p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



# y 'Document

Number: 

# 2&o) II-F- ! Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:12 AM

Sheet 256 of 264P. 2

* » 

# TT-F- 5 ( t

Keit h Barnett To : Peter_D._Eglinton@omb.eop.go v 11/07/200 0 12:4 2 P M cc : Penn y Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EP A Subject : Re : Repl y Dea rPeter : I . hav e a lette rdate d Augus t 2 , 2000 . I t i s 4 pages . I hav e attache d a copy . Th e issue s raise d ar e th e sam e one s CF A an d EP

A hav e discusse d before . Concernin g reviewin g th e cost s an d raisin g th e threshold , w e believ e i t i s mor e appropriat e t o propos e wit h ou rcurren t cost s an d thresholds , an d the n reasses s afte rproposa l whe n w e hav e comment s fro m al l intereste d parties , no t jus t th e CFA . Th e reaso n th e CF A cost s ar e s o muc h highe ri s the y ar e base d th e assumptio n tha t th e HA P concentration s tha t mus t b e controlle d ar e muc h lowe rtha n thos e w e hav e see n i n actua l operatin g facilities . W e hav e actuall y addresse d thi s issu e previousl y i n "Addendu m t o Assessmen t o f Styren e Emissio n Control s fo rFRP/ C an d Boa t Buildin g Industries" . EPA-600-/R-96-136 , Novembe r 1996 . Yo u shoul d hav e a cop y wit h th e cos t material s I sen t a s par t o f th e SBA R Panel . W e als o discus s th e cos t difference s i n th e preamble . W e believ e i t i s cos t effectiv e fo ral l facilitie s abov e 10 0 tp y t o mee t a 9 5 percen t contro l requirement . However , du e t o smal l busines s concern s an d i n th e spiri t o f SBREFA , w e provide d relie f t o smal l businesses . Unti l w e receiv e additiona l informatio n throug h proposa l an d evaluat e th e CF A cost s agai n w e hav e n o informatio n t o persuad e u s t o rais e th e threshol d fo rlarg e companies . Regardin g changin g th e preambl e t o "specif y a procedur e t o allo w th e industr y t o full y participat e i n an d commen t o n EPA' s subsequen t coa t analysis" , w e hav e maintaine d a n ongoin g dialogu e wit h th e industr y throughou t thi s rulemaking , an d w e don' t se e tha t changing . However , give n th e shor t amoun t o f tim e w e hav e availabl e betwee n proposa l an d promulgation , w e d o no t believ e formalizin g anothe rroun d o f comment s an d response s woul d b e appropriate . T o d o thi s woul d jeopardiz e th e 112(j ) hamme rdat e o f Ma y 2002 , an d neithe rw e no rth e industr y wan t that . Also , not e tha t industr y alread y ha d on e chanc e t o commen t o n th e add-o n contro l costin g methodologie s develope d i n th e origina l OR D cos t stud y a s discusse d above . Regardin g th e boa t manufacturin g rul e - thes e source s ar e no t a s simila ra s CFA implies . On e majo r differenc e i s th e floo rleve l o f contro l fo rproductio n resi n applicatio n fo ral l boat s i s a poin t valu e o f 9 1 . Th e larges t operatio n i n th e RPC industry , fille d mechanica l non-corrosio n resistan t resin , ha d a floo rpoin t valu e o f 144 . Th e poin t valu e rang e fo rothe rproductio n resin s ar e 8 3 t o 190 . Therefore , th e floo rleve l o f contro l fo rboa t manufacturin g i s mor e stringen t tha t fo rRPC . Anothe r significan t differenc e i s tha t onl y on e boa t manufacturin g facilit y ha s a n add-o n control . I n th e PR C sourc e categor y ther e ar e eightee n facilitie s wit h add-o n control s tha t w e hav e sam e dat a on , an d a t leas t tw o mor e tha t w e ar e awar e o f an d pla n t o ge t dat a o n afte rproposal . Therefore , add-o n control s hav e bee n muc h mor e widel y applie d i n RPC compare d t o boats . Finally , th e boa t manufacturin g NESHA P decision s playe d n o par t i n thi s rulemaking . Therefore , I don' t believ e w e nee d t o addres s boa t manufacturin g i n ou rpreamble . Regardin g th e ite m wher e CFA request s th e preambl e b e change d t o specificall y reques t commen t o n thresholds , w e ar e seekin g comment s o n al l aspect s o f th e rul e an d thi s ite m i s moot .P. 3

Th e CF A ha s als o raise d a n issu e concernin g OSH A requirements . The y stat e tha t requirin g captur e an d contro l wil l mak e complianc e wit h OSH A requirement s mor e difficult . Ther e i s n o reaso n tha t a facilit y woul d b e unabl e t o compl y wit h OSH A requirement s becaus e the y mus t mee t th e captur e requirement s i n thi s rule , an d w e designe d th e enclosure s whe n w e di d th e costin g assumin g tha t OSH A requirement s woul d b e me t wit h engineerin g controls . W e hav e als o discusse d thi s issu e directl y wit h OSH A an d provide d OSH A a cop y o f th e rul e an d preambl e fo rcomment . W e hav e incorporate d languag e suggeste d b y OSH A i n th e preambl e o n alternative s t o addres s potentia l worke rexposur e concerns , an d ar e requestin g commen t o n thes e alternatives . A t n o tim e ha s OSH A indicate d t o m e tha t the y believ e w e shoul d modif y th e captur e requirements . OM B lette r Keit h W . Barnet t U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Emissio n Standard s Divisio n MD-1 3 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 919-541-560 5 barnett.keith@epa.go v Peter_D._Eglinton@omb.eop.go v

Peter_D._Eglinton@o m To : Keit h Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EP A b.eop.gov 11/06/200 0 01:4 5 P M cc : Subject : Repl y

Hi , Keith . I go t you rvoic e message . I' m currentl y hustlin g o n thre e othe rEP A rule s wit h deadline s aroun d 11/15 . Perhap s th e ongoin g prioritizatio n discussion s wil l she d ligh t o n th e fina l tim e fram e fo ryou rrule . A t thi s point , I' m sorr y t o repor t tha t I d o no t hav e an y question s prepared.. . BTW , di d yo u receiv e an y letter s fro m CFA i n August ? W e did , an d wil l wan t t o ge t you rthought s o n thei rcomments . I f yo u alread y receive d a letter , i t likel y contain s th e sam e info . I f not , I'l l se e i f I ca n pul l togethe r a summar y - - o rjus t fa x yo u a copy .P. 4 

# l l E¥/7f/W Composites mJUrl WFabricators 

# Wim WAst 'Asociation T H E COMPOSITE S CONNECTIO N Augus t 2 , 200 0 Mr . John Spotil a Administrator Office o f Information an

dRegulator

y Affairs Office of Managemen

t andBudge

t Washingto n D C 2050 3 Re : Change s Neede di

n EPA' s Draf

t Propose dMACT Standar

dfo r Reinforce d Plastics/Composite s Manufacturing Dea r Mr . Spotila : The Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n (CFA ) i s th e nationa l trade grou

p fo r th e reinforce dplastics/composite s ("composites" ) industry . W e ar e writin g regardin g EPA' s draf t propose dMACT standar

dfo r reinforce dplastics /

composite s manufacturin g tha t OM B wil l soo n receiv e fo

r review . W

e urg e yo u to ask EP A to amen dit s draf t proposa l befor e i t i s published . W

e submitteddetaile dstudie s i n Apri l to EP

A showin g tha

t EPA' s curren

t draf t wil l result

i n th e closur

e o f anumbe r o f majo r composite s facilities. 1 EP A ha s decide dt o postpon e revie w of ou r studie s an dinstea dt o procee dwit

h proposa l o f thi s draf t rule . W e see k your interventio n to mitigat

e the advers e consequence s o f EPA' s decisio n an

dto ensur e afai r an dadequat e addressa l of ou r ver y seriou s concerns . The Impacto

f EPA' s Proposa

l EP A propose s t o requir

e man y composite s manufacturer s usin g ope n moldin g processe s t o reduc e emission s ofth e Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (HAPs ) fromthei r operation s by 95 % by installin g captur

e an dcontro l equipmen

t (oxidizers) . Ou

r engineerin g an

d economic s expert s made sit e visit s an dcollecte dinformation fro

m1 7 typica

l ope n moldin g composite s operations . The y foun dthat : 1 . Fo r thes e 1 7 typica

l composite s manufacturin g operations , th e captur e an d control system s would b e 3-1 0 time s mor e expensiv e tha

n EP A estimated . Thes e control s wil l cos t

composite s manufacturer s u p to $40,00 0 pe r to n o f HAP 1 Thes e report s wer

e als o provide dto Mr . Peter Eglinto n o f

your office . 1P. 5

controlled . Suc

h control s ar

e clearly no t

cost-effective - EP

A typically consider s contro l cost s o f

$5,00 0 per

to n t o b e reasonable . W

e believ e thi s show s tha

t EP A ha s no t accurately evaluatedthe difficult y o f capturin g emission s fro

mcomposite s manufacturin g operations . Man y composit

e manufacturer s mak

e product s tha

t ar e large , tha t ar e o f widely varyin g size s an

dshapes , an

dtha t ar e mad e o n mold s tha

t ar e frequentl y movedaroun

di n the manufacturing facility ; thes e factor s mea n tha t captur e of emission s i s muc

h mor e difficul t an dexpensiv e tha

n EP A ha s estimated . 2 . Of th e 1 7 facilitie s our ex-EP A economis texper

tdetermined that1 5 simpl y coul d notaffor

d th e proposed control s an d would close , an

d thatth e control s woul d b e a "significantburden " fo r th e remainin g two . Th e economis t collecte dfinancia

l datafro mthes e companies , an

dcarefull y compare dth e cos t

o f th e control s to th e revenues , profits , an dhistorica l level s of capita l investmen

t fo r thos e facilitie s EP

A ha s no t don e acomparable analysis . 3 . Ope n moldin g operation s owned b y larg e companies are n

o mor e abl e tha n thos e owned b

y small companie s t

o affor d captur e an d control systems . Citin g concern s ove

r affordabilit

y of controls , EP

A ha s agreedt o establis h amuc h highe r emissio n threshol dfo

r small businesse s require dto install controls . EP A staf f hav e informe

du s tha t they wil l no t

provid e thi s highe

r threshol dto businesse s tha

t d o no t qualit y a s "small businesses " becaus e they believ e thes e "larger " businesse s wil l hav e better acces s to capital . Ye

t acces s to capita

l become s importan

t onl y i f th e propose dinvestmen

t i s economicall

y rationa l i n the first place . Ou

r economis t

finds tha t th e cost s o f

captur e an dcontro l ar

e s o hig h relativ e to th e revenue s an

dprofit s ofth e ope

n moldin g facilitie s i

n thi s siz e rang e tha t nearly all the facilitie s - bot h thos e owne

dby larg e businesse s an

dthos e owne dby small businesse s - wil l simpl y clos e rathe

r tha n mak e acomplianc e investmen t i n afacilit y tha t wouldn o longe

r b e viable . (See th e attache dJuly , 200 0 Environomics report. ) 4 . EPA' s capture an

d control requirement

s will mak

e i tmor e difficultfor composite s manufacturers t o compl y wit h OSH A worke r protectio n standards . Efficien

t captur e an dcontro l require s concentratin g ai r pollutant s i

n th e workplac e air . OSH

A regulations , however , requir e composite s manufacturer s to us e dilutio n ventilatio n to achiev e low concentration s of ai r pollutant s i

n th e workplace . EP

A rule s shouldno t

jeopardiz e ou

r industry' s OSH A compliance . 5 . Ou r evaluatio n o f

captur e and control showed that3 0 ton s of greenhous e gase s woul d b e release d for ever y 1 ton o f HA P controlled . Becaus e capturin g HA P emission s fro

mthes e operation s i s s o difficult, larg e quantitie s of electricit y an dnatura l ga s woul db e consumedby the captur e an dcontro l equipment . Thi s i n tur n woul dgenerat

e greenhous e gasses . Styrene , th e primar y HA P emittedb

y composite s manufacturin g operations , naturally degrade s i n the atmospher

e to non-toxi c substance s withi n 2 4 hours . Greenhous e gases , o n th e othe r hand , hav e atmospheri c lifetime s of

5 0 to 200 years .P. 6 d

6. EP A state s in th e recentl y proposed MAC T fo r boa tmanufacturin g that capture an

d control i s "no

tapplicable, " becaus e o

f varyin g productsize s an d worke r protectio n concerns . " Boat s ar e mad e usin g the sam

e material s an

d manufacturin g processe s a s man y composit

e products , but

ar e receivin g differen

t treatment b y EPA . Thes e issue s ar

e discusse da

t lengt h i n th e tw o attache dbriefing memorand aan di n th e document s o

n ou r we b site , www.cfa-hq.org/best.htm . Pleas e note tha

t w e ar e no t suggestin g tha

t thes e facilitie s shoul dhav e n o controls . I n fact , w e hav e suggeste dto EP A tha t thes e plant s shoul db e require dto adop t th e availabl e pollutio n preventio n controls . Thes e pollutio n preventio n control s ca n achiev e emission reduction s o f

50 % or more , an dthey hel p facilitie s protec t

worker s an

dar e availabl e a

t reasonabl e cost . Change s thatshoul d b e mad e t o th e proposa

l W e agree wit

h EP A tha t small businesse s wit

h emission s les s tha

n 25 0 ton s pe

r yea r canno t affor dexpensiv e captur

e an dcontro l requirements . W e disagre e wit

h EP A tha t facilitie s ofth e sam

e siz e an dmakin g th e sam

e kindof product s tha

t happen to b e owne

d by alarger

compan y ca n affor dthes e sam

e controls . EPA' s proposa

l shoul db e changed befor e publicatio n t o trea

t all thes e facilitie s th e sam

e - namely , appl

y thes e captur

e an d contro l requirement s to existin g facilitie s only i/the y exceed25 0 ton s HAP emission s pe r yea r without regar dt o whethe r they meet th e definition of

"smal l business. " I n addition , th e preambl e to th e draf t rul e shouldb e amendedto : 1 . specif y aprocedur

e tha t wil l allo w industr

y t o full y participat

e i n an dcommen t o n EPA' s subsequen

t review of costs , affordability , an

dimpact s sinc e EP

A ha s refusedto conduc t

thi s revie w prio r

to proposa

l an dto pu t i t i n th e docket

fo r th e propose drule ; 2 . explain tha

t EP A ha s com

e to differen

t conclusion s regardin g applicabilit y o f captur e an dcontro l fo

r aver y simila r industr y (boa t manufacturing) , an

dsee k publi c comment s regardin g thi s differen t approach a s appliedt

o reinforcedplasti c composites ; an

d 3 . i f the abov e requeste dchang e to th e rul e itself i s no t made , see k comment s o

n raisin g th e threshol dfo

r captur e an dcontro l fo

r existin g source s t o 25 0 ton s per yea r fo r al l sources , no t

jus t fo r thos e tha t ar e owne dby small businesses .

* * * * Than k yo u fo r your consideration . Pleas e d

o no t hesitate to contac t

m e i f w e ca n provide an y additiona

l information .P. 7

Sincerely , Joh n Schweitze

r Senio r Director of Governmen

t Affairs Phone : 734.622.016 2 Fax : 734.622.012 2 E-mail : jschwtzr@gte.ne t

Cc : Mr . Peter

Eglinton , Office of

Managemen

t an dBudge t (vi aE-mail) Attachments (3)