AQ-2017-008-RULE336-BOSREPORT-STAKEHOLDER COMMENTSANDRESPONSESEXCERPT-2021-08-11.PDF
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
13858 characters
Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments Attachments: RadTech Public Comments Rule 336.pdf From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 2:00 PM To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA) <Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy Linton (OBM) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (OBM) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (OBM) <Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero (ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments Citizen Comments Each Regulatory Department is committed to providing opportunities for stakeholder input regarding the adoption and amendment of all regulatory requirements. Your input will be collected and forwarded to the appropriate department. You will receive a written response from the applicable department within two business days. We appreciate your comments and your time. Case Number/Rule AQ-2017-008 Rule 336 Surface Coating Operations Department Air Quality I would like to Other First Name Rita Last Name Loof Organization RadTech International, North America City Bethesda Zip Field not completed. Email rml93@verizon.net Phone Number 909-240-0866 Phone Type Mobile Would you like someone to contact you? Yes Comments Please see attached letter If applicable, attach supporting documentation associated with your comment. The only file types supported are MS Office and Adobe Acrobat. RadTech Public Comments Rule 336.pdf Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Stakeholder Comments and MCAQD Responses from May 3, 2021 Mr. Greg Verkamp Planning Supervisor Maricopa County Air Quality Department 3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400 | Phoenix, AZ 85012 May 3rd, 2021 Re: Public Comments Rule 336—Surface Coating Operations RadTech is pleased to comment on Maricopa County’s proposed amendments to Rule 336 -- Surface Coating Operations. Introducing RadTech and UV/EB/LED RadTech International is the trade association for the Ultraviolet/ Electron Beam/Light Emitting Diode (UV/EB/LED) industry. The organization represents over 800 members nationwide involved in a myriad of markets ranging from solar panel manufacturing to finger nail polish. Unlike conventional inks and coatings, UV/EB/LED products do not evaporate. Instead, they are specifically formulated to react to UV light or a beam of electrons. The nature of the process is such that virtually no Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are generated. The materials are generally high viscosity and thus there are no regulatory concerns with generation of particulate matter from spraying. Additionally, UV/EB processes are electric and thus do not produce combustion contaminants such as NOx, SOx and Greenhouse Gases. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has some of the most stringent air quality regulations in the nation. In many of its rulemakings, the agency has recognized the sustainability advantages, including energy efficiency, of ultraviolet and electron beam curing technology. SCAQMD provides incentives to companies who convert to UV/EB through exemptions from permitting and recordkeeping. The agency recognized UV/EB as Best Available Control Technology for many industry sectors and the technology has recently been included in the Statewide BACT Clearinghouse for the California Air Resources Board. UV/EB technology meets the regulatory definition of “super-compliant” in the SCAQMD which applies to coatings with a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content of less than 50 grams per liter. RadTech holds a seat on the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Advisory Committee. Our Association provides input to the agency on how to achieve clean air goals and implementation of UV/EB is one strategy which has been included in the Air Quality Management Plan. The most recent AQMP now includes UV/EB as control strategy. According to SCAQMD findings: “These programs may also provide manufacturers with incentives to accelerate the deployment of cleaner technologies. Such an example is the use of energy-curing technologies which includes ultraviolet light (UV), electron beam (EB), heat and light emitting diode (LED) cured coatings. The California State Senate has adopted a resolution recognizing the many benefits of ultraviolet (UV) and electron beam (EB) technologies and the contributions of RadTech. The proclamation acknowledges the “invaluable” contributions made by RadTech to the State of California and beyond, and cites the Association’s ideals of community service. It commends RadTech for its “outstanding commitment to improving the environment and economy through its programs.” The Environmental Protection Agency has classified UV/EB technology as Lowest Achievable Emission Rate. The EPA Control Techniques Guidelines documents state: “This technology is gaining greater acceptance and, where applicable, achieves a near 100 percent reduction of VOC emissions”. With UV/EB technology, facilities can achieve emission reductions above and beyond those required by even the most stringent of regulations. There is no need to install air pollution control devices which may emit combustion contaminants such as Nitrogen Oxides or Sulfur Oxides. The products do not contain Toxic Air Contaminants and have no secondary adverse impacts such as emissions of greenhouse gases. Requested Proposed Rule Language Changes RadTecb believes that Rule 336 presents an opportunity for Maricopa County to achieve voluntary emission reductions above and beyond those presently required in the rule, through regulatory flexibility that will encourage conversion to UV/EB/LED. Request for Exemption Our materials are typically well below 50 grams/liter in VOC content which is minimal compared to the proposed limits. We respectfully request that UV/EB/LED materials be exempted from the rule requirements. An exemption would be an incentive for businesses to voluntarily choose UV/EB/LED technology resulting in additional emission reductions for Maricopa County. Recordkeeping requirements are burdensome on businesses and in the case of UV/EB/LED operations, are not crucial because the materials are well below the rule limits. Exempting energy curable materials from overly prescriptive recordkeeping requirements will alleviate regulatory burdens on the Maricopa County business community and benefit air quality. Definition We would very much appreciate the inclusion of a definition for energy curable materials in the rule. We propose a definition like the one in SCAQMD rules: ENERGY CURABLE MATERIALS are single component reactive products that cure upon exposure to visible-light, ultraviolet light, or to an electron beam. Test Method The Environmental Protection Agency and the SCAQMD have long recognized that EPA Method 24 is not suitable for thin film UV/EB/LED Materials. Thus, RadTech urges Maricopa County to include ASTM D7767-11 as suitable test method for UV/EB/LED products subject to Rule 336. We propose the following language: The VOC content of thin film Energy Curable Adhesives and Sealants may be determined by manufacturers using ASTM Test Method 7767 Standard Test Method to Measure Volatiles from Radiation Curable Acrylate Monomers, Oligomers, and Blends and Thin Coatings Made from Them. Transfer Efficiency UV/EB/LED products have higher viscosities than conventional solvent products. The rationale behind transfer efficiency requirements is to control VOC emissions that can take place during spraying operations. But, given the fact that UV/EB/LED materials do not have emissions like conventional solvent processes, facilities should not be required to the same level of regulation for transfer efficiency purposes. We urge Maricopa County to exempt UV/EB/LED materials with viscosities of 650 centipoise or above, from the transfer efficiency requirements of the rule. UV/EB materials not only meet, but far exceed any proposed rule requirements and any added flexibility to companies that choose these pollution preventive processes will encourage voluntary emission reductions thereby furthering the County’s mission. The RadTech Association looks forward to working with Maricopa County on this rulemaking and would gladly provide any additional information your staff may need. Sincerely, Rita M. Loof Director, Environmental Affairs Comment #2: Our materials are typically well below 50 grams/liter in VOC content which is minimal compared to the proposed limits. We respectfully request that UV/EB/LED materials be exempted from the rule requirements. An exemption would be an incentive for businesses to voluntarily choose UV/EB/LED technology resulting in additional emission reductions for Maricopa County. Recordkeeping requirements are burdensome on businesses and in the case of UV/EB/LED operations, are not crucial because the materials are well below the rule limits. Exempting energy curable materials from overly prescriptive recordkeeping requirements will alleviate regulatory burdens on the Maricopa County business community and benefit air quality. Response #2: Rule 336 currently includes an exemption for coating products that have a VOC content, minus exempt compounds, of less than 0.15lb VOC/gal (18g/L), and this exemption (found in Section 102.4 of the draft rule) will be retained with the current rulemaking. Also, there is no permitting requirement in Maricopa County for facilities that emit any regulated air pollutant in an amount less than the permitting thresholds listed in Rule 200, Section 303.1 (for VOCs, the permitting threshold is 0.5 tons per year). These exemptions are in place to encourage businesses to adopt products and practices which limit impacts on air quality. In addition, Rule 336 was conditionally approved as part of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) earlier this year. Any relaxation of the provisions in the rule may be considered backsliding, which may jeopardize the full approval of the Rule 336 into the SIP and potentially lead to federal highway and offset sanctions for Maricopa County further down the road. Comment #3: We would very much appreciate the inclusion of a definition for energy curable materials in the rule. We propose a definition like the one in SCAQMD rules: ENERGY CURABLE MATERIALS are single component reactive products that cure upon exposure to visible-light, ultraviolet light, or to an electron beam. Response #3: Thank you for providing the MCAQD with a good working definition for energy curable materials. However, a definition is not necessary since the MCAQD is not including any additional provisions regarding these materials into this version of Rule 336. Comment #4: The Environmental Protection Agency and the SCAQMD have long recognized that EPA Method 24 is not suitable for thin film UV/EB/LED Materials. Thus, [our organization] urges Maricopa County to include ASTM D7767-11 as suitable test method for UV/EB/LED products subject to Rule 336. We propose the following language: The VOC content of thin film Energy Curable Adhesives and Sealants may be determined by manufacturers using ASTM Test Method 7767 Standard Test Method to Measure Volatiles from Radiation Curable Acrylate Monomers, Oligomers, and Blends and Thin Coatings Made from Them. Response #4: Since ASTM D7767-11 is not currently an EPA-approved test method, the MCAQD cannot include it in Rule 336. Adding a test method that is not EPA-approved to this rule jeopardizes EPA’s approval of Rule 336 into the SIP. However, Section 503.2 of the rule does allow for the use of alternative EPA-approved test methods. If ASTM D7767-11 is approved by the EPA in the future, then it can be considered as a suitable test method. Excerpt from Report to the Board of Supervisors C-85-22-060-X-01 Note: Comment #1 submitted by a different stakeholder Comment #5: UV/EB/LED products have higher viscosities than conventional solvent products. The rationale behind transfer efficiency requirements is to control VOC emissions that can take place during spraying operations. But, given the fact that UV/EB/LED materials do not have emissions like conventional solvent processes, facilities should not be required to the same level of regulation for transfer efficiency purposes. We urge Maricopa County to exempt UV/EB/LED materials with viscosities of 650 centipoise or above, from the transfer efficiency requirements of the rule. UV/EB materials not only meet, but far exceed any proposed rule requirements and any added flexibility to companies that choose these pollution preventive processes will encourage voluntary emission reductions thereby furthering the County’s mission. Response #5: The MCAQD conducted research on facilities within Maricopa County that are currently using energy curable coating materials. We found these facilities are able to comply with the application methods listed in Section 302. As such, there appears to be no operational need to revise the transfer efficiency requirements of Rule 336. Also, in order to exempt any new materials from the application methods listed in Section 302, the MCAQD would have to submit a 110(l) demonstration to the EPA showing such an exemption would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act. It is not clear if the EPA would approve such a demonstration and, if it was not approved, the added exemption could be seen as a relaxation of the rule. As mentioned earlier, any relaxation of the provisions of the rule could jeopardize the approval of Rule 336 into the Arizona SIP.