p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 85 ) ll-E-4 5 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:06

AM Sheet 85 of 264P. 2 A- ' 0 0_ 3 (

j £_E_7 C 

### A-94-5 2

MEMORANDU M TO : Madelein e Stru m U.S . EPA/ESD/CCP G FROM : Gre g LaFla m Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) DATE : SUBJECT : LOCATION : Augus t

14 , 199 6 P:\N40 4 Summar y o f July 2 , 199 6 Meetin g Between EP A an d th e Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n (CFA ) EPA/Mutua

l Building , Durham , 10:0 0 a m- 2:0 0 p m ATTENDEES : Mr . Mar k Banne r Mr . Larr y Craigi e Ms . LindaHerrin g Mr . Nor mKapla n Mr . Emer y Kon g Mr . Rober

t Lacovar a Mr . Gre g LaFla

m Mr . Stephe

n McNally Mr . Kennet

h Meardo n Mr . Carlo s Nune z Mr . Bria n Palmer Ms . Nanc y Pate Ms . Melani e Procto r Mr . Gedde s Ramse

y Mr . Ro n Rya

n Ms . Madeleine Strum Mr . Cha d White NC , 11t

h floor conferenc e room , 

### RT I Do w Plastic s EPA/ES D EPA/OR D 

### RT I CFA 

### PE S CFA PE S EPA/OR D ERG , Inc . EPA/OAQP S 

### PES EPA/OR D EPA/ES D EPA/ES D ERG , Inc . (919 ) 541-601 6

(409 ) 238-449 5 (919 ) 541-535 8 (919 ) 541-255 6 (919 ) 541-596 4 (215 ) 721-924 6 (919 ) 941-033 3 (703 ) 610-902 5 (919 ) 941-033 3 (919 ) 541-115 6 (919 ) 461-121 8 (919 ) 541-534 7 (919 ) 941-033 3 (919 ) 541-796 3 (919 ) 541-433 0 (919 ) 541-238 3 (919 ) 461-121 1 PURPOS E Th e meetin g wa s held t

o discus s th e CFA' s draf

t repor t presentin g dat ao n it s emission s testin g progra

mfo r resi n and ge l coa

t sprayin g operations . Th e EP A als o presente d an d discusse d som e option s fo

r MAC T floor s fo

r th e open moldin g subcategory .P. 3

Madelein e Strum Augus t 14 , 199 6 Pag e 2 DISCUSSION CF A Tes t Dataan d Availabl e Contro l Approache s Afte r introduction s were made , Mr . Lacovar abega n adiscussio n o

f CFA' s draf

t projec t report , "Ope n Moldin g Styren e Emission s Tes t Projec t Baseline Stud

y - Phas e I , Jun e 1996 . H e stresse d tha t th e repor t i s preliminary , an d man

y of th e detail s stil l nee d t o b e added an d correction s made . H e als o wa s reluctant initiall y t o allo w meetin g participant s t o retai n possessio n o f

copie s o f th e report , sinc e th e ke

y CFA membe

r companie s ha d no t ye t ha d achanc e t o obtai n an d revie w th e draft . However , afte r receivin g assurance s tha t th e informatio n woul d no t b e release d unti l th e ke

y CFA membe

r companie s receive d an d reviewe d thei r

copies , Mr . Lacovar aagree d t o allo w th e copie s distribute d at th e meetin g t o b e kep t fo r review . Th e officia

l releas e date fo

r th e Phas e I repor

t i s se t at n o later tha n July 17 , 1996 . Phas e U of

th e study i s currentl y underwa y an d i s expecte d t o b e complete d b y th e en d o f September . Th e secon d phas e wil l investigat e th e effect s o f

vapo r suppressants , fille d system s (unfilled , lo w filler , an d hig h fille r contents) , an d differen

t applicatio n system s (e.g. , flow coater s an d pressure-fe d resi n rollers) . Phas e U wil l als o examine th e effect o f mol d shap e parameter s o n resi n overspra y (includin g bot

h mal e and female molds) , an d wil l stud y emission s fromth e manufactur e of alarger part (1 2 ft. x 5 ft. x 2. 5 ft. va

n top) . Mr . Nune z aske d abou t

th e relationship betwee n Phas e J J and th e qualit

y assuranc e (QA) plan . Mr . Craigi e responde d tha t Phas e J J use s smalle

r test s (fewe

r tes t run s becaus e fewe r variable s ar e bein g investigated) , bu t ha s th e sam

e calibratio n check s and procedure s a s Phas e I . I n addition , th e Phas e I EPA-approve d Q A plan i s als o bein g use d for th e Phas e J J testing . Mr . Nune z the n aske d whethe r th e tes t pla n wa s available , an

d Mr . Craigi e sai d the y coul d provid e it . Mr . Craigi e als o note d tha t som e Phas e I tes t

result s are expecte d t o b e extende d int o Phas e J J (i.e. , assum e th e validit

y of certai n Phas e I result s withou t doin g additiona

l testing) . H e sai d tha t

Phas e I result s wer

e bein g extende d int

o Phas e J J becaus e th e result s obtaine d o n differen t

day s (blocks ) wer

e no t foun d to b e differen

t and thi s allow s th e earlie r dat at o b e used . Mr . Lacovar apointe d out acoupl e o

f datapoint s wher

e thi s tren d wa s evident . Mr . Kon g pointe d out that , i n th e ORD/RTI tes t

program , tes t

ru n replicate s mad e o n th e sam

e day tende d t o sho w les s differenc e tha n run s separate d i n time , possibl y becaus e measurement

erro r tend s t o b e smalle

r fo r run s done sequentially . Anothe r possibl e reaso n include s a n inabilit y t o contro l al l th e variable s i n th e experiment ove r an extende d time . Mr . Lacovar asai d tha t

thei r datadi d no t

exhibi t an y noticeabl e "blocking " effect . Mr . Nune z expresse d amino r

concer n ove r whethe r variable s were changed an d th e possibl e effect s o n th e results , bu t

di d no t hav e aproble mi

f the y di d no t chang e th e fundamental s o f 

## 2 -P. 4

Madelein e Stru m Augus t 14 , 199 6 Pag e 3 th e testing . Mr . Craigi e replie d tha t they are relyin g heavily o n thei r statistician , wh o i s scrutinizin g th e dataclosely . Messrs . Craigi e an

d Lacovar adiscusse d variou s set s of unit s i n whic h th e emissio n tes t result s ar e bein g presented : tw o of thes e unit s are percentag e o f availabl e styren e (inpu t t o th e process) , o r

% AS , an d pound s o f

emission s pe r

pound o f resi n use d (lb/l b resin) . Mr . Craigi e sai d tha

t thes e latte r

unit s ar e preferre d whe

n comparin g tw o simila

r situations . H e als o pointe d out

tha t th e sam e amoun t (weigh t o r volume ) of

resi n i s use d whe n makin g apar t wit h eithe r a3 5 percent

o r a5 0 percen t

styren e resi n (assumin g asimila r densit y for eac h resin) . Whe n calculatin g emission s a s styren e pe r uni t weigh t of resi n used , therefore , th e effec t o f th e resin' s styren e content i s more important ; tha

t is , expressin g emission s a s weigh t resi n i s more indicativ e o f wha t i s happening . Anothe

r set o f unit s describe d b y Mr . Lacovara , whic h i s use d i n th e report t o expres s th e results , i s gram s pe r square foo t

(o f mol d surface ) pe r

k g o f resi n use d (g/ft

2 /k g resi n used) . All o f

th e statistical analysi s i n th e stud y i s base d o n th e % A S results . Th e CFA presente d agrap h o f styren e emissio n concentration s versu s tim e for hand layup an d asimila

r grap h fo r sprayup . Fo r

han d layup , th e styren e concentratio n ros e from 0 pp mt o abou t

6 8 pp mdurin g applicatio n ove r a14-minut

e tim e period , fel l fro m6 8 pp m t o abou t 2 0 pp mdurin g rollou t

ove r a13-minut

e period , an

d continue d t o decreas e from2 0 pp mt o les s tha

n 5 pp mdurin g curin g over a2-hou r period . Styren e emission s wer e approximatel y 5 2 percent

fromapplication , 2 3 percent fromrollout , an d 2 5 percen t from curing . Fo r

sprayup , th e styren e concentratio n ros e fro mzero to abou t

50 0 pp mdurin g applicatio n ove r

a5-minut e period , fell from50 0 pp mt o about 5 0 pp mdurin g rollou t

over a 10-minut e period , an

d continue d t o decreas e from5 0 pp mto les s tha

n 5 pp mdurin g curin g ove r a1.5-hou

r period . Mr . Lacovar asai d tha

t th e CFA testin g generally corifirme d th e ORD/RT I tes t

resul t tha t emission s ar e distribute d approximately 5 0 percent durin g resi n applicatio n an d 5 0 percen t durin g rollou t

an d curin g (fo

r either hand o r spra y layup) . Also , CFA found that post-applicatio n emission s are about equally divide d betwee

n th e rollou t

and curin g phases . H e agree d that

th e leve l o

f emission s fromapplicatio n i s afunction o f th e amount

sprayed , whil e th e leve l of

emission s fromrollou t

an d curin g are afunction o

f surfac e area . Tes t run s were carrie d ou t

fo r tw o laminat

e thicknesse s (0.04 1 and 0.08 8 inch ) an d tw o ge l coat

fil mthicknesse s (0.01 8 an d 0.02 4 inch) . Emission s fromproductio n o f th e thicke r laminate tende d to b e lower , indicatin g tha t buildu p of athic k laminate i n asingl e sprayin g proces s ma

y b e preferabl e t o applyin g multipl e thi n layers . Mr . McNall y empha

size d that , whil e thi s ma

y presen t a n opportunit

y fo r control , laminat

e thicknes s itsel f

shoul dP. 5

Madelein e Stru m Augus t 14 , 199 6 Pag e 4 no t b e th e basi s fo

r acontro l requirement . However , a s awor k practice , requirin g th e applicatio n of

a s thic k alayer a s practicabl e (i n plac e of multipl e thinne

r layers ) ma

y deserv e consideration . Mr . Lacovar afelt

tha t applyin g th e resi n a

t afaste r rat e ma y achiev e asmal l ne t reductio n i n emission s b y reducin g spra y time , althoug h th e pea

k styren e concentratio n i s higher . H e note d that

thi s i s a n expecte d effect

for shorte r spra y time s (e.g. , 3 0 second s u p t o 2 minutes ) whic h ar e typica l in muc h o f

th e industry , bu t

coul d no t sa y wha t th e result s migh t b e fo r longer (5-minute ) spra

y times . Th e stud y als o indicate d that , fo

r hig h (4 2 percent ) styren e resin , uiere wa s a3 0 percent emissio n reductio n resultin g fromincreasin g th e resi n deliver y rate (or decreasin g th e spra y time) . Th e study als o showed n o reductio n of styren e emission s when usin g a3 5 percent styren e resin . Mr . Lacovar abelieve d tha t arequirement

fo r a n increase d deliver

y rate (a t th e spra y gu n tip ) achieve d throug h an optimize d orific e woul d achiev e sourc e emissio n reductio n benefits , an d it woul d represen t

a"win-win " situation . H e di d no t believ e tha

t increase d deliver

y rat e achieve d throug h higher pressure s woul d yiel d any emissio n reductio n benefits . Emission s als o appea

r t o b e les s fo

r resin s an d ge l coat s wit

h shorter gel times . Therefore , anothe r

contro l approac h ma

y b e t o optimiz e th e gel time , keepin g i n min d that differen t processe s an d product s ma y hav e differen

t time requirement s (i.e. , th e tim e neede d t o apply an d rol l ou t

th e resi n wil l var

y wit h applicator , siz e of

part , amoun

t of labo r available , etc.) . Mr . Craigi e pointe d out tha t ge l tim e i s selecte d to correspon d t o th e par t bein g made . Mr . Lacovar athe n noted tha t ge l time can b e tailore d to anythin g yo u want an d tha t ther e i s a"shortest " applicabl e gel time fo r ever y part . A s an example , th e allowabl e ge l tim e migh t

b e set a t 1. 2 time s th e laminatio n (layup ) time . Mr . Lacovar aals o state d tha t th e amoun

t o f resi n o r gel coa t overspra y wa s found t o b e critical t o th e emissio n level . A s aresult , change s i n wor k practice s (such a s a"con

trolled " sprayin g technique ) coul d mak e asubstantia

l differenc e i n emissions . H e sai d h e woul d provid e acop y o f

astud y o f ge l coa t transfer efficiency tha

t wa s performe d abou t

1 0 year s ago . Ms . Stru mals o aske d fo r th e vide o tap e showin g the technique s use d i n thi s par t of th e study , an d Mr . Lacovar asai d he would provid e thes e tapes . Mr . Lacovar adiscusse d a n approach t o optimizin g th e operatio n o f th e resi n o r

ge l coa t spra y gun , whic h h e fel

t would lea d to areductio n i n emissions . Th e ti p pressur e for a specifi c gel coat

o r resi n an d ti p siz e would b e "optimized " by graduall y turnin g u p th e lin e pressur e unti l a n adequate fa n patter n wa s achieve d (i.e. , n o inconsistencie s i n fa n shape) . Th e standard for

sprayin g operation s migh

t include astyren e conten

t limit , th e spra

y gu n 

# VP. 6

Madelein e Stru m Augus t 14 , 199 6 Pag e 5 optimizatio n approach , o r

som e combinatio n tha

t allow s reductio n credi t

fo r performin g th e optimization . A trainin g progra mfor th e optimizatio n coul d b e made part o f th e rule . Mr . Craigi e summarize d th e parameter s tha t appea r t o affect HA P emission s from ope n moldin g processes , an d tha t ma y b e controlle d throug h sourc e reductio n measures . Thes e are : Overspra

y Styrene conten t Spra

y pattern Ge l time Vapo r suppressan

t Spra

y techniqu e 

### EPA' s Contro l Option s Afte r alunc h break , Ms . Procto r reviewe d EPA' s preliminar y contro l option s for

th e ope n moldin g subcategor

y (se e Attachment) . Thes e option s ar e base d directl y o n th e MAC T floor

contro l level s determine d fromth e facilit y database . Th e HA P content s i n thes e option s ar e "as-supplied " (i.e. , befor e fille r i s added) . Th e industr

y representative s felt that th e monomer

content level s reflecte d in th

e option s appeare d t o b e reasonable , bu t sai d tha t the y woul d need to thin k

furthe r an d discus s th e value s wit

h other experts . Mr . McNall y thought

tha t th e 3 5 percen t

limit ma y no t b e aproblem . However , Mr . Lacovar a believe d tha

t an y limi t belo w 3 5 percen t

could present

aproble mt o man

y fabricators . H e mentione d that , i n stormwate r permitting , facilitie s are mandate d no t t o pollute throug h tha

t pathway , bu t

ar e allowe d to develo p their ow n pla n fo r preventin g pollution . H e aske d whethe r asimila r approac h coul d wor

k fo r thi s NESHA

P rule . Mr . McNall y discusse d th e differenc e betwee n th e certificatio n sheet

an d th e specificatio n shee t

fo r resins . Th e (production ) specificatio n indicate s aguarantee d rang e fo r th e styren e conten t

o f abatc h (e.g. , a"4 5 percent styrene " resi n ma

y b e show n a s 43-4 7 percent) . A certificatio n (of analysis ) represent s amor e precis e an d costl y analysi s o f th e exac t styren e content

of abatch . H e fel

t tha t th e specificatio n shee t

shoul d b e use d i n th e NESHA P t o verif

y th e monome

r content o f resin s an d ge l coats . Ms . Strumsai d sh e woul d provid e EPA' s dat asupportin g th e floo r option s to Mr . McNally s o tha t h e coul d identif

y member companie s an d verif

y th e information attribute d t o eac h of thei r facilities . Mr . McNall y sai d h e woul d revie w th e feasibilit y o f th e monome r content limit s i n EPA' s preliminary contro l options . H e sai d h e woul d als o provid e suggestion s of bes t managemen

t practice s that

ma y hav e applicatio n i n the rule .



## •sP. 7

Madelein e Stru m Augus t 14 , 199 6 Pag e 6 Action Item s Actio n item s agree d t o a

t th e meetin g consiste d of

th e following : Early . 1 . U.S . EPA (M . Strum ) 

### Actio n Agree d t o Provid e dat asupportin g th e currentl y studie d MAC T floor

option s t o S . McNall

y 2 . CF A (R . Lacovara ) Provid e ge l coat transfer efficiency stud

y t o M . Stru m Provide tes t

video s t o M . Strum 3 . CF A (S . McNally )

4 . Dow (L . Craigie ) Review EPA' s facilit y lis t t o identif y membe r companie s an d verif

y accurac y of

informatio n fo r

thos e member s Review feasibilit

y of EPA' s suggested resi n content limit s an d giv e comment s t o M . Strum Provide recommende d bes t managemen

t practice s t o M . Stru m Provide Phas e J

J tes t pla n to C . Nunez Mem o - Jul y 16 , 199 6

Attachmen

t



## 6P. 8 Mem o - Augus t

14 , 199 6 Attachment 

### DRAF T 07/01/9 6 O F MAC T FLOOR

S FO R NO N CORROSIO N RESISTAN T OPE N MOLDIN G Optio n 1 : Subcategorizatio n withou t Siz e Differentiatio n CATEGOR

Y Spra y Applicatio n Unfille d Fille d Han d Applicatio n Fille d an d Unfille d EXISTIN G SOURCE S 38.2 % wit h vapo r suppressan

t o r 33.7 % withou t

vapo r suppressan

t 35 % wit h vapo r suppressan

t or 34 % withou t

vapo r suppressan

t 4 0 % wit h vapo r suppressan

t o r 32 % without

vapo r suppressan

t NEW SOURCE S 35 % wit h vapo r suppressan

t o r 33 % withou t

vapo r suppressan

t Add-o n Contro l (95 % reduction )

38 % wit h vapo r suppressan

t o r 26 % withou t

vapo r suppressan

t Optio n 2 : Subcategorizatio n wit h Siz e cutof

f a t2000 tpy o f

Resi n Usag e CATEGORY EXISTIN G SOURCE S NEW SOURCES Spra y Applicatio n Unfilled , <200 0 tp y Resi n Usag e Filled , <200 0 tp y Resi n Usag e Filled , > 200 0 tp y Resi n Usag e

Unfilled , > 200 0 tp y Resi n Usag e 38.2 % wit h vapo r suppressan

t o r 33.7 % withou t

vapo r suppressan

t 35 % wit h vapor suppressan

t o r 34 % withou t

vapo r suppressan

t Add-o n (24 % min . contro l efficiency ) an d vapo r

suppressan

t or Add-o n wit

h min . contro l efficienc

y o f 34 % o r 43 % wit h vapo r suppressan

t n o facilitie s in databas e 35 % wit h vapo r suppressan

t o r 33 % withou t

vapo r suppressan

t Add-o n contro l (95 % reduction ) Add-o n contro l (95 % reduction )

n o facilitie s i n databas e Han d Applicatio n Fille d an d Unfille d 4 0 % wit h vapor suppressan

t 32 % without

vapo r suppressan

t 2 6 % withou t

vapor suppressan

t o r 3 8 % wit h vapo r suppressan

t 

# 1