P.1 

OAR Box 1500 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

81)11-0107 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 8/5/2008 1:51:30 PM Sheet 81 of 343 
P.2 

A 

|>' A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ll-C-|07 

f ^Sfe ? WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

K~^ 

O Q 14-W-m OFFICE OF 

APR <- " 1999 ENFORCEMENT AND 

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 

Steve McNally

 v 

Composites Fabricators Associations 

1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 510 

Arlington, Virginia 22209-2022 

Dear Mr. McNally: 

Thank you for your letter of December 16,1998, requesting that the Office of 

Compliance and Enforcement Assurance (OECA) evaluate and comment on the enforceability of 

the control spraying program proposed by the Composites Fabricators Association (CFA). This 

letter provides the CFA a written response based on the discussions during the December 9, 

1998, meeting; an analysis ofthe materials CFA submitted on the control spraying program and 

its enforceability; and a review of other Agency-related materials. We have coordinated this 

response with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). 

It is OECA's understanding that CFA has made this request because it proposes that the 

control spraying program be added to the list of emission reduction techniques being considered 

for meeting the maximum "point values" specified in the proposed approach of the cunent draft 

ofthe Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard for open molding sources 

within the reinforced plastics composites industry sector. The proposed MACT approach uses a 

point value limit within each open molding subcategory grouping to determine the extent to 

which emission reduction techniques are employed and their combined effectiveness. Therefore, 

industry is requesting emission reduction credits for sources implementing the proposed CFA 

control spraying program. 

Based on our analysis of all the information available, the Agency's position continues to 

be, as stated during the December 9 meeting, that the control spraying program would not be 

practically enforceable, as discussed below. 

• The control spraying program techniques have many variabilities including 

product surface areas, skill levels of spray technicians, percent of transfer 

efficiency during spraying, the use ofthe lowest spray gun pressure, the use of a 

proper fan pattern, and the effectiveness of the flanges. 

• There is not a practical way to quantify emission reductions which is necessary to 

issue credits, nor a practical way to demonstrate continuous compliance. 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer) 

1 
• The additional monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that would 

be necessary to make the proposed spray program techniques enforceable would 

be prohibitively costly to both the industry and the regulators. 

0 On-site surveillance would be an effective tool in demonstrating 

compliance only if conducted by a third independent party not associated 

with a facility. In our estimation, having third party on-site surveillance of 

work areas on a continuous basis would be too expensive for industry, 

particularly small businesses. 

0 The burden associated with mamtaining sufficiently detailed records for 

review by inspectors also would be costly to industry, especially small 

businesses, and inconsistent with the goals ofthe Paperwork Reduction 

Act. Furthermore, even when regulators conduct frequent, periodic, 

unannounced inspections and reviews of detailed facility records, the 

Agency has no assurance that compliance is being achieved continuously. 

Below is a detailed explanation of our evaluation ofthe proposed CFA program. 

Analysis of the Control Spraying Program Techniques: 

Provide Training: 

As indicated in the December 9 meeting, training is a work practice standard that 

has been incorporated in other rules (e.g., the National Emission Standards (NESHAP) 

for Wood Furniture Manufacturing); however, it has been added as a supplement to an 

emission limit. To make this program technique practically enforceable such that it 

would be eligible for a quantifiable credit, we would need assurance that the technician is 

adequately conducting all ofthe required steps and spraying properly on a continuous 

basis. As stated earlier, Ae requirement of on-site surveillance by a third independent 

party would be costly. Further, even when a source has third party on-site surveillance of 

work areas on a continuous basis to ensure that technicians are following all ofthe proper 

steps, the transfer efficiency among spray technicians could still vary significantly. Our 

experience working with state technical assistance providers indicates that there is 

considerable transfer efficiency variability among spray technicians prior to and even 

after they have taken spray techniques training. Furthermore, periodic unannounced 

inspections and the review of facility records will not provide regulators the assurance 

that compliance is being achieved continuously. 

Use of Flanges: 

For this program technique to be sufficiently enforceable such that it would be 

eligible for a quantifiable credit, we need assurance that the flanges are properly installed 

P.3 

z 
P.4 

every time there is a new product being sprayed and are effectively controlling overspray 

on a continuous basis. To ensure continuous compliance, on-site surveillance by a third 

independent party would be necessary. As mentioned above, we believe that the option 

of having third independent party on-site surveillance to monitor installation and 

effectiveness of flanges on a continuous basis would be costly, especially for small 

businesses. Furthermore, periodic unannounced inspections and review of facility 

records will not provide regulators the assurance that compliance is being achieved 

continuously. 

Determination of Lowest Sprav Gun Pressure: 

For this program technique to be sufficiently enforceable such that it would be 

eligible for a quantifiable credit, we would have to ensure that technicians calibrate the 

spray guns properly and use the lowest optimal spray gun pressure on a continuous basis. 

However, we believe that it would be difficult for a facility to demonstrate that 

technicians are using the lowest optimal spray gun pressure on a continuous basis since 

recording the use of a proper fan pattern does not necessarily indicate the use ofthe 

optimal lowest pressure. As with the previous program techniques, we estimate that the 

option of on-site surveillance on a continuous basis by a third independent party is 

unreasonable. Furthermore, even when regulators may conduct periodic unannounced 

inspections and review detailed facility records, this activity still does not provide 

sufficient assurance that compliance is being achieved continuously. 

Other MACT-Related Issues Raised by CFA: 

Statutory Oblisations: 

The Agency has been working with industry in the development ofthe MACT 

standard for the reinforced plastic composites industry sector to ensure that it meets all of 

its statutory requirements associated with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.') 

and the Clean Air Act. We are continuing to evaluate our proposed approach ofthe 

cunent draft" MACT standard to identify and evaluate the appropriateness and 

enforceability of all of the possible options. For example, based on our discussions with 

industry, we have added some flexibility into the open molding subcategory ofthe 

proposed approach to the current draft MACT standard. This includes: 1) defining 

product/process groupings within open molding; 2) averaging resin with gel coat; and 3) 

using 12 month rolling averaging in meeting the point value limits for open molding. 

The Agency appreciates CFA's continued assistance in our effort to develop a MACT 

standard for the sector that takes into consideration impacts to small businesses and 

minimizes the resource burden to the industry. 

y> 
P.5 

Use of Work Practices in Other Rules Including the Wood Furniture NESHAP: 

OECA supports the incorporation of work practice standards in new rules as a 

supplement to emission limit standards, since they are best management practices that 

can assist industry in achieving compliance with the general duty to minimize emissions, 

a duty which is difficult to quantify. We cannot support, however, work practices being 

included as a means for credit on emission reductions in lieu of other more quantifiable 

requirements because ofthe difficulty in practically enforcing some practices and 

quantifying emission reductions from their implementation. 

There are several surface coating rules that incorporate work practices as a 

supplement to an emission limit. An example of a surface coating rule, as we. mentioned 

at the December 9 meeting, is the NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing that 

incorporates work practice standards (e.g., training) to encourage the use of less materials 

and more effective operations resulting in less pollutant emissions. Examples of other 

surface coating rules are the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP that incorporates 

work practices to encourage good waste handling and transfer practices to minimize 

spills, and the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Surface Coating of Metal 

Furniture that incorporates work practices to optimize industry operations through 

monitoring of key operating parameters. These examples show that the Agency, in 

coordination with industry, has incorporated best management practices in rules, 

including surface coating rules. However, in none of these rules have the emissions 

reductions resulting from work practices been included as credits in averaging schemes or 

substituted for more quantifiable emission reduction requirements. 

In conclusion, OECA has determined that the proposed CFA control spraying program, a 

best management work practice, is not practically enforceable due to the m<3ny viabilities in the 

program techniques, and the resources and burdens associated with the additional monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements needed to overcome some ofthe viabilities. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Maria Malave at 202-564-7027 or 

Charlie Garlow at 202-564-1088. 

Sincerely, 

John B. Rasnic, Director 

Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division 

Office of Compliance 

\ 
P.6 

t 

* 

cc: Mamie Miller, Branch Chief, METD 

Rich Biondi, Associate Director, AED 

Maria Malave, METD 

Charlie Garlow, AED 

Keith Barnett, OAQPS 

5