Testimony

of

Barrett Cupp, Environmental Manager

The Sherwin-Williams Company

on

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

Public Hearing

Environmental Protection Agency – Research Triangle Park

June 16, 2009

Rule Applicability 

My name is Barry Cupp and I am an Environmental Project Manager for The
Sherwin-Williams Company in Cleveland, Ohio. While Sherwin-Williams
looks forward to submitting comments on many aspects of this rulemaking,
I will reserve my comments today to a few issues of critical importance
– that is, the need for the rule, the proposed costs and overall
applicability of the proposed rule.

The coatings manufacturing industry questions the need for this Paint
and Allied Products Area Source rule at all. The HAPs of concern have
been reduced by 90 % since 1990 through efforts by our industry to
formulate away from these chemicals, the implementation of the
Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing (MCM) MACT standards and as a
result of other emission controls efforts both regulatory and voluntary.
 This dramatic reduction is demonstrated by comparing the 1990 reporting
year to 2002 in the EPA NEI data or SARA 313 release reporting.  It has
also been documented by the EPA sector strategy reports for the paint
and coatings industry. By EPA’s own estimates, this rule will only
reduce the total metal HAPs by 4.2 tons per year and those listed metals
 of concern, cadmium, chromium, nickel and lead by 0.13 tons per year. 
The estimated reduction of organic HAP is 169 tons per year and those
listed chemicals of concern, benzene and methylene chloride by 5.1 tons
per year. This is an extremely small emission reduction for a rule that
is estimated to impact 2,100 facilities, over 50% of which are very
small business (less than 10 employees).    As such, it is unclear if
the proposed rule is required at all due to prior reductions being
unquantified and ignored by this rulemaking. 

EPA estimates of the cost to control these emissions is flawed.  One
example that highlights these flaws is the assumption that a sheet of
plywood would be used as a “disposable lid” by a manufacturing plant
at a cost of $38.  The volatile HAPs are largely flammable.  Use of a
combustible material that is non-conductive, would warp and could not be
cleaned is not safe or recommended.  In addition, EPA estimates that
only 15% of the process vessels would need covers.  It is more likely
that all process vessels would require aluminum or stainless steel
covers that fit properly and could be maintained.  EPA estimated in the
MCM rule making that a cover would cost on average $3,600. Changing
these assumptions alone would change costs by two orders of magnitude.  

In addition, the EPA has estimated that the cost to existing facilities
that already have these controls in place to be $149 dollars per year. 
Most state air permits for facilities with dust collectors do not
require mandatory Method 9 observation  testing or if required, do not
require it to be conducted routinely. The cost to conduct the Method 9
observation test two times per year is estimated to be at least $1,500. 


These are just two examples of where EPA has severely underestimated the
cost of this rule.

The applicability to the rule is flawed. The rule states that a facility
is subject to the rule if it performs paint and allied product
manufacturing that is an area source of  hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emission and processes, uses or generates material containing one or
more of the following HAP: benzene, methylene chloride, compounds of
cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel.  In this situation, materials
containing HAP of concern means a material containing the aforementioned
chemicals in amounts greater than or equal to 0.1 percent by weight as
shown in formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier, such
as the Material Safety Data Sheet.

For the regulated community to be successful in complying with this
rule, the EPA must set some form of threshold or de minimus emission
level for applicability.  Without this, facilities will be subject to
the rule with extremely low or non-reportable emissions and may find
themselves out of compliance if a raw material supplier changes what is
reported on a MSDS.

By this definition, architectural, powder and small (less than 10
employees) manufacturing facilities will be drawn into this rule which
have extremely low or no reportable emissions of the HAP of concern.
Using EPA emission factors for particulate emission, one can determine
chemical throughput verses emission rate.  For example, a facility
processing 100,000 pounds per year of pigment with 1% metal HAP would
process 1,000 pounds of  HAP metal per year would emit 100 pounds per
year (assuming uncontrolled EPA emission factor of 1 percent of
throughput) resulting in  0.27 pounds per day.  If this source already
has emission control such as a dust collector, the throughput of pigment
could be increased to 10,000,000 pounds annually before achieving an
emission rate of 0.27 pounds per day.  A plant using a slurry or liquid
form of these raw materials would not have any emission regardless of
the throughput.  Yet, per the proposed applicability definition, these
facilities would be burdened to fully comply this rule.

Without a de minimus emission threshold, a facility that relies on a
supplier MSDS may find itself out of compliance simply by having a
supplier report a new trace metal constituent on the MSDS.  Based upon
personal experience, it is a given that suppliers do routinely update
information on their MSDS. Commonly the metals of concern are
contaminants in purchased raw materials   If the supplier’s raw
material source changes and the suppliers analysis begins to show higher
traces of a metal, they may begin to report these trace metals.  A
manufacturer would be out of compliance upon receiving this new MSDS,
even though no reportable emissions of the metal have occurred.

EPA must establish an applicability threshold based upon an emission
rate. At a minimum the applicably emission threshold should be based
upon emissions that would be meaningful, without causing undue burden on
the facilities that would be included despite no intentional use of
these HAP at the raw material level.

  PAGE  1 

