From: Melissa Payne/RTP/USEPA/US                                        
                                                                     

To: "Dave Darling" <ddarling@paint.org>                                 
                                                                   Date:
10/28/2009 02:32 PM                                                     
                                                               Subject:
RE: Chemical Manufacturing Area Source rule                             
                                                               

Hi Dave,

Sorry about the delay.  It's been a bit hectic at work and I've been out
a lot with sick children.

In response to your list of questions, we have indeed followed the CMAS
rule where appropriate.  Of course, we are responding to different
comments and industry characteristics; accordingly, in some areas these
issues will not match up exactly with CMAS.

Best wishes,

-Melissa

Melissa Payne

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

919.541.3609

From: "Dave Darling" <ddarling@paint.org>                               
                                                                     

To: Melissa Payne/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                      
                                                                   

Date: 10/22/2009 08:50 AM                                               
                                                                     

Subject: RE: Chemical Manufacturing Area Source rule                    
                                                                        

That's fine - how about early next week? - I'm trying to understand what
is meant by "adequately addressed" - I'm wondering if you went the
direction of the Chemical Manufacturing area source rule on each of the
issues I mentioned or if you are sticking with your approach from a
month or so ago.

Thanks

David

From: "Dave Darling" <ddarling@paint.org>

To: Melissa Payne/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Alison Keane" <  HYPERLINK "mailto:akeane@paint.org" 
akeane@paint.org >, "John Hopewell" <  HYPERLINK
"mailto:jhopewell@paint.org"  jhopewell@paint.org >

Date: 10/20/2009 11:36 AM

Subject: Chemical Manufacturing Area Source rule

Melissa - I hope all is well - I looked over the final Chemical
Manufacturing Area source rule and I was hoping that you might possibly
use language from that rule to resolve some of the remaining Paint and
Allied Product Area Source issues that I mentioned in my email dated
September 18, 2009:

1. OSHA cutoff - instead of referring to just the 0.1 percent cutoff for
carcinogens in the definition of "material containing HAP" - please
refer to the entire cutoff as EPA did in Section Section 63. 11494

(a)(3) - "at concentrations greater than 0.1 percent for carcinogens, as
defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4), and greater than 1.0 percent for noncarcinogens"

Material containing HAP - means a material containing benzene, methylene
chloride, or compounds of cadmium, chromium, lead, and/or nickel, in
amounts that exceed levels specified by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) at concentration
greater than 0.1 percent by mass for carcinogens, or greater than 1.0
percent mass for any other individual noncarcinogen target HAP compound
as shown in formulation data provided by the manufacturer or supplier,
such as the Material Safety Data Sheet for the material.

2. R&D facilities, etc. - please look at Section 63.11494 (c)(3)-6) -
EPA exempted R&D, QA/QC, Ancillary activities, and metal HAPs in
structures or existing as articles.

3. Paste/Slurry/Solutions -  In the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source
rule (Section 63.11502(b)) EPA defines Batch Process Vent as a "...vent
.. through which a HAP-containing gas stream is, or has the potential to
be, released to the atmosphere." This supports our suggestion as well as
the State of Texas -" if materials are used in liquid or paste form - no
add-on PM control system would be required".

4.Limit Baghouse Requirements to High Dispersion Tanks Only - we believe
the argument in #3 above holds for limiting baghouse requirements to
high dispersion tanks only since its the high speed dispersion tanks
where dry pigments are added - after that point the pigments are in
solution and there is little if any potential for release to the
atmosphere.

5. Powder Coatings - we believe the argument in #3 above holds for
exempting powder coating manufacturing equipment that release HAPs
inside the building but not to the atmosphere.

6. Vessel Cover and Lid Requirements -  NPCA suggests EPA not place
burdensome process tank cover/lid management practices on our industry,
instead simply require that the process vessels be equipped with a cover
or lid similar to Section 63.11495(a)(1) of the Chemical Manufacturing
Area source rule:

"(1)  Each process vessel in organic HAP service or metal HAP service
must be equipped with a cover or lid that must be in place at all times
when the vessel contains HAP, except for material addition and
sampling."

7. Particulate Control Threshold -  we recommend EPA include the 100
lb/year threshold in the Paint and Allied Products rule since we used
the same cost effectiveness argument that EPA used in the final Chemical
Manufacturing area source rule that includes a 400lb/year particulate
control threshold.

8. 250 gallon Cutoff - the Chemical Manufacturing Area source rule
includes several applicability thresholds, including several from other
referenced rules (continuous process vent (TRE less than or equal to 1),
batch process vent (less than 10,000 lb./year and less than 400
lb/year), storage tank (volume and vapor pressure cutoffs), and transfer
operations (tank truck and tank car only) - for consistency, NPCA
requests the 250 gallon process tank cutoff from the MCM.

9. Limit Rules Applicability - we suggest EPA limit the applicability of
the Paint and Allied Products Area Source rule as EPA did in Section

63.11494(d) - i.e.. process vessels using only the organic HAPs of
concern are required to control CAA section 112(b) organic HAPs, whereas
process tanks using only the metal HAPs of concern are required to
control CAA section 112(b) metal HAPs.

I'll give you a call to discuss

thanks

David

