p.1 

OAR Box 1669 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

-E-9 tfM 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 9/23/2008 9:36:49 AM Sheet 77 of 110 
* 08/15/03 14:23 ©19199410234 PES RTP NC 

P.2 

©003 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

MEMORANDUM 

Martha Smith 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ESD/WCPG 

ESD Project No. 96/05 

Bernd Haneke/Greg LaFlam "&& M£> 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

June 16,1999 

SUBJECT: June 9,1999 meeting with the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) 

I. Purpose 

The purpose ofthis meeting was to meet with the National Paint and Coatings 

Association (NPCA) to discuss its concerns regarding the development ofthe Organic Liquids 

Distribution MACT/NESHAP. The NPCA requested to meet with the EPA on June 2,1999 via 

E-mail and an official letter. 

U. Location and Date 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mutual Building, 6th Floor Conference Room 

Durham, North Carolina 

June 9,1999,10:30 a.m. lo 11:45 ajn. 

III. Participants 

National Paint and Coatings Association 

David Darling (in person) 

Glen Kedzic (by telephone) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv 

Martha Smith 

Pacific Environmental Services Tne. fPBSI 

Bernd Haneke 

Greg LaFlam 

AUG i 5 2003 

E;\\ 
P.3 

08/15/03 14:23 O19199410234 PES RTP NC (g]004 

Memo-NPCA Meeting 

June 14,1999 

Page 2 

IV. Discussion 

Mr. Darling commenced the meeting by stating that the NPCA has serious concerns 

regarding the direction that the development ofthe Orgamc Liquids Distribution (O.L.D.) 

MACT rule is taking. He also referred to a letter mat he sent to the EPA on June 2,1999 

(Attachment 1). This letter served as the basis for Mr. Darling's presentation. 

Mr. Darling began by stating that results from the EPA's O.L.D. survey should not be 

used to set standaids that would apply to the NPCA member facilities because in NPCA's 

opinion the EPA data base is not representative of that industry. Mr. Darling pointed out that 

only one or two NPCA member facilities were surveyed and subsequently included in the data 

base. He also pointed out that the EPA's original directions had specifically excluded coatings 

facilities, but that subsequent instructional modifications had included them once again. For 

the two reasons stated above, it is NPCA's opinion that the coalings industry did not have a 

chance to provide data. The NPCA also indicated that its member facilities might feel 

compelled to challenge the EPA's decisions if the MACT standard turns out to affect their 

operations. 

Mr. Darling also mentioned that NPCA member facilities do not have any emission 

controls on their transfer racks, and therefore the preliminary MACT floors which the EPA 

developed for its December 15,1998 roundtable presentation are very disturbing. He pointed 

out that MACT floors for new source transfer racks in some instances were at 99.9 or 100 

percent control. The EPA responded to this by stating that the MACT floors presented during 

the roundtable meeting were preliminary, and that many changes had been made as the data 

base was further analyzed. The EPA also informed Mr. Darling that a decision had been made 

to exclude non-surveyed, low-volatility liquids from the MACT floor determinations (i.e., true 

vapor pressures less than 0.1 psia). 

The NPCA inquired if the O.L.D. MACT was only going to control bulk transfers to 

tank trucks and railcars at facilities that will bc subject to the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP 

(MON). The MON will presumably control many emission points at NPCA member facilities, 

but not outgoing bulk transfer racks. The NPCA stated its belief that the liquids being 

transferred at its member facilities are not representative of other organic liquids being handled 

in the O.L.D. industry. Mr. Darling stated that the transferred coatings are low in HAP, and 

that the outgoing streams are low in volume. He was also ofthe opinion that the HAP 

emissions are small when compared to EPA surveyed O.L.D. facilities. The EPA replied that 

numerous facilities had submitted information on organic liquid mixtures that met the survey 

HAP cutoffs. Also, the O.L.D. liquids found in the EPA data base have a wide range of HAP 

contents. The EPA also mentioned that no decision had been made regarding the inclusion or 

exclusion of transfer racks at MON-covered facilities. 

*Z-
P.4 

08/15/03 14:23 ©19199410234 PES RTP NC 12)005 

Memo-NPCA Meeting 

June 14,1999 

Page 3 

At the request of Ms. Smith, a brief discussion ensued in which Mr. Darling explained 

his previous references to the "front end" and "back end" of a manufacturing facility. He 

explained that raw materials are fed into the front end ofthe facility, and finished products are 

usually shipped from the back end. He noted that the MON was going to regulate the front end! 

ofthe NPCA member facilities, but not any loading rack/bulk transfers at the back end. 

The NPCA then discussed the topic of stakeholder involvement. Mr. Darling 

mentioned that O.L.D. stakeholder involvement was being scaled down due to budget concerns', 

etc., but that there is still considerable stakeholder involvement in other source category MACT 

projects. He added that NPCA does not feel comfortable with this lack of communication 

because its member companies expect td be kept informed. Ms. Smith replied that O.L.D. 

stakeholder involvement has been reduced substantially, but the company and trade 

organization representatives can expect to meet with the EPA in a roundtable format before 

December of this year. 

Mr. Darling mentioned that the NPCA was ofthe opinion that some, sort of 

subcategorization scheme would have to be applied to the O.L.D. source category. Ms. Smith 

replied that the EPA is not considering subcategorization (i.e., different rule requirements for 

subgroups ofthe O.L.D. industry) at this time. In response, Mr. Darling suggested that the 

MON should be allowed to regulate/cover all emissions points at paint and coatings-type 

operations. When asked if the MON data base includes the emission points that are not 

included in the OLD data base, Mr. Darling responded in the negative. 

The discussion then focused on the data base containing the EPA survey responses. Mr. 

Darling noted that it was the EPA's decision not to release the data base to the public. He also 

noted that he felt it should be released to the public so that the EPA's MACT floor 

determinations could be verified for content and accuracy. Ms. Smith responded that the EPA 

had spent considerable amounts of time and money to create a data base that incorporated 

confidential and non-confidential business information, and that efforts so far have not yielded 

a usable product. As it would be too expensive and time-consuming to create a usable data 

base, the EPA has decided not to release il lo the public. Furthermore, Ms. Smith added, the 

non-CBI portion ofthe data base would be incomplete and would not be beneficial to those 

interested in checking the EPA's work. 

Mr. Darling requested to know if facilities with a synthetic minor air permitting status 

had to respond to the survey. Tlie EPA responded that a decision had been made at the June 

1998 Houston ICR workshop to exclude synthetic minor facilities from responding to the 

survey, and from the data base. Furthermore, Ms. Smith informed the NPCA representatives 

that any synthetic minor facilities which had erroneously submitted surveys were extracted 

from the. data base and were not going to be used in setting standards for this source category. 

3 
PJL 

08/15/03 14:24 ©19199410234 PES RTP NC 12)006 

Memo-IYPCA Meeting 

June 14,1999 

Page 4 

The NPCA then asked the EPA if it could provide the survey to its member facilities 

independently ofthe EPA. Ms. Smith replied that she would have to consult her management 

and then make a decision on whether a survey of NPCA facilities would be useful to the EPA im 

this regulatory development. 

Near the end ofthe meeting, Mr. Darling asked if NPCA could send supplemental 

information to the EPA regarding the operations and emissions of its member facilities. Ms. 

Smith replied that any information sent in by the NPCA would be evaluated and taken into 

consideration, as long as it is properly documented and can be verified. Mr. Darling 

summarized Ihe points he made during the meeting, and following this, the meeting was 

adjourned. 

\ 
08/15/03 14:24 ©19199410234 PES RTP NC 

P.6 

©007 

ATTACHMENT 1 
08/15/03 14:24 

P.7 

©19199410234 PES RTP NC ®0 0 8 

'AUG . 5 2003 1 ' ^^S ^ 

June 2,1999 

Martha Smith 

MD-13 

USEPA Mailroom 

Reseaich Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Dear Ms. Smith: 

The National Paint & Coatings Association (NPCA) is a voluntary, non-profit industry 

associarion originally organized in 1888 and comprised today of over 400 member companies 

which manufacture consumer paint products and industrial coatings NPCA membership 

companies collectively produce some 80% ofthe total dollar volume of architectural paints and 

industrial coatings produced in the United States. NPC A also represents manufacturers of . 

caulks, sealant and adhesives — other formulated coatmgs that are manufactured in processes 

similar to paints and coatings and have end uses that are similar to paints and coatings. 

On behalf of our members, we are very concemed about the results ofthe Organic Liquid 

Distribution (OLD) MACT data analysis. NPCA would like to express our ooncems for the 

record, on the Preliminary ICR Data Analysis for Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD) MACT 

dated December 15,1998. 

Survey Data 

We recognize that EPA, in conducting its industry surveys, is not required to capture the entire 

universe of potentially regulaled entities, but EPA is required to collect data representative ofthe 

source categoiy in question (Section 2.4, EPA Guidelines for MACT Determinations under 

Section U2Q) EPA 453/R-94-026.) We do not believe that the daia upon which EPA has based 

its OLD data analysis is as complete as it should be to warrant any hard and fast MACT floor 

detenninarions, especially with respect to the paint and coatings industry, since there currently 

are no paint rnanufecturing facilities (SIC 2851), and only one adhesives facility (SIC 2891) in 

the survey database. Please recall that the original EPA Organic Liquid Distribution (OLD) 

survey request dated 4/29/98 clearly stated on page 7, Section H: 

"Compounding/blending/packaging facilities that have a primary Standard Industrial 

Classification (SIC) code of 282,284,285,286,287,289. or 386 are not included in this 

survey and need not be include in the survey response." 

However, on 5/22/98, EPA changed their mind and stated on page 2 of its Additions to 

Instructions that 

"As an example, the proposed MACT for Pesticides and the MACT under development 

fbr Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON) do not regulate loading racks or arms, nor 

were they surveyed under those projects. Therefore, those loading racks and arms not 

covered under those MACTs must be surveyed under the OLD survey." 

fSt ( 

15CX) Rhode Island Avenue, NW . Washington. DC 20005-5597 • Phone: 202/462-6272 • Fax: 202/462*549 

E-mail: members@paini.org (NPCA members); or npca@painr.oi-g Cgencral public) - Web site: wwv.palnc.org 

National 

Pamt& 
_ P.8 

* 08/15/03 14:25 ©19199410234 PES RTP NC 12)009 

Please bear in mind that because paint and coatings facilities were not on EPA's OLD Survey 

mailing list, when EPA changed its mind and sent out its Additions to Instructions, these 

instructions never made it to the paint and coatings industry but Only went to the original 

companies on the mailing list. Only one these companies reported additional data for a facility 

with a primary SIC code 289. When EPA changed its policy and included the paint and coatings 

industry in the OLD MACT rulemaking, EPA should have notified and sent the paint and 

coatings industry survey forms in order to make sure that the database is representative. The 

current OLD database does not contain any paint facilities and only one adhesives faeility, and 

therefore is not representative ofthe paint and coatings industry. Therefore, the OLD MACT 

should not be applicable to the paint Sc coatings industry. 

This issue is further compounded given the fact that the paint and coatings industry currently has 

no controls on loading racks and arms. However, since paint and coatings facilities were not 

included in the OLD survey, theses facilities will now be subject to MACT floors for bulk tank 

and bulk truck loading at levels at 99.9% for existing facilities ond 100% for new facilities! 

Applicability 

Most, if not all MACT, rulemakings (including the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP) currently 

under development will apply only to major sources, -which arc defined as facilities that have the 

potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) of a single HAP, or 25 tpy of combined HAP. EPA is 

considering using an actual emission cutoff of 5 tpy of a single HAP, and 12.5 tpy qf combined 

HAPs in me OLD rulemaking. By utilizing a different definition in the OLD MACT rulemaking 

EPA will place unwarranted confusion and burden on the paint and coatings industry. In 

addition, in utilizing this definition, the OLD will be applicable to facilities with synthetic minor 

status. EPA should be consistent and base the OLD applicability threshold on a potential to emit 

basis as do all other MACT standard rulemakings. 

EPA's Misuse of Industry Data 

1. EPA clearly stated in its OLD Survey Foim (page 3, Section C.) that facilities should provide 

the requested data only for each organic liquid or mixture of liquids that meet both ofthe 

following criteria: 1) the organic liquid has a HAP content of 1,000 ppmv or greater, and 2) the 

liquid has an annual average true vapor pressure of 0.1 psia or greater. Unfortunately, facilities 

did not conectly follow the survey directions and erroneously submitted such data. EPA then 

used this data and set Preliminary MACT Floors for organic liquids with vapor pressures less 

than 0.1 psia. Clearly, the database is not representative of industry since only a few facilities 

erroneously sent this data to EPA. This data therefore is deceptive on its face and does not 

represent a realistic view of operations within our industry. 

< \ 
P.9 

08/15/03 14:25 ©19199410234 PES RTP NC _010 

2. On page 2 ofthe OLD survey form. EPA stated... "that the company must respond if either 1) 

the plant site has actual annual emissions of 5 tons per year (ipy) or greater of any single HAP or 

2) the plant site has an actual annual emission of 12.5 tpy or greater of any combination of 

HAPs." However on June 23,1998, in EPA's Response to Questions Identified at the June 3, 

1998 ICR workshop in Houston, Texas, Response #4 EPA states: 

" The Organic Liquids Distribution MACT survey was shortened to not include nohmajor sources. The criteria of actual emissions instead of PTE emissions was used to 

determine non-major sources to simplify the survey calculations and side-step many of 

the PTE issues. However if the plant site has received an enforceable non-major source 

permit based on PTE of HAP [ ie, A synthetic minor status], it docs not need to respond 

to the survey, despite its actual emissions total being between the 5/12.5 tpy criteria fbr 

large emitters and the PTE 10/25 tpy criteria for major sources." 

However, hi its Preliminary ICR Data Analysis for Organic Liquids Distribution (OLD) MACT 

dated December 15, 199B. EPA used data from facilities that had a synthetic minor Status in 

setting the Preliminary OLD MACT floors. 

Clearly, because EPA was inconsistent in its directives, industry submitted data that should not 

have been submitted. EPA must not use this data because it is not representative of industry since 

it represents only a small portion of industry that had erroneously submitted data. 

Release ofthe OLD Survey Database 

On April 29,1999 EPA stated: 

"The EPA has created a data base using the results of a survey of organic liquids 

distribution operation that was sent to companies throughout the country in 1998. An 

early version ofthe data base was made available to the public in February 1999, but was 

withdrawn after transcription errors were discovered. It also became apparent that the 

data base which did not contain confidential business information (CBI) did not present 

the entire picture ofthe information that had been collected. Attempts were then made to 

develop a more complete data base by integrating data from companies who had claimed 

certain response data as CBI. The EPA's intent was to make this complete data base 

available to the public after masking the CBI and removing information mat would allow 

identification ofthe company and specific facility associated with each block of data. 

After working with these data for the past rwo months, the EPA has decided that it 

will not be possible, within the time and resource constraints ofthis project, to create an 

integrated data base that has considerable masked data and will still allow meaningful 

analysis to be undertaken by outside parries. Therefore, the EPA has changed its plans 

and will not be releasing this data base to the public." 

% 
P.10 

08/15/03 14:25 ©19199410234 PES RTP NC _011 

With respect to EPA's claim that tiie database can not be released due to confidential business 

infonnation (CBI), the survey fbim Included a copy of a Federal Register Notice dated 2/21/91 

thai described EPA's policy on the public release of certain emission data under Sections 110 

and 114 ofthe Clean Air Act. 

The policy clearly states: 

" ..... EPA determined that data submitted to it as emission data does not qualify as 

confidential if it meets the definition under 40 CFR 2.301 (a)(2)(T). Any information 

necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other 

characteristics of any emission which has been emitted by the source meets .this 

definition. Clearly the emission data contained in the OLD database meets this defmition 

and therefore should be released." 

In addition, on December 15,1998, EPA in its Preliminary ICR Data Analysis For Organic 

Liquids Distribution (OLD) MACT, on page 17 said 

" CBI data are not likely to have a significant impact on current pieliminary MACT 

floors, but may help determine throughput cutoffs for liquid transfer operations" 

Clearly, EPA should release the OLD database and allow industry to confirm EPA's data 

analysis. 

NPCA would like a meeting with EPA to the issues raised above. I will be in RTP on June 9th 

and I would like to meet with you in the morning if possible. I will call you later this week to see 

if this date is appropriate 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. 

Best regards, 

~L>o~jf 22«-J£\> 

David Darling 

Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs 

I*--

< \