New Emissions Standards For Coatings Industry

May 17, 2002

Share Like Tweet Add Email

The EPA has instituted new emissions standards for manufacturers. Find out how they might affect your business.

New EPA Rules

The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) published two new rules in the Federal Register on April 4. The first rule was the Paint Production Waster Listing Determination. This rule, because of the rallying of NPCA members, decided not to list certain wastes generated from the production of paint as hazardous.

The second rule know as MON, or the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Organic process, will require resin and coatings manufacturers to install covers and add-on air pollution control equipment. The result will be a reduction in hazardous air pollutants. This rule will cost the coatings manufacturing industry $57 million in capital costs plus $16 per year in annual costs. As a result NPCA has a MON Work Group submitting comments. A form letter can be downloaded, personalized and submitted to the EOA by June 28, 2002. http://www.paint.org/member/committee/emc.htm

Extension Granted for Manufacturers for MACT Applications

The EPA has granted a 24-month extension for Part 2 applications under the Clean Air Act's (CAA) General Provisions for MACT Standards. The EPA has not met the 10-year deadline for establishing the MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Standards) standards, nor has it met the 18-month "hammer date" after the deadline. Due to this, companies must submit permit applications to their respective states for case-by-case evaluations for operating permits. The application process is two-step, with a pro-forma Part 1 application and a detailed Part 2 application. The cost of the Part 2 applications can run from $50,000 to $100,000 per facility. Under the prior ruling, the Part 1 applications were due May 15, 2002 and the Part 2 applications on November 15, 2002. The extension allows for 24 months between Part 1 and Part 2, hopefully allowing the EPA time to promulgate the standards.

On a related matter, the NPCA has intervened in a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club over the failure of the EPA to meet the deadlines in order to have input into the settlement and protect industry interests.

EIIP Chapter Reinstated on EPA Website

The EPA pulled Chapter 8 of the Point Source document series of the Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) from public access in March. This resource deals with air emissions from paint and ink manufacturing. The chapter is entitled, "Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions form Paint and Ink Manufacturing." Following NPCA comment, the agency immediately reinstated the chapter on the website.

Because it more accurately represents the various processes used in coating manufacturing, the paints and coatings industry prefers EIIP's method used to estimate air emissions. The EPA stated the chapter was pulled from access because it was going to be revised with new information regarding specific source categories. The chapter was to be reposted when the changes were complete. The chapter was reinstated on March 14.

New Requirements for Air Transport of Hazardous Materials

Changes made recently to the 43rd Edition of IATA guidance may require inner packaging of combination packs to be placed in plastic bag, leak-proof liner, or other equal form of containment. The requirements apply to liquids in Class 3, 4 or 8 or in Division 5.1, 5.2, or 6.1. The NPCA developed a table defining Absorbent Material Requirements. This table can be found on the NPCA's web site in the Member section: www.paint.org.

According to the rule all liquids in Class 3, 4 or 8 or in Division 5.1, 5.2, or 6.1 must be provided with a means of containing the liquid in the event of leakage, unless otherwise provided for in the packaging instruction. Although it is unlikely that airlines will open and inspect packagings to see if liners are being used, the airline has the right to refuse the shipment on this basis. Also take into consideration there may be a private right of action against the offeror of a leaking package is found to not have such a liner.

Source: June 2002 Coatings
4/30/02
National Paint & Coatings Association

Share Like Tweet Add Email

Comments

comments powered by Disqus