United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP): Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts and Products--
Summary of Public Comments
and Responses on Proposed
Rule
-------
EPA-453/R-03 -007
August 2003
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP):
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products—Summary of Public
Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
Disclaimer
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of
trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available through the Library Services Office
(C267-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, (919) 541-
2777, from National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia
22161, (703) 605-6000, or from the Internet (www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg).
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS 2
3.0 MACT FLOOR 6
4.0 OPTIONS MORE STRINGENT THAN THE MACT FLOOR 18
5.0 UNITS FOR THE NUMERICAL EMISSION LIMITS 20
6.0 OVERLAP WITH RULES FOR OTHER 22
6.1 Department of Defense Coatings 22
6.2 Exclusion of Activities Subject to Other Surface Coating NESHAP 24
6.3 Assembled On-Road Vehicle Coating 27
6.4 Complying With the Rule Representing the Maj ority of the Sub strate
(Plastic or Metal) on Pre-assembled Parts 29
6.5 Comply with the most stringent NESHAP 31
6.6 Predominant Activity Compliance Option 33
6.7 Create a Subcategory for Overlap Sources or Job Shops 36
6.8 Expand the Definition of the Source Category and Subcategories to
Include Incidental Surface Coating Operations 37
6.9 Comments on the Proposal to Establish a Multi-Component Emission
Limit 38
6.10 Miscellaneous Comments on Compliance with Multiple NESHAP 42
7.0 SCOPE OF THE SOURCE CATEGORY 44
7.1 Area Source Determinations 44
7.2 General Applicability Comments 46
7.3 Gallons-Used Applicability Threshold 49
7.4 Research and Development Facilities 50
7.5 Automotive Lamps 51
7.6 Assembled On-Road Vehicles 52
7.7 Adhesives 54
7.8 Facility Maintenance 56
7.9 Thermosplastic Olefin 56
8.0 NEW SOURCE APPLICABILITY 59
9.0 EMISSION LIMITS 63
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
10.0 COMPLIANCE OPTIONS 68
11.0 COMPLIANCE PERIOD 72
12.0 COMPLIANCE CALCULATIONS 74
13.0 TEST METHODS 77
13.1 Comparing Formulation Data and Default HAP Contents to EPA
Test Methods 77
13.2 Using OSHA Reporting Cutoffs When Determining HAP Content 80
13.3 ReactiveAdhesives 80
14.0 MONITORING, REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS 82
15.0 ADD-ON CONTROLS 86
15.1 General Comments 86
15.2 Performance Testing Requirements 88
15.3 Work Practices Requirements 91
15.4 Operating Limits and Monitoring for Add-on Controls 93
15.5 Add-on Control Failures, Bypasses, and Deviations 99
15.6 Compliance During Start-up, Shutdown, and Malfunction Periods 103
15.7 Miscellaneous Comments on Add-On Control Device Provisions 105
16.0 DEFINITIONS 108
17.0 IMPLEMENTATION 109
18.0 CLARIFICATIONS 113
19.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 115
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On December 4, 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and
Products. The proposed rule fulfills the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which requires EPA
to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed in section 112(b) of the CAA.
This document contains summaries of the public comments that EPA received on the December
4, 2002 proposal to establish NESHAP for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products. In this
document, EPA responds to the public comments. This summary of public comments and EPA
responses serves as the basis for revisions made to the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products
NESHAP between proposal and promulgation.
-------
2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS
The EPA received 25 comment letters for the December 4, 2002 proposed rule before the
comment period closed on February 3, 2003. These comments are contained in category IV-D of
Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0074 (formerly Docket No. A-99-12). Four comments were received
shortly after the February 3, 2003 deadline. These comments are contained in category IV-G of the
same docket. The commenter, affiliation, and item number in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0074 are
listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1. DOCKET ID NO. OAR-2002-0074
CATEGORY: IV-D
Document
Number
IV-D-01
IV-D-02
IV-D-03
IV-D-04
IV-D-05
Date Received
in Docket
01-13-03
01-28-03
01-31-03
01-31-03
01-31-03
Commenter, Address, Title or Description, etc.
D. Thorson, Plant Engineer, Strongwell, Chatfield,
MN
T.P. Feldman, Vice President, Government
Affairs, National Electrical Manufacturers Assoc.
(NEMA), Rosslyn, VA.
V. Ughetta, Director, Stationary Sources, Alliance
Automobile Manufacturers, Washington, DC.
E.J. Dey, Industrial Engineer/Environmental
Compliance Officer, FM Corporation, Rogers,
AR.
D.R. Schregardus, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Navy (Environment), Washington, DC.
Date of
Document
01-10-03
02-01-03
01-31-03
01-23-03
01-31-03
-------
TABLE 1. DOCKET ID NO. OAR-2002-0074 (CONTINUED)
CATEGORY: IV-D
Document
Number
IV-D-06
IV-D-07
IV-D-08
IV-D-09
IV-D- 10
IV-D- 11
IV-D- 12
IV-D- 13
IV-D- 14
IV-D- 15
IV-D- 16
Date Received
in Docket
01-31-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
Commenter, Address, Title or Description, etc.
A. McMahon, Counsel, General Electric
Company (GE), Mount Vernon, IN.
C. Kedrowski, Regulatory Affairs Specialist, 3M
Medical Department Corporate Toxicology, St.
Paul, MN.
T. Norman, Sr. Engineer, American Airlines
Maintenance and Engineering Center, Tulsa, OK.
R.M. Clarke, President, Truck Manufacturers
Association, Washington, DC.
S.F. Belcher, Managing Director, Environmental
Affairs and Assistant General Counsel, Air
Transport Association of America, Washington,
DC.
J. Trask, Motor and Equipment Manufacturers
Association.
K. Heyob, Associate Chief Engineer, Honda of
America Manufacturing, Marysville, OH.
K. Odette, Associate Director of Government
Affairs, American Composites Manufacturers
Association, Arlington, VA.
R J. Nelson, Senior Director, Environmental
Affairs and A. A. Keane, Counsel, Government
Affairs, The National Paint and Coatings
Association (NPCA).
J. Sell, NPCA Senior Counsel, Addendum to
comments.
B. Juris, Supervisor, VOC Control Unit,
Engineering Unit, Ohio EPA-DAPC, Columbus,
OH.
Date of
Document
01-31-03
01-31-03
01-31-01
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
-------
TABLE 1. DOCKET ID NO. OAR-2002-0074 (CONTINUED)
CATEGORY: IV-D
Document
Number
IV-D- 17
IV-D- 18
IV-D- 19
IV-D-20
IV-D-21
IV-D-22
IV-D-23
IV-D-24
IV-D-25
Date Received
in Docket
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
01-28-03
01-28-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
Commenter, Address, Title or Description, etc.
J. M. Pattok, President, J. M. Pattok &
Associates, Orlando, FL.
C. Johnson, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Air
& Waste Management, NY State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
J. McKnight, Director, Environmental & Safely
Compliance, National Marine Manufacturers
Association, Washington, DC.
M. C. Frank, Director of Regulatory Affairs, The
Boeing Company, Arlington, VA.
J. P. McKeon, Assistant Director, Technical
Advisory Services Division, Business Assistance
Unit, Albany, NY.
B. Nelson, Facility Engineer, Kawasaki Motors
Manufacturing
D.C. Anderson, Senior Industrial Engineer,
Lexamar Corp.
P.A. Bennett, Jr., Corporate HSE Director,
Molded Fiber Glass Companies
M. Shanahan, Chairman, SBO/SBAP National
Steering Committee, Columbus, OH
Date of
Document
01-31-03
01-31-03
02-03-03
01-30-03
02-03-03
01-28-03
01-28-03
02-03-03
02-03-03
-------
TABLE 1. DOCKET ID NO. OAR-2002-0074
CATEGORY: IV-G
Document
Number
IV-G-01
IV-G-02
IV-G-03
IV-G-04
Date
Received in
Docket
02-04-03
02-04-03
02-06-03
02-07-03
Commenter, Address, Title or Description,
etc.
B. A. Hopkins, Vice President, Standards and
Education, Recreation Vehicle Industry
Association (RVIA).
G Cohen, Executive Director, RADTECH, Chevy
Chase, MD.
R. L. Wright, Staff Engineer, Ashland Inc.,
Columbus, OH.
L. Joyner, Manager, Safety and Regulatory
Compliance, Hatteras, New Bern, NC.
Date of
Document
02-03-03
02-04-03
01-29-03
01-31-03
-------
3.0 MACT FLOOR
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-16) questioned EPA's approach to divide HAP
emissions evenly among the spray booth, flash-off, and curing ovens for those facilities that did not
supply specific information. The commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-16) argued that the majority of
emissions occur in the spray booth. One commenter (IV-D-16) stated that according to AP-42,
Section 4.2.2.14.2 pertaining to coating plastic surfaces of business machines, "... for an average
coating operation, about 80 percent is emitted from the spray booth, 10 percent from flashoff, and 10
percent from the oven or drying area." Both commenters state that these estimates affect the cost of
add-on control, baseline emissions, and HAP reductions from the rule.
One of the commenters (IV-D-03) also questioned EPA's assumption that a permanent total
enclosure has a 100-percent capture efficiency and noted that such an assumption can have a major
impact on the emission level for a facility and on the level of the proposed floor. The commenter (IV-
D-03) argued that these two assumptions could have understated the HAP emissions of some facilities
by as much as 30 percent, but provided no supporting analysis for this statement.
Response: The assumption used in the MACT analysis that a permanent total enclosure has a
capture efficiency of 100 percent is consistent with the test methods that are specified in the final rule.
According to EPA Method 204 of Appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, a facility may assume that an
enclosure has 100-percent capture efficiency if it meets the definition of a permanent total enclosure.
Otherwise, a facility must measure the actual capture efficiency of the enclosure. In the MACT floor
analysis, we assumed that an enclosure would meet the definition of a permanent total enclosure if a
coating operation was described as "fully enclosed" in the survey response, and there was no actual
measure of the capture efficiency. Whenever a facility reported actual capture efficiency data, we used
their data rather than the 100-percent assumption. This 100-percent assumption was made in only a
6
-------
few cases, because only a few facilities reported full enclosure. In addition, as indicated in the MACT
Floor memo, we reviewed facilities in the floors for each subcategory prior to proposal, and adjusted
the capture rate for three facilities that reported full enclosure but have conveyorized processes with
large openings in the enclosures. A 65-percent capture assumption was made for these facilities based
on test data for one of them.
We have reviewed those MACT floor facilities that use emission capture systems and add-on
controls to see if changing the assumptions in the percent of emissions that occur in each of the three
areas (application, flash-off, and curing) or capture efficiency would affect the results of the MACT
floor analysis. No facilities in the assembled on-road vehicle (AORV) subcategory use add-on
controls. Only two facilities among the 21 facilities in the general-use MACT floor use add-on
controls; the data for one facility (PPP121) is confidential business information (CBI). At the second
facility (PPP222), the coating application, flash-off, and curing operations are fully enclosed and vented
to a control device. For this facility, changing the assumptions would have no effect on emissions and
the MACT floor. Changing the assumptions for the one facility that is CBI would also have no effect
on the general use MACT floor.
One facility (PPP530) in the automotive lamp subcategory has add-on controls for some, but
not all, of the coating operations. For the controlled coating operations, at least two of the three areas
(e.g., application and curing) are fully enclosed and vented to the control device. The controlled areas
represent 67 percent of emissions using the assumptions in the original MACT floor analysis, or 90
percent of emissions using the emission profile from AP-42 (80 percent of emissions from curing and 10
percent each from flash-off and curing). Changing the assumptions for the controlled coating operations
(i.e., from 67 percent of emissions captured to 90 percent) at this one facility does not affect the
outcome of the MACT floor analysis for this subcategory.
Three facilities in the thermoplastic olefin (TPO) subcategory use add-on controls. For two
facilities (PPP124 and ASC0009), detailed capture efficiency data were provided by the commenters
and these data are reflected in the final emission limits for this subcategory. The third facility
(PPP447B) has an add-on control for some, but not all, of the coating operations. As described in the
previous paragraph for the automotive lamp subcategory, changing the assumptions for the controlled
-------
coating operations at the third facility does not affect the outcome of the MACT floor analysis for this
subcategory.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) questioned the fact that EPA found that one of the floor
facilities in the general use subcategory only achieved 65 percent capture efficiency despite the use of a
full enclosure. The commenter (IV-D-03) also questioned EPA's assumption of 66-percent capture
efficiency for emissions from cleaning operations, unless the capture efficiency was specified by the
facility. The commenter (IV-D-03) noted that they have performed analyses over the past several
years that show that these assumptions can affect the accuracy of the facility data used to develop the
MACT limits and the limits themselves.
Response: As noted in the response to the previous comment in this section, we assumed 100-
percent capture efficiency if a coating operation was fully enclosed unless other information, such as a
measure of actual capture efficiency were available. In the case of the floor facility described by the
commenter (ASC0009), subsequent contact with the facility indicated that the enclosure did not meet
the definition of a total enclosure because of large openings to allow passage of conveyors, and the
capture efficiency used in the MACT floor analysis was based on a performance test. (See Docket
item n-E-12.) In addition, a more detailed emission estimate for this facility was provided by the
commenter (IV-D-03) and this emission estimate was used in determining the final emission limit for the
TPO subcategory, which is the subcategory in which this facility is included.
Very few facilities in the plastic parts database reported any use of capture systems and add-on
controls for cleaning operations and the assumption used for the capture efficiency of enclosures on
cleaning operations would not affect the results of the MACT analysis. As described in section 6.2 of
the MACT Floor Memo1, if a facility did not provide a specific measurement of capture efficiency, we
used the type of enclosure reported to determine an assumed capture efficiency for calculating the
overall HAP reduction achieved for the add-on control. A PTE was assumed to achieve 100 percent
Memorandum from Christy Burlew, Eastern Research Group (ERG), Morrisville, to Kim Teal,
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CCPG, September 2002; Determination of Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Floor for New and Existing Sources in the General Use Coating, Thermoplastic
Olefm (TPO) Coating, and Headlamp Coating Subcategories of the Plastic Parts and Products Surface
Coating Source Category.
-------
capture. For the purposes of analysis, those facilities that indicated on the ICR survey that an operation
was "fully enclosed" was assumed to have a PTE. A three-quarter enclosure was assumed to achieve
66 percent capture. Since controlled cleaning operations were not reported as fully enclosed, we
assumed 66 percent capture.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-24) requested that the rule be revised to either exempt
solvent blends from HAP limits or change the MACT floors to reflect the default HAP contents. The
commenter (IV-D-24) noted that when facilities provided EPA with coating data they were not aware
that blended solvents contained HAP, and therefore did not report any HAP content in these materials.
Therefore, using the default HAP contents in the rule to determine compliance is not consistent with the
MACT floor.
One commenter (IV-D-23) requested that EPA verify that the manner in which solvent blends
were accounted for in the database is consistent with the default HAP fractions for solvent blends in
Tables 3 and 4 of the rule. Another commenter (IV-G-01) estimates that the Recreational Vehicle
Industry Association (RVTA) database they provided to EPA does not address solvent blends and may
underestimate HAP emissions per Ib solids by 5 percent. Another commenter (IV-D-13) noted that
solvent blends were not considered in setting the MACT floor and suggested that either the proposed
emission limits should be adjusted to reflect the HAP contained in solvent blends; or these solvent
blends should be exempt from the emission limits.
Response: When we analyzed the data provided to us in establishing the MACT floor for the
general use, automotive lamp, and TPO subcategories, we accounted for the HAP in solvent blends,
consistent with Tables 3 and 4 in the final rule. Therefore, no adjustments to the proposed limits are
necessary to account for the HAP in solvent blends.
For the AORV subcategory, the proposed limits are based on data provided to EPA by the
RVTA. We have reviewed more detailed HAP data from EPA surveys for four sources in the AORV
subcategory. Based on these data, the HAP from solvent blends accounts for only about 0.1 percent
of all HAP emitted from the coating operations at these facilities. Therefore, no adjustment in the
emission limit for the AORV subcategory is needed to account for the HAP in solvent blends that will
be included in the compliance calculations.
-------
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-15, IV-D-23) suggested that the survey data
were not complete enough to accurately portray the facilities in the TPO subcategory and their cleaning
operations. One commenter (IV-D-03) noted that throughout the rule development process, EPA has
had to revise the MACT floor database to address concerns from stakeholders about the quality of the
data and to reconcile differences among data from separate surveys for different source categories (i.e.,
plastic parts, metal parts, reinforced plastic composites, and automobile and light duty truck
manufacturing). The other commenter (IV-D-15) claimed that EPA has failed to incorporate additional
information provided by stakeholders, particularly for TPO and cleaning data. As a result, the
commenter stated some of the proposed limits will be technically infeasible. The commenter insisted
that EPA correct the data and revise the MACT floor accordingly.
One commenter (IV-D-03) expressed concern that the database contained errors that were
still undetected due to the assumptions used by EPA when developing the MACT database. The
commenter (IV-D-03) noted that EPA made corrections to the database for materials that were not
linked to a specific coating scenario only if those unlinked materials affected the source-wide emission
rate by more than 10 percent. The commenter (IV-D-03) argued that a 10-percent value can be the
margin used at many facilities to assure compliance and that "it is likely that achievability with the
proposed standards will be affected, if not compromised" at those facilities for which EPA did not
make corrections.
The commenter (IV-D-03) went on to argue that it is not possible for EPA to perform enough
checks to eliminate or resolve all of the problems in the database. To address this issue, the two
commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-15) recommended adding a 20-percent correction factor to the
proposed emission limits to account for two variables. The correction factor should include 10 percent
to account for the fact that EPA did not correct the database for materials that were not linked to a
specific coating scenario if those unlinked materials affected the source-wide emission rate by 10
percent or less. The correction factor should also include 10 percent to reflect the fact that EPA
assumptions for add-on control capture and destruction efficiency understated HAP emissions.
The commenter (IV-D-03) also noted that errors were still present in the database at the time
of proposal. The commenter (IV-D-03) reported that they have detected an error in the emission
10
-------
estimate for the Lexamar facility in the TPO subcategory. According to the commenter (IV-D-03), one
cleaning material that is 100-percent HAP was not included in the facility's emission estimate. When
this material is included, the emission rate for that facility changes from 0.167 Ib HAP per Ib solids to
0.221 Ib HAP per Ib solids. Two commenter (IV-D-03, IV-D-23) provided the following corrections:
• The TPO emission rate for the Lexamar facility in the floor database should be revised
upward from 0.17 Mb to 0.221 Mb.
• The TPO emission rate for the NUMMI facility in the floor database should be revised
upward from 0.203 Mb to 0.246 Mb.
The commenter (IV-D-03) noted that these changes affect both the existing source and new
source levels, since Lexamar was formerly the lowest emitting facility. The commenter (IV-D-03)
asserted that is it now uncertain which facility in the TPO subcategory is the best performing similar
source. According to the commenter (IV-D-03), the revised data for the TPO floor facilities requires
EPA to re-evaluate the TPO emission limits for both new and existing sources.
The commenter (IV-D-03) argued that due to database problems and errors, the proposed
emission limit for TPO surface coating operations is more stringent than what the existing sources in the
top 12 percent can achieve on a regular basis without additional controls or major modifications. The
commenter (IV-D-03) asserted that the Honda-Marysville plant can achieve the proposed limit, but
only because an add-on control system was installed after the ICR information was submitted to EPA.
The same commenter (IV-D-03) also argued that the general use limit is not technically
supportable. The commenter (IV-D-03) argued that the database to support the proposed limit for the
general use subcategory has the same types of problems as the TPO database, according to the
technical support document. The commenter (IV-D-03) also stated that the general use database had
not been subject to the same degree of analysis as the TPO database, so some problems are probably
still not known.
Response: We have evaluated the additional data provided on the sources in the TPO
subcategory and have corrected the emission rates for these sources where appropriate, and
recalculated the MACT floor (the average emission rate of the best-performing five sources for existing
sources). The final emission TPO limits reflect those changes, and are higher than the proposed
11
-------
emission limits for new and existing sources. The final emission limits also reflect the fact that the Honda
Marysville plant and Honda East Liberty plant are now treated as a single facility in the MACT analysis.
Worthington Custom Plastics, Inc. was added as the fifth source in the MACT analysis for the TPO
subcategory.
In addition, the data and analysis for each of the MACT floor facilities for each subcategory
were checked against the original survey response for each facility and no other corrections were
identified that would warrant additional changes to the limits. This check also accounted for any
coatings that may have been "unlinked" to specific coating scenarios at facilities in the MACT floor
analysis. Since we have adopted the specific data corrections noted by the commenters and have
confirmed the other data used in establishing the emission limits for each subcategory, we see no need
to increase the limits by 20 percent, as suggested by the commenters.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) concluded that the existing source TPO standards are,
in fact, more stringent than the floor since they can only be achieved using what EPA has concluded are
"above-the-floor" technologies. The commenter (IV-D-03) noted that some floor facilities employ
either waterborne coating technology or add-on controls to reduce emissions from TPO coating
operations and this has a significant effect on the average MACT floor emission rate. The commenter
(IV-D-03) also noted that EPA concludes that both waterborne coatings and add-on controls should
not be the basis of a standard more stringent than the MACT floor for existing sources. Finally, the
commenter (IV-D-03) argued that for existing sources to meet the proposed existing source limit, they
will need to adopt either waterborne coatings or add-on controls, which EPA has concluded were not
viable for the range of existing sources.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the TPO emission limits should be revised to
exclude sources using waterborne coatings or add-on controls. The commenter provided no data or
information that would indicate that these sources should be put into a separate subcategory or subject
to a separate emission limit from those that are using solventborne coatings. The products being coated
by the lower-emitting "MACT floor" facilities are similar to those being coated by the rest of the
sources in the subcategory. Therefore, these sources need to be included in the MACT floor analysis
12
-------
for TPO coating, and the emission limit for existing TPO sources can be no less stringent than the
average emission limit of the five best controlled sources.
Existing facilities have the flexibility to meet the TPO emission limits in a variety of ways,
including use of waterborne coatings, use of other low-HAP coating or cleaning materials, add-on
controls, or a combination of these. In addition, the final rule includes a compliance alternative for
facilities subject to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP where compliance with the
requirements of the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP for the surface coating of all your
plastic parts used in automobile or light-duty truck manufacturing constitutes compliance with this rule.
The final rule also includes a predominant activity compliance alternative suggested by commenters as
an alternative for TPO sources that are located at facilities that are also subject to other surface coating
NESHAP, and also includes the alternative of calculating a facility-specific emission limit for facilities
that are subject to more than one subcategory emission limit or to more than one NESHAP. These
three alternatives that were not included in the proposed rule will increase the compliance flexibility for
facilities that are potentially subject to the TPO emission limits.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) noted that EPA divided HAP emissions from cleaning
operations among different subcategories at the same facility according to the HAP emissions from each
subcategory at a facility, but it is unclear whether the allocation was based on the HAP content of the
coatings or HAP emissions (i.e., taking into account controls). The commenter stated that EPA's own
analysis shows there is no relation between the HAP content of the coatings and the HAP content of
the cleaning materials. The commenter noted that they have recently notified EPA that the emission
rates for several TPO floor facilities, including cleaning, should be revised.
The commenter (IV-D-03) argued that EPA should remove cleaning from the limits for TPO
and general use coating operations because of the data uncertainties and instead require work
practices. The commenter noted that §63.4493 of the rule requires a work practices plan to reduce
emissions from mixing operations, storage tanks, and handling operations for coatings, thinners, cleaning
materials, and waste materials when add-on controls are used. The commenter suggested these
provisions could be amended to address cleaning operations. A second commenter (IV-D-15)
13
-------
supported extracting the cleaning data from the floors and using work practices to limit emissions from
cleaning.
The commenter (IV-D-03) also noted that since cleaning solvents contain no solids, they would
increase HAP emissions without adding to solids in the denominator of the compliance determination,
making compliance difficult even if a facility uses low-HAP coatings or add-on controls.
The commenter (IV-D-03) also noted that there is no precedent for including cleaning solvents
in emission limits in State rules limiting VOC emissions from coating operations. The commenter (TV-D-
03) added that if EPA decides to include cleaning in the emission limits, the TPO standard should be
revised upward by 20 percent since cleaning emissions cannot be accurately quantified.
Finally, the commenter (IV-D-03) noted that even though EPA had data on the amount of
cleaners used and their HAP contents for the auto/light duty truck rule, EPA could not quantify how
much of these HAP emissions were captured and controlled and could not determine an emission limit
representing MACT for cleaning. The commenter (IV-D-03) noted that the same facilities in the TPO
floor are also in the auto/light duty truck database, and questioned how EPA could have developed a
reliable cleaning limit for TPO without doing the same for the auto/light duty truck rule.
Response: The final rule includes HAP from cleaning solvents in the emission limits. The
MACT floor survey collected data on HAP from cleaning solvent operations. In several cases, those
data for the TPO MACT floor facilities have been revised in response to additional data from the
commenter and these changes are reflected in the emission limits in the final rule. We have also
reviewed the cleaning data for the general use MACT floor facilities and found no reason to revise the
cleaning emission estimates for any of these facilities. These general use floor facilities generally did not
overlap with the other subcategories so no assumptions were needed to allocate cleaning among
different subcategories. We have no other reason to believe that additional changes are needed in the
emission limits to address any remaining uncertainty in the emission estimates from cleaning.
The issues associated with the Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks NESHAP cleaning data
were not present in the plastic parts database. For four of the five sources in the final TPO MACT
floor database, the cleaning data were either reported in the survey for just the TPO coating operations,
or they were confirmed and corrected by the facility in the public comments submitted after proposal.
14
-------
The EPA had to estimate cleaning emissions allocated to the TPO coating operations for only one
source (Worthington Custom Plastics, Inc.) in the final MACT analysis. The allocation was based on
the total HAP content of the coatings, not emissions. We do not feel that the use of this one estimate
warrants changing from a numerical emission limit to a work practice requirement for all cleaning
operations.
We disagree with the commenter that State VOC limits establish a relevant precedent for
standards to limit HAP emissions under section 112 of the CAA. Given the available data, it is not
appropriate to set work practices for cleaning instead of emission limits for cleaning. Under section
112 of the CAA, work-practice standards can be set only if it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard. For plastic parts and products, we have enough information to develop emission
standards that include cleaning. The MACT floor and emission limits were determined based on actual
data, including detailed cleaning solvent data, for the best 12 percent (or best five) sources in each
subcategory. The limits are not based on State rules.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) argued that when coating supplier data are reported as
a range, compliance should be based on average values for reported HAP content and coating density,
and not on the maximum. According to the commenter, the facilities that provided information to EPA
were instructed to provide the average value for HAP content and density when those data were
reported as a range on product data sheets or material safety data sheets (MSDS), and that EPA used
averages to develop the MACT emission limits. However, the commenter noted that the proposed rule
requires sources to use the maximum reported values when demonstrating compliance. This approach
would effectively make the emission limits more stringent than the MACT "floor" level of control. The
commenter noted that EPA performed no "above the floor" analysis to support this approach as is
required by the CAA. Finally, the commenter stated that requiring sources to use the maximum rather
than the average would require sources to obtain more MSDS, such as a separate MSDS for each
color of a particular type of coating.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the plastic parts surface coating survey form
requested an average HAP content and coating density and that the proposed rule would have required
using the maximums if these were provided as ranges by a material supplier. Form B of the plastic
15
-------
parts survey has only one space for the weight percent of each HAP or VOC ingredient and density,
and the instructions do not specifically request minimum, maximum, or average values for these
variables. In the data collected by the survey, about 20 percent of the 16,000 rows of data for HAP or
VOC ingredients were reported as a range. Most ranges were narrow. Of this 20 percent, only
5 percent of the reported ranges had a difference of more than 5 percent between the minimum and
maximum values. All density was reported and entered as a single value. In the analysis, EPA used the
midpoint of the range if HAP content was reported as a range.
Section 63.4541 (a) of the proposed and final rule specifies the different methods a facility may
use in determining HAP content. This section does not specify whether to use the average or maximum
of a range. If a range of HAP weight percent is presented in formulation data by a material supplier, it
is up to the user of those data to determine the appropriate value to use in compliance calculations. It is
important to remember, however, that in the event of any inconsistency between formulation data and
Method 311 measurements of HAP content, the Method 311 test results will take precedence unless
the user can demonstrate that the formulation data were correct.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) asked whether EPA had considered HAP retention in
reactive coatings in developing the MACT emission limits. The commenter suggested that, if EPA did
not, then the MACT floor emission limits would be higher than if HAP retention in reactive coatings had
been accounted for.
Response: The MACT floor analysis did not account for HAP retention in reactive coatings.
Data for the fractions of HAP emitted and retained were not available in the survey data. However, a
qualitative review of the data for the MACT floor facilities in each subcategory indicates that reactive
coatings accounted for a small percentage of coatings used. Therefore, accounting for HAP retained in
reactive coatings would have had no measurable effect on the proposed and final emission limits. As
described in the response to comments in section 13.0 of this document, the final rule includes an
alternative test method for determining the HAP emissions from reactive adhesives.
16
-------
4.0 OPTIONS MORE STRINGENT THAN THE MACT FLOOR
Comment: One commenter (IV-G-02) believes that the discussion of ultraviolet/electron beam
(UV/EB) cured coatings as a beyond-the-floor option for the headlamp subcategory falsely gives the
impression that the technology involves "costly retrofits" and leads to decreased productivity. The
commenter provided copies of several documents, including journal articles, EPA technical bulletins,
and case studies to demonstrate that UV curing is highly cost competitive in many plastics coating
applications. The commenter stated that EPA should correct this inaccuracy in the public record. The
articles were not specific to headlamp coating.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the use of UV/EB technology does not
necessarily require costly retrofits or lead to decreased productivity. As described in the preamble to
the proposed rule, the EPA concluded that UV/EB technology should not be the basis for the standard
for all existing sources in the automotive lamp subcategory (formerly called the headlamp subcategory).
(See 67 FR 72291-72292, December 4, 2002.) Existing sources often have unique site-specific
constraints, and some existing sources could have substantial costs associated with retrofitting a
different coating technology. We found that the incremental emission reduction of requiring a beyond-
the-floor option would be relatively small, and without having information on the benefits that it would
achieve, an additional cost of going beyond the floor was not warranted at this time. The information
provided by the commenter was not specific to automotive lamp facilities and would not justify a
change in that conclusion.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that UV/EB technology is technically feasible for many
coating operations, and the emission limits for new source automotive lamp coating operations is based
on a facility using EB technology. There is nothing in the final rule that would prevent a facility from
using UV/EB technology to comply with any of the subcategory emission limits. The EPA expects that
17
-------
many new and existing plastic part facilities may, in fact, adopt this technology as part of their
compliance strategy.
18
-------
5.0 UNITS FOR THE NUMERICAL EMISSION LIMITS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) stated that rules applicable to Department of Defense
(DoD) coating operations should be in mass of VOC per volume of coating, using VOC as a surrogate
for HAP for several reasons. First, the aerospace and shipbuilding surface coating rules to which many
DoD facilities are subject are already in these units. Second, DoD suppliers are under contractual
agreement to provide coatings that meet emission limits in these units for coatings that are subject to
emission limits in State rules and in the aerospace and shipbuilding rules. Finally, most DoD coatings
have a HAP:VOC ratio close to 1.0; therefore, VOC is a good indicator of HAP a direct linear
relationship exists between VOC per gallon coating and HAP per unit solids for any given coating
formulation. The commenter also noted that, for various reason, DoD facilities will have to select from
existing coatings, rather than reformulate coatings to comply with emission limits. Therefore, developing
new emission limits in other units (e.g., mass HAP per mass solids) will have little effect on emissions.
Response: The EPA will be developing a separate NESHAP for Department of Defense
coating operations that are not currently covered by the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
NESHAP or the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP. These comments on the format of the
emission limits will be taken into consideration in the development of that NESHAP.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-15, IV-G-01) supported the format of Ib of HAP per Ib of
solids used because this metric is readily available from the manufacturers, is based on a reliable test
method, and is more universally used by the industry. One commenter (IV-D-15) objected to the use
of Ib of HAP per gallon coating solids in coating rules. The commenter submitted the comments on the
proposed Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP and cited concerns for using Ib of HAP
per gallon coating solids for that rule.
19
-------
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that Ib of organic HAP per Ib of solids used
is the appropriate format for the emission limits for the plastic parts surface coating rule, based on the
data that were available for these coating operations. We do not agree with the comment that Ib
organic HAP per gallon coating solids is inappropriate for other surface coating rules. The EPA's
response to the comments on the use of Ib of organic HAP per gallon coating solids in other rules is
discussed in the Technical Support Document, comment response document, and preamble to the final
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP and other coating rules using that same format.
20
-------
6.0 OVERLAP WITH RULES FOR OTHER
SURFACE COATING SOURCE CATEGORIES
6.1 Department of Defense Coatings
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) stated that EPA should establish a separate source
category for DoD surface coating operations not covered by the Aerospace or Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subparts GG and II, respectively) and exempt these coating
operations from the final rule. The commenter claimed that the proposed compliance options would be
impractical and extremely costly for DoD facilities because of the complexity of military coating
operations, the number of coatings and solvents used, and the number of different items and substrates
coated. Many DoD installations (especially those that service or remanufacture artillery, armored
vehicles, weapons systems, and support equipment) use thousands of different coatings, and each
material is subject to its own military specification.
Because DoD facilities use HAP-containing solvents, the commenter (IV-D-05) claimed they
could not use the proposed compliant materials option. Reformulating solvents or coatings requires
extensive field testing before they can be approved for use in tactical field equipment and weapons
systems. In addition, updating the coatings for which there is a military specification requires updating
the documentation applicable to military specification and the documentation for the relevant equipment
and weapons systems that adopt that military specification.
According to the commenter (IV-D-05), the proposed emission rate option and the add-on
controls option are not feasible because they would require DoD to be able to accurately track the
amount of coating or cleaning solvent used on each item or substrate. As noted above, DoD
installations may use thousands of different coatings on a variety of substrates, including metal, plastic,
ceramics, rubber, fabric, wood, and composites.
21
-------
The commenter (IV-D-05) requested a separate source category so that emission limits and a
regulatory format could be developed that would be most appropriate for military coating needs. The
commenter claimed that a separate rule also would ensure that all DoD coatings could comply with
emission limits using the same units of measure. The commenter noted that DoD facilities use many of
the same high performance coatings on plastic and metal items and substrates, and they could be
potentially regulated by both the Plastic Parts NESHAP and the Miscellaneous Metal Parts NESHAP.
The commenter (IV-D-05) also argued that EPA should exempt DoD munitions manufacturing
from all surface coating NESHAP for several reasons:
Munitions have unique coating specifications that relate directly to performance and
safety (several examples were provided).
• Developing and qualifying compliant coatings, if possible, would require more time than
allowed under the Clean Air Act (i.e., greater than 3 years).
• The mix of munitions that are produced change frequently. These changes are
unpredictable and dictated by world events and would prevent compliance using either
the averaging or add-on control options.
Response: After several visits to DoD surface coating operations and meetings with DoD
stakeholders, EPA agrees that a separate source category for DoD surface coating operations is
warranted. One factor that we considered in this decision is the unique military specifications for
coatings used on tactical and other military equipment. Further data collection and analysis is required
to determine what emission limits are achievable for these coating operations. Another factor that we
considered is the issue that military facilities may use thousands of different coatings, and that the types
of equipment that are coated and the types of coatings used in a given time period are unpredictable
and often influenced by world events. Further analysis is needed to determine what emission limit
formats and compliance demonstration and recordkeeping are practical for this type of situation.
Another consideration was the high probability that these facilities would be subject to multiple
NESHAP.
The EPA will be developing a separate NESHAP for "Defense Land Systems and
Miscellaneous Equipment" surface coating operations. That NESHAP will include operations that do
22
-------
not meet the applicability criteria of the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework NESHAP or the
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP. The comments pertaining to the format of the standard and
appropriate compliance options will be taken into consideration in the development of that NESHAP.
The development of the NESHAP for Defense Land Systems and Miscellaneous Equipment surface
coating operations will also more closely examine the issue of surface coating operations for military
munitions manufacturing.
6.2 Exclusion of Activities Subject to Other Surface Coating NESHAP
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) requested that surface coating of plastic subject to the
Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) be included in the list of
coating operations that are exempt from the final rule.
Response: The final rule specifically exempts the surface coating of plastic using a web process
that meets that applicability criteria for the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP (subpart JJJJ).
The EPA agrees that coating activities that are already subject to the Paper and Other Web Coating
NESHAP should not be subject to additional regulation under the final rule. This change will clarify the
applicability of both NESHAP.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-06, IV-D-08, IV-D-10, IV-D-20)
requested that EPA clarify that the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart GG), rather than subpart PPPP covers the surface coating of parts necessary for the proper
functioning of aircraft. The commenters requested that the final rule clarify that all aerospace coating,
cleaning, and depainting activities are subject to the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework NESHAP
and exempt from subpart PPPP. The commenters stated that the proposal preamble indicated that
coating activity exempted from the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework NESHAP would be subject
to the NESHAP. The commenters argued that the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework NESHAP
found that MACT controls were not warranted for certain aerospace surface coating operations and
that regulating these operations under the final rule would be an unexplained change in policy. The
commenters maintained that EPA has not demonstrated that the aerospace rework industry can cost-
effectively achieve the general use emission limit. Finally, the commenters noted that many coatings for
23
-------
plastic surfaces and parts associated with the interior of aircraft must meet Federal Aviation
Administration or Original Equipment Manufacturer specifications and meet one of the definitions of
specialty coatings in Appendix A to the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework NESHAP.
Another commenter (IV-D-03) suggested that the final rule include an alternative compliance
option for facilities subject to the final NESHAP under development for the surface coating of
automobiles and light-duty trucks that also coat plastic parts. The commenter noted that some
automobile and light- duty truck facilities will be subject to the final rule for plastic parts coating, the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP, and the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
NESHAP. The commenter suggested that a source be allowed to comply with the final NESHAP for
automobiles and light-duty trucks for all coating operations if the principle activity is the surface coating
of automobile and light-duty truck bodies. The commenter noted that the plastic and metal parts
coating operations are often integrated with the body coating operations, since all three coating
operations may share common coating supplies, application equipment, cleaning solvents, and emission
controls. In addition, unlike a job shop, the plastic parts are being coated specifically for incorporation
into the final saleable product. According to the commenter, the shared equipment and materials could
make tracking separate compliance for each NESHAP overly burdensome and would reduce the
certainty of compliance.
One commenter (IV-D-05) requested that EPA clarify that no shipbuilding or ship repair
surface coating operations are subject to the final rule or any other NESHAP, except the Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart n). The commenter noted that the Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair NESHAP covers only paints and thinners, and does not cover caulks, sealants, and
adhesives. Since the final rule covers all coating materials, the commenter was concerned that the rule
will cover those materials that were not specifically addressed by the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
NESHAP and will make shipbuilding and ship repair facilities subject to multiple NESHAP.
Response: We agree with the commenter that coating operations that are addressed in the
Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework NESHAP, and for which EPA determined that MACT controls
were not needed, are not intended to be regulated under the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP. To
clarify this intent, the final plastic parts rule includes a provision that specifies that the final rule does not
24
-------
apply to coatings that meet the applicability criteria for the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG). In addition, the final rule excludes the application of
specially coatings, as defined in appendix A to subpart GG, to plastic parts of aerospace vehicles or
components.
The coating of plastic parts that would not meet the applicability of the Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework NESHAP or that would not require any of the specialty coatings defined in
appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG would be subject to the plastic parts final rule.
Information provided during the comment period indicates that any miscellaneous plastic coating
activities would comprise less than 5 percent of total coating activities at an aerospace facility.
Consequently, the facility could elect to comply with the predominant activity compliance alternative to
reduce its recordkeeping and reporting burden.
We agree that the final rule for the surface coating of plastic parts is not intended to apply to
coating operations that meet the applicability criteria of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP.
Although the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP did not establish emission limits for sealants,
caulks, and adhesives used in shipbuilding or ship repair, such types of coatings used for shipbuilding or
repair operations are more appropriately addressed under the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP.
The review of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP, required by section 112(d)(6)of the CAA,
is an appropriate mechanism for evaluating whether emission limits are needed for sealants, caulks, and
adhesives used in shipbuilding or ship repair. Based on this information, the final plastic parts rule
contains an exclusion for surface coating of plastic components of ships that meet the applicability
criteria of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP.
For sources that will be subject to the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP, the
final plastic parts and products rule includes a provision to mitigate the overlap at these facilities. For
these plastic part surface coating operations, a facility has the option to comply with the requirements of
the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP as long as the plastic parts are for use in
automobiles or light-duty trucks. Surface coating operations for other plastic parts (such as those for
motor cycles or lawn mowers) at the same facility will still be subject to the plastic parts rule.
25
-------
Comment: Two commenters (TV-D-19, IV-G-04) supported the exemption of surface coating
of fiberglass boats and boat parts at facilities meeting the applicability criteria of the boat manufacturing
NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart VVW). One commenter (IV-G-04) noted that few major source
boat manufacturing facilities have coating operations and these are not comparable in scope to the
operations and applicable control techniques found in the facilities meeting the applicability criteria of
the plastic parts NESHAP. The second commenter (IV-D-19) noted that there are a small number of
plastic coating processes and the level of HAP found in the coatings are often below the limits in the
rule. Therefore, the commenter (IV-D-19) concluded that regulating the plastic coating in boat
manufacturing would present only a recordkeeping and reporting burden with no environmental benefit.
Response: The final rule does not apply to boats or plastic parts of boats (including, but not
limited to the use of assembly adhesives) where the facility meets the applicability criteria of the Boat
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR 60 subpart WW). During development of the Boat
Manufacturing NESHAP, we already evaluated the emission sources associated with boat
manufacturing and regulated those sources for which regulation was appropriate under 40 CFR 63
subpart WW. This exemption does not apply to surface coating performed on personal watercraft or
in the manufacture of personal watercraft. Due to their smaller size and the greater number of personal
watercraft manufactured relative to other types of boats, the surface coating of personal watercraft and
their components is more similar to other types of plastic parts surface coating than the surface coating
of larger boats. The Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP applies to coating operations performed on
personal watercraft or parts of personal watercraft.
6.3 Assembled On-Road Vehicle Coating
Comment: One commenter (IV-G-01) strongly recommended that one rule, either the final
Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP rule or the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM), apply to all assembled on-road vehicles. According to the
commenter, motor home manufacturers offer customers numerous options that determine the surfaces
of each vehicle. The commenter claimed that a substrate tracking program would need to be broken
26
-------
down to individual work orders to meet the requirements for calculating and demonstrating compliance
with both subparts.
One commenter (IV-D-15) requested that the rule allow the assembled on-road vehicle
coatings limit to apply also to the coating of metal parts on an assembled vehicle regardless of the
relative amount of plastic and metal coated. The commenter stated it would be practically impossible
and cost prohibitive to coat an assembled vehicle with two coatings (i.e., one for plastic and one for
metal), and this would limit the range of colors available. The commenter stated that the recreational
vehicle database used to establish the limits were based on refinish coatings that were applied to both
metal and plastic substrates of these vehicles. The commenter believed that it was not EPA's intent to
have separate limits apply to the metal and plastic substrates. Thus, the HAP standard based on the
recreational vehicle data should apply equally to both plastic and metal substrates.
Response: The EPA agrees that a single emission limit should apply to all surface coating on
motor houses and other assembled on-road vehicles (AORV). Both the final Plastic Parts and
Products NESHAP and the final Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP have been written
to clarify that the surface coating of all AORV, including the coating of any metal substrate on the
assembled vehicle, will be subject to only the emission limits of the assembled on-road vehicle
subcategory in the final plastic parts rule. This is consistent with the data and methodology used to set
the MACT emission limit for the assembled on-road vehicle subcategory. The AORV
subcategory in the final Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP will include the aftermarket repair and
refinishing of heavy duty trucks, buses, and other vehicles, and the final exterior painting of RVs, such
as motor homes and travel trailers, among other vehicles, regardless of the relative amount of metal and
plastic. Therefore, the coating of these vehicles will be exempt from the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products NESHAP. Surface coating operations that are subject to the AORV surface coating
emission limit in the plastic parts rule are not subject to any of the emission limits in this rule. This
subcategory in the plastic parts rule also includes the surface coating of parts that are coated with the
assembled vehicle but are coated off-vehicle to protect systems and equipment or to allow full
coverage. One example would be the coating of grill fronts on motor homes that are removed so they
can be coated with the motor home without coating the radiator surface that is behind them. Because
27
-------
coating of such parts is subject to the AORV emission limits, it is not subject to the metal parts rule.
However, the AORV subcategory does not otherwise include the coating of separate parts at original
equipment manufacturers. The coating of metal parts prior to the assembly of the vehicle, such as a
motor home chassis, will still be subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. Likewise, the surface
coating of plastic parts prior to the final assembly of the motor home will be subject to either the general
use, automotive lamp, or TPO emission limit in the final rule, as appropriate for the type of coating
operation.
The limit for the AORV subcategory was developed from data on after-market automotive
refinish coatings used by the recreational vehicle industry for the coating of motor homes and other
recreational vehicles. These coatings are also used for the refinishing of heavy duty trucks, buses,
automobiles and light-duty trucks, and other vehicles.
6.4 Complying With the Rule Representing the Majority of the Substrate (Plastic or MetaH on Pre-
assembled Parts
The proposed rule contained a provision to allow a source coating pre-assembled products,
comprising plastic and metal substrates, to comply with the NESHAP representing the substrate to
which more than 50 percent of the volume of coatings is applied (see proposed §63.4481(c)(8), 67 FR
72300, December 4, 2002).
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-09, IV-D-15) supported this provision in the
proposed rule. However, one commenter (IV-D-15) requested that this provision be revised to
include facilities that coat both metal and plastic components separately, as well as those that coat
multi-substrate parts. The commenter noted that this would prevent a source from having to track the
amount of coating applied to individual parts in a coating operation when a source coats separate
plastic and metal parts and preassembled parts that contain plastic and metal on the same line. The
commenter also noted that this option does not address coating lines that may switch between
categories within a given week, or that may also meet the applicability criteria of other surface coating
rules, such the automobile and light duty truck rule.
28
-------
One commenter (IV-D-03) supported this provision, but suggested that facilities be allowed to
comply with metal parts rule even if less than 50 percent of the coatings are applied to metal, but the
performance requirements of the part require that the entire part be coated with the coating needed for
the metal component. The commenter added that this change would recognize that the metal parts rule
has evaluated the achievability of the metal parts limits in light of the durability and corrosivity
requirements of metal.
One commenter (TV-D-09) suggested that the rule allow users to document that more than 50
percent of the surface area coated is metal or plastic based on tracking the design and number of parts
produced, such as the number of trucks of each model type and truck model design information.
One commenter (TV-D-05) stated that in determining whether the metal parts rule or the plastic
parts rule applies to an operation (i.e., is it greater than 50 percent metal or plastic), the rules should
explain how coatings should be counted if they are applied to non-metal and non-plastic surfaces, such
as wood, fabric, or ceramics.
One commenter (IV-D-15) requested the "predominant use" exemption option be revised in
§63.4481(c)(8) to include facilities that coat both metal and plastic components separately as well as
those that coat multi-substrate parts, which the commenter (IV-D-15) believes was EPA's intent.
Several other commenters did not support the proposed option. One commenter (IV-D-22)
claimed that the proposed rule is unclear and overly burdensome for facilities that coat both metal and
plastic parts (which may not be pre-assembled) and that this compliance option would help few, if any,
facilities. A second commenter (IV-D-10) noted that because the same cleaning solvents are used for
multiple substrates and coating operations, it would be extremely difficult to determine the quantity used
for plastic parts and products versus other substrates. Another commenter (IV-D-09) noted that the
relative amount of plastic and metal coated at a facility could change over time and a facility could
potentially fluctuate between applicable NESHAP.
Response: We recognize and appreciate some of the problems that were identified with this
approach by the commenters. Although some commenters supported this approach, it is not included
in the final rule. The final rule instead allows a variety of more practical compliance alternatives that
address the metal and plastic coating at a facility rather than just pre-assembled parts. These include a
29
-------
predominant activity alternative and a facility-specific emission limit alternative, as described in sections
6.6 and 6.9 of this document.
The facility-specific emission limit alternative allows for a facility to account for differences in the
performance requirements between metal and plastic substrates described by commenter IV-D-03.
This alternative is described more fully in the response to the comments in section 6.9. Under this
alternative, a facility coating parts that are a mix of metal and plastic substrates will, for example, be
able to comply with a weighted emission limit based on the proportion of the metal and plastic coating
and calculated using the relevant emission limits.
The predominant activity and facility-specific emission limit alternatives will also allow sources
to use parameters other than just coating consumption, and mass of solids used as suggested by
commenter IV-D-09, if the parameters are approved by the Administrator. For example, you could
use design specifications for the parts and products coated and the number of items produced, or other
parameters, to estimate the mass of coatings used on each substrate, as long as those parameters are a
reliable indicator of the relative amount of coating used and are approved by the Administrator.
As suggested by commenter IV-D-15, the alternatives in the final rule address facilities that
coat both metal and plastic components separately, as well as those that coat multi-substrate parts. In
the determining predominant activity or calculating a facility-specific emission limit, you must include all
surface coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating
NESHAP and constitute more than 1 percent of total coating activities. Coating activities that meet the
applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP but comprise less than 1 percent of
total coating activities need not be included in the predominant activity determination or facility-specific
emission limit calculation but they must be included in the compliance calculations.
If the non-plastic substrates of concern to commenter IV-D-05 are not subject to another
surface coating NESHAP, they do not need to be included in the predominant activity determination or
the facility-specific emission limit calculation, they also do not need to be included in the compliance
demonstration for predominant activity or facility-specific emission limit. If coating of other substrates is
subject to another NESHAP and is greater than 1 percent, the predominant activity and facility-specific
emission limit alternatives provide additional compliance flexibility.
30
-------
6.5 Comply with the most stringent NESHAP
The proposed rule contained a provision that if a source is subject to more than one NESHAP,
they could comply with the most stringent NESHAP for all coating operations and this would constitute
compliance with all applicable NESHAP. The determination of which NESHAP is most stringent
would be based on an facility-specific estimate of emissions under each separate NESHAP. (See 67
FR 72279, December 4, 2002.)
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-09, IV-D-11, IV-D-12, IV-G-01)
supported this provision. One commenter (IV-D-06) agreed that complying with one NESHAP would
prevent excessive monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. Two commenters (IV-D-06, IV-D-09)
suggested that facilities should be required to notify EPA of the more stringent NESHAP in the
notification of compliance status or in their Title V permit applications or renewals. One commenter
(IV-G-01) suggested that this option would require less recordkeeping than tracking and determining
which substrate represents the greatest coating activity.
However, several commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-05, IV-D-12, IV-D-15) stated that different
units of measure (e.g., Ib HAP per Ib solids versus Ib HAP per gal solids) make it difficult to determine
which surface coating NESHAP among several is more stringent. One commenter (IV-D-10) noted
that when different NESHAP have different methods of compliance demonstration, facilities must track
and allocate material usage differently for different parts. Cleaning solvents in particular are a problem,
since some NESHAP emission limits include cleaning solvents while others impose work practices
instead.
One commenter (IV-D-18) noted that the proposed rule places the burden on the source to
determine the most stringent limit and that the different units used for different surface coating rules may
cause a source to mistakenly fall out of compliance through miscalculation or misunderstanding.
Several commenters suggested options so that facilities would not have to determine which rule
is most stringent on a case-by-case basis. Two commenters (IV-D-05, IV-D-12) suggested that the
relative stringency of different NESHAP should be stated in each rule so that facilities subject to more
than one NESHAP do not need to perform a case-by-case determination of which applicable rule is
most stringent. One commenter (IV-D-12) suggested that EPA determine the more stringent limit by
31
-------
taking the plastic parts general use subcategory floor database and converting the limit to Ib HAP per
gallon coating solids, and then comparing this converted limit to the metal parts rule general use limit.
Another commenter (IV-D-18) suggested that the different surface coating rules contain factors or
equations so a source could convert emission limits from one unit to another (e.g., Ib HAP per Ib solids
to Ib HAP per gal solids).
One commenter (IV-D-12) recommended that EPA allow facilities meeting the applicability of
both the metal parts rule and the plastic parts rule the option of complying with the standard of their
choice since both rules will significantly reduce HAP emissions.
One commenter (IV-D-10) suggested that the final rule be clarified so that a facility subject to
more than one surface coating NESHAP may choose to comply with any equally stringent NESHAP,
and not be limited to the option of a more stringent NESHAP.
Response: Through clarification of the applicability provisions of the final rule, we have
significantly reduced the potential for facilities to be subject to multiple surface coating NESHAP.
However, we recognize that some sources may be subject to both the final rule and the Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products NESHAP and possibly other surface coating NESHAP. We agree with the
commenters who argued that demonstrating compliance with the most stringent NESHAP is
complicated by the fact that it is hard to determine which NESHAP is most stringent because of
differences in units, the affected source, whether cleaning is included in the emission limits, and
compliance periods. Instead, EPA is providing in the final rule, the predominant activity or facility-
specific emission limit alternative, as described in sections 6.6 and 6.9 of this document.
Another approach that you may use is the equivalency by permit option in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E (§63.94). Under this approach, you may design an emissions control program that is suited
for your process or plant as long as you can demonstrate that your program will achieve the same
emissions reduction as the NESHAP. You must then work with your State, local, or tribal air pollution
control agency to submit an equivalency demonstration. This equivalency demonstration will be
reviewed by the appropriate EPA Regional Office. The equivalency demonstration is approved as part
of the operating permit approval process. For more information, please see the section 112(1) website
at htto://www.eoa.gov/ttn/atw/l 12C1V112-log.html.
32
-------
6.6 Predominant Activity Compliance Option
In May 2001, we shared with stakeholders a predominant activity approach, whereby a facility
would comply with a rule or emission limit representing the predominant surface coating activity at that
facility, and solicited feedback on this option. Although we received encouraging feedback at that time,
the detailed information needed to propose this option was not received. We included another
solicitation for feedback and detailed information in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 72280,
December 4, 2002) hoping that a broader audience would provide the necessary specifics.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-09, IV-D-10, IV-D-12, IV-D-15)
supported the predominant activity compliance option. One of the commenters (IV-D-09) preferred
the predominant activity compliance option only if it is based on estimates of surface area coated. The
commenter provided as an example a truck manufacturing facility that could estimate the total surface
area coated by using truck part design information for each truck and tracking the number of trucks
manufactured each year.
Several commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-09, IV-D-10) recommended that the predominant
activity demonstration be made only at the time a source applies for or renews its operating permit
under title V or when the source becomes subject to regulations applicable to new source review or
prevention of significant deterioration. The commenters noted that a "one-time" or periodic
demonstration would reduce the recordkeeping burden and avoid the potential for some facilities to
fluctuate back and forth between two applicable NESHAP if predominant activity was tracked over a
short time frame.
One commenter (IV-D-15) believed that EPA's suggestion that predominant activity be based
on an assessment or prediction of 3 to 5 years of coating activity could restrict manufacturing
operations by limiting the ability to respond to future market demand.
One commenter (IV-D-03) suggested that the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
(MRR) requirements from the rule covering the predominant activity apply to all coating operations at
that facility in order to streamline compliance.
Response: The final rule includes a predominant activity alternative that allows a facility to
identify its predominant type of coating activity and comply with the emission limit that applies to that
33
-------
activity for all coating operations. The predominant activity is defined as the activity that represents 90
percent or more of the surface coating that occurs at a facility. In determining predominant activity, you
must include all surface coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface
coating NESHAP and constitute more than 1 percent of total coating activities. Coating activities that
meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP but comprise less than
1 percent of total coating activities need not be included in the determination of predominant activity but
they must be included in the compliance calculations.
We have analyzed the relative differences in emission limits that are included in the predominant
activity compliance option, as it would apply to the NESHAP for plastic parts and products and the
NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts and products. We have determined, for certain subcategories,
that the environmental impact of complying with the emission limit for the predominant activity is
essentially equivalent to complying separately with each emission limit. For other subcategories, the
environmental impact could be substantially different. To prevent situations that could lead to
substantial emissions increases, the following activities cannot be used as the predominant activity at a
facility: assembled on-road vehicles and automotive lamp coating. Emission limits for these coating
operations reflect the need for specialized performance requirements that can currently be
accomplished only with materials that contain substantially higher HAP than materials used at other
types of coating operations. It would be inappropriate to allow coating operations that can be
performed with lower-HAP materials to comply with substantially higher-HAP emission limits than
would otherwise be applicable.
Under the predominant activity alternative, if all coating operations comply with the emission
limit applicable to the predominant activity, the facility will be considered in compliance with the
emission limits otherwise applicable to the minority surface coating operations (i.e, those that amount to
less than 10 percent of the coating activity).
The EPA agrees with the commenters that the predominant activity determination should be
made at the time of the notification of compliance status and less frequently than on a monthly basis. A
less frequent determination would substantially reduce the recordkeeping compared to a monthly
determination and would reduce the potential that a source's operations could fluctuate between
34
-------
compliance requirements. However, we feel it is important to determine predominant activity more
frequently than at Title V renewal, since this may occur only every 5 years or so, and may not
accurately reflect current coating operations. Therefore, the final rule requires that a facility determine
their predominant activity on an annual basis.
The predominant activity determination must accurately reflect current and projected coating
operations and must be verifiable through appropriate documentation. The determination can be based
on representative coating data for any reasonable time period of at least 1 year of operation for existing
sources, provided the data represent the way the source will continue to operate in the future and are
approved by the Administrator. For new sources with no prior coating activity, the initial determination
would be based on only projections of coating activity for the next year. Subsequent determinations
would be based on both past and projected coating activity.
We believe the most appropriate basis for the predominant activity determination under this rule
is the percentage of coating solids by mass that is applied to parts subject to different emission limits. A
facility would not need to measure or calculate the amount of coating solids used on different parts and
products to determine the relative amount of coating activity subject to different emission limits.
Instead, a facility could use other reliable and verifiable information to estimate the relative mass of
coating solids used, including, but not limited to, product design specifications for the parts and
products coated and the number of different parts and products produced during a representative
period. The use of parameters other than coating consumption and mass of coating solids must be
approved by the Administrator.
Since the final basis for the predominant activity determination could be as short as 1 year of
operation, rather than 3 to 5 years as suggested at proposal, we have addressed the concern of
commenter IV-D-15 that a longer basis could limit the ability to respond to future market demand. In
addition, a facility must make a predominant activity determination annually and can repeat the
determination at any time, if they feel that more recent data better reflect future coating activity and
market demand.
As suggested by commenter IV-D-03, the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements from the rule covering the predominant activity will apply to all coating operations
35
-------
at that facility in order to streamline compliance.
Another compliance option to eliminate the need to comply with more than one coating
NESHAP has also been added to the final rule. This second option allows a facility to calculate and
comply with a facility-specific emission limit, as discussed in section 6.9 of this document.
6.7 Create a Subcategory for Overlap Sources or Job Shops
One option presented in the proposal preamble was to develop a separate emission limit for
facilities that could best be described as "job shops" and that perform surface coating that could be
potentially subject to several different NESHAP. (See 67 FR 72279, December 4, 2002.)
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-09) suggested that developing subcategories for facilities
subject to multiple NESHAP would not be feasible because EPA might need to create several
subcategories to address different combinations of NESHAP. Another commenter (IV-D-15) stated
that a subcategory for mixed coating operations could not be considered as an option without a
proposed numerical emission limit. The same commenter claimed that emission limits for this option can
not be developed based on the current MACT database.
Response: We agree with the commenters that this option is not feasible for several reasons.
First, as stated in the proposal preamble (67 FR 72280, December 4, 2002), this option may not
afford as much operating flexibility as other options being considered. Second, we did not have
sufficient data to develop emission limits since most facilities responding to the plastic parts and
miscellaneous metal parts industry surveys tended to provide only data relevant to those surveys and
the surveys were completed by facilities that were more or less dedicated to one substrate or another.
As a result, we did not have representative or accurate data from those facilities most likely to be
subject to this type of emission limit. Finally, as one commenter alluded to, even if useful data became
available, an emission limit for these "job shop" facilities would need to be proposed for public
comment.
6.8 Expand the Definition of the Source Category and Subcategories to Include Incidental Surface
Coating Operations
36
-------
Under one approach discussed in the proposal preamble, a facility could demonstrate that a
portion of coating activity was below a specified percentage and, therefore, considered incidental.
These incidental operations would be included in and subject to the NESHAP or emission limit
applicable to the remaining coating operations. (See 67 FR 72279, December 4, 2002.)
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that an approach for "incidental" surface coating
operations, would not be useful for facilities such as truck manufacturers because neither plastic nor
metal coating is incidental to their operations. Another commenter (IV-D-15) claimed that the
incidental surface coating operations option may provide some relief.
Response: The final rule does not expand the definition of the plastic parts and products or
miscellaneous metal parts and products source categories or subcategories to include incidental surface
coating operations. However, as described previously, under the predominant activity compliance
alternative in the final rule, a source may comply with the emission limit that represents 90 percent or
more of the coating activity at a source. For determining the predominant activity and calculating the
facility-specific emission limit, you only need to include coating activities that meet the applicability
criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP and constitute more than 1 percent of total
coating activities. Incidental coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a
surface coating NESHAP but comprise less than 1 percent of total coating activity need not be included
in the emission limit calculation or predominant activity determination, but they must be included in the
compliance calculation.
6.9 Comments on the Proposal to Establish a Multi-Component Emission Limit
As an alternative approach to establishing separate emission limits for each subcategory, we
proposed and asked for comments on a "multi-component" emission limit for the entire plastic parts
source category (67 FR 72279, December 4, 2002). A multi-component approach would allow
facilities to calculate a source-specific emission limit based on the MACT limits for all components and
the relative amount of coating activity subject to each limit. The source would then calculate its
emission rate to determine compliance with the source-specific emission limit.
37
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-16) disagreed with EPA's suggestion of setting a
multi-component emission limit for several reasons. The commenter did not think it would reduce
recordkeeping because in both cases (separate compliance and a multi-component emission limit) a
source would have to track the amount of each coating applied to each substrate in each subcategory.
The commenter also contended that this approach would likely increase emissions compared to
compliance with the individual limits, but did not provide any supporting explanation. The commenter
was also concerned that some facilities could operate out of compliance if the emission limit does not
accurately reflect the mix of substrates that they coat. Finally, the commenter believed that this option
would amount to emissions averaging across subcategory boundaries and would contradict CAA
section 112(d)(3), which mandates that standards for a subcategory cannot be less stringent than the
MACT floor for the subcategory.
Two other commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-11), however, supported this approach. One
commenter (IV-D-11) argued that restricting emission averaging among coating operations discourages
innovative and environmentally beneficial approaches to low-HAP coatings. The commenter argued
that allowing averaging would promote more cost-effective regulation of HAP emissions while achieving
an overall environmental benefit. The commenter also argued that the same flexible approach should be
incorporated for meeting the requirements of multiple NESHAP at the same facility, as well as meeting
multiple emission limits within a single NESHAP.
One commenter (IV-D-03) supported the idea of a source subject to two or more subcategory
limits (e.g., TPO and general use) to calculate a source-specific multi-component emission limit based
on the relative amount of coating solids used on each plastic substrate. However, the commenter
recommended that EPA not require a facility to calculate the limit each month and instead be allowed to
calculate it annually or when renewing its permit.
While not commenting directly on this option, many commenters also expressed concern that
many facilities coat both plastic and metal parts, often using the same coatings and cleaning solvents.
According to these commenters, requiring a facility to demonstrate compliance with separate emission
limits in two or more surface coating NESHAP would be difficult and burdensome. These comments
have been summarized earlier in this section.
38
-------
Response: The EPA is providing, in the final rule, the opportunity for a source to calculate and
comply with a facility-specific emission limit for all coating operations that take place at the source. The
emission limit would be weighted according to the relative amount of coatings used that would be
subject to separate emission limits. This alternative emission limit can include applicable emission limits
from two or more NESHAP, as provided in the example calculation below. As with the predominant
activity alternative, you must include all surface coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a
subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP and constitute more than 1 percent of total coating activities.
Coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP but
comprise less than 1 percent of total coating activities need not be included in the facility-specific
emission limit calculation but they must be included in the compliance calculations.
In calculating the facility-specific emission limit, the basis for the weighting of the individual
emission limits must be the mass of coating solids used in each subcategory. The mass of coating solids
used in the different coating operations may be calculated by a variety of methods, as long as it is
accepted by the permitting authority. For example, in some cases a facility that uses the same coating
for plastic and metal parts may be able to use the design specifications of the parts coated and the
numbers of each type of part coated to calculate the weight of coating solids applied to metal and
plastic surfaces subject to the individual emission limits. In other situations, actual records of coating
usage for each operation may be needed to provide a valid calculation.
In calculating a facility-specific emission limit for operations subject to NESHAP with emission
limits in different formats, you will need to convert emission limits to the same format. To do so, you
must use a default value for solids density of 12.5 Ibs. solids per gal solids (1.50 kg solids/liter solids) to
convert emission limits in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP that are in "HAP per
volume solids" to the "HAP per mass solids" units of the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP. This
default value was calculated from the weighted-average solids density of coatings in the metal parts
survey database and represents the average solids density of metal parts coatings.
The following example illustrates how the facility-specific emission limit can be used. Assume a
facility has three coating operations subject to the following emission limits:
39
-------
• plastic parts general use (0.16 Ib HAP/lb solids);
plastic parts TPO (0.26 Ib HAP/lb solids); and
• miscellaneous metal parts general use (2.6 Ib HAP/gal solids).
The three coating operations account for the following pounds of coating solids used in the past
12 months:
• plastic parts general use: 30,000 Ibs solids;
• plastic parts TPO: 30,000 Ibs solids; and
• miscellaneous metal parts general use: 40,000 Ibs solids.
First, the miscellaneous metal parts general use emission limit must be converted to Ib HAP/lb
solids units as in the plastic parts rule. For this example, we will use the default solids density of 12.5 Ib
solids per gal solids:
2.61bHAP 1 gallon solids 0.2 lib HAP
•x- —
gallon solids 12.5 Ibs solids Ib solids
Next, the facility-specific emission limit (FSEL) is calculated using equation 1 in §63.4490 of
the final rule:
= (0.16)(30,000) + (0.26)(30,000) + (0.21X40,000) 0.21 Ib HAP
(30,000 + 30,000 + 40,000) ~ Ib solids
If all coating operations comply with an emission limit of 0.21 Ib organic HAP/lb solids and with
the other compliance provisions of this rule, the facility will be in compliance with this rule for that
compliance period. The calculation must be repeated for each 12-month compliance period. In this
example, compliance will also constitute compliance with the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
NESHAP for the metal parts coating operations. The facility can use either the compliant materials
option, the emission rate without add-on controls option, or the emission rate with add-on controls
option to demonstrate compliance with the facility-specific emission limit.
40
-------
We believe that this approach is consistent with the CAA because the emission limits from
which the facility-specific emission limit would be calculated are based on the MACT emission limits for
each applicable coating operation. Therefore, overall emissions would be essentially the same as if
each coating operation were complying separately with each applicable emission limit.
The facility-specific emission limit must be calculated monthly for each 12-month compliance
period to accurately reflect the portion of coating that would have been subject to the different
NESHAP or subcategory emission limits and ensure that the facility-specific emission limit alternative
achieves essentially equivalent environmental benefits as separate compliance. As the portion of coating
activities subject to the underlying emission limits changes over time, the facility-specific emission limit
should appropriately reflect these changes. There are wide differences in the various emission limits
available for inclusion. A relatively small change in the mix of coating operations conducted during a
compliance period can have a significant effect on the weighted emission limit. Thus, it would not be
appropriate for a facility to establish and maintain a fixed facility-specific emission limit based on
historical data or long term projections. This option will be less burdensome than separate
compliance with each NESHAP because the facility can keep records and demonstrate compliance
using a single unit of measure and will only have one set of recordkeeping and reporting requirements
(instead of potentially different recordkeeping and reporting requirements for two or more different
NESHAP).
In the final rule, the facility-specific emission limit and predominant activity alternatives provide
sources with comprehensive and flexible approaches that will reduce the recordkeeping associated with
sources that coat multiple substrates and whose workload could fluctuate over time. These alternatives
reduce the likelihood of overlap among multiple surface coating NESHAP. Furthermore, potential
overlap with specific source categories has been clarified and compliance demonstrations for
automobile and light-duty truck sources are simplified by the changes to the applicability section of the
rule discussed in sections 6.2 and 6.3 of this chapter. Together, these changes address the comments
on regulatory overlap issues and approaches, and provide flexible compliance options where facilities
may be subject to more than one coating NESHAP.
41
-------
6.10 Miscellaneous Comments on Compliance with Multiple NESHAP
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-12) requested that the rule allow a facility the flexibility to
use multiple options for determining which rule to comply with. That is, the rule should allow the facility
to group coating lines and apply either the predominant use, most stringent rule, or any other method
ultimately allowed by the rule independently to each group. The commenter claimed this flexibility is
important for complex sites that coat multiple substrates and produce multiple products at different
physical locations at the site. Plus, operations that do not have a predominant activity, but coat plastic
and metal parts on the same coating line and equipment need this flexibility.
Response: If you choose the predominant activity alternative in the final rule, you must include
in the predominant activity determination all surface coating activities at the facility that meet the
applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP and constitute more than 1 percent
of total coating activities at the facility. The predominant activity alternative is intended for facilities
where greater than 90 percent of total coating activity is subject to one subcategory emission limit in a
surface coating NESHAP. Based on our analyses, this 90 percent level, based on facility-wide coating
activity, ensures that the emission reduction is essentially equivalent to complying separately with each
emission limit. You are not allowed to include only a subset of your coating operations in the
predominant activity determination. However, the final rule allows other compliance alternatives that
can be used if your facility does not meet the predominant activity criteria. You may calculate a facility-
specific emission limit, as described in section 6.9 of this chapter, or you may comply separately with
each NESHAP. In demonstrating compliance with the predominant activity, facility-specific emission
limit, or individual subcategory emission limits, you have three options: the compliant materials, emission
limit without add-on controls, and emission limit with add-on controls options. As specified in
§63.4491, you may apply one of these three options to some coating lines and another option to other
coating lines. This range of options in the final rule provides needed flexibility while assuring compliance
with the plastic parts rule and other surface coating NESHAP.
Another approach that you may use is the equivalency by permit option in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E (§63.94). Under this approach, you may design an emissions control program that is suited
for your process or plant as long as you can demonstrate that your program will achieve the same
42
-------
emissions reductions as the NESHAP. You must then work with your State, local, or tribal air
pollution control agency to submit an equivalency demonstration. This equivalency demonstration will
be reviewed by the appropriate EPA Regional Office. The equivalency demonstration is approved as
part of the operating permit approval process. For more information, please see the section 112(1)
website at http://www.epa.gOv/ttn/atw/l 12(1)/112-lpg.html.
43
-------
7.0 SCOPE OF THE SOURCE CATEGORY
7.1 Area Source Determinations
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) supported limiting the applicability of the rule to major
sources. Other commenters (IV-D-21, IV-D-25) recommended procedures to improve how a source
demonstrates area source status and commenters suggested including specific language in the
applicability section (§63.4481). One commenter (IV-D-21) stated that PTE emission calculation
procedures for surface coating operations often result in many smaller facilities qualifying as major
sources even though they actually emit less than the major source thresholds. The commenter noted
that many smaller plastic surface coating facilities have actual emissions of HAP well below the major
source threshold, but no Federally enforceable provision limits their potential to emit a HAP. The
commenter claimed New York State does not recognize any operational or physical limitations to limit
a source's potential HAP emissions below a NESHAP applicability level unless specified in the
regulation, or an air permit has been subject to public notice.
Response: We agree that this rule should only apply to major sources of HAP. However, we
disagree that the rule should include additional procedures whereby a facility can demonstrate that it is
not a major source and is not subject to the rule. Most State regulatory programs have general permits
for minor sources that allow a source to comply with ton-per-year emission limits for HAP in order to
demonstrate that they are an area source. These permits include the recordkeeping and reporting
needed to demonstrate minor source status for a variety of source categories. These requirements are
generally the same that would be included in any provisions that would otherwise be added to this rule
in the absence of State programs. For New York, these programs appear to be included in 6 NYCRR
Part 201, Subpart 201-4, Minor Facility Registration, and Subpart 201-7, Federally Enforceable
44
-------
Emission Caps. Including additional provisions in this rule would merely repeat applicable provisions
already found in State programs.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-16) noted that many surface coating facilities also have
halogenated solvent cleaning operations subject to 40 CFR 63 subpart T. The commenter asked that
EPA clarify how a facility should determine potential to emit (PtE) for a collocated solvent cleaning
operation, in determining whether a facility is a major source and is potentially subject to the plastic
parts NESHAP. The commenter asked whether the PtE equation in §63.465(e) of subpart T should
be used if PtE is not stated in a Federally enforceable limit. The commenter views §63.465(e) as faulty
because it does not consider actions taken to comply with the subpart T.
Response: Whenever a facility is determining the potential to emit FIAP for determining major
source status, it must consider potential emissions considering Federally enforceable controls, including
limits placed on the facility in a Federally enforceable operating permit. This issue is not unique to this
coating rule or subpart T. If the facility has a Federally enforceable limit on annual emissions (on a
rolling 12-month basis) from a FIAP-emitting operation, the facility may use that limit in determining
whether it is a major source of HAP. If the facility is subject to and in compliance with a Federally
enforceable FLAP emission limit, it may assume compliance with that limit in determining potential to
emit. If a facility is not subject to an emission limit and does not have a Federally enforceable limit on
annual emissions, then it must use some other means for determining potential to emit. For halogenated
solvent cleaning operations, this may be the guidance included in §63.465(e).
If a facility is subject to subpart T and is meeting the subpart T emission standards, the facility
can consider the subpart T controls in calculating the potential to emit for the halogenated solvent
cleaning operations that are subject to subpart T. Subpart T, as well as other NESFLAP and new
source performance standards (NSPS) for which the compliance date has already occurred, are
Federally enforceable emission limitations and, therefore, can be considered in determining potential to
emit. To be considered an area (non-major) source for purposes of determining applicability of the
Plastic Parts and Products NESFLAP, a facility would need to achieve area source status (considering
Federally enforceable control requirements) prior to the compliance data of the Plastic Parts and
Products NESHAP.
45
-------
7.2 General Applicability Comments
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) requested that EPA copy the following sentence from
the definition of coating to the applicability section: "The source category does not include coating
applications using handheld non-refillable aerosol containers."
Response: We agree that this change will clarify the applicability of the rule and it has been
made in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-06) stated that the definition of "coating" should exclude
application of a solid paper or plastic film to a substrate when adhesive is not applied at the source.
The commenter claimed this activity emits no HAP. Another commenter (IV-D-07) requests that the
definition of adhesives be clarified so that it could not be interpreted to include adhesive tapes and films.
The commenter requests that the definition of adhesives in the Wood Furniture NESHAP, which makes
this distinction more explicit, be added to this rule. The commenter claims adhesive tapes have virtually
no HAP emissions.
Response: We agree with the commenter and this provision has been added to the final rule.
The final rule states that the application of paper film or plastic film which may be pre-coated with an
adhesive by the manufacturer is not a coating operation.
Comment: Two commenters (TV-D-03, IV-D-11) suggested that the final rule amend RCRA
Air Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks at 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subpart BB, to exempt
facilities if they are subject to the plastic parts rule or the automobile and light duty truck rule. The
commenters noted that this change was proposed for the automobile and light duty truck rule and
argued it would allow consistent treatment across facilities subject to both the plastic parts rule and the
automobile and light duty truck rule. The commenters also argued that the regulation of HAP from
coating operations should be covered by regulations pursuant to section 112(d) of the CAA and not
RCRA.
Response: The final rule does not amend 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subpart BB. The
proposed automobile and light duty truck rule included requirements to limit emissions from the storage
and handling of coating materials and waste materials from all coating operations. The plastic parts rule
46
-------
contains these provisions only for coating operations using an emission capture system and add-on
emission control device to demonstrate compliance. In addition, the requirements in the proposed
automobile and light duty truck surface coating rule are more comprehensive than those in the plastic
parts rule. Therefore, the plastic parts rule contains no provisions that could potentially overlap with 40
CFR parts 264 and 265, subpart BB when a source is using either the compliant material option or the
emission rate without add-on controls compliance option. In addition, the potential overlap with 40
CFR parts 264 and 265 when a source is using an add-on control is less in the plastic parts rule than in
the automobile and light duty truck rule because the work practice requirements in the plastic parts rule
are less comprehensive.
The final plastic parts rule includes a provision that if a facility meets the applicability criteria of
the automobile and light duty truck rule and the plastic parts rule, then demonstrating compliance with
the automobile and light duty truck rule for all coating of plastic parts for use in automobiles and light-
duty trucks will constitute compliance with the plastic parts rule. Therefore, if 40 CFR parts 264 and
265, subpart BB are amended to exempt sources that meet the applicability criteria of the automobile
and light duty truck rule, a facility demonstrating compliance with the plastic parts rule by demonstrating
compliance with the automobile and light duty truck rule will also be exempt from 40 CFR parts 264
and 265, subpart B.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-10) noted that some facilities have operations meeting the
applicability criteria of the halogenated solvent cleaning NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart T). The
commenter maintained that the emissions from the halogenated solvent cleaning operations should not
be included in compliance calculations or recordkeeping for the plastic parts NESHAP as cleaning
solvents (e.g., surface preparation before a part is coated), but this could be implied from the plastic
parts rule as it is currently written. As a solution, the commenter recommended that the rule specify that
a facility that is subject to an existing NESHAP be allowed to extend the provisions of the existing
NESHAP to any parts covered by the plastic parts rule, and that the emission limits be expressed "as
applied," excluding solvent materials used for cleaning.
Response: Emissions from halogenated solvent cleaning operations meeting the applicability
criteria of 40 CFR 63 subpart T should not be included in the compliance calculations or recordkeeping
47
-------
for the plastic parts rule or other surface coating NESHAP. However, we believe there is little
potential for confusion in the applicability of this or other surface coating rules to operations meeting the
applicability criteria of 40 CFR 63 subpart T. Halogenated solvent cleaning operations regulated by
subpart T are not typically considered surface coating operations, especially when a solvent cleaning
machine is used. Therefore, no change in the final rule was made to clarify the applicability of this rule
to those operations.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-02) supported the provisions of the rule that exempt the
extrusion of plastic onto plastic and metal, and "exemptions for certain de minimis activities."
Response: We agree that the extrusion of plastic onto plastic and metal should not be regulated
as a plastic part surface coating activity and this exemption, as well as the others included at proposal,
is retained in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) requested that all exclusions from Federally enforceable
state reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules for surface coating of plastics also be
excluded from this rule. The commenter asked EPA to review State VOC rules to identify additional
coatings that should be excluded from the plastic parts rule. The commenter argued that these coatings
are exempt because the States have determined that regulating these coatings will achieve minimal air
quality benefits or because the coatings have special properties that make compliance with VOC limits
difficult. As an example, the commenter provided a list of exclusions from New York's rule.
Response: The plastic parts rule includes some of the same exclusions found in State RACT
rules, such as the exemption for coatings used in research and development activities, coatings used to
fill minor surface imperfections, and coatings applied with hand-held aerosol cans. However, the EPA
disagrees with the commenter that all exclusions from State RACT rules should be included in the final
plastic parts rule. The MACT analysis included all coatings used at each facility in determining the
emission limits. Within each subcategory, no coatings were excluded that were used in small quantities
or that had special performance requirements. In addition, the plastic parts rule has emission rate
compliance provisions that are not found in State VOC rules and these provisions allow more flexibility
to use small quantity, higher emitting speciality materials. In most State VOC rules, each coating must
meet the applicable emission limits and the rules generally have no provision to comply using a
48
-------
weighted-average emission rate to offset excess emissions from some coatings with lower emissions
from other coatings. This flexibility in the plastic parts rule will allow a facility to use these specialty
coatings and still comply with the emission limits.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-16) suggested that the final rule should contain a definition
of "organic coating" or a statement that inorganic coatings and metal plating operations are not included
in the plastic parts rule. The commenter provided an example definition of organic coating from an
earlier EPA document.
Response: Metal plating operations are not plastic parts surface coating operations and do not
meet the applicability criteria of the plastic parts rule. Emissions from hard and decorative chromium
electroplating and chromium anodizing operations are regulated by the NESHAP for that source
category (40 CFR 63, subpart N). We do not feel that a definition of organic coating or a statement
that inorganic coatings and plating operations are not covered by the final rule are needed in the final
rule to clarify its applicability. The current applicability language in the rule and the clarifications
presented in this document are sufficient.
7.3 Gallons-Used Applicability Threshold
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-15, IV-D-09, IV-G-01) recommended that
the applicability threshold in §63.4481(b) should be increased from 100 gallons per year to 250 gallons
per year to be consistent with the applicability threshold in the metal parts rule. One commenter (IV-
D-15) believes uniformity is necessary for facilities subject to both standards. One commenter further
requested that the use of HAP-free materials should not count toward the exemption level. Another
commenter (IV-D-06) requested that a coatings used in volumes of less than 50 gallons per year (not
to exceed a total of 250 gallons per year) be exempt from the rule because a similar exemption is part
of the metal parts rule. One commenter (IV-D-05) requested that for small use exemptions, EPA
should include an exemption for each coating (individual formulation) used at less than 50 gallons per
year, allow a facility total to 500 gallons per year to be exempt. The commenter (IV-D-05) claimed
that it is costly and burdensome to track small containers (e.g., 8 ounces or less).
49
-------
Response: The applicability threshold of 100 gallons or more per year has not been revised.
The applicability threshold of 100 gallons or more per year of coating was selected based on an
analysis of the data provided to the EPA through the plastic parts and products survey. These data
indicated that sources that were using 100 gallons or more per year of plastic part surface coating
materials were engaged in surface coating as part of their primary activity and those using less than this
amount were not. Those facilities that used less than 100 gallons used coatings for purposes such as
repairing minor defects during product assembly operations, and the surface coating operations were
not integral to plastic parts and products surface coating. (See 67 FR 72287, December 4, 2002.)
Since the threshold is based on an analysis of data from the actual facilities that will be subject to the
rule, the final rule does not revise the threshold simply to be consistent with the metal parts NESHAP.
The use of HAP-free materials does not count towards the applicability threshold in the final
rule. Because the purpose of the rule is to control HAP, we agree that it is appropriate to consider only
HAP-containing coatings in determining whether a source meets the applicability threshold. We revised
§63.4481(b) of the rule to clarify that when determining whether your facility is below the applicability
threshold, you may exclude non-HAP coatings (as defined in the final rule) when determining whether
you use 378 liters (100 gal) per year, or more, of coatings in the surface coating of plastic parts and
products. The final rule includes a definition of non-HAP coating, which is a coating containing less
than 0.1 percent by weight of each individual organic HAP that is an OSHA-defmed carcinogen and
less than 1.0 percent by weight of all other individual HAP. This would avoid a situation where a
source would be subject to the rule even though it was using mostly non-HAP coatings and less than
100 gallons per year of HAP-containing coatings.
The final rule does not include an exemption for small volumes of coating (less than 50 gallons
per year) at a source that uses more than 100 gallons of HAP containing coatings. The MACT analysis
on which the standards are based included all coatings that were reported to EPA, even those in very
small volumes. Therefore, we feel that the emission limits are achievable for sources that are including
all coatings in their compliance demonstrations and no small volume exemption is needed.
7.4 Research and Development Facilities
50
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) supported the research and development exemption
and the definition of "research or laboratory facilities." Another commenter (IV-D-20) requested the
exemption of "coatings that occur at research and laboratory facilities" be changed to read "coatings
that are part of research and laboratory activities." As stated, the exemption could be construed too
narrowly, according to the commenter. Aerospace facilities more typically perform R&D activities at
the production facility, either in a building dedicated to lab work or in a lab that is contained within
another building, according to the commenter. The commenter requested that EPA adopt the
exemption for research or laboratory activities that were recently promulgated as part of the
amendments to the regulations implementing Clean Air Act section 112(j). (40 CFR 63.50(a) and
63.51, 67 FR 16606 (April 5, 2002).
Response: The primary difference in the definition recommended by the commenter is that it
defines "research or laboratory activities" as "activities whose primary purpose is for research and
development...", whereas the proposed and final plastic parts and products rule defines "research or
laboratory facilities" as "facilities whose primary purpose is for research and development..." Both
definitions include the criteria regarding R&D of new process or products, conducted under the close
supervision of technically trained personnel, and is not engaged in the manufacture of products for
commercial purposes, except in a de minimis manner. The definition in the final rule is consistent with
definitions in several other surface coating NESFIAP. The definition is broad enough to include
research and laboratory facilities that are collocated with commercial coating operations. It would also
be possible to temporarily dedicate a coating line to a research and development purpose and have it
qualify for exclusion as a research and development facility, if a new process of product is being
researched and the coated products are not being sold commercially except in a de minimis manner.
Furthermore, if the commenter's main concern deals with aerospace coating operations, these would be
subject primarily to the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework NESFIAP rather than the Plastic Parts
and Products NESFIAP as explained in Section 6.2 of this document.
7.5 Automotive Lamps
51
-------
Comment: One commenter suggested including all lamps that are subject to NHTSA
regulations for vehicle lamps (49 CFR Section 571.108) in the headlamp subcategory because they all
require the use of the same argent coatings to create their reflective finishes. The commenter (IV-D-11)
noted the proposed rule has a separate emission limit for headlamps. The commenter (IV-D-11) noted
that all vehicle lamps must meet the same Federal safety standards. The reflective finishes on tail lamps
and other lamps, therefore, require the use of the same HAP-containing solvents that are used as
headlamps. These lamps have the same technical requirements for coatings that warranted the separate
subcategory for headlamps. Another commenter (IV-D-15) requested substituting the term
"headlamp" with "lamp" when defining the headlamp category and corresponding regulations. This
would specifically include any automotive lamps including taillights, brake lights and sidelights that are
required to meet the DOT vehicle safety regulations.
Response: We agree with the commenter and have revised the definition of the headlamp
coating subcategory to include coating operations on all exterior automotive lamps (headlamps, tail
lamps, turn signals, brake lights, and side marker lights). To reflect the broader content of this
subcategory, we have also changed the name of the subcategory to "automotive lamp coating." This
change in the content of this subcategory, however, has not affected the results of the MACT analysis
that are the basis for the emission limits for this subcategory.
7.6 Assembled On-Road Vehicles
Comment: One commenter (IV-G-01) requested that body fillers and rubbing compounds
used on assembled on-road vehicles be exempt from the rule because these materials are not coatings.
Because body fillers are reactive two-component products, only 0.1 percent of the active organics are
emitted. Rubbing compounds, which are applied to remove scratch marks from clear-coated surfaces,
do not come in contact with the plastic surface.
Response: We agree with the commenter that body fillers and rubbing compounds should not
be considered coatings subject to the final rule. We have specified in the description of the assembled
on-road vehicle subcategory in §63.4481(a)(5) that these are not considered coatings for the purposes
of the final rule.
52
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-15) requested that vehicle parts that are separate from the
assembled vehicle at the time of coating application, but are coated with the vehicle, be included within
the definition of an assembled on-road vehicle coating operation. The commenter noted that parts are
sometimes removed during coating to facilitate coating or to protect systems or parts from overspray.
If these parts were subject to different emission limits and required separate coatings, an accurate color
match with the rest of the vehicle would be difficult and expensive to achieve because two different
formulations would be needed for each color. The commenter cited as an example the grille fronts that
are removed from motor homes and coated in the same booth as the rest of the vehicle. This is done to
protect the radiator surface that is behind the grille front from overspray. Another commenter (TV-G-
01) requested that the definition of "Assembled On-Road Vehicle Coating" be expanded to include
coatings used on "those parts that are painted with the assembled vehicle but are painted off-vehicle to
protect systems, equipment or allow full coverage" (e.g. grill fronts).
Response: We agree with the commenter that items temporarily removed from the assembled
vehicle for coating to protect systems and equipment, or to allow full coverage should be included in the
assembles on-road vehicle subcategory. The following sentence has been added to the description of
the assembled on-road vehicles subcategory in §63.4481(a)(5):
"This subcategory also includes the incidental coating of parts, such as
radiator grilles, that are removed from the fully assembled-onroad
vehicle to facilitate concurrent coating of all parts associated with the
vehicle."
The assembled on-road vehicle subcategory does not include the surface coating of plastic parts prior
to their attachment to an on-road vehicle on an original equipment manufacturer's assembly line. The
coating of separate plastic parts equipment manufacturers was considered in developing the MACT
floor for the general use, TPO, and automotive lamp subcategories.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-09) stated that EPA should verify that surface coating for
aftermarket repairs and refmishing of heavy duty trucks, buses, and other vehicles are subject to the
1.34 Ib HAP per Ib solids used emission limit for assembled on-road vehicles. The commenter noted
that these operations have the same constraints as those cited in the proposal preamble for the plastic
parts rule in the rationale for this subcategory. The commenter also argued that operations at truck
53
-------
assembly plants that touch-up or repaint portions of assembled trucks should have the option to comply
with the assembled on-road vehicle subcategory limit, if the facility is willing to track these materials
separately.
Response: The assembled on-road vehicle emission limit does apply to aftermarket repairs and
refinishing of heavy duty trucks, buses, and other vehicles. In addition, operations at truck assembly
plants that touch-up or repaint portions of assembled trucks have the option to comply with the
assembled on-road vehicle subcategory limit, if the facility is willing to track these materials separately
from those that are used in the assembly operation and are subject to the general use emission limits in
the metal parts and plastic parts rules.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) supported the use of a separate subcategory for
assembled on-road vehicle coatings. The commenter noted that adhesives used in this application must
be high-performance to withstand weathering on the outside of vehicles or to apply to vertical surfaces,
and typically require a greater solvent content.
Response: The EPA agrees that a separate subcategory is needed for assembled on-road
vehicle coating operations. However, this subcategory does not include the use of adhesives, sealants,
and caulks used in assembling on-road vehicles. This was specified in §63.4481(a)(5) of the proposed
rule and is retained in the final rule. The use of adhesives, sealants, and caulks was represented in the
calculation of the General Use MACT Floor. The commenter has provided no data or information to
support the argument that adhesives, sealants, and caulks used in the assembly of on-road vehicles
should be subject to the emission limit for assembled on road vehicles rather than the general use
emission limit.
7.7 Adhesives
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) requested that adhesives be removed from the
definition of coating. The commenter claimed that regulating adhesives as a subset of coatings
contradicts the approach of most State and local agencies and could cause confusion. The definition of
adhesive in the Wood Furniture NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart JJ) makes it clear that adhesives are
not coatings, according to the commenter. The commenter also noted that the national VOC emission
54
-------
standards for consumer products and for architectural coatings and the State VOC rules in California
also address adhesives and coatings separately. The commenter requested that if EPA does not delete
adhesives from the definition of coatings, the definition of "coating operations" should be revised to
"coating and adhesive operations" and the language referring to aerosol coating within that section be
revised to "aerosol coating and adhesive operations." In addition, references to emission standards in
the rule should be revised to read "coating and adhesive" or "coating and adhesive operations."
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the final rule should exclude adhesive
operations from the definition of coating and should not regulate emissions from adhesive operations.
The data provided to EPA support the determination that adhesives used in the manufacture of plastic
parts and products account for a substantial portion of HAP emissions from this source category.
Although national VOC rules and State VOC rules do address adhesives separately from other
coatings, it is important to note that these programs do, in fact, limit emissions from adhesives.
Therefore, no precedence exists within these VOC programs to exclude adhesives from the plastic
parts rule. We do not feel that it is necessary to refer to adhesives separately from other coatings. The
definition of coating clearly identifies adhesives as a type of coating regulated by this rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) requested that application of adhesives from non-
aerosol, pressurized refillable containers be exempt from the rule because application of coatings from
handheld, nonrefillable aerosol containers are excluded from the rule. The commenter noted that
refillable canisters have volumes of no more than 5 gallons and replace 24 to 50 aerosol cans and can
be returned to the supplier for refilling. These two methods serve the same purpose (that is, apply
adhesives), but refillable containers have the advantage of reducing waste compared to aerosol cans.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that adhesives applied from refillable pressurized
containers should be exempt from the rule. We considered non-refillable handheld aerosol containers
to be a different type of source (as compared to typical high capacity surface coating operations such
as spraying and dipping), because the coating applied by this type of source must meet specific
requirements in order to be sprayable from an aerosol can. We found no practical controls applicable
to this type of source and chose to exempt it from the affected source to reduce the record keeping
burden on the industry. We agree with the commenter that refillable containers reduce waste, but we
55
-------
do not believe that exempting aerosol cans and regulating refillable containers will lead to an increase in
the use of aerosol cans or their associated waste. The high cost of aerosol cans compared to refillable
containers will discourage coating facilities from using the former except when a specific type of
adhesive or only a small quantity of adhesive is needed.
7.8 Facility Maintenance
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-10) requested the definition of "facility maintenance" be
expanded to include the fabrication and coating of equipment needed to support the function of the
facility. The commenter specifically cited the surface coating of equipment required for supporting,
holding, or reaching aircraft or aircraft parts and components as part of facility maintenance.
Response: The definition of "facility maintenance operations" includes the routine repair or
renovation (including the surface coating) of the tools, equipment, machinery, and structures that
comprise the infrastructure of the affected facility and that are necessary for the facility to function in its
intended capacity. We believe that the present definition is sufficiently clear that one could easily
conclude that the surface coating of equipment required for supporting, holding, or reaching aircraft or
aircraft parts and components is part of facility maintenance, as long as the intended capacity of the
facility is the manufacture or maintenance of aircraft and not the manufacture of this equipment for sale
in commerce.
7.9 Thermosplastic Olefin
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) stated that the final rule should contain the following
definition of thermoplastic olefin (TPO), which the commenter suggested is more complete than the
description in the technical support document:
Thermoplastic olefin (TPO) means polyolefins (blends of polypropylene, polyethylene and its
copolymers). This also includes blends of TPO with polypropylene and polypropylene alloys,
including, but not limited to, Thermoplastic Elastomer (TPE), Polyurethane TPE (TPU),
Polyester TPE (TPEE), Polyamide TPE (TPAE), and PVC Thermoplastic Elastomer (TPVC).
56
-------
Response: The EPA agrees that the suggested definition correctly expresses the intended
meaning of the term "thermoplastic olefin (TPO)" and is consistent with the data considered in
developing the emission limit for the TPO subcategory. The definition suggested by the commenter,
with minor modifications in the sequence of the words in some of the abbreviations, has been included
in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-07) requested that the TPO subcategory be expanded to
include the following substrates and applications because they share the same characteristics used to
justify the TPO subcategory:
polyolefins;
• high impact polystyrene (HIP);
acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) to fiberglass;
ABStoABS;
ABS to painted aluminum;
• vinyl to fiberglass;
Delrin®; and
• Alcatel® and similar high performance materials.
The commenter suggested that a broader subcategory could be called "Low Surface Energy,
Nonporous Substrates" and could include several applications involving adhesive for ABS and
fiberglass. The commenter described substrate characteristics and performance characteristics that
cause adhesives for these plastics to require high levels of solvent, typically toluene or MEK. The same
commenter suggested that if the TPO subcategory is not expanded, the emission limit for adhesives
should be raised to 0.5 kg HAP/kg solids.
Response: Based on other comments, a definition of TPO has been added to the final rule that
includes polyolefins, and may also include some of the other plastic substrates described by the
commenter:
57
-------
"Thermoplastic olefin (TPO) means polyolefins (blends of polypropylene, polyethylene and
its copolymers). This also includes blends of TPO with polypropylene and polypropylene alloys
including, but not limited to, thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), TPE polyurethane (TPU), TPE polyester
(TPEE), TPE polyamide (TPAE), and thermoplastic elastomer polyvinyl chloride (TPVC)."
We disagree with the commenter that the definition of TPO should be revised to include these
other plastic types. The commenter provided no data indicating that the coatings used for these
materials would be unable to comply with the proposed emission limits or to support an emission limit of
0.5 kg HAP/kg solids.
58
-------
8.0 NEW SOURCE APPLICABILITY
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) supported the proposed criteria for the applicability of
new source MACT with respect to the definitions of a new source and a reconstructed source in
§63.4482(c)(2) and (3). However, other commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-09, IV-D-11) requested
clarification on what additions or changes to a facility constitute a new source.
One commenter (TV-D-09) requested that EPA confirm that the source is all existing coating
operations at a facility when considering the cost threshold for reconstructions that would cause an
existing facility to become a new source. As an example, if a source adds a new coating line but the
cost is less than 50 percent of the cost of all facility coating operations, the commenter believes the new
line is considered part of the existing source and not a new source.
Response: The commenter (IV-D-09) is incorrect in assuming that the cost threshold is all of
the existing coating operations at a facility when considering the cost threshold for reconstructions.
Section 63.2 of the General Provisions to part 63 (40 CFR 63, subpart A) define
reconstruction as follows: "Reconstruction, unless otherwise defined in a relevant standard, means the
replacement of components of an affected or a previously nonaffected source to such an extent that: (!)
The fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would
be required to construct a comparable new source; and (2) It is technologically and economically
feasible for the reconstructed source to meet the relevant standard(s) established by the Administrator
(or a State) pursuant to section 112 of the Act. Upon reconstruction, an affected source, or a stationary
source that becomes an affected source, is subject to relevant standards for new sources, including
compliance dates, irrespective of any change in emissions of hazardous air pollutants from that source."
It is important to note that the definition of reconstruction involves the replacement of
components of an affected source, and the plastic parts and products rule defines each affected source
59
-------
as the collection of all coating operations, materials, and equipment that are used for the surface coating
of plastic parts and products within each subcategory. (See §63.4482(b).) Therefore, it is possible to
reconstruct the affected source applicable to a single subcategory without reconstructing all of the
coating operations at a facility.
For example, if a facility has only one coating line for TPO substrate coating operations, then
the cost threshold for reconstruction applies to that single line because that single line constitutes the
affected source for that subcategory. If a facility has two or more lines for TPO substrate coating, then
the cost threshold applies to all of the TPO substrate lines. If the same facility also has a general use
coating operation, then the cost threshold for determining if the TPO substrate line affected source was
reconstructed would not include the general use coating operation because that is a separate
subcategory and constitutes a separate affected source.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-11) recommended that the rule provide an
exemption from New Source Review (NSR), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), and New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for facilities that install controls systems to comply with the
rule. Complying with these requirements would threaten timely compliance with the NESHAP,
according to the commenters. These changes could include the replacement of application equipment,
the installation of add-on controls, or increased NOx emissions from certain types of controls,
according to the commenters. One commenter (IV-D-03) suggested adding the following language to
reference the pollution control project provisions in the PSD and NSR rules:
For any existing, new or reconstructed facility, any change to the facility related to
compliance with any of the requirements contained in this subpart shall be deemed to
meet the requirements of "Pollution Control Project" as set forth in Part 51 or Part 52
and shall not cause the requirements of Prevention of Significant Deterioration, New
Source Review, or New Source Performance Standards to apply to such facility.
Response: We are not including in the final rule an exemption from NSR, PSD, and NSPS for
those coating operations that are modified or upgraded in order to comply with this rule. It would be
inappropriate to include language in a NESHAP that could affect the applicability of these other
programs since these are better handled on a case-by-case basis by the States and Regions
implementing these other regulations. However, we do not expect compliance with this rule to require
60
-------
changes to existing coating operations that could trigger applicability under these other programs. The
only possible exceptions could be those few facilities that install combustion devices that may lead to an
increase in NOx emissions and these should be eligible for the pollution control project exclusion in the
NSR regulations.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-15) requested that EPA clarify that when a facility switches
applicability from one surface coating NESHAP to another, the coating operations that are present
before the switch are considered existing sources and not new sources.
Response: If a plastic parts surface coating affected source was constructed or reconstructed
after December 4, 2002, then it is considered a new source. If a plastic parts surface coating affected
source was present before that date, then it is considered an existing source. A source can become a
new source only if it is constructed or reconstructed. The final rule §63.4482(c) states that an affected
source is a new source if it commences construction after December 4, 2002 by installing new coating
equipment and the new equipment is used to either (1) perform plastic parts surface coating where
previously no plastic parts and products surface coating was performed or (2) perform plastic parts and
products coating in a subcategory that was not previously performed at that facility. The final rule
§63.4482(d) refers to §63.2 for the definition of reconstruction. The definition of reconstruction in
§63.2 of the NESHAP General Provisions includes replacement of components such that the fixed
capital costs of the new components exceed 50 percent of the fixed capital costs that would be
required to construct a comparable new source. A coating operation could meet the definition of an
affected source subject to one NESHAP and then become an affected source subject to a different
NESHAP without performing construction or reconstruction, for example, by switching just the type of
part that is coated without adding or replacing equipment. Therefore, if a coating operation began
coating plastic parts and products after December 4, 2002 without performing construction or
reconstruction, it would still be considered an existing source and subject to the emission limits and
compliance dates for existing sources. If some construction or reconstruction were associated with that
shift to coating plastic parts and products, then the source would need to determine whether that
activity qualified that source as a new or reconstructed source according to the language in §63.4482 of
61
-------
the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP and the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR 63, subpart
A.
62
-------
9.0 EMISSION LIMITS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) requested that EPA modify the emission limits for TPO
coating because the proposed limits are not practically achievable for solvent-based systems. The
commenter argued that because the floor facilities for existing sources in the TPO category include both
water-based and solvent-based technologies, solvent-based facilities are faced with disadvantages in
meeting the standards. The commenter stated that it is not economically feasible to convert to water-
based coatings, water-based coatings do not meet all customer needs, and low HAP solvents are
available only for limited applications. The commenter also predicted that for some TPO operations,
such as adhesion promoter application, emissions would exceed the HAP emission limits even it the
operation used add-on controls.
The commenter (IV-D-11) recommended that EPA consider two options. The first was to
revise the emission limit so that it excludes emissions from cleaning solvents, or adjust the emission limit
to address the limited substitution or reformulation options for cleaning solvents. The commenter noted
that the proposed NESHAP for both surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks and for
surface coating of metal cans separate out cleaning operations from the emission limits and regulate
them with work practices. The second option suggested by the commenter was to establish separate
existing source emission limits for water-based and solvent-based TPO coating operations.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the TPO emission limits should be revised to
exclude sources using waterborne coatings or add-on controls. We also disagree that the emission
limits should exclude HAP emissions from cleaning operations. The commenter provided no data or
information that would indicate that sources using water-based coatings should be put into a separate
subcategory or subject to a separate emission limit from those that are using solvent-based coatings.
The products being coated by the lower-emitting "MACT floor" facilities are similar to those being
63
-------
coated by the rest of the sources in the subcategory. Therefore, these sources need to be included in
the MACT analysis for TPO coating and the emission limit for existing TPO sources can be no less
stringent than the average emission limit of the five best controlled sources. This MACT analysis also
included the HAP emissions from cleaning operations in determining the emission rate for each of the
MACT floor facilities. The data on cleaning and the reasons for including cleaning in the emission limits
are further described in Chapter 3 of this document. Since HAP emissions from cleaning were included
in the MACT analysis, there is no need to regulate cleaning operations separately using work practices.
Existing facilities have the flexibility to meet the TPO emission limit in a variety of ways,
including use of waterborne coatings, use of other low-HAP coating or cleaning materials, add-on
controls, or a combination of these. In addition, the final rule includes a compliance alternative for
plastic part surface coating sources subject to the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck NESHAP
currently under development. These sources may comply with the requirements of the Automobile and
Light-Duty Truck NESHAP for all surface coating operations on plastic parts used in automobiles or
light duty trucks, in lieu of also complying with the plastic parts rule. In addition, the final rule includes
the predominant activity compliance alternative, as suggested by commenters, and the facility-specific
emission limit alternative. Both of these alternatives, that were not included in the proposed rule,
provide greater flexibility for TPO coating operations located at facilities also meeting the applicability
criteria of other surface coating NESHAP subcategories.
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-19, IV-D-22) questioned the ability of personal
watercraft, motorcycle, and marine engine manufacturers to comply with the general use emission limit.
The commenters stated that it is not technically feasible for coatings used on personal watercraft and
motorcycle plastic parts to meet the emission limits for the general use category. The commenters
argued that personal watercraft and motorcycle coatings need a separate category that more accurately
reflects their performance and durability requirements. One commenter (IV-D-19) argued, for
example, that the coatings used on personal watercraft need to protect the underlying fiberglass
laminate because personal watercraft are not manufactured with the gel coat finish found on other types
of boats. The commenter also noted that personal watercraft product quality is judged by the ability to
maintain its appearance in a harsh marine environment.
64
-------
The second commenter (IV-D-22) suggested that the plastic parts general use emission limit is
more stringent than the metal parts general use emission limit and that this will favor metal substrates
over plastic substrates. The commenter noted that some metal substrates that are not cosmetically
important can be coated with powder coatings or electrocoating, but these are not viable options for
plastic parts or where appearance is important. The commenter suggested that since both metal and
plastic substrates in personal watercraft manufacturing and motorcycle manufacturing often use the
same coatings and spray booths, they should be subject to the same emission limit.
One commenter (IV-D-19) noted also that the plastic covers on marine inboard and outboard
engines must also meet the same appearance and performance requirements as those for personal
watercraft. That is, the cover must have a quality finish that is able to maintain its appearance in a harsh
marine environment. The commenter reported that these covers are often painted at the same facility as
metal engine parts and metal and plastic parts are often, but not always, painted on the same line.
To resolve these issues, commenter (IV-D-19) requested that either these coating operations
be regulated under an emission limit separate from the general use subcategory, or that the general use
emission limits in the plastic parts and metal parts rules be harmonized and suggested that these
operations could meet a limit that is intermediate between the metal and plastic limits.
Response: The commenters did not provide coating data to support the claim that the coatings
used on personal watercraft, motorcycles, or marine engine covers could not meet the proposed
emission limits, or to support the development of alternative emission limits. Therefore, the final rule
does not contain a separate category or emission limit for personal watercraft, motorcycle, or marine
engine cover coating operations. However, facilities that coat both metal and plastic parts will be
allowed to calculate a facility-specific emission limit based on the relative amount of coating performed
on each substrate. This overall facility-specific emission limit will be intermediate between the
applicable metal and plastic emission limits. This approach will allow facilities that coat these types of
metal and plastic parts more flexibility in complying with the limits for their plastic part surface coating
operations since they will be able to apply some emission reductions from metal part coating operations
that use powder coating or electro-coating to the demonstration of overall compliance for their plastic
65
-------
part and metal part coating operations. This final approach is consistent with the recommendation of
commenter IV-D-19.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-16) suggested that EPA consider including a percent
reduction emission limit for sources that use an add-on control device for demonstrating compliance.
The commenter noted that many sources have add-on controls and this may contradict the EPA's
prediction that many sources will not use add-on controls to comply.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the final rule should have a percent-reduction
emission limit for sources that use add-on controls. Since the vast majority of sources in the plastic
parts database did not have add-on controls, the MACT analysis used the HAP emission rate (Ib HAP
per Ib solids) as the common metric for measuring relative emissions from each facility. This measure
normalizes the emission rate across all sizes and types of facilities and allows facilities to achieve
compliance using a variety of pollution prevention measures and control techniques. This format also
ensures that controlled emissions after the final rule is implemented are measured on an equal basis,
since two sources with equal percent reductions could have different controlled emission rates. We
have also received no new information indicating that add-on controls will be used by many sources to
comply. Therefore, the final rule does not include a percent reduction emission limit for sources with
add-on controls.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-04) argued that the proposed emission limits would
adversely affect their ability to use coating that shield electronic devices from electromagnetic
interference and radio frequency interference. The commenters reported that they currently use about
1200 gallons per year of conductive coatings with HAP contents between 1.95 to 3.31 Ib HAP per Ib
solids. The commenter requested that the final rule either exempt these coatings entirely or establish a
separate subcategory for these coatings with more achievable emission limits.
The same commenter (IV-D-04) also argued that the proposed emission limits would affect
their ability to use adhesion promoters in order to achieve a durable finish on Noryl® and other plastic
substrates. The adhesion promoter they are currently using and which is most compatible with the
lower-HAP, higher-solids coatings they are using has a HAP content of 2.17 Ib HAP per Ib solids.
The commenter reported that the combination of lower-HAP, higher-solids coatings and adhesion
66
-------
promoter have decreased overall VOC and HAP emissions. The commenter requested that the final
rule either exempt adhesion promoters entirely or establish a separate subcategory for these coatings
with more achievable emission limits.
The commenter (IV-D-04) also noted that FDA approval is needed for coating used in medical
equipment and requested that the final rule extend compliance times for coatings that require FDA
approval, which can be a long and extended process.
Response: The final rule does not include the exemptions, separate subcategories, or extended
compliance times requested by the commenter. The commenter has noted that several of the coatings
they currently use cannot meet the proposed emission limits. The final rule includes the emission rate
without add-on controls compliance option for facilities that use a mix of lower- and higher-FLAP
materials. The commenter has not demonstrated why the facility cannot use this compliance option to
off-set higher emissions from the non-compliant coatings with lower emissions from other coatings.
The Noryl® plastic described by the commenter may satisfy the definition of a thermoplastic
olefin and, if so, the coating of this plastic would be subject to the TPO subcategory emission limit. This
emission limit is less stringent than the general use emission limit and reflects the average emissions from
the entire TPO surface coating process, including the adhesion promoter and subsequent top coats.
The 3-year compliance date for existing sources is the maximum allowed for existing sources
under section 112(i)(3)(A) of the CAA, except as provided in 112(i)(3)(B) and 112(i)(4) though (8).
However, the commenter has not demonstrated how FDA approved coatings would qualify under any
one of those exceptions. In addition, as noted above, the commenter may be able to use the emission
rate without add-on controls option to achieve compliance and still use the higher-FLAP FDA approved
coatings.
67
-------
10.0 COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) supported the provision in §63.4491 that allows a
source to use different compliance options within the source. But the commenter suggested that the rule
language is confusing and compliance officials may not allow the full degree of flexibility that EPA
intended. Specifically, it is not clear what is intended by "coating operation." According to the
commenter, sources may not be allowed to use different compliance options when applying different
coatings to the same product, and when applying the same coating to different products. The
commenter suggested that EPA revise the definition of a "coating operation" to read as follows:
The process of applying a given quantity of coating material or solvent to a given part
and all subsequent process stages where HAPs are emitted from the specific quantity of
coating or solvent on the specific part.
The same commenter (IV-D-13) suggested that the rule also clearly state that a source may establish
different coating operations and employ different compliance options when different solvents or coatings
are used on the same part or when the same solvent or coating is applied to different parts.
A second commenter (IV-G-01) suggested allowing parts of a source to use different
compliance options so that compliance could be less burdensome for the emission units complying with
the compliant materials option. In particular, the commenter suggested that averaging could be used for
just a small subset of coatings with most coatings meeting the compliant materials option.
Response: We agree with commenter (IV-D-13) that facilities should have flexibility to use
different compliance options, and have revised the language in the compliance options, section
(§63.4491) accordingly. You may choose to use one compliance option for the entire affected source,
or you may use different compliance options for different coating operations within the affected source.
68
-------
You may also use different compliance options for the same coating operation at different times,
different compliance options when different coatings are applied to the same part, or when the same
coating is applied to different parts.
You may choose different compliance options for different lines at the same facility. For
example, one line may be able to use the compliant materials option, while another line may need the
flexibility to use higher- and lower-HAP materials under one of the emission rate compliance options. It
may be more practical to use an add-on control for some coating operations, such as a specific line,
than for others. If you have an add-on control device on some coating operations, the work practice
standards apply to only the coatings and operations controlled by the add-on controls. It is important
to note that a source cannot, under any compliance option, include the same coating applied to the
same part in more than one compliance option at the same time.
The final rule allows the flexibility requested by commenter IV-G-01. For example, most of the
coatings used on a particular line may be able to individually meet the emission limit for a particular
subcategory, but a few coatings may need a higher-HAP content. You could average these higher-
HAP coatings with some of the lower-HAP materials under the emission rate without add-on controls
option and demonstrate compliance for these separately, while the other lower-HAP coatings comply
under the compliant materials option.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-14) requested that the compliant materials option provide a
low-volume exemption for cleaning solvents, thinners, and other additives that contain small amounts of
HAP, similar to the Wood Furniture MACT. The commenter noted that coating manufacturers
sometimes provide customers with "fixatives" for reformulated coating with performance problems
(e.g., storage, application, cure, or aesthetic or physical properties). The fixatives may contain a small
amount of HAP. The commenter stated that the threshold limit should be 250 gallons of coating per
year. Alternatively, the commenter supported the use of emission averaging to address the problem.
Response: The final rule does not contain a low-volume exemption for thinners, fixatives, or
other additives in the compliant materials option. The compliant materials option is intended as a simple
way to demonstrate compliance for a specific subset of facilities that are not using add-on control
devices to comply with the emission limits and where all the coatings they use individually meet the
69
-------
emission limits in the final rule. Additionally, because the emission limits and compliance calculations
include thinners and cleaning materials, this specific subset of facilities also must use only "non-HAP"
thinners and cleaning materials (as defined in the rule). When these restrictions are met, the compliance
demonstration burden can be significantly reduced. As an incentive to those facilities that choose to
meet the emission limits through these pollution prevention measures, we have included this less
burdensome compliance demonstration in the rule. Facilities that must use cleaning materials or thinners
and other additives that contain HAP can use "Emission Rate Without Add-On Controls Option,"
which was included in the proposed rule and is retained in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) stated that section 63.4541 of the compliant materials
option should be revised to clarify that the requirement that sources use "no thinner or other additive, or
cleaning material that contain organic HAP" means that HAP does not exceed 0.1 percent for OSHA-
defmed carcinogens and 1.0 percent for all other HAP.
Response: Section 63.4541 of the proposed and final rule contain procedures for determining
HAP content that specify that only individual HAP present at concentrations above the OSHA
reporting thresholds are considered in determining if a material contains HAP. In addition, the final rule
includes a definition on non-HAP materials based on the OSHA reporting thresholds. Thinners and
other additives, cleaning solvents, and coatings are considered non-HAP as long as the organic HAP
level does not exceed the OSHA reporting thresholds for HAP (0.1 percent by weight for OSHA-
defmed carcinogens and 1.0 percent by weight for other HAP). Comment: One commenter
(IV-G-01) suggested that emission units with add-on controls that demonstrate emissions of less than
50 percent of the applicable emission limit be exempt from monthly compliance demonstrations, the
work practice plan, and the start-up, shutdown, and malfunction reports.
Response: The proposed and final rule are in the format of pounds HAP emitted per pound of
coating solids used and were not in the format of a percent HAP emission reduction. This format was
chosen to ensure that compliance at different facilities was being compared on an equal basis relative to
production levels. Even if a facility were able to demonstrate during a one-time test that emissions were
substantially less than the emission limits, that does not assure future compliance because of changes
that may occur in the types of materials that are used and the relative amount of materials that are used
70
-------
(e.g., an increase in the use of higher-HAP coatings or of HAP containing solvents that contain no
solids). The compliance calculations included in the rule assure compliance at all times, even as an
operation changes over time. Furthermore, monitoring is needed to assure that control devices continue
to be operated as they were during the performance test. Therefore, the final rule does not include the
simplified compliance demonstration suggested by the commenter.
71
-------
11.0 COMPLIANCE PERIOD
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-01, IV-D-03 IV-D-06) supported the use of a 12-
month rolling average for demonstrating compliance. One commenter (IV-D-01) supported basing the
emission limit on a 12-month rolling average of all coatings used because the commenter currently
collects data by this method and the commenter predicted that the rule should not result in an excessive
amount of additional record keeping. Two commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-06) supported emission limits
based on a 12-month rolling average because it allows flexibility to address planned shutdowns,
changes in product demand, and seasonal variations. One commenter (IV-D-03) noted that sources in
the automobile and light-duty truck manufacturing industry have periodic shutdowns for maintenance
and also have month-to-month changes in production that affect coating operations.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters and compliance based on a 12-month rolling
average has been retained in the final rule. However, the rule also contains a compliant material option
which will allow a facility to determine compliance without having to calculate emissions on a rolling 12-
month basis. This will facilitate compliance with fewer calculations for those facilities that can take
advantage of this option.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) suggested that the rule should be modified to reflect that
the initial compliance period will last 12 months plus the portion of the month between the effective date
of the rule and the end of that month. The commenter provided revised language and equations to
incorporate this clarification.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the language discussing the initial compliance
period and the equations for calculating the emission rate for that period should be revised to reflect that
this period is likely to be greater than 12 months for nearly all sources. The commenters suggested
changes are reflected in several places and equations in the final rule.
72
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that the final rule should allow a 3-year
compliance period for existing area sources that become major sources, rather than 1 year as
proposed, because the level of effort needed for existing sources to comply is no different. The
commenter cited the organic liquids distribution NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE), which
allows 3 years to comply. The commenter also supported a 3-year compliance period for existing
sources.
Response: Existing area sources that become major sources have until the existing source
compliance date of 3 years after the effective date of the final rule (date of promulgation) or 1 year after
becoming a major source, whichever is later. The EPA expects that compliant coatings and lower-
HAP coating technology will be more readily available as more new and existing sources must comply
with the rule in the three years between the effective date and the existing source compliance date.
Therefore, those area sources that become major sources after the existing source compliance date will
have a greater range of compliant products and technologies at their disposal and will not need the three
years to come into compliance that is needed by facilities that are currently existing major sources.
Furthermore, an area source should know in advance that it plans to expand or make an operational
change that will result in becoming a major source. This will allow additional time before it becomes a
major source to plan its compliance strategy. The compliance periods included at proposal were
retained in the final rule for facilities that become major sources.
73
-------
12.0 COMPLIANCE CALCULATIONS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-01) requested that they be allowed to calculate and report
emissions starting with the mass of coatings used, rather than with the coating volume used. The
commenter predicted that they will use the emission rate without add-on controls option to demonstrate
compliance. The comment noted that they currently purchase and track their coatings on a "mass"
basis, but the rule equations assume coating usage is tracked on a volume basis. The commenter was
concerned that the rule would require them to first convert their material usage to volume and then back
to mass. This would complicate their emission calculations and increase the potential for errors and
misunderstandings, according to the commenter.
Response: We agree with the commenter that it is not necessary to convert from mass of
coating to volume of coating to complete the compliance calculations. Various sections of the rule have
been revised to state that if you purchase materials or monitor consumption by weight instead of
volume, you do not need to determine and keep records of material density and convert weights to
volumes. Instead, you may use the material weight in place of the combined terms for density and
volume in the equations for demonstrating compliance in the emission rate without add-on controls
compliance option and the emission rate with add-on controls option.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) suggested that EPA expand the credit allowed for HAP
contained in materials collected for recycling or disposal off-site to include HAP in recycled paints,
cleaning and purge materials for facilities with add-on controls. They suggested that the language of
§63.4551(e)(4)(i) be revised as follows:
(i) You may include in the determination only waste materials that are generated by coating
operations in the affected source for which you use Equation 1 of this section and that will be
treated or disposed by a facility regulated as a TSDF under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or
74
-------
266 or by virtue of any other waste collection activity where the source maintains
records of the materials collected.
(ii) The TSDF may be either off-site or on-site. You may not include organic HAP contained in
wastewater.
The commenter also stated that credit should be given for materials that are collected and
reused in the coating operations on-site without being recycled or treated through a TSDF as waste.
Another commenter (TV-D-11) stated that the Emission Rate Without Add-on Controls Option allows
sources to take credit for FLAP included in materials recycled off-site and suggested that sources that
recycle on-site should receive the same credit. The commenter stated that language in §63.4541,
63.4551, and 63.4561(a) suggested that sources with add-on control also receive credit for recycled
coatings, thinners or cleaning materials in the compliance calculations. EPA should clarify this in the
final rule.
Response: Section 63.4551(e)(4)(i) has not been revised to allow alternative recordkeeping of
waste treatment or disposal. The requirements in 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266 ensure a proper
accounting for providing credit for the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste materials that would
otherwise be included in the compliance calculations.
Section 63.4551 of the rule has been revised to indicate that if you use coatings, thinners and/or
other additives, or cleaning materials that have been reclaimed on-site, the amount of each used in a
month may be reduced by the amount of each that is reclaimed. That is, the amount used may be
calculated as the amount consumed to account for materials that are reclaimed. This change addresses
the commenter's request for credit for materials that are collected and reused in the coating operations
on-site without being recycled or treated through a TSDF as waste.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-16) requested that the compliance calculations exclude
coatings with no HAP, (e.g. powder coatings) because including powder coatings would reduce
expected FLAP emissions reductions. The commenter suggested that averaging should be limited to
only liquid coatings only.
Response: Inclusion of powder coatings in the compliance calculations was intended to serve
as an incentive for sources to use powder coatings in reducing their overall emission level. If a source
chooses to use an emission rate (with or without add-on controls) compliance option, powder coatings
75
-------
can be included in determining the 12-month rolling average emission rate. We expect that increased
use of powder coatings will promote this technology as a pollution prevention alternative and will result
in greater emission reductions than if powder coatings were specifically excluded from compliance
calculations. If a source chooses to omit powder coatings from the emission rate compliance
calculations, the source could document that the powder coatings are in compliance under the
compliant materials option since powder coatings are essentially 100 percent solids.
76
-------
13.0 TEST METHODS
13.1 Comparing Formulation Data and Default HAP Contents to EPA Test Methods
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-14) disagreed that EPA test methods should
prevail in cases where there is disagreement with formulation data or the default values for the HAP
content of solvent blends that are presented in Tables 3 and 4 in the proposed rule. The commenters
cited several examples illustrating the variability possible with EPA Method 311 results under different
testing conditions. One commenter (IV-D-14) noted also that EPA Method 24 cannot be used for
ultraviolet cured coatings and sources must rely on manufacturers' data.
The commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-14) recommended modifying the rule to say that test data
shall govern unless the source can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the
formulation data were correct. One commenter (IV-D-03) also argued that a source should be held
harmless if they used in good faith the default values for solvent blends in Tables 3 and 4 of the rule and
Method 311 test results showed higher HAP contents, or the source should be allowed to rebut the
Method 311 test results. Otherwise, the commenter argued, sources will not be able to rely on the
default values for solvent blends and will need to perform expensive testing of coating materials.
One commenter (IV-D-21) also requested that the final rule allow facilities to rely solely on the
manufacturers' representations to demonstrate the HAP content of coatings. The commenter cited, as
an example, the fact that the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework NESHAP does not apply to
certain coatings that a facility determines to have HAP contents below 0.1 weight-percent for OSHA-
defmed carcinogens and 1.0 percent for all other HAP, based solely on the manufacturers'
representations.
Response: It is EPA's general regulatory approach for surface coating sources that the EPA
test methods will prevail in a discrepancy between formulation data supplied by the coating supplier and
77
-------
test data, and the facility will be held responsible for deviations from the emission limits due to these
inconsistencies. (The enforcement authority will determine if the deviation is a violation of the standard.)
Facilities using formulation data for compliance demonstrations should only do so if they are
comfortable that the formulation data supplied by the coating supplier are correct. For example,
coatings manufacturers should use the appropriate test method or should have certified HAP content
documentation provided to them by their raw material suppliers. It is to the benefit of the facility that
the facility pursue a high degree of certainty in the formulation data they accept for use in compliance
demonstrations.
In §63.4541 (a) of the proposed rule, a facility could use either EPA Method 311, EPA
Method 24, an alternative method's test results or manufacturers^ formulation data to determine the
HAP content of materials used in compliance demonstrations. A facility could use the default HAP
contents for solvent blends in Tables 3 and 4. However, if a difference was present between the test
results and manufacturers' data or the default values for solvent blends, the test method results would
take precedence. As suggested by the commenter, a provision has been added to §63.4541(a) that in
a disagreement between manufacturers' data or the default values, and the results of a test, the test
method results will not take precedence if you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement
agency that the formulation data or default values were correct. The demonstration could include,
among other things, a showing that the formulation data or default values and test method data were
within the precision or accuracy of the test method results and no significant difference exists between
the two.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) requested that EPA include the following procedures to
assure consistency in using EPA Method 311, or at least include language allowing a facility to rebut
Method 311 test results:
(1) The facility should have the option to divide any sample collected by any agency that
implements and enforces the MACT standard.
(2) The facility will provide to the applicable agency its determination of the proper test
parameters to be used and the temperature at which the analysis should be performed;
and
78
-------
(3) Both the applicable control agency and the facility shall be authorized to be present
while testing and/or sampling under Method 311 is being conducted.
Response: The final rule includes language allowing a facility to rebut the results of a Method
311 test of HAP content.
Comment: Three commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-14, IV-G-01) stated that the final rule should
allow HAP concentrations to be based on the average of a range on an MSDS, adjusted to a maximum
composition of 100 percent, where HAP content is reported as a range. According to the commenters,
a single MSDS is often provided by the supplier with HAP contents expressed in ranges to represent a
group of different colors of the same product. One commenter (IV-G-01) stated that providing specific
formulation data for each color would be burdensome with no environmental benefit. One commenter
(IV-D-03) suggested that using the average of the reported range would prevent a facility from having
to determine the actual composition, and thus would be consistent with TRI reporting. The commenter
(IV-D-03) argued that a requirement to use the upper limit of a range would lead to a gross
overstatement of the HAP content of materials.
Response: If a range of organic HAP is presented, it is up to the user to determine the
appropriate value. It is important to remember, however, that in the event of any inconsistency
between formulation data and Method 311 analyses, the Method 311 data will take precedence unless
the user can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data were
correct.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-18) representing a State Department of Environmental
Conservation supported the idea of providing default organic HAP mass fractions for certain solvent
blends in Tables 3 and 4 of Subpart PPPP, but questioned how the default HAP contents were
generated. The commenter believed that some solvent names and CAS registry numbers are used
interchangeably such that two CAS numbers with different HAP contents may be referred to by the
same name. This practice occurs because often CAS numbers are assigned based on properties other
than HAP content. The commenter requested that the tables be amended to reflect common names of
solvent blends and that the highest HAP content be used in the table when a common name is
associated with more than one CAS number.
79
-------
Response: The default HAP contents were generated from a gas-chromatograph (GC) analysis
of common solvent blends performed by the Chemical Manufacturers Association and a leading
supplier of petroleum solvents to the coatings industry.2
The final rule provides additional instructions that were not included in the proposed rule for the
use of the default HAP contents for solvent blends in Tables 3 and 4 of the rule. If a solvent blend
matches both the name and CAS number for an entry in Table 3, that entry's organic HAP mass
fraction must be used for that solvent blend. Otherwise, the organic HAP mass fraction for the entry
matching either the solvent blend name or CAS number must be used, or the organic HAP mass
fraction from Table 4 must be used if neither the name or CAS number match. However, if a
measurement of HAP content using EPA Method 311 reveals a higher HAP content than from using
the defaults values in the tables, then the Method 311 results will take precedence unless the facility can
demonstrate that the default values were correct.
13.2 Using OSHA Reporting Cutoffs When Determining HAP Content
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) supported using the OSHA cutoffs for evaluating HAP
content.
Response: The EPA agrees that use of the OSHA levels is appropriate. The OSHA levels are
common reporting thresholds that are already in use, are reflected on MSDS sheets for materials, and
are familiar to material suppliers and users. The use of these thresholds will minimize the recordkeeping
and reporting burden.
13.3 Reactive Adhesives
Comment: Four commenters (IV-D-13, IV-D-17, IV-D-24, IV-G-3) stated that the final rule
should allow sources or materials suppliers to use alternatives to EPA Method 24 to determine the
amount of HAP that is actually emitted from reactive adhesives as they are used and should include a
Memorandum from Paul Almodovar, U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CCPG, to CCPG Project teams
and Project Files. November 19, 1998. "Petroleum Solvent Blends and Associated HAP Contents."
(Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0074, Formerly Docket A-99-12).
80
-------
definition of reactive adhesives in the rule. The proposed rule and associated test methods assumed
that all HAP contained in coatings or additives are emitted. However, in reactive adhesives, some of
the HAP species react with other ingredients to form solids and are not emitted to the atmosphere.
Therefore, the amount of HAP emitted can be significantly less than the amount of HAP present in the
liquid adhesive. The commenters stated that an alternative approved method could be used to
determine HAP content for compliance with the "compliant material" option or when determining
emission rate for compliance with the "emission rate without add on control" option.
One commenter (IV-D-24) described three examples of reactive adhesives: urethane systems,
methyl methacrylate systems and melamine high-temperature cure systems. Urethane adhesives contain
isocyanates which are consumed during curing and emissions are generally considered to be less than
0.005 percent of the total material weight as applied. Methyl methacrylate containing adhesive systems
used in open molded composites are catalyzed by peroxide to form a hardened polymer. Supplier
information indicates that HAP emissions are less than 0.05 percent of the total material weight. On the
other hand, melamine high-temperature cure systems have low HAP content as supplied, but emit HAP
in the form of formaldehyde during the cure. The commenter suggested that some of the floor-setting
facilities use large quantities of these melamine adhesives, and this could result in an underestimation of
emissions in the MACT floor.
Response: An alternative method for determining the fraction of HAP emitted from reactive
adhesives has been included as an appendix to the final rule. Sources using reactive adhesives may use
this method for demonstrating compliance based on the HAP actually emitted, rather than using Method
311, Method 24, or composition data. The method relies on preparing a sample (of known weight) of
the adhesive as it will be applied, allowing it to fully cure, baking the sample, and then weighing the
cured adhesive to determine the weight loss. The weight loss represents the volatile fraction that is
emitted from the adhesive.
We reviewed the coatings and HAP species that were found in the coatings used by the MACT
floor facilities. Melamine coatings were not used by the floor facilities in any of the four subcategories,
so accounting for the formaldehyde emissions that evolve from these coatings during curing would not
have affected the outcome of the MACT analysis.
81
-------
14.0 MONITORING, REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Comment: Two commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-15) recommended that §63.4510 should be
revised to exempt sources from the requirement to submit an initial notification if they have already
submitted a §112(j) Part 1 Application to States regarding the Plastic Parts and Products Surface
Coating MACT.
Response: The General Provisions specified in 40 CFR 63 Subpart A apply to all NESHAP
source categories in Part 63. Under §63.9(b), the owner or operator of a facility subject to a
NESHAP for a given source category must submit an initial, written notification to the EPA within the
applicable time period identifying the facility and the specific NESHAP subpart to which the facility is
subject. In this case, the owner or operator of a facility with plastic parts and products surface coating
operations subject to the NESHAP is required to prepare and submit an initial notification. Section
112(j) of the Act requires owners and operators of major sources within a source category to apply for
a Title V permit should the EPA fail to promulgate emission standards for that source category by the
date specified in the regulatory schedule established through Section 112(e) of the Act. The application
requirements are specified under 40 CFR 63 Subpart B. Although the Subpart B application
requirements include some of the same information required for the Subpart A initial notification (e.g.,
facility name, address, brief description of source), the two documents serve different administrative
purposes under the NESHAP program. Therefore, it is not appropriate to provide an exemption in the
final rule as requested by the commenters.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) requested that the period for submitting the notification
of compliance status be increased from 30 to 60 days to allow sufficient time to compile information.
The commenter (IV-D-06) noted other NESHAPs such as Ferroalloys Production, Vegetable Oil, and
Wet Formed Fiberglass Mats (subparts XXX, GGGG, and HHHH) allow 60 days for this notification.
82
-------
Response: The requirement to submit a notification of compliance status 30 days after the
completion of the initial compliance period has been retained in the final rule and has not been extended
to 60 days. The 30-day reporting period is consistent with other surface coating NESHAP and should
be an adequate period of time for this source category. The information that a facility needs to
demonstrate compliance can be compiled on a monthly basis during the initial 12-month compliance
period. Therefore, all that is needed in the 30 days after the end of the initial compliance period is to
perform the compliance calculations to reflect the final month of the initial compliance period and to
assemble the notification. However, if a particular source needs additional time or wishes to adjust the
schedule, §63.9(i) of the General Provisions specifies procedures for requesting an alternative reporting
schedule or postmark date. Requests must be submitted to and approved by the Administrator (or
their delegated representative, such as a State agency) as specified in the General Provisions.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) suggested that the schedule for submitting semi-annual
compliance reports should coincide with existing Title V operating permits. Although EPA has
proposed this, the commenter stated that EPA did not address the problems that individual States have
varying submittal dates, whereas the EPA dates are fixed. The commenter requested that EPA discuss
how to resolve the differences in compliance periods or submittal dates.
Response: The final rule, consistent with the proposed rule, allows for an affected source to
submit its semiannual compliance report along with, or as part of, its 6- month monitoring report
required by 40 CFR part 70 or part 71. The reports can be submitted on the same schedule as the
Title V semiannual reports. See §63.4520(a)(l)(iv) and (a)(2) of the final rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) stated that section 63.4520(a)(4), which includes the
requirement to report that no deviations occurred, should be deleted and the rule should defer to Title
V reporting requirements, specifically 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). At a minimum, EPA should clarify
that the statement is not a guarantee that there were no deviations because all certifications are based
on information and belief formed after reasonable review of the monitoring information. The fact a
deviation is missed or overlooked is not itself a violation, according to the commenter.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the affirmative statements regarding the
absence of certain deviations required by 63.4520(a)(4) should be deleted. As 6-month monitoring
83
-------
reports are not required by part 70 or part 71 to contain such affirmative statements, there is no
duplication in requiring such statements under this rule. Such affirmative statements allow a permitting
authority to quickly ascertain whether a source has experienced certain deviations which in turn allows
for the more efficient allocation of resources.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that if the compliant materials option is used, the
final rule should not require records of the volume of compliant materials used. This information would
serve no purpose. The commenter has proposed alternative language for §63.4530(d) with new text
underlined:
(d) A record of the name and volume of each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning
material used during each compliance period. If you are using the compliant material option for
an individual coating operation, or for multiple coating operations as a group, or for the entire
affected all coatings at the source, you may maintain purchase records for each material used
rather than a record of the volume used.
Response: The EPA agrees that these records are not needed if a source is using the compliant
materials option for all coating operations and plans to do so at all times in the future. However, EPA
disagrees that this information would serve no purpose and is maintaining this requirement in the final
rule for the following reasons. Keeping a record of the volume of each coating used allows verification
that all coating materials used (except those that qualify for the low volume exemption) have been
accounted for and included in the compliance demonstration. If a source is using the compliant
materials option for some coating operations and the emission rate without add-on controls or the
emission rate with add-on controls option for other coating operations, the source will need records of
the amount of coating used in each operation under each compliance option to account for all materials
subject to this rule. Similarly, if a source switches from the compliant materials option to another
option, the source will need to demonstrate that it is in compliance based on the past 12 months of data
and consumption data would be needed for that demonstration. Finally, other air programs under the
Act and other environmental programs frequently require reporting of environmental releases (such as
the Toxic Release Inventory) that must be calculated from consumption data, so it is likely that these
records are already maintained by those sources that will be subject to this rule.
84
-------
As suggested by the commenter, many source may use purchase record which they already
have available to determine usage, and this is allowed by the rule. In many cases, a facility can use
purchase records and make the assumption that all the coating materials that are purchased are used in
their coating operation in order to simplify compliance calculations. However, in some cases, purchase
records would not be sufficient. For example, if a facility is using the same coatings for different surface
coating operations that are subject to different emission limits, or if the facility has elected to use
different compliance demonstration options for different coating lines or operations within the facility,
then the facility will need to track coating usage in their different coating operations.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) requested that the rule require that records be "readily
accessible" from the site, not stored on site. This would allow records to be stored electronically on
off-site servers. Another commenter (IV-G-01) requested that making records available electronically
from the site be added as an alternative to storing hard copies of records onsite.
Response: The language in the rule is consistent with, and references, §63.10(b)(l) of the
NESHAP General Provisions, and therefore, has not been revised. It should be noted that the rule
requires that a source keep records in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review. The
records may be maintained on microfilm, on a computer, on computer floppy disks, on magnetic tape
disks, or on microfiche. This language would include centralized records that are readily accessible
from a computer onsite.
85
-------
15.0 ADD-ON CONTROLS
15.1 General Comments
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) requested that boilers be added to the list of control
options in this rule. The commenter also requested that no performance testing or monitoring be
required for boilers with design heat input capacity greater than or equal to 44 megawatts or boilers into
which the vent stream is introduced with the primary fuel. The commenter also requested that such
boilers be assumed to achieve 98 percent control efficiency for purposes of emissions calculations
required by the rule. The commenter cited 14 other NESHAP which include this as an option and
suggested specific regulatory language to address this option.
Response: Although other NESHAP have included provisions to use boilers as add-on control
devices, they have not been included in surface coating NESHAP since they have not been commonly
used as add-on controls in the surface coating industry. However, a facility for which this is a feasible
control option may request a waiver of performance testing under §63.7(h) and apply to use alternative
monitoring of a boiler as an add-on control device under §63.8(f) of the General Provisions. The
facility would still need to measure and monitor capture efficiency of the emission capture system and
include this in their initial and continuing compliance demonstrations.
Another approach that you may use is the equivalency by permit option in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E (§63.94). Under this approach, you may design an emissions control program that is suited
for your process or plant as long as you can demonstrate that your program will achieve the same
emissions reductions as the NESHAP. You must then work with your State, local, or tribal air
pollution control agency to submit an equivalency demonstration. This equivalency demonstration will
be reviewed by the appropriate EPA Regional Office. The equivalency demonstration is approved as
86
-------
part of the operating permit approval process. For more information, please see the section 112(1)
website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/! 12(1)7112-lpg.html.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-13) stated that the work practices and recordkeeping
requirements for sources using add-on controls are overly burdensome. The commenter suggested that
sources with add-on controls where the emissions are less than 50-percent of the allowable limit should
be exempt from the work practice requirements and that sources using a thermal oxidizer should only
be required to record the oxidation temperature. The commenter argued that the burden of the
proposed requirements is a disincentive to using add-on controls.
A second commenter (IV-G-01) stated that add-on controls are clearly a superior technology
and that the only requirements should be an initial demonstration of that capture and control will reduce
HAP emissions to the level equivalent to the emission limits. After that, ongoing emissions calculations
should not be required. A simple operating parameter should be the only monitoring requirement. For
existing add-on controls, no compliance demonstration should be necessary and existing monitoring
conditions should be retained. The commenter also suggested that add-on controls that achieve
emissions of less than 50 percent of the applicable limit be required only to demonstrate control
efficiency one time and that all usage tracking, ongoing compliance calculations, and continuous
monitoring should be waived.
Response: The proposed and final rule are in the format of Ib HAP emitted per pound of
coating solids used and were not in the format of a percent HAP emission reduction. This format was
chosen to ensure that compliance at different facilities was being compared on an equal basis relative to
production levels. Even if a facility were able to demonstrate during a one-time test that emissions were
substantially less than the emission limits, that does not assure future compliance because of changes
that may occur in the types of materials that are used and the relative amount of materials that are used
(e.g., an increase in the use of higher-HAP coatings or of HAP containing solvents that contain no
solids). The compliance calculations included in the rule assure compliance at all times, even as an
operation changes over time. Furthermore, monitoring is needed to assure that control devices continue
to be operated as they were during the performance test. Therefore, the final rule does not include the
simplified compliance demonstration suggested by the commenters.
87
-------
15.2 Performance Testing Requirements
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-11) stated that the regulations should clearly specify that
initial compliance testing for Subpart PPPP is required only at the initial startup of the plant, and not
repeated for permit renewals.
Response: The final rule specifies that an initial performance test is required during which
emission capture system and add-on control device operating limits are established. After the initial
compliance demonstration, compliance with the operating limits demonstrates that the emission capture
system and add-on control device are operating as they did during the performance test. The final rule
does not specify whether additional testing is required for permit renewals. The need for additional
testing at any time after the initial compliance demonstration will be determined by the permitting
authority based on site-specific circumstances.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-09) stated that capture efficiency test runs shorter than 3
hours should be allowed if they are representative of VOC capture system performance.
Response: The EPA Methods 204 and 204A through 204F specify that each capture
efficiency test run should be 3 hours or the duration of a production run, whichever is longer, up to a
maximum of 8 hours per run. Sources can apply for approval to use a shorter period under §63.7(f) of
the General Provisions or apply for approval of an alternative protocol meeting the data quality
objective (DQO) or lower confidence limit (LCL) criteria in Appendix A to 40 CFR 63 subpart K.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-09) asked that §63.4581 and other sections of the rule be
revised to replace TVH with the more familiar total organic compounds (TOC), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), or as "organic HAP" as determined by EPA Method 25 or 25A (Method 25
measures TOC or VOC without methane for sources controlled by combustion devices using natural
gas as fuel). The commenter argued that this would be more consistent with other NESHAP that
require performance tests to measure TOC excluding methane and ethane.
Response: We do not agree with the commenters' concern and believe the definition for total
volatile hydrocarbon (TVH) is appropriate for the intended use in the test methods. Methods 204A
through 204F are the correct methods for determining capture efficiency. All of these methods rely on
the use of a flame ionization analyzer (FIA) as the analytical technique. This rule does not change or
88
-------
modify the methods except to change the terminology of the compounds measured by the (FIA) from
"VOC" to "TVH." If the commenter is not concerned with the terminology but, in fact, believes that
Methods 204A through 204F are not the appropriate methods for determining capture efficiency (or
wishes to modify the methods in some way), the owner/operator can apply for the use of an alternative
method under the provisions of §63.4565(e).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that the rule should allow the use of Method 18
as an alternative for testing add-on controls. Methods 25 and 25A do not differentiate between HAP
and non-HAP organic material and, therefore, are inappropriate when a coating contains a mixture of
HAP and non-HAPs.
Response: We have not included Method 18 as a compliance test method in the final rule. We
recognize that Method 18 also is an appropriate method for determining compliance in many instances.
However, in some cases, (such as when the emission stream includes many species of HAP) the use of
Method 18 becomes difficult to apply. If the owner or operator believes Method 18 is an appropriate
(or preferred) method for demonstrating compliance, the owner or operator can request the use of
Method 18 under the provisions for using an alternative test procedure (40 CFR 63.7(f)).
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-09) argued that a facility should be allowed to use previous
tests of capture system efficiency and control device destruction efficiency to demonstrate compliance.
The commenter suggested adding the same language found in §63.5160(a) of the metal coil coating
MACT to establish requirements for data from previous tests:
(1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission monitors [CEM] for determining
total organic volatile matter concentration, and capture efficiency has been determined in accordance
with the requirements of this subpart; and the continuous emission monitors are used to demonstrate
continuous compliance in accordance with § 63.5150(a)(2); or
(2) You have received a waiver of performance testing under § 63.7(h); or
(3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and you choose to comply by means of a
monthly liquid-liquid material balance.
A second commenter (IV-D-03) stated that §63.4560(a) and (b) should be revised to allow
sources to use previous performance tests, transfer efficiency tests, or representative spraybooth tests
89
-------
that indicate capture efficiency using the EPA/Auto protocol under Title V to substitute for the tests
required under the rule.
Response: We agree that the most recent test data can be used to demonstrate compliance and
to establish the operating limits required by this rule, as long as the previous test data meets the
performance test requirements detailed in the final rule. However, depending on the actual timing and
methodology of the most recent performance test, you would need to discuss the need for new test data
with your enforcement authority and include such information in your initial notification.
The waiver of performance testing for a control device equipped with a CEM in the metal coil
rule would only apply to sources in the plastic parts source category if the CEM measured both inlet
and outlet concentration to determine destruction efficiency. However, since the plastic parts rule
requires that a source determines control device destruction efficiency, a facility using a CEM as
specified in the metal coil rule would be fulfilling (at least in part) the testing requirements in the plastic
parts rule if they obtained permission to use an alternative method under §63.7(f) of the General
Provisions.
Waivers of performance testing as specified by the General Provisions in §63.7(h) are granted
on a case-by-case basis and must be applied for as specified in §63.7(h). The final rule cross
references this provision which clarifies the conditions under which a waiver may be granted.
Sources that are using a solvent recovery system and performing a liquid-liquid material balance
are already exempt from many of the performance testing requirements in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) requested that, for operations with an emission capture
system for HAP during curing or drying, the use of heat during curing or drying should be presumed to
satisfy the criteria that 100 percent of HAP are captured. The commenter argued that residual
emissions from parts that leave heated drying and curing ovens will be minimal and a facility should be
allowed to assume that all of the HAP were emitted within the ovens that constitute the emission
capture system.
Response: As defined in §63.4581, a "coating operation" always includes at least the point at
which a given quantity of coating or cleaning material is applied to a given part and all subsequent points
in the affected source where organic HAP are emitted from the specific quantity of coating or cleaning
90
-------
material on the specific part. Therefore, all process equipment in which coating application and curing
occurs must be accounted for in a capture efficiency determination. If HAP are emitted after a part
leaves the emission capture system (such as the final drying and curing oven) then these emissions must
be accounted for in determining capture efficiency and the facility cannot assume that all emissions are
captured. However, if the coating is, in fact, dried or cured (e.g., "dry to the touch") as it leaves the
emission capture system (regardless of whether or not heat is used) and this is confirmed by the
permitting agency's representative who may be observing the performance test, then the facility and the
permitting agency my assume that subsequent residual emissions are negligible.
15.3 Work Practices Requirements
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) requested that EPA remove waste handling
requirements from the work practice standards associated with add-on controls and require that it is
done in accordance with RCRA. Waste is covered by RCRA regulations and these do not increase
emission reductions more than RCRA.
Comment: A second commenter (IV-D-03) also requested that the work practices in
§63.4493 for sources using add-on controls should be deleted because they duplicate requirements in
RCRA regulations in 40 CFR parts 262 and 265, but allowed that these provisions could remain if
cleaning operations are removed from the emission limits and regulated only by these work practice
requirements. The commenter also argues that EPA's rationale for these requirements is fundamentally
flawed because it is based on the concern that a facility may use records other than purchase records to
estimate usage of coatings and other materials and that it is possible that HAP emissions during material
handling, mixing, and storage would not be reflected in a facility's emission rate calculations. The
commenter suggested that other types of records besides purchase records more accurately reflect
actual usage. The commenter noted that most automobile and light duty truck manufacturing facilities
already track materials using guidelines equivalent to EPA's "Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Topcoat Operations," which
are more accurate than purchase records.
91
-------
Response: The EPA believes that the commenter misunderstood the rationale for this
requirement. The EPA agrees with the commenter that the most accurate records of material usage
should be used, when available, and these may not necessarily be purchase records. The EPA agrees
that the protocol described by the commenter could be more accurate than purchase records.
The intent of the work practice standards is to have a complete plan for minimizing air emissions
from raw materials storage and handling through materials use and waste handling, because all of these
areas are potential sources of emissions from the coating operation covered by the plastic parts coating
rule. Emissions from material handling, storage, or mixing that could potentially occur outside the
capture system would not be reduced by the capture and control system, but the consumption of those
materials would be included in the compliance calculation for the controlled coating operation, as if
those emissions were controlled. Therefore, the work practices specified in the plan are intended to
minimize the potential for these emissions outside the capture system.
The final rule includes the waste handling requirements in the work practice standards in
§63.4493. This section requires that a facility develop a work practices plan which specifies that,
among other things, waste materials be stored in closed containers, spills of waste must be minimized,
and waste must be conveyed in closed containers or pipes. The commenter provided no supporting
data or information that complying with these requirements would present an additional burden or
conflict with the RCRA requirements.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) requested that a facility using an add-on control device
should be allowed to substitute a work practice plan required by another rule, such as the Automobiles
and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart HE),3 for the one required by the plastic parts
rule.
Response: Section 63.4493(c) in the proposed and final rule allows the EPA to grant a facility
permission to use an alternative to the work practices standard in that section. Those alternatives
include work practices plans that are developed to comply with another NESHAP that include, at a
minimum, the same practices specified in §63.4493(b). Furthermore, as explained in section 6.2, the
final rule allows sources meeting the applicability criteria of both the Automobiles and Light-Duty
3 Currently under development.
92
-------
Trucks NESHAP and the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP to comply with the Automobiles and
Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP for all their surface coating of plastic parts intended for use in automobiles
or light-duty trucks. If a facility is using this compliance approach, they can follow their subpart mi
work practice plan and do not need to develop a separate plan for plastic parts coating operations.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) noted that §63.4530 requires a source to keep a
record that the work practices plan is being continuously implemented. The commenter inferred that
this would require a source to document that the work practices plan for sources with add-on controls
continually minimizes emissions. The commenter believes it is common sense that it will reduce
emissions if the plan is continually followed.
Response: Section 63.4530 contains no requirement that the source document that the work
practices plan continually minimizes emissions. Section 63.4563(e) requires you to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the work practice standards in §63.4493. That is, you must demonstrate
that the procedures you specified in your plan have been followed.
15.4 Operating Limits and Monitoring for Add-on Controls
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) stated that the operating limits for add-on control
requirements should account for typical operating variability. According to the commenter, the
requirements in the rule for developing operating limits will lead to infeasible operating limits since
average values measured during a performance test will become minimum or maximum allowable values
for operating limits. The commenter predicted that this approach would cause a well-operated system
to fall out of compliance for at least 50 percent of the time due to normal system variation. The
commenter recommended that operating limits should be assigned an allowable percent variability to
account for the measurement accuracy and inherent variability of a well-operated coating system and
control system. In addition, the rule should also allow companies to test over a range of conditions and
establish operating limits that constitute compliance under varying conditions.
Response: Establishing the add-on control device operating limit at the level demonstrated
during the performance test is appropriate. The operating limit is based on a 3- hour average (rather
than an instantaneous or 15-minute value, for example) to accommodate normal variation during
93
-------
operation. In general, selection of the representative operating parameters for both the process and the
control device for conducting the performance test is an important, and sometimes complex, task.
The facility does have the option of operating control devices, such as thermal oxidizers, at a
lower set-point during the performance test in order to provide a greater compliance margin during
normal operation. For example, assume the facility normally operates the thermal oxidizer at 1600° F
(i.e., the auxiliary burner set point is 1600° F) but decided to lower the set point to 1580° F during the
performance test, resulting in an 3-hour average temperature of 1575° F. The operating limit is 1575°
F. After the performance test, the facility chooses to reset the incinerator operating set point to 1600°
F to provide a compliance margin. There is nothing to prevent the facility from resetting the set point to
the lower value for the next performance test, thereby maintaining the same operating conditions as
previously demonstrated. Furthermore, under this regulation, the facility could establish a new, lower
operating limit by conducting future (or additional) performance tests which demonstrate control device
efficiency at lower operating temperatures. Of course, if a performance test is going to be conducted at
a temperature lower than the existing operating limit, it is prudent to assure that this is clearly noted in
the test plan submitted to the permitting agency and their approval is obtained.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) stated that a number of performance specifications for
add-on controls listed in §63.4568(c), (f), and (g) should be deleted because they are vague,
unnecessary, out-dated, and cannot be certified under Title V. Specifically, the commenter
recommended that the following provisions be deleted: §§63.4568(c)(3)(iii), (v), and (vii); (f)(2)(ii),
(iv), (v), (vi), and (vii); (g)(l)(ii) and (iv); and (g)(2)(ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi).
Response: Many of the requirements in §63.4568 have been revised since proposal, including
those cited by the commenter. The final provisions in this section are substantially more concise and
specific than those contained in the proposed rule.
The final rule does not include the requirements for temperature sensor shielding, semiannual
electronic calibrations, and monthly inspections (proposed §§63.4568(c)(3)(iii), (v), and (vii)). The
final rule requires a validation check for temperature sensors before using the sensor for the first time or
when relocating or replacing the sensor, by comparing the sensor output to a calibrated temperature
measurement device or by comparing the sensor output to a simulated temperature. The final rule also
94
-------
requires an accuracy audit every quarter and after every deviation. Accuracy audit methods include
comparisons of sensor output to redundant temperature sensors, to calibrated temperature
measurement devices, or to temperature simulation devices. These procedures do not require that a
thermal oxidizer be shut down. The provisions for temperature sensors in the final rule are consistent
with the provisions for temperature sensors in other surface coating rules with similar emission sources
and control devices.
The final rule does not require the use of a manometer to check the calibration of pressure
sensors (proposed §63.4568 (f)(2)(v)) and has removed other provisions for pressure sensors in
§63.4568(f)(2)(ii), (vi), and (vii). The final rule requires you to perform an initial calibration of the
sensor according to the manufacturer's requirements and to conduct a validation check before initial
operation or upon relocation or replacement of a sensor. Validation checks include comparison of
sensor values to calibrated pressure measurement devices or to pressure simulation using calibrated
pressure sources. The final rule uses the term "pressure sensor" instead of "pressure gauge."
The final rule does not require daily inspection of the pressure tap in pressure gauges or sensors
(proposed §§63.4568(f)(2)(iv) and (g)(2)(iii)). You are required to conduct accuracy audits every
quarter and after every deviation; perform monthly leak checks on pressure connections; and perform a
visual inspection of the sensor at least monthly if there is no redundant sensor.
The requirements in the final rule for monthly leak checks of mechanical connections for sensors
of pressure drop have been revised since proposal. Section 63.4568(g)(2)(vi) of the final rule specifies
that the monthly leak checks on pressure connections must ensure that a pressure of at least 1.0 inches
of water column to the connection must yield a stable sensor result for at least 15 seconds. We feel that
monthly leak checks are still needed to ensure that the pressure monitoring devices are operating
properly. Less frequent checks could lead to excess emissions over a prolonged period because of
faulty readings for pressure drop on emission capture systems or add-on control devices.
The final rule does not include the proposed requirements for monthly electrical connection and
integrity checks (proposed §§63.4568 (c)(3)(vii), (f)(2)(vii), (g)(2)(vi)). We agree with the commenter
that these checks could themselves compromise the integrity of the electrical connections. The final rule
includes provisions that require monthly inspections of each continuous parameter monitoring system
95
-------
sensor only if there is not a redundant sensor. The final requirements are adequate to assure
compliance and are consistent with those in other surface coating rules with similar emission sources
and control devices.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) argued that the frequency of the preventative
maintenance activities and quality assurance inspections would not be cost effective or useful.
According to the commenter, the systems are relatively reliable and operate in a clean and non-hostile
environment necessary for a high quality coating finish. The commenter suggested that EPA perform a
cost-benefit analysis on performing operating and preventative maintenance requirements less frequently
and should work with affected sources to obtain any missing data needed on industry practices in this
area. According to the commenter, the rule should also allow source owners the flexibility to reduce
the frequency of maintenance and inspections in cases where experience demonstrates that the control
units can be as reliable without the frequency of activity as required by the rule.
Response: As noted in the response to the previous comment, many of the inspection and
maintenance requirements for emission capture systems and add-on control devices have been revised
in response to comments. In several cases, the frequency of these activities has been reduced and this
will reduce the potential cost impact of these requirements. The final monitoring requirements represent
what EPA believes to be the minimum needed to assure compliance with the emission limits in the final
rule. However, an owner or operator may apply to the Administrator for permission to use alternative
monitoring under §63.8(f) of the General Provisions.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-11) suggested allowing facilities to use an approved
Continuous Assurance Monitoring (CAM) monitoring system as an alternative to the monitoring
requirements of Subpart PPPP. Some facilities (e.g., those with thermal or catalytic oxidizers) may
already be required to comply with CAM which, in some cases, has similar testing, monitoring, and
reporting requirements to those in the proposed rule.
Response: The CAM rule (40 CFR 64) applies to facilities that operate emission control
devices in accordance with Federally enforceable regulations issued prior to 1990. These Federal
regulations are not limited to EPA regulations and instead include any regulation that pertains to the Title
V operating permit.
96
-------
With the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA incorporated monitoring
provision into all emission regulations. In some cases, this monitoring is more stringent than the
monitoring required under the CAM rule. Therefore, the CAM rule does not apply to facilities that are
subject to EPA regulations issued after 1990. However, it is possible that some portions of a facility
operate control devices in order to comply with emission standards issued prior to 1990. In this case,
these portions of the facility must comply with the requirements of the CAM rule.
The control device monitoring provisions of this rule have been developed to ensure compliance
with the numerical emission limits for HAP, expressed as Ib HAP per Ib coating solids. No emission
limits issued prior to 1990 were intended to limit HAP emissions from surface coating operations. It is
likely that monitoring provisions at individual facilities approved under the CAM rule are substantially
different from those in the final plastic parts rule. Therefore, it is not practical to include an allowance to
use any monitoring system that was approved under CAM as an alternative to the monitoring provisions
in the final plastic parts rule. Each monitoring system approved under the CAM rule would need to be
compared to the final plastic parts rule on a case-by-case basis.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) requested provisions to address non-regenerative
carbon adsorbers in the same way as the Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework NESHAP (40 CFR
63 subpart GG). The commenter argued that this would allow a facility to determine efficiency through
engineering analysis or testing and would allow breakthrough detection using a continuous emission
monitor (CEM) or portable device.
Response: The plastic parts database includes several major sources with carbon adsorbers,
but all of these are regenerative carbon adsorbers. The database also includes 25 facilities with non-
regenerative carbon adsorbers that are all owned by an eye-glass lens manufacturing company, but
none of these are major sources. Because of the limited pollution control capacity of non-regenerative
carbon adsorbers, it is unlikely that a major source plastic parts surface coating operation would use
one in order to comply with this rule. In the unlikely event that a source chooses to use a non-
regenerative carbon adsorber, they could apply to the EPA for approval of alternative monitoring under
§63.8(f) of the General Provisions.
97
-------
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-16) requested several clarifications regarding vapor
concentrators:
• Should the required temperature monitor for concentrators be at the inlet or outlet?
• Should the required pressure drop monitor be used for both fixed bed and fluidized bed
concentrators?
• The commenter recommended that the rule require monitoring of the pressure drop of
the pre-concentrator filter, not the concentrator itself.
• Should a concentrator's vent to atmosphere be monitored for vapor concentration as
required by some NESHAPs?
• For rotary concentrators, should the rotation rate be monitored?
• For monitoring, should the minimum temperature requirement and maximum pressure
drop requirement apply to the average value or each recorded value? The commenter
recommended that the 3-hour block averages of temperature and pressure drop allow
an acceptable difference compared to the test average so that about half of the block
averages do not fail to comply, even under normal conditions.
Response: The temperature monitor for concentrators should be at the outlet of the
concentrator to ensure complete desorption of the concentrator, and hence system efficiency.
Pressure drop monitors must be used on both fixed bed and fluidized bed concentrators, as
well as for rotary concentrators. The pressure drop must be monitored across the bed or rotor of the
concentrator in order to detect leakage though damaged seals around a rotor or channels in a fixed or
fluidized bed. Monitoring pressure drop across pre-filters will aid in equipment maintenance, but will
not affect regulatory compliance.
Vapor concentration monitors are not required for concentrators in this rule. Since the
adsorptive bed or rotor is continuously regenerated and regeneration temperature and pressure drop
across the bed or rotor are monitored, the potential for bed breakthrough is minimized, if not
eliminated.
Equipment vendors recommend and provide devices to confirm that rotary concentrators are
rotating, but do not recommend that revolutions per hour be monitored.
98
-------
As stated in the responses to earlier comments in this section, establishing the add-on control
device operating limit at the average level demonstrated during the performance test is appropriate.
15.5 Add-on Control Failures. Bypasses, and Deviations
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-16) requested that EPA clarify how add-on control
equipment failures should be included in limits and how sources should account for add-on control
bypasses when they use low-HAP materials that do not need to be directed to the add-on control
device to comply.
Response: If a source experiences an add-on control device failure or bypass, then the source
must assume that the coating operations performed during that failure or bypass are "uncontrolled" and
all HAP contained in those coatings that would otherwise be controlled are emitted to the atmosphere.
The final rule has been revised to clarify how these periods should be handled in demonstrating
compliance and the compliance calculations. If a source uses a low-HAP material that does not need
to be directed to the add-on control device to comply, then the source may either do a separate
compliance demonstration for that material, using either the compliant material option or the emission
rate without add-on control option, or include those coatings in the add-on control device compliance
calculations and assume that they were uncontrolled and all HAP were emitted and not captured by the
add-on control.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) requested that flow direction indicators be allowed as a
means of demonstrating that control systems are not bypassed. According to the commenter, the
proposed requirements imply that bypasses have valves and this is not feasible under some bypass line
configurations.
Response: Section 63.4568(b)(l) in the final rule includes a new paragraph (v) that allows for
a flow direction indicator. The flow direction indicator must that a reading at least once every 15
minutes and provides a record indicating whether the emissions are directed to the add-on control
device or diverted from the add-on control device. Each time the flow direction changes, the next
reading of the time of occurrence and flow direction must be recorded. The flow direction indicator
99
-------
must be installed in each bypass line or air makeup supply line that could divert the emissions away
from the add-on control device to the atmosphere.
Comment: Several commenters (IV-D-03, IV-D-06, IV-D-09) objected to the requirement
that emissions calculations during deviation periods must assume that the capture system and control
device are achieving zero-percent efficiency.
One commenter (IV-D-03) stated that this approach is burdensome and penalizes facilities for
minor parameter reporting problems, such as temperature read-out malfunctions. The commenter
suggested that a facility should be allowed to rebut the presumed zero-efficiency with other available
data, such as fuel consumption or manual temperature recordings. The commenter requested that
§§63.4561(h) and 63.4568(a) be revised to include a generic method to calculate add-on control
efficiency when an excursion or deviation has occurred. The commenter suggested allowing a source to
decrease efficiency by a percentage of the hours the excursion occurred out of the total operating
hours, similar to the approach in §63.3561(h) of the proposed metal can surface coating rule.
One commenter (IV-D-06) requested that EPA allow companies to rebut the presumption that
zero control efficiency and demonstrate through other credible evidence that some or all of the
emissions were collected and controlled (to some degree) during a deviation, and use a number other
than zero in the emissions calculations. The commenter also argued that if the deviation is the result of a
SSM event and the company operated according to their SSM plan, then the emission calculations
should be done assuming the control device is achieving its normal efficiency because the SSM event
should not be considered a violation.
The commenter (IV-D-06) recommended that §63.4568(a)(6) should be revised to include a
statement that emission capture system and add-on control device efficiency should not be set to zero
during such periods in the calculation of 12-month emission rates and established efficiencies should be
used in the absence of any evidence to indicate they are not performing properly. The commenter also
recommended that §63.4568(a)(7) should be revised to state that a deviation caused by a monitor
malfunction is not a violation.
One commenter (IV-D-09) stated that §63.4563(c)(2) should be revised to allow a facility to
estimate capture or destruction efficiency during deviations, based on design data or test data.
100
-------
According to the commenter, deviations that are due to missing operating parameter data or a
malfunctioning monitoring device should not be treated as zero emission reduction.
Response: If a source has manually collected parameter data indicating that an emission
capture system or control device was operating normally during a parameter monitoring system
malfunction, these data could be used to support and document that the source was achieving the same
overall control efficiency and the source would not have to assume zero-percent efficiency.
If a source has data indicating the actual performance of an add-on emission capture system
and control device (e.g., percent capture measured at a reduced flow rates or percent destruction
efficiency measured at reduced thermal oxidizer temperatures) during a deviation from operating limits
or during a malfunction of the monitoring system, then the source may use the actual performance in
determining compliance, provided the use of these data are approved by the Administrator (i.e., the
EPA or delegated State agency). The final rule has been revised to clarify that such data may be used
rather than assuming that the efficiency is zero. The final rule does not allow a source to otherwise
estimate the efficiency of a capture system or control device during a deviation because this would
provide no assurance of the quality of the data used in the compliance calculation.
The final rule does not include an assumption that the emission capture system and add-on
control device are operating at their established efficiencies during periods when monitoring data are not
available. Allowing a source to assume a constant efficiency in the absence of supporting monitoring
data would allow a source to make an unsubstantiated claim of compliance.
The approach that was included in §63.3561(h) of the proposed metal can surface coating rule
is not fundamentally different from what is included in the final plastic parts rule since it still assumes that
the source is achieving zero-efficiency during a deviation. It is not clear it would reduce the
recordkeeping burden associated with deviations and it would not allow a source to estimate actual
efficiency during deviations. Therefore, this approach was not adopted in the final plastic parts rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) requested that the rule state that a deviation resulting
from monitoring data non-availability is not a violation and is not an indication that of capture system or
add-on control system performance. The commenter (IV-D-06) noted that states that data recorded
101
-------
during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality assurance
or control activities should not be used when calculating data averages.
The commenter (IV-D-06) also requested that the rule and preamble clarify that a deviation is
not necessarily non-compliance. The definition of "deviation" includes two situations that are not
necessarily violations:
• A deviation occurring during start-up, shutdown, or a malfunction (SSM) for which the
SSM plan is followed, or
• A monitoring parameter straying from its range established during the initial compliance
period. In this case, the commenter contended that operating parameters are only an
indication of control device operation and help identify when action must be taken, but
that non-compliance does not occur until the HAP emission limits are exceeded.
Finally, the commenter (IV-D-06) requested that the term "operating limits" should be changed
to "operating conditions" throughout the rule because a deviation, although it should be reported, is not
necessarily a violation of the emission limit. The commenter argued that exceeding an operating limit
does not necessarily mean that the emission limit was exceeded. For example, a performance test
rarely demonstrates the lower limit of performance, so operating parameters outside of the range used
in the performance may in fact still achieve the required control efficiency. Deviations should not be
considered to be violations of the standard, according to the commenter. The commenter argued that
by turning an operating condition established during the performance test into an operating limit, EPA is,
in effect, imposing a more stringent standard.
Response: We are using the term "deviation" to standardize the regulatory language used in
NESHAP, and to avoid any confusion that might be caused by using multiple, related terms such as
excess emission, exceedance, excursion, and deviation in the same regulatory program. The definition
of deviation is consistent with the use of the term deviation in the Title V operating permit program. The
definition of deviation clarifies that any failure to meet an emission limitation (including an operating limit
or work practice standard) is a deviation, regardless of whether such a failure is specifically excused, or
occurs at times when the emission limitation does not apply, for example, such as during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
102
-------
The commenter is correct that all deviations are not necessarily violations. The enforcement
authority determines violations. All deviations from emission limitations (including operating limits and
work practice standards) are required to be reported, regardless of whether or not they constitute
violations, in accordance with the provisions in §63.4520, "What reports must I submit?" Operating
limits and deviations from them are discussed in §63.4492(b).
15.6 Compliance During Start-up. Shutdown, and Malfunction Periods
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) stated that EPA should not require reporting of every
period of startup, shut down, and malfunction (SSM) as a deviation and should delete paragraph (3) of
the definition of deviation. Paragraph (3) states that a deviation includes any instance when a source
"fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this
subpart." The commenter argued the following:
• The General Provisions already require facilities to report SSM periods so the
requirement created by paragraph (3) is redundant.
• It is inconsistent with §503(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which requires facilities to report
deviations from permit requirements. If the source is not required to comply with an
emission limit during SSM periods, then it cannot be deviating from a permit
requirement when it is operating according to the SSM plan.
Response: This paragraph has been retained in the final rule because EPA and other
enforcement agencies need to confirm whether or not the deviation was actually during a SSM period
and, if not, whether that deviation constitutes a violation. A report of a deviation that occurs during a
SSM period is needed to perform this analysis of whether that deviation actually constitutes a violation.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) objected to the requirement in §63.4563(h) for a
source to demonstrate that the SSM plan was followed to the satisfaction of the Administrator.
According to the commenter, this language implies that such a demonstration must be made without a
request from the Administrator and that the criteria of "the satisfaction of the Administrator" is too
103
-------
vague and discretionary to be the basis of a violation. The commenter suggested that the final rule
should state that such a demonstration only has to be made upon the request of the Administrator.
Response: Section 63.4563(h) has been deleted from the final rule since SSM plans are not
approved by EPA or permitting authorities. Therefore, compliance with a SSM plan is not an
assurance that a facility has taken all steps necessary to minimize emissions consistent with good air
pollution control practices, as required by §63.6(e) of the General Provisions. The EPA or permitting
authority must still evaluate the actions taken during a SSM period and relevant emissions data to
determine if a source was in compliance and it is not presumed that a source is in compliance if the
SSM plan was followed.
Section 63.4520(c) of the final rule requires you to submit a semiannual startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report documenting that you followed the procedures in your plan, or if the plan was not
followed, documenting what actions were taken. (An immediate report is also required if you do not
follow your plan.) A separate semiannual startup, shutdown, and malfunction report is not required if
you include the information in your semiannual compliance report. Hence, you can include an
explanation of actions taken to minimize HAP emissions during any startup, shutdown or malfunction
occurring during the semiannual reporting period. The report is submitted to your delegated State
agency, who will determine if a deviation constitutes a violation. Malfunctions which are addressed by
following the SSM plan would likely not be considered a violation of the standard.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-15) obj ected to the fact that the definition of deviation
specifically includes SSM periods even though they are already exempted from compliance under the
rule. The commenter noted that facilities must already report deviations under their monitoring reporting
requirements and SSM activities under SSM reporting requirements. The commenter claimed that this
policy is inconsistent with past rules and is inconsistent with Part 63 General Provisions for SSM
periods. The commenter requested that the rule be revised so that operations in accordance with the
SSM plan should not be considered deviations from the rule and should not be reported as such.
Response: We are using the term deviation to standardize the regulatory language used in
NESHAP and to avoid any confusion that might be caused by using multiple, related terms such as
excess emissions, exceedance, excursion, and deviation in the same regulatory program. The definition
104
-------
of deviation is consistent with the use of the term deviation in the Title V operating permit program. The
definition of deviation clarifies that any failure to meet an emission limitation (including an operating limit
or work practice standard) is a deviation, regardless of whether such a failure is specifically excused, or
occurs at times when the emission limitation does not apply, for example, such as during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. All deviations, therefore, are not necessarily violations. The enforcement
authority determines violations. All deviations from emission limitations (including operating limits and
work practice standards) are required to be reported, regardless of whether or not they constitute
violations.
15.7 Miscellaneous Comments on Add-On Control Device Provisions
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) requested that sources in the automobile and light duty
truck industry be allowed to substitute the "Protocol for Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Rate of Automobile and Light Duty Truck Topcoat Operations," EPA-450/3-88-018, for
many of the proposed monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for sources with add-on
controls. The commenter provided several reasons to allow the alternative protocol.
• Sources, State agencies, and EPA are already familiar with these provisions and they
have been included in new source and State operating permits.
• The protocols address most of the monitoring contained in the proposed plastic parts
rule, including capture and transfer efficiency.
• At some facilities, the automobile and plastic parts surface coating operations are
controlled by the same equipment, so it does not make sense to impose two separate
sets of requirements on the equipment.
• The commenter provided a table comparing the similarities and differences between the
protocol to the proposed plastic parts MRR requirements.
Response: The final rule simplifies compliance for plastic parts surface coating operations that
are collocated with automobile and light duty truck manufacturing and surface coating operations. If
you perform surface coating of plastic parts or products that meet the applicability criteria for both the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart nil (under development))
105
-------
and the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP, then you may comply with the requirements of the
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP for the surface coating of all your plastic parts used in
automobile or light-duty truck manufacturing in lieu of complying with each subpart separately. Since
this change has been made, it is not necessary to allow these sources to substitute the "Protocol for
Determining Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light Duty Truck
Topcoat Operations" for the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-16) recommended that sources using add-on controls
(other than thermal oxidizers) be required to speciate recovered HAP to better estimate HAP removal
efficiency and the HAP-to-solids ratio. The commenter noted that many add-on controls (e.g.,
catalytic incinerators, adsorbers, and vapor concentrators) remove some organic compounds more
efficiently than others, so the ratio of recovered to employed VOC should not be automatically used as
HAP efficiency for demonstrating compliance.
Response: Adsorbers and vapor concentrators are generally used in conjunction with a thermal
oxidizer of some type to destroy the HAP and VOC that are collected. The performance testing
requirements in the requires that emissions must be measured from both the thermal oxidizer and the
adsorber or concentrator, in these cases, if emissions are from separate stacks. Therefore, these tests
will determine overall destruction and removal efficiency regardless of the species present.
Those facilities using an adsorber or concentrator as a solvent recovery device are more likely
to use a limited number of different solvents with fewer HAP species than facilities using other types of
add-on controls or relying on reformulated coatings to comply. Therefore, overall volatile collection
efficiency with a solvent recovery device should be a reliable indicator of collection efficiency for total
HAP and each specific HAP. Speciating the recovered HAP would not result in any added
environmental benefit or increased assurance of compliance.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) stated that section 63.4563(c) should be clarified that
continuous compliance with the operating limits is only required "when the coating line is in operation,"
by adding this phrase to the end of that sentence. The commenter also requested that sections
63.4568(f) and (g) be revised to replace the requirements for "daily" checks with checks during each
106
-------
"operating day" so that holidays, weekends, or other planned shutdown periods are excluded from
these checks.
Response: The provisions of the plastic parts rule do not apply when plastic parts and products
surface coating operations are not being performed. Therefore, it is not necessary to revise the
regulatory language as suggested by the commenter.
107
-------
16.0 DEFINITIONS
Comment: Regarding reactive adhesives, one commenter (IV-D-07) requests that the
definition of "organic HAP content" be clarified. This definition could be interpreted to require sources
to estimate HAP content based the formulations as received, even though, when using reactive
adhesives, essentially no HAPs are emitted. The commenter provides suggested revisions to this
definition. To avoid expensive testing, the commenter requested that sources be allowed to use
Method 24 results from the adhesive manufacturer. Otherwise sources would be discouraged from
using multi-component systems which emit less than nonreactive adhesives.
Response: In the final rule we have clarified the definition of "organic HAP content" by adding
the following sentence: "For reactive adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form solids and are
not emitted to the atmosphere, organic HAP content is the mass of organic HAP emitted, rather than
the organic HAP content of the coating as it is received." An alternative method for determining the
fraction of HAP emitted from reactive adhesives has been included in Appendix A to the final rule.
Sources using reactive adhesives may use this method for demonstrating compliance based on the
organic HAP actually emitted, rather than using Method 311, Method 24, or composition data. The
method relies on preparing a sample (of known weight) of the adhesive as it will be applied, allowing it
to fully cure, baking the sample, and then weighing the cured adhesive to determine the weight loss.
The weight loss represents the volatile fraction that is emitted from the adhesive.
108
-------
17.0 IMPLEMENTATION
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) stated that EPA should delegate all enforcement of the
rule to the states rather than reserving approval of alternatives to work practice standards, and major
alternatives to test methods, monitoring, record keeping and reporting. The commenter argues that if a
State is capable of handling a delegated program, then the entire rule should be delegated and
piecemeal delegation is confusing and adds to complexity. In addition, determining what constitutes a
"major" alternative could lead to confusion. The commenter suggested that if EPA disagrees with this
suggestion, EPA should delegate MRR and work practices to states and reserve only the authority to
approve major alternatives to test methods.
Response: The EPA typically delegates the administration of this and other MACT standards
to State, local, or tribal agencies. With that delegation, these agencies may administer the program in a
manner that is flexible and workable yet no less stringent than prescribed by Federal standards. These
agencies would then have primacy in most aspects of the NESHAP implementation process. The final
rule indicates authorities retained by the U.S. EPA (in §63.4580), including approval of major
alternatives to work practice standards, test methods, monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
The NESHAP program is meant to set consistent national HAP emission standards, and EPA
retains authority to approve major alternatives in order to ensure that the standards are implemented
consistently and that state, local and tribal programs are at least as stringent as the NESHAP. For this
reason, EPA retains authority to approve any alternatives to the applicability of the rule in §§63.4481
through 63.4483 and the emission limitations in §§63.4490 through 63.4493. Emission limitations
include the numerical emission limits as well as operating limits and work practice standards. Approval
109
-------
of alternatives to these sections could affect the basic stringency of the standards and set a national
precedent, so it is not appropriate to delegate this authority.
It is EPA policy to retain authority to approve major alternatives to test methods, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting. For definitions of major alternatives, the delegation section of the final
Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP refers to the NESHAP general provisions (§§63.7(e), 63.7(f),
63.8(f), and 63.10(f) of 40 CFR 63 subpart A) and to §63.90 of subpart E - Approval of State
Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities. Definitions of "major change to monitoring", "major
change to recordkeeping/reporting", and "major change to test method" are contained in §63.90.
Major changes to monitoring and test methods are defined to mean a modification to a Federally
enforceable monitoring requirement or test method that uses unproven technology or procedures (not
generally accepted by the scientific community) or an entirely new method. Several examples are given
in the definitions. Major changes to test methods or monitoring requirements often set a national
precedent. As such, it is appropriate for EPA to retain approval of these changes and not delegate this
authority. Similarly, §63.90 defines major changes to reporting/recordkeeping to include modifications
that may decrease the stringency of the required compliance and enforcement measures, may have
national significance (e.g. might affect implementation of the applicable regulation for other affected
sources, might set a national precedent), or is not site-specific. Again, it is appropriate for EPA to
retain authority to approve alternatives that may have national significance in the implementation and
enforcement of this NESHAP. Section 63.90 also defines intermediate changes and minor changes.
The reader is referred to the cited sections of 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and E to gain an
understanding of what constitutes a major change for which authority is retained by EPA and what
constitutes a minor or intermediate change that may be approved by the delegated state, local, or tribal
agency.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-18) stated that the rule should state that the use of
alternative capture efficiency protocols requires approval and to state whether the approval authority
can be delegated to the states. The commenter believes the rule is vague on whether this option
requires the approval of the permitting authority. The commenter (IV-D-18) also stated that to be
consistent with existing EPA policy, this rule should state that the approval of alternative methods for
110
-------
determining mass fraction of organic HAP and solids content of coatings, in §§63.4541(a)(3) and
(b)(2), cannot be delegated to the states.
Response: Section 63.4566(e) of the final rule states that alternative capture efficiency
protocols are subject to the approval of the Administrator. Sections 63.4541(a)(3) and (b)(2) also
state that approval of the Administrator is required and refer to §63.7(f) for procedures to submit an
alternative test method for approval. The EPA typically delegates the administration of most aspects of
this and other NESHAP to State, local, or tribal agencies. The final rule indicates authorities retained by
the U.S. EPA (in §§63.4580), including approval of major alternatives to test methods. See the
response to the previous comment for a discussion of which aspects of the rule can be delegated to
State, local, or tribal agencies and which are retained by EPA.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-15) stated that the rule should state that control
technologies installed to comply with the rule will be exempt from New Source Review (NSR) because
the equipment is installed to reduce emissions.
Response: We are not including in the final rule an exemption from NSR for control
technologies installed to comply with this rule. It would be inappropriate to include language in this
NESHAP that could affect the applicability of NSR since this is better handled on a case-by-case basis
by the States and Regions implementing the NSR program. However, we do not expect compliance
with this rule to require changes that could trigger applicability under NSR. The only possible
exceptions could be those few facilities that install combustion devices that may lead to an increase in
NOx emissions and these should be eligible for the pollution control project exclusion in the NSR
regulations. (See 67 FR 80186, December 31, 2002 for the most recent NSR regulation amendments
which address pollution control projects.)
Comment: One commenter (TV-D-03) suggested that the term "deviation" should be changed
to "excursion" to be consistent with State programs and notes that some State programs treat any
deviation as a per se violation subject to a penalty. The commenter recommended that the definition of
excursion in 40 CFR §64.1 be adopted:
"a departure from an indicator range established for monitoring under this part, consistent with
any averaging period specified for averaging the results of the monitoring."
Ill
-------
The commenter (IV-D-03) suggested that if EPA chooses to keep the term deviation, several
clarifying changes should be made to the definition:
• The definition should include an explicit statement that the definition is intended to define
what constitutes a "deviation from permit requirements" for purposes of Title V and that
meeting the obligation to report deviations under this definition is sufficient to meet the
obligation to report deviations under Title V.
• EPA should clarify that a deviation is not necessarily a violation, consistent with 40
CFR71.6(a)(3)(iii)(C).
• EPA should clarify that operations outside the indicator monitoring ranges are not
deviations provided the source meets the requirements to investigate and take
corrective action. This is implied by paragraph (2) of the definition of deviation, but it
should be revised as follows:
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition permit requirements that is
have been adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this
subpart and that are included in the operating permit for any affected
source required to obtain such a permit; or
Response: We are using the term "deviation" to standardize the regulatory language used in
NESHAP, and to avoid any confusion that might be caused by using multiple, related terms such as
excess emission, exceedance, excursion, and deviation in the same regulatory program. The definition
of deviation is consistent with the use of the term deviation in the Title V operating permit program. The
definition of deviation clarifies that any failure to meet an emission limitation (including an operating limit
or work practice standard) is a deviation, regardless of whether such a failure is specifically excused, or
occurs at times when the emission limitation does not apply, for example, such as during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction. All deviations, therefore, are not necessarily violations. The enforcement
authority determines violations. All deviations from emission limitations (including operating limits and
work practice standards) are required to be reported, regardless of whether or not they constitute
violations, in accordance with the provisions in §63.4520, "What reports must I submit?" Operating
limits and deviations from them are discussed in §63.4492(b).
112
-------
18.0 CLARIFICATIONS
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-03) stated that the headings for §§63.4567(c) and
63.4568(d) should be revised to "Regenerative carbon adsorbers" to clarify that these do not apply to
non-regenerative carbon adsorbers. A similar change should be made in Table 1, item 3.
Response: In the final rule, these changes have been made so that it is clear that the monitoring
requirements described apply to regenerative carbon adsorbers. The plastic parts database does not
include any major sources with non-regenerative carbon adsorbers. In the unlikely event that a major
source chooses to use a non-regenerative carbon adsorber, they could apply to the EPA for approval
of alternative monitoring under §63.8(f) of the General Provisions.
Comment: The commenter (IV-D-06) requested that the defined term "coating
operation"instead of the undefined "surface coating" be used throughout §63.4481(c) when referring to
activities subject to this rule. For consistency and clarity, "surface coating" could be used in referring to
other NESHAPs.
Response: The first sentence in §63.4481(c) has been revised to refer to either surface coating
or a coating operation. In some cases, a surface coating activity that is not an entire coating operation
(as defined) may be excluded. Section 63.4481(c) of the final rule contains a list of specific coating
activities and operations that are excluded from the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP, and we have
revised the wording of the list as appropriate to be sure the intent of each exclusion is clear.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) suggested language to correct the first sentence of
§63.4561(n), which is incomplete as written.
Response: In the final rule, this sentence has been corrected as follows: "The organic HAP
emission rate for the initial compliance period, calculated using Equation 5 of this section, must be less
than or equal to the applicable emission limit for each subcategory in §63.4490 unless you are
113
-------
demonstrating compliance with a predominant activity or facility-specific emission limit as provided in
§63.4490(c)."
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-06) requested the deletion of "etc." at the end of
§63.4481(a)(l) because it is vague and confusing. The commenter also suggested that this sentence
indicate more clearly that associated activities such as surface preparation are subject to the rule only
when surface coating takes place.
Response: In the final rule, this section has been clarified. Associated activities such as surface
preparation, cleaning, mixing, and storage "do not comprise surface coating if they are not directly
related to the application of the coating."
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-20) requested that the exemption language in §63.4481(c)
be revised to say "meet any o/"the criteria of paragraphs (c)(l) through (12) of this section." The
commenter believes the rule did not intend that a source would have to meet all of the criteria in order
to be exempt from the rule.
Response: This correction has been included in the final rule.
114
-------
19.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
Comment: Two commenters (TV-D-13, IV-D-24) claimed that if the emission limits for plastic
coating operations are more stringent than those for metal coating operations, it could create a
disincentive to use plastic parts where plastic and metal parts are interchangeable. (The commenter
also noted that the opposite would be true if the metal limits were more stringent.) The commenters
suggested that customers could prefer metal parts over plastic parts because it would be easier and less
costly to paint or bond them and this could lead to an unfair market imbalance between plastic and
metal parts producers based solely on the MACT requirements. One commenter (IV-D-13) reported
that they were preparing an analysis of the potential for market imbalances and would provide it to EPA
when it is completed.
Response: As of the promulgation date of the final plastic parts rule, the EPA had not received
the analysis of market imbalances mentioned by commenter (IV-D-13). When converted to the same
units of measure as the plastic parts rule, the general use emission limits for metal parts (2.6 Ib HAP/gal
solids) is approximately 0.21 Ib HAP/lb solids, which is not greatly different from the plastic parts
general use limit of 0.16 Ib HAP/lb solids. Both rules have higher limits for several subcategories to
allow for specialty coating operations that could not meet these emission limits. The final rule also offers
increased compliance flexibility, including the predominant activity and facility-specific emission limit
alternatives. The range of compliance options in the final rule will allow facilities to comply in the most
cost-effective manner. The economic impact analyses for the plastic parts rule and the metal parts rule
predicted minimal economic impacts on individual facilities in both source categories. The selection of a
material (plastic or metal) for a particular product depends on many variables unrelated to the coating
materials used, such as the cost of the metal or plastic raw materials and performance specifications for
the part's intended use. Given the expected minimal economic impact of the plastic parts rule, the
115
-------
compliance flexibility incorporated in the final rule, and the many other factors that influence selection of
plastic or metal substrate for a given part, it is unlikely that the relative stringency of the limits in the
plastic parts and metal parts rules will have a significant effect on the market demand for plastic or metal
products.
Comment: The commenter (IV-D-03) argues that unless the TPO limits are revised, EPA must
revise the cost estimates since the cost estimates are based on reformulating solvent-borne coatings,
whereas existing sources would need to switch to either waterborne coating systems or use add-on
controls, which EPA acknowledges have higher costs. The commenter disagrees with the EPA's
conclusion that the average price increase in plastic parts and products is less than 0.1 percent, because
of the need to use waterborne coatings or add-on controls. The commenter, provided total cost
estimates for one of its facilities to install add-on controls, but did not provide any basis for the cost
estimate.
Response: The TPO emission limits for existing and new sources in the final rule are somewhat
higher than the proposed emission limits. Additional emission data for TPO facilities submitted during
the public comment period were incorporated into the plastic parts surface coating database, and the
MACT floor was recalculated incorporating the new data as described in chapter 3 of this document.
The TPO emission limits were set at the MACT floor. In setting emission limits at the MACT floor,
EPA cannot consider cost because this is the minimum stringency allowed by the CAA. The final rule
also includes several compliance provisions that provide increased flexibility to affected sources and
minimize compliance costs of the rule.
It is difficult to estimate the cost impacts of the rule, and the cost impacts presented at proposal
are estimated averages that apply to a broad spectrum of facilities. The costs are based on use of
reformulated lower-HAP or non-HAP coating and cleaning materials. As described in the Technical
Support Document for the proposed rule, the cost analysis included capital costs for replacing coating
application equipment to accommodate the use of water-borne coatings. However, because the
estimated costs are an average, it is expected that costs will be higher than estimated for some facilities
and lower than estimated for others.
116
-------
The commenters did not provide detailed data that supported the cost estimate provided in their
comment letter or information to show that the cited costs would apply to all TPO coating facilities.
Given that the emission limits are equivalent to the MACT floor and it is not clear how the commenter's
cost information was developed or could be applied to other facilities, no changes have been made to
the cost impacts since proposal.
Comment: The commenter (IV-D-08) supported the comments of the Air Transport
Association and Boeing (IV-D-10 and IV-D-20).
Response: We note the commenter's support for these comments. See other chapters of this
document for summaries of specific comments made by commenters IV-D-10 and IV-D-20 and our
responses to these comments.
Comment: The commenter (IV-D-09) requested that responses to these comments be put into
the preamble to the final rule to provide guidance to industry and State/local air agencies.
Response: The responses to significant comments, especially those that result in a change in the
rule, will be published in the preamble to the final rule. A summary of all comments and responses to all
comments are included in this document, which can be readily accessed and used as guidance in
interpreting, complying with, and enforcing this rule.
Comment: One commenter (IV-D-15) stated the EPA underestimated the compliance costs,
and that the rule will impose economic impacts on the plastic parts and products surface coating
industry and the surface coating manufacturers. According to the commenter, the costs to the
manufacturers for reformulation and testing as well as potential difficulties applying the new coatings will
result in "severe" costs. The commenter did not provide cost data.
Response: At proposal, EPA estimated the costs to comply with the rule by using reformulated
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. As explained in the technical support document, the cost
estimates included the cost differential for purchasing lower-HAP coating materials and capital costs to
switch to coating application equipment that may be needed if facilities choose to use waterborne
coating materials. Many plastic parts coating operations are already using, and many suppliers are
already offering low-HAP and non-HAP coating formulations and cleaning solvents. So, it is likely that
many operations could switch to an already available coating solvent that has been demonstrated in a
117
-------
similar application without incurring high reformulation or testing costs. Other facilities with more
specialized coating requirements may have higher costs for reformulation and testing. The estimated
costs represent average costs that apply to a wide range of facilities. It is expected that some facilities
would experience higher costs and others would experience lower costs than estimated.
As described in the preambles to the proposed and final rules, EPA conducted an economic
analysis to determine whether the compliance costs (including use of reformulated coating materials and
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs) would have a significant economic impact. The
analysis showed that the expected price increase for affected plastic parts and products would be less
than 0.1 percent as a result of the standards. Therefore, we do not expect adverse impacts to occur for
the industries that produce or consume plastic parts and products. The analysis also estimated that the
regulatory costs represent only 0.25 percent of the value of coating services, which should not cause
producers to cease or alter their coating operations. Hence, no firms or facilities should be at risk of
closure because of the standards.
The commenter has not provided any specific data, information, or analyses to show that
EPA's estimates of costs or economic impacts are not accurate or to suggest specific revisions to the
cost estimates. Therefore, we have not changed the cost estimate between proposal and promulgation,
and we believe the economic impact assessment to be valid.
Comment: To assist the regulated community, the commenter (IV-D-16) requested that the
rule include a list of organic HAPs similar to the VOHAP list in Table 2 of 40 CFR 63 subpart JJ.
Response: While the rule does not specifically list organic HAP, there is a complete list of HAP
in section 112 of the CAA. This rule regulates those HAP on the list which are organic compounds, a
commonly understood chemistry term. Basically, organic compounds are compounds which contain
carbon. The great majority of coatings used in plastic parts and products contain only organic HAP
and no inorganic HAP, so in most cases, all of the HAP contained in the coatings would be counted in
determining organic HAP content, as long as they are present at levels above 0.1 percent for HAP that
are OSHA-defined carcinogens or above 1.0 percent for any other individual HAP. Manufacturers'
specifications, such as MSDS, should list the organic HAP contained in coatings purchased by affected
sources. The final rule compliance determination sections specify how to determine organic HAP
118
-------
content using test methods or manufacturers' formulation data. One area of confusion has been the
organic HAP August 21, 2003 content of solvent blends, where manufacturers' information may not list
the individual organic HAP. The final rule includes tables with default organic HAP contents of
commonly used solvent blends.
119
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(please read instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-453/R-03-007
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Plastic Parts and Products — Summary of Public Comments
and Responses on Proposed Rule
5. REPORT DATE
August 2003
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D-01-081
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Background Information
Document
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA 7200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Final national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and
Products are being promulgated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The standards were proposed in the Federal
Register on December 4, 2002. This document contains summaries of the 29 public comments that EPA received on
the December 4, 2002 proposal. In this document, EPA responds to the public comments. This summary of public
comments and EPA responses serves as the basis for revisions made to the Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and
Products NESHAP between proposal and promulgation.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution Control,
Plastic Parts and Products
Surface Coating
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control,
Plastic Parts and Products, Surface
Coating
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
124
-------
20. SECURITY CLASS (This Page)
UNCLASSIFIED
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. a-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Flaming and Standards Publication No. EPA-453/R-03-007
Environmental Protection Emission Standards Division August 2003
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. a-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |