p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# l-F- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/20088:42:12 AM

Sheet 258of 264P. 2 

# r\-°\dS^_ 

# <L-f"J. CONTAC TREPORT 

### Off

Perso nCalling :

Perso nCalled :

Dateof Contact : t KeithBarnett andPennyLassiter U.S
. EnvironmentalProtectio nAgenc y OAQPS/ESD/OC G 919-541-560 5 and919-541-539 6 Mr
. Pete r D
. Eglinto n Offic eof Management

andBudge t Roo m1020 2 72 5 17t hStreet NW Washingto nD.C
. 202-395-588 7 Decembe r

11,200 0 Contac t Summary : Th epurpos eof

thi s cal lwa s to discus s OM B comment s receive dDecember 7 , 200 0o

n th eproposalpackag efor

th eReinforce dPlasti c Composite s NESHAP
. Th eOM B comment s are attache dinaredlin estrikeou t versio nof

th epreamble
. Th eOM B comment s werediscusse dandaddresse dinarevise dversio nof th epreamble
. A redlin estrikeou t

cop yofth erevise dpreambl ei s attached
. Keit hBarnett



# iP. 3

COMMENT S RECEIVE D FRO MOM B O NDECEMBE R7 , 2 00 0 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 d plasti 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 d NESHA P woul dreduc e nationwid eP. 4

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[INSER T DAT E 2 0 DAY S AFTE RDAT E O F PUBLICATION

O F THI S 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 da t th e U.S . EPA , 40 1 MStreet , SW , Washington , D C 2 046 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. 5

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 . SUPPLEMENTAR YINFORMATION : Comments . Comment s an ddat 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 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 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 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. 6

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 da 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 p 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 mi 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. 7

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 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 d fo 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 do nth e TTN's-polic yan d guidanc e pag e fo r newl ypropose d o 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. 8

Industr y

Federa l 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 33-65 3 33639 9 3361 2 33621 3 33641 3 33621 4

Governmen t

Thi s provide s regulate d facilit y applicab i yo u hav e actio nt o 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 9 6

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 d ge 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 dge l coats . tabl e i s no t intende d t o b e exhaustive , bu t rathe r a guid e fo r reader s regardin g entitie s likel yt o b e b ythi s action . T o determin e whethe r you r i s regulate d b ythi s action , yo u shoul dexamin e th e lit ycriteri a i n §63.578 5 o f th e propose d rule . I f an yquestion s regardin g th e applicabilit yo f thi s a particula r en t th e precedin g FO RFURTHE R Out l ity , consul t th e perso nliste di n INFORMATIO NCONTAC T section . ine . Th e informatio npresente d i nthi s preambl e i sP. 9

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 d NESHA 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 dsubcategorie s ar e affecte dby 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 d b 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 dplasti 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 ? IV . Summar yo f Environmental , Energy , an dEconomi c Impact s A . Wha t facilitie s ar e affecte db yth e propose dNESHAP ? B . Wha t ar e th e ai r qualit yimpacts ?P.1 0

8 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 o f Propose d NESHA P t o Othe r Standard s an d 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 ) 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 sea . G . Nationa l Technolog yTransfe r an dAdvancemen t Ac t H . Executiv e Orde r 13045 , 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 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 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 any combinatio no f HAP .P.1 1

9 B . Wha t criteri a ar e use di 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 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 ? Today' s propose d NESHA P ar e intende dt o protec t ai r qualit yan d promot e th e publi c healt hb yreducin g emission sP.1 2

1 0 o f som e o f th e HA P liste di 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 , styrene , methy l methacrylate , an d methylen e chloride . [COMMENT: Can EPA provid e th e level of emissions (e.g., tons Tieryear) for each of

these?] Exposur e t o thes e compound s ha s bee ndemonstrate d t o caus e advers e healt h effects , includin g chroni c healt hdisorder s (e.g. , headache , fatigue , an d depression ) and.acut e healt hdisorder s (e.g. , irritatio no f skin , eyes , an dmucou s membrane s an ddecrease d respirator yfunction) . Methylen e chlorid e ha s bee n classifie d a s a probabl e huma ncarcinoge nan dstyren 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 . [COMMENT: Can EPA elaborate 

### on the relative magnitud e of the difference in ambient concentrations and

the concentrations that caused the effects?] 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 dfro 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 eP.1 3

1 1 operations . However , t o th e exten t th e advers e effect s d o occur , th e propose d rul e willwoul dreduc e emission s an d 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 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 . Methyl-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 dreduce 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 nP. M



### 1 2 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 n 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 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 d tumor 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 dindustrie s classificatio n(SIC ) codes . I nadditio nt o thes e surveys ,P.1 5

1 3 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 e 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 kee p stakeholder s informe dan 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 doperatin 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 d t o determin e th e cost , economic , energy , an denvironmenta 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-linkin g resins , usuall yi ncombinatio nwit hP.1 6

1 4 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 s 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 . [COMMENT: Please elaborate on the rationale forincluding"product s that do not contain reinforcingmaterial". given the more limited scope implie

d bv the title.]

Thi s sourc e categor yi s limite dt 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 rP.1 7

1 5 existin g reinforce d plasti c composite s productio nfacility . A . Wha t sourc e categorie s an dsubcategorie s ar e affecte db v 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 ieaso nL o 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;—thaL—rs-;—w e di dno t observ e any—di f leienc e in—Lli e dat a 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 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 dP.1 8

1 6 Plasti c Composite s Productio nsourc e categor yar e approximatel y22,20 0 tpy . Emission s fro mspra ylay-up 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 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 th e proposal , th e affecte dsourc e xswoul d b e th e combinatio no f al l operation s regulate dunde r thes e standard s a t a reinforce dplasti c composite s productio n facility . Th e followin g regulate d operation s ar e typicall y performe d a t reinforce dplasti 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 ,P.1 9

1 7 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 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 d fo 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 d hav 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 dHA 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 . W e believ e tha t i t i s cos t effectiv e fo r thes e facilitie s t o mee t thi s requirement . Nevertheless , w e reques t comment sP.2 0

1 8 (wit hsupportin g data ) o nth e impact s o f a 10 0 tp ythreshol d fo r businesse s tha t ar e no t smal l businesses . 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 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 dcentrifuga 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 d existin 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 fP.2 1

1 9 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 . 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 d pe 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 dne 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 0P.2 2

2 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 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 dsourc 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 TP.2 3

2 1 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 dcompare 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 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 equations . Determinin g th e HA P conten t o f material s an dth e metho do f applicatio ni s relativel ysimple , an dthes e factor s ar e th e mos t significan t i naffectin g emissions . I t i s muc hmor e difficul t t o determin e th e effect s o f othe r factor s o n 

### emissions . [COMMENT: Can EPA provide examples of these "otherfactors", to perhaps encourage public input?] For thi s reason , othe r factor s ar e no t include di nth e MAC T mode l poin t valu e equations . Mor e informatio no nth eP.2 4

2 2 developmen t o f thi s mode l i s availabl e i nth e docket' . EP A welcome s comment s o nth e dat a an dassumption s use dt o develo p th e MAC T poin t valu e equations . 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 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 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 eP.2 5

2 3 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 effective'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 dallo wvo u mavt 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 d source, —o r b ymeetin g th e weighted ' averag e MAC T poin t valu e fo r al l ope nmoldin g operation s a t you r affecte d source . 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 mayeouI d compl yb y meetin g the'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 dcentrifuga l castin g operation s wher e vu u ar e recmiiedth e propose d rul e woul drequir e yo u t o mee t a percen t reduction , yo u ma-ycoul 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 .P.2 6



### 2 4 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 mar y ocoul 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 daverag 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 -rswoul 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 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 th e proposal , .thes e alternative s ma yalsocoul d b e use di ncombinatio nt o demonstrat e compliance . W e reques t comment s o nth e feasibilit yo f ensurin g a permanen t tota l enclosur e fo r th e variet yo f product s manufacture d a t you r facility . 3 . Pultrusio nOperation s Fo r existin g an d ne wpultrusio noperations , unde r th e proposa l vo 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 n o 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 n system 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 oP.2 7

2 5 existin g sources—rs : 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 maycoul d us e th e availabl e option s i n combinatio nt o achiev e complianc e unde r th e proposal . 4 . Ancillar yOperation s Fo r ancillar yoperation s a t al l sources , suc ha s cleaning , storage , an d mixing/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 d initia l complianc e requirements ? W e ar e leuuiiiiiuproposin qt o requir e owner s an d operator s o f al l affecte dsource 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 d outle 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 leuuirinqproposin g t o requir e owner s an d operator s tha t use — permanen t tota l enclosure s t o conduc t a desig nevaluatio 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 musLwoul 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 capture , efficiency . W e reques t comment s o nth e feasibilit yo f usin g a permanen t tota l enclosur e fo r al l affecte dprocesses .P.2 8

2 6 Prio r t o th e initia l performanc e test , owner s an d operator s o f affecte dsource 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 reguirements ? 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 dNESHAP , 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 db ykeepin g a recor d certifyin g tha t yo u ar e i ncomplianc e wit hth e wor kP.2 9

2 7 practices . W e reques t comment s o neac ho f thes e requirements . 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 d t 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 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 documentation . [COMMENT: Forhow long?] Yo u mustwoul d nee d t 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 . -rUnde r th e proposal , i f yo u mus t compl ywit hth e wor k practic e standard s i ntoday' s propose dNESHAP , yo u musLwoul 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 practices . [COMMENT: Forhow long?] I f yo u ar e usinqus e th e MAC T poin t valu e syste mt o demonstrat e compliance , yo u mustwoul dnee dt o kee p al l data ,P.3 0

2 8 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 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 n equatio no r facto r t o eac hformula ; al l data , assumptions , an d calculation s use d t 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 e appropriat e regulator yagenc yha s approve dal l emissio n estimatio nequation s an dfactors. - W e specificall yreques t comment s o nth e Agency' s nee d fo r thi s information ; th e amoun t o f burde nassociate dwit h th e propose d notification , reporting , an drecordkeepin g requirements ; an d an ysuggeste dmethod s fo r minimizin g responden t burden , includin g th e us e o f automate dcollectio n techniques . 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 d refin e categor ydescription sP.3 1

2 9 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 . [COMMENT: Can 

### EPA elaborate on the decision criteria used to determine whetherornot

to refine the source category description?] 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 dsource " 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 o mee t produc t qualit yspecifications . D . Wha t i s a ne waffecte d source ?P.3 2

3 0 Ane waffecte d sourc e i s anyreinforce dplasti c composite s productio nfacilit ytha t meet s bot ho f thes e criteria :

• I t commence d constructio 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 0 percen t o f th e fixe d capita l cos t tha t woul db e require d t 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 db e replacemen t o f spra yequipmen t an dmolds . W e d o no t believ e tha t i tP.3 3

3 1 woul d b e technologicall yan d economicall yfeasibl e fo r a n existin g sourc e makin g thes e type s o f change s t o mee t ne w sourc e MACT . Thus , suc hchange s d o no t mee t th e definitio n o f reconstructio ni nth e Genera l Provision s an dwoul dno t subjec t th e source s makin g suc hchange s t o ne wsourc e MACT. _ W e welcom e comment s abou t othe r type s o f change s tha t shoul d b e considere d outsid e th e definitio no f reconstruction . 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 n thei r emission s characteristics , contro l devic eP.3 4

3 2 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 d b 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 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 n th e ra wmaterial s tha t ca nb e used . This , i nturn ,P.3 5



### 3 3 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-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-resistance'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 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 dge l coats , an dare , therefore , unabl e t o b e formulate dt 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 sP.3 6

3 4 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 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 nany 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 dt o produce . Thes e includ e a hig h leve l o f dimensiona l stabilit yan d resistanc 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. — W e believ e w e hav e capture dth e ful l rang e o f processe s an d product s i nou r propose dcategories . 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 . 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 dan dHA P content , an dprovid e aP.3 7

3 5 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 . Dat a t o quantif yth e impact s o f othe r factor s tha t ma yaffec t emission s ar e no t easil yobtainabl e an dwer e no t availabl e fo r thi s analysis . [COMMENT: Can EPA provide 

### examples of

such "otherfactors"and the potential

impact

of omittingthem from the analysis?] Th e poin t valu e system wa 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 dt o provide* ? 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 d centrifuga 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 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 tP.3 8

3 6 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 d th 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 d provid e acceptabl e ge l coa t performance . I nth e absenc e o f anyothe r data , w e adopte d a 3 7 percen t HA P ge l coa t a s th e floor . Th e 3 7 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 dP.3 9

3 7 supportin g dat a o nth e appropriatenes s o f 3 7 percen t a s a minimu mHA P conten t fo r acceptabl e ge l coa t performance . 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 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 product s are—th e same . Thi s i s consisten t wit ha recommendatio no f th e SBARPanel . W e welcom e 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 dP.4 0

3 8 fro mth 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 d t 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 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 yP.4 1

3 9 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 dw 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 . W e reques t comment s an d supportin g dat a o nwhethe r a 100-tp ythreshol d adequatel yaddresse s fundamenta l difference s i nth e abilit y t o maintai nan d operat e add-o ncontrols . I nexaminin g th e facilitie s wit hemission s o f 10 0 tp y o r more , w e foun d thre e 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 m10 0 tp yt o 1,00 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 for . ope n moldin g an d mixin g a t facilitie s wit h10 0 tp yo r mor e o f 

### uncontrolle d emissions . [COMMENT: Can anythingbe said about the representativeness of the three facilities? DoP.4 2

4 0 

### their product s range in size, so that it's clearthat

add-on controls would

be considered

feasible across all facilities with emissions greaterthan 100tpy? It would seem that "emissions characteristics"is not the only factorin judgingwhethercontrols are feasible throughout the current subcategory(ies).] 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 . [COMMENT: See above 

### comment. Why didn't

EPA evaluate the controls in place for the best performerin each typ e of operation? Can EPA guarantee that

add-on controls are feasible forall operations, regardless of product size orprocess?]

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 h uncontrolle d emission s o f a t leas t 10 0 tpy . W e reques t comment s o nou r approac ht o settin g th e requiremen t fo r add

o ncontrol s fo r al l ne woperation s wit hemission s greate r tha n10 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 doperation 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 rP.4 3

4 1 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 e enclose d t o mee t th e 9 5 percen t contro l requirement.
_ 

### [COMMENT: How can this be an option if it doesn't represent the actual

practices of

the best

performingfacility?] However , w e determine d tha 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 propose dne 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 stil l considerin g whethe 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 , an d reques t commen t o nthi s issue . 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 dhel p u s quantif yth e worke r exposur e impact s o f settin g a 9 5 percen t contro l (wit h10 0 percen t capture ) requiremen t a s wel l a s th e cost s an d benefit s o f incorporatin g pollution-preventio nrequirement sP.4 4

4 2 wit hthe a 9 5 percen t contro l requirements*. — W e drdar e no t selecLproposin q9 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 dmoldin g operatio no nsite . 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 d contro 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 propose dne wsourc e MAC T floo r fo r thi s • 

### operation . [COMMENT: Is "compression/injection molding", and its associated

control

option, representative of the othertypes of

"closed molding"and

feasible controls?]

Fo r polyme r castin g an d resi ntransfe r molding , w e wer e no t abl e t o identif yan yapplicabl e contro l techniques . Thus , th e propose d 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 bHA P emissio ncontrols . Cure dresi no r ge lP.4 5

4 3 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 dpe 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 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 m

th e applicatio nequipment . Ove r 25 0 facilitie s reporte d coverin 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 eP.4 6

4 4 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 .it mor e difficul t t o maintai nan doperat e add

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 d o npollution-preventio n techniques .

Fo r thes e smaller-emittin g facilities , w e ar e seLLinqproposin qt 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 o f 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 d part s fo r automobiles . Give nthi sP.4 7

4 5 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 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 d an dstil 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 reques t comment s o nou r rational e fo r establishin g a 100-tp ythreshol da s oppose d t o othe r level s (e.g. , 25 0 tpy) . 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 eP.4 8

4 6 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 dconcer 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 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 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 nP.4 9

4 7 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 d the 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 d testin g required , .an d a 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 dt o incorporat e th e pollution

preventio ntechnique s outline di 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 d time . W e ar e als o solicitin g commen t o ndeterminatio no f aP.5 0

4 8 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 mal l ope nmolding , centrifuga l casting , continuou s lamination/casting , pultrusion , SM C manufacturing , an d resi nmixing/BM C manufacturing.
_ 

### [COMMENT: As mentioned previously, please clarify how EPA is confident

that each of

these processes, and that all product sizes, are represented by a source that can mee t a 100% capture/95% control requirement.] W e the nlooke d a t severa l options . Thes e wer e selectin g the'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 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 da reasonablea nincrementa l cos t effectivenes s o f $XX,XX Xpe r to no f HAP , whic hw e conside rP.5 1

4 9 reasonable . However , whe nw e performe dth e economi c analysi s fo r thi s option , 12 6 smal l businesse s woul db e impacte d a t a leve l o f 3 percen t o f sale s o r more , an dther 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 chooseproposin qthi 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 d HA 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 m

th 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 e 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 db 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 tp yo f HAP ,P.5 2

5 0 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 thx s differenL e 25 0 tp ythreshol d f o r smal l btrsmsHss s an d leu.y e 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 . W e specificall yreques t commen t o nthes e assumption s an d ou r conclusion , includin g th e impact s o f th e rul e fo r larg e businesse s wit hemission s betwee n10 0 tp yan d25 0 tpy .

'

_I nsettin g requirement s tha t ar e mor e stringen t tha n th e MAC T floor , th e statut e allow s th e consideratio no f th e cos t o f achievin g th e emission s reductions , an vnonai r qualit yhealt han d environmenta l impacts , an denerg y requirements . W e ofte nus e "cos t effectiveness " t o evaluat e th e merit s o f mor e stringen t requirements . W e reques t comment s an d supportin g dat a o nothe r measure s o f th e "cost s o f achievin g th e emission s reductions " tha t coul daffec t ou r decision , a s wel l a s o nth e othe r factor s mentione dabove . .W e als o reques t comment s wit hsupportin g dat a o nan y unanticipate d consequence s o f requirin g 10 0 percen t captur e an d 9 5 percen t contro l o f emission s a s a nabove-the-floo r requirement , includin g interaction s wit hOSH Aregulations . 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 dtha t w e reconside r ou r estimate s o fP.5 3

5 1 cost s fo r add-o ncontrol s i n ligh 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 . [COMMENT: Can EPA provide the actual cost figures?]

Th e majo r reaso nfo r thes e difference s i n cos t ar e th e desig nassumption s fo r th e permanen t tota l enclosure s an d th e estimate d ai r flows . Ou r cos t estimate s assum e a n inle 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 n th 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 . [COMMENT: Please provide more information with which to judge whether100 ppmv is reasonable — no t jus t that i t falls between 61 and 249? Forexample, what is the average concentration, weighted by the number

of sources that

emit such concentrations? If most sources are closerto 61 ppmv, CFA may have a strongerpoint.] Base do n this , w e believ e ou r 10 0 ppmvestimat e i s stil l reasonable , an d w e hav e decide d no t t o revis e ou r cos t a t thi s time . W e d o inten dt o revie w th e industry' s cos t analysi s i n mor e dept hfollowin g proposal , an d mak e anyappropriat e change s base do n comment 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 d informatio no n typica l exhaus tP.5 4

5 2 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 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 percent,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 o f thi s optio nwoul d b e unreasonable . [COMMENT: Please 

### provide cost

effectiveness figures, to give a sense of what was judged

as "unreasonable".] Fo r thi s reason , w e chos eP.5 5

5 3 th e floo r leve l o f contro l a s MAC T fo r riewsources . 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 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 e floors , th e cos t effectivenes s o f thi s smal l additiona l benefi t woul d b e unreasonable , eve nthoug hther e ma yb e 

### worke r exposur e benefits . [COMMENT: Please provide cost effectiveness figures, to give a sense of what was judged

as "unreasonable"

. ]

Therefor e 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 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 6



### 5 4 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 d o 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 d i 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 ? Thes e propose d NESHA P woul dno 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 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 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 nP.5 7

5 5 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 d whethe r th e mol di 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 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 mshoul 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 db e enforceable . Th e for m

o 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 do nPoin t Value s Thes e propose d NESHA P fo r ope nmoldin g operation s an dP.5 8

5 6 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 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 d source 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 9

5 7 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 d SM 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 d percen t reduction . 

### [COMMENT: Can EPA demonstrate that add-on controls are currently used

bv at least one source in each process category and

forall product

sizes, and

that the level

of control forthese sources is 95% (with 100% capture)?] But 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 CP.6 0

5 8 manufacturin g tha t wa s generall yapplicable . Therefore , w e coul d no t develo p a standar dbase do 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 dtha 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 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 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 dP.6 1

5 9 economi c limitations. " W e reques t comment s o nwhethe r thi s situatio ncoul d aris e fo r source s w e propos e t o includ e unde r th e requiremen t t o achiev e 10 0 percen t captur e an d9 5 percen t control . 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 s 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 db 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 dresi nmixing/BM C a t existin g facilitie s ar e als o base do 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 .P.6 2

6 0 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 d NESHA P o na 12-month , rolling-averag e basis . YUnde r th e proposal , yo u woul d determin e complianc e a t th e en do f eac h mont hfro mth e dat a collecte d ove r th e pas t 1 2 months . A 12-mont haveragin g tim e provide s a balanc e betwee noperatin g flexibilit yan d enforceabilit yo f th e propose dstandards . TW e believ e th e 12-mont hperio d i s sufficientl ylon g s o tha t yo u ca nidentif ypotentia l complianc e problem s an dchang 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 rP.6 3

6 1 short-ter m

need s fo r higher-HA P material s du e t o variation s i nproduc t mix . W e welcom e comment s o nthes e assumptions . 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 d centrifuga 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 valu e unde r th e proposal , yo u mus t determin e th e HA P conten t o f th e ra wmaterial . Th e metho d t 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 d b 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 data.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 d Verificatio no f Permanen t o rP.6 4

6 2 Temporar yTota l Enclosure) . I f th e enclosur e meet s th e criteri a i nEP AMetho d2 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 dthe 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 . W e reques t comment s an d supportin g dat a o nth e feasibilit yo f 10 0 percen t captur e an d9 5 percen t contro l fo r specifi c processe s an d produc t types . W e als o reques t comment s o n whethe r suc hrequirement s woul dconflic t wit hothe r applicabl e regulations . 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 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 nP.6 5

6 3 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 dApri 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 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 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 .P.6 6

6 4 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 d standards . 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 n owne r an d operato r ma yus e purchas e record s t o determine , 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 dw 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 o6 5

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 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 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 d NESHA 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 12 months . [COMMENT: Would facilities have to continually monitor

changes in materials and processes -- in effect houriv, daily computations? Ordoes EPA envision facilities takingaccount of theiroperations once a month?] 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 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 d th 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 eP.6 8

6 6 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 . W e reques t comment s o nthes e assumptions . 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 d b 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 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 eP.6 9

6 7 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 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 mrrs-trwoul 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 dnee 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 , 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 e parameters . W e welcom e comment s o nthes e requirements . 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 dP.7 0

6 8 report s ar e th e minimu mneede dt 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 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 your.complianc e status . I f yo u hav e a nadd-o ncontro l devic e an d yo 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 additiona l 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 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 rP.7 1

6 9 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 . W e reques t comment s o nou r nee d fo r thi s information , th e burde no f th e requirements , an dan ysuggeste dmethod s fo r minimizin g responden t 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 d plasti 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 eP.7 2

7 0 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 dan d hazardou s wast e impacts ? 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 db 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 dpersona 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 lP.7 3

7 1 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 proiec 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 dno 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 willwoul d no t se e a nincreas e unde r th e proposal , 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 d 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 m

internal-mi xspra ygun s t o flowcoaters . Th e mos t commo nflushin g solvent s ar e aceton e an dwater-base dP.7 4

7 2 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 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 dsinc 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 hav e determine dtha 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 ywillcoul d increas e b y15 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 deLeiminedestimate 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 ,P.7 5

7 3 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 d instal l th e contro l equipment . W e hav e deteriviinedestimate 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 dvariabl e annua l cost s suc ha s natura l gas . G . Wha t ar e th e economi c impacts ? Th e Agenc yconducte d a detaile d economi 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 . BW e proiec 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 di 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 dreduction 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 fP.7 6

7 4 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 . 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 . [COMMENT: 

### What are the sizes of

these facilities?]

W e specificall y reques t comment s o nwhethe r suc himpact s ca nb e minimized , whil e adherin g t o statutor yrequirement s t o achiev e MACT . 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 d producer s o f reinforce dplasti 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 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 dt o incu r th e remainin g $15. 1P.7 7

7 5 millio ni ncost s associate dwit hth e propose dNESHAP . Fo r mor e information , consul t th e docke t fo r thi s project . W e reques t comment s o nou r data , assumptions , an dfindings , particularl ywher e alternativ e assumption s ma vaffec t ou r assessmen t o f above-the-floo r MAC T requirements . 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 dt 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 db 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 m i 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 rP.7 8

7 6 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 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 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 P 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 d anyrequirement s o f th e propose d NESHA P tha t woul d overlap , conflict , o r caus e aP.7 9

7 7 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 . 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 lP.8 0

7 8 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 dfo r approva l t o th e OM B unde r th e Paperwor k Reductio nAct , 4 4 U.S.C . 350 1 e t seq . A nIC Rdocumen t ha s bee nprepare db yEP A(ICRNo . ) an da cop yma yb e obtaine d fro mSandyFarme 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 . -TW e believ e 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 d decid e whic hreinforce dplasti c composite s facilitie s an d wha 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 2P.8 1

7 9 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 d NESHA 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

Indu s try

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 dP.8 2

8 0 maintainin g information , an ddisclosin g an dprovidin g information ; adjus t th e existin g way s t o compl ywit hany 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 d transmi 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 regulations.ar e liste di n4 0 CF R par t 9 an d 4 8 CF Rchapte r 15 . Comment s ar e requeste do 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 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 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 fP.8 3

8 1 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 d responsibilitie 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 an yP.8 4

8 2 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 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 . 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 db 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 db 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 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 dP.8 5

8 3 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 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 drule . 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 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 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 tP.8 6

8 4 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 hanyregulator 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 dunde r sectio n20 3 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 dsmal 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$7 2 millio npe r year . [COMMENT: Previous 

### statements mention annual costs of

$29.2 million. Thoughts? If the figure is $72 million, please clarify that actualP.8 7

8 5 

### expenditure s will

neverexceed

$100million in a 12-month period.] Thi s propose d rul 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 2 0 2 an d 20 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 anyrul 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 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 d a 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 hP.8 8

8 6 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 d operate 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

Manufacturin g SI C Code s

362 1 371 1 371 6 372 8 374 3 282 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 NAIC S Code s

33531 2 336211 , 3361 2 33621 3 33641 3 3365 1 32521 1 32799 3 33299 8 33312 , 33531 1 33531 3 3342 2 33653 , 336112 ,

3365 1

33639 9 Al l othe r identifie d NAIC S Code s i n thi s sourc e categor y Maximu m Numbe r o f Employee s t o b e Considere d a Smal l Busines s 100 0

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 drul 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 .P.8 9

8 7 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 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 an yon e HA P o r 2 5 tp yo f an ycombinatio 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 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 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 1P.9 0

8 8 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 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 dmarke 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 han yfacilit 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 d b 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 an y les s stringen t an d compl ywit hth e objective s o f th e CAA. _ W e welcom e comment s an dsupportin g dat a o nthi s conclusion .P.9 1

8 9 Th e EPA' s effort s t o minimiz e small-busines s impact s 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 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 db 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 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 d furthe r below . Th e or o iectedpropose 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 eP.9 2



### 9 0 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 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 d rul 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 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 sP.9 3



### 9 1 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 dth 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 from , al 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 hav e 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 d convene 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 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 m1 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 , 2 000 , th eP.9 4

9 2 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 yoption s fo r regulator yflexibilit y an d relate d information . Th e pane l als o receive dwritte n comment s fro mth 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 dnumerou 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 m

th e 10 0 tp ylimi t fo r facilitie s owne d b yP.9 5

9 3 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 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 nP.9 6

9 4 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 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 , w e reques t comment s o nbot hou r analysi s an d th e material s submitte db yindustry , t o hel p infor m ou r decisio no nth e fina l regulations .

• 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 s 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 eP.9 7

9 5 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 MD64 2 0-99 , 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 . Simila r t o EPA' s performanc e base dMetho d18 , AST M D6420-9 9 i s als o a performanc e base dmetho 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 sP.9 8

9 6 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 d o 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 AP.9 9

9 7 propose s t o us e i nthi s propose drule , 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 dar 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 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 ep. 1

9 8 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 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 dindustr yfo r mor e tha n 1 0 years . Nevertheless , unde r §63.7(f) , th e proposa l als o allow s anyStat 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 anyo 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 vRisk s Executiv e Orde r 1304 5 (6 2 F R19885 , Apri l 23 , 1997 ) applie s t o anyrul 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 rP. 2

! > 9 9 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 d o 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 0 NESHAP : Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Productio n

Propose d Rule 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 .