p.1 

OAR Box 1490 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

4) IV-B-4 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 8/4/2008 11:51:46 AM Sheet 4 of 273 
P.2 

I , ••«• ' 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE 

A-^-£2 . 

/UTI 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

Keith Barnett, EPA/OAQPS/ESD MD-13 

Mark Bahner /yi/jg 

September 24,2001 

SUBJECT: Determination of Exhaust Concentrations from F W FarfiP&ffPgg^ 

Per your telephone request of last week, I've looked at RTI files to find documentation 

of our cooperation with Pacific Environmental Services (PES) in determining exhaust 

concentrations from FRP facilities. It appears that RTI had limited input in determining the 

concentrations. 

I've attached at facsimile from Melanie Proctor at PES, dated September 10, 1996. 

The facsimile has a draft table, dated 9/9/96, titled, "Control Costs for New Gel Coating and 

Open Molding Facilities with Combined Resin and Gel Coat Usage Above 1000 tpy." The 

table is missing data for Aqua Glass in Klamath Falls (Oregon). I've attached a corresponding 

memorandum with the subject, "Source Test Review Report," from the State of Oregon 

Department of Environmental (dated January 10, 1995). It has clouded RTI comments, 

showing "measured emissions = 1175 ton/year, see page 5" and "permitted operation = 5000 

hours/yr, see page 4." 

I've also attached a copy of a letter from the Ohio EPA, with a forwarding memo to 

Madeleine Strum from the Canton (OH) City Health Department, dated 7/26/95. The letter 

concerns the A.R.E. facility in Massillon, Ohio. This memo has clouded RTI comments noting 

a flow rate of 55,000 cfm, 7488 hours of operation, and emissions of 634 tpy. 

From these records, it appears that RTI only provided the data for these two plants 

(i.e., Aqua Glass in Klamath Falls, OR, and A.R.E. in Massillon, OH). The other data in the 

PES table were apparently determined by PES. 

If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 541-6016, or bahner@rti.org. 

Attachments (3) 
P.3 

SUM of Ohio Environmental 

P.O. Box 1049,1600 WaterMark• * 

Cohitnbus. Ohio 43266-0149 , L* fi -"r-r 

(614)644-3020

 3 Ci£i_f£_ORC P 

FAX (614) 644-2329 4.__ f*\, *p 

CoPY 

George V. Voinovich 

Governor 

4L££J~H 

Ret Permit rT • 

itark C °"*»« 

Applica °0B*«ff :2 EM0 « n 

TOXI C I a*

C£ss**r ACTIO* „tAM°nLt A ' __ 

ugust 12r^==^r-__J3s,G''^« n """"""trm 

.4AIL 

«««« 

A.R.E. , ir 

CLYDE RI 

MASSILLON 

which wil l allow 

indicated i n the 

ition s and 

Enclosed 

you t o i: 

permit. TM°"— ,._,__ _, c 

restric t ,».,_ --

The Ohio isr/* 

and energy conservation. 

energy consumption, but it can aisv -_ 

like to learn ways you can save money while promoting the environment, 

please contact our Office of Pollution Prevention at (614) 644-3469. 

**«'«4«t,M M '" jllution prevention 

ce pollution and 

ey. If you would 

You are hereby notified that this action by the Director is final and 

may be appealed to the Ohio Environmental Board of Review pursuant to 

Chapter 3745.04 of the Ohio Revised Code. The appeal must be in 

writing and set forth the action complained of and the grounds upon 

which the appeal is based. It must be filed with the Environmental 

Board of Review within thirty (30) days after notice of the Director's 

action. A copy of the appeal must be served on the Director of the 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency within three (3) days of filing 

with the Board. An appeal may be filed with the Environmental Board of 

Review at the following address: 

Environmental Board of Review 

236 East Town Street, Room 300 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 ifi. vJ. 

Very truly yours, 

Thomas G. Rigo, Hanager 

Field Operations & Permit Section 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

& 

\\0\J 

<,££ 

pp.(st\ 

oogcf* 

& 

PA<>J l \ 

cc: DS EPA 

CANTON AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ( 3££ PA6£ 36 ' 

&>> • 2- 0. 
P.4 

TABLE 1. MAXIMUM MATERIALUS AGE / 

IIO TPY 

£*'TT_E.fi J 

P L TPy 

&ELI CofiT ExTeK\ofL ~ 2^ 5 

&-L/VSS ^-fl* 5*** •*•***/ r ^ 

&LASS- RoDrv"* -BP 2. - Z ^ 1 

3 \ OT.A ^34 
P.5 
P.6 

Kls e Ko. 

•Qrce No. 

ppllcltion 

/ 

/ ' 

Xo. . 

ONLY 

/__ 

/ 

J V o0\ 

APPENDIX D 

SURFACE COATING OR PRINTING OPERATION 

1. This appendix is subaitted for a: 

CB Surface coating operation (check one belov): 

X Paint spray booth Flow coating 

., :-.. . Dip tank Roller coating 

Spray Coating (Other than paint spray booth) 

Other surface coating operation, describe 

ii ur 

JUN 2 3 1994 

•*i;?-. CITY H£ALfH *L»»'TJ 

2. 

3. 

4. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

QPrinting or lithographic operation. 

Naoe of operation PAINT & CURE BOOTH #1 

Year Installed N/A 

; Your identiflcationPAINT BOOTH ifl 

Is this operation succeeded by a heated drying or baking operation? E Yes QNo 

If yes, indicate operating temperature of oven 140 °F. 

Normal operating schedule; 24 hours/day,J> days/wk., 52 vks./yea 

PAINT SPRAY BOOTH 

Type of spray booth: Qfl Enclosed QConveyor • Downdraft 

• Other, describe 

Booth manufacturer TO BE DESIGNED 

Type of spraying: 

Make or Model No. 

CD Air gun • Airless O Electrostatic 

O Other, describe ^ ^ 

Spraying operatioa is: 0Manua l 

Fan manufacturer T O B E DESIGNE D 

O Automatic 

Make or Model No. 

10. Booth's exhaust is equipped vith: 

11. Vater vash: 

• Vater vash (Complete item 11) 

B Exhaust filters (Complete item 12) 

O Baffles 

D Other, describe 

• None 

(a) Is vater rec irculated? QYes D No 

(b) Is a chemical added to the vater? QYe s Q No 

(c) Is material reclaimed from vash vater. QYes Q No 

(d) Describe method for disposal of vaste materials: 

* Does not include cetal plating 

EPA-3103 D-l S 

>trtti M *f *+ • ir c<Mt«uua t »o-ft*» 

•,**,•»« ***-»• r« ^ I l o ••••*•* • 
P.7 

State of Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(4Ajte>i;P copy 

Memorandum 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 

Frank Messina: ER-Bend 

Thane Jennings 

Source Test Review Report. 

Aqua Glass 

Klamath County 

Source Testers: AGI 

Process: Fiberglass Manufacturer 

Tvpe of Facilitv 

Sources not listed which would emit 10 or 

- • 

Permit Number: 

Test Date: 

Report Received: 

..,;. 

Date: January 10, 1995 

. > ; si 

'. +•-•'••, v -

18-0093 

October 24-27, 1994 

January 9, 1995 

: SIC 

3088 

more tons/yr VOC uncontrolled, medium cost 

Particulate Emissions from Aaua Glass 

Source 

Gel Coat #1 

Gel Coat #2 

First Chopper 

Base Chopper 

Foam Coat 

Cover Coat 

Total 

(gr/dscf) 

Measured 

0.0002 

0.0002 

0.0002 

0.0003 

0.0007 

0.0002 

Limit 

0.0011 

ll^^iillPlllill^Hill 

Particulate Emissions 

lb/hr 

0.0200 

0.0178: 

0.0437; 

0.0423 

0.0494 

0.0150 

0.1882 

lb/bathtub unit 

0.0017; 

; o.oon 

* •••:•:.•• ^ 0:001 5 x 

•'::*'r* 0.0018 

0.0016 

0.0005 

0.0068 

lb/lb bathtub 

unit " 

:j* xl3.35E-6 • 

;

 U?.63E# 

ro;12.61E^ 

' '14;04E^6S 

13.36E-6 

4.41E-6 

67.4E-6 

It should be noted that sum of the lbs/unit in the two tables, Particulate Emissions from Aqua Glass 

and Styrene Emissions from Aqua Glass are not a simple sum of the lbs/unit for each spray booth. 

Gel Coat #1 and Gel Coat #2 are parallel processes, that is each bathtub unit will pass through only 

one of the Gel Coat booths. The attached process diagram shows the flow of bathtub units. The 

The sum of the particulate and styrene for the spray booths in Lbs/unit is calculated by averaging 

the lbs/unit from Gel Coat #1 and Gel Coat #2 

£ASu'fe£--0 

p £ RM \ TTED O PEKATfd/J 

5 & e pf&e.* 

»«>•=. tH*sJ*£)H ^ — _ 

i* e^^n-^rtr'^wa -j- JT» . j.-* 

<e 
P.8 

* " % 

J

- Memo To: Frank Messina 

January 10, 1995 

Page 3 

Rooftop Exhaust Fan Styrene Concentration 

Exhaust Fan 

EF-2 

EF-3 

EF-4 

EF-11 

EF-34 

EF-? 

Maintenance 

Concentration 

(ppm v/v) 

30-50 

15 

20 

13 

70 

70 

100 

Stvrene Emissions from Aqua Glass 

Soiuce 

Gel Coat #1 

Gel Coat #2 

First Chopper 

Base Chopper 

Foam Coat 

Cover Coat 

Heat Room 

Total 

Flowrate 

(DSCFM) 

a q 13335 

% . 13467 

( 3 26214 

••^ 18069 

q 7502 

3L( 10326 

5 8184 

|J> S $*«<•*•*•)**-

ppm (v/v) 

210 

223 

233 

65 

50 

193 

65 

Styrene Emissions 

lb/hr 

45.5 

48.8 

99.2 

19.0 

6.1 

32.5 

8.6 

259.7 

lb/bathtub unit 

3.91 

3.23 

3.42 

0.78 

0.20 

1.11 

0.29 

9.4 

lb/lb bathtub unit 

0.031 

0.027 

0.028 

0.006 

0.002 

0.009 

0.002 

0.105 

-to !$$&*/.• ;TKA. 

\$.% xV o

l

 * 14 3 (p ^ ir 

<=)-), i)\*> 

7 
P.9 

To: Frank Messina 

anuary 10, 1995 

Page 4 

Summary of Ambient Stvrene Sampling 

Production Area Location 

1. Touch-up Area 

2. Maintenance Area 

3. Shipping and Receiving 

4. Wood Shop 

5. Exhaust Fan #3 

Average 

Ambient Concentration 

(ppm v/v) 

5.4 

43 

3.4 

15 

7.6 

15 

C^c^c* 247) 2 *o^ 

During the month of October, the production rate was 8,240 bathtub units which is roughly 40% of 

the planned production capacity. During the air source test, production was?40%-;to 50% of the 

design capacity. The PSELs shown in the table are calculated using the emission factors from the 

air source test and the design capacity of 250,000 bathtub units^per year. Actual emissions for 1994 

are as follows: 

. •L'-FO oo o u/UxTS _ ZSO DAYS 

( Particulate 

% « 

f\%,ottfeb (54,137 bathtub units year * 0.0068 lbs PM unit)/(250 days/year^* 2£hrs/d^) = 0.07 lbs/hr 

&*$ £ & 54,137 bathtub units * 0.0068 lbs PM unit/2000 Ibs7fi3n"= THf tons/year 

*»]^ Stvrene 

A-JLf^ (54,137 bathtub units/250 days) * 9.4 lbs/unit = 2035 lbs/day 

\j,is/fE 54,137 bathtub units * 9.4 lbs styrene/unit/2000 lbs/ton = 254 tons/year 

If Aqua Glass were to continue operating at 40% of capacity in 1995 they would exceed their long 

term PSEL for styrene in 50 days of operation. 

(93 tons styrene * 2000 lbs/ton)/(1000'unit/daty * 0.40 capacity * 9.4 lbs styrene/unit) = 50 days 

Particulate emissions are controlled by a water curtain and a dry disposable filter. Styrene. and 

VOC emissions are uncontrolled 

% 
P.10 

Memo To: Frank Messina 

January 10, 1995 

Page 5 

Short and Long Term PSELs 

Pollutant PSEL 

Measured Limit 

Particulate Matter < 10 /z 

lbs/hour 

tons/year 

0.28 

0.85 

1.65 

4.9 

Styrene 

lbs/day 

tons/year 

9,400 

<Xl7p 

744 

<*) • 

Aqua Glass is out of compliance with the short and long term styrene PSELs for two reasons; 

emission factors measured during this source test are higher than those values reported to DEQ by 

Aqua Glass, and Aqua Glass seems to have underestimated the amount of resin and gel coat used to 

produce a bath/shower unit. To illustrate the deficiencies in the information used to calculate the 

styrene PSELs, I will use the 1993 annual report and EPA AP-42 emission factors to calculate 1993 

emissions for the Aqua Glass facility. 

1993 Stvrene Emissions 

EPA AP-42 uses the following range of emission factors for spray layup in the polyester resin 

jroduct fabrication r. 

Process 

Spray Layup 

rocess. 

Resin 

Non-Vapor 

Suppressed 

0.09-0.13 

Vapor 

Suppressed 

0.03-0.09 

Gel Coat 

Non-Vapor 

Suppressed 

0.26-0.35 

Vapor 

Suppressed 

0.08-0.25 

The following calculation uses the higher range of EPA AP-42 styrene emission factors for vapor 

suppressed resins -qficTgelcoSfr, which would seem to more closely match the Aqua Glass styrene 

emissions than the lower range of emission factors. Resin styrene content of 0.31 is taken from the 

1993 Aqua Glass annual report, EPA AP-42 reports a value of 0.43. Gel coat, resin and styrene 

usage are all taken from the 1993 Aqua Glass annual report. 

<f 
P.11 

Memo To: Frank Messina 

January 10, 1995 

Page 7 

Fugitive emissions were not taken into account during the air dispersion modeling originally 

performed at the Aqua Glass facility. It is obvious from the odor complaints, the air source test 

performed by AGI and from the survey performed by DEQ that fugitive emissions are a problem at 

Aqua Glass. Facility emissions should be modeled again with the fugitive einission sources included 

in the air dispersion model. 

To maintain indoor air quality, the Aqua Glass facility was designed for a combined discharge 

flowrate of 175,000 dscfm (7 stacks x 25,000 dscftn). However, the source test data show a 

combined discharge flowrate of 97,000 dscfm. One way for Aqua Glass to improve their styrene 

capture efficiency and decrease the ambient styrene concentration would be to increase fan speed, 

at each of the 7 stacks except for the first chopper spray booth stack which had a stack flowrate of 

26,000 dscfm. This would not, however, decrease overall styrene emissions. 

cc: John Hector: DEQ: ER-Bend 

Dave Kauth: DEQr ER-Bend 

Peter Brewer: DEQ: ER-Bend 

Ali Nikukar: DEQ: HQ 

10 
Table 5-1. Styrene Exhaust Concentrations at Existing Open Molding Plants with Resin/Gel Coat Usage Greater than 1,000 tons/yr 

PLANT NAME 

AQUA GLASS 

A.R.E., INC. 

LASCO BATHWARE 

UNIVERSAL RUNDLE 

AMERICAN STANDARD 

A.R.E., INC. 

MILLENIUM PRODUCTS 

AQUA GLASS 

Arithmetic mean 

CITY 

KLAMATH FALLS 

MASILLON 

MOAPA 

OTTUMWA 

SALEM 

MOUNTEATON 

ELKHART 

ADAMSVILLE 

Median 

ST 

OR 

OH 

NV 

IA 

OH 

OH 

IN 

TN 

UNCONTROLLED 

EMISSIONS (ton/yr) 

1,175 

770 

739 

328 

53 

108 

123 

1,151 

OPERATING 

HOURS (h/yr) 

6,000 

7,488 

4,290 

4,160 

2,500 

3,120 

2,000 

6,000 

PLANT-WIDE 

FLOW RATE 

(fG/min) 

97,000 

55,000 

155,400 

110,700 

35,000 

70,000 

125,000 

390,000 

AVERAGE 

STYRENE 

CONCENTRATION 

(ppm) 

249 

231 

137 

88 

75 

61 

61 

61 

120 

82 

O 

to 
P.13 

10/96 12:12 

©19199410234 

PE§..FSP'«C 

FAX CO 

®00l/003 

Datfe:-' 

FROM: 

Reseatcn A 

(919) 941-0333 

^ER - <*»> 941-0234 

F A X NUMBER. ^ 

TO: Name: 

Address: 

Pfcone Number: 

F A X NUMBER: 

Z±i-jrsjL 

REFERENCE CODE: 

\% OJy£jS. 

THIS co: 

liaiaSIC*TI° « COMPRISE 

3 PAGES UJCLUDING THIS **GE" 

COMMENTS: 

I T 
o 

o 

CM 

o 

o 

§1 

Control Costs for New Gel Coating and Open Molding Facilities with Combined Resin and Gel Coat Usage Above 1000 tpy DRAFT 

Control Cost (Won) 

Facility Infonnaiion of HAP Removed 

Numbe* Resin Resin OMHAP Gel Coal Gel Coat Gel HAP HAP Operaiing 

of Spfary Air Flow Usage MAP Emission* Usage HAP Emissions Emissions Concentration Houn Conoenlalor 

/ 

Plant Name (Cftnl (tov) m ton) oa jai . 

(tag {Baal ISltoni 

A. R. E., lnc.(Mas5illon} 

/ 

y 

j. 

AquB Glass Corparallof* (Adamsville) 

Aqua Glass Corporation (Klamath Falls) 

65.000 5,886 42 436 1,541 40 334 770 231 691 

IS 190,000 12,000 43 913 1,170 38 237 1.151 61 / 1.718 

97.000 1,175 249 6.000 637 

If nlversat-Riundle Corp- (Ottumwa) 110,700 2.S00 47 206 593 36 122 328 86 4.180 2.368 

Tompkins - Lasco Bathware (Moapa) 155.400 6.259 47 1,5»6 40 730 137 

~r 

4.290 1/06 

American Standaid 35,000 cbl cbl Cbl cbi 63 75 2.500 5.595 

U 

0, 

OL, 

Millenium Products 125.00C 634 41 06 167 30 27 123 75 2.000 8,343 

A. R. E. (Mount Eaton) 

Lmmmms 

t 70.000 987 34 50 262 34 48 108 75 3.120 4.766 

n 

M 

O 

30 

rs. 

y-i 

M 

3D 

3» 

CA 

Page 1 
Control Costs for New Gel Coating and Open Molding Facilities with Combined Resin and Gel Coat Usage Above 1000 tpy DRAFT 

09/10/96 

Plant Name 

A. R. E.. Inc-(Masslllon) 

Aqua Glass Coiporation (Klamath Falls) 

Universal-Rundle Corp. (Ottumwa) 

Tompkins - Lasco Baihwaie (Moapa) 

American Standaid 

Millenium Products 

A. R. E. (Mount Eaton) 

smSS^k^^^issssM^sfi 

Number 

of Spray 

Booths 

4 

6 

n 

n 

5 

i 

Air Flew 

(Etui 

55.000 

07,000 

110.700 

155,400 

35,000 

125.000 

70,000 

1 

Resin 

Usage 

(Had 

5,886 

2,500 

6,259 

cbl 

634 

987 

Resin 

HAP 

(541 

42 

47 

47 

cbl 

41 

34 

OMHAP 

Emissions 

(tot) 

436 

206 

cbl 

96 

59 

I 

i 

Facility Infonmation 

Gei Coal 

Usage 

flex} 

1,541 

593 

1.598 

0 

167 

262 

Gel Coat 

HAP 

m 

40 

38 

40 

0 

30 

34 

Get HAP 

Emissions 

im 

334 

122 

cbi 

27 

48 

HAP 

Emissions 

iSEA 

770 

1,175 

328 

738 

S3 

123 

108 

Concentration 

(ppml 

231 

249 

68 

137 

75 

75 

75 

Operating 

Hours 

fhrfyrt 

7.46B 

6,000 

4,160 

4,290 

2,500 

2,000 

3.120 

Control Cos! (J/ton) 

of HAP Removed 

Conoenlatnr 

(SflQfll 

691 

637 

2.366 

1.408 

5,595 

8,343 

4.766 

Page 1