Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053-0059
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-06-01T04:00Z

MEMORANDUM

DATE:	October 30, 2008

SUBJECT:	Summary of October 20, 2008 Meeting with the National Paint and
Coatings Association Environmental Management Committee

FROM:	Melissa Payne, EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG 

TO:	Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053

I.  Purpose of Meeting

My purpose for this meeting was to update the National Paint and
Coatings Association (NPCA) on the status of the Area Source NESHAP for
the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing sector.  

II.  Participants

Derrick Boom		 	   		Sherwin-Williams

H. Chuck Cooper		 		Ashland Distribution Company

Prokopis Christou		 		Benjamin Moore

John Kinast 		 			Henry Company

Deborah Moilanen		 		BASF

Marcella Nichols		 		True Value

Emily Taylor		 			DuPont

Ahmad Toullabi		 		Dap

Wayne Thome		 		 	Zinsser Company

David Darling		 			NPCA Director, Environmental Affairs

John Hopewell		 			NPCA Asst. Director, Environmental

						Affairs

Alison Keane		 			NPCA Counsel, Government Affairs 

Barry Elman	 		 		EPA, OPEI

Melissa Payne		 			EPA, OAQPS

III. Summary of Meeting

I gave a presentation to the NPCA Environmental Management Committee,
that provided an update on the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing
Area source proposal and the potential timeline.  After the
presentation, which is also included in the docket, the following
questions were asked:

Q: If your facility does not use any of the listed HAP, does a facility
manager still have to report?  What if the facility has been using HAP
and then phases it out?  Must the facility continue to report?

A: The rule is set up so that a facility is not subject to the rule if
it doesn't use any of the listed HAP.  If a facility discontinues use of
the listed HAP, the manager can file a one-time report noting the change
and then stop reporting.  This language must still be approved by the
EPA Office of General Counsel.   And of course, if any of the listed HAP
are once again used, the facility is again subject to the regulation.

Q: If a facility processes both resins and coatings, which rule should
be followed?

A: Resins are included under the chemical preparations area source rule
and paints are covered under the paints and allied products
manufacturing rule, so such a facility would be covered by both rules.

Q: What is the definition of "cover or lid?

A: We are not currently looking to define a lid or cover.

Q: There are several types of process tanks used in the production of
coatings, including high-speed dispersion, finishing, storage and
filling. Pigments that contain the metal HAP of concern are only added
to high-speed dispersion tanks. We therefore suggest that any baghouse
requirements be focused only on the high-dispersion process tanks since
in the rest of the process tanks, the pigment and associated metal HAP
is in solution. 

A: The proposed rule focuses on baghouse requirements for the grinding
and dispersion steps of the process. 

  

Q: The Proposed Chemical Manufacturing Area source rule includes two
co-proposed baghouse control thresholds (100 lb/yr and 400 lb/yr of
collective metal HAP from process tanks). The cost effectiveness of the
100 lb/yr threshold is $70,000/ton of HAP metal compounds removed and
$40,000/ton of HAP metal compounds removed for the 400 lb/yr threshold.
EPA also estimated that baghouses in the proposed Chemical Manufacturing
Area source rule would remove approximately 40 tons of HAP metals per
year. EPA estimated that the entire Paints and Allied Products
Manufacturing industry had a total of only 2.6 tons of metal HAP
emissions. Clearly given the significantly lower "denominator" in the
cost effectiveness estimates - the cost per ton of HAP metals removed
will be much higher for our industry. NPCA therefore questions whether
baghouses are cost effective and if EPA does continue forward with a
baghouse requirement, based on cost, NPCA requests a baghouse control
threshold greater than the proposed 400 lb/yr Chemical Manufacturing
Area baghouse threshold.   

A: The chemical manufacturing rule is subcategorizing to account for the
different types of emission points, and their emissions cutoff (100 or
400 lbs/year) is related to a corresponding manufacturing process. 
Therefore, the chemical manufacturing proposed rule cannot be directly
compared to the paints and allied products proposed manufacturing area
source rule.

The proposed paints and allied products manufacturing rule does not
include subcategorization for several reasons.  Firstly, we do not have
adequate data on the amount of metal HAP the facilities are producing
each year because it differs on a daily, weekly, and yearly basis
depending on what kind of paint the facility is producing.  Therefore,
we are trying to keep GACT simple by not requiring this kind of
measurement.  Also, our data tell us that almost all facilities- if not
everyone- are already using some kind of particulate control device, so
we are not expecting this requirement to make a significant impact.  We
are requesting comment and corresponding data in the proposal about use
of particulate controls and material input to ensure that our
assumptions are correct.

    

Q:  Assuming that baghouses will be required and that many of the Paints
and Allied Products Manufacturing Facilities are small businesses –
NPCA recommends EPA grant these facilities three years in which to
comply with the rulemaking. 

A: The EPA compliance date for bin 5 and 6 proposed rules is 2 years.

Q: To eliminate any applicability overlap issues with other area source
rules (mainly the Chemical Manufacturing area source rule) NPCA requests
that EPA make it clear in the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing
Area source rule that all Paints and Allied Products manufacturing
equipment and related operations (whether regulated or not) are covered
by the Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing Area source rule. 

 

A: The paints and allied products manufacturing, chemical manufacturing
and chemical preparation proposed rules are coordinated and defined so
that overlap should not be an issue.

Q:  NPCA recommends that EPA specify "hexavalent chrome" instead of
using the general term "chromium". We are concerned that the general
term "chromium" includes trivalent chrome, which is an important
material used in small quantities for achieving certain metallic,
protective and pearlescent finishes.  It has a relatively benign nature
as compared to hexavalent chrome and has replaced hexavalent chrome
where possible.  Thus, pollution prevention efforts to replace
hexavalent chrome could be slowed or curtailed if EPA does not limit the
rule to the HAP of concern, hexavalent chrome. As background it is
important to note that in the July 2000 Integrated Urban Strategy:
Report to Congress, EPA focused exclusively on hexavalent chromium as
the only chromium compound of concern. 

A:  EPA's stance for area sources on chromium remains unchanged due to
the listing of “chromium compounds” and not specific types of
chromium, in Section 112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which we are
obligated to uphold.  Thus, chromium will not be subcategorized by
molecular type.  Please refer to 73FR42991 for further explanation on
this issue.