P.1 

OAR Box 1500 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

63) ll-C-89 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 8/5/2008 1:51:29 PM Sheet 63 of 343 
A 945 2 

P.2 

/ 

Date sent: 

From: 

Subject: 

To: 

Copies to: 

Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:56:13 -0400 

MADELEINE STRUM <STRUM.MADELEINE@epamail.epa.gov> 

vapor suppressed equations and their derivation 

robhab@erols.com 

mproctor@rtp.pes.com 

Per your request to Melanie Proctor, PES, I am enclosing an excel file which contains the current set of equations 

we are using for ranking facilities with vapor suppressed resins for the purposes of determining the MACT floor for 

open molding operations. This file also contains the non-suppressed (which we termed "uncontrolled) equations 

which you have seen previously. The data sets and analyses used to derive the equations are also contained in the 

file. 

Please regard this material as draft as of April 17,1998 (we left out a header that would indicate this). 

Two additional notes: 1) for compliance, facilities would rely on the vapor suppressent test method we are working 

on (not the equations presented here); 2) in the MACT database, for facilities that reported suppressants used with 

filled resins, we used the uncontrolled equations (not the VSR equations). 

If you have any questions, please call me at 919 541 2383 or send me email 

Thank you 

Madeleine 

Melanie Proctor - 1 Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:36:35 
Plastic Composites MACT Model Equations for Hand Lay-up 

tn 

o 0_ 

c 

o 

r^ .2 tn 

tn 

E 

UJ 

"o 

•a 

o 

_> 

iO 

< 

s 

200 

180 

160 

140 

QL 

< 

I 120 

tn 

JQ 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

Uncontrolled 

EF (lbs HAP/ton Resin) = 0.027860(% HAP) 225500 0 

Vapor Suppressed 

EF(lbs HAP/ton Resin) = 0.027860(%HAP)2055000 

Note: The MACT Model equations are used to rank facilities in the MACT 

floor determination process. Since HAP emissions from hand lay-up are 

dependent on process variables other than resin monomer content, the 

actual emissions from hand lay-up at a specific facility may be higher or 

lower than predicted by these equations. Therefore, these equations 

should not be used to predict HAP emissions from hand lay-up at a 

specific facility. 

. . * ' 

„ . r ' 

. . ' " 

. . ' ' ' 

° s 

*v 

o 

© 

.--- ' 

..'' 

% 

.-*' © 

* 

** 

.-' ' o 

10 15 20 25 30 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

35 40 45 50 

,% Uncontrolled -Uncontrolled © Vapor Suppressed •Vapor Suppressed 

CO 
P.4 

Appendix C 

Statistical Analyses Used to Derive the MACT Model Equations for Hand Lay-up 

Table C-1: CFA Phase I DaU Set for Uncontrolled Hand Lay-up*-' 

Run No. 

Assumed 

9 

3A/3B 

7 

14 

15 

5 

1 

11A/11B 

12A/12B 

2 

6 

16 

13 

8 

4A/4B 

10 

Data ID 

Assumed 

092795C 

0S2095A/092695B 

092795A 

092995B 

091995A 

092595A 

100295B 

082895ai092995C 

092S95C/1002S5A 

100295C 

092695A 

091995B 

092995A 

092795B 

100395A/092695C 

092895A 

Monomer 

Content 

(%HAP) 

0 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

Resin 

Consumed 

(grams) 

>0 

3302 

2989 

3421 

3153 

2735 

2815 

3168 

2867 

6281 

6050 

6029 

6484 

6032 

5799 

6249 

5582 

Available 

HAP 

(grams) 

0 

1156 

1255 

1197 

1324 

957 

1182 

1109 

1204 

2198 

2541 

2110 

2723 

2111 

2436 

2187 

2344 

Applied 

Thickness 

(Inches) 

>0 

0.041 

0.041 

0.041 

0.041 

0.041 

0.041 

0.041 

0.041 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

Resin 

Gel Time 

(minute*) 

>0 

15 

15 

15 

15 

30 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

15 

15 

30 

30 

30 

30 

Air Flow 

Over Surface 

(ft per min) 

>0 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

SO 

100 

100 

50 

50 

100 

100 

HAP 

Emissions 

(grams) 

0.0 

165.5 

220.3 

179.7 

222.8 

171.6 

228.0 

195.8 

255.4 

219.9 

294.1 

217.4 

320.2 

250.5 

330.9 

274.1 

337.4 

HAP 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0.0% 

• 5.0% 

7.4% 

5.3% 

7.1% 

6.3% 

8.1% 

6.2% 

8.9% 

3.5% 

4.9% 

3.6% 

4.9% 

4.2% 

5.7% 

4.4% 

6.0% 

HAP 

Emission* 

(lb/ton)' 

0 

100 

147 

105 

141 

126 

162 

124 

178 

70 

97 

72 

99 

83 

114 

88 

121 

*TWa data set waa used in the statistical analysis conducted to determine the MACT Model equation fbr uncontrolled hand lay-up. 

^mteston values for zero percent monomer content are assumed values. The CFA Phase I study did not test HAP free resin systems. 

^Duplicate runs for the -ame combination of test parametera (thickness, pel _me,alr flow) were averaged so the derived equation was based on a balanced set of test parameters. 

d

The HAP emissions shown in tMs column have unite of tbs HAP erritted per ton of neat resin plus consumed. Neat resin phis means the neat resin plus any additional HAP added to the neat restn. 

Table C-2: CFA Phase II Data Set for Vapor Suppressed Hand Lay-up*** 

Run No. 

Assumed 

6 

8 

2 

5 

DaU ID 

Assumed 

060496B 

060596B 

050396A 

060496A 

Monomer 

Content 

(%HAP) 

0 

33.2 

33.2 

44.4 

48.8 

Resin 

Consumed 

(grams) 

>0 

5693 

5686 

4295 

4344 

Available 

HAP 

(grams) 

0 

1890 

1888 

1907 

2120 

Applied 

Thickness 

(Inches) 

>0 

0.08 

0.08 

0.08 

0.08 

Resin 

Gel Time 

(minutes) 

>0 

28 

28 

28 

28 

Air Flow 

Over Surface 

(ft per min) 

»0 

100 

100 

100 

100 

HAP 

Emissions 

(grams) 

0.0 

165.2 

152.5 

133.4 

156.8 

HAP 

Emissions 

(%rasinwt) 

0.0% 

2.9% 

2.7% 

3.1% 

3.6% 

HAP 

Emissions 

(lb/ton)" 

0 

58 

64 

62 

72 

*Thie data set was used in the statistical analysis conducted to determine the MACT Model equation for vapor suppressed fund lay-up. 

Amission values for zero percent monomer content ara assumed values. The CFA Phwe II study did not test HAP free resin systems. 

'The CFA Phase II testing old not use a balanced set of test parameters. 

d

The HAP emissions shown tn this column have units of D» HAP emitted per ton of neat resin phis consumed. Neat resin plus means the neat resin plus any addttonal HAP added to lhe neat resin. 

Table C-3: Statistical Analyses for the MACT Model Equations for Hand Lay-Up*' 

Uncontrolled Hand Lay-up Application 

Monomer 

Content 

(SHAP) 

0 

35 

42 

35 

42 

_ 35 ... 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

Tested Avg: 

Actual 

HAP 

Emissions 

(lbs/ton)0 

0 

100 

147 

105 

141 

126 

162 

124 

178 

70 

97 

72 

99 

83 

114 

88 

121 

114 

Uncontrolled Equation 

Coefficient m of y • mx": 

Exponent n of y • mx": 

Std. Error of Y-Estlmate: 

Std. Error/Tested Average: 

Predicted 

HAP 

Emissions 

(Ibsfton)' 

0 

84 

127 

84 

127 

. . 84 

127 

84 

127 

84 

127 

84 

127 

84 

127 

84 

127 

Sum (x-y)»2: 

Result 

0.027860 

2.255000 

24.94 

21.84 

(Actual • 

Predicted 

Emisslons)*2 

(lbsfton)*2 

0 

247 

399 

423 

193 

1682 .. 

1191 

1529 

2573 

209 

915 

154 

824 

2 

178 

10 

43 

10571 

Units 

None 

None 

IbsAon 

% 

Vapor Suppressed Hand Lay-up Application 

Monomer 

Content 

(%HAP) 

0 

33 

33 

44 

49 

Tested Avg: 

Actual 

HAP 

Emissions 

(Ibsfton)1 

0 

58 

54 

62 

72 

61 

Vapor Suppressed Equation 

Coefficient m of y • mx": 

Exponent n of y • mx": 

Std. Error of Y-Estlmate: 

Std. ErronTested Average: 

Predicted 

HAP 

Emissions 

(Ibsfton)" 

0 

37 

37 

66 

83 

Sum (x-y)A2: 

Result 

0.027860 

2.055000 

13.18 

21.44 

(ActualPredicted 

Emissions)^ 

(lbsfton)*2 

0 

452 

285 

18 

114 

869 

Units 

None 

None 

lbs/ton 

% 

*The standard error of y-estlmate values shown in the table above are the lowest possible subject to the following constraints: 

-Zero HAP emisalona at zero percent resin HAP content 

•Increasing HAP emissions with increasing resin HAP content 

•Data points for a speciHc HAP content are balanced so the MACT Model equation gives equal weight to each combination of parameters tested 

(This constraint applied only to uncontrolled hand lay-up due to limited availability of data pertaining to vapor suppressed hand lay-up) 

•MACT Model equation contains only those variables (parameters) which cam be considered aa part ot an enfbrceatile emission reduction strategy or retaliation 

-HAP efl-sstona from incsordrotted hand lay-up are always greater than or equal to HAP emissions from vapor auppressed hand lay-up provided oil other test parameters are the s 

*The formula for the standard error of y-estlmate values shown above is as fotlowa: Std Error ot Y-Eatimate • -^(Yactual-Ypredicted)*! / number of data points] 

"The HAP emissions shown in this cohimn have units of lbs HAP emitted per ton ot neat resin plus consumed. Neat resin plus means the neat resin phis any additional HAP added to 

3 
Plastic Composites MACT Model Equations for Spray Lay-up 

^ 

CL 

< 

tn 

_a 

tn 

tn 

tn 

E 

LU 

"3 

T3 

O 

O 

< 

450 

400 

.£ 350 

tn 

o 

Q_ 

c 

o C 300 

£ 250 

200 

150 

100 

20 25 30 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

_ Uncontrolled -Uncontrolled A Vapor Suppressed •Vapor Suppressed 

v 
P.6 

Appendix C 

Statistical Analyses Used to Derive the MACT Model Equations for Spray Lay-up 

Table C-4: CFA Phase I Data Set for Spray Lay-up" 

Run No. 

Assumed 

9 

3A/3B 

7 

14 

15 

5 

1 

11A/11B 

12A/12B 

2 

6 

16 

13 

8 

4A/4B 

10 

Data ID 

Assumed 

120695A 

111695B/113095A 

120495A 

121495B 

121295B 

112895B 

111595B 

120795A/121195B 

120895A/121295A 

111695A 

112995A 

121495A 

120895B 

120595B 

112895AI112M5B 

12069SB 

Monomer 

Content 

(% HAP) 

0 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

Resin 

Consumed 

(grams) 

>0 

4044 

4079 

4104 

4065 

4059 

4031 

3589 

4044 

8076 

8062 

8025 

8099 

8088 

8071 

8036 

8070 

Available 

HAP 

(grams) 

0 

1415 

1713 

1436 

1707 

1421 

1693 

1256 

1698 

2826 

3388 

2809 

3402 

2831 

3390 

2813 

3389 

Applied 

Thickness 

(inches) 

>0 

0.040 

0.040 

0.040 

0.040 

0.040 

0.040 

0.040 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

Resin 

Gel Time 

(minutes) 

>0 

15 

15 

15 

15 

30 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

15 

15 

30 

30 

30 

30 

Resin 

Flow Rate 

(Ib/min) 

>0 

2 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

Air Flow 

Over Surface 

(ft per min) 

>0 

100 

50 

50 

100 

50 

100 

100 

50 

100 

50 

50 

100 

50 

100 

100 

50 

HAP 

Emissions 

(grams) 

0.0 

330.8 

557.2 

341.0 

432.7 

292.2 

609.7 

235.8 

504.8 

492.2 

1144.5 

521.8 

882.9 

524.5 

1295.2 

541.5 

763.0 

HAP 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0.0% 

8.2% 

13.7% 

8.3% 

10.6% 

7.2% 

15.1% 

8.6% 

12.5% 

6.1% 

14.2% 

6.5% 

10.9% 

6.5% 

18.0% 

6.7% 

9.5% 

HAP 

Emissions 

(lb/ton)' 

0 

164 

273 

188 

213 

144 

303 

131 

250 

122 

284 

130 

218 

130 

321 

135 

189 

*This data set was used in the statistical analysis conducted to determine Hie MACT Model equation for urrantroBed spray lay-up. 

'.jnisilon values for zero percent monomer content are issumed values. Tha CFA Phase I study did not test HAP tree resin systems. 

"Duplicate runs for the same combination of test parameters (thickness, gel time.sir flow) were averaged so the derived equation vns based on a balanced set of test parameters. 

*The HAP emissions shown in this column have units of lbs HAP emitted per ton of neat resin plus consumed. Neat resin plus means the neat resin phis any additional HAP added to the neat resin. 

Table C-5: CFA Phase II Data Set for Vapor Suppressed Spray Lay-up"** 

Run No. 

Assumed 

8 

9 

2 

4 

12 

13 

Data ID 

Assumed 

081396A 

081396B 

061396B 

080796A 

081696B 

082796A 

Monomer 

Content 

(%HAP) 

0 

33.8 

33.8 

44.4 

44.4 

48.8 

48.8 

Resin 

Consumed 

(grams) 

>0 

5590 

5567 

5558 

5588 

5825 

5575 

Available 

HAP 

(grams) 

0 

1889 

1882 

2468 

2480 

2745 

2721 

Applied 

Thickness 

(inches) 

>0 

0.08 

0.08 

0.08 

0.08 

0.08 

0.08 

Resin 

Gel Time 

(minutes) 

>0 

28 

28 

28 

28 

26 

28 

Resin 

Flow Rate 

(Ib/min) 

>0 

4 

2 

4 

2 

4 

2 

Air Flow 

Over Surface 

(ft per min) 

>0 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

HAP 

Emissions 

(grams) 

0.0 

234.8 

350.0 

324.4 

566.6 

339.7 

513.1 

HAP 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0.0% 

4.2% 

8.3% 

5.8% 

10.1% 

6.0% 

9.2% 

HAP 

Emissions 

(Ibfton)" 

0 

84 

126 

117 

203 

121 

184 

*Thls data set was used in the statistical analysis conducted to determine the MACT Model equation for vapor suppressed spray lay-up. 

'Emission values for zero percent monomer content are assumed values. Tha CFA Phase II study did not test HAP free resin systems. 

"The CFA Phase II tasting did not use a balanced set of test parameters. 

•"The HAP emissions shown In this column havo units of lis HAP emitted per ton of neat resin plus consumed. Neat resin plus mesns Uie neat resin plus any additional HAP added to the neat resin. 

Table C-6: Statistical Analyses for the MACT Model Equations for Spray Lay-up'* 

Uncontrolled Spray Lay-up 

Monomer 

Content 

(%HAP) 

0 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

• • • 4 2 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

35 

42 

Tested Avg: 

Actual 

HAP 

Emissions 

(Ibsfton)' 

0 

164 

273 

166 

213 

144 

303 

131 

250 

122 

284 

130 

218 

130 

321 

135 

189 

198 

Uncontrolled Equation 

Coefficler4t m of y • mx": 

Exponent n of y • mx": 

Std. Error of Y-Estlmate: 

Std. Error/Tested Average: 

Predicted 

HAP 

Emissions 

(Ibsfton)' 

0 

160 

258 

160 

258 

160 

258 

160 

160 

258 

160 

258 

160 

258 

160 

258 

Sum (x-y)*2: 

Result 

0.014655 

2.615000 

34.53 

17.42 

(ActualPredicted 

Emissions)^ 

(lbs/ton)«2 

0 

14 

248 

40 

1990 

252 

2025 

810 

1441 

698 

889 

1558 

909 

4026 

629 

4680 

20272 

Units 

None 

None 

lbs/ton 

% 

Vapor Suppressed Spray Lay-up 

Monomer 

Content 

(SHAP) 

0 

34 

34 

44 

44 

49 

49 

Tested Avg: 

Actual 

HAP 

Emissions 

(Ibsfton)' 

0 

84 

126 

117 

203 

121 

184 

139 

Vapor Suppressed Equation 

Coefficient m of y • mx": 

Exponent n of y • mx": 

Std. Error of Y-Estimate: 

Std. Error/Tested Average: 

Predicted 

HAP 

Emissions 

(Ibsfton)' 

0 

76 

76 

143 

143 

186 

186 

Sum (x-y)A2: 

Result 

0.014655 

2.427500 

39.60 

28.48 

(Actus!-

Predicted 

Emissions)^ 

(lbsfton)A2 

0 

55 

2425 

692 

3579 

4221 

3 

10975 

Units 

None 

None 

lbs/ton 

% 

•The standsrd error of y.estimate values shown In tha table abova are tha lowest possible subject to tha following constraints: 

-Zaro 41AP amissions at zaro percent rasin 44AP contant 

-Incraasing HAP amissions wtth incraasing rasin 44AP contsnt 

-Data points for a spedfic HAP contant are balanced so the MACT Modal equation gives equal waight to each combination of parameters tested 

(Thia constraint applied only to uncontrolled spray tayup due to limited availability of data pertaining to vapor suppressed spray taymp) 

-MACT Modal aquation containe only those variables (parameters) which can ba considered es part of an enforceable amission reduction strategy or regulation 

-44AP emissions from uncontrolled spray lay-up ara always greater than or equel to HAP emissions from vepor suppressed spray taymp provided an other test perameters ere the same. 

'The formula far tha standard error of y4stimate values shown above is BS follows: Std Error of Y-Estlmate ° Sqrrj(Yocluai.Ypredicted)A2 / number ot date points] 

'The 44AP emissions shown in this column nova units of tjs HAP emitted per ton of neat rasin plus consumed. Neat resin plus means tha neat resin plus eny edditlonal 44AP added to the neet resin. 

i 
Plastic Composites MACT Model Equations for Filament Winding 

250 

200 

CO 

0) 

Q_ 

c 

Q. 

< 

CO 

JQ 

tn 

c 

o 

150 -

<s^ .a 

E 

ui 

"3 

TJ 

o S 

» -

o 

< 

_= 

100 

10 15 20 25 30 35 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

40 45 50 

•> Uncontrolled o Vapor Suppressed -Uncontrolled •Vapor Suppressed 

TJ 
P.8 

Appendix C 

Statistical Analyses Used to Derive the MACT Model Equations for Filament Winding 

Table C-7: Dow Chemical Company Data Set for Uncontrolled Filament Winding*' 

Run No. 

Assumed 

1 

14 

9 

18 

13 

7 

2 

6+18 

Monomer 

Content 

(%HAP) 

0 

33 

33 

33 

33 

48 

48 

48 

48 

Ambient 

Temperature 

(degrees F) 

>0 

73 

73 

85 

85 

73 

73 

85 

85 

Mandrel 

(Part) Size 

(Inches) 

>0 

6 

33 

6 

33 

6 

33 

6 

33 

HAP 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0.000 

0.049 

0.072 

0.059 

0.063 

0.083 

0.118 

0.086 

0.109 

HAP 

Emissions 

(lbs/ton)" 

0 

98 

144 

118 

126 

166 

238 

172 

217 

"This data set was used En the statistical analysis conducted to detennine the MACT Model equation for uncontrolled filament winding. 

bEmlssion values for zero percent monomer content are assumed values. The Dow Chemical Company study did not test HAP free resin systems. 

"Duplicate runs for the same combination of test parameters (ambient temperature, mandrel size) were averaged so the derived equation was based on a balanced 

set of test parameters. 

"Th. 44AP emissions shown in this column hsve units of lbs 44AP emittad per ton of neat resin plus consumed Neat resin plus means the neat resin plus any additional 

HAP added to the nest resin. 

Table C-8: Do w Chemica l Compan y Data Se t for Vapo r Suppresse d Filament Winding*- 6 , 0 

Run No. 

Assumed 

17 

4 

5 

3 

8 

12 

11 

15 

Monomer 

Content 

(K HAP) 

0 

33 

33 

33 

33 

48 

48 

48 

48 

Mandrel 

Temperature 

(degrees F) 

>0 

73 

73 

85 

85 

73 

73 

85 

85 

Mandrel 

(Part) Size 

(inches) 

>0 

6 

33 

6 

33 

6 

33 

6 

33 

HAP 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0.000 

0.038 

0.048 

0.054 

0.040 

0.049 

0.046 

0.066 

0.050 

HAP 

Emissions 

(lbs/ton)" 

0 

76 

95 

109 

81 

98 

92 

132 

99 

*This data set was used in the statistical analysis conducted to determine the MACT Model equation for vapor suppressed fil<amerrt winding. 

bEmisslon values for zero percent monomer content are assumed values. The Dow Chemical Company study did not test HAP free resin systems. 

cDupHcate runs fbr the same combination of test parameters (4-mbient temperature, mandrel size) were averaged so Ow derived equation was based on a balanced 

set of test parameters. 

"The HAP emissions shown in this column have units of lbs 44AP emitted per ton of neat resin plus consumed. Neat resin plus means the neat resin plus any addtllonal 

HAP added to the neat resin. 

Tabl e C-9: Statistical Analyse s for the MAC T Model Equations for Filament Winding*' 

Uncontrolled Filament Winding 

Monomer 

Content 

(•A HAP) 

0 

33 

33 

33 

33 

48 

48 

48 

48 

Tested Avg: 

Actual 

HAP 

Emissions 

(lbs/ton)0 

0 

98 

144 

118 

126 

166 

236 

172 

217 

160 

Uncontrolled Equation 

Coefficient m of y • mx": 

Exponent n of y • mx": 

Std. Error of Y-Estlmate: 

Std. Error/Tested Average: 

Predicted 

HAP 

Emissions 

(lbs/ton)" 

0 

120 

120 

120 

120 

196 

196 

196 

196 

Sum (x-y)A2: 

Result 

1.293809 

1.296392 

21.53 

13.48 

(Actual -

Predicted 

Emlssions)"2 

(lbs/ton)"2 

o 

500 

559 

6 

32 

877 

1630 

558 

471 

4633 

Units 

None 

None 

IbsAon 

% 

Vapor Suppressed Filament Winding 

Monomer 

Content 

(%HAP) 

- ' • - o 

33 

33 

33 

33 

48 

48 

48 

48 

Tested Avg: 

Actual 

HAP 

Emissions 

(Ibsfton)0 

o 

76 

95 

109 

81 

98 

92 

132 

99 

98 

Vapor Suppressed Equation 

Coefficient m of y = mx": 

Exponent n of y - mx": 

Std. Error of Y-Estlmate: 

Std. Error/Tasted Average: 

Predicted 

HAP 

Emissions 

(lbs/ton)" 

o 

75 

75 

75 

75 

115 

115 

115 

115 

Sum (x-y)"2: 

Result 

1.293809 

1.159500 

16.16 

18.59 

(Actual • 

Predicted 

Emissions)"2 

(lbsrton)A2 

0 

1 

417 

1171 

36 

281 

518 

284 

261 

2969 

Units 

None 

None 

IbsAon 

% 

*The standard error of y-estimate values shown in the table above are the lowest possible subject to the following constraints: 

-Zero HAP emissions al zero percent resin HAP content 

•increasing HAP emissions with increasing resin HAP content 

•Data points fbr a specific HAP content are balanced so the lulACT Model equation gives equal weight to each combination of parameters tested 

-MACT Model equation contains only those variables (parameters) which can be considered as part of an enforceable emission reduction strategy or regulation 

-HAP emissions from uncontrolled filament winding are always greater than or equal to HAP emissions from vapor suppressed filament winding provided all other test 

parameters are the same. 

^The formula for the standard error of y-estimate values shown above is as follows: Std Error of Y-Estimate « Sqrt[(Yactual-Ypredic1ed)A2 / number of data points] 

°The HAP emissions shown In this column have units of lbs HAP emitted per ton of neat resin plus consumed. Neat resin plus means the neat resin ftfus any additional 

HAP added to the neat resin. 

n 
Plastic Composites MACT Model Equation for Gel Coating 

700 

<=£ 

(0 

o 

O 

"3 

O 

c 

QL 

< 

X 

tn 

_3 

tn 

c 

o 

'tn 

tn 

1 

UJ "3 

•o 

o 

O 

< 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

I I I I I 

Uncontrolled 

EF (lbs HAP/ton Gel Coat) = 0.436189(%HAP)1870872 

Note: The MACT Model equations are used to rank facilities in the MACT floor 

determination process. Since HAP emissions from gel coating are dependent 

on process variables other than resin monomer content, the actual emissions 

from gel coating at a specific facility may be higher or lower than predicted by 

these equations. Therefore, these equations should not be used to predict 

HAP emissions from gel coating at a specific facility. 

44 / 

II / 

44 / 44 

10 15 20 25 30 35 

Gel Coat Monomer Content (% HAP) 

40 45 50 

+ Uncontrolled -Uncontrolled 

TJ 

CO 
Appendix C 

Statistical Analysis Used to Derive the MACT Model Equation for Gel Coating 

P.10 

Table C-10: CFA Phase I Data Set for Get Coating'*' 

Run No. 

Assumed 

9 

3A/3B 

7 

14 

15 

8 

1 

11A/11B 

12A/12B 

2 

6 

16 

13 

5 

4A/4B 

10 

DaU ID 

Assumed 

101795B 

101285A/101695B 

101695C 

10199SC 

10249SA 

10179SA 

101195A 

101B85B/1023S5A 

101995A/102395B 

101195B 

101395B 

10249SB 

101995B 

101395A 

101295B/10169SA 

10189SA 

Monomer 

Content 

(SHAP) 

0 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

Gel Coat 

Consumed 

(grams) 

>0 

2330 

2352 

2492 

2310 

2347 

2353 

2510 

2369 

3131 

3110 

3208 

3093 

3139 

3134 

31434 

3110 

Available 

HAP 

(grams) 

0 

818 

941 

872 

924 

821 

941 

879 

955 

1098 

1244 

1122 

1237 

1099 

1254 

1107 

1244 

Applied 

Thickness 

(Inches) 

>0 

0.018 

0.018 

0.018 

0.018 

0.018 

0.018 

0.018 

0.018 

0.024 

0.024 

0.024 

0.024 

0.024 

0.024 

0.024 

0.024 

Gel Coat 

Gel Time 

(minutes) 

>0 

10 

10 

10 

10 

20 

20 

20 

20 

10 

10 

10 

10 

20 

20 

20 

20 

Gel Coat 

Flow Rate 

(Ib/min) 

>0 

2 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

Air Flow 

Over Surface 

(ft per min) 

>0 

100 

50 

50 

100 

50 

100 

100 

50 

100 

50 

50 

100 

50 

100 

100 

50 

HAP 

Emissions 

(grams) 

0.0 

469.5 

528.6 

437.2 

523.4 

403.6 

572.2 

465.3 

592.3 

495.9 

578.3 

484.5 

642.0 

491.1 

615.2 

494.4 

652.9 

HAP 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0.0% 

20.1% 

22.5% 

17.5% 

22.7% 

17.2% 

24.3% 

18.5% 

24.8% 

15.8% 

18.5% 

15.1% 

20.8% 

15.6% 

19.6% 

15.6% 

21.0% 

HAP 

Emissions 

(lb/ton)* 

0 

403 

449 

351 

453 

344 

486 

371 

496 

317 

371 

302 

415 

313 

393 

313 

420 

*Tt o data set was used in the statistical analysis conducted to determine tha UACT Modal aquation for uncontrolled get coating. 

kEmh»bn values for zero percent monomer contant ara assumed values. The CFA Ftwse I study did not test HAP free gel coats. 

cDuplcsta runs for tha same combination of test parameters (tfifcknMs, gal time, flow rate, air flow) ware averaged so tha derived equation was based on a balanced set of test parameters. 

*The HAP emissions shown in thia column have units of lbs HAP emittad per ton of neat gal cost plus consumed. Naat gel coat plus means the neat gal coat plus any additional HAP addad to the nsat gal coat 

Table C-11: Statistical Analysis for the MACT Model Equation for Gel Coating** 

Uncontrolled Gel Coating 

Monomer 

Content 

(SHAP) 

0 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

35 

40 

Tested Avg: 

Actual 

HAP 

Emissions 

(Ibsfton)* 

0 

403 

449 

351 

453 

344 

486 

371 

496 

317 

371 

302 

415 

313 

393 

313 

420 

387 

Uncontrolled Equation 

Coefficient m of y • mx": 

Exponent n of y • mx": 

Std. Error of Y-Estimate: 

Std. ErrorfTested Average: 

Predicted 

HAP 

Emissions 

(lbs/ton)' 

0 

338 

433 

338 

433 

338 

433 

338 

433 

338 

433 

338 

433 

338 

433 

338 

433 

Sum (x-y)*2: 

Result 

0.438189 

1.870872 

35.97 

9.29 

(ActualPredicted 

Emisslons)A2 

(lbsfton)*2 

0 

4269 

257 

175 

388 

40 

2797 

1099 

3905 

433 

3947 

1251 

336 

611 

1668 

630 

185 

21992 

Units 

None 

None 

lbs/ton 

% 

*The standard error of y-estimata values shown in the table above are the lowest possible subject to tlie following constraints : 

-Zero HAP amissions at zero percent gat coat HAP contant 

-Increasing HAP amissions with Increasing gel coat HAP contant 

-Data points fbr a specific HAP content are balanced so the MACT Model equation gives equal weight to each cctnbinatkin of parameters tested 

4IAC T Model equation contains only those variabias (parameters) which can be considered es part of an enforceable emission reduction strategy or ragutition 

*The formula for the standard error of y-estimate values stwwn above b as foHows: Std Error of V-Ettlmate • Sqrtt(Yectual-Ypredlcteit)*2 / number of data points] 

*The HAP emissions shown in this column have units of lbs HAP emitted per ton of neat gel coat plus consumed. tMeal gel coat plus means the neat gel coat plus any additional HAP added to tha naat gel coat 

<\