p. 1



# OAR Box 1384 Prepped byCharmelle Mathews



### DocumentJVumber: 

# -F- 8 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/20088:42:12 AM

Sheet 259of 264P. 2



## \AJAdvocacyPreliminaryStaff Comments[JRP] (1/16/01) f 12/14/200004:32:58PM

Version]6560-50- P PREAMBLE[100pp.]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y 4 0 CF RPar t 6 3 [FRL- ] RI N 2060-AE7 9 Nationa l Emissio nStandard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutants :

Reinforce dPlasti c Composite s Productio n AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y(EPA) . ACTION : Propose d rule . SUMMARY : Thi s actio npropose s nationa l emissio nstandard s fo r hazardou s ai r pollutant s (NESHAP ) fo r ne wan dexistin g reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nfacilities . Th e propose d standard s regulat e productio nan dancillar y processe s use d t o manufactur e product s wit hthermose t resin s an d ge l coats . Reinforce dplasti c composite s productio n facilitie s emi t hazardou s ai r pollutant s (HAP) , suc ha s styrene , methy l methacrylat e (MMA) , an dmethylen e chlorid e (dichloromethane) . Thes e HA P hav e advers e healt heffect s includin g headache , fatigue , depression , irritatio no f skin , eyes , an d mucou s membranes . Methylen e chlorid e ha s bee n classifie d a s a probabl e huma ncarcinogen . Thes e propose d standard s wil l implemen t sectio n112(d ) o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t (CAA ) b yrequirin g al l majo r source s i nthi s categor yt o mee t HA P emissio nstandard s reflectin g th e applicatio no fP. 3

2 th e maximu m

achievabl e contro l technolog y(MACT) . W e estimat e th e propose d NESHA P woul d reduc e nationwid e emission s o f HA P fro mthes e facilitie s b yapproximatel y 14,50 0 ton s pe r yea r (tpy ) (6 5 percent) . DATES : Comments . Submi t comment s o no r befor e [INSER T DAT E 6 0 DAY S AFTE RDAT E O F PUBLICATIO N O F THIS PROPOSE DRUL E I N TH E FEDERAL REGISTER] . Publi c Hearing . I f anyon e contact s th e EP Arequestin g t o spea k a t a publi c hearin g b y[INSERT DAT E 2 0 DAY S AFTE RDAT E O F PUBLICATION

O F THIS PROPOSE DRUL E I N TH E FEDERAL REGISTER] , a publi c hearin g wil l b e hel do n[INSER T DAT E 3 0 DAY S AFTE RDAT E O F PUBLICATION O F THI S PROPOSE DRUL E I N TH E FEDERAL REGISTER] . ADDRESSES : Comments . Writte ncomment s shoul db e submitte d (i nduplicat e i f possible ) to : Ai r an dRadiatio nDocke t an d Informatio nCente r (6102) , Attentio nDocke t Numbe r A-94-52 , U.S . EPA , 1 2 0 0 Pennsylvani a Avenue , NW , Washington , D C 20460 . W e reques t a separat e cop yals o b e sen t t o th e contac t perso nliste d belo wi nth e FO RFURTHE RINFORMATIO N CONTAC T section . Publi c Hearing . I f a publi c hearin g i s held , i t wil l b e hel d a t EPA' s Offic e o f Administratio nAuditorium , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort hCarolina . Docket . Docke t No . A-94-5 2 contain s supportin g informatio n use d i ndevelopin g th e standards . Th e docke t i s locate d a t th e U.S . EPA , 40 1 MStreet , SW , Washington , D C 2046 0 i nRoo mP. 4

3 M-1500 , Watersid e Mal l (groundfloor) , an dma yb e inspecte d fro m 8:3 0 a.m . t o 5:3 0 p.m. , Monda ythroug hFriday , 0 excludin g lega l holidays . FO RFURTHE RINFORMATION CONTACT : Keit hBarnett , Organi c Chemical s Group , Emissio nStandard s Divisio n(MD-13) , U.S . EPA , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 , (919 ) 541-5605 , barnett.keith@epamail.epa.gov . Fo r publi c hearin g information , contac t Mari a Noell , Organi c Chemical s Group , Emissio nStandard s Divisio n(MD-13) , U.S . EPA , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 , (919 ) 541-5607 . SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION : Comments . Comment s an d dat a ma yb e submitte db yelectroni c mai l (e-mail ) to : a-and-r-docket@epa.gov . Electroni c comment s mus t b e submitte deithe r a s a nASCI I fil e t o avoi d th e us e o f specia l character s an d encryptio nproblem s o r o n disk s i nWordPerfect ®versio n5.1 , 6. 1 o r Core l 8 fil e format . Al l comment s an d dat a submitte di nelectroni c for m mus t not e th e docke t number : A-94-52 . N o confidentia l busines s informatio n(CBI ) shoul d b e submitte db ye-mail . Electroni c comment s ma yb e file donlin e a t man yFedera l Depositor yLibraries . Commenter s wishin g t o submi t proprietar yinformatio n fo r consideratio nmus t clearl ydistinguis hsuc hinformatio n fro mothe r comment s an dclearl ylabe l i t a s CBI . Sen d submission s containin g suc hproprietar yinformatio ndirectl y t o th e followin g address , an dno t t o th e publi c docket , t oP. 5

4 ensur e tha t proprietar yinformatio ni s no t inadvertentl y place d i nth e docket : Attention : Keit hBarnett , c/ o OAQP S Documen t Contro l Office r (Room740B) , U.S . EPA , 41 1 W . Chape l Hil l Street , Durham , N C 27 7 01 . Th e EP Awil l disclos e informatio nidentifie da s CB I onl yt o th e exten t allowe d b y th e procedure s se t fort hi n4 0 CF Rpar t 2 . I f n o clai mo f confidentialit yaccompanie s a submissio nwhe ni t i s receive d b yth e EPA , th e informatio nma yb e mad e availabl e t o th e publi c withou t furthe r notic e t o th e commenter . Publi c Hearing . Person s intereste d i npresentin g ora l testimon yo r inquirin g a s t o whethe r a hearin g i s t o b e hel d shoul d contac t Mari a Noell , Organi c Chemical s Group , Emissio nStandard s Divisio n(MD-13) , U.S . EPA , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 , (919 ) 541-560 7 a t leas t 2 day s i nadvanc e o f th e publi c hearing . Person s intereste d i nattendin g th e publi c hearin g mus t als o cal l Mari a Noel l t o verif yth e time , date , an d locatio no f th e hearing . Th e publi c hearin g wil l provid e intereste dpartie s th e opportunit yt o presen t data , views , o r argument s concernin g thes e propose d emissio nstandards . Docket . Th e docke t i s a norganize dan dcomplet e fil e o f th e informatio nconsidere db yth e EP Ai nth e developmen t o f thi s rulemaking . Th e docke t i s a dynami c fil e becaus e materia l i s adde d throughou t th e rulemakin g process . Th e docketin g syste m i s intende d t o allo wmember s o f th e publi c an d industrie s involve d t o readil yidentif yan dlocat e document sP. 6

5 s o tha t the yca neffectivel yparticipat e i nth e rulemakin g process . Alon g wit hth e propose dan dpromulgate dstandard s an d thei r preambles , th e content s o f th e docket , excludin g interagenc yrevie wmaterials , wil l serv e a s th e recor di n th e cas e o f judicia l review . (Se e sectio n307(d)(7)(A ) o f th e CAA. ) Th e regulator ytex t an d othe r material s relate d t o thi s rulemakin g ar e availabl e fo r revie wi nth e docke t o r copie s ma yb e maile d o nreques t fro mth e Ai r Docke t b y callin g (202 ) 260-7548 . Areasonabl e fe e ma yb e charge dfo r copyin g docke t materials . Worl d Wid e We b(WWW) . I nadditio nt o bein g availabl e i nth e docket , a nelectroni c cop yo f th e propose dNESHA P wil l als o b e availabl e o nth e WW Wthroug hth e Technolog y Transfe r Networ k (TTN) . Followin g signature , a cop yo f th e propose d NESHA P wil l b e poste d o nth e TTN' s polic yan d guidanc e pag e fo r newl ypropose do r promulgate drule s http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg . Th e TT Nprovide s informatio n an d technolog yexchang e i nvariou s area s o f ai r pollutio n control . I f mor e informatio nregardin g th e TT Ni s needed , cal l th e TT NHEL P lin e a t (919 ) 541-5384 . Regulate d Entities . Categorie s an dentitie s potentiall y regulate d b ythi s actio ninclude :

NAIC S SI C Categor ycod e cod e Example s o f regulate dentitie sP. 7

Industr y 32521 1

32612 2 32599 1 32619 1 32799 1 32799 3 33299 8 3331 2 3365 1 33531 1 33531 3 33531 2 3342 2 33621 1 33611 2 33621 1 3365 1 3365 3 33639 9 3361 2 33621 3 33641 3 33621 4 282 1

308 4 308 7 308 8 308 9 328 1 329 6 343 1 353 1 353 1 361 2 361 3 362 1 366 3 371 1 371 1 371 3 371 4 3714 371 6 372 8 374 3 379 2 399 9 Reinforce dplasti c composite s productio nfacilitie s tha t manufactur e and/o r repai r intermediat e and/o r fina l product s usin g HA P containin g thermose t resin s an dge l coats .

Federa l Governmen t Federall yowne dfacilitie s tha t manufactur e and/o r repai r intermediat e and/o r fina l product s usin g HA P containin g thermose t resin s an d ge l coats . Thi s tabl e i s no t intende d t o b e exhaustive , bu t rathe r provide s a guid e fo r reader s regardin g entitie s likel yt o b e regulate d b ythi s action . T o determin e whethe r you r facilit yi s regulate d b ythi s action , yo u shoul dexamin e th e applicabilit ycriteri a i n§63.578 5 o f th e propose drule . I f yo u hav e an yquestion s regardin g th e applicabilit yo f thi s actio nt o a particula r entity , consul t th e perso nliste di n th e precedin g FO RFURTHE RINFORMATIO NCONTAC T section . Outline . Th e informatio npresente d i nthi s preambl e i sP. 8

organize d a s follows : I . Introductio n A . Wha t i s th e sourc e o f authorit yfo r developmen t o f NESHAP ? B . Wha t criteri a ar e use di nth e developmen t o f NESHAP ? C . Wha t ar e th e potentia l healt heffect s o f th e HA P emitte d b yth e reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nindustry ? D . Ho wwer e th e propose dNESHA P developed ? E . Wha t processe s an d operation s ar e include di nth e Reinforce d Plastic s Composite s Productio nsourc e category ? II . Summar yo f Propose dNESHA P A . Wha t sourc e categorie s an d subcategorie s ar e affecte db y thi s propose d rule ? B . Wha t ar e th e primar ysource s o f HA P emission s an dwha t ar e th e emissions ? C . Wha t i s th e affecte dsource ? D . Wha t ar e th e emissio nlimits , operatin g limits , an d othe r standards ? E . Wha t i s th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e an dho wi s i t use di n thes e propose d NESHAP ? F . Whe nmus t I compl ywit hthes e propose dNESHAP ? G . Wha t ar e myoption s fo r demonstratin g compliance ? H . Wha t ar e th e testin g an dinitia l complianc e requirements ? I . Wha t ar e th e continuou s complianc e requirements ? J . Wha t ar e th e notification , recordkeepin g an dreportin g requirements ? III . Rational e fo r Propose d NESHA P A . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e sourc e categor yt o regulate ? B . Wha t pollutant s ar e regulate d unde r thes e propose d NESHAP ? C . Wha t i s th e "affecte d source " an dho wdi dEP Aselec t th e operation s t o b e regulate db ythes e propose dNESHAP ? D . Wha t i s a ne waffecte dsource ? E . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources ? F . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e MAC T floo r fo r ne wsources ? G . Di d w e conside r contro l option s mor e stringen t tha nth e MAC T floor ? H . Wh yar e som e reinforce d plasti c composite s productio n operation s no t subjec t t o thes e propose dNESHAP ? I . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e for mo f thes e propose dNESHAP ? J . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e tes t method s fo r determinin g complianc e wit hth e propose d NESHAP ? K . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e monitorin g an drecordkeepin g requirements ? L . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e notificatio nan dreportin g requirements ? M . Wha t ar e som e o f th e area s wher e w e ar e specificall y solicitin g comments ? IV . Summar yo f Environmental , Energy , an dEconomi c Impact sP. 9



### 8 A . Wha t facilitie s ar e affecte d b yth e propose dNESHAP ? B . Wha t ar e th e ai r qualit yimpacts ? C . Wha t ar e th e wate r qualit yimpacts ? D . Wha t ar e th e soli d an dhazardou s wast e impacts ? E . Wha t ar e th e energ yimpacts ? F . Wha t ar e th e cos t impacts ? G . Wha t ar e th e economi c impacts ? V . Relationshi p o f Propose d NESHA P t o Othe r Standard s an d Program s unde r th e CAA A . Nationa l Emissio nStandard s fo r Close dVen t Systems , Contro l Devices , Recover yDevices , an dRoutin g t o a Fue l Ga s Syste m

o r a Proces s (4 0 CF RPar t 63 , Subpar t SS ) B . Operatin g Permi t Progra m C . NESHA P fo r Plasti c Part s an dProduct s VI . Administrativ e Requirement s A . Executiv e Orde r 12866 , Regulator yPlannin g an dRevie w B . Paperwor k Reductio nAc t C . Executiv e Orde r 13132 , Federalis m D . Executiv e Orde r 1 3 084 , Consultatio nan dCoordinatio n wit hIndia nTriba l Government s E . Unfunde d Mandate s Refor mAc t o f 199 5 F . Regulator yFlexibilit yAc t (RFA) , a s amende db yth e Smal l Busines s Regulator yEnforcemen t Fairnes s Ac t o f 199 6 (SBREFA) , 5 U.S.C . 60 1 e t seg . G . Nationa l Technolog yTransfe r an d Advancemen t Ac t H . Executiv e Orde r 1 3 045 , Protectio no f Childre nfro m Environmenta l Healt hRisk s an dSafet yRisk s I . Introductio n A . Wha t i s th e sourc e o f authorit yfo r developmen t o f NESHAP ? Sectio n11 2 o f th e CAArequire s u s t o lis t categorie s an d subcategorie s o f majo r source s an dare a source s o f HA P an d t o establis hNESHA P fo r th e liste dsourc e categorie s an d subcategories . Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio n (majo r source s only ) wa s include do nth e initia l lis t o f sourc e categorie s publishe do nJul y16 , 199 2 (5 7 F R31576) . Majo r source s o f HA P ar e thos e tha t hav e th e potentia l t o emi t greate r tha n1 0 tp yo f an yon e HA P o r 2 5 tp yo f an yP.1 0

9 combinatio no f HAP . B . Wha t criteri a ar e use d i nth e developmen t o f NESHAP ? Th e CAArequire s NESHA P t o reflec t th e maximu mdegre e o f reductio ni nemission s o f HA P tha t i s achievable . Thi s leve l o f contro l i s commonl yreferre dt o a s th e MACT . Th e MAC T floo r i s th e minimu mcontro l leve l allowe dfo r NESHAP . Thi s concep t appear s i nsectio n112(d)(3 ) o f th e CAA . Fo r ne wsources , th e MAC T floo r canno t b e les s stringen t tha nth e emissio ncontro l tha t i s achieve di n practic e b yth e best-controlle dsimila r source . Th e MAC T standard s fo r existin g source s ca nb e les s stringen t tha n standard s fo r ne wsources , bu t the ycanno t b e les s stringen t tha nth e averag e emissio nlimitatio nachieve db yth e best

performin g 1 2 percen t o f existin g source s i nth e categor yo r subcategor y(o r th e best-performin g 5 source s fo r categorie s o r subcategorie s wit hfewe r tha n3 0 sources) . I ndevelopin g MACT , w e als o conside r contro l option s tha t ar e mor e stringen t tha nth e floor . W e ma yestablis h standard s mor e stringen t tha nth e floo r base do nth e consideratio no f cos t o f achievin g th e emission s reductions , an ynonai r qualit yhealt han denvironmenta l impacts , an d energ yrequirements . C . Wha t ar e th e potentia l healt heffect s o f th e HA P emitte d b yth e reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nindustry ?P.1 1

1 0 Today' s propose dNESHA P protec t ai r qualit yan dpromot e th e publi c healt hb yreducin g emission s o f som e o f th e HA P liste d i nsectio n112(b)(1 ) o f th e CAA . Th e HA P emitte d b yth e reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nindustr yinclude , bu t ar e no t limite dto , approximatel y20,00 0 tp yo f styrene , 55 0 tp yo f methy l methacrylate , an d 110 0 tp yo f methylen e chloride . Exposur e t o thes e compound s ha s bee ndemonstrate dt o caus e advers e healt heffects , includin g chroni c healt hdisorder s (e.g. , headache , fatigue , an d depression ) an dacut e healt h disorder s (e.g. , irritatio no f skin , eyes , an dmucou s membrane s an d decrease d respirator yfunction) . Methylen e chlorid e ha s bee nclassifie da s a probabl e huma ncarcinoge n an d styren e a s a possibl e huma ncarcinogen . I ngeneral , thes e finding s hav e onl ybee nshow nwit hconcentration s highe r tha nthos e typicall yi nth e ambien t air . W e d o no t hav e th e typ e o f curren t detaile ddat a o n eac ho f th e operation s covere d b ytoday' s propose dNESHA P (an d th e peopl e livin g aroun dth e operations ) necessar yt o conduc t a nanalysi s t o determin e th e actua l populatio n exposure s t o th e HA P emitte d fro mthes e facilitie s an dth e potentia l fo r resultan t healt heffects . Therefore , w e d o no t kno wth e exten t t o whic hth e advers e healt heffect s describe d abov e occu r i nth e population s surroundin g thes e operations . However , t o th e exten t th e advers e effect s d o occur , th e propose d rul e wil l reduc e emission s an dP.1 2

1 1 subsequen t exposures . r 1 . Styren e Acut e (short-term ) exposur e t o styren e i nhuman s result s i nmucou s membran e an dey e irritatio nan d gastrointestina l effects . Chroni c (long-term ) exposur e t o styren e i nhuman s ma ycaus e effect s o nth e centra l nervou s syste m (CNS ) suc ha s headache , fatigue , weakness , depression , an d hearin g loss . Ther e i s limite devidenc e tha t occupationa l exposur e t o styren e i s associate dwit ha n increase d frequenc yo f spontaneou s abortion s an ddecrease d frequenc yo f birth s an da nincrease dris k o f leukemi a an d lymphoma . Th e EP Aconsider s thi s evidenc e o noccupationa l exposur e t o styren e t o b e inconclusive . Th e Internationa l Agenc yfo r Researc ho nCance r ha s classifie dstyren e a s a Grou p 2B , possibl e huma ncarcinogen . Th e .EP Aha s no t classifie d styren e wit hrespec t t o carcinogenicity . 2 . Methy l Methacrylat e Methy l methacrylat e irritate s th e skin , eyes , an d mucou s membrane s i nhumans . A nallergi c respons e t o derma l exposur e ma ydevelop . Respirator yeffect s followin g acut e (short-term ) exposur e includ e ches t tightness , dyspnea , coughing , wheezing , an d reduce dlun g function . Neurologica l symptom s includin g headache , lethargy , lightheadedness , an d a sensatio no f heavines s i nth e arm s an dleg s hav e als o bee n reporte d followin g acut e exposur e t o MMA . Effect s t o th e liver , kidney , brain , spleen , an dbon e marro whav e bee nP.1 3

1 2 reporte d i nchroni c (long-term ) anima l studie s o f MM A inhalation . Feta l abnormalitie s hav e bee nreporte di n animal s expose d t o MM Ab yinjectio nan dinhalation . I n severa l anima l studies , n o carcinogeni c effect s wer e observed . Th e EP Aha s classifie dMM Ai nGrou p E (no t likel y t o b e carcinogeni c i nhumans) . 3 . Methylen e Chlorid e Acut e (short-term ) exposur e t o methylen e chlorid e b y inhalatio naffect s th e nervou s system , causin g decrease d visual , auditory , an d moto r functions . Thes e effect s ar e reversibl e onc e exposur e ceases . Th e effect s o f chroni c (long-term ) exposur e t o methylen e chlorid e sugges t tha t th e CN S i s a potentia l targe t i nbot hhuman s an danimals . Limite d anima l studie s hav e reporte ddevelopmenta l effects . Huma ndat a ar e inconclusiv e regardin g methylen e chlorid e an d cancer . Anima l studie s hav e show nincrease s i nlive r an d lun g cance r an d benig nmammar yglan dtumor s followin g th e inhalatio no f methylen e chloride . Th e EP Aha s classifie d methylen e chlorid e a s a Grou p B2 , probabl e huma ncarcinogen . D . Ho wwer e th e propose dNESHA P developed ? W e starte d th e developmen t o f th e propose dNESHA P b y sendin g informatio ncollectio nreques t (ICR ) survey s t o facilitie s wit happlicabl e standar dindustrie s classificatio n(SIC ) codes . I nadditio nt o thes e surveys , w e consulte d wit hnumerou s member s o f th e reinforce dplasti c composite s industry , representative s o f industr ytrad eP.1 4

1 3 associations , an d materia l an d equipmen t vendor s i n developin g th e propose dNESHAP . W e hel d a serie s o f approximatel y3 5 meeting s an d visite d approximatel y2 5 facilitie s ove r a perio do f 8 years . Thes e meeting s an dsit e visit s wer e hel dt o kee p stakeholder s informe d an dt o gathe r additiona l dat a an d informatio no nissue s relevan t t o th e propose dNESHAP . Th e stakeholder s helpe d i ndat a gathering , arrange dsit e visits , identifie d issue s an dprovide dinformatio nt o hel p resolv e issue s i nth e rulemakin g process . W e identifie d th e MAC T floo r contro l leve l wit h informatio nobtaine d throug hsurve yresponses , sit e visits , telephon e contacts , an d operatin g permits . W e assesse d contro l option s mor e stringen t tha nth e MAC T floo r b y identifyin g th e level(s ) an d method(s ) o f contro l achieve d b yth e bes t controlle d source s i nth e industr yan d conductin g analyse s designe dt o determin e th e cost , economic , energy , an d environmenta l impact s o f implementin g th e mor e stringen t contro l options . E . Wha t processe s an d operation s ar e include di nth e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nsourc e category ? Th e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nsourc e categor yinvolve s th e productio no f plasti c product s fro m cross-linking.resins , usuall yi ncombinatio nwit h reinforcin g material s an d inorgani c fillers . Th e productio n o f product s tha t d o no t contai nreinforcin g material s i sP.1 5

1 4 als o include d i nthi s category , a s wel l a s th e productio no f intermediat e compound s whic har e late r use dt o mak e th e fina l plasti c products . Thes e non-reinforce d product s wer e include d becaus e the yar e produce d usin g th e sam e type s o f resins , hav e simila r emissio ncharacteristic s an dwoul dus e simila r emissio ncontrols . Thi s sourc e categor yi s limite d t o thos e resin s whic hcontai nstyrene , eithe r b yitsel f o r wit ha combinatio no f othe r monomer s o r solvents . Ther e ar e a wid e variet yo f operation s tha t us e styrene-containin g resin s t o mak e thermose t plastics . Suc h productio noperation s includ e manua l resi napplication , mechanica l resi napplication , filamen t winding , ge l coa t application , compression/injectio nmolding , resi ntransfe r molding , centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/continuou s casting , polyme r casting , pultrusion , an d shee t moldin g compoun d (SMC ) manufacturing . Ther e ar e als o ancillar yoperation s suc ha s cleaning , mixing/bul k moldin g compoun d (BMC ) manufacturing , an dstorag e tha t occu r i nconjunctio nwit hthes e productio noperations . Man y facilitie s wil l us e multipl e operation s i nth e manufacturin g o f thei r product . II . Summar y

o f Propose dNESHA P Thi s preambl e sectio ndiscusse s th e propose dNESHA P a s the yappl yt o you , th e owne r o r operato r o f a ne wo r existin g reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nfacility . A . Wha t sourc e categorie s an d subcategorie s ar e affecte d b yP.1 6

1 5 thi s propose d rule ? Today' s propose d rul e applie s t o th e Reinforce d Plastic s Composite s Productio nsourc e category . W e evaluate d th e us e o f subcategorie s base do nsiz e (i.e. , tp y o f HA P emitted) . Thes e subcategorie s playe da nimportan t rol e i ndefinin g th e ne wsourc e MAC T floors . However , th e availabl e dat a tha t w e use dt o develo p th e MAC T floo r fo r existin g source s d o no t sho wsignifican t difference s betwee n larger-emittin g versu s smaller-emittin g sources . Thus , w e di d no t g o throug ha separat e analysi s fo r eac hsubcategor y o f existin g sources . B . Wha t ar e th e primar vsource s o f HA P emission s an dwha t ar e th e emissions ? Th e primar ysourc e o f HA P emission s fro mth e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nsourc e categor yi s th e evaporatio no f styren e an d othe r organi c liqui dHA P containe d i nth e resi ndurin g th e applicatio nand/o r curin g o f th e resin . Sinc e styren e participate s i nth e curin g reaction , no t al l o f i t i s emitted . Th e HA P emission s als o occu r durin g ancillar yoperation s suc ha s cleaning , mixing/BM C manufacturing , an d storage . Tota l baselin e HA P emission s fro mth e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nsourc e categor yar e approximatel y22,20 0 tpy . Emission s fro mspra ylay-u p an d ge l coatin g constitut e approximatel y5 6 percen t an d1 9 percen t o f th e tota l baselin e emissions , respectively . Th eP.1 7

1 6 remainin g HA P emission s ar e primaril yfro mhan dlay

up/bucke t an d too l application , compressio n molding/injectio nmolding , filamen t winding , SM C manufacturing , an d centrifuga l casting . C . Wha t i s th e affecte dsource ? Unde r thi s propose drule , th e affecte dsourc e woul d b e th e combinatio no f al l operation s regulate dunde r thes e standard s a t a reinforce d plasti c composite s productio n facility . Th e followin g regulate d operation s ar e typicall y performe d a t reinforce d plasti c composite s productio n facilitie s an d ar e par t o f th e affecte dsource : ope n molding , close d molding , centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/continuou s casting , polyme r casting , pultrusion , SM C manufacturing , equipmen t cleaning , BMC/manufacturing/mixing , an dstorag e o f HA P containin g materials . D . Wha t ar e th e emissio nlimits , operatin g limits , an d othe r standards ? W e ar e proposin g th e requirement s o f thes e NESHA P i n th e for m

o f emissio nlimit s (i.e. , poin t value , mas s rate , o r percen t reduction) , operatin g limits , an dwor k practic e standards . Wor k practic e standard s includ e design , equipment , wor k practices , an doperationa l standards . I ndevelopin g propose drequirement s fo r reinforce d plasti c composite s affecte d sources , w e hav e provide da n alternativ e forma t wher e possible . Fo r example , a facilit yP.1 8

1 7 meetin g a 9 5 percen t emissio nreductio nrequiremen t fo r ope n moldin g processe s ca nalternativel ymee t a poin t value . W e hav e als o provide d alternative s fo r meetin g th e limit s fo r continuou s laminatio nan d continuou s castin g processes . W e ar e proposin g a threshol dfo r existin g source s t o distinguis hbetwee nsource s tha t woul dmee t th e floo r requirements , tha t ar e generall ybase do npollutio n prevention , an d thos e tha t woul dhav e t o mee t a mor e stringen t above-the-floo r requiremen t base do n9 5 percen t contro l o f HA P emissions . Fo r smal l businesses , th e threshol d i s 25 0 tp yo f combine d HA P emission s fo r ope n molding , centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/casting , pultrusion , an d SM C manufacturing . Th e definitio no f a smal l busines s fo r thi s sourc e categor yrange s fro m50 0 t o 100 0 employees . Mor e specifi c informatio no nth e definitio n o f a smal l busines s ma yb e foun d i nth e discussio no f th e Regulator yFlexibilit yAc t i nth e Administrativ e Requirement s sectio no f thi s preamble . Fo r businesse s tha t ar e no t smal l businesses , th e threshol di s combine d emission s o f HA P o f 10 0 tp yfro mth e sam e operations . Fo r al l ope nmoldin g operation s (i.e. , corrosion

resistant , noncorrosion-resistant , tooling , an dge l coat ) an d centrifuga l castin g (corrosion-resistan t an d noncorrosion-resistant ) a t existin g source s belo wth e threshold , an d ne wsource s wit hHA P emission s les s tha n10 0 tpy / yo u mus t compl ywit ha HA P emissio nlimi t tha t i sP.1 9

1 8 calculate d fo r you r facilit yusin g MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s fo r eac hope nmoldin g an d centrifuga l castin g operation . Fo r ope nmoldin g an d centrifuga l castin g operation s a t ne wsource s wit hHA P emission s equa l t o o r greate r tha n10 0 tpy , an dexistin g source s wit hHA P emission s equa l t o o r greate r tha nth e applicabl e threshold s (i.e. , 10 0 tp yfo r larg e businesse s an d25 0 tp yfo r smal l businesses) , w e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an d operator s t o reduc e emission s b y9 5 percen t fro mthes e operation s o r compl ywit ha correspondin g HA P emissio nlimi t calculate d usin g th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equations . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s o f continuou s lamination/continuou s castin g operation s a t existin g source s belo wth e above-the-floo r applicabilit y thresholds , an d ne wsource s wit hHA P emission s les s tha n10 0 tpy , t o reduc e emission s b y5 8 percent . Othe r ne wan d existin g source s mus t reduc e emission s b y9 5 percent . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s o f pultrusio noperation s a t existin g source s belo wth e above

the-floo r thresholds , an d ne wsource s wit hHA P emission s les s tha n10 0 tpy , t o reduc e emission s b y6 0 percent . Thi s reductio ni s base d o napplyin g a we t enclosur e o r usin g direc t di e injectio nt o limi t emissions . Othe r ne wan d existin g source s mus t reduc e emission s b y9 5 percent . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s a t bot hne wan d existin g source s usin g injection/compressio nP.2 0

1 9 moldin g operation s t o reduc e HA P emission s throug hth e us e o f a wor k practice , whereb yonl yon e charg e pe r machin e i s uncovered , unwrapped , o r expose dpe r mol dcycl e pe r compression/injectio nmoldin g machine . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s o f shee t moldin g compoun doperation s a t existin g source s belo w th e above-the-floo r thresholds , an d ne wsource s wit hHA P emission s les s tha n10 0 tpy , t o reduc e emission s b yusin g a nylo nfilm , o r fil mwit hequa l o r lowe r permeabilit yt o styrene , t o enclos e thei r SM C operation . Othe r ne wan d existin g source s mus t reduc e emission s b y9 5 percent . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s o f al l ne wan d existin g reinforce dplasti c composite s affecte d source s t o us e cleaner s containin g n o HAP . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s o f resi nmixin g an d bul k moldin g compoun doperation s a t existin g source s belo wth e above-the-floo r applicabilit y thresholds , an d ne wsource s wit hHA P emission s les s tha n10 0 tpy , t o limi t HA P emission s b ycoverin g mixer s suc htha t ther e ar e n o visibl e gaps . Fo r othe r ne wan dexistin g sources , w e ar e proposin g t o requir e tha t yo u reduc e emission s fro mmixin g an dBM C manufacturin g b y9 5 percent . Fo r existin g source s tha t ar e subjec t t o th e above-the

floo r contro l leve l o f 9 5 percen t HA P emissio nreduction , w e examine d a nalternative , base d o npollutio nprevention , tha t woul d b e mor e effectiv e tha nth e requirement s o f th e MAC TP.2 1

2 0 floo r fo r existin g sources . However , w e wer e unabl e t o develo p a nacceptabl e alternativ e t o includ e i nth e propose d standard s tha t meet s th e statutor yrequirement s o f MACT . W e ar e solicitin g commen t o na possibl e alternative . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e al l owner s an doperator s a t an yexistin g o r ne waffecte d sourc e t o kee p al l organi c HAP
containin g storag e vessel s covered , excep t durin g th e additio no r remova l o f materials . E . Wha t i s th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e an dho wi s i t use di n thes e propose d NESHAP ? Th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e i s a numbe r calculate dfo r eac hope nmoldin g operatio nan dcentrifuga l castin g operatio nan d i s a surrogat e fo r emissions . Th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e i s a wa yt o ran k th e relativ e performanc e o f differen t resi nan d ge l coa t emission s reductio ntechniques . Thi s approac hallow s yo u t o creat e contro l strategie s usin g differen t resi nan d ge l coa t emission s reductio ntechniques . Th e propose d standard s provid e equation s t o calculat e MAC T mode l poin t value s base d o nHA P conten t an dapplicatio n metho d fo r eac hmateria l tha t yo u use . Thes e MAC T mode l poin t value s ar e the naverage dan d compare dt o limit s i nth e propose d standard s t o determin e i f you r ope nmoldin g operation s ar e i ncompliance . Th e MAC T mode l poin t value s hav e unit s o f pound s o f HA P pe r to no f resi no r ge l coa t applied . I t i s importan t t o not e tha t th e MAC T mode l poin t value s ar e surrogate s fo rP.2 2

2 1 emissions , an d th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s ar e use d onl yfo r determinin g complianc e wit hth e propose dReinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nNESHAP . Th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s canno t b e use d i nplac e o f emissio nfacto r equation s t o demonstrat e complianc e wit hothe r regulations . Th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s onl yaccoun t fo r HA P conten t an d applicatio nmethod . Othe r factor s (includin g curin g time , par t thickness , an doperato r technique ) als o affec t emissions , an dthes e factor s ar e no t accounte d fo r i nth e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s fo r reason s discusse d i nsectio nIII-E . Determinin g th e HA P conten t o f material s an dth e metho d o f applicatio ni s relativel ysimple , an d thes e factor s ar e th e mos t significan t i naffectin g emissions . Mor e informatio no nth e developmen t o f thi s mode l i s availabl e i nth e docket . F . Whe nmus t I compl ywit hthes e propose dNESHAP ? Existin g reinforce dplasti c composite s productio n operation s mus t compl ywithi n3 year s o f th e dat e th e promulgate d NESHA P ar e publishe di nth e Federa l Register . Ne waffecte d source s tha t startu p befor e th e promulgate d NESHA P ar e publishe d i nth e Federa l Registe r mus t compl yn o late r tha nth e effectiv e dat e o f th e NESHAP , whic hwil l b e th e sam e a s th e publicatio ndate . Ne waffecte dsource s tha t startu p afte r th e promulgate d NESHA P ar e publishe di nth e Federa l Registe r mus t compl yupo nstartup . Existin g are a source s tha t increas e thei r emission s o r thei r potentia l t oP.2 3

2 2 emi t suc htha t the ybecom e a majo r sourc e o f HA P mus t b e i n complianc e withi n3 year s o f th e dat e the ybecom e a majo r source . Ne ware a source s tha t becom e majo r source s o f HA P mus t compl yupo nbecomin g a majo r source . W e ar e proposin g t o provid e ne wan dexistin g facilitie s 3 year s t o compl yfro mth e tim e thei r HA P emission s reac ho r excee d th e applicabilit ythreshold s requirin g th e installatio no f add-o ncontrols , i f thes e HA P emission s increase s occu r afte r thei r initia l complianc e date . W e ar e providin g thi s complianc e tim e fo r ne wan dexisting.source s unde r thes e circumstance s becaus e complyin g wit hth e add-o n contro l requirement s subsequen t t o you r initia l complianc e dat e woul d requir e th e sam e amoun t o f tim e a s fo r existin g source s tha t mus t instal l add-o ncontrol s withi n3 year s o f th e effectiv e dat e o f th e NESHAP . G . Wha t ar e myoption s fo r demonstratin g compliance ? Today' s propose dNESHA P provid e severa l option s fo r compliance . W e ar e providin g thes e option s t o affor d industr yth e flexibilit yt o decid e whic hmetho di s bes t suite d fo r eac hparticula r situation . 1 . Ope nMoldin g an d Centrifuga l Castin g Operation s Fo r ope nmoldin g operation s a t existin g an dne w sources , thi s proposa l woul d allo wyo u t o choos e t o compl y b ymeetin g th e individua l MAC T poin t valu e fo r eac h operatio na t you r affecte d source , o r b ymeetin g th e weighte d averag e MAC T poin t valu e fo r al l ope nmoldin gP.2 4

2 3 • operation s a t you r affecte dsource . I naddition , i f yo u hav e an ycombinatio no f manua l resi napplication , mechanica l resi napplication , filamen t winding , o r centrifuga l castin g operation s a t you r affecte d source , yo u coul dcompl yb y meetin g th e MAC T poin t valu e fo r anyon e o f thes e operation s an d b yusin g th e sam e resi nfo r al l th e othe r operations . Fo r ope nmoldin g an d centrifuga l castin g operation s wher e th e propose d rul e woul drequir e yo u t o mee t a percen t reduction , yo u coul d us e a nadd-o ncontro l devic e t o achiev e th e require d reductio no r yo u ma ychoos e t o mee t a MAC T poin t valu e tha t correspond s t o tha t particula r operation' s percen t reduction . 2 . Continuou s Casting/Laminatio nOperation s Fo r continuou s casting/laminatio noperation s a t existin g an d ne wsources , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u coul d demonstrat e tha t eac hcontinuou s castin g lin e an deac h continuou s laminatio nlin e meet s th e appropriat e standard . Alternatively , yo u coul daverag e al l you r continuou s castin g an d continuou s laminatio nline s together , an ddemonstrat e tha t the ymee t th e appropriat e standard . A nadditiona l alternativ e woul d b e t o captur e you r emission s fro myou r wet-ou t are a i na permanen t tota l enclosur e tha t meet s EPA' s criteria , a s specifie d i nMetho d20 4 i nappendi xMo f 4 0 CF R par t 51 , an d ven t thes e wet-ou t emission s throug ha close d ven t syste m

t o a contro l devic e achievin g 9 5 percen t reductio no f HA P emissions . Unde r thi s propose drule , thes eP.2 5



### 2 4 alternative s coul d b e use d i ncombinatio nt o demonstrat e compliance . 3 . Pultrusio nOperation s Fo r existin g an dne wpultrusio noperations , unde r thi s propose d rul e yo u coul dcaptur e an dven t you r emission s t o a contro l devic e tha t achieve s th e require dpercen t reductio n o f HA P emissions . Yo u coul d als o elec t t o us e direc t di e injectio npultrusio nmachine s wit hresi ndri p collectio n system s tha t mee t th e criteri a specified . W e ar e als o proposin g a nadditiona l alternativ e onl yavailabl e t o existin g sources : th e us e o f a wet-are a enclosur e wit ha resi ndri p collectio nsystem . Fo r bot hne wan dexistin g sources , yo u coul d us e th e availabl e option s i ncombinatio n t o achiev e complianc e unde r thi s propose drule . 4 . Ancillar yOperation s Fo r ancillar yoperation s a t al l sources , suc ha s cleaning , storage , an dmixing/BM C operation s a t existin g sources , th e onl yoptio nw e ar e proposin g i s t o compl ywit h th e specifie d wor k practic e standards . H . Wha t ar e th e testin g an d initia l complianc e requirements ? W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s o f al l affecte d source s whic hus e a contro l devic e t o demonstrat e complianc e t o conduc t a ninitia l performanc e tes t usin g specifie d EP Ates t methods . Th e owne r o r operato r woul d tes t a t th e inle t an doutle t o f th e contro l device , an dP.2 6

2 5 usin g thes e results , calculat e a percen t reduction . W e ar e als o proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s tha t us e permanen t tota l enclosure s t o conduc t a desig n evaluatio na s specifie db yEP AMetho d204 . I f you r enclosur e doe s no t mee t th e requirement s fo r a permanen t tota l enclosure , yo u woul d nee d t o tes t th e enclosur e usin g EP AMethod s 204 B throug hE t o determin e th e captur e efficiency . Prio r t o th e initia l performanc e test , owner s an d operator s o f affecte d source s woul d b e require dt o instal l th e paramete r monitorin g equipmen t t o b e use dt o demonstrat e complianc e wit hth e operatin g limits . Durin g th e initia l performanc e test , th e owner s an d operator s woul dus e th e paramete r monitorin g equipmen t t o establis hoperatin g paramete r limits . I . Wha t ar e th e continuou s complianc e requirements ? I f yo u us e a nadd-o ncontro l device , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u monito r an d recor d th e operatin g parameter s establishe d durin g th e initia l performanc e test , an d calculat e averag e operatin g paramete r value s average dove r th e perio d o f tim e specifie di nthes e propose dNESHA P t o demonstrat e continuou s complianc e wit hth e operatin g limits . I f yo u us e th e MAC T poin t valu e syste mt o maintai na poin t valu e les s tha no r equa l t o th e appropriat e poin t valu e liste d i ntoday' s propose d NESHAP , w e ar e proposin g t o requir e tha t yo u calculat e th e poin t valu e on e tim e i f th eP.2 7

2 6 resi nuse d i nth e operatio nremain s th e same , o r calculat e th e poin t valu e o na 12-mont hrollin g averag e eac hmont hi f th e resi nvarie s betwee noperation s o r ove r time . I f yo u ar e complyin g wit hwor k practic e standards , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u demonstrat e complianc e wit hth e wor k practic e standard s i ntoday' s propose dNESHA P b yperformin g th e necessar ywor k practice s an d b ykeepin g a recor d certifyin g tha t yo u ar e i ncomplianc e wit hth e wor k practices . J . Wha t ar e th e notification , reporting , an drecordkeepin g reguirements ? W e ar e proposin g tha t yo u submi t Initia l Notification , Notificatio no f Performanc e Tests , an dNotificatio no f Complianc e Statu s report s b yth e specifie ddate s i nth e propose d NESHAP , whic hma yvar ydependin g o nwhethe r th e affecte d sourc e i s ne wo r existing . Yo u woul d als o nee dt o submi t semiannua l complianc e reports . I f yo u tak e actio ntha t i s inconsisten t wit hyou r approve d startup , shutdown , an d malfunctio n(SSM ) plan , the n yo u woul d nee d t o submi t SS Mreport s withi n2 day s o f startin g suc haction , an dwithi n7 day s o f endin g suc h action . W e ar e proposin g tha t yo u kee p a cop yo f eac h notificatio nan d report , alon g wit hsupportin g documentatio n fo r 5 years . O f thi s time , th e firs t tw o year s mus t b e on site . Yo u woul d nee d t o kee p record s relate dt o SSM ,P.2 8

2 7 record s o f performanc e tests , an drecord s fo r eac h continuou s paramete r monitorin g system . Unde r thi s propose d rule , i f yo u mus t compl ywit hth e wor k practic e standards , yo u woul d als o nee d t o kee p record s certifyin g tha t yo u ar e i ncomplianc e wit hth e wor k practice s fo r 5 years . I f yo u ar e us e th e MAC T poin t valu e syste mt o demonstrat e compliance , yo u woul d nee d t o kee p al l data , assumptions , an d calculation s use dt o determin e you r MAC T poin t value . Fo r ne wan d existin g continuou s lamination/castin g operations , yo u woul d als o nee dt o kee p th e followin g record s whe ncomplyin g wit hth e percen t reductio no r poun d pe r to nrequirements : al l data , assumptions , an d calculation s use d t o determin e th e percen t reductio nand/o r pound s pe r ton , a s applicable ; a brie f descriptio no f th e rational e fo r th e assignmen t o f a nequatio no r facto r t o eac hformula ; al l data , assumptions , an dcalculation s use d t o deriv e facility-specifi c emissio nestimation s an d factors ; identificatio nan drational e fo r th e worst-cas e scenario ; an d documentatio ntha t th e appropriat e regulator y agenc yha s approve d al l emissio nestimatio nequation s an d factors . III . Rational e fo r Propose dNESHA P A . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e sourc e categor yt o regulate ? Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nwa s include d o nth e initia l lis t o f sourc e categorie s publishe do nJul y 16 , 199 2 (5 7 F R31576) . I nestablishin g th e sourc e categor yP.2 9

2 8 list , w e state d tha t w e woul drefin e categor ydescription s durin g th e rulemakin g process , i f necessary , base do n additiona l informatio navailable . W e di dno t fin di t necessar yt o refin e th e sourc e categor ydescriptio nfo r Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Production . However , w e di d defin e a numbe r o f differen t proces s grouping s i norde r t o develo p representativ e MAC T floor s a s describe di nth e sectio no nMAC T floo r development . B . Wha t pollutant s ar e regulate dunde r thes e propose d NESHAP ? • Th e propose d NESHA P regulat e tota l HA P rathe r tha n individua l HA P compounds . Standard s fo r tota l HA P simplif y complianc e an d enforcemen t compare dwit hstandard s fo r individua l HA P compounds . Styren e i s th e HA P emitte di nth e larges t magnitude . Othe r HA P emitte dfro mreinforce d plasti c composite s productio nfacilitie s includ e MM Aan d methylen e chloride . C . Wha t i s th e "affecte d source " an dho wdi dEP Aselec t th e operation s t o b e regulate db ythes e propose dNESHAP ? T o provid e complianc e flexibility , w e define dth e affecte d sourc e a s th e combinatio no f al l reinforce dplasti c composite s operation s a t a site . Thi s broa dsourc e definitio nallow s a manufacture r t o .determin e complianc e b y averagin g th e HA P conten t o f differen t product s use d throughou t th e facility , withi ncertai ndefine doperations , an d t o us e differen t applicatio ntechnique s a s neede dt oP.3 0

2 9 mee t produc t qualit yspecifications . D . Wha t i s a ne waffecte d source ? Ane waffecte d sourc e i s an yreinforce dplasti c composite s productio nfacilit ytha t meet s bot ho f thes e criteria :

• I t commence dconstructio nafte r today' s date ; an d

• I t i s a t a sit e tha t doe s no t presentl ycontai n an yreinforce dplasti c composite s productio n operations . I nsectio n11 2 o f th e CAA , th e definitio no f ne w source s als o include s stationar ysource s tha t commenc e reconstructio nafte r th e publicatio ndat e o f a propose d NESHAP . Th e Smal l Busines s Advocac yRevie w(SBAR ) Pane l recommende d tha t w e carefull yrevie wou r definitio no f reconstructio nfo r thi s industry . A s define di nth e Genera l Provision s fo r 4 0 CF Rpar t 63 , "reconstruction " mean s th e replacemen t o f component s o f a naffected , o r a previousl y unaffected , stationar ysourc e t o suc ha nexten t that : (1 ) th e fixe d capita l cos t o f th e ne wcomponent s exceed s 5 0 percen t o f th e fixe d capita l cos t tha t woul db e require dt o construc t a comparabl e ne wsource ; an d(2 ) i t i s technologicall yan d economicall yfeasibl e fo r th e reconstructe d sourc e t o mee t th e relevan t standard s (a s establishe d b yth e Administrato r o r a State ) pursuan t t o sectio n11 2 o f th e CAA . W e envisio ntha t th e type s o f change s tha t woul dP.3 1



### 3 0 typicall yoccu r a t existin g facilitie s woul dinclud e replacemen t o f spra yequipmen t an d molds . W e d o no t believ e tha t i t woul d b e technologicall yan deconomicall yfeasibl e fo r a nexistin g sourc e makin g thes e type s o f change s t o mee t ne wsourc e MACT . Thus , suc hchange s d o no t mee t th e definitio no f reconstructio ni nth e Genera l Provision s an d woul d no t subjec t th e source s makin g suc hchange s t o ne w sourc e MACT . E . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources ? Severa l consideration s underli e ou r MAC T floo r determinations . Thes e consideration s include : if/ho wth e sourc e categor yi s t o b e subcategorized , ho wemission s type s withi nth e affecte d sourc e ar e t o b e analyzed , an dwha t ar e th e bes t performin g sources . W e identifie d 43 3 facilitie s tha t ar e majo r source s base d o nthei r potentia l t o emi t o r hav e th e potentia l t o b e majo r source s base d o ncollocatio nwit hothe r HAP-emittin g processe s no t par t o f thi s sourc e category . I f technica l difference s i nemission s characteristics , processes , contro l devic e applicability , o r opportunitie s fo r pollutio npreventio nexis t withi nth e sourc e category , i t ma yb e appropriat e t o se t separat e floor s base do nthes e characteristics . I nanalyzin g th e availabl e dat a o nthi s sourc e category , i t wa s apparen t tha t reinforce dplasti c composit e facilities , a s a whole , ar e extremel ydivers e i nP.3 2

3 1 thei r emission s characteristics , contro l devic e applicability , an d opportunitie s fo r pollutio nprevention . Therefore , w e explore dvariou s way s o f groupin g th e operation s tha t ma yb e presen t a t thes e facilities . Fo r existin g sources , i t wa s apparen t tha t almos t al l o f th e existin g sourc e floor s woul d b e base do npollution

preventio ntechnique s suc ha s lowerin g th e HA P conten t i n resin s an d ge l coats , coverin g bath s an dcontainer s holdin g resins , an d usin g nonatomize dspra yapplications . Th e exten t an d performanc e o f pollution-preventio ntechnique s ar e dependen t o nth e specifi c operation . Fo r thi s reason , th e dat a wer e subdivide db yspecifi c operation , an da floo r fo r eac hoperatio nwa s developed . Operation s wer e segregate d b ysevera l factors . Th e firs t wa s mol d typ e (i.e. , open , partiall yopen , an d closed) . W e als o segregate doperation s b yresi nan dge l coa t applicatio nmethod ; thes e includ e mechanical , manual , filamen t winding , an d centrifuga l casting . Th e typ e o f mol d an d resi napplicatio nmetho d impact s th e emissio npotentia l o f a particula r operatio nan d als o th e effectivenes s an d applicabilit yo f differen t contro l techniques . W e als o segregate d continuou s operation s suc ha s pultrusion , continuou s lamination , continuou s casting , an dth e manufactur e o f shee t moldin g compound . Th e fina l criteri a use d wa s produc t type . Th e require d propertie s o f th e fina l produc t plac e certai nconstraint s o nP.3 3

3 2 th e ra wmaterial s tha t ca nb e used . This , i nturn , influence s th e limit s o nlevel s o f HA P i nth e ra wmaterials . W e identifie d severa l produc t criteri a wher e th e ra w material s require d t o produc e th e produc t ar e dissimila r enoug htha t a separat e floo r determinatio nwa s required . Th e firs t i s corrosio nresistance . Reinforce dplasti c composite s ca ngenerall yb e divide dint o tw o types-
- corrosion-resistan t an dnoncorrosion-resistan t products . Corrosion-resistan t product s requir e resin s specificall y formulate d fo r corrosion-resistan t applications . W e als o include d high-strengt happlication s i nth e corrosion

resistan t grouping . Thes e application s includ e product s suc ha s structura l member s an dutilit ypoles . Thes e requir e resin s wit hhighe r HA P content s tha ngenera l purpos e resins . Th e highe r HA P content s fo r bot hcorrosion-resistan t an d high-strengt happlication s ar e necessar yt o produc e a laminat e wit ha greate r concentratio no f styren e cross linking . Thi s highe r leve l o f cross-linkin g i s necessar y fo r eithe r corrosion-resistanc e o r high-strength . W e als o separate d ge l coat s fro mresin s becaus e thes e material s hav e significantl ydifferen t function s i nth e fina l produc t an d ar e formulate d differently . Ge l coat s wer e furthe r subdivide dint o clear , whit e an doff-white , an d othe r colors . Clea r ge l coat s requir e significantl yhighe r HA P conten t tha npigmente d ge l coats , an dare , therefore , unabl e t o b e formulate d t o th e sam e HA P levels . Whit e an dP.3 4

3 3 off-whit e ge l coat s ca nb e formulate dt o lowe r HA P content s o na weight-percen t basi s tha nothe r color s du e t o th e fac t tha t whit e pigment s ar e heavie r tha nothe r colo r pigments . Clas s 1 fir e an d smok e rate d product s wer e separate d fro m othe r product s becaus e thei r uniqu e propertie s requir e a resi nwit ha significantl yhighe r HA P conten t tha nan y othe r products . Separatin g Clas s 1 fir e an dsmok e rate d product s wa s als o on e o f th e recommendation s o f th e SBAR Panel . Toolin g resin s an d ge l coat s ar e use dt o mak e th e mold s that , i nturn , ar e use d t o produc e reinforce dplasti c parts . Mold s mus t hav e differen t propertie s compare dt o th e product s the yar e use d t o produce . Thes e includ e a hig h leve l o f dimensiona l stabilit yan dresistanc e t o hea t compare d t o othe r reinforce dplasti c composites . Therefore , separat e floor s wer e develope d fo r toolin g resin s an dge l coats . Onc e th e dat a wer e subdivide db yspecifi c operation , th e dat a wer e ranke d b yHA P emissions . Ope nmoldin g an d centrifuga l castin g operation s wer e ranke dbase do na surrogat e emissio nfacto r calle da poin t value . A s previousl ydiscussed , poin t value s ar e base do nresi nan d ge l coa t applicatio nmetho d an d.HA P content , an dprovid e a relativ e measur e o f emission s betwee noperation s wit h varyin g resi nan d ge l coa t HA P content s an dapplicatio n methods .P.3 5

3 4 Othe r factor s suc ha s ge l time , par t thickness , applicatio ntemperature , an doperato r techniqu e als o affec t emissions . However , ther e i s les s dat a availabl e t o determin e th e effect s o f thes e factor s i na productio n setting . I naddition , som e o f thes e factors , suc ha s par t thickness , ar e inheren t t o th e proces s an dcanno t b e change d withou t changin g th e fina l product . Fo r thi s reason , othe r factor s ar e no t include d i nth e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equations . Th e poin t valu e syste mwa s als o develope d t o allo wa facilit yt o averag e differen t operation s togethe r t o mee t th e applicabl e propose d standards . Th e abilit yt o averag e i s intende d t o provid e additiona l complianc e flexibility . Th e individua l operation s wer e the nranke dbase do nth e poin t valu e (fo r ope nmoldin g an dcentrifuga l casting) , percen t o f emissio nreductio n(pultrusion , continuou s lamination/casting , SM C manufacturing) , coverin g ope n container s o r expose d resi n(storage , BM C manufacturing/mixing , injection/compressio nmolding) , o r th e us e o nnon-HA P cleanin g solvent s (equipmen t cleaning) . Th e media nfacilit yo f th e to p 1 2 percen t (o r to p 5 fo r operation s wit hles s tha n3 0 sources ) wa s the nselecte da s representin g th e existin g sourc e floor . Fo r som e o f thes e operations , th e availabl e dat a wer e insufficien t t o perfor ma ranking . Thes e wer e non-whit e pigmente d ge l coats , product s wit ha Clas s 1 fir e an dsmok eP.3 6

3 5 rating , an d high-strengt hproducts . W e identifie d tw o facilitie s tha t produc e product s tha t requir e a Clas s 1 fir e an d smok e rating . Bot hfacilitie s us e a resi nwit ha 6 0 percen t HA P content . W e chos e us e o f thi s resi na s th e floor . Fro ma 6 0 percen t HA P resin , w e calculate d differen t poin t value s fo r mechanical , manual , an d filamen t windin g resi napplication . Th e dat a w e use d t o se t floor s fo r pigmente dge l coat s wer e weighte d average s reporte d b yth e facilities . Thi s dat a include d som e informatio no ncolors , bu t no t enoug h facilitie s reporte d colo r informatio nt o perfor ma meaningfu l ranking . Becaus e o f th e predominanc e o f whit e an d off-whit e ge l coats , thes e dat a ar e no t representativ e fo r othe r colors . However , man yfacilitie s offe r othe r colors . Th e pigment s use d i nwhit e an doff-whit e ge l coat s ar e muc hdense r tha nth e pigment s use di nothe r colors . Fo r tha t reason , weigh t percen t HA P i nwhit e an doff-whit e ge l coat s tend s t o b e lower . Afloo r base do nwhit e an doff

whit e ge l coa t HA P content s woul dpreclud e a facilit yusin g othe r colors . Base d o nindustr ycomment s an dth e recommendatio no f th e SBARpanel , w e determine dtha t a HA P conten t o f 3 7 percen t i s th e minimu mtha t woul dprovid e acceptabl e ge l coa t performanc e fo r ge l coat s wit hcolor s othe r the nwhit e an d off-white . I nth e absenc e o f anyothe r data , w e adopte d a 3 7 percen t HA P a s th e floo r fo r thes e ge l coats . Th e 3 7P.3 7

3 6 percen t HA P conten t wa s converte d t o a poin t valu e usin g th e appropriat e poin t valu e equation . (Se e th e fina l repor t o f th e SBARPane l i nth e docket. ) W e reques t comment s an d supportin g dat a o nth e appropriatenes s o f 3 7 percen t a s a minimu m

HA P conten t fo r acceptabl e performanc e fo r ge l coat s wit hcolor s othe r tha nwhit e an d off-white . Th e dat a supplie db yindustr ydi d no t differentiat e product s tha t requir e highe r tha ntypica l strengt h properties . Therefore , w e coul d no t determin e a floo r wit h th e facilit ydat a base . W e discusse dthi s issu e a s par t o f th e SBARPane l wit hsevera l manufacturer s tha t produc e high

strengt hproducts . W e als o reviewe d th e requirement s o f Sout hCoas t Ai r Qualit yManagemen t Distric t Rul e 1162 . Rul e 116 2 specificall yaddresse s high-strengt hproduct s an d contain s th e sam e requirement s fo r high-strengt hproduct s an d corrosion-resistan t products . A s a result , w e determine d usin g th e dat a fo r corrosion-resistan t resin s woul d b e th e mos t appropriat e wa yt o determin e floor s fo r high-strengt hproducts . Therefore , w e ar e proposin g th e sam e floor s fo r high-strengt hproduct s an dcorrosion

resistan t products . Thi s i s consisten t wit ha recommendatio no f th e SBARPanel . W e solici t comment s o n thi s approach . Ther e ar e man yfacilitie s tha t us e multipl e operation s t o produc e a product . A nexampl e o f thi s woul db e a facilit yproducin g corrosion-resistan t tank s usin g filamen tP.3 8

3 7 windin g t o produc e th e mai ncircula r portion , mechanica l resi napplicatio nfo r th e tan k ends , an dmanua l resi n applicatio nt o joi nth e part s together . Industr y representative s pointe d ou t tha t th e floor s w e ha ddevelope d fro m th e dat a bas e woul dpotentiall yrequir e a facilit yt o us e thre e differen t resin s t o produc e a singl e product . Thi s coul d potentiall ylea dt o problem s o f resi n compatibilit yan d produc t failures . Th e SBARPane l repor t include d a recommendatio ntha t w e allo wa facilit yt o us e th e sam e resi nfo r al l processes . A s a result , w e reexamine dth e floor s fo r facilitie s wit hmultipl e processes . W e determine dthat , base do nth e dat a available , th e appropriat e approac hwoul db e t o hav e a provisio ni nth e propose dstandard s t o allo wa facilit yt o selec t on e operation , determin e th e resi nthe ycoul dus e t o mee t th e floor , an d the nus e tha t sam e resi ni nal l othe r operations . W e di d no t hav e th e dat a t o determin e wha t tha t operatio nshoul d b e i nal l cases , s o w e ar e no t specifyin g a particula r operatio ni nth e propose dstandards . W e assume d tha t a facilit ywoul dselec t th e operatio ntha t allow s the m t o us e th e highes t HA P conten t resin . A t th e recommendatio no f th e SBARPanel , w e als o reexamine d th e floor s fo r toolin g resins . Severa l o f th e smal l entit yrepresentative s tha t advise dth e pane l state d tha t th e propose d floo r fo r toolin g resin s wil l resul t i n inferio r qualit ytools . W e believ e tha t th e curren t floo rP.3 9

3 8 fo r toolin g resin s allow s sufficien t flexibilit yi nresi n HA P conten t a s lon g a s th e resi nca nb e applie dwit h nonatomize d spra ytechnology . W e ar e specificall y solicitin g commen t o nth e applicabilit yo f nonatomize dspra y technolog yt o toolin g resins . Base do nanycomments , w e inten d t o furthe r examin e th e floo r fo r toolin g resins . F . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e MAC T floo r fo r ne wsources ? I ndevelopin g th e floo r fo r ne wsources , w e develope d tw o subcategories--source s wit hemission s o f 10 0 tp yo r abov e an d source s wit hemission s belo w10 0 tpy . Ou r reaso n fo r examinin g source s wit hemission s belo w10 0 tp y separatel yi s tha t suc hfacilitie s ar e likel yt o hav e mor e difficult ymaintainin g an doperatin g add-o ncontrol s tha n larger-emittin g sources , an d w e ar e unsur e o f th e performanc e o f add-o ncontrol s a t thes e facilities . Separatin g th e dat a int o larg e an dsmal l HAP-emittin g source s fo r developin g ne wsourc e MAC T floor s wa s als o on e o f th e recommendation s o f th e SBARPanel . I nexaminin g th e facilitie s wit hemission s o f 10 0 tp y o r more , we'foun d tw o facilitie s tha t contro l emission s fro m ope nmoldin g an d mixin g b y9 5 percen t overall. ' Thes e facilitie s rang e i nsiz e fro mapproximatel y10 0 tp yt o 100 0 tp yo f HA P emission s prio r t o th e add-o ncontro l device . Thi s leve l o f contro l wa s chose na s th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r ope nmoldin g an d mixin g a t facilitie s wit h10 0 tp y o r mor e o f uncontrolle demissions .P.4 0

3 9 W e als o considere d whethe r t o evaluat e th e applicabilit yo f add-o ncontrol s t o eac ho f th e differen t operation s a s wa s don e i s settin g floor s fo r existin g sources . Th e tw o facilitie s tha t contro l emission s b y9 5 percen t hav e operation s includin g ge l coa t an dmechanica l resi napplication . Th e performanc e an dcos t o f add-o n control s i s mainl ya functio no f ai r flow s an dHA P concentratio nfro mth e process . W e hav e n o dat a t o sugges t tha t th e ai r flow s an dHA P concentration s presen t i nothe r ope nmoldin g productio nprocesse s i nthi s industr yar e no t adequatel yrepresente d b ythese<two > facilities . Th e tw o facilitie s produc e part s tha t rang e i nsiz e fro mtha t o f bathtub s t o truc k caps . I t i s possibl e tha t large r siz e part s ma yrequir e large r enclosures . W e hav e no t identifie d an yfacilitie s i nth e reinforce dplasti c composite s industr ywher e processe s producin g larg e parts , suc ha s storag e tank s an d swimmin g pools , hav e applie d10 0 percen t efficien t captur e systems . However , w e hav e identifie d facilitie s usin g 10 0 percen t efficien t captur e system s tha t appl ycoating s t o larg e part s suc ha s helicopter s an d ships . Thes e coatin g operation s hav e simila r issue s o f larg e ai r flow s (du e t o worke r exposur e concerns ) an d lo woutle t HA P emissio nconcentrations . Base d o nthis , w e believ e tha t i t i s technicall yfeasibl e t o appl y 10 0 percen t efficien t captur e system s t o large r part s i nth e reinforce d plasti c composite s industry . <W e ar e specificall yP.4 1

4 0 solicitin g commen t an ddat a o nwhethe r i t i s technicall y feasibl e t o appl y10 0 percen t efficien t captur e system s t o large r part s i nth e reinforce d plasti c composite s industry . W e als o ar e solicitin g commen t an d dat a o nth e ai r flow s an d HA P concentration s presen t i nothe r ope nmoldin g productio n processe s i nthi s industry , an d whethe r the yar e adequatel y represente d b yth e tw o facilitie s discusse dabove. > W e evaluate d th e applicabilit yo f th e 9 5 percen t contro l leve l a s th e ne wsourc e floo r fo r othe r operations . Centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/casting , pultrusion , an d SM C manufacturin g ar e simila r i nemission s characteristic s t o ope nmolding . Ther e ar e fiv e facilitie s tha t hav e applie d highl yefficien t add-o ncontrol s t o thes e operations , wit hoveral l contro l efficiencie s rangin g fro m 9 0 t o 9 5 percent . Fo r thi s reason , w e chos e 9 5 percen t contro l a s th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r thes e operation s a t facilitie s wit huncontrolle demission s o f a t leas t 10 0 tpy . <W e solici t commen t o nthi s issue. > W e als o considere d whethe r th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r th e previousl ymentione d operation s shoul db e incorporatio no f th e pollution-preventio nmeasure s tha t mak e u p th e existin g sourc e floors , combine dwit h9 5 percen t control . Thi s approac hwoul dactuall yresul t i na highe r overal l emission s reduction . I naddition , incorporatin g th e pollutio npreventio nmeasure s woul d reduc e th e potentia l fo r worke r exposur e i nsituation s wher e processe s hav e t o b eP.4 2

4 1 enclose d t o mee t th e 9 5 percen t contro l requirement . However , w e determine dtha t selectin g incorporatio no f pollution-preventio ntechnique s i nadditio nt o th e 9 5 percen t contro l requiremen t a s th e ne wsourc e floo r wa s no t appropriat e becaus e th e facilitie s tha t incorporat e 9 5 percen t control , whic hw e determine drepresen t th e bes t controlle d facilities , d o no t als o incorporat e th e bes t pollutio npreventio ntechniques . Therefore , combinin g th e pollution-preventio nrequirement s wit hth e 9 5 percen t contro l requirement s woul dactuall yresul t i na noveral l contro l leve l tha t exceed s th e level s a t th e bes t controlle d facilities . W e ar e requestin g commen t o nwhethe r th e ne wsourc e floo r fo r facilitie s tha t mus t mee t th e 9 5 percen t contro l requirement s shoul d als o incorporat e th e pollution

preventio nrequirements . W e als o reques t tha t commentor s provid e an yavailabl e dat a o nworke r exposur e tha t woul d hel p u s quantif yth e benefit s o f incorporatin g pollution

preventio nrequirement s wit hth e 9 5 percen t contro l requirements . W e ar e no t proposin g 9 5 percen t contro l fo r close d molding , polyme r casting , equipmen t cleaning , an dresi n storage , whic hhav e muc hlowe r emission s tha nth e othe r type s o f operations . On e o f th e facilitie s tha t set s th e ne wsourc e floo r ha s a close d moldin g operatio no nsite . Thi s operatio ni s no t controlled . W e di didentif yothe rP.4 3

4 2 type s o f control s fo r thes e processes . Fo r compression/injectio nmolding , whic hi s a typ e o f close d molding , th e onl yidentifie dcontro l wa s th e wor k practic e o f uncoverin g on e charg e a t a time . Therefore , thi s wa s chose na s th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r compression/injectio nmolding . Fo r polyme r castin g an d resi ntransfe r molding , w e wer e no t abl e t o identif yan y applicabl e contro l techniques . Thus , th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r thes e source s i s n o control . Fo r equipmen t cleaning , th e propose dne wsourc e floo r i s base d o nus e o f cleaner s wit hn o HAP . O f th e 43 3 facilitie s tha t reporte dinformatio no ncleaning , 35 3 reporte d usin g n o cleanin g material s containin g HAP . However , w e ar e no t regulatin g solvent s use dfo r cleanin g cure d resi no r ge l coa t fro mapplicatio nequipmen t becaus e w e kno wo f n o HA P emissio ncontrols . Cure dresi no r ge l coa t insid e a gu ni s usuall yth e resul t o f operato r erro r o r a nequipmen t failure . T o clea ncure dresi nan dge l coat , a n aggressiv e solven t i s needed , an dn o low-HA P alternative s ar e available . Th e equipmen t i s usuall ysoake di na covere d bucke t resultin g i nlittl e evaporatio no f th e solvent . Th e amoun t o f solven t neede d pe r yea r i s determine db yth e siz e o f th e facility , degre e o f operato r error , an dequipmen t failur e rates . Becaus e operato r erro r an dequipmen t failur e ar e har d t o predict , w e coul ddetermin e n o basi s fo r a n annua l limi t o f solven t usag e tha t woul db e achievabl e b yP.4 4

4 3 al l facilities . Thes e propose dNESHAP , therefore , allo w HAP-containin g solvent s onl yfo r cleanin g cure dresi nan d ge l coa t fro mth e applicatio nequipment . Ove r 25 0 facilitie s reporte d coverin g storag e containers . W e selecte d coverin g storag e container s a s th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r storage . W e identifie dtw o facilitie s tha t ven t th e storag e area s t o a contro l device ; however , w e determine d tha t th e availabl e dat a ar e insufficien t t o quantif yadditiona l emission s reduction s tha t woul d resul t fro mcontrollin g storag e tank s an d container s b y9 5 percen t versu s jus t coverin g th e storag e tank s an d containers . W e calculate d separat e floor s fo r facilitie s wit hles s tha n10 0 tp yo f emission s fro mope nmolding , centrifuga l castin g continuou s lamination/casting , pultrusion , SM C manufacturing , an d BM C manufacturing/mixing . Thoug hther e ar e facilitie s wit hemission s belo w10 0 tp ytha t hav e add-o n controls , dat a wer e no t availabl e t o substantiat e thei r leve l o f control . Therefore , w e coul dno t stat e tha t the y achieve d a leve l o f contro l abov e tha t achieve db yth e pollution-preventio ntechniques , an dthus , mee t th e definitio no f bes t controlle d facilities . Also , smaller

emittin g facilitie s ten d t o operat e wit hfewe r shift s tha n large r ones . Th e mor e frequen t startup s an dshutdown s coul d ten d t o mak e i t mor e difficul t t o maintai nan doperat e add

o ncontrol s compare d t o larger-emittin g facilities . Fo rP.4 5

4 4 thes e reasons , th e floo r fo r ne wsource s wit hles s tha n10 0 tp yo f emission s i s base d o npollution-preventio n techniques .

Fo r thes e smaller-emittin g facilities , w e proposin g t o se t th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r a t th e sam e leve l a s th e existin g sourc e MAC T floor . Thi s approac hwa s recommende d b yth e SBARPanel . W e believ e th e existin g sourc e MAC T floo r represent s th e greates t degre e o f emission s reductio n tha t i s achievabl e fo r smal l facilitie s unde r al l circumstances . Fo r ne wsources , th e CAArequire s th e MAC T floo r t o b e base d o nth e HA P emission s contro l achieve di n practic e b yth e bes t controlle d simila r source , a s determine d b yth e Administrator . Th e reinforce dplasti c composite s industr yi s extraordinaril ydiverse . Th e product s produced , eve ni nth e sam e operation , ca ninclud e skylights , bathtubs , an dpart s fo r automobiles . Give nthi s diversity , i t i s difficul t t o identif yth e "bes t controlled " source . Product s manufacture db ythi s industr ygenerall y mus t mee t certai nminima l strengt han ddurabilit y requirements . Th e HA P conten t o f th e resi ni s a facto r i n meetin g suc hrequirements . Us e o f a resi nwit ha give nHA P conten t ma yb e th e mos t stringen t leve l o f contro l possibl e fo r a particula r process , whil e i t ma yb e possibl e t o us e a lower-HA P resi ni na differen t proces s withou t jeopardizin g th e strengt ho r durabilit yo f th e product . Whil e som e facilitie s ar e usin g lower-HA P material s an dP.4 6

4 5 technique s tha nrepresente d b yth e existin g sourc e MAC T floor , w e d o no t believ e tha t thes e example s ar e universall y applicabl e t o al l ne wreinforce dplasti c composite s manufacturers . W e hav e n o dat a t o precisel ydefin e th e particula r combinatio no f requirement s wher e thes e lower

emittin g option s ca nb e use d an d stil l maintai nth e minimu m require d strengt han d durabilit yrequirement s o f thes e products . Consequently , w e hav e se t th e propose dfloo r a t th e mos t stringen t leve l tha t w e hav e determine dal l source s emittin g les s tha n10 0 tp yca nachieve . W e di d no t fin d tha t th e quantit yo f HA P emission s fro m th e sourc e ha d an yeffec t o nit s abilit yt o incorporat e pollution-preventio ntechnology , o r o nth e effectivenes s o f thes e technologies . Fo r tha t reason , w e di dno t subdivid e th e dat a fo r existin g source s wher e th e floor s ar e base d mainl yo npollutio nprevention . Durin g th e SBARPane l discussions , man yo f th e smal l entit yrepresentative s expresse d concer nregardin g th e affordabilit yan d technica l feasibilit yo f add-o ncontrols , an d commente d tha t the yma yb e abl e t o achiev e simila r HA P reduction s usin g pollution-preventio nmeasures , whic hten d t o b e les s expensive . Fo r example , i f a facilit ycoul d reduc e it s emission s b y5 0 percen t eac hyea r fo r 3 year s usin g th e pollution-preventio nalternative , i t ma yb e abl e t o achiev e reduction s simila r t o therma l oxidatio n(nearl y 9 0 percen t versu s 9 5 percent) . Th e pane l recommende dtha tP.4 7

4 6 EP Aexplor e wit hindustr yth e possibilit yo f a mor e stringen t pollution-preventio noptio na s a nalternativ e t o add-o ncontrols . Th e pane l believe dtha t thi s optio nshoul d b e mor e stringen t tha nth e pollution-preventio ntechnolog y presen t i nth e curren t existin g sourc e MAC T floors . W e discusse d wit hindustr yth e possibilit yo f a pollution-preventio ncontro l optio ni nlie u o f add-o n controls . W e wer e unabl e t o develo p a noptio ntha t w e believ e meet s th e statutor yrequirement s o f MACT . However , w e ar e solicitin g commen t o na possibl e pollution-preventio n alternativ e t o th e 9 5 percen t HA P reductio nrequirement . Th e specifi c informatio nw e ar e seekin g i s th e maximu mleve l o f contro l tha t ca nb e achieve d b ypollutio nprevention , an d th e tim e necessar yt o incorporat e pollution-preventio n techniques . Th e pollution-preventio ntechnique s o f whic hw e ar e awar e includ e lo wHA P resin s an dge l coats , nonatomize d resi nan d ge l coa t applications , vapo r suppresse dresins , vacuu mbagging , accelerate dresi ncuring , an dconversio no f ope nmoldin g processe s t o close dmolding . W e ar e solicitin g informatio no nothe r pollution-preventio ntechnique s o f whic hw e ar e no t aware , an dinformatio no nth e maximu mleve l o f emission s reduction s achievabl e b ythes e techniques . Th e genera l concep t o f a nalternativ e woul db e a facilit ytha t elect s t o us e thi s optio nt o submi t notificatio nt o th e appropriat e permittin g authorit yo f thei r intent . Th e facilit ywoul dthe nhav e t o submi t a pla nP.4 8

4 7 t o mee t specifi c emission s reduction s throug hpollutio n prevention . Th e pla nwoul doutlin e th e technique s the y inten d t o use , th e researc han d testin g required , an da schedul e wit hannua l milestone s fo r achievin g th e goal . I nth e nex t step , th e facilit ywoul dcalculat e a n overal l emissio nfacto r fo r al l processe s a t th e facilit y tha t ar e require d t o mee t th e 9 5 percen t emissio nreduction . Onc e a facilit yha s determine d a bas e yea r emissio n factor , the ywoul d b e require d t o incorporat e th e pollution

preventio ntechnique s outline d i nth e pla nan dmak e annua l report s o f progress . I f a facilit ywa s unabl e t o mee t a n interi m

milestone , the ywoul db e require dt o provid e a n update d pla nwithi na specifie d time . W e ar e als o solicitin g commen t o ndeterminatio no f a bas e yea r an d baselin e emissio nfactor , an dreportin g requirements . G . Di d w e conside r contro l option s mor e stringen t tha nth e MAC T floor ? Fo r existin g sources , a nabove-the-floo r contro l leve l wa s evaluate d whic hwa s base d o nth e ne wsourc e floo r fo r source s wit hemission s o f 10 0 tp yo r more . Thi s above-the

floo r contro l leve l woul drequir e 9 5 percen t contro l o f HA P emission s fro mal l ope nmolding , centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/casting , pultrusion , SM C manufacturing , an d resi nmixing/BM C manufacturing . W e the nlooke d a t severa l options . Thes e wer eP.4 9

4 8 selectin g th e floo r leve l o f contro l a s MAC T fo r al l facilities , selectin g th e above-the-floo r leve l a s MAC T fo r al l facilities , o r choosin g a nalternativ e wher e facilitie s a t o r abov e a certai nHA P emission s quantit ywoul dmee t th e above-the-floo r level , an d th e res t woul dmee t th e floor . I nlookin g a t thi s thir d alternative , w e als o evaluate d differen t HA P emissio nthresholds . Th e optio no f havin g al l facilitie s mee t th e above-the- ' floo r leve l o f contro l ha d a nincrementa l cos t effectivenes s rati o o f $4, 3 0 0 pe r to no f HA P emissio nreduction . Th e economi c analysi s fo r thi s optio nindicate dtha t 12 6 smal l businesse s woul d b e impacte d a t a leve l o f 3 percen t o f sale s o r more , an d ther e wer e 9 0 projecte dclosure s o f smal l businesses . W e believ e tha t th e benefi t o f controllin g al l existin g source s t o thi s leve l i s no t commensurat e wit hth e economi c impacts . Therefore , w e ar e no t proposin g thi s alternativ e a s MACT . W e the nlooke d a t a combinatio no f th e MAC T floo r fo r facilitie s belo wa specifie dHA P emission s quantit ybase do n <actual > [[* * NOTE ; Section9.4.7 of the Panel

Report saysthat the emissions threshold would be based onasource'sactual, not uncontrolled

emissions. **] ] emissions , an d th e above-the-floo r leve l o f contro l fo r larger-emittin g facilities . W e als o examine dth e impact s fro mth e standpoin t o f smal l businesse s an dthei r abilit yt o obtai nth e capita l t o purchas e pollutio ncontro l equipment . W e believ e tha t th e capita l cost s o f th e above-the-floo rP.5 0

4 9 optio nfo r mos t smal l businesse s woul db e prohibitiv e becaus e the yd o no t hav e th e sam e acces s t o capita l a s larg e businesses . Th e availabl e dat a indicat e tha t a t a threshol d o f 25 0 tpy , non e o f th e existin g smal l businesse s i nth e dat a bas e woul d b e impacte d significantl yb yth e above-the

floo r contro l level . Fo r thi s reason , w e determine dMAC T fo r smal l businesse s t o b e th e floo r fo r facilitie s tha t emi t les s tha n25 0 tp yo f HAP , an dth e above-the-floo r contro l leve l fo r facilitie s tha t emi t 25 0 tp yo r more . Fo r larg e businesses , w e determine dMAC T t o b e th e floo r fo r facilitie s tha t emi t les s tha n10 0 tp yo f HAP , an dth e above-the-floo r contro l leve l fo r facilitie s tha t emi t 10 0 tp yo r mor e o f HAP . Th e incorporatio no f th e 25 0 tp y threshol d fo r smal l businesse s wa s on e o f th e recommendation s o f th e SBARPanel , an dth e economi c impact s o f th e selecte d optio nar e reasonable . Industr yrepresentative s independentl ydevelope dcost s fo r add-o ncontrol s an dsubmitte d the mt o th e Agency . Thei r analysi s i s i nth e docke t fo r thi s propose drulemaking . Th e SBARPane l recommende d tha t w e reconside r ou r estimate s o f cost s fo r add-o ncontrol s i nligh t o f tha t study . Th e industr ycos t estimate s ar e a t leas t thre e time s highe r tha n ou r cos t estimates . Th e majo r reaso nfo r thes e difference s i ncos t ar e th e desig nassumption s fo r th e permanen t tota l enclosure s an d th e estimate dai r flows . Ou r cos t estimate s assum e a ninle t concentratio no f 10 0 part s pe r millio nb yP.5 1

5 0 volum e (ppmv) . Th e industr ystudyassume s lowe r concentration s tha t var ybase d o nth e specifi c facility . However , availabl e tes t dat a fo r measure dconcentration s i n th e exhaus t stream s fo r reinforce dplasti c composite s facilitie s rang e fro m6 1 t o 24 9 ppmv , wit ha naverag e concentratio no f 12 0 an d a media no f 82 . Base do nthis , w e believ e ou r 10 0 ppmvestimat e i s stil l reasonable , an dw e hav e decide d no t t o revis e ou r cos t analysi s a t thi s time . <W e recognize , however , tha t th e amoun t o f tes t dat a th e Agenc yha s o nth e exhaus t stream s fo r reinforce dplasti c composite s facilitie s i s limited , an dw e reques t additiona l dat a below. > W e <will > revie wth e industry' s cos t analysi s i nmor e dept hfollowin g proposal , an dmak e an y appropriat e change s base d <o nou r revie wand > o ncomment s w e receive . <W e wil l mak e availabl e t o th e industr yan dth e publi c fo r thei r review , sufficientl yprio r t o finalizatio n o f th e rule , b ymean s o f a notic e o f dat a availabilit yan d postin g o nth e Worl d Wid e We bpag e fo r thi s rul e (a t 

### ttp: //www. epa.gov/ttnuatwl/coat/rein/rein__plas.html) , th e result s o f ou r detaile drevie wth e industry' s analyse s o f th e cos t o f thi s rule. > [[* * NOTE : These edits reflect a 

### Jbi t more accurately the nature of the discussions with the industry around

the time of

the Panel. **] ] W e ar e solicitin g commen t o nth e cos t an dfeasibilit y o f add-o ncontrols , <dat a an d other > informatio no ndesig n an d operatio no f permanen t tota l enclosure s fro mthi s o rP.5 2

5 1 simila r industries , an d<dat a an d other > informatio no n typica l exhaus t <HAP > concentration s <an dai r flows > fo r reinforce d plasti c composit e facilities . W e di d no t identif ya nabove-the-floo r optio nfo r th e followin g operations : close dmolding , polyme r casting , an d equipmen t cleaning . W e wer e abl e t o fin dn o example s wher e an yclose d moldin g proces s wa s controlle dusin g add-o n controls . Therefore , w e believ e i t i s no t technicall yan d economicall yfeasibl e t o us e add-o ncontrol s fo r close d moldin g processes . W e d o no t believ e i t i s technicall y feasibl e t o us e add-o ncontrol s fo r equipmen t cleanin g operations . I nan ycase , applicatio no f th e floo r leve l o f contro l w e ar e proposin g woul d eliminat e HAP-containin g cleaners , excep t fo r case s wher e cure dresi nha s t o b e remove d fro m

applicatio nequipment . Thi s floo r leve l o f contro l woul d achiev e clos e t o 10 0 percen t HA P emission s reductions . Fo r ne wsources , w e examine da nabove-the-floo r optio n o f requirin g al l source s t o mee t th e 9 5 percen t contro l requiremen t fo r ope nmolding , centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/casting , pultrusion , SM C manufacturing , an d resi nmixing/BM C manufacturing . W e determine d that , eve ni f w e coul dresolv e th e issue s surroundin g th e performanc e o f add-o ncontro l device s a t th e smaller-emittin g sources , th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s rati o woul d b e $15,00 0 pe r to no f HA P emission s reduction .P.5 3

5 2 Fo r thi s reason , w e chos e th e floo r leve l o f contro l a s MAC T fo r ne wsources . W e als o considere d a nabove-the-floo r contro l leve l fo r bot hexistin g an d ne wsource s o f combinin g th e pollution

preventio ntechnique s o f th e existin g sourc e floor s wit ha 9 5 percen t contro l requirement . A s previousl ydiscussed , th e benefit s o f thi s approac hwoul db e tha t b yincorporatin g th e pollution-preventio nmeasures , th e overal l emissio n reductio nwoul d b e increased . I naddition , th e potentia l fo r worke r exposur e i nthes e situation s woul db e reduced . However , w e determine dth e incrementa l emissio nreductio n fo r thi s contro l leve l wa s approximatel y2 percen t o f baseline . Base d o nth e cost s o f meetin g existin g sourc e floors , th e cos t effectivenes s rati o o f thi s smal l additiona l benefi t woul db e $36,90 0 pe r to no f HA P emissio n reduction . Thoug hther e ma yb e worke r exposur e benefits , w e di d no t includ e thi s above-the-floo r contro l leve l i nthi s propose d rule . Thi s possibilit yi s stil l unde r consideratio nan d w e ar e ar e requestin g comment . W e als o reques t tha t commentor s provid e an yavailabl e dat a o nworke r exposur e tha t woul d allo wu s t o quantif yth e additiona l worke r exposur e benefit s o f incorporatin g pollution

preventio nrequirement s wit hth e 9 5 percen t contro l requirements . W e di d no t identif ya nabove-the-floo r optio nfo r ne w source s fo r th e followin g operations : close dmolding ,P.5 4

5 3 polyme r casting , an d equipmen t cleanin g fo r th e sam e reason s a s discusse d abov e fo r existin g sources . W e als o examine da nabove-the-floo r contro l optio nfo r existin g source s base do npollutio nprevention . A s wa s th e cas e wit hth e ne wsourc e MAC T floor , w e ar e unabl e a t thi s tim e t o develo p a nalternativ e tha t w e believ e meet s th e statutor yrequirement s o f MACT . However , w e ar e specificall ysolicitin g comment s o npollution-preventio n technique s tha t coul db e use di nlie u o f th e above-the-floo r alternativ e a s wer e discusse di nth e sectio no nne wsourc e floors . H . Wh yar e som e reinforce d plasti c composite s productio n operation s no t subjec t t o thes e /propose dNESHAP ? Thes e propose d NESHA P woul dno t regulat e mol dsealin g an d releas e agent s an d mol d strippin g an dcleanin g solvent s becaus e w e wer e unabl e t o se t MAC T floor s o r determin e MAC T fo r thes e operations . I nbot hcases , th e informatio nan d dat a availabl e t o u s sugges t tha t mol dmaintenanc e practices , par t shap e an dsize , an dproductio nschedule s determin e emission s mor e tha nth e HA P conten t o f thes e materials . W e d o no t hav e sufficien t dat a t o identif yan d prescrib e wor k practice s t o reduc e emission s fro mthes e operations . Therefore , thes e propose dNESHA P d o no t requir e control s fo r thes e materials . Fo r mol d strippin g an dcleanin g solvents , th e amoun t o f HA P use d pe r uni t o f mol dsurfac e are a applie ddepend s o nP.5 5

5 4 facility-specifi c mol dmaintenanc e practice s an dproductio n requirements . Thes e ma yinclud e mol dcycl e time , ho wofte n th e mol d i s used , an dwhethe r th e mol di s store dindoor s o r outdoors . Th e siz e of . th e par t ma yals o influenc e mol d maintenance . W e d o no t hav e sufficien t dat a t o identif y thos e difference s i nproductio nrequirement s o r wor k practice s tha t determin e mol d cleanin g solven t usage . Therefore , w e canno t identif ya MAC T floo r o r MACT . I . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e for mo f thes e propose dNESHAP ? W e decide d t o offe r severa l form s fo r complyin g wit h th e propose d NESHAP . Th e purpos e o f multipl e form s i s t o provid e th e flexibilit yt o compl yi nth e mos t cost-effectiv e an d efficien t manner . W e considere dth e followin g factor s i nselectin g th e for mo f th e propose dNESHAP :

• Th e for m

shoul d allo wfo r multipl e complianc e technique s fo r th e variou s type s o f facilitie s i n th e industry .

• Th e for m

shoul d simplif ycomplianc e an densur e tha t th e cos t o f complianc e i s no t excessive .

• Th e for m

shoul d b e enforceable . Th e for mo f thes e propose dNESHA P i s base do na combinatio no f emissio nlimit s (poin t value s o r percen t reduction) , equipmen t standards , an dwor k practic e standards . 1 . Emissio nLimit s Base d o nPoin t Value s Thes e propose d NESHA P fo r ope nmoldin g operation s an dP.5 6

5 5 centrifuga l castin g operation s ar e base do npoin t value s whic har e i nunit s o f pound s o f HA P pe r to no f resi nused . Th e poin t valu e developmen t ha s bee npreviousl ydescribed . Thi s for mwa s chose nove r a nabsolut e emissio nlimi t becaus e i t accuratel ydetermine s th e amoun t o f pollution-preventio n contro l a sourc e ha s incorporate di nit s process , bu t doe s no t requir e a facilit yt o perfor memissio ntesting . Thi s for mals o allow s fo r averagin g acros s ope nmoldin g processe s o r acros s centrifuga l castin g processes . Thi s mean s tha t a sourc e ha s th e optio nt o over-contro l som e operations , under-contro l other s (relativ e t o th e limi t fo r tha t individua l process) , bu t stil l mee t th e overal l limi t fo r suc hoperation s combined . Thi s allow s a sourc e t o hav e additiona l flexibilit yi nmeetin g th e propose dstandards . Th e emissio nlimit s fo r ope nmoldin g an dcentrifuga l castin g fo r ne wsource s ar e base d o na percen t reductio n usin g add-o ncontrols . However , w e hav e provide da n alternativ e standar d fo r ne wsource s als o base do npoin t values . Thes e poin t value s wer e determine db yapplyin g th e require d percen t reductio nrequiremen t t o th e existin g sourc e MAC T floors . Th e ne wsourc e floo r i s base do na contro l efficiency , an d th e facilitie s tha t hav e thes e control s d o no t hav e example s o f ever ypossibl e typ e o f ope n moldin g o r centrifuga l castin g process . Therefore , w e wer e no t abl e t o us e th e best-controlle dsource s t o directl y determin e a poin t valu e tha t i s equivalen t t o th e 9 5 percen tP.5 7

5 6 emission s reduction s requiremen t fo r al l operations . Fo r operation s wher e w e coul ddirectl ydetermin e a poin t valu e equivalent , th e approac ho f usin g existin g sourc e floor s an d applyin g 9 5 percen t contro l i s slightl ymor e stringent . Therefore , w e believ e applyin g thi s approac ht o al l ope n moldin g an d centrifuga l castin g operation s wil l produc e a limi t tha t i s n o les s stringent , whil e providin g opportunitie s fo r facilitie s t o incorporat e pollutio n preventio nint o thei r process , mee t a percen t reductio n requiremen t les s tha n9 5 percent , bu t stil l mee t th e ne w sourc e floor . 2 . Emissio nLimit s Base d o nPercen t Reductio n Th e for mo f th e standard s fo r ne wope nmolding , centrifuga l casting , SM C manufacturing , an dresin/mixing/BM C manufacturing , an d th e standard s fo r ne wan dexistin g source s fo r pultrusio nan dSM C manufacturin g ar e base do na percen t reduction . Thes e standard s wer e al l develope dfro m facilitie s usin g add-o ncontrols . I t i s possibl e t o desig n a contro l devic e t o mee t a specifie dpercen t reduction . Bu t base d o nth e dat a available , i t wa s no t possibl e t o determin e a nuncontrolle demissio nfacto r fo r ope nmolding , centrifuga l casting , SM C manufacturing , an dmixing/BM C manufacturin g tha t wa s generall yapplicable . Therefore , w e coul d no t develo p a standar d base d o na nemissio nfactor . Fo r continuou s lamination/casting , w e wer e abl e t o develo p a nabsolut e emissio nlimi t base d o nth e facilitie s tha t se tP.5 8

5 7 th e floor . Thes e absolut e emissio nlimit s ar e presente da s alternative s t o th e percen t reductio nlimits . I nth e cas e o f pultrusio noperations , ther e ar e alternativ e standard s base d o nwet-are a enclosure s o r direc t di e injection . Emissio ntestin g ha s determine dtha t usin g thi s equipmen t a s specifie d i nth e propose d rul e wil l achiev e th e percen t reduction s specifie d i nth e NESHAP . 3 . Emissio nLimit s Base do nEquipment/Wor k Practic e Standard s Sectio n112(h ) o f th e CAAstate s tha t " . . . i f i t i s no t feasibl e i nth e judgemen t o f th e Administrato r t o prescrib e o r enforc e a nemissio nstandar dfo r contro l o f a hazardou s ai r pollutan t o r pollutants , th e Administrato r may , i nlie u thereof , promulgat e a design , equipment , wor k practice , o r operationa l standard , o r combinatio nthereo f .

. .. " Sectio n112(h)(2 ) furthe r define s th e phras e "no t feasibl e t o prescrib e o r enforc e a nemissio nstandard " a s an ysituatio ni nwhic h" . . . a hazardou s ai r pollutan t o r pollutant s canno t b e emitte d throug ha conveyanc e designe d an d constructe d t o emi t o r captur e suc hpollutant , . . . o r th e applicatio no f measuremen t methodolog yt o a particula r clas s o f source s i s no t practicabl e du e t o technologica l an d economi c limitations. " Th e emissio nlimit s fo r equipmen t cleanin g an dstorag e a t ne wan d existin g source s ar e base do nwor k practic e an d equipmen t standards . Th e reaso nfo r choosin g wor k practic eP.5 9

5 8 an d equipmen t standard s fo r storag e i s tha t storag e area s ma yb e locate d outsid e th e res t o f th e productio narea , an d i nsom e cases , ma yb e locate d outsid e th e building . W e d o no t believ e i t woul d b e practicabl e du e t o economi c limitation s t o tes t storag e areas , an dw e d o no t hav e sufficien t dat a t o calculat e a nemissio nlimi t fo r th e require d wor k practice . Th e standar d fo r existin g pultrusio nfacilitie s i s base d o nth e equipmen t standar dcombine dwit ha wor k practice . W e hav e propose d th e standar da s a percen t reductio nt o allo wth e us e o f add-o ncontrols . However , w e d o no t believ e i t woul d b e technologicall yo r economicall y feasibl e t o actuall ytes t facilitie s tha t choos e t o us e a wet-are a enclosur e o r direc t di e injection . Th e limit s fo r SM C an d resi nmixing/BM C a t existin g facilitie s ar e als o base d o nwor k practice s o r equipmen t standards . W e hav e n o dat a t o determin e a specifi c percen t reductio nt o th e wor k practice s fo r thes e operations . Therefore , w e coul d no t se t a specifi c emissio nlimit . Cleanin g operation s ma ytak e plac e outsid e th e regula r productio narea . I t woul d no t b e technologicall yo r economicall ypracticabl e t o perfor memissio ntestin g fo r cleanin g operations . 4 . Selectio no f Averagin g Tim e fo r Demonstratin g Complianc e A s a reinforce d plasti c composite s manufacturer , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u woul d sho wcomplianc e wit hth e propose dP.6 0

5 9 NESHA P o na 12-month , rolling-averag e basis . Unde r thi s propose d rule , yo u woul ddetermin e complianc e a t th e en do f eac hmont hfro m

th e dat a collecte d ove r th e pas t 1 2 months . W e believ e a 12-mont haveragin g tim e provide s a balanc e betwee noperatin g flexibilit yan d enforceabilit yo f th e propose d standards . Th e 12-mont hperio di s sufficientl y lon g s o tha t yo u ca nidentif ypotentia l complianc e problem s an d chang e you r operation s i ntim e t o maintai ncompliance . Th e rolling-averag e aspec t provide s a nenforceabl e emissio n limi t 1 2 time s pe r year . Man yreinforce d plasti c composite s manufacturer s alread ytrac k materia l usag e monthl yt o compl ywit hStat e regulation s an d permi t requirements , s o w e believ e monthl y trackin g i s consisten t wit hcurren t practice . Trackin g o na mor e frequen t basi s woul d b e unnecessaril yburdensom e fo r thi s particula r industry . Reinforce dplasti c composite s manufacturer s nee d a 12-mont hrolling-averag e perio dt o respon d t o bot hshort-ter mvariation s i nHA P conten t tha t ar e inheren t i nal l chemica l products , an dt o accoun t fo r short-ter mneed s fo r higher-HA P material s du e t o variation s i nproduc t mix . J . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e tes t method s fo r determinin g complianc e wit hth e propose dNESHAP ? Th e propose d NESHA P hav e severa l option s fo r achievin g compliance . Fo r ope nmoldin g an dcentrifuga l casting , thi s include s meetin g a specifie d poin t valu e fo r existin gP.6 1



### 6 0 sources , o r a percen t reductio no r poin t valu e fo r ne w sources . Fo r mos t othe r processes , yo u achiev e complianc e b yusin g a nenclosur e an dadd-o ncontro l devic e t o mee t a percen t reductio nrequiremen t o r a nabsolut e emissio nlimit . I norde r t o calculat e a poin t value , unde r thi s propose d rule , yo u mus t determin e th e HA P conten t o f th e ra w material . Th e metho dt o determin e materia l HA P conten t i s th e us e o f th e Materia l Safet yDat a Sheet s (MSDS ) o r othe r produc t specificatio nsheet s provide db yth e materia l manufacturer . W e chos e no t t o propos e requirin g testin g o f th e material . Th e dat a use d t o develo p th e standard s wer e mainl ybase d o nMSDS ; therefore , w e believ e i t i s reasonabl e tha t MSD S b e use d t o determin e compliance . Unde r th e propose d NESHAP , i f yo u chos e t o us e a n enclosur e an d add-o ncontro l device , yo u woul dhav e t o determin e th e captur e efficienc yo f th e enclosur e an d measur e th e HA P fro mth e contro l device . T o determin e th e captur e efficienc yo f th e enclosure , yo u woul dus e EP A Metho d 20 4 (Criteri a fo r an dVerificatio no f Permanen t o r Temporar yTota l Enclosure) . I f th e enclosur e meet s th e criteri a i nEP AMetho d 204 fo r a permanen t tota l enclosure ,

/ the nyo u coul d assum e tha t it s captur e efficienc yi s 10 0 percent . I f th e enclosur e i s no t a tota l enclosure , the n yo u woul d buil d a tota l temporar yenclosur e aroun di t tha t meet s th e definitio no f a tota l temporar yenclosur e i nEP A Metho d 204 . Yo u woul dthe nhav e t o measur e emission s fro mP.6 2

6 1 bo't hth e contro l devic e an dth e tota l temporar yenclosur e an d us e th e combine d emission s t o determin e compliance . T o measur e HAP , yo u woul d b e abl e t o us e eithe r EP A Metho d 1 8 (Measuremen t o f Gaseou s Organi c Compoun dEmission s b yGa s Chromatography ) t o measur e th e sumo f individua l specie s o f HAP , o r EP AMetho d 25 A(Determinatio no f Tota l Gaseou s Organi c Matte r Concentratio nUsin g a Flam e Ionizatio nAnalyzer ) fo r tota l hydrocarbon s (THC ) a s a surrogat e fo r tota l HAP . Th e EP AMetho d25 Awoul dallo wyo u th e flexibilit yt o us e a simple r metho dtha nEP AMetho d1 8 whic hdoe s no t speciat e HA P i ncase s wher e measurin g TH C i s sufficien t t o demonstrat e compliance . Yo u coul dmeasur e TH C a s a surrogat e fo r tota l HA P i f mos t o f th e TH C emitte dfro m a nenclosur e wer e HAP , suc ha s styren e an dMM Afro mresi n an d ge l coa t operations . Fo r complianc e determinations , th e EP Awil l assum e tha t al l TH C measure dwit hEP AMetho d25 A ar e HAP . W e hav e no t include di nthi s propose drul e a tes t metho d fo r determinin g th e effectivenes s o f vapo r suppresse d resins . Adraf t protoco l entitle d "Vapo r Suppressan t Effectivenes s Tes t Protocol, " date d Apri l 7 , 1999 , ha s bee n develope d b yindustr yan di s availabl e fo r revie wi nth e docke t fo r thi s propose d rule . Th e draf t protoco l i s insufficientl ydetaile dfo r inclusio ni nthi s propose drule . W e ar e currentl yrequestin g additiona l detail s an d solicitin g commen t o nth e tes t protoco l o r a nalternat e tes tP.6 3

6 2 protocol . K . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e monitorin g an drecordkeepin g requirements ? Whic hmonitorin g an drecordkeepin g requirement s yo u woul d mee t depen d o nho wyo u choos e t o compl ywit hthes e propose d NESHAP . Fo r eac hcomplianc e option , th e propose d monitorin g an d recordkeepin g requirement s ar e th e minimu m necessar yt o determin e initia l an dongoin g complianc e an d ar e consisten t wit hth e Genera l Provision s (4 0 CF Rpar t 63 , subpar t A) . Thi s sectio ndescribe s ho wt o compl ywit hemissio n limit s base d o npoin t values , emissio naveragin g provisions , equipmen t an d wor k practic e standards , an dth e emissio n limi t fo r a nadd-o ncontro l device . 1 . Complianc e wit hEmissio nLimit s Base do nPoin t Value s Fo r al l operation s subjec t t o HA P conten t limits , w e ar e proposin g fou r tasks : monito r an drecor dth e HA P conten t o f th e materia l used , monito r an drecor dth e monthl y consumptio no f th e material , monito r an drecor dwhic h operation s us e th e material , an drecor dth e computation s t o sho wtha t th e weighte d averag e poin t valu e ove r th e pas t 1 2 month s meet s th e propose dstandards . Th e SBARPane l recommende d tha t w e loo k fo r alternative s t o simplif yreportin g an drecordkeeping . W e hav e identifie d tw o alternative s w e believ e simplif yth e reportin g an d recordkeepin g process . Th e firs t i s tha t a nP.6 4



### 6 3 owne r an d operato r ma yus e purchas e record s t o determin e monthl yconsumption . However , a nowne r an doperato r ca n trac k actua l materia l flow s t o eac hproces s i f desired . W e believ e thi s i s reasonabl e becaus e facilitie s hav e n o financia l incentiv e t o kee p significan t inventorie s o f ra w materia l o nhand , an d w e hav e n o evidenc e tha t keepin g larg e amount s o f ra wmateria l o nhan d i s a commo npractice . Therefore , purchase s an d actua l consumptio nshoul dtrac k fairl yclosely . W e ar e requirin g tha t th e owne r an d operato r hav e a reasonabl e metho dt o estimat e th e amount s o f eac hresi nuse d b ya specifi c operation . Th e secon d alternativ e applie s wher e al l th e material s use di na n operatio nresul t i na poin t valu e tha t meet s th e emissio n limit , i nwhic hcase , a nowne r an d operato r onl ynee dt o recor d HA P conten t an d th e resultin g poin t valu e an dd o no t nee d t o trac k monthl yconsumptio no f eac hindividua l material . 2 . Complianc e wit hAveragin g Provision s T o compl ywit hth e averagin g provision s fo r ope n moldin g operation s an dcentrifuga l castin g operations , yo u mus t monito r an d recor d HA P conten t a s wel l a s ho wus e o f th e materia l i s spli t betwee ndifferen t operations , an dyo u mus t recor d th e computation s neede d t o sho wcompliance . Yo u mus t us e thes e dat a a s wel l a s th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s i nth e propose dNESHA P t o calculat e th e poin t value s i ntha t operatio nfo r th e pas t 1 2 months . Complianc eP.6 5

6 4 i s the ndetermine d relativ e t o th e allowabl e weighte d averag e poin t valu e calculate d fo r thos e operation s fo r th e pas t 1 2 months . Complianc e woul d b e calculate dmonthly , an d monthl ypurchas e record s ma yb e use dt o determin e resi nan d ge l coa t use . 3 . Complianc e wit hEquipmen t an dWor k Practic e Standard s Th e propose d NESHA P requir e resi nan dge l coa t mixin g container s t o b e fitte dwit hcover s tha t hav e n o visibl e gaps . Yo u wil l b e require d t o inspec t containe r cover s eac h mont ht o ensur e th e cover s ar e i nplac e an dproperl y maintained . Yo u mus t recor dth e result s o f th e inspections . Th e inspection s shoul db e sufficien t t o ensur e tha t th e cover s ar e i nplac e an dproperl ymaintained . W e believ e monthl yinspection s ar e a reasonabl e interva l becaus e th e natur e o f failur e i nthes e piece s o f equipmen t i s likel ydu e t o wea r an d tea r an d no t a sudde nfailure . Longe r tim e period s betwee ninspections , however , woul dallo wa failur e t o g o to o lon g befor e bein g repaired . Th e propose d NESHA P fo r productio nresi nan dtoolin g resi nrequire s mos t manufacturer s t o us e nonatomize dresi n applicatio nmethod s t o comply . Thes e method s includ e flowcoater s an d pressure-fe d resi nrollers , amon g others . W e coul d identif yn o parameter s t o monito r whethe r thes e method s ar e bein g used . Rather , complianc e throug hth e us e o f thes e method s woul db e determine ddurin g enforcemen t inspections . A s lon g a s flowcoaters , pressure-fe dresi nP.6 6

6 5 rollers , o r othe r simila r device s ar e installe dan doperate d accordin g t o manufacturer' s specifications , the ywil l compl y wit hth e requirement s t o us e nonatomize dresi napplicatio n methods . 4 . Complianc e fo r Source s Usin g Enclosure s an dAdd-O n Contro l Device s Th e requirement s fo r enclosure s an d add-o ncontro l device s i nth e propose d NESHA P ar e consisten t wit hothe r ai r qualit yregulation s tha t requir e captur e an dcontro l o f emissions . The yar e th e minimu mneede dt o demonstrat e tha t th e captur e an d contro l syste mi s operate dproperly . W e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t initiall ydemonstrat e complianc e wit hth e emissio nlimi t b ydemonstratin g tha t th e enclosur e i s a tota l enclosur e o r b yals o measurin g th e fugitiv e emission s tha t escap e th e enclosure . Yo u woul d als o nee d t o measur e th e efficienc yo f th e add-o ncontro l usin g EP AMetho d 2 5 Afo r TH C (a s a surrogat e fo r HAP ) o r EP A Metho d 1 8 fo r HAP . Th e EP AMetho d 1 8 measure s individua l HA P tha t yo u sumt o calculat e tota l HAP . Afte r th e initia l complianc e test , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t monito r contro l devic e parameter s t o demonstrat e tha t th e contro l devic e continue s t o b e operate d a s i t wa s durin g th e initia l test . I nth e cas e o f therma l oxidizers , yo u woul d nee dt o monito r an drecor dcombustio n temperatur e ever y1 5 minute s bot hdurin g an dafte r th e performanc e test . W e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t calculat eP.6 7

6 6 th e averag e temperatur e achieve ddurin g th e test . Afte r th e test , yo u woul d nee d t o maintai nth e averag e temperatur e a t o r abov e th e temperatur e achieve d durin g th e performanc e test . Temperatur e monitor s an d recorder s ar e standar d feature s o ntherma l oxidizers . Fo r othe r device s w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t determin e appropriat e parameter s t o monito r an d receiv e ou r approva l t o us e thes e parameters . L . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e notificatio nan dreportin g reguirements ? W e believ e tha t th e propose d notice s an dreport s ar e th e minimu m

neede d t o determin e i f yo u ar e subjec t t o th e propose d NESHA P an d whethe r yo u ar e i ncompliance . W e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t submi t a ninitia l notificatio n statin g tha t yo u ar e subjec t t o th e propose dNESHAP . Afte r th e complianc e dat e fo r you r facility , yo u woul dnee dt o submi t a notificatio no f you r complianc e status . Yo u woul d als o nee d t o submi t semiannua l report s o f you r complianc e status . I f yo u hav e a nadd-o ncontro l devic e an dyo u becom e ou t o f compliance , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t submi t quarterl yreport s o f you r complianc e statu s unti l w e approv e a reques t t o retur nt o semiannua l reporting . I f you r facilit yi s a ne wsource , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u hav e additiona l preconstructio nnotificatio n requirements . Yo u woul dals o hav e additiona l notificatio n an d reportin g requirement s i f yo u us e a nadd-o ncontro l device , includin g notification s an dreport s fo r th e contro lP.6 8

6 7 devic e performanc e test . Thes e propose dnotificatio nan d reportin g requirement s ar e consisten t wit hthos e specifie d i nth e Genera l Provisions . W e believ e tha t thes e requirement s ar e th e minimu mneede dfo r u s t o determin e complianc e fo r source s wit hadd-o ncontro l devices . Th e SS Mpla nspecifie d b yth e Genera l Provision s wil l b e require d onl yfo r source s usin g a nadd-o ncontro l devic e an d wil l appl yonl yt o th e add-o ncontro l device . Fo r operation s no t usin g a contro l device , th e natur e o f th e material s an d equipmen t use d t o compl ywit hth e propose d Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nNESHA P i s suc htha t malfunction s wil l no t lea d t o exces s emissions . M . Wha t ar e som e o f th e area s wher e w e ar e specificall y solicitin g comments ? Th e purpos e o f thi s sectio ni s t o highligh t particula r issue s o f concer nt o th e EP Ao r t o othe r parties . W e solici t comment s o nthes e issues , alon g wit hdat a t o suppor t th e comments . Th e propose d rul e require s tha t certai nne wan d existin g source s contro l HA P emission s b y9 5 percent . I n orde r t o mee t thi s requirement , facilitie s wil l likel yhav e t o captur e 10 0 percen t o f thei r emission s fro mth e affecte d processe s an d rout e thes e emission s t o a nadd-o ncontro l device . W e ar e solicitin g dat a o nth e technica l feasibilit y o f permanen t tota l enclosure s (PTE) ; factor s tha t affec t th e feasibilit yo f PT E suc ha s produc t size , operatio ngrouping ,P.6 9

6 8 an d ven t strea m

concentration s an dai r flo wfro mth e processe s wher e captur e system s ar e used ; an dinteraction s o f thes e requirement s wit hOSH Arules . Thes e dat a woul db e mos t helpfu l i f the yar e supporte db ytestin g o r worke r exposur e monitoring . W e solici t dat a o na facility' s abilit yt o maintai nan doperat e add-o ncontrols . W e ar e especiall yintereste di ndat a fro mfacilitie s i nthi s industr ytha t hav e successfull yapplie dadd-o ncontrols . W e solici t dat a o ntypica l operatin g hour s i nthi s industry , particularl yi nrelatio nt o <the > siz e <o f facilitie s an d thei r operations > (<e.g., > resi nus e o r numbe r o f employees ) sinc e operatin g hour s affec t cos t effectivenes s an dth e numbe r o f start-up s an d shutdowns . Th e propose d rul e set s differen t threshold s fo r existin g sourc e requirement s a t smal l versu s larg e businesses , abov e whic hcontro l o f HA P emission s b y9 5 percen t i s required . Th e highe r threshol dfo r smal l businesse s i s base d o nconcern s tha t i t i s mor e difficul t fo r smal l businesse s t o rais e th e necessar ycapita l t o purchas e add-o ncontrol s t o compl ywit hth e 9 5 percen t contro l level . W e solici t comment s o nthi s conclusion , alon g wit hdat a o ncapita l availabilit yfo r larg e an dsmal l businesse s an d th e impac t o f thi s threshol do nlarg e businesses . W e solici t informatio nan ddat a o nothe r factor s t o conside r i nevaluatin g contro l requirement s mor e stringen t tha nth e MAC T floor< , includin g informatio nan d6 9

dat a o nth e cost s t o th e industry> . W e believ e tha t w e hav e capture d th e ful l rang e o f processe s an d product s i nou r propose doperatio ngroups . W e reques t comment s wit hsupportin g dat a o nan yprocesse s o r product s tha t migh t no t b e adequatel yrepresented . Alon g thes e lines , w e hav e specificall yprovide dseparat e proces s group s fo r product s wit ha Clas s I smok e an dfir e rating , an d hav e define d hig hstrengt hproduct s a s par t o f th e corrosio nresistan t proces s grou p becaus e o f specifi c produc t requirement s tha t requir e specialize dra wmaterials . W e solici t comment s o nthi s approac han ddat a o nan y additiona l processe s o r product s tha t hav e uniqu e propertie s tha t ma yrequir e separat e proces s grouping s fo r MAC T floo r development . Thi s propose d rul e contain s poin t valu e equation s fo r ope nmoldin g an d centrifuga l casting . W e ar e solicitin g comment s o nth e dat a an dassumption s use dt o develo p MAC T poin t valu e equations , an d informatio no nothe r method s o r emissio nmodel s tha t coul d b e use dt o ran k facilitie s fo r th e purpose s o f settin g MACT . W e als o solici t informatio no nth e adequac yo r necessit yo f th e monitoring , recordkeeping , an dreportin g requirement s i nthi s propose d rule . W e specificall ysolici t comment s o nth e recordkeepin g an dreportin g burde nestimate s se t fort hi nSectio nV I i nth e Paperwor k Reductio nAc t sectio nan d informatio no nway s t o minimiz e responden tP.7 1

7 0 burden . IV . Summary

o f Environmental , Energy , andEconomi c Impact s A . Wha t facilitie s ar e affecte db yth e propose dNESHAP ? Ther e ar e approximatel y43 3 existin g facilitie s manufacturin g reinforce d plasti c composite s tha t ar e majo r source s an d woul d b e subjec t t o th e propose dNESHAP . Th e rat e o f growt hfo r th e reinforce dplasti c composite s industr yi s estimate d t o b e 8 4 ne wfacilitie s ove r th e nex t 5 years . B . Wha t ar e th e ai r qualit yimpacts ? Th e 199 7 baselin e HA P emission s fro mth e reinforce d plasti c composite s industr yar e approximatel y22,20 0 tpy . Th e propose d NESHA P woul d reduc e HA P fro mexistin g source s b y14,50 0 tpy , a reductio no f 6 5 percent . Th e propose d NESHA P woul dresul t i nsmal l increase s i n othe r ai r pollutio nemission s fro mcombustio ndevice s tha t wil l b e installe d i nth e nex t 5 year s t o compl ywit htoday' s propose d rule . Thes e increase s resul t fro mbot hth e combustio ndevic e directly , an destimate demission s tha t occu r a t electrica l generatin g plant s t o generat e th e electricit ynecessar yt o operat e th e add-o ncontrol s an d associate d ai r handlin g equipment . Thes e emission s ar e estimate d t o b e 3 8 tp yo f sulfu r oxide s (SOx) , 6 9 tp yo f nitroge noxide s (NOx) , 12 5 tp yo f carbo nmonoxid e (CO) , an d 1. 5 tp yo f particulat e matte r (PM ) emissions . C . Wha t ar e th e wate r qualit yimpacts ?P.7 2

7 1 W e estimat e tha t th e propose dReinforce dPlasti c Composite s Productio nNESHA P wil l hav e n o advers e wate r qualit yimpacts . W e d o no t expec t anyon e t o compl yb yusin g add-o ncontro l device s o r proces s modification s tha t woul d generat e wastewater . D . Wha t ar e th e soli d an dhazardou s wast e impacts ? W e estimat e tha t th e propose d NESHA P woul ddecreas e th e amoun t o f soli d wast e generate db yth e reinforce dplasti c composite s industr yb yapproximatel y1,40 0 tpy . Th e decreas e i nsoli d wast e i s directl yrelate dt o switchin g t o nonatomize d resi napplicatio nequipmen t (i.e. , flowcoater s an d resi nrollers) . Switchin g t o flowcoater s result s i na decreas e i noverspra ybecaus e o f a greate r transfe r efficienc yo f resi nfro mflowcoater s t o th e par t being ' manufactured . Adecreas e i nresi noverspra yconsequentl y reduce s th e amoun t o f wast e fro mdisposabl e floo r coverings , cure d resi nwaste , an d persona l protectiv e equipmen t (PPE ) fo r workers . Disposabl e floo r covering s ar e replace do na periodi c basi s t o preven t resi nbuildu p o nth e floor . W e estimat e tha t soli d wast e generatio no f floo r covering s wil l decreas e b yapproximatel y36 0 tp yan dtha t cure dresi nsoli d wast e wil l decreas e b yapproximatel y1,04 0 tpy . W e projec t tha t th e decrease d overspra yfro m flowcoater s wil l resul t i na decrease dusag e o f PPE , whic h als o consequentl yreduce s th e amoun t o f soli dwaste . Worker s wh o us e flowcoater s typicall ywea r les s PP E tha nP.7 3

7 2 whe nusin g spra ygun s becaus e o f th e reduce dpresenc e o f resi naerosol s an d lowe r styren e level s i nth e workplace . Becaus e w e di d no t hav e informatio no nth e man ydifferen t type s o f PP E currentl yused , w e di d no t estimat e thi s decreas e i nsoli d waste . Som e facilitie s tha t switc hfro mspra ygun s t o flowcoater s ma yhav e a smal l increas e o f hazardou s wast e fro mth e use d flowcoate r cleanin g solvents . However , mos t facilitie s woul d no t se e a nincreas e unde r thi s propose d rule , an d th e overal l impac t o nth e industr ywil l b e smal l relativ e t o th e soli d wast e reductions . Nearl yal l flowcoater s requir e resi nan d catalys t t o b e mixe dinsid e th e gu n(internal-mix ) an dmus t b e flushe dwhe nwor k i s stoppe d fo r mor e tha na fe wminutes . External-mi xspra y gun s d o no t nee d t o b e flushe d becaus e resi ni s mixe dwit h catalys t outsid e th e gun . Facilitie s tha t switc hfro m external-mi xspra ygun s t o flowcoater s wil l us e mor e solvent . Solven t usag e shoul dno t chang e a t facilitie s switchin g fro minternal-mi xspra ygun s t o flowcoaters . Th e mos t commo nflushin g solvent s ar e aceton e an dwater-base d emulsifiers . Onl ya coupl e o f ounce s o f solven t ar e typicall yneede d t o flus hth e mixin g chambe r an dnozzl e o f flowcoater s an d internal-mi xspra yguns . W e d o no t hav e adequat e dat a t o predic t th e potentia l solven t wast e impac t fro mswitchin g t o flowcoaters . Th e magnitud e o f th e impac t depend s o nth e typ e o f gu ncurrentl yP.7 4

7 3 use d (internal

- o r external-mix) , th e frequenc yo f flushing , an d th e typ e o f solven t used . However , becaus e o f th e smal l amoun t o f solven t used , an d sinc e mos t i s allowe dt o evaporate , w e believ e th e overal l solven t wast e increas e wil l b e smal l compare d t o th e soli d wast e reductions . E . Wha t ar e th e energ yimpacts ? W e determine d tha t th e overal l energ ydeman dfo r operation s i nth e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio n sourc e categor ycoul dincreas e b y15 9 millio nstandar dcubi c fee t pe r yea r o f natura l gas , an d 1 0 millio nkilowat t hour s o f electricit ype r yea r a s a resul t o f th e propose drule . W e determine d thi s ne t increas e base do nth e additiona l energ ydeman d fo r contro l device s installe dt o mee t th e propose d standards . N o informatio nfo r compariso ni s availabl e o nth e baselin e energ yconsumptio nfo r thi s sourc e category . F . Wha t ar e th e cos t impacts ? W e hav e estimate dth e capita l cost s fo r emissio n contro l equipment , includin g equipmen t suc ha s ope n containe r covers , resi nbat henclosures , captur e systems , an d contro l device s a s $73. 9 millio nfo r existin g source s an d $11. 7 millio nfo r ne wsources . Th e capita l cost s includ e th e cost s t o purchas e an dinstal l th e contro l equipment . W e hav e estimate dtha t annua l cost s o f th e propose d rul e ar e $ 2 6. 0 millio npe r yea r fo r existin g source s an dP.7 5

7 4 $3. 2 millio nfo r ne wsources . Annua l cost s includ e fixe d annua l costs , suc ha s reporting , recordkeepin g an dcapita l amortization , an d variabl e annua l cost s suc ha s natura l gas . Th e estimate d averag e cos t effectivenes s rati o o f th e propose d rul e i s $1,60 0 pe r to no f HA P emission s reductio n fo r existin g source s an d$2,20 0 pe r to no f HA P emission s reductio nfo r ne wsources . <A s discusse d elsewher e i nthi s preamble , th e Agenc y wil l revie wi nmor e dept hth e industry' s analyse s o nth e cos t o f thi s rul e followin g proposal , mak e anyappropriat e change s t o ou r estimate s o f cost s base do nou r revie wan do n comment s w e receive , an d mak e th e result s o f ou r detaile d revie wth e industry' s cos t analyse s availabl e t o th e industr yan d th e publi c fo r thei r review. > G . Wha t ar e th e economi c impacts ? Th e Agenc yconducte da detaile deconomi c impac t analysi s t o determin e th e market

- an dindustry-leve l impact s associate d wit hth e propose d rule . W e expec t th e aggregat e pric e increas e fo r reinforce d plasti c composite s woul db e onl y0. 3 percent , o r $0.0 1 pe r pound , a s a resul t o f th e propose d standards . W e projec t tha t directl yaffecte d producer s woul d reduc e tota l productio nb y0. 8 percent , whil e producer s no t directl yaffecte dwoul dincreas e thei r productio nb y0. 3 percent . Market s fo r reinforce dplasti c composite s use d i ngenera l construction , corrosion-resistan tP.7 6

7 5 products , an d lan d transportatio nar e expecte dt o b e mor e heavil yimpacte d wit hpric e increase s o f u p t o 0. 5 percen t an d reduction s i ndirectl yaffecte d domesti c productio no f betwee n1 an d 1. 5 percent . I nterm s o f industr yimpacts , captiv e producer s o f reinforce d plasti c composite s ar e expecte dt o full yabsor b thei r complianc e costs , whil e merchan t producer s wil l attemp t t o pas s throug hcost s t o thei r customers . Throug h th e marke t impact s describe d above , th e propose dNESHA P creat e bot hgainer s an d loser s withi nth e merchan t segment . Som e merchan t facilitie s ar e projecte dt o experienc e profi t increase s wit hth e propose d rule ; however , th e majorit ytha t continu e operatin g ar e projecte dt o los e profits . Furthermore , th e economi c impac t analysi s indicate s tha t 2 9
ou t o f 29 9 merchan t facilitie s (9. 7 percent ) an d7 3 ou t o f 47 1 produc t line s (15. 5 percent ) a t thes e facilitie s ar e a t ris k o f closur e becaus e o f th e propose dNESHAP . Al l o f th e facilitie s determine d t o b e a t ris k fo r closur e ar e believe d t o b e smal l businesses . Mor e informatio no nth e measure s w e hav e take nt o minimiz e thes e impact s ma yb e foun di nsectio n IV- F whic hdiscusse s th e Regulator yFlexibilit yAct . Base d o nth e marke t analysis , th e annua l socia l cost s o f th e propose d rul e ar e projecte d t o b e $25. 7 million . Thes e cost s ar e distribute d acros s th e man yconsumer s an dP.7 7

7 6 producer s o f reinforce d plasti c composites . Producers , i n aggregate , ar e expecte d t o bea r $10. 6 millio nannuall yi n costs , wit hthos e directl yaffecte d b yth e propose dNESHA P losin g $19. 3 millio nan dthos e no t subjec t t o th e propose d NESHA P gainin g $8. 7 million . Th e consumer s o f reinforce d plasti c composite s ar e expecte d t o incu r th e remainin g $15. 1 millio ni ncost s associate d wit hth e propose dNESHAP . Fo r mor e information , consul t th e docke t fo r thi s project . V . Relationshi po f Propose dNESHA P t o Othe r Standard s and Program s unde r th e CA A A . Nationa l Emissio nStandard s fo r Close dVen t Systems , Contro l Devices , Recover yDevices , an dRoutin g t o a Fue l Ga s Syste mo r a Proces s (4 0 CF RPar t 63 , Subpar t SS ) I f yo u us e a nadd-o ncontro l device(s ) t o contro l emissions , yo u wil l nee d t o compl ywit hcertai nprovision s i n4 0 CF Rpar t 63 , subpar t SS , fo r add-o ncontrols . Th e standard s i nsubpar t S S cite d b yth e propose dNESHA P ar e applicabl e t o mos t source s usin g a nadd-o ncontro l device . Th e propose d NESHA P cit e thes e section s i nsubpar t S S rathe r tha nrepeatin g the mi nth e propose d regulator ytext . B . Operatin g Permi t Progra m Unde r th e operatin g permi t progra mcodifie da t 4 0 CF R part s 7 0 an d 71 , al l majo r source s subjec t t o standard s unde r sectio n11 1 o r 11 2 o f th e CAAmus t obtai na noperatin g permi t (Se e §§70.3(a)(1 ) an d71.3(a)(1)) . Therefore , al l majo r source s subjec t t o thes e propose dNESHA P mus t obtai nP.7 8

7 7 a noperatin g permit . Som e reinforce d plasti c composite s productio n facilitie s ma yb e majo r source s base dsolel yo nthei r potentia l t o emi t eve nthoug hthei r actua l emission s ar e belo wth e majo r sourc e level . Thes e facilitie s ma ychoos e t o obtai na federall yenforceabl e limi t o nthei r potentia l t o emi t s o tha t the yar e n o longe r considere dmajo r source s subjec t t o th e propose dNESHAP . Source s tha t op t t o limi t thei r potentia l t o emi t (e.g. , limit s o noperatin g hour s o r amoun t o f materia l used ) ar e referre dt o b yth e EP Aa s "syntheti c area " sources . T o becom e a syntheti c are a source , yo u mus t contac t you r loca l permittin g authorit yt o obtai na noperatin g permi t wit hth e appropriat e operatin g limits . Thes e operatin g limit s wil l the nb e federall y enforceabl e unde r 4 0 CF R70.6(b) . C . NESHA P fo r Plasti c Part s an dProduct s Ther e ar e currentl yNESHA P unde r developmen t fo r proposa l tha t wil l regulat e coatin g o f plasti c part s an d products . Th e SBARPane l recommende dtha t w e conside r th e interactio no f th e Plasti c Part s an dProduc t NESHA P wit h today' s propose d NESHAP . Th e Plasti c Part s an dProduct s NESHA P ma ypotentiall yaffec t facilitie s tha t produc e reinforce d plasti c part s an dthe nappl ya coatin g t o th e finishe d parts . W e hav e coordinate dwit hthi s projec t an d hav e determine d tha t ther e shoul d b e n o overla p (i.e. , specifi c operation s covere d b ytoday' s propose dNESHA PP.7 9

7 8 shoul d no t als o b e covere di nth e Plasti c Part s an dProduct s NESHAP) . W e hav e no t determine dan yrequirement s o f th e propose d NESHA P tha t woul doverlap , conflict , o r caus e a duplicatio no f effort . VI . Administrativ e Requirement s A . Executiv e Orde r 12866 : Regulator yPlannin g an dRevie w Unde r Executiv e Orde r 1286 6 (5 8 F R51735 , Octobe r 4 , 1993) , w e mus t determin e whethe r a propose dregulator y actio ni s "significant " an d therefor e subjec t t o Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge t (OMB ) revie wan dth e requirement s o f th e Executiv e Order . Th e Executiv e Orde r define s "significan t regulator yaction " a s on e tha t i s likel yt o resul t i na rul e tha t may : (1 ) Hav e a nannua l effec t o nth e economyo f $10 0 millio no r mor e o r adversel yaffec t i na materia l wa yth e economy , a secto r o f th e economy , productivity , competition , jobs , th e environment , publi c healt ho r safety , o r State , local , o r triba l government s o r communities ; (2 ) Creat e a seriou s inconsistenc yo r otherwis e interfer e wit ha nactio ntake no r planne db yanothe r agency ; (3 ) Materiall yalte r th e budgetar yimpac t o f entitlements , grants , use r fees , o r loa nprogram s o r th e right s an d obligation s o f recipient s thereof ; o r (4 ) Rais e nove l lega l o r polic yissue s arisin g ou t o f lega l mandates , th e President' s priorities , o r th e principle s se t fort hi nth e Executiv e Order .P.8 0

7 9 Pursuan t t o th e term s o f Executiv e Orde r 12866 , th e EP A ha s submitte d thi s actio nt o OM B fo r review . Change s mad e i nrespons e t o suggestion s o r recommendation s fro mOM B wil l b e documente d an d include di nth e publi c record . B . Paperwor k Reductio nAc t Th e informatio ncollectio nrequirement s i nthi s propose d rul e hav e bee nsubmitte d fo r approva l t o th e OM B unde r th e Paperwor k Reductio nAct , 4 4 U.S.C . 350 1 et . seq . A nIC Rdocument , ha s bee nprepare db yEP A(ICRNo . ) an da cop yma yb e obtaine d fro mSand yFarme r b ymai l a t th e Offic e o f Environmenta l Information , Collectio nStrategie s Divisio n (2822) , U.S . EPA , 120 0 Pennsylvani a Avenue , NW , Washington , D C 20460 , b ye-mai l a t "farmer.sandy@epa.gov, " o r b ycallin g (202 ) 260-2740 . Acop yma yals o b e downloade dfro mth e interne t a t "http://www.epa.gov/icr. " Thes e propose d NESHA P contai nmonitoring , reporting , an d recordkeepin g requirements . W e believ e tha t th e propose d notice s an d report s ar e th e minimu mneede db yu s t o determin e i f yo u ar e subjec t t o th e NESHA P an dwhethe r yo u ar e i ncompliance . W e believ e th e propose drecordkeepin g requirement s ar e th e minimu mnecessar yt o determin e initia l an d ongoin g compliance . Base do nreporte dinformation , w e woul d decid e whic hreinforce dplasti c composite s facilitie s an d wha t record s o r processe s shoul db e inspected . Th e recordkeepin g an d reportin g requirement s ar e consisten t wit h th e Genera l Provision s o f 4 0 CF Rpar t 63 .P.8 1

8 0 Thes e propose d recordkeepin g an d reportin g requirement s ar e specificall yauthorize d b ysectio n11 4 o f th e CAA(4 2 U.S.C . 7414) . Al l informatio nsubmitte dt o u s fo r whic ha clai m o f confidentialit yi s mad e wil l b e safeguarde d accordin g t o ou r policie s i n4 0 CF Rpar t 2 . Th e EP Aexpect s thes e propose dNESHA P t o affec t a tota l o f approximatel y48 6 facilitie s ove r th e firs t 3 year s afte r promulgatio no f th e rule . Thi s include s 43 3 existin g facilities , an d 5 3 ne wreinforce dplasti c composite s facilitie s wil l becom e subjec t t o th e propose dNESHA P durin g th e firs t 3 years . Th e estimate d averag e annua l burde nfo r th e firs t 3 year s afte r promulgatio no f thes e propose dNESHA P fo r industr yan d th e implementin g agenc yi s outline dbelow . Yo u ca nfin d th e detail s o f thi s informatio ncollectio ni nth e "Standar d For m

8 3 Supportin g Statemen t fo r IC RNo . , " i nDocke t No . A-94-52 .

Affecte d entity

Industry Implementing agency Tota l hour s 15,12 2 11,29 3 Labo r cost s

$673,12 0 $450,97 2 Tota l

Annua l O& M Cost s $17,26 5 N A Tota l

cost s $690,38 5 $450,97 2
Burde nmean s th e tota l time , effort , o r financia l resource s expende d b yperson s t o generate , maintain , retain , o r disclos e o r provid e informatio nt o o r fo r a Federa l agency . Thi s include s th e tim e neede dt o revie w instructions ; develop , acquire , install , an dutiliz eP.8 2

8 1 technolog yan d system s fo r th e purpose s o f collecting , validating , an d verifyin g information , processin g an d maintainin g information , an ddisclosin g an dprovidin g information ; adjus t th e existin g way s t o compl ywit han y previousl yapplicabl e instruction s an drequirements ; trai n personne l t o b e abl e t o respon dt o a collectio no f information;-searc hdat a sources ; complet e an drevie wth e collectio no f information ; an dtransmi t o r otherwis e disclos e th e information . A nagenc yma yno t conduc t o r sponsor , an da perso ni s no t require d t o respon d t o a collectio no f informatio n unles s i t display s a currentl yvali dOM B contro l number . Contro l number s fo r EPA' s regulation s ar e liste di n4 0 CF R par t 9 an d 4 8 CF Rchapte r 15 . Comment s ar e requeste d o nth e Agency' s nee dfo r thi s information , th e accurac yo f th e provide dburde nestimates , an d an ysuggeste d method s fo r minimizin g responden t burden , includin g th e us e o f automate d collectio ntechniques . Sen d comment s o nth e IC Rt o th e Director , Offic e o f Environmenta l Information , Collectio nStrategie s Divisio n(2822) , U.S . EPA , 120 0 Pennsylvani a Avenu e NW , Washington , D C 20460 ; an d t o th e Offic e o f Informatio nan dRegulator yAffairs , OMB , 72 5 17t hStreet , NW , Washington , D C 20503 , marke d "Attention : Des k Office r fo r EPA. " Includ e th e IC Rnumber , i nan ycorrespondence . Sinc e OM B i s require dt o mak e a decisio nconcernin g th e IC Rbetwee n3 0 an d6 0 day s afte rP.8 3



### 8 2 [INSER T DAT E O F PUBLICATION O F THIS PROPOSE DRUL E I N TH E FEDERAL REGISTER] , a commen t t o OM B i s bes t assure do f havin g it s ful l effec t i f OM B receive s i t b y[INSERT DAT E 3 0 DAY S AFTE RPUBLICATION O F THI S PROPOSE DRUL E I N TH E FEDERAL REGISTER] . Th e fina l rul e wil l respon dt o an yOM B o r publi c comment s o nth e informatio ncollectio nrequirement s containe d i nthi s proposal . C . Executiv e Orde r 13132 , Federalis m Executiv e Orde r 13132 , entitle d "Federalism " (6 4 F R 43255 , Augus t 10 , 1999), . require s EP At o develo p a n accountabl e proces s t o ensur e "meaningfu l an dtimel yinpu t b yStat e an d loca l official s i nth e developmen t o f regulator ypolicie s tha t hav e federalis mimplications. " "Policie s tha t hav e federalis mimplications " i s define di n th e Executiv e Orde r t o includ e regulation s tha t hav e "substantia l direc t effect s o nth e States , o nth e relationshi p betwee nth e nationa l governmen t an dth e States , o r o nth e distributio no f powe r an dresponsibilitie s amon g th e variou s level s o f government. " Thi s propose d rul e doe s no t hav e federalis m implications . I t wil l no t hav e substantia l direc t effect s o nth e States , o nth e relationshi p betwee nth e nationa l governmen t an d th e States , o r o nth e distributio no f powe r an d responsibilitie s amon g th e variou s level s o f government , a s specifie d i nExecutiv e Orde r 13132 . N o reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nfacilitie s subjec t t o thes eP.8 4

8 3 propose d NESHA P ar e owne d b yStat e o r loca l governments . Therefore , Stat e an d loca l government s wil l no t hav e any direc t complianc e cost s resultin g fro mthi s propose drule . Furthermore , thes e propose d NESHA P d o no t requir e thes e government s t o tak e o nanyne wresponsibilities . Thus , th e requirement s o f sectio n6 o f th e Executiv e Orde r d o no t appl yt o thi s propose drule . Thus , Executiv e Orde r 1313 2 doe s no t appl yt o thi s rule . I nth e spiri t o f Executiv e Orde r 13132 , an dconsisten t wit hEP Apolic yt o promot e communication s betwee nEP Aan d Stat e an d loca l governments , EP Aspecificall ysolicit s commen t o nthi s propose drul e fro mStat e an dloca l officials . D . Executiv e Orde r 1 3 084 , Consultatio nan dCoordinatio n wit hIndia nTriba l Government s Unde r Executiv e Orde r 1 3 084 , w e ma yno t issu e a regulatio ntha t i s no t require d b ystatute , tha t significantl yo r uniquel yaffect s th e communitie s o f India n triba l governments , an d tha t impose s substantia l direc t complianc e cost s o nthos e communitie s unles s th e Federa l governmen t provide s th e fund s necessar yt o pa yth e direc t . complianc e cost s incurre d b yth e triba l governments , o r w e consul t wit hthos e governments . I f w e compl yb yconsulting , w e ar e require d b yExecutiv e Orde r 1 3 08 4 t o provid e t o th e OM B i na separatel yidentifie dsectio no f th e preambl e t o th e rule , a descriptio no f th e exten t o f ou r prio rP.8 5

8 4 consultatio nwit hrepresentative s o f affecte dtriba l governments , a summar yo f th e natur e o f thei r concerns , an d a statemen t supportin g th e nee dt o issu e th e regulation . I n addition , Executiv e Orde r 1308 4 require s u s t o develo p a n effectiv e proces s permittin g electe dofficial s an dothe r representative s o f India ntriba l government s "t o provid e meaningfu l an d timel yinpu t i nth e developmen t o f regulator y policie s o nmatter s tha t significantl yo r uniquel yaffec t thei r communities. " W e ar e no t awar e o f an yIndia ntriba l government s o r communitie s affecte d b yth e propose drule . Accordingly , th e requirement s o f sectio n3(b ) o f Executiv e Orde r 1308 4 d o no t appl yt o thi s propose d rule . E . Unfunde d Mandate s Refor mAc t o f 199 5 Titl e I I o f th e Unfunde d Mandate s Refor mAc t o f 199 5 (UMRA) , Pub . L . 104-4 , establishe s requirement s fo r Federa l agencie s t o asses s th e effect s o f thei r regulator yaction s o nState , local , an d triba l government s an dth e privat e sector . Unde r sectio n2 0 2 o f th e UMRA , w e mus t generall y prepar e a writte nstatement , includin g a cost-benefi t analysis , fo r propose d an d fina l rule s wit h"Federa l mandates " tha t ma yresul t i nexpenditure s t o State , local , an d triba l governments , i nth e aggregate , o r t o th e privat e sector , o f $10 0 millio no r mor e i nany1 year . Befor e promulgatin g a rul e fo r whic ha writte nstatemen t i s needed , sectio n20 5 o f th e UMR Agenerall yrequire s u s t o identif yP.8 6

8 5 an d conside r a reasonabl e numbe r o f regulator yalternative s an d adop t th e leas t costly , mos t cos t effective , o r leas t burdensom e alternativ e tha t achieve s th e objective s o f th e rule . Th e provision s o f sectio n20 5 d o no t appl ywhe nthe y ar e inconsisten t wit happlicabl e law . Moreover , sectio n20 5 allow s u s t o adop t a nalternativ e othe r tha nth e leas t costly , mos t cost-effective , o r leas t burdensom e alternativ e i f th e Administrato r publishe s wit hth e fina l rul e a n explanatio nwh ytha t alternativ e wa s no t adopted . Befor e w e establis han yregulator yrequirement s tha t ma ysignificantl y o r uniquel yaffec t smal l governments , includin g triba l governments , i t mus t hav e develope d unde r sectio n203.o f th e UMR Aa smal l governmen t agenc yplan . Th e pla nmus t provid e fo r notifyin g potentiall yaffecte dsmal l governments , enablin g official s o f affecte d smal l government s t o hav e meaningfu l an d timel yinpu t i nth e developmen t o f ou r regulator yproposal s wit hsignifican t Federa l intergovernmenta l mandates , an d informing , educating , an d advisin g smal l government s o ncomplianc e wit hth e regulator y requirements . W e hav e determine dtha t thi s propose drul e doe s no t contai na Federa l mandat e tha t ma yresul t i nexpenditure s o f $10 0 millio no r mor e b yState , local , an dtriba l governments , i nth e aggregate , o r th e privat e secto r i nan y 1 year . Th e tota l cos t t o th e privat e secto r i s approximatel y$29. 2 millio npe r year . Thi s propose drul eP.8 7

8 6 contain s n o mandate s affectin g State , local , o r Triba l governments . Thus , today' s propose d rul e i s no t subjec t t o th e requirement s o f section s 20 2 an d20 5 o f th e UMRA . W e hav e determine dtha t thi s propose drul e contain s n o regulator yrequirement s tha t migh t significantl yo r uniquel y affec t smal l government s becaus e i t contain s n o requirement s tha t appl yt o suc hgovernment s o r impos e obligation s upo n them . F . Regulator yFlexibilit yAc t (RFA) , a s amende db yth e Smal l Busines s Regulator yEnforcemen t Fairnes s Ac t o f 199 6 (SBREFA) , 5 U.S.C . 60 1 e t seq . Th e RF Agenerall yrequire s a nagenc yt o prepar e a regulator yflexibilit yanalysi s o f an yrul e subjec t t o notic e an d commen t rulemakin g requirement s unde r th e Administrativ e Procedur e Ac t o r anyothe r statut e unles s th e agenc ycertifie s tha t th e rul e wil l no t hav e a significan t economi c impac t o na substantia l numbe r o f smal l entities . Smal l entitie s includ e smal l businesses , smal l organizations , an d smal l governmenta l jurisdictions . Fo r purpose s o f assessin g th e impact s o f today' s propose d rul e o nsmal l entities , smal l entit yi s define da s (1 ) a smal l busines s rangin g fro m500-1,00 0 employees ; (2 ) a smal l governmenta l jurisdictio ntha t i s a governmen t o f a city , county , town , schoo l distric t o r specia l distric t wit h a populatio no f les s tha n50,000 ; an d(3 ) a smal l organizatio ntha t i s an ynot-for-profi t enterpris e whic hi sP.8 8

8 7 independentl yowne d an doperate d an di s no t dominan t i nit s field . Th e tabl e belo wpresent s th e siz e threshol dfo r smal l businesse s b ySI C Code . Categor y SI C Code s NAIC S Code s Maximu m Numbe r o f Employee s t o b e Considere d a Smal l Busines s Manufacturin g 362 1

371 1 371 6 372 8 374 3 33531 2

336211 , 3361 2 33621 3 33641 3 3365 1 100 0

336112 ,

282 1 329 6 343 1 353 1 361 2 361 3 366 3 371 4 32521 1

32799 3 33299 8 33312 , 3365 1 33531 1 33531 3 3342 2 33653 , 33639 9 75 0

Al l othe r identifie d SI C Code s i nthi s sourc e categor y Al l othe r

identifie d NAIC S Code s i n thi s sourc e categor y 50 0

I naccordanc e wit hsectio n60 3 o f th e RFA , EP Aprepare d a ninitia l regulator yflexibilit yanalysi s (IRFA ) tha t examine s th e impac t o f th e propose d rul e o nsmal l entitie s alon g wit hregulator yalternative s tha t coul dreduc e tha t impact . Th e IRF Ai s availabl e fo r revie wi nth e docke t an d i s summarize d below . Sectio n112 . o f th e CAArequire s u s t o lis t categorie s an d subcategorie s o f majo r source s and , i nsom e cases , are aP.8 9

8 8 source s o f HA P an d t o establis hNESHA P fo r th e liste dsourc e categorie s an d subcategories . Reinforce dplasti c composite s productio n(majo r source s only ) wa s include do nth e initia l lis t o f sourc e categorie s publishe do nJul y16 , 199 2 (5 7 F R 315 7 6) . Majo r source s o f HA P ar e thos e tha t hav e th e potentia l t o emi t greate r tha n1 0 tp yo f anyon e HA P o r 2 5 tp yo f an ycombinatio no f HAP . Th e objectiv e o f thi s propose d rul e i s t o appl y standard s base d o nmaximu machievabl e contro l technolog yt o al l majo r source s i nthi s sourc e category . Th e criteri a use d t o establis hMAC T ar e containe di nsectio n11 2 (d ) o f th e CAA . Base d o nSB Asiz e definition s an d reporte dsale s an d employmen t data , EP Aidentifie d27 8 o f th e 3 5 6 companie s ownin g reinforce d plasti c composite s facilitie s a s smal l businesses . Althoug hsmal l businesse s represen t almos t 8 0 percen t o f th e companie s withi nth e sourc e category , the y ar e expecte d t o incu r onl y3 1 percen t o f th e tota l industr y complianc e cost s o f $ 2 6. 0 million . Th e averag e tota l annua l complianc e cos t i s projecte d t o b e $30,00 0 pe r smal l compan y a s compare d t o th e industr yaverag e o f $70,00 0 pe r company . Unde r th e propose d standards , th e mea nannua l complianc e cost , a s a shar e o f sales , fo r smal l businesse s i s 0. 7 percent , an d th e media ni s 0. 4 percent , wit ha rang e o f 0.0 1 t o 7. 5 percent . Th e EP Aestimate s tha t 1 7 percen t o f smal l businesse s (or 4 7 firms ) ma yexperienc e a nimpac t greate rP.9 0

8 9 tha n1 percen t o f sales , bu t onl y3 percen t o f smal l businesse s (o r 8 firms ) ma yexperienc e a nimpac t greate r tha n3 percen t o f sales . Th e Agenc yals o performe d a neconomi c impac t analysi s (EIA ) tha t accounte d fo r fir mbehavio r t o provid e a n estimat e o f th e facilit yan d marke t impact s o f th e regulation . Thi s industr yi s characterize db yprofi t margin s o f 3 t o 4 percent . Smal l businesse s wer e foun dt o hav e highe r per-uni t productio ncost s unde r baselin e condition s an d incu r slightl yhighe r per-uni t complianc e costs . A s a resul t o f thes e factors , th e economi c analysi s indicate s tha t almos t 1 0 percen t o f facilitie s owne db y smal l busines s ar e a t ris k o f closur e becaus e o f thi s propose d rule . Althoug hanyfacilit yclosure s ar e caus e fo r concern , th e numbe r o f facilitie s a t ris k fo r closur e woul db e th e sam e i f thi s propose d rul e require d onl yth e MAC T floo r leve l o f contro l fo r al l facilities . Th e MAC T floo r i s th e leas t stringen t leve l allowe db ystatute . A s discusse d below , thi s propose d rul e contain s a significan t numbe r o f accommodation s fo r smal l business . Withou t additiona l data , w e d o no t believ e w e ca nmak e th e propose drul e an yles s stringen t an d compl ywit hth e objective s o f th e CAA . <I n thi s regard , w e hav e requeste d dat a an dcommen t elsewher e i n thi s preambl e o nissue s relevan t t o thi s industry. > Th e EPA' s effort s t o minimiz e small-busines s impact sP.9 1

9 0 hav e materiall yimprove dtoday' s proposal . Economi c analysi s o f provision s unde r earlie r consideratio nfo r inclusio ni nthi s propose drul e indicate dgreate r impact s o n smal l businesse s tha nthos e propose d today . I nearlie r versions , almos t 4 2 percen t o f th e tota l industr ycomplianc e cost s woul d hav e bee nincurre d b ysmal l businesse s (compare d wit h3 1 percen t o f cost s incurre db ysmal l businesse s i n today' s proposal) . Th e averag e tota l annua l complianc e cos t woul d hav e bee nroughl y$50,00 0 pe r smal l compan y(compare d wit h$30,00 0 i ntoday' s proposal) . Abou t 2 2 percen t o f smal l businesse s (o r 6 0 firms ) woul dhav e experience da n impac t greate r tha n1 percen t o f sale s (compare dwit h1 7 percen t o f smal l businesse s i ntoday' s proposal) . An d7 percen t o f smal l businesse s (o r 1 9 firms ) woul dhav e experience d impact s greate r tha n3 percen t o f sale s (compare d wit h3 percen t o f smal l businesse s i ntoday' s proposal) . Th e reductio ni nsmall-busines s cost s fro m earlie r version s o f thi s propose drul e i s attributabl e t o EPA' s outreac han d accommodatio nfo r smal l firm s i nkeepin g wit hbot hRF Aan d CAArequirements , includin g th e conduc t o f a SBARPanel , a s discusse dfurthe r below . Th e propose d reportin g an d recordkeepin g requirement s fo r thes e smal l businesse s includ e initia l notifications , startu p notification s an dcomplianc e reports . Thes e requirement s wer e discusse di nmor e detai l unde r th e discussio no f th e Paperwor k Reductio nAc t above . W eP.9 2

9 1 estimat e tha t 30 2 existin g facilitie s owne db ysmal l businesse s wil l b e impacte d b ythes e requirements , an d5 3 ne wfacilitie s wil l b e impacte d i nth e firs t thre e years . Th e professiona l skill s require d t o complet e thes e report s includ e th e abilit yt o calculat e emission s an dresi nus e an d rea d an d follo wrepor t forma t guidance . Al l facilitie s impacte d b ythi s propose drul e shoul dhav e personne l wit h th e necessar yskill s becaus e the ywoul dnee dthes e skill s t o compl ywit hothe r regulator yrequirement s suc ha s Toxi c Releas e Inventor y(TRI ) reporting . Provision s t o minimiz e th e reportin g an drecordkeepin g requirement s o nsmal l busines s hav e bee nincorporate dint o thi s propose d rule . Thes e provision s includ e allowing : th e facilit yt o substantiat e resi nan dge l coa t HA P content s wit hMateria l Safet yDat a Sheet s rathe r the nrequirin g testin g o f eac hresi nan dge l coat ; us e o f resi npurchas e record s t o determin e resi nuse ; an d exemptio no f facilitie s tha t ca ndemonstrat e tha t al l thei r resi nan dge l coat s compl ywit hth e require dHA P conten t limit s fro mth e requiremen t t o kee p record s o f resi nus e an dcalculat e poin t valu e averages . Thes e provision s hav e als o bee nextende dt o al l companie s subjec t t o today' s propose dNESHAP . Thes e facilitie s ma yals o b e subjec t t o th e NESHA P bein g develope d fo r plasti c part s an dproducts . Ther e shoul d b e n o duplicatio no f effor t a s a resul t o f thi s propose d rul e an d th e Plasti c Part s an dProduct s NESHA PP.9 3

9 2 bein g develope d becaus e thes e NESHA P wil l cove r differen t operations . Facilitie s subjec t t o thi s propose drul e ar e als o subjec t t o emission s estimat e reportin g unde r th e TR I requirements . I nthi s propose d rule , w e coul ddetermin e n o way s t o combin e TR I an d th e reportin g requirement s o f th e propose d NESHA P becaus e th e objective s an dstatutor y authoritie s o f thes e requirement s ar e different . However , w e invit e comment s fro mal l intereste dpartie s o nway s t o combin e thes e report s an d stil l mee t th e statutor y requirement s o f th e CAA . A s indicate d above , w e -have incorporate dsignifican t alternative s int o th e propose d rul e t o minimiz e th e impac t o nsmal l busines s bu t stil l mee t th e objective s o f th e CAA . A s require d b ysectio n609(b ) o f th e RFA , EP Aconducte d outreac ht o smal l entitie s an dconvene da SBARpane l t o revie wadvic e an d recommendation s fro mrepresentative s o f th e smal l entitie s tha t potentiall ywoul db e subjec t t o th e propose d rul e requirements . Th e pane l convene do nApri l 6 , 2 00 0 an d wa s comprise d o f representative s fro mOMB , th e SB A Offic e o f Advocacy , th e EP ASmal l Busines s Advocac yChair , an d th e Emissio nStandard s Divisio no f th e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g an d Standard s o f EPA . Th e pane l solicite d advic e fro m

1 7 small-entit yrepresentative s (SER ) fro ma cross-sectio no f th e differen t industr ysector s likel yt o b e directl yregulate d b ythi s action . O nApri l 18 , 2000 , th e pane l distribute d a packag e o f descriptiv e an dtechnica lP.9 4



### 9 3 material s explainin g th e rule-in-progres s t o th e SER . O n Ma y2 , 2000 , th e pane l me t wit hth e SE Rt o hea r thei r comment s o npreliminar yoption s fo r regulator yflexibilit y an d relate d information . Th e pane l als o receive dwritte n comment s fro m

th e SE Ri nrespons e t o bot hth e outreac h material s an d th e discussion s a t th e meeting . Consisten t wit hRFA/SBREF Arequirements , th e pane l evaluate d th e assemble d material s an dsmall-entit ycomment s o nissue s relate d t o th e element s o f th e IRFA . Acop yo f th e pane l repor t i s include di nth e docke t fo r thi s propose d rule . Th e pane l considere d numerou s regulator yflexibilit y option s i nrespons e t o concern s raise db yth e SER . Th e majo r concern s include dth e affordabilit yan dtechnica l feasibilit yo f add-o ncontrols , th e resi nan dge l coa t HA P content s require d t o mee t som e o f th e MAC T floors , an dth e regulator ytreatmen t o f specialit yproducts . Thes e ar e th e majo r pane l recommendation s an dEPA' s respons e i ntoday' s proposal :

• Recommen d settin g highe r threshold s tha nEP Aha d initiall yconsidere d fo r requirement s t o us e add-o n controls . Response : I ntoday' s action , EP Apropose s t o allo w facilitie s owne db ysmal l firm s t o emi t 25 0 tp y(a s distinc t fro mth e 10 0 tp ylimi t fo r facilitie s owne db y larg e firms ) befor e installin g add-o ncontrols .P.9 5

9 4 Recommen d settin g th e ne wsourc e floo r fo r small-owne d source s a t th e leve l o f th e existin g sourc e floor . Response : Today' s proposa l include s thi s provision . Recommen d establishin g separat e floor s fo r specialit y products . Response : Today' s proposa l include s thi s provision . Explor e pollution-preventio nalternative s t o add-o n controls . Response : Th e EP Adi dexplor e thi s possibilit ywit h industr ysources . Althoug hw e coul dno t devis e a workabl e pollution-preventio nalternativ e t o includ e i n today' s proposal , th e Agenc yi s requestin g commen t o n ho wsuc ha mechanis mmigh t b e structure dwithi nth e requirement s o f th e CAA . Recommen d allowin g individua l facilitie s t o us e th e sam e resi ni nal l resi napplicatio nprocesses . Response : Today' s proposa l include s thi s provision . Reconside r th e resi nHA P conten t requiremen t fo r toolin g resins . Response : Today' s proposa l include s a revise d provision . Recommen d separat e floor s fo r whit e an dnon-whit e ge l coats . Response : Today' s proposa l include s thi s provision . Reconside r th e Agency' s estimate s o f th e cos t o f add-o n controls .P.9 6

9 5 Response : Eve nthoug htoday' s proposa l eliminate s th e likelihoo d tha t existin g small-owne d facilitie s wil l b e subjec t t o add-o ncontrols , EP Aha s reconsidere dit s cos t estimate s i nligh t o f thos e offere db yth e industry . A s discusse delsewher e i nthi s preamble , EP A continue s t o believ e ou r estimate s ar e realistic . Nevertheless , a s mentione d i nsectio nIII-M , w e ar e solicitin g comment s o nal l dat a an d assumption s tha t affec t add-o ncontro l costs . <Moreover , a s mentione d elsewher e i nthi s preamble , th e Agenc ywil l revie wi n mor e dept hth e industry' s analyse s o nth e cos t o f thi s rul e followin g proposal , mak e an yappropriat e change s t o ou r estimate s o f cost s base do nou r revie wan do n comment s w e receive , an d mak e th e result s o f ou r detaile d revie wth e industry' s cos t analyse s availabl e t o th e industr yan d th e publi c fo r thei r review. >

• Recommen d groupin g high-strengt happlication s wit h corrosion-resistan t operations . Response : Today' s proposa l include s thi s provision . Detaile d informatio no nal l thes e recommendation s i s containe d i nth e pane l repor t i nth e docke t fo r thi s propose d rule . G . Nationa l Technolog yTransfe r an dAdvancemen t Ac t Sectio n12(d ) o f th e Nationa l Technolog yTransfe r an d Advancemen t Ac t (NTTAA ) o f 199 5 (Publi c La wNo . 104-113 ; 1 5 U.S.C . 27 2 note ) direct s EP At o us e voluntar yconsensu sP.9 7

9 6 standard s i nthei r regulator yan d procuremen t activitie s unles s t o d o s o woul d b e inconsisten t wit happlicabl e la wo r otherwis e impractical . Voluntar yconsensu s standard s ar e technica l standard s (e.g. , material s specifications , tes t methods , samplin g procedures , busines s practices ) develope d
o r adopte d b yon e o r mor e voluntar yconsensu s bodies . Th e NTTAAdirect s EP At o provid e Congress , throug hannua l report s t o OMB , wit hexplanation s whe na nagenc ydoe s no t us e availabl e an d applicabl e voluntar yconsensu s standards . Thi s propose d rulemakin g involve s technica l standards . Th e EP Apropose s i nthi s rul e t o us e EP AMethod s 1 , IA , 2 , 2A , 2C , 2D , 2F , 2G , 3 , 3A , 3B , 4 , 18 , 25 , 25A , 204 , an d 204B,C,D,E . Consisten t wit hth e NTTAA , th e EP Aconducte d searche s t o identif yvoluntar yconsensu s standard s i n additio nt o thes e EP Amethods . On e voluntar yconsensu s standar d wa s identifie d a s applicabl e an dEP Apropose s t o us e thi s standar d i nthi s propose drule . Th e on e consensu s standard , AST MD6420-99 , Standar d Tes t Metho d fo r Determinatio no f Gaseou s Organi c Compound s b yDirec t Interfac e Ga s Chromatography-Mas s Spectrometr y (GC/MS) , i s appropriat e i nth e case s describe dbelo wfo r inclusio ni nthi s propose drul e i nadditio nt o th e currentl y availabl e EP AMetho d 1 8 codifie da t 4 0 CF Rpar t 60 , appendi xA .P.9 8

9 7 Simila r t o EPA' s performanc e base d Metho d18 , AST M D64 2 0-9 9 i s als o a performanc e base d metho dfo r measuremen t o f gaseou s organi c compounds . However , AST MD6420-9 9 wa s writte nt o suppor t th e specifi c us e o f highl yportabl e an d automate d GC/MS . Whil e offerin g advantage s ove r th e traditiona l Metho d 18 , th e AST Mmetho ddoe s allo wsom e les s stringen t criteri a fo r acceptin g GC/M S result s tha nrequire d b yMetho d 18 . Therefore , AST MD6420-9 9 i s a suitabl e alternativ e t o Metho d 1 8 where : (1 ) th e targe t compound(s )
ar e thos e liste d i nSectio n1. 1 o f AST MD6420-99 , an d(2 ) th e targe t concentratio ni s betwee n15 0 part s pe r billio n (volume ) an d 10 0 ppm(v) . Fo r targe t compound(s ) no t liste di nTabl e 1. 1 o f AST M D6420-99 , bu t potentiall ydetecte db ymas s spectrometry , th e regulatio nspecifie s tha t th e additiona l syste mcontinuin g calibratio nchec k afte r eac hrun , a s detaile di nsectio n 10.5. 3 o f th e AST Mmethod , mus t b e followed , met , documented , an d submitte d wit hth e dat a repor t eve ni f ther e i s n o moistur e condense r use do r th e compoun di s no t considere d wate r soluble . Fo r targe t compound(s ) no t liste d i nTabl e 1. 1 o f AST M D6420-99 , an d no t amenabl e t o detectio nb ymas s spectrometry , AST MD64 2 0-9 9 doe s no t apply . A s a result , EP Apropose s t o incorporat e b yreferenc eP.9 9

9 8 (IBR ) AST M6420-9 9 int o 4 0 CF R63.1 4 fo r applicatio nwit h propose d subpar t WWW Wo f par t 63 . Th e EP Awil l als o cit e Metho d 1 8 a s a ga s chromatography(GC ) optio ni nadditio nt o AST MD6420-99 . Thi s wil l allo wth e continue dus e o f othe r G C configurations . I nadditio nt o th e voluntar yconsensu s standard s EP A propose s t o us e i nthi s propose d rule , th e searc hfo r emission s monitorin g procedure s identifie d1 7 othe r voluntar yconsensu s standards . Th e EP Adetermine dtha t 1 3
o f thes e 1 7 standard s identifie dfo r measurin g emission s o f th e HA P o r surrogate s subjec t t o emissio nstandard s i nth e propose d rul e woul d no t b e practica l du e t o lac k o f equivalency , detail , and/o r qualit yassurance/qualit y contro l requirements . Th e remainin g fou r o f th e 1 7 consensu s standard s identifie d ar e unde r developmen t o r unde r EP Areview . Therefore , w e d o no t propos e t o us e thes e voluntar yconsensu s standard s i nthi s propose drulemaking . Mor e informatio no nth e reason s w e chos e no t t o propos e t o us e thes e standard s i s availabl e i nth e docke t fo r thi s propose d rule . Th e EP Atake s comment s o npropose d complianc e demonstratio nrequirement s i nthi s propose drulemakin g an d specificall yinvite s th e publi c t o identif ypotentiall y applicabl e voluntar yconsensu s standards . Commentor s shoul dp. 1

9 9 als o explai nwh ythi s propose drul e shoul dadop t thes e voluntar yconsensu s standard s i nlie u o f o r i nadditio nt o EPA' s methods . Emissio ntes t method s an dperformanc e specification s submitte dfo r evaluatio nshoul db e accompanie d wit ha basi s fo r th e recommendation , includin g metho d validatio ndat a an d th e procedur e use dt o validat e th e candidat e metho d (i f metho dothe r tha nMetho d301 , 4 0 CF Rpar t 63 , appendi xAwa s used) . Tabl e 6 o f propose dsubpar t WWW Wlist s th e EP Ates t method s an d performanc e standards . Mos t o f th e standard s hav e bee nuse d b yState s an dindustr yfo r mor e tha n 1 0 years . Nevertheless , unde r §63.7(f) , th e proposa l als o allow s an yStat e o r sourc e t o appl yt o EP Afo r permissio nt o us e a nalternativ e method s i nplac e o f an yo f th e EP A testin g method s o r performanc e standard s liste di nth e propose d NESHAP . H . Executiv e Orde r 1 3 045 , Protectio no f Childre nfro m Environmenta l Healt hRisk s an dSafet yRisk s Executiv e Orde r 1304 5 (6 2 F R19885 , Apri l 23 , 1997 ) applie s t o an yrul e that : (1 ) i s determine dt o b e "economicall ysignificant " a s define dunde r Executiv e Orde r 12866 , an d (2 ) concern s a nenvironmenta l healt ho r safet y ris k tha t w e hav e reaso nt o believ e ma yhav e a disproportionat e effec t o nchildren . I f th e regulator y actio nmeet s bot hcriteria , th e Agenc ymus t evaluat e th eP. 2

10 0 environmenta l healt ho r safet yeffect s o f th e planne drul e o nchildren , an d explai nwh yth e planne dregulatio ni s preferabl e t o othe r potentiall yeffectiv e an dreasonabl y feasibl e alternative s considere db yth e Agency . Th e EP Ainterpret s Executiv e Orde r 1 3 04 5 a s applyin g onl yt o thos e regulator yaction s tha t ar e base do nhealt ho r safet yrisks , suc htha t th e analysi s require dunde r sectio n 5-50 1 o f th e Executiv e Orde r ha s th e potentia l t o influenc e th e regulation . Thi s proposa l i s no t subjec t t o Executiv e •Orde r 1304 5 becaus e i t i s base do ntechnolog yperformanc e an d no t o nhealt ho r safet yrisks . Additionally , thi s propose d rul e i s no t economicall ysignifican t a s define db y Executiv e Orde r 12866 .P. 3

10 1 NESHAP : Reinforce dPlasti c Composite s Productio n

Propose dRule s - Pag e 10 1 o f 18 2 Lis t o f Subject s i n4 0 CF RPar t 6 3 Environmenta l protection , Ai r pollutio ncontrol , Hazardou s ai r pollutants , Incorporatio nb yreference , Reportin g an d recordkeepin g requirements , an dVolatil e organi c compounds .

Date d

Caro l M . Browner , Administrator .P. 4

REVISE D PREAMBL E SEN T TO OM B O NDECEMBE R1 2 T O RESPON D T O THEI RCOMMENT S 6560-50- P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y 4 0 CF RPar t 6 3 [FRL- ] RI N 2060-AE7 9 Nationa l Emissio nStandard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutants :

Reinforce dPlasti c Composite s Productio n AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y(EPA) . ACTION : Propose d rule . SUMMARY : Thi s actio npropose s nationa l emissio nstandard s fo r hazardou s ai r pollutant s (NESHAP ) fo r ne wan dexistin g reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nfacilities . Th e propose d standard s regulat e productio nan dancillar y processe s use d t o manufactur e product s wit hthermose t resin s an d ge l coats . Reinforce dplasti c composite s productio n facilitie s emi t hazardou s ai r pollutant s (HAP) , suc ha s styrene , methy l methacrylat e (MMA) , an dmethylen e chlorid e (dichloromethane) . Thes e HA P hav e advers e healt heffect s includin g headache , fatigue , depression , irritatio no f skin , eyes , an d mucou s membranes . Methylen e chlorid e ha s bee n classifie d a s a probabl e huma ncarcinogen . Thes e propose d standard s wil l implemen t sectio n112(d ) o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t (CAA ) b yrequirin g al l majo r source s i nthi s categor yt o mee t HA P emissio nstandard s reflectin g th e applicatio no f th e maximu m

achievabl e contro l technolog y(MACT) . W e estimat e th e propose dNESHA P woul d reduc e nationwid eP. 5

2 emission s o f HA P fro mthes e facilitie s b yapproximatel y 14,50 0 ton s pe r yea r (tpy ) (6 5 percent) . DATES : Comments . Submi t comment s o no r befor e [INSERT DAT E 6 0 DAY S AFTE RDAT E O F PUBLICATION O F THIS PROPOSE DRUL E I N TH E FEDERAL REGISTER] . Publi c Hearing . I f anyon e contact s th e EP Arequestin g t o spea k a t a publi c hearin g b y[INSERT DAT E 2 0 DAY S AFTE RDAT E O F PUBLICATIO N

O F THIS PROPOSE DRUL E I N TH E FEDERAL REGISTER] , ' a publi c hearin g wil l b e hel do n[INSER T DAT E 3 0 DAY S AFTE RDAT E O F PUBLICATION O F THIS PROPOSE DRUL E I N TH E FEDERAL REGISTER] . ADDRESSES : Comments . Writte ncomment s shoul db e submitte d (i nduplicat e i f possible ) to : Ai r an dRadiatio nDocke t an d Informatio nCente r (6102) , Attentio nDocke t Numbe r A-94-52 , U.S . EPA , 120 0 Pennsylvani a Avenue , NW , Washington , D C 20460 . W e reques t a separat e cop yals o b e sen t t o th e contac t perso nliste d belo wi nth e FO RFURTHE RINFORMATIO N CONTAC T section . Publi c Hearing . I f a publi c hearin g i s held , i t wil l b e hel d a t EPA' s Offic e o f Administratio nAuditorium , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort hCarolina . Docket . Docke t No . A-94-5 2 contain s supportin g informatio n use d i ndevelopin g th e standards . Th e docke t i s locate d a t th e U.S . EPA , 40 1 MStreet , SW , Washington , D C 2046 0 i nRoo m M-1500 , Watersid e Mal l (groundfloor) , an dma yb e inspecte d fro m 8:3 0 a.m . t o 5:3 0 p.m. , Monda ythroug hFriday ,P. 6

3 excludin g lega l holidays . FORFURTHE RINFORMATION CONTACT : Keit hBarnett , Organi c Chemical s Group , Emissio nStandard s Divisio n(MD-13) , U.S . EPA , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 , (919 ) 541-5605 , barnett.keith@epamail.epa.gov . Fo r publi c hearin g information , contac t Mari a Noell , Organi c Chemical s Group , Emissio nStandard s Divisio n(MD-13) , U.S . EPA , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 , (919 ) 541-5607 . SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION : Comments . Comment s an d dat a ma yb e submitte db yelectroni c mai l (e-mail ) to : a-and-r-docket@epa.gov . Electroni c comment s mus t b e submitte d eithe r a s a nASCI I fil e t o avoi d th e us e o f specia l character s an d encryptio nproblem s o r o n disk s i nWordPerfect ®versio n5.1 , 6. 1 o r Core l 8 fil e format . Al l comment s an ddat a submitte di nelectroni c for m mus t not e th e docke t number : A-94-52 . N o confidentia l busines s informatio n(CBI ) shoul d b e submitte db ye-mail . Electroni c comment s ma yb e file d onlin e a t man yFedera l Depositor yLibraries . Commenter s wishin g t o submi t proprietar yinformatio n fo r consideratio nmus t clearl ydistinguis hsuc hinformatio n fro m othe r comment s an d clearl ylabe l i t a s CBI . Sen d submission s containin g suc hproprietar yinformatio ndirectl y t o th e followin g address , an d no t t o th e publi c docket , t o ensur e tha t proprietar yinformatio ni s no t inadvertentl y place d i nth e docket : Attention : Keit hBarnett , c/ o OAQP SP. 7

4 Documen t Contro l Office r (Room740B) , U.S . EPA , 41 1 W . Chape l Hil l Street , Durham , N C 27701 . Th e EP Awil l disclos e informatio nidentifie d a s CB I onl yt o th e exten t allowe db y th e procedure s se t fort hi n4 0 CF Rpar t 2 . I f n o clai mo f confidentialit yaccompanie s a submissio nwhe ni t i s receive d b yth e EPA , th e informatio nma yb e mad e availabl e t o th e publi c withou t furthe r notic e t o th e commenter . Publi c Hearing . Person s intereste di npresentin g ora l testimon yo r inquirin g a s t o whethe r a hearin g i s t o b e hel d shoul d contac t Mari a Noell , Organi c Chemical s Group , Emissio nStandard s Divisio n(MD-13) , U.S . EPA , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 , (919 ) 541-560 7 a t leas t 2 day s i nadvanc e o f th e publi c hearing . Person s intereste d i nattendin g th e publi c hearin g mus t als o cal l Maria-Noel l t o verif yth e time , date , an d locatio no f th e hearing . Th e publi c hearin g wil l provid e intereste dpartie s th e opportunit yt o presen t data , views , o r argument s concernin g thes e propose d emissio nstandards . Docket . Th e docke t i s a norganize dan dcomplet e fil e o f th e informatio nconsidere db yth e EP Ai nth e developmen t o f thi s rulemaking . Th e docke t i s a dynami c fil e becaus e materia l i s adde d throughou t th e rulemakin g process . Th e docketin g syste m i s intende d t o allo wmember s o f th e publi c an d industrie s involve d t o readil yidentif yan dlocat e document s s o tha t the yca neffectivel yparticipat e i nth e rulemakin g process . Alon g wit hth e propose d an dpromulgate dstandard sP. 8

5 an d thei r preambles , th e content s o f th e docket , excludin g interagenc yrevie wmaterials , wil l serv e a s th e recor di n th e cas e o f judicia l review . (Se e sectio n307(d)(7)(A ) o f th e CAA. ) Th e regulator ytex t an dothe r material s relate d t o thi s rulemakin g ar e availabl e fo r revie wi nth e docke t o r copie s ma yb e maile d o nreques t fro mth e Ai r Docke t b y callin g (202 ) 260-7548 . Areasonabl e fe e ma yb e charge dfo r copyin g docke t materials . Worl d Wid e We b(WWW) . I nadditio nt o bein g availabl e i nth e docket , a nelectroni c cop yo f th e propose dNESHA P wil l als o b e availabl e o nth e WW Wthroug hth e Technolog y Transfe r Networ k (TTN) . Followin g signature , a cop yo f th e propose d NESHA P wil l b e poste d o nth e TTN' s polic yan d guidanc e pag e fo r newl ypropose do r promulgate drule s http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg . Th e TT Nprovide s informatio n an d technolog yexchang e i nvariou s area s o f ai r pollutio n control . I f mor e informatio nregardin g th e TT Ni s needed , cal l th e TT NHEL P lin e a t (919 ) 541-5384 . Regulate d Entities . Categorie s an dentitie s potentiall y regulate d b ythi s actio ninclude :

NAIC S SI C Categor ycod e cod e Example s o f regulate dentitie sP. 9

Industr y32521 1

32612 2 32599 1 32619 1 32799 1 32799 3 33299 8 3331 2 3365 1 33531 1 33531 3 33531 2 3342 2 33621 1 33611 2 33621 1 3365 1 3365 3 33639 9 3361 2 33621 3 33641 3 33621 4 Federa l Governmen t 282 1 308 4 308 7 308 8 308 9 328 1 329 6 343 1 353 1 353 1 361 2 361 3 362 1 366 3 371 1 371 1 371 3 371 4 371 4 371 6 372 8 374 3 379 2 399 9CTl

Reinforce dplasti c composite s productio nfacilitie s tha t manufactur e and/o r repai r intermediat e and/o r fina l product s usin g HA P containin g thermose t resin s an dge l coats .

Federall yowne dfacilitie s tha t manufactur e and/o r repai r intermediat e and/o r fina l product s usin g HA P containin g thermose t resin s an d ge l coats . Thi s tabl e i s no t intende dt o b e exhaustive , bu t rathe r provide s a guid e fo r reader s regardin g entitie s .likel yt o b e regulate d b ythi s action . T o determin e whethe r you r facilit yi s regulate d b ythi s action , yo u shoul dexamin e th e applicabilit ycriteri a i n §63.578 5 o f th e propose drule . I f yo u hav e anyquestion s regardin g th e applicabilit yo f thi s actio nt o a particula r en t th e precedin g FO RFURTHE R ity , consul t th e perso nliste d i n INFORMATION'CONTAC T section . Outline . Th e informatio npresente di nthi s preambl e i sP.1 0



### organize da s follows : I . Introductio n A . Wha t i s th e sourc e o f authorit yfo r developmen t o f NESHAP ? B . Wha t criteri a ar e use di nth e developmen t o f NESHAP ? C . Wha t ar e th e potentia l healt heffect s o f th e HA P emitte d b yth e reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nindustry ? D . Ho wwer e th e propose dNESHA P developed ? E . Wha t processe s an doperation s ar e include di nth e Reinforce d Plastic s Composite s Productio nsourc e category ? II . Summar yo f Propose dNESHA P A . Wha t sourc e categorie s an dsubcategorie s ar e affecte db y thi s propose d rule ? B . Wha t ar e th e primar ysource s o f HA P emission s an dwha t ar e th e emissions ? C . Wha t i s th e affecte dsource ? D . Wha t ar e th e emissio nlimits , operatin g limits , an d othe r standards ? E . Wha t i s th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e an dho wi s i t use di n thes e propose d NESHAP ? F . Whe nmus t I compl ywit hthes e propose dNESHAP ? G . Wha t ar e myoption s fo r demonstratin g compliance ? H . Wha t ar e th e testin g an d initia l complianc e requirements ? I . Wha t ar e th e continuou s complianc e requirements ? J . Wha t ar e th e notification , recordkeepin g an dreportin g requirements ? III . Rational e fo r Propose dNESHA P A . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e sourc e categor yt o regulate ? B . Wha t pollutant s ar e regulate d unde r thes e propose d NESHAP ? C . Wha t i s th e "affecte dsource " an dho wdi dEP Aselec t th e operation s t o b e regulate d b ythes e propose dNESHAP ? D . Wha t i s a ne waffecte d source ? E . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources ? F . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e MAC T floo r fo r ne wsources ? G . Di d w e conside r contro l option s mor e stringen t tha nth e MAC T floor ? H . Wh yar e som e reinforce d plasti c composite s productio n operation s no t subjec t t o thes e propose dNESHAP ? I . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e for m o f thes e propose dNESHAP ? J . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e tes t method s fo r determinin g complianc e wit hth e propose d NESHAP ? K . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e monitorin g an drecordkeepin g requirements ? L . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e notificatio nan dreportin g requirements ? M . Wha t ar e som e o f th e area s wher e w e ar e specificall y solicitin g comments ? IV . Summar yo f Environmental , Energy , an dEconomi c Impact sP.1 1

8 A . Wha t facilitie s ar e affecte db yth e propose dNESHAP ? B . Wha t ar e th e ai r qualit yimpacts ? C . Wha t ar e th e wate r qualit yimpacts ? D . Wha t ar e th e soli dan dhazardou s wast e impacts ? E . Wha t ar e th e energ yimpacts ? F . Wha t ar e th e cos t impacts ? G . Wha t ar e th e economi c impacts ? V . Relationshi p of.Propose d NESHA P t o Othe r Standard s an d Program s unde r th e CAA A . Nationa l Emissio nStandard s fo r Close dVen t Systems , Contro l Devices , Recover yDevices , an dRoutin g t o a Fue l Ga s Syste m

o r a Proces s (4 0 CF RPar t 63 , Subpar t SS ) B . Operatin g Permi t Progra m C . NESHA P fo r Plasti c Part s an d Product s VI . Administrativ e Requirement s A . Executiv e Orde r 12866 , Regulator yPlannin g an dRevie w B . Paperwor k Reductio nAc t C . Executiv e Orde r 13132 , Federalis m D . Executiv e Orde r 13084 , Consultatio nan dCoordinatio n wit hIndia nTriba l Government s E . Unfunde d Mandate s Refor mAc t o f 199 5 F . Regulator yFlexibilit yAc t (RFA) , a s amende db yth e Smal l Busines s Regulator yEnforcemen t Fairnes s Ac t o f 199 6 (SBREFA) , 5 U.S.C . 60 1 e t seq . G . Nationa l Technolog yTransfe r an dAdvancemen t Ac t H . Executiv e Orde r 1 3 045 , Protectio no f Childre nfro m Environmenta l Healt hRisk s an d Safet yRisk s I . Introductio n A . Wha t i s th e sourc e o f authorit yfo r developmen t o f NESHAP ? Sectio n11 2 o f th e CAArequire s u s t o lis t categorie s an d subcategorie s o f majo r source s an dare a source s o f HA P an d t o establis hNESHA P fo r th e liste dsourc e categorie s an d subcategories . Reinforce dPlasti c Composite s Productio n (majo r source s only ) wa s include do nth e initia l lis t o f
sourc e categorie s publishe do nJul y16 , 199 2 (5 7 F R31576) . Majo r source s o f HA P ar e thos e tha t hav e th e potentia l t o emi t greate r tha n1 0 tp yo f an yon e HA P o r 2 5 tp yo f an yP.1 2

combinatio no f HAP . B . Wha t criteri a ar e use d i nth e developmen t o f NESHAP ? Th e CAArequire s NESHA P t o reflec t th e maximu mdegre e o f reductio ni nemission s o f HA P tha t i s achievable . Thi s leve l o f contro l i s commonl yreferre dt o a s th e MACT . Th e MAC T floo r i s th e minimu mcontro l leve l allowe dfo r NESHAP . Thi s concep t appear s i nsectio n112(d)(3 ) o f th e CAA . Fo r ne wsources , th e MAC T floo r canno t b e les s stringen t tha nth e emissio ncontro l tha t i s achieve di n practic e b yth e best-controlle d simila r source . Th e MAC T standard s fo r existin g source s ca nb e les s stringen t tha n standard s fo r ne wsources , bu t the ycanno t b e les s stringen t tha nth e averag e emissio nlimitatio nachieve db yth e best

performin g 1 2 percen t o f existin g source s i nth e categor yo r subcategor y(o r th e best-performin g 5 source s fo r categorie s o r subcategorie s wit hfewe r tha n3 0 sources) . I ndevelopin g MACT , w e als o conside r contro l option s tha t ar e mor e stringen t tha nth e floor . W e ma yestablis h standard s mor e stringen t tha nth e floo r base do nth e consideratio no f cos t o f achievin g th e emission s reductions , an ynonai r qualit yhealt han d environmenta l impacts , an d energ yrequirements . C . Wha t ar e th e potentia l healt heffect s o f th e HA P emitte d b yth e reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nindustry ?P.1 3

1 0 Today' s propose dNESHA P protec t ai r qualit yan dpromot e th e publi c healt hb yreducin g emission s o f som e o f th e HA P liste d i nsectio n112(b)(1 ) o f th e CAA . Th e HA P emitte d b yth e reinforced'plasti c composite s productio nindustr yinclude , bu t ar e no t limite dto , approximatel y20,00 0 tp yo f styrene , 55 0 tp yo f methy l methacrylate , an d 110 0 tp yo f methylen e chloride . Exposur e t o thes e compound s ha s bee ndemonstrate dt o caus e advers e healt heffects , includin g chroni c healt hdisorder s (e.g. , headache , fatigue , an d depression ) an dacut e healt h disorder s (e.g. , irritatio no f skin , eyes , an dmucou s membrane s an d decrease drespirator yfunction) . Methylen e chlorid e ha s bee nclassifie da s a probabl e huma ncarcinoge n an d styren e a s a possibl e huma ncarcinogen . I ngeneral , thes e finding s hav e onl ybee nshow nwit hconcentration s highe r tha nthos e typicall yi nth e ambien t air . W e d o no t hav e th e typ e o f curren t detaile ddat a o n eac ho f th e operation s covere db ytoday' s propose dNESHA P (an d th e peopl e livin g aroun d th e operations ) necessar yt o conduc t a nanalysi s t o determin e th e actua l populatio n exposure s t o th e HA P emitted , fro mthes e facilitie s an dth e potentia l fo r resultan t healt heffects . Therefore , w e d o no t kno wth e exten t t o whic hth e advers e healt heffect s describe d abov e occu r i nth e population s surroundin g thes e operations . However , t o th e exten t th e advers e effect s d o occur , th e propose d rul e wil l reduc e emission s an dP.1 4



### 1 1 subsequen t

exposures . 1 . Styren e Acut e (short-term ) exposur e t o styren e i nhuman s result s i nmucou s membran e an d ey e irritatio nan d gastrointestina l effects . Chroni c (long-term ) exposur e t o styren e i nhuman s ma ycaus e effect s o nth e centra l nervou s syste m(CNS ) suc ha s headache , fatigue , weakness , ' . depression , an d hearin g loss . Ther e i s limite devidenc e tha t occupationa l exposur e t o styren e i s associate dwit ha n increase d frequenc yo f spontaneou s abortion s an ddecrease d frequenc yo f birth s an da nincrease dris k o f leukemi a an d lymphoma . Th e EP Aconsider s thi s evidenc e o noccupationa l exposur e t o styren e t o b e inconclusive . Th e Internationa l Agenc yfo r Researc ho nCance r ha s classifie dstyren e a s a Grou p 2B , possibl e huma ncarcinogen . Th e EP Aha s no t classifie d styren e wit hrespec t t o carcinogenicity . 2 . Methy l Methacrylat e Methy l methacrylat e irritate s th e skin , eyes , an d mucou s membrane s i nhumans . A nallergi c respons e t o derma l exposur e ma ydevelop . Respirator yeffect s followin g acut e (short-term ) exposur e includ e ches t tightness , dyspnea , coughing , wheezing , an d reduce d lun g function . Neurologica l symptom s includin g headache , lethargy , lightheadedness , an d a sensatio no f heavines s i nth e arm s an dleg s hav e als o bee n reporte d followin g acut e exposur e t o MMA . Effect s t o th e liver , kidney , brain , spleen , an d bon e marro whav e bee nP.1 5

1 2 reporte d i nchroni c (long-term ) anima l studie s o f MM A inhalation . Feta l abnormalitie s hav e bee nreporte di n animal s expose d t o MM Ab yinjectio nan dinhalation . I n severa l anima l studies , n o carcinogeni c effect s wer e observed . Th e EP Aha s classifie d MM Ai nGrou p E (no t likel y t o b e carcinogeni c i nhumans) . 3 . Methylen e Chlorid e Acut e (short-term ) exposur e t o methylen e chlorid e b y inhalatio naffect s th e nervou s system , causin g decrease d visual , auditory , an d moto r functions . Thes e effect s ar e reversibl e onc e exposur e ceases . Th e effect s o f chroni c (long-term ) exposur e t o methylen e chlorid e sugges t tha t th e CN S i s a potentia l targe t i nbot hhuman s an danimals . Limite d anima l studie s hav e reporte d developmenta l effects . Huma ndat a ar e inconclusiv e regardin g methylen e chlorid e an d cancer . Anima l studie s hav e show nincrease s i nlive r an d lun g cance r an d benig nmammar yglan dtumor s followin g th e inhalatio no f methylen e chloride . Th e EP Aha s classifie d methylen e chlorid e a s a Grou p B2 , probabl e huma ncarcinogen . D . Ho wwer e th e propose d NESHA P developed ? W e starte d th e developmen t o f th e propose dNESHA P b y sendin g informatio ncollectio nreques t (ICR ) survey s t o facilitie s wit happlicabl e standar d industrie s classificatio n(SIC ) codes . I nadditio nt o thes e surveys , w e consulte d wit hnumerou s member s o f th e reinforce dplasti c composite s industry , representative s o f industr ytrad eP.1 6

• 1 3 associations , an d materia l an d equipmen t vendor s i n developin g th e propose dNESHAP . W e hel d a serie s o f approximatel y3 5 meeting s an d visite d approximatel y2 5 facilitie s ove r a perio do f 8 years . Thes e meeting s an d sit e visit s wer e hel dt o keep , stakeholder s informe dan d t o gathe r additiona l dat a an d informatio no nissue s relevan t t o th e propose dNESHAP . Th e stakeholder s helpe d i ndat a gathering , arrange dsit e visits , identifie d issue s an dprovide dinformatio nt o hel p resolv e issue s i nth e rulemakin g process . W e identifie d th e MAC T floo r contro l leve l wit h informatio nobtaine d throug hsurve yresponses , sit e visits , telephon e contacts , an d operatin g permits . W e assesse d contro l option s mor e stringen t tha nth e MAC T floo r b y identifyin g th e level(s ) an d method(s ) o f contro l achieve d b yth e bes t controlle dsource s i nth e industr yan d conductin g analyse s designe dt o determin e th e cost , economic , energy , an d environmenta l impact s o f implementin g th e mor e stringen t contro l options . E . Wha t processe s an doperation s ar e include di nth e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nsourc e category ? Th e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nsourc e categor yinvolve s th e productio no f plasti c product s fro m cross-linkin g resins , usuall yi ncombinatio nwit h reinforcin g material s an d inorgani c fillers . Th e productio n o f product s tha t d o no t contai nreinforcin g material s i sP.1 7

1 4 als o include d i nthi s category , a s wel l a s th e productio no f intermediat e compound s whic har e late r use dt o mak e th e fina l plasti c products . Thes e non-reinforce dproduct s wer e include d becaus e the yar e produce d usin g th e sam e type s o f resins , hav e simila r emissio ncharacteristic s an dwoul dus e simila r emissio ncontrols . Thi s sourc e categor yi s limite d t o thos e resin s whic hcontai nstyrene , eithe r b yitsel f o r wit ha combinatio no f othe r monomer s o r solvents . , Ther e ar e a wid e variety.o f operation s tha t us e styrene-containin g resin s t o mak e thermose t plastics . Suc h productio noperation s includ e manua l resi napplication , mechanica l resi napplication , filamen t winding , ge l coa t application , compression/injectio nmolding , resi ntransfe r molding , centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/continuou s casting , polyme r casting , pultrusion , an d shee t moldin g compoun d (SMC ) manufacturing . Ther e ar e als o ancillar yoperation s suc ha s cleaning , mixing/bul k moldin g compoun d (BMC ) manufacturing , an dstorag e tha t occu r i nconjunctio nwit hthes e productio noperations . Man y facilities.wil l us e multipl e operation s i nth e manufacturin g o f thei r product . II . Summar y

o f Propose dNESHA P Thi s preambl e sectio ndiscusse s th e propose dNESHA P a s the yappl yt o you , th e owne r o r operato r o f a ne wo r existin g reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nfacility . A . Wha t sourc e categorie s an d subcategorie s ar e affecte db yP.1 8

1 5 thi s propose d rule ? Today' s propose d rul e applie s t o th e Reinforce d Plastic s Composite s Productio nsourc e category . W e evaluate d th e us e o f subcategorie s base do nsiz e (i.e. , tp y o f HA P emitted) . Thes e subcategorie s playe da nimportan t rol e i ndefinin g th e ne wsourc e MAC T floors . However , w e ha d n o reason—L u believeth e availabl e dat a tha t w e use dt o develo p th e MAC T floo r fo r existin g sourc e MAC T floor s wer e size-dependent;—Lhat—rs**;—w e di dria l observ e any—differenc e xn—Ih e dala—fromsource s d o no t sho wsignifican t difference s betwee nlarger-emittin g versu s smaller-emittin g sources . Thus , w e di d no t g o throug ha separat e analysi s fo r eac h> subcategor yo f existin g sources . B . Wha t ar e th e primar ysource s o f HA P emission s an dwha t ar e th e emissions ? Th e primar ysourc e o f HA P emission s fro mth e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nsourc e categor yi s th e evaporatio no f styren e an dothe r organi c liqui dHA P containe d i nth e resi ndurin g th e applicatio nand/o r curin g o f th e resin . Sinc e styren e participate s i nth e curin g reaction , no t al l o f i t i s emitted . Th e HA P emission s als o occu r durin g ancillar yoperation s suc ha s cleaning , mixing/BM C manufacturing , an d storage . Tota l baselin e HA P emission s fro mth e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nsourc e categor yar e approximatel y22,20 0 tpy . Emission s fro mspra ylay-u p an dP.1 9

1 6 ge l coatin g constitut e approximatel y5 6 percen t an d1 9 percen t o f th e tota l baselin e emissions , respectively . Th e remainin g HA P emission s ar e primaril yfro mhan dlay

up/bucke t an d too l application , compressio n molding/injectio nmolding , filamen t winding , SM C manufacturing , an d centrifuga l casting . C . Wha t i s th e affecte dsource ? TUnde r thi s propose drule , th e affecte dsourc e irswoul d b e th e combinatio no f al l operation s regulate dunde r thes e standard s a t a reinforce d plasti c composite s productio n facility . Th e followin g regulate d operation s ar e typicall y performe d a t reinforce d plasti c composite s productio n facilitie s an d ar e par t o f th e affecte dsource : ope n molding , close d molding , centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/continuou s casting , polyme r casting , pultrusion , SM C manufacturing , equipmen t cleaning , BMC/manufacturing/mixing , an d storag e o f HA P containin g materials . D . Wha t ar e th e emissio nlimits , operatin g limits , an d othe r standards ? W e ar e proposin g th e requirement s o f thes e NESHA P i n th e for m

o f emissio nlimit s (i.e. , poin t value , mas s rate , o r percen t reduction) , operatin g limits , an dwor k practic e standards . Wor k practic e standard s includ e design , equipment , wor k practices , an doperationa l standards . I ndevelopin g propose drequirement s fo r reinforce dP.2 0

1 7 plasti c composite s affecte dsources , w e hav e provide da n alternativ e forma t wher e possible . Fo r example , a facilit y meetin g a 9 5 percen t emissio nreductio nrequiremen t fo r ope n moldin g processe s ca nalternativel ymee t a poin t value . W e hav e als o provide d alternative s fo r meetin g th e limit s fo r continuou s laminatio nan d continuou s castin g processes . W e ar e proposin g a threshol dfo r existin g source s t o distinguis hbetwee nsource s tha t woul dmee t th e floo r requirements , tha t ar e generall ybase do npollutio n prevention , an d thos e tha t woul dhav e t o mee t a mor e stringen t above-the-floo r requiremen t base do n9 5 percen t contro l o f HA P emissions . Fo r smal l businesses , th e threshol d i s 25 0 tp yo f combine d HA P emission s fo r ope n molding , centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/casting , pultrusion , an d SM C manufacturing . Th e definitio no f a smal l busines s fo r thi s sourc e categor yrange s fro m50 0 t o 100 0 employees . Mor e specifi c informatio no nth e definitio n o f a smal l busines s ma yb e foun di nth e discussio no f th e Regulator yFlexibilit yAc t i nth e Administrativ e Requirement s sectio no f thi s preamble . Fo r businesse s tha t ar e no t smal l businesses , th e threshol di s combine d emission s o f HA P o f 10 0 tp yfro mth e sam e operations . Fo r al l ope nmoldin g operation s (i.e. , corrosion

resistant , noncorrosion-resistant , tooling , an dge l coat ) an d centrifuga l castin g (corrosion-resistan t an d noncorrosion-resistant ) a t existin g source s belo wth eP.2 1

1 8 threshold , an d ne wsource s wit hHA P emission s les s tha n10 0 tpy , yo u mus t compl ywit ha HA P emissio nlimi t tha t i s calculate d fo r you r facilit yusin g MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s fo r eac hope nmoldin g an dcentrifuga l castin g operation . Fo r ope nmoldin g an d centrifuga l castin g operation s a t ne wsource s wit hHA P emission s equa l t o o r greate r tha n10 0 tpy , an dexistin g source s wit hHA P emission s equa l t o o r greate r tha nth e applicabl e threshold s (i.e. , 10 0 tp yfo r larg e businesse s an d25 0 tp yfo r smal l businesses) , w e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an d operator s t o reduc e emission s b y9 5 percen t fro mthes e operation s o r compl ywit ha correspondin g HA P emissio nlimi t calculate d usin g th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equations . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s o f continuou s lamination/continuou s castin g operation s a t existin g source s belo wth e above-the-floo r applicabilit y thresholds , an d ne wsource s wit hHA P emission s les s tha n10 0 tpy , t o reduc e emission s b y5 8 percent . Othe r ne wan d existin g source s mus t reduc e emission s b y9 5 percent . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s o f pultrusio noperation s a t existin g source s belo wth e above

the-floo r thresholds , an dne wsource s wit hHA P emission s les s tha n10 0 tpy , t o reduc e emission s b y6 0 percent . Thi s reductio ni s base d o napplyin g a we t enclosur e o r usin g direc t di e injectio nt o limi t emissions . Othe r ne wan d existin g source s mus t reduc e emission s b y9 5 percent .P.2 2

1 9 W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s a t bot hne wan d existin g source s usin g injection/compressio n moldin g operation s t o reduc e HA P emission s throug hth e us e o f a wor k practice , whereb yonl yon e charg e pe r machin e i s uncovered , unwrapped , o r expose dpe r mol dcycl e pe r compression/injectio nmoldin g machine . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s o f shee t moldin g compoun doperation s a t existin g source s belo w th e above-the-floo r thresholds , an d ne wsource s wit hHA P emission s les s tha n10 0 tpy , t o reduc e emission s b yusin g a nylo nfilm , o r fil m wit hequa l o r lowe r permeabilit yt o styrene , t o enclos e thei r SM C operation . Othe r ne wan d existin g source s mus t reduc e emission s b y9 5 percent . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s o f al l ne wan d existin g reinforce d plasti c composite s affecte d source s t o us e cleaner s containin g n o HAP . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e owner s an doperator s o f resi nmixin g an d bul k moldin g compoun doperation s a t existin g source s belo wth e above-the-floo r applicabilit y thresholds , an d new.source s wit hHA P emission s les s tha n10 0 tpy , t o limi t HA P emission s b ycoverin g mixer s suc htha t ther e ar e n o visibl e gaps . Fo r othe r ne wan dexistin g sources , w e ar e proposin g t o requir e tha t yo u reduc e emission s fro m

mixin g an d BM C manufacturin g b y9 5 percent . Fo r existin g source s tha t ar e subjec t t o th e above-the

floo r contro l leve l o f 9 5 percen t HA P emissio nreduction , w eP.2 3

2 0 examine d a nalternative , base d o npollutio nprevention , tha t woul d b e mor e effectiv e tha nth e requirement s o f th e MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources . However , w e wer e unabl e t o develo p a nacceptabl e alternativ e t o includ e i nth e propose d standard s tha t meet s th e statutor yrequirement s o f MACT . W e ar e solicitin g commen t o na possibl e alternative . W e ar e proposin g t o requir e al l owner s an doperator s a t an yexistin g o r ne waffecte d sourc e t o kee p al l organi c HAP
containin g storag e vessel s covered , excep t durin g th e additio no r remova l o f materials . E . Wha t i s th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e an dho wi s i t use di n thes e propose d NESHAP ? Th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e i s a numbe r calculate dfo r eac hope nmoldin g operatio nan d centrifuga l castin g operatio nan d i s a surrogat e fo r emissions . Th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e i s a wa yt o ran k th e relativ e performanc e o f differen t resi nan d ge l coa t emission s reductio ntechniques . Thi s approac hallow s yo u t o creat e contro l strategie s usin g differen t resi nan d ge l coa t emission s reductio ntechniques . Th e propose d standard s provid e equation s t o calculat e MAC T mode l poin t value s base do nHA P conten t an dapplicatio n metho d fo r eac hmateria l tha t yo u use . Thes e MAC T mode l poin t value s ar e the naverage dan d compare dt o limit s i nth e propose d standard s t o determin e i f you r ope nmoldin g operation s ar e i ncompliance . Th e MAC T mode l poin t value s hav e unit s o f pound s o f HA PP.2 4

2 1 pe r to no f resi no r ge l coa t applied . I t i s importan t t o not e tha t th e MAC T mode l poin t value s ar e surrogate s fo r emissions , an d th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s ar e use d onl yfo r determinin g complianc e wit hth e propose dReinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nNESHAP . Th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s canno t b e use di nplac e o f emissio nfacto r equation s t o demonstrat e complianc e wit hothe r regulations . Th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s onl yaccoun t fo r HA P conten t an d applicatio nmethod . Othe r factor s (includin g curin g time , par t thickness , an doperato r technique ) als o affec t emissions , an dthes e factor s ar e no t accounte d fo r i nth e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s fo r reason s discusse d i nsectio nIII-E . Determinin g th e HA P conten t o f material s an dth e metho d o f applicatio ni s relativel ysimple , an d thes e factor s ar e th e mos t significan t i naffectin g emissions.—I I i s muc hniuifc * difficult—t o determine—the—effects—o*f—other—facloib—o n emission s . For—Ihis—reason,—uther—factors—ar e nuL—include d in—Ih e MAC T mode l point—*/alu e equations . Mor e informatio n o nth e developmen t o f thi s mode l i s availabl e i nth e docket . F . Whe nmus t I compl ywit hthes e propose dNESHAP ? Existin g reinforce d plasti c composite s productio n operation s mus t compl ywithi n3 year s o f th e dat e th e promulgate d NESHA P ar e publishe di nth e Federa l Register . Ne waffecte d source s tha t startu p befor e th e promulgate d NESHA P ar e publishe d i nth e Federa l Registe r mus t compl yn oP.2 5

2 2 late r tha nth e effectiv e dat e o f th e NESHAP , whic hwil l b e th e sam e a s th e publicatio ndate . Ne waffecte dsource s tha t startu p afte r th e promulgate dNESHA P ar e publishe di nth e Federa l Registe r mus t compl yupo nstartup . Existin g are a source s tha t increas e thei r emission s o r thei r potentia l t o emi t suc htha t the ybecom e a majo r sourc e o f HA P mus t b e i n complianc e withi n3 year s o f th e dat e the ybecom e a majo r source . Ne ware a source s tha t becom e majo r source s o f HA P mus t compl yupo nbecomin g a majo r source . W e ar e proposin g t o provid e ne wan d existin g facilitie s 3 year s t o compl yfro mth e tim e thei r HA P emission s reac ho r excee d th e applicabilit ythreshold s requirin g th e installatio no f add-o ncontrols , i f thes e HA P emission s increase s occu r afte r thei r initia l complianc e date . W e ar e providin g thi s complianc e tim e fo r ne wan dexistin g source s unde r thes e circumstance s becaus e complyin g wit hth e add-o n contro l requirement s subsequen t t o you r initia l complianc e dat e woul d requir e th e sam e amoun t o f tim e a s fo r existin g source s tha t mus t instal l add-o ncontrol s withi n3 year s o f th e effectiv e dat e o f th e NESHAP . G . Wha t ar e myoption s fo r demonstratin g compliance ? Today' s propose dNESHA P provid e severa l option s fo r compliance . W e ar e providin g thes e option s t o affor d industr yth e flexibilit yt o decid e whic hmetho di s bes t suite d fo r eac hparticula r situation . 1 . Ope nMoldin g an d Centrifuga l Castin g Operations. .P.2 6

2 3 Fo r ope nmoldin g operation s a t existin g an dne w sources , thi s proposa l woul dallo wyo u mayt o choos e t o compl yb ymeetin g th e individua l MAC T poin t valu e fo r eac h operatio na t you r affecte dsource , o r b ymeetin g th e weighte d averag e MAC T poin t valu e fo r al l ope nmoldin g operation s a t you r affecte dsource . I naddition , i f yo u hav e an ycombinatio no f manua l resi napplication , mechanica l resi napplication , filamen t winding , o r centrifuga l castin g operation s a t you r affecte dsource , yo u maycoul dcompl yb y meetin g th e MAC T poin t valu e fo r an yon e o f thes e operation s an d b yusin g th e sam e resi nfo r al l th e othe r operations . Fo r ope nmoldin g an dcentrifuga l castin g operation s wher e yo u ar e requiredth e propose d rul e woul drequir e yo u t o mee t a percen t reduction , yo u maycoul dus e a nadd-o ncontro l devic e t o achiev e th e require d reductio no r yo u ma ychoos e t o mee t a MAC T poin t valu e tha t correspond s t o tha t particula r operation' s percen t reduction . 2 . Continuou s Casting/Laminatio nOperation s Fo r continuou s casting/laminatio noperation s a t existin g an d ne wsources , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u ma y choose—tocoul d demonstrat e tha t eac hcontinuou s castin g lin e an d eac hcontinuou s laminatio nlin e meet s th e appropriat e standard . Alternatively , yo u maycoul d averag e al l you r continuou s castin g an dcontinuou s laminatio nline s together , an d demonstrat e tha t the ymee t th e appropriat e standard . A n additiona l alternativ e irswoul d b e t o captur e you r emission sP.2 7

2 4 fro myou r wet-ou t are a i na permanen t tota l enclosur e tha t meet s EPA' s criteria , a s specifie d i nMetho d20 4 i nappendi x Mo f 4 0 CF Rpar t 51 , an dven t thes e wet-ou t emission s throug ha close d ven t syste mt o a contro l devic e achievin g 9 5 percen t reductio no f HA P emissions . TUnde r thi s propose d rule , thes e alternative s ma yalsocoul d b e use di n combinatio nt o demonstrat e compliance . 3 . Pultrusio nOperation s Fo r existin g an dne wpultrusio noperations , unde r thi s propose d rul e yo u maycoul d captur e an dven t you r emission s t o a contro l devic e tha t achieve s th e require dpercen t reductio no f HA P emissions . Yo u maycoul dals o elec t t o us e direc t di e injectio npultrusio nmachine s wit hresi ndri p collectio nsystem s tha t mee t th e criteri a specified . AW e ar e als o proposin g a nadditiona l alternativ e onl yavailabl e t o existin g sources-rs : th e us e o f a wet-are a enclosur e wit h a resi ndri p collectio nsystem . Fo r bot hne wan dexistin g sources , yo u maycoul d us e th e availabl e option s i n combinatio nt o achiev e complianc e unde r thi s propose drule . 4 . Ancillar yOperation s Fo r ancillar yoperation s a t al l sources , suc ha s cleaning , storage , an dmixing/BM C operation s a t existin g sources , th e onl yoptio navailablew e ar e proposin g i s t o compl ywit hth e specifie dwor k practic e standards . H . Wha t ar e th e testin g an dinitia l complianc e requirements ?P.2 8

2 5 W e ar e iequiiingproposin g t o reguir e owner s an d operator s o f al l affecte d source s whic hus e a contro l devic e t o demonstrat e complianc e t o conduc t a ninitia l performanc e tes t usin g specifie d EP Ates t methods . Th e owne r o r operato r woul d tes t a t th e inle t an doutle t o f th e contro l device , an d usin g thes e results , calculat e a percen t reduction . W e ar e als o requiringproposin g t o requir e owner s an d operator s tha t us e permanen t tota l enclosure s t o conduc t a desig nevaluatio na s specifie d b yEP AMetho d204 . I f you r enclosur e doe s no t mee t th e requirement s fo r a permanen t tota l enclosure , yo u mustwoul d nee d t o tes t th e enclosur e usin g EP AMethod s 2 04 B throug hE t o determin e th e captur e efficiency . Prio r t o th e initia l performanc e test , owner s an d operator s o f affecte d source s arewoul d b e require dt o instal l th e paramete r monitorin g equipmen t t o b e use dt o demonstrat e complianc e wit hth e operatin g limits . Durin g th e initia l performanc e test , th e owner s an doperator s woul d us e th e paramete r monitorin g equipmen t t o establis h operatin g paramete r limits . I . Wha t ar e th e continuou s complianc e requirements ? I f yo u us e a nadd-o ncontro l device , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u monito r an d recor dth e operatin g parameter s establishe d durin g th e initia l performanc e test , an d calculat e averag e operatin g paramete r value s average dove rP.2 9



### 2 6 th e perio d o f tim e specifie d i nthes e propose dNESHA P t o demonstrat e continuou s complianc e wit hth e operatin g limits . I f yo u us e th e MAC T poin t valu e syste mt o maintai na poin t valu e les s tha no r equa l t o th e appropriat e poin t valu e liste d i ntoday' s propose d NESHAP , w e ar e proposin g t o requir e tha t yo u calculat e th e poin t valu e on e tim e i f th e resi nuse d i nth e operatio nremain s th e same , o r calculat e th e poin t valu e o na 12-mont hrollin g averag e eac hmont hi f th e resi nvarie s betwee noperation s o r ove r time . I f yo u ar e complyin g wit hwor k practic e standards , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u demonstrat e complianc e wit hth e wor k practic e standard s i ntoday' s propose dNESHA P b yperformin g th e necessar ywor k practice s an d b ykeepin g a recor d certifyin g tha t yo u ar e i ncomplianc e wit hth e wor k practices . J . Wha t ar e th e notification , reporting , an drecordkeepin g requirements ? W e ar e proposin g tha t yo u submi t Initia l Notification , Notificatio no f Performanc e Tests , an dNotificatio no f Complianc e Statu s report s b yth e specifie ddate s i nth e propose d NESHAP , whic hma yvar ydependin g o nwhethe r th e affecte d sourc e i s ne wo r existing . Yo u mustwoul d als o nee dt o submi t semiannua l complianc e reports . I f yo u tak e actio ntha t i s inconsisten t wit hyou r approve d startup , shutdown , an d malfunctio n(SSM ) plan , the n yo u mus t woul d nee d t o submi t SS Mreport s withi n2 day s o fP.3 0

2 7 startin g suc haction , an dwithi n7 day s o f endin g suc h action . W e ar e proposin g tha t yo u kee p a cop yo f eac h notificatio nan d report , alon g wit hsupportin g documentation* : Yu u mus t fo r 5 years . O f thi s time , th e firs t tw o year s mus t b e on-site . Yo u woul dnee dt o kee p record s relate d t o SSM , record s o f performanc e tests , an d record s fo r eac hcontinuou s paramete r monitorin g system . -fUnde r thi s propose d rule , i f yo u mus t compl ywit hth e wor k practic e standard s i ntoday' s propose dNESHAP , yo u mustwoul d als o nee d t o kee p record s certifyin g tha t yo u ar e i n complianc e wit hth e wor k practice s fo r 5 years . I f yo u ar e usingus e th e MAC T poin t valu e syste mt o demonstrat e compliance , yo u mustwoul d nee d t o kee p al l data , assumptions , an d calculation s use dt o determin e you r MAC T poin t value . Fo r ne wan dexistin g continuou s lamination/castin g operations , yo u mustwoul d als o nee dt o kee p th e followin g record s whe ncomplyin g wit hth e percen t reductio no r poun d pe r to nrequirements : al l data , assumptions , an d calculation s use dt o determin e th e percen t reductio nand/o r pound s pe r ton , a s applicable ; a brie f descriptio no f th e rational e fo r th e assignmen t o f a n equatio no r facto r t o eac hformula ; al l data , assumptions , an d calculation s use dt o deriv e facility-specifi c emissio n estimation s an d factors ; identificatio nan drational e fo r th e worst-cas e scenario ; an ddocumentatio ntha t th eP.3 1

2 8 appropriat e regulator yagenc yha s approve dal l emissio n estimatio nequation s an d factors . III . Rational e fo r Propose dNESHA P A . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e sourc e categor yt o regulate ? Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nwa s include d o nth e initia l lis t o f sourc e categorie s publishe do nJul y 16 , 199 2 (5 7 F R31576) . I nestablishin g th e sourc e categor y list , w e state d tha t w e woul drefin e categor ydescription s durin g th e rulemakin g process , i f necessary , base do n additiona l informatio navailable . W e di dno t fin di t necessar yt o refin e th e sourc e categor ydescriptio nfo r Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Production . However , w e di d defin e a numbe r o f differen t proces s grouping s i norde r t o develo p representativ e MAC T floor s a s describe di nth e sectio no nMAC T floo r development . B . Wha t pollutant s ar e regulate d unde r thes e propose d NESHAP ? Th e propose d NESHA P regulat e tota l HA P rathe r tha n individua l HA P compounds . Standard s fo r tota l HA P simplif y complianc e an d enforcemen t compare d wit hstandard s fo r individua l HA P compounds . Styren e i s th e HA P emitte di nth e larges t magnitude . Othe r HA P emitte dfro mreinforce d. plasti c composite s productio nfacilitie s includ e MM Aan d methylen e chloride . C . Wha t i s th e "affecte d source " an dho wdi dEP Aselec t th e operation s t o b e regulate d b ythes e propose dNESHAP ?P.3 2

2 9 T o provid e complianc e flexibility , w e define dth e affecte d sourc e a s th e combinatio no f al l reinforce dplasti c composite s operation s a t a site . Thi s broa dsourc e definitio nallow s a manufacture r t o determin e complianc e b y averagin g th e HA P conten t o f differen t product s use d throughou t th e facility , withi ncertai ndefine doperations , an d t o us e differen t applicatio ntechnique s a s neede dt o mee t produc t qualit yspecifications . D . Wha t i s a ne waffecte dsource ?

• Ane waffecte d sourc e i s an yreinforce dplasti c composite s productio nfacilit ytha t meet s bot ho f thes e criteria :

• I t commence dconstructio nafte r today' s date ; an d

• I t i s a t a sit e tha t doe s no t presentl ycontai n anyreinforce dplasti c composite s productio n operations . I nsectio n11 2 o f th e CAA , th e definitio no f ne w source s als o include s stationar ysource s tha t commenc e reconstructio nafte r th e publicatio ndat e o f a propose d NESHAP . Th e Smal l Busines s Advocac yRevie w(SBAR ) Pane l recommende d tha t w e carefull yrevie wou r definitio no f reconstructio nfo r thi s industry . A s define di nth e Genera l Provision s fo r 4 0 CF Rpar t 63 , "reconstruction " mean s th e replacemen t o f component s o f a naffected , o r a previousl y unaffected , stationar ysourc e t o suc ha nexten t that : (1 ) th e fixe d capita l cos t o f th e ne wcomponent s exceed s 5 0P.3 3

3 0 percen t o f th e fixe d capita l cos t tha t woul db e require dt o construc t a comparabl e ne wsource ; an d(2 ) i t i s technologicall yan d economicall yfeasibl e fo r th e reconstructe d sourc e t o mee t th e relevan t standard s (a s establishe d b yth e Administrato r o r a State ) pursuan t t o sectio n11 2 o f th e CAA . W e envisio ntha t th e type s o f change s tha t woul d typicall yoccu r a t existin g facilitie s woul dbeinclud e replacemen t o f spra yequipmen t an d molds . W e d o no t believ e tha t i t woul d b e technologicall yan deconomicall yfeasibl e fo r a nexistin g sourc e makin g thes e type s o f change s t o mee t ne wsourc e MACT . Thus , suc hchange s d o no t mee t th e definitio no f reconstructio ni nth e Genera l Provision s an d woul d no t subjec t th e source s makin g suc hchange s t o ne w sourc e MACT . E . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e MAC T floo r fo r existin g sources ? Severa l consideration s underli e ou r MAC T floo r determinations . Thes e consideration s include : if/ho wth e sourc e categor yi s t o b e subcategorized , ho wemission s type s withi nth e affecte d sourc e ar e t o b e analyzed , an dwha t ar e th e bes t performin g sources . W e identifie d 43 3 facilitie s tha t ar e majo r source s base d o nthei r potentia l t o emi t o r hav e th e potentia l t o b e majo r source s base d o ncollocatio nwit hothe r HAP-emittin g processe s no t par t o f thi s sourc e category .P.3 4

3 1 I f technica l difference s i nemission s characteristics , processes , contro l devic e applicability , o r opportunitie s fo r pollutio npreventio nexis t withi nth e sourc e category , i t ma yb e appropriat e t o se t separat e floor s base do nthes e characteristics . I nanalyzin g th e availabl e dat a o nthi s sourc e category , i t wa s apparen t tha t reinforce dplasti c composit e facilities , a s a whole , ar e extremel ydivers e i n thei r emission s characteristics , contro l devic e applicability , an d opportunitie s fo r pollutio nprevention . Therefore , w e explore d variou s way s o f groupin g th e i operation s tha t ma yb e presen t a t thes e facilities . Fo r existin g sources , i t wa s apparen t tha t almos t al l o f th e existin g sourc e floor s woul db e base do npollution

preventio ntechnique s suc ha s lowerin g th e HA P conten t i n resin s an d ge l coats , coverin g bath s an dcontainer s holdin g resins , an d usin g nonatomize dspra yapplications . Th e exten t an d performanc e o f pollution-preventio ntechnique s ar e dependen t o nth e specifi c operation . Fo r thi s reason , th e dat a wer e subdivide db yspecifi c operation , an da floo r fo r eac hoperatio nwa s developed . Operation s wer e segregate db ysevera l factors . Th e firs t wa s mol d typ e (i.e. , open , partiall yopen , an d closed) . W e als o segregate doperation s b yresi nan dge l coa t applicatio nmethod ; thes e includ e mechanical , manual , filamen t winding , an d centrifuga l casting . Th e typ e o f mol d an d resi napplicatio nmetho d impact s th e emissio npotentia lP.3 5

3 2 o f a particula r operatio nan d als o th e effectivenes s an d applicabilit yo f differen t contro l techniques . W e als o segregate d continuou s operation s suc ha s pultrusion , continuou s lamination , continuou s casting , an dth e manufactur e o f shee t moldin g compound . Th e fina l criteri a use dwa s produc t type . Th e require d propertie s o f th e fina l produc t plac e certai nconstraint s o n th e ra wmaterial s tha t ca nb e used . This , i nturn , influence s th e limit s o nlevel s o f HA P i nth e ra wmaterials . W e identifie d severa l produc t criteri a wher e th e ra w material s require d t o produc e th e produc t ar e dissimila r enoug htha t a separat e floo r determinatio nwa s required . Th e firs t i s corrosio nresistance . Reinforce dplasti c composite s ca ngenerall yb e divide d int o tw o types-
- corrosion-resistah t an d noncorrosion-resistan t products . Corrosion-resistan t product s requir e resin s specificall y formulate d fo r corrosion-resistan t applications . W e als o include d high-strengt happlication s i nth e corrosion

resistan t grouping . Thes e application s includ e product s suc ha s structura l member s an d utilit ypoles . These'requir e resin s wit hhighe r HA P content s tha ngenera l purpos e resins . Th e highe r HA P content s fo r bot hcorrosion-resistan t an d high-strengt happlication s ar e necessar yt o produc e a laminat e wit ha greate r concentratio no f styren e cross linking . Thi s highe r leve l o f cross-linkin g i s necessar y fo r eithe r corrosion-resistanc e o r high-strength .P.3 6

3 3 W e als o separate dge l coat s fro mresin s becaus e thes e material s hav e significantl ydifferen t function s i nth e fina l produc t an d ar e formulate ddifferently . Ge l coat s wer e furthe r subdivide d int o clear , whit e an doff-white , an d othe r colors . Clea r ge l coat s requir e significantl yhighe r HA P conten t tha npigmente d ge l coats , an dare , therefore , unabl e t o b e formulate d t o th e sam e HA P levels . Whit e an d off-whit e ge l coat s ca nb e formulate dt o lowe r HA P content s o na weight-percen t basi s tha nothe r color s du e t o th e fac t tha t whit e pigment s ar e heavie r tha nothe r colo r pigments . Clas s 1 fir e an dsmok e rate dproduct s wer e separate d fro mothe r product s becaus e thei r uniqu e propertie s requir e a resi nwit ha significantl yhighe r HA P conten t tha nan y othe r products . Separatin g Clas s 1 fir e an dsmok e rate d product s wa s als o on e o f th e recommendation s o f th e SBAR Panel . Toolin g resin s an dge l coat s ar e use dt o mak e th e mold s that , i nturn , ar e use dt o produc e reinforce dplasti c parts . Mold s mus t hav e differen t propertie s compare dt o th e product s the yar e use d t o produce . Thes e includ e a hig h leve l o f dimensiona l stabilit yan dresistanc e t o hea t compare d t o othe r reinforce d plasti c composites . Therefore , separat e floor s wer e develope d fo r toolin g resin s an dge l coats . Onc e th e dat a wer e subdivide d b yspecifi c operation , th e dat a wer e ranke d b yHA P emissions . Ope nmoldin g an dP.3 7

3 4 centrifuga l castin g operation s wer e ranke dbase do na surrogat e emissio nfacto r calle d a poin t value . A s previousl ydiscussed , poin t value s ar e base do nresi nan d ge l coa t applicatio nmetho d an dHA P content , an dprovid e a relativ e measur e o f emission s betwee noperation s wit h varyin g resi nan d ge l coa t HA P content s an dapplicatio n method s . Data—L u quantify—th e impact s o f other—factors—tha t ma y Othe r factor s suc ha s ge l time , par t thickness , applicatio ntemperature , an d operato r techniqu e als o affec t emission s ar e riot—easily—obLairiabl e an dwer e nu t availabl e •for—Lhi s analysis . . However , ther e i s les s dat a availabl e t o determin e th e effect s o f thes e factor s i na productio n setting . I naddition , som e o f thes e factors , suc ha s par t thickness , ar e inheren t t o th e proces s an dcanno t b e change d withou t changin g th e fina l product . Fo r thi s reason , othe r factor s ar e no t include di nth e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equations . Th e poin t valu e syste mwa s als o develope dt o allo wa facilit yt o averag e differen t operation s togethe r t o mee t th e applicabl e propose dstandards . Th e abilit yt o averag e i s intende d t o provides * additiona l complianc e flexibility . Th e individua l operation s wer e the nranke dbase do nth e poin t valu e (fo r ope nmoldin g and ' centrifuga l casting) , percen t o f emissio nreductio n(pultrusion , continuou s lamination/casting , SM C manufacturing) , coverin g ope nP.3 8

3 5 container s o r expose dresi n(storage , BM C manufacturing/mixing , injection/compressio nmolding) , o r th e us e o nnon-HA P cleanin g solvent s (equipmen t cleaning) . Th e media nfacilit yo f th e to p 1 2 percen t (o r to p 5 fo r operation s wit hles s tha n3 0 sources ) wa s the nselecte da s representin g th e existin g sourc e floor . Fo r som e o f thes e operations , th e availabl e dat a wer e insufficien t t o perfor ma ranking . Thes e wer e non-whit e pigmente d ge l coats , product s wit ha Clas s 1 fir e an dsmok e rating , an d high-strengt hproducts . W e identifie d tw o facilitie s tha t produc e product s tha t requir e a Clas s 1 fir e an dsmok e rating . Bot hfacilitie s us e a resi nwit ha 6 0 percen t HA P content . W e chos e us e o f thi s resi na s th e floor . Fro ma 6 0 percen t HA P resin , w e calculate d differen t poin t value s fo r mechanical , manual , an d filamen t windin g resi napplication . Th e dat a w e use d t o se t floor s fo r pigmente dge l coat s wer e weighte d average s reporte db yth e facilities . Thi s dat a include d som e informatio no ncolors , bu t no t enoug h facilitie s reporte d colo r informatio nt o perfor ma meaningfu l ranking . Becaus e o f th e predominanc e o f whit e an d off-whit e ge l coats , thes e dat a ar e no t representativ e fo r othe r colors . However , man yfacilitie s offe r othe r colors . Th e pigment s use di nwhit e an doff-whit e ge l coat s ar e muc hdense r tha nth e pigment s use di nothe r colors . Fo r tha t reason , weigh t percen t HA P i nwhit e an doff-whit e ge lP.3 9

3 6 coat s tend s t o b e lower . Afloo r base do nwhit e an doff

whit e ge l coa t HA P content s woul d preclud e a facilit yusin g othe r colors . Base d o nindustr ycomment s an d th e recommendatio no f th e SBARpanel , w e determine d tha t a HA P conten t o f 3 7 percen t i s th e minimu mtha t woul dprovid e acceptabl e ge l coa t performanc e fo r ge l coat s wit hcolor s othe r the nwhit e an d off-white . I nth e absenc e o f an yothe r data , w e adopte d a 3 7 percen t HA P ye l coa t a s th e floo r fo r thes e ge l coats . Th e 3 7 percen t HA P conten t wa s converte dt o a poin t valu e usin g th e appropriat e poin t valu e equation . (Se e th e fina l repor t o f th e SBARPane l i nth e docket. ) W e reques t comment s an d supportin g dat a o nth e appropriatenes s o f 3 7 percen t a s a minimu m HA P conten t fo r acceptabl e performanc e fo r ge l coat s wit hcolor s othe r tha nwhit e an doff-white . Th e dat a supplie db yindustr ydi dno t differentiat e product s tha t requir e highe r tha ntypica l strengt h properties . Therefore , w e coul d no t determin e a floo r wit h th e facilit ydat a base . W e discusse dthi s issu e a s par t o f th e SBARPane l wit hsevera l manufacturer s tha t produc e high

strengt hproducts . W e als o reviewe dth e requirement s o f Sout hCoas t Ai r Qualit yManagemen t Distric t Rul e 1162 . Rul e 116 2 specificall yaddresse s high-strengt hproduct s an d contain s th e sam e requirement s fo r high-strengt hproduct s an d corrosion-resistan t products . A s a result , w e determine d usin g th e dat a fo r corrosion-resistan t resin sP.4 0

3 7 woul d b e th e mos t appropriat e wa yt o determin e floor s fo r high-strengt hproducts . Therefore , w e ar e proposin g th e sam e floor s fo r high-strengt hproduct s an dcorrosion

resistan t product s are—th e same . Thi s i s consisten t wit ha recommendatio no f th e SBARPanel . W e solici t comment s o n thi s approach . Ther e ar e man yfacilitie s tha t us e multipl e operation s t o produc e a product . A nexampl e o f thi s woul db e a facilit yproducin g corrosion-resistan t tank s usin g filamen t windin g t o produc e th e mai ncircula r portion , mechanica l resi napplicatio nfo r th e tan k ends , an dmanua l resi n applicatio nt o joi nth e part s together . Industr y representative s pointe d ou t tha t th e floor s w e ha ddevelope d fro mth e dat a bas e woul d potentiall yrequir e a facilit yt o us e thre e differen t resin s t o produc e a singl e product . Thi s coul d potentiall ylea dt o problem s o f resi n compatibilit yan d produc t failures . Th e SBARPane l repor t include d a recommendatio ntha t w e allo wa facilit yt o us e th e sam e resi nfo r al l processes . A s a result , w e reexamine dth e floor s fo r facilitie s wit hmultipl e processes . W e determine dthat , base do nth e dat a available , th e appropriat e approac hwoul db e t o hav e a provisio ni nth e propose d standard s t o allo wa facilit yt o selec t on e operation , determin e th e resi nthe ycoul dus e t o mee t th e floor , an d the nus e tha t sam e resi ni nal l othe r operations . W e di d no t hav e th e dat a t o determin e wha t tha tP.4 1

3 8 operatio nshoul d b e i nal l cases , s o w e ar e no t specifyin g a particula r operatio ni nth e propose dstandards . W e assume d tha t a facilit ywoul d selec t th e operatio ntha t allow s the m t o us e th e highes t HA P conten t resin . A t th e recommendatio no f th e SBARPanel , w e als o reexamine d th e floor s fo r toolin g resins . Severa l o f th e smal l entit yrepresentative s tha t advise dth e pane l state d tha t th e propose d floo r fo r toolin g resin s wil l resul t i n inferio r qualit ytools . W e believ e tha t th e curren t floo r fo r toolin g resin s allow s sufficien t flexibilit yi nresi n HA P conten t a s lon g a s th e resi nca nb e applie dwit h nonatomize d spra ytechnology . W e ar e specificall y solicitin g commen t o nth e applicabilit yo f nonatomize dspra y technolog yt o toolin g resins . Base d o nan ycomments , w e inten d t o furthe r examin e th e floo r fo r toolin g resins . F . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e MAC T floo r fo r ne wsources ? I ndevelopin g th e floo r fo r ne wsources , w e develope d tw o subcategories--source s wit hemission s o f 10 0 tp yo r abov e an d source s wit hemission s belo w10 0 tpy . Ou r reaso n fo r examinin g source s wit hemission s belo w10 0 tp y separatel yi s tha t suc hfacilitie s ar e likel yt o hav e mor e difficult ymaintainin g an d operatin g add-o ncontrol s tha n larger-emittin g sources , an d w e ar e unsur e o f th e performanc e o f add-o ncontrol s a t thes e facilities . Separatin g th e dat a int o larg e an d smal l HAP-emittin g source s fo r developin g ne wsourc e MAC T floor s wa s als o on eP.4 2



### 3 9 o f th e recommendation s o f th e SBARPanel . I nexaminin g th e facilitie s wit hemission s o f 10 0 tp y o r more , w e foun d threetw o facilitie s tha t contro l emission s fro m ope nmoldin g an dmixin g b y9 5 percen t overall . Thes e facilitie s rang e i nsiz e fro mapproximatel y10 0 tp yt o 1,000100 0 tp yo f HA P emission s prio r t o th e add-o ncontro l device . Thi s leve l o f contro l wa s chose na s th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r ope nmoldin g an d mixin g a t facilitie s wit h 10 0 tp yo r mor e o f uncontrolle d emissions. - W e als o considere dwhethe r t o evaluat e th e applicabilit yo f add-o ncontrol s t o eac ho f th e differen t operation s a s wa s don e i s settin g floor s fo r existin g sources . Th e tw o facilitie s tha t contro l emission s b y9 5 percen t hav e operation s includin g ge l coa t an dmechanica l resi napplication . Th e performanc e an dcos t o f add-o n control s i s mainl ya functio no f ai r flow s an dHA P concentratio nfro mth e process . W e hav e n o dat a t o sugges t tha t th e ai r flow s an d HA P concentration s presen t i nothe r ope nmoldin g productio nprocesse s i nthi s industr yar e no t adequatel yrepresente db ythes e thre e facilities . Th e tw o facilitie s produc e part s tha t rang e i nsiz e fro mtha t o f bathtub s t o truc k caps . I t i s possibl e tha t large r siz e part s ma yrequir e large r enclosures . W e hav e no t identifie d anyfacilitie s i nth e reinforce dplasti c composite s industr ywher e processe s producin g larg e parts , suc ha s storag e tank s an dswimmin g pools , hav e applie d10 0P.4 3

4 0 percen t efficien t captur e systems . However , w e hav e identifie d facilitie s usin g 10 0 percen t efficien t captur e system s tha t appl ycoating s t o larg e part s suc ha s helicopter s an d ships . Thes e coatin g operation s hav e simila r issue s o f larg e ai r flow s (du e t o worke r exposur e concerns ) an d lo woutle t HA P emissio nconcentrations . Base d o nthis , w e believ e tha t i t i s technicall yfeasibl e t o appl y 10 0 percen t efficien t captur e system s t o large r part s i nth e reinforce d plasti c composite s industry . W e evaluate d th e applicabilit yo f th e 9 5 percen t contro l leve l a s th e new . sourc e floo r fo r othe r operations . Centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/casting , pultrusion , an d SM C manufacturin g ar e simila r i nemission s characteristic s t o ope nmolding . Ther e ar e fiv e facilitie s tha t hav e applie d highl yefficien t add-o ncontrol s t o thes e operations , wit hoveral l contro l efficiencie s rangin g fro m 9 0 t o 9 5 percent . Fo r thi s reason , w e chos e 9 5 percen t contro l a s th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r thes e operation s a t facilitie s wit huncontrolle d emission s o f a t leas t 10 0 tpy . W e als o considere d whethe r th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r th e previousl ymentione d operation s shoul db e incorporatio no f th e pollution-preventio nmeasure s tha t mak e u p th e existin g sourc e floors , combine dwit h9 5 percen t control . Thi s approac hwoul d actuall yresul t i na highe r overal l emission s reduction . I naddition , incorporatin g th e pollutio npreventio nmeasure s woul d reduc e th e potentia l fo rP.4 4

4 1 worke r exposur e i nsituation s wher e processe s hav e t o b e enclose d t o mee t th e 9 5 percen t contro l requirement . However , w e determine dtha t selectin g incorporatio no f pollution-preventio ntechnique s i nadditio nt o th e 9 5 percen t contro l requiremen t a s th e ne wsourc e floo r wa s no t appropriat e becaus e th e facilitie s tha t incorporat e 9 5 percen t control , whic hw e determine drepresen t th e bes t controlle d facilities , d o no t als o incorporat e th e bes t pollutio npreventio ntechniques . Therefore , combinin g th e pollution-preventio nrequirement s wit hth e 9 5 percen t contro l requirement s woul d actuall yresul t i na noveral l contro l leve l tha t exceed s th e level s a t th e bes t controlle d facilities . W e ar e stil l consideringrequestin g commen t o nwhethe r th e ne wsourc e floo r fo r facilitie s tha t mus t mee t th e 9 5 percen t contro l requirement s shoul d als o incorporat e th e pollution-preventio nrequirements-—ari d reques t coimuuiiL u n Lliib—issue . W e als o reques t tha t commentor s provid e an y availabl e dat a o nworke r exposur e tha t woul dhel p u s quantif yth e benefit s o f incorporatin g pollution-preventio n requirement s wit hth e 9 5 percen t contro l requirements . W e didar e no t selectproposin g 9 5 percen t contro l fo r close d molding , polyme r casting , equipmen t cleaning , an d resi nstorage , whic hhav e muc hlowe r emission s tha nth e othe r type s o f operations . On e o f th e facilitie s tha t set s th e ne wsourc e floo r ha s a close d moldin g operatio no nsite .P.4 5

4 2 Thi s operatio ni s no t controlled . W e di didentif yothe r type s o f control s fo r thes e processes . Fo r compression/injectio nmolding , whic hi s a typ e o f close d molding , th e onl yidentifie dcontro l wa s th e wor k practic e o f uncoverin g on e charg e a t a time . Therefore , thi s wa s chose na s th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r thi s operationcompression/injectio nmolding . Fo r polyme r castin g an d resi ntransfe r molding , w e wer e no t abl e t o identif yany applicabl e contro l techniques . Thus , th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r thes e source s i s n o control . Fo r equipmen t cleaning , th e propose dne wsourc e floo r i s base d o nus e o f cleaner s wit hn o HAP . O f th e 43 3 facilitie s tha t reporte d informatio no ncleaning , 35 3 reporte d usin g n o cleanin g material s containin g HAP . However , w e ar e no t regulatin g solvent s use dfo r cleanin g cure d resi no r ge l coa t fro mapplicatio nequipmen t becaus e w e kno wo f n o HA P emissio ncontrols . Cure dresi no r ge l coa t insid e a gu ni s usuall yth e resul t o f operato r erro r o r a nequipmen t failure . T o clea ncure dresi nan dge l coat , a n aggressiv e solven t i s needed , an d n o low-HA P alternative s ar e available . Th e equipmen t i s usuall ysoake di na covere d bucke t resultin g i nlittl e evaporatio no f th e solvent . Th e amoun t o f solven t neede d pe r yea r i s determine db yth e siz e o f th e facility , degre e o f operato r error , an dequipmen t failur e rates . Becaus e operato r erro r an dequipmen t failur e ar e har d t o predict , w e coul ddetermin e n o basi s fo r a nP.4 6

4 3 annua l limi t o f solven t usag e tha t woul db e achievabl e b y al l facilities . Thes e propose dNESHAP , therefore , allo w HAP-containin g solvent s onl yfo r cleanin g cure dresi nan d ge l coa t fro mth e applicatio nequipment . Ove r 25 0 facilitie s reporte dcoverin g storag e containers . W e selecte dcoverin g storag e container s a s th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r storage . W e identifie dtw o facilitie s tha t ven t th e storag e area s t o a contro l device ; however , w e determine d tha t th e availabl e dat a ar e insufficien t t o quantif yadditiona l emission s reduction s tha t woul d resul t fro mcontrollin g storag e tank s an d container s b y9 5 percen t versu s jus t coverin g th e storag e tank s an d containers . W e calculate d separat e floor s fo r facilitie s wit hles s tha n10 0 tp yo f emission s fro mope nmolding , centrifuga l castin g continuou s lamination/casting , pultrusion , SM C manufacturing , an d BM C manufacturing/mixing . Thoug hther e ar e facilitie s wit hemission s belo w10 0 tp ytha t hav e add-o n controls , dat a wer e no t availabl e t o substantiat e thei r leve l o f control . Therefore , w e coul dno t stat e tha t the y achieve d a leve l o f contro l abov e tha t achieve db yth e pollution-preventio ntechniques , an dthus , mee t th e definitio no f bes t controlle dfacilities . Also , smaller

emittin g facilitie s ten d t o operat e wit hfewe r shift s tha n large r ones . Th e mor e frequen t startup s an dshutdown s coul d ten d t o mak e i t mor e difficul t t o maintai nan doperat e add

-P.4 7

4 4 o ncontrol s compare d t o larger-emittin g facilities . Fo r thes e reasons , th e floo r fo r ne wsource s wit hles s tha n10 0 tp yo f emission s i s base do npollution-preventio n techniques .

Fo r thes e smaller-emittin g facilities , w e ar e settingproposin g t o se t th e ne wsourc e MAC T floo r a t th e sam e leve l a s th e existin g sourc e MAC T floor . Thi s approac h wa s recommende d b yth e SBARPanel . W e believ e th e existin g sourc e MAC T floo r represent s th e greates t degre e of • emission s reductio ntha t i s achievabl e fo r smal l facilitie s unde r al l circumstances . Fo r ne wsources , th e CAArequire s th e MAC T floo r t o b e base do nth e HA P emission s contro l achieve d i npractic e b yth e bes t controlle dsimila r source , a s determine d b yth e Administrator . Th e reinforce dplasti c composite s industr yi s extraordinaril ydiverse . Th e product s produced , eve ni nth e sam e operation , ca ninclud e skylights , bathtubs , an dpart s fo r automobiles . Give nthi s diversity , i t i s difficul t t o identif yth e "bes t controlled " source . Product s manufacture d b ythi s industr ygenerall y mus t mee t certai nminima l strengt han ddurabilit y requirements . Th e HA P conten t o f th e resi ni s a facto r i n meetin g suc hrequirements . Us e o f a resi nwit ha give nHA P conten t ma yb e th e mos t stringen t leve l o f contro l possibl e fo r a particula r process , whil e i t ma yb e possibl e t o us e a lower-HA P resi ni na differen t proces s withou t jeopardizin g th e strengt ho r durabilit yo f th e product .P.4 8

4 5 Whil e som e facilitie s ar e usin g lower-HA P material s an d technique s tha nrepresente db yth e existin g sourc e MAC T floor , w e d o no t believ e tha t thes e example s ar e universall y applicabl e t o al l ne wreinforce dplasti c composite s manufacturers . W e hav e n o dat a t o precisel ydefin e th e particula r combinatio no f requirement s wher e thes e lower

emittin g option s ca nb e use dan dstil l maintai nth e minimu m require d strengt han ddurabilit yrequirement s o f thes e products . Consequently , w e hav e se t th e propose dfloo r a t th e mos t stringen t leve l tha t w e hav e determine dal l source s emittin g les s tha n10 0 tp yca nachieve . W e di d no t fin d tha t th e quantit yo f HA P emission s fro m th e sourc e ha d an yeffec t o nit s abilit yt o incorporat e pollution-preventio ntechnology , o r o nth e effectivenes s o f thes e technologies . Fo r tha t reason , w e di dno t subdivid e th e dat a fo r existin g source s wher e th e floor s ar e base d mainl yo npollutio nprevention . Durin g th e SBARPane l discussions , man yo f th e smal l entit yrepresentative s expresse d concer nregardin g th e affordability . an d technica l feasibilit yo f add-o ncontrols , an d commente d tha t the yma yb e abl e t o achiev e simila r HA P reduction s usin g pollution-preventio nmeasures , whic hten d t o b e les s expensive . Fo r example , i f a facilit ycoul d reduc e it s emission s b y5 0 percen t eac hyea r fo r 3 year s usin g th e pollution-preventio nalternative , i t ma yb e abl e t o achiev e reduction s simila r t o therma l oxidatio n(nearl yP.4 9

4 6 9 0 percen t versu s 9 5 percent) . Th e pane l recommende dtha t EP Aexplor e wit hindustr yth e possibilit yo f a mor e stringen t pollution-preventio noptio na s a nalternativ e t o add-o ncontrols . Th e pane l believe dtha t thi s optio nshoul d b e mor e stringen t tha nth e pollution-preventio ntechnolog y presen t i nth e curren t existin g sourc e MAC T floors . W e discusse d wit hindustr yth e possibilit yo f a pollution-preventio ncontro l optio ni nlie u o f add-o n controls . W e wer e unabl e t o develo p a noption ' tha t w e believ e meet s th e statutor yrequirement s o f MACT . However , w e ar e solicitin g commen t o na possibl e pollution-preventio n alternativ e t o th e 9 5 percen t HA P reductio nrequirement . Th e specifi c informatio nw e ar e seekin g i s th e maximu mleve l o f contro l tha t ca nb e achieve db ypollutio nprevention , an d th e tim e necessar yt o incorporat e pollution-preventio n techniques . Th e pollution-preventio ntechnique s o f whic hw e ar e awar e includ e lo wHA P resin s an d ge l coats , nonatomize d resi nan d ge l coa t applications , vapo r suppresse dresins , vacuu m bagging , accelerate d resi ncuring , an dconversio no f ope nmoldin g processe s t o close d molding . W e ar e solicitin g informatio no nothe r pollution-preventio ntechnique s o f whic hw e ar e no t aware , an d informatio no nth e maximu mleve l o f emission s reduction s achievabl e b ythes e techniques . Th e genera l concep t o f a nalternativ e woul db e a facilit ytha t elect s t o us e thi s optio nt o submi t notificatio nt o th e appropriat e permittin g authorit yo fP.5 0

4 7 thei r intent . Th e facilit ywoul dthe nhav e t o submi t a pla n t o mee t specifi c emission s reduction s throug hpollutio n• prevention . Th e pla nwoul doutlin e th e technique s the y inten d t o use , th e researc han dtestin g required , an da schedul e wit hannua l milestone s fo r achievin g th e goal . I nth e nex t step , th e facilit ywoul d calculat e a n overal l emissio nfacto r fo r al l processe s a t th e facilit y tha t ar e require d t o mee t th e 9 5 percen t emissio nreduction . Onc e a facilit yhas•determine d a bas e yea r emissio n factor , the ywoul d b e require dt o incorporat e th e pollution

preventio ntechnique s outline d i nth e pla nan dmak e annua l report s o f progress . I f a facilit ywa s unabl e t o mee t a n interi m

milestone , the ywoul d b e require dt o provid e a n update d pla nwithi na specifie dtime . W e ar e als o solicitin g commen t o ndeterminatio no f a bas e yea r an d baselin e emissio nfactor , an dreportin g requirements . G . Di d w e conside r contro l option s mor e stringen t tha nth e MAC T floor ? Fo r existin g sources , a nabove-the-floo r contro l leve l wa s evaluate d whic hwa s base do nth e ne wsourc e floo r fo r source s wit hemission s o f 10 0 tp yo r more . Thi s above-the

floo r contro l leve l woul drequir e 9 5 percen t contro l o f HA P emission s fro m

al l ope nmolding , centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/casting , pultrusion , SM C manufacturing , an d resi nmixing/BM C manufacturing .P.5 1

4 8 W e the nlooke d a t severa l options . Thes e wer e selectin g th e floo r leve l o f contro l a s MAC T fo r al l facilities , selectin g th e above-the-floo r leve l a s MAC T fo r al l facilities , o r choosin g a nalternativ e wher e facilitie s a t o r abov e a certai nHA P emission s quantit ywoul dmee t th e above-the-floo r level , an dth e res t woul dmee t th e floor . I nlookin g a t thi s thir dalternative , w e als o evaluate d differen t HA P emissio nthresholds . Th e optio no f havin g al l facilitie s mee t th e above-the

floo r leve l o f contro l ha d a reasuiiablea nincrementa l cos t effectiveness* : Howeve r rati o o f $4 , whe nw e performe d t30 0 pe r to no f HA P emissio nreduction . Th e economi c analysi s fo r thi s option r indicate d tha t 1 2 6 smal l businesse s woul d b e impacte d a t a leve l o f 3 percen t o f sale s o r more , an d ther e wer e 9 0 projecte d closure s o f smal l businesses . W e believ e tha t th e benefi t o f controllin g al l existin g source s t o thi s leve l i s no t commensurat e wit hth e economi c impacts . Therefore , w e didar e no t cho.oseproposin g thi s alternativ e a s MACT . W e the nlooke d a t a combinatio no f th e MAC T floo r fo r facilitie s belo wa specifie dHA P emission s quantit ybase do n uncontrolle d emissions , an dth e above-the-floo r leve l o f contro l fo r larger-emittin g facilities . W e als o examine d th e impact s fro mth e standpoin t o f smal l businesse s an d thei r abilit yt o obtai nth e capita l t o purchas e pollutio n contro l equipment . W e believ e tha t th e capita l cost s o f th eP.5 2

4 9 above-the-floo r optio nfo r mos t smal l businesse s woul db e prohibitiv e becaus e the yd o no t hav e th e sam e acces s t o capita l a s larg e businesses . Th e availabl e dat a indicat e tha t a t a threshol d o f 25 0 tpy , non e o f th e existin g smal l businesse s i nth e dat a bas e woul d b e impacte dsignificantl y b yth e above-the-floo r contro l level . Fo r thi s reason , w e determine d MAC T fo r smal l businesse s t o b e th e floo r fo r facilitie s tha t emi t les s tha n25 0 tp yo f HAP , an dth e above-the-floo r contro l leve l fo r facilitie s tha t emi t 25 0 tp yo r more . Fo r larg e businesses , w e determine dMAC T t o b e th e floo r fo r facilitie s tha t emi t les s tha n10 0 tpyo f HAP , an d th e above-the-floo r contro l leve l fo r facilitie s tha t emi t 10 0 tp yo r mor e o f HAP . Th e incorporatio no f thxs * different e 25 0 tp ythreshol d fo r smal l businesse s ari d lary u businesse s wa s on e o f th e recommendation s o f th e SBARPanel , an d th e economi c impact s o f th e selecte doptio nar e reasonable . Industr yrepresentative s independentl ydevelope dcost s fo r add-o ncontrol s an d submitte dthe mt o th e Agency . Thei r analysi s i s i nth e docke t fo r thi s propose drulemaking . Th e SBARPane l recommende d tha t w e reconside r ou r estimate s o f cost s fo r add-o ncontrol s i nligh t o f tha t study . Th e industr ycos t estimate s ar e a t leas t thre e times

- highe r tha n ou r cos t estimates . Th e majo r reaso nfo r thes e difference s i ncos t ar e th e desig nassumption s fo r th e permanen t tota l enclosure s an d th e estimate dai r flows . Ou r cos t estimate sP.5 3

5 0 assum e a ninle t concentratio no f 10 0 part s pe r millio nb y volum e (ppmv) . Th e industr ystudyassume s lowe r concentration s tha t var ybase d o nth e specifi c facility . However , availabl e tes t dat a fo r measure dconcentration s i n th e exhaus t stream s fo r reinforce d plasti c composite s facilitie s rang e fro m6 1 t o 24 9 ppmv , wit ha naverag e concentratio no f 1 2 0 an d a media no f 82 . Base do nthis , w e believ e ou r 10 0 ppmvestimat e i s stil l reasonable , an dw e hav e decide d no t t o revis e ou r cos t analysi s a t thi s time . W e d o inten d t o revie wth e industry' s cos t analysi s i nmor e dept hfollowin g proposal , an d mak e an yappropriat e change s base d o ncomment s w e receive . W e ar e solicitin g commen t o n th e cos t an d feasibilit yo f add-o ncontrols , informatio no n desig nan d operatio no f permanen t tota l enclosure s fro mthi s o r simila r industries , an dinformatio no ntypica l exhaus t concentration s fo r reinforce dplasti c composit e facilities . W e di d no t identif ya nabove-the-floo r optio nfo r th e followin g operations : close d molding , polyme r casting , an d equipmen t cleaning . W e wer e abl e t o fin dn o example s wher e an yclose d moldin g proces s wa s controlle dusin g add-o n controls . Therefore , w e believ e i t i s no t technicall yan d economicall yfeasibl e t o us e add-o ncontrol s fo r close d moldin g processes . W e d o no t believ e i t i s technicall y feasibl e t o us e add-o ncontrol s fo r equipmen t cleanin g operations . I nan ycase , applicatio no f th e floo r leve l o f contro l w e ar e proposin g woul deliminat e HAP-containin gP.5 4

5 1 cleaners , excep t fo r case s wher e cure dresi nha s t o b e remove d fro m

applicatio nequipment . Thi s floo r leve l o f contro l woul d achiev e clos e t o 10 0 percen t HA P emission s reductions . Fo r ne wsources , w e examine d a nabove-the-floo r optio n o f requirin g al l source s t o mee t th e 9 5 percen t contro l requiremen t fo r ope nmolding , centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/casting , pultrusion , SM C manufacturing , an d resi nmixing/BM C manufacturing . W e determine d that , eve ni f w e coul dresolv e th e issue s surroundin g th e performanc e o f add-o ncontro l device s a t th e smaller-emittin g sources , th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s oi—thi s uptionrati o woul db e urireasonable$15 , 00 0 pe r to no f HA P emission s reduction . Fo r thi s reason , w e chos e th e floo r leve l o f contro l a s MAC T fo r ne wsources . W e als o considere d a nabove-the-floo r contro l leve l fo r bot hexistin g an d ne wsource s o f combinin g th e pollution

preventio ntechnique s o f th e existin g sourc e floor s wit ha 9 5 percen t contro l requirement . A s previousl ydiscussed , th e benefit s o f thi s approac hwoul d b e tha t b yincorporatin g th e pollution-preventio nmeasures , th e overal l emissio n reductio nwoul d b e increased . I naddition , th e potentia l fo r worke r exposur e i nthes e situation s woul db e reduced . However , w e determine d th e incrementa l emissio nreductio n fo r thi s contro l leve l wa s approximatel y2 percen t o f baseline . Base d o nth e cost s o f meetin g existin g sourc eP.5 5

5 2 floors , th e cos t effectivenes s rati o o f thi s smal l additiona l benefi t woul db e unreasonable,—eve nL$36,90 0 pe r to no f HA P emissio nreduction . Thoug hther e ma yb e worke r exposur e benefits* : Therefore , w e di dno t includ e thi s above-the-floo r contro l leve l i nthi s propose drule . Thi s possibilit yi s stil l unde r consideratio nan dw e ar e ar e requestin g comment . W e als o reques t tha t commentor s provid e an yavailabl e dat a o nworke r exposur e tha t woul dallo wu s t o quantif yth e additiona l worke r exposur e benefit s o f incorp'orating pollution-preventio nrequirement s wit hth e 9 5 percen t contro l requirements . W e di d no t identif ya nabove-the-floo r optio nfo r ne w source s fo r th e followin g operations : close dmolding , polyme r casting , an d equipmen t cleanin g fo r th e sam e reason s a s discusse d abov e fo r existin g sources . W e als o examine d a nabove-the-floo r contro l optio nfo r existin g source s base do npollutio nprevention . A s wa s th e cas e wit hth e ne wsourc e MAC T floor , w e ar e unabl e a t thi s tim e t o develo p a nalternativ e tha t w e believ e meet s th e statutor yrequirement s o f MACT . However , w e ar e specificall ysolicitin g comment s o npollution-preventio n technique s tha t coul d b e use di nlie u o f th e above-the-floo r alternativ e a s wer e discusse di nth e sectio no nne wsourc e floors . H . Wh yar e som e reinforce dplasti c composite s productio n operation s no t subjec t t o thes e propose dNESHAP ?P.5 6



### 5 3 Thes e propose d NESHA P woul d no t regulat e mol dsealin g an d releas e agent s an d mol dstrippin g an dcleanin g solvent s becaus e w e wer e unabl e t o se t MAC T floor s o r determin e MAC T fo r thes e operations . I nbot hcases , th e informatio nan d dat a availabl e t o u s sugges t tha t mol dmaintenanc e practices , par t shap e an d size , an d productio nschedule s determin e emission s mor e tha nth e HA P conten t o f thes e materials . W e d o no t hav e sufficien t dat a t o identif yan d prescrib e wor k practice s t o reduc e emission s fro mthes e operations . Therefore , thes e propose dNESHA P d o no t requir e control s fo r thes e materials . Fo r mol d strippin g an d cleanin g solvents , th e amoun t o f HA P use d pe r uni t o f mol d surfac e are a applie ddepend s o n facility-specifi c mol d maintenanc e practice s an dproductio n requirements . Thes e ma yinclud e mol dcycl e time , ho wofte n th e mol d i s used , an dwhethe r th e mol d i s store dindoor s o r outdoors . Th e siz e o f th e par t ma yals o influenc e mol d maintenance . W e d o no t hav e sufficien t dat a t o identif y thos e difference s i nproductio nrequirement s o r wor k practice s tha t determin e mol dcleanin g solven t usage . Therefore , w e canno t identif ya MAC T floo r o r MACT .P.5 7

5 4 I . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e for mo f thes e propose dNESHAP ? W e decide d t o offe r severa l form s fo r complyin g wit h th e propose d NESHAP . Th e purpos e o f multipl e form s i s t o provid e th e flexibilit yt o compl yi nth e mos t cost-effectiv e an d efficien t manner . W e considere dth e followin g factor s i nselectin g th e for mo f th e propose dNESHAP :

• Th e for m

shoul dallo wfo r multipl e complianc e technique s fo r th e variou s type s o f facilitie s i n th e industry .

• Th e for m

shoul dsimplif ycomplianc e an densur e tha t th e cos t o f complianc e i s no t excessive .

• Th e for mshoul d b e enforceable . Th e for mo f thes e propose dNESHA P i s base do na combinatio no f emissio nlimit s (poin t value s o r percen t reduction) , equipmen t standards , an dwor k practic e standards . 1 . Emissio nLimit s Base d o nPoin t Value s Thes e propose d NESHA P fo r ope nmoldin g operation s an d centrifuga l castin g operation s ar e base do npoin t value s whic har e i nunit s o f pound s o f HA P pe r to no f resi nused . Th e poin t valu e developmen t ha s bee npreviousl ydescribed . Thi s for mwa s chose nove r a nabsolut e emissio nlimi t becaus e i t accuratel ydetermine s th e amoun t o f pollution-preventio n contro l a sourc e ha s incorporate d i nit s process , bu t doe s no t requir e a facilit yt o perfor memissio ntesting . Thi s for m als o allow s fo r averagin g acros s ope nmoldin g processe sP.5 8

5 5 o r acros s centrifuga l castin g processes . Thi s mean s tha t a sourc e ha s th e optio nt o over-contro l som e operations , under-contro l other s (relativ e t o th e limi t fo r tha t individua l process) , bu t stil l mee t th e overal l limi t fo r suc hoperation s combined . Thi s allow s a sourc e t o hav e additiona l flexibilit yi nmeetin g th e propose dstandards . Th e emissio nlimit s fo r ope nmoldin g an dcentrifuga l castin g fo r ne wsource s ar e base do na percen t reductio n usin g add-o ncontrols . However , w e hav e provide da n alternativ e standar d fo r ne wsource s als o base do npoin t values . Thes e poin t value s wer e determine db yapplyin g th e require d percen t reductio nrequiremen t t o th e existin g sourc e MAC T floors . Th e ne wsourc e floo r i s base do na contro l efficiency , an dth e facilitie s tha t hav e thes e control s d o no t hav e example s o f ever ypossibl e typ e o f ope n moldin g o r centrifuga l castin g process . Therefore , w e wer e no t abl e t o us e th e best-controlle dsource s t o directl y determin e a poin t valu e tha t i s equivalen t t o th e 9 5 percen t emission s reduction s requiremen t fo r al l operations . Fo r operation s wher e w e coul d directl ydetermin e a poin t valu e equivalent , th e approac ho f usin g existin g sourc e floor s an d applyin g 9 5 percen t contro l i s slightl ymor e stringent . Therefore , w e believ e applyin g thi s approac ht o al l ope n moldin g an d centrifuga l castin g operation s wil l produc e a limi t tha t i s n o les s stringent , whil e providin g opportunitie s fo r facilitie s t o incorporat e pollutio nP.5 9

5 6 preventio nint o thei r process , mee t a percen t reductio n requiremen t les s tha n9 5 percent , bu t stil l mee t th e ne w sourc e floor . 2 . Emissio nLimit s Base d o nPercen t Reductio n Th e for mo f th e standard s fo r ne wope nmolding , centrifuga l casting , SM C manufacturing , an dresin/mixing/BM C manufacturing , an d th e standard s fo r ne wan dexistin g source s fo r pultrusio nan dSM C manufacturin g ar e base do na percen t reduction . Thes e standard s wer e al l develope dfro m facilitie s usin g add-o ncontrols . I t i s possibl e t o desig n a contro l devic e t o mee t a specifie dpercen t reduction . . Bu t base d o nth e dat a available , i t wa s no t possibl e t o determin e a nuncontrolle d emissio nfacto r fo r ope nmolding , centrifuga l casting , SM C manufacturing , an dmixing/BM C manufacturin g tha t wa s generall yapplicable . Therefore , w e coul d no t develo p a standar d base d o na nemissio nfactor . Fo r continuou s lamination/casting , w e wer e abl e t o develo p a nabsolut e emissio nlimi t base do nth e facilitie s tha t se t th e floor . Thes e absolut e emissio nlimit s ar e presente da s alternative s t o th e percen t reductio nlimits . I nth e cas e o f pultrusio noperations , ther e ar e alternativ e standard s base d o nwet-are a enclosure s o r direc t di e injection . Emissio ntestin g ha s determine d tha t usin g thi s equipmen t a s specifie d i nth e propose drul e wil l achiev e th e percen t reduction s specifie d i nth e NESHAP . 3 . Emissio nLimit s Base d o nEquipment/Wor k Practic eP.6 0

5 7 Standard s Sectio n112(h ) o f th e CAAstate s tha t " . . . i f i t i s no t feasibl e i nth e judgemen t o f th e Administrato r t o prescrib e o r enforc e a nemissio nstandar dfo r contro l o f a hazardou s ai r pollutan t o r pollutants , th e Administrato r may , i nlie u thereof , promulgat e a design , equipment , wor k practice , o r operationa l standard , o r combinatio nthereo f .

. .. " Sectio n112(h)(2 ) furthe r define s th e phras e "no t feasibl e t o prescrib e o r enforc e a nemissio nstandard " a s an ysituatio ni nwhic h" . . . a hazardou s ai r pollutan t o r pollutant s canno t b e emitte dthroug ha conveyanc e designe d an d constructe d t o emi t o r captur e suc hpollutant , .. . o r th e applicatio no f measuremen t methodolog yt o a particula r clas s o f source s i s no t practicabl e du e t o technologica l an d economi c limitations. " Th e emissio nlimit s fo r equipmen t cleanin g an dstorag e a t ne wan d existin g source s ar e base do nwor k practic e an d equipmen t standards . Th e reaso nfo r choosin g wor k practic e an d equipmen t standard s fo r storag e i s tha t storag e area s ma yb e locate d outsid e th e res t o f th e productio narea , an d i nsom e cases , ma yb e locate d outsid e th e building . W e d o no t believ e i t woul d b e practicabl e du e t o economi c limitation s t o tes t storag e areas , an dw e d o no t hav e sufficien t dat a t o calculat e a nemissio nlimi t fo r th e require d wor k practice . Th e standar d fo r existin g pultrusio nfacilitie s i sP.6 1

5 8 base d o nth e equipmen t standar d combine dwit ha wor k practice . W e hav e propose dth e standar da s a percen t reductio nt o allo wth e us e o f add-o ncontrols . However , w e d o no t believ e i t woul d b e technologicall yo r economicall y feasibl e t o actuall ytes t facilitie s tha t choos e t o us e a wet-are a enclosur e o r direc t di e injection . Th e limit s fo r SM C an d resi nmixing/BM C a t existin g facilitie s ar e als o base d o nwor k practice s o r equipmen t standards . W e hav e n o dat a t o determin e a specifi c percen t reductio nt o th e wor k practice s fo r thes e operations . Therefore , w e coul d no t se t a specifi c emissio nlimit . Cleanin g operation s ma ytak e plac e outsid e th e regula r productio narea . I t woul dno t b e technologicall yo r economicall ypracticabl e t o perfor memissio ntestin g fo r cleanin g operations . 4 . Selectio no f Averagin g Tim e fo r Demonstratin g Complianc e A s a reinforce d plasti c composite s manufacturer , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u woul d sho w.complianc e wit hth e propose d NESHA P o na 12-month , rolling-averag e basis . YUnde r thi s propose d rule , yo u woul ddetermin e complianc e a t th e en do f eac hmont hfro m

th e dat a collecte d ove r th e pas t 1 2 months . A:W e believ e a 12-mont haveragin g tim e provide s a balanc e betwee noperatin g flexibilit yan denforceabilit yo f th e propose d standards . Th e 12-mont hperio di s sufficientl y lon g s o tha t yo u ca nidentif ypotentia l complianc e problem s an d chang e you r operation s i ntim e t o maintai ncompliance .P.6 2

5 9 Th e rolling-averag e aspec t provide s a nenforceabl e emissio n limi t 1 2 time s pe r year . Man yreinforce d plasti c composite s manufacturer s alread ytrac k materia l usag e monthl yt o compl ywit hStat e regulation s an d permi t requirements , s o w e believ e monthl y trackin g i s consisten t wit hcurren t practice . Trackin g o na mor e frequen t basi s woul d b e unnecessaril yburdensom e fo r thi s particula r industry . Reinforce dplasti c composite s manufacturer s nee d a 12-mont hrolling-averag e perio dt o respon d t o bot hshort-ter mvariation s i nHA P conten t tha t ar e inheren t i nal l chemica l products , an dt o accoun t fo r short-ter mneed s fo r higher-HA P material s du e t o variation s i nproduc t mix . J . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e tes t method s fo r determinin g complianc e wit hth e propose d NESHAP ? Th e propose d NESHA P hav e severa l option s fo r achievin g compliance . Fo r ope nmoldin g an dcentrifuga l casting , thi s include s meetin g a specifie dpoin t valu e fo r existin g sources , o r a percen t reductio no r poin t valu e fo r ne w sources . Fo r mos t othe r processes , yo u achiev e complianc e b yusin g a nenclosur e an d add-o ncontro l devic e t o mee t a percen t reductio nrequiremen t o r a nabsolut e emissio nlimit . I norde r t o calculat e a poin t value , unde r thi s propose d rule , yo u mus t determin e th e HAP-conten t o f th e ra w material . Th e metho dt o determin e materia l HA P conten t i s th e us e o f th e Materia l Safet yDat a Sheet s (MSDS ) o r othe rP.6 3

6 0 produc t specificatio nsheet s provide db yth e materia l manufacturer . W e chos e no t t o requirepropos e requirin g testin g o f th e material . Th e dat a use dt o develo p th e standard s wer e mainl ybase do nMSDS ; therefore , w e believ e i t i s reasonabl e tha t MSD S b e use dt o determin e compliance .

Unde r th e propose dNESHAP , i f yo u chos e t o us e a n enclosur e an d add-o ncontro l device , yo u woul dhav e t o determin e th e captur e efficienc yo f th e enclosur e an d measur e th e HA P fro mth e contro l device . T o determin e th e captur e efficienc yo f th e enclosure , yo u woul dus e EP A Metho d 20 4 (Criteri a fo r an dVerificatio no f Permanen t o r Temporar yTota l Enclosure) . I f th e enclosur e meet s th e criteri a i nEP AMetho d 2 0 4 fo r a permanen t tota l enclosure , the nyo u coul d assum e tha t it s captur e efficienc yi s 10 0 percent . I f th e enclosur e i s no t a tota l enclosure , the n yo u woul d buil d a tota l temporar yenclosur e aroun di t tha t meet s th e definitio no f a tota l temporar yenclosur e i nEP A Metho d 204 . Yo u woul d the nhav e t o measur e emission s fro m bot hth e contro l devic e an d th e tota l temporar yenclosur e an d us e th e combine d emission s t o determin e compliance . T o measur e HAP , yo u woul db e abl e t o us e eithe r EP A Metho d 1 8 (Measuremen t o f Gaseou s Organi c Compoun dEmission s b yGa s Chromatography ) t o measur e th e sumo f individua l specie s o f HAP , o r EP AMetho d 25 A(Determinatio no f Tota l Gaseou s Organi c Matte r Concentratio nUsin g a Flam eP.6 4



### 6 1 Ionizatio nAnalyzer ) fo r tota l hydrocarbon s (THC ) a s a surrogat e fo r tota l HAP . Th e EP AMetho d25 Awoul dallo wyo u th e flexibilit yt o us e a simple r metho dtha nEP AMetho d1 8 whic hdoe s no t speciat e HA P i ncase s wher e measurin g TH C i s sufficien t t o demonstrat e compliance . Yo u coul dmeasur e TH C a s a surrogat e fo r tota l HA P i f mos t o f th e TH C emitte dfro m a nenclosur e wer e HAP , such.a s styren e an dMM Afro mresi n an d ge l coa t operations . Fo r complianc e determinations , th e EP Awil l assum e tha t al l TH C measure dwit hEP AMetho d25 A ar e HAP . W e hav e no t include d i nthi s propose drul e a tes t metho d fo r determinin g th e effectivenes s o f vapo r suppresse d resins . Adraf t protoco l entitle d "Vapo r Suppressan t Effectivenes s Tes t Protocol, " date dApri l 7 , 1999 , ha s bee n develope d b yindustr yan d i s availabl e fo r revie wi nth e docke t fo r thi s propose drule . Th e draf t protoco l i s insufficientl ydetaile dfo r inclusio ni nthi s propose drule . W e ar e currentl yrequestin g additiona l detail s an d solicitin g commen t o nth e tes t protoco l o r a nalternat e tes t protocol . K . Ho wdi d w e determin e th e monitorin g an drecordkeepin g requirements ? Whic hmonitorin g an d recordkeepin g requirement s yo u woul d mee t depen d o nho wyo u choos e t o compl ywit hthes e propose d NESHAP . Fo r eac hcomplianc e option , th e propose d monitorin g an d recordkeepin g requirement s ar e th e minimu mP.6 5

6 2 necessar yt o determin e initia l an dongoin g complianc e an d ar e consisten t wit hth e Genera l Provision s (4 0 CF Rpar t 63 , subpar t A) . Thi s sectio ndescribe s ho wt o compl ywit hemissio n limit s base d o npoin t values , emissio naveragin g provisions , equipmen t an d wor k practic e standards , an dth e emissio n limi t fo r a nadd-o ncontro l device . 1 . Complianc e wit hEmissio nLimit s Base do nPoin t Value s Fo r al l operation s subjec t t o HA P conten t limits , w e ar e proposin g fou r tasks : monito r an drecor dth e HA P conten t o f th e materia l used , monito r an drecor dth e monthl y consumptio no f th e material , monito r an drecor dwhic h operation s us e th e material , an drecor dth e computation s t o sho wtha t th e weighte d averag e poin t valu e ove r th e pas t 1 2 month s meet s th e propose dstandards . Th e SBARPane l recommende dtha t w e loo k fo r alternative s t o simplif yreportin g an drecordkeeping . W e hav e identifie d tw o alternative s w e believ e simplif yth e reportin g an d recordkeepin g process . Th e firs t i s tha t a n owne r an d operato r ma yus e purchas e record s t o determin e monthl yconsumption . However , a nowne r an doperato r ca n trac k actua l materia l flow s t o eac hproces s i f desired . W e believ e thi s i s reasonabl e becaus e facilitie s hav e n o financia l incentiv e t o kee p significan t inventorie s o f ra w materia l o nhand , an d w e hav e n o evidenc e tha t keepin g larg e amount s o f ra wmateria l o nhan d i s a commo npractice .P.6 6

6 3 Therefore , purchase s an d actua l consumptio nshoul dtrac k fairl yclosely . W e ar e requirin g tha t th e owne r an d operato r hav e a reasonabl e metho d t o estimat e th e amount s o f eac hresi nuse d b ya specifi c operation . Th e secon d alternativ e applie s wher e al l th e material s use di na n operatio nresul t i na poin t valu e tha t meet s th e emissio n limit , i nwhic hcase , a nowne r an d operato r onl ynee dt o recor d HA P conten t an dth e resultin g poin t valu e an dd o no t nee d t o trac k monthl yconsumptio no f eac hindividua l material . 2 . Complianc e wit hAveragin g Provision s T o compl ywit hth e averagin g provision s fo r ope n moldin g operation s an d centrifuga l castin g operations , yo u mus t monito r an d recor dHA P conten t a s wel l a s ho wus e o f th e materia l i s spli t betwee ndifferen t operations , an dyo u mus t recor d th e computation s neede dt o sho wcompliance . Yo u mus t us e thes e dat a a s wel l a s th e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equation s i nth e propose dNESHA P t o calculat e th e poin t value s i ntha t operatio nfo r th e pas t 1 2 months . Complianc e i s the ndetermine d relativ e t o th e allowabl e weighte d averag e poin t valu e calculate dfo r thos e operation s fo r th e pas t 1 2 months . Complianc e woul d b e calculate dmonthly , an d monthl ypurchas e record s ma yb e use d t o determin e resi nan d ge l coa t use . 3 . Complianc e wit hEquipmen t an d Wor k Practic e Standard s Th e propose d NESHA P requir e resi nan dge l coa t mixin gP.6 7

6 4 container s t o b e fitte d wit hcover s tha t hav e n o visibl e gaps . Yo u wil l b e require dt o inspec t containe r cover s eac h mont ht o ensur e th e cover s ar e i nplac e an dproperl y maintained . Yo u mus t recor dth e result s o f th e inspections . Th e inspection s shoul db e sufficien t t o ensur e tha t th e cover s ar e i nplac e an d properl ymaintained . MW e believ e monthl yinspection s ar e a reasonabl e interva l becaus e th e natur e o f failur e i nthes e piece s o f equipmen t i s likel ydu e t o wea r an d tea r an d no t a sudde nfailure . Longe r tim e period s betwee ninspections , however , woul dallo wa failur e t o g o to o lon g befor e bein g repaired . Th e propose d NESHA P fo r productio nresi nan dtoolin g resi nrequire s mos t manufacturer s t o us e nonatomize dresi n applicatio nmethod s t o comply . Thes e method s includ e flowcoater s an d pressure-fe d resi nrollers , amon g others . W e coul d identif yn o parameter s t o monito r whethe r thes e method s ar e bein g used . Rather , complianc e throug hth e us e o f thes e method s woul db e determine ddurin g enforcemen t inspections . A s lon g a s flowcoaters , pressure-fe dresi n rollers , o r othe r simila r device s ar e installe dan doperate d accordin g t o manufacturer' s specifications , the ywil l compl y wit hth e requirement s t o us e nonatomize dresi napplicatio n methods . 4 . Complianc e fo r Source s Usin g Enclosure s an dAdd-O n Contro l Device s Th e requirement s fo r enclosure s an dadd-o ncontro lP.6 8



### 6 5 device s i nth e propose dNESHA P ar e consisten t wit hothe r ai r qualit yregulation s tha t requir e captur e an dcontro l o f emissions . The yar e th e minimu mneede dt o demonstrat e tha t th e captur e an d contro l syste mi s operate dproperly . ¥W e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t initiall ydemonstrat e complianc e wit hth e emissio nlimi t b ydemonstratin g tha t th e enclosur e i s a tota l enclosur e o r b yals o measurin g th e fugitiv e emission s tha t escap e th e enclosure . Yo u mustwoul d als o nee d t o measur e th e efficienc yo f th e add-o ncontro l usin g EP AMetho d 25 Afo r TH C (a s a surrogat e fo r HAP ) o r EP A Metho d 1 8 fo r HAP . Th e EP AMetho d 1 8 measure s individua l HA P tha t yo u sum

t o calculat e tota l HAP . Afte r th e initia l complianc e test , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t monito r contro l devic e parameter s t o demonstrat e tha t th e contro l devic e continue s t o b e operate d a s i t wa s durin g th e initia l test . I nth e cas e o f therma l oxidizers , yo u mustwoul d nee d t o monito r an drecor d combustio ntemperatur e ever y1 5 minute s bot hdurin g an d afte r th e performanc e test . YW e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t calculat e th e averag e temperatur e achieve ddurin g th e test . Afte r th e test , yo u mustwoul d nee d t o maintai nth e averag e temperatur e a t o r abov e th e temperatur e achieve ddurin g th e performanc e test . Temperatur e monitor s an drecorder s ar e standar d feature s o ntherma l oxidizers . Fo r othe r devices r w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t determin e appropriat e parameter s t o monito r an dreceiv e ou r approva l t o us e thes eP.6 9

6 6 parameters . L . Ho wdi d w e selec t th e notificatio nan dreportin g requirements ? TW e believ e tha t th e requiredpropose d notice s an d report s ar e th e minimu mneede d t o determin e i f yo u ar e subjec t t o th e propose dNESHA P an dwhethe r yo u ar e i n compliance . ¥W e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t submi t a n initia l notificatio nstatin g tha t yo u ar e subjec t t o th e propose d NESHAP . Afte r th e complianc e dat e fo r you r facility , yo u mustwoul d nee d t o submi t a notificatio no f you r complianc e status . Yo u mustwoul d als o nee dt o submi t semiannua l report s o f you r complianc e status . I f yo u hav e a nadd-o ncontro l devic e an dyo u becom e ou t o f compliance , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u mus t submi t quarterl yreport s o f you r complianc e statu s unti l w e approv e a reques t t o retur n t o semiannua l reporting . I f you r facilit yi s a ne wsource , w e ar e proposin g tha t yo u wil l hav e additional.preconstructio nnotificatio n requirements . Yo u willwoul dals o hav e additiona l notificatio nan d reportin g requirement s i f yo u us e a nadd-o n contro l device , includin g notification s an dreport s fo r th e contro l devic e performanc e test . Thes e propose d notificatio nan d reportin g requirement s ar e consisten t wit h thos e specifie d i nth e Genera l Provisions . andW e believ e tha t thes e requirement s ar e th e minimu mneede dfo r u s t o determin e complianc e fo r source s wit hadd-o ncontro lP.7 0

6 7 devices . Th e SS Mpla nspecifie d b yth e Genera l Provision s wil l b e require d onl yfo r source s usin g a nadd-o ncontro l devic e an d wil l appl yonl yt o th e add-o ncontro l device . Fo r operation s no t usin g a contro l device , th e natur e o f th e material s an d equipmen t use dt o compl ywit hth e propose d Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio nNESHA P i s suc htha t malfunction s wil l no t lea d t o exces s emissions . M . Wha t ar e som e o f th e area s wher e w e ar e specificall y solicitin g comments ? Th e purpos e o f thi s sectio ni s t o highligh t particula r issue s o f concer nt o th e EP Ao r t o othe r parties . W e solici t comment s o nthes e issues , alon g wit hdat a t o suppor t th e comments . Th e propose d rul e require s tha t certai nne wan d existin g source s contro l HA P emission s b y9 5 percent . I n orde r t o mee t thi s requirement , facilitie s wil l likel yhav e t o captur e 10 0 percen t o f thei r emission s fro mthe . affecte d processe s an d rout e thes e emission s t o a nadd-o ncontro l device . W e ar e solicitin g dat a o nth e technica l feasibilit y o f permanen t tota l enclosure s (PTE) ; factor s tha t affec t th e feasibilit yo f PT E suc ha s produc t size , operatio ngrouping , an d ven t strea m

concentration s an dai r flo wfro mth e processe s wher e captur e system s ar e used ; an dinteraction s o f thes e requirements ' wit hOSH Arules . Thes e dat a woul db e mos t helpfu l i f the yar e supporte db ytestin g o r worke rP.7 1

6 8 exposur e monitoring . W e solici t dat a o na facility' s abilit yt o maintai nan d operat e add-o ncontrols . W e ar e especiall yintereste d i ndat a fro mfacilitie s i nthi s industr ytha t hav e successfull yapplie dadd-o ncontrols . W e solici t dat a o ntypica l operatin g hour s i nthi s industry , particularl yi nrelatio nt o siz e (resi nus e o r numbe r o f employees ) sinc e operatin g hour s affec t cos t effectivenes s an d th e numbe r o f start-up s an dshutdowns . Th e propose d rul e set s differen t threshold s fo r existin g sourc e requirement s a t smal l versu s larg e businesses , abov e whic hcontro l o f HA P emission s b y9 5 percen t i s required . Th e highe r threshol dfo r smal l businesse s i s base d o nconcern s tha t i t i s mor e difficul t fo r smal l businesse s t o rais e th e necessar ycapita l t o purchas e add-o ncontrol s t o compl ywit hth e 9 5 percen t contro l level . W e solici t comment s o nthi s conclusion , alon g wit hdat a o ncapita l availabilit yfo r larg e an dsmal l businesse s an d th e impac t o f thi s threshol do nlarg e businesses . W e solici t informatio nan ddat a o nothe r factor s t o conside r i nevaluatin g contro l requirement s mor e stringen t tha nth e MAC T floor . W e believ e tha t w e hav e capture dth e ful l rang e o f processe s an d product s i nou r propose doperatio ngroups . W e reques t comment s wit hsupportin g dat a o nan yprocesse s o r product s tha t migh t no t b e adequatel yrepresented . Alon g thes e lines , w e hav e specificall yprovide dseparat e proces sP.7 2

6 9 group s fo r product s wit ha Clas s I smok e an dfir e rating , an d hav e define d hig hstrengt hproduct s a s par t o f th e corrosio nresistan t proces s grou p becaus e o f specifi c produc t requirement s tha t requir e specialize dra wmaterials . W e solici t comment s o nthi s approac han ddat a o nan y additiona l processe s o r product s tha t hav e uniqu e propertie s tha t ma yrequir e separat e proces s grouping s fo r MAC T floo r development . Thi s propose d rul e contain s poin t valu e equation s fo r ope nmoldin g an d centrifuga l casting . W e ar e solicitin g comment s o nth e dat a an d assumption s use dt o develo p MAC T poin t valu e equations , an dinformatio no nothe r method s o r emissio nmodel s tha t coul db e use dt o ran k facilitie s fo r th e purpose s o f settin g MACT . W e als o solici t informatio no nth e adequac yo r necessit yo f th e monitoring , recordkeeping , an dreportin g requirement s i nthi s propose d rule . W e specificall ysolici t comment s o nth e recordkeepin g an d reporting-burde nestimate s se t fort hi nSectio nV I i nth e Paperwor k Reductio nAc t sectio nan d informatio no nway s t o minimiz e responden t burden . IV . Summar y

o f Environmental , Energy , andEconomi c Impact s A . Wha t facilitie s ar e affecte d b yth e propose dNESHAP ? Ther e ar e approximatel y43 3 existin g facilitie s manufacturin g reinforce d plasti c composite s tha t ar e majo r source s an d woul d b e subjec t t o th e propose dNESHAP . Th eP.7 3

7 0 rat e o f growt hfo r th e reinforce dplasti c composite s industr yi s estimate d t o b e 8 4 ne wfacilitie s ove r th e nex t 5 years . B . Wha t ar e th e ai r qualit yimpacts ? Th e 199 7 baselin e HA P emission s fro mth e reinforce d plasti c composite s industr yar e approximatel y22,20 0 tpy . Th e propose d NESHA P woul d reduc e HA P fro mexistin g source s b y14,50 0 tpy , a reductio no f 6 5 percent . Th e propose d NESHA P willwoul d resul t i nsmal l increase s i nothe r ai r pollutio nemission s fro mcombustio ndevice s tha t wil l b e installe d i nth e nex t 5 year s t o compl ywit h today' s propose d rule . Thes e increase s resul t fro mbot hth e combustio ndevic e directly , an destimate demission s tha t occu r a t electrica l generatin g plant s t o generat e th e electricit ynecessar yt o operat e th e add-o ncontrol s an d associate d ai r handlin g equipment . Thes e emission s ar e estimate d t o b e 3 8 tp yo f sulfu r oxide s (SOx) , 6 9 tp yo f nitroge noxide s (NOx) , 12 5 tp yo f carbo nmonoxid e (CO) , an d 1. 5 tp yo f particulat e matte r (PM ) emissions . C . Wha t ar e th e wate r qualit yimpacts ? W e estimat e tha t th e propose dReinforce dPlasti c Composite s Productio nNESHA P wil l hav e n o advers e wate r qualit yimpacts . W e d o no t expec t anyon e t o compl yb yusin g add-o ncontro l device s o r proces s modification s tha t woul d generat e wastewater . D . Wha t ar e th e soli d an dhazardou s wast e impacts ?P.7 4

7 1 W e estimat e tha t th e propose d NESHA P willwoul ddecreas e th e amoun t o f soli d wast e generate d b yth e reinforce d plasti c composite s industr yb yapproximatel y1,40 0 tpy . Th e decreas e i nsoli d wast e i s directl yrelate dt o switchin g t o nonatomize d resi napplicatio nequipmen t (i.e. , flowcoater s an d resi nrollers) . Switchin g t o flowcoater s result s i na decreas e i noverspra ybecaus e o f a greate r transfe r efficienc yo f resi nfro mflowcoater s t o th e par t bein g manufactured . Adecreas e i nresi noverspra yconsequentl y reduce s th e amoun t o f wast e fro mdisposabl e floo r coverings , cure d resi nwaste , an d persona l protectiv e equipmen t (PPE ) fo r workers . Disposabl e floo r covering s ar e replace do na periodi c basi s t o preven t resi nbuildu p o nth e floor . W e estimat e tha t soli d wast e generatio no f floo r covering s wil l decreas e b yapproximatel y3 6 0 tp yan dtha t cure dresi nsoli d wast e wil l decreas e b yapproximatel y1,04 0 tpy . DW e projec t tha t th e decrease d overspra yfro m flowcoater s wil l resul t i na decrease dusag e o f PPE , whic h als o consequentl yreduce s th e amoun t o f soli dwaste . Worker s wh o us e flowcoater s typicall ywea r les s PP E tha n whe nusin g spra ygun s becaus e o f th e reduce dpresenc e o f resi naerosol s an d lowe r styren e level s i nth e workplace . Becaus e w e di d no t hav e informatio no nth e man ydifferen t type s o f PP E currentl yused , w e di d no t estimat e thi s decreas e i nsoli d waste . Som e facilitie s tha t switc hfro mspra ygun s t oP.7 5

7 2 flowcoater s ma yhav e a smal l increas e o f hazardou s wast e fro m th e use d flowcoate r cleanin g solvents . However , mos t facilitie s willwoul d no t se e a nincreas e unde r thi s propose d rule , an d th e overal l impac t o nth e industr ywil l b e smal l relativ e t o th e soli d wast e reductions . Nearl yal l flowcoater s requir e resi nan dcatalys t t o b e mixe dinsid e th e gu n(internal-mix ) and,mus t b e flushe dwhe nwor k i s stoppe d fo r mor e tha na fe wminutes . External-mi xspra y gun s d o no t nee d t o b e flushe d becaus e resi ni s mixe dwit h catalys t outsid e th e gun . Facilitie s tha t switc hfro m external-mi xspra ygun s t o flowcoater s wil l us e mor e solvent . Solven t usag e shoul d no t chang e a t facilitie s switchin g fro minternal-mi xspra ygun s t o flowcoaters . Th e mos t commo nflushin g solvent s ar e aceton e an dwater-base d emulsifiers . Onl ya coupl e o f ounce s o f solven t ar e typicall yneede d t o flus hth e mixin g chambe r an dnozzl e o f flowcoater s an d internal-mi xspra yguns . W e d o no t hav e adequate , dat a t o predic t th e potentia l solven t wast e impac t fro mswitchin g t o flowcoaters . Th e magnitud e o f th e impac t depend s o nth e typ e o f gu ncurrentl y use d (internal

- o r external-mix) , th e frequenc yo f flushing , an d th e typ e o f solven t used . However , becaus e o f th e smal l amoun t o f solven t used , an dsince ' mos t i s allowe dt o evaporate , w e believ e th e overal l solven t wast e increas e wil l b e smal l compare dt o th e soli d wast e reductions . E . Wha t ar e th e energ yimpacts ?P.7 6

7 3 W e hav e determine d tha t th e overal l energ ydeman dfo r operation s i nth e Reinforce dPlasti c Composite s Productio n sourc e categor ywillcoul d increas e by.15 9 millio nstandar d cubi c fee t pe r yea r o f natura l gas , an d1 0 millio nkilowat t hour s o f electricit ype r yea r a s a resul t o f th e propose d rule . W e determine d thi s ne t increas e base do nth e additiona l energ ydeman d fo r contro l device s installe dt o mee t th e propose d standards . N o informatio nfo r compariso n i s availabl e o nth e baselin e energ yconsumptio nfo r thi s sourc e category . F . Wha t ar e th e cos t impacts ? W e hav e determinedestimate d th e capita l cost s fo r emissio ncontro l equipment , includin g equipmen t suc ha s ope n containe r covers , resi nbat henclosures , captur e systems , an d contro l device s a s $73. 9 millio nfo r existin g source s an d $11. 7 millio nfo r ne wsources . Th e capita l cost s includ e th e cost s t o purchas e an dinstal l th e contro l equipment . W e hav e determinedestimate d tha t annua l cost s o f th e propose d rul e ar e $26. 0 millio npe r yea r fo r existin g source s an d $3. 2 millio nfo r ne wsources . Annua l cost s includ e fixe d annua l costs , suc ha s reporting , recordkeepin g an d capita l amortization , an d variabl e annua l cost s suc ha s natura l gas . Th e estimate daverag e cos t effectivenes s rati o o f th e propose d rul e i s $i,60 0 pe r to no f HA P emission s reductio nfo r existin g source s an d $2,20 0 pe r to no f HA PP.7 7

7 4 emission s reductio nfo r ne wsources . G . Wha t ar e th e economi c impacts ? Th e Agenc yconducte da detaile deconomi c impac t analysi s t o determin e th e market

- an dindustry-leve l impact s associate d wit hth e propose d rule . W e expec t th e aggregat e pric e increas e fo r reinforce d plasti c composite s woul db e onl y0. 3 percent , o r $0.0 1 pe r pound , a s a resul t o f th e propose d standards . ©W e projec t tha t directl yaffecte d producer s woul d reduc e tota l productio nb y0. 8 percent , whil e unaffecte d producer s no t directl yaffecte dwoul d increas e thei r productio nb y0. 3 percent . Market s fo r reinforce d plasti c composite s use d i ngenera l construction , corrosion-resistan t products , an dlan dtransportatio nar e expecte d t o b e mor e heavil yimpacte dwit hpric e increase s o f

u p t o 0. 5 percen t an d reduction s i ndirectl yaffecte d domesti c productio no f betwee n1 an d1. 5 percent . I nterm s o f industr yimpacts , captiv e producer s o f reinforce d plasti c composite s ar e expecte dt o full yabsor b thei r complianc e costs , whil e merchan t producer s wil l attemp t t o pas s throug hcost s t o thei r customers . Throug h th e marke t impact s describe dabove , th e propose dNESHA P creat e bot hgainer s an d loser s withi nth e merchan t segment . Som e merchan t facilitie s ar e projecte dt o experienc e profi t increase s wit hth e propose drule ; however , th e majorit ytha t continu e operatin g ar e projecte dt o los e profits .P.7 8

7 5 Furthermore , th e economi c impac t analysi s indicate s tha t 2 9
ou t o f 29 9 merchan t facilitie s (9. 7 percent ) an d7 3 ou t o f 47 1 produc t line s (15. 5 percent ) a t thes e facilitie s ar e a t ris k o f closur e becaus e o f th e propose dNESHAP . Al l o f th e facilitie s determine dt o b e a t ris k fo r closur e ar e believe d t o b e smal l businesses . Mor e informatio no nth e measure s w e hav e take nt o minimiz e thes e impact s ma yb e foun di nsectio n IV- F whic hdiscusse s th e Regulator yFlexibilit yAct . Base d o nth e marke t analysis , th e annua l socia l cost s o f th e propose d rul e ar e projecte d t o b e $25. 7 million . Thes e cost s ar e distribute dacros s th e man yconsumer s an d producer s o f reinforce d plasti c composites . Producers , i n aggregate , ar e expecte dt o bea r $10. 6 millio nannuall yi n costs , wit hthos e directl yaffecte db yth e propose dNESHA P losin g $19. 3 millio nan dthos e no t subjec t t o th e propose d NESHA P gainin g $8. 7 million . Th e consumer s o f reinforce d plasti c composite s ar e expecte d t o incu r th e remainin g $15. 1 millio ni ncost s associate d wit hth e propose dNESHAP . Fo r mor e information , consul t th e docke t fo r thi s project . V . Relationshi po f Propose dNESHA P t o Othe r Standard s and Program s unde r th e CA A A . Nationa l Emissio nStandard s fo r Close dVen t Svstems , Contro l Devices , Recover yDevices , an dRoutin g t o a Fue l Ga s Syste mo r a Proces s (4 0 CF RPar t 63 , Subpar t SS ) I f yo u us e a nadd-o ncontro l device(s ) t o contro lP.7 9

7 6 emissions , yo u wil l nee d t o compl ywit hcertai nprovision s i n4 0 CF Rpar t 63 , subpar t SS , fo r add-o ncontrols . Th e standard s i nsubpar t S S cite d b yth e propose dNESHA P ar e applicabl e t o mos t source s usin g a nadd-o ncontro l device . Th e propose d NESHA P cit e thes e section s i nsubpar t S S rathe r tha nrepeatin g the mi nth e propose dregulator ytext . B . Operatin g Permi t Progra m Unde r th e operatin g permi t progra mcodifie da t 4 0 CF R part s 7 0 an d 71 , al l majo r source s subjec t t o standard s unde r sectio n11 1 o r 11 2 o f th e CAAmus t obtai na noperatin g permi t (Se e §§70.3(a)(1 ) an d71.3(a)(1)) . Therefore , al l majo r source s subjec t t o thes e propose dNESHA P mus t obtai n a noperatin g permit . Som e reinforce d plasti c composite s productio n facilitie s ma yb e majo r source s base dsolel yo nthei r potentia l t o emi t eve nthoug hthei r actua l emission s ar e belo wth e majo r sourc e level . Thes e facilitie s ma ychoos e t o obtai na federall yenforceabl e limi t o nthei r potentia l t o emi t s o tha t the yar e n o longe r considere dmajo r source s subjec t t o th e propose dNESHAP . Source s tha t op t t o limi t thei r potentia l t o emi t (e.g. , limit s o noperatin g hour s o r amoun t o f materia l used ) ar e referre dt o b yth e EP Aa s "syntheti c area " sources . T o becom e a syntheti c are a source , yo u mus t contac t you r loca l permittin g authorit yt o obtai na noperatin g permi t wit hth e appropriat e operatin g limits . Thes e operatin g limit s wil l the nb e federall yP.8 0

7 7 enforceabl e unde r 4 0 CF R70.6(b) . C . NESHA P fo r Plasti c Part s an d Product s Ther e ar e currentl yNESHA P unde r developmen t fo r proposa l tha t wil l regulat e coatin g o f plasti c part s an d products . Th e SBARPane l recommende dtha t w e conside r th e interactio no f th e Plasti c Part s an dProduc t NESHA P wit h today' s propose d NESHAP . Th e Plasti c Part s an dProduct s NESHA P ma ypotentiall yaffec t facilitie s tha t produc e reinforce d plasti c part s an d the nappl ya coatin g t o th e finishe d parts . W e hav e coordinate dwit hthi s projec t an d hav e determine d tha t ther e shoul db e n o overla p (i.e. , specifi c operation s covere d b ytoday' s propose dNESHA P shoul d no t als o b e covere d i nth e Plasti c Part s an dProduct s NESHAP) . W e hav e no t determine dan yrequirement s o f th e propose d NESHA P tha t woul d overlap , conflict , o r caus e a duplicatio no f effort . VI . Administrativ e Requirement s A . Executiv e Orde r 12866 : Regulator yPlannin g an dRevie w Unde r Executiv e Orde r 1286 6 (5 8 F R51735 , Octobe r 4 , 1993) , w e mus t determin e whethe r a propose dregulator y actio ni s "significant " an dtherefore.subjec t t o Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge t (OMB ) revie wan dth e requirement s o f th e Executiv e Order . Th e Executiv e Orde r define s "significan t regulator yaction " a s on e tha t i s likel yt o resul t i na rul e tha t may : (1 ) Hav e a nannua l effec t o nth e economyo f $10 0P.8 1

7 8 millio no r mor e o r adversel yaffec t i na materia l wa yth e economy , a secto r o f th e economy , productivity , competition , jobs , th e environment , publi c healt ho r safety , o r State , local , o r triba l government s o r communities ; (2 ) Creat e a seriou s inconsistenc yo r otherwis e interfer e wit ha nactio ntake no r planne db yanothe r agency ; (3 ) Materiall yalte r th e budgetar yimpac t o f entitlements , grants , use r fees , o r loa nprogram s o r th e right s an d obligation s o f recipient s thereof ; o r (4 ) Rais e nove l lega l o r polic yissue s arisin g ou t o f lega l mandates , th e President' s priorities , o r th e principle s se t fort hi nth e Executiv e Order . Pursuan t t o th e term s o f Executiv e Orde r 1 2 866 , th e EP A ha s submitte d thi s actio nt o OM B fo r review . Change s mad e i nrespons e t o suggestion s o r recommendation s fro mOM B wil l b e documente d an d include di nth e publi c record . B . Paperwor k Reductio nAc t Th e informatio ncollectio nrequirement s i nthi s propose d rul e hav e bee nsubmitte d fo r approva l t o th e OM B unde r th e Paperwor k Reductio nAct , 4 4 U.S.C . 350 1 et . seq . A nIC Rdocumen t ha s bee nprepare db yEP A(ICRNo . ) an da cop yma yb e obtaine d fro mSand yFarme r b ymai l a t th e Offic e o f Environmenta l Information , Collectio nStrategie s Divisio n (2822). , U.S . EPA , 120 0 Pennsylvani a Avenue , NW , Washington , D C 20460 , b ye-mai l a t "farmer.sandy@epa.gov, " o r b ycallin g (202 ) 260-2740 . Acop yma yals o b e downloade dfro mth eP.8 2

7 9 interne t a t "http://www.epa.gov/icr. " Thes e propose d NESHA P contai nmonitoring , reporting , an d recordkeepin g requirements . TW e believ e tha t th e requiredpropose d notice s an d report s ar e th e minimu mneede d b yu s t o determin e wh o isi f yo u ar e subjec t t o th e NESHA P an d whethe r yo u ar e i ncompliance . TW e believ e th e propose d recordkeepin g requirement s ar e th e minimu mnecessar yt o determin e initia l an d ongoin g compliance . Base do nreporte d information , w e woul ddecid e whic hreinforce dplasti c composite s facilitie s an dwha t record s o r processe s shoul d b e inspected . Th e recordkeepin g an dreportin g requirement s ar e consisten t wit hth e Genera l Provision s o f 4 0 CF Rpar t 63 . Thes e propose d recordkeepin g an dreportin g requirement s ar e specificall yauthorize d b ysectio n11 4 o f th e CAA(4 2 U.S.C . 7414) . Al l informatio nsubmitte dt o u s fo r whic ha clai mo f confidentialit yi s mad e wil l b e safeguarde d accordin g t o ou r policie s i n4 0 CF Rpar t 2 . Th e EP Aexpect s thes e propose dNESHA P t o affec t a tota l o f approximatel y48 6 facilitie s ove r th e firs t 3 year s afte r promulgatio no f th e rule . Thi s include s 43 3 existin g facilities , an d 5 3 ne wreinforce d plasti c composite s facilitie s wil l becom e subjec t t o th e propose dNESHA P durin g th e firs t 3 years . Th e estimate d averag e annua l burde nfo r th e firs t 3 year s afte r promulgatio no f thes e propose dNESHA P fo rP.8 3

8 0 industr yan d th e implementin g agenc yi s outline dbelow . Yo u ca nfin d th e detail s o f thi s informatio ncollectio ni nth e "Standar d For m8 3 Supportin g Statemen t fo r IC RNo . , " i nDocke t No . A-94-52 .

Affecte d entit y Industry

Implementin g agenc y Tota l hour s 15,12 2 11,29 3 Labo r cost s

$673,12 0 $450,97 2 Tota l

Annua l O& M Cost s $17,26 5 NA Tota l

cost s $690,38 5 $450,97 2 Burde nmean s th e tota l time , effort , o r financia l resource s expende d b yperson s t o generate , maintain , retain , o r disclos e o r provid e informatio nt o o r fo r a Federa l agency . Thi s include s th e tim e neede dt o revie w instructions ; develop , acquire , install , an dutiliz e technolog yan d system s fo r th e purpose s o f collecting , validating , an d verifyin g information , processin g an d maintainin g information , an ddisclosin g an dprovidin g information ; adjus t th e existin g way s t o compl ywit han y previousl yapplicabl e instruction s an drequirements ; trai n personne l t o b e abl e t o respon dt o a collectio no f information ; searc hdat a sources ; complet e an drevie wth e collectio no f information ; an dtransmi t o r otherwis e disclos e th e information . A nagenc yma yno t conduc t o r sponsor , an da perso ni s no t require d t o respon dt o a collectio no f informatio n unles s i t display s a currentl yvali dOM B contro l number . Contro l number s fo r EPA' s regulation s ar e liste di n4 0 CF RP.8 4

8 1 par t 9 an d 4 8 CF Rchapte r 15 . Comment s ar e requeste d o nth e Agency' s nee dfo r thi s information , th e accurac yo f th e provide dburde nestimates , an d an ysuggeste d method s fo r minimizin g responden t burden , includin g th e us e o f automate dcollectio ntechniques . Sen d comment s o nth e IC Rt o th e Director , Offic e o f Environmenta l Information , Collectio nStrategie s Divisio n(2822) , U.S . EPA , 120 0 Pennsylvani a Avenu e NW , Washington , D C 20460 ; an d t o th e Offic e o f Informatio nan dRegulator yAffairs , OMB , 72 5 17t hStreet , NW , Washington , D C 20503 , marke d "Attention : Des k Office r fo r EPA. " Includ e th e IC Rnumbe r i nan ycorrespondence . Sinc e OM B i s require dt o mak e a decisio nconcernin g th e IC Rbetwee n3 0 an d6 0 day s afte r [INSER T DAT E O F PUBLICATIO N O F THIS PROPOSE DRUL E I N TH E FEDERAL REGISTER] , a commen t t o OM B i s bes t assure do f havin g it s ful l effec t i f OM B receive s i t b y[INSERT DAT E 3 0 DAY S AFTE RPUBLICATIO N O F THI S PROPOSE DRUL E I N TH E FEDERAL REGISTER] . Th e fina l rul e wil l respon dt o anyOM B o r publi c comment s o nth e information , collectio nrequirement s containe d i nthi s proposal . C . Executiv e Orde r 13132 , Federalis m Executiv e Orde r 13132. , entitle d"Federalism " (6 4 F R 43255 , Augus t 10 , 1999) , require s EP At o develo p a n accountabl e proces s t o ensur e "meaningfu l an dtimel yinpu t b yStat e an d loca l official s i nth e developmen t o f regulator ypolicie s tha t hav e federalis mimplications. "P.8 5

8 2 "Policie s tha t hav e federalis mimplications " i s define di n th e Executiv e Orde r t o includ e regulation s tha t hav e "substantia l direc t effect s o nth e States , o nth e relationshi p betwee nth e nationa l governmen t an dth e States , o r o nth e distributio no f powe r an dresponsibilitie s amon g th e variou s level s o f government. " Thi s propose d rul e doe s no t hav e federalis m implications . I t wil l no t hav e substantia l direc t effect s o nth e States , o nth e relationshi p betwee nth e nationa l governmen t an d th e States , o r o nth e distributio no f powe r an d responsibilitie s amon g th e variou s level s o f government , a s specifie d i nExecutiv e Orde r 13132 . N o reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nfacilitie s subjec t t o thes e propose d NESHA P ar e owne db yStat e o r loca l governments . Therefore , Stat e an d loca l government s wil l no t hav e any direc t complianc e cost s resultin g fro mthi s propose drule . Furthermore , thes e propose dNESHA P d o no t requir e thes e government s t o tak e o nan yne wresponsibilities . Thus , th e requirement s o f sectio n6 o f th e Executiv e Orde r d o no t appl yt o thi s propose d rule . Thus , Executiv e Orde r 1313 2 doe s no t appl yt o thi s rule . I nth e spiri t o f Executiv e Orde r 13132 , an dconsisten t wit hEP Apolic yt o promot e communication s betwee nEP Aan d Stat e an d loca l governments , EP Aspecificall ysolicit s commen t o nthi s propose d rul e fro mStat e an dloca l officials .P.8 6

8 3 D . Executiv e Orde r 1 3 084 , Consultatio nan dCoordinatio n wit hIndia nTriba l Government s Unde r Executiv e Orde r 13084 , w e ma yno t issu e a regulatio ntha t i s no t require d b ystatute , tha t significantl yo r uniquel yaffect s th e communitie s o f India n triba l governments , an dtha t impose s substantia l direc t complianc e cost s o nthos e communitie s unles s th e Federa l governmen t provide s th e fund s necessar yt o pa yth e direc t complianc e cost s incurre d b yth e triba l governments , o r w e consul t wit hthos e governments . I f w e compl yb yconsulting , w e ar e require d b yExecutiv e Orde r 1308 4 t o provid e t o th e OM B i na separatel yidentifie d sectio no f th e preambl e t o th e rule , a descriptio no f th e exten t o f ou r prio r consultatio nwit hrepresentative s o f affecte dtriba l governments , a summar yo f th e natur e o f thei r concerns , an d a statemen t supportin g th e nee dt o issu e th e regulation . I n addition , Executiv e Orde r 1308 4 require s u s t o develo p a n effectiv e proces s permittin g electe d official s an dothe r representative s o f India ntriba l government s "t o provid e meaningfu l an d timel yinpu t i nth e developmen t o f regulator y policie s o nmatter s tha t significantl yo r uniquel yaffec t thei r communities. " W e ar e no t awar e o f anyIndia ntriba l government s o r communitie s affecte d b yth e propose d rule . Accordingly , th e requirement s o f sectio n3(b ) o f Executiv e Orde r 1308 4 d o no t appl yt o thi s propose d rule .P.8 7

8 4 E . Unfunde d Mandate s Refor mAc t o f 199 5 Titl e I I o f th e Unfunde d Mandate s Refor mAc t o f 199 5 (UMRA) , Pub . L . 104-4 , establishe s requirement s fo r Federa l agencie s t o asses s th e effect s o f thei r regulator yaction s o nState , local , an d triba l government s an dth e privat e sector . Unde r sectio n20 2 o f th e UMRA , w e mus t generall y prepar e a writte nstatement , includin g a cost-benefi t analysis , fo r propose dan dfina l rule s wit h"Federa l mandates " tha t ma yresul t i nexpenditure s t o State , local , an d triba l governments , i nth e aggregate , o r t o th e privat e sector , o f $10 0 millio no r mor e i nan y1 year . Befor e promulgatin g a rul e fo r whic ha writte nstatemen t i s needed , sectio n20 5 o f th e UMR Agenerall yrequire s u s t o identif y an d conside r a reasonabl e numbe r o f regulator yalternative s an d adop t th e leas t costly , mos t cos t effective , o r leas t burdensom e alternativ e tha t achieve s th e objective s o f th e rule . Th e provision s o f sectio n2 0 5 d o not ' appl ywhe nthe y ar e inconsisten t wit happlicabl e law . Moreover , sectio n20 5 allow s u s t o adop t a nalternativ e othe r tha nth e leas t costly , mos t cost-effective , o r leas t burdensom e alternativ e i f th e Administrato r publishe s wit hth e fina l rul e a n explanatio nwh ytha t alternativ e wa s no t adopted . Befor e w e establis han yregulator yrequirement s tha t ma ysignificantl y o r uniquel yaffec t smal l governments , includin g triba l governments , i t mus t hav e develope d unde r sectio n20 3 o f th e UMR Aa smal l governmen t agenc yplan . Th e pla nmus t provid eP.8 8

8 5 fo r notifyin g potentiall yaffecte d smal l governments , enablin g official s o f affecte d smal l government s t o hav e meaningfu l an d timel yinpu t i nth e developmen t o f ou r regulator yproposal s wit hsignifican t Federa l intergovernmenta l mandates , an d informing , educating , an d advisin g smal l government s o ncomplianc e wit hth e regulator y requirements . W e hav e determine dtha t thi s propose drul e doe s no t contai na Federa l mandat e tha t ma yresul t i nexpenditure s o f $10 0 millio no r mor e b yState , local , an dtriba l governments , i nth e aggregate , o r th e privat e secto r i nany 1 year . Th e tota l cos t t o th e privat e secto r i s approximatel y*$T L2-$29' . 2 millio npe r year . Thi s propose drul e contain s n o mandate s affectin g State , local , o r Triba l governments . Thus , today' s propose d rul e i s no t subjec t t o th e requirement s o f section s 20 2 an d20 5 o f th e UMRA. . W e hav e determine d tha t thi s propose drul e contain s n o regulator yrequirement s tha t migh t significantl yo r uniquel y affec t smal l government s becaus e i t contain s n o requirement s tha t appl yt o suc hgovernment s o r impos e obligation s upo n them . F . Regulator yFlexibilit yAc t (RFA) , a s amende db vth e Smal l Busines s Regulator yEnforcemen t Fairnes s Ac t o f 199 6 (SBREFA) , 5 U.S.C . 60 1 e t seq . Th e RF Agenerall yrequire s a nagenc yt o prepar e a regulator yflexibilit yanalysi s o f anyrul e subjec t t oP.8 9

8 6 notic e an d commen t rulemakin g requirement s unde r th e Administrativ e Procedur e Ac t o r an yothe r statut e unles s th e agenc ycertifie s tha t th e rul e wil l no t hav e a significan t economi c impac t o na substantia l numbe r o f smal l entities . Smal l entitie s includ e smal l businesses , smal l organizations , an d smal l governmenta l jurisdictions . Fo r purpose s o f assessin g th e impact s o f today' s propose d rul e o nsmal l entities , smal l entit yi s define da s (1 ) a smal l busines s rangin g fro m500-1,00 0 employees ; (2 ) a smal l governmenta l jurisdictio ntha t i s a governmen t o f a city , county , town , schoo l distric t o r specia l distric t wit h a populatio no f les s tha n50,000 ; an d(3 ) a smal l organizatio ntha t i s an ynot-for-profi t enterpris e whic hi s independentl yowne d an doperate dan di s no t dominan t i nit s field . Th e tabl e belo wpresent s th e siz e threshol dfo r smal l businesse s b ySI C Code . Categor y SI C Code s NAIC S Code s Maximu m Numbe r o f Employee s t o b e Considere d a Smal l Busines s Manufacturin g 362 1

371 1 371 6 372 8 374 3 33531 2

336211 , 3361 2 33621 3 33641 3 3365 1 100 0

336112 ,P.9 0

8 7 282 1 329 6 343 1 353 1 361 2 361 3 366 3 371 4 Al l othe r identifie d SI C Code s i nthi s sourc e categor y 32521 1

32799 3 33299 8 33312 , 3365 1 33531 1 33531 3 3342 2 33653 , 33639 9 Al l othe r identifie d NAIC S Code s i n thi s sourc e categor y 75 0

50 0

I naccordanc e wit hsectio n60 3 o f th e RFA , EP Aprepare d a ninitia l regulator yflexibilit yanalysi s (IRFA ) tha t examine s th e impac t o f th e propose d rul e o nsmal l entitie s alon g wit hregulator yalternative s tha t coul dreduc e tha t impact . Th e IRF Ai s availabl e fo r revie wi nth e docke t an d i s summarize d below . Sectio n11 2 o f th e CAArequire s u s t o lis t categorie s an d subcategorie s o f majo r source s and , i nsom e cases , are a source s o f HA P an d t o establis hNESHA P fo r th e liste dsourc e categorie s an d subcategories. . Reinforce dplasti c composite s productio n(majo r source s only ) wa s include do nth e initia l lis t o f sourc e categorie s publishe d o nJul y16 , 199 2 (5 7 F R 31576) . Majo r source s o f HA P ar e thos e tha t hav e th e potentia l t o emi t greate r tha n1 0 tp yo f anyon e HA P o r 2 5 tp yo f anycombinatio no f HAP . Th e objectiv e o f thi s propose drul e i s t o appl y standard s base d o nmaximu machievabl e contro l technolog yt oP.9 1

8 8 al l majo r source s i nthi s sourc e category . Th e criteri a use d t o establis hMAC T ar e containe di nsectio n11 2 (d ) o f th e CAA . Base d o nSB Asiz e definition s an d reporte dsale s an d employmen t data , EP Aidentifie d2 7 8 o f th e 35 6 companie s ownin g reinforce d plasti c composite s facilitie s a s smal l businesses . Althoug hsmal l businesse s represen t almos t 8 0 percen t o f th e companie s withi nth e sourc e category , the y ar e expecte d t o incu r onl y3 1 percen t o f th e tota l industr y complianc e cost s o f $26. 0 million . Th e averag e tota l annua l complianc e cos t i s projecte dt o b e $30,00 0 pe r smal l compan y a s compare d t o th e industr yaverag e o f $70,00 0 pe r company . Unde r th e propose d standards , th e mea nannua l complianc e cost , a s a shar e o f sales , fo r smal l businesse s i s 0. 7 percent , an d th e media ni s 0. 4 percent , wit ha rang e o f 0.0 1 t o 7. 5 percent . Th e EP Aestimate s tha t 1 7 percen t o f smal l businesse s (o r 4 7 firms ) ma yexperienc e a nimpac t greate r tha n1 percen t o f sales , bu t onl y3 percen t o f smal l businesse s (o r 8 firms ) ma yexperienc e a nimpac t greate r tha n3 percen t o f sales . Th e Agenc yals o performe da neconomi c impac t analysi s (EIA ) tha t accounte d fo r fir mbehavio r t o provid e a n estimat e o f th e facilit yan d marke t impact s o f th e regulation . Thi s industr yi s characterize db yprofi t margin s o f 3 t o 4 percent . Smal l businesse s wer e foun dt o hav e highe r per-uni t productio ncost s unde r baselin eP.9 2

8 9 condition s an d incu r slightl yhighe r per-uni t complianc e costs . A s a resul t o f thes e factors , th e economi c analysi s indicate s tha t almos t 1 0 percen t o f facilitie s owne db y smal l busines s ar e a t ris k o f closur e becaus e o f thi s propose d rule . Althoug hanyfacilit yclosure s ar e caus e fo r concern , th e numbe r o f facilitie s a t ris k fo r closur e woul db e th e sam e i f thi s propose d rul e require donl yth e MAC T floo r leve l o f contro l fo r al l facilities . Th e MAC T floo r i s th e least , stringen t leve l allowe db ystatute . A s discusse d below , thi s propose d rul e contain s a significan t numbe r o f accommodation s fo r smal l business . WeWithou t additiona l data , w e d o no t believ e w e ca nmak e th e propose drul e any les s stringen t an d compl ywit hth e objective s o f th e CAA . Th e EPA' s effort s t o minimiz e small-busines s impact s hav e materiall yimprove d today' s proposal . Economi c analysi s o f provision s unde r earlie r consideratio nfo r inclusio ni nthi s propose d rul e indicate dgreate r impact s o n smal l businesse s tha nthos e propose dtoday . I nearlie r versions , almos t 4 2 percen t o f th e tota l industr ycomplianc e cost s woul d hav e bee nincurre d b ysmal l businesse s (compare d wit h3 1 percen t o f cost s incurre d b ysmal l businesse s i n today' s proposal) . Th e averag e tota l annua l complianc e cos t woul d hav e bee nroughl y$50,00 0 pe r smal l compan y(compare d wit h$30,00 0 i ntoday' s proposal) . Abou t 2 2 percen t o f smal l businesse s (o r 6 0 firms ) woul dhav e experience da nP.9 3

9 0 impac t greate r tha n1 percen t o f sale s (compare dwit h1 7 percen t o f smal l businesse s i ntoday' s proposal) . An d7 percen t o f smal l businesse s (o r 1 9 firms ) woul dhav e experience d impact s greate r tha n3 percen t o f sale s (compare d wit h3 percen t o f smal l businesse s i ntoday' s proposal) . Th e reductio ni nsmall-busines s cost s fro m earlie r version s o f thi s propose d rul e i s attributabl e t o EPA' s outreac han d accommodatio nfo r smal l firm s i nkeepin g wit hbot hRF Aan d CAArequirements , includin g th e conduc t o f a SBARPanel , a s discusse dfurthe r below . Th e pro j e c tedpropose d reportin g an drecordkeepin g requirement s fo r thes e smal l businesse s includ e initia l notifications , startu p notification s an dcomplianc e reports . Thes e requirement s wer e discusse d i nmor e detai l unde r th e discussio no f th e Paperwor k Reductio nAc t above . W e estimat e tha t 30 2 existin g facilitie s owne db ysmal l businesse s wil l b e impacte db ythes e requirements , an d5 3 ne wfacilitie s wil l b e impacte d i nth e firs t thre e years . Th e professiona l skill s require dt o complet e thes e report s includ e th e abilit yt o calculat e emission s an dresi nus e an d rea d an d follo wrepor t forma t guidance . Al l facilitie s impacte d b ythi s propose drul e shoul dhav e personne l wit h th e necessar yskill s becaus e the ywoul dnee dthes e skill s t o compl ywit hothe r regulator yrequirement s suc ha s Toxi c Releas e Inventor y(TRI ) reporting . Provision s t o minimiz e th e reportin g an drecordkeepin gP.9 4

9 1 requirement s o nsmal l busines s hav e bee nincorporate dint o thi s propose d rule . Thes e provision s includ e allowing : th e facilit yt o substantiat e resi nan dge l coa t HA P content s wit hMateria l Safet yDat a Sheet s rathe r the nrequirin g testin g o f eac hresi nan d ge l coat ; us e o f resi npurchas e record s t o determin e resi nuse ; an d exemptio no f facilitie s tha t ca ndemonstrat e tha t al l thei r resi nan dge l coat s compl ywit hth e require d HA P conten t limit s fro mth e requiremen t t o kee p record s o f resi nus e an dcalculat e poin t valu e averages . Thes e provision s hav e als o bee nextende dt o al l companie s subjec t t o today' s propose dNESHAP . Thes e facilitie s ma yals o b e subjec t t o th e NESHA P bein g develope d fo r plasti c part s an dproducts . Ther e shoul d b e n o duplicatio no f effor t a s a resul t o f thi s propose d rul e an d th e Plasti c Part s an dProduct s NESHA P bein g develope d becaus e thes e NESHA P wil l cove r differen t operations . Facilitie s subjec t t o thi s propose drul e ar e als o subjec t t o emission s estimat e reportin g unde r th e TR I requirements . I nthi s propose d rule , w e coul ddetermin e n o way s t o combin e TR I an d th e reportin g requirement s o f th e propose d NESHA P becaus e th e objective s an dstatutor y authoritie s o f thes e requirement s ar e different . However , w e invit e comment s fro mal l intereste dpartie s o nway s t o combin e thes e report s an dstil l mee t th e statutor y requirement s o f th e CAA . A s indicate d above , w e hav e incorporate dsignifican tP.9 5

9 2 alternative s int o th e propose d rul e t o minimiz e th e impac t o nsmal l busines s bu t stil l mee t th e objective s o f th e CAA . A s require d b ysectio n609(b ) o f th e RFA , EP Aconducte d outreac ht o smal l entitie s an dconvene da SBARpane l t o revie wadvic e an d recommendation s fro mrepresentative s o f th e smal l entitie s tha t potentiall ywoul db e subjec t t o th e propose d rul e requirements . Th e pane l convene do nApri l 6 , 200 0 an d wa s comprise do f representative s fro mOMB , th e SBA Offic e o f Advocacy , th e EP ASmal l Busines s Advocac yChair , an d th e Emissio nStandard s Divisio no f th e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g an d Standard s o f EPA . Th e pane l solicite d advic e fro m

1 7 smal l entit yrepresentative s (SER ) fro ma cross-sectio no f th e differen t industr ysector s likel yt o b e directl yregulate d b ythi s action . O nApri l 18 , 2000 , th e pane l distribute d a packag e o f descriptiv e an dtechnica l material s explainin g th e rule-in-progres s t o th e SER . O n Ma y2 , 2000 , th e pane l me t wit hth e SE Rt o hea r thei r comment s o npreliminar yoptions.fo r regulator yflexibilit y an d relate d information . Th e pane l als o receive dwritte n comment s fro m

th e SE Ri nrespons e t o bot hth e outreac h material s an d th e discussion s a t th e meeting . Consisten t wit hRFA/SBREF Arequirements , th e pane l evaluate d th e assemble d material s an dsmall-entit ycomment s o nissue s relate d t o th e element s o f th e IRFA . Acop yo f th e pane l repor t i s include di nth e docke t fo r thi s propose d rule .P.9 6

9 3 Th e pane l considere dnumerou s regulator yflexibilit y option s i nrespons e t o concern s raise dbyth e SER . Th e majo r concern s include d th e affordabilit yan dtechnica l feasibilit yo f add-o ncontrols , th e resi nan dge l coa t HA P content s require d t o mee t som e o f th e MAC T floors , an dth e regulator ytreatmen t o f specialit yproducts . Thes e ar e th e majo r pane l recommendation s an dEPA' s respons e i ntoday' s proposal :

• Recommen d settin g highe r threshold s tha nEP Aha d initiall yconsidere dfo r requirement s t o us e add-o n controls . Response : I ntoday' s action , EP Apropose s t o allo w facilitie s owne db ysmal l firm s t o emi t 25 0 tp y(a s distinc t fro mth e 10 0 tp ylimi t fo r facilitie s owne db y larg e firms ) befor e installin g add-o ncontrols .

• Recommen d settin g th e ne wsourc e floo r fo r small-owne d source s a t th e leve l o f th e existin g sourc e floor . Response : Today' s proposa l include s thi s provision .

• Recommen d establishin g separat e floor s fo r specialit y products . Response : Today' s proposa l include s thi s provision .

• Explor e pollution-preventio nalternative s t o add-o n controls . Response : Th e EP Adi d explor e thi s possibilit ywit h industr ysources . Althoug hw e coul d no t devis e a workabl e pollution-preventio nalternativ e t o includ e i nP.9 7



### 9 4 today' s proposal , th e Agenc yi s requestin g commen t o n ho wsuc ha mechanis mmigh t b e structure dwithi nth e requirement s o f th e CAA . Recommen d allowin g individua l facilitie s t o us e th e sam e resi ni nal l resi napplicatio nprocesses . Response : Today' s proposa l include s thi s provision . Reconside r th e resi nHA P conten t requiremen t fo r toolin g resins . Response : Today' s proposa l include s a revise d provision . Recommen d separat e floor s fo r whit e an dnon-whit e ge l coats . Response : Today' s proposa l include s thi s provision . Reconside r th e Agency' s estimate s o f th e cos t o f add-o n controls . Response : Eve nthoug htoday' s proposa l eliminate s th e likelihoo d tha t existin g small-owne dfacilitie s wil l b e subjec t t o add-o ncontrols , EP Aha s reconsidere dit s cos t estimate s i nligh t o f thos e offere d b yth e industry . A s discusse delsewher e i nthi s preamble , EP A continue s t o believ e ou r estimate s ar e realistic . Nevertheless , a s mentione di nsectio nIII-M , w e ar e solicitin g comment s o nal l dat a an d assumption s tha t affec t add-o ncontro l costs . Recommen d groupin g high-strengt happlication s wit h corrosion-resistan t operations .P.9 8

9 5 Response : Today' s proposa l include s thi s provision . Detaile d informatio no nal l thes e recommendation s i s containe d i nth e pane l repor t i nth e docke t fo r thi s propose d rule . G . Nationa l Technolog yTransfe r an dAdvancemen t Ac t Sectio n12(d ) o f th e Nationa l Technolog yTransfe r an d Advancemen t Ac t (NTTAA ) o f 199 5 (Publi c La wNo . 104-113 ; 1 5 U.S.C . 27 2 note ) direct s EP At o us e voluntar yconsensu s standard s i nthei r regulator yan dprocuremen t activitie s unles s t o d o s o woul d b e inconsisten t wit happlicabl e la wo r otherwis e impractical . Voluntar yconsensu s standard s ar e technica l standard s (e.g. , material s specifications , tes t methods , samplin g procedures , busines s practices ) develope d
o r adopte d b yon e o r mor e voluntar yconsensu s bodies . Th e NTTAAdirect s EP At o provid e Congress , throug hannua l report s t o OMB , wit hexplanation s whe na nagenc ydoe s no t us e availabl e an d applicabl e voluntar yconsensu s standards . Thi s propose d rulemakin g involve s technica l standards . Th e EP Apropose s i nthi s rul e t o us e EP AMethod s 1 , IA , 2 , 2A , 2C , 2D , 2F , 2G , 3 , 3A , 3B , 4 , 18 , 25 , 25A , 204 , an d 204B,C,D,E . Consisten t wit hth e NTTAA , th e EP Aconducte d searche s t o identif yvoluntar yconsensu s standard s i n additio nt o thes e EP Amethods . On e voluntar yconsensu s standar d wa s identifie da s applicabl e an dEP Apropose s t o us e thi s standar d i nthi s propose drule .P.9 9

9 6 Th e on e consensu s standard , AST MD6420-99 , Standar d Tes t Metho d fo r Determinatio no f Gaseou s Organi c Compound s b yDirec t Interfac e Ga s Chromatography-Mas s Spectrometr y (GC/MS) , i s appropriat e i nth e case s describe dbelo wfo r inclusio ni nthi s propose drul e i nadditio nt o th e currentl y availabl e EP AMetho d 1 8 codifie d a t 4 0 CF Rpar t 60 , appendi xA . Simila r t o EPA' s performanc e base dMetho d18 , AST M D6420-9 9 i s als o a performanc e base d metho dfo r measuremen t o f gaseou s organi c compounds . However , AST MD6420-9 9 wa s writte nt o suppor t th e specifi c us e o f highl yportabl e an d automate d GC/MS . Whil e offerin g advantage s ove r th e traditiona l Metho d 18 , th e AST Mmetho ddoe s allo wsom e les s stringen t criteri a fo r acceptin g GC/M S result s tha nrequire d b yMetho d 18 . Therefore , AST MD6420-9 9 i s a suitabl e alternativ e t o Metho d1 8 where : (1 ) th e targe t compound(s )
ar e thos e liste d i nSectio n1. 1 o f AST MD6420-99 , an d(2 ) th e targe t concentratio ni s betwee n15 0 part s pe r billio n (volume ) an d 10 0 ppm(v) . Fo r targe t compound(s ) no t liste di nTabl e 1. 1 o f AST M D6420-99 , bu t potentiall ydetecte db ymas s spectrometry , th e regulatio nspecifie s tha t th e additiona l syste mcontinuin g calibratio nchec k afte r eac hrun , a s detaile di nsectio n 10.5. 3 o f th e AST Mmethod , mus t b e followed , met ,p. 1

9 7 documented , an d submitte dwit hth e dat a repor t eve ni f ther e i s n o moistur e condense r use do r th e compoun di s no t considere d wate r soluble . Fo r targe t compound(s ) no t liste d i nTabl e 1. 1 o f AST M D6420-99 , an d no t amenabl e t o detectio nb ymas s spectrometry , AST MD6420-9 9 doe s no t apply . A s a result , EP Apropose s t o incorporat e b yreferenc e (IBR ) AST M6420-9 9 int o 4 0 CF R63.1 4 fo r applicatio nwit h propose d subpar t WWW Wo f par t 63 . Th e EP Awil l als o cit e Metho d 1 8 a s a ga s chromatography(GC ) optio ni nadditio nt o AST MD6420-99 . Thi s wil l allo wth e continue dus e o f othe r G C configurations . I nadditio nt o th e voluntar yconsensu s standard s EP A propose s t o us e i nthi s propose d rule , th e searc hfo r emission s monitorin g procedure s identifie d1 7 othe r voluntar yconsensu s standards . Th e EP Adetermine dtha t 1 3
o f thes e 1 7 standard s identifie d fo r measurin g emission s o f th e HA P o r surrogate s subjec t t o emissio nstandard s i nth e propose d rul e woul d no t b e practica l du e t o lac k o f equivalency , detail , and/o r qualit yassurance/qualit y contro l requirements . Th e remainin g fou r o f th e 1 7 consensu s standard s identifie d ar e unde r developmen t o r unde r EP Areview . Therefore , w e d o no t propos e t o us e thes e voluntar yconsensu s standard s i nthi s propose drulemaking .P. 2

9 8 Mor e informatio no nth e reason s w e chos e no t t o propos e t o us e thes e standard s i s availabl e i nth e docke t fo r thi s propose d rule . Th e EP Atake s comment s o npropose d complianc e demonstratio nrequirement s i nthi s propose drulemakin g an d specificall yinvite s th e publi c t o identif ypotentiall y applicabl e voluntar yconsensu s standards . Commentor s shoul d als o explai nwh ythi s propose drul e shoul dadop t thes e voluntar yconsensu s standard s i nlie u o f o r i nadditio nt o EPA' s methods . Emissio ntes t method s an dperformanc e specification s submitte d fo r evaluatio nshoul db e accompanie d wit ha basi s fo r th e recommendation , includin g metho d validatio ndat a an d th e procedur e use dt o validat e th e candidat e metho d (i f metho d othe r tha nMetho d301 , 4 0 CF Rpar t 63 , appendi xAwa s used) . Tabl e 6 o f propose d subpar t WWW Wlist s th e EP Ates t method s an d performanc e standards . Mos t o f th e standard s hav e bee nuse d b yState s an d industr yfo r mor e tha n 1 0 years . Nevertheless , unde r §63.7(f) , th e proposa l als o allow s an yStat e o r sourc e t o appl yt o EP Afo r permissio nt o us e a nalternativ e method s i nplac e o f an yo f th e EP A testin g method s o r performanc e standard s liste di nth e propose d NESHAP . H . Executiv e Orde r 1 3 045 , Protectio no f Childre nfro m Environmenta l Healt hRisk s an d Safet yRisk sP. 3

9 9 Executiv e Orde r 1304 5 (6 2 F R19885 , Apri l 23 , 1997 ) applie s t o an yrul e that : (1 ) i s determine dt o b e "economicall ysignificant " a s define dunde r Executiv e Orde r 12866 , an d (2 ) concern s a nenvironmenta l healt ho r safet y ris k tha t w e hav e reaso nt o believ e ma yhav e a disproportionat e effec t o nchildren . I f th e regulator y actio nmeet s bot hcriteria , th e Agenc ymus t evaluat e th e environmenta l healt ho r safet yeffect s o f th e planne drul e o nchildren , an d explai nwh yth e planne dregulatio ni s preferabl e t o othe r potentiall yeffectiv e an dreasonabl y feasibl e alternative s considere db yth e Agency . Th e EP Ainterpret s Executiv e Orde r 1 3 04 5 a s applyin g onl yt o thos e regulator yaction s tha t ar e base do nhealt ho r safet yrisks , suc htha t th e analysi s require dunde r sectio n 5-50 1 o f th e Executiv e Orde r ha s th e potentia l t o influenc e th e regulation . Thi s proposa l i s no t subjec t t o Executiv e Orde r 1304 5 becaus e i t i s base do ntechnolog yperformanc e an d no t o nhealt ho r safet yrisks . Additionally , thi s propose d rul e i s no t economicall ysignifican t a s define db y Executiv e Orde r 12866 .

### 10 0 NESHAP : Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio n

Propose dRule s - Pag e 10 0 o f 18 2 Lis t o f Subject s i n4 0 CF RPar t 6 3 Environmenta l protection , Ai r pollutio ncontrol , Hazardou s ai r pollutants , Incorporatio nb yreference , Reportin g an d recordkeepin g requirements , an dVolatil e organi c compounds .

Date d

Caro l M . Browner , Administrator .