Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0053-0109
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-11-17T05:00Z

From: Melissa Payne/RTP/USEPA/US                                        
                                                                   To:
"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>                        
                                                             Date:
10/22/2009 11:04 AM                                                     
                                                             Subject:
Update on paints rule                                                   
                                                             

Cortney,

In response to your question on Monday, an existing facility that starts
using one of the target HAP is required to be in immediate compliance
with the rule.  Specifically (in case that isn't quite clear), the rule
states:

      (c)  If you own or operate a facility that becomes an

      affected source in accordance with §63.11599(b)(3) after the

      applicable compliance date in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this

      section, you must achieve compliance with the applicable

      provisions of this subpart by the date that you commence

      processing, using, or generating materials containing one or more

      of the following HAP: benzene, methylene chloride, and compounds

      of cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel.

Secondly, I have made one change to the rule since we spoke, but I think
it will make so much more sense than before.  We have changed the visual
emissions testing requirement from Method 9 to Method 203C.  We reviewed
the actual facility situation, and realized (with the help of someone in
the Emissions Monitoring Group) that because the time it takes to dump
the pigment into a       vessel is very short, the 30 minute testing
period of Method 9 is       unnecessary and overly complicated.  Method
203C requires the same training as a Method 9, but only uses a 1-minute
average over 5 minutes.  Thus, we think that the change will make more
sense in real-life conditions, while providing the same outcome of
ensuring that the pm control device is functioning properly.

Please let me know if you have any further questions,

Thanks,

Melissa

Melissa Payne

Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

919.541.3609