p.1 

OAR Box 1477 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

35) ll-J-26 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/31/2008 11:40:24 A M Sheet 35 of 36 
P.2 

it_|*LX4-l-Ul~^i. 

;HmH5 

Jennifer Greenamoyer 

05/04/2000 08:07 AM 

To: Austin.Perez@sba.gov 

cc: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Peter_D._Eglinton@omb.eop.gov, Tom Kelly/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Stuart Miles-McLean/DC/USEPA/US @ EPA, 

Jonathan.Pawlow@sba.gov, Amanda Aldridge/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom 

Eagles/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: Plastics: Revised Tables 

If all the Panel members agree I can email out the new tables to the SERs and follow-up with faxes to 

those people that may not be able to read the attachment. 

Austin.Perez@sba.gov on 05/03/2000 05:29:52 PM 

Austin.Perez@sba.gov on 05/03/2000 05:29:52 PM 

i 

JN.^-

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter_D._Eglinton@omb.eop.gov, Jennifer EPA AIP^D°_______ 

Greenamoyer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Kelly/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Stil 

Miles-McLean/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jonathan.Pawlow@sba.gov 

cc: Amanda Aldridge/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Penny Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom 

Eagles/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: RE: Revised Tables for SER Outreach 

Keith, these tables look great. Jennifer, Could these be faxed or emailed 

to SERs, as replacements of the tables now contained within the SER outreach 

materials? We'll probably need to include an explanation (a few sentences 

but no more than a short paragraph), perhaps to the effect that "the Panel 

just discovered that in its haste to provide SERs with adequate information 

early, some information was mistakenly not included. We apologize for any 

inconvenience." Or something like that. 

Austin 

Original Message— 

From: Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov 

[mailto:Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:46 PM 

To: Peter_D._Eglinton@omb.eop.gov; Greenamoyer.Jennifer@epamail.epa.gov; 

Kelly.Tom@epamail.epa.gov; Miles-McLean.Stuart@epamail.epa.gov; 

jonathan.pawlow@sba.gov; austin.perez@sba.gov 

Cc: Aldridge.Amanda@epamail.epa.gov; Lassiter.Penny@epamail.epa.gov; 

Eagles.Tom @ epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: Revised Tables for SER Outreach 
P.3 

When we sent the SER outreach material, I was requested to provide a 

breakdown 

of the number of facilities affected for the cost effectiveness tables. 

Also I 

was requested to provide a summary table for new sources for enclosure A. 

(Note 

that the new source summary table that got put in enclosure A was a draft 

that 

was out of date.) I have attached the revised tables to this message. 

(See attached file: Revised Tables 1 and 2 for SER Meeting.wpd) 

Keith W. Barnett 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Emission Standards Division 

MD-13 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

919-541-5605 

barnett.keith @ epa.gov 

l is 

Wm. attl .htm 
P.4 

05/03/2000 05:29 PM 

Austin.Perez@sba.gov To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Peter_D._Eglinton@omb.eop.gov, Jennifer 

Greenamoyer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Kelly/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Stuart Miles-McLean/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Jonathan.Pawlow@sba.gov 

cc: Amanda Aldridge/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Penny 

Lassiter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Eagles/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: RE: Revised Tables for SER Outreach 

Keith, these tables look great. Jennifer, Could these be faxed or emailed 

to SERs, as replacements of the tables now contained within the SER outreach 

materials? We'll probably need to include an explanation (a few sentences 

but no more than a short paragraph), perhaps to the effect that "the Panel 

just discovered that in its haste to provide SERs with adequate information 

early, some information was mistakenly not included. We apologize for any 

inconvenience." Or something like that. 

Austin 

Original Message 

From: Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov 

[mailto:Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:46 PM 

To: Peter_D._Eglinton@omb.eop.gov; Greenamoyer.Jennifer@epamail.epa.gov; 

Kelly.Tom@epamail.epa.gov; Miles-McLean.Stuart@epamail.epa.gov; 

jonathan.pawlow@sba.gov; austin.perez@sba.gov 

Cc: Aldridge.Amanda@epamail.epa.gov; Lassiter.Penny@epamail.epa.gov; 

Eagles.Tom@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: Revised Tables for SER Outreach 

When we sent the SER outreach material, I was requested to provide a 

breakdown 

of the number of facilities affected for the cost effectiveness tables. 

Also I 

was requested to provide a summary table for new sources for enclosure A. 

(Note 

that the new source summary table that got put in enclosure A was a draft 

that 

was out of date.) I have attached the revised tables to this message. 

(See attached file: Revised Tables 1 and 2 for SER Meeting.wpd) 

Keith W. Barnett 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Emission Standards Division 

MD-13 
P.5 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

919-541-5605 

barnett.keith@epa.gov 

•**••"~K 

att1.htm 
TABLE 1. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 FOR EXISTING SOURCES **b 

Group of Operations 

Open Molding 

Closed Molding 

Centrifugal Casting 

Continuous Lamination / Casting 

Polymer Casting 

Pultrusion 

SMC Manufacturing 

Equipment Cleaning 

BMC Manufacturing / Mixing 

Storage of HAP Containing Mat'ls 

Totals for the Source Category 

Regulatory Alternative 1 (MACT Floor) 

No. of 

Facilities 

Impacted 

315 

77 

9 

10 

78 

31 

22 

433 

349 

433 

433 

Total 

Cost 

($/yr) 

$21,249,471 

$66,446 

$319,889 

$600,761 

$44,788 

$190,247 

$13,648 

$367,599 

$531,730 

$326,133 

$23,710,712 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tons/yr) 

7056.4 

0.0 

44.0 

360.6 

0.0 

228.1 

0.0 

807.1 

153.3 

0.0 

8649.5 

Regulatory Alternative 2 

No. of Facilities 

Required to meet 

Above-the-Floor 

Option 

44 

0 

3 

2 

0 

2 

0 

0 

3 

0 

54 

Total 

Cost 

(S/yr) 

$31,203,481 

$66,446 

$303,123 

$1,161,829 

$44,788 

$814,129 

$13,648 

$368,196 

$1,065,327 

$326,730 

$35,367,697 

Enussion 

Reduction 

(tons/yr) 

13625.2 

0.0 

859.6 

580.8 

0.0 

348.2 

0.0 

807.1 

292.3 

0.0 

16513.2 

Incremental 

Total 

Cost 

(S/yO 

$9,954,010 

$0 

($16,767) 

$561,068 

$0 

$623,882 

$0 

$597 

$533,597 

$597 

$11,656,985 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tons/yr) 

6568.7 

0.0 

815.5 

220.2 

0.0 

120.1 

0.0 

0.0 

139.0 

0.0 

7863.5 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

$1,515 

N/A 

($21) 

$2,548 

N/A 

$5,916 

N/A 

N/A 

$3,482 

N/A 

$1,482 

a

 This table presents cost effectiveness values for groups of operations and the source category ifthe proposed rule requires all existing facilities with 

uncontrolled HAP emissions greater than or equal to 100 tpy to implement the above-the-floor control option of 95% control for the following groups of 

operations: open molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and BMC manufacturing/mixing. 

b

 The average cost effectiveness ofthe regulatory option for each group of operations and the source category is determined using the following formula: 

IncrementalCost Effectiveness (S/ton) Annual Cost of Regulatory Option ($) - Annual Cost ofMACT Floor (S) 

Emission Reduction of Regulatory Option (tons) - Emission Reduction ofMACT Floor (tons) 

**• 
TABLE 2. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE 2 FOR NEW SOURCES a, b 

Group of Operations 

Open Molding 

Closed Molding 

Centrifugal Casting 

Continuous Lamination / Casting 

Polymer Casting 

Pultrusion 

SMC Manufacturing 

Equipment Cleaning 

BMC Manufacturing / Mixing 

Storage of HAP Containing Mat'ls 

Totals for the Source Category 

Regulatory Alternative 1 (MACT 

Floor) 

No. of 

Facilities 

Impacted 

47 

1 

4 

2 

43 

31 

1 

84 

84 

84 

84 

Total 

Cost 

($/yr) 

$11,118,383 

$3,393 

$227,794 

$178,594 

$136,371 

$10,462,129 

$85,769 

$59,596 

$13,480,066 

$59,099 

$35,811,194 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tons/yr) 

277.2 

0.0 

101.6 

215.7 

0.0 

760.0 

7.3 

0.0 

133.6 

0.0 

1495.4 

Regulatory Alternative 2 

No. of Facilities 

required to 

Meet Abovethe-Floor 

Option 

4 

0 

3 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9 

Total 

Cost 

(S/yO 

$12,871,252 

$3,393 

$250,637 

$246,535 

$136,371 

$10,462,129 

$85,769 

$59,641 

$13,259,153 

$59,144 

$37,434,024 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tons/yr) 

497.4 

0.0 

655.0 

243.6 

0.0 

760.0 

7.3 

0.0 

133.6 

0.0 

2297.0 

Incremental 

Total 

Cost 

(S/yr) 

$1,752,869 

$0 

$22,843 

$67,940 

$0 

$0 

$0 

$45 

($220,913) 

$45 

$1,622,830 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tons/yr) 

220.2 

0.0 

553.5 

27.9 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

801.6 

Average 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

$7,960 

N/A 

$41 

$2,435 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

$2,024 

a

 This table presents cost effectiveness values for groups of operations and the source category ifthe proposed rule requires all existing facilities with 

uncontrolled HAP emissions greater than or equal to 100 tpy to implement the above-the-floor control option of 95% control for the following groups of 

operations: open molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and BMC manufacturing/mixing. 

b

 The average cost effectiveness ofthe regulatory option for each group of operations and Uie source category is detennined using the following formula: 

IncrementalCost Effectiveness (S/ton) Annual Cost of Regulatory Option ($) - Annual Cost ofMACT Floor (S) 

Emission Reduction of Regulatory Option (tons) - Emission Reduction ofMACT Floor (tons) 

u 
Summary of Estimated Costs for Projected New Facilities 

Subcategory 

Open Molding 

Closed Molding 

Centrifugal Casting 

Continuous 

Polymer Casting 

Pultrusion 

SMC Manufacturing 

Cleaning Operations 

BMC/Mixing 

Storage of HAP 

Totals for Plastic 

Number of 

Projected 

New Growth 

Facilities 

47 

1 

4 

2 

43 

31 

1 

84 

84 

84 

84 

Total 

Resin/GC 

SMC/BMC 

(tpy) 

3,097 

3,439 

3,401 

130,104 

18,778 

30,237 

641 

N/A 

7,260 

N/A 

72,603 

Estimated Total Costs for Projected New Growth Facilities 

Regulatory Option 1 (MACT Floor) 

TCC 

(S/yr) 

$39,369,283 

$1,361 

$73,136 

$606,715 

$55,688 

$50,377,160 

$417,024 

$43,128 

$65,246,245 

$42,759 

$156,232,499 

ACV 

(S/yr) 

$2,630,302 

$0 

$212,465 

$62,462 

$0 

$2,296,484 

$18,100 

$0 

$2,491,688 

$0 

$7,740,651 

ACF 

(S/yr) 

$8,488,081 

$3,393 

$15,329 

$116,133 

$136,371 

$8,136,496 

$67,699 

$59,596 

$10,988,377 

$59,099 

$28,070,543 

Regulatory Option 2 

TCC 

(S/yr) 

$49,894,054 

$1,361 

$782,781 

$904,503 

$55,688 

$50,377,160 

$417,024 

$43,128 

$64,447,334 

$42,759 

$166,965,793 

ACV 

($/yr) 

$2,757,389 

$0 

$91,589 

$95,700 

$0 

$2,235,633 

$18,100 

$0 

$2,440,847 

$0 

$7,729,258 

ACF 

($/yr) 

$10,113,864 

$3,393 

$159,048 

$150,834 

$136,371 

$8,136,496 

$67,669 

$59,641 

$10,818,307 

$59,144 

$29,704,766 

Regulatory Option 3 

TCC 

($/yr) 

$245,598,477 

$1,361 

$1,270,512 

$965,090 

$55,688 

$49,649,834 

$421,290 

$43,128 

$34,800,786 

$42,759 

$332,848349 

ACV 

($/yr) 

$9,866,451 

$0 

$75,143 

$106,958 

$0 

$2,247,737 

$18,826 

$0 

$608,319 

$0 

$12,923,435 

ACF fa/ 

($/yr)

 T 

$40,0!%651 

$3,393 

$260,954 

$170,708 

$136,371 

$7,976,547 

$68,650 

$60,225 

$4,513,964 

$59,728 

$53,340,192