FP 2011-27; Env-A 1200 (currently Env-A 1204) 04-22-11 Page 1 Summary of Comments Received on Initial Proposal (other than in support of rule as proposed), with DES Responses ~om~reriter _ . _ SectionfRara ~ra~h; :Ca'~Wiettt Response - American ,Coatings Association - - ---- [specific § or I not identified] _ _ _ _ After consulting with EPA, DES has added a new (ACA) Expressed concerns re: the ability of manufacturers of paragraph (d) to Env-A 1221 .08 (being renumbered as coatings, inks, and adhesives to meet the proposed 1221 .07) to provide compliance options for the industrial cleaning solvent rules; submitted proposed manufacturers. language providing another option for such manufacturers . Structal Bridges/Canam Steel [specific § or I not identified] DES agrees with Structal Bridges/CanamSteel Corporation Wanted to confirmthat adoption of the proposed rules Corporation re: the VOC limits that apply to the would not change the VOC limits currently applicable to company's Claremont facility. the company's Claremont facility (per discussion at meeting with DES on September 30, 2010) . Printing Industries of New a. Env-A 1215.07: For consistency with the CTG for a. DES agrees and made the change. England (PINE) flexible packaging printing, the standard should apply to "the owner or operator of an individual flexible-packaging printing egeFafies-press with a TPE of 25 tons or more . . ." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ -- - b. Env-A 1216

.01(a)(2) : The applicability threshold for a - -- --------------------------------------------- b. DES agrees, but notes that existing rule Env-A 1216.03 non-heatset printing operation should be based on the total prohibits the use of fountain solutions that contain alcohol volume of cleaning solution, alcohol, and fountain in a non-heatset press. The rule has been revised to base solution used or purchased, rather than the total volume of the applicability threshold on cleaning solution, fountain cleaning solution, alcohol fountain solution, alcohol solution additives, and alcohol substitutes. substitutes, coatings and ink. The term"alcohol fountain solution" does not exist, and coatings and ink should not be included because they are a very small percentage. of -the -emissions from-these types- of printing. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ -- c. Env-A 1216.01(a)(3) : The applicability threshold for a - ------------------------------ c. DES agrees, since "fountain solution" is a combination heatset printing operation should be based on "alcohol and of water and fountain solution additives . The rule has fountain solution additives" since those are the only been revised to base the applicability threshold on sources of-VOCs -in the-fountain-solution. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- cleaning solution,-alcohol,-and f-fountain-solution-additives. ---------------------------------------------------- - d . Env-A 1216.04: The recordkeeping provision for - ----------- d. DES agrees that the recordkeeping requirement should offset lithographic and letterpress printing in this section apply to all sources, and so has added the requirement to should be moved to Env-A 1205.08 so as to apply to all Env-A 1201 .04. VOCRACT sources . ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- e. Env-A 607.01(x)(2) requires any VOC RACT source to --------------------------------------------------------------------- e. DES currently is drafting amendments to Env-A 600 to get a permit, so lowering the applicability threshold for 9 provide additional permitting options for VOC RACT source categories to 3 tons per year could overwhelm the sources. The adoption process for those rules is expected ARD permitting program . to start later this spring.FI' /-i)11-27 ; Env-A 1200 (currently Env-A 1204)

Summary of Comments Received on Initial Proposal (other than in support of rule as proposed), with DES Responses mmenter , EPA Region 1 'aragraph, C omment 04-22-11 ~age 2

a. Env-A 1207.03: Need to ensure that an existing paper/ fabric/film/foil coater would continue to meet existing requirements between when the proposal is adopted and -when the new-limits- take . -----------------------------effect-in-2016 ------------------------------------- b . Env-A 1209, Env-A 1212: The proposed limits for metal furniture coaters and miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coaters are consistent with their respective CTGs, but in a few

cases the limits are less stringent than the existing limits in Env-A 1204. In accordance with ' § 110(1) of the Clean Air Act (re: anti-backsliding), DES will need tojustify adopting the less stringent limits when the rule is submitted for EPA approval as an amendment -to the State-Implementation

Plan .------------------------ ------------------------------- -(SIP) - c. Env-A 1209 Tables: A footnote should be added to each table to note that where more than one limit applies -to _a specific coating_ the least stringent linmit shall-apply_---- d. Env-A 1209.02(c), 1212 .01(c), and 1216.01(b) : Should revise language as follows, " . . . that first becomes subject to this part on or after the effective date of this chapter."

---------------------------------------------------------------------- e. Table 1212-2: The limits for Pretreatment Coatings (Baked) for miscellaneous metal parts are inconsistent . DES agrees and added the language suggested by EPA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- b. DES has read the March 17, 2011 EPA memorandum on this subject and will address it when the SIP submittal is made.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- c. DES agrees, and has incorporated the suggested language in accordance with N .H. rule drafting requirements

------------------------ - - - ---- - -- - ---- -------------- - d . DES disagrees with this comment. Sources that first become subject to Env-A 1200 after the effective date of the chapter, whether because they are new or are modified, must meet the limits upon startup. (See Env-A 1201 .03(b)) The 5-year grace period is only for those sources wich exist on the date the rule is adopted this year who are not currently subject to VOC RACT requirements . Lowering of the applicability thresholds should sweep a number of sources into VOCRACT, and it would be unfair to them to make themsubject immediately. By the same token, we have tried to phase in more stringent standards to facilities that are already subject to VOC RACT. DES has revised Env-A 1201 .03(b) to make this clearer .

--------------------------------------------------------------------- e. The inconsistency was not intended; the limits have been changed to match the CTG . with-the CTG------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- £ Table 1212-7: For pleasure craft coaters, the limits for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat, Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating, and Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coating are less --------------------------------------------------------------------- f. DES agrees that the specified limits are less stringent than those in the CTG

. DES met with American Coatings Association representatives last summer after the stakeholders meeting and received information concerning ---------------------------------------------------------------------FP 2011-27; Env-A 1200 (currently Env-A 1204) 04-22-11 Page 3 Summary of Comments Received on Initial Proposal (other than in support of rule as proposed), with DES Responses Co niitrenter. " '' - . . . . ..SecfioiuJPara

__ _,gr~Ph;CQmmenf : . esponse these 3 coatings . The representatives stated that EPA did not seek input from

the ACA when it created VOC coating limits for pleasure craft (a subcategory of the miscellaneous metal parts category) . After a presentation about the inadequacy of the 3 coatings that meet the CTG limits, we agreed to adjust the limits for those coatings. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus, we intend to keep the limits as proposed. - -- - --- - - --- - - - - - --------------------------------------------------- g. Env-A 1214.02(c) : The word "coating" should be used g. DES agrees that "solids" is incorrect, but changed instead of "solids" . "solids" to "material" (rather than "coating") to be --------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -- consistent with the rest of the sentence and the CTG . h. Env-A 1221 .07: The referenced section, Env-A - - - --------------- h. DES agrees that the citation was a misprint and has -1219.08,-does-not exist .------------------------------------------ - - - - - - corrected it in the final proposal_ i . The rules do not address 2 other CTGs, for which DES ------------------ ------------- i . New Hampshire will be submitting negative will need to either adopt rules or submit negative declarations for the 2 unaddressed CTGs when it submits declarations . the chapter to EPA for SIP approval . Office of Legislative Services, a. Env-A 1203.10: The document cited appears to require a. This rule defines "high-performance architectural Administrative Rules Office an incorporation by reference statement (IBRS) . coating" as a coating that meets the specified AAMA standard. If a coating does not meet the specified standard, then it is not what is being defined. The rules do not establish requirements that DES will be "enforcing"

---------------------------------------------------------------- ------ and

-so

- no IBRS is

- required _--------_ -- b. Env-A 1203.31 : The document cited appears to require - ------------------------ b. This rule defines "mediumcuring cutback asphalt" as an IBRS. material that meets the specified ASTM standard. If a material does not meet the specified standard, then it is not what is being defined. The rules do not establish requirements that DES will be "enforcing" and so no

--------' ------------------------------------------------------------ -- IBRS is required_------------------------------ c. Env-A 1204.53: The document cited appears to require ------------------ c. This rule defines "true vapor pressure" as the vapor an MRS. pressure resulting froma specific calculation. Vapor pressures measured by other calculations are, by defmition, not the "true" vapor pressure. The rule does not require "compliance" with a specific vapor pressure and DES will not be "enforcing" any vapor pressures. No IBRS is required.FP 2011-27 ; Env-A 1200 (currently Env-A 1204) 04-22-11 Page 4

Summary of Comments Received on Initial Proposal (other than in support of rule as proposed), with DES Responses

.,. . . . . _ a=. Com~aenter ~, . _._, ; . . ; .Y <; .; ~ .. : ., . . . ; ;_, .:<. . ~ .. .-. ~- -: .. . _

. _ graph; Comment . , ., ` . _ Section(Para -- - Re onse ~. .. . . ~? . . d. Env-A 1205 .02(b) is unclear; suggest subdividing it into d. DES agrees that the paragraph could be clearer and has an intro and subparagraphs (1)-and (2) .------------ ------------

- - - - - revised the language to better reflect what is intended. - --- -- - - --- --------------------------------------------- - - - e. Env-A 1212.07: Table 1212-6 should follow(a)(2), not e. DES has switched paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) so that (a) (3)- --------------------------------------------------------- -- requirement .------- -Table-1212-6-can ------------------follow -the

- appropriate ------ --- - -- -- - - -- -- f . Env-A 1213.06: (a)(3) appears to apply in all instances, f. Suggested revision has been made. but (a)(1) and (a)(2) seemto be mutually-exclusive. -Suggest converting-(a)(3) to (b)_renumbering (b) as (c) . - --- - ----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- g. Env-A 1218.02(b) and (c)(3) : The documents cited g. The requirement established in 1218.02(b) is to submit appear to require an MRS. data resulting froma test done in compliance with the specified test. As such, it is equivalent to a rule that requires an applicant to submit a title opinion prepared in accordance with current legal standards . DES is not enforcing the underlying standards (or test), and so no IBRS is needed. The requirement established in 1218.02(c)(3) is for the MSC to be 5%if certain conditions are met . DES is not enforcing the underlying testing requirement, and so no IBRS is needed.

-------------------------- ----- --- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- h. Various edits throughout the document. ----------- - h. Rules have been edited appropriately.