National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations
Federal RegisterDec 6, 1994
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5114-3]
RIN 2860-AD57
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;
Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed standards would limit emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from existing and new wood furniture manufacturing
operations located at major sources. The proposed standards implement
section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act as amended, which require the
Administrator to regulate emissions of HAP listed in section 112(b) of
the Act. The intent of the standards is to protect the public by
requiring new and existing major sources to control emissions to the
level attainable by implementing the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT), taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reductions, any nonair quality and other air quality-related
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
The EPA is also proposing Method 311 with the standards. Method 311
will be used to assist in demonstrating compliance with the proposed
emission limitations.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 21,
1995.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested, to
provide interested persons an opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed standards for wood
furniture manufacturing operations. If anyone contacts the EPA
requesting to speak at a public hearing by January 4, 1995, a public
hearing will be held on January 19, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m.
Persons interested in attending the hearing should notify Ms. Kim Teal,
(919) 541-5580, to verify that a hearing will occur.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact the EPA by January 4, 1995, by contacting Ms.
Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products Group (MD-13), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5580.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
(LE-131), Attention, Docket No. A-93-10, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Docket. Docket No. A-93-10, containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standards, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460. Telephone (202) 260-7548, FAX (202) 260-4400. The proposed
regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are
available for review in the docket. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed standards, contact Dr. Madeleine Strum at (919) 541-2383,
Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. Regulatory Background
B. Regulatory Negotiation Approach
II. Description of the Source Category
III. Summary of the Standards
A. Applicability of the Standards
B. Actual Standards and Format of the Standards
C. Compliance and Monitoring Requirements
D. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Energy Impacts
C. Economic Impacts
D. Cost Impacts
V. Decision Process for NESHAP Development
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
VI. Rationale
A. Selection of Pollutants and Source Category
B. Selection of Emission Points
C. Selection of Proposed Emission Limits
D. Selection of Format of Proposed Emission Limits
E. Selection of Work Practice Standards
F. Pollution Prevention Considerations
G. Selection of Compliance and Monitoring Requirements
H. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
I. Small Business Considerations
J. Selection of Definition of Source
K. Relationship Between General Provisions and Proposed Rule
L. Relationship Between Operating Permit Program and Proposed
Rule
M. Solicitation of Comments
VII. Other Considerations
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Miscellaneous
G. Statutory Analysis
The proposed regulatory text is not included in this Federal
Register notice but is available in Docket No. A-93-10 (see ADDRESSES).
The proposed regulatory language is also available on the Technology
Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The
TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of
air pollution control. The service is free, except for the cost of a
phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bps modem. If more
information on TTN is needed call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
I. Background
A. Regulatory Background
The proposed rule represents the EPA's first comprehensive
regulation of the wood furniture (surface coating) category. No Federal
rules, such as new source performance standards (NSPS), have previously
been promulgated for this industry. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was
amended; two titles of the 1990 Amendments affect wood furniture
manufacturers, prompting regulation of this industry.
Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 was enacted to
help reduce the increasing levels of nationwide air toxics emissions.
Under Title III, section 112 of the Act was amended to give the EPA the
authority to establish national standards to reduce air toxics from
sources that emit such pollutants. Section 112(b) contains a list of
the HAP that are the specific air toxics to be regulated by national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). Section
112(c) directs the EPA to use this pollutant list to develop and
publish a list of source categories (industries) for which NESHAP will
be developed. This list of source categories was published in the
Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and includes a category
for major sources entitled wood furniture (surface coating). Therefore,
the proposed standards regulate emissions of HAP from new and existing
wood furniture (surface coating) operations located at major sources. A
major source of HAP emissions is one that emits or has the potential to
emit, considering controls, greater than 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr)
(10 tons per year [tons/yr]) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr)
of multiple HAP.
The control of HAP is to be achieved through promulgation of
emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) and design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards under section 112(h)
for categories of sources that emit HAP. The EPA began the wood
furniture NESHAP development process (described in section V of this
preamble) in November 1990. During the information gathering stage, the
EPA surveyed more than 850 facilities in the wood furniture industry in
order to assess the many differences in operations and potential
control techniques across the industry.
Another section of the amended Act that affects wood furniture
manufacturers is section 183 of Title I. Section 183(a) requires the
EPA to issue control techniques guidelines (CTG's) for 11 categories of
stationary sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. The
EPA is developing a CTG for the wood furniture manufacturing industry
as part of the requirements of section 183(a). The intent of the CTG is
to provide guidance to States for regulating VOC emissions from wood
furniture finishing, cleaning, and washoff operations at wood furniture
manufacturing facilities located in areas of ozone nonattainment. The
CTG identifies reasonably available control technology (RACT), which is
generally the minimum stringency that States apply to such sources. The
Agency began developing the CTG in the Fall 1989, prior to initiating
the NESHAP. The status of the CTG and the basis for selecting the
regulatory alternatives were presented to the National Air Pollution
Control Techniques Advisory Committee (NAPCTAC) in November 1991 at a
public meeting attended by industry and regulatory agency
representatives.
The CTG and the proposed NESHAP are concerned with two different
situations. The CTG provides guidance on regulating emissions of VOC
from wood furniture finishing, cleaning, and washoff operations and
will likely affect only facilities located in ozone nonattainment areas
only, while the proposed NESHAP will regulate emissions of HAP from all
wood furniture (surface coating) operations nationwide. Although the
two situations are different, a source may well be affected by both.
For example, if a wood furniture manufacturer is: (1) Located in an
ozone nonattainment area; (2) uses VOC's that are on the HAP list; and
(3) is a major source of HAP emissions and the source's VOC emissions
are greater than the applicability level for the CTG, the source would
be subject to both the standards proposed herein and to the RACT
requirements for VOC's imposed by the State regulatory agency.
Due to the potential overlap of this rule and the RACT requirements
for VOC's, the EPA developed them concurrently so that the requirements
of the two would be consistent. After the bulk of the information
gathering phase of the CTG and the NESHAP was complete, both the
proposed rule and the CTG were developed within the framework of a
regulatory negotiation, described below. Today's rulemaking proposes
the NESHAP and identifies the rationale the regulatory negotiation
Committee followed in developing it. The EPA plans to subsequently
publish the CTG, including the recommended RACT, in a guidance document
that will be available to all interested parties.
B. Regulatory Negotiation Approach
The EPA recognizes that there are many issues and challenges in
developing, proposing, and promulgating a NESHAP for this source
category. During the winter of 1992/1993, the EPA met with
representatives of the industry (including small and large
manufacturers), trade associations, finishing material suppliers, resin
suppliers, States, and environmental groups at public meetings to
discuss issues, share information, and assess whether a regulatory
negotiation would be appropriate for this industry. Two exploratory
meetings were held for these purposes. After the exploratory meetings,
three public meetings were held in spring and early summer of 1993 to
continue to discuss issues associated with regulatory development.
After publishing in the Federal Register on June 23, 1993, a notice of
establishment of the regulatory negotiation committee (58 FR 34011),
the first official regulatory negotiation meeting was held in July
1993. Formal meetings and informal workshops were held over the next
several months to identify and resolve the many issues associated with
the regulation of HAP emissions from wood furniture manufacturing
operations. The Committee members are listed in Table 1.
Table 1.--Wood Furniture NESHAP Regulatory Negotiation Committee
Membership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Members Affiliations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freeman Allen........ Sierra Club.
Terry Black*......... PA Department of Environmental Resources.
Jack Burgess......... Pridgen Cabinet Works (Small Business).
Gerry Currier........ AKZO Coatings.
William Deal......... Bernhardt Furniture Company (Office Furniture).
John DeVido.......... Aqualon (Resins).
William Dorris....... Lilly Industries (Coatings).
Jack Edwardson....... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Paul Eisele.......... MASCO Corporation (Kitchen Cabinets).
Jon Heinrich......... WI Department of Natural Resources.
Gary Hunt............ NC Office of Waste Reduction.
Alan Klimek.......... NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources.
John Lingelbach...... Facilitator.
Brian Morton......... NC Environmental Defense Fund.
Peter Nicholson...... Rohm and Haas (Resins).
Susan Perry.......... Business and Institutional Furniture
Manufacturers Association.
Andy Riedell......... PPG Industries (Coatings).
David Rothermel...... Stylecraft Corporation (Small Business).
William Sale......... Broyhill Furniture (Residential Furniture).
Mike Soots........... Kincaid Furniture (Residential Furniture).
Richard Titus........ Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association.
Janet Vail........... West MI Environmental Action Council.
Stephen Willcox...... American Lung Association of NC.
Susan Wildau......... Facilitator.
John Zeltsman........ Architectural Woodwork Institute (Small
Business).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Left the State of Pennsylvania in December 1993 and is now with Rettew
Associates in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Using various forums, the Committee discussed many challenging
issues such as subcategorizing the source category, the emission data
to be used to select the standards, potential regulatory formats,
emission limits, work practice standards, compliance determination
techniques, enforcement, and reporting and recordkeeping. Other issues
such as the impacts of the rule on small businesses, the relationship
between the proposed rule and the Title V operating permit program, and
the effects of foreign competition were also considered. Given the
potential for compliance with the rule by substituting non-HAP
compounds for HAP contained in the coatings (e.g., ethanol for
methanol), the issue of substitution of non-HAP VOC's for HAP was
discussed at great length. Another major concern was the possibility of
substituting a more toxic HAP for another HAP. This concern prompted a
discussion on the relative toxicity of compounds used in wood furniture
manufacturing.
At the final negotiating session of the full Committee, many of the
major issues were resolved conceptually. Thereafter, the Committee
reviewed drafts of the regulatory language and the preamble and held
conference calls and informal working group meetings to resolve the
remaining issues. Some Committee members feel that because the proposed
standards were developed solely for this source category and many of
the provisions were developed through a regulatory negotiation process,
which often requires concessions from some parties in exchange for
concessions from other parties in other areas, these proposed standards
should not be used as a basis for the development of standards for
other source categories.
The emission limitations for adhesives were developed by the EPA
outside of the regulatory negotiation process, because adhesive
suppliers were not represented on the Committee. While a Glue Work
Group was formed to address gluing operations, the Committee members
decided to suspend the work so they could focus their efforts on
finishing, cleaning, and washoff operations.
II. Description of the Source Category
The following paragraphs briefly describe the operations covered by
the proposed standards for the wood furniture (surface coating) source
category. The EPA has produced a draft of Chapters 1 through 4 of the
CTG. These chapters provide a detailed process description for the many
types of wood furniture operations in this source category. Interested
parties can refer to the draft chapters, which may be found in the
docket of materials supporting this proposed rule, for a more detailed
description than that provided here.
The wood furniture industry encompasses the manufacture of many
diverse products. For the purposes of the proposed rule, the wood
furniture (surface coating) category includes production of the
following products and their components:
1. Wood kitchen cabinets;
2. Wood residential furniture;
3. Upholstered residential and office furniture;
4. Wood television, radio, phonograph, and sewing machine cabinets;
5. Wood office furniture and fixtures;
6. Partitions, shelving, and lockers; and
7. Other wood furniture not described by one of the above
categories.
Despite the broad range of products manufactured by this source
category, some manufacturing operations are common. There are four
basic wood furniture manufacturing operations that are included in the
affected emission source subject to the proposed rule. These are
finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff.
Wood furniture finishing operations include those operations in
which a finishing material is applied to a substrate. Finishing
processes differ within the industry, but typically they consist of
application of finishing materials, evaporation of volatiles, and
curing of the piece in an oven. Facilities may finish the furniture in
components and then assemble it, but more commonly, the piece of
furniture is assembled and then finished. The furniture or furniture
components may be moved manually from one finishing application station
to the next, or may be on tow lines that automatically move through the
finishing lines.
The types of finishing materials include stains, basecoats,
washcoats, glazes, fillers, sealers, highlights, enamels, and topcoats
that all serve different functions. The number, sequence, and type of
finishing materials varies by the type and quality of the furniture
being finished. All of the finishing materials may contain HAP that are
emitted during application.
After the finishing material is applied, the wood substrate
typically enters a flashoff area where the more volatile solvents
evaporate and the finishing material begins to cure, and then enters an
oven where curing of the finishing material and evaporation of the
volatile solvents continues. The evaporation of volatile compounds that
are HAP are the source of HAP emissions from the drying operation. In
this preamble, the process of finishing and drying a piece of furniture
or furniture component is referred to as the finishing operation.
Gluing operations occur at most, but not all, wood furniture
facilities. Gluing operations vary from plant to plant and include the
manufacture of composite pressed wood products such as hardwood
plywood, and applying laminates to wood products, veneers to solid wood
(or composite wood products), edges to tables or desks, and foam to
fabric. Four major types of adhesives are used in the industry: hot
melts, polyvinyl acetates (PVA), urea-formaldehyde (UF) resins, and
contact adhesives. Hot melts are not a source of HAP emissions.
Polyvinyl acetate adhesives contain very small amounts (less than 0.3
percent) of vinyl acetate monomer (a HAP). The UF resins are used
primarily in the kitchen cabinet and residential furniture segments.
These resins are a source of formaldehyde (a HAP) emissions, both from
the free formaldehyde in the adhesive and as a reaction byproduct
during the cure. Formaldehyde emissions in furniture manufacturing
occur during the use of these resins in the plant and also during
storage, use, and cutting of composite pressed wood products that are
used in furniture manufacturing and that contain these resins. (For
reasons that are discussed later, the proposed rule does not address
formaldehyde emissions associated with formaldehyde-based adhesive
resins or composite wood products containing these resins.) Contact
adhesives contain varying quantities of HAP as solvent. These adhesives
are used for laminating countertops and office furniture and for
upholstery operations such as gluing foam to fabric and fabric to wood.
Contact adhesives used for upholstery operations are also known as foam
adhesives.
Cleaning activities are also common throughout the wood furniture
industry. The resins typical of wood furniture coatings require a high-
solvency-rated solvent to dissolve them into the coating mix.
Similarly, dried coatings that must be removed in cleaning operations
require such solvents. These industrial solvents sometimes contain HAP
that evaporate when the solvent is exposed to the air and is
subsequently discharged to the atmosphere via ventilation air.
Equipment that must be cleaned within a wood furniture plant is
typically that which comes in close contact with the coating material;
e.g., application equipment and spray booths.
Finished furniture that does not meet specification may need to be
refinished; the cured coating is removed by washing off the old coating
using solvent. This process is called washoff.
III. Summary of the Standards
The proposed standards are summarized below. The rationale for the
regulatory decisions made in their development is provided in section
VI.
A. Applicability of the Standards
The provisions of the proposed rule apply to new and existing wood
furniture manufacturing operations that are located at plant sites that
are major sources of HAP. A major source is defined in the General
Provisions to part 63 as ``any stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that
emits or has the potential to emit, considering controls, in the
aggregate, 10 tons/yr of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons/yr or
more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. * * *''
As noted in Sec. 63.800(a) of the proposed rule, the proposed wood
furniture rule would apply only to facilities that are major sources as
defined in 40 CFR part 63.2. An important consideration in the
definition of ``major source'' is a given plant site's ``potential to
emit.'' The ``potential to emit'' is defined in 40 CFR part 63.2 as
follows: ```Potential to emit' means the maximum capacity of a
stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and
operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the
capacity of the stationary source to emit a pollutant, including air
pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or
on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed,
shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect
it would have on emissions is Federally enforceable.''
A key aspect of the potential to emit definition is that
restrictions must be Federally enforceable. Examples of restrictions
that would be considered Federally enforceable are listed in a
definition in 40 CFR 63.2.
The EPA believes that there are a substantial number of wood
furniture facilities whose actual emissions of HAP are substantially
less than ``major'' amounts (i.e., more than 10 tons per year of any
single HAP, or more than 25 tons per year from the sum of all HAP
emitted). Many of these facilities, however, would be considered
``major sources'' that are subject to the proposed rule because there
is no Federally enforceable restriction in place that limits their
potential to emit HAP. The EPA believes that the wood furniture rule
should provide a mechanism for such facilities to accept and document
such restrictions.
The EPA proposes, in Sec. 63.800(b) of the proposed rule, that if
owners or operators commit to using no more than 250 gallons per month,
or 3,000 gallons per rolling 12-month period, of coating, gluing,
cleaning, and washoff materials at the plant site, and if the plant
site does not contain other sources of HAP emissions, then the plant
site can be considered an area source to which the rule does not apply.
The 250 gallon level was selected based upon worst-case assumptions
regarding the levels of HAP in the various materials. The proposed rule
would require a commitment to this level, accompanied by monthly
records of materials. The EPA requests comment on: (1) whether an
alternative to the 250/3,000 gallon level would be appropriate, (2) the
level and type of reporting needed to document the owner's commitment,
and (3) the frequency and nature of the recordkeeping requirement.
The EPA believes that there are sources using more than 250 gallons
per month that may emit less than ``major'' amounts, and for which the
owner or operator may be willing to accept case-by-case operating
restrictions that would ensure that the potential to emit does not
exceed the major source threshold. The EPA is considering adding
language to the final rule that would provide a mechanism for such
sources. The EPA requests comment on (1) whether such language should
be added, (2) the type of reporting and process required to establish
the case-by-case commitment, (in particular, how to establish
throughput and content limitations that could ensure area source
status), and (3) the types of records that should be maintained to
document compliance with the restrictions. In addition, the EPA
requests comment on whether the level of recordkeeping and reporting
should vary, depending on the level of emissions (as reflected by the
throughput and content of the materials used).
The EPA requests comment on the appropriate timing of a wood
furniture facility's applicability determination, and on whether all
facilities, regardless of their past emissions or HAP usage, should be
eligible to qualify as area sources under the HAP usage limits. The
Agency also seeks comment on whether a facility that is initially
determined to be subject to the rule should be able subsequently to
escape applicability, and if so, under what circumstances.
As stated in section II, the wood furniture manufacturing industry
encompasses the manufacture of many different products including
cabinets, office furniture, store fixtures, and residential furniture.
The specific operations to which the proposed rule would apply include
those that fall under the standard industrial classification (SIC)
codes listed in Table 2.
For the purposes of the proposed rule, the affected emission source
includes the finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations at
each wood furniture plant.
Table 2.--Wood Furniture SIC Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC code Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2434........ Wood kitchen cabinets.
2511........ Wood household furniture, except upholstered.
2512........ Wood household furniture, upholstered.
2517........ Wood television, radios, phonograph, and sewing machine
cabinets.
2519........ Household furniture, not elsewhere classified.
2521........ Wood office furniture.
2531........ Public building and related furniture.
2541........ Wood office and store fixtures, partitions, shelving, and
lockers.
2599........ Furniture and fixtures, not elsewhere classified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Actual Standards and Format of the Standards
The proposed rule includes emission limits and work practice
standards; the emission limits are summarized in Table 3. As indicated
in this table, the proposed rule would limit HAP emissions from
finishing operations at existing sources to 1.0 kilogram of volatile
HAP (VHAP) per kilogram of solids used (1.0 pound of VHAP/pound of
solids).
Table 3.--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing
Emission point source New source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finishing Operations:
(a) Achieve a weighted average HAP content
across all coatings (maximum kg VHAP/kg
solids [lb VHAP/lb solids], as applied).. a1.0 a0.8
(b) Use compliant finishing materials
(maximum kg VHAP/kg solids [lb VHAP/lb
solids], as applied)
Stains................................ a1.0 a1.0
Washcoats............................. a,b1.0 a,b0.8
Sealers............................... a1.0 a0.8
Topcoats.............................. a1.0 a0.8
Basecoats............................. a,b1.0 a,b0.8
Enamels............................... a,b1.0 a,b0.8
Thinners (maximum % HAP allowable); or 10.0 10.0
(c) As an alternative, use control device;
or....................................... c1.0 c0.8
(d) Use a combination of (b) and (c)...... 1.0 0.8
Cleaning Operations:
Strippable spray booth material (maximum
VOC content, kg VOC/kg solids [lb VOC/lb
solids])................................. 0.8 0.8
Gluing Operations:
Contact adhesives:
(a) Use compliant contact adhesives
(maximum kg VHAP/kg solids [lb VHAP/lb
solids], as applied) based on following
criteria
i. For foam adhesives used in product
subject to flammability testing...... 1.8 0.2
ii. For all other contact adhesives
(including foam adhesives used in
products not subject to flammability
testing); or......................... 1.0 0.2
(b) Use a control device.................. d1.0 d0.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThe limits refer to the HAP content of the coating, as applied.
bCompliant washcoats, basecoats, and enamels and thinners containing no
more than 10 percent HAP by weight must be used if they are purchased
premade, that is, if they are not formulated onsite by thinning other
finishing materials. If they are formulated onsite, they must be
formulated using compliant finishing materials (i.e., those that meet
the limits specified in this table) and thinners containing no more
than 3.0 percent HAP by weight.
cThe control device must operate at an efficiency that is equivalent to
no greater than 1.0 kilogram (or 0.8 kilogram) of HAP being emitted
from the affected emission source per kilogram of solids used.
dThe control device must operate at an efficiency that is equivalent to
no greater than 1.0 kilogram (or 0.2 kilogram) of HAP being emitted
from the affected emission source per kilogram of solids used.
An owner or operator of an existing affected source can comply with
this limit by:
1. Limiting the average HAP content across all finishing operations
to 1.0 kilogram of volatile HAP per kilogram of solids (kg VHAP/kg
solids) (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied;
2. Limiting the HAP content of (i) each stain, each sealer, and
each topcoat, to 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as
applied; (ii) limiting the HAP content of thinners used for stains,
sealers, and topcoats to no more than 10.0 percent HAP by weight; and
(iii) using washcoats, basecoats, and enamels that are formulated at
the facility with coatings containing no more than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg
solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids) and thinners containing no more than 3.0
percent HAP by weight or using washcoats, basecoats, and enamels that
have a HAP content of no more than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/
lb solids), as applied, and thinners that have a HAP content of no more
than 10.0 percent by weight;
3. Using a control device to limit emissions from finishing
operations to 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids); or
4. A combination of (2) and (3).
As indicated in Table 3, the proposed standards would limit HAP
emissions from finishing operations at new sources to 0.8 kg VHAP/kg
solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied. Owners or operators of new
sources can comply with the proposed standards by:
1. Limiting the average HAP content across all finishing operations
to no more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids), as
applied; or
2. Limiting the HAP content of (1) each stain to no more than 1.0
kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied; (2) each sealer
and topcoat to no more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb
solids), as applied; (3) each thinner used for stains, sealers, and
topcoats to no more than 10.0 percent HAP by weight; and (4) using
washcoats, basecoats, and enamels that are formulated at the facility
with coatings containing no more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb
VHAP/lb solids) and thinners containing no more than 3.0 percent HAP by
weight or using washcoats, basecoats, and enamels that have a HAP
content of no more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids),
as applied, and thinners that have a HAP content of no more than 10.0
percent by weight;
3. Using a control device to limit emissions from finishing
operations to 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids); or
4. A combination of (2) and (3).
If owners or operators comply with the proposed standards through
the use of a control device, the overall control efficiency that is
equivalent to the proposed standards for existing sources is that which
results in 1.0 kilogram of VHAP being emitted per kilogram of solids
used. For new sources, the control efficiency that is equivalent to the
proposed standards is that which results in 0.8 kilogram of VHAP being
emitted per kilogram of solids used. This control efficiency will be
source-specific, depending on the HAP content and percent solids of the
finishing materials used at baseline conditions. Baseline conditions
are those conditions that exist at a plant prior to installing and
operating the control device.
The HAP emissions from cleaning operations are controlled by
limiting the VOC content of the strippable booth coating that is
applied to spray booths; this material is used to reduce the need to
clean spray booth walls with organic solvent. Gluing operations are
controlled through the proposed rule by limiting the HAP content of
contact adhesives to the levels identified in Table 3. The HAP
emissions from contact adhesives can also be controlled through the use
of a control device.
In addition to numerical emission limits, the proposed rule limits
HAP emissions from existing and new sources through the work practices
identified in Table 4. These work practices cover finishing, gluing,
cleaning, and washoff operations. The owner or operator subject to this
rule is also required to develop a Work Practice Implementation Plan
that demonstrates how the work practice standards will be executed.
Table 4.--Summary of Proposed Work Practice Standarda
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission source Work practice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finishing Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer equipment leaks........... Develop written inspection and maintenance plan to address and prevent
leaks. The plan must identify a minimum inspection frequency of 1/month.
Storage containers, including When such containers are used for HAP or HAP-containing materials, keep
mixing equipment. covered when not in use.
Application equipment.............. Discontinue use of air spray guns.b
Finishing materials................ Demonstrate that usage of HAP of potential concern have not increased
except as allowed by proposed standards; document in the formulation
assessment plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleaning Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun/line cleaning.................. Collect cleaning solvent into a closed container.
Cover all containers associated with cleaning when not in use.
Spray booth cleaning............... Do not use solvents except as allowed by the proposed rule.
Washoff/general cleaning........... Do not use chemicals that are known or probable human carcinogens in
cleaning solvents in concentrations subject to MSDS reporting, as required
by OSHA.
Keep washoff tank covered when not in use.
Minimize dripping by tilting and/or rotating part to drain as much solvent
as possible and allowing sufficient dry time.
Maintain a log of the quantity and type of solvent used for washoff and
cleaning, as well as the quantity of waste solvent shipped offsite, and
the fate of this waste (recycling or disposal).
Maintain a log of the number of pieces washed off, and the reason for the
wash off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operator training.................. All operators shall be trained on proper application, cleanup, and
equipment use. The training program shall be written and retained onsite.
Implementation plan................ Develop a plan to implement these work practice standards and maintain
onsite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aThe proposed work practice standards apply to both existing and new major sources.
bAir guns will be allowed only in the following instances:
--When they are used in conjunction with coatings that emit less than 1.0 kg VOC per kg of solids used;
--Touchup and repair under limited conditions;
--When spray is automated;
--When add-on controls are employed;
--If the cumulative application is less than 5 percent of the total gallons of coating applied; or
--If the permitting agency determines that it is economically or technically infeasible to use other application
technologies.
At a minimum, the Work Practice Implementation Plan should
specifically identify procedures (e.g., checklists) for confirming:
1. That all storage containers are normally closed, that is, closed
unless an operator is actively engaged in activities such as emptying
or filling the container;
2. That organic solvents are not used for spray booth cleaning,
except as allowed by the proposed rule;
3. That conventional air spray guns are not in use at any finishing
application station, except as allowed by the proposed rule;
4. That cleaning solvent from gun cleaning and line flushing is
collected in a normally closed container;
5. That the washoff tank is normally closed; and
6. That dripping from the washoff tank is minimized by tilting and
rotating the part to drain as much solvent as possible.
Other programs to be incorporated into the Work Practice
Implementation Plan include:
1. An inspection and maintenance (I&M) plan to address equipment
leaks from transfer operations;
2. An operator training program;
3. An accounting system for washoff and cleaning solvents; and
4. A formulation assessment plan.
The I&M plan for equipment leaks must require, at a minimum,
inspection of all equipment (e.g., pumps, valves, and flanges) used to
transfer or apply finishing materials, adhesives, and solvents. The
inspection may be a visual inspection only, but must be conducted at a
minimum frequency of once per month, with repairs to leaking equipment
made within 15 calendar days.
The operator training program must require that all new and
existing personnel involved in finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff
operations be trained. All new personnel, those hired after the
effective date of the standard, shall be trained upon hiring. All
existing personnel, those hired before the effective date of the
standard, shall be trained within 6 months of the effective date of the
standard. All personnel shall be given refresher training annually. The
training must include, at a minimum, appropriate application
techniques, appropriate cleaning and washoff procedures, appropriate
equipment setup, and appropriate management of cleaning wastes.
The solvent accounting system must require, at a minimum, that the
facility record the quantity and type of solvent used for washoff and
cleaning, the number of pieces washed off and the reasons why, and the
quantity of spent solvent generated from each site.
The work practice standards also must require the owner or operator
of the affected source to develop a formulation assessment plan (FAP).
The plan requires the facility to track usage of those volatile HAP
that are listed in the proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 112(g)
as ``nonthreshold,'' ``high concern,'' or ``unrankable'' (collectively
these are called ``VHAP of potential concern'').
Under the FAP, each facility would identify a baseline level of
usage for each VHAP of potential concern presented in Table 4 of the
proposed rule. The baseline usage level would be the highest annual
usage from 1994, 1995, or 1996. If, after November 1998, the annual
usage of the VHAP exceeds its baseline level, the owner or operator of
the affected source must provide a written notification to the
permitting authority that describes the amount of increase and explains
the reasons for exceedance of the baseline level. The following
explanation would relieve the owner or operator from further action,
unless the affected source is not in compliance with any State
regulations or requirements for that VHAP.
1. The increase is de minimis (no more than 15.0 percent above the
established baseline);
2. The facility complies with any State air toxics regulations or
guidelines for that VHAP;
3. It results from the adoption of low VOC coatings, that is,
coatings with a VOC content of no more than 1.0 lb VOC/lb solids, as
applied (the potential increase in HAP being deemed acceptable because
it is offset by a decrease in VOC); or
4. The usage is below the de minimis values presented in Table 4 of
Sec. 63.803 of the proposed rule.
If the exceedance cannot be attributed to any of the above
explanations, the owner or operator must confer with the permitting
authority to discuss the reasons for the increase in usage and to
determine if there are practical and reasonable technology-based
solutions for reducing the usage. If there are solutions, the owner or
operator shall develop a plan to reduce usage of the pollutant to the
extent feasible. If it is determined that there are no practical and
reasonable solutions, the facility would take no further action.
If, after November 1998, a facility uses a VHAP of potential
concern for which a baseline level of usage has not been previously
established, than the baseline level would be equivalent to the de
minimus level, based on 70 year exposure levels and data provided in
the proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 112(g) of the Clean Air
Act, for that pollutant.
As described in Table 4, the Work Practice Implementation Plan,
including the I&M program, operator training program, solvent
accounting system, and formulation assessment plan, must be written by
the owner or operator and maintained onsite.
C. Compliance and Monitoring Requirements
1. Compliance Dates
The compliance date for existing sources subject to this rule that
emit 45.4 Mg (50 tons) or more of HAP per year is November 21, 1997.
The compliance date for existing sources subject to this rule that emit
less than 45.4 Mg (50 tons) of HAP per year is 3 years after the
effective date of the rule. Existing area sources that become major
sources are required to comply within 1 year after becoming a major
source. Once an area source becomes a major source and thus subject to
the regulation, a subsequent decrease in emissions does not allow the
source to be exempt from the standards (even if emissions are decreased
to below the major source criteria cutoff). New area sources that
become major sources are subject to new source MACT immediately upon
becoming a major source.
Owners or operators of new sources that commence construction after
the standards are proposed but before the standards are promulgated
will have to comply immediately upon startup, unless the promulgated
regulation is more stringent than the proposed regulation. In
accordance with section 112(i)(2) of the Act, if the promulgated
standards are more stringent than the proposed standards, the
compliance date for sources that commence construction after proposal
but before promulgation will be 3 years after the promulgation date,
provided the owner or operator complies with the standards as proposed
until the compliance date. All other new sources will have to comply
with the proposed standards immediately upon startup.
2. Compliance Methods
Sources must demonstrate compliance with the emission limits
identified in Table 3 and the work practice standards in Table 4. A
source must first demonstrate initial compliance and then continuous
compliance with the standards. A summary of both the initial and
continuous compliance methods is provided in Table 5. Compliance
provisions are specified for the emission limits and for the work
practice standards. For all sources, the results of the initial
compliance are reported with the initial compliance report required by
Sec. 63.9(h) and Sec. 63.807(b). Sources using compliant materials to
comply with the proposed rule document their continuous compliance
status through semiannual reports required by Sec. 63.807(c). Sources
using control devices to comply with the proposed rule document their
continuous compliance status through semiannual reports required by
Sec. 63.10(e). Other reporting and recordkeeping requirements are
summarized in section III.D.
Section 114(a)(3) of the amended CAA requires enhanced monitoring
and compliance certifications of all major stationary sources. The
annual compliance certifications certify whether compliance has been
continuous or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of
detecting deviations from each applicable emission limitation or
standard with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision,
reliability, frequency and timeliness to determine if compliance is
continuous during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation
satisfies the requirements of enhanced monitoring.
Table 5.--Compliance and Monitoring Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed requirement Initial compliance method Continuous compliance method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Emission limits for
finishing materials:
(a) Achieve a weighted (a) Submit the results of the (a) For each finishing material, maintain
average HAP limit averaging calculation for the first copies of the CPDS and the monthly usage
across all finishing month after the compliance date; quantities, and calculate the weighted
materials; or. submit information with compliance average emission limit across all finishing
status information report required materials and solvents for each monthly
by Sec. 63.9(h). period. Submit calculation results and
compliance certification 2x/yr.
(b) Use compliant (b) Submit the compliance status (b) Maintain copies of the CPDS for each
stains, washcoats, information report required by Sec. finishing material and thinner and records of
sealers, topcoats, 63.9(h). the VHAP content, in kg VHAP/kg solids (lb
basecoats, enamels, VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for each
and thinners; or. finishing method. Submit compliance
certification 2x/yr.
(c) Use a control (c) Conduct performance testing in (c) Conduct continuous parameter monitoring in
device; or. accordance with Sec. 63.804(e)(3) accordance with Sec. 63.804(f)(3) of the
of the proposed rule and with the proposed rule and with the General Provisions
General Provisions to subpart A of to subpart A of part 63.
part 63.
(d) A combination of (d) Meet the requirements of (b), (d) Meet the requirements of (b) and (c), as
(b) and (c). and (c), as applicable. applicable.
2. Emission limits for
adhesives:
(a) Use compliant (a) Submit the compliance status (a) Maintain copies of the CPDS for each glue
contact adhesives; information report required by Sec. used and records of the VHAP content, in kg
or. 63.9(h). VHAP/kg solids (lb VHAP/lb solids), as
applied, for each contact adhesive. Submit
compliance certification 2x/yr.
(b) Use a control (b) Conduct performance testing in (b) Conduct continuous parameter monitoring in
device. accordance with 63.804(e)(6) of the accordance with 63.804(f)(6) of the proposed
proposed rule and with the General rule and with the General Provisions to
Provisions to subpart A of part 63. subpart A to part 63.
Sec. 63.9(h).
3. Emission limits for
cleaning:
Use compliant spray Submit the compliance status Maintain copies of CPDS for each spray booth
booth material. information report required by Sec. material. Submit compliance certification 2x/
63.9(h). yr.
4. Work practice
standards:
All work practices.... Prepare and maintain work practice Follow work practice standards implementation
standards implementation plan. plan. Submit compliance certification 2x/yr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Emission Limits for Finishing Operations. There are four methods
of complying with the finishing material emission limits in the
proposed rule as outlined in Tables 3 and 5. These include an averaging
approach, the use of specific compliant materials, the use of a control
device, or some combination of compliant materials and a control
device. There are also special compliance provisions for sources using
a compliant coatings approach that apply coatings using continuous
coaters.
An owner or operator that chooses the averaging approach can
demonstrate initial compliance by recording the HAP and solids content,
as reported on the certified product data sheet (CPDS), for each
finishing material and solvent used by the facility in finishing
operations and the quantity of each solvent and finishing material that
is used. A CPDS is documentation furnished by coating suppliers or an
outside laboratory that provides the HAP and solids content of the
finishing material (or adhesives or solvent), as determined using the
EPA Methods 311 and 24, respectively. The EPA Method 311, which is used
to determine the HAP content of a coating or solvent, is being proposed
with this rule. Currently, the method is only applicable for volatile
HAP's. A modified version of the test method is being developed for
determining the HAP content of coatings in which the HAP is used as a
reactive diluent or the HAP is formed and emitted during the curing
process. After it is completed, the modified version of the method
should be used for these coatings. The owner or operator must then
calculate the average kg VHAP/kg solids (lb VHAP/lb solids) for all
finishing materials, as applied, used at the facility using Equation 1
of Sec. 63.804(a)(1) of the proposed rule. Initial compliance is
demonstrated if, over the first month after the compliance date, E (the
average emission limitation achieved by the emission points
participating in the averaging approach) is less than or equal to 1.0
kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids) for existing sources or 0.8
kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids) for new sources. Continuous
compliance is demonstrated by performing the same averaging calculation
over each and every subsequent monthly period. A violation of the
monthly average would be considered a violation for each operating day
of the month, unless the affected source can demonstrate that the
violation of the monthly average can be attributed to a particular day
or days during the month.
An owner or operator that uses compliant finishing materials can
demonstrate initial and on-going compliance with the limits for
affected stains, washcoats, sealers, topcoats, basecoats, and enamels
by recording the HAP and solids content, as reported in the CPDS, for
each affected stain, washcoat, sealer, topcoat, basecoat, and enamel
used by the facility. The owner or operator must then calculate the kg
VHAP/kg solids (lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for each of these
materials.
If a finishing material is thinned with solvent after purchase, the
HAP and solids content reported on the CPDS must be adjusted to account
for HAP from the thinner and the lower solids content of the thinned
material. The HAP content of the thinner must be no more than 10.0
percent by weight. Washcoats, basecoats, and enamels will be deemed
compliant if they are formulated at the wood furniture facility with a
compliant coating and thinners containing no more than 3.0 percent HAP
by weight.
The owner or operator of an existing source is in initial and
continuous compliance with the proposed standards if the HAP content of
each affected stain, sealer, and topcoat is no greater than 1.0 kg
VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied; each thinner used
for stains, sealers, topcoats, and premade washcoats, basecoats, and
enamels is less than or equal to 10.0 percent HAP by weight; and each
washcoat, basecoat, and enamel that is formulated at the facility is
formulated with a coating containing no more than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids
(1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids) and a thinner containing no more than 3.0
percent HAP by weight, or each washcoat, basecoat, and enamel that is
purchased premade has a HAP content of no more than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg
solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied.
The owner or operator of a new source is in initial and continuous
compliance with the proposed standards if the HAP content of each stain
is no greater than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as
applied; the HAP content of each sealer and topcoat is no greater than
0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, each thinner
used for stains, sealers, and topcoats, and washcoats, basecoats, and
enamels that are purchased premade is less than or equal to 10.0
percent HAP by weight; and each washcoat, basecoat, and enamel that is
formulated at the facility is formulated with a coating containing no
more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids) and a thinner
containing no more than 3.0 percent HAP by weight, or each one that is
purchased premade has a HAP content of no more than 0.8 kg VHAP/kg
solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied. The use of any finishing
material or thinner that does not meet the HAP limits specified in the
proposed rule during any day constitutes a separate violation of the
proposed rule for that day.
The proposed standards include special compliance provisions for
sources using a compliant coatings approach for meeting the proposed
standards and that are applying those coatings using continuous
coaters. With continuous coaters, any coating that is not applied to
the parts to be finished is recycled to the coating reservoir. Solvent
is added to the coating reservoir to ensure the proper mixture of
solids and solvent is maintained. In this case, the records may show
that the VHAP content of the coating in the reservoir is above the
emission limit and a sample of the coating in the reservoir may
indicate the coating is compliant. While the records are the more
accurate measure of the VHAP content of the coating, they do not
reflect that there will be some evaporation of the VHAP from the
coating being recycled to the reservoir. In order to account for this
evaporation, the EPA examined special compliance provisions for
facilities using continuous coaters. Affected sources that are applying
coatings using continuous coaters have two options for demonstrating
compliance. These are:
1. Using compliant coatings, as determined by the VHAP content of
the coating in the reservoir and the VHAP content of the coating as
calculated from records; or
2. Using compliant coatings, as determined by the VHAP content of
the coating in the reservoir, and maintaining a viscosity of the
coating in the reservoir that is no less than the viscosity of the
initial coating.
The Agency recognizes that records may show the VHAP content of a
coating is higher than the emission limitation when the coating is
applied with a continuous coater. However, the Agency also recognizes
that continuous coaters are potentially more efficient than spray
application systems. In order to use option (2), the affected source
must demonstrate that there is a relationship between the viscosity of
the material and the HAP content of the material. Affected sources may
monitor the viscosity of the coating with a viscosity meter or they may
measure the viscosity each time solvent is added to the reservoir. If
an affected source does not wish to monitor the viscosity then records
must demonstrate that the coating is compliant.
In determining compliance, sources using compliant materials
(finishing materials, thinners, adhesives) should include periods of
startup and shutdown because startups and shutdowns should not affect
compliance with the rule.
Owners or operators can also comply with the proposed rule by using
a control device. Initial compliance is demonstrated by conducting
performance testing in accordance with Sec. 63.805 of the proposed
standards and the General Provisions to subpart A of part 63. The
overall control efficiency (R) that is required by the standards is
that which corresponds to Eac in Equation 2 of Sec. 63.804(a)(3)
being less than or equal to 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb
solids) for existing sources or 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb VHAP/lb
solids) for new sources. Owners or operators using this approach can
demonstrate continuous compliance with the regulation by continuously
measuring and recording site-specific operating parameters, the values
of which are established by the owner or operator during the initial
compliance test. The operating parameter value is defined as the
minimum or maximum value established for a control device or process
parameter that, independently, or in combination with one or more other
operating parameter values, determines that an owner or operator is
complying with the applicable emission limitation or standards. The
parameters that would be monitored under the control system scenarios
expected in this industry are discussed in section VI.G.
Owners or operators that choose to use a combination of techniques
to demonstrate compliance must follow each applicable compliance
technique. For example, if a source uses a control device to control
emissions from one emission point (e.g., one finishing step) and
compliant finishing materials for the other finishing steps, the
compliance provisions associated with both control devices and
compliant finishing materials apply. To determine the overall control
efficiency (R) that is required to comply at the affected emission
points, Equation 2 must be used. However, Ebc will only include
those finishing materials and solvents being directed to the control
device rather than all finishing materials and solvents as shown in
Equation 1.
b. Emission limits for Gluing Operations. The proposed rule also
identifies emission limits for gluing operations. The proposed rule
would limit the HAP content of contact adhesives.
There are two methods of complying with the emission limits for
contact adhesives in the proposed rule as outlined in Tables 3 and 5.
These are the use of compliant materials or the use of a control
device.
An owner or operator that uses compliant contact adhesives can
demonstrate initial and on-going compliance with the contact adhesive
limits (kg VHAP/kg solids) by recording the HAP and solids content, as
reported on the CPDS, for each contact adhesive used by the facility.
The owner or operator must then calculate the kg VHAP/kg solids (lb
VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for each of the contact adhesives. If a
contact adhesive is thinned with solvent after purchase, the HAP and
solids content reported on the CPDS must be adjusted accordingly to
show compliance with the standards. The owner or operator is in initial
and continuous compliance with the proposed standards if the HAP
content of each contact adhesive is no greater than 1.0 kg VHAP/kg
solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for existing sources or 0.2
kg VHAP/kg solids (0.2 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for new sources.
The owner or operator of an affected source using foam adhesives
(contact adhesives used for upholstery operations), to manufacture
products that meet the upholstered seating flammability testing
requirements of California Technical Bulletin 116, 117, or 133, the
Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association's
(BIFMA) x 5.7, UFAC Flammability Testing, or any similar requirements
from local, State, or Federal fire regulatory agencies is in initial
and continuous compliance with the proposed standards if the HAP
content of each foam adhesive is no greater than 1.8 kg VHAP/kg solids
(1.8 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for existing sources or 0.2 kg
VHAP/kg solids (0.2 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied, for new sources.
The use of any contact adhesive that does not meet the HAP limits
specified in the proposed rule during any day is a violation of the
proposed rule for that day.
Owners or operators may also comply with the proposed rule for
contact adhesives by using a control device. Initial compliance is
demonstrated by conducting performance testing in accordance with
Sec. 63.805 of the proposed standards and the General Provisions to
subpart A of part 63. The overall control efficiency (R) that is
required by the standards is that which corresponds to Gac in
Equation 3 of Sec. 63.804(c)(2) being less than or equal to 1.0 kg
VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids) for existing sources or 0.2 kg
VHAP/kg solids (0.2 lb VHAP/lb solids) for new sources. Owners or
operators using this approach can demonstrate continuous compliance
with the regulation by continuously measuring and recording site-
specific operating parameters, the values of which are established by
the owner or operator during the initial compliance test. The operating
parameter value is defined as the maximum or minimum value established
for a control device or process parameter, that independently, or in
combination with one or more other parameter values, determines that an
owner or operator is complying with the applicable emission limitation
or standards. The parameters that would be monitored under the control
system scenarios expected in this industry are discussed in section
VI.G.
c. Emission Limits for Cleaning Operations. Compliance with the
emission limits for the strippable spray booth material can be
demonstrated through a CPDS. Owners or operators would demonstrate on-
going compliance by submitting a compliance certification with the
semiannual reports required by Sec. 63.807(c) of the proposed rule
stating that compliant spray booth coatings continue to be used. The
owner or operator is in initial and continuous compliance with the
proposed rule if the VOC content of each strippable spray booth coating
is no greater than 0.8 kg VOC/kg solids (0.8 lb VOC/lb solids), as
applied. The application of any strippable spray booth coating that
does not meet the VOC limit specified in the proposed rule during any
day is a violation of the proposed rule for that day.
d. Work Practice Standards. Compliance with the work practice
standards is demonstrated if the Work Practice Implementation Plan is
developed and followed. Owners or operators would demonstrate on-going
compliance by submitting a compliance certification with the semiannual
reports required by Sec. 63.807(c) of the proposed rule stating that
the Work Practice Implementation Plan was being followed. Failure to
implement any of the provisions of the Work Practice Implementation
Plan during any day is a violation of the proposed rule for that day.
D. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Most of the reporting and recordkeeping provisions of the General
Provisions to this subpart apply to all sources subject to the proposed
standards. A summary of these requirements and the additional reporting
and recordkeeping requirements that are specific to this source
category is presented in Table 6. The General Provisions are applicable
to all sources subject to the proposed rule that are using control
devices for compliance. However, as indicated in Table 6, some
requirements of the General Provisions apply only to control devices,
continuous monitors, etc. and are not pertinent to sources complying
through the use of compliant materials (finishing materials, adhesives,
strippable spray booth coatings). Table 1 of the proposed rule
specifically cites which sections of the General Provisions do not
apply to sources using compliant materials.
Table 6.--Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Due datea Applicability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Provisionsb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.6(e): Operation and maintenance By the compliance date..... Sources using add-on controls.
requirements (including preparation of
startup, shutdown, malfunction plan).
Sec. 63.7(b): Notification of performance test. 60 days prior to test...... Sources using add-on controls.
(c): Site-specific test plan............... 60 days prior to test...... Sources using add-on controls.
(g): Report of performance test results.... 60 days after test......... Sources using add-on controls.
Sec. 63.8(d): Continuous monitoring system N/A........................ Sources using add-on controls.
(CMS) quality control program.
(e): Notification of performance evaluation With performance test Sources using VOC CMS.
for CMS and site-specific test plan for notification or 60 days
CMS. prior to test.
(e): Report of CMS performance results..... 60 days after test......... Sources using VOC CMS.
Sec. 63.9(b): Initial notification requirements 120 days after effective All affected sources.
datec.
(b): Notification of anticipated startup... 30-60 days prior........... All affected sources.
(b): Notification of actual startup........ 15 days after.............. All affected sources.
(h): Notification of compliance status..... 60 days after compliance All affected sources.
demonstrationd.
Sec. 63.10(b): Maintain all required N/A........................ All affected sources.
information for 5 years.
(c): Additional recordkeeping for CMS...... N/A........................ Sources using add-on controls.
(d): Startup, shutdown, and malfunction 2x/yr...................... Sources using add-on controls.
reports.
(e): Excess emissions and CMS performance 2x/yre..................... Sources using add-on controls.
report, and summary report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements Specific to This Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Provide a list of the types and quantities Recordkeeping.............. All affected sources.
of each regulated finishing material,
adhesive, and cleaning material used, and the
VHAP and solids content of each.
2. To demonstrate initial compliance with the Submit with compliance Sources using average approach or
standard, provide: status report required by compliant coatings. All affected
Calculations to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.9(h). sources.
emission limits
Work practice implementation plan, including:
Inspection and maintenance plan to address
equipment leaks;
Operator training program;
Description of cleaning/wash-off solvent
tracking system;
Formulation assessment plan.
3. To demonstrate ongoing compliance, submit 2x/yr (overrides Sec. Sources using average approach or
semiannual report of:. 63.10(e); no exemptions compliant coatings. All affected
Calculations to demonstrate compliance with for no episodes of sources.
emission limits, if averaging approach is noncompliance).
used; or.
Compliance certification, if compliant
finishing materials are used; and.
Compliance certification associated with
thinners, adhesives, and spray booth
materials; and.
Certification that work practice standards are
being followed; and.
The quantity of cleaning and wash off solvent
that is used monthly in cases of
noncompliance, a description of methods used
to attain compliance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aDue dates are identified only for those items that must be submitted to the Administrator (or the permitting
authority).
bThe requirements of the General Provisions apply to all sources subject to this standard. Each source should
review the General Provisions in detail; this table is just a brief summary.
cThe effective date is the date of promulgation of the standard in the Federal Register.
dThe compliance date is the date by which affected sources must comply with the standard. The compliance status
report would be due 60 days after the compliance date for sources using compliant materials. The report would
be due 60 days after the performance test for sources using add-on controls.
eIf the affected source experiences excess emissions, the source must follow a quarterly reporting format for at
least 1 year after the excess emissions occurred and until a request to reduce reporting frequency is
approved.
In general, existing affected sources will be required to submit
the following reports:
(1) The initial notification required by Sec. 63.9(b);
(2) The compliance status information report required by
Sec. 63.9(h) that should include calculations or performance test
results demonstrating compliance with the emission limits;
(3) Semiannual reports certifying compliance with the Work Practice
Implementation Plan;
(4) If compliant finishing materials, thinners, or adhesives, or an
averaging approach is being used, semiannual reports demonstrating on-
going compliance with the emission limits; and
(5) If a control device is being used, reports as required by
Secs. 63.6 through 63.10 of the General Provisions to subpart A of part
63.
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
This section will discuss the incremental increase or decrease in
air pollution, water pollution and solid waste generation that would
result from implementing the proposed standards. Nationwide impacts are
provided for existing sources.
1. Air Pollution Impacts
The HAP emissions from finishing and gluing operations are
controlled through emission limits on the finishing materials and
contact adhesives used by the industry and through work practice
standards. Emissions from cleaning operations will be reduced through
work practice standards and an emission limit for strippable spray
booth coatings. Emissions of VOC that are both HAP and non-HAP may be
controlled in the process of meeting the requirements for HAP
reduction. The quantity of those non-HAP VOC's that will be removed,
however, has not been quantified. The estimated primary and secondary
air pollution impacts that would result from implementing the proposed
standards are summarized below.
a. Primary Air Pollution Impacts. The immediate air pollution
impacts resulting from the proposed standards would be a reduction in
the emission of HAP by the source category. At baseline conditions
(i.e., the conditions that exist in the absence of NESHAP), total
estimated HAP emissions from existing sources are 50,584 Mg/yr (55,744
tons/yr). If the proposed standards were enacted, these emissions would
drop to approximately 20,825 Mg/yr (22,949 tons/yr). This is a total
estimated HAP emission reduction of 29,759 Mg/yr (32,795 tons/yr).
The actual reduction in emissions may be larger than that estimated
here because the estimate did not account for the reduction of HAP from
a number of the work practice standards. While most of the work
practice standards are expected to reduce emissions, it is difficult to
quantify the actual reduction. Emission reductions resulting from the
restrictions on the use of conventional air spray guns and the operator
training program were estimated, but no emission reduction was assigned
to the other work practice standards. Therefore, the emission reduction
presented here does not reflect the total reductions that may be
achieved through the work practice standards.
The proposed standards could also potentially result in a decline
in VOC emissions and a reduction in ozone or photochemical smog. While
the HAP limits do not require the use of lower-VOC materials, the work
practice standards should reduce the use of VOC containing materials
and, therefore, VOC emissions.
b. Secondary Air Pollution Impacts. The proposed standards are not
expected to result in any secondary air pollution impacts. Secondary
emissions of air pollutants typically result from generation of the
energy needed to operate control devices. If some facilities choose to
meet the proposed standards through the use of control devices there
could be some secondary air pollution impacts resulting from the use of
these devices. These have not been quantified here because it is
anticipated that most facilities will meet the limits through the use
of reformulated materials.
2. Water Pollution Impacts
The proposed standards are expected to have no impact on water
pollution because waterborne coatings are not required to meet the
proposed emission limitations. However, the Agency requests comment on
whether this assessment is correct and whether or not an expansion of
the use of waterborne finishes and associated cleanup operations, in
response to the NESHAP, would impact water discharge from wood
furniture manufacturing plants.
3. Solid Waste Impacts
The only impact of the proposed standards on solid waste is a
potential decrease resulting from the limitation on conventional air
spray guns. Conventional air spray guns have a lower transfer
efficiency, resulting in more overspray than other types of spray
application equipment. With the use of more efficient application
equipment, overspray, and the amount of waste solids generated from
this overspray, is reduced. Due to the uncertainties in trying to
quantify this reduction, no estimate of the reduction in solid waste
has been made.
B. Energy Impacts
The proposed standards are not expected to impact energy usage by
the industry. As with the secondary air pollution impacts, there may be
some impact on energy usage if some facilities choose to use control
devices to meet the proposed standards. However, these impacts have not
been estimated because facilities are likely to meet the proposed
standards through the use of reformulated material.
C. Economic Impacts
The EPA performed an economic impact analysis of the requirements
imposed on the wood furniture industry by this proposed rule. Since the
economic impact analysis was completed, the proposed standards have
changed. The cost impacts presented in IV.D reflect the changes in the
proposed standards, but the economic impacts presented here are based
on different cost impacts. The economic impact analysis is based on a
total industry-wide capital investment of $13,335,900, an annual cost
of $16,801,200, and a cost effectiveness of $578/Mg ($525/ton). Because
the cost impact of the proposed standards is lower than those used for
the economic impact analysis, the economic impacts presented here are
expected to be greater than the actual economic impact. In performing
the economic impact analysis potential price, output, employment,
closure, and secondary effects on affected segments of the wood
furniture industry were assessed using a market model of supply and
demand for this industry. Potential small business impacts were also
examined.
The economic impact analysis assessed the economic impacts of the
proposed rule on the household, cabinet, and commercial segments of the
wood furniture industry. Estimated market price increases from the
proposed rule are small, 0.07 percent or less in each of the three
segments. Estimated reductions in market output are also relatively
small ranging from 0.03 percent in the commercial segment to 0.20
percent in the household segment. Total employment losses were
estimated at 720 or approximately 0.22 percent of total industry
employment. Most of these estimated losses (570) occur in the household
furniture sector. Of the more than 700 operations expected to be
directly impacted, three were predicted to close due to implementation
of this rule. The dollar value of total wood furniture imports was
estimated to increase by 0.43 percent, reflecting both increased volume
and higher prices.
Potential small business impacts were predicted to be minimal.
Results from the economic impact and regulatory flexibility analyses
indicate that smaller plants will not be systematically impacted more
severely than larger operations. Moreover, the vast majority of small
operations, which will not be subject to the requirements of the
proposed rule, may benefit, to some extent, from slightly increased
wood furniture prices.
D. Cost Impacts
For existing major sources, the proposed standards are estimated to
result in a total industry-wide capital investment of $7,046,600. This
cost includes the capital cost of equipment required to achieve
compliance with the proposed standards. The annual cost associated with
the proposed standards is $15,279,600. This cost includes the capital
cost of control (annualized, assuming a 7-percent interest rate and a
10-year equipment life), annual operating cost including the additional
cost of using reformulated materials, worker training, increased labor,
and annual compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting costs. The annual
control cost is approximately $10,779,600 and the annual compliance,
recordkeeping and reporting cost is approximately $4,500,000. The
associated cost effectiveness of the proposed standards is $513/Mg
($466/ton).
V. Decision Process for NESHAP Development
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection
Agency the authority to establish national standards to reduce air
emissions from sources that emit one or more HAP. Section 112(b)
contains a list of HAP to be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c)
directs the Agency to use this pollutant list to develop and publish a
list of source categories for which NESHAP will be developed; this list
was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).
The Agency must list all known categories and subcategories of ``major
sources'' that emit one or more of the listed HAP. A major source is
defined in section 112(a) as any stationary source or group of
stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common
control that emits or has the potential to emit in the aggregate,
considering controls, 10 tons/yr or more of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr
or more of any combination of HAP.
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out
in section 112(d) of the Act. The statute requires the standards to
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is
achievable for new and existing sources. This control level is referred
to as the ``maximum achievable control technology'' (MACT). The
selection of MACT must reflect consideration of the cost of achieving
the emission reduction, any nonair quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements for control levels more stringent than
the MACT floors.
The MACT floor is the least stringent level for MACT standards. For
new sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory ``shall
not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the
Administrator'' [section 112(d)(3)]. Existing source standards should
be no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by
the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources for categories
and subcategories with 30 or more sources or the best performing 5
sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources
[section 112(d)(3)].
Although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of numerical
emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary. In
some cases, physically measuring emissions from a source may be
impossible or at least impracticable because of technological and
economic limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator to
promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard,
or combination thereof, in those cases where it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.
VI. Rationale
The following sections explain the rationale used in selecting the
proposed standards.
A. Selection of Pollutants and Source Category
1. Selection of Pollutants
The specific pollutants regulated by the proposed standards are
those compounds that are listed as HAP in section 112(b) of the Act. In
the wood furniture (surface coating) source category, HAP are emitted
from finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations.
The HAP most commonly used by the wood furniture industry are VOC's
used as solvents in the finishing materials and include toluene,
xylenes, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and methyl isobutyl
ketone (MIBK). Another material used in finishing operations in this
industry is thinner, which is used to dilute finishing materials
purchased from an outside source. Thinners contain one or several of
the HAP previously noted and, therefore, are a source of HAP emissions.
Nonvolatile HAP that are contained in the finishing materials used by
wood furniture manufacturers are typically in the pigments and include
chromium, cobalt, and manganese.
Gluing operations are also sources of HAP emissions. Formaldehyde
is contained in urea-formaldehyde resins and is emitted during gluing
operations, as well as during the storage, use, and cutting of
composite wood products that contain these cured resins. Contact
adhesives contain volatile solvents such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
methylene chloride, toluene, and n-hexane that are HAP.
The solvents contained in cleaning and washoff materials are
typically the same solvents that are found in the coating formulations.
Those that are HAP (identified above) are regulated by the proposed
standards.
2. Selection of the Source Category
The source category regulated by the proposed standards is wood
furniture (surface coating). Specifically, major sources of HAP
emissions are covered by the proposed rule; i.e., sources that have the
potential to emit, considering controls, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) of any
one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of multiple HAP. Table 2 lists the
many products that are manufactured by the source category and
illustrates the diversity of the industry. As indicated in Table 2, the
proposed rule applies to facilities included in at least nine SIC codes
because some or all of the facilities that are included in these SIC
codes produce wood furniture. The SIC codes listed in Table 2 are
estimated to include greater than 11,000 facilities. Of these, it is
estimated that 750 sources are major. This estimate is based on data
collected from EPA's survey of the industry. The remaining sources are
thought to be area sources, or synthetic area sources, and as such
would not be subject to the proposed rule (see related discussion in
section VI.A.2.b).
a. Subcategorization. Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act gives the
Environmental Protection Agency the authority to distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a source category in
establishing standards. There are many reasons for subcategorizing a
source category. A primary reason for subcategorizing a source category
is that different types of control techniques may be appropriate
depending on the type of product manufactured, the manufacturing
process, and the size of the plant. Due to the diversity of this source
category, the Committee considered subcategorizing the source category
by industry market segment (e.g., kitchen cabinet manufacturers,
residential furniture, upholstered furniture, etc.) and by
manufacturing process (e.g., finishing a piece before it is assembled,
finishing a piece after assembly).
Discussions of subcategorization occurred through several
regulatory negotiation meetings. A recurring issue during the
discussions was the difficulty in assigning a facility to one
subcategory. Some wood furniture facilities manufacture products for
different market segments and some use multiple manufacturing
processes.
As the data were evaluated and the recommended format of the
standards was developed, it became apparent that the proposed standards
were most likely going to be a limit on the pounds of HAP emitted per
pound of solids used at a source (see section VI.D). The Committee's
review of the data revealed that the HAP limit of facilities in the
source category did not vary significantly according to the industry
market segment, the size of the facility, or the manufacturing process.
In addition, subcategorization by market segment could not address the
diversity of the industry as there was as much variation in the types
of control techniques used within each market segment as between the
market segments.
Another aspect that the Committee discussed was the potential for
subcategorization to limit the flexibility of sources in complying with
the standards. One compliance method under consideration (and
ultimately included in the proposal) was one that allowed averaging
across various finishing steps within a facility. In this industry,
however, the finishing steps could be within different subcategories
and the EPA interprets the Act as not allowing averaging across
subcategories for compliance determinations. This made
subcategorization less attractive to the Committee.
The Committee decided that the disadvantages of subcategorizing
this industry outweighed any benefits to either the affected sources or
to regulators. Instead, the Committee worked to allow multiple
compliance techniques that could address the operational differences
among the various segments within the source category.
b. Area Source Evaluation. Of the estimated 11,000 sources in this
source category, over 10,000 are thought to be area sources. The Agency
also expects that some sources (known as ``synthetic area'' sources)
will apply for a Federally enforceable limit on their potential to emit
through the Title V permitting program or some other Federally
enforceable program so that they are no longer considered major. A
``synthetic area'' source is a source that has obtained a Federally
enforceable limit that will preclude the source's HAP emissions from
exceeding 10 tons per year of any one HAP or 25 tons per year of any
combination of HAP; without this limit the source is considered major.
The proposed standards do not apply to area sources (including
synthetic area sources).
B. Selection of Emission Points
The specific emission points regulated by the proposed standards
are finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations, all of which
are described in section II. At some wood furniture facilities, only
finishing and cleaning operations will occur. At others, all four
operations will take place. Finishing operations may be a small part of
some plant operations (e.g., upholstered furniture), or may comprise
the majority of plant operations (e.g., residential furniture).
Nonetheless, finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations are
the primary HAP emission sources at wood furniture facilities.
The proposed standards for finishing and cleaning operations were
developed within the framework of the regulatory negotiation described
in section I.B. The proposed standards for gluing operations were
developed by the Agency because adhesive suppliers were not represented
on the Committee. However, the Agency did consult with adhesive
suppliers and operators that perform gluing operations in developing
the proposed standards. The EPA survey of the industry also included
questions concerning gluing operations.
The EPA analysis indicates that there are four primary types of
adhesives used by the wood furniture industry: hot melts, polyvinyl
acetate (PVA) adhesives, urea-formaldehyde (UF) resins, and contact
adhesives. The proposed standards do not regulate UF resins, hot melts,
or PVA adhesives.
The EPA has explored the issue of UF resins in developing the
NESHAP and has decided not to control formaldehyde emissions from UF
resins in the proposed standards. Urea-formaldehyde resins were removed
from consideration during the regulatory negotiation because the
Committee members did not represent parties that would be significantly
affected by these provisions. The EPA investigated UF resins outside of
the negotiation using survey data, studies, and in meetings with the
manufacturers and users.
The major use of UF resins in the furniture industry is the
manufacture of plywood. A furniture facility may make plywood for later
use or glue decorative wood veneers to a wood substrate as part of the
manufacturing process. Both of these processes, however, are considered
to be plywood manufacturing. Thus, it makes sense to control
formaldehyde emissions from UF resins in a broader, more comprehensive
format through the NESHAP for Plywood and Particleboard Manufacturing
that is scheduled to be promulgated in 2000. Accordingly, the EPA has
decided to defer controlling emissions from UF resins in the proposed
standards. In the interim, some members of the UF resins industry have
expressed a willingness to work together with the EPA to explore
scientific approaches to measure emissions and evaluate control
technologies that limit emissions from UF resins and wood products
containing these resins.
Hot melts are also not covered by the proposed standards because
they are not sources of HAP emissions. Hot melts are solid, ethylene
vinyl acetate-based products that are used primarily for edgebanding,
which is the process of applying a laminate to the edge of a
countertop, desktop, table, or other piece of furniture.
The PVA adhesives are waterbased emulsions that have the potential
to emit small amounts of vinyl acetate monomer, a HAP. Typically, PVA
adhesives contain less than 0.3 percent vinyl acetate monomer and are
among the lowest emitting adhesives used by the industry. The EPA is
not aware of lower emitting alternatives that can be used for all
applications for which PVA adhesives are used. For this reason, the EPA
is proposing that the use of PVA adhesives not be regulated by the
proposed standards.
C. Selection of Proposed Emission Limits
The proposed emission limits include a HAP emission limit for
finishing operations, a limit on the HAP content of contact adhesives,
and a limit on the VOC content of strippable spray booth materials. For
a description of the rationale for selecting the proposed format for
these emission limits, refer to section VI.D.
1. Determination of the MACT Floor
Section 112 requires the EPA to set standards for existing and new
sources of HAP emissions that represent the maximum degree of reduction
achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. For determining the proposed emission
limits for finishing and gluing operations, a MACT floor approach was
used. As was discussed in section V.B, for existing sources in source
categories with 30 or more sources, the MACT floor is the average level
of control that is achieved in practice by the best performing 12
percent of sources in the source category.
Work practice standards are also proposed to limit HAP emissions
from finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations. The selection
of the work practice standards is discussed in section VI.E.
In order to determine the MACT floor for the wood furniture
industry, the EPA surveyed more than 850 wood furniture manufacturing
operations. Facilities of all sizes operating under each of the SIC
codes of interest were surveyed in order to get a representative
sampling of the industry. Responses were received from more than 300
sources, 91 of which were determined to be major sources. Information
provided by plants included the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for
each finishing material, cleaning material, and adhesive containing HAP
that was used at the plant, as well as information on HAP usage, HAP
emissions, finishing material usage, cleaning solvent usage, adhesive
usage, and control techniques used (if any).
a. MACT Floor for Finishing Operations.
i. Existing sources. As discussed in section VI.D., in evaluating
the data collected from industry on finishing operations, the format
that seemed technically feasible and most flexible for the entire
source category was an emission limit expressed in terms of pounds of
volatile HAP (VHAP) emitted per pound of solids used (lb VHAP/lb solids
[kg VHAP/kg solids]). Thus, the MACT floor for finishing operations at
existing sources was calculated as the average HAP emission level (lb
HAP/lb solids) achieved by the best performing 12 percent of sources,
that is, those sources with the lowest HAP emission level. The HAP
emission level for each facility was calculated by dividing the
facility's total HAP usage by the total quantity of solids in the
finishing materials.
The Agency had collected sufficient data on the HAP usage at major
sources from the survey of the industry, but did not have data on the
solids content of each finishing material used by a facility.
Therefore, the coating supplier for each major source calculated the
emission level for that source. The Committee agreed that data provided
by coating suppliers were more accurate than an emission level
calculated using only the EPA's data base; because of the lack of data
on the solids content, the Agency would have needed to make assumptions
to calculate the emission level for each major source.
Because information was available on 91 major sources, the MACT
floor was calculated as the average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 11 existing sources (i.e., the best performing 12
percent). The Committee agreed that the 11 sources should comprise
every type of wood furniture operation covered by the proposed rule. If
the MACT floor was calculated by looking only at the emission limit of
the top 11 sources, without regard to industry segment, one industry
segment could be ``over-represented.'' The Committee was especially
concerned that one of the smaller industry segments could comprise the
majority of sources in the MACT floor. Therefore, each industry segment
was represented in the MACT floor proportional to its representation in
the industry. The Committee agreed that the quantity of finishing
material used was a reasonable method for assessing the percentage of
the entire industry represented by each industry segment. Based on the
finishing material usage data collected by the EPA through its survey
of the industry, it was determined that the total finishing material
usage by the source category was approximately distributed as follows:
--kitchen cabinets (SIC 2434): 34 percent
--residential furniture (2511): 44 percent
--office furniture (2521): 7 percent
--radio/TV cabinets (2517): 6 percent
--upholstered furniture (2512): 3.5 percent
--public building furniture (2531): 3 percent
--store fixtures (2541): 2 percent
--other (2519): 0.5 percent
Based on the above distribution, the Committee agreed that the 11
plants comprising the MACT floor should include the best performing 4
kitchen cabinet plants (34 percent of 11), 5 residential furniture
plants (44 percent), 1 office furniture plant (7 percent), and 1 plant
manufacturing radio/TV cabinets (6 percent). The other industry
segments comprised such a small percentage of the source category, the
Committee believed that it was not necessary to represent them in the
MACT floor analysis. The Committee also believed that the industry
segments not included in the MACT floor were similar in many respects
to those that were included and would therefore be able to achieve the
same MACT floor emission limit.
In reviewing the data collected by the EPA from industry, industry
representatives expressed concern that control devices were ``over-
represented'' in the EPA's data base, which indicated approximately 5
percent of major sources were equipped with control devices. Industry
felt that they knew of each control device used by the industry and
based on their knowledge, they believed no more than 1 percent of major
sources were equipped with control devices. The Committee agreed that
approximately 1 percent of the major sources are equipped with control
devices. While the Act states that the MACT floor analysis shall be
based on sources for which the Administrator has emissions information,
this does not mean EPA should not use the information it has
appropriately. Given that the Committee believed that control devices
were over-represented in EPA's data base, the EPA concluded that the
MACT floor should be calculated from a population of facilities that
includes only 1 (instead of 4) control device (equivalent to 1 percent
of the major sources in the data base).
The Agency specifically requests comments on this decision. Any
supporting data that would justify additional sources or fewer sources
with control devices being included in the MACT floor analysis would be
welcomed.
Using the approaches described above, the average HAP emission
level achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources
was determined to be 1.0 lb HAP/lb solids (1.0 kg HAP/kg solids), as
applied. As discussed in IV.D, the format of the emission limitation
was later changed to kilograms of volatile HAP per kilogram of solids,
as applied, (kg VHAP/kg solids [lb VHAP/lb solids] as applied).
Therefore, the MACT floor for existing sources is 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids
(1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids), as applied.
The EPA is considering two possible meanings for the word
``average'' as the term is used above in relation to determining the
MACT floor. First, ``average'' could be interpreted as the arithmetic
mean. The arithmetic mean of a set of measurements is the sum of the
measurements divided by the number of measurements in the set. The EPA
has determined that the arithmetic mean of the emissions limitations
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources would
yield, in some cases, an emission limitation that fails to correspond
to the limitation achieved by any particular technology. In such cases,
the EPA would not select this approach. The word ``average'' could also
be interpreted as the median emission limitation value. The median is
the value in a set of measurements arranged in order of magnitude below
and above which there are an equal number of values (i.e., it is the
middle value). This approach identifies the emission limitation
achieved by those sources within the top 12 percent, arranges those
emission limitations by magnitude, and takes the control level achieved
by the median source. This is mathematically equivalent to identifying
the emission limitation achieved by the source at the 94th percentile
level of emission control. Either of these two approaches could be used
in developing standards for different source categories.
In determining the MACT floor for this source category, the
Committee used the approach that interprets the average as the
arithmetic mean. The median approach is not feasible for the proposed
standards because it would defeat the purpose of having proportional
representation of each industry segment. The median approach would
select the level of control achieved by one facility, the one at the
94th percentile, and would only represent one industry segment. In
addition, the arithmetic mean represents a technically achievable
emission limitation for this industry. Of the 11 facilities in the
floor, two have an emission limit of 1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids. A range of
options can be used to meet the 1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids limit; the limit
does not require the use of either a specific technology or a limited
set of technologies. The EPA specifically solicits comments on its
interpretation of average in general, and the use of an arithmetic mean
for this rule specifically.
ii. New sources. Section 112 of the Act specifies that the MACT
floor for new sources shall be no less stringent than the level of
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
source. The Committee determined the MACT floor for new sources using
an approach similar to that for existing sources; that is, one that
represents the multiple industry segments within the source category.
For new sources, the MACT floor was calculated by determining the HAP
limit of the best performing source in each industry segment that
comprised the existing source MACT floor (kitchen cabinets, residential
furniture, radio/TV cabinets, office furniture). Then, a weighted
average (weighted by the relative coating usage of each industry
segment) was calculated to determine the HAP limit for new sources.
This HAP limit was calculated to be 0.8 lb VHAP/lb solids (0.8 kg VHAP/
kg solids), as applied, and is the MACT floor for new sources for all
industry segments.
b. MACT Floor for Gluing Operations. The proposed standards would
only regulate the HAP content of contact adhesives. Hot melts are not
sources of HAP emissions, there are no lower emitting alternatives for
PVA adhesives, and regulation of formaldehyde based adhesives is being
deferred to later rulemaking. As discussed in section II, contact
adhesives are used primarily for laminating and for upholstery
operations. Contact adhesives used for upholstery operations are also
referred to as foam adhesives. The emission limit for contact adhesives
is expressed as a HAP limit, in pounds of VHAP per pound of solids, as
applied. The MACT floor for contact adhesives was determined as an
average (equivalent to the mean) of the HAP limit achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of contact adhesives used by major sources in
quantities greater than 200 gallons per year; this limit was calculated
as 1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids (1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids), as applied. The HAP
limit for each contact adhesive was determined from data provided by
the adhesive supplier for each major source in the EPA's data base
using contact adhesives. The HAP limit for the lowest emitting contact
adhesive is 0.2 lb VHAP/lb solids, as applied. Thus, the MACT floor for
contact adhesives used by new sources is a HAP content of no more than
0.2 lb HAP/lb solids (0.2 kg VHAP/kg solids), as applied.
2. Selection of MACT
The Committee proposed that MACT for finishing operations should be
set at the same level as the MACT floor. This proposal was supported by
review of the data on which the MACT floor is based. The Committee
determined that HAP emission limits substantially lower than the MACT
floor were not being met, nor could they be met by most facilities in
the industry segments comprising the MACT floor.
It is expected that most sources will comply with the proposed
standards by reformulating existing coatings. Control devices are not
widely used by sources covered by the proposed rule to control
emissions from finishing operations. In addition, State rules do not
require this level of control, and the Committee did not favor a
proposal that would mandate the use of control devices. Thus, more
stringent control could only be achieved in most cases by the exclusive
use of coatings with a very low- or zero-HAP content. Currently,
finishing materials with a very low or zero-HAP content have not been
demonstrated to be feasible for all industry segments.
Another factor that the Committee evaluated in selecting MACT was
the impact of the proposed rule when the work practice standards are
considered. These standards will result in additional reduction in HAP
emissions. Because numerical limits are not assigned to all work
practice standards, the total reduction in emissions that results from
implementing such standards is not quantified. Given that an emission
limit more stringent than the MACT floor could not be achieved by all
segments of the industry and the fact that work practices will further
reduce HAP emissions, the Committee favored setting the finishing
material emission limits based on the MACT floor.
In selecting MACT, the industry members of the Committee raised the
possibility that EPA might, at some future time, conduct rulemaking
activities to expand or reduce the current HAP list. The emission
limits calculated for the wood furniture NESHAP were based on the list
of 189 hazardous air pollutants published in the 1990 Clean Air Act and
were not intended to apply to any changes that may be made to the list
in the future. In the event the list is changed, either by the addition
or deletion of VHAP, the Committee recommended that EPA re-examine the
wood furniture emission limits and determine whether it should be
adjusted to account for the change.
The Agency proposes that MACT for contact adhesives should also be
set at the same level as the MACT floor. (The Committee was not
involved in selecting MACT for gluing operations.) Based upon
discussions with industry, the Agency decided that an emission
limitation more stringent than the MACT floor was not feasible for
contact adhesives.
The Agency proposes that MACT for contact adhesives used for
upholstery operations (referred to here as foam adhesives) be set at a
different level if the product manufactured with the foam adhesive
meets flammability testing requirements of California Technical
Bulletin 116, 117, or 133, BIFMA X 5.7, UFAC Flammability Testing, or
any similar requirements from local, State, or Federal fire regulatory
agencies. The limit of 1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids may require the use of
waterborne foam adhesives. Many of the products manufactured with foam
adhesives must meet standards for flammability. However, industry,
including furniture manufacturers and adhesive suppliers, have stated
that products manufactured with waterborne foam adhesives may fail
these flammability tests. Therefore, the EPA has decided that foam
adhesives used in products manufactured by existing sources that meet
the flammability standards do not have to meet the limit of 1.0 lb
VHAP/lb solids. For foam adhesives used in products manufactured by
existing sources that do not meet the flammability standards, the EPA
is proposing that MACT for existing sources be set at the MACT floor,
that is, 1.0 lb VHAP/lb solids (1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids), as applied.
The Agency believes that HAP emissions from foam adhesives used in
products manufactured by existing sources can be reduced. In order to
establish a limit for these adhesives, the EPA elected to set a limit
equivalent to that of the lowest emitting solventborne foam adhesive
used in quantities greater than 200 gallons per year. This adhesive has
a HAP content of 1.8 lb VHAP/lb solids (1.8 kg VHAP/kg solids), as
applied. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that MACT for existing sources
for foam adhesives used in products that meet flammability standards be
set at 1.8 lb VHAP/lb solids (1.8 kg VHAP/kg solids), as applied.
Some manufacturers of contact adhesives have requested an exemption
from the emission limitation for existing and new sources (1.0 kg VHAP/
kg solids and 0.2 kg VHAP/kg solids, respectively), for problem
applications involving nonporous substrates such as rigid plastic,
metal, and rubber. According to the manufacturers, these operations
require solvent-dispersed adhesives. Low VOC and HAP alternatives are
not expected to be available for several more years.
Manufacturers have also requested an exemption for aerosol
adhesives. These adhesives are typically used by small businesses and
by larger businesses for touch-up and repair. According to
manufacturers, they are highly specialized systems and reformulation
involves complex problems that affect not only the adhesive but the
delivery system as well.
Rather than allow the exemptions at this time, the Agency has
decided to request comment on whether the exemptions should be allowed
and any data that would support or refute the need for these
exemptions. Additionally, the Agency specifically requests comments on
the approach used for establishing MACT for contact adhesives for
existing sources including comment on the following issues:
1. The appropriateness of excluding adhesives used in amounts less
than 200 gallons per year, which the industry felt represented a de
minimis usage, from calculation of the MACT floor;
2. Calculating the MACT floor based on the average of the best
performing 12 percent of adhesives for a data set that is limited, 22
data points, but which the EPA believes is representative of the
industry; and
3. The appropriateness of setting MACT for foam adhesives for
existing sources based on a special quality required for the product
(i.e., flammability).
D. Selection of Format of Proposed Emission Limits
1. Finishing Operations
For finishing operations, the VHAP content, expressed as pounds of
VHAP emitted per pound of solids used (kg VHAP/kg solids), was
determined to be the most appropriate format for the proposed
standards. In selecting the format of the proposed standards, the
following factors were considered:
1. The format must accommodate multiple compliance techniques for
the various industry segments;
2. Given the large number of small businesses in this source
category, the format must ensure that the cost of compliance is not
excessive;
3. The format must ensure that an equivalent level of control is
achieved by all affected sources; and
4. The format must facilitate enforcement by regulatory agencies.
During the negotiation meetings, the Committee considered several
formats for the finishing operations standards in addition to the
selected format of pounds of VHAP emitted per pound of solids used.
These included: (1) a percent efficiency format, (2) a limit on
emissions of HAP per gallon of coating, and (3) a limit on emissions of
HAP per gallon of solids. For all HAP-limit formats, including the one
selected for the proposed standards, the quantity of HAP used annually
is calculated as applied (the total emissions from a coating after any
thinning by the furniture manufacturer). Therefore, if prepurchased
coatings were diluted with thinner at a facility, this dilution was
accounted for. A Measurement Work Group comprised of some of the
Committee members was established by the Committee to investigate these
potential regulatory formats.
The Measurement Work Group determined that a percent reduction
format was not appropriate for this source category. In debating a
percent reduction format, the Measurement Work Group considered the
fact that conventional control devices were not likely to be the
compliance method of choice for this source category. Therefore, a
straightforward measurement of capture and control device efficiency
would not be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with a specific
percent reduction. Instead, to implement a percent reduction format,
baseline conditions at each affected source would have to be assessed.
At an uncontrolled facility this would not be a problem; baseline
conditions would be the current HAP emission rate. The percent
reduction would be applied to this uncontrolled rate to calculate the
controlled HAP emission rate required by the standards. Problems with
the percent reduction format arise, however, if a facility has
implemented control strategies prior to proposal of the MACT standards.
If the same baseline year is selected for both the uncontrolled and
controlled facility, the controlled facility would be required to
control a greater quantity of HAP emissions than the uncontrolled
facility. Thus, a percent reduction format was perceived as penalizing
sources that initiated control strategies prior to proposal of the MACT
standards. The Committee agreed with the Measurement Work Group's
recommendation that a percent reduction format not be selected for this
source category.
Initially, the Measurement Work Group considered a limit on the
pounds of HAP contained in a gallon of finishing material (lb HAP/gal),
either for each finishing material or as an average across all
finishing materials. In analyzing the data, however, the Measurement
Work Group discovered that the pounds of HAP per gallon of finishing
material format would not credit sources that switch to lower-emitting,
higher-solids finishing materials. For example, a facility using a
finishing material with a solids content of 40 percent and a HAP
content of 3 lb/gal will emit fewer pounds of HAP than a facility using
a finishing material with a solids content of 20 percent and a HAP
content of 2 lb/gal because the first facility will use 50 percent less
finishing material than the second. Because the HAP content of a
finishing material is not directly related to the solids content, a
comparison of the emission potential of two finishing materials using a
lb/gal format cannot be made.
As an alternative to the lb HAP/gal format, the Measurement Work
Group considered a format of lb HAP/gal of solids. It was believed that
this format would adequately credit sources that converted some or all
of their conventional finishing materials to higher-solids coatings. A
problem with the lb HAP/gal solids format, however, is that no EPA test
method is currently available for accurately measuring the volume of
solids in a finishing material.
In an effort to develop standards that did not require measuring
the volume of solids, the Measurement Work Group decided to explore a
format based on the weight of solids used, rather than the volume of
finishing material or volume of solids. In evaluating a format of lb
HAP emitted per lb solids used, the Measurement Work Group first
concluded that this format predicted actual emission reductions better
than any other format when extremes in finishing materials were tested.
For example, if a source were to increase the solids content of its
finishing material and decrease its usage of finishing materials, the
format of lb HAP/lb solids properly credited the source's emission
reduction.
Three potential drawbacks to the format of lb HAP/lb solids were
identified by the Measurement Work Group. The first drawback concerned
higher solids stains. Unlike the film building finishing materials,
stain usage is not directly related to the solids content. A source
could use a higher solids stain to reduce its lb HAP/lb solids level
without decreasing stain usage or HAP emissions. The second drawback
was that a source could double its film thickness to reduce the lb HAP/
lb solids value while increasing emissions. The third drawback with
using a lb HAP/lb solids format is related to pigmented finishing
materials such as basecoats and enamels. Some of the pigments used in
these finishing materials have a higher density than the solids used in
conventional finishing materials. While these finishing materials
typically have a lower HAP content than the conventional finishing
materials used by the industry, the lb HAP/lb solids format for these
finishing materials will overestimate the actual decrease in emissions
because of the higher density of the solids.
The Work Group presented its findings to the Committee along with a
recommendation that, despite the drawbacks, the lb HAP/lb solids format
was the most reasonable. Regarding the first drawback (the problem with
higher solids stains), the Work Group agreed that this issue did not
pose a significant problem with the lb HAP/lb solids format. An
analysis of an extreme case, that is, a stain with a solids content at
the upper end of the normal range, indicated that the error would be
less than 5 percent, which the Committee agreed was an acceptable
margin of error.
However, another issue associated with the relationship between a
lb HAP/lb solids format and stains was raised by industry when the
Committee was developing the compliant coatings approach for meeting
the emission limitation. As discussed, stains are low-solids finishing
materials so formulating a stain to meet a limitation based on solids
is difficult. The industry indicated that a compliant stain could be
formulated, but only if the emission limitation applied only to the
volatile HAP in the coating. Stains may contain small amounts of
nonvolatile HAP such as chromium and manganese compounds for which
there are no readily acceptable non-HAP substitutions. The industry
pointed out that a significant percentage of these nonvolatile HAP are
captured and controlled by filters in the spray booths. A small
percentage may be emitted from overspray that is not captured by the
filters, but industry indicated that these emissions will be reduced by
the equipment requirements of the proposed standards, which will reduce
finishing material usage and overspray (see discussion of work
practices in section VI.E.). The Committee agreed that these
nonvolatile HAP will be reduced both by filters and by the application
equipment requirements so that the emission limitation for the
finishing materials would apply only to the volatile HAP.
Regarding the second drawback (the coating thickness issue),
industry pointed out that economics would preclude a source from
meeting standards expressed as a lb HAP/lb solids by doubling the
coating thickness. According to industry representatives, finishing
lines are designed to run at a certain speed. To increase coating
thickness, the line would have to be slowed down to apply more
finishing material. This practice would lower the overall production
rate. The cost of the additional finishing material and the lost
production would deter a source from this approach. Industry
representatives also pointed out that, in most situations, the product
quality would suffer if the coating thickness were doubled. Given the
unlikely situation of a source doubling its coating thickness, the
Committee agreed that this was not a significant drawback to the lb
HAP/lb solids format.
Regarding the third drawback cited above (fully pigmented finishing
materials), although the lb HAP/lb solids format overestimates the
actual emissions reductions from pigmented finishing materials, the
Work Group agreed that this was not a significant problem because these
materials represent a small amount of total finishing material usage.
Industry estimated that these finishing materials account for less than
5 percent of total usage, and data collected by the EPA support this
estimate.
As a result of the above discussions, the format of today's
proposed rule for coating operations is a lb VHAP/lb solids emission
limit (kg VHAP/kg solids). While this format has been evaluated and is
considered appropriate for this source category due to the similarities
in the densities of the solids used in the coatings, the Agency
recommends that before using this format for setting emission limits
for other source categories a thorough evaluation of its
appropriateness for that source category be conducted.
2. Gluing Operations
The Agency and the Glue Work Group, which was involved in the
initial discussions concerning the development of emission standards
for adhesives, considered several formats in developing the proposed
standards for gluing operations. The potential formats for contact
adhesives evaluated by the EPA included a limit on the HAP content of
the adhesive expressed as a pound of HAP per gal and a HAP content
based on a lb HAP/lb solids. For the reasons cited for finishing
operations, a format expressed as a lb HAP/gal is not adequate for
determining emission reduction. Likewise, for the same reasons
discussed for finishing, a HAP limit in terms of lb VHAP/lb solids (kg
VHAP/kg solids) was selected as the format for the proposed standards.
This format was agreed upon by the Agency and the Glue Work Group.
E. Selection of Work Practice Standards
The proposed rule contains many work practices that the Committee
believed are pollution prevention approaches that limit emissions from
finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations. Section 112(h) of
the Act gives the EPA the authority to promulgate design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standards, or a combination thereof. Such
standards are necessary in cases where physically measuring emissions
from a source is impossible or at least impracticable. The work
practices that were selected as part of the proposed standards are
practices that the Committee agreed are feasible but for which emission
limits could not be assigned.
For this source category, work practices were also considered
necessary for another reason. Whereas the emission limits required by
the standards will control only HAP emissions from wood furniture
manufacturing operations, the work practices will limit both HAP and
VOC emissions. Several Committee members were concerned that to comply
with the proposed rule, sources would replace HAP compounds in
finishing materials with equally hazardous non-HAP VOC's. By
implementing work practices, all pollutants will be controlled to some
extent.
1. Work Practices Selected for the Proposed Standards
a. Finishing, Gluing, Cleaning, and Washoff Operations. The
Committee recognized that by implementing work practice standards, HAP
emissions from finishing and gluing operations could be further
reduced. To determine the work practices that would be technically
feasible for the source category, the Committee established a Work
Practice Work Group. The Work Practice Work Group comprised the EPA and
State regulators, a State office involved with waste reduction,
finishing material suppliers, manufacturers, and an environmental group
representative.
The Work Practice Work Group identified two areas in which HAP
emissions from finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff operations
could be reduced through work practices: HAP storage and HAP transfer;
and two more areas in which HAP emissions could be reduced from
finishing operations: finishing material application and selection of
finishing materials. The work practices proposed by the Work Practice
Work Group were discussed with the Committee, and a consensus was
reached that the recommended work practices should be included in the
proposed rule.
i. HAP storage. Materials containing HAP are often stored in
containers that are left open, allowing the volatile HAP to evaporate
and be emitted through room ventilation to the atmosphere. The Work
Practice Work Group agreed that a straightforward, inexpensive method
of reducing emissions from HAP storage would be to cover all containers
storing finishing, gluing, cleaning, and washoff materials when not in
use. In addition to reducing HAP emissions to the atmosphere, this work
practice has the added benefit of reducing worker exposure to volatile
HAP.
ii. HAP transfer. In wood furniture finishing, gluing, and cleaning
operations, solvent, finishing material, and adhesives are pumped from
storage containers to the spray gun through piping. In wood furniture
operations, leaks can occur in equipment used to transfer or apply
finishing materials, solvents, and adhesives. Therefore, the Work Group
agreed that requiring sources to check this equipment for leaks was
reasonable. To implement the leak inspection program, sources will be
required to develop an I&M plan that requires the inspection of each
piece of equipment used to transfer or apply finishing materials,
solvents, and adhesives; a schedule for inspection; reporting of the
results of the inspection, any repairs that were made to the equipment,
and the timeframe between identifying the leak and performing repairs.
The Work Practice Work Group agreed upon the concept of an I&M
plan, but never discussed whether the proposed rule should require a
specific inspection frequency and, if so, what the frequency should be.
In establishing the regulatory framework for the negotiated rule, the
Agency decided that a monthly inspection frequency is appropriate to
accomplish the goal of reducing leaks from transfer and application
equipment. More frequent monitoring was considered burdensome because
smaller shops would not have the personnel to perform the inspections.
To ensure that action would be taken if leaks were detected, the
proposed rule requires that repairs be made within 15 calendar days,
with a first attempt at repair made within 5 calendar days. The
Agency's decision is supported by previous regulatory action; the
hazardous organic NESHAP (HON) and the NESHAP for coke oven batteries
both require this same repair timeframe. As stated above, the Agency
used the Committee's conceptual agreement for an I&M plan to address
equipment leaks as a foundation for the more specific provisions in the
proposed rule. The Agency requests comment on the specific requirements
of the proposed rule, and data to suggest that more or less frequent
monitoring or shorter or longer repair times may be appropriate.
iii. Finishing material application. Another aspect of wood
furniture finishing operations that the Committee evaluated was the
type of finishing material application equipment used. There have been
numerous studies comparing the transfer efficiency of one type of
application equipment with that of another type. Transfer efficiency is
the ratio of the amount of coating solids deposited onto the surface of
the coated part to the total amount of coating solids used. The higher
the transfer efficiency, the less finishing material that is used and
the less that is lost as overspray (sprayed finishing materials that
miss the piece). Overspray eventually dries, releasing volatile HAP,
and becomes a solid waste source for the facility. Thus, by increasing
transfer efficiency, both air emissions and solid waste are reduced.
The Committee agreed that highly efficient transfer methods are
desirable. Traditionally, however, the Agency's position on transfer
efficiency has been one that advocates the use of more efficient
transfer methods, but contends that emission reductions resulting from
these methods can not be quantified. For the purposes of the proposed
rule, the Committee reached a consensus that an equipment standard
rather than a standard that identified transfer efficiencies for
specific application methods would be most appropriate. The Committee
also agreed that data supporting one type of application equipment over
another were conflicting except in one instance; almost all data
suggest that conventional air guns are the least efficient transfer
method. Therefore, the Committee proposed that the rule prohibit the
use of conventional air spray guns.
Several Committee members believed that in certain instances the
use of conventional air guns should be allowed. For example, if a
source is using low-VOC coatings (less than 1.0 lb VOC/lb solids) or a
control device, transfer efficiency is not as critical. Also, some
Committee members pointed out that limited use of air guns for
specialty operations would have minimal environmental impact as long as
more efficient application methods were used for the majority of
finishing. The Committee believed that these were valid claims and
therefore proposes that conventional air spray guns only be used to
apply finishing materials under the following circumstances:
1. To apply finishing materials that have a VOC content no greater
than 1.0 kg VOC/kg solids (1.0 lb VOC/lb solids), as applied;
2. For touchup and repair under the following conditions;
(a) The touchup and repair occurs after completion of the finishing
operation; or
(b) The touchup and repair occurs after the application of stain
and before the application of any other type of finishing material, and
the materials used for touchup and repair are applied from a container
that has a volume of no more than 2.0 gallons.
3. If spray is automated, that is, the spray gun is aimed and
triggered automatically, not manually;
4. If emissions from the finishing application station are directed
to a control device;
5. The conventional air gun is used to apply finishing materials
and the cumulative total of that finishing material is less than 5
percent of the total gallons of finishing material applied during that
semiannual period; or
6. The conventional air gun is used to apply stain on a part for
which it is technically or economically infeasible to use any other
spray application technology.
The proposed rule provides guidance on factors to be considered in
making the determination of technical or economic infeasibility
required for (6). These factors include: (1) The production speed is
too high or the part shape is too complex for one operator to coat the
part and the application station is not large enough to accommodate an
additional operator; or (2) the excessively large vertical spray area
of the part makes it difficult to avoid sagging or runs in the stain.
To demonstrate technical or economic infeasibility, the facility must
submit a videotape, technical report, or other documentation supporting
the claim of economic or technical infeasibility.
The Agency specifically solicits comments on this approach
including: (1) Does the proposed rule provide sufficient guidance for
the permitting agency to make a determination of economic or technical
infeasibility; and (2) are the options for documenting the claim of
economic or technical infeasibility reasonable and sufficient?
iv. Selection of finishing materials. As previously stated, several
Committee members were concerned that the emission limits proposed for
the finishing operations did not prohibit the use of those VHAP of
potential concern. These are VHAP that have been classified as high
concern, unrankable, and nonthreshold under the proposed rulemaking
pursuant to section 112(g). The emission limit for finishing materials
allows sources to continue using these materials as long as the overall
HAP limit does not exceed 1.0 kg VHAP/kg solids (1.0 lb VHAP/lb
solids), as applied (existing sources) or 0.8 kg VHAP/kg solids (0.8 lb
VHAP/lb solids), as applied (new sources).
The Committee discussed prohibiting the use of certain HAP, but
ultimately they agreed that to determine which HAP were necessary for
which finishing materials would be difficult because it would depend on
the specific application and/or product. The Committee also discussed
capping the emissions of certain HAP. Industry argued that a cap could
limit their production by limiting their use of some finishing
materials.
After much discussion, the Committee agreed upon an approach that
satisfied all members. Under this approach, all affected sources must
prepare a Formulation Assessment Plan. The Formulation Assessment Plan
will help ensure that the averaging approach allowed under the proposed
rule does not circumvent the goals of State air toxics programs.
The plan must identify all VHAP of potential concern being used by
the affected source for finishing operations that are on the list of 10
compounds identified by industry. The list, presented in Table 4,
Sec. 63.803(1), of the proposed standards, includes those VHAP of
potential concern that industry indicated were currently in use by the
wood furniture manufacturing industry. The plan must establish a
baseline level of usage, based on the highest annual usage from 1994,
1995, or 1996, for each VHAP of potential concern used by the affected
source.
For sources using formaldehyde, the baseline level of usage would
be based on the free formaldehyde content of the finishing material.
For styrene, the baseline level of usage would be based on an estimate
of unreacted styrene, which would be calculated by multiplying the
amount of styrene monomer in the coating by a factor of 0.16. The free
formaldehyde content of the finishing material was chosen as a method
for tracking formaldehyde usage because it is a readily available
quantity based on known and agreed upon industry test procedures.
However, there is no data available that directly links the free
formaldehyde content of a coating to formaldehyde emissions. Therefore,
the Committee recommended that if data become available that indicated
that formaldehyde emissions were either more or less than those
estimated using the free formaldehyde content, the calculation
procedure in the formulation assessment plan should be re-examined.
Both ultraviolet (UV) and polyester coatings used by the wood
furniture industry contain styrene monomer. During curing, styrene
monomer reacts to form the dried coating. However, some of the styrene
monomer is emitted during the application of the coating and as the
coating cures. While EPA has not developed an emission factor for
styrene for these coatings, they have developed emission factors for
the fabrication of products from polyester resins. These emission
factors are presented in Chapter 4 of EPA's ``Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors.'' The industry felt that the emission
factors developed for vapor-suppressed gelcoats were appropriate for
use in estimating unreacted styrene monomer emissions from UV and
polyester coatings. The emission factor for vapor-suppressed gelcoats
ranges from 8 to 25. The industry and EPA agreed to use a midpoint
value of 16. While a constant emission factor may not be a true measure
of actual emissions, it would not adversely affect the facility using
these coatings because both baseline emissions and emissions from later
years would be estimated on the same basis.
The source must track usage of each VHAP of potential concern. If,
after November 1998, usage of the VHAP of potential concern exceeds the
established baseline levels then the source must provide a written
notification to the permitting authority that describes the amount of
increase and explains the reasons for exceedance of the baseline level.
As long as the source is complying with its State Air Toxics Program or
any other State rules or requirements affecting that VHAP of potential
concern, any of the following explanations would relieve the facility
from further action: (1) The usage level is below the de minimis level,
based on 70 year exposure levels, that is specified through EPA's
rulemaking pursuant to section 112(g) of the Clean Air Act for that
VHAP (for sources using control devices to reduce emissions the usage
level can be adjusted to account for the overall control efficiency of
the control system); (2) the increase is no more than 15.0 percent
above the baseline level; (3) the source is in compliance with its
State air toxics regulations or guidelines for that VHAP of potential
concern; or (4) the VHAP is used in a finishing material that has a VOC
content of no more than 1.0 kg VOC/kg solids (1.0 lb VOC/lb solids), as
applied.
If the explanation for the exceedance of the baseline level is not
one of the four discussed above, the owner or operator must confer with
the permitting authority to discuss the reasons for the increase and to
determine if these are practical and reasonable technology-based
solutions for reducing usage of the VHAP. The evaluation of whether a
technology is reasonable and practical would be based on cost, quality,
and marketability of the product; the successful use of the technology
by other wood furniture manufacturing operations, or other criteria
agreed upon by the permitting authority and owner or operator. If the
permitting authority and owner or operator agree there are no practical
and reasonable solutions, the facility would take no further action.
If the permitting authority and owner or operator agree that there
are solutions, the owner or operator must develop a plan to reduce
usage of the pollutant to the extent feasible. The plan must address
the approach to be used to reduce usage, provide a timetable for
implementing the plan, and include a schedule for submitting
notifications of progress.
If, after November 1998, the affected source uses a VHAP of
potential concern for which a baseline level has not been established,
then the baseline level will be equivalent to the de minimis level,
based on 70 year exposure levels and data provided in the proposed
rulemaking pursuant to section 112(g), for that pollutant. Table 5 of
the proposed rule, Sec. 63.803(d), includes a list of all VHAP of
potential concern. If the affected source's use of the VHAP of
potential concern exceeds the de minimis level, then the affected
source must record the reasons for the exceedance and follow the same
procedures as those used when an exceedance of the baseline level
occurs for those VHAP listed in Table 4.
The de minimis rates for the HAP of potential concern are based on
the principles involved and some of the supporting data used for the
proposed rule pursuant to section 112(g). These principles are given in
detail in Documentation of De Minimis Emission Rates--Proposed 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart B Background Document, EPA-453/R-93-035 (this document
is available on EPA's Technology Transfer Network) and are briefly
described here.
For the proposed section 112(g) rulemaking, the basis for the de
minimis levels is the use of information that is available to determine
(1) an exposure level which results in a one-per-million cancer risk
level, or (2) an exposure level which constitutes an ``ample margin of
safety'' level for noncancer effects. The risk management decisions to
use these two criteria to determine de minimis emission rates are
fundamental assumptions in the determination of de minimis levels for
the section 112(g) rulemaking. Note that the de minimis levels do not
take into account any additive effects which may result from exposure
to multiple pollutants.
For pollutants where insufficient dose-response information is
available to determine the exposure level associated with either a one-
per-million cancer risk or an ``ample margin of safety'' for noncancer
effects, the proposed rule contains default values which reflect risk
management decisions for establishing the de minimis rates.
An important risk management decision for establishing de minimis
levels under section 112(g) was to ``cap'' de minimis emission rates at
10.0 tons per year. For example, if an exposure level associated with a
one-per-million cancer risk results in a de minimis level greater than
10.0 tons, the de minimis level, by virtue of the cap, is 10.0 tons.
The EPA believes that it would be difficult to support the designation
of a ``trivial'' level of emissions of an air pollutant that is
considered ``major'' by the guiding legislation.
The risk management process for establishing de minimis values for
the proposed rule for section 112(g) gave consideration to the interim
nature of section 112(g) requirements. For carcinogens with available
unit risk estimates, the duration of exposure used to set de minimis
emission rates of such pollutants is the same as the estimated period
the section 112(g) rulemaking will be in effect before those provisions
are augmented by the section 112(j) provision. At that time, sources
will be subject to case-by-case MACT determinations or the national
MACT standards will have been promulgated for those sources.
Because the wood furniture MACT standard was not intended to be
interim in nature, it is important to note that the specific de minimis
rates listed in section 112(g) are not intended to be used directly by
the wood furniture MACT standard. Consequently, the rates need to be
adjusted to take into account a lifetime duration of exposure. This
adjustment would affect the de minimis levels for pollutants identified
as nonthreshold for which unit risk estimates are available.
Some industry members of the committee recommended that EPA request
comments on the adjustment of the proposed section 112(g) de minimis
values from 7-year exposure to 70-year exposure values. Therefore, the
EPA is requesting comment on this issue.
Because the rule pursuant to section 112(g) is still in the
proposal stage, any changes made to the proposed rule upon its becoming
final that affect the wood furniture NESHAP will be made before the
wood furniture NESHAP is promulgated. For example, if any VHAP of
potential concern changes in its hazard ranking categorization (e.g., a
VHAP is recategorized from the high concern list to the threshold list)
or if information used to determine the exposure level associated with
either a one-per-million cancer risk or an ``ample margin of safety''
for noncancer effects changes the de minimis value, these changes will
also be made to the formulation assessment plan in the wood furniture
NESHAP.
The formulation assessment plan is beneficial to the industry in
that its inclusion in the MACT standard and potential impact on
emissions of VHAP of potential concern may reduce health risk to the
extent that it would alleviate the need for additional risk-based
Federal air toxics standards to be promulgated for this industry.
Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act specifies that additional standards
may be required for a source category even after a MACT standard is
promulgated. In particular, under section 112(f), EPA is required to
promulgate an additional emission standard for a source category within
8 years after promulgation of the MACT standard depending on the risk
remaining to the most exposed individual or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. An additional standard would be required if the
MACT standard for a source category that emits a pollutant classified
as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen does not reduce
lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to
emissions from a source in the category to less than one-in-a-million.
Because the formulation assessment plan of the MACT standard deals with
the volatile HAP which likely cause such a risk or other adverse
environmental effects upfront and in the MACT standard, it provides a
possibility that the industry would not be subject to future Federal
risk-based standards under section 112(f).
b. Cleaning and Washoff Operations. As discussed in section II,
cleaning operations that occur at wood furniture manufacturing
operations include cleaning of spray guns, lines conveying solvent,
finishing materials and adhesives from storage to the spray guns, and
spray booths. In evaluating work practices that could be implemented to
reduce emissions from cleaning and washoff operations, the Committee
considered work practices already in use by some facilities in the
source category. In addition, the Work Practice Work Group explored
options used by other industries, in particular, the use of alternate
cleaning materials with lower vapor pressure or HAP content. This
option was rejected because it limited the source's ability to reuse
the cleaning materials elsewhere, such as for thinning finishing
materials.
The Work Practice Work Group explored the methods currently being
used by facilities in the source category to control HAP emissions from
cleaning and washoff. They used the survey responses collected by the
EPA and the industry group, the experience of personnel from a State
Office of Waste Reduction on the Work Group that had worked with wood
furniture manufacturers, and the experience of those involved in the
manufacture of products in one or more of the industry segments.
The Work Practice Work Group concluded (and the Committee
concurred) that there were work practices in use by existing facilities
in the source category to limit emissions from washoff operations and
each major cleaning activity: gun/line cleaning, spray booth cleaning,
and general cleaning activities.
i. Gun/line cleaning. The cleaning of spray guns and of lines that
carry finishing material, solvent, and adhesives from storage to the
spray guns is a common practice in wood furniture operations. Cleaning
is necessary so that dried resins or other materials do not build up in
the lines or spray equipment. The frequency of cleaning varies by plant
depending on the different types of material sprayed with a given gun,
the extent to which a gun is used, and other plant-specific factors.
Typically, a gun is cleaned each time it is used to spray a different
material. If a gun is dedicated to one type of finishing material
(e.g., topcoat), cleaning frequency may be reduced. The practice of
dedicating a gun to a particular coating type is not common, however,
especially at smaller shops that have fewer spray stations.
One work practice that the Work Practice Work Group agreed could be
universally applied was the collection of solvent used for cleaning in
a container that can be closed. For example, if a line is flushed, the
cleaning solvent could be collected into a normally closed container.
Another work practice that the Work Practice Work Group agreed could be
easily implemented is the covering of cleaning solvent containers when
not in use. As discussed for storage containers associated with
finishing and gluing operations, such a practice is straightforward and
inexpensive.
ii. Spray booth cleaning. In addition to the emission limits
identified for strippable spray booth coatings in Table 3, the Work
Practice Work Group believed that the proposed rule should prohibit the
use of organic solvents for spray booth cleaning except in limited
circumstances. Sources subject to this rule could comply by using
strippable spray booth coatings that meet the VOC limits identified in
Table 3, thereby reducing the use of organic solvents for this purpose.
The Work Practice Work Group acknowledged that there were instances in
which solvent was necessary. Specifically, it was agreed that conveyors
carrying furniture or furniture components through the spray booth and
continuous coaters and their enclosures could continue to be cleaned
with solvent. Likewise, organic solvent can continue to be used to
clean the metal filters located in the spray booth. Neither the Work
Practice Work Group members nor the rest of the Committee members were
aware of substitute materials that could be used for cleaning this
equipment, or of any strippable coating such as the coating that is
available for the spray booth walls. Additionally, industry
representatives pointed out that small tears and holes may be generated
in the strippable booth coating during the manufacturing process. In
these cases, some staining of the spray booth walls may occur. The
Committee agreed that sources could use small quantities of solvent, no
more than 1.0 gallon per booth, to clean these areas when the
strippable booth coating was being replaced.
iii. Furniture washoff. Another area of concern that the Work
Practice Work Group focused on was a practice known in the industry as
washoff. Washoff is the practice of removing coating from a piece of
furniture or a furniture component. The main reason for washoff is that
the finish does not meet company specifications. By washing off the
coatings, the substrate can be refinished. Washoff is typically
accomplished by dipping the furniture into a tank containing organic
solvent; the same solvents used for cleaning are usually used for
washoff. The Work Practice Work Group agreed that there were some
measures that sources could implement at almost no cost that could
limit emissions from washoff. As with finishing and other cleaning
operations, the Work Practice Work Group agreed that covering washoff
tanks when they are not in use would limit emissions. Also, sources
could minimize dripping by tilting and/or rotating the piece to drain
as much solvent as possible back into the tank.
iv. General cleaning/washoff activities. During the Work Practice
Work Group discussions, it was apparent that cleaning and washoff
practices are not well documented by sources. For example, most sources
do not know the quantity of solvent used for cleaning and washoff
operations, how many pieces are washed off, and the fate of spent
solvent from cleaning and washoff operations. The Work Practice Work
Group agreed that one of the first steps in reducing emissions is to
know the quantity of solvent used for the various operations onsite.
Only then can a source identify operations that are wasteful or
inefficient. Therefore, the Work Practice Work Group proposed that the
work practices in the proposed rule require a cleaning and washoff
solvent accounting system. Under this system, sources would have to:
1. Maintain a log of the quantity and type of solvent used for
washoff and cleaning, the number of pieces washed off, and the reason
for the washoff;
2. Record the quantity of spent solvent generated from each
activity, and its ultimate fate either onsite or offsite;
3. Document that chemicals that are known or probable human
carcinogens, the EPA type A and type B1/B2, are not present
in cleaning or washoff solvents in concentrations subject to MSDS
reporting as required by OSHA.
The net cleaning and washoff solvent usage quantities, accounting
for disposal and recycling of spent solvent, shall be calculated
monthly. Actual copies of the logs should be made available to the
Administrator or permitting authority upon request.
The Committee agreed with the Work Practice Work Group's
recommendation that an accounting system be implemented by affected
sources. The Committee believed that once the accounting system was in
place, the burden of maintaining it would not be too great. The
Committee also believed that the accounting system would be an
important first step for facilities to develop a broad-based,
multimedia pollution prevention plan.
Some Agency officials have expressed concern that the proposed rule
only restricts the use of EPA type A and type B1/B2
carcinogens in cleaning and washoff solvents. They are concerned that
restricting the use of only these chemicals implies that they are worse
than other HAP. They are also concerned that the rule draws a clear
line between type B and C carcinogens, although the scientific evidence
does not suggest such a clear distinction. For example, some pollutants
on the HAP list are designated type B/C because the data cannot clearly
support a designation of type B or C. The proposed rule does not
address these pollutants. Finally, the Agency is planning to update
their risk assessment guidelines. Under these revised guidelines, the
terms type A and type B carcinogens are likely to be meaningless.
The Committee agreed to restrict the use of type A and type
B1/B2 carcinogens only, so the EPA is proposing the rule
using this approach. However, to address the concerns of some Agency
officials, the EPA is specifically requesting comment on this issue
including:
1. Should additional HAP, for example, all VHAP of potential
concern, be restricted from use in cleaning and washoff solvents;
2. If the approach proposed in the rule is used, how should
chemicals designated as type B/C carcinogens be addressed; and
3. If the approach proposed in the rule is used and the risk
assessment guidelines are revised so that the terms type A and type B
become obsolete, how could the rule be revised to maintain the intent
of the proposed rule?
c. General Work Practice Requirements. After reviewing the work
practices to be included, the Committee concluded that in order for the
proposed work practices to be successfully implemented, employees that
would actually have to carry them out should be involved in their
implementation. Therefore, an operator training program is included as
a proposed work practice. The Committee believed that operator training
was especially important for new employees and therefore proposed that
new employees be trained upon hiring. The Committee agreed that the
proposed rule should be flexible and allow sources to develop programs
that work best for their facility or that could be coordinated with
existing training programs. The proposed rule does require that, at a
minimum, the employee training program address coating application,
cleaning, and washoff techniques that minimize emissions; appropriate
equipment operation; methods to reduce solvent usage; and proper
management of cleanup wastes. The Committee also proposed that the rule
require retraining of all employees on an annual basis.
Members of the Work Practice Work Group proposed to the Committee
that the standards should require affected sources to develop an
Implementation Plan that describes how sources plan to comply with the
work practice requirements on an on-going basis. Based on the proposed
work practices, the Committee believed that any Implementation Plan
should include, at a minimum, the following:
1. Checklists to document that:
--all storage containers are covered when not in use;
--solvents are not being used for spray booth cleaning except as
allowed by the proposed rule;
--conventional air spray guns are not in use except as allowed by the
proposed rule;
--cleaning solvent from gun/line cleaning has been collected into a
normally closed container; and
--the washoff tank is covered when not in use;
2. An I&M plan as discussed in section VI.E.1.a.ii;
3. A formulation assessment plan as discussed in section
VI.E.1.a.iv;
4. An accounting system for washoff and cleaning solvents as
discussed in section VI.E.1.b.iv; and
5. The operator training program discussed in section VI.E.1.c.
The Work Practice Implementation Plan would be followed and
maintained onsite to demonstrate on-going compliance, and made
available at the request of the Administrator or permitting authority
at any time.
2. Other Work Practices Considered
In developing the work practices for the proposed rule, the Work
Practices Work Group as well as other Committee members identified
additional measures that were considered for inclusion in the proposed
rule. This section identifies those other measures and discusses why
the Committee did not include these measures in the proposed rule.
Individual sources and regulators are encouraged to consider this list
to determine if some measures may be appropriate, or at least
applicable to some sources within the source category.
The following measures were identified as possible work practices
but were not included in the proposed rule:
1. Facilities should develop a multimedia pollution prevention plan
that addresses hazardous waste generation, solid waste generation,
water pollution releases, air emissions, and worker exposure;
2. Position workpiece to minimize overspray, and position the piece
to facilitate good spraying techniques by operators;
3. Whenever practical, use heat instead of solvent to reduce
coating viscosity;
4. Optimize spray pattern and technique to the work piece size,
shape, and orientation;
5. Use self-contained recycling gun washers;
6. Whenever practical, schedule colors light to dark to minimize
extent of cleaning needed, and try to schedule long runs to minimize
material changeover and associated cleaning;
7. Reduce the need for cleaning by using dedicated equipment for
high-volume coatings;
8. Use the shortest possible lines to reduce solvent needed for
line cleaning;
9. Drain lines prior to solvent cleaning and use air pressure,
pigs/squeegees, or solvent pulse cleaning;
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.