EPA Ditches Spray Requirement for Two Key Metal Fabrication Sectors

The Fabricator - for the original article go HERE.

Agency won’t mandate the use of high-efficiency spray equipment for coatings application.  The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final rule on air contaminant limits for two metal manufacturing sectors involved in surface coating applications was notable for provisions the agency did not include.

The good news for those in the metal furniture and large-appliance manufacturing segments is that the agency, in the end, stepped back from some mandates it had been thinking of requiring. One mandated the use of high-efficiency application equipment for spray coatings. In its proposed rule, the EPA made a critical assumption that the four high-efficiency spray equipment technologies rulemaking (which covered high-volume, low-pressure; electrostatic application; airless; and air-assisted, airless spray equipment) would achieve at least 65 percent transfer efficiency when used in painting metal furniture and large appliances.

Those two fabricating sectors are under separate National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The EPA is supposed to conduct a residual risk and technology review (RTR) every eight years after a NESHAP goes into effect. The idea is to see whether air contaminant limits in the NESHAP are still appropriate. But the agency said in the final RTR rule that new information led it to conclude that the transfer efficiency of the proposed high-efficiency spray application technologies may be less than 65 percent, as it is dependent on parameters such as part size, part shape, distance of the spray gun from the parts, atomizing air pressure, fluid pressure, painting technique, type of coating, viscosity of the coating, and other factors.

The EPA, after getting pushback from the American Coatings Association, admitted it did not have enough good data to make a new requirement stick. Besides that, the agency said a number of states already require high-efficiency spraying, and that companies already lean toward using it, required or not, because it reduces coatings consumption and lowers waste disposal costs.

As a result of this joint RTR, the EPA did not tighten air emission limits for either metal furniture or large-appliance manufacturers. However, the EPA did finalize a new requirement that companies in the two categories must submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through the agency’s Central Data Exchange website.

EPA also is requiring manufacturers to conduct control device performance testing in certain situations.

The good news for those in the metal furniture and large-appliance manufacturing segments is that the agency, in the end, stepped back from some mandates it had been thinking of requiring. One mandated the use of high-efficiency application equipment for spray coatings. In its proposed rule, the EPA made a critical assumption that the four high-efficiency spray equipment technologies rulemaking (which covered high-volume, low-pressure; electrostatic application; airless; and air-assisted, airless spray equipment) would achieve at least 65 percent transfer efficiency when used in painting metal furniture and large appliances.

Those two fabricating sectors are under separate National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The EPA is supposed to conduct a residual risk and technology review (RTR) every eight years after a NESHAP goes into effect. The idea is to see whether air contaminant limits in the NESHAP are still appropriate. But the agency said in the final RTR rule that new information led it to conclude that the transfer efficiency of the proposed high-efficiency spray application technologies may be less than 65 percent, as it is dependent on parameters such as part size, part shape, distance of the spray gun from the parts, atomizing air pressure, fluid pressure, painting technique, type of coating, viscosity of the coating, and other factors.

The EPA, after getting pushback from the American Coatings Association, admitted it did not have enough good data to make a new requirement stick. Besides that, the agency said a number of states already require high-efficiency spraying, and that companies already lean toward using it, required or not, because it reduces coatings consumption and lowers waste disposal costs.

As a result of this joint RTR, the EPA did not tighten air emission limits for either metal furniture or large-appliance manufacturers. However, the EPA did finalize a new requirement that companies in the two categories must submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through the agency’s Central Data Exchange website.

EPA also is requiring manufacturers to conduct control device performance testing in certain situations.

Author bio:
Mr. Barlas, a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C., covers topics inside the Beltway.

EPA Eases Compliance Costs for UST Inspection and Testing

Aftermarket Business World - September 30, 2015

The costs of complying with the new rule on underground storage tanks won't be nearly as onerous for service stations and others in the aftermarket sector as once thought. The Environmental Protection Agency eased some of the mandates it had proposed back in late 2011 when it finally published a final rule in mid-July.  Five years in the making, the rule adds maintenance and inspection requirements to equipment requirements for underground storage tanks  (USTs) first established in 1988.

Underground storage tanks holding petroleum and motor oil are ubiquitous in the automotive service station sector.  The changes the EPA made to the final rule resulted in much lower compliance costs for service stations, who, according to Bob Renkes, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Petroleum Equipment Institute, account for about 360,000 of the 560,000 tanks that currently exist.

The Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) estimated the proposed rule would have cost upwards of $6000 per site. Mark Morgan, Regulatory Counsel to the PMAA, says the burden is now estimated to be $2377 per site.

Kirk McCauley, Director of Member Relations and Government Affairs WMDA Service Station & Automotive Repair Association, states the final rule is "not as bad as I expected." His group had a number of problems with the proposed rule after it was published in 2011. "Not having to check containment sumps monthly will save a lot of backs; some covers are in the 200 pound class," he notes. They will have to be visually checked once a year.

And the elimination of interstitial space testing on storage tanks' underground piping and sumps is the right decision," adds McCauley. That would have been a major problem, and cost, for service stations with old tanks with secondary containment. The owners would have had to break through concrete or asphalt to get to the interstitial opening in order to do the test.

A lot of what is in this regulation is already standard practice. Overall I think it will cause some heart burn but not as bad as the industry was expecting," notes McCauley.

But the PMAA's Morgan adds, "However, we believe that testing requirements for sumps under the final rule would be very costly and burdensome. We are seeking clarification from EPA and will then reassess." The initial rule was established in 1988. It set standards for spill, overfill, corrosion protection, and release detection.  But there are still approximately 6,000 releases each year. The EPA says lack of proper operation and maintenance of UST systems is the main cause of new releases. For example, EPA required spill prevention equipment to capture drips and spills when the delivery hose is disconnected from the fill pipe, but did not require periodic testing of that equipment.”

The final rule doesn't require anyone to install new equipment, or for service stations (or others) buying new USTs to purchase tanks with newer, more expensive features. The rule is all  about inspecting and testing equipment that was specified in the 1988 rule. The implementation date for most of the new requirements is three years hence.

The inspection requirements are not expected to be onerous. Some of the testing requirements could be costly, though, especially for service stations and gasoline retail locations which don't have the expertise to do the testing. They will hire outside contractors, according to Wayne Geyer, Executive Vice President, the Steel Tank Institute.

The new testing requirements include testing of spill prevention equipment (using vacuum, pressure, or liquid methods) every three years unless the equipment is double-wall spill prevention equipment and both walls are periodically monitored for integrity. Integrity monitoring must be performed at least once every 30 days. The rule includes a three-year testing requirement for containment sumps used for interstitial monitoring of piping unless the containment sumps are double wall and the integrity of the walls is periodically monitored. Integrity monitoring must be performed at least once every 30 days. The rule also requires annual operation and maintenance tests on electronic and mechanical components of release detection equipment to ensure they are operating properly. This includes automatic tank gauge systems and other controllers, probes and sensors, automatic line leak detectors, vacuum pumps and pressure gauges, and handheld electronic sampling equipment associated with vapor and groundwater monitoring.

Author bio: 
Mr. Barlas, a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C., covers topics inside the Beltway.

EPA Adds Requirements on Disposal and Recycling of Solvents and Hazardous Substances

The Fabricator - March 2015

The new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule on recycling of hazardous waste will affect many manufacturing sectors, including metal fabricating. The rule goes into effect in July, and adds some regulatory hoops  for companies who have been storing spent solvents on site--maybe with the thought of recycling them some indeterminate time in the future-- land filling them or incinerating them. However, the new rule does not affect the recycling of scrap metal. That has been subject to an exclusion from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, meaning it has never been considered a "hazardous secondary material," and can therefore be sent off for recycling with very few restrictions.

Going forward, the same will not be true for solvents, spent oil and other substances which are considered hazardous secondary materials, therefore also solid waste, but are not subject to any exclusion. Regulatory rules are changing there. Companies who want to continue to accumulate hazardous materials on site will need to get state or federal permits. Those that send the materials offsite will have to comply with new recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

The EPA has been concerned for a decade about solvents and other hazardous materials being land filled, and ending up creating a Superfund site. The agency started a rulemaking all the way back in 2003, but got waylaid by lawsuits, additional studies, and various rulemakings that went nowhere. In 2011, the EPA proposed ending its "transfer" exclusion, which had been in place to shield many hazardous secondary materials from being defined as solid waste. Many industrial sectors erupted in anger.

For fabricators who do want to continue to accumulate wastes on site, the final rule offers a new option called the Certified Recycling Facility option, which comes with considerable recordkeeping, storage requirements, spill prevention, financial assurance, worker training and notification requirements. Under the new "Definition of Solid Waste" (DSW)  rule, manufacturers can register as a Certified Recycling Facility with either the EPA or the state solid waste agency. Facilities who successfully certify under the new rule can stockpile hazardous secondary materials such as solvents and oil. While this option may be attractive to some, most facilities may choose to avoid the regulatory commitments that come with being registered as a Certified Recycling Facility, and opt for the “Generator Option” under the new rule, according to Phillip Retallick, Senior Vice President, Compliance and Regulatory Affairs, Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. Retallick worked for the EPA for 10 years, then as Director of the Delaware Solid and Hazardous Waste Program before coming over to the private sector.

Retallick notes, “The final rule allows fabricators the option to register as a 'generator' with the authorized state environmental program or the EPA, if a state opts not to promulgate the new rule. This option allows the company to collect and store hazardous wastes designated for recycling as long as the yard meets some requirements, such as notifying either the state or the EPA that the yard is a generator subject to the rule, insuring that any hazardous secondary materials are properly collected and stored in proper containers or storage tanks, maintaining records of the amount of secondary hazardous waste collected and stored on-site, documentation showing the amount and description of the secondary hazardous materials sent off-site for recycling and notifying local emergency response officials where the accumulated secondary hazardous wastes are being stored on-site at the salvage yard.

Author bio: 
Mr. Barlas, a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C., covers topics inside the Beltway.

Federal Court Ruling On Mercury Revives Gas-Electric Worries

Pipeline & Gas Journal
June 2014 - for the online version go HERE.

A federal court decision allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to move forward with a rule limiting mercury emissions from power plants has heightened concerns in some quarters about interstate pipeline infrastructure inadequacy.

In mid-April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said 1,400 coal- and oil-fired electric generating units (EGUs) at 600 power plants must meet air emissions standards finalized in 2011. The plants have up to four years to comply with necessary reductions in emissions of mercury and other air toxics, but the 2011 final rule had been held in abeyance because of a legal challenge.

In September 2013 the EPA issued a proposed rule, which, if finalized, will force newly built power plants to meet stricter standards on emissions of carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas. Taken together, these two EPA actions have persuaded some electric utilities to close coal-and oil-fired power plants, leading some officials at agencies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to worry that natural gas pipelines will have a hard time supplying replacement power plants using natural gas, especially in tough weather such as last winter.

American Electric Power has said it will retire almost a quarter of its coal-fueled generating units in the next 14 months. That is 25% of its capacity. In PJM, 13,000 MW of additional capacity will be retired by mid-2015. "Unless the market structure changes, the capacity replacements for these assets may not provide the same level of reliability we have experienced historically," says Nicholas Akins, chairman, president, and CEO, AEP. PJM is the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) serving all or parts of the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and the District of Columbia. AEP, Dominion and Exelon, among others, serve electricity customers within PJM, to name a few.

To the extent that EPA regulations drive some coal-fired generation plants out of business, pressure will be ramped up on pipelines to serve the gas-fired plants that take their place, if in fact gas-fired plants DO take their place. "Natural gas has proven to be the fuel of choice for new generation developing in our region," states Michael Kormos, executive vice president of Operations for PJM Interconnection. "Over 64% of new resources in our queue are proposed gas-fired generation."

A week before the federal court handed down its EPA/mercury ruling, the FERC’s unofficial "pipeline commissioner" told a Senate committee he preferred the EPA present better data before forcing electric utilities to close because of new environmental rules. Philip Moeller told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which was meeting to consider issues related to grid reliability, "The sufficiency of our generating resources has been clouded by uncertainties arising from changing environmental regulation. I am not opposed to closing older and less environmentally-friendly power plants, but I am concerned that the compressed timeframe for compliance with the new environmental rules was not realistic given the amount of time it takes to construct new plants and energize transmission upgrades to mitigate plant closures.”

Author bio: 

Mr. Barlas, a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C., covers topics inside the Beltway.

EPA Opens Door to Consumer Use of New, Eco-friendly Refrigerant

Aftermarket Business World
December 23, 2013

In November, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continued to clear a path for use in the U.S. of the new motor vehicle air conditioning refrigerant HFO-1234yf.

The agency said that states could not consider the refrigerant, which OEMs have started to use, a volatile organic chemical (VOC). That means states cannot limit HFO-1234yf’s use as part of an ozone/smog reduction strategy.

A Honeywell petition submitted to the EPA in 2009 led to the EPA decision. Honeywell and DuPont, the other major marketer of HFO-1234yf, are selling it as a replacement for HFC-134a in motor vehicle air-conditioners (MVAC). HFC–134a has been used in automobile MVAC systems across the industry since 1993. But HFC-134a has a global warming potential (GWP) of 1430, much higher than HFO1234yf's GWP of 4.

Car makers selling into Europe already face a European Union Directive mandating OEMs use AC refrigerants with a GWP below 150 starting last January. Use of HFO1234yf in the U.S. is being spurred by the EPA/DOT car mileage/greenhouse gas (GHG) requirements, which give automakers credits for use of green air conditioning refrigerants.

At about the same time the EPA was excluding HFO1234yf as a VOC, it was publishing final rule making changes in the Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for HFO1234yf. These SNURS dictate what hoops manufacturers have to jump through before selling a new chemical. In many instances, distribution is limited. That was the case with the original SNUR for HFO1234yf issued in 2010.

According to Michael Conlon, the outside counsel for the Automotive Refrigeration Products Institute (ARPI), that 2010 SNUR effectively banned sales of HRO1234yf in the aftermarket. The new SNUR the EPA issued on November 1, 2013 took an important first step toward reversing that decision. "It was important to get this new SNUR because we could not have gone for a new SNAP rule without it," he explains.

SNAP stands for the EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. It tells users of new refrigerants exactly how they can be used. In the case of the SNAP for HFO1234yf issued in March 2011, the EPA restricted its use to OEMs and service stations that comply with certain conditions, such as using containers that are over 20 pounds and have fittings that comply with SAE standards. The updated SNUR now gives the aftermarket retail market standing to expand that March 2011 SNAP to consumer use of HFO1234yf. The EPA is waiting for DuPont and Honeywell to come up with the proper fittings for containers below 20 pounds before approving consumer uses.
 
It is true that aftermarket sales of HFO1234yf, after an expanded SNAP approval is secured, will ramp up slowly. That said, General Motors is already using the refrigerant in the Cadillac XTS and in the European version of the Chevrolet Malibu. Over the next five years or so, GM will convert most of its models sold in North America to the new refrigerant, Curt Vincent, GM’s engineering manager for new refrigerants, has said.

Service stations are already set to perform aftermarket refilling. "There are at least 1,200 service centers in the U.S. that are currently equipped to service vehicles that have 1234yf, and we expect that to double over the next year as additional automakers, such as Chrysler, adopt the product," says DuPont spokeswoman Janet Smith. She adds the Obama administration is also considering the possible future delisting of 134a from the SNAP list as an option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan.

But the biggest stimulus in the U.S. for use of HFO1234yf by OEMs is the EPA/DOT car mileage standard for model year 2017-2025 light duty vehicles, which gives automakers "credits" against CO2 tailpipe emissions when they use green AC refrigerants.

EPA Balks at Updating Aftermarket Catalytic Converter Standard

Aftermarket Business World
Thursday, August 22, 2013 - for the online version go HERE.

The decision of a House Appropriations Subcommittee in late July to prevent the EPA from moving forward with its Tier III tailpipe emission standards moves the agency's proposed rule on that subject to the Capital's front burner.

In one sense, whether the proposal becomes final is a non-issue for the aftermarket since its sulfur-in-gasoline limit will not affect sales of aftermarket gasoline additives, at least as the proposal is currently written. When used at the maximum recommended treatment rate, aftermarket gasoline additives contribute less than the proposed limit of 3 parts per million sulfur to the finished gasoline.

But the proposal does raise some other aftermarket concerns. It does not modernize the EPA's dusty aftermarket catalytic converter standard, which differs from California's.

The whole point of the Tier III proposal is to bring EPA standards for reducing carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon air pollution across the country to levels promoted by the California Air Resource Board (CARB) LEV III program, which goes into effect in 2015.

However, the Tier III proposal omits any mention of the EPA's aftermarket catalytic converter policy. It was adopted in 1986, and has never been altered. It is inferior to the requirements adopted by CARB in 2009 which requires catalytic converters to meet a 50,000 mile/5 year warranty and relies on a mass based standard (i.e. grams of pollution/mile). The EPA requirement is 25,000 miles/ 5 years. Instead of a "mass-based" standard, the EPA uses a 70 percent hydrocarbon, 70 percent carbon monoxide, and 30 percent NOx emission reduction-based standard.

What this means, if the House subcommittee cancellation of Tier III does not stand, is that there will not be one, aligned federal aftermarket catalytic converter policy. California and states that follow the CARB standard will have a stricter standard than the states that adhere to the EPA standard.

This doesn't sit well with some major national clean air organizations. One of the major proponents of an updated aftermarket catalytic converter policy is the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), a group of Eastern states with among the biggest air pollution problems. In comments to the EPA, the OTC said, "Without updating its policy, EPA would be allowing use of replacement converters that will not guarantee emission reductions as long as the original converters. To ensure emission reductions occur when catalysts fall outside of the warranty period, the final Tier 3 regulation should include a more stringent aftermarket catalytic converter policy as recommended previously by OTC."

The OTC has adopted numerous resolutions over the past few years pleading with the EPA to bring its aftermarket catalytic converter policy into line with California's. It did so again at its 2013 annual meeting. However, the OTC recommendation differs in one aspect from CARB's: CARB would not allow used original engine manufacturer (OEM) converters to be certified and sold. The reuse of reconditioned converters is OK by the OTC.

Mary Nichols, the chairman of the CARB, calls the EPA Tier III proposal a "noteworthy strengthening" of Tier II standards. However, California did not ask the EPA to update its 1986 aftermarket catalytic converter policy when it submitted comments on the Tier III proposal. John Swanton, a CARB spokesman, says that was because "we limited our remarks to the specific issues included in the EPA proposal."

Asked about the omission, an EPA spokeswoman says, "EPA is aware of Ozone Transport Commission’s interest in an aftermarket catalytic converter regulation and OTC’s concerns regarding the proposed Tier 3 rule.  Currently, EPA is in the process of reviewing stakeholder comments received during the comment period, which was extended to July 1, 2013. EPA will take all comments received under consideration as we work to complete the final rule."

---