this file contains documents relevant to the mpca ...them in chapter 7008 have been used for two...

This file contains documents relevant to the MPCA rulemaking for Exempt Source/Conditionally Insignificant Activities.

Included are: · The proposed concepts document (as referenced in the January 9, 2017, Request for Comments on Possible

Amendments to Rules Governing Air Quality)· The Power Point presentation for the January 19, 2017, stakeholder information meeting· Comments received in response to the Request for Comments on Possible Amendments to Rules Governing Air

Quality

aq-rule4-08b

1

MPCA Amendments to Air Quality Rules for Exempt Source/Conditionally Insignificant Activities Minn. R. chs. 7007 and 7008, and Other Miscellaneous Air Rules (chs. 7002, 7005, 7009, 7011, 7017, and 7019)

Rule Concepts/Narrative

Introduction: This document is part of the rule development process to amend the air quality rules. It provides an overview of what the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is considering for this rulemaking. The MPCA is at the initial stage of the rule process, and is sharing proposed concepts for amending the rules. This document will help readers understand the changes being considered and the reason for the changes so that interested persons may provide informal comments on any part of these rule concepts. Topics where stakeholder input is specifically requested are highlighted. Instructions on how to submit comments are provided in the Notice of Request for Comments located at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/public-notices.

Purpose of rulemaking: The main focus of this rulemaking is to clarify how small air pollution emitting activities at a facility are addressed in permits. The activities are described as “insignificant activities” and “conditionally insignificant activities” in the rules. The MPCA is also considering whether to exempt more categories of low-emitting facilities (such as auto body refinishing shops) from permitting that meet eligibility criteria. The MPCA’s specific goals in this rulemaking are to:

· Create additional categories of conditionally exempt stationary sources under Minn. R. 7008.2000 that do notneed a permit. An example of a type of stationary source that the MPCA is considering is a small auto bodyrefinishing facility.

· Revise Minn. R. 7007.1300, subp. 2 so that this list of “insignificant activities” includes only activities atstationary sources that the MPCA has determined do not need to be considered or identified in permitting.

· Revise Minn. R. 7007.1300, subp. 3 so that this list of “insignificant activities” contains activities that are small,but if an individual permit is necessary, these activities must be identified and the calculation of their emissionsincluded in a permit application. Registration permit holders do not need to include these calculations in theapplication as identified in the rules for each type of registration permit (Minn. R. 7007.1110-1130).

· Resolve the lack of enforceability of the rule for “PM-only emitting sources” in Minn. R. 7008.4110. Amendingthis rule has consequences for other rules that address emission units or activities in permitting rules, so otherrule revisions are under consideration. This rulemaking was initiated as an outgrowth of the MPCA’s recentlycompleted “omnibus air rulemaking" located at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/minnesota-omnibus-air-rule-amendments. The omnibus air rule proposed creating federally enforceable limits for particulate matter (PM)from this emissions activity. However, to create federally enforceable limits for conditionally insignificantactivities (CIA) that emit only PM by adopting a numeric emissions limit for PM (Minn. R. 7008.4110) would havebeen a substantial change in the omnibus air rule. Substantial changes are prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 14.05,subd. 2 unless additional public notice of the revisions is made. The MPCA thus chose to complete the omnibusair rules without the changes and initiated this rulemaking.

Rulemaking Concept Narrative: The concepts described in this document are preliminary and may or may not occur. These concepts are not final. The MPCA will request comments again during a formal public comment period when the rules are proposed.

The MPCA is considering restructuring the rules for CIA. One of the key issues surrounding CIA is that requirements for them in chapter 7008 have been used for two different purposes. Chapter 7008 CIA requirements are used to 1) exempt stationary source composed of only CIA and insignificant activities from permitting, and 2) allow a permittee to streamline a permit application by listing CIA in their applications without needing to provide emissions information for the CIA.

Both uses are important and valid. However, the MPCA has found that during permit application reviews, some emission units or activities that a permittee has classified as a CIA potentially emit enough to push the entire stationary source into a different type of permit (usually a bigger or more complicated permit) or require other site specific conditions.

aq-rule4-08b

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/public-notices

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/minnesota-omnibus-air-rule-amendments

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/minnesota-omnibus-air-rule-amendments

2

Thus, the MPCA is considering changes to chapter 7008 (rules for conditionally exempt stationary sources and CIA) and permitting rules in chapter 7007. We believe we can address federal regulatory requirements for all sources while retaining a permitting hierarchy that uses streamlined compliance requirements to encourage sources to further reduce their emissions.

Change Considered Summary of Reason for Change 1) Create new categories of conditionally

exempt sources.When possible, identify and define certain small-emitting sources that do not need an air emission permit.

This will simplify requirements while maintaining environmental protections by moving certain well-defined small sources out of the CIA requirements and into new conditionally exempt source categories also included in chapter 7008.

2) Change conditionally insignificant activities:materials usage and PM-only emitting.

For sources that are small but don’t fit into an exempt source category, ensure clarity and federal applicability of the CIA requirements in parts 7008.4000-4110.

CIA rules will be re-focused to providing environmentally protective, federally enforceable emissions limitations for small sources to ensure that they are and will remain small enough to avoid permitting.

3) Amend the insignificant activities listscontained in Minn. R. 7007.1300.

For sources that require an individual air emission permit, link chapter 7007 permitting requirements to CIA requirements and require emissions calculations for these permitted sources’ CIA.

Though it may be appropriate for different types of sources to continue to treat certain activities as CIA, it is necessary to require sources applying for an individual air emissions permit or an amendment to an individual air emissions permit to include emissions calculations for CIA in permit applications. This allows the MPCA to review emissions to ensure that CIA do not cause a permitted source to violate certain emissions threshold requirements or otherwise require site-specific conditions, and still provide some regulatory streamlining for these sources.

1) Create new categories of conditionally exempt sources.The MPCA is considering expanding the “conditionally exempt” source categories in chapter 7008 to include small auto body refinishing facilities, facilities where nearly all of the emissions are associated with coating operations, and possibly wood finishing shops, provided that appropriate definitions of and requirements for such sources can be identified and clearly outlined in rule. The conditionally exempt source requirements are intended for certain well-defined businesses or stationary sources where emissions primarily come from one type of activity that has very low actual emissions but high potential to emit. Due to the activities at these facilities being well defined, emissions-limiting requirements can be described in a more administratively simple manner – such as number of jobs or amount of production – rather than with more complex emissions calculations.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance provides requirements for auto body refinishing facilities and small coating operations, so the MPCA has a clearer sense of how to create conditionally exempt source categories for these facility types. However, to support creating a conditionally exempt source category for wood finishing shops or other source types that may be proposed, the MPCA will need more information to better understand and define these sources and their emissions in order to determine whether it can create appropriate federally enforceable emissions limitations.

3

Change Considered Reason for Change 1.a Auto body refinishing facilities.

Add new conditionally exempt source category for auto body refinishing facilities.

To support a streamlined permitting hierarchy by exempting from permitting those sources that comply with federally enforceable conditions resulting in limited emissions. The limits and requirements for these exempt sources are intended to be both environmentally protective and administratively simple to implement.

1.b Add a definition for auto body refinishing facility and technical standards for eligibility, operation and recordkeeping requirements, and compliance demonstration.

We will use EPA guidance dated April 14, 1998, as a starting point; it’s located at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/lowmarch.pdf

This memo includes provisions for eligibility such as: · Painting operations and emissions from CIA and

insignificant activities must account for allfacility emissions.

· Painting operations completed within anenclosure that meets specificdesign/manufacturer’s specifications.

· Physical or operational capacity limited to nomore than 50 refinishing jobs/week and/or:§ 2 or less bays devoted to painting if facility

business is entirely, or almost entirely, devotedto collision repairs, or§ Only 1 bay devoted to painting if substantial

portions of facility business is devoted torepainting entire vehicles.

We are also considering including applicable federal requirements for paint stripping and miscellaneous surface coating operations (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHHHH).

This defines the scope that is governed by the rule. A definition would support adding this source category because these terms would be used as part of the rule and affected owners and operators need to know what they mean. Technical standards will address both volatile organic compounds (VOC) and PM emissions from the source category. Technical standards would limit the number of jobs these facilities complete (ensuring the rule focuses on small sources), and require painting operations to be completed inside a particulate control system (i.e. a spray booth), limiting both VOC and PM emissions from these sources.

As a note, the provision of 50 refinishing jobs per week was calculated by EPA as the value that an auto body refinishing facility has no reasonable likelihood of exceeding a threshold that would require a permit.

Stakeholder input needed: · How should “auto body refinishing facility” be defined, what characteristics of a small auto body refinishing facility

should be included in the definition?· Is there a need to include/address mobile refinishing operations with temporary spray booths?· Are the numerical limits (number of jobs/bays) appropriate?· Should the numerical limits be related to the number of gallons used of coating material instead of number of jobs

performed each week?· What operational, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements are feasible to show compliance with the

numerical limits?· Other information you would like to submit related to adding this source category.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/lowmarch.pdf


4

1.c Coating operations. Add new conditionally exempt source category for small coating operations.

To support a streamlined permitting hierarchy by exempting from permitting those sources that comply with federally enforceable conditions resulting in limited emissions. The limits and requirements for these exempt sources are intended to be both environmentally protective and administratively simple to implement. This is not intended to cover those sources which have previously exceeded a major source NESHAP threshold.

1.d Add a definition for coating operations, and technical standards for eligibility, operation and recordkeeping requirements, and compliance demonstration. We will use EPA guidance dated April 14, 1998, as a starting point; it’s located at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/lowmarch.pdf This memo includes provisions for eligibility such as: · Limit use of coatings to 250 gallons/month or

3,000 gallons/12-month period (9 TPY single hazardous air pollutant (HAP), assumes 6 pounds HAP per gallon of coating).

This would define what is governed by the rule. A definition would support adding this source category as these terms would be used as part of the rule and affected owners and operators need to know what they mean. Technical standards will address both VOC and PM emissions from the source category. Technical standards would limit the amount of coatings used by the facility (ensuring the rule focuses on small sources), and require most coating operations to be conducted inside a particulate control system (i.e. a spray booth), limiting both VOC and PM emissions from these sources.

Stakeholder input needed: · What characteristics of “coating operations” should be included in the definition? · Are the numerical limits appropriate? · What eligibility, operational, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements are feasible to show compliance with

the numerical limits? · Other information you would like to submit related to adding this source category.

1.e Wood finishing shops. Add new conditionally exempt source category for wood finishing shops.

Information is needed to support creating a conditionally exempt source category for wood finishing shops that will result in federally enforceable conditions resulting in limited emissions and environmentally protective requirements.

Stakeholder input needed: Information you may have related to adding this source category, for example, this could include information about:

· What characteristics of “wood finishing shops” should be included in a definition? · What are some eligibility limitations on the scope of finishing shops that allow us to create an exempt source

category? · Whether the shop is used entirely for wood finishing or in combination with other type(s) of activities? · Shop characteristics – facility size, number of employees, number of finishing jobs per week? · Products used in wood finishing? · Where venting equipment vents - to indoor only, outdoor only, indoor/outdoor? · What eligibility, operational, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements are needed and reasonable?

2) Change conditionally insignificant activities: materials usage and PM-only emitting.

The main purpose of this rulemaking is to develop a federally enforceable numeric emissions limit for CIA covered by part 7008.4110. In developing such a limit, the MPCA also seeks to support an existing permitting hierarchy which reduces regulatory requirements for small, low-emitting sources, and streamlines and simplifies requirements for larger, permitted sources that conduct some of these CIA. Because these two different categories of sources currently use the



5

requirements of parts 7008.4000 and 7008.4110 for different reasons, it is important that the rule provide both flexibility as well as environmental protection. For smaller sources, providing clear requirements with manageable compliance demonstrations is imperative. For larger sources, it is important to provide streamlined requirements that will protect the environment and ensure that emissions from CIA do not, when combined with other permitted activities, result in exceedances of permitting thresholds.

Change Considered Reason for Change 2.a Change the materials usage CIA (part 7008.4100)

and PM-only emitting CIA (part 7008.4110) to ensure emissions are limited from these activities.

Chapter 7008 includes some general requirements for CIA, which are those activities that can in some cases be considered insignificant for the purposes of permitting. Part 7008.4100 (Conditionally Insignificant Material Usage) currently includes numeric limits on VOC emissions or VOC usage, and limits on PM emissions. Part 7008.4110 (Conditionally Insignificant PM or PM10 Emitting Operations) does not contain numeric emissions limits.

2.b Add a definition for “finishing operations” and the activities addressed by the term.

This would define what is governed by the rule. A definition would identify and clarify the activities included in this term.

Stakeholder input needed: · What activities should be covered in the definition of finishing operations? · Does it make sense to regulate emissions based on the activity that generates the emissions, or should the MPCA

continue addressing by the pollutant emitted? 2.c Change part 7008.4000 to add emission limits for

VOC and PM to general CIA requirements, delete the activity-specific limits in part 7008.4100, and limit by calendar year: · Limit VOC emissions from material usage to <

10,000 pounds – this would include all emissions from all material usage activities at the source regardless of the HAP content of the VOC.

· Combine PM emissions from both material usage and finishing operations and limit to 10,000 pounds – this would include all PM emissions from all CIA at the stationary source (from both material usage and finishing operations), regardless of the HAP content of the PM.

· Prohibit lead as a component of material usage activity at the source.

Changes would set a federally enforceable numeric emissions limit for PM-emitting activities that currently do not exist in rule. Moving numerical limits from each specific CIA (material usage and/or finishing operations) to the general CIA rule part enables MPCA to set an aggregated limit on emissions from all CIA at a source, rather than an activity-specific limit that wouldn’t necessarily address multiple CIA. This will provide both flexibility to sources, as well as environmental protection by setting an overall cap rather than activity-by-activity limits that don’t restrict large numbers of CIAs at an individual source.

Stakeholder input needed: · Is it appropriate to limit aggregate emissions from all CIA, rather than setting activity-specific requirements? · Are the levels of the suggested limit appropriate?

2.d Change part 7008.4110 to add requirements for applicability, emissions calculations, operations/control requirements, monitoring and recordkeeping for finishing operations. Develop a reasonable and understandable emissions calculation.

To provide activity-specific operational, monitoring, and applicability requirements which, when followed, determine compliance with and ensure federal enforceability of the aggregated CIA limits.

6

Stakeholder input needed: · What specific factors should be considered in developing the emissions calculation?

2.e Change parts 7008.0100, 7008.4000, and 7008.4110 to delete “PM10 or PM2.5” from CIA language. Add rule on how to limit PM10 emissions by proposing all PM emissions regulated by this standard should be assumed to be PM10.

The change would establish an emission limit, and includes the methods for measuring compliance, along with monitoring and recordkeeping. Change is for a single PM limit to apply to all coating and PM generating activities at a stationary source.

3) Amend the insignificant activities lists contained in Minn. R. 7007.1300.

The MPCA is considering amending the insignificant activities list in part 7007.1300 to provide greater clarity and utility in the application process. Chapter 7007 contains air permitting requirements. The insignificant activities lists are intended to help streamline the permitting process, for both regulated sources and MPCA permitting and compliance activities, by specifying those activities whose emissions that are insignificant by their very nature, and therefore require minimal regulatory oversight.

Change Considered Reason for Change 3.a Change part 7007.1300 by amending the

insignificant activities list to clarify what activities are required to be listed on a permit application and those not generally required to be listed. In subpart 2, identify the insignificant activities NOT required to be listed on a permit application. Add or delete activities, and/or move activities from subpart 3 to subpart 2 as needed. In subpart 3, identify the insignificant activities required to be listed on a permit application. Add or delete activities, and/or move activities from subpart 3 to subpart 2 as needed. · Add that applicants of individual permits are to

provide emissions calculations for all activities identified in subpart 3, delete case-by-case rule.

· Add activities covered under parts 7008.4000 and 7008.4110.

· Registration permit holders do not need to include these calculations in the application as identified in the rules for each type of registration permit (Minn. R. 7007.1110-1130).

To support streamlined permitting activities by focusing permit application information on significant or potentially significant emissions activities. Base the realignment of requirements on an evaluation of source activities and associated emissions, and other states practices. To provide regulatory clarity for individually permitted sources by providing more certainty on informational requirements for permit applications. The MPCA routinely requests calculations for some current subpart 3 activities, which can slow the permit issuance process. Applicants would be required to provide emissions calculation information for all subpart 3 activities, replacing the case-by-case rule, which will streamline the permitting process by identifying consistent requirements upfront. Permitted sources with CIA under parts 7008.4000 and 7008.4110 would treat CIA as a subpart 3 activity (providing emissions calculations) for permit applications, so that the MPCA has sufficient information to ensure that CIA do not, when combined with other permitted activities, result in exceedances of permitting thresholds.

Stakeholder input needed: · Many states provide very detailed lists of activities treated as insignificant for purposes of permitting. Should the

MPCA add further categories to part 7007.1300, subp. 2 and subp. 3 to provider greater regulatory clarity? · Do the potential changes support a streamlined permitting process while providing adequate environmental

protection?

4) Miscellaneous housekeeping changes (chapters 7002, 7005, 7007, 7008, 7009, 7011, 7017, and 7019). The MPCA may make additional minor rule changes within the scope of the rulemaking.

7

Change Considered Reason for Change 4.a Change the time period for application submittal

for permit reissuance applications in part 7007.0400. The MPCA is considering an earlier application submittal from the current maximum of nine months to 18 months for sources.

Federal rule (40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(iii)) currently allows EPA to require a permit application up to eighteen months prior to permit expiration to ensure the permit does not expire prior to permit renewal. Change would align state rule with federal rule. This changes the earliest allowable reissuance application due date. It applies to all sources that have expiring permits. However, the practice of requiring an application 180 days before the expiration date is not changing (expiring permits currently contain a requirement to submit a reissuance application 180 days prior to expiration). If a reissuance application would be required earlier than 180 days prior to expiration, the permit requirement that identifies the due date would be written to show the earlier due date.

4.b Change part 7007.0850 to delete the requirement to publish notice “in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the stationary source is located” and replace with a requirement for electronic posting on the MPCA public notice webpage.

On October 18, 2016, EPA finalized revisions to public notice regulations for Clean Air Act air permitting programs and removed mandatory requirements to provide public notice through newspaper publication instead allowing for electronic notice. The rule change would align state and federal requirements.

4.c Miscellaneous housekeeping changes and corrections as found.

The MPCA may include additional minor rule changes (housekeeping in nature) that fall within the scope of the potential rulemaking.

1

MPCA Rulemaking:Exempt Source/

Conditionally Insignificant Activities

Stakeholder Information Meeting

on Proposed Concepts for Amending Rules

MPCA St. Paul and Webcast

January 19, 2017

1

•Welcome and Introductions

•Omnibus Air Rule ‐ Update and Resources

• Purpose of this Rulemaking

•Overview of Rule Process ‐ Public Participation• Proposed Rule Concepts• Next Steps and Rule Schedule• Resources for this Rulemaking

Agenda

2

2

•Mike Nelson ‐ Small Business Assistance

• Hassan Bouchareb ‐ Air Policy Unit•Mary H. Lynn ‐ Rule Coordinator

•Meeting participants

Introductions

3

Recent Omnibus Air Rule

Omnibus Air Rules

• “Housekeeping” – updates and consistency with stateand federal regulations

• Proposed rule in State Register on February 29, 2016• Adopted rule in State Register on December 19, 2016

• Effective December 27, 2016

4

3

Questions about rule implementation?

How MPCA will implement rule changes: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/omnibus‐air‐rule‐amendments

Questions on Omnibus Air Rule changes:Anne Jackson (MPCA), 651‐757‐2460 or

[email protected]

Resources for Omnibus Air Rule

5

• Stakeholder meeting on proposed rule concepts (Jan 19)• Request for Comments ‐ public comment period (Feb 23)• Draft rules and Statement of Need and Reasonableness• Proposed rules ‐ public comment period• Public hearing (if held) Comment at hearing and post‐hearing comment period

• Response to Comments and Order Adopting Rules• Governor’s Office review of rules• Office of Administrative Hearings Review and approval/disapproval of rules

• Publish Final Adoption of Rules

Rule Process Overview(Opportunities for Public Participation)

6

4

7

How to Receive Rule Notices

MPCA sends emails to notify the public at critical points in the rule process. At minimum, notices are sent when:• Rule changes are first being considered (Request for Comments)

• Rules are proposed for public comment (Intent to Adopt ProposedRules)

• New rules become effective (Final Adoption of Rules)To receive notices, sign up for GovDelivery email at:

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/

8

5

What is the problem? How can it be fixed?• (1) Conditionally Exempt Sources MPCA interested in expanding types of sources

• (2) Conditionally Insignificant Activities Improve federal enforceability

• (3) Insignificant Activities Clarify and simplify

Additional housekeeping changes

Purpose of this Rulemaking

9

What are Conditionally Exempt Sources?• Simple to define, with emissions primarily from one typeof activity

• Can write requirements by rule to cover the source

Omnibus rulemaking initiated changes• Good ideas! Outside Omnibus Rule scope

• Driven by changes that affected conditionallyinsignificant activities

(1) Conditionally Exempt Sources

10

6

Possibly create more exempt source categories• Auto body refinishing facilities• Small coating operations• Small wood finishing operations

Simplify requirements & maintain environmental protections

• Goal: Administratively simple requirements

Some EPA guidance available• Useful as a starting point, but more information is needed


11

Auto body refinishing facilities (1.a)• All auto body shops• Entirely or almost entirely collision repair operations• Large portion devoted to painting operations

Possible ways to cap emissions (1.b)• Address primarily volatile organic compounds (VOCs) &particulate matter (PM)

• Limits based on number of jobs performed per week?• Control requirements (i.e. spray booths)?• Other associated requirements


12

7

Coating operations (1.c)• Protective, decorative, or functional coatings (i.e. spray coating,roll coating, etc..)

• Prime and top coating and/or single coat operations

Possible ways to cap emissions (1.d)• Address primarily hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), VOCs, & PM• Limits based on amount of coating used?• Control requirements (i.e. spray booths)?• Other associated requirements?


13

Wood finishing shops (1.e)• Need more information on possible ways to cap emissions

• What processes are common (cutting, sanding, staining,etc…)?

• Any other activities performed?

• Products used in finishing?• Where does equipment vent?• Shop characteristics (i.e. facility size, number ofemployees, number of jobs performed per week)?

• What kind of requirements make sense for these facilities?


14

8

Additional input/questions?• Brainstorming point, be creative!• Suggested concepts useful?• How should these sources be described?• Are the numerical limits appropriate?• What other requirements are feasible to showcompliance with the limits?

• Other relevant information?

• Other sources we should consider?


15

Omnibus rulemaking initiated changes• Good ideas! Outside Omnibus Rule scope

Improve federal enforceability of rules• Some operations currently lack an emission limit

Different uses (small facilities vs. large facilities)• Different administrative/cost burden concerns• Unintended uses Potentially above permitting thresholds Costly for both MPCA and facilities

(2) Conditionally Insignificant Activities

16

9

Amend the rules to include numeric limits (2.a)• Material usage activities: currently limited

• Particulate matter operations: currently not limited

Amend activities covered by the rules (2.b, 2.c)• Particulate matter operations vs. finishing operations

• Activity‐specific limits vs. combined limits

Establish additional requirements (2.d)• Applicability, calculations, monitoring, recordkeeping


17

Additional input/questions?• Suggested concepts useful?

• What activities should be covered by the rules?

• Should emissions be regulated by the activity type or bythe pollutant emitted?

• Is it appropriate to limit aggregate emissions vs. settingactivity specific requirements?

Are the emission limit levels appropriate?

• Any specific factors to support other requirements?


18

10

Confusion during permitting

• Intended to streamline the application process

• Two types: listed vs. non‐listed

• Unclear which activities matter

• Unclear when calculations are needed

Amend the insignificant activities list (3.a)• Clarify which activities belong in each list

• Identify which activities should provide emission calculations

(3) Insignificant Activities

19

Additional input/questions?• Brainstorming point, be creative!

• Suggested concepts useful?

• What should we be treating as insignificant activities?

• Nominations?

• Other suggestions?

(3) Insignificant Activities

20

11

Reissuance application submittal time (4.a)• Align state rules with federal rules

Public notice changes (4.b)• Electronic vs. newspaper

• Align state rules with federal rules

Miscellaneous changes (4.c)• As found, if within scope

(4) Additional Housekeeping Changes

21

Send written comments on proposed concepts by February 23, 2017 to:

Mary H. Lynn [email protected],

or

Mary H. Lynn, MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul 55155‐4194

Next:

• Staff review and consider comments

• Draft rules based on stakeholder and staff input

• Draft Statement of Need and Reasonableness

Next Steps

22

12

Stakeholder meeting and Request for Comments

• Winter 2017

Draft rules and Statement of Need and Reasonableness • Spring/Summer 2017

Publish Proposed Rules• Summer 2017

Publish Final Adoption of Rules• Spring 2018

Tentative Rule Schedule

23

Information about this rulemaking:

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/exempt‐source‐conditionally‐insignificant‐activities

Questions on technical aspects or content of the rule:Hassan Bouchareb, 651‐757‐2653 [email protected]

Questions on rule process or how to submit comments:

Mary H. Lynn, 651‐757‐2439 or [email protected]

Resources for Exempt Source/Conditionally Insignificant Activities rulemaking

24

CHESS, Inc.

33 E. Wentworth Ave., Suite 320

West St. Paul, MN 55118

Ph: 651-458-4930

Complete Health Environmental and Safety Services www.chess-safety.com

13 February 2017

Mary H. Lynn

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

520 Lafayette Road North

St. Paul, MN 55155-4194

[email protected]

Re: Possible Amendments to Rules Governing Air Quality, Minnesota Rules

Chapters 7002, 7005, 7007, 7008, 7009, 7011, 7017, 7019; Revisor’s ID Number R-04429

Dear Ms. Lynn:

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the MPCA’s efforts to amend the Air Quality

Rules for Exempt Source/Conditionally Insignificant Activities.

CHESS, Inc., is a consulting firm specializing in providing small businesses with comprehensive

assistance with occupational safety and health and environmental compliance. Most of our

clients have fewer than 30 employees; some have as few as three or four. They are often family-

run businesses, either operated by the founder or by the founder’s children (and in some cases,

by the grandchildren of the founder). Our clients want to comply with environmental rules – as

proven by the fact that they have hired us to help them with compliance.

Our clients include the following:

Collision repair facilities (body shops)

Mechanical repair facilities

Metal working and fabricating shops that make products ranging from agricultural equipment

to elevator cabs to custom-fabricated specialty equipment

Wood shops, making products ranging from fine art frames to custom garage doors

Plastic manufacturers (blow molding, injection molding, thermoforming)

Painting companies

We’ve been working with the collision and mechanical repair industry in Minnesota for over

twenty years. We are members of AASP-MN. We currently have over twenty body shops as

clients.

Along with providing OSHA compliance assistance, we advise our clients on their

environmental permitting and reporting requirements. We help them obtain water discharge

permits, hazardous waste licenses, and air quality permits, as warranted. We prepare their annual

hazardous waste reports. We do any required annual air quality and wastewater discharge

mailto:[email protected]

CHESS Comments on Air Quality Rules; Revisor’s ID Number R-04429

13 February 2017 Page 2

reporting. We also help them with the day to day requirements, such as advising them on how to

handle waste they generate.

We have prepared Option B registration permit applications, Option D registration permit

applications, and one Low Emitting Facility permit application.

Throughout our comments, we will provide examples from current or former clients. For many

of these, we have and can provide to you data on product usage – the types of products used, the

control measures in place, and often the amount of product used.

General Comments We strongly endorse the idea of simplifying requirements.

We hope that this proposed establishment of conditionally exempt sources will move many small

facilities out of the realm of noncompliance. These small facilities (both body shops and others)

did not obtain the required permits before they began operations, often because they did not

know permits were necessary. In some cases, they wanted to apply for a permit but were told

that the MPCA had put a hold on the permit applications while trying to reconcile Minnesota

rules with NESHAPs, such as 4M and 4P. These are now not eligible for the registration permits,

because their Potential to Emit (PTE) is much too high. But their actual emissions are only

fractions of their PTE, and are well under the regulatory limits.

We applied for a Low Emitting Facility permit for one company in this category, a company

that refurbishes office furniture such as filing cabinets. The permit application for this

company, which has five employees, included 48 separate forms. Seventeen of those were

emissions summaries, reporting, for example, a Potential to Emit for beryllium of 0.04 tons

per year, and an actual calculated emission of 0.00000000825 tons per year (7.5 milligrams).

Providing this type of minutiae to the permitting authorities does not provide additional

environmental protection. It does not result in any reduction in emissions for the company.

We encourage the identification of other categories of conditionally exempt industries, and we

believe it is possible to identify those by the type of operation, instead of by the product they

manufacture.

An example: from the standpoint of potential emissions, the manufacturing process for a

wooden frame manufacturer is very similar to that of a cabinet maker. The end products are

very different. But for both, wood is cut and sanded. It may be glued. It is then finished, by

staining it or painting it. The same is true for small metal fabricating facilities, whether they

make elevator cabs, agricultural equipment, or custom jigs and metal parts. Their basic

processes are to cut and bend the metal, weld it, and finish it by painting or powder coating

it. They may do some ancillary tasks, such as running wires, gluing, or soldering. But those

ancillary tasks are not likely to produce significant emissions.

The low emitting facility permit is burdensome in terms of paperwork and is cost prohibitive.

Small business owners cannot complete the forms themselves, and it will likely cost $6000 to

$10,000 just to prepare a submission. Business owners do not understand the requirements for it,



or why the permit is so complicated. That has driven some businesses to say they will continue to

operate without a permit. Creating this category of conditionally exempt facilities will allow

these businesses to comply and we hope, will provide an avenue for growth if they are allowed to

apply for a registration permit before they exceed the limits of a conditionally exempt facility.

We also want assurance that a new facility that would qualify as conditionally exempt under this

proposal would then be eligible for a registration permit once it has grown beyond the

conditionally exempt limits or once it believes it may exceed those limits. As its PTE may be

high, and as it is an operating facility, it would, under current rules, be ineligible for a

registration permit. If the only avenue to obtain a permit would be through the major source

permits, this facility would find it onerous to comply.

1. Change Considered: Add conditionally exempt source category for

autobody refinishing facilities

How should “autobody refinishing facility” be defined, what characteristics of a small autobody

refinishing facility should be included in the definition?

The primary characteristic of the autobody shops with which we work is that they work on

vehicles that have previously been painted. They rarely paint an entire vehicle, but they could do

so.

The bulk of their work is repairing collision damage. For that, the damaged part of the car may

be removed and replaced. If the damage to that car part is not too great, the part will be repaired.

Old paint will be ground off, prior to using a styrene-based body filler to fill in holes or dents.

Small dents may be removed by mechanical means (paintless dent repair). The part will then be

primed, painted, and clear-coated (sprayed with a clear polyurethane finish). Depending on the

part and the repair needed, the part may be painted separate from the rest of the vehicle. The area

to be painted could be as small as a rearview mirror.

Some facilities will do restorations in addition to collision repair. These may involve tearing

down the entire vehicle (even removing the engine) and repairing or replacing the damaged or

rusted areas. We rarely see vehicles completely repainted unless they are being restored (paint

used today is so durable that, other than for high-end vehicles, a car is not likely to need

repainting until it is old. By that time, the cost of completely repainting would probably exceed

the value of the car).

Although the bulk of their work is on light vehicles, our body shop clients have been known to

do other paint jobs, such as refinishing a boat or a trailer. The size of their paint booth typically

limits the size of the vehicle that can be repaired.

For body shops, the paint booth is critical for ensuring that the paint job is adequate. Body

shops will use fully enclosed paint booths, with incoming air filtered to remove particulates.

The same control is not essential for priming the vehicle.



We suggest that an autobody refinishing facility be defined as a facility that does aftermarket

repair and repainting of vehicles, with the bulk of the work being repair of light vehicles

damaged in collisions.

Is there a need to include/address mobile refinishing operations with temporary spray booths?

We do not have experience with these.

Are the numerical limits (number of jobs/bays) appropriate?

Should the numerical limits be related to the number of gallons used of coating material instead

of number of jobs performed each week?

The numerical limit of jobs per week is not appropriate.

The size of each repair or refinishing job is not consistent. One vehicle may need only bumper

replacement. Another may need extensive frame work and panel replacement. Some parts may

be painted before they are installed on the vehicle – would painting of each individual part be

considered a separate job? Or would all of the work on one vehicle be considered a job?

While a shop may be able to track how many different parts are sprayed each week, that isn’t

going to correlate with emissions, because the part sizes can be so different.

The number of “bays devoted to painting” is even less appropriate.

Painting (application of base coats and clear coats) is typically done in a fully enclosed spray

booth, because doing so is necessary to obtain a high quality finish. Priming should be done in a

ventilated enclosure, to meet OSHA and Fire Code standards. But we know that in some shops,

priming is done by the body technicians in their work bays. A shop that has its body technicians

priming could have only one “bay devoted to painting,” but would have no control for particulate

matter from any of its priming.

In contrast, some facilities have installed prep stations, enclosures which meet OSHA and Fire

Code definitions of paint booths (ventilated, explosion-proof wiring and lighting…) but which

do not have the dust control necessary for that high quality final coating. These prep stations are

used for both sanding (as the paint often has to be lightly sanded between coats) and priming.

They are equipped with filtered exhaust ventilation, so will capture nearly all of the particulate

matter.

A shop could have a prep station and two paint booths, but have fewer emissions of VOCs,

particulate matter, and HAPs than the shop with one paint booth. The two-booth shop could have

efficient painters, spray waterborne base coats, and clean paint guns efficiently. The one-booth

shop may routinely paint or prime outside the booth (not in an area “devoted to painting”) and

could clean its paint guns in open basins.

A more practical way of limiting use is to look at the amount of paint and related products used.

Most body shops buy nearly all of their paint products from one supplier, and the suppliers can



usually run reports for them. Most shops will have contracts with suppliers/paint companies for

their paint, so they are not likely to use multiple suppliers.

We have no problem obtaining these purchase reports from the larger suppliers. We have run

into problems with smaller distributors outside of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. But as

computerized inventory systems become more common, we expect this to become less and

less of an issue.

If purchase reports are used, you would need to define what needs to be included.

Would the styrene-based body filler be included? While styrene is a VOC and a

hazardous air pollutant, much of the styrene in body filler reacts to become polystyrene.

Most body filler is manually applied (troweled on). Some shops, though, will also use a

spray body filler that is about 25% styrene. It is not a paint product, as it is designed to be

painted over. Would this be included?

Some shops do both body work and mechanical repair work. While mechanical shops use

less VOC and HAP containing products than body shops, they will use products such as

brake cleaners. Would those need to be included? Those may come from a different

supplier than the paints and paint-related products.

What operational, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements are feasible to show compliance

with the numerical limits?

We want the requirements to be easy to comply with, so shops don’t need to hire consultants to

figure out if they are in compliance. We also want the requirements to favor or reward the shops

that take measures to reduce emissions of VOCs, HAPs, and particulate matter.

To that end, we recommend:

Painting

Allow higher limits if waterborne base coats are used. Allow even higher limits if waterborne

primers and clears are used.

The agency might choose to allow higher limits if the company uses low VOC solvent-based

base coats. One paint manufacturer has developed a line of products specifically formulated to

that end. The main solvents in these are t-butyl acetate, butyl acetate, and methyl amyl ketone.

We don’t consider them much of an improvement over the traditional basecoats from a health or

fire standpoint. But they are better at meeting the regulatory limits.

Waterborne primers and clear coats are not readily available in Minnesota, and are not available

through the body shops’ normal distribution channels. But the industry trend is slowly moving

towards that, despite technical challenges, particularly with clear coats. In anticipation of that

trend, we’d like to see credit given to those adopters of water-based technologies, even if no shop

would currently be able to claim that credit.



Priming

Either require that all priming be done in a paint booth or paint spray area that meets Fire Code

requirements or allow higher limits if a paint booth or paint spray area meeting Fire Code

requirements is used.

Require that the paint booth be maintained, with exhaust paint filters changed as needed to

maintain adequate air flow. A requirement to maintain the spray booth used for painting is not as

critical, because a poorly maintained paint booth will result in a poor paint job. The quality of the

paint job is paramount for body shops – they will be and have been required to repaint vehicles if

there are fisheyes or other imperfections. To get that high quality finish, they need to use a booth

that functions correctly.

Cleanup

Prohibit or restrict spray gun cleaning using open basins of gun cleaner or thinner.

Allow higher limits if spray gun cleaning is done in ways which minimize the use of gun cleaner

or thinner (automatic gun cleaners are one option). Putting limits on the amount of thinner or gun

cleaner used, separate from coatings limits, may be an option.

We have not looked at consumption of thinner/gun cleaner in shops that follow what we

consider to be good work practices, compared to shops that use what we consider bad

practices. But consumption of thinner may not be the best guide. If the shop recycles its

thinner and gun wash, its purchases will be less than a shop that does not do so. While we

encourage recycling because it reduces the amount of waste, it does not reduce the emissions

of VOCs or HAPs.

Recordkeeping

Many shop suppliers have routinely provided Option B registration permit holders with annual

VOC reports, which list how much VOC-containing material was purchased. We recommend

using either these or purchase records to track eligibility.

These reports do not differentiate between waterborne base coats (which may contain a small

percentage of VOCs) and solvent-based materials. But we don’t see any value in requiring

separate records for the two. If a shop sprays waterborne base coats, it would be extremely

unusual for it to also spray solvent. Any record that reflects purchase of waterborne base coats

(in any amount) would be proof that they have opted for the lower-emitting product.

Other information related to adding this source category

The spray booths exhaust air, so require that makeup air be brought in to compensate for the

amount exhausted. Some shops have been configured so that one makeup air unit will service the

prep station, paint booths, and mixing room (the mixing room is a paint storage room, usually

built to meet Fire Code standards). For those facilities, the size of the heating units could be over

2,000,000 BTU, large enough to trigger limitations for greenhouse gas emissions. When we’ve

calculated emissions using the actual amount of natural gas used by these facilities, though, the

emissions fall below the insignificant activity threshold. For that reason, we do not believe that

greenhouse gas emissions need to be tracked or considered.



An example: We calculated potential emissions from a facility with a large spray booth (able

to handle semi tractors), a standard spray booth, radiant heaters, and shop makeup air. While

the shop’s total capacity was 5,570,000 BTU/hour, actual emissions, based on their natural

gas usage, were less than 0.12% of the insignificant activity threshold. They would have to

use 800 times more natural gas to approach the insignificant activity threshold.

Body shops are subject to NESHAP 6H. This requires certain measures if the shops use coatings

containing certain metal HAPs or use methylene chloride-containing paint stripper. Only a very

small number of the paint products used in shops today contain any of the target HAPs. Those

few products that do contain the target HAPs usually have trivalent chromium compounds,

which are relatively low hazard (to illustrate, trivalent chromium is considered an essential

nutrient. Hexavalent chromium is considered a carcinogen. NESHAP 6H does not differentiate

between the two forms). Shops may use some methylene chloride-based stripper. But the extent

of their use is very low – perhaps a gallon or two per year.

1.c. Coating Operations: add new conditionally exempt source category for

small coating operations

What characteristic of “coating operations” should be included in the definition?

The coating processes we see most often are staining, painting (including priming), and powder

coating. We would also include silkscreening. The coating may be sprayed on, brushed on, or

(less often seen), dipped. The coated surface could be wood, metal, glass…. Silkscreening and

printing operations could also be considered coating, but because we have little expertise with

those, we are excluding them from any comments. We’re also excluding plastic dip operations,

as we don’t have any experience with those.

While the material being coated is a consideration in the type of coating, we don’t believe it

makes much difference in regulating emissions from small facilities. The basic characteristics of

coating are that a resin, usually with pigments, is used to cover the manufactured part. For

automobiles, the resin is a polyurethane. For wood and metals, it could be an alkyd resin, a

polyurethane resin, an epoxy…. For anything other than powder coating, some carrier solvent

(water or organic solvent) will be present, and will need to evaporate for the coating to dry.

We have also seen operations that spray adhesives. These typically would not be considered

coatings. But they have formulations not that different from coatings – a resin of some type in a

carrier solvent. We’d like to see this rule applied to those operations also.

These facilities may do some tasks, such as welding and grinding, that create particulate

emissions. But welding is usually considered an insignificant activity. They could have abrasive

blasters, which would be considered exempt if they capture all emissions. These shops may also

have heating equipment, such as makeup air handlers (necessary if they have spray booths). We

don’t think any of those should disqualify a shop from being conditionally exempt.

These facilities could use some paint stripper, but we recommend allowing that if the amount

used is inconsequential, such as less than ten gallons per year.



If the shop does powder coating, it probably also does metal treatment such as phosphatizing. As

that does not have air emissions, we do not think it needs to be considered.

Are the numerical limits appropriate?

The limit of 3000 gallons in a twelve month period is reasonable. Option B permit holders are

limited to 2000 gallons of VOC-containing materials. Most of our body shops have no problem

complying with that. The ones most likely to exceed that are likely to have three or four people

who paint and prime. The other small companies with which we work also can easily stay below

3000 gallons.

An average of 250 gallons per month is reasonable, but if purchase records are used to track that,

an absolute limit of 250 gallons per month is a poor choice. While a shop’s product usage is

likely to be relatively consistent throughout the year, a facility could choose to purchase more

than 250 gallons in a given month for cost control reasons or if they are switching paint lines.

For example, if a shop switched to waterborne paints, it would have higher initial purchases in

the month that it switched.

The coatings we see used in facilities other than body shops have similar formulations to body

shop paints – if the coating is water-based, it usually is low-VOC and contains few HAPs. If it is

solvent-based, it will have usually have a high VOC content and often a high HAP content. The

exception to that, seen in both body shops and other coatings users, is a solvent-based coating

formulated with organic solvents that are not considered VOCs and are not on the HAPs list.

The assumption of 6 pounds HAP per gallon of coating would create problems, if that is used as

a limit. The original EPA guidance document, “Technical Support Document for Potential to

Emit Guidance Memo. Documentation of Emission Calculations,” uses that number for deriving

its limit of 3000 gallons, but does not suggest that the HAP number be applied as a limit. While

most of the paint products we’ve seen in body shops, wood shops, and metal shops contain less

than that amount, a few specialty products and the products that are 100% solvent (thinners) may

exceed that.

For a shop to determine if it was in compliance with a limit of 6 pounds of HAPs per gallon of

coating, the shop would have to do approximately the same calculations we do each time we

calculate emissions for our clients with Option D permits, determining the percentage of HAP in

each product, calculating gallons used per year…. It takes us hours to look up and input the data,

and we’re experienced in doing so. For a small shop to try to do likewise is unrealistic. It is not

even feasible to expect shops to calculate the pounds of HAPs in a gallon of any one product, as

that number is not provided on the safety data sheet or technical data sheet.



What eligibility, operations, recordkeeping and compliance requirements are feasible to show

compliance with the numerical limit?

Eligibility

As we see little functional difference between coating operations that apply paint to metal

products, glass, or wood products, we advocate for inclusiveness. We recommend applying a

conditional exemption to facilities that:

1) apply liquid or powder coatings

2) Use less than 3000 gallons of liquid coatings per year. That number may be meaningless to

powder coating facilities, but powder coating operations are not likely to have VOC or HAP

emissions, other than from heating units.

3) Apply the coatings in a method that captures particulate emissions, either by not creating

particulate (e.g., roll-on or dip) or in a spray booth that meets OSHA and Fire Code

standards, and has exhaust filters that are at least 85% efficient. As this would apply to

powder coating facilities, this would address the particulate matter that any type of spray

coating could emit.

4) Do not use any coatings that contain lead, cadmium, chromates, nickel, or mercury

Other Requirements

The requirements we recommended for body shops should apply to other small coating

operations, with some allowance for the variation that may be seen in the other coating

operations:

1) Allow higher limits if waterborne or non-VOC-containing, nonflammable paints and coatings

are used.

2) Require that all spray applications be done in a spray booth or spray area that meets Fire

Code requirements. Require that the booth be maintained.

3) Prohibit or restrict spray gun cleaning using open basins. Encourage closed methods for gun

cleaning.

4) Require the shop to keep records of paint and other VOC- or HAP-containing material

purchases or use.

We offer no opinion on marine applications or coating fiberglass products, as we have no

experience with those.

What other information would we like to submit related to this source category?

The Summary of Reason for Change column in AQ-Rule4-08b.pdf states that “this is not

intended to cover those sources which have previously exceeded a major source NESHAP

threshold.” If the facility has had actual emissions high enough to qualify as a major source, we

agree that it should not be able to be conditionally exempt. But if that means that the shop has

exceeded the threshold for being a major source because of the potential to emit, many existing

shops that are very small users will be excluded, because they could have a high potential to emit

HAPs if they use just one paint that has a high percentage of HAPs.

An example: a metal shop that used 1682 gallons of paint and related products had actual

xylene emissions of 1.37 tons. Its potential to emit xylene was 82 tons, which would have



made it a major source. Another facility, which used 1031 gallons of paint, had actual

emissions of 0.38 tons of xylene, but a potential to emit of 75 tons.

As the MPCA knows, many of these very small shops do not have air quality permits and are

unlikely to know that they need permits. We believe, as long as they are very small, that they

should be conditionally exempt, and then be given a route by which they can obtain permits if

they grow to the point of needing one, without fearing enforcement actions and heavy penalties.

Any type of finishing operation – body shops, other coating companies, and wood shops – may

have sanding operations and other operations that create dust. The dust may be controlled

through centralized exhaust ventilation systems (most commonly seen in wood shops, sometimes

used in body shops), dust capture systems on tools, or by using tools connected to vacuums. The

systems on tools or vacuums will vent inside the shop. Centralized systems are more likely to

vent outside, usually after removal of most of the particulate.

1.e. Wood Finishing Shops

What characteristics of “wood finishing shops” should be included in the definition?

We recommend that wood finishing shops include facilities that do wood finishing as their

primary work product or as part of other production, such as frame or door manufacturing, where

wood is the primary material coated. Finishing might be done by staining or painting. It might be

hand-applied or it might be spray applied.

We have clients who manufacture custom artwork frames. While finishing the frames is only

a part of their business, it is a critical component. We also have a client who paints household

doors and windows. The bulk of their work is onsite residential painting of both new and

remodeled homes. But it is more efficient for them (and from an environmental standpoint,

emissions are better-controlled) if doors and windows are painted at their facility, instead of

after installation. We’ve worked for custom door and cabinet makers, who might have

cabinets finished when installed or may want to do some finishing at their production facility.

We also work for a company whose primary job task is finishing flooring – taking wood that

is already cut to size, sanding it, and finishing it.

What are some eligibility limitations on the scope of finishing shops that allow us to create an

exempt source category?

As with other coatings shops, the easiest limitation to track is coatings usage.

Is the shop used entirely for wood finishing or in combination with other types of activities?

The work done by the wood shops with which we’ve worked includes:

1) Frame manufacturer – cutting wood, assembling frames, sanding, finishing, cutting mats for

the pictures

2) Cabinet manufacturers – may start by cutting wood, assembling, sanding, finishing, applying

hardware

3) Residential paint prefinishing – mask and paint doors and windows. Most of their work is

done at the residence

4) Garage door maker: cutting wood, assembling.



5) Flooring – sand and finish wood

6) Custom specialty furniture and furnishings

We also work with one facility that makes climbing walls. While they are not a wood finishing

shop per se, they do spray paint plywood backings on which the hand holds are mounted.

Typically, any facility that works with wood will sand the wood. Many of these facilities glue the

wood, most often with a nontoxic, non-polluting wood glue (akin to Elmer’s White Glue). In

most cases, they also cut and shape the wood (using routers, sanders, saws…).

Some of these facilities work in materials other than wood. For instance, the custom specialty

furniture/furnishings manufacturer does wood and metal working. While the bulk of the work is

in wood, one employee is a talented welder. The focus of this manufacturer’s work is the end

product, and the materials used are whatever the client requests.

Shop characteristics – facility size, number of employees, number of finishing jobs per week?

Most of our facilities are small, with fewer than 30 employees.

Some may be able to give you the number of finishing jobs per week. But for anyone who does

custom work, the number of finishing jobs is not the best indicator of either how busy the shop is

or how much finishing it does. It also is not comparable from one company to another, because

the size of the job varies. Using the frame manufacturer as an example: frames can be large or

small. Some may be stained, while others are painted. The frame maker may make a dozen

frames in the time it takes a cabinet maker to make one cabinet. For a cabinet maker, would a job

be one door of a cabinet, or all of the cabinets for a kitchen?

Products used in wood finishing

We see more variation in wood finishing products than in metal finishing or, certainly, than in

body shop work.

Stains seem likely to be alcohol and ketone-based. The primary solvents in those stains used by

our clients are ethyl alcohol, ethyl acetate, and acetone.

A simple breakdown of the product types, from our perspective as safety/health/environmental

consultants, is:

Solvent: this may be water, alcohols and ketones (such as in stains), or the same types of

organic solvents as seen in body shop paints (xylene/ethyl benzene). For UV-cure products, it

is typically water or acetone.

Resin: alkyds, acrylates, and urea-formaldehyde resins seem to be the most common. We

don’t see much use of epoxies or polyurethanes. If urea-formaldehyde resins are used, the

product will contain a very small amount of formaldehyde (usually around 0.1% or less)

Pigments are not likely to be a health or environmental concern.

We can provide sample safety data sheets for the products used by our wood finishing clients.

Where venting equipment vents

These facilities are likely to have two separate types of ventilation equipment:



Dust capture equipment. This will be connected to saws and sanders, to capture sawdust.

We’ve seen them vent both inside and outside. The larger shops (in terms of amount of wood

sanding and cutting done) will vent outside. Facilities that have just one or two pieces of

woodworking equipment are more likely to vent inside. In all cases that we’ve seen, they do

have a system to capture the dust before it is exhausted.

Spray booths. These are typically open-face booths, equipped with exhaust filters. They will

vent outside. We’ve seen one spray booth that had a bypass allowing it to vent into the room

– that setup received an OSHA citation, because OSHA does not allow recirculation of

contaminated air unless it has been proven to be cleaned or free of contaminants.

While we don’t doubt that some facilities have spray booths that vent into the work room, we

note that doing so violates both OSHA and Fire Code requirements.

What eligibility, operational, recordkeeping, and compliance requirements are needed and

reasonable?

Our answer is essentially the same as that for body shops and other coating operations:

1) Apply coatings in a method that captures particulate emissions. Do not use any coatings that

contain lead, cadmium, chromates, nickel or mercury.

2) Allow higher limits if waterborne or nonflammable, nonVOC paints and coatings are used.

3) Require all spray finishing to be done in a maintained spray booth spray area.

4) Require the shop to keep records of paint and coatings purchases. Use the same quantity

limits as for other types of coating operations, given allowance for more environmentally

friendly coatings.

We also suggest requiring the use of dust control/capture systems if sanding operations are done.

These could be tool-mounted vacuum systems, which filter and vent internally, or centralized

systems which filter and vent outside. It may be worth specifying a minimum dust capture

efficiency, such as 98% of particulates 5 microns and larger (that number was taken from

specifications for dust capture equipment sold by Rockler, a woodworking supply house).

2. Change conditionally insignificant activities: materials usage and PM-only

emitting

2.a. What activities should be covered in the definition of finishing operations?

Does it make sense to regulate emissions based on the activity that generates the emissions, or

should the MPCA continue addressing by the pollutant emitted?

As we tried to comment on the question of what activities should be covered in the definition of

finishing operations, we realized that we were speculating with little basis on how the MPCA is

planning to apply that term. Chapter 7008 does not exempt finishing operations now, and it was

not clear to us whether 7008.4100 Subpart 1 exemption for “coating and solvent cleaning

operations” was being construed as equivalent to finishing operations.

The term, “finishing operations,” is ambiguous. We usually take it to mean applying a coating of

some type to a piece that could be used for its intended purpose even if it did not have that

coating. The types of coating include paints, stains, powder coats, inks, and even conformal



coating. But under that definition, galvanizing and chrome plating would be a finishing

operation.

If the agency were to regulate emissions by activity, what activities would be included? If,

instead, it is done by pollutant emitted, what pollutants would be included?

2.c. Is it appropriate to limit aggregate emissions from all CIA, rather than setting activity-

specific requirements?

Are the levels of the suggested limit appropriate?

We support the concept of limiting the aggregate emissions, instead of setting activity-specific

requirements, with some caveats.

Although the MPCA is suggesting a change to limit VOC and PM emissions from all material

usage activities, we expect that the exclusions for insignificant activities in 7007.1300 would

remain in place, and that facilities would not need to include, for instance, the small unit heaters

or paint used for routine building upkeep.

The method of determining particulate emissions has to be simple enough that facility owners

can calculate if they are within the limits. For tasks that produce particulate matter (sawing,

sanding), that may be a challenge, as the amount of material removed is not necessarily

consistent, workpieces are not usually weighed before and after those steps (and suggesting that

the workpiece be weighed would be a significant hindrance), and much of the particulate matter

is too heavy to become an air emission.

Both 7007.1300 and 7008.4110 consider equipment that produces particulates vented inside the

building 100% of the time to be insignificant (if not filtered, it’s insignificant; if filtered,

conditionally insignificant). We’ve seen body shops with filtered general exhaust units (general

exhaust ventilation with filters over the opening). Shops that generate a lot of wood dust usually

have centralized dust collectors, which may or may not vent into the shop. As 7007.1300 is

currently written, it encourages shops to not filter air, as if any pollution emitted inside the

facility will never escape. We’d prefer to see rules that encourage efficient filtration of air from

dusty operations, regardless of where the air is finally discharged.

The proposed VOC emissions limit of 10,000 pounds is not overly restrictive. A body shop and a

cabinet-making shop (Option D Registration Permits), spraying solvent-borne paint, had VOC

emissions of about 11,000 pounds each. A shop spraying a waterborne paint had VOC emissions

of about 2000 pounds.

2.d. What specific factors should be considered in developing the emissions calculation?

Ease of use.

If the purpose of these changes is to encourage facilities to be in compliance and to reduce the

amount of effort (from both the regulators and regulated parties perspective) that it takes to

obtain a permit, the calculations have to be realistic and easy enough that small businesses can

complete them. Measurements of material usage are likely to be the most straightforward way to



do that. The amount of material used has a more direct tie to emissions than other quantity

measurements, such as hours of use or jobs done.

3.a. Amend Insignificant activities list, require emissions calculations for all

Subpart 3 activities Brazing, soldering, and welding could be a production process or could be an infrequent task,

done for maintenance (nearly all facilities will have maintenance people who could do some

welding). Requiring emission calculations for a task done as infrequently as maintenance/repair

welding and spray painting would provide data with little meaning, as it would require a lot of

conjecture (how much welding might they do? How much painting? It depends on what is

broken or, for painting, could even depend on how busy they are. We know of facilities that

choose to paint their shops during slow times).

It may not be too difficult to use a measure of material usage for insignificant activities, as

facilities have material usage reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and

Community Right to Know Act. Instead of requiring the gymnastics of applying theoretical

emission limits and pretending they are real numbers (as is done when using AP-42 to determine

emissions), we suggest using the amount of material purchased or used.

CHESS would be happy to discuss our comments in greater detail and to provide specific

examples and data. We can be reached at 651-481-9787 (general number), my direct number

(651-458-4930), or by email at [email protected]

Sincerely yours,

Janet L. Keyes, CIH

Principal, CHESS, Inc.


February 22, 2017

Commissioner John Linc Stine

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

121 7th Place E.

Suite 350

Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101

Re: Comments of the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of Minnesota (AASP-

MN) to the Exempt Source/Conditionally Insignificant Activities Rules

Dear Commissioner Linc Stine:

AASP-MN is a statewide trade association representing nearly 800 mechanical and collision

repair shops and industry suppliers.

We have a general concern over the ever-increasing challenge of compliance with air quality

regulations and we support the initiative to exempt auto body refinishing shops that meet

eligibility criteria from permitting.

Collision repair shops have made very significant investments in equipment to address air quality

concerns and the industry as a whole has made great strides to improve the products used to

affect repairs.

Our focus in the upcoming rulemaking proceeding will be to work with the Agency to establish a

new category for auto body refinishing facilities as conditionally exempt stationery sources.

Within this source category, it should be noted that these facilities may have insignificant and/or

conditionally insignificant activities, as well. Should this source category be created, the

association supports reasonable thresholds to limit VOC and PM emissions based on the amount

of material purchased – specifically thresholds for paint and paint-related products.

We envision at least a two-tiered schedule for determination of an Exempt Source by allowing a

higher limit for repair shops that spray water borne paints and use water borne primers. These

products have less environmental impact and the shops that make this investment should be

recognized for their emission-reduction efforts.

In the materials provided by MPCA at the January stakeholder meeting, the Agency seeks

guidance with respect to the definition of “auto body refinishing facility.” The MPCA materials

consider determining eligibility on the basis of the number of refinishing jobs within certain

timeframes and also make reference to the number of “bays” devoted to painting at the facility.

We believe that the number of “bays” at a facility or the number of refinishing jobs within a

certain timeframe are less meaningful measures than whether a facility is operating at or below a

designated threshold for use of VOC containing material or materials which would result in

emissions of particulate matter. The extent of damage and materials necessary to repair that

damage vary widely from job to job, so using the number of jobs would not produce an accurate

measure of emissions. Likewise for the number of bays. Shops vary in terms of the location

(within the shop) that specific repair activities take place, equipment and controls within the

facility – not to mention repair practices – making the number of bays an inappropriate factor for

determining emissions.

Keeping the definition focused on material usage also provides a more reliable method for

recordkeeping and reporting. The auto body refinishing facilities which seek to be regarded as

an Exempt Source would be obliged to maintain records of their purchase of materials to ensure

compliance and continued eligibility as an Exempt Source. Relying on vendor invoices as

evidence of the amount of material purchased in a reporting period is likely the easiest and most

reliable method to account for material usage at the facilities.

The core issue then becomes what are the reasonable thresholds for purchase of VOC or

particulate matter containing materials. AASP-MN is willing to commit time and resources to

provide further advice to the Agency with respect to these reasonable thresholds. We welcome

the opportunity to participate in the upcoming rulemaking process. If you have any questions

regarding our preliminary comments, please contact the Association at (612) 623-1110 or by e-

mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Judell Anderson, CAE

Executive Director

1970 Oakcrest Avenue, Suite 102

Roseville, MN 55113

612-623-1110

www.aaspmn.org


400 Robert Street North, Suite 1500, Saint Paul, MN 55101. | 651.292.4650 | www.mnchamber.com

February 23, 2017 Mary H. Lynn Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Ms. Lynn: In December of 2016, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) announced planned

amendments to air quality rules which broadly seek to: 1) Create new categories of conditionally

exempt sources, 2) Change conditionally insignificant activities, which includes materials usage and

PM-only emitting sources, and 3) Amend the insignificant activities lists contained in Minn. R.

7007.1300. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) has members across the state of

Minnesota, many of whom hold air quality permits or are subject to air quality rules. This letter contains

the Chamber’s comments on MPCA’s proposed concepts. We look forward to engaging with you and

your staff throughout this process.

The majority of our comments at this time relate to MPCA’s proposed conceptual changes to the

treatment of Insignificant Activities (IAs) at Minn. R. 7007.1300. This first section on IAs is divided

between our thoughts on the broad concepts introduced by MPCA and our proposed solutions,

followed by other miscellaneous concerns related to IAs. Finally we have other minor comments on

conditionally exempt sources and conditionally insignificant activities.

Amendments to Insignificant Activities (IA)

1. Summary

As described in the document “MPCA Amendments to Air Quality for Exempt Source/Conditionally

Insignificant Activities Minn. R. chs. 7007 and 7008, and Other Miscellaneous Air Rules (chs. 7002, 7005,

7009, 7011, 7017, and 7019) Rule Concepts/Narrative,” and in the MPCA’s January 19, 2017, Stakeholder

Information Meeting, MPCA is considering amending the IA lists in Minn. R. 7007.1300 to “provide

greater clarity and utility in the application process.” During the stakeholder meeting, it was described

http://www.mnchamber.com/


that MPCA often feels compelled to request calculated emissions from IAs as a supplemental

information request, which can protract the permit issuance process. Further, MPCA expressed concern

that, if left unaccounted for in permit applications, emissions from IAs, when added to total emissions

from non-IAs, could inadvertently result in a permittee exceeding a permit threshold.

Broadly, we understand that MPCA intends to replace the language currently found at Minn. R.

7007.1300 Subp. 3, which provides the MPCA the discretion to require calculated emissions of certain

IAs in permit applications. MPCA plans to instead require that calculated emissions from all IAs found in

Subp. 3 be listed in all permit applications. As part of this rulemaking, we understand that MPCA would

continue to allow IAs found in Minn. R. 7007.1300 Subp. 2 to be exempt from mandatory listing and

calculation of emissions, and that activities may be moved from Subp. 2 to Subp. 3 or vice versa.

As a precursor to our response on the proposed conceptual changes to the treatment of IAs in permit

applications, we wish to note that IAs are, by their nature, insignificant and result in a comparatively

trivial proportion of the actual emissions that are released by industrial facilities in Minnesota. While

clarity on the treatment of IAs in permit applications in Minnesota can be useful to the MPCA and the

public, all efforts should be made to assure that the resultant rule language does not create

disproportionate new requirements which add compliance complexity, increase permit application

content, and extend application processing time, particularly since the actual emissions in question are,

by their nature, insignificant.

Further, if the proposed rule changes seek to address specific cases of improper permitting, the

Chamber believes resolution of those instances is best addressed via enforcement with those specific

permittees rather than sweeping rule changes which would increase overall compliance obligations.

Currently, even though Subp. 3 IA emissions are not explicitly required to be included in all permit

applications, those emissions are still considered for comparison against relevant permitting

thresholds. For this reason, it is common for synthetic minor limits to include a certain “head space”

between the limit and the relevant permitting threshold. Additionally, in many cases, emissions from

IAs are addressed by compliance requirements contained in the resulting permit. For example, total



facility limits are established on emissions or fuel usage that accounts for emissions from both emission

units and IAs.

For these reasons, we believe that the current system, in which the MPCA retains the discretion to

require inclusion of calculated emissions from IAs in permit applications, remains a workable scenario.

This existing system allows MPCA to assert greater scrutiny in instances where they have reason to

believe that the inclusion of calculated emissions from IAs may result in an exceedance of a relevant

threshold or regulatory applicability. Exercising such discretion helps avoid time-consuming and costly

development of calculated emissions for every Subp. 3 IA for all permittees, which the Chamber finds to

be unnecessary for instances that include permit actions whose emissions of non-IA emission units are

well below any relevant permitting threshold. MPCA can and should continue to use their discretion to

determine when additional supporting information is required, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

A high-level estimate of the cost and time associated with developing detailed emission calculations for

historical IAs is provided in the following section.

While the Chamber believes that a discretionary approach for Subp 3 IAs is workable, the MPCA could

consider other approaches which would streamline the permit process while guarding against improper

permitting determinations resulting from unlisted calculated emissions from IAs. A potential example is

provided in MPCA’s “capped emission permit,” which notably features two options. Facilities which

choose Option 1 are required to track emissions from IAs and have a greater actual emission cap than

facilities which choose Option 2, who may disregard tracking of actual emissions from IAs. We

recommend that MPCA consider an approach which provides options, wherein permittees are only

required to explicitly include calculated emissions for Subp. 3 IAs when calculated emissions from non-

IAs exceed a certain percent of the relevant threshold, while retaining MPCA’s discretion for sources

whose non-IA calculated emissions are less than this percent. For the purposes of providing a starting

point, the agency could select 90%. A working example of how this option could be incorporated into

Minn. R. 7007.1300 Subp. 3 below, for your consideration. (Proposed language in italic underline). The

Chamber has not fully evaluated the potential impacts of a 90% threshold and provides the example as

a point for dialogue.



“Insignificant activities required to be listed. The activities described in this subpart must be

listed in a permit application, and calculation of emissions from these activities shall be

provided if required by the agency, or when the calculated potential to emit from non-

insignificant emissions exceed greater than 90% of the applicable permitting or amendment

threshold”

2. Estimated Time and Expense for Development of Historical IA Calculated Emissions

In support of our concern related to mandatory inclusion of emission calculations for Subp. 3 IAs in all

permit applications, we developed a high-level estimate for the time and cost associated with

establishing emission calculations for historical IAs to illustrate the cost associated with this proposed

rulemaking. Based on the experience of our member companies, it is not unreasonable to estimate

around 5 person-hours per IA, which does not include the time required to discuss the activity with

other staff like facility Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) contacts and process engineers nor their

follow-up activities. The calculation of emissions from a single IA would cost hundreds of dollars to

evaluate, with costs increasing as additional people are potentially brought into the exercise. Further,

when confidential business information (CBI), such as maximum product throughput, is used to support

those calculations, it may take 2-3 times longer to develop emission calculations that can be included in

permit amendments without compromising potential trade secrets or other CBI.

3. Grandfathering of Historical IAs in Permit Reissuance Process

As described above, the Chamber believes there are better options available than mandatory inclusion

of Subp. 3 IA emissions in all permit applications. However, in the event that proposed rulemaking

results in mandatory inclusion of Subp. 3 IA emissions, these changes should be effective for IAs

installed or modified following the effective date of this rulemaking, such that any IAs in existence prior

to this rulemaking be exempted. This comment is consistent with comments the Chamber made in an

April 4, 2016 letter in response to the “Omnibus Air Rule.” This letter is attached for reference. The

development of detailed calculated emissions for historical IAs in a format appropriate for public

consumption would be time-consuming and costly for our member companies and would provide little



to no positive tangible impact to the environment. Further, it would serve to divert attention and

resources of EHS staff away from other larger, more environmentally beneficial projects.

4. Transfer of Minn. R. 7007.1300 Subp. 3 to Subp. 2

We understand that MPCA intends to review the Subp. 2 and Subp. 3 lists and potentially move certain

classes of activities from one to another. The Chamber believes that only those activities that

reasonably could result in significant emissions when aggregated should remain in Subp. 3. For

example, Minn. R. 7007.1300 Subp. 3 (A) for fuel use is limited to the aggregate of all space heaters less

than or equal to 420,000 Btu/hr. This limit on heat input capacity effectively limits potential to emit

from this category, and therefore cannot result in unlimited emissions that could change permit

threshold applicability. This is an example of a source category which arguably belongs in Subp. 2.

Throughout the process of this rulemaking, the Chamber may provide category by category review of

IAs listed in Subp. 2 and Subp. 3 to consider the most appropriate location for each.

5. Confidential Business Information

Finally, any changes to requirements for mandatory inclusion of emissions from IAs needs to be mindful of the ongoing industry concerns about the treatment of CBI. Any increase in the number of operations that are specifically listed in permit actions will result in further areas of concern around CBI, specifically, how such information is represented, and how such information is transmitted to the agency while maintaining confidentiality. The treatment of CBI is a significant concern for Chamber members and has the potential to impact a company’s profitability and longevity. Creation of New Categories of Conditionally Exempt Sources

We understand from “MPCA Amendments to Air Quality for Exempt Source/Conditionally Insignificant

Activities Minn. R. chs. 7007 and 7008, and Other Miscellaneous Air Rules (chs. 7002, 7005, 7009, 7011,

7017, and 7019) Rule Concepts/Narrative,” and the MPCA’s January 19, 2017, Stakeholder Information

Meeting that MPCA is considering expanding the “conditionally exempt” source categories in Minn. R.

7008 to include small auto body refinishing facilities and potentially considering the addition of wood

finishing shops.



To this list, we ask that the MPCA consider addition of Conditionally Exempt Source category for

Research and Development (R&D). Actual emissions from R&D facilities are very small due to the

intermittent nature of R&D, while there can be significant burden to quantifying potential to emit due

to the novel nature of many R&D applications. As with other categories considered for the

“conditionally exempt” source categories potential emissions can be quite large when compared to

actual emissions. Further, R&D-type projects are typically time sensitive and responsive to fast-

changing market forces, thus the state of Minnesota could help facilitate R&D and related economic

growth in this state by working with industry to better streamline the permitting and related

exemptions of R&D activities in the state, to the benefit of the Minnesota economy.

Change conditionally insignificant activities: Materials Usage and PM-only Emitting Activities.

We understand from “MPCA Amendments to Air Quality for Exempt Source/Conditionally Insignificant

Activities Minn. R. chs. 7007 and 7008, and Other Miscellaneous Air Rules (chs. 7002, 7005, 7009, 7011,

7017, and 7019) Rule Concepts/Narrative,” and the MPCA’s January 19, 2017 Stakeholder Information

Meeting that MPCA seeks to make changes to conditional insignificant activities in Minn. R. 7008.4000,

to better establish federal enforceability and add numerical limitations.

We have concern about discussion of calculation of potential to emit from PM-emitting sources that are

controlled by pollution control equipment and vent indoors. Emissions that are well-controlled and vent

indoors result in little to no emissions to the outside atmosphere. Further, various Industrial Hygiene

standards dictate indoor air quality standards that are often more stringent than what would be

required if such operations are vented externally. If federally enforceable conditions are required for

such PM emitting activities, we request that MPCA focus on work practice standards such as routine

maintenance on control equipment or operation consistent with control equipment manufacturer’s

requirements as opposed to numerical limits on emissions from the source category.

Finally, based on the language of rule concepts narrative, we understand that MPCA is considering

narrowing the applicability of the conditionally insignificant activities to “finishing operations.” As

described in our April 4, 2016, letter in response to the “Omnibus Air Rule,” we feel that such a



language change would needlessly limit the potential uses of this category. This letter is attached for

reference.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment and participate in this rulemaking. The Chamber

and its members are available for further consultation as the rulemaking proceeds.

Sincerely,

Tony Kwilas

Director, Environmental Policy


this file contains documents relevant to the mpca ...them in chapter 7008 have been used for two...

Documents