Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0178-0043
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-01-10T05:00Z

DATED:
DECEMBER
5,
2003;
SIGNED:
M.
S.
ALUSHIN
Mr.
Dave
Darling
Director
Environmental
Affairs
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
1500
Rhode
Island
Avenue,
N.
W.
Washington,
D.
C.
20005­
5597
Dear
Mr.
Darling:

This
is
in
response
to
your
letter
of
October
24,
2003,
to
Mr.
Jeffrey
Holmstead,
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation.
Although
that
office
is
preparing
a
separate
reply,
the
authority
to
respond
to
several
of
the
issues
raised
has
been
delegated
to
my
division.

In
your
letter,
you
requested
that
the
Agency
provide
an
interpretation
of
several
regulatory
citations
of
the
signed
rule,
where
errors,
omissions,
or
contradictions
occurred
between
regulatory
text
and
the
referenced
tables,
regulatory
text,
preamble
language
or
intent.
Specifically,
the
issues
as
stated
by
the
National
Paints
and
Coatings
Association
(
NPCA)
and
the
Agency's
responses
are
as
follows:

NPCA
Comment
1:

In
the
regulation
at
Table
1­
1.
a.,
2.
a.,
2.
b.
and
3.
a.
(
process
tanks)
the
wording
is
very
problematic.
The
language
states
that
the
vessel
must
either
be
equipped
with
"
a
cover
or
lid
that
must
be
in
place
at
all
times
when
the
vessel
contains
a
HAP"
(
1.
a.
and
2.
a.);
or
"
with
a
tightly
fitting
vented
cover
or
lid
that
must
be
closed
at
all
times
when
the
vessel
contains
a
HAP"
(
2.
b.
and
3.
a.).
This
appears
to
suggest
that
there
is
no
allowance
for
any
opening
of
lids/
covers
during
processing
or
cleaning,
which
would
effectively
make
the
rule
impossible
for
any
coating
manufacturer
to
comply
with.
This
also
contradicts
the
preamble
and
regulation
itself
which
specifically
exempts
manual
cleaning
operations
and
systems
used
with
closed
vent
systems
to
"
draw
ambient
air
away
from
operators
when
vessels
are
opened."

Preparedby:
mmia:
mlw:
12/
3/
03:
564­
7042:
2223A:
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
2
Agency
Response
1:

Although
we
agree
in
principle
with
your
proposed
correction
in
the
first
item,
we
do
not
believe
that
the
record
makes
it
clear
that
our
intent
was
to
allow
the
opening
of
lids
when
the
vessel
contains
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP)
for
material
addition
and
sampling.
Additionally,
we
do
not
find
the
rule
to
be
clear
that
such
openings
would
require
that
the
owner
or
operator
employ
an
elephant
trunk
for
portable
vessel
openings
or
an
elephant
trunk,
closed
vent
system
that
is
under
vacuum,
or
an
enclosure
complying
with
the
total
reduction
requirement
for
stationary
vessel
openings.
Therefore,
we
believe
that
the
rule
will
have
to
be
corrected
through
rulemaking
to
address
this
comment.

NPCA
Comment
2:

Section
63.7995(
c)
­
"
If
you
add
equipment
to
your
existing
affected
source
after
[
INSERT
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
THIS
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER]
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
for
existing
sources
in
this
subpart
upon
start­
up
of
the
added
equipment."
This
appears
to
be
an
error
as
there
is
no
precedent
either
in
the
proposal
or
in
the
general
provisions
applicable
to
the
subpart
under
the
regulation
at
§
63.8095
(
listed
at
Table
10)
for
eliminating
the
three­
year
compliance
timeline
for
existing
sources
that
add
equipment
after
the
date
the
final
rule
is
published.
Instead,
this
language
should
be
deleted
in
favor
of
a
reference
to
the
General
Provisions
(
§
63.6(
c)(
1)­(
2))
already
provided
for
at
Table
10,
or
the
bracketed
language
must
be
replaced
with
the
date
three
years
after
the
date
of
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.

Agency
Response
2:

The
language
at
§
63.7995(
c)
was
added
between
proposal
and
promulgation
to
address
the
addition
of
new
equipment
added
to
an
existing
source
which
would
be
subject
to
existing
source
standards.
The
language
was
added
to
make
it
explicit
that
such
equipment
would
be
subject
to
existing
source
standards
immediately
upon
startup,
if
installed
AFTER
the
compliance
date.
As
you
pointed
out,
there
is
no
precedent
in
either
the
proposal
or
the
General
Provisions
that
equipment
added
prior
to
the
compliance
date
subject
to
existing
source
requirements
would
have
to
immediately
comply
upon
startup.
Such
equipment
would
have
until
the
compliance
date
to
comply.
Such
equipment
added
after
the
compliance
would
have
to
comply
upon
startup.

NPCA
Comment
3:

Part
IV
Summary
of
Responses
to
Major
Comments
under
C.
Standards
for
Process
Vessels
­
"
Finally,
we
have
not
required
control
of
cleaning
that
is
accomplished
manually.
However,
emissions
resulting
from
automatic
wash
systems
are
required
to
be
considered
and
controlled."
This
is
not
carried
forward
into
the
regulations
­
the
3
regulation
itself
makes
no
mention
of
manual
vs.
automatic
cleaning
operations,
only
stating
at
§
63.7985(
b)
that
"
Miscellaneous
coating
manufacturing
operations
also
include
cleaning
operations."
This
statement
appears
to
mandate
all
cleaning
operations
have
to
be
controlled,
contrary
to
preamble
language.

Agency
Response
3:

Manual
cleaning
operations
are
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
in
Part
IV
Summary
of
Responses
to
Major
Comments
under
C.
Standards
for
Process
Vessels.
It
was
our
intent
that
only
automatic
cleaning
operations
are
required
to
be
considered
and
controlled.
The
preamble
to
the
final
rule
states:

Finally,
we
have
not
required
control
of
cleaning
that
is
accomplished
manually.
However,
emissions
resulting
from
automatic
wash
systems
are
required
to
be
considered
and
controlled.

NPCA
Comment
4:

In
the
regulation
at
Table
1
­
2.
a.
i
and
2.
b.
i.
(
process
tanks)
the
wording
is
problematic.
Instead
of
using
the
"
reduce
emissions
of
total
organic
HAP
.
.
.
75%
by
weight
for
process
vessels
with
a
vapor
pressure
of
.
.
.
,"
that
is
used
for
the
rest
of
the
standards
in
Table
1,
the
terminology
is
changed
and
states
"
.
.
.
reduce
emissions
by
75%
by
weight
for
each
HAP
with
a
vapor
pressure
.
.
.
.
"
This
appears
to
suggest
that
the
standard
mandates
a
75%
reduction
of
total
HAP
emissions
from
the
process
vessel
or,
depending
on
the
vapor
pressure
of
HAPs
contained
in
the
vessel,
a
60%
reduction
in
total
HAP
emissions.

Agency
Response
4:

With
respect
to
the
language
in
Table
1
­
2.
a.
i
and
2.
b.
i.,
the
correct
wording
should
be
"
for
HAPs"
not
"
for
each
HAP."
This
is
consistent
with
the
floor
determination
and
the
proposed
rule
as
well
as
the
other
entries
in
Table
1
found
at
2.
b.
ii.,
2.
b.
iii.,
and
3.
a.

It
is
our
understanding
that
OAQPS
is
planning
to
publish
the
necessary
notice
proposing
amendments
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
will
occur
after
the
60­
day
period
following
publication
of
the
final
rule
and
will
encompass
these
issues
as
well
as
two
others
that
NPCA
raised,
which
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
letter.
In
the
meantime,
this
letter
serves
to
clarify
the
Agency's
intent
with
respect
to
the
issues
discussed
here.
4
This
response
was
coordinated
with
the
Office
of
General
Counsel
(
OGC)
and
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards.
If
you
have
any
questions,
please
call
Marcia
Mia,
of
my
staff,
at
(
202)
564­
7042.

Very
truly
yours,

s
/
M.
S.
ALUSHIN
Michael
S.
Alushin,
Director
Compliance
Assessment
and
Media
Programs
Division
Office
of
Compliance
5
bcc:
Randy
McDonald,
OAQPS
Kerry
Rodgers,
OGC
Mamie
R.
Miller,
CAMPD
Marcia
Mia,
CAMPD