P. 1


# OAR Box 1415 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 1 ) IV-E- 1 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/15/20089:38:25 AM

Sheet 1 of 130P. 2

MEMORANDU

M TO : Keit

h Barnet t U.S . EPA/ESD/OC G FROM : Susa

n Cassid y an dKennet h Meardon Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) 1 EP A AI R DOCK
. DATE : Septembe r SUBJECT : Minute s o f 13,200 1 Septembe r

7 , 200 1 Meetin g Betwee n EP A an dth e Fabricator s Associatio n LOCATION : Holiday In r ATTENDEES : Joh n Schweitze r Charle y Brow n JimBerry Chuc k Elkin s Fre dDierk s Joh n Barke r Diann e Coo n Ke n Odett e Perry Bennet t Monty Feli x Lowel l Mile s Mar k Ake r Mark Rowa n Dan Blackburn Kennet h Witt Gordo n Low e Fran k Meadow s Susa n Cassidy Keit h Barnet t Kennet h Meardo n Stuart Session s Stev e Bemi s Aayish aKhurshee d Mar c Fleischake r Denni s Crumple r Lis aConne r i , Durham , N C 9:0 0 a m- CF A Aqu aGlas s Berry Environmenta l CE& A Aqu aGlas s Strongwel l Ashlan d CFA MF G Alaglas s Mile s Fiberglas s Ake r Plastic s Abl e Bod y Co . Abl e Bod y Co . Abl e Bod y Co . LASC O Bathwar e PES , Inc . PES , Inc . U.S . EP A U.S . EP A Environomics , Inc . MASCO/Aqu aGlas s U.S . EP A 12:3 0 p m (734 ) 622-016 2 (731)632-259 3 (919)785-963 1 (202)686-351 8 (731)632-255 4 (540)645-812 9 (614 ) 790-399 8 (703)525-051 1 (440 ) 994-520 7 (803)874-273 1 (503 ) 775-775 5 (219 ) 936-383 8 (417 ) 623-306 0 (417 ) 623-306 0 (417 ) 623-306 0 (714 ) 993-122 0 (919 ) 941-033 3 (919 ) 941-033 3 (919)541-560 5 (919 ) 941-033 3 (301 ) 657-776 2 (313)792-636 0 (919)541-777 5 Aren t Fox/Aqu aGlas s (202 ) 857-605 3 U.S . EP A U.S . EP A (919)541-087 1 (919)541-506 0

/P. 3

Meetin g Minute s Septembe r

13 , 200 1 Pag e 2 PURPOSE : Th e purpos e ofth e meetin g wa s for th e Composit e Fabricator s Associatio n (CFA ) an dth e reinforce dplasti c composite s industry t o presen t comment s t o th e U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) o n th e propose dMAC T standar dfor th e reinforce dplasti c composite s industry . Presentation s wer e give n b y CFA an dindustry representative s an dhandout s wer e provide dan d ar e attache da s follows : (1 ) Presentatio n o n th e Propose dNESHA P fo r Composites , presente d b y Joh n Schweitze r

for th e Composit e Fabricator s Association , attachmen t #1 ; (2 ) Presentatio n fromStuart

Session s for

Environomics , attachmen t #2 ; (3 ) Aqu aGlas s Corporatio n Comment s for EP A Hearing , presente db y Charle y Brown , attachmen t #3 ; (4 ) discussio n b y Perr y Bennet t o f MF G (n o han douts) ; (5 ) Comment s o n Propose dMAC T for Reinforce dPlastics/Composite s presente db y Crai g Peterso n for Xerxe s Corporatio n an dProformCompany , LLC , attachmen t #4 ; (6 ) Presentatio n b y Mar k

Ake r o f Ake r Plastic s (n o handouts) ; (7 ) Presentatio n t o th e EP A o n th e Propose dENESHA

P fo r Composites , presente db y Da n Blackburn , Mark Rowan , an dKe n Witt , all o f Abl e Bod y Corporation , attachmen t #5 ; (8 ) Presentatio n b y Gordo n Low e o f LASC O Bathware , attachmen t

#6 ; (9 ) Presentatio n t o EP A o n th e Reinforce dPlastic s Composite s MACT : Wh y Pollutio n Preventio n shoul db e acomplianc e option , presente db y Diann e Coo n o f Ashlan d Specialt y Chemical Co. , attachmen t #7 ; an d(10 ) Presentatio n b y Joh n Barke r o f Strongwel l (n o handouts) . DISCUSSION : Followin g introductions , Mr . Schweitze r bega n wit

h hi s presentatio n focusin g o n industry' s concern s with th e contro l requirement s (se e attachmen t #1) . I n particular , h e focuse d o n th e feasabilit

y o f 95 % captur e an dcontrol , th e cost s an daffordabilit y o f captur e an dcontrol , an d pollutio n preventio n alternatives . Mr . Schweitze r

explaine dtha t

aCF A contracto r

(Ro b Haberlein ) visite d1 8 operation s believe dt o b e representativ e ofth e industry . EMr . Schweitze r

state dthat , accordin g t o th e findings presente di n Mr . Haberlein' s repor t o n thes e 1 8 operations , retrofittin g existin g operation s wit

h enclosure s woul dcaptur e only 80 % o f emission s o n average , with som e facilitie s belo w andother s above tha t level . EMr . Schweitze r

state dtha t

CF A ha s not

bee n abl e t o evaluat e th e tw o operation s (A.R.E . an dAmerica

n Standard ) use da s th e basi s fo r EPA' s propose d100 % captur e an dexpresse d concern s wit

h th e feasabilit

y o f achievin g 100 % captur e whil e maintainin g saf e worke r exposur e level s an dflexibility fo r

aful l rang e o f operations . I n additio n t o th e question s foun di n hi s handout s (se e pag e 5 in Attachmen t 1) , Mr . Schweitze r

aske dth e followin g question s abou t th e enclosure s a

t thes e tw o facilities : Ho w d o plant s manag e th e operation s t o protec t th e workers ? 

# nP. 4

Meeting Minute s Septembe r 13 , 200 1 Pag e 3 Wha

t are th e logistic s i

n meetin g th e criteri aof

Metho d204 ? Ar e th e practice s transferable t o al l RF P facilitites ? Mr . Schweitze

r als o expressedconcern s tha t th e on e actua l tota l enclosur e an dth e on e theoretica l us e o f tota l enclosure s describe

di n atechnica

l pape r reference db y EP A wouldno t

b e acceptable fo

r man y composite s manufacturin

g operation s becaus e of

produc t size an dworke r exposure s t o styrene an

dothe r ai r contaminants . The tota

l enclosur e i n actua l operatio n i

n th e pape r i s appliedt o aship-buildin

g operation an

dth e enclosur

e onl y coveredpar

t ofth e shi p an d has t o b e movedfromon

e par t ofth e shi p t o th e next . Th

e theoretica

l tota l enclosur e operatio n discussedi n th e pape r consideredproductio n o

f ahelicopte

r an dwas size dt o allo w productio n of onl y on e helicopte r a t atime . EMr

. Schweitze

r state dtha t thes e operation s ar

e no t simila r t o reinforcedcomposit

e productio n i

n whic h severa l mold s and/o

r multipl e product s o f

varyin g siz e ar e mad e an dwher e aproduct

need s t o b e mad

e al l a t th e sam e tim e an dno t i n stages . Further , Mr . Schweitze

r note dth e us e of

respirator s an

drecirculating ai

r an dstate dtha

t h e di dno t kno w of anyon e i n th e RF P industr y doin g this . H e furthe

r expressedconcer

n ove r whethe r OSH A an d fire marshall s wouldallow th e RF P industr y t o implemen

t suc h operations . Finally , h

e notedtha

t a30 0 pp mexposur e t o styren e i s aviolation ofth e OSEH

A standard s fo

r styrene . I n discussing th e cost s associatedwit h captur e an dcontrol , Mr . Schweitze

r expresseda numbe r of concern s wit

h EPA' s cos t

analysi s an

dmentionedtha

t industr y wil l provid e additiona l cos t datat o EPA . I

n particular , EMr

. Schweitze

r expressedconcer

n tha t th e leve l o f concentratio n of styren e neededi n exhaus t ai r fo r efficien t contro l present s a

n exposur e risk to worker s an

dtha t th e variatio n i

n operating hour s ( 8 hour s pe r day , 5 day s pe

r wee k versu s 2 4 hou r day s i n EPA' s cos t analysis ) wil

l have asubstantia

l impac t o n th e costs . He state dtha

t basedo n visit s t o fou

r RF P facilities , averag e worke

r exposure s ar

e 2 2 t o 3 5 pp

man dexhaus t concentration s betwee

n 8. 4 an d7 0 ppm . EMr

. Schweitze

r referredt o a

n industria l hygienist wh o whe n aske dabou t th e possibilit y o f lowering ai

r flows t o increas e styrene concentratio n i n thes e fou r facilitie s recommende

dagains t doin g s o becaus e of

increas e i n bot h hea t stres s an dstyrene exposur

e t o th e worker . Mr . Schweitze

r expressedconcer

n abou t th e operatin g hour s usedt o calculat e th e cost s o f captur e an dcontro l pointing ou

t tha t th e operating hour s fo

r th e 1 8 facilitie s studiedb

y Mr . Haberlei n rangedfrom 8 hour s pe

r day , five day s pe

r wee k u p t o nearl y continuou s operation . Finally , Mr . Schweitze

r expressedindustry' s position tha t pollution prevention i s abetter option tha n captur e an dcontrol . H e notedt o th e floor requirement s appeare dt o b e overal l (wit h afe w exceptions ) ver

y good . However , fo

r above-the-floor , basedo

n a n averag e captur

e of 80 % an d95 % contro l efficiency , CF A believe s 76 % i s abetter

estimat e ofth e overal

l contro l leve

l tha t ca n b e achieve

dan dtha t pollution prevention ca

n achieve emissio

n reduction s clos e t o tha

t leve l whil e reducing energ

y consumption an

dproviding worke

r protectio n benefits , al

l a t muc h lowe r cos t tha n captur e an dcontrol . 

# 3P. 5

Meetin g Minute s Septembe r 13 , 200 1 Pag e 4 Th e secon dpresente r wa s Mr . Session s wit

h Environomic s (se e attachmen t #2) . H e focusedhi s concern s o

n th e affordabilit

y of captur e an dcontro l an

don EPA' s economi c impact analysi s (EIA) . I

n particular , Mr . Session s expressedconcern s wit h assumption s tha

t EPA used t o determin

e contro l cost s an

dwit h th e lac k o f availabl e dat at o develo

p a n accurat e mode l of affordability . H e indicatedtha t i t was likel y nobod y reall y ha dth e data . Give

n th e complexit

y o f th e mode l an dth e lac k o f reliable data , Mr . Session s doe s not recommen

drevising th e model . However , h

e suggestedtha

t EP A tak e a n aggregat e loo k a t thos e subjec

t t o th e 95 % requiremen

t versu s thos e tha

t ar e not . H e presentedcomplianc e cos t informatio n b y thre e grouping s of facilities : (1 ) thermoplastics , (2 ) thos e facilitie s tha t emi t mor e tha n 10 0 ton s pe r yea r o f HA P an d ar e owne db y larg e businesse s an

dthos e tha

t emi t mor e tha n 25 0 ton s pe

r yea r o f HA P an dar e ownedb y smal l businesses , an

d(3 ) al l others . H e state dtha

t th e 2 9 facilitie s tha

t mak e up th e secon dgrouping of

facilitie s (thos e subjec

t t o th e 95 % contro l requirement ) wil l incu r th e bul k o f increasedcost s fo

r th e industry . Mr . Session s presente dadetailedcos t analysi s fo

r 1 0 facilitie s an

dexpressedth e belief tha t hi s cos t estimate s wer

e 2. 4 time s highe

r tha n EPA' s an

dtha t basedon thos e costs , 7 ofth e 1 0 wouldlikel

y clos e rathe

r tha n assum e th e contro l costs . Mr . Sessio n indicatedtha

t th e cost s calculatedb

y th e industr

y underestimat

e cost s i n tha t the y d o no t includ e monitoring , recordkeeping , an

dreportin g costs . I

n addition , th e cost s fo

r th e Kohle r facilitie s ma

y als o b e understated . H e usedth e sam e assumption s a s EP

A i n th e cos t analysi s fo

r interes t rate , lif e of service , an dindirect cos t factors . O

n th e othe r hand , h e usedactua

l ai r flows, concentrations , operating hours , an

denergy cost s an

dcurren t leve l (yea r 2000 ) of production , whic

h i n som e case s wer e ver y differen t tha n thos e usedb

y EP A (yea r 1998) . Mr . Session s commentedtha t th e EI A i s flawed becaus e it analyze s captiv e facilitie s (provid e produc t onl y t o paren t company) frommerchan

t facilitie s (sel

l produc t i n th e ope n market) . N o cos t

analysi s wa s performe

do n th e 95 % contro l requiremen t fo r captiv e facilities . H e believe s th e assumption tha t al l larg e busines s facilitie s ar

e captiv e an

dwil l absor b complianc e cost s i s flawed becaus e man y facilitie s operate a s stand-alone , merchan t facilitie s eve

n thoug h the

y hav e larg e paren

t companies . According t o Mr . Sessions , ofth e 2 9 facilitie s identifie da s being subjec t t o th e 95 % requirement , 2

4 ar e clearl y merchan t facilities , 2 ar

e bot h merchan t an d captive , an don e i s debatable . Furthermore , paren t companie s of

captiv e facilitie s d

o conside r closin g facilitie s unde

r their contro l an doutsourcin g rathe

r tha n assumin g increasedcosts . Mr . Session s state dtha

t th e EIA mode

l estimate s how muc

h eac h facilit y woul dspen

dt o manufactur

e eac h produc t b y developing asuppl

y curve fo r eac h facility . H e sai

dthi s wa s not

a goo dapproach , tha

t EP A doe s not

kno w wha

t i t cost s eac h facilit y t o produc e products . Instead , h e suggest s tha

t EP A conduc t a n economi c analysi s using a n affordabilit

y approach . EMr

. Session s doe s not believe tha

t i t make s sens e t o tal

k about th e pric e of

produc t becaus e ofth e multitud

e of reinforce dplasti c product s produced . Examinin g pric e of produc t i s mor e appropriate , according t o Mr . Sessions , mor

e unifor mproducts , suc

h a s gasoline or

cement . EMr

. Session s presente d 

# -4P. 6

Meeting Minute s Septembe r 13 , 200 1 Pag e 5 thre e criteri afo

r affordability , whic

h h e characterizeda s conservative . Th e thre e criteri aar

e (1 ) tota l annua l cos t (TAC ) a s percen

t of 200 0 annua

l composite s revenues , (2 ) TA C a s amultipl

e of 200 0 annua

l composite s profit , an

d(3 ) tota l capita l investmen

t as amultiple o f

5 yea r averag e annua l capita l expenditures . Accordin

g t o hi s assessmen

t ofth e complianc e cost s versu s thes e thre e criteria , captur

e an dcontro l wouldb e eithe

r clearl y o r probabl y not affordabl e fo r 7 ofth e 1 0 facilitie s examined . Th

e financial datause

dt o mak e thi s analysi s fo

r th e 1 0 facilitie s ca

n b e providedt o EP

A on aconfidentia

l basis . A n EP A representativ e aske

dwhethe r CF A woul dhav e approvedo f

a n analysi s base

do n mode l plants . EMr

. Schweitze

r repliedtha

t CF A doe s not

fee l tha t th e mode l plan t i s appropriat

e becaus e ther

e i s to o muc

h variabilit y withi n th e industr

y t o identif y representativ e operations . H e suggesteda

n approach of

taking adetailedloo

k a t 1 0 facilitie s (one/thir

dofth e affecte

dfacilities) . Mr . Schweitze

r als o state dCFA' s position tha t Congres s intende

dtha t affordabilit

y shoul db e give n specia l consideratio n fo

r requirement s tha

t g o above th e floor. Anothe r EPA representativ e aske dhow industr

y revenue s have bee

n recently . EMr

. Session s respondedtha

t busines s has generall y bee n goo dsince th e mid-90's , bu t i t has prett y ba dfo r th e aut o secto r ove r th e last yea r an dhal f t o tw o years . I n th e thir dpresentation , Charle

y Brown fromAquaGlas s providedcomments o n EPA' s evaluation of

add-on contro l cost s an

dhi s experienc e wit

h AquaGlas s (se e attachmen t #3) . Hi s primar y concern s ar

e tha t h e believe s inaccurat

e assumption s wer

e use dt o develo

p th e proposed standar dan dadd-on control s ar

e tha t th e add-on contro l cost s ar e prohibitivel

y expensive - competition prevent s produc t pric e increase s t o compensat e fo r highe r productio n costs . Mr . Brown statedtha

t hi s unit s sel

l fo r abou t $200 pe r uni t an dtha t a$ 4 t o $ 6 increas e i

n pric e i s a "big " fo r hi s abilit y t o sel l hi s units . H e statedtha

t th e estimatedcos t

o f complianc e o

f $ 6 millio n dollars i s approximatel

y two-third s of

thei r annua l profi t ove r th e las t severa l years . EMr

. Brow n statedtha t hi s compan

y couldno t

an dwouldnot

mak e suc h a n investmen

t i n their plan t t o implemen t captur e an dcontrol . H e fel

t tha t increase s i

n uni t price s (about

$1 0 pe r unit ) woul d resul t i n th e shif t t o othe r material s being usedt o produc e tub s an dshowers . Instea

dof captur e an dcontrol , EMr

. Brow n state dtha

t Aqu aGlas s ha s ha

dgrea t succes s wit

h Pollutio n Prevention (P2 ) effort s a t on e plan t an dbelieve s tha

t P 2 i s abette

r approac h fo r th e industr

y tha n add-on controls . Mr . Brown indicatedtha t Peter Brewe r wit h th e Oregon Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Qualit y woul db e acontac t

t o discus s th e P2 approach a t thei r facility . A n EP A representativ e askedabou t exhaus t flow rat e an dconcentratio n data . Mr . Brow n respondedtha

t th e datawil

l b e include

dwit h th e formal , writte

n comments . The EP

A representativ e als o askedMr . Brown whethe r Aqu aGlas s ha

dconsideredth e tabl e o

f alternativ e poin t values . EMr

. Brow n repliedtha

t th e alternativ e woul

dno t hel p AquaGlas s achieve compliance . Th e fourt h presente r wa s Perr y Bennet t wit h MFG . MF

G i s afamily-owne

dbusines s 

# £P. 7

Meetin g Minute s Septembe r

13 , 200 1 Pag e 6 founde db y hi s fathe r

in 1950 . Ove r

th e years , th e compan y ha s buil t awid e variety o f

products . Th e compan y ha s many facilities , all o f whic h operat e a s separat e entities , wit h th e larges t facilit y employin g 35 0 peopl e an dth e smalles t employin g 35 . EMr

. Bennet t note dtha t

th e year 200 0 wa s on e o f thei r wors t busines s years . Unde r th e propose drule , th e compan y ha s th e potentia l t o b e subjec t t o th e 95 % contro l requirement . Mr . Bennet t state dtha t

hi s company ca

n no t affor dt o implemen t

th e 95 % contro l requirement . H e state dtha t h e will provid e detail s i

n hi s writte n comments . Mr . Bennet t indicate dtha t

eac h facilit

y operate s a s aseparat e busines s entity an da s individual profi t center s eac h mus t justif y thei r operations . Th e MF G Unio n Cit y facilit y at ful l capacit y ( 3 shift s pe r

day ) emit s abou t

13 0 ton s pe r

year o f HAP . Implementin g 95 % contro l at thi s facilit

y woul dcos t abou t $18,00 0 pe r

to n o f HA P reduced . Th e bes t

year s for thi s facilit

y wer e 199 8 an d1999 ; th e wors t year , 2000 . Accordin g t o Mr . Bennett , i f a n oxidize r syste mwa s in place , the y woul dhav e t o hadt o clos e th e facilit

y in 2000 . Accordin g t o Mr . Bennett , MF G i s no t acaptiv e facilit

y an dit s customer s (e.g. , aut o an d larg e truc k

industry ) requir e annual cos t cuts ; therefore , th e cos t

o f adde dcontrol s coul dnot b e passe do n t o th e customers . EMr . Bennet t als o raise dth e issu e o f

adde denerg y cost s tha t

woul d resul t fromoperatin g a

n oxidize r wit h lo w stac k

concentration s o f

styren e (les s tha n 10 0 ppm) . Mr . Bennet t

state dtha t

the y ha dbee n cite db y OSH A for havin g astyren e concentratio n o f mor e tha n 10 0 pp min age l coa t booth , eve n thoug h th e worker s wea r respirator y protection . I n respons e t o th e OSH A citation , EMF G entere dint o aconsen t

agreemen t

with OSH A t o reduc e worke r exposur e t o styren e usin g engineerin g control s an dha s joine davoluntar y effor t t o limit worke r exposur e t o 5 0 pp mbase do n atoxicologist' s recommendation . Mr . Bennet t state dtha t the y ma y see k t o mee t a2 0 pp mgoa l base do n th e ACGIH' s TL V o n 2 0 pp m(whic h i s a n 8-hou r tim e weigh t

average) . Mr . Bennet t

als o commente do n th e impossibilit y o f achievin g 100 % captur e at a particula r MF G facilit

y tha t consis t o f athree-stor y bric k

an dconcret e structur e with a n overhea d hois t syste man ddilutio n ventilation , with sprayin g booths , curing , an dreinforcement s tie di n betwee n th e booth s o n th e thir dfloor an dasecon dbuildin g acros s apubli c road . H e note dtha t tyin g thes e tw o building s togethe r woul db e difficul

t an dextremel y expensive . I n orde r t o obtai n 100 percen t

capture , Mr . Bennet t

state dtha t

it woul db e necessary t o tea r dow n th e building s an d buil dane w structure . Thi s particular facilit y ha s partia l coatin g cur e occurrin g outside ofth e booth . H e als o discusse dth e emissio n reduction s tha t MF G ha s achieve dthroug h successfu l P 2 efforts . EMr

. Bennet t indicate dtha t

i n th e pre-RAC T days , thei r potential t o emi t

wa s greate r

tha n 40 0 ton s pe r

year o f VOC . Wit

h post-RACT , thei r

potentia l t o emi t

VO C decrease dt o 24 2 ton s pe r year . Currently , thei r

plan t wid e applicabilit

y limi t i s 16 4 ton s pe r yea r o f VO C ( a"cap " o nP. 8

Meeting Minute s Septembe r 13 , 200 1 Pag e 7 emissions) . Thi s i s equivalent , according t o Mr . Bennett , t o abou t 13 2 ton s pe

r yea r of HAP . I n orde r t o compl y wit h th e proposedrule , Mr . Bennet t state dtha t MF G woul dhave t o ca p eac h facilit y i n orde r t o maintai n emission s les s tha

n 10 0 ton s pe r year , the y woul dhave t o renegotiat e their Stat e an dTitle V permits , an

dthe y woul dneve r b e able t o utiliz e th e maximu m capacitie s available a

t eac h facility . Suc

h asituation , according t o Mr . Bennett , wouldlea dt o employe e layoffs , custome

r an drevenue loss , an

dplan t closures . Operating t o maintai n emission s les s tha n 10 0 ton s pe r yea r wouldresul

t i n facilitie s becomin

g th e "ultimate " jo b shop . A n EP A representativ e aske

dwha t typ e o f syste mMr . Bennet

t ha dlookeda t t o determin

e tha t th e cos t wa s to o high . Mr . Bennet

t repliedtha

t h e consideredaconcentrator plu s oxidize

r contro l system . The EPA representativ e als o aske dMr . Bennet

t if th e practic e he describedo

f pullin g product s off-lin

e fo r partia l curin g outsid e of booth s i s typical . Mr . Bennet t an dothe r industr y representative s indicatedtha t i t i s no t uncommo n t o have partia

l curing occurring betwee n laminat e areas . Th e fifth presenter , Craig Peterso n fo r Xerxe s Corporation , represente dbot h Xere s an d Proform , tw o companie s wit h th e sam e owne r (se e attachmen

t #4) . According t o Mr . Peterson , th e facilitie s ownedb

y thes e tw o companie s ca

n no t mee t an y ofth e Metho d20

4 requirements . H e note dtha

t a t Xerxes , th e mold s ar

e se t u p i n row s wit h larg e distance s betwee

n th e molds , whil e a t Proform , th e mold s travel station-to-statio n i n ahorse-sho e layout . Mr . Peterso n the

n expressedconcer

n tha t th e smal l busines s definitio

n i s to o restrictiv e an dhi s belie f tha t EP A ha s th e discretion t o redefin e smal l businesse s s o tha

t smalle r facilitie s tha

t operat e as separat

e entitie s coul

dobtai n th e exemption s of

othe r smal l facilitie s eve

n i f the y ar e owne db y alarge r corporation . EMr

. Peterso n als o stressedtha

t larg e companie s wil

l conside r shutting dow

n suppl y division s an

doutsourcing thei

r need s i f tha t i s deeme dcost-effective . A

n EP A representativ e share

dtha t th e Offic e of Genera l Counse l i s concernedtha

t altering th e definitio n t o benefi t legitimat e smal l operation s open s th e doo r fo r larg e companie s t o declar

e subsidiarie s autonomou s solel y fo r th e purpos e of

gainin g smal l busines s statu s unde

r th e rule , an

d th e representativ e askedindustr y fo r inpu t o n way s t o avoi

dthi s typ e of

gamin g i f th e smal l busines s definitio

n i s revised . N o immediat

e suggestion s wer

e offered . I n th e sixt h presentation , Mar

k Ake r of Ake r Plastics , discussedth e histor y ofth e thre e generation , famil

y ownedbusines s currentl

y manufacturin

g bathtubs . Th

e compan y ha s thre e facilitie s an

dproduce s abou

t 1,40 0 unit s pe r day . Th e Martinsburg , Wes t

Virginia , facilit

y an d th e Plymouth , IN , facilit

y have stac

k control s (concentrator

an dincinerator

) an ddo no t mee t th e proposedMAC

T standard . Mr . Ake

r statedtha t the y ca n no t mee t th e Metho d20

4 requirement s withou t shutting dow

n operation s an

drestructurin g th e building . H e als o statedtha t h e di dno t believe the y coul dachieve Metho d20

4 requirement s a

t an y cost . 

## tfP. 9

Meetin g Minute s Septembe r

13 , 200 1 Pag e 8 Mr . Ake r

discusse dth e succes s hi s compan y ha s hadi n reducin g emission s throug h P 2 effort s an dexpresse dhi s belie f tha t P 2 i s th e bes t

approac h t o MAC T fo r

th e industry . H e pointe dou t

tha t the y hav e worke dwit

h supplier s sinc e 199 0 t o lowe r th e HA P conten t

i n th e resin . I n 1990 , the y wer e usin g a4 4 t o 48 % HA P resin , whic h i s no w dow n t o 35 % HA P an dstil l us e th e sam e amoun t

o f filler. Gel coat s hav e gon e from3 8 t o 42 % HA P conten t dow n t o 25 % HA P content . Further , Mr . Ake r stated , the y hav e use dspray gun s tha t hav e achieve dat

leas t a 60 % reductio n i n emissions . An EP A representative suggeste dtha t Mr . Ake r

revie w th e poin t

valu e option s t o determin e i f

th e Martinsbur g plan t

ca n mee t th e poin t valu e limit s i

n Tabl e 5 ofth e propose drul e throug h acombinatio n ofth e existin g control s an dP 2 efforts . Th e EP A representativ e the n explaine dtha t

th e poin t valu e limit s in Tabl e 5 ca n b e use dt o compl y with th e propose drul e b y controllin g aportio n o f

emission s a

t afacilit y (e.g. , thos e tha t

might hav e highe r

HA P concentration s tha n othe r emissio n points) . Th e sevent

h presentatio n was mad e b y Da n Blackburn , Mark Rowan , an dKe n Witt

o f Abl e Bod y Corporatio n (se e attachmen t #5) . Thei r

discussio n focuse do n th e backgroun do f Abl e Bod y Corporatio n an dthei r concern s tha t

th e cos t o f captur e an dcontro l ar e to o hig h an dtha t th e natur e o f thei r operations , divers e an dseasonal produc t bas e an dsmall , flexible wor k cells , doe s no t len ditsel f

t o 100 % captur e withou t sacrificin g th e flexibility neede dt o maintai n thei r produc t base . Gordo n Low e o f

LASC O Bathwar e gav e th e eight h presentatio n (se e attachmen t #6) . LASC O i s th e larges t

manufacture r

o f tubs . Curren t

profi t margin s ar e o n adownturn , primaril y becaus e shippin g cost s hav e increase ddu e t o custome r demand s fo r

limite dvolum e deliveries . LASC O considere dbuildin g ane w plan t in Kentucky an ddroppe dth e projec t du e t o th e cos t

o f th e case-by-cas e MAC T determinatio n tha t woul dhav e require dcaptur e an dcontrol . Th e compan y ha s worke dwith a n EP A representativ e t o develo p Pollutio n Preventio n throug h th e Permittin g Proces s (P4 ) wit h success . EMr

. Low e note d tha t

th e South Coast

Ai r Qualit y Managemen t

Distric t wa s comin g out

with ane w rul e tha t

woul drequir e 6 5 t o 71 % reductio n for all spray booths . Finally , EMr . Low e share dhi s experienc e in achievin g lowe r emissio n rate s usin g FI T technolog y with ge l coa t containin g 36 % styren e tha n was achieve dusin g atomomize d spray wit h a30 % styren e ge l coat . Th e nint h presente r

wa s Diann e Coo n o f

Ashlan dSpecialt

y Chemical (se e attachmen t #7) . Sh e discusse dth e negativ e impac t tha t acontrol-base dstandar dwil l hav e o n researc h t o develo p low-HA P coatin g technolog y i n th e fiiture. An EP A representative aske dif sh e ha dlooke dat

th e marke t shar e o f small versu s larg e users . Ms . Coo n replie dtha t approximatel y one-thir dofth e marke t wil l hav e t o g o t o oxidatio n unde r th e propose dstandard . Th e final presente r

wa s Joh n Barke r

o f Strongwell , als o appearin g o n behal f o f th e 

# 2P.1 0

Meetin g Minute s Septembe r

13 , 200 1 Pag e 9 pultrusio n industry . H e ha dthre e mai n topics : (1 ) prefor minjection , (2 ) averaging , an d(3 ) larg e parts . Wit

h regar dt o prefor

minjection , Mr . Barke r

discusse dth e option s availabl e in th e proposal : we t

are aenclosures , direc t

di e injection , and95 % captur e an dcontrol . H e share dtha t we t are aenclosure s wor k

wel l t o achiev e approximatel y 60 % reduction ; direc t di e injectio n ha s limite dus e fo r

th e pultrusio n industry an dStrongwel l ha s not hadmuc h succes s with it (har dt o ge t th e produc t

throughl y wette dout , proces s speed s ar e lower , an dtoolin g ha s shorte r lifespan) ; an dtha t 95 % captur e an dcontro l usin g Metho d20 4 i s to o restrictiv e t o wor k wel l for th e pultrusio n industry . EMr

. Barke r suggeste dtha t

prefor minjection , whic h test s sho w t o achiev e at leas t 90 % reduction , b e adde dt o th e propose drul e a s a n option . Wit h regard s t o averaging , Mr . Barke r note dtha t

th e curren t

rul e allow s for

acces s fo r adjustment s fo r

u p t o 3 0 minute s in eac h shif t an di f th e 3 0 minut e allowanc e fo r acces s i s exceeded , th e lin e mus t

shu t down , th e proces s drained , etc. , unti l th e nex t shif t begins . EMr

. Barke r note dtha t

3 0 minute s ma

y b e agoo doveral l average , but tha t th e 3 0 minute s doe s no t allo w for flexibility fo r

start-u p o f

ne w produc t

line s an dfo r

larg e part s an dintricat e parts , whic h requir e alo t

o f adjustment s durin g production . H e pointe dout tha t th e propose drul e doe s not hav e a n allowanc e fo r

startu p o r

shutdown , for

extraordinary event s tha t requir e lengthie r

access , o r for ne w produc t

startu p an dpersonne l training . EMr . Barke r propose dtha t

th e rul e allo w averagin g acros s prefor

minjection , we t

are aenclosures , an ddirec t di e injectio n suc h tha t

a s lon g a s th e averag e emissio n reductio n achieve s 60 % th e owne r o r operato r i s in compliance . I f

a pultrusio n lin e exceed s th e 30-minut e limit , rathe r tha n b e shu t

down , th e rul e woul dallo w th e owne r o r operato r t o averag e i t

with othe r

pultrusio n line s t o demonstrat e 60 % emissio n reduction . Th e pultrusio n lin e tha t exceede dth e 3 0 minut e acces s limit woul db e entere dint o th e averagin g equatio n a s a

n "uncontrolled " lin e an dothe r line s woul dhav e t o b e "over-controlled. " Mr . Barke r

suggeste dtha t

th e averagin g provisio n b e base do n a12-mont h rollin g average . With regar dt o larg e part s (suc h a s beam s wher e ther e ar e 1,000 feed s an da16-inc h cros s diameter) , EMr

. Barke r requeste da

n exemptio n fromth e rule . H e state dtha t suc h part s requir e constan t operato r acces s an dther e i s n o demonstrate dcontro l for suc h larg e parts . H e fel

t th e concep t o f controllin g ai r

flo w a s acontro l measur e wa s not ver y practical . An EP A representative aske dfor clarificatio n betwee n direc t di e injectio n an dprefor

m injection . EMr

. Barke r explaine dtha t

wit h direc t di e injectio n th e resi n injectio n take s plac e onl y i n th e die , but

with prefor

minjection , ther e i s achambe r aroun dth e di e in whic h th e resi n i s injected . Th e EP A representative the n indicate dtha t th e inten t

ofth e propose drul e wa s no t t o hav e exclude dprefor

minjection . Industr y representative s indicate dtha t the y wil l b e submittin g forma l writte n comment s o n th e propose drul e an dthanke dEP A representative s an dcontractor s for thei r time . 

# ?P.1 1

ATTACHMEN

T 1 Joh n Schweitze

r Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n



# /s-Presentatio n o n th e Propose dNESHA P fo

r Composite s

Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n Septembe r

7,200 1 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C Propose dNESHA P
EP A ha s propose dthat

certai n companie s achiev e 95 % contro l o f HA P emission s b y us e o f

captur e an doxidatio n contro l technologies . W e kno w that

EPA doe s no t

inten d t o threate n th e economi c vitalit y o f thes e companies . Propose dNESHA P T o mak e sur e tha t

95 % captur e an d contro l i s achievable , EP A mus t answe r th e followin g questions : A . I s 100 % captur e feasibl e fo r th e full rang e o f

operations ? B . Wha t ar e th e real cost s o f

C&C ? C . I s C& C affordable ? D . I s C& C bette r

than pollutio n prevention ?


## X A . I s 100 % captur e feasibl e for th e ful l rang e o f operations ?

• An enginee r

retaine db y CF A visite d 1 8 actua l an dtypical ope n moldin g operations , an ddesigne denclosure s that woul dcapture the maximum amount of emissions, whil e stil l allowing the necessary movement of molds, products, workers, and material, an dprotecting workers from heat

stress and

styrene exposures. • O n average , th e enclosure s for thes e 1 8 plant s woul dcaptur e onl y 80 % o f emissions . A . I s 100 % captur e feasibl e fo r th e full rang e o f operations ?

• Compare dt o ou r

1 8 cas e studie s —fo

r whic h w e hav e provide dal l th e dat a— EPA' s proposal i s base do n onl y tw o plant s tha t

supposedl y achiev e 100 % capture . We hav e no t

bee n abl e t o evaluat e th e control s o r

operation s a

t dies e plana . • Fo r thes e tw o plants , EP A need s to fully answe r th e following : 1 Wha tar e th e worke r exposure s t o hea tstres s an d styiene ? Precisel y wha tmeasure s ar e take n t o protec tworkers ? Ho w ir e molds , products , workers , an d materia l move d into , within , an d oo tofth e enclosures ? Ko w precisel y d o th e enclosure s continuousl y mee t th e fal l criteri a o f

Medio d 204 ? Ho w woul d thes e facilitie s mak e large r part s tik e R/ V sidewafl s o r undergroun d gasolin e storag e tanks ? Precisel y bo w woul d exisan j plant s b e retrofitte d t o resemble thes e tw o "tnodetrf " Ho w muc h woul d thi s cost ? A . I s 100 % captur e feasibl e fo r th e full rang e o f operations ?

• EP A ha s pointe dt o atechnica l pape r describin g on e actual an don e theoretical us e o f total enclosure s fo

r coatin g o f aircraf t an dships . However , th e enclosure s describe d i n th e pape r coul d neve r b e use d to manufactur e composites , because :

• The y woul d oo tallo w multipl e larg e product s t o b e mad e simultaneously , a s required fo r profitabl e composite s manufacturing . < The y woul d no tallo w a n entir e produc tt o b e mad e i n on e step , a s require d fo r moldin g composite s products . • The y requir e th e us e o f recirculatio n and/o r respirators , whic h ar e no tpractica l for composite s The y woul d resul ti n overexposur e o f worker s l o airborn e contaminants .B . Wha tar e cost s o f C&C ? EPA' s curren

tcos tanalysi s employ s ver y inaccurat

e estimate s o f enclosure exhaus tconcentration , enclosur e size , an

d operating hours . Industr y i s providin g update

d information in thes e area

s s o tha t EP A can improv

e it s cos testimates .

^ B . Wha tar e cost s o f C&C ? CF A wil l provid e th e results o f a n industria l hygien e survey o f

four actua l an d typica l composite s moldin g operations , where th e averag e exhaus tconcentration s range d fro m 8. 4 t o 7 0 ppm , whil e th e averag e occupationa

l exposure s range d fro m 22. 3 to 35. 5 ppm.

- Th e industria l hygicnis tdetermine d tha t th e exhaus tconcentration s coul d no tb e increase d withou tunacceptabl y increasin g th e risk o f

hea tstres s o r exposur e t o styrene . B . Wha tar e cost s o f C&C ? CFA wil l als o provid e dat a fro m th e 1 8 cas e stud

y plant s showin g tha

t enclosure s woul d range i n siz e fro m 14,00 0 sq . ft. t o ove r 250,00 0 sq . ft., an d tha toperating hour

s var y betwee n 4 0 hour

s per wee k to continuou s operation . Fo r EPA' s cos testimates , i f a plan t wa s assume d t o exhaus tai r a t SOppp m instead o f

lOOppm , an d wa s assume d to operat

e 8 hours/da

y instead o f 24 , th e control cos twoul d increas e by a facto r o f

6 .

C . I s C& C affordable ? Stuar tSession s o f

Environomics ha

s studied EPA' s affordabilit y analysis , an d ha s als o prepare

d a n independen

tassessmen to f affordability . Th e result

s o f Stuart' s analyse s wil l b e provided by CF A i n our writte n comments . D . I s C& C bette r tha n P2 ?

• Pollutio n prevention ca n achiev e emissio n reductions comparabl e t o thos e tha tca n realisticall y b e achieve d wit

h captur e an d control . • C&C-8M4x95 % = 76 % • P 2 = 65 % o n averag

e

- Fo r man y ofth e sources tha

twould b e require d tinde r th e propose d rul e t o emplo

y captur e an d control , P

2 wil l resul

ti n emission reductions o f

70-80% . • Pollutio n prevention , unlik e captur e an d control , can b e afforded b y al l composite s manufacturers . • Pollutio n prevention has energy - usag e an d worker protectio n benefits , whil e captur

e an d control i s wors e fo r both . Proposed NESHA P T o make sur

e tha t95 % captur

e an d contro l i s achievable , EP A must answe r th e followin g questions : A . I s 100 % captur

e feasibl e fo r th e ful l range o f operations ? B . Wha tar e th e rea l cost s o f C&C ? C I s C& C affordable ? D . I s C& C better tha

n pollutio n prevention ? In preparing th e fina

l rule , EP A need s to answe r thes e question s full y an d fairly , usin g th e bes t availabl e infonnation .

T JP. M

ATTACHMEN

T 2 Stuar t Session s Environmetric s



# \3

# AFFORDABILIT Y O F 95 % CAPTURE/CONTRO L REQUIREMEN T

1 . Complianc e cos t

estimate s fo

r individual facilitie s are th e startin g poin t i n analyzin g affordabilit

y

• Detaile danalysi s o f

sampl e facilitie s suggest s cost s wil l b e at leas t 2.4 x greate r

tha n EP A estimate s 2 . EPA' s Economi c Impac t Analysi s (EIA ) doe s no t

analyz e th e affordabilit

y ofth e 95 % requirement . Th e EI A simpl y assume s th e requiremen t i s affordable .

• Whil e EP A coul dalter th e EI A mode l somewha

t t o analyz e affordability , th e mode l a s awhol e i s ver

y ambitiou s an dcomplex . Dat ad o no t exis t t o implemen t

i t

• Wher e dat aare lacking , man y o f EPA' s assumption s are incorrec t

o i

# AFFORDABILIT Y O F 95 % CAPTURE/CONTRO L REQUIREMEN T

3 . W e sugges t

tw o simpler , mor e common-sens e approache s t o affordabilit y analysi s

• Th e facilitie s subjec t t o th e 95 % requiremen t

wil l fac e muc h highe r

complianc e cost s pe r poun do f produc t tha n th e grea t

bul k ofth e industry . Thes e facilitie s wil l hav e t o absorb thes e costs . Th e increase dcost s wil l reduc e thes e facilities ' profit s sharply , threatenin g thei r

viabilit y
^ • Detaile dfinancia l analysi s o f 1 0 facilitie s show s seriou s affordability problem s fo r al l o f them . Ou r

judgmen t

i s tha t a t leas t 7 o f the mwoul dmor e likel y clos e tha n pa y th e cost s o f captur e an dcontro l

T J C D^ • 

# ESTIMATE D COST S FO R95 % CAPTURE/CONTRO L Compariso n o f

EPA an dCF

A cos t estimate s fo

r 95 % capture/contro l fo

r 1 2 facilitie s likel y subjec t t o th e requirement :

• CF A estimate s cost s at

leas t 2.4 x greater

than EP A Wh y "at least" ? Discuss : MRRcosts , Kohler Why th e differenc e i n cos t estimates ? CF A use dEPA' s cos t

curves , annualizatio n assumptions , indirec t cos t factor s Difference s regardin g ai r

flows, concentrations , operatin g hours , energ y cost s Difference s i n emission s an dproductio n fromEPA' s 199 7 estimate s t o curren t actual

T JCompariso n o f Cos t Estimate s fo r Captur e an d Oxidatio n

Facilit y Ake rPlastics , Plymouth , I N Aqu a Glass , Adamsville , T N Aqu a Glass , Klamat h Falls , O R MFG , Unio n City , P A Strongwell , Bristol , V A Xerxes , Anaheim , C A Xerxes , Hagerstown , M D Xerxes , Sequin , T X Xerxes , Tipton , I A Thre e Additiona l Facilitie s Tota l fo ral l facilitie s

Facilit y Ake rPlastics , Plymouth , I N Aqu a Glass , Adamsville , T N Aqu a Glass , Klamat h Falls , O R MFG , Unio n City , P A Strongwell , Bristol , V A Xerxes , Anaheim , C A Xerxes , Hagerstown , M D Xerxes , Sequin , T X Xerxes , Tipton , I A Thre e Additiona l Facilitie s Tota l fo ral l facilitie s Capita l Cost s EP A $2,379,85 6 $10,775,90 9 $1,361,10 5 $1,061,63 3 $1,526,57 6 $967,51 9 $595,52 3 $595,52 3 $592,15 4 $2,884,04 6 $22,739,84 4 CF A

$5,000,00 0 $11,780,54 2 $3,150,77 7 $3,894,18 6 $3,914,00 0 $2,744,10 0 $2,669,10 0 $1,833,90 0 $2,276,50 0 $10,387,35 8 $47,650,46 3 Annua l O& M Cost s

EP A $123,03 6 $503,51 1 $104,63 2 $71,24 2 $80,78 8 $39,22 4 $23,17 8 $23,17 8 $22,74 7 $188,75 0 $1,180,28 6 Difference s i n Cos t Estimate s (Relativ e Capita l Tota l $2,620,14 4 $1,004,63 3 $1,789,67 2 $2,832,55 3 $2,387,42 4 $1,776,58 1 $2,073,57 7 $1,238,37 7 $1,684,34 6 $7,503,31 2 $24,910,61 9 Cost s

Percen t 210 % 109 % 231 % 367 % 256 % 284 % 448 % 308 % 384 % 360 % 210 % CF A $400,00 0 $1,535,02 2 $335,13 2 $444,00 6 $942,51 1 $396,72 9 $323,52 9 $219,22 1 $273,29 1 $1,025,79 4 $5,895,23 5 Annualize d Tota l Cost s

EP A $586,61 9 $2,676,30 1 $350,112 $255,37 4 $313,75 4 $181,54 9 $117*10 4 $117,10 4 $115,92 8 $689,58 9 $5,403,43 4

» t o EP A Estimates ) Annua l O& M Cost s Tota l $276,96 4 $1,031,51 1 $230,50 0 $372,76 4 $861,72 3 $357,50 5 $300,35 1 $196,04 3 $250,54 4 $837,04 4 $4,714,94 9 Percen t

325 % 305 % 320 % 623 % 1167 % 1011 % 1396 % 946 % 1201 % 543 % 499 % CF A $1,111,88 8 $3,212,30 6 $783,73 2 $998,45 0 $1,499,77 7 $787,42 7 $703,54 9 $480,32 7 $597,41 3 $2,504,72 0 | $12,679,58 9 |
Annualize d Tota l Cost s Tota l $525,26 9 $536,00 5 $433,62 0 $743,07 6 $1,186,02 3 $605,87 8 $586,44 5 $363,22 3 $481,48 5 $1,815,13 1 $7,276,15 5 Percen t

190 % 120 % 224 % 391 % 478 % 434 % 601 % 410 % 515 % 363 % 235 %°% y 

# EPA' s ECONOMI C IMPAC T ANALYSI S 

# - MERCHAN T VS . CAPTIV E

EPA' s EI A doe s no t

analyz e th e affordabilit

y ofth e 95 % requiremen t

fo r th e facilitie s t o whic h i t wil l apply . Th e EI A simpl y assume s that th e requiremen t

i s affordabl e for

the m

•

•

• 

## Th e 95 % requiremen t applie s nearl y exclusivel y t o larg e busines s facilitie s > 10 0 TP Y (2 8 o f 2 9 facilities ) EP A assume s that

al l larg e busines s facilitie s are captiv e EPA assume s tha

t al l captiv e facilitie s wil l absor b th e complianc e costs , suffe r an equivalen t reductio n i n profits , an dsta y i n business . EP A doe s no t analyz e th e possibility o f

closin g thes e facilitie s (outsourcing ) EP A doe s analyz e affordabilit y fo r facilitie s that

are merchan t

y c o

# EPA' s ECONOMI C IMPAC T ANALYSI S 

# - MERCHAN T VS . CAPTIV E

-s > 

## W e disagre e wit h EPA' s assumptions :

• Ofth e 2 9 facilitie s requirin g oxidation , 2 4 ar e clearl y merchant , no t captive . 2 mor e ar e bot h merchan t

an dcaptive . 1 i s debatable . Se e nex t pag e

• Man y (most? ) facilitie s tha t migh t b e though t

o f a s captiv e als o produc e product s fo r th e marke t

generall y

• Owner s o f

captiv e facilitie s d o seriousl y conside r outsourcing . R V industr y exampl e EP A shoul ddro p th e captive/merchan t distinction . Captiv e RP C producer s ar e par t o f marke t supply . Owner s o f

captiv e operation s ar e part o f marke t deman d Whil e EP A coul dalte r

th e EI A model somewha t t o fix this , th e remainde r ofth e mode l ha s seriou s problem s als o

T l S 3 OEPA' s Estimate s fo r th e 2 9 Facilitie s Needin g Oxidatio n

S b o .



# I Facilit y Nam e AKE R Plastic s Co. . Inc . (Plymouth , N Oa k Rd ) Aqu a Glas s Corp . (Adamsville ) Aqu a Glas s Corp . (Klamat h Falls ) Dixie-Pacifi c Manufacturin g Co . Elje r Plumbingware (Wilson ) Fleetwoo d (Decatu r - formerl y Gol d Shield ) Fleetwoo d (Fontan a - formerl y Gol d Shield ) Holida y Ramble r Corp. , Plan t 3 6 an d 3 7 MF G - Molde d Fibe r Glas s Co . (Unio n City ) Morriso n Molde d Fibe r Glas s (Bristol ) R . D . Werne r Co. , Inc . Sequentia , Inc . (Gran d Junction ) Shakespear e Co . Sherma n Pole s Syntechnic s S.W.C . Industries , Inc . (Swirl-Wa y Div. ) Tomkin s - LASC O Bathware (Anaheim ) Tomkin s - LASC O Bathware (Cordele ) Tomkin s - LASC O Bathware (Elizabethtown ) Tomkin s - LASC O Bathware (Lancaster ) Tomkin s - LASC O Bathware (Moapa ) Tomkin s - LASC O Bathware (Sout h Boston ) Tomkin s - LASC O Bathware (Thre e Rivers ) Tomkin s - LASC O Bathware (Yelm ) Tomkin s - LASC O Pane l Products (KY ) Unite d Technologie s Moto r System s Universal-Rundl e Corp . (Ne wCastle ) Universal-Rundl e Corp . (Ottumwa ) Universal-Rundl e Corp . (Unio n Point ) SUBTOTA L fo r Oxidatio n Require d Resi n 3,185. 1 11,313. 0 1,205. 7 1,298. 0 1,205. 7 2,343. 0 1,074. 4 867. 0 3,359. 8 4,428. 6 5,288. 9 12,644. 9 2,944. 9 2,487. 5 1.154. 3 1,205. 7 3,896. 0 2,446. 6 2,665. 8 2,815. 3 7,854. 6 3,249. 5 3,500. 5 3,357. 6 13,592. 2 6,052. 7 4.192. 5 3,093. 0 1,710. 0 114,432. 8 Material s Usag e (TPY ) Reinforce . 702. 2 3,490. 2 507. 1 1,662. 9 507. 1 666. 2 394. 3 190. 8 161. 6 7,334. 3 9.086. 6 5,246. 3 2,978. 9 3,089. 2 687. 5 507. 1 675. 0 415. 0 655. 0 356. 0 3,974.0 709. 0 584. 0 575. 0 4,396. 8 0. 0 765. 6 804. 0 476. 0 51,597. 8 Fille r

2,378. 7 4,000. 0 1,062. 4 41. 0 1,062. 4 313. 1 417. 3 59. 2 0. 0 1.256. 9 230. 3 2,803. 3 601. 6 0. 0 0. 0 1,062. 4 4,890. 8 3,092. 2 3,304. 6 3,564. 7 9,844. 6 4,078. 6 4,386. 6 4,215. 6 3,479. 0 16,246. 9 3,256. 6 3,276. 0 1,347. 0 80,271. 7 Est production

in mlln lbs/yr Scrap

997. 0 3,079. 7 451. 8 180. 1 451. 8 511. 0 305. 6 177. 3 180. 2 601. 5 623. 3 2,195. 9 383. 4 334. 6 296. 4 451. 8 1,548. 5 975. 1 1,081. 9 1,102. 6 3,533. 0 1,325. 7 1,386. 3 1,337. 2 2,282. 7 702. 6 1,346. 3 1,169. 9 574. 9 29,588. 0 433.4 Pre-MAC

T Emissions (TPY ) 377. 0 1524. 0 164. 4 253. 5 164. 0 356. 8 128. 4 112. 6 112. 3 102. 0 198. 3 247. 8 166. 3 520. 5 139. 0 117. 3 655. 6 413. 2 235. 7 263. 7 1286. 7 370. 2 589. 1 257. 9 137. 2 175. 4 1142. 1 503. 8 203. 0 10.918. 0 Smal l

Busi ness? 1
1 Oxidatio n Required ? YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S YE S 

# I EP

A Cos t Ests . ($1000

) Capita l Cos t 2,38 0 10,77 6 1,36 1 41 7 1,36 0 2.17 2 1,10 3 1,09 6 1,06 2 Annua l O& M Cos t 12 3 50 4 10 5 1 8 10 4 11 5 8 8 7 6 7 1 N o cost s fo r c/

c fo r thes e 2 , wh y not ? 1,62 2 3,57 5 42 8 1,15 8 1,16 0 3,76 1 2,53 4 42 7 43 2 7,47 1 48 5 3,42 4 1,87 7 1,20 9 1,26 7 7,00 1 3,01 7 1,57 4 64,14 9 16 2

18 6 2 2 8 8 7 9 21 5 13 4 14 3 15 8 42 5 12 1 19 3 16 1 12 7 10 4 37 4 16 6 12 7 4.18 9 Annua l

Tota l 58 7 267 6 35 0 9 5 25 0 54 4 27 3 26 7 25 5 31 4 30 9 46 2 70 8 10 3 29 9 28 0 97 5 63 3 18 8 20 4 195 1 17 3 88 1 51 2 34 7 34 0 180 8 76 6 41 5 Merchan

t o r Captive? Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathwar e Both , R V Part s Both , R V Parts , Tank s Captive? , R V Part s Merchant , Truc k

Part s Merchant , Ladde r rai l ? , Ladde r Part s Merchant , Panel s Merchant , Fishin g Rod s Merchant , Utilit

y Pole s Merchant , Tanks , R R Ca r Cover s Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathware Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathware Merchant , Panel s Unknown , Possibl y Captiv e Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathwar e Merchant , Bathwar e 16,965 1

# EPA' s ECONOMI C IMPAC T ANALYSI S 

# - OVERVIE W

EPA' s analysi s an dmode l are ver y ambitiou s

• Attemp t

t o simulate productio n cost s andsupply function s fo r every regulate d merchant RP C producer , deman dfo r 1 0 differen

t RP C produc t

classes , pric e an d outpu t change s i n eac h market , respons e ofeac h produce r t o thei r particula r complianc e costs , etc . Hug e simultaneou s equatio n mode l

• 

## Commendabl e attemp t t o estimate pric e an doutpu t change s rathe r

tha n assum e them . Consistent wit h OAQP S Economi c Analysi s Resourc e Document We don' t believ e thi s approac h ca

n realisticall y b e implemente dfo r thi s industry

• RPC s encompas s a

n incredibl y divers e set

o f product s

• EPA ha s virtuall y non e ofth e dat aneede dt o implement th e model . Nearl y al l relationship s are assumed . Man y assumption s are inaccurate

• Wha t dat aEPA ha s i s ol dan dofte n inaccurate

|N >

# EPA' s EI A - SOM E O F TH E PROBLEM S Assumptio n that

eac h ofth e 1 0 marke t

segment s produce s areasonabl y homogeneou s RP C product , with ever

y producer

i n amarke t

segmen t receivin g th e sam e pric e pe r poun dfor thei r produc t

• Vastl y differen

t product s are subsume dwithi n "lan dtransportation " o r withi n "corrosio n resistan t

products" , wit

h widel y varyin g prices , characteristics , productio n ^ requirements , etc . r. 

## Proces s fo

r identifyin g th e highes t

cos t produce r i n eac h marke t

segmen t

• EPA' s proces s i n fact identifie s onl y th e facilit

y tha t use s th e highes t

proportio n o f reinforcemen t

($1.25/lb)/lowes t

proportio n o f

filler ($.09/lb ) i n makin g it s product s Assumptio n that

th e pric e ofth e RP C produc t for th e entir e marke t

segmen t i s give n b y th e productio n cos t

ofth e suppose dhighes t

cos t produce r i n that segmen t

• I n fact , th e suppose dhighes t cos t produce r (usin g mostl y reinforcement ) likel y make s acompletel y differen

t produc t fro manothe r produce r usin g adifferent

material s mi x

r o c o

# u EPA' s EI A - SOM E O F TH E PROBLEM S
Assumptio n tha t

ever y merchan t

produce r ha s a n upwar dslopin g suppl y functio n a s give n b y th e "generalize dLeontief f technology '

, «



## • I n fact , mos t

producer s ca n produc e substantiall y mor e outpu t tha n the y currentl y do , at constan t o r declinin g margina l costs , b y addin g shift s o r increasin g operatin g hour s Assumptio n tha t

ever y merchan t

produce r earn s th e sam e 4.4 % profi t margi n o n thei r revenue s

• Affordability ofth e 95 % requiremen t varie s acros s producer s a s afunctio n of : 1 ) Thei r particula r

complianc e costs ; relativ e t o 2 ) Thei r pre-regulator y profitability . Thi s assumptio n eliminate s an y variabilit y i n (2) , thu s ignorin g on e ofth e primar y factor s tha t

make s th e requiremen t

affordabl e for

som e producer s an dno t

fo r other s

1 0
£

# EPA' s EI A - SOM E O F TH E PROBLEM S Assumptio n that

aproduce r

wil l decid e t o compl y i f

th e facility' s post-regulatio n revenue s are sufficien

t t o cove r tota l cost s (variabl e plu s fixed)

• A produce r

wil l regar dcomplianc e a s along-ter minvestmen t

decision . Th e produce r wil l decid e t o compl y i f

revenue s are sufficien

t t o cove r cost s an dprovid e a n adequat e ^ return o n investmen t

- ^ 

## Assumptio n that

marke t suppl y elasticit

y i s 1

• N o evidenc e i s cited . W e woul dassume a n elasticit y o f greate r tha n one , given : 1 ) Th e eas e o f

expandin g outpu t

wit h additional operatin g hours ; an d2 ) Th e extremel y lo w barrier s t o entr

y i n th e industr

y Assumptio n tha t

marke t deman delasticit

y i s -0. 5

• N o evidenc e i s cited . W e woul dassume an elasticity o f les s tha n -1 . Mos t

majo r RP C product s fac e intens e competitio n fro mother materials . Examples : bathware , UST s

n

r o O l

# EPA' s EI A - SUMMAR Y

Ver y ambitiou s methodolog y require s vas t amoun t ofdata , virtuall y non e o f whic h EP A ha s EPA' s conclusion s depen do n aserie s o f assumption s mad e whe n dat ai s lacking . Man y assumption s appea r

incorrec t W e believ e tha t

affordability shoul db e evaluate dusin g amuc h simple r approach , relyin g ^ o n availabl e dat aan davoidin g th e nee dfor unfounde dassumption s
Also , not e tha t

th e EI A doe s no t

addres s o r

suppor t EPA' s argumen t

tha t limite dacces s t o capita l justifie s relaxe dcapture/contro l threshol dfor facilitie s owne db y smal l businesse s

1 2

T J S 3

# A SIMPLE RASSESSMEN T O F AFFORDABILIT Y

EPA' s estimate s sho w sharpl y differen t complianc e cos t

burden s fo r

differen t group s o f RP C producers :

SLi RPC Produce r Grou p
Thermoplasti c producer s
LB>10 0 TPY ; SB>25 0 TP Y
Al l othe rRP C producer s

Tota l Propose d Req' t

Non e
95 % C/ C
Pollutio n preventio n

xx x Annua l

Productio n (millio n pounds )
172 9
43 3
97 6

313 8 % o f Tota l

55 %
14 %
3 1 %

100 % Ann . Complianc e

Cos t ( $ i n millions )

zer o $16,96 5 $9,06 1
$26,02 6 Complianc e

Cost/l b produc t

zer o $.039 2 $.009 3
$.008 3

1 3

# A SIMPLE RASSESSMEN T O F AFFORDABILIT Y

• Mos t

ofth e industr y (thermoplasti c producers ) wil l incu r n o complianc e cost s

• Anothe r

larg e segmen t

ofth e industr y (al l others ) wil l incu r modes t complianc e cost s (0. 9 cents/l b o f

product , relativ e t o EPA' s estimate daverag e pric e pe r poun do f $3.48 , o r 0.27 % o f revenues )

^ • A smal l portio n ofth e industr y (14% ) - facilitie s facin g th e 95 % requirement s - wil l

incu r muc h highe r

complianc e cost s (3. 9 cents/l b o f product , or

1.13 % o f

revenues )

• I n th e highl y competitiv e nationa l marke t fo r RPCs , price s wil l ris e ver y littl e a s a resul t ofth e regulation . Th e larg e volum e o f unaffecte dan dminimall y affecte d producer s wil l kee p price s fro mrising . Th e producer s facin g th e muc h highe r cost s t o mee t th e 95 % requiremen t

wil l hav e t o absor b virtuall y al l o f thei r cost s

1 4

r o o o•

• 

# A SIMPLE RASSESSMEN T O F AFFORDABILIT Y

Not e tha t CF A believe s cost s t o mee t

th e 95 % requiremen t

wil l b e at leas t 2. 4 time s what EP A estimates . I f

so , cost s t o meet

th e 95 % requiremen t

woul db e at

leas t 9. 4 cents/lb o f

product , o r

at leas t 2.7 % o f revenue s Relativ e t o a n averag e profi t margi n o f

4.4 % (EPA estimate) , complianc e cost s t o mee t th e 95 % requiremen t

woul dthe n consume 62 % o f averag e profit s fo

r thi s already low-profitabilit

y industr y Thi s woul dlikel y pos e seriou s affordabilit y problem s fo

r mos t ofth e facilitie s affecte db y th e 95 % requiremen t

1 5

T J r o c o

# CFA' s AFFORDABILIT Y CAS E STUDIE S

3 * Fo r 1 0 RP C facilitie s wit h emission s actuall y o r likel y exceedin g 10 0 TP Y an downe db y larg e businesses , w e compare destimate dannualize dcomplianc e cost s fo r capture/contro l agains t financia l capabilit y (fro mrecen t detaile dsurvey )

• Tota l annualize dcost s compare dwith annua l facilit y revenue s

• Tota l annualize dcost s compare dwith annua l facility profit s

• Tota l require dcapita l investmen t compare dwit h historica l capita l investmen t level s a t th e facilit y Conclusions : 7 o r

mor e ofth e 1 0 representativ e facilitie s wil l mor e likel y clos e tha n pa y th e cost s o f

captur e an dcontro l

• Capture/contro l pose s affordability concern s for al l 1 0 facilitie s • Clearl y no t

affordabl e fo r

4 facilitie s • Probabl y no t

affordabl e fo r

3 facilitie s • Possibl y no t

affordabl e fo r

3 facilitie s 1 6

c o oP.3 1

9/4/0 1 Captur e an d Control Cost

s Relative t

o Annua l Revenues , Profit

s an d Capital Expenditure s For 100+ TP

Y Facilitie s Owne

d by Large Businesse s
Facilit y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 TAC as a % o f 200 0 Annua l Composite

s Revenue s 

### X © 0 X X X 

### 0 X © X 

### © TA

C a s a Multipl e o

f 200 0 Annua l Composite

s Profi t 

### XX X 

### © X X 

## xxx xxx © 

## xxx X © © TC I a

s a Multipl e of 5 Y r Avg Annua l Capita l Expenditures 

### XXX 

### X © 

## xxx © © 

## xxx X 

## xxx © OVERAL L

IMPAC T 

### XX © X X X X X © X X X X © Key : Tota l Annua l Cost a s Tota l Annua l Cost a

s a Tota l Capita l Investmen t a % of Composite s Multipl e of Composite s as a Multipl e of 5 yr . Avg
. Annua l Revenue s Annua l Profi t Annua l Capita l Expenditure s 

### 0 © X X X 

# xx x < 3 %

3 - 5 % 5 -1 0 % 1 0 - 2 0 % > 2 0 % <0. 5

0. 5 -1. 0 1.0-2. 0 2. 0 - 5. 0 >5. 0 < 1

1- 5 5-1 0 10-1 5 >1 5 Probably affordable

Significan t burden ; possibly no t

affordable Probably no t

affordable Clearly no t

affordable Impossibl e For 4 ofth e 1 0 facilities , captur e an doxidatio n i s clearly no t

affordable . For 3 of the 1 0 facilities , i

t i s probably no t

affordable . For 3 ofth e 1 0 facilities , i

t i s asignifican

t burden andpossibl y no t

affordable .


## J ©

## A FINA L ECONOMI C CONCER N

Affordabilit

y depend s fundamentally o n acompariso n betwee n afacility' s profitabilit y an d th e complianc e cost s i t

face s

• Thi s compariso n wil l b e largel y unaffecte db y whethe r th e facilit y i s owne db y alarg e busines s or

asmal l busines s

•

• 

## N o rational business , larg e o r small , wil l make acomplianc e investmen t i n afacilit

y V ^ that

wil l no t b e sufficiently profitabl e Acces s t o capital , fo

r a n economicall y non-productiv e investment , i s aconcer n whether th e facilit y i s owne db y asmal l busines s o r alarg e on e

1 8

S 3P.3 3

ATTACHMEN

T 3 Charle y Brown Aqu aGlas s Corporatio n



# 39-

# AQU A GLAS S CORPORATIO N Comment s fo r EP A Hearin g Septembe r 7 , 200 1 

# 1. Overvie w 2 . Add-o n Contro l Evaluatio n 3 . P 2 

# Experienc e 4 . Problem s with Propose d Rul e 5 . Conclusion s and Impac t

# AQU A GLAS S CORPORATIO N OVERVIE

W

• Secon d larges ttu b an

d showe r manufacture r i n th e U.S . > Produc e on e of

ever y fou r gelcoa ttub s and shower s

• Subsidiary o f

Masc o Corporatio n > Manage d autonomousl y a s i f stan d alon e compan y > Sell s produc tto wholesaler s and retailers , no tt o Masc o

• Thre e factorie s locate d i n smal l communitie s - ou r bigges tplan ti s i n Adamsville , T N whic h ha s abou t180 0 residents i n a count y which ha s 20,00 0 tota l residents . Adamsville . TN McEwen . T N Klamat h Falls . O RTota l Annual Payrol l $2 3 Millio n $ 5 Millio n $ 5 Millio n $3 3 Millio n Approx . Headcoun t1,000 20 0 20 0 1,40 0 '0 0 Annual HA P Emission s 727 TP Y 42 9 TP

Y 10 7 TP Y 1,26 3 TPY

• Thes e rule s woul d have a potentiall y devastatin g impac to n th e communitie s i n whic h w e operate .

• Ove r 1,200 supplier s > Purchase s o f

ove r $12 5 millio n annuall y

(j\

# AQU A GLAS S CORPORATIO N Add-on Contro

l Evaluatio n



# te Estimate d Actua l Cost s o f Add-o n Control s a tAqu a Glas s

Tota l capita l investmen t

($ ) Annua l cos t

o f control s ($/year at PTE ) Annua l cos t

o f control s ($/year a t year 2000 ) Cos t effectivenes s o f control s ($/to n HA P remove dat

PTE ) Cos t effectivenes s o f control s ($/to n HA P remove dyea r

2000 ) Adamsvill e

$11,780,60 0 $3,392,60 0 / yea r $ 3,452,20 0 / yea r $2,220/to n $ 5,02 0 / to n Klamath Fall s

$3,150,80 0 $917,600/yea r $ 847,90 0 /

yea r $ 6,64 0 / to n $ 8,43 0 / to n McEwe n

$6,177,55 4 $l,723,571/yea r $l,728,471/yea r $2,599/to n $ 4,797/5o n 'Total; : '"'./ I $21,108,95 4 $6,033,771/yea r $6,028,571/yea r $3816/to n $6075/to n


### > Th e total capita

l investmentrepresent

s severa l year s o f historical operatin g profits > Th e annua

l operatin g cost

s representa majo r portio n o f annua l profits > Add-o n control s are prohibitivel y expensive I f ad d o n control s becom e mandator y as proposed , Aqu a Glas s wil l no tb e abl e t o operate it s plant

s a tth e reduced profitmargin s which th e regulation s woul d imply .

## U i -6" ^ 

# AQU A GLAS S CORPORATIO N P 2 

# Experience Aqu a Glas s an d th e Stat

e of Orego n Departmen to f

Environmenta l Quality (DEQ ) hav e prove n tha tP 2 

## work s > 6 year , $ 4 millio n developmen tprogra m > 81 % reductio n i n pe r tu b emission s certifie d b y stac k tests > N o ad d o n control s use d Steady P 2 Success : Emissio n Rate s pe r Uni ta tKlamat h Fall s Tes t Dat e Emissio n Rat e (lbs/unit) Percentag e Redactio n of Baseline March

199 5 8.84
N/ A Ma

y 1997 4.3 8
50.5 % Februar

y 199 8 3.0 7
65.3 % Decembe

r 199 8 2.5 9
70.7 % Decembe

r 199 8 2.0 9
76.4 % Februar

y 199 9 1.8 4
79.2 % October

200 0 1.6 5
81.3 % 

## Titl e V Permi tissue d i n 200 1 DE Q repeatedl y tell s th e Aqu a Glas s succes s story .

T D C O

## AQU A GLAS S CORPORATION Klamath Fall s Facilit y Emission s Reductio n B y P 2



# c * ^ Gelcoa

t# 1 Gelcoa t#2 Foa m Covercoa t Firs tCho p #1,3, 5 Bas e Cho p Mar-5 5 Styren e Styren

e May-9

7 Styren e Styren

e Feb-9

8 Styren e Styren

e 12/03/9 8 Styren e Styren

e 12/04/9 8 Styren e Styren

e 02/23/9 9 Styren e Styren

e Emission R

a mission Ra

i mission Ra

i mission R

a missio n Ra ' mission Ra

i mission R

a mission R

a mission R

a missio n Ra

i missio n Ra

i missio n Ra

t Stac k 1 Stac k 2 Stac k 3 Stac k 4 Stac k 5 Stac k 6 Hea tRooms/Rolli

i Stac k 7 Mix Roo m Acryli c # 1 Acryli c WI Firs tCho p #2 Stac

k 8 Stac k 9 Stac k 1 Stac k 1 Covercoa tDea d Z c Stac k 1 Maintenanc

e Finishing Warehous e Productio n Receiving Unit s Per Tes t Fa

n A Fan B Fan C Fan D Fan E 

## I (lb/shift

) 228.2 5 223.1 9 16.3 9 185.4 6 493.6 8 138.2 0 68.7 5 32.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 19.25 24.5 3 22.2 2 18.5 9 23.3 2 149 3 8 4 (lb/unit

) 1.35 1 1.32 1 0.097 1.09 7 2.92 1 0.81 8 0.407 0.18 9 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.11 4 0.14 5 0.13 1 0.11 0 0.13 8 8.83 9 16 9 (lb/shift

) 197.20 219.3 0 9.35 59.5 0 255.0 0 71.4 0 26.3 5 10.20 64.6 0 38.2 5 25.5 0 75.6 5 5.95 9.35 4.2 5 4.25 7.6 5 1083.7 5 (lb/unit

) 0.797 0.88 6 0.03 8 0.24 0 1.03 0 0.28 8 0.10 6 0.04 1 0.26 1 0.15 5

. 0.103 0.30 6 0.02 4 0.03 8 0.01 7 0.01 7 0.03 1 4.37 8 247. 5 (lb/shift

) (lb/unit

) 215.9 0 0.83 7 136.0 0 0.52

7 7.6 5 0.03 0 41.6 5 0.16 1 128.35 0.497 91.8 0 0.356 30.60 0.11 9 7.6 5 0.03 0 33.1 5 0.128 22.9 5 0.089 15.30 0.05 9 42.5 0 0.165 2.5 5 0.01 0 5.9 5 0.02

3 2.5 5 0.01 0 3.40 0.01 3 .5.1 0 0.02

0 793.05 3.07

4 25 8 (lb/shift

) 91.8 0 104.55 8.5 0 36.5 5 118.1 5 40.8 0 24.6 5 14.45 31.4 5 15.3 0 19.55 32.3 0 2.5 5 0.0 0 5.95 0.0 0 1.7 0 548.25 . (lb/unit

) 0.43 4 0.494 0.04 0 0.17 3 0.55 9 0.193 0.11 7 0.06 8 0.14 9 0.07 2 0.09 2 0.153 0.01 2 0.00 0 0.02 8 0.00 0 0.00 8 2.59 2 211. 5 (lb/shift

) 110.3 0 106.50 219.8 0

37.5 0

474.1 0 219 | (lb/unit

) 0.50 4 0.48 6 0.94 3

0.16 1

2.09 4 23 3 (lb/shift)

89. 4 75. 1 15. 5 24. 3 58. 3 23. 5 32. 6 6. 4 42. 8 27. 2 24. 7 26. 7 1. 9 2. 2 2. 2 3. 2 2. 8 458. 8 (lb/unit)

0.35 3 0.29 6 0.06 1 0.09 6 0.23 0 0.09 3 0.12 9 0.02 5 0.16 9 0.10 7 O.09 7 0.10 5 0.00 7 0.00 9 0.00 9 0.01 3 0.01 1 1.81 0 253. 5

# AQUA GLAS S CORPORATIO N KLAMAT H FALL S P 2 

## PROJEC T 6 Year s o f

investmen tand intens e work with supplier s

• Scra p reductio n
• Contro l o f

finished produc tweigh t
• No n o r lo w HA P base d material s i n othe r operation s
• Increase d proces s contro l
• Temperature-controlle d sprayin g
• Controlled-sprayin g technique s r • Ne w resi n an d gelcoa tformulation s ^ ^ • Us e o f

vapor-suppresse d resin s
• Increase d fille r content s • Ongoin g assistanc e fro m resi n supplier s t o delive r lowe r styrene-conten tresin s withou tsacrificin g produc tperformanc e • Lowe r styrene-conten tgelcoat s - 30 % les s styren e tha n i n 199 3
• Highe r viscosit y an d lowe r styren e conten tlaminatin g resin s
• Fou r distinc tgeneration s o f spra y equipmen t 

## i n orde r to apply th e knowledg e gaine d acros s al l facilities . Mandator y add-o n control s woul d totall y sto p thi s typ e o f developmen tbecaus e i ti s th e larg e companie s tha tdriv e it . I n addition , add-o n control s woul d penaliz e th e succes s w e hav e achieve d a tKlamat h Falls .

C OC M 

# AQU A GLAS S CORPORATIO N Problem s wit h th e Propose d Rul e 1 . Mandatory add-o n control s ar e ba d for Aqua Glas s an d fo r th e Industry . > Additiona l P2 

## developmen twoul d b e stoppe d > Energ y usag e woul d doubl e (111 % increas e i n 200 2 fo r Adamsville ) 2 . Mandatory add-o n control s ar e ba d for th e factory worker s > Highe r PP

M HA P level s are neede d t o "fuel " th e burner s • EPA' s assume d 100 ppm HA P woul d violat e Tennesse e OSH A standard s • "Spac e suits " ar e no ta n optio n due to siz e o f

product/mobility require d > Metho d 20 4 require s a close d buildin g whic h woul d caus e unbearabl e hea t • Eve n with a

n ope n building , heatexhaustio n i s a problem . Thi s i s mor e tha n a n OSH A problem ; i ti s a peopl e problem . 3 . Th e propose d rul e contain s simplifie d assumption s whic h i n Aqu a Glass 9 

## cas e ar e simpl y wron g o r rely o

n dat a estimate s whic

h lea d to ba d cos tanalysis . > Exhaus tai r flows > Exhaus tconcentration s > Par tsiz e > Productio n throughpu t > Worke r an d partacces s > Pea k vs . actual operatin g rate s 

# 7

V

# AQU A GLAS S CORPORATIO N Problems wit

h th e Proposed Rul e (Cont'd )

> Th e 95 % C& C control s mak e n o sens e regardles s o f ho w man y ar e employed , and ou r lawyer s tel l u s tha tsuc h distinction s betwee n businesse s ar e legall y dubious . 4 . Th e propose d rul e make s ba d comparisons . > Ope n molde d FR

P proces s i s no tsimila r t o a spray finishin g process .

- ^ > Division s of large r corporation s sel l to th e sam e customer s a s smal l independen tcompanie s an d hav e investmen tcriteri a tha tar e ver y similar .-fc . 

# AQU A GLAS S CORPORATIO N Conclusion s and Impac t 1 . I f th e rul e i s implemente d as proposed , i twil l crippl e Aqu a Glass . 2 . Th e propose d rul e is : > ba d fo r Aqu a Glas s an d fo r th e Industry > ba d fo r th e worker s > ful l o f error s > ful l o f fault y financial analysi s > blin d t o th e impac to n businesse s an d peopl e > legall y fall s shor to f

it s mandat e Al l ofth e abov e problem s are resolve d b y eliminatin g th e "abov e th e floor" add-o n control s requirements an d relyin g o n ou r successfu l an d prove n P 2 

# approach , a directio n whic h Aqu a Glas s strongl y advocates .

r oP.4 3

ATTACHMEN

T 4 Crai g Peterso n Xerxe s Corporation andProfor mCorporatio n



# 4%P.4 4



# COMMENT S O N PROPOSE D MAC T FO RREINFORCE D PLASTICS/COMPOSITE S

Presentedto : U.S . EP A Researc h Triangle Par

k
September? , 200 1

Xerxe s Corporation Profor mCompany , LL

C By : Crai g Peterson Vic e Presiden

t an d Genera l Counse l



# ^ 3P.4 5



## I . Backgroun d A . Xerxe s Corporatio n an dasiste r company , Profor

mCompany , LLC , ar e both owne db y acommo n Owner . Tha t Owne r ha s n o othe r reinforce dplastic/composite s companies . B . Xerxe s Product s 1 . Undergroun dStorag e Tank s a . Femal e Mold s

• Flo w Chopper s

• Han dlay u p b . Par t Siz e

• U p t o 12-ft . wid e x 12-ft . hig h x 69-ft . lon g 2 . Abov e Groun dTank s a . Mal e Mold s

• Flo w Cho p • Han dlay u p
• Filamen t

Windin g b . Par t

Siz e

• U p t o 14-ft . wid e x 14-ft . hig h x 45-ft . lon g 3 . Fiv e Manufacturin g Plants : a . Anaheim , Californi a

• Abov e Groun dan dUndergroun dStorag e Tank s • 1 1 mold s • 7 4 employee s b . Hagerstown , Marylan d

• Undergroun dStorag e Tank s • 1 2 mold s • 7 0 Employee s

2P.4 6



### c . Seguin , Texa s
• UndergroundStorag e Tank s • 1 0 Mold s • 3 9 Employee s d . Tipton , Iow a

• UndergroundStorag e Tank s • 9 Mold s • 5 0 Employee s e . Wes t

Memphis , Arkansa s
• UndergroundStorag e Tank s • 4 Mold s • 1 7 Employee s (loane demployee s fromProform) f . Corporat

e Office , Minneapolis , Minnesot a

• 3 6 Employee s C . Profor

mProduct s 1 . Barg e Cover s -

Par t Size : 23-ft . lon g x 30-ft . wid e x 4-1/ 2 ft. hig h 2 , Mold s a . Motorize dcarriage s an dscaffolding ar

e 28-ft . 6 in . lon g x 36-ft . 4 in . wid

e x 8-ft. hig h b . Motorize dcarriage s travel , statio n t o statio n inside plant • Are acovered : 138-ft . lon g x 100-ft . wid e x 25-ft>hig h 

## II . Xerxe s and Profor

m ar e Small Businesse s A . Xerxe s
• 26 9 employee s B . Profor

m
• 7 8 employee s (includin g th e 1 7 employee s loane dto Xerxes )

3P.4 71



### C . Xerxe s an

dProfor mAr e Regulate dA s Larg e Businesse s SB A Definition o

f Smal l Busines s - les s tha

n 500 employee s

• Commo

n Ownershi

p mus t include'hotels , far

mimplement sales , an dothe r non composite s businesse s D . Larg e Businesse s Woul dB e Subject

t o 100-Ton Per

Yea r Above-the

Floor MACT Threshold Plant s hav e o

r will excee d10

0 to n per yea r threshol d 

## III . Ke v Point

s A . Xerxe s an

dProfor mcannot affor dth e 95 % captur

e an dcontro l requirement . B . Xerxe s an

dProfor mproduc e ver

y larg e part s in ver

y larg e room s that ar e no t compatibl e wit

h Metho d204 . C . Xerxe s an

dProfor mar e actually small businesses , but woul db e regulate da s "larg e businesses " unde r th e propose dMAC T Rule . 

## IV . Xerxe s an

d Profor m CannotAffor

d th e 95 % Capture an d Contro l Requirement A . Stuar

t Sessions : Environomics . Inc. . see analysi s of cos t of control s an daffordabilit

y 1 . Xerxe s an

dProfor mcanno t affor dth e cos t o f add-o n controls . 2 . EP A alread y agree s tha

t smal l businesse s canno t

affor dadd-o n controls . B . Restrictio n of

Productio n 1 . Xerxe s an

dProfor mwoul db e require dt o sta y belo w th e 100-ton threshold .

4



# 4 fP.4 8



### 2 . Xerxe s an

dProfor mmus t restric t productio n an dlimit

growt h opportunities . 3 . Los s o

f environmentall

y friendl y products . 

## V . Xerxe s an

d Profor m Produce Ver

y Large Part

s i n Ver y Larg e Room s Tha

tAr e No tCompatibl e Wit

h Method 20 4 Tota

l Enclosure s A . Mold s an

dParts Ar e To o Larg e To Fit

Inside Tota

l Enclosure s 1 . Xerxe s • a . Moldin

g - Par t Size : • 10-ft. wid

e x 10-ft . high x 16.5-ft . lon g (Example ) b . Turning Fixture :

• 10-ft . high xl7-ft . wide x25.5-ft . lon g c . Rotat

e 2 8 rpm : Ra

w material s ente

r ope n en d d . Overhea

dcranes/gantrie s t o de-mold : • 20-ft.hig h e . Assembl

y - Par t Siz e • U p t o 10-ft . wide x 10-ft . hig h x 74-ft . long 2 . Profor

m a . Molding - Par

t Size : . • 23-ft . lon g x 30-ft . wide x 4-ft. 5 in . hig h b . Molds : • 28-ft . 6 in . lon g x 36-ft . 4 in . wid e x 8-ft. high c . Mold s trave l statio n t o statio n on motorize dcarriage s d . Impregnator : • Suspende dfrom25-ft . ceilin g • Travel s andlay s dow n resi n an dglas s 

# fiP.4 9



### 3 . EP A Standard s - MAC T Backgroun dInformatio n Documen t a . Gelcoatin g Enclosure :

• 19-ft.x36-ft x 10-ft . b . Resi n Laminatio n Enclosure :

• 44-ft'.x83-ft x 10-ft . c . Xerxes ' an dProform' s Molds/Part s D o No t Fi t Insid e EP A Enclosure s B . Airflow s D o No t

Mee t Metho d20 4 1 . Xerxe s a . Molds : 10 0 fp

m b . Hig h ai r

flow , lo w styren e concentration s c . Meet s OSH A PE L o f 5 0 pp m d . Require s redesig n o f ventilatio n syste mfor

20 0 fp m

• Result s i n eve n lowe r

styren e concentration s • Oxidizer s becom e mor e costl y 2 . Profor

m a . Push-pul l airflo w ove r mol d b . Meet s OSH A PE L o f 5 0 pp m c . Syste mno t

designe dfor

20 0 fpm> d . Require s redesig n o f ventilatio n syste mfor

20 0 fpm

• Result s i n eve n lowe r

styren e concentration s • Oxidizer s becom e mor e costl y C . Buildin g Door s Mus t b e Opene d 1 . Xerxe s - Typica l Rol l U p Door : 20-ft . x 2 1 ft. 2 . Proform-Rol l U p Doors : 16-ft . x28-ft .



# If?P.5 0



## VI . Xerxe s an

d Profor m Shoul d b e Considered a Smal l Busines s fo r Purpose s o

f Above-the-FIoo r MAC T A . 100-To n pe r

Yea r Threshol dI s Onerou s an dUnfai r 1 . Xerxe s an dProfor

mAr e Smal l Businesse s a . Xerxe s employees : 26 9 b . Profor

memployees : 7 8 c . Total : 34 7 2 . SB A Smal l Busines s Definitio n a . Les s than 50 0 employee s b . Require s inclusio n o f non-composite s (an dnon manufacturing ) businesse s c . Discretionary 3 . Financin g Add-O n Control s a . N o cros s pledgin g o f asset s - differen t

bank s b . Difficul t

t o finance non-productiv e add-o n control s 4 . Disparit y Withi n Composite s Industr y

• Anothe r

composites-onl y busines s wit h mor e employee s i s exemp t u p t o 25 0 ton s 5 . Competitiv e Disadvantag e With Stee l Tank s > a . Stee l tank s are alread y cheape r b . Stee l tank s alread y hav e a50 % marke t shar e 6 . Absorptio n o f

Add-o n Contro l Cost s

• Xerxe s canno t

rais e it s price s t o cove r

th e cos t o f add-o n control s 

# 4 9P.5 1



### 7 . Innovation s Will Suffe r a . Double wall fiberglas s tank s b . Wate

r tight septi c tank s VII . Conclusio n A . Xerxe s an

dProfor mcannot affor dth e above-the-floor

95% ) captur

e an dcontro l requirements . B . Xerxe s an

dProfor mmak e ver y larg e part s makin g Metho d204 infeasible . C . Xerxe s an

dProfor mshouldno t

b e regulate da s larg e businesses .

MACTspeech.950 1



# 5

*P.5 2

ATTACHMEN T 5 Da n Blackburn , Mar

k Rowan , an dKe n Witt Abl e Bod y Corporatio n



# 5 7P.5 3



### I 100

0 Schifferdecke rAvenue
. • Joplin , Missouri
. 6480 1 • (417)623-306 0 • FA X 417-623-461 7 

# n ABLE BODY CORPORATIO N 

# Presentatio n t o th e EP A O n th e propose d NESHA P Fo r Composite s Septembe r 7,200 1 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C

Presente d By : Da n Blackbur n Vic e Presiden t o f Quality an d Continuou s Improvemen t Mar k Rowa n Vic e Presiden t o f Operation s Ke n Wit t Environmenta l an d Safet y Manage r 

# 5 ?P.5 4

1000 Schifferdecke rAvenue
. • Joplin , Missouri
. 6480 1 • (417)623-306 0 • FA X 417-623-461 7 

# n Septembe r 7 , 200 1 JLK ? I . Summar

y o f Abl e Bod

y Corporatio n

• Ful l servic e supplie rt o th e OEM's
. • Incorporate d i n 1970 i n Joplin , MO
. • Fou rStrategi c busines s unit s whic h are treate d a s separat e profi t centers : 1
. Meta l fabricatio n an d assembly
. 2
. Close d molde d composite s (resi n transfe rmoldin g - RTM , shee t moldin g compoun d - SMC)
. 3
. Vacuu m forme d plastics
. 4
. Ope n molde d fiberglass
. • Divers e custome rbase :

Kawasak i - PW

C an d rai l ca rcomponents
. Hond a -PWC
. Freightline rtruc k

components
. Cas e agricultura l components
. Marle y coolin g towe rcomponents
. Ottaw a truc k

ca b assemblies
. OshKos h militar

y vehicl e components
. Numerou s smal l customer s fo rcomponent s an d assemblies
. Thre e manufacturin g sites : 1
. 100 0 Schifferdecke rAvenu e i n Jopli n Missour i • Two separat e plant s at thi s location
. • 27 0 ful l tim e manufacturin g employees
. • Close d molde d truc k

components
. • CN C meta l fabricatio n an d assemblies
. • Ope n molde d persona l watercraf t boat s (PWC)
. 2
. Pittsbur

g Kansas facility • 4 6 ful l tim e manufacturin g employees
. • Vacuu m forme d plasti c assemblie s an d painte d component s fo rth e truc k an d marin e industry
. 3
. 355 0 West Sevent h Stree t i n Jopli n Missour i • 8 2 ful l tim e manufacturin g employees
. • Ope n molde d fiberglas s component s for : • Truc k industr y • Coolin g tower

s • Wate rSlide s • Agricultura l industr

y • Militar y vehicle s • Fir e truc k industr y 

# s3P.5 5

• Thi s total s t o 39 8 ful l tim e manufacturin g job s an d a tota l corporat e employmen t leve l o f 51 7 people
. II . Captur e an d Contro l cos t concern s

• Captur e an d contro l cos t doe s no t mak e goo d economi c sense , an d i f force d int o i t woul d caus e u s t o shu t dow n ou rope n mol d fiberglas s operations
. Thi s i s onl y on e o f ou rfou rstrategi c busines s units , howeve rth e los s o f thes e sale s woul d jeopardiz e th e entir e compan y an d coul d lea d t o th e los s o f al l jobs , fiberglas s an d non-fiberglass
. Ou rjustificatio n fo rthi s concer n o n cos t i s du e t o severa l reasons : 1
. Th e Initia l capita l outla y whic h i s equivalen t t o approximatel y 80-90 % o f ou r annua l ope n mol d fiberglas s sales
. 2
. Ou rfiberglas s operation s ar e sprea d ove rthre e building s a t tw o differen t sites , whic h doe s no t len d itsel f t o on e centralize d captur e an d contro l device
. I n additio n thes e building s ar e olde ran d no t se t u p fo rthi s typ e o f flow
. I t i s ou runderstandin g tha t th e EP A stud y was performe d o n facilitie s tha t wer e new , heavil y modifie d an d o rbuil t afte r1990
. 3
. Ou rproduc t mi x i s very divers e an d seasona l whic h lend s itsel f t o individua l wor k cell s tha t ca n b e modifie d quickl y t o accommodat e ou rcustomers
. Thi s i s i n contras t t o a singl e buildin g wit h on e produc t line , whic h coul d funne l throug h a singl e captur e an d contro l device
. 4
. T o sta y competitiv e i n th e globa l econom y w e hav e adopte d th e Kaize n methodolog y o f lea n manufacturing
. Thi s lead s u s t o smal l wor k cell s whic h wil l no t allo w you t o forc e al l product s throug h a "monument " i n orde rt o accommodat e a singl e captur e an d contro l device
. 5
. W e canno t pas s thes e cost s alon g t o ou rcustomers , a s the y ar e demandin g annua l cos t dow n o n price s an d w e hav e t o constantl y compet e wit h th e smal l garag e sho p typ e businesse s tha t ar e les s tha n th e 10 0 ton s pe ryea r limit
. 6
. Wit h th e dow n tur n o f th e truckin g industry , w e hav e witnesse d ou rworkforc e dro p fro m 116 0 i n Jun e of 199 9 t o 390 i n Decembe ro f 2000
. Thi s force d u s t o re-gro w an d diversif y ou rbusines s wit h a multitud e o f produc t line s fro m very smal l part s o f 1'x1 ' t o ver y larg e part s o f 8'x20'
. Thi s doe s no t len d itsel f t o a singl e captur e an d contro l device
. • Abl e Bod y ha s i n th e pas t an d t o sta y viabl e i n th e futur e wil l nee d t o produc e sale s o f product s tha t wil l caus e u s t o emit mor e tha n th e 10 0 ton s pe ryea ro f styren e a t eac h o f ou rfiberglas s plants
. Therefor e w e wil l b e effecte d b y th e above-the-floo rproposal
. • Therefor e w e ar e askin g fo rth e above-the-floo rrequiremen t i n th e fina l rul e b e removed
. • Th e demand fo rope n molde d fiberglas s i s no t goin g away . Thi s ne w proposa l i s simpl y goin g t o mov e th e busines s fro m establishe d companie s wit h forma l system s t o smal l lesso rregulate d garag e shop s o rt o othe rcountrie s eliminatin g job s i n th e Unite d States
. 

# yP.5 6

III . Boa

t MAC T vs . Ope

n Mol d MAC

T

• Abl e Bod y produce s smal l boats know n a s persona l watercraf t (PWC ) alon g wit h a wid e variet

y o f othe rope n mol d parts
. • Ho w i s th e EP

A goin g t o treat thi s typ e o f produc t mi x unde rth e propose d Ope n Mol d MACT? • W e woul d like a forma l respons e t o thi s question
. IV . Closin g Statemen t

• I woul d lik

e t o clos e b

y sayin g that Abl e Bod y Corporatio n i s ver y prou d o

f it s ISO-900 2 certifie d facilitie s an d th e fac t that w e are complian t o n al l curren t regulator y fronts
. W

e hav e staffe d properl y t o maintai n interna l forma l program s designe d t o assur

e continue d compliance
. Alon g wit h workin g toward s reductio n effort s t o sta

y curren t wit h th e latest technolog y o f ou rbusines s suc h a s th e lowe remission s impingemen t nozzle s an d lo w styren e monome rresin s an d gelcoats
. • I n summar

y Abl e Body Corporatio n trul y understand s th e responsibilit y o f bein g a goo d stewar

d o f ou renvironment
. Th e fact s ar e we simpl y canno

t affor d thi s approach
. Abl e Body i s appreciativ e o f thi s opportunit

y t o b e heard , howeve rat th e sam e tim e w

e remai n fearfu l that th e ful l weigh t o f thi s decisio n i s not understood
. An y decisio n that wil l forc e ou remployee s ou t of wor k i s viewe d b

y ou rcompan y a s seriou s matter
. Respectfull y submitte d o n behal f of al l Abl e Body employees , Mar k Rowa n Vic e Presiden t
Danie l C
. Blackbur n Vic e Presiden t Qualit y an d Continuou s Improvemen t

met h Witt Wironmenta l an d Safet

y Manage r



## 5t>P.5 7

ATTACHMEN

T 6 Gordon Lowe LASC O Bathwar

e



## 9PP.5 8

OCCUPATIONA

L SAFET Y AN D HEALT

H ADMINISTRATIO

N TITL E 29 DEPARTMEN

T O F LABO R 29CFR191 0 SUBPART- Z TOXI C AN D HAZARDOU

S SUBSTANCES SECTIO N 1910.1000 AI

RCONTAMINENT

S (a) Table Z- l (l)Othe r substance

s - 8 hou r Tim e Weighte d Averages . A

n employee' s exposur

e t o an y substanc e i

n Table Z-l , the exposur

e limi t o f whic h i s not proceededb

y a"C" , shall no t

exceedth e 8-hou

r Tim e Weighte dAverag e give

n fo r tha t substance i

n an y 8-hou r wor k shif t of a40-hou r wor k week . (e ) T o achieve complianc e wit

h paragraph s (a

) throug h (d ) of thi s section , administrativ e o r engineering control s mus t

b e first determinedan

dimplemente

dwheneve r feasible . Whe

n suc h control s ar

e not feasible t o achieve ful

l compliance , protective equipmen t o r an y othe r protectiv e measure s shall b e use dt o kee p the exposur e o f employee s to ai

r contaminate s withi

n the limits prescribedi

n thi s section . OSH A APPROVE

D Styrene Industry' s Plan : The styrene industr

y agree s t o establish avoluntar y complianc e program , th e objectiv e o f whic h i s t o compl y wit h the PE L establishedfo

r styren e during th e 1989 rulemaking ; inhalation exposur e tha t d o no t excee d5 0 PP M o n a n 8-hou r TWA, an da10 0 PP M 15-minut

e ceiling , which i s supportedb y healt h scienc e an dfeasibilit y considerations .



# r ?P.5 9

OCCUPATIONAL SAFET Y AN D HEALT H ADMINISTRATIO N TITL E 2 9 DEPARTMENT O F LABO R 29CFR191 0 SUBPAR

T H - HAZARDOU S MATERIAL S SECTIO N 1910.107 SPRA

Y FINISHIN

G USIN G FLAMMABL

E AN D COMBUSTIBL

E MATERIAL S (9 ) (b ) SPRA

Y BOOTH S (5 ) (i ) Th e spraying operation s except electrostati c spraying operation s shall b e s o designe d installedan

dmaintaine dtha

t the averag e ai

r velocit y ove r th e ope n face ofth e boot

h (or boot h cros s sectio n durin g spraying operations ) shal l b e not les s tha n 10 0 linea r fee t pe r minute . (9 ) (d ) VENTILATIO N (2)General . All spra

y area s shal

l b e providedwit

h mechanica

l ventilatio n adequat

e to remov e flammable vapors , mist , o

r powder s t o asaf e locatio n an dt o confin e an dcontro l combustible residue s s o tha t lif e i s not endangered . Mechanica

l ventilation shal

l be kep t i n operation a

t al l time s while sprayin g operation s ar e bein g conductedandfo

r asufficien t tim e thereafte r t o allow vapor s fro

mdrying coatedarticle s anddryin g finishing materia

l residu e to be exhausted . (11 ) Roo mintakes . Ai

r intak e opening s to rooms containing spra y finishin g operation s shal l b e adequat e fo r th e efficien

t operatio n o

f exhaust fans an dshal l b e s o locateda s t

o minimiz e the creatio n of

dea dai r pockets . (12 ) Dryin g spaces . Freshl

y sprayedarticle s shal

l b e driedonl

y i n space s providedwit

h adequat e ventilation to preven

t the formatio

n o f explosive vapors . I

n th e even t adequat e an dreliabl e ventilatio n i s not providedsuc

h drying space s shal

l b e consideredaspraying area . (9 ) (m) ORGANI C PEROXIDE S AN D DUA L COMPONEN T COATING S (l)Conformance . All spraying operation s involvin g the us e o f organi c peroxide s an

dothe r dua l componen

t coating s shall b e conductedi n approve dsprinkleredspra

y booth s meeting the requirement s o f thi s section . (9 ) (n ) SCOP E

Thi s section applie s t

o flammabl

e an dcombustible finishing material s when applie da s a spra y b y compressedair , "airless " o r "hydrauli c atomization, " stream , electrostati c methods , o r b y an y othe r mean s i n continuou s o

r intermitten

t processes .



## 5 -(^ r

- 0 Statio n

Barrie r r^wi i • iw i Coa t

Ge l Coa t

La m 1 Gu n

La m 1 Rolle r \ ) La m 2 Gu n

Lam 2 Rolle r

La m 3 Gu n

Lam 3 Rolle r company wid e styre n e statisti c •: emissio n 8-h r tw a 5 4 13 9 5 14 5 ai r flow , 6 7 14 9 4 36 0 ai r flow , 6 2 16 0 6 38 3 ai r flow , 6 5 15 0 3 43 9 ai r flow , 6 7 14 5 6 41 3 ai r flow , 6 7 13 6 4 28 7 ai r flow , 6 2 14 0 3 36 0 ai r flow , 6 5 12 2 6 18 8 ai r flow , 

### §*$!§3$ S

coun t minimu m maximu m cf m (in/out )
coun t minimu m maximu m cf m (in/out ) 

### iii^i^i w coun t minimu m maximu m cf m (in/out )
coun t minimu m maximu m cf m (in/out )
coun t minimu m maximu m cf m (in/out ) 

### S3$3$£ s coun t minimu m maximu m cf m (in/out ) vS^^e?:::-: : coun t minimu m maximu m cf m (in/out ) v.v.v.v.v.v.v . 

## m&mm coun t minimu m maximu m cf m (in/out ) make-u p ai r exhaus tai r •:-X'X-x°x'x°x-x°:'x '



### AT.W$^yy& -x-x-x'x-x-x'x-x' x :i:i : i : i:i:i : i:w?:§:?: $ ••**•**••*••****• * 1 6 2 0 8 5 900 0 1000 0 ^:^gg^:S:::::§ ^ 2 2 7 9 9 1620 0 1800 0 gj-ggjjgg&s s " ' i 9 8 7 1 810 0 900 0
" • ' " " '• * " *-*-*- m m mJ*m*m,*m*m*m*m. V.V.V.W.VtV.W. V 1 9 4 21 4 900 0 1000 0

• •* • « • »" • *ATM « *,% , »' * •*«*»% * 2 3 2 1 11 2 810 0 900 0 1 5 6 15 3 675 0 750 0 ****••**•*• • •_• » * • •. » 1 2 2 0 8 9 wxS&x*:*:*: * 

### i 4 2 3 14 3 57,15 0 

## Wm&

Y/Ay/AAAAAA. 

### WrrrWrWy ^j^::^Ss^: j 8 2 9 10 7 900 0 1000 0 

## MWMW& 9 4 0 15 1 522 0 580 0 *X*X*x"^K"X*»"«"X "

...................... . 2 3 8 2 531 0 590 0 9 3 3 8 8 900 0 1000 0 XvX-XvjjXwX'X ; 4 4 9 9 2 531 0 590 0 •X*X'X jfa;iX - X"X v •.•.•.•.•.•.•SQ**.*.'.'.'.'.'. - . a**-************.** * 7 3 7 13 4 405 0 450 0 •.v.v.vSv.v.w.v . 7 3 7 17 0 405 0 450 0 i&:&$&:£Si:x : 5 4 9 14 2 0 0 41,94 0 <$$&&. styren e emissio n (ppm ) 8-hou r tim e weighte d averag e (1995-2001 )

:.X"x'x"x"x"x"x"x-X*X*:*x"X'X'X'x"x* C 

## ^08$^£&$M$&& \vI;IvXvI\;I;I;I\^v/I\\vXvI;I\v/I^\v I •X%%\^<<vX , X%%< , X<%\\<< , Xi\\"X'X \ 2 1 ' " 2 0 3 1 6 9 2 14 5 540 0 600 0 900 0 1000 0 •'•"•»"••'•"*• • "*"*^1 * '•"•* * 'a"*"*"*'*****"*"* ' •*•"*"•"»** ' *"•"•" * "•*•" • • * * * • • * • <VhU * • •»********»* » r^mW ***** * • ••*•*• * mJhaJss* • ••***••••** * •Wll * ••*•• * •X-X*X%'X^%*X'X*X-X%*X-X-VXvX v "*2 0 18 ' 4 1 9 5 6 11 8 1620 0 1800 0 540 0 600 0 X'X'X'XviX-X^wXOX'X'XiJivX'X v •X , X* , X , X**wX< - X , X**X - X-Xv: , ?.NvXvX

...... . -•-•-•-- - - --•-•-•-'-•-•-•

- •••••••£••• 1 1 2 6 8 9 15 8 1080 0 1200 0 4950,550 0
****** * • Jm^J

************* * t^sf f ***** * .•.'.'.•.'.'.'.SK::::'.'.:'.%\::::'Ky::: v.".• . .•.V.V.V.V»W.'.%V.%V.\V.%V» , V.V.V.V . 2 7 1 8 1 1 3 8 11 3 16 8 720 0 800 0 900 0 1000 0 \%*«**%" «I.** «*'*"*"*"*****%"»"**'»"*"***%"***jtL'»"' , * ,, " , «"' , *'» * • **•*• * *^4l" ^ • »••*••**•** • *^^\^9 ***** * « • • * •• • *>fv « • » • • • • • • • * . • * * • *n/ « * * • • * „ • * * * • • » M\ » •••*• * • • • • • • * ••W'/ l ••*•• • * « • • % • • •"••j* * •*»•» • • • • • * • • *•.•*« • " ' *^ * * • • " • • • 1 9 21 ' 8 3 6 5 2 35 4 1080 0 1200 0 495 0 550 0 •XvX'XibKwXvX'X'X'X-XijiyX'X' X

• a**********'*****'**************** * 2 1 1 7 1 9 6 4 9 5 18 7 720 0 800 0 405 0 450 0
***** * *_A* ^ ************* * •>?% • ****** * **••• • *^** » ••••» * • • » • • * * * o*# * •••*• * ***•*• • •£*,* • *•*****•*«•* * *W*? * ••••*• • **••• • tiwrm • «_ • * * * • • • ••*••*•••••**•* , 2 4 " 14 " 1 2 5 0 5 3 10 3 0 0 405 0 450 0

«••*• • -rVwrn • •**• * • a * • * • • r-^Vstm - • * • • • •»••••• • • • • • • •••••'••• • » • m • • • » • • • • • • 2 0 1 4 6 4 1 11 0 17 7 0 0 0 0 57,60 0 41,40 0 x*ft» & S£$$ 8 ::::;:;:;::::::::: : :::;:::::::::::;:;::: : :;:v:vx : :;: : : : :;::: : : : :v: : :;: : :;:;:;: : :;: : : : : :

x;: : :; : 

# ^^•^Ri^pii^^^l l x#x : >x : : : x : :;:^ ^ .\%v.v,%V70.v.%v*%%\v.%%v.v.n\v*%\v.^v^v.\".Wv.v.v. " 1 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 3 4 12 8 6 5 10 7 540 0 600 0 1350 0 1500 0 432 0 480 0

'lm*'*'*'*!'-*'* ' mCKSm'.'L^m* ' ^l*!.*-*- * ' 'i*. ^ ' ^l^mmfmmmJ* ' ' " "i'l " ' ^J'ms'mS* ' •l**!*^^' " ' • jl , l * "•"*•"•''•"•' • 1 9 2 2 2 3 9 3 3 2 7 4 8 28 3 17 9 1080 0 1200 0 1170 0 1300 0 522 0 580 0

• •»"•"» % « •"•"•<—** • • • •_•" « • • • »* * * * ••"•"•J^T***"*" * - *"*"* % *»"*>**J*»J**>**J**jT»7r»5l»*«*'*l"*«*'»"*>**J TM .^v.^^v.a*^^v.^^^^v.v.^v€3'•'.v.•.•.•.•.v.v.*.v.H3t•.•.•.^•. v .v.^v.^^V.•^^v.:.^^v.^^v.v.•^J+.v.v.^v.^^^v.'X•vK•X•.vX • 1 7 2 4 ' '2 5 6 1 3 2 1 7 7 21 8 10 6 1080 0 1200 0 990 0 1100 0 531 0 590 0 WxSx^xSx:*^ ^ 1 7 2 2 2 4 8 3 2 0 15 8 6 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 900 0 1000 0 vX<vX"*MX - X"Xv\'X'X"X - XiX.X'X-X"'X<"XvX*XKX''X'X v AW%WTO\%\\V.%W.V.V,W.V.W.W.W.V,\VWA%V, W 2 0 2 1 2 4 6 7 2 5 13 2 9 9 15 2 360 0 400 0 900 0 1000 0 531 0 590 0 : ; x ; x ; x ; :^w: ; x%r o •X'X'X'XwXvX >x<*x<*x3+x-x*X'Xvwx : :?£ & "l 3 ' " 2 2 ' 2 4 5 4 3 7 12 4 7 8 18 5 360 0 400 0 900 0 1000 0 405 0 450 0 *••••«•«••*•**••••*«•*••*•••*•*••***•**'••••••****••*• * 1 8 •"""2 4 "2 2 5 3 3 4 13 4 15 5 12 7 360 0 400 0 900 0 1000 0
********* * * • •_ • • • •
- i * •*••••••••••**•*••*•»•*•*•*•»•*** • V.V.V.'^AV.VV.V.V.V.V.MAV.V.V.V.V.V.V.'AIV.V.V.V . 1 6 2 3 1 9 1 0 6 4 3 8 9 8 7 18 8 0 0 900 0 1000 0 37,80 0 71,10 0 33,21 0 :i:i^«i£ : £&;& & :$3fc«*: i

• • •• * • • • « • * * *r *«-•' • • • •»•»*»»«•• • :;::Xji^:^*fere:;:;:;:j:j:;:;:jS|i|iafen::;:;::: | x;xjirfe4S^^W:::X:x|^4*^^?^: : : : : -.'•y.W^i'ih^iA^'-^ •.vX'X'X'X'X'X'XvXvX'XvX'X'XvXv . .%vXx<v«^*x%"X'X'X-x%v-:iriSiK - .".vX v

• •••a************************'*'***** * 9 5 1 2 6 7 5 0 13 3 1260 0 1400 0 360 0 400 0 x*x*:*i&x ; x*x^ ^ •XWX-X-WNX-X-X-X^XVX^-W'X-X-X

- 9 7 2 2 2 7 13 1 36 0 2160 0 2400 0 540 0 600 0 **•*•*«•••••*•*•*••**•**•••*•••* » » • • * * * * * * • -.^ •*_ » «•••**••**•' * M_m.^mjm* • •_ • • *. * 1 1 8 1 9 5 8 12 7 38 3 1620 0 1800 0 405 0 450 0 ."»V.V.".%%V.'.V.V.^".'.V.V.Nrftv.".'.".".V.". : .v.v.'.v.iT.".".'.\*.". - .'.".'.v.v3r«4" • • • •• • .•%v.v,'.y>.v,v,v.v.v.v.vAVA , .v.v. v 4 1 0 4 3 8 2 5 43 9 1440 0 1600 0 225 0 250 0 X'X'X'XwX'X'X'Xv'X'X'XijKv'Xv'X v .w.v.v.vSv.'.v.v.v.v.v.'SW.v.'.v. v 8 5 1 5 5 4 20 1 41 3 1620 0 .1800 0 450 0 500 0 •"•**"*"*"»*»"«lij«*»"»"*" * •*»"• % *"»**%"».**% " *VS^ * * • *•- • •" • • <-x-x-x*w.-x%Xvx*'X-x<-:-±^'X-X w

• •**•*••<•*•*•••••*'••••*•**••«'•••• * 1 1 7 0 5 9 9 4 28 7 0 0 180 0 200 0 **-*««**«««*****«***«*«*-****** , a*'a« > * *

• •)•• • * • iMr i i ••••• • • * ••• • X&X^-t ••«•• • • * * * * * a*************** * •» * * * • • * a * • • • "1 3 6 1 4 8 7 22 9 36 0

0 0 •*****•***•*«*•********•******•***« • ^^^^^^^J^Zv.v.•.v.•.•.•.v.v3a:^••.".••••'•.•• • 6 5 6 7 0 4 9 14 7

0 0 81,00 0 21,60 0

T l oMINIMU M AI R FLO W T O MEE T EMPLOYE E EXPOSUR E LEVE L O F 5 0 PP M TW A
MAKE-U P AI R ELEC . POWE R REQUIREMENT S (MEET S OSH A REQ. ) cf m 9000 0 h.p
.

3 5 kw/h p

0.7 5 kw h req . 1 $ pe rkw h

26.2 5 | $0,08 6 $ pe rhou r $2.2 6 $ pe rshif t

$18.0 6

cf m 9000 0 outsid e

ai rtem p 4 5 insid e ai rtem p 7 5 MAKE-U P AI R FUE L REQUIREMENT S (MEET S OSH A REQ. )

tem p bt u ris e 3 0 require d 2,916,00 0 styren e

0 bt u pe r

ther m 100,00 0 therm s pe r

hou r 29.1 6 cos t pe r

ther m o f ga s 0.7 5 cost/hr
.

21.8 7
CF M 9000 0 ga s

cost/shif t $18.0 6 electri c

cost/shif t $174.9 6 tota l

$193.0 2 shirts/da y

3 days/yea r

25 0 energ y cos t

cost/yea r $ 144,765.0 0 S > NOTE : THI S ENERG Y REQUIREMEN T I S TO SATISF Y EMPLOYE E EXPOSUR E AN D PROCES S TEMPERATUR E

T lRTO

CF M 2400 0 4800 0 9600 0 12000 0

anahei m indoo r

ai t tem p 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0
gelcoa t 18 % rto tem p

160 0 160 0 160 0 160 0

barrie rc t 4 % rto therm , eff
. 94 % 94 % 94 % 94 %

laminate s 4 % tem p

ris e 91. 2 91. 2 91. 2 91. 2
gelcoa t 262.653 8 btu/h r

require d 2,363,90 4 4,727,80 8 9,455,61 6 11,819,52 0

barrie rc t 117.8392 5 bt u fro m

styren e 1,168,54 6 1,168,54 6 1,168,54 6 1,168,54 6

laminate s 912.66262 5 bt u pe r

ther m 100,00 0 100,00 0 100,00 0 100,00 0 ther m gas /

hou r 11.9535829 4 35.5926229 4 82.8707029 4 106.509742 9 styren e emissions/h r 88.0 3 66.0 2 cos t

per/ther m ga s 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 styren e bt u pe rIb
. o f styren e 17,70 0 17,70 0 operatin g

cost/hr
. 8.96518720 8 26.6944672 1 62.1530272 1 79.8823072 1 tota l btu/h r 1558060.94 1 1168545.70 6 @75 % eff
.

@75 % eff
. @75 % eff
. @75 % eff
.

@ 100 % eff
. @75 % eff
. RTO CF M 2400 0 4800 0 9600 0 12000 0 ga s

cost/shif t $ 71.7 2 $ 213.5 6 $ 497.2 2 $ 639.0 6 electri c

cost/shif t $51.6 0 $103.2 0 $206.4 0 $232.2 0 tota l

$123.3 2 $316.7 6 $703.6 2 $871.2 6 shirts/da y

3 3 3 3 days/yea r

25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 energ y cos t

cost/yea r $ 92,491.1 2 $ 237,566.8 0 $ 527,718.1 6 $ 653,443.8 4 capita l cos t

RT O capita l $ 415,00 0 $ 830,00 0 $ 1,245,00 0 $ 1,336,00 0 othe rcap .

$ 200,00 0 $ 400,00 0 $ 500,00 0 $ 600,00 0 $

$ $ $ tota l ca p 615,00 0 1,230,00 0 1,745,00 0 1,936,00 0 deprecatio n

cost/yea r $ 61,50 0 $ 123,00 0 $ 174,50 0 $ 193,60 0 tota l

operatin g cos t $ 153,99 1 $ 360,56 7 $ 702,21 8 $ 847,04 4 NOTE : OPERATIN G COS T I S FO R ENERG Y AN D CAPITA L ONL Y - N O MAINENANC E COS T INCLUDE D — rto/cfm 2400 0 4800 0 9600 0 12000 0 h.p
.

10 0 20 0 40 0 45 0 kw/h p

0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 0.7 5 kwhreq
.

7 5 15 0 30 0 337. 5 $ pe rkw h

$0,08 6 $0,08 6 $0,08 6 $0,08 6 $ pe rhou r

$6.4 5 $12.9 0 $25.8 0 $29.0 3 $ pe rshif t

$51.6 0 $103.2 0 $206.4 0 $232.2 0

rt o fue l requirement s

r oPOLLUTIO N PREVENTIO N EXAMPL E

30 % STYREN E GELCOA T VS . 36 % STYREN E GELCOA T RESULT S

STYREN E % 30 % 36 % POUND S

PE R GALLO N 11. 3 10. 6 CU
. IN/CU.FT
.

12"X12"X12 " 172 8 172 8 GALLON S

PERCU.FT
. 7.4 8 7.4 8 CU.I N PE R

GALLO N 231.016042 8 231.016042 8 CU.IN/SQ.FT
.

@ 2 0 MILL S 2.8 8 2.8 8 RESI N

LBS./CU.IN
. 0.04891435 2 0.04588425 9 RESI N

SQ
. FT
. 0.14087333 3 0.13214666 7 STYREN E

SQ
. FT
. 0.04226 2 0.04757 3 0.88836 5 0.83333 3

STYREN E % 30 % 36 % UE F ATOMIZE D 17.8 % 16.0 % UE F

NON-ATOMIZE D 9.3 % 11.2 % ATOMIZE D

EMISSION S PE R SQ.F T 0.02507545 3 0.02116989 6 NON-ATOMIZE D

EMISSION S PE R SQ.F T 0.01308948 1 0.01473435 3 USAG E

VARIANC E PE R SQ.F T 15 % 0 NON-ATOMIZE D

EMISSION S PE R SQ.F T 0.01505290 3 0.01473435 3 PERCEN T INCREAS E ATOMIZE D VS . NON-ATOMIZE D

2.2 % CONCLUSION : GELCOA T @ 36 % STYREN E USIN G NON-ATOMIZE D SPRA Y EQUIPMEN T HA S LES S EMISSION S

PE R SQUAR E FOO T O F PRODUC T THA N GELCOA T @ 30 % STYREN E USIN G ATOMIZE D EQUIPMEN T I IP.6 4

ATTACHMEN

T 7 Dianne Coon Ashlan dSpecialt y Chemica

l Compan y



# 06" ^ 

# Presentatio n t o EP A o n th e Reinforce dPlastic s Composite s MAC T 

# Wh y pollutio n preventio n shoul db e acomplianc e optio n Diann e Coo n Ashlan dSpecialt

y Chemical Co . 9/7/0 1

# Oxidatio n Diminishe s Marke t Nee dfo r muc h Lowe

r HA P Resin s Ashlan di s amajor

supplier t o th e composite s industry W e hav e astron g R& D dep t tha t ha s th e prove n ability t o discover

ne w technolog y Th e $ spen t

i n R& D mus t

b e market-drive n an d justifie d wit

h a n acceptabl e return I f high-volum e user s are force dt o oxidation , the n th e marke t

nee dfo r muc h lowe r

HA P resin s i s greatl y diminishe d

# Long-Ter

mEffect o f oxidatio n I f fabricator s g o t o oxidatio n then :

- The y hav e n o reaso n t o deman dalowe r HA P tha n the y currentl y us e t o mee t

OSH A

- Effort s woul dcontinu e t o ensur e th e smal l an dmediu m volume-user s ca

n mee t th e RP C MAC T

- Ther e woul db e littl e R& D effor t t o driv e HAP' s dow n t o substantiall y lower

level s tha n MAC T currentl y require s

^ 1

# Why pollutio n preventio n make s mor e

sens e fo r th e industr

y I f fabricator s ar e give n th e optio n o f usin g pollutio n preventio n then :

- Thos e high-volum e user s wil l deman deve n lowe r HA P resin s whic h wil l i n turn driv e innovatio n

- Ashlan dca

n the n justif

y R& D effort s t o driv e HAP' s muc h lower

- Th e result s o f

that researc h wil l giv e th e entir e industr y abette r abilit y t o lower emission s

- Woul dnee dtim e t o create thes e programs , innovate , an dcommercializ e th e technolog y

o oP.6 9



## Xfl 

# a o O

u