Section Break

Comments in opposition:

1. Comment on attainment status for Southeast Michigan nonattainment area

October 26, 2022

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Karll, Kelly C <

@semcog.org>

Wednesday, October 26, 2022 4:43 PM

McDonald, Tracey (EGLE); Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

Karll, Kelly C

Subject:

Attachments:

SEMCOG Comment on Proposed Part 6 Rules

SEMCOG_PublicComment_Part6APCRules26Oct2022.pdf

Categories:

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Trace,

Attached please find SEMCOG comments on the proposed RACT rules.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Have a great day!

Thanks,

Kelly

Kelly Karll, PE

Manager, Environment & Infrastructure

(cell)

@semcog.org

1001 Woodward Avenue, Suite 1400

Detroit, MI 48226

Main: 313-961-4266

Visit: www.semcog.org

To help

protect your

privacy,

Micro

Office

prevented

aut matic

download of

hispict re

from the

In ernet.

soft

o

t

u

t

1

October 26, 2022

Trace McDonald

Environmental Engineer

Air Quality Division

SIP Development Unit

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy

RE: Proposed Revisions to Part 6 of Michigan’s Air Pollution Control Rules

Dear Mr. McDonald:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed revisions to Part 6 of

Michigan’s Air Pollution Control Rules.

The Part 6 revisions, as currently drafted, will impact many sources in Michigan’s current ozone

nonattainment areas, which includes SEMCOG’s entire seven-county region.

As we continue to encourage a favorable response by EPA to redesignate the SEMCOG region to

attainment for ozone, we recognize the State’s need to move forward with the proposed Part 6

revisions that require Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) at specific sources. We

understand that the proposed RACT rules are required if EPA issues an unfavorable decision and

bumps the region up to moderate ozone nonattainment.

Because the RACT rules are specific to moderate ozone nonattainment areas, we request that if

EPA redesignates the area to attainment, that these proposed rules would not go into effect. Please

consider rescinding these proposed rules following a favorable ozone attainment decision by EPA.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Kelly Karll, PE

Manager, Environment and Infrastructure

1001 Woodward Ave., Suite 1400 • Detroit, Michigan 48226 • (313) 961-4266 • Fax (313) 961-4869 • semcog.org

Chris Barnett

Chairperson

Supervisor,

Mandy Grewal

Vice Chairperson

Supervisor,

Laura Kropp

Vice Chairperson

Mayor,

Jason Morgan

Vice Chairperson

Commissioner,

Pauline Repp

Vice Chairperson

Mayor,

Eric Sabree

Vice Chairperson

Treasurer,

Donald Hubler

Immediate Past Chair

Secretary,

Amy O’Leary

Executive Director

Orion Township

Pittsfield Township

Mount Clemens

Washtenaw County

City of Port Huron

Wayne County

Macomb ISD

Section Break

Other Comments:

Mixed comments in support and opposition

3. October 25, 2022

Household & Commercial Products Association

Nicholas Georges

Comments requesting partial revisions

4. October 12, 2022

Fishbeck

Lillian Woolley

5. October 19, 2022

American Coatings Association

Rhett Cash

6. October 19, 2022

O’Leary Paint

David O’Leary

7. October 26, 2022

Michigan Oil and Gas Association

Jason Geer

8. October 26, 2022

Michigan Manufacturers Association

Caroline Liethen

9. October 26, 2022

Consumers Energy

Kathryn Ross

10. October 26, 2022

Willert Home Products, Inc.

Troy Cummings

11. October 26, 2022

RadTech International

Rita Loof

12. October 26, 2022

Saint Clair Systems

Michael Bonner

13. October 25, 2022

PRINTING United Alliance

Gary Jones

14. October 11, 2022

PRINTING United Alliance

Gary Jones

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

To:

Nicholas Georges <

Tuesday, October 25, 2022 6:02 PM

McDonald, Tracey (EGLE)

@thehcpa.org>

Cc:

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE); Carrie Brown

2022-18 EQ

Outlook-cidimage00; HCPA Comments on Part 6 VOC RACT Proposal.pdf

Subject:

Attachments:

Categories:

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Dear Mr. McDonald,

The Household & Commercial Products Association appreciates the opportunity to provide the attached

comments. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or would like to discuss our

letter. We look forward to participating in tomorrow's hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

Nicholas Georges

Senior Vice President, Scientific & International Affairs

Household & Commercial Products Association

1667 K Street NW, Suite 300 | Washington, DC 20006

Direct: 202-833-7304 - Office: 202-872-8110

XPAND2022

HCPA’s Annual Meeting

December 4-7 | Fort Lauderdale, FL

REGISTER TODAY

Watch HCPA’s membership video

HCPA is Here to Protect Your Business and Promote Your Story

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message (including any attachments or hyperlinks) contains strictly confidential information from the

Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) and is solely intended for the named recipient(s). This e-mail may contain information that is

1

confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this

communication is prohibited and may be unlawful.

2

October 25, 2022

via electronic transmission

Trace McDonald

Environmental Engineer

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy

Air Quality Division

SIP Development Unit

525 West Allegan Street

Lansing, MI 48933

Subject:

Part 6 VOC RACT Public Comment - 2022

Dear Mr. McDonald,

The Household & Commercial Products Association¹(HCPA) appreciates the opportunity to offer

comments to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) on their

proposed rules for the implementation of reasonably available control technology (RACT) for

sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Among the RACT controls for VOCs are rules²for

consumer products. HCPA’s comments will be focused on the consumer products regulations.

HCPA supports the long-standing commitment by EGLE to adopt regulatory provisions that are

consistent with other states that have adopted more stringent volatile organic compound (VOC)

limits for consumer products than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) National

Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer and Commercial Products.³The

proposed amendments are based on the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 2012 Model Rule for

Consumer Products⁴(hereinafter referred to as “Phase IV OTC Model Rule”), updating from the

OTC 2006 Model Rule for Consumer Products⁵(hereinafter referred to as “Phase II OTC Model

Rule”), and includes the 2013 technical update. The comments that HCPA provides are intended

to identify revisions that will enhance consistency with the OTC Model Rule and the final consumer

¹The Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) is the premier trade association representing companies

that manufacture and sell $180 billion annually of trusted and familiar products used for cleaning, protecting,

maintaining, and disinfecting homes and commercial environments. HCPA member companies employ 200,000 people

in the U.S. whose work helps consumers and workers to create cleaner, healthier and more productive lives.

²Mich. Ann. Code R. 336.1660 and 336.1661

³40 CFR Part 59 Subpart C

⁴The text of the fourth OTC Model Rule for Consumer Products can be found at

https://otcair.org/upload/Documents/Model%20Rules/OTC%20CP%20Model%20Rule%202012%20CLEAN_vs2010.20

12%2005%2010.pdf

⁵The text of the second OTC Model Rule for Consumer Products can be found at

https://otcair.org/upload/Documents/Model%20Rules/OTC%20Consumer%20Products%20Final%20MR1.doc

1667 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006 | 202-872-8110 | www.theHCPA.org

Part 6 VOC RACT Public Comment - 2022

October 25, 2022

Page 2 of 5

products regulations promulgated by Colorado,⁶Connecticut,⁷Delaware,⁸Maryland,⁹New

Hampshire,¹⁰New York,¹¹Ohio,¹²Rhode Island,¹³and Utah.¹⁴

Statement of Interest

HCPA member companies manufacture and market more than two-thirds of the broad product

categories governed by both EGLE’s current regulation and the potential amendments.

Comments

A. HCPA supports adoption of regionally consistent consumer products regulations based on

the OTC Model Rule.

For over 20 years, HCPA has supported – and continues to support – the efforts by the OTC to

develop a workable regional regulatory framework for states to achieve technologically and

commercially feasible reductions that are necessary to demonstrate compliance with State

Implementation Plan (SIP) commitments.

HCPA participated as an active stakeholder in the previous rulemaking proceedings conducted by

the EGLE, provided comments to EGLE in April 2022 on the draft rules and related guidance, and is

on record as supporting the current Michigan consumer products regulation and the other final

state regulations that are based on the Phase IV OTC Model Rule or the Phase II OTC Model Rule.¹⁵

HCPA supports these regulations because consistent regional regulatory standards achieve

significant improvements in air quality without impeding interstate commerce.

⁶5 CCR 1001-25 (took effect on May 1, 2020).

https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=8227&fileName=5%20CCR%201001-25

⁷Conn. Agencies Regs. § 22a-174-40 (took effect May 1, 2018).

https://eregulations.ct.gov/eRegsPortal/Browse/RCSA/Title_22aSubtitle_22a-174Section_22a-174-40/

⁸7 DE Admin. Code 1141 § 2 (took effect January 1, 2017).

https://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title7/1000/1100/1141.pdf

⁹COMAR § 26.11.32 (took effect January 1, 2018). http://mdrules.elaws.us/comar/26.11.32

¹⁰N.H. Code Admin. Env-A 4100 (took effect January 1, 2017).

https://www.des.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt341/files/documents/2020-01/Env-A%204100.pdf

¹¹N.Y. Comp. Codes R & Regs. Title 6, Ch. III Subpt. 235 (took effect January 1, 2022).

https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/adopted235.pdf

¹²Ohio Admin. Code Chapter 3745-112 et seq. (took effect June 22, 2022). https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-

administrative-code/chapter-3745-112

¹³250-RICR-120-05-31 (took effect Jan. 1, 2020). https://rules.sos.ri.gov/regulations/part/250-120-05-31

¹⁴Utah Admin. Code R307-357 (took effect September 1, 2014). https://adminrules.utah.gov/public/search/R307-

357/Current%20Rules

¹⁵Other states with VOC regulations for consumer products based on the Phase II OTC Model Rule include Illinois,

Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia

Part 6 VOC RACT Public Comment - 2022

October 25, 2022

Page 3 of 5

B. HCPA supports rescinding Rule 661.

The draft proposal is to rescind Rule 661, definitions for consumer products. HCPA supports this

action so that the definitions for the Consumer Products Rules are within the same section as the

other provisions.

C. HCPA requests that the proposed rules become effective one year after the date of

publication of the final rules.

As currently written, it is unclear when the EGLE would transition from the OTC Phase II Model

Rule to the OTC Phase IV Model Rule. It would appear as though EGLE would stop using the OTC

Phase II Model Rule on January 1, 2023, then have a period of a few months for which the U.S.

EPA’s regulation would apply, and on May 1, 2023, EGLE would utilize the OTC Phase IV Model

Rule. HCPA requests that these dates be updated such that it is clear to the regulated community

when EGLE would seamlessly transition from the OTC Phase II Model Rule to the OTC Phase IV

Model Rule. Further, HCPA requests a compliance date be one year after the date of publication

of the final regulation to ensure sufficient time.

Many HCPA member companies manufacture and market products on a nationwide basis and

thus, these products already comply with the comparable VOC limits mandated by the current

California regulation. However, other HCPA member companies that manufacture and/or

distribute products on a regional basis need a reasonable amount of time to:

•

Reformulate products to comply with the new VOC limits, conduct stability testing, efficacy

testing and make the necessary changes to product labels and other documents such as

Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) and Technical Data Sheets (TDSs); and/or,

•

Make necessary changes in product distribution channels to ensure compliant products are

supplied to retailers and distributors.

Reformulating products and changing distribution systems is an expensive process. Moreover,

there are instances in which proposed federal and state regulations (impacting other issues not

related to VOC regulations) have been withdrawn, postponed and altered unexpectedly –

sometimes at the last minute. Consequently, companies do not expend time and money to

reformulate products or to restructure distribution networks to comply with new regulations until

these requirements have binding legal effect.

For the reasons stated above, the proposed compliance date of May 1, 2023, would not provide

sufficient time for many regional and small product manufacturers and marketers to formulate (or

reformulate) products or to make necessary changes in distribution channels to comply with the

new/revised VOC limits and other provisions of the amended regulation. Therefore, HCPA

requests a compliance date be at least one year after the date of publication of the final regulation

to ensure sufficient time.

Part 6 VOC RACT Public Comment - 2022

October 25, 2022

Page 4 of 5

D. HCPA supports EGLE’s decision to use the federal definition of a “Volatile Organic

Compound”.

HCPA appreciates EGLE’s use of the federal definition¹⁶for “Volatile Organic Compound”. By using

the federal definition, EGLE automatically ensures that the definition of a VOC is consistent with

the EPA and other states that use the federal definition whenever a new compound is exempted

from the definition.

E. HCPA requests an exclusion for “Solid Air Fresheners” which use PDCB.

HCPA thanks EGLE for providing an exclusion for which “Toilet/Urinal Care Products” containing

not less than 98% para-dichlorobenzene (PDCB). This proposed exclusion is similar to the

exclusion granted by several other states,¹⁷either explicitly as is the case with this proposal or by

excluding the standards for “Toilet/Urinal Care Products”.

For similar reasons, HCPA also requests an exclusion for “Solid Air Fresheners” which contain at

least 98% PDCB. PDCB is a non-agricultural, non-food use pesticide with primary uses related to:

(1) controlling moths and carpet beetles; and (2) to deodorize restrooms and waste containers.

PDCB does not contribute significantly to ozone formation, yet the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) prohibited¹⁸its use in “Solid Air Fresheners” due to its potential of being a carcinogen. This

prohibition carried into the OTC Model Rules, yet after the publication of the Phase II OTC Model

Rule, EPA found¹⁹that:

In accordance with the EPA’s Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk

Assessment (March 2007), the CARC classified para-dichlorobenzene as “Not

Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on evidence that a non-

mutagenic mode of action (MOA) involving mitogenesis was established for

para-dichlorobenzene induced liver tumors in mice and that the

carcinogenic effects are not likely below a defined dose that does not

perturb normal liver homeostasis (e.g., increased liver cell proliferation).

While the Phase IV OTC Model Rule was not updated to reflect EPA’s more recent determination

regarding the hazardous nature of PDCB, HCPA asks that EGLE provides an exemption for “Solid Air

Fresheners” containing at least 98% PDCB.

Conclusion

HCPA appreciates the opportunity to provide this letter to EGLE on the proposed rules for the

implementation of RACT for sources of VOCs. HCPA is on record in Michigan and 16 other states

(and the District of Columbia) as supporting regulations that are consistent with the OTC Model

¹⁶40 CFR § 51.100(s)

¹⁷Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Utah

¹⁸CARB’s Final Statement of Reasons on PDCB can be found at

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/conprod/fsor.pdf

¹⁹EPA. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Para-dichlorobenzene. Sept. 2007. Found at

https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/red_PC-061501_28-Sep-07.pdf

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

To:

Woolley, Lillian

@fishbeck.com>

Friday, October 14, 2022 3:55 PM

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE); McDonald, Tracey (EGLE)

VOC Rules?

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Follow up

Completed

Categories:

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Hi,

We are putting some comments together and I noticed a reference to “ (3) Subrule (2) of this rule notwithstanding,

and as an alternative to the allowable emission rate established by table 63, the existing paper coating lines at

Fletcher pPaper cCompany of Alpena may comply with subrule (2) of this rule by not exceeding a volatile

organic compound emission rate of 180 tons per calendar year and 30 tons per calendar month. “ in Rule

610. Can it be eliminated? I do not believe this facility exists anymore. It was abandoned several years ago. I think it was

located at 318 Fletcher Street in Alpena if you want to look it up.

Lillian L. Woolley, PE | Senior Chemical Engineer

Fishbeck | w: 248.324.4785 | c:

| Fishbeck.com

1

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

To:

Rhett Cash <

Wednesday, October 19, 2022 4:13 PM

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

@paint.org>

Cc:

McDonald, Tracey (EGLE)

Part 6 VOC RACT Public Comment - 2022 (ACA Comments)

ACA Comments - MI EGLE VOC Rule Package.pdf

Subject:

Attachments:

Categories:

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Hi Marissa –

Please see attached for ACA’s comments on Michigan EGLE’s proposed VOC RACT Rule (Part 6). Thank you for your

consideration of our comments and let me know if you have any questions or require additional clarification. Have a

great rest of the week!

All the best,

Rhett

Rhett Cash ▪ American Coatings Association ▪ Counsel, Government Affairs

202.719.3680 (o) |

(c) |

@paint.org | www.paint.org

901 New York Avenue NW ▪ Suite 300 West ▪ Washington, DC 20001

Coatings protect. Coatings preserve. Coatings provide.

1

October 26, 2022

Ms. Marissa Vaerten

Environmental Quality Analyst

Air Quality Division, SIP Development Unit

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy

525 W Allegan St.

Lansing, MI 48933

RE:

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Proposed VOC RACT Rule

(Part 6); ACA Comments

Dear Ms. Vaerten:

The American Coatings Association (ACA) submits the following comments to the Michigan Department of

Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (MI EGLE) regarding its proposed VOC RACT Rule (Part 6). ACA is a

voluntary, nonprofit trade association working to advance the needs of the paint and coatings industry and the

professionals who work in it. The organization represents paint and coatings manufacturers, raw materials

suppliers, distributors, and technical professionals. ACA serves as an advocate and ally for members on

legislative, regulatory, and judicial issues, and provides forums for the advancement and promotion of the

industry through educational and professional development services. ACA appreciates the opportunity to

comment on the proposal and looks forward to working with MI EGLE throughout the rulemaking process.

Compliance Date

ACA requests that MI EGLE adopt a compliance date of one year from the date of adoption of a final rule for

the various coatings rules included in the proposed VOC RACT Rule (Part 6). The proposed compliance date of

1/1/2023 is unreasonable and impractical. As a general matter, ACA members require sufficient lead time to

adjust formulations and supply chain processes in order to ensure compliance with new VOC limits, labeling,

and reporting requirements. The proposed 1/1/2023 compliance date will not allow the coatings industry

sufficient time to adjust production, labeling, and distribution networks to efficiently and effectively

implement the new rule’s requirements.

Manufacturers, distributors, and retail stores employ extensive computer systems that require upgrades to

incorporate new formulations and ensure non-compliant products are not sold into jurisdictions with new VOC

limits. Furthermore, manufacturing and labeling costs are generally expensive, and coatings manufacturers

tend to manage formulation changes to their products to minimize costs stemming from obsolete products

and labels. Additionally, manufacturers will need sufficient time to properly communicate these changes to

their distributors and retail customers to ensure compliance with new VOC limits. Finally, most companies wait

until a rule is finalized and its requirements are certain before implementing changes to ensure compliance

because it helps minimize costs. This means that companies will not implement changes during the early parts

of a rulemaking and will need adequate time after finalization of a new rule to make appropriate changes. As

such, industry typically needs at least a year to properly implement the necessary changes to comply with the

new rule’s requirements.

901 New York Avenue, NW – Suite 300 West | Washington, DC 20001 | 202-462-6272

Given MI EGLE’s proposed compliance dates of 1/1/2023 and the need for industry to have adequate lead time

for implementation and compliance, ACA respectfully requests that the Department change the compliance

dates in the proposal to one year after the date of adoption of a final rule.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any

questions or require additional clarification.

Sincerely,

Rhett Cash

Counsel, Government Affairs

**Submitted via email**

2

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

To:

David O'Leary <

@olearypaint.com>

Wednesday, October 19, 2022 12:02 PM

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE); McDonald, Tracey (EGLE)

OTC Phase II concerns

Subject:

Categories:

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Marissa Stegman,

Trace McDonald,

I’d like to weigh in on the challenges that a move to OTC Phase II at this particular point in time raises which it makes it

basically impossible for our company to comply with in the timeframe suggested.



Passanno Paint (a 96 year old family business) in New York State actually was forced to stop

manufacturing altogether when they couldn’t formulate fast enough to meet the new regulations, and

we’d like to avoid that scenario ourselves.



We currently have over 700 active formulas which have been developed over decades, a sudden

reformulation isn’t feasible with the size of our staff and effort that would be involved.

We have a significant monetary investment in current inventory of labels that would become worthless

with a sudden change, which would also be true for some raw materials.

Timing. Because of the Texas Deep Freeze/Covid/Supply Chain Issues, our primary Resin suppliers have

called “Forced Majeure” and canceled supply contracts and put customers on allocation, with just a

fraction of last years volume available, and no new customers or new products.

Many products will require new technology resin to achieve a workable product at this new VOC limit,

we don’t have access to this new resin until supply comes back and Force Majeure is lifted.

The logical step from the current AIM standard would be to go to OTC Phase I, we have been assuming

that would be the next step and our preparation has been with that in mind, we obviously misjudged

but isn’t that a logical progression.



Our specific request in order of preference would be:



Make OTC Phase I the first step, followed up with OTC Phase II at a future date.

Carve out an exclusion for O’Leary Paint because of our very unique circumstances.

Carve out an exclusion for O’Leary Paint based on OTC Phase I rather than Phase II.

Carve out an exclusion to OTC Phase I, for a Michigan Manufacturer.

Carve out an exclusion for small producer (under 2,000,000 gallons)

We appreciate your mission and the difficult position you are in trying to reasonably balance goals and results that could

have significant impact on people and companies.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me if I can clarify anything, or if you need additional information.

David O’Leary

1

President O’Leary Paint

@olearypaint.com

300 E. Oakland Ave.

Lansing, MI 48906

2

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

Jason Geer

Wednesday, October 26, 2022 4:13 PM

@michiganoilandgas.org>

To:

Cc:

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE); McDonald, Tracey (EGLE)

Kownacki, Alec (EGLE); Eric Johnson; 'J. Scott Huber'; Tim Baker

MOGA's Part 6 Public Comments

Subject:

Attachments:

MOGA Public Comment on Part 6 - CTG Proposed Regulations 10-26-2022.pdf

Categories:

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Marissa and Trace:

Please find attached the Michigan Oil and Gas Association’s comments on EGLE’s part 6 draft rules.

These comments were prepared by Eric Johnson and Scott Huber, so please feel free to reach out to them or myself if

you have any questions.

Please confirm receipt.

Thanks,

Jason Geer

Michigan Oil and Gas Association

C:

1

October 26, 2022

Alec Kownacki

Meteorologist

Air Quality Division

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy

kownackiA@michigan.gov

Re:

Crude Oil and Natural Gas Industry’s Input to Part 6

Emission Limitation and Prohibition

Existing Sources of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions

Dear Mr. Kownacki:

The Michigan Oil and Gas Association (MOGA) is providing this document as a 2nd public

comment response to the proposed Part 6 rules. MOGA had provided a public response on June

16, 2022 and wishes to provide additional discussion and clarity related to the current Part 6

proposal.

MOGA is primarily concerned with the potential impact to marginal wells and the producers

managing these wells. By definition, marginal wells produce 15 Barrels of Oil Equivalent per

day (BOED) or less. The term “marginal” relates to the reduced income margins that impact the

longevity and potential recovery of remaining resources. In many cases, these marginal wells

receive a special exemption from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to reduce tax burdens to

allow for continued production and prevent wasteful actions. Per section MCL 324.61504 of

Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of 1994, the State of

Michigan prohibits “waste”. “Waste” represents the would be plugging and abandonment of

otherwise sustainable marginal production wells prematurely and before all viable production

can be extracted. MOGA is concerned that additional regulations placed on existing marginal

wells will exacerbate early plugging and abandonment. Early plugging and abandonment of

producing wells not only affects the price of energy, but also impact beneficial government and

social programs within the State of Michigan.

Early plugging and abandonment of marginal wells would impact the Michigan Natural

Resources Trust Fund’s (MNRTF) ability to purchase recreational lands, build facilities, create

bike paths and trails and maintain current and future public land assets. On November 6, 1984,

Michigan residents voted on Proposal B which amended our State Constitution to direct “oil, gas,

and other mineral lease and royalty payments” to be placed into the MNRTF. The vast majority

of Michigan’s oil and gas wells are considered marginal wells and as residents of the State of

Michigan, MOGA is concerned that response to #13 of the required and completed Regulatory

Impact Statement (RIS) for “Changes to R336.1601 – R336.1662” does not address the potential

impacts to “revenue to other state or local governmental units”.

Regarding the required and completed RIS “Changes to R336.1601 – R336.1662”, MOGA

believes that the State of Michigan has not adequately addressed RIS questions #18 through #27

relating to the potential impacts to Small Businesses. The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) indicates that 98-99% of all US oil and gas production companies meet the definition of a

small business. This percentage aligns with Michigan’s producers and operators. MOGA is

providing a brief synopsis to illustrate our concerns with statements made in the RIS through the

following examples: Question #19A indicates small businesses “will need to increase

recordkeeping”. This statement does not align with costly proposed Optical Gas Imaging (OGI)

survey and stack-testing requirements listed in Part 6 proposed Sections R336.1640 through

R336.1644. The response to Question #20 of the RIS indicated “There is no known

disproportionate impact on small businesses due to these rules” is completely false. Part 6

proposed rules will adversely impact 98-99% of Michigan’s oil and gas producers. The response

to Question #24 of the RIS states; “The rules revision are required by the USEPA and therefore

must be met by all affected sources at whatever cost is necessary”. MOGA does not agree with

this statement as all governmental agencies are required to provide a cost-benefit analysis to

justify regulatory endeavors, especially when regulations will disproportionately impact small

businesses.

MOGA staff has been working with State of Michigan staff since the EPA’s publication of

“Control Technique Guideline for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry” in October of 2016 and the

subsequent “Reasonable Available Control Technology Analysis for Volatile Organic

Compounds” prepared by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy

(EGLE) in January of 2020. The EGLE document summarized the State of Michigan’s analysis

to determine “what changes would potentially need to be made to Michigan’s Air Pollution

Control Rules Part 6”. Table 1 listed “Oil and Natural Gas Industry – Compound Leaks from

Petroleum Refinery Equipment” as a Top 10 Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) based on

VOC Emissions in Michigan. For clarification, upstream oil and gas production is not a

petroleum refinery and is a completely different industry segment. On pages 7 and 8 of EGLE’s

analysis report under the “Potential Negative Declarations” title heading, the State of Michigan

indicated that “Further Analysis” was needed for industry segments listed under Table 5 titled

“CTG Categories requiring further analysis”. Under Table 5, “Oil and Natural Gas Industry –

Dependent on specific equipment, please see CTG” was listed as requiring further analysis. Per

the report, categories listed under Table 5 had the potential to receive a “negative declaration”

indicating that “CTG would not have any meaningful reductions to VOC emissions at facilities

in the NAA”. Prior to the covid-19 crisis, MOGA staff had many discussions with EGLE staff

via phone calls and email communication indicating a likelihood of a “negative declaration” on

source categories, beginning with oil storage tanks. Unfortunately, covid-19 disrupted

discussions and progress working towards a “deeper analysis” of oil and natural gas emissions

sources outlined in the EGLE’s report. As covid-19 fears subsided, MOGA staff resumed

discussions with a different group of EGLE staff members. MOGA is concerned that “further

analysis” has not been properly conducted and will likely request evidence to substantiate

EGLE’s “deeper analysis” of individually proposed Part 6 regulations based on statements made

in the RIS, previous work endeavors and communications with EGLE staff and the required

analysis proposed in the EGLE’s January 2020 document.

The following information was initially submitted in MOGA’s June 16, 2022 public comment

statement and is being re-submitted because of the validity and pertinence to the proposed Part 6

regulations.

MOGA collected the following information and provided the following discussion to help define

and outline the scope and applicability of the proposed Part 6 rules and to further explain

MOGA’s concerns. Responses #1 through #4 pertain to marginal wells and the necessity to have

a marginal well exemption. The Responses #5 through #40 pertain directly to specific proposed

Part 6 Rules and Subrules.

1) MOGA felt that beginning with a stepwise explanation of the importance of marginal well

exemption was beneficial to our discussion. Below is a list of the following

nonattainment counties and a count of the oil and natural gas producing wells located in

each county:

County

Allegan

Producing wells

70 (est.)

Berrien

0

Livingston

Macomb

Monroe

Muskegon

Oakland

St. Clair

Washtenaw

Wayne

13

2

0

10

13

35

40

7

TOTAL

190

Michigan has roughly 14,000 oil and gas wells. Of the 14,000 oil and gas wells, roughly

90% of the wells meet the definition of a marginal well. Of the approximately 14,000 oil

and gas wells in Michigan, roughly 190 producing wells are located in the nonattainment

counites. Of the roughly 190 wells in the nonattainment areas, approximately 75% or

more meet the definition of a “marginal well”.

A “marginal well” is defined as a well that operates with small economic return or profit

margin based on this formula; Production Revenue minus Fixed & Variable Operating

Expenditures = Small or “Marginal” Returns.

For this reason, a “Marginal Well” is defined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a

well that produces 15 barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) or less per day.

2) To determine whether a well meets the IRS definition of “marginal well”, the BOE can be

calculated using the following constants and illustrated by the two production examples:

Barrel of Oil (Bbl)

6000 standard cubic feet (scf) of Natural Gas

=

1 BOE

Production Example #1:

9 Bbls of Oil + 36000 scf Natural Gas = 15 BOE/day

To scale the amount of natural gas produced, 36,000 scf = 36 mscf. “mscf” is Thousand

Standard Cubic Feet and is the volume typically used in equipment operation and the

commodities market for sale. At an average natural gas rate of $4.00 per mscf, the above

well would generate $144.00 dollars per day from natural gas production.

Most of Michigan’s marginal wells make far less than the above example. The typical

marginal well in Michigan is calculated below:

Production Example #2:

2.3 Bbls of Oil + 1700 scf of Natural Gas = 2.58 BOE/day

To scale the amount of natural gas produced by a typical marginal well in Michigan,

1700 scf = 1.7 mscf. At an average natural gas rate of $4.00 per mscf, the above well

would generate $6.80 dollars per day from natural gas production.

The two production examples above highlight MOGA’s concern over the cost of

implementation of regulations versus the derived benefit. The amount of potential

emissions from marginal wells is minute compared to the cost of implementation, derived

environmental benefit and potential long-term impact to energy prices.

3) MOGA applauds the EGLE’s recognition of MOGA’s concerns regarding marginal wells

and the proposed exemption from fugitive emissions monitoring outlined in

R336.1644(a)(2) & (a)(3) of the proposed Part 6 Rules, but has additional operational

concerns related to lack of marginal well exemption in the remaining proposed segments

listed in R336.1640 through R336.1643.

Proposed Part 6 Rules, R336.1640 through R336.1643 do not provide exemption for

marginal wells with 15 BOE/day or less production or as stated in R336.1644(a)(3),

“Have gas to oil ratios of less than 300 standard cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil

produced”. These exemptions must be extended to proposed Part 6 Rules, R336.1640

through R336.1643 for the following reasons:

a) Existing marginal wells often do not produce enough gas to maintain a continuous

pilot on an enclosed combustor, combustion device or process units. This means that

a marginal well site or facility located in the nonattainment area would be required

to purchase propane to maintain a pilot on a control device because the well site or

facility does not produce enough natural gas on its own to maintain a continuous

pilot light. This would cause more VOC hydrocarbon emissions than the well site

alone would produce. In effect, the proposed control of emissions from sources at a

marginal well site would increase the amount of VOC emissions rather than reduce

emissions.

b) All Conventional Wells (non-marginal wells) decline rapidly over a short period of

time. Contrary to popular belief, you cannot “turn the pumps on” or “increase

production” from a depleting resource. Initially, conventional wells have the profit

margins and oil/natural gas volumes to meet the standards in the proposed Part 6

Rules. MOGA does not dispute the attempt to control emissions from conventional

wells with higher production and higher correlated emission potential. However,

once a well reaches the operational threshold of 15 BOE/day, potential emissions

drop to a point where proposed Part 6 regulations shown in R336.1640 through

R336.1643 cannot be met.

Below is real-life scenario from a Michigan producing company related to

implementation of Subpart OOOOa regulations (very similar to proposed CTG

regulations) and the absolute need for an off-ramp and exemption once a well

reaches 15 BOE/day status:

A small entity oil and gas producer in Michigan was subject to Subpart OOOOa

regulations for tank emissions. The well and production facility utilized a flare to

reduce tank emissions by 95%. The well experienced a rapid production decline

and ultimately reached “dead oil” status in a couple years. The well no longer

produced enough gas to keep a constant pilot on the flare burning to meet the

Subpart OOOOa regulations for the tank battery with minimal working, standing

and breathing losses. In order to continue producing the now marginal well

while meeting the required Subpart OOOOa regulations, the small entity

purchased and installed a propane tank to keep the pilot light burning. Over

time, the cost of conducting semi-annual LDAR surveys, purchasing propane to

keep a flare pilot lit and reporting costs for minimal to no tank emissions led the

small entity producer to plug the well even though the well would likely produce

at a marginal status for many more years at a constant rate below 15 BOE/day.

The above scenarios illustrate the importance of a regulation “off-ramp” for marginal

wells through exemption. It is worth pointing out that like reason #1 above, this real-life

scenario also emitted more hydrocarbons during its production life via purchasing and

burning propane to keep a pilot light lit than the facility would have emitted on its own.

Unfortunately, the well mentioned above and many more like it have been plugged with

the correlated lack of production contributing to the higher energy and gasoline prices.

4) To further illustrate the importance of a marginal well exemptions, MOGA is providing a

cost breakdown of a marginal wells recently submitted to the EPA during a public

comment period. The data shows how razor-thin the operating margins are for marginal

wells. The table also conveys the impact of OOOOa regulatory impacts to the

operational viability of marginal oil and gas wells in Michigan.

The well scenario depicted above would result in a plugged well unless a regulatory

exemption is allowed. MOGA cannot overstate how important marginal well exemption

is to the economic viability and continued operation of marginal wells in the Michigan

Basin. Without these exemptions, many of 190 producing wells in the nonattainment

areas will likely be plugged and further exacerbate the escalating energy prices.

5) Part 6 title should include in the description “Located in Non-Attainment Areas” because

throughout the rules the non-attainment counties are referred to and nothing is addressed

in the attainment counties.

MOGA is presenting the following individual analysis of applicable proposed Part 6 rules and

regulations.

General Comments:

1) Rule 601(e)&(f)&(h) – The petroleum industry is segregated into three (3) segments.

They are referred to Upstream (for the production of commodities within the formations

found below ground level), Mid-stream (for the processing, separation and conditioning

of crude oil and natural gas) and Downstream (for the distribution of the final conditioned

resources for manufacturing and utility distribution). The definitions for Rule

601(e)&(f)&(h) should reflect the designations for clarity throughout the Rule.

2) Rule 601(i) – There are only three (3) segments in the industry. Comment #2 reflects the

segregation.

3) Rule 602(2) – In the subsections pertaining to the upstream production and refining

(1622, 1623, 1629 and 1640), reference within these sections calls upon 1602 for clarity,

but Rule 602(2) refers back to the rule mentioned, thus there is a “closed loop” allowing

some reference but no conclusions.

4) Rule 602(4)(ii) – As written this subsection is unclear.

5) Rule 622 & 623 – Upstream production engineers and operators do not have a

comprehensive understanding of the refinery trains and the control schemes for operating

fractionation, along with product storage within the plant area (floating roof tanks).

MOGA will contact a company which operates refineries for comments on this section.

6) Rule 629 – MOGA will contact straddle plant operators and/or gas storage companies for

comments on this rule.

7) From Rule 629 to 639; none of these proposed regulations have applications for crude oil

and natural gas production.

8) Within any of the remaining rules for crude oil and natural gas production (640, 641, 642,

643 and 644) there are references to “2015 ozone nonattainment areas.” Is there any

current (2020-2021) information highlighting the implementation of current federal

regulations standards beginning in 2012? Current information about VOC and ozone

emissions will support efforts by our industry to reduce environmental impacts. Eight

years of no reporting or changes appears to be unreasonable.

R336.1640 - Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing storage vessels in the oil

and natural gas industry located in the 2015 ozone nonattainment areas.

1) 336.1640(3)(a) – How is this calculated? Each storage vessel evaluated separately?

Production from multiple wells entering a facility through a header system with tank

batteries having equilibrium piping and vapor collection system. The practice would be to

divide PTE for production to a tank battery by the number of tanks connected to the

shared vapor headspace and equilibrium piping. Note: These questions and comments

were provided to AQD in the June 16, 2022 letter.

2) 336.1640(3)(b) – “Storage vessels with uncontrolled actual organic compound emissions

of less than 4 tons per 12-month rolling average.” Note: any further explanation makes

this subpart confusing. The shortness of the explanation will allow an off-ramp status

should the facility reach a marginal well classification for the remainder of the productive

life. Note: This subpart was addressed in the June 16, 2022 letter.

3) 336.1640(3)(f) – Does this allow for the combination of standard oil tanks with

equilibrium piping and shared vapor headspace to be considered as 1 tank to meet the

exemption?

4) 336.1640(3)(g) - VOC emission control requirements for storage vessels are subject to

requirements for storage vessels in “Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic

Liquid Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for which

constructed, reconstruction or modification commenced after July 23, 1984” 40 CFR part

60. Note: the remaining references do NOT reflect upstream production for this Subpart

an should be removed.

5) 336.1640(4) - What if the amount of natural gas coming from the “stripper/marginal”

well is so small that propane needs to be supplemented to keep a pilot flame burning?

Wouldn’t that be emitting more emissions than the well’s production alone? These are

questions that were posed in the June 16, 2022 letter.

6) 336.1640(4)(a)(i) - Reference should be made to the method(s) for calculating the actual

sample size then corrected to 3% oxygen.

7) 336.1640(4)(b)(ii)(A)(B) – These sentences are contradictory. A control device is

considered a process unless otherwise defined. This separation and distinguishment is not

specifically defined.

8) 336.1640(4)(b)(ii)(D) - How often should the inspections be conducted?

9) 336.1640(4)(c) - This section should be removed because floating roofs are not designed

or utilized in upstream production.

10) 336.1640(5)(a) - What are initial performance and compliance testing requirements?

Where are they stated? In OOOO and OOOOa, no performance or compliance testing is

necessary when meeting standards under 40CFR Part 60 60.18(b).

11) 336.1640(5)(b)(ii) – What type of inspection? OOOO(a) requires monthly Method 22

inspections consisting of flare observations lasting 15 minutes.

12) 336.1640(5)(c) - Note: The following comment was submitted in the June 16, 2022 letter,

but never answered or addressed in the latest draft of the rules. “This is completed during

initial facility design to handle maximum throughput, pressure and volumes. As a

reminder, each oil and gas well is a depleting asset with initial production rates dropping

quickly within the first year of production. There is not an option to “open up the tap” to

produce more hydrocarbons. Does the analysis for existing facilities that have been in

operation for more than 10-20 years now have to validate the original design parameters

even though production has declined by as much as 90%?”

13) 336.1640(5)(d) - What inspection? OOOO(a) requires monthly AVO (Auditory, Visual

and Olfactory) inspections separated by 14 days for closed vent systems. Or is EGLE

suggesting a “once-only” annual visual inspection?

14) 336.1640(6)(a) - How often? Just initial or annual? Needs more definition. Has EGLE

done a cost benefit analysis for any of this work?

Rule 336.1641 - Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing pneumatic

controllers in the oil and natural gas industry located in the 2015 ozone nonattainment

areas.

1) 336.1641(2)(a)(b) – These subparts are unclear and do not address exemptions. The

federal standard under Subpart OOOO and OOOOa stipulates bleed rates greater than 6

standard cubic feet per hour. This should be explicitly stated.

2) 336.1641(6)(a)(b) – Low Bleed Pneumatic Devices – are less than 6 scfh as described by

the manufacturers’ specifications. For clarity, Intermittent Bleed Devices are not

continuous bleed thus not subject to these rules as proposed? These devices also bleed

less than 6 scfh as specified by the manufacturers. High bleed pneumatic devices have

been removed from operation and they are not available from equipment supply vendors

following implementation of Subpart OOOO in 2012.

Rule 336.1642 – Emissions of volatile organic compounds from existing pneumatic pumps

in the oil and natural gas industry located in the 2015 ozone nonattainment areas.

1) 336.1642(1)(a) – Delete the following: “of for freeze protection glycol circulation.” The

energy to activate a pneumatic pump for glycol dehydration comes from high pressure

rich glycol discharged from the dehydration tower. There will be most likely electricity

available to operate these pumps because of close approximation to residential utilities in

nonattainment counties.

2) 336.1642(2)(b) – MOGA could not find a stated definition of “well site” in the proposed

Part 6 regulations or Part 1, General Provisions. Please define the term “well site”.

3) 336.1642(3)(i) & (ii) – MOGA has advocated to the EPA for the allowance of an “in-

house” engineer with technical expertise and experience to certify closed-loop system

and technical infeasibility. To avoid conflicting regulations between the State of

Michigan and Federal regulations, MOGA recommends the Federal allowance of an “in-

house” engineer as stated in 40 CFR 60.5393a.

4) 336.1642(5)(b) – Stack testing a pneumatic pump is impractical and very costly.

Pneumatic pumps have a fixed canister size to facilitate the operation of the pump. This

would be specified in the manufacturer’s specifications sheet. Initial compliance and

testing using the injection rate (actuations per minute) multiplied by the fixed cannister

size or using a calibrated bag sampler. This would be more practical and cost effective.

5) 336.1642(5)(c)(ii) – What type of inspection? AVO? For many wells and facilities, AVO

inspection to ensure proper operation and to reduce leaks is already taking place per

Subpart OOOO and Subpart OOOOa regulations.

6) 336.1642(6)(a) – A stack test is costly and impracticable. If routed to a combustion

device meeting 40CFR Part 60 60.18(b), OOOO(a) does not require testing. Stack tests

range from $10K - $15K and are usually completed on compressors greater than 1,300

horsepower. Any kind of elaborate testing equipment to capture a low volume sample and

accurately report the level of emissions becomes nearly impossible. A technique that

merits sampling such small samples would use a calibrated sample bag or engineering

calculations.

7) 336.1642(6)(d) – Like other proposed regulations in R 336.1640 through R 336.1644,

MOGA recommends changing submission of initial reporting to “made available upon

request by department”. This would follow the trend for other emission sources and

reduce the burden on small producers with limited staff.

Rule 336.1643 – Emissions of volatile organic compounds from existing compressors in the

oil and natural gas industry located in the 2015 ozone nonattainment areas.

1) 336.1643(1) thru (6) – MOGA has discussed the definition of “wet seal” and “wet seal

fluid degassing system” with compressor vendors and service firms in the State of

Michigan. Vendors and service personnel were not aware of this type of centrifugal

compressor located within the State of Michigan.

2) 336.1643(4)(b)(iii) – a “continuous parameter monitoring system” would be very costly

to install and operate for both new and marginal wells and facilities. MOGA would like

clarification whether a flare with an auto ignition and/or a continuous burning pilot

qualify as a “continuous parameter monitoring system”?

3) 336.1643(5)(a) & (b) – MOGA spoke with compressor vendors and service company

representatives regarding replacing rod packing every 36 months. The vendors and

service company representatives indicated that rod packing is inspected during every

inspection, oil change and service. Representatives indicated that rod packing venting is

monitored very closely as an indicator for service since bad rod packing would result in

costly consumption of lubricating oil and possible engine failure. Representatives

explicitly stated a 36-month replacement is not practical as rod packing typically lasts

longer than 36 months. Representatives indicated this would be very costly for small

businesses and wasteful of resources since a rod packing replacement typical take 2-3

days of work with 6 technician charging $100 to $150 dollars per hour. This would be an

unnecessary cost considering R336.1643(b) also requires rod packing venting to be

routed to a process. MOGA recommends making this an either/or statement. Either

change the rod packing every 36 months or route rod packing emissions to a process.

Rule 336.1644 – Emissions of volatile organic compounds from existing compressors in the

oil and natural gas industry located in the 2015 ozone nonattainment areas.

1) 336.1644(1)(b)(ii) – This request is not an upstream function but is handled by mid-

stream operations.

2) 336.1644(4) – This program should not be developed if the facility and/or the well(s) are

at marginal status, which would be 15 boe/day or less per well.

3) 336.1644(4)(a)(i&ii) – This is very expensive to complete. This would potentially be

around $2,600 to check a single leak. AVO or a soap bubble test is acceptable for these

evaluations. Has EGLE provided any financial cost benefits analyses to validate the

testing suggested? OOOO(a) allows for leak repair verification using AVO or by

implementing soap and water under Method 21, Section 8.3.3.

4) 336.1644(4)(b) - “Booster stations in the production segment” do not exist. This

statement needs to be removed.

5) 336.1644(4)(b)(ii) replace with the following statement; “Each fugitive emission

component repair or replacement equipment will be resurveyed to ensure there is no leak

after the repair or replacement by the use of 40 CFR, part 60, Appendix A, Method 21 at

the earliest convenience possible or 30 days after the repair.

6) 336.1644(4)(c) – The department should either simplify this statement by removing “with

a repair threshold of 500 ppm” or further clarify to include all resurveying options listed

under Method 21, including alternatives.

7) 336.1644(5)(a)(i&ii&iii) – MOGA proposes additional discussion with EGLE staff to

justify the merits of the frequency, the impact and the reporting if there are no fugitive

emission components.

Conclusion:

MOGA would like to meet with EGLE-AQD after their review of suggested rule changes to

discuss manpower implementation and cost benefit analysis. Some proposed Part 6 regulations

could impair the field operations of many small business producers leading to increased costs

above the sustainability threshold for existing wells. As mentioned in the opening paragraphs,

over regulation without justification could result in the early plugging and abandonment of

producing wells resulting in waste, loss of revenue, increased energy costs, impacts to rural and

underserved communities and disproportionate impacts to small businesses.

MOGA would also like to further discuss how the 2015 ozone nonattainment review data can be

misleading and not relevant to emissions in 2023. There are nearly 8 years between gathering

county information and the current review of the contribution the producing wells have in each

county. A similar type of review in the attainment areas has shown the producing industry has

made major efforts to reduce VOC & ozone impacts. That same reduction has likely occurred in

the nonattainment counties also. MOGA would like to review data generated under the “further

analysis” tenant required in EGLE’s January 2020 “Reasonable Available Control Technology

Analysis for Volatile Organic Compounds” to assist EGLE staff in reducing unnecessary impacts

to small businesses through “negative declarations” on source categories without substantial

impacts to the NAA.

MOGA looks forward to our continued collaborative relationship with EGLE staff to ensure

proposed regulations are practical, functional and allow small businesses to complete within the

oil and natural gas market. Working together is an effort in cooperation and should make

understanding the industry better for the regulators, while helping producers better

communication with regulators to minimize confusion and streamline implementation of

proposed regulations.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Jason Geer

President & CEO

Michigan Oil and Gas Association

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Caroline Liethen <

@mimfg.org>

Wednesday, October 26, 2022 4:49 PM

McDonald, Tracey (EGLE); Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

Kownacki, Alec (EGLE); Lillian Woolley; Eleanor Surtman

MMA Part 6 Rule Comment

cl_air_voc-ract-letter-signed_221026.pdf

Categories:

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Good afternoon,

I am writing on behalf of MMA to submit the attached comments regarding proposed changes to the Part 6: Emissions

Limitations and Prohibitions – Existing Sources of VOC Emissions draft rule set.

I appreciate your consideration of our comments. Please contact me if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Caroline

Caroline Liethen | Director of Environmental and Regulatory Policy | Michigan Manufacturers Association

620 S. Capitol Ave  Lansing Michigan  48933

Tel: 517.487.8543 | Fax: 517.853.3343 | Email:

@mimfg.org

<="" p="">

1

October 26, 2022

Mr. Trace McDonald

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy – Air Quality Division

5225 West Allegan Street

Lansing, MI 48909

RE: MMA Comments on the VOC RACT Rules Dated September 7, 2022

Dear Mr. McDonald:

I am writing on behalf of the Michigan Manufacturers Association to provide comments on the

draft Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

Rules in Part 6. I appreciate your work on these rules and the consideration of member feedback.

Your monthly attendance of our Air Policy Committee meetings provided a welcomed

opportunity for dialogue and the comments herein largely reflect those discussions. We

appreciate your and Marissa Vaerten’s efforts to write fair rules. However, we believe that the

Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) has devoted a very small amount

of resources to developing RACT rules considering other prioritized programs that are not Clean

Air Act requirements.

Limited Time to Plan for Compliance. First, the time allotted for VOC RACT Rule

development and implementation was insufficient. The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium

(LADCO) “White Paper: NOx Emission Controls for Stationary Sources in the LADCO Region

(February 2022)” referenced in our meetings suggests that additional time is needed for

implementation of new rules, especially those that require add-on control equipment. In several

sections of this document, it explains that facilities are typically given time to comply with new

rules to allow for planning, analysis, and infrastructure changes. The timeline to comply with

Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards is typically three years, though in

most cases between one and four years are allowed depending on work required to achieve

compliance. In addition, the document also suggests that two years should be adopted to allow

for emission reductions before 2026. Michigan’s rules will go into effect almost immediately

once they are approved, leaving facilities with no option than to enter a consent agreement for an

alternative schedule, if that is to be allowed. This would create an unnecessary burden on EGLE

permitting and enforcement staff. The Ohio Rule (see Attachment 1) should be adopted allowing

for additional time beyond the date of rule promulgation for sources having to do site-specific

studies. Additional time is also allotted for facilities that need to install control equipment.

Adopting a rule that includes additional time as outlined in the attachment will avoid the use of

additional resources in permitting and enforcement that would be required if site-specific plans

and permits are needed for each facility that needs additional time. It should be noted that these

rules will likely go into compliance almost immediately after promulgation and EGLE has done

620 South Capitol Avenue • Lansing, MI 48933 • Phone: 517-372-5900 • mimfg.org

Manufacturing Focused. Member Driven.

no outreach, suggesting there are facilities that do not know these rules will soon be in effect and

that they must comply immediately.

The compliance schedule for the various stages of the RACT analysis required by Rule 602(4)

should be lengthened as follows:

• The requirement to submit the VOC Potential to Emit (PTE) information to EGLE in

Rule 602(4)(a) within one month of promulgation should be increased to at least three

months

• The requirement to provide a RACT analysis for each VOC source to EGLE in Rule

602(4)(b) within three months of promulgation should be increased to at least 12 months

o The Ohio EPA 3745-21-11 VOC RACT regulations allow 12 months to submit a

RACT study.

• The requirement to implement each RACT proposal within six months of department

approval should be increased to at least two years and to at least three years if add-on

controls are required.

• The 15 pound per calendar day exemption criteria found in Rule 610a(3)(a)(iii) should be

changed from a daily limit to a monthly limit or a twelve-month rolling average limit.

• The VOC testing requirements in Rule 610a(4)(e)(vii) should allow for alternate test

methods to be used, especially previously approved alternate test methods, if a different

or modified method would more accurately represent equipment operating conditions.

• Rule 602 should include an exemption from these RACT requirements for any VOC

source that has been subject to a Rule 702 VOC Best Available Control Technology

(BACT) analysis, PSD BACT analysis, or Nonattainment NSR VOC LAER analysis

within the past ten years.

Adding to our request for additional time to implement control strategies, the country continues

to recover from the pandemic and supply chain issues. Pollution control equipment and

electronic components needed to run it are in short supply and come with extensive delivery

delays, some as much as 12 to 18 months. The immediate implementation and retroactive nature

of the requirements are not reasonable and will be overly burdensome, placing currently

compliant industrial sources into non-compliance status.

Changes to RACT Criteria. Many of the Control Technology Guideline (CTG) documents

developed by the U.S. EPA for use in establishing RACT rules include references to Michigan’s

early VOC rules. Therefore, it is confusing to affected sources that the criteria for inclusion in

Rules 610a, 621a, 632a and 633 is now 15 pounds per day instead of 2.7 tons per 12 month

rolling time period. These rules are based on CTG documents that have not changed since the

original Rules 610, 621 and 632 were established and when these rules were incorporated into

the State Implementation Plan (SIP). While the U.S. EPA has suggested that these rules need to

be updated, we cannot identify any quantifiable VOC emission reductions from changing these

rules. It will only create an administrative burden for sources now having to review daily

emissions instead of monthly emissions. The CTG document “Control Techniques Guidelines for

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings” (CTG), is quite complimentary of Michigan’s

Rule 632 and in several instances recognized its limits as representing VOC RACT. As such, it is

unnecessary to update this rule to Rule 632a.

620 South Capitol Avenue • Lansing, MI 48933-4247 • Phone: 517-372-5900 • www.mimfg.org

Manufacturing Focused. Member Driven.

In addition, in the May 18, 2006 U.S. EPA document “RACT Qs and Qs,” the U.S. EPA

explained that states can rely on past EPA guidance like CTGs but would expect states to have

considerable interaction with affected facilities who might have additional information available

for review. This has not been the case in developing these rules. This document also suggests

that states can rely on other Federal rules to show compliance with RACT requirements but must

reference these rules in their SIPs. It also says that PTIs can be relied on – as long as they are

referenced in the SIP submittal. The Federal Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products:

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and the Federal Surface

Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products: National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants (NESHAP) are largely equivalent in these rules and if EGLE will not state this in

the rule, affected sources should be allowed to petition to have them recognized in their Permits

to Install/Renewable Operating Permit (PTI/ROP) and allowed to simply comply with the

applicable NESHAP.

Further, the rules are written such that existing sources in attainment areas will now retroactively

be subject to existing Part 6 Rules, such as Rule 632, for coatings like adhesives that accepted de

minimis air permit restrictions or general permit provisions necessary to manufacture parts. The

immediate and retroactive nature of the rules is not in keeping with the Administrative

Procedures Act, which would otherwise require the source to be “modified, constructed or

reconstructed” as defined in the rules.

Rule 602(3)(a) and (b). EGLE has proposed changes to the existing Rule 602 that now appear as

Rule 602(3)(a) and (b) which eliminate the ability for EGLE to incorporate RACT derivatives

during a permit to operate or Renewable Operating Permit. This language should be retained

with the reference to permit to operate changed to Renewable Operating Permit. The ability to

incorporate the revised RACT limits or requirements in the ROP program instead of the PTI

program would allow flexibility to EGLE and could streamline the process. Currently changes to

a PTI would take 240 days if the regulatory requirements are met, which is not always the case.

Making changes through the ROP program would eliminate the load on the PTI engineers while

streamlining the approval process as any changes need to be incorporated into ROPs anyway.

Rule 633. Currently, the boating industry is trending away from pigmented gelcoat (colored

fiberglass) and towards polyester automotive painting topcoats. This affords the use of compliant

gelcoat formulations (for example white gelcoat) combined with robust outer coatings capable of

withstanding marine and freshwater environments. This also improves serviceability and repair

advantages associated with bumps and scratches. Product (boat) life expansion may be the result

of this change away from colored gelcoats. The rules will force these manufacturers back into

pigmented (form in color) gelcoat to avoid Rule 633 controls.

Bottom paints, also known as ablative coatings, are specially formulated to prevent marine

buildup on the undersides (running surfaces) of boats. These coatings and their formulations are

not part of any CTG or NESHAP evaluation, and yet they would be lumped into the same

compliance category as all other pleasure craft coatings for the marine industry. Simply stated,

Rule 633 will cause manufacturers to stop the application of “bottom paints” in the

manufacturing plants. Further, currently low volume exemptions for such coatings will no longer

620 South Capitol Avenue • Lansing, MI 48933-4247 • Phone: 517-372-5900 • www.mimfg.org

Manufacturing Focused. Member Driven.

be applicable, causing manufacturers to “transfer” the bottom coating application to dealer and

distributor locations. Such transfers do not have a net environmental benefit and EGLE has not

demonstrated that the cessation (or control) of these low volume, specialty extreme performance

coatings will result in improvements in the non-attainment areas targeted by the rules. It should

also be noted that there are only two sources in Michigan potentially subject to the fiberglass

boat manufacturing rules. It is questionable to promulgate rules that would affect only two

sources.

Control Equipment Effectiveness. It should be noted that changes were made to control

effectiveness requirements. For Rules 610a, 620, 621, 633 and 634, the overall control and

capture efficiency has been updated to the language below:

Collect and vent the emissions from equipment cleaning to a volatile organic compound

emission control system that has an overall capture and control efficiency of not less than

85%, by weight, for the volatile organic compound emissions. If such a reduction is

achieved by incineration, not less than 90% of the organic carbon must be oxidized to

carbon dioxide.

When applying for a new permit, Michigan Rule 702(a) VOC BACT is often not as high as what

is described above. We discussed this at one meeting, and it was our belief that this requirement

is based on painting in a booth, which is not often the case. Typically, a spray booth with a non-

fugitive enclosure or a PTE would get more than 90% control, and combined VOC BACT for

spray booths is currently 95% control. As we briefly discussed, plants with flow coat lines and

dip spin lines may have difficulty meeting 90% capture and control. This RACT requirement is

more restrictive than BACT in many cases.

Control equipment for VOC abatement largely or most commonly consists of oxidizing units.

While oxidation to carbon dioxide is the target, the combustion process also produces nitrogen

oxides (NOx, an ozone precursor) and incomplete products of combustion such as formaldehyde.

These products are unfavorable, and the regulations would appear to replace one bad actor (or air

pollutant) for another. We know of several companies whose thermal oxidizer is the largest

contributor to their carbon footprint.

Operations that are currently permitted to use solvent rags, etc., may use these wipe agents in the

open manufacturing floor, which is not equipped with collection and ventilation systems that will

be required as currently written. Neither this approach nor its impacts have been properly

evaluated either for the practical or economic feasibility which should be a component of the rule

impact and implementation process. Further and as noted above, even if such capture and control

retrofit components can be practically implemented, the supply chain delays currently being

experienced for equipment and electronic component delays have not been properly considered.

Daily Emission Calculations. We are especially concerned over Rules 620a, 621a, 633a in

which applicability is based on emissions in terms of pounds per day. These rules also require

daily record keeping which is extremely burdensome to manufacturing facilities.

620 South Capitol Avenue • Lansing, MI 48933-4247 • Phone: 517-372-5900 • www.mimfg.org

Manufacturing Focused. Member Driven.

In our meetings we had suggested that the methodology described the U.S. EPA’s Protocol for

Determining the Daily Volatile Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty

Truck Primer-Surfacer and Topcoat Operations be allowed to calculate daily emissions not only

for Rule 610a but also for other rules that require daily record keeping. It allows daily emissions

to be calculated as the following:

The volume of each coating used each day can be calculated by prorating the volume of

that coating used in a month to each day in the month. The prorating factor is the ratio of

the total square footage coated with that coating on the day to the total square footage

coated with that coating in the month.

It appears that this methodology can be used for sources subject to Rule 610a. This or a similar

methodology should be allowed for use in these other rules.

In nearby states, it is common practice that the compliance requirement of pounds per hour can

be based on and summarized monthly. This affords both the applicable requirement to be stated

on a pounds of VOC per hour basis, while allowing the source to accumulate usage data and

operational data on a monthly time period. This improves the quality of the data while reducing

the data burden associated with short-term usage limitations. Similar to the RACT approach

EGLE is proposing for the fiber-reinforced plastic industry, monthly data coupled with 12-month

rolling sum compliance, provides useful and yet reasonable data collection, and processing with

monthly compliance demonstrations.

General Permit Changes. Rules 610a and 621a affect sources using the General Permit. It

appears that these sources have not been notified of their need to obtain a new PTI. Permitting

will take at least six months and if these rules go into effect in early 2022, these sources are

already behind. Fishbeck has identified 38 sources using the General Permit (see Attachment 2)

in southeast Michigan. The general permit is used to exempt coating lines from the content limits

of Rules 621 and 632 by limiting each coating line to 2,000 lb/mo, 10 tons per year (tpy); and

there is a combined coating line limit of 30 tpy. If all 38 facilities had at least three coating lines;

the most VOC emissions that could be emitted would be 38 X 30 tpy VOC = 1,140 tons of VOC

emissions. Of course, emissions from these 38 sources are likely much less, and some of these

sources will have only one or two lines, and their limit would be 20 tpy not 30 tpy. The Michigan

Air Emissions Reporting System data should be reviewed to see what these facilities actually

emit.

As the overall goal is to reduce VOC emissions; the General Permit should be amended rather

than eliminated. For example, if you made the following changes use of General Permits would

still be allowed with the following changes:

• If the source can meet already meet the annual three tpy proposed emissions, advise

transition to this exemption (though no reductions will be achieved).

• If the source is meeting or is close to meeting the coating content limits on their lines,

some adjustments could be made in switching some coatings, and limited to no

reductions may be achieved. If these sources must go in for a site-specific permit, they

620 South Capitol Avenue • Lansing, MI 48933-4247 • Phone: 517-372-5900 • www.mimfg.org

Manufacturing Focused. Member Driven.

may also target an increase in emissions up to a point where controls are not cost

effective.

• If a source must spend money to install controls to meet the new rules; most likely the

source would go in for a permit to request as high of VOC limits as possible. As long as

the source is meeting the 90% reduction, they would be compliant with the proposed

rules. The source could then market and take on more work that they may not have been

able to take before to meet current limits. For these sources, we would see an increase in

emissions or at least PTE until they can obtain more work.

o In addition, RTOs for these sources will require natural gas to keep the

combustion chamber temperature at the level needed for control. This will add

NOx emissions to the ozone nonattainment area.

o Existing coatings require performance testing and approvals that can take years to

complete. Shorter-term control approaches and long lead times for control

equipment will conflict with immediate applicability and compliance requirement,

which is unreasonable.

If the target reduction is 15% controls, the General Permit should be amended to allow only 8.5

tpy per line or a total of 25.5 tons VOCs for a General Permit holder. Keeping the exemption

from RACT Rules for these General Permit sources but ratcheting down the limits to 8.5 tpy/

line and a total of 25.5 tpy makes more sense.

De Minimis Emission Levels: A de minimis emissions threshold should be included in Rule

602(4) below which the RACT requirements do not apply. Otherwise, every RACT review will

include many wasteful analyses for low emitting sources that will have no technically or

economically feasible control options. Rule 602(4) should include categorical exemptions for

types of equipment with inherently low VOC emissions such as natural gas fired equipment and

other combustion sources.

• The compliance schedule for the various stages of the RACT analysis required by Rule

602(4) should be lengthened as follows and as suggested in Attachment 1:

o The requirement to submit the VOC PTE information to EGLE in Rule 602(4)(a)

within one month of promulgation should be increased to at least three months

o The requirement to provide a RACT analysis for each VOC source to EGLE in

Rule 602(4)(b) within three months of promulgation should be increased to at

least 12 months

▪ The Ohio EPA 3745-21-11 VOC RACT regulations allow 12 months to

submit a RACT study.

o The requirement to implement each RACT proposal within six months of

department approval should be increased to at least two years and to at least three

years if add-on controls are required.

• The 15 pound per calendar day exemption criteria found in Rule 610a(3)(a)(iii) should be

changed from a daily limit to a monthly limit or a 12-month rolling average limit.

• The VOC testing requirements in Rule 610a(4)(e)(vii) should allow for alternate test

methods to be used, especially previously approved alternate test methods, if a different

or modified method would more accurately represent equipment operating conditions.

620 South Capitol Avenue • Lansing, MI 48933-4247 • Phone: 517-372-5900 • www.mimfg.org

Manufacturing Focused. Member Driven.

• Rule 602 should include an exemption from these RACT requirements for any VOC

source that has been subject to a Rule 702 VOC BACT analysis, PSD BACT analysis, or

Nonattainment NSR VOC LAER analysis within the past 10 years.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and the extensive economic impact these

rules would have on the largest sector of Michigan’s economy. MMA is aware of one

representative example company that would incur a cost of at least $1 million for each piece of

equipment required per site. An additional $100,000 per year would be necessary for operational

costs including natural gas, which will only further increase in cost and emissions. This would

reduce the profit/loss margin and force the company to consider relocating, and certainly

establishing any future expansions, in other states. These regulatory changes have significant

economic implications for Michigan, and we will continue to provide information to assist the

department in its decision making.

Sincerely,

Caroline Liethen

Director of Environmental and Regulatory Policy

Attachments:

Attachment 1: NOx Compliance Deadlines

Attachment 2: 38 Sources

620 South Capitol Avenue • Lansing, MI 48933-4247 • Phone: 517-372-5900 • www.mimfg.org

Manufacturing Focused. Member Driven.

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

Kathryn R. Ross

Wednesday, October 26, 2022 12:03 PM

@cmsenergy.com>

To:

Cc:

McDonald, Tracey (EGLE); Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

Amy D. Kapuga; JAMES M. WALKER

Subject:

Attachments:

Consumers Energy's Comments on Part 6 Rules - Proposed Revisions

Part_6_VOC_RACT_ Proposed_Rule_CE_Comments Letter 10_26_2022 (final).pdf

Categories:

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Consumers Energy Company (Consumers Energy) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Michigan Department

of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy – Air Quality Division’s (AQD) Proposed Revisions to the Part 6 Volatile Organic

Compound

(VOC) rules. Please find our comments attached.

Should you wish to discuss any of our comments, please feel free to contact Amy Kapuga or myself.

Thanks,

Kathryn Ross, Sr. Environmental Planner

1945 W. Parnall Rd. | Jackson, MI 49201 | P22-231

Office: 517-788-0648| Fax: 517-788-1064 |

www.ConsumersEnergy.com

@cmsenergy.com

1

October 26, 2022

Attn: Mr. Trace McDonald, Ms. Marissa Vaerten

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy

Air Quality Division, SIP Development Unit

P.O. Box 30260

Lansing, MI 48909-7760

Electronic Submittal: McDonaldT@Michigan.gov ; VaertenM@michigan.gov

RE: Consumers Energy Company’s Comments on EGLE – AQD’s Proposed Revisions to

the Part 6. Emission Limitations and Prohibitions – Existing Sources of Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions Rules (Rule Set 2022-18 EQ)

Consumers Energy Company (Consumers Energy) appreciates the opportunity to

comment on the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy – Air

Quality Division’s (AQD) Proposed Revisions to the Part 6 Volatile Organic Compound

(VOC) rules, as posted on the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs’

Administrative Rulemaking System under the Request For Rulemaking 2022-18 EQ .

Consumers Energy, Michigan's largest utility, provides electric and natural gas service to

more than 6 million of the state's 10 million residents in all 68 counties in the Lower

Peninsula. We provide natural gas service for heating and other uses to more than 1.7

million customers. Natural gas sources used by Consumers Energy include major pipeline

companies and producers in Michigan, Gulf Coast states and Canada. As a local

distribution company (LDC), we distribute natural gas using compressor stations and

thousands of miles of intrastate pipeline. Fifteen underground natural gas storage fields

in Michigan allow our Company to economically purchase and store gas during warm

months, for eventual use in the winter heating season.

Consumers Energy understands that AQD has proposed these regulatory revisions in

connection with the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the 2015 Ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) non-attainment areas. The proposed

Part 6 rules are one component of the State’s strategy to develop and submit a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These

proposed rules are to address VOC emission reductions via Reasonably Achievable

Control Technologies (RACT). Consumers Energy also plans to review and comment on

Consumers Energy

1945 W. Parnall Road

Jackson, MI 49201

Environmental Quality & Sustainability

www.consumersenergy.com

the anticipated Part 8 NOx RACT proposed rules, which are the complimentary

component of the SIP rules process, during the public comment period.

Consumers Energy currently operates one natural gas compressor station in an area

designated by the EPA as moderate non-attainment for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.

Consumers Energy also operates four (4) other compressor stations within the seven-

county Southeast Michigan area which is currently designated as a marginal non-

attainment area for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS, however this area is awaiting a

redesignation determination from the EPA and could either be bumped up to moderate

non-attainment for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS or determined to be in attainment with the

2015 Ozone NAAQS.

Consumers Energy strives to be compliant with all federal and state environmental

regulations. In the development of these newly proposed rules, Consumers Energy

requests EGLE-AQD to align the proposed regulatory definitions with other existing federal

program definitions. This provides clarity to industry in understanding the applicability of

similar, yet separate, regulations. This also aligns the efforts and minimizes impacts (both

cost and schedule) to industries that must undertake equipment retrofits, replacements

and/or operational changes to ensure compliance with all regulations. As such,

Consumers Energy requests that the specific language for the following three definitions

be incorporated into the proposed Part 6 rules (within R 336.1601, as appropriate), and

provides cite to the federal regulations for reference:

Local Distribution Company custody transfer station means a metering station where a

Local Distribution Company (LDC) receives a natural gas supply from an upstream

supplier, which may be an interstate transmission pipeline or a local natural gas

producer, for delivery to customers through the LDC's intrastate transmission or

distribution lines. (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts OOOO and OOOOa)

Natural gas distribution means the collection of all distribution pipelines and metering-

regulating stations that are operated by a Local Distribution Company (LDC) within a

single state that is regulated as a separate operating company by a public utility

commission or that are operated as an independent municipally-owned distribution

system. (40 CFR Part 98, Subpart W)

Natural gas transmission and storage segment means the transport or storage of natural

gas prior to delivery to a “local distribution company custody transfer station” or to a

final end user (if there is no local distribution company custody transfer station). For the

purposes of this subpart, natural gas enters the natural gas transmission and storage

segment after the natural gas processing plant, when present. (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts

OOOO and OOOOa)

2

Additionally, Consumers Energy urges EGLE-AQD to allow more time under the proposed

provisions of R336.1602. Specifically, the timeframes identified in subparagraphs (4)(b)

and (4)(b)(vi) should be extended to allow industry adequate time to develop a proposal

for compliance as well as implement the plan. The RACT analysis required under

subparagraphs 602(4)(b)(v) and (c) require not only a technical feasibility of the

available control options but also economic impacts amongst other items. Given that

industry may not even be aware that they are subject to these proposed rules, due to

the uncertainty of the Southeast Michigan redesignation request, or for other reasons, or

may have multiple emission sources that it has to evaluate, these timeframes are too

restrictive to be able to provide all the necessary information required by the proposed

rule. Should industry be required to retrofit equipment, securing this information and

vetting the changes within the business can take substantially longer than the proposed

3 months.

We would suggest that the timeframe for provision (4)(b) be extended to 6 months after

the final promulgation of the rule. In addition, we request that the language for (4)(b)(vi)

be revised to allow for department approval of the timeframe in the RACT proposal.

Please find attached a mark-up version (applicable pages only) showing our comments

on for the proposed Part 6 regulations.

Consumers Energy thanks you for your time and consideration of our request. Should you

have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Amy Kapuga

(amy.kapuga@cmsenergy.com ) or myself (kate.ross@cmsenergy.com).

Respectfully Submitted,

Kathryn (Kate) Ross

Sr. Environmental Analyst

Consumers Energy Company

1945 West Parnall Road, P22-330

Jackson, MI 49201

@cmsenergy.com

3

Attachment 1

Consumers Energy’s Mark-up Version of the Part 6 Rules

Applicable Pages only

Changes shown in green italic and red strike-through

R 336.1601 Definitions (pages 3 & 4)

R 336.1602 Existing sources of volatile organic compound emissions generally (page 7)

Consumers Energy

1945 W. Parnall Road

Jackson, MI 49201

Environmental Quality & Sustainability

www.consumersenergy.com

which an application for a permit to install, pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of these

rules, was made to the department before July 1, 1987.

(vi) Any process or process equipment which is subject to the provisions of R 336.1632

and which either has been placed into operation before the effective date of R 336.1632

or for which an application for a permit to install, pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of

these rules, was made to the department before the effective date of R 336.1632.

(vii) Any process or process equipment which is not subject to the provisions of any rule

in this part and which either has been placed into operation before July 1, 1979, or for

which an application for a permit to install, pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of these

rules, was made to the department before July 1, 1979. The term does not include a

process or process equipment operated for research, development, or pilot studies, if the

operation is not for the purpose of producing saleable products or goods.

(d) “Heavier vehicles” means a self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting

persons or property on a street or highway that has a gross vehicle weight rating

over 8,500 pounds.

(e) “Local Distribution Company custody transfer station” means a metering station

where a Local Distribution Company (LDC) receives a natural gas supply from an

upstream supplier, which may be an interstate transmission pipeline or a local natural

gas producer, for delivery to customers through the LDC’s intrastate transmission or

distribution lines.

(ef) “Natural gas distribution” means the collection of all distribution pipelines and

metering-regulating stations that are operated by a Local Distribution Company (LDC)

within a single state that is regulated as a separate operating company by a public

utility commission or that are operated as an independent municipally-owned

distribution system.activities in which the natural gas is provided for the end user by

a distribution facility after that facility receives the natural gas from the natural gas

transmission and storage segment.

Commented [KRR1]: Re‐itemize definitions following the

addition of LDC.

(fg) “Natural gas processing” means the process of separating and recovering

certain hydrocarbons and fluids from the raw gas to produce pipeline quality

natural gas and natural gas products.

(gh) “Natural gas processing plant” means any processing site engaged in the

extraction of natural gas liquids from field gas, fractionation of mixed natural gas

liquids to natural gas products or both. Natural gas processing plant does not

include a Joule-Thompson valve, a dew point depression valve, or an isolated or

standalone Joule-Thompson skid.

(hi) “Natural gas transmission and storage” means the transport or storage of

natural gas prior to delivery to a Local Distribution Company custody transfer station

or to a final end user (if there is no Local Distribution Company custody transfer

station). For the purposes of this subpart, natural gas enters the natural gas

transmission and storage segment after the natural gas processing plant, when

present., excluding processing, sometimes long distances, and the temporary storage

of that gas. Specific equipment used in natural gas transmission includes the land,

mains, valves, meters, boosters, regulators, storage vessels, dehydrators,

compressors, and their driving units and appurtenances, and equipment used for

transporting gas from a production facility, delivery point of purchased gas,

Commented [ADK2R1]: Natural gas transmission and

storage

segment means the transport or storage

of natural gas prior to delivery to a

‘‘local distribution company custody

transfer station’’ (as defined in this

section) or to a final end user (if there

is no local distribution company

custody transfer station). For the

purposes of this subpart, natural gas

enters the natural gas transmission and

storage segment after the natural gas

processing plant, when present. If no

natural gas processing plant is present,

natural gas enters the natural gas

transmission and storage segment after

the point of ‘‘custody transfer’’ (as

defined in this section). A compressor

station that transports natural gas prior

to the point of ‘‘custody transfer’’ or to

a natural gas processing plant (if

present) is not considered a part of the

natural gas transmission and storage

segment

3

gathering system, storage area, or other wholesale source of gas to 1 or more

distribution areas.

(ij) “Oil and natural gas industry” means the operations involved in the extraction

and production of crude oil and natural gas, as well as the processing, transmission,

storage, and distribution of natural gas. For the purposes of the rules in this part, oil

and natural gas industry operations will be referred to in the following 4 segments:

(i) Oil and natural gas production.

(ii) Natural gas processing.

(iii) Natural gas transmission and storage.

(iv) Natural gas distribution.

(jk) “Oil and natural gas production” means operations including the wells and all

related processes used in the extraction, production, recovery, lifting, stabilization,

and separation or treating of oil or natural gas, or both, including condensate.

(kl) "Person responsible" means a person that owns, leases, controls, operates, or

supervises a source of air contaminants.

(lbm) “Western portion of Allegan County” means the areas in Allegan County

described as Casco Township, Cheshire Township, city of Douglas, city of Holland,

city of Saugatuck, Clyde Township, Fillmore Township, Ganges Township, Heath

Township, Laketown Township, Lee Township, Manlius Township, Overisel

Township, Saugatuck Township, and Valley Township. "Person responsible" means a

person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or supervises

a source of air contaminants.

(mn) “Western portion of Muskegon County” means the areas located in

Muskegon County described as Blue Lake Township, city of Montague, city of

Muskegon, city of Muskegon Heights, city of North Muskegon, city of Roosevelt

Park, city of Whitehall, Dalton Township, including the village of Lakewood Club,

Fruitland Township, Fruitport Township, including the village of Fruitport,

Laketon Township, Montague Township, Muskegon Township, city of Norton

Shores, White River Township, and Whitehall Township.

R 336.1602 Existing sources of volatile organic compound emissions generally.

Rule 602. (1) A person shall not cause or allow the emission of volatile organic

compounds from any existing source in excess of the provisions of any rule of this part or

the maximum allowable emission rate specified in any of the following, whichever

results in the lowest maximum allowable emission rate:

(a) A permit to install.

(b) A permit to operate.

(bc) A renewable operating permit issued under R 336.1210.

(cd) A voluntary agreement.

(de) A performance contract.

(ef) A stipulation.

(fg) An order of the department.

(2) Department approvals for the equivalent emission rates, alternate emission rates, or

compliance methods that are authorized pursuant to any of the provisions listed in

subdivision (a) of this subrule must comply shall be in compliance with all of the

following provisions:

4

subdivision (a) of this subrule shall be in compliance with both of the following

provisions:

(ai) The department approval shall becomes part of a legally enforceable order of the

department, or permit to install, or permit to operate.

(bii) A copy of the legally enforceable document that is identified in paragraph (i) of

this subdivision (a) of this subrule shall is sent to the United States Environmental

Protection Agency.

(4) In R 336.1610, R 336.1621, and R 336.1632, where emission limits are expressed in

pounds of volatile organic compounds per gallon of coating, minus water, as applied, the

phrase "minus water" shall also include compounds which are used as organic solvents

and which are excluded from the definition of volatile organic compound.

(4) A person responsible for a facility with allowed or potential volatile organic

compound emissions equal or greater than 100 tons per year in the 2015 ozone

nonattainment area for which no reasonably available control technology (RACT)

requirement has been established in R 336.1604 to R336.1644, shall meet all of the

following requirements:

(a) Provide the department and United States Environmental Protection Agency

with the following information within 1 month after final promulgation of this rule

revision:

(i) Identification of each facility, including individual emission sources, to which

this rule applies.

(ii) Determination of the total potential to emit and the actual emissions of volatile

organic compounds for the most recent calendar year from each source at the

facility using emission testing, mass balance, or a calculation method acceptable by

the department.

(b) Within 34 months after final promulgation of this rule revision, provide to the

department and United States Environmental Protection Agency, a proposal for

RACT for each source of volatile organic compounds at the facility. The RACT

proposal must include, at a minimum, the following information:

(i) A list of each source subject to the RACT requirements.

(ii) The size or capacity of each affected source and the types and quantities of

materials processed or produced in each source.

(iii) A physical description of each source and its operating characteristics.

(iv) Estimates of the potential and actual volatile organic compound emissions

from each affected source and associated supporting documentation.

(v) A RACT analysis which meets the requirements of subdivision (c) of this

subrule, including technical and economic support documentation for each affected

source.

(vi) A schedule for completing implementation of the RACT proposal as

expeditiously as practicable but not later than 6 months after department approval

of the proposal, including interim dates for the issuance of purchase orders, start

and completion of process, technology and control technology changes, and the

completion of compliance testing. The schedule will be subject to Department

approval.

7

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

To:

McDonald, Tracey (EGLE)

Wednesday, October 26, 2022 11:54 AM

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

Subject:

Attachments:

FW: Comments to Rule Set 2022-18 EQ

Comments to R. Set 2022-18(27343345.3).pdf

Categories:

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

FYI

From: Cumings, Troy <

@wnj.com>

Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 11:52 AM

To: McDonald, Tracey (EGLE) <MCDONALDT@michigan.gov>

Subject: Comments to Rule Set 2022-18 EQ

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Trace,

Attached are comments to Rule Set 2022-18 EQ submitted on behalf of Willert Home Products, Inc. I look forward to

working with you on finalizing the rule set. Thanks.

Troy M. Cumings | Partner

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

One Michigan Avenue Building, 120 North Washington Square, Suite 410, Lansing, MI 48933

d 517.679.7411 |

@wnj.com | profile | V-Card

This email and any attachments are solely for the confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not

read, distribute or act in reliance on it or any attachments. If you received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by email, and

promptly delete this email and any attachments.

The attorney-client and work product privileges are not waived by the transmission of this email.

1

October 26, 2022

Via Email

Mr. Trace McDonald

EGLE

Air Quality Division

525 West Allegan Street

Lansing, Michigan 48933

Re:

Dear Mr. McDonald:

We represent Willert Home Products, Inc. On behalf of Willert, I submit the following

Comments to Rule Set 2022-18 EQ – Rule 660

comments to Rule Set 2022-18 EQ. My comments relate to the proposed amendments to Rule

660, which adopt by reference certain versions of the OTC Model Rule for Consumer Products.

My comments focus specifically on the regulation of para-dichlorobenzene (“PDCB”) in air

fresheners and toilet/urinal care products.

Proposed Rule 660 attempts to exempt products containing 98% PDCB. As drafted,

however, the proposed changes to Rule 660 would not fully exempt those products. As explained

in more detail below, there are three issues with the current draft language. First, the draft rule

applies the exemption only to one version of the OTC Consumer Product Rules that Rule 660

adopts. Second, the draft rule exempts only certain PDCB-containing “solid toilet/urinal care”

products—it does not exempt air fresheners that contain PDCB. Finally, both versions of the OTC

Consumer Product Rule that Rule 660 adopts contain a freestanding prohibition for PDCB-

containing products, which the current draft rule does not account for.

1. The exemption applies to only one version of the OTC Consumer Products Rules and

therefore will not be effective until April 30, 2023.

The draft Rule 600 incorporates two separate versions of the OTC Model Rule for

Consumer Products: The 2006 version (referred to in the draft rule as “ver2006”) and the 2012

version (referred to in the draft rule as “ver2012”). The draft Rule 660 incorporates ver2006 before

January 1, 2023; it incorporates ver2012 after April 30, 2023. This would create a roughly four-

month gap where neither ver2006 nor ver2012 applies. In section (2)(f), the draft Rule 660

contains the following exemption for products containing not less than 98% PDCB:

Troy M. Cumings | Partner

D 616.752.2731

E

@wnj.com

150 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 1500

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Mr. Trace McDonald

October 26, 2022

Page 2

In ver2012, the volatile organic compound limit in section (3) table of standards for

solid toilet/urinal care as it applies to products containing not less than 98% para-

dichlorobenzene.

Because this language exempts toilet/urinal care products containing not less than 98%

PDCB only from ver2012, the exemption would not apply until after April 30, 2023. An effective

exemption must apply to both ver2006 and ver2012.

2. The exemption exempts only “solid toilet/urinal care” products, leaving the

prohibition on solid air fresheners containing not less than 98% PDCB in place.

Both ver2006 and ver2012 of the OTC Consumer Products Rules regulate toilet/urinal care

products and solid air fresheners containing PDCB. However, the exemption found in section

(2)(f) of the draft Rule 660 refers only to toilet/urinal care products. The omission of “solid air

fresheners” from that section means the manufacture and sale of those products would be

prohibited in Michigan. The logic behind the exemption of toilet/urinal care products containing

not less than 98% PDCB, however, applies with equal force to solid air fresheners containing not

less than 98% PDCB. Indeed, since ver2006 was released, EPA has determined that PDCB is “not

likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”¹Accordingly, solid air fresheners should be included in

section (2)(f).

3. The exemption in draft Rule 660 does not account for a freestanding prohibition on

PDCB-containing products found in the OTC Consumer Product Rules.

Both ver2006 and ver2012 of the OTC Consumer Product Rules regulate PDCB-containing

solid air fresheners and toilet/urinal care products through the section 3 table of standards.

However, both ver2006 and ver2012 contain a separate, freestanding prohibition on PDCB-

containing products in section (3)(n): Requirements for Solid Air Fresheners and Toilet/Urinal

Care Products. That section prohibits outright the sale, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture of

any solid air fresheners or toilet/urinal care products that contain PDCB. Section (3)(n) is noted

as an optional provision, which each state should decide whether to incorporate on a case-by-case

basis.²As written, Michigan’s incorporation of ver2006 and ver2012 is silent as to whether that

provision is incorporated.

Unless the final Rule 660 expressly disclaims the adoption or application of the

freestanding prohibition on PDCB-containing solid air fresheners and toilet/urinal care products

¹Revised Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Para-dichlorobenzene, EPA 738-R-07-010; U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.

Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 2008.

²The ver2012 rules explain that provisions noted with a double asterisk, as section (3)(n) is, are left “up to each state

to decide whether it wishes to include regulation of said compounds in its state-specific rulemaking. OTC takes no

position on whether to include these compounds in such a rulemaking.” (Ver2012, at 1.) The same note is made in

the ver2006 rules (Ver2006, at 1.)

Mr. Trace McDonald

October 26, 2022

Page 3

found in section 3(n) of ver2006 and ver2012, the existing exemption found in section (2)(f) of the

draft rule will be ineffective.

4. All of these issues can be resolved by minor changes to sections (1)(b) and (2)(f) of the

draft Rule 660.

The three issues I note above can be resolved with minor changes to sections (1)(b) and

(2)(f) of the draft Rule 660. I propose the following changes to the current draft Rule 660 language:

(1) Except as provided in subrule (2) of this rule, the following provisions are adopted by

reference in R 336.1902:

. . .

(b) After December 31, 2022 April 30, 2023, the ozone transport commission’s “OTC

Model Rule for Consumer Products, “ Dated May 10, 2012, (ver2012).

. . .

(2) In ver2006 and ver2012, as they apply to products containing not less than 98%

para-dichlorobenzene, the volatile organic compound limit in section (3) table of

standards for air fresheners and solid toilet/urinal care, and the prohibitions in

Section 3(n) requirements for solid air fresheners and toilet/urinal care products,

as it applies to products containing not less than 98% para-dichlorobenzene.

Please do not hesitate to reach out to me with any questions you have.

Very truly yours,

Troy M. Cumings

27343345-3

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

To:

McDonald, Tracey (EGLE)

Wednesday, October 26, 2022 2:30 PM

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

Subject:

Attachments:

FW: Public Comments EGLE changes to R 336.1601-R 336.1662 & RACT

Letter Public Comments EGLE 102622.pdf

Categories:

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

From: Rita Loof <rml93@verizon.net>

Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 2:23 PM

To: McDonald, Tracey (EGLE) <MCDONALDT@michigan.gov>

Cc: Dolehanty, Mary Ann (EGLE) <DOLEHANTYM@michigan.gov>

Subject: Public Comments EGLE changes to R 336.1601-R 336.1662 & RACT

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Dear Mr. McDonald, please see attached. Regards,

Rita

Rita M. Loof

Director, Environmental Affairs

RadTech International

@radtech.org

@verizon.net

909-981-5974

cell/text

www.radtech.org

1

October 26^th, 2022

Mr. Trace McDonald

Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy

Air Quality Division

McdonaldT@Michigan.gov

Re: Public Comments on the Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy

(EGLE)Changes to R 336.1601 – R 336.1662 and “Reasonably Available Control

Technologies” (RACT).

Dear Mr. McDonald:

RadTech International is the trade association for the Ultraviolet/ Electron Beam/Light Emitting

Diode (UV/EB/LED) industry. The organization represents over 800 members nationwide

involved in a myriad of markets ranging from solar panel manufacturing to finger nail polish.

We are pleased to comment on EGLE’s proposed changes to Rules 336.1601 – R 336.1662

which, according to your agency, are necessary to satisfy requirements of the federal Clean Air

Act (CAA) 42 USC 7401 et seq., requirements referred to as “Reasonably Available Control

Technologies” (RACT).

Unlike conventional inks and coatings, UV/EB/LED products do not evaporate. Instead, they are

specifically formulated to react to an energy source. The nature of the process is such that

virtually no Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are generated. Additionally, UV/EB/LED

processes are electric and thus do not produce combustion contaminants such as Nitrogen Oxides

(NOx), Sulfur Oxides (Sox) and Greenhouse Gases. With UV/EB/LED technology, facilities can

achieve emission reductions above and beyond those required by even the most stringent of

regulations. Thus, our technology can help EGLE achieve requirements of the “Reasonable

Available Control Technology” (RACT) provisions in the Clean Air Act.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has some of the most stringent

air quality regulations in the nation. In many of its rulemakings, the agency has recognized the

sustainability advantages, including energy efficiency, of energy curable technology. SCAQMD

provides incentives to companies who convert to UV/EB/LED through exemptions from

permitting and recordkeeping. The agency recognized UV/EB/LED as Best Available Control

Technology (BACT) for many industry sectors and the technology has recently been included in

the Statewide BACT Clearinghouse for the California Air Resources Board.

UV/EB/LED technology is considered “super-compliant” in the SCAQMD which applies to

coatings with a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content of less than 50 grams per liter.

RadTech holds a seat on the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Advisory Committee.

Our Association provides input to the agency on how to achieve clean air goals and

implementation of UV/EB/LED is one strategy which has been included in the most recent

documents of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). According to SCAQMD findings:

“These programs may also provide manufacturers with incentives to accelerate the

deployment of cleaner technologies. Such an example is the use of energy-curing

technologies which includes ultraviolet light (UV), electron beam (EB), heat and light

emitting diode (LED) cured coatings”.

The California State Senate has adopted a resolution recognizing the many benefits of ultraviolet

(UV) and electron beam (EB) technologies and the contributions of RadTech. The proclamation

acknowledges the “invaluable” contributions made by RadTech to the State of California and

beyond, and cites the Association’s ideals of community service. It commends RadTech for its

“outstanding commitment to improving the environment and economy through its programs.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified UV/EB technology as Lowest

Achievable Emission Rate. The EPA Control Techniques Guidelines documents state: “This

technology is gaining greater acceptance and, where applicable, achieves a near 100 percent

reduction of VOC emissions”.

According to the public notice, the state must revise existing RACT rules to align with the most

recent recommendations contained in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s

(USEPA) Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) and promulgate new more stringent rules

setting or revising emission standards and operational requirements for certain types of existing

emission sources.

UV/EB/LED can play a role in the following EGLE rules:

 Rule 336.1610-- Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing automobile, light-

duty truck, and other product and material coating lines.

 Rule 336.1620-- Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing flat wood

paneling coating lines.

 Rule 336.1621-- Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing metallic surface

 coating lines.

 Rule 336.1632-- Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing automobile,

truck, and business machine plastic part coating lines.

We are concerned that some of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Control

Technique Guidelines (CTG) have not been updated since 1978 and thus the information is not

accurate by current application methods and standards in 2020. Basing the RACT demonstration

on the EPA CTGs may not capture the current state of our technology which has greatly

advanced since the promulgation of the CTGs. As an example, the CTG for Wood Furniture

Manufacturing Operations, promulgated in 1996, assumes that energy curable materials have a

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content of 458 grams per liter but, currently our materials

are typically less than 50 grams per liter in VOC content and in many cases exceed current

EGLE rule limits. Throughout the years, ink and coating makers have continued work to

formulate alternative materials which, may not have been readily available when the CTGs were

promulgated. In many cases, there is no consideration of energy curable inks which can be

equivalent to control devices and analogous to other low VOC ink systems.

We note that competing technologies such as conventional solvent systems with add-on controls

and waterborne coating processes, have been included in most of the relevant EPA CTGs. One

of EPA’s recommendations is that “inks which contain 60 percent or more non-volatile material

be exempt from emission limitations in order to encourage development of high solids inks.”

We very much support this incentive type approach and urge EGLE to implement it.

We request that UV/EB/LED processes be considered as an alternative equivalent option in the

RACT Demonstration. UV/EB/LED technology is available in the following CTG categories:

 Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing

 Graphic Arts-Rotogravure and Flexography

 Flexible Package Printing

 Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations

 Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling

 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings

 Flat Wood, Interior Paneling

 Large Appliance Coatings

 Metal Furniture Coatings

 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Plastics Products

 Paper, Film and Coil Coatings

 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

 Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings

 Surface Coating of Cans

The following are examples (not an exhaustive list) of permitted operations in the SCAQMD

using UV/EB/LED technology:

Spray Booth, Wood

Company Name

Application # Date Issued

Excel Cabinets, Inc.

Head West Inc.

450588

F80114

11/26/05

01/12/06

Lithographic Printing

Company Name

AQMD

Permit #

F32751

F15320

F24307

D53533

F15651

D92649

F31957

Date Issued

Holiday Printing & Lithograph Inc.

Westminster Press

07/25/00

08/11/98

02/09/00

05/21/92

11/24/98

08/10/95

06/21/00

K & D Graphics, A California Corp.

Jaco Printing Corp, Business Forms Press

Royal Paper Box Co.

Creative Mailings Inc.

Request to Include Incentives in Rulemaking

Our materials are typically well below 50 grams/liter in VOC content which is minimal

compared to existing and proposed limits. We respectfully request that UV/EB/LED materials

be exempted from the rule requirements. An exemption would be an incentive for businesses to

voluntarily choose UV/EB/LED technology resulting in additional emission reductions for the

South Coast Basin.

Recordkeeping requirements are burdensome on businesses and in the case of UV/EB/LED

operations, are not crucial because the materials are well below the rule limits. Exempting

energy curable materials from overly prescriptive recordkeeping requirements will alleviate

regulatory burdens on EGLE’s business community and benefit air quality.

Definition

We would very much appreciate the inclusion of a definition for energy curable materials in the

rule. We propose a definition like the one in other SCAQMD rules (R1130, R1168):

ENERGY CURABLE MATERIALS are single component reactive products that cure upon

exposure to visible-light, ultraviolet light, or to an electron beam.

Test Method

The Environmental Protection Agency and the SCAQMD have long recognized that EPA

Method 24 is not suitable for thin film UV/EB/LED Materials. RadTech urges the inclusion of

ASTM D7767-11 as suitable test method for thin film UV/EB/LED products. We propose the

following language:

The VOC content of thin film Energy Curable Adhesives and Sealants may be determined by

manufacturers using ASTM Test Method 7767 Standard Test Method to Measure Volatiles from

Radiation Curable Acrylate Monomers, Oligomers, and Blends and Thin Coatings Made from

Them.

Request for Additional Time to Submit Comments

As requested via the Q & A box in the meeting today, we request a one week extension to the

public comment period to allow our members to submit comments on this rulemaking.

We look forward to a continued collaboration with EGLE. Please let me know of any additional

assistance our association can provide.

Sincerely,

Rita M. Loof

Director, Environmental Affairs

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

To:

McDonald, Tracey (EGLE)

Thursday, October 27, 2022 7:53 AM

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

FW: Public Comments on the Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and

Energy (EGLE) Changes to R 336.1601 – R 336.1662 and “Reasonably Available Control

Technologies” (RACT)

Subject:

Attachments:

Categories:

10-26-22 EGLE Public Comments Letter.pdf

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

FYI. I’ve replied and a copy has already been added to the comment folder

From: Mike Bonner < @viscosity.com>

Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 4:00 PM

To: McDonald, Tracey (EGLE) <MCDONALDT@michigan.gov>

Subject: Public Comments on the Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) Changes to R

336.1601 – R 336.1662 and “Reasonably Available Control Technologies” (RACT)

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Dear Mr. McDonald,

Attached please find our comments on the abovementioned rule changes being contemplated by EGLE.

Please feel free to reach out to me if I can be of any assistance whatsoever.

Best Regards,

Michael R. Bonner | Vice President – Engineering & Technology

@viscosity.com

www.viscosity.com

12427 31 Mile Road | Washington, MI 48095 USA

Visit our Blog @ The Business of Viscosity

CLICK FOR FREE CUSTOMIZED REPORT

CLICK TO REVIEW EVALUATION TOOLS

1

October 26^th, 2022

Mr. Trace McDonald

Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy

Air Quality Division

McdonaldT@Michigan.gov

Re: Public Comments on the Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy

(EGLE) Changes to R 336.1601 – R 336.1662 and “Reasonably Available Control

Technologies” (RACT).

Dear Mr. McDonald:

Saint Clair Systems, Inc. is a Michigan based company, involved in the design manufacture of

temperature and viscosity control equipment for fluid dispensing systems. This includes both

solvent based and UV/EB cure applications for various customers, many of whom are located in

Michigan. We are involved in industrial/automotive finishing, adhesives and sealants, coil

coatings, food packaging, and printing sectors. Our company is a member of the RadTech

International association.

We echo RadTech’s requests to provide incentives for facilities in Michigan who have converted

or are considering conversion to UV/EB/LED. The technology can help EGLE achieve

requirements of the “Reasonable Available Control Technology” (RACT) provisions in the

Clean Air Act. UV/EB/LED can play a role in the following EGLE rules:

• Rule 336.1610-- Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing automobile, light-

duty truck, and other product and material coating lines.

• Rule 336.1620-- Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing flat wood

paneling coating lines.

• Rule 336.1621-- Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing metallic surface

coating lines.

• Rule 336.1632-- Emission of volatile organic compounds from existing automobile,

truck, and business machine plastic part coating lines.

We are concerned that some of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Control

Technique Guidelines (CTG) have not been updated since 1978 and thus the information is not

accurate by current application methods and standards in 2020. Basing the RACT demonstration

on the EPA CTGs may not capture the current state of our technology which has greatly

advanced since the promulgation of the CTGs. As an example, the CTG for Wood Furniture

12427 31 Mile Road • Washington Township, Michigan • 48095

586.336.0700 • www.saintclairsystems.com

Manufacturing Operations, promulgated in 1996, assumes that energy curable materials have a

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content of 458 grams per liter but, currently UV/EB/LED

materials are typically less than 50 grams per liter in VOC content and in many cases exceed

current EGLE rule limits. Throughout the years, ink and coating makers have continued work to

formulate alternative materials which may not have been readily available when the CTGs were

promulgated. In many cases, there is no consideration of energy curable inks which can be

equivalent to control devices and analogous to other low VOC ink systems.

We request that UV/EB/LED processes be considered as an alternative equivalent option in the

RACT Demonstration. UV/EB/LED technology is available in the following CTG categories:

• Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing

• Graphic Arts-Rotogravure and Flexography

• Flexible Package Printing

• Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations

• Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling

• Flat Wood Paneling Coatings

• Flat Wood, Interior Paneling

• Large Appliance Coatings

• Metal Furniture Coatings

• Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Plastics Products

• Paper, Film and Coil Coatings

• Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

• Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings

• Surface Coating of Cans

We wholeheartedly support RadTech’s requests for regulatory flexibility in the form of permit

exemptions in EGLE’s rules. Energy curable materials are typically well below 50 grams/liter in

VOC content which is minimal compared to existing and proposed limits. We respectfully

request that UV/EB/LED materials be exempted from the rule requirements. An exemption

would be an incentive for businesses to voluntarily choose UV/EB/LED technology resulting in

additional emission reductions for Michigan.

Recordkeeping requirements are burdensome on businesses and in the case of UV/EB/LED

operations, are not crucial because the materials are well below the rule limits. Exempting

energy curable materials from overly prescriptive recordkeeping requirements will alleviate

regulatory burdens on EGLE’s business community and benefit air quality.

We would very much appreciate the inclusion of a definition for energy curable materials in the

rule. We propose a definition like the one in SCAQMD rules (R1130, R1168):

ENERGY CURABLE MATERIALS are single component reactive products that cure upon

exposure to visible-light, ultraviolet light, or to an electron beam.

12427 31 Mile Road • Washington Township, Michigan • 48095

586.336.0700 • www.saintclairsystems.com

The Environmental Protection Agency and the SCAQMD have long recognized that EPA

Method 24 is not suitable for thin film UV/EB/LED Materials. We urge the inclusion of ASTM

D7767-11 as suitable test method for thin film UV/EB/LED products. We support RadTech’s

proposed language as follows:

The VOC content of thin film Energy Curable Adhesives and Sealants may be determined by

manufacturers using ASTM Test Method 7767 Standard Test Method to Measure Volatiles from

Radiation Curable Acrylate Monomers, Oligomers, and Blends and Thin Coatings Made from

Them.

We look forward to a continued collaboration with EGLE. Please let me know of any additional

assistance we can provide.

Sincerely,

Michael R. Bonner

Vice President Engineering & Technology

12427 31 Mile Road • Washington Township, Michigan • 48095

586.336.0700 • www.saintclairsystems.com

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

From:

Sent:

To:

Gary Jones

Tuesday, October 25, 2022 2:58 PM

Vaerten, Marissa (EGLE)

@printing.org>

Cc:

McDonald, Tracey (EGLE)

RE: Info From Joshua Flood at Kay Automotive Graphics

AdhesivesRACTRuleApplicabilityScreenPrinting.docx

Subject:

Attachments:

Categories:

2022-018EQ COMMENTS

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Hi Marissa,

Thanks for the feedback on the information from Kay Automotive Graphics.

As I went back and looked at the CTG that EPA issued on adhesives, it became apparent that screen printing was also not

to be included as it was not specifically identified as a covered source category, so I am submitting the attached memo

that includes the reasoning as a supplement to my previous comments.

Please let me know if you have any question or need additional information.

Gary Jones

Director, Environmental, Health, and Safety Affairs

PRINTING United Alliance

10015 Main St., Fairfax, VA 22031

|

@printing.org

1

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND

ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

AIR QUALITY DIVISION

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

Filed with the secretary of state on

These rules take effect immediately upon filing with the secretary of state unless adopted

under section 33, 44, or 45a(9) of the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA

306, MCL 24.233, 24.244, or 24.245a. Rules adopted under these sections become

effective 7 days after filing with the secretary of state.

(By authority conferred on the director of the department of environment, Great Lakes,

and energy environmental quality by sections 5503 and 5512 of the natural resources

and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.5503 and 324.5512, and

Executive Reorganization Order Nos.umbers 1995-16, 2009-31, and 2011-1, MCL

324.99903, 324.99919, and 324. 99921)

R 336.1601, R 336.1602, R 336.1606, R 336.1607, R 336.1608, R 336.1609, R 336.1610,

R 336.1611, R 336.1618, R 336.1620, R 336.1621, R 336.1622, R 336.1623, R 336.1624,

R 336.1625, R 336.1627, R 336.1628, R 336.1629, R 336.1630, R 336.1631, R 336.1632,

and R 336.1660 of the Michigan Administrative Code are is amended, R 336.1610a, R

336.1620a, R 336.1621a, R 336.1624a, R 336.1633, R 336.1634, R 336.1635, R

336.1636, R 336.1637, R 336.1638, R 336.1639, R 336.1640, R 336.1641, R 336.1642, R

336.1643, R 336.1644, and R 336.1662 are added, and R 336.1661 is rescinded, as

follows:

PART 6. EMISSION LIMITATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS--

EXISTING SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS

R 336.1601 Definitions.

Rule 601. As used in this part:

(a) “2015 ozone nonattainment area” means Berrien, Livingston, Macomb,

Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, Wayne, the western portion of Allegan,

and the western portion of Muskegon Counties.

(b) “Eastern portion of Muskegon County” means the areas located in Muskegon

County described as Casnovia Township, Cedar Creek Township, Egelston

Township, Holton Township, Moorland Township, Ravenna Township, and

Sullivan Township.

(a)(c) "Existing source" means any of the following: (i) Any process or process

equipment which that is subject to the provisions rules listed in table 60 of R 336.1604

to R 336.1618 and which has either has been placed into operation before the

corresponding date listed in table 60 July 1, 1979, or for which an application for a

September 7, 2022

permit to install, pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of these rules, was made to the

department before July 1, 1979 the corresponding date listed in table 60. The term

does not include a process or process equipment operated for research, development, or

pilot studies, if the operation is not for the purpose of producing saleable products or

goods.

TABLE 60

Rules

Date

R 336.1604 to R 336.1605

R 336.1606 to R 336.1609

R 336.1610

R 336.1610a

R 336.1611 to R 336.1617

R 336.1618

R 336.1620

R 336.1620a

R 336.1621

R 336.1621a

R 336.1622 to R 336.1624

R 336.1624a

R 336.1625

R 336.1628

R 336.1629

R 336.1630 and R 336.1631

R 336.1632 to R 336.1644

Any process or process equipment not

subject to the provisions of any rule in this

part.

July 1, 1979

March 1, 2023

July 1, 1979

March 1, 2023

July 1, 1979

March 1, 2023

July 1, 1980

March 1, 2023

July 1, 1980

March 1, 2023

July 1, 1980

March 1, 2023

July 1, 1980

January 5, 1981

January 20, 1984

July 1, 1987

March 1, 2023

July 1, 1979

(ii) Any process or process equipment which is subject to the provisions of R 336.1619

to R 336.1625 and which either has been placed into operation before July 1, 1980, or for

which an application for a permit to install, pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of these

rules, was made to the department before July 1, 1980.

(iii) Any process or process equipment which is subject to the provisions of R 336.1628

and which either has been placed into operation before January 5, 1981, or for which an

application for a permit to install, pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of these rules, was

made to the department before January 5, 1981.

(iv) Any process or process equipment which is subject to the provisions of R 336.1629

and which either has been placed into operation before January 20, 1984, or for which an

application for a permit to install, pursuant to the provisions of part 2 of these rules, was

made to the department before January 20, 1984.

(v) Any process or process equipment which is subject to the provisions of R 336.1630

or R 336.1631 and which either has been placed into operation before July 1, 1987, or for