ENCLOSURE2 LIST OF WITNESSES &COMMENTS RECEIVEDThere were three people who attended the hearing held on December 10, 2002. They did not

submit written comments but asked questions during the hearing. Oral comments were received from VNRC, Vermont Tubbs, and a citizen whodid not identify himself

. Responses to the oral comments and questions at the hearing are included in the attached responsiveness summary datedJune 24, 2003. Comment letters were received fromtwo parties on December 17, 2002 within the 7 day period following the hearing during which the Agency had specified that comments would be considered. Thewritten comments were from : Paul Kaminski, Director of Environment, Health and Safety, Ethan Allen Inc. and Michael P

. Kenyon, ChiefoftheAir Programs Branch, Region I, USEPA . The responsiveness summary datedJune 24, 2003 indicates how theAgency has considered these written comments whenproposing the final rule 5-253.16 for adoption.

# Proposed Air Pollution Control Regulation

5-253.16 Wood Furniture Manufacturing



# And Proposed Amendments to Air Pollution Control Regulation 5-101 Definitions

Summary of Comments

and 

# Response to Comments

June 24, 2003I . NOWRITTENANDORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIORTO 12/10/'02

No written or oral comments were received priorto the public hearing held on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 at the Pavilion auditoriumin the Pavilion Building, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont. Written comments were received after the hearing and before the end of the comment period on December 17, 2002. II . COMMENTS RECEIVED ORALLY AT THE 12/10/'02 PUBLIC HEARING Question [VNRC] : Are the reporting requirements more or less stringent than the federal requirements. Answer: They are as stringent as the federal reporting requirements, but they are not as burdensome. The Vermont regulation requires fewer reports since it combines the initial compliance status report with the first semi-annual compliance status report. Question [VNRC] : What flexibility does Vermont have in varying fromthe EPAmodel rules? Answer: Vermont has essentially no flexibility in changing the emission limits, but there can be some flexibility in other areas (e.g., reporting) as long as the requirements are equivalent to thefederal rules. Question [??] : Do any of the otherstates have less paperwork requirements - for' Reports, record-keeping, etc.? Answer : TheAgency is not familiar with the requirements of all otherstate programs. Question [Tubbs] : What additional testing will be required? Answer : Most facilities subject to the regulation will choose to comply via the use of compliant coatings, with or without a monthly averaging approach. These facilities will not need to conduct testing of their emissions or coatings. They will only need to maintain certified product data sheets for the coatings and make appropriate calculations demonstrating compliance, taking into account the effects of any solvents used for dilution. If a facility chooses to comply through the use of add-on control devices, it will be necessary to conduct both emissions testing and capture efficiency testing to demonstrate compliance. Question [??] : What will the effective date be? And how is that related to any new permits -- particularly those permits that are currently in process? What ifsomebody wanted an emission cap in order to not be subject to the rule and the rule goes into effect before the permit (amendment) is issued? Answer : Effective date of the rule will be six months after the rule is adopted. Not all of the requirements of the rule go into effect on the effective date of the rule. See "Compliance Time Line" table at the end ofthis document . For example, sixty days (after the effective date) is provided for development of a Work Practice Implementation Plan. The Division estimates that six or seven facilities will request emission caps to avoid the rule. There are currently no such permit amendment requests pending. If a facility wants an emission cap in order to not be subject to the rule, we expect the six month delayed Page 1effective date will provide adequate opportunity to process the amendment applications

provided the facility applies in a timely manner. Question [??] : Does HMSERstill apply? And what about all of Section 5-261? Answer : Yes. The requirement to achieve HMSER (the Hazardous Most Stringent Emission Rate) will continue to apply to all hazardous air contaminants whose emissions are greater than an Action Level . However, volatile hazardous air contaminants from water based coatings and U .V. cured coatings will be exempted fromother parts of Section 5-261 (Control of Hazardous Air Contaminants), provided the facility meets the overall VOCand VHAP emission limits in the new rule. See the response to Ethan Allen's comments for a more detailed answer to this question. Question [??] : How

does this apply to dip coatings? Answer : The new

regulation will apply to dip coatings in the same manner as it applies to spray applied coatings in wood manufacturing. Question [Tubbs] : Will control equipment be necessary? Answer: Using control equipment is an option under the rule, but theAgency expects most facilities will comply through the use of low VOCand lowHAPcoatings. Question [??] : Is this rule similar throughout the United States? Answer : The portion of the rule governing HAPs is similar nationwide because it is based on a federal emission standard. However, the requirements for volatile organic compounds are based on a federal model rule that only applies in ozone non-attainment regions (which applies to Vermont because we are in the OzoneTransport Region) . Therefore, the VOCrequirements are likely to be similar in all the northeast states, since they areall in the Ozone Transport Region. Question [Vt Tubbs] : How long will companies have to comply after the effective date? Answer : See above "Answer" regarding the effective date. Request: Will the APCD give assistance with Work Practice Implementation Plans and with Training? Answer : We will provide some information on employee training and preparation of the work practice implementation plans. We hope to provide a model plan, some information on training, calculation examples, guidance for required record keeping and reporting and, probably an example semi-annual report. Ill . WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVEDAFTER 12110/'02 PUBLIC HEARING TheAir pollution Control Division received written comments fromEthan Allen and from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency before the close of the comment period. [A copy of the entire comments is attached.] A . Ethan Allen On December 17, 2002, the Air Pollution Control Division received the following comments from Paul Kaminski, Director of Environment, Health and Safety, Ethan Allen Inc.Comment 1 : EthanAllen supports and concurs with theAgency on the majority of the

substantive requirements set forth in the proposed Regulation. Response 1 : [No response necessary.] Comment 2: Regarding Proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4), theAgency should expand the exclusion from§ 5-261 to include HMSER requirements and other low-VOCcoating technologies Ethan Allen believes that § 5-261 of the Air Pollution Control Regulations ("Regulation") is extremely onerous and represents a significant obstacle to economic development within Vermont. Ethan Allen continues to expend a significant amount of resources to meet the regulatory limits set forth in § 5-261 of the Regulations, despite the fact that these limits are often flawed or unachievable for technical and economic reasons. As the costs associated with meeting these flawed regulatory limits rise, the positive environmental returns also greatly diminish. Due to these concerns, EthanAllen is pleased that proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4) will carve out a partial exemption for waterbased and ultraviolet fight ("UV") coatings from§ 5-261 . Nonetheless, EthanAllen believes that the Agency must make this exclusion broader and more flexible to ensure the continued viability of the wood furniture manufacturing industry in Vermont. The Agency can do so by considering and accepting the following comments:

TheAgency should extend the exclusion provided in § 5-261 and as set forth in proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4) to include all potentially applicable requirements of § 5-261, including Hazardous Most Stringent Emission Limitation ("HMSER") requirements. TheAgency should revise proposed § 5- 253.16(c)(4) to provide a complete exemption from§ 5-261 for UV, waterbased and other VOC-free coatings. In the alternative, theAgency should include regulatory language to the effect that UVcoatings, water-based coatings and other "state of the art" finishing and coating technologies reflect HMSERforthe purposes of 5-261 . " TheAgency should expand the exclusion from§ 5-261 to include: (1) coatings beyondjust UV or water-based coatings; and (2) application technologies that decrease VOCemissions. Coatings and coating application technology change rapidly in the wood furniture manufacturing industry, and the pace of these changes continue to increase as relevant technologies become ever more advanced. However, as currently drafted, the exclusion from§ 5-261 would apply only to water-based and UVcoatings. The Regulation as currently drafted will therefore discourage the use of any "state of the art" coatings or application technologies developed after its adoption. To remedy this unacceptable situation, the Regulation needs to allowsubject sources to qualify unlisted coatings and coating application technologies for the § 5-261 exclusion. In particular, EthanAllen suggests that proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4) should require the source seeking the exemption to demonstrate to theAgency's reasonable satisfaction that the emission reductions associated with a certain coating or application technology are equivalent to those achieved through the use of UVor waterbased coatings (depending upon finish quality requirements) or otherwise represent a net environmental benefit (in terms of toxicity or overall emission reductions) . Page 3Finally, EthanAllen requests that the Agency confirmits interpretation of the phrase

"provided that such coatings meet the standards established in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3)" in proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4)(ii) . To comply with the Ibs VOC/lbs solids content limits set forth "in paragraphs (c)(1), (2) and (3)", the Regulation allows for the use of monthly averaging. See Proposed § 5-253.16(e)(1)(ii) . As a result, Ethan Allen believes that proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4)(ii) as currently drafted would allow for the use of a coating with a Ibs VOCllbs solid content in excess of "the standards established in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3)", provided that the monthly average of all topcoats and sealers used by the source met such standards. The use of so-called performance coatings (which could potentially include UV coatings) is becoming more and more common in the wood furniture manufacturing industry. In some instances, however, performance coatings may exceed the Ibs VOC/lbs solid content limits setforth in proposed §§ 5-253.16(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3), despite thefact that the overall emissions associated with the use of such coatings are less than conventional coatings. These lower emissions are often.attributable to the use of more precise application technologies or chemical reactions that trap volatile materials within the finish. If the Agency does not concurwith Ethan Allen's interpretation of Proposed § 5- 253.16(e)(1)(ii), then the Regulation would discourage the use of performance coatings that may otherwise be environmentally beneficial, and which will, in some cases, represent economic and business imperatives to Ethan Allen and similar situated businesses in Vermont. As a result, Ethan Allen would strongly recommend that the Agency revise Proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4) to specifically allow for monthly averaging when determining whether a certain coating meets "the standards established in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3)" . Ethan Allen asks that theAgency revise proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4) in accordance with the foregoing comments. To do otherwise would raise tremendous concerns on the part of Ethan Allen with respect to the effect of the Regulation. To facilitate the incorporation of these comments into the Regulation, Ethan Allen suggests the following changes to the regulatory text: r(4) Control of Emissions of Individual Hazardous Air Contaminants. Each owner oroperator of a stationary source subject to this subsection shall comply with Section 5-269 ofthis chapter with regards to volatile hazardous air contaminants as provided below : (i) With regard to any volatile hazardous air contaminant whose emission rate fromthe entire stationarysource is found to exceed its Action Level, the owner or operator shall achieve HMSER, as provided in subsection (3) ofSection 5-261, except as orovided bv subparagraph (ii) ofthis subsection; and (ii) The owner or operatorshall be subject to the requirements of subsections M

(4), (5) and (6) ofSection 5-261, where applicable, except that said requirements shall not apply to any emissions of volatile hazardous air contaminants caused by the use ofwaterbased coatings,, efcoatings cured by means of ultraviolet radiation, or othercoatings orcoatina aa ication Page 4technologies demonstrated to theAgency's reasonable satisfaction to result in a net environmental benefit orachieve emission reductions similar to those achieved throuah the use of waterbased coatinas orcoatinas curedby means of ultraviolef radiati~r , provided thatsueh-ssa#ings-meet the owneror o ep rator meets the standards establishedin paragraphs (c)(9), (2) and (3) ofthis subsection." Response 2: There are two parts to this comment fromEthan Allen on proposed § 5-- 253.16(c)(4) . First, EthanAllen requests that § 5-253.16(c)(4) be revised to specifically allow for monthly averaging when determining whether a certain coating meets "the standards established in paragraphs (c)(1), (2) and (3) of this subsection" . TheAgency : agrees that the coatings that qualify forthe exemption from§ 5-261 provided in subparagraph (c)(4) should be allowed to meet the same general VOCand VHAP emission limits in subparagraphs (c)(1), (2) and (3) that other coatings must meet. The rule provides for the use of monthly averaging when determining compliance with the emission limits for each type of coating orfinishing material . This approach should make it easier for Ethan Allen and similar facilities to use so-called "performance coatings" that may not be able to achieve the emission limits in subparagraphs (c)(1)-(3) on a daily basis. TheAgency will make this requested change. Second, Ethan Allen requests that theAgency extend the exemption from§ 5-261 [provided in proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4)] to include all potentially applicable requirements of § 5-261, including HMSER . Further, Ethan Allen asks that the proposed exemption be expanded beyond UV and water based coatings to include any other coatings that meet an "equivalency" or "net environmental benefit" test suggested by EthanAllen. The Agency does not agree to broadening the proposed exemption in the mannersuggested. The Agency believes that it is critical that there continue to be an HMSER review of wood furniture coatings that contain individual toxic chemicals, especially highly toxic chemicals including carcinogens. One of the reasons for such a review is that the federal VHAP emission limits in this proposed rule apply to all toxic constituents of a coating combined and do not treat highly toxic chemicals individually or any differently than low

toxicity chemicals. TheAgency believes that the requirements of §5-261 that have not been exempted are necessary to assure that there are not unacceptable quantities of toxic chemicals emitted because a coating is not subject to regulation under § 5-261 . We believe that requiring all coatings to meet the "Hazardous Most Stringent Emission Rate" (HMSER), but not the other portions of § 5-261, is a reasonable requirement. HMSER, as defined and applied by theAir Pollution Control Division, allows for adequate flexibility, as requested by Ethan Allen, in dealing with toxic emissions. In determining the HMSERfor a particular chemical, the Agency can take into account not only various air pollution control techniques, but also the financial costs of the control methods and other factors. For similar reasons, the Agency cannot agree to allowing other types of unlisted coatings to qualify for the exemption by using an equivalency or net environmental benefit test. The Agency is concerned that there are no adequate ways to define and quantitatively apply "equivalency" or "net environmental benefit." Neither of these concepts are presently developed so as to provide specific and scientificallyjustified criteria for evaluating other unlisted coatings. In addition, water based coatings and UV cured Page 5coatings each contain a different set of chemicals which have different emission

characteristics which compounds the difficulties in trying to determine whetherfuture coatings would be "equivalent" or "similar" to these coatings. At the present time, the Agency does not believe it is possible to define the term"net environmental benefit" and establish a methodology for its determination in a legally acceptable manner. Comment 3: Regarding Proposed § 5-253.16(d)(2), the Agency Should Eliminate the Annual "Refresher" Training Requirement. Proposed § 5-253.16(d)(2) requires all existing and new personnel involved in finishing, gluing, cleaning, and wash off operations (or other activities associated with the Regulation) . The purposes of this training is to ensure that owners/operators implement "environmentally desired work practices" . EthanAllen agrees that this type of employee training is necessary, and already has a programin place to ensure its employees, new and existing, receive such training. Ethan Allen does object, however, to the requirement in proposed § 5-253.16(d)(2) that would require retraining of employees on an annual basis. The costs associated with such training is simply not warranted by any possible environmental benefit. Ethan Allen believes that the Regulation should not include a requirement to retrain employees. In the alternative, if the Agency believes that the Regulation must include a retraining requirement, the frequency should not be any less than three (3) years. Response 3: The requirement for annual refresher training for workers is based directly on the same requirement in the federal emission standard forwood furniture manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJ) . The emission reductions of both VOCs and VHAPs intended to be achieved by Vermont's rule are highly dependent on the quality of thework practices at wood furniture plants. While controlling the VOCNHAP content of coatings will help minimize emissions, significant emission reductions can also be achieved by careful and efficient work practices. This includes such things as the timely repair of equipment leaks and the proper use and cleaning of spray guns. Due to the importance of good work practices, the Agency believes that basic refresher training is a necessary and reasonable requirement. Ethan Allen states that it already has a worker training programin place. The Agency believes that annual refresher training could be conducted in a manner that is not excessively costly and time consuming. In addition, the Agency will be willing to work closely with Ethan Allen and other facilities to develop a simple and effective approach to this training.

B . U .S. Environmental Protection Agency On December 17, 2002, the Air Pollution Control Division received the following

. comments fromMichael P. Kenyon, Chief of the Air Programs Branch, of Region 1 of the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") . [Note: Some of EPA's comments are directed at the simultaneous proposal to amend Vermont State Implementation Plan ("SIP") which has information and procedures which Page 6supplement the proposed Wood Furniture Manufacturing rule. However, the SIP

amendment is not actually part of the proposed rule and the EPA comments only addressing themare not being responded to here.] Comment 1 : Section 5-253.16(g)(1)(iii) addresses sources demonstrating compliance with sections of the rule that contain both VOCand VHAPemission limits. Subsections (A) and (B) of this provision, however, only reference the VHAP content of coatings. Therefore, EPA recommends that this provision be revised to read as follows: "(iii) For stationary sources with continuous coaters demonstrating compliance with (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(i), or (c)(3)(i) through the use of compliant coatings: (A) Astatement that compliant coatings, as determined by the VHAP or VOCcontent of the coating in the reservoir and the VHAP or VOCcontent as calculated fromrecords, and compliant thinners have been used each day in the semiannual reporting period; or (B) Astatement that compliant coatings, as determined bytheVHAPor VOCcontent of the coating in the reservoir, have been used each day in the semiannual reporting period. Additionally, a statement that the .viscosity of the coating in the reservoir has not been less than the viscosity of the initial coating; that is, the coating that is initially mixed and placed in the reservoir, for any day in the semiannual reporting period. Astationary source is in violation of the standard when a sample of the as applied coating exceeds the applicable limit, as determined using EPA Method 311 and/or Method 24, or theviscosity of the coating in the reservoir is less than theviscosity of the initial coating." Response 1 : The omission of "VOC" in this sectionwas inadvertent and the requested revisions have been made. Because the initial paragraph contains clear references to (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii ) which deal with VOCs, the Agency believes that this revision is not significant and does not require a new public hearing because it does not "cause[ ] the published summary to become misleading or inadequate." 3 V .S.A. §846. Comment 2: . Section (e)(1)(ii) states thatfacilities may comply with the rule's VOC emission limits through the use of monthlyweighted averaging, whereas EPA's CTG' recommends daily averaging. Under EPA's Economic Incentive ProgramGuidance, however, extended averaging periods are allowed provided that certain criteria are met. These criteria are discussed on pages 242-244 of "Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs," (EPA-452/R-01-001), January 2001 . (This document was previously sent to Vermont along with EPA's comments on the draft rule.) Therefore, if Vermont adopts the proposed section (e)(1)(ii) monthly averaging provision, then the SIP submittal for the wood furniture rule should include a demonstration outlining how these criteria have been met. EPAcanwork with Vermont to develop this demonstration.

1 "Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations," EPA-453/R-96-007,April 1996. Page 7Response 2 : The SIP submittal will include an appropriate demonstration, but no change is needed in the proposed rule. Comment 3: In conversations with Vermont staff, EPA noted that it is not clear as to why some sections of the proposed rule state that alternatives must be,qpproved by the Secretary, while other sections state that alternatives must be approved by theAir Pollution Control Officer. Vermont staff have indicated that the term Air Pollution Control Officer should be used throughout the rule and that the rule will be so revised prior to its adoption. Response 3

: The use of the differing terms was inadvertent and the requested revisions have been made. Because approval was required by theAgency in either case, theAgency believes that this revision is not significant and does not require a new public hearing because it does not "cause[ ] the published summary to become misleading or inadequate." 3V .S.A. §846

. Comment 4

: Pages 66-70of the SIP narrative outline the test methods, calculation procedures, and record keeping and monitoring requirements associated with Vermont's surface coating rules. Procedures 1-6 on these pages contain several references to Vermont's rule for the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts, 5-253.13. For example, procedure 4 on page 69 outlines the "procedures for determining the VOC content of coatings under 5-253.13." Procedures 1-6, however, also apply to Vermont's proposed wood furniture rule, 5-253.16, as well as to Vermont's existing paper coating rule, 5-253.10

. In addition, these procedures apply to Vermont's rule for the coating of flat wood paneling, 5-253.12, with the exception that the formulas in procedures 1, 2, and 6 need to be adjusted to reflect the fact that the flat wood paneling coating limits are stated in terms of Ibs VOCper 1,000sq ft of coated product, rather than in terms of Ibs VOCper gallon of coating. Therefore, pages 66-70of the SIP narrative should be revised to appropriately reference Vermont's other surface coating rules in addition to the currently referenced 5-253.13 . Response 4: The SIP submittal will revised appropriately, but no change is needed in the proposed rule. Comment 5

: Page 66 of the SIP narrative states that there are "four known existing sources in the State of Vermont" that are subject to Vermont's Section 5-253.20, "Other Sources That Emit Volatile Organic Compounds." Previously, however, EPAwas under the impression that there was only one source, U.S. Samaica (sic), subject to this rule. Conversations with Vermont staff have verified that U.S. Samaica is the only source subject to this rule. Therefore, page 66 should be updated to state that there is only one source subject to 5-253.20 . Response 5: The SIP submittal will include the appropriate revisions, but no change is needed in the proposed rule. Comment 6

: In order for EPAto approve Vermont's rule as a substitute for the MACT standard, Vermont's rule must include applicability criteria that are no less stringent than the MACT standard (63.93(b)(1)) . Vermont's rule provides an exemption for manufacturing sources that use no more than 100gallons per month of finishing materials or 100gallons per month of contact adhesives. EPA's rule provides an exemption for incidental wood furniture manufacturers that use no more than 100gallons Page 8per month offinishing materials or adhesives. EPAlimits this exemption to a total of 100

gallons per month for finishing materials and adhesives. Vermont's rule should be revised to limit the usage to no more than a total of 100gallons per month forfinishing materials and adhesives. Response 6

: TheAgency believes that it reasonably interpreted the federal language

- as seen by EPA's use of "and" in its explanatory language above: "100 gallons per month forfinishing materials and adhesives" as opposed to the federal rule which says," 100gallons per month offinishing materials or adhesives TheAgency assumed that had EPA meant "and" it would have used that word. Nothing in the December 7, 1995 announcement of the Final Rule (60 FR62930), wherein the incidental category was added to the rule, and nothing in the December 6, 1994 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (59 FR 62652) indicates otherwise. Nevertheless, it is theAgency's opinion that these particular applicability criteria will have no significant impact on sources in Vermont, however the exemption is interpreted. Therefore, to comply with EPA's now stated interpretation, the Agency will change the wording of Vermont's rule to clearly specify that the above exemption applies only to incidental wood furniture manufacturers that use no more than 100gallons per month offinishing materials and adhesives combined. Since no additional wood furniture sources will be included or excluded fromthe Vermont rule under either interpretation, the Agency believes that this revision is not significant and does not require a new public hearing because it does not "cause[ ] the published summary to become misleading or inadequate." 3 V .S.A. §846. . ~ Comment 7: Vermont has indicated that it intends to require sources to followthe EPA General Provisions and not request that these provisions be substituted. Vermont was delegated the Subpart AGeneral Provisions, but the delegation actually occurs upon Title Vpermit issuance to the regulated sources. Therefore, EPA recommends that Vermont's wood furniture rule include a reference to the Subpart AGeneral Provisions. As an alternative, Vermont could request a partial rule substitution and EPAcould approve the wood furniture rule excluding the Subpart AGeneral Provisions. Response 7: Given that 40 CFR 63Subpart Ais 64 pages long, that making a reference to it in a way that would make it binding would require following the incorporation by reference procedures in the state's Administrative Procedures Act, and that, in any case, it will be applicable to sources with Title VOperating Permits, the Agencywill request a partial rule substitution andwill not reference it in the rule. Comment 8

: In a number of places in Vermont's regulation, Vermont allows Secretary or Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) discretion for alternatives to its rules. As noted above, Vermont intends to change its regulation to require the APCOrather than the Secretary to approve alternatives. In general, EPA is concerned that state discretion could result in a requirement that is less stringent than the federal rule. Therefore, in order for Vermont's rule to be approved as a substitute for the MACT rule, Vermont must require that EPAapprove the following alternatives as well as Vermont. A) In 5-101, the definition of actual emissions allows the Secretary "to use a different time period upon determination that it is more representative" . We do not believe this definition is used in the wood furniture regulation and therefore, we would not need to approve this definition as part of the wood furniture rule substitution. Page 9B) In the definitions, Vermont includes a definition for certified product data sheet and coating solids. These require sources to use Method 311 and/or Method 24 or an equivalent and alternative method. Vermont must revise these definitions to only allowan alternative method approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer and EPAaccording to Section 63.805(a) . Response 8: Given the explicit restriction in 40 CFR63.808 on delegating to a state the authority of the EPAadministrator to approve a request to use an alternative method to determine the HAPcontent of a coating, the definitions have been revised to indicate that approval of alternative methods needs EPAapproval when dealing with the HAP content of coatings. In theviewof the Agency, this revision is not significant and does not require a new

public hearing because it does not "cause[ ] the published summary to become misleading or inadequate." 3 V .S.A . §846. Comment 9: . Vermont's rule does not include the requirements for formula assessment plans under 63.803(I) . Vermont's rule does require sources to comply with its state air toxics regulations in Section 5-261 . In Vermont's equivalency demonstration, Vermont must demonstrate how its rule is equivalent without these requirements. . Response 9

: . The SIP submittal will include an appropriate demonstration, but no change is needed in the proposed rule. Comment 10

: Under Sections 5-253.16(e)(2)(iii) and (e)(3)(ii), Vermont allows a source to demonstrate compliance by "achieving equivalent emission reductions through the use of a control systemapproved by the Air Pollution Control Officer" . Vermont's rule must define how

an equivalent emission reduction will be determined using a formula that references back to the coating/adhesive limits as the MACT standard does. We understand that Vermont has revised its SIP narrative to require the Air Pollution Control Officer to followthe calculations provided in SubpartJJ, but we believe this formula must be included in Vermont's wood furniture rule so that it is clear how Vermont will determine that a source is achieving an equivalent emission reduction. In addition, Sections 5-253.16(e)(2)(iii) and (e)(3)(ii) must be revised to make it clear that a source must propose monitoring requirements as well as a control system . Section 5- 253.16(e)(2)(iii) should be rewritten to include the formula, something like the following: By achieving equivalent emission reductions through the use of a control systemand monitoring requirements approved by theAir Pollution Control Officer. The control systemmust achieve an overall control efficiency no greater than 1 .0 (the finishing material limit) . [Include an equation like the equation fromSection 63.804(a)(3) here.] Section 5-253.16(e)(3)(ii) must also be revised to include the appropriate formulae. Response 10

: The Agency has revised the proposed rule to add "and monitoring requirements" as requested. The Agency believes that this revision is not significant and does not require a new public hearing because it does not "cause[ ] the published summary to become misleading or inadequate." 3V .S.A. §846. However, theAgency believes that the use of add-on control technologies is very unlikely due to their cost and because compliant coatings are readily available. The rule's requirement that the control technology must "achiev[e] equivalent emission Page 10reductions" and be approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer will assure that the rule

is applied in a manner at least as stringent as the federal rule. Comment 11 : Under Sections 5-253.16(e)(2)(iv), Vermont allows sources to use any combination of material limits, averaging or a control systemas approved by the APCO . We believe this provision must be qualified with a reference to the previous requirements. For example, Section 5-253.16(e)(2)(iv) should be revised like the following: "By achieving equivalent emission reductions through the use of compliant finishing materials as described in paragraph 5-253.16(e)(2)(i), an averaging approach as described in paragraph 5-253.16(e)(2)(ii), and a control systemapproved by theAir Pollution Control Officer as described in paragraph 5-253.16(e)(2)(iii) ." Section 5- 253.16(e)(1)(iv) should be similarly amended. Response 11 : A reference to the appropriate sections has been added to 5- 253.16(e)(2)(iv), and to 5-253.16(e)(1)(iv) to maintain parallelismof the language, although not in the precise formas suggested. Because the initially proposed language was not very ambiguous about this internal reference, the Agency believes that this revision is not significant and does not require a new public hearing because it does not "cause[ ] the published summary to become misleading or inadequate." 3 V .S.A . §846. Comment 12:

. Although Vermont does not foresee add on control devices as a likely scenario'for ay of its sources, the APCOis given discretion in this rule to approve a control systemthat achieves equivalent reductions. In comment 10, we are asking that Vermont qualify this by including a formula like the MACT does that ties back to the coating limit. In the case of a source that relies on a control system, the formula would be the standard that must be met. As a standard, it must appear in the rule itself rather than the narrative. EPA notes that other provisions are left to the APCO's discretion, such as monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for sources that use a control system, however, the affected source is not specifically bound by these requirements. TherefQre, we request that Vermont revise its SIP narrative like the following. "All sources subject to such regulations will be required by the ^ Itutiea

' ef to followtest methods, calculation procedures, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements contained in the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations and guidance documents or alternative recordkeeging and monitoring consistent with EPA's regulations as approved bv theAir Pollution Control Officer. Some of these requirements as may be applicable are specified in, but not necessarily limited to, the EPA documents "Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology (unnumbered, June 1992), "Control ofVolatile Organic Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations" (EPA453/R-96-007), and 40 C .F.R. Part 63 SubpartJJ - National Emission Standards forWood Furniture Manufacturing 6perations. The Air Pollution Control Officer will not allow

the use of any test methods as alternatives to established EPA test methods without prior approval of EPA ." This language strengthens the enforceability by obligating the source to followEPA monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping unless an alternative is approved by the APCO . EPAwould then accept that these provisions adequately delineate the APCO's range of discretion in implementing the standard. Also, during EPAreviewof the sources Title V Page 11operating permit, EPAwould reviewthe permit to ensure that appropriate monitoring,

reporting and recordkeeping is required. Response 12: The SIP submittal will include the appropriate language, but no change is needed in the proposed rule. Comment 13: EPA's rule requires sources to submit an initial compliance status report 60 days after its compliance demonstration [sic - date? 40 CFR 63.807(b)] . Vermont's rule does not include this requirement. Although existing sources have already satisfied this requirement under EPA's rule, a new source that starts up must submit an initial notification within 60 days of startup. Because Vermont intends to continue to require sources to followthe Subpart AGeneral Provisions, any new source will be required to submit an initial notification under Section 63.(9)(h), including the information identified in Section 63.9(h) . Response 13: The Agency does not anticipate the startup of new major wood furniture manufacturing sources in Vermont and has decided that a set semi-annual reporting period is sufficient for Vermont. The reporting period ending June 30th and December 315` will result in initial reports as timely as the federal rule in some cases and as delayed as five months in the worst cases. Therefore, given the extensive permitting work done with major wood furniture sources before startup, the likelihood of an on-site compliance inspection during the initial semi-annual period, the limited oversight resources available to theAgency, the burden on the source and the likely insignificant excessive emissions that might occur, the Agency believes that the requirement for a separate initial compliance status report 60 days after its compliance demonstration is unnecessary and that the rule without the requirement is no less stringentthan the federal standard. Due to the lack of clarity in Section 63.9(h) regarding the need for and timing of the submission of such initial compliance reports, the Agency will make clear in its wood furniture rule that thefirst semi-annual compliance report will also serve as the initial notification of compliance status, unless an earlier compliance status report is required by the Title V permit for a source. TheAgency believes that this revision is not significant and does not require a new public hearing because it does not "cause[ ] the published summary to become misleading or inadequate." 3V .S.A . §846 . Comment '!4: We have the following minor comments related to grammar or typographical errors. On page 2-4 paragraph (c)(2)(i), "Using" should be "Use" . Also, some sections have words that are not underlined when the rest of the heading is underlined (see Sections 5-253.16(c)(1) and (c)(2)) . In Section 5-253.16(d)(8)(vi)(A), in the sentence with the speed is to high, "to" should be "too" . Response 14

: The suggested changes have been made to Section 5-253.16(c)(2)(i) and Section 5-253.16(d)(8)(vi)(A) . The underlining has been removed and replaced with appropriate bolded characters.COMPLIANCE TIME LINE

Compliance Section of regulation or requirement Due Date Rule's §(c) Standards, including: effective date §(c)(.1) VOCEmission Limitations (or start of §(c)(2) VHAP Emission Limitations for Existing Sources 

### operation, or §(c)(3) VHAP Emission Limitations for New Sources ;, when first §(c)(4) Control of Emissions of Individual Hazardous Air Contaminants subject) §(e) Compliance Procedures and Monitoring Requirements, including:

- use compliant finishing materials and adhesives; - keep current CPDS (MSDS) ; and - calculate and meet monthlyweighted averages. §(f) Record Keeping Requirements, including: - Keep CPDSs (MSDSs) ; VHAP contents; VOCcontents; finishing material, adhesive, etc. quantities used monthly; monthly averaging calculations. - Keep continuous coater data, e.g., viscosity, solvent additions. - Keep work practice implementation plan and related records. - Keep copies of semi-annual com pliance status reports. +60days §(d) Work Practice Standards: develop work practice implementation plan,

that addresses: - operator training course (see below) ; - equipment leak inspection and maintenance plan; - cleaning and wash off solvent accounting system ; - chemical composition of cleaning and wash off solvents; - spray booth cleaning; . 

### - storage requirements; - conventional air spray gun application requirements; 

### - line cleaning; -gun cleaning; and - wash off operations. +6 months §(d)(2) Operator Training Course: Train all existing personnel . Train new

personnel upon hiring. Give refresher training annuall y. +7 months §(g) Reporting Requirements: submit semi-annual compliance status report

for first six months ofoperation under rule. Submit subsequent six month reports by July 31 and January 31, based on the calendar year (January 1 to June 30 ; Jul 1 to December 31 Semi-annual §(g) Reporting Requirements: submit semi-annual compliance status report

see above). Annually §(d)(2) Operator Training Course: give refresher training.

# EPA COMMENT 2

RESPONSIVENESS DEMONSTRATION The following comment was provided by the U.S. EPA on December 17, 2002 in regards to Vermont's proposed wood furniture regulation §5-253.16 Wood Furniture Manufacturing implementing the CTGand MACT requirements. Comment 2

: Section (e)(1) states that facilities may comply with the rule's VOCemission limits through the use of monthly weighted averaging, whereas EPA's CTG recommends daily averaging. Under EPA's Economic Incentive Program Guidance, however, extended averaging periods are allowed provided that certain criteria are met. These criteria are discussed on pages 242-244 of Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs," (EPA-452/R-01-001), January 2001 . Therefore, if Vermont adopts the proposed section (e)(1)(ii) monthly averaging provision, then the SIP submittal for the wood furniture rule should include a demonstration outlining howthese criteria have been met. EPAcan work with Vermont to develop this demonstration. Vermont's regulation §5-253.16 Wood Furniture Manufacturing was adopted on August 14, 2003 with an effective date of March 1, 2004. While section (c)(1) of the regulation establishes the same emission limits as recommended in the CTG, section (e)(1)(ii) allows the use of a monthly weighted average verses the CTG recommended daily average for compliance. During development of the regulation the Agency carefully considered this issue and determined that a monthly weighted average was most appropriate for several reasons. In addition to being overly burdensome on affected industries to maintain daily records and on the Agency to reviewthose records, the accuracy of such records are likely less than monthly records for facilities using larger containers such as drums where accurately estimating the quantity of coating used is more difficult and judgmental than with smaller containers. The wood furniture CTG in fact focuses its applicability to those larger facilities most likely to use the larger containers by use of the 25 ton per year VOC emission threshold as opposed to most other CTGs which base applicability on the 15 pounds per day threshold. In addition, these larger facilities are also more likely to have consistent day-in day-out finishing operations which are not subject to the same daily variations that smaller, batch type finishing operations experience where one coating may be used one day and a different coating the next. Thus the daily averages are not expected to be significantly different than the monthly average. In any event, it is expected that facilities will strive to comply with the emission limits through use of compliant coatings rather than a weighted average approach in order to simplify compliance, rendering the averaging issue mute. Some of the criteria for considering longer averaging periods discussed in the Economic Incentive ProgramGuidance are: enforceability, consistency with attaining the 03 NAAQS, and effect on combined maximumdaily emissions fromall facilities. As noted above, enforceability is expected to be improved with the longer averaging time due to reduced resources and effort needed to reviewthe lower volume of records and the improved accuracy of the records. The monthly averaging time will also enable the facility to identify possible compliance issues during the compliance period and make adjustments if necessary to stay in compliance for the averaging period. With respect to attainment of the 03 NAAQS and the effect on combined maximum daily emissions from the subject facilities, Vermont is currently in attainment statewide and the limited number of facilities subject to this CTG are not expected to themselves significantly effect compliance with the NAAQS .

### 12/17/02 17:04 ff :01/06 N0:389

~~EOBI,~~s

t~( ./'l1p~f~ ( F

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 1 1 CONGRESS STREET, SUITE 1100 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-2023

December 17, 2002 Doug Elliott Air Pollution Control Division Agency of Natural Resources Building 3 South 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05676 

### Dear Mr. Elliott: OFTWNAI FORM 99 0 M1) FAX TRANSMITTAL +~o~p.o~~ 

## ,~ rUU Elli0~

" `~°' ~~

.r, L~C .e,. DepUAaanr:Y ?hotw5' j 

## ;~ d~l -a5'9D rut . 79Ht-f1i .117 7]6d 5099-1n, GENERAL SEF1vIcES TIUN



### EPA appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the Vermont Air Pollution Control Division's proposed regulation and associated State implementation Plan (SIP) narrative for controlling volatile organic compounds (VnCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) fromwood furniture manufacturing operations. A public hearing on this proposal was scheduled for December 10, 2002. Previously, EPAstaffreviewed earlier drafts of Vermont's wood furniture regulation and , provided comments to the State in a letter d;~ted June 28, 2001, and electronically on August 17, 2001 . Comments regarding the tilt' narrative language were also sent electronically to Vermont on October 31, 2002. EPAstaffhave reviewed the proposed regulation and SIPnarrative. We appreciate tile changes you rnude to address our comments oil hrcviou-s drafts. Cuninicriti on the proposal are provided in the Enclosure. In order for [:PA to approve Ver)tiont's wood furtiiture rule as a substitute for the NESHAP. Vermont must address comments Gthrough 12 in the enclosure. Ifyou have any questions on VOCrequirements, please contact Anne Arnold at 617-918-1047. Ifyou have any questions cm1 IAII requirements, please contact Susan Lancey at 617-919-1656, Sincerely. 

# -mdo"If '.P Michael P

. Kenyon, Chief Air Programs Branch 

### Enclosure

Toll Fr** -1-b98-372~7341 Intamat Address (URL) " http://www epa.govlmpionl qscyebdlflseyclobls "Printed wNhVegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mlnimum30%Potleonsumri)

### 12/17/02 17 :04[5 :02/06 N0:389

re Endow EPA'S COMMENTS ONVERMONT'S PROPOSED WOODFURNITURE MANUFACTURINGREGULATION ANDASSOCIATEDSIP NARRATIVE 1 . Section 5-253.16(g)(1)(iii) addresses sources demonsfrtitin6 compliance with sections ofthe rule that contain both VOCand VHAP emission limits. Subsections (A) and ($) ofthis provision, however, only reference the VHAP content ofcoatings. Therefore, EPA recommends that this provision be revised to read as follows: "(iii) Forstationary sources with continuous cofiters demonstrating compliance with (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(i), or (c)(3)(i) through the use ofcompliant coatings: (A) Astatement that compliant coatings, as determined by the VHAPor VOC content of the coating in the reservoir and the VHAPor VO content as calculated fromrecords, and compliant thitviers have been used each day in the semiannual reporting period; or (A) Astatement that comp)iunt coatings, as determined by the VHAPor 0 content ofthe coating in the reservoir, have been used each day in the semiannual reporting period. Additionally, a statement that the viscosity ofthe coating in the reservoir has not been less than the viscosity of the initial coating, that is, the coating that is initially mixi ;d and placed in the reservoir, for any day in the semiannual reporting period. 

### A stationary source is in violation ofthe standard when a sample ofthe as applied coating exceeds the applicahle limit, as determined using EPAMethod 311 and/or Method 24, or the viscosity ofthe coating in the rcscrvoir is less than the viscosity ofthe initial coating." 2. Section (e)(1)(ii) states that facilities may comply with the rule's VOCemission limits through the use of monthly weighted averaging, whereas EPA's CTG' recommends daily averaging. Under EPA's Economic Incentive ProgramGuidance, however, extended averaging periods are allowed provided that certain criteria are met. These criteria are discussed on pages 242-244of "Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentivc Program,," (EPA-452/R-01-001), January 2001 . (This document was previously sent to Vermont along with EPA's comments on the draft rule.) Therefore, ifVermont adopts the proposed section (c)(1)(ii) monthly averaging provision, then the SIPsubmittal for the wood furniture rule should include a demonstration outlining how these criteria have been met. EPAcan work with Vermont to develop this demonstration. 3. 1n conversations with Vcrrnur1t st;lff, l:l'n n0ted tlha1 it is not clear as to why some sections of 1 "Control of VcrlatilC Organic Compound Ctnissiuns liurn Wuud Furniture Manufacturing Operations," h ;l'A-453/IZ-9G-0t)7, April 1991i .

### 12/17/02 17:04 15 :03/06 N0:389 i

2 

### the proposed rule state that alternatives must be approved by the Secretary, while other sections statc that altcrnativcs must be approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer. Vermont staff have indicated that the termAir Pollution Control Officer should be used throughoutthe rule and that the rule will be so revised prior to its adoption. 4 . Pages 66-70of the SIPnarrative outline the test rnethods, calculationprocedures, and record keeping and monitoring requirements associated with Vermont's surface coating rules. Procedures 1-6 on these pages contain several references to Vermont's rule for the surface coating ofmiscellaneous metal parts, 5-253.13 . For example, procedure 4on page 69outlines the "procedures for determining the VOCcontent ofcoatings under 5-253.13." Procedures 1-6, however, also apply to Vermont's proposed wood furniture rule, 5-253.16, as well as to Vermont's existing paper coating rule, 5-253.10 . In addition, these procedures apply to Vermont's rule for the coating offlat wood paneling, 5-253.12, with the exception that the formulas in procedures 1, 2, and 6 need to be adjusted to reflect the fact that the flat wood paneling coating limits are stated in terms of Ibs VOCper 1,000sq ft ofcoated product, rather than in terms of Ibs VOCper gallon ofcoating. Therefore, pages 66-70ofthe SIPnarrative should berevised to appropriately reference Vermont's other surface coating rules in addition to the currently. referenced 5-253.13. 5. Page 66 ofthe SIPnarrative states that there are "four known existing sources in the State of Vermont" that are subject to Vermont's Section 5-253.20, "Other Sources That Emit Volatile . Organic Compounds." Previously, however, EPAwas under the impression that there was only one source, U.S. Samaica, subject to this rule. Conversations with Vermont staff have verified that U .S. Samaica is the only source subject to this rule. Therefore, page 66 should be updated to state that there is only one source subject to 5-253.20 . 6 . In order for EPAto approveVermont's rule as a substitute for the MACT standard, Vermont's rule must include applicability criteria that are no less stringent than the MACT standard (63.93(b)(1)) . Vermont's rule provides an exemption for manufacturing sources that use no more than 100gallons per month offinishing materials or 100 gallons per month of contact adhesives. EPA's rule provides an exemption for incidental wood furniture manufacturers that use no more than 100 gallons per month of finishing materials or adhesives. EPAlimits this exemption to a total of 100gallons per month for finishing materials and adhesives. Vermont's rule should be revised to limit the usage to no more than a total of 100 gallons per month for finishing materials and adhesives. 7. Vermont has indicated that it intends to require sources to followthe EPA General Provisions and not request that these provisions be substituted. Vermont was delegated the Subpart A General Provisions. but the delegation actually occurs upon Title Vpermit issuance to the regulated sources. '1'here(vre, EPA reconYrncnds that Vermont's wood furniture rule include a reference to the Subpart AGeneral Provisions. As an alternative, Vemicrnt could request a partial rule substitution and EPAcould approve the wood furniture rule excluding the Subpart A General Provisions.

### 12/17/02 17:04 (5 :04/06 N0:389

3 8 . In a number ofplaces in Vermont's regulation, Vermont allows Secretary or Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) discretion for alternatives to its rules. As noted above, Vermont intends to change its regulation to require the APCOrather than the Secretary to approve alternatives.' In general, EPA is concemed that state discretion could result in a requirement that is less stringent than the federal rule. Therefore, in arderforVermont's rule to be approved as a substitute forthe MACT rule, Vermont must require that EPAapprove the following alternatives as well as Vermont. 

### A) In 5-101, the definition ofactual emissions allows the Secretary "to use a different time period upon determination that it is more representative" . We do not believe this definition is used in the wood furniture regulation and therefore, .we would not need to approve this definition aspart ofthe wood furniture rule substitution. B) In the definitions, Vermont includes a definition for certified product data sheet and coating solids. These require sources to use Method 311 and/or Method 24 or an equivalent and alternative method. Vermont must revise these definitions to only allow an alternative method approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer and EPA ac,pording to Section 63.805(a) . 9 . Vermont's rule does not include the requirements for formula assessment plans under 63.803(1) . Vermont's rule does require sources to comply with its state air toxics regulations in Section 5-261 . In Vermont's equivalency demonstration, Vermont must demonstrate how its rule is equivalent without these requirements. 10 . Under* Sections 5-253.16(e)(2)(iii) and (e)(3)(ii), Vermont allows a source to demonstrate compliance by "achieving equivalent emission reductions through the use ofa control system approved by theAir Pollution Control Oliiccr" . Verrnont's rule must. define how an equivalent. emission reduction will be detennined using :t formula that references back to the coating/adhesive limits as the MAC'1' standard does. We understand that Vermont has revised its SIPnarrative to require the Air Pollution Control Officer to followthe calculations provided in Subpart JJ, but we believe this formula must be included in Vennont's wood furniture rule so that it is clear how

Vermont will determine that a source is achieving an equivalent emission reduction. In addition, Sections 5-253.16(e)(2)(iii) and (e)(3)(ii) must be revised to make it clear that A source must propose monitoring requirements as well as a control system . Section 5- 253.16(e)(2)(iii) should be rewritten to include the fomiula, something like the following: By achieving equivalent emission reductions tluvugh the use ofa control systemand monitoring re uirements approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer. ~rhe control systemmust achieve an overall control efficiency no greater than 1 .0 (the finishing material limit) . [Include an equation like the equation fromSection 63.804(a)(3) hcre.I Section 5-253.16(e)(3)(ii) must also be revised to include the appropriate formulae. 11 . Under Sections 5-253.16(e)(2)(iv), Vennont allows sOurces to use any combination of material limits, averaging or u control systemas approved by the APCO . We believe this provision must be qualified with a reference to the previou" requirements. For example. Section

.

### 12/17/02 17 :04 (9 :05/06 N0:389 (

9 

### 5-253.16(e)(2)(iv) should be revised like the following: "By achieving equivalent emission reductions through the use ofcompliant finishing materials as described in,par graph 5- . 253 16(el(2)(i), an averaging approach as described in paragraph 5-253.16(e)(2)(ii) , and acontrol systemapproved by the Air Pollution Control Officer as described in 12 .~rag~rh 5- 253.16C iii ." Section 5-253.16(e)(1)(iv) should be similarly amended. 12. Although Vermont does not foresee add on control devices as a likely scenario for any ofits sources, the APCOis given discretion in this rule to approve a control systemthat achieves equivalent reductions. In comment 10, we are asking that Vermont qualify this by including a formula like the MACT does that ties back to the coating limit. In the case ofa source that relies on a control system, the formula would be the standard that must be met. As a standard, it must appear in the rule itselfrather than the narrative. EPAnotes that otherprovisions are left to the APC'.U's discretion, such as monitoring, recordkecping and reporting requirements for sources that use a control system, however, the affected source is not specifically bound by these requirements. Therefore, we request that Vermont revise its SIP narrative like the following. "All sources subject to such regulations will be required by the Ai . Pallution Eon 6ffieer to followtest methods, calculation procedures, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements s contained in the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations and guidance documents or alternative recordkeeain¢ and monitorint! consistent with EPA's regulations as approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer. Some of these requirements as may be applicable are specified in, but not necessarily limited to, the EPA documents "Mudel Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available Control Tcchnolugy (unnumbered, June 1992), "Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions fromWood Furniture Manufacturing Operations" (GI'A-453/R-96-007), and 10 C.r .R. Part. 63 Subpart JJ - National Emissi~,n Standards tar Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations. The Air Pollution Control Officer will not allowthe use of any test methods as alternatives to established EPAtest methods without prior approval of EPA ." This language strcngthcns the enforceability by obligating the source to followEPAmonitoring, reporting and rccordkeeping unless an alternative ix approved by the APCO . CPAwould then accept that these provisions adequately delineate the APCO's range ofdiscretion in implementing the standard. Also, during EPAreview ofthe sources Title Voperating permit, EPAwould reviewthe permit to ensure that appropriate monituritig, reporting and recordkeeping is required. 13. EPA's rule requires sources to submit an initial compliance status report 60days after its compliance demonstration

.Vermont's rule does not include this requirement. Although existing scmrces have already satisfied this requirement under EPA's rule, a new source that starts up must submit an initial notification within 60days of startup. Because Vermont. intends to continue to require sources to followthe Subpart AGeneral Provisions, any new source will be required to submit an initial notification under Section 63.(9)(h), including the information identified in Section 63.9(h) .

### 12/17/02 17:04 15 :06/06 N0:389 (

J 

### 14. We have the following minor comments related to grammar or typographical errors. On page 2-4 paragraph (c)(2)(i), "Using" should Uc "Use" . Also, some sections have words that ate not underlined whenthe rest ofthe heading is underlined (sec Sections 5-253.16(c)(1) and (c)(2)) . In Section 5-253.16(d)(8)(vi)(A), in the sentence with the speed is to high, "to" should be "too".Ethan Allen -~ve, P.O. Box 1966 Danbury. ConneCtitut 06813-1966 203.743.8000 Fax 203,743.8298 Telex 6819348



### ET HAN VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL 

# ALLEN December 17, 2002

I NC. Richard A

. Valentinetti, Director Air Pollution Control Division Agency ofNatural Resources Department ofConservation 

### 103South Main Street Building 3 South Waterbury, VT 05671-0402 Re: Ethan Allen Inc.'s Comments on the Pro Rm lation Dear Mr- Valentinetti : osed Wood Furniture M anufacturin

I am writing on behalf of EthanAllen Inc. ("Ethan Allen") to provide comments on the Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, Air Pollution Control Division's (the "Agency's") proposed regulation pertaining to wood furniture manufacturing. As an initial matter, Ethan Allen appreciates theAgency's efforts to fulfill its federal CleanAir Act obliDations and its efforts to facilitate Ethan Allen's input on the Regulation. EthanAllen supports and concurs with the Agency on the majority ofthe substantive requirements set forth in the proposed Regulation. However, EthanAllen does have comments and suggested revisions to the 

### Regulation, as it will undoubtedly have a significant impact on Ethan Allen's present and future Vermont operations. 1 . Comments on Proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4) - TheAgency Should Expand the Exclusion from& 5-261 to Include HMSER Requirements and Other T ow-VOC Coating Technol EthanAllen believes that § 5-261 ofthe Air Pollution Control Regulations ("Regulation") is extremely onerous and represents a significant obstacle to economic development within Vermont. EthanAllencontinues to expend a significant amount of resources to meet the regulatory limits set forth in § 5-261 ofthe Regulations, despite the fact that these limits are often flawed or unachievable for technical and economic reasons. As the costs associated with meeting these flawed regulatorylimits rise, the positive environmental returns also greatly diminish. Due to these concerns, EthanAllen is pleased that proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4) will carve out a partial exemption for water-based and ultraviolet light ("UV") coatings from§ 5-261 . Nonetheless, EthanAllen believes that the Agency must make this exclusion broader and more flexible to ensure the continued viability of the wood furniture manufacturing industry in Vermont. The Agency can do so by considering and accepting the following comments: " TheAgency should extend the exclusion provided in § 5-261 and as set forth in proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4) to include all potentially applicable requirements of § 5-261, including Hazardous Most Stringent Emission Limitation ("HMSER") requirements. Ethan Allen currently is waiting for theAgency's HMSERdetermination for a proposed automated flatline UV coating system

. This proposed systemalso employs rollcoat technolooy, which uses water-based and otherVOC-free coatings. Such a system would result in significantly lower emissions than traditional coating systems. In fact, similar systems have been recognized as representing the "Lowest Achievable Emission Rate" for volatile compounds in ozone nonattainment areas. However, in order to purchase, install and operate this systemwithin Vermont, Ethan Allen is required to first obtain a HMSERdetermination fromtheAgency. Delay associated with obtaining this HMSERdetennination for such a "state ofthe art" system(assuming that the Agency is even willing to provide this authorization) potentially could lead to this systemnever being installed. In order to facilitate Ethan Allen's investment into "state ofthe art" wood furniture finishing operations within Vermont, theAgency should revise proposed § 5- 253.16(c)(4) to provide a complete exemption from§ 5-261 for UV, water-based and other VOC-free coatings. 1n the a1ternative, the Agency should include regulatory lanD age to the effect that t:Vcoatings, waterbased coatings and other "state ofthe art" finishing and coating technologies reflect H

.tiISERfor thepurposes of 5-261 . " The Agency should expand the exclusion from§ 5-261 to include: (1) coatings beyondjust UVor water-based coatings; and (2) application technologies that decrease VOCemissions. Coatings and coating application technology change rapidly in the wood furniture manufacturing industry, and thepace of these changes continue to increase as relevant technologies become ever more advanced. However, as currently drafted, the exclusion from§ 5-261 would apply only to waterbased and UV coatings. The Regulation as currently drafted will therefore discourage the use ofany "state of the art" coatings or application technologies developed after its adoption. To remedy this unacceptable situation, the Regulation needs to allowsubject sources to qualify unlisted coatings and coating application technologies forthe § 5-261 exclusion. In particular, Ethan Allen suggests that proposed § 5-253.I 6(c)(4) should require the source seeking the exemption to demonstrate to the Agency's reasonable satisfaction that the emission reductions associated with a

### certain coating or application technology are equivalent to those achieved through theuse of UV orwater-based coatinas (dependino upon finish quality requirements) or otherwise represent a net environmental benefit (in terms oftoxicity or overall emission reductions) . Finally, EthanAllen requests that the Agency confirm its interpretation ofthe phrase "provided that such coatings meet the standards established in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3)" in proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4)(ii) . To comply with the lbs VOC/lbs solids content limits set forth "in paragraphs (e)(1), (2) and (3)", the Regulation allows for the use of monthly averaging. See Proposed § 5-253.16(e)(1)(ii) . As a result, Ethan Allen believes that proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4)(ii) as currently drafted would allowfor the use ofa coating with a lbs VOC/lbs solid content in excess of "the standards established in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3)", provided that the monthly average of all topcoats and sealers used by the source met such standards. The use of so-cW

led performance coatings (which could potentially include UV coatings) is becoming more and more common in the wood furniture manufacturing industry. In some instances, however, performance coatings may exceed the Ibs VOC/lbs solid content limits set forth in proposed §§ 5-253.16(e)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(33), despite the fact that the overall emissions associated with the use ofsuch coatings are less than conventional coatings. These lower emissions are often attributable to the use of more precise application technologies or chemical reactions that trap volatile materials within the finish. If the Agency does not concur with EthanAllen's interpretation of Proposed § 5- 253.16(e)(1)(ii), then the Regulation would discourage the use of performance coatings that may otherwise be environmentally beneficial, andwhichwill, in some cases, represent economic and business imperatives to EthanAllen and similar situated businesses in Vermont. As a result, EthanAllen would strongly recommend that theAgency revise Proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4) to specifically allowfor monthly averaging when determining whether a certain coating meets "the standards established in paragraphs (c)(1), (2). and (3)" . Ethan Allen asks that theAgency revise proposed § 5-253.16(c)(4) in accordance with the foregoing comments. To do otherwise would raise tremendous concerns on the part oi~ Ethan Allen with respect to the effect ofthe Regulation. To facilitate the incorporation ofthese comments into the Regulation, EthanAllen suggests the following changes to the regulatory text:



### Control ofEmissions ofIndividual Hazardous Air Contaminants. .Each owner or operator ofa stationary source subject to this subsection shcrll comply with Section .i-261 ofthis chapter with regards to volatile hcraurdotts air contaminants as provided below : (i) With regardto anyvolatile hazardous air contaminant whose emission ratefromthe entire stationary snurce isfound to exceed its,9ctian Level, the owner or operator shall achieveFIMSER, as provided in subsection (3) ofSection .i-261, e .xD .I as provided by_subrnaraoranh (iz) o,tthis subsect .lon; and (ii) The owner oroperator shall be subject to the requirements of' subsectionsj.~ (4), (5) and (b) of~Section 5-261, where applicable, except that said requirements shall not apply to any emissions ofvolatile harardous air contaminants caused by the use ofwater basedcoatings,of coatings cured by means of ultraviolet radiation, or other coatLngg t .ethtto oQies demonstrated to theAgencv's reasoraahle satisfaction to result in a net environrnental beneftt or achieve emission reductionssimilar to those achieved through _th_e use of_water b

acedcoatines or coatings curedby means of ultraviolet radiation

. provided that °u^1 ^"'aiin°4 m° "'t ,t1 ~'g owner_or operator meets the standards establishedin paragraphs (c)(1), (2) and (3) ofthis subsection. " 2 . Comments on Proposed § 5-253.16(d)(2) 

### The A ;zency Should Eliminate the Annual "Refresher" Training Requirement Proposed § 5-253.16(d)(2) requires all existing and new personnel involved in - finishing, gluing, cleaning, and wash offoperations (or other activities associated with the Regulation) . The purposes ofthis training is to ensure that owners/operators implement "environmentally desired work practices" . EthanAllen agrees that this type ofemployee training is necessary, and already has a programin place to ensure its employees, new

and existing, receive such training. EthanAllen does object, however, to the requirement in proposed § 5-253.16(d)(2) that would require retraining ofemployees on an annual basis. The costs associated with such training is simply not warranted by any possible environmental benefit. EthanAllen believes that the Regulation should not include a requirement to retrain employees. In the alternative, if theAgency believes that the Regulation must include a retraining requirement, the frequency should not be any less than three (3) ycars. 

### In closing, I would like to thank the Agency for an opportunity to comment on the Regulation and acknowledge the efforts ofAgency staffwho participated in the preparation of the Regulation. I encourage you to contact me ifyou have any questions pertaining to Ethan Allen's comments. Sincerely, Paul Kaminski Director of Environment, Health and Safety EthanAllen Inc.