p.1 

OAR Box 1477 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

30) ll-J-21 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/31/2008 11:40:24 AM Sheet 30 of 36 
P.2 

From: 

To: 

Date: 

Stibject: 

Marguerite: 

KEITH BARNETT 

THWEATT-MARGUERITE 

3/17/00 3:10pm ' 

Reinforced Plastice Composites Chapter 4. 

Attached id Cahpter 4 of the RPC BID. Also attached is Appendix B. When this 

document is transmitted to Jennifer Greenamoyer, be sure and note that SBA has 

already received Appendix A of this document, which is the data sets used to 

develop the point value equations. 

Keith 
P.3 

CHAPTER 4 

MACT FLOORS AND ABOVE THE FLOOR CONTROL OPTIONS 

The purpose of this chapter is to present the maximum achievable control technology 

(MACT) floor and any above the floor control options for the Reinforced Plastics Composites 

Source Category. This chapter is organized in five sections: (1) a brief background of the 

statutory requirements; (2) a description of the available data; (3) a discussion of considerations 

in determining MACT floors, and how these considerations were addressed for the reinforced 

# 

plastics composites source category; (4) the results of the MACT floor analysis; and (5) the 

development of the above the floor control options. 

4.1 BACKGROUND ON CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS 

Section 112 ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, contains requirements for 

the development of regulatory alternatives for sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions. Section 112(d) of the CAA requires emissions standards for HAP to reflect the 

maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable "... taking into 

consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy requirements...." This control level is referred to as MACT. 

The CAA also provides guidance on determining the least stringent level allowed for 

MACT standards, referred to as the "MACT floor." For new sources, emission standards "... 

shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best 

controlled similar source." For existing sources, the emission standards must be at least as 

stringent as either "... the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 

percent ofthe existing sources . .. " or "... the average emission limitation achieved by the best 

performing 5 sources ... " for categories or subcategories with less than 30 sources. Because 

MACT must be at least as stringent as the floor, costs and economic considerations can not be 

considered in determining the floor level of control. 

Because MACT should reflect the maximum degree of emissions reduction, once floors 

are determined the EPA typically identifies and evaluated control options more stringent than the 

floor. These above the floor control options, are evaluated based on costs, environmental and 

energy impacts. If these impacts appear to be reasonable based on the amount of additional 

control achieved, then the above the floor option is chosen as MACT. 

4.2 AVAILABLE DATA 

The primary sources of data used in the MACT floor analyses includes information from 

a 1993 survey ofthe reinforced plastics composites industry, site visit reports, State air permits, 

and the toxic release inventory system (TRIS). 

4 - 1 
P.4 

The data from these sources were compiled in a data base. The information compiled 

included the amounts and types of resins used, the resin HAP contents, resin application 

methods, final product(s) produced, work practice emission controls, and presence of add-on 

controls. 

4.3 CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINING MACT FLOORS 

Several fundamental decisions must be made before MACT floors can be determined. 

These considerations include how non-major sources will be handled in the analysis, if/how the 

source category is to be subcategorized, how emission source types are to be grouped, which are 

the best performing facilities, and what is the proper format of the MACT floor. Each of these 

topics is discussed in the following sections, which also include decisions/assumptions made in 

the analyses for the reinforced plastics composites source category. 

Major Sources 

Since the regulation for the reinforced plastics composites source category will apply to 

major sources, it is appropriate to consider only major sources and "synthetic area" sources in the 

analysis. A synthetic area source is a source that appears to have the potential to be major based 

on its potential to emit, but accepts a permit limit on HAP emissions below major source levels. 

Therefore, we estimated whether each facility for which data were available was a major or 

synthetic area source. 

Based on the available information, there were 440 facilities identified which were major 

sources based on their potential to emit, or appeared to have the potential to be major sources 

based on collocation with other HAP emitting processes not part of this source category. 

Grouping of Operations 

Section 112(d)(1) ofthe CAA gives the EPA the authority to ".. . distinguish among 

classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category..." when developing standards. 

Subcategories, or subsets of similar emission sources within a source category, may be defined if 

technical differences in emissions characteristics, processes, control device applicability, or 

opportunities for pollution prevention exist within the source category. Specific examples of 

these differences include the types of products, process equipment differences, the type and level 

of emission control, emissions sources, and any other factors that would impact a MACT 

standard. 

In setting the MACT standards, the floor must be established for the source category. 

However, in analyzing the available data on this source category, it was apparent that for this 

source category that RPC facilities as a whole were extremely diverse in their emission 

characteristics, control device applicability, and opportunities for pollution prevention. 

Therefore a method had to be found to group "similar sources" within this source category. 

Evaluation of the data showed that RPC production processes could be divided into the 

following operations: 

4 - 2 
P.5 

Bulk Molding Compound (BMC) Manufacturing 

Centrifugal Casting 

Compression Molding 

Continuous Casting 

Continuous Lamination 

Equipment Cleaning 

Filament Winding 

Gel Coating 

Injection Molding 

Manual (Hand Lay-up/Bucket & Tool) Application 

Mixing of HAP Containing Materials 

Polymer Casting 

Pressure-Fed Roller/Flow Coater Resin Application 

Pultrusion 

Resin Transfer Molding (RTM) 

Sheet Molding Compound (SMC) Manufacturing 

Spray Lay-up of Resin 

Storage of HAP Containing Materials 

Any one facility may have several of these operations on site. Resin storage, mixing, and 

equipment cleaning operations and ancillary operation to the actual production process, and are 

typically located at all facilities. Descriptions of these individual operations were previously 

discussed in Chapter 3. 

Grouping the available data based on these operations to determine MACT floors 

appeared to be appropriate for several reasons. First, the number of different operations is 

generally well defined. Second, basing the floors on these operations facilitates compliance with 

the standard(s) because facilities rarely change their the operations in their production processes, 

even when they change products. Basing the floor analysis on production operations was also 

suggested by industry representatives.' 

Though setting the floors on the individual operations shown above would present a valid 

option, some of the individual operations described above have a number of characteristics in 

common that would justify grouping of similar operations, which would further simplify the 

standard(s) and reduce the number of different floors. 

The EPA investigated the option of grouping some of the operation shown above by 

examining the following criteria for each individual process: Emission potential in terms of 

available hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (high - average process emission factor is greater than 

10%, medium - average process emission factor is between 3 and 10%, and low - average process 

emission factor is less than 3%), equipment used (open, semi-closed, or closed), process 

operation (batch versus continuous), and applicable emission reduction or control techniques. 

Table 4-1 presents the results ofthis investigation by criteria for each individual operation. 

The first five operations in Table 4-1, spray lay-up, manual application, pressure-fed 

roller/flow coater, filament winding, and gel coating, processes, are similar in terms of emission 

4 - 3 
TABLE 4-1. CRITERIA CONSIDERED FOR COMBINING INDIVIDUAL OPERATIONS 

Individual Processes 

Spray Lay-up 

Manual Application 

Pressure-Fed Roller/Flow Coater 

Filament Winding 

Gel Coating 

Centrifugal Casting 

Compression Molding 

Injection Molding 

RTM 

Continuous Casting 

Continuous Lamination 

Polymer Casting 

Pultrusion 

BMC Manufacturing 

Mixing of HAP Containing Materials 

SMC Manufacturing 

Equipment Cleaning 

Storage of HAP Containing Materials 

Emission 

Potential 

High 

High 

Low 

Medium 

Low 

Medium 

Low 

Low 

High 

Low 

Equipment 

Used 

Open 

Semi-Closed 

Closed 

Semi-Closed 

Semi-Closed 

Semi-Closed 

Open or 

Closed 

Semi-Closed 

Open 

Open or 

Closed 

Process 

Operation 

Batch 

Batch 

Batch 

Continuous 

Batch 

Continuous 

Batch 

Continuous 

Batch 

Batch 

Applicable Reduction or Control Techniques 

Spray Lav-up: Pressure-fed roller/flow coater, 

vapor suppressant, low HAP resin, enclosing 

process, and control device 

All Others: Vapor suppressant, low HAP raw 

material, enclosing process, and control device 

Low HAP resin and control device 

Compression and injection molding only: Expose 

only one charge at any time and cover all other 

charges 

Low HAP resin, wet area enclosure, and control 

device 

Enclosing the process 

Low HAP resin, wet area enclosure, resin or die 

injection, and control device 

Closed or covered mixers and control device 

Nylon film, covered doctor box, and control device 

No HAP-containing cleaners 

Closed or covered vessels and control device 

The other end product considerations that appeared 

level of controls available were the addition of pigments to 

to have a significant impact on the raw materials, and therefore the type and 

gel coats, use of fillers, and production of product molds (called tools in 

4 - 4 
P.7 

this industry). 

potential and the use of an open mold that encloses only one side of the product. These are 

typically called open molding processes. 

However, there are some differences in the applicable emission reduction techniques. For 

example, these processes use raw materials that may have different properties based on the 

individual processes. This means that the actual HAP concentration attainable for low HAP 

materials and the ability to use vapor suppressants may vary between operations. Also, 

converting a spray lay-up operation to pressure-fed rollers/flow coater application of resin is 

possible for certain resin systems, but not all. This conversion results in some emissions 

reduction. Pressure-fed rollers/flow coaters can not be used with gel coating, filament winding, 

and would not achieve any emissions reduction if substituted for a manual application process. 

For these reasons, we aggregated pressure fed rollers/flow coater operations and spray 

lay-up into one aggregated operation called mechanical resin application. The other operations 

were treated separately for floor development. 

Table 4-1 also shows that compression molding, injection molding, and RTM have the same 

characteristics. These processes are closed molding processes and the only difference between 

them is that the emission reduction techniques that pertain to the handling of charges do not 

apply to RTM. Therefore compression and injection molding were combined together for 

MACT floor development. Resin transfer molding was treated separately. All three of these 

processes are typically called closed molding processes because they use a completely closed 

mold. 

Continuous lamination and continuous casting have the same characteristics in terms of 

emissions and applicable control techniques. There were combined for MACT floor 

development. Both of these processes are semi-closed continuous processes with a medium 

emission potential. In addition, the applicable emission reduction or control techniques are also 

the same for both of these processes. 

BMC manufacturing and mixing of HAP containing materials are mixing processes with 

a low emission potential and the same emission reduction or control techniques. These two 

operations were grouped together for MACT floor development. 

The other individual operations (i.e., centrifugal casting, polymer casting, pultrusion, 

SMC manufacturing, equipment cleaning, and storage of HAP containing materials) are 

dissimilar enough that data for these processes were grouped separately. 

In addition to combining similar individual operations, the EPA also investigated if 

processes should be further subdivided based on the desired properties of the end product or the 

differences in the raw material. Table 4-2 shows the properties of the end product and raw 

materials were used to fuither subdivide the data used for floor development. 

Industry representatives indicated that the level of resistance of the final product to 

corrosive environments has a significant impact on the types of resins that can be used, and resin 

4 - 5 
P.8 

HAP content. For this reason, and based on our review of the data, where resin HAP content was 

being considered as an emissions control (open molding and centrifugal casting operations), we 

TABLE 4-2. OPERATION SUBDIVISIONS BASED ON DIFFERENCES IN END PRODUCT 

PROPERTIES 

Individual 

Operation 

Gel Coating 

Mechanical 

Resin 

Application 

Manual Resin 

Application 

Filament 

Winding 

re.nfrifiiPfll 

End Product 

Subdivision 

Tooling Gel Coat 

Pigmented Production 

Clear Production 

Production Resin -

Corrosion Resistant 

Production Resin -

Filled Non-Corrosion 

Resistant 

Production Resin -

Unfilled Non-Corrosion 

Resistant 

Tooling Resin 

Production Resin -

Corrosion Resistant 

Production Resin -

Non-Corrosion 

Resistant 

Tooling Resin 

Corrosion Resistant 

Non-Corrosion 

Resistant 

Corrosion Resistant 

Reason for Subdivision 

Different requirements for surface and structural 

properties demand different gel coats for tooling as 

compared to production applications. 

Pigmented gel coats have higher densities than 

clear gel coats. Therefore, pigmented gel coats can 

have lower HAP contents on a percent weight basis 

than clear gel coats. 

Corrosion resistant products require the use of 

different resin types compared to non-corrosion 

resistant products to provide chemical resistance in 

corrosive environments. 

The emission reduction options for the production 

of filled products produced by mechanical resin 

application are more limited than for the production 

of unfilled products (i.e., vapor-suppressants are 

less effective and the flow coater/pressure-fed 

roller technology is still in the developmental stage 

for filled resin systems). 

Different requirements for surface and structural 

properties demand different resins for tooling as 

compared to production applications. 

Corrosion resistant products require the use of 

different resin types compared to non-corrosion 

resistant products to provide chemical resistance in 

corrosive environments. 

Different requirements for surface and structural 

properties demand different resins for tooling as 

compared to production applications. 

Corrosion resistant products require the use of 

different resin types compared to non-corrosion 

resistant products to provide chemical resistance in 

corrosive environments. 

rnrrnsinn resistant nrnHnrts re.nnirp. thp. use nf 

Casting different resin types compared to non-corrosion 

resistant products to provide chemical resistance in 

corrosive environments. 

4 - 6 
P.9 

Non-Corrosion 

Resistant 

4-7 
P.10 

further subdivided the data between corrosion resistant products and non-corrosion resistant 

products. 

As shown intable 4-2, the end product and raw material differences listed above were 

considered to justify a further subdivision of open molding and centrifugal casting processes 

because these differences affect the choice of some of the main emission reduction options listed 

in Table 4-1 (e.g., low HAP resins, vapor suppressants, and use of flow coaters/pressure-fed 

rollers). 

Table 4-3 presents the final results of the grouping of operations for MACT floor 

development. The far right column of the table presents each data set used to segregate the data 

form the 440 facilities. A MACT floor for new and existing sources was developed for each 

grouping in this column. 

Best Performing Facilities 

As previously discussed, the MACT floor for new sources, shall not be less stringent 

than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. For 

existing sources, the emission standards must be at least as stringent as either the average 

emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources, or the 

average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources for categories or grouping 

with less than 30 sources. 

In order to determine the best performing facilities, the EPA had to determine a method to 

rank the facilities in each data set. For open molding and centrifugal casting processes this was 

accomplished using a point value system. The point value system was designed to accurately 

reflect the emission control status of facilities within each of the open molding operation.. Point 

values are expressed in terms of pounds of emissions per ton of resin used. However, the point 

values are not emission factors. They simply determine the relative emissions of the same 

operations at different facilities, rather then an absolute emissions value. 

The point value represented by the median of the lowest 12 percent of the point values 

within the data set (or lowest five if less than 30 sources) for each emission operation grouping 

was determined to be the existing source MACT floor. The lowest point value was selected as 

the new source MACT floor. 

For the other operations in this source category, the ranking of facilities was based on the 

presence or absence of work practices or equipment known to reduce emissions, and the overall 

efficiency of any add-on controls. 

Development of Point Value Equations 

The MACT model equations are algebraic expressions that estimate the quantity of HAP 

emitted for the open molding processes with and without emission reduction techniques. These 

equations were developed to determine point values that reflect the emission control status of 

each facility within each of the emission operation groupings. For the development of the 

MACT model equations for open molding processes, the EPA reviewed emission studies that 

were conducted by the EPA and industry. These studies were used to characterize the differences 

in emissions due to factors such as varying HAP contents of the raw material, 

4 - 8 
P.11 

TABLE 4-3. SUBDIVISION OF THE DATA FOR MACT FLOOR DEVELOPMENT 

Individual 

Operation 

Spray Lay-up 

Pressure-Fed 

Roller/Flow 

Coater 

Manual Resin 

Application 

Filament 

Winding 

Gel Coating 

Centrifugal 

Casting 

Compression 

Molding 

Injection Molding 

RTM 

Continuous 

Casting 

Continuous 

Lamination 

Polymer Casting 

Pultrusion 

Aggregated 

Operation 

Mechanical 

Resin 

Application 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Injection/ 

Compression 

Molding 

Not Applicable 

Continuous 

Lamination/ 

Continuous 

Casting 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Subdivision based on 

End Product 

Considerations 

Corrosion Resistant 

(CR) Products 

Non CR Filled Products 

Non CR Unfilled 

Products 

Tools (Molds) 

CR Products 

Non CR Products 

Tools 

CR Products 

Non CR Products 

Tools 

Pigmented Gel Coated 

Products 

Clear Gel Coated 

Products 

CR Products 

Non CR Products 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Data set used in MACT 

Floor Development 

CR Mechanical Resin 

Application 

Non CR Filled Mechanical 

Resin Application 

Non CR Unfilled 

Mechanical Resin 

Application 

Mechanical Tooling Resin 

Application 

CR Manual Resin 

Application 

Non CR Manual Resin 

Application 

Manual Tooling Resin 

Application 

CR Filament Winding 

Non CR Filament Winding 

Tooling Gel Coating 

Pigmented Production Gel 

Coating 

Clear Production Gel 

Coating 

CR Centrifugal Casting 

Non CR Centrifugal 

Casting 

Injection/ 

Compression Molding 

RTM 

Continuous Lamination/ 

Continuous Casting 

Polymer Casting 

Pultrusion 

4-9 
P.12 

TABLE 4-3. SUBDIVISION OF THE DATA FOR MACT FLOOR DEVELOPMENT (Con't) 

BMC 

Manufacturing 

Mixing of HAP 

Containing 

Materials 

Polymer Casting 

Pultrusion 

SMC 

Manufacturing 

Equipment 

Cleaning 

Storage of HAP 

Containing 

Materials 

BMC 

Manufacturing/ 

Mixing 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

BMC Manufacturing/ 

Mixing 

Polymer Casting 

Pultrusion 

SMC Manufacturing 

Equipment Cleaning 

Storage of HAP Containing 

Materials 

4-10 
P.13 

different methods of resin application, usage of vapor-suppressants, gel time, and product 

thickness. The emission studies show that many parameters are important in determining the 

amount of emissions. However, the EPA determined that not all of the parameters that affect 

emissions constitute enforceable emission reduction strategies. The EPA considered the method 

of resin application, the HAP content of the resin or gel coat, the use of vapor-suppressants, the 

use of closed mold curing/vacuum bagging, and the use of add-on control devices enforceable 

emission reduction strategies. 

Since a number of emission studies and individual facility source tests were available, the 

EPA had to determine which of the available data could be used for the derivation of the MACT 

model equations. The following criteria were used to select emission data for the derivation of 

the MACT model equations: 

(1) The test data contained infonnation on all the important parameters (i.e., HAP 

content, gel time, product thickness, etc.) that are known to significantly effect 

emissions so that differences in emissions could be attributed to a particular test 

parameter. 

(2) When available, balanced data sets were used to derive the MACT model 

equations because they give equal weight to each combination of parameters 

tested and thereby do not bias the results. For example, if the effect of resin HAP 

content on emissions had to be determined by using test results for two resins with 

different HAP contents and one of the resins was only tested at a gel time of 30 

minutes while the other resin was only tested at a gel time of 15 minutes, the data 

were not used to derive the MACT model equations if other data were available 

because the test parameters are not balanced. In this example, the emissions from 

both resins should have been tested at a 30- and 15-minute gel time to provide 

"balanced" data for the development of MACT model equations. Parameters 

other than gel time that effect emissions, such as product thickness and air flow, 

were also preferred to be balanced for the derivation of MACT model equations. 

Table 4-4 lists the operations for which equations were developed, the process/product 

groupings they apply to, and the data used in their development. Based on the data selection 

criteria discussed above, the EPA selected the Phase I and Phase II emission studies conducted 

by the Composites Fabricators Association (CFA) to derive MACT model equations for all 

processes except for filament winding and centrifugal casting.2S For the derivation of MACT 

model equation for centrifugal casting, the EPA selected mass balance data provided by Fibercast 

Company.6 For the derivation of MACT model equations for filament winding, the EPA selected 

the 1996 Dow Chemical Company emission study.7 Appendix A of this document presents the 

data sets and test parameters for the CFA Phase I, CFA Phase II, the Dow Chemical Company 

emission studies, and the Fibercast Company's mass balance data . 

A study conducted by the EPA with a cooperative agreement with the Research Triangle 

Institute (RTI) showed that the presence of filler could partially or completely negate the effect of 

vapor-suppressants.8 For this reason, the non vapor-suppressed equations were 

4-1 1 
TABLE 4-4. DATA USED TO DEVELOP POINT VALUE EQUATIONS BY PROCESS AND USE OF EMISSION CONTROL 

OPTION 

Process 

Centrifugal Casting 

Filament Winding 

Gel Coatinga 

Manual Resin Application

 b 

Mechanical Resin Applicationb 

Emission Control Option 

Non Vapor-Suppressed 

Non Vapor-Suppressed 

Vapor-Suppressedc 

Atomized Non Vapor-Suppressed 

Non Vapor-Suppressed 

Vapor-Suppressedc 

Atomized Non Vapor-Suppressed 

Atomized Vapor-Suppressedc 

Non-Atomized Non Vapor-Suppressed 

Non-Atomized Vapor-Suppressedc 

Data Used to Develop MACT Model Equations 

Fibercast Company Mass Balance Data 

Dow Chemical Study 

Dow Chemical Study 

CFA Phase I Study 

CFA Phase I Study 

CFA Phase II Study 

CFA Phase I Study 

CFA Phase II Study 

CFA Phase I Study 

CFA Phase II Study 

a Applies to tooling, pigmented production, and clear production gel coating, 

b Applies to corrosion-resistant, noncorrosion-resistant, filled, and unfilled resin applications. 

c Vapor-suppressed equations only apply to unfilled resin systems. When vapor-suppressants are used in filled resin systems, the non vapor-suppressed 

equations are used since filler has been shown to interfere with the effectiveness of the vapor-suppressants. 

4-1 2 
P.15 

used for any vapor-suppressed filled resin applications. The MACT model equation for unfilled 

vapor-suppressed manual resin application was derived by using the CFA Phase II emission 

study because it was the only emission study that tested the effect of vapor-suppressants in 

manual resin application. While the study did not use a "balanced" set of parameters, it matched 

some of the parameters used in the CFA Phase I study such as mold size and shape. 

The MACT model equation for unfilled vapor-suppressed atomized mechanical resin 

application was derived by using the CFA Phase II emission study because the EPA considered it 

the best choice among three "unbalanced" studies that tested the effect of vapor-suppressants on 

atomized mechanical resin application. While the study did not use a "balanced" set of 

parameters, it matched some of the parameters used in the CFA Phase I study such as mold size 

and shape. 

The same point value equations were used for non-atomized mechanical resin operations 

and vapor-suppressed non-atomized mechanical resin operations as for manual resin operations 

and vapor-suppressed manual resin operations, respectively, for the following two reasons: (1) 

No balanced data sets were available to develop a point value equation for non-atomized 

mechanical resin operations and no balanced or unbalanced data sets were available to develop a 

MACT model equation for vapor-suppressed non-atomized mechanical resin operations and (2) 

the emission characteristics of non-atomized mechanical resin operations and manual resin 

operations are similar in that both types of resin application are essentially methods of 

transferring resin to a mold in a non-atomized state prior to nearly identical final roll out and 

curing stages. 

The point value equations for filled and unfilled non vapor-suppressed open molding 

processes are assumed to be the same because the CFA Phase II emission study showed no effect 

of filler on emissions when emissions are determined on the basis of the amount of neat resin 

processed (see Appendix B). In addition, we did not differentiate between non-corrosion and 

corrosion-resistant resins and clear, pigmented, and tooling gel coats because we had no data 

indicating that these product differences affect the emission characteristics of the processes. 

Based on the selected emission test data, the EPA conducted statistical analyses to derive 

the separate point value equations listed in Table 4-5. The statistical analyses were designed to 

derive equations with the lowest possible standard error of y-estimate subject to the following 

additional constraints: (1) zero HAP emissions at zero percent HAP content, (2) increasing HAP 

emissions with increasing HAP content, (3) HAP emissions from unfilled vapor-suppressed 

resins are lower than HAP emissions from unfilled non vapor-suppressed resins when all other 

parameters are the same, and (4) HAP emissions from non atomized resin application are lower 

than HAP emissions from atomized resin application when all other parameters are the same. 

The statistical analyses to derive the different MACT model equations for open molding 

processes are shown in Appendix C of this document. 

Each of these equations includes a multiplier for control factors to adjust the predicted 

point values for the use of add-on control devices and closed mold curing/vacuum bagging. 

4-1 3 
P.16 

TABLE 4-5. POINT VALUE EQUATIONS 

Process 

Manual Resin Applicationd 

Mechanical Resin Application: 

Atomized

 d 

Mechanical Resin Application: 

Non-Atomized

 d 

Filament Winding Operations 

Centrifugal Casting 

Gel Coat Application: Atomizedc 

Non-Vapor 

Suppressed 

Vapor Suppressed 

Vacuum Bagging/ 

Closed Mold Curing 

w/ prior Roll-outa 

Vacuum Bagging/ 

Closed Mold Curing 

w/o prior Roll-outb 

Non-Vapor 

Suppressed 

Vapor Suppressed 

Vacuum Bagging/ 

Closed Mold Curing 

w/ prior Roll-outa 

Vacuum Bagging/ 

Closed Mold Curing 

w/o prior Roll-outb 

Non-Vapor 

Suppressed 

Vapor Suppressed 

Vacuum Bagging/ 

Closed Mold Curing 

w/ prior Roll-outa 

Vacuum Bagging/ 

Closed Mold Curing 

w/o prior Roll-outb 

Non-Vapor 

Suppressed 

Vapor Suppressed 

Non-Vapor 

Suppressed 

Point Value (PV) Equation

 e 

PV = 0.028 x (Resin HAP%)2*

275 

PV = 0.028 x (Resin HAP%)2*

275

 x (1.000 - (0.5419 

x VSR Test Value)) 

PV = 0.028 x (Resin HAP%)2*

275

 x (1.000 - 0.2133) 

PV = 0.028 x (Resin HAP%)2275 x (1.000 - 0.4554) 

PV = 0.028x (Resin HAP%)2*

425 

PV = 0.028 x (Resin HAP%)2*

425

 x (1.000 - (0.4559 

x VSR Test Value)) 

PV = 0.028 x (Resin HAP%)2*

425

 x (1.000 - 0.1535) 

PV = 0.028 x (Resin HAP%)2*

425

 x (1.000 - 0.3261) 

PV = 0.028 x (Resin HAP%)2*

275 

PV = 0.028 x (Resin HAP%)2275 x (1.000 - (0.5419 

x VSR Test Value)) 

PV = 0.028 x (Resin HAP%)2275 x (1.000 - 0.2133) 

PV = 0.028 x (Resin HAP%)2275 x (1.000 - 0.4554) 

PV = 1.675 x (Resin HAP%)1225 

PV = 1.675 x (Resin HAP%)'*225 x (1.000 - (0.4693 

x VSR Test Value)) 

PV = 11.16 x (Resin HAP%) 

PV = 0.890 x (Resin HAP%)'*

675 

"The equation for vacuum bagging with roll-out would be applicable when a facility rolls out the applied resin prior to applying 

the vacuum bagging materials. The equation shown for this type of application assumes that the facility starts the vacuum 

bagging/closed mold curing process two minutes after the end of the roll-out stage. 

""The equation for vacuum bagging without roll-out would be applicable when a facility applies the vacuum bagging materials 

immediately after resin application without rolling out the resin. The equation shown for this type of application assumes that 

the facility starts the vacuum bagging/closed mold curing process two minutes after the end ofthe application (or roll-out) stage. 

c Applies to tooling, pigmented production, and clear production gel coating. 

d Applies to corrosion-resistant, noncorrosion-resistant, filled, and unfilled resin applications. 

e Point Value units are pounds of HAP emissions per ton of neat resin or neat gel coat used. 

4-14 
P.17 

The point value equations take the following form: 

Point Value = ((coefficient) X (Raw Material HAP %)e"Ponent) X Control Factors 

If add-on control devices or closed mold curing/vacuum bagging are not used, the value of 

the control factor is 1.0, which means that the control factor has no effect on the calculated point 

value. If add-on control devices or closed mold curing/vacuum bagging are used, the control 

factor is calculated as follows: 

Control Factor = 1.0 - (Percent Control Efficiency of the technique or device/100) 

For facilities utilizing add-on control devices, the control factor is based on the overall efficiency 

of the control system (capture and device efficiency). For example, if a facility has a permanent 

total enclosure (100% capture) vented to a 95% efficient add-on control device, the control factor 

is 0.05 (1.0 - 95/100 = 0.05). The emission control efficiency for closed mold curing/vacuum 

bagging is based on emission profile data that show that approximately 50 percent of the process 

emissions are released during curing, 90 percent of which are assumed to be controlled by curing 

the product in a closed mold or with vacuum bagging 

(0.5 X 90/100 = 0.45). The control factor for closed mold curing/vacuum bagging is 0.55 

(1.0-0.45 = 0.55). 

4.4 RESULTS OF MACT FLOOR ANALYSIS 

[Note to SBAR Panel Members - We will insert tables in the Hnal version of this document 

presenting the top 5 or top 12 percent of the ranked facilities. In the interest of time, I have 

not inserted the tables in this version. The data tables used are contained in the excel data 

base. I am transmitting another copy of that data base with this document.] 

This section presents the results of the MACT floor analysis for each emissions operation 

presented in Table 4-3. Detailed tables of the data set of the 440 facilities are included as 

appendix B. Note that vapor supressed resins (VSR) was not considered in MACT floor 

development. The control effectiveness and applicibility of VSR is very site specific. Therefore, 

we did not consider VSR as an applicable control technique for determining the floors. 

Tooling Gel Coating 

Data were available form 21 facilities that reported information on tooling gel coats 

application. The control techniques reported were mainly the use of low HAP gel coats. The 

average gel coat HAP content reported was 44 percent. The median facility of the top five best 

performing facilities uses a gel coat with a 38 percent HAP content, and has a point value of 394. 

Two facilities reported the use of add on controls. One has carbon filters with an 

estimated overall control efficiency of 42.5 percent. The other has a permanent total enclosure 

followed by a thermal oxidizer with a demonstrated control efficiency of 95 percent, and a point 

value of 29. This second facility represents the best controled facility. 

Clear Gel Coating 

4-15 
P.18 

Data is available from 62 facilities. None of these facilities reported any add on controls 

for this operation. The average HAP content for the 62 facilities was 47.3. The median facility 

of the top 12 percent uses a gel coat with a HAP content of 44 percent and has a point value of 

504. The best performong facility uses a gel coat with a HAP content of 40 percent and has a 

point value of 429. 

Pigmented Gel Coating 

Data on application of pigmented gel coating is available from 209 facilities. The average 

gel coat HAP content is 37 percent. Eight of these facilities reported using add on controls. The 

control efficiencies reported range from 42.5 percent to 95 percent. The median facility of the top 

12 percent has a point value of 265. This results in a HAP content limit of 30 percent. 

The best controlled source uses a gel cost with a HAP content of 24.3 percent and a 

control system with an overall efficiency of 90 percent. This results in a point value of 19. If a 

facility chooses to use a control system with a 95 percent overall efficiency, the HAP content 

required to meet this point value is 37.2 percent. 

Manual Application of Tooling Resin 

Nine facilities reported manual application of tooling resins. The average HAP content of 

the resin is 45.9 percent. One facility reported the use of a add on control that we estimated was 

42.5 percent efficient. One facility uses vacuum bagging. The median facility of the best 

performing five facilities has a point value of 97. This point value is based in a 47 percent HAP 

resin and vacuum bagging. A 36 percent HAP resin would be required to meet this point value in 

the absence of any add on controls. 

The best controlled facility uses a 45.9 percent HAP resin and a carbon filter control 

system with 42.5 percent estimated overall control. This results in a point value of 72. This point 

value level will require some type of add on control to meet the floor. A facility using a 95 

percent efficient control system could meet this floor with any of the tooling resins in the data 

base. 

Mechanical Tooling Resin 

Nine facilities reported mechanical application of tooling resins. One facility used flow 

coaters, none reported any add on controls. The average resin HAP content was 45.8 percent. 

The median facility of the top five has a point value of 256 and uses a 43 percent HAP resin. If a 

facility opted to use flow coaters they could meet this floor with any of the tooling resins in the 

data base. The best controlled facility uses flow coaters and a 50 percent HAP resin, which results 

in a point value of 205. 

Manual Application of Noncorrosion Resistant Resin 

Forty-six facilities reported performing manual application of noncorrosion resistant 

4-16 
P.19 

resins. The average resin HAP content is 41.1 percent. Five facilities reported use of closed mold 

curing or vacuum bagging to reduce emissions. For these facilities we assumed that there was no 

roll out of resin. Therefore the emission reduction associated with these activities was 46 percent. 

The point value ofthe median of the best performing 12 percent ofthe facilities is 76. 

This facility uses a 33 percent HAP resin and does a small amount of vacuum bagging. A facility 

that does not vacuum bag would be required to use a resin with a HAP content of 32.3 percent to 

meet a point value of 76. 

The best controlled facility uses closed mold curing and a 35 percent HAP resin. The 

point value for this facility is 50. 

Mechanical Application of Unfilled Noncorrosion Resistant Resins 

One hundred and five facilities reported mechanical application of noncorrosion unfilled 

resins. The average resin content is 40.2 percent and the range is 28.2 to 50 percent. Thirteen 

facilities reported use of an emission reduction technique such as flow coaters, pressure fed 

rollers, and vacuum bagging. One facility reported an add on control system with an overall 

efficiency of 76.4 percent. The facility representing the median of the best performing 12 percent 

uses a 37.1 percent HAP resin applied with flow coaters. The facilities point value is 104. The 

best performing facility has the add on control system. Its point value is 22. 

Mechanical Application of Filled Noncorrosion Resistant Resins 

Seventy-nine facilities reported mechanical application of filled noncorrosion resistant 

resins. The resin HAP contents ranges from 30 to 60.2 percent and averages 44.7 percent. Six 

facilities reported add on control systems with efficiencies ranging from 30.2 to 95 percent 

control. The median facility of the best performing 12 percent has a 42.5 percent efficient control 

system and uses a 42.6 percent HAP resin. The point value of this facility is 144. The best 

performing facility has a 95 percent efficient control system and uses a 42 percent HAP resin. 

The point value is 12. 

Noncorrosion Resistant Filament Winding 

Four facilities reported noncorrosion resistant filament winding processes. The average 

resin HAP content is 39.5 and the range is 31 to 49 percent. The median facility has a resin HAP 

content of 45 percent and a point value of 176. The best performing facility has a resin HAP 

content of 31 percent and a point value of 113. No facilities reported any additional emission 

control techniques. 

4-1 7 
P.20 

Manual Application of Corrosion Resistant Resin 

Forty-nine facilities reported manual application of corrosion resistant resins. The resins 

used had an average HAP content of 44.5 percent and a range of 34 to 56.9 percent. There were 

no other emission reduction techniques reported at any of these facilities. 

The median facility of the best performing 12 percent uses resin with a 40 percent HAP 

content and has a point value of 124. The best performing facility uses a 34 percent HAP resin 

and has a point value of 85. 

Mechanical Application of Corrosion Resistant Resin 

Fifty-four facilities reported mechanical application of corrosion resistant resins. The 

average resin HAP content is 44.7 percent and the range is 34 to 56.9 percent. Six facilities 

reported the use of flow coaters or pressure fed rollers. 

The median facility of the best performing 12 percent uses a 42 percent HAP resin and 

applies 50 percent of the resin with flow coaters. The point value for this facility is 190. The best 

performing facility uses a 34 percent HAP resin and applies 42 percent of the resin with flow 

coaters. This facility has a point value of 120. 

Corrosion Resistant Filament Winding 

Thirty-nine facilities reported corrosion resistant filament winding operations. Their resin 

HAP contents average 46.2 percent HAP and the range is 37.9 to 53.8 percent. No facilities 

reported any other control techniques. 

The median facility of the best performing 12 percent uses a 42 percent HAP resin and has 

a point value of 163. The best performing facility uses a 37.9 percent HAP resin and has a point 

value of 144. 

Corrosion Resistant Centrifugal Casting 

Only two facilities reported corrosion resistant centrifugal casting operations. Their resin HAP 

contents were 47 and 49 percent respectively. One facility also has a 95 percent efficient control 

system. For the existing source floor we averaged the resin HAP contents and calculated a point 

value of 536. The best performing source uses a 47 percent HAP resin and has the 95 percent 

effective control device. This facilities point value is 26. 

We could have also averaged the level of add on control, and included this in the existing 

source floor. However, the ability of a facility to apply add-on controls is not affected by resin 

type. Due to the small number of facilities in this particular grouping, we decided it was 

appropriate to look at all centrifugal casting operations (corrosion resistant and noncorrosion 

resistant) to determine the level of add on control for the existing facility MACT floor. When we 

looked at centrifugal casting operations for all resin types, only one of the eight facilities used add 

on controls. Therefore we decided it was not appropriate to include add-on controls in the 

4-18 
P.21 

existing source floor. 

Compression/Injection Molding Processes 

The database for compression/injection molding consists of 62 facilities. None of these 

sources use add-on control devices to reduce HAP emissions from compression/injection 

molding. Because the resin HAP content in these closed molding processes is considered to be a 

poor indicator of emissions, we did not rank these 62 sources on the basis of the resin HAP 

content. 

Five sources reported the use of a work practice that consists of covering the charges until 

they are ready to be placed into the mold. This was the only technique identified for reducing 

HAP emissions from compression/injection molding. There these five facilities were determined 

to be the best perfonning facilities. The median facility of the best performing 12 percent, and the 

best performing facility, both include the work practice of covering the charges until ready for 

use. 

Resin Transfer Molding (RTM) and Polymer Casting 

Twenty facilities reported RTM operations and 78 reported polymer casting operations. 

We could identify no applicable emission control techniques currently in use for either of these 

operations. Therefore the new and existing MACT floors are no control. 

Continuous Lamination/Continuous Casting 

Ten facilities reported performing these operations. Three facilities reported the use on 

add on control. Therefore the median facility of the best performing five was the facility with the 

least efficient add on controls. This facility had a overall control of 58 percent of emissions. The 

best performing facility has an overall control of 83 percent of emissions. 

Pultrusion 

The MACT database for pultrusion consists of 32 facilities. The five best performing 

sources in this operation are shown in table 4-7. There were several sources that reported the use 

of some form of equipment modification, work practice, or control technology which result in 

decreased HAP emissions. One source uses an add-on control device to reduce HAP emissions by 

95%.Ref One source vents HAP emissions to carbon filters with an unknown control efficiency.Ref 

Two sources have equipped all of their pultrusion lines with wet area enclosures designed to 

reduce HAP emissions by preventing the contact of free-flowing air with wet resin. These wet 

area enclosures are generally identical in design with modifications only to account for the 

differing sizes of pultrusion lines and the presence of radio frequency heating devices. These two 

facilities also have a system to collect resin that drips off the entrance to the die. 

Emission testing conducted at one of these sources demonstrated that equipping a 

pultrusion line with a wet area enclosure reduces HAP emissions by approximately 60%. The 

4-19 
P.22 

emission test also demonstrated that the emission factor for a pultrusion line equipped with this 

type of wet area enclosure is 0.0025 pounds of HAP per pound of available HAP. Multiplying 

this emission factor by the amount of available HAP present in the resin systems used by each of 

the sources with this type of wet area enclosure demonstrates that both of these sources have 

emissions of approximately twenty-three pounds of HAP per ton of resin consumed.

 10 

Four other sources use wet area (or simply resin bath) enclosures, but these sources do not 

enclose all pultrusion lines or the entire section of a pultrusion line where wet resin surfaces are 

present.""14 One source uses reduced air flows across wet resin surfaces, ambient temperature 

control, and direct die injection to reduce HAP emissions from some of its pultrusion lines.15 Two 

sources use resin injection (rather than a resin bath) to control HAP emissions from some of their 

pultrusion lines.1617 One source uses a proprietary fume collector and ambient temperature control 

to reduce HAP emissions. 

The source that reduces HAP emissions by 95% was ranked as the best controlled source. 

The two sources that reduce HAP emissions by 80% through the use of wet area enclosures 

installed on all of their pultrusion lines were considered to be the second and third best controlled 

sources. All other reported emission control measures could not be quantified because no test 

data on the effectiveness of these measures were available. Further, the majority of the sources 

reporting these other emission control measures do not use these measures on a facility wide 

basis. For these reasons the emission control measures that were reported by the remaining nine 

facilities were considered less effective than the use of a wet area enclosure on a facility wide 

basis. 

The median source of the best performing 12 percent uses wet area enclosures on all 

pultrusion lines with a corresponding HAP emission level of eight pounds of HAP per ton of resin 

consumed. The EPA concluded that wet area enclosures that completely enclose the resin bath 

used by the median source (and installed on a facility-wide basis) or its equivalent emission 

reduction of 60 percent, constitute the existing source MACT floor for pultrusion. The new 

source floor is the best controlled source which reduces emissions by 95 percent using an add on 

control device. 

4-2 0 
P.23 

TABLE 4-6. HVE BEST PERFORMING PULTRUSION OPERATIONS 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Plant Name 

Tecton (Fargo) 

Glasforms, Inc. (San Jose) 

Glasforms, Inc. (Birmingham) 

Creative Pultrusions, Inc. 

(Alum Bank) 

Creative Pultrusions, Inc. 

(Roswell) 

Resin 

(tov) 

1000 

399 

647 

1666 

196 

% HAP in 

Neat Resin 

Plus 

40.0 

46.2 

46.7 

39.1 

35.5 

Current 

Emissions 

(tDV) 

0.8 

1.5 

2.4 

26.2 

2.8 

Current 

Emissions 

(lbs/ton) 

5 

23 

23 

98 

89 

Emission 

Reduction 

Techniques ° 

Thermal Oxidizer (95% 

Control) 

Wet Area Enclosures (60% 

Control) 

Wet Area Enclosures (60% 

Control) 

Ambient Temperature Control, 

Low Air Flows, Some Direct 

Die Injection 

Some Resin Injection 

a

 The facilities in this table were ranked based on either a quantitative or qualitative assessment of the 

effectiveness of their emission control measures. The first three facilities were ranked on a quantitative basis since 

test data were available to quantify the effectiveness of the emission control techniques used at these facilities. The 

fourth and fifth ranked facilities were ranked using a qualitative assessment since no such test data were available. 

Since the level of emission control for the fourth and fifth ranked facilities could not be quantified, the current 

emissions values shown in the table are estimates of the uncontrolled HAP emissions from these facilities. 

4-21 
P.24 

Sheet Molding Compound (SMC) Manufacturing 

The MACT database for SMC manufacturing consists of 21 facilities. The resin HAP 

content in this semi-closed molding processes is considered to be a poor indicator of emissions. 

Therefore the facilities were ranked based on add-on and work practice controls. 

One source uses an add-on control device to reduce HAP emissions by 90 percent. This 

source was ranked as the best controlled source. The five best performing sources, including the 

source that uses the add on control device, reported the use of work practices which include the 

use of nylon film or a film with a lower permeability to styrene than nylon for the SMC, and 

covering or closing the doctor box. 

Although the emission reduction effectiveness of the reported work practices could not be 

quantified, the sources that apply the most work practices were considered to be better controlled 

than the sources that apply less work practices. Since the EPA did not have any data that showed 

a difference in emissions between closed and covered doctor boxes, no distinction was made 

between the two. 

The median of the best performing five facilities uses a nylon film to reduce emissions and 

represents the existing source floor. The new source floor is the best performing facility that uses 

a low permeability film, covers the doctor box, and further reduces emission by 90 percent with a 

thermal oxidizer. 

Equipment Cleaning 

Four hundred and thirty-three facilities provided information on cleaning operations. Of 

these, 353 stated that they used no HAP containing cleaning materials. Based on this, we 

determined that new and existing floor for equipment cleaning was using only cleaners containing 

no HAP. 

Bulk Molding Compound (BMC) Manufacturing and Resin Mixing 

Three hundred and forty-six facilities reported information on mixing or BMC production 

operations. Ten of these facilities reported venting the mixer to a thermal or catalytic oxidizer 

with 90-95 percent control. Two controlled emissions with carbon filters. An additional 116 

reported covering the mixing operations. 

We selected closed/covered containers as the new and existing source floor. We did not 

choose 95 percent as the new source floor because we believe that closing the container basically 

eliminates emissions and is as effective as venting to a control device 

Resin and Gel Cost Storage 

Four hundred and fourteen facilities reported information on resin and gel coat storage 

practices, eight facilities vent the storage area to a control device. Two hundred and sixty-three 

use some type of closed or covered storage. 

4-22 
P.25 

We selected closed/covered storage as the new and existing source floor. We did not 

choose 95 percent control as the new source floor because we believe that closed storage basically 

eliminates emissions and is as effective and venting to a control device. 

Summary of MACT Floor Analysis 

Table 4-7 presents a summary of the MACT floor analysis for new and existing sources 

discussed in hte preceeding paragraphs. Where a number isshown hte floor is based on a point 

vlaue. All existing source floors are believed to be acheicable without the use of add on controls 

except for continuous lamination/continuous casting. The new source floore require the use of a 

mixture of pollution prevention measures and add on ocntrols. 

4.5 DEVELOPMENT OF ABOVE THE FLOOR OPTIONS 

As previously discussed, the EPA has the option of considering control levels more 

stringent than the floor. In revieving the available data, the best controlled facilities weer those 

that captured 100 percent of their emissions from all their operations and routed these emissions 

to a 95 percent efficient control device. This level was choosen as the above the floor option. 

We did not choose any internediate levels for evaluation. Add on controls appear to be the 

only altemative above the floor that could be universally applied to all facilities. These controls 

are generally designed for efficiencies of 95 to 98 percent. 

The other factor that determines the overall level of control is the emissions capture 

efficiency. We choose 100 percent capture beause there are facilities in hte industy acheiving this 

level of capture. Also, an equipment standard available for this capture level that simplifies 

enforcement. 

We could have choosen lower levels of capture to evaluate. However, we did not have 

any information to determine what would be an appropite intermediate level. Also, reducing the 

capture level would move the above the floor option closed to the floor level, and might result in 

hte bove the floor option actually being less stringent than the floor. 

4-23 
P.26 

TABLE 4-7. SUMMARY OF MACT FLOORS 

Operation Type 

Open Molding 

Centrifugal 

Casting 

Closed Molding 

Continuous 

Lamination/ 

Continuous 

Casting 

Polymer Casting 

Pultrusion 

Operation 

Corrosion Resistant (CR) Mechanical Resin 

Application 

Non CR Mechanical Resin ApplicationUnfilled 

Non CR Mechanical Resin Application-Filled 

Manual Resin Application-Tooling 

Mechanical Resin Application-Tooling 

CR Manual Resin Application 

Non CR Manual Resin Application 

CR Filament Winding 

Non CR Filament Winding 

Tooling Gel Coating 

Pigmented Gel Coating 

Clear Production Gel Coating 

NonCR 

CR 

Injection/Compression Molding 

RTM 

Existing Sources

 b 

MACT 

190 

104 

144 

97 

256 

124 

76 

163 

178 

394 

265 

504 

396 

536 

One Uncovered 

Charge per 

Machine 

None 

58.5 percent 

control 

None 

Wet area enclosure 

or 60 percent 

control or direct 

die injection 

New Source

 b 

MACT 

120 

22a 

12" 

72" 

205 

85 

50" 

144 

113 

29" 

19" 

429 

391 

26a 

One Uncovered 

Charge per 

Machine 

None 

83 percent control 

None 

95 percent control 

4-24 
P.27 

TABLE 4-7. SUMMARY OF MACT FLOORS 

Operation Type 

SMC 

Equipment 

Cleaning 

Resin 

Mixing/BMC 

Resin Storage 

Operation Existing Sources

 b 

MACT 

Use nylon film, or 

film with equal or 

lower permeability 

to styrene to 

enclose SMC. 

Cleaning solvents 

can contain no 

HAP 

Mixer covers with 

no visible gaps, 

Keep containers 

closed 

New Sourceb 

MACT 

Use nylon film, or 

film with equal or 

lower 

permeability to 

styrene to enclose 

SMC, cover 

doctor box and 90 

percent control 

Cleaning solvents 

can contain no 

HAP 

Mixer covers with 

no visible gaps, 

Keep containers 

closed 

a

 Meeting this point value is assumed to require an add-on control. The overall emission control efficiency 

necessary to meet this value varies from approximately 40 to 95 percent depending on the specific operation. 

b

 Where only a number is shown the floor is based on a point value. 

4-25 
Corrosion - Resistant Manual Application DRAFT 

1/19/99 

p:\n801 \dbase\process.xls 

Corrosion - Resistant Manual Application 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or estimate actual emissions at a specific facility. 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore not be used. 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base may exist. 

oo 
Corrosion - Resistant Manual Application DRAFT 

1/19/99 

p:\n801 \dbase\process.xls 

PO 

CO 
Corrosion - Resistant Manual Application DRAFT 

1/19/99 

p:\n801 \dbase\process.xls 

Corrosion - Resistant Manual Application 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or estimate actual emissions at a specific facility. 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore not be used. 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base may exist. 

03 

o 
Corrosion - Resistant Manual Application DRAFT 

1/19/99 

p:\n801 \dbase\process.xls 

03 
Noncorrosion - Resistant Manual Application 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or estimate ac 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore i 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base i 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

M 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

Plant Name 

Johnson Truck Bodies 

New York Blower Co. (Plant #2) 

Niagara Fiberglass, Inc. 

Universal Plastics, Inc. 

Teco, Inc. 

Eckler Industries 

Retterbush Injection Molded Fiberglass Corp. 

Fiber-Tech Industries, Inc. 

Plastic Composites Corp. 

Robroy Industries, Inc. (Belding, Ml) 

Seal Reinforced Fiberglass 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Jacksonville) 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Southampton) 

Fiberglass Industries, Inc. 

Associated Plastics, Inc. 

ED Industries, Inc. (Sportsman Pickup Covers) 

McClarin Plastics, Inc. 

S. R. Smith, Inc. 

Arrowhead Plastic Engineering, Inc. 

Chance Operations, Inc. 

Hy-Tec Fiberglass, Inc. 

Gorman-Rupp Co. 

IMCO Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

Custom Fibreglass Manufacturing Co. 

IKG Industries 

Prototype Concepts, Inc. 

Picken's Plastics, Inc. 
P.33 

41 Century Manufacturing Co. 

42 Aero Transportation Products 

43 Blue Dolphin Fiberglass Pools 

44 Larson Co. 

45 Simon-Telelect, Inc. 

46 M. C. Gill Corp. 

74.5 

241.7 

146.8 

15.9 

32.8 

79.0 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 6769.0 

Average: 147.2 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 0.38 

Reinforcement to Resin + Filler Ratio: 0.47 

48.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

57.4 

41.1 

60.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1488.8 

32.4 

16.8 

113.4 

68.8 

7.5 

11.0 

203.0 

4057.0 

88.2 

10.4 

23.7 

14.4 

1.6 

3.0 

17.7 

821.5 

17.9 

7.0 

24.8 

15.1 

1.6 

3.4 

11.1 

373.4 

8.1 

Legend: 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed*values-;Np'jJata.provided 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat resin plus any HAF 

b = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat resin plus. 

c = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the average fill 

d = For facilities conducting vacuum bagging/closed mold curing no rollout was assumed. Vacuum bagging/closed mold curing 

approximately 46%. No emission reduction credit was given for the use of vapor suppressants. 
rag 

C ; 'at'i ra? 

CO? 

CO • 

> 

(X 

cn 

> 

cr 

to 

> 

ir 

CO 

> 

o 

03 

CL 

03 (D 

"S *"*> 

r 

o 

SS 

F 

cn 

CO 

3 

T I 

03 

cn 

3 

03 

13 

O 

c 

tf) 

X 

CD 

C>O . 

E 

01 

o 

71 

o 

</J 

O \-

< 2 

*CD 

T Moc 

CJ 

< •? 

^^ c_ 

13 

em-ission 

(-

in 

0> 

CD 

H rMAC 

03 

<= 

S'*(Dc 1)[')^0»"*"T-*"' tt S (DSNCOCOCOOIOIOIOIIDUO ) 

c

i

)notM*<tt*'t't*'t'-'-i-rnio(D«!niiorcMo o ooi-'-*M*MNCM«NN*Mionnnn"*-*^*nLoc*os s 

^ <° ^ 00 O 

t- g * ui 6 

ioN!pi;nt\iN'*o<Or-T-''!nTtr -

ot-niNdoinrf^dolJjdiii d 

n^qcDiqio^wtDiDn^^OT-qocoT-ci ) 

o^^ooo^oinidisicNiocooiric'i'^-T-CT ) 
P.35 

2.8 

9.2 

5.6 

0.6 

1.2 

3.0 

47.9 

5.4 

187 

205 

205 

205 

205 

281 

N/A 

N/A 

3

 that is added to the resin at the facility (fillers not included). 

ler/resin ratio from facilities with known filler quantities, 

without rollout was assumed to reduce emissions by 
P.36 

Tooling Resins - Manual Application 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissic 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not ir 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Plant Name 

Weighted Filled or 

Average % HAP Unfilled 

in neat resin plus a Resin Svstem 

45.9 

Bremen Glas, Inc. 

Gruber Systems, Inc. 

Fillings F.R.P. 50.0 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unfilled 

Unknown 

Unfilled 

MACT Model 

Point Value 

(before MACT) 

(lbs/ton) b 

72 

83 

* •''..:•-•:;;•.:*.: 97 . • 

123 

178 

205 

205 

205 

205 

Average: 45.9 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - no data provided 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of thi 

b = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat gel coat plus. 
P.37 

determine or estimate actual emissions at a specific facility, 

jns and should therefore not be used, 

ncluded in this data base may exist. 

Other 

Reduction 

Technioues 

Vacuum Bagging 

e neat resin plus any HAP that is added to the resin at the facility. 
7 

P.38 

Corrosion - Resistant Mechanical Application 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or est 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should th 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this da 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

Plant Name 

l i / I J I 

Bt I t lr 

xpi" N *< iiP H 

\ » G" i * < n 

HEMCO Corp. 

I. M. Pena, Inc. 

Magnum Plastics, Inc. 

Yankee Plastic Co. 

Beetle Plastics, Inc. 

Delta Fiberglass Structures, Inc. 

Kearney/Western Power Products 

Xenon Co., Inc. 

Hartzell Fan, Inc. (Bldg 275) 

MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Union City) 

Non Metallic Resources, Inc. 

Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Little Rock) 

Xerxes Corp. (Avon) 

Xerxes Corp. (Lakeland) 

Xerxes Corp. (Seguin) 

Xerxes Corp. (Tipton) 

Xerxes Corp. (Williamsport) 

Owens-Corning (Auburndale) 

Owens-Corning (Mount Union) 

Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Conroe) 

Owens-Corning Tanks (Valparaiso) 

Picken's Plastics, Inc. 

Nova Group, Inc. 

Red Ewald, Inc. 

Bradley Specialties Corp. 

GPI Corp. 

Parkson Aeration & Fiberglas Corp., Inc. 

Weighted 

Resin Average % HAP 

(tpy) in neat resin plus a 

4 H i 

L 1 

44.7 

35.2 40.0 

16.4 40.0 

22.5 40.0 

23.5 40.0 

94.7 

23.8 

266.0 

134.0 

12.5 

200.0 

11.3 

42.0 

58.8 

525.2 

94.7 

94.7 

94.7 

94.7 

94.7 

94.7 

94.7 

9.6 

24.0 

94.7 

94.7 

94.7 

94.7 

95.6 

46.8 

395.0 

94.7 

25.9 

97.1 

25.2 

41.0 

41.1 

42.0 

42.0 

42.3 

44.7 

44.7 

44.7 

44.7 

44.7 

44.7 

44.7 

44.7 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.1 

45.2 

46.0 

46.2 

46.3 

Filler 

(tpv) 

0.0 

27.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.2 

8.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

148.0 

0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

46.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

4.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Reinforce. 

(tpv) 

20.4 

25.6 

6.3 

14.6 

29.1 

4.5 

8.8 

6.9 

7.2 

11.8 

29.1 

9.9 

79.2 

41.1 

4.5 

92.0 

4.8 

19.1 

18.0 

161.1 

43.2 

29.1 

29.1 

29.1 

29.1 

29.1 

29.1 

4.1 

7.4 

29.1 

29.1 

29.1 

29.1 

29.3 

15.7 

342.1 

29.1 

10.9 

48.0 

7.7 

Scrap 

(tov) 

10.2 

18.3 

4.5 

10.4 

20.7 

6.9 

5.6 

4.9 

5.1 

8.4 

20.7 

5.6 

57.9 

29.4 

2.9 

73.9 

2.7 

10.2 

12.9 

115.1 

30.9 

20.7 

20.7 

20.7 

20.7 

20.7 

20.7 

2.3 

5.3 

20.7 

20.7 

20.7 

20.7 

21.0 

11.2 

121.9 

20.7 

6.1 

24.2 

5.5 
P.39 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

H & R Industries, Inc. 107.0 46.3 

Diamond Fiberglass Fabricators, Inc. 

New England Plastic Coated Products, Inc. 

Spears Fabrication 

Hastings Group, Inc. - Viatec (Belding) 

MFG Justin Tanks, Inc. 

Raven Industries, Inc. (Sioux Falls) 

Ashworth Plastic Products 

Hastings Reinforced Plastics - Viatec (Hastings) 

Miles Fiberglass & Plastics, Inc. 

Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Bakersfield) 

Beden-Baugh Products, Inc. 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 5115.8 

Average: 94.7 44.7 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 0.49 

Reinforcement to Resin + Filler Ratio: 0.31 

36.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

271.6 

5 

53.3 

5.8 

54.5 

16.9 

6.1 

99.4 

5.5 

74.8 

48.1 

29.1 

76.7 

2.6 

29.1 

26.8 

1950.7 

36.1 

32.8 

4.2 

38.9 

5.6 

4.2 

71.0 

3.9 

32.8 

34.4 

20.7 

54.8 

1.8 

20.7 

19.1 

1228.0 

22.7 

Legend: 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - No data provided 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat resin plus 

b = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat resin plus. 

c = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the av 

d = No emission reduction credit was given for the use of vapor suppressants. 
& 

3 

o 

ns at a spec 

O ISS F 

CO 

3 

to 

E 

sed. 

j 

0) 

.o 

o 

r i— lerefc 

tn 

X 

CD 

>. 

E 

03 

cn itaba 

rce 

3 

o 

C/3 

a 

c ist 

X 

UJ 

ode 

:> 

H 

< 

2 

C

T Model 

< 2 

03 

TJ 

O 

I> 

1 -

O 

< 

2 

Value 

4 -U|> 0 0 . missions 

in 

c 

cn 

tUJ 

1— 

o 

< 

s. 

m 

,o 

03 

n 

er MACT) 

*? 

3. ACT) 

2 

03 (befor 

.O 

C 

O 

bs 

'—"* 

1 

"> 

ii* 

WC^OCOlOlOiniflCOI^»roc\lCNCOCNCDm^i-^i-T-^i-T-(DOCDCD<DCDCDOOO>C\IC>llOC D WOOJOJ^i-^T-C^CMCVlC^^TlM-rtTl-CDOOOOCOCDCDCOCOCOOOOOCOCOOOCOCOOOOOOOO O 

t-t-i->-ti|«NNC\IN«NWNNNC\IWNNNN(\INNNNNWWNWNNC\i n 

iO'*r^iooncO'^tMi^oco c^ ' v:cMpT -

^cvicd^^c^o^cNiNrioicj^^T-:®' -

OCD u<OOOOOOOa>COOOOO* -

-* ui 3 030303030303030CM0303030303TJ -

•>* "? O IO CO • * 

£5 oi oi oi c\i 

lO^suincoco^ion^N^^in^^woi^^^^^^wn^^ininLqL q 

acMnr-^Oini-CMCMt^ N O CD • •* • 

CO i - ^ PJ ^ ir\i^COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO_: ( ~COCOCOCOC O 

| ^ *— T— T— T— -T— T— 1— ' -Tr T-T — T ~ T - in ^ CO 5 CO 
P.41 

16.4 

2.9 

27.5 

2.7 

3.0 

52.8 

3.0 

21.4 

27.6 

17.5 

46.2 

1.6 

17.5 

22.0 

738.7 

13.7 

10.2 

1.8 

16.9 

1.6 

1.8 

30.8 

1.7 

11.6 

14.9 

9.0 

23.8 

0.8 

9.0 

8.3 

482.3 

8.9 

306 

307 

310 

313 

318 

326 

338 

350 

351 

369 

369 

369 

369 

504 

N/A 

N/A 

any HAP that is added to the resin at the facility (fillers not included), 

rerage resin/filler ratio from facilities with known filler quantities. 
P.42 

Noncorrosion - Resistant Unfilled Mechanical Application 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or estimate actual 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore not t 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base may 

Weighted 

Average % HAP 

in neat resin plus a (tpy) 

Continental Camper Co., Inc 

-itler 

(tov) 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 • 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 , 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 , 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Reinforce. 

(tpv) 

40.5 

72.4 

69.5 

69.5 

69.5 

292.9 

46.2 

102.0 

20.4 

286.3 

54.0 

95.1 

28.6 

28.0 

23.1 

60.4 

23.5 

65.7 

13.7 

53.7 

10.4 

5.5 

75.1 

174.0 

27.9 

49.0 

31.7 

31.9 

60.0 

188.3 

49.0 

38.5 

166.3 

68.3 

7.5 

1.7 

45.9 

8.4 

2.8 

71.0 

Scrap 

(tpv) 

48.6 

44.2 

42.4 

42.4 

42.4 

111.3 

28.2 

105.1 

12.0 

174.8 

35.5 

58.1 

17.5 

16.0 

14.1 

36.9 

13.1 

33.3 

9.7 

32.8 

5.4 

4.0 

45.8 

135.6 

16.7 

39.0 

19.4 

19.5 

36.7 

115.0 

44.2 

23.5 

101.5 

41.7 

4.6 

5.1 

50.7 

5.1 

1-7 

43.4 

Existing: 

MACT Model 

Emissions 

(before MACT) 

(tpv) 

2.7 

4.8 

7.3 

8.2 

8.9 

18.8 

6.4 

28.7 

3.0 

46.0 

10.1 

16.5 

5.0 

4.6 

4.3 

11.6 

4.0 

10.4 

3.4 

11.1 

1.7 

1.4 

15.5 

49.3 

5.6 

14.3 

6.5 

6.6 

12.4 

39.4 

17.0 

8.5 

36.7 

16.1 

1.8 

2.5 

22.7 

2.0 

0.7 

17.9 
P.43 

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 

Murphy Body Co. 

Alliance Equipment Co., Inc. 

Covermaster, Inc. 

Fiberglass Forms, Inc. 

Fiberglass Specialties, Inc. 

Florida Line of Astatula, Inc. 

Phil Carter System, Inc. 

117.0 

184.1 

133.6 

120.0 

77.0 

133.2 

46.0 

39.5 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

44.1 

69.5 

62.5 

45.3 

33.0 

74.4 

17.4 

26.9 

42.4 

32.7 

27.6 

18.4 

34.5 

10.6 

12.2 

19.8 

14.4 

12.9 

8.3 

14.3 

4.9 

Piedmont Fiberglass, Inc. 120.0 40.0 

Plas-Tech, Ltd. 40.0 40.0 

Seal Reinforced Fiberglass 8.5 40.0 

Syntechnics 1014.0 40.0 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Jacksonville) 108.9 40.0 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Southampton) 125.4 40.0 

Lawrence Wittman & Co., Inc. 26.1 40.1 

C & K Fiberglass Plastics, Inc. 104.0 40.2 

Delta Fiberglass & Environmental Products, Inc. 184.1 40.2 

Fiberglass Plus Recreational Industries, Inc. 37.2 40.2 

Glas Master, Inc. (Plant #1) 187.8 40.2 

Glas Master, Inc. (Plant #2) 187.8 40.2 

GPM Industries, Inc. 184.1 40.2 

Hood Manufacturing, Inc. 177.0 40.2 

Michiana Fiberglass, Inc. 187.8 40.2 

Olympic Fiberglass Industries, Inc. 184.1 40.2 

Plasti-Fab, Inc. 92.0 40.3 

Fleetwood (Decatur - formerly Gold Shield) 1355.2 40.9 

Fiberglass Industries, Inc. 36.7 41.0 

Lund Industries, Inc. 503.3 41.0 

Northwest Bodies, Inc. 150.2 41.5 

Elmore Truck Accessories, Inc. 35.0 42.0 

Fiberglass & Plastic Fab., Inc. 54.7 42.0 

Global Glass, Inc. 281.5 42.0 

Standard Glas, Inc. 126.3 42.0 

Arrowhead Plastic Engineering, Inc. 70.0 43.0 

Chance Operations, Inc. 29.2 43.0 

Fiberdome, Inc. (Plant #1) 100.0 43.0 

Gorman-Rupp Co. 35.1 44.0 

Marquis Corp. 105.0 44.0 

Monarch Plastic, Inc. 44.6 44.0 

Specialty Plastics Associates, Inc 841.0 44.0 

Tom Smith Fiberglass, Inc. 34.2 44.0 

Arrow Dynamics, Inc. 34.0 45.0 

Beaver Motor Coaches, Inc. 185.1 45.0 

Evelands, Inc. 60.5 45.0 

Fiberglass Engineering Corp. 75.0 45.0 

Melcher Manufacturing Co., Inc. 136.7 45.0 

Peterson Products 22.5 45.0 

Pillings F.R.P. 39.8 45.0 

Simon-Telelect, Inc. 32.8 45.0 

Trail Wagons, Inc. 32.6 45.0 

KBK Industries, Inc. 587.8 46.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

44.1 

69.5 

62.5 

45.3 

33.0 

74.4 

17.4 

45.3 

15.1 

3.2 

13.7 

687.5 

9.0 

41.4 

9.8 

16.3 

69.5 

14.0 

70.9 

70.9 

69.5 

63.8 

70.9 

69.5 

34.7 

60.3 

511.4 

13.9 

189.9 

53.6 

0.8 

22.0 

106.2 

47.6 

26.4 

11.0 

60.0 

13.2 

39.6 

16.8 

350.4 

12.9 

12.8 

69.9 

23.3 

15.0 

40.8 

13.5 

0.9 

11.0 

74.5 

238.4 

26.9 

42.4 

32.7 

27.6 

18.4 

34.5 

10.6 

27.6 

9.2 

2.0 

8.3 

282.4 

20.0 

27.9 

6.0 

20.3 

42.4 

8.6 

43.3 

43.3 

42.4 

40.3 

43.3 

42.4 

21.2 

36.8 

312.2 

8.5 

115.9 

34.1 

6.1 

12.8 

64.9 

29.1 

16.1 

6.7 

26.6 

8.1 

24.2 

10.3 

199.0 

7.9 

7.8 

42.6 

14.0 

15.2 

29.8 

6.0 

6.9 

7.3 

17.5 

138.1 

12.2 

19.8 

14.4 

12.9 

8.3 

14.3 

4.9 

12.9 

4.3 

0.9 

3.9 

108.9 

11.7 

13.5 

2.8 

11.3 

20.0 

4.0 

20.4 

20.4 

20.0 

19.2 

20.4 

20.0 

10.1 

17.9 

153.9 

4.2 

57.4 

17.6 

4.2 

6.6 

34.0 

15.3 

9.0 

3.7 

12.8 

4.8 

14.2 

6.0 

113.8 

4.6 

4.9 

26.5 

8.6 

10.7 

19.5 

3.2 

5.7 

4.7 

4.7 

88.6 
P.44 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

U.S. Fiberglass Products, Inc. 

Picken's Plastics, Inc. 

Baja Products (Tucson) 

Baja Products Ltd. (Salisbury) 

Attbar Plastics, Inc. 

Fiber Pad, Inc. 

100 Pearl Baths, Inc. 

101 Aero Transportation Products 

102 Amtech Corp. 

103 Kivett's, Inc. 

104 Plastic Development Co. 

105 Ultra/Glas of Lakeville 

378.8 

28.5 

55.4 

100.0 

510.0 

96.0 

325.0 

241.7 

47.8 

43.4 

140.0 

154.0 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 18506.5 

Average: 176.3 

Filler/Resin Ratio: N/A 

Reinforcement to Resin Ratio: 0.38 

46.0 

46.0 

47.5 

47.5 

48.0 

48.0 

48.7 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

40.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

151.5 

10.8 

3.8 

20.9 

37.7 

244.8 

17.2 

122.6 

91.2 

16.7 

16.4 

52.8 

75.0 

7246.6 

69.0 

88.6 

6.6 

2.3 

12.8 

23.0 

125.9 

19.1 

74.9 

55.7 

10.8 

10.0 

32.3 

38.2 

4305.6 

41.0 

57.1 

4.3 

1.6 

9.0 

16.3 

85.3 

16.0 

56.2 

44.6 

8.8 

8.0 

25.8 

28.4 

1924.5 

18.3 

Legend: 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - No data provided 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat resin plus any HAP ths 

b = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat resin plus. 

c = For facilities conducting vacuum bagging/closed mold curing no rollout was assumed except for Contemporary Products were te 

d = Vacuum bagging/closed mold curing without rollout was assumed to reduce emissions by approximately 46 % in non-atomized i 

e = Vacuum bagging/closed mold curing without rollout was assumed to reduce emissions by approximately 33 % in atomized appli 

f = Vacuum bagging/closed mold curing with rollout was assumed to reduce emissions by approximately 21 % in non-atomized appl 

g = No emission reduction credit was given for the use of vapor suppressants. 
P.45 

emissions at a specific facility. 

be used. ' exist. 

Source 

MACT Model 

Emissions 

(after MACT) 

(tPV) 

2,7 

4.8 

7.3 

8.2 

8.9 

18.8 

6.4 

27.1 

2.7 

39.4 

8.2 

13.1 

3.9 

3.5 

3.2 

8.3 

2.9 

7.0 

2.3 

7.4 

1.2 

1.0 

10.3 

32.9 

3.7 

9.5 

4.4 

4.4 

8.3 

25.9 

11.1 

5.3 

22.9 

9.4 

1.0 

2.0 

13.2 

1.2 

0.4 

9.8 

MACT Model 

Point Value 

(before MACT) 

(lbs/ton) b 

22 51 80 89 97 99 

104 

110 

116 

121 

128 

131 

131 

135 

140 

145 

145 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

158 

159 

166 

166 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

179 

190 

Other 

Reduction 

Technigues c.d.e.f.g 

•MP 

J u r L i n^i u B j 1 

F* H p; 

r 

- o a 3 

RFI C i « FI n i « t P » u ** f- J Ff 
P.46 

6.1 

9.6 

6.9 

6.2 

4.0 

6.9 

2.4 

6.2 

2.1 

0.4 

1.9 

52.7 

5.7 

6.5 

1.4 

5.4 

9.6 

1.9 

9.8 

9.8 

9.6 

9.2 

9.8 

9.6 

4.8 

8.3 

70.4 

1.9 

26.1 

7.8 

1.8 

2.8 

14.6 

6.6 

3.6 

1.5 

5.2 

1.8 

5.5 

2.3 

43.7 

1.8 

1.8 

9.6 

3.1 

3.9 

7.1 

1.2 

2.1 

1.7 

1.7 

30.5 

208 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

216 

217 

217 

217 

217 

217 

217 

217 

217 

217 

219 

224 

227 

228 

228 

235 

242 

242 

242 

242 

256 

256 

256 

271 

271 

271 

271 

271 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

286 

302 

VSR 

VSR 

Some VSR 
P.47 

19.7 

1.5 

0.5 

2.9 

5.2 

26.5 

5.0 

16.9 

12.6 

2.5 

2.3 

7.3 

8.0 

941.4 

9.0 

302 

302 

306 

326 

326 

334 

334 

346 

369 

369 

369 

369 

369 

N/A 

N/A 

VSR (50%) 

VSR 

VSR (75%) 

it is added to the resin at the facility (fillers not included). 

••lecon documents rollout. 

applications. 

ications. 

lications. 
P.48 

Noncorrosion - Resistant Filled Mechanical Application 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or estimate actua 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore not 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base ma; 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

Plant Name 

Resin 

Usage 

(tpy) 

5983.5 

Weighted 

Average % HAP 

in neat resin plus a 

*.ff I PI ^ I 

Tc. nk I <* f R f 

Hydro Systems, Inc. 

Americh Corp. (Hollywood, CA) 

Astoria Industries, Inc. 

Fiberglass Products, Inc. 

Glasstite, Inc. 

Hess County Industries of WV, Inc. 

MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Adelanto) 

S.W.C. Industries, Inc. (Swirl-Way Div.) 

Odom Fiberglass, Inc. 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Elizabethtown) 

Accra Industries, Inc. 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Lancaster) 

American Reinforced Plastics 

Cedar Manufacturing, Inc. (Bremen Glas) 

A. R. E., Inc. (Mount Eaton) 

20th Century Fiberglass, Inc. (Plant #4) 

A-1 Fiberglass, Inc. 

Clark Manufacturing 

Jason International, Inc. (N. Little Rock, AR) 

Kohler Co. 

Mr. Tubs, Inc. 

Plastic Composites Corp. 

Universal-Rundle Corp. (Union Point) 

G. W. Fiberglass, Inc. 

Charloma Fiberglass, Inc. 

S. R. Smith, Inc. 

Bathcraft, Inc. 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (South Boston) 

Electric-Glass, Inc. 

Holiday Rambler Corp., Plant 36 and 37 

Aqua Glass Corp. (Klamath Falls) 

Associated Plastics, Inc. 

!753.9 

125.0 

91.9 

42.1 

61.2 

121.2 

336.6 

494.0 

544.7 

209.0 

992.5 

82.6 

2124.8 

77.0 

2259.3 

288.0 

367.0 

1007.1 

97.2 

402.9 

661.0 

86.5 

550.0 

137.0 

72.0 

1410.0 

752.8 

347.4 

107.0 

945.2 

2770.5 

348.8 

714.0 

992.5 

162.6 

308 

300 

42.6 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

47.7 

37.5 

47.7 

37.9 

38.0 

38.5 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.6 

41.0 

40.8 

41.2 

48.1 

42.0 

42.0 

42.6 

42.6 

Filler c 

(tpv) 

6404.8 

1070.4 

2436.0 

10.4 

4215.6 

62.5 

98.3 

45.1 

42.8 

69.7 

249.9 

494.0 

445.7 

20.0 

1062.4 

88.4 

3304.6 

12.0 

3564.7 

121.0 

359.4 

1078.1 

58.3 

40.8 

325.0 

64.0 

520.0 

110.0 

36.0 

1347.0 

171.8 

80.8 

114.5 

986.9 

4078.6 

49.1 

59.2 

1062.4 

174.1 

Reinforce. 

(tpv) 

1002.5 

510.9 

1162.8 

5.0 

575.0 

46.3 

46.9 

21.5 

40.8 

51.5 

101.0 

243.8 

178.5 

53.0 

507.1 

46.7 

655.0 

30.0 

356.0 

44.0 

94.8 

514.6 

38.4 

140.8 

233.0 

31.5 

100.0 

91.0 

26.7 

476.0 

658.1 

121.2 

54.7 

278.5 

709.0 

612.5 

98.2 

190.8 

507.1 

83.1 

Scrap 

(tpv) 

2266.4 

433.7 

987.0 

4.2 

1276.8 

39.3 

39.8 

18.3 

24.2 

40.7 

115.9 

207.0 

196.9 

47.4 

430.5 

36.5 

1027.8 

19.9 

1047.0 

76.6 

138.7. 

436.8 

32.6 

98.0 

204.9 

30.6 

197.9 

56.6 

22.6 

544.9 

262.5 

92.2 

46.4 

373.0 

1277.8 

519.9 

83.3 

162.0 

430.5 

70.5 

Existing: 

MACT Model 

Emissions 

(before MACT) 

(tpy) 

36.2 

6.3 

18.9 

0.5 

147.3 

9.0 

6.7 

3.3 

4.8 

9.4 

26.2 

38.4 

42.3 

16.2 

77.1 

6.4 

183.7 

7.1 

210.2 

27.1 

34.8 

98.6 

10.4 

43.3 

71.0 

9.3 

59.1 

14.7 

7.7 

151.5 

83.8 

39.6 

12.5 

110.1 

324.1 

135.1 

42.2 

86.3 

124.2 

20.4 
P.49 

41 ED Industries, Inc. (Sportsman Pickup Covers) 1012.4 

42 Eljer Plumbingware (Wilson) 992.5 

43 Glasgo Plastics, Inc. 1032.2 

44 Images Products Corp. 109.0 

45 Jason Industries, Inc. (Elkhart, IN) 1012.4 

46 Leer Midwest 612.0 

47 McClarin Plastics, Inc. 992.5 

48 Miracle Recreation Co. 992.5 

49 Acme Fiberglass, Inc. 185.0 

50 AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Plymouth, N Oak Rd) 2310.1 

51 AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Plymouth, Pidco Dr) 164.7 

52 Americh Corp. (Charlotte, NC) 63.2 

53 Aqua Glass Corp. (Adamsville) 10143.0 

54 Armorcast Products Co. 128.5 

55 Sunset Plastics, Inc. 254.0 

56 Bremen Glas, Inc. 1159.0 

57 Fleetwood (Fontana - formerly Gold Shield) 417.3 

58 Custom Fibreglass Manufacturing Co. 463.1 

59 Brunnel Products of Florida, Inc. 62.5 

60 McClure Industries, Inc. 142.8 

61 Country Coach, Inc. 101.0 

62 Universal-Rundle Corp. (Ottumwa) 2500.0 

63 Fleetwood (Decatur - formerly Gold Shield) 314.1 

64 Eljer Manufacturing (Valdosta) 363.0 

65 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Moapa) 6258.6 

66 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Anaheim) 3135.5 

67 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Three Rivers) 2815.4 

68 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Cordele) 1976.6 

69 National Fiber Glass Products, Inc. 640.0 

70 Nordic Fiberglass, Inc. (Devils Lake) 316.2 

71 Nordic Fiberglass, Inc. (Warren) 246.3 

72 Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 723.3 

73 Oasis Industries, Inc. 145.0 

74 Space Tables, Inc. 12.2 

75 Accurate Glass, Inc. 114.0 

76 Great Lakes Plastics Corp. 306.0 

77 Larson Co. 10.6 

78 Dasco Pro, Inc. 15.0 

79 Universal-Rundle Corp. (New Castle) 3585.0 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 78747.6 

Average: 996.8 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 1.07 

Reinforcement to Resin + Filler Ratio: 0.25 

42.6 

42.6 

42.6 

42.6 

42.6 

42.6 

42.6 

42.6 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

44.0 

44.6 

44.9 

45.0 

45.0 

45.9 

46.5 

46.9 

47.0 

47.0 

47.7 

47.7 

47.8 

48.0 

48.5 

48.5 

49.0 

49.0 

49.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

55.0 

60.2 

42.6 

1083.6 

1062.4 

1104.9 

116.7 

1083.6 

510.0 

1062.4 

1062.4 

75.0 

2378.7 

180.5 

67.6 

4000.0 

62.5 

215.0 

1558.0 

417.3 

271.3 

56.0 

103.0 

108.1 

3276.0 

313.1 

467.0 

9844.6 

4890.8 

4386.6 

3092.2 

570.0 

270.0 

198.5 

774.2 

145.0 

1.2 

114.0 

200.0 

11.3 

3.0 ' 

3256.6 

84292.5 

1067.0 

517.3 

507.1 

527.4 

33.0 

517.3 

102.0 

507.1 

507.1 

90.0 

702.2 

52.3 

32.3 

3490.2 

32.5 

70.0 

393.0 

206.0 

149.9 

16.0 

60.7 

51.6 

804.0 

154.8 

62.0 

3974.0 

675.0 

584.0 

415.0 

219.7 

158.4 

142.2 

33.0 

39.4 

15.0 

56.3 

90.0 

5.4 

4.4 

765.6 

27501.2 

348.1 

439.1 

430.5 

447.7 

43.6 

439.1 

207.1 

430.5 

430.5 

58.6 

909.5 

67.0 

27.4 

2962.7 

37.7 

90.9 

524.8 

174.8 

148.8 

22.7 

51.5 

43.8 

1110.6 

131.4 

151.0 

3373.4 

1472.5 

1317.8 

928.1 

240.9 

125.0 

98.4 

259.8 

55.6 

4.7 

47.8 

100.4 

4.6 

3.8 

1285.6 

32117.0 

406.5 

126.7 

124.2 

129.2 

13.6 

126.7 

76.6 

124.2 

124.2 

23.7 

295.7 

21.1 

8.1 

1298.5 

16.5 

32.5 

156.9 

58.5 

65.8 

8.9 

20.4 

15.1 

386.9 

49.6 

57.7 

994.1 

516.2 

463.5 

327.1 

107.0 

54.2 

42.2 

127.1 

25.5 

2.1 

21.0 

56.5 

2.0 

3.5 

1037.9 

9497.1 

120.2 

Legend: 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - No data provided 
P.50 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat resin plus any HAP thi 

b = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat resin plus. 

c = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the average filler/i 

d = No emission reduction credit was given for the use of vapor suppressants. 
P.51 

I emissions at a specific facility 

be used. 

y exist. 

Source 

MACT Model 

Emissions 

(after MACT) 

(tpv) 

36.2 

6.3 

18.9 

0.5 

147.3 

9.0 

6.6 

3.0 

4.4 

8.7 

24.2 

35.6 

39.2 

15.0 

71.4 

5.9 

152.9 

5.5 

162.6 

20.7 

26.4 

72.5 

7.0 

29.0 

47.6 

6.2 

39.6 

9.9 

5.2 

101.5 

54.2 

25.0 

7.7 

68.0 

199.4 

80.4 

25.1 

51.4 

71.4 

11.7 

MACT Model 

Point Value 

(before MACT) 

(lbs/ton) b 

12 

13 

17 

106 

107 

144 

145 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

155 

156 

173 

184 

186 

189 

190 

196 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

215 

223 

228 

233 

233 

234 

242 

242 

242 

250 

250 

Other 

Reduction 

Technigues d 

F J R H I, 

Carbon Filters (42.5% Control), VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

Thermal Oxidizer (47.5% Control), VSR (Filled) 

Thermal Oxidizer (43.5% Control), VSR (Filled) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (50%, Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

Thermal Oxidizer (30.2% Control), VSR (72%, Filled) 
P.52 

72.9 

71.4 

74.3 

7.8 

72.9 

44.0 

71.4 

71.4 

13.3 

166.2 

11.8 

4.5 

729.9 

9.2 

18.3 

83.4 

30.0 

33.3 

4.5 

10.3 

7.3 

179.9 

22.6 

26.1 

450.4 

225.6 

202.6 

142.2 

46.1 

22.8 

17.7 

52.0 

10.4 

0.9 

8.2 

22.0 

0.8 

1.1 

258.0 

5010.9 

63.4 

250 

250 

250 

250 

250 

250 

250 

250 

256 

256 

256 

256 

256 

256 

256 

271 

280 

284 

286 

286 

300 

310 

316 

318 

318 

329 

329 

331 

334 

343 

343 

351 

351 

351 

369 

369 

369 

465 

579 

N/A 

N/A 

CBI 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 

VSR (Filled Resin Systems) 
P.53 

at is added to the resin at the facility (fillers not included), 

resin ratio from facilities with known filler quantities. 
P.54 

Tooling - Mechanical Application 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or estimate ac 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore i 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii 

•.PF I ^ 

p t j i 

U * 11 

r P j - In 

fHEPFIi« f* 

Ft* * 1 F 

M i P 

Bremen Glas, Inc 

Plant Name 

L 

In 

1 u 

1 f n*v JC^ R 

<< i P 1 G 1 *> IJ 

In r T 1 In 

Projected Total (includes assumed values): 

Average: 

Weighted Filled or 

Average % HAP Unfilled 

in neat resin plus a Resin Svstem 

Other 

Reduction 

Techniques 

None 

45.8 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - no data provided 

"•"-i^. . » . •* V«^S-' " •**"*"*$*» •***""-"•*"*""•.•. • "-"•**-* 

A * :3Ce«!«^^^^^^U^^"? 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat resin plus any HAF 

b = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat gel coat plus. 
P.55 

ritual emissions at a specific facility, 

not be used, 

may exist. 

P that is added to the resin at the facility. 
Corrosion - Resistant Filament Winding 

Important Notes: 

The average emission factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or estimate actual 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore not 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base ma* 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

Plant Name 

Industrial Fiberglass Specialties, Inc. 

Beetle Plastics, Inc. 

Owens-Corning (Auburndale) 

Owens-Corning (Mount Union) 

Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Conroe) 

Owens-Corning Tanks (Valparaiso) 

Rubber & Plastic Applicators 

Nova Group, Inc. 

Hastings Group, Inc. - Viatec (Belding) 

International Reinforced Plastics 

ABC Industries, Inc. (Grand Junction, CO) 

ABC Industries, Inc. (Wallace, ID) 

ABC Industries, Inc. (Winona Lake, IN) 

International Paper (Hampton) 

Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Little Rock) 

Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Wichita) 

Xerxes Corp. (Anaheim) 

Xerxes Corp. (Avon) 

GPI Corp. 

Specialty Plastics, Inc. 

Ecowater Systems 

MFG Justin Tanks, Inc. 

Conley Corp. 

Hastings Reinforced Plastics - Viatec (Hastings) 

Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Bakersfield) 

Fowler Manufacturing, Inc. 

Filament 

Winding 

Machines 

2 

5 

1 

14 

16 

3 

4 

1 

1 

7 

7 

11 

16 

11 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

3 

22 

6 

3 

7 

12 

15 

2 

7 

1 

16 

5 

12 

1 

1 

9 

3 

2 

3 

Resin 

Weighted 

Average % HAP 

in neat resin plus a 

87.2 

16.5 

232.3 

275.7 

68.1 

115.4 

2.5 

30.0 

71.3 

69.5 

106.2 

161.4 

114.4 

38.3 

18.7 

2.0 

18.1 

50.0 

30.0 

45.0 

376.6 

81.7 

117.8 

72.2 

123.9 

36.6 

51.8 

32.9 

159.8 

89.6 

159.9 

15.0 

145.9 

68.1 

211.8 

97.1 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.1 

45.8 

46.0 

46.2 

46.2 

46.2 

46.2 

46.2 

46.2 

46.2 

46.2 

46.2 

47.0 

48.0 

48.9 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.5 

52.0 

Filler 

(tpy) c 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.8 

0.0 

0.0 

11.6 

6.9 

10.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

72.8 

1.2 

8.2 

Reinforce. 

(tpv) 

21.2 

53.4 

10.1 

186.0 

168.8 

41.7 

70.7 

1.5 

18.3 

43.6 

42.5 

65.0 

98.8 

70.0 

16.3 

12.6 

1.2 

8.1 

37.7 

22.6 

33.9 

230.6 

50.0 

72.1 

44.2 

75.9 

18.1 

11.7 

31.7 

37.6 

77.3 

54.7 

97.9 

9.2 

89.3 

41.7 

111.0 

134.6 

26.8 

Scrap 

ilEYl 

3.7 

9.3 

1.8 

27.4 

29.4 

7.3 

12.3 

0.3 

3.2 

7.6 

7.4 

11.3 

17.2 

12.2 

3.7 

2.2 

0.2 

1.8 

6.6 

3.9 

5.9 

40.2 

8.7 

12.6 

7.7 

13.2 

3.6 

2.0 

5.5 

4.6 

15.8 

9.6 

17.1 

1.6 

15.6 

7.3 

26.6 

15.0 

4.7 
P.57 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 239 3482.4 

Average: 6.1 89.3 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 0.23 

Reinforcement to Filler + Resin Ratio: 0.61 

113.0 

46.2 

2238.4 

57.4 

386.0 

9.9 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

E^tjrig| SpUrce MACT Floor

 ; 

Assumed values - no data provided 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat resin plus any HAP th 

b = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat resin plus, 

c = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the average filler/i 
P.58 

emissions at a specific facility, 

be used, 

y exist. 

Existing Source 

MACT Model 

Emissions 

(before MACT) 

(tov) 

2.5 

7.1 

1.3 

19.1 

23.1 

5.8 

10.1 

0.2 

2.7 

6.3 

6.2 

9.4 

14.3 

10.2 

3.4 

1.7 

0.2 

1.6 

4.6 

2.7 

4.1 

34.5 

7.5 

10.8 

6.6 

11.4 

3.4 

1.8 

4.8 

3.1 

15.4 

8.8 

15.7 

1.5 

14.7 

6.9 

21.7 

10.3 

3.9 

MACT Model 

Emissions 

(after MACT) 

(tpv) 

2.5 

7.1 

1.3 

18.9 

22.5 

5.6 

9.4 

0.2 

2.4 

5.8 

5.7 

8.7 

13.2 

9.3 

3.1 

1.5 

0.2 

1.5 

4.1 

2.4 

3.7 

30.7 

6.7 

9.6 

5.9 

10.1 

3.0 

1.6 

4.2 

2.7 

13.0 

7.3 

13.0 

1.2 

11.9 

5.6 

17.3 

7.9 

2.9 

MACT Model 

Point Value 

(before MACT) 

(lbs/ton) b 

144 

163 

163 

164 

168 

171 

176 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

178 

181 

182 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

184 

187 

187 

192 

197 

197 

202 

202 

202 

204 

212 

222 

Other 

Reduction 

Technigues 

Product Type 

(Duct, Pipe, Tanks. Other) 

Pipe, Tanks 

Pipe, Tanks 

Duct, Pipe 

Pipe, Tanks 

Pipe, Tanks 

Duct, Pipe 

Pipe, Tanks 

Pipe 

Duct, Pipe 

Tanks 

Tanks 

Tanks 

Tanks 

Tanks 

Pipe, Tanks 

Pipe 

Pipe, Tanks 

Ducts, Pipe, Tanks 

Duct 

Duct 

Duct 

CBI 

Pipe 

Pipe 

Tanks 

Tanks 

Tanks 

Tanks 

Tanks 

Pipe 

Tanks 

Tanks 

Tanks 

Pipe 

Pipe, Tanks 

Tanks 

Duct, Pipe 

Pipe 

Duct, Tanks 
P.59 

319.4 283.7 

8.2 7.3 

lat is added to the resin at the facility (fillers not included), 

resin ratio from facilities with known filler quantities. 
P.60 

Noncorrosion - Resistant Filament Winding 

Important Notes: 

The average emission factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or est 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should t 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this d 

Weighted 

Average % HAP 

in neat resin plus a (tpy) c 

Reinforce. Scrap 

(tpv) (tpy) 

113.1 

1739.2 

43.1 

28.2 

19.7 

303.2 

7.5 

4.9 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 76 2573.4 

Average 19.0 643.3 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 0.23 

Reinforcement to Filler + Resin Ratio: 0.61 

39.5 

568.6 

142.1 

1923.5 

480.9 

335.3 

83.8 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - no data provided. 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat resin plus 

b = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat resin plus. 

c = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the a 

Since no known filler quantities wer available for non-corrosion resistant filament winding, the filler to resin ratio froi 

d = No emission reduction credit was given for the use of vapor suppressants. 
P.61 

:imate actual emissions at a specific facility, 

therefore not be used, 

lata base may exist. 

Existing Source 

MACT Model MACT Model MACT Model 

Emissions Emissions Point Value 

(before MACT) (after MACT) (before MACT) 

Other 

Reduction Product Type 

(tpv) 

8.5 

140.0 

6.2 

4.5 

(tPV) 

8.5 

140.0 

6.2 

4.1 

Technigues d (Duct, Tanks. Pipe, Other) 

Duct, Tanks 

Tanks (Small) 

Tanks 

Light Poles 

159.3 

39.8 

158.8 

39.7 

N/A 

N/A 

s any HAP that is added to the resin at the facility (fillers not included). 

iverage filler/resin ratio from facilities with known filler quantities. 

>m corrosion resistant filament winding was used. 
P.62 

Pigmented Production Gel Coats 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or estim 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should then 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data 
P.63 

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 C & K Fiberglass Plastics, Inc. 

Century Manufacturing Co. 

Charloma Fiberglass, Inc. 

Covermaster, Inc. 

Fiberdome, Inc. (Plant #1) 

Glasspec Associates, Ltd. 

Great Lakes Plastics Corp. 

HEMCO Corp. 

Heritage Marble of Ohio, Inc. 

Holiday Rambler Corp., Plant 36 and 37 

Kivett's, Inc. 

Krueger International, Inc. 

Lawrence Wittman & Co., Inc. 

Leer East, Inc. 

Leer Midwest 

McClarin Plastics, Inc. 

Melcher Manufacturing Co., Inc. 

Molded Plastic Industries, Inc. 

Murphy Body Co. 

Osborne Industries, Inc. 

Peterson Products 

Phil Carter System, Inc. 

Picken's Plastics, Inc. 

Piedmont Fiberglass, Inc. 

Plastic Development Co. 

Retterbush Injection Molded Fiberglass Corp. 

Robroy Industries, Inc. (Belding, Ml) 

Seal Reinforced Fiberglass 

Simon-Telelect, Inc. 

Standard Glas, Inc. 

Style Crest Products 

Tom Smith Fiberglass, Inc. 

Trail Wagons, Inc. 

Universal Plastics, Inc. 

Universal-Rundle Corp. (New Castle) 

Universal-Rundle Corp. (Union Point) 

Xenon Co., Inc. 

43.9 

25.5 

86.9 

71.4 

6.2 

8.3 

30.0 

7.5 

80.0 

9.0 

1.0 

153.0 

4.5 

61.7 

4.4 

3.3 

119.4 

204.0 

244.8 

14.3 

49.0 

17.6 

12.0 

7.5 

9.0 

45.5 

2.3 

1.0 

3.2 

3.9 

3.3 

24.0 

15.2 

35.0 

8.3 

8.2 

48.0 

607.5 

300.0 

0.8 

5.6 

23.8 

6.2 

17.0 

1.0 

13.6 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

1.1 

1.3 

1.3 

3.2 

3.7 

3.7 

1.2 3.6 

Eljer Manufacturing (Valdosta) 

4.4 

2.6 

8.7 

7.1 

0.6 

0.8 

3.0 

0.7 

8.0 

0.9 

0.1 

15.3 

0.5 

6.2 

0.4 

0.3 

11.9 

20.4 

24.5 

1.4 

4.9 

1.8 

1.2 

0.8 

0.9 

4.5 

0.2 

0.1 

0.3 

0.4 

0.3 

2.4 

1.5 

3.5 

0.8 

0.8 

4.8 

60.8 

30.0 

P-1 

0.6 

2.4 

0.6 

1.7 

0.1 

1.4 

44.8 

12.3 

0.8 

1.1 

. 6.1 

9.3 
P.64 

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Fiberglass & Plastic Fab., Inc. 

Florida Line of Astatula, Inc. 

Hy-Tec Fiberglass, Inc. 

Kreider Manufacturing, Inc. 

Newport Laminates 

Northwest Bodies, Inc. 

Oasis Industries, Inc. 

Primero, Inc. 

100 Vertex Plastics, Inc. 

101 Pearl Baths, Inc. 

102 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Anaheim) 

103 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Cordele) 

104 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Moapa) 

105 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Three Rivers) 

106 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Yelm) 

107 

108 Arrowhead Plastic Engineering, Inc. 

109 Sunset Plastics, Inc. 

110 

111 Eljer Plumbingware (Wilson) 

112 H & R Industries, Inc. 

113 Accurate Glass, Inc. 

114 American Slate and Marble of Hickory, Inc. 

115 AmtechCorp. 

116 Aqua Glass Corp. (Klamath Falls) 

117 Diamond Fiberglass Fabricators, Inc. 

118 ED Industries, Inc. (Sportsman Pickup Covers) 

119 E-TM Enterprises, Inc. 

120 

121 Fibre Body Industries, Inc. 

122 Glas Master, Inc. (Plant #1) 

123 Glas Master, Inc. (Plant #2) 

124 Glasstite, Inc. 

125 Hood Manufacturing, Inc. 

126 Jason Industries, Inc. (Elkhart, IN) 

127 Miracle Recreation Co. 

128 Monarch Plastic, Inc. 

129 National Fiber Glass Products, Inc. 

130 Odom Fiberglass, Inc. 

131 Plastic Composites Corp. 

132 S.W.C. Industries, Inc. (Swirl-Way Div.) 

133 Xerxes Corp. (Seguin) 

134 Xerxes Corp. (Williamsport) 

135 

136 S. R. Smith, Inc. 

137 Plasti-Fab, Inc. 

138 ACME Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

139 Aqua Glass Corp. (Adamsville) 

140 Blue Dolphin Fiberglass Pools 

141 Epoch Industries 

142 Associated Plastics, Inc. 

9.0 

51.1 

6.0 

104.0 

10.0 

30.6 

23.1 

16.2 

7.0 

15.0 

4.5 

760.5 

470.0 

1596.0 

685.1 

603.7 

41.0 

28.9 

50.0 

213.2 

15.7' 

37.0 

2.1 

17.6 

213.2 

54.5 

254.0 

5.7 

71.4 

6.7 

3.5 

73.8 

20.4 

221.9 

213.2 

14.1 

167.3 

1.6 

20.0 

213.2 

20.3 

20.3 

10.3 

2.9 

20.5 

21.2 

1170.0 

31.5 

12.0 

12.6 

36.0 

36.0 

36.0 

36.0 

36.0 

36.0 

36.0 

36.0 

36.0 

36.2 

36.4 

36.4 

36.4 

36.4 

36.4 

36.8 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.4 

37.5 

37.5 

37.5 

37.5 

37.5 

1.2 3.7 

0.9 

5.1 

0.6 

10.4 

1.0 

3.1 

2.3 

1.6 

0.7 

1.5 

0.5 

76.1 

47.0 

159.6 

68.5 

60.4 

4.1 

2.9 

5.0 

5.5 

21.3 

1.6 

3.7 

0.2 

1.8 

21.3 

5.4 

25.4 

0.6 

4.9 

7.1 

0.7 

0.3 

7.4 

2.0 

22.2 

21.3 

1.4 

16.7 

0.2 

2.0 

21.3 

2.0 

2.0 

1:0 

0.3 

2.1 

2.1 

117.0 

3.2 

1.2 

1.3 
P.65 

143 Fleetwood (Fontana - formerly Gold Shield) 

144 Images Products Corp. 

145 

146 A. R. E., Inc. (Mount Eaton) 

147 Eagle Craft, Inc. 

148 G. W. Fiberglass, Inc. 

149 Universal-Rundle Corp. (Ottumwa) 

150 Beaver Motor Coaches, Inc. 

151 KBK Industries, Inc. 

152 

153 Fiber Pad, Inc. 

154 Space Tables, Inc. 

155 B In 

156 Mt

1

 "*H.» 

157 

158 Accra Industries, Inc. 

159 Acme Fiberglass, Inc. 

160 Alliance Equipment Co., Inc. 

161 Astoria Industries, Inc. 

162 Bradley Specialties Corp. 

163 Ceramic Cooling Tower Co. 

164 Chance Operations, Inc. 

165 Comtech Antenna Systems, Inc. 

166 Continental Camper Co., Inc. 

167 Delta Fiberglass Structures, Inc. 

168 Diamond Coach Corp. 

169 Elmore Truck Accessories, Inc. 

170 Fiberglass Forms, Inc. 

171 Fiberglass Plus Recreational Industries, Inc. 

172 Fiberglass Products, Inc. 

173 Fiberglass Specialties, Inc. 

174 Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 

175 Gibbon Fiberglass Reprod., Inc. 

176 Glasgo Plastics, Inc. 

177 Grayson Tool Co. 

178 I. M. Pena, Inc. 

179 Kearney/Western Power Products 

180 Kohler Co. 

181 

182 Larson Co 

183 

184 Marley Cooling Tower Co. 

185 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Adelanto) 

186 Niagara Fiberglass, Inc. 

187 Non Metallic Resources, Inc. 

188 Pacific Tank, Ltd. 

189 Prototype Concepts, Inc. 

190 Red Ewald, Inc. 

191 Syntechnics 

192 Teco, Inc. 

193 Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Jacksonville) 

194 Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Southampton) 

158.0 

30.0 

266.8 

20.4 

69.0 

593.0 

1.6 

9.1 

18.4 

20.2 

7.3 

37.5 

37.5 

38.0 

38.0 

38.0 

38.0 

38.5 

38.5 

111111 

38.8 

39.0 

1.3 4.1 

5.0 

37.5 

39.6 

4.1 

1.7 

17.6 

22.8 

29.4 

74.0 

23.0 

24.5 

7.0 

8.0 

12.8 

30.3 

20.0 

158.6 

4.6 

230.6 

45.9 

0.4 

42.0 

10.0 

8.5 

0.6 

30.0 

110.0 

46.0 

7.0 

20.3 

3.0 

11.0 

17.8 

140.3 

4.0 

30.0 

37.3 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

15.8 

3.0 

2.9 

26.7 

2.0 

6.9 

59.3 

0.2 

0.9 

1.8 

2.0 

0.7 

38.3 

0.7 

25.5 

0.5 

3.8 

4.0 

0.4 

0.2 

1.8 

2.3 

2.9 

7.4 

2.3 

2.4 

.0.7 

0.8 

1.3 

3.0 

2.0 

15.9 

0.5 

23.1 

4.6 

0.0 

4.2 

1.0 

0.9 

1'pJ ; 

3 : 0 

;jl 1.0 

4'6 

0/7 

2.0 

0,3 

1.1 

1.8 

14.0 

0.4 ' 

3.0 

3.7 
P.66 

195 

196 

197 

198 

199 

200 

201 

202 

203 

204 

205 

206 

207 

208 

209 

Yankee Plastic Co. 

Custom Fibreglass Manufacturing Co. 

American Reinforced Plastics 

GPI Corp. 

Fleetwood (Decatur - formerly Gold Shield) 

Gorman-Rupp Co. 

Brunnel Products of Florida, Inc. 

Fiberglass Engineering Corp. 

MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Union City) 

Marblecast Products, Inc. 

Rynone Manufacturing Corp. (Sayre Plant) 

1.5 

126.5 

56.0 

17.0 

673.7 

7.5 

27.5 

13.5 

103.0 

1.5 

10.0 

123.0 

0.6 

40.0 

40.4 

40.5 

41.0 

41.4 

42.0 

45.0 

45.0 

49.0 

50.0 

50.0 

0.2 

12.6 

5.6 

0.3 

1.7 

67.4 

0.8 

0.5 

2.8 

1.4 

10.3 

0.2 

1.0 

12.3 

0.1 

Projected Total (includes assumed values): 22301.7 

Average: 106.7 

Average Known Open Molding Pigmented Gel Coat/Resin Ratio: 0.21692 

37.0 

2230.2 

10.7 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed,values - no.data'provided 

ff^^:'fe2&:^^ 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat gel coat plus 

b = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat gel coat plus. 

c = The assumed pigmented gel coat amounts (italicized tpy values shaded in light grey) were calculated by multiplying th 

The resin amount and average gel coat to resin ratio selected to calculate the assumed pigmented gel coat values de[ 

conjunction with open molding (OM), polymer casting (PC), or RTM. For example, the assumed gel coat values for fa< 

processes were calculated by multiplying the total resin applied by the facility using OM processes by the average OM 

d = Due to the unavailability of data to calculate a pigmented gel coat to polymer casting resin ratio, the assumed values ( 

calculated by multiplied the average clear gel coat to polymer casting resin ratio. 

e = Only one facility in the database (E-T-M Enterprises, Inc.) applies a pigmented gel coat in conjunction with RTM. The • 

lated by multipying the total amount of resin applied using RTM by the clear gel coat to polymer casting resin ratio. 
P.67 

iate actual emissions at a specific facility, 

efore not be used, 

base may exist. 

Existing Source 

MACT Model 

Emissions 

(before MACT) 

(tpv) 

8.5 

16.4 

7.3 

0.8 

81.3 

4.1 

52.1 

53.5 

46.1 

1.8 

1.1 

5.6 

3.1 

11.3 

4.7 

2.8 

0.7 

10.0 

2.3 

1.4 

1.7 

1.6 

6.4 

26.9 

16.9 

55.4 

11.2 

6.5 

28.6 

2.9 

2.6 

16.6 

16.3 

4.3 

0.6 

0.5 

1.7 

13.8 

MACT Model 

Emissions 

(after MACT) 

(tpv) 

8.5 

16.4 

7.3 

0.8 

81.3 

4.1 

52.1 

53.5 

46.1 

1.8 

1.1 

5.6 

3.1 

10.7 

4.2 

2.5 

0.7 

8.8 

2.0 

1.3 

1.5 

1.3 

5.5 

22.6 

14.1 

46.0 

9.2 

5.2 

23.0 

2.3 

2.0 

12.8 

12.6 

3.3 

0.5 

0.4 

1.3 

10.7 

MACT Model 

Point Value 

(before MACT) 

(lbs/ton) b 

19 

21 

42 

107 

186 

186 

192 

192 

192 

211 

217 

265 

265 

279 

295 

295 

295 

300 

305 

306 

311 

311 

311 

315 

319 

319 

321 

327 

330 

335 

343 

343 

343 

343 

343 

343 

343 

343 

Other 

Reduction 

Technigue 

Thermal Oxidizer (90% Control) 

Thermal Oxidizer (95% Control) 

Catalytic Oxidizer (91% Control) 

Thermal Oxidizer (76.4%) 

Thermal Oxidizer (47.5% Control) 

Thermal Oxidizer (47.5% Control) 

Thermal Oxidizer (47.5% Control) 
cocooocococococococococococococ o s co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co ... . _ _ _ 

S3"*3S'*3SS??"*?S'*S333SS3333SSS33S33SS3333S -* 5 5 cococococococococococococococ o cococococococococococococococ o -co co co co 

in co JI 03 o TO O t C !cMi- c

^COCMCDTt 09 T l^O>mcOCDOMOCOT-TtU)T}-CMOC D 

^T^g^dgdcodd^^^T^cDCNi^T^^cDddddcicocMT t 

T- m ^•J^^^NNCOn^CO^toir l . 

^cbggddcodoidT^g^T^^odJ ! 

in Tt 

*K •*' 

03 co ,_ Tt TT-1

 iri T ^ "Jj T-* i T- O CD 

CM 

co io " ! P P 

n n O io CM 

° ° CM CO Tt 

^^o^niqoqitNffiNip^ipq't* * 

Ncoriw^^sddddd^Nidr r 

W "^ - 9 -

o K o T - •* 

T- O CM t 
OOOOOOOOOOCOI^*'^*N*'^*NCOOOT-CO*N*N*N*N*N*N*N*N*N.* N 

^(l(Il(D(l!co^Dffi(o•D'Il•l)•D(0'o^o(D•D^^^^^^s^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^•c)cococococ o 

cococococococomcocoococoococococococococococococoMcococococococococococococoocococococococomcococ o 

OJ CO CO CO T - T- T - 03 O CD 

T-CDO^iT-TtCOOJOO J o o g JI 

T- *° CM 

eocON^^oinnl w 

gglricOCDI-^gjC M Tt O CM 

CO 10 ID Ol II) CO N 

i^gdsidddoiwj ^ 

OJ 

d 

CO 

cd 

CM 

NS^TtNCO^jCMIO S 

oioi^dNNin^^ / 

coiM'-^niiO'-oi n 

T - : oiT^ c °T^iriTtcMT- ^ CM O CO ^1 CO O) OJ T- s 

CM T- Tiri oi ° g> 

o> o •* CO 

CM r^ d cd 

CM CO 0*3 ,_ 

o o *s 

Tt lT- 03 TM co ,_• o J2 co T" O 

Tt Tt o 

CO CO 03 CD 03 TCO CO r- o CO Tt CM CD CM CJ 

CM 
*D*cc\i3^^rfnniococ^n^u)0)Cdcoao)0)c*}oaic4aa)o*)0)0)0}C*oc*4c*o ^ cOCOfflOlDCJffiOOOO^'-'-i-WNNNNNNNNNWNNNNOINNNNN N 

COWCOCOOCOCOTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTtTt^^Tt^Tt^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 

CO g 

T- "? 

co 

IN CM <t N O 

O T - CM CM ^ in 

03 

d 

sqwinoinqpiopoioi r 

diriiriddojcdcdoicoco'dT -

N o *N 

r^ Tt cvi 

9 CD V -rJM •=> co » 

O CD CO 

d ui T^ 

,- ,- O «? T- 03 

i-^d't^cDdcM d 

N 3 m ^ •*! 

- CM 2 CM ~ O •* Tt 

O 

CO 

CM 

m 

Tt TM CO £ 

co co i^ *-

d -^ cd Tt 

in T •* °. 

* O) • CO 

^ i^ ^ in 

T-T-mo3Ttco03c o 

•^ cd cd d d 

tt n io s N m o 03 T- O -r- CO i— Tt en in Tt co Tt co coWd^Ttin^^oicd^Jrf'JddoiN^diiijJoirfTtdNr i 
P.71 

0.3 

27.6 

12.3 

0.7 

3.8 

153.2 

1.7 

1.2 

7.2 

3.5 

31.1 

0.5 

3.1 

38.4 

0.2 

3469.3 

16.6 

0.2 

16.8 

7.4 

0.4 

2.2 

89.3 

1.0 

0.6 

3.6 

1.8 

13.7 

0.2 

1.3 

16.3 

0.1 

2517.7 

12.0 

429 

437 

438 

438 

448 

455 

466 

523 

523 

523 

603 

624 

624 

624 

624 

N/A 

N/A 

i any HAP that is added to the gel coat at the facility. 

ie amount of applicable resin by a certain gel coat to resin ratio, 

pended on whether the facility used the pigmented gel coat in 

cilities that use pigmented gel coats in conjunction with OM 

I pigmented gel coat to resin ratio, 

af pigmented gel coats applied by polymer casters was 

assumed pigmented gel coat value for this facility was calcu-
P.72 

Clear Production Gel Coats 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or estimate actu 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore no 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base m; 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

Plant Name 

Tri-City Marble, Inc. 

Venetian Marble, Inc. (Helotes, TX) 

Marble Designs, Inc. 

lbs of HAP 

per gallon 

of gel coat 

(lbs/gal) 

American Bluegrass Marble Co., Inc. 

Custom Marble, Inc. 

General Marble Co. (Guasti) 

General Marble Co. (Hornell) 

General Marble Co. (Lincolnton) 

International Paper (Hampton) 

United Technologies Motor Systems 

Scrap 

(tpv) 

1.7 

0.0 

0.9 

0.4 

9.6 

0.2 

2.5 

5.6 

1.1 

1.7 

1.4 

0.9 

1.6 

3.3 

6.6 

4.8 

2.3 

0.8 

1.2 

1.6 

3.5 

2.0 

5.6 

4.3 

1.1 

0.6 

0.5 

1.0 

1.2 

1.6 

1.0 

0.6 

1.5 

2.4 

1.9 

5.2 

7.5 

t1.3 

48.1 

Existing: 

MACT Model 

Emissions 

(before MACT) 

(tpy) 

3.7 

0.0 

2.1 

0.9 

24.3 

0.5 

6.7 

14.7 

2.8 

4.4 

3.7 

2.4 

4.1 

8.6 

17.3 

12.4 

5.9 

2.2 

3.1 

4.5 

9.9 

5.5 

15.7 

12.2 

3.0 

1.8 

1.3 

2.9 

3.4 

4.5 

2.7 

1.6 

4.2 

6.8 

5.4 

14.9 

21.3 

32.0 

136.7 
P.73 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

Vendura Industries, Inc. 

Heritage Marble of Ohio, Inc. 

St. Mary's Marble, L.L.C. 

Oasis 

Superior Home Products 

Tiffany Marble Manufacturing, Inc. 

Capon Valley Marble, Inc. 

Cultured Marble Products, Ltd. 

International Marble, Inc. 

Marblecast Products, Inc. 

Mincey Marble Manufacturing, Inc. 

Pinta's Cultured Marble, Inc. 

R & D Marble 

Synmar, Inc. 

Venetian Marble, Inc. (Richmond, VA) 

Roma Marble, Inc. 

Accent Marble Co., Inc. (Houston, TX) 

Parthenon Marble Products, Inc. 

1.0 4.1 

Projected Total (includes assumed values): 2090.9 

Average: 33.7 

Known Clear Gel Coat/ Polymer Casting Resin Ratio: 0.05156 

47.3 

1.1 

1.4 

0.4 

7.1 

5.8 

4.9 

0.9 

13.5 

2.4 

0.1 

1.2 

0.9 

0.5 

0.6 

3.2 

1.8 

0.7 

1.2 

1.1 

5.0 

1.2 

2.1 

3.1 

209.1 

3.4 

3.3 

3.9 

1.2 

20.6 

16.8 

14.3 

2.6 

41.9 

7.4 

0.2 

3.9 

2.9 

1.5 

1.9 

10.0 

5.6 

2.3 

3.8 

3.3 

15.5 

4.1 

7.2 

13.2 

597.3 

9.6 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - no date provided 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat gel coat plus any HA 

b = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat gel coat plus. 

c = The assumed clear gel coat amounts (italicized tpy values shaded in light grey) were calculated by multiplying the amount of r 

ratio of known clear gel coat to known polymer casting resin. 
.<2 «3 cn 

E = x 

o l n 

-s *° >• 

2 - K CO 

CD 

O) 

CO 

CD > 

CO 

i n 

i n 

i n 

co 

Q. < 

X 

i n 

co 

03 

O) 

CO 

03 > 

CO 

m 

Tt 

a. 

< 

X 

1 ^ 

Tt 

03 

O 

IO 

co 

O 

CM 

CO 

JD 

O 

O 

CO 

® 

Q. 

• 3 

Q. 

CO 

Tt 

03 

> 

co 

CO 

in 

CO 

co 

® 

>. 

Q. 

O 

l< 

g> 

Q. 

03in3TtCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC00303030303030 3 

CNCOOOT-CMCMCMCMCMOJOJCMCMCMCMCMCO-^COCOCOCDCDCOCDCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC O 

TtTtininininininininioinu)U)inininininu)U3U3ininininininu3ininu>inu5ininini n 

Tt 

CM 

h - CM CO CO O CO N - T - 0 3 CM CO 0 3 NCON(D'-'-3<tSi-c O 

dd^cM^co'cM^ex>2^'ricM-N^'edTt'^OcJi- : W(NdTtCM^cr)dTt 2 
P.75 

2.9 

3.4 

1.1 

17.8 

14.5 

12.4 

2.2 

34.0 

6.0 

0.1 

3.1 

2.3 

1.2 

1.5 

8.1 

4.5 

1.9 

3.1 

2.6 

12.5 

3.1 

5.3 

7.9 

525.9 

8.5 

569 

571 

576 

581 

583 

583 

599 

620 

624 

624 

624 

624 

624 

624 

624 

624 

624 

624 

624 

624 

677 

688 

847 

N/A 

N/A 

not required to obtain air permit 

clear 13tpy@47.4%; pig. 1tpy@35%; wt avg 47% 

HAP range 20-55%; average 37.5% 

HAP range 45-55%; average 50.0% 

HAP range 45-55%; average 50.0% 

HAP range 45-55%, average 50.0% 

pigmented 50% HAP; clear 50% HAP 

HAP range 45-55%; average 50.0% 

HAP range 45-55%; average 50.0% 

HAP range 45-60%; average 52.5% 

gel coat usage > 5.9 tpy 

\P that is added to the gel coat at the facility. 

esin applied by a facility using polymer casting by the 
P.76 

Tooling Gel Coats 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to d> 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emission.' 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not incl 

Rank 

1 

2 

Plant Name 

A. R. E., Inc. (Massillon) 

Hydro Systems, Inc. 

Weighted 

Average 

% HAP in 

Neat Gel 

Coat plus a 

Specific 

Gravity 

of Gel 

Coat 

lbs of HAP MACT Model 

per gallon Point Value 

of gel coat (before MACT) 

(lbs/gal) (lbs/ton) b 

29 

290 

Projected Total (includes assumed values): 

Average: 44.0 469 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - no data provided 

/ i •** J n T ti n 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the i 
P.77 

b = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat gel coat plus. 
P.78 

etermine or estimate actual emissions at a specific facility, 

s and should therefore not be used, 

luded in this data base may exist. 

Other 

Reduction 

Technigue 

Thermal Oxidizer (95% Control) 

Carbon Filters (42.5% Control) 

neat gel coat plus any HAP that is added to the gel coat at the facility. 
P.79 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

..mm. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

Compression Molding + Injection Molding 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine actual emi; 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefc 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included 

Plant Name 

Zehrco Plastics, Inc. (Plant #1) 

Applied Composites Corp. 

Frankfort Plastics 

Bailey Transportation Products, Inc. 

ACME Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

Allen Group (Crown Fiberglass) 

Allied Moulded Products, Inc. 

American Acrylic Corp. 

Budd Co. (Carey) 

Budd Co. (Kendallville) 

Budd Co. (North Baltimore) 

Budd Co. (Van Wert) 

Carsonite International Corp. 

Channel Master 

Columbia Specialties, Inc. 

Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (Grabill) 

Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (Huntington) 

Eagle-Picher Plastics Div. (Ashley) 

Emsig Manufacturing Corp. 

Enduro Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 

Fibercast Co. 

GenCorp. Automotive, Inc. (Marion) 

GenCorp. Automotive, Reinforced Plastic Div. (Ionia) 

General Electric Distibution and Control 

Glastic Corp. (Jefferson) 

Glastic Corp. (South Euclid) 

GMC (Inland Fisher Guide Div.) 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 

Haysite Reinforced Plastics 

Indian Industries, Inc. 

Industrial Dielectrics, Inc. 

Intemational Grating, Inc. 

Iten Industries 

Kenro, Inc. 

Krueger International, Inc. 

Mac Molding Co., Inc. 

Menasha Corp. (LEWISystems) 

Menasha Corp. (Watertown) 

MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Linesville) 

MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Plant #1 - Ashtabula) 

Description 

Compression Molding w/BMC & SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Injection Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC & Injection Molding 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression and Injection Molding w/BMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/Resin 

Compression Molding 

Compression Molding w/BMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding 

Injection Molding w/BMC 

Compression Molding 

Injection Molding w/BMC & TMC 

Compression and Injection Molding w/SMC 

Compression and Injection Molding w/SMC & BMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding 

Injection Molding w/BMC & Closed Molding 

Compression Molding w/SMC & BMC 

Compression Molding 

Injection Molding w/BMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC & Wet Mix 

Compression Molding w/wet mix & preforms 

in this data ba 

SMC or BMC 

(tov) 

697.0 

8787.0 

1428.0 

3406.8 

11261.8 

86.9 

858.5 

7119.0 

362.5 

8017.2 

4345.2 

7201.2 

571.2 

38.2 

941.8 

3973.9 

11220.0 

4109.9 

2728.5 

252.0 

24.5 

411.1 

18160.1 

2728.5 

301.4 

2728.5 

2728.5 

5069.4 

2728.5 

839.0 

600.0 

394.0 

163.8 

417.5 

2140.0 

176.0 

1500.0 

603.0 

8000.0 

4453.6 

3155.6 
P.80 

42 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Plant #2 - Ashtabula) 

43 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Union City) 

44 Molded Plastic Industries, Inc. 

45 Nordic Fiberglass, Inc. (Devils Lake) 

46 North American Lighting Co. 

47 Picken's Plastics, Inc. 

48 Plastic Composites Corp. 

49 Polyply, Inc. (Grand Haven) 

50 Premix / E.H.S., Inc. (Hartford City) 

51 Prodelin Corp. (Catawba Facility) 

52 Robroy Industries, Inc. (Belding, Ml) 

53 Rockwell International 

54 Rockwell Plastic Products (Newton, NC) 

55 Ryobi Motor Products Corp. 

56 Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Little Rock) 

57 Square D Co. (Cedar Rapids) 

58 Square D Co. (Lincoln) 

59 Sterling Plumbing Group, Inc. 

60 Structural North America 

61 TRW - Trans. Electronics Div. (Union Springs) 

62 Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Southampton) 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 

Average: 

Projected Total: 

Compression Molding w/SMC & wet mix 

Compression Molding 

Compression Molding 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Injection Molding 

Compression Molding w/BMC & SMC 

Compression Molding 

Compression Molding w/BMC & SMC 

Compression Molding w/BMC & SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Compression Molding w/BMC & SMC 

Injection Molding w/BMC 

Compression Molding 

Compression and Injection Molding 

Injection Molding w/BMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

Closed Molding 

Compression Molding w/BMC 

Compression Molding w/SMC 

4161.2 

2728.5 

76.5 

94.7 

1611.5 

2728.5 

2728.5 

805.0 

500.0 

860.0 

817.5 

2728.5 

1351.5 

2384.4 

2728.5 

1500.9 

5177.5 

2728.5 

914.8 

700.7 

99.9 

172156.8 

2776.7 

172,157 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assum*^jy|ija|g^^tej*a^iied . 

Footnotes: 

a = The EPA was unable to quantify the emission reduction achieved by facilities using the technique of not uncovering a ch; 

Therefore, the current emissions values shown were not reduced to account for the emission reduction achieved by facili 

was considered (qualitatively) when EPA ranked facilities within the compression & injection molding process grouping bi 
cn 

o 

o 

CL 

UO o 

TJ 

CD 

IL 

03 

3 

n 

1— 

TJ 

CD 

cn 3 

c 

3 

TJ 

01 

03 

o > 

O 

cn 

03 

•3 

cn 

JZ 

TJ 

03 

cn 3 

c 

3 

T) (11 

(11 

O > 

O 

in 

01 

03 

(0 

j -

TJ 

03 

cn 3 

c 

3 

T) 

Cll 

01 

O > 

O 

cn 

o> 

n> 

cn 

X. 

T I 

03 

cn 

• 3 

c 

3 

T> 

CD 

01 

O >-

O 

cn 

03 

n> 

cn; .C: 

o 

c 

CD 

O 

3 = 

CD 

CD 

O 

> 

CD 

TJ 

--P 5^ 

O 

TJ 

c 

CO 

CD Q . 

CO 

O 

O 

TJ 

CD 

E 

O O O o | 

co 

o 

OOOOOOOOIOO O o i 

dddddddddd d dl 

ooo o 

ddd d ocoooooooo o 

ddddddddd d f-r 

CM 

r~- Tt o CO r- OJ 

• o u o io 

•^ ~i ** i- CM 

O CM 1^ •*.£ CD 2 •*-* © CM ° ^ 

CO 

oi 

CO 

OJ 

•tf C D y- •* 

h-' T-' d O 

Tt CD T - Tt 

i-^ -r^ d d 

CO CO Tt Tt 

CO CO -tf Tt 

•^COOCOOJl-OJTtTtT t 

d oi ^ 5 o cd 

Tt co o co 0*3 

CM d d 

t t Tt Tt "-! ~ 

o w - JM ° 

OJ 

CO 

O 

O 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooomooooooooooooo o oooooooooooooooooooooooooor^ooooooooooooo o 

^^•^^^^^^^'^^^^^^^^^•Wr^^^^^W^d^^^^t-'T^T^T-T-:^'^'^^' ^ 

(3 

CO 

o 

C3 

01 

C3 

m 

CO ons ssi 

TJ 

CD 

73 

03 

.Q 

o 

c CD 

, : 

X 

CD 

>. CO 

E ise 

h ( 0 r « i'^l^iri^'^iri 1

^ 

C/3 —1 •*•- -r- TM "" CM 

.*= 2 

Q.

 m 

2 ° 

in in o o Tt m o 

CP 3 - ^ I"* U ^ ffi ~*f 

T— T— *** T— 

•* rf- *=> £ 

P «P ^ CO 

in o co co 

co 

CD CO . CO 

• * " * o " * 

in m ° in 

CM 

Tt 

O *- 9 T- -

d CM S cri co 

co T- 2 "0 co 

CM cooooomcMinincoin.or ^ mujh-inm^-ininojocoinujT -

 V * ' "—• *—• *—' "—• ***"? V *i U i "* ' K'J

.

 Uf , SS.J | ^ j , 

oi-"t'nT-N*B u i'i)^^^^^ii)NdT ;ooiN«T-T - B'C) piondiodNriT -

^-*-T-^-T-^ — T- U J tn* — *— *-T-*-^ — *— f\l^ — T-CT>T- T T «-*-« — ,*-*-*-^-* — .-•-fM^-. -

CO T - Tt OJ 

•^ cd T-: d 
03 cn 0) 

a. 

3 hei CD |UJ ss O co3 n rol ff 

c cn 

3.* CD 3 " 01 cn CD 

•=* cn emiss UO| CD Q . 

c ont CD C3 3 " 

3 

n 

c CD -H 

J CD CD CJ ' • 3 * 

C/l 

T 

3 

-O 

03 (3 c3 03 "J emp •Z OUJ din cn 

3 03 CJ 

TJ* CD cn 03 

< 01lab CD 

o T ) 

O 

O 

(13 CO 

T CD 

O Jl ID cn CD 

_i CD » 8 CO 

CJl J ^ 

Ol * . 

cn CO 

co 

O 

CO oo CO 

CJl 

oo 

CJl 

O u O 0*1 

INJ 

O 

g-? • S 8 

° O CO CD ~ 

P* -» co -» ui co *w. co INJ ""*•' co co . co P3 

°ijiijibbijiijiijid 0 , iDijibi 0 

UOl^MOl-'-'-'-'UIOlMj j 

bin'-jdbj'ia.Kjb'-'bjbjKj 030 1 

cn oo •i^ co 

I\*J . 

CVJ 03 

* • 

03 INJ ho N OJ 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

O-'M-JOUNIIOOI^-'M-'IONIOIOOOSO ) 

^iocji^bob^cobo'^bofd3^roft^uiijicoKj*>.

:

> j 

OJ INJ O-'INJ^IOOCO-JINJUl^l-'IN J 

»uui^(»b^<o(»A(»b ) 

INJ 

iNJ 

-J CJJ O O O -sl OJ 

4=> cn CJI io ro *»• ^ 

o o co o o o b b ho b b b 

oooooo o b b b b b b b 

ooo o 

bbb b 

^ j 

CJl 
P.83 

Resin Transfer Molding (RTM) 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine actual em 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should there) 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities that should be part of this 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Plant Name 

Associated Plastics, Inc. 

Century Manufacturing Co. 

Resin % HAP Filler 

neat resin plus (tpy) 

Enduro Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 

E-T-M Enterprises, Inc. 

Fiberglass & Plastic Fab., Inc. 

Hartzell Fan, Inc. (Bldg 275) 

Hood Manufacturing, Inc. 

Livingston, Inc. 

MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Union City) 

Molded Plastic Industries, Inc. 

Osborne Industries, Inc. 

Pillings F.R.P. 

Plasti-Fab, Inc. 

Rockwell Plastic Products (Newton, NC) 

Tom Smith Fiberglass, Inc. 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Southampton) 

Reinforce. 

(tov) 

22.0 

2.6 

10.6 

10.6 

15.7 

10.8 

2.2 

3.7 

0.3 

30.6 

5.1 

0.5 

11.1 

108.0 

0.1 

4.6 

5.8 

10.6 

0.9 

11.5 

Scrap 

(tpv) 

12.5 

1.0 

6.0 

6.0 

6.4 

6.2 

1.2 

0.8 

0.1 

21.8 

2.9 

0.3 

6.4 

60.8 

0.8 

2.6 

3.3 

6.0 

0.5 

6.6 

Control 

Factor 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

Existinc 

Pre-MACT 

Emissions 

(tpv) 

1.17 

0.11 

0.54 

0.41 

0.64 

0.58 

0.11 

0.06 

0.01 

1.58 

0.17 

0.03 

0.48 

3.43 

0.10 

0.24 

0.25 

0.61 

0.04 

0.62 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 1362.6 

Average: 68.1 

Reinforcement to Resin + Filler Ratio: 0.2 

41.9 

341.5 

17.1 

267.2 

13.4 

152.4 

7.6 

11.15 

0.56 

Legend 

Assumed values - no data provided 

Footnotes: 

a = No emission reduction credit was given for the use of vapor suppressants. 
P.84 

lissions at a specific facility, 

fore not be used, 

database are likely to exist. 

3 Source 

Post-MACT 

Emissions 

(tpv) 

1.17 

0.11 

0.54 

0.41 

0.64 

0.58 

0.11 

0.06 

0.01 

1.58 

0.17 

0.03 

0.48 

3.43 

0.10 

0.24 

0.25 

0.61 

0.04 

0.62 

HAP 

Cleaner 

(tpv) 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

y 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Process 

Reduction 

Techniguesa 

some VSR 

11.15 

0.56 

2.4 

0.1 
P.85 

Corrosion - Resistant Centrifugal Casting 

Important Notes: 

The average emission factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or estimate actual 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore not 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base ma 

Plant Name 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 

Average: 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 

Reinforcement to Resin + Filler Ratio: 

Centifugal 

Casting 

Machines 

19 

8 

27 

14 

0.00 

0.72 

Resin 

(tPY) 

372 

46 : 

417.7 

208.9 

Weighted 

Average % HAP 

in neat resin plus a 

47.0 

^^^^B 

48.0 

Filler 

(tpy) b 

1 

0 

1.2 

0.6 

Reinforce. 

(tpv) 

269.1 

32.9 

302.0 

151.0 

Scrap 

IMI 

38.5 

4.7 

43.3 

21.6 

Existinc 

Pre-MACT 

Emissions 

(tpy) 

4.9 

12.5 

17.4 

8.7 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

AsSi.n''Al l.l'i.""-.- n >./ If I J". 

Ifw-id'fiT'jteCMi 

jt:i 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat resin plus any HAP th 

b = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the average filler/ 

c = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat resin plus. 
P.86 

emissions at a specific facility. 

: be used, 

iy exist. 

3 Source 

Post-MACT Current 

Emissions Emissions 

(tpy) (lbs/ton) c 

4.9 26 

12.5 547 

Other 

Reduction 

Techniques 

17.4 

8.7 

N/A 

N/A 

lat is added to the resin at the facility (fillers not included), 

'resin ratio from facilities with known filler quantities. 
P.87 

Noncorrosion - Resistant Centrifugal Casting 

Important Notes: 

The average emission factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine or estimate actual < 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore not I 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base may 

Rank Plant Name 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Emsig Manufacturing Corp. 

Henderson, Black & Green, Inc 

Sherman Poles 

xl ru 1 (11 

J di n k*J 

Pu I U I ~ F 

Weighted 

Average % HAP Filler 

I) 

Centifugal 

Casting Resin 

Machines (tpy) in neat resin plus a (tpy) b 

14 556 35.1 0 

10 393 35.5 12 

19 2487 37.5 0 

14 233 \ 446 0 

8 46

 x 49.fr 0 

Reinforce. 

(tpv) 

1662.9 

689.9 

503.5 

3089.2 

308.5 

8.3 

56.7 

Scrap 

(tpv) 

180.1 

74.7 

54.5 

334.6 

32.5 

1.8 

6.1 

Existinc 

Pre-MACT 

Emissions 

(tpy) 

253.5 

108.8 

77.8 

520.5 

57.8 

5.4 

12.5 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 97 

Average 14 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 0.03 

Reinforcement to Resin + Filler Ratio: 1.24 

5034.1 

719.2 40.3 

54.1 6319.0 

7.7 902.7 

684.4 

97.8 

1036.4 

148.1 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - no date provided 

Footnotes: 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat resin plus any HAP thE 

b = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the average filler/r 

c = Point values are expressed in pounds of HAP per ton of neat resin plus. 
P.88 

emissions at a 

be used. 

/ exist. 

3 Source 

Post-MACT 

Emissions 

(tpv) 

253.5 

108.8 

77.8 

492.7 

46.2 

4.2 

9.0 

992.3 

141.8 

specific facility. 

Pre-MACT Other 

Emissions Reduction 

(lbs/ton) c Technigues 

391 811111111 

392 

396 

419 

496 

504 

547 

at is added to the resin at the facility (fillers not included), 

•esin ratio from facilities with known filler quantities. 
P.89 

Continuous Lamination / Continuous Casting 

Important Notes: 

The emission estimates used in this spread sheet should not be used to determine actual emissions at a specific facility. 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore no 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base mi 

Rank Plant Name 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Kalwall Corp. 

Tomkins - LASCO Panel Products (KY) 

Resolite 

Sequentia, Inc. (Grand Junction) 

Resin 

itpjd 

1235.2 

% HAP a 

neat resin plus 

35.5 

3510.0 

13203.2 

1781.3 

12644.9 

40.5 

42.5 

43.2 

43.8 

Filler b 

ite*l 

508.5 

2573.0 

0.0 

817.8 

3379.6 

311.5 

2803.3 

12436.2 

454.5 

Reinforce. 

(tpy) 

1095.5 

3498.0 

0.0 

50.8 

1278.4 

4260.0 

742.1 

5246.3 

9160.6 

0.0 

Scrap 

(tpv) 

296.3 

1294.6 

532.6 

30.7 

595.7 

2216.3 

301.3 

2195.9 

4011.0 

166.9 

Existinc 

Pre-MACT 

Control 

Factor 

0.174 

0.224 

0.415 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 58663.1 

Average 5866.3 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 0.41 

26,550.6 25,331.7 11,641.2 

41.0 2655.1 2533.2 1164.1 

Top 5 performing facilities are highlighted in bold type. 

MACT Floor = median "control factor" of top 5 facilities = ? 

Baseline emissions = Sum of actual current calculated emissions for all facilities. 

MACT emissions = Sum of current emissions for facilities with control factor values equal to or less than the median control factor 

the sum of emissions equal to (resin + filler)vol*(lb sty/gal RM)*(median control factor)*(AP-42 midpoint) for each facility with a cor 

Therefore, implementing MACT would produce a ? percent reduction in emissions of HAP from continuous lamination operations. 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - no'data.proyided 

a = The HAP percentages are in terms of weight percent and they are based on the HAP content of the neat resin plus any HAP tl 

b = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the average filler 

The filler/resin ratio shown is based only on facilities that conduct continuous lamination. Filler information from International F 
P.90 

•t be used. 

ay exist. 

3 Source 

Post-MACT 

Control 

Factor 

0.174 

0.224 

0.415 

0.413 

0.488 

0.555 

0.413 

0.415 

1.000 

0.413 

Pre-MACT 

Emissions 

(Controlled) 

(tpv) 

3.82 

21.62 

12.74 

36.06 

56.26 

191.23 

42.67 

282.49 

23.67 

60.05 

730.6 

73.1 

Existing Source 

Post-MACT 

Emissions 

(Controlled) 

(tpv) 

3.82 

21.62 

12.74 

14.89 

27.45 

106.13 

17.62 

117.23 

23.67 

24.80 

370.0 

37.0 

Pre-MACT 

Emissions 

(Uncontrolled) 

(tpv) 

21.97 

96.50 

30.71 

36.06 

56.26 

191.23 

42.67 

282.49 

23.67 

60.05 

841.6 

84.2 

Reduction 

Technioues 

Condenser/Carbon filters (58% Overall Control) 

Number 

of lines 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

4 

3 

1 

plus 

itrol factor value greater than the median. 

hat is added to the resin at the facility (fillers not included), 

r/resin ratio from facilities with known filler quantities. 

3

aper, a continuous casting facility, was not used. 
P.91 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

Polymer Casting 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine actual emissio 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore i 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included 

Plant Name 

Gesmar Corp. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 

Wildon Industries, Inc. 

CDR Systems Corp. (Corcoran) 

CDR Systems Corp. (Palatka) 

Superior Home Products 

Accent Marble Co., Inc. (Houston, TX) 

Advance Transformer Co. (Boscobel) 

AGCO, Inc. 

American Bluegrass Marble Co., Inc. 

American Marble Co., Inc. 

American Slate and Marble of Hickory, Inc. 

Athena Marble, Inc. 

Austin Countertops, Inc. 

Bolfing Brothers Marble, Inc. 

Builders Marble, Inc. 

Cameo Marble 

Capital Marble Creations, Inc. 

Capon Valley Marble, Inc. 

Carolina Counters 

CDR Systems Corp. (Waynoka) 

Central Marble Products, Inc. 

Century Marble Co., Inc. 

Concept Plastics, Inc. 

CR/PL Ltd. Partnership (Newartesian Ltd. Partnership) 

Cultured Marble Products, Ltd. 

Custom Marble, Inc. 

Dow Chemical (Russellville, AR) 

Ebonite International, Inc. 

Emsig Manufacturing Corp. 

Faball Enterprises of Utah, Inc. 

Foremost Interiors, Inc. 

General Marble Co. (Guasti) 

General Marble Co. (Hornell) 

General Marble Co. (Lincolnton) 

Gruber Systems, Inc. 

Heritage Marble of Ohio, Inc. 

Hood Manufacturing, Inc. 

International Marble, Inc. 

International Paper (Odenton) 

Kerrico Corp. 

Resin 

(tpv) 

189 

49 

186 

578 

1,091 

549 

398 

223 

463 

278 

276 

204 

131 

470 

221 

464 

497 

107 

140 

251 

328 

157 

648 

170 

1,000 

88 

273 

967 

549 

132 

138 

173 

222 

606 

868 

258 

121 

2 

71 

394 

243 

% HAP 

neat resin plus 

30.0 

:^^^^^B 35.0 

33.0 

36.0 

34.7 

53.0 

40.0 

35.0 

34.8 

35.0 

39.0 

32.0 

28.0 

35.0 

35.0 

29.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

40.5 

34.0 

31.0 

34.8 

44.0 

34.8 

40.6 

40.0 

30.0 

34.8 

34.8 

34.8 

35.0 

35.0 

34.8 

31.0 

34.8 

35.0 

Filler 

(tpy) a 

559 

147 

551 

363 

434 

1,356 

730 

477 

1,643 

818 

816 

972 

394 

15 

940 

1,806 

1,611 

266 

420 

754 

969 

628 

1,917 

502 

2,957 

261 

826 

3,725 

1,625 

0 

95 

577 

655 

1,792 

2,566 

388 

382 

0 

245 

1,164 

927 

Reinforce. 

(tpv) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

o 

0 

o ; 

0 

0 

46 

0 

0 

0

 ! 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

in this data base i 

Scrap 

(tpv) 

22 

6 

22 

28 

46 

57 

34 

21 

63 

33 

33 

35 

16 

15 

35 

68 

63 

11 

17 

30 

39 

24 

77 

20 

119 

10 

33 

142 

65 

4 

7 

22 

26 

72 

103 

19 

15 

0 

10 

47 

35 

Control 

Factor 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 
P.92 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

Lippert Corp. 

LL Cultured Marble 

Marbelite Corp. 

Marble Designs, Inc. 

Marble Works, Inc. 

Marblecast Products, Inc. 

Mesa Fully Formed, Inc. 

Mincey Marble Manufacturing, Inc. 

Nova Marble Products 

Oasis 

Parthenon Marble Products, Inc. 

Perma Grain Products, Inc. 

Pinta's Cultured Marble, Inc. 

Polymer Concrete Corp. 

Primero, Inc. 

Quazite Co. 

R & D Marble 

Radiant Marble Co. 

Roma Marble, Inc. 

Rynone Manufacturing Corp. (Sayre Plant) 

Schmitt Marble Products 

Southeast Marble, Inc. 

St. Mary's Marble, L.L.C. 

Synmar, Inc. 

Tiffany Marble Manufacturing, Inc. 

Tri-City Marble, Inc. 

United States Marble, Inc. 

United Technologies Motor Systems 

Vendura Industries, Inc. 

Venetian Marble, Inc. (Helotes, TX) 

Venetian Marble, Inc. (Richmond, VA) 

Wilson Marble Co. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

90 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9 

61 

188 

13 

25 

45 

9 

7 

17 

159 

33 

5 

260 

29 

33 

43 

4 

35 

17 

213 

26 

21 

14 

34 

25 

15 

69 

17' 

20 

14 

2 | 

70 

661 

32 

0 

43 

13 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 32464.4 

Average: 416.2 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 3.0 

34.8 

95,602.2 

1,225.7 

137.0 

1.8 

3,844.7 

49.3 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - nodata.prqyjded 

Footnotes: 

a = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the average fil 

b = The EPA was unable to quantify the emission reduction achieved by facilities that use partially closed or completely closed r 
P.93 

reduced to account for the reduction achieved by facilities that use this emission reduction technique. The use of partial or c 

EPA ranked facilities within the polyer casting subcategory based on their emission control status, 

c = No emission reduction credit was given for the use of vapor suppressants. 
P_94_ 

>ns at a speci 

not be used. 

may exist. 

ic facility. 

Existing Source 

Pre-MACT 

Emissions 

(tpy) b 

1.1 

0.4 

1.3 

3.8 

7.9 

3.8 

4.2 

1.8 

3.2 

1.9 

1.9 

1.6 

0.8 

2.6 

1.5 

3.3 

2.9 

0.7 

1.0 

1.8 

2.3 

1.1' 

4.5 

1.4 

6.8 

0.5 

1.9 

8.5 

3.8 

1.1 

1.1 

1.0 

1.5 

4.2 

6.0 

1.8 

0.8 

0.0 

0.4 

2.7 

1.7 

Post-MACT 

Emissions 

(tpy) b 

1.1 

0.4 

1.3 

3.8 

7.9 

3.8 

4.2 

1.8 

3.2 

1.9 

1.9 

1.6 

0.8 

2.6 

1.5 

3.3 

2.9 

0.7 

1.0 

1.8 

2.3 

1.1 

4.5 

1.4 

6.8 

0.5 

1.9 

8.5 

3.8 

1.1 

1.1 

1.0 

1.5 

4.2 

6.0 

1.8 

0.8 

0.0 

0.4 

2.7 

1.7 

HAP 

Cleaner 

(tpy) 

0.0 

o.o 11|§1 | 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 ;.;:::),;yfj 

9.0 

0.0 

0.0 

4.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

11.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

n 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

11.4 

0.0 

0.0 

25.0 

CBI 

0.0 

11.1 

0.0 

0.0 

y 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

CBI 

0.0 

Process 

Reduction 

Techniques c 

Closed molds 

closed or covered molds 

Increased closed molding 

Increased1 closed molding ;f 

30-40% semi-closed mold 

CBI 

CBI 
P.95 

0.6 

3.2 

3.9 

0.8 

1.5 

2.7 

0.6 

0.4 

1.0 

11.2 

3.2 

0.3 

15.3 

1.5 

2.2 

0.8 

0.6 

1.9 

0.9 

8.0 

1.5 

0.9 

1.1 

6.9 

1.0 

1.3 

3.8 

1.0 

0.9 

0.8 

1.2 

2.3 

38.8 

1.8 

0.0 

2.2 

0.7 

227.5 

2.9 

0.6 

3.2 

3.9 

0.8 

1.5 

2.7 

0.6 

0.4 

1.0 

11.2 

3.2 

0.3 

15.3 

1.5 

2.2 

0.8 

0.6 

1.9 

0.9 

8.0 

1.5 

0.9 

1.1 

6.9 

1.0 

1.3 

3.8 

1.0 

0.9 

0.8 

1.2 

2.3 

38.8 

1.8 

0.0 

2.2 

0.7 

227.5 

2.9 

1.8 

3.0 

10.2 

0.0 

3.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

7.6 

1.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.4 

1.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

9.0 

0.0 

113.1 

1.5 

VSR 

ler/resin ratio from facilities with known filler quantities, 

molds. Therefore, the current emission values shown were not 
P.96 

completely closed molds was considered (qualitatively) when 
P.97 

Pultrusion 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine actual emissions e 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore not t 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base may 

Rank 

1 

2 

LysfL. 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

Plant Name 

Creative Pultrusions, Inc. (Alum Bank) 

Creative Pultrusions, Inc. (Roswell, NM) 

Enduro Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 

Omega Pultrusions, Inc. 

Plas/Steel Products 

Fiberflex, Inc. 

St. Croix of Park Falls, Ltd. 

Glastic Corp. (South Euclid) 

Bedford Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

Carsonite International Corp. 

Coastal Engineered Products, Inc. 

Dom-Fab (DFI Pultruded Composites) 

Fibergrate Corp. 

Haysite Reinforced Plastics 

IKG Industries 

Industrial Dielectrics, Inc. 

International Grating, Inc. 

Liberty Polyglas, Inc. 

Marble Falls (owned by Gould Shawmut) 

Marley Cooling Tower Co. 

Morrison Molded Fiber Glass (Bristol) 

Morrison Molded Fiber Glass (Twinsburg) 

Robroy Industries, Inc. (Verona, PA) 

Structron Corp. 

W.H. Brady U.S.A, Inc. (Camden Rd) 

Wayne Manufacturing Co. 

Number of 

Pultrusion 

Lines 

43 

11 

5 

8 

44 

1 

6 

24 

19 

7 

7 

8 

27 

7 

5 

11 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

50 

6 

1 

51 

2 

2 

29 

4 

1 

3 

% HAP 

neat resin plus 

833.0 

484.1 

192.6 

964.6 

5288.9 

99.2 

517.9 

104.5 

740.4 

1775.1 

554.0 

354.0 

262.1 

446.1 

39.1 

132.6 

59.3 

114.7 

1753.4 

76.1 

41.0 

4428.6 

92.0 

134.0 

638.0 

329.4 

67.0 

54.7 

58.1 

45.3 

45.5 

40.7 

34.8 

40.0 

49.0 

45.8 

40.7 

41.0 

41.5 

40.7 

41.7 

40.0 

39.8 

40.0 

36.3 

41.3 

36.9 

38.0 

37.3 

30.9 

Filler 

(tpy) a 

1945.7 

79.8 

129.4 

31.0 

44.5 

57.3 

310.2 

230.3 

20.5 

70.2 

2.4 

166.0 

531.0 

190.0 

165.0 

81.9 

100.0 

49.7 

0.0 

84.7 

.0.0 

847.6 

13.0 

0.0 

1256.9 

20.0 

46.0 

143.0 

94.6 

5.0 

0.0 

Reinforce. 

(tpv) 

17531 

790 

1281 

1000 

642 

129 

1444 

9106 

197 

1539 

192 

1495 

2955 

981 

850 

937 

901 

51 

262 

64 

189 

3482 

89 

41 

7334 

120 

180 

1289 

821 

65 

90 

Scrap 

(tpv) 

1201 

54 

88 

89 

55 

23 

131 

624 

14 

78 

12 

102 

244 

79 

59 

46 

62 

8 

16 

13 

13 

278 

9 

4 

602 

11 

18 

88 

50 

7 

6 

Existinc 

Pre-MACT 

Emissions 

(tov) b 

21.7 

4.6 

7.6 

40.8 

21.5 

10.7 

51.4 

198.3 

7.2 

29.3 

5.9 

37.7 

77.2 

27.7 

21.7 

15.0 

22.7 

2.0 

6.9 

3.0 

6.0 

87.7 

3.8 

2.0 

201.0 

4.8 

6.2 

26.3 

15.6 

3.1 

2.1 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 

Average 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 

Reinforcement/Resin Ratio 

390.0 30302.3 

12.6 977.5 

0.224 

1.6 

N/A 6,715.6 56,047.9 4,082.4 971.4 

40.7 216.6 1808.0 131.7 31.3 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 
P.98 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - no data provided 

Footnotes: 

a = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the average filler/n 

b = The EPA was unable to quantify the emission reduction achieved by facilities using the techniques of die injection, resin injectioi 

partially enclosed resin baths. Therefore, the current emissions values shown were not reduced to account for the emission red 

techniques. The use of these techniques was considered (qualitatively) when EPA ranked facilities within the pultrusion subcate 

c = Wet area enclosures were assumed to reduce emissions by approximately 80%. 
P.99 

i t a specific facility. 

be used. 

i exist. 

3 Source 

Post-MACT 

Emissions 

(tpy) b 

21.7 

4.6 

7.6 

9.7 

5.7 

2.2 

11.3 

61.7 

1.2 

6.0 

1.2 

8.6 

20.7 

6.5 

4.1 

3.1 

5.2 

0.5 

1.5 

0.7 

1.3 

20.5 

0.9 

0.5 

51.7 

1.1 

1.6 

7.4 

3.8 

0.8 

0.6 

274.1 

8.8 

Pre-MACT 

Emissions 

(lbs/ton) b 

5.0 

23.1 

23.4 

97.8 

88.8 

111.1 

106.5 

75.0 

145.2 

113.3 

113.6 

101.8 

87.0 

100.0 

122.4 

114.6 

101.8 

102.5 

103.7 

101.8 

104.2 

100.0 

99.4 

100.0 

90.8 

103.3 

92.4 

82.5 

95.0 

93.3 

77.3 

N/A 

N/A 

HAP 

Cleaner 

(tpv) 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

62.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

y 

0.0 

0.9 

0.0 

45.1 

2.0 

0.0 

0.0 

3.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

CBI 

2.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

10.0 

5.0 

130.7 

4.5 

Process 

Reduction 

Technioues c 

Temp, controlled low air flow, some die injection 

Some resin injection 

some resin injection 

Some covered/enclosed resin bath 

Partially enclosed baths 

Temp, controlled & covered baths with exhaust 

Partially enclosed baths with exhaust 

Carbon filters (assumed 0% capture and 0% device efficiency) 
p.1 

esin ratio from facilities with known filler quantities, 

n, temperature control, airflow management, and enclosed or 

luction achieved by facilities that use these emission reduction 

•sgory based on their emission control status. 
P.2 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Sheet Molding Compound (SMC) Manufacturing 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine actual emiss 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represen the facility's actual emissions and should therefore 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data basi 

Plant Name Comoound 

i«Md^teWSBiiMMiiaity^gWg!H*^B SMC 

GenCorp. Automotive, Inc. (Marion) SMC 

Budd Co. (Van Wert) SMC 

MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Linesville) SMC 

Piedmont Composites Div. 

Haysite Reinforced Plastics SMC/BMC 

Menasha Corp. (Watertown) SMC 

Zehrco Plastics, Inc. (Plant #2) SMC/BMC 

Aeroquip Inoac 

Applied Composites Corp. SMC 

American Acrylic Corp. 

Bailey Transportation Products, Inc. SMC 

Columbia Specialties, Inc. SMC 

Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (Grabill) SMC 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. SMC/ XMC 

Industrial Dielectrics, Inc. SMC/BMC 

Kenro, Inc. 

MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Plant #2 - Ashtabula) SMC 

Polyply, Inc. (Grand Haven) 

Premix / E.H.S., Inc. (North Kingsville, OH) SMC/BMC/TMC 

Robroy Industries, Inc. (Belding, Ml) 

Rockwell International SMC 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 

Average 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 

Reinforcement/Filler + Resin Ratio: 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values - no data.p.rpvided. 

Footnotes: 

Number 

of SMC 

Machines b 

2 

2 

24.0 

1.1 

1.67 

0.38 

Resin 

(tov) 

2815.2 

4407.4 

4987.8 

1212.1 

378.1 

51.0 

2418.7 

310.5 

1025.1 

2430.7 

242.5 

952.7 

1108.3 

3141.6 

1426.0 

113.0 

400.0 

1973.0 

217.0 

1426.0 

237.6 

77.6 

31351.8 

1425.1 

% HAP 

neat resin plus 

45.7 

47.4 

50.9 

50.0 

40.4 

41.0 

43.4 

43.5 

35.3 

37.0 

82.7 

50.2 

45.0 

73.2 

44.6 

39.9 

30.0 

11.8 

44.6 

44.6 

35.0 

45,8 

44.6 

Filler 

(tov) a 

5010.2 

7898.9 

8976.0 

2022.6 

826.0 

65.3 

3632.0 

742.5 

2552.6 

4356.4 

404.7 

1173.0 

2447.3 

5049.0 

2379.5 

130.0 

667.5 

799.0 

335.0 

2379.5 

340.3 

129.4 

52316.6 

2378.0 

a = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the average 

b= The EPA assumed that a facility has one (1) SMC machine when no information concerning the number of SMC machines 

c = The EPA was unable to quantify the following emission reduction techniques used by facilities n the SMC subcategory: 1 

wrap SMC charges, 2.) Folding edges of low permeability film to reduce evaporation of styrene (or applicable HAP), 3.) Cic 

Therefore, the current emissions values shown were not reduced to account for facilities that use these emission reduction 

EPA ranked facilities within the pultrusion subcategory based on their emission control status (with the exception of vapor s 
sions at a specific facility, 

e not be used, 

e may exist. 

P.3 

Existing Source 

Reinforce. 

(tpv) 

3378.2 

5253.0 

6742.2 

1215.8 

413.0 

43.7 

1739.2 

270.0 

1224.0 

1868.6 

120.0 

846.6 

615.9 

2917.2 

1430.4 

81.0 

401.2 

1041.9 

152.0 

1430.4 

186.4 

77.8 

31448.6 

1429.5 

Scrap 

(tpv) 

570.9 

896.0 

1040.1 

230.6 

84.6 

8.3 

415.2 

71.3 

251.4 

463.3 

42.4 -

152.9 

231.8. 

579.0 

271.2"' 

1^0 . 

76.1 

197.6 

37.7 

27i:2: 

4°:'3

-: 14.8' 

5963.6 

271.1 

Control 

Factor 

0.10 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

N/A 

N/A 

Pre-MACT 

Emissions 

(tpy) c 

3.4 

55.8 

67.8 

16.2 

4.1 

0.6 

28.0 

3.6 

9.7 

24.0 

5.4 

12.8 

13.3 

61.4 

17.0 

1.2 

3.2 

6.2 

2.6 

17.0 

2.2 

0.9 

356.4 

16.2 

Post-MACT 

Emissions 

(tpy) c 

3.4 

55.8 

67.8 

16.2 

4.1 

0.6 

28.0 

3.6 

9.7 

24.0 

5.4 

12.8 

13.3 

61.4 

17.0 

1.2 

3.2 

6.2 

2.6 

17.0 

2.2 

0.9 

356.4 

16.2 

Pre-MACT 

Emissions 

(lbs/ton) c 

2.4 

25.3 

27.2 

26.7 

21.6 

21.9 

23.2 

19.9 

18.9 

19.8 

44.2 

26.8 

24.0 

39.1 

23.8 

21.3 

16.0 

6.3 

23.8 

23.8 

18.7 

24.4 

N/A 

N/A 

HAP 

Cleaner 

(tpv) 

0.00 

0.00 

17.00 

13.50 

0.0 

0.00 

41.40 

9.9 

0.0 

40.00 

y 

11.54 

0.00 

34.11 

y 

3.00 

0.0 

24.0 

CBI 

0.0 

0.00 

filler/resin ratio from facilities with known filler quantities. 

; present at the facility is available. 

I.) Use of a film with a low permeability to styrene (or applicable HAP) to 

ssing or covering the doctor box, and 4.) Use of vapor suppressants, 

techniques. The use of these techniques was considered (qualitatively) when 

suppressants). 
P.4 

Process 

Reduction 

Techniques c 

Fold Edges, Nylon, Closed Doctor Box 

Fold Edges, Cover Doctor box 

Fold Edges, Nylon 

Nylon & VSR 

Nylon 

Nylon 

Nylon 

Fold Edges 

Fold Edges 

CBI 
P.5 

Bulk Manufacturing Compound (BMC) Manufacturing 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine actual emissions at 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore not be 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base may e 

Rank Plant Name Compound 

1 Allied Moulded Products, Inc. BMC 

2 Fibercast Co. BMC 

3 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Plant #1 - Ashtabula) Wet Mix 

4 Cytec Industries (American Cyanamid) BMC 

5 Piedmont Composites Div. 

6 Rockwell Plastic Products (Newton, NC) 

7 Kenro, Inc. 

8 Bulk Molding Compounds, Inc. 

9 Ryobi Motor Products Corp. 

10 Glastic Corp. (South Euclid) BMC 

11 Premix / E.H.S., Inc. (North Kingsville, OH) SMC/BMC/TMC 

12 Haysite Reinforced Plastics SMC/BMC 

13 Industrial Dielectrics, Inc. SMC/BMC 

14 Zehrco Plastics, Inc. (Plant #2) SMC/BMC 

15 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Linesville) Wet Mix 

Resin 

(tpv) 

1,207 

% HAP 

neat resin plus 

30.0 

50.0 

16.2 

Projected Total (including assumed values): 

Average: 

Filler/Resin Ratio: 

Reinforcement to Resin + Filler Ratio: 

20709.4 

1380.6 

4.00 

0.2 

38.4 

82807.8 

5520.5 

82,808 

17841.7 

1189.4 

1213.6 

80.9 

Control Status Date and Assumptions: 

Fibercast' s incinerator has a capture efficiency of 100% and a destruction efficiency of 95%. 

Glastic's carbon filter system has an overall control efficiency of 0.0% 

Legend 

Assumed values - no data provided 

a = Filler quantities for facilities that indicated filler use but did not quantify the amount were determined by using the average filler/re: 
a specific facility. 

;used. 

••xist. 

P.6 

Existing Source 

Pre-MACT 

Control 

Factor 

1.00 

0.05 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

Pre-MACT 

Emission Factor 

(% of Avail. HAP) 

0.25% 

3.10% 

0.50% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.50% 

0.50% 

0.50% 

0.50% 

0.50% 

0.50% 

0.50% 

0.50% 

0.50% 

Pre-MACT 

Control 

Factor 

1.00 

0.05 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

Post-MACT 

Emission Factor 

(% of Avail. HAP) 

0.25% 

3.10% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

0.25% 

Pre-MACT 

Emissions 

(tpv) 

0.91 

0.06 

1.68 

1.32 

0.04 

0.38 

0.60 

2.06 

15.73 

2.54 

2.59 

0.12 

3.05 

0.10 

1.49 

Post-MACT 

Emissions 

(tov) 

0.91 

0.06 

0.84 

1.32 

0.04 

0.38 

0.30 

1.03 

7.86 

1.27 

1.29 

0.06 

1.52 

0.05 

0.75 

32.7 

2.2 

32.7 

17.7 

1.2 

;in ratio from facilities with known filler quantities. 
P.7 

Process 

Reduction 

Technigues 

Closed/Covered (Assumed No Active Venting) 

Catalytic Oxidizer (95% Control), Actively Vented 

No Data (Assumed Open Mixing, No Active Venting) 

Mixer Modifications 

Closed/Covered Mixer & VSR 

Closed/Covered (Assume No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing (Assumed No Active Venting) 

No Data (Assumed Open Mixing, No Active Venting) 

No Data (Assumed Open Mixing, No Active Venting) 

Carbon Filters (0% Control), Assume Open Mixing, No Active Venting 

CBI (Assumed Open Mixing, No Active Venting) 

Partially Enclosed Mixers 

No Data (Assumed Open Mixing, No Active Venting) 

No Data (Assumed Open Mixing, No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing (Assumed No Active Venting) 
P.8 

Mixing Operations - Ranking Database 

Important Notes: 

This datebase only contains facilities for which the Adminis 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

on 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

Plant Name 

Crane Kemlite (Jonesboro - formerly BP Chemicals) 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Elizabethtown) 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Lancaster) 

p In h f -nUt Iri. 

j i 1 irT R f- G<» 

R D A»r P ** i 

O f i J CMP Ir 

C It Cu p 

Bw i M«»mih*-*ui i u f i 

Er 11 B I i n t 

R il * S P ti *.pj.l jtft 

Ui/4l * In-H* t I i ft, 

Hastings Reinforced Plastics - Viatec (Hastings) 

Applied Composites Corp. 

Universal-Rundle Corp. (Union Point) 

Bremen Glas, Inc. 

A-1 Fiberglass, Inc. 

Advance Transformer Co. (Boscobel) 

AGCO, Inc. 

American Acrylic Corp. 

American Slate and Marble of Hickory, Inc. 

Americh Corp. (Charlotte, NC) 

Americh Corp. (Hollywood, CA) 
P.9 

42 An-Cor Industrial Plastics, Inc. 

43 Aqua Glass Corp. (Adamsville) 

44 Armorcast Products Co. 

45 Arrowhead Plastic Engineering, Inc. 

46 Ashworth Plastic Products 

47 Associated Plastics, Inc. 

48 Astoria Industries, Inc. 

49 Bathcraft, Inc. 

50 Bedford Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

51 Bittner Industries, Inc. 

52 Brunnel Products of Florida, Inc. 

53 Budd Co. (Van Wert) 

54 Builders Marble, Inc. 

55 Capital Marble Creations, Inc. 

56 Capon Valley Marble, Inc. 

57 Cedar Manufacturing, Inc. (Bremen Glas) 

58 Charloma Fiberglass, Inc. 

59 Clark Manufacturing 

60 Crane Kemlite (Joliet) 

61 Dom-Fab (DFI Pultruded Composites) 

62 Eagle Craft, Inc. 

63 Electric-Glass, Inc. 

64 Eljer Plumbingware (Wilson) 

65 Emsig Manufacturing Corp. 

66 Fiber Pad, Inc. 

67 G. W. Fiberglass, Inc. 

68 General Marble Co. (Hornell) 

69 Glasstite, Inc. 

70 Great Lakes Plastics Corp. 

71 Hartzell Fan, Inc. (Bldg 275) 

72 Holiday Rambler Corp., Plant 36 and 37 

73 Industrial Linings, Inc. 

74 International Marble, Inc. 

75 International Reinforced Plastics 

76 Iten Industries 

77 Jason Industries, Inc. (Elkhart, IN) 

78 Kenro, Inc. 

79 Kerrico Corp. 

80 Krueger International, Inc. 

81 Laminated Products, Inc. 

82 Leer East, Inc. 

83 Leer Midwest 

84 Lippert Corp. 

85 LL Cultured Marble 

86 M. C. Gill Corp. 

87 Marbelite Corp. 

88 Marble Falls (owned by Gould Shawmut) 

89 Marquis Corp. 

90 McClure Industries, Inc. 

91 Mesa Fully Formed, Inc. 

92 Mr. Tubs, Inc. 

93 Murphy Body Co. 
P.10 

94 Non Metallic Resources, Inc. 

95 Nordic Fiberglass, Inc. (Devils Lake) 

96 Nordic Fiberglass, Inc. (Warren) 

97 Nova Group, Inc. 

98 Oasis Industries, Inc. 

99 Odom Fiberglass, Inc. 

100 Olympic Fiberglass Industries, Inc. 

101 Osborne Industries, Inc. 

102 Parthenon Marble Products, Inc. 

103 Piedmont Composites Div. 

104 Piedmont Fiberglass, Inc. 

105 Plas/Steel Products 

106 Plastic Development Co. 

107 Polymer Concrete Corp. 

108 Resolite 

109 Rockwell International 

110 S.W.C. Industries, Inc. (Swirl-Way Div.) 

111 Sherman Poles 

112 Specialty Plastics, Inc. 

113 Structron Corp. 

114 Sunrise Fiberglass Corp. 

115 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Anaheim) 

116 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Cordele) 

117 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (South Boston) 

118 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Three Rivers) 

119 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Yelm) 

120 Tomkins - LASCO Panel Products (KY) 

121 Tri-City Marble, Inc. 

122 United Panel, Inc. 

123 Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Jacksonville) 

124 Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Southampton) 

125 Wildon Industries, Inc. 

126 Yankee Plastic Co. 

127 Belding Tank Technology (D & R Fabrication, Inc.) 

128 Hess County Industries of WV, Inc. 

129 ACME Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

130 Baja Products Ltd. (Salisbury) 

131 Baja Products (Tucson) 

132 CDR Systems Corp. (Corcoran) 

133 CDR Systems Corp. (Palatka) 

1 34

 ,« 

135 Ecowater Systems 

136 Enduro Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 

137 

138 F htft I 

139 TJF i/f U. I 

140 Fiberflex, Inc. 

141 Fiberglass Products, Inc. 

142 Fowler Manufacturing, Inc. 

1 43

 « 

144 Global Glass, Inc 

145 GPICorp. 
P.11 

146 Haysite Reinforced Plastics 

147 Hood Manufacturing, Inc. 

148 Kalwall Corp. 

149 

150 Menasha Corp. (Watertown) 

151 Radiant Marble Co. 

152 Rockwell Plastic Products (Newton, NC) 

153 mwmFawmm„mmwm 

154 St. Mary's Marble, L.L.C. 

155 Superior Home Products 

156 Vendura Industries, Inc. 

157 Wayne Manufacturing Co. 

158 

159 Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 

160 Glasgo Plastics, Inc. 

161 I. M. Pena, Inc. 

162 Century Marble Co., Inc. 

163 20th Century Fiberglass, Inc. (Plant #4) 

164 A. R. E., Inc. (Mount Eaton) 

165 ABC Industries, Inc. (Grand Junction, CO) 

166 ABC Industries, Inc. (Wallace, ID) 

167 ABC Industries, Inc. (Winona Lake, IN) 

168 Accent Marble Co., Inc. (Houston, TX) 

169 Accra Industries, Inc. 

170 Accurate Glass, Inc. 

171 Acme Fiberglass, Inc. 

172 Aero Transportation Products 

173 Aeroquip Inoac 

174 AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Plymouth, N Oak Rd) 

175 AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Plymouth, Pidco Dr) 

176 Alliance Equipment Co. 

177 Allied Moulded Products, Inc. 

178 Altec Industries, Inc. (Midwest Oper.) 

179 American Bluegrass Marble Co., Inc. 

180 American Marble Co., Inc. 

181 American Reinforced Plastics 

182 Ameron, Inc. (Burkburnett) 

183 AmtechCorp. 

184 Arrow Dynamics, Inc. 

185 Athena Marble, Inc. 

186 Attbar Plastics, Inc. 

187 Austin Countertops, Inc. 

188 Bailey Transportation Products, Inc. 

189 BaltekCorp. 

190 Beaver Motor Coaches, Inc. 

191 Beden-Baugh Products, Inc. 

192 Beetle Plastics, Inc. 

193 Blue Dolphin Fiberglass Pools 

194 Bolfing Brothers Marble, Inc. 

195 Bradley Specialties Corp. 

196 Bulk Molding Compounds, Inc. 

197 Cameo Marble 
P.12 

198 Carolina Counters 

199 Carsonite International Corp. 

200 Central Marble Products, Inc. 

201 Century Manufacturing Co. 

202 Coastal Engineered Products, Inc. 

203 Columbia Specialties, Inc. 

204 Comtech Antenna Systems, Inc. 

205 Concept Plastics, Inc. 

206 Contemporary Products, Inc. 

207 Country Coach, Inc. 

208 CR/PL Ltd. Partnership (Newartesian Ltd. Partnership) 

209 

210 

211 Cultured Marble Products, Ltd. 

212 Custom Fibreglass Manufacturing Co. 

213 Custom Marble, Inc. 

214 Dasco Pro, Inc. 

215 Delta Fiberglass & Environmental Products, Inc. 

216 Dow Chemical (Russellville, AR) 

217 E-TM Enterprises, Inc. 

218 Eljer Manufacturing (Valdosta) 

219 Elmore Truck Accessories, Inc. 

220 Epoch Industries 

221 Faball Enterprises of Utah, Inc. 

222 Fiberglass & Plastic Fab., Inc. 

223 Fiberglass Engineering Corp. 

224 Fibergrate Corp. 

225 Fibrenetics, Inc. 

226 Fibrex Corp. 

227 Foremost Interiors, Inc. 

228 General Marble Co. (Guasti) 

229 General Marble Co. (Lincolnton) 

230 Gesmar Corp. 

231 Glasteel Industrial Laminates 

232 Gorman-Rupp Co. 

233 Grayson Tool Co. 

234 Gruber Systems, Inc. 

235 H & R Industries, Inc. 

236 Hasbrouck Plastics, Inc. 

237 HEMCOCorp. 

238 Heritage Marble of Ohio, Inc. 

239 Hy-Tec Fiberglass, Inc. 

240 IKG Industries 

241 IMCO Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

242 Industrial Dielectrics, Inc. 

243 Industrial Fiberglass Specialties, Inc. 

244 International Grating, Inc. 

245 Jason International, Inc. (N. Little Rock, AR) 

246 Johnson Truck Bodies 

247

:

 KBK Industries, Inc. 

248 Kohler Co. 

249 Larson Co. 
P.13 

250 Liberty Polyglas, Inc. 

251 Livingston, Inc. 

252 Lund Industries, Inc. 

253 

254 Marble Designs, Inc. 

255 Marble Works, Inc. 

256 Marblecast Products, Inc. 

257 McClarin Plastics, Inc. 

258 

259 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Adelanto) 

260 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Linesville) 

261 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Plant #1 - Ashtabula) 

262 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Union City) 

264 Mincey Marble Manufacturing, Inc. 

265 Molded Plastic Industries, Inc. 

266 Morrison Molded Fiber Glass (Bristol) 

267 Morrison Molded Fiber Glass (Twinsburg) 

268 National Fiber Glass Products, Inc. 

269 New England Plastic Coated Products, Inc. 

270 New York Blower Co. (Plant #2) 

271 Niagara Fiberglass, Inc. 

272 Norton Performance Plastics Corp. 

273 Nova Marble Products 

274 Oasis 

275 Omega Pultrusions, Inc. 

276 Owens-Corning (Auburndale) 

277 Owens-Coming (Mount Union) 

278 Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Bakersfield) 

279 Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Conroe) 

280 Owens-Coming Tanks (Valparaiso) 

281 Pearl Baths, Inc. 

282 Perma Grain Products, Inc. 

283 Picken's Plastics, Inc. 

284 Pillings F.R.P. 

285 Pinta's Cultured Marble, Inc. 

286 Plas-Tech, Ltd. 

287 Plasti-Fab, Inc. 

288 Plastic Composites Corp. 

289 Polyply, Inc. (Grand Haven) 

290 Primero, Inc. 

291 Prototype Concepts, Inc. 

292 Quazite Co. 

293 R&D Marble 

294 Raven Industries, Inc. (Sioux Falls) 

295 Red Ewald, Inc. 

296 Robroy Industries, Inc. (Belding, Ml) 

297 Robroy Industries, Inc. (Verona, PA) 

298 Roma Marble, Inc. 

299 Ryobi Motor Products Corp. 

300 S. R. Smith, Inc. 

301 Schmitt Marble Products 
P.M 

302 Shenandoah Fiberglass Products Co. 

303 Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Little Rock) 

304 Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Wichita) 

305 Southeast Marble, Inc. 

306 Space Tables, Inc. 

307 Specialty Plastics Associates, Inc 

308 St. Croix of Park Falls, Ltd. 

309 Structural North America 

310 Sunset Plastics, Inc. 

311 Synmar, Inc. 

3 12

 US 

313 Teco, Inc. 

314 Tiffany Marble Manufacturing, Inc. 

315 Ultra/Glas of Lakeville 

316 United States Marble, Inc. 

317 United Technologies Motor Systems 

318 Universal Plastics, Inc. 

319 Universal-Rundle Corp. (New Castle) 

320 Universal-Rundle Corp. (Ottumwa) 

321 Velasco Scale Co. (Plastics Div.) 

322 Venetian Marble, Inc. (Helotes, TX) 

323 Venetian Marble, Inc. (Richmond, VA) 

324 W.H. Brady U.S.A, Inc. (Camden Rd) 

325 W.H. Brady U.S.A, Inc. (Cameron Ave.) 

326 Water Heater Innovations, Inc. 

327 Western Recreational Vehicles, Inc. 

328 William Kreysler & Associates, Inc. 

329 Wilson Marble Co. 

330 Xenon Co., Inc. 

331 Zehrco Plastics, Inc. (Plant #2) 

332 Composites USA, Inc. 

333 Aqua Bath Co., Inc. 

334 Aqua Glass Corp. (Klamath Falls) 

335 CDR Systems Corp. (Waynoka) 

336 Custom Fiberglass Molding, Inc. 

337 Dixie-Pacific Manufacturing Co. 

338 Fiber-Tech Industries 

339 Henderson, Black & Green, Inc. 

340 Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Moapa) 

341 Florida Line of Astatula, Inc. 

342 Xerxes Corp. (Anaheim) 

343 Xerxes Corp. (Avon) 

344 Xerxes Corp. (Lakeland) 

345 Xerxes Corp. (Seguin) 

346 Xerxes Corp. (Tipton) 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 
P.15 

Footnotes: 

Facilities were not included in the MACT floor determinatior 

(3) they only reported closed molding with either SMC or Bf 
P.16 
P.17 

•trator has information. Other facilities not included in this data base may exist. 

Emission Reduction 

Technigues On Mixers 

Thermal Oxidizer (95% Control) 

Thermal Oxidizer (95% Control) 

Carbon Filters (assumed 42.5% Control Efficiency) 

C!'.: •.oU'Covwsd ;Fnily &*TJ M WI. taita Vfcntinf**} 

G'ou-d Govur&d iCwi-tplefrfy C:L;.*M Ourarj Mituv} Wt, A>:*iv<v Vwi*m{iJ 

CtPV*fcCtw«t«J {!*> V«s*!f Gat*. «t» ArttV* V«*«a^gi 

Cl i v.tl'CTJWtiJ (No Vibitilf Gaps, •Shaft Staled W/Bo-iinys,, f Je Attivii tfentiiv)! 

GI-rswf/GovfirfJ IWH ••/•:,.il(» -l^pj,. fJo Activi* -itentiiK}} 

Cloi.0d/C«V3re*i (No VttiUti Gap* Shaft boaliil wat-arm*}* Wo Activo VbMiri'jj 

Closed Civ tied (No VAIU I Gap? No Active Vnnt-ngi 

i'J M-I •H.-./.-.r^ i INI VI". !'k CI.1| . NM -'ti. - 7*i " -iqi 

MiX'ii-J .n Ct:m-Jet£-ly CIllCJ C^*tinl] M.Ww •« 

C:*T£t-'f'Cover*Kl iW'W'rtciin? Fur Skit, 'f5 \ Cru/e.-f'l N:> A'Ttiv;* Vt-ntingj 

Clu>t4t?('ver«1 {W/Nott-h'-.-e, Foi Shaft No Attn-? Voi-tiny} 

Cfe.-ied'Cevc.-f ed (No Attii/o Venting) 

Cic wct'C'Wi'i'jd {Mi.fl Fuliy i.'.-nifi "Tr-mo HJVJI '£ 5" Srwft Holij 

Mix-np in 55 g*»llon diun-s tfufugn bun^o-fr, 1/4 »o Hi gap vtwrt rn/ing thift. no jo&vo venting 

r

,WKl*f-..iii' 1 .i'(\ ¥<r*i IJ.itrlt : Fi<r m.-4<»'. 

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS^ 

Closed/Covered W/Notches For Shaft 

Closed/Covered (IL Rule) 

Closed/Covered (Except When Adding Filler) 

Closed/Covered (8"X8" Fill Opening) 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 
P.18 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

No Mixing (Inject. Molding Only w/ BMC), Closed/Covered for Comp. Molding w/ Resin 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 
P.19 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Some Open and Some Closed 

Internal Mix Chopper Gun 

Internal Mix Chopper Gun 

Increased Use Of Closed Mixers 

Increased Use Of Closed Mixers 

Partially Enclosed Vented To Atmosphere 

Covered Until Access Needed 

Fully Enclosed W/Forced Air Exhaust 

Enclosed Mixing Vault 

Closed/Covered (1994) 

Enclosed Gel Coat Mixer (No Other Mixing) 

Closed/Covered (Whenever Possible) 
oooooo o 

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 

ZZZZZZZZZZ Z 

oooooooooo o 

3333333333 3 

CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDC D 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Z 

oooooooooooooooo o 

3333333333333333 3 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo CDCDCDCDCDQCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCo D 

•O*O*OTJ*O*O*D*D*D*D*D*D*D*D*O*OT;*D*O*D*D*D*D*D*D*D*O*DT!*OTJ*O*O*D*O 7 CDCDCDCDCDCDQCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDcDCDCDCDcDCDCDCDCDcDCDCDCDCD^ * 33333333333333333333333333333333333 § 

3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 5 ' 3 * 5 ' 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 5 ' 5 ' 5 ' 3 * 5 * 3 * 3 * m* 

COCOCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCOCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCOCQCOCQCOCOCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQ o 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C 

C/>C/)C/>CnCnCAC/>CAC/)C/)CACAC/)CnC0C/)C/)C/>C0CAC0C0G)C/)C/>Cf)C/>C/>C/>C/>t'lC/>C/>C/]C/>3 . 

<n<ntn(fl<fl<fltfl<flUi<nuiUiU)(n<n<naitnuiUi<flu>t/}tfl(/it/iViti}U></it/iu>ui<nuyi ~ 

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCo o 33333333333333333333333333333333333 £ 

CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCpCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDC D w 

CLa.CLO.<^a.a.CLCLa.a.CLCLa.a.a.a.CLQ.Q.Q.Q.Q.a.a.CLCLa.a.a.a.a.a.a.Q. ^ 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 3 

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ^ 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>§ • 

S.S.3.S.3.S.S.3.3.S.3.S.3.S.S.S&S£iSl&S.&S.S.3.£.3.S.S.S.S.S.SlQ.o D 

<* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* <* 7n 

CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDcDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDC D <L* <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< < CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDC D 

3333333333333333333333333333333333 3 

5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5* 5* 5* 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 5* 5' 5' 

CQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCOCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQC Q 

<n 

O 

3 

CD 

5" 

CD 

CV) 

o 3 

CD 

T" 

CD 

W 

d 

cu 

m 

X CD 

to 

o 
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Z 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o 

33333333333333333333333333333333 3 

CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDcDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDC D 

ZZZZZ Z 

ooooo o 

3 3 3 3 3 3 

CD CD CD CD CD CD 

: O O 

: 3 3 

; CD CD CD CD 

ZZZZZZ Z 

oooooo o 

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO l 

T3T]t!TJ*DT!TJt)*OTIt]T!TJ*DTIt)*D*D*D*0*D*D*0*OTI'OTIT!*DTITIT!TJTJXJ*n*D"OT I 

CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDC D 

33333333333333333333333333333333333333 3 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

s 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

-J 

CO 

2 

X 

3 

CO 

2 

X 

C-> O 

2 

X 

3 

CO 

2 

X 

3 

CO 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

CO 

2 

X 

3 

CO 

2 

X 

3 

CO 

2 

X 

-1 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

£ 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

co 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

CO 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

2 

X 

3 

CQ 

> > 

cn co 

> > 

cn cn > > 

c/> cn 

> > 

cn cn cncncncncncncncncnc n 

3 3 

CD CD 

O O 

> > 

3 3 

CD CD 

z 

o 

3 3 

CD CD 

Q . O . 

H Z 

o o 

> > 

Q. Q. 

3 

CD 

O. 

z 

o 

> 

o 

3 3 

CD CD 

> > 

cn cn 

co cn 

c c 

3 3 

CD CD 

Q . Q . 

z z 

o o 

> > 

o o 

> > 

cn co 

> > 

CO CO 

> > 

cn CO c/> cn co co c/> 

3 3 

CD CD 

3 3 

CD CD 0.0.0.0 . 

z 

o o o o 

> > > 

o o o 

> > 

o o 

> > 

CO CO 

CO CO 

c c 

3 3 

il il 

z z 

o o 

> > 

> > > 

co cn cn 

co co cn 

c c c 3 3 3 

CD CD CD 

Q. Q. Q. 

Z Z Z 

o o 

> > 

O 

> 

O 

> > 

cn cn 

cn cn 

c c 

3 3 

CD CD 

Q . Q . 

z z 

o o 

> > 

o o 

> > 

cn cn 

3 3 

CD CD 

> > 

cn cn 

cn cn 

c c 

3 3 

CD CD 

Q . Q . 

> > 

cn co 

> > 

en cn 

3 3 

CD CD . . 

Q. Q. Q. Q. 

3 3 

CD CD 

> > > 

cn en cn 

cn cn co 

c c c 

3 3 3 

CD CD CD 

Q . Q . Q . 

O O O 

> > > 

Q. Q. **" 

OOOOOOOO O 

>>>>>>>> > 

< oooooooo o 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< en 3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< cn 3 

< 

CD 

< m 3 

< 

CD 

< ro 3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC O 

3 3 3 

CQ CO CO 

3 

CQ CO 

j OOOOOOOOOO O 

iT3 •0-OT3T3T3T3T3T3-OT 3 

'CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDC D 

; 3 333333333 3 

X 

3 

CO 

X 

3 

CO 

X 

3 

CO 

X 

3 

CO 

X 

3 

CO 

X 

3 

CO 

X 

3 

CO 

X 

3 

CO 

X 

3 

CO 

X 

3 

CO 

X 

3 

CO 

• ; > > 

i cn 

: c 

; 3 

; CD 

: o. 

; Z 

: O 

;> 

: o 

> > 

en cn c>>>>> n cn cn cn > 

cn 

c 

3 

CD 

O. 

z z 

O O 

> > 

o o 

cn 

c 

3 

CD 

O. 

> 

.. cn 

cn cn 

CD CD 

Q. Q. 

O O 

> > 

o o 

o o o 

> > > 

o o o < 

CD 

< ro 3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< m 3 

< 

CD 

< (D 

3 

< 

CD 

< ro 3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

< 

CD 

< Cl) 

3 

< 

CD 

< CD 

3 

CO CO CO CO CQCQCQCOCQCQCQCOC Q 

.; 3333333333 3 

^CQ CQCOCQCOCQCQCQCOCOC O 

Tl 

ho 
P.22 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open Mi 

Open Mi 

Open Mi 

Open Mi 

Open Mi 

Open Mi 

Open Mi 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

Open M 

xing 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

xing, 

xing, 

xing 

xing 

xing 

xing 

xing 

xing 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

xing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

xing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

xing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

ixing, 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

No Act 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Act 

No Act 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Act 

No Act 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

No Acti 

Venti 

Vent 

Vent 

Vent 

Venti 

Vent 

Vent 

Vent 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Vent 

Vent 

Vent 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

Venti 

ing) 

mg) 

mg) 

mg) 

ing) 

mg) 

ing) 

ing) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ing) 

ing) 

ing) 

ing) 

ing) 

mg) 

mg) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ng) 

ing) 

ing) 

ing) 
P.23 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Mixing in open 55 

No Date 

No Date 

No Data 

No Data 

No Date 

No Data 

No Data 

No Data 

Open Mixing, 

Open Mixing, 

Open Mixing, 

Open Mixing, 

Open Mixing, 

Open Mixing, 

Open Mixing, 

Open Mixing, 

Open Mixing, 

Open Mixing, 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Assumed 

No Active 

No Active 

No Active 

No Active 

No Active 

No Active 

No Active 

No Active 

No Active 

No Active 

Venting) 

Venting) 

Venting) 

Venting) 

Venting) 

Venting) 

Venting) 

Venting) 

Venting) 

Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

Open Mixing, Assumed No Active Venting) 

gallon drums through drum bunghole, no active venting 

(Assumed Open Mixing & No Active Venting) 

(Assumed Open Mixing & No Active Venting) 

(Assumed Open Mixing & No Active Venting) 

(Assumed Open Mixing & No Active Venting) 

(Assumed Open Mixing & No Active Venting) 

(Assumed Open Mixing & No Active Venting) 

(Assumed Open Mixing & No Active Venting) 

(Assumed Open Mixing & No Active Venting) 

No Mixing (Internal Mix Gun Only) 

f* J O i J i--** / if l t * 

». 1 » » 1 la 

t -J tt J ** yi-M-itr' 

1 1 #» 4 \\ 

G ». f C i *. t P I J 
P.24 

i for mixing if (1) no use of filler and no mixing data were reported, (2) they claimed mixing data to be CBI, or 

MC prepared by other facilities (making mixing unnecessary). 
Cleaning Operations 

Important Notes: 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data 

Existing Sources 

Rank Plant Name 

1 20th Century Fiberglass, Inc. (Plant #4) 

2 A-1 Fiberglass, Inc. 

3 A. R. E., Inc. (Massillon) 

4 A. R. E., Inc. (Mount Eaton) 

5 ABC Industries, Inc. (Grand Junction, CO) 

6 ABC Industries, Inc. (Wallace, ID) 

7 ABC Industries, Inc. (Winona Lake, IN) 

8 Accent Marble Co., Inc. (Houston, TX) 

9 Accra Industries, Inc. 

10 Accurate Glass, Inc. 

11 Acme Fiberglass, Inc. 

12 ACME Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

13 Advance Transformer Co. (Boscobel) 

14 Aero Transportation Products 

15 Aeroquip Inoac 

16 AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Martinsburg) 

17 AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Plymouth, N Oak Rd) 

18 AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Plymouth, Pidco Dr) 

19 Alliance Equipment Co., Inc. 

20 Allied Moulded Products, Inc. 

21 Altec Industries, Inc. (Midwest Oper.) 

22 American Marble Co., Inc. 

23 American Reinforced Plastics 

24 Americh Corp. (Charlotte, NC) 

25 Americh Corp. (Hollywood, CA) 

26 Ameron, Inc. (Burkbumett) 

27 Amtech Corp. 

28 An-Cor Industrial Plastics, Inc. 

29 Appalachian Plastics, Inc. 

30 Aqua Bath Co., Inc. 

31 Aqua Glass Corp. (Adamsville) 

32 Armorcast Products Co. 

33 Arrow Dynamics, Inc. 

34 Ashworth Plastic Products 

35 Associated Plastics, Inc. 

36 Astoria Industries, Inc. 

37 Athena Marble, Inc. 

38 Austin Countertops, Inc. 

39 Bailey Transportation Products, Inc. 

40 Baja Products (Tucson) 

41 Baja Products Ltd. (Salisbury) 

42 Baltek Corp. 

43 Beaver Motor Coaches, Inc. 

HAP Containing 

Cleaner Usage 

(tov) 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Control 

Factor 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

Pre-MACT 

HAP Emissions 

(tpv) 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Post-MACT 

HAP Emissions 

(tpv) 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 
ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp.pppppppppppppppopopp p 

oooooooooooooooooooo o 

pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppoooooooooooooo o 

oooooooooooooodoooooooooooooooo'oooooooooooooooo'oooo o 

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o 

o 

pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppooooooooooop p 

ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd d 

in ^g 

o o. 

TJ 

CD 

cj £ 

c 

CD 

tr 

CO a ) 

eo -S 

co -g 

o > CO 

cn 

8 9-

~~. o 

o> O 

CO 

• a 

_g , _ 

3 S i ja >. 

G) 

3 

CO 

CD 

s I 

73 "O 

CD CD 

m m 

<? « c LL !r, S 

C . = TS .— r- t 

CO TJ 

*aj £ 

<D 5 

co m 

3 

C CO 

^ o m m 

eg 

o 

CD 

- O- .„ 

ro c/3 O 

"~ c 

CD 

E 

CD 

cu 13 

o 2 

CD CD CD 

• n 

r 

CD 

CD 

.Q 

II 

n 

CJ 

CO 

CJ 

3 

T I 

O 

a. 

_ 

C 

3 

co 

CD n 

c 

CO CD 

O * 

CQ ca 

o o 

o o 

-o -o 

T> TJ 

3 3 

CO CO 

CD 

O 

E _ 

1 | 

.C > 

r c 

o CO 

S- ^-

d d 

O O 

T3 TJ 

TJ TJ 

3 3 

CQ CQ 

— i c 

» CO 

CO 

o ca 

E

 K 

O ^o 

• ) e3> 

" •§ -^ -S 

CD 2 v 2 

3 ~ 

CD O 

e- 5 

• o y 

£ O O 

-. -s y . 

CD C 

S . Q Q -

CC 03 O 

2 E ° 

J £ i 

> •= >< 

§ § w 

a . £ EC 

co -* 

c ^ 

S3 co 

_eg 

CD 

c 

CD 

E 

CD 

« *=m • c 

Q. 1^ "-

ca eo Q _ „ 

OOOO O 

c « 

~*. o 

c ^ 

o 

£ » 

O) c 

o c — 

n 

CD 

n Mar rai 

c Cl) 

O 

3 

*c .cy 

3 

CO 

>> 

£> 

3 

C 

Cl) 

O 

o 

O 

CD 

.O 

CO 

1» 

&• 3 

r cl) 

O 

o 

o 

CD 

"5 

o 

I -

•> 

c 

.Q ^ »r- tn CD 

Q. O 

CD 

CJ 

c 

co 

- C 

~ <••"•" 2 

O) CD £ 

c ^ 

' ^ CO < 

* o (0 

io a 

3 C/J "** 

eo .2 

5

 E 

i5 o 

2 

CO o a. 

E 

o 

E 

ro 

to 

>. 

W 

co 

c 

c 

< 

c I 

|2 

o 

3 

"O 

p 

oooooooo o 

CD a. 

QL E 

>, « 

S -

o iS 

Q. C 

E <B g 

C C i_ 

o o o 

O O O 

o 

O 

jS <n 

.2 8 

I E 

E CD 

JC 

O 

a. 

m 

.>. 

ro 

£ 

o 

ro J| 

2 

CO *> 

ca 

Z 

_>. 

a> 

E 

o 

CD 

CO _ -

CQ a> 

o 

O 

O - S=. .C O 

o 

. a 

<n 

CD 

c 

o 

- ^ ± : 3 

- * o 

eo cn o 

c 

eo 

.9 .2 

eo co 

•jg o S i= B -c 

. 5 CO 

o O 

£• 

*c 

_ 3 

o o 

O o 

3 

Q . 

CD 

> 

CO CO 

CD CD 

OOO O 

eo fg 

eo — 

co 

O) » 

2 -S 

JD CO 

i l 2 

E E 

•8 S 

CO CO 

3 3 

o o 

3 

T3 

O 

C 

CD 

E 

c 

o 

*> 

c 

UJ 

oS 

CO 

CO 

_cg 

O) 

CD 

.a 

i i . 

C/) o 

92 r. 

cj 

co 

o 

O 

eo ±: ±: 

co CD 

O Q 

2 

o 

to 

CO 

JS 

O) 

•w ^ CO N 

Tf Tf 

CO O) O i - CN 

• « * II) I O H I 

IO CO r- co 

in m 

o y- CM co 

co co co co S

m CD r~ co 

CO CO CO C D 

OlO'-IMntlOIONCOOO'-C M 

•OSSSSSSSSSSflOflOC O 

co Tf m co r-. 

oo co oo co co 

ooooT-cvicOTti n 

00COO>O)O)O)C*0O ) 
P.27 

96 Eagle Craft, Inc. 

97 Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (Grabill) 

98 Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (Huntington) 

99 Eagle-Picher Plastics Div. (Ashley) 

100 Eckler Industries 

101 ED Industries, Inc. (Sportsman Pickup Covers) 

102 Electric-Glass, Inc. 

103 Eljer Manufacturing (Valdosta) 

104 Elmore Truck Accessories, Inc. 

105 Emsig Manufacturing Corp. 

106 Enduro Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 

107 Epoch Industries 

108 Ershigs, Inc. (Biloxi), Formerly LaValley Construction Co. 

109 Evelands, Inc. 

110 Fiber Pro (formerly Great Dane Trailers Indiana, Inc.) 

111 Fibercast Co. 

112 Fiberflex, Inc. 

113 Fiberglass Industries, Inc. 

114 Fiberglass Plus Recreational Industries, Inc. 

115 Fiberglass Specialties, Inc. 

116 Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 

117 Fibre Body Industries, Inc. 

118 Fibrenetics, Inc. 

119 Fibrex Corp. 

120 Fleetwood (Decatur - formerly Gold Shield) 

121 Fleetwood (Fontana - formerly Gold Shield) 

122 Florida Line of Astatula, Inc. 

123 Foremost Interiors, Inc. 

124 Fowler Manufacturing, Inc. 

125 Frankfort Plastics 

126 GenCorp. Automotive, Inc. (Marion) 

127 GenCorp. Automotive, Reinforced Plastic Div. (Ionia) 

128 General Electric Distibution and Control 

129 General Marble Co. (Guasti) 

130 General Marble Co. (Lincolnton) 

131 GesmarCorp. 

132 GHM, Inc. 

133 Gibbon Fiberglass Reprod., Inc. 

134 Glas Master, Inc. (Plant #1) 

135 Glas Master, Inc. (Plant #2) 

136 Glasforms, Inc. (Birmingham) 

137 Glasforms, Inc. (San Jose) 

138 Glasspec Associates, Ltd. 

139 Glasstite, Inc. 

140 Glasteel Industrial Laminates 

141 GMC (Inland Fisher Guide Div.) 

142 GPICorp. 

143 GPM Industries, Inc. 

144 Grayson Tool Co. 

145 Great Lakes Plastics Corp. 

146 Gruber Systems, Inc. 

147 H & R Industries, Inc. 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 
P.28 

148 Hartzell Fan, Inc. (Bldg 275) 

149 Hasbrouck Plastics, Inc. 

150 Hastings Group, Inc. - Viatec (Belding) 

151 Haysite Reinforced Plastics 

152 HEMCOCorp. 

153 Heritage Marble of Ohio, Inc. 

154 Hess County Industries of WV, Inc. 

155 Hood Manufacturing, Inc. 

156 Hydro Systems, Inc. 

157 Hy-Tec Fiberglass, Inc. 

158 IKG Industries 

159 Images Products Corp. 

160 IMCO Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

161 Industrial Linings, Inc. 

162 International Grating, Inc. 

163 International Marble, Inc. 

164 Iten Industries 

165 Jason Industries, Inc. (Elkhart, IN) 

166 Jason International, Inc. (N. Little Rock, AR) 

167 Johnson Truck Bodies 

168 Kalwall Corp. 

169 Kearney/Western Power Products 

170 Kenro, Inc. 

171 KerricoCorp. 

172 Kivett's, Inc. 

173 Kohler Co. 

174 Kreider Manufacturing, Inc. 

175 Krueger International, Inc. 

176 Larson Co. 

177 LaValley Industries, Inc. (Vancouver) 

178 Lawrence Wittman & Co., Inc. 

179 Leer East, Inc. 

180 Leer Midwest 

181 Liberty Polyglas, Inc. 

182 Livingston, Inc. 

183 LL Cultured Marble 

184 Lund Industries, Inc. 

185 M. C. Gill Corp. 

186 Mac Molding Co., Inc. 

187 Magnum Plastics, Inc. 

188 Marble Creations, Inc. (Foreman Industries, Inc.) 

189 Marble Designs, Inc. 

190 Marble Products Co. 

191 Marble Works, Inc. 

192 Marblecast Products, Inc. 

193 Marquis Corp. 

194 McClarin Plastics, Inc. 

195 McClure Industries, Inc. 

196 Melcher Manufacturing Co., Inc. 

197 Menasha Corp. (LEWISystems) 

198 Mesa Fully Formed, Inc. 

199 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Adelanto) 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.75 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

• 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 
io ro ro ro 

CJl 01 A ^ 

-» o co oo 

io ro INJ ro fc fc fc fc 

v l O) Ul fc 

IO IO fc fc 03 ro 

ro io io io 

fc 03 03 OJ 

o CD 00 v l 

IO IO IO 

u u u 

O) CJl fc 

IO IO 

01 u 

03 IO 

IO IO 

03 03 

-f o 

MMMMMMM M 

MMMMMMM M 

CD00vlO3CJlfcO3 M 

M M M 

M M - » 

_•. o CD 

MMMMMMMMMMM M 

_I._V_»_»_L_»_I_I_IOO O 

OOvlOCTIfcOJM-'OCOOOv l 

M M M 

O O O 

O) CJl fc 

M M 

O O 

03 M 

n 

§ 

CD ner o 

o 

oi 

N 

te o 

o 

o 

>£ 

CD 

o 

o 

3 

O 

CD 

o 

Q. 

CD 

o 

O 

•o ° 

a* & 

"0 

O 

co "< en eo 

> 

o 

o 

CD 

3 

* O 

o 9 § s 

O O 

m "S 

TJ 

ffl 

8L 

o i i 2? 

_ T l S 

3 y 

3 * = 

ffl = 

3 io 

Q. 

o 

o 

ffl 

CT 

CD 

T) 

0 

o. 3" 

o 3 

Tl 

CT 

0 

U> 

Tl 

0 

o. 3-

o 3 

o 

o 

-t T) 

O 

en -ien v 

O 

<* 

to s ^ 

CO 0 

- 3 

3 -

P 3 

O 

TJ Tl 

0 0 

3 a 

O ffl 

ffl =>• 

3 

Tl 

3 

Q. 

ffl 

CT 

0 

•v 

3 

Q . 

c 

o 

en* 

T3 

ffl 

CO 

o 3 

> 

cn 

T ) 

ffl 

e> 

H 

ffl 

3 

OOO O 

•s s s s 

0 0 0 0 

3 3 3 3 

CO CO CO CO 

6 6 6 6 

ooo o 

iii l 

3 3 3 3 

CO CQ CQ CO 

O O 

3 1 

-g 

o' 

B» 

O 

o 

" CT CT 

IJ. ID ID 

en co CO 

ffl ffl* 

< en co 

ffl o oo 

O IS 

•£ 

o 

c 

3 

c 

3 

o* 

3 

= CT 

3 ? 

eo cg_ 

O* ffl 

3 cn 

eo cn 

• T 3 

3 

Q . 

ffl. 

0 

Q. 

c 

ffl A 

~ o 

0 

0 

o 3. 2. 

a 

z 0 < 

ffl Marble • 0 

O. 

c 0 

CO 

Z 

O < 

0Group) 

, 3 

0 

z 0 rto n Perfor =1 

iu 

3 Plastics C 

z 

n rth west Bo 0 . 

en CO 

p 

z 0 rth Americ i

-

CO tin3 -

g Co., 1 

z 0 rd c Fiberg oi 

CO 

CO 

c_ 

. (Warre 

z 0 rd c Fiberg tu 

cn 

CO 

c3 

. (Devils 

z 

n n Metallic JU 

0 

cn 

n ces, Inc. 

7 iagara Fiber co 

to 

en nc. 

z 

en S ort Lam 3 

U) 

0 

CO 

Z 

ffl tio nal Fibe O 

o> CO Product CO s 

:? 

•h3 

y Body 0 

^ ubs

H 

, Inc 

o 

- 3 

o 

3 

o. 

Q . 

0 

Q . 

CT 

0 

O 

3 

CO 

CT 

Ide Q. 

Tlast) i 

acl CD ecr

TJ e 

O cu — —: " 3 ° 3 9- 3 

o 

o 

C ffl 

3

 31 

T ) CT 

3 ? 

Q_ CQ 

Q 

c_ 

c 

ffl 

3 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb b 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 

pppppooooooooppppoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo p 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb b 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb b 

10 

CO 
uuu u 

ooo o 

U M -f- O 

M M 

CO CD 

CD 00 

MMM M 

CD CO CO CD 

v l O CJl fc 

M M 

CO 00 

O CD 

MMM M 

00 03 00 00 

00 - J 03 CJl 

MMM M 

00 00 00 00 

fc U M - » 

MMMM M 

03 v l v | v l v l 

O CO 00 v | 03 

M M 

- J v l 

Ol fc 

MMMMM M 

- J v l v l v l 03 03 

cj ro -

1

 o co oo 

MMMM M 

O) 03 03 03 O) 

03 CJl fc U M 

M M M 

03 03 Ol 

-fs O CD 

MMM M 

CJl Ol 01 01 

00 v | 03 Ol 

M M M 

01 CJl CJl 

fc U M 

< C 

0 3 

If 

a i 

0 

o 

0 

ffl fl) 0) 

_ o 

3 

C3 

I D S 

0 

Q . 

-\ ID C3 

CT 

P 

o ffl 

o 

3 3 

O. O. 

0 0 

O O 

O O 

"O T3 TJ 

c o z 

5 *=* 2 

O != S 

=> | o 

o ffl co 

a ~ if 

c c c 

T) 

ffl 

en o . 

o ° en co 

o 

o 

—i 

Cfl 

• < £2-

<& 

3 

CO 

C 

T l 

cr* 0 

"9. 

ffl 

eo 

ffl co 

• 7 

<. 3 

-H -H 

< I 

-H 0) 

§ 1 

» CO 

X "= 

a

 p 

3 

3 

O * 

CO 

g 

<* 

3 

o" 

3 

CO 

TJ 

3 * 

CO 

CO 

cn eo eo 

£ 5 

CO 

o 

o 

TJ 

ffl 

3 

0 

- g ffl ffl 

O O 

3 3 

3* 3* 

cn co i £ 

CO Cfl 

o o 

o o 

CD CD 

ffl ffl 

o O O 0 

3 3 3S 

3 3 ^ => =• 

f " I T O 

3" ffl * 

> > I ! <S 

CO Cfl CT 5 . 

O O <» 

O O o 

H -H CO Cfl 

0 ffl >< • < 

C3 • < 3 3 

P O CD 3 

— ^ . 2 . ffl 

~ 3 

Q. 

C w 

CO CO 

Cfl CO 

c c 

0 CO 

— a 

3 _ TJ 

iu *. u. M* >" If. Q) 

o 

Q. 

3" 

s 

ffl 

.-^ o - © ffl 

fff^ 

-< 

N 

ffl 

CT 

<*

 CD

 3 

0-^- 0 

w I 

O > 

O 3 

-* ffl 

Q- =r 

a 0 

-2- 3 

- "• » — cn 3 en 

f O 

o 

CO Cfl Cfl 

f a ? 

0 o V ci 

0 3 

a o 

-o ° 

3 ? 

Q. 

3 

co 

c 

3 

las ' 

CO 

O 

—i 

o 

c 

TJ 

co co 

ffl ~ 

I! 

8! » 

CT 

0 

CO CO 

Q S 

O 0 

as TJ O 

ffl ^ 

CO CO CO CO 

JD TJ TJ TJ 

0 0 

p 0) 

co co 

CT 

— S - •>*"• 

2 8 

en 3 

P rB 

0 ffl. cn 

O 3 CT 

O Q) 13. 

- I S -1 

O o =*. 5 

0 eo o ^ 

Q . > , 3 • *D 

o> 

T3 

Q.' 

0 

3 

ffl 

3 

Q. 

O 

ffl 

ZT 

co co co 

0 0 

n o> 

"2. a o ffl 2, 

ffl 

a II 

CT* 

3 **$ 

p CO 

ffl 

CO 

CO 

TJ 

3 

O. 

Q 

*u 

0 

3| 

3" 

3 

0 

Q. 

T l 

cr* 

0 

Q. CQ 

o 

3 

O 

o 

JJ 

c 

CT 

cr 0 

S» 

m 

S 3 _y co -_ s. 

0 

0 

3 -

c 

o en 

5 » *-• -**• c 

=r P 

Cfl 

s 

i 

>< 

D 

C3 

> 

TJ 

-g. 

° \2 o o? 

o x. 

en Z 

0 

O 

eo _ 

S 0 * 

0 Q . 

-<" 5 * 

3 = 

P 2 

- v 9 . 

00 Q. 

0 0 

5 els ' T l 

co 5* 

— "Q. 

**—' ffl 

3) 

ffl < 

0 

3 

3 " 

Q. 

C 

O 

o 

Cfl 

o' 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb b 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO . OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop p 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb b 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb b 

Tl 

CO 
P.31 

304 

305 

306 

307 

308 

309 

310 

311 

312 

313 

314 

315 

316 

317 

318 

319 

320 

321 

322 

323 

324 

325 

326 

327 

328 

329 

330 

331 

332 

333 

334 

335 

336 

337 

338 

339 

340 

341 

342 

343 

344 

345 

346 

347 

348 

349 

350 

351 

352 

353 

354 

355 

Venetian Marble, Inc. (Helotes, TX) 

Vertex Plastics, Inc. 

W.H. Brady U.S.A, Inc. (Camden Rd) 

W.H. Brady U.S.A, Inc. (Cameron Ave.) 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Jacksonville) 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Southampton) 

Wayne Manufacturing Co. 

Western Recreational Vehicles, Inc. 

Wildon Industries, Inc. 

William Kreysler & Associates, Inc. 

Wilson Marble Co. 

Wilson Marble Co. 

Yankee Plastic Co. 

Zane's Fiberglass Shop, Inc. 

Allen Group (Crown Fiberglass) 

American Acrylic Corp. 

American Bluegrass Marble Co., Inc. 

Cytec Industries (American Cyanamid) 

E-T-M Enterprises, Inc. 

Fiber-Tech Industries, Inc. 

Fiberglass Forms, Inc. 

Fibergrate Corp. 

General Marble Co. (Hornell) 

Global Glass, Inc. 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 

Gorman-Rupp Co. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B Rockwell International 

Shakespeare Co. 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (South Boston) 

Ebonite International, Inc. 

Eljer Plumbingware (Wilson) 

International Paper (Hampton) 

International Paper (Odenton) 

Premix/ E.H.S., Inc. (North Kingsville, OH) 

Xerxes Corp. (Anaheim) 

Xerxes Corp. (Avon) 

Xerxes Corp. (Lakeland) 

Xerxes Corp. (Seguin) 

Xerxes Corp. (Tipton) 

Xerxes Corp. (Williamsport) 

American Standard 

Aqua Glass Corp. (Klamath Falls) 

CDR Systems Corp. (Waynoka) 

Custom Fiberglass Molding, Inc. 

Dixie-Pacific Manufacturing Co. 

FG Products, Inc. 

Henderson, Black & Green, Inc. 

Premix/ E.H.S., Inc. (Hartford, IN) 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Moapa) 

R & D Marble 

American Slate and Marble of Hickory, Inc. 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

• °° 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

. 1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 
fc fc fc 

O O O 

v l 03 Ol 

CO 

0 0 

3 <3 

T l CO 

CT "S 

fc fc fc fc 

OOO O 

fc U M - ' 

fc u 

O eo 

o eo 

U 

CO 

03 

u w CO CO 

v | O) 

u CO 

CJl 

u u CO CO 

fc u 

(O 

CO 

M 

ffl 

3 Pol CD 

CO 

ffl 

CO 

T l due ts, 3 

O 

lity Pla Ctic

O s 3 

p 

Dld

2 e n Fib 0 

O assC 

Q ? 

, eg_ 

ffl 

cn 

O O 

l l 

CD O 

5- ° 

CO " 3 

3 * * 

$ "^ 

0 0 

Tl » 5 o 3 3 

2 

ffl 

uuu u 

CO CD 00 00 

- ^ o CO 00 

> CO 3 

Q 3 a. 

8 | | 

=r s a 

CT 

0 

2 

ffl 3-

a 

0 

o 

§ f ffl 

00 

0 

0 a* §•* 

en CJ _ i 

a- ca i 

> » 2 

3 CO 0 

2 en Q . 

ST?- ? 

ffl a § 

ffl £ 

s i /-» 

0 

S 7> 

0 

o 

o 

uuuu u 

00 00 00 00 00 

v | 03 CJl fc U 

| s 

= -n •? 

» CO -

CT 

ffl 

s 

3 

c 

3 § 

oi co 

3 " _ 

H 

0 

o 

3T 

3 

o_ 

o 

eo •< 

"3 

Bo 

•Jf 

T l 

ffl 

CT 

en co. 

ffl 

ffl 

3 _ 

^*" 3- Hr 

en 

en 

H 3 

3 . >< 

Q 8 

0 

ffl § • 

a i 0 a 

oi 

p c 

3* 

co 

O 

o 

O rQ. 

<J O 

3 3 

1 Tl 

2

 CT' 

O. 0 

c -* 

en co^ 

ffl 

B w S a 8 » g 0 

CO 

— o 

3 Q. 

O c 

O 

CO 

T3 " _ 

Cfl 

ffl •< 

0 

2 

m 

3 

-o - _ a 

j ? £ 

CT 

UUUU U 

00 00 vl vl vl 

-^ O CO 00 vl 

u 

v | 

03 

U U 

v | v | 

CJl fc 

CO 

v l 

U 

CJ 

v l 

M 

0 § • 

a 2 

en ^ 

o co 

en

 < a 

- _ -H 

o S 

0 

O m I 

5. en a 

o CT 5 ; 

3 . co ffl 

— >< 

m 

o 

2 

o> 

< O 

a 

ffl cn 

co co 8 o 

! T3 

u 

03 

ffl 

3 

a. 

u 

v l 

B eo 

CD" O ' 

O -<" 

o 

uuuuu u 

v l v l 03 0*3 O) O) 

- » O CO 00 v | 03 

—- P " 

2 Z 

ffl g 

o' m 

O co 

i s 

*CT Q . 

3 § • 2 

o -i 2 * 

ffl 

o a 

CO 

CA 

J) 

0 

£ -n 2 

O Q 

O ffl 

ffl CO 

O 

p 

3 

o' 

3 

o 

•3*' 

o 

o. 

c 

0 

o 

0 

o. 

2 

ffl 

< 

a 

0 

o 

ffl 

u O) 

Ol 

CO 

CT) 

fc 

UUU U 

U M - t O 

CO 

(Tl 

CO 

CO 

CJl 

oo 

CO 

01 

v l 

CO 

en O) 

I ffU 

ffl 0 

eo eo 

= •. o 

3 = : 

o o 

su Q> 3 a 

= : en 

3 _ 

ffl 3 

O en 

c =r 

a s* 

0 CO 

CO *" _ 

< — CD Tl 

^ ;» ?> CT 

0 O 

a- -n 

Cfl CT 

jS* 0 

0 <3 

CO ffl 

CO 

CO 

T l 

0 ffl 

i * « m 

> d 

CT m 

B 5 

^ >< 

2 

ffl 

o 

o < 

0 

3 

ffl 

CO 

ffl 

CT 

0 

JD CO 

3- 0 

3 S 

g 

ffl 

0 

0 

5' 

eo 

O 

O 

e 

CT 

vlOJCJlCJlCJlCJlfcf c 

boovibbbio b 

UUUUUUUUMMMMMMM-'-'-'-'-'- ' 

i»03UMMbbbbobwfcfcf-'bbobovicjioicj i 

-'-'-'-'-'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

fcbbbb^^^bojbbsbifcucocoMM'-'f-'f-'ff-' 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

vIOCJlCJlOlCJlfcfcUUUUUUUUMMMMMMM-'- ' 

bbovibbbMba)'^UMMbbbooc)6i'fcfcf-'bbob o 

-'-'-»-'-»-*-'-'-'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO p 

^bibibifcbbbbb^'vic)C)C)C)cjifcuuuMMf-'f-^ff^ :- ' 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb b 
P.33 

408 Oasis 

409 Conley Corp. 

410 KBK Industries, Inc. 

411 Superior Home Products 

412 Venetian Marble, Inc. (Richmond, VA) 

413 Dom-Fab (DFI Pultruded Composites) 

414 Ecowater Systems 

415 Arrowhead Plastic Engineering, Inc. 

416 Lippert Corp. 

417 Faball Enterprises of Utah, Inc. 

418 CR/PL Ltd. Partnership (Newartesian Ltd. Partnership) 

419 Cameo Marble 

420 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Plant #2 - Ashtabula) 

421 Polyply, Inc. (Grand Haven) 

422 Zehrco Plastics, Inc. (Plant #2) 

423 Crane Kemlite (Joliet) 

424 Dow Chemical (Russellville, AR) 

425 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Linesville) 

426 Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Little Rock) 

427 Applied Composites Corp. 

428 Menasha Corp. (Watertown) 

429 Morrison Molded Fiber Glass (Bristol) 

430 Glastic Corp. (South Euclid) 

431 Enduro Fiberglass (formerly W. R. Grace) 

432 G. W. Fiberglass, Inc. 

433 Industrial Dielectrics, Inc. 

Average of Companies Using Methylene Chloride: 

Projected Total: 

7.6 

8.16 

8.5 

9.0 

9.0 

10.0 

10.0 

10.1 

10.2 

11.0 

11.4 

11.5 

17.5 

24.0 

24.9 

25.0 

25.0 

27.0 

30.5 

40.0 

41.4 

45.1 

48.1 

58.0 

75.4 

100.0 

10.1 

807.1 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

7.6 

8.2 

8.5 

9.0 

9.0 

10.0 

10.0 

10.1 

10.2 

11.0 

11.4 

11.5 

17.5 

24.0 

24.9 

25.0 

25.0 

27.0 

30.5 

40.0 

41.4 

45.1 

48.1 

58.0 

75.4 

100.0 

10.1 

807.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Assumed values-nti&at'a'pfpvided 

Footnotes: 

Facilities for which no cleaning data were available were assumed to use no HAP containing cleaners. 
P.34 

i base may exist. 
P.35 

Storage of HAP Containing Materials 

Important Notes: 

This datebase only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities not included in this data bi 

Rank Facility Name 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

.....w& 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

A-1 Fiberglass, Inc. 

Alliance Equipment Co., Inc. 

Arrowhead Plastic Engineering, Inc. 

Eagle Craft, Inc. 

Elmore Truck Accessories, Inc. 

Emsig Manufacturing Corp. 

Ershigs, Inc. (Biloxi), Formerly LaValley Construction Co. 

Fiberglass & Plastic Fab., Inc. 

Fiberglass Products, Inc. 

Florida Line of Astatula, Inc. 

Foremost Interiors, Inc. 

G. W. Fiberglass, Inc. 

Glasforms, Inc. (Birmingham) 

Glasforms, Inc. (San Jose) 

Glasspec Associates, Ltd. 

Great Lakes Plastics Corp. 

Hartzell Fan, Inc. (Bldg 275) 

Hydro Systems, Inc. 

I. M. Pena, Inc. 

Industrial Linings, Inc. 

LaValley Industries, Inc. (Vancouver) 

Marble Works, Inc. 

Marley Cooling Tower Co. 

Mesa Fiberglass, Inc. 

Murphy Body Co. 

i New England Plastic Coated Products, Inc. 

Peterson Products 

Plastic Composites Corp. 

Rubber & Plastic Applicators 

S.W.C. Industries, Inc. (Swirl-Way Div.) 

Sequentia, Inc. (Grand Junction) 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Jacksonville) 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Southampton) 

Wildon Industries, Inc. 

Xenon Co., Inc. 

A. R. E., Inc. (Massillon) 

American Standard 

Tecton (Fargo) 

Enduro Fiberglass (formerly W. R. Grace) 

AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Martinsburg) 

Core Materials Corp. (formerly Navister International) 

Crane Kemlite (Jonesboro - formerly BP Chemicals) 

Glastic Corp. (South Euclid) 

International Reinforced Plastics 

Emission Reduction 

Techniques on 

Storaae Containers 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Closed/Covered (All) 

Incinerator (95% Control) 

Incinerator (95% Control) 

Incinerator (95% Control) 

Incinerator (95% Control) 

Incinerator (90% Control) 

Incinerator (90% Control) 

Incinerator (76% Control) 

Closed/Covered (Carbon Filters) 

Closed/Covered (Including 5 Gal Pails) 
P.36 

45 Applied Composites Corp. 

46 Accra Industries, Inc. 

47 Accurate Glass, Inc. 

48 Acme Fiberglass, Inc. 

49 ACME Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

50 Advance Transformer Co. (Boscobel) 

51 AGCO, Inc. 

52 AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Plymouth, N Oak Rd) 

53 AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Plymouth, Pidco Dr) 

54 Altec Industries, Inc. (Midwest Oper.) 

55 American Marble Co., Inc. 

56 American Reinforced Plastics 

57 American Slate and Marble of Hickory, Inc. 

58 American Technology & Research Ind., Inc. 

59 An-Cor Industrial Plastics, Inc. 

60 Appalachian Plastics, Inc. 

61 Aqua Glass Corp. (Adamsville) 

62 Armorcast Products Co. 

63 Ashworth Plastic Products 

64 Astoria Industries, Inc. 

65 Attbar Plastics, Inc. 

66 Austin Countertops, Inc. 

67 Bailey Transportation Products, Inc. 

68 Baja Products (Tucson) 

69 Baja Products Ltd. (Salisbury) 

70 Baltek Corp. 

71 Bathcraft, Inc. 

72 Bedford Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

73 Beetle Plastics, Inc. 

74 Belding Tank Technology (D & R Fabrication, Inc.) 

75 Bittner Industries, Inc. 

76 Bowie Manufacturing, Inc. 

77 Bradley Specialties Corp. 

78 Bremen Glas, Inc. 

79 Bristol Fiberlite Industries 

80 C & K Fiberglass Plastics, Inc. 

81 Cameo Marble 

82 Capon Valley Marble, Inc. 

83 Carolina Counters 

84 CDR Systems Corp. (Corcoran) 

85 Cedar Manufacturing, Inc. (Bremen Glas) 

86 Central Marble Products, Inc. 

87 Century Manufacturing Co. 

88 Century Marble Co., Inc. 

89 Ceramic Cooling Tower Co. 

90 Charloma Fiberglass, Inc. 

91 Clark Manufacturing 

92 Comtech Antenna Systems, Inc. 

93 Cor Tec Co. 

94 Creative Pultrusions, Inc. (Alum Bank) 

95 Custom Fibreglass Manufacturing Co. 

96 Custom Marble, Inc. 

Closed/Covered (IL Rule) 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 
P.37 

97 Cytec Industries (American Cyanamid) 

98 Dasco Pro, Inc. 

99 Delta Fiberglass Structures, Inc. 

100 Diamond Fiberglass Fabricators, Inc. 

101 Ecowater Systems 

102 ED Industries, Inc. (Sportsman Pickup Covers) 

103 Eljer Manufacturing (Valdosta) 

104 Evelands, Inc. 

105 Faball Enterprises of Utah, Inc. 

106 Fiber Pad, Inc. 

107 Fiber Pro (formerly Great Dane Trailers Indiana, Inc.) 

108 Fibercast Co. 

109 Fiberglass Engineering Corp. 

110 Fiberglass Industries, Inc. 

111 Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 

112 Fibergrate Corp. 

113 Fibrenetics, Inc. 

114 Fowler Manufacturing, Inc. 

115 Frankfort Plastics 

116 GenCorp. Automotive, Inc. (Marion) 

117 Gesmar Corp. 

118 Gibbon Fiberglass Reprod., Inc. 

119 Glasstite, Inc. 

120 Global Glass, Inc. 

121 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 

122 Gorman-Rupp Co. 

123 GPICorp. 

124 Gruber Systems, Inc. 

125 H & R Industries, Inc. 

126 Hasbrouck Plastics, Inc. 

127 Hastings Group, Inc. - Viatec (Belding) 

128 Hastings Reinforced Plastics - Viatec (Hastings) 

129 Haysite Reinforced Plastics 

130 H EMCO Corp. 

131 Hood Manufacturing, Inc. 

132 Hy-Tec Fiberglass, Inc. 

133 IMCO Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

134 Indian Industries, Inc. 

135 Industrial Fiberglass Specialties, Inc. 

136 International Grating, Inc. 

137 International Marble, Inc. 

138 Jason Industries, Inc. (Elkhart, IN) 

139 Kalwall Corp. 

140 KBK Industries, Inc. 

141 Kearney/Western Power Products 

142 Kenro, Inc. 

143 KerricoCorp. 

144 Larson Co. 

145 Lawrence Wittman & Co., Inc. 

146 LL Cultured Marble 

147 Lund Industries, Inc. 

148 Magnum Plastics, Inc. 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 
P.38 

149 Marble Creations, Inc. (Foreman Industries, Inc.) 

150 Marble Designs, Inc. 

151 Marble Falls (owned by Gould Shawmut) 

152 Marblecast Products, Inc. 

153 Marquis Corp. 

154 McClarin Plastics, Inc. 

155 Mesa Fully Formed, Inc. 

156 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Linesville) 

157 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Union City) 

158 Michiana Fiberglass, Inc. 

159 Millennium Products, Inc. 

160 Monarch Plastic, Inc. 

161 Morrison Molded Fiber Glass (Twinsburg) 

162 New York Blower Co. (Plant #2) 

163 Newport Laminates 

164 Non Metallic Resources, Inc. 

165 Nordic Fiberglass, Inc. (Devils Lake) 

166 Nordic Fiberglass, Inc. (Warren) 

167 Northwest Bodies, Inc. 

168 Norton Performance Plastics Corp. 

169 Nova Group, Inc. 

170 Oasis Industries, Inc. 

171 Odom Fiberglass, Inc. 

172 Olympic Fiberglass Industries, Inc. 

173 Omega Pultrusions, Inc. 

174 Osborne Industries, Inc. 

175 Pacific Tank, Ltd. 

176 Parkson Aeration & Fiberglas Corp., Inc. 

177 Parthenon Marble Products, Inc. 

178 Perma Grain Products, Inc. 

179 Phil Carter System, Inc. 

180 Piedmont Composites Div. 

181 Pillings F.R.P. 

182 Plas-Tech, Ltd. 

183 Plas/Steel Products 

184 Plastic Development Co. 

185 Prestigious Accessories, Inc. 

186 Quazite Co. 

187 R. D. Werner Co., Inc. 

188 Resolite 

189 Ryobi Motor Products Corp. 

190 S. R. Smith, Inc. 

191 Seal Reinforced Fiberglass 

192 Sherman Poles 

193 Simon-Telelect, Inc. 

194 Space Tables, Inc. 

195 Specialty Plastics, Inc. 

196 St. Mary's Marble, L.L.C. 

197 Standard Glas, Inc. 

198 Structron Corp. 

199 Sunrise Fiberglass Corp. 

200 Superior Home Products 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed\Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 
P.39 

201 

202 

203 

204 

205 

206 

207 

208 

209 

210 

211 

212 

213 

214 

215 

216 

217 

218 

219 

220 

221 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

228 

229 

230 

231 

232 

233 

234 

235 

236 

237 

238 

239 

240 

241 

242 

243 

244 

245 

246 

247 

248 

249 

250 

251 

252 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Anaheim) 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Cordele) 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Elizabethtown) 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Lancaster) 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (South Boston) 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Three Rivers) 

Tomkins - LASCO Bathware (Yelm) 

Tomkins - LASCO Panel Products (KY) 

U.S. Fiberglass Products, Inc. 

Ultra/Glas of Lakeville 

United States Marble, Inc. 

Velasco Scale Co. (Plastics Div.) 

Venetian Marble, Inc. (Helotes, TX) 

Venetian Marble, Inc. (Richmond, VA) 

VMC Fiberglass Products, Inc./Tri-Glas 

W.H. Brady U.S.A, Inc. (Camden Rd) 

W.H. Brady U.S.A, Inc. (Cameron Ave.) 

Wayne Manufacturing Co. 

William Kreysler & Associates, Inc. 

Yankee Plastic Co. 

Budd Co. (Carey) 

Budd Co. (Kendallville) 

Budd Co. (North Baltimore) 

Channel Master 

GenCorp. Automotive, Reinforced Plastic Div. (Ionia) 

General Electric Distibution and Control 

Mac Molding Co., Inc. 

Menasha Corp. (LEWISystems) 

Prodelin Corp. (Catawba Facility) 

Square D Co. (Cedar Rapids) 

Square D Co. (Lincoln) 

TRW - Trans. Electronics Div. (Union Springs) 

Zehrco Plastics, Inc. (Plant #1) 

Epoch Industries 

Owens-Corning (Auburndale) 

Owens-Corning (Mount Union) 

Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Bakersfield) 

Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Conroe) 

Owens-Corning Tanks (Valparaiso) 

R & D Marble 

Universal-Rundle Corp. (New Castle) 

Carsonite International Corp. 

Creative Pultrusions, Inc. (Roswell, NM) 

E-T-M Enterprises, Inc. 

Enduro Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 

Menasha Corp. (Watertown) 

Structural North America 

Syntechnics 

Fiberflex, Inc. 

Kohler Co. 

Leer East, Inc. 

Lippert Corp. 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

Closed/Covered 

SMC Stored W/Barrier Film 

SMC Stored W/Barrier Film 

SMC Stored W/Barrier Film 

SMC Stored Cold In Closed Containers 

SMC Stored In Nylon Film W/Folded Edges 

SMC Stored Cold In Closed Containers 

BMC Stored in Polyethylene Bags 

SMC Stored In Air Conditioned Room 

SMC Stored In Polyethylene Film 

Molding Compound Stored in Containers 

BMC Stored in Polyethylene Bags 

Molding Compound Stored in Sealed Bags 

SMC & BMC Stored W/Vapor Protective Barrier 

Closed/Covered (Transfer & Receiving) 

Closed/Covered (Receiving Tanks) 

Closed/Covered (Receiving Tanks) 

Closed/Covered (Receiving Tanks) 

Closed/Covered (Receiving Tanks) 

Closed/Covered (Receiving Tanks) 

ClosedXCovered (Tanks) 

Closed/Covered (Receiving Vessels) 

Closed Containers For Rags 

Closed Containers For Rags 

Closed/Covered (Scrap Resin & Cleaner) 

Closed/Covered (Rags & Cleaner) 

Closed/Covered (Rags) 

Closed/Covered (Scrap Resin) 

Closed/Covered (Scrap Resin) 

Refrigerated Enclosed Building 

Closed/Covered (All?) 

Closed/Covered (All?) 

Closed/Covered (All?) 
P.40 

253 Marbelite Corp. 

254 McClure Industries, Inc. 

255 Melcher Manufacturing Co., Inc. 

256 Red Ewald, Inc. 

257 Marble Products Co. 

258 Roma Marble, Inc. 

259 Shenandoah Fiberglass Products Co. 

260 Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Little Rock) 

261 Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Wichita) 

262 20th Century Fiberglass, Inc. (Plant #4) 

263 A. R. E., Inc. (Mount Eaton) 

264 ABC Industries, Inc. (Grand Junction, CO) 

265 ABC Industries, Inc. (Wallace, ID) 

266 ABC Industries, Inc. (Winona Lake, IN) 

267 Accent Marble Co., Inc. (Houston, TX) 

268 Aero Transportation Products 

269 Aeroquip Inoac 

270 Allen Group (Crown Fiberglass) 

271 Allied Moulded Products, Inc. 

272 American Acrylic Corp. 

273 American Bluegrass Marble Co., Inc. 

274 Americh Corp. (Charlotte, NC) 

275 Americh Corp. (Hollywood, CA) 

276 Ameron, Inc. (Burkbumett) 

277 Amtech Corp. 

278 Arrow Dynamics, Inc. 

279 Associated Plastics, Inc. 

280 Athena Marble, Inc. 

281 Beaver Motor Coaches, Inc. 

282 Beden-Baugh Products, Inc. 

283 Blue Dolphin Fiberglass Pools 

284 Bolting Brothers Marble, Inc. 

285 Brunnel Products of Florida, Inc. 

286 Budd Co. (Van Wert) 

287 Builders Marble, Inc. 

288 Bulk Molding Compounds, Inc. 

289 Capital Marble Creations, Inc. 

290 CDR Systems Corp. (Palatka) 

291 Chance Operations, Inc. 

292 Coastal Engineered Products, Inc. 

293 Columbia Specialties, Inc. 

294 Composites USA, Inc. 

295 Concept Plastics, Inc. 

296 Conley Corp. 

297 Contemporary Products, Inc. 

298 Continental Camper Co., Inc. 

299 Country Coach, Inc. 

300 Covermaster, Inc. 

CR/PL Ltd. Partnership (Newartesian Ltd. Partnership) 

Crane Kemlite (Joliet) 

Cultured Marble Products, Ltd. 

301 

302 

303 

304 Delta Fiberglass & Environmental Products, Inc. 

Closed/Covered (All?) 

Closed/Covered (All?) 

Closed/Covered (All?) 

Closed/Covered (All?) 

Some Open and Some Closed 

Closed/Covered (Some) 

Closed/Covered (Some) 

Closed/Covered (Some) 

Closed/Covered (Some) 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 
P.41 

305 Diamond Coach Corp. 

306 Dom-Fab (DFI Pultruded Composites) 

307 Dow Chemical (Russellville, AR) 

308 Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (Grabill) 

309 Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (Huntington) 

310 Eagle-Picher Plastics Div. (Ashley) 

311 Eckler Industries 

312 Electric-Glass, Inc. 

313 Ershigs, Inc. (Bellingham) 

314 Ershigs, Inc. (Wilson) 

315 Fiberdome, Inc. (Plant #1) 

316 Fiberglass Forms, Inc. 

317 Fiberglass Plus Recreational Industries, Inc. 

318 Fiberglass Specialties, Inc. 

319 Fibre Body Industries, Inc. 

320 FibrexCorp. 

321 Fleetwood (Decatur - formerly Gold Shield) 

322 Fleetwood (Fontana - formerly Gold Shield) 

323 General Marble Co. (Guasti) 

324 General Marble Co. (Hornell) 

325 General Marble Co. (Lincolnton) 

326 GHM, Inc. 

327 Glas Master, Inc. (Plant #1) 

328 Glas Master, Inc. (Plant #2) 

329 Glasgo Plastics, Inc. 

330 Glasteel Industrial Laminates 

331 Glastic Corp. (Jefferson) 

332 GMC (Inland Fisher Guide Div.) 

333 GPM Industries, Inc. 

334 Grayson Tool Co. 

335 Heritage Marble of Ohio, Inc. 

336 Hess County Industries of WV, Inc. 

337 Holiday Rambler Corp., Plant 36 and 37 

338 IKG Industries 

339 Images Products Corp. 

340 Industrial Dielectrics, Inc. 

341 Iten Industries 

342 Jason International, Inc. (N. Little Rock, AR) 

343 Johnson Truck Bodies 

344 Kivett's, Inc. 

345 Kreider Manufacturing, Inc. 

346 Krueger International, Inc. 

347 Laminated Products, Inc. 

348 Leer Midwest 

349 Lehigh Cultured Marble, Inc. 

350 Liberty Polyglas, Inc. 

351 Livingston, Inc. 

352 M. C. Gill Corp. 

353 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Adelanto) 

354 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Plant #1 - Ashtabula) 

355 MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Plant #2 - Ashtabula) 

356 MFG Justin Tanks, Inc. 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 
P.42 

357 Micro-Fab, Inc. 

358 Miles Fiberglass & Plastics, Inc. 

359 Mincey Marble Manufacturing, Inc. 

360 Miracle Recreation Co. 

361 Molded Plastic Industries, Inc. 

362 Morrison Molded Fiber Glass (Bristol) 

363 Mr. Tubs, Inc. 

364 National Fiber Glass Products, Inc. 

365 Niagara Fiberglass, Inc. 

366 North American Lighting Co., Inc. 

367 Nova Marble Products 

368 Oasis 

369 Oxford CMP, Inc. 

370 Pearl Baths, Inc. 

371 Picken's Plastics, Inc. 

372 Piedmont Fiberglass, Inc. 

373 Pinta's Cultured Marble, Inc. 

374 Plasti-Fab, Inc. 

375 Polymer Concrete Corp. 

376 Polyply, Inc. (Grand Haven) 

377 Primero, Inc. 

378 Prototype Concepts, Inc. 

379 Radiant Marble Co. 

380 Raven Industries, Inc. (Sioux Falls) 

381 Retterbush Injection Molded Fiberglass Corp. 

382 Robroy Industries, Inc. (Belding, Ml) 

383 Robroy Industries, Inc. (Verona, PA) 

384 Rockwell International 

385 Rockwell Plastic Products (Newton, NC) 

386 Rynone Manufacturing Corp. (Sayre Plant) 

387 Schmitt Marble Products 

388 Shakespeare Co. 

389 Southeast Marble, Inc. 

390 Spears Fabrication 

391 Specialty Plastics Associates, Inc 

392 St. Croix of Park Falls, Ltd. 

393 Sterling Plumbing Group, Inc. 

394 Style Crest Products 

395 Sunset Plastics, Inc. 

396 Synmar, Inc. 

397 Taylor Industries, Inc. 

398 Teco, Inc. 

399 Tiffany Marble Manufacturing, Inc. 

400 Tom Smith Fiberglass, Inc. 

401 Trail Wagons, Inc. 

402 Tri-City Marble, Inc. 

403 United Panel, Inc. 

404 United Technologies Motor Systems 

405 Universal Plastics, Inc. 

406 Universal Rundle Corp. (Union Point) 

407 Universal-Rundle Corp. (Ottumwa) 

408 Vendura Industries, Inc. 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 
P.43 

409 Vertex Plastics, Inc. None 

410 Water Heater Innovations, Inc. • None 

411 Western Recreational Vehicles, Inc. None 

412 Wilson Marble Co. None 

413 Zane's Fiberglass Shop, Inc. None 

414 Zehrco Plastics, Inc. (Plant #2) None 

Legend 

Facilities that comprise MACT floor 

Existing Source MACT Floor 

Footnotes: 

Facilities were not included in the MACT floor determination for material storage if (1) no data were reported for material sto 

(2) they claimed material storage data to be CBI. 
P.44 

ase may exist. 
P.45 

•rage or