SUPPLEMENTAL BASIS STATEMENT

CHAPTER 12 9 SURFACE COATING FACILITIES

APRIL 201 5

Commenters:

1

. Anne Arnold U.S. EPA Region 1 Boston, MA

************************************************************************

1. Comment : Maine proposes applicability th reshold values as tons per year. The EPA control technique guidelines (CTG) for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings (MMPPC) recommends using “tons per 12

- month rolling period” rather than “tons per year.” The “per year” period could be interpret ed multiple ways, while the 12

- month rolling period allows for compliance determinations to be made on a monthly basis rather than waiting for a year’s worth of records to accumulate. EPA recommends changing all “per year” applicability thresholds to “per 12

- month rolling period.”

The Department agrees that using the phrase “per 12

- month rolling period” is more precise than the term “per year ” and provides greater consistency with other Department rules. As noted by the commenter a 12

- month rolling average helps to reduce uncertainty and allows for more timely compliance determinations. The Department has made the suggested change s to Chapter 129.

2. Comment : Section 1.E. paragraph 4 exempts “Facilities subject to the National

Emissions Standards for Hazardo us Air Pollutants . . .” Since a facility may have more than one type of operation, this paragraph could inappropriately exempt an entire facility if just one of its operations meets the criteria. Therefore, Maine should changes the word “Facility” to “Coa ting units, lines or operations.”

Also, in the past Maine has addressed shipbuilding, aerospace, and wood furniture coating operations through Chapter 134, “Reasonably Available Control Technology for Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds.” Spec ifically, the single source SIP revisions issued by Maine DEP and approved by EPA into the Maine SIP, for some specific facilities. Therefore it is not clear how Chapter 129 and Chapter 134 are now intended to work together.

The Department agrees that th e language should be clarified to indicate that only the coating units, lines, or operations subject to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants are excluded from Chapter 129 . T he Department has

made the suggested changes.Maine will continue to a ddress VOC emissions through both this Chapter and the

RACT requirements found in Chapter 134; entities subject to both chapters must

meet both sets of requirements ; also previously approve d single source SIP revisions will remain an enforcea ble part of Maine’s SI.P

. 3. Comment: Section 1.E. paragraph 5 exempts “any facility subject to stricter emissions

standards.” There are several issues with this proposed exemption. First , similar to comment 2, an entire facility should not be exempted base d upon a single operation. In addition, this exemption does not require that the stricter standard be federally enforceable. Further, the exemption fails to specify any criteria to determine how
“stricter emissions standards” are to be determined. Faciliti es should be required to continue to comply with existing requirements and be subject to the new Chapter 129 requirements. For all of these reasons, Maine should remove the exemption in paragraph

1.E.5.

The Department agrees with the commenter that this w as unclear and has removed the exemption as suggested.

4. On page 12, proposed Section 4.F.1 states, “If two or more emissions rates conflict the rate more specific to the operation shall apply, if neither rate is more specific to the operation then the mo re stringent standard shall apply.” However, the beginning of Section 4, on page 10, states, “If more than on surface coating category and emissions limitation applies to a specific coating operation, then the least stringent

emissions limitation controls. ” The latter sentence appropriately allows for specialty coating categories . Therefore, Maine should delete the sentence quoted on page 12.

The Department agrees that a conflict exists between the language on pages 10 and 12, it further agrees that the la nguage on page 10 is the appropriate for resolving two conflicting emissions rates and has deleted the sentence on page 12.

5. In Section 4.F., Maine proposes to replace its existing miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coatings emissions limits wi th new categories and limits based on the 2008 MMPPC CTG. While the new limits become effective January 1, 2016 the proposed regulation does not retain its existing SIP approved limits for miscellaneous metal parts and products, which must remain in effect until January 1, 2016. EPA recommends that Maine retain its existing limits.

The Department has retained the existing limits until January 1, 2016 , when the new limits become effective

.

6. In Table 3, “Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plasti c Parts VOC Content Limits,” Maine proposes a fog coat category limit of 0.35 kg VOC/liter coating. However, the MMP P C CTG recommends a limit of 0.26 kg VOC/liter for this category.

The Department has corrected the fog coat limit to reflect EPA’s guidanc e.7. In Table 4, “Pleasure Craft Surface Coating VOC Emission Rate Limits” Maine’s

proposed limits for the Extreme High Gloss Topcoat and Other Substrate antifouling are less stringent than the EPA CT G for MMPPC operations. In a ddition Maine is propose an A ntifouling Sealer/Tie Coating category with a less stringent limit than the CTG other substrate antifouling category.

The values in table 4 are based upon the Department’s consultation with industry and their inability to reasonably meet the emissions rat e specified in the 2008

MMPPC CT

G. In their June 1, 2010 memorandum entitled “Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

– Industry Request for Recons ideration” EPA encouraged American Coating Association ( ACA ) to
work with state agencies to adopt appropriate requirements

, and emphasized that state agencies are free to take approaches that differ from the CTG for the pleasure craft coating industry. Maine understood the EPA response to provide sufficient leeway in the i mplementation of the CTG to allow for the development of differing requirements for the pleasure craft industry. Maine consulted with industry and determined that for the purpose of functionality, cost and VOC emissions, the alternative limits adopted cons titute RACT, consistent with the above

- mentioned

EPA memorandum. The proposed standards are generally consistent with those adopted by other states, including New Hampshire and Connecticut, and approved by EPA.

8. In table 4, “Pleasure Craft Surface Coating VOC Content Limits” Maine proposes a finish primer/surfacer coating limit “effective until December 31, 2015” and then a

lower limit “Effective on January 1, 2016.” These dates are inconsistent with the January 1, 2016 effective date for pleasure craft co ating limits established in Paragraph 4.F.(1). Maine should revise the rule such that the provisions containing compliance dates for pleasure craft primer/surfacer coating category are consistent.

The Department has revised its rule to provide that all em issions limits will take effect on January 1, 2016.

9. Maine proposes to delete Section 9 Compliance Schedule which states “The owner or operator of a surface coating unit, line or operation subject to this Chapter shall achieve final compliance with this Ch apter on or before May 31, 1995.” Although the newly proposed MMPPC limits are to be effective January 1, 2006 [sic], the other limits in the rule are currently effective and have been previously approved into the Maine SIP. Therefore Maine should update S ection 9 to include reference to the later compliance dates for some categories, but the entire provision should not be

deleted.

Section 9 has been retained and amended to reflect that existing standards are still applicable and establishes a future co mpliance schedule.

10. Maine proposed emissions limits for MMPPC operations are generally consistent with EPA’s 2008 MMPPC CTG. However, the proposed limits for certain specialtycoatings are less stringent than Maine’s existing SIP

- approved rule. Theref ore when Maine submits the revised rule to the EPA as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, the state should address the anti

- backsliding provisions of Section 110(1) of

the Clean Air Act.

Maine’s Chapter 129: Surface Coating Facilities was previou sly approved by EPA on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30216) and contained 5 VOC limits for miscellaneous metal parts and products . Maine’s amendment to Chapter 129 expands coverage from Miscellaneous Metal Parts and P roducts to also include M iscellaneous Plastics

Pa rts and P roducts, Automotive/Transportation and Business Machines Plastic Parts, Pleasure Craft Surface Coating, and Motor Vehicle Materials; containing

between 8 and 25 different emission limits. Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

include s limitations for Air Dried and Baked Coatings, with most limitations for Baked Coatings being more strenuous than those for Air Dried Coatings. The proposed amendments also allow for low

- VOC coatings to be used in combination with air pollution control equipment to re duce VOC emissions. These limits are generally consistent with EPA’s 2008 MMPC CTG (EPA

- 453/R

- 08

- 003 September 2008) ; while certain specialty coating categories have higher limits than the previously approved regulation, the proposed rule include s many str icter limitations

, including general one part and multi component coatings

. 1 F urther as discussed

above

, the proposed rule expands VOC limitation to additional processes and provides multiple limitations for baked coatings that are more stringent than air dried coatings . Since general coatings are applied at a higher rate than specialty coatings, other specialty coatings limitations are lower than the existing rule, and additional sources of volatile organic compounds ( VOC ) will be controlled by the

propose d amendment few er VOCs will be emitted in Maine as a result of the proposed amendment. This approach is consistent with the EPA guidance

memorandum entitled “

Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain Coating Categories ” from Scot t Mathias to Regional Air Directors dated March 11, 2011. Therefore, the rule satisfies the anti

- backsliding requirements found in Section 110(1) of the Clean Air Act.

1 F rom 0.36 kg/l as all other coatings in the approved rule to 0.34 kg/l or 0.28 kg/l de pending on application method for general one part coatings and 0.34 kg/l for general multi part coating in the proposed amendment.