Summary of the Meeting with New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation Regarding EPA’s Advanced Notice   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 to
Solicit Comments, Data and Information for Determining the Emissions
Reductions Achieved in Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas from
the Implementation of Rules Limiting the VOC Content of Architectural 

Date:  January 19, 2006	Time: 10:30

Venue:  EPA Region III office in Philadelphia, 4th Floor Appalachian
Conference Room 

Attendees Present at the Meeting:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Dan Brinsko

Dave Shaw

Ronald Stannard

EPA Region II

Kirk Wieber

EPA Region III

Neil Bigioni

Individuals who participated by conference telephone:

EPA

Tom Helms, OAQPS

David Salman, OAQPS

David Sanders, OAQPS

Robert Stallings, OAQPS

William L. Johnson, OAQPS

Bruce Moore, OAQPS

Geoffrey Wilcox, OGC

Anne Arnold, Region I

Stanley Tong, Region IX

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Laura Scatena

Ozone Transport Commission

Doug Austin

Summary of Meetings Discussions:

In its “Advance Notice to Solicit Comments, Data and Information for
Determining the Emissions Reductions Achieved in Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas From the Implementation of Rules Limiting the VOC
Content of AIM Coatings” the Environmental Protection Agency also
offered the opportunity for interested parties to meet with the Agency
to offer comments.   In response to this invitation, representatives of
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation met (in
person and by teleconference) with EPA on January 19, 2006, to discuss
their comments on the issue of the appropriate baseline and methodology
to use in architectural and industrial coatings (AIM) emission
reductions calculations.  

New York presented an agenda which identified three issues to be
discussed at the meeting.  These issues were:

Discussion of AIM Coatings Calculation Methodologies

Surveys – New York and OTC efforts – how EPA can use these

Other Area Source Calculation Methodologies

New York: Informed EPA that they are planning a survey of architectural
coatings usage and emissions.  The survey will be limited to just those
products offered for sale in New York State.  New York informed EPA that
there are ongoing discussions with the other member states of the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) to do a similar survey for products sold in
those states.  New York will be sending out about 1300 courtesy letters
to AIM coatings manufacturers to determine which manufacturers offer for
sale their products in New York State.  New York anticipates that there
are approximately 600 manufacturers who do so.   New York said they will
provide EPA with a list of survey recipients (company names and
addresses) when the survey is sent out.   Those manufacturers will be
required to answer a survey.  The survey will copy the California Air
Resource Board (CARB) format.  They will give 90 days for survey
recipients to get survey data to New York.   New York will share with
EPA the results of the survey.  The survey will be for products marketed
in 2005.  That is the first year for which New York regulations give the
State authority to conduct a survey and for which the revised AIM
coating limits were applicable in New York State.   

EPA: Suggested that New York talk to its legal counsel about how they
will handle confidential business information (CBI) before giving the
survey data to EPA.  

New York: Stated that they believe the VOC per capita emission factors
from architectural coatings could vary from state to state.  They
believe this is because 1.) differences in painting frequency in
different States due to climate, and 2.) VOC limits which some States
have that vary from those of other States, e.g.,CARB has stricter limits
in place and many other states fall under the less stringent national
AIM rule.  New York stated that Pennsylvania and Delaware are the other
OTC states which have the authority within their state AIM rules to
perform a survey, however, other OTC states seem to have the authority
under state rules separate from their AIM rules.

New York will ask the manufacturers to identify the different species of
chemical compounds in the AIM coatings.  This is for future reference in
the event New York considers use of a reactivity based approach in
reducing VOCs.  EPAs September 13, 2005 policy statement indicated the
Agency’s willingness to consider reactivity based  approaches.

The discussion then turned to calculation methodologies.  New York
presented a table (see attachment) in which they gave a comparison of
calculation methodology for AIM coatings.  There was a discussion of the
various approaches summarized in the table

New York explained that the “NY Part 205” column starts with an
emission factor of 3.1 which New York says it got from taking the
results of their 1985 survey of the New York City area and applying a 9%
reduction for the AIM rule adopted by the state in 1988.  New York said
they applied a 0% credit for the 1998 federal AIM rule because their
1988 state AIM rule was as strict as the federal AIM rule.  New York
applied a 31% reduction to the 3.1 emission factor to get a per capita
emission factor post OTC model rule of 2.14.  The 31% reduction used by
New York was derived by the OTC from the Industry Insight survey done by
NPCA during the development of the federal AIM rule.  New York said they
would provide us with an explanation of how they derived the 31%
reduction from this data.  New York said that although the paint
industry apparently does not agree with the spread sheet (based on
Industry Insight data), New York thinks that the reductions predicted by
the spread sheet are close to reductions they have estimated
independently.  For example using their 1985 survey data, New York got a
9% reduction for the 1988 state AIM rule.  When they used the Industry
Insight data they got an 8.6% reduction (on a gallons of coating basis)
for the same situation, which is close to their result based on their
1985 survey data.

New York said that both the “OTC model rule” column and the
“Industry method” columns show a 1990 baseline per capita emission
factor of 6.7 which came from a 1991 EPA emissions inventory guidance
document.  The difference in these columns is that the OTC used a 31%
reduction for the OTC model rule while the industry used 53%.

EPA:  EPA noted that the tons per year baseline for the federal AIM rule
was derived by EPA from the Industry Insights data with certain upward
adjustments made to account for incompleteness of the data.   The
federal AIM rule baseline equates to per capita emission factor of  4.5.
 The 20% reduction for the federal AIM rule was derived by EPA from the
federal AIM rule baseline.  The 31% reduction beyond the federal AIM
rule estimated by OTC for the OTC model rule was also based on the
Industry Insights data.    

In the “OTC model rule” column of the table, the 20% and 31%
reductions are applied successively to a 1990 baseline per capita
emission factor of 6.7.  The “Industry method” column also starts
with a 6.7 baseline per capita emission factor and applies a 20%
reduction for the federal AIM rule.  These percent reduction figures,
however, were not derived from a 6.7 baseline.

The industry derived a 2.51 post OTC model AIM rule emission factor from
CARB data with adjustments for differences between the CARB Suggested
Control Measure and the OTC model rule.  The reduction from 5.36 to 2.51
was then calculated by the industry to be 53%.

OTC: Stated that if States do new surveys based on 2005 paint sales,
then for future rulemaking they can derive a new per capita emission
factor based directly on the new data, rather than trying to rely on
calculations from older data. 

New York: Stated that they planned to use the spread sheet (from
Industry Insight data) for calculations until they get more current
data.  New York stands behind its methodology and that of OTC based upon
what they believe is the best available data. 

The New York representatives said that they recommend that EPA should
come out with guidance on calculation procedures, not a rule, and give
States flexibility in the approach they use.  

EPA:   EPA said it would consider doing a guidance document if
appropriate.

New York:  Stated that they advocate both the OTC methodology as well as
flexible guidance for future calculation, and that they the basis for
the 4.5 lb per capita baseline presented used in some of EPAs
calculations accompanying the DC ROP plan approval.    

New York said that the NYDEC survey results would not be available
before the end of the comment period on the ANPR, that they did not
request an extension of the comment period, and that they would send any
written comments they had, including an electronic copy of the Industry
Insights spread sheet with an explanation of how they derived the 31%
reduction for the OTC rule beyond the national rule, before the February
16 close of the comment period.

The meeting adjourned at 11:45 AM.

Attachment (supplied by NYDEC)



AIM Coatings

Calculation Methodology Comparisons

	NY 

Part 205	OTC

 model rule	EPA method	Industry method

1990 Baseline per capita emission factor	3.1	6.7	4.5	6.7

Percent credit from federal AIM rule	0%	20%	20%	20%

Per capita emission factor post federal AIM rule	3.1	5.36	3.6	5.36

Percent credit from OTC model AIM rule	31%	31%	35%	53%

Per capita emission factor post OTC model AIM rule	2.14

(14 TPD)	3.7	2.35	2.51



