EPA453/R-95-
018B
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-453/R-95-018B
November 1995
Air
National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations - Background
Information Document for
Final Standards
C
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR WOOD FURNITURE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR FINAL STANDARDS
Summary of Public Comments and Responses
Emission Standards Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
November 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL 1-1
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED ACTION ... 1-3
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 2-1
2.1 APPLICABILITY 2-1
2.2 DEFINITIONS 2-23
2.3 SELECTION OF MACT 2-29
2.3.1 Incinerator Data 2-31
2.3.2 Selection of Median for the MACT Floor 2-33
2.4 EMISSION LIMITS 2-37
2.5 WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS 2-44
2.6 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS ... 2-61
2.7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2-67
2.8 FORMAT OF THE STANDARD 2-69
2.9 COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS AND DATES 2-71
2.10 TEST METHODS 2-84
2.10.1 Proposed Method 311 2-84
2.10.2 Other Test Methods 2-100
2.11 MISCELLANEOUS 2-102
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
On December 6, 1994, EPA published proposed standards to
limit emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from existing
and new wood furniture manufacturing operations located at major
sources (50 PR 62652) . The proposed standards implement
Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act as amended, which require the
Administrator to regulate emissions of HAP listed in
Section 112(b) of the Act. The EPA also proposed Method 311--
Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and
Coatings by Direct Injection into a Gas Chromatograph, to be used
to assist in demonstrating compliance with the proposed emission
limitations. The EPA requested public comments on the proposal
in the Federal Register notice. There were 50 commenters,
composed mainly of States, trade organizations, coating
manufacturers, and wood furniture manufacturers.
This document summarizes all of the comments that were
submitted, along with responses to those comments. The summary
of comments and responses serves as the basis for the revisions
made to the standards between proposal and promulgation.
1.1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL
Several changes have been made since the proposal of these
standards. The majority of the changes were made to clarify
portions of the rule that were unclear to commenters. Other
changes include the addition of a category for incidental
furniture manufacturers, an exemption for aerosol adhesives and
contact adhesives used on nonporous substrates, an additional
area source cutoff level, and an option for averaging between
controlled and uncontrolled emissions for facilities with an add-
1-1
-------
on control device. A summary of the major changes is presented
below.
l. Several commenters stated that the rule should not apply
to incidental wood furniture manufacturing that takes place at a
facility primarily engaged in operations other than the
manufacture of wood furniture. The Agency has included in the
final rule a category for incidental wood furniture manufacturers
to exempt them from this standard. Incidental wood furniture
manufacturers are facilities that use no more than 100 gallons
per month of wood furniture coatings and adhesives but are major
sources due to other unrelated operations at the facility, that
is, operations not included in the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes that encompass the wood furniture
industry. The only requirement for these facilities is to
maintain purchase or usage records to document that their usage
of wood furniture coatings and adhesives is less than 100 gallons
per month.
2. Many commenters stated that there should be a mechanism
for sources that use more than 250 gallons of coatings per month
and 3,000 gallons per year but emit less than the major source
threshold to escape applicability. A mechanism for exempting
these sources has been included in the final rule. Facilities
that use materials that contain no more than 4.5 Mg (5 tons) of
any one HAP per rolling 12 month material or no more than 11.4 Mg
(12.5) tons of any combination of HAP per rolling 12 month
period, including materials from source categories other than
wood furniture are exempted from this regulation. The source
must maintain records that demonstrate that annual emissions do
not exceed these levels and submit the records to the
Administrator upon request. In order to qualify for this
exemption, 90 percent of the plantwide emissions must be
associated with the manufacture of wood furniture or wood
furniture components.
3. In the final rule, SIC 5712 has been added to the list
of wood furniture SIC categories. Facilities manufacturing
custom cabinets under SIC 5712 are subject to the regulation.
1-2
-------
4. Definitions for "wood furniture" and "wood furniture
component" are included in the final rule. Wood furniture is
defined as any product made of wood, wood products (such as
rattan or wicker), or engineered wood products (such as particle
board) that is manufactured under any of the following SIC codes:
2434, 2511, 2512, 2517, 2519, 2521, 2531, 2541, 2599, or 5712.
Wood furniture component is defined as any part that is used in
the manufacture of wood furniture. Examples include drawer
sides, cabinet doors, seat cushions, and laminated tops.
5. The EPA changed the name of the formulation assessment
plan to "formulation assessment plan for finishing operations" to
clarify that the requirements apply only to finishing materials,
not adhesives.
6. The time frame for initial notification has been
extended to 270 days. The Agency is planning to prepare an
industry guidance document that will include an initial
notification form.
7. In the final rule, averaging between controlled and
uncontrolled emissions is allowed as a compliance option for
those sources who have add-on control devices to reduce emissions
from some of their emission points. In addition, it has been
clarified in the final rule that for initial compliance, when
performing the averaging calculation for the first month, data
from before the compliance date should be used so that the
calculated value reflects an entire month's operation.
8. The alternative procedures discussed in John Seitz's
memorandum "Revised Capture Efficiency Guidance for Control of
Volatile Organic Compounds" have been referenced in the final
rule.
9. The EPA modified the language of the final rule to state
that a source's actual emissions for the year 1996 are to be used
to determine the applicable compliance date.
1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROMULGATED ACTION
The final standards will reduce nationwide emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (KAP's) from wood furniture
manufacturing operations by an estimated 29,759 Mg/yr
1-3
-------
{32,795 tons/yr). The actual reduction in emissions may be
larger because this estimate does not include the reduction in
emissions that will result from several work practice standards.
These standards also could potentially result in a decline in VOC
emissions; while the HAP limits do not require the use of lower-
VOC materials, the work practice standards should reduce the use
of VOC containing materials. The EPA does not anticipate any
adverse secondary air, water, or solid waste impacts from the
promulgation of these standards.
The implementation of this regulation is expected to result
in an overall annual cost of $15,279,600. Based on the economic
impact analysis, the EPA has determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action. These impacts are identical to
those estimated for the proposed standard.
1-4
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
The EPA received a total of 50 letters from commenters on
the proposed standards. A list of commenters, their
affiliations, and the EPA document number assigned to their
correspondence is given in Table 2-1.
For the purpose of orderly presentation, the comments have
been categorized under the following topics:
2.1 Applicability;
2.2 Definitions;
2.3 Selection of MACT;
2.4 Emission limits;
2.5 Work practice requirements;
2.6 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements;
2.7 Monitoring requirements;
2.8 Format of the standard;
2.9 Compliance provisions and dates;
2.10 Test methods;
2.10.1 Proposed Method 311;
2.10.2 Other test methods; and
2.11 Miscellaneous.
The comments, the issues they address, and EPA's responses are
discussed in the following sections of this chapter.
2.1 APPLICABILITY
Comment: Eleven commenters (IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-22,
IV-D-24, IV-D-26, IV-D-27, IV-D-28, IV-D-36, IV-D-38, IV-D-39,
and IV-D-43) stated that the wood furniture NESHAP should not
apply to minor, incidental manufacture of wood furniture for
onsite use at a facility that is primarily engaged in other
activities, such as military bases or chemical manufacturing
2-1
-------
Table 2-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR
THE WOOD FURNITURE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Docket
item No.*
Commenter/affiliation
Docket
item No.»
Commenter/affiliation
IV-D-01 Mr. H. Allen Irish IV-D-09
National Paint &. Coatings Association
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005-5503
IV-D-02 Mr. K. Hiroshi Fujimoto
K. Hiro Fujimoto, Inc. IV-D-10
5171 Rock Run
West Bloomfield, MI 48322
IV-D-03 Mr. Bruce McFarlane
Interiors Group Coordinator
Kohler Co.
Kohler, Wisconsin 53044
IV-D-04 Mr. Dale McKinnon IV-D-11
Technical Director
Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Assn.
1707 L Street NW, Suite 570
Washington, DC 20036-1388
IV-D-05 Mr. Jeffrey Shumaker, P.E. IV-D-12
Supervisor, Air Regulatory Affairs
International Paper
International Place I
6400 Poplar Avenue
Memphis, TN 38197 IV-D-13
IV-D-06 Mr. Tim Griffin
Manager - Environment, Health,
& Safety
Gamble Brothers
4601 Allmond Avenue IV-D-14
P.O. Box 14504
Louisville, KY 40214-0504
IV-D-07 Ms. Jacqueline Johnson
Director, Government Affairs
Styrene Information and Research FV-D-15
Center
1275 K Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
IV-D-08 Ms. Elsie Munsell
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Department of the Navy IV-D-16
Office of the Assistant Secretary
(Installations and Environment)
Washington, DC 20360-5000
Mr. Michael Wax, Ph.D.
Deputy Director
Institute of Clean Air Companies
1707 L Street NW, Suite 570
Washington, DC 20036-4201
Mr. David Gustafson
Environment and Health Regulatory
Affairs
Mr. Toby Threet
Legal Department
Dow Chemical Company
2030 Dow Center
Midland, MI 48674
Mr. Michael R. Lake
Chief, Engineering Division
San Diego Air Pollution Control
District
9150 Chesapeake Dr.
San Diego, CA 92123-1096
Mr. W. Caffey Norman, ffl
Patton Boggs, L.L.P.
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037-1350
Mr. Stephen P. Risotto
Executive Director
Center for Emissions Control
2001 L Street, NW, Suite 506A
Washington, DC 20036
Ms. Patricia Kacsuta
Environmental Engineer - Air
PPG Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 2009
Allison Park, PA 15101
Mr. Doyle R. Pendleton
Acting Deputy Director
Texas Natural Resource Consent
Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
Ms. Cynthia N. McAJpine
1351 Hollis Circle
Dallas, GA 30132
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. (continued)
Docket
item No.*
Commenter/affiliation
Docket
item No.*
Commenter/affiliation
IV-D-17 Mr. David W. Gusufson IV-D-25
Environment and Health Regulatory
Affairs
Mr. Toby Threet
Legal Department
Dow Chemical Company
2030 Dow Center
Midland, MI 48674 IV-D-26
IV-D-18 Mr. Ron Methier
Chief, Air Protection Branch
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
4244 International Parkway, Suite 120
Atlanta, GA 30354 IV-D-27
IV-D-19 Duplicate entry
IV-D-20 Mr. Doyle R. Pendleton
Acting Deputy Director
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission IV-D-28
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
IV-D-21 Mr. J. David Thornton
Section Manager, Air Quality Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency IV-D-29
520 N. Lafayette Rd. N.
St. Paul, MN 55155^194
IV-D-22 Mr. Milton Feldstein
Air Pollution Control Officer
Bay Area Air Quality Management IV-D-30
District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
IV-D-23 Ms. Carol J. Niemi
Environmental Specialist, Air Issues
Mr. Toby Threet IV-D-31
Legal Department
Dow Chemical Company
- 2030 Dow Center
Midland, MI 48674
IV-D-24 Mr. Raymond F. Pelletier
Director, Office of Environmental IV-D-32
Policy and Assistance
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585
Mr. George A. Hespe
Technical Development Manager
National Starch and Chemical Company
10 Findeme Avenue
P.O. Box 6500
Bridgewater, NJ 08807-0500
Mr. Norman L. Morrow
Safety and Environmental Affairs
Department
Exxon Chemical Americas
P.O. Box 3272
Houston. TX 77253-3272
Ms. Tern Thomas
Supervisor, Air Toxics Section
Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District
669 County Square Drive
Ventura, California 93003
Mr. Charles W. Keffer
Director, Regulatory Management
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63167
Mr. Langley A. Spurlock
Vice President, CHEMSTAR
Chemical Manufacturers Association
2501 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Ms. Anita I. Shuhevych
Enforcement Specialist
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Mr. John H. Phillips
Technical Services
Ford Motor Company
Suite 608
15201 Century Drive
Dearborn, MI 48120
Mr. Brock R. Landry
Jenner & Block
Fcr The Adhesive and Sealant Council
601 Thirteenth Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1. (continued)
Docket
item No.*
Commeoter/affiliation
Docket
item No.* Commenter/affiliation
IV-D-33 Mr. Brock R. Landry
leaner &. Block
For The UF Resin Manufacturers
Association
601 Thirteenth Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005
IV-D-34 The National Paint &. Coatings
Association
Washington, DC
Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers
Association
Reston, VA
American Furniture Manufacturers
Association
High Point, NC
The Business & Institutional Furniture
Manufacturers Association
Grand Rapids, MI
IV-D-35 Mr. William O'Sullivan
Administrator, Air Quality Regulation
Program
State of New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
IV-D-36 Ms. Ellen Scheide
3M Industrial Tape and Specialties
Division
3M Center
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
IV-D-37 Mr. Howard M. Maisel
President
Columbia Cement Company, Inc.
159 Hanse Avenue
PO Box 708
Freeport, NY 11520
IV-D-38 Mr. Christopher A. Collins
Supervising Air Quality Engineer
Mojave Desert AQMD
15428 Civic Drive, Suite 200
Victorville, CA 92392-2383
IV-D-39 Mr. Joe J. Mayhew
Assistant Vice President
Environmental and Policy Analysis
Chemical Manufacturers Association
2501 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
IV-D-40 Mr. Langley A. Spurlock
Vice President, CHEMSTAR
Chemical Manufacturers Association
2501 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
IV-D-41 Ms. Jean Terry
Environmental Protection Specialist
Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S
Denver, CO 30222-1530
IV-D-42 Mr. Stephen P. Risotto
Executive Director
Center for Emissions Control
2001 L Street, NW, Suite 506A
Washington, DC 20036
IV-EM3 Mr. Daniel E. Donohoue
Manager, Technical Analysis Section
State of California Air Resources Board
2020 L Street
PO Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95814-2815
IV-D^t4 Duplicate Entry
IV-D-45 Duplicate Entry
IV-D-46 Duplicate Entry
IV-D-47 Ms. Pat Leyden
Deputy Executive Officer
South Coast Air Quality Management
District
21865 E. Copley Dr.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
IV-D-48 Mr. Langley Spulock
Vice President, CHEMSTAR
Chemical Manufacturers Association
2501 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
IV-D-49 Mr. James L. Beardsley
Senior Technologist
3M Industrial Tape and Specialties
Division
3M Center Building
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1. (continued)
Docket
item No.* Commenter/affiliation
IV-D-50 Mr. Allen Irish on behalf of
National Paint and Coatings Association
Washington, DC 20005
American Furniture Manufacturers
Association
High Point, NC 27261
Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers
Association
Reston, VA 22091
Business and Institutional Furniture
Manufacturers Association
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
*The docket number for this project is A-93-10. Dockets are on file at EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
2-5
-------
jfacilities. One commenter (IV-D-10) stated that the small amount
of incidental wood furniture manufacturing that occurs at each of
their facilities does not justify regulation, for the largest
group manufacturing wood furniture only uses 170 gallons of
coating per month, an amount what is well below the de minimis
limit. The commenter also stated that their wood furniture
manufacturing occurs without curing ovens and mostly without
spray booths, spray equipment, or flashoff areas, and is
therefore dissimilar to the operations that the rule is intended
to cover. The commenter said that other rules already have shown
that EPA can exempt activities that are too small to justify
regulation, such as the NESHAP for benzene waste, cooling towers,
asbestos, marine vessel loading, and the HON. Several commenters
stated that the intent of the NESHAP was to regulate the wood
furniture manufacturing industry, and that their companies were
not part of that industry.
One commenter (IV-D-22) pointed out that if the final rule
does apply to their wood furniture activities, they will most
likely move wood furniture manufacturing operations offsite by
contracting the work to a local shop, and that this would only
"move the emissions a few miles down the road." The commenter
also asserted that the rule will reduce HAP emissions from small,
incidental furniture manufacturers even if it is not applicable
to them because coating manufacturers, driven by demand from
large customers, will develop reformulated coating products with
lower HAP content. Incidental furniture manufacturers will use
these coatings and reduce emissions without the burden of
administrative programs, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting.
One commenter (IV-D-28) stated that the regulation as
proposed will "impose cumbersome recordkeeping and reporting
requirements on sites without any or little environmental
benefit." The commenter also maintained that "the requirements
as proposed will only add to the complexity and frustration of an
owner or operator and compliance officers who are required to
make compliance determinations when taken in concert with the
2-6
-------
numerous recordkeeping and reporting requirements a facility must
already comply with under other MACT standards and RCRA rules."
One commenter (IV-D-09) pointed out that the economic
analysis did not consider the example of a single noncommercial
cabinet built on a military installation. This commenter also
suggested that wood furniture manufacturing operations located in
industrial areas of installations that are major sources and
consume less than a de minimis quantity of the coatings regulated
in this rule should be exempt from all requirements except
recordkeeping. The commenter suggested eliminating all
references to the terms "major" and "area" and specifically
defining the "affected source" of regulation.
Two commenters (IV-D-22 and IV-D-24) suggested that EPA
consider excluding operations that only produce wood furniture
for onsite use from the "manufacturing" category or establishing
a materials usage cutoff to exempt small operations at major
sources from the entire rule, or at least from the work practice
standards. One commenter (IV-D-27) stated that "a lower cutoff,
for example 10 percent of the area source limits, could be used
as a de minimis level for applicability of the proposed rule at
an otherwise major source or a source that exceeds the coating
volume cutoffs, but primarily performs a function other than wood
furniture manufacturing or coats substrates other than wood
furniture."
Another commenter (IV-D-26), however, stated that the
proposed small quantity exemptions provide his company no relief
since the exemptions apply to the total quantity of materials
used, including materials used for source categories other than
wood furniture. The commenter stated that since his company's
sites are generally large, their use of architectural coatings,
glues, and the like for other purposes makes these exemptions
useless. Even if the exemptions did apply, the commenter
considered the recordkeeping requirements "a difficult,
unnecessary, and wasteful" burden for companies where minor
furniture repair work occurs and further stated that applying the
exemption reporting and recordkeeping requirements to them would
2-7
-------
be "in direct conflict with Executive Order 12866." Several
commenters suggested as possible solutions either limiting
applicability of this proposal to operations in the appropriate
wood furniture manufacturing SIC codes or excluding from the
affected facility definition any facility where wood furniture
operations are performed by an owner/operator or their
contractors for the owner/operator's own use.
Regponse: During the regulatory negotiation process, the
Agency focused on facilities primarily engaged in the manufacture
of wood furniture. While the Agency realized that some of these
facilities were engaged in other operations, such as metal
furniture manufacturing and particle board manufacturing that
could contribute to their major source determination, they were
also large manufacturers of wood furniture. The Agency did not
consider those facilities that only manufacture limited
quantities of wood furniture for onsite use. To address this
issue, the Agency has included in the final regulation a category
for incidental wood furniture manufacturers. Incidental
furniture manufacturers are defined as those facilities using
less than 100 gallons per month of wood furniture coatings and
adhesives that are major sources due to other unrelated
operations at the facility, that is, operations that are not
included in one of the SIC codes that encompass the wood
furniture industry. These facilities will be exempt from the
requirements of this standard but will be required to maintain
purchase or usage records documenting that their use of wood
furniture coatings and adhesives is less than 100 gallons per
month.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-06, and IV-D-22)
stated that what is and what is not subject to the rule should be
more clearly defined. They also pointed out that the preamble
explains EPA's intent not to regulate certain things but that the
rule does not specifically exclude them. Two commenters stated
that the rule should provide specific exemptions for the
manufacturing of plywood, particle board, oriented strand board,
and other engineered wood products, and for gluing operations
2-8
-------
that use PVA, hot melt, or urea formaldehyde type glues. In
these commenters' views, the preamble discussion is inadequate.
Response: As the commenters point out, the Agency is not
regulating the manufacture of plywood, particle board, and other
engineered wood products under the wood furniture NESHAP. These
operations will be regulated under a future NESHAP for
plywood/particle board manufacturers. However, the Agency
believes that it is inappropriate and confusing to list those
operations that are not regulated in the rule. The regulation
establishes emission limits for particular types of finishing
materials and for contact adhesives. These emission limits are
presented clearly in the regulation. Listing all of those
finishing materials and adhesives that are not subject to an
emission limit would unnecessarily complicate the rule.
Comment;: One commenter (IV-D-05) indicated that the
regulation should not address wood furniture components. The
commenter pointed out that, as written, the proposed rule defines
affected facilities to include operations for which EPA did not
evaluate impacts, such as wood furniture "component"
manufacturing operations that do not belong to the SIC codes
listed and whose products may or may not find their way into wood
furniture.
The commenter suggested eliminating any reference to "wood
furniture component" and regulation of only the manufacture of
"wood furniture." This commenter also stated that the rule
should distinguish between wood furniture and wood products, and
suggested excluding unfinished wood products and regulating only
facilities that manufacture finished wood furniture or finished
wood furniture components that are used directly in wood
furniture. This commenter further suggested that regulating
gluing of unfinished components at facilities that neither
manufacture nor finish furniture extends the scope of the rule
beyond the industry originally intended for regulation.
Response: The Agency believes that it is important that the
regulation address both wood furniture manufacturers and
manufacturers of wood, furniture components. There are several
2-9
-------
kitchen cabinet manufacturers that finish the components of their
cabinets at one facility and then assemble the finished
components at another facility. Residential furniture
manufacturers often purchase finished components such as drawers
from other manufacturers. The finishing process is the largest
source of emissions from wood furniture manufacturing operations.
If the rule did not apply to component manufacturers, the
facilities where the finishing occurs would not be regulated in
cases where components are finished at one site and assembled at
another. This would encourage more facilities to have components
finished off site in order to escape regulation and would
significantly reduce the environmental benefit of the rule.
Facilities manufacturing unfinished wood components have,
under the final regulation, two mechanisms for demonstrating they
are exempt from the regulation. As originally proposed, the
regulation exempts facilities that use no more than 250 gallons
per month, or 3,000 gallons per rolling 12-month period, of
finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff materials (including
materials used in operations other than wood furniture
manufacturing). However, as the commenter points out, a
manufacturer of unfinished wood furniture components may use more
than 250 gallons of adhesives. Many of these adhesives have a
very low HAP content. Therefore, EPA included in the final
regulation an additional mechanism for exempting these sources.
Facilities that use materials containing no more than 12.5 tons
per rolling 12 month period of a combination of HAP's, or 5 tons
per rolling 12 month period of any one HAP, and maintain
certified product data sheets and purchase or usage records for
each coating, adhesive, and thinner that demonstrate their
emissions are no greater than these levels, are also exempted
from the regulation. However, only sources where 90 percent of
the total plantwide emissions are from the manufacture of wood
furniture or wood furniture components can qualify for this
exemption.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-16 and IV-D-18) stated that
the preamble should clarify that a major source is a source that
2-10
-------
emits or has the potential to emit, considering controls, equal
to or greater than 10 tons per year of any one HAP or 25 tons per
year of multiple HAP's. They stated that this definition is
consistent with the major source definition under Section 112(a)
of the Clean Air Act. Another commenter (IV-D-37) stated that
"§ 112 requires that EPA promulgate a definition of major source
that combines the emissions of all collocated sources within the
same source category."
Response; The Agency has clarified in the final rule and
preamble that the definition of major source includes sources
that emit, or have the potential to emit, equal to or greater
than 10 tons per year of any one HAP or 25 tons per year of
multiple HAP's. As to the comment from IV-D-37 concerning
emissions from all collocated sources within the same source
category, the Agency would like to clarify that the definition of
major source is not limited to emissions from collocated sources
within the same source category; it includes emissions from all
collocated sources, regardless of the source category (see
40 CFR 63.2).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-08) noted that, as worded in
the preamble, the definition of area source is too limited. The
preamble states that "under proposed § 63.800(b), if owners or
operators commit to using no more than 250 gallons per month, or
3,000 gallons per rolling 12-month period, of coating, gluing,
cleaning, and washoff materials at the plant site, and if the
plant does not contain other sources of HAP emissions, then the
plant site can be considered an area source to which the rule
does not apply," (emphasis added) but the actual section of the
rule does not contain this exception. The commenter suggested
that EPA modify the underlined statement to read "and if the
plant is not otherwise a major HAP source." The commenter
asserted that a plant containing other sources of HAP emissions
should still be an area source if the combined emissions from
coating operations and other HAP emission sources is less than
the 10/25 ton/yr major source threshold.
2-11
-------
Response: The language in the regulation is not meant to
»i
define what is an area source. The intention is to exempt
certain sources from the regulation. Sources using greater
quantities of materials than the cutoffs given may be major
sources based on their potential to emit but actually emit much
less than the 10/25 ton cutoff, but, as the proposed regulation
is written, they are not necessarily exempted from the
regulation. These sources must obtain a Federally-enforceable
limit on their potential to emit before the compliance date in
order to be exempted from the regulation. This limit ensures the
source's potential emissions are below major source thresholds.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-22) requested a clarification
in the final rule as to the applicability of the rule to
Furniture Finishing and Restoration (SIC 7641) and Custom Cabinet
Manufacture (SIC 5712}. Two commenters (IV-D-22 and IV-D-38)
stated that EPA should not include furniture refinishing
operations in the NESHAP because furniture refinishing often
requires that the finishes used match the original finish if the
piece is to retain its original value. One comrnenter (IV-D-22)
pointed out that the use of a reformulated finish may require the
whole piece to be refinished, resulting in higher emissions. The
commenter stated that custom cabinet manufacture should be
included in the NESHAP, and that finishes used on custom cabinets
are not unique, nor are there any quality requirements beyond
those of "high-end" furniture manufacturers that fall clearly
within one of the applicable SIC codes.
Response: The Agency agrees that wood furniture refinishing
and restoration (SIC code 7641) should not be included in this
NESHAP. Wood furniture refinishing and restoration is not
considered wood furniture manufacturing for the purposes of this
rule. Therefore, facilities operating under SIC code 7641 are
not subject to the regulation. The Agency also agrees that
facilities manufacturing custom cabinets, which are included in
SIC code 5712, should be subject to the regulation. This SIC
code includes primarily furniture retailers, which is why the
Agency overlooked it in their initial evaluation of the industry.
2-12
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
However, one commenter (IV-D-41) stated that this issue is
one that EPA is addressing in broad guidance and should not be
included in this rule. The commenter "generally supports the
notion of once MACT always MACT."
Response: The policy of "once in, always in" is current
Agency policy on this subject. This issue was addressed in a
May 16, 1995 memo "Potential to Emit for MACT Standards--
Guidance on Timing Issues" from John Seitz, Director of the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to the directors of
Regions I through X. The Agency believes that this once in,
always in policy follows most naturally from the language and
structure of the Clean Air Act. In many cases, application of
MACT will reduce a major emitter's emissions to levels
substantially below the major source thresholds. The Agency
believes that there would be substantial implementation
disadvantages to allowing a source to drift in and out of major
source status. A once in, always in policy ensures that MACT
emissions reductions are permanent, and that the health and
environmental protection provided by the MACT standards is not
undermined.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-15, IV-D-21, and IV-D-35)
requested that EPA exempt permitting of area sources in this
category. One commenter (IV-D-15) stated that State agencies
have a significant burden in the permitting of major sources at
this time and since sources subject to area source standards will
have to comply regardless of whether a permit is issued, the
commenters did not believe the additional burden of permitting
area sources will have a corresponding air quality benefit.
Response: The rule does not require permitting of area
sources as written and the Agency believes that modifying the
regulation to include language specifically exempting area
sources from permitting is beyond the scope of this regulation.
Comment: Nine commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-07, IV-D-20,
IV-D-22, IV-D-24, IV-D-34, IV-D-37, IV-D-43, and IV-D-47) stated
that EPA should provide a mechanism in the rule for sources that
use more than the 250/3,000 gallon levels but emit less than the
2-14
-------
major source HAP limits to establish themselves as area sources.
One commenter (IV-D-22) suggested the affected facilities should
be required to keep records of the quantities of materials
throughput, VHAP content, and calculated HAP emissions. The
commenter also recommended that monthly recordkeeping be
required, that sources with HAP emissions in excess of 2 tons per
year (tons/yr) be required to submit annual reports, and that
facilities with emissions below this cutoff be required to submit
reports only upon the request of the regulatory authority.
Several commenters suggested allowing potential to emit limits to
be set on a case-by-case basis.
Another commenter (IV-D-18) stated that permitting
authorities should be given discretion to determine when a source
can qualify as an area source. The commenter said that this
would enable State and local agencies to set policies consistent
with other programs within that State or locality.
One commenter (IV-D-20) stated that sources that use more
than the 250/3,000 gallon limits should accept case-by-case
operating restrictions and maintain monthly records of HAP
emissions. Adequate compliance documentation would be an annual
self-certified report. Another commenter (IV-D-37) stated that
sources that use more than the 250/3,000 gallon limits should be
required to maintain records demonstrating that the HAP content
of the materials is such that emissions from the source would not
exceed major source thresholds.
Response: The Agency agrees that an additional mechanism is
needed to exempt sources that use more than 250 gallons of
materials per month, or 3,000 gallons per rolling 12-month
period, but emit less than 25 tons of a combination of HAP's or
10 tons of a single HAP. For example, a facility may use more
than 250 gallons of polyvinyl acetate adhesive but still emit
less than 1 ton of HAP per year. Therefore, the Agency has added
an additional option that facilities may use to demonstrate that
they are exempt from the regulation. If a facility uses
materials containing no more than 12.5 tons of a combination of
HAP's or 5 tons of any one HAP per rolling 12 month period and
2-15
-------
the facility maintains certified product data sheets and purchase
or usage records for each coating, adhesive, and solvent, to
demonstrate their emissions are below these cutoffs, then they
are exempted from this regulation. However, this exemption is
only available to facilities where 90 percent of the plantwide
emissions are associated with the manufacture of wood furniture
or wood furniture components. Because the 250/3,000 gallon
limitation requires less recordkeeping than demonstrating HAP
emissions are below a particular level, the regulation allows
facilities to use either option to demonstrate that they are
exempt from the regulation.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-34, IV-D-37, and IV-D-41)
provided specific comments on limits on potential to emit. One
commenter (IV-D-41) stated that EPA must define "potential to
emit," either by policy or rule, on a broad basis and not in
individual rules, unless specific circumstances warrant such
action. The commenter did not believe that meaningful
participation by State and local agencies can occur if potential
to emit is defined in individual NESHAP. The commenter stated
that EPA needs to allow State and local agencies the flexibility
to establish specific Federally-enforceable limits by the
mechanisms provided in recent EPA guidance documents.
One commenter (IV-D-34) suggested that EPA explicitly
incorporate in this NESHAP all of the methods currently
recognized by EPA for limiting a source's potential to emit as
alternative means of qualifying for something less than major
source status.
One commenter (IV-D-37) supported EPA's efforts to develop
workable mechanisms that allow sources to accept limits on their
potential to emit, but viewed EPA's requirement that every
restriction be Federally enforceable as inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act. The commenter stated that the Act "does not
require Federal enforceability of physical or operational
limitations on the emission capacity of a stationary source."
Section 112(a)(1) directs EPA to consider controls in determining
a source's potential to emit and does not preclude the use of
2-16
-------
State limitations or certifications; both the statutory and
policy considerations direct EPA to place all limitations on
equal footing in determining a source's potential to emit,
including those that are only State enforceable and those that
are self-implementing through exemptions and certifications.
Response: The Agency believes that the inclusion of PTE
limits in a MACT standard clarifies that certain types of sources
are below the threshold, and reduces the number of facilities
needing case-by-case synthetic area permits. The Agency intends
to include provisions on potential to emit timing in future MACT
rules and amendments to the Section 112 general provisions.
Regarding the suggestion by commenter IV-D-34 that EPA
incorporate in this NESHAP all of the methods currently
recognized by EPA for limiting a source's potential to emit, EPA
notes that this information is provided in a memorandum signed by
the Director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, John Seitz, which is entitled, "Options for Limiting
the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under
Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act)," dated
January 25, 1995. This memorandum outlines a transition plan
that lessens the impact of the Federal enforceability requirement
in the near term.
The Agency believes Federal enforceability is an essential
element of establishing limitations on a source's potential to
emit; it ensures the conditions placed on emissions to limit a
source's potential to emit are enforceable by EPA and citizens as
a legal and practical matter, thereby providing the public with
credible assurances that otherwise major sources are not avoiding
applicable requirements of the Act. In addition, Federal
enforceability provides source owners and operators with
assurances that limitations they have obtained from a State or
local agency will be recognized by EPA.
The EPA believes that it must have the direct right to
enforce restrictions and limitations imposed on a source to limit
its exposure to Act programs. This requirement is based both on
EPA's general interest in having the power to enforce "all
2-17
-------
relevant features of SIP's that are necessary for attainment and
maintenance of NAAQS and PSD increments" (see 54 FR 27275, citing
48 FR 38748, August 25, 1983) and the specific goal of using
national enforcement to ensure that the requirements of the Act
are uniformly implemented throughout the nation (see
54 FR 27277}.
The Agency's position on Federal enforceability was
challenged in National Mining Association v. Environmental
Protection Agency. No. 95-1006 (D.C. Cir.). The Court issued an
opinion in this case on July 21, 1995, but no mandate. The final
resolution of the Federal enforceability issue in this action
will be applicable to all MACT standards under the General
Provisions, including the wood furniture MACT rule.
Comment: Five commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-22, IV-D-27,
IV-D-43, and IV-D-47) agreed that the 250/3,000 gallon usage
levels and the monthly recordkeeping requirement are an adequate
mechanism for small facilities to establish themselves as area
sources. One commenter (IV-D-47) stated that they support the
proposed cutoff limits if sources demonstrate that they will use
compliant coatings to the maximum extent possible. One commenter
(IV-D-22) stated that the recordkeeping requirements should
include documentation of the volume of materials purchased, and
that maintaining purchase records should be adequate
recordkeeping for smaller facilities (for example, those who
purchase less than 600 gallons per year). The commenter said
that larger facilities should have to keep records of the volume
of materials actually used each month. The commenter also
requested that small sources be allowed to demonstrate their
status upon request, without initial or ongoing commitment. Two
commenters (IV-D-22 and IV-D-27) suggested it be made clear that
California's Proposed Rule to Limit Potential to Emit and other
mechanisms previously described by EPA for limiting potential to
emit may also be applied to wood furniture manufacturing
facilities.
However, one commenter (IV-D-18) recommended that EPA lower
the coating usage threshold to 208 gallons per month and
2-18
-------
2,500 gallons per year. The commenter stated that this lower
threshold would provide an ample margin of safety and ensure that
a facility which remained below these levels would not be a major
source of HAP's. The commenter also suggested that if this lower
threshold is used, only monthly usage records should be required.
One commenter (IV-D-41) could not support the exemption
without more data. The commenter suggested that the exemption
require a limitation on percentage by weight for VHAP's of
concern.
Response: The recordkeeping requirement for the 250/
3,000 gallon exemption is to maintain purchase or usage records
for each coating, adhesive, and thinner that the facility uses in
order to demonstrate that the facility's usage is below the
cutoff level. Sources must make these records available upon the
request of the regulatory agency. No initial notification is
necessary for area sources. Sources that do not qualify as area
sources under this limit may either qualify under the 5/12.5 ton
HAP emissions limit previously discussed or obtain a Federally-
enforceable limit on their potential to emit.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-32, IV-D-36, and IV-D-37)
stated that EPA should include language in the rule to exempt
research and development (R&D) facilities. The commenter stated
that one could construe that the definition for "wood furniture
manufacturing operations" includes R&D facilities that deal with
coatings and adhesives for the wood furniture industry since the
term "production" is not defined in the rule. The commenter
noted that other Clean Air Act regulations contain specific
language exempting R&D facilities and stated that EPA should use
similar language in the wood furniture NESHAP.
Response: The Agency did not intend to regulate research
and laboratory facilities with this rule. The final rule
provides a specific exemption for these facilities.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-33 and IV-D-35) strongly
supported the decision of the EPA to exclude urea-formaldehyde
(UF) resin adhesives from the wood furniture rule and to consider
them instead in the particle board/plywood NESHAP. One commenter
2-19
-------
(IV-D-33) noted that a number of subcategorizations or exceptions
would have been necessary in the wood furniture NESHAP to
accommodate the diverse applications and emission traits of the
UF resin family of adhesives. However, the commenter stated that
alternatives to using free formaldehyde to measure the
formaldehyde emissions from adhesives must be developed. There
is a fundamental difference between the way in which formaldehyde
resins work and the way in which solvent-based coatings or
adhesives work. Formaldehyde chemically reacts with urea,
catalysts, extenders, fillers, and other resin components during
the formation of the adhesive bond and only a small portion of
unreacted formaldehyde is emitted.
However, one commenter (IV-D-35) stated that EPA's rationale
for not regulating formaldehyde seems contradictory and
questioned whether EPA has any data to indicate the significance
or insignificance of formaldehyde emissions from wood furniture
operations. Since formaldehyde is listed as a HAP and a VHAP of
potential concern, the commenter recommended EPA reevaluate the
way in which formaldehyde is regulated in this NESHAP.
Response: After extensive discussions with the wood
furniture manufacturing industry and suppliers of urea-
formaldehyde resins, the Agency decided that additional data on
formaldehyde emissions from UF resins are needed in order to
develop a reasonable approach for regulating these adhesives.
All parties agreed that the issues concerning these resins could
be better addressed under the particle board/plywood NESHAP,
which will allow industry and the Agency time to collect
additional data. Therefore, although the Agency is not
regulating urea-formaldehyde resin adhesives under this rule, the
Agency's intent is not to exempt entirely these resins from
regulation, but to regulate them under a more appropriate future
rulemaking.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-35) requested a clarification
on how the reconstruction definition in the General Provisions
applies to the requirements for determining reconstruction under
this NESHAP. The commenter stated that while this paragraph
2-20
-------
gives examples of what costs will not be considered in
determining whether the source will be considered reconstructed,
no guidelines as to how to apply the definition of reconstruction
from the General Provisions are given. The commenter recommended
that reconstruction apply to equipment, rather than the entire
facility, and that the method of comparing the value of the new
and replaced equipment be referenced within the rule. The
commenter stated that whether this comparison is to be considered
on an annual basis, on a total value since promulgation, or for
each modification or reconstruction is not clear.
Response; In order for reconstruction to apply to specific
pieces of equipment, the definition of affected source for the
industry would have to be changed. The EPA adopted the
definition agreed upon by the regulatory negotiation Committee
and the Agency believes it is appropriate for this industry
because it would be extremely difficult to have a more narrow
definition of the affected source for this particular industry.
One option would be to define a finishing line as the affected
source, but in many facilities it is difficult to distinguish one
finishing line from another.
The definition of reconstruction is the same for this
industry as for any other. The wood furniture NESHAP includes
additional language only to clarify the point that for this
industry, control equipment includes a broad spectrum of
possibilities, and the cost of this equipment should not be
included in determining if a source has been reconstructed. For
example, a new stainless steel finishing line would be considered
control equipment if the facility had to install it in order to
use waterbome coatings to meet the HAP limits in the standard.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-37) stated that EPA should not
regulate gluing operations under the Wood Furniture NESHAP. The
commenter stated that "EPA's current approach of regulating the
use of adhesives in each separate MACT standard will result in
the piecemeal regulation of adhesive use, which is inefficient
and will certainly result in numerous inconsistent standards in
different source categories for gluing activities that are
2-21
-------
essentially the same from one category to the next." Several
commenters pointed out that no adhesive manufacturers were
included on the regulatory negotiation Committee and that EPA
decided to regulate adhesives in the rule late in the process.
Response: It is true that adhesive manufacturers were not
included on the regulatory negotiation Committee. However, as
the preamble points out, the limitations for adhesives were
developed outside of the regulatory negotiation. Adhesive
suppliers were involved in the development of the standards, but
because they were not represented on the Committee the adhesive
emission limits are not a part of the final regulatory
negotiation agreement.
The Clean Air Act clearly allows EPA to regulate all HAP
emission sources at a facility, and gluing is a significant
emission source at many wood furniture facilities. Throughout
the Agency's discussions with adhesive suppliers, there was one
point that the suppliers continued to stress that is
contradictory to the commenter's suggestion that gluing
operations are essentially the same from one source category to
another. This point was that each operation, even within the
source category of wood furniture, required adhesives with
different performance characteristics. Therefore, the
commenter's suggestion that all adhesives should be addressed
under one regulation because all gluing operations are the same
is inconsistent with the information supplied by other adhesive
manufacturers.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-41) stated that EPA should
conduct an area source finding procedure for wood furniture
manufacturers. Only major sources of HAP's are covered by this
rule and smaller sources may emit VHAP's of concern in quantities
resulting in adverse risks to public health. The commenter
recommended this finding procedure include synthetic sources.
Response: The majority of the HAP's used by the wood
furniture industry are not HAP's of potential concern according
to Section 112(g). The HAP's that are considered of potential
concern are used only in small quantities. Therefore, the Agency
2-22
-------
did not consider it necessary to regulate area sources in this
source category.
2.2 DEFINITIONS
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-05 and IV-D-22) stated that
"wood furniture" and "wood furniture component" need to be
defined in the rule. One of these commenters (IV-D-05) said that
laminated wood products that could be used as a wood furniture
component or as building supplies for any number of applications
could mistakenly be regulated as a "wood furniture component";
the other commenter (IV-D-22) stated that it is not clear whether
the rule covers only components that are made of wood, or could
include nonwood items as well.
Response; The Agency agrees that it should include
definitions for wood furniture and wood furniture component in
the regulation. In the final rule, wood furniture is defined as
any product made of wood, wood products, such as rattan or
wicker, or engineered wood products, such as particle board, that
is manufactured under any of the following standard industrial
classification codes: 2434, 2511, 2512, 2517, 2519, 2521, 2531,
2541, 2599, or 5712. Wood furniture component is defined as any
part that is used in the manufacture of wood furniture. Examples
include drawer sides, cabinet doors, seat cushions, and laminated
tops.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-21 and IV-D-37) provided
comments on the definition of affected source; it is defined in
the rule as the entire facility manufacturing the wood furniture
or components. One commenter (IV-D-21) noted that it is more
common to have existing facilities modify their operations by
adding new units or changing existing ones than to build an
entirely new facility. Therefore, few sources will be considered
new and a new unit at an existing facility only will have to meet
the existing MACT limit and will not need to comply for 2 to
3 years (depending on their emissions) after promulgation. The
commenter stated that this may make sense when the unit is an
integral part of another line, but it does not make sense in any
other case. The commenter also stated that if a new unit may be
2-23
-------
considered a major source by itself, it should be considered a
new source and be required to comply with MACT for new sources
rather than existing sources.
One commenter (IV-D-37) stated that the proposed rule's
explanation of where new MACT and existing source MACT apply is
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The commenter pointed out
that Section 112(g) provides that changes to existing major
sources are only subject to existing source MACT if the changes
are "modifications" under the Act and that new source MACT only
applies to the construction or reconstruction of a major source.
Response; The EPA adopted the broad definition of affected
source on which the Committee agreed in part because it is
difficult to define specific pieces of equipment for a wood
furniture plant that could be considered the affected source.
The regulation does not imply that modified sources are
subject to new source MACT. It clearly states that new source
MACT applies to new sources or reconstructed sources. Modifica-
tions of existing sources would mean that existing source MACT
standards would continue to apply. If an area source becomes
major due to a modification, it is subject to existing source
MACT. If an area source becomes major due to a reconstruction,
it is subject to new source MACT.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-23) had several concerns about
definitions, lack of definitions, and failure to use defined
terms. The rule is applicable to "coating, gluing, cleaning, and
washoff materials," and also refers to "finishing materials";
therefore, there is a need to define these terms. However, of
these five terms, the commenter noted that only "finishing
material" is defined in Section 63.801. The commenter maintained
that EPA should either add definitions or revise
Sections 63.800(b) (2) and 63.803(g) to use terms that already
have been defined.
The commenter stated that the definition of "certified
product data sheet" (CPDS) should be shortened by deleting the
last two sentences, which are unclear. The commenter did not
know what EPA meant by "maximum HAP emission potential" in this
2-24
-------
context. Opinions could differ widely and could result in
different estimates that would make comparisons impossible or
misleading.
The commenter stated that the definition of "coating solids"
requires the use of Method 24. The definition should say "or an
equivalent or alternative method," as the definition for CPDS
does.
The commenter stated that the definition of "control device"
requires that any pollutant be destroyed or "secured" for
"subsequent recovery." It is not always practical to recover a
captured pollutant, so the definition should say "or secure the
pollutant for subsequent recovery or disposal."
The commenter next asserted that the definition of "enamel"
is self contradictory. It says "enamel" is a coat of colored
material, applied as a protective topcoat. Then it says the
topcoat is applied over a basecoat, primer, or previously applied
enamel coats. If enamel is a "topcoat" and "topcoat" is defined
as the last film-building finishing material applied, then the
previously applied coats apparently could not be enamel.
The commenter further stated that the definition of
"Material Safety Data Sheet" (MSDS) inaccurately says MSDS's are
"required" by OSHA's hazard communication standard (HCS) for
coatings, solvents, cleaning materials, and other materials. The
HCS requires MSDS's only for "hazardous chemicals," as that term
is defined in the HCS. Many solvents, coatings, etc. are
hazardous chemicals, but it is possible for a coating to not be a
"hazardous chemical," in which case no MSDS would be required.
The commenter then stated that the definition of "organic
solvent" uses the term "volatile organic liquid" without defining
it. Also, this definition and the definition for "solvent" both
say that the solvent evaporates and does not become a part of the
dried film. The commenter said that the EPA should exempt trace
quantities because there will always be a few molecules that
become entrapped in the film.
2-25
-------
The commenter stated that the definition of "VHAP of
potential concern" inappropriately refers to the proposed
Section 112(g) rule.
Response: "Coating" is defined in the proposed regulation.
Cleaning, washoff, and gluing operations are also defined. The
Agency does not believe that it is also necessary to define
cleaning, washoff, and gluing materials.
The Agency agrees that the last sentence of the definition
of certified product data sheet concerning the maximum HAP
potential of a coating is confusing, and deleted this sentence in
the final rule.
The Agency agrees that the definition of "coating solids"
should be modified to be consistent with the certified product
data sheet definition, which clarifies that coating solids can be
determined using an equivalent or alternative method. The EPA
thus modified the definition in the final regulation.
The Agency does not believe that the definition of "control
device" requires that the device destroy or secure the pollutant
for subsequent recovery. The definition states that "the device
may destroy or secure the pollutant for subsequent recovery."
The definition of "enamel" was developed by the coating
suppliers to the industry. In fact, an enamel may be a topcoat
or it may have another coating applied over it that will act as
the topcoat.
The Agency changed the definition of material safety data
sheet to reflect the fact that they may not be required for all
coatings because not all coatings are considered hazardous
chemicals.
The Agency believes that the term "volatile organic liquid"
does not require further explanation.
The EPA adopted the definition of "VHAP of potential
concern" that was agreed upon by the regulatory negotiation
Committee during the development of the formulation assessment
plan.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-24) stated that the EPA should
define "usage" as the term is used in the proposed area source
2-26
-------
250/3,000 gallons exemption. The commenter stated that EPA
should clearly define the term to minimize the potential for
misunderstanding or confusion. The commenter questioned if
solvent that is used, recycled, and reused is counted each time
it is used, or if it is counted only when it is replaced by
virgin solvent. The commenter suggested that it may be clearer
to base criteria on actual emissions, not usage.
Response: Solvent that is used, recycled, and then reused
should only be counted once towards the 250/3,000 gallon
exemption. Because a facility may use purchase records to
demonstrate that usage is no greater than the proposed cutoffs,
the solvent will only be counted once towards the limits. As
discussed earlier, the Agency has included language in the final
rule that allows facilities to use either usage or emissions to
demonstrate that they are exempt from the regulation.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that EPA should
define the terms "regeneration mass stream flow" and "each
regeneration cycle" in the rule to avoid controversy.
Response: The Agency agrees and has included definitions
for these terms in the final rule.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-32 and IV-D-36) stated that
EPA should clarify the regulation to note that adhesives are not
a form of coatings. One commenter (IV-D-32) pointed out that an
"unusual definition" is included in the rule for "coating," which
is further subdivided into "finishing material" and "adhesives,"
but "finishing material" is "cryptically defined" as "a coating
other than adhesives." The commenters recommended that EPA
revise the definitions to make it clear that adhesives are a
separate product, not a subset of "coatings," and stated that
this distinction is common in most governmental rules and
regulations. There are many other rules and regulations which
contain the term "coatings," and typically the term does not
include adhesives. The commenters stated that a clarification in
this rule would have no impact of the coverage or scope of the
rule, but would minimize the chance for confusion and questions
in the future.
2-27
-------
One commenter (IV-D-36) also stated that EPA should change
the definition of "adhesive" to make it clear that it excludes
adhesive tapes, contact papers, and other materials not intended
to be covered by the rule. The commenter requested that EPA
either revise the definition of "adhesive," or drop that
definition and revise the definition of "contact adhesive" to
include language from the GARB "household adhesive" definition.
Response: For purposes of this rule only, the definition of
coating has been revised so it does not include adhesives. The
Agency has also revised the definition of adhesive so that it
specifically excludes adhesive tapes, contact papers, and other
substrates that are impregnated with adhesives.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-34) stated that the regulation
should clarify the definition of "organic solvent." The
commenter stated that EPA should amend this definition to limit
its application to photochemically reactive volatile organics,
generally referred to as "volatile organic compounds" or "VOC's."
Response: If a facility is using methylene chloride or
l,1,1-trichloroethane, both of which are HAP's but not VOC's,
they should have to account for this usage. The Agency's intent
is to require facilities to track all organic solvents that they
use for thinning coatings or contact adhesives, cleaning, or
washoff, not just those organic solvents that are VOC's.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-34) stated the term
"unenforceable" in the work practice standards is "vague and
ambiguous and should be clarified." Industry believes that
merely providing that "unenforceable" work practice
implementation plans may be rejected provides insufficient notice
to facilities which must comply. The commenter stated that EPA
should clarify the final rule to provide accurate guidance to
industry.
Response: The Agency agrees that the term unenforceable is
vague and ambiguous. The EPA has modified the language in the
final rule to indicate that the work practice implementation plan
must provide mechanisms for ensuring that the work practice
standards are being implemented.
2-28
-------
2.3 SELECTION OF MACT
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-22 and IV-D-34) supported the
use of only one facility with an incinerator in the MACT floor
determination, stating that it appeared that the survey results
represented a disproportionate number of facilities with these
control devices. Another commenter (IV-D-03) stated that the
MACT floor should be redetermined excluding all major sources
with VOC control devices. The commenter said industry believes
that no more than l percent of all major sources use VOC control
devices, so the inclusion of a source with a control device in
the MACT floor analysis was an overrepresentation, resulting in
the MACT floor being set too low. This commenter stated that
reduction at the source should be the MACT floor. However, one
commenter (IV-D-21) stated that the discussion in the preamble
does not reflect that the committee members that felt that
control devices were overrepresented had any actual data to
substantiate that position and it does not seem defensible to
ignore completely an EPA database in favor of anecdotal evidence.
One commenter (IV-D-21) discussed the MACT floor
determination for finishing materials. The commenter pointed out
that the preamble to the proposed rule states that the committee
agreed that the top 12 percent should really not be the top
12 percent of sources, but instead it should represent all
industry segments. This decision was made so no industry segment
was over represented. The commenter stated that this decision
does not make sense in light of the arguments made against
subcategorization that state that "the HAP limit of facilities in
the source category did not vary significantly according to the
industry market segment, the size of the facility, or the
manufacturing process." The commenter suggested that if this is
true, then the MACT floor should not be lowered by picking and
choosing the sources to include so that all industry segments are
represented; if this is not true, and the HAP limits varied by
industry segment, then the source category should be
subcategorizeci.
2-29
-------
., Two commenters (IV-D-20 and IV-D-22) agreed with the use of
the arithmetic mean in establishing the MACT floor. One
corranenter (IV-D-22) believed that this method represents the best
reading of the Act and that it is important for EPA to maintain a
consistent approach when determining the MACT floor; the
commenter encouraged the use of the arithmetic mean in subsequent
MACT standards. One commenter (IV-D-20) added that the
arithmetic mean "represents a technically achievable emission
limitation for this industry."
One commenter (IV-D-32) disagreed with the use of the
arithmetic mean and stated the median was more appropriate. The
use of the arithmetic mean may result in a lower number of
industry products being available. However, one commenter
(IV-D-41) stated the geometric mean is more appropriate.
Response: The Agency appreciates the commenters' opinions
regarding the determination of the MACT floor for finishing
materials. In a March 9, 1994 Federal Register notice reopening
the public comment period for determination of the MACT floor for
NESHAP source categories (59 FR 11018), the Agency considered and
solicited comments on more than one interpretation of the
statutory language concerning the MACT floor for existing
sources. After considering the comments received in response to
this request, the Agency published a final rule in the Federal
Register on June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29196). In this final rule, the
Agency concluded that Congress intended EPA to determine the MACT
floor by averaging the best performing 12 percent of sources
where there are more than 30 sources in the regulated category.
The Agency did not, however, identify any particular number
(e.g., the 94th percentile) as the floor for all MACT standards,
but instead stated:
EPA retains discretion in important respects in setting
Floors for MACT standards, and intends to exercise its
discretion, within the statutory framework, to promulgate
MACT standards that best serve the public interest. [^] EPA
believes the Agency retains substantial discretion, within
the statutory framework, to set MACT Floors at appropriate
levels. For example, because Congress did not define the
term "average" in section 112(d)(3), or in the legislative
2-30
-------
history, it implicitly delegated the authority to EPA to do
so. ... EPA construes the word "average" in
section 112(d)(3) to authorize the Agency to use any
reasonable method, in a particular factual context, of
determining the central tendency of the data set. In
addition, EPA has discretion to use its best engineering
judgment in collecting and analyzing the data, and in
assessing the data's comprehensiveness, accuracy and
variability, in order to determine which sources achieve the
best emission reductions. EPA also has the discretion in
determining how to analyze the data, and thus in determining
the appropriate "average" in each category or subcategory.
59 FR 29199 (June 6, 1994).
In determining the appropriate MACT floor for the final
rule, EPA exercised this retained discretion in two ways. First,
EPA limited the number of sources with incinerators that could be
included in the MACT floor determination. This issue is
discussed in more detail in Section 2.3.1 below. Secondly, EPA
determined, based on its analysis of the data on hand and the
facts specific to the operations being regulated in this
rulemaking, that the MACT floor should be based on the median of
the emission limitations achieved by the best performing
12 percent of sources. A more detailed discussion of this point
is presented in Section 2.3.2.
2.3.1 Incinerator Data
The EPA believes there is more than anecdotal evidence to
support the inclusion of only one incinerator in the MACT floor.
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, to determine
the MACT floor, EPA surveyed more than 850 wood furniture
manufacturing operations. The EPA's survey was designed with the
goal of obtaining a sample of the industry that was
representative of both the various market segments and facility
sizes. While the Act does not require EPA to obtain data that
represents the industry as a whole (Section 112(d)(3) simply
requires the MACT floor to be based on the best performing
12 percent of existing sources for which the Administrator has
emissions information), EPA began this project with the goal of
collecting representative data. The Agency received responses
from more than 300 sources, of which 91 were determined either to
2-31
-------
be major sources, or to have the potential to be major sources in
the absence of control. The EPA estimates, however, that there
are over 11,000 wood furniture manufacturers, 750 of which are
major sources to which this rule will apply.
When EPA calculated the MACT floor using data from the best-
performing 12 percent of these 91 major sources (i.e., the best-
performing 11 sources), it found that sources with incinerators
were "overrepresented" in the MACT floor. To EPA's knowledge
from previous work with equipment vendors, only 8 of the
750 major sources in the entire industry use incinerators. Thus,
assuming that all 8 of these sources would be included in the
best-performing 12 percent of the 750 major sources (i.e., the
best 90 sources), if EPA had data from all 750 major sources, no
more than 9 percent of the MACT floor would be comprised of
sources with incinerators (8 of 90). By comparison, in EPA's
data base of 91 major sources, 4 of the 11 sources that were used
initially to determine the MACT floor contained incinerators,
which is 44 percent of the MACT floor. The EPA thus decided to
exercise its discretion and engineering judgment when analyzing
this additional knowledge of the industry and limited the number
of sources with incinerators in the MACT floor calculation to
one. This gives some representation to incinerators in the MACT
floor as would be the case if EPA had data from all 750 major
sources, without significantly "overrepresenting" incinerators in
the MACT floor. The MACT floor for the final rule thus is based
on 11 sources, where sources with incinerators constitute
9 percent of the floor (1 of 11).
Even if all sources with incinerators were excluded from the
MACT floor calculation as suggested by one commenter, the
resulting MACT floor (the median of the best 11 sources) still
would be 1.0 Ib VHAP/lb solids. The EPA thus disagrees with the
commenter who stated that the inclusion of a source with an
incinerator in the MACT floor both overrepresents sources with
incinerators, and results in a MACT floor being set too low.
Secondly, even if EPA included two sources with incinerators in
the calculated MACT floor (which would be equivalent to
2-32
-------
18 percent of the MACT floor and 16 major sources with
incinerators if the MACT floor had been calculated using data
from all 750 major sources), the resulting MACT floor still would
be 1.0 Ib VHAP.lb solids. For these reasons, EPA believes that
it appropriately used the available data when it determined the
MACT floor.
2.3.2 Selection of Median for the MACT Floor
As stated in the June 6, 1994 Federal Register, the Agency
believes that Congress authorized it to use any reasonable
method, in a particular factual context, for defining the term,
"average," in Section 112(d)(3) such that it reflects the central
tendency of the data set used for a particular rulemaking (59 FR
29199). In the final rule, EPA determined that the median of the
best performing 11 sources (i.e., the best performing 12 percent)
most accurately reflects the central tendency of the data used to
determine the MACT floor, and thus for this rule, is the
appropriate interpretation of the term, "average," in
Section 112(d)(3).
Upon further consideration, EPA abandoned the weighted
average methodology for calculating the MACT floor that was
discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule and which was the
basis for the proposed MACT standard, because it was inconsistent
with both the language of Section 112(d)(3) and EPA's
interpretation of that statutory 'provision as stated in the
June 6, 1994 Federal Register (59 fr 29199). As an aside, EPA
notes that the weighted average approach, which was an attempt by
the Committee to ensure that all market segments could achieve
the MACT floor emission limit, results in the same "MACT floor"
as the median. Thus, the Committee's view that a MACT floor of
1.0 Ib VHAP/lb solids is achievable by all industry segments
still applies.
In response to the commenter who said the mean represents
the best reading of the Act and it is important for EPA to be
consistent when determining the MACT floor, EPA notes that this
is not the first MACT floor to be based on the median of a data
set. For example, in some rules EPA determined that the median
2-33
-------
of the best performing 12 percent of sources would be the best
construction of average in Section 112(d)(3) because the mean of
the best performing 12 percent of sources did not correspond to
an emission limitation achieved by any control technology. (See
e.g.. 50 FR 25004 [May 13, 1994]). The EPA believes that its
approach is consistent and the Agency will continue to exercise
reasonable discretion to construe "average" based upon the
factual context particular to each rule.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-21 and IV-D-41) provided
comments on the selection of MACT for finishing materials. The
Clean Air Act (CAA) states that the standards promulgated under
Section 112 shall require "the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions ... that the Administrator, taking into consideration
the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, and any nonair
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements,
determines is achievable." One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that
it does not appear these criteria were considered when making the
determination not to go above the MACT floor. The commenter
asserted that it appears that the decision was made based on the
assumption that a more stringent level could not "be met by most
facilities in the industry segments comprising the MACT floor,"
that the committee did not want to mandate control equipment, and
that work practice standards are also being proposed. The
commenter said that this decision does not seem to be based on
any elements in the definition and should be reevaluated in
accordance with the CAA.
One commenter (IV-D-41) said there are insufficient data to
justify establishing the standard at the MACT floor and for not
going beyond the floor. The commenter stated that the regulatory
negotiation framework should not preclude the requirement for
data to justify conclusions and stated that EPA did not go far
enough in obtaining data from sources about the category.
Response: The Agency believes that the final MACT standard
does go beyond the MACT floor. While the emission limits for
coatings and contact adhesives are set at the level of the MACT
floor, the work practice standards represent an additional
2-34
-------
reduction in emissions. In order to achieve an equivalent
reduction in emissions through emission limits for coatings,
these limits would have had to been established at a level
significantly lower than the MACT floor and at a much higher
cost. For example, many facilities would have had to install
add-on control devices to meet a lower limit. The work practice
standards allow industry to achieve the same reduction at a much
lower capital cost using pollution prevention measures. As such,
the Administrator believes that the MACT standards and work
practices represent the most cost effective, maximum reduction in
emissions that is achievable.
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-32, IV-D-36, and
IV-D-37) provided comments on the calculation of the MACT floor
for adhesives. One comtnenter (IV-D-20) stated that using a limit
of 200 gallons in the calculation may result in standards that
are too stringent for "stand-alone adhesive operations." The
commenter suggested excluding operations using 3,000 gallons or
less per year. One commenter (IV-D-32) supported the approach,
stating that "these are insignificant uses which should not be
used to determine the fate of an industry and the quality of
products that are provided to the American people."
One commenter (IV-D-32) stated that EPA should have used the
best five data points to determine the floor, since there were
less than 30 points total. Another commenter (IV-D-37) stated
that the MACT floor calculation did not make an attempt to use
the available data in a manner that would represent the industry
as a whole; the MACT floor was not established at the average
emission limitation achieved by every source in the top
12 percent of best controlled sources; and the MACT floor was
determined separately for the individual emission units wichin
the source category, rather than being based on the performance
of major sources in the source category. The commenter also
stated that EPA's determination of the MACT floor and the MACT
limitation in the proposed rule is unclear and may well be
inconsistent with the statutory requirements of the Clean Air Act
because the proposed limitations, which were determined on the
2-35
-------
basis of partial information, were never demonstrated to be
equivalent to the limitations that would be determined if data
were available on every source in the source category.
One commenter (IV-D-36) stated that in excluding facilities
that use less than 200 gallons, adhesives used on nonporous
substrates (specialty applications) were likely excluded from the
MACT floor calculation. Therefore, the commenter requested that
EPA either exempt these adhesives or establish alternative limits
and a separate MACT floor for these adhesives.
Response: The Agency appreciates these comments on the
development of the MACT floor for contact adhesives. While one
commenter supported excluding facilities that used less than
200 gallons of adhesives from the MACT floor determination, one
commenter (IV-D-32) indicated that the Agency should exclude
facilities using less than 3,000 gallons per year. Facilities
using 3,000 gallons per year of contact adhesives formulated with
either methylene chloride or 1,1,1-trichloroethane, both of which
are commonly used solvents in contact adhesives, would likely
emit more than 12 tons per year of these HAP's. The Agency
cannot justify excluding facilities from the MACT floor that are
major sources based on their emissions from adhesives alone.
As commenter IV-D-32 points out, the Agency did have fewer
than 30 data points in the data base used to develop the MACT
floor for contact adhesives. However, the Agency believes that
in those cases where the source category includes more than
30 sources, the MACT floor should be based on the best performing
12 percent of sources, not the best 5, even though the Agency has
fewer than 30 data points. The criterion for using the best
performing 5 sources is that the source category must have no
more than 30 sources, not that the Agency must have data on m__a
than 30 sources. The Agency attempted to obtain a representative
survey of this industry, sending out more than 800 surveys and
receiving 350 completed surveys. Only 91 of the 350 sources
completing the survey were major sources and less than 30 of
these sources used contact adhesives. These sources were used to
develop the MACT floor. As to the comment from IV-D-37 that the
2-36
-------
proposed limitations are based on partial information and were
not demonstrated to be equivalent to the limitations that would
be determined if data were available on every source, Section 112
of the Clean Air Act only requires that MACT be based on the data
available to the Administrator. It does not require the Agency
to have data on every source in the source category. This would
be an almost impossible task with an industry the size of the
wood furniture industry.
2.4 EMISSION LIMITS
Comment: Eleven commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-12, IV-D-13,
IV-D-20, IV-D-22, IV-D-25, IV-D-30, IV-D-32, IV-D-34, IV-D-36,
and IV-D-37) provided comments regarding the proposed HAP-limits
for contact adhesives. Four of these commenters stated that it
is unclear whether the glue HAP-content restrictions pose
technical impossibilities for the industry. One commenter
{IV-D-12) stated that nothing in the existing data suggests that
formulations with as low as 0.2 kg HAP/kg solids will be
available in the foreseeable future and that there is no evidence
that water-based adhesives are a viable alternative for the
majority of new or existing sources. One commenter (IV-D-32)
pointed out that "the fact that a particular technology is
available for some applications does not automatically mean that
it can be used in all others." Another commenter (IV-D-13) went
on to say that the principal drawback of waterborne adhesives is
their inability to pass the flammability testing requirements
imposed by Federal, State, and local agencies, and noted that the
EPA did not present data that demonstrates the control efficiency
required to reach the 0.2 kg HAP/kg solids limit.
However, one commenter (IV-D-25) stated that there are
companies which supply adhesives that will meet the proposed
limits (even the 0.2 kg KAP/kg solids new source limit) and also
will pass the flammability requirements identified by the
industry and described in the proposed rule (i.e., California
Technical Bulletin 117). One commenter (IV-D-34) stated that
"industry supports the levels for existing and new sources for
contact and foair. adhesives, although there are several
2-37
-------
specialized applications ... that require different numbers."
Two commenters (IV-D-22 and IV-D-30) stated that their district's
proposed Adhesive and Sealant Products rule has VOC limits of
only 150 g/L, less water, for adhesives bonding wood to wood and
for adhesives used on porous materials, such as foam. The
commenters noted that these limits appear to be considerably more
stringent than the proposed HAP-limits, even those proposed as
new source MACT. One commenter (IV-D-30) stated that during the
development of adhesive regulations in California, no comments
were received regarding the proposed VOC limit for applications
bonding foam to other substrates.
One commenter (IV-D-25) was concerned that EPA has
differentiated between contact cements used in the bonding of
foam and all other contact cements. The commenter stated that
manufacturers of bonded foam often have many individual work
stations within a single plant. They can change from
constructions where flammability testing is required to
constructions where it is not required several times per day.
Additionally, some manufacturers pump adhesive from a central
storage area to these individual work stations over long
distances. Because of these issues, their current practice is to
use one adhesive for all constructions. It is unlikely that they
will be able to switch routinely from a 1.8 HAP's material to a
l.O HAP's material. Therefore, this commenter stated that EPA
should limit all contact cements at existing sources to 1.0 Ib of
HAP's per pound of adhesive solids.
However, four commenters (IV-D-32, IV-D-34, IV-D-36, and
IV-D-37) supported the separate treatment of foam adhesives
because there are particular characteristics of these
applications which necessitate different regulatory treatment.
One commenter (IV-D-32) stated that foam bonding typically
requires a softer, more flexible bond line that will adjust to
movement, particularly in foam to foam applications. This
commenter also pointed out the flammability requirements and
noted that working with foam can produce an electrostatic charge
2-38
-------
that could ignite some flammable carriers. The bond line itself
must also meet flammability requirements.
Several commenters also requested a higher alternative limit
for contact adhesives used with nonporous substrates, such as
metal, rigid plastic, flexible vinyl, and rubber. One commenter
(IV-D-36) suggested a limit of 1.8 Ib VHAP/lb solids for existing
sources and a limit of l.S Ib VHAP/lb solids for new sources for
adhesives used on these difficult substrates. This commenter
also proposed that these alternative limits apply only to contact
adhesives that meet minimum solids contents and certain military
specifications that indicate high performance requirements. The
commenter estimated that these nonporous substrates represent no
more than 4 percent of the adhesive applications in the
furniture/woodworking industries and indicated that their
experience was that "products containing 1.0 Ib VHAP/lb solids or
less cannot provide sufficient heat, peel, overlap shear, and
water resistances that some customers require." The commenter
pointed out that some California air districts have adopted
adhesives rules which recognize that applications involving
nonporous substrates require adhesives with higher VOC limits
than applications involving porous substrates.
One commenter (IV-D-20) agreed with the need for exemptions
for aerosol adhesives, since reformulation of aerosol adhesives
involves changing the delivery system, as well as the adhesive
itself. However, one commenter (IV-D-30) stated that the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District has a limit for aerosol
adhesives of 75 percent VOC by weight and one commenter (IV-D-36)
stated that there was no need for an aerosol adhesive exemption
due to the availability of aerosol adhesives that contain VHAP
concentrations below the proposed limits for contact and foam
adhesives.
Response: The Agency appreciates the comments on the
proposed emission limits for contact adhesives. The final
emission limits for contact adhesives for both new and existing
sources are the same as proposed. The new source value, 0.2 kg
VHAP/kg solids (0.2 Ib VHAP/lb solids), is based on contact
2-39
-------
adhesives currently in use by the industry. Commenter IV-D-12
indicates that this will require the use of waterborne adhesives.
The Agency believes that while many facilities will use
waterborne adhesives to meet this limit there are also other
options, including the use of solvent-borne adhesives where the
HAP solvents have been replaced by non-HAP solvents, the use of
hot melt adhesives that are now being used by manufacturers of
upholstered furniture, and the use of an add-on control device.
At least one adhesive supplier (IV-D-25) indicated that there are
adhesives available that meet this limit and also pass the
flammability requirements. Some local agencies have even more
stringent limits for adhesives that are being used in products
that pass the flammability tests.
The Agency has included exemptions in the final rule for
aerosol adhesives and for contact adhesives used on nonporous
substrates such as metal, rigid plastic, flexible vinyl, and
rubber. The Agency agrees that these uses represent a small
percentage of the total use of contact adhesives by the industry
and that the technology is not yet available to formulate these
adhesives at the proposed emission limits.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-20 and IV-D-22) questioned
the need for separate HAP limits for thinning solvents since the
HAP limits for finishing materials are expressed on an "as
applied" basis. One commenter (IV-D-47) requested clarification
on the "as applied" criteria. One commenter (IV-D-20) pointed
out that the 10 percent and 3 percent HAP limits would prohibit
the use of any single component solvents, such as methanol. The
requirement for a specific thinner is dictated by paint system
chemistry. One commenter (IV-D-22) however, did not object to
the limits, provided the solvent manufacturers believed that they
could be met.
Response: The coating suppliers to the wood furniture
industry agreed that they could meet the 10 percent and 3 percent
limits on the HAP content of thinners. Both of these limits are
included to minimize the recordkeeping burden on the industry.
Without these limits, the industry would have to maintain data
2-40
-------
sheets for each batch of thinned coatings. With the limits, the
industry still has to meet an as applied value, but they do not
have to maintain records for each batch of thinned coating.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-37) stated that EPA must
expressly provide that this rule will apply only to the list of
189 HAP's listed in Section 112(b) of the Act as it exists at the
time of the proposal. The proposal's MACT will necessitate
changes in the manufacture of both end products and adhesives
because of the major HAP reductions which the promulgated rule
will require. Therefore, if the Administrator adds to the
Section 112(b) list at any time subsequent to EPA's promulgation
of the proposed rule, the final rule should not apply to the use
of any new HAP until EPA reconsiders the rule to determine
whether the standard is suitable.
Response: The preamble to the proposed rule (see
59 FR 62664) already contains language addressing this issue.
The preamble states that the regulatory negotiation Committee
recommends that the Agency re-examine the wood furniture emission
limits to determine if they should be adjusted if pollutants are
added to, or deleted from, the list of 189 HAP's used in the
development of the proposed emission limits. The EPA adopted
this recommendation, and the final rule applies only to the
189 HAP's presently listed in Section 112(b). In addition,
Table 2 of the rule includes a listing of the VHAP's that should
be included when determining the VHAP content of a coating.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-20, IV-D-21, and IV-D-23)
questioned why the regulations in Sections 63.803(f), 63.803(h),
and 63.806(b)(3) refer to VOC content when the purpose of the
NESHAP is to regulate HAP's. One commenter (IV-D-20) noted the
use of three acronyms (VOC, HAP, and VHAP) and suggested that EPA
use consistent acronyms and terminology as Part 63 emission
standards are proposed and promulgated.
Response: While the rule may appear to be confusing due to
the references to VOC, HAP, and VHAP, use of each of these
acronyms is necessary. In preparing and reviewing the final
rule, the Agency ensured that each of these acronyms was used
2-41
-------
4consistently throughout the regulation. Concerning the reference
to VOC content in the application equipment requirements in
Section 63.803(h), EPA agreed with the Committee's finding that
the use of a low HAP coating did not justify the use of
conventional air spray guns, but the use of a low VOC coating
did. It is not always technically feasible to apply low VOC
coatings with anything other than conventional air spray guns.
The Agency did not want to discourage the use of low VOC coatings
by requiring that they be applied with something other than a
conventional air spray gun, which is not always technically
feasible. Therefore, it adopted the exemption proposed by the
Committee. Concerning the limitation on materials used for spray
booth cleaning in Section 63.803(f), the EPA agreed with the
Committee that organic solvents should not be used for cleaning
spray booths, except in limited circumstances. Therefore, the
EPA limited the VOC content of these materials. This limit will
still allow facilities to use commercial cleaners that contain
small quantities of VOC. The final rule also limits the VOC
content of the strippable booth coatings used by the industry.
The industry agreed that they could use waterborne strippable
booth coatings, which will reduce both HAP and VOC emissions.
Limiting the HAP content of these coatings will not- ensure that
the industry moves to waterborne strippable booth coatings but
limiting the VOC content will. Therefore, the EPA believes that
a VOC limit was appropriate for these coatings.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-20) stated that the VHAP
content limit for coatings should be the same for both new and
existing sources. The commenter suggested that it is possible
that lower VHAP coatings will work as well as higher VHAP
coatings in existing source equipment. If this is the case, the
commenter said that the burden to purchase and use low VHAP
coatings would be equivalent for both new and existing sources.
Response: The Agency decided that existing source MACT
should be based on the MACT floor. Setting the existing source
limit at the same level as new source MACT would require
facilities to go beyond the floor. The EPA notes that the work
2-42
-------
practice standards already represent a reduction in emissions
beyond the MACT floor; thus, EPA determined that it was not
necessary to set the coating emission limits at a level more
stringent than the floor.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-32 and IV-D-33) stated that
EPA should exclude adhesives other than contact adhesives from
the threshold amounts of monthly and annual usage. As written, a
facility would have to include all of its PVA, hot melt, and
formaldehyde resin adhesives in the computation, even though EPA
has determined that it is inappropriate to regulate these
products in this rulemaJcing. One commenter (IV-D-32) stated that
"emissions of these products would have no impact on the air
quality or potential regulation under the wood furniture NESHAP."
Response: As discussed in an earlier response in 2.1, the
Agency has included in the final rule another mechanism for
exempting facilities from the regulation. This option allows
facilities to demonstrate that they use materials containing no
more than 5 tons of any one HAP per rolling 12 month period or no
more than 12.5 tons of any combination of HAP per rolling
12 month period. Facilities that use more than 250 gallons of
these low emitting adhesives may use this option to demonstrate
that they should be exempted from the regulation.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-43) supported the approach of
limiting the HAP or VOC content of coatings, but stated that to
adequately protect public health in certain cases, limitations
may also be needed on the total facility emissions. The
commenter maintained that a source using coatings that meet the
applicable HAP or VOC limitations could still cause a significant
public health impact because of the magnitude of the emissions or
as a result of the source's proximity to residences. The
commenter stated that the rule should include provisions for
allowing State or local agencies to establish source emission
limitations. One possible approach suggested by the commenter
would be to allow the implementing agency to require sources to
provide additional information to determine if a source emission
limitation is needed to protect public health. Including such a
2-43
-------
provision would streamline, or possibly make unnecessary,
Section 112(1) equivalency requests.
Response: Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act requires a
residual risk analysis for each source category within 8 years.
If the standard does not adequately protect the public health, it
will be revisited at that time. State and local agencies have
the authority to limit a facility's total emissions if they
believe it is necessary. However, the Agency does not believe
that this approach is necessary for this source category. The
formulation assessment plan will limit emissions of the more
toxic HAP emitted by this industry.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-47) stated that this NESHAP
imposes product specific concentration limits which their
district's market trading programs would replace. The commenter
stated that this NESHAP removes the principal benefits of a
market trading program and should allow alternative means of
achieving equivalent emission limitations for a source, including
emissions averaging across all VOC operations at the source.
Response: This NESHAP does allow averaging of coatings to
achieve the emission limitations. The Agency is aware of this
commenter's concern and is considering it as a broader issue
outside of this project.
2.5 WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS
Comment: Seventeen commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-OS, IV-D-07,
IV-D-12, IV-D-13, IV-D-16, IV-D-18, IV-D-20, IV-D-21, IV-D-22,
IV-D-23, IV-D-29, IV-D-33, IV-D-34, IV-D-35, IV-D-41, and
IV-D-42) questioned the need for the Formulation Assessment Plan
(FAP) and the use of Section 112(g) in setting de minimis levels
for certain pollutants. They also questioned the use of 70-year
exposure levels as opposed to 7-year exposure levels in assigning
de minimis values to VHAP of potential concern.
One commenter stated that the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements are redundant to those elsewhere in the standard and
that limiting the emissions of certain VHAP's over others will
limit flexibility in operations. A second commenter stated that
the FAP is overly prescriptive and unsupported as a floor
2-44
-------
requirement or as a cost effective measure beyond the floor
requirement. Another commenter maintained that vague references
to "risk" benefits were not evaluated or supported and that other
programs such as TRI reporting and worker safety provide adequate
incentive to minimize use of hazardous compounds. The commenter
also stated that the requirement to track and report any increase
in HAP use beyond the prescribed de minimis amounts is an
unnecessary command and control regulatory requirement that
should be eliminated or deferred until it has been evaluated from
a real risk versus cost/benefit-standpoint.
One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that the baseline period
specified in the rule simply accounts for the usage of materials
over 3 years and does not include market considerations or future
growth. The commenter stated that as a result, facilities will
undoubtedly exceed their baselines and be required to discuss
this with the permitting authority, but the permitting authority
will have no basis for requiring further action. The commenter
stated that FAP is written so broadly that anyone could claim
that there are "no practical and reasonable solutions," and thus
they are not required to take further action. The commenter
concluded that the FAP will become a waste of the permitting
authority's and the facility's time.
One commenter (IV-D-41) opposed the FAP requirement because
the requirement "represents a paperwork exercise that would
result in little, if any, additional reduction of HAP'S;" use of
the proposed scheme for ranking of HAP's under Section 112 (g) is
"inappropriate for development of NESHAP;" EPA has the authority
under Section 112(f) to impose additional controls on wood
furniture manufacturing operations to address any "residual risk"
that it identifies; and the proposal to adjust downward the
Section 112(g) de minimis levels is "inappropriate and unfair."
One commenter (IV-D-07) objected to the categorization of
styrene as a nonthreshold pollutant since there is no Agency
precedent for regulating styrene as a carcinogen, and no clear
and compelling scientific evidence for otherwise placing styrene
in the nonthreshold category. This commenter suggested moving
2-45
-------
styrene to the unrankable category in the rule or delaying any
treatment of styrene under the wood furniture rule until EPA
finalizes the ranking of styrene under Section 112(g).
One commenter (IV-D-29) stated their comments on the
Section 112(g) rulemaking provided descriptive summaries and
copies of toxicology studies to rank twenty glycol ethers (which
include all glycol ethers used in wood finishing). The commenter
noted that the composite values determined for each of these
glycol ethers, including 2-methoxyethanol, was below 20.
Therefore, the commenter stated EPA should delete any reference
to any glycol ether as a VHAP of potential concern in the rule,
and specifically the references in Tables 4 and 5.
One commenter (IV-D-33) stated that "the rule puts
potentially severe restrictions on so-called 'VHAP's of Potential
Concern,' including formaldehyde.11 The commenter maintained that
formaldehyde is assigned an "inappropriately low 0.2 ton/yr
de minimis level in the wood furniture NESHAP, based on a
modified 2.0 ton/yr proposal in Section 112(g). The
Section 112(g) formaldehyde proposal is based on a 1987 EPA risk
assessment, but the commenter stated that since that time "there
have been two EPA draft updates which reduce the indicated risk
by a factor of 56," and numerous other studies regarding the
"mechanism of formaldehyde carcinogenesis."
Three commenters (IV-D-07, IV-D-23, and IV-D-33) stated that
EPA should not permanently tie any portion of this rule to the
proposed Section 112(g) rule; instead, EPA should reference the
corresponding provisions of the final Section 112(g) rule and
provide that future changes will be picked up by the wood
furniture rule, with sufficient time to prepare for compliance.
The commenter maintained that the proposed Section 112(g) rule is
subject to change and was not intended to have the force of law,
but was merely EPA's suggestion of an approach to implementing
one portion of the Clean Air Act. The commenter further stated
that chemical categorizations and de minimis values are
particularly subject to change, and if any aspect of
Section 112(g) drew especially forceful comments, it was the
2-46
-------
question of which chemicals belonged in which sublists and what
de minimis values should be assigned.
One commenter (IV-D-07) stated that their request to
classify styrene as "unrankable" in Section 112(g) and thus raise
the de minimis value is directly relevant to the wood furniture
rule. One commenter (IV-D-23) questioned whether, since several
other Section 112(g) comments are directly relevant to the wood
furniture rule, EPA has placed any Section 112(g) comments in the
wood furniture docket and planned to consider those comments.
The commenter said that if not, the Agency is "ignoring relevant
comments and failing to fulfill statutory responsibilities."
One commenter (IV-D-23) stated that EPA has "impermissibly
evaded" the notice and comment requirements by cross-referencing
the proposed Section 112(g) rule. Further, the commenter noted
that EPA only published the preamble in the Federal Register.
which did not provide adequate warning that EPA intended to draw
so heavily from the proposed Section 112(g) rule without making
any adjustments to reflect changes in the final Section 112(g)
rule.
Six commenters (IV-D-16, IV-D-18, IV-D-21, IV-D-35, IV-D-41,
IV-D-42) provided comment on the use of 70-year exposure levels
as opposed to 7-year exposure levels in assigning de minimis
values to VHAP of potential concern. Three commenters (IV-D-16,
IV-D-18, and IV-D-42) stated that the Section 112(g) de minimis
levels are not based on 70-year exposure levels, but instead on
7-year exposure levels; therefore it appears that EPA's use of
the Section 112(g) de minimis levels is in conflict with the
70 year exposure level specified in the proposed standard. Three
commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-35, and IV-D-41) stated that since the
de minimis values in Section 112(g) were based on the fact that
source category NESHAP would be developed within 7 years, and
were, therefore, based on 7-year exposures, it seems appropriate
to adjust any risk based values EPA uses in any standard to a
70-year exposure.
However, one commenter (IV-D-35) stated that the derivation
of the de minimis values in Table 4 should be described, since
2-47
-------
these values do not seem to be consistent with the Section 112(g)
proposal. For example, some compounds have Section 112(g)
de minimis levels, based on their carcinogenicity, but the levels
listed in Table 4 are not equal to one tenth of the
Section 112(g) de minimis, which is the formula suggested in the
preamble. One commenter (IV-D-47) stated that the chosen de
minimis values seem to be quite low and may pose a significant
health risk to the community.
One commenter (IV-D-22) recommended that facilities be
allowed small increases in their VHAP usage without having to
meet any reporting requirement. The commenter suggested that any
of the explanations in Section 63.803(1)(4) (i)-(iv) should be
adequate. However, one commenter (IV-D-18) stated that sources
should always be required to comply with a state's air toxic
guideline and should not be able to avoid air toxic guideline
review through explanations (i), (ii), or (iv). The commenter
said that States should be given discretion to require approval
based on compliance with that State's air toxic guideline.
Response: The EPA decided to adopt the formulation
assessment plan that was developed by the regulatory negotiation
Committee in response to State and environmental group concerns
that the proposed emission limits were based on the total VHAP
content of the coatings rather than on specific limits for
individual pollutants. The States and environmental groups were
concerned that this approach potentially could lead to an
increase in risk if industry actually substituted more toxic
HAP's for less toxic HAP's. To address these concerns, the
regulatory negotiation Committee developed the formulation
assessment plan. While the Agency agrees that the plan is
somewhat unique, it was agreed to by all members of the
regulatory negotiation Committee after extensive discussion, and
the Agency believes that it is the most viable and least
burdensome approach to addressing the State and environmental
groups' concerns. If the de minimis values in Section 112(g)
change in the final rule, the wood furniture rule will be
revisited at that time.
2-48
-------
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-33 and IV-D-34) said that EPA
should clearly state that the FAP only includes finishing
materials. The commenters noted that Section 63.803(1)(1)
clearly states that the plan shall identify "VHAP from the list
presented in Table 4 that are being used in finishing
operations." Therefore, emissions from finishes are covered
under this section; the emissions from adhesives, substrates, and
upholstered goods are not. The commenters further pointed out
that distinction is carried forward in Subsections (2) and (3)
which address the development of baseline levels and surveys of
annual usage, but Subsection (4) also should include the
reference to finishing to clarify what is being compared. One
commenter (IV-D-34) suggested changing the name to "formulation
assessment plan for finishing operations." However, one
commenter (IV-D-43) stated the FAP should be applied to gluing
and cleaning operations in addition to the finishing operations.
Response: The formulation assessment plan only applies to
finishing operations and the Agency has modified subsection 4 to
ensure that this is clear. The Agency agrees with commenter
IV-D-34, and the name has been changed to formulation assessment
plan for finishing operations. This should provide further
clarification that the plan applies only to finishing operations.
Comment;: One commenter (IV-D-03) requested that EPA extend
the date for development of the Work Practice Implementation Plan
to 120 days after the compliance date, and asserted that more
than 60 days are needed to properly develop the Plan. One
commenter (IV-D-37) stated that "EPA should clarify that it is
the requirement for a Work Practices Implementation Plan, and not
the contents of that plan, that will constitute the applicable
requirement for purposes of the Title V Operating Permit
Program." This clarification is necessary because permitted
sources need the flexibility to revise their plans without
waiting for a Title V operating permit revision.
Response: The Agency believes that 60 days after the
compliance date is sufficient time for developing the work
practice implementation plan. The work practice implementation
2-4S
-------
plan and the work practice standards are critical elements of
this regulation, and the Agency believes that sources should have
mechanisms in place for complying with these requirements by the
compliance date. Existing sources will actually have a minimum
of 2 years after the effective date of the standard to develop
the plan.
As to the comment concerning revision to the plan, the
Agency agrees that such revision should not require a revision ->f
the facility's Title V operating permit. The Agency has
clarified this in the final rule.
Comment; Two comtnenters (IV-D-20 and IV-D-23) questioned
the need for an inspection and maintenance (ISM) plan for
facilities in the wood furniture manufacturing industry. The
commenters argued that fugitive emissions from equipment leaks
are unusual in this industry since the usual sources of these
emissions are not present in significant numbers in most of these
facilities. One commenter (TV-D-20) stated that typical
equipment leaks that might occur, such as from a malfunctioning
spray gun, would result in shutdown of the operation until the
problem was corrected. However, one commenter (IV-D-34) stated
that "industry supports the work practice and inspection and
maintenance provisions" and also "supports the Agency in its
determination of the appropriate monitoring and repair frequency
in the inspection and maintenance provisions of this regulation."
Response: The Agency appreciates the support for the
inspection and maintenance program from commenter IV-D-34. While
the Agency agrees with the comment that there are few sources ci.
equipment leaks in this industry, they still believe that such a
program is an important mechanism for ensuring that any leaks are
identified and corrected promptly. The fact that there are few
potential sources of equipment leaks should help minimize the
time required to conduct inspections.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) stated that EPA should add
explicit exemptions to the rule to exclude operations that do not
have an add-on control device from a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. The commenter said that statements in the
2-50
-------
preamble indicate EPA's intent to exclude these operations but
language in the rule is lacking.
Response: The Agency included in the proposed rule a table
(Table 1) to identify which sections of the General Provisions,
which are included in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A, are applicable
to facilities subject to the wood furniture NESHAP. This table
indicates that Section 63.6(e)(3) of the General Provisions,
which addresses startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans, is
applicable only to sources that have an add-on control device.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) suggested simple control
technologies that will reduce solvent emissions from washoff
operations. The commenter stated that in some plants the washoff
tank is covered with a thin layer of water which forms a barrier
against solvent loss, due to mutual insolubility. The commenter
further asserted that the tank can be covered when in use, as
well as when not in use, since workers only need access to the
tank when they are putting furniture in or taking it out.
Response; The regulatory negotiation Committee felt that it
was sufficient to require the tank to be closed except when in
use and the EPA has adopted this recommendation. In the rule,
"in use" is limited to those occasions when an operator is
filling or emptying the container. Therefore, during the time
the pieces are being washed off, the tank will have to be closed
as the commenter suggests.
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-20, IV-D-23, and
IV-D-47) requested further definition of appropriate training
sessions for new employees, experienced operators, and refresher
classes, and clarification as to who is to give the training and
requirements for trainers. One commenter (IV-D-06) suggested
providing an agenda or estimated time requirement and also stated
that appendices with example checklists for work practices would
be informative. This commenter maintained that if EPA does not
provide guidance to the industry, consultants will set arbitrary
levels at the expense of small businesses. One commenter
(IV-D-20) stated that the inclusion of the phrase "use of
manufacturing equipment" in Section 63.803(b) seems to include
2-51
-------
personnel not intended to be involved in the finishing, gluing,
or cleanup activities, and requested clarification.
Response: The Agency is planning to develop a guidance
manual after promulgation of this regulation to assist facilities
in the implementation of this regulation. The Agency believes
this is the most appropriate place to provide example checklists
and information on developing an operator training program. The
Agency believes that the operator training requirements in the
rule should include only a brief outline of subjects to be
addressed in the program. Because operations vary widely from
one facility to another, the Agency was concerned that a more
detailed agenda would require facilities to address processes and
issues that were not applicable to their facilities.
Comment: Seven commenters (IV-D-12, IV-D-13, IV-D-20,
IV-D-21, IV-D-22, IV-D-34, and IV-D-35) provided comments on the
limitation of the chemical composition of cleaning and washoff
solvents. One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that these requirements
should be moved to the emission limitations section of the
proposed rule because they are not work practice standards.
Several commenters supported banning the use of carcinogenic
compounds in solvents in quantities above OSHA MSDS reporting
thresholds. Two commenters recommended listing the compounds
currently in the type A and type B1/B2 categories in the final
rule and listing the concentrations that are subject to MSDS
reporting by OSHA. One commenter (IV-D-35) suggested combining
Table 5 into one alphabetical list and including all de minimis
values. However, several commenters stated that the proposed
work practice standards should be revised so that they do not
incorporate EPA's weight of evidence categories as a prerequisite
for prohibiting the use of particular HAP's. One commenter
(IV-D-20) stated a thorough scientific evaluation of all
chemicals of potential concern should be conducted before banning
any of them from use in this rule.
Two commenters (IV-D-12 and IV-D-13) stated that the EPA
exceeded its statutory authority to regulate HAP emissions under
Section 112 when it proposed work practice standards that
2-52
-------
preclude a source from using cleaning solvents which contain
chemicals that are known or probable human carcinogens in
concentrations subject to reporting under certain Occupational
Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") regulations. One
commenter (IV-D-12) cited portions of Sections 112(d)(l) and
112(d)(2) to support its position that these sections only
authorize EPA to distinguish among categories, types, and sizes
of sources, as well as the methods and techniques required to
achieve emission reductions. According to this commenter,
Section 112 does not give EPA authority to distinguish among
listed HAP's within a source category based upon a particular
HAP's classification as a potential human carcinogen. The
commenter further stated that the language of Section 112(d)
plainly limits EPA's authority to promulgating standards to
reduce emissions of the hazardous air pollutants subject to this
section.
The same commenter also contended that it is improper for
EPA to use the A and B1/B2 categories of known or probable
carcinogens contained in EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
management (the "Guidelines") as the basis for deciding which
HAP's in cleaning and washoff solvents will be prohibited or
otherwise controlled. The commenter maintained that the proposed
standards are inconsistent with the Guidelines because in the
preamble to the Guidelines, EPA expressly states that the
Guidelines "do not imply that one kind of data or another is
prerequisite for regulatory action to control, prohibit, or allow
the use of a carcinogen." 51 FR 33993 (September 24, 1986). The
same commenter further argued that even if EPA's use of the
Guidelines was proper, the Guidelines provide no justification
for differing between B and C carcinogens, such that C
carcinogens are acceptable for use in furniture cleaning and
washoff operations, but B carcinogens are not. Both commenters
further asserted that EPA cannot promulgate a NESHAP that has the
effect of prohibiting the use of certain HAP's before EPA has
evaluated the health and environmental -effects of the possible
alternatives.
2-53
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees with these commenters' views.
First, EPA notes that Section 112(d)(2)--in language omitted by
commenter IV-D-12 in its citation to that section--expressly
gives EPA the authority to prohibit entirely emissions of any of
the HAP's listed in Section 112(b):
Emissions standards promulgated under this subsection
and applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous
air pollutants shall require the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants
subject to this section (including a prohibition on
such emissions, where achiev?i?l<-^ that the
Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair
quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements, determines is available ... through
application of measures, processes, methods, systems or
techniques including, but not limited to, measures
which ... eliminate emissions of such pollutants
through process changes, substitution of materials or
other modifications ....
42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2) (emphasis added). This section makes
clear that EPA not only has the authority to prohibit emissions
of any HAP listed in Section 112(c) and may use any measures to
accomplish this objective including requiring the substitution of
materials, but that the Administrator also has the authority to
establish MACT standards which prohibit HAP emissions whenever
she determines, after considering the cost and other nonair
quality health and environmental impacts, that the ban on
emissions is achievable.
Moreover, nothing in Section 112 suggests that EPA does not
have the authority to distinguish among HAP's based upon whether
a particular HAP is a carcinogen. The only limitations placed on
EPA by Section 112(d) are: (1) EPA must promulgate standards
that reflect the maximum reduction in emissions of the HAP's
being regulated taking into consideration the "cost of achieving
such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and
environmental impacts[;]" and (2) the standards must be
achievable. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2). The carcinogenicity of a
compound is a proper health impact for the Administrator to
consider. Accordingly, in this rulemaking and pursuant to this
2-54
-------
statutory mandate, the Administrator determined that MACT for
cleaning and washoff solvents required a prohibition on the use
of type A and type B1/B2 carcinogens if they are present in
concentrations that meet or exceed Material Safety and Data Sheet
("MSDS") limits stated in OSHA regulations. This determination
was based in part on the Committee's recommendation that
alternative, noncarcinogenic materials could be substituted for
the banned materials.
The EPA also disagrees with the commenter's views that the
proposed standards are inconsistent with the preamble to the
Guidelines. The preamble states in part:
These Guidelines are to be used within the policy
framework already provided by applicable EPA statutes
and do not alter such policies. These Guidelines
provide general directions for analyzing and organizing
available data. They do not imply that one kind Qf
data or another is prerequisite for regulatory action
t;o control, prohibit, or allow the use of a carcinogen.
51 FR 33993 (September 24, 1986) (emphasis added). As both this
statement and other portions of the preamble indicate, the
Guidelines were written to provide a methodology for analyzing
and organizing data that could be used to determine the proper
category for a compound. The portion of the preamble highlighted
above that was cited by the commenter does not address how the
list of compounds is to be used once the compounds are
classified, nor does it preclude EPA from using the list as a
basis for controlling, prohibiting, or allowing the use of a
carcinogen. It simply states that the Guidelines should not be
read as implying the EPA believes certain data are prerequisite
for regulatory action--i.e., the Guidelines are not specifying
what kind of data is required for regulatory action; they simply
provide directions for analyzing and organizing data.
The Guidelines divide compounds into the following five
classifications:
Human Carcinogen (Group A)--appropriate where there is
sufficient evidence from epidemiologic studies to
support a causal relationship between exposure to the
compound and cancer;
2-55
-------
Probable Human Carcinogen (Group B)--appropriate when
the weight of evidence of human carcinogenicity based
on epidemiologic studies is limited (Group Bl), or when
the weight of the evidence of carcinogenicity based on
animal studies is sufficient and there is limited,
inadequate, no data, or no evidence of human
carcinogenicity (Group B2);
Possible Human Carcinogen (Group C)--appropriate when
there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals
and there is an absence of human data;
Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinoorenicity
(Group D)--generally used for compounds with inadequate
human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity or for
which no data are available; and
Evidence of Noncarcinogenicity for Humans (Group E)--
based upon the available evidence to date, the agency
shows no evidence for carcinogenicity in specified
studies.
51. FR 34000 (September 24, 1986).
The EPA limited the ban to compounds that were known or
probable human carcinogens and present in washoff solvents in
concentrations that were required to be reported on an MSDS under
OSHA regulations. This limitation eliminates emissions from
known or probable human carcinogens by requiring a substitution
of materials, without extending the ban to compounds that have
been classified only as possible carcinogens. The EPA believes
that this is a reasonable delineation and one that is supported
by the available epidemiologic and animal data.
The EPA does agree, however, that the designations of
"type A" and "type B1/B2" soon may become obsolete. Accordingly,
the final rule includes a table listing all compounds that were
on the list of A and B1/B2 carcinogens at the time of
promulgation. This change retains EPA's intention to ban the use
of these materials in cleaning and washoff solvents above the
MSDS reporting limits without unnecessarily connecting the ban to
a classification system that soon may change.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-22) recommended that
facilities be allowed to establish an alternative baseline period
in their formulation assessment plan if difficulties in
2-56
-------
establishing their historical VHAP emissions for past years are
encountered, especially for the year 1994. The commenter stated
that information regarding VHAP content of the materials used in
the wood furniture manufacturing industry has been difficult to
obtain.
Response; Facilities are already given a choice of 3 years
as their baseline - 1994, 1995, or 1996. They should be able to
obtain information on 1994 usage from their coating suppliers.
Most, if not all, of the VHAP of potential concern must also be
reported in the facility's annual SARA 313 report. Therefore,
facilities should have this information available. Accordingly,
the Agency believes that providing facilities the option of using
the highest usage from 1 of 3 years is sufficient.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-05 and IV-D-21) stated that
the work practice requirements are too burdensome. One commenter
(IV-D-05) stated that they are "overly prescriptive and
unsupported as floor requirements or as cost effective beyond
floor requirements and should be simplified or eliminated." The
commenter stated that the work practice requirements present only
an unnecessary burdensome regulatory requirement that provides no
additional environmental benefit. Both commenters maintained
that market incentives exist to employ good manufacturing
practices and pollution prevention practices. However, one
commenter (IV-D-20) stated "the proposed work practice standards
are reasonable and appropriate,n with the exception of the
requirement to maintain a record of pieces washed off.
Response: The work practice standards were developed by a
work group during the regulatory negotiation process. The work
group included furniture manufacturers and coating suppliers.
Many of the work practice standards included in the rule were
recommended by furniture manufacturers who already had
implemented the practices and found that, in many cases, the
practices reduced both emissions and operating costs.
Accordingly, EPA adopted the work group's recommendation
regarding work practice standards.
2-57
-------
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-16, IV-D-18, and IV-D-47)
stated that the 15 percent increase allowance in the FAP should
be deleted. The first commenter stated that instead of allowing
sources to emit their maximum emissions and allowing 15 percent
increases, the FAP should specify emission reductions and
requirements for reformulation to avoid using VHAP's of potential
concern. The commenter also stated that setting a baseline level
of usage for VHAP's is in contradiction with the reduction of
emissions. The second commenter stated that eliminating the
15 percent increase allowance would prevent facilities from
setting an artificially high number as the baseline.
Response: The Agency believes that it is important to allow
facilities some increase in their usage of VHAP of potential
concern so that they may increase production. A facility may
also need to make a change in the coatings they are using in
order to meet customer demands. Therefore, the Agency decided to
allow increases in usage up to 15 percent.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that it appears
that the items in Sections 63.803 (h) (6) , (i) , (j), and (k) are
pollution prevention practices that operators must follow and
questioned how these practices would be tracked and enforced.
The commenter stated that the "approach to incorporating
pollution prevention into the rule is interesting," but it is not
clear how to ensure compliance with these methods nor does there
appear to be any quantification on the overall reduction in HAP
emissions through the use of these methods.
Response: Several State representatives were included on
the wood furniture regulatory negotiation Committee. One of the
primary issues they were asked to address as the negotiations
proceeded and the rule was developed was the issue of
enforceability. In particular, there was some concern about the
enforceability of Section 63.803(h)(6), which requires a
demonstration of technical or economic infeasibility in order to
use conventional air spray guns. Both the State and EPA
representatives on the Committee believed that this provision is
enforceable and that a determination of technical or economic
2-58
-------
infeasibility can be made using a video or onsite demonstration,
in combination with the guidelines presented in the rule. The
other work practice standards were also agreed to by the
Committee and adopted by EPA. Both the State representatives and
the Agency believe these standards are enforceable, because it
should be clear to a State or local inspector whether a facility
is observing these work practice standards.
The Agency did develop an estimate of the emission
reductions associated with the two major work practice
standards--the operator training program and the limitation on
the use of conventional air spray guns. While the Agency and
other members of the regulatory negotiation Committee believe
that there will also be emission reductions associated with the
other work practice standards, the Agency did not believe they
had enough information to quantify this reduction.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) suggested that EPA clarify
the application equipment requirement as follows: "Each owner or
operator of an affected source shall use conventional spray guns
to apply finishing materials only under any of the following
circumstances." However, the commenter stated that rather than
indirectly limiting the HAP emissions through a technology
requirement, a better approach would be to directly limit the HAP
content of the material used and ban the use of any HAP that is
particularly bad for human health or the environment. The
commenter pointed out that the requirement to use a different
application technology is not being uniformly applied to all
industries applying coatings. The preamble states that this
NESHAP was developed after EPA developed a metal furniture new
source performance standard (NSPS) but the metal furniture NSPS
does not require the source to use a specified spraying
technology. The commenter stated that the limitation in this
NESHAP seems to be moving well beyond what a similar industry is
required to implement. According to the commenter, a better
policy would encourage pollution prevention techniques through
incentives, rather than mandates.
2-59
-------
One conunenter (IV-D-43) stated that because an accurate and
sellable test method for determining transfer efficiencies of
coating application equipment does not yet exist, the commenter
supported the approach of specifying particular types of
application equipment. The commenter believed, however, EPA
should allow State and local agencies flexibility in approving
alternative coating equipment.
Response: The Agency agrees that the change suggested by
commenter IV-D-21 clarifies the Agency's intentions concerning
the limitation on application equipment, and made this change in
the final rule.
The Agency, as well as the State and environmental group
representatives on the regulatory negotiation Committee, strongly
believed that a limitation on the use of conventional air spray
guns was needed. While data concerning the transfer efficiency
of different types of application equipment show that there are
many factors affecting transfer efficiency, most studies show
that conventional air spray guns are less efficient than other
types of application equipment. Many States already have
regulations that limit the use of this equipment, and the
majority of the national standards now being developed by the
Agency for surface coatings industries also limit the use of
conventional air spray equipment.
The Agency appreciates the support of commenter IV-D-43 for
limiting the use of conventional air spray equipment. Because
the rule only mandates that conventional air spray equipment
cannot be used, the Agency believes that the rule already allows
State and local agencies flexibility in approving alternative
equipment. As the rule is written, a facility may use any other
type of application equipment.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-32 and IV-D-37) stated that
the restrictions on the use of spray guns should exclude
adhesives since they are not "finishing materials." One
commenter (IV-D-32) said that it is "well established that the
spray application of solvent-borne adhesives has a very high
transfer efficiency because of the rheology of these products,"
2-60
-------
and suggested that restricting the use of spray gun application
of adhesives would be "counter-productive."
Response: The restriction on air spray guns does not apply
to adhesives. The language of the regulation indicates that the
restriction only applies to finishing materials. Adhesives are
not considered finishing materials.
2.6 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Comment; One commenter (rv-D-03) stated that reporting and
certification twice each year is too burdensome. The commenter
maintained that the various reports and annual summaries that EPA
already requires industry to submit stretch resources to their
maximum. The commenter suggested that a system of providing
reporting and certification twice during the first year and
annually thereafter unless the source fell out of compliance,
would meet the needs of the Agency and be less burdensome on the
industry.
Another commenter (IV-D-08) also said that certification of
compliance should be required on an annual, rather than
semiannual, basis because many stationary sources of NO., and VOC
J^
in nonattainment areas will submit emissions statements annually
in accordance with Clean Air Act Section 182(a)(2)(C)(3)(B).
One commenter (IV-D-43) stated the rule should provide
flexibility to States and local agencies to require alternative
reporting frequencies that are equally effective in demonstrating
compliance.
One commenter (IV-D-37} stated that the rule should not
require more frequent compliance certifications than the Clean
Air Act mandates. The proposed rule requires operators and
owners to provide semiannual compliance certifications, but
Section 503(b)(2) of the Act specifies that EPA must require
periodic certifications at least annually. Therefore, the
proposed rule requires more frequent certifications than Title V
requires, but the Agency presents no rationale to justify this
increased burden. This commenter suggested annual compliance
certifications.
2-61
-------
Response: The majority of the facilities in this industry
are expected to meet the emission limits through the use of
compliant coatings. Compliance with the emission limits is
demonstrated through recordkeeping. Because recordkeeping is the
primary method of demonstrating compliance with the regulation,
the Agency believes that facilities should have to submit
compliance status reports at least twice a year. Moreover,
Section 504(a) of the Act requires Title V permittees to submit
the results of any conditions that are necessary to demonstrate
compliance on at least a semi-annual basis. While the Agency
recognizes the concern expressed by commenter IV-D-03 that the
Agency already requires a number of other annual reports, the
Agency believes that this concern will be alleviated somewhat by
the Title V permit program, which will allow facilities to
include most of the information in one report. The Agency
encourages States to allow facilities the flexibility of
including all the information they need from the facility in
these semiannual reports so that additional reports will not be
needed.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-20, and IV-D-21)
stated that the proposed requirement to maintain records of
pieces washed off is not necessary. One commenter (IV-D-13)
stated that a facility does not typically wash off furniture
unless it is required, and an explanation for washing off a
particular piece seems an imposition on day-to-day operations.
According to this commenter, the only possible value for
recording the number of pieces washed off is if the facility
would need to calculate a per piece use of washoff solvent, a
calculation that would provide no value to the facility in
complying with the proposed standards. One commenter (IV-D-21)
stated that the air permitting authorities should not force
companies to track information for which the authority has no
use. One commenter (IV-D-20) proposed that facilities track
their solvent usage instead.
Response: This work practice standard was suggested by a
wood furniture manufacturer who found that when their facility
2-62
-------
implemented this practice, they were able to substantially reduce
the number of pieces that were washed off. By tracking the
number and types of pieces that are washed off, a facility will
be able to identify operators that have a relatively high number
of pieces that need to be washed off, which may be an indicator
that the operator needs additional training. The facility also
may identify particular pieces that need to be washed off more
than others because they are particularly difficult to finish
correctly. The facility then may work with the operators to
develop better application methods for those particular pieces.
Finally, the facility found that some pieces did not really need
to be washed off. In some cases, repairs could be made by
sanding the piece, or part of the piece, and refinishing it.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-18 and IV-D-22) suggested
that records required to document an area source's commitment to
the 250/3,000 gallon usage rate should be maintained for 5 years,
stating that this requirement would be consistent with Title V
requirements. Two commenters (IV-D-38 and IV-D-43) stated
sources should be required to either keep all records for only
2 years. Another cornmenter (IV-D-16) , however, stated that area
sources should be required to keep records documenting the
owner's commitment to the usage cap for the life of the source,
or submit an annual report containing the usage rates during each
year.
Response: The Agency agrees that purchase records or usage
records demonstrating a facility's exempt status should be
maintained for 5 years. As commenters IV-D-18 and IV-D-22
suggest, this is consistent with Title V requirements and with
the requirements of this rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-38) stated that Mojave Desert
AQMD's rules require a source to report all upsets or breakdowns
that cause an emission exceedance or violate any rule within
1 hour, and all continuous monitoring system emission exceedances
within 72 hours.
Response: Due to the nature of this industry, the Agency
does not expect there to be many facilities that exceed the
2-63
-------
emission limits due to an upset or breakdown. This should only
occur if the facility is using an add-on control device to reduce
emissions. Facilities using an add-on control device must
prepare a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan consistent with
the General Provision requirements specified in
Section 63.803(e)(3). Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) of the General
Provisions states that as long as a facility's actions during
such an upset or breakdown are consistent with the actions
presented in their startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the
facility is only required to submit a report of the upset or
breakdown semiannually. If, however, a facility's actions are
not consistent with the procedures established in the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator must report
the action taken for that event within 2 working days after
commencing actions inconsistent with the plan followed by a
letter within 7 working days after the end of the event. The
Agency believes that the guidance provided in the General
Provisions is sufficient for this rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that details such
as reporting and process requirements should be left to the State
to describe in specific operating permit requirements.
Response: The States have the authority to require
additional reporting if they believe it is necessary. The
regulation prescribes the minimum reporting requirements that the
Agency believes are necessary to ensure sources are complying
with the rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that the rolling
12-month period for coating usage may create recordkeeping
concerns and that monthly limits and records would be easier to
maintain. The commenter said that the EPA's draft Profile for
Furnitures and Fixtures states that 88 percent of the companies
in SIC code 25 have less than 100 employees. These smaller
businesses most likely do not have adequate personnel to develop
and maintain numerous records and documents.
Response: The Agency agrees that the rolling 12-month
period does require additional recordkeeping, but it also
2-64
-------
provides more flexibility because it allows facilities that have
an increased demand in production for a month or two to exceed
the 250 gallon per month limit. It is up to the facility to
determine if this flexibility is worth the additional
recordkeeping burden. The rule allows facilities the option of
meeting one limit or the other.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-08 and IV-D-21) stated that
the level of reporting required to document area source status
should be limited to a semiannual or annual certification of
usage, based on certified monthly usage records. The commenters
maintained that this is an adequate demonstration of area source
status. One commenter (IV-D-34) stated that "certain readily
available and understandable records, such as the CPDS, in
conjunction with purchase and use records for coatings, obviously
suggest themselves as records which could appropriately and
verifiable document compliance with a restriction of PTE."
Response: Maintaining purchase or usage records that
demonstrate that the facility's coating usage is less than the
250/3,000 gallon limit is sufficient to exempt the facility from
the regulation if the exemption is based on the material usage
limitation. If the facility chooses to establish that they are
exempt from the regulation by demonstrating that they use
materials containing no more than 5/12.5 tons of HAP, then the
facility will have to maintain purchase or usage records and
certified product data sheets for their coatings and thinners.
These records are to be maintained at the facility and made
available upon the request of the Administrator.
Cgmment: One commenter (IV-D-08) stated that the
recordkeeping requirements in Section 63.806(d) of the proposed
rule are unreasonably burdensome and practically infeasible for
military installations. The commenter stated that the records
required (solvent and coating additions to the continuous coating
reservoir, viscosity measurements, and data establishing that
viscosity is an appropriate parameter for demonstrating
compliance) are targeted at conventional wood furniture
manufacturing operations. The commenter also pointed out that
2-65
-------
the average user of regulated materials at a military base wood
feobby shop would be unable to perform the complex calculations
required.
The commenter suggested that sources using compliant
materials should be able to demonstrate compliance by maintaining
certified product data sheets for each regulated material and
records of monthly usage, and that all other recordkeeping
requirements should be eliminated.
Response: The records referred to by the commenter, those
specified in Section 63.806(d), are only required for sources
that are using continuous coaters and choose to use this option
for demonstrating compliance. Facilities that do not have
continuous coaters are not required to maintain these records.
Facilities that do have continuous coaters are also given another
option to comply with the regulation that will not require this
additional recordkeeping. If the records for a coating used in a
continuous coater demonstrate that the coating is compliant and a
sample of the coating demonstrates that the coating is compliant,
then the facility only has to maintain certified product data
sheets for the coating and records of the as applied VHAP content
of the coating.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-23) stated that EPA should not
require sources to keep a copy of reports they have submitted to
EPA because this is an unreasonable recordkeeping burden. The
commenter stated that the only reason EPA would require anyone to
keep these reports would be as "insurance" in case EPA loses
their copy. The commenter stated that if a regulated source
happened to misplace its copy of a properly submitted report, no
harm would be done to the environment, but EPA would be free to
assess a penalty of up to $25,000 per violation, per day, which
is unreasonable.
Response: Section 63.10(b) of the General Provisions
requires facilities to maintain all records, including all
reports and notifications, for at least 5 years.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-40) stated that the final rule
should provide de minimis levels below which the reporting of
2-66
-------
trace amounts of HAP's in non-HAP materials would not be
required. Like virtually all solvents, the solvents used in wood
furniture manufacturing operations contain trace amounts of other
substances, including some substances that are listed as HAP's.
The commenter stated that because the levels of these impurities
are typically very low and present no appreciable risk to human
health or the environment, other regulatory programs that require
the reporting of regulated substances include de minimis
thresholds below which reporting is not required. The commenter
stated that the final rule should clarify that CPDS's do not need
to include information about any HAP that comprises less than
0.1 percent, for defined carcinogens, or 1.0 percent, for other
HAP's, of a solvent used in a finishing material. Otherwise, the
rule will be inconsistent with other reporting requirements and
impose substantial costs for analyzing finishing materials for
very low levels of impurities that have no significance from a
health or environmental perspective.
The commenter stated that unless the final rule establishes
de minimis levels, it will also impose an unnecessary burden on
distributors and facility operators. Under the proposed
approach, they would be forced to keep track of small variations
in different batches of chemicals and finishing materials as they
proceed through the formulation and finishing process. The
commenter maintained that the additional cost to distributors,
facility operators, and producers simply cannot be justified in
light of the trivial amounts of HAP's that are found in non-HAP
finishing materials.
Response: The definition of certified product data sheet
(CPDS) has been changed in the final rule to clarify that only
HAP present at concentrations greater than or equal to
1.0 percent, 0.1 percent for carcinogens, must be reported on the
CPDS.
2.7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) stated that the monitoring
requirements are too burdensome. The commenter said the
monitoring requirements in Section 63.604 satisfy the
2-67
-------
requirements of enhanced monitoring, but do not target the
highest emitting points. The commenter stated that requiring
monitoring for all emitting points is overly burdensome.
However, one commenter (IV-D-34) stated that "industry supports
EPA's approach in this NESHAP for meeting the enhanced monitoring
and compliance certifications requirements of § 114 and believes
that the monitoring requirements contained in this regulation are
appropriate to satisfy those monitoring and certification
requirements."
Response; The Agency appreciates the support from commenter
IV-D-34 concerning the monitoring requirements included in the
regulation. The Agency believes that the monitoring requirements
included in this regulation allow sufficient mechanisms for .
demonstrating the compliance status of a source without imposing
too great a burden on the source. It is not practical to
establish monitoring requirements based on the magnitude of
emissions from a particular source for this industry, because the
largest source of emissions will vary by facility. At some
facilities, gluing operations may be the largest source of
emissions while at other facilities finishing or cleaning
operations may be the largest source of emissions.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that monthly
pressure drop readings are not adequate. A pressure drop reading
is not a difficult measurement to perform, and having the source
read it only once per month may allow an entire month of
noncompliance before a problem is discovered. The commenter
stated the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requires daily
pressure drop recording in many permits. The commenter also
questioned why the requirement for gluing operations controlled
with a fluidized bed catalytic oxidizer is different than the
requirement for control of finishing operations with the same
device. Finishing operations must measure the pressure drop
monthly and maintain a constant pressure drop. The commenter
requested guidance on what is "constant." For gluing operations,
the facility is required to measure the pressure drop monthly,
but there are no specific provisions for how this parameter shall
2-68
-------
be maintained. The only provision addressing this issue states
that the facility cannot operate at a daily average value greater
or less than the operating parameter value. The rule further
states that daily average values shall be calculated for all
parameters monitored during the operating day. The commenter
questioned whether this means a daily average pressure drop will
be calculated on the day the pressure drop is measured? If the
measurement is only taken once, what is being averaged? The
commenter requested more specific language on these items.
Response: The Agency agrees that the language concerning
the pressure drop reading needs to be clarified and has done so
in the final rule. There is currently only one facility in the
industry using a fluidized bed catalytic incinerator to reduce
emissions from finishing operations. None are currently being
used to reduce emissions from gluing operations. The monitoring
parameters for this facility were developed after several
discussions with the facility concerning their current monitoring
practices. Because of the limited use of this type of add-on
control device in this industry, the Agency believes that the
monitoring requirements for this type of add-on control are
sufficient for this regulation. However, as the preamble states,
the Agency does not endorse the use of these monitoring
requirements for other regulations.
2.8 FORMAT OF THE STANDARD
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-04 and IV-D-09) stated they
support the rule as proposed because it identifies a broad range
of control devices as alternatives to low-VOC coatings, and they
would oppose a standard that required reformulation only. One
commenter stated that allowing manufacturers flexibility in
complying with the rule ensures that the most practical and cost
effective options are available to the manufacturers when they
select a compliance strategy and agreed with the identification
of catalytic oxidation as a viable control strategy. The other
commenter stated that a standard that required reformulation only
would result in higher compliance costs than a flexible rule
allowing capture and control. The commenter pointed out that
2-69
-------
thermal and catalytic oxidizers have been used to control
emissions from a number of furniture manufacturing operations,
notably kitchen cabinet manufacture, and typically have obtained
a 98 percent level of control or greater, easily meeting an
emission limit of 1 Ib HAP/lb applied solids.
Response: The Agency appreciates the comments in support of
the format of the standard in this rule. The final rule provides
industry even more flexibility by allowing sources to use a
combination of an averaging approach and an add-on control device
to meet the emission limits for finishing materials.
Comment: Five commenters (IV-D-11, IV-D-20, IV-D-22,
IV-D-43 and IV-D-47) stated that the Ib HAP/lb solids emission
limit format is inconsistent with other Federal regulations and
EPA should not propose a different emission limit format for a
single industry. The commenters favored retaining a Ib
HAP/gallon format for the standard. One commenter (IV-D-ll)
stated that the MACT standards for all sealers, topcoats,
basecoats, enamels, adhesives, and high solids stains should be
expressed in g/L (Ib/gal) less water and exempt solvents, and for
low solid stains, washcoats, and toners, the format should be g/L
(Ib/gal) of material including water and exempt solvents. This
commenter maintained that a new format will make it more
difficult to enforce the limit, more difficult to determine
equivalency of existing regulations, and may lead to confusion
for all affected parties. The commenter also pointed out that
for the same mass VHAP/mass solids ratio, the VHAP content in g/L
less water may vary significantly; therefore, a coating complying
with the MACT limit may violate the VOC limit, and vice versa.
The commenter stated that the proposed HAP limit for stains
penalizes low-solid waterborne materials containing small amounts
of VHAP's and that the proposed limit for low solid stains is
stricter than the proposed standards for thinners.
The commenters realized that the justification for the new
format is that the old format does not credit sources that switch
to higher solids, lower emitting finishes. However, one
commenter pointed out that assuming the dry film thickness
2-70
-------
remains the same, the facility will use less high solids coatings
to process the same amount of furniture and therefore, VOC
emissions will be lower. The commenters pointed out that a new
format would result in major sources having to comply with two
sets of limits, expressed in two different formats: VOC limits
in g/L less water and VHAP limits in kg/kg solids.
Response: The traditional measurement method for coatings
of g/L less water is not appropriate for HAP's because there is
not always a direct relationship between the HAP content of a
coating and the solids content of a coating. A facility using a
40 percent solids coating with a HAP content of 359 g/L
(3 Ib/gal) will emit less HAP's than a facility using a
20 percent solids coating with a HAP content of 240 g/L
(2 Ib/gal). The Agency developed a Control Techniques Guideline
(CTG) to address VOC emissions from this industry concurrently
with the NESHAP. In order to avoid facilities having to track
limits expressed in two formats, the emission limits for coatings
in the CTG are based on kg VOC/kg solids (Ib VOC/lb solids).
2.9 COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS AND DATES
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-23) stated that it is unclear
what "commit to using" means, in regard to the 250 gallon limit
in Section 63.800(b)(1). The commenter questioned whether
compliance consisted of making a verbal or written commitment,
even if actual usage exceeded 250 gallons per month. The
commenter questioned if the commitment was to be in the form of a
report, and if so, when that report was due, or if the provision
simply meant facilities were exempt if they actually use less
than 250 gallons per month. The commenter suggested that EPA
eliminate any reference to "commitment."
Response: The Agency agrees that the reference "commit to
using" is unclear. In the final rule, facilities are exempt from
the regulation if they use no more than 250 gallons per month or
3,000 gallons per year and maintain purchase or usage records
that demonstrate their usage is no more than 250 gallons per
month or 3,000 gallons per year. Facilities also must maintain
the records for 5 years. However, the facility does not have to
2-71
-------
report that their usage is below the required levels; they only
Ijave to maintain records that must be made available to the
Administrator upon request.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-22, IV-D-34, and IV-D-40)
agreed that the flexibility that averaging provisions afford is
warranted, particularly for the larger facilities that have the
resources to maintain the necessary records. One commenter
(IV-D-22) stated that while averaging provisions increase the
difficulty of determining compliance, they also provide increased
flexibility for facilities. Certain stains and specialty
finishes may require difficult reformulations to meet the limits,
but emissions averaging provides a mechanism for the continued
use of these materials, provided that other "over-complying"
coatings are also used.
Two commenters (IV-D-34 and IV-D-40) supported the averaging
provisions, but noted that the rule does not appear to permit
full averaging of controlled and uncontrolled emissions
(i.e., between those emissions from a source which is controlled
by a pollution abatement device and those which are not so
controlled.) One commenter (IV-D-34) pointed out that the
framework document outlining the regulatory negotiation
committee's agreement states that "a source should be able to
comply with the allowable emissions level set forth above by not
exceeding 1.0 pound of VHAP's per pound of solids for the
weighted average of all the finishing steps applied in the
facility." Therefore, industry believes the regulation should
"make clear that emissions from a source which are controlled by
a pollution abatement device can be averaged with those which are
not so controlled, whether compliant or noncompliant."
However, two commenters (IV-D-35 and rv-D-41) recommended
that EPA delete the averaging option for demonstrating compliance
for finishing operations. One commenter (IV-D-35) stated that
"to allow a source to average HAP emissions without regard for
varying toxicity is not sufficiently protective of public health,
especially since it appears that some of the wood furniture
VHAP's may also be considered VHAP's of potential concern under
2-72
-------
Section 112(g)." Both commenters stated that although EPA may
believe an averaging approach is simpler and cost effective for
industry, past experience has proven this to be the opposite for
States, due to the difficulty in enforcing the provisions and the
significant reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
One commenter (rv-D-41) stated that EPA needs to allow
States to adopt the final regulation without the emissions
averaging option. The commenter said that their State agency may
seek the authority to do so under Section 112(1) if EPA does not
provide for adoption by States without emissions averaging, but
it is difficult for them to go beyond the Federal program without
specific State authority.
The commenter recommended that EPA not allow emissions
averaging in future NESHAP since the provisions do not allow for
the relative toxicity of the HAP's being emitted and there are no
limitations on usage. The commenter supported the requirement of
the formulation assessment plan, but stated that "this measure
will not prevent the potential for increased risks by use of
emissions averaging under the proposed rule."
One commenter (IV-D-43) stated that sources who elect to use
averaging should be required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction
of the implementing agency, that compliance through averaging
will not result in greater hazard or risk than compliance without
averaging. The commenter also stated that if sources choose to
use averaging, emissions should be reduced by 10 percent from
what the emissions would have been if only complying coatings
were used. The commenter also suggested that EPA allow the
implementing agency to limit the number of emission points or
coatings that may be used for averaging to decrease the burden
and cost of overseeing and enforcing the rule. The commenter
also said that State and local agencies should be granted the
discretion to preclude sources from using emission averaging to
comply with the NESHAP without having to make a Section 112(1)
rule approval request. According to this commenter, giving
States discretion in the NESHAP will reduce paperwork burdens on
2-73
-------
States, expedite delegation of the rule to the State, and remove
a potential source of uncertainty for affected sources.
One commenter (IV-D-ll) stated that the averaging option
provided in the proposed rule is inconsistent with the one
provided in the proposed NESHAP for aerospace manufacturing and
reworking facilities. The commenter pointed out that the
aerospace NESHAP only allows averaging within the same coating
category. The commenter also stated that the averaging option
allowed in the proposed wood furniture NESHAP contradicts the EPA
emission trading policy (51 FR 43815, 1986} for ozone precursors
in ozone nonattainment areas. That document requires that
sources using an averaging approach provide a 20 percent emission
reduction below the baseline emissions, defined as the least of
actual or allowable emissions. The commenter said that if this
requirement is still in place for criteria pollutants it should
also be applicable to toxic air contaminants, but if EPA has
revised its policy toward all air pollutants it should be
clarified in all NESHAP's and revisions to EPA's emission trading
policy.
Response: The Agency appreciates the comments (IV-D-22,
IV-D-34, and IV-D-40) supporting the inclusion of averaging in
the rule. The Agency agrees that facilities should be able to
average among controlled and uncontrolled emissions when using an
add-on control device and has included this compliance option in
the final rule.
While the Agency appreciates the comment from commenter
IV-D-35 concerning averaging HAP emissions without regard to the
toxicity of the different HAP's, the Agency does not believe this
is a significant issue with this industry. During the regulatory
negotiation, the Committee requested that the Agency's Pollutant
Assessment Branch (PAB) evaluate the toxicity of the primary
HAP's used by this industry to determine if there were
significant differences in toxicity. This evaluation concluded
that significant differences did not exist between the major
HAP's used by the industry. The HAP's that are of greater
concern are used only in small quantities by the industry, not as
2-74
-------
primary solvents in coatings. The EPA believes that the
formulation assessment plan effectively addresses the issue of
the more toxic HAP's used by the industry, particularly since
these HAP's are typically used in relatively small quantities.
In addition, the Agency does not believe the toxicity of the
different HAP's is any more of an issue for sources using an
averaging approach than it is for sources using a compliant
coatings approach. The compliant coatings approach limits the
total VHAP content of a coating; it does not include individual
limits for each HAP. The only way to address the commenter's
concern would be to limit the toluene content of each coating,
the xylene content of each coating, the methanol content of each
coating, etc. Because as many as 25 of the 189 HAP's may be used
in wood furniture coatings, such an approach is impractical for
this industry.
Two commenters indicated that sources using an averaging
approach should reduce their emissions by either 10 percent
(IV-D-43) or 20 percent (IV-D-il) more than sources using a
compliant coatings approach. The Agency is aware that the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) requires an additional 10 percent
reduction in some cases and that EPA's emission trading policy
requires sources using an averaging approach provide a 20 percent
reduction below the baseline emissions. However, the Agency does
not believe that these provisions are applicable for this
regulation. In the HON, credits generated using pollution
prevention measures do not have to be discounted. Sources using
an averaging approach to meet the requirements of the wood
furniture NESHAP will be using low-HAP coatings, which is
considered a pollution prevention measure. Therefore, under the
HON approach the 10 percent reduction would not be applicable.
In addition, the emissions trading policy is not applicable to
standards promulgated under Section 112. The additional
20 percent reduction is required for sources using an averaging
approach to meet the wood furniture CTG emission limits, but the
Agency does not believe that it is appropriate for the MACT
standard. In addition, one of the reasons for both the 10 and
2-75
-------
20 percent reduction requirements in the HON and the emissions
trading policy is that sources typically realize a cost savings
when using an averaging approach, and the feeling is that the
environment should benefit from the source's cost savings.
However, the Agency does not believe this is the case with the
wood furniture industry. There is no real cost savings
associated with averaging in the wood furniture industry.
Because of the substantial additional recordkeeping requirements,
averaging is likely to be less cost effective than using
compliant coatings. Sources are expected to use an averaging
approach because they cannot meet product performance
specifications using compliant coatings. For these reasons, the
Agency does not believe that sources using an averaging approach
should be required to achieve an emission reduction beyond that
required for sources using a compliant coatings approach to
comply with the regulation.
Two commenters requested that EPA include language in the
rule that would allow them to adopt the regulation without the
averaging options. These commenters indicated that unless
language was included in the rule, they would have to seek
authority to do so under Section 112(1). The agreement to allow
averaging in this rule was a significant part of the regulatory
negotiation. The MACT floor was based on the average VHAP
content for all coatings used at each source. Because averaging
was the basis for the MACT floor, the Agency does not believe
that it is appropriate to include language that would allow
States the option of not including the averaging option. The
Agency appreciates the concerns that averaging imposes a greater
recordkeeping burden on the States, but the Agency does not
believe that is the case for this regulation. Each facility
using an averaging approach must demonstrate compliance by using
a straightforward calculation that is included in the rule. They
include the results of this monthly calculation in their
semiannual reports. The source must maintain records that
document the data used in the averaging calculation are correct.
If the value resulting from the calculation is greater than 1.0
2-76
-------
(0.8 for new sources), the source is out of compliance. The
State does not have to perform any calculations. As with the
compliant coatings approach, the State or local agency may take a
sample of .any coating to determine if the measured VHAP content
of the coating is the same as the VHAP content reported by the
source.
The Agency does not intend to preclude State or local
agencies from excluding the averaging option in their
regulations. However, because of the importance of the averaging
provisions to the industry and because the Agency does not
believe the provisions impose any additional burden on the State
or local agencies, the Agency has decided not to include language
in the rule that will allow State or local agencies to exclude
the averaging provisions automatically. If a State or local
agency chooses to exclude the averaging option, they must seek
authority to do so under Section 112(1).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that there appears
to be a problem with Equation 1 in § 63.804(a)(1). The values
for Ccn are defined as being "as applied," which indicates that
it must include any solvents used to thin the material. However,
it appears that the later Sn and Wn terms also account for
solvent used for thinning. The commenter suggested that EPA make
it clear that the values for Ccn for this equation are "as
purchased."
Response: The Agency appreciates the commenter pointing out
this error. The final rule reflects that the values for Ccn in
the equation represent the as purchased value.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) said that
Section 63.804(a)(3) is not the appropriate place to state that R
should be calculated using the performance test results. The
commenter maintained that the value for R would only be
calculated using the performance test results when checking to
ensure that the facility was in compliance with the required
R value. The value of R, for purposes of this item, is
calculated by substituting one for Eac, the known values for Ebc,
and solving for R. According to the commenter, the rule tries to
2-77
-------
combine two different actions in one section--determining the
required R and showing compliance with this required value--
and the result is very confusing. The commenter also stated that
the equation in Section 63.804 (c) (2) should be R * ^^"bc'^c^ /
C^,) (100) .
Response: The Agency agrees with the comments concerning
the calculation of "R" for both finishing and gluing operations.
The final rule reflects these changes.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) said that EPA should
clearly state that for initial compliance, when performing the
averaging calculation for the first month, data from before the
compliance date should be used so that the value reflects an
entire month's worth of information.
Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter. The EPA
has included in the final rule language that specifically
requires that the first month's averaging calculation include an
entire month's worth of data. Because an entire month's data
must be used, the facility will have to include data from before
the compliance dates when performing the averaging calculation.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) noted that in
Section 63.805 (c) there is a reference that Section 63.805(b)
requires a compliance demonstration. The commenter stated that
although Section 63.805(b) does discuss demonstrating compliance,
it does not require a compliance demonstration. The commenter
said that if the intention of Section 63.805(b) is to require
compliance demonstrations, it needs to be reworded to clarify
this; otherwise, the reference appears to be incorrect.
Response: The commenter is correct. The EPA changed the
reference to Section 63.804(f)(4).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that it does not
appear that the alternative compliance requirements for sources
that use a control device ensure that emissions will be reduced
to levels that are equivalent to the use of compliant coatings.
The commenter pointed out that under Section 63.803(h) (ii) (4),
conventional spray guns may be used to apply finishing materials
if emissions are directed to a control device, but the
2-78
-------
calculations used to establish the required control device
efficiency do not take into account the larger quantities of
finishing materials that are used with air-atomized guns. The
commenter suggested that EPA could correct the problem by
incorporating in the final rule an additional term in the
equivalency equation, establishing a minimum abatement device
efficiency in the rule that would clearly be equivalent, or by
eliminating the exemption.
Response: The commenter does have a point; however, there
are many factors influencing the transfer efficiency of spray
equipment. The Agency does not believe that selecting an
arbitrary control device efficiency would be appropriate, nor is
eliminating the exemption a feasible option, because some low-VOC
coatings can only be applied using conventional air spray guns.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) discussed setting minimum
combustion temperatures for thermal and catalytic oxidizers in
the rule. The commenter stated that in Minnesota, minimum
temperatures are set in permits, but sources are required to
operate at the temperature at which they demonstrated compliance
(which are generally higher) rather than the minimum temperatures
established in their permits.
Response: The State or local agency has the option of
setting minimum combustion temperatures in a facility's permit.
The language in the rule does not preclude a State from including
these temperatures in a facility's permit,
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-16) stated that the compliance
date for all major sources should be 3 years after the
promulgation date and the compliance date for area sources should
be one year after promulgation. The commenter suggested that
this will eliminate confusion regarding which sources emit
greater or less than 50 tons per year and will allow larger
sources to design and construct control systems if necessary.
One commenter (IV-D-37) requested that EPA provide the statutory
three year compliance deadline for all sources, to give sources
the maximum amount of latitude available under the Clean Air Act.
2-79
-------
Response; The regulatory negotiation Committee discussed
requiring all facilities to comply within 2 years, because most
facilities are expected to comply through the use of reformulated
coatings rather than adding abatement devices. However, the
coating suppliers to the industry were concerned that they could
not supply all facilities with reformulated coatings that met
their performance demands within the two year time frame.
Therefore, the Committee recommended that EPA adopt a tiered
approach to allow the coating suppliers to work with their
largest customers first, and then meet the needs of their smaller
customers within the following year. The EPA retained this
recommendation in the final rule.
Concerning the comment that the compliance date for area
sources be l year after promulgation, the only requirement for
area sources is documentation of their area source status. That
is, they must keep records that document that their coating usage
is less than 250 gallons per month or 3,000 gallons per year.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-47) stated that it is unclear
whether the reporting threshold for yearly emissions is based on
potential to emit or actual emissions. If it is based on actual
emissions and since the compliance date for a source with
emissions of 50 tons per year or more is November 21, 1997, the
source would not have the yearly emissions for 1997 by November
of the same year.
Response: The compliance dates are based on whether or not
a source actually emits 50 tons per year of HAP. The language of
the rule has been modified to state that the compliance date is
determined by a source's actual emissions for the year 1996.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-22 and IV-D-38) recommended
that the time frame for initial notification be extended to no
sooner than 270 days after the effective date from the final
rule's effective date. One commenter {IV-D-38} stated the period
should be 270 or 365 days to allow for the local agency to
prepare an equivalent rule and submit the needed documents to
EPA. This commenter also suggested that the time period should
be the same for new or modified MACT or NESHAP and that all
2-80
-------
NESHAP should contain an example initial notification form. One
commenter (IV-D-22) also stated that it would be helpful if EPA
would establish an automatic extension of this deadline where the
State or local authority is seeking rule equivalency under 40 CFR
Subpart E. However, two commenters (IV-D-41 and IV-D-43)
requested that the time frame be extended to only 180 days.
Response: The time frame for initial notification has been
extended to 270 days in the final rule. The Agency is planning
to prepare a guidance document for this industry that will
include an initial notification form.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that the
regulations need to provide latitude for case by case operating
restrictions for minor sources. The commenter stated that
although the language may provide the mechanism, details such as
reporting and process requirements should be left to the State to
describe in specific operating permit requirements.
Response; The Agency has provided three options for
facilities to use to demonstrate that they are area sources for
the purposes of this rule and should be exempt from the
regulation. Each of these options has specific recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. If a source does not qualify for an
exemption under any of these options, they can either work with
their State or local agency to include additional mechanisms for
qualifying as a minor source in their operating permit or obtain
a Federally-enforceable limit on their potential to emit.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that there is no
language which clearly explains what constitutes the change from
area to major source in the discussion of compliance time frames
when an area source becomes a major source. The commenter asked
the following questions: (l) does the source become major the
month they first exceed either of the area source cutoff
thresholds in Section 63.800(b)? (2) does a source need a year's
worth of data before it is considered a major source? and
(3) does the source become major when their emissions actually
exceed the 10/25 ton/yr major source level, regardless of their
usage?
2-81
-------
Response; Exceeding the thresholds presented in
Section 63.800(b) does not automatically make a source a major
source. A source becomes a major source when their potential or
actual emissions exceed the major source designation of 10 tons
of any HAP or 25 tons of a combination of HAP's. The Agency
agrees that this is unclear in the proposed rule and has
clarified it in the final rule. In the final rule, the source's
status is based on their emissions over a rolling 12-month
period. If an existing source's potential to emit exceeds the
10/25 ton limitation for any 12-month period, then they must
comply with the regulation within 1 year of exceeding the
10/25 ton limitation.
Comment; One comtnenter (IV-D-16) stated that the
applicability determination for area sources should be on the
date of promulgation of the final rule. The commenter suggested
that sources be required to send an initial notification to the
Administrator within 120 days after promulgation of the rule
stating whether they wish to commit to the 250/3,000 gallon usage
limits.
Response: Area sources are required to keep purchase or
usage records documenting that their coating usage is below the
250/3,000 gallon limits. These records will be made available to
the Administrator upon request. No initial notification is
necessary for area sources.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-20) stated that the EPA's
proposal to assess a penalty for every day of the month that a
facility exceeds the HAP limit is not practical. The commenter
maintained that the only way for industry to avoid the potential
for a 30-day fine is to keep daily records. This would create
unnecessary recordkeeping and is inconsistent with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980. The commenter suggested that a single
penalty for the first offense, with increasing rates for the
second and third offenses, would be more reasonable.
Response: The Agency believes that it is appropriate that
facilities using an averaging approach be subject to a 30-day
fine unless they can demonstrate the violation is due to
2-82
-------
activities from a particular day or days. Facilities using a
compliant coatings approach are subject to a fine for every day
they use a noncompliant coating. Facilities using an averaging
approach should not be able to reduce the potential penalties for
noncompliance just because they are averaging. Averaging allows
facilities great flexibility. However, there are additional
recordkeeping requirements and additional risks associated with
this flexibility.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-43) stated that several
districts in California have existing rules that address surface
coating of wood furniture and they may wish to demonstrate
equivalency. If the final compliance date for a Section 112(1)
equivalent standard is not the effective date of the equivalent
standard, sources will have to comply with dual regulations. The
commenter stated that the final compliance date should be 30 days
after final action by EPA on the Section 112(1) equivalency
request, provided the State or local agency submits a request for
Section 112(1) equivalency prior to the final compliance date.
Response: In general, the Part 63 Subpart E rule provides
flexibility with regard to source compliance with a newly
approved State rule. States may grant additional time for
sources to come into compliance; however, in the interim, sources
must be in compliance with the underlying Federal Requirement.
The regulations require State standards to have the source in
compliance no later than required in the comparable Federal
standard (40 CFRSecs. 63.92(b)(2)(iv), 62.93(b)(3), and
63.94(b)(2)(ii)(E)).
This requirement becomes problematic in the case where (1) a
State standard becomes effective at about the same time as the
comparable Federal standard, (2) the State submits its standard
for approval under Section 112(1) after the Federal standard is
promulgated, and (3) approval comes shortly before the compliance
deadline in the comparable Federal rule. In these cases, sources
have very little time to comply with the newly approved State
rule and may be subject to enforcement action and citizen suits.
2-83
-------
The EPA is currently reviewing this issue and plans to address it
;j.n the revisions to the Part 63, Subpart E rule at a later date.
2.10 TEST METHODS
2.10.1 Proposed Method 311
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-02, IV-D-23, and IV-D-31)
stated that the technology of Method 311 is outdated in that it
is over 10 years old. The commenters claimed that there are
analytical equipment and procedures much better than those
specified in the method. One commenter (IV-D-23) stated that his
company "might have to spend large amounts of money to reequip
their labs with old, outdated equipment" that "they threw away
years ago."
Response; The specific details provided in Method 311 are
not intended to limit the analyst to a single analytical system.
The method clearly states that "all systems that employ this
principle (viz. gas chromatography), but differ only in details
of equipment and operation, may be used as alternative methods,
provided that the prescribed quality control, calibration, and
method performance requirements are met." If a laboratory's
existing equipment could meet the necessary performance
requirements, there would not be any need to buy any other
equipment.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-23) stated that EPA should
withdraw proposed Method 311 and should not repropose until
several major concerns are resolved. The commenter's concerns
regarded whether the method will actually work and the fact that
the method will probably be borrowed by other rules, so it is
important to "get it right" the first time. The EPA has proposed
Method 311 for analysis of a wide variety of HAP's in thousands
of different products that include solvents, glues, coatings, ana
washoff materials. The commenter stated that EPA does not
possess data to demonstrate the accuracy, reproducibility, or
precision of analysis of this method across the broad range of
VHAP's and products; in other words, EPA does not yet know this
method will work. The commenter stated that EPA should withdraw
the method and consult with analytical experts to develop an
2-84
-------
up-to-date method that will actually work. One commenter
(IV-D-31) suggested a round robin, including a minimum of ten
laboratories analyzing at least seven types of paints and
coatings, should be completed to determine intra-laboratory
precision and accuracy. Paints and coatings should be of known
composition and analyzed at least in triplicate.
Response; Method 311 requires the analyst to analyze a
quality control check sample, containing all of the analytes of
interest in a mixture, to demonstrate that the method can
generate results with acceptable accuracy and precision. Thus,
the method must be evaluated by the analyst as it is applied to
different types of coatings. The Agency believes that the method
will be applicable to most types of coatings. Materials for
which the method will not work may require the development of
alternative methods.
Comment; Three commenters (IV-D-02, IV-D-14, and IV-D-22)
stated that the method was much too time consuming, especially
the calibration procedure. One commenter (IV-D-02) stated that
the way the method is written, it would take hours just to run
one sample. Another commenter (IV-D-22) remarked that if the
calibration procedure is followed faithfully, "the analyst will
not be able to do anything during the day but perform
calibration."
Response: The Agency agrees that the original calibration
procedure is too time consuming and revised the method to
simplify the calibration procedure and reduce the time devoted to
calibration.
Comment; Four commenters (IV-D-02, IV-D-22, IV-D-31, and
IV-D-43) noted that experimental parameters must be spelled out
in the method, such as injection port temperature, column
temperature, etc. These parameters will serve as a guide for
every analyst using the method; otherwise, there will be hundreds
of methods developed with different test parameters. One
commenter (IV-D-43) recommended the method recognize guidelines
for gas chromatography, such as ASTM E260-91.
2-85
-------
Response: Method 311 does allow different methods. Each
analyst must set the operating parameters to fit the sample being
analyzed. Consistency is ensured by requiring that all analysts
calibrate their system with all HAP's of interest and meet the
performance specifications of the method.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-02) pointed out that one is
basing the recognition of the unknowns on elution time only. The
commenter has found that the only way to identify the peaks and
verify their purity is by using the mass spectrometer (MS) . The
commenter had run the headspace gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometer (GC/MS) on products which were reported as zero VOC
according to Method 24 and found HAP's present. In heating the
specimen to 110°C (to simulate Reference Method 24) the commenter
found degradation products, isomers, products not listed in the
MSDS sheet, etc., which could not be identified with a GC alone.
Response: Method 311 is not designed to measure unknowns.
It presumes that the analyst knows the HAP constituents of the
coating. The Agency is developing a procedure which would be
capable of measuring HAP's produced during the curing of a
coating, but this procedure will not be required by this
regulation.
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-22, IV-D-23, and
IV-D-31) requested the inclusion of megabore and capillary
columns. One commenter (IV-D-14) suggested the inclusion of
wording to emphasize that the analyst may select an appropriate
column, such as a fused-silica capillary column as the primary
and a polyethylene glycol wax capillary column for confirmation.
One commenter (IV-D-31) suggested the use of capillary columns
with bonded phases and a mass selective detector to eliminate
column bleed and the need for alternate column confirmation. All
commenters asserted that better resolutions are achieved with
these columns than with the packed column. Packed columns lack
sensitivity for separation of multiple HAP's in a coating and
higher boiling HAP's would elute too slowly or not at all. One
commenter (IV-D-24) further requested that the phrase "stationary
phase" be used to replace "packing material" since a packed
2-86
-------
column may not always be the optimal choice. This commenter also
recommended that if a porous polymer column is used, that the
column be baked prior to each use, because it is not unreasonable
to expect excessive bleed at the upper temperature limit of a
packed column.
Response: The method never limited the analyst to the
particular packed column that was cited as an example system. The
ability to choose a column specifically suited to the sample that
is being analyzed is an integral part of the test method. The
EPA revised the method to suggest a megabore capillary column as
an example and to emphasize that other columns that meet the
necessary performance requirements are acceptable alternatives.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-22, and IV-D-31)
suggested the use of a flame ionization detector (FID) instead of
a thermal conductivity detector (TCD). The commenters pointed
out that the TCD does not have the sensitivity to detect all the
compounds designated by EPA as HAP's, especially those with low
concentrations. It was also noted that the use of a TCD would
prohibit the use of a more suitable column, such as a capillary
column. One commenter (IV-D-14) noted that if FID was used,
other carrier gases would need to be added to the list of
required gases, such as zero air, hydrocarbon free. One
commenter (IV-D-31) also suggested the use of a mass selective
detector (MSD). The main advantage of MSD is that compound
identification does not rely solely on retention time and second
column confirmation. Also, unknown compounds can be identified
with a high degree of certainty using an MSD.
Response: The method suggested the TCD as part of an
example system, but other detectors would be allowed provided
that they could meet the performance requirements of the method.
The EPA revised the method to suggest using the FID as part of
the example system, but this does not preclude the use of an MSD.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-22) stated that the
use of a precolumn is not necessary. All GC instruments come
with glass sleeves in the injection port. The glass sleeve
retains solid materials from the sample and can be cleaned and
2-87
-------
reused. The commenters also stated that preparation of precolumn
is time consuming.
Response: The precolumn is only a part of the example
system included in Method 311, not a requirement of the method
itself. Any column system that meets the performance
requirements of the method is an acceptable column system.
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-22, IV-D-31,
IV-D-47) suggested the use of electronic data stations instead of
strip chart recorders. One commenter (IV-D-22) suggested
changing to a recording integrator or other data-handling device.
Data stations can provide peak area and peak height data. One
commenter (IV-D-31) stated that most modern integrators can also
compensate for minor baseline drift.
Response; The EPA revised Method 311 to clarify that
recording integrators are acceptable alternatives to strip chart
recorders.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that digital flow
meters should be used instead of soap film bubble meters.
Digital flow meters are more accurate and the cost is very
reasonable.
Response: The EPA revised Method 311 to clarify that
digital flow meters are acceptable alternatives to soap film
bubble meters.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-22) stated that EPA
should add to Section 7.3 the phrase, "... or other suitable
solvent . . .". The commenters said that there may be cases where
DMF is not compatible with the sample, such as adhesive
materials.
Response: The EPA revised Method 311 to allow other
suitable solvents as necessary.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that EPA should
narrow the percent accuracy range to ±5 percent and the range of
percent relative standard deviation (RSD) to ±10 percent, because
the range of 90 to 110 percent is too wide. Another commenter
(IV-D-14) stated that the recommended 30 percent for RSD is too
broad to meet the required 20 percent for recoveries and EPA
2-88
-------
should change the percent RSD window to 15 percent, recognizing
that the deviation will be analyte dependent.
Response: The Agency believes that the performance
specifications are appropriate and consistent with each other.
Comment: Three cornmenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-22, and IV-D-47)
stated that an analytical balance capable of weighing to
0.0001 grains is sufficient for this method. A balance capable of
weighing to 0.00001 g costs much more, and a 0.0001 g balance
will allow calculation to 0.01 percent. Section 9.7 specifies
that all weights be recorded to within l.o mg, so it is not clear
why a balance that is capable of weighing to 0.00001 g is
required. The commenters also suggested that all weights be
recorded to the nearest 0.1 mg to be consistent with the balance
recommendation.
Response: The Agency revised Method 311 to require only
that balances be capable of weighing to the nearest 0.0001 g and
to require recording all weights to the nearest 0.1 mg.
Comment: Two cornmenters (IV-D-14, rv-D-22) stated that
calibrating the GC with a minimum of five concentration levels is
a waste of time. They noted that most GC's have a wide range of
linearity and that two or three concentration levels are
sufficient for calibration. When an internal standard is
properly used, excessive internal calibrations are not necessary.
One commenter (IV-D-22) suggested preparing a control chart and
performing a two-point calibration every day. One commenter
(IV-D-49) stated that Section 10 be revised to require this type
of calibration only for labs that are not accredited or do not
have a standard calibration procedure established.
Response: The Agency revised Method 311 to reduce the
number of calibration concentration levels to three and
significantly reduce the amount of daily calibration required.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that it is not
clear how the retention times of the internal standard are
calculated. The commenter suggested that an electronic
integrator or data station could provide these data.
2-89
-------
Response: Method 311 contains explicit instructions for
^determining the retention time of the internal standard, but
output from an electronic integrator or data station are
acceptable alternatives.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that
Section 10.2.2.4 is time consuming and unnecessary. "If the
purpose of this section is to confirm the identity of the
compound, then why not recommend the use of a GC/MS analytical
system?"
Response: The purpose of Section 10.2.2.4 is to ensure
accurate quantitation of the various HAP's in the sample, not to
confirm the identity of the HAP's.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that the volume of
sample injected in the GC should be kept constant. If a prepared
sample results in a response outside the limits of a calibration
curve, a less dilute solution should be prepared and the same
volume of sample injected into the GC. Varying the volume of
sample injected into the GC will affect the area response of the
analyte. Another commenter (IV-D-14) suggested that language be
inserted which allows the use of an automated sample injection
system.
Response: The Agency revised Method 311 to require all
samples and standards injected into the GC to be of the same
volume. Method 311 does not prohibit the use of an automated
sample injection system.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-22) stated that centrifuging
of the sample should be performed only as a last resort. The
commenter stated that in most cases, the solid portion of the
paint settles at the bottom of the vial if allowed to stand
undisturbed for about 5 to 10 minutes, and centrifuging may
result in a stratification problem, especially when the solvent
components of the coating have a wide range of densities.
Response: The Agency agrees and has revised Method 311 to
emphasize that centrifuging the sample is a last resort.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-14, IV-D-23, and IV-D-43)
stated that the applicability of the method is too vague. One
2-90
-------
commenter (IV-D-14) requested that the method include an actual
list of HAP's for which the method is and is not analytically
feasible. For example, acrylic acid, formaldehyde, MDI, and
inorganic HAP's cannot be analyzed using this methodology. One
commenter (IV-D-23) stated that Section 63.805(a) of the proposed
rule should also allow "an equivalent or alternative method"
instead of always requiring Method 311, due to this limitation.
One commenter (IV-D-43) stated Method 311 will not measure the
coating cures (reaction products or cure volatiles).
Response: Again, the Agency believes that the method will
be applicable to most types of coatings. The method does require
analysis of a quality control check sample to demonstrate that
the method can generate results with acceptable accuracy and
precision. The Agency is currently developing a test method to
measure HAP's produced during the curing of a coating, but that
method will not be required by this rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that Method 311
should not be used for unknown coatings. The commenter suggested
that language be added to the method as follows: "Method 311
should not be used for analysis of unknown coating systems and
should only be performed when MSDS information is available for
the sample, because this method's dependence on using retention
time for identifying each HAP is only appropriate when a known
list of the product's expected HAP constituents and their
retention times is available."
Response: Method 311 is designed to be used in conjunction
with MSDS information. The EPA revised the regulation to clarify
the role of MSDS in Method 311 measurements.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) requested the deletion of
the word "calibrated" and replacement with "graduated" in regard
to the l, 5, and 10 jil syringes mentioned in Section 6.2.9.
Response: The Agency revised Method 311 to change the word
"calibrated" to "graduated."
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) requested the deletion of
wording implying that vendor specific "Mininert®" vials are
recommended. The commenter suggested replacement with wording
2-91
-------
such as "open-top caps fitted with Teflon-faced septum" to allow
selection of similar materials from other vendors.
Response: Method 311 does not require the use of
"Mininert*" vials. It simply suggests that they are satisfactory
containers that meet the requirements of the method. Other inert
vials of appropriate size would be equally acceptable.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) requested that language be
added to Section 7.3 that requires the use of either
chromatography or spectrophotometric grade diluent. The
commenter, however, disagreed with the requirement to use
spectrophotometric quality 1-propanol for the internal standards,
stating that the quality should be reagent grade or higher.
Response; The Agency believes that reagent grade diluent is
sufficient and that chromatographic grade or spectrophotometric
grade is not required. Because all calibration standards and
samples are prepared with approximately the same amount of
diluent, any effects from contaminants in the diluent would be
minimized. The Agency believes that the purity of the internal
standard is more critical because the response of every analyte
is related to that of the internal standard. Therefore the
Agency is retaining the requirement for spectrophotometric grade
internal standard.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) suggested that language be
added as follows to improve the efficiency of the standard
preparation process: "The stock reference standard may contain
more than one analyte, provided they are chemically compatible
and do not coelute."
Response: The EPA revised Method 311 to allow the use of
stock standard solutions that contain more than one analyte.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) suggested that instead of
specifying a stoppered ground glass volumetric flask in
Section 7.6.1, the use of any suitable glass container be
allowed. The commenter pointed out that the standards are
prepared by weight rather than volume.
2-92
-------
Response; The EPA revised Method 311 to allow the use of
containers other than volumetric flasks because the standards are
prepared by weight rather than volume.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that the method
should allow flexibility in the preparation of the stock
solution. For example, "stock reference standards should be in
the range of 1 to 30 percent by weight in a suitable diluent,"
rather than specifying a fixed and unnecessarily high range for
all analyses. The commenter also suggested that instead of
transferring the stock reference into one bottle, the stock
reference standard solution should be transferred into several
smaller Teflon-sealed screw-cap bottles to minimize reopening any
one container and exposing the stock repeatedly to air. Two
commenters (IV-D-14 and rv-D-47) disagreed with the requirement
of storing the stock standards at -10° to -20°C. One commenter
stated that storage at 0°C would be adequate.
Response: The Agency revised Method 311 to allow the
requested modifications in preparing and storing the stock
standard solution.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) maintained that matrix
spikes for coatings, as proposed, have a very limited benefit.
The commenter suggested the following: (1) delete the requirement
to run matrix spikes for all samples and instead require
establishing matrix recoveries for each coating formulation on a
periodic basis and (2) require collection and analysis of
duplicate samples for each coating formulation, reporting an
average of the two results. If these requirements are modified,
sample collection and quality control requirements will have to
be modified as appropriate.
Response: The Agency revised Method 311 to eliminate the
requirement for a matrix spike sample and add a requirement to
analyze all samples in duplicate and report the average.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-14 and IV-D-47) suggested
modifying the storage temperature requirements in the sections
regarding chain of custody and sample integrity. One commenter
(IV-D-14) stated the sample should be maintained at the coating's
2-93
-------
recommended storage temperature specified on the MSDS, or if no
temperature is specified, then the sample should be maintained at
5° to 38°C.
Response: The EPA revised Method 311 to allow samples to be
stored at temperatures between 5° and 38°C.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that since the
quality control check standard (QCCS) materials are not likely to
be available as purchased certified solutions, the reference to
purchasing certified solutions should be deleted in
Section 9.4.1.
Response: The Agency is retaining the option to purchase a
QCCS to encourage the development of commercial quality control
samples.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that instead of
requiring the analysis of four aliquots in Section 9.4.2, "a
minimum of three aliquots should be required."
Response; The EPA revised Method 311 to require analysis of
only three aliquots of the quality control check sample instead
of four as previously required.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that the matrix
recovery range should be broadened or a specific list of
allowable recoveries for individual analytes should be included.
The commenter stated that requiring matrix spike recoveries of
80 to 120 percent seems to be arbitrary at this time, since no
analytical performance data are yet available for the proposed
method. Based on past experience, it is possible that precisions
of ±50 percent are possible for some analytes.
Response: The EPA eliminated the requirement for analyzing
a matrix spike sample.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that the
specification for response factors of -50 to 100 percent in
Section 10.2.2 is too broad. The commenter stated it is more
reasonable to perform a system performance check if response
factors change by more than ±20 percent.
2-94
-------
Response; The EPA revised Method 311 to require a
performance check if response factors change by more than
±20 percent.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) requested that the method
allow flexibility in using smaller sample sizes and
proportionally smaller quantities of diluent to minimize waste
and cost.
Response; The Agency would consider alternatives that use
smaller sample sizes provided the alternative procedure was
sensitive enough to determine compliance with the regulation.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) requested that in the
"NOTE" to Section ll.O, EPA add a statement to require that an
appropriate internal standard and diluent be established.
Response; Method 311 allows the user flexibility to choose
a more appropriate internal standard and diluent than the ones
recommended in the method. This option is discussed in
Sections 7.3 and 7.4. The Agency does believe that it also needs
to be discussed in Section 11.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-14 and IV-D-31) stated that a
significant problem with the proposed Method 311 is that for
thermally unstable coatings, it does not provide a means of
detecting only HAP's that are intentionally added to a product
versus HAP's that may be generated upon injection into the GC due
to high injection port temperatures. For example, coatings with
melamine-formaldehyde resins liberate methanol at high
temperatures. One commenter (IV-D-14) requested that EPA add a
section to the method recognizing this potential interference and
include in the method a step for optimizing port injection
temperature. This optimization is accomplished by conducting the
sample analysis at various port injection temperatures; if
results indicate that detected quantities of HAP's increase with
increased injection port temperature, than the lowest
analytically feasible temperature should be used. However, one
commenter (IV-D-31) recommended the use of headspace sampling, as
opposed to direct injection, due to this problem. A headspace
2-95
-------
vial can be discarded after one use and only volatile materials
would be introduced into the chromatograph.
Response: As it is currently written, Method 311 would
measure only those HAP's that are listed on the MSDS. This would
include only those HAP's that are added during formulation. The
method would only measure HAP's that were generated by reactions,
if those HAP's were already present in the coating as part of the
formulation. In the example cited in the comment, methanol would
not be measured in the melamine-formaldehyde coating unless it
had been added to the coating as a solvent. The Agency believes
that this would occur so infrequently that these cases could be
handled on a case-by-case basis.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that Reference 4
should be replaced with "ASTM Designation D4827-93. Standard Test
Method for Determining the Unreacted Monomer Content of Latexes
Using Capillary Column Gas Chromatography." The commenter
claimed that Method D4457-85 that is referenced in the proposed
Method 311 is "not a good example of how gas Chromatography is
practiced in the coatings industry today."
Response: The EPA added ASTM Method D4827-85 to the
bibliography.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-14) stated that EPA should
replace Reference 5 with Method 301, Field Validation of
Pollutant Measurement Methods from Various Waste Media. In the
proposed Method 311, Reference 5 contains stringent calibration
requirements that are more suited to GC/MS than GC analysis.
Response: The option of developing an alternative method
that could be validated by Method 301 is always available to
anyone regardless of whether it is cited in the references.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-49) stated that they supported
the use of Method 311 to determine the HAP content of adhesives.
The commenter's experience was that Method 24 tended to result in
inaccurate VOC values, particularly for higher water content
materials, and encouraged EPA to allow the use of Method 311 as
an alternative to Method 24 in other Federally-approved rules
involving adhesives. The commenter said that the text of the
2-96
-------
method make clear that it is intended to apply to adhesives as
well as paints and coatings.
Response: The Agency revised Method 311 to make it clear
that it applies to coatings other than those in the wood
furniture industry.
Comment; Two commenters (IV-D-48 and IV-D-50) stated that
an industry group conducted an extensive technical evaluation of
Method 311 during the comment period that included a round robin
test of a variety of coatings and solvent blends. In general,
the group concluded that the proposed method needed extensive
modification to achieve the purpose intended. The conclusions
were that one single method may not be optimum for all potential
HAP's that might be present in coatings; in order to perform the
analysis prescribed by Method 311, a testing laboratory must have
prior knowledge of the volatile composition of the coating in
order to choose the proper conditions for the analysis; high
resolution chromatography is required to separate analytes of
interest from the other volatiles present in the sample; MSDS
will generally provide insufficient information to choose optimum
analytical conditions; suggested conditions in the method were
not detailed or specific enough to address the issue of thermal
instability of the samples and/or analytes; the quality assurance
requirements of Method 311 are too stringent, time consuming, and
inappropriate for this type of analysis; the cost of analysis on
a per sample basis can be expected to be inordinately high, both
in terms of time and capital investment. The commenter stated
that the problems with the method require extensive re-evaluation
or modification of the method in order to make it sufficiently
accurate, replicable, and cost effective, particularly in light
of the extensive use that the Agency intends to make of it.
Response: Method 311 is not a single method. It is instead
a framework which would allow many different methods as long as
the method followed the principle of GC separation and met the
required performance specifications. Method 311 does presume
that the analyst has prior knowledge of the HAP's that have been
added to the coating formula. This knowledge can be provided by
2-97
-------
the MSDS for third party laboratories or from formulation
information for the manufacturers. The Agency agrees that high
resolution GC may be required to separate analytes from other
volatiles, but Method 311 does not prohibit this. While MSDS may
not always provide enough information to allow selection of
optimum analytical conditions, they will provide a good starting
point for third party laboratories that need to use them.
Manufacturers can rely on their more comprehensive formulation
information. Thermal instability of analytes should not be a
concern because the GC conditions may be varied to fit the
analytes of interest. One of the performance requirements of the
method is that the instrument must be calibrated with every HAP
added to the coating. If the GC operating conditions led to
decomposition of the analyte, then the GC, is not properly
calibrated. The Agency agrees that the quality assurance
requirements in the proposed method were too stringent and has
revised the requirements to make them less time consuming. The
Agency believes that the cost of analysis by Method 311 will not
be excessive and that as procedures are developed to automate the
process, costs will decline.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-48) stated that EPA should
allow the use of formulation data to demonstrate compliance with
the standards of the rule. The proposed rule itself makes it
clear that "if a coating does not release VOC or HAP byproducts
during the cure, for example, then batch formulation information
shall be accepted." However, it is specifically acknowledged
that Method 311 does not measure cure volatiles. The commenter
asserted that under these circumstances, there is no reason for
EPA to issue a final rule that requires the use of an unreliable
and expensive test method.
Response: The proposed rule does allow the use of batch
formulation information under some circumstances. When reporting
the VHAP content of their coatings, the coating supplier and/or
furniture manufacturer may use formulation data. However, the
Agency must have some mechanism in place for ensuring that the
reported VHAP content based on formulation data is correct.
2-98
-------
Method 311 provides such a mechanism. Coating suppliers and/or
wood furniture manufacturers do not have to perform a Method 311
analysis for every coating. If they rely on formulation data,
however, they do run the risk that the permitting authority, who
will use Method 311 to confirm the VHAP content, will find a
coating to be noncompliant, even though it may be compliant based
on formulation data.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-50) stated that the proposed
revision of Method 311 intended to measure HAP's emitted from the
curing of paints and coatings is neither supported by the
conclusions of the regulatory negotiation committee nor
technically achievable. The VHAP emissions resulting from the
curing process are highly sensitive to ambient conditions and
conditions of use and may vary widely depending on these
variables. Therefore, actual emissions of cure volatiles are
highly unpredictable and use of a test method which purports to
predict and quantify something as highly variable as actual
emissions would introduce an extremely high level of regulatory
uncertainty.
In developing this rule, the committee based the VHAP limits
on the VHAP content of the coating formulations. The data which
were used to calculate the MACT floor relied exclusively on
calculations of the actual VHAP content of coatings used by the
sources in the Agency's data base. Changing the underlying
metric from a measurement of VHAP content of a coating to a
measurement of cure volatiles would completely undermine this
entire calculation and cast this process into question.
Response: The Agency is developing a test method to measure
"cure volatiles," but that method will not be required by this
regulation.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-47) disagreed with several of
the equations used in the test method. Equation 7, Section 12,
does not calculate percent relative standard deviation. The
stock standard is a concentration which would be diluted to make
calibration standards. The analysis of the stock standard would
produce a chromatogram which is off-scale and the retention time
2-99
-------
would not compare favorably with those of calibration standards.
Equation 4, Section 12, does not calculate comparative factors.
Equations 5 and 6, Section 12, do not calculate response factors.
Equation 8, Section 12, does not calculate percent difference in
RRF.
Response: Equations 5, 6, 7, and 8 are correct, but the
term "comparative retention factor" is being replaced with
"relative retention factor" and Equation 4 has been revised to
reflect this change.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-47) stated that Section 12.2.2
specifies duplicate sample analysis, but the procedure does not
specify the frequency or protocol for this analysis.
Response: The EPA revised Method 311 to require the
analysis of all samples in duplicate and added a procedure for
performing the duplicate analysis.
2.10.2 Other Test Methods
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-18) stated that requiring
Method 18 to determine the HAP concentration of gaseous streams
is burdensome for sources that emit several HAP's. The commenter
suggested that a better procedure would be to identify a
principal HAP constituent of the gaseous stream and use this
compound to determine destruction efficiency. This approach is
similar to that taken with hazardous waste incinerators under
40 CFR 264.342.
Response: The Agency does not believe this approach is
feasible for the wood furniture industry. The exhaust streams
from wood furniture finishing operations may contain as many as
10 different HAP's, particularly if the exhaust from multiple
spray booths is directed to the same control device. These HAP's
range from alcohols to straight chain hydrocarbons to aromatic
compounds. Therefore, the Agency believes that Method 18 should
be used to determine the destruction efficiency of the control
device.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-18) stated that the
alternative procedures discussed in John Seitz's memo "Revised
Capture Efficiency Guidance for Control of Volatile Organic
2-100
-------
Compound Emissions," should be allowed without the requirement
for Method 301 validation. The commenter pointed out that EPA
developed the alternatives based on data acquired following
Method 301 procedures.
Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter and
incorporated these procedures into the final rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-38) stated that a given source
test method, such as Method 24 or Method 311, should not be
modified differently for each MACT standard. If a method needs
to be modified, it should be given a different number or sub-
number.
Response: The Agency is not aware of modifications of these
test methods for different MACT standards. The EPA Method 311 is
being promulgated with this standard. It has not been
incorporated into other MACT standards. The procedures in EPA
Method 311 and EPA Method 24 should not be modified for any
standard. They should be used as presented in Appendix A, 40 CFR
Part 60.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-43) stated their concern with
the reliability and precision of Method 24 over the wide range of
coatings used in the wood furniture industry. The commenter said
EPA staff have recognized that for high moisture content samples,
Method 24 suffers from problems of "poor accuracy and precision."
The commenter also stated that the method has similar precision
and bias problems when measuring exempt solvents,
Response: The rule allows the use of an alternative or
equivalent test method. If a supplier or manufacturer believes
that Method 24 is not suitable for a particular coating type,
they may use another method as long as the method meets the
criteria designated for an alternative or equivalent method.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-43) stated that it is unclear
if State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved test methods or SIP
approved modified EPA test methods for determining VOC content of
coatings are acceptable alternatives to Method 24. The commenter
believed several districts have made SIP approved modifications
to Method 24. For example, Method 24 has been modified for
2-101
-------
testing low solids coatings to allow the inclusion of water to
determine the VOC content of the coating. The commenter stated
11
that these SIP approved modified test methods should be allowed
under the proposed rule without having to make a Section 112(1)
approval request.
Response: The rule allows for the use of an alternative or
equivalent test method in determining the VOC content, the VHAP
content, and the solids content of coatings and adhesives. If
the modification to the test method is included in an approved
SIP, then it should qualify as an alternative or equivalent test
method.
2.11 MISCELLANEOUS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-01), writing on behalf of four
organizations, requested an additional 60 days to prepare
comments on the proposed NESHAP and Method 311. The commenter
stated that the process of assembling comments had proven to be
lengthy and complex and that the team of chemists that had been
assembled needed further time to complete their analysis of
Method 311.
Response: The comment period for the proposed rule was
extended 30 days to March 23, 1995, and the comment period for
the proposed Method 311 was extended 60 days to April 24, 1995.
Comment;; One commenter (IV-D-23) stated that footnote
reference "a" should be added to glycol ethers in Table 2 of the
rule. Footnote "a" states which glycol ethers are VHAP's and
without this reference, several facilities may assume every
glycol ether will be regulated. However, another commenter
(IV-D-29) stated EPA should delete any reference to any glycol
ether as a VHAP of "potential concern" in the proposed rule and
referenced test reports supporting their assertion. One
commenter (IV-D-47) stated that Table 4 should be expanded to
include ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE), because it is a
common HAP found in waterborne coatings.
Response: Table 2 already includes a footnote denoting the
structure of glycol ethers that are considered VHAP.
2-102
-------
Several glycol ethers were included on the Section 112(g)
lists from which the list of VHAP of potential concern were
developed. The list of VHAP of potential concern was agreed to
by all members of the regulatory negotiation Committee.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-23) stated that the title of
Table 4 is inaccurate and should be changed. Industry never
identified the listed chemicals as being of "potential concern";
they identified which proposed Section 112 (g) "high-concern,"
"nonthreshold," and "unrankable" chemicals were likely to be
emitted from wood furniture manufacturing industry operations.
The commenter stated that many members of industry would dispute
EPA's proposed statement that some of these chemicals are "of
potential concern." The commenter suggested the title be changed
to "Table 4: Chemicals Subject to Formulation Assessment Plan."
Response: All members of the regulatory negotiation
Committee, including industry representatives, agreed to the term
"VHAP of Potential Concern." The EPA thus decided to retain the
title proposed.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-23, IV-D-34, and IV-D-36)
stated that EPA should publish the entire text of the rule in the
Federal Register. One commenter (IV-D-23) stated equations and
tables seldom download legibly from the bulletin board. One
commenter (IV-D-34) stated that many of the small businesses
affected by this rule do not have modems, or in some cases,
computers. One commenter (IV-D-36) stated that the preamble
provides a list of SIC codes for industries to which the rule
would be applicable, but provides no additional detail on what
sort of "wood furniture manufacturing" is covered by the rule, so
it is appropriate to publish the final rule, as well as the
preamble, in the Federal Register.
Response: The Agency appreciates the comments concerning
inclusion of the rule in the Federal Register notice. This is
current Agency policy, but it is being revisited at this time.
In the notice for the final rule, the language of the rule will
be included.
2-103
-------
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-23) stated that unlike the
other provisions around them, Sections 63.803(h)(3) and (4) begin
with the word "if" and never say what will result if the
specified condition is present.
Response; The Agency appreciates the comments concerning
the wording of Sections 63.803(h)(3) and (4). The Agency agrees
that "if" is an inappropriate choice for these provisions and
revised the language in the final rule.
Comment; One commenter (IV-D-23) questioned why
Section 63.803(h)(6)(ii) is limited to stains. The commenter
asserted that "sagging or runs" could also occur with coatings
and questioned if the limitation was inadvertent.
Response; The limitation was not inadvertent. While
sagging or runs may occur with other coatings, the industry
representatives on the Committee indicated that stains posed the
most problem when using application equipment other than
conventional air spray guns. They indicated that the problems
with other coatings could be resolved. Therefore, EPA limited
the provision only to the application of stains.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-34) stated that EPA correctly
concluded that this standard will not affect water quality and
noted that there are many Agency programs addressing other media
of pollution, such as RCRA, CWA, CERCLA, etc. The commenter said
that "while EPA rightly considers impacts on these other program
areas, the overall effect of this regulation will be to reduce
the use and emission of certain substances which may be regulated
under other programs."
Response: The Agency appreciates the comments supporting
their position that the rule should not impact water quality.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-34) stated that industry
believes that the Agency's economic impact analysis severely
underestimates the actual impact of the regulation. The
commenter said that "one company alone (a major source
representing approximately 1.7 percent of the industry-wide wood
furniture and kitchen cabinet sales) has estimated that it will
have to make a capital investment approaching or exceeding the
2-104
-------
... Agency figure." The cornmenter suggested the industry-
sponsored ENSR/NERA study of January 1992 might prove useful in
terms of estimating industry-wide capital investment costs,
annual compliance costs, and reductions in employment.
Response: The Agency appreciates the commenter's input on
the economic impact analysis. However, the Agency does not
believe that the ENSR/NERA study would be of benefit in assessing
the impact of the NESHAP. The ENSR/NERA study focused on
reducing VOC emissions, not HAP emissions. The Agency's cost
estimate for the NESHAP is based on the industry reformulating to
lower HAP coatings, which will require substitution of solvents,
not lower VOC coatings, which would require complete
reformulation of the coatings. If the NESHAP required the
industry to move to lower VOC coatings, the cost to the industry
would be greater.
In addition, many facilities will be subject to both the CTG
and NESHAP. It is likely these facilities will have to comply
with the CTG first. Therefore, the cost of many of the
provisions of the rule, such as the application equipment costs
and the operator training costs, were included in costs for
meeting the CTG requirements for those facilities located in
nonattainment areas.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-35) suggested that Tables 4,
5, and 6 in the preamble be included in the regulation. The
tables provide a simple, straightforward, valuable tool to
understanding and applying the requirements of the Wood Furniture
MACT. The cornmenter stated that "sources would be able to
identify early on, without muddling through several pages,
whether they must comply with the standard."
Response: Summary tables will be included only in the
preamble to this rule. However, both the preamble and the final
rule will be published in the Federal Register and the Agency is
planning to publish a guidance document to assist businesses in
understanding and complying with the rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-43) recommended that EPA
modify the list of VHAP's in Table 2 to identify each volatile
2-105
-------
HAP substance that makes up compound groups, isomers, mixtures,
salts, esters, glycol ethers, aroclors, and polycyclic matter,
reduced to only those VHAP's that are contained or have a
reasonable potential to be contained in wood furniture coatings,
and reduced to VHAP's that can be analyzed and accurately
quantified by the test methods prescribed in the NESHAP.
Response: The Agency does not believe they can anticipate
all VHAP that are, or possibly could be, contained in wood
furniture coatings. Because the VHAP content of the coatings to
be reported on the certified product data sheet is based on
Method 311 and any samples taken by a State or local agency will
also be based on this test method, the list of VHAP that will be
included in the emission limits is effectively reduced to those
that can be quantified using Method 311 without the Agency
including such a list in the rule.
2-106
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO 2
EPA-453/R-95-018B
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Wood Furniture Manufactuirng Operations: Background
Information for Final Standards; Summary of Public Comments
and Responses
7 AUTHOR(S)
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Manager: Paul A. Almodovar (919)
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
5 REPORT DATE
1994
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
541-0283
16 ABSTRACT
This document includes a summary of all public comments that were submitted on the proposed rule,
along with responses to these comments. This summary of comments and responses serves as the basis
for the revisions made to the standards between proposal and promulgation.
I" KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Emission Limits
Hazardous Air Pollutants
National Emission Standards
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c COSATI Field'Group
Air Pollution control
19 SECURITY CLASS (Report) 21 NO OF PAGES
Unclassified 112
20 SECURITY CLASS (Page) 22 PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (Re>. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |