ENCLOSURE2 

LIST OF WITNESSES & COMMENTS RECEIVED 
There 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 who did not 

identify himself. Responses to the oral comments and questions at the hearing are included in 

the attached responsiveness summary dated June 24, 2003 . 

Comment letters were received from two parties on December 17, 2002 within the 7 day 

period following the hearing during which the Agency had specified that comments would be 

considered . 

The written comments were from: 

Paul Kaminski, Director of Environment, Health and Safety, Ethan Allen Inc. 

and 

Michael P. Kenyon, Chief of the Air Programs Branch, Region I, USEPA. 

The responsiveness summary dated June 24, 2003 indicates how the Agency has considered 

these written comments when proposing 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, 2003 
I . NO WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO 12/10/'02 

No written or oral comments were received prior to the public hearing held on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 at the Pavilion auditorium in 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 from the EPA model 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 the federal rules. 

Question [??] : Do any of the other states have less paperwork requirements - for' Reports, record-keeping, etc.? 

Answer: The Agency is not familiar with the requirements of all other state 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 if somebody 

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 of this 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 1 
effective date will provide adequate opportunity to process the amendment applications 

provided the facility applies in a timely manner. 

Question [??]: Does HMSER still 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 from other parts of 

Section 5-261 (Control of Hazardous Air Contaminants), provided the facility meets the 

overall VOC and 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 the Agency expects 

most facilities will comply through the use of low VOC and low HAP coatings. 

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 Ozone Transport Region) . 

Therefore, the VOC requirements are likely to be similar in all the northeast states, since 

they are all 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 RECEIVED AFTER 12110/'02 PUBLIC HEARING 

The Air pollution Control Division received written comments from Ethan 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 : Ethan Allen supports and concurs with the Agency 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), the Agency should expand the 

exclusion from § 5-261 to include HMSER requirements and other low-VOC coating 

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, Ethan Allen 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, Ethan Allen 

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 : 

The Agency 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. The Agency 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, the Agency should 

include regulatory language to the effect that UV coatings, water-based 

coatings and other "state of the art" finishing and coating technologies reflect 

HMSER for the purposes of 5-261 . 

" The Agency should expand the exclusion from § 5-261 to include: (1) 

coatings beyond just UV or water-based coatings ; and (2) application 

technologies that decrease VOC emissions. 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 UV coatings . 

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 

allow subject sources to qualify unlisted coatings and coating application 

technologies for the § 5-261 exclusion. In particular, Ethan Allen suggests 

that proposed § 5-253.16(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 the use of UV or waterbased coatings (depending upon finish quality requirements) or otherwise 

represent a net environmental benefit (in terms of toxicity or overall emission 

reductions). 

Page 3 
Finally, Ethan Allen requests that the Agency confirm its 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 set forth in proposed §§ 5-253 .16(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3), despite the fact 

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 concur with 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 the Agency 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 or operator of a stationary source subject to this subsection shall comply 

with Section 5-269 of this chapter with regards to volatile hazardous air 

contaminants as provided below: 

(i) With regard to any volatile hazardous air contaminant whose 

emission rate from the entire stationary source is found to exceed 

its Action Level, the owner or operator shall achieve HMSER, as 

provided in subsection (3) of Section 5-261, except as orovided bv 

subparagraph (ii) of this subsection; and 

(ii) The owner or operator shall be subject to the requirements of 

subsections M (4), (5) and (6) of Section 5-261, where 

applicable, except that said requirements shall not apply to any 

emissions of volatile hazardous air contaminants caused by the 

use of water based coatings,, ef coatings cured by means of 

ultraviolet radiation, or other coatings or coatina aa ication 

Page 4 
technologies demonstrated to the Agency's reasonable 

satisfaction to result in a net environmental benefit or achieve 

emission reductions similar to those achieved throuah the use of 

water based coatinas or coatinas cured by means of ultraviolef 

radiati~r , provided that sueh-ssa#ings-meet the owner or o ep rator 

meets the standards established in paragraphs (c)(9), (2) and (3) 

of this subsection. " 

Response 2: There are two parts to this comment from Ethan Allen on proposed § 5--

253.16(c)(4). First, Ethan Allen 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". The Agency : 

agrees that the coatings that qualify for the exemption from § 5-261 provided in 

subparagraph (c)(4) should be allowed to meet the same general VOC and 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 or finishing 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 . The Agency will make this requested change. 

Second, Ethan Allen requests that the Agency 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 Ethan Allen. The 

Agency does not agree to broadening the proposed exemption in the manner suggested. 

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. The Agency 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 the Air Pollution Control Division, 

allows for adequate flexibility, as requested by Ethan Allen, in dealing with toxic 

emissions. In determining the HMSER for 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 scientifically justified criteria for 

evaluating other unlisted coatings. In addition, water based coatings and UV cured 

Page 5 
coatings each contain a different set of chemicals which have different emission 

characteristics which compounds the difficulties in trying to determine whether future 

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". Ethan Allen agrees that this type of employee 

training is necessary, and already has a program in 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 for wood 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 the work 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 program in 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 from Michael 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 6 
supplement the proposed Wood Furniture Manufacturing rule . However, the SIP 

amendment is not actually part of the proposed rule and the EPA comments only 

addressing them are 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 VOC and VHAP emission 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) A statement that compliant coatings, as determined by the VHAP or 

VOC content of the coating in the reservoir and the VHAP or VOC content 

as calculated from records, and compliant thinners have been used each 

day in the semiannual reporting period ; or 

(B) A statement that compliant coatings, as determined by the VHAP or 

VOC content 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 . 

A stationary 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 the viscosity of the coating in the reservoir is less than 

the viscosity of the initial coating ." 

Response 1 : The omission of "VOC" in this section was 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 that facilities may comply with the rule's VOC 

emission 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 . (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. EPA can work 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 7 
Response 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 the Air 

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 the Agency in either 

case, 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 4: Pages 66-70 of 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 VOC per 1,000 sq ft of coated product, rather than in terms of Ibs 

VOC per gallon of coating. Therefore, pages 66-70 of 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, EPA was 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 EPA to 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 100 gallons per month of finishing 

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 

Page 8 
per month of finishing materials or adhesives. EPA limits 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 100 gallons per month for finishing 

materials and adhesives. 

Response 6: The Agency 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 for finishing materials and adhesives" as opposed to the federal rule which says," 100 gallons per month of finishing materials or adhesives The Agency assumed that had EPA meant "and" it would have used that word . Nothing in the December 7, 1995 

announcement of the Final Rule (60 FR 62930), 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 the Agency'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 100 gallons per month of finishing materials and adhesives combined. Since no additional wood furniture sources will be included or excluded from the 

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 follow the 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 V permit issuance to the regulated sources. Therefore, EPA recommends that 

Vermont's wood furniture rule include a reference to the Subpart A General Provisions. 

As an alternative, Vermont could request a partial rule substitution and EPA could 

approve the wood furniture rule excluding the Subpart A General Provisions. 

Response 7: Given that 40 CFR 63 Subpart A is 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 V Operating Permits, the Agency will request a 

partial rule substitution and will 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 APCO rather 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 EPA approve 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 9 
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 according to Section 63 .805(a). 

Response 8 : Given the explicit restriction in 40 CFR 63.808 on delegating to a state the 

authority of the EPA administrator to approve a request to use an alternative method to 

determine the HAP content of a coating, the definitions have been revised to indicate 

that approval of alternative methods needs EPA approval when dealing with the HAP 

content of coatings . In the view of 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 system approved 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 follow the calculations provided in Subpart JJ, 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 system and 

monitoring requirements approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer. The control 

system must achieve an overall control efficiency no greater than 1 .0 (the finishing 

material limit) . [Include an equation like the equation from Section 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." 3 V.S.A. §846 . 

However, the Agency 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 10 
reductions" 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 system as 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 system approved by the Air 

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 parallelism of the language, 

although not in the precise form as 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 APCO is given discretion in this rule to approve a 

control system that 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 follow test 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 the Air 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 Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (unnumbered, June 1992), "Control of Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations" (EPA453/R-96-007), and 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart JJ - National Emission Standards 

for Wood 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 follow EPA 

monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping unless an alternative is approved by the APCO. 

EPA would then accept that these provisions adequately delineate the APCO's range of 

discretion in implementing the standard . Also, during EPA review of the sources Title V 

Page 11 
operating permit, EPA would review the 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 follow the Subpart A General 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 the Agency, 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 stringent than 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 the first 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 . 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 '!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) VOC Emission 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 monthly weighted averages. 

§(f) Record Keeping Requirements, including : 

- Keep CPDSs (MSDSs); VHAP contents; VOC contents; 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 compliance status reports . 

+60 days §(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 annually. 

+7 months §(g) Reporting Requirements: submit semi-annual compliance status report 

for first six months of operation 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 CTG and MACT requirements . 

Comment 2: Section (e)(1) states that facilities may comply with the rule's VOC emission 

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 how these criteria have 

been met. EPA can 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 review those 

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 Program Guidance are : enforceability, consistency with attaining the 03 NAAQS, and 

effect on combined maximum daily emissions from all facilities . As noted above, enforceability 

is expected to be improved with the longer averaging time due to reduced resources and effort 

needed to review the 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 

~~EO BI,~~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 Ell i0 ~" `~°' ~~. r, L~C.e,. 

DepUAaanr:Y ?hot w 5' 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) from wood 

furniture manufacturing operations. A public hearing on this proposal was scheduled for 

December 10, 2002 . 

Previously, EPA staff reviewed 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. 

EPA staff have reviewed the proposed regulation and SIP narrative. 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 G through 12 in the enclosure. 

If you have any questions on VOC requirements, please contact Anne Arnold at 617-918-1047 . 

If you have any questions cm 1 IAII requirements, please contact Susan Lancey at 617-919-1656, 

Sincerely. 

-mdo"If '.PMichael P. Kenyon, Chief 

Air Programs Branch 

Enclosure 

Toll Fr** -1-b98-372~7341 

Intamat Address (URL) " http ://www epa.govlmpionl 

qscyebdlflseyclobls " Printed wNh Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mlnimum 30% Potleonsumri) 
12/17/02 17 :04[5 :02/06 N0 :389 

Endow re 

EPA'S COMMENTS ON VERMONT'S PROPOSED 

WOOD FURNITURE MANUFACTURING REGULATION 

AND ASSOCIATED SIP NARRATIVE 

1 . Section 5-253 .16(g)(1)(iii) addresses sources demonsfrtitin6 compliance with sections of the 

rule that contain both VOC and VHAP emission limits . Subsections (A) and ($) 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 cofiters demonstrating compliance with 

(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(i), or (c)(3)(i) through the use of compliant coatings : 

(A) A statement that compliant coatings, as determined by the VHAP or VOC 

content of the coating in the reservoir and the VHAP or VO content as 

calculated from records, and compliant thitviers have been used each day in the 

semiannual reporting period ; or 

(A) A statement that comp)iunt coatings, as determined by the VHAP or 0 

content 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 mixi;d and placed in the reservoir, for any day in the 

semiannual reporting period . 

A stationary source is in violation of the standard when a sample of the as applied coating 

exceeds the applicahle limit, as determined using EPA Method 311 and/or Method 24, or 

the viscosity of the coating in the rcscrvoir is less than the viscosity of the initial coating." 

2 . Section (e)(1)(ii) states that facilities may comply with the rule's VOC emission 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 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, if Vermont adopts the proposed section (c)(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. 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 term Air Pollution Control Officer should be used throughout the rule and that 

the rule will be so revised prior to its adoption. 

4. Pages 66-70 of the SIP narrative outline the test rnethods, 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 VOC per 1,000 sq ft of coated product, rather 

than in terms of Ibs VOC per gallon of coating. Therefore, pages 66-70 of the SIP narrative 

should be revised to appropriately reference Vermont's other surface coating rules in addition to 

the currently. referenced 5-253 .13 . 

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, EPA was 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 EPA to 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 100 gallons per month of finishing 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. 

EPA limits 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 100 

gallons per month for finishing materials and adhesives. 

7. Vermont has indicated that it intends to require sources to follow the 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 V permit issuance to the 

regulated sources . '1'here(vre, EPA reconYrncnds that Vermont's wood furniture rule include a 

reference to the Subpart A General Provisions. As an alternative, Vemicrnt could request a 

partial rule substitution and EPA could 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 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 APCO rather 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 arder for Vermont's rule to be approved as a substitute for the 

MACT rule, Vermont must require that EPA approve 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 . 

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 of a control system 

approved by the Air 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 

SIP narrative to require the Air Pollution Control Officer to follow the 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 of a control system and monitoring 

re uirements approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer. ~rhe control system must achieve an 

overall control efficiency no greater than 1 .0 (the finishing material limit) . [Include an equation 

like the equation from Section 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 system as 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 of compliant 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 a control 

system approved 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 of its 

sources, the APCO is given discretion in this rule to approve a control system that 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 

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 follow test 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 from Wood 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 allow the use of any test methods as alternatives to established EPA test methods 

without prior approval of EPA." 

This language strcngthcns the enforceability by obligating the source to follow EPA monitoring, 

reporting and rccordkeeping unless an alternative ix approved by the APCO . CPA would then 

accept that these provisions adequately delineate the APCO's range of discretion in implementing 

the standard . Also, during EPA review of the sources Title V operating permit, EPA would 

review the permit to ensure that appropriate monituritig, reporting and recordkeeping is required . 

13 . EPA's rule requires sources to submit an initial compliance status report 60 days 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 60 days of startup. Because Vermont. intends to 

continue to require sources to follow the Subpart A General 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 when the rest of the 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 

ETHAN 

VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL 

ALLEN December 17, 2002 

I N C. 

Richard A. Valentinetti, Director 

Air Pollution Control Division 

Agency of Natural Resources 

Department of Conservation 

103 South Main Street 

Building 3 South 

Waterbury, VT 05671-0402 

Re: Ethan Allen Inc.'s Comments on the Pro 

Rmlation 

Dear Mr- Valentinetti : 

osed Wood Furniture Manufacturin 

I am writing on behalf of Ethan Allen 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 the Agency's 

efforts to fulfill its federal Clean Air Act obliDations and its efforts to facilitate Ethan 

Allen's input on the Regulation. Ethan Allen supports and concurs with the Agency 

on the majority of the substantive requirements set forth in the proposed Regulation . 

However, Ethan Allen 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) - 

The Agency Should Expand the Exclusion from & 5-261 to Include HMSER 

Requirements and Other T ow-VOC Coating Technol 

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, Ethan Allen 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, Ethan Allen 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: 

" The Agency 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 

the Agency's HMSER determination for a proposed automated flatline UV 

coating system . This proposed system also employs rollcoat technolooy, 

which uses water-based and other VOC-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 system within Vermont, Ethan Allen is required to first obtain a 

HMSER determination from the Agency. Delay associated with obtaining 

this HMSER detennination for such a "state of the art" system (assuming 

that the Agency is even willing to provide this authorization) potentially 

could lead to this system never being installed. In order to facilitate Ethan 

Allen's investment into "state of the art" wood furniture finishing 

operations within Vermont, the Agency 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: V coatings, waterbased coatings and other "state of the art" finishing and coating 

technologies reflect H.tiISER for the purposes of 5-261 . 

" The Agency should expand the exclusion from § 5-261 to include: (1) 

coatings beyond just UV or water-based coatings ; and (2) application 

technologies that decrease VOC emissions. 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 waterbased and UV coatings . 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 allow subject sources to qualify unlisted 

coatings and coating application technologies for the § 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 the use of UV or water-based coatinas (dependino upon finish 

quality requirements) or otherwise represent a net environmental benefit 

(in terms of toxicity or overall emission reductions) . 

Finally, Ethan Allen requests that the Agency confirm its 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 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 allow for 

the use of a 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 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 concur with 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 the Agency 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 of the Regulation. To facilitate the 

incorporation of these comments into the Regulation, Ethan Allen suggests the 

following changes to the regulatory text : 

Control of Emissions of Individual Hazardous Air Contaminants. 

.Each owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this subsection shcrll 

comply with Section .i-261 of this chapter with regards to volatile hcraurdotts 

air contaminants as provided below: 

(i) With regard to any volatile hazardous air contaminant whose 

emission ratefrom the entire stationary snurce is found to 

exceed its,9ctian Level, the owner or operator shall achieve 
FIMSER, as provided in subsection (3) of Section .i-261, e.xD.I 

as provided by_subrnaraoranh (iz) o,tthis subsect. lon; and 

(ii) The owner or operator shall be subject to the requirements of' 

subsections j.~ (4), (5) and (b) of~Section 5-261, where 

applicable, except that said requirements shall not apply to any 

emissions of volatile harardous air contaminants caused by the 

use of water based coatings, of coatings cured by means of 

ultraviolet radiation, or other coatLngg 

t.ethtto oQies demonstrated to the Agencv's reasoraahle 

satisfaction to result in a net environrnental beneftt or achieve 

emission reductions similar to those achieved through _th_e use 

of_water b aced coatines or coatings cured by means of 

ultraviolet radiation. provided that °u^1 ^"'aiin°4 m°"' t ,t1~' g 

owner _or operator meets the standards established in 

paragraphs (c)(1), (2) and (3) of this subsection. " 

2. Comments on Proposed § 5-253.16(d)(2) 

The A;zen cy 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" . Ethan Allen agrees that this 

type of employee training is necessary, and already has a program in 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) ycars. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Agency for an opportunity to comment on the 

Regulation and acknowledge the efforts of Agency staff who participated in the 

preparation of the Regulation . I encourage you to contact me if you have any 

questions pertaining to Ethan Allen's comments . 

Sincerely, 

Paul Kaminski 

Director of Environment, Health and Safety 

Ethan Allen Inc.