclusive relationships between
sources (e.g., architectural coatings) and receptors (e.g.,
ambient monitors). Thus, even if ambient monitoring were
performed as requested by the commenter, the particular
contribution of architectural coating VOC to the ambient air
would be difficult to quantify. In any case, the potential of
emissions to become part of the ozone reaction is identified by
an analysis of the photochemical properties of the compounds in
question, rather than the results of any ambient monitoring.
Section 183(e) of the Act directed EPA to determine whether
product categories have the potential to contribute to ozone
nonattainment and the Agency believes that monitoring of the type
advocated by the commenters is not necessary to establish this
point.
The commenter's claim regarding indoor emissions entering
the ambient air and becoming available for reaction is addressed
in a previous comment in this section.
Comment: One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) defined availability to form ozone as
the conversion from the gross volume of VOC in something
measurable (such as a coating) to VOC presence in air at a level
above tree height in parts per billion volume during emission and
transportation. The commenter explained that the distance above
the ground where VOC is measured is important because sunlight
and hydroxyl radicals (OH) are necessary ingredients to produce
ozone. The commenter claimed that many evaporative VOC are never
exposed to direct sunlight and, therefore, cannot produce ozone.
2-66
-------
They claimed that the potential for VOC forming ozone indoors is
very low because of the lack of direct sunlight; and even if the
VOC escape from indoors, they must mix with air and sunlight.
The commenter also noted that many compounds with more than eight
carbons [e.g., 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)-ethanol, xylenes, etc.] tend to
adhere to the first surface they contact where they remain until
they are dusted and washed. The commenter argued that when these
compounds reach the ground, they are biodegraded.
Response: The EPA's response to the issue of paints used
indoors is presented previously in this section.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's view that compounds
with more than eight carbons tend to adhere to the first surface
they contact. There are many factors in addition to the
molecular weight of the compound that affect the tendency for
deposition on environmental surfaces. Other factors, such as
water solubility, temperature, and Van der Waals forces affect
the ability of specific compounds to absorb and/or adsorb onto
surfaces.
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6i/CP-IV-D-35j) stated
their agreement with points made in a presentation by
Ralph Engel, President of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
Association (CSMA), at a 1989 public meeting held by EPA to
discuss the prospective regulation of VOC emitted from consumer
and commercial products. Mr. Engel stated that the consumer and
commercial products category was unique and could not be
regulated by traditional approaches or emission control
strategies. Mr. Engel added that "Catching Our Breath: Next
Steps for Reducing Urban Ozone, "a study by the
U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found
that "any emission estimates [from consumer products] are subject
to potentially large uncertainties."4 Also, the OTA study
excluded consumer and commercial products from its analysis of
emissions reduction potential and cost because of the lack of
control technology information.
2-67
-------
With regard to regulation of the architectural coatings
industry, the commenter requested that verification be conducted
to support the regulation of the targeted architectural coating
products, that these products emitted the amount of VOC as
claimed, and to what extent such emitted VOC actually reacted to
form ozone. The commenter concluded that EPA lacks specific
objective scientific facts to establish that VOC emitted from
architectural coatings constitute a measurable and identifiable
factor in contributing to ozone exceedance in areas classified as
nonattainment.
Response: Based on the lack of existing, reliable inventory
data on consumer and commercial products, CSMA worked closely
with EPA to develop the most complete and accurate inventory of
VOC in household consumer products available to date. The EPA
also has data available for the architectural coatings industry
that was compiled by the National Paint and Coating Association.
As discussed earlier in this section, EPA also contends that all
VOC used in architectural coatings ultimately become available in
the environment to form ozone. As discussed in section 2.2 of
this BID, EPA believes that VOC in paint (and other consumer and
commercial products) are reactive and contribute to the ozone
pollution problem. Therefore, EPA has concluded that regulation
of architectural coatings VOC will contribute to attaining and
maintaining the ozone NAAQS in all areas of the country.
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) pointed
out that the Consumer Products Survey collected data on the
specific VOC contained in various product categories. The
commenter claimed that the Architectural Coatings Survey
collected no speciated data because EPA and the larger national
architectural coatings manufacturers claimed that collecting
specific VOC data would unnecessarily complicate the survey
process or violate company confidentiality. The commenter stated
that the lack of VOC speciation data for architectural coatings
made it impossible to account for VOC emissions on a
reactivity-adjusted basis. The commenter asserted that a
2-68
-------
reactivity adjustment may have reduced the magnitude of emissions
from architectural coatings relative to other consumer and
commercial products.
Response: The EPA agrees that speciated data would have
enhanced the accuracy of the architectural coatings inventory for
purposes of applying the reactivity adjustment. However, based
on the concerns of participants in the regulatory negotiation
process that this type of survey would complicate and slow down
the data collection effort, the Regulatory Negotiation Committee
decided not to include a request for speciated data in the
survey. In addition, information on solvent consumption within
the architectural coatings industry is available in the
literature and was used to determine the magnitude of highly
reactive compounds found in architectural coatings. This issue
is discussed fully in section 2.1.1.7. Contrary to the
commenter's assertion, EPA was able to make the reactivity
adjustment on the architectural coatings category based on the
information in the literature. The reactivity adjustment of the
inventory data is discussed in section 3.5 of the Report.
2.2 REACTIVITY
2.2.1 Ranking Of Categories On Reactivity Basis For Study
2.2.1.1 Reactivity Study Requirements
Comment: Seven commenters submitted nine documents
(AIM-IV-D-02, AIM-IV-D-05, AIM-IV-D-178, AIM-IV-F-1(1),
AIM-IV-D-50, AIM-IV-D-214C, CP-IV-F-la, CP-IV-D-07a, AR-IV-F-1)
stating that section 183(e) of the Act requires EPA to perform a
specific reactivity study. Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214c,
AR-IV-F-1) claimed that EPA failed to consider highly reactive
VOC when conducting the study of VOC emissions from consumer and
commercial products required by section 183(e) . Several
commenters (CP-IV-F-la, CP-IV-D-35, CP-IV-D-07a, AIM-IV-F-ld,
AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-177, AR-IV-F-1)
asserted that a particular type of reactivity ranking could and
should have been done as the commenters believe was mandated by
Congress.
2-69
-------
Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214c, AIM-IV-D-55) criticized EPA's
Report for labeling only 10 of several hundred VOC species found
in certain products as "highly reactive," and labeling all other
VOC species found in products as "reactive," and contended that
EPA made this distinction with "considerable arbitrariness." One
commenter (AIM-IV-D-55) further stated that the hundreds of VOC
species that EPA classified as reactive are in fact highly
disparate in their potential to contribute to ozone formation in
nonattainment areas. The other commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) cited
two court cases (Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle. 590 F. 2d 1011,
1045-46, 1048 [B.C. Cir. 1978], and BASF Wyandotte Corp. v.
Costle. 598 F. 2d 637, 659 [1st Cir. 1979]) to support the
contention that EPA must compare the reactivities of each of the
different VOC species to satisfy the requirements of
section 183(e) of the Act.
According to one commenter (AIM-IV-D-212), the Report
specifically failed to consider the reactivity of VOC emissions
from paints and coatings. The commenter contended that EPA
should have created a peer-reviewed reactivity adjusted scale. A
second commenter submitted two letters (CP-IV-D-07a,
AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) stating that Congress intended the
study it mandated in section 183(e) of the Act to entail studies
of the relative reactivities of all species of VOC. Two
commenters in three letters (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-214c,
CP-IV-D-35) questioned why EPA failed to conduct a speciated
relative reactivity study of all consumer and commercial product
VOC species. One commenter submitted three letters (CP-IV-D-07a,
AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-214c) asserting that EPA had
failed to investigate the relative reactivities of VOC species in
consumer and commercial products. As an example, the commenter
(AIM-IV-D-214b/ CP-IV-D-07b, CP-IV-D-07a) stated that EPA had not
performed its duty to study and report on the relative
reactivities of architectural and industrial maintenance coating
categories containing mineral spirits (the use of which would be
discouraged by regulations targeting solvent-borne paint) versus
2-70
-------
those containing glycol compounds (the use of which would be
promoted by regulations encouraging the use of latex paint). The
commenter continued that EPA was required to report all existing
data about the relative reactivity of the mineral spirits found
in alkyd coatings and the glycol and other compounds found in
latex and acrylic coatings. An additional commenter
(AIM-IV-D-02/AIM-IV-F-l[1]) agreed that lower VOC coatings are
often formulated with more reactive solvents (i.e., xylene
instead of mineral spirits); however, the commenter provided no
supporting information.
Some commenters (AIM-IV-D-55, CP-IV-F-la, CP-IV-D-35)
disagreed with EPA's claim that a rigorous analysis of relative
reactivities on a compound-by-compound basis was not possible.
The commenters stated that EPA must perform the necessary studies
to supply any missing data or to replace data that were uncertain
or lacking in detail. The commenters cited NRDC v Train. 411 F.
Supp. 864, 870 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), to support the position that a
lack of data was not an appropriate consideration justifying
EPA's failure to consider reactivity of each species of VOC.
This commenter and another commenter (CP-IV-F-la) stated that EPA
has a heavy burden to demonstrate that studying the relative
reactivities of VOC was impossible. The first commenter
(AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) cited two cases for this proposition:
Sierra Club v. Gorsuch. 551 F.Supp. 785, 789 (N.D. Cal. 1982) and
American Lung Assn. v. Browner. 884 F.Supp. 345, 347 (D. Ariz.
1994) .
Response: At the outset, EPA notes that the Act does not
explicitly define the terms "reactivity adjusted" or "highly
reactive" VOC, or stipulate how the Agency should interpret these
terms. In addition, the legislative history for section 183(e)
does not provide clear guidance as to Congressional intent with
respect to how EPA should take relative reactivity into account.
The EPA believes that the legislative history does not illuminate
precisely what Congress intended, in part because Congress
intended EPA to exercise its technical expertise to assess and
2-71
-------
account for the relative reactivity of VOC in the manner the
Agency considers most appropriate. The EPA believes that it has
met all reactivity-related requirements of section 183(e) of the
Act and that relative reactivity was taken into account to the
extent that currently available scientific data and understanding
allow. As required by section 183(e) of the Act, EPA considered
reactivity in two instances: (1) in listing consumer and
commercial product categories for regulation, and in
(2) establishing the priorities for regulation of consumer and
commercial product categories. The EPA disagrees that a
speciated study of all consumer and commercial product VOC should
have been performed; such a study is not required by the Act and
would have been impractical to undertake.
Section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act requires EPA to "list those
categories of consumer or commercial products that the
Administrator determines, based on the study, account for at
least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted
basis, from consumer or commercial products in areas that violate
the NAAQS for ozone." To meet this requirement, EPA used
available information to identify 10 classes of compounds as
"highly reactive." (Note that these are classes of VOC, rather
than 10 individual VOC species as the commenters indicated.)
The EPA then identified those product categories known to contain
quantities of these highly reactive compounds and estimated the
mass quantity of these compounds found in each category.
Emissions data for these product categories were adjusted by
applying a compound-specific reactivity adjustment factor to the
mass emissions of each of the highly reactive ingredients. The
EPA thus fulfilled the requirements of section 183(e)(3)(A) of
the Act when it published a list of categories of products that
accounted for 80 percent of mass emissions as adjusted to account
for known quantities of each of the highly reactive ingredients.
The EPA believes that its methodology is a valid and reasonable
interpretation of the requirements to perform a
reactivity-adjustment of VOC emissions.
2-72
-------
Section 183(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act requires EPA, in
determining product categories to be regulated, to consider
"[t]hose consumer and commercial products which emit highly
reactive volatile organic compounds into the ambient air."
Accordingly, EPA established "Emissions of Highly Reactive
Compounds" as one of the criteria used to rank consumer and
commercial products for possible regulation. Thus, in the study,
EPA distinguished between three groups of compounds: highly
reactive, reactive, and negligibly reactive. Negligibly reactive
compounds, a category established by EPA regulations, are certain
listed compounds EPA has formally determined to have
insignificant ozone-forming potential and excluded from the
definition of VOC (see 40 CFR 51.100 (s)). Compounds that were
identified as negligibly reactive were excluded from the consumer
and commercial product VOC emissions inventory, and will be
excluded from any related regulation. Consumer or commercial
product categories known to contain highly reactive compounds
were assigned a greater weighting than those product categories
that did not contain these compounds. The EPA then factored
these weightings into the prioritization for regulation. A
greater weighting would imply higher priority for regulation.
Chapter 3 of the Report provides a detailed discussion of
reactivity and the rationale for the list of highly reactive
compounds on which EPA relied.
To identify highly reactive VOC, EPA used available
information to identify 10 classes of volatile organic compounds
-- some of which represented very broad groups --as "highly
reactive" under most conditions. The EPA proposed "highly
reactive" VOC to be those with Maximum Incremental Reactivity
(MIR) greater than 4 or Maximum Ozone Incremental Reactivity
(MOIR) greater than 1.75 and it has concluded that even
moderately large changes in the VOC to nitrogen oxides (NOX)
ratio within an airshed would not invalidate this classification.
The EPA also established a classification using the reactivity
rate constant for reaction with the hydroxyl radical
2-73
-------
greater than 50,000 per part per million per minute (ppm"1min"l)
as a criterion to identify "highly reactive" VOC species. To
resolve conflicting classifications by the MIR and kQH scales,
the latest available results regarding atmospheric photochemistry
studies of these VOC were assessed and used by the Agency to
classify them as "highly reactive" or "reactive."
The EPA also took into consideration highly reactive VOC
under another criterion, "Magnitude of Annual VOC Emissions."
For product categories known to contain highly reactive VOC, EPA
adjusted the mass emissions figures for those VOC to reflect
their high reactivity.
The EPA subsequently ranked product categories for possible
regulation, considering the criteria established by the Agency
and advice from the independent NAPCTAC advisory group. In
conducting the ranking, EPA gave product categories containing
highly reactive compounds a higher priority for regulation. In
addressing the two criteria cited above, EPA assigned a range of
scores based on the number of tons of highly reactive VOCs
emitted per year by a product category. The EPA included the
scores from these criteria in the calculation of the total scores
for each product category in considering the regulatory priority
of each category.
Chapter 3 of the March 1995 Report to Congress provides a
more detailed discussion of reactivity and the rationale for the
list of highly reactive compounds on which EPA relied. Chapter 4
of the Report to Congress discusses in more detail how the Agency
applied each of the criteria.
Although the commenter suggested that EPA should have
conducted reactivity studies to supplement uncertain and
incomplete reactivity data, this was not reasonable or possible
due to time and resource constraints. Section 183(e) of the Act
set aside a limited amount of time for EPA to perform the
section 183(e) study and report to Congress. Existing reactivity
2-74
-------
data on VOC, especially those compounds used to formulate
consumer and commercial products, is either largely incomplete or
uncertain. There is an enormously large diversity of VOC species
emitted by consumer and commercial products. The commenters
themselves estimate there are approximately 1,000 different VOC
species associated with the architectural coating industry alone.
An examination of the VOC speciation data available for consumer
products (compiled by EPA and shown in the Consumer Product
Survey results) indicated that for about 20 to 30 percent of the
VOC species identified in the survey responses, the atmospheric
chemistry is unknown and a comparable fraction of survey entries
represented VOC mixtures of unspecified composition. Definitive
estimation of VOC reactivity is only possible when the
atmospheric chemistry of the VOC species is known. Furthermore,
to characterize the reactivity of one single VOC compound is
expected to require $25,000 and two months of smog chamber
testing. Neither the equipment nor the specialized expertise to
conduct this type of testing is currently available at EPA. In
fact, staff with this specialized expertise as well as smog
chamber equipment is in limited supply within the scientific
community. In addition, despite much discussion over the years
among atmospheric scientists, there has been no broad acceptance,
within either the scientific or regulatory communities, of any
single relative reactivity scale that could be used to make
reliable predictions of the ozone forming potential of specific
VOC. One reason that reliable predictions are difficult is that
the ozone-formation potential of an individual VOC species varies
depending on ambient conditions -- on an absolute scale, and
occasionally on a relative scale as well. Factors affecting
reactivity include ambient conditions such as VOC-to-NOx ratios,
the presence of other VOC, and sunlight intensity. Each of these
factors can vary widely. These facts all support EPA's
conclusion that at this time uncertainties, inconsistencies, and
lack of reactivity data on individual compounds preclude a more
detailed determination of the potential of consumer and
2-75
-------
commercial products to contribute to ozone nonattainment of the
type demanded by the commenters. The EPA does not believe that
Congress intended the Agency to characterize the reactivity of
each and every one of the myriad of VOC compounds found in
consumer and commercial products within the limited time provided
by the Act. In addition, since the study and report to Congress
was in part a screening exercise to identify EPA's priorities for
regulating categories of consumer and commercial products, it
would not seem reasonable to delay initiation of regulatory
development efforts to complete extensive reactivity testing.
The EPA believes that Congress could not have intended EPA to
delay regulation of VOC emissions from consumer and commercial
products until it had complete data on each of the approximately
2,300 VOC species found in household consumer products alone.
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, nothing in
section 183(e) of the Act requires EPA to consider the relative
reactivity of each and every specific compound found in consumer
or commercial products. However, establishing the list of
classes of compounds which EPA considers to be "highly reactive"
required a comparison of the reactivity among specific compounds
found in consumer and commercial products and, as noted earlier,
EPA made a compound-specific relative reactivity adjustment for
known quantities of highly reactive compounds. In this sense,
although more limited than suggested by the commenter, EPA
included consideration of relative reactivity in the
section 183(e) study and report to Congress.
With regard to the commenter's specific assertion that EPA
should have reported on the relative reactivities of those
coating categories containing mineral spirits and those
categories containing glycol compounds, this was a detailed
reactivity analysis that was not undertaken by the Agency due to
the uncertainties previously discussed with regard to reactivity
data. In this case, mineral spirits is a complex mixture of
various petroleum fractions. The composition of mineral spirits
varies with both feedstock (crude oil) and distillation end
2-76
-------
point. As a further complication, feedstock often varies by
manufacturer, area of the country as well as time of year. With
regards to glycol compounds, the four most common solvents in
water-based coatings were identified by Censullo (docket A-94-65,
item IV-J-6) as Texanol®, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol
butyl ether, and ethylene glycol. This agrees substantially with
Harley, et al, (docket A-94-65, item IV-J-3) who reported that
the principal organic cosolvents in water-borne coatings are
ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and a variety of glycol ethers
and esters. Although these compounds require further reactivity
assessment, preliminary data by Carter, et.al., (docket A-94-65,
item IV-J-9) found that propylene glycol produces ozone. Thus,
propylene glycol is too reactive to be exempted from regulation
as a VOC ozone precursor under the criteria presently used by the
EPA. However, propylene glycol cannot be classified as highly
reactive because propylene glycol does not produce significantly
more ozone as emissions of all other VOC equally, under most
atmospheric conditions.
Concerning the allegation that xylene is used in some low
VOC paints instead of mineral spirits, EPA already considered in
the inventory the amount of xylene used in paints. For the
ranking process, EPA considered xylene a highly reactive VOC and
adjusted the emission inventory for architectural coatings for
the amount of xylene used. Also, because xylene is a HAP listed
for regulation under Section 112 of the Act, the EPA expects
manufacturers to decrease the use of xylene in formulations.
Lastly, the Report and listing of consumer and commercial
product categories for regulation are not final agency actions.
As more complete information on the relative reactivity of
consumer and commercial product VOC is developed, it can be
incorporated into the regulatory program. For example, as a
result of the recent delisting of acetone as a VOC
(characterization of acetone as "negligibly photochemically
reactive" under the definition of VOC), EPA plans to move the
category of aerosol spray paints from the first grouping of
2-77
-------
consumer and commercial products to be regulated (i.e.,
regulation required by March 1997) due to the high proportion of
acetone found in these products. The EPA believes that this
flexibility allows for improvements in the regulatory approach
taken by the Agency if supported by additional technical
information developed in connection with each rule.
With regard to the judicial precedents cited by the
commenters, EPA has concluded that the commenters are mistaken.
One commenter cited NRDC v. Train. 411 F.Supp. 864
(S.D.N.Y. 1976), in support of its argument that lack of data is
not a sufficient basis for the Agency's alleged failure to
consider reactivity in accordance with section 183(e) of the Act.
The EPA notes that the NRDC decision turned upon a very specific
provision of the Act, not at issue here, which required EPA to
list lead as a pollutant. The commenters have cited a decision
concerning EPA's reticence to take an action because of lack of
data. The EPA lost the NRDC case because the express statutory
language did not acknowledge lack of data as a basis for refusal
to list lead as a pollutant. Here, however, EPA has concluded
that Congress could not have intended for EPA to refuse to
regulate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products
absent complete, absolute, unequivocal scientific and modeling
data regarding reactivity. In other words, EPA has chosen to act
despite what the commenters portray as inadequate data concerning
reactivity, and thus has acted in accordance with the NRDC
decision.
The EPA presumes that the commenters cited NRDC v. Train
because they contend that EPA cannot refuse to perform the
reactivity assessments advocated by the commenters based upon
lack of data, which in part result from inadequate resources and
time to produce perfect information. As discussed earlier in
this response, EPA does not believe that section 183(e) of the
Act in fact requires the type of reactivity assessment demanded
by the commenters. The EPA has concluded that both the statutory
language and the limited legislative history indicate that
2-78
-------
Congress intended EPA to take relative reactivity of VOC into
account in the manner that the Agency determined was reasonable
under the circumstances.
The commenters have also cited Sierra Club v. Gorsuch. 55,
F.Supp. 785 (N.D. Cal. 1982), and American Lung Assn. v. Browner.
884 F.Supp. 345 (D. Ariz. 1994), because they ostensibly support
the commenters' argument that EPA cannot point to inadequate time
as a basis for refusal to perform the reactivity assessments
demanded by the commenters. The EPA notes that reliance upon
these cases for the proposition that EPA has a "heavy burden" to
demonstrate that a certain action is not possible is
inappropriate. Both cases involved deadline suits to force the
Agency to take an action by a specific date. In assessing the
Agency's need for additional time, the courts have indicated that
EPA bears a burden to show why it is entitled to more time than
Congress allotted. This point is irrelevant to the argument made
by EPA which is that one reason Congress cannot have intended the
type of reactivity assessment demanded by the commenters is that
it would be impossible to accomplish within the timeframe
allocated by Congress, thereby confirming that EPA's
interpretation of section 183(e) of the Act regarding reactivity
is more appropriate. Moreover, the commenter's reference to the
cases to suggest that there is a "higher burden" for the Agency
to overcome in this context is misleading and incorrect. As
described earlier, EPA believes that it has performed the
reactivity assessment in accordance with the requirements of
section 183(e) of the Act.
Finally, the commenters cited Weyerhauser v. Costle.
598 F.2d 1011 (B.C. Cir. 1978) and BASF Wyandotte Corp v. Costle.
598 F.2d 637 (1st Cir. 1979), ostensibly in support of their
contention that section 183(e) of the Act obligates EPA to
compare the relative reactivities of all VOC species before it
can regulate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products.
The EPA presumes that the commenters mean to compare the
distinction between the different types of statutory factors at
2-79
-------
issue in those decisions to the different factors in
section 183(e) of the Act.
The EPA disagrees that these decisions should alter the
Agency's interpretation of section 183(e) of the Act. The cases
dealt with different statutes with markedly different provisions
and are therefore clearly distinguishable. More importantly,
however, EPA believes that the decision in the Weyerhauser case,
to the extent that it is relevant, in fact supports EPA's
contention that Congress intended to grant the Agency discretion
to develop the criteria for product listing and regulation based
upon appropriate consideration of the factors enumerated in
section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The factors in that section are
analogous to the "consideration factors" discussed in Weyerhauser
and thus, by analogy, EPA is not required to apply such standards
except as it deems appropriate. As discussed more fully earlier
in this response, EPA believes that it has taken into
consideration the relative reactivity of VOC species to the
extent practicable and appropriate, in conformity with the
statutory provisions of section 183(e) of the Act.
2.2.1.2 Determination of Reactivity
Comment: Some commenters (AIM-IV-F-ld, CP-IV-D-35,
AIM-IV-D-212, AR-IV-F-1) cited an article titled "Urban Ozone
Control and Atmospheric Reactivity of Organic Gases" (Russell
et al., [docket number CP-IV-D-35r/AIM-IV-D-212p6L]). According
to the commenters, this article reported that characteristic
reactivities of individual VOC could be known with confidence by
applying sophisticated computer modeling techniques. The
reported research also quantified variability and uncertainties
in reactivity estimates using advanced computer modeling
techniques and basic engineering assumptions. The article also
addressed typical concerns and criticisms of reactivity
weighting: the variation of specific reactivities with location
as a result of changing atmospheric conditions and the effects of
uncertainties in the chemical mechanisms employed.
2-80
-------
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) also questioned EPA's reason
for not considering relative reactivity (that existing data and
methods have "uncertainties" and "limitations" and that
additional data could be obtained "only at great expense") given
that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) uses a
reactivity-based control strategy to implement its clean fuel/low
emissions vehicle regulations.
One commenter (CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) requested the
formation of a reactivity scale that acknowledged that some
compounds increase ozone (positive reactivity values) while other
compounds reduce ozone (negative reactivity values) or have no
affect on ozone formation at all (neutral values). Another
commenter (AIM-IV-D-178) stated that the costs of obtaining data
to determine relative photochemical reactivity would be worth
incurring.
Response: Since the study and report to Congress were in
part a screening exercise to identify EPA's priorities for
regulating categories of consumer and commercial products, EPA
judged that the consideration of relative reactivity should be
limited to currently available data and should not involve
exhaustive testing of relative reactivities of all consumer and
commercial products. The reasons that the EPA did not use any of
the methods or approaches suggested by the commenters are
summarized below.
The EPA agrees that the modeling method cited in the article
by Russell et al. is available and that this type of method is
the most credible of the methods now in existence for use in
estimating the reactivity of a VOC species. However, this method
can be used to estimate the reactivity of a VOC species only if
the atmospheric chemistry of the VOC species is known. As
discussed in detail in section 2.2.1.1, there is an enormously
large diversity of VOC species emitted by consumer and commercial
products and some products are VOC mixtures of unspecified
composition. Furthermore, existing reactivity data on VOC are
incomplete or uncertain, especially for those compounds used to
2-81
-------
formulate consumer and commercial products. Based on these
limitations, it appears that the method reported by Russell et al
can be used on, roughly, only one half of the consumer and
commercial product VOC species. This limitation is one of the
bases for EPA's conclusion that the uncertainties,
inconsistencies, and lack of reactivity data on hundreds of
individual compounds in consumer products preclude the Agency
from performing the type of reactivity determination advocated by
the commenters.
In addition, computer models generally use chemical
mechanisms which "lump" chemical species into groups or otherwise
treat chemistry in some sort of aggregated fashion. For example,
the widely used carbon bond four (CB-4) mechanism treats VOC
chemistry according to types of chemical bonds present in organic
compounds. Chemical species are characterized according to the
mix of bonds found in each species. In the computer model,
emissions (of each species) are aggregated for each bond type.
This aggregation winds up combining many species and source
categories. After the aggregation occurs, the chemistry of the
resulting mix is simulated. As a result, the modeling does not
provide a ready means for characterizing effects of reducing
emissions of an individual compound in a computer simulation.
Consequently, EPA believes that the model has limitations in its
use for evaluating the effects of reducing specific VOC emissions
from a particular source category.
The EPA agrees with the discussion by Russell et al
regarding uncertainties. However, their analysis, results, and
conclusions apply only to VOC species whose atmospheric
chemistry, and specifically the chemical pathway through which
the VOC molecule reacts in the atmosphere, is known. To further
explain, Russell et al. computed the reactivity uncertainties
from data on rate constant and product yield uncertainties for
all specific reaction steps that constitute the "pathway." The
pathway, however, is not known for many of the consumer and
commercial product VOC emission species. Thus, for these
2-82
-------
species, the uncertainties, obviously, will be much greater than
those reported by Russell et al.
With regard to the comment concerning CARB's use of a
reactivity-based control strategy to implement its clean fuel/low
emissions vehicle regulations, it should be noted that a long
history of research exists in the area of mobile source emissions
within California. Since mobile source emissions are fairly
well-characterized in terms of reactivity (i.e., reactivity
uncertainties, inconsistencies, and lack of data are not
prohibitive), the State of California is able to apply a
reactivity-based control strategy to implement its clean fuel/low
emissions vehicle regulations. Consumer and commercial product
VOC emissions, on the other hand, are relatively newly regulated
in areas of the country such as California and, as explained
previously, the emissions data have many uncertainties which
complicate the ability to use reactivity scales such as those
reported by Russell et al. .
Also, reactivity scales do exist and were considered by EPA.
Specifically, one of those scales, the one developed by
Dr. Carter, at the University of California, Riverside, and
widely cited in technical literature, was used by EPA to derive
the reactivity classification described in Chapter 3 of the
report to Congress.
As discussed above, EPA believes that it has adjusted for
relative reactivity reasonably and sufficiently to fulfill the
Congressional directive in section 183(e) of the Act. Because
Congress did not stipulate how EPA should perform this
adjustment, EPA concludes that Congress intended the Agency to
exercise its technical expertise to determine the requisite
adjustment for reactivity necessary to regulate consumer and
commercial products appropriately. The EPA does not believe that
Congress could have intended to delay regulation of VOC emissions
from consumer and commercial products indefinitely, pending
development of complete information regarding reactivity for all
individual species of VOC.
2-83
-------
Comment: One commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5) contesting EPA's identification of
highly reactive VOC. Specifically, the commenter contended that
there are highly reactive VOC in nature (e.g., isoprene) that
actually reduce ozone formation. According to the commenter,
many VOC react with ozone and result in a reduction in ozone
concentrations (here the commenter cites both the 1991 report
"Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air
Pollution", by The National Research Council/The National Academy
of Science, and "Scientific Basis of the VOC Reactivity Issues
Raised by Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990"
by Dr. Basil Dimitriades) .6/1- The commenter also noted that EPA
has acknowledged in the Report that the kQH method for measuring
reactivity does not reflect ozone potential for all VOC.
Additionally, this commenter and another commenter
(AIM-IV-D-49, AIM-IV-D-177) claimed that the MIR and MOIR tests
are invalid for identifying highly reactive evaporative VOC
because they are conducted at levels of NOX, sunlight, and OH
which do not represent air at the border between attainment and
nonattainment.
These commenters believe that section 183(e) requires
reactivity tests to be performed at the ozone NAAQS and at NOX
levels of 5 to 10 parts per billion, by volume (ppbv). The
commenter asserted that the MIR and MOIR tests were not valid for
determining which highly reactive VOC to reduce to meet the
requirements of section 183(e) of the Act. The commenter
explained that these tests were not performed under the same
conditions (in terms of NOX, sunlight, and OH) that existed when
air with low levels of NOX was at the border between attainment
and nonattainment.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-49) asserted that the VOC species'
reactivity and amount must be taken into consideration with the
amount of NOX in the environment when selecting the 80 percent of
VOC from consumer and commercial products on a reactivity
adjusted basis for the purposes of regulation. The commenter
2-84
-------
explained that the amount of NOX in the air directly affects the
VOC species reactivity; therefore, the amount of VOC alone is not
singularly relevant. The commenter contended that EPA did the
reactivity test at the wrong level of NOX, and, therefore,
reached the wrong conclusion and the wrong regulation.
Response: The EPA agrees that in atmospheric conditions
where NOX emissions are the limiting factor in ozone formation,
very reactive species of VOC, such as various olefins, can
actually react with ozone to reduce ozone levels somewhat.
However, the net destruction of ozone by these compounds only
occurs in environments where NOX is very low. In general, highly
reactive VOC have quite the opposite effect in urban environments
most typical of ozone nonattainment areas where there is ample
NOX, resulting in increases in ozone concentrations.
The EPA agrees that the kQH rate constants associated with
various compounds are not perfect indicators of the compounds'
relative ozone forming potential. As noted in section 2.3.2.1,
the reaction of a VOC species with a hydroxyl radical is
generally the first in a series of reactions which produce
organic radicals which, in turn, oxidize nitric oxide (NO) to
nitrogen dioxide (NC>2) • In some instances, products from the
reaction of a VOC species with OH are inert or do not participate
in subsequent reactions to convert NO to N02. Thus, there is not
a perfect correspondence between the reaction rate of OH with VOC
species and ozone produced. Nevertheless, it is usually a
reliable indicator of a compound's relative ozone forming
potential. Other approaches for characterizing reactivity, such
as the MIR or MOIR methods, circumvent this lack of coincidence
between kQH and relative ozone forming potential, by directly
measuring (or calculating) incremental changes in ozone
accompanying incremental changes in a test compound under a
defined set of environmental conditions.
The EPA generally uses kQH data in determining whether a
compound is "negligibly photochemically reactive" and therefore
excluded from the definition of VOC, and also uses MIR and MOIR
2-85
-------
information in this finding, as appropriate, to validate the
conclusion. In determining which compounds are "highly reactive"
for purposes of the section 183(e) study, EPA used MIR, MOIR and
kQH reactivity data as explained in 2.2.1.1.
The EPA believes that the MIR and MOIR tests are valid for
identifying the relatively most reactive VOC, under practically
all ambient conditions. The dependence of a compound's
reactivity on ambient conditions is strong for absolute
reactivity but not for relative reactivities. Because EPA used
methods based on relative reactivities to classify compounds as
highly reactive, EPA's reactivity classification is not dependent
on ambient conditions.
In addition, it should be noted that the MIR method, in
particular, is constructed to emphasize differences in the
relative reactivity of various test compounds. As such, it
overstates the importance of differences in reactivity in most
instances. This might tend to undercut an argument that a
particular compound should not be regulated based on its low
relative reactivity according to the MIR test.
Comment: A commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-212p5/CP-IV-D-35v) asking why the list of highly
reactive compounds excluded biogenic compounds like isoprene from
consumer and commercial products. The commenter wondered if EPA
has overlooked biogenic compounds or if EPA's exclusion of
biogenic compounds was based upon scientific data or a rationale
which EPA did not explain.
Response: Contrary to the commenter's claims, EPA's
classification of highly reactive compounds includes biogenic
compounds. As examples, consider the biogenic compounds
isoprene, formaldehyde, and the pinenes. In the Report, EPA
listed 10 classes of highly reactive compounds, including:
• nitrites,
• alkyl amines with less than eight carbon atoms,
• unsaturated esters,
2-86
-------
• furan,
• aldehydes with less than six carbons,
• poly-substituted naphthalene with less than 14 carbons,
• alkyl styrenes,
• polyalkyl benzenes,
• olefins with less than 10 carbons, and
• alkyl phenols.
Isoprene, which the commenter believed was excluded from the list
of highly reactive compounds, is a five carbon di-olefin and
would be included as a highly reactive compound because it is an
olefin with less than 10 carbons. Formaldehyde is an aldehyde
with less than six carbons so it would also be included as a
highly reactive compound. Pinenes, on the other hand, would not
be considered highly reactive by EPA's classification because
they are cyclic olefins with 10 carbon atoms.
2.2.1.3 Use of Relative Reactivity in Regulations
Comment: Four commenters submitted five documents
(CP-IV-D-35, AIM-IV-D-02, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-F-1[1], AR-IV-F-1)
informing EPA that establishment of a relative reactivity scale
would allow EPA to control specific VOC species, thereby
increasing the effectiveness of consumer and commercial product
regulations. The commenters cited an article by Russell et al.
(attached as CP-IV-D-35r/AIM-IV-D212a/AIM-IV-D-212p6L) that
according to the commenters advocated the refinement of current
VOC control strategies by controlling specific VOC species rather
than the whole class of VOC.6 The commenters claimed that the
article concluded that it was possible, more cost-effective, and
economically sound to base regulations on reactivity because the
reactivities of compounds differed significantly within a class.
One commenter (CP-IV-D-35, AIM-IV-D-212) further stated that the
article confirmed earlier statements of scientists who were
involved in the OTA report entitled, "Rethinking the Ozone
Problem".6 The commenter implied that EPA ignored using relative
2-87
-------
reactivity as a part of its regulatory strategy even though
regulations based on relative reactivity would be more
cost-effective. The commenter claimed that EPA disregarded the
overwhelming scientific consensus surrounding the relevance of
characteristic VOC reactivities in the production of smog. As a
result, the commenter contended that EPA will unnecessarily
regulate some manufacturers under the section 183(e) regulations.
In contrast, one commenter (AIM-IV-D-189) agreed that
knowing the relative photochemical reactivity of individual VOC
species is essential for a completely accurate determination of
the impact of VOC control strategies on ozone formation but
contended that EPA lacks sufficiently reliable information to
develop a national VOC control strategy on the basis of the
relative reactivity of VOC. Therefore, the commenter asserted
that EPA's approach to reduce mass of each VOC species in a
proportional manner without singling our particular VOC on the
basis of photochemical reactivity is not a serious objection to
any rules promulgated under section 183(e) of the Act especially
because section 183(e) of the Act only requires the Agency to
"consider" photochemical reactivity along with the four other
factors in developing consumer and commercial product
regulations.
Response: For the same reasons as discussed in
sections 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2 regarding EPA's consideration of
reactivity in the section 183(e) study and report to Congress,
the regulatory program under section 183(e) to date has not
considered regulatory strategies that differentiate control
requirements among different VOC species based on relative
reactivity. The EPA's response to points regarding the Russell
article are addressed in section 2.2.1.2.
The EPA disagrees that "Rethinking the Ozone Problem" states
that such regulations are feasible at this time.6 The committee
which prepared "Rethinking the Ozone Problem" was established to
evaluate scientific information relevant to precursors and
tropospheric formation of ozone and to recommend strategies and
2-88
-------
priorities for addressing the critical gaps in scientific
information necessary to help address the problem of high ozone
concentrations in the lower atmosphere. The committee was not
charged to evaluate and did not address the technologic,
economic, or sociologic implications of current or potential
ozone precursor control strategies. Thus, "Rethinking the Ozone
Problem" and EPA's response in the section 185(b) report to
Congress do not address the policy implications of promulgating
regulations based on controlling highly reactive VOC. Although
EPA agreed with the findings in "Rethinking the Ozone Problem",
this report did not have any findings regarding the economic
implications of reactivity-based VOC control strategies;
therefore, EPA could not have ignored implementing the report's
findings in this area.
Currently available speciated reactivity data are not
adequate to support the suggested regulations based on
substitution of lower reactivity VOC for higher reactivity VOC.
An analysis of whether such a system would result in more
efficient regulation would need to consider all costs associated
with implementing a speciated regulatory system (e.g. monitoring
and recordkeeping). Also, it would be necessary to consider the
ability of compounds to form ozone over a several-day period
under different sets of environmental conditions in designing
such an approach and considering its efficiency.
Finally, current EPA policy allows "negligibly
photochemically reactive" compounds to be exempted from
regulation. This involves showing that the compound is less
photochemically reactive than ethane. Anyone may petition EPA to
have a compound exempted from the VOC definition by submitting
data demonstrating that the compound has a negligible role in
tropospheric ozone formation. If a manufacturer can demonstrate
this finding, EPA may approve the petition and add the compound
to EPA's list of "exempt compounds" under the definition of VOC
in part 51 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations [51.100(s)]. In effect, the compound is exempt from
2-89
-------
regulation as a VOC. The EPA has exempted more than 100 VOC
species (42 compounds and 2 classes of compounds) under this
provision.
2.2.2 Potential Of Consumer And Commercial Product VOC To
Contribute To Ozone Nonattainment
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p/CP-IV-D-35n)
disagreed with EPA's conclusion that VOC from consumer and
commercial products contribute to ozone nonattainment. The
commenter acknowledged that VOC evaporate from paints and
coatings, but contended that VOC from paint and coatings do not
contribute to ozone nonattainment.
This commenter submitted two additional letters
(AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p3/CP-IV-D-35f) explaining that EPA's
Report set forth selective scientific assumptions to support the
Agency's determination that VOC from consumer and commercial
products have the potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment.
The commenter claimed that EPA should have started with the ozone
and ozone precursors found in pristine air and then established
what can be added to the air without exceeding the ozone
standard. The commenter contended that EPA would determine that
none of the man-made evaporative VOC found in consumer and
commercial products will contribute to the formation of ozone in
pristine air. One commenter in two letters (CP-IV-D-35k,
AIM-IV-D-212) claimed that "potential to contribute to ozone
nonattainment" should be defined as the amount of additional peak
ozone produced when the VOC from consumer and commercial products
are added to well-mixed pristine air.
This commenter also submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-212p4/CP-IV-D-35g) that asserted, after the commenter's
exhaustive research and communications with this nation's leading
atmospheric scientists, that the use of products that contain
evaporative VOC does not contribute to the exceedance of the
ozone NAAQS. Contrary to the Report, the commenter claimed that
many scientists within the Federal government and within academia
agree that evaporative VOC, like those found in paints and
2-90
-------
coatings, have little or no propensity to cause the exceedance of
the ozone NAAQS.
Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-30) asserted that regardless of
whether emissions of VOC are linked directly to ozone formation,
there is value in lowering the emission of VOC from all products.
The commenter noted that logic dictates that preservation of our
ecology is negatively impacted by the uncontrolled release of
excess amounts of VOC. This commenter thus advocated the
broadest possible interpretation of "potential" to contribute to
ozone nonattainment.
Response: The EPA has concluded that VOC from consumer and
commercial products do contribute to ozone formation in
nonattainment areas. Nonattainment areas are often in urban
centers where the atmosphere is VOC-limited. Addition of VOC to
VOC-limited atmospheres generally results in increased ozone
formation. Ozone formation mechanisms are insensitive to the VOC
source. Thus, any VOC emitted into a VOC-limited atmosphere may
contribute to ozone formation. As the commenter admitted, VOC
from paints and coatings evaporate and, thus, EPA believes that
they have the potential to enter the atmosphere and participate
in ozone-forming reactions.
Section 183(e) requires EPA to determine the potential of
VOC from consumer and commercial products to contribute to ozone
levels which violate the NAAQS for ozone. The EPA disagrees with
the commenter's interpretation that contribution to ozone levels
should be determined from a pristine environment, because it is
unrepresentative of the current situation. More information
about ozone formation and policy is discussed in section 2.3.2 of
this document. Section 183(e) of the Act did not instruct EPA to
calculate the "potential" to contribute to ozone attainment in a
vacuum, and EPA believes that it would be unreasonable to do so.
Congress enacted section 183(e) to remedy the endemic problem of
ozone and could not have intended EPA to ignore the existing
levels of ozone across the country when making this
determination.
2-91
-------
Although the commenter claimed that many scientists agree
that evaporative VOC do not contribute to ozone exceedances, the
commenter failed to provide the names of any of those scientists
or references to any publications or research which support the
commenter's claim. The EPA's scientists believe that VOC,
regardless of its source, will contribute to ozone nonattainment
in VOC-limited atmospheres.
Comment: Two commenters submitted four letters
(CP-IV-D-35k, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-177, AIM-IV-D-177a)
contending that adding VOC to ambient air will in fact reduce
ozone. One commenter in three letters (CP-IV-D-35k, CP-IV-D-35m,
AIM-IV-D-212) attached charts and illustrations to support the
contention that in almost all areas in the country, the addition
of VOC does not have the potential to contribute to ozone levels
that violate the NAAQS. The commenter claimed that the models
proved that the peak ozone level would go down with the addition
of the VOC from consumer and commercial products when starting
with air containing ozone at levels beneath the ozone NAAQS. The
commenter provided an example using Washington, B.C., that
purportedly showed that the peak ozone level would be reduced by
adding VOC from consumer and commercial products. The commenter
further contended that the addition of VOC to nonattainment air
would reduce peak ozone in almost all areas of the country except
in some severe and extreme nonattainment areas. On the other
hand, the commenter claimed that some severe and extreme
nonattainment areas are in nonattainment due primarily to NOX
emissions and could never achieve attainment by reducing VOC
emissions. The second commenter (AIM-IV-D-177) stated that
reducing VOC in attainment areas would increase the sensitivity
of the air to NOX contamination and thereby cause ozone NAAQS
violations to occur sooner than otherwise.
Response: While EPA acknowledges that some species of VOC
can reduce ozone, the reduction of ozone by VOC occurs in very
limited circumstances, that is, with only a small subset of
highly reactive VOC under specific meteorological conditions and
2-92
-------
in the presence of very low NOX concentrations. Thus, the
reduction of ozone by increasing VOC is a phenomenon that is not
widespread and certainly cannot form the basis for an ozone
control policy. In addition, there is ample modeling evidence
obtained by comparing predictions corresponding to base
1990 emissions to those with "base 2007 emissions" (reflecting
net effect of mandated regulations and growth) that decreasing
VOC emissions causes predicted ozone to decrease. The Ozone
Transport Assessment Group's (OTAG) modeling analyses in the
eastern U.S., modeling performed of Texas, and modeling of
various California locations all attest to this conclusion.
Ozone trend data also suggest reduced peak concentrations are
occurring. Since most of the regulatory effort to date has been
to reduce VOC, the ambient information tends to refute the
commenter's claims.
The following explanation clarifies the unique situation in
which addition of very reactive VOC can be expected to decrease
ozone concentrations. This phenomenon is expected to occur in
locations where NOX emissions are the limiting factor, which is
often the case in rural attainment areas. In this situation,
ozone is limited by availability of N02 to photo-dissociate in
the presence of sunlight. Further, other reactions involving the
organic radicals, besides reacting with NO to form N02, become
relatively more important. For example, very reactive species of
VOC, such as various olefins, can react with ozone. This
reaction can have the effect of actually reducing ozone levels
somewhat, as well as removing these VOC for possible use in
future ozone production where or when NOX is more plentiful.
Such very reactive VOC, however, are not expected to be used in
architectural coatings or most other consumer and commercial
products.
The notion that increasing "evaporative" VOC will reduce
ozone is based on an improper interpretation of the isopleth
diagram shown in the commenter's attached graphs 1 and 2. One
has only to compare predicted ozone levels obtained with and
2-93
-------
without biogenic emissions in the inventory to discount this
notion. For example, modeling simulations in which urban
biogenic VOC emissions are first included and then excluded from
the calculations generally indicate little effect of the biogenic
emissions on the predicted ozone levels. This result is expected
from the shape of the ozone isopleths at high VOC:NOX ratios
(Chameides et al, 1988,[docket A-94-65, item IV-J-22]).7
The commenter's argument about reactive VOC reductions
increasing the sensitivity of air to NOX is also based on a
misinterpretation of an isopleth diagram in the area where the
VOC:NOX ratio is very large. The commenter's contention is that
more NOX can be added to attainment air that contains high levels
of VOC and low levels of NOX without exceeding the ozone NAAQS.
This situation exists because in the diagram used by the
commenter, the ozone isopleth at low NOX concentration slopes
upward as the VOC concentration increases. Decreasing the VOC
content of attainment air with low NOX concentrations results in
the ozone NAAQS being exceeded by the addition of smaller
quantities of NOX. Using the example for Washington, B.C., the
commenter illustrates that at a VOC:NOX ratio of 225:1, almost
three times as much NOX could be added to the air without
exceeding the ozone NAAQS as at a VOC ratio of 150:1.
The slight upward slope of the ozone isopleths may be due to
reactions between ozone and some very reactive VOC species such
as limonene, isoprene, or propene. Olefins and other highly
reactive species are likely present in the urban mix assumed in
the figure. Some very reactive compounds may react with ozone to
decrease ozone concentrations especially at high VOC:NOX ratios.
However, EPA believes that this relatively unusual phenomenon is
no basis for a national ozone control strategy. Moreover, the
commenter contended that emissions from their product are not
very reactive. If so, this feature of the isopleth diagram is
not applicable to emissions from their products.
For the foregoing reasons, EPA disagrees with the
commenter's assertions that VOC emissions from consumer and
2-94
-------
commercial products are in some fashion good for the environment
or will negate violations of the ozone NAAQS. As detailed in the
Report and elsewhere in this document, EPA has concluded that
such emissions do contribute to ozone nonattainment.
Comment: Three commenters in six letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
CP-IV-D-35, CP-IV-D-35k, AIM-IV-D-177a, AIM-IV-214b/CP-IV-D-07b;
AIM-IV-D-214c) asserted that EPA failed to fulfill the
requirements of section 183(e) of the Act which require EPA to
consider the potential of consumer and commercial products to
contribute to ozone nonattainment. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c)
alleged that EPA failed to provide quantitative data
demonstrating ozone-forming potential for all VOC species
emissions associated with consumer and commercial products, EPA
failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between emissions of
individual VOC species and ozone nonattainment, EPA failed to
consider the effect of each VOC species in each airshed, and EPA
ignored factors such as the temperature or sunlight intensity in
each airshed. This commenter contended that EPA's statement in
the study and Report to Congress that a rigorous determination of
the potential of consumer and commercial products to contribute
to ozone nonattainment was not possible at that time is "invalid
as a matter of fact and law." This commenter also claimed that
EPA acknowledged that a complete characterization of the
reactivity of a VOC species can be obtained from several smog
chamber tests covering the range of VOC:NOX ratios, VOC
composition, and radiation conditions occurring in the various
nonattainment atmospheres. This commenter also claimed that "EPA
admits in the Report that it failed to perform its
nondiscretionary duty to determine the potential of each VOC
species to contribute to ozone nonattainment."
The commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) cited two cases (EOF v.
Browner. 1995 WL 91324 at 4; NRDC v. EPA. 695 F. Supp. 48, 54-55
[D.D.C. 1988] for the proposition that EPA must regulate each
species of VOC separately. The commenter also cited two
authorities for the proposition that EPA cannot issue regulations
2-95
-------
without sufficient causal relationship between the activity
regulated and the harm the Agency seeks to avert. (Rogers,
Environmental Law: Air and Water. § 3.2(B); ASARCO. Inc. v. EPA.
616 F. 2d 1153, 1162 [9th Cir. 1980]).
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6i/CP-IV-D-35j), claimed that
there were no scientific facts to support and justify the
proposed regulations for consumer and commercial products.
Specifically, the commenter claimed that there had not been a
determination sufficient to establish that VOC emitted from the
paint and coatings industry constituted a measurable and
identifiable factor in contributing to ozone exceedances in areas
classified as nonattainment.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters and
believes that the Report reflects EPA's proper consideration of
the potential of VOC emissions from consumer and commercial
products to contribute to ozone formation consistent with
section 183(e) of the Act. The EPA contends that ample evidence
exists that most VOC in consumer and commercial products have the
potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment. Most VOC
contribute to ozone formation in VOC limited atmospheres, such as
those above the center city sections of most urban areas. Most
consumer and commercial products emit VOC during their use.
Therefore, EPA reasonably concluded that VOC emitted from
consumer and commercial products will have the potential to
contribute to ozone formation, and thus to ozone nonattainment.
The commenters contended that the instruction to the Agency
to determine the "potential" of VOC emissions from consumer and
commercial products to contribute to ozone nonattainment requires
the Agency to ascertain whether each species of VOC, in each
product, in each airshed, will cause nonattainment. In so doing,
the commenters implied that the term "potential" in section
183(e)(2)(A)(i) necessarily connotes a special meaning beyond the
ordinary meaning of the word. The EPA notes that the term
"potential" is not defined in the statute, and therefore believes
that Congress intended the term "potential" to have its normal
2-96
-------
meaning of "having possibility, capability, or power." Thus, in
this context EPA was to determine if the VOC's from such products
have the possibility, capability, or power to contribute to ozone
nonattainment. In short, the question posed to the Agency we
"can" these emissions contribute to ozone nonattainment? As
noted above, EPA made this determination. Moreover, EPA notes
that the remainder of section 183(e)(2)(A) does not support the
reading advocated by the commenters. The initial portion of the
provision instructs the Agency to "conduct a study of the
emissions of volatile compounds into the ambient air from
consumer and commercial products (or any combination thereof)" in
order to make this determination. This statement does not direct
the Agency to make the determination on a VOC species by VOC
species basis, nor even on a product by product basis. In fact,
the inclusion of the parenthetical "(or any combination thereof)"
indicates that the Agency is authorized to make this
determination on an aggregated basis.
Although the commenters implied that EPA should have
determined the potential to contribute to ozone formation by
conducting smog chamber tests on all VOC species present in
consumer products, EPA contends that this procedure would be
costly, time consuming, and unnecessary for meeting the
requirements of section 183(e) of the Act, as described more
fully above in section 2.2.1. Such an analysis would require,
for example, substantial additional data on the types and
quantities of individual VOC in each product within the broad
universe of consumer and commercial products. To obtain this
information would have placed an additional burden upon
industries that EPA believes was not necessary for the listing
process. Also, studies to quantify the reactivity of a large
number of individual VOC species would have been required for
this analysis. In addition, many complexities make it difficult
to make reliable predictions of the ozone-forming potential of
individual VOC species. One reason is that this potential varies
depending on ambient conditions -- on an absolute scale, and
2-97
-------
occasionally on a relative scale as well. These conditions
affecting reactivity include ambient conditions such as VOC-to-
NOx ratios, the presence of other VOC, and sunlight intensity.
Each of these factors can vary widely. Also, in multiple day
pollution episodes in an area, a VOC species that has low
reactivity (based on a one-day reactivity scale) may continue to
form ozone over several days. Even if EPA could have obtained
the needed data and accounted for these complications, the
results would have been of limited utility. As noted elsewhere
in this BID, available computer models generally aggregate
chemical compounds or consider them as general categories. As a
result, models have limited use for evaluating the effects of
reducing emissions of specific VOC species from a particular
product category.
The EPA also disagrees with the commenters' use of the
judicial precedents regarding regulation of VOC on a
species-by-species basis and regarding the alleged insufficient
causal relationship between the activity regulated and the harm
the Agency seeks to avert. The EPA understands the commenters'
argument that EPA failed to demonstrate a relationship between
VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products and
exceedances of the ozone NAAQS to be that the commenters believe
that EPA should have done an analysis on the effect on ozone
concentrations on a per product and control strategy basis for
each area in the country. As explained in section 2.2.1 of this
document, EPA does not interpret section 183(e) of the Act to
require a species-by-species assessment of VOC and their
potential to contribute to ozone on an area by area basis. The
EPA believes that an intensive study to quantify each product's
effect on ozone levels in nonattainment areas is inconsistent
with Congress's intent in enacting the section 183(e) program.
Congress recognized that small quantities of VOC emissions from a
very large number of products add up -- and together make up a
significant portion of ozone-forming VOC emissions. Congress
2-98
-------
created the 183(e) program to reduce the aggregate VOC emissions
from consumer and commercial products. It is not necessary, even
if it were feasible, to quantify the effect of each product on
ozone levels in each nonattainment area to make a reasoned
selection of product categories to list for regulation. The EPA
believes that Congress could not have intended to require EPA to
postpone regulation of VOC emissions until such time as
information of the sort demanded by the commenters is available,
if ever. The EPA believes that the use of the phrase "potential
to contribute" to nonattainment was intended to avoid just this
sort of problem with demonstrating causal connection between a
given product and a particular episode of nonattainment in a
specific geographic location.
Finally, the EPA disagrees with the commenters'
characterizations of the statements in the study and Report to
Congress. The commenters quoted several statements from the
study and Report in which EPA acknowledged that there are
presently limitations in the data available and a lack of data on
individual compounds regarding the reactivity, and this
necessarily precluded a "rigorous" analysis of certain questions.
Contrary to the assertions of the commenters, these were not
admissions by the EPA that it had in some way failed to perform
the study as contemplated by section 183(e). Taken in proper
context, these statements were intended to inform the Congress of
the limitations imposed by the state of scientific knowledge
regarding certain points such as the reactivity of each of the
thousands of VOC species in consumer and commercial products.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the EPA had sufficient
information to make the requisite determination of the potential
to contribute to ozone nonattainment.
Comment: One commenter submitted two letters (CP-IV-D-35k,
AIM-IV-D-212) criticizing the reactivity scale method that EPA
used in the Report as one of two possible methods for accounting
for photochemical reactivity when determining the potential of
consumer and commercial product VOC to contribute to ozone
2-99
-------
nonattainment. The commenter alleged that the reactivity scale
method is inappropriate because it uses reactivity data that
reflect absolute ozone yields rather than changes in peak ozone
formation (incremented reactivity data).
In one letter, the commenter (CP-IV-D-35k) also criticized
the Air Quality Simulation Model Method that EPA used in the
Report as a method for determining the potential of VOC from
consumer and commercial products to contribute to ozone
nonattainment. The commenter alleged that the Air Quality
Simulation Model Method is inappropriate for determining
potential contribution to nonattainment because "EPA's Urban
Airshed Model computer model does not yet have usable validity
for all VOC reactivity... especially ... for low NOX
conditions..." which are the conditions at which the commenter
contends EPA should determine the potential to contribute to
ozone nonattainment.
In this same letter the commenter (CP-IV-D-35k) concluded
that EPA will not be able to determine potential contribution to
nonattainment using the two proposed methods and that a new
approach for determining potential, "peer-reviewed by this
nation's leading scientists," is necessary for this
determination.
Response: Neither the reactivity scale method nor the air
quality simulation method cited by the commenter as being
inappropriate was actually used by EPA in its determination of
which VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products have
the potential to contribute to ozone levels which violate the
ozone NAAQS. These two methods were discussed in the report to
Congress as being two possible methods. Rather, EPA studied
indicators of product categories' relative potential to form
ozone in conducting the commercial and consumer products study,
and considered those indicators in prioritizing and listing
product categories for regulation. Therefore, these criticisms
of the reactivity scale method and the air quality simulation
method are not applicable to EPA's determination.
2-100
-------
Although EPA did not use either of the two possible methods
described in the report to Congress, EPA would like to correct
several misrepresentations concerning these two methods. The
reactivity data are "incremental reactivity" (IR) data, and as
such, they do reflect change in peak ozone formation, as
explained by the developer of the IR concept, Dr. W. Carter, in
"Environmental Science and Technology."8
As discussed in section 2.3.2 of this document, EPA
disagrees with the commenter regarding the appropriateness of
EPA's computer model method to determine the potential of
consumer and commercial product VOC to contribute to ozone
nonattainment. The computer model method, while having
uncertainties, has been judged by peer reviewers to be a
state-of-the-art modeling method.
The EPA also contends that the approach for determining
potential to contribute to ozone that was presented in the Report
has been peer-reviewed by this nation's leading scientists. In
October of 1996, this approach was published as a technical paper
in the "Journal of Air and Waste Management Association."1
[docket A-94-65, item IV-J-8] As a published paper, it was
subjected to the same peer review policy as all other papers
submitted to this journal. The fact that, after meeting the peer
review requirements of the journal, it was published without
changes confirms its technical merit.
Comment: Two commenters in four letters (CP-IV-D-35k,
AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p5/CP-IV-D-35v, AIM-IV-D-177) expressed
concern with EPA's definition of potential to contribute to ozone
in the Report and in the article "Scientific Basis of the VOC
Reactivity Issues Raised by Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990" by EPA's Dr. Basil Dimitriades.!
This same commenter in another letter (AIM-IV-D-212p5/
CP-IV-D-35v) asserted that the definition of "potential" should
not include any and all VOC which could have a capability to form
ozone. The commenter claimed that this definition of "potential"
would mean that any insignificant amount of VOC, no matter how
2-101
-------
small, could be said to have some "potential" to form ozone which
the commenter believes to be incorrect. In the commenter's view,
potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment should be defined
to mean only the VOC which have the ability to cause ozone
nonattainment directly. For example, if only a small amount of
VOC is emitted from consumer and commercial products and a large
amount of VOC is emitted from biogenic sources and if the emitted
biogenic VOC are sufficient by themselves to cause ozone
nonattainment, then the commenter claimed that VOC from consumer
and commercial products do not have the "potential" to contribute
to ozone attainment.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention
that biogenic VOC have more potential to contribute to ozone
nonattainment than anthropogenic VOC simply because biogenic VOC
are present in larger quantities and that VOC from consumer and
commercial products therefore have no "potential" to contribute
to ozone nonattainment.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's view that the
potential to contribute to ozone nonattainment should be defined
to mean only the VOC which have the ability to cause ozone
nonattainment directly. The EPA believes that such an
interpretation is inconsistent with Congress's intent in enacting
the section 183(e) program. Congress recognized that small
quantities of VOC emissions from a very large number of products
add up -- and together make up a significant portion of ozone-
forming VOC emissions. Congress created the 183(e) program to
reduce the aggregate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial
products. Of the remaining uncontrolled emissions from VOC
sources, consumer and commercial products represent a significant
fraction of anthropogenic VOC emissions (28 percent). Consumer
and commercial products, therefore, are a significant source that
warrants regulation. The Agency believes that Congress expressly
recognized this significance when it directed EPA to regulate
VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products in
section 183(e) of the Act. The study the Agency conducted
2-102
-------
confirms this conclusion. The Agency believes that
section 183(e) of the Act explicitly directs EPA to assess the
"potential" of consumer and commercial product VOC to form ozone
and hence to contribute to violation of the ozone NAAQS, and that
its reading of this term is correct.
The EPA also notes that the fact that biogenic or other
sources of VOC may be present in larger quantities than consumer
and commercial product VOC in some circumstances does not
preclude consumer and commercial product VOC from contributing to
ozone nonattainment. Even if the ozone NAAQS could be exceeded
without the addition of consumer and commercial product VOC, EPA
considers consumer and commercial product VOC to have the
"potential" to contribute to ozone nonattainment when the
addition of consumer and commercial product VOC can cause ozone
formation to increase.
2.3 EPA'S REGULATORY STRATEGY
2.3.1 National Rule Versus Other Strategies
Issue Overview: This subsection provides a general summary
of the commenter's rationale and positions. Some commenters
questioned whether EPA is using the appropriate regulatory
strategy in its implementation of section 183(e) of the Act,
expressing the following concerns. First, commenters asserted
that existing control technology available to nonattainment areas
is all that is needed for many of these areas to reach
attainment. For this reason, they believe it is not necessary to
subject these areas as well as attainment areas to nationwide
requirements. Second, commenters asserted that if VOC regulation
is necessary, it should be done using a CTGa rather than a
national rule because national VOC controls would be ineffective.
""Although not specifically defined in the Act, a CTG is a
guidance document issued by EPA which, under section 182(b)(2) of
the Act, triggers a responsibility for States to submit
reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules for
stationary sources of VOC that are covered by the CTG as part of
their State Implementation Plans (SIP).
2-103
-------
The commenters argued that national rules would be ineffective
because the ozone problem is complex with ozone response to
precursor control varying from area to area, thereby requiring
varying controls in different areas of the country. Finally,
commenters asserted that even if national rules are developed,
section 183(e) of the Act does not provide EPA authority to
regulate attainment areas in addition to nonattainment areas.
2.3.1.1 Necessity of Additional National VOC Rules
Comment: One commenter submitted three documents
(AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D35t, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-49) asserting
that EPA should not issue regulations applicable to attainment
areas plus marginal and moderate nonattainment areas. The
commenter suggested that historical designation trends, a report
prepared by the OTA of the U.S. Congress, and the section 185(b)
report to Congress (attached in part as
CP-IV-D-35t3/CP-IV-D-35b/AIM-IV-D-212m/AIM-IV-D-212p6c) all
supported the argument that current nonattainment areas will
reach attainment under present regulations using existing
technology without additional regulations under section 183(e) of
the Act. The commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) noted that several
nonattainment regions were recently redesignated as attainment
areas (including the Bay Area Region in California). The
commenter stated that control of consumer and commercial products
was not necessary for these areas to achieve attainment because
the redesignation occurred under existing regulations.
Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-82) contended that there is no
health-based justification for controlling VOC emissions in
attainment areas and therefore, that VOC-content standards should
be limited to nonattainment areas and nationwide standards should
be precluded.
Response: The EPA agrees that the degree of VOC reductions
necessary to prevent exceedances of the ozone standard varies
regionally. However, it does not agree with the commenter's
conclusion that regulations applying to both attainment and
nonattainment areas under section 183(e) of the Act are
2-104
-------
unnecessary or inappropriate. To achieve effective control of
VOC emissions in nonattainment areas from consumer and commercial
products such as architectural coatings, automobile refinishing
products, and household consumer products, a nationwide
regulation targeting the manufacturers of these consumer and
commercial products is expected to be an effective and efficient
control strategy. A national rule which focuses on manufacturers
and importers is an effective approach for reducing emissions
from consumer and commercial products which are easily
transportable and widely distributed to consumers and contractors
for use in locations which vary from day to day. Although many
areas of the country are currently in attainment of the ozone
NAAQS, EPA believes that it has the authority under
section 183(e) of the Act to impose VOC requirements nationwide
to reduce emissions in nonattainment areas more effectively.
Although the commenter included the Bay Area Region in
California as an example of a nonattainment area that was able to
achieve attainment status without reductions from EPA's national
VOC rules, it should be noted that the Bay Area was redesignated
as an attainment area in June 1995 due to air quality gains
resulting from both regulatory and voluntary measures at the
Federal, State, and local levels. State and local rules in the
Bay Area already include VOC requirements on all three of the
sources for which EPA plans to issue national rules:
architectural coatings, automobile refinish coatings, and
household consumer products. The EPA notes that the State and
local rules include standards that are more stringent than those
set forth in the regulations developed by the Agency. Despite
these efforts, the Bay Area has experienced 43 exceedances and
17 violations of the 1 hour ozone standard since being
redesignated to attainment in June 1995. In December 1997, EPA
proposed to redesignate the Bay Area from attainment to
nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard because of these
violations.
2-105
-------
The EPA notes that many existing nonattainment areas have
identified the control of consumer and commercial products, such
as architectural coatings, automobile refinish coatings, and
household consumer products, in their strategies as an important
means to reduce VOC emissions to attain the ozone NAAQS. In
fact, the OTAG included in its June 1997 recommendations to EPA,
a recommendation that EPA continue to develop, adopt and
implement stringent national control measures that meet or exceed
emission reduction levels specified by OTAG.b In the case of
automobile refinish coating, consumer products, and architectural
coatings, the group recommended future control requirements in
the year 2003 to achieve reductions beyond those expected from
these rules in 1998.
2.3.1.2 Appropriateness of Additional National Volatile
Organic Compound Rules
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that EPA was
inconsistent to redesignate nonattainment areas that achieved the
ozone NAAQS as attainment areas and then to subject such areas to
national consumer and commercial product rules. By contrast,
another commenter (AIM-IV-D-32) noted that 10 years from now the
Portland, Oregon, area is expected to face further growth in the
emission of ozone precursors, and will need to develop a new
round of control measures for the following decade. The
commenter asserted that VOC reductions produced by Federal
control measures will reduce the demand for new local rules at
that time and will thus help alleviate ozone nonattainment in the
future.
Response: The EPA disagrees that it is inconsistent for the
Agency to require VOC reductions from products nationwide where
some of those products will be sold in attainment areas. As
explained in sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.5, a national rule which
bOTAG is a group made up of State, Federal, industry
organizations and environmental groups charged by EPA with
developing consensus recommendations regarding implementation of
the Act as amended in 1990 related to ground-level ozone problems
in the United States.
2-106
-------
focuses on manufacturers and importers is an effective approach
for reducing emissions from consumer and commercial products
which are easily transportable and widely distributed to
consumers and contractors for use in locations which vary from
day to day. A national rule helps to eliminate the potential
problem of noncompliant materials being transported into an area
with controls. A rule applicable only to selected areas would
thus cause significant enforcement problems as noted by one
commenter. It also helps to eliminate problems for manufacturers
in the tracking and distribution of products. Consequently, EPA
has determined that nationwide regulation of the manufacturers of
certain consumer and commercial products including automobile
refinish coatings, architectural coatings, and household consumer
products is the most effective and efficient regulatory strategy
to achieve reductions in VOC emissions from these categories of
products in nonattainment areas. As discussed elsewhere in this
BID, EPA has authority to regulate both nonattainment and
attainment areas (including recently redesignated areas) to
achieve these reductions under section 183(e) of the Act.
In addition, after nonattainment areas achieve attainment,
these areas must develop plans to demonstrate maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS over the long term. The EPA believes that the rules
designed to reduce ozone nonattainment will have the incidental
benefit of assisting areas that to maintain compliance with the
NAAQS. Maintenance of the ozone NAAQS may require additional
control measures, particularly as areas grow in population and in
economic prosperity. To accommodate growth, therefore, EPA
believes that additional controls of existing sources may be
necessary as well as requiring that emissions from new sources
are minimized. Since the VOC emissions from consumer and
commercial products are related to population, for areas to
remain in attainment as population increases, regulation of the
VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products may be
useful. The EPA agrees with the second commenter that these
rules will have the additional benefit of further reducing VOC
2-107
-------
emissions and hence the potential need for more ozone control
measures in the future in certain areas.
2.3.1.3 Use of Control Techniques Guidelines
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-177) stated that, if VOC
emissions from consumer and commercial products really did need
to be controlled, a CTG would be the only appropriate regulatory
solution. Another commenter (CP-IV-D-34) does not want national
rules or CTGs but Federal regulations that apply only to products
that contribute to ozone formation in ozone nonattainment areas.
Eight commenters (AIM-IV-D-33, AIM-IV-D-28, AIM-IV-D-93,
AIM-IV-D-161, AIM-IV-D-162, CP-IV-D-11, CP-IV-D-13, CP-IV-D-33)
expressed their support for national rules over a CTG approach.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-28) acknowledged that, under the national
rule, some manufacturers that distribute products exclusively
within an attainment area will encounter unintended regulatory
costs. However, three commenters (CP-IV-D-11, CP-IV-D-13,
CP-IV-D-33) stated that national rules are an effective way to
reduce VOC from the consumer products category. One commenter
(CP-IV-D-11) supported national rules because they enable the
control of VOC emissions in both attainment and nonattainment
areas. The latter commenter stated that issuing CTGs in lieu of
national regulations would require that States with ozone
nonattainment areas adopt minimum requirements for those specific
nonattainment areas. According to the commenter, this approach
would discourage States from implementing a statewide regulation
and would, therefore, result in fewer emission reductions.
Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-28, CP-IV-D-11) also pointed out
that recent meteorologic studies indicate that ozone precursor
emissions (i.e., VOC and NOX) in attainment areas contribute to
ozone exceedances in nonattainment areas and that this justifies
controlling VOC in both attainment and nonattainment areas. A
third commenter (AIM-IV-D-96) noted that national rules will aid
in reducing anthropogenic VOC emissions which are partially
responsible for ozone formation and the exceedance of the ozone
NAAQS across the country. This commenter also asserted that
2-108
-------
national rules will also help to reduce the amount of precursor
VOC transported from ozone attainment areas into nonattainment
areas throughout the country.
In addition, another commenter (AIM-IV-D-28) stressed that a
CTG approach would not preclude the use of "non-compliant"
products in nonattainment areas as well as a national rule and
therefore might not achieve any environmental gains. Another
commenter (AIM-IV-D-32) argued that a national rule would be more
effective than equivalent State or local measures because it
eliminates the problem of noncomplying materials leaking through
the boundary of an area with State or local controls.
One commenter (CP-IV-D-13) stated that a CTG is not an
effective way of adopting limits for consumer and commercial
products. Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-33) pointed out that a CTG
approach is more appropriate for high volume emitters which are
more likely to be found in nonattainment areas, and have easily
definable sources and processes.
One commenter (CP-IV-D-11) stated that a CTG-based approach
would also complicate both rule development and rule enforcement
as it is possible that each nonattainment area could adopt
slightly different regulations. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-162)
explained that many facility owners and manufacturers operate and
distribute in different States, and multiple CTGs would create
numerous compliance difficulties.
Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-28) stated that
distribution-based products, such as architectural coatings,
should be regulated on a national basis because under a CTG
approach national producers would have to maintain multiple
product lines and therefore would incur an unnecessary economic
burden. One commenter (CP-IV-D-13) also stated that national
rules would provide product manufacturers with consistent
regulatory requirements rather than relying on State-specific
interpretation of a CTG.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-161) preferred a national rule
because having multiple regulatory authorities with many
2-109
-------
variations of rules would produce needless complexity. To
maintain competitiveness in response to this array of
regulations, companies might be forced to offer different
formulations in different parts of the country. Because each
regulatory authority can modify the VOC content limits and
disrupt long term planning, companies would find it more
challenging to maintain an effective research and development
program. The commenter also explained that manufacturers cannot
always control where the product will ultimately be sold because
distribution from the manufacturer to the final sales location
frequently occurs through a central warehouse owned by a
distributor, chain, mass merchandiser, etc. For most
manufacturers control of the final destination of the product is
impossible. Thus, products can be shipped without a
manufacturer's knowledge into areas where the product does not
meet the local regulatory limit.
Another advantage of national rules, according to this
commenter (AIM-IV-D-161), is that for manufacturers and raw
material suppliers the financial return from research and
development activities is improved when those activities result
in products with potential for broad distribution throughout the
nation. For example, the commenter noted that in recent years
with the anticipation of a national architectural coatings rule,
raw material suppliers have been actively striving to provide
lower VOC alternative technologies for many of the higher VOC
traditional coatings and to solve the problems previously
associated with lower VOC technologies. These activities have
reduced the cost of lower VOC technologies for all manufacturers,
because the sales volume of low VOC technologies can now be
anticipated to be significantly higher.
The commenter (AIM-IV-D-161) also contended that adoption of
national rules will substantially reduce the costs associated
with complying with a large number of differing State and local
regulations. The commenter explained that State, regional, and
local districts hold meetings and workshops to discuss possible
2-110
-------
rules and amendments to existing rules which the regulated
community must participate in to provide a full input into the
regulatory process. Average cost for participating in one such
meeting with travel and manpower expense totaled can be as much
as $1,667. Each State, region, and district may have numerous
such meetings for each proposed rule or amendment. Even after
the rule development process, the commenter noted that there are
additional costs associated with informing local personnel and
customers of the rule provisions and impact. Expand this to
include numerous regulatory authorities throughout the country
plus all of the additional nonattainment areas which would need
to adopt a CTG and the costs of CTGs instead of national rules
can become enormous to each regulated company.
The commenter (AIM-IV-D-161) explained that the necessity to
develop and maintain inventory and distribution tracking systems
is a significant cost burden for manufactures. Because of the
complexity and variety of the rules adopted by numerous
regulatory authorities, manufacturers need complex computer
programs to manage the distribution of product. Such complex
management systems can cost between $250,000 and $500,000 and
require sophisticated computer expertise as well as constant data
management. As each new product is developed, it must be
evaluated for compliance with each of the regulatory requirements
throughout the country.
The commenter (AIM-IV-D-161) asserted that the cost burden
associated with complying with all of the different State and
local regulations can be reduced by adoption of national rules.
The commenter asserted that these costs will escalate
astronomically if EPA adopts a CTG because then each
nonattainment area will need to adopt a rule which frequently
results in rule variations and differences in rule
interpretations.
The commenter (AIM-IV-D-161) noted that complying with the
significant number of rule variations and variations in rule
interpretations throughout the country is a technical,
2-111
-------
administrative, and logistic problem. Adoption of CTGs will
continue and increase the complexity of this situation because
CTGs require each nonattainment area to formally adopt rules with
limits at least as stringent as the CTGs. During the adoption
process various areas may adopt rules with different variations
creating a complex situation requiring a complex and expensive
computer system and full-time staff dedicated to compliance
determinations to manage products. Smaller companies doing
business in multiple locations would be at a particular
disadvantage keeping informed and managing the informational
needs.
Response: In exercising its discretion to consider a CTG as
a regulatory alternative under section 183(e) of the Act, EPA
recognizes that its specific purpose is to reduce emissions of
VOC in ozone nonattainment areas and in some cases a CTG can be
substantially as effective as a national regulation, particularly
for some of the commercial products scheduled for regulation
under section 183(e)of the Act. In fact, in some instances, a
CTG may be more effective because it can target end users rather
than suppliers of the product and, therefore, can base emission
reductions on add-on control technologies, application equipment
specifications and work practice standards. A national rule, on
the other hand, is limited to requirements on the manufacturers,
processors, wholesale distributors, or importers of consumer or
commercial products and thus precludes many effective strategies
permissible with a CTG approach.
The EPA's position for establishing nationwide rules for
consumer products, automobile refinish coatings, and
architectural coatings rather than CTGs is summarized in
section 2.3.1.5 and its rationale is discussed in the notice of
final listing of these products (section II.C.2 of the notice).
For these types of consumer and commercial products, which are
highly transportable and are used in locations which vary from
day to day, EPA believes that regulations which target products
used solely in nonattainment areas, such as through a CTG or a
2-112
-------
Federal rule that only applies in nonattainment areas, will not
be as effective as a national regulation targeting all
manufacturers of all the products. This is because the
transportability of the products tends to decrease rule
effectiveness due to the likelihood of unregulated or "higher
VOC" products being bought in attainment areas and used in
nonattainment areas. In contrast, a national regulation that
applies to products in both attainment and nonattainment areas
could require modification of the products everywhere. The EPA
believes that this could prove critical to ensure effective
enforcement and implementation of VOC controls in all areas. For
consumer and commercial products used primarily by homeowners,
contractors, and a wide variety of other types of consumers,
effective enforcement of requirements for the product would be
much more difficult than for a national rule because of the
potential transport of products from attainment to nonattainment
areas. The EPA believes that it would be difficult and
inefficient to enforce a ban on the importation of noncomplying
products into nonattainment areas because of the easy
transportability of such products, limitations on enforcement
resources, and the sheer number of products involved.
Furthermore, as noted by several commenters and as discussed in
section 2.3.1.5 of this BID, the EPA believes that regulations
targeted only at nonattainment areas could impose significant
additional burdens upon regulated entities to achieve the goals
of section 183 (e). In addition, since the ability for a CTG to
require add-on controls, work practices, and equipment
specifications for architectural coatings and household consumer
products is limited or nonexistent, one of the key potential
advantages of a CTG approach would not be realized for these
product categories.
The EPA notes that a number of commenters raised points that
EPA considers valid but are not independently forming the basis
for the Agency's decision (e.g. desire to ensure ozone NAAQS
attainment nationwide, and the desire of manufacturers to have
2-113
-------
more uniform standards across the nation). The EPA considers
these incidental benefits that help provide additional
justification for the Agency's actions.
Comment: One commenter in two documents (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t) referred to the section 185(b) report
to Congress, which the commenter claimed demonstrated that a
nationally based control approach, N0x-only, VOC-only, or NOX and
VOC, was not likely to be an efficient means for reducing ozone
everywhere. The commenter acknowledged that the ozone problem
was complex, and response to precursor control could vary greatly
with each area. The commenter asserted that even EPA concluded
that national rules may not be productive in controlling ozone.
The commenter in three documents (AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35,
AIM-IV-F-ld) also cited findings of the Southern Oxidants Study
which indicated that in the South, VOC controls would be
ineffective and NOX controls would be more effective in
decreasing ozone. The commenter concluded that a "one size fits
all" rule is not appropriate if the goal was regulating only
those consumer and commercial product VOC emissions that
contribute to ozone levels which violate the ozone NAAQS.
The commenter (CP-IV-D-35m) stated that national VOC
controls are wrong scientifically and should not be promulgated.
The commenter in two documents (AIM-IV-F-ld, CP-IV-F-la) quoted
an EPA scientist (Dr. Basil Dimitriades) who raised questions
about national VOC control in an article in "Environmental Week"
(AIM-IV-D-212d). According to the commenter, the article stated
that regional or metropolitan ozone attainment strategies might
be more productive than nationwide strategies. According to the
commenter, Dr. Dimitriades based this statement on studies which
indicated that in some areas, and under certain conditions, NOX
control was more effective than VOC control.
Response: The commenter is correct that the section 185(b)
report to Congress noted that a nationally based control
approach, whether NOX only, VOC only, or combined VOC and NOX,
may not be an efficient approach for reducing ozone everywhere.
2-114
-------
This conclusion is not the same as saying that no national
regulations are appropriate. Rather, this conclusion means that
it would be inefficient for EPA to mandate control of VOC
everywhere to the exclusion of NOX, or vice versa. In addition,
it would be inefficient to limit control strategies to national
approaches since some regional or local controls may be more
beneficial. Extending the commenter's argument to its logical
conclusion would imply that the report suggests that national
emission standards for automobiles are not effective. This
suggestion is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from the
section 185(b) report to Congress since State-by-State regulation
of automobiles would complicate distribution and enforcement,
thereby creating problems for manufacturers, regulators, and
consumers.
It is also not appropriate to conclude from Dr. Dimitriades
remarks that national VOC rules are inappropriate.
Dr. Dimitriades remarks are correct that in some areas, and under
some circumstances, NOX control may be more effective than VOC
control and that regional or metropolitan strategies might be
more productive. As noted above, there are other factors that
influence the effectiveness of different control strategies.
Dr. Dimitriades remarks are premised on the assumption that the
regional or metropolitan strategies are not complicated by
transport of noncompliant materials or products from neighboring
areas and States. Consequently, decisions on control strategies
must also include consideration of practical enforceability of
different strategies as well as potential for creating
distribution problems for manufacturers and for consumers.
The EPA believes that a combination of Federal, State and
local measures is the best strategy for areas to achieve ozone
precursor reductions. In the case of consumer and commercial
products such as architectural coatings, State representatives
have recommended that EPA develop and implement Federal control
measures to augment their implementation plans. States recommend
national rules because they can supplement local programs and are
2-115
-------
critical to reducing compliance problems associated with
transport of noncompliant consumer and commercial products into
nonattainment areas from neighboring areas and neighboring
States. An added benefit is that Federal national rules save
State resources which then can be devoted to local regulatory
development efforts to reduce emissions which contribute to ozone
within a particular State.
As discussed in section 2.3.2, EPA believes that both VOC
and NOX control strategies are needed to help areas attain the
ozone NAAQS. Although there may be areas where VOC control is not
needed to attain the ozone NAAQS, section 183(e) of the Act gives
EPA the authority to establish national standards in both
attainment and nonattainment areas in order to more effectively
reduce those VOC emissions from commercial and consumer products
which occur in nonattainment areas.
2.3.1.4 Most of the Nation is Already in Attainment
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) alleged that it is
senseless to submit the entire nation to VOC emission reduction
rules for controlling ozone when most of the nation has already
attained the ozone standard. The commenter (AIM-IV-D-212)
referred to figure 1-1 on page 6 of the Office of Technology
Assessment report, "Catching Our Breath: Next Steps for Reducing
Urban Ozone."4 The map showed that the areas in the country that
were in attainment represented a greater portion of the nation
than those areas in nonattainment. The commenter concluded that
nonattainment was thus a regional and a local problem not a
national one. The commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) cited EPA's National
Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1990-1994, Report (Trends Report)
that reflected that of the total of 6,313,000 tons of emissions
from solvent utilization, 73 percent were emitted from sources in
only 17 States. The commenter contended that the Trends Report
indicated that sources in 16 States emit a very small amount of
solvents per year, and several States (e.g., Alaska and Hawaii)
did not have any sources of solvent emissions. Because only a
few areas of the country were affected by the VOC from consumer
2-116
-------
and commercial products, the commenter contended national rules
were not appropriate. Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-16) stated
that it was senseless for EPA to apply rules for achieving the
ozone NAAQS in areas that are already in attainment.
Response: The EPA maintains that it is appropriate for the
Agency to regulate VOC emissions from products sold in attainment
areas to reduce their potential to contribute to ozone
nonattainment and to protect the public health and welfare
generally. As of May 9, 1997, 90 areas are designated as ozone
nonattainment areas. These areas are located primarily in
Southern California, the Northeastern United States, and around
the Great Lakes. Although they comprise a small fraction of the
nation's total land mass, over 111 million people or 42 percent
of the nation's population live in these nonattainment areas. As
population increases and economic growth occurs, it is expected
that even more areas will be in need of VOC reductions to reach
attainment or to maintain attainment status.
As discussed in section 2.3.1.5 of this document, EPA has
authority to regulate manufacturers and distributors in both
attainment and nonattainment areas to ensure effectiveness of the
reductions achieved in nonattainment areas. In addition,
modeling often indicates high emission reduction targets may be
necessary to meet the ozone NAAQS in the nonattainment areas.
Some States have run out of effective control activities on the
local level and may require additional measures, including
national rules, to reach attainment.
Although the commenter claimed that the Trends Report
reported that several States (Alaska and Hawaii) had no VOC
emissions from solvent utilization, the emission estimates for
Alaska and Hawaii included only onroad vehicle and fossil-fuel
steam electric utility emissions. Rather than indicating no
emissions from solvent usage, the report indicated no data were
available for these two States. The Agency also believes that
the commenter missed the larger issues presented in the Trends
Report such as the continued persistence of ozone nonattainment,
2-117
-------
the number of people exposed to unacceptable levels of ozone, and
the serious health effects of exposure to excessive ozone.
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that to
impose regulations on attainment areas was inconsistent with the
economic and scientific facts. The commenter referred to
table 1-39 and figure 1-8 of The Rauch Guide to the U.S. Paint
Industry (AIM-IV-D-2121). The commenter concluded that areas
with a high volume of paint shipments and sales experienced a
high number of ozone exceedance days. The commenter stated that
60 percent of all paint shipment and sales occurred in 14 States
and more than 30 of the remaining States had little or no
involvement with the ozone problem. The commenter implied that
EPA should regulate paint VOC emissions only in the 14 States
where the bulk of paint shipment and sales occurred rather than
promulgating a national rule.
Response: The Rauch Guide cited by the commenter relates
shipments and sales to the locations where paint is manufactured
and not to the locations where paint is used. Section 183(e) of
the Act does not regulate emissions from the manufacturing of
architectural coatings or other consumer and commercial products,
rather, it targets emissions from the products themselves, since
the products will be introduced into commerce and therefore
potentially emit VOC in nonattainment areas. Therefore, the
location of manufacturing plants is irrelevant for purposes of
the regulations under this section.
Comment: Four commenters in five letters (AIM-IV-D-02,
AIM-IV-D-08, AIM-IV-D-26, AIM-IV-D-82, CP-IV-D-34) opposed
national rules for consumer and commercial products because they
would be costly and would impose an unnecessary burden on
consumers and businesses in attainment areas. Three commenters
in four letters (AIM-IV-D-02, AIM-IV-D-26, AIM-IV-D-82,
CP-IV-D-34) provided three examples of these costs and burdens.
The first commenter (AIM-IV-D-02) stated that a national rule
would place a formulation burden on hundreds of small businesses
that manufacture and sell consumer and commercial products only
2-118
-------
in attainment areas and, therefore, do not contribute to
exceedance of the ozone NAAQS. The second commenter
(AIM-IV-D-26) stated that consumers in attainment areas would be
forced to forego the benefits of lower cost, higher quality
products. The third commenter (AIM-IV-D-82, CP-IV-D-34)
submitted two letters contending that EPA has not fully
considered in recent rulemakings the impacts its rules have on
raw material producers selling raw materials in attainment areas.
The commenter (AIM-IV-D-82) cited the automotive refinishing rule
as an example. The second commenter (AIM-IV-D-26) also argued
that national rules benefit large manufacturers because of the
economy of scale derived from large judiciously located
manufacturing plants. For these reasons the commenters contended
that VOC-content standards for consumer and commercial products
should be limited to nonattainment areas and nationwide standards
should be precluded.
In contrast, three commenters (AIM-IV-D-30, AIM-IV-D-117,
CP-IV-F-lg) argued that national rules for consumer and
commercial products would be beneficial to everyone -- both
attainment and nonattainment States and both national and
regional manufacturers. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-30) stated that
a multitude of regulations, from individual States and on a
national basis, create an environment that made doing business
very difficult for a national or regional company. As a result,
the commenter urged EPA to include as many State concerns in its
rule making as possible. The commenter also noted that the
release of VOC is the same regardless of location and all
businesses should have to meet the same emission requirements.
Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-117) stated that timely and firm
action by EPA is needed to control emissions from architectural
coatings because State-by-State control in the Mid-Atlantic
region is ineffective and the ozone nonattainment areas in this
region cannot meet their attainment deadlines without strong
national rules in place.
2-119
-------
Response: The Agency believes that a national rule that
regulates products manufactured for sale and distribution in both
attainment and nonattainment areas is necessary to ensure the
reduction of VOC emissions from products that are easily
transportable and used by a wide variety of consumers in an
infinite number of locations, such as is the case with the
consumer products rule. The Agency's rationale for issuing
national rules is discussed in depth in section 2.3.1.5 of this
BID.
The EPA agrees that a single national regulation for a
category of products is preferable to a patch work of differing
regulations that will cause tracking and distribution problems
for regulated entities and will pose administrative and
enforcement problems for the Agency and for States. The EPA
notes, however, that some States may still exercise their option
to enact more stringent regulations to address more localized
ozone problems.
With respect to the specific comments on potential cost
impacts of rules, EPA disagrees that these factors raise issues
for consideration at the time of the Study. The EPA examines
the economic impacts of regulations at the time of rulemaking
because it is only at that point that it is possible to evaluate
such impacts. In this case, the commenter presupposed that there
are significant adverse economic impacts of any rule. The EPA
does not agree that it is possible to anticipate the economic
impacts and benefits of any rules issued under section 183 (e) of
the Act in advance of development of the rules. The EPA has
considered the economic impact of the proposed standards for the
automobile refinish coatings rule, the consumer products rule,
and the architectural coatings rule in the rulemakings on these
standards rather than in the study.
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) stated that in
applying the same regulations nationally, EPA failed to recognize
meteorological and climatic differences that may affect air
quality. The commenter used Southern California as an example.
2-120
-------
According to the commenter, Southern California has low wind
speeds, summertime maximum mixing height averages that are the
lowest in the U.S., and abundant sunshine. The commenter stated
that few other areas in the nation have similar geography and
meteorological conditions, yet EPA would impose the same rules
across the country even though emissions of ozone precursors vary
considerably among the major metropolitan areas.
Response: The EPA's goal in developing national rules for
certain categories of consumer and commercial products is to
control effectively emissions from these products in all
nonattainment areas. The Agency's goal is the same for the
entire nation, regardless of the local climate or meteorological
conditions of particular areas which helped contribute to their
nonattainment status. These factors entered into the Agency's
consideration of what constitutes "best available controls" or
"BAG." For example, EPA did not choose one of the options
considered for BAG for coatings in the automobile refinish
coatings rule due to limitations in drying times for certain
products in humid and cold areas of the country. More to the
point, EPA did not determine that BAG for architectural coatings
would be a rule equivalent to that necessary or appropriate only
for Southern California.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that certain areas of the
country may need more stringent air quality requirements that go
beyond current requirements at the national level. This is
already the case for requirements in Southern California for both
architectural coatings and automobile refinishing. For both of
these product categories, the SCAQMD of Southern California has
some of the most stringent VOC requirements in the country. The
success of those regulations at targeting VOC reductions and the
ability of manufacturers to meet those VOC limits are among the
factors that EPA has taken into account in the development of
national rules. The EPA did not, however, believe that
equivalent rules would be appropriate nationwide under current
BAG analysis.
2-121
-------
2.3.1.5 Authority to Regulate Attainment Areas
Comment: Five commenters in nine documents (CP-IV-D-35,
AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-82, AIM-IV-D-165, AIM-IV-D-08)
AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b, AIM-IV-D-214C,
CP-IV-F-la) stated that section 183(e) of the Act authorizes
regulation of VOC only in ozone nonattainment areas. The
commenters asserted that section 183(e) of the Act does not
authorize a national VOC emission standard. Two commenters
(AIM-IV-D-82, AIM-IV-D-212) stated that EPA misinterpreted the
Act and was authorized to issue CTGs or promulgate regulations
concerning VOC in consumer and commercial products applicable
only to nonattainment areas. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-82) stated
that if Congress intended section 183(e) of the Act to apply to
both attainment and nonattainment areas, it would not have
authorized EPA to use CTGs, which apply only to nonattainment
areas. Therefore, the commenter reasoned that EPA is precluded
from regulating emissions in attainment areas.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D35t) asserted that a
national rule to control architectural coatings was contrary to
the express language of section 183(e) of the Act, and contrary
to Congressional intent as well. Two commenters in three
documents (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D35t, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-49)
referred to the legislative debate pertaining to Senate
Conference Report 1630, as set forth in the Congressional Record,
which allegedly reflected that it was the intent of Congress that
these rules be applied only in nonattainment areas. The first
commenter in two documents (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212p6/
CP-IV-D-35t) asserted that the intent of Congress was to focus
primarily on areas classified as severe and extreme.
One commenter (CP-IV-D-34) questioned whether EPA has
authority under section 183(e) to regulate products in areas that
do not exceed the ozone NAAQS. The commenter stated that the
structure and language of the Act suggests that Congress intended
EPA to regulate consumer and commercial products that have an
impact on ozone nonattainment areas only. Another commenter
2-122
-------
(AIM-IV-D-08) urged EPA to evaluate other alternative methods to
control ozone in the noncompliant areas. The commenter preferred
regulations that applied only to nonattainment areas.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the conclusion of the
commenters that section 183(e) of the Act does not permit the
Agency to promulgate rules that apply to both attainment and
nonattainment areas. The EPA interprets section 183(e) of the
Act to permit the Agency to promulgate rules that apply
nationwide. The EPA bases this interpretation both upon the
statutory language of section 183(e), and upon the Congressional
directive to utilize any system or systems of regulation
necessary to achieve the appropriate reductions. In particular,
the EPA believes that the transportability of products and the
difficulties attendant upon tracking their ultimate place of use
compel the nationwide scope of the final rule for consumer
products, architectural coatings and automobile refinish
coatings.
First, the express statutory language of section 183(e) of
the Act does not preclude regulation of products in attainment
areas. To the contrary, in section 183(e)(2)(A) and
section 183(e)(3)(A)of the Act, Congress explicitly directed EPA
to examine VOC emissions "into the ambient air" without
restriction regarding whether such air was in attainment or
nonattainment areas. Moreover, EPA believes that no such
distinction between attainment and nonattainment areas is
appropriate because section 183(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act requires
EPA to assess the "potential to contribute" to ozone NAAQS
violations wherever they may occur. Although commenters argued
that the "potential to contribute" clause links the VOC emissions
only to those products used in nonattainment areas, EPA believes
that the language of the statute compels no such reading and that
it would be illogical given that VOC emissions in attainment
areas can contribute to nonattainment in adjoining nonattainment
areas.
2-123
-------
In section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act Congress also explicitly
granted EPA broad powers to reduce emissions into the ambient air
in order to combat ozone nonattainment. These powers provided
that to meet the objectives of section 183(e), EPA may "by
regulation, control or prohibit any activity, including the
manufacture or introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or
sale of any consumer or commercial product which results in
emission of [VOC] into the ambient air." In section 183(e)(4)
Congress explicitly provided that to meet the objectives of the
provision, EPA may "include any system or systems of regulation
as the Administrator may deem appropriate." The EPA believes
that Congress thereby granted the Agency discretion to determine
which measures would best obtain reductions, including
regulations, controls, or prohibitions, and to determine the
appropriate geographical scope for such measures to achieve the
goal of emissions reductions and ozone NAAQS attainment in
nonattainment areas. Inherent in this authority is the power to
determine that a national rule with nationwide applicability
across both attainment and nonattainment areas is the appropriate
means to obtain the requisite reductions.
In addition, section 183(e)(3)(A)of the Act expressly
directs EPA to promulgate regulations that "require best
available controls." In accordance with the definition of that
term in the statute, EPA is to consider "technological and
economic feasibility, health, environmental and energy impacts"
and is to consider, among other things, "the most effective
equipment, measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques"
to obtain the reductions. The EPA believes that it is reasonable
to conclude that Congress did not intend to preclude the Agency
from taking into account the relative effectiveness of the
available means to obtain reductions that would be applicable to
all areas or only to nonattainment areas, and to make its
determination as to the proper geographic scope of the rules
based upon appropriate factors. The EPA has determined that
national rules that apply nationwide to both attainment and
2-124
-------
nonattainment areas are the best available controls to insure
that reductions in VOC emissions occur for certain categories of
products.
The EPA has concluded that a national rule is the more
effective approach for reducing emissions from consumer products,
automobile refinish coatings and architectural coatings for the
following reasons. First, EPA believes that a national rule is
an appropriate means to deal with the issue of products that are,
by their nature, easily transported across area boundaries,
widely distributed, and widely used by varied types of end-users,
such as the general public and the building-trade contractors.
For many such products, the end user uses them in different
locations from day to day. Because the products themselves are
easily transportable, a national rule would preempt opportunities
for end-users to purchase such consumer and commercial products
in attainment areas and then use them in nonattainment areas,
thereby circumventing the regulations and undermining the
decrease in VOC emissions in nonattainment areas. The EPA,
therefore, believes that a national rule with applicability to
products regardless of where they are marketed is a reasonable
means to ensure that the regulations result in the requisite
degree of VOC emission reduction.
Second, EPA believes that rules applicable only in
nonattainment areas would be unnecessarily complex and burdensome
for many regulated entities to comply with and for the Agency to
administer. The potentially regulated entities under
section 183(e) are the manufacturers, processors, wholesale
distributors, or importers of consumer or commercial products.
The EPA believes that regulations that would differentiate
between products destined for attainment and nonattainment areas
should adequately insure that only compliant products go to
nonattainment areas. For such a rule to be effective, EPA
believes that this would necessitate requiring regulated entities
to track their products and control their distribution, sale, and
2-125
-------
ultimate destination for use to insure that only compliant
products go to nonattainment areas. The EPA notes that for
architectural coatings and consumer products, regulated entities
do not currently track or control distribution of their products
once they sell them to retail distributors. Although the EPA
recognizes that some product lines in some product categories may
only be distributed regionally in areas that are already in
attainment, the large majority of the product lines will be
distributed nationally. Regulations targeted only at
nonattainment areas could thus impose significant additional
burdens upon regulated entities to achieve the goals of
section 183 (e) .
By comparison, existing State regulations in some instances
permit regulation not only of the types of entities which are
regulated under section 183(e) of the Act, but also a broader
range of entities including retail distributors and end users.
Given the limitations of section 183(e) as to regulated entities,
EPA believes that regulations applicable to both attainment areas
and nonattainment areas is a reasonable means to ensure use of
complying products where necessary, while avoiding potentially
burdensome impacts and less reliable mechanisms to achieve the
goals of section 183(e). Several of the trade associations of
the industries for whom EPA has proposed national rules
(i.e., architectural coatings, consumer products and automobile
refinish coatings) have supported national rules that apply to
all areas as the most efficient regulatory mechanism from the
perspective of marketing and distribution of products. The EPA's
consideration of this factor, however, is not meant to imply that
it would be inappropriate for States to develop more stringent
levels of controls where necessary to attain the ozone standard.
Instead, the national standard is expected to reduce the number
of States needing to develop separate rules for these categories.
Third, the EPA believes that national rules with
nationwide applicability may help to mitigate the impact of ozone
and ozone precursor transport across some area boundaries.
2-126
-------
Recent modeling performed by OTAG and others suggests that in
some circumstances VOCs emitted outside nonattainment area
boundaries can contribute to ozone pollution in nonattainment
areas -- for example, by traveling relatively short distances
into neighboring nonattainment areas. The EPA has recognized the
potential for VOC transport in the December 29, 1997, Guidance
for Implementing the 1-hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS
concerning credit for VOC emission reductions towards rate of
progress requirements (see docket A-94-65, item IV-B-5). The
guidance indicates that the EPA may give credit for VOC
reductions within 100 kilometers of nonattainment areas. In
addition, the June 1997 recommendations made by OTAG supported
the EPA's use of VOC regulations that apply to both nonattainment
and attainment areas to implement section 183(e) of the Act for
certain products. The particular product categories OTAG cited
for national VOC regulations are automobile refinish coatings,
consumer products, and architectural coatings. The EPA believes
that regulation of products in attainment areas is necessary to
mitigate VOC emissions that have the potential to contribute to
ozone nonattainment in accordance with section 183(e) of the Act.
The EPA notes that some commenters asserted that one clause
in section 183(e)(3)(A) of the Act compels the conclusion that
Congress intended EPA to regulate consumer and commercial
products only in nonattainment areas. That subsection of the Act
instructs EPA to list the products that account for 80 percent of
the VOC emissions "from consumer or commercial products in areas
that violate the NAAQS for ozone." The EPA believes that this
clause pertains not to the scope of the regulations that EPA may
choose to impose, but rather to the listing process itself.
Thus, EPA believes that this provision of the statute requires
the Agency to regulate the categories of products that account
for 80 percent of the VOC emissions in nonattainment areas, but
does not necessarily control whether EPA is to regulate such
products only in nonattainment areas. Because EPA has otherwise
2-127
-------
determined that a national rule with applicability in both
attainment and nonattainment areas is the best means to obtain
necessary VOC emission reductions intended by Congress, the
Agency believes that the language in question does not preclude
that strategy.
Finally, the arguments in this section supporting EPA's
authority and rationale for regulating both nonattainment and
attainment areas under section 183(e) of the Act are not intended
to imply that EPA would not consider using its discretion to
develop a CTG for a category in lieu of a regulation. The EPA
recognizes that characteristics of distribution and use will vary
among categories of products. Therefore, EPA intends to use its
discretion to determine the most efficient and effective mode of
regulation for each of the categories under section 183(e) of the
Act.
Comment: One commenter (CP-IV-D-35) contended that by
promising States a SIP emission reduction credit based on the
forthcoming national regulation of consumer products, EPA may be
forcing States to include the regulation of VOC from consumer
products in their SIP plans with no consideration of whether or
not VOC reductions from those products were necessary for that
State to attain the ozone NAAQS.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion
that promulgation of national rules will "force" States to
include consumer product regulations in their SIPs in order to
get credit. States have theoption to seek SIP credit for VOC
emission reductions within their jurisdictions. Each state's
plans contain different assortments of measures to achieve the
emission reduction goal that is designed to achieve the NAAQS or
to maintain good air quality. These measures may include state
or local requirements as well as federally implemented programs,
such as standards for motor vehicles.
Since several section 183 (e) rules will be federally
implemented and were initially expected to be finalized prior to
1996, EPA provided guidance to the states that in their SIP plans
2-128
-------
they could "take credit" for the amount of reductions projected
to be attributable to the nationwide rules. The EPA anticipates
that many States with nonattainment areas will claim credit for
the VOC emission reductions that will result from the
regulations. For example, 14 states are currently relying on
anticipated reductions in architectural coating VOC emissions
from EPA's national rule in their rate-of-progress plans. The
EPA notes that nothing in section 183(e) of the Act precludes a
State from enacting its own more stringent consumer product
regulations and from seeking additional SIP credit for any
resulting reductions. Some states, such as California, may need
to implement more stringent standards to meet their air quality
goals.
2.3.1.6 Role of National Rules in Achieving Uniform
Regulation
Comment: One commenter agreed that although uniform
commerce was a desirable goal, the commenter (AIM-IV-D-49)
asserted that the proposed architectural coating regulations
would not achieve uniform regulation across the States. Another
commenter (AIM-IV-D-96) noted that legal problems could develop
if States repealed their rules in favor of national rules that
were less stringent than the State rules. The Act contains
provisions that prohibit rolling back implemented control
programs. As a result, portions of current State programs that
are more stringent than those in national rules, are likely to
remain in effect. Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) quoted from
the 1990 Act Leg. Hist. (1177, 1268) to support the position that
Congress viewed national uniformity as a government aspiration
but not a legislative mandate. Two commenters in three documents
(CP-IV-D-35, CP-IV-F-la, AR-IV-F-1) stated that the goal of
section 183(e) of the Act was preventing the exceedance of the
ozone standard and not national uniformity in VOC regulations.
Both commenters (CP-IV-D-35, AR-IV-F-1) argued that uniformity
could be addressed through the State administration and State
consultation provisions of section 183(e)of the Act.
2-129
-------
Four commenters (AIM-IV-D-189, AIM-IV-F-lo, AIM-IV-D-185,
AIM-IV-F-lk) supported a uniform national rule instead of local
or regional regulation of ozone nonattainment areas only.
Several commenters (CP-IV-D-10, CP-IV-D-40, CP-IV-D-42,
CP-IV-D-44 to 46, CP-IV-D-48 to 56, CP-IV-F-lg, CP-IV-F-lk)
stated that national rules bring consistency between State
requirements and this consistency eases the burden on interstate
commerce and reduces the difficulty of complying with different
State and local regulations.
Twelve commenters (CP-IV-D-01, CP-IV-D-02, CP-IV-D-04,
CP-IV-D-06, CP-IV-D-42, CP-IV-D-46, CP-IV-D-48 to 51, CP-IV-D-53,
CP-IV-F-lj) stated that national rules ensure consistency in
product formulations throughout the country. According to these
commenters, national rules are more cost-effective for the
manufacturers who will not need to develop multiple formulations
for all their products to meet each state regulation. One
commenter (AIM-IV-D-08) acknowledged that national rules bring
some consistency to product formulation, labeling, and marketing
and contended that national rules will not completely eliminate
the problem because some State will maintain their own rules that
may be more stringent than the national rules. The commenter
contended that the costs for compliance under national rules will
increase because there will be more products regulated than under
existing State regulations.
Three commenters (AIM-IV-D-189, AIM-IV-F-lo, AIM-IV-F-lk)
contended that a uniform national rule is consistent with
Congressional intent and that Congress recognized the benefits
associated with not disrupting interstate commerce with
conflicting State regulations. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-185)
stated that differing State standards clearly raised significant
barriers to interstate commerce and created logistical
difficulties for manufacturers. The commenter explained that
when a patchwork of standards evolves under State initiatives,
manufacturers need to produce different products for different
State and local markets. In addition, manufacturers need to make
2-130
-------
fundamental adjustments in the procurement of raw materials and
packaging materials, in the preparation of promotional literature
and bulletins, in production planning, and in notifications to
the trade of pricing and other changes. The commenter encouraged
expeditious action by EPA in finalizing the national
architectural coatings VOC rule to promote uniformity nationwide
and to relieve individual States of the need to develop unique
standards.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-189) urged States to follow the
procedures of section 183(e)(9) of the Act, which requires that
States first consult with EPA before developing rules that differ
from the national rule. The commenter stated that this language
is very broad and should be invoked if the State rule differed in
any way.
Response: The EPA agrees that the main purpose of rules
promulgated under section 183(e) of the Act is to reduce VOC
emissions effectively and efficiently in nonattainment areas
utilizing "best available controls." A side benefit of
regulations that apply both in attainment and nonattainment
areas, however, is that it promotes consistency in regulations,
thereby reducing the administrative burden of complying with
differing State standards. The EPA believes that the legislative
history indicates that uniformity was an issue that Congress
considered significant in its deliberations concerning
section 183(e), even if it did not explicitly direct the Agency
to ensure such uniformity. To date, consistency has already been
promoted because many States which intended to develop their own
regulations for categories of household consumer products as well
as architectural coatings have instead relied on the forthcoming
rules that apply nationwide. The EPA does not expect regulations
issued under section 183(e) of the Act to provide complete
uniformity in requirements across the country because some States
may need to implement more stringent standards to meet their air
quality goals. The consultation provisions of section 183(e)(9)
of the Act are designed to promote uniformity in such cases where
2-131
-------
States or local areas need to adopt requirements other than those
promulgated by EPA. This section requires EPA to maintain and
provide relevant information, studies, and regulations to any
State who requests it. This service is expected to help States
consider options for regulation which will be consistent with
those existing in other States or local subdivisions. With
regard to the commenters who raised the issue of states not
rolling back existing State rules that are more stringent, EPA
agrees that States cannot do so if there will be adverse
environmental effects. The EPA does not anticipate, however,
that areas with more stringent State rules will be encouraged to
revoke them because they will continue to desire the emission
reductions from such rules. The EPA anticipates that the
promulgation of national rules may, however, minimize the need
for additional States to enact consumer product rules.
2.3.2 Nitrogen Oxides Versus Volatile Organic Compounds
Emissions Control Strategies
Issue Overview: This subsection provides a general summary
of the commenters rationale and positions. Some commenters
argued that VOC alone do not have the potential to cause
exceedances of the ozone NAAQS and therefore, a Federal
regulation to reduce VOC emissions is not justified. Since NOX
is the source of all ozone in the ambient air, according to the
commenter any uniform Federal rules aimed at ozone abatement
should control NOX emissions, not VOC emissions from consumer and
commercial products.
The commenter justified this position by pointing out that
VOC alone in pristine air cannot form ozone. Ozone is formed
only where NOX is also present. Depending on the existing ratio
of VOC to NOX in local areas, the commenter asserted that
reducing VOC emissions can have a variety of effects on ozone.
Volatile organic compound emission reductions can increase ozone,
decrease ozone, or have no effect. Therefore, a control strategy
based on national emissions reductions of VOC will not be
uniformly effective and is not justified. If national reductions
2-132
-------
of precursor emissions are required by the Act, NOX should be the
target because all studies agree that substantial NOX emission
reductions will reduce ozone. The commenters argued that EPA
should examine recent data and studies available since the
enactment of the Act and conclude that VOC emissions from
consumer and commercial products do not have any significant
potential to contribute to ozone levels that violate the ozone
NAAQS. The technical arguments supporting this position are
included in the comments summarized in the following sections.
2.3.2.1 Control Strategy is Flawed: Nitrogen Oxide Control
is Needed to Reduce Ozone
Comment: Two commenters asserted in six letters
(AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212mm/ AIM-IV-D-212p6h/ CP-IV-D-35h/
CP-IV-D-35k3, AIM-IV-D-49, CP-IV-D-35k, CP-IV-D-35m,
AIM-IV-D-177) that EPA's strategy is to reduce the peak ozone
concentration by examining polluted air and determining the level
of precursor emissions that must be removed to achieve
attainment. The commenter argued that the only appropriate
interpretation of section 183(e) of the Act is to determine which
precursors can be added to pristine air and at what levels
without exceeding the ozone NAAQS. The commenter claimed that
this second interpretation would result in a N0x-only control
strategy. These two interpretations of section 183(e) of the Act
are referred to in the comments as the "two sciences" for ozone
regulation. As part of this argument, the commenter also stated
that EPA is ignoring findings of recent studies including
"Rethinking the Ozone Problem," "the Southern Oxidants Study"
(AIM-IV-D-212g), and "Ozone Precursor Relationships in the
Ambient Atmosphere."6/9
Two commenters in five letters (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-55,
AIM-IV-D-49, AIM-IV-D-155, CP-IV-D-35) claimed that the findings
and recommendations of "Rethinking the Ozone Problem" were
ignored by EPA. The authors questioned the effectiveness of a
VOC-only control strategy, stated that control of NOX may be
necessary, and discussed the importance of reactivity in ozone
2-133
-------
formation. Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) referred to
"Rethinking the Ozone Problem" which the commenter alleged
revealed that ozone exceedances were caused primarily, if not
exclusively, by NOX emissions, not VOC emissions.!0 One
commenter in three documents (AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35,
AIM-IV-F-ld) cited findings of the "Southern Oxidants Study" for
the proposition that NOX controls would be more effective in the
rural south, and in the south anthropogenic NOX had a greater
impact on formation of ozone than anthropogenic VOC.16
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) contended that EPA's policy
goal should be the control of NOX, not VOC. The commenter used
isopleth charts to illustrate that increasing the NOX
concentration caused the ozone concentration to increase.
According to the commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p/CP-IV-D-35n,
AIM-IV-D-212p4/CP-IV-D-35g, CP-IV-D-35m), in many areas of the
country, ozone attainment could only be reached through NOX
controls. A second commenter (AIM-IV-D-49) attached section 3.8
of the section 185(b) report to Congress which also noted the
necessity of NOX controls.
One commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-212k/AIM-IV-D-212mm/AIM-IV-D-212p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/
CP-IV-D-35k3) pointing out that according to charts from
"Rethinking the Ozone Problem" and "Ozone Precursor Relationships
in the Ambient Atmosphere," increasing NOX concentrations caused
the exceedance whereas changes in VOC concentration were almost
irrelevant.10/17 The commenter (AIM-IV-D-177a) cited a study by
Chameides, et al., which suggested that the level of NOX, not
VOC, determined the ozone levels in the world.17 The commenter
stated that almost all VOC incremental reactivity went to zero or
negative value at high levels of VOC and low levels of NOX.
A commenter (CP-IV-D-35m) stated that starting with
nonattainment air, an isopleth chart to determine which
precursors need to be removed to meet the ozone NAAQS showed:
(1) most reduction of NOX caused a decrease in peak ozone;
(2) sometimes the initial reduction in NOX caused an increase in
2-134
-------
peak ozone but additional decreases in NOX eventually caused
decreases in peak ozone and the direction was always toward true
attainment; (3) a decrease in peak ozone occurred for a decrease
in NOX on a national level; (4) benefits or cost were possible
for a national NOX rule; and (5) national NOX rules should be
promulgated.
One commenter (CP-IV-D-34) stated that EPA should consider
exempting products used in N0x-limited areas. The commenter
explained that N0x-limited areas are areas that have an
overabundance of VOC relative to NOX. The commenter explained
that NOX is needed with VOC in the presence of sunlight to
produce ozone. The commenter believes that in these areas the
additional VOC emissions do not have an appreciable impact on
ozone formation.
Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-115) referenced the 1991
National Research Council (NRC) study titled "Rethinking the
Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution," which
concluded that NOX emissions should be controlled in addition to,
or instead of VOC control.10 In light of this study, the
commenter stated that EPA should focus more on NOX reductions,
especially in nonattainment areas, instead of controlling VOC
emissions to unrealistic levels. The commenter predicted that
the current set of architectural coatings VOC regulations will
ultimately cause an increase in ground level ozone, instead of a
decrease.
Response: The EPA's ozone reduction strategy is to control
both NOX and VOC emissions. The EPA's policy is consistent with
recent scientific studies and with the Congressional mandate of
the Act as a whole in which Congress has directed the Agency to
combat ozone through measures directed at both VOC and NOX.
Ozone control is a complex problem that must consider a number of
local factors, including meteorological conditions, the relative
concentrations of NOX and VOC in the air, and the proximity of
emission sources to one another. The EPA recognizes that NOx
control is an effective means for reducing ozone. The EPA's
2-135
-------
policy also recognizes that VOC control, with or without NOx
control, is essential or beneficial in many areas for reducing
peak ozone concentrations. The EPA believes that the current
ozone policy is a scientifically valid strategy, and that the
commenters have mischaracterized EPA's ozone control policy and
the past results of the policy.
This group of comments focuses on the commenters'
interpretation of the roles of ozone precursors (VOC and NOX) in
the formation, accumulation, and transport of ozone and the
commenters' theory that there are "two sciences" for ozone
regulation. The EPA understands the conclusion of the comments
to be that because a control strategy based on VOC emission
reductions will not be uniformly effective, EPA should regulate
only NOX. The commenters premise these arguments on the fact
that, in many cases, reducing NOX rather than VOC emissions maybe
a more effective means for attaining the ozone NAAQS.
To address these arguments, outlined below is a discussion
of the roles of NOX and VOC in the chemistry leading to high
ozone concentrations and the role of meteorology and relative
location of sources in influencing mixing of VOC and NOX
emissions (and, therefore, the chemistry leading to ozone
formation). A discussion of the limitations on the use of
isopleth charts for determining control strategies is also
presented.
2.3.2.1.1 Roles of Nitrogen Oxides and Volatile Organic
Compounds in chemistry of ozone formation. Ozone (03) would be
present in the troposphere even in the absence of anthropogenic
NOX or VOC emissions. Its presence results from interchange with
the stratosphere, and is sustained by the chemical and physical
properties of ozone itself and the presence of other naturally
produced compounds. More specifically, ozone (like N02)
photolyzes in the presence of sunlight. In the presence of
naturally-occurring water vapor (H20), photolysis of ozone leads
to an equilibrium among ozone, water vapor and hydroxyl radicals
(OH). As shown in the subsequent discussion, OH play a crucial
2-136
-------
role in the accumulation of ozone to levels greater than the
level specified in the ozone NAAQS.
Introducing NO emissions to the atmosphere results in the NO
being oxidized to N02 by the following reaction:
NO + 03 = N02 (1)
Sunlight however, causes the resulting N02 to photodissociate
back into NO and 03.
N02 + (sunlight) = NO + 03 (2)
Photodissociation of N02 is a major potential source of ozone in
the troposphere. However, in the absence of VOC emissions, ozone
concentrations greater than the level specified in the ozone
NAAQS are unlikely. Instead, an equilibrium among 03, N02 and NO
exists as a result of the interaction of reactions (1) and (2).
For high ozone concentrations to occur, a third factor is
needed in addition to NOX emissions and sunlight. This factor
must serve as an alternate to reaction (1) for converting NO to
N02. Volatile organic compound emissions provide the means for
converting NO to N02 without using up the ozone formed in
reaction (2). This conversion occurs as a result of a series of
reactions, initiated by the reaction of VOC with OH.
VOC + OH = (Organic Radical Products) + More OH
+ (Other Products, e.g., formaldehyde) (3)
and
NO + (Organic Radical Products) = N02
+ (more Organic Radicals) (4)
+ (Other Products, e.g., nitrous acid)
The "organic radicals" shown on the right-hand side of composite
reactions (3) and (4) can, in subsequent reactions, form more OH.
The resulting OH drives reactions (3) and (4) through several
more cycles. In reactions (3) and (4), formaldehyde and nitrous
2-137
-------
acid are identified as products. These compounds are important
because, like NC>2 and ozone, they photodissociate in the presence
of sunlight. Additional OH are among the products formed as a
result of this photodissociation. This additional OH drives
production of ozone still further through reactions (3), (4)
and (2) .
On sunny days in polluted areas, such as cities,
reactions (2), (3) and (4) can result in concentrations of OH
several orders of magnitude greater than present in background
air. A useful metaphor is to picture the cycle of reactions
represented by reactions (2) through (4) as a "wheel of
reactions." The size (diameter) of the wheel grows as
concentrations of OH (and ozone) increase. This growth will
continue until one or more of the three factors fueling the
process (sunlight, VOC emissions, NOX emissions) becomes limited.
In locations where VOC emissions are the limiting factor
(low VOC:NOX ratios), the reaction of NO with ozone to form Q>2
[reaction (1)] becomes increasingly important as the means for
converting NO to N02. This reaction suppresses ambient ozone
levels through scavenging by NO. This reaction also suppresses
OH production (and, therefore, the ease with which subsequent VOC
emissions can lead to high ozone) by reducing ozone available to
photo dissociate to form OH.
In locations where NOX emissions are the limiting factor
(high VOC:NOX ratios), ozone is limited by availability of N02 to
photodissociate in the presence of sunlight [reaction (2)].
Further, other reactions involving the organic radicals with NO
to form N02 and more organic radicals [reaction (4)] become
relatively more important. For example, very reactive species of
VOC, such as various olefins and aldehydes, can react with ozone.
This reaction can have the effect of actually reducing ozone
levels somewhat, as well as removing these VOC for possible use
in future ozone production where or when NOX is more plentiful.
2-138
-------
2.3.2.1.2 Meteorological conditions and the orientation of
precursor sources to one another determine the effectiveness of a
control strategy. Roles of VOC and NOX in the chemistry of ozone
formation can be effectively conceptualized using an ozone
isopleth diagram. Chart 2 attached to a July 10, 1995 letter
from Mr. Robert Mitchell to Administrator Browner (Docket
item AIM-IV-D-212) is a good example of such a diagram. These
diagrams are generated by repeatedly estimating maximum predicted
ozone after varying initial concentrations assumed for VOC and
for NOX. Relative importance of initial conditions and
meteorology versus emissions occurring for each simulation
(i.e., "post-8 a.m. emissions") are kept constant for all
simulations used to construct the diagram. Further, the diagrams
assume that the emissions are instantly and perfectly mixed in
the atmosphere so that the chemistry can proceed in accordance
with the relative amounts of VOC and NOX emitted across
relatively large areas.
Contrary to the assumptions underlying Chart 2, mixing of
precursors is often likely to be limited by prevailing
meteorological conditions. This limitation can lead to different
conclusions about the relative importance of initial conditions
versus "post-8 a.m. emissions" in different parts of a modeling
domain. For example, if the trajectory assumed in the model
generating the isopleths traversed an area where "post-8 a.m.
emissions" are dominated by sources of NOX, the resulting
isopleth diagram would be shaped very differently. Such a
diagram would likely lead to a conclusion that VOC availability
would be the most limiting factor, at ratios that are higher than
those implied in Chart 2. (AIM-IV-D-212k2, AIM-IV-D-212mm2,
AIM-IV-D-212p6h2, CP-IV-D-35h2).
Effects of limited mixing described in the preceding
paragraph can be illustrated by constructing isopleth diagrams
which reflect different mixes of "post 8 a.m. emissions" injected
into the cloud of pollution. This has been illustrated by
Milford et al. (1989).10 These authors show that, for a given
2-139
-------
2-day episode (August 30-31, 1982) in the Los Angeles basin, the
shapes of predicted ozone isopleth diagrams vary as a function of
location, starting location, and subsequent trajectory of the
cloud of pollution. The diagrams suggest that, for the simulated
episode, reducing VOC is likely to be more effective than
reducing NOX to reduce ozone in Los Angeles County. Further
downwind, however (San Bernardino, Riverside Counties), reducing
either or both precursors appears to be a viable approach for
reducing predicted ozone during the simulated episode. The point
of this discussion is that the chemistry of ozone formation can
be significantly affected by prevailing meteorological conditions
as well as by the orientation of VOC and NOX sources to one
another. These conditions control how readily VOC and NOX
emissions mix. This mixing, in turn, affects the chemistry of
ozone formation. Thus, it may be overly simplistic to assume
ozone formation in an urban area is VOC- or N0x-limited on the
basis of a single isopleth diagram which assumes perfect mixing
throughout the area.
Meteorological conditions vary daily. Further, the effects
of varying meteorology on ozone formation differ depending on the
orientation of VOC and NOX sources to one another. The
significance of this interaction between meteorological
conditions and source orientation relative to drawing conclusions
about the importance of VOC versus NOX controls in reducing ozone
has been illustrated in modeling studies, as well as in different
reviews and analyses of monitored air quality data. For example,
in its study of Regional Ozone Modeling for Northeast Transport
(ROMNET), EPA concluded that a N0x-oriented strategy appeared
more effective than a VOC strategy in reducing peak predicted
daily maximum ozone in the Washington/Baltimore area on 6 of
15 days modeled. A VOC-oriented strategy was more effective on
6 of the 15 days. Both strategies appeared about equally
effective on the remaining three days.H
Modeling in Atlanta has suggested that NOX controls will be
needed to meet the ozone NAAQS on most of the days examined.
2-140
-------
Further, NOX controls are usually shown to be more effective than
VOC controls in reducing peak predicted ozone to levels near the
ozone NAAQS. However, on some of the modeled days (e.g., July 8,
1988, August 10, 1992) reducing VOC emissions appears to be more
effective in reducing predicted ozone.12 Another finding in the
Atlanta modeling, as well as in applications elsewhere, is that
the initial effect of moderate NOX reductions may not always be
beneficial (e.g., July 31, 1987 results). That is, under some
conditions, controlling NOX makes predicted ozone worse
initially, until additional NOX controls lower the predicted
ozone. It is probably not reasonable to expect NOX controls to
be implemented all at once. Thus, this increase in ozone
formation could be a realistic scenario. Isopleth diagrams
generated for the Atlanta modeling studies suggest that reducing
VOC emissions will mitigate most, if not all, of the detrimental
effect arising from initial efforts to reduce NOX under
meteorological conditions like those of July 31, 1987.
Modeling results showing variable responses of predicted
ozone to VOC and NOX controls as a function of location and time
appear to be corroborated by the observational studies performed
to date. For example, Cardelino et al have examined ambient data
obtained during a 1990 field study in Atlanta, and applied their
relative incremental reactivity (RIR) approach to the data to
assess likely sensitivity of observed ozone to changes in
observed NOX and VOC levels.13 On one of the six days examined,
these authors found peak ozone likely to be more sensitive to
changes in VOC rather than NOX. On the other five days, ozone
levels exhibited some sensitivity to changes in VOC, but were
more sensitive to changes in NOX.
Blanchard et al. have reviewed ambient air quality data from
the Los Angeles Basin, San Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley
and the Lake Michigan area. These authors have applied a "smog
produced algorithm" to assess geographic and temporal patterns
regarding whether ozone formation appears limited by available
VOC or NOX.14 The results often suggest that NOX is a limiting
2-141
-------
factor to further production of ozone. Nevertheless, the authors
conclude that factors limiting ozone production vary as a
function of time and location.
Because ozone formation is greatly affected by
meteorological conditions and source/receptor orientation, ozone
formation may be limited by VOC or by NOX at different times and
locations. Modeling results suggest that under some
circumstances, detrimental effects can occur from piecemeal
implementation of NOX controls. Results suggest that VOC
emission reductions could mitigate some undesirable effects of
piecemeal NOX controls in urban areas. Thus, even though NOX
control may be a more effective means of reducing ozone levels on
many of the worst days in many locations, reduction of VOC
emissions is still necessary to reduce peak ozone concentrations
under the variety of meteorological and source receptor
conditions in urban areas.
2.3.2.1.3 Limitations in the use of isopleth charts for
determining control strategies. The commenter uses the isopleth
charts to illustrate that EPA's goal should be preventing
saturation of the air by NOX. The NOX and VOC concentrations
shown on the isopleth diagrams depict initial concentrations,
generally in the middle of downtown.
Isopleths are a series of constant ozone lines generated by
a model. Isopleth charts are generated by carrying out a large
number of model simulations in which the initial concentrations
and anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NOX are varied
systematically, whereas all other model inputs are held constant.
The isopleths show the downwind, peak 1-hour ozone levels as a
function of the concentrations of VOC and NOX for a hypothetical
urban area.
City-specific ozone isopleths can be used to estimate the
reduction in VOC or NOX levels needed to achieve the ozone NAAQS
in a specific urban area. The first step is to determine the
early-morning VOC:NOX ratio for the urban area in question and
the maximum 1-hour downwind ozone concentration. Both the
2-142
-------
VOC:NOX ratio and the peak ozone concentration are obtained from
air monitoring data. These two values define a point on the
isopleth surface and, from this point, the percentage reductions
in VOC and/or NOX needed to achieve the ozone NAAQS can be
determined.
An examination of the isopleth chart attached by the
commenter reveals, for a VOC concentration of 0.5 ppmC, for
example, increasing NOX leads to increased ozone until VOC:NOX
ratios of about 8:1 are reached. Further NOX increases, leading
to lower VOC:NOX ratios, inhibit ozone formation. Thus, in this
example, there is a "critical" ratio (in the range of 8:1) at
which the NOX effect on ozone changes direction. Besides this
"critical" ratio, an "equal control" VOC:NOX ratio also exists,
above which the reduction of NOX is more beneficial in terms of
ozone reduction than an equal percentage reduction in VOC. This
ratio, for the isopleths attached by the commenter, is roughly
10:1 for low levels of control and as high as 25:1 for the levels
of control needed to reduce ozone to 0.12 ppm.
Using the isopleth charts for determining control strategies
has some limitations, the most serious of which is that predicted
emissions reductions are critically dependent on the initial
VOC:NOX ratio used in the calculations. This ratio cannot be
determined with any certainty because it is expected to be quite
variable in time and space in an urban area. Another limitation
is that these charts have limited spatial and temporal scopes of
application. They are generally 1-day models. Another problem
with the use of morning VOC:NOX ratios is the failure to account
for photochemical evolution as urban emissions are carried
downwind. As demonstrated in simulations by Milford et al (1989)
and in smog chamber studies by Johnson and Quigley (1989), an
urban plume that is in the VOC-controlling regime (low VOC:NOX
ratio) near the city center can move increasingly into the
N0x-controlling regime (high VOC:NOX ratio) as the air parcels
age and move downwind.10,15 This progression occurs because NOX
is photochemically removed from an aging plume more rapidly than
2-143
-------
VOC, causing the VOC:NOX ratio to increase. As demonstrated by
Milford et al. (1989), the implication of this evolution is that
different locations in a large urban area can show very different
ozone sensitivities to VOC and NOX changes.10 The commenter's
position does not recognize the dynamic nature of the process and
assumes that the composition of urban air remains static. Unlike
the commenter's approach, EPA's approach recognizes that ozone
formation may be limited by VOC or by NOX at different times and
different locations. Thus, even though NOX control may be an
effective means for of reducing ozone levels on many of the worst
days in many locations, reduction of VOC emissions is still
necessary to reduce peak ozone concentrations under the variety
of meteorological and source receptor conditions that occur in
urban areas. Thus, the commenter's suggestion that EPA exempt
products used in N0x-limited areas is impractical.
2.3.2.2 Contribution of Biogenic VOC Sources versus
Anthropogenic Sources to Ozone Nonattainment
Comment: Four commenters submitted seven documents
(AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35, AIM-IV-D-214C, AIM-IV-D-177a,
AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-49, AR-IV-F-1) supporting their contention
that biogenic VOC is more prevalent in the atmosphere than
anthropogenic VOC. Two commenters submitted three documents
(AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35, AR-IV-F-1) citing findings of the
"Southern Oxidants Study" that vegetation was a significant
source of VOC in the rural south and in urban areas and complete
elimination of manmade VOC would leave areas of metropolitan
Atlanta in exceedance. Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214c, AR-IV-F-1)
referred to "Rethinking the Ozone Problem" which revealed that
the primary sources of any VOC contribution to ozone
nonattainment were biogenic.6
Two commenters submitted four documents (AIM-IV-D-49,
AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-177, AIM-IV-D-177a) asserting that control
of VOC will not work because there is so much naturally emitted
VOC already in the air. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-177a) noted that
natural VOC was about 60 percent of total VOC. Two commenters
2-144
-------
(AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-49) asserted that only 7 percent of
evaporative VOC was manmade and controllable and that the other
93 percent of evaporative VOC comes from biogenic sources and is
not controllable. One commenter (AIM-IV-D-177) cited the Amazon
rain forest as an area with high VOC levels and low ozone levels.
Response: The EPA understands the commenters to be saying
generally that control of VOC will not work because there is so
much naturally emitted VOC already in the air. The EPA disagrees
with the commenters' interpretation of the factual information
and their conclusion that control of anthropogenic VOC is
therefore unnecessary. Section 2.3.2.1 presents a more detailed
discussion of the chemistry of ozone formation, focusing on the
role of VOC versus NOX in the formation of ozone. This response
focuses on the role of biogenic VOC in the formation of ozone and
builds on the earlier response.
According to national estimates consistent with estimates
used in the OTAG study, biogenic emissions are, indeed, a major
fraction of total (anthropogenic and natural) VOC emissions on a
typical summer day. Nationwide, biogenics comprise about
79 percent of the total 1990 VOC emissions on a typical summer
day. Emissions from all consumer and commercial products
comprise about 6 percent, while architectural coatings comprise
about 0.5 percent of total estimated VOC in 1990. The EPA notes
that VOC from consumer and commercial products do, however,
constitute 28 percent of the anthropogenic, and hence the
controllable, portion of the VOC inventory. Within the inventory
of consumer and commercial products emissions, it will be
necessary to obtain reasonable reductions from many categories of
sources in order to achieve the aggregate benefits of VOC
emission reductions contemplated by section 183(e) of the Act.
However, the use of total emission estimates overstates the
importance of biogenic emissions in the production of ozone.
Biogenic VOC generally are less important than anthropogenic VOC
because biogenic VOC are usually emitted in the presence of
limited amounts of NOX, resulting in a limited amount of ozone
2-145
-------
formation. Moreover, under the right conditions, biogenic VOC
tends to scavenge ozone from polluted air as well as form new
ozone. Anthropogenic VOC, on the other hand, are usually emitted
in the presence of NOX, resulting in more ozone formation and are
generally unreactive with ozone under most conditions. Thus, VOC
emissions from consumer and commercial products will play a
proportionately greater role in ozone formation than is indicated
by the percentage of total national emissions.
These factors should be kept in mind when assessing the
relative importance of naturally-emitted versus anthropogenic
VOC. Approximately 60 percent of natural VOC consists of very
reactive olefins such as isoprene, a-pinene, and other terpenes,
which can react with ozone and, therefore, can have the effect of
reducing ozone levels somewhat. However, different VOC react at
differing rates in the troposphere resulting in differing
tropospheric lifetimes. The lifetimes of most VOC with respect
to reaction with OH and ozone are in the range ~I hour to
«10 years. In large part, because of these differing
tropospheric lifetimes and rates of reaction, VOC exhibit a range
of reactivities with respect to the formation of ozone
(Altshuller and Bufalini).16 For example, according to EPA's
Criteria Document for Photochemical Oxidants (U.S. EPA 1996), the
lifetime of isoprene (a very reactive natural species of VOC
which, in the presence of NOX, can lead to ozone formation) is
1.3 days and 1.7 hours respectively in reactions with ozone and
OH present at average ambient concentrations.^7 In contrast,
under the same conditions n-octane (an anthropogenic VOC) has a
lifetime of greater than 4,500 years with ozone and 1.7 days with
OH. Therefore, in many cases, more anthropogenic VOC remain
available to produce ozone when NOX availability ceases to be a
limiting factor (i.e., as in many urban areas). Very reactive
VOC, such as isoprene, are not expected to be widely used in
architectural coatings or most other consumer and commercial
products.
2-146
-------
Thus, anthropogenic VOC emissions (often occurring in the
presence of NOX at low VOC:NOX ratios) can be a more important
source of ozone than natural VOC (often occurring with very
limited NOX at high VOC:NOX ratio) than might at first be
surmised from inventory estimates. Under N0x-limited conditions,
ozone is formed rapidly and fairly close to the sources of NOX.
Comment: Two commenters in three letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-177, AIM-IV-D-212p3/CP-IV-D-35f) claimed that EPA did
not want to prevent the exceedance of the ozone standard as
mandated by law, but to justify regulations based upon reducing
ozone levels in nonattainment areas by reducing VOC levels. One
commenter (AIM-IV-D-177) explained that EPA's policy required
computer modeling at a level of NOX so high that permanent
attainment could not be achieved. Although a temporary local
attainment might be achieved by controlling VOC, the level of NOX
allowed by EPA's policy could lead to ozone nonattainment in
downwind areas. The commenter concluded that controlling VOC
based on Urban Airshed Model (UAM) computer modeling results did
not make scientific sense for preventing exceedance of the ozone
NAAQS. The commenter alleged that EPA's VOC policy only served
to ensure large amounts of VOC regulations to provide work for
the regulators and to control American industry.
Response: As discussed in section 2.3.2.1, VOC emissions
play a significant role in development of high concentrations of
ozone. The EPA's ozone control policy is based on recognition
that the science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation
is complex. In designing control strategies it is necessary to
consider a number of local factors, including meteorological
conditions, the relative concentrations of NOX and VOC in the
air, and the proximity of emission sources to one another. The
EPA's policy recognizes that in certain areas NOX controls are
very effective in reducing peak ozone concentrations, while in
other areas they may not be effective and VOC controls are
necessary. The EPA believes that the ozone policy is a
scientifically valid strategy and that the commenter has
2-147
-------
mischaracterized EPA's ozone control policy and the past results
of the policy.
Contrary to the commenter's claims, EPA expects both local
and downwind ozone to improve as a result of these regulations.
Effectiveness of VOC controls in reducing highest concentrations
of ozone in and near cities can be inferred by examining ozone
trends reported between 1987 and 1996 in the U.S. EPA's National
Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1996 (docket A-94-65,
item IV-J-11). During this 10-year period, estimated VOC
emissions were reduced nationally by about 18% (despite
considerable population and economic growth during this period)
whereas NOx emissions increased slightly (-3%). Thus, downward
trends in high ozone concentrations near cities are attributable
to reductions in VOC emissions. During 1987-96, both the
incidence in which ozone exceeded the concentration (0.12 ppm)
specified in 1-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
as well as the magnitude of high observed concentrations
decreased. The trend data indicate that the typical 2d high 1-
hour daily maximum ozone concentration observed at numerous sites
has been reduced by about 13% during a period in which VOC
emissions have been reduced. Further, the incidence of
observations in excess of the concentration specified in the 1-hr
NAAQS (0.12 ppm) has been reduced by about 65 - 70%. Since
predicted ozone has decreased using VOC controls, EPA believes
the current policy has been demonstrated to be effective.
The current policy, as expressed in the SIP regulations and
the Act, also requires the control of NOX in many instances. The
relative degree of NOX and VOC control required is determined
using computer models based on local air quality conditions. The
Agency's policy with respect to computer modeling for both
control strategy demonstrations and national policy studies is to
use NOX levels that actually exist today in the ambient air. The
EPA disagrees with the commenter's position that ozone modeling
should be conducted assuming a relatively N0x-free environment,
which does not exist in our polluted cities today. However, as
2-148
-------
noted in section 2.2.2 of this document, computer modeling was
not used to form the basis of EPA's determination under
section 183(e) that emissions from consumer and commercial
products have the potential to contribute to ozone levels which
violate the NAAQS. As explained in section 2.3.2.1 of this
document, control of NOX alone is not a practical solution to the
ozone problem.
Comment: One commenter submitted three documents
(AIM-IV-D-49, AIM-IV-D-177a, AIM-IV-D-177) asserting that a
national VOC rule would be economically counterproductive. The
commenter (AIM-IV-D-177a) referenced a paper submitted by another
commenter, "Economic Analysis of Ozone Reduction" (CP-IV-D-35m).
The premise of the analysis is that VOC control will not achieve
the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, widespread and stringent NOX
controls will be required after implementation of VOC controls
has been exhausted and the level of NOX control required will be
greater than if NOX were the only pollutant controlled initially.
The commenter (AIM-IV-D-49) explained that the economic loss
would be 100 percent of the total cost of any national VOC
regulation, plus an extra cost for increased NOX controls. Thus,
explained a second commenter (CP-IV-D-35m), national VOC controls
were the maximum cost approach for complying with the ozone
NAAQS. This commenter asserted that starting with VOC control
was a mistake and regulating evaporative VOC had been a national
financial disaster.
As part of an argument that VOC controls are ineffective,
one commenter (CP-IV-D-35m) stated that national VOC controls
created only cost to the nation. The commenter asserted that
considering which precursors need to be removed from
nonattainment air, rather than which precursors could be added to
attainment air could create rules that were wrong and costly. The
commenter concluded that all VOC rules would be economically
counterproductive and stated that no cost effective VOC rules are
possible.
2-149
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's claims
that VOC controls are economically counterproductive because the
control measures are ineffective. The EPA's ozone control
program, which relies on a combination of regional, local, and
Federal control measures, has been effective in improving ozone
attainment and is expected to achieve further improvements in
ozone air quality. Specifically, modeling evidence shows that
decreasing VOC emissions causes predicted ozone to decrease.
Ambient monitoring data shows that reduced peak ozone
concentrations are occurring despite economic growth. Ozone
trends data show that reductions in peak ozone concentrations are
occurring across the country. Monitoring data from more than
700 sites show that composite averages of the second highest
maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations have shown a clear, steady,
downward trend over the past 10 years. These downward trends
apply also to the number of daily exceedances of the standard.
Since historically the control policies placed greater reliance
on VOC control, the trend of ozone reductions confirms that VOC
control has been effective in many areas of the country.
According to the commenter's own admission, several areas of
the country have achieved attainment. Recent studies have shown
that in some areas of the country, a combination of NOX and VOC
controls will be required. In other areas, control of upwind
sources of NOX may be necessary to achieve attainment. The
controls will be implemented through a combination of regional
and local control strategies considering local air quality
conditions and the most cost-effective mix of NOX and VOC
controls.
2.3.2.3 Role of Combustion Sources in Ozone Nonattainment
Comment: Two commenters in six documents (CP-IV-D-35k3,
CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212k/
AIM-IV-D-212p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/AIM-IV-D-212mm, AIM-IV-D-177 and
AIM-IV-D-177a) claimed that fuel combustion sources cause the
exceedance of the ozone NAAQS because combustion is the major
source of NOX and anthropogenic VOC. Controlling NOX emissions
2-150
-------
from combustion sources with existing technology would enable all
ozone nonattainment areas to achieve attainment. One commenter
(AIM-IV-D-177) inferred that regulations should focus on the
development of new combustion processes that produce less
emissions and that NOX could be controlled by using electric
automobiles.
Response: The EPA agrees that the major source of NOX is
combustion processes. According to the Trends Report, in 1996,
95 percent of the anthropogenic NOX emissions came from
combustion sources with 30 percent coming from onroad vehicles.
This report also stated that the 1996 biogenic NO emissions were
estimated to be 1.55 million short tons using the Biogenic
Emissions Inventory System -- Version 2 (BEIS2). Another report
(Biogenic Emissions of 1995) estimated 1995 biogenic emissions of
nitric oxides at 1.5 million short tons using BEIS2.2. Thus,
biogenic NO emissions account for almost 7 percent of the total
NOX and approximately 88 percent of the total NOX emissions are
produced by manmade combustion.
The EPA has several other programs already in place to
reduce levels of NOX nationwide that contribute to ground-level
ozone (smog), acid rain, and other environmental problems.
First, EPA introduced tighter tailpipe standards for cars in
1994 that were phased-in on car models through 1996. Tighter
tailpipe standards will substantially reduce emissions of VOC and
NOX, the main components in the formation of ground-level ozone.
In addition, EPA is currently developing regulations in
partnership with the State of California and leading
manufacturers of heavy-duty engines that will significantly
reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides from cars and trucks.
Second, large sources of nitrogen oxides, such as power
plants, that are located in nonattainment areas, are generally
required to apply stringent controls (e.g., RACT, as defined by
the Act).
2-151
-------
Third, EPA has promulgated new rules for NOX under the Acid
Rain Program. These regulations will result in substantial
additional NOX reductions.
Fourth, in September 1994, the 11 Northeastern States and
the District of Columbia that comprise the Ozone Transport
Commission, have agreed to plans to reduce NOX emissions by
35 percent from 1990 levels. The reductions will help
significantly reduce ozone levels in the Northeastern United
States.
These programs are expected to reduce NOX and VOC emissions
from both mobile and stationary sources significantly and thereby
reduce ground-level ozone. However, EPA projects that additional
VOC control from noncombustive sources such as consumer and
commercial products will be required to achieve the ozone NAAQS
in all parts of the country. To achieve the ozone NAAQS using
NOX control alone as suggested by the commenter would require
that ambient NOX levels throughout the nation be reduced to less
than 5 ppbv. The Agency does not know of technology that can be
applied at a reasonable cost to reduce the remaining NOX to such
low levels. The commenter's self-acknowledged "futuristic
approach" to NOX control is impractical because it calls for
technology that is not yet existent. For example, the commenter
contended that converting to electric automobiles would solve the
ozone problem. Although electric automobiles have been
manufactured on a limited scale, this technology is still
impractical for widespread use. In addition, electric vehicles
will also rely on power plants to charge the batteries. Thus,
the commenter's suggestion will not solve the problem of
eliminating NOX emissions. Carrying the commenter's argument to
its logical conclusion calls for replacing most or all internal
combustion engines, fossil fuel-fired power plants, industrial
boilers, and incinerators with alternative technologies.
Comment: Two commenters on four occasions (AIM-IV-D-212,
CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5, CP-IV-F-la, AIM-IV-D-177a) claimed:
(1) NOX in the presence of sunlight forms ozone, (2) natural
2-152
-------
sources do not produce enough NOX to exceed the ozone NAAQS,
(3) the ozone NAAQS is exceeded because of the presence of
manmade NOX, and (4) VOC from consumer and commercial products do
not contribute to exceedance of the ozone NAAQS because
evaporative VOC alone do not cause ozone. Therefore, the
commenters conclude that evaporative VOC should not be controlled
under section 183(e) of the Act.
Two commenters in four letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5, AIM-IV-D-177a, AIM-IV-D-212k/
AIM-IV-D-212mm/AIM-IV-D-212p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/CP-IV-D-35k3) claimed
that there is a difference between "combustive" VOC and
"evaporative" VOC. Combustive VOC are generated through
combustion of materials such as fuels, waste, etc. Evaporative
VOC are generated from the use and production of chemicals as
well as the use of consumer and commercial products such as
architectural coatings, cleaning products, personal care
products, pesticides, adhesives, etc. According to the
commenters, combustive VOC are worse than evaporative VOC because
the combustion process produces both NOX and VOC and combustive
VOC are more reactive than evaporative VOC.
Third, one commenter in three letters (CP-IV-D-35k3,
AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212k/AIM-IV-D-212p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/
AIM-IV-D-212mm) claimed that some natural highly reactive VOC
help prevent the buildup of NOX and ozone. One commenter in two
letters (CP-IV-D-35v/AIM-IV-D-212p5, AIM-IV-D-212) cited
"Rethinking the Ozone Problem" and "Scientific Basis of the VOC
Reactivity Issues" which stated that many VOC reacted directly
with ozone resulting in a reduction of the ozone
concentration.1/6 The commenter implied that EPA should by
regulation require manufacturers to replace the ozone-forming VOC
in their products with other VOC that would react with either NOX
or ozone in such a way as to remove them from the air.
Response: As discussed in section 2.3.2.1, EPA agrees that
NOX in the presence of sunlight will form low concentrations of
ozone in an otherwise unpolluted atmosphere. In an otherwise
2-153
-------
unpolluted atmosphere a natural equilibrium exists between NO,
NC>2, and ozone that prevents the buildup of high concentrations
of ozone. However, other components, such as VOC, present in the
air disrupt this equilibrium causing ozone to accumulate.
Volatile organic compounds are clearly understood to be a
necessary ingredient in the complex series of reactions that lead
to ozone generation. The fact that VOC are not a necessary
ingredient for every one of these reactions (e.g., the photolysis
of N02) is irrelevant. Both NOX and VOC control will be needed
to achieve attainment.
The EPA acknowledges that combustion sources emit both NOX
and VOC, while evaporative sources emit only VOC. The EPA has
been regulating both mobile and stationary combustion sources of
VOC, as well as evaporative VOC sources, for years. However, the
amount of NOX and VOC emissions reductions obtained from
regulating combustion sources (e.g., automobiles) has not been
great enough to enable some areas of the country to achieve the
ozone NAAQS. In many of these areas, evaporative VOC emissions
from such sources as architectural coatings are one of the
largest unregulated sources of VOC emissions. Thus, EPA contends
that evaporative VOC sources still matter and must be controlled
if the ozone NAAQS is to be achieved in all parts of the nation.
While EPA acknowledges that some VOC are highly reactive and
do react to reduce ozone through various mechanisms, this
scenario occurs only in very limited cases, with only a few
species of VOC (not VOC species typically used in consumer and
commercial products), and under specific meteorological
conditions. This phenomenon does not occur generally in the
ambient air.
The commenter's suggestion that EPA should, by regulation,
require manufacturers to substitute certain ozone-forming VOC
used in their products with other VOC that would react with
either NOX or ozone to remove them from the air is impractical.
Ozone chemistry is extremely complex. How a VOC reacts with a
reactive species, such as NOX or ozone, depends on the
2-154
-------
concentration of the reactive species and the rate constant for
reaction of the VOC with the reactive species. In general, the
ambient atmospheric concentrations of OH, nitrate radicals, and
ozone are variable, depending on time of day, season, latitude,
altitude, etc. Thus, all VOC do not react the same and even a
single VOC will react differently under different atmospheric
conditions. Moreover, a VOC cannot necessarily directly replace
another VOC in terms of properties and functions within the
products or processes in which the compound is used. Therefore,
it is not technically feasible to ban broad classes of chemicals
and mandate the use of a limited set of VOC in commerce.
2.3.2.4 The Role of Long-Range Transport of Nitrogen Oxides
in Ozone Nonattainment
Comment: One commenter submitted three documents
(CP-IV-D-35m, AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212k/AIM-IV-D-212mm/
AIM-IV-D-p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/CP-IV-D-35k3) stating that another
reason to focus on control of NOX is to reduce the long range
transport of NOX and ozone. One document (CP-IV-D-35m) asserted
that to stop downwind exceedances of the ozone NAAQS, the
transport of NOX and ozone must be stopped by controlling NOX.
The commenter concluded that because the reaction of N02 and
sunlight was almost the only source of ozone in the troposphere,
eliminating NOX would stop the formation of ozone and its
transportation. The commenter explained that controlling
anthropogenic VOC was unnecessary because biogenic VOC were
present almost everywhere.
The other two letters (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-212k/
AIM-IV-D-212mm/AIM-IV-D-212p6h/CP-IV-D-35h/CP-IV-D-35k3) stated
that EPA's approach of controlling VOC greatly increased the
transport of ozone and NOX. The commenter explained that EPA
assumed the air was fully saturated with NOX and that most VOC
reacted with NOX, so reducing VOC would reduce the peak ozone
formed in core urban areas. However, the commenter contended
that NOX-saturated air was always (in the presence of strong
2-155
-------
sunlight and adequate heat) in nonattainment because of the
presence of biogenic VOC, which were ignored in EPA's model.
Response: Section 2.3.2.1 provides responses to the
comments concerning the relative role of VOC and NOX in the
formation of ozone. This response will address only the
commenter's arguments that control of NOX is more effective for
control of long range transport of NOX and ozone than control of
VOC.
The EPA agrees that the transport of ozone can contribute
to ozone nonattainment. The EPA also agrees that additional NOX
emissions reductions are essential to reduce long range transport
problems. Ozone transport has been most problematic and most
studied in the eastern States, and plans have been proposed for a
regional NOX emission reduction strategy. However, control of
transported ozone and NOX will not solve the ozone problem
universally. Control of VOC beyond current State and Federal VOC
control measures will be necessary to achieve attainment in many
areas - particularly those with longstanding and serious problems
with nonattainment.
Ozone nonattainment can be a function of two components:
locally formed ozone and transported ozone. Historically, most
control strategies have focused on controlling locally formed
ozone by controlling local NOX and VOC sources in the immediate
vicinity of nonattainment. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
recognized that certain downwind areas receive transported ozone
and ozone precursors that can contribute to nonattainment. Many
of these areas may be close to violating the NAAQS due to local
emissions even after applying all reasonably available controls,
and the additional contribution of transported ozone can lead to
periods of nonattainment.
More recently, exhaustive modeling studies of the eastern
States by OTAG and others have explored the transport phenomenon.
These studies have concluded that control measures mandated by
the Act for ozone nonattainment areas will provide ozone
reductions in many nonattainment areas. However, some areas will
2-156
-------
remain in nonattainment, and new nonattainment problems may arise
due to economic growth. The studies predict that regional NOX
reductions will decrease ozone concentrations across broad
regions and will be more effective in reducing long-range ozone
transport than will VOC reductions.
The EPA has recognized the role of NOx in the ozone
transport problem. On November 7, 1997 (62 FR 60317), EPA issued
a proposed rulemaking requiring certain eastern States to adopt
NOX emission reduction measures as needed to mitigate the
transport of ozone and NOX across State boundaries.
Considering the state-by-state emission budgets, an overall NOX
emission reduction of 35 percent is targeted for the 23-State
region.
The modeling conclusions about the importance of ozone
transport do not mean that VOC reductions are not also needed.
The OTAG study concluded that attaining the NAAQS will require
local VOC and/or NOX controls in addition to the recommended
regional NOX controls. The OTAG modeling suggested that
reduction of VOC emissions will be most effective in and near
urban core areas and will be necessary to control the component
of locally produced ozone that contributes to nonattainment. The
OTAG States recommended national rules for architectural
coatings, consumer products, and automobile refinish coatings to
help achieve the needed VOC reductions.
In conclusion, the commenter is incorrect that the control
of anthropogenic VOC emissions is unnecessary to attain the ozone
NAAQS. The VOC emitted in close proximity to NOX will generally
react to form ozone. Depending on the relevant conditions, this
ozone may contribute to nonattainment. To achieve and maintain
the NAAQS will require a program to address both local and
transported ozone effectively. Control of anthropogenic VOC,
therefore, will continue to be a vital part of the strategy to
reduce ozone pollution, particularly in urban settings.
Ozone is usually the most significant component of
transport into an urban nonattainment area, rather than transport
2-157
-------
of precursors (like isoprene, other species of VOC or NOX). Much
of the ozone formed during the day can survive aloft overnight.
A lack of vertical mixing at nighttime effectively insulates the
ozone from the earth's surface, precluding natural removal
mechanisms such as dry deposition. In addition, there is a
general lack of NOX aloft at night to remove ozone. The next
day, the ozone aloft mixes with ground level emissions of VOC and
NOX. All other things being equal, this mixing likely
accelerates ozone formation on the second day of an episode. The
acceleration of ozone formation results from the ozone being
available to photo dissociate to form an elevated level of OH
early in the day. The increased OH speeds initiation of the
reactions that lead to ozone formation. This accelerated
initiation of ozone formation reactions, in turn, may sometimes
lead to higher ozone formation on subsequent days of a multi-day
episode. Thus, transport of ozone can negatively impact an
area's ability to achieve and maintain the ozone NAAQS.
2.3.2.5 A VOC Regulatory Approach Has Been Based on Flawed
Comment: One commenter in two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
CP-IV-D-35) asserted that a VOC regulatory approach had been
ineffective in reducing ozone levels in many metropolitan and
urban areas. The commenter quoted from "Rethinking the Ozone
Problem" to support this position.6 According to the commenter,
the report found that:
[d]espite the major regulatory and pollution-control
programs of the past 20 years, efforts to attain the
ozone NAAQS largely have failed. The EPA's approach to
ozone control, originally developed in 1971, has relied
largely upon unverified estimates of reductions in
precursor emission; EPA has not required systematic
measurements of ambient precursor concentrations.
Systematic measurements of NOX and VOC are needed in
addition to ozone measurements to determine the extent
to which precursor emissions must be controlled and to
verify the effectiveness of the control measures
undertaken. Over the past two decades, the substantial
reductions in ozone concentrations predicted to result
from the VOC emission reductions in major urban centers
have not occurred.
2-158
-------
According to the commenter, "Rethinking the Ozone Problem"
noted that EPA's approach has depended heavily on VOC reductions
estimated on the basis of speculative "emission inventories" that
significantly underestimate anthropogenic VOC emissions from
mobile sources and fail to account adequately for biogenic VOC.
The commenter stated that "Rethinking the Ozone Problem" also
found that "past ozone control strategies may have been
misdirected" in relying almost exclusively on VOC emission
reductions.6 As a corrective measure, two commenters in four
letters (AIM-IV-D-49, AIM-IV-D-55, AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35)
stated that the report made this recommendation: "To
substantially reduce ozone concentrations in many urban,
suburban, and rural areas of the U.S., the control of NOX
emissions will probably be necessary in addition to, or instead
of, the control of VOC."
According to the commenter (AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35m,
CP-IV-D-35), "Rethinking the Ozone Problem" continues, "The
result is an overestimate of the effectiveness of VOC controls
and an underestimate of the efficacy of NOX controls. If the
anthropogenic VOC inventory is as badly underestimated, as recent
studies indicate, areas that were previously believed to be
adversely affected by NOX controls might actually benefit from
them. "
The commenter also attached an article from "Environmental
Week" (AIM-IV-D-212d). The article stated that EPA was biased
toward VOC reductions for control of ozone even though VOC
controls may not work and NOX controls were more effective in
controlling ozone in some situations. The commenter
(AIM-IV-F-ld, AIM-IV-D-212d) also quoted the article as saying
that the models EPA used to predict effectiveness of various
mitigation efforts needed to be improved and the emission
inventories used in the models underestimated anthropogenic VOC.
Response: While EPA acknowledges the validity of some
criticisms of the data used in the past, EPA does not agree with
the conclusions of the commenters that control of VOC emissions
2-159
-------
has been ineffective or is unnecessary. To enhance the ozone
control program, EPA has supported and contributed to efforts to
improve the understanding of ozone formation mechanisms in the
ambient air and to develop better data and analytical tools with
which to evaluate control strategies. The focus of current
program enhancements includes: (1) enhancement of the ambient
data bases used to design and check the progress of strategies,
(2) a focus on improving emission inventories, and (3) regional
and local application of the most comprehensive and defensible
air quality models. The EPA has relied on "Rethinking the Ozone
Problem" and other scientific studies to formulate these improved
strategies.6 Nothing in "Rethinking the Ozone Problem," or any
other credible scientific study, however, has suggested that the
control of VOC is not a necessary component of an ozone control
program.6 Although NOX control is an important component of an
ozone control program, controlling only NOX is an insufficient
strategy for achieving the ozone NAAQS.
Although air quality data clearly attest to a current
situation where a number of U.S. metropolitan areas are in
nonattainment with respect to ozone, EPA can demonstrate that a
VOC regulatory approach has been effective in reducing ozone
levels in many metropolitan and urban areas. As discussed by Cox
and Chu, results of trend analyses for 43 cities, normalized for
meteorological differences, between 1981 and 1991, show that high
peak 1-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations were typically
reduced by about 11 percent over this period.18 in most cases,
observed reductions in high daily maximum ozone were deemed to be
statistically significant, providing evidence that decreasing VOC
emissions causes predicted ozone to decrease. Since most of the
regulatory effort to date has been to reduce VOC, the ambient
information tends to refute the commenter's claims that VOC do
not cause ozone pollution.
Furthermore, this downward trend coincides with a period of
substantial population and economic growth. In the absence of
effective emission control programs, the demographic growth would
2-160
-------
have led to increased emissions and attendant increases in ozone.
Thus, considerable "progress" has been achieved by averting
increases in ozone concentrations in the face of demographic
factors which would have otherwise increased ozone levels.
The precise extent to which various source categories have
been understated in the emission inventories is unclear, and
adequate data currently are unavailable to revise the emissions
models or estimates. The most likely causes are understatement
of emissions from mobile sources (including nonroad mobile
sources), commercial/consumer solvents, and point sources (caused
by ineffective regulations, poorly-characterized fugitive
emissions, and small sources that historically have been exempt
from State emission regulations). Shortcomings in emissions
estimates have arisen from incomplete scientific understanding
and inadequate emphasis on inventory studies.
The 1990 Amendments to the Act put a much higher premium on
accurate inventory compilations than had been true formerly. The
EPA has accelerated and enhanced its efforts to upgrade the
inventory process and has directed increased support to States to
assist them in utilizing new findings in SIPs. For example,
mobile source models are upgraded periodically to reflect new
findings on evaporative and exhaust emission components, in
addition to incorporating changes stemming from combustion
technology in new automobiles. In fact, EPA is planning to
release MOBILE6 for use in the summer of 1998.
In addition to improving highway vehicle emission estimates,
EPA is planning to develop a SIP-related nonroad emissions
inventory model to meet the needs of providing an accurate
inventory of nonroad mobile source emissions (e.g., diesel
engines in large construction operations).
The EPA has also issued several volumes (EPA, 1991 c-g) of
Emission Inventory guidance procedures and held national
workshops on preparing inventories.19 The EPA has taken numerous
other steps to upgrade inventories including steps to enhance the
consistency and quality control aspects of the inventory process.
2-161
-------
The EPA has also undertaken a multi-disciplinary effort
structured to develop consistency among EPA's various research
and operation arms and to incorporate the latest research and
technical efforts into the inventory process.
Past ozone precursor control approaches have relied on the
best science available. The EPA will continue to improve the
inventories used in their control approach so that current and
future ozone precursor control strategies will always be based on
the best available science.
The EPA agrees that NOX controls in addition to, or instead
of, VOC controls are likely to reduce ozone in many areas.
However, in certain cases NOX controls might not be effective in
reducing ozone. Possible exceptions are not necessarily limited
to New York and Los Angeles urban cores. Application of gridded
photochemical models on a case-by-case basis is required to
determine the efficacy of NOX controls, because the ozone
response to precursor reductions is area specific. The 5-City
UAM study (EPA, 1990a) supports the general assertion that NOX
controls: (1) may be beneficial in many places (e.g., Atlanta
and several parts of the northeastern U.S.) and (2) might not be
effective in reducing ozone in other areas (e.g., Dallas-Fort
Worth and New York).20 The 5-City UAM study illustrates that
ozone response to controls of VOC or NOX is area-specific. The
five-City UAM study investigated only a limited set of
meteorological conditions.
Contrasting ozone responses from VOC and NOX controls for
specific days in Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth illustrate
variability in the response of predicted ozone to changes in VOC
and NOX. Modeling of the relative benefits of VOC and NOX
control, to the base case (i.e., zero control) throughout the
Atlanta domain illustrates that VOC controls result in limited
benefits that are restricted to the center of the Atlanta domain;
whereas NOX controls result in more widespread and more
pronounced reductions in peak ozone predictions throughout most
of the domain. The Dallas-Fort Worth results show greater peak
2-162
-------
ozone reductions for VOC controls, and several areas which
exhibit ozone increases due to NOX controls.
2.3.2.6 The EPA's Air Quality Models
Comment: Three commenters (AIM-IV-D-177a, CP-IV-D-35m,
AIM-IV-D-49) listed three problems with photochemical air quality
models based on the Carbon IV mechanism such as the UAM and
Regional Oxidant Model (ROM). Two of these commenters
(CP-IV-D-35m, AIM-IV-D-177a) also asserted that the ability of
the model to provide accurate speciated VOC reactivity was very
poor. The commenters asserted that the model incorrectly
calculated the conversion of VOC to reactive VOC as a function of
NOX concentration, resulting in poor results at the high VOC and
low NOX levels. These commenters stated that this error
overstated the required VOC reductions for attainment, greatly
increasing the perception that VOC reductions were necessary.
One commenter (AIM-IV-D-49) cited the section 185(b) report to
Congress that pointed out that the weakness of the chemistry used
in the model affected the accuracy of the model.
Response: Air quality models operate on sets of input data
that characterize the emissions, topography, and meteorology of a
region and produce outputs that describe air quality in that
region. Mathematical models for photochemical air pollution were
first developed in the early 1970s and have been improved,
applied, and evaluated since that time.
Several grid-based photochemical air quality models have
been developed to simulate ozone production in urban areas or in
larger regions. These models differ primarily in their treatment
of specific atmospheric processes, such as chemistry, and in the
numerical procedures used to solve the governing system of
equations. The Act mandates the use of three-dimensional
(grid-based) air quality models such as UAM in developing SIPs
for areas designated as extreme, severe, serious, or multistate
moderate.
Uncertainties arise in photochemical modeling from the basic
model components (chemical mechanism and numerical techniques in
2-163
-------
solving the governing equations) and from inputs to the
simulations that reflect the particular episode (boundary and
initial conditions, emissions inventory, wind field, and mixing
depth). While, as noted by the commenter, these limitations are
legitimate sources of uncertainty, they are even more applicable
to some of the evidence used by the commenter. For example, the
isopleth diagrams that the commenter uses to make his argument
are subject to similar limitations because they are either
generated by these models or by the same fundamental concepts as
used in these models.
The EPA addresses the uncertainties in models by using
sensitivity studies. Sensitivity studies aim to determine the
range of uncertainty in model predictions corresponding to ranges
of uncertainty in the basic model components and input
quantities. Such studies are valuable to pinpoint those
quantities to which model predictions are most sensitive and,
therefore, in directing future efforts in reducing the
uncertainty in key parameters. These studies are also valuable
in assessing the sensitivity of future air quality changes to
uncertainties in the base case episode. It is not possible to
state general, widely applicable levels of uncertainty for
photochemical model inputs and parameters. These will depend on
the particular region being modeled, and, in the case of
meteorological and emissions inputs, may even depend on the time
of day during the simulation. All model application exercises
should include, to the extent possible, an analysis of the
uncertainties in model inputs and parameters.
In conclusion, the computer models, while not perfect
representations of meteorological conditions nor atmospheric
chemistry, provide a far more complete description of their
effects than any other means of analysis available. Application
of grid models using different chemical mechanisms and differing
means of generating meteorological inputs consistently leads to a
conclusion that, under some conditions, ozone is sensitive to
reductions in anthropogenic VOC emissions. The UAM has been
2-164
-------
reviewed by Scheffe and Morris in "A Review of the Development
and Application of the Urban Airshed Model."21
The UAM is the most widely applied and broadly tested
grid-based photochemical air quality model. The model is
described in a number of sources, including a multi-volume series
of documents issued by the U.S. EPA (1990a,b,c; 1992b) and a
comprehensive evaluation by Tesche et al (1993).20,22-25 The UAM
has been applied to many urban areas in the United States and
Europe, and most of these studies have included some form of
performance evaluation (see summary in Tesche et al., 1993,
table 6-2).25 The UAM is continuing to undergo revision to
increase its accuracy as we better understand the atmospheric
chemistry.
Evaluations of UAM's performance have been carried out for a
number of geographic areas. Evaluations conducted since 1985
have indicated mean differences between predicted and measured
ozone values of 20 to 40 percent when paired in space and time
(Roth et al.).26 The prediction of peaks exhibits relative
errors that are smaller than the average error, with a tendency
toward underprediction. The leading cause of underprediction in
urban areas is the discovery that mobile source VOC emissions are
significantly underestimated. In September of 1996, EPA
published updated guidance for State and local agencies to use in
developing motor vehicle emission inventories using Highway
Performance Monitoring System datasets and state-of-the-practice
Travel Demand Model outputs.27 Through this guidance and
complementary activities, EPA will improve and confirm the
accuracy of mobile source emission inventories, leading to better
ozone prediction by the models.
The concentration of NC>2 predicted by the UAM is generally
within 30 to 50 percent of the measured NC>2 in UAM applications.
This discrepancy between predicted and measured NC>2 has remained
consistent over the history of modeling applications (Roth
et al.).26 Thus, the UAM is no better or worse than other models
at predicting NC>2. Typically, the UAM predicts a lower
2-165
-------
concentration of NC>2, generally on the order of 20 to 40 percent
below what is actually measured (Roth et al.).26
Comment: Two commenters (CP-IV-D-35m, AIM-IV-D-177a)
asserted that EPA requires the use of the UAM to determine which
control techniques to use to control ozone. One commenter
(CP-IV-D-35m) claimed that section 183(e) of the Act does not
require the use of the UAM. These commenters (CP-IV-D-177a,
AIM-IV-D-35m, AIM-IV-D-49) on three occasions concluded that the
UAM concentrates on which precursors need to be removed from the
air in a discrete nonattainment area to attain the ozone NAAQS
whereas section 183(e) of the Act focuses on what can or cannot
be added to "natural air" and still remain in attainment with the
ozone NAAQS. One commenter (CP-IV-D-35m) explained that the UAM
model had a software defect in the critical VOC:NOX ratio that
seriously compromised its use for supporting section 183(e)
regulation.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters'
interpretation of the requirements of the Clean Air Act of 1990.
First, contrary to the commenter's claims, the Act mandates the
use of photochemical grid models for demonstrating how serious,
severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas can attain the
ozone NAAQS.
Also, EPA contends that the focus of the Act is on how to
achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS in all parts of the
country. The only practical way to accomplish this goal in
nonattainment areas is to start with current conditions and
reduce the emission of ozone precursors.
The software defect in the UAM alleged by the commenter is
due to the limitations of the model at the low NOX conditions
that exist in some attainment areas. The UAM is not designed for
modeling the effect of precursors on ozone formation in pristine
air. Rather, it is designed for modeling how changes in
precursor emissions affect ozone formation in air that is typical
of current atmospheric conditions. As also noted in
section 2.2.2 of this document, EPA disagrees that section 183(e)
requires EPA to make its determination starting from natural
2-166
-------
pristine air. Furthermore, although UAM was discussed in the
report to Congress, it was not used as the basis of any
determinations under section 183(e).
2.3.2.7 The EPA Study Incorrectly Evaluated the Cost
Effectiveness Ranking Criterion
Comment: One commenter in two documents (CP-IV-D-35,
CP-IV-D-35m) stated that EPA's method, which is to estimate the
cost per ton of VOC removed for potential control options, is not
a valid measure of cost effectiveness. Two commenters
(CP-IV-D-35, AIM-IV-F-1) claimed that EPA was required by law to
evaluate the effect of consumer product emission reductions on
ozone concentrations in each individual nonattainment area and
list for regulation under section 183(e)(3) only those products
that have the greatest impact on ozone reduction for the least
cost. This study would require air quality modeling and a
determination of the cost per unit of ozone reduction. If such a
study were done, one commenter (CP-IV-D-35) contended that EPA
would conclude that VOC from consumer and commercial products do
not contribute to ozone formation. The commenter claimed that
such an analysis was required by three authorities:
section 183(e) of the Act, section 309 of the Act, and EO 12866.
Response: The EPA believes that it properly applied the cost
effectiveness criterion of section 183(e) and that the
cost-per-ton approach used in the report to Congress is the
correct approach for applying the cost-effectiveness criterion.
The EPA continues to believe that VOC from consumer and
commercial products do have the potential to contribute to ozone
formation. Moreover, EPA disagrees that an assessment of cost
per unit of ozone reduction is legally required in order to list
and rank consumer and commercial products for regulation under
the authorities cited by the commenter.
Ozone attainment is a local responsibility, and the national
VOC emission control programs [like the Motor Vehicle Control
Program, New Source Performance Standards, and section 183(e)]
are designed to support the State programs by requiring the best
available controls for sources that are national in scope. Cost
2-167
-------
per ton of VOC removed is the most appropriate method of
evaluating the effectiveness of these national, technology-based
programs. For the report to Congress, this method involved
assessing available information on potential control technologies
for the products that emit VOC during use and giving the highest
priority to those products that could be controlled at the lowest
cost.
The commenter's suggested approach would also have been
extraordinarily resource and time intensive.Such an analysis
would require, for example, substantial addditional data on the
types and quantities of individual VOC in each product within the
broad universe of consumer and commercial products. To obtain
this information would have placed an additional burden upon
industries that EPA believes was not necessary for the listing
process. Also, studies to quantify the reactivity of a large
number of individual VOC species would have been required for
this analysis. In addition, many complexities make it difficult
to make reliable predictions of the ozone-forming potential of
individual VOC species. One reason is that this potential varies
depending on ambient conditions -- on an absolute scale, and
occasionally on a relative scale as well. These conditions
affecting reactivity include ambient conditions such as VOC-to-
NOx ratios, the presence of other VOC, and sunlight intensity.
Each of these factors can vary widely. Also, in multiple day
pollution episodes in an area, a VOC species that has low
reactivity (based on a one-day reactivity scale) may continue to
form ozone over several days. Even if EPA could have obtained
the needed data and accounted for these complications, the
results would have been of limited utility. As mentioned
previously, available computer models generally aggregate
chemical compounds or consider them as general categories. As a
result, models have limited use for evaluating the effects of
reducing emissions of specific VOC species from a particular
product category.
2-168
-------
Finally, EPA believes that an intensive study to quantify
each product's effect on ozone levels in nonattainment areas is
inconsistent with Congress's intent in enacting the section
183(e) program. Congress recognized that small quantities of VOC
emissions from a very large number of products add up -- and
together make up a significant portion of ozone-forming VOC
emissions. Congress created the 183(e) program to reduce the
aggregate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products.
It is not necessary, even if it were feasible, to quantify the
effect of each product on ozone levels in each nonattainment area
to make a reasoned selection of product categories to list for
regulation. Nothing in the statute implies that the specific
ambient impact of these emissions must be assessed other than to
give priority to the products that emit "highly reactive" VOC.
The EPA also believes that additional air quality modeling
is not needed to justify the benefits of regulating these
products. The Ozone Transport Assessment Group recently
completed the most comprehensive modeling analysis of ozone
transport and control ever conducted. The goal of the group was
to develop a consensus ozone control strategy for achieving the
ozone standard over a 37-State region of the eastern U.S. The
group, which included more than 700 public and private sector
stakeholders, recommended a series of control measures, including
national standards for reducing emissions from the use of
consumer and commercial products. Modeling analysis showed the
need for VOC reductions and the need for national control
strategies for reducing NOX and VOC. The OTAG study confirms
that EPA's regulatory approach for consumer and commercial
products should be implemented.
Finally, EPA believes that the modeling analysis recommended
by the commenters is not legally required by section 183 (e),
section 309, or EO 12866. The reasoning is explained below for
each of these authorities.
Section 183(e). Nothing in the structure or language of
section 183(e) implies that an air quality modeling study is
2-169
-------
required to assess cost-effectiveness. In fact, nowhere does the
Act or the legislative history of section 183(e) provide guidance
on how EPA should evaluate cost-effectiveness in this context.
Therefore, EPA believes that Congress intended the Agency to
exercise its discretion and expertise in assessing the relative
cost-effectiveness of controls, as evidenced by the authority it
gave the Agency to establish the relevant criteria. Based on the
current national strategy for ozone control and the factors
discussed above in this response, EPA believes that the cost per
ton of precursor removed approach is a reasonable and appropriate
exercise of this discretion. Section 183(e) requires EPA to take
into consideration cost effectiveness, and the Agency concludes
that it has done so in a fashion consistent with the language of
the statute.
Section 309. Section 309 requires the Administrator to
review and comment in writing on the environmental impact of
certain legislation and actions of other Federal agencies. When
activities are found to be unsatisfactory from the point of view
of public health or welfare, EPA is required to refer its finding
to the Council on Environmental Quality. The policy review
provisions of section 309 do not apply to regulations that are
promulgated by EPA. Thus, section 309 does not require EPA to
perform any additional economic or impact assessments or
judgments that are not already required to promulgate a rule
under section 183(e).
Executive Order 12866. The EO applies to significant
regulatory actions, as defined by the order. For regulatory
actions which are considered significant regulatory actions
within the meaning of the order, EPA submits the action and
supporting information to OMB for review. For the announcement
of the consumer and commercial product report to Congress, list
and schedule, OMB designated this action as a "significant
regulatory action" within the meaning of the order because this
action is likely to lead to rules which may meet one or more of
the criteria. The EPA submitted this action to OMB for review in
full compliance with this order. For the consumer products and
2-170
-------
architectural coatings rules, OMB designated these regulatory
actions as "significant regulatory actions" within the meaning of
the EO. Thus, EPA submitted these actions including the economic
impact analyses to OMB for review under this order. For the
automobile refinish coatings rule, OMB designated this regulatory
action as a "not significant regulatory action" within the
meaning of the order.
2.3.2.8 Effect of VOC Controls on Peak Ozone Concentrations
Comment: Two commenters submitted six documents
(AIM-IV-D-49, AIM-IV-D-212, CP-IV-D-35, AIM-IV-D-177a,
CP-IV-D-35k, CP-IV-D-35m) supporting their contention that VOC
controls will harm the environment. The commenters used isopleth
charts to illustrate that decreasing VOC emissions from consumer
and commercial products in all attainment air and nonattainment
air that was not VOC-limited increased peak ozone levels.
Therefore, reducing VOC from consumer and commercial products
would increase peak ozone in most of the United States, and no
VOC controls should be promulgated for consumer and commercial
products.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter regarding the
relative ineffectiveness of VOC controls in N0x-limited
atmospheres. The EPA disagrees, however, with the claim that the
atmosphere above "almost all areas in the country" is N0x-limited
and with the claim that control of consumer and commercial
product VOC will be counter effective. By the commenter's
admission, conditions in "severe" and "extreme" problem areas are
VOC limited, and this, sometimes, is true even in Atlanta, which
has a less than "severe"/"extreme" ozone problem. Thus,
Chameides and Cowling, in the "Southern Oxidants Study" cited by
the commenter, state that "the (Atlanta) data showing
N0x-limitation are flawed...and some ozone exceedances in Atlanta
are characterized by N0x-limitation and others by
VOC-limitation."
The commenter's judgment that responsibility for a problem
already in existence lies solely and wholly with the NOX
emissions is in disagreement with EPA's view that VOC also have
2-171
-------
"responsibility" for a nonattainment problem. Atmospheric
conditions vary both within and among problem areas so that
either one of the two ozone precursors, VOC or NOX, can be
"responsible" for ozone nonattainment in some areas or some area
sections or for some of the time.
2.3.3 Miscellaneous Regulatory Issues
Comment: One commenter (CP-IV-D-35m) contended that there
were at least four possible ways to interpret and implement the
intent of section 183(e) of the Act. The commenter stated that
the best choice would be for EPA to agree that the VOC from
consumer and commercial products do not have the potential to
contribute to the exceedance of the ozone NAAQS. As an
alternative, the commenter suggested that EPA delay action on
regulations under section 183(e) of the Act until completion of
the section 183(e) study as required by Congress. The commenter
stated that EPA could use the North American Research Strategy
for Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO) project (to which EPA is an
active signatory and participant) to study the science of VOC
potential or EPA could commission the National Academy of
Sciences to do a study. The commenter suggested as a third
alternative that Congress could hold hearings on section 183(e)
of the Act to revise or clarify those provisions that were deemed
appropriate or necessary. As a final alternative, the commenter
suggested the issue could be elevated to a national discussion.
The commenter recommended that any effects pertaining to the SIP
process be addressed at the same time, if appropriate.
Response: The EPA disagrees that there alternative means
for the EPA to comply with section 183 (e) of the Act. Having
determined that consumer and commercial products have the
requisite potential to contribute to violations of the ozone
NAAQS, it is incumbent upon the EPA to follow the statutory
directive to regulate such products. The EPA has demonstrated
that VOC from consumer and commercial products do have the
potential to contribute to the exceedance of the ozone NAAQS (see
section 2.2.2). The EPA has conducted the section 183(e) study
as required by Congress (see section 2.2.1) and has concluded
2-172
-------
that emissions from consumer and commercial products are
significant and that emission reductions are appropriate. In
addition, the Agency has considered all of the statutory factors
in developing the criteria for regulation of consumer and
commercial products and in prioritizing categories for
regulation. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the statutory
criteria for regulating commercial and consumer products clearly
have been met and will proceed with the regulatory process as
outlined in the March 23, 1995 Federal Register notice.
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) contended that using
VOC to improve products was discouraged by EPA's unsubstantiated
claim that VOC caused air pollution. Because EPA failed to
perform concrete, specific scientific tests to support its
charge, the commenter contended that the products did not
contribute to air pollution and should not have been discouraged.
Response: As discussed in section 2.3.2.5, there is ample
evidence that decreasing VOC emissions causes predicted ozone to
decrease. Since most of the regulatory effort to date has been
to reduce VOC, the ambient information tends not to support the
commenter's claims that VOC do not cause air pollution.
Comment: One commenter (IV-F-ld) referred to a 1996 article
by David Lewis, an EPA employee at EPA's National Exposure
Research Lab in Athens Georgia.28 The article discusses how EPA
administrators loaded EPA employees down with paperwork resulting
in less science coming out of EPA. The commenter quoted the
article as saying that EPA "must develop a broad vision of the
science needed and take bold steps to acquire and apply it. This
will require more than just improving ORD. It means making
fundamental changes in structure and mission of EPA as a whole so
that the science leads, rather than trying to catch up, with the
promulgation of environmental regulation." Later in the article
it is stated "Congress has placed on the national agenda the need
to rectify EPA's inadequate basis for supporting its regulatory
process with sound science." The commenter continued by quoting
from a September 27, 1994 document (memorandum) from Mr. Bruce
2-173
-------
Jordan to Dr. Basil Dimitriades. The commenter stated that
Mr. Jordan recommended certain changes to the scientific report
that Dr. Dimitriades was submitting. The commenter asserts that
EPA had a specific goal in mind and that Dr. Dimitriades changed
his report to meet those goals.
Response: As described elsewhere in this comment response
document, EPA considers the section 183(e) study and report to
Congress to be based on appropriate use of science. The
commenter's remarks concerning the September 27, 1994 memorandum
are a mischaracterization of the contents of that document. The
memorandum in question conveys comments on the report to limit
the scope of the paper to address the scientific issues
pertaining to section 183(e) of the Act. The memorandum
accordingly included recommendations to make clarifications to
the report to ensure that there would be no confusion that the
report was addressing anything other than the scientific issues
of section 183(e) of the Act.
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) noted that EPA had
not addressed the seasonality of emissions. The commenter
explained that paint sales and use were weather sensitive and
followed an annual pattern of peaking in the good weather summer
months and ebbing in the fall and winter. The commenter stated
that in California and the Southwest, paint applications during
spring months, before the hot summer, would lead to less paint
emissions during summer months.
Response: Reducing VOC emissions during the ozone season by
applying paint at times other than the ozone season is not a
practical approach. Practicality issues preclude EPA from
restricting the seasons when VOC emissions are allowed.
Section 183(e) of the Act provides EPA only with the regulatory
authority to regulate manufacturers and distributors and no
ability to dictate when paint is going to be applied. In
addition, regulations that attempt to control consumption or user
habits are considered to be impractical and undesirable.
Therefore, EPA concluded that limits on the amount of VOC
2-174
-------
incorporated into the products would be the most feasible and
least disruptive control measure.
Comment: The commenter (AIM-IV-D-177) claimed the
environmental movement and the policies of EPA should have
addressed the relationship of environmental sustainability and
population levels. The commenter stated that most activities
regulated by EPA would not cause an environmental problem at one
level of population but would at a higher level. The commenter
concluded that VOC at one level of use by a stable population
became huge at a much higher population level.
Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter's conclusion
that VOC at one level of use by a stable population may become
huge at a much higher population level. Thus, as nonattainment
and even attainment areas grow in population, for certain types
of consumer and commercial products, national VOC regulations
become a more important tool in assisting States, regions, and
localities achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS. This point is
discussed more in section 2.3.1 of this document.
2.3.4 Economic And Social Impacts Of National VOC Rules
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212) attached the
following two reports to their comments: "Preliminary Report to
Dunn-Edwards Corporation: A Bio-Psycho-Social Perspective on Some
Implications of VOC Regulation" (AIM-IV-D-212p6q/CP-IV-D-35s4)
and "Stepping Stones - A Technical Paper Introducing Some
Theoretical Dynamics in ... A Preliminary Report to Dunn-Edwards
Corporation: A Bio-Psycho-Social Perspective on Some
Implications of VOC Regulation" (AIM-IV-D-212p6r/CP-IV-D-35s5).
The authors state that the reports explore their "analysis of
social trends in American culture and some implications of
environmental policy, VOC regulation in particular, on the
nation's future." The authors assert that EPA needs to analyze,
anticipate, and factor in the unintended social consequences of
VOC regulations and recommendations. The reports presents claims
that the results of EPA's current approach to control of VOC
have, in effect, placed urban cores and economically fragile
rural areas further into an "at-risk" social development process.
2-175
-------
The commenter asserted that entry-level crafts and manufacturing
jobs are frequently the very jobs that utilized products
containing VOC; thus, the VOC issue was closely linked with
keeping the social development process intact. The commenters
also asserted that environmental regulations that resulted in
employer flight or demise, due to increased operating/compliance
costs or outright banning of product use, are a form of
environmental injustice that EPA must consider carefully.
The commenter submitted two letters (AIM-IV-D-212,
AIM-IV-D-212p4/CP-IV-D-35g) claiming that in California, 29 years
of evaporative VOC regulations resulted in a loss of jobs. The
commenter explained that this loss in job base in turn led to a
loss of tax revenues to the State. As a result, the commenter
continued, poverty and hunger increased and the ability to
provide for the health and welfare of citizens declined. Thus,
the commenter maintains that VOC emission controls contributed to
the problems of hunger and malnutrition.
Another commenter (AIM-IV-D-166) opposed national rules that
applied to attainment areas because the effort required to
enforce such activity is counter-productive and would eliminate
business for smaller companies, increase costs for mid-size
companies, protect the market for major corporations, and hurt
the consumer.
Response: The Agency believes that national rules proposed
under section 183(e) of the Act will not have a significant
primary or secondary economic impact as described by the
commenter. The Agency acknowledges that by establishing a set of
product-specific standards for VOC content, national rules have
cost implications for producers of the affected products.
Manufacturers of consumer and commercial products that do not
meet the VOC levels in the national rules or use another
compliance option in the rule will be required to reformulate
products or remove products from the market. Each option imposes
costs, some of which will be passed on to other members of
society (consumers) in the form of higher prices, and some of
which will be borne directly by manufacturers.
2-176
-------
The cost of reformulation includes the resources that must
be devoted to creating a compliant product, e.g., research and
development expenditures plus any net changes in the variable
cost of producing the new product. Variable costs may be
affected by changes in the material composition of the new
product. The cost for each noncompliant product depends on the
level of effort required to develop a new product and how these
expenditures are incurred over time. Economic impact analyses
completed by EPA for the automobile refinish coatings, consumer
products, and architectural coatings rules have indicated that it
is highly unlikely that the rule will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The EPA also
does not expect these rules to have significant secondary
impacts, given the expected primary economic impacts. See the
economic impact analyses for these rulemakings for more detailed
information on these analyses.
2.4 CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL ISSUES
2.4.1 Clean Air Act Issues
2.4.1.1 Ultra Vires Consideration of Regulatory Criteria
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-214c) asserted that the
consideration of allegedly nonstatutory factors in establishing
regulatory criteria to list and schedule consumer or commercial
products for regulation by EPA officials were actions ultra vires
and hence give rise to causes of action against the officials.
The commenter cited a number of judicial precedents which
ostensibly support its claim.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusion
that the actions are ultra vires. As explained more fully in
section 2.1.1.2 of this 183-BID, section 183(e)(2) of the Act
does not restrict EPA's consideration of additional factors in
establishing criteria for regulating consumer and commercial
products.
Section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act provides only that EPA
"shall take into consideration" certain enumerated factors in
deciding upon the proper criteria. The provision does not
2-177
-------
dictate the criteria themselves. The EPA concludes that it has
discretion to decide how many criteria to establish, what the
criteria should be, and whether and to what extent the criteria
should precisely mirror the considerations Congress enumerated in
section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act. Most importantly for purposes
of this discussion, so long as EPA considers the factors Congress
did enumerate in the statute, the statute does not preclude EPA's
additional consideration of any other factors or criteria that
EPA deems reasonable and necessary to fulfill its statutory
obligation to regulate consumer and commercial products. The EPA
believes that actions permitted by the statute itself can never
give rise to a claim for ultra vires actions.
2.4.1.2 No Legal Justification for Regulation of Area
Sources.
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-F-lc) in a public hearing
indicated his belief that section 183(e) of the Act does not
authorize the regulation of "area sources" and, in particular,
that EPA cannot now regulate "area sources" through
section 183(e) of the Act because of flaws that the commenter
perceives in an unspecified 1989 report from the Office of
Technology Assessment, presumably "Catching Our Breath: Next
Steps for Reducing Urban Ozone."4
Response: The EPA believes that the commenter misconstrues
EPA's obligations under section 183(e) of the Act.
Section 183(e) of the Act directs EPA to regulate consumer and
commercial products that generate VOC emissions. By their
nature, of course, individual consumer or commercial products
such as a single can of paint contain only a limited amount of
VOC. The statute clearly indicates, however, that Congress
decided that such products in the aggregate cause sufficient
environmental harm to necessitate regulation of their VOC
content. Thus, Congress has made the determination that EPA
shall consider regulation of consumer and commercial products.
Whether consumer and commercial products are "area sources" or
not is therefore irrelevant to EPA's obligations under
section 183(e) of the Act. Whether Congress based its
2-178
-------
determination in whole, in part, or not at all, on the report
questioned by the commenter does not obviate EPA's duty to
regulate the VOC content of consumer and commercial products
imposed by Congress.
2.4.2 Procedural Issues
2.4.2.1 Regulations Void Ab Initio
Comment: Two commenters (AIM-IV-D-214c,
AIM-IV-D-214b/CP-IV-D-07b) have asserted that EPA's regulations
promulgated pursuant to section 183(e) of the Act are based upon
deficient procedures and are therefore of no force or effect
because a court could declare them void ab initio. One of the
commenters explained that the regulations should be void ab
initio for several reasons. First, the commenter stated that EPA
could issue no regulations unless and until EPA completes a study
and listing that comply with the statutory requirements of
section 183(e) of the Act. Second, the commenter asserted that
EPA must determine which method of regulation would be most
effective for consumer and commercial products on the basis of
the environmental impacts of such method, and that EPA had failed
to consider the environmental impacts in compliance with
section 183(e) of the Act, EO 12866, and the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA). Third, the commenter noted that EPA is to
make rulemaking determinations based upon economic feasibility,
and that EPA failed to perform economic feasibility studies in
accordance with EO 12866, UMRA, and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA).
Response: The EPA disagrees that the consumer and
commercial product regulations are void ab initio because it has
complied with the requirements of the statutes enumerated by the
commenters. As explained more fully in section 2.1.1.1 of this
183-BID, EPA performed the study and the listing in accordance
with the requirements of section 183(e) of the Act. As required
by the statute, EPA conducted the study to determine the
potential for VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products
to contribute to ozone levels which violate the ozone NAAQS, and
establish criteria for prioritizing the products for regulation.
2-179
-------
In prioritizing the products for regulation, EPA considered the
factors enumerated in the statute and exercised its discretion to
establish the exact criteria and their application to the
categories of products to determine the schedule for regulation
of products. The EPA thus performed the study and listing as
directed by the statute.
With regard to the commenter's second point, EPA believes
that it has determined the best method to regulate the categories
of consumer and commercial products consistent with the
objectives of section 183(e) of the Act and other operative
provisions. That section explicitly empowers EPA to choose "any"
regulatory remedy to alleviate VOC emissions that the
Administrator deems appropriate, including registration,
labeling, self-monitoring and reporting requirements,
prohibitions, limitations, and economic incentives.
Section 183(e) of the Act further instructs EPA to promulgate
regulations that require the "Best Available Controls" to achieve
reductions. The statutory definition of "Best Available
Controls" gives the Administrator explicit discretion to consider
a number of factors in determining how best to obtain VOC
emission reductions, including but not limited to technological
and economic feasibility, and health, environmental, and energy
impacts.
In the case of consumer products, architectural coatings,
and automobile refinish coatings, EPA has determined that the
most effective control of VOC emissions, taking into account the
range of operative factors, can be achieved through limitation of
the VOC content of the products at the time of manufacture. The
commenter might argue that other types of regulatory controls
might result in greater reductions and hence greater positive
environmental impacts, or disagree with the Agency's perspective
on which products to regulate, in which order, and to what
degree, but EPA believes that a national rule requiring a set of
VOC content limits for certain categories of products is
appropriate to meet the objectives of section 183(e) of the Act.
Contrary to the commenter's assertions, EPA specifically
2-180
-------
considered the "environmental impacts" of each rule in
determining that it was the best available control method for the
product category. For example, in the proposed national rule for
consumer products, EPA explicitly explained that the regulations
as proposed would obtain a 20 percent reduction of VOC emissions
from this category of products and that this would have a
beneficial effect by helping to reduce tropospheric ozone and
thereby helping to alleviate ozone NAAQS nonattainment and to
protect human health. See April 2, 1996 Federal Register (61 FR
14531 and 14534).
Similarly, EPA disagrees with the commenter's claims that
the Agency did not comply with requirements to consider the
economic feasibility of the regulations. As discussed more fully
in section 2.3.2.7 of this BID and in the preambles for the final
consumer products rule, architectural coatings rule, and
automobile refinish coatings rule, EPA has complied with the
applicable requirements of EO 12866, UMRA, and the RFA,
concerning economic analysis of the regulations.
2.4.2.2 Conflict of Interest
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-49b) expressed concern
that the participation of an employee of an automobile company as
the chairman of a meeting of a committee reviewing a document
concerning ozone precursors constituted a conflict of interest.
The implication of the commenter's assertion is that because
automobiles are a major contributor to ozone nonattainment in
certain areas, the participation of an employee of an automobile
company on the committee could constitute a conflict of interest
and that such individual could skew the outcome of the
committee's work to the detriment of manufacturers of consumer
and commercial products. The committee in question was the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee of the Science Advisory Board
(CASAC). The meeting in question occurred on July 20-21, 1994,
and the purpose of the meeting was to review the draft of a
report entitled "Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants."
2-181
-------
Response: The EPA rejects the implication of the
commenter's assertions regarding bias or conflict of interest.
Congress provided for the creation of CASAC as an independent
scientific review committee to provide an opportunity for
objective evaluation of scientific issues. See
section 109(d)(2)(A) of the Act. The EPA uses CASAC to provide a
balanced, independent perspective on scientific aspects of
various actions taken by the Agency. To accomplish this, the
committee must necessarily have representatives from various
industries and groups with expertise and experience in various
aspects of air pollution. It is precisely this balance that EPA
believes adds credence and reliability to the recommendations of
CASAC. To suggest that the committee members should only
represent industries, groups, or perspectives approved by or
satisfactory to a certain member of a potentially regulated
community is neither sensible nor legally required.
In addition, EPA disagrees with the implication of the
commenter's statements that an individual who chaired a meeting
of the CASAC could in some fashion skew the outcome of the
meeting to the detriment of the commenter's industry. As with
all committees, the recommendations of CASAC reflect the
consensus of the committee members and no one member controls the
outcome of the committee's positions. Moreover, even if there
were some possibility of a single member influencing the process
to any degree, the recommendations of CASAC are merely advisory
in nature. See section 109(d)(2)(C) of the Act. No decision of
CASAC results in direct impacts upon regulated entities as the
Agency merely takes such information into account in its own
decision making process. The EPA notes that in the case
complained about by the commenter, the supposed connection
between the alleged impropriety and the ultimate impact upon the
commenter is particularly attenuated. The meeting in question
only addressed one report that was taken into account by the
Agency. The EPA's determinations regarding regulation of
consumer and commercial products are not based upon this one
report alone, and thus the Agency believes that it is
2-182
-------
unreasonable to suggest that any alleged bias therein in fact
affected the commenter in any significant way.
2.4.2.3 Information Disclosure
Comment: One commenter (CP-IV-F-la) expressed concern that
members of the public did not have an opportunity to make a
comparison of the various categories of consumer products or the
products themselves during the process of product listing and
scheduling for regulation. The commenter asserted that all such
information should have been provided at the time of the
section 183(e) study and report to Congress. The commenter took
issue with EPA's stated intention to provide data regarding each
category of product at the time of promulgation of rules
applicable to such category. The commenter expressed concern
that EPA was not providing the public with adequate information
and may never do so. The implication of the commenter's
assertions is that EPA could not perform the listing of
categories of consumer products and could not schedule those
categories for regulation before providing the public with all
data the commenter contends are necessary to support those
actions.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's
assertions. First, as a factual matter, the Agency believes that
the report to Congress in fact did provide information of the
type to which the commenter refers. The report included explicit
discussions of such topics as: (1) the findings of the Agency
relevant to consumer and commercial products, (2) the
comprehensive emissions inventory which detailed the relevant
data for the various categories of consumer and commercial
products, and (3) the explanation of the criteria EPA had
developed to list and regulate consumer and commercial products.
Nevertheless, the Agency made clear at the time of the report to
Congress that it would continue to collect additional data in
connection with the development of consumer product regulations,
and that based upon such data the Agency may reassess the product
listing and schedule. See March 23, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR
15264, 15265). The EPA stated explicitly that the public will
2-183
-------
have an opportunity to comment on the listing and schedule at the
time EPA proposes a product category regulation, at which time
interested parties will have an opportunity to examine the data
utilized by the Agency to reach its determinations. Given that
the Agency could not develop perfect information on each and
every category of product short of taking the same steps
necessary to develop a regulation, the Agency believes that this
is a practical and reasonable approach. If information
subsequently developed indicates that a category of product
should not be regulated, or should be regulated later in the
schedule, EPA intends to act upon such information.
Second, EPA also specifically disagrees with the commenter's
assertions that the data utilized by EPA were unavailable to the
public. The EPA developed the data it deemed necessary to list
and schedule the consumer products for regulation and then shared
this information with the public. The EPA provided the data to
the NAPCTAC, a committee made up of 12 members including
representatives from the Agency, industry, State and local
agencies, public interest groups and academia, for the ranking
process. The NAPCTAC held an open meeting to discuss product
listing and scheduling and shared the data with members of the
public. Attendees at this meeting included representatives of
the commenter. Furthermore, EPA provided all of its information
to the public when it announced its initial listing of products,
and has solicited comment on that information in the course of
the individual consumer product regulation development. Only
after consideration of these comments has the Agency made any
final decisions based upon the information.
Finally, EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation
of section 183(e) of the Act regarding the supposed obligation to
provide complete data at the time of the report to Congress.
Section 183(e)(2)(A) of the Act directs the Agency to conduct a
study and submit a report to Congress that addresses two
enumerated objectives: (1) determination of the potential to
contribute to ozone nonattainment of VOC emissions from such
products, and (2) establishment of the appropriate criteria to
2-184
-------
regulate such products. The EPA believes that this statutory
provision thus obligated the Agency to engage in a listing
exercise based upon the information available to it. The statute
does not obligate EPA to provide any particular type of data at
any particular time, but rather leaves to the Agency's discretion
the question of what data to take into account for purposes of
listing the products and scheduling them for regulation, subject
to the requirements of section 183(e)(2)(B) of the Act to take
into consideration the enumerated factors as it develops
regulatory criteria. The Agency believes that the adequacy of
the report to Congress and the data therein are issues that are
solely within the power of Congress to decide, as demonstrated by
the legislative history of the Act and judicial precedents.
2.4.3 Constitutional Issues
2.4.3.1 Regulation of Consumer and Commercial Products is
an Unconstitutional Restraint on Trade
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212p6/CP-IV-D-35t,
AIM-IV-D-212) asserted that consumer and commercial product
regulations issued by EPA under section 183(e) of the Act
constitute "an effort to place substantial restraints on
interstate commerce." The commenter's reasoning was that
consumer and commercial product regulations will provide market
advantages to "national and international manufacturing
companies" because such companies already produce products that
are in compliance with the proposed consumer and commercial
product rules. The commenter explained that the rules would thus
give unfair advantage to some companies over other companies
whose products do not comply. In the architectural coatings
industry, the commenter claimed that "regional and local
manufacturers" which "are involved in interstate commerce" would
be hampered in their competition with the other companies whose
products already comply. The commenter opined that there "may be
a high probability" that other industries subject to consumer and
commercial product regulations would likewise incur restraints on
trade as a result of the regulations. Because of this alleged
differential treatment, the commenter concluded that the consumer
2-185
-------
and commercial product regulations result in a "substantial
restraint of trade."
Response: To the extent that the commenter implies that the
consumer and commercial product regulations required by
section 183(e) of the Act violate the Commerce Clause of the
Constitution, EPA believes that the commenter misconstrues the
nature of that clause. The Constitution gives Congress the power
"[t]o regulate commerce ... among the several States." U.S.
Const., Art. I, section 8, c!3. Under the Commerce Clause,
Congress may "regulate those activities having a substantial
relationship to interstate commerce, i.e.. those activities that
substantially affect interstate commerce." U.S. v. Lopez. 115 S.
Ct. 1624, 1629-30 (1995) (citation omitted). The courts have
held that Congress acted within its powers under the Commerce
Clause when it enacted the Act. See Hodel v. Virginia Surface
Mining & Reclamation Ass'n.. 452 U.S. 264, 289 (1981).
Regulation of air pollution and of emission sources that
contribute to air pollution is a legitimate exercise of authority
by Congress in enacting section 183(e) of the Act, and of EPA
when acting in accordance with the Act. To the extent that the
commenters intended to assert that there is an equal protection
clause problem with the regulation of consumer and commercial
products, EPA likewise disagrees. The intent of the Agency is
not to discriminate against any group or protected class, but
rather to promulgate regulations that accomplish the directives
of Congress to reduce VOC emissions. Because these regulations
are rationally related to accomplishment of a legitimate
objective, EPA disagrees that there can be any equal protection
violation.
The EPA also disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that
consumer and commercial product regulations will constitute
unreasonable restraints of trade because of the burdens imposed
upon companies that do not already comply relative to those that
already do. In any regulation, those who already comply will
have an advantage over those who do not. The EPA does not
believe that the Agency can simply refuse to issue regulations on
2-186
-------
the grounds that some regulated entity will suffer a greater
impact than others, especially when the supposed benefit to the
other entities is a result of their already producing products
that are more protective of the environment. Section 183 (e) of
the Act directs EPA to regulate consumer and commercial products
for the purposes of reducing VOC emissions; to do so, some
products and some regulated entities must necessarily be affected
in a way that they may consider disadvantageous. Certainly,
EPA's intent in setting standards is to achieve certain
environmental results, not to discriminate against or otherwise
disadvantage a certain segment of an industry. In addition, the
Agency has striven to tailor the rules to make appropriate
adjustments for small entities in accordance with statutory
directives under other applicable statutes.
The EPA notes that the specific concern of the commenter was
that companies which produce predominantly solvent-based coatings
cannot compete favorably with other companies which produce
predominantly water-based coatings with less VOC content. The
EPA has already taken a number of steps to include provisions the
Agency deems appropriate to provide flexibility in the final rule
for architectural coatings.
2.4.3.2 Violations of Due Process
Comment: One commenter (AIM-IV-D-212, AIM-IV-D-12p6/
CP-IV-D-35t) has alleged that EPA's rulemakings under
section 183(e) of the Act included violations of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The
commenter did not specify consistently whether it perceived
violations of substantive due process, procedural due process, or
both in each instance. The commenter did, however, note various
actions that it contended were violative of due process: (1) the
manner in which EPA conducted the regulatory negotiation;
(2) EPA's method of ranking products for regulation; and
(3) EPA's treatment of relative reactivity of VOCs.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions
that the Agency's actions violate due process, whether
substantive or procedural. The Fifth Amendment Due Process
2-187
-------
Clause states that "[n]o person shall ... be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law." In the case
of substantive due process for economic regulation, like that at
issue with the consumer and commercial product regulations, "[i]t
is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that
it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a
rational way to correct it." Williamson v. Lee Optical of
Oklahoma. Inc.. 348 U.S. 483, 488 (1955). As described more
fully elsewhere in this 183-BID, EPA has legal authority to issue
the regulations under section 183(e) of the Act. The EPA's duty
to protect public safety and health under the Act is explicit.
Because the regulations issued by EPA pursuant to section 183(e)
of the Act, are designed to reduce tropospheric ozone, a
pollutant with adverse effects upon human health and the public
welfare, the regulations are rationally related to Congress'
objective. The Agency thus believes that the commenter has no
basis for complaint that the regulations are inconsistent with
the requirements of substantive due process.
With regard to procedural due process, EPA likewise
disagrees with the commenter's assertions. As described more
fully elsewhere in this 183-BID, EPA followed the requisite
procedures in connection with the three items the commenter
enumerated: (1) the regulatory negotiation process, (2) the
ranking of products, and (3) the consideration of VOC reactivity.
In particular, EPA notes that the public, including the
commenter, have had the opportunity to participate throughout the
development of the regulations from the lengthy regulatory
negotiation process through the close of the comment period for
each rule. To the extent that the commenter or others have had
significant comments regarding the decisions reached by the
Agency in connection with the section 183(e) study and report to
Congress, the listing of products, the scheduling of products for
regulation, and the product regulations themselves, EPA will take
such comments into account in the final rules for the appropriate
consumer and commercial product category.
2-188
-------
2.5 REFERENCES
1. Dimitriades, B. Scientific Basis of the VOC Reactivity
Issues Raised by Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. Journal of Air and Waste Management.
46:963-970 October 1996.
2. U.S. EPA. Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Consumer and Commercial Products: Report to Congress.
Chapter 4 Criteria for Regulating Products Under Section
183(e); 22 pages. EPA-453/R-94-066-a. March 1995.
3. U.S. EPA. Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Consumer and Commercial Products: Aerosol Products and
Packaging Systems. EPA-453/R-94-066-f, March 1995.
4. United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.
Catching our Breath: Next Steps for Reducing Urban Ozone,
OTA-0-412, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
NTIS # PB90-130451. July 1989. 243 pages.
5. U.S. EPA. Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Consumer and Commercial Products: Comprehensive Emissions
Inventory. EPA-453/R-94-066-b, March 1995.
6. Seinfeld, J.H, R. Atkinson, R.L. Berglund, W.L. Chameides,
W.R. Cotton, K.L. Demerjian, J.L. Elston, F. Fehsenfeld,
B.J. Finlayson-Pitts, R.C. Harriss, C.E. Kolb, Jr.,
P.J. Lioy, J.A. Logan, M.J. Prather, A. Russell, and
B. Steigerwald. Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and
Regional Air Pollution. National Research Council, Academy
of Sciences. Washington, DC. International Standard Book
Number 0-309-04631-9. 1992 500 pages.
7. Chameides, W.L., R.W. Lindsay, J. Richardson, and C.S.
Kiang. The Role of Biogenic Hydrocarbons in Urban
Photochemical Smog: Atlanta as a Case Study. Science.
241:1473-1475. 1988.
8. Carter, W.P.L. and R. Atkinson. An Experimental Study of
Incremental Hydrocarbon Reactivity. Environmental Science
and Technology. 21:670-679. 1987.
9. Chameides, W.L., F. Fehsenfeld, M.O. Rodgers, C. Cardelino,
J. Martinez, D. Parrish, W. Lonneman, D.R. Lawson,
R.A. Rasmussen, P. Zimmerman, J. Greenberg, P. Middleton,
and T. Wang. Ozone Precursor Relationships in the Ambient
Atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research.
97:6037-6055. April 1992.
10. Milford, J.B., A.G. Russell, and G.J. McRae. A New Approach
to Photochemical Pollution Control: Implications of Spatial
Patterns in Pollutant Responses to Reductions in Nitrogen
2-189
-------
Oxides and Reactive Organic Gas Emissions. Environmental
Science and Technology. 23:1290-1301. 1989.
11. U.S. EPA. Regional Modeling for Northeast Transport
(ROMNET). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, NC. EPA-450/91-002a. 1991
12. Cardelino C., D. Hartley, M.E. Chang, W.-L. Chang, D.
Haas-Laursen. Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Emissions and Urban Airshed Modeling Issues for Atlanta,
Georgia, Final Report (GTRC Contract No. 771-390279). June
12, 1995.
13. Cardelino, C. and W. Chameides. An Observation-Based Model
for Analyzing Ozone Precursor Relationships in the Urban
Atmosphere. Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association. 45(3) :161. 1995.
14. Blanchard, C. and P.R. Roth. Spatial Mapping of Preferred
Strategies for Reducing Ambient Ozone Concentrations
Nationwide. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/R-94/199. June
1994. 88 pages.
15. Johnson, G.M. and S.M. Quigley. A Universal Monitor for
Photochemical Smog. Presented at the 82nd Air and Waste
Association Meeting and Exhibition. Anaheim, CA. Paper
89-29.8. 1989.
16. Altschuller, A.P. and J.J. Bufalini. Photochemical Aspects
of Air Pollution: a Review. Environmental Science and
Technology. 5:39-64. 1971.
17. U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants. National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC
27711. EPA/600/P-63/004aF. July 1996. 433 pages.
18. Cox, W.M. and S. Chu. Meteorologically Adjusted Ozone
Trends in Urban Areas, a Probabilistic Approach.
Atmospheric Environment. 27B:425-435. 1993.
19. U.S. EPA. Technical Assistance Document for Sampling and
Analysis of Ozone Precursors. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/8-91/215,
NTIS # PB92122795. October 1991. 1991 (c)-(g)
20. U.S. EPA. User's Guide for the Urban Airshed Model, Volume
I: User's Manual for the UAM (CB-IV). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-450/4-90-007A.
2-190
-------
1990a.
21. Scheffe, R.D. and R.E. Morris. A Review of the Development
and Application of the Urban Airshed Model. Atmospheric
Environment. 27B:23-29. 1993.
22. U.S. EPA. User's Guide for the Urban Airshed Model, Volume
II: User's Manual for the UAM (CB-IV) Modeling System.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-450/4-90-007B. 1990b.
23. U.S. EPA. User's Guide for the Urban Airshed Model,
Volume III: User's Manual for the Diagnostic Wind Model.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-450/4-90-007C. 1990c.
24. U.S. EPA. User's Guide for the Urban Airshed Model,
Volume IV: User's Manual for the Emissions Preprocessor
System 2.0. Part A: Core FORTRAN System.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-450/4-90-007D(R). 1992b
25. Tesche, T.W., P.M. Roth, S.D. Reynolds, and F.W. Lurman.
Scientific Assessment of the Urban Airshed Model (UAM-IV).
Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute. Washington,
D.C. API Publication Number 4556. 1993.
26. Roth, P.M., C.L. Blanchard, and S.D. Reynolds. The Role of
Grid-Based, Reactive Air Quality Modeling in Policy
Analysis: Perspectives and Implications, as Drawn from a
Case Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory.
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/3-89/082. 1990.
27. U.S. EPA. Emission Inventory Improvement Program. Volume
IV. Mobile Sources. Preferred and Alternative Methods. Use
of Locality-Specific Transportation Data for the Development
of Mobile Source Emission Inventories. Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA-454/R-97-004d. July 1997.
28. Lewis, D. EPA Science: Casualty of Election Politics.
Nature. 381:731-732. June 1996.
2-191
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-453/R-98-007
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Response to Comments on Section 183(e) Study and
Report to Congress
5. REPORT DATE
August 1998
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards Division (MD-13)
Coatings and Consumer Products Group
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards Division (MD-13)
Coatings and Consumer Products Group
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A study and report to Congress were completed on March 23, 1995 pursuant to section 183(e) of the Clean
Air Act. This document contains summaries of public comments on the study and report, along with EPA's
responses to those comments.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Volatile Organic Compounds
Consumer and Commercial Products
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
210
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
2-192
------- |