p. 1 

# OAR Box 1490 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 13 ) IV-B-1 3 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 8/4/200811:51:46

AM Sheet 13 of 273P. 2 

# |\/~G-) 3 MEMORANDU M TO : Docke t

94-52 , Reinforce dPlasti c Composite s NESHA P FROM : KeithBarnett , Environmental Protectio nAgenc y an dKe nMeardon , Pacifi c

Environmental Service s (PES ) DATE : Augus t

23 , 200 2 SUBJECT : Evaluatio n o f Composite Fabricator s Associatio n(CFA ) comment s o ncontro l o f mixer emission s usin g covers . Th e CFA requeste dtha t

w e allo w th e us e o f

cover s t o contro l emission s frommixing operations , rathe r than th e 9 5 percen t

contro l requirement s inth e propose drule . Thei r positio nwas that cover s wer e essentialit

y equivalent

t o 9 5 percen t

contro l withou t

th e advers e secondar

y impacts . W e agree dt o revie w thei r information . Page s 2 throug h4 presen t a n analysi s prepare db y PE S ofth e CF A contro l estimates . Base do n thi s analysis , w e d o no t

believ e that

it ca nb e state dtha t

9 5 percen t

contro l andcoverin g th e mixer s i s equivalent . I nth e final rule , only mixin g operation s a t ne w facilitie s mus t

mee t th e 9 5 percen t

contro l requirement . At

th e floor facility , th e mixer s ar e covered , meetin g th e work practic e requirement s o f Tabl e 4 ofth e rule . Th e mixing roo mi s the nvente dt o th e permanen t tota l enclosure that enclose s th e productio n process . Therefore , th e ne w sourc e floor i s covere dmixers , wit

hal l mixer emission s ventin g t o acontro l devic e tha t i s 9 5 percen t

efficient .07/25/0 2 13:2 5 ©1919941023 4 PE S RT PN C ©002/00 4 P. 3 I

COVER S O NMIXER S Industr y ha s requeste dtha t ne w sourc e MAC T requir e onl y cover s o nmixer s rathe r tha n 95 % control . The y hav e provide daspreadshee t analysi s ofth e potential effectivenes s o f cover s at 1 2 facilitie s (cases) . Thei r result s sho w arang e o f

effectivenes s from8 5 t o 96.9% . On e ofth e basi c assumption s use di nthei r analysi s i s th e uncontrolle demissio nfacto r o f 1% . Thi s cam e froma n agency-observe dstac k tes t o na nope nBM C mixer . W e evidentl y use d a n emissio nfacto r

o f 0.5 % ( I d o no t

kno w wher e thi s cam e from) . Attache di s aspreadshee t lookin g a

t tw o aspect s ofth e potentia l effectivenes s o f mixe r covers : 1 . Th e percen t emissio n reductio nachieve dat variou s uncontrolle demissio nfactor s (1 % dow nt o 0.5%) . 2 . Th e percen t

emissio n reductio nachieve dversu s th e typ e o f past e mixed , th e batc h weight , an dth e mi x tim e pe r batch . Observation s 1 . Th e firs t

observation , whic hshoul db e obvious , i s tha t a s th e uncontrolle demissio n facto r drops , th e estimate defficienc y ofth e cover s als o drops . A t 0.5% , th e estimate defficienc y rang e i s 7 0 t o 94% , with1 1 o f th e 1 2 facilitie s havin g a nemissio nreductio nefficienc y o f les s tha n 90% . Thus , i t

i s critica l t o determin e a nappropriat e uncontrolle demissio nfacto r o r factor s a s th e facto r

coul d(likely ) vary withth e typ e o f past e bein g mixed , typ e o f mixe r used , HA P conten t ofth e paste , etc . 2 . Lookin g at

th e Past e Mixe dcolumn , th e on e thin g that stand s out

i s that four ofth e botto mfiv e facilitie s are SM C an dBM C mixes . 3 . Lookin g a t

th e Batc hWeigh t

column , th e on e thin g tha t stand s ou t

i s tha t th e heavie r th e batch , th e bette r

th e estimate defficienc y ofth e cove r (excludin g th e SM C an dBM C results) . 4 . Lookin g a t

th e Mi x Tim e pe r

Batc hcolumn , th e on e thin g tha t stand s ou t

i s tha t th e longe r th e batc hi s mixed , th e highe r th e estimate defficienc y ofth e cove r (almos t eve nincludin g SM C an dBMC , bu t

especiall y excludin g them) . What Doe s i t Mean ? I d o no t thin k auniversa l "adoption " o f cover s ove r

95 % reductio ni s i norder . I f w e conside r adoptin g acover s onl y standard , i t shoul db e targete dt o ope nmoldin g mixin g (i.e. , conversely , d o no t

includ e SM C an dBM C i nth e exclusion ) an dt o th e lengtho f tim e eac hbatc h i s mixe d(e.g. , greate r

tha n 1 hour) . W e coul dhav e individua l facilitie s conduc t specifi c sourc e test s o f

thei r mixer s t o develo p specifi c emissio n factor s an dsho w o npape r al awha t Lipir o di dtha t

th e estimate d emissio n reductio n i s at

leas t 95% . O f course , I thin k

tha t th e Genera l Provision s migh t alread y allo w this . 

# Z > •

•



# JP. 4

u ,/z.u/u ^ io:^ b •a'1919941023 4 PE S RTPN C ©003/00 4

Cover s o nMixer s

pag e 2 OTHE RTHOUGHT S Whe n I rea dLipiro' s analysis , on e o f my firs t thought s i s that

thi s shoul dno t

b e a n incrementa l analysi s fo r

ne w sources . The nI wen t an drefreshe dmy memory a s t o wha t i s bein g require do f

ne w source s fo r

mixing . Fo r ne w source s >10 0 tpy , w e are requirin g mixing : (1 ) t o b e controlle d95 % [63.5805(c) ] an d (2 ) t o us e cover s withn o visibl e gaps presen t i nth e mixe r

cover s an dkee p th e mixer s cover s close ddurin g mixin g excep t whe naddin g material s t o th e mixin g vessel s (Tabl e 4) . Lookin g a t

thes e requirements , I canse e wh y on e woul dconduc t a nincrementa l analysis . I f mixer s ar e require dt o b e close dan dthe y achiev e 8 5 t o 97 % reductio nalready , the n63.5805(c ) i s onl y achievin g u p t o anothe r 10 % o f overal l control . Scenari o 1 . If l hav e t o contro l my mixer s 95 % b y usin g anadd-o ncontro l device , I a m basicall y sayin g I nee dt o captur e my mixin g emission s 100 % an dthe nreduc e th e capture d emission s b y 95% . But , th e requiremen t i nTabl e 4 allo w fromsom e escap e o f emission s whe n addin g materials , resultin g i n les s than100 % capture . S o ho w canI achiev e 100 % capture ? B y placin g all m y mixer s i n aPT E(e.g. , aroom ) an dventin g th e PTE/roo mt o th e contro l device . Bu t i f I amdoin g that , the n wh y d o I nee dt o put cover s o nmy mixers ? I a mreducin g th e amoun t o f styren e i n th e ai r

an dsendin g amor e dilut e streamt o th e contro l device . Thi s say s t o m e tha t requirement s i n Tabl e 4 ar e not necessary fo r

ne w sources . Scenari o 2 . Ifth e rul e allow s me t o averag e al l o f my emission s fo r

detenninin g 95 % control , the nI migh t

b e abl e t o pu t

cover s o nm y ne w mixer s (o r eve nleav e the muncontrolled ) an dcontro l th e remainin g emission s (i.e. , thos e fromother processes ) b y mor e tha n95 % an dstil l sho w at leas t 95 % emissio n reductio noverall . I n summary , I amwondering : 1 . I f w e kee p th e 95 % requirement , d o w e nee dth e Tabl e 4 requirement s fo r mixer s a t all ? 2 . I f w e shoul dmak e i t

explicitl y clear

that if afacility candemonstrat e tha t cover s achiev e 95 % reductio nfor thei r mixers , the nthe y hav e mee t th e requirement s o f th e rul e (regardles s o f

actual complianc e withTabl e 4) .


# 3 

# uP. 5

U7/Zt>/U 2 13:2 6 ©1919941023 4 PE S RT PN C ©004/00 4

Q)

J : X : ,£ ) c n ro 3 j C 0 §

( U C O • = 0 . 2

C O 

### z g H O O U J Cd 

### z o w C O U J I T 

### o O cr : U J X S

? *• " o o C M C O " ? "" M ( O C M C M roooo o C M C M u 7 *" " O O

O O O O O _ » 0 o o o o o § o TJ - o o • * 'a - S S S Sffl rr nl n m o o o o o m 

# i. l .2 2 SEE. 1 V
- ***
- U l c

o _W=:^|- - OT*=OcoOO O S.E^Sa-SEEEE E 0 1 ~ i S g £< = £ wJ = » j a . a ^ o - s o - o - 

### o o

C O d o C O *•*•* . c i o I ' - C O O o c o o "
O o <3 ) • ^ . ^ .^ p ^ > .^ J % p « A .^ p > p « ^ .^ p

ff*« ^« « ^« * ^* » ^ * ^» * ff. ff*. ff*. ff*. ff*. cq**cocsip**ttjooqcMT^o > rio)oiojNfO , rT-o)a)T- oi O100(D(O(0C0lOIX>NNN( O J 2 X C O 

### a: U J 

## § o cc U J > <

C O CM t - CM CM CM I** - • ^ r ^ r d fl) ( D i t o> Oi oi c n c o c o c o t - C M O J 0 > CJ> 

### S 'tn ^ iti *t C O ( O s s

> ^ « ^ ^ p > o ^ o ^ o «»p ^ p ^ p > p *^ s 0 s ff* 0 s ff* ff** o" * ff 1 " a* * a * ff* ff** to**n(ot*-T-o)'*tD*« , * » m wrsicM*^dcdcocciio**cxice i OOOlffiOCDOOeOOOOON N -r**f*)t00)(DinT-**^O* \ <d«<o(N*rcna)cdi v -.'(o'c\iT- ' O)0)0)0)0)cocococoaoooo o

w D « p ^ A ^ p . ^ »* p % p « p * P^ p > p ff** ff** ff** ff** ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* (DT-omoqincoxtaai o (D^'tPJNdoioicO N O)0)0)0)o>0>cooococ o tn C O 0 0

O l C O 0 ) C O

- o C D P s tf l c o Ui o E O U J T J JD 

# I C o o c 3 ( A c

. 2 "s S 0 0 i - 

### 1 ro UJ
O J Cf l ffl O N P*** p N P* ^ N P»*

^ > P**

P ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff* IOI*.«)*OCI>T-(O O e n ••-dcioSciiioi o O)O)O)O)a)O)0000COI O S ( O i
- • * "- t

t***^tf)COlOlOCMCM-«tCOr*-,r > dd-rT-dddNOr^ 0

•*- . •* * c o •* - 

### S » § g o

C M £ : C

O ^ *« - CM ^ 0 0 ^ T - •* » C M - ^ 0 0 -d * ^ S e o . _ . ' ^ ° c o 0 0 a* >

woaxo<u-->c a —J^ : C M g C M r« -

_0 

# H