p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# yfytf) ll-E-206 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:12 AM Sheet 246 of 264

# PES *

TO : FROM : DATE : SUBJECT : , • t ,

Keit h Barnet t MEMORANDU M
U.S . EPA/ESD/OC G Melani e Procto r Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) Januar y 18 , 200 0 L 2 — 

# (T-e-^ob

Minute s o f Decembe r 15 , 1999 Meetin

g Betwee n EP A an dRepresentative s o

f the ReinforcedPlastic/Composite s Industr y LOCATION : EPA/Mutua l Building , Durham , NC , 9:0 0 a m- 12:0 0 ATTENDEES : Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Ms . Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . Mr . ' Ms .

Mr . Mr . PURPOS E The Keit h Barnet t Chuck Elkin s Rober t Haberlei n Rober t Jemiso n Penn y Lassite r Davi dLipiro Ke n Meardo n Lowell Mile s Gar y Multanen Willia mPederse n Melani e Procto r John Schweitze

r Stuar t Session s
purpos e o f th e meeting industr y an d EP A representative s EPA/ESD/OC G

Chuc k Elkin s & Associate s Engineerin g Environmenta l PE S EPA/ESD/OC G Environmenta

l Complianc e & Risk Management , Inc . PE S Mile s Fiberglas s Fiberglas s System s Sha w Pittma n PE S Composit e Fabricator s Associatio n (CFA) Environomic s pm (919 ) 541-560 5 (202 ) 686-351 8 (410 ) 268-736 7 (919 ) 941-033 3 (919 ) 541-539 6 (330)908-041 1 (919 ) 941-033 3 (503 ) 775-775 5 (208 ) 850-929 9 (202 ) 663-885 2 (919 ) 941-033 3 (734 ) 622-016 2 (301 ) 657-776 2

was fo r representative s o

f the reinforce dplasti c composite s t o discus s variou s issue s concernin g th e tentativ e MACT Standar dfo r th e reinforce dplasti c composite s industry . Mr . Schweitze r provide dadocumen

t describin g thei

r question s an

dconcern s regardin g EPA' s current MACT floors . Th e documen t provide db y Mr . Schweitze r i s entitle d"Question s on Above-the-Floor MAC T fo

r Existin g Source s an dMACT fo

r Ne w an dReconstructe dSources " an di s enclose dwit

h thi s documen

t a s Attachmen

t 1 .P. 3

Meeting Minute s Januar y 18 , 200 0 Pag e 2 DISCUSSION Mr . Schweitze

r starte dthe meeting by explainin g tha t th e Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n (CFA ) hire danumbe r o f consultant s t

o furthe r stud y th e issu e o

f add-o n contro l device s use di n th e reinforce dplasti c composite s industry . He addedtha t CF A askedfo

r thi s meetin g to discus s add-on contro l devic e issue s an dt o determine whic

h information CF

A an d thei r consultant s ca

n gather . Th e first issu e raise dfocuse

do n the feasibility , cost , an daffordabilit

y o f achievin g 9 5 percent contro l o f emissions . Th

e participant s discusse dthe us e o f permanen t tota l enclosure s (PTEs ) to obtai n 10

0 percent captur e o f emissions . Additiona

l topic s discusse drelate dt o thi s issu e include dth e methodology o f sizing PTEs , multipl e PTE s versu s one buildin g PTE , movemen t o f product s withi n an

dbetween PTEs , an

dmetho d204 criteri at

o demonstrat

e 10 0 percent capture . The EP A contracto r

explaine d tha

t th e OAQPS cos t

manua l an dthe RTI/EPA documen

t entitled "Assessmen

t o f Styren e Emission Control s fo

r FRP/ C an dBoa t Building Industries " wer

e use dto cos t

add-o n contro l system s to reduc e emission s b y 9 5 percent . The participant s als o discussedth e typ e o f devic e usedin the EP

A cos t analysis , which was arotar y concentrato r

in conjunction wit

h atherma

l incinerator . In addition , th e turndow n rati o o f apre-concentratio n device , th e operatin g hours , the air flow, an

demissio n strea

m concentration s to the contro l devic e wer e discussed . Othe

r cost s tha t wer e addresse d i

n conjunctio n wit

h th e add-o n contro l devic e cost s wer e recordkeepin g an

dmonitorin g costs . CF A representative s urge dthe EP A an dtheir contracto r

t o no t jus t rely o n vendor information , but

to visi t facilitie s tha

t us e add-on contro l devices . In particular , CF A representative s suggestedavisi t to th e Ake

r Plastic s facilit

y i n Martinsburg , Wes t

Virginia , an

d th e A.R.E . facilit

y in MassiUon , Ohio . Th e secon d issu e raise dfocuse do n th e siz e cutof

f above which facilitie s are require d t o mee t th e above MACT floor

standard . Unde

r EPA' s curren

t approach the siz e cutof

f i s 10 0 ton s o f hazardou s air

pollutan t (HAP ) emission s pe

r year . Th e participant s discusse dthe metho dused to estimate emission s to determin e i f facilitie s fal

l abov e or belo w th e siz e cutoff

, actua l versu s permitte demissions , an

dth e metho dusedt

o adjust 199 2 facilit

y datato 1997 data . The EP A contracto r

explaine dtha

t Toxi c Releas e Inventor

y (TRI ) dat

awa s downloade d fro mth e Interne t

an duse dt o determine growt

h estimate s o n afacilit

y basis . Thes e growt

h estimate s wer

e then usedto adjust

1992 resi n usag e dat

areporte di

n the screening survey s t

o 199 7 dat ause d i n th e economi c analysis .P. 4

Meeting Minute s Januar y 18 , 200 0 Pag e 3 Th e third issu e discusse dfocuse do n th e economi c impact

analysis , in which th e cos t o f the standar dwas analyzedwit

h respect t o compan y sale s data . Th

e EP A contractor

explained tha

t 199 7 compan

y sale s dat

aan daverag e resi n cos t

dat awer e use di n the economi c analysis . Additiona l topic s discussedrelatedt

o thi s issue include

dplan t closur e analysis , the us e o

f post-ta x versu s pre-ta

x sale s data , the rol e o

f the busines s cycle , an

dpassin g o n standar

dcost s b y increasin g sale s prices . The economi c impact discussio n relate dto ne

w source s focused o n profitabilit y an dbarrie r t o entr y issues . CF A representative s explainedtha t the capita l investmen

t in proces s an

drelate dequipmen

t in thi s industr

y i s ver y low . The

y voice dconcer n tha t thes e facilitie s routinely replac e mor e tha n 5 0 percen t o f their proces s equipmen

t in term s o

f capita l value an dthu s quickly mee

t th e criteri a fo r reconstructe dsources . CF A representative s indicatedtha t the y ar e planning t

o surve y 2 0 actua l plant s t o conduc t acos t an dMACT floor

feasibilit y evaluation . The

y askedfo r inpu t fro mEP A fo r th e selectio n criteri ato com

e up wit h arepresentativ e sample . The participant s discusse dCB I issue s relate d t o the expecteddat

aan di f CF A representative s ca

n shar e facilit y name s an

ddatawit h th e EPA . Th e fourt h issue discussedfocuse

don th e MAC T floors fo r ne w source s tha

t ar e currently under consideration . Industr

y representative s questione dth e similarit y between source s settin g th e ne w sourc e MACT floors an dne w source s tha

t likel y com e o n line . I

n addition , industr

y representative s statedtha

t the y preferre dEPA' s previou s MACT floor approac h tha

t would hav e require dne

w ope n moldin g source s below acertai n size limi t t o achieve the sam

e level o f contro l as existing sources . Additiona l topic s tha

t wer e discusse drelate dto thi s issu e include dth e Boa t MAC T Standard , lega

l requirement s fo

r settin g MACT floors, similarit y between sources , an

d th e previously considere dsiz e cutof f fo r ne w sources . Afte r industr y representative s voice

dthei r concern s regarding the MACT floors currentl y under consideration , Mr . Barnet t suggestedtha

t the y shouldtak

e anothe r loo k a t th e MAC T databas e onl

y focusin g o n area s wher

e ther e ar e "real " problem s wit

h meeting th e standard s an d let hi mkno w wher

e thes e area s are . Th e fifth issu e discusse dfocuse do n secondar

y environmenta

l impact s du e t

o the us e o

f add-on contro l devices . Othe r topic s tha t wer e addresse din conjunction wit h thi s issu e include d th e temperatur

e o f the add-on contro l device , carbo n dioxide , carbo n monoxide , an dnitrou s oxid

e emissions , an

dstyrene' s potentia

l effect s as a n ozone scrubber . Th e las t issu e discusse daddresse dcompanie s tha t requeste dexemption s fo

r th e MACT standard . The discussio n focuse do n tw o companie s tha

t requeste dexemptions , which are Appalachia

n Plastic s an

dReichholdChemicals , Inc . Appalachia n Plastic s requeste da

n exemptio nP. 5

Meeting Minute s Januar y 18 , 200 0 Pag e 4 fo r their clas s I fire an

dsmok e retardant

resi n an dReichhol dChemicals , Inc. , requeste d a n exemptio n fo

r alow shrin

k toolin g resin . Actio n Item s fo

r Industr y Representatives : 1 . Revie

w MACT databas e an

dprovid e feedbac k as t o wher e ther e ar e "real " problem s wit

h th e curren t

MACT floors. Actio n Item s fo

r EPA : 1 . Provid e industr

y representative s wit

h the web-sit

e addres s use dt

o collec t TR I datafo r growt h estimates . 2 . Provid e industr

y representative s wit

h acopy o

f EPA/RTI repor

t title d"Assessmen

t o f Styrene Emissio n Control s fo r FRP/ C an dBoa t Building Industries. "

# Composites Fabricators

Association December

15,1999 c p * r

' • u u :

3

8 * * * * f s 

### I « = 

# Questions ! 

# o n

Above-the-Floor

MACT for Existing

Sources And MACT for New and Reconstructed

Sources £ m 

### 1 3 2. o E 

## I 2 C G O * I X f v

C

OC D • s m u m & 

# ESD's

Current Approach

• Bot h existin g an d ne wsource s wit h actua l tota l HA P emission s o f 10 0 ton s pe r yea r o r mor e wil l b e require d t o contro l 95 % o f al l HA P emissions . • Most ne wsources , eve n thos e wit h emission s a s lo wa s 1 0 ton s pe r year , wii l b e require d t o achiev e ver y lo wemissio n rates , ofte n requirin g installatio n o f a n incinerator .

• CF A i s concerne d tha t thes e requirements : • Ma y no t b e technicall y achievable . • Ma y no t b e affordabl e fo r th e larg e majorit y o f sources , mos t o f whic h ar e smal l businesses . -^^Mayrrotbefcasedim^ ^ sources . • Ma y no t reflec t th e most environmentally-smar t emissio n reductio n technique s fo r thi s industry . o m n O J

C D

- o

T J O J CF A Presentatio n Decembe r 15,199 9 p. 2£ 

# ESD's

Current Approach

i

E 3 £ 

### s c r r i o . u u 

### • CF A i s workin g to understan d th e impact s o f th e possibl e MAC T requirements . 9 

### • Ro b Haberlei n o f Engineerin g Environmenta l i s evaluatin g th e technica l feasibilit y an d j ] cos t o f th e 95 % captur e an d contro l requirement . • Stuar t Session s o f Environomic s i s evaluatin g th e economi c impac t Caffordabilit/ 1 

### ) o f thi s requirement . • Davi d Lipir o o f Environmenta l Complianc e an d Ris k Managemen t Inc . i s evaluatin g th e I non-economi c impacts , includin g environmenta l impacts , o f captur e an d contro l

(oxidation ) fo r ope n molding .

C S a Kl

CF A Presentatio n Decembe r 15.199 9 p . 3

0 0C B m 3

Q .

« j 2 

### I o • 0 o m n L O

* .

* 3 

# 95 % Control:

Technical

Feasibility, Cost, and Affordability ? Ho wd o w e kno wtha t 100 % captur e i s feasibl e fo r existin g o r ne wsources ? ? Ho wha s EP

A considered : §

- th e larg e an d varie d par t sizes ,

- th e nee d t o continuousl y mov e mold s an d product s i n an d ou t o f proces s areas ,

- th e typica l practic e o f spray/roll-out/cur e o f severa l product s a t th e sam e time , * j - an d th e nee d t o contro l occupationa l exposure s t o 50ppm ? s ? Ho wha s EP A evaluate d th e cos t o f retrofittin g existin g source s t o achiev e 100 % I —- capture ? 1 ? Ho wi s EP A evaluatin g th e cos t an d economi c impac t o f th e 95 % contro l requiremen t fo r existin g sources ? ? Wha t ar e th e factor s tha t migh t significantl y impac t th e outcom e o f thes e analyses ? ? Ho wca n EP

A an d CF A conduc t thei r studie s o f technica l feasibility , cost , an d affordability , t o yiel d th e mos t usefu l information ?

G t r • x t r CFA Presentatio n Decembe r 15,199 9 p . 40> " 5 t o 

# Similarity

of Floor-Setting-Sources to Actual New and Reconstructed

Sources

m £

o R n O J KD KD KD- 

### ? Ar e th e specifi c source s tha t se t th e ne wsourc e floor s reall y "similar " t o mos t likel y ne w§ an d reconstructe d sources , i n term s o f th e practica l abilit y t o us e emissio n reductio n technique s o r controls ? • Som e examples :

- I n th e Non-Corrosio n Mechanica l Fille d database , th e bes t controlle d sourc e i s muc h large r (b y a facto r o f 10 0 o r more ) tha n mos t existin g o r likel y ne wsources . | - I n th e Pigmente d Ge l Coa t database , th e bes t controlle d sourc e i s a ver y larg e 5 facilit y tha t ha s th e technica l resource s neede d t o us e a specialt y low-HA P ge l coa t I (whic h i s no t eve n availabl e t o mos t o f th e othe r source s i n thi s group) .

- I n th e Corrosio n Mechanica l database , bot h o f th e tw o bes t controlle d source s mak e product s fo r specifi c markets , wher e th e require d resin s happe n t o hav e lo wHA P content . B

y contrast , th e larg e majorit y o f likel y ne wsource s i n thi s grou p wil l mak e product s fo r a rang e o f en d uses , an d wil l therefor e nee d t o us e a muc h wide r rang e o f resin s wit h a wide r rang e o f HA P content . Not e tha t th e third-bes t controlle d sourc e use s resi n wit h 44 % HAP , versu s 34 % an d 33 % fo r th e tw o top sources .
G > c n U D

" 0 c n g CF A Presentatio n Decembe r 15.199 9 p. 5 e

### a JC • 3 mi. £ S 

# 1 I E e 

# Standards

for Reconstructed

Sources
• A ver y larg e numbe r o f ope n molder s hav e ver y lo wcapita l investmen t i n proces s an d relate d equipment , an d d o no t ow n thei r lan d o r buildings . • N o matte r ho wth e standar d migh t defin e "reconstruction/'thes e source s wil l routinel y replac e mor e tha n 50 % o f thei r proces s equipmen t (i n term s o f capita l value) . Th e ac t o f s o doin g wil l no t mak

e the m an y mor e abl e to compl y wit h th e ne wsourc e floor s tha n othe r existin g source s tha t hav e no t "reconstructed. " ? A s existin g ope n moldin g source s mak e routin e replacemen t o f proces s equipment , o r adop t low-emittin g applicatio n equipmen t t o compl y wit h existin g sourc e MACT , wil l the y becom e reconstructe d source s subjec t t o ne wsourc e MACT ? ? Wil l the y b e reasonabl y abl e t o compl y wit h th e ne wsourc e standards ? o c n n O J KD KD

" 0

c a t n KD

CF A Presentatio n Decembe r 15,199 9 p . 6C O c 

# New

Source MACT- Different

Standards

Based on Size

• EPA' s previou s (Fall , 1998 ) approac h to MAC T woul d hav e require d ne wope n moldin g source s wit h emission s o f les s tha n 9 5 ton s pe r yea r t o achiev e th e sam e leve l o f contro l a s existin g sources . Thi s approach : • Provide d achievabl e requirement s fo r mos t likel y ne wsources .

- Allowe d existin g source s t o becom e reconstructe d source s withou t triggerin g requirement s the y simpl y ca n no t achieve . ? Ca n EP

A retur n t o it s previou s approac h t o ne wsourc e MACT ? ? Wha t i s th e basi s fo r EPA' s clai m tha t th e Ac t doe s no t allo wth e settin g o f differen t ne w sourc e standard s fo r differen t size d sources ? o n o O J KD KD U D .

t i 3

2 O G I c n U D

0 0 CF A Presentatio n Decembe r 15,199 9 p . 7

T J

# Is

oxidation

really the "best" control for open molding? ? I s oxidatio n a n environmentall y smar t contro l fo r th e ope n moldin g o f composites ? • Th e intermitten t natur e o f th e moldin g process , th e larg e an d varyin g siz e o f parts , an d th e nee d t o manag e occupationa l exposures , mea n tha t larg e quantitie s o f natura l ga s mus t b e bume d t o contro l a smal l amoun t o f HAP . • Styren e rapidl y degrade s i n th e atmospher e to ultimatel y for m non-toxi c substances . • Widesprea d us e o f oxidatio n t o contro l ope n moldin g emission s wil l resul t i n th e releas e o f larg e quantitie s o f NO x 

### , contributin g to smo g problems , an d C0 2 

### , whic h add s to globa l warming . • Ther e i s onl y on e rotary concentrator , on e fluidized be d concentrator , an d on e plant wid e RT O presentl y i n us e a t composite s manufacturin g operations , an d th e operatin g efficiencie s o f thes e unit s ar e no t clear .

- Man y existin g source s hav e zoning , nois e control , o r leas e restriction s tha t wil l preven t installatio n o f a n incinerator . ? Howi s EPA conductin g it s analysi s o f th e non-economi c impact s t o th e composite s industr y o f th e 95 % contro l requirements ? ? Wha t ar e th e factor s tha t migh t significantl y impac t th e outcom e o f thi s analyses ? ? Howca n EPA an d CF

A conduc t thei r evaluation s o f th e non-economi c impac t o f incinerator s t o yiel d th e mos t usefu l information ? o n O J U D U D UD*

C S c n U D T J

E e CF

A Presentation Decembe r 15,199 9 p . 8