p. 1 

# OAR Box 1415 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 22 ) IV-H- 3 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/15/20089:38:26

AM Sheet 22 of 130P. 2

"Bromberg , Kevi n L. " <kevin.bromberg@sb a •gov > 10/28/200 2 09:0 5 A M To : "'Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov' " <Bryon_P._Allen@omb.eop.gov > cc : Keit h Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EP A Subject : FW : Composite s Industry Comment s o n MAC T



### FYI - Keith , keeping yo

u i n th e loop . Keith , thanks fo r you r material s - an

dgoo dnew s - Joh

n S . has checke d wit h thei r suppliers an

d the y ar e n o longe r concerne dabou t th e 3 8 % - 4 0 o

r 42 % tooling ge l coa t MAC T floor (or whateve r i t i s called ) - the y no w thin k the y ca n d o it . I'l l tr y t o complet

e m y revie w i n afe w days . I onl

y nee dt o loo k a t th e MAC T floors t o se

e whethe r there wer e an y change s betwee

n Keith' s presentation t o industr y which ha

dase t o f ne w number s an d th e se t now unde r consideration . Industr

y believe s th e se

t of floor standard s tha

t i t sa w ar e feasible . Industr y believe s i

t has on e outstanding issue , an

dhas ameetin

g schedule dwit h Jef f H . fo r Novembe r 4 - see below . Thanks , al l Kevi n —Origina l Message — From : Joh n Schweitze r[mailto:jschwtzr@gte.net ] Sent : Friday , Octobe r25 , 200 2 11:3 2 A M To : Kevi n Bromber

g Subject : Composite s Industr y Comment

s o n MAC T Kevin , pe ryou rrequest , pleas e fin d attache d a cop y o f CFA' s (no w ACMA ) comment s o n th e propose d MAC

T rul e fo rcomposit e manufacturing . (Mos t o f th e attachment s provide d wit h ou rcomment s ar e availabl e a t http://www.acmanet.org/mact/mac t cf a comment s 1001.ht m . ) We hav e bee n workin g wit h EP A sinc e th e proposa l wa s released , an d hav e onl y on e critica l issu e outstanding : EP A want s al l ne w source s wit h emission s o f 10 0 ton s pe ryea r o rmor e t o instal l captur e an d contro l equipment . W e believ e thi s i s feasibl e onl y fo r plant s tha t mak e larg e quantitie s o f smal l unifor m part s —lik e thos e o n whic h thi s new-sourc e floo rwa s based . I f thi s EPA' s propose d requiremen t i s no t changed , the n w e wil l b e prevente d fro m buildin g ne w plant s t o provid e product s fo rsevera l importan t market s (man y o f whic h wil l mak e product s tha t improv e ou rnation' s transportatio n an d energ y infrastructures) . W e wan t EP

A t o mov e th e threshol d fo rnew-sourc e captur e an d contro l fo rlarg e part s t o 25 0 ton s pe ryear . Large-par t operation s wit h emission s belo w 25 0 tp y woul d b e require d t o us e th e sam e pollutio n preventio n control s a s existin g sources . We ar e meetin g wit h EP A Assist . Admin . Jef f Holmstea d o n Nov . 4 t o pres s thi s issue . I hav e attache d a lette rw e sen t t o Holmstead' s offic e summarizin g ou rposition . I ca nP. 3 f 

## 4 provid e more informatio n i f yo u are interested . This is an small business

issue, becaus e man y of ou rsmal l "custom " molders wil l nee d t o buil d ne w plant s t o mak

e larg e product s fo rne

w markets . I f the y can' t buil d thes e plants , the n the y won' t b e abl e t o efficientl y gro w thei rbusinesses . Thank s fo ryou rhelp . FROM======================= = Joh n Schweitze

r Senio r Director o f Governmen

t Affair s America n Composite s Manufacturer s Association voic e 734.622.016 2 fa x 734.622.012 2 ischweitzer@acmanet.or

g www, acmanet . or

g

cf a mac t comment s 1001. i wehru m memofinal.d iP. 4



### WilliamF . Pederse n P.L.L.C .

MEMORANDU

M To : Bil l Wehru m Environmental Protectio n Agenc y From : Bil l Pederse n Date : September

25 , 200 2 Re : Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n Meetin g Wit h Jef f Holmstea d - November

4 , 200 2 L Introduction

M y client , th e Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n ("CFA") 1 , and I appreciat e your willingnes s t o wor k wit h u s befor e our November

4 meetin g wit

h Jef f Holmstead . O n reflection , I think a chronologica

l approac h i s th e bes t

wa y t o giv e yo u our

vie w ofth e issues . I hav e set out th e chronolog y andconclude dwit h anot e o n lega

l and polic y points . E H Discussion

A s yo u wel l know , th e question s a t issu e are (A ) whether

EP A ha s mad e th e legall

y require d cas e t o establis h aMAC T "floor " standar d o f captur e an d contro l ("c&c" ) fo r all ne w composite s fabricatio n facilitie s in th e "ope n molding " an d "pultrusion " categorie s tha t emit a t leas t 10 0 ton s o f HA P ayear , and(B ) whether such astandar

d woul d b e goo d publi c polic y if i t wer e legal . EP A staf

f i s currentl y defendin g ac& c standar d fo r ail suc h facilities , whil e CF A contend s that c& c i s onl

y lega l an d appropriate fo

r facilitie s tha

t mak e smalle r product s an

d that th e remainin g new facilitie s shoul d comply wit

h th e floor

fo r existin g sources , whic h i s base d on pollutio n prevention .

1 CFA i s i n th e proces s o f

changin g it s nam e t o th e America n Composite s Manufacturer s Association . 1A Th e Proposa l T o suppor t c&c , EPA' s proposal identifie d tw o "floor setting " facilitie s fo

r ope n moldin g an d on e for pultrusion . (EPA an

dCFA agre e ther e are no t

enoug h controlle d facilitie s t o suppor t ac& c "floor " fo r existin g sources. ) Al

l thes e facilitie s mak

e small mass-produce d parts . EPA' s proposa l expressl y raise dth e questio n whethe r thes e facilitie s coul d b e considere d "similar " t o facilitie s tha t make larger

parts , sinc e th e statute require s afinding o f similarit y i n orde r for th e floor t o apply . EP A conclude dtha

t "similarity " existe dbecaus e facilitie s i n other industrie s - hangar s fo

r aircraf t manufacturin g andshipyard s fo r shipbuildin g - applie d capture an d contro l t o th e coatin g o f

ver y larg e products . 6 3 Fed . Reg . 40331-4033 2 (Augus t 2,2001) . B . CF A Comment s Th e CFA comment s mad e thre e point s regardin g "ne w sources" . 1 . There wa s n o reaso n t o believ e that hangar s an d shipyard s ha

d in fact achieve d 100 % capture an dcontrol . Th e only suppor t fo r EPA' s assertio n wa s acontracto r repor t tha t basicall y addresse dth e contractor' s vie w o f wha t coul d b e done , no t

wha t ha d bee n done . 2 . Eve n if hangar s an dshipyard s had achieve d 100 % capture an d control , the y wer e to o differen t fromope n moldin g andpultrusio n facilitie s t o suppor t a"floor " fo

r thes e facilities . P. 5



### • JP. 6

3 . Ope n moldin g an

dpultrusio n facilitie s that

mak e larger part s ar e technicall y ver

y differen t fromth e "floo r

-setting " facilitie s tha

t mak e smalle r part s an d therefor e coul d no t

b e considere d "similar " under

th e Act . Se e CFA comments , October 25,200 1 a

t 4-19 , 56-57 . ( I wil

l forwar d acop y o f

thes e comment s t o yo u separately) . C . CF A Meetin g Wit

h Sall y Shave r - Jul v 30.200 2 - an

d JeffHolmstea

d - Novembe

r 4.200 2 - an

d RelatedCorrespondenc e Ove r th e las t year , CF A andOAQPS , workin g together , hav e resolve d all th e seriou s issue s raise d b y th e MAC T proposa l excep t fo r th e scop e ofth e c& c requirement fo r ne w sources . I n a n effor t t o resolv e thi s issu e a s well , CFA corresponde d wit h EP A i n Jun e 2002 , me

t wit h Sall y Shave r on Jul y 30,2002 , corresponde d wit h EP A again i

n early September , an

d will meet

wit h JeffHolmstea d o n Novembe r 4 , 2002 . W e hav e refine d ou r argument s over

th e las t fou r months , but no t basicall y change dthem . W e contend : 1 . Th e "floo r

setting " facilitie s mak

e small unifor

mpart s i n amas s productio n environment . Tha t allow s cost-effectiv e contro l fo r severa l differen t reasons . Worker s d o no t

nee d "all-around " acces s t o simpl e part s bu t

ca n wor k "upwind " fromthema

t al l times . That

allow s th e us e o f enclosure s tha

t are small i

n relatio n t o th e siz e ofth e part , an d tha t ca n fit withi n alarge

r manufacturin g building . All th e floor-setting facilitie s hav e suc h within-buildin g enclosures . Suc hP. 7



## • j

enclosure s nee donly smal l openings . Thos e opening s are eas y t o keep under negativ e pressure , whic h i s require dfor

Metho d20 4 complianc e and hig h capture rates . Sinc e worker s do no t nee d t o wor

k "downwind " ofth e producin g (andemitting ) area , such facilitie s ca n us e lo w ventilatio n rate s withou t violatin g OSH A standards . Sinc e productio n rate s are high , emission s rate s t o th e contro l devic e are als o high . Th e smal l enclosures , lo w ventilatio n rate s an d hig h emissio n rate s resul t in ahig h "proces s density " (rati o o f

annua l emission s t o productio n area) that i n turn allow s cost-effectiv e emission s control . 2 . Facilitie s tha

t make larg e parts , b y contrast , nee d larg e enclosure openings , an d enclosure s tha t ar e larger in relatio n t o th e siz e ofth e par t tha n th e enclosure s neede d fo r small part s facilities , sinc e worker s mus t

b e abl e t o wor

k al l aroun d th e part . Thes e enclosure s are to o bi g t o easily fit withi n abuildin g - indeed , ther e are n o larg e part s facilitie s wit h suc h "withi n building " enclosures . Becaus e ofth e nee dfo

r larg e door s andbecaus e o f "win d load" , ther e i s n o wa y t o mak e abuildin g enclosure comply wit

h Metho d204 . Eve n if

win d loa d wer e no t

afactor , th e nee d fo

r constant movement

o f workers , material , equipmen t an dproduct s into an

d ou t ofth e workin g are awoul d itsel f mak e litera l Metho d20 4 complianc e practicall y impossible . Larg e part s facilitie s als o nee d highe r airflo w rate s t o protec t

th e worker s a

t all point s withi n th e enclosure . Finally , productio n rate s for large r part s ar e lower than fo r smalle r part s fo r tw o reasons . First , larger

parts , almos t

invariably , are more comple x than smal l parts , and nee d proportionatel y more manufacturin g time . Second , th e market s fo r larger part s are smaller . Fo r

al lP. 8

thes e reasons , captur e an

dcontro l fo

r large r facilitie s i s fa

r les s cost-effectiv e tha n capture an d contro l fo r smalle r facilities . CFA' s presentatio n t o JeffHolmstead will demonstrate thi s graphicall y b y relatin g th e "proces s density " o f afabricatio n facilit

y t o th e siz e o f

par t produce d an

d t o th e cost effectivenes s o f

contro l andcapita

l costs , thereb y showin g tha t thes e larg e par

t source s are no t technicall y simila

r t o th e floor-setting facilities . D . The OAQP S Reactio n T o date , thi s lin e o f

argument ha s no t prove d persuasiv e t o th e OAQP S projec t manager , Keit

h Barnett , wh o ha s made fou r argument s i

n response : 1 . On e ofth e thre e "floor-setting " facilitie s ha s a n enclosure larg e enoug h t o contai n large r parts . (Th e facilit

y i s A.R.E . Massillon , and th e enclosure (w e think) i s 19 ' x 25'x 9 VA'). Tha t show s that suc h part s coul db e manufacture d i n acaptur e an

d contro l enclosure . 2 . Keit h believe s that

i f th e industr

y reall y tried , i

t coul d devis e acaptur e an

d contro l facilit

y fo r larger parts . CFA ha s no t

show n thi s i s infeasible . 3.Sinc e i t i s physicall y possibl e (i n principl e a t least) t o desig n acapture an d contro l systemfo

r alarg e part s facility , th e distinction s betwee n larg e and small part s facilitie s tha t CF A ha s describe d are "jus t about cost " an dtherefore canno t

sho w tha t larg e part s facilitie s ar e "no t similar " t o smal

l part s facilities .P. 9

4 . Eve n i f litera l Metho d20 4 complianc e i s infeasibl e fo r larg e part s facilities , loca

l regulator s coul dcu t th e facilit y som e slac k

t o create aworkabl e complianc e scheme . I n addition , i

n ou r meetin g wit

h Sally Shaver , she aske d CFA t o put forward atechnicall y justifie dcu t

poin t betwee n small part s tha

t could b e manufacture d usin g c& c an d larger part s tha t coul dnot . E . CFA' s Respons e EP A ha s neve

r propose dan

y o f Keith' s fou

r response s either

in it s original Federal Register notic e o r in an y supplementa

l document . W e base d ou

r descriptio n o f

the mo n discussion s wit

h OAQPS . Thos e discussion s hav e no t given u s th e informatio n w e woul d nee d t o addres s th e suggeste d position s in adequat e detail . Accordingly , eve n if th e argument s wer e valid , attemptin g t o us e the mt o suppor t afinal rul e woul dviolat e notic e and comment requirements . Moreover , CFA believe s tha t i n fact , non e o f

thes e argument s i s valid . 1 . EP A plan s t o impos e capture an d contro l o n facilitie s that

make ne w part s o f

all sizes . Th e fact tha t th e AR E facilit y coul dphysicall y contai n apar t u p t o 19 ' x 25'x 9 V* doe s nothin g t o sho w tha t capture andcontro l i s feasibl e fo r facilitie s tha

t make muc h larger

product s suc h a s win d turbin e blade s o r bridg e beams . Mor e fundamentally , th e fac t that alarge r par t woul d physicall y fit

withi n th e AR

E enclosure doe s no t demonstrate tha t

i t coul db e manufacture d i

n tha t enclosur e consistent

wit h Metho d 204 .P.1 0

Productio n involve s bot

h constant movement

o f workers , equipment , materials , and produc t int o an d out ofth e enclosure , an

dth e nee dt o compl

y wit h OSH A worker

protectio n standards . Simpl y stickin g apar t inside th e enclosure require s non e o f this . EP A ha s neve

r explaine d wh y and ho w th e AR E facilit y i s configure dt o mak

e suc h manufactur

e possible . Base d on th e limite d informatio n availabl e t o us , CFA believe s i

t i s no t s o configured . 2 . EP A canno t

defen daregulatio n b y sayin g tha t thos e subject

t o i t hav e no t refuted it s feasibility . Th e la

w require s EP A t o sho w that it s regulation s ar

e justified , and doe s no t

put th e burden on CFA t o sho w that

the y are not . I

n effect, EP A seek s t o requir e CFA t o prov e anegative , an d t o b e regulate dif

i t canno t prov e thi s negative . W e continu e t o provide a s muc h technica l assistanc e a s w e ca n t o EPA , bu t

ultimatel y th e burde n mus t res t o n th e government

t o justif y it s regulation . 3.CF A ha s pu t forwar dadetaile d analysi s ofth e fundamenta l physica l difference s i

n produc t an dproductio n proces s that

make capture an

d contro l fa

r more difficult , and les s cost-effective , a t large r par t facilitie s than a

t small par t facilities . There i s simply n o foundatio n fo r dismissin g thes e distinction s a s bein g "jus t

about cost" . Fro mth e beginnin g ofth e MAC T progra mEP A ha s recognize dthat

factor s lik

e thi s mus t

b e considere d i

n distinguishin g betwee n facilitie s that ca n an d shoul db e regulate dunder

th e MAC T progra

mand thos e tha

t are not . I n th e HO N - th e ver y first MAC T standar

d- EP A use dcost-effectivenes s o f contro l t o distinguis h betwee n proces s vent s tha t woul d b e controlle dandthos e that woul d not . EP A explaine d that cost-effectivenes s provide d th e bes t availabl e metho do f

integratin g th e variou s technica l distinction s that

mad e capture an

d contro lP.1 1

appropriate fo

r som e o f thes e vent s an

d no t fo r others . 5 9 Fed . Reg . 1951 6 (Apri l 22 , 1994) . I n tha t spirit , CF A ha s explaine dbot h th e differenc e i

n cost-efifectivenes s o f

contro l fo r differen t type s o f facilities , an d th e technica l distinction s that

giv e ris e t o thi s basi c difference . OAQP S appear s t o b e arguin g that

th e only technica

l difference s tha

t ca n b e use d t o sho w dissimilarit y are thos e tha

t demonstrat e that

i t i s physicall y impossibl e t o apply th e specifie d technology , no t matter wha t th e cost . Thi s argumen t

i s inconsistent

bot h wit h pas t EP A practic e and wit

h th e statute . 4 . CF A ha s neve r

concede dtha t

th e floor-settin g facilitie s compl y wit h Metho d 204 . Th e record doe s no t

document an y suc h showin g o f

compliance , an

d ther e are practica

l reason s t o believ e thes e facilitie s d o no t

comply . Se e CFA comment s a t 7-10,27-29 . CFA acknowledges , however , tha t some State s hav e on occasio n "adjusted " th e requirement s o f Metho d 20 4 t o make complianc e possibl e fo

r facilitie s that

mak e unifor msmall parts . Other

State s hav e refused t o d o so . However , fa

r mor e drasti c adjustment s woul d b e neede d t o mak e Metho d 20 4 wor

k fo r larg e part s facilities . There i s n o reaso n t o believ e tha t an y State s woul d b e willin g t o make suc h adjustment s - an

dEP A ha s no t

give n the man

y guidanc e on wha

t type s o f adjustment s t o make . Moreover , it

migh t wel l b e tha

t th e adjustment s neede d t o mak e complianc e practicabl e for larg e part s facilitie s woul dallo w enoug h emission s t o escap e t o remov e an y emission s contro l advantag e tha t c& c might

enjoy over

th e floor requirement

fo r existin g facilities . EP A ha s no t analyze d thi s issu e i

n an y way . Afte r our meetin g wit

h Sally Shaver , w e di d additiona l technical wor

k t oP.1 2

sho w that usin g "proces s density " t o characteriz e facilitie s demonstrate s aclea r divisio n betwee n thos e facilitie s that

ar e logica l candidate s fo

r c & c an d thos e tha

t are not . W e presente d thi s wor k t o Keit h Barnett , bu t

h e conclude dtha

t thes e distinctions , too , constitute d "onl y cost. " Fo r all thes e reasons , CFA believe s tha t EP A canno t

defend a"floor " c& c standar d fo r larg e part s facilities . EP A ha s no t don e an y ofth e detaile d analysi s that woul d b e require d t o se

t a n abov e th e floor standard , muc h les s requeste d comment on i t a s th e la w requires . CF A believes , moreover , tha t such astandar

dwoul db e ba

dpubli c polic y even i f

i t coul d b e legall y justified . EPA' s propose drul e amount s t o aconstructio n ba n on ne w plant s that

th e industr

y wil l need t o mak e larg e product s for

severa l important

markets . Mor e importantly , thes e market s are th e ver y market s tha

t promis e t o provid e fo

r th e continue d growt

h an d vitalit y ofth e industry . An

d further , th e product s tha

t will b e mad e i

n thes e plant s - includin g bridg e beams , win d turbin e blades , gasolin e storag e tanks , chemica

l processin g tank s an

d pollutio n contro l equipment , and transportatio n component s - wil l provid e significan t energy , publi c health , an

d infrastructur

e efficiency benefits .