Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairmary., .

Buddy Garcia,'Commissioner ", .

Carlos Rubinstein; Commission~r"" "

Mark R. Vickery; f.G., Executive'Dir~cfor "

RECE\VED - 6POL ~lR PlAHN\HG S£C.

12 JAM 24 PH 2: 51

, l. ", "" :

TEXAS-COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIlY

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution

January 17,2012

Alfredo Armendariz, Ph.D.

Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Dear Dr. Armendariz:

Docket No. 2011-oo83-SIP

Project No. 2010-028-SIP-NR

On December 7, 2011, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission)

adopted revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Houston-GalvestonBrazoria (HGB) 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

The Commission adopted revisions to the SIP to include a reasonably available control

technology (RACT) analysis update to include Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) that have

not yet been addressed in the HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997

Eight-Hour Ozone Standard submitted to EPA on April 6, 2010. The SIP revision also

incorporates concurrently adopted CTG-related rule revisions to 30 Texas Administrative

Code Chapter 115 for the HGB area.

Enclosed are the proposed revisions to the SIP, a public hearing certification, a complete

record ofthe public hearings, and the accompanying order. I look forvvard to your

expeditious approval ofthese SIP revisions.

iCerelY, W~

B~W,Ph.D. Chairman

BWS/jmm

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor of Texas

Mr. Toby Baker, Office of Budget, Planning and Policy, Office ofthe Governor

Mr. Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director, Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality

P,O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • www.tceq.texas.gov

How is our customer service? www.tceq.texas.gov/goto/customersurvey
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Docket No. 2011-oo83-SIP

Project No. 2010-028-SIP-NR

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF TRAVIS

This is to certify that the attached are true and correct copies of documents for a

revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan, adopted on December 7, 2011, pursuant to

40 Code of Federal Regulations § 51.104. I am the records administrator for the Air Quality

Division ofthe Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission).

J.n..

(\

~er,~' \ ka/>\~~9./I....~_

T'Air Quality Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Public Hearings

July 18 and July 22, 2011

Concerning Revisions to the

HGB RACT Analysis Update SIP Revision

Project No. 2010-028-SIP-NR
INTRODUCTION

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) held public hearings in Houston on

July 18, 2011; and in Austin on July 22,2011, to receive testimony regarding the proposed HoustonGalveston-Brazoria (HGB) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RAeT) Analysis Update State

Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard.

To conform to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules and gUidance, the SIP

revision updates the RAeT analysis for volatile organic compounds emission sources to include

Control Techniques Guidelines (eTG) that were not addressed in the HGB Attainment Demonstration

SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard, submitted to the EPA on April 6, 2010. The

revision also incorporates concurrent eTG-related rule revisions in 30 Texas Administrative Code

Chapter 115, Subchapter E.

The comment period was originally scheduled to close on July 25, 2011, but was extended to August

8, 2011. All testimony and comments have been reviewed and seriously considered. This hearing

record contains a complete record of the public hearings and is divided into the following four

sections:

o Public Notification and Proposal

o Written and Oral Testimony

o Evaluation of Testimony

o Staff Recommendations/Order
PUBLIC 

NOTIFICATION AND 

PROPOSAL 
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notification to the public of the proposed revisions was conducted by the following procedures:

1. Publication of notice of public hearings in the following newspapers on the date listed:

Austin American-Statesman: June 10, 2011

Houston Chronicle: June 10, 2011

2. Publication of notice of extension of comment period in the following newspapers on the date

listed:

Austin American-Statesman: July 12, 2011

Houston Chronicle: July 12, 2011

3. Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in the June 24, 2011, issue of the Texas Register

(36TexReg 3985).

4. Publication of an extension of comment period in the July 22, 2011, issue of the Texas Register

(36TexReg 4712)

5. Correspondence forwarding the notice of public hearings to the following officials and agencies:

Speaker of the House

Lieutenant Governor

Alamo Area Council of Governments

Capital Area Planning Council

City of Austin, Mayor's Office

City of Dallas, Department of Environmental Quality

City of Dallas, Department of Aviation
City of EI Paso, Environmental Services

City of Fort Worth, Environmental Management Department

City of Houston, Department of Health and Human Services

City of Houston, Mayor's Office

City of Irving, Mayor's Office

Dallas County Judge

East Texas Council of Govemments

EI Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization

Federal Highway Administration

Galveston County Health District

Harris County Judge

Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services

North Central Texas Council of Governments

Houston-Galveston Area Council

South East Texas Regional Planning Commission

Texas Department of Transportation

Travis County JUdge

Victoria Metropolitan Planning Organization

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology

louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

New Mexico Environmental Department

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Example of Newspaper Classified Ad

Austin American-Statesman, June 10, 2011

NOTICE' OF; ..uiluc HEARINGS BY THE TEXAs COMMIsSION ON ENVIflONMENTAL QUAUFY

ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC CHAPTER 115 AND TO:THE STAn IMPLEMENTATIO'..a

PLAN The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct public hearings to receive

testimony regarding PrOposed reVisions to 30 TAC Chapter ,i, 15, :Control of Ajr Pollution from Volatile Orgar.ic

Compounds, ,and correspOnding ~ions to t~e Slate imp:lementatiOl1 p1an.(SIp) !Jnder the requirements Of Texas

Healtl1 and Safety C,oc:Ie,:3B2,017; Texas Go...e~,rneni :Code. Chapter:20Cl, Subchapter B; and 40 Coc:Ie of,Fl!deral

Regulations 51.1"02,' ,a,lld the United States Envi,rcnrnenta,1 Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIf's. Ac!ditionally,

the commission wilf also receive teStimony regarding the proPO,aed Houston-Gatveston- Br.izo.ria (HGB)

Reasonably Availa.ble Control ,Tec:hnology (RACT) Analysis Update SIP Revision for tile 1997'Eigtit~HourOZOne

Standant The commission prtJpQs'es to ~rnend Chapter 115, SubChapter B, Division 1, Storage of\/,oIatHe Organic

Compounds, to require a more stringent level of centrol tor volatile organic 'COmpounds (VOC) storage in the

Dalias-Fort\"Jorth 1997 eight-hour Ozo'~e,nonattainmentarea. In addition, the'proposed rultmaking' would c1.arity

rule require~~nts and 'allow for the ll~:or alternative :cont,rcl options for affected owners or opera~rsin the

following areas: HGB 1997 eight-hour' ozone nonattainmentarea, Beaumont-Port ArthUr area, and in Aransas"

Bexar, Calhoun, EI Paso, ~regg, Matagorda, N\Jeces, San pabicio, Travis, and Victoria Counti~. (Rule 'ProJ~t

Number 201 D-02S~1,1S.EN)The proposed amendments'~Chapter 115, Subdlapter E, Solvent-Using

Processes., would implement RACT requirements lor the following eight Control Techniques Guidel,ines (eTG)

emissio" source categories: Flexible Packaging Printing Materials; Industrial Cleaning Solvents; 'Large ApplianCe

Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatirlgs,rPaper, ,fdm, and Fon, Coatings; Alitr:l and Light~DiJty TrucitAssembly :Coatings;

Mis~lIaneoiJs Industrial Adhesives; and,Mi:':tellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts, Coatings- (Rule Project .

Number 2010'-o1,6~115.EN)The propOSed HGB SIP revision would pro'llde 'a RACT analysis update to

address _CTG docifmentS that~have not yet 'b8en included in the ,ttG'B Attainment' oemonslr3ti~)f1 (AD) SIP Revisl~n

for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard and incorporate concumlOtly p:roposed, CTG-related,Il,demaking for the

HGB area. (S;IP ProJect, NUl!lber ,~01~.Q28. SIP~NR) Publis: ~~arings on these proposals ~il be held at the

following,ti,~es an~ I~tions: in HouStO'~ o",j~ly, 1a, 2011, 6:30 p.m,': in CO,nference Room C at the' HoustonGalve~-:.t0'a Council" 3555 TimmonS Lane;'and in AUstin on July "f2, 2011. 10:00 a.m., at the Texas

Commis,sioll, on Environmental Quality comple~,;BilndingE:,Room 2015, 12100 Park 35 Circle. The hearings will

be structuted for the re~!iPt of oral 'or written ,comments by,in,terested pefS9na. Registratio.n wiD ~egil'1 30 minutes

prior to.'each hearing,'lndiyidualsm,ay present oral statements when called upon in ,order of re9istratiOn, There will

be no'~pen discu~i~n'.during"th'lt.heariI1Y:~ver. com~ission stiff ,members will be available,to discuss the

proposels 30 minutes before ,e...ch',hea,ring~ PElrsons planriing to attend the hearing who have 'special

com~unication or ~er aCCOrnn;'09atiOl1; needs should, contact Sandy, Wong. Texas' Register Team, .a( (512) 239':-

1892. ReqlJel>1!i should be'mcte!e aa far jn.:~dvaru;e,as pOssible. Comments may be, submitted tq Charl~ Hom,

Texas. R.e~i.stecream;,Office: of Legal:,servkie,s, ,Texas Commission ,on Env,ironmental Quality,. MC 205, P.O, Box

13087, ~~IJ,>Texas,7an1~30a7, .or taXed to:(5~2,)'~39:4~0,~. E1e'ctrcnic comments may be sUbmi~.at '

htpP:llwwviS;tceq.state.tx.us/ruleeJecc:JmrOOntsf., FDe,';siz:e r~ons may apply to com,~nts'being "submitted 'Via

the eC()mmentS'Sy~~All. comments .ho~ld reference the rule ,M SIP" project number lh•• the

commertt p.....IM:to:. Rul~, PrC)Ject Num,b_ 201,O:.pzS-115--EN for the pnJposed VOC stange

rule IIlmertdmentsi'~lePrc:tJ.~.Numb.r2010~1,',.115.E~~~ ~e pro~8ed CTP IlACT ,rule "

amendmllllts;a"d ~IP Project fIIu~b.r 2010-o28.:sI,P-.NR,~rtheproposed HGB RACT.naIY81.

updat,.SIP rw.lslort. The ,comme",t., p,,mod CI~CtS .July ~~, ,2011.. c;c:JPies, of the propbsed rules can

be obi.a:!~,d,~,mth,e comm,issio'n's web, ~Iteolilt nttp;/~,tceq.~~.go,v/nav/,ruiesipropose_adoP,t.hbT1I.,copies Pf

the proj:)o$ed ~IP fl!visions and all ap~n~~sea,n tM, obtained fro,rJ1'.the con;uT!iss:on'a \Neb :site at

http://w'w'oY:~q.texas;gov/Elirq~ality/siPJ hi:lbtl1gb-late~t.:bz6ne.' For'additional infOrmation'regarding, the p[t,posed

rules and SIP revjsion, ple;ase contai::t Ray Schubert,'Air Q,ual,ity Plannmg. Section, 'at (512) ,239-6615, .l~s:ued in

Austi.n, Texas, On June :6, ,2011.

First Data Published: 10-Jun-11
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman

Buddy Garcia, Commissioner

Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner

Mark R Vickery, P.G., Executive Director

TExAs COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALI1Y

Protecting Teras by Reducing and Preventing Pollution

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BY THE

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC CHAPTER 115 AND TO THE STATE

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct public

hearings to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115,

Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, and corresponding revisions

to the state implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements of Texas Health and

Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B; and 40

Code of Federal Regulations §51.102, and the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) concerning SIPs. Additionally, the commission will also receive testimony

regarding the proposed Houston-Galveston-Brawria (HGB) Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) Analysis Update SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour

Ozone Standard.

The commission proposes to amend Chapter 115, Subchapter B, Division 1, Storage of

Volatile Organic Compounds, to require a more stringent level of control for volatile

organic compounds (YOC) storage in the Dallas-Fort Worth 1997 eight-hour owne

nonattainment area. In addition, the proposed rulemaking would clarify rule

requirements and allow for the use of alternative control options for affected owners or

operators in the following areas: HGB 1997 eight-hour owne nonattainment area,

Beaumont-Port Arthur area, and in Aransas, Bexar, Calhoun, El Paso, Gregg,

Matagorda, Nueces, San Patricio, Travis, and Victoria Counties. (Rule Project

Number 2010-025-115-EN)

The proposed amendments to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Solvent-Using Processes,

would implement RACT requirements for the following eight Control Techniques

Guidelines (CTG) emission source categories: Flexible Packaging Printing Materials;

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711·3087 • 512-239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us
Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Large Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings;

Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings;

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts

Coatings. (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN)

The proposed HGB SIP revision would provide a RACT analysis update to address CTG

documents that have not yet been included in the HGB Attainment Demonstration (AD)

SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard and incorporate concurrently

proposed CTG-related rulemaking for the HGB area. (SIP Project Number 2010-

028-SIP-NR)

Public hearings on these proposals will be held at the following times and locations: in

Houston on July 18, 2011, 6:30 p.m., in Conference Room C at the Houston-Galveston

Area Council, 3555 Timmons Lane; and in Austin on July 22, 2011, 10:00 a.m., at the

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality complex, Building E, Room 201S, 12100

Park 35 Circle. The hearings will be structured for the receipt of oral or written

comments by interested persons. Registration will begin 30 minutes prior to each

hearing. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of

registration. There will be no open discussion during the hearing; however, commission

staff members will be available to discuss the proposals 30 minutes before each hearing.

Persons planning to attend the hearing who have special communication or other

accommodation needs should contact Sandy Wong, Texas Register Team, at (512) 239-

1802. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

Comments may be submitted to Charlotte Horn, Texas Register Team, Office of Legal

Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087,

Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be

submitted at htpp://www5.tceq.state.tx.us/rules/ecomments/. File size restrictions

may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system. All comments

should reference the rule or SIP project number that the comment pertains

to: Rule Project Number 2010-025-115-EN for the proposed VOC storage
rule amendments; Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN for the proposed

CfG RACf rule amendments; and SIP Project Number 2010-028-SIP-NR

for the proposed HGB RACf analysis update SIP revision. The comment

period closes July 25, 2011. Copies of the proposed rules can be obtained from the

commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/nav/rules/propose_adopt.html.

Copies of the proposed SIP revisions and all appendices can be obtained from the

commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-latestozone. For additional information regarding the proposed rules and SIP revision, please

contact Ray Schubert, Air Quality Planning Section, at (512) 239-6615.

Issued inAustin, Texas, on June 8, 2011.
Project Number 2010 23-SIP-NR for the proposed DFW RFP revision. The commen period closes July 25, 2011. Copies of the

proposed rules can b obtained from the commission's website at

http://www.tceq.texas. vlnavlmles/propose_adopt.html. Copies

of the proposed SIP visions and all appendices can be obtained

from the commission'- website at http:lAlf'NW.tceq.texas.govlairqualitylsipldfw/dfw-Iatest-o one. For additional information regarding the

proposed rules and S revisions, please contact Ray Schubert, Air

Quality Planning Secti n, at (;12) 239-661;.

TRD-201102119

Robert Martinez

Director. Environrnenta Law Division

Texas Commission on nvironmental Quality

Filed: June 10, 2011

Notice of Public Hearings on Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC

Chapter II; and to the State Implementation Plan

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will

conduct public hearings to receive testimony regarding proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, and corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements of Texas Health and Safety

Code, §382.017; Texas Goveromeot Code, Cbapter 2001, Subcbapter B; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations §51.I02. and the United

States Enyironmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning SIPs. Ad4

ditionally, the commission will also receive testimony regarding the

proposed Houston·Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RAC]) Analysis Update SIP Revision for the

1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard.

The commission proposes to amend Chapter 115, Subchapter B, Divi·

sion I, Storage ofVolatile Organic Compounds, to require a more stringent level of control for volatile organic compounds (VOC) storage in

the DaUas·Fort Worth 1997 eight·hour ozonc nonattainment area In

addition, the proposed rulemaking would clarify rule requirements and

allow for the use of alternative control options for affected owners or

operators in the following areas: HGB 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment are~ Beaumont·Port Arthur are~ and in Aransas, Bexar, Calhoun, El Paso. Gregg, Matagorda, Nueces, San Patricio, Travis, and

Victoria Counties. (Rille Project Number 2010-02;-11;-EN)

The proposed amendments to Chapter 115. SubchapterE. Solvent·Us~

ing Processes, would implement RACT requirements for the follow·

ing eight Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) emission source categories: Flexible Packaging Printing Materials; Industrial,Cleaning

Solvents; Large Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; Paper,

Film, and Foil Coatings; Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Miscellaneous Metal

and Plastic Parts Coatings. (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115·EN)

The proposed HGB SIP revision would provide a RACT analysis

update to address CTG documents that have not yet been included in

the HGB Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIP Revision for the 1997

Eight-Hour Ozone Standard and incorporate concurrently proposed

CTG-related rulemaking for the HGB area. (SIP Project Number

2010-028-SIP-~)

Public hearings on these proposals will be held at the following times

and locations: in Houston on July 18, 2011. 6:30 p.m.• in Conference

Room C atthe Houston~GalYestonAreaCouncil, 3555 Timmons Lane;

and in Austin on July 22, 2011, 10:00 a.m., at the Texas Commission

00 Environmental Quality complex, Building E, Room 201S, 12100

Park 35 Circle. The hearings will be structured for the receipt of oral

or written comments by interested persons. Registration will begin 30

use ofalternative control optio s for affected o\vners or operators in the

following areas: Houston-Gal eston-Brazoria 1997 eight-hour ozone

nonattainment area., Beaumont PortArthw area., and in Aransas, Bexar,

Calhoun., ElPaso, Gregg, Mat orda, Nueces, San Patricio, Travis, and

Victoria Counties. (Rule Proje t Number 201 0-02;-1l;-EN)

The proposed amendments t Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Solvent~

Using Processes, would imple ent reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for the following eight Control Tech4

niques Guidelines (CTG) emis ion source categories: Flexible Packaging Printing Materials; Indu al Cleaning Solvents; Large' Appliance

Coatings; Metal Furniture Co tings; Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings;

Auto and Light-Duty Truck A embly' Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Miscell eo'us Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings.

(Rule Project Number 20 I 0-0 6-11;-EN)

The proposed DFW attainme t demonstration SIP revision contains

Federal Clean Air Act-require SIP elements, including a photochemical modeling analysis, a wei t of evidence analysis, a RACT analysis, a reasonably available co 01 measures analysis, a motor vehicle

emissions budget (MVEB) fo 2012, and a contingency plan. TIUs revision includes concurrent rul akings to update control requirements

for certain coatings operatio to meet recommended RACT requirements in CTG documents issu by the EPA and VOC storage tank rule

revisions to update existing d new control measures for the DFW

area. (SIP Project Number 20 0-022-SIP-NR)

The proposed DFW RFP S

DFW area's progress toward ent ofthe 1997 eight·hour ozone

standard. RFP requirements' elude annual incremental reductions in

ozone precursor emissions (ni ogen oxides and VOC) out to an area's

attainment year, reductions' ozone precursor emissions as contingency measures for designate milestone years and for the attainment

year, and updated RFP MVE for an area's milestone years. This

proposed SIP revision would corporate a concurrently proposed revision to Chapter 1i5 that wo d reduce VOC emissions from affected

SOUlces in the DFW area. (S Project Number 2010-023-SIP-NR)

Public hearings on these prop sals will be held at the following times

and locations: in Arlington on uly 14,2011,10:00 am. and 6:30 p.m.,

at the Arlington City Council hambers, 10 I W. Abrams Street; and in

Austin on July 22, 2011, 2:00 p.m., at the Texas Commission on Environmeotal Quality complex, ullding E, Room 201S, 12100 Parle 3;

Circle. The hearings will be etured for the receiptoforal or ..-vritten

comments by interested perso . Registration will begin 30 minutes

prior to each hearing. Indivi als may present oral statements when

called upon in order ofregi tion. There will be no open discussion

during the hearing; however. mmission staffmembers will be available to discuss the proposals 3 minutes before each hearing.

Persons planning to attend th hearing who have special commtmication or other accommodation eds should contact Sandy Wong, Texas

Register Team, at (; 12) 239-1 02. Requests should be made as far in

advance as possible.

Comments may be submitte to Charlotte Hom, Texas Register

Team, Office ofLegal Servic s, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, MC 20;, P.O. B x 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087,

or fa."{ed to (512) 239-4808 Electronic comments may be submitted at http://www5.tceq.sr:zte.tx.us/ntles/ecommentsl. File size

restrictions may apply to co l111ents being submitted via the eComments system. All comme ts should reference the rule or SIP

project number that the co ent pertains to: Rule Project Number

2010-025-115-EN for the pr osed VOC storage rule amendments;

Rule Project Number 2010-01 -l1;-EN for the proposed CTG RACT

rule amendments; SIP Proj Number 2010-022-SIP-NR for the

proposed DFW SIP A' nt Demonstration revision; and SIP

+ + +

INADDITION June 24, lOn 36 TexReg 3985
Notice ofPublic Hear' s on Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC

Chapter 115 and to the tate Implementation Plan

The Texas Commission 0 Environmental Quality (commission) will

conduct public hearings t eceive testimony regarding proposed revisionsto 30 TAC Chapter I -, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, and co esponding revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) under th requirements of Texas Health and Safety

Code, §382.Ql 7; Texas G emment Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter

B; and 40 Code offederal egulations §51.102, and the United States

Environmental Protection gency concerning SIPs.

The commission proposes 0 amend Chapter 115, Subchapter B, Division I, Storage of Volat e Organic Compounds, to require a more

stringent level of control fi r volatile organic compounds (VOC) storage in the Dallas-Fort Wo 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area

(DFW area). In addition, e proposed rulemaking would clarify rule

requirements and allow fo the use of alternative control options for

affected owners or operat s in the following areas: Houston·Galveston·Brazoria 1997 eight· ur ozone nonattainment area., BeaumontPort Arthur area, and in ansas, Bexar, Calhoun, E1 Paso, Gregg,

Matagorda, Nueces, San P tricio, Travis, and Victoria Counties.

Public hearings on this pr posal will be held at the following times

and locations: in Arlingto on July 14, 2011, 10:00 a.m. and 6:30

p.m., at the Arlington City ounci! Chambers, 101 W. Abrams Street;

in Houston on July 18,201 ,6:30 p.m., in Conference Room C at the

Houston-Galveston Area C uncil, 3.555 Timmons Lane; and in Austin

on July 22, 2011,10:00 a. _and 2:00 p.m., at the Texas Commission

minutes prior to each hearing. Individuals may present oral statements

when called upon in order of registration. There will be no open dis·

cussion during the hearing; however, commission staff members will

be available to discuss the proposals 30 minutes before each hearing.

Persons planning to attend the hearing who have special communication or other accommodation needs should contact Sandy Wong, Texas

Register Team, at (.512) 239-1802. Requests should be made as far in

advance as possible.

Comments may be submitted to Charlotte Horn, Texas Register

Team, Office ofLegal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or

faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at

htpp://'HIW'tv5.tceq.state.tx.us/ntles/ecommentsl. File size restrictions

may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system.

All comments should reference the rule or SIP project number that

the comment pertains to: Rule Project Number 2010·025-115-EN for

the proposed VOC storage rule amendments; Rule Project Number

2010-016-ll5-EN for the proposed CTG RACT rule amendments;

and SIP Project Number 20 10-028-SIP·NR for the proposed HGB

RACT analysis update SIP revision. The comment period closes

July 25, 2011. Copies of the proposed rules can be obtained from

the commission's website at http://...,.,,,,.,,w.tceq.texas.goylnay/mles/propose_adopt.html. Copies of the proposed SIP revisions and all

appendices can be obtained from the commission's- website at

http://KrH!w. tceq. texas.gov/airquality/siplhgblhgb-Iatest-ozone. For

additional infonnation regarding the proposed rules and SIP revision,

please contact Ray Schubert, Air Quality Planning Section, at (.5 12)

239-6615.

TRD·201102120

Robert Martinez

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: June 10, 2011

Notice of Water Qu lity Applications

The following notices were issued on June 3, 2011 through June 10,

2011.

The following require e applicants to publish notice in a newspaper.

Public comments, req ests for public meetings, or requests for a contested case hearing m be submitted to the Office ofthe ChiefClerk,

Mail Code 105, P.O. B x 13087, Austin, Texas 78711·3087, V,1THIN

30 DAYS OF TIlE DA OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF TIlE

NOTICE.

INFORMATION SEC

TXI OPERATIONS, L ,which operates Midlothian Cement Plant, has

applied for a renewal 0 Texas Pollut~t Discharge Elimination System

(TPDES) Pennit No. Q0004379000, which authorizes the discharge

of: non-contact coolin water, plant/vehicle washdown water, materials/roads dust suppress on runoff, raw mill water tanks overflow water,

air cooling condensate material QC lab sink rinse water, water from

mechanical cooling Ie , and stonn water runoff at an intermittent and

flow variable when dis harge occurs from Outfall 001. The facility is

located at 245 Ward ad, at the northeast corner of the intersection

ofU.S. Highway 67 S thand Ward Road, rn"O miles southwest ofthe

City ofMidlothian, Ell s County, Texas 76065.

TERRA RENEWAL S RVICES, INC. has applied for a new pennlt,

Proposed TCEQ Penn No. WQ0004946000, to authorize the land

application ofsewage s udge and water treatment plantsludge for beneficial use on 379.7 ac s. The anticipated date ofthe first application

ofsludge, subject to th issuance ofthe permit, is August 1, 2011. This

permit will not autho . e a discharge of pollutants into waters in the

State. The sewage slu e land application site is located adjacent to

the eastside ofFann-to Market Road 47, approximately 1.0 mile north

••

on Environmental Q lity complex, Building E, Room 201S, 12100

Park 35 Circle. The arings will be structured for the receipt of ora]

or written comments y interested persons. Registration will begin 30

minutes prior to each earing. Individuals may present oral statements

when called upon in rder of registration. There will be rio open discussion during the he "ng; however, commission staff members will

be available to discus the proposal 30 minutes before each hearing.

Persons planning to a tend the hearing who have special communication or other accomm dation needs should contact Sandy Wong, Texas

Register Team, at (51 ) 239-1802. Requests should be made as far in

advance as possible.

Comments may be ubmitted to Charlotte Horn, Texas Register

Team, Office ofLegal Sen:ices, Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality, MC 205, P.. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or

faxed to (512) 239-4 08. Electronic comments may be submitted

at http://www5.tceq.ste.t:x.us/ntles/ecommentsl. File size restrictions may apply to c mments being submitted via the eComments

system. All co n15 should reference Rule Project Nwnber

2010-02.5-115-EN. comment period closes July 25, 2011. Copies

ofthe proposed rules an be obtained from the commission's website

at http:/M"W'N.tceq.tex s.gov/nav/ndes/propose_adopt.html. For additional infonnation re ding the proposed rules, please contact Ray

Schubert, Air Quality lanning Section, at (512) 239-6615.

TRD·201102121

Robert Martinez

Director, Environment Law Division

Texas Commission on nvironmental Quality

Filed: June 10, 2011

• • •

36 TexReg 3986 June 24, 2011 Texas Register
Example of Newspaper Classified Ad for Extension of Comment Period

Austin American-Statesman, July 12,2011

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30

TAC CHAPTER 115 AND TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN In the June 24, 2011, issue of the

Texas Register. (35 TexReg 3801 and 3834) the Texas Comrrission on Environmental QUality (commission)

published the proposed rulemaking actions 10 30 TAC Chapter 115 and 10 the Stale Implementation Plan (SIP)

Additionally. the commission also requested comments regarding the proposed Houston-Galveston-Brazoria

Reasonably Available Control Ted1nology Analysis Update SIP Revision lor the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard

and Dallas-Fort Worth (DFYVj Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision and the DFW Reasonable Further Progress

(RFP) SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (35 TexReg 3985). The initial notices stated that the

commission must receive all written comments by July 25, 2011. The commission has extended the

deadline for receipt of written comments to August 8, 2011. Comments should be mailed to

Chariatte Horn, MC 205. Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental QUality, P.O. Box 13087,

Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed 10 (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submilled at.:

http://www5.tceq.texas.gov/ruleslecomments. File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted via the

eComments system. All comments should reference the rule or SIP project number that. the comment pertains to

RUNt Projed Number 2010-025-115-EN for the proposed volatile organic compounds storage rule amendments;

RWe Projed Number 2010-016-115-EN for the proposed conlrollechniques guidelines reasonably aWlilabie

control technology (RACn rule amendments; SIP Project Number 2010-022-SIP-NR lor the proposed Dallas·Fort

VVol1tl (DFVJ) SIP Attainment Demonstration revision; SIP Project Number 2010-023-SIP-NR for the proposed

DFW Reasonable Further Progress revision; and SIP Projed Number 2010-028-SIP-NR for the proposed

Houslon- Galveston-Brazoria RACT analysis update SIP revision. The extended comment period doses August 8,

2011. Copies of the proposed rules can be obtained from the commission's web site at. http://www.tceq.

lexas.govlnav/ruleslpropose_adopthtml. Copies of the proposed DFW SIP revisions and all appendices can be

obtained from the commission's Web site at. http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sipldfW/dfw-latest-o.zol.le. Copies

of the proposed HGB SIP revisions and all appendices can be obtained from the commission's Web site at

http://www.tceq. texas.gov/airquality/siplhgblhgb-Iatest-ozone. For additional information regarding the proposed

rules and SIP revtsions, please ronlae:t Uncley Andermn, Air Oual"ily P1anrUng 5ecIion, at (512) 239-0003

First Date Punlis.'"JecI. 12-JuJ-11
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman

Buddy Garcia, Commissioner

Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner

Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR PROPOSED

REVISIONS TO 30 TAC CHAPTER 115 AND TO THE STATE

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

In the June 24, 2011, issue ofthe Texas Register, (35 TexReg 3801 and 3834) the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) published the proposed

rulemaking actions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 and to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Additionally, the commission also requested comments regarding the proposed

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update

SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard and Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW)

Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision and the DFW Reasonable Further Progress

(RFP) SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (35 TexReg 3985). The

initial notices stated that the commission must receive all written comments by July 25,

2011. The commission has extended the deadline for receipt ofwritten

connftents to August 8, 2011.

Comments should be mailed to Charlotte Horn,MC 205, Office of Legal Services, Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or

faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at:

http://www5.tceq.texas.gov/rules/ecomments. File size restrictions may apply to

comments being submitted via the eComments system. All comments should reference

the rule or SIP project number that the comment pertains to: Rule Project Number

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • tceq.texas.gov

How is our customer service? tceq.texas.govjgotojcustomersurvey

printed on recycled paper
201O-025-115-EN for the proposed volatile organic compounds storage rule

amendments; Rule Project Number 201O-016-115-EN for the proposed control

techniques guidelines reasonably available control technology (RACT) rule

amendments; SIP Project Number 201O-022-SIP-NR for the proposed Dallas-Fort

Worth (DFW) SIP Attainment Demonstration revision; SIP Project Number 2010-023-

SIP-NR for the proposed DFW Reasonable Further Progress revision; and SIP Project

Number 201O-028-SIP-NR for the proposed Houston-Galveston-Brazoria RACT

analysis update SIP revision. The extended comment period closes August 8, 2011.

Copies ofthe proposed rules can be obtained from the commission's Web site at

http:jjwww.tceq.texas.govjnavjrulesjpropose_adopt.html. Copies ofthe proposed

DFW SIP revisions and all appendices can be obtained from the commission's Web site

at http:jjwww.tceq.texas.govjairqualityjsipjdfwjdfw-latest-ozone. Copies ofthe

proposed HGB SIP revisions and all appendices can be obtained from the commission's

Web site at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-latest-ozone. For

additional information regarding the proposed rules and SIP revisions, please contact

Lindley Anderson, Air Quality Planning Section, at (512) 239-0003.
Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period for

Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 and to the State

Implementation Plan

In the June 24, 2011, issue ofthe Texas Register, (36 TexReg 3801 and

3834) the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission)

published the proposed rulemaking actions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 and

to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Additionally, the commission

(22) COMPANY: Trican Well ervice LP; DOCKET NUMBER:

201l-1082-WQ-E; IDENTIFIE : RNI06112816; LOCATION:

Mathis, San Patricio County; T PE OF FACILITY: well service;

RULE VIOLATED, 30 TAC § 1.25(a)(4), by failing '0 obtain a

construction general permit; P ALIT: $700; ENFORCEMENT

COORDINATOR: Harvey Wils n, (512) 239-0321; REGIONAL

OFFICE: 6300 Ocean Drive, uite 1200, Corpus Christi, Texas

78412-5503, (361) 825-3100.

(23) COMPANY: Upper Leo River Municipal Water District; DOCKET NUMBER: 2 1l-0601-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER:

RNI04343181; LOCATION: C manche County; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment citity; RULE VIOLATED: TWC,

§26.121(a)(I), 30 TAC §305.125 I), and Texas Pollutant Disch"'lle

Elimination System (TPDES) P it Number WQOOl4544001 Effluent Limitations and Monitorin Requirements Numbers I, 2, and

6, by failing to comply with pe itted effluent limitations; 30 TAC

§305.125(1) and (17) and TPDE Penni. Number WQ0014544001,

Sludge Provisions, by failing to ti ely submit the annual sludge report

for the monitoring period ending J ly 31, 2010, by September 1, 2010;

PENALTY: $4,960; ENFORCE NT COORDINATOR: Marty Holt,

(512) 239-2587; REGIONAL 0 FlCE: 1977 Industrial Boulevard,

Abilene, Texas 79602-7833, (325 698-9674.

(24) COMPANY: West Wise Spec I Utility District; DOCKET NUMBER: 2011-0438-WQ-E; IDENTI IER: RNI01l90270; LOCATION:

Wise County; TYPE OF FACIL Y: surface water treatment plant;

RULE VIOLATED: TWC, §26. 21(a)(I), by failing to prevent an

unauthorized discharge of sewa e, municipal waste, recreational

waste, agricultural waste, or indu trial waste into or adjacent to any

water in the state; PENALTY: $ 200; Supplemental Environmental

Project offset amount of $3,360 pplied to Caddo Lake Watershed

Enhanced Monitoring Program; E ORCEMENT COORDINATOR:

Michaelle Sherlock, (210) 403 76; REGIONAL OFFICE: 2309

Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 7 118-6951, (817) 588-5800.

(25) COMPANY: Zapata Coun ; DOCKET NUMBER: 2011-

0371-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: 104459573; LOCATION: Zapata County; TYPE OF FACILI : wastewater treatment facility;

RULE VIOLATED: TWC, §26121(a)(I), 30 TAC §305.l25(1),

and Texas Pollutant Discharge E imination System Permit Number

WQO014550001, Effluent Limitat ons and Monitoring Requirements

Number I, by failing to comply wi the permitted effluent limitations;

30 TAC §305.65 and §305.125(2) nd TWC, §26.121(a)(I), by failing

to maintain authorization for the d charge of wastewater; PENALTY:

S13,200; Supplemental Enviro ental Project offset amount of

S10,560 applied to Tire Collectio , Recycling, and Disposal Events;

ENFORCEMENT COORDINAT R: JR Cao, (512) 239-2543; REGIONAL OFFICE: 707 East Calt n Road, Suite 304, Laredo, Texas

78041-3887, (956) 791-6611.

TRD-201102643

Kathleen C. Decker

Director, Litigation Division

Texas Commission on Environmen I Quality

Filed: Jury 12, 2011

Notice of Opportunity to Com ent on Agreed Orders of

Administrative Enforcement A tions

The Texas Commission on Envuo ental Quality (TCEQ or commission) staff is providing an opportu ity for written public comment on

the listed Agreed Orders (ADs) in ccordance with Texas Water Code

(TWC), §7.075. TWC, §7.075 re uires that before the commission

rna)' approve the ADs, the commi sion shall allow the public an opportunity to submit written comm nts on the proposed AOs. TWC,

§7.075 requires that notice ofthe 0 ortunity to comment must be published in the Texas Register no later an the 30th day before the date on

which the public comment period oses, which in this case is August

22, 2011. TWC, §7.075 also req res that the commission promptly

consider any written comments ree ived and that the commission may

withdraw or withhold approval of AO if a comment discloses facts

or considerations that indicate that onsent is inappropriate, improper,

inadequate, or inconsistent with t requirements of the S!arutes and

rules within the commission'sjuri iction or the commission's orders

and p~rrnits issued in accordance w th the commission's regulatory authority. Additional notice of chang s to a proposed AO is not required

also requested COmments regarding the proposed Houston-GalvestonBrazoria Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update

SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard and Dallas-Fort

Worth (DFW)_Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision and the DFW

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) SIP Revision for the 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard (36 TexReg 3985). The initial notices stated

that the commission must receive all written comments by July 25,

2011. The commission has extended the deadline for receipt ofwritten

comments to August 8, 2011.

Comments should bemailedtoChariotteHorn.MC 205, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed

to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at:

http://....ww5.tceq.texas.gov/ntles/ecomments. File size restrictions

may apply to comments bcing submitted via the eComments system.

All comments should reference the rule or SIP project number that the

comment pertains to: Rule Project Number 2010·025·IIS-EN for the

proposed volatile organic compounds storage rule amendments; Rule

Project Number 2010-016-115-EN for the proposed control techniques

guidelines reasonably available control technology (RACT) rule

amendments; SIP Project Number 2010-022-SIP-NR for the proposed

Dallas·Fort Worth (DFW) SIP Attainment Demonstration revision; SIP

Project Number 2010-023-SIP-NR for the proposed DFW Reasonable

Further Progress revision; and SIP Project Number 201 0-028-SIP·NR

for the proposed Houston-Galveston-Brazoria RACT analysis update SIP revision. The extended conunent period closcs August

8, 2011. Copies of the proposed rules can be obtained from the

commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/nav/ndes/propose_adopt.htmJ. Copies of the proposed DFW SIP revisions and

all appendices can be obtained from the commission's Web site at

http://w'n.w.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/dfw/dfw-Jatest-ozone. Copies

ofthe proposed HGB SIP revisions and all appendices can be obtained

from the commission's Web site at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-Iatest-ozone. For additional infonnation regarding the

proposed rules and SIP revisions, please contact Lindley Anderson,

Air Quality Planning Section, at (512) 239-0003.

TRD-2011 02637

Robert Martinez

Director, Environmental Law Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Filed: July 11, 2011

••

• • •

36 TexReg 4712 July 22, 2011 Texas Register
REVISIONS TO THE STATE OF TEXAS AIR QUAIlTY

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE CONTROL OF OZONE AIR

POLLUTION

HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA 1997 EIGHT-HOUR OZONE

STANDARD NONATTAINMENT AREA

...

-- ---.- - -- ....-

TCEQ

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUAIlTY

P.O. BOX 13087

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3087

HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA REASONABLY

AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOWGYANALYSIS UPDATE

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION FOR THE

1997 EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

PROJECf NUMBER 201O-028-SIP-NR

Proposal

June 8, 2011
This page intentionally left blank
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The eight-county Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) nonattainment area (Brazoria,

Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties) is

currently classified as severe under the 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) with an attainment date as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than June 15, 2019. Texas was required to submit a state

implementation plan (SIP) revision addressing the severe ozone nonattainment area

requirements of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (FCAA) to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by April 15, 2010.

On Marc1I 10, 2010, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adopted two

revisions to the Texas SIP for the HGB ozone nonattainment area. The Houston-GalvestonBrazoria Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) includes a photoc1Iemical modeling analysis and a

weight of evidence analysis to demonstrate attainment ofthe 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by

June 15, 2019. In addition, the HGB AD SIP revision incorporates revisions to 30 Texas

Administrative Code Chapters 101 and 115, also adopted on Marc1I 10, 2010, which include the

Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) Program Cap Integrity, the Highly Reactive Volatile

Organic Compounds (HRVOC) Emissions Cap and Trade (HECT) Program Cap Reduction and

Allowance Reallocation, and the Volatile Organic Compounds (YOC) Control Techniques

Guidelines (CTG) Update. The HGB Reasonable Further Progress SIP Revision for the 1997

Eight-Hour Ozone Standard demonstrates that an 18% emissions reduction requirement will be

met for the analysis period between 2002 through 2008 and an average of 3% per year

emissions reduction between each ofthe milestone years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018.

For nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above, FCAA, §182(b)(2) requires states to

submit a SIP revision that implements reasonably available control tec1Inology (RACT) for VOC

emission sources addressed in a CTG document issued by the EPA between November 15, 1990,

and the area's attainment date. CTG documents provide information to assist states in

determining RACT for specific emission sources and provide the EPA's RACT recommendations.

FCAA, §183(e)(3) requires the EPA to regulate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial

products by issuing national regulations or by issuing CTG documents in lieu of national

regulations. The EPA issued 11 CTG documents between 2006 and 2008 with RACT

recommendations for controlling VOC emissionsfrom a variety of consumer and commercial

products.

Ofthe 11 CTG documents, the commission has acted on four. On Marc1I 10, 2010, with the

adoption of the HGB AD SIP revision, the commission adopted portions ofthe Offset

Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommendation and provided a negative

declaration for the F1at Wood Paneling Coatings CTG, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials

CTG, and Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG source categories. The

commission determined that no sources meeting the applicability criteria recommended in these

CTG documents were located in the HGB area. Additionally, due to the EPA's concerns

regarding federal enforceability, staffrecommended withdrawing the two RACT

recommendations for the F1exible Package Printing Materials and the Paper, Film, and Foil

Coatings CTG categories that were proposed on September 23, 2009. RACT determinations

were not made for the following five CTG emission source categories at that time because

additional research was necessary to determine the number ofsources affected by the CTG

recommendations and the EPA had not formally responded to the state's request for

clarification regarding the CTG recommendations: Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Large

Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and

ES-l
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. On March 17, 2011, the EPA issued a guidance

memorandum entitledApproving SIP RevisionsAddressing VOC RACI'Requirementsfor

Certain Coatings Categories regarding the following three CTG categories: Large Appliance

Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings.

Additional discussion regarding the EPA's guidance on these three CTG categories is provided in

Appendix A: Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis.

The following seven CTG categories for the HGB area have pending RACT determinations to be

submitted to the EPA:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008.

This proposed SIP revision provides a RACT analysis update to include the seven CTG

documents issued by the EPA from 2006 through 2008 that have not yet been addressed in the

HGB AD SIP revision adopted on March 10, 2010, and incorporates CTG-related rulemaking

concurrently being proposed for the HGB area (Rule Project No. 2010-016-115-EN).

If adopted, this HGB RACT Analysis Update SIP revision would include the analyses and RACT

determinations for these seven CTG source categories. Ifthe EPA's recommended controlsfor a

particularsource category are determined by the executive director to be RACT and the

commission adopts rules to implement RACT for that source category, adoption ofthis SIP

revision would incorporate those rules into the SIP. The associated proposed rulemaking would

revise Chapter 115, Subchapter E, to implement RACT for the CTG emission source categories in

the HGB area as required by FCAA, §172(c)(l) and §182(b)(2).

E5-2
SEcnON V: LEGAL AU'lHORITY

General

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has the legal authority to implement,

maintain, and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to control the

quality ofthe state's air, including maintaining adequate visibility.

The first air pollution control act, known as the Clean Air Act ofTexas, was passed by the Texas

Legislature in 1965. In 1967, the Clean Air Act ofTexas was superseded by a more

comprehensive statute, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), found in Article 4477-5, Vernon's Texas

Civil Statutes. The legislature amended the TCAA in 1969, 1971, 1973, 1979, 1985, 1987, 1989,

1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009. In 1989, the TCAA was

codified as Chapter 382 ofthe Texas Health and Safety Code.

Originally, the TCAA stated that the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) is the state air pollution

control agency and is the principal authority in the state on matters relating to the quality of air

resources. In 1991, the legislature abolished the TACB effective September 1, 1993, and its

powers, duties, responsibilities, and functions were transferred to the Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC). With the creation ofthe TNRCC, the authority over air

quality is found in both the Texas Water Code and the TCAA. Specifically, the authority ofthe

TNRCC is found in Chapters 5 and 7. Chapter 5, Subcl1apters A - F, H - J, and L, include the

general provisions, organization, and general powers and duties of the TNRCC, and the

responsibilities and authority ofthe executive director. Chapter 5 also authorizes the TNRCC to

implement action when emergency conditions arise and to conduct hearings. Chapter 7 gives the

TNRCC enforcement authority. In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature continued the existence of

the TNRCC until September 1, 2013, and c1langed the name ofthe TNRCC to the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In 2009, the 81st Texas Legislature, during a

special session, amended §5.014 ofthe Texas Water Code, c!langing the expiration date ofthe

TCEQ to September 1, 2011, unless continued in existence by the Texas Sunset Act.

The TCAA specifically authorizes the TCEQ to establish the level of quality to be maintained in

the state's air and to control the quality ofthe state's air by preparing and developing a general,

comprehensive plan. The TCAA, Subc1lapters A - D, also authorize the TCEQ to collect

information to enable the commission to develop an inventory of emissions; to conduct researc1l

and investigations; to enter property and examine records; to prescnbe monitoring

requirements; to institute enforcement proceedings; to enter into contracts and execute

instruments; to formulate rules; to issue orders taking into consideration factors bearing upon

health, welfare, social and economic factors, and practicability and reasonableness; to conduct

hearings; to establish air quality control regions; to encourage cooperation with citizens' groups

and other agencies and political subdivisions ofthe state as well as with industries and the

federal government; and to establish and operate a system ofpennits for construction or

modification offacilities.

Local government authority is found in Subc1lapter E ofthe TCAA. Local governments have the

same power as the TCEQ to enter property and make inspections. They also may make

recommendations to the commission concerning any action ofthe TCEQ that affects their

territorial jurisdiction, may bring enforcement actions, and may execute cooperative agreements

with the TCEQ or other local governments. In addition, a city or town may enact and enforce

ordinancesfor the control and abatement of air pollution not inconsistent with the provisions of

the TCAA and the rules or orders ofthe commission.
Subchapters G and H of the TCAA authorize the TCEQ to establish vehicle inspection and

maintenance programs in certain areas ofthe state, consistent with the requirements of the

Federal Clean Air Act; coordinate with federal, state, and local transportation planning agencies

to develop and implement transportation programs and measures necessary to attain and

maintain the NAAQS; establish gasoline volatility and low emission diesel standards; and fund

and authorize participating counties to implement vehicle repair assistance, retrofit, and

accelerated vehicle retirement programs.

Applicable Law

The following statutes and rnles provide necessary authority to adopt and implement the state

implementation plan (SIP). The rules listed below have previously been submitted as part ofthe

SIP.

Statutes

All sections of each subchapter are included, unless otherwise noted.

TEXAS HEALTH & SAFElY CODE, Chapter 382

TEXAS WATER CODE

September I, 2009

September 1, 2009

Chapter 5: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Subchapter General Provisions

Subchapter B: Organization ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Subchapter C: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Subchapter D: General Powers and Duties ofthe Commission

Subchapter E: Administrative Provisions for Commission

Subchapter F: Executive Director (except §§5.225, 5.226, 5.227, 5.2275,5.231, 5.232, and

5.2 36)

Subchapter H: Delegation of Hearings

SubchapterI: Judicial Review

SubchapterJ: Consolidated Permit Processing

Subchapter L: Emergency and Temporary Orders (§§5.514, 5.5145, and 5.515 only)

Subchapter M: Environmental Permitting Procedures (§5.558 only)

Chapter 7: Enforcement

Subchapter A: General Provisions (§§7.001, 7.002, 7.0025, 7.004, and 7.005 only)

Subchapter B: Corrective Action and Injunctive Relief (§7.032 only)

Subchapter C: Administrative Penalties

Subchapter D: Civil Penalties (except §7.109)

Subchapter E: Criminal Offenses and Penalties: §§7.177, 7.179-7.183

RYks

All ofthe following rnles are found in 30 Texas Administrative Code, as of the following latest

effective dates:

Chapter 7: Memoranda of Understanding, §§7.110 and 7.119

December 13, 1996 and May 2, 2002

Chapter 19: Electronic Reporting

Chapter 35: Subchapters A-C, K: Emergency and Temporary Orders and

Permits; Temporary Suspension or Amendment ofPermit Conditions

ii

March 15, 2007

July 20, 2006
Chapter 39: Public Notice, §§39.201; 39401; 39403(a) and (b)(8)-(1O);

39405(f)(1) and (g); 39409; 39411 (a), (b)(l)-(6), and (8)-(10) and (c)(1)-(6)

and (d); 39.413(9), (11), (12), and (14); 39418(a) and (b)(3) and (4);

39419(a), (b), (d), and (e); 39.420(a), (b) and (c)(3) and (4); 39423 (a) and

(b); 39.601-39.605

Chapter 55: Requests for Reconsideration and Contested Case Hearings;

Public Comment, §§55.1; 55.21(a) - (d), (e)(2), (3), and (12), (f) and (g);

55.101(a), (b), and (c)(6) - (8); 55.103; 55.150; 55.152(a)(1), (2), and (6) and

(b); 55·154; 55.156; 55·200; 55.201(a) - (h); 55.203; 55·205; 55.209, and

55.211

Chapter 101: General Air Quality Rules

Chapter 106: Permits by Rule, Subchapter A

Chapter 111: Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate

Matter

Chapter 112: Control ofAir Pollution from Sulfur Compounds

Chapter 113: Standards ofPerformance for Hazardous Air Pollutants and for

Designated Facilities and Pollutants

June 24, 2010

June 24, 2010

May 12, 2011

May 12, 2011

July 19, 2006

July 16, 1997

May 14, 2009

Chapter 114: Control ofAir Pollution from Motor Vehicles

Chapter 115: Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds

Chapter 116: Permits for New Construction or Modification

Chapter 117: Control ofAir Pollution frOm Nitrogen Compounds

Chapter 118: Control ofAir Pollution Episodes

Chapter 122: §122.122: Potential to Emit

Chapter 122: §122.215: Minor Permit Revisions

Chapter 122: §122.216: Applications for Minor Permit Revisions

Chapter 122: §122.217: Procedures for Minor Permit Revisions

December 13, 2010

February 17, 2011

March 3, 2011

May 12, 2011

March 5, 2000

December 11, 2002

June 3, 2001

June 3, 2001

December 11, 2002

Chapter 122: §122.218: Minor Permit Revision Procedures for Permit

Revisions Involving the Use of Economic Incentives, Marketable Permits, and

Emissions Trading

iii

June 3, 2001
SECOON VI: CONTROL STRATEGY

A Introduction (No change)

B. Ozone (Revised)

1. Dallas-Fort Worth (No change)

2. Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Revised)

Chapter 1: General (Revised)

Chapter 2: Anthropogenic Emissions Inventory (EI) Description (No change)

Chapter 3: Photochemical Modeling (No change)

Chapter 4: Control Strategies and Required Elements (Revised)

Chapter 5: Weight ofEvidence (No change)

Chapter 6: Ongoing and Future Initiatives (No change)

3. Beaumont-Port Arthur (No change)

4. EI Paso (No change)

5. Regional Strategies (No change)

6. Northeast Texas (No change)

7. Austin Area (No change)

8. San Antonio Area (No change)

9. Victoria Area (No change)

C. Particulate Matter (No change)

D. Carbon Monoxide (No change)

E. Lead (No change)

F. Oxides ofNitrogen (No change)

G. Sulfur Dioxide (No change)

H. Conformity with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (No change)

1. Site Specific (No change)

J. Mobile Sources Strategies (No change)

K. Clean Air Interstate Rule (No change)

1. Transport (No change)

M. Regional Haze (No change)

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Section V: Legal Authority

Section VI: Control Strategy

Table ofContents

list ofAcronyms

list ofTables

list ofAppendices

Chapter 1: General

1.1 Background

1.2 Introduction

1.2.1 One-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) History (No

change)

1.2.21997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS History

1.2.2.1 May 23. 2007 (No change)

1.2.2.2 March 10, 2010

1.2.3 Existing Ozone Control Strategies (No change)

1.2-4 Current SIP Revision

1.3 Health Effects (No change)

1-4 Stakeholder Participation and Public Hearings

1.4.1 Stakeholder Participation

1.4.2 Public Hearings and Comment Information

1.5 Social and Economic Considerations

1.6 Fiscal and Manpower Resources (No change)

Chapter 2: Anthropogenic Emissions Inventory (EI) Description (No change)

Chapter 3: Photochemical Modeling (No change)

Chapter 4: Control Strategies and Required Elements

4.1 Introduction (No change)

4.2 Existing Control Measures

4.3 Updates to Existing Control Measures (No change)

4.4 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACD Analysis

4-4.1 General Discussion

v
442 NOx RACf Detennination (No change)

4-4.3 VOC RACf Determination

4.4.3.1 Flexible Package Printing

443.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents

4.4.3.3 Large Appliance Coatings

443.4 Metal Furniture Coatings

4-4.3.5 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings

4.4.3.6 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

4.4.3.7 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

4.5 Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis (No change)

4.6 New Control Measures (No change)

4.7 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) (No change)

4.8 Monitoring Network (No change)

4.9 Contingency Plan (No change)

4.10 References (No change)

Chapter 5: Weight of Evidence (No change)

Chapter 6: Ongoing and Future Initiatives (No change)

vi
ACT

AD

BACT

CFR

CTG

DMA

DMX

EPA

FCAA

HECT

H-GAC

HGB

HRVOC

IjM

LDAR

MACT

MECT

mph

MVEB

NAAQS

NOx

ppm

RACM

RACT

RFP

RVP

SB

SIP

TACB

TCAA

TCEQ

TERP

TNRCC

liST OF ACRONYMS

alternative control techniques

attainment demonstration

best available control technology

Code of Federal Regulations

Control Techniques Guidelines

Marine Distillate Fuel A

Marine Distillate Fuel X

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Clean Air Act

Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and Trade Program

Houston-Galveston Area Council

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria

highly reactive volatile organic compounds

Inspection and Maintenance

leak detection and repair

maximum achievable control technology

Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program

miles per hour

motor vehicle emissions budget

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

nitrogen oxides

parts per million

reasonably available control measures

reasonably available control technology

reasonable further progress

Reid vapor pressure

Senate Bill

state implementation plan

Texas Air Control Board

Texas Clean Air Act

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission)

Texas Emission Reduction Plan

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

vii
tpy

TxLED

VMEP

VOC

tons per year

Texas Low Emission Diesel

Voluntary Mobile Emissions Reductions Program

volatile organic compounds

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Public Hearing Information

Table 4-1: Existing Control Measures Applicable to the HGB Eight-County Nonattainment Area

ix
Appendix

Appendix A

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Name

Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis

x
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL

1.1 BACKGROUND

The History ofthe Texas State Implementation Plan, a comprehensive overview ofthe state

implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted to the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) by the State ofTexas, is available on the Introduction to the SIP Web page

(http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/sipintro.htm1#History) on the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality (TCEOl Web site (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/).

1.2 INTRODUcnON

The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area presents a complex air pollution problem because

ofthe nature ofthe emissions and meteorology ofthe area. The HGB area's hot, sunny climate,

large urban population activities, and extensive, highly concentrated industrial complex provide

the ingredients for ozone formation: sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic

compounds (YOC). The Houston area's significant biogenicVOC emissions and complex

meteorology, which includes land/sea breeze air parcel recirculation, complicate photochemical

modeling. Economic and population growth continue to create air quality challenges for the

HGB area. Despite these challenges, key ozone-targeting regulatory programs have reduced the

number and magnitude of ozone exceedances, the area of exceedance, and the population

exposed to exceedances ofthe orone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

Summaries of HGB area 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS SIP revisions, as well as information

regarding this HGB Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update SIP Revision for

the 1997 Eight-Hour Orone Standard (HGB RACT SIP revision) are provided.

1.2.1 One-Hour Ozone National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS) History

(No change)

1.2.2 1997Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS History

In 1997, the EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million

(ppm) based on the three-year average ofthe annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour

average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area. The final 1997 eighthour ozone NAAQS was published in the Federal Register on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), and

became effective on September 16, 1997. On Apri130, 2004, the EPA finalized nonattainment

designations and promulgated the first phase ofits implementation rule for the 1997 eight-hour

ozone standard (69 FR 23951). These actions became effective on June 15, 2004. The EPA

classified the HGB area as a moderate nonattainment area for the standard. The TCEQ was

required to submit a SIP revision for the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS to the EPA by June 15,

2007, and demonstrate attainment ofthe standard by June 15, 2010. In the November 29, 2005,

issue ofthe Federal Register (70 FR 71612), the EPA published the second phase ofthe

implementation rule for the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, which addressed the control

obligations that apply to areas designated nonattainment for the standard.

The commission adopted the 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area SIP revision and the

reasonable further progress (RFP) SIP revision for the HGB area on May 23, 2007. These SIP

revisions were the first step in addressing the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard in the HGB area.

The TCEQ demonstrated reasonable further progress toward attaining the 1997 eight-hour

ozone standard and committed to developing an HGB 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment

demonstration SIP revision to attain the 1997 standard as expeditiously as practicable. On June

15, 2007, these two revisions to the Texas SIP and a letter from the governor ofTexas requesting

1-1
that the HGB ozone nonattainment area be reclassified from a moderate nonattainment area to

a severe nonattainment area were submitted to the EPA.

The EPA granted the governor's request to voluntarily reclassify the HGB ozone nonattainment

area from a moderate to a severe nonattainrnent area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the October

1,2008, issue ofthe Federal Register (73 FR56983). The EPA set April 15, 2010, as the date for

the state to submit a revised SIP addressing the severe ozone nonattainment area requirements

ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) (42 United States Code, §§7401 etseq.). The area's new

attainment date for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard is as expeditiously as practicable but no

later than June 15, 2019.

1.2.2.1 May 23. 2007 (No changel

1.2.2.2 March 10. 2010

On March 10, 2010, the commission adopted two revisions to the Texas SIP for the HGB ozone

nonattainment area. The HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour

Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) included a photochemical modeling analysis and a

weight of evidence analysis to demonstrate attainment ofthe 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by

the June 15, 2019, deadline. This SIP revision also included a motor vehicle emissions budget

(MVEB), a VOC RACT analysis, a NOx RACT analysis, a reasonably available control measures

(RACM) analysis, a contingency plan, and a mid-course review commitment. In addition, the

HGB AD SIP revision incorporated revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101 and

115, also adopted on March 10, 2010, which included the Mass Emissions Cap and Trade

(MECT) Program Cap Integrity, the Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds (HRVOC)

Emissions Cap and Trade (HECT) Program Cap Reduction and Allowance Reallocation, and the

VOC Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) Update.

The HGB RFP SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB RFP SIP revision),

as required by the EPA, demonstrated that an 18% emissions reduction requirement will be met

for the analysis period between 2002 through 2008 and an average of 3% per year emissions

reduction between each of the milestone years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018. The RFP SIP

revision established baseline emission levels, calculated reduction targets, identified control

strategiesto meet emission target levels, and tracked actual emission reductions against

established emissions growth. An MVEB for each milestone year and a contingency plan were

also included in the RFP SIP revision.

In the January 25, 2011, issue ofthe Federal Register (76 FR4342), the EPA published a notice

of its determination that the MVEBs in the HGB AD and RFP SIP revisions are adequate for

transportation conformity purposes, effective February 9, 2011.

1.2.3 Existing Ozone Control Strategies (No change)

1.2.4 Current SIP Revision

Because this SIP revision focuses specifically on the seven CTG documents issued by the EPA

from 2006 through 2008 that have not yet been addressed in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted

March 10, 2010, the RACT analysis in this SIP revision only provides an update to the HGB VOC

RACT demonstration.

Although the FCAA requires the state to implement RACT, EPA guidance on RACT indicates

that states may choose to implement the CTG recommendations, implement an alternative

approach, or demonstrate that additional controls for the CTG emission source category are not

technologically or economically feasible in the area. If adopted, this SIP revision would provide a

detailed RACT analysis update for the HGB area and incorporate any necessary rule revisions.

1-2
The following seven CTG documents would be evaluated during the associated proposed

rulemaking (Rule Project No. 2010-016-11S-EN) to determine if additional VOC controls are

necessary to fulfill RACT requirements:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008.

1.3 HEALTH EFFECI'S (NO CHANGE)

1.4 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

1.4.1 Stakeholder Participation

The TCEQ held a stakeholder meeting on December 1, 2010, and accepted informal comments

until January 11, 2011, for the associated Chapter l1S rulemaking (Rule Project No. 2010-016-

l1S-EN). For further information, please refer to the CTG Stakeholder Group Web page

(http://www.tceq.texas.gov/implementation/air/rules/ctg/controLtechniques_stakeholder.ht

mI).

1.4.2 Public Hearings and Comment Information

The commission will hold public hearings for this proposed SIP revision and associated

rulemaking at the following times and locations:

Table 1-1: Public Hearing Information

CIt.y .. Dat~ ...... . . Time J ••• Location·

Houston-Galveston Area Council

Houston July 18, 2011 6:30p.m. 3555 Timmons Lane

Conference Room C

Houston, TX 77027

TCEQ Headquarters

Austin July 22, 2011 10:00 a.m.

12100 Park 35 Circle

Bldg. E, Room 201

Austin, TX 78753

The public comment period will open on June 24, 2011, and close on July 2S, 2011. Written

comments will be accepted via mail, fax, or through the eComments system. All comments

should reference the "HGB RACT Analysis Update SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Owne

Standard" and Project Number 2010-028-SIP-NR Comments may be submitted to Lola Brown,

MC 206, State Implementation Plan Team, Chief Engineer's Office, Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed to (S12) 239-S687.

Electronic comments may be submitted through the eComments system

(http://wwws.tceq.texas.gov/rules/ecomments/). File size restrictions may apply to comments

being submitted via the eComments system. Comments must be received by July 2S, 2011.

An electronic version ofthis proposed SIP revision and appendix can be found at the TCEQ's SIf

Hot Topics Web page (http:/www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/Hottop.html).

1-3
1.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

There are no social or economic issues of concern attributable to this HGB RACf Analysis

Update SIP Revision. For a detailed explanation of any social and economic issues involved with

the associat«ed Chapter 115 rulemaking (Rule Project No. 20lO-016-115-EN), please refer to the

preamble that precedes those rules, accessed from the TCEQ Rule Prooosals and Adoptions Web

(http://www.tceq.texas.gov/nav/rules/propose_adopt.html).

1.6 FISCALAND MANPOWER RESOURCES (NO CHANGE)

1-4
CHAPTER 2: ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY (EI) DESCRIPTION

(NO CHANGE)

2-1
CHAPTER 3: PHOTOCHEMICAL MODEUNG (NO CHANGE)

3-1
CHAPTER 4: CONTROL STRATEGIES AND REQUIRED ELEMENfS

4.1 INTRODUcnON (NO CHANGE)

4.2 EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES

Over several years of ozone planning in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area, a broad

range of control measures have been implemented for each emission source category. Table 4-1:

Existing Ozone Control Measures Applicable to the HGB Eight-County Nonattainment Area

lists the existing ozone control strategies that have been implemented for the one-hour and 1997

eight-hour ozone standards in the HGB area.

Table 4-1: Existing Control Measures Applicable to the HGB Eight-County

Nonattainment Area

Measure . ... . .. •

. Desalption .. ··.•·..• ~Date(sJ

Nitrogen Oxides (NO.) Overall 80% NO. reduction from existing April 1, 2003, and

Mass Emissions Cap and industrial sources and utility power plants, phased in through

Trade (MECT) Program implemented through a cap and trade program April 1, 2007

Affects utility boilers, gas turbines, heaters and

furnaces, stationary internal combustion engines,

industrial boilers, and many other industrial

sources

Highly Reactive Volatile Affects cooling towers, process vents, and flares, Monitoring

Organic Compounds and establishes an annual emissions limit with a requirements began

(HRVOC) Rules and cap and trade for each site in Harris County January 31, 2006

HRVOC Emissions Cap

and Trade (HECT) Seven perimeter counties subject to permit Cap and trade

Program allowable limits and monitoring requirements program implemented

January 1, 2007

HECT cap

incrementally

stepped-down from

2014 through 2017 for

a total 2S% cap

reduction

HRVOC Fugitive Rules More stringent leak detection and repair (LDAR) March 31, 2004

requirements for components in HRVOC service

Additional components included in LDAR

program: more stringent repair times, lower leak

detection, and third part audit requirements

4-1
Measure· .. . ... DescriDtion Start Date(s)

Volatile Organic Requires controls for slotted gUide poles and January 1, 2009

Compounds (VOe) Rules more stringent controls for other fittings on

- Storage Tanks floating rooftanks, and control requirements or

operational limitations on landing floating roof

tanks

Eliminates exemption for storage tanks for crude

oil or natural gas condensate, and regulates flash

emissions from these tanks

VOC Rules - Degassing Requires vapors from degassing to be vented to a January 1, 2009

Operations control device for a longer time period, and

removes exemption from degassing to control for

tanks with capacity of 75,000 to 1,000,000 gallons

Clarification of rule and monitoring and testing February 17, 2011

requirements, additional control options, and

notification requirements

NOx Emission Standards NOx emission standards for nitric acid and adipic November 15, 1999

for Nitric Acid and Adipic acid manufacturing facilities in the HGB area

Acid Manufacturing

Utility Electric NOxcontrol requirements (approximately 55 %) May 1, 2003, through

Generation in East and on utility boilers and stationary gas turbines at May 1, 2005

Central Texas utility electric generation sites in East and Central

Texas

VOC Control Measures Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002,

batch processes, bakeries, and offset lithographic and earlier

printers by December 31,2002

Additional VOC measures adopted earlier for

reasonably available control technology (RACT)

purposes: storage, general vent gas, industrial

wastewater, loading and unloading operations,

general VOC LDAR, solvent using process, etc.

(see Appendix D: Reasonably Available Control

Technology Analysis of the Houston-GalvestonBrazoria Attainment Demonstration State

Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision)

adopted March 10, 2010, for more details)

4-2
Measure .. . .Descrlption .. . Start.Dl!te{s) ..

VOC Control Measures- Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002

Offset lithographic offset lithographic printers

Printers

Revision to limit VOC content of solvents used by March 1, 2011, for

offset lithographic printing facilities and to major sources

include smaller sources in rule applicability (see

Appendix D of the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 1,2012, for

March 10, 2010, for more details) minor sources

Refueling - Stage I Captures gasoline vapors that are released when 1990

gasoline is delivered to a storage tank

Vapors returned to the tank truck as the storage

tank is being filled with fuel, rather than released

into the ambient air

Refueling - Stage II Captures gasoline vapors when a vehicle is being 1992

fueled at the pump

Vapors returned through the pump hose to the

petroleum storage tank, rather than released into

the air

Federal Area/Non-Road Series of emissions limits, implemented by the Through 2018

Measures United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), for area and non-road sources

Examples: diesel and gasoline engine standards

for locomotives and leaf-blowers

Texas Emission Reduction Provides grant funds for on-road and non-road January 2002

Plan (TERP) heavy-duty diesel engine replacement/retrofit

California Gasoline California standards for non-road gasoline May 1, 2004

Engines engines 25 horsepower and larger

Stationary Diesel Engines Prohibition on operating stationary diesel and April 1, 2002

dual-fuel engines for testing and maintenance

purposes between 6:00 a.m. and noon

Natural Gas-Fired Small NO, emission limits on small-scale residential and 2002

Boilers, Process Heaters, industrial boilers, process heaters, and water

and Water Heaters heaters equal to or less than 2.0 million British

thermal units per hour

Minor Source NO, NO, emission limits on boilers, process heaters, March 31, 200S

Controls for Non-MECT stationary engines, and turbines at minor sites

Sites not included in the MECT program (uncontrolled

design capacity to emit less than 10 tons per year

(tpy))

4-3
Measure . . Description . , . Start Date(s)

VOC Control Measures Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002,

batch processes and bakeries by December 31, and earlier

2002

Additional VOC measures adopted earlier for

RACT purposes: storage, general vent gas,

industrial wastewater, loading and unloading

operations, general VOC LDAR, solvent using

process, cutback asphalt, etc. (see Appendix D of

the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010,

for more details)

Texas Low Emission Requires all diesels for both on-road and non- Phase in began

Diesel (TxLED) road use to have a lower aromatic content and a October 31, 2005

higher cetane number

TxLED for Marine Fuels Adds marine distillate fuels X and A, commonly June 24, 2007

known as DMX and DMA, or Marine Gas Oil, into

the definition of diesel fuels, requiring them to be

TxLED compliant

Texas Low Reid Vapor Requires all gasoline for both on-road and non- April 2000

Pressure (RVP) Gasoline road use to have a RVP of7.B pounds per square

inch or less from May 1 through October 1 each

year

Voluntary Mobile Voluntary measures administered by the Through 201B

Emissions Reduction Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) (see

Program (VMEP) Appendix F: Evaluation ofMobile Source Control

Strategies for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria

State Implementation Plan (With Detailed

Strategies), prepared for H-GAC by ENVIRON

International Corporation, of the HGB AD SIP

adopted March 10, 2010)

Federal On-Road Series of emissions limits, implemented by the Phase in through 2013

Measures EPA, for on-road vehicles

Examples: Tier 1 and Tier 2 vehicle standards, low

sulfur diesel standards, National Low Emission

Vehicle standards, and reformulated gasoline

Vehicle Inspection/ Yearly treadmill-type testing for pre-1996 vehicles May 1, 2002, in Harris

Maintenance (11M) and computer checks for 1996 and newer vehicles County

May 1, 2003, in

Brazoria, Fort Bend,

Galveston, and

Montgomery Counties

Speed Limit Reduction Five miles per hour (mph) below what was posted September 2003

before May 1, 2002, on roadways where speeds

were 65 mph or higher

4-4
Measure 1>escriptlon . Start Date(s)

Transportation Con.trol Various measures in H-GAC's long-range Phase in through 2018

Measures transportation plans (see Appendix Fof the HGB

AD SIP adopted March 10, 2010, for more details)

Voluntary Energy Energy efficiency and renewable energy projects September 1, 1999,

Efficiency/Renewable encouraged by Senate Bill (SB) 7, 76th Texas and September 1,

Energy Legislature, 1999 and SB 5, 77th Texas 2001

Legislature, 2001

Automotive Windshield VOC content limitation on automotive windshield January 1, 1995

Washer Fluid washer fluid sold, supplied, distributed, or

manufactured for use in Texas

4.3 UPDATES TO EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES (NO CHANGE)

4.4 REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) ANALYSIS

4.4.1 General Discussion

The HGB area is currently classified as a severe nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour

ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Under the 1997 eight-hour ozone

standard, the HGB area is required to meet the mandates ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA)

under §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (f). According to the EPA's final rule to implement the 1997

eight-hour ozone NAAQS (40 Code ofFederal Regulations §51.912, November 29, 2005), a state

containing areas classified as moderate nonattainment or higher must submit a state

implementation plan (SIP) revision demonstrating that its current rules fulfill the RACf

requirements for all Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) emission source categories and all

non-CfG major sources of NOx and VOC. The major source threshold for severe nonattainment

areas is a potential to emit 25 tpy or more of either NOx or VOC.

In the September 17, 1979, issue ofthe Federal Register (44 FR 53762), RACf is defined as the

lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of

control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic

feasibility. RACf requirements for nonattainment areas classified as moderate and higher are

included in the FCAA to assure that significantsource categories at major sources of ozone

precursor emissions are controlled to a reasonable extent, but not necessarily to best available

control technology (BACT) levels expected of new sources orto maximum achievable control

teclmology (MACT) levels required for major sources of hazardous air pollutants. While RACf

and reasonably available control measures (RACM) have similar consideration factors like

technological and economic feasibility, there is a significant distinction between RACf and

RACM. To be considered RACM, a control measure must advance attainment ofthe area

towards meeting the NAAQS for that measure (see FCAA, §172(C)(1)). Advancing attainment of

the area is not a factor of consideration when evaluating RACf because the benefit of

implementing RACf is presumed under the FCAA.

Under the current state rules, the HGB area is subject to some ofthe most stringent NOx and

VOC emission control requirements in the country, and for many source categories, the existing

rules are more stringent than recommended RACf standards for those categories. In the final

approval notice for the revised HGB one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision

published in the September 6, 2006, issue ofthe Federal Register (71 FR52676), the EPA noted

that the HGB VOC rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115 and NOx rules in Chapter

4-5
117 were previously determined to meet the FCAA RACf requirements. Under the one-hour

ozone NAAQS, the HGB area was also designated as a severe nonattainment area and the

threshold for major stationary sources under the one-hour ozone nonattainment designation

was identical to the current threshold under the 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment

designation. Therefore, controls to satisfy RACf for most major sources under the 1997 eighthour ozone.designation were implemented by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

(TCEQ) under the one-hour orone attainment demonstration SIP revision and previously

approved by the EPA

4-4.2 NOx RACT Determination (No change)

4-4.3 VOC RACT Determination

The TCEQ's analysis demonstrates that the current VOC rules and controls for the HGB area

satisfy the FCAA requirements for RACf for all CTG or alternative control techniques (ACD

VOC source categories specific to any CfG or ACf documents issued prior to 2006. For all nonCfG/ACf major VOC emission source categories that controls are technologically and

economically feasible, RACf is fulfilled by the EPA-approved Chapter 115 rules or other

federally enforceable measures.

The EPA issued 11 CfG documents between 2006 and 2008 with recommendations for VOC

controls on a variety of consumer and commercial products. Some ofthe new CfG

recommendations are updates to previously issued CTG documents and some are

recommendations for new categories. The TCEQ evaluated these new CfG documents in this

RACf analysis to deternline if additional VOC controls were necessary to fulfill RACf

requirements.

The RACf analysis included in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, addresses the

following CfG documents:

• Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, Group n, issued in 2006;

• Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Group IV, issued in 2008.

The RACf analysis included in this SIP revision addresses the following CfG documents:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008.

The remainder ofthis section includes briefsummaries of the TCEQ's deternlinations regarding

these seven CTG documents. Additional details regarding the evaluation ofthe 11 CTG

documents are provided in Appendix A:. Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis.

4.4,3-l Flexible Package Printing

The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Flexible Package Printing CTG recommendations

are RACffor the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing

4-6
rulemaking to limit the vec content of coatings used by flexible package printing sources in the

HGB area (Rille Project 2010-016-115-EN). The rulemaking implements the CTG

recommendations to reduce the vec content of coatings and imposes work practices for

cleaning materials used during flexible package printing.

4.4.3.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents

The TCEQ has determined that the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommendations are

RACT for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing rulemaking to

implement the CTG recommendations to limit the vec content ofindustrial cleaning solvents

used in the HGB area (Rille Project 2010-016-115-EN).

4.4.3.3 Large Appliance Coatings

The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Large Appliance Coatings CTG recommendations

are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing

rulemaking to limit the vec content oflarge appliance coatings in the HGB area (Rille Project

201O-016-115-EN). The rulemaking implements the CTG recommendations to reduce the vec

content of coatings and imposes work practices for cleaning materials used during large

appliance coating.

4.4.3.4 Metal Furniture Coatings

The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Metal Furniture Coatings CTG recommendations

are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing

rulemaking to limit the vec content ofmetal furniture coatings used in the HGB area (Rille

Project 2010-0l6-115-EN). The rulemaking implements the CTG recommendations to reduce

the vec content of coatings and imposes work practices for cleaning materials used during

metal furniture coating.

4.4.3.5 Paper, Film. and Foil Coatings

The TCEQ has deternlined that portions ofthe Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CTG

recommendations are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is

proposing rulemaking to linrit the vec content of paper, film, and foil coatings in the HGB area

(Rille Project 20l0-0l6-115-EN). The rulemaking implements the CTG recommendations to

reduce the vec content of coatings and imposes work practices for cleaning materials used

during paper, film, and foil coating.

4.4.3.6 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

The TCEQ has determined that the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG recommendations

are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing

rulemaking to implement the CTG recommendations to limit the vec content ofmiscellaneous

industrial adhesives used in the HGB area (Rille Project 201O-0l6-115-EN).

4.4.3.7 Misce!],meous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

CTG recommendations are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ

is proposing rulemaking to limit the vec content ofmiscellaneous metal and plastic parts

coatings used in the HGB area (Rille Project 2010-0l6-115-EN). The rulemaking implements the

CTG recommendations to reduce the vec content of coatings and imposes work practices for

cleaning materials used during miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating.

4-7
4.5 REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RACM) ANALYSIS (NO

CHANGE)

4.6 NEW CONTROL MEASURES (NO CHANGE)

4.7 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGET (MVEB) (NO CHANGE)

4.8 MONITORING NElWORK (NO CHANGE)

4.9 CONTINGENCYPLAN (NO CHANGE)

4.10 REFERENCES (NO CHANGE)

4-8
CHAPTER 5: WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE (NO CHANGE)

5-1
CHAPTER 6: ONGOING AND FUTURE INITIATIVES (NO CHANGE)

6-1
APPENDIXA

REASONABLYAVAILABLE CONTROLTECHNOWGY

ANALYSIS

HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA REASONABLY

AVAILABLE CONTROLTECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS UPDATE

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION FOR THE 1997

EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Project No. 2010-028-SIP-NR
Table ofContents

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 RAcr Evaluation Approach .................................................•.................................. 2

1.2.1 General Discussion 2

1.2.2 Identification ofCI'G Emission Sources 3

1.2.3 Determining if State Regulations Fulfill RAcr Requirements 3

1.3 RAcr Determination and Discussion 3

1.3.1 General Discussion 3

1.3.2 VOC RAcr Determination 4

1.3.2.1 FlexIble Package Printing 4

1.3.2.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents 4

1.3.2.3 Large Appliance Coatings 5

1.3.2.4 Metal Furniture Coatings 5

1.3.2.5 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings 6

1.3.2.6 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives ; 7

1.3.2.7 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings 7
1.1 INTRODUcnON

The eight-county Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) eight-hour ozone nonattainment area

(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties)

is currently classified as severe under the 1997 eight-hour orone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS). Under the 1997 eight-hour orone standard, the HGB area is required to

meet the mandates ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) under §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (f).

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final rule to

implement the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §51.912,

November 29, 2005), a state containing areas classified as moderate nonattainment or higher

must submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision demonstrating that its current rules

fulfill the reasonably available control teclmology (RACf) requirements for all Control

Techniques Guidelines (CfG) emission source categories. In the final approval notice for the

revised HGB one-hour orone attainment demonstration SIP revision published in the

September 6, 2006, issue ofthe Federal Register (71 FR 52676), the EPA noted that the HGB

volatile organic compounds (VOC) rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115:

Control ofAirPollutionfrom Volatile Organic Compounds and nitrogen oxides (NOx) rules in

Chapter 117: Control ofAirPollutionfrom Nitrogen Compounds were previously determined to

meet the FCAA RACf requirements.

The EPA issued 11 CfG documents between 2006 and 2008 with recommendations for VOC

controls on a variety of consumer and commercial products. Some ofthe new CfG

recommendations are updates to previously issued CfG documents and some are

recommendations for new categories. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

evaluated these new CfG documents in this RACf analysis to determine if additional VOC

controls were necessary to fulfill RACf requirements.

The RACf analysis included in the Houston-Galveston-Brawria Attainment Demonstration

State Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Orone Standard (HGB AD SIP

revision) adopted March 10, 2010, addresses the following CfG documents:

• Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008.

The RACf analysis included in this SIP revision addresses the following CfG documents:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008.

By letter dated December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested clarification from the EPA regarding

several issues related to the recommendations in the following three CfG categories: Large

Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts

Coatings. A number ofthe recommended VOC content limits for specific coatings categories in

the CfG documents are less stringent than the more general VOC content limits specified in the

A-l
EPA's original CTG recommendations. The TCEQ requested clarification to assure that

implementing the erG recommendations would not be considered as backsliding and to be

certain that the TCEQ has the appropriate information to determine whether the CTG

recommendations actually represent RACT for Texas. On March 17, 2011, the EPA issued a

guidancememorandum regarding these three CTG categories entitledApproving SIP Revisions

Addressing vac RACTRequirementsfor Certain Coatings Categories. The EPA stated in the

memorandum that: •...if a state believes the volume usage distribution among the general and

specialty categories in the docket is representative ofthe distribution in the nonattainment area,

we believe that if a state undertakes wholesale adoption ofthe new categorical limits in a specific

CTG, the state may rely on the assessments in the docket to demonstrate that the range of new

limits will result in an overall reduction in emissions from the collection of covered coatings."

The TCEQ is proposing concurrent rulemaking (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN) to

implement RACT for these three CTG categories that incorporates the linlits as recommended in

the CTG documents. The preamble ofthe proposed rulemaking provides discussion regarding

the estimated percent reductions for these CTG categories that supports the EPA's position that

applying the new recommended limits as a whole results in net reductions. In addition, as

discussed in the preamble ofthe proposed rulemaking and in this appendix, the current TCEQ

rules for these CTG categories have exemption thresholds more stringent than recommended by

the CTG documents and the proposed rulemaking would retain the more stringent exemption

thresholds ofthe current rules to prevent potential backsliding. This approach also results in an

overall control level greater than the new CTG recommendations and supports the TCEQ's

position that proposed rulemaking provides equivalent or better VOC control for these CTG

categories and is not backsliding undertile FCAA. The TCEQ contends that the proposed

rulemaking is consistent with the EPA's guidance in the March 17, 2011, memorandum and

meets RACT requirements for these three CTG categories.

RACT is defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting

by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological

and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762, September 17. 1979). RACT requirements for moderate

and higher classification nonattainment areas are included in the FCAA to assure that

significant source categories at major sources of ozone precursor emissions are controlled to a

reasonable extent, but not necessarily to best available control technology (BACT) levels

expected of new sources or to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) levels required

for major sources of hazardous air pollutants.

While RACT and reasonably available control measures (RACM) have similar consideration

factors like technological and economic feasibility, there is a significant distinction between

RACT and RACM. A control measure must advance attainment ofthe area towards meeting the

NAAQS for that measure to be considered RACM. Advancing attainment ofthe area is not a

factor of consideration when evaluating RACT because the benefit ofimplementing RAer is

presumed under the FCAA.

1.2 RACf EVALUATION APPROACH

1.2.1 General Discussion

The TCEQ demonstrates that the RACT requirements are being fulfilled in the HGB area by: (1)

identifying all CTG source categories of NOx and VOC emissions and submitting negative

declarations for categories where there are no emission sources within the HGB area; (2)

identifying all non-erG major sources of NOx and VOC emissions; (3) identifying the state

regulation that implements or exceeds RACT for each applicable CTG source category or nonCTG major emission source; and (4) descrihing the basis for concluding that these regulations

A-2
fulfill RACT. Because this SIP revision focuses specifically on the seven CTG documents issued

by the EPA from 2006 through 2008 that were not addressed in the HGB AD SIP revision

adopted March 10, 2010, this RACT analysis only provides an update to the HGB VOC RACT

demonstration.

1.2.2 Identification oferG Emission Sources

The EPA has issued CTG documents defining RACT for existing facilities. The TCEQ reviewed

the seven Consumer and Commercial Products CTG documents issued from 2006 through 2008

that were not addressed in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, to identify all

source categories ofVOC emissions that require RACT. RACT determinations are not required if

there are no sources in the HGB area that are subject to a CTG document.

1.2.3 Determining ifState Regulations Fulfill RAer Requirements

The EPA previously approved the VOC rules in 30 TAC Chapter 115 as meeting the FCAA RACT

requirements for CTG documents issued prior to 2006. RACT for the CTG documents issued in

or after 2006 was evaluated by comparing CTG recommendations to TCEQ rules to determine if

the existing rules satisfied RACT. RACT determinations for four ofthe CTG documents issued

after 2006 were submitted to the EPA on April 6, 2010 (SIP Project Number 2009-017-SIP-NR).

Additional discussion regarding CTG documents issued in 2006 and later is provided in Section

1.3.2: VaG RAGTDetennination ofthis appendix. State rules that are consistent with or more

stringent than controls inlplemented in other nonattainment areas were also determined to

fulfill RACT requirements. Federally approved state rules and rule approval dates can be found

in 40 CFR §52.2270(c), EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP.

BACT is an emission standard that is based on the maximum degree of emission reduction

achievable and is at least as stringent as the emission standards set by any applicable FCAA

provisions. MACT is an emission standard that requires the maximum reduction of hazardous

emissions and is at least as stringent as the average emission level achieved by controls on the

top 12% of existing sources in the applicable source category. Therefore, emission sources

subject to the more stringent BACT or MACT requirements were determined to also fulfill RACT

requirements.

The TCEQ reviewed the emission sources in the HGB area and the applicable state rules to verify

that all CTG emission source categories in the HGB area were subject to requirements that meet

or exceed the applicable RACT requirements, or that further emission controls on the sources

were either not economically feasible or not technologically feasible.

1.3 RAer DETERMINATION AND DISCUSSION

1.3.1 General Discussion

The HGB area is subject to some ofthe most stringent NOx andVOC emission control

requirements in the country, and for many source categories the existing rules are more

stringent than recommended RACT standards for those categories. In the final approval notice

for the revised HGB one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision (71 FR 52676,

September 6, 2006), the EPA noted that the HGB VOC rules in Chapter 115 and NOx rules in

Chapter 117 were previously determined to meet the FCAA RACT requirements. Under the onehour ozone NAAQS, the HGBarea was also designated severe nonattainrnent and the threshold

for major stationary sources under the one-hour ozone nonattainment designation was identical

to the current threshold under the 1997 eight-hour ozone designation. Therefore, controls to

satisfy RACT for most major sources under the 1997 eight-hour ozone designation were

implemented by the TCEQ under the one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision

and previously approved by the EPA.

A-3
1.3.2 VOC RACT Detennination

1.3.2.1 Flexible Package Printing

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing revisions to the flexographic and

rotogravure printing rules in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter E: SobJent-Using Processes,

Division 3: Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing to inlplement the EPA's 2006 Flexible

Package Printing CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are RACT in the HGB

area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The proposed Chapter 115 rulemaking would

reduce the VOC content limits of coatings, increase the overall control efficiency of add-on

controls used in flex1ble package printing operations, establish work practice procedures for

materials used during associated cleaning activities, and expand rule applicability to include

smaller flexible package printing lines that were previously exempt from these rules.

The TCEQ is not proposing to implement the EPA's 2006 CTG recommendation to exempt

flexible package printing operations from all VOC coating content linlits ifthe operations have

total actual VOC emissions less than 15 pounds per day from inks, coatings, and adhesives. For

the HGB area, the existing Chapter 115 rules provide an exemption for combined flexographic

and rotogravure printing operations with the potential to emit less than 25 tons per year (tpy) of

VOC from inks. Calculating only the VOC emissions resulting from flexible package printing

operations to determine exemption from the required controls may create backsliding issues for

properties already complying with the current Chapter 115 rules. The existing Chapter 115

exemption limit is equal to or potentially more stringent than the 2006 CTG-recommended

exemption threshold for properties conducting multiple flexographic and rotogravure printing

operations, and is retained in the proposed rules.

Additionally, the TCEQ is not proposing to inlplement the EPA's 2006 CTG recommendation to

exempt a flexible package printing line from complying with VOC coating content limits ifthe

line has the potential to emit less than 25 tpy ofuncontroUed VOC emissions from the dryer,

from inks, coatings, and adhesives. As previously stated, the current Chapter 115 rules require

combining the VOC emissions from all flexographic and rotogravure printing lines to determine

exemption from the VOC coating content limits. Implementing the 2006 CTG recommendation

may exempt flexible package printing lines co-located on a property with other flexographic and

rotogravure printing lines that are currently required to comply with the VOC control limits. The

proposed Chapter 115 rules would retain the existing VOC content limits for a flexible package

printing line with VOC emissions below the 2006 CTG-recommended exemption threshold.

The EPA's 2006 CTG recommends requiring control equipment first installed before the

effective date ofrules implementing the CTG recommendations to have an overall control

efficiency ranging from 65% to 75% and control equipment first installed after the effective date

of rules inlplementing the CTG recommendations to have an overall control efficiency of 80%.

The TCEQ disagrees with the 2006 CTG recommendation to correlate control device efficiency

requirements with the first installation date of the control device regardless of where the

equipment was first installed. Imposing this policy may encourage the installation of older, less

efficient equipment and may create potential backsliding issues. The policy may also create

significant practical enforceability issues for TCEQ investigators with regard to verifying the first

installation date of the control equipment. Instead, the TCEQ proposes to implement the CTGrecommended 80% overall control efficiency, regardless ofthe first installation date.

1.3,2,2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing revisions to Chapter 115, Subchapter

E, to create new Division 6: Industrial Cleaning Solvents to inlplement the EPA's 2006

Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are RACT in

A-4
the HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The proposed Chapter 115 rulemaking

would establish VOC content limits for cleaning solvents used in specific cleaning activities,

provide exemptions for certain cleaning activities from all or portions ofthe rule, and require

certain work practice procedures for the use, storage, and disposal of cleaning solvents.

1.3.2.3 Large Appliance Coatings

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing revisions to Chapter 115, Subchapter

E, to create new Division 5: Control Requirementsfor Surface Coating Processes to implement

the EPA's 2007 Large Appliance Coatings CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has determined

are RACT in the HGB area (Rule Project Number 201O-016-115-EN). The proposed Chapter 115

rulernaking would reduce VOC content limits of coatings, increase the overall control efficiency

for add-on controls used in large appliance coating operations. and establish minimum transfer

efficiency for coating application methods. The proposed rules would also require certain work

practice procedures for coating-related activities and materials used during associated cleaning

criteria.

The EPA's 2007 CTG recommends exempting large appliance coating operations from the

coating VOC content limits and work practice standards iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions

from coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The current

TCEQ rules provide an exemption from the coating VOC content limits for large appliance

coating operations iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions from all applicable coating processes on

a property subject to Chapter 115. Subchapter E, Division 2: Surface Coating Processes are less

than three pounds per hour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption from the required

VOC controls may be more stringent for properties conducting multiple coating operations

specified in Division 2 because the exemption is not based on VOC emissions from a single

coating category. To prevent potential backsliding for properties already required to comply

with the state's regulations, the proposed Chapter 115 rules would retain the existing exemption

criteria.

The existing TCEQ large appliance coating limits are based on the original CTG

recommendations issued by the EPAin 1977. Several of the recommended VOC content limits

for specific coating categories listed in the 2007 CTG document are less stringent than the limits

specified in the EPA's original CTG recommendations for this coating category. The 2007 CTG

also recommends minimum solids transfer efficiency for coating application equipment. Despite

the higher VOC content limits for the specialty coatings, the EPA's 2007 CTG claims that

implementing the limits as recommended would result in an overall emissions reduction and

provides documentation containing the methodology used to estimate the reduction. The TCEQ

has conducted a comprehensive comparison ofthe 2007 CTG recommendations to the existing

VOC coating content limit and determined that proposing the 2007 CTG-recommended coating

VOC content limits will not negatively impact the status ofthe state's attainment with the 1997

eight-hour ozone NAAQS. will not interfere with control measures. and will not prevent

reasonable further progress toward attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS. The full Determination of

Noninterference Demonstration under FCAA, §110(\) is provided in the preamble of Rule Project

Number 2010-016-115-EN.

1.3.2.4 Metal Furniture Coatings

Concurrent with this SIP revision. the TCEQ is proposing revisions to Chapter 115. Subchapter

E, to create new Division 5 to implement the EPA's 2007 Metal Furniture Coatings CTG

recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are RACT in the HGB area (Rule Project

Number 2010-016-115-EN). The proposed Chapter 115 rulemaking would reduce VOC content

limits of coatings. increase the overall control efficiency for add-on controls used in metal

A-S
furniture coating operations, and establish minimum transfer efficiency of coating application

methods. The proposed rules would also require certain work practice procedures for coatingrelated activities and materials used during associated cleaning operations.

The EPA's 2007 erG recommends exempting metal furniture coating operations from the

coating VOC content limits and work practice standards iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions

from coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The current

TCEQ rules provide an exemption from the coating VOC content limits for metal furniture

coating operations iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions from coatings in all applicable coating

processes located on a property subject to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 are less than

three pounds per hour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption from the required VOC

controls may be more stringent for properties conducting multiple coating processes specified in

Division 2 because the exemption is not based on VOC emissions from a single coating category.

To prevent potential backsliding for properties already required to comply with the state's

regulations, the proposed Chapter 115 rules would retain the existing exemption criteria.

The existing TCEQ metal furniture coating limits are based on the original erG

recommendations issued by the EPA in 1977. Several ofthe recommended VOC content limits

for specific coating categories listed in the 2007 erG document are less stringent than the limits

specified in the EPA's original erG recommendations for this coating category. The 2007 erG

also recommends minimum solids transfer efficiency for coating application equipment. Despite

the higher VOC content limits for the specialty coatings, the EPA's 2007 erG claims that

inIplementing the linIits as recommended would result in an overall emissions reduction and

provides documentation containing the methodology used to estimate the reduction. The TCEQ

has conducted a comprehensive comparison ofthe 2007 erG recommendations to the existing

VOC coating content limits and determined that proposing the 2007 erG-recommended coating

VOC content limits will not negatively impact the status ofthe state's attainment with the 1997

eight-hour ozone NAAQS, will not interfere with control measures, and will not prevent

reasonable further progress toward attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS. The full Determination of

Noninterference Demonstration under FCAA, §1100) is provided in the preamble of Rule Project

Number 20l0-o16-115-EN.

1.3.2,5 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing revisions to Chapter 115, Subchapter

E, to create new Division 5 to inIplement the EPA's 2007 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings erG

recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are RAer in the HGB area (Rule Project

Number 2010-0l6-115-EN). The proposed Chapter 115 rulemaking would reduce the VOC

content limits of coatings; increase the overall control efficiency for add-on controls used in

paper, film, and foil coating operations; and establish work practice procedures for materials

used during cleaning operations associated with paper, film, and foil coating.

The EPA's 2007 erG recommends exempting all paper, film, and foil coating operations on a

property from the coating VOC content limits and work practice standards iftotal uncontrolled

VOC emissions from paper, film, and foil coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than

15 pounds per day. The current TCEQ rules provide an exemption from the coating VOC content

limits for paper, film, and foil coating operations iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions from all

applicable surface coating processes on a property subject to Chapter 115, Subchapter E,

Division 2 are less than three pounds per hour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption

from the required VOC controls may be more stringent for properties conducting multiple

coating processes specified in Division 2 because the exemption is not based on VOC emissions

from a single coating category. To prevent potential backsliding for properties conducting paper,

A-6
film, and foil coating operations already required to comply with the state's regulations, the

proposed Chapter 115 rules would retain the existing exemption criteria.

Additionally, the TCEQ is not proposing to implement the EPA's 2007 CTG recommendation to

exempt a paper, film, and foil coating line from complying with VOC coating content limits ifthe

line has the potential to emit less than 25 tpy of uncontrolled VOC emissions from coatings. As

previously stated, the current Chapter 115 rules require combining the VOC emissions from all

applicable surface coating processes located on a property subject to Subchapter E, Division 2 to

determine exemption from the VOC coating content limits. Implementing the 2007 CTG

recommendation may exempt paper, film, and foil coating lines co-located on a property with

other coating lines subject to Division 2 that are currently complying the VOC coating content

limits. To prevent backsliding, the proposed Chapter 115 rules would retain the existing VOC

content limits for a paper, film, and foil coating line with VOC emissions below the 2007 CTGrecommended exemption threshold.

1.3.2.6 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing revisions to Chapter 115, Subchapter

E, to create new Division 7: Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives to implement the EPA's 2008

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are

RACT in the HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The proposed Chapter 115

rulemaking would implement VOC content limits for general adhesive application processes,

specialty adhesive application processes, and adhesive primer application processes; provide

exemptions for certain cleaning activities from all or portions ofthe rule; incorporate test

methods and recordkeeping requirements; and establish minimum transfer efficiency of

adhesive application methods. The proposed rules would also require certain work practice

procedures for adhesive-related activities and materiaIs used during associated cleaning

operations.

1.3.2,7 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatipgs

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the TCEQ is proposing revisionsto Chapter 115, Subchapter

E, to create new Division 5, to implement the EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts

Coatings CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are RACT in the HGB area (Rule

Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The miscellaneous plastic parts category ofthe CTG

represents a new RACT CTG category for the HGB area, and the current coatings rules in

Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 do not apply to miscellaneous plastic parts. The proposed

Chapter 115 rulemaking would expand the scope ofthe existing rule applicability to include the

new coating categories recommended in the 2008 CTG. The proposed Chapter 115 rulemaking

would reduce VOC content limits of coatings, increase the overall control efficiency of add-on

controls, and establish minimum transfer efficiency of coating application methods. The

proposed rules would also require certain work practice procedures for coating-related activities

and materials used during associated cleaning operations.

The EPA's 2008 CTG recommends exempting miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating

operations from the VOC control requirements iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions from

coatings and cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The current TCEQ rules exempt

miscellaneous metal parts and products coating operations from the required VOC coating

limits iflocated on a property where total uncontrolled VOC emissions from all applicable

surface coating processes subject to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 are less than three

pounds per hour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption from the required controls may

be more stringent for properties conducting multiple coating processes specified in Division 2

because the exemption is not based on VOC emissions from a single coating category. To

A-7
prevent potential backsliding for sources already subject to tbe Chapter 115 rules, tbe proposed

rule revisions would integrate tbe new 2008 CTG coating categories into tbe existing exemption

from the VOC control requirements. The proposed Chapter 115 rules would retain tbe state's

approach to maintain consistency witb tbe current exemption criteria.

The existing TCEQ miscellaneous metal part and product coating limits are based on tbe

original CTG recommendations issued bytbe EPA in 1978. Several ofthe recommended VOC

content limits for specific coating categories listed in the 2008 CTG document are less stringent

than tbe limits specified in tbe EPA's original CTG recommendations for this coating category.

The 2008 CTG also recommends minimum solidstransfer efficiency for coating application

equipment. Altbough tbe 2008 CTG does not quantify the estimated VOC emissions reduced as

a result ofimplementing tbe recommended VOC content limits, the TCEQ applied an approach

consistent with the Large Appliance Coating and Metal Furniture Coating CTG emission

reduction memo documents to estimate tbe VOC emissions reduction. The TCEQ has

determined tbat proposing the 2008 CTG-recommended coating VOC content limits will not

negatively impact tbe status oftbe state's attainment witb tbe 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS,

will not interfere witb control measures, and will not prevent reasonable further progress

toward attainment oftbe 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. The full Determination of

Noninterference Demonstration under FCAA, §110(l) is provided in the preamble of Rule Project

Number 2010-016-115-EN.

A-S
APPENDIX A

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

ANALYSIS

Attachment 1

December 8,2008, Letter to Mr. William T. Harnett, Director,

Air Quality Policy Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency

on Issues Related to Control Techniques Guidelines Documents
•

Buddy Garcia, Chairman

Larry R. Soward, Commissioner

Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Commissi071S!r

Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Protet:ting Texas by Reducing and Preoentlng Pollution .

December 8, 2008

Mr. William T, Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division

Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Organization

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Drop C504-01

Research TriaIigle Park, North Carolina 27711

Dear Director Harnett:

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Air Quality Division is currently reviewing

the Consumer and Commercial Products Group IT, Group III, and Group IV Control Techniques

Guidelines (CI'G) documents released by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

from 2006 through 2008. Our evaluation of these CTG documents has prompted several questions

regarding the CI'G documents for Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and

Miscel1aneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. The issues and questions related to these CI'G

documents are detaiied below.

Texas' existing rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter liS for controlling volatile organic

compound (YOC) emissions from the surface coating of large appliances!, metal fumiture2, and

miscellaneous metal parts and products' were based on the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards (OAQPS) corresponding 1977 and 1978 Guideline Series' (GS) recommendations. The

existing emission standards for surface coating of\arge appliances and metal furniture are not specific to

coating ~es; however, the 2007 CTG documents for Large Appliance Coatings' and Metal Furniture

Coatings recommend setting coating type specific emission standards. Some of the recommended

emissions standards are equivalent or more stringent than the existing generic standards while some

recommended emission standards are less.stringent than the existing standards. Similarly, the 2008 era

for MiscelIaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings7 also recommends emission standards for certain

coating types that are less stringent than the existing 30 TAC Chapter 115 emission standards. Please see

the enclosed table for a more detailed comparison ofthe existing VOC emission standards based on the

1977 and 1978 as recommendations (and TCEQ rules) versus the 2007' and 2008 CI'G documents for

these categories.

Since some ofthe limitsrecommended for these specific coating types are less stringent than the existing

emission standards based on the EPA's original GS recommendations, TCEQ's Air Quality Division has.

P.O. Box 13087 • AUJlin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.UJ

"rlllLed llil ~I"" I'Dptl' UlIilllt any-bbIM:d irtk
Mr. William T. Harnett

Page 2

December 8, 2008

concerns that implementing the new CTG recommendations could be perceived as backsliding. In

addition, these discrepancies may make it impossible for TCEQ staff to detennine if actual VOC

reduction benefit would occur from implementing the CTG recommendations. Given the limited

explanation8 of how these differences should be considered in light of the original GS standards, the

TCEQ Air Quality Division is requesting written guidance to clarify the intent of the EPA's new CTG

recommendations with regard to the following issues.

I. Specific clarification is needed that implementing the recommendations in the new CTG would

not be considered backsliding.

2. Are the coating type categories in the new CTG considered by tbe EPA to be coating types that

were unregulated by the original GS recommendations or is this a situation where these specific

coatings were covered under the original guidance, but theEPA bas re-evaluated what is

technically feasible for these specialty coating types? What data was used to make this

determination?

3. In light of the varying stringency of the recommended coating standards in these new CTG

documents, how did the EPA determine the overal1 reduction benefit? Additional information,

beyond what· is provided in the docket, is neceasary for the state to determine whether

implementing CTG recommendations will result in a net VOC reduction in the specific

nonattainment areas wbere these CTG recommendations would be. implemented.

The EPA's clarification regarding these issues is critical for the Air Quality Division to complete our

evaluation of the CTG recommendations and proceed with any recommendation to TCBQ's executive

management and the commission regarding the' potential implementation of the EPA's CTG

recommendations. Therefore, your expeditious response regarding these issues is greatly appreciated.

You may contact me at 512-239-4696.

Sincerely,

?uL/CcL

psusana M. Hildebrand, P.B.

Director, Air Quality Division

Texas Commission on Bnvironmental QualitY

SMHlLA/sy

Enclosures: References

Emission Limit Comparison Table

cc: Mr. Guy Donaldson, EPA Region 6

Ms. Ellen Belk, EPA Region 6

Mr. Bruce Moore, EPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards .

Mr. Bill Johnson, BPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards
Enclosure: References

I: Title 30 TAC §llS.421(a)(l), Emission Specifications for Large Appliance Coating (Amended

January 17,2003).

2: Title 30 TAC §llS.421(a)(2), Emission Specifications for Metal Furniture Coating (Amended

January 17,2003).

3: Title 30 TAC §IIS.421(a)(9XA), Emission Specifications for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products Coating (Amended January 17, 2003).

4: Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume

V: Surface Coating ofLarge Appliances, Publication number EPA-4S012-77-0.34. .

Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume

ill: Surface Coating.ofMetal Furniture, Publication number EPA-4S012-77-032.

Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume·

VI: Surface Coating ofMiscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Publication number EPA-4S012-7SOIS,

S: Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings. Publication number EPA 4S31R-07-

004.

6: Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture- Coatings. Publication number EPA 4S31R-07-

OOS.

7: Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Publication

number EPA 4S31R-OS-Q03.

S: EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0329-0009 and EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0334-0010.
Enclosure: Emission Limit Comparison Table

Comparison of 30 TAC Chapter 115 Emission Limits and 2006-2008 CTG Recommended Emission

Limits

Chapter 115 CTG Recommended

Coating Type* Emission Llmit** . Emission Limit**

Baked Coatin~ . Air-Dried Coatin2

LaI1!ll Appliance Coatln!

General One Component 2.8 2.3 2.3 .

General Multi-Component 2.8 2.3 2.8

Extreme High Gloss 2.8 3.0 2.8

Extreme PeJiofmance 2.8 3.0 3.5

Heat Resistant 2.8 3.0 3.5

Metallic 2.8 3.5 3.5

Pretreatment Coatin!!s 2.8 3.5 3.5

Solar Absorbent 2.8 3.0 .3.5

Metal furniture Coatin!

General One Component 3.0 2.3 2.3"

General Multi-Component 3.0 2.3 2.8

Extreme High Gloss 3.0 3.0 2.8

Extreme Performance 3.0 3.0 3.5

Heat Resistant 3.0 3.0 . 3.5

.Metallic 3.0 3.5 3.5

Pretreatment Coatin!!s 3.0 3.5 3.5

Solar Absorbent 3.0 3.0 3.5

MIscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatin!

General One Component. 3.0 2.3 2.8

General Multi Component 3.0 2.3 2.8

Camouflage 3.0 3.5 3.5

Electric-Insulatin!! Varnish 3.0 3.5 3.5

Etching Filler 3.0 3.5 3.5

Extreme Hi!!h-Gloss 3.0 3.0 3.5

Bxtren1e Performance 3.5 3.0 3.5

Heat-Resistant 3.5 3.0 3.5

High Performance Architectural 3.0 6.2 6.2

High Temnerature 3.0 3.5 3.5

Metallic 3.0 3.5 3.5

Militarv Specification . 3.0 2.3 2.8

Mold-Seal 3.0 3.5 3.5

Pan Backing 3.0 3.5 3.5

Prernblicated Architectural 3.0 2.3 3.5

Multi-Comoonent

Prefabricated Architectural One- 3.0 2.3 3.5

Comnonent

Pretreatment CoatinllS 3.0 3.5 3.5

Repair and Touchup 3.0 3.0 3.5

Silicone Release 3.0 3.5 3.5

Solar-Absorbent 3.0 3.0 3.5 .
Comparison of 30 TAC Chapter 115 J!:mlsslon Llmllll and 2006-2008 CTG Recommended Emission

Limits

Chapter 115 CTG Recommended

Coating Type* Emission Llmit** Emission Limlt** Baked Coatln!! Air-Dried Coatinl!

Vacuum-Metalizin.e 3.0 3.5 3.5

Drum Coatim!. New Exterior 3.0 2.8 2.8

Drum Coatim!. New Interior 4.3 3.5 3.5

Drum Coating, Reconditioned, 3.0 3.5 3.5

Exterior

Drum Coating, Reconditioned, 4.3 4.2 4.2

Interior

*The CfG recommended emission limits for coating types listed in red font are less stringent than

existing Chapter 115 limilll.

•• Limit expressed in pounds per gallon ofcoating (minus water and exempt solvent) delivered to the

application System.
•

Mr. William T. Harnett

Page 3

December 8, 2008

bee: Theresa Pella

Ashley Forbes

Vincent Meiller

Lindley Anderson

Amy Browning
APPENDIX A

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

ANALYSIS

Attachment 2

March 17, 2011, Memorandum from

Scott Mathias, Air Quality Policy Division, United States Environmental Protection

Approving SIP RevisionsAddressing vacRAerRequirementsfor Certain Coatings

Categories
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

"jAR! 7 2011 OFFICE OF

AIR QUALfTY PLANNlNG

AND STANDARDS

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain

Coatings Categories

FROM: Scott Mathias, Interim Direct I JI~~ Air Quality Policy Division (~l.114

TO: Regional Air Division Directors

The Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards has received requests from

Regional Offices for guidance on approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

resulting from newly-issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) documents. These

CTGs provide recommendations to inform state determinations as to what constitutes

reasonably available control technology (RACT). In some cases, the newly-issued CTGs

contain recommended emission limits that are less stringent than limits recommended in

older CTGs covering the same industry, and may be less stringent than limits already adopted

into SIPs based on the older CTGs. This is the case for industries covered by CTGs

pertaining to Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal

and Plastic Parts Coatings.

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new CTGs for these

categories in 2007 and 2008, under authority ofClean Air Act (CAA) section 183(e), to

address volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from categories of consumer and

commercial products. They replace similar CTGs issued by EPA in 1977 and 1978. The

new CTGs recommend more stringent limits for general use coatings, but also include new

recommendations for several "specialty use" categories that are less stringent than the

general use limits established in the 1970s guidelines.

States are required to submit a SIP revision in response to any newly-issued CTGs. (

If an existing SIP contains requirements that are not less stringent than the applicability

thresholds and/or coating operations limits recommended in new CTGs, the state may choose

to submit as a SIP revision a certification that the existing SIP meets RACT requirements.

I CAA section 182(b)(2) requires Moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to revise SIPs when a new

CTG is issued by EPA after J990. EPA is required to set a SIP submission deadline with the issuance of each

CTG. For CTGs we have issued in the past several years, we have specified a submission deadline of one year

after the eTG was issued (See 72 FR 57215 Oct 9,2007 and 73 FR 5848 Oct 7, 2008).

(n18met AddI888 (URL). hllp:/lwww.epe.gov

RecyeledlRecycl.ble • PrInted"'" VegeIabE 011 Based Intt$ on Recyd8d Paper (MinImUm Z5% PoMccnsumer)
We anticipate that EPA Regional Offices would be able to approve the RACT determinations

in these circumstances. We note that EPA's recommendations in CTGs are generally treated

as "presumptive" RACT and stales may demonstrate that other limits are RACT for one or

more sources within the source category addressed by the CTG. Where a state has

previously determined that more stringent applicability thresholds and/or control levels are

RACT for one or more sources in a source category and the sources have complied with

those requirements, then those existing controls should be considered RACT for such

sources.

If a state chooses to revise more stringent rules that are already in the approved SIP,

so that those rules reflect the less-stringent recommended limits in the new CTGs, there are

additional considerations that must be factored into any EPA decision to approve the SIP

revision. The state would need to first demonstrate that the SIP-approved control

requirements are not reasonably available considering technological and economic

feasibility, consistent with EPA's definition ofRACT. See 44 FR 53762 (September 17,

1979). In addition, in order to comply with the SIP approval conditions ofCAA section

110(1), the state would need to demonstrate that the revision to the SIP would not interfere

with attainment of, or reasonable further progress toward attainment of, the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards, nor interfere with any other applicable requirement ofthe

CAA. This would be demonstrated ifthe stricter limits on general use coatings provide

sufficient emission reductions to entirely offset any emission increase caused by adopting the

less stringent limits for specialty coatings. Alternatively, the state could adopt supplemental

measures that achieve additional emission reductions from another source category in

another industry to offset the increased emissions from the specialty coatings. In general, if a

proposed SIP revision achieves the same or greater emission reductions as the approved SIP

within the same timeframe as provided under the existing plan, the Regional Office should be

able to determine that the SIP revision is consistent with the approval conditions of CAA

section 110(1).

The public dockets for the Large Appliance Coatings and the Metal Furniture

Coatings CTGs contain information that states may find helpful in determining the reductions

that can be achieved by adopting the new general use category CTG limits for these

industries. According to the docketed information, the estimated reductions from the new

CTGs are 30 to 35 percent greater than from the older CTGs. See documents EPA-HQOAR-2007-0329-0009 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0334-0010 in dockets EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0329 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0334, respectively. The increase in emissions

reductions in any specific nonattainment area may vary depending on the volume usage

distribution among the general and specialty categories in that area. The dockets for the new

CTGs do not contain area-specific analyses of potential emissions reductions. Generally, if a

state believes the volume usage distribution among the general and specialty categories in the

docket is representative ofthe distribution in the nonattainment area, we believe that if a state

undertakes wholesale adoption ofthe new categorical limits in a specific CTG, the state may

rely on the assessments in the docket to demonstrate that the range of new limits will result in

an overall reduction in emissions from the collection of covered coatings. However, jf a state

adopts some specialty category limits, but not all ofthe new categorical limits, or determines

that it has a different volume usage distribution among categories, the state may need to do

an area-specific assessment ofwhether tighter restrictions for some coatings, coupled with

2
less stringent restrictions on other coatings would provide overall equal or greater emissions

.reductions than the set ofrules based on the recommendations in the 1970s guidelines.

If you have further questions on SIP-related issues you should contact Butch

Stackhouse at (919) 541-5208. [fyou have further technical questions on the topics covered

in this memorandum you should contact Kaye Whitfield at (919) 541-2509.

cc: Robin Dunkins, SPPD

Kimber Scavo, AQPD

David arlin, aGe

Sara Schneeberg, OGC

3
WRITTEN AND 

ORAL TESTIMONY 
Reference Number

W-I

W-2

W-3

W-4

W-5

W-6

W-7

W-8

W-9

INDEX OF WRIITEN TESTIMONY

Submitted by

Ron Armstrong

David Darling P.E., American Coatings Association

Thomas A. Hoermann, on behalf of Mr. James Sel~

American Coatings Association (similar to 0-1)

John Hopewell, American Coatings Association

Doreen Monteleone, Flexographic Technical Association

Kirk Hummel, NASA

Christina T. Wisdom, Texas Chemical Council

Guy Donaldson, United States Environmental Protection Agency

Kate Bates, United States Navy
From:

To:

Date:

Subjed:

0711212011 09A7 AM

2010-016-115-EN W-1

This email is a confinnalion of the comment that was submitted for the referenced rulemaking.

Firsl Name: RON

Last NllITle: ARMSTRONG

Com an '/0 anization: ACCP

Rule: 2010-016-1 IS-EN

Comments:

EPA has obviously put a target on the back ofTexas. As a small businessman; it will take more than simply lowering taxes to get me to expand

my business. TIle one thing no successful businessman can handle is the constant changing ofregulalions that potentially put any equipment and

increased employment to support said equipment when one never knoW'S if he or she will be allowed to operate purchased equipment. A

reasonable and prudent businessman needs to be able lo plan and that has been impossible with the ever-changing regulations that EPA has

come forth with
•••••

•

•••

•

AmericanCoatings

ASSOCIATION W-2

July 18,2011

Michael Parrish

MC 205, Office ofLegal Services

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

RE: Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN; Texas Industrial Cleaning Solvents;

ACA Comments

Dear Mr. Parrish:

The American Coatings Association (ACA) I appreciates this opportunity to comment on the

adoption ofthe Industrial Cleaning Solvent CTG in Texas. ACA submitted initial comments on

January 5, 20 I0 and appreciates TCEQ exempting coating, ink and adhesive manufacturing from

the Industrial Solvent Cleaning VOC limits (Section I I5.46 I(c)(l 3)), since these VOC limits

would not allow effective cleaning at these operations.

Please note that ACA also requested that resin manufacturing (specifically resins used in the

manufacture of coatings) be exempted as well, since the proposed low VOC limits would not

allow effective cleaning ofresin manufacturing equipment. Please refer to our January 5, 20 I0

comments for additional details.

It is our understanding that TCEQ did not exempt resin manufacturing operations since EPA did

not expressly recommend exempting resin manufacturing operations in the Industrial Solvent

Cleaning CTG. However, EPA specifically suggests exempting the cleaning ofresin and

polyester resin application equipment, and EPA does reference the exemptions from the two

rules that EPA used to develop the CTG- Bay Area 8-4 and South Coast AQMD Rule 1171. It is

important to note that both ofthese rules exempt resin manufacturing operations from the solvent

cleaning VOC limits as follows:

1 The American Coatings Association (ACA) is a voluntary, nonprofit trade association working

to advance the needs ofthe paint and coatings industry and the professionals who work in it. The

organization represents paint and coatings manufacturers, raw materials suppliers, distributors,

and technical professionals. ACA serves as an advocate and ally for members on legislative,

regulatory and judicial issues, and provides forums for the advancement and promotion ofthe

industry through educational and professional development services.

1500 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.· WASHINGTON. DC 20005 • T 202.462.6272 • F 202.462.8549 • www.palnl.oro
SCAQMD Rule 1171 (g) Exemptions:

"(2)(E) Cleaning operations subject to Rule 1141- Control ofVolatile Organic Compound

Emissions from Resin Manufacturing, and Rule 1141.1 - Coatings and Ink Manufacturing."

Bay Area 8-4, Section 113 Exemption, Specified Operations

"This Rule shall not apply to operations that are subject to the requirements of other Rules ofthis

Regulation 8, or which comply with appropriate limitations ofthose Rules prior to their effective

dates."

Please note that Bay Area regulates resin manufacturing under Regulation 8, Rule 36. Since the

Bay Area resin manufacturing regulation is under Regulation 8, the Bay Area solvent cleaning

rule 8-4 does not apply to resin manufacturing operations.

Note that Maryland (26.11.19.09-I(A)(6)(b)(ii» exempted coating, ink, adhesive and resin

manufacturing operations from the industrial solvent cleaning regulations, and EPA approved

Maryland's State Implementation Plan, stating that it complied with the RACT requirements in

the CTG. 76 Fed. Reg. 9656.

If over ACA's objection, TCEQ cannot exempt resin manufacturing operations from the

Industrial Solvent Cleaning VOC limits, ACA suggests that TCEQ adopt rule language similar to

the language currently being adopted in WI, IL, OH, lN, MO.

"Cleaning Operations:

(a) The owner or operator of a coating, ink, adhesive or resin manufacturing facility subject to

this subsection shall use at least one ofthe following methods when cleaning mixing vats, high

dispersion mills, grinding mills, tote tanks, and roller mills, except as provided in paragraph (b):

1. Use a solvent or solvent solution that either contains less than 0.20 kilograms ofVOC per liter

(1.67 pounds per gallon) or has a VOC composite partial vapor pressure ofless than or equal to 8

nun of Hg at 20°C. The solvent or solvent solution shall be collected and stored in closed

containers.

2. Implement the following work practices:

a. Maintain the equipment being cleaned as leak free.

b. Drain VOC-containing cleaning materials from the cleaned equipment upon

completion ofcleaning.

c. Store or dispose ofVOC-containing cleaning materials, including waste solvent, in a

manner that will prevent evaporation into the atmosphere.

d. Store all VOC-containing cleaning materials in closed containers.

2
3. Collect and vent the emissions from equipment cleaning to an emission control system that has

an overall control efficiency of 80% or more on a mass basis. If incineration is used to control

emissions, at least 90% ofthe organic carbon shall be oxidized to carbon dioxide.

4. Use no more than 228 liters (60 gallons) ofvirgin solvent per month. Solvent or solvent

solution that is reused or recycled (either onsite or offsite), for further use in equipment cleaning

or the manufacture of coating is not included in this limit.

(b) The owner or operator of a facility engaged in wipe cleaning using a solvent or solvent

solution may not do either ofthe following:

I. Use open containers for the storage or disposal of cloth or paper impregnated with solvent or

solvent solution that is used for cleanup, or coating removal.

2. Store solvent or solvent solutions for cleanup or coating removal in open containers."

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or need any further

information on the issues discussed here, please feel free to contact me at (202) 462-6272.

Sincerely,

lsi

David Darling, P.E.

Senior Director, Environmental Affairs

Cc: Amy Hambrick, EPA

•• Sent via email ••

3
BEFORE THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

IN THE MAnER OF:

CHAPTER 115 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) REASONABLY AVAILABLE

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) RULE REVISIONS, 2010-016-115-EN

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS A. HOERMANN

My name Is Thomas A. Hoennann. I am Regional Regulatory Affairs Specialist for Intematlonal

Paint LLC, which is the Americas Business Unit for Marine, Protective, and Yacht Coatings within

AkzoNobel, the world's largest paints and coatings company. Intemational Paint Yacht Coatings,

sold under the brand names Awlgrip and Interlux, ara recognized for their continuing technicai

Innovation, stringent quality controls, and superiative finish on pleasure craft ranging from family

boats to superyachts around the world. International Paint proudly operates a major coatings

manufacturing facility, with associated R&D labs and administrative offices, at 6001 Antoine Drive

in northwest Houston.

Introduction

I am hera today on behalf of Mr. James Sell, Senior Counsel of the American Coatings

Association (ACA). Although Mr. Sell Is unable to participate in today's proceedings, he has

previously SUbmitted infonnal comments on this rulemaking to TCEQ Staff. These were entiUed

"ACA Comments on Pleasure Craft CTG: Modifications Required to South Coast RUle 1106.1 for

Establishing a Sunable RACT Standard for the Pleasure Craft Coatings Industry", and wera sent

via email on January 12, 2011.

Also inclUded in that email was an EPA Memorandum from Steven D. Page, Director of the OffIce

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 01,2010, SUbject 'Control Technique

Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings - IndUstry Request for

Reconsideration'. For the sake of brevity, the ".EPA Control Technique GUideline for

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings" will be subsequently referred to as 'the EPA

CTG".

W-3
With reference to the information previously submitted by Mr. Sell, and to formal written

comments that will be submitted during the comment period for this rulemaking, the following

summary points are offered for the Commission's considera~on:

The Pleasure Craft provisions of the EPA CTG do not represent Reasonably Available

Control Technology lRACn for this Industry sector.

The Draft EPA CTG did not mention pleasure craft surface coating operations. EPA introduced

the language of South Coast Air Quality Management Division (SCAQMD) Rule 1106.1 'Pleasure

Craft Coating Operations' Into the Final EPA CTG. This was apparently done with concem that

pleasure craft surface coaling operations might otherwise be SUbject to the various general

categories, and their more restrictive VOC limits, for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

(based on SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1125) and Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products (based

on SCAQMD Rule 1145 and Michigan RUle 336.1632). However, there was no opportunity for

the pleasure craft industry to provide comments on thIs EPA action.

Had that opportunity been extended, the pleasure craft industry would have provided the

following reasons to support our contention that SCAQMD Rule 1106.1, as Included In the Final

EE'A CTG, does not represent RACT:

1. The VOC limits and compliance dates In SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 were too restrictive to allow

coating manufacturers to formulate products that meet the VOC limits, while also maintaining

adequate technical performance and meeting customers' aesthetic requirements. As a

result, pleasure craft manufacturers relocated from the South Coast area to other locations In

the US.
2. The compliance dales In SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 and the EPA CTG do not provide sufficient

time for coating manufacturers to formulate products that comply WIth the restrictive VOC

limits, while also meeting the technical perfomnance and aesthetic requirements of pleasure

craft manufacturers and owners. An example is antifouling coatings, which must be

registered as biocidal products under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA) and corresponding State programs. This process can add years to the actual

development and performance testing of new lower-VOC antifouling coatings.

3. SCAQMD Rule 1106.1, like other SCAQMD rules, was developed and adopted to deal with

the severe ozone non-attainment conditions in the South Coast air basin. These conditions

are not experienced in other areas of Califomia or the US, and thus the provisions of South

Coast regulations should not be Identified as "RACT' for other areas.

4. Even In the Stale of California, only five other Air Quality Management Districts have found

the need to introduce rUles to regulate pleasure craft surface coating operations. These rules

differ from SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 in varying degrees.

5. SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 was adopted in 1992, and most recently revised In 1999. Since then,

there have been developments in the marine and pleasure craft Industry that provide the

basis for revised VOC limits for some coating categories, and the introduction of new

categories and VOC lirnRs for other coatlngs. An example is a new category of "AntifoUling

Sealerme Coar. This category of coatings was developed to allow the use of non-biocidal

coatings that comply with Annex 1 of the Intemational MarRlme Organization Antifouling

Systems Convention (IMO-AFS), which was written in 2001. These developments are not

addressed in SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 or the EPACTG.

Development of BACT that Is appropriate for Pleasure Craft Surface Coating operations

should address the following points;
1. Consideration of an 'Averaging Approach' as an altematlve compliance option. This

approach Is successfully used in Europe to provide flexibility to coating manufacturers and

end-use customers to provide vac emission reductions while minimizing adverse economic

and produc~vity impacts at each affected facility.

2. Provision of appropriate~meuntil the final compliance date to allow the development, testing,

and commercial introduction'of low-vac pleasure crafl coatings. Rushing products into this

marieet has the potential for disestrous consequences, as boat builders and pleasure craft

owners tend to be conservative; they choose coa~ngs with demonstrated performance that

best protect the value of their products/investments. A period of four years is suggested to

allow completion of existing development projects to bring lower-VaC pleasure craft coa~ngs

to the US marieet.

3. Revision of the categories and vac limits from the CTG to address current and future

product developments in the pleasure craft industry. Examples include revised vac limits for

several coating categories; a revised defini~on of 'Extreme Hgh Gloss' topcoats; and the

introduction of a new category definition and vac limit for 'Antifouling SealerfTie Coal'

coatings.

The EPA CTG should be consistent with other EPA nllemaklng for this Industrial sector.

The pleasure craft Industry is aware that EPA is currently evaluating the National Emission

Standard lor Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair apera~ons

( 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart II). This process may result in a revised SUbpart II MACT Standard

and/or a new Area Source Standard for HAPs emissions from Pleasure Craft Surface Coa~ng

operations. Coatings manufacturers have already proVided product infonmation to EPA to assist

in this process, and the industry supports rulemaking that will provide a consistent approach to

reduce emissions of both vac and HAPs In this industrial sector.
The Pleasure Crafllndustry Is readV and willing to work with Federal. State. and Local air

agencies on this Issue.

The pleasure craft industry was not afforded the usual opportunity to consult with EPA during the

development of the EPA CTG. We therefore feel It is Imperative to work with EPA, its Regional

Offices, and State and Local agencies to develop RACT rules that provide reductions in VOC

emissions, while meeting the performance and productivity requirements of an important US

industry that is under Increasing pressure from economic condltlons and global competition.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.
"

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESEARCH TRIA.NGLE PARK, NC 27711

dUN 012010 OFFICE OF

AIR QUALrrV PLANNlNa

AND STAOOAAOS

MEMORANDUM

Stephen D, Page, Direo""""'£-1!~~<..(....· f ''V

Office of Air Quality PI . g and S~(C404-04)

FROM:

SUBJECT: Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings -

Industry Request for Reconsid .~

TO: Chief, Air Branch

Regions I-X

The purpose ofthis memorandum is to inform EPA Regional Offices that members ofthe

pleasure craft industry have contacted EPA to request changes to the Control Techniques

Guidelines (CTG) for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings (MMPPC) (EPA-453/R-08-

0373), This memorandum serves as a reminder to EPA Regional Offices ofthe role that CTG

play in the State Implementation Plans (SIP) process for ozone nonattainment ereas, CTa provide

information and recommendations for state and local air pollution control agencies to consider

when developing rules to meet the Clean Air Act's (CM) reasonably available control technology

(RAC1) requirements. Specifically, we reiterate that the information contained in CTG, including

the MMPPC CTG, is provided only as guidance. The CTG do nM impose any legally binding

requirements on any entity. State and local air pollution control agencies are free to implement

other technically-sound approaches that are consistent with the CM and EPA's implementing

regulations, Therefore, EPA does not intend to revise the MMPPC CTG. Instead, EPA is

recommending that the pleasure craft industry work together with state agencies in the RACT rule

development process for MMPPC to assess what is reasonable for the specific sources regulated

under each state's rules. EPA will evaluate the state-developed RACT rules and determine through

notice and comment rulemaking in the SIP approval process, whether the submitted rules meet the

RACT requirements ofthe CM and EPA's regulations.

BACKGROUND

The MMPPC CTG were published on October 7,2008 (73 FR 58486). On September 14,

2009, EPA was contacted by the pleasure craft industry with a request for EPA to reconsider some

ofthe emission li~ts for volatile organic compounds (VOC) recommended in the MMPPC CTG.

In its letter to EPA, industry assertad that three ofthe emission limits for VOC, recommended in

the MMPPC CTG for pleasure craft, were 100 low considering the performance requirements of

pleasure craft coatings, and that overall, the VOC emission limits recommended in the MMPPC

Inlernet AcJdra•• (UR~. ht1p:IlWWW,epo.gov

Recyol,d/Reoyollble. Pnl1l9dwlth Vege\&ble 011 BaRed Inks on RGOYCled Papor (Mlnlll'llJM ;is''' P06lconlumer)
2

eTC did not represent RACT for the national pleasure craft coatings industry. To get further

clarification ofthe issues, EPA held an industry conference call and spoke with individual industry

members on several other occasions. The pleasure craft industry presented what they deemed to

be technological and feasibility challenges to meeting the VOC emission limits recommended in

the l\1MPPC CTG.

Table 2 ofthe MMPPC CTG recommends the following vac content limits (expressed in

terms ofmass of VOC per volume of coating, excluding water and exempt compounds, as applied)

for surface coating ofpleasure craft: .

Ta e • bl 2 PIeasure CraIt 8lll'face CoatiD~2 VOC ConttL' en units

kg VoC/liter Ibs VOC/gal

Coatil\1[ Catelrol'Y " ....._.~ .., ....., ..."."... ... 'l'q~!L coatinK

Extreme High Closs Topcoat 0.49 4.1

High Closs Topcoat 0.42 3.5

Pretreatment Wash Primers 0.78 6.5

Finish Primer/Surfacer 0.42 3.5

High Build Primer Surfacer 0.34 2.8

Aluminum Substrate Antifotllant Coating 0.56 4.7

Other Substrate Antifoulant Coatinp; 0.33 2.8

All other pleasure craft surface coatings for metal 0.42 3.5

or plastic

Also, the MMPPC CTC provide an option to meet alternate emission rate limits based on lowVOC coatings and add-on controls. Table 10 ofthe MMPPC CTC recommends the following

emlssion rate limits for pleasure craft operations:

Table 10. Pleasure Craft Surface Coating VOC Emission Rate Limits

(VOC Der Volume Solids)

. 'kg VOC/liter Ibs VOC/gal

Coath!2 Cate20ry .... . .... BoJlds solids

Extreme High Gloss Topcoat 1.10 9.2

High Gloss TODCoat 0.80 6.7

Pretreatment Wash Primers 6.67 55.6

Finish Primer/Surfacer 0.80 6.7

High Build Primer Surfacer 0.55 4.6

Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating. 1.53 12.8

Other Substrate Antifoulant Coatim! 0.53 4.4

All other pleasure craft surface coatings for metal 0.80 6.7

or clastic I.

The three pleasure craft categories that industry requested EPA to reconsider were extreme gloss,

high gloss and antlfoulant coatings. Industry urged EPA to revise the MMPPC CTC to include an

averaging approach as a compliance option to allow pleasure craft coating facilities to use a

combination of high and low VaC-containing products as long as the average value was kept
3,

below a level specified by EPA. In summary, the pleasure craft industry suggested that the CfG

be revised to include (one or all of) the foUowing measures:

I. Regulate VOC emissions from facilities using pleasure craft coatings by including an

averaging approach as II compliance option. Ifthis is not deemed possible, then points 2 and 3

should apply.

2. Amend the MMPPC CTG "Finish Primer/Surfacer" VOC limit from 420gIL to 600gIL for

a four-year interim period to allow coating manufacturers and users sufficient time to develop and

implement compliant coatings.

3. Make permanent changes to the MMPPC CTG with immediate and permanent effects, as

follows:

• Add an additional specialty category of "Antifouling SealerlTie Coat" with VOC

limit of 420gIL to align the MMPPC CTG with the International Maritime Organization's

International Convention on the Control ofHarmful Antifouling Systems on Ships;

• Change the VOC emission limits in the category, "Other Substrate Antifoulant

Coating" from 33OgIL to "OOgIL; ,

• Change the VOC emission limits in the category, "Extreme High Gloss" from 420

gILto 600 giL, reflecting the very specialized nature ofthe coatings in this category; and

• Revise the coating category definition of "Extreme High Gloss Topcoat" to read:

"Extreme high gloss coating means any coating which achieves greaterthan 90 percent

reflectance on a 600 meter when tested byASTMMethod D 523-89. ,"

4. Make the provisions and VOC limits in t!Je pleasure craft categories ofthe MMPPC CfG

consistent wiili ilie requirements ofthe planned revision to the Shipbuilding MACf Standard.

OAQPSRECO~ENDATION

After careful evaluation ofthe issues mised by the pleasure craft industry, OAQPS is

recommending that the pleasure craft industIy work with state agencies during their RACT rule

development process to assess what is reasonable for the specific so1,l1'ceB regulated because the

CTG impose no legally binding requirements on any entity, including pleasure craft coating

facilities. CM Section 172(c)(l) provides that SIPsfor nonattainment areas must include

''reasonably available control measures" (RACM), including RACT, for sources of emissions.

Section I82(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas, states must'revise their SIPs to

include RACf for each category ofVOC sources covered by a CTG document issued between

November 15, 1990, and the date ofattainment The CTG are intended to provide state and local

air pollution control authorities with information to assist them in determining RACf for VOC.

Bastd on available information and data, EPA has provided recommendations for RACT

for MMPPC operations, including pleasure craft coating operatlons, in the MMPPC CfG. States

can use the recommendations from the MMPPC CTG to inform their own determination as to

what constitutes RACT for VOC for pleasure craft coating operations in their particular ozone

nonattainment areas.
4

Regardless ofwhether a state chooses to implement the recommendations contained in the

MMPPC CrG through state rules, or to issue state rules that adopt different approaches, states

must submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part ofthe SIP process. EPA

will evaluate the state's RACT rules and determine, through notice and comment rulemaking in

the SIP approval process, whether the submitted rules meet the RACr requirements ofthe CAA

and EPA's regulations. Ifa state proposes to adopt any ofthe recommendations in the MMPPC

CTG into its state RACT rules, interested parties can comment on and raise objections about the

application ofany specific RACT recommendation in the MMPPC CTG to a particularsituation

during the development ofthe state rules and EPA's SIP approval process.

Should you have further questions, please contact Kaye Whitfield ofmy staffat 919-541-

2509 or whitfield.kaye@epa.gov.
5

OAR-l 0-000-7927

OAQPS/SPPDINRCG:KWbitfieldJjrogers(xl4487):RTPIE143-

03/0423101F:JRoger08/KWbitfieldJ OARlO0007927MMPPC Response Steve Page - Kaye ..

20MaylO.doc

Coordinated with AQPD.
January 12, 2011

ACA Comments on Pleasure Craft CTG

Modifications required to South Coast rille 1106.1 for establishing a

suitable RACT standard for the pleasure craft coatings industry

Summary

The required changes to rule 1106.1 to form a RACT standard for the pleasure craft coatings

Induslry are summartsed In table 1.

font)

• ReVised defimtlon reqUired: Extreme High Gloss coating means any coating which achieves

greater than 90 percent reflecllon on a 60' meter when tested by ASTM Method D523-89

" Revised definition required: Pre-Treatment Wash Primer means a coating which contains

no more than 25 percent solids, by weight, and alleas! 0.1 percent acids, by weight; Is used

10 provide surface etching; and is applied directly to fiberglass and melal surfaces to provide

corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings.

Tabla 1- Showlna reaulrad chanaes bv Industrv cam rad 10 limits In rule 1106.1 (chanaos Indlcaled by rad

Coating Category CTG vec conten Industry vee

taken from South Proposal for RACT

Coasl rule 1106.1 (giL)

(giL)

Extreme High Gloss Coating' 490 600

High Gloss Coating 420 420

Pre-Treatment Wash Primer" 780 780

Finish PrtmerlSurfacer 420 600

High Build Primer Surfacer 340 340

Aluminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating 580 560

Other Substrate Antlloulant Coating 330 400

All other pleasure craft surface coatings for 420 420

metal and plastic

!Antifouling SealerlTle Coat (new category) 420

..

The following sections provide more delailto substantiate proposed modifications
Revised vee limit for Finish Primer/Surfacer category

Boat owners have very high expectations for the final look of their boats. The finish Is

expected to be super smooth, super glossy (almost 'mirror-like') and durable. Coatings can

be applied by a variety of application methods (brush, roller or spray) and must fiow out to

give a smooth, glossy finish. In order to flow out and achieve such effects, products with a

higher solvent content (lower solids contant) are required for both the topcoats and the

primers which go beneath them

Introducing high solidsllow vac primers that provide a smooth, easy-to-sand surface

necessary to provide the aesthetics demanded by owners will require significant time to

develop and evaluate. Currently, high solids/low vec primers often require addltiooal

sanding, creating more dust, to achieve the same smooth surface that Is obtained with

currently available products. This would necessitate a change in working practices In yards to

overcome the Increased health hazard associated with the Increased dust levels.

An additional issue relating to a switch to lower vac Finish/Primer surfacers Is that the cost

can be as much as 40% or more higher than currently availabie, higher VOC products. This,

in comblnetlon with increased labor costs associated with the addiUonal sending needed to

remove the Increased surface texture, will make yards in areas where a vee limit of 420gllt Is

Impiemented uncompetltlve with yards In other states.

As an interim measure to ensure that competitive products can be supplied Into ozone noocompliance areas during the next four years that meet the aesthetic and performance

requirements demanded by boat owners, the Induslry requires vec levels of the Ruie 1106.1

"Finish PrlmerlSurface~' coating category to be revised from 420 gIL to 600 giL.

(See panels showing differences between high and low voe containing primers which

Ilt into this category)
Revised VOC limit for Extreme High Gloss Coating category

The Extreme High Gloss Coatings category represents a comparetively small but critical,

high value segment of the overall pleasure craft market.

The aesthetic propartlas that topcoats give to Ihe topsides of pleasure craft ara of primary

imparlance to boal owners, a fact that should be nalther underestimated nor dismissed. The

owner has Invested a slgnlflcant sum of money Into owning his yacht and the quality of the

final appearance is ~s 'crowning glory', If boat owners cannot achieve the desired superglossy, mirror-like flnlsh, they will not setlle for an Inferior solution -they will simply have their

boats painted elsewhere. These coatings are professionally epplled so any restriction on their

use that reduces the competitiveness of individual yards will have a direct and Immediate

bearing on employment levels and local revenueS.

High solids topcoats have not been well received in the Norlh American pleasure craft coating

market. In general, applicators and boat owners have found the flnlsh that these products

provide to be Inferior to traditional, higher VaG containing prOducts. This can be seen clearly

In the s~uatlon where a yacht coated with a high solids topcoat Is moored alongside-one

coated with a traditional tinish,

Although high solids and water-based technologies are availabla and In use In other

Industries (e.g. car reflnlshing and aviation) the controlled application conditions which make

the use of these coatings possible In those industries are neither available nor possible for the

pleasure craft costing Industry" Despite much product development acllvlly, the lower VaG

technologies available at this time do not provide the appearance and funcllonallty required

from a pleasure craft Extreme High Gloss Coating. Some low VaG topcoats, originating from

the car reflnlsh market and now being marketed for pleasure craft usage, are based on a

polymer type that provides reduced durability. These coatings have a raduced IUeUme and

their use will necessitate a more frequent recoatng schedule which means in relative terms,

more VaG is emitted.

An additional Issue relating to a swtich to lower VaG extreme high gloss topcoats is that the

cost can be as muoh as 60% or more higher than currenlly available, higher VaG products.

The resultant Increase In soheme oost will make yards in areas where a vac limit of 490glltls

Implemented uncompelltve with yards In other states or in other countries. .

A flnal point of Imparlance Is that In a typloal extreme high gloss coatings scheme, the topcoat

represents less than 40% of the overall VaG burden and less than 10% of total yacht

ooetlngs on an annuallsed basis. Rule 1106,1 was developed to tackle serious ozone nonatlalnment in South Goast AQMD In GalUomia, It is ovarly severe and restrictive for adoption

for the majority of non-attainment areas where the problem is 'Moderata' according to the

EPA. The Industry feeis that restricting the VaG of some of the other coating oategories and

selling the VaG limit lor Extreme High Gloss topcoats to 600 giL, wlli provide the state with a

balanced VaG reduction strategy lhat is appropriate to the ohallenge and thai does not

seriously impact the competitiveness of the Industry. This VaG limit change should be

permanant as Industry does not foresee any hew technology emerging that oan offer a route

to providing performance characterlstlos which are acceptable by the pleasure craft coaling

Industry.

(see topcoat panels which demonstrate dlfferenoe In appearance between hlg h solids

and tredltional formulations).

Revised Coating Category Definition for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat

As mentioned above, application of topcoats is undertaken In a variety of environmental

conditions that can heve an effect on thetinal gloss level of the product at the point of

appllcetion. To manage this variation It Is suggesled that the gloss level stated in the

definition of the Extreme High Gloss Topcoats category be lowered slightly to read;

"Extreme high gloss coaling means any coating Which achieves grealerthan 90 percant

reflectance on a 60" metar when tasted byASTM Method D 523-89"

3
Revised vac limit for ather Substrate Antifoulant Coating

Significant time and effort have been invested by industry to develop low vac antifouling

coatings suitable for use on pleasure craft. Low VaC/Zero vac technology Is constantly

evolvi'1g and Improving. The key is to set vac targets at a reallstlc level based on what we

know tod~ in order to ensure the maximum compromise between performance, cost,

appearance, drying time and application characteristics.

Formulations are currently registered with the EPA on the basis of the percentage weight of

biocide in the wet paint. As the vac is reduced then the solvent must be replaced with

something non-volatile, effectively reducing the percentage of biocide in the dry film with 8

concomitant reduction in performance/reduced Hfetime of the coating. This may mean more

frequent application of the antifouling, potentially leading to a greater overall vac impact. It is

also true that high solids/low vae coatings tend to dry slower than their high vae

counterparts and this can impact the overall produclivity of a yard for example. Similarly.

waler based technologies are nol a panacea to the vae challenge, though water-based

technologies are being very heavily scrutinised by coatings manufacturers. In general water

based coatings can only be formulated at low volume solids (30% compared to say 60%+ for

an equivalent solvent-based system). This Inevitably means thin films containing less biocide

(which affects the performance and lifetime of the coating)

The data below shows the performance challenge with changing vae. Panels 1-3 (left) are all

based on the same active package. The two rightmost panels are standard solvent based

controls.

vae 328g/1 sId 460 gIl w/based 68g/1 sid 468 g/l 350 gIL

In additior'" technologies for low vae antifoulings often result in a rougher film, The

roughness of the hull contributes direcUy to drag which is seen as a particular issue in the

case of racing yachls
The National Emission Standard for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repeir (40 CFR Part 63

Subpart II) limits antifoulings In the US to 400glL. Likewise SCAQMD Marine Rule 1106

applies a vac lim" for antifouling coatings of 400g/L. Industry beiieves this Iimli is more

suitable to represent RACT for this coating category, given the current state of the existing

technology. Certainly we find no justification In setting a limit lower than that applied to the

National Emission Standards for HAPs for Shipbulidlng and Ship Repair and the SCAQMD

1106 limits. The foliowing VOC limit amendment Is therefore required;

Category of "Olhar Substrate Antlfoulant Coating" - amend from 330g/L to 40Dg/L

lsee demonstretlon films which show a low VOC water based Antifouling compared to

a solvent based equivalent)

,
Additional Speciality Category and voe Limit: Antifouling SealerlTle

Coat

Rule 1106.1 Is dated and there are more recent requirements for an additional category 10

reflect pleasure craft coatings of Ihe modern day which are more environmentally friendly

and/or compliant with Inlernatlonal law.

A newcalegory Is required es e result of the International Maritime Organisation Antifouling

Systems convenllon (IMO AFS) and should be added 10 tha categories laken from Rule

1106.1. This convention was ralifted In 2007 and houses a list of subslances benned from

use in enllfoullngs in Annex 1. Trl Butyl Tin (TBT) Is the flrst addition to Annex 1 and Ihe use

of this biocide In anlifoullngs on the hulls of any marine vessels antarlng the waters of

countries which are signatories 10 the convention Is conlrolled according to Ihe requirements

of Annex 1 of Ihe AFS. A speclallaed coating typa Is required to seal in old TBT containing

anllfoulI~gs and 10 promole adhesion of biocide-free, non-slick foul release coatings when

applied 10 vessels. The use of biocide-free coatings brings slgnlflcant environmental

benefits.

Tha category should be named 'Antifouling Sealarma Coat' with a maximum VOC content

of 420 gIL. AnlUouling Sealer Coats and Tie Coats have been introduced Into the markel

largely to facilitate compliance with Annex 1 of the IMO-Antlfoullng Systems Convention

(2001 ).

AntifOUling Sealerffle Coals must contain a VOC up 10 420 gIL In order to facilitate adequete

penetration Inlo an underlying painl film for maximum adhesion. They also contain a high

degree of polymeric malerial (hence need a higher VOC content 10 maintain an acceplable

application viscosity) so the coating cen torm a fiexlble yel complete barrier over an

underlying palnl fllm. An appropriale definition for this type of coaling would be...

"a coating applied ovar BIocidal antifouling coating for the purpose ofpreventing ralease of

blocJdas Into the environment and/or to promote adhesion batween an antifouling and a

primer or other antlfoullngs. »

6
Revised definition for the category of "Pretreatment Wash Primer

The current definition of Pretreatment Wash Primer In South Coasl rule 1106.1 Is restricting

the development of alternative products which wouid be considerably iess toxic to humans

and the environment than lhose used currently. Products which meet the current definition for

this are formulated to contain known carcinogens such as zinc chromate (CAS 13530-65·9)

and zinc tetroxy chromate (CAS 37300·23-5)' due to the excellent anti-corrosive properties of

these materials.

In most cases the approach taken in the CTG Is to define the control category In terms of the

product ettribute. For example, the definttlon of a High Gloss Topcoat rafars specifically to the

performance attribute of the product - the gloss resull. However, In the case of the

"Pretreatment Wash Primer" category, the approach has been to define the category both In

terms of the formulation parameters (acld content and solids content) and the performance

attribute of the product (surface etclhlng). By teklng this approach, South Coast EPA hes very

much tied industry to the current. well established but very toxic zinc-based etch primers. This

definition requires amending to allow for the Introduction of safer, alternative etch

systems which are not based on zinc tetroxy chromate.

IndUstry would like a permanent modification made to the definnlon so that It reads as follows;

"PRETREATMENT WASH PRIMER means a coating which contains no more than 25

percent solids, by weight, and at least O. 1 percent acids, by waight; Is usad to provide surface

etching; and is appliad dlracfly to f1breg/ass and matal surfacas to provida corrosion

rasistance and adhasion of subsequant coatings'

The 'percent solids' value must be raised form 12 to 2510 allow for an increased quanUty of

safer (non-carclnogenic) raplacement pigment which Is required for eqUivalent coating

performance. These replacement formulations require a reduced level of acid to perform

adequately therefore It is also necessary to reduce the demlnimus value associated 10

'percent acids' from 0.5 to 0.1.

Request Small Container Exemption

Many industrial and commercial coatings VOC regulations Include e small container

exemption confined to not exceed a litre or a quart. They also often Inciude an annual

IImltalion on the amount used.

Architectural and Industrial malnlenance rules also contain such exemptions.

The purpose behind these exemptions is to allow for small repairs and touches ups to existing

coatings that if done In timely manner can oftan avoid larger paint jobs later. In the

commercial or Industrial selling. the small container exemptions allows minor repairs at the

end of the painting line to avoid heving to completely recoat the object of product. Thus the

higher vac materials actuelly reduce overall vac emissions by allowing such repairs and

touch ups to avoid complete overall or redo paint jobs.

I R-ated os known carcinogens by Occupational Safoty & Health AdministrfttoT (OSHA), Na.tional

Toxicology Program (NTP), and InlcrnatiOl1aJ Agency for Research on Cancer (lARC)

7
Dear Mr. Dowiak, W-4

Please find attached for the American Coatings Association comments on the above

referenced CTG as it pertains to VOC limits for pleasure craft coatings. I have also

attached a letter sent to OAQPS formally requesting reconsideration of this CTG for the

reasons listed in said document. As you will see, the ACA believes that this matter was

not settled with their initial memorandum ofJune 1, 2010 (also attached). Do not

hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Regards,

John

John Hopewell

Asst. Director EnvironmentalAffairs & International Programs

American Coatings Association

1500 Rhode Island Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: +12024626272

Fax: +1 202462 8549

jhopewell@paint.org
Modifications required to Pleasure Craft CTG for establishing a suitable RACT

standard for the pleasure craft coatings industry

Summary

The required changes to rule 1106.1 to form a RACT standard for the pleasure craft coatings industry are

summarised in table 1.

font)

, ReVised definition reqUired: Extreme High Gloss coating means any coating whIch achieves greater

than 90 percent reflection on a 60" meter when tested by ASTM Method D523-89

" Revised definition required: Pre-Treatment Wash Primer means a coating which contains no more

than 25 percent solids, by weight, and at least 0.1 percent acids, by weight; is used to provide surface

etching; and is applied directly to fiberglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and

adhesion of subsequent coatings.

Table 1 - SholNina required chances bv industrv compared to limits in rule 1106.1 (chances indicated by red

Coating Category CTG vec conten Industry vec

taken from South Proposal for RACT

Coast rule 1106.1 (giL)

(giL)

Extreme High Gloss Coating' 490 600

High Gloss Coating 420 420

Pre-Treatment Wash Primer" 780 780

Finish Primer/Surfacer 420 600

High Build Primer Surfacer 340 340

fl'-Iuminum Substrate Antifoulant Coating 560 560

Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating 330 400

fJl other pleasure craft surface coatings for 420 420

metal and plastic

Antifouling SealerlTie Coat (new category) 420

...

The following sections provide more detail to substantiate proposed modifications

Revised VOC limit for Finish Primer/Surfacer category

Boat owners have very high expectations for the final look of their boats. The finish is expected to be

super smooth, super glossy (almost 'mirror-like') and durable. Coatings can be applied by a variety of

application methods (brush, roller or spray) and must flow out to give a smooth, glossy finish. In order to

flow out and achieve such effects, products with a higher solvent content (lower solids content) are

required for both the topcoats and the primers which go beneath them

Introducing high solidsllow VOC primers that provide a smooth, easy-to-sand surface necessary to

provide the aesthetics demanded by owners will require significant time to develop and evaluate.

Currently, high solids/low VOC primers often require additional sanding, creating more dust, to achieve

the same smooth surface that is obtained with currently available products. This would necessitate a

change in working practices in yards to overcome the increased health hazard associated with the

increased dust levels.
An additional issue relating to a switch to lower vee FinishlPrimer surfacers is that the cost can be as

much as 40% or more higher than currently available, higher vee products. This, in combination with

increased labor costs associated with the additional sanding needed to remove the increased surface

texture, will make yards in areas where a vee limit of 420g/lt is implemented uncompetitive with yards in

other states.

As an interim measure to ensure that competitive products can be supplied into ozone non-compliance

areas during the next four years that meet the aesthetic and performance requirements demanded by

boat owners, the industry requires vee levels of the Rule 1106.1 "Finish PrimerlSurfacer" coating

category to be revised from 420 giL to 600 giL.

Revised voe limit for Extreme High Gloss Coating category

The Extreme High Gloss Coatings category represents a comparatively small but critical, high value

segment of the overall pleasure craft market.

The aesthetic properties that topcoats give to the topsides of pleasure craft are of primary importance to

boat owners, a fact that should be neither underestimated nor dismissed. The owner has invested a

significant sum of money into owning his yacht and the quality of the final appearance is its 'crowning

glory'. If boat owners cannot achieve the desired super-glossy, mirror-like finish, they will not settle for an

inferior solution - they will simply have their boats painted elsewhere. These coatings are professionally

applied so any restriction on their use that reduces the competitiveness of individual yards will have a

direct and immediate bearing on employment levels and local revenues.

High solids topcoats have not been well received in the North American pleasure craft coating market. In

general, applicators and boat owners have found the finish that these products provide to be inferior to

traditional, higher vee containing products. This can be seen clearly in the situation where a yacht

coated with a high solids topcoat is moored alongside-one coated with a traditional finish.

Although high solids and water-based technologies are available and in use in other industries (e.g. car

refinishing and aviation) the controlled application conditions which make the use of these coatings

possible in those industries are neither available nor possible for the pleasure craft coating industry.

Despite much product development activity, the lower vee technologies available at this time do not

provide the appearance and functionality required from a pleasure craft Extreme High Gloss Coating.

Some low vee topcoats, originating from the car refinish market and now being marketed for pleasure

craft usage, are based on a polymer type that provides reduced durability. These coatings have a

reduced lifetime and their use will necessitate a more frequent recoating schedule which means in

relative terms, more vee is emitted.

An additional issue relating to a switch to lower vee extreme high gloss topcoats is that the cost can be

as much as 60% or more higher than currently available, higher vee products. The resultant increase in

scheme cost will make yards in areas where a vee limit of 490g/lt is implemented uncompetitive with

yards in other states or in other countries.

A final point of importance is that in a typical extreme high gloss coatings scheme, the topcoat represents

less than 40% of the overall vee burden and less than 10% of total yacht coatings on an annualised

basis. Rule 1106.1 was developed to tackle serious ozone non-attainment in South Coast AQMD in

ealifomia. It is overly severe and restrictive for adoption for the majority of non-attainment areas where

the problem is 'Moderate' according to the EPA. The industry feels that restricting the vee of some of the

other coating categories and setting the vee limit for Extreme High Gloss topcoats to 600 giL, will

provide the state with a balanced vee reduction strategy that is appropriate to the challenge and that

does not seriously impact the competitiveness of the industry. This vee limit change should be

permanent as industry does not foresee any new technology emerging that can offer a route to providing

perform ance characteristics which are acceptable by the pleasure craft coating industry.
Revised Coating Category Definition for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat

As mentioned above, application of topcoats is undertaken in a variety of environmental conditions that

can have an effect on the final gloss level of the product at the point of application. To manage this

variation it is suggested that the gloss level stated in the definition of the Extreme High Gloss Topcoats

category be lowered slightly to read;

"Extreme high gloss coating means any coating which achieves greater than 90 percent reflectance on

a 60· meter when tested by ASTM Method 0 523-89"
Revised vac limit for Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating

Significant time and effort have been invested by industry to develop low vac antifouling coatings

suitable for use on pleasure craft. Low VaC/Zero vac technology is constantly evolving and improving.

The key is to set vac targets at a realistic level based on what we know today in order to ensure the

maximum compromise between performance, cost, appearance, drying time and application

ch aracteri St"ICS.

Formulations are currently registered with the EPA on the basis of the percentage weight of biocide in the

wet paint. As the vac is reduced then the solvent must be replaced with something non-volatile,

effectively reducing the percentage of biocide in the dry film with a concomitant reduction in

performance/reduced lifetime of the coating. This may mean more frequent application of the antifouling,

potentially leading to a greater overall vac impact. It is also true that high solids/low vac coatings tend

to dry slower than their high vac counterparts and this can impact the overall productivity of a yard for

example. Similarly, water based technologies are not a panacea to the vac challenge, though waterbased technologies are being very heavily scrutinised by coatings manufacturers. In general water based

coatings can only be formulated at low volume solids (30% compared to say 60%+ for an equivalent

solvent-based system). This inevitably means thin films containing less biocide (which affects the

performance and lifetime of the coating)

The data below shows the performance challenge with changing VOC. Panels 1-3 (left) are all based on

the same active package. The two rightmost panels are standard solvent based controls.

vac 328g/1 std 460 g/I w/based 68g/1 std 468 g/I 350 gIL

In addition, technologies for low vac antifoulings often result in a rougher film. The roughness of the hull

contributes directly to drag which is seen as a particular issue in the case of racing yachts
The National Emission Standard for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart II)

limits antifoulings in the US to 400g/L. Likewise SCAQMD Marine Rule 1106 applies a VOC limit for

antifouling coatings of 400g/L. Industry believes this limit is more suitable to represent RACT for this

coating category, given the current state of the existing technology. Certainly we find no justification in

setting a limit lower than that applied to the National Emission Standards for HAPs for Shipbuilding and

Ship Repair and the SCAQMD 1106 limits. The following VOC limit amendment is therefore required;

Category of "Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating" - amend from 330gIL to 400g/L

Additional Specialitv Category and VOC Limit: Antifouling SealerfTie Coat

Rule 1106.1 is dated and there are more recent requirements for an additional category to reflect

pieasure craft coatings of the modem day which are more environmentally friendly andlor compliant with

Intemationallaw.

A new category is required as a result of the International Maritime Organisation Antifouling Systems

convention (IMO AFS) and should be added to the categories taken from Rule 1106.1. This convention

was ratified in 2007 and houses a list of substances banned from use in antifoulings in Annex 1. Tri

Butyl Tin (TBT) is the first addition to Annex 1 and the use of this biocide in antifoulings on the hulls of

any marine vessels entering the waters of countries which are signatories to the convention is controlled

according to the requirements of Annex 1 of the AFS. A specialised coating type is required to seal in old

TBT containing antifoulings and to promote adhesion of biocide-free, non-stick foul release coatings when

applied to vessels. The use of biocide-free coatings brings significant environmental benefits.

The category should be named 'Antifouling SealerlTie Coat' with a maximum VOC content of 420 giL.

Antifouling Sealer Coats and Tie Coats have been introduced into the market largely to facilitate

compliance with Annex 1 of the IMO-Antifouling Systems Convention (2001).

Antifouling SealerlTie Coats must contain a VOC up to 420 giL in order to facilitate adequate penetration

into an underlying paint film for maximum adhesion. They also contain a high degree of polymeric

material (hence need a higher VOC content to maintain an acceptable application viscosity) so the

coating can fonn a flexible yet complete barrier over an underlying paint film. An appropriate definition for

this type of coating would be...

"a coating applied over Biocidal antifouling coating for the purpose ofpreventing release of biocides into

the environment and/or to promote adhesion between an antifouling and a primer or other antifoulings.•

Revised definition for the category of "Pretreatment Wash Primer

The current definition of Pretreatment Wash Primer in South Coast rule 1106.1 is restricting the

development of alternative products which would be considerably less toxic to humans and the

environment than those used currently. Products which meet the current definition for this are formulated

to contain known carcinogens such as zinc chromate (CAS 13530-65-9) and zinc tetroxy chromate (CAS

37300-23-5) 1 due to the excellent anti-corrosive properties of these materials.

In most cases the approach taken in the CTG is to define the control category in terms of the product

attribute. For example, the definition of a High Gloss Topcoat refers specifically to the perfonnance

attribute of the product - the gloss result. However, in the case of the "Pretreatment Wash Primer"

category, the approach has been to define the category both in tenns of the fonnulation parameters (acid

content and solids content) and the perfonnance attribute of the product (surface etching). By taking this

approach, South Coast EPA has very much tied industry to the current, well established but very toxic

I Rated as known carcinogens by Occupational Safety & Health Administrator (OSHA), National Toxicology

Program (NTP), and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
zinc-based etch primers. This definition requires amending to allow for the introduction of safer,

alternative etch systems which are not based on zinc tetroxy chromate.

Industry would like a permanent modification made to the definition so that it reads as follows;

"PRETREATMENT WASH PRIMER means a coating which contains no more than 25 percent solids, by

weight, and at least 0.1 percent acids, by weight; is used to provide surface etching; and is applied

directly to fibreglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent

coatings"

The 'percent solids' value must be raised form 12 to 25 to allow for an increased quantity of safer (noncarcinogenic) replacement pigment which is required for equivalent coating performance. These

replacement formulations require a reduced level of acid to perform adequately therefore it is also

necessary to reduce the deminimus value associated to 'percent acids' from 0.5 to 0.1.

Request Small Container Exemption

Many industrial and commercial coatings vac regulations include a small container exemption confined

to not exceed a litre or a quart. They also often include an annual limitation on the amount used.

Architectural and industrial maintenance rules also contain such exemptions.

The purpose behind these exemptions is to allow for small repairs and touches ups to existing coatings

that if done in timely manner can often avoid larger paint jobs later. In the commercial or industrial

setting, the small container exemptions allows minor repairs at the end of the painting line to avoid

having to completely recoat the object of product. Thus the higher vac materials actually reduce overall

vac emissions by allowing such repairs and touch ups to avoid complete overall or redo paint jobs.

Respectfuly Submitted,

John Hopewell

Asst. Director, Environmental Affairs and Intemational Programs

American Coatings Association

jhopewell@paint.org
August 8, 2011

Butch Stackhouse

Environmental Protection Agency

Air and Radiation

CS39-01,

RTP, NC 27711

Lisa Sutton

Office ofAir Quality Planning Standards (CS04-03)

Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park

NC 27711

RE: Pleasure Craft Control Techniques Guidelines

Dear Mr. Stackhouse and Ms. Sutton,

The American Coatings Association (ACA)' is forwarding comments submitted on the

Pleasure Craft regulation Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG), previously submitted

on this aspect ofthe Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG (Group IV). ACA

continues to object to this standard being deemed RACT for Pleasure Craft coatings for

the reasons outlined below and in the attached documents.

In addition, ACA objects to USEPA's June 10, 2010 letter in response to the above

referenced comments, which states that in determining whether to adopt this aspect of

the CTG, individual states are free to make their own decisions since this is a departure

from the traditional USEPA position that CTGs are presumptively RACT.

Unfortunately, this fact is not stated clearly in the letter so that some states believe that

ifthey do not adopt the CTG as written, that their SIP submissions will be rejected by

USEPA Regional Authorities.

ACA has worked closely with OAQPS for over two decades in providing access to its

members' coatings expertise when OAQPS has developed national rules and CTGs

affecting coatings. We have not always agreed with the final decisions of OAQPS, but

ACA has demonstrated our willingness and have been forthcoming with member

knowledge and data. Thus, ACA was unable to provide this input on the Pleasure Craft

CTG as it was never published for notice and comment. The first time the Guidelines

were published was in the final CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts?

I ACA is a voluntary, nonprofit trade association working to advance the needs of the paint and coatings

industry and the professionals who work in it. The organization represents paint and coatings

manufacturers, raw materials suppliers, distributors, and technical professionals. ACA serves as an

advocate and ally for members on legislative, regulatory and judicial issues, and provides forums for the

advancement and promotion of the industry through educational and professional development services.

2 Compare the Proposed Determination and Draft CTG in the Federal Register at:

h!!P:/Iwww.epa.gov/ttn/atw/183e/genlfr14jy08.pdf (no mention of pleasure craft)
Given that ACA and the industry had no advance notice ofthe rulemaking before the

final Guidelines were published, ACA identified the difficulties with the VOC limits of

the Pleasure Craft standard in as timely a manner as possible once the Association was

alerted to the new rule. Industry's concerns about appropriate VOC limits being set for

pleasure craft coatings, were, however, noted by USEPA in its Summarv of Public

Comments Received on Draft Control Techniques Guidelines for Consumer and

Commercial Products Categories:

"One commenter (0412-0034) reported that they were working with marine coating

suppliers to determine appropriate VOC content levels to preserve quality and

durability, and would provide suggested limits at a later date." See Summary of Public

Comments Received on Draft Control Techniques Guidelines for Consumer and

Commercial Products Categories (September 2008 EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0415-0024)

http://www.regulations.gov1#!documentDetail:D=EPA-HO-OAR-2008-041S-0024

This was in response to comments made by the National Marine Manufacturers

Association.

In addition, at this time, ACA also contacted OAQPS in this regard, suggesting that EPA

use the information and data submitted to the Agency in the development ofthe

NESHAP for Pleasure Craft, which further supported industry assertions that the VOC

limits under the CfG were not appropriate and higher limits are necessary. Finally,

others in the industry, once they became aware ofthe problem after the CTG was final,

also alerted USEPA to the problem and followed up. See attached letter from

Mankiewicz Coatings.

After numerous discussions on the issue, OAQPS did provide ACA with the attached

June 10, 2010 letter to the Regions and the states, giving the states permission to

develop their own RACf standards for pleasure craft independently ofthe CfG.

Unfortunately, the letter is not as clear as it might be, thus, some states are reluctant to

act independently ofthe CfG because they believe EPA still views the CfG as

"presumptive RACT" and fear their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) will be rejected if

they do not adopt the CTG in its entirety.

Aside from the fact that the CfG process here did not fully vet the Pleasure Craft

coatings VOC limits of SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 which were identified as RACf in the CTG,

by failing to include it in the proposal, it also was not reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). See OMB material in Docket.

http://www.regulations.gov1#!documentDetail:D-EPA-HO-OAR-2008-0411-0003 and

http:((www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail:D-EPA-HQ-QAR-2008-0412-0013

to the Final Determination and final CTG in the Federal Register at:

h!!P:/twww.epa.gov/ttn/atw/183e/genlfr070c08.pdf (pleasure craft is discussed for first time as a final

determination with appeal only by way of federal litigation).
The Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG (Group IV) was considered a

"Significant regulatory action" because EPA found that it raised "novel legal or policy

issues arising out oflegal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth

[in] Executive order [12866]". 73 Federal Register 58481 (October 7, 2008)

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/183e/genlfr070c08.pdf

One ofthose principles is:

"(11) Each agency shall tailor its regulations to impose the least burden

on society, including individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and other

entities (including small communities and governmental entities), consistent

with obtaining the regulatory objectives, taking into account, among

other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations."

Hence, a major tenet of administrative law - that regulations are thoroughly evaluated

for technological feasibility and cost effectiveness by the affected stakeholders - and

that ofthe OMB review thought by EPA to be necessary and mandated in this instance

- were absent with respect to the Pleasure Craft aspects ofthe Miscellaneous Metal and

Plastic Parts CTG (Group IV).

Because ofthe nature ofthe CTG process we had only two choices - we could bring suit

within 60 days in federal court or we could rely on our long cooperative relationship

with OAQPS to resolve the matter in way that was in keeping with that relationship.

ACA chose the latter course, and since then has been working with the states and

OAQPS to obtain an in depth review ofthe technology.

In keeping with that choice, after discussions with EPA Region 6 officials, we decided in

April to forego an objection to the proposed Louisiana SIP approval containing the

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG (Group IV). We did so because it was made

clear by Region 6 officials that a delay in the SIP approval would present major

probleIIlS for the Baton Rouge area and that we could work with state officials after the

approval to modify the rule. Unfortunately, our calls to discuss the matter with the

identified state official have not been returned.

IfEPA cannot act on this matter now and in a timely matter, either by reconsideration of

the CTG standards for pleasure crafts as a whole, or at the very least a new, clearer letter

in this regard to the Regions and states, ACA will be compelled to object to any future

SIP proposals that contain the Pleasure Craft portion ofthe Miscellaneous and Metal

Parts CTG (Group IV). As evidenced in the recent Louisiana SIP approval, ACA will be

forced to make the case formally in every instance, delaying and in some cases

disrupting SIP approval processes for the states. This would be unfortunate as EPA still

possesses the requisite data to change its recommendations for pleasure crafts. Review

ofthe NESHAP data would clearly show that the limits from Rule 1106.1, which EPA

used in the pleasure craft CTG, are in fact not "reasonably available control technology".

A review ofthe history surrounding the development of 1106.1 in SCAQMD and its

impact on the industry should have given pause to any thinking that since the rule had

been on the books for so long it must be "reasonably available technology".
First it is noteworthy that these limits were recognized by the SCAQMD as being

technology-forcing when adopted.

"The VOC limits were decreased from 650 gil to 490 gilfor Extreme High Gloss

Topcoats, 600 gil to 420 gllfor Finish Primers, and 400 gil to 150 gllfor

Antifoulants. At the time ofrule adoption, the July 1,1994 VOC limits were considered

technology forcing. Coatings meeting the July 1, 1994 VOC limits were either in

development or undergoing initial introduction into the pleasure craft coating

industry."

See http;//www.agmd.gov/hb/1q99/qq012a.html

Subsequently as indicated in the 1999 rulemaking amending 1106.1 to provide for higher

limits in these key areas, SCAQMD found that the hoped for technology had not

developed. A two year suspension ofthe lower limits was provided. Unfortunately the

limits with which we have issues have still not moved into the realm oftechnical

feasibility for the reasons stated in our fuller comments. As our comments point

out, because ofthe continuing impossibility ofthe lower limits to be effectively met for

certain key categories, the final remnants of the industry decamped from the SCAQMD

on the expiration ofthe two year suspension ofthe lower limits.

Further it should be noted that the CTG itselffound that the SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 limits

were generally stricter than the few rules in other air districts that specifically addressed

pleasure coatings. It is noteworthy that two ofthese, Ventura and San Diego - areas

with large pleasure craft populations - specify 650 grams per liter limits for extreme

high gloss coatings. Moreover it appears that the decision to go forward with the stricter

SCAQMD limits despite this was based in part because the rule had been on the books

for some time.

"All but three ofthese limits have been in place since 1994 and the remaining three

(extreme high gloss coatings, finish primer/surfacer, and non-aluminum antifoulant

coatings) have been in effect since 2001. There is no indication that the SCAQMD Rule

1106.1 VOC limits recommended by the commenters are unachievable or unreasonable

for sources outside these California Districts." CTG Document

Thus even on the basis ofsimply examining the rules in California specifically

addressing pleasure coatings, a real question should have arisen as to the

reasonableness ofselecting the SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 limits for a nationally applicable

RACT standard.

Another reason for not using the 1994 Rule as current RACT for pleasure craft coatings

is that when 1106.1 was adopted, the antifouling biocide TBT had not yet been banned

by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Consequently, the regulation does

not provide for an Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat category which is applied to hulls to

contain TBT as is required ifit is not completely removed.

As a technical matter, Rule 1106.1 was developed on the basis of the "best available

retrofit control technology" (BARCT) under the California Clean Air Act, which is more
stringent than the national RACT standard. AB characterized by California Air

Resources Board staff documents3 :

"BARCT is a state version of RACT, although it has stringency more akin to BACT ["best

available control technology"] as defined by the federal Clean Air Act. BARCT is

required under certain conditions in California districts having moderate, serious,

severe, or extreme air pollution as defined by Section 40921.5, Chapter 10, Part 1,

Division 26 ofthe Health and Safety Code."

While a long-lived BARCT standard may evolve into a national RACT standard with the

passage oftime and with industry effort to improve technology and application

techniques, this has not occurred with all ofthe 1106.1 standards. AB is shown in the

attached position paper, industry has made significant efforts to develop lower VOC

coatings for the coatings at issue here.

It is also noteworthy that there are only four limits with which we disagree, and one of

these is for a new coatings category that did not even exist at the time Rule 1106.1 was

adopted. AB noted earlier the Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat category was developed to

seal in TBT antifouling coatings that were subsequently banned by the IMO.

ACA has made great strides in overcoming the position EPA has put the industry in

given the lack of notice and comment on the pleasure craft standards in the

Miscellaneous Plastic and Metal Parts CTG and the impossibility ofthe VOC limits

contained in those standards. In fact the following agencies have agreed with ACA's

position and have or are proposing to modify the CTG accordingly:

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau ofAir Management

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Quality, Air

Pollution Control Program

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Air Resources Division

TIlinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau ofAir

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Air Pollution Control

However, we continue to need EPA's assistance in correcting the matter as some

jurisdictions are still concerned with not adopting the CTG in its entirety. Maricopa

County, Arizona, for example was considering following ACA's recommendations but

has hesitated to do so because of concerns that USEPA would follow its usual approach

of considering CTG standards as presumptively RACT in this case. Indiana and North

Carolina have also adopted the CTG limits - Indiana before we had a chance to discuss

the matter, and North Carolina in part because of concerns ofthe USEPA SIP approval,

process.

Thus, ACA would greatly appreciate USEPA's reconsideration ofthe limits it set in the

Pleasure Craft aspect ofthe Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG. Ifit determines

that it can not do this, then we would greatly appreciate clarifying in a clearer manner to

J For more details see htlp:/lwww.arb.ca.gov/bacVdocs/ssrcalifornia.hlm
the state and regional EPA clean air planning officials that they are not bound by the

standards in the CfG and can make their own determinations based on current coatings

technology information. In closing, we think any fair minded person would see that the

normally full vetting process employed by USEPA in the development of CTGs with

extensive discussions with affected parties did not occur with respect to the Pleasure

Craft aspect of the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG and thus some of the

limits specified do not reflect "reasonably available control technology".

Again, OAQPS can confirm this by examining the pleasure craft coatings data that has

been submitted to it for the development ofthe NESHAP for pleasure craft coatings. We

also believe that any proposal made by EPA here should also be reviewed by OMB as for

the reasons stated in the proposal of the CTG. In advance, thank you for your

consideration of this matter. ACA looks forward to your prompt response in this regard.

Please do not hesitate to contact us for further information or if you would like to meet

directly on the subject.

Sincerely,

John Hopewell

Asst. Director, Environmental Affairs

American Coatings Association
From: <dmonteleone@flexography.org>

To: <dmonteleone@flexography.org>

Date: 8/4/20111:05 PM

Subject: 201O-016-115-EN

08/04/2011 01:15 PM

W-5

This email is a confirmation ofthe comment that was submitted for the referenced

rulemaking.

First Name: Doreen

Last Name: Monteleone

Company/Organization: F1exographic Technical Association

E-mail Address: dmonteleone@flexography.org

Street Address: 3920 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 9

City: Bohemia

State: NY

Zip Code: 11716

Phone Number: 631-737-6020

Fax Number: 631-737-6813

Rule: 201O-016-115-EN

Comments:

The F1exographic Technical Association (FTA) represents flexographic printers

throughout the United States. As such, we are providing the following comments on the

proposed rulemaking, Chapter 115, Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rule Revisions

which will impact flexible packaging printers in Texas.

FTA strongly disagrees with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)'s

recommendation to require 80% overall control efficiency ofVOCs regardless ofthe first

installation date ofthe oxidizer. This may require printers that have oxidizers installed

at an earlier date to replace equipment and would be a significant financial hardship as

new oxidizers start in the hundreds ofthousands of dollars.

U.S. EPA's Control Technique Guidelines for F1exible Package Printing (2006)

recommends a more reasonable approach consistent with a RACT regulation. Whereby

add on controls installed prior to specific dates may have a lower overall control ofVOC

emissions as follows:

• 65% for presses installed before 3/14/95 with a control device installed before the

RACT rule was adopted;

• 70% for presses installed before 3/14/95 and a control device installed on or after

the date the rule is adopted;
• 75% for presses installed after 3/14/95 with a control device installed prior to

when the rule was adopted

• 80% for presses installed after 3/14/95 with a control device installed on or after

the date the rule was adopted

TCEQ's approach would require companies with an older oxidizer and wants to expand

and install a new press to replace its control device.

The comment that U.S. EPA's approach would create backsliding is not justified. The

proposed rule states, "Imposing this policy may encourage the installation of older, less

efficient equipment and may create potential backsliding." Instead, TCEQ's proposal

would impose unnecessary financial hardship and prevent business expansion in Texas.

This is contrary to being Reasonably available control technology.
08/08/2011 02:45 PM W-6

This email is a confirmation ofthe comment that was submitted for the referenced

rulemaking.

First Name: Kirk

Last Name: Hummel

Company/Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center

E-mail Address: kirk.e.hummel@nasa.gov

Street Address: 2101 NASA Parkway

City: Houston

State: TX

Zip Code: 77058-3696

Phone Number: 281-483-6642

Fax Number:

Rule: 201O-016-115-EN

Comments:
Michael Parrish

Office of Legal Services (MC 205)

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Comment on: Chapter 115 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOe) Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) Rule Revisions (Rule Log 2010-016-115-EN)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) operates three locations in Houston: the

Johnson Space Center (JSC). Ellington Field (EF), and Sonny Carter Training Facility (SCTF) and one

location in EI Paso: the EI Paso Forward Operating Location. TCEQ has proposed rulemaking to

implement the recommendations in the EPA's Control Techniques Guideline documents for determining

RACT. NASA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the technological and economic feasibility of the

proposed rules, specifically in the areas of surface coating, solvents, and adhesives.

Our comments below address areas of the rule on which NASA requests clarification or modification:

1. Exempt on-site maintenance shops;

2. Exempt NASA's manned spacecraft research and development centers from Division 5;

3. Update and Streamline Requirements for Solvent Cleaning Operations;

4. Exempt Janitorial cleaning from Solvent Cleaning;

5. Exempt NASA's manned spacecraft research and development centers from Division 7; and

6. Exempt Consumer adhesives from Division 7

1. On-site maintenance shops

Problem/Issue: According to §115.450(a)(3). the rule applies to miscellaneous metal part and product

coating at the original equipment manufacturer, off-site job shops that coat new and used parts and

products or that recaat used parts and products, and designated on-site maintenance shops that recoat

used parts and products. The category of designated on-site maintenance shops was created several

years ago and first appeared in the Division 2 applicability at §115.420(b)(9)(F), and is described in the

current preamble as an area designated at a site where coatings are applied to one or more

miscellaneous metal parts or products on a routine basis. TCEQ should remove on-site maintenance

shops from the applicability of both Divisions for the following reasons. First, TCEQ has not defined this

type of facility in the rules, and it is unclear what frequency would be considered "routine". Second,

EPA's Control Techniques Guideline document for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings does

not include on-site maintenance shops'. The Federal MACT standard for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products in 40 CFR 63 Subpart MMMM excludes facility maintenance operations from the rule'. Finally,

1 U.S. EPA, Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings: (EPA~4S3/R-08-003). September 2008. (Page 5)

"The CTG applies to manufacturers of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts that surface-coat the parts they produce. The final CTG also applies

to facilities that perform surface coatIng of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts on a contract basis."

2 40 CFR Section 63.3881(c)(2) states that the rule does not apply to surface coating or a coating operations that occur at research or laboratory

facilities, or is part of janitorial, bUilding, and facility maintenance operations. or that occur at hobby shops that are operated for

noncommercial purposes.

1
industrial maintenance coatings are already covered by the National AIM rule in 40 CFR Part S9 Subpart

D. NASA is not a manufacturing facility, and does not routinely perform surface coating or recoating on

used parts or products in on-site maintenance shops, but we are concerned that the proposed rule

applicability is confusing and would be very difficult to implement.

Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should delete designated on-site maintenance shops that recoat

used parts and products from §l1S.4S0(a)(3) and §l1S.420(b)(9)(F). TCEQ should instead clarify the

exemption in §l1S.4S1(1) to add industrial maintenance coatings:

For example, architectural coatings applied in the field to stationary structures and their

appurtenances, portable buildings, pavements, or curbs, or industrial maintenonce coatings in

on-site maintenonce shops ot a property would not be included in the calculations.

2. Exempt NASA's manned spacecraft research and development centers from Division 5

Problem/Issue: In §l1S.4S0(a)(3) and (a)(4), the rules apply to original equipment manufacturer and

off-site job shops that coat miscellaneous metal and plastic parts and products. NASA's manned

spacecraft centers perform application of specialty surface coatings to non-production mock-ups,

prototypes, fixtures, and displays. The current proposed rule exemption in §l1S.4S1(13) has narrowly

worded language that exempts coatings that are applied to test panels and coupons as part of research

and development, quality control, or performance testing activities at paint research or manufacturing

facilities. The current Chapter l1S Subchapter EDivision 2 surface coating rule has two exemptions:

• §l1S.427(a)(l)(A) excludes aerospace vehicles and components from coverage under the

miscellaneous metal parts and products (MMPP) coating category, and

• §l1S.427(a)(3)(J) excludes research and development activities from Division 2 where cleaning

and coating of aerospace vehicles or components is performed.

NASA and Department of Defense are already exempt from the Federal MACT standard (40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts

and Products) in 40 CFR §63.3881(c)(4). The basis for this exemption request is that reformulating

solvents or coatings requires extensive field testing before they can be approved for use in spacecraft

systems including prototype/ development articles. Updating the coatings for which there is a NASA

specification requires updating the documentation. The proposed regulation would be impractical and

extremely costly for NASA facilities because of the complexity of coating operations, the number of

coatings and solvents used, and the number of different items and substrates coated. NASA may use

small amounts of hundreds of different coatings, and each material is subject to its own engineering

specifications. Frequent changes in the mix of prototypes are unpredictable and dictated by future

mission requirements, and would prevent compliance using either the averaging or add-on control

options. Additionally, TCEQ should specifically exempt coating of museum/historical items because

NASA must use historically accurate coatings for these items. Therefore, TCEQshould explicitly exempt

NASA's manned spacecraft research and development centers.

Suggestion/Recommendation: NASA requests a new exemption in §l1S.4S1(14). Proposed revision:

(14) The surface coating ofmetal or plastic parts and products performed on-site at installations

owned or operated by the Armed Forces ofthe United States (including the Coast Guard and the

Texas National Guard) or the Natianol Aeranautics and Space Administration, or the surface

coating ofmilitary munitions manufoctured by orfar the Armed Farces ofthe United States

(including the Caast Guard and the Texas National Guard).

2
3. Update and Streamline Requirements for Solvent Cleaning Operations

Problem/Issue: Chapter 115 Subchapter E, Division 1 (Degreasing Processes) regulates equipment such

as cold cleaners and vapor degreasers that use VaC-containing solvents. Chapter 115 Subchapter E,

Division 1 was adopted in 1979 when cleaning solvents were traditional vac such as trichloroethylene

or naphtha. This regulation needs to be updated to reflect low-vac and aqueous cleaning solvents. The

proposed exemption in Division 6 §115.461(b) to exempt other solvent cleaning operations covered

elsewhere in Chapter 115 is a missed opportunity to update and streamline the requirements for

degreasing processes. This is also an opportunity to make the air permitting requirements congruent

with Chapter 115 requirements.

Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should amend or revise the proposed rule to update or replace

definitions and existing requirements for solvent degreasing processes in Chapter 115 Division 1.

Specifically, aqueous detergents, surfactants, and other cleaning solutions containing not more than one

percent of any organic compound should be exempted from Chapter 115 as they are from the

permitting process. Additionally, compounds with low vapor pressure <0.01 mm Hg (0.0002 psia) at a

temperature not to exceed 104°F are not considered air contaminants for air permitting and should not

be subject to Chapter 115 either.

TCEQ acknowledges in the preamble that small sources with actual emissions of less than 3 TPY should

not be subject to the control requirements because it is not economically feasible and does not

constitute RACT. This suggested change would not constitute backsliding because EPA encourages

States to use the latest information to determine RACT. EPA's 2006 CTG "presumptive RACT"

recommendations cover the entire spectrum of industrial cleaning categories, and specifically included

degreasing processes.'

4. Include Janitorial Exemption for Solvent Cleaning Operations

Problem/Issue: In §115.460(b)(3), TCEQ defines Janitorial cleaning, but did not actually include an

exemption. EPA's 2006 Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommends janitorial cleaning be excluded

from the applicability for the proposed rule requirements.

Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should revise the applicability in §115.460(a). Proposed revision:

(a) Applicability. Except as specified in §115.461 of this title (relating to Exemptions), the

requirements in this division apply to solvent cleaning operations in the Dallas-Fort Warth and

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas, as defined in §115.10 ofthis title (relating to Definitions).

Residential and janitorial cleaning are not considered solvent cleaning operations.

3 U.s. EPA, Control Techniques Guidelines: Industrial Cleaning Solvents (EPA 453!R-06-001), September 2006. (Page 10) "The total vae

emissions from solvent cleaning operations (64,000 Mg/yr (11,000 tpy) were determined by first assigning the VOC emissions from solvent

cleaning operations at each facility using the 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEil database to one of two general groups: parts cleaners,

and other solvent cleaning operations. The parts cleaner subgroup included emissions from all sec codes with a "degreasing" or cold solvent

cleaning/stripping classification in SCC_L3. VOC emissions from this subcategory are apprOXimately 4,000 Mg/yr (4,400 tpy). The other solvent

cleaning operatIons included all otherseesthat were identified as solvent cleaning operations."

3
5. Exempt NASA's manned spacecraft research and development centers from Division 7

Problem/Issue: In §115.470(a), the rules apply to manufacturing or repair facilities with adhesive

application processes. NA5A's manned spacecraft centers perform application of adhesives to nonproduction mock-ups, prototypes, fixtures, and displays. The current proposed rule exemption in

§115.471 has narrowly worded language that provides exemptions for (1) research and development,

quality assurance, or analytical laboratory and (2) assembly, repair, or manufacturing of aerospace or

undersea-based weapons systems.

The basis for this exemption request is that reformulating adhesives requires extensive field testing

before they can be approved for use in spacecraft systems including prototype/ development articles.

Updating the adhesives for which there is a NASA specification requires updating the documentation.

The proposed regulation would be impractical and extremely costly for NASA facilities because of the

complexity of adhesive operations, the number of adhesives used, and the number of different items

and substrates bonded together. NASA may use small amounts of hundreds of different adhesives, and

each material is subject to its own engineering specifications. Frequent changes in the mix of prototypes

are unpredictable and dictated by future mission requirements, and would prevent compliance using

either the averaging or add-on control options. Therefore, TCEQ should explicitly exempt NASA's

manned spacecraft research and development centers.

Suggestion/Recommendation: NASA requests a new exemption at §115.471(d). Proposed revision:

(d) Adhesives or adhesive primers used on-site at installations owned or operated by the Armed

Forces of the United States (incfuding the Coast Guard and the Texas Notional Guard) and the

Notional Aeronautics and Space Administration are exempt from the requirements in this

division.

6. Exempt Consumer adhesives from Division 7

Problem/Issue: In §l1s.470(a), the rules apply to manufacturing or repairfacilities with adhesive

application processes. Among the categories of adhesive materials regulated in §l1s.473 are a number

of substances that are more likely to be used for institutional purposes or at construction sites rather

than in manufacturing facilities. Such materials include ceramic tile installation adhesive; cove base

installation adhesive; floor covering installation adhesives; and single-ply roof membrane installation or

repair adhesives. It is not clear how the rule will apply to these materials that are used at thousands of

sites statewide that are not manufacturing facilities. In the Federal Register notice for the Industrial

Adhesive CTG (73 FR 40255), EPA stated that the miscellaneous industrial adhesives category does not

include adhesives and adhesive primers that are subject to the National Volatile Organic Compound

Emission 5tandards for Consumer Products, 40 CFR part 59, subpart C.

Suggestion/Recommendation: NA5A requests a new exemption at §115.471(e). Proposed revision:

(e) Adhesives or adhesive primers subject to the Notional Volatile Organic Compound Emission

Standards for Consumer Products, 40 CFR port 59, subpart Care exemptfrom the requirements

in this division.

4
August 8, 20 II

Mr. Michael Parrish

Office ofLegal Services

MC-20S

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

W-7

RE: Rnle Project Number 2010-016-115-EN

Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 Volatile Organic Compounds Reasonably

Available Control Technology Rule Revisions

Dear Mr. Parrish:

The Texas Chemical Council (TCC) appreciates the opportunity to commeut on the proposed

rulemaking by the Texas Commission ou Euvironmental Quality (TCEQ) to amend 30 TAC

Chapter liS concerning Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Reasouably Available Control

Technology (RACT) rule revisions.

TCC is a statewide trade association representing over 70 chemical manufacturers with more than

200 Texas facilities. The Texas chemical industry has invested more than $SO billion in physical

assets in the state, pays over $1 billion annually in state and local taxes and over $20 billion in

federal income taxes. TCC's members provide approximately 70,000 direct jobs and over

400,000 indirect jobs to Texans across the state. TCC member companies manufacture products

that improve the quality oflife for all Americans and millions ofpeople around the world.

Tce appreciates the work that TCEQ staff put into this rule proposal. That said, there are many

aspects ofthe proposal that TCC members found confusing and on those issues, seek clarification

from the agency. Please find TCC's detailed comments below.

Comments on Division 5, Surface Coating Processes

(I) According to 30 TAC liS.4S0 concerning applicability and defmitious, the requirements apply

to "miscellaneous metal parts and products" (lIS .4S0(a)(3» and to "miscellaneous plastic parts

and products" (1IS.4S0(a)(4».

However, the proposed rule includes specific surface coating categories defmed in IIS.4S0(c),

which include "miscellaneous metal and plastic parts" at IIS.4S0(c)(S). A specific definition of

"miscellaneous metal parts and products" is included at IIS.4S0(c)(S)(Q), but there is no

subsequent mention ofplastic parts and products. TCEQ should clarifY whether miscellaneous

plastic parts and products are included in this category aud avoid the use ofnumerous similar
tenns that only create confusion.

(2) Furthennore, proposed 30 TAC lI5.450(a)(3) indicates the rule applies to miscellaneous metal

parts and products coating "at the original equipment manufacturer, off-site job shops that coat

new parts and products or that recoat usedparts and products, and designated on-site

maintenance shops that recoat used parts and products. "

A chemical plant may on occasion coat newly fabricated piping or other equipment at an on-site

maintenance shop. TCC requests that TCEQ staff clarify whether or not it is their intent to

regulate this activity which appears to fall outside ofthe definition of "miscellaneous metal parts

and products," while the recoating ofsome equipment at an on-site job shop appears included.

TCC also points out a statement by the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the

preamble to the Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) MMMM for Surface Coating

ofMiscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (69 Fed. Reg. 143 (Jan. 2, 2004), the intent ofwhich

was to exclude "facility maintenance operations" as noted below:

Comment:... One co=enter requested clarification that coating activities at

industrial sites to maintain the structural and operational integrity of process

equipment are not covered by the final rule. Many industries coat new and

existing support structures. piping. and equipment as part ofroutine maintenance

activities, but they do not produce and coat metal parts for commercial sale....

Response: The EPA agrees that the surface coating of equipment and tools

used by a manufacturing facility (compared to machinery and tools that are

sold as industrial products) should be considered part offacility maintenance

operations and not part of the miscellaneous metal parts and products

surface coating source category. The final rule includes a definition of' 'facility

maintenance operations" that includes the routine repair or renovation (including

the surface coating) ofthe tools, equipment, machinery, and structures that

comprise the infrastructure ofthe affected facility. Infrastructure may include

buildings, tools, and equipment needed to support the function ofthe facility that

are fixed in place, or are occasionally used offsite."

In addition, TCC requests that TCEQ clarify whether this same type of activity conducted at an

on-site lay-down yard would be a regulated activity. For example, in the current Division 2,

painting of pipes in the lay-down yard is covered under I 15.42 1(a)(9) (A)(ii) as "low-bake

coating." Therefore, a VOC emissions limit oD.5Ibs/gal applies. However, in the new Division

5, the same painting of pipes is covered under 115.453(a)(l)(C) Table I and seems to contain

more categories. If a regulated entity does not meet the defmition of "extreme performance

coating," is that facility now covered under the "General Coating" category and therefore expected

to have a reduced VOC emission limit of 2.8 lbs/gal? TCC opposes this interpretation as it will

have a significant impact on the types of paints its members can use in their lay-down yards.

(3) With regard to the exemptions, TCC requests that TCEQ clarify in 115.451 (6)(C) whether

exemptions for "safety indicated coatings" include those temperature-sensitive coatings used to

identify hazards in an industrial setting. Furthennore, TCC is assuming the exemptions and

definition of "architectural coating" in this section includes painting pipes in the process unit

because they are "in the field" and "stationary structures." Please confirm whether this

2
interpretation is correct and whether the rules apply only to lay-down yards and not pipes in the

process units.

(4) If an activity were subject to the specific surface coating definition for miscellaneous metal

and plastic parts (30 TAC 115.450(c)(5)), it might be classified as "extreme performance coating"

(30 TAC II5.450( c)(5)(I)), "heat resistant coating" (30 TAC 115.450 (c)(5)(J)), or as

"miscellaneous metal parts and products" coating (30 TAC II5.450(c)(5)(Q)), depending on the

application. The control requirements for miscellaneous metal parts and products are provided in

30 TAC 115.453(a)(C) for the miscellaneous metal parts and products category.

It is not evident when Table 1 versus Table 2 control requirements governs. TCC requests

that the Agency clarify the intended use of Table 1 versus Table 2.

(5) Furthermore, the rules define "Extreme Performance Coating" in 115.450(c)(5)(I) and

specifically mention "chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic, or acidic agents." TCC requests

clarification ofthat term, Le., is it intended to mean painting outside of pipes that carry acids and

caustics, or does it mean painting inside ofpipes that carry acids and caustics?

Comments on Division 6. Industrial Cleaning Solvents

(6) Appendix A ofthe "Draft CTG: Industrial Cleaning Solvents" (EPA-453/P-06-001, August I,

2006) lists the "focus industries" as automotive manufacturing and related businesses, electrical

components, furniture, magnetic tape, packaging, and photographic supplies. In discussing

applicability (page 4), EPA states that the "CTG should have broad applicability to industrial

cleaning operations that have VOC emissions of at least IS Ib/day, before controls." However,

EPA suggests that cleaning of "miscellaneous metals parts" coatings be excluded from

applicability (page 7). Therefore, cleaning ofmiscellaneous.metal parts in the petrochemical

industry should be exempted from this division.

(7) Furthermore, the Industrial Cleaning Solvents rule should clearly exempt cleaning operations

that do not involve the removal of uncured adhesives, inks, and coatings, and contaminants such

as dirt, soil, oil, and grease. For example, in the chemical industry, piping and equipment is often

flushed with solvent during process turnarounds or product changeovers. These cleaning

operations would likely already be regulated by 30 TAC Chapter liS, Vent Gas Control or Batch

Processes rule.

(8) The exemption in 115.461(b) should specifically exclude process or operations that are subject

to and complying with 30 TAC Chapter liS, Subchapter B, Division 2 (Vent Gas Control) or

Division 6 (Batch Processes), including any qualifying exemptions. The exemption in 115.46I(b)

should be revised similar to the wording in the Reg 5 Vent Gas Control rule (II5.127(a)(6)) to

state: "A cleaning operation is exempt from this division (relating to Industrial Cleaning Solvents)

if all ofthe VOC emissions from the cleaning operation originate from a source(s) for which

another division within Chapter liS (for example, Vent Gas Control, Degreasing Processes, Batch

Processes) has established a control requirement(s), emission specification(s), or exemption(s)

which applies to that VOC source category in that county."

3
(9) The term "janitorial cleaning" is defined in 115.460 as ifit were intended to be exempted from

the Industrial Cleaning Solvents rule. However, the exemption was inadvertently left out oftbe

exemption section 115.461 and needs to be added.

Comments on Division 7, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

(10) Applicability in 30 TAC 115.470 is broadly stated to apply to any ownerloperator ofa

manufacturing or repair facility using adhesives for any adhesive application process specified in

30 TAC 115.473, which lists as an application process "other adhesive primer" applications.

Chemical plants may use adhesives in limited applications such as to attach wear pads on piping to

prevent metal-to-metal contact. As another example, adhesives might be used from time to time to

repair or replace floor tiles in company buildings. While we expect these limited applications can

meet the 3 ton/year exemption in 30 TAC 115.471, recordkeeping under 30 TAC 115.478 (b)

would be required.

TCC suggests that TCEQ revise the "applicability" provisions to specifically defme "other

adhesive primers" as "other adhesive primers, other than incidental industrial use."

Conclusion

Thank you again for your consideration ofthese comments on the proposed amendments to 30

TAC Chapter liS. Please contact me at (512) 646-6403 or wisdom(a)txchemcouncil.org should

you need additional clarification or information.

Yours respectfully,

Christina T. Wisdom

Vice President & General Counsel

4
AUG 0 82011

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • REGION 6

1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200

DALLAS. TX 75202·2733

Ms. Charlotte Hom

Texas Register Tearn

Office ofLegal Services, MC 205

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

POBox 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

Dear Ms. Hom:

W-8

lbank you for the opportunity to submit comments on revisions proposed to the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions are:

a) Chapter lIS voe Storage Tank Rule Amendments

Rule Project No. 2010·025-1 IS-EN

b) Chapter lIS CTO RACT Rule Amendments

Rule Project No. 201D-016·11S-EN

c) DFW SIP Attainment Demonstration Revision (including photochemical

modeling, weight ofevidence, RACf, RACM, an MVEB, and a contingency

plan) Rule Project No. 2010-022-SIP-NR

d) DFW SIP Reasonable Further Progress Revision

Rule Project No. 20 I0-023-SIP-NR

e) HOB RACT Analysis Update SIP Revision

Rule Project No. 201Q--028-SIP-NR

f) DFW Attainment Demonstration and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

SIP Revision Supplements

These SIP revisions are important for Texas' plan to address ozone air quality problems

in the stale. We appreciate the efforts ofthe State in developing these SIP revisions.

Our detailed comments on the proposed rules are inCluded as an enclosure to this letter.

Please contact me or my staffifyou have any questions. For questions about our comments on

the DFW SIP proposals, please contact Ms. Carrie Paige at 214--665-6521. Please direct

questions about comments on the vac storage tank rules, CTG RACT rules, or the DFW or

HGB RACTanalysis to Ms. EBen Belk at 214-665-2164.

Sincerely yours,

./Jy bJlr--

Guy Donaldson, Chief

Air Planning Section (6PD-L)

Enclosure

Cc: Lola Brown, Me 206

Michael Parrish, MC 205

Jamie Zeck,MC 206

I""'rnel,f\ddl'eSS (UflL) • h\lp;ilwww.epa go'learth1r6!

AecydedlReeyclabfe ~rin1ed with vegetable Oil Based InkS On Recycled ~aper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
Detailed Comments

Control ofVOC Emissionsfrom Storage and Transfer OperalionsjOr the Eight-Hour Ozone

Standard (Rule Project No. 2010-025-1 J5-EN)

The amendments in this proposed rule would apply to nonattainment and near nonattaimnent

areas, and would change VOC control requirements in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter B,

Division I, Storage ofVolatile Organic COIn.\Xlunds. These revisions would require a more

stringent level of contrOl for VOC storage in the Dallas - Fort Worth 1997 eight hour ozone

nonattainment area. In addition, this proposed rulemaking would clarify rule requirements and

allow for the use of alternative control options for affected owners or opemtors in the following

areas: HOB 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, Beaumont-Port Arthur area, and in

Arkansas, Bexar, Calhoun, El Paso, Gregg, Matagorda, Nueces, San Patricio, Tmvis, and

Victoria Counties. Our comments on this rulemaking project are as follows:

I. EPA Region 6 is supportive ofTCEQ's efforts to expand controls for additional VOC

emissions in the DFW area. Also, EPA appreciates the decision made by TCEQ requiring

95% control in 115.1 12(f)(3XA).

2. Please confum that this new rule includes all ofthe components needed for enforcement

purposes. As explained in the preamble...... the compliance date for new requirements in

the DFW area will be December 1,2012". However, ifcompliance with the new

requirements would necessitate emptying and degassing the tank, compliance would not

be required until the next time the tank is emptied or degassed but no later than December

I, 2021. In particular, please explain how existing reporting requirements are sufficient

for inspectors to be able to verify the most recent time that a vessel was emptied or

degassed and, if necessary, add additional reporting requirements which provide for the

enforceability ofthis rule.

3. With respect to any credit which may be taken for reductions from this rule in the

reasonable further progress plan or attainment plan, please explain how the reductions

were calculated. In particular, please explain how the credit has been appropriately

promted to reflect that .many storage tanks may not be controlled until after the deadline

for RFP or attainment because ofthe extended period allowed for compliance.

2
Detailed Comments

Control ofVOC Emissionsfor Eight Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) Categories. (Rule

Project No. 20/0-016-//5.EN)

The amendments in this proposed rule would change VOC control requirements in 30 TAC

Chapter 115 Subchapter E, Solvent-Using Processes for eight Control Techniques Guidelines

(CTG) categories issued in 2006, 2007, and 200S.The CTG categories included in this proposal

are: Flexible Packaging Printing Materials; Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Large Appliance

Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Auto and Light-Duty Truck

Assembly Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic

Parts Coatings. Our comments on this rulemaking project are as follows:

1. Compliance Dates

Please consider whether these rule revisions should be enhanced to require compliance

where possible by the beginning ofthe ozone season, March 1,2013. The rules as

proposed make a distinction between owners and operators becoming subject to the

requirements and complying with the requirements, allowing an additional 60 days for

compliance after becoming subject.

For example, as indicated in proposed Division 3: Flexible Packaging Printing Materials

115.439(d), ''The owner or operator of a flexible package printing line in the Dallas-Fort

Worth and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas that becomes subject to the requirements of

this division after March 1,2013, shall comply with the requirements in this division no

later than 60 days after becoming subject."

Given this, please consider modifying the rule to require compliance with these

regulations no later than March I, 2013.

Also, please use similar modifications in other compliaru:e see;tions which are similarly

worded, such as:§115.459(b), and §115.469(b).

2. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RAeT) Requirements.

Absent the requisite demonstration, EPA will not be able to approve portions ofthe

proposed rules. This is because the proposed rules replace emissions limits previously

adopted as RACT with less stringent emissions limits. A demonstration from the State

showing that the SIP-approved limits are no longer RACT, will be required for EPA's

approval.

EPA's interpretation ofthe applicable provisions ofthe CAA is contained in the

memorandum titled "Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements

for Certain Coatings Categories" dated March 17,2011. Thismemo is included as an

appendix at the end of our comments. The memo states that "forsituations in which a

3
State has previously detennined that more stringent applicability thresholds and/or

control levels are RACT for one or more sources in a source category and the sources

have complied with those requirements, then those existing controls should be considered

RACT for such sources. Further, "if a state chooses to revise more stringent rules that are

already in the approved SIP, so that those rules reflect the Less-stringent recommended

limits in the new CTGs, there are additional considerations ... The state would need to

first demonstrate that the SIP approved control requirements are not reasonably avaiLable

considering technological and economic feasibility, consistent with EPA's definition of

RACT." Sources have been complying with these limits in some cases for 20 years or

more. Texas should explain how it is no longer RACT for these sources to continue to

comply with the old limits.

Therefore absent a demonstration portions ofthe following proposed Division 5 rules

may not be approvable these include: Surface Coating Processes §115.453 and Control

Requirements. Specifically, EPA anticipates not being able to approve some ofthe

revisions proposed for Large Appliances, Metal Furniture, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products, Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products, and possibly other sections, including

portions ofthe following:

Division 5: Surface Coating Processes §115.453 Control Requirements:

§1I 5.453(1)(A) Large Appliances

§1I5.453(1)(B) Metal Furniture

§115.453(l)(C) Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

1§5.453(1)(D) Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products

3. Director's Discretion

The proposed §115.454(b) provides for alternate control requirements approved by the

executive director:

§115.454(b) For any surface coating process or processes at a specific property,

the executive director may approve requirements different from those in

§I 15.453(a)(I)(A) ofthis title (relating to Control Requirements) based upon the

executive director's determination that such requirements wJ1l result in the lowest

emission rate that is technologically and economically reasonable. When the

executive director makes such a detennination, the executive director shall

specify the date or dates by which such different requirements must be met and

shall specify any requirements to be met in the interim. Ifthe emissions resulting

from such different requirements equal or exceed 2S tons a year for a property,

the detenninations for that property must be reviewed every five years. Executive

director aPProval does not necessarily constitute satisfaction of all federal .

requirements nor eliminate the need for approval by t1)e United States

Environmental Protection Agency in cases where specified criteria for

determining equivalency have not been clearly identified in applicable sections of

this chapter.

4
The rule should be revised to make clear that any alternative requirements to

§115.453(a)(IXA), approved by the executive director under §115.454(b) would need to

be submitted as a site specific SIP.revision for approval by EPA to ensure it meets the

requirements for enforceability and public hearings.

4. Division 5: Control Requirements for Surface Coating Processes. Title.

It would be helpful to readily distinguish the rules in this division from those in Division

2. The proposed title for this new Division 5, "Control Requirements for Surface Coating

Processes", seems very similar to Division 2, "Surface Coating Processes".

5
Detailed Comments: Project No. 2010-022-SIP-NR

Dallas-Fort Worth Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan Revision

for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard Nonanainment Area

The proposed DFW attainment demonstration SIP revision contains Federal Clean Air Act

required SIP elements, including a photochemical modeling analysis, a weight ofevidence

analysis, a RACT analysis, a reasonably available control measures analysis, a motor vehicle

emissions budget (MVEB) for 2012, and a contingency plan. This proposed revision includes

concurrent rulemakings to update control requirements for certain coatings operations, in

response to recommended RACT requirements in CTG documents issued by the EPA and VOC

storage tank rule revisions to update existing and provide new control measures for the DFW

area This proposed revision also includes an on-road emissions supplement to the proposed

attainment demonstration SIP.

I. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Requirements:

Absent a proper demonstration EPA will not be able to approve portions ofthe proposed

rules because the revised limitsreplace emissions limits previously adopted as RACT

with less stringent emissions limits. Without a demonstration from the State that the SIPapproved limits are no longer RACT, considering technological and economic feasibility,

the proposed rule will not be approvable. EPA's interpretation ofthe applicable

requirements ofthe eAA is provided in tbememorandum entitled, "Approving SIP

Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain Coatings Categories" dated

March 17, 20 II. This memo is included as an .appendix at the end ofour comments. In

general, for situations in which a State has previously detennined that more stringent

applicability thresholds and/or control levels are RACT for one or more sources in a

source category and the sources have complied with those requirements, then those

existing controls should be considered RACT fot such sources.... Ifa state chooses to

revise more stringent rules that are already in the approved SIP, so that those rules reflect

the less-stringent recommended limits in the new CTGs, there are additional

considerations...• The state would need to first demonstrate that the SIP approved control

requirements are not reasonably available considering teclmological and economic

feasibility, consistent with EPA's definition ofRACT."

Therefore, the portions of proposed Division 5 rules which are not approvable without a

RACT demonstration include: Surface Coating Processes §115.453 Control

ReqUirernents. SpecificallY,EPA anticipates not being able to approve some ofthe

revisions proposed for Large Appliances. Metal Furniture, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products, Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products,and possibly other sections, including

portions ofthe following:

Division 5: Surface Coating Processes §115.453 Control Requirements:

§115.453(1)(A) Large Appliances

§115.453(1)(B) Metal Furniture

§115.453(1)(C) Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

1§5.453(l)(D) Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products

6 .
2. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) and use ofthe Motor Vehicle Emission

Simulator (MOVES) emission modeling system:

EPA Region 6 appreciates the work done by TCEQ and the NCTCOG to incorporate an

approximation ofMOVES mobile modeling outputs into the proposed attainment

demonstration and RFP SIPs for the DFW area. MOVES is EPA's approved model for

use in SIP submissions and transportation conformity analyses, because it represents the

Agency's most currentassessrnent ofon-road mobile source emissions (75 FR 9411).

As noted in the proposed attainment demonstration SIP Revision, Section 3.7.6.3

(Expected Changes to SIP Revision Adoption with MOVES), U[w]hether MOBILE6.2 or

MOVES is used for on-road emissions inventory development, the DFW area is

anticipated to attain the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15,2013 deadline".

It is encouraging to see that the area is predicted to attain the standard by the deadline

when on-road emissions are estimated using MOvES. Consistent with EPA's guidance

for the use ofMOVES in the development ofSIPS and conformity determinations, Texas

should proceed with finalizing attainment demonstration and RFP SIPs using the

MOVES emissions modeling results. This would include establishing MOVES-based

MVEBs for the DFW area.

The Supplement to the proposed attainment demonstration incorporates the use ofthe

MOVES20l0a emission modeling system. MOVES20l0a incorporates new car and light

truck energy and greenhouse gas rates and a number of other improvements. Unless

substantial work with MOVES has been done, the TCEQ should use MOVES2010a and

take full advantage ofthe improvements incorporated in this version.

Modeling/Weight ofEvidence

The State has .proposed, based on a technical demonstration including modeling and other

evidence that the DallasIFort Worth areas will attain the 1997 ozone standard by the end

ofthe 2012 ozone season. Based on the current monitoring data and the limited

reductions that will happen between now in 2012, however, it seems unlikely that the

area will attain. We note that the 2008 and 2009 years and even 2010 had higher wind

speeds than normal that resulted in conditions less conducive to ozone formation. The

2011 period has been slightly above normal so far, as it has been very hot, but has had

some low wind days and higher wind days. We note that based on the preliminary data

that the area's current design value is 88 ppb, Short ofthe 84 ppb goal. To attain by 2012

will require a significant reduction from current monitored levels.

The discussion of ozone design value monitors on page 5-12 and Table 5-4 is not current

and does not reflect ozone data for 2010. This information should be updated to include

current data.

Evaluation ofthe model performance data and s6urce apportionment indicates that the

model may be overseIlsitive to low-level NOx reductions. We note that the kv-200 patch

7
to induce more vertical mixing may be resulting in better performance in the base case,

but also making the model overly sensitive to low-level NOx reductions as the

atmosphere may not be mixing as rapidly as the patch is indicating. lbis may compensate

for emission estimation errors in the base, thus resulting in better model performance but

also over-predicting the benefit ofNOx. reductions. Comparison of baseline modeling and

model performance using the MOVES and MOBILE6.2 emission inventories should

provide useful information on the model's sensitivity to changes in low-level NOx

emissions.

We also noted that the modeling seems to project significant reductions in ozone levels

due to out-of-state emission reductions. We think there may be some error in the

magnitude ofreductions being projected and request that TCEQ do comparisons with

reductions expected with the new Cross State Air Pollution Reduction Rule. A model

sensitivity run may help understand ifthis is part ofthe discrepancies ofthe model

system.

The calculated RRF values used to project the 2012 DV shown on Table 3-26 range from

0.786 to 0.832, indicating a significant reduction in predicted ozone concentrations over a

relatively short period oftime. We note that the retrospective analysis (Table 3-24) shows

observed RRFs from 1999 to 2006 range from 0.872 to 0.966. In calculation ofRRFs,

there is some concern that a cut-off of70 ppb may be too low for determination ofwhich

days to include in the RRF calculation. Additional analysis ofthe sensitivity ofthe RRF

calculation to using a higher cut-Qffvalue and including fewer days in the calculation, as

well as an evaluation ofthe day-to-day variability ofthe RRFs and meteorology on those

days, should be provided. Furthermore, evaluation ofthe sensitivity ofRRF values to cell

array size should be included, supporting TCEQ's choice of a 3x3 grid cell array about

each monitor.

3. General

Throughout the submittal, we notice references to 201 0 ozone data as preliminary. Please

provide current ozone values in the fmal submittals.

We are pleased to see improvements to the area source emissions inventories, although

the improvements indicate increased emissions from oil and gas activities in the area.

Regarding the discussion on the Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF) requirement, thc state should

review the CFF equivalency demonstration submitted by the TCEQ for the

BeawnontIPort Arthur area, which was approved on October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64675).

Since the CFF must be addressed in the DFW SIP, a similar equivalency demonstration is

a reasonable option for consideration in the DFW area.

Regarding the discussion on gasoline vapor recovery and the removal ofStage II

requirements on pages 4-6 Blld 4-7, please note that Stage II refueling requirements apply

in serioUs, severe and extreme ozone nonatl;iinment areas, provided the EPA has not yet

8
found that onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) is in widespread use in the motor

vehicle fleet and waived the section I82(b)(3) requirement.' Should the EPA finalize the

rule as proposed at 76 FR 41731, then Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman and Rockwall

counties would not be required to implement Stage II vapor recovery, nor would the state

have to submit a demonstration that ORVR is in widespread use in these counties.

Regarding RACM, as indicated in Appendix G ofthe state's submittal, in order to

advance attainment by one year (Le., by June 15,2012), the state would have to

implement any additional control measures needed for attainment by the beginning ofthe

20 II ozone season, which has already passed. Thus, at this time, EPA believes there is

insufficient time to implement additional controls that would advance attainment.

However, Section I72(c)(I) ofthe Act requires SlPs to provide for the implementation of

all RACM as "expeditiously as practicable" and for attainment ofthe standard. Therefore,

and in light ofthe preliminary and increasing ozone design values (DVs) in the area, we

encourage the state to provide a more robust RACM analysis that includes the magnitude

ofemissions reductions that would advance the attainment date at the monitors with the

highest future DVs. Finally, we encourage the State to explore new technologies and pilot

test new strategies to further reduce ozone in the DFW area.

AU nine counties in the serious ozone nonattainment area must meet the requirements

specified under section I82(c) ofthe CAA We have accounted for all but three ofthese

requirements; please specify where the state's rules address how Parker, Johnson, Ellis,

Kaufmanllr1d Rockwall counties meet the de minimis rule (section 182(c)(6», the special

rules for modification ofsources (section J82(c)(7) and (8», and the increased offset ratio

of 1.2 to J (section 182(c)(10».

In the On-road Emissions Supplement to the Proposed DFW Attainment Demonstration,

the sentence at the bottom of page 2 appears to be unfinished. We suspect it would direct

the reader to Tables 2-3 and 2-4. Please confirm by finishing the sentence.

The state has submitted two recent revisions to Chapter 1J7 for:

J) low-temperature drying ovens at 117.403(a)(12); and

2) biogas fired lean-bum engines.

Please confirm that emission increases from these revisions have been captured in the

att;linment modeling.

IOn July 15,2011 (76 FR 41731). the EPA proposed criteria for determining whemer ORVR isin widespread use

for purposes ofcontrolling motor vehicle refueling emissions throughout the motor vehicle fleet Based on the

proposed criteria, the EPA is prqposing 10 determine that June 30. 2013 wilt be the date when widespread use will

occur and the Stage 11 waiver will be effective.

9
Detailed Comments: Project No. 2010·023-SIP·NR

Dallas-Fort Worth Reasonable Further Progress State Implementation Plan Revision

for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard

The proposed DFW RFP SIP revision contains an analysis ofthe DFW serious ozone

nonattainment area's progress toward attainment ofthe 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. RFP

requirements include annual incremental reductions in ozone precursor emissions (NOx and

VOC) out to an area's attainment year, reductions in ozone precursor emissions as contingency

measures for designated milestone years and for the attainment year, and updated RFP MVEBs

for an area's milestone years. This proposed SIP revision would incorporate a concurrently

proposed revision to Chapter 115 that wouldreduce VOC emissions from affected sources in the

DFW area. (We are providing comments on the proposed revisions to Chapter 115 under Rule

Project No. 201 0-025-1 IS-EN elsewhere.)

I. The Supplement to the RFP indicates that the state is considering using the emissions

reductions earned through the TERP to successfully demonstrate RFP for 2011, which we fully

support.

2. The state's modeling analysis demonstrates that reducing NOx emissions in the DFW area is

more effective in reducing the area's 8-hour ozone design value than reducing VOC emissions,

thus substitution of creditable NOxemissiollS reductions is allowable in this RFP.2 For the 2012

milestone year, the proposed VOCemissioDS reductions fall short ofmeeting the VOC target by

9.79% to 13.82%, depending on which transportation model is used. The NOx emissions

reductions must therefore provide an excess ofthe same percentage as the VOC shortfall (9.79%

to 13.82%) to compensate for the VOC shortfall and maintain the increment ofRFP of 3% and

this is provided. We show the calculations below, using the emission levels provided in the

state's proposal and supplement. Lines 6-8 are not included in the state's submittals, but are

required to demonstrate consistency with RFP and the EPA's NOx Substitution Guidance.

2 See EPA's NOx Substitution Guidance, December 1993. In addition, on August 5,1994, we issued "Clarification

ofPolicy (or Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Substitution," Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir

Quality Planning and Standards.

10
NOx emissions reductions needed to balance voe shortfall, in tnd unless otherwise noted.

Description NOx voe

UsinllMobile6.2 model . . ... . .....

I. 2012 Target emissions levels 393.59 463.25

2.2012 ForecastlProiected emissions levels 324.28 517.11

3. Excess (shortfall) [(line n-(line 2)1 69.31 I (53.86)

4. Amount for contingencv measure (3% of2012 ABYY 15.43 (3%) 0%

5. Excess (shortfall) [(line 3) - (line 4)1 53.88 1(53.86)

6. Percent ofshortfall from voe tarl!et 11.63%

7. 11.63% ofNOx tarP:et (to cover 11.63% vee shortfall) 45.77 (J 1.63%)

8. Adiusted excess in NOx reductions mine 5)- (line 7)1 8.11

Usinl!MO\ll3$~I';'" .i; .... ,·L·;.· •.;;· L; ..... ' .

1. 2012 Target emissions levels 500.21 445.89

2. 2012 ForecastlProiected emissions levels 398.81 507.50

3. Excess (shortfall) [(line n": Cline 2)1 101.40 (61.6n

4. Amount for contingency measure (3% of2012 ABy)4 19.43 (3%) 0%

5. Excess (shortfa\l) Wine 3) - (line 4)1 81.97 (61.6n

6. Percent ofshortfall from voe tarl!et 13.82%

7.13.82% ofNOx tarllet (to cover 13.82% vee shortfall) 69.13 (13.82%)

~~~~NOx reduetilifiit- ()jne'~i 12.84

;·.i· Fe· F.';;'·.';. ../;; ;··;;F·F;;;; .•.

1. 2012 Target emissions levels 481.78 471.95

2.2012 ForecastlProiected emissions levels 379.09 518.14

3. Excess (shortfall) mine n-(line 2)1 102.69 (46.19)

4. Amount for continRencv measure (3% of2012 ABY)' 18.91 (3%) 0%

5. Excess (shortfall) Wine 3) - (line 4)1 83.78 (46.19)

6. Percent ofshortfall from voe tarllet 9.79"10

7. 8.91% ofNOx target (to cover 9.79% voe shortfall) 47.17 (9.79%)

8. Adiusted excess in NOx reductions mine 5) - (line 7)1 36.61

For the Mobile6.2 and both ofthe MOVES models, the percent of excess in NOx emissions

reductions is greater than the percent ofshortfall in Voe emissions reductions and provides the

area with the required average of 3% per year in emissions reductions. However, the state will

need to adjust the amount of "excess reductions from 2012 RFP demonstration" in the tables that

show how the state satisfies the 3% emissions reductions that are required for contingency

measures, should the area fail to attain the 1997 ozone standard by June 15,2013.

3. One ofthe creditable reduction strategies used in the calculation ofthe total 2011-2012 control

reductions is "Storage tank rule 95 control/25 limit." See Appendix I, sheet 43. The voe

emissions reductions provided for this strategy is 14.37 tpd. On sheet 44 ofAppendix 1, we see

, Per the state's proposal, the 20t2 adjusted base year (ABY) emissions invenlory fOt NO", using lbe Mobile6.2

model, is 514.47 tpd.

, Per the stale's proposal, the 2UI2 ABY emissions inwntory for NOx, using the MOVES model, Is 647.80 tpd

, Perthe Slate's proposal, the 2012 ABY emissions inwntoty fOr NOx, using MOVES20IOa, is 630,46 tpd

11
the creditable reduction strategies used in the calculation for the 2012-2013 contingency

measures. Again the "Storage tank rule 95 controll25 limit" is listed as one ofthe control

strategies, but the total vac emissions reductions for this strategy is 0.00. Please confmn that

the credit for emissions reductions has been appropriately prorated for 2011-2012 and 2012-

2013, to reflect the extended period allowed for compliance with this rule.

4. Please review the tables throughout the proposed submittal (including Appendices and

Supplements) for mathematical errors. We found several errors, for example: Table 3-1 in

Chapter 3, the sum at step 5D is 105.44 but the table reads 106.96; step 6 shows an error in

subtraction; Table 4-29 shows an error in addition; etc.

12
Detailed Comments

The proposed HOB SIP revision provides a RACT analysis update in response to (CTO)

documents that have.not yet been included in the HOB Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIP

Revision for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and incorporate concurrently proposed CTG-related

rulemaking for the HOB area SIP Project No. 2010-028-SIP-NR. Our comments on this

ruIemaking project are as follows:

I. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Requirements.

The EPA will not be able to approve portions ofthe proposed rules which replace

emissions limits previously adopted as RACT with less stringent emissions limits without

a demonstration from the State that the SIP-approved limits are no longer RACT,

considering technological and economic feasibility, as explained further below. The

EPA's interpretation ofthe applicable requirements ofthe CAA is provided in the

memorandum entitled, "Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements

for Certain Coatings Categories" dated March 17, 2011. This memo is included as an

appendix at the end ofour comments. In general, for situations in which a State has

previously determined that more stringent applicability thresholds and/or control levels

are RACT for one or more sources in a source category and the sources have complied

with those requirements, then those existing controls should be considered RACT for

such sources. ... Ifa state choose to revise more stringent rules that are already in the

approved SIP, so that those rules reflect the less-stringent recommended limits in the new

CTGs, there are additional considerations ... The stale would need to first demonstrate

that the SIP approved control requirements are not reasonably available considering

technological and economic feasibility, consistent with the EPA's definition of RACT."

Therefore, the portions ofproposed to Division 5 rules which may not be approvable

include: Surface Coating Processes §115.453 Control Requirements. Specifically, EPA

anticipates not being able to approve some ofthe revisions proposed for Large

Appliances, Metal Furniture, Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Miscellaneous

Plastic Parts and Products, and possibly other sections, including portions ofthe

following:

Division 5: Surface Coating Processes §115.453 Control Requirements:

§115.453(1)(A) Large Appliances

§115.453(l)(B) Metal Furniture

§115.453(lXC) Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

1§5.453(1)(D) Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products

13
AppendiJ>

Attached Memorandum: "Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for

Certain Coatings Categories", dated March 17, 2011 from Scott Mathias to Regional Air

Division Directors. (3 pages)

14
MEMORANDUM

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

MAR I 7 2011 OFFICE oF

AIR QUAlJTV PLANNiNG

ANDSTANDAADS

SUBJECT: Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACrRequirements for Certain

Coatings Categories

FROM: Scott Mathias, Interim Direct ! ~/~4e. Air Quality Policy Division (~W14

TO: Regional Air Division Directors

The Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards has received requests from

Regional Offices for guidance on approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

resulting from newly-issued Control techniques Guidelines(CrGs) documents. These

CrGs provide recommen,dations to Inform state determinations as to what constitutes

reasonably available control technology (RACT). In some cases, the newly-issued CTGs

contain recommended emission limits that are less stringent than limits recommended in

older crOs covering the same induslQ', and may be less stringent than limits already adopted

into SIPs based on the older CTOs. This is the case for industries covered by cros

pertaining to Large Appliance Coatings, Mellll Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal

and Plastic Parts Coatings.

rhe U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new cros for these

categories in 2007 and 2008, under authority ofClean Air Act (CM) section 183(e), to

address volatile organic compound (VOe) emissions from categories ofconsumer and

commercial products. They replace similar crGs issued by EPA in 1977 and 1978. The

new CrGs recommend more stringent limits for general use coatings, but also include new

recommendations for several "specialty use" categories that are lessstringent than the

general use limits established in the I970s guidelines.

States are required to SUbmit a SIP revision in response to any newly-issued crGs.1

If an existing SIP contains requirements.that are not lessstringent than the applicability

thresholds andIDt coating operations limits recommended in new CTOs, the state may choose

to submit as a SIP revision a certification !:hat the existing SIP meets RACr requirements.

I eM section 182(b)(2) requires Moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to revkcSJPs when a new

CTG is issued by EPA.~ 1990. EPA is required \O$~ SIP submisslOlldeadlitle whh the issuance of each

CTG. For CTGs we have)ssued In the past several years. we have specified. subml$5iOll deadline ofone year

after the CTG was issucd(Sec 72 FR 57215 0<19, 2007 IlIId 73 FR 5848 Oct 7, 2008).

Inl8m.l Add",..(URL) • h11p:JIwww.epa.gov

ReoVG~eor.~. Pmted win Vegelable on Based Inks on Recycled Peper (t.lJlnImUtn 25". Postoonsumer)
We anticipate that EPA Regional Offtces would be able to approve the RACT determinations

in these circumstances. We \lote that EPA's recommendations in CTGs ate generally treated

as "presumptive" RACT and states may demonstrate that other limits are RACT for one or

more sources within the source category addressed by the CTG. Where a state has

previously determined that more stringent applicability thresholds and/or control levels ate

RACT for one or more sources in a source category and the sources have complied with

those requirements, then those existingcontrols should be considered RACT for such

sources.

Ifa state chooses to revise more stringent rules that are already in the approved SIP,

so that those rules reflect the less-stringent recommended limits in the new CTOs, there are

additional considerations that must be factored into any EPA decision to approve the SIP

revision. The state would need to frrst demonstrate that the SIP-approved control

requirements are not reasonably available ~nsidering technological and economic

feasibility, consistent with EPA's definition ofRACT. See 44 FR 53762 (September 17,

1979). In addition, in order 10 comply with the SIP approval conditions ofCAA section

110(1), the state would need to demonstrate that the revision to the SIP would not interfere

with attairunent of, or reasonable fUl1herprogress toward attainment of, the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards, nor interfere with any other applicable requirement ofthe

CAA. This would be demonstrated if the stricter limits on general use coatings provide

sufficient emission reductions to entirely offset any emission increase caused by adopting the

less stringent limits for specialty coatings. Alternatively, the state could adopt supplemental

measures that achieve additional emission reductions from another source category in

another industry to offset the increased emissions from the specialty coatings. [n general, ifa

proposed SIP revision achieves the same or greater emission reductions as the approved SIP

within the same timeframe as provided under the existing plan, the Regional Office should be

able to determine that the SIP revisioll is consistent with the approval conditions ofeM

section [10(1).

The public dockets for the Large Appliance Coatings and the Metal Furniture

Coatings CTGs contain information thatstates may find helpful in de~ining the reductions

that can be achieved by adopting the new general use category CrG lirnitsfor these

industries. According to the docketed information, the estimated reduc~iorisfrom the new

crGs are 30 to 35 percent greater than from the older cros. See documents EPA-HQOAR-2007-0329-0009 and EPA-ItQ-OAR-2007-0334-00 lOin dockets.EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0329 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0334, respectively. The increase in emissions

reductions in any specific nonattainment area may vary depending on the volume usage

distribution among the general and specialty CBtegOries in that area. The dockets for the new

cros do not contain area-specifiC analyses ofpotential emissions reductions. Generally, ifa

state believes the volume usage distribution among the general and specialty categories in the

docket is representative of the distribution in the nonattainment area, we believe that ifa state

undertakes wholesale adoption ofthe new categoricallimitB in a specific CTG, the state may

rely on the assessments in the docket to demonstrate that the range ofnew limits will result in

an overall reduction in emissions from the collection ofcovered coatings. However, if a state

adopts some specialty category limits, but not all ofthe new categoricilllimits, or determines

that it has a different volume usage distribution among categories, the state may need to do

an area-specific assessment ofwhether tighter restrictions for some coatihgs, coupled with

2
less stringent restrictions on other coatings would provide overall equal or greater emissions

.reductions than the set ofrules based on the recommendations in the 1970s guidelines.

If you have further questions on SIP-related issues you should contact Butch

Stackhouse at (919) 541-5208. If you have further technical questions on the topics covered

in this memorandum you should contact Kaye Whitfield at (919) 541-2509.

cc: Robin Dunkins, SPPD

Kimber Scavo, AQPD

David Orlin. OGC

Sara Schneeberg, OGC

3
08/08/2011 04:32 PM

This email is a confirmation ofthe comment that was submitted for the referenced

rulemaking.

First Name: Kate

Last Name: Bates

Company/Organization: us Navy

E-mail Address:kate.bates@navy.mil

Street Address: PO Box 30, Bldg 903

City: Jacksonville

State: FL

Zip Code: 32210

Phone Number:

Fax Number:

Rule: 2010-016-11S-EN

Comments:

W-9
Frances Dowiak

Air Quality Planning Section (MC 206)

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Comment on: Chapter 115 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOe) Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) Rule Revisions (Rule Log 201D-016-115-EN)

The United States Navy operates in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan area and currently our facility

operations are not subject to the proposed rule. Yet, due to our ever changing operations and mission

requirements the Navy could become subject to the rule and our increasing budget constraints would

make it difficult for the Navy to meets these requirements in the future. Therefore, the Navy considers

it prudent to makes comments on this proposed rule at this time. TCEQ has proposed rulemaking to

implement the recommendations in the EPA's Control Techniques Guideline documents for determining

RACT. The Navy welcomes the opportunity to comment on the technological and economic feasibility of

the proposed rules, specifically in the areas of surface coating, solvents, and adhesives.

Our comments below address areas of the rule on which the Navy requests clarification or modification:

1. Exempt on-site maintenance shops;

2. Exempt Department of Defense activities from Division 5

3. Update and Streamline Requirements for Solvent Cleaning Operations;

4. Exempt Janitorial cleaning from Solvent Cleaning;

5. Exempt Consumer adhesives from Division 7

1. On-site maintenance shops

Problem/Issue: According to §115.450(a)(3), the rule applies to miscellaneous metal part and product

coating at the original equipment manufacturer, off-site job shops that coat new and used parts and

products or that recoat used parts and products, and designated on-site maintenance shops that recoat

used parts and products. The category of designated on-site maintenance shops was created several

years ago and first appeared in the Division 2 applicability at §115.420(b)(9)(F). and is described in the

current preamble as an area designated at a site where coatings are applied to one or more

miscellaneous metal parts or products on a routine basis. TCEQ should remove on-site maintenance

shops from the applicability of both Divisions 2 and 5 for three reasons. First, TCEQ has not defined

what constitutes an on-site maintenance shop, and it is unclear what frequency is "routine". Second,

EPA's Control Techniques Guideline document for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings does

not include on-site maintenance shops'. The Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

standard for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products in 40 CFR 63 Subpart MMMM excludes facility

1 U.S. EPA, Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings: (EPA-4S3/R-08-0031, September 2008. (Page 5)

"'The CTG applies to manufacturers of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts that surface-coat the parts they produce. The final CTG also applies

to facilities that perform surface coating of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts on a contract basis.H

1
maintenance operations from the rule'. Finally, industrial maintenance coatings are already covered by

the National Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) rule in 40 CFR Part S9 Subpart D. The Navy

is concerned the proposed rule applicability is confusing and would result in inadequate compliance

efforts or unnecessary costs to effectively comply with the rule.

Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should delete designated on-site maintenance shops that recoat

used parts and products from §l1S.4S0(a)(3) and §l1S.420(b)(9)(F). TCEQ should instead clarify the

exemption in §l1S.4S1(1) to add industrial maintenance coatings:

For example, architectural coatings applied in the field ta statianary structures and their

appurtenances, portable buildings, pavements, or curbs, ar industrial maintenance caatings in

an-site maintenance shaps at a praperty would nat be included in the calculatians.

2. Exempt Department of Defense (000) activities from Division S

Problem/Issue: In §l1S.4S0(a)(3) and (a)(4), the rules apply to original equipment manufacturer and

off-site job shops that coat miscellaneous metal and plastic parts and products. The current proposed

rule exemption in §l1S.4S1(13) has narrowly worded language that exempts coatings that are applied

to test panels and coupons as part of research and development, quality control, or performance testing

activities at paint research or manufacturing facilities. The current Chapter l1S Subchapter EDivision 2

surface coating rule has two exemptions:

• §l1S.427(a)(1)(A) excludes aerospace vehicles and components from coverage under the

miscellaneous metal parts and products (MMPP) coating category, and

• §l1S.427(a)(3)(J) excludes research and development activities from Division 2 where cleaning

and coating of aerospace vehicles or components is performed.

NASA and Department of Defense are exempt from the Federal MACT standard (40 CFR Part 63 National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products) in 40 CFR §63.3881(c)(4). We request that a similar exemption be included in this rule. The

basis for this exemption request is that reformulating solvents or coatings requires extensive and costly

field testing before they can be approved for use in military applications. Updating the coatings for

which there is a Military specification requires updating the documentation Navy wide. The proposed

regulation would be impractical and extremely costly for DoD facilities because of the complexity of

coating operations, the number of coatings and solvents used, and the number of different items and

substrates coated. The DoD may use small amounts of hundreds of different coatings, and each

material is subject to its own engineering specifications. Frequent changes in the mix of prototypes are

unpredictable and dictated by future mission requirements, and would prevent compliance using either

the averaging or add-on control options. The alternate option of adding vapor control technology can

be equally as challenging and costly due to the number and quantity of coating operations that can

occur on DoD installations. Additionally, TCEQ should specifically exempt coating of museum/historical

items because the DoD must use historically accurate coatings for these items.

Suggestion/Recommendation: The Navy requests a new exemption in §l1S.4S1(14) to reflect the

Federal MACT standard exemption already in place. Proposed revision:

2 40 CFR Section 63.3881(c)(2) states that the rule does not apply to surface coating or a coating operations that occur at research Or laboratory

facilities, or is part ofjanitorial, building. and facility maintenance operations, or that occur at hobby shops that are operated for

noncommercial purposes.

2
(14) The surface coating of metal or plastic parts and products performed an-site at installations

awned or operated by the Armed Farces of the United States (including the Coast Guard and the

Texas National Guard) or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or the surface

coating of military munitions manufactured by orfor the Armed Farces of the United States

(including the Coast Guard and the Texas National Guard).

3. Update and Streamline Requirements for Solvent Cleaning Operations

Problem/Issue: Chapter 115 Subchapter E, Division 1 (Degreasing Processes) regulates equipment such

as cold cleaners and vapor degreasers that use VOC-containing solvents. Chapter 115 Subchapter E,

Division 1 was adopted in 1979 when cleaning solvents were traditional VOC such as trichloroethylene

or naphtha. This regulation needs to be updated to reflect low-VOC and aqueous cleaning solvents. The

proposed exemption in Division 6 §115.461(b) to exempt other solvent cleaning operations covered

elsewhere in Chapter 115 is a missed opportunity to update and streamline the requirements for

degreasing processes. This is also an opportunity to make TCEQ air permitting requirements congruent

with Chapter 115 requirements.

Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should amend or revise the proposed rule to update or replace

definitions and existing requirements for solvent degreasing processes in Chapter 115 Division 1.

Specifically, aqueous detergents, surfactants, and other cleaning solutions containing not more than one

percent of any organic compound should be exempted from Chapter 115 as they are from the Texas

permitting process. Additionally, compounds with low vapor pressure <0.01 mm Hg (0.0002 psia) at a

temperature not to exceed 104°F are not considered air contaminants for air permitting in Texas and

should not be subject to Chapter 115 either.

4. Include Janitorial Exemption for Solvent Cleaning Operations

Problem/Issue: In §115.460(b)(3), TCEQ defines Janitorial cleaning, but did not include an exemption

for janitorial cleaning. EPA's 2006 Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommends excluding janitorial

cleaning from the applicability for the proposed rule requirements.

Suggestion/Recommendation: TCEQ should revise the applicability in §115.460(a). Proposed revision:

(a) Applicability. Except as specified in §115.461 of this title (relating to Exemptions), the

requirements in this division apply to solvent cleaning operations in the Dallas-Fort Warth and

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria areas, as defined in §115.10 ofthis title (relating to Definitions).

Residential and janitorial cleaning is nat considered solvent cleaning operations.

S. Exempt Consumer adhesives from Division 7

Problem/Issue: In §115.470(a), the rules apply to manufacturing or repair facilities with adhesive

application processes. Among the categories of adhesive materials regulated in §115.473 are a number

of substances that are more likely to be used for institutional purposes or at construction sites rather

than in manufacturing facilities. Such materials include ceramic tile installation adhesive; cove base

installation adhesive; floor covering installation adhesives; and single-ply roof membrane installation or

repair adhesives. It is not clear how the rule will apply to these materials that are used at thousands of

non-manufacturing facility sites statewide.

3
Suggestion/Recommendation: The Navy requests a new exemption at §115.471(e). Proposed revision:

(e) Adhesives or adhesive primers used for general consumer and/or non-manufacturing

applications are exempt from the requirements in this division.

4
Reference Number

0-1

INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY

July 18, 2011- Houston-Galveston Area Council

Submitted by

Thomas A Hoermann, on behalf of Mr. James Sell,

American Coatings Association (similar to W-3)

July 22, 2011 - TCEQ 10:00 a.m.

No oral comments were received at this public hearing that pertained to this SIP revision.
BEFORE THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC

Chapter 115 - and to the State

Implementation Plan

Rule Project No. 2010-025-115-EN

*************************************************

VOLUME 1 OF 1

PUBLIC HEARING

JULY 18, 2011

*************************************************

The above-entitled matter came on for public

hearing, pursuant to notice, on July 18, 2011, at

6:43 p.m., at the Houston-Galveston Area Council, 3555

Timmons Lane, Conference Room C, before Kathy Genung,

court reporter and notary public for the State of Texas.

BEFORE: Lola Brown, SIP Coordinator

Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality, Air Quality Division

12100 Park 35 Circle, Building E

Austin, Texas 78753

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Chance Goodin, TCEQ

Mr. Bob Gifford, TCEQ

Ms. Frances Dowiak, TCEQ

Mr. Thomas A. Hoermann, AkzoNobel

Ms. Shelley Whitworth, HGAC

Mr. Sean Dowiak

Ms. Gloria Dowiak
Rule Project No. 2010-025-115-EN - 7/18/2011

2

1

2

3 SPEAKER

4 Mr. Thomas A. Hoermann

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I N 0 E X

PAGE

4

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com
Rule Project No. 2010-025-115-EN - 7/18/2011

3

1 MS. BROWN: Good evening. I would like to

2 welcome everyone to the public hearing being conducted by

3 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. My name

4 is Lola Brown. I'm with the Air Quality Division. And

5 with me are Chance Goodin, Frances Dowiak, and Bob

6 Gifford, all with the Air Qual i ty Division.

7 We're here this evening to receive oral

8 and written comments on the proposed

9 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Reasonably Available Control

10 Technology, or RACT, Analysis Update State Implementation

11 Plan, or SIP, Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone

12 Standard and proposed revisions to 30 Texas

13 Administration Code Chapter 115, Subchapter E, to

14 implement RACT for volatile organic compounds, or VOC

15 emissions from coatings, adhesives, and cleaning solvents

16 used in various processes, and also Chapter 115,

17 Subchapter B, Division 1, to clarify existing rule

18 requirements for VOC storage and provide alternative

19 control options for sources that are currently subject to

20 these rules and to require a more stringent level of

21 control for VOC storage in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

22 Copies of the proposed SIP and rule revisions are

23 available on the registration table.

24 If you've not already signed in, please --

25 and wish to speak, please sign in now. On the

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com
No. 2010-025-115-EN - 7/18/2011 Rule Project

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

, t' t bl we also have copies of the public reglstra lon a e,

hearing notice that you may take with you so that you can

quickly find information on how to submit the written

comments on these proposals.

We will continue to accept written comment

on these proposals until August 8th, 2011.

This hearing is structured strictly for the

receipt of oral or written comments on these proposals.

Open discussion during the hearing is not allowed;

however, if you have questions after the hearing, there

will be an opportunity to discuss that with the staff.

We will now receive comments in the order

13 in which you registered. When I call your name, please

14 come up to the podium, state your name and who you

15 represent, and begin your comments.

16 MR. HOERMANN: Thank you. My name is

17 Thomas A. Hoermann. I am Regional Regulatory Affairs

18 Specialist for International Paint, LLC, which is the

19 Americas Business Unit for Marine, Protective, and Yacht

20 Coatings within AkzoNobel, the world's largest paints and

21 coatings company. International Paint Yacht Coatings,

22 sold under the brand names Awlgrip and Interlux, are

23 recognized for their continuing technical innovation,

24 stringent quality controls, and superlative finish on

25 pleasure' craft, ranging from family boats to superyachts

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com
Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN - 7/18/2011

4

1 registration table, we also have copies of the public

2 hearing notice that you may take with you so that you can

3 quickly find information on how to submit the written

4 comments on these proposals.

5 We will continue to accept written comment

6 on these proposals until August 8th, 2011.

7 This hearing is structured strictly for the

8 receipt of oral or written comments on these proposals.

9 Open discussion during the hearing is not allowed;

10 however, if you have questions after the hearing, there

11 will be an opportunity to discuss that with the staff.

12 We will now receive comments in the order

13 in which you registered. When I call your name, please

14 corne up to the podium, state your name and who you

15 represent, and begin your comments.

16 MR. HOERMANN: Thank you. My name is

17 Thomas A. Hoermann. I am Regional Regulatory Affairs

18 Specialist for International Paint, LLC, which is the

19 Americas Business Unit for Marine, Protective, and Yacht

20 Coatings within AkzoNobel, the world's largest paints and

21 coatings company. International Paint Yacht Coatings,

22 sold under the brand names Awlgrip and Interlux,are

23 recognized for their continuing technical innovation,

24 stringent quality controls, and superlative finish on

25 pleasure" craft, ranging from family boats to superyachts

.

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com
Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN - 7/18/2011

5

1 around the world. International Paint proudly operates a

2 major coatings manufacturing facility, with associated

3 R&D labs and administrative offices, at 6001 Antoine

4 Drive in northwest Houston.

5 I am here today on behalf of Mr. James

6 Sell, Senior Counsel of the American Coatings

7 Association, or ACA. Although Mr. Sell is unable to

8 participate in today's proceedings, he has previously

9 submitted informal comments on this rulemaking to TCEQ

10 staff. These were entitled "ACA Comments on Pleasure

11 Craft CTG: Modifications Required to South Coast Rule

12 1106.1 for Establishing a Suitable RACT Standard for the

13 Pleasure Craft Coatings Industry," and were sent via

14 e-mail on January 12, 2011.

15 Also included in that e-mail was an EPA

16 Memorandum from Steven D. Page, Director of the Office of

17 Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 1st, 2010,

18 subj ect: "Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous

19 Metal and Plastic Part Coatings - Industry Request for

20 Reconsideration." For the sake of brevity, the "EPA

21 Control Technique Guideline for Miscellaneous Metal and

22 Plastic Part Coatings" will be subsequently referred to

23 as "the EPA CTG."

24 With reference to the information

25 previously submitted by Mr. Sell, and to formal written

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com
Rule Project No. 2010-025-115-EN - 7/18/2011

6

1 comments that will be submitted during the comment period

2 for this rulemaking, the following summary points are

3 offered for the Commission's consideration:

4 The Pleasure Craft provisions of the EPA

5 CTG do not represent Reasonably Available Control

6 Technology (RACT) for this industry sector.

7 The draft EPA CTG did not mention pleasure

8 craft surface coating operations. EPA introduced the

9 language of South Coast Air Quality Management Division,

10 or SCAQMD, Rule 1106.1, "Pleasure Craft Coating

11 Operations" into the Final EPA CTG. This was apparently

12 done with concern that pleasure craft surface coating

13 operations might otherwise be subject to the various

14 general categories, and their more restrictive VOC

15 limits, for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, which

16 was based on South Coast AQMD Rules 1107 and 1125, and

17 Miscellaneous Plastic Parts and Products, based on South

18 Coast AQMD Rule 1145 and Michigan Rule 336.1632.

19 However, there was no opportunity for the pleasure craft

20 industry to provide comments on this EPA action.

21 Had that opportunity been extended, the

22 pleasure craft industry would have provided the following

23 reasons to support our contention that South Coast AQMD

24 Rule 1106.1, as included in the Final EPA CTG, does not

25 represent RACT:

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com
Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN - 7/18/2011

7

1 First, the VOC limits and compliance dates

2 in South Coast AQMA Rule 1106.1 were too restrictive to

3 allow coating manufacturers to formulate products that

4 meet the VOC limits, while also maintaining adequate

5 technical performance and meeting customers' aesthetic

6 requirements. As a result, pleasure craft manufacturers

7 relocated from the South Coast area to other locations in

8 the US.

9 Second, the compliance dates in South Coast

10 AQMD Rule 1106.1 and the EPA CTG do not provide

11 sufficient time for coating manufacturers to formulate

12 products that comply with the restrictive VOC limits,

13 while also meeting the technical performance and

14 aesthetic requirements of pleasure craft manufacturers

15 and owners. An example is antifouling coatings, which

16 must be registered as biocidal products under the Federal

17 Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and

18 corresponding State programs. This process can add years

19 to the actual development and performance testing of new

20 lower-VOC antifouling coatings.

21 Third, South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1, like

22 other South Coast rules, was developed and adopted to

23 deal with the severe ozone nonattainment conditions in

24 the South Coast air basin. These conditions are not

25 experienced in other areas of California or the US, and

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com
Rule Project No. 2010-025-115-EN - 7/18/2011

8

1 thus the provisions of South Coast regulations should not

2 be identified as "RACT" for other areas.

3 Fourth, even in the state of California,

4 only five other Air Quality Management Districts have

5 found the need to introduce rules to regulate pleasure

6 craft surface coating operations. These rules differ

7 from South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1 in varying degrees.

8 Fifth, South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1 was

9 adopted in 1992, and most recently revised in 1999.

10 Since then, there have been developments in the marine

11 and pleasure craft industry that provide the basis for

12 revised VOC limits for some coating categories, and the

13 introduction of new categories and VOC limits for other

14 coatings. An example is a new category of "Antifouling

15 Sealer/Tie Coat." This category of coatings was

16 developed to allow the use of nonbiocidal coatings that

17 comply with Annex 1 of the International Maritime

18 Organization Antifouling Systems Convention, which was

19 written in 2001. These developments are not addressed in

20 South Coast AQMD Rule 1106.1 or the EPA CTG.

21 Development of RACT that is appropriate for

22 Pleasure Craft Surface Coating operations should address

23 the following points:

24 First, consideration of an "Averaging

25 Approach" as an alternative compliance option.

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com

This
Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN - 7/18/2011

9

1 approach is successfully used in Europe to provide

2 flexibility to coating manufacturers and end-use

3 customers to provide VOC emission reductions while

4 minimizing adverse economic and productivity impacts at

5 each affected facility.

6 Second, provision of appropriate time until

7 the final compliance date to allow the development,

8 testing, and commercial introduction of low-VOC pleasure

9 craft coatings. Rushing products into this market has

10 the potential for disastrous consequences, as boat

11 builders and pleasure craft owners tend to be

12 conservative; they tend -- they tend to choose coatings

13 with demonstrated performance that best protect the value

14 of their products and investments. A period of four

15 years is suggested to allow completion of existing

16 development projects to bring lower-VOC pleasure craft

17 coatings to the US market.

18 Third, revision of the categories and VOC

19 limits from the CTG to address current and future product

20 developments in the pleasure craft industry.

21 include revised VOC limits for several coating

Examples

22 categories; a revised definition of "Extreme Gloss

23 excuse me -- "Extreme High Gloss" topcoats; and the

24 introduction of a new category definition and VOC limit

25 for "Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat" coatings.

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com
Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN - 7/18/2011

10

1 Also, the EPA CTG should be consistent with

2 other EPA rulemaking for this industrial sector.

3 The pleasure craft industry is aware that

4 EPA is currently evaluating the Natural Emission Standard

5 for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Shipbuilding and Ship

6 Repair Operations. That's 40 CFR Part 63 SUbpart II.

7 This process may result in a revised Subpart II MACT

8 Standard and/or a new Area Source Standard for HAPs

9 emissions from Pleasure Craft Surface Coating operations.

10 Coatings manufacturers have already provided product

11 information to EPA to assist in this process, and the

12 industry supports rulemaking that will provide a

13 consistent approach to reduce emissions of both VOC and

14 HAPs in this industrial sector.

15 Finally, the Pleasure Craft Industry is

16 ready and willing to work with Federal, State, and Local

17 air agencies on this issue.

18 The pleasure craft industry was not

19 afforded the usual opportunity to consult with EPA during

20 the development of the EPA CTG. We, therefore, feel it

21 is imperative to work with EPA, its Regional Offices, and

22 State and Local agencies to develop RACT rules that

23 provide reductions in VOC emissions, while meeting the

24 performance and productivity requirements of an important

25 US industry that is under increasing pressure from

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com
Rule Project No. 20l0-025-ll5-EN - 7/18/2011

11

1 economic conditions and global competition. Thank you

2 for your attention and consideration.

3 MS. BROWN: Thank you. Is there anyone

4 else that would like to present testimony? Okay. Then,

5 once again, the Commission will continue to accept

6 written comments on these proposals until August 8th,

7 2011. All comments should reference the rule or SIP

8 project number that the comment pertains to.

9 There's a handout on the table that tells

10 you how to sign up for e-mail updates. And we appreciate

11 your comments, and we thank you for coming. And this

12 hearing is now closed.

13

14 concluded)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(Whereupon, at 6:55 p.m., this hearing was

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com
Rule Project No. 2010-025-115~EN - 7/18/2011

12

1 C E R T I F I CAT E

2 THE STATE OF TEXAS

3 COUNTY OF FORT BEND

4 IN RE: TCEQ Rule Project No. 2010-025-115-EN

5 LOCATION: Houston, Texas

6 DATE: July 18, 2011

7

8 I, the undersigned certified shorthand

9 reporter and notary pUblic in and for the State of Texas,

10 do hereby certify that the matters set forth in the

11 caption to the foregoing proceedings are true and

12 correct; that the statements were taken down in shorthand

13 by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my

14 direction; and that the foregoing pages comprise a true,

15 correct and complete transcript of the proceedings.

16 I further certify that I am not counsel,

17 attorney or relative of either party, or otherwise

18 interested in the event of this suit.

19 GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this

20 the 20th day of July A. D., 2011.

21

22

23

24

25

Kathy Genung, Texas CSR 2080

Expiration Date: 10/20/13

Firm's Registration Number 528

Integrity Legal Support Solutions LLC

3100 West Slaughter Lane, Suite 101

Austin, Texas 78748

Telephone: 512.320.8690

Integrity Legal Support Solutions

www.integrity-texas.com
Page 1

0-028-SIP-NR (HGB RACT Update SIP Revision), 2010-016-115-EN (Chapter 115 vac RACT Rule Revisions),

2010-025-115-EN (Chapter 115 vac Storage Rule Revisions)

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

PUBLIC HEARING REGISTRATION

---------,

-----t-----t------j

If Yes, check all projects you

Ian to comment on

RACT vae RACT Storage

SIP Rule Rule

Revision Revision Revisions

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Presenting

Oral

Testimony?

(Circle One)

0'0 No

Yes No

-----_.

----

Yes G

Yes No

- --- -------- - ----------- ---

---- ----- -----

REPRESENTING

/1) /-"TIl,dlp n 'f/ At';,-")L: /,j), z" ,0/'<);',:L

c'!c

AI "-J( r /Cr, () C~(-l h'lt) A 11 ,Ir:l~! J--,;".,

----------------------------I

July 18, 2011, 6:30 p_m_

Houston-Galveston Area Council, 3555 Timmons Lane, Houston

-------

- ----------+--

-- ----------

E

Print)

rn/~nn

r-----.,',. -----_._--""".-

Project Nos.: 201

NAM

(Please

--

"lhiJm",J 11. /Ill "r

.•.._--

C9lML~W cJl0

~L \

---

--

f------------

--
- 1 - - --

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Public Hearing Registration

Date: July 22, 2011

Time: 10:00 AM

Rule Projects.: 201O-025-115-EN and 201O-016-115-EN

SIP Projects: 201O-028-SIP-NR

Location: Austin, Building E, Room 201S, at the commission's central office located at 12100 Park 35 Circle

Concerning: Proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 and to the State Implementation Plan

If yes, check all projects you wish to

Presenting comment on

Oral Name and Phone No. or E-mail Address Representing Testimony? HGB SIP CTG STORAGE

(Please Print) (Circle RACT RULE

One) RULE REVISION

REVISION

Ap0c 1::;0cL~Tc0

Yes € \,./' v'" ..---

A"JOE. .E.0 E;L3ruuV.s'P \n.::\K....C.c...u...:Y.'ju.\.....Tt "';E...(m

(i:,OM-+S EqL~ S 7't,J-J S.rt r~fll!....= G J'iVIa.O IV M t!.-,u rA£ eOA/SUL, '~"(;

Yes~ V

';;~,41A S. E(1t;7"l-sr J.AJ @ :;"1 TF" J,~f!C (.OIU tUL

</ ..,. lAic; . (.0..,

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

--

Yes No

-

Yes No
HEARING OFFICER REPORT

I am the hearing officer assigned to conduct the public hearing regarding

proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 and to the State Implementation Plan.

A public hearing was scheduled for July 22, 2011, 10:00 a.m., at the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality complex, Building E, Room 201S, 12100

Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas.

At 9:30 a.m., the room was open and TCEQ staff members were available to

discuss the proposal. At 10:00 a.m., TCEQ staff and a court reporter were present

and ready to open the hearing for public comment. After waiting for 10 minutes,

no one had arrived to make comments on the record. Therefore, the public

hearing was not formally opened for comment and a transcript was not prepared.

Hearmg eer

7-n-1I

Datesign~d
EVALUATION OF 

TESTIMONY 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Interoffice Memorandum

To:

Thru:

From:

Commissioners

Bridget Bohac, Chief Clerk

Mark R. Vickery, P.G., EXeCUti~'"ve Director

Susana M. Hildebrand, P.E.

Chief Engineer

Date: November 18, 2011

Subject:

Docket No.: 2011-0083-SIP

Commission Approval for Adoption ofthe

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) Analysis Update State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard

Project No. 201O-028-SIP-NR

Background and reason(s) for the SIP revision:

The purpose ofthis HGB RACT Analysis Update SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour

Ozone Standard (HGB RACT Update SIP revision) is to provide the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a RACT analysis update to include Control

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) that were not addressed in the HGB Attainment

Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP

revision) and to incorporate concurrent 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115 CTGrelated rulemaking for the HGB area (Rule Project No. 201O-016-115-EN).

The eight-county HGB nonattainment area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston,

Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties) is classified as severe under the 1997

eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). For nonattainment

areas classified as moderate and above, Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), §182(b)(2) requires

the state to submit a SIP revision that implements RACT for volatile organic compounds

(VOC) emission sources addressed in a CTG document issued from November 15,1990,

through the area's attainment date. For the HGB area, the attainment date is June 15,

2019. CTG documents provide information to assist states in determining RACT for

specific emission sources and provide the EPA's RACT recommendations. FCAA,

§183(e)(3) requires the EPA to regulate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial

products by issuing national regulations or by issuing CTG documents in lieu of national

regulations. The EPA issued 11 CTG documents from 2006 through 2008 with RACT

recommendations for controlling VOC emissions from a variety of consumer and

commercial products.

Ofthe 11 CTG documents, the commission has previously acted on four. On March 10,

2010, with the adoption ofthe HGB AD SIP revision, the commission adopted portions of

the Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommendation and provided a

negative declaration for the Flat Wood Paneling Coatings CTG, Fiberglass Boat

Manufacturing Materials CTG, and Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings

CTG source categories. The commission determined that no sources meeting the

applicability criteria recommended in these CTG documents were located in the HGB area.
Commissioners

Page 2

November 18, 2011

Re: Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP

Additionally, due to the EPA's concerns regarding federal enforceability, staff

recommended withdrawing the two RACT recommendations for the Flexible Package

Printing and the Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CfG categories that were proposed on

September 23, 2009. RACT determinations were not made for the following five CTG

emission source categories at that time because additional research was necessary to

determine the number ofsources affected by the CfG recommendations and the EPA had

not formally responded to the state's December 8, 2008, request for clarification regarding

the CTG recommendations: Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Large Appliance Coatings; Metal

Furniture Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Miscellaneous Metal and

Plastic Parts Coatings. On March 17, 2011, the EPA issued a guidance memorandum

entitledApproving SIP Revisions Addressing vac RACTRequirementsfor Certain

Coatings Categories regarding the following three CTG categories: Large Appliance

Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings.

Additional discussion regarding the EPA's guidance on these three CTG categories is

provided in Appendix A: Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis.

Seven CTG categories for the HGB area have pending RACT determinations to be

submitted to the EPA. This HGB RACf Update SIP revision includes the analyses and

RACf determinations for these seven CfG source categoriesto determine if additional

VOC controls are necessary to fulfill RACT requirements. This SIP revision provides a

detailed RACf analysis update and incorporates concurrent Chapter 115 CTG-related

rulemaking for the HGB area into the Texas SIP. The concurrent rulemaking revises

Chapter 115, Subchapter E to implement RACT for the CTG emission source categories in

the HGB area as required by FCAA, §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2).

Scope ofthe SIP revision:

Because this HGB RACT Update SIP revision focuses specifically on the seven CfG

documents issued by the EPA from 2006 through 2008 that have not been addressed in

the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, the RACf analysis only provides an

update to the HGB VOC RACf demonstration.

A.) Summary ofwhatthe SIP revision will do:

Although the FCAA requires the state to implement RACT, EPA guidance on RACT

indicates that states may choose to implement the CfG recommendations, implement an

alternative approach, or demonstrate that additional control for the CfG emission source

category is not technologically or economically feasible in the area. This SIP revision

provides a detailed RACf analysis update for the HGB area and incorporates any necessary

rule revisions. The following seven CfG documents have been evaluated as part ofthe

concurrent Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemaking to determine if additional VOC controls

are necessary to fulfill RACT requirements:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;
Commissioners

Page 3

November 18, 2011

Re: Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008.

B.) Scope required by federal regulations or state statutes:

This HGB RACT Update SIP revision contains the FCAA requirement that states must

revise their SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas with moderate and above classifications to

include RACT, as applicable, for each category ofVOC emission sources covered by a CTG

document.

C.) Additional staffrecommendations that are not required by federal rule or

state statute:

None

Statutory authority:

The authority to propose and adopt SIP revisions is derived from the following sections of

Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 382, Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.002, which

provides that the policy and purpose of the TCAA is to safeguard the state's air resources

from pollution; §382.011, which authorizes the commission to control the quality ofthe

state's air; and §382.012, which authorizes the commission to prepare and develop a

general, comprehensive plan for the control of the state's air. This SIP revision is required

by FCAA, §l1o(a)(l) and implementing rules in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51.

Under the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, the HGB area is required to meet the mandates

ofthe FCAA, §172(c)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (f). Phase II ofthe EPA's implementation rule

for the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS published in the November 29, 2005, issue ofthe

Federal Register (70 FR 71612), requires states containing areas classified as moderate

nonattainment andabove to submit a SIP revision demonstrating that their current rules

fulfill the RACT requirements for all CTG emission source categories.

Effect on the:

A.) Regulated community:

The affected regulated community are those sources affected by the concurrent Chapter 115

CTG-related rulemaking that will be incorporated in this SIP revision. Affected sources

may be required to install control technologies or use reformulated products to meet the

emission specifications, implement new work practices, or comply with additional

monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. See the executive summary memo for the

Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemaking being adopted concurrently with this SIP revision

(Rule Project No. 201O-016-115-EN) for further information.
Commissioners

Page 4

November 18, 2011

Re: Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP

B.) Public:

The public could benefit from improved air quality due to lower ozone levels as a result of

the concurrent Chapter 115 CfG-related rulemaking. However, there is a possibility that

the economic impact to affected industries could be passed to consumers in the form of

increased product costs. See the executive summary memo for the Chapter 115 CTG-related

rulemaking being adopted concurrently with this SIP revision (Rule Project No. 2010-016-

115-EN) for further information.

c.) Agency programs:

The CTG rules could increase the Office ofCompliance and Enforcement workload when

inspecting affected facilities to ensure that the additional requirements are met and could

increase workloads for the Small Business and Environmental Assistance Division due to a

likely impact on many small business owners. See the executive summary memo for the

Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemaking being adopted concurrently with this SIP revision

(Rule Project No. 201O-016-115-EN) for further information.

Stakeholder meetings:

A CTG Stakeholder Group meeting was held on December 1, 2010, and informal comments

were accepted until January 12, 2011, for the concurrent Chapter 115 CfG-related

rulemaking. See the executive summary memo for the Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemaking

being adopted concurrently with this SIP revision (Rule Project No. 2010-016-115-EN) for

further information.

Public comment:

Public hearings for the proposed SIP revision and concurrent Chapter 115 CfG-related

rulemaking were held on July 18, 2011, at the Houston-Galveston Area Council office in

Houston and on July 22, 2011, at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

headquarters in Austin. Question and answer sessions were held 30 minutes prior to the

hearings. American Coatings Association (ACA) presented oral comments at the July 18,

2011, hearing applicable to this HGB RACT Update SIP revision and the concurrent

Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemaking. The July 22, 2011, hearing in Austin was not officially

opened because no party indicated a desire to provide comment.

The public comment period opened on June 24, 2011, and closed on August 8, 2011.

Written comments were accepted via mail, fax, and through the eComments system

(http://www5.tceq.texas.gov(rules(ecommentsD. Written comments were received from

the ACA, Flexographic Technical Association (FTA), National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), Texas Chemical Council (TCC), EPA, United States Navy (US

Navy), and one individual.

The EPA commented that in order for portions ofthe proposed rules for Large Appliance

Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings to

be approved as RACT, the state must also demonstrate that the existing state limits for

these CTG categories, which were based on the EPA's original CTG recommendations, are
Commissioners

Pages

November 18, 2011

Re: Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP

no longer technologically or economically feasible. The EPA also requested clarification of

the alternate control requirement concerning miscellaneous metal parts and products

coating.

The ACA commented that the pleasure craft industry was not provided the opportunity to

comment on the EPA's CTG RACT recommendations because the draft Miscellaneous

Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG did not mention pleasure craft surface coating

operations and that EPA's final CTG-recommended pleasure craft coating limits do not

represent RACT for the pleasure craft industry. The ACA requested several revisions to the

proposed rules to establish appropriate RACT requirements for the pleasure craft coating

operations.

TCC suggested an exemption for solvent cleaning operations associated with processes or

operations that are subject to the control requirements or emission specification in another

division in Chapter 115 and clarification of certain definitions in the proposed rules.

Comments received more directly related to the Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemaking being

adopted concurrently with this SIP revision (Rule Project No. 201O-016-115-EN) are

addressed in the preamble to those rules and a summary ofthe comments is included in

the executive summary memo for those rules.

Significant changes from proposal:

This SIP revision was revised in response to comments received on the RACT update for

the following CTG categories: Industrial Cleaning Solvents; Large Appliance Coatings;

Metal Furniture Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Miscellaneous Metal

and Plastic Parts Coatings.

In response to comments, the TCEQ revised the industrial cleaning solvents rules to

exempt from these requirements operations that are subject to the control requirements or

emission specifications in another division in Chapter 115. The exemption provides

flexibility and reduces the compliance burden for affected sources. The exemption is

consistent with the EPA's CTG recommendations and at least as effective as complying

with the industrial cleaning solvents rules.

The commission proposed to implement the CTG-recommended RACT limits for the large

appliance, metal furniture, and miscellaneous metal and parts coatings categories and

provided a demonstration that implementing the CTG-recommended approach for these

three categories would not interfere with attainment ofthe 1997 ozone standard. However,

the EPA commented that in order for the proposed rules to be approved as RACT, the state

must also demonstrate that the existing state limits for these CTG categories, which were

based on the EPA's original CTG recommendations, are no longer technologically or

economically feasible. Staff contends that by promulgating higher CTG-recommended

RACT limits for these source categories, the EPA has established that the original CTGrecommended limits, and thus the existing state limits, are no longer technologically or
Commissioners

Page 6

November 18, 2011

Re: Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP

economically feasible. However, in the absence of any specific information indicating that

the state's existing limits for these source categories are no longer technologically or

economically feasible and considering the EPA's intent to disapprove the rules as proposed

without such a demonstration ofinfeasibility, the TCEQ is obligated under the FCAA to

revise the proposed rules to only include the CTG-recommended VOC limits that are

equivalent to or lower than the state's existing limits. Where the EPA's new CTGrecommended emission limits are less stringent than the original CTG-recommended

limits, the TCEQ is retaining the original emission limit in the current rules, except for the

high performance architectural coatings limit for the miscellaneous metal parts and

products category.

In response to comments, the TCEQ determined that some ofthe pleasure craft coating

VOC emission limits included in the EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts

Coatings CTG recommendations are not technologically feasible at this time and therefore

do not constitute RACT for Texas. The adopted rules include higher VOC limits for extreme

high-gloss coating, finish primer/surfacer coating, and other substrate antifoulant coating.

Additionally, VOC limits have been introduced for antifoulant sealer/tie coating, a new

coating category.

Additional details regarding these changes are provided in the Response to Comments

section and Appendix A ofthis HGB RACT Analysis Update SIP revision and also in the

executive summary memo and preamble for the Chapter 115 CTG-related rulemaking being

adopted concurrently with this SIP revision.

Potential controversial concerns and legislative interest:

Due to the broad applicability recommended in the Industrial Cleaning Solvents and

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesive CTG documents, the concurrent Chapter 115 CTGrelated rulemaking impacts many small businesses.

In response to comments, the TCEQ determined that some ofthe pleasure craft coating

VOC limits included in the EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

CTG recommendations are not technologically feasible at this time and therefore do not

constitute RACT for Texas. The EPA may not agree with this conclusion.

Does this SIP revision affect any current policies or require development of

new policies?

No

What are the consequences ifthis SIP revision does not go forward? Are there

alternatives to this SIP revision?

There are no practical alternatives to this HGB RACT Update SIP revision.

The FCAA and the EPA require sources ofVOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas

classified as moderate and above to implement RACT measures and require states to
Commissioners

Page 7

November 18, 2011

Re: Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP

submit revisions to the SIP in response to any CTG document issued from 1990 through

the area's date of attainment. States can adopt and implement the recommendations

contained within the CTG documents ifthey are determined to be RACT, or they can adopt

alternative approaches, but in either circumstance, the RACT analysis and any rule

revisions must be submitted to the EPA for review and approval as part ofthe SIP. If a

finding offailure to submit is issued by the EPA, states that do not submit RACT

determinations within 18 months after such a finding could be subject to federal sanctions.

EPA Region 6 has verbally indicated that the EPA is considering issuing a finding offailure

to submit for states that have not submitted RACT determinations for the 11 consumer and

commercial products CTG documents issued from 2006 through 2008. Additionally,

failure to update the RACT analysis could jeopardize the approvability ofthe HGBAD SIP

revision submitted to the EPA on April 6, 2010.

Key points in the adoption SIP revision schedule:

Texas Register proposal publication date: NA

Anticipated Texas Register publication date: NA

Anticipated effective date: NA

Six-month Texas Register filing deadline: NA

Agency contacts:

Lola Brown, Project Manager, 239-0348, Air Quality Division

John Minter, Staff Attorney, 239-0663

cc: Chief Clerk, 2 copies

Executive Director's Office

Susana M. Hildebrand, P.E.

Anne Idsal

Curtis Seaton

Ashley Morgan

Office of General Counsel

Lola Brown
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED CONCERNING

THE HOUSTON GALVESTON-BRAZORIA (HGB)

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

(RACT) ANALYSIS UPDATE STATE IMPLEMENTATION

PLAN (SIP) REVISION FORTHE 1997 EIGHT-HOUR

OZONE STANDARD

Public hearings for this proposed RACf analysis update SIP revision and the associated

rulemaking were held on July 18, 2011, at the Houston-Galveston Area Council offices in

Houston and on July 22,2011, at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

headquarters in Austin. Question and answer sessions were held 30 minutes prior to the

hearings. The hearing in Austin was not officially opened because no party indicated a desire to

provide comment. One person provided oral comments applicable to this HGB RACf SIP

revision and the associated rulemaking at the Houston public hearing.

The comment period opened on June 24, 2011, and closed on August 8, 2011. The commission

received comments from the American Coatings Association (ACA), Flexographic Technical

Association (FTA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Texas Chemical

Council (TCC), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States Navy (US

Navy), and one individual.

Comments more directly related to the concurrent rulemaking in 30 Texas Administrative Code

Chapter 115 Volatile'Organic Compounds (VaC) RACf Rule Revisions (Rule Project No. 2010-

016-115-EN), which are incorporated by reference into this SIP revision, are responded to in the

Response to Comments section ofthe preamble to the rulemaking. Those comments are included

in this RACf update revision through the adoption ofthose rules. Some changes were made to

the proposed version ofthis SIP revision in response to those comments.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table ofContents 1

General 1

Flexible Package Printing 5

Industrial Cleaning Solvents 6

Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 8

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings 8

Pleasure Craft Coatings 8

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatings 10

GENERAL

The ACA commented that the EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CfG) should be consistent

with other EPA rulemakings for this industrial sector. The ACA commented that coatings

manufacturers have provided the EPA product information to assist in the evaluation ofthe

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair

I of 13
Operations, and that the industry supports rulemaking that will provide a consistent approach to

reduce emissions of both VOC and hazardous air pollutants in this industry sector.

The commission appreciates the comment. However, ensuring consistency among

future federal rulemakings for this coating category is beyond the scope ofthis

rulemaking. The commission makes no change in response to this comment.

An individual commented that the one thing no successful businessman can handle is the

constant changing of regulations that potentially require equipment and increased employment

to support such equipment, when one never knows if he or she will be allowed to operate the

purchased equipment. The individual commented that a reasonable and prudent businessman

needs to be able to plan, and that has been impossible with the ever-changing regulations that

the EPA has come forth with.

The commission appreciates the comment and acknowledges that the changing

regulations can be challenging. The purpose ofthis rulemaking is to fulfill the

state's obligation under Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2), to

submit a SIP revision that implements RACT for VOC emission sources located in

nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above, addressed in a CTG issued

from November 15,1990, through an area's attainment date. When enacting rules,

the commission considers the appropriate implementation deadlines. The

commission makes no change in response to this comment.

The EPA commented that approval ofthe portions ofthe control requirements in §115.453 for the

surface coating of large appliances, metal furniture, and miscellaneous metal and plastic parts

and products ofthe proposed rules that replace emissions limits previously adopted as RACT

with less stringent emissions limits would not be possible without a demonstration from the state

showing that the SIP-approved limits are no longer RACT. On March 17, 2011, the EPA issued a

memorandum entitledApproving SIP Revisions Addressing vac RACTRequirementsfor

Certain Coatings Categories indicating that:

"for situations in which a State has previously determined that more stringent

applicability thresholds and/or control levels are RACT for one or more sources in a

source category and the sources have complied with those requirements, then those

existing controls should be considered RACT for such sources. Ifa state chooses to

revise more stringent rules that are already in the approved SIP, so that those rules

reflect the less-stringent recommended limits in the new CTGs, there are additional

considerations ... The state would need to first demonstrate that the SIP-approved

control requirements are not reasonably available considering technological and

economic feasibility, consistent with the EPA's definition of RACT."

The EPA requested the commission explain how the existing limits are no longer RACT for these

sources that in some cases have been complying with these limits for 20 years or more.

By letter dated December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested the EPA clarify several

issues related to the recommendations in the following three CTG documents:

Control Techniques Guidelinesfor Large Appliance Coatings (EPA 453/R-07-004),

issued in 2007; Control Techniques Guidelinesfor Metal Furniture Coatings (EPA

453/R-07-005), issued in 2007; and Control Techniques Guidelinesfor

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA 453/R-08-003), issued in

2 of 13
2008. A nUlTIbcr ofthe recolTIlTIended VOC content lilTIits for specific coatings

categories in these 2007 and 2008 erG doculTIents are less stringent than the lTIore

general VOC content liITIits specified in the following EPA guideline series

recOlTIlTIendations: Control ofVolatile Organic Emissionsfrom Existing

Stationary Sources Volume V: Surface Coating ofLargeAppliances (EPA-450/2-

77-034), issued in 1977; Control ofVolatile Organic Emissionsfrom Existing

Stationary Sources Volume III: Surface Coating ofMetal Furniture (EPA-450/2-

77-032), issued in 1977; and Control ofVolatile Organic Emissionsfrom Existing

Stationary Sources Volume VI: Surface Coating ofMiscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products (EPA-450/2-78-015), issued in 1978. The TCEQ requested clarification to

ensure that iITIplelTIenting the new 2007 and 2008 erG recommendations would

not be considered backsliding and to be certain that the TCEQ has the appropriate

inforlTIation to determine whether the CTG recolTIlTIendations actually represent

RAer for Texas. On March 17, 2011, the EPA issued a guidance melTIorandum

regarding these three CTG categories entitledApproving SIPRevisionsAddressing

VOC RACTRequirementsfor Certain Coatings Categories. The EPA stated in the

memorandulTI that: " ... if a state believes the volume usage distribution among the

general and specialty categories in the docket is representative ofthe distribution

in the nonattainlTIent area, we believe that ifa state undertakes wholesale adoption

ofthe new categoricalliITIits in a specific erG, the state may rely on the

assessments in the docket to delTIonstrate that the range ofnew liITIits will result in

an overall reduction in emissions from the collection of covered coatings."

Consistent with this EPA melTIorandum, on June 8, 2011, the commission proposed

rulelTIaking (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN) concurrent with this SIP

revision to iITIplelTIent the 2007 and 2008 erG-recolTIlTIended RACT liITIits for these

three emission source categories. The proposed rulelTIaking provided discussion

regarding the estiITIated percent reductions for these CTG categories that

supported the EPA's position that applying the new 2007 and 2008 CTGrecolTIlTIended linrlts as a whole will result in net VOC emissions reductions.

Despite the state's demonstration that iITIplementing the 2007 and 2008 CTGrecolTIlTIended approach would not interfere with attainITIent of, or reasonable

progress towards attainment of, the ozone standard for the HGB area, the EPA

cOlTIlTI'ented that in orderfor the proposed rules to be approved as RACT, the state

must also demonstrate that the existing Chapter 115 liITIits for these CTG categories,

which were based on the EPA's original 1977 and 1978 recomITIendations, are no

longer technologically or econolTIica11y feasible.

The commission contends that by promulgating higher CTG-recommended RAer

limits for these source categories in 2007 and 2008, the EPA has established that

the original 1977 and 1978 recOlTIlTIended limits, and thus the existing Chapter 115

limits, are no longer tecl1nologically or economically feasible. The EPA defines

RAer as the lowest eITIission linrltation that a particularsource is capable of

meeting by the application ofcontrol tecl1nology that is reasonably available

considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762, SeptelTIber 17,

1979). Inthe 2007 and 2008 erG documents, the EPAprovides recommendations

for RAer for these source categories based on available information. The EPA

clams the 2007 and 2008 CTG RAer recolTIlTIendations were based on available

30f13
information and a review of existing federal and state regulations, including the

original 1977 and 1978 recommendations for these emission source categories. The

EPA goes on to indicate that 21 states have adopted the EPA's 1977

recommendations for large appliance coating; 32 states have adopted the EPA's

1977 recommendationsfor metal furniture coating; and as many as 36 states have

adopted the EPA's 1978 recommendations for metal partssurface coating. Given

that Texas had previously adopted the EPA's 1977 and 1978 recommendationsfor

these three source categories, the Chapter 115 rules should have been included in

EPA's review of existing regulations. Ifupon review ofthe existing Chapter 115

regulations the EPAhad determined that the limits recommended in 1977 and 1978

were technologically and economically feasible, then those limits preswnably

would have been included in the final 2007 and 2008 CTG recommendations for

these source categories.

In accordance with FCAA, §183(e)(3)(C), the EPA determined the 2007 and 2008

CTG docwnents issued for these three source categories would be substantially as

effective as national regulations in reducing VOC emissions (72 FR57215, October

9,2007; 73 FR40230, July 14,2008). FCAA, §183(e)(3)(A) requires any regulations

issued under FCAA, §183(e), including the 2007 and 2008 CTG documents, to be

based on best available controls, which are defined under FCAA, §183(e)(1)(A) as

the degree of emissions reduction that the EPA determines, on the basis of

technological and economic feasibility, health, environment, and energy impacts, is

achievable through the application ofthe most effective equipment, measures,

processes, methods, systems ortechniques, including chemical reformulation,

product orfeedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use,

conswnption, storage, or disposal. Ifthe lower limits in the EPA's original 1977 and

1978 recommendations were in fact technologically or economically feasible for

these specialty coating categories, the EPA presumably would have retained these

limits in the 2007 and 2008 final CTG docwnents in accordance with FCAA,

§183(e)(1)(A).

The Large Appliance Coatings andMetal Furniture Coatings draft CTG only

recommended general coating limits for these source categories. However, in

response to public comments (72 FR 57215, October 9, 2007), the EPA's final 2007

CTG recommendations for these two source categories also included higher limits

for several specialty coatings. The specialty coating limits included in the 2007 CTG

are higherthan the EPA's 1977 recommendationsfor these two source categories.

In the response to public comments, the EPA acknowledged that the higher

specialty coating limits recommended in the final 2007 CTG were necessary to

accommodate the range of coatings needed in these industries.

However, the EPA's 2007 and 2008 CTG docwnents do not specifically explain why

the lower limits included in the EPA's original 1977 and 1978 recommendations for

these source categories are no longer technologically or economically feasible. In

absence of any specific information indicating that the existing Chapter 115 limits

for these source categories are not technologically or economically feasible, and

given the EPA's stated intention to disapprove the rules without such a

demonstration, the commission is obligated underthe FCAA to revise the proposed

40f13
limits for these source categories. Therefore, in response to this comment, the

commission is revising the proposed limits for these three source categories to only

include the EPA's 2007 and 2008 CTG-recommended limits that are equivalent to

or lower than the existing Chapter 115 limits. Where the EPA's 2007 and 2008 CTGrecommended limits are less stringent than the EPA's original 1977 and 1978

recommended limits, the commission is retaining the original emission limit in the

current Chapter 115 rule, except for the high performance architectural coatings

limit for the miscellaneous metal parts and products category.

The EPA only addressed the technological and economic feasibility issues

associated with high performance architectural coatings in support ofits

presumptive RACT recommendations in the 2008 CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and

Plastic Parts Coatings. The commission agrees with the EPA that the 6.2 pounds of

VOC per gallon of coating (lb VOCjgal coating) constitutes RACT for this coating

type and that promulgating a VOC limit less than 6.21b VOCjgal coating may

restrict the application ofliquid high performance architectural coatings that are

currently available and in use today. The cost of converting to powder coatings or

installing and operating add-on controls to meet a lower limit is not a reasonable

alternative compared to the emission reduction that would be achieved. In light of

this information, as provided in the EPA's 2008 CTG, the commission has

determined a VOC limit of 6.2 lb VOCjgal coating for high performance

architectural coatings to be RACT. The commission contends that the adoption of

this coating VOC limit for high performance architectural coatings, which is higher

than in the existing Chapter 115 rules, does not interfere with attainment of, or

reasonable progress towards attainment of, the ozone standard for the HGB area.

Therefore, the commission is making no change to the proposed VOC limit of 6.2 lb

VOCjgal coating for high performance architectural coatings in the Chapter 115

miscellaneous metal parts and products coatings rules in response to this

comment; the commission is adopting to retain the EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous

Metal and Plastic Parts CTG-recommended 6.21b VOCjgal coating limit for high

performance architectural coatings in the adopted Chapter 115 miscellaneous metal

parts and products coatings rules.

FLEXIBLE PACKAGE PRINTING

The FfA strongly disagreed with the requirement in §1l5.432(c)(1)(C) for flexible package

printers to meet an 80% overall control efficiency regardless ofthe first installation date ofthe

oxidizer. The FfA commented that this approach may require printers that installed oxidizers at

an earlier date to replace equipment and would be a significant financial hardship, as new

oxidizers start in the hundreds ofthousands of dollars. The FfA commented that the EPA's

Flexible Package Printing CTG recommends a more reasonable approach consistent with a RACT

regulation, which allows add-on controls installed prior to specific dates to have lower overall

control ofVOC emissions. The FfA added that the commission's claim that the EPA's approach

would create backsliding is not justified.

The commission maintains that the EPA's crG-recommended approach for

controlling VOC emissions from flexible package printing may encourage the

installation ofolder, less efficient equipment and may create backsliding issues ifa

5 of 13
source becomes subject to a lower efficiency standard as a result of equipment

replacement.

The commission has determined that an 80% overall control efficiency represents

RACT for flexible package printing processes in the HGB area. Based on a review of

permits for flexographic printing and rotogravure printing processes, the only two

types of printing processes identified in the CTG as conducting flexible package

printing, the majority of printers are using add-on control equipment that achieves

at least an 80% overall control efficiency, demonstrating that this level of control is

reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.

Flexible package printers with the potential to emit greater than or equal to 25 tons

per year ofuncontrolled VOC emissions that choose to use a vapor control system

to comply with the adopted rules, are not limited to operating at an 80% overall

control efficiency. The adopted new control requirements in §115.432(C) provide

different compliance optionsto provide flexibility for affected owners and

operators. Flexible package printers can instead choose the compliance option that

requires the use of coatings in conjunction with a vapor control system to meet the

VOC limits. Under this compliance option, an owner or operator does not have to

meet a certain VOC limit or meet a certain overall control efficiency; rather, the

combined coating VOC content and the overall control efficiency must meet the

VOC limits. The commission makes no change in response to this comment.

INDUSTRIAL CLEANING SOLVENTS

The ACA requested the commission exempt resin manufacturing from the Chapter 115,

Subchapter E, Division 6, industrial cleaning solvents rules since the proposed VOC limits would

not allow effective cleaning ofresin manufacturing equipment. The ACA commented that both

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) rules, which the EPA relied on to develop the CTG

recommendations, exempt resin manufacturing operationsfrom solvent cleaning VOC limits as

follows: the SCAQMD Rule 1171(g)(2)(E) exempts cleaning operations subject to Rule 1141 -

Control ofVolatile Organic Compound Emissions from Resin Manufacturing and Rule 1141.1 -

Coatings and Ink Manufacturing; and the BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, Section 113 exempts

operations that are subject to the requirements of other rules of Regulation 8, or which comply

with appropriate limitations ofthose rules prior to their effective dates. The ACA commented

that since the BAAQMD regulates resin manufacturing under Regulation 8, Rule 36, the

BAAQMD solvent cleaning rule does not apply to resin manufacturing operations. As an

alternative to completely exempting resin manufacturing operationsfrom the Chapter 115

industrial cleaning solvents rules, the ACA suggested implementing a VOC limit of 1.67 pounds of

VOC per gallon ofsolution Ob VOC/gal solution), work practices, and an overall control

efficiency of at least 80% or 90% ifincineration is used.

The commission agrees that requiring resin manufacturing operations to comply

with the 0-421b VOC/gal solutionVOC limit for cleaning solutions posestechnical

feasibility issues, as described in the ACA's formal comments and supporting

documentation. The EPA's 2006 Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommends

excluding ink, adhesive, and coating manufacturing from the industrial cleaning

solvents rule applicability because the 0.421b VOC/gal solution VOC content limit

6 of 13
is not technologically and econonrically feasible for these manufacturing processes.

The comnrission expects that the same technological and economic feasibility

issues associated with manufacturing inks, coatings, and adhesives also exist for

resin manufacturing. The VOC limit established in the industrial cleaning solvents

rules prevent the use of adequate cleaning solutions, potentially causing cross

contamination ofmanufactured products and poor product quality resulting in

disposal ofoff-specification products. The 0.421b VOCjgal solution VOC content

limit is not technologically feasible for resin manufacturing operations and

therefore does not represent RACT for this industry. In response to this comment,

the comnrission is revising §115.461(d)(13) to exempt resin manufacturing from the

VOC content linrlts for industrial cleaning solvents.

The TCC commented that §115-461(b) should specifically exclude processes or operations that are

subject to and complying with Chapter 115, Subchapter B, Division 2 or Division 6, including any

qualifying exemptions. Specifically, the TCC suggested revising §115-461(b) to exempt a cleaning

operation from the requirements in Division 6 if all ofthe VOC emissions from the cleaning

operation originate from a source for which another division within Chapter 115 has established a

control requirement, emission specification, or exemption that applies to that VOC source

category in that county.

The comnrission agrees with the TCC's suggestion to provide an exemption for

cleaning operations that are controlled by enrission specifications or control

requirements established in another Chapter 115 division. As proposed, the rules

for industrial cleaning solvents exempted cleaning operations subject to another

division in Chapter 115 that establishes cleaning work practices or cleaning VOC

limits used during a solvent cleaning operation. However, in light ofthis comment,

the comnrission acknowledges that not all Chapter 115 rules contain cleaning

requirements, but that owners and operators ofsome processes may consider

cleaning activities to be a part oftheir production process or may find it to be more

efficient to control enrissions from cleaning activities in accordance with the

process control requirements or enrissions specifications.

However, the comnrission declines to incorporate the TCC's request to exempt a

cleaning operation from this division ifthe cleaning VOC enrissions originate from

a source that qualifies for an exemption in another Chapter 115 division. Basing an

exemption for a cleaning operation on a process-specific exemption in another

Chapter 115 division, is inconsistent with the EPA's stated purpose that the CTG

recommendations are intended to apply to all industrial cleaning operationsthat

are not already subject to or complying with other control requirements.

Therefore, in response to this comment, the comnrission is adopting new

§115.461(c) to exemptfrom this division a solvent cleaning operation where the

process the cleaning operation is associated with is subject to another division in

Chapter 115 and the VOC emissions from the solvent cleaning operation are

controlled in accordance with an enrission specification or control requirement of

the division that the process is subject to. This exemption is intended to provide

affected owners and operators with the flexibility to comply with control

requirements or enrission specifications in another Chapter 115 rule to minimize

70fl3
compliance burden. The conunission expects that an owner or operator choosing to

comply with the control requirements or emission specifications for a cleaning

operation is at least as effective as complying with the industrial cleaning solvent

rule requirements.

MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES

NASA commented that adhesives are applied to non-production mock-ups, prototypes, fixtures,

and displays at manned spacecraft centers. NASA requested a complete exemption be added to

§115-471 for adhesives or adhesive primers used on site at installations owned or operated by the

Armed Forces ofthe United States (including the Coast Guard and the Texas National Guard)

and NASA. NASA requested the exemption because extensive field testing is required before

adhesives can be approved for use and the proposed regulations would be impractical and

extremely costly for NASA due to the complexity of adhesive operations, the number of adhesives

used, and the number of different items and substrates bonded together.

The rules in Division 7 are necessary to implement RACT for nliscellaneous

industrial adhesives as required in FCAA, §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2). The

commission disagrees that a complete exemption for NASA is consistent with the

EPA's recommendations for this CTG emission source category. Granting the

categorical exemption requested for NASA and other military organizations could

potentially result in EPA disapproval ofthe Chapter 115 RACT rules and

corresponding SIP revisions. The cOmnllssion does not considerthe adopted rules

any less teclmologically or econonlically feasible for NASA and the US Navy as the

rules are for other affected entities, which includes some small businesses.

The EPA's 2008 CTG is intended to apply to adhesive and adhesive primer

application processes at manufacturing operations that are not already regulated.

For purposes ofthe rules, a manufacturing operation refersto a manufacturer that

uses adhesivesto join surfaces in the assembly or construction of a product

involving the application processes listed in §115.473(a). Accordingly, the adopted

rules in Division 7 do not apply to adhesives and adhesive primers used in the

application processes specified in §115.473(a) that are subject to another division in

Chapter 115. For example, owners and operators subject to the aerospace surface

coating requirements in Division 2 qualify for the exemption in §115.471(C) because

adhesives are regulated underthe Division 2 aerospace rules. Additionally, the

EPA's 2008 CTG explicitly statesthat the miscellaneous industrial adhesives rules

are not intended to include adhesives that are addressed by CTG documents

already issued for categories listed under FCAA, §183(e) or by an earlier CTG,

which includes aerospace coatings. The cOmnllssion makes no change in response

to this comment.

MISCELLANEOUS METAL AND PLASTIC PARTS COATINGS

Pleasure Craft Coatings

The ACA commented that it is imperative to work with the federal, state, and local agencies to

develop RACT rules given that the pleasure craft industry was not afforded the usual opportunity

to comment on the EPA's CTG RACT recommendations because the draft Miscellaneous Metal

and Plastic Part Coatings CTG did not mention pleasure craftsurface coating operations. The

80fB
ACA commented that the EPA's final CTG-recommended pleasure craft coating limits do not

represent RACT for the pleasure craft industry. The ACA commented that the SCAQMD Rule

1l06.1, which was the basis for these CfG recommendations, should not be identified as RACT

for pleasure craft coating operations in other areas since these requirements were adopted to

address the severe ozone nonattainment conditions in the South Coast air basin. The ACA

commented that the CfG-recommended VOC limits and compliance dates are too restrictive to

allow coating manufacturers to formulate products that meet the VOC limits, while also

maintaining adequate technical performance and meeting customers' aesthetic requirements.

The ACA requested several revisions to the proposed rules to establish appropriate RACf

requirements for pleasure craft coating operations.

For extreme high-gloss coatings, the ACA suggested implementing a VOC limit of 5.0 lb VOC/gal

coating and revising the definition to any coating that achieves greater than 90% reflectance on a

60 degree meter. The ACA commented that the controlled application conditions that make the

use of high solids and water-based technologies possible in other industries are not available for

the pleasure craft coating industry. The ACA also commented that the low-VOC technologies

available at this time do not provide the aesthetic properties, functionality, and durability

required from an extreme high-gloss coating.

Forfinish primer/surfacer coatings, the ACA suggested implementing a VOC limit of 5.0 lb

VOC/gal coating. The ACA commented that a higher VOC solvent is required for both the

topcoats and the primers that go beneath them to achieve the finish that is extremely smooth,

glossy, and durable. In addition, high solids or low-VOC primers often require additional sanding

to achieve the necessary smooth surface and the use ofthese coatings necessitates a change in

traditional working practices in yards to overcome the increased health hazard associated with

the increased dust levels.

For other substrate antifoulant coatings, the ACA suggested implementing a VOC limit of 3.341b

VOC/gal coating. Antifoulant coating formulations are currently registered with the EPA based

on the percentage weight of biocide in the wet paint. Reducing the VOC content ofthe coating

reduces the percentage of biocide in the dry film with a concomitant reduction in performance of

the coating and increase in recoating frequency. In addition, low-VOC antifoulant coatings often

result in a rougher film; the roughness ofthe hull contributes directly to drag.

For annfoulant sealer/tie coatings, the ACA suggested introducing a VOC limit of 3.slb VOC/gal

coating and the following definition: a coating applied over a biocidal antifoulant coating for the

purpose of preventing release of biocides into the environment, or to promote adhesion between

an antifoulant and a primer or other antifoulants. The 2007 International Maritime Organization

Antifouling Systems convention prohibits the use of certain biocides in the antifoulant coatings

applied to the hulls of any marine vessels entering the waters of countries that are signatories to

the convention. Aspecialized coating, an antifoulant sealer/tie coat, is required to seal in certain

prohibited antifoulant coatings and to promote adhesion ofbiocide-free, non-stick foul release

coatings when applied to vessels. As alternative compliance options, the ACA suggested

implementing an averaging approach and extending the compliance date to allow the

development, testing, and commercial introduction of low-VOC pleasure craft coatings.

In response to the ACA's request for reconsideration ofthe pleasure craft CfGVOC

limits, the EPA issued a memorandum on June 1, 2010, entitled Control Technique

90f13
Guidelinesfor Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings-Industry Request

for Reconsideration, "recommending that the pleasure craft industry workwith

state agencies during their RACf rule development process to assess what is

reasonable for the specific sources regulated because the CfG iInpose no legally

binding requirements on any entity, including pleasure craft coating facilities."

Based on the information submitted by the ACA, and in accordance with the EPA's

guidance to workwith the pleasure craft industry on this issue, the commission

agrees that some ofthe pleasure craft coating VOC liInits included in the EPA's CfG

recommendations are not technologically feasible at this time. The commission

agrees that the coating VOC liInits requested by the ACA are technologically and

economically feasible and therefore constitute RACf for the pleasure craft industry

in Texas. In response to this comment, the commission is revising §115.453(a)(1)(F)

to reflect the ACA's recommended VOC liInits for extreme high-gloss coating,

finish primer/surfacer coating, other substrate antifoulant coating, and

antifoulantsealer/tie coating. The commission has also revised §115.450(c)(8) to

include the commenter's suggested definitions for extreme high-gloss coating,

pretreatmentwash primer, and antifoulant sealer/tie coating. Because the

commission is revising the rules to incorporate the suggested VOC liInits, the

commission does not agree it is also necessary to include the averaging approach

and extended compliance period that were suggested as alternative compliance

options.

The ACA requested a small container exemption for pleasure craft touch-up and repair coatings

to allow minor repairs at the end ofthe painting line and avoid having to completely re-coat the

pleasure craft.

In response to this comment, the commission is adopting new §115.451(n) to

exempt touch-up and repair coatings from meeting the VOC IUnits in

§115.453(a)(l)(F) ifthose coatings are supplied by the manufacturer in containers

that do not exceed 1.0 quart and the use ofthose coatings at the site does not exceed

50 gallons per calendar year. The commenter did not suggest a quantity for the

annualliInit on touch-up and repair coatings. The 50-gallon liInit is equivalent to

the volume of coatings exempt in §115.451(i)(4) for miscellaneous plastic parts and

products. In addition, the commission is including definitionsfor repair coatings

and touch-up coatings in §115-450(c)(8)(I) and (K), respectively. The commission

agrees that providing an exemption for touch-up and repair coatings used in small

quantities eliminates the need to completely re-coat a pleasure craft and, as a

result, reduces overall VOC emissions from pleasure craft coating. This exemption

for coatings used in small quantities is also consistent with the EPA's

recommended exemptionsfor other coating categories in the Miscellaneous Metal

and Plastic Parts Coating CfG.

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatings

NASA and the US Navy suggested the commission remove designated on-site maintenance shops

from the rule applicability in Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Divisions 2 and 5 for the following

reasons: there is no definition of this type offacility in the proposed rules; the frequency ofwhat

is considered routine is unclear; the federal maximum available control technology standardsfor

10 of 13
f miscellaneous metal parts and products excludes facility maintenance operations; industrial

maintenance coatings are already covered by the national Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance rule; and the EPA's Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings erG does not

include designated on-site maintenance shops in the applicability.

The existing Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 rules were revised in July 2000

(25 TexReg 6754) to reflect a rule interpretation that determined the miscellaneous

metal parts and products coatings rules shouldbe applied to original equipment

manufacturers, off-site job shops that coat new or used parts or products, and

designated on-site maintenance shops that re-coat used parts or products. Because

this rulemaking was submitted as a SIP revision and approved by the EPA,

providing an exemption for designated on-site maintenance shops that are

currently complying with the existing Division 2 rules would be backsliding.

However, the commission has determined that it is not necessary to apply these

RAer requirements to designated on-site maintenance shops that re-coat used

parts or products in order to meet the mandates ofFCAA, §172(C)(I) and

§182(b)(2). The EPA's 1978 erG recommendations for this source category, which

were the basisfor the Division 2 rules, were clearly not intended to apply to

designated on-site maintenance shops that re-coat used parts or products. The

commission also agrees that the EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts

Coatings erG recommendations do not apply to designated on-site maintenance

shops.

Therefore, in response to this comment, the commission is adopting §115.427(a)(8)

to limit the rule applicability to the designated on-site maintenance shops in the

HGB area that were subject to §115.421(a)(9) prior to January 1, 2012. Only those

designated on-site maintenance shops that re-coat used parts or products that were

exemptfrom §115.421(a)(9) in Division 2 prior to January 1, 2012, the beginning of

the calendar year immediately following the approximate effective date ofthese

rules, or that begin operation on or after January 1, 2012, are exempt from all

requirements in Division 2. Additionally, in response to this comment, the

commission is revising §115.450(a) to exclude re-coating ofused miscellaneous

metal parts and products at designated on-site maintenance shops from the

coatings rule applicability in Division 5. The adopted revisions prevent any

potential backsliding concerns by requiring sources that are currently complying

with these rules in Division 2 to continue to meet these VOC limits. The adopted

revisions are consistent with the intent ofthe EPA's 1978 and 2008 erG RAer

recommendations for miscellaneous metal parts and products coatings and the

commission maintains the rules continue to satisfy RAer requirements for this

erG emission source category.

NASA and the US Navy requested an exemption be added to §U5-451 for miscellaneous metal or

plastic parts and product surface coating processes performed at on-site installations owned or

operated by the Armed Forces of the United States or NASA, or the surface coating of military

munitions manufactured by or for the Armed Forces ofthe United States. NASA and the US Navy

requested the exemption because extensive field testing is required before reformulated coatings

and solvents can be approved for use and because the proposed regulations would be impractical

II of 13
and extremely costly for NASA and the US Navy due to the complexity of coating operations, the

number of coatings and solvents used, and the number of different items and substrates coated.

NASA and the US Navy also requested exemption from the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts

coatings rules because historically accurate coatings for these items must be used.

The rules in Division 5 are necessary to iJnplement RACT requirementsfor

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings as required in FCAA, §172(C)(1) and

§182(b)(2). The commission disagrees that a complete exemption for the Armed'

Forces ofthe United States or NASA is consistent with the EPA's recommendations

for this erG emission source category. Some ofthe specific coating categories

recommended by the EPAfor miscellaneous metal and plastic parts and products

are specific to military application. Granting the categorical exemption requested

for NASA. the US Navy, and other military organizations could potentially result in

EPA disapproval ofthe Chapter 115 RACT rules and corresponding SIP revisions.

However, the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings rules do not apply to

the other coating categories specifically regulated in Divisions 2 or 5. The

commission recognizes that an explicit exemption for those specific coating

categoriesfrom the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatingsrules in Division

5, sinrilar to the exemption provided in Division 2, was not incorporated into the

proposed rules and may have created confusion. In response to this comment, the

commission is adding an exemption in §115.451(b)(4) to reflect the exclusion of all

other coating categories in Divisions 2 and 5 from the miscellaneous metal and

plastic parts coatings rules. Adopted new §115-451(b)(4) clearly indicates that any

item characterized by the other coating categories specified in Division 2 and

Division 5 is not consideredmiscellaneous metal or plastic parts and products and

is therefore not subject to any ofthe corresponding requirements. Additionally, the

commission does not consider the adopted rules any less teclmologically or

economically feasible for NASA and the US Navy as the rules are for other affected

entities, which include some smallbusinesses.

The EPA commented that the alternate control requirements proposed in §115.454(b) should be

revised to make clear that any alternative requirements to §115.453(a)(l)(A), approved by the

executive director would need to be submitted as a site-specific SIP revision for approval by the

EPA to ensure it meets the requirements for enforceability and public hearings.

The adopted alternate control requirement in §115.454(b) is identical to the

existing SIP-approved requirement in §115.423(4), except that the rule citations

reference the applicable process in the adopted new Division 5 rules. The

commission notesthat the rule citation in the proposed rules incorrectly

referencedlarge appliance coating, and the commission is revising §115.454(b) to

accurately reference miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating

processesin §115.453(a)(l)(C).

The colDlnission agrees that any alternate control requirement approved by the

executive director under §115.454(b) would need to be submitted as a site-specific

SIP revision for EPA approval. However, the commission does not agree that

revisionsto adopted §115.454(b) are warranted to clarify that EPA approval of

12 of 13
alternate control requirements is necessary. The commission makes no change in

response to this comment.

The TCC requested clarification on whether it is the commission's intent to regulate the coating

of-newly fabricated piping or other equipment at an on-site maintenance shop, which appears to

fall outside of the miscellaneous metal parts and products definition, while the re-coating of

some equipment at an on-site job shop appears to be included. In addition, the TCC requested

clarification on whether the coating of newly fabricated piping or other equipment at an on-site

lay-down yard would be a regulated activity. The TCC stated that the EPA excludes the coating of

new and existing support structures, piping, and equipment as part of routine maintenance

activities, considered to be facility maintenance operations, from 40 Code of Federal Regulations,

Part 63, Subpart MMMM for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products.

In response to other comments on this rulemaking, the comntission is revising

§1l5.450(a) to exclude designated on-site maintenance shops from the

miscellaneous metal parts and products coatings rule applicability in Division 5.

Additionally, the commission is adding §1l5-427(a)(8) to limit the Division 2 rule

applicability to only those designated on-site maintenance shops that re-coat used

parts and products that were required to comply with the emission specifications in

§1l5.421(a)(9) prior to January 1,2012, which is the beginning ofthe calendar year

immediately following the approximate effective date ofthis rulemaking. The recoating ofused miscellaneous metal parts and products at a designated on-site

maintenance shop that was exempt from §1l5.421(a)(9) prior to January 1,2012, or

that begins operation on or after January 1,2012, is exempt from all requirements

in Division 2.

The coating ofnewly fabricated miscellaneous metal parts and products, including

piping or other equipment, for a site's own use does not constitute coating at a

designated on-site maintenance shop and does not meet the miscellaneous metal

parts and products coatings rule applicability in Division 2. Only designated areas

where the routine re-coating ofmiscellaneous metal parts and products takes place

is considered a designated on-site maintenance shop. The location ofthe

designated on-site maintenance shop is irrelevantfor purposes ofthe Division 2

rules; the designated on-site maintenance shop may be an area reserved inside a

site building or a location on the site's grounds outdoors.

The TCC requested clarification on whether extreme performance coatings applied to newly

fabricated piping and equipment, which do not meet the corresponding definition in the Division

5 rules, would now be considered a general-use coating.

Coatings that do not meet a specific coating category definition in Division 5, are

considered general-use coatings and are subject to the VOC content or emission

limit for general-use coatings. This requirement is adopted directly from the EPA's

2008 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings erG recommendations.

Conversely, the commission recognizes that some coatings may meet more than

one coating category definition. For these instances, the commission is revising the

rules to indicate that the least stringent VOC limit applies.

13 of 13
STAFF 

RECOMMENDATIONS
REVISIONS TO THE STATE OF TEXAS AIR QUALI1Y

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE CONTROL OF OZONE AIR

POLLUTION

HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA 1997 EIGHT-HOUR OZONE

STANDARD NONAITAINMENT AREA

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALI1Y

P.O. BOX 13087

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-3087

HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIAREASONABLY

AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS UPDATE

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION FOR THE

1997 EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

PROJECT NUMBER 2010-028-SIP-NR

Adoption

December 7, 2011
This page intentionally left blank
EXECUfIVE SUMMARY

The eight-county Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) nonattainment area (Brazoria, Chambers,

Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties) is currently classified

as severe under the 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NMQS) of

0.08 parts per million (ppm) with an attainment date as expeditiously as practicable but no later

than June 15, 2019. Texas was required to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision

addressing the severe ozone nonattainment area requirements of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act

Amendments (FCAA) to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by April 15,

2010.

On March 10, 2010, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adopted two

revisions to the Texas SIP for the HGB ozone nonattainment area. The Houston-GalvestonBrazoria Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) includes a photochemical modeling analysis and a

weight of evidence analysis to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by

June 15, 2019. In addition, the HGB AD SIP revision incorporates revisions to 30 Texas

Administrative Code Chapters 101 and 115, also adopted on March 10, 2010, which include the

Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program Cap Integrity, the Highly Reactive Volatile Organic

Compounds Emissions Cap and Trade Program Cap Reduction and Allowance Reallocation, and

the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) Update. The HGB

Reasonable Further Progress SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard

demonstrates that an 18% emissions reduction requirement will be met for the analysis period

from 2002 through 2008 and an average of 3% per year emissions reduction for each ofthe

milestone years 2008,2011,2014,2017, and 2018.

For nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above, FCAA, §182(b)(2) requires states to

submit a SIP revision that implements reasonably available control technology (RACT) for VOC

emission sources addressed in a CTG document issued by the EPA from November 15, 1990,

through the area's attainment date. CTG documents provide information to assist states in

determining RACT for specific emission sources and provide the EPA's RACT recommendations.

FCAA, §183(e)(3) requires the EPA to regulate VOC emissions from consumer and commercial

products by issuing national regulations or by issuing CTG documents in lieu of national

regulations. The EPA issued 11 CTG documents from 2006 through 2008 with RACT

recommendations for controlling VOC emissions from a variety of consumer and commercial

products.

Of the 11 CTG documents, the commission has acted on four. On March 10, 2010, with the

adoption of the HGB AD SIP revision, the commission adopted portions of the Offset

Lithographic and Letterpress Printing CTG recommendation and provided a negative

declaration for the Flat Wood Paneling Coatings CTG, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials

CTG, and Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG source categories. The

commission determined that no sources meeting the applicability criteria recommended in these

CTG documents were located in the HGB area. Additionally, due to the EPA's concerns

regarding federal enforceability, staff recommended withdrawing the two RACT

recommendations for the Flexible Package Printing Materials and the Paper, Film, and Foil

Coatings CTG categories that were proposed on September 23, 2009. RACT determinations

were not made for the following five CTG emission source categories at that time because

additional research was necessary to determine the number of sources affected by the CTG

recommendations and the EPA had not formally responded to Texas' December 8, 2008,

request for clarification regarding the CTG recommendations: Industrial Cleaning Solvents;

Large Appliance Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and

ES-l
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. On March 17, 2011, the EPA issued a guidance

memorandum entitled Approving SIPRevisions Addressing VOC RACTRequirementsfor

Certain Coatings Categories regarding the following three CTG categories: Large Appliance

Coatings; Metal Furniture Coatings; and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings.

Additional discussion regarding the EPA's guidance on these three CTG categories is provided in

Appendix A: Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis.

The following seven CTG categories for the HGB area have pending RACT determinations to be

submitted to the EPA: .

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008.

This SIP revision provides a RACT analysis update to include the seven CTG documentslisted

above issued by the EPA from 2006 through 2008 that were not addressed in the HGB AD SIP

revision adopted on March 10, 2010, and incorporates concurrent CTG-related rulemaking for

the HGB area (Rule Project No. 201O-0l6-11S-EN) into the Texas SIP. The associated

rulemaking revises Chapter l1S, Subc1Iapter E, to implement RACT for the previously listed CTG

emission source categories in the HGB area as required by FCAA, §172(C)(I) and §182(b)(2).

ES-2
I

SECTION V: LEGAL AUTHORITY

General

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has the legal authority to implement,

maintain, and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and to control the quality of

the state's air, including maintaining adequate visibility.

The first air pollution control act, known as the Clean Air Act ofTexas, was passed by the Texas

Legislature in 1965. In 1967, the Clean Air Act ofTexas was superseded by a more

comprehensive statute, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), found in Article 4477-5, Vernon's Texas

Civil Statutes. The legislature amended the TCAA in 1969, 1971, 1973,1979,1985,1987, 1989,

1991, 1993, 1995, 1997,1999,2001,2003,2005,2007,2009, and 2011. In 1989, the TCAA was

codified as Chapter 382 ofthe Texas Health and Safety Code.

Originally, the TCAA stated that the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) is the state air pollution

control agency and is the principal authority in the state on matters relating to the quality of air

resources. In 1991, the legislature abolished the TACB effective September 1, 1993, and its

powers, duties, responsibilities, and functions were transferred to the Texas Natural Resource

. Conservation Commission (TNRCC). With the creation of the TNRCC, the authority over air

quality is found in both the Texas Water Code and the TCAA Specifically, the authority ofthe

TNRCC is found in Chapters 5 and 7. Chapter 5, Subchapters A - F, H - J, and L, include the

general provisions, organization, and general powers and duties ofthe TNRCC, and the

responsibilities and authority of the executive director. Chapter 5 also authorizes the TNRCC to

implement action when emergency conditions arise and to conduct hearings. Chapter 7 gives the

TNRCC enforcement authority. In 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature continued the existence of

the TNRCC until September 1, 2013, and changed the name ofthe TNRCC to the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). In 2009, the 81St Texas Legislature, during a

special session, amended §5.014 ofthe Texas Water Code, changing the expiration date ofthe

TCEQ to September 1, 2011, unless continued in existence by the Texas Sunset Act. In 2011, the

82nd Texas Legislature continued the existence ofthe TCEQ until 2023.

The TCAA specifically authorizes the TCEQ to establish the level of quality to be maintained in

the state's air and to control the quality ofthe state's air by preparing and developing a general,

comprehensive plan. The TCAA, Subchapters A - D, also authorize the TCEQ to collect

information to enable the commission to develop an inventory of emissions; to conduct research

and investigations; to enter property and examine records; to prescribe monitoring

requirements; to institute enforcement proceedings; to enter into contracts and execute

instruments; to formulate rules; to issue orders taking into consideration factors bearing upon

health, welfare, social al).d economic factors, and practicability and reasonableness; to conduct

hearings; to establish air quality control regions; to encourage cooperation with citizens' groups

and other agencies and political subdivisions ofthe state as well as with industries and the

federal government; and to establish and operate a system of permits for construction or

modification offacilities.

Local government authority is found in Subchapter E ofthe TCAA. Local governments have the

same power as the TCEQ to enter property and make inspections. They also may make

recommendations to the commission concerning any action ofthe TCEQ that affects their

territorial jurisdiction, may bring enforcement actions, and may execute cooperative agreements

with the TCEQ or other local governments. In addition, a city or town may enact and enforce
ordinances for the control and abatement of air pollution not inconsistent with the provisions of

the TCAA and the rules or orders ofthe commission.

Subchapters G and H ofthe TCAA authorize the TCEQ to establish vehicle inspection and

maintenance programs in certain areas ofthe state, consistent with the requirements of the

Federal Clean Air Act; coordinate with federal, state, and local transportation planning agencies

to develop and implement transportation programs and measures necessary to attain and

maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards; establish gasoline volatility and low

emission diesel standards; and fund and authorize participating counties to implement vehicle

repair assistance, retrofit, and accelerated vehicle retirement programs.

Awlicable Law

The following statutes and rules provide necessary authority to adopt and implement the state

implementation plan (SIP). The rules listed below have previously been submitted as part ofthe

SIP.

Statutes

All sections of each subchapter are included, unless otherwise noted.

TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE, Chapter 382

TEXAS WATER CODE

September 1, 2011

September 1, 2011

Chapter 5: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

SubchapterA: General Provisions

Subchapter B: Organization ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Subchapter C: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Subchapter D: General Powers and Duties ofthe Commission

Subchapter E: Administrative Provisions for Commission

Subchapter F: Executive Director (except §§5.225, 5.226, 5.227, 5.2275,5.231, 5.232, and

5.236)

Subchapter H: Delegation of Hearings

Subchapter I: Judicial Review

SubchapterJ: Consolidated Permit Processing

Subchapter L: Emergency and Temporary Orders (§§5.514, 5.5145, and 5.515 only)

Subchapter M: Environmental Permitting Procedures (§5.558 only)

Chapter 7: Enforcement

SubchapterA: General Provisions (§§7.001, 7.002, 7.0025, 7.004, and 7.005 only)

Subchapter B: Corrective Action and Injunctive Relief (§7.032 only)

Subchapter C: Administrative Penalties

Subchapter D: Civil Penalties (except §7.109)

Subchapter E: Crinlinal Offenses and Penalties: §§7.177, 7.179-7.183

Rules

All of the following rules are found in 30 Texas Administrative Code, as ofthe following latest

effective dates:

Chapter 7: Memoranda of Understanding, §§7.110 and 7.119

December 13, 1996 and May 2, 2002

Chapter 19: Electronic Reporting

ii

March 15, 2007
Chapter 35: Subchapters A-C, K: Emergency and Temporary Orders and

Permits; Temporary Suspension or Amendment of Permit Conditions July 20, 2006

Chapter 39: Public Notice, §§39·201; 39-401; 39-403(a) and (b)(8)-(1O);

39-405(f)(1) and (g); 39-409; 39-411 (a), (b)(1)-(6), and (8)-(10) and (c)(1)-(6)

and (d); 39-413(9), (11), (12), and (14); 39-418(a) and (b)(3) and (4);

39-419(a), (b), (d), and (e); 39-420(a), (b) and (C)(3) and (4); 39-423 (a) and

(b); 39.601-39.605 June 24, 2010

Chapter 55: Requests for Reconsideration and Contested Case Hearings;

Public Comment, §§55.1; 55.21(a) - (d), (e)(2), (3), and (12), (f) and (g);

55.101(a), (b), and (c)(6) - (8); 55.103; 55.150; 55.152(a)(1), (2), and (6) and

(b); 55.154; 55.156; 55·200; 55.201(a) - (h); 55.203; 55.205; 55.209, and

55.211 June 24, 2010

Chapter 101: General Air Quality Rules May 15, 2011

Chapter 106: Permits by Rule, Subchapter A May 15, 2011

Chapter 111: Control ofAir Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate

Matter July 19, 2006

Chapter 112: Control ofAir Pollution from Sulfur Compounds July 16,1997

Chapter 113: Standards of Performance for Hazardous Air Pollutants and for

Designated Facilities and Pollutants May 14, 2009

Chapter 114: Control ofAir Pollution from Motor Vehicles August 11, 2011

Chapter 115: Control ofAir Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds February 17,2011

Chapter 116: Permits for New Construction or Modification March 17,2011

Chapter 117: Control ofAir Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds May 15,2011

Chapter 118: Control ofAir Pollution Episodes March 5,2000

Chapter 122: §122.122: Potential to Emit

·Chapter 122: §122.215: Minor Permit Revisions

Chapter 122: §122.216: Applications for Minor Permit Revisions

Chapter 122: §122.217: Procedures for Minor Permit Revisions

December 11, 2002

June 3, 2001

June 3, 2001

December 11, 2002

Chapter 122: §122.218: Minor Permit Revision Procedures for Permit

Revisions Involving the Use of Economic Incentives, Marketable Permits, and

Emissions Trading

iii

June 3, 2001
SECTION VI: CONTROL STRATEGY

A. Introduction (No change)

B. Ozone (Revised)

1. Dallas-Fort Worth (No change)

2. Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Revised)

Chapter 1: General (Revised)

Chapter 2: Anthropogenic Emissions Inventory (EI) Description (No change)

Chapter 3: Photochemical Modeling (No change)

Chapter 4: Control Strategies and Required Elements (Revised)

Chapter 5: Weight of Evidence (No change)

Chapter 6: Ongoing and Future Initiatives (No change)

3. Beaumont-Port Arthur (No change)

4. El Paso (No change)

. 5. Regional Strategies (No change)

6. Northeast Texas (No change)

7. Austin Area (No change)

8. San Antonio Area (No change)

9. Victoria Area (No change)

C. Particulate Matter (No change)

D. Carbon Monoxide (No change)

E. Lead (No change)

F. Oxides of Nitrogen (No change)

G. Sulfur Dioxide (No change)

H. Conformity with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (No change)

1. Site Specific (No change)

J. Mobile Sources Strategies (No change)

K Clean Air Interstate Rule (No change)

L. Transport (No change)

M. Regional Haze (No change)

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Section V: Legal Authority

Section VI: Control Strategy

Table ofContents

List ofAcronyms

List ofTables

List ofAppendices

Chapter 1: General

1.1 Background

1.2 Introduction

1.2.1 One-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) History (No

change)

1.2.21997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS History

1.2.2.1 May 23, 2007 (No change)

1.2.2.2 March 10, 2010

1.2.3 Existing Ozone Control Strategies (No change)

1.2-4 Current SIP Revision

1.3 Health Effects (No change)

1.4 Stakeholder Participation and Public Hearings

1.4.1 Stakeholder Participation

1.4.2 Public Hearings and Comment Information

1.5 Social and Economic Considerations

1.6 Fiscal and Manpower Resources (No change)

Chapter 2: Anthropogenic Emissions Inventory (EI) Description (No change)

Chapter 3: Photochemical Modeling (No change)

Chapter 4: Control Strategies and Required Elements

4.1 Introduction (No change)

4.2 Existing Control Measures

4.3 Updates to Existing Control Measures (No change)

4-4 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Analysis

4.4.1 General Discussion

v
44.2 NOx RACf Determination (No change)

4+3 VOC RACf Determination

443.1 Flexible Package Printing

443.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents

443.3 Large Appliance Coatings

4434 Metal Furniture Coatings

44.3.5 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings

443.6 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

443.7 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

4.5 Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis (No change)

4.6 New Control Measures (No change)

4.7 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) (No change)

4.8 Monitoring Network (No change)

4.9 Contingency Plan (No change)

4.10 References (No change)

Chapter 5: Weight of Evidence (No change)

Chapter 6: Ongoing and Future Initiatives (No change)

vi
ACT

AD

CFR

CTG

DMA

DMX

EPA

FCAA

HECT

H-GAC

HGB

HRVOC

LDAR

MECT

mph

MVEB

NAAQS

NOx

ppm

RACM

RACT

RFP

RVP

SB

SIP

TACB

TCAA

TCEQ

TNRCC

tpy

TxLED

VOC

LIST OF ACRONYMS

alternative control techniques

attainment demonstration

Code of Federal Regulations

Control Techniques Guidelines

Marine Distillate Fuel A

Marine Distillate Fuel X

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Clean Air Act

Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Cap and Trade Program

Houston-Galveston Area Council

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria

highly reactive volatile organic compounds

leak detection and repair

Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program

miles per hour

motor vehicle emissions budget

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

nitrogen oxides

parts per million

reasonably available control measures

reasonably available control technology.

reasonable further progress

Reid vapor pressure

Senate Bill

state implementation plan

Texas Air Control Board

Tel\as Clean Air Act

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission)

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

tons per year

Texas Low Emission Diesel

volatile organic compounds

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1: Existing Ozone Control Measures Applicable to the HGB Eight-County

Nonattainment Area

viii
Appendix

Appendix A

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Name

Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis

ix
CHAPTER1: GENERAL

1.1 BACKGROUND

The History ofthe Texas State Implementation Plan, a comprehensive overview ofthe state

implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted to the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) by the State ofTexas, is available on the Introduction to the SIP Web page

(http:}/www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/sipintro.html#History) on the Texas Commission on

Environmental Ouality's (TCEm Web site (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/).

1.2 INTRODUCTION

The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area presents a complex air pollution challenge

because ofthe nature ofthe emissions and meteorology ofthe area. The HGB area's hot, sunny

climate, large urban population activities, and extensive, highly concentrated industrial complex

provide the ingredients for ozone formation: sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile

organic compounds (VOC). The Houston area's significant biogenic VOC emissions and complex

meteorology, which includes land/sea breeze air parcel recirculation, complicate photochemical

modeling. Economic and population growth continue to create air quality challenges for the

HGBarea. Despite these challenges, key ozone-targeting regulatory programs have reduced the

number and magnitude of ozone exceedances, the area of exceedance, and the population

exposed to exceedances of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

Summaries of HGB area 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS SIP revisions, as well as information

regarding this HGB Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis Update SIP Revision for

the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB RACT SIP revision) are provided.

1.2.1 One-Hour Ozone National AmbientAir Quality Standard (NAAQS) History

(No change)

1.2.2 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone NAAQS History

In 1997, the EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million

(ppm) based on the three-year average ofthe annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour

average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area. The final 1997 eighthour ozone NAAQS was published in the Federal Register on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), and

became effective on September 16, 1997. On April 30, 2004, the EPA finalized nonattainment

designations and promulgated the first phase ofits implementation rule for the 1997 eight-hour

ozone standard (69 FR 23951). These actions became effective on June 15, 2004. The EPA

classified the HGB area as a moderate nonattainment area for the standard. The TCEQ was

required to submit a SIP revision for the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS to the EPA by June 15,

2007, and demonstrate attainment ofthe standard by June 15, 2010. In the November 29, 2005,

issue ofthe Federal Register (70 FR 71612), the EPA published the second phase ofthe

implementation rule for the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS, which addressed the control

obligations that apply to areas designated nonattainment for the standard.

The commission adopted the 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area SIP revision and the

reasonable further progress (RFP) SIP revision for the HGB area on May 23, 2007. These SIP

revisions were the first step in addressing the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard in the HGB area.

The TCEQ demonstrated reasonable further progress toward attaining the 1997 eight-hour

ozone standard and committed to developing an HGB 1997 eight-hour ozone attainment

demonstration SIP revision to attain the 1997 standard as expeditiously as practicable. On June

15,20°7, these two revisions to the Texas SIP and a letter from the governor ofTexas requesting

1-1
that the HGB ozone nonattainment area be reclassified from a moderate nonattainment area to

a severe nonattainment area were submitted to the EPA.

The EPA granted the governor's request to voluntarily reclassify the HGB ozone nonattainment

area from a moderate to a severe nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the October

1, 2008, issue of the Federal RegisterC73 FR 56983). The EPA set April 15, 2010, as the date for

the state to submit a revised SIP addressing the severe ozone nonattainment area requirements

ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) (42 United States Code, §§7401 et seq.). The area's new

attainment date for the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard is as expeditiously as practicable but no

later than June 15, 2019.

1.2.2.1 May 23, 2007 (No change)

1.2.2.2 March 10, 2010

On March 10, 2010, the commission adopted two revisions to the Texas SIP for the HGB ozone

nonattainment area. The HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour

Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision) included a photochemical modeling analysis and a

weight of evidence analysis to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by

the June 15, 2019, deadline. This SIP revision also included a motor vehicle emissions budget

(MVEB), a VOC RACT analysis, a NOx RACT analysis, a reasonably available control measures

analysis, a contingency plan, and a mid-course review commitment. In addition, the HGBAD

SIP revision incorporated revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 101 and 115, also

adopted on March 10, 2010, which included the Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program Cap

Integrity, the Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions Cap and Trade Program

Cap Reduction and Allowance Reallocation, and the VOC Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)

Update for offset lithographic printing.

The HGB RFP SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB RFP SIP revision),

as required by the EPA, demonstrated that an 18% emissions reduction requirement was met for

the analysis period from 2002 through 2008 and an average of 3% per year emissions reduction

will be met for each of the milestone years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018. The RFP SIP

revision established baseline emission levels, calculated reduction targets, identified control

strategies to meet emission target levels, and tracked actual emission reductions against

established emissions growth. An MVEB for each milestone year and a contingency plan were

also included in the RFP SIP revision.

In the January 25, 2011, issue ofthe Federal Register (76 FR 4342), the EPA published a notice

ofits determination that the MVEBs in the HGB AD and RFP SIP revisions were adequate for

transportation conformity purposes, effective February 9, 2011.

1.2.3 Existing Ozone Control Strategies (No change)

1.2.4 Current SIP Revision

Because this SIP revision focuses specifically on the seven CTG documents issued by the EPA

from 2006 through 2008 that were not addressed in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March

10, 2010, the RACT analysis in this SIP revision only provides an update to the HGB VOC RACT

demonstration.

Although the FCAA requires the state to implement RACT, EPAguidance on RACT indicates

that states may choose to implement the CTG recommendations, implement an alternative

approach, or demonstrate that additional controls for the CTG emission source category are not

technologically or economically feasible in the area. The following seven CTG documents have

1-2
been evaluated during the concurrent associated rulemaking (Rule Project No. 2010-016-115-

EN) to determine if additional VOC controls are necessary to fulfill RACT requirements:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008.

This SIP revision provides a detailed RACT analysis update for the HGB area and incorporates

the concurrent rulemaking, which revises Chapter 115, Subchapter E, to implement RACT for

the previously listed CTG emission source categories in the HGB area.

1.3 HEALTH EFFECTS (NO CHANGE)

1.4 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

1.4.1 Stakeholder Participation

The TCEQ held a stakeholder meeting on December 1, 2010, and accepted informal comments

until January 11, 2011, for the associated Chapter 115 rulemaking (Rule Project No. 2010-016-

115-EN). For further information, please refer to the CTG Stakeholder Group Web page

(http:jjwww.tceq.texas.govjimplementationjairjrulesjctgjcontroLtechniques_stakeholder.ht

mI).

1.4.2 Public Hearings and Comment Information

The commission held public hearings for this SIP revision and associated rulemaking on July 18,

2011, at 6:30 p.m. at the Houston-Galveston Area Council office in Houston and on July 22,

2011, at 10:00 a.m. at the TCEQ headquarters in Austin. Question and answer sessions were

held 30 minutes prior to the hearings. One person presented oral comments at the July 18, 2011,

hearing applicable to this HGB RACT SIP revision. The July 22, 2011, hearing in Austin was not

officially opened because no party indicated a desire to provide comment.

The public co=ent period opened on June 24, 2011, and closed on August 8, 2011. Written

comments were accepted via mail, fax, and through the eCo=ents system

(http:jjwww5.tceq.texas.govjrulesjecommentsJ). Nine written comments were received.

Summaries ofpublic comments and TCEQ responses applicable to this HGB RACT SIP revision

are addressed in the Response to Comments section ofthis SIP revision. Comments received

applicable to the Chapter 115 CTG rulemaking (Rule Project No. 2010-016-115-EN) are

addressed in the preamble to those rules.

An electronic version of the SIP revision and appendix can be found at the TCEQ's Texas State

Implementation Plan Web page (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/texas-sip).

1.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

There are no social or economic issues of concern attributable to this HGB RACT Analysis

Update SIP Revision. For a detailed explanation of any social and economic issues involved with

the associated Chapter 115 rulemaking (Rule Project No. 2010-016-115-EN), please refer to the

preamble that precedes those rules, accessed from the TCEQ Air Ouality Rule Projects Web page

(http:jjwww.tceq.texas.govjairqualityjstationary-rulesjrule_log.html).

1-3
1.6 FISCAL AND MANPOWER RESOURCES (NO CHANGE)

1-4
CHAPTER 2: ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY (EI) DESCRIPTION

(NO CHANGE)

2-1
, ,

CHAPTER 3: PHOTOCHEMICAL MODELING (NO CHANGE)

3-1
CHAPTER 4: CONTROL STRATEGIES AND REQUIRED ELEMENTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION (NO CHANGE)

4.2 EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES

Over several years of ozone planning in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area, a broad

range of control measures have been implemented for each emission source category. Table 4-1:

Existing Ozone Control Measures Applicable to the HGB Eight-County NonattainmentArea

lists the existing ozone control strategies that have been implemented for the one-hour and 1997

eight-hour ozone standards in the HGB area.

Table 4-1: Existing Ozone Control Measures Applicable to the HGB Eight-County

Nonattainment Area

Date($)

April 1, 2003, and

phased in through

April 1, 2007

Overall 80% NOx reduction from existing

industrial sources and utility power plants,

implemented through a cap and trade program

l\IIeasure

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Mass Emissions Cap and

Trade (MECT) Program

Affects utility boilers, gas turbines, heaters and

furnaces, stationary internal combustion engines,

industrial boilers, and many other industrial

sources

Highly Reactive Volatile

Organic Compounds

(HRVOC) Rules and

HRVOC Emissions Cap

and Trade (HECT)

Program

Affects cooling towers, process vents, and flares,

and establishes an annual emissions limit with a

cap and trade for each site in Harris County

Seven perimeter counties subject to permit

allowable limits and monitoring requirements

Monitoring

requirements began

January 31, 2006

Cap and trade

program implemented

January 1,2007

HECT cap

incrementally

stepped-down from

2014 through 2017 for

a total 25% cap

reduction

HRVOC Fugitive Rules More stringent leak detection and repair (LDAR)

requirements for components in HRVOC service

March 31,2004

Additional components included in LDAH

program: more stringent repair times, lower leak

detection, and third part audit requirements

4-1
·..... Measure' .. .'. ,r· ,. "iii;"'.," ·;,'DescriptioO,i\\,iii i" '. ":' . Start Date(sl ,

Volatile Organic Requires controls for slotted guide poles and January 1, 2009

Compounds (VOC) Rules more stringent controls for other fittings on

- Storage Tanks floating roof tanks, and control requirements or Compliance with

operational limitations on landing floating roof revised monitoring

tanks and testing

requirements required

Eliminates exemption for storage tanks for crude by March 1, 2013

oil or natural gas condensate, and regulates flash

emissions from these tanks

VOC Rules - Degassing Requires vapors from degassing to be vented to a January 1, 2009

Operations control device for a longer time period, and

removes exemption from degassing to control for

tanks with capacity of 7S,000 to 1,000,000 gallons

Clarification of rule and monitoring and testing February 17, 2011

requirements, additional control options, and

notification requirements

NO, Emission Standards NO, emission standards for nitric acid and adipic November lS, 1999

for Nitric Acid and Adipic acid manufacturing facilities in the HGB area

Acid Manufacturing

Utility Electric NO, control requirements (approximately SS %) May 1, 2003, through

Generation in East and on utility boilers and stationary gas turbines at May 1, 200S

Central Texas utility electric generation sites in East and Central

Texas

VOC Control Measures Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002,

batch processes, bakeries, and offset lithographic and earlier

printers by December 31, 2002

Additional VOC measures adopted earlier for

reasonably available control technology (RACT)

purposes: storage, general vent gas, industrial

wastewater, loading and unloading operations,

general VOC LDAR, solvent using process, etc.

(see AppendiX D: Reasonably Available Control

Technology Analysis of the Houston-GalvestonBrazoria Attainment Demonstration State

Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 EightHour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP revision)

adopted March 10, 2010, for more details}

4-2
~':':""'::':::_ :::'iF'::', ",: .:.".:',::, '::':"':::StartDatl!(s)":::i: :< ""'. ...,,"

VOC Control Measures- Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002

Offset Lithographic offset lithographic printers

Printers

Revision to limit VOC content of solvents used by March 1, 2011, for

offset lithographic printing facilities and to major sources

include smaller sources in rule applicability (see

Appendix D ofthe HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 1, 2012, for

March 10, 2010, for more details) minor sources

Refueling - Stage I Captures gasoline vapors that are released when 1990

gasoline is delivered to a storage tank

Vapors returned to the tank truck as the storage

tank is being filled with fuel, rather than released

into the ambient air

Refueling - Stage II Captures gasoline vapors when a vehicle is being 1992

fueled at the pump

Vapors returned through the pump hose to the

petroleum storage tank, rather than released into

the air

Federal Area/Non-Road Series of emissions limits, implemented by the Through 2018

Measures United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), for area and non-road sources

Examples: diesel and gasoline engine standards

for locomotives and leaf-blowers

Texas Emissions Provides grant funds for on-road and non-road January 2002

Reduction Plan heavy-duty diesel engine replacement/retrofit

California Gasoline California standards for non-road gasoline May 1, 2004

Engines engines 2S horsepower and larger

Stationary Diesel Engines Prohibition on operating stationary diesel and April 1, 2002

.. dual-fuel engines for testing and maintenance

purposes between 6:00 a.m. and noon

Natural Gas-Fired Small NOxemission limits on small-scale residential and 2002

Boilers, Process Heaters, industrial boilers, process heaters, and water

and Water Heaters heaters equal to or less than 2.0 million British

thermal units per hour

Minor Source NOx NOx emission limits on boilers, process heaters, March 31, 200S

Controls for Non-MECT stationary engines, and turbines at minor sites

Sites not included in the MECT program (uncontrolled

design capacity to emit less than 10 tons per year

(tpy))

4-3
. .lIIIeasure ........ . I .' i! iPes'ription! . !. • ···i •••. .St<lrtPate(s) ...!•.

VOC Control Measures Additional control technology requirements for December 31, 2002,

batch processes and bakeries by December 31, and earlier

2002

Additional VOC measures adopted earlier for

RACT purposes: storage, general vent gas,

industrial wastewater, loading and unloading

operations, general VOC LDAR, solvent using

process, cutback asphalt, etc. (see Appendix D of

the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010,

for more details)

Texas Low Emission Requires all diesels for both on-road and non- Phase in began

Diesel (TxLED) road use to have a lower aromatic content and a October 31, 2005

higher cetane number

TxLED for Marine Fuels Adds marine distillate fuels X and A, commonly June 24, 2007

known as DMX and DMA, or Marine Gas Oil, into

the definition of diesel fuels, requiring them to be

TxLED compliant

Texas Low Reid Vapor Requires all gasoline for both on-road and non- April 2000

Pressure (RVP) Gasoline road use to have a RVP of 7.8 pounds per square

inch or less from May 1 through October 1 each

year

Voluntary Mobile Voluntary measures administered by the Through 2018

Emissions Reduction Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) (see

Program Appendix F: Evaluatian of Mobile Source Control

Strategies for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria

State Implementation Plan (With Detailed

Strategies), prepared for H-GAC by ENVIRON

International Corporation, of the HGB AD SIP

adopted March 10, 2010)

Federal On-Road Series of emissions limits, implemented by the Phase in through 2013

Measures EPA, for on-road vehicles

Examples: Tier 1 and Tier 2 vehicle standards, low

sulfur diesel standards, National Low Emission

Vehicle standards, and reformulated gasoline

Vehicle Inspection/ Yearly treadmill-type testing for pre-1996 vehicles May 1, 2002, in Harris

Maintenance and computer checks for 1996 and newer vehicles County

May 1, 2003, in

Brazoria, Fort Bend,

Galveston, and

Montgomery Counties

Speed Limit Reduction Five miles per hour (mph) below what was posted September 2003

before May 1,2002, on roadways where speeds

were 65 mph or higher

4-4
~, Measure

Transportation Control

Measures

Voluntary Energy

Efficiency/Renewable

Energy

Automotive Windshield

Washer Fluid

Various measures in H-GAC's long-range

transportation plans (see Appendix Fof the HGB

AD SIP adopted March 10, 2010, for more details)

Energy efficiency and renewable energy projects

encouraged by Senate Bill (5B) 7, 76th Texas

Legislature, 1999 and SB 5, 77th Texas

Legislature, 2001

VOC content limitation on automotive windshield

washer fluid sold, supplied, distributed, or

manufactured for use in Texas

c, SlIIltDate(s)

Phase in through 2018

September 1, 1999,

and September 1,

2001

January 1, 1995

4.3 UPDATES TO EXISTING CONTROL MEASURES (NO CHANGE)

4.4 REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) ANALYSIS

4.4.1 General Discussion

The HGB area is currently classified as a severe nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour

ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Under the 1997 eight-hour ozone

standard, the HGB area is required to meet the mandates ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA)

under §172(C)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (f). According to the EPA's final rule to implement the 1997

eight-hour ozone NAAQS (40 Code of Federal Regulations §51.912, November 29, 2005), a state

containing areas classified as moderate nonattainment and above must submit a state

implementation plan (SIP) revision demonstrating that its current rules fulfill the RACT

requirements for all Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) emission source categories and all

non-CTG major sources of NOx and VOC. The major source threshold for severe nonattainment

areas is a potential to emit 25 tpy or more of either NOx or VOC.

In the September 17, 1979, issue ofthe Federal Register (44 FR 53762), RACT is defined as the

lowest emissions limitation that a particularsource is capable ofmeeting by the application of

control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic

feasibility. RACT requirements for nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above are

included in the FCAA to assure that significantsource categories at major sources of ozone

precursor emissions are controlled to a reasonable extent, but not necessarily to best available

control technology levels expected of new sources or to maximum achievable control technology

levels required for major sources of hazardous air pollutants. While RACT and reasonably

available control measures (RACM) have similar consideration factors like technological and

economic feasibility, there is a significant distinction between RACT and RACM. To be

considered RACM, a control measure must advance attainment ofthe area towards meeting the

NAAQS for that measure (see FCAA, §172(C)(1)). Advancing attainment ofthe area is not a factor

of consideration when evaluating RACT because the benefit ofimplementing RACT is presumed

under the FCAA.

Under the current state rules, the HGB area is subject to some ofthe most stringent NOx and

VOC emission control requirements in the countrY, and for many source categories, the existing

rules are more stringent than recommended RACT standards for those categories. In the final

approval notice for the revised HGB one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision

published in the September 6, 2006, issue ofthe Federal Register (71 FR 52676), the EPA noted

that the HGB VOC rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 115 and NOx rules in Chapter

4-5
117 were previously detennined to meet the FCAA RACf requirements. Under the one-hour

ozone NAAQS, the HGB area was also designated as a severe nonattainment area and the

threshold for major stationary sources under the one-hour ozone nonattainment designation

was identical to the current threshold under the 1997 eight-hour ozone nonattainment

designation. Therefore, controls to satisfy RACT for sources addressed in CfG and alternative

control techniques (ACT) documents issued prior to 2006 and most major sources under the

1997 eight-hour ozone designation were implemented by the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) under the one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP

revision and previously approved by the EPA.

4-4.2 NOx RACf Determination (No change)

4-4.3 VOC RACf Determination

The TCEQ's analysis demonstrates that the current VOC rules and controls for the HGB area

satisfy the FCAA requirements for RACT for all CTG or ACf VOC source categories specific to

any CTG or ACT documents issued prior to 2006. For all non-CTGjACT major VOC emission

source categories that controls are technologically and economically feasible, RACT is fulfilled

by the EPA-approved Chapter 115 rules or other federally enforceable measures.

The EPA issued 11 CfG documents from 2006 through 2008 with recommendations for VOC

controls on a variety of consumer and commercial products. Some ofthe new CfG

recommendations are updates to previously issued CTG documents and some are

recommendations for new categories. The TCEQ evaluated these new CTG documents to

determine if additional VOC controls were necessary to fulfill RACT requirements.

The RACT analysis included in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, addresses the

following CTG documents:

• Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Offset lithographic and Letterpress Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Auto and light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Group IV, issued in 2008.

The RACT analysis included in this SIP revision addresses the follov.ing CTG documents:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008.

The remainder of this section includes briefsummaries ofthe TCEQ's determinations regarding

these seven CTG documents. Additional details regarding the evaluation of the seven CTG

documents addressed in this SIP revision are provided in Appendix A: Reasonably Available

Control Technology Analysis.

4.4.3.1 Flexible Package Printing

The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Flexible Package Printing CfG recommendations

are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting

4-6
rulemaking (Rule Project 2010-016-11S-EN) to limit the VOC content of coatings used by

flexible package printing sources in the HGB area. The rulemaking implements the CTG

recommendations to reduce the VOC content of coatings and imposes work practices for

cleaning materials used during flexible package printing.

4.4.3.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents

The TCEQ has determined that the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CfG recommendations are

RACf for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting

rulemaking (Rule Project 201O-016-11S-EN) to implement the CTG recommendations to limit

the VOC content ofindustrial cleaning solvents used in the HGB area. The TCEQ revised the

proposed rules for industrial cleaning solvents in response to comments received on the

proposed rules and this SIP revision. Additional details regarding these changes are provided in

Appendix A.

4.4.3.3 Large Appliance Coatings

The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Large Appliance Coatings CfG recommendations

are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting

rulemaking (Rule Project 2010-016-11S-EN) to limit the VOC content oflarge appliance coatings

in the HGB area. The rulemaking implements the CfG recommendations to reduce the VOC

content of coatings and imposes work practices for cleaning materials used during large

appliance coating. The TCEQ revised the proposed rules for large appliance coatings in response

to comments received on the proposed rules and this SIP revision. Additional details regarding

these changes are provided in Appendix A.

4.4.3.4 Metal Furniture Coatings

The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Metal Furniture Coatings CfG recommendations

are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting

rulemaking (Rule Project 2010-016-11S-EN) to limit the VOC content of metal furniture coatings

used in the HGB area. The rulemaking implements the CTG recommendations to reduce the

VOC content of coatings and imposes work practices for cleaning materials used during metal

furniture coating. The TCEQ revised the proposed rules for metal furniture coatings in response

to comments received on the proposed rules and this SIP revision. Additional details regarding

these changes are provided in Appendix A.

4.4.3.5 Paper. Film, and Foil Coatings

The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CfG

recommendations are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the

commission is adopting rulemaking (Rule Project 2010-016-11S-EN) to limit the VOC content of

paper, film, and foil coatings in the HGB area. The rulemaking implements the CTG

recommendations to reduce the VOC content of coatings and imposes work practices for

cleaning materials used during paper, film, and foil coating.

4.4.3.6 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

The TCEQ has determined that the Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG recommendations

are RACf for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting

rulemaking (Rule Project 201O-016-11S-EN) to implement the CfG recommendations to limit

the VOC content ofmiscellaneous industrial adhesives used in the HGB area. The TCEQ revised

the proposed rules for miscellaneous industrial adhesives in response to comments received on

the proposed rules and this SIP revision. Additional details regarding these changes are

provided in Appendix A.

4-7
4.4.3.7 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

The TCEQ has determined that portions ofthe Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

CTG recommendations are RACT for the HGB area. Concurrent with this SIP revision, thc

commission is adopting rulemaking (Rule Project 2010-016-1l5-EN) to limit the VOC content of

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings used in the HGB area. The rulemaking

implements the CTG recommendations to reduce the VOC content of coatings and imposes work

practices for cleaning materials used during miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating. The

TCEQ revised the proposed rules for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings in response

to comments received on the proposed rules and this SIP revision. Additional details regarding

these changes are provided in Appendix A.

4.5 REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RACM) ANALYSIS (NO

CHANGE)

4.6 NEW CONTROL MEASURES (NO CHANGE)

4.7 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGET (MVEB) (NO CHANGE)

4.8 MONITORING NETWORK (NO CHANGE)

4.9 CONTINGENCY PLAN (NO CHANGE)

4.10 REFERENCES (NO CHANGE)

4-8
CHAPTER 5: WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE (NO CHANGE)

5-1
CHAPTER 6: ONGOING AND FUTURE INITIATIVES (NO CHANGE)

6-1
I

,

APPENDIX A

REASONABLY AVAIlABLE CONfROL TECHNOLOGY

ANALYSIS

HOUSTON-GALVESTON-BRAZORIA REASONABLY

AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS UPDATE

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION FOR THE 1997

EIGHT-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Project No. 2010-028-SIP-NR
Table ofContents

1.1 Introduction : 1

1.2 RACT Evaluation Approach 3

1.2.1 General Discussion 3

1.2.2 Identification of CTG Emission Sources 3

1.2.3 Determining ifState Regulations Fulfill RACT Requirements 3

1.3 RACT Determination and Discussion 4

1.3.1 General Discussion 4

1.3.2 VOC RACT Determination 4

1.3.2.1 Flexible Package Printing 4

1.3.2.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents 5

1.3.2.3 Large Appliance Coatings 5

1.3.2-4 Metal Furniture Coatings.............•............................................................... 6

1.3.2.5 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings 7

1.3.2.6 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives 8

1.3.2.7 Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings 8
1.1 INTRODUCTION

The eight-county Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) eight-hour ozone nonattainment area

(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties)

is currently classified as severe under the 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS). Under the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, the HGB area is required to

meet the mandates ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) under §172(c)(1) and §182(b)(2) and (D.

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) final rule to

implement the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §S1.912,

November 29, 2005), a state containing areas classified as moderate nonattainment and above

must submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision demonstrating that its current rules

fulfill the reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for all Control

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) emission source categories.

RACT is defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a particularsource is capable of meeting

by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological

and economic feasibility (44 FR53762, September 17, 1979). RACT requirements for moderate

and above classification nonattainment areas are included in the FCAA to assure that significant

source categories at major sources of ozone precursor emissions are controlled to a reasonable

extent, but not necessarily to best available control technology levels expected of new sources or

to maximum achievable control technology levels required for major sources of hazardous air

pollutants.

While RACT and reasonably available control measures (RACM) have similar consideration

factors like technological and economic feasibility, there is a significant distinction between

RACT and RACM. A control measure must advance attainment ofthe area towards meeting the

NAAQS for that measure to be considered RACM (see FCAA, §172(C)(1)). Advancing attainment

of the area is not a factor of consideration when evaluating RACT because the benefit of

implementing RACT is presumed under the FCAA.

In the final approval notice for the revised HGB one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP

revision published in the September 6, 2006, issue ofthe Federal Register (71 FR 52676), the

EPA noted that the HGB volatile organic compounds (VOC) rules in 30 Texas Administrative

Code (TAC) Chapter 115: Control ofAir Pollutionfrom Volatile Organic Compounds and

nitrogen oxides (NO,J rules in Chapter 117: Control ofAir Pollutionfrom Nitrogen Compounds

were previously determined to meet the FCAA RACT requirements. Therefore, controls to satisfy

RACT for emission source categories addressed in a CTG document issued prior to 2006 were

implemented by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) under the one-hour

ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision and previously approved by the EPA.

The EPA issued 11 CTG documents from 2006 through 2008 with recommendations forVOC

controls on a variety of consumer and commercial products. Some ofthe new CTG

recommendations are updates to previously issued CTG documents and some are

recommendations for new categories.

The RACT analysis included in the Houston-Galveston-BrazoriaAttainment Demonstration

State Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard (HGB AD SIP

revision) adopted March 10, 2010, addressed the following CTG documents:

• Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

A-1
• Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008.

The RACT analysis included in this SIP revision addresses the following seven CTG documents:

• Flexible Package Printing, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Group II, issued in 2006;

• Large Appliance Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Metal Furniture Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Group III, issued in 2007;

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Group IV, issued in 2008; and

• Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Group IV, issued in 2008.

By letter dated December 8, 2008, the TCEQ requested the EPA clarify several issues related to

the recommendations in the following three CTG documents: Control Techniques Guidelinesfor

LargeAppliance Coatings (EPA 453/R-07-004), issued in 2007; Control Techniques Guidelines

for Metal Furniture Coatings (EPA 453/R-07-005), issued in 2007; and Control Techniques

Guidelinesfor Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA 453/R-08-003), issued in

2008. Anumber of the recommended VOC content limits for specific coatings categories in

these 2007 and 2008 CTG documents are less stringent than the more general VOC content

limits specified in the following EPA guideline series recommendations: Control ofVolatile

Organic Emissionsfrom Existing Stationary Sources Volume V: Surface Coating ofLarge

Appliances (EPA-450/2-77-034), issued in 1977; Control ofVolatile Organic Emissionsfrom

Existing Stationary Sources Volume III: Surface Coating ofMetal Furniture (EPA-450/2-77-

032), issued in 1977; and Control ofVolatile Organic Emissionsfrom Existing Stationary

Sources Volume VI: Surface Coating ofMiscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (EPA-450/2-

78-015), issued in 1978. The TCEQ requested clarification to ensure that implementing the new

2007 and 2008 CTG recommendations would not be considered backsliding and to be certain

that the TCEQ has the appropriate information to determine whether the CTG

recommendations actually represent RACT for Texas. On March 17, 2011, the EPA issued a

guidance memorandum regarding these three CTG categories entitledApproving SIP Revisions

Addressing VOC RACTRequirementsfor Certain Coatings Categories. The EPA stated in the

memorandum that: "...if a state believes the volume usage distribution among the general and

specialty categories in the docket is representative ofthe distribution in the nonattainment area,

we believe that if a state undertakes wholesale adoption ofthe new categorical limits in a specific

CTG, the state may rely on the assessments in the docket to demonstrate that the range of new

limits will result in an overall reduction in emissions from the collection of covered coatings."

Consistent with this EPA memorandum, on June 8, 2011, the commission proposed rulemaking

(Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN) concurrent with this SIP revision to implement the

2007 and 2008 CTG-recommended RACT limitsfor these three emission source categories. The

proposed rulemaking provided discussion regarding the estimated percent reductions for these

CTG categories that supported the EPA's position that applying the new 2007 and 2008 CTGrecommended limits as a whole will result in net VOC emissions reductions. Despite the state's

demonstration that implementing the 2007 and 2008 CTG-recommended approach would not

interfere with attainment of, or reasonable progress towards attainment of, the ozone standard

for the HGB area, the EPA commented that in order for the proposed rules to be approved as

RACT, the state must also demonstrate that the existing Chapter 115linlitsfor these CTG

categories, which were based on the EPA's original 1977 and 1978 recommendations, are no

longer technologically or economically feasible.

A-2
The commission contends that by promulgating higher CfG-recommended RACf limits for

these source categories in 2007 and 2008, the EPA has established that the original 1977 and

1978 recommended limits, and thus the existing Chapter 115 limits, are no longer

technologically or economically feasible. However, the EPA's 2007 and 2008 CTG documents do

not specifically explain why the lower limits included in the EPA's original 1977 and 1978

recommendations for these source categories are no longer technologically or economically

feasible. In absence of any specific information indicating that the existing Chapter 115 limits for

these source categories are not technologically or economically feasible, and given the EPA's

stated intention to disapprove the rules without such a demonstration, the commission is

obligated under the FCAA to revise the proposed limits for these source categories. Therefore, in

response to the EPA's comment, the commission is revising the proposed limits for these three

source categories to only include the EPA's 2007 and 2008 CfG-recommended limits that are

equivalent to or lower than the existing Chapter 115 limits. Where the EPA's 2007 and 2008

CfG-recommended emission limits are less stringent than the EPA's original 1977 and 1978

recommended limits, the TCEQ is retaining the original emission limit in the current Chapter

115 rules, except for the high performance architectural coatingslimit for the miscellaneous

metal parts and products category. Additional details regarding the changes made in response to

the EPA's comments can be found in Section 1.3.2: vac RACTDetermination of this appendix

and in the preamble for the adopted rulemaking (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN).

1.2 RACf EVALUATION APPROACH

1.2.1 General Discussion

The TCEQ demonstrates that the RACT requirements are being fulfilled in the HGBarea by: (l)

identifying all CfG source categories of NOx and VOC emissions and submitting negative

declarations for categories where there are no emission sources within the HGB area; (2)

identifying all non-CTG major sources of NOx and VOC emissions; (3) identifying the state

regulation that implements or exceeds RACT for each applicable CfG source category or nonCfG major emission source; and (4) describing the basis for concluding that these regulations

fulfill RACf. Because this SIP revision focuses specifically on the seven CTG documents issued

by the EPA from 2006 through 2008 that were not addressed in the HGB AD SIP revision

adopted March 10, 2010, this RACf analysis only provides an update to the HGB VOC RACf

demonstration.

1.2.2 Identification ofCTG Emission Sources

The EPA has issued CTG documents defining RACf for existing facilities. The TCEQ reviewed

the seven Consumer and Commercial Products CfG documents issued from 2006 through 2008

that were not addressed in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted March 10, 2010, to identify all

source categories ofVOC emissions that require RACf. RACf determinations are not required if

there are no sources in the HGB area that are subject to a CfG document.

1.2.3 Determining ifState Regulations Fulfill RACf Requirements

The EPA previously approved the VOC rules in 30 TAC Chapter 115 as meeting the FCAA RACf

requirements for CTG documents issued prior to 2006. Federally approved state rules and rule

approval dates can be found in 40 CFR §52.2270(c), EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas

SIP.

RACf for the 11 CfG documents issued from 2006 through 2008 was evaluated by comparing

CTG recommendations to TCEQ rules to determine ifthe existing rules satisfied RACf. The

TCEQ reviewed the emission sources in the HGB area and the applicable state rules to verify

A-3
that all CTG emission source categories in the HGB area were subject to requirements that meet

or exceed the applicable RACT requirements, or that further emission controls on the sources

were either not economically feasible or not technologically feasible. RACT determinations for

four ofthe CTG documents issued from 2006 through 2008 were submitted to the EPA on April

6, 2010 (SIP Project Number 2009-017-SIP-NR). Additional discussion regarding the RACT

determinations for the remaining seven CTG documents issued from 2006 through 2008 is

provided in Section 1.3.2 ofthis appendix.

1.3 RACT DETERMINATION AND DISCUSSION

1.3.1 General Discussion

The HGB area is subject to some ofthe most stringent NOx and VOC emission control

requirements in the country, and for many source categories the existing rules are more

stringent than recommended RACT standards for those categories. In the fmal approval notice

for the revised HGB one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision (71 FR 52676,

September 6, 2006), the EPA noted that the HGB VOC rules in Chapter 115 and NOx rules in

Chapter 117 were previously determined to meet the FCAA RACT requirements. Under the onehour ozone NAAQS, the HGB area was also designated severe nonattainment and the threshold

for major stationary sources under the one-hour ozone nonattainment designation was identical

to the current threshold under the 1997 eight-hour ozone designation. Therefore, controls to

satisfy RACT for most major sources under the 1997 eight-hour ozone designation were

implemented by the TCEQ under the one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP revision

and previously approved by the EPA

1.3.2 VOC RACT Determination

1.3.2.1 Flexible Package Printing

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to the flexographic and

rotogravure printing rules in 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter E: Solvent-Using Processes,

Division 3: Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing to implement the EPA's 2006 Flexible

Package Printing CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are RACT in the HGB

area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The Chapter 115 rulemaking reduces the VOC

content limits of coatings, increases the overall control efficiency of add-on controls used in

flexible package printing processes, establishes work practice procedures for materials used

during associated cleaning activities, and expands rule applicability to include smaller flexible

package printing lines that were previously exempt from these rules.

The TCEQ is not implementing the EPA's 2006 CTG recommendation to exempt flexible

package printing operations from all VOC coating content limits ifthe operations have total

actual VOC emissions less than 15 pounds per day from inks, coatings, and adhesives. For the

HGB area, the existing Chapter 115 rules provide an exemption for combined flexographic and

rotogravure printing operations with the potential to emit less than 25 tons per year (tpy) of

VOC from inks. Calculating only the VOC emissions resulting from flexible package printing

operations to determine exemption from the required controls may create backsliding issues for

properties already complying with the current Chapter 115 rules because sources currently

subject to the Chapter 115 rules could potentially become exempt. The existing Chapter 115

exemption limit is equal to or potentially more stringent than the 2006 CTG-recommended

exemption threshold for properties conducting multiple flexographic and rotogravure printing

operations, and is retained in the rules.

A-4
Additionally, the TCEQ is not implementing the EPA's 2006 CTG recommendation to exempt a

flexible package printing line from complying with VOC coating content limits if the line has the

potential to emit less than 25 tpy of uncontrolled VOC emissions from the dryer, inks, coatings,

and adhesives. As previously stated, the current Chapter 115 rules require combining the VOC

emissions from all flexographic and rotogravure printing lines to determine exemption from the

VOC coating content limits. Implementing the 2006 CTG recommendation may exempt flexible

package printing lines co-located on a property with other flexographic and rotogravure printing

lines that are currently required to comply with the VOC control limits. The Chapter 115 rules

retain the existing VOC content limits for a flexible package printing line with VOC emissions

below the 2006 CTG-recommended exemption threshold.

The EPA's 2006 CTG recommends requiring control equipment to have an overall control

efficiency ranging from 65% to 80% depending on the first installation date ofthe press and

control equipment. The TCEQ disagrees with the 2006 CTG recommendation for flexible

package printing to correlate control device efficiency requirements with the first installation

date ofthe printing press or control device regardless ofwhere the equipment was first installed.

Imposing this policy may encourage the installation of older, less efficient equipment and may

create potential backsliding issues if a source becomes subject to a lower efficiency standard as a

result of equipment replacement. The policy may also create significant practical enforceability

issues for TCEQ investigators with regard to verifying the first installation date ofthe control

equipment. Instead, the TCEQ is requiring the CTG-recommended 80% overall control

efficiency for flexible package printing, regardless of the first installation date.

1.3.2.2 Industrial Cleaning Solvents

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115,

Subchapter E, to create new Division 6: Industrial Cleaning Solvents to implement the EPA's

2006 Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are

RACT in the HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The Chapter 115 rulemaking

establishes VOC content limits for cleaning solvents used in specific cleaning activities, provides

exemptions for certain cleaning activities from all or portions ofthe rule, and requires certain

work practice procedures for the use, storage, and disposal of cleaning solvents. In response to

comments on the proposed industrial cleaning solvents rules, the commission is adopting new

§115.461(C) to exempt a solvent cleaning operation from the requirements in this division ifthe

VOC emissions from that solvent cleaning operation are controlled by the control requirements

or emission specifications in another division in Chapter 115. The adopted new exemption

provides flexibility and reduces the compliance burden for affected sources. Additionally, the

commission expects that complying with requirements in other Chapter 115 rules is at least as

effective as meeting the industrial cleaning solvents rule requirements. The adopted exemption

is consistent with the EPA's 2006 CTG recommendation to ensure that a particular cleaning

activity is not subject to duplicative requirements.

1.3.2.3 Large Appliance Coatings

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115,

Subchapter E, to create new Division 5: Control Requirementsfor Suiface Coating Processes to

implement the EPA's 2007 Large Appliance Coatings CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has

determined are RACT in the HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The Chapter

115 rulemaking reduces VOC content limits of coatings, increases the overall control efficiency

for add-on controls used in large appliance coating operations, and establishes minimum

transfer efficiency for coating application methods. The rules also require certain work practice

procedures for coating-related activities and materials used during associated cleaning

operations.

A-S
The EPA's 2007 CTG recommends exempting large appliance coating operations from the

coating VOC content limits and work practice standards iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions

from coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The current

TCEQ rules provide an exemption from the coating VOC content limits for large appliance

coating operations if total uncontrolled VOC emissions from all applicable coating processes on

a property subject to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2: Surface Coating Processes are less

than 3.0 pounds per hour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption from the required

VOC controls may be more stringent for properties conducting multiple coating operations

specified in Division 2 because the exemption is not based on VOC emissions from a single

coating category. To prevent potential backsliding for properties already required to comply

with the state's regulations, the Chapter 115 rules retain the existing exemption criteria.

The existing Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 large appliance coating limit is based on the

EPA guideline series recommendations in Control ofVolatile Organic Emissionsfrom Existing

Stationary Sources Volume V: Surface Coating ofLarge Appliances (EPA-450/2-77-034),

issued in 1977. Several ofthe EPA's recommended VOC content limits for specific coating

categories in the 2007 CTG document are less stringent than the limit specified in the EPA's

original 1977 recommendation for this coating category. The 2007 CTG also recommends

minimum solids transfer efficiency for coating application equipment. Despite the higher VOC

content limitsfor the specialty coatings, the EPA's 2007 CTG claims that implementing the

limits as recommended would result in an overall emissions reduction and provides

documentation containing the methodology used to estimate the reduction. The TCEQ also

conducted a comprehensive comparison ofthe 2007 CTG recommendations to the existing

Chapter 115 VOC limit and determined that implementing the 2007 CTG-recommended coating

VOC content limits will not negatively impact the status ofthe state's attainment of, or

reasonable further progress toward attainment of, the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. Despite

the full demonstration of noninterference provided in the proposed rule preamble (Rule Project

Number 2010-016-115-EN), the EPA commented that in order for the proposed rules to be

approved as RACT, the state must also demonstrate that the existing Chapter 115 VOC emission

limit for large appliance coatings, which was based on the EPA's original 1977 recommendation,

is no longer teclmologically or economically feasible. The commission contends that by

promulgating higher CTG-recommended RACTlimits for large appliance coatings in 2007, the

EPA has established that the original1977-recommended limit, and thus the existing Chapter

115 limit, is no longer technologically or economically feasible. However, the EPA's 2007 CTG

did not specifically explain why the lower limit included in the EPA's original 1977

recommendation is no longer technologically or economically feasible. In absence of any specific

information indicating that the existing Chapter 115 large appliance coating emission limit is no

longer technologically or economically feasible, the adopted Chapter 115 rules only include the

EPA's 2007 CTG-recommended limits that are equivalent to orlower than the existing Chapter

115 limit.

1.3.2.4 Metal Furniture Coatings

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115,

Subchapter E, to create new Division 5 to implement the EPA's 2007 Metal Furniture Coatings

CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are RACT in the HGB area (Rule Project

Number 2010-0l6-115-EN). The Chapter 115 rulemaking reduces VOC content limits of

coatings, increases the overall control efficiency for add-on controls used in metal furniture

coating operations, and establishes mininmm transfer efficiency of coating application methods.

The rules also require certain work practice procedures for coating-related activities and

materials used during associated cleaning operations.

A-6
The EPA's 2007 CTG recommends exempting metal furniture coating operations from the

coating VOC content limits and work practice standards if total uncontrolled VOC emissions

from coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The current

TCEQ rules provide an exemption from the coating VOC content limits for metal furniture

coating operations iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions from coatings in all applicable coating

processes located on a property subject to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 are less than

3.0 pounds per hour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption from the required VOC

controls may be more stringent for properties conducting multiple coating processes specified in

Division 2 because the exemption is not based on VOC emissions from a single coating category.

To prevent potential backsliding for properties already required to comply with the state's

regulations, the Chapter 115 rules retain the existing exemption cri.teria.

The existing Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 metal furniture coating limit is based on the

EPA guideline series recommendations in Control ofVolatile Organic Emissionsfrom Existing

Stationary Sources Volume III: Surface Coating ofMetal Furniture (EPA-450/2-77-032),

issued in 1977. Several ofthe EPA's recommended VOC content limits for specific coating

categories in the 2007 CTG document are less stringent than the limit specified in the EPA's

original 1977 recommendation for this coating category. The 2007 CTG also recommends

minimum solids transfer efficiency for coating application equipment. Despite the higher VOC

content limits for the specialty coatings, the EPA's 2007 CTG claims that implementing the

limits as recommended would result in an overall emissions reduction and provides

documentation containing the methodology used to estimate the reduction. The TCEQ also

conducted a comprehensive comparison of the 2007 CTG recommendations to the existing

Chapter 115 VOC limit and determined that implementing the 2007 CTG-recommended coating

VOC content limits will not negatively impact the status ofthe state's attainment of, or

reasonable further progress toward attainment of, the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. Despite

the full demonstration of noninterference provided in the proposed rule preamble (Rule Project

Number 2010-016-115-EN), the EPA commented that in order for the proposed rules to be .

approved as RACT, the state must also demonstrate that the existing Chapter 115 VOC emission

limit for metal furniture coatings, which was based on the EPA's original 1977 recommendation

for metal fumiture coatings, is no longer technologically or economically feasible. The

commission contends that by promulgating higher CTG-recommended RACT limits for metal

furniture coatings in 2007, the EPA has established that the original 1977 CTG-recommended

limit, and thus the existing Chapter 115 limit, is no longer technologically or economically

feasible. However, the EPA's 2007 CTG for metal furniture coatings did not specifically explain

why the lower limit included in the original 1977 recommendation is no longer technologically or

economically feasible. In absence of any specific information indicating that the existing Chapter

115 metal furniture coating limit is no longer technologically or economically feasible, the

adopted Chapter 115 rules only include the EPA's 2007 CTG-recommended limits that are

equivalent to or lower than the existing Chapter 115 limit.

1.3.2.5 Paper. Film, and Foil Coatings

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115,

Subchapter E, to create new Division 5 to implement the EPA's 2007 Paper, Film, and Foil

Coatings CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are RACT in the HGB area (Rule

Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The Chapter 115 rulemaking reduces the VOC content limits

of coatings; increases the overall control efficiency for add-on controls used in paper, film, and

foil coating operations; and establishes work practice procedures for materials used during

cleaning operations associated with paper, film, and foil coating.

A-7
The EPA's 2007 CTG recommends exempting all paper, film, and foil coating operations on a

property from the coating VOC content limits and work practice standards if total uncontrolled

VOC emissions from paper, film, and foil coatings and associated cleaning solvents are less than

15 pounds per day. The current TCEQ rules provide an exemption from the coating VOC content

limits for paper, film, and foil coating operations iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions from all

applicable surface coating processes on a property subject to Chapter 115, Subc!lapter E,

Division 2 are less than 3.0 pounds per hour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption

from the required VOC controls may be more stringent for properties conducting multiple

coating processes specified in Division 2 because the exemption is not based on VOC emissions

from a single coating category. To prevent potential backsliding for properties conducting paper,

film, and foil coating operations already required to comply with the state's regulations, the

Chapter 115 rules retain the existing exemption criteria.

Additionally, the TCEQ is not implementing the EPA's 2007 CTG recommendation to exempt a

paper, film, and foil coating line from complying with VOC coating content limits ifthe line has

the potential to emit less than 25 tpy of uncontrolled VOC emissions from coatings. As

previously stated, the current Chapter 115 rules require combining the VOC emissions from all

applicable surface coating processes located on a property subject to Subc!lapter E, Division 2 to

determine exemption from the VOC coating content limits. Implementing the 2007 CTG

recommendation may exempt paper, film, and foil coating lines co-located on a property with

other coating lines subject to Division 2 that are currently complying the VOC coating content

limits. To prevent backsliding, the Chapter 115 rules retain the existing VOC content limits for a

paper, film, and foil coating line with VOC emissions below the 2007 CTG-recommended

exemption threshold.

1.3.2.6 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115,

Subc!lapter E, to create new Division 7: Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives to implement the

EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has

determined are RACT in the HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The Chapter

115 rulemaking implements VOC content limits for general adhesive application processes,

specialty adhesive application processes, and adhesive primer application processes; provides

exemptions for certain cleaning activities from all or portions ofthe rule; incorporates test

methods and recordkeeping requirements; and establishes mininlum transfer efficiency of

adhesive application methods. The rules also require certain work practice procedures for

adhesive-related activities and materials used during associated cleaning operations. In

response to comments, the commission is revising §115.470(a) to clarify the rules in Division 7

apply to manufacturing operations that use adhesives for any ofthe adhesive application

processes specified in the control requirements in §115-473(a); adhesives applied in the field

(e.g., adhesives applied at construction jobs in the field) are not subject to this division. The

revised rule applicability in §115.470(a) more accurately reflects the sources affected by the CTG

recommendations as described by the EPA in the final rule for the 2008 Miscellaneous

Industrial Adhesives CTG (73 FR 58489).

1.3.2.7.Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

Concurrent with this SIP revision, the commission is adopting revisions to Chapter 115,

Subc!lapter E, to create new Division 5, to implement the EPA's 2008 Miscellaneous Metal and

Plastic Parts Coatings CTG recommendations that the TCEQ has determined are RACT in the

HGB area (Rule Project Number 2010-016-115-EN). The miscellaneous plastic parts category of

the CTG represents a new RACT CTG category for the HGB area, and the current coatings rules

in Chapter 115, Subc!lapter E, Division 2 do not apply to miscellaneous plastic parts. The

A-8
Chapter 115 rulemaking expands the scope of the existing rule applicability to include the new

coating categories recommended in the 2008 CfG. The Chapter 115 rulemaking reduces VOC

content limits of coatings, increases the overall control efficiency of add-on controls, and

establishes minimum transfer efficiency of coating application methods. The rules also require

certain work practice procedures for coating-related activities and materials used during

associated cleaning operations.

The EPA's 2008 CfG recommends exempting miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating

operations from the VOC control requirements iftotal uncontrolled VOC emissions from

coatings and cleaning solvents are less than 15 pounds per day. The current TCEQ rules exempt

miscellaneous metal parts and products coating operations from the required VOC coating

limits iflocated on a property where total uncontrolled VOC emissionsfrom all applicable

surface coating processes subject to Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 are less than 3.0

pounds per hour and 15 pounds per day. The existing exemption from the required controls may

be more stringent for properties conducting multiple coating processes specified in Division 2

because the exemption is not based on VOC emissions from a single coating category. To

prevent potential backsliding for sources already subject to the Chapter 115 rules, the rule

revisions integrate the new 2008 CfG coating categories into the existing exemption from the

VOC control requirements. The Chapter 115 rules retain the state's approach to maintain

con.sistency ,vith the current exemption criteria.

The existing Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Division 2 miscellaneous metal part and product

coating limits are based on the EPA guideline series recommendations in Control ofVolatile

Organic Emissionsfrom Existing Stationary Sources Volume VI: Surface Coating of

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (EPA-450/2-78-015), issued in 1978. Several ofthe

EPA's recommended VOC content limits for specific coating categories in the 2008 CfG

document are less stringent than the limits specified in the EPA's original 1978

recommendations for this coating category. The 2008 CfG also recommends minimum solids

transfer efficiency for coating application equipment. Although the 2008 CTG does not quantify

the estimated VOC emissions reduced as a result ofimplementing the recommended VOC

content limits, the TCEQ applied an approach consistent with the methodology the EPA used to

estimate VOC emission reductions associated with implementing the 2007 Large Appliance

Coating CTG and 2007 Metal Furniture Coating CTG recommendations. The TCEQ determined

that implementing the 2008 CfG-recommended.coating VOC content limits for miscellaneous

metal part and product coatings will not negatively impact the status ofthe state's attainment of,

or reasonable further progress toward attainment of, the 1997eight-hour ozone NAAQS. Despite

the full demonstration of noninterference provided in the proposed rule preamble (Rule Project

Number 201O-016-115-EN), the EPA commented that in order for the proposed rules to be

approved as RACT, the state must also demonstrate that the existing Chapter 115 VOC limits for

miscellaneous metal part and product coatings, which were based on the EPA's original 1978

recommendations, are no longer technologically or economically feasible. The commission

contends that by promulgating higher CTG-recommended RACf limits for miscellaneous metal

part and product coatings in 2007, the EPA has established that the original 1978-recommended

limits, and thus the existing Chapter 115 limits, are no longer technologically or economically

feasible. However, the EPA's 2008 CTG did not specifically explain why the lower limits

included in the EPA's original 1978 recommendations are no longer technologically or

economically feasible, with the exception ofthe 2007-recommended limitfor high performance

architectural coatings. In absence of any specific information indicating that the existing

Chapter 115 miscellaneous metal part and product coating limits are no longer technologically or

economically feasible, the adopted Chapter 115 rules only include the EPA's 2008 CTGrecommended limits that are equivalent to or lower than the existing Chapter 115 limits. In light

A-9
ofthe technological and economic feasibility issues detailed in the EPA's 2008 CTG that are

associated with high performance architectural coatings containing less than 6.2 pounds ofVOC

per gallon of coating (lb VOC/gal coating), the commission is adopting to retain the EPA's 2008

CTG-recommended 6.2 lb VOCIgal coating limitfor high performance architectural coatings in

the adopted Chapter 11S miscellaneous metal parts and products rules.

In response to comments, the commission has revised §11S.427 to limit the rule applicability to

only those designated on-site maintenance shops that re-coat used parts or products that were

required to comply with the rules in Division 2 prior to January 1,2012, which is the beginning

ofthe calendar year shortly after the expected effective date ofthe rule revision. Additionally, in

response to this same comment, the commission has revised §11S.4so(a) to exclude designated

on-site maintenance shops from the miscellaneous metal parts and products coatings rule

applicability in Division S. The adopted revisions prevent any potential backsliding concerns by

requiring sources that are currently complying with these rules in Division 2 to continue to meet

these VOC limits. The adopted revisions are consistent with the intent ofthe EPA's 1977 and

2008 CTG RACT recommendations for miscellaneous metal parts and products coatings and the

commission maintains the rules continue to satisfy RACT requirements in FCAA, §172(C)(1) and

§182(b)(2) for this CTG emission source category. Regulating the coating ofmiscellaneous metal

parts and products at a new designated on-site maintenance shop is not appropriate since VOC

reductions do not advance attainment ofthe 1997 eight-hour ozone standard for the HGB area,

as demonstrated in the RACM analyses in the HGB AD SIP revision adopted on March 10,

2010.

In response to comments, the commission added n,ew §11SASl(2)(D) to exempt all other coating

categories regulated in Divisions 2 and Sfrom the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts

coatings rules. Incorporating this new exemption into §11SASI clarifies that the miscellaneous

metal parts and products coatings rules do not apply to the coating operations characterized by

another rule specified in Division 2 and Division S.

Based on information provided during the public comment period, the commission determined

that some ofthe pleasure craft coatingVOC limits included in the EPA's 2008 CTG

recommendations are not technologically feasible at this time and therefore do not represent

RACT. In response to comments, the commission is increasing the VOC limit for extreme highgloss coatings to S.o lb VOCIgal coating and revising the definition include any coating that

achieves greater than 90% reflectance on a 60 degree meter. In response to comments, the

commission is increasing the VOC limit forfinish primer/surfacer coatings to s.o lb VOC/gal

coating. In response to comments, the commission is increasing the VOC limit for other

substrate antifoulant coatings to 3.341bVOCIgal coating. In response to comments, the

commission is introducing a new specialty coating category for antifoulantsealer/tie coatings,

which are coatings applied over biocidal antifoulant coating for the purpose of preventing

release of biocides into the environment, or to promote adhesion between an antifoulant and a

primer or other antifoulants, and is establishing a VOC limit of 3.Slb VOC/gal coating for this

new category. In response to comments, the commission is revising the definition of

pretreatmentwash primer coatings to include any coating that contains no more than 2S%

solids, by weight, and at least 0.1% acids, by weight; is used to provide surface etching; and is

applied directly to fiberglass and metal surface to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of

subsequent coatings.

A-I0
APPENDIX A

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

ANALYSIS

Attachment 1

December 8, 2008, Letter to Mr. William T. Harnett, Director,

Air Quality Policy Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency

on Issues Related to Control Techniques Guidelines Documents
,f

Buddy Garcia, Chairman

Larry R. Soward, Commissioner

Bryan W, Shaw, Ph.D., Commissioner

Mark R. Vickery, p.e., Executive Director

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution .

December 8, 2008

Mr. William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division

Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards Organization

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Drop C504-01

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

Dear Director Harnett:

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCECD" Air Quality Division is currently reviewiDg

the Consumer and Commercial Products Group II, Group III, and Group IV Control Techniques

Guidelines (CTG) documents released by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

from 2006 through 2008. Our evaluation of these CTG documents has prompted several questions

regarding the CTG documents for Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. The issues and questions related to these CTG

documents are detaiied below.

Texas' existing rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 115 for controlling volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from the surface coating of large appliancesI, metal furniture2

, and

miscellaneous metal parts and products' were based on the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards (OAQPS) corresponding 1977 and 1978 Guideline Series' (GS) recommendations. The

existing emission standards for surface coating of large appliances and metal furniture are not specific to

coating zPes; however, the 2007 CTG documents for Large Appliance Coatings' and Metal Furniture

Coatings recommend setting coaling type specific emission standards. Some of the recommended

emissions standards are equivalent or more stringent than the existing generic standards while some

recommended emission standards are less,stringent than the existing standards. Similarly, the 2008 CTG

for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings' also recommends emission standards for certain

coating types that are less stringent than the existing 30 TAC Chapter 115 emission standards. Please see

the enclosed table for a more detailed comparison of the existing VOC emission standards based on the

1977 and 1978 GS recommendations (and TCEQ rules) versus the 2001 and 2008 CTG documents for

these categories.

Since some ofthe limits recommended for these specifiC coating types are less stringent than the existing

emission standards based on the EPA's original GS recommendations, TCEQ's Air Quality Division has,

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us

prinL~d 011 TlXytll>tl r~per u.'Iint! wy-bios.:d ink
Mr. William T. Harnett

Page 2

December 8, 2008

concerns that implementing the new CTG recommendations could be perceived as backsliding. In

addition, these discrepancies may make it impossible for TCEQ staff to determine if actual vac

reduction benefit would occur from implementing the CTG recommendations. Given the limited

explanationS of how these differences should be considered in light of the original GS standards, the

TCEQ Air Quality Division is requesting written guidance to clarify the intent of the EPA's new CTG

recommendations with regard to the following issues.

I. Specific clarification is needed that implementing the recommendations in the new CTG would

not be considered backsliding.

2. Are the coating type categories in the new CTG considered by the EPA to be coating types that

were unregulated by the original GS recommendations or is this a situation where these specific

coatings were covered under the original guidance, but the EPA has re-evaluated what is

technically feasible for these specialty coating types? What data was used to make this

determination?

3. In light of the varying stringency of the recommended coating standards in these new CTG

documents, how did the EPA determine the overall reduction benefit? Additional information,

beyond what' is provided in the docket, is necessary for the state to determine whether

implementing th~ CTG recommendations will result in a net VOC reduction in the specific

nonattainment areas where these CTG recommendations would be. implemented.

The EPA's clarification regarding these issues is critical for the Air Quality Division to complete our

evaluation of the CTG recommendations and proceed with any recommendation to TCEQ's executive

management and the commission regarding the potential implementation of the EPA's CTG

recommendations. Therefore, your expeditious response regarding these issues is greatly appreciated.

You may contact me at 512-239-4696.

Sincerely,

?uL/CcL

0usana M. Hildebrand, P.E. .

Director, Air Quality Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

SMH/LAIsy

Enclosures: References

Emission Limit Comparison Table

cc: Mr. Guy Donaldson, EPA Region 6

Ms. Ellen Belk, EPA Region 6

Mr. Bruce Moore, EPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards·

Mr. Bill Johnson, EPA, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards
Enclosure: References

I: Title 30 TAC §1l5.421(a)(I), Emission Specifications for Large Appliance Coating (Amended

January 17,2003).

2: Title 30 TAC §1l5.421(a)(2), Emission Specifications for Metal Furniture Coating (Amended

January 17,2003).

3: Title 30 TAC §115.42I(a)(9)(A), Emission Specifications for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products Coating (Amended January 17, 2003).

4: Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume

V: Surface Coating ofLarge Appliances, Publication number EPA-450/2-77-0.34. .

Guideline Series. Control ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume

ill: Surface Coating ofMetal Furniture, Publication number EPA-45012-77-032.

Guideline Series. cOntrol ofVolatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume'

VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, Publication number EPA-45012-78-

015,

5: Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings. Publication number EPA 453/R-07-

004.

6: Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture- Coatings. Publication number EPA 453/R-07-

005.

7: Control Te.chniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. Publication

number EPA 453/R-08-003.

8: EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0329-0009 and EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0334-0010.
Enclosure: Emission Limit Comparison Table

Comparison of 30 TAC Chapter 115 Emission Limits and 2006-2008 CTG Recommended Emission

Limits

Chapter 115 CTG Recommended

Coaling Type· Emission Limit·· . . Emission Limit-·

Baked Coatinl! I· Air-Dried Coatin~

Larl!e Appliance Coatinl!

General One Comoonent 2.8 2.3 2.3

General Multi-Comoonent 2.8 2.3 2.8

Extreme Hi~h Gloss 2.8 3.0 2.8

Extreme Performance 2.8 3.0 3.5

Heat Resistant 2.8 3.0 3.5

Metallic 2.8 3.5 3.5

Pretl'eatment Coatings 2.8 3.5 3.5

Solar Absorbent 2.8 3.0 3.5

Melal Furniture Coatine

General One Comoonent 3.0 2.3 2.3'

General Multi-Comoonent 3.0 2.3 2.8

Extreme Hil<h Gloss 3.0 3.0 2.8

Extreme Perf.onnance 3.0 3.0 3.5

Heat Resistant 3.0 3.0 . 3.5

'Metallic 3.0 3.5 3.5

Pretreatment CoatinO's 3.0 3.5 3.5

Solar Absorbent 3.0 3.0 3.5 .

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coatin~

General One Comoonent 3.0 2.3 2.8

General Multi Comoonent 3.0 2.3 2.8

CamouflaU'e 3.0 3.5 3.5

Electric-!nsulatinl< Varnish 3.0 3.5 3.5

Etchin!! Fille;' 3.0 3.5 3.5

Extreme High-Gloss 3.0 3.0 3.5

Extreme Ferfonnance 3.5 3.0 3.5

Heat-Resistant 3.5 3.0 3.5

Hiah Performance Al'chitectu...1 3.0 6.2 6.2

High Temperature 3.0 3.5 3.5

Metallic 3.0 3.5 3.5

Militarv Soecification . 3.0 2.3 2.8

Mold-Seal 3.0 3.5 3.5

Pall Backing 3.0 3.5 3.5

Prefabricated Arch itectllral 3.0 2.3 3.5

Multi-Component

Prefabricated Architectural One- 3.0 2.3 3.5

Component

Pretreatment Coatings 3.0 3.5 3.5

Repair and Touchup 3.0 3.0 3.5

Silicone Release 3.0 3.5 3.5

Solar-Absorbent 3.0 3.0 3.5
·

Comparison of 30 TAC Chapter 115 Emission Limits and 2006-2008 CTG Recommended Emission

Limits

Chapter 115 CTG Recommended

Coating Type" Emission Limit"" Emission Limit"" Baked Coatin!! Air-Dried Coatln!!

VaCllum-Metalizino 3.0 3.5 3.5

Drum Coatin!!, New. Exterior 3.0 2.8 2.8

Drum Coatinl!;, New Interior 4.3 3.5 3.5

Drum Coating, Reconditioned, 3.0 3.5 3.5

ExteJior

Drum Coating, Reconditioned, 4.3 4.2 4.2

Interior

*The CTG recommended emission limits for coating types listed in red font are less stringent than

existing Chapter 115 limits.

*" Limit expressed in pounds per gallon of coating (minus water and exempt solvent) delivered to the

application system.
Mr. William T. Harnett

Page 3

December 8, 2008

bcc: Theresa Pella

Ashley Forbes

Vincent Meiller

Lindley Anderson

Amy Browning
APPENDIX A

REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

ANALYSIS

Attachment 2

March 17, 2011, Memorandum from

Scott Mathias, Air Quality Policy Division, United States Environmental Protection

Approving SIPRevisions Addressing vacRAerRequirementsfor Certain Coatings

Categories
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

MAR ! 7 2011 OFFICE OF

AlA QUALITY PlANNING

AND STANDARDS

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain

Coatings Categories

FROM: Scott Mathias, Interim Direct I ~/~.i.c Air Quality Policy Division (~lA1a

TO: Regional Air Division Directors

The Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards has received requests from

Regional Offices for guidance on approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

resulting from newly-issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) documents. These

CTGs provide recommendations to inform state determinations as to whatconstitutes

reasonably available control technology (RACT). In some cases, the newly-issued CTGs

contain recommended emission limits that are less stringent than limits recommended in

older CTGs covering the same industry, and may be less stringent than limits already adopted

into SIPs based on the older CTGs. This is the case for industries covered by CTGs

pertaining to Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal

and Plastic Parts Coatings.

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new CTGs for these

categories in 2007 and 2008, under authority of Clean Air Act (CM) section I 83(e), to

address volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from categories of consumer and

commercial products. They replace similar CTGs issued by EPA in 1977 and 1978. The

new CTGs recommend more stringent limits for general use coatings, but also include new

recommendations for several "specialty use" categories that are less stringent than the

general use limits established in the 1970s guidelines.

States are required to submit a SIP revision in response to any newly-issued CTGs. I

If an existing SIP contains requirements that are not less stringent than the applicability

thresholds and/or coating operations limits recommended in new CTGs, the state may choose

to submit as a SIP revision a certification that the existing SIP meets RACT requirements.

I eAA section 182(bX2) requires Moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to revise SIPs when a new

eTG is issued by EPA after 1990. EPA is required to set a SIP submission deadline with the issuance of each

CTG. For eTGs we have issued in the past several years, we have specified a submission deadline of one year

after the eTG was issued (See 72 FR 57215 Oct 9, 2007 and 73 FR 5848 Oct 7,2008).

Inteme' Address (URL). http;//www.spa.gov

RecycledJRecyclable • Prtnled with Vegetable ON Based Ink! OIl Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Posloonsumer)
We anticipate that EPA Regional Offices would be able to approve the MCT determinations

in these circumstances. We note that EPA's recommendations in CTOs are generally treated

as "presumptive" RACT and states may demonstrate that other limits are RACT for one or

more sources within the soW'ce category addressed by the CTO. Where a state has

previously detelmined that more stringent applicability thresholds and/or control levels are

RACT for one or more sources in a source category and the sources have complied with

those requirements, then those existing controls should be considered RACT for such

sources.

If a state chooses to revise more stringent rules that are alr,eady in the approved SIP,

so that those rules reflect the less-stringent recommended limits in the new CTOs, there are

additional considerations that must be factored into any EPA decision to approve the SIP

revision. The state would need to first demonstrate that the SIP-approved control

requirements are not reasonably available considering technological and economic

feasibility, consistent with EPA's definition ofRACT. See 44 FR 53762 (September 17,

1979). In addition, in order to comply with the SIP approval conditions ofCAA section

110(1), the state would need to demonstrate that the revision to the SIP would not interfere

with attairunent of, or reasonable further progress toward attainment of, the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards, nor interfere with any other applicable requirement ofthe

CAA. This would be demonstrated ifthe stricter limits on general use coatings provide

sufficient emission reductions to entirely offset any emission increase caused by adopting the

less stringent limits for specialty coatings. Alternatively, the state could adopt supplemental

measures that achieve additional emission reductions from another source category in

another industry to offset the increased emissions from the specialty coatings. In general, if a

proposed SIP revision achieves the same or greater emission reductions as the approved SIP

within the same timeframe as provided under the existing plan, the Regional Office should be

able to determine that the SIP revision is consistent with the approval conditions of CAA

section 110(1).

The public dockets for the Large Appliance Coatings and the Metal Furniture

Coatings CTOs contain information that states may find helpful in detelmining the reductions

that can be achieved by adopting the new general use category CTO limits for these

industrics. According to the docketed information, the estimated l'eductions from the new

CTOs are 30 to 35 percent greater than from the older CTOs. See documents EPA-HQOAR-2007-0329-0009 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0334-0010 in dockets EPA-HQ-OAR2007-0329 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0334, respectively. The increase in emissions

reductions in any specific nonattainment area may vary depending on the volume usage

distribution among the general and specialty categories in that area. The dockets for the new

CTOs do not contain area-specifiC analyses of potential emissions reductions. Oenerally, if a

state believes the volume usage distribution among the general and specialty categories in the

docket is representative of the distribution in the nonattairunent area, we believe that if a state

undertakes wholesale adoption ofthe new categorical limits in a specific CTO, the state may

rely on the assessments in the docket to demonstrate that the range of new limits will result in

an overall reduction in emissions from the collection of covered coatings. However, if a state

adopts some specialty category limits, but not all of the new categorical limits, or determines

that it has a different volume usage distribution among categories, the state may need to do

an area-specific assessment of whether tighter restrictions for some coatings, coupled with

2
less stringcnt restrictions on other coatings would provide overall equal or greater emissions

reductions than the set ofrules based on the recommendations in the 1970s guidelines.

If you have further questions on SIP-related issues you should contact Butch

Stackhouse at (919) 541-5208. If you have fUlfuer technical questions on the topics covered

in this memorandum you should contact Kaye Whitfield at (919) 541-2509.

ec: Robin DUl1kins, SPPD

Kimber Scavo, AQPD

David Orlin, OGe

Sara Schneeberg, OGe

3
THE STATE OF~XAS

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIR~tha lTY

this is a true and correct copy of a

Kh~E Op Texas Commission on Environmental Quality document

. ,<>0, which is filed in the permanent records of the cOIIlIIlisskJn '" if Given under my hand and the seal of office on .

BritX;~rk [lEG 12 2011

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

ORDER ADOPTING

REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Docket No. 2011-0083-SIP

On December 7, 2011, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission),

during a public meeting, considered adoption ofrevisions to the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Commission adopts a reasonably available control

technology (RACT) analysis update to include Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) not yet

addressed in the HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 eight-hour ozone

NAAQS; and corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP). Under Tex.

Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 382.011, 382.012, and 382.023 (Vernon 2008), the

Commission has the authority to control the quality ofthe state's air and to issue orders

consistent with the policies and purposes ofthe Texas Clean Air Act, Chapter 382 ofthe Tex.

Health & Safety Code. Notice ofthe proposed revisions to the SIP was published for comment

in the June 24, 2011, issue ofthe Texas Register (36 TexReg 3985).

Pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 51.102 and after proper notice, the

Commission conducted public hearings to consider the revisions to the SIP. Proper notice

included prominent advertisement in the areas affected at least 30 days prior to the dates of

the hearings. Public hearings were held in Houston, Texas on July 18, 2011 and Austin, Texas

on July 22, 2011.

The Commission circulated hearing notices of its intended action to the public,

including interested persons, the Regional Administrator ofthe EPA, and all applicable local

air pollution control agencies. The public was invited to submit data, views, and

recommendations on the proposed SIP revisions, either orally or in writing, at the hearings or

during the comment period. Prior to the scheduled hearings, copies ofthe proposed SIP

re,isions were available for public inspection at the Commission's central office and on the

Commission's Web site.

Data, views, and recommendations ofinterested persons regarding the proposed SIP

revisions were submitted to the Commission during the comment period, and were

considered by the Commission as reflected in the analysis oftestimony incorporated by

reference to this Order. The Commission finds that the analysis oftestimony includes the

names of all interested groups or associations offering comment on the proposed SIP

revisions and their position concerning the same.
,', ~. ,j'': /-',! t ":;;'1'

, . IT ~S, THE!lliF~F.$ ORRWD,BY THE COMMISSION that the revisions to the SIP

"'9' 1,)Ii,Co~P'9,f~i¢d"py."ie~eI.encetothiS orner are hereby adopted. The adopted revisions to the SIP

",,,'2ii'llar,e in:corporalted byrJ)eferencein-thi!f'~rder as ifset forth at length verbatim in this Order.

,,(: •.);11..... ·] Tl " ... :~ . .-., . ,"',": l)!,.,.', ., "~" ',r.'I."r.J

_ _ ' . IT IS FUR:rtmiLOR'D~REEl BY THE COMMISSION that on behalf ofthe Commission,

the Chairman should,transmifi acepy ofthis Order, together with the adopted revisions to the

SIPiTO theRegionat!Administrator6f EPA as a proposed revision to the Texas SIP pursuant to

the Federal Clean Air Act, codified at 42 U,S, Code Ann. §§ 7401 - 7671Q, as amended.

If any portion ofthis Order is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent

jurisdiction, the invalidity of any portion shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining

portions.

Date issued: DEC 12 2011

TEXAS COMMISSION ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Bryan W, haw, Ph.D., Chairman