p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 146 ) ll-E-10 6 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/20088:42:08AM

Sheet 146 of 264P. 2 

### A-94-5 ?

TO : FROM : DATE : MEMORANDUM

Madeleine Stru

m U.S . EPA/ESD/CCP G Melani e Procto r Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) CC T 2 2 iSS 3 EP A AI R DOCKE T

Octobe r 23 , 1997 SUBJECT : Minute s o

f Augus t 19 , 1997 , Meeting Betwee n EP A and Representative s of th e Reinforced Plasti c Composite s Industr y LOCATION : EPA/Mutua l Building , Durham , NC , 11t h floor 10:0 0 a m-12:0 0 p m ATTENDEES : Ms . Nancy Dehmlo w Mr . Chuck

Elkin s Mr . Rober

t Jemiso n Mr . Steve McNall

y Mr . Ke n Meardo n Ms . Ja n Meye r Ms . Melani e Procto r Mr . Joh n Schweitze

r Ms . Madeleine Stru

m GL

S JSC , Inc . PE S Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n (CFA ) PE S EPA/ESD/CCP G PE S Composite s Institut

e o f th e Societ y ofth e Plastic s Industr

y (SPI ) EPA/ESD/CCP G (847 ) 437-020 0 (703 ) 312-854 0 (919 ) 941-033 3 (703 ) 610-022 0 (919 ) 941-033 3 (919 ) 541-525 4 (919 ) 941-033 3 (313 ) 668-470 3 (919 ) 541-238 3 PURPOS E Th e purpos e o

f the meetin g was to brie f

industr y representative s o n th e ne w sourc e MAC T analysis . Th e briefing presente d subcategorizatio n an d siz e cutof

f determinations , ne w sourc e MACT floor

level results , an

d exampl e emissio n reductio n an d cos t results . Th e briefin g di d no t

includ e th e presentatio n o

f th e analyse s conducte d fo

r mixin g an d cleanin g operations .P. 3

Madelein e Strum Octobe r 23 , 199 7 Pag e 2 DISCUSSIO N Ms . Strumbega

n th e presentatio n b y statin g tha t th e result s of

th e new sourc e MAC T analysi s hav e bee n reviewe d b y Bruc e Jordan , bu t hav e no t ye t bee n reviewe d by th e Offic e of Genera l Counsel . Ms . Strumexplaine d tha t thi s presentatio n woul d no t cover new sourc e MAC T analyse s fo

r mixin g and cleanin g operations . Ms . Strumproceede d b y discussin g th e outlin e of

th e briefin g packag e (se e Attachmen t 1) . Sh e state d tha

t th e briefin g consist s ofth e following thre e parts : (1 ) Subcategorizatio n an d siz e cutof

f determinations , (2 ) Ne

w sourc e MAC T floor

result s and exampl e emissio n reductio n an d cos t result s fo r larg e ne w source s excep t

close d molding an d polyme r castin g (Grou

p 1) , and (3 ) Ne w sourc e MAC T floor result s and exampl e emissio n reductio n an d cos t result s for smal l new source s an

d al l close d moldin g an

d polyme r castin g operation s (Group 2) . Ms . Strumreviewe d thre e scenario s under whic h asourc e woul d b e subjec t t o th e ne w sourc e MAC T standar

d an d pointe d out

under whic h circumstance s asourc e woul d b e subjec t to Grou p 1 or Grou p 2 requirements . Ms . Strumexplaine d tha t th e ne w sourc e siz e (NSS ) equatio n woul d b e use d t o determin e i

f ane w sourc e i s subjec t

to Group 1 o r

Grou p 2 requirements . Ms . Strumexplaine d tha t Grou p 1 consist s o

f asingl e subcategory , wherea s Group 2 consist s o f aserie s o f subcategories . Ms . Strumfurthe r indicate d tha

t polymer castin g an

d close d moldin g operation s ar e alway s include d under

Group 2 , regardles s of

th e siz e of

th e operation s an d tha

t close d moldin g operation s ar e currentl y bein g define d a s resi n transfe r moldin g (RTM) , vacuu

massiste d RTM , infusio n molding , and compression/injectio n molding . Th e firs t scenari o tha

t Ms . Strumdiscusse d i s ane w (greenfield) facilit

y o r asourc e tha t meet s th e criteri afo

r reconstructio n a s defined i n th e general provisions . A s Ms . Stru m pointe d out , agreenfiel d o r areconstructe d facilit

y woul d b e subjec t

to th e ne w sourc e Group 1 requirement s i

f it s estimate d HA P emission s fromal l reinforce d plasti c processe s excep t frompolyme

r castin g and close d moldin g operation s ar e equa l t o o r greater than 6 3 ton s pe r year . A greenfiel d o r

areconstructe d facilit

y i s subjec t

t o th e ne w sourc e Grou p 2 requirement s i

f it s estimate d HA P emission s fro mal l reinforce d plasti c processe s excep t frompolymer

castin g an

d close d moldin g operation s are more tha n 1 0 ton s bu t

les s than 6 3 ton s pe r year . I t wa s explaine d tha

t th e 6 3 to n per

yea r cutof f valu e ma y chang e a s th e EPA analyze s th e datafro

mth e continuou s laminatio n tes t program . I t

wa s furthe

r explaine d tha

t th e curren t

cutof f wa s derive d i n part

froma n assume d emissio n facto

r fo r continuou s lamination . Th e second scenari o under whic h asourc e woul d b e subjec t t o th e ne w sourc e MAC T standar

d i s constructio n a

t a n existin g facilit

y tha t result s i n the expansio n o f an existin g process . Ms . Strumexplaine d tha t the expansio n woul d b e subjec t t o Grou p 1 requirement s i

f the adde d reinforce d plasti c composite s HA P emission s are equa l to o r 

## IrP. 4

Madelein e Strum Octobe r 23 , 199 7 Pag e 3 excee d 6 3 ton s o

f HAP emission s per

year . If th e adde d reinforce d plasti c composite s HA P emission s are more tha

n 1 0 ton s bu t

les s tha n 6 3 ton s pe r

year , the expansio n woul d b e subjec t to Group 2 requirements . Th e thir d scenari o under

whic h asourc e woul d b e subject to th e new sourc e MAC T standar d i s constructio n a

t an existin g facilit

y durin g whic h aproces s i s adde d tha t doe s no t currentl y exis t

a t th e facility . Accordin g t o Ms . Strum , th e added proces s woul d b e subjec t to Group 1 requirement s i

f th e reinforce d plasti c composite s HA P emission s fromth e adde d proces s are equa

l to or exceed 6 3 ton s pe r

year . I f th e reinforce d plasti c composite s HA P emission s fromth e added proces s are les s tha n 6 3 ton s per

year , th e expansio n woul d b e subjec t t o Group 2 requirements . Ms . Strumexplaine d tha

t the siz e cutof

f determinatio n was base d o n emission s becaus e th e presenc e o

f contro l device s appeare d to b e base d o n emission s rathe r tha n resi n o r HA P usage . A s Ms . Strumpointe d out , emissio n factor s fo r reinforce d plasti c composite s processe s var

y greatly depending o n th e proces s an d therefor e th e sam e amoun t o f resi n o r HA P usag e ca

n resul t i n ver y differen t emission s depending o n th e productio n process . Ms . Strumproceede d b

y explainin g tha

t th e siz e cutof

f o f 6 3 ton s o f annua l HA P emission s wa s derive d b y listin g al l reinforce d plasti c composite s facilitie s tha t us e an add

o n contro l devic e t o reduc e HAP emission s b y approximately 9 5 percen t an d b y determinin g th e lowes t uncontrolle d HA

P emission s fromal l processe s vente d t o acontro l device . Ms . Strumpointe d out

tha t whil e th e siz e cutof

f wa s derive d b

y counting al l HA P emission s vente d t o th e contro l devic e including emission s fro mnon-reinforce d plasti c composite s processes , th e siz e cutof

f woul d b e onl

y applie d fo

r reinforce d plasti c composite s processes . Ms . Strumfurthe

r explaine d that , base d o n th e curren t analysis , Endur o Fiberglas s in For t Worth , Texas , ha s th e lowes t amoun t of HA P emission s tha

t are controlle d b y a contro l device . Enduro' s combined HA P emission s fro

mcontinuou s laminatio n an d hetrolac applicatio n ar

e estimate d t

o b e 6 3 ton s per

year . A s explaine d earlier , Ms . Stru m pointe d out

tha t thi s numbe

r i s expecte d t o chang e onc e ne w continuou s laminatio n emissio n dat afromEP

A testin g a

t LASC O Pane l Product s are available . Mr . Schweitze

r aske d ho w the combine d uncontrolle d HA P emission s o

f 6 3 ton s wer e estimate d fo

r Enduro . Ms . Stru

mreplie d tha

t th e continuou s laminatio n emission s fo r Endur o were base d o n th e midpoin t o f th e AP-4 2 emissio n factor . Ms . Procto r adde d tha

t th e Hetrola c applicatio n emission s (which contribute d to th e 6 3 ton s pe r year ) were extracte d fro

ma n emissio n tes t

report . Mr . Schweitze

r inquire d if

th e continuou s laminatio n emission s coul d no t b e determine d fro

mth e emissio n tes t

report . Ms . Procto r replie d tha

t th e continuou s laminatio n emission s coul d not b e determine d fro

mth e emissio n 

# 3i 5 _

Madelein e Stru m Octobe r 23 , 199 7 Pag e 4 tes t report becaus e th e reinforce d plasti c composite s emission s determine d i n th e emissio n tes t include d emission s fro

mpultrusio n operations , whic h hav e no w bee n discontinued . Ms . Stru mcontinue d by discussin g how th e NS S equatio n wa s derive d an d ho w i t woul d b e used . Ms . Strumexplaine d tha t th e NS S equatio n wa s derive d only fo r th e purpos e of

determinin g i

f ane w facilit y i s subjec t

t o Grou p 1 o r Grou p 2 requirements . Th e NS S equatio n consist s o f emissio n factor s and annua l HAP usage s for

specifie d reinforce d plasti c composite s processes . I t wa s emphasize d tha

t thi s equatio n shoul d riot

b e use d t o estimate acma

l emission s fro

man y on e specifi c facility . A s Ms . Stru mpointe d ou t the emissio n factor s i n th e NS S equatio n are averag e emissio n factor s base d o n th e bes t availabl e data . Based o n emissio n studies , i t wa s determine d tha

t th e emissio n factor s fo

r spray-up , han d lay-up , an

d filament winding var

y dependin g o n th e resi n HA P content . Ms . Stru mexplaine d tha

t fo r th e processe s fo

r whic h th e emissio n factor s var y base d o n th e resi n HA P content , th e emissio n factor s i n th e NS S equatio n were base d o n th e HA P content limi t for Grou p 2 sources . Ms . Stru mproceede d b

y providin g a

n exampl e siz e cutof

f determinatio n fo

r ane w pultrusio n facilit

y tha t als o conduct s paintin g operations . The exampl e i s show n o n pag e six o f Attachment

1 . I n reviewin g thi s example , Mr . Schweitze r aske d i f ane w pultrusio n facilit

y tha t i s plannin g t o us e only direc t di e injectio n ca

n mee t a n equipmen

t standard o r

mee t a n equivalent emissio n limit . Ms . Strumreplie d tha t th e EP A migh t provid e a n equivalen t emissio n limit . Mr . Schweitze

r als o asked if

afacilit y woul d b e allowe d t o conduc t thei r ow n emissio n testin g t o determin e i f th e facilit y exceed s th e Grou

p 1 cutof f o f 6 3 ton s pe r

year . Ms . Stru mresponde d tha

t th e EP A woul d consider

allowing actua

l emissio n testin g a

t the facilit y t o determin e i

f th e facilit y exceed s the 6 3 to n siz e cutoff . Mr . Schweitze

r inquire d ho

w ane w facilit y would determin e ho w muc h resi n the y wil l use . Ms . Stru mreplie d tha t ane w facilit y ha s t o do acertai n amoun t o f plannin g befor e they begi n t o operate i n order to obtai n th e necessar

y permits . Thus , afacilit

y woul d hav e t o provid e a

n estimat e o f how much resi n they are plannin g to use . Mr . Schweitzer aske d if afacilit y tha t ha s estimate d HA

P emission s of

42. 8 ton s base d o n th e NS S equatio n wil l b e abl e t o increas e their resi n usag e an

d stil l b e subject

t o Grou p 2 requirement s a s lon g a s thei r estimate d emission s based o n the NS S equatio n ar e belo w 6 3 ton s pe r

year . Ms . Stru mconfirme d tha

t th e facilit y i n Mr . Schweitzer' s example woul d b e subjec t t o th e Group 2 requirement s a s lon g a s thei r estimate d emission s base d o n th e NS S equatio n are belo w 6 3 ton s pe r

year , under

th e approac h presentl y envisioned . 

# HP. 6

Madelein e Strum Octobe r 23 , 1997 Pag e 5 Mr . McNally aske d i f ane w facilit y woul d b e classifie d a s aGroup 1 o r Group 2 sourc e i f th e facility' s emissio n estimat e base d o n th e NS S equatio n i s les s than 6 3 ton s pe r year , but later emissio n testin g show s tha t actua l emission s excee d 6 3 ton s pe r year . Ms . Meye r responde d tha

t the facilit y would b e classifie d a s aGrou p 2 sourc e unles s th e facilit y use d th e wron g informatio n in the NS S equation . A s wa s pointe d out durin g th e meeting , th e EP A recognize s tha

t th e equatio n i s base d o n averag e factor s a n a s lon g a s th e correc t input informatio n i s use d th e equatio n would hav e to prevail . Ms . Stru mproceede d b y discussin g th e MAC T floo r leve l result s for

Grou p 1 source s (se e pag e seven o

f Attachmen

t 1) . Ms . Strumadde d tha

t fh e 9 5 percen t

emissio n reductio n requirement

applie s to corrosio n an

d noncorrosion-resistant

applications . Ms . Stru mcontinue d by presentin g exampl e MACT floo r emissio n reductio n and cos t result s fo r ane w sourc e wit

h 10 0 ton s o f HA P emission s per

year . Th e exampl e i s show n o n pag e eigh

t of Attachmen

t 1 . Ms . Stru

madde d tha

t th e ductwor

k an d blower

cost s are base d o n cos t

dat aprovide d by on

e facility , bu t

thes e cost s wil l b e reassesse d b y usin g supplementa

l chapter s o

f th e OAQPS cos t

manual . Mr . Elkin s inquire d ho w th e cos t fo r th e permanent

tota l enclosure (PTE ) wa s estimated . Ms . Stru

mreplie d tha

t the cos t fo r th e PT E wa s derive d fro

mtw o othe r rulemakings , which wer

e th e magneti c tap e an

d th e woo d furnitur

e NESHAP . Mr . Elkin s aske d i f thes e tw o industrie s ar

e simila r t o th e reinforce d plasti c composite s industr y and i f th e estimate d cos t

i s sufficient . Ms . Stru

mexplaine d tha

t thes e cost s are additional/incrementa

l cost s fo r ane w plant an d shoul d therefor

e onl y reflec t th e additiona

l cos t t o mak e sure tha t aspra y booth , fo

r example , meet s th e PT E criteria . Ms . Meyer adde d tha t if th e industr

y representative s hav e better cos t informatio n fo

r PT E constructio n a t ne w facilities , th e EP

A would appreciat

e tha t information . Mr . McNally asked wh

y non e o f th e reinforce d plasti c composite s facilitie s tha t are usin g add-o n control s ar

e usin g arotar

y concentrato r

wit h a n oxidize r t o contro l thei r

HAP emissions . Ms . Stru

mindicate d tha

t on e possibilit

y o f wh y som e facilitie s might

no t wan t t o us e arotar

y concentrator

wit h a n oxidize r i s tha t som e facilitie s hav e othe r

HA P emission s i n additio n t o styren e fro moperation s suc h a s painting . Ms . Stru mfurthe r explaine d tha

t thes e facilitie s migh

t not wan t to ven t thes e othe

r HA P emission s t o th e rotar y concentrato r

becaus e i t could interfer

e wit h th e proper

operatio n of

th e system . Mr . McNally inquire d i

f h e could hav e acopy o

f th e cos t calculation s fo

r th e thre e differen t add-o n contro l devices . Th e EP A agree d to sen

d Mr . McNally acop y o

f th e thre e add-o n contro l cos t

sprea d sheets . 

# bP. 7

Madelein e Strum Octobe r 23 , 1997 Pag e 6 Ms . Stru mproceede d b y discussin g th e MAC T floo r leve l result s for

Group 2 sources . Ms . Stru mpointe d out tha t Grou p 2 source s wer

e subcategorize d base d o n proces s i n th e sam e wa y a s existin g sources . Ms . Strumstate d tha

t th e ne w sourc e MAC T floo

r fo r tw o o f th e subcategorie s wa s base d o n a"nea

t resi n plus " HA

P content limit . I n order

t o avoi d an y confusio n about

th e terminology , Ms . Strumdefined nea t resi n a s th e resi n receive d by th e supplier , whic h doe s no t includ e additive s such as filler an d reinforcement . Accordin g t o Ms . Strum , th e "nea

t resi n plus " HA P content

account s fo

r an y additio n o

f HA P tha t ma y b e adde d to th e supplie d resi n a

t th e facilit y wher e th e resi n i s used . The "nea t resi n plus " doe s no t

include filler adde d a t th e facility . Ms . Stru mindicate d tha

t th e curren t

ne w sourc e MAC T floor

determinatio n fo

r Group 2 semi-open/ope n reinforce d plastic s processe s i s a3 4 percen t "nea t resi n plus " HA P conten t limi t an d non-spra

y resi n applicatio n method s o r equivalent . However , Ms . Stru m pointe d out

tha t ther e are source s i n thi s proces s subcategor y tha t us e resin s wit

h a"nea t resi n plus " HA P content

as low a s 2 8 percent . But accordin g t

o Ms . Strum , th e EP

A ha s question s concernin g th e technologica l feasibilit y o f setting th e ne

w sourc e MAC T floor

a t a 2 8 percen t

nea t resi n plu s HA

P content limit . Ms . Stru

mcontinue d by askin g industr y representative s t o provid e informatio n tha t woul d help t

o suppor t th e curren t

new sourc e MAC T floor

determinatio n o

f a3 4 percen t

nea t resi n plu s HAP conten

t limit . Ms . Strumpointe d out

tha t th e EPA i s n o longe

r considerin g aresi n HA P content limi t fo r polymer casting . Th e EP

A is , however , stil l investigatin g wor k practice s i n polymer castin g operation s tha

t coul d b e use d i n th e ne

w sourc e MAC T floor

determinatio n fo r thi s proces s subcategory . A s Ms . Stru mindicated , th e ne w sourc e MAC T floor

fo r Grou p 2 SM C manufacmrin g source s currentl y consist s o f wor k practices , which include th e us e o f nylo n filmo r equivalent , folding edges , an d cover s o n th e doctor

box . Accordin g to Ms . Strum , th e ne w sourc e MAC T standar

d fo r Group 2 BM C manufacmrin g source s woul d b e aperformanc e standar d tha t woul d b e expresse d i n term s of pound s of HA P emission s per

to n o f resi n used . Ms . Stru

mexplaine d tha

t th e EPA alread

y collecte d th e dat at o set

th e emissio n limi t

fo r BM C manufacmring sources , bu t dat astil l ha s t o b e approve d fo

r publi c us e by th e compan y tha t provide d th e data . Mr . Schweitze

r pointe d out

tha t i t seeme d strang e to require a n emissio n tes t

o n a proces s tha

t coul d b e ver

y tightly closed . Mr . Schweitze r added tha t a n equipment

standar d instea d of aperformanc e standar

d appeare d more appropriat e fo r thi s process . Mr . 

# IP. 8

Madelein e Stru m Octobe r 23 , 199 7 Pag e 7 Schweitze r volunteere d t

o provid e informatio n o

f ho w a n equipmen

t standard coul d b e writte n fo r thi s subcategory . Ms . Procto r

pointe d out

tha t i t woul d stil l hav e t

o b e shown tha

t th e equipment standar d tha t Mr . Schweitze

r wa s suggesting wa s equivalen t t o th e new sourc e MAC T floor determination . Mr . Schweitze r indicate d tha

t emissio n tes t

dat ao n tightl y close d BM C machine s wa s availabl e an d coul d b e provide d to th e EP A fo r compariso n wit

h th e curren t ne w sourc e MAC T floor

determination . Ms . Strumproceede d by presentin g th e ne w sourc e MAC T analysi s fo r Group 2 gel coatin g sources . Ms . Stru mindicate d tha

t the EP A recently sen

t out sectio n 11 4 informatio n collectio n request s t o gel coatin g facilitie s in orde r to determin e th e ne

w and existin g sourc e MAC T floor fo r gel coatin g i n term s of

pound s of HA P pe r gallo n o f ge l coat . A s Ms . Stru

mexplained , th

e ne w sourc e MAC T floo

r fo r Grou p 2 corrosion

resistant application s was determine d to b e a3 5 percent nea t resi n plu s HA P content

limi t an d non-spra

y resi n applicatio n method s o r equivalent . Mr . McNally pointe d out tha t h e wa s ver y concerne d abou

t a3 5 percent

nea t resi n plu s HA

P content limi t fo r corrosion

resistant application s acros s th e board . Mr . Schweitze

r stated tha t ther e are thre e alternative s fo

r th e ne w sourc e MAC T floo r determinatio n fo

r th e corrosion-resistant

subcategory . Accordin g t o Mr . Schweitzer , th e first alternativ e i s tha

t th e MACT floo

r determinatio n remain s a

t a3 5 percen t

nea t resi n plu s HA P content limit , which woul

d lea d t o n o ne w growt h fo r mos t o f fh e corrosion

resistant industry . Mr . Schweitze

r adde d that , eve n though viny l este r resin s wit

h a3 5 percent nea t resi n plu s HA

P conten t will wor k fo r mos t corrosion-resistant

applications , th e economi c impac t

o f switching t

o alow HA P containin g viny l ester resi n wil l eliminate th e industry . Mr . Schweitze

r state d tha t gasolin e storag e tank s mad e fro mreinforce d plasti c composite s woul d no t

b e cos t competitiv e whe

n compare d to stee l tanks . Mr . Schweitzer indicate d tha

t stee l storag e tank s would tak e ove r tha t segmen t o f th e market , eve n thoug h composite s tank s las t

longe r an d d o no t hav e to b e excavated o n aregula r basis . I n addition , Mr . Schweitze

r pointe d ou

t tha t facilitie s woul d hav e difficultie s sellin g tank s made out of differen t resin s tha

n thos e tha

t are currentl y used , sinc e th e ne w lo w HA P resin s hav e no t

bee n teste d fo

r the sam e duratio n o

f tim e a s the currentl y use d resins . Accordin g t

o Mr . Schweitzer , the secon d alternativ e i s tha

t th e MAC T floor determinatio n fo

r corrosion-resistant

application s take s the differen t segment s o

f th e corrosion-resistan t

market int o account , which woul d impl y afurthe r subcategorizatio n of th e industry . Mr . Schweitze r pointe d out

tha t thi s alternativ e woul d probabl y no t wor k becaus e i t woul d resul t

i n th e creatio n o

f hundred s o

f subcategories . 

# nP. 9

Madelein e Strum Octobe r 23 , 199 7 Pag e 8 Mr . Schweitze

r state d tha t th e thir d alternativ e i s tha t th e MAC T floor

determinatio n fo r corrosion-resistan t

application s look s a

t alarge r groupin g of

applications . Base d o n Mr . Schweitzer' s opinion , th e MAC T floor determinatio n fo

r thi s subcategor

y coul d b e made , fo r example , b y examinin g differen t applicatio n technique s o r

wor k practice s tha

t woul d reduc e emission s instea

d of focusing o n th e amoun

t o f HAP in th e resin , whic h i s presen t t o provid e certai n performanc e aspect s o f th e product . Ms . Strumaddresse d Mr . Schweitzer' s argumen t agains t th e first alternativ e by statin g tha t i n th e MAC T floo

r determinatio n th e cost s o

f complianc e wit

h th e standar

d are * not take n into account . Mr . Elkin s aske d i f th e EP A would retai n ane

w sourc e MAC T floo r determination , knowin g tha t i t woul d eliminat

e amarket . Ms . Stru mreminde d industr y representative s tha

t th e EP A ha s n o datatha

t indicat e tha t th e corrosion-resistan t market woul d b e eliminated . Mr . Elkin s inquire d wha t cours e o f actio n th e EPA woul d tak e i f suc h dat awere available . Ms . Meye r replie d tha

t i n som e cases , suc h a s i n th e Marin e Vesse l Loadin g standard , aflexibl e approac h ha s bee n develope d t o avoi d negativ e economi c impact s o

f th e magnitude describe d above . Mr . McNally adde d tha

t aresi n wit

h anea t resi n plu s HA P conten t

of 3 5 percen t canno t b e use d fo

r undergroun d storag e tanks . Ms . Meye r replie d b y remindin g Mr . McNall y tha t

an y facilit y ca n stil l construc t

aPT E an d ven t th e emission s t o acontro l devic e t o comply wit

h th e standard . Ms . Procto r

aske d i f industr y representative s ar

e plannin g t o shar e an

y dat a concernin g thei r

idea s fo r ne w sourc e MAC T floor

option s fo

r corrosion-resistan t applications . Mr . McNally replie d tha t industr y representative s are plannin g t o first submi t informatio n o n existin g sourc e MAC T floor option s fo r corrosion-resistan t

applications . Mr . McNall y adde d tha

t thi s informatio n woul d b e submitte d t o th e EP A o n Septembe r 11 , 1997 . Ms . Strumcontinue d by presentin g th e ne w sourc e MAC T analysi s fo r th e close d moldin g subcategory . A s Ms . Stru mindicated , th e ne

w sourc e MAC T floor

fo r close d moldin g source s consist s o f wor k practices , which includ

e requirement s to cover

al l charge s and t o only expos e one charg e a t an y time . Ms . Strumproceede d b

y presentin g exampl e ne

w sourc e MAC T floor

emissio n reductio n and cos t

result s fo r Grou p 2 proces s subcategorie s wit h aHA P content

limit . Th e exampl e i s shown o n pag e te n o f Attachmen

t 1 . I n reviewin g the emissio n reductio n an d cos t impact s fo

r Grou p 2 sources , Mr . McNall y aske d i

f the exampl e ne

w sourc e MAC T floo

r cost s include retrainin g costs . Ms . 

# <{P.1 0

Madelein e Strum Octobe r 23 , 199 7 Pag e 9 Strumresponde d tha

t retrainin g cost s were no t

include d becaus e thes e cos t calculation s were done fo r ne w source s an

d therefor e retrainin g cost s woul d not b e applicable . I n addition , Mr . McNall

y aske d how th e resi n cost s were determine d fo r th e exampl e new sourc e MAC T floor costs . Ms . Procto r

replie d that

th e resi n cost s were determine d base d o n a4 0 percent HAP resi n a

t acos t a t $0.7 0 pe r pound . Th e cost s fo

r resin s wit h differen t HA P content s were adjusted base d o n th e pric e o f styrene , whic h wa s price d a t $0.3 0 per pound . The EP

A agree d to sen

d Mr . McNally acopy of

th e resi n cos t calculations . Mr . McNall

y als o inquire d i

f th e cos t calculation s include d re-qualificatio n costs , whic h are cost s tha

t afacilit y would incur

to demonstrat

e to thei r customer tha t th e product s produce d wit

h MAC T complian

t resin s stil l mee

t their produc t specifications . Ms . Strum replie d tha

t re-qualificatio n cost s wer

e no t include d in th e exampl e cos t calculations . Ms . Stru mpointe d ou

t tha t assessing thes e cost s would b e ver y difficul t becaus e th e EP

A woul d hav e t o kno w which ne

w facilitie s woul d b e subject to suc h acos t and ho w man

y product s eac h ne w facilit y woul d hav e t

o re-qualify . Ms . Meye

r aske d industr

y representative s t o provid e informatio n abou

t re-qualificatio n costs . Actio n Item s fo

r Industr y Representatives : 1 . Provid e informatio n o f how a n equipmen

t standar d coul d b e writte n fo

r th e BM C subcategor y an d provide emissio n tes t

dat aon aBM

C machine tha

t woul d mee

t thi s equipmen t standard . 2 . Provid e informatio n abou t re-qualificatio n cost s i

f suc h dat aar

e available . Actio n Item s fo

r EPA : 1 . Provid e acopy o

f th e thre e add-o n contro l cos t spreadsheets . 2 . Provid e acop

y o f the resi n cos t

calculations . 

# °\P.1 1 

## /}-/+<* c 

## hrr.s„f

3Z



# PROJEC T BRIEFING REINFORCE

D PLASTI C COMPOSITE S PRODUCTIO N NE W SOURCE MAC T FLOO R ANALYSI S (NO T INCLUDIN G MIXIN G AN D CLEANIN G ANALYSES )

BRIEFIN G FOR : Societ y o f th e Plastic s Industry/Composite s Institut e an d Composit e Fabricator s Associatio n Representative s

Projec t Lead : Madelein e Stru

m Augus t 19 , 199 7

^P.1 2 

## OUTLIN E PartA Subcategorizatio n and Siz e Cutof f Determination s Ne w Sourc e MAC T Siz e Grouping s

Grou p 1 : Larg e New Source s Excep t Close d Moldin g and Polyme

r Castin g Operation s Grou p 2 : Small Ne w Source s and al l Close d Moldin g and Polyme

r Castin g Operation s Siz e Cutof f Determinatio n Ne w Sourc e Siz e (NSS ) Equatio n Par tB Group 1 - Larg e Ne w Source s MAC T Floo r

Leve l Result s Exampl e MAC T Floo r

Emissio n Reductio n and Cos t Result s Par tC Group 2 - Small Ne w Source s Proces s Subcategor

y Grouping s and MAC T Floo r Leve l Result s Exampl e MAC T Floo r

Emissio n Reductio n an d Cos t Result s

2 

# wP.1 3



## SUBCATEGORIZATIO N AND SIZ E CUTOF F DETERMINATION S Ne w Source MAC

T Siz e Grouping s Grou p 1 - Larg e Ne w Source s Except Closed Moldin g an

d Polyme r Castin g Operation s * (Singl e Subcategory ) New o r reconstructe d Tota l reinforce d plasti c composite s emission s t

63 tpy* * (close d moldin g an

d polyme r castin g not included) O

R Constructio n a

t existin g facilities : Expanding existin g proces s Added reinforce d plasti c composite s emission s *

: 63 tpy* * (close d moldin g an

d polyme r castin g not included ) O

R Constructio n a

t existin g facilities : Addin g new proces s Tota l added reinforced plasti c composite s emission s h 63 tpy* * (close d moldin g an

d polyme r castin g not included ) Grou p 2 - Smal l Ne w Source s an

d al l Close d Moldin g an

d Polyme r Castin g Operation s (Serie s o f Subcategories ) Ne w o r reconstructe d Tota l reinforce d plasti c composite s emission s < 63 tpy* * (close d moldin g an d polyme r castin g no t

included ) Closed moldin g an

d polyme r castin g operation s regardles s o f

emission s O R Constructio n a

t existin g facilities : Expandin g existin g proces s Added reinforce d plasti c composite s emission s "

r 10tp y an d < 63 tpy* * (close d moldin g an

d polyme r castin g no t

included ) Closed moldin g an

d polyme r castin g operation s regardles s o f

emission s O R Constructio n a

t existin g facilities : Adding ne w proces s Tota l added reinforce d plasti c composite s emission s < 63 tpy* * (close d moldin g an d polyme r castin g no t

included) Close d moldin g an

d polyme r castin g operation s regardles s of

emission s Close d moldin g operation s ar e resin transfe

r moldin g (RTM) , vacuu

massiste d RT

M (VARTM) , infusion molding , an

d compression/injectio n molding . Cutof f ma y chang e afte

r ne w dat ai s analyze d an

d ane w emissio n facto

r i s determined . Par t A - Subcategorizatio n an d Siz e Cutof f Determination s 

## 1,

### G^ > 

## Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Facilitie s Tha tAbate Emission s Throug h Th e Us e O f

Add-O n Controls *

Facilit y Nam e Processe s Controlle d b y Contro l Devic e Tota l Uncontrolle d HA P Emission s fro mProcesse s Controlle d b y Devic e

(tpy ) Overal l Contro l Efficienc y o f Approximatel y 9 5 % A . R . E . (MassiUon ) Cran e Kemlit e (Jonesboro ) America n Standar d Fibercas t Navista r Internationa l Tecto n Endur o Fiberglas s (F t Worth ) Spra y Filled , Ge l Coating , an d Paintin g Continuou s Laminatio n Spra y Fille d Centrifuga l Castin g an d BM C SM C an d Paintin g Pultrusio n an d Paintin g Continuou s Laminatio n an d Hetrola c

Applicatio n 87 1 9 6 9 4 8 4 7 5 >9 6 63* * Thi s i s no t

acomplete lis t

o f facilitie s tha

t us e add-o n contro l devices . Othe r facilitie s us e contro l devices , bu t thei r captur e efficienc y i s no t known . Facilit y wjthjh e IbwestUotaFuncontroIled HA P emissiorisjfro mprocesse s that ar e controlle d by«j

acontro l device . The.emissio n estimat e ma y chaTTge*!fternewl5ontin^ ^ data'i s afaiyz^'d^M^afnlw'reTmiissio n factor " is*~determined .

Par t A - Subcategorizatio n an d Siz e Cutof f Determination s

T JJ^- 

## Ne w Sourc e Siz e (NSS ) Equatio n (15JXA) + (184x5 ) + (13.2x Q + (3.0xD ) + (10.7 xE) + (18.4xF ) + (55.8xG ) + (51.0xH) + (2.0x7 ) 10 0 A = Ton s o f

HA P Use d pe r

Yea r i n Fille d Spray-u p B = Ton s o f

HA P Use d pe r

Yea r i n Unfille d Spray-u p C = Ton s o f

HA P Use d pe r

Yea r i n Han d Lay-u p D = Ton s o f

HA P Use d pe r

Yea r i n Continuou s Lamination/Castin g E = Ton s o f

HA P Use d pe r

Yea r i n Pultrusio n F = Ton s o f

HA P Use d pe r

Yea r i n Filamen t

Windin g G = Ton s o f

HA P Use d pe r

Yea r i n Centrifuga l Castin g H = Ton s o f

HA P Use d pe r

Yea r i n Ge l Coatin g I = Ton s o f

HA P Use d pe r

Yea r i n SMC , an d BM C Manufacturin g 

## Groupin g Determinatio n Base d O n NS S Equatio n I f NS S > 6 3 tpy* , emissio n reductio n o f 9 5 % i s require d I f NS S < 6 3 tpy* , complianc e wit h MAC T standar d fo

r smal l ne w source s i s require d

* Cutof

f ma y chang e afte

r ne w datai s analyze d an d ane w emissio n facto r i s determined . Par t A - Subcategorizatio n an d Siz e Cutof f Determination s 5P.1 6



## Exampl e Siz e Cutof

f Determinatio n fo r a Ne

w Pultrusio n Facilit

y tha tals o Conduct

s Paintin g Operation s (a Facilit y Simila r t

o Tecton ) Assumption s use d in th e exampl e siz e cutof f determinatio n Pultrusio n i s th e only reinforce d plastic s proces s a t thi s facilit

y The facilit y als o conduct s paintin g operation s in whic h a t leas t 5 4 tp y o f HA P ar e emitte d Th e facilit y use s 1,00

0 tp y o f resi n in th e pultrusio n proces s wit h a nea t resi n plu s HA

P content of 4 0 percent Ne w Sourc e Siz e Calculatio n

Ton s o f HA P pe r use d in pultrusion : 1,00

0 tp y X 0. 4 = 40 0 tp y NSS = ' x 

## where , E i s th e tp y o f

HA P use d in pultrusio n 10 0 

## NS S = 42. 8 tp y Sinc e th e calculate d reinforce d plastic s emission s ar e belo w 6 3 tpy * base d on th e NS S equation , thi s ne w sourc e i s aGroup 2 sourc e Therefor e thi s sourc e woul d no t

b e require d t o reduc e it s reinforce d plastic s emission s b y 9 5 percent , eve n thoug h total uncontrolle d facilit

y HA P emission s ar

e a t leas t 9 6 tp y (42. 8 tp y fro mpultrusio n and mor

e tha n 5 4 tp y fro

mpainting) . Cutof f ma y chang e afte

r ne w datai s analyze d an

d ane w emissio n facto

r i s determined . Par t A - Subcategorizatio n an d Siz e Cutof f Determination s 6 

# 1 5P.1 7



# GROU P 1 - LARG

E NE W SOURCE

S EXCLUDIN

G CLOSE D MOLDIN

G AN D POLYME

R CASTIN

G MAC T Floo r Leve l Result s Processe s (Include s Corrosion

- an d Noncorrosion-Resistant

Applications ) Spra y Fille d Spra y Unfille d Han d Unfille d Hand Fille d Continuou s Lamination/Castin g

Pultrusio n Filament Winding Centrifuga l Castin g Ge l Coatin g SMC BM C Ne w Sourc e MAC T Floor

9 5 % Emissio n Reductio n

Par t B - Grou p 1 - Larg e New Source s Except Close d Molding and Polyme r Castin g

\ < .P.1 8



## Exampl e MAC T Floo r Emissio n Reductio n and Cos tResult s for a Ne w Source wit

h 100 tp y of

Emission s Assumption s use d in th e exampl e emissio n reductio n and cos t calculation s

Su mo f al l reinforce d plastic s emission s excludin g emission s fromclose d moldin g i s 10 0 tp y HA P concentratio n vente d t o th e contro l devic e i s 5 0 pp m Annua l operatin g hour s ar

e 6,664 (averag e annua

l operatin g hour s fo r reinforce d plasti c composite s facilitie s that abate 9 5 percent o f thei r emission s throug h th e us e o f add-o n controls ) Cos t t o construc t

permanent

tota l enclosure (PTE ) i s $ 20,00 0 Ductwor k and blowe

r cost s ar e $ 66,00 0 Exampl e Emissio n Reductio n and Cos tTabl e fo r 3 Differen t Add-O n Contro l Device s fo r a Grou p 1 Facilit

y

Rotar y Concentrator Catalyti c Oxidize r (95 % Hea t Recovery ) Regenerativ e Therma l Oxidize r (95 % Hea

t Recovery ) Controlled

Emission s (tpy ) 5 5

5 Emissio

n Reductio n (tpy ) 9 5 9 5

9 5 PT

E Cost ($ ) 20,00 0 20,00 0 20,00 0 Ductwor

k & Blowe r Cos t ($ ) 66,000 66,000 66,000 Tota

l Capita l Cost ($ ) 905,10 0 1,636,70 0 1,611,50 0 Tota

l Annualize d Cost s ($ ) 314,10 0 429,00 0 477,30 0 Dollar s

pe r To n ($/ton ) 3,300 4,50 0 5,000

Par t B - Grou p 1 - Larg e New Source s Excep t Close d Molding an

d Polyme r Castin g 

# nP.1 9



## GROU P 2 - SMAL

L NE W SOURCE S AN D AL

L CLOSED MOLDIN G AN D POLYMER CASTIN G Proces s Subcategory Grouping s and MAC T Floo r Leve l Result s

Processe s Spra y Fille d Spra y Unfilled Han d Unfille d Han d Fille d Continuou s Lamination/Castin g

Pultrusio n Filamen t Windin g Polyme r Castin g SM C BM C Ge l Coatin g Corrosion-Resistant

Application s (Spray , Hand , Filament

Winding , an d Centrifuga

l Casting ) Close d Moldin g (RTM , VARTM , Infusion Molding , an

d Compression/Injectio n Molding ) New Sourc e MAC T Floo r Nea t resin plu s HA

P content limit * o f 3 4 % (coul d b e 28% ) o r equivalen t an d non-spra y resi n applicatio n excep t fo r filled resin s

N o HA P conten t limi t Nylon fil mo r equivalent , fol

d edges , an

d cove r docto r bo x lb s of emission s pe

r to n of nea t resi n plu s HA P conten t limit (lbs/gallon ) stil l t o b e determine d Non-spra y resin applicatio n an

d nea t resin plu s HA

P conten t limit * of 3 5 % o r equivalent Onl y expos e one charg e a

t an y time . All othe

r charge s ar e to b e covered . Nea t resi n i s defined a s th e resin receive d b y th e supplie

r an d doe s no t include additive s suc

h a s fille r an d reinforcement . The nea

t resin plu s HA

P conten t account s fo

r an y additio n o f

HA P tha t ma y b e adde d to the supplie d resin . Th

e nea t resin plu s HA

P conten t i s calculate d a s show

n below : Neat Resin Plus HAPContent = (X * N) + H N + H * 10 0 % where , X = weigh t % HA P ofth e nea

t resi n divide d b

y 10 0 % N = nea t resin i n pound s pe

r yea r H = HA P added to th e nea

t resin i n pound s pe

r yea r

Par t C - Grou p 2 - Smal l Ne w Source s an d Al l Close d Moldin g an d Polyme r Castin g 

# l «

## Exampl e MAC T Floo r Emissio n Reductio n an d Cos tResult s fo r a Ne w Sourc e wit h 27 5 tp y Resi n Us e

• Assumption s use d in th e exampl e emissio n reductio n an d cos t calculation s Resi n usag e i s 27 5 ton s per year Neat resi n plu s HA P content

withou t MAC T in plac e woul d b e 4 0 percen t Exampl e Emissio n Reductio n an d Cos tTabl e fo r Differen tProcesse s a tGrou p 1 Facilitie s

- o Fille d Spra y

Han d Continuou s Laminatio n Pultrusio n Filamen t Windin g Corrosion-Resistan t

Han d Withou t MAC T in Plac e Nea t Resi n Plu s HA P Conten t

(% ) 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 Resi n

Cos t ($ ) 385,00 0 385,00 0 385,00 0 385,00 0 385,00 0 467,50 0 Emission s

(tpy ) 21. 6 16. 6 3. 3 11. 8 21. 2 16. 6 Wit h MAC T i n Plac e

Nea t Resi n Plu s HA P Conten t

(% ) 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 Resi n

Cos t ($ ) 407,00 0 407,00 0 407,00 0 407,00 0 407,00 0 495,00 0 Emission s

(tpy ) 14. 7 12. 4 2. 8 10. 0 17. 2 13. 0 Emissio n

Reductio n (tpy ) 6. 9 4. 2 0. 5 1. 8 4. 0 3. 6 Dollar s pe r

To n no t incl . Ge l Coa t

($/ton ) 3,20 0 5,20 0 44,000 * 12,20 0 5,50 0 7,60 0 Cos t ma y chang e afte

r ne w dat ai s analyze d an d ane w emissio n factor i s determined .

Par t C - Grou p 2 - Smal l Ne w Source s an d Al l Close d Moldin g an d Polyme r Castin g 1 0