[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 135 (Monday, July 14, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40230-40263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15722]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0411; FRL-8689-5]
RIN 2060-AP01
Consumer and Commercial Products: Control Techniques Guidelines
in Lieu of Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings,
Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings,
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Miscellaneous Industrial
Adhesives
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed determination and availability of draft
control techniques guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act, EPA
proposes to determine that control techniques guidelines will be
substantially as effective as national regulations in reducing
emissions of volatile organic compounds in ozone national ambient air
quality standard nonattainment areas from the following five product
categories: Miscellaneous metal products coatings, plastic parts
coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings, fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous industrial adhesives. Based
on this determination, we may issue control techniques guidelines in
lieu of national regulations covering these product categories. We have
prepared draft control techniques guidelines for the control of
volatile organic compound emissions from each of the product categories
covered by this proposed determination. Once finalized, these control
techniques guidelines will provide guidance to the States concerning
EPA's recommendations for reasonably available control technology-level
controls for these product categories. We further propose to take final
action to list the five Group IV consumer and commercial product
categories addressed in this notice pursuant to Clean Air Act section
183(e).
DATES: Comments: Written comments on this proposed action must be
received by August 13, 2008, unless a public hearing is requested by
July 24, 2008. If a hearing is requested on this proposed action,
written comments must be received by August 28, 2008. We are also
soliciting written comments on the draft control techniques guidelines
(CTG), and those comments must be submitted within the comment period
for this proposed determination.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing concerning this proposed determination by July 24, 2008,
we will hold a public hearing on July 29, 2008. The substance of any
such hearing will be limited solely to EPA's proposed determination
under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 183(e)(3)(C) that the CTGs covering
the five Group IV product categories will be substantially as effective
as regulations in reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in
ozone nonattainment areas. Accordingly, if a commenter has no objection
to EPA's proposed determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), but has
comments on the substance of a draft CTG, the commenter should submit
those comments in writing.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by applicable docket ID
number, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: (202) 566-1741.
Mail: Comments concerning this proposed Determination
should be sent to: Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV--
Determination to Issue Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of
Regulations, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0411.
Comments concerning any draft CTG should be sent to the applicable
docket, as noted below: Consumer and Commercial Products--Miscellaneous
Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0412;
Consumer and Commercial Products--Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly
Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0413; Consumer and Commercial
Products--Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0415; or Consumer and Commercial Products--Miscellaneous
Industrial Adhesives, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0460, Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments concerning the draft revision
of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol, which is referenced in the draft
CTG for Auto and Light-Duty Truck Coatings, should be sent to Consumer
and Commercial Products--Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings,
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0413. Please include a total of two copies.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to the applicable docket. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10
a.m. on July 29, 2008 at Building C on the EPA campus in Research
Triangle Park, NC,
[[Page 40231]]
or at an alternate site nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral
testimony must contact Ms. Joan C. Rogers, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-4487, fax number:
(919) 541-3470, e-mail address: [email protected], no later than
July 24, 2008. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must
also call Ms. Rogers to verify the time, date, and location of the
hearing. If no one contacts Ms. Rogers by July 24, 2008 with a request
to present oral testimony at the hearing, we will cancel the hearing.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Public
Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the CAA
section 183(e) consumer and commercial products program, contact Mr.
Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce
Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number: (919) 541-5460, fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-mail
address: [email protected]. For further information on technical
issues concerning this proposed determination and draft CTG for
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, or for fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials, contact: Ms. Kaye Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-2509,
fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-mail address: [email protected]. For
further information on technical issues concerning this proposed
determination and draft CTG for auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings or the draft revision of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol,
contact: Mr. Dave Salman, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and
Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number: (919) 541-0859, fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-
mail address: [email protected]. For further information on technical
issues concerning this proposed determination and draft CTG for
miscellaneous industrial adhesives, contact: Ms. Martha Smith, U.S.
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919)
541-2421, fax number: (919) 541-3470, e-mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Entities Potentially Affected by This Action. The entities
potentially affected by this action include industrial facilities that
use the respective consumer and commercial products covered in this
action as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of affected
Category NAICS code \a\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous metal and 331, 332, 333, Facilities that
plastic parts coatings. 334, 336, 482, manufacture and
811. repair fabricated
metal, machinery,
computer and
electronic
equipment,
transportation
equipment, rail
transportation
equipment.
Auto and light-duty truck 336111, 336112, Automobile and light-
assembly coatings. 336211. duty truck assembly
plants, producers of
automobile and light-
duty truck bodies.
Fiberglass boat manufacturing 336612........... Boat building
materials. facilities.
Miscellaneous industrial 316, 321, 326, Facilities that
adhesives. 331, 332, 333, manufacture and
334, 336, 337, repair leather and
339, 482, 811. allied products,
wood products,
plastic and rubber
products, fabricated
metal, machinery,
computer and
electronic
equipment,
transportation
equipment, furniture
and related
products, rail
transportation
equipment, and
facilities involved
in miscellaneous
manufacturing.
Federal Government............ ................. Not Affected.
State, local and tribal ................. State, local and
government. tribal regulatory
agencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be affected by this
action, you should examine the applicable industry description in
sections II.A, III.A, IV.A, and V.A of this notice. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the appropriate EPA contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
Preparation of Comments. Do not submit information containing CBI
to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr.
Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, Attention: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0411, 0412,
0413, 0415, or 0460 (as applicable). Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
[[Page 40232]]
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
signature, a copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN's
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the
following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.
Organization of this Document. The information presented in this
notice is organized as follows:
I. Background Information and Proposed Determination
A. The Ozone Problem
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
C. Significance of CTG
D. General Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
E. Proposed Determination
F. Availability of Documents
II. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings
A. Industry Characterization
B. Recommended Control Techniques
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
III. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings
A. Industry Characterization
B. Recommended Control Techniques
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
IV. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials
A. Industry Characterization
B. Recommended Control Techniques
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
V. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
A. Industry Characterization
B. Recommended Control Techniques
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order: 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Background Information and Proposed Determination
A. The Ozone Problem
Ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, is formed in the
atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen in the presence
of sunlight. The formation of ground-level ozone is a complex process
that is affected by many variables.
Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, as well as agricultural crop loss, and damage to
forests and ecosystems. Controlled human exposure studies show that
acute health effects are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hour) exposures
(observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)),
generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion,
and by prolonged (6 to 8 hour) exposures to ozone (observed at
concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm and possibly lower), typically while
individuals are engaged in moderate exertion. Transient effects from
acute exposures include pulmonary inflammation, respiratory symptoms,
effects on exercise performance, and increased airway responsiveness.
Epidemiological studies have shown associations between ambient ozone
levels and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Groups at increased risk
of experiencing elevated exposures include active children, outdoor
workers, and others who regularly engage in outdoor activities. Those
most susceptible to the effects of ozone include those with preexisting
respiratory disease, children, and older adults. The literature
suggests the possibility that long-term exposures to ozone may cause
chronic health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung tissue and
accelerated decline in baseline lung function).
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
Under section 183(e) of the CAA, EPA conducted a study of VOC
emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products to assess
their potential to contribute to levels of ozone that violate the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to
establish criteria for regulating VOC emissions from these products.
Section 183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to list for regulation those
categories of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC
emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial
products in areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone
nonattainment areas), and to divide the list of categories to be
regulated into four groups. EPA published the initial list in the
Federal Register on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA
stated that it may amend the list of products for regulation, and the
groups of product categories, in order to achieve an effective
regulatory program in accordance with the EPA's discretion under CAA
section 183(e).
EPA has revised the list several times. See 70 FR 69759 (November
17, 2005); 64 FR 13422 (March 18, 1999). Most recently, in May 2006,
EPA revised the list to add one product category, portable fuel
containers, and to remove one product category, petroleum dry cleaning
solvents. See 71 FR 28320 (May 16, 2006). As a result of these
revisions, Group IV of the list comprises five product categories:
Miscellaneous metal products coatings, plastic parts coatings, auto and
light-duty truck assembly coatings, fiberglass boat manufacturing
materials, and miscellaneous industrial adhesives.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pursuant to the court's order in Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:01-
cv-01597-PLF (D.C. Cir., March 31, 2006), EPA must take final action
on the product categories in Group IV by September 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any regulations issued under CAA section 183(e) must be based on
``best available controls'' (BAC). CAA section 183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC
as ``the degree of emissions reduction that the Administrator
determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility,
health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes,
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation,
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use,
consumption, storage, or disposal.'' CAA section 183(e) also provides
EPA with authority to use any system or systems of regulation that EPA
determines is the most appropriate for the product category. Under
these provisions, we have previously issued ``national'' regulations
for autobody refinishing coatings, consumer products, architectural
coatings,
[[Page 40233]]
portable fuel containers, and aerosol coatings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 63 FR 48792, 48819, and 48848 (September 11, 1998); 72
FR 8428 (February 26, 2007); and 73 FR 15604 (March 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) further provides that we may issue a CTG
in lieu of a national regulation for a product category where we
determine that the CTG will be ``substantially as effective as
regulations'' in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment
areas. The statute does not specify how we are to make this
determination, but does provide a fundamental distinction between
national regulations and CTG.
Specifically, for national regulations, CAA section 183(e) defines
regulated entities as:
(i) * * * manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or (ii)
manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that
supply the entities listed under clause (i) with such products for
sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States.
Thus, under CAA section 183(e), a regulation for consumer or
commercial products is limited to measures applicable to manufacturers,
processors, distributors, or importers of the solvents, materials, or
products supplied to the consumer or industry. CAA section 183(e) does
not authorize EPA to issue national regulations that would directly
regulate end-users of these products. By contrast, CTG are guidance
documents that recommend reasonably available control technology (RACT)
measures that States can adopt and apply to the end-users of products.
This dichotomy (i.e., that EPA cannot directly regulate end-users under
CAA section 183(e), but can address end-users through a CTG) created by
Congress is relevant to EPA's evaluation of the relative merits of a
national regulation versus a CTG.
C. Significance of CTG
CAA section 172(c)(1) provides that State implementation plans
(SIPs) for nonattainment areas must include ``reasonably available
control measures'' (RACM), including RACT, for sources of emissions.
Section 182(b)(2) provides that States must revise their ozone SIP to
include RACT for each category of VOC sources covered by any CTG
document issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the date of
attainment.
EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility,'' 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). In subsequent
notices, EPA has addressed how States can meet the RACT requirements of
the CAA. Significantly, RACT for a particular industry is determined on
a case-by-case basis, considering issues of technological and economic
feasibility.
EPA provides States with guidance concerning what types of controls
could constitute RACT for a given source category through issuance of a
CTG. The recommendations in the CTG are based on available data and
information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the
circumstances. States can follow the CTG and adopt State regulations to
implement the recommendations contained therein, or they can adopt
alternative approaches. In either event, States must submit their RACT
rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the SIP process. EPA
will evaluate the rules and determine, through notice and comment
rulemaking in the SIP process, whether they meet the RACT requirements
of the CAA and EPA's regulations. To the extent a State adopts any of
the recommendations in a CTG into its State RACT rules, interested
parties can raise questions and objections about the substance of the
guidance and the appropriateness of the application of the guidance to
a particular situation during the development of the State rules and
EPA's SIP approval process.
We encourage States in developing their RACT rules to consider
carefully the facts and circumstances of the particular sources in
their States because, as noted above, RACT is determined on a case-by-
case basis, considering issues of technological and economic
feasibility. For example, a State may decide not to require 90 percent
control efficiency at facilities that are already well controlled, if
the additional emission reductions would not be cost-effective. States
may also want to consider reactivity-based approaches, as appropriate,
in developing their RACT regulations.\3\ Finally, if States consider
requiring more stringent VOC content limits than those recommended in
the draft CTG, States may also wish to consider averaging, as
appropriate. In general, the RACT requirement is applied on a short-
term basis up to 24 hours.\4\ However, EPA guidance permits averaging
times longer than 24 hours under certain conditions.\5\ The EPA's
``Economic Incentive Policy'' \6\ provides guidance on use of long-term
averages with regard to RACT and generally provides for averaging times
of no greater than 30 days. Thus, if the appropriate conditions are
present, States may consider the use of averaging in conjunction with
more stringent limits. Because of the nature of averaging, however, we
would expect that any State RACT Rules that allow for averaging also
include appropriate recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' 70 FR 54046 (September 13,
2005).
\4\ See, e.g., 52 FR at 45108, col. 2, ``Compliance Periods''
(November 24, 1987). ``VOC rules should describe explicitly the
compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g.,
instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are silent on
compliance time, EPA will interpret it as instantaneous.''
\5\ Memorandum from John O'Connor, Acting Director of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ``Averaging
Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits-SIP Revision Policy.''
\6\ ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,
January 2001,'' available at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/policy/search.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By this action, we are making available four draft CTGs that cover
the five product categories in Group IV of the CAA section 183(e) list
(miscellaneous metal products coatings and plastic parts coatings are
addressed in one draft CTG referred to as ``miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts coatings''). These CTGs are guidance to the States and
provide recommendations only. A State can develop its own strategy for
what constitutes RACT for these five product categories, and EPA will
review that strategy in the context of the SIP process and determine
whether it meets the RACT requirements of the CAA and its implementing
regulations.
Finally, CAA section 182(b)(2) provides that a CTG issued after
1990 specify the date by which a State must submit a SIP revision in
response to the CTG. In the draft CTGs at issue here, EPA provides that
States should submit their SIP revisions within one year of the date
that the CTGs are finalized.
D. General Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be
Substantially as Effective as a Regulation
CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) authorizes EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a
regulation for a category of consumer and commercial products if a CTG
``will be substantially as effective as regulations in reducing VOC
emissions''
[[Page 40234]]
in ozone nonattainment areas. The statute does not specify how EPA is
to make this determination.
On July 13, 1999 (64 FR 37773), EPA issued a final determination
pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), concluding that CTGs for wood
furniture coatings, aerospace coatings, and shipbuilding and repair
coatings were substantially as effective as national regulations in
reducing emissions of VOC from these products in areas that violate the
NAAQS for ozone. On October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58745), EPA issued a similar
final determination for flexible packaging printing materials,
lithographic printing materials, letterpress printing materials,
industrial cleaning solvents, and flat wood paneling coatings. Most
recently, on October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57215), EPA issued a similar final
determination for paper, film, and foil coatings; metal furniture
coatings; and large appliance coatings. Recognizing that the statute
does not specify any criteria for making a determination under CAA
section 183(e)(3)(C), EPA, in 1999, 2006, and 2007, considered several
relevant factors, including: (1) The product's distribution and place
of use; (2) the most effective entity to target to control emissions--
in other words, whether it is more effective to achieve VOC reductions
at the point of manufacture of the product or at the point of use of
the product; (3) consistency with other VOC control strategies; and (4)
estimates of likely VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment
areas which would result from the regulation or CTG. EPA believes that
these factors are useful for evaluating whether the rule or CTG
approach would be best from the perspective of implementation and
enforcement of an effective strategy to achieve the intended VOC
emission reductions. EPA believes that in making these determinations,
no single factor is dispositive. On the contrary, for each product
category, we must weigh the factors and make our determination based on
the unique set of facts and circumstances associated with that product
category. For purposes of making this determination, we analyzed the
components of the draft CTGs for the product categories at issue and
compared the draft CTGs to the types of controls and emission
strategies possible through a regulation. As we explained in 1999, it
would be unreasonable for EPA, in effect, to have to complete both the
full rulemaking and full CTG development processes before being able to
make a determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) validly. We believe
that it is possible for the EPA to make a determination between what a
rule might reasonably be expected to achieve versus what a CTG might
reasonably be expected to achieve, without having to complete the
entire rulemaking and CTG processes. To conclude otherwise would result
in the unnecessary wasting of limited time and resources by the EPA and
the stakeholders participating in the processes. Moreover, such an
approach would be directly contrary to CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), which
authorizes EPA to issue a CTG in lieu of a regulation if it determines
that the CTG ``will be substantially as effective as'' a regulation in
reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.
With regard to the five product categories at issue here, EPA notes
that it does not have reliable quantitative data that would enable it
to conduct a ton-by-ton comparison of the likely emission reductions
associated with a national regulation versus a CTG. Although we
conducted such a comparative analysis in 1999 for the product
categories of wood furniture coatings, aerospace coatings and
shipbuilding and repair coatings, (64 FR 37773, July 13, 1999), such
analysis is not necessary for evaluating likely VOC emission
reductions, particularly, where, as in our Group II action (71 FR
58745, October 5, 2006), our Group III action (72 FR 57215, October 9,
2007), and here, a CTG can achieve significant emission reductions from
end-users of the consumer and/or commercial products at issue, which
cannot be achieved through regulation under CAA section 183(e). In
addition, for the reasons described below, a regulation governing the
manufacturers and suppliers of these products would be unlikely to
achieve the objective of reducing VOC emissions from these products in
ozone nonattainment areas.
E. Proposed Determination
Based on the factors identified above and the facts and
circumstances associated with each of the Group IV product categories,
EPA proposes to determine that CTGs for miscellaneous metal products
coatings, plastic parts coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings, fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous
industrial adhesives will be substantially as effective as national
regulations in reducing VOC emissions from facilities located in ozone
nonattainment areas.
In each of the four sections below (miscellaneous metal products
coatings and plastic parts coatings are addressed in a single CTG and
are therefore addressed in the same section below), we provide a
general description of the industry, identify the sources of VOC
emissions associated with the industry, summarize the recommended
control techniques in the draft CTG and describe the impacts of those
techniques, and discuss the considerations supporting our proposed
determination under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) that a CTG will be
substantially as effective as a regulation in reducing VOC emissions in
ozone nonattainment areas from the product category at issue.
The specific subsections below are organized into two parts, each
of which addresses two of the factors relevant to the CAA section
183(e)(1)(C) determination. The first part addresses whether it is more
effective to target the point of manufacture of the product or the
point of use for purposes of reducing VOC emissions and discusses
whether our proposed approach is consistent with existing Federal,
State and local VOC reduction strategies. The second part addresses the
product's distribution and place of use and discusses the likely VOC
emission reductions associated with a CTG, as compared to a regulation.
Finally, we propose to find that these five product categories are
appropriate for inclusion on the CAA section 183(e) list in accordance
with the factors and criteria that EPA used to develop the original
list. See Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule for Regulation, 60
FR 15264 (March 23, 1995).
F. Availability of Documents
We have prepared four draft CTG documents covering the five
consumer and commercial product categories addressed in this action
(miscellaneous metal products coatings and plastic parts coatings are
addressed in a single CTG). Each of the draft CTGs addresses, among
other things, RACT recommendations, cost impacts, and existing Federal,
State and local VOC control strategies. In conjunction with the draft
CTG for Auto and Light-Duty Truck Coating, we have also prepared a
draft revision of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol (please see section
III.B for a more detailed discussion). The draft CTG and the draft
revision of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol are available for public
comment and are contained in the respective dockets listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
[[Page 40235]]
II. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings
A. Industry Characterization
1. Source Category Description
The miscellaneous metal products coatings category and the plastic
parts coatings category refer to coatings that are applied to
miscellaneous metal products and plastic parts. Miscellaneous metal
products and plastic parts include, but are not limited to, metal and
plastic components of the following types of products as well as the
products themselves: Motor vehicle parts and accessories, bicycles and
sporting goods, toys, recreational vehicles, extruded aluminum
structural components, railroad cars, heavier vehicles,\7\ medical
equipment, lawn and garden equipment, business machines, laboratory and
medical equipment, electronic equipment, steel drums, industrial
machinery, metal pipes, and numerous other industrial and household
products (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ``miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts''). The draft CTG applies to manufacturers of
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts that surface-coat the parts they
produce. The draft CTG also applies to facilities that perform surface
coating of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts on a contract basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Heavier vehicles includes all vehicles that meet the
definition of the term ``other motor vehicles,'' as defined in the
National Emission Standards for Surface Coating of Automobile and
Light-Duty Trucks at 40 CFR 63.3176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings do not include
coatings that are a part of other product categories listed under
section 183(e) of the CAA and/or addressed by other CTGs. These other
categories that are not part of the miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts coatings categories include shipbuilding and repair coatings;
aerospace coatings; wood furniture coatings; metal furniture coatings;
large appliance coatings; auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings;
flatwood paneling coatings; and paper, film, and foil coatings. Can
coatings, coil coatings, and magnet wire coatings were not listed under
section 183(e) of the CAA, but were addressed by earlier CTGs, and are
also not included in the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings
categories.
Sealers, deadeners, transit coatings and cavity waxes applied to
new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies, or body parts for new
automobiles or new light-duty trucks are included in the miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts coatings categories and are addressed in the
draft CTG for miscellaneous metal products and plastic parts coatings.
In the draft CTG, however, we seek comments on whether the use of these
coatings in the production of new automobiles and new light-duty trucks
should be included in the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coatings categories and addressed in the CTG for miscellaneous metal
and plastic parts coatings, or in the auto and light-duty truck
assembly coatings category and addressed in the CTG for auto and light-
duty truck assembly coatings.
Miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings include several
categories of primers, topcoats, and specialty coatings, typically
defined by the coatings function. The types of coating technologies
used in the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating
industry include higher solids, waterborne, and powder coatings, as
well as conventional solvent-borne coatings. The coatings provide a
covering, finish, or functional or protective layer to the surface of
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts. They also provide a decorative
finish to these miscellaneous metal and plastic parts.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
The VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
surface coatings are a result of evaporation of the VOC contained in
many of the coatings and cleaning materials \8\ used in miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts surface coating operations. The primary VOC
emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings occur
during coating application, flash-off, and coating curing/drying. Some
VOC emissions also occur during mixing and thinning of the coatings.
The VOC emissions from mixing and thinning operations occur from
displacement of VOC-laden air in containers used to mix coatings before
coating application. The displacement of VOC-laden air can occur during
the filling of containers. It can also be caused by changes in
temperature or barometric pressure, or by agitation during mixing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In a previous notice, EPA stated that the cleaning
operations associated with certain specified section 183(e) consumer
and commercial product categories, including the miscellaneous metal
products coatings category and the plastic parts coatings category,
would not be covered by EPA's 2006 CTG for industrial cleaning
solvents (71 FR 44522 and 44540, August 4, 2006). In the notice, EPA
expressed its intention to address cleaning operations associated
with these categories in the CTGs for these specified categories if
we determine that a CTG is appropriate for the respective
categories. Accordingly, the draft CTG for the miscellaneous metal
products coatings category and the plastic parts coatings category
addresses VOC emissions from cleaning operations associated with
these two product categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary VOC emissions from the cleaning materials occur during
cleaning operations, which include spray gun cleaning, paint line
flushing, rework operations, and touchup cleaning at final assembly.
VOC emissions from surface preparation (where miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts are treated and/or cleaned prior to coating application),
coating storage and handling, and waste/wastewater operations (i.e.,
handling waste/wastewater that may contain residues from both coatings
and cleaning materials) are small.
As mentioned above, the majority of VOC emissions from
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings occur from evaporation
of solvents in the coatings during coating application. The transfer
efficiency (the percent of coating solids deposited on the metal and
plastic parts) of a coating application method affects the amount of
VOC emissions during coating application. The more efficient a coating
application method is in transferring coatings to the metal and plastic
parts, the lower the volume of coatings (and therefore solvents) needed
per given amount of production, thus resulting in lower VOC emissions.
The coatings used in the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
surface coating industry may be in the form of a liquid or powder.
Liquid coatings may be applied by means of spray or dip coating.
Conventional air atomized spray application systems utilize higher
atomizing air pressure and typically have transfer efficiencies ranging
between 25 and 40 percent. Dip coating is the immersion of
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts into a coating bath and is
typically used on parts that do not require high quality appearance.
The transfer efficiency of a dip coater is very high (approximately 90
percent); however, some VOC is emitted from the liquid coating bath due
to its large exposed surface area.
Many spray-applied coatings on metal parts are electrostatically
applied. Electrostatic spray application can be done with both liquid
and powder coatings. In electrostatic coating, an electrical attraction
between the paint, which is positively charged, and the grounded metal
enhances the amount of coating deposited on the surface. For liquid
coatings, this coating method is more efficient than conventional air
atomized spray, with transfer efficiency typically ranging from 60 to
90 percent.
Other liquid coating application methods used in the miscellaneous
[[Page 40236]]
metal and plastic parts surface coating industry include flow coating,
roll coating, high volume/low pressure (HVLP) spray, electrocoating,
autophoretic coating, and application by hand. These coating methods
are described in more detail in the draft CTG.
Spray-applied coatings are typically applied in a spray booth to
capture paint overspray, remove solvent vapors from the workplace, and
to keep the coating operation from being contaminated by dirt from
other operations. In spray coating operations, the majority of VOC
emissions occur in the spray booth.
After coatings are applied, the coated miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts and products are often baked or cured in heated drying
ovens, but some are air dried, especially for some heat-sensitive
plastic parts. For liquid spray and dip coating operations, the coated
parts or products are typically first moved through a flash-off area
after the coating application operation. The flash-off area allows
solvents in the wet coating film to evaporate slowly, thus avoiding
bubbling of the coating while it is curing in the oven. The amount of
VOC emitted from the flash-off area depends on the type of coating
used, the speed of the coating line (i.e., how quickly the part or
product moves through the flash-off area), and the distance between the
application area and bake oven.
After flash-off, the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts are
usually cured or dried. For powder coatings on miscellaneous metal
parts, the curing/drying step melts the powder and forms a continuous
coating on the part or product. For liquid coatings, this step removes
any remaining volatiles from the coating. The cured coatings provide
the desired decorative and/or protective characteristics. The VOC
emissions during the curing/drying process result from the evaporation
of the remaining solvents in the dryer.
The VOC emissions from the coating process can be controlled and
reduced through changes in coatings and application technology. Until
the late 1970's, conventional solvent-borne coatings were used in the
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating industry. Since
then, the industry has steadily moved towards alternative coating
formulations that eliminate or reduce the amount of solvent in the
formulations, thus reducing VOC emissions per unit amount of coating
solids used.
Currently the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating
industry uses primarily higher solids solvent-borne coatings and
waterborne coatings, as well as powder coatings on miscellaneous metal
parts. Other alternative coatings include UV-cured coatings. These
coatings are described in more detail in the CTG. When feasible, many
coatings are applied by electrostatic spraying which, as mentioned
above, has a higher transfer efficiency than the conventional air
atomized spray. The combination of low-VOC coating type and
electrostatic spraying is an effective measure for reducing VOC
emissions. Not only are VOC emissions reduced by using coatings with
low-VOC content, the use of an application method with a high transfer
efficiency, such as electrostatic spraying, lowers the volume of
coatings needed per given amount of production, thus further reducing
the amount of VOC emitted during the coating application.
The most common approach to reduce emissions from miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts coating operations is to use low-VOC content
coatings, including powder coatings, higher solids solvent-borne
coatings, and UV-cured coatings. More efficient coating application
methods can also be used to reduce VOC emissions by reducing the amount
of coating that is used in coating operations. Add-on controls may also
be used to reduce VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts coatings and cleaning materials. In some cases, add-on controls
are used where it is necessary or desirable to use high-VOC materials,
but they are also used in combination with low-VOC coatings and/or more
efficient coating application methods to achieve additional emission
reductions.
As previously mentioned, the majority of VOC emissions from spray
coating operations occur in the spray booth. The VOC concentration in
spray booth exhaust is typically low because a large volume of exhaust
air is used to dilute the VOC emissions for safety reasons. Although
VOC emissions in spray booth exhaust can be controlled with add-on
controls, because of the large volume of air that must be treated and
the low concentration of VOC, it is generally not cost-effective to do
so. On the other hand, the wide availability and lower cost of low-VOC
content coatings makes them a more attractive option than add-on
controls for reducing VOC emissions during coating application. For
those situations where an add-on control device can be justified for
production or specific coating requirements, thermal oxidation and
carbon adsorption are most widely used. Please see the draft CTG for a
detailed discussion of these and other available control devices.
To control VOC emissions from containers used to store or mix
coatings containing VOC solvents, work practices (e.g., using closed
storage containers) are used throughout the miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts surface coating industry.
Work practices are also widely used throughout the miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts surface coating industry as a means of reducing
VOC emissions from cleaning operations. These measures include covering
mixing tanks, storing solvents and solvent soaked rags and wipes in
closed containers, and cleaning spray guns in an enclosed system.
Another means of reducing VOC emissions from cleaning operations is the
use of low-VOC content, low vapor pressure, or low boiling point
cleaning materials. However, little information is available regarding
the effectiveness of the use of these types of cleaning materials to
reduce VOC emissions in the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
surface coating industry.
3. Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Control Strategies
There are five previous EPA actions that affect miscellaneous metal
and plastic parts surface coating operations. These actions are
summarized below, but are described in more detail in the actual
proposed CTG.
CTG for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (1978).
New Source Performance Standards for Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts for Business Machines (1988).
Alternative Control Techniques Document for Surface
Coating of Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts
(1994).
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (2004).
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (2004).
In 1978, EPA issued a CTG document entitled ``Control of Volatile
Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources Volume VI: Surface
Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products'' (EPA-450/2-78-015)
(1978 CTG) that provided RACT recommendations for controlling VOC
emissions from miscellaneous metal part surface coating operations. The
1978 CTG addressed VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal part coating
lines, which include the coating application area, the flash-off area,
and the curing/drying ovens. The 1978 CTG
[[Page 40237]]
did not cover can coating, coil coating, wire coating, auto and light
duty truck coating, metal furniture coating, and large appliance
coating, all of which were addressed by other CTGs. The 1978 CTG
recommended RACT VOC content limits for five miscellaneous metal part
surface coating categories. These categories included (1) coatings for
air-dried or forced air-dried items, including parts too large or too
heavy for practical size ovens and/or with sensitive heat requirements,
for parts to which heat-sensitive materials are attached, and for
equipment assembled prior to top coating for specific performance or
quality standards; (2) clear coatings; (3) coatings for outdoor or
harsh exposure or extreme performance characteristics; (4) powder
coatings; and (5) all other coatings, including baked coatings, and the
first coat applied on an untreated ferrous substrate. The recommended
VOC content limits for these five categories were all expressed in the
form of kg VOC per liter of coating, minus water and exempt
compounds.\9\ The 1978 CTG did not address VOC emissions from cleaning
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The list of exempt compounds that are considered to be
negligibly photochemically reactive in forming ozone can be found in
the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1988, EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS)
for the surface coating of plastic parts for business machines (40 CFR
part 60 subpart TTT).\10\ Business machines include typewriters,
electronic computers, calculating and accounting machines, telephone
and telegraph equipment, photocopy machines, and other office machines
not elsewhere classified. The NSPS established VOC emission limits for
spray booths in four categories of coating operations (Prime coating,
Color coating, Texture coating, and Touch-up Coating). All of these
limits were in units of kg VOC per liter of coating solids applied to
the part, which accounts for the transfer efficiency of the coating
application equipment. The NSPS did not address cleaning operations or
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The 1988 NSPS applies to sources that commenced
construction, reconstruction, or modification after January 8, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1994, EPA published ``Alternative Control Techniques Document:
Surface Coating of Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine
Plastic Parts'' (EPA-453/R-94-017, February 1994) (1994 ACT). The 1994
ACT provides information on control techniques for VOC emissions from
the surface coating of plastic parts for automotive/transportation and
business machine/electronic products. It provides information on
emissions, controls, control options, and costs that States can use in
developing rules based on RACT, but presents only options in terms of
coating reformulation control levels, and does not contain a
recommendation on RACT. The 1994 ACT presented coating reformulation
control levels for over 20 categories of coatings in terms of kg VOC
per liter of coating, less water and exempt compounds. The 1994 ACT did
not address VOC emissions from cleaning materials.
Because the 1988 NSPS limits are expressed in terms of coating
solids deposited and the 1994 ACT recommended limits are expressed in
terms of VOC per gallon of coating, less water and exempt solvents,
these limits cannot be compared directly for surface coating of
business machine plastic parts without making an assumption for the
transfer efficiency of the application equipment. If we assume a
transfer efficiency of 40 percent, then the 1988 NSPS limits for
business machine coating are less stringent than the most stringent
control level in the 1994 ACT for comparable categories of coatings.
In 2004, EPA promulgated the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts
and Products, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, which applies to metal part
surface coating operations. In the same year, EPA also promulgated the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Plastic Parts and Products, 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP.
These two NESHAP addressed organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emissions, from all activities at a facility that involve coatings,
thinners, and cleaning materials used in metal part and plastic part
surface coating operations. The two NESHAP regulate coating operations
(including surface cleaning, coating application, and equipment
cleaning); vessels used for storage and mixing of coatings, thinners,
and cleaning materials; equipment, containers, pipes and pumps used for
conveying coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and storage
vessels, pumps and piping, and conveying equipment and containers used
for waste materials.
The NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts and products surface
coating established organic HAP emission limitations for five
categories of coatings (general use, high performance, magnet wire,
rubber to metal bonding, and extreme performance fluoropolymer
coatings). The NESHAP for plastic parts and products surface coating
set organic HAP emission limitations for four categories of coatings
(general use, automotive lamp, thermoplastic olefin substrates, and
assembled on-road vehicles). In each NESHAP, coatings that do not meet
one of the specialty category definitions are subject to the general
use emission limitations. In demonstrating compliance with the HAP
content limits for each category in both NESHAP, sources have to
include the HAP emissions from cleaning in their emission calculations.
Since these two NESHAP are both based on coating reformulation to lower
the HAP content, it is not known how compliance has affected VOC
emissions, if at all, since HAP could be replaced with non-HAP VOC in
many coatings.
In addition to the EPA actions mentioned above, at least 37 States
and several local jurisdictions have specific regulations that control
VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface
coating operations. These States and local jurisdictions require one or
more of the following measures: limits on the VOC content of coatings,
requirements to reduce VOC emissions from cleaning operations, and
requirements to use high transfer efficiency application equipment or
methods to apply coatings. The State actions addressing miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts surface coating are described in detail in the
actual draft CTG.
Almost all of the States that specifically address metal part
coatings have adopted the categories and corresponding emission limits
recommended in the 1978 CTG. However, 19 States have additional
categories and limits, usually to address high performance
architectural coatings, steel pail and drum coatings, or heavy duty
truck coating.
In 1992, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) developed a RACT
guidance document for metal part surface coating operations that
included separate VOC content limits for baked and air dried coatings.
The ARB guidance contains RACT limits for general coatings and 15
categories of specialty coatings. Coatings that do not meet the
definition of one of the specialty categories are subject to the
general coating limit. Compared to the 1978 CTG, which recommended
separate limits for five categories, the 1992 ARB guidance has specific
limits for more categories of specialty coatings that cannot meet the
more stringent ``general use'' category limits. However, overall, the
recommended VOC content limits in the 1992 ARB guidance are more
stringent than the recommended limits in the 1978 CTG.
[[Page 40238]]
A total of 15 air pollution control Districts in California have
established rules for metal part surface coating operations, but they
do not all include the same categories and limits as the ARB RACT
guidance. Among these Districts, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) has adopted the most stringent VOC content limits for
21 categories of metal parts coatings in SCAQMD Rule 1107 (South Coast
Rule 1107). All of these limits, except the limits for four categories
of air dried coatings (general use one component coatings, extreme high
gloss, and one and two component high performance architectural
component coatings), have been in place since the rule's 1996 amendment
or earlier. Since the 1996 amendment, SCAQMD has further tightened the
limits for these four categories of air dried coatings through
subsequent amendments to Rule 1107.
As an alternative to meeting VOC content limits, South Coast Rule
1107 requires that, if add-on controls are used, the control system
must capture at least 90 percent of the VOC emissions. Rule 1107
further requires that the captured VOC emissions be reduced by at least
95 percent or the VOC concentration at the outlet of the air pollution
control device be no more than 5 ppm VOC by volume calculated as carbon
with no dilution, and that the control system achieves at least 90
percent capture. The add-on control requirements described above have
been in place since the rule's 1996 amendment or earlier.
In addition to SCAQMD Rule 1107, SCAQMD has also issued SCAQMD Rule
1125 to regulate VOC emissions from steel pail and drum coating
operations, whose coatings are included in the miscellaneous metal
products coatings category listed under 183(e). SCAQMD Rule 1125
establishes limits for interior and exterior coatings used on new and
reconditioned drums and pails. At least four other Districts have
specific limits for these surface coating operations in either their
metal part surface coating rules or rules for metal container coating
operations.
For plastic part surface coating, 13 States have established rules
to limit VOC emissions, and one State has issued a proposed rule. Seven
of the State rules (Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) and the one proposed rule (Ohio)
adopted the categories and control levels in the 1994 ACT for
automotive and business machine plastic parts. The other six States
(Arizona, California, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, and New York) have
not adopted the control levels provided in the 1994 ACT. Instead, they
have adopted limits for only one or two categories of plastic parts
coatings. In some cases, these limits apply to all plastic parts
coatings and are not limited to only automotive or business machine
plastic parts. These limits are generally not as stringent as the most
stringent control level in the 1994 ACT for comparable coating
categories.
Three California Air Quality Management Districts, including the
SCAQMD, have rules containing emission limits for coating plastic
parts. South Coast Rule 1145 (Plastic, Rubber, Leather, And Glass
Coatings) has VOC content limits for 11 categories of coatings that can
be applied to plastics. All of these limits, except the limits for four
categories (general use one and two component coatings, electrical
dissipating and shock free coatings, and optical coatings), have been
in place since the rule's 1997 amendment or earlier. Since the 1997
amendment, SCAQMD has further tightened the limits for the four
categories identified above through subsequent amendments to Rule 1145.
As an alternative to meeting VOC content limits, South Coast Rule
1145 requires that, if add-on controls are used the control system must
capture at least 90 percent of the VOC emissions. Rule 1145 further
requires that the captured VOC emissions be reduced by at least 95
percent or the VOC concentration at the outlet of the air pollution
control device be no more than 5 ppm VOC by volume calculated as carbon
with no dilution, and that the control system achieves at least 90
percent capture. The add-on control requirements described above have
been in place since 1997 or earlier.
Several States (California, Arizona, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire) that limit the VOC content of the coatings used for
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating have requirements to use
specific types of high-efficiency coating application methods to
further reduce VOC emissions. For example, in addition to limiting the
VOC contents in the coatings, SCAQMD Rule 1107 requires the use of one
of the following types of application equipment: Electrostatic
application; flow coating; dip coating; roll coating; hand application;
HVLP spray; or an alternative method that is demonstrated to be capable
of achieving a transfer efficiency equal to or better than HVLP spray.
Alternative methods must be approved by the District based on actual
transfer efficiency measurements in a side-by-side comparison of the
alternative method and an HVLP spray gun. Rules that regulate emissions
from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating from at
least nine other Districts are similar to SCAQMD Rule 1107 in that they
also require that sources use methods that achieve high transfer
efficiency.
California and at least 11 other States have requirements to reduce
VOC emissions from cleaning materials used in metal and plastic parts
surface coating operations. At least 12 Districts in California
regulate the VOC content of cleaning materials used in these surface
coating operations. These regulations are aimed at reducing VOC
emissions from cleaning materials by combining work practice and
equipment standards with limits on the VOC content, boiling point, or
composite vapor pressure of the solvent being used. Some District rules
allow the use of add-on controls as an alternative to the VOC content/
boiling point/vapor pressure limits for cleaning materials. As
mentioned above, several Districts have established work practice and
equipment standards to minimize VOC solvent emissions. These standards
include, for example, using closed containers for storing solvent and
solvent containing wipes and rags, using enclosed and automated spray
gun washing equipment, and prohibiting atomized spraying of solvent
during spray gun cleaning. However, the cleaning material VOC content/
boiling point/vapor pressure limits, overall control efficiency
requirements, and work practices vary by District.
Among the other States, besides California, with cleaning material
requirements, only Massachusetts limits the VOC content of solvents
used for surface preparation, and none limit the VOC content, boiling
point, or vapor pressure of solvents used for spray gun cleaning.
Instead, they have established equipment standards and work practices,
such as using enclosed spray gun washers and storing solvents and
solvent containing rags and wipes in closed containers. For metal part
surface coating operations, seven States require that VOC from
equipment cleaning be considered in determining compliance with the
emission limit for each coating category, unless the solvent is
directed into containers that prevent evaporation into the atmosphere.
B. Recommended Control Techniques
The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for reducing
VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface
coatings and associated cleaning materials. As explained in the draft
CTG, we are
[[Page 40239]]
recommending these control options for miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts surface coating operations that emit 6.8 kg VOC per day (VOC/day)
(15 lb VOC/day or 3 tons per year (tpy)) or more before consideration
of control. For purposes of determining whether a facility meets the
6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) threshold, aggregate emissions
from all miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating
operations and related cleaning activities at a given facility are
included.
The draft CTG would not apply to facilities that emit below the
threshold level because of the very small VOC emission reductions that
would be achieved. The recommended threshold level is equivalent to the
evaporation of approximately two gallons of solvent per day. Such a
level is considered to be an incidental level of solvent usage that
could be expected even in facilities that use very low-VOC content
coatings, such as powder or UV-cure coatings. Furthermore, based on the
2002 National Emission Inventory (NEI) data and the 2004 ozone
nonattainment designations, facilities emitting below the recommended
threshold level collectively emit less than four percent of the total
reported VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
surface coating facilities in ozone nonattainment areas. For these
reasons, the draft CTG does not specify control for these low emitting
facilities. This recommended threshold is also consistent with our
recommendations in many previous CTGs.
In addition, with respect to heavier vehicle \11\ bodies and body
parts coatings, which are included in the Miscellaneous Metal Products
and Plastic Parts coatings categories and are therefore covered by this
draft CTG, we recommend certain flexibility in applying this draft CTG.
Specifically, we recommend that States consider structuring their RACT
rules to provide heavier vehicle coating facilities with the option of
meeting the requirements for automobile and light-duty truck coating
category in lieu of the requirements for the miscellaneous metal
products coatings category or the plastic parts coatings category.
Please see section III.B of this notice for a discussion of our reasons
for this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ As previously mentioned, heavier vehicles refers to all
vehicles that meet the definition of the term ``other motor
vehicles,'' as defined in the NESHAP for Surface Coating of
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks at 40 CFR 63.3176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Coatings
The draft CTG provides flexibility by recommending three options
for controlling VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts coatings: (1) VOC content limits for each coating category based
on the use of low-VOC content coatings (expressed as kg VOC per liter
(kg VOC/l) coating, less water and exempt compounds) and specified
application methods to achieve good coating transfer efficiency; (2)
emission rate limits (expressed as kg VOC/l of coating solids) based on
the use of a combination of low-VOC coatings, specified application
methods, and add-on controls; or (3) an overall control efficiency of
90 percent for facilities that choose to use add-on controls instead of
low-VOC content coatings and specified application methods. The first
two options are expected to achieve equivalent VOC emission reductions.
The third option provides facilities the flexibility to use a high
efficiency add-on control in lieu of low-VOC coatings and specified
application methods, especially when the use of high VOC coatings is
necessary or desirable. The third option is expected to achieve an
emission reduction at least as great as the first two options.
For Option 1, we are recommending the VOC content limits and
application method, as well as the exemptions, in the following
regulations:
South Coast AQMD's Rule 1107 (March 6, 1996) for Coating
of Metal Parts and Products.
South Coast AQMD's Rule 1125 (as amended January 13, 1995)
for Metal Container, Closure, and Coil Coating.
South Coast AQMD's Rule 1145 (February 14, 1997) for
Plastic, Rubber, Leather, and Glass Coatings.
Michigan Rule 336.1632 (as amended April 28, 1993) for
Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds From Existing Automobile, Truck,
and Business Machine Plastic Part Coating Lines.
The limits in SCAQMD Rule 1125 and Michigan Rule 336.1632 have been
in place since the amendments noted above for these rules. As mentioned
above, SCAQMD has changed the limits for several categories in SCAQMD
Rules 1107 and 1145 in subsequent amendments to these two rules. These
new limits, however, have not been in place very long. We do not have
information regarding the cost of implementing these new limits. We
could not conclude that these limits are technologically and
economically feasible and, therefore, reflect RACT for all affected
facilities in ozone nonattainment areas nationwide. We are, therefore,
not recommending the limits in SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1145 promulgated
subsequent to the amendments to these rules noted above.
The recommended limits in SCAQMD rules described above are more
stringent than the limits provided in other existing Federal, State,
and local actions limiting VOC emissions from these coating categories.
Because of the large size of the SCAQMD and the number of regulated
sources, the facilities subject to these three SCAQMD rules are
considered to be representative of the type of sources located in other
parts of the country. The recommended limits have been or were in
effect a long time (i.e., since 1997 or earlier). Therefore, we believe
that these limits are technically and economically feasible for sources
in other parts of the country and, therefore, have included them as our
recommendations in the draft CTG.
The Michigan rule is based on the control levels provided in the
1994 ACT, which is more stringent than the 1988 NSPS for comparable
coating categories for business machines. Michigan has a substantial
number of sources subject to Rule 336.1632, and these sources'
compliance with Michigan Rule 336.1632 shows that the VOC content
limits in Michigan Rule 336.1632 are technically and economically
feasible. The limits in the Michigan rule have been in effect since
1993. Therefore, we recommend in the draft CTG the VOC content limits
contained in Michigan Rule 336.1632.
Specifically, for miscellaneous metal parts surface coatings,
Option 1 in the draft CTG includes the VOC content limits in SCAQMD
Rule 1107 (Coating of Metal Parts and Products, March 6, 1996), which
sets separate limits for baked coatings and air-dried coatings for 21
categories of coatings used on metal parts. Option 1 also includes four
limits for drum, pail and lid coating in SCAQMD Rule 1125 (Metal
Container, Closure, and Coil Coating Operations, as amended January 13,
1995).
For surface coating of plastic parts that are not part of
automotive/transportation equipment or business machines, the draft CTG
includes the VOC content limits in SCAQMD Rule 1145 (Plastic, Rubber,
Leather, and Glass coatings) (February 14, 1997) for 11 categories of
plastic parts coatings. These limits became effective January 1, 1998.
As mentioned above, all but four of these limits are still in place.
For surface coatings for automotive plastic parts and business
machine plastic parts, Option 1 includes the VOC content limits in
Michigan Rule 336.1632 (Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds from
Existing Automobile, Truck, and Business Machine Plastic Part Coating
Lines).
[[Page 40240]]
As in the SCAQMD rule 1107, for metal parts coatings, we recommend
in the draft CTG that only the recommended work practices, but not the
recommended VOC limits and application methods, apply to the following
types of coatings and coating operations: Stencil coatings; safety-
indicating coatings; magnetic data storage disk coatings; solid-film
lubricants; electric-insulating and thermal-conducting coatings;
coating application using hand-held aerosol cans; plastic extruded onto
metal parts to form a coating. We also recommend that the recommended
application methods not apply to touch-up coatings, repair coatings,
and textured finishes, but we recommend that the recommended VOC limits
and work practices apply to these coatings and coating operations.
As in SCAQMD Rule 1145, we recommend in the draft CTG that the
recommended application methods and work practices, but not the
recommended VOC limits, apply to the following types of coatings and
coating operations that are not for automotive/transportation equipment
or business machines: Touch-up and repair coatings; stencil coatings
applied on clear or transparent substrates; clear or translucent
coatings; coatings applied at a paint manufacturing facility while
conducting performance tests on the coatings; any individual coating
category used in volumes less than 50 gallons in any one year, if
substitute compliant coatings are not available, provided that the
total usage of all such coatings does not exceed 200 gallons per year,
per facility; reflective coating applied to highway cones; mask
coatings that are less than 0.5 millimeter thick (dried) and the area
coated is less than 25 square inches; or coatings that are less than
0.5 millimeter thick (dried) and/or the area coated is more than 25
square inches; EMI/RFI shielding coatings; heparin-benzalkonium
chloride (HBAC)-containing coatings applied to medical devices,
provided that the total usage of all such coatings does not exceed 100
gallons per year, per facility; aerosol coating products; and airbrush
operations using five gallons or less per year. We also recommend that
the recommended application methods not apply to airbrush operations
using 5 gallons or less per year of coating, but we recommend that the
VOC limits and work practices apply to these operations.
For automotive/transportation and business machine plastic part
coating, we also recommend in the draft CTG that the recommended
application methods and work practices, but not the recommended VOC
limits, apply to the following types of coatings and operations:
Texture coatings; vacuum metalizing coatings; gloss reducers; texture
topcoats; adhesion primers; electrostatic preparation coatings; resist
coatings; and stencil coatings. Further details of these
recommendations, including tables of coating categories and limits, can
be found in the draft CTG.
The VOC emission rate limits in Option 2 (VOC per volume solids)
were converted from the VOC content limits in Option 1 using an assumed
VOC density of 7.36 lb/gallon (883 g/liter).
The draft CTG also recommends the use of the following application
methods to achieve good coating transfer efficiency when using low-VOC
coatings under the first or second option: Electrostatic spray, HVLP
spray, flow coat, roller coat, dip coat including electrodeposition,
brush coat, or other coating application methods that are capable of
achieving a transfer efficiency equivalent or better than that achieved
by HVLP spraying. The draft CTG recommends the use of these application
methods in conjunction with the use of low-VOC content coatings.
Furthermore, the draft CTG recommends the following work practices
for use with all three of the control options: (1) Store all VOC-
containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste materials in
closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing and storage containers used
for VOC-containing coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste
materials are kept closed at all times except when depositing or
removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of VOC-containing
coatings, thinners, and coating-related waste materials; and (4) convey
coatings, thinners and coating-related waste materials from one
location to another in closed containers or pipes.
2. Cleaning Materials
The draft CTG recommends work practices to reduce VOC emissions
from cleaning materials. We recommend that, at a minimum, the work
practices include the following: (1) Store all VOC-containing cleaning
materials and used shop towels in closed containers; (2) ensure that
mixing and storage containers used for VOC-containing cleaning
materials are kept closed at all times except when depositing or
removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of VOC-containing
cleaning materials; (4) convey cleaning materials from one location to
another in closed containers or pipes; and (5) minimize VOC emissions
from cleaning of application, storage, mixing, and conveying equipment
by ensuring that application equipment cleaning is performed without
atomizing the cleaning solvent outside of an enclosure and all spent
solvent is captured in closed containers.
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
Based on the 2002 NEI database, we estimate that there are 3,925
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating facilities in the
United States (U.S.). Using the April 2004 ozone nonattainment
designations, we estimated that 2,539 of these facilities are in ozone
nonattainment areas. Based on the 2002 NEI VOC emissions data, 1,296 of
the 2,539 facilities in ozone nonattainment areas emitted VOC at or
above the recommended 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy)
applicability threshold. These 1,296 facilities, in aggregate, emit an
estimated 20,098 Mg/yr (22,108 tpy) of VOC, or an average of about 15.5
Mg/yr (17.0 tpy) of VOC per facility.
We have estimated the total annual control costs to be
approximately $13.5 million based on the use of low-VOC coatings, and
emission reductions will be about 35 percent. Since these recommended
measures are expected to result in a VOC emissions reduction of 7,034
Mg/yr (7,738 tpy), the cost-effectiveness is estimated to be $1,919/Mg
($1,745/ton). The impacts are further discussed in the draft CTG
document.
We have concluded that the work practice recommendations in the
draft CTG will result in a net cost savings. These work practices
reduce the amount of cleaning materials used by decreasing the amount
that evaporates and is therefore wasted. Similarly, the adoption of
more efficient spray guns, as recommended in the CTG, will reduce
coating consumption and will also result in net cost savings compared
to conventional spray guns. However, because we cannot determine the
extent to which these practices have already been adopted, we cannot
quantify these savings. Therefore, these cost savings are not reflected
in the above cost impacts.
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as
Effective as a Regulation
In determining whether to issue a national rule or a CTG for the
product categories of miscellaneous metal product and plastic parts
surface coatings under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four
factors identified above in section I.D in
[[Page 40241]]
light of the specific facts and circumstances associated with these
product categories. Based on that analysis, we propose to determine
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a rule in achieving
VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from miscellaneous
metal product and plastic parts surface coating and associated cleaning
materials.
This section is divided into two parts. In the first part, we
discuss our belief that the most effective means of achieving VOC
emission reductions in these two CAA section 183(e) product categories
is through controls at the point of use of the product (i.e., through
controls on the use of coating and cleaning materials at miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts surface coating facilities), and these controls
can be accomplished only through a CTG. We further explain that the
recommended approaches in the draft CTG are consistent with existing
effective EPA, State, and local VOC control strategies. In the second
part, we discuss how the distribution and place of use of the products
in these two product categories also support the use of a CTG. We also
discuss the likely VOC emission reductions associated with a CTG, as
compared to a regulation. We further explain that there are control
approaches for these categories that result in significant VOC emission
reductions and that such reductions could only be obtained by
controlling the use of the products through a CTG. Such reductions
could not be obtained through a regulation under CAA section 183(e)
because the controls affect the end-user, which is not a regulated
entity under CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). For these reasons, which are
described more fully below, we believe that a CTG will achieve greater
VOC emission reductions than a rule for these categories.
1. The Most Effective Entity to Target for VOC Reductions and
Consistency With Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Strategies
To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions,
it is important first to identify the primary sources of VOC emissions.
There are two main sources of VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal
and plastic parts surface coating: (1) Evaporation of VOC from
coatings; and (2) evaporation of VOC from cleaning materials. We
address each of these sources of VOC emissions, in turn, below, as we
discuss the CTG versus regulation approach.
a. Coatings. A national rule could contain limits for the as-sold
VOC content of coatings that are marketed as miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts coatings. However, the effect of such national rule
setting low-VOC content limits for miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts surface coatings could be easily subverted because it could not
guarantee that only those low-VOC content coating materials would be
used for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating. Many
coatings used in miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating
operations are not specifically marketed by the supplier as coatings
for specific products. Therefore, these facilities could purchase and
use high-VOC specialty coatings materials for routine coating
operations, and this practice would effectively nullify the
reformulation actions of the manufacturers and suppliers of low-VOC
coatings, resulting in no net change in VOC emissions in ozone
nonattainment areas.
By contrast, a CTG can affect the end-users of the coating
materials and, therefore, can implement the control measures that are
more likely to achieve the objective of reducing VOC emissions from
these product categories in ozone nonattainment areas. As previously
discussed, the draft CTG recommends three options for reducing VOC
emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coatings:
(1) VOC content limits that can be achieved through the use of low-VOC
content coatings and specific application methods; (2) equivalent
emission limits based on the use of a combination of low-VOC coatings,
specific application methods, and add-on controls; and (3) an overall
90 percent control efficiency should a facility choose to use add-on
controls in conjunction with high-VOC content coatings. In addition, we
recommend in the draft CTG that certain work practices be implemented
in conjunction with any of the three control options described above to
further reduce VOC emissions from coatings as well as controlling VOC
emissions from cleaning materials. These recommended work practices
have been shown to effectively reduce VOC beyond the level achievable
using either low-VOC materials and specific application methods or add-
on controls. Given the significant reductions achievable through the
use of these recommended control measures, the most effective entity to
address VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
surface coatings is the facility using the coatings.
These control measures are consistent with existing EPA, State, and
local VOC control strategies applicable to miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts surface coating. As mentioned above, previous EPA actions
and existing State and local regulations (in particular, the
regulations in the majority of the California air Districts and in
Michigan) that address miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface
coating similarly call for VOC emission reduction through the use of
low-VOC content materials, or the use of control devices in conjunction
with high-VOC content coating materials. Some State and local VOC
control strategies also include work practices and specific application
methods.
We cannot, however, issue a national rule directly requiring
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating facilities to use
low-VOC content coatings, control devices or specific application
methods, or to implement work practices to reduce VOC emissions
because, pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), the
regulated entities subject to a national rule would be the coating
manufacturers and suppliers, not the miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts surface coating facilities. By contrast, a CTG can reach the end-
users of the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings and,
therefore, can implement the control recommendations for end-users that
are identified above as more likely to achieve the objective of
reducing VOC emissions from these product categories in ozone
nonattainment areas. Accordingly, we are including these recommended
control measures in the draft CTG that applies to miscellaneous metal
and plastic parts surface coatings facilities as the end-users of the
coating materials.
b. Cleaning Materials. There are two primary means to control VOC
emissions associated with the cleaning materials used in the
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating process: (1)
Limiting the VOC content, boiling point, or VOC vapor pressure of the
cleaning materials, and (2) implementing work practices governing the
use of the cleaning materials. A national rule requiring that
manufacturers of cleaning materials for miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts surface coating operations provide low-VOC content or low vapor
pressure (high boiling point) cleaning materials would suffer from the
same deficiencies noted above with regard to the coatings.
Specifically, nothing in a national rule that regulates manufacturers
and suppliers of cleaning materials specified for use in miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts surface coating operations would preclude the
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating industry from
purchasing bulk solvents or other multipurpose cleaning
[[Page 40242]]
materials from other vendors. The general availability of bulk solvents
or multipurpose cleaning materials from vendors that would not be
subject to such regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness
of such a national regulation.
The more effective approach for reducing VOC emissions from
cleaning materials used by miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
surface coaters is to control the use of cleaning materials through
work practices. The draft CTG recommends that miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts surface coating facilities implement work practices to
reduce VOC emissions from cleaning materials during surface coating
operations. Examples of effective work practices are: Keeping solvents
and used shop towels in closed containers; using enclosed spray gun
cleaners and preventing the atomized spraying of cleaning solvent
outside of an enclosure; minimizing spills of VOC-containing cleaning
materials; cleaning up spills immediately; and conveying any VOC-
containing cleaning materials in closed containers or pipes. These work
practices have proven to be effective in reducing VOC emissions.
Given the significant VOC reductions achievable through the
implementation of work practices, we conclude that the most effective
entity to address VOC emissions from cleaning materials used in
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating operations is the
facility using the cleaning materials during surface coating
operations. This recommendation is consistent with measures required by
State and local jurisdictions for reducing VOC emissions from cleaning
materials used in miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating
operations.
We cannot, however, issue a rule requiring such work practices for
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating facilities
because, pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), the
regulated entities subject to a national rule would be the cleaning
materials manufacturers and suppliers and not the miscellaneous metal
and plastic parts surface coating facilities. By contrast, a CTG can
address these coating facilities. Accordingly, we are including in the
draft CTG these work practices that apply to miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts surface coating facilities as the end-users of the
cleaning materials.
Based on the nature of the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
surface coating process, the sources of significant VOC emissions from
this process, and the available strategies for reducing such emissions,
the most effective means of achieving VOC emission reductions from
these product categories is through controls at the point of use of the
products, (i.e., through controls on miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts surface coaters). This strategy can be accomplished only through
a CTG. The recommended approaches described in the draft CTG are also
consistent with effective existing EPA, State, and local VOC control
strategies for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating
operations. These two factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be
substantially as effective as a national regulation under CAA section
183(e) in addressing VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts surface coatings and associated cleaning materials in ozone
nonattainment areas.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves,
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors
relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further
confirm that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coatings
and associated cleaning materials.
First, miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coatings and
associated cleaning materials are used at commercial facilities in
specific, identifiable locations. Specifically, these materials are
used in commercial manufacturing facilities that apply surface coating
to miscellaneous metal and plastic parts, as described in section
III.A. This stands in contrast to other consumer products, such as
architectural coatings, that are widely distributed and used by
innumerable small users (e.g. , individual consumers in the general
public). Because the VOC emissions are occurring at commercial
manufacturing facilities, implementation and enforcement of controls
concerning the use of these products are feasible. Therefore the nature
of the products' place of use further counsels in favor of the CTG
approach.
Second, a CTG will achieve greater emission reduction than a
national rule for VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts surface coatings and associated cleaning materials. For the
reasons described above, we believe that a national rule limiting the
VOC content in coatings and cleaning materials used in miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts surface coating operations would result in
little VOC emissions reduction. By contrast, a CTG can achieve
significant VOC emissions reduction because it can provide for the
highly effective emission control strategies described above that are
applicable to the end-users of the coatings and cleaning materials at
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface coating facilities. As
described above, our recommendations in the draft CTG include the use
of control devices, specific application methods, and work practices.
The significant VOC reductions associated with these measures could not
be obtained through a national regulation, because they are achieved
through the implementation of measures by the end-user. In addition, as
previously explained, strategies that arguably could be implemented
through rulemaking, such as limiting the VOC content in coatings and
cleaning materials, are far more effective if implemented directly at
the point of use of the product through a CTG. For the reasons stated
above, it is more effective to control the VOC emissions from coatings
and cleaning materials used for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
surface coating through a CTG than through a national regulation.
Furthermore, the number of miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
surface coating facilities affected by our recommendations in this
draft CTG, as compared to the total number of such facilities in ozone
nonattainment areas, does not affect our conclusion that the CTG would
be substantially more effective than a rule in controlling VOC
emissions for these product categories. We recommend the control
measures described in the draft CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts surface coating facilities that emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/
day or 3 tpy) or more VOC. Based on the April 2004 ozone nonattainment
designations, we estimate that 1,296 of the 2,539 miscellaneous metal
and plastic parts surface coating facilities located in ozone
nonattainment areas emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or
more and are therefore addressed by our recommendations in the draft
CTG. We estimate that 1,243 miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
surface coating facilities would not be covered by the recommendations
in the draft CTG. However, according to the 2002 NEI database, these
1,243 facilities collectively emitted about 670 Mg/yr (740 tpy) of VOC,
which is less than four percent of the total reported VOC (an average
of about 0.5 Mg/yr (0.5 tpy) per facility) in ozone nonattainment
areas. The fact that the CTG addresses
[[Page 40243]]
more than 96 percent of the VOC emissions from miscellaneous metal and
plastic parts surface coating facilities in ozone nonattainment areas
further supports our conclusion that a CTG is more likely to achieve
the intended VOC emission reduction goal for these product categories
than a national rule.
Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and
circumstances associated with these product categories, we propose to
determine that a CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts surface
coating facilities will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation.
III. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings
A. Industry Characterization
1. Source Category Description
This category of consumer and commercial products includes the
coatings that are applied to new automobile or new light-duty truck
bodies, or body parts for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks.\12\
These bodies or body parts may be made of metal or plastic. The large
majority of these coatings are specifically formulated, marketed and
sold for this end use and are applied at automobile or light-duty truck
assembly plants. However, this CAA section 183(e) category also
includes coatings applied at facilities that perform these coating
operations on a contractual basis. This category does not include
coatings used at plastic or composites molding facilities as described
in the Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP (40
CFR part 63, subpart IIII). Automobile and light-duty truck coatings
enhance a vehicle's durability and appearance. Some of the coating
system characteristics that automobile and light-duty truck
manufacturers test for include adhesion, water resistance, humidity
resistance, salt spray resistance, color, gloss, acid etch resistance,
and stone chip resistance. The primary coatings used are
electrodeposition primer (EDP), primer-surfacer (including anti-chip
coatings), topcoat (basecoat and clearcoat) and final repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Please see 40 CFR 63.3176 (the NESHAP for Surface Coating
of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks) for the definitions of
``automobiles'' and ``light-duty trucks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealers, deadeners, transit coatings and cavity waxes used in the
production of new automobiles and new light-duty trucks are included in
the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings categories and are
addressed in the draft CTG for miscellaneous metal products and plastic
parts coatings. Adhesives, glass bonding primers and glass bonding
adhesives used in the production of new automobiles and new light-duty
trucks are included in the miscellaneous industrial adhesives product
category and are addressed in the draft CTG for miscellaneous
industrial adhesives. In the draft CTG, however, we seek comments on
whether the use of these materials in the production of new automobiles
and new light-duty trucks should instead be included in the auto and
light-duty truck assembly coatings category and addressed in the CTG
for auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings. In addition, in the
draft CTG, we seek comments, including supporting VOC content
information, on appropriate control recommendations specifically for
the use of these materials in the production of new automobiles and new
light-duty trucks if EPA were to include such use of these materials in
the auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings category and address
them in the CTG for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
The VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty truck surface
coating operations are primarily a result of evaporation of the VOC
contained in the coatings and cleaning materials used in these
operations.\13\ The primary VOC emissions from automobile and light-
duty truck surface coatings occur during coating application/flash-off
and curing/drying of the coatings. The remaining emissions are mainly
from mixing and/or thinning. The VOC emissions from mixing and thinning
of coatings occur from displacement of VOC-laden air in containers used
to mix coatings containing solvents (thinners) prior to coating
application. The displacement of VOC-laden air can also occur during
filling of containers and can be caused by changes in temperature,
changes in barometric pressure, or agitation during mixing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In a previous notice, EPA stated that the cleaning
operations associated with certain specified 183(e) consumer and
commercial product categories, including automobile and light duty-
truck assembly coatings, would not be covered by EPA's 2006 CTG for
industrial cleaning solvents (71 FR 44522 and 44540, August 4, 2006)
* * *. In the notice, EPA expressed its intention to address
cleaning operations associated with these categories in the CTGs for
these specified categories if the EPA determines that a CTG is
appropriate for a respective category * * *. Accordingly, the draft
CTG for auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings category
addresses VOC emissions from cleaning operations associated with
this product category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VOC emissions from coating application occur when solvent
evaporates from the coating as it is being applied to the vehicle part
or body. The transfer efficiency (the percent of coating solids applied
to the automobile or light-duty truck body or body part) of a coating
application method affects the amount of VOC emitted during coating
application. A coating application method that is more efficient in
transferring coatings to the substrate will reduce the volume of
coatings (and therefore solvents) needed per given amount of
production; thus reducing VOC emissions.
Before coatings are applied, the body of an automobile or light-
duty truck is assembled, anticorrosion operations are performed, and
any plastic parts to be finished with the body are installed. A series
of coatings are applied to protect the metal surface from corrosion and
assure good adhesion of subsequent coatings. First, an EDP coating is
applied to the body using a method in which a negatively charged
automobile or light-duty truck body is immersed in a positively charged
bath of waterborne EDP. The coating particles (resin and pigment)
migrate toward the body and are deposited onto the body surface,
creating a strong bond between the coating and the body to provide a
durable coating. Once the coating application deposition is completed,
the body is rinsed in a succession of individual spray and/or immersion
rinse stations and then dried with an automatic air blow-off. Following
the rinsing stage (including the automatic air blow-off), the deposited
coating is cured in an electrodeposition curing oven.
After curing, the body is further water-proofed by sealing spot-
welded joints of the body. After sealing, the body proceeds to the
anti-chip booth where anti-chip coatings are applied to protect the
vulnerable areas of the body. Next, a primer-surfacer coating is
applied. The purpose of the primer-surfacer coating is to provide
``filling'' or hide minor imperfections in the body, provide additional
protection to the vehicle body, and bolster the appearance of the
topcoats. Primer-surfacer coatings are applied by spray application in
a water-wash spray booth. Following application of the primer-surfacer,
the body is baked to cure the film, minimize dirt pickup, and reduce
processing time.
The next step of the coating process is the spray application of
the topcoat, which usually consists of a basecoat (color) and a
clearcoat. The purpose of the clearcoat is to add luster and durability
to the vehicle finish and protect the total coating system against
solvents, chemical agents, water,
[[Page 40244]]
weather, and other environmental effects.
After the topcoat (i.e., a basecoat and a clearcoat) is applied,
the automobile or light-duty truck body or body parts proceed to a
flash-off area, where a certain level of solvent evaporation occurs.
This step is designed to prevent bubble formation during curing in the
bake oven. After flash-off, the automobile and light-duty truck bodies
or body parts are then dried/cured in bake ovens.
The amount of VOC emissions from the flash-off area depends on the
type of coating used, how quickly the component or product moves
through the flash-off area, and the distance between the application
area and the bake oven. For liquid spray applications, it is estimated
that 65-80 percent of the volatiles are emitted during the application
and flash-off operations, and the remaining 20-35 percent from the
curing/drying operation.
After curing of the topcoat, the vehicle proceeds to final
assembly. If necessary, the fully assembled vehicle proceeds to final
repair, where coatings are applied and other operations are performed
to correct damage or imperfections in the coating. The coatings applied
during final repair are cured at a lower temperature than that used for
curing primer-surfacer and topcoat. The lower cure temperature is
necessary to protect heat-sensitive components on completely assembled
motor vehicles.
Until the 1970's, the majority of coatings used in the automobile
and light-duty truck manufacturing industry were conventional solvent-
borne coatings, with high VOC content. Due to a combination of
regulation at the State and Federal level, technology development and
competitive factors, the industry has steadily moved to lower VOC
content coatings. These alternative coatings include powder coatings,
waterborne coatings, and higher solids coatings. The utilization of
these alternative coatings in conjunction with efficient spray
application equipment, such as electrostatic spray, is the primary
method that is currently being used at auto and light-duty truck
surface coating operations to reduce VOC emissions from the coatings.
In addition, many facilities control the exhaust from their bake ovens.
Some facilities have also employed partial spray booth controls by
venting spray booth emissions, principally from automated spray zones,
through an add-on control device such as an oxidizer or hybrid
(concentrator followed by an oxidizer) control system.
Powder anti-chip and primer-surfacer coatings are used at some
automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants. Powder coating
produces minimal amounts of VOC emissions. Powder coating is applied
via powder delivery systems, which in most cases is an electrostatic
spray. Because powder coatings are applied as dried particles, no VOC
are released during the application operation. Depending on the powder
formulation, some volatile emissions may occur when the powder is
heated during the curing step. In any event, any volatile emissions
from the heating of powder coatings would generally be much less than
the volatile emissions from the heating of liquid coatings during the
curing operations. Powder coating applications are best suited for long
production runs of consistently sized parts without color changes.
Waterborne coatings produce minimal VOC emissions primarily because
a large portion of the VOC solvent carrier is replaced with water.
Waterborne EDPs are used at almost every automobile and light-duty
truck assembly plant. Waterborne primer-surfacer and waterborne
basecoat are used at some automobile and light-duty truck assembly
plants. Waterborne primer-surfacer and waterborne basecoat are applied
by a combination of manual and automatic, and electrodeposition and
non-electrodeposition spray techniques.
Higher solids coatings contain more solids than ``conventional''
(pre-1980) coatings. These coatings reduce VOC emissions because they
contain less VOC solvent per unit volume of solids than conventional
solvent-borne coatings. Thus, a lesser amount of VOC emissions are
released during coating preparation, application, and curing to deliver
a given amount of coating solids. Higher solids primer-surfacer and
basecoat are used at some automobile and light-duty truck assembly
plants. Higher solids clearcoat is used at every automobile and light-
duty truck assembly plant. Higher solids primer-surfacer and basecoat
are applied by a combination of manual and automatic, and
electrodeposition and non-electrodeposition spray techniques.
As previously mentioned, another source of VOC emissions from
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations is cleaning
materials. The VOC are emitted when solvents evaporate from the
cleaning materials during use. Cleaning materials are used for several
purposes, including the cleaning of spray guns, transfer lines (e.g.,
tubing or piping), tanks, and the interior of spray booths, and
cleaning other unwanted materials from equipment related to coating
operations. These cleaning materials are typically mixtures of organic
solvents.
Work practices are widely used throughout the automobile and light-
duty truck manufacturing industry to reduce VOC emissions from cleaning
operations. These measures include covering mixing tanks, storing
solvents and solvent soaked rags and wipes in closed containers, and
cleaning spray guns in an enclosed system. Low-VOC content or low vapor
pressure cleaning materials are used for certain cleaning activities.
However, there is insufficient information available to correlate VOC
content or vapor pressure to specific cleaning steps.
3. Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Control Strategies
Three previous EPA actions addressed automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating operations.
CTG for Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks (1977).
New Source Performance Standard for Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations, 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM
(1980).
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Surface Coating of Automobile and Light-Duty Trucks, 40 CFR 63,
subpart IIII (2004).
In 1977, EPA issued a CTG document entitled ``Control of Volatile
Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources Volume II: Surface
Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty
Trucks'' (EPA-450/2-77-008). The 1977 CTG and subsequent implementation
guidance provided RACT recommendations for controlling VOC emissions
from automobile and light-duty trucks surface coating operations. These
recommendations are summarized in Table 1.
[[Page 40245]]
Table 1.--1977 CTG Recommended VOC Emission Limits for Automobile and
Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDP operation........................... 0.14 kg VOC/liter (1.2 lbs/
gal) of coating, excluding
water and exempt compounds,
or 0.17 kg VOC/liter (1.4 lb
VOC/gallon) of coating solids
deposited.
Primer-surfacer (guide coat) operation.. 1.8 kg VOC/liter (15.1 lb VOC/
gallon) of coating solids
deposited.
Topcoat operation....................... 1.8 kg VOC/liter (15.1 lb VOC/
gallon) of coating solids
deposited.
Final repair operation.................. 0.58 kg VOC/liter (4.8 lbs/
gal) of coating, excluding
water and exempt compounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1980, EPA promulgated an NSPS for surface coating of automobile
and light-duty trucks (40 CFR part 60 subpart MM). Due to the
differences in emission limit formats, the NSPS and the 1977 CTG limits
cannot be compared. The NSPS established the emission limits calculated
on a monthly basis for each primecoat operation, guidecoat (primer-
surfacer) operation, and topcoat operation located in an automobile or
light-duty truck assembly plant constructed, reconstructed, or modified
after October 5, 1979 (Table 2). The NSPS does not apply to plastic
body component coating operations or to all-plastic automobile or
light-duty truck bodies coated on separate coating lines. The VOC
emission limit for EDP primecoat operations depends on the solids
turnover ratio (Rt). The solids turnover ratio is the ratio of total
volume of coating solids added to the EDP system in a calendar month to
the total volumetric design capacity of the EDP system.
Table 2.--1980 NSPS VOC Emission Limits for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primecoat Operations (Non-EDP)...... 0.17 kg VOC/liter (1.42 lb/gal) coating solids applied.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Rt = >=0.16: When 0.040 <=Rt <0.160: When Rt <0.040:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primecoat Operations (EDP).......... 0.17 kg VOC/liter (1.42 0.17 x 3500.160-Rtkg No VOC emission limit.
lb/gal) coating solids VOC/liter (0.17 x
applied. 3500.160 Rt x 8.34 lb/
gal) coating solids
applied.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guidecoat Operations (including the 1.40 kg VOC/liter (11.7 lb/gal) coating solids applied.
guide coat application, flash-off
area, and oven).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topcoat Operations (including 1.47 kg VOC/liter (12.3 lb/gal) coating solids applied.
topcoat application, flash-off
area, and oven).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, EPA promulgated the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Automobile and Light-Duty
Trucks, 40 CFR, part 63, subpart IIII. The areas covered by the NESHAP
include all the equipment used to apply coating to new automobile or
light-duty truck bodies or body parts and to dry or cure the coatings
after application; all storage containers and mixing vessels in which
vehicle body coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials are stored and
mixed; all manual and automated equipment and containers used for
conveying vehicle body coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials; and
all storage containers and all manual and automated equipment and
containers used to convey waste materials generated by an automobile
and light-duty truck surface coating operation.
The 2004 NESHAP for automobile and light-duty truck surface coating
established organic HAP emission limitations calculated on a monthly
basis for existing sources. More stringent limits apply to new sources,
which are sources that commence construction after December 24, 2002.
The limits for automobile and light-duty truck surface coating for
existing and new sources are summarized in Table 3 below.
Table 3.--2004 NESHAP HAP Emission Limits for Automobile and Light-Duty
Truck Surface Coating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined primer-surfacer, topcoat, 0.060 kg organic HAP/liter of
final repair, glass bonding primer, coating solids deposited (0.50
and glass bonding adhesive operation lb/gal) for new or reconstructed
plus all coatings and thinners, affected sources.
except for deadener materials and 0.132 kg organic HAP/liter of
for adhesive and sealer materials coating solids deposited (1.10
that are not components of glass lb/gal) for existing affected
bonding systems, used in coating sources.
operations added to the affected
source.
Combined EDP, primer-surfacer, 0.036 kg organic HAP/liter of
topcoat, final repair, glass bonding coating solids deposited (0.30
primer, and glass bonding adhesive lb/gal) for new or reconstructed
operation plus all coatings and affected sources.
thinners, except for deadener 0.072 kg organic HAP/liter of
materials and for adhesive and coating solids deposited (0.60
sealer materials that are not lb/gal) for existing affected
components of glass bonding systems, sources.
used in coating operations added to
the affected source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2004 NESHAP requires that facilities develop and implement a
plan to minimize HAP emissions from cleaning operations for automobile
and light-duty truck surface coating. The NESHAP also requires that
facilities
[[Page 40246]]
utilize work practices to minimize organic HAP emissions from the
storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, cleaning
materials, and from handling waste materials generated by the coating
operation.
In addition to the EPA actions mentioned above, 14 States and
California's Bay Area District, where the only automobile and light-
duty trucks manufacturing facility in California is located, have
regulations that control VOC emissions from surface coating operations.
These State RACT rules have VOC emission limits equivalent to the 1977
CTG recommended limits or the NSPS limits.
B. Recommended Control Techniques
The proposed CTG recommends: VOC emission limits for coating
operations; work practices for storage and handling of coatings,
thinners, and coating waste materials; and work practices for the
handling and use of cleaning materials. The recommended VOC limits are
based on 2006 and 2007 data from currently operating automobile and
light-duty truck surface coating operations, and the work practices
recommendations mirror those found in the NESHAP.
During the development of the 2004 NESHAP, EPA identified 65
automobile and light-duty truck assembly facilities operating in 1999.
For the development of this CTG, The Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, an industry trade association representing the majority
of these facilities, provided information from member companies and
submitted this information to EPA. Non-member companies also provided
information to EPA. Information was provided for 56 facilities. The
information included VOC emission rates for EDP, primer-surfacer, and
topcoat operations on a daily and monthly average for the calendar
years 2006 and 2007. Most facilities also provided data showing maximum
and minimum daily values, as well.
1. Applicability
The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for reducing
VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty truck surface coatings and
cleaning materials. We are recommending that these control options
apply to surface coating facilities that emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb
VOC/day or 3 tpy) or more before consideration of control.
We do not recommend these control approaches for facilities that
emit below this level because of the very small VOC emission reductions
that can be achieved. The recommended threshold level is equivalent to
the evaporation of approximately two gallons of solvent per day. Such a
level is considered to be an incidental level of solvent usage that
could be expected even in facilities that use very low-VOC content
coatings. This recommended threshold is also consistent with our
recommendations in many previous CTGs.
Although we do not believe that our recommendations are appropriate
for auto and light-duty truck facilities that emit less than the
applicability threshold recommended above, we believe that all auto and
light-duty truck facilities emit at or above that level of VOC.
The draft CTG also recommends that States consider structuring
their RACT rules to provide facilities that coat bodies and/or body
parts of heavy vehicles \14\ with the option of meeting either the
State requirements for automobile and light-duty truck coating category
or the requirements for miscellaneous metal products coatings category
or the plastic parts coatings category. As mentioned in section II.B of
this notice, heavy vehicle coatings are included in the Miscellaneous
Metal Products and Plastic Parts Coatings categories under section
183(e) and are therefore covered in the draft CTG for Miscellaneous
Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings. We note, however, that some
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities also coat
heavy vehicle bodies or body parts for heavier vehicles. The heavy
vehicle bodies or body parts for heavier vehicles may be coated using
the same equipment and materials that are used to coat automobile and
light-duty truck bodies or body parts for automobiles and light-duty
trucks. The permit requirements for the heavier vehicle portion of
these combined use paint shops are often structured in the same way as
permit requirements for automobile and light-duty truck paint shops.
Also, some facilities that coat only heavier vehicle bodies or body
parts for heavier vehicles have paint shops that are designed and
operated in the same manner as paint shops that are used to coat
automobile and light-duty truck bodies and body parts for automobiles
and light-duty trucks. The permit requirements for these heavier
vehicle paint shops are often structured in the same way as permit
requirements for automobile and light-duty truck paint shops. In light
of the above, providing heavier vehicle coating facilities with the
option of meeting the State RACT requirements for the automobile and
light-duty truck coating category in lieu of the requirements for
Miscellaneous Metal Products or Plastic Parts categories will provide
for the most consistency with existing permit requirements and simplify
compliance demonstration requirements for these facilities.
Furthermore, in light of the stringency of our recommended control
measures in the draft Auto and Light-Duty Truck CTG, we believe that
facilities that choose this alternative will achieve at least
equivalent, if not greater, control of VOC emissions. For the reasons
stated above, we recommend that States RACT rules provide heavier
vehicle coating facilities the option of meeting either the State
requirements for miscellaneous metals and plastic parts coatings or the
requirements for auto and light-duty truck coatings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Heavy vehicles include all vehicles that are not
automobiles or light-duty trucks, as those terms are defined at 40
CFR 63.3176 (the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Automobiles and
Light-Duty Trucks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Coatings
The VOC emission limits recommended in the draft CTG are based on
the data supplied by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers member
companies and other manufacturers in 2008. These recommendations are
more stringent than existing State RACT rules which are based on the
1977 CTG or the NSPS limits.
In conjunction with our recommended VOC emission limits for primer-
surfacer and topcoat, we recommend in the draft CTG that facilities
follow the procedures and calculations in a draft revised ``Automobile
Topcoat Protocol'' for determining the daily VOC emission rates of
automobile and light-duty truck primer-surfacer and topcoat operations.
In 1988, EPA published a document titled ``Protocol for Determining the
Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-
Duty Truck Topcoat Operations'' (EPA-450/3-88-018). This document is
commonly referred to as the Automobile Topcoat Protocol. The Automobile
Topcoat Protocol provides procedures and calculations for determining
the daily VOC emission rate of an automobile and light-duty truck
topcoat operation. The 1988 protocol has been adopted into many State
regulations and permits, and is also referenced in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of
Automobile and Light-Duty Trucks, 40 CFR, part 63, subpart IIII. Most
automobile and light-duty truck facilities use the 1988 protocol for
both their topcoat and primer-surfacer operation.
In conjunction with the draft CTG we have prepared a draft revision
of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol. The draft
[[Page 40247]]
revised protocol includes new sections on accounting for control of
spray booth emissions and instructions for applying the protocol to
primer-surfacer operations. As mentioned above, we recommend in the
draft CTG that facilities refer to the procedures and calculations in
the draft revised protocol for determining the daily VOC emission rate
of automobile and light-duty truck primer-surfacer and topcoat
operations. We plan to issue the final revised protocol concurrently
with the final CTG. After the final revised protocol has been issued,
we plan to amend the NESHAP for Automobile and Light-Duty Trucks (40
CFR part 63, subpart IIII) to replace the references to the 1988
protocol with references to the revised protocol.
The draft CTG recommends the following VOC emission limits to
reduce VOC emissions from the coatings during the coating operations:
EDP operations (including application area, spray/rinse
stations, and curing oven): 0.084 kg VOC/liter of deposited solids (0.7
lb VOC/gal deposited solids) on a monthly average basis.
Primer-surfacer operations (including application area,
flash-off area, and oven): 1.44 kg of VOC/liter of deposited solids
(12.0 lbs VOC/gal deposited solids) on a daily average basis as
determined by following the procedures in the draft revised Automobile
Topcoat Protocol.
Topcoat operations (including application area, flash-off
area, and oven): 1.44 kg VOC/liter of deposited solids (12.0 lb VOC/gal
deposited solids) on a daily average basis as determined by following
the procedures in the draft revised Automobile Topcoat Protocol.
Final repair: 0.58 kg VOC/liter of coating (4.8 lb VOC/
gallon of coating) less water and less exempt solvents.
The categories reflect the current processes that are used at
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities. In addition
to the individual limits described above for primer-surfacer and
topcoat operations, the draft CTG recommends that State RACT rules
provide sources with the option of a single emission limit for combined
primer-surfacer and topcoat operations because in many facilities these
processes are becoming indistinguishable from each other. The
recommended alternative limit for combined primer-surfacer and topcoat
applications is as follows:
Combination of primer-surfacer and topcoat operations:
1.44 kg VOC/liter of deposited solids (12.0 lb VOC/gal deposited
solids) on a daily average basis as determined by following the
procedures in the draft revised Automobile Topcoat Protocol.
All of the recommended emission limits described above reflect the
combined use of low-VOC content coatings, effective application
equipment, and control devices. Additionally, the CTG recommends work
practices to reduce emissions from coating operations, such as covering
open containers.
3. Cleaning Materials and Operations
The draft CTG recommends work practices to reduce VOC emissions
from cleaning materials used in automobile and light-duty truck surface
coating operations. The draft CTG recommends that, at a minimum, these
work practices include the following: (1) Store all VOC-containing
cleaning materials and used shop towels in closed containers; (2)
ensure that mixing and storage containers used for VOC-containing
cleaning materials are kept closed at all times except when depositing
or removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of VOC-containing
cleaning materials; (4) convey cleaning materials from one location to
another in closed containers or pipes; and (5) minimize VOC emissions
from cleaning of application, storage, mixing, and conveying equipment
by ensuring that application equipment cleaning is performed without
atomizing the cleaning solvent outside of an enclosure and that all
spent solvent is captured in closed containers.
The draft CTG also recommends that facilities develop and implement
plans to minimize VOC emissions from cleaning operations and from
purging of equipment associated with all coating operations for which
the draft CTG recommends an emission limit. The draft CTG recommends
that the plans specify the practices and procedures for minimizing VOC
emissions from the following operations: Vehicle body wiping, coating
line purging, flushing of coating systems, cleaning of spray booth
grates, cleaning of spray booth walls, cleaning of spray booth
equipment, and cleaning external spray booth areas. The recommended
plan in the draft CTG is an enhancement of the plan required in the
NESHAP, and not an entirely new plan. Most elements of the NESHAP plan,
which is designed to reduce organic HAP emissions, are also effective
in reducing VOC emissions and are therefore included in our work
practice plan recommendation in the draft CTG.
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
Auto and light-duty truck coating facilities have reduced the VOC
emissions from their coating operations to comply with the NSPS,
NESHAP, and State rules. The recommended VOC emission rates described
above reflect the control measures that are currently being implemented
by these facilities, which surpass requirements in the NSPS and State
rules based on the 1977 CTG. Consequently, there is no additional cost
to implement the draft CTG recommendations. For the same reason, we do
not anticipate additional VOC emission reduction.
The draft CTG also recommends work practices for reducing VOC
emissions from both coatings and cleaning materials. We believe that
our work practice recommendations in the draft CTG will result in a net
cost savings. Implementing work practices reduces the amount of
coatings and cleaning materials used by decreasing evaporation.
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG will be Substantially as
Effective as a Regulation
In determining whether to issue a national rule or a CTG for the
product category of automobile and light-duty truck surface coatings
under CAA section 183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four factors identified
above in section I.D in light of the specific facts and circumstances
associated with this product category. Based on that analysis, we
propose to determine that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a
rule in achieving VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas
from automobile and light-duty truck surface coatings and associated
cleaning materials.
This section is divided into two parts. In the first part, we
discuss our belief that the most effective means of achieving VOC
emission reductions in this category is through controls at the point
of use of the product, (i.e., through controls on the use of coatings
and cleaning materials at automobile and light-duty truck surface
coating facilities), and this control can be accomplished only through
a CTG. We further explain that the recommended approaches in the draft
CTG are consistent with existing effective EPA, State, and local VOC
control strategies. In the second part, we discuss how the distribution
and place of use of the products in this category also support the use
of a CTG. We also discuss the likely VOC emission reductions associated
with a CTG, as compared to
[[Page 40248]]
a regulation. We further explain that there are control approaches for
this category that result in significant VOC emission reductions and
that such reductions could only be obtained by controlling the use of
the products through a CTG. Such reductions could not be obtained
through a regulation under CAA section 183(e) because the controls
affect the end-user, which is not a regulated entity under CAA section
183(e)(1)(C). For these reasons, which are described more fully below,
we believe that a CTG will achieve greater VOC emission reductions than
a rule for this category and therefore satisfy the criterion in section
183(e)(3)(C) of being substantially as effective as regulations in
reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.
1. The Most Effective Entity to Target for VOC Reductions and
Consistency With Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Strategies
To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions,
it is important first to identify the primary sources of VOC emissions
and the strategies used to reduce these VOC emissions. There are two
main sources of VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty truck
surface coatings and associated cleaning materials: (1) Evaporation of
VOC from coating application, drying, and curing; and (2) evaporation
of VOC from cleaning of spray booths and application equipment. We
address each of these sources of VOC emissions, in turn, below, as we
discuss the CTG versus regulation approach.
a. Coatings. As previously mentioned, VOC emissions from the
coatings can be effectively controlled through the use of a combination
of measures, including low-VOC content coatings, effective application
equipment, add-on controls, and work practices. Pursuant to CAA section
183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), the regulated entities subject to a
national rule would be the coating manufacturers and suppliers, not the
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities. The VOC
content of automobile and light-duty truck coatings is within the
control of the coating manufacturers and suppliers. A national rule
regulating coating manufacturers and suppliers, therefore, could
contain limits for the as-sold VOC content of automobile and light-duty
truck coatings. However, the coating application equipment, add-on
controls and work practices used at automobile and light-duty truck
surface coating facilities are not within the control of the coating
manufacturers and suppliers. A national rule regulating coating
manufacturers and suppliers, therefore, could not require or otherwise
ensure that automobile and light-duty truck coating facilities use
improved application methods, add-on controls, or work practices to
reduce VOC emissions.
A CTG, on the other hand, affects the end-users of the coating
materials and, therefore, can implement all of the control measures
identified above. The draft CTG recommends emission limits for
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations based on the
combined effects of the use of low-VOC content coatings, improved
transfer efficiency and add-on controls. The recommended emission
limits reflect the same levels of coating VOC content that would be
required by a national rule should we decide to issue a rule, plus
additional VOC reductions through the use of efficient coating
application and add-on controls. The draft CTG also recommends certain
work practices to further reduce VOC emissions from the coatings used
in automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations. Given
the significant reductions achievable through the use of these
recommended control measures, the most effective entity to address VOC
emissions from automobile and light-duty truck surface coatings is the
facility using the coatings.
These control measures are consistent with existing EPA, State, and
local emission control strategies applicable to automobile and light-
duty truck surface coating. Previous EPA actions and existing State and
local regulations that address automobile and light-duty truck surface
coating similarly considered the combined effect of the use of low-VOC
content coatings, improved transfer efficiency, add-on controls, and
work practices. Accordingly, we are including these recommended control
measures in the draft CTG that applies to automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating facilities as the end-users of the coating
materials.
b. Cleaning Materials. There are two primary means to control VOC
emissions associated with the cleaning materials used in the automobile
and light-duty truck surface coating process: (1) Limiting the VOC
content or VOC vapor pressure of the cleaning materials, and (2)
implementing work practices governing the use of the cleaning
materials. A national rule could require that manufacturers of cleaning
materials for automobile and light-duty truck surface coating
operations provide low-VOC content or low vapor pressure cleaning
materials. However, the effect of such a national rule could be easily
subverted because it could not guarantee that only those low-VOC
content or low vapor pressure cleaning materials would be used for
cleaning associated with automobile and light-duty truck surface
coating. Many cleaning materials used in automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating operations are not specifically marketed by the
supplier as cleaning materials specific for use at automobile and
light-duty truck surface coating operations. Nothing in a national rule
that specifically regulates manufacturers and suppliers of cleaning
materials specified for use in automobile and light-duty truck surface
coating operations would preclude the automobile and light-duty truck
surface coating industry from purchasing bulk solvents or other
multipurpose cleaning materials from other vendors. The general
availability of bulk solvents or multipurpose cleaning materials from
vendors that would not be subject to such regulation would directly
undermine the effectiveness of such a national regulation.
The more effective approach for reducing VOC emissions from
cleaning materials used by automobile and light-duty truck surface
coaters is to control the use of cleaning materials through work
practices. The draft CTG recommends work practices to reduce VOC
emissions from cleaning materials used in automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating operations. The draft CTG recommends that, at a
minimum, these work practices include the following: (1) Store all VOC-
containing cleaning materials and used shop towels in closed
containers; (2) ensure that mixing and storage containers used for VOC-
containing cleaning materials are kept closed at all times except when
depositing or removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of VOC-
containing cleaning materials; (4) convey cleaning materials from one
location to another in closed containers or pipes; and (5) minimize VOC
emissions from cleaning of application, storage, mixing, and conveying
equipment by ensuring that application equipment cleaning is performed
without atomizing the cleaning solvent outside of an enclosure and that
all spent solvent is captured in closed containers. The draft CTG also
recommends that facilities develop and implement plans to minimize VOC
emissions from cleaning operations and from purging of equipment
associated with all coating operations for which the draft CTG
recommends an emission limit.
Given the significant VOC reductions achievable through the
implementation of work practices, we conclude that the most effective
entity to address VOC
[[Page 40249]]
emissions from cleaning materials used in automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating operations is the facility using the cleaning
materials during surface coating operations. This recommendation is
consistent with measures required by Federal, State and local
jurisdictions for reducing VOC emissions from cleaning materials used
in automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations and
Federal rules for HAP cleaning.
We cannot, however, issue a rule requiring such work practices for
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities because,
pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), the regulated
entities subject to a national rule would be the cleaning materials
manufacturers and suppliers and not the automobile and light-duty truck
surface coating facilities. Accordingly, we are including these work
practices in the draft CTG that applies to automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating facilities as the end-users of the cleaning
materials.
Based on the sources of VOC emissions from the automobile and
light-duty truck surface coating operations and the available
strategies for reducing such emissions, the most effective means of
achieving VOC emission reductions from this product category is through
controls at the point of use of the products (i.e., through controls on
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities). This
strategy can be accomplished only through a CTG. The recommended
approaches described in the draft CTG are also consistent with
effective existing EPA, State, and local VOC control strategies for
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations. These two
factors alone demonstrate that a CTG will be substantially as effective
as a national regulation.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves,
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors
relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further
confirm that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation for automobile and light-duty truck surface coatings and
associated cleaning materials.
First, automobile and light-duty truck surface coatings and
associated cleaning materials are used at commercial facilities in
specific, identifiable locations. Specifically, these materials are
used in commercial facilities that apply surface coating to automobiles
and light-duty trucks as described in section III.A. This stands in
contrast to other consumer products, such as architectural coatings,
that are widely distributed and used by innumerable small users (e.g.,
individual consumers in the general public). Because the VOC emissions
are occurring at commercial manufacturing facilities, implementation
and enforcement of controls concerning the use of these products are
feasible. Therefore the nature of the products' place of use further
counsels in favor of the CTG approach.
Second, a CTG will achieve greater emission reduction than a
national rule for each source of VOC emissions from automobile and
light-duty truck surface coatings and associated cleaning materials. A
CTG will achieve greater VOC emission reduction because it can provide
for the highly effective emission control strategies described above
that are applicable to the end-users of the coatings and cleaning
materials at automobile and light-duty truck surface coating
facilities. Specifically, the draft CTG recommends emission limits for
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating operations based on the
combined effects of the use of low-VOC content coatings, improved
transfer efficiency, and add-on control devices. It also recommends
work practices that would further reduce VOC emissions from coating
operations as well as reducing VOC emissions from cleaning materials
associated with the coating operations. These significant VOC
reductions could not be obtained through a national regulation, because
they require the implementation of measures by the end-user. For the
reasons stated above, it is more effective to control VOC emissions
from coatings and cleaning materials used for automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating through a CTG than through a national regulation.
The number of automobile and light-duty truck surface coating
facilities affected by our recommendations in this draft CTG further
supports our proposed determination pursuant to section 183(e)(3)(C)
that a CTG would be substantially as effective as a rule in controlling
VOC emissions for this product category. We recommend the control
measures described in the draft CTG for automobile and light-duty truck
surface coating facilities that emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3
tpy) or more VOC. Based on the April 2004 ozone nonattainment
designations, we estimate that all of the automobile and light-duty
truck surface coating facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas
emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or more. Therefore, we
expect that our recommendations in the draft CTG would apply to all
automobile and light-duty truck surface coating facilities in ozone
nonattainment areas.
Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to
determine that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation for reducing VOC emissions from automobile and light-duty
truck surface coatings and associated cleaning materials in ozone
nonattainment areas.
IV. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials
A. Industry Characterization
1. Source Category Description
This category of consumer and commercial products includes the
materials used to manufacture fiberglass boats. Fiberglass is also
known as fiber reinforced plastic (FRP). These materials are used to
build all types and sizes of boats ranging from small kayaks, canoes,
and rowboats, up to large yachts over 100 feet in length. The types of
boats manufactured include both powerboats and sailboats, and most are
for recreation. However, these materials are also used to build boats
for commercial, government, and military uses.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
The VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing are a result
of evaporation of the VOC contained in the laminating resins, gel
coatings, and cleaning materials \15\ used to manufacture fiberglass
boats. These VOC are primarily styrene and methyl methacrylate (MMA)
added to resin and gel coats as diluents and cross linking agents.
Boats made from FRP are typically manufactured in a process known as
open molding. Separate molds are used for the boat hull, deck, and
miscellaneous small FRP parts such as fuel tanks, seats, storage
lockers, and hatches. The parts are built on or inside the molds using
glass roving, cloth, or
[[Page 40250]]
mat that is saturated with a thermosetting liquid resin such as
unsaturated polyester or vinylester resin. The liquid resin is mixed
with a catalyst before it is applied to the glass, which causes a
cross-linking reaction between the resin molecules. The catalyzed resin
hardens to form a rigid shape consisting of the plastic resin
reinforced with glass fibers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ As noted above, in a previous notice, EPA stated that the
cleaning operations associated with certain specified section 183(e)
consumer and commercial product categories, including fiberglass
boat manufacturing, would not be covered by EPA's 2006 CTG for
industrial cleaning solvents (71 FR 44522 and 44540, August 4,
2006). In the notice, EPA expressed its intention to address
cleaning operations associated with these categories in the CTGs for
these specified categories if the EPA determines that a CTG is
appropriate for the respective categories. Accordingly, the draft
CTG for the fiberglass boat manufacturing category addresses the VOC
emissions from cleaning operations associated with this product
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Processes. The FRP boat manufacturing process generally follows
the following production steps:
(1) Before each use, the molds are cleaned and polished and then
treated with a mold release agent that prevents the part from sticking
to the mold.
(2) The open mold is first spray-coated with a pigmented polyester
resin known as a gel coat. The gel coat will become the outer surface
of the finished part. The gel coat is mixed with a catalyst as it is
applied with a spray gun so that it will harden. The gel coat is
applied to a thickness of about 18 mils (0.018 inches).
(3) After the gel coat has hardened, the inside of the gel coat is
coated with a thin ``skin'' coat of polyester resin and short glass
fibers and then rolled with a metal or plastic roller to compact the
fibers and remove air bubbles. The skin coat fibers are randomly
oriented and form a layer about 90 mils (0.09 inches) thick that is
intended to prevent distortion of the gel coat (known as ``print
through'') from the subsequent layers of fiberglass and resin.
(4) After the skin coat has hardened, additional glass
reinforcement in the form of chopped fibers and woven fiberglass cloth
is applied to the inside of the mold and saturated with catalyzed
polyester resin. The resin is usually applied with either mechanical
spray or flow coating equipment, or by hand using a bucket and brush or
paint-type roller.
(5) The saturated fabric is then rolled with a metal or plastic
roller to compact the fibers and remove air bubbles.
(6) More layers of woven glass or glass mat and resin are applied
until the part is the desired thickness; the part is then allowed to
harden while still in the mold. The final thickness of the part, for
example, may be about 0.25 inches for the hull of a small motorboat, up
to one or two inches thick for the hull of a large yacht.
(7) After the resin has cured, the part is removed from the mold
and the edges are trimmed to the final dimensions.
(8) The different FRP parts of the boat are assembled using more
fiberglass and resin, adhesives, or mechanical fasteners.
(9) Flotation foam is typically injected into closed cavities in
the hulls of smaller boats to make the boat unsinkable and capable of
floating if swamped.
(10) After the assembly of the hull is complete, the electrical and
mechanical systems and the engine are installed along with carpeting,
seat cushions, and other furnishings and the boat is prepared for
shipment.
(11) Some manufacturers paint the topsides of their boats to obtain
a superior finish or paint the bottoms to prevent marine growth.
(12) Larger boats generally also require extensive interior
woodwork and cabin furnishings to be installed.
Resins and gel coats are also used to produce the prototypes and
molds (or ``tools'') that are used in manufacturing fiberglass boats.
These ``tooling'' resins and gel coats are different from production
materials and are specially formulated for greater strength, hardness,
and dimensional stability compared to production materials.
b. Sources of VOC Emissions. The primary VOC emissions from
fiberglass boat manufacturing are styrene and MMA released during resin
and gel coat application and curing, as well as emissions from
evaporation of the VOC contained in the materials used during cleaning
activities, such as spray gun cleaning and cleaning of other equipment.
VOC emissions from cleaning and polishing molds, resin and gel coat
storage and handling, and waste storage and handling are small. There
are no wastewater streams associated with fiberglass boat manufacturing
that may produce VOC emissions.
As mentioned above, although small, some VOC emissions occur during
the handling and storage of resin and gel coat. These VOC emissions
occur from displacement of VOC-laden air in containers used to store
and mix materials before application. The displacement of VOC-laden air
can occur during the filling of containers. It can also be caused by
changes in temperature or barometric pressure, or by agitation during
mixing.
The majority of VOC emissions occur during resin and gel coat
application. The resins contain styrene, which acts as a solvent and a
cross-linking agent. Gel coats contain both styrene and MMA; MMA also
acts as a solvent and cross-linking agent. A fraction of each compound
evaporates during resin and gel coat application and curing. Not all of
the styrene and MMA evaporate because a majority of these compounds are
bound in the cross-linking reaction between polymer molecules in the
hardened resin or gel coat and become part of the finished product.
The fraction of VOC that is emitted from resin and gel coat
materials is dependent on several factors, including the initial VOC
content of the material, the application method, and the thickness of
the part or layer that is curing. VOC emission rates are usually
expressed in terms of lb VOC emitted per ton of material applied (lb/
ton). VOC evaporation from gel coats is higher than from resins because
gel coats are applied in thinner coats, which increases evaporation.
When material is applied in thicker layers, the overlying material
impedes evaporation from the underlying material, so a higher fraction
is bound up during the cross linking reactions before it has a chance
to evaporate.
Higher VOC materials also tend to emit a higher fraction of the VOC
than lower VOC materials. Therefore, lowering the VOC content of the
resin or gel coat has a two-fold effect: First, it decreases the amount
of VOC that could be emitted, and second, a smaller fraction of the VOC
that is present is emitted to the atmosphere.
The type of application equipment used also affects the fraction of
VOC that is emitted. Spray application equipment that atomizes the
resin as it is applied creates droplets with a high surface-to-volume
ratio, which increases the amount of VOC that evaporates during
application. Non-atomizing application methods minimize the surface
area during application and reduce VOC emission rates. These non-
atomizing methods include resin flow coaters, which create consolidated
streams of resin (like a shower head) instead of atomized droplets, and
pressure fed resin rollers that apply resin directly onto the part.
Non-atomized application is not currently feasible for gel coat
application and gel coat is currently spray-applied in almost all
cases. The only exception is gel coat that may be applied with a brush
or roller to the interior areas of finished boats where the cosmetic
appearance is not as critical as on the exterior.
Resin and gel coat application equipment requires solvent cleaning
to remove uncured resin or gel coat when not in use. If the equipment
is not flushed and cleaned after each use, the resin or gel coat will
catalyze inside and on the exterior of the application equipment within
a few minutes.
c. Controls. Reducing VOC emissions from fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials is achieved primarily by reducing the VOC
content of the materials (resin and gel coat) and by switching to non-
atomizing resin application methods. Industry and EPA-sponsored testing
has experimentally
[[Page 40251]]
measured the amount of VOC that is emitted, and equations have been
developed to predict the VOC emission rates (lb VOC/ton of material
applied) for different materials and application methods.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ This testing was done in conjunction with the development
of the NESHAP for boat manufacturing (40 CFR 63, subpart VVVV) and
the NESHAP for reinforced plastic composite manufacturing (40 CFR
63, subpart WWWW). The equations that were developed were
incorporated into both of these final NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The different resins and gel coats can be reformulated to achieve
varying levels of lowered VOC contents, depending on their use in boat
manufacturing. Because reducing the VOC content reduces emissions by
two interacting mechanisms (reducing the amount of VOC available to be
emitted and by reducing the fraction of VOC that is emitted), VOC
emission reduction is not linearly related to VOC content. For example,
reformulating a laminating resin from 40 percent VOC, by weight, to 35
percent VOC, achieves a 28 percent VOC emission reduction if the resin
is spray-applied.
Changing resin application methods can also reduce VOC emissions.
For example, switching from spray application to nonatomizing
application of a resin with 35 percent styrene achieves a 41 percent
emission reduction. If both styrene content and application method are
changed to reduce emissions, the reductions can be greater than
changing just resin styrene content or application method alone. For
example, changing from a spray-applied resin with 40 percent styrene,
to one with 35 percent styrene that is applied with nonatomizing
technology can achieve a 58 percent emission reduction.
Currently nonatomizing technology is feasible for applying
production and tooling resins only. Gel coats must still be applied
with atomizing spray guns, so VOC reductions from gel coat can only be
achieved through use of low-VOC gel coats. The control methods for
reducing VOC emissions from resin and gel coat application are
described in more detail in the draft CTG.
Another method to reduce VOC emissions is the use of closed
molding. Closed molding is the name given to fabrication techniques in
which reinforced plastic parts are produced between the halves of a
two-part mold or between a mold and a flexible membrane, such as a bag.
There are four types of closed molding methods that are being used in
fiberglass boat manufacturing: Vacuum bagging, vacuum-assisted resin
transfer molding, resin transfer molding, and compression molding with
sheet molding compound. Closed molding processes as they are currently
practiced cannot reduce emissions during gel coat or skin coat
application because these steps must still use conventional open
molding techniques. However, closed molding can be used to reduce VOC
emissions from the subsequent laminating steps after the gel coat and
skin coat layers have been applied. Closed molding is generally
applicable to making a large number of small parts, such as hatches and
locker doors, or small numbers of high performance boat hulls and
decks, but it is not feasible to replace open molding at all types of
boat manufacturers. However, one major fiberglass boat manufacturer has
developed a patented closed molding process that has replaced open
molding for the hulls of many of its smaller (17 to 22 feet long)
powerboats.
The majority of VOC emissions from open molding with resin and gel
coat occur in an open shop environment, although some gel coat spraying
for smaller parts may be done in a spray booth. The volume of air
exhausted from the open shop or from spray booths is typically high,
and the VOC concentration is typically low. Therefore, it is generally
not cost-effective to use add-on controls to reduce VOC emissions from
fiberglass boat manufacturing. Because of the wide availability and
lower cost (compared to add-on controls) of low-VOC content materials
and alternative application equipment/methods, these materials and
application equipment/methods are used instead to reduce VOC emissions
from fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities. In addition, work
practices (e.g., using closed mixing containers) are used throughout
the fiberglass boat manufacturing industry to reduce VOC emissions from
containers used to mix manufacturing materials containing VOC. These
work practices are described in the draft CTG.
To control VOC emissions from cleaning materials, water-based
emulsifiers with low-VOC contents, as well as organic solvents (e.g.,
dibasic esters) with low vapor pressures, are used.
3. Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Control Strategies
There are two previous EPA actions that address fiberglass boat
manufacturing.
Assessment of VOC Emissions from Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing (1990).
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Boat Manufacturing (2001).
In 1990, we completed an ``Assessment of VOC Emissions from
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing'' (EPA/600/S2-90/019). This document
characterized the fiberglass boat manufacturing industry and its
processes, assessed the extent of VOC emissions from this industry, and
evaluated various control options. The assessment described open
molding and discussed types of closed molding in use at the time. The
assessment determined that acetone (no longer considered a VOC) and
styrene were the two VOCs primarily emitted from the industry, and the
major sources of emissions were resin and gel coat application, and
evaporation of solvents during cleanup.
The 1990 document discussed process changes and add-on controls to
reduce emissions. Specifically, the 1990 document recommended
substituting the high-VOC resins and gel coats that were commonly used
at that time with low-VOC resins and gel coats and vapor suppressed
resins. The document discussed add-on controls but considered such
controls not economically feasible for use in boat manufacturing due to
high exhaust flow rates and low VOC concentrations. The document also
recommended using water-based emulsifiers and low vapor pressure
dibasic ester compounds for equipment cleaning.
The second action was the 2001 NESHAP for boat manufacturing (40
CFR Part 63, subpart VVVV). The 2001 NESHAP applies to fiberglass boat
manufacturers using the processes and materials listed below:
All open molding operations, including pigmented gel coat,
clear gel coat, production resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat;
All closed molding resin operations;
All resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning; and
All resin and gel coat mixing operations.
The 2001 NESHAP regulates the total HAP content in the materials
used in each regulated operation. Specifically, the 2001 NESHAP sets a
HAP content limit for each regulated open molding resin and gel coat
operation. For each regulated open molding resin operation, the NESHAP
established separate HAP content limits for atomized and nonatomized
resin application methods. For closed molding operations, no limits
apply to the resin application operation if it meets the specific
definition of closed molding provided in the NESHAP. If a molding
operation does not meet the definition of closed molding that is
provided in the
[[Page 40252]]
NESHAP, then it must comply with the applicable emission limits for
open molding. The emission limitations in the 2001 NESHAP are described
in more detail in the actual CTG document.
A manufacturer can demonstrate compliance with the 2001 NESHAP by
either (1) demonstrating compliance with the individual HAP content
limit for each type of open molding operation, (2) averaging emissions
among resin and gel coat operations using equations provided in the
NESHAP that would estimate the emissions from each operation, or (3)
using an add-on control device. Even though add-on controls are not
used for fiberglass boat manufacturing, this last option was included
in case feasible control technology became available. Compliance with
each HAP content limit in the first option can be demonstrated by using
only compliant materials within a regulated operation, or demonstrating
compliance based on the weighted-average HAP content for all materials
used within an operation.
In addition to the resin and gel coating open molding operations
which, as described above, are subject to HAP content limits, other
operations are subject to either work practice requirements or HAP
content limits in the 2001 NESHAP. These operations include resin and
gel coat mixing operations in containers, and routine resin and gel
coat application equipment cleaning operations.
Very few State and local regulations exist that apply to VOC
emissions from the fiberglass boat manufacturing industry. The existing
State and local regulations apply to all fiberglass manufacturing
operations, and do not distinguish fiberglass boat manufacturing from
the manufacturing of other products made from fiberglass. The SCAQMD
has the most comprehensive regulation, but it is not as stringent as
the 2001 NESHAP. Since styrene and MMA are the primary VOC from resin
and gel coat and are also HAP, the HAP limits in the NESHAP and the VOC
limits in State and local rules can be compared directly. Specifically,
SCAQMD Rule 1162 (Polyester Resin Operations) contains VOC content
limits for specific types of resins, gel coats, and cleaning solvents.
Furthermore, SCAQMD Rule 1162 requires that all resins be applied with
nonatomizing techniques, such as resin rollers, flow coaters, or hand
layup. SCAQMD Rule 1162 also requires that gel coat be applied with
high efficiency spray equipment, such as HVLP, air assisted airless, or
electrostatic spray. The San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Bay Area
Districts also have rules covering these operations, but tend to be
less stringent than SCAQMD Rule 1162. State rules for Maryland and the
Chicago area of Illinois also limit the VOC content of resins and gel
coats, but these are also less stringent than the 2001 NESHAP. These
State and local rules are summarized in more detail in the draft CTG.
B. Recommended Control Techniques
The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for reducing
VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. As
explained in the draft CTG, we are recommending these control options
for the fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities that emit 6.8 kg VOC/
day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or more.
We do not recommend these control approaches for facilities that
emit below this level because of the very small VOC emission reductions
that can be achieved. The recommended threshold level is equivalent to
the evaporation of approximately two gallons of styrene per day, or the
spray application of about 150 lbs of resin. Such a level is considered
to be an incidental level of material usage that could be expected even
in facilities that perform only boat repair and maintenance, where only
small amounts of material are used each day, rather than manufacturing.
Furthermore, based on the 2002 NEI data and the 2004 ozone
nonattainment designations, facilities emitting below the recommended
threshold level collectively emit less than four percent of the total
reported VOC emissions from fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities in
ozone nonattainment areas. For these reasons, we did not extend our
recommendations in the draft CTG to these low emitting facilities. This
recommended threshold is also consistent with our recommendations in
many previous CTGs.
For purposes of determining whether a facility meets the 6.8 kg
VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) threshold, aggregate emissions from
all fiberglass boat manufacturing and related cleaning activities at a
given facility are included.
1. Resin and Gel Coat
Based on a review of the 2001 NESHAP, and the current State and
local requirements discussed above, we are recommending VOC content
limits and alternative VOC emission rate limits for resin and gel coats
used in open molding operations. The VOC content limits are paired with
specific methods (either atomized or non-atomized) for resin
application.
The CTG provides flexibility by recommending the same options for
meeting the VOC limits as provided in the 2001 NESHAP for meeting the
HAP emission limits. To meet the recommended open molding resin and gel
coat limits, the CTG recommends three options: (1) Achieving the
individual VOC content limit through the use of low-VOC materials,
either by using only low-VOC materials within a covered operation
(listed in the CTG), or by averaging the VOC contents for all materials
used within an operation on a weight-adjusted basis; (2) meeting
numerical emission rate limits, which would enable a facility to
average emissions among different operations using equations to
estimate emission rates from each operation based on the material and
application method; or (3) using add-on controls to achieve a numerical
VOC emission rate that is determined for each facility based on the mix
of application methods and materials used at that facility.
Our recommended VOC content limits under Option 1 are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recommended
And this maximum weighted
For this material-- application method-- average VOC
content (weight
percent) is
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production resin................ Atomized (spray)... 28
Production resin................ Nonatomized 35
(nonspray).
Pigmented gel coat.............. Any method......... 33
Clear gel coat.................. Any method......... 48
Tooling resin................... Atomized (spray)... 30
Tooling resin................... Nonatomized 39
(nonspray).
Tooling gel coat................ Any method......... 40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40253]]
As mentioned above, a facility may show that a relevant content
limit is met by averaging the VOC contents for all materials used
within an operation on a weight-adjusted basis. To facilitate this
option, the draft CTG provides an equation for determining the weighted
average VOC content for a particular open molding resin or gel coat
material.
The emission reductions that are achieved using the emissions
averaging option (Option 2) and the add-on control option (Option 3)
are equivalent to the emission reductions that are achieved meeting the
VOC content limits (Option 1). Options 2 and 3 use emission factor
equations to convert the VOC content limits in Option 1 into equivalent
emission rates that a facility would otherwise achieve by using the low
VOC materials for specific application methods and operations.
A facility could use emission averaging (Option 2) or add-on
controls (Option 3) for all open molding operations or only for some of
the operations. Operations that a facility decides not to include in
Options 2 or 3 would need to use Option 1. For filled resins (i.e.,
resins to which fillers are added to acheive certain physical
propderties), the CTG includes an adjustment factor that would allow
filled resins to use any of the three options recommended above.
2. Mixing Drums and Cleaning Materials
To control VOC emissions from mixing drums, the draft CTG
recommends that resin and gel coat mixing drums have covers with no
visible gaps, and that these covers be kept in place at all times
except when depositing or removing materials, or inserting or removing
mixing equipment. This is the same practice required by the 2001
NESHAP, and is the most stringent control option that is technically
and economically feasible. We do not recommend the use of covers for
smaller containers because they are typically only used for small hand
application operations that require an open container.
The draft CTG also recommends that materials used for routine resin
and gel coat application equipment cleaning must contain no more than
5.0 percent VOC by weight, or must have a composite vapor pressure no
greater than 0.50 mm Hg at 68 degrees F. These limits for cleaning
materials are based on the properties of water-based emulsifiers and
dibasic esters that are used as alternatives to conventional cleaning
solvents, and are the basis for the equipment cleaning requirements in
the 2001 NESHAP. Therefore, the same cleaning materials used to comply
with the 2001 NESHAP will meet the recommendations in this CTG.
As mentioned above, both the work practice and the cleaning
material VOC limit recommendations in the draft CTG are based on the
2001 NESHAP, which are more stringent than the requirements in other
State and local actions. Based on the implementation of these measures
by all major source fiberglass boat manufacturers, we believe that
these control measures are technically and economically feasible for
reducing VOC emissions from these cleaning materials and have therefore
included them as our recommendations in the draft CTG.
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
Based on the 2002 NEI database, we estimate that there are 223
fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities in the U.S. Using the April
2004 ozone nonattainment designations, 91 of these facilities are in
ozone nonattainment areas. Based on the 2002 NEI VOC emissions data, we
estimated that 67 of the 91 facilities in ozone nonattainment areas
emitted VOC at or above the recommended 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day
or 3 tpy) VOC emissions applicability threshold. These 67 facilities,
in aggregate, emit about 1,452 Megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (1,601 tons
per year (tpy)) of VOC per year, or an average of about 22 Mg/yr (24
tpy) of VOC per facility.
The draft CTG recommends the use of low-VOC content resin and gel
coats for each type of open molding operation, based on the 2001
NESHAP. This recommendation also includes the use of covers to further
reduce VOC emissions from mixing drums and the use of low-VOC and low-
vapor pressure cleaning materials. Those facilities that are major
sources of HAP are already complying with the 2001 NESHAP and have
already adopted these control measures. Therefore, we do not anticipate
additional VOC emission reductions from these major source facilities.
Because the 2001 NESHAP does not apply to area sources (i.e., sources
that are not major sources of HAP), we assume that area source
fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities are not currently implementing
the measures provided in the 2001 NESHAP and recommended in the draft
CTG. We estimate that 23 area source fiberglass boat manufacturing
facilities are located in ozone nonattainment areas and meet the
applicability threshold recommended in the draft CTG, and that these
facilities emit, in aggregate, 104 Mg/yr (115 tpy) of VOC.
For implementing the 2001 NESHAP, the EPA estimated a cost of
$3,600 per ton of HAP reduced, in 2001 dollars, or about $4,200 in 2007
dollars. Nearly all of the HAP that are reduced by the NESHAP are
styrene and MMA, and styrene and MMA also account for nearly all of the
VOC emitted from the processes addressed by the recommendations in the
draft CTG. Therefore, we expect that the cost to reduce HAP and VOC are
nearly equal.
However, we expect that the cost of reducing VOC through the
measures recommended in the draft CTG would be substantially lower than
the cost of reducing HAP through the 2001 NESHAP for several reasons.
First, the NESHAP is now fully implemented at major sources of HAP, and
resin, gel coat, and cleaning materials that are compliant with the
2001 NESHAP are readily available to all sizes of facilities. Second,
the industry has experienced a shift to non-atomized resin application
methods that are required to comply with the 2001 NESHAP. This shift
has occurred at all sizes of facilities because of the productivity and
economic benefits of using non-atomizing methods over conventional
atomizing methods. Therefore, with respect to those facilities that are
not subject to the 2001 NESHAP, we expect that most, if not all, are
already using the materials and methods recommended by the draft CTG.
We therefore expect that these facilities would incur little, if any,
increased costs if required by a State RACT rule to implement the
approaches recommended in the draft CTG. We estimate that the total
cost for the 23 facilities to implement the recommended measures in the
draft CTG would be substantially less than $168,000 in 2007 dollars.
The impacts are further discussed in the draft CTG document.
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as
Effective as a Regulation
In determining whether to issue a national rule or a CTG for the
product category of fiberglass boat manufacturing materials under CAA
section 183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four factors identified above in
section I.D in light of the specific facts and circumstances associated
with this product category. Based on that analysis, we propose to
determine that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a rule in
achieving VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials.
This section is divided into two parts. In the first part, we
discuss our belief
[[Page 40254]]
that the most effective means of achieving VOC emission reductions in
this category is through controls at the point of use of the product,
(i.e., through controls on the use of resin, gel coat, and cleaning
materials at fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities), and this
control can be accomplished only through a CTG. We further explain that
the recommended approaches in the draft CTG are consistent with
existing effective EPA, State, and local VOC control strategies. In the
second part, we discuss how the distribution and place of use of the
products in this category also support the use of a CTG. We also
discuss the likely VOC emission reductions associated with a CTG, as
compared to a regulation. We further explain that there are control
approaches for this category that result in significant VOC emission
reductions and that such reductions could only be obtained by
controlling the use of the products through a CTG. Such reductions
could not be obtained through a regulation under CAA section 183(e)
because the controls affect the end-user, which is not a regulated
entity under CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). For these reasons, which are
described more fully below, we believe that a CTG will achieve greater
VOC emission reductions than a rule for this category.
1. The Most Effective Entity to Target for VOC Reductions and
Consistency With Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Strategies
To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions,
it is important first to identify the primary sources of VOC emissions.
There are two main sources of VOC emissions from fiberglass boat
manufacturing: (1) evaporation of VOC from resins and gel coats; and
(2) evaporation of VOC from cleaning materials. We address each of
these sources of VOC emissions, in turn, below, as we discuss the CTG
versus regulation approach.
a. Resin and Gel Coat Materials. A national rule could contain
limits for the as-sold VOC content of resin and gel coat materials that
are marketed for use in fiberglass boat manufacturing. However, the
effect of such a rule could be easily subverted because it could not
guarantee that fiberglass boat manufacturers would use only low-VOC
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. There is a broad diversity of
resin and gel coat materials used in boat manufacturing. Many resin and
gel coat materials used in fiberglass boat manufacturing are also used
to manufacture other fiberglass products and are not specifically
marketed by the supplier as materials for fiberglass boat
manufacturing. Therefore, fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities
could purchase and use high-VOC resins and gel coats not specified for
use in fiberglass boat manufacturing. This practice would effectively
nullify the reformulation actions of the manufacturers and suppliers of
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, resulting in no net change in
VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.
By contrast, a CTG can affect the end-users of the coating
materials in the fiberglass boat manufacturing industry and, therefore,
can implement the control measures that are more likely to achieve the
objective of reducing VOC emissions from this product category in ozone
nonattainment areas. As previously discussed, the draft CTG recommends
VOC content limits for fiberglass boat manufacturing operations that
can be achieved through the use of either low-VOC content resins and
gel coats or add-on controls. In addition, the recommendations in the
draft CTG include the use of covers on mixing drums to further reduce
VOC emissions from resin and gel coat materials. These practices have
been shown to effectively reduce VOC emissions beyond the levels
achievable using low-VOC materials. These work practices would also
reduce emissions beyond the levels achievable using an add-on control
device since the emissions points that are affected by the work
practices, such as mixing drums, would not be located in the enclosure
that is vented to the control device. Given the significant reductions
achievable through the use of these recommended control measures, the
most effective entity to address VOC emissions from fiberglass boat
manufacturing is the facility using the VOC-containing materials.
The recommended control measures are consistent with existing EPA,
State, and local VOC control strategies applicable to fiberglass boat
manufacturing. As mentioned above, previous EPA actions and existing
State and local regulations (in particular, the regulations in the
majority of the California air Districts that address fiberglass boat
manufacturing) similarly call for VOC emission reduction through the
use of low-VOC content materials. Some also include work practices and
specific application methods. We cannot, however, issue a national rule
directly requiring fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities to use low-
VOC content materials or specific application methods or to implement
work practices to reduce VOC emissions because, pursuant to CAA section
183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(A), the regulated entities subject to a
national rule would be the material manufacturers and suppliers, not
the fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities. By contrast, a CTG can
reach the end-users of fiberglass boat manufacturing materials and,
therefore, can implement the control recommendations for these users
that are identified above as more likely to achieve the intended VOC
emission reduction goal. Accordingly, we are including these control
measures in the draft CTG that applies to fiberglass boat manufacturing
facilities as the end-users of the resin and gel coat materials.
b. Application Equipment Cleaning Materials. The most common method
to control VOC emissions associated with the application equipment
cleaning materials used in the fiberglass boat manufacturing process is
to limit the VOC content or VOC vapor pressure of the cleaning
materials. A national rule requiring that manufacturers of cleaning
materials for fiberglass boat manufacturing operations to provide low-
VOC content or low vapor pressure (i.e., replacing VOC that have a high
vapor pressure with low vapor pressure VOC) cleaning materials would
suffer from the same deficiencies noted above with regard to the resin
and gel coat materials. Specifically, nothing in a national rule that
specifically regulates manufacturers and suppliers of cleaning
materials specified for use in fiberglass boat manufacturing operations
would preclude the fiberglass boat manufacturing industry from
purchasing bulk solvents or other multipurpose cleaning materials from
other vendors. The general availability of bulk solvents or
multipurpose cleaning materials from vendors that would not be subject
to such regulation would directly undermine the effectiveness of such a
national regulation.
The more effective approach for reducing VOC emissions from
application equipment cleaning materials is to control the types of
cleaning materials. The draft CTG recommends that fiberglass boat
manufacturing facilities use low-VOC or low vapor pressure cleaning
materials. Given the significant VOC reductions achievable through the
use of low-VOC or low vapor pressure cleaning materials, we conclude
that the most effective entity to address VOC emissions from cleaning
materials used in fiberglass boat manufacturing operations is the
facility using the cleaning materials. This recommendation is
consistent with measures required by State and local jurisdictions for
reducing VOC emissions from cleaning materials used
[[Page 40255]]
in fiberglass boat manufacturing operations.
We cannot, however, issue a rule requiring the use of low-VOC
application equipment cleaning materials for fiberglass boat
manufacturing facilities because, pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C)
and (e)(3)(A), the regulated entities subject to a national rule would
be the cleaning materials manufacturers and suppliers and not the
fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities. Accordingly, we are including
the recommendation to use low-VOC cleaning materials in the draft CTG
that applies to fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities as the end-
users of the cleaning materials.
Based on the nature of the fiberglass boat manufacturing process,
the sources of significant VOC emissions from this process, and the
available strategies for reducing such emissions, the most effective
means of achieving VOC emission reductions from this product category
is through controls at the point of use of the products, (i.e., through
controls on fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities), and such
controls can be implemented only through a CTG. The recommended
controls described in the draft CTG are also consistent with effective
existing EPA, State, and local VOC control strategies for fiberglass
boat manufacturing operations. These two factors alone demonstrate that
a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national regulation under
CAA section 183(e) in addressing VOC emissions from this product
category in ozone nonattainment areas.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves,
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors
relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further
confirm that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation for fiberglass boat manufacturing.
First, fiberglass boat manufacturing resins and gel coats and
associated cleaning materials are used at commercial facilities in
specific, identifiable locations. Specifically, these materials are
used in commercial facilities that build fiberglass boats as described
in section III.A. This stands in contrast to other consumer products,
such as architectural coatings, that are widely distributed and used by
innumerable small users (e.g., individual consumers in the general
public). Because the VOC emissions are occurring at commercial
manufacturing facilities, implementation and enforcement of controls
concerning the use of these products are feasible. Therefore the nature
of the products' place of use further counsels in favor of the CTG
approach.
Second, a CTG will achieve greater emission reduction than a
national rule for each source of VOC emissions from fiberglass boat
manufacturing and associated cleaning materials. For the reasons
described above, we believe that a national rule limiting the VOC
content in the resin, gel coat and cleaning materials used in
fiberglass boat manufacturing operations would result in little VOC
emissions reduction. By contrast, a CTG can achieve significant VOC
emissions reduction because it can provide for the highly effective
emission control strategies described above that are applicable to the
end-users of the resin, gel coat, and cleaning materials at fiberglass
boat manufacturing facilities. Specifically, the draft CTG can provide
for the use of low-VOC materials, specific application methods, and
work practices. The significant VOC reductions associated with these
measures could not be obtained through a national regulation, because
they are achieved through the implementation of measures by the end-
user. In addition, as previously explained, strategies that arguably
could be implemented through rulemaking, such as limiting the VOC
contents of the resin, gel coat, and cleaning materials used in
fiberglass boat manufacturing, are far more effective if implemented
directly at the point of use of these materials. For the reasons stated
above, it is more effective to control the VOC contents of the resin,
gel coat, and cleaning materials used for fiberglass boat manufacturing
through a CTG than through a national regulation.
Furthermore, the number of fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities
affected by our recommendations in this draft CTG, as compared to the
total number of such facilities in ozone nonattainment areas, does not
affect our conclusion that the CTG would be substantially more
effective than a rule in controlling VOC emissions for this product
category. We recommend the control measures described in the draft CTG
for fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities that emit 6.8 kg VOC/day
(15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or more VOC. Based on the April 2004 ozone
nonattainment designations, we estimate that 67 of the 91 fiberglass
boat manufacturing facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas emit
6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day or 3 tpy) or more and are therefore
addressed by our recommendations in the draft CTG. There are 24
fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities that would not be covered by
the recommendations in the draft CTG. According to the 2002 NEI
database, these 24 facilities collectively emitted less than 12.7 Mg/yr
(14 tpy) of VOC, which is less than one percent of the total reported
VOC (1,465 Mg/yr (1,615 tpy)) in ozone nonattainment areas. The fact
that the CTG addresses more than 99 percent of the VOC emissions from
fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities in ozone nonattainment areas
further supports our conclusion that a CTG is more likely to achieve
the intended VOC emission reduction goal for this product category than
a national rule.
Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to
determine that a CTG for fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities will
be substantially as effective as a national regulation.
V. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
A. Industry Characterization
1. Source Category Description
The miscellaneous industrial adhesives product category includes
adhesives (including adhesive primers used in conjunction with certain
types of adhesives) used at a wide variety of industrial manufacturing
and repair facilities that operate adhesives application processes.
The miscellaneous industrial adhesives product category does not
include adhesives that are addressed by CTGs already issued for
categories listed under CAA Section 183(e) or by earlier CTGs. These
include the CTGs issued under Section 183(e) for aerospace coatings;
metal furniture coatings; large appliance coatings; flat wood paneling
coatings; paper, film, and foil coatings; offset lithographic printing
and letterpress printing; and flexible package printing. Coil coating,
fabric coating, and rubber tire manufacturing were not listed under CAA
Section 183(e); however, they were the subject of earlier CTGs which
address adhesives used in those processes. In addition, the
miscellaneous industrial adhesives category does not include adhesives
and adhesive primers that are subject to the National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products, 40 CFR part 59,
subpart C.
Adhesives, glass bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives
applied to new automobile or new light-duty truck bodies, or body parts
for new automobiles or new light-duty trucks are included in the
miscellaneous industrial adhesives product category and are
[[Page 40256]]
addressed in the draft CTG for miscellaneous industrial adhesives. In
the draft CTG, however, we seek comments on whether the use of these
materials in the production of new automobiles and new light-duty
trucks should be included in the miscellaneous industrial adhesives
product category and addressed in the CTG for miscellaneous industrial
adhesives, or in the auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings
category.
Adhesives are used for joining surfaces in assembly and
construction of a large variety of products. Adhesives allow for faster
assembly speeds, less labor input, and more ability for joining
dissimilar materials than other fastening methods. The largest use of
adhesives is for manufacture of pressure sensitive tapes and labels.
Other large industrial users are automobile manufacturing, packaging
laminating, and shoe construction. Although there are a wide variety of
adhesives formulated from a multitude of synthetic and natural raw
materials, all adhesives can be generally classified as solution/
waterborne, solvent-borne, solventless or solid (e.g., hot melt
adhesives), pressure sensitive, or reactive (e.g., epoxy adhesives and
ultraviolet-curable adhesives). Adhesives can also be generally
classified according to whether they are structural or nonstructural.
Structural adhesives are commonly used in industrial assembly processes
and are designed to maintain product structural integrity.
2. Processes, Sources of VOC Emissions, and Controls
The VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives are a
result of evaporation of the solvents contained in many of the primers,
adhesives and cleaning materials \17\ during adhesive application and
drying processes, as well as during surface preparation and cleaning
processes associated with adhesives application. The primary VOC
emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives occur during
application, flash-off, and drying. In many cases, the emissions from
application and flash-off are removed from these areas with localized
ventilation systems. A lesser amount of emissions occur as the adhesive
dries. Essentially all of the remaining VOC in the organic solvent
contained in the adhesives is emitted during the drying process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In a previous notice, EPA stated that the cleaning
operations associated with certain specified section 183(e) consumer
and commercial product categories, including the miscellaneous
industrial adhesives category, would not be covered by EPA's 2006
CTG for industrial cleaning solvents (71 FR 44522 and 44540, August
4, 2006). In the notice, EPA expressed its intention to address
cleaning operations associated with these categories in the CTGs for
these specified categories if the Agency determines that a CTG is
appropriate for the respective categories. Accordingly, the draft
CTG for the miscellaneous industrial adhesives addresses VOC
emissions from cleaning operations associated with this product
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some VOC emissions also occur during mixing of the adhesives. The
VOC emissions from mixing operations occur from displacement of VOC-
laden air in containers used to mix adhesives before application. The
displacement of VOC-laden air can occur during the filling of
containers. It can also be caused by changes in temperature or
barometric pressure, or by agitation during mixing.
The primary VOC emissions from the cleaning materials occur during
cleaning operations, which include application equipment cleaning and
line flushing. VOC emissions from surface preparation (where products
and materials are primed and/or cleaned prior to adhesive application),
adhesive storage and handling, and waste/wastewater operations (i.e.,
handling waste/wastewater that may contain residues from both adhesives
and cleaning materials) are small.
As mentioned above, the majority of VOC emissions from
miscellaneous industrial adhesives occur from evaporation of solvents
in the adhesives during application. The transfer efficiency (the
percent of adhesive solids deposited on the material or product) of an
adhesive application method affects the amount of VOC emissions during
adhesive application. The more efficient an adhesive application method
is in transferring adhesives to the material or product, the lower the
volume of adhesives (and therefore solvents) needed per given amount of
production. High transfer efficiency results in lower VOC emissions.
Miscellaneous industrial adhesives may be in the form of a liquid
or aerosol product. Liquid adhesives may be applied by means of spray
or dip coating. Conventional air atomized spray application systems
utilize higher atomizing air pressure and typically have transfer
efficiencies ranging between 25 and 40 percent. Dip coating is the
immersion of a substrate into a coating bath. The transfer efficiency
of a dip coater is very high (approximately 90 percent); however, some
VOC is emitted from the liquid coating bath due to its large exposed
surface area.
Many spray applied adhesives are electrostatically applied. In
electrostatic application, an electrical attraction between the
adhesive, which is positively charged, and the grounded substrate
enhances the amount of adhesive deposited on the surface. For liquid
adhesives, this application method is more efficient than conventional
air atomized spray, with transfer efficiency typically ranging from 60
to 90 percent.
Spray applied adhesives are typically applied in a spray booth to
capture adhesive overspray, to remove solvent vapors from the
workplace, and to keep the application operation from being
contaminated by dirt from other operations. In spray application
operations, the majority of VOC emissions occur in the spray booth.
Other liquid adhesive application methods used in adhesive
application operations include flow coating, roll coating, HVLP spray,
electrocoating, autophoretic coating, and application by hand. These
application methods are described in more detail in the draft CTG.
After application, the adhesives may be baked or cured in heated
drying ovens to speed drying, but many are air dried, especially for
some heat-sensitive substrates. The amount of VOC emitted depends on
the type of adhesive used, the speed of the application line (i.e., how
quickly the substrate moves through the flash-off area), and the
distance between the application area and bake oven (if used).
The VOC emissions from the adhesive application process can be
reduced through changes in adhesive formulations and application
technology. Add-on controls may also be used to reduce VOC emissions
from miscellaneous industrial adhesives and cleaning materials. In some
cases, add-on controls are used where it is necessary or desirable to
use high-VOC materials, but they are also used in combination with low-
VOC adhesives and/or more efficient application methods to achieve
additional emission reductions.
The trend in control technology for solvent-borne adhesives is not
to control emissions from the adhesives, but rather to replace them
with low VOC adhesives, some of which can perform as well as solvent-
borne adhesives. Since the late 1970s, adhesive formulations that
eliminate or reduce the amount of solvent in the formulations have been
increasing, thus reducing VOC emissions per unit amount of adhesive
used.
Various types of low solvent adhesive include waterborne, hot-melt,
solventless two-component, and radiation-cured adhesives. Hot-melt
adhesives are the most widely used of these alternative processes.
[[Page 40257]]
The combination of low-VOC adhesive type and an application method
with high transfer efficiency, is also an effective measure for
reducing VOC emissions. Not only are VOC emissions reduced by using
adhesives with low VOC content, the use of an application method with
high transfer efficiency, such as electrostatic spraying, lowers the
volume of adhesives needed per given amount of production, thus further
reducing the amount of VOC emitted during the adhesive application
process.
As mentioned above, the majority of VOC emissions from spray
application operations occur in the spray booth. The VOC concentration
in spray booth exhaust is typically low because a large volume of
exhaust air is used to dilute the VOC emissions for safety reasons.
Although VOC emissions in spray booth exhaust can be controlled with
add-on controls, it is generally not cost effective to do so, due to
the large volume of air that must be treated and the low concentration
of VOC. On the other hand, the wide availability and lower cost of low-
VOC content adhesives makes them a more attractive option. For those
situations where an add-on control device can be justified for
production or specific adhesive requirements, thermal oxidation and
carbon adsorption are most widely used. The draft CTG contains a
detailed discussion of these and other available control devices.
To control VOC emissions from containers used to store or mix
adhesives containing VOC solvents, work practices (e.g., using closed
storage containers) are implemented at facilities that apply
miscellaneous industrial adhesives. Work practices are also widely used
at these facilities as a means of reducing VOC emissions from cleaning
operations. These measures include covering mixing tanks, storing
solvents and solvent soaked rags and wipes in closed containers, and
cleaning spray guns in an enclosed system. Another means of reducing
VOC emissions from cleaning operations is the use of low-VOC content,
low vapor pressure, or low boiling point cleaning materials. However,
little information is available regarding the effectiveness of the use
of these types of cleaning materials at miscellaneous industrial
adhesive application processes.
3. Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Control Strategies
There are no previous EPA actions that address miscellaneous
industrial adhesive application operations. However, many California
air pollution control districts have adhesives regulations in place,
and some States are currently developing regulations.
In 1998, the California ARB issued a guidance document that
includes ARB's determination of RACT and best available retrofit
control technology (BARCT) for Adhesives and Sealants. The 1998 ARB
document presented RACT and BARCT for controlling VOC emissions from
the commercial and industrial application of adhesives and sealants.
The ARB RACT determination prescribes VOC emission limits for various
industrial adhesives and sealants and was developed based on eight
existing California air pollution control district rules for adhesives
and sealants that were in effect in 1998. Those eight districts
included Bay Area (BAAQMD), El Dorado County (EDCAPCD), Placer County
(PCAPCD), Sacramento Metropolitan (SMAQMD), South Coast (SCAQMD),
Ventura County (VCAPCD), Yolo-Solano (YSAQMD), and San Diego County
(SDCAPCD).
The ARB based the majority of its RACT determination on limits
already in effect in SCAQMD, BAAQMD, and VCAPCD, and concluded that the
VOC limits for adhesives and sealants presented in its RACT
determination were achievable and cost-effective. Furthermore, the ARB
stated in its RACT determination that most of the adhesive and sealant
products being sold in 1998 were already compliant with the VOC limits
that were determined to be RACT.
Since the development of the ARB RACT determination, five
additional California air pollution control districts have adopted
rules based on the ARB RACT standards.
In 2007, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) issued a Model Rule
for Adhesives and Sealants. The model rule was based almost entirely on
the 1998 California ARB RACT determination. The model rule is designed
for adoption by member states with compliance dates by 2009. To date,
only Maryland has adopted an adhesives rule based on the OTC model
rule. Maine and New Jersey are either currently considering adopting or
are in the process of adopting the model rule.
Some states regulate VOC emissions from adhesives as part of their
regulations for specific surface coating operations.
As discussed above, a total of 13 air pollution control districts
in California have established rules for adhesives. The various
district adhesives rules do not all contain the same categories and
limits as the ARB RACT guidance. Where the categories are the same or
similar among these District rules, the SCAQMD rule (i.e., Rule 1168)
generally has the most stringent VOC content limits. If add-on controls
are used, SCAQMD Rule 1168 requires that the system control at least 80
percent of the VOC emissions. Several California air Districts require
the use of specific types of high-efficiency adhesive application
methods to further reduce VOC emissions. For example, in addition to
limiting the VOC contents in the adhesives, SCAQMD Rule 1168 requires
the use of one of the following types of application equipment:
Electrostatic application; flow coating; dip coating; roll coating;
hand application; high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray; or an
alternative method that is demonstrated to be capable of achieving a
transfer efficiency equal to or better than 65 percent. At least seven
other California District rules that regulate emissions from adhesives
similarly require that sources use specified application methods that
achieve high transfer efficiency.
At least eight California Districts and Maryland regulate cleaning
materials used in adhesive application processes. These regulations
require a combination of work practice, equipment standards, and limits
on the VOC content, boiling point, or composite vapor pressure of the
solvent. Some California District rules allow the use of add-on
controls as an alternative to the VOC content/boiling point/vapor
pressure limits for cleaning materials. The work practice and equipment
standards that have been adopted by California Districts include, for
example, using closed containers for storing solvent and solvent
containing wipes and rags, using enclosed and automated spray gun
washing equipment, and prohibiting atomized spraying of solvent during
spray gun cleaning. However, the cleaning material VOC content/boiling
point/vapor pressure limits, overall control efficiency requirements,
and work practices vary among the District rules.
B. Recommended Control Techniques
The draft CTG recommends certain control techniques for reducing
VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives and associated
cleaning materials. As explained in the draft CTG, we are recommending
these control options for facilities with miscellaneous industrial
adhesive application processes that emit 6.8 kg VOC/day (15 lb VOC/day)
or more before consideration of control. For purposes of determining
whether a facility meets the 6.8-kg/day (15-lb/day) threshold,
aggregate emissions from all miscellaneous industrial adhesive
application operations and related
[[Page 40258]]
cleaning activities at a given facility are included.
The draft CTG would not apply to facilities that emit below the
threshold level because of the very small VOC emission reductions that
would be achieved. The recommended threshold level is equivalent to the
evaporation of approximately 2 gallons of solvent per day. Such a level
is considered to be an incidental level of solvent usage that could be
expected even in facilities that use very low-VOC content adhesives.
Furthermore, based on the 2002 NEI data and the 2004 ozone
nonattainment designations, facilities emitting below the recommended
threshold level collectively emit less than 6 percent of the total
reported VOC emissions from facilities with miscellaneous adhesive
application operations in ozone nonattainment areas. For these reasons,
the draft CTG does not specify control for these low emitting
facilities. This recommended threshold is also consistent with our
recommendations in many previous CTGs.
1. Adhesives
The draft CTG provides facilities flexibility by recommending
various options for controlling VOC emissions. The draft CTG recommends
specific VOC emission limits based on application processes (i.e., the
types of adhesives and substrates). The draft CTG offers two options
for achieving the recommended emission limits: (1) Through the use of
low-VOC content adhesives and specified application methods with good
adhesive transfer efficiency; or (2) through the use of a combination
of low-VOC adhesives, specified application methods, and add-on
controls. As an alternative to the emission limits, the draft CTG
recommends an overall control efficiency of 85 percent. This
alternative provides facilities the operational flexibility to use high
efficiency add-on controls instead of low-VOC content adhesives and
specified application methods, especially when the use of high VOC
adhesives is necessary or desirable for product efficacy. We expect the
85 percent control efficiency recommendation to result in VOC emission
reduction that is equivalent to or exceed the reduction from our
recommended emission limits. Both the emission limits and the control
efficiency recommendations in the draft CTG reflect what we have
concluded to be reasonably achievable VOC control measures for
miscellaneous industrial adhesives based on our review of Maryland's
adhesives rule, the OTC model rule, and the various California air
district rules.
The following VOC emission limits are recommended in the draft CTG
for general and specialty adhesive application processes and for
adhesive primer application processes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emission limit
---------------------
(g/l) (lb/gal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Adhesive Application Processes:
Fiberglass.................................... 200 1.7
Flexible vinyl................................ 250 2.1
Metal......................................... 30 0.3
Porous Material (Except Wood)................. 120 1.0
Rubber........................................ 250 2.1
Wood.......................................... 30 0.3
Other Substrates.............................. 250 2.1
Specialty Adhesive Application Processes:
Ceramic Tile Installation..................... 130 1.1
Contact Adhesive.............................. 250 2.1
Cove Base Installation........................ 150 1.3
Floor Covering Installation (Indoor).......... 150 1.3
Floor Covering Installation (Outdoor)......... 250 2.1
Floor Covering Installation (Perimeter Bonded 660 5.5
Sheet Vinyl).................................
Metal to Urethane/Rubber Molding or Casting... 850 7.1
Multipurpose Construction..................... 200 1.7
Plastic Solvent Welding (ABS)................. 400 3.3
Plastic Solvent Welding (Except ABS).......... 500 4.2
Sheet Rubber Lining Installation.............. 850 7.1
Single-Ply Roof Membrane Installation/Repair 250 2.1
(Except EPDM)................................
Structural Glazing............................ 100 0.8
Thin Metal Laminating......................... 780 6.5
Tire Retreading............................... 100 0.8
Waterproof Resorcinol Glue.................... 170 1.4
Adhesive Primer Application Processes:
Automotive Glass Adhesive Primer.............. 700 5.8
Plastic Adhesive Primer....................... 250 2.1
Plastic Solvent Welding Adhesive Primer....... 650 5.4
Single-Ply Roof Membrane Adhesive Primer...... 250 2.1
Other Adhesive Primer......................... 250 2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recommended VOC emission limits are expressed as mass of VOC
per volume of adhesive or adhesive primer, excluding water and exempt
compounds.\18\ For general application processes where an adhesive is
used to bond dissimilar substrates together, then the applicable
substrate category with the highest VOC emission limit is recommended
as the limit for such application. For example, in an application
process where an adhesive is used to bond flexible vinyl to metal, the
recommended VOC emission limit is 250 g/l (2.1 lb/gal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The list of exempt compounds that are considered to be
negligibly photochemically reactive in forming ozone can be found in
the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our recommended limits are based on the limits in the OTC model
rule. As previously mentioned, the emission limits in the OTC rule were
California ARB RACT standards, which were
[[Page 40259]]
based on numerous California District rules and adopted by other
California District rules. Furthermore, the OTC model rule is intended
for adoption by States. In light of the above, we consider the limits
in the OTC model rule to be representative of what sources in
nonattainment areas nationwide can achieve technically and economically
and have therefore adopted these VOC limits as our recommendations in
the draft CTG.
As in Maryland's adhesive rule and the OTC model rule, we recommend
in the draft CTG that the following types of specialty adhesive
application processes be exempt from VOC content limits: Adhesives or
adhesive primers being tested or evaluated in any research and
development, quality assurance, or analytical laboratory; adhesives or
adhesive primers used in the assembly, repair, or manufacture of
aerospace or undersea-based weapon systems; adhesives or adhesive
primers used in medical equipment manufacturing operations; and
cyanoacrylate adhesive application processes.
As mentioned above, we recommend the use of low-VOC adhesives in
conjunction with application methods that achieve good adhesive
transfer efficiency. Specifically, we recommend the following
application methods: Electrostatic spray, HVLP spray, flow coat, roller
coat, dip coat including electrodeposition, brush coat, or other
adhesive application methods that are capable of achieving a transfer
efficiency equivalent or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying.
A further explanation of the emission limits and control efficiency
recommendations described above can be found in the draft CTG.
In addition to the recommended control measures described above,
the draft CTG recommends the following work practices to further reduce
VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives: (1) Store all
VOC-containing adhesives, adhesive primers, and adhesive-related waste
materials in closed containers; (2) ensure that mixing and storage
containers used for VOC-containing adhesives, adhesive primers, and
adhesive-related waste materials are kept closed at all times except
when depositing or removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of
VOC-containing adhesives, adhesive primers, and adhesive-related waste
materials; and (4) convey adhesives, adhesive primers, and adhesive-
related waste materials from one location to another in closed
containers or pipes.
2. Cleaning Materials
The draft CTG recommends work practices to reduce VOC emissions
from cleaning materials. We recommend that, at a minimum, all of the
work practices be included: (1) Store all VOC-containing cleaning
materials and used shop towels in closed containers; (2) ensure that
mixing and storage containers used for VOC-containing cleaning
materials are kept closed at all times except when depositing or
removing these materials; (3) minimize spills of VOC-containing
cleaning materials; (4) convey cleaning materials from one location to
another in closed containers or pipes; and (5) minimize VOC emissions
from cleaning of application, storage, mixing, and conveying equipment
by ensuring that application equipment cleaning is performed without
atomizing the cleaning solvent and all spent solvent is captured in
closed containers.
C. Impacts of Recommended Control Techniques
Based on the 2002 NEI database, we estimate that there are 1,048
facilities in the U.S. that operate miscellaneous adhesive application
processes. Using the April 2004 ozone nonattainment designations, we
estimated that 720 of these facilities are in ozone nonattainment
areas. Based on the 2002 NEI VOC emissions data, 180 of the 720
facilities in ozone nonattainment areas emitted VOC at or above the
recommended 6.8-kg/day (15-lb/day) applicability threshold. These 180
facilities, in aggregate, emit an estimated 4,428 Mg/yr (4,881 tpy) of
VOC, or an average of about 24.6 Mg/yr (27.1 tpy) of VOC per facility.
As previously mentioned, the emissions from these facilities represent
less than 6 percent of the total reported VOC emissions from facilities
that operate miscellaneous adhesives application operations in ozone
nonattainment areas.
As mentioned above, the draft CTG recommends the emission limits in
the OTC model rule. The OTC limits were based on California ARB RACT
standards, which were based on eight California Districts' adhesives
rules and have been adopted by other California Districts and Maryland.
Accordingly, for purposes of estimating the cost effectiveness of our
recommendations in the draft CTG, we assume that facilities in
California and Maryland are already meeting the recommended emission
limits. For facilities in nonattainment areas outside of California and
Maryland, we have estimated the total annual control costs of using
low-VOC adhesives to be approximately $603,997, and emission reductions
will be about 64 percent. These recommended measures are expected to
result in a VOC emissions reduction of 2,070 Mg/yr (2,281 tpy), and the
cost-effectiveness is estimated to be $292/Mg ($265/ton). The impacts
are further discussed in the draft CTG document.
We have concluded that the work practice recommendations in the
draft CTG will result in a net cost savings. These work practices
reduce the amount of cleaning materials used by decreasing the amount
that evaporates and is therefore wasted. Similarly, the adoption of
more effective application methods, such as electrostatic spray and
other methods recommended in the draft CTG, will reduce adhesive
consumption and result in net cost savings compared to conventional
spray guns. However, because we cannot determine the extent to which
these practices have already been adopted, we cannot quantify these
savings. Therefore, these cost savings are not reflected in the above
cost impacts.
D. Considerations in Determining Whether a CTG Will Be Substantially as
Effective as a Regulation
In determining whether to issue a national rule or a CTG for the
miscellaneous industrial adhesive product category under CAA section
183(e)(3)(C), we analyzed the four factors identified above in Section
I.D in light of the specific facts and circumstances associated with
this product category. Based on that analysis, we propose to determine
that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a rule in achieving
VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas from miscellaneous
industrial adhesive application operations and associated cleaning
materials.
This section is divided into two parts. In the first part, we
discuss our conclusion that the most effective means of achieving VOC
emission reductions in this CAA section 183(e) product category is
through controls at the point of use of the products, (i.e., through
controls on the use of adhesive and cleaning materials at miscellaneous
industrial adhesive application operations), and these controls can be
accomplished only through a CTG. We further explain that the
recommended approaches in the draft CTG are consistent with existing
effective EPA, State, and local VOC control strategies. In the second
part, we discuss how the distribution and place of use of the product
in this product category also supports the use of a CTG. We also
discuss the likely VOC emission reductions associated with a CTG, as
[[Page 40260]]
compared to a regulation. We further explain that there are control
approaches for this category that result in significant VOC emission
reductions and that such reductions could only be obtained by
controlling the use of the products through a CTG. Such reductions
could not be obtained through a regulation under CAA section 183(e)
because the controls affect the end-user, which is not a regulated
entity under CAA section 183(e)(1)(C). For these reasons, which are
described more fully below, we believe that a CTG will achieve greater
VOC emission reductions than a rule for these categories.
1. The Most Effective Entity To Target for VOC Reductions and
Consistency With Existing Federal, State, and Local VOC Strategies
To evaluate the most effective entity to target for VOC reductions,
it is important first to identify the primary sources of VOC emissions.
There are two main sources of VOC emissions from miscellaneous
industrial adhesive application operations: (1) Evaporation of VOC from
adhesives; and (2) evaporation of VOC from cleaning materials. We
address each of these sources of VOC emissions, in turn, below, as we
discuss the CTG versus regulation approach.
a. Adhesives
A national rule would contain limits for the as-sold VOC content of
adhesives that are marketed as miscellaneous industrial adhesives.
However, the effect of such national rule setting low VOC content
limits for miscellaneous industrial adhesives could be easily subverted
because a section 183(e) rule could not require that a facility use
only those low-VOC content adhesive materials that are specifically
marketed for miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations.
Many adhesives used in miscellaneous industrial adhesive application
operations are not specifically marketed by the supplier as adhesives
for specific products. Therefore, these facilities could purchase and
use high-VOC specialty adhesives materials for routine application
operations, and this practice would effectively nullify the
reformulation actions of the manufacturers and suppliers of low-VOC
adhesives, resulting in no net change in VOC emissions in ozone
nonattainment areas.
By contrast, a CTG can affect the end users of the adhesive
materials and, therefore, can implement the control measures that are
more likely to achieve the objective of reducing VOC emissions from
this product category in ozone nonattainment areas. Our recommended
control options in the draft CTG include, among other things, the use
of application methods with high adhesives transfer efficiency and add-
on controls. In addition, we recommend that certain work practices be
implemented to further reduce VOC emissions from adhesives as well as
controlling VOC emissions from cleaning materials. Given the
significant reductions achievable through the use of these recommended
control measures, the most effective entity to address VOC emissions
from miscellaneous industrial adhesives is the facility using the
adhesives.
These control measures are consistent with existing State and local
VOC control strategies applicable to miscellaneous industrial
adhesives. Existing State and local regulations (in particular, the
regulations in Maryland and the majority of the California air
Districts) that address miscellaneous industrial adhesive application
operations similarly call for VOC emission reduction through the use of
low-VOC content materials, or the use of control devices in conjunction
with high-VOC content adhesive materials. Some State and local VOC
control strategies also include work practices and specific application
methods.
We cannot, however, issue a national rule directly requiring
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application facilities to use low-VOC
content adhesives, control devices, specific application methods, or
work practices because, pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and
(e)(3)(B), the regulated entities subject to a national rule would be
the adhesive manufacturers and suppliers, not the miscellaneous
industrial adhesive application facilities. By contrast, a CTG can
reach the end users of the miscellaneous industrial adhesives and,
therefore, can implement the control recommendations for end users that
are identified above as more likely to achieve the objective of
reducing VOC emissions from these product categories in ozone
nonattainment areas. Accordingly, we are including these recommended
control measures in the draft CTG that applies to miscellaneous
industrial adhesive application facilities as the end users of the
adhesives materials.
b. Cleaning Materials
There are two primary means to control VOC emissions associated
with the cleaning materials used in the miscellaneous industrial
adhesive application process: (1) Limiting the VOC content, boiling
point, or VOC vapor pressure of the cleaning materials, and (2)
implementing work practices governing the use of the cleaning
materials. A national rule requiring that manufacturers of cleaning
materials for miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations
provide low-VOC content or low vapor pressure (high boiling point)
cleaning materials would suffer from the same deficiencies noted above
with regard to the adhesives. Specifically, nothing in a national rule
that specifically regulates manufacturers and suppliers of cleaning
materials specified for use in adhesive application operations would
preclude facilities from purchasing bulk solvents or other multipurpose
cleaning materials from other vendors. The general availability of bulk
solvents or multipurpose cleaning materials from vendors that would not
be subject to such regulation would directly undermine the
effectiveness of such a national regulation.
The more effective approach for reducing VOC emissions from
cleaning materials used by miscellaneous industrial adhesive
application facilities is to control the use of cleaning materials
through work practices. The draft CTG recommends that miscellaneous
industrial adhesive application facilities implement work practices to
reduce VOC emissions from cleaning materials during application
operations. Examples of effective work practices are: Keeping solvents
and used shop towels in closed containers; using enclosed spray gun
cleaners and preventing the atomized spraying of cleaning solvent;
minimizing spills of VOC-containing cleaning materials; cleaning up
spills immediately; and conveying any VOC-containing cleaning materials
in closed containers or pipes. These work practices have proven to be
effective in reducing VOC emissions.
Given the significant VOC reductions achievable through the
implementation of work practices, we conclude that the most effective
entity to address VOC emission from cleaning materials used in
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations is the
facility using the cleaning materials during these operations. This
recommendation is consistent with measures required by State and local
jurisdictions for reducing VOC emissions from cleaning materials used
in miscellaneous industrial adhesives application operations.
We cannot, however, issue a rule requiring such work practices for
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application facilities because,
pursuant to CAA section 183(e)(1)(C) and (e)(3)(B), the regulated
entities subject to
[[Page 40261]]
a national rule would be the cleaning materials manufacturers and
suppliers and not the miscellaneous industrial adhesive application
facilities. By contrast, a CTG can address these application
facilities. Accordingly, we are including in the draft CTG these work
practices that apply to miscellaneous industrial adhesive application
facilities as the end users of the cleaning materials.
Based on the nature of the miscellaneous industrial adhesive
application process, the sources of significant VOC emissions from this
process, and the available strategies for reducing such emissions, the
most effective means of achieving VOC emission reductions from this
product category is through control at the point of use of the product,
(i.e., through controls on miscellaneous industrial adhesive
application facilities). This strategy can be accomplished only through
a CTG. The recommended approaches described in the draft CTG are also
consistent with effective existing State and local VOC control
strategies for other 183(e) product categories. These two factors alone
demonstrate that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation under CAA section 183(e) in addressing VOC emissions from
miscellaneous industrial adhesives and associated cleaning materials in
ozone nonattainment areas.
2. The Product's Distribution and Place of Use and Likely VOC Emission
Reductions Associated With a CTG Versus a Regulation
The factors described in the above section, taken by themselves,
weigh heavily in favor of the CTG approach. The other two factors
relevant to the CAA section 183(e)(3)(C) determination only further
confirm that a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation for miscellaneous industrial adhesives and associated
cleaning materials.
First, miscellaneous industrial adhesives and associated cleaning
materials are used at manufacturing facilities in specific,
identifiable locations. Specifically, these materials are used in
industrial manufacturing facilities that apply adhesives to various
materials, as described in section V.A. This stands in contrast to
other consumer products, such as architectural coatings, which are
widely distributed and used by innumerable small users (e.g.,
individual consumers in the general public). Because the VOC emissions
are occurring at industrial manufacturing facilities, implementation
and enforcement of controls concerning the use of these products are
feasible. Therefore the nature of the products' place of use further
counsels in favor of the CTG approach.
Second, a CTG will achieve greater emission reduction than a
national rule for VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesives
and associated cleaning materials. For the reasons described above, we
believe that a national rule limiting the VOC content in adhesives and
cleaning materials used in miscellaneous industrial adhesive
application operations would result in little VOC emissions reduction.
By contrast, a CTG can achieve significant VOC emissions reduction
because it can provide for the highly effective emission control
strategies that are applicable to the end-users of the adhesives and
cleaning materials at miscellaneous industrial adhesive application
facilities. As described above, our recommendations in the draft CTG
include the use of control devices, specific application methods, and
work practices. The significant VOC reductions associated with these
measures could not be obtained through a national regulation, because
they are achieved through the implementation of measures by the end-
user. In addition, and as previously explained, strategies that
arguably could be implemented through rulemaking, such as limiting the
VOC content in adhesives and cleaning materials, are far more effective
if implemented directly through a CTG at the point of product use. For
the reasons stated above, it is more effective to control the VOC
emissions from adhesives and cleaning materials used for miscellaneous
industrial adhesive application through a CTG than through a national
regulation.
Furthermore, the number of miscellaneous industrial adhesives
application facilities affected by our recommendations in this draft
CTG, as compared to the total number of such facilities in ozone
nonattainment areas, does not affect our conclusion that the CTG would
be substantially more effective than a rule in controlling VOC
emissions for these product categories. We recommend the control
measures described in the draft CTG for miscellaneous industrial
adhesive application facilities that emit 6.8 kg/day (15 lb/day) or
more VOC. Based on the April 2004 ozone nonattainment designations, we
estimate that 180 of the 720 miscellaneous industrial adhesive
application facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas emit 6.8
kg/day (15 lb/day) or more and are therefore addressed by our
recommendations in the draft CTG. We estimate that 540 miscellaneous
industrial application facilities would not be covered by the
recommendations in the draft CTG. However, according to the 2002 NEI
database, these 540 facilities collectively emitted about 239 Mg/yr
(264 tpy) of VOC, which is less than 6 percent of the total reported
VOC (an average of about 0.44 Mg/yr (0.49 tpy) per facility) in ozone
nonattainment areas. The fact that the CTG addresses more than 94
percent of the VOC emissions from miscellaneous industrial adhesive
application facilities in ozone nonattainment areas further supports
our conclusion that a CTG is more likely to achieve the intended VOC
emission reduction goal for these product categories than a national
rule.
Upon considering the above factors in light of the facts and
circumstances associated with this product category, we propose to
determine that a CTG for miscellaneous industrial adhesive application
facilities will be substantially as effective as a national regulation.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
``significant regulatory action,'' since it is deemed to raise novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not contain any
information collection requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small
[[Page 40262]]
entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule I
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This proposed action will not
impose any requirements on small entities. We are proposing to take
final action to list the five Group IV consumer and commercial product
categories addressed in this notice for purposes of CAA section 183(e)
of the CAA. This listing action alone does not impose any regulatory
requirements. We are also proposing to determine that, for the five
product categories at issue, a CTG will be substantially as effective
as a national regulation in achieving VOC emission reductions in ozone
nonattainment areas. This proposed determination means EPA has
concluded that it is appropriate to issue guidance in the form of CTGs
that provide recommendations to States concerning potential methods to
achieve needed VOC emission reductions from these product categories.
In addition to this proposed determination, we are also taking comment
on the draft CTGs for these five product categories. When finalized,
these CTGs will be guidance documents. EPA does not directly regulate
any small entities through the issuance of a CTG. Instead, EPA issues
CTGs to provide States with guidance on developing appropriate
regulations to obtain VOC emission reductions from the affected sources
within certain nonattainment areas. EPA's issuance of a CTG does
trigger an obligation on the part of certain States to issue State
regulations, but States are not obligated to issue regulations
identical to the EPA's CTG. States may follow the guidance in the CTG
or deviate from it, and the ultimate determination of whether a State
regulation meets the RACT requirements of the CAA would be determined
through notice and comment rulemaking in the EPA's action on each
State's State Implementation Plan. Thus, States retain discretion in
determining to what degree to follow the CTGs.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector because the rule imposes no
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector. (Note: The term ``enforceable duty'' does not include
duties and conditions in voluntary Federal contracts for goods and
services.) Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that
this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments because they contain no regulatory
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon
them. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order (EO) 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the EO to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in EO 13132. The CAA establishes the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States, and this action does not impact
that relationship. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the
spirit of EO 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order (EO) 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.'' This proposed rule
does not have Tribal implications, as specified in EO 13175. This
listing action and proposed determination do not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, in that it imposes no
regulatory burden on tribes. Furthermore, it does not affect the
relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the Tribal Authority
Rule (TAR) establish the relationship of the Federal government and
Tribes in
[[Page 40263]]
implementing the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an envioronmental standards
intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Action Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. These actions
impose no regulatory requirements and are therefore not likely to have
any adverse energy effects.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when the Agency
does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.
The purpose of section 183(e) is to obtain VOC emission reductions
to assist in the attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The health and
environmental risks associated with ozone were considered in the
establishment of the ozone NAAQS. The level is designed to be
protective of the public with an adequate margin of safety. EPA's
listing of the products and its determination that CTGs are
substantially as effective as regulations are actions intended to help
States achieve the NAAQS in the most appropriate fashion. Accordingly,
these actions would help increase the level of environmental protection
to populations in affected ozone nonattainment areas without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any populations, including any minority or low-income
populations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59
Air pollution control, Consumer and commercial products,
Confidential business information, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 3, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 59--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).
Subpart A--General
2. Section 59.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 59.1 Final Determinations Under Section 183(e)(3)(C) of the
Clean Air Act.
This section identifies the consumer and commercial product
categories for which EPA has determined that control techniques
guidelines will be substantially as effective as regulations in
reducing volatile organic compound emissions in ozone nonattainment
areas:
(a) Wood furniture coatings;
(b) Aerospace coatings;
(c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings;
(d) Lithographic printing materials;
(e) Letterpress printing materials;
(f) Flexible packaging printing materials;
(g) Flat wood paneling coatings;
(h) Industrial cleaning solvents;
(i) Paper, film, and foil coatings;
(j) Metal furniture coatings;
(k) Large appliance coatings;
(l) Miscellaneous metal products coatings;
(m) Plastic parts coatings;
(n) Auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings;
(o) Fiberglass boat manufacturing materials; and
(p) Miscellaneous industrial adhesives.
[FR Doc. E8-15722 Filed 7-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P