Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053-0078
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-06-22T04:00Z

Testimony

of

David Darling, Director Environmental Affairs

National Paint and Coating Association

on

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Areas Source
Standards for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing

Public Hearing

Environmental Protection Agency – Research Triangle Park

July 16, 2009

Good morning, my name is David Darling and I am the Director of
Environmental Affairs at the National Paint & Coatings Association.  I
have several issues I would like to discuss today.

As mentioned earlier we are concerned that while the OSHA de minimis
threshold is helpful, a facility could be subject to the rule via one
MSDS. To minimize this possibility, especially for small businesses, we
request EPA include an applicability exemption for uses of small amounts
of the metal HAPs that may be found in raw materials at contaminant
levels. This is opposed to HAP metals that are intentionally used in
larger concentrations. EPA has recognized the difference between
contaminants and intentional use in the Chemical Manufacturing Area
source. We will provide suggestions for this exemption in our comments. 
 

EPA correctly concluded that after the addition processes, pigments and
associated metal HAP are in solution and subsequent metal HAP emissions
are minimal. Further EPA recognized that metal particulate emissions
from pigments that are in the form of a paste or slurry are also
minimal. Since there are minimal particulate emissions from the use of
pigments and slurries, NPCA suggests that EPA exempt pastes and slurries
from the applicability of this rule.

 

NPCA suggests the following:

“Section 63.11599 Am I subject to this subpart?

a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a facility that
performs paints and allied products manufacturing that is an area source
of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions and processes, uses, or
generates materials containing one or more of the following HAP:
benzene, methylene chloride, and compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead
and nickel, unless pigments containing compounds of cadmium, chromium,
lead and nickel are in the form of a paste or slurry.”

NPCA has commented on several areas source rules that EPA should
recognize the difference between trivalent and hexavalent chromium.
While EPA has to date not been receptive to this, NPCA suggests that EPA
recognize that OSHA does not consider trivalent chromium a carcinogen so
we recommend that allow a 1% de minimis for trivalent chromium instead
of 0.1%. 

We are concerned with several issues in the rule that will make
compliance very difficult. 

EPA proposed that new and affected sources must capture particulate
emissions and route them to a particulate control device during the
addition of pigments and other solids and during the grinding and
milling of solids. NPCA agrees with EPA that after the addition
processes, the pigments and associated metal HAP are in solution, and
metal HAP emissions are minimal. Please note that grinding and milling
occurs after the addition process when the pigments are in solution, so
NPCA questions whether particulate controls are needed during the
grinding and milling stage. Further – many grinding and milling
equipment is fully enclosed so there is no way emissions could be
collected during these processes.  Bottom-line, since pigments and
solids are in solution when they are milled and ground, and that the
milling and grinding equipment is fully enclosed with no emission points
– particulate controls should only be required when pigments and
solids are added to the high speed dispersion tanks.  

EPA correctly recognized the need for operators to open mixing vessel
covers/lids for quality control testing of the product and/or the
addition of pigments or other materials to meet final product
specifications. However operators need to open nearly every process or
storage tank at sometime for quality control testing, adding of
materials or removal of product from the vessel. Therefore, consistent
with the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing MACT (MCM), NPCA requests
that EPA revise the regulation such that operators be allowed to open
any vessel, be it mixing, process, or storage for quality control
testing and sampling of the product, addition of materials, or removal
of product from the vessel.    

EPA proposed that process tank covers or lids must maintain contact
along at least 90 percent of the vessel rim. This is a very rare
requirement in that very, very few operating permits have this
requirement, especially since this requirement is very difficult to
comply with. It is nearly impossible to confirm that a lid or cover
touches at least 90 percent of the vessel rim. A person would need to
know the exact perimeter of the tank, and somehow measure sections that
may not be touching the rim. Further, what is the definition of
“touching” is it metal to metal or some other measure? 

NPCA believes that the covers/lids that EPA used to estimate costs for
this rule -  either a sheet of plywood (4 feet by 4 feet) or two sheets
of plywood (8 feet by 8 feet) would probably not meet this standard.
Plywood even new may be warped or may warp over time especially two
sheets of plywood that are somehow connected and unsupported a distance
of 8 feet – it is very unlikely that EPA’s plywood cover/lid would
touch at least 90 percent of the vessel rim. Given the fact that it is
nearly impossible to determine compliance with the “90 percent of the
vessel rim” requirement, that very few operating permits contain this
requirement and that EPA’s cover/lid would probably not meet the
requirement, NPCA suggests that this required be deleted.

Finally, we believe that many of the assumptions that EPA used in its
emission and cost estimates are arbitrary. For example we are concerned
that EPA used the very old AP-42 emission factors we believe the
calculated emissions are probably double actual emissions. We are also
concerned that the cost of process vessel covers and the thermal
oxidation estimates in the background documents are too low. 
Bottom-line, the estimated 8.1 million in capital costs (too low) to
remove 0.13 tons per year of cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel is not
justified especially since as mentioned earlier the industry has reduced
emission of these HAP’s by greater than 90% since 1990. This rule is
not needed.