p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews

Document

Number: 

# 82 ) ll-E-4 2 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:05 AM

Sheet 82 of 264P. 2 A-94-5 2 MEMORANDU

M TO : Madelein e Strum

U.S . EPA/ESD/CCP G FROM : Gre g LaFla

m Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) DATE : Ma

y 24 , 199 6 P:\N40 4 SUBJECT : Minute s o

f Apri l 26 , 199 6 Meetin g Betwee n th e EP A andth e SPI Composite s Institut

e LOCATION : EPA/Mutua l Building , Durham , NC , roo m1108 , 1:2 0 pm-2:3 0 p m ATTENDEES :

Ms . Lind aChappell Mr . Tyler Fo x Ms . Lesly e Fraser Ms . Lind aHerrin g Mr . Bruc e Jorda

n Mr . Gre g LaFla

m Mr . Ken Meardo n Mr . John Schweitze

r Ms . Madelein e Stru

m PURPOS E EPA/ES D RT I EPA/OG C EPA/ES D EPA/ES D PE S PE S Comp . Institute EPA/ES D (919 ) 541-286 4

(919 ) 541-695 5 (202 ) 260-760 9 (919 ) 541-535 8 (919 ) 541-557 2 (919 ) 941-033 3 (919 ) 941-033 3 (313 ) 668-470 3 (919 ) 541-238 3
Th e purpos e o

f th e meeting wa s t o discus s option s fo r addressin g th e concern s raise d i n John Schweitzer' s fa x of Apri l 1 , 1996 . Th e concern s wer e raise dove

r th e EPA' s approac h fo

r determinin g maximu

machievabl e contro l technolog y (MACT ) floors fo r th e reinforce dplasti c composite s sourc e category . DISCUSSION Mr . Schweitze

r presente dhi s organization' s reactio n to m e industr y subcategorie s an dMAC T floo

r determination s tha

t the EP A ha dpreviously discusse da

t aMarc h 20 , 199 6 meetin g o

f th e P-MAC T projec t

tea m(Mr . Schweitzer' s presentatio n packag e include da s a

n attachmen

t t o thi s memo) . H e bega

n by statin g tha

t contro l equipment

i sP. 3

Madelein e Strum Ma y 24 , 199 6 Pag e 2 economically infeasibl e fo r man y open molding facilities . H e sai dtha t thes e facilitie s can ofte n star t u p fo r acapita l investmen

t a s lo w a s $10,000-$15,000 , an dman y facilitie s wil l no t b e buil t i f there i s arequirement

to install a

n incinerato r

becaus e it

will mak e th e operatio n unprofitable . Ms . Stru mpointe dout that , whil e th e 9 5 percent reductio n leve l of th e ne w sourc e MAC T floor

i s base do n afacilit

y usin g incineration , other device s ma

y b e les s expensiv e andwoul db e acceptabl e if the y me t th e efficiency requirement . Mr . Jorda n aske dho w facilitie s tha

t presently have contro l equipment ca n affor dit . Mr . Schweitze r sai dtha t thes e facilitie s ar

e par t o f larg e companie s tha

t are abl e t o sprea

d th e cos t amon g al l o f

thei r operations . I n discussin g Mr . Schweitzer' s thre e alternativ e "solutions " to regulatin g thi s industry , EP

A staf f pointe dout

tha t the y di dnot hav e th e freedo mto abando n o r modif y th e MAC T floor

requirement s i n th e Clea

n Ai r Act . However , subcategorizatio n i s certainl y avali dapproac h andi s consisten t wit h the Act . Mr . Jorda

n askedwheme

r ther e i s atechnica

l dividin g lin e tha

t wouldallow furthe

r subcategorizatio n o

f th e industry . H e stresse dtha

t th e EP A i s no t legally abl e to us e cost s andeconomi c consideration s a s criteri ai n forming subcategories . Mr . Schweitze r saidtha t ideally there are dozen s of subcategories , bu t

specifying thi s level o

f detai l in aregulatio n woul db e impractica l an d th e industr

y i s no t advocatin g thi s solution . H e sai dtha t collocatio n of

differen t type s o f processe s (suc h a s pultrusio n andpainting ) coul dmak e facilitie s differen

t technically and qualif y themfo r inclusio n i n aseparat

e subcategory . Mr . Jordan sai dma t th e EP A woul d discus s collocatio n internally i n term s of it s effects o n th e subcategorie s andfloor determi nations . Ms . Fraser

agree dtha

t proces s collocatio n coul dpotentiall y serv e a s abasi s fo r subcategorizatio n if

there were technica

l factor s differentiatin g such facilities . Ms . Stru m brought up th e situatio n i n whic h afacilit y previously ha

dcollocate dprocesse s o r

where additiona l processe s wer

e late r addedto a

n origina l proces s (thi s applie s to a t leas t on e of th e floor-setting facilitie s i n th e database) . Sh e fel t that , if control s wer

e originall y installe do n acomposit

e process , th e additio n o

f aproces s suc h a s paintin g to th e contro l scenari o shoul dno t

impac t th e inclusio n o

f thi s facilit y wit h other s tha

t perfor mth e same composit e process . Th e group als o addresse dth e issu e of facilit y siz e (i.e. , resi n consumptio n o r productio n rate ) a s a

n additiona

l mean s o f developing industr

y subcategories . Bot

h Mr . Jorda n andMs . Fraser

state dtha t subcategorie s basedo n siz e woul db e avali dwa y to determin e appropriat

e MAC T level s fo

r th e industry ; however , Mr . Jorda n reiterate d tha

t thes e siz e split s coul dno t

b e base do n economi c arguments . Ms . Stru mpointe dou t

tha t th e 9 5 percent

ne w sourc e MAC T contro l level fo r ope n molder s woul dappl

y only t o th e larger facilitie s i

f th e MAC T floor

analysi s wer

e carrie dout

o n th e basi s of

facilit y size . Th e EP A saidtha t it ha dlookedint

o the issue of

corrosion-resistant

resins/product s as atechnica

l distinctio n i n analyzin g contro l measure s anddeterminin g floors . Mr . LaFla mpointe dou t

tha t corrosio n resistanc e represent s aspectrum , making i t difficult t o 

# 2P. 4

Madelein e Strum Ma y 24 , 199 6 Pag e 3 clearl y define adistinctio n between corrosion-resistant an dnoncorrosion-resistant

products . Mr . Schweitze

r agreed , an

dsai dtha t th e mos t promisin g definitio n woul dprobably b e state di n term s o

f the end-product s manufacture d(e.g. , chemica l tank s andpiping , etc.) . H e sai dh e wouldconsult

hi s membershi

p to develop adefinitio n fo r corrosion-resistan t product s an

dprovide i t

t o th e EP A fo r it s consideration . ACTIO N ITEM S Th e EP A sai dtha t it wouldconside

r th e issu e o

f proces s collocatio n andcontinu e to analyz e variou s mean s o f industr y subcategorization . Mr . Schweitze r sai dtha t h e would provid e more specifi c detail s o n th e issu e o f corrosio n resistance , includin g adefinitio n tha t wil l serv e to distinguis h processe s tha t ma y warrant consideratio n a s aseparat e subcategory . Attachment



### _ ?B N e 

### Regulatin g th a Composite s Industr y Unde rCA A Section

11 2

- or - s 

### J "Th a floo ri s abov e th a ceiling! " 1 -4_ ! s •

£ 5 

### Presentatio n t o U S EP A OAQP S Emissio n Standard s Divisio n

Apri l 26,199 6 Joh n Schweitze r SP I Composite s Institut e

## \ MAC

T &ae\ce o CA A Section

11 2 require s EP A t o establis h Maximu m Achievabl e Control Technology

etandarde

for Majo rSource s o f Hazardous Ai r Pollutants . o MAC T requirement s ar e t o b e a t leas t a s stringen t a s th e MAC T Floors . Th e MAC T Floo rfo rNe w Source s i s base d o n th e bes t controlle d source i n th e categor y o rsubcategory . $ - Th e Floo rfo rExistin g Source s i s base d o n th e averag e control achieved

b y « th e bes t controlled 12 % o f facilitie s i n th e categor y o rsubcategor y (o r B \J~[ averag e o f bes t 5 facilitie s i n categorie s o rsubcategorie s wit h fewe rtha n 3 3 0 sources) . 

### I o Congres s assume d tha t th e Floor s ar a inherentl y achievable , since ,

b y definition , a t leas t on e sourc e i n th e categor y o rsubcategor y currentl y achieve s th e Floor . E g c c V

- 8 c 

## p. 1

b >• 6

8 $ 

## I r \ Composite s Industr y o Th e composite s industr y i s ver y complex

and diverse , wit

h dozen s o f different processes , hundred s o f different raw materials , an d thousand s o f

different products . o There ar e man y additional facility-specifi c factors , Independent of th aproceee/material/product combinations, such as siz e o f facility , profitability , custom vs . standardize dproducts, batch vs. continuous processing, presence of other processes and

emission controls, etc. o Identifyin g th e mos t effective feasibl e control for a give n sourc e wil l depend heavil y o n th auniqu e combination of process, material, product, and

facility-specifi c factors.

_ 

### 1

- > E e 

## p.2

T I

## I MAC T Floo rmaat s Composita s

o Th e CA A MAC T Floo rprocess assume s relativel y homogeneous categories

or subcategories. However, th e composites industr y ha s littl e similarit y among sources. • o Consequently , th e MAC T Floo rproces s doe s no t yiel d effectiv e and affordable

control

requirement s fo rth a composites industry. MAC T Floors

are not inherentl y achievable. 3 - I n th e mos t recent teleconference

of the Pre-MAC T wor k

group , severa l 1 stat e participant s note d tha t the y approach composite

facilities

on a case- | ] by-cas e basis . Thes e stat e regulators did not believ e tha t a one-size-fits-al l approach

could work for th e composites

industry , eve n wit h th e proposed subcategorization . , 

### o Th e composites

industry

i s no t i n favo ro f settin g MAC T standard s o n a case-by-cas e basis , due to th e hig h costs , administrative

burden, and

uncertainty

of thi s approach. o The industry wants to work with EP A t o achiev e a MAC T standard | tha t i s timely , effective , enforceable, and affordable. X

- 

## p. 3

T I 0 0

## I Statu s o f Composita s MAC T

o Th e industry has bee n divided into subcategories, based on process, o Data from a 1993 survey and other sources was used

to rank facilitie s i

n eac h subcategory according to degree of emissio n control. O Withi n eac h subcategory, Existin g Source Floors have been 5 

## tentatively se t base don th e averag e leve l of control achieved

b y I th e bes t

controlled

127*. o f source s (or

average of

bas t 5 source s £ < 3 fo r

subcategorie s wit

h fewe r tha n 30sources). | O Ne

w Source Floors have been tentatively sa t based on th aleve

l o f

_contro l achieved b y th e bes t

controlled

source i n eac h subcategory.



## p. 4

T I C O

# | Statu s o

f Composite s MAC

T (continued) o Several

of th e tentative Floors are above th e maximumachievable control, and/or

represent

level s o f

control not in proportion to actual emissions. For

example: The Ne w Source Floorforopen molding i s base d on Incineration, bu tth e vas t majority of

likel y new open molding sources wil l no tb e abl e t o afford Incinerators orachieve the same leve l o f control through some othermeans. Th e Ne w Source FloorforSM

C compounding, BM

C compounding, and 8 pultrusion are all base d on Incineration, and ye tthes e are all

low-emittin g s processes . (EPA' s Ji m3err y recentl y characterize d thes e source s a s I f 

### "gnats.' 1 

### ) The cost to abate th e emissions from thes e source s wil l exceed | $25,00 0 per ton.

_- Th

e Existing Source Ftoo r fo r pultrusio n i s based

on th e us e o f

injectors or total covers, but

there are many products where neithe r Injectors nortotal covers can be used. Th e tentative Existin g Source Floorforopen molding i s based on th e us e o

f fille d resi n system s orsuppressants (among othersource reduction 1 techniques). However, fillers and suppressants may not be used In many applications, such a s corrosion resistan tequipment, orproducts needin g ver y hig h strengt h or

hig h resistance to delamination . 

## I b 

## p. 5

T I o

## I MAC T Floo rObjectives

o The Floor s should

provide a basi s fo r

settin g MAC

T standard s tha t are effective in reducing emissions, are enforceable, and are affordable b

y industry. o The Floors should

resul t i n astandard

that honors th e intent

of CA A Sectio n 112 . CA A Sect . 112(d)(2 ) reads : "Emissio n standards .. . shal l required th e

_maximu mdegre e of reduction In emissions .. . tha t th e Administrator/taking 5 j int o consideration th e cos t o f achieving such amissio n reduction, and any | non-air qualit y healt h an denvironmental Impacts and

energy requirements, S G determines i s achievable for new or existin g sources... " {emphasis added). 

## | o The Floors and th e resulting standard

should satisf y th e retirements of

Executiv e Orde r

1229 1 and

th e Regulatory Flexibilit y Act . Th e standar dshould

meet it s objectives i

n acost-effectiv e manner. The standard

should not place unreasonable burdens on small businesses . 

## I _

C O

m _

. 2

_ 

## p. 6" 5

«

_ 

# I 

# i Solution No . 1 : Establis h Additional Subcategorie s o T o achiev e an effective and affordable MAC

T standard

whil e followin g th e letter

of CAA Section 112

, additional

subcategories can be established , o Thi s wil

l allo w MAC

T requirements to be tailored for many of th e specific combinations of process, material, and

product, as wel

l a s fo r various facility-specific factors.

V 

## .7

T I t o

### Solutio n No . 1 (continued )



## o Fo r example , additional

subcategories might

b e establishe d for : pultrusio n o f

electrical

products, where Injectors are not currentl y feasible . pultrusio n o f

products wit h complex feeds of

reinforcement, where neither total covers nor

Injectors are feasible . operations where th e capital cost of a technically-feasible abatement device represents some reasonable fraction of th e capital

Investment

In th e major source. s - operations where th e operating cost of a technically-feasible abatement ? } devic e represents some reasonable fraction of th e revenue attributabl e t o | - th e major source. | N - production line s dedicate dt o one product, where close capture technology * coul db e engineered to achieve a concentrated exhaust

stream. & - fabrication of corrosion resistant

products, where th e highe r cos t o f low styren e viny l este r

resins can be passed

on to th e customer. fabrication of

corrosion resistant

products, where competitive pressures from Imports or

other materia l system s require th e us e o f less-expensiv e Isophthallc resins with higher styrene . composites manufacturing sources co-located with operations vented to Incinerators, where th e emission s fro mth e composites manufacturing sources could

be economically vented to th e alread y existing controls.

_ c • s i

_ 

## p3

## I

V o

C O 

### 1 I

. 2

_ 

### Solutio n No . 1 (continued ) 

## o Advantage s o

f additional

subcategories: MAC T i s mor e likel y t o represent

th e maximu

m achievable control

foreach majorsource. CAA Section 11

2 allow s EP

A t o establis h subcategories a s needed. 

## o Disadvantages of

additional

subcategories: large numbers o f

subcategories would

be needed

to fairly deal

with th e complexit y and diversity of

th e Industry. 5 - Th

e resulting standard

i s (ikel y t o b e ver

y complex and

difficul tt o Interpret | and enforce. | --— . - Creating additional subcategories, and

determinin g MAC

T Floors foreach, wil

l b e ver y resourc e Intensive. Subcategorization s tha t require larger

sources to us e more expensiv e controls will

push th e industr y toward smallerfacilities. N

o overall reduction i n emissions woul d result .



## p. 9

T I" 5 

# I

V

- o 

## I «

_ .' 6 

## Solutio n No . 2 : Abando n th e MAC T Floo rProces s o EP A can make an administrative/polic y findin g tha t th e MAC

T Floor proces s doe s no t

functio n t o yiel deffective and affordable minimu mcontrol

level s fo r

th e composites Industry. Congress assumed

that homogeneous subcategories can be identified withi n eac h Industry. Thi s assumption does not hold for composite manufacturing. 

## o Th e standar dcan then be prepared withou t employing th e statutory MAC

T Floo r process .

p.1 0

T I lu i" 6 

## | Solutio n No . 2 (continued) o Advantages of

abandoning th e MAC

T Floo r process : EPA , Industry, and

interested

state and

local regulators, can identif y th e bes t balance of

control effectiveness , affordablllty, and enforceability for each subcategory, unencumbered b y th e unrealistic constraints of th e MACT Floo r findings. Several precedents exis t

fo r EP A mating an administrative/policy determination regarding th e MAC T Floo r process : ? + EP A determined that the 112(g ) program does not need to apply to % modifications, contrary to th e statutory language. | + EP A decided that th e 112(g ) program does not tak e effec t

unti l EP A s \y\ publishe s th e fina l guidance to states . Th e statut e requires that 5 ) state s implement 112(g ) a s soo n a s thei r Titl e V programs are 5 approved.

+ Th e Woo d Furnitur e MAC T recognizes th e diversit y o f tha t Industry, and provides options that

may not

have resulted

from a n inflexibl e reliance on th e Floors to se t

th e contro l requirements .


### P. H

T I! 

### Solutio n No . 2 (continued )

o Disadvantage s o f abandoning th e MAC T Floo rprocess : EP A coul d no

longer rely on th e Floo rdeterminations as a starting point for settin g MAC T fo reac h subcategory. Preparing

th e MAC T standard

wil l require

substantiall y more

resources. EP A woul d b e open

to court challenges

for falling to compl y wit h th e letter of CA A Sectio n 112 . 

### I <T

### i a

E
- c o 

### 1

_ 

### p.1 2

T I

## | Solutio n No . 3 : Modif y th e MAC T Floo rProces s

o EP A ca n mak e an administrative/policy finding that th e MAC

T Floo r proces s doe s no t

functio n t o yiel deffectiv e and affordable minimu mcontrol level s fo r

th e composites Industry. Congress assumed

that Industry subcategories would be homogeneous enough that

th e bes t

controlled

source withi n eac h subcategory would fairly represent a leve l o f

control that could and should be achieved

b y al l new sources, and

that th e averag e leve l o f

control achieved

b y th e bes t % performin g 12 % o f sources (or

average of

th e bes t

5 sources ) woul d fairl y i represent th e leve l o f

control for existin g sources , becaus e o f th e diversit y I j an dcomplexity of the composites Industry, thes e assumptions do not hold. 

## | ^ o EP

A can change th e criteria used for setting th e MAC

T Floors for | th e composites industry. For example: Th e Ne w Source Floor could be based

on th e average leve l o f control achieved b y th e bes t

controlled

10 % o f sources , rather

than th e bes t

controlled

singl e source . I - Th e Existin g Sourc e Floo r coul db e based

on th e average leve l o f control I achieved b y th e bes t

controlled

25 % o f sources , rather

than th e bes t

12% . 

## I o Th

e resulting standard

can stil l hono r

th e Intent

of CAA Sec. 112 .

_

T I 0 0

### | Solutio n No . 3 (continued )

o Advantage s o f modifyin g th e MAC T Floo rprocess :

Modifie d MAC T Floo r criteria, in betterrecognizing the diversity and complexit y of the composites Industry, could yield minimu m control

level s tha tare more appropriate and achievable. EP A would stil l hav e Floors upon whic h t o bas e th e MAC T retirements for each subcategory. This approach could

be combined

with adding a few additional subcategories, „ i

f needed, and

stil l resul ti

n a workable standard. ? j - Severa l precedent s exis t fo r EP A makin g an administrative/policy 1 determination to modif y th e MAC

T Floo r proces s (se e discussion under s ^v^ Solutio n No . 2 advantages). 

### I o

Disadvantages

of modifyin g th e MAC T Floo rprocess: ° - EPA and industry wil

l need to agree on some basi s fo r settin g alternative Floorcriteria. EPA wouldb e ope n t o court challenge s fo r

failin g t o compl y with th e letter of CAA Section 112

. C O * t

- 

### p.1 4

T I C O