p. 1

I Ii

I I

I 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 80 ) ll-E-4 0 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:05 AM

Sheet 80of 264 i

i !

i i

i

i iP. 2

» ' l ? * 0E7E 3 _ 3 o a B a 

### A-94-5 2

MEMORANDU M TO : Madelein e Strum

U.S . EPA/ESD/CCP G FROM : Gre g LaFla man d Ke n Meardo n Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) DATE : Apri l 29 , 199 6

P:\N40 4 SUBJECT : P-MAC T Tea mTeleconferenc e o n MAC T Floor s an d Relate d Issue s Plasti c Composite s NESHAP I . Purpos e Th e purpos e o f

th e meetin g wa s t o brie f

th e P-MAC T tea

man d th e EP A Wor

k Grou p o n th e preliminar

y MAC T floors and key issue s in settin g thes e floors, an d t o receiv e th e team' s feedback o n thes e determinations . JJ . Locatio n o f

Meetin g an

d Participant s Place : Date : Participants : U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , OAQPS/ES D N.C . Mutua

l Lif e Building , 11 mFir . conf . roo m Durham , N C Marc h 20 , 199 6 Moha n Balagopalan , Sout

h Coas t AQM D (909 ) 396-270 4 Bo b Burmark , Washingto n DO E (206 ) 407-681 2 LindaChappell , OAQP S (919 ) 541-2864 Lesly e Fraser , OG

C (202 ) 260-760 9 Bo b Goldberg , Washingto n DOE * Elen aGuilfoil , Washingto n DOE * LindaHerring , OAQP S (919 ) 541-535 8 Nor mKaplan , OR

D (919 ) 541-255 6 Gre g LaFlam , PE S (919 ) 941-033 3 JimLehmann , Mojav e Deser t AQMD * Mari aMalave , OEC A (202 ) 564-702 7 Stev e McNally , CF A (703 ) 524-333 2 Christin e McPhee , Ohi o EP A (216 ) 963-120 5 Ke n Meardon , PE S (919 ) 941-033 3 Arnol d Medbery , OSDB U (703 ) 305-517 1

/P. 3

Madeleine Strum Apri l 29 , 199 6 Pag e 2 Richar d Nielson , Clar

k County , N

V (702 ) 383-127 6 Nanc y Pate , OAQPS (919 ) 541-534 7 Ale x Santos , CARB * Joh n Schweitzer , Composite s Institut e (313 ) 668-470 3 Madeleine Strum , OAQP S (919 ) 541-238 3 * Thes e participant s ar e not regula r member s o f

th e tea mor Workgrou

p no r ar e the y EP A contractors . III . Discussio n Ms . Stru mbegan th e meeting by askin g al l participant s t o introduc e themselves . Sh e the n le d th e group throug h th e briefing packag e whic h ha d bee n distribute d t o th e tea

m a s a n enclosur

e t o th e meetin g notic e date d Februar y 29 , 1996 . Ms . Stru mreviewe d th e experienc e o f th e Emissio n Standard s Divisio n (ESD ) wit h the P-MAC T tea

mapproac h in thi s project . Sh e sai d tha t thi s industr

y i s larg e an d complicated , an d thi s ma

y hav e contribute d t o th e lo w leve l o f respons e fro

mtea m member s t o request s for

input . Therefore , i n light o f th e limite d resource s and shor t schedul e available , sh e note d tha t the P-MAC T approac h wa s being phase d ou t an d tha t th e projec t woul d b e continue d unde r amor e conventiona

l (non-P-MACT ) approach . Ms . Guilfoil expresse d concer

n b y asking whethe

r discussion s woul d stil l b e hel d o n th e issues , an d whethe r th e standard s woul d have th e neede d support . Ms . Stru mexpresse d th e hop e tha t ES D woul d no t

los e suppor

t in decidin g t o g o i n thi s direction . Sh e als o state d that sh e would continu e t o wor

k wit h tea mmember s o n an individua l basis . Ms . Strumproceede d t

o discus s the approache s considere d in determinin g th e bes t performin g facilitie s i n eac h subcategory , includin g th e calculatio n o f a"contro l status " (CS ) valu e to serv e a s an indicator o f the level o f

emissio n control . On

e tea mmember asked about

m e origi n o f

th e reductio n facto

r o f 0.6 0 for vapor-suppresse d resin s (VSR) . Ms . Strumsai d i t

wa s base d o n result s o

f ates t progra mconducte d by EPA/ORD , whic h foun d an emissio n reductio n figure o f 4 0 percent . Mr . Lehman n asked fo r th e tes t report , an d Ms . Strumsai d tha

t i t coul d b e requeste d fro

mORD . H e expresse d th e opinio n that mor e tha n "limited " dat aar e neede d t o suppor t astandard , an

d tha t limite d dat aar e "littl e bette r tha n nothing. " Mr . McNall

y sai d he share d thi s concern , an d sai d tha t th e CF A i s presently conductin g furthe r emission s testin g to measur e som e additiona

l variable s i n thes e processes . H e pointe d ou t ma t EPA' s AP-4 2 emissio n facto r documen t doe s no t addres s al l proces s variations . Finally , Mr . McNally note d tha t their metho d for

determin

in g th e leve l o

f contro l i s no t

tha t muc h differen t fromth e EPA' s method . Mr . Lehman

n state d that , in considerin g th e rol e o f filler, it s chemica

l characteris

tic s need t o b e examined . Wit h man y iner t fillers, an adsorptio n effec t occur s an d volatil e 

## Z -P. 4

Madelein e Stru m Apri l 29 , 199 6 Pag e 3 emission s fromth e resi n matri x ar e reduce d almos t

to zero . One participan t

aske d whethe r th e "summation " symbo l shoul d b e show n a t the fron t o f th e C S expression , an

d Ms . Stru manswere d yes , th e calculatio n woul d b e carrie d ou t for eac h separate combinatio n o f

resi n matri x an

d contro l scenario . Ms . Stru mstresse d tha

t th e projec t schedul e doe s no t

allo w waitin g for

additiona l data . Mr . Kapla

n asked whethe

r afacilit y woul d b e allowe d to demonstrate areductio n fo r VS R tha t woul d b e better

tha n th e EPA' s defaul

t value . Ms . Stru msai d tha t suc h a demonstratio n woul d probably b e allowed . Mr . Lehman n sai d tha t State s hav e alread

y take n thi s approach , wit

h th e burde n o

f proo f place d o n industry . Unde r th e subcategory-specifi c MAC T floor analyses , Ms . Strumfirs t

describe d th e floors for ope n molding . Mr . Goldber g aske d ho w th e databas e wa s collected , and suggested ' tha

t perhap s th e State s coul d supply amor e complet e dat abas e for

al l o f thei r facilities . Ms . Stru msummarized th e source s o f th e databas e (199 3 screenin g survey , sit e visi t reports , permits , phon e contacts , etc. ) and pointe d out tha t ver y fe w piece s o f

dat a wer e collecte d fro

mth e shor

t for mw e develope d fo

r State/loca

l agencie s o n th e P-MAC T team . Mr . Goldber

g asked tha

t th e EP A send th e dat

abas e fo r Washingto n Stat

e facilitie s t o him , an d h e woul d check i t over , compar

e i t to the State' s own data , an d provid e th e EP A wit h th e result s o

f hi s comparison . Mr . McNally asked whethe r th e ne w sourc e floor

o f 9 5 percent

reductio n repre sente d arequirement

fo r acontro l syste

mt o deteriorate "no

t a t all " over 1 0 years . Severa l participant s contribute d t o thi s discussion , wit

h mos t believin g tha

t incinerator s shoul d b e abl e to maintai n an essentially fixed contro l efficiency ove r thei r lifetim e (allowin g fo

r variation s du e to inle

t loading , etc.) . On

e participant

pointe d ou t

tha t th e standar d i s sometime s expresse d i n term s o f alimi t o n outlet concentratio n (suc h a s 2 0 ppm) , whic h i s no t

tie d t o inlet

concentration . Ms . McPhe e sai d tha t vendor s o f

incinera

tio n system s shoul d hav e datao n an y chang e i n their

performanc e leve l ove r

time . Mr . Schweitze

r claime d that , i n futur

e plan t expansions , th e cos t

o f th e add-o n contro l for

th e "ne w source " could fa

r outweig h th e expansio n cost . H e sai d tha t thi s for mo f technolog y simpl

y would b e to o expensiv e fo r som e operations , an d man

y woul d b e likel y t o relocate to Mexico . Th e ne w sourc e floor

o f 9 5 percent

contro l (add-ons ) woul d "put

alid " o n the abilit

y o f industr y t o grow . Mr . Schweitze r wante d t o kno w a

t th e meetin g whether

th e EP A feel s i t ha s n o flexibilit

y i n prescribin g thi s leve l o f contro l a s ne w sourc e MACT . I

f tha t wer e th e case , industr

y lobbyist s wer

e prepare d t o approac h lawmaker s i n Washington , D C abou t gettin g th e Clea

n Air Ac t changed . Ms . Herrin g indicate d that , if

there wer e operation s tha

t di d no t qualif y a s a"simila

r source, " ther e ma y b e some flexibility to mak e aseparat

e floor determinatio n fo

r thos e sources . Mr . Schweitze r fel t tha t th e industr

y i s to o complicate d to define simila r sources . Mr . Lehman n state d tha

t th e 1 5 facilitie s i n hi s Distric t ar e "as differen

t a s night an d day, " 

### 3P. 5

Madelein e Strum Apri l 29 , 199 6 Pag e 4 an d thei r onl y similarit y i s th e us e o

f styren e resins . Ms . Frase r indicate d tha

t th e EPA' s Offic e o f Genera l Counsel woul d b e examining the simila r sourc e issu e ove

r th e nex t coupl e o f months . Mr . Goldberg aske d whethe r th e subcategorie s coul d b e change d o r i f specifi c emissio n limitatio n number s coul d b e specified fo r eac h subcategory . Ms . Strum , i n response , aske d ho w th e subcategorie s woul d b e redefined . Mr . Balagopala n aske d whether th e "bes t o f th e best " criterio n take s contro l cost s int o account i n settin g th e ne

w sourc e MAC T floor . Ms . Herrin g sai d tha t cost s ma y influenc e th e leve l o

f th e standar

d whe n goin g abov e th e floor , bu t no t i n selecting th e floo

r itself . Ms . Strummentione d tha t subcategorizatio n by siz e (resi n use ) wa s bein g investigate d a s amean s o f analyzin g th e ope n molders ; however , on e ne w small facilit

y wa s installin g acontro l device . Wit h regar d to tw o o f

th e issue s cite d fo

r th e open moldin g subcategory , Mr . Schweitzer

state d tha t i n man y processe s filler

canno t b e use d withou t

compromisin g th e propertie s o f

m e product ; i n thes e instances , add-o n control s woul d hav e t o b e use d t o comply . Mr . McNally stresse d tha t application s usin g corrosion-resistan t resm s had sever

e limit s o n th e abilit

y to chang e th e formulation , sayin g tha t suc h achang e coul d mea

n tha t th e resi n formul awa s no longer corrosion-resistant . Ms . Stru msai d tha t w e woul d loo k

a t separatin g ou t

facilitie s usin g corrosion-resistant resin s (no t

fo r exemption , bu t

t o consider the mfor aseparat e subcategory) . Ms . Strumpointe d ou t

tha t fou r pultrusio n operation s ar e usin g contro l devices , an d tha t th e 4 7 percent

reductio n MACT floor

fo r existin g pultrusio n operation s (whic h reflect s contro l b y a

n incinerator) coul d apparentl y b e met throug h an equipmen

t standar d (we t are aenclosure) . Mr . Schweitze r pointe d ou t

tha t th e "median " MAC T floor facilit y (Owens-Corning ) i s losin g money . Mr . Nielso n asked ho w apultrusio n facilit y woul d demonstrate tha

t i t i s equivalent

i n contro l to th e media

n source . Ms . Strumstate d tha

t dat aar e no t

availabl e to calculat

e an existin g sourc e MAC T floo r for ge l coatin g operation s (ge l coat s hav e avariet y o f densities) . However , w e do hav e dat anecessar

y t o se t afloor fo r ne w sourc e ge l coatin g operations . Fo r continou s lamination/continuou s casting , Ms . Strumsai d ma t th e existin g sourc e MAC T floor

i s a4 9 percen t

reduction . Mr . Schweitze r aske d whethe

r control s installe d i n th e pas t

(such a s covers ) would b e counted towar d th e 4 9 percent

requirement , thu s raisin g th e issu e o

f a t wha t point i n tim e do credit s occu

r fo r existin g pollutio n preventio n measure s an

d add-o n controls . H e fel

t i t would b e absur

d fo r afacilit y t o hav e t o disconnec t

it s existin g control s in order t o demonstrat

e tha t i t had applie d ne

w control s o n to p o f som e "uncontrolled " situation . Mr . Goldber g als o wondere d about

th e time

fram e agains t whic h baselin e and controlle d scenario s woul d b e evaluated . Ms . Strum answere d tha

t thi s floor leve l wa s intende d t o b e applie d a s a4 9 percen t reductio n o f emission s throug h a

n abatemen

t devic e applie d t

o th e continuou s lamination/continuou s castin g processes . I n other words , acover

would no t get reductio n credit . Mr .

^P. 6

Madeleine Strum Apri l 29 , 199 6 Pag e 5 Schweitze r expresse d dissatisfactio n wit h thi s answer . Ms . Stru

mthe n acknowledge d tha

t ane w issu e ha

d bee n identified . Fo r BM C compounding , th

e Agency' s dat ahav e bee n revise d sinc e th e meetin g revie w packag e wa s distributed . Curren t ne w sourc e floo r

value s are 10

0 percen t captur e and 9 5 percent

control . Th e contro l devic e i n questio n i s als o use d fo r other composite s processe s a

t th e sam e facility . For

SM C compounding , arevise d ne w sourc e floo r

o f 9 0 percent (10 0 percen t

captur e an d 9 0 percen

t control ) ha s als o been specified sinc e th e meetin g revie w packag e wa s assembled . Thi s contro l devic e i s als o use d to contro l emission s frompaintin g operations . Mr . Goldber

g aske d ho w the suggested wor k practice s fi

t int o th e MAC T scheme . Coul d th e standard s consis t onl y o f wor k practice s wit

h n o othe r contro l limit s for

an y o f th e subcategories ? Ms . Strumresponded tha t th e wor k practice s are par

t o f th e floor s i n additio n t o th e numerica

l limits . Mr . Goldber

g aske d whethe

r th e standard s coul d consis t o f ase t o f pollutio n preventio n measure s an d wor k practice s tha

t facilitie s woul d determin e to b e feasible . Mr . Meardo n then asked ho w th e EPA o r th e State s woul d enforc e aset o f suc h measure s tha

t woul d var

y amon g facilities . Ms . Stru mreiterate d tha t th e reduction s fro mman y suc h measure s ha

d no t bee n quantified . Mr . Goldber g sai d tha t curren t tes t effort s shoul d help i n decidin g wha t emissio n reduction s shoul d b e attribute d t o many o f thes e measures . H e fel

t tha t th e contro l statu s valu e approac h i s agoo d start , bu t shoul d b e taken furthe

r b y includin g additiona

l measures . Mr . Balagopala n pointe d ou t

tha t Sout h Coast' s Rul e 116 2 set s monome r conten t limits , an d tha

t th e marketplac e play s abi g rol e in th e directio n o f

th e rule . If

certai n provision s canno t

b e met , complianc e extension s ar e usually granted . Ms . Guilfoi l asked whethe r th e Agency i s stil l o n trac k

t o complet e afirs t draf t framewor k fo r th e proposa

l preambl e an

d rul e i n Jun e 1996 . Ms . Stru mresponde d tha

t the next ste p i s t o present

impac t analyse s and th e result s o f thi s meeting to management . Th e Agency i s o n trac k

i f n o significan

t change s ar e mad e to the decisions , bu t probabl y i s not i f th e directio n changes . Ms . Guilfoi l requeste d tha

t adraf t o f th e proposa

l b e prepare d soone

r rathe r tha n later becaus e o f

th e contentiou s issue s involved . IV . Actio n Item s Th e EP A an d PE S offere

d t o extrac t th e Washingto n Stat

e facilitie s fromth e dat a bas e and send thi s listin g t o Mr . Goldberg . Mr . Goldberg , i n turn , sai d tha t h e woul d review thi s list , compar

e i t to th e State' s own data , an d provid e the EP A wit h th e result s o f th e comparison . 

# S