p.1 

OAR Box 1413 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

76) 11-1-77 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/9/2008 3:11:23 PM Sheet 76 of 114 
P.2 

Regulatory Reach Out 

By John Schweitzer 4 -14** 

S-X- V? 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

MACT — A Brief Chronology (Part 1) 

D

o you remember what 

you were doing on 

November 15, 1990? 

No? Well, that's the day 

George Bush (who we have to 

thank for the Clinton Follies, 

but that's a subject for another 

column) signed into law the 

1990 Amendments to the Clean 

Air Act. Federal regulation of air quality 

had been around since the 1967 Air 

Quality Act, but was widely perceived to 

be a failure. Cities had filthy air, Love 

Canal was in the news, and, despite 

decades of work, EPA had regulated only 

a hand full of toxic air pollutants (arsenic, 

asbestos, benzene, beryllium, mercury, 

radionuclides, radon-222, and vinyl 

chloride, in case you were counting). 

In 1990i Congress said "Enough!" 

and amended the Clean Air Act 

to strengthen or create a number of 

regulatory programs. Of particular interest to the composites industry are Title V 

ofthe 1990 Amendments, which created 

a new operating permit program, and 

Tide III, which created a new Federal air 

toxics program. (Okay, since you asked, 

Tide I is for urban air quality, Title II is 

for mobile sources, Title IV is for acid 

rain, Title VT is for stratospheric ozone 

protection, Title VII is on enforcement, 

ind Title VIII contains miscellaneous 

jrovisions.) 

The operating permits program under 

Title V is administered by the states, and 

equires all "major sources" of air polluants to apply for a permit. A source's 

•ermit is in essence a consolidation all of 

ts applicable air pollution-related requirelents, including MACT. Congress saw 

bis "everything in one place" approach as 

n aid to facilities and regulators in clarifylg, complying with, and enforcing the 

pplicable requirements. Under the Title 

' program, permit applications must be 

/ailable for public review and comment, 

id are subject to EPA veto. And owners 

r CEOs of major sources who are operatig in violation of (or without) a permit 

Composites fabricationl)unc 1998 

are subject to felony charges in 

Federal courts. 

A "major source," by the 

way, is a facility that has the 

potential to emit, assuming 

continuous operations and 

without controls, more than 

certain amounts of certain 

regulated pollutants. Under 

Title I of the Act, for example, a major 

source is a facility that has the potential to 

emit "criteria pollutants" in quandties that 

exceed certain thresholds. Criteria pollutants include CO, lead, N02 , ozone, 

particulates, and S02; these are substances 

that contribute to urban air pollution. 

Since volatile organic compounds released 

A source's permit is in 

essence a consolidation 

all of its applicable air 

pollution-related requirements, 

including MACT. 

into the atmosphere contribute to the 

formation of ozone, VOC is also typically 

regulated under Tide I programs. The 

thresholds for these criteria pollutants are 

determined according to the severity ofthe 

local air pollution. In Los Angeles, for 

example, the threshold for major sources 

under Title I is 10 tons of criteria pollutant 

per year. 

Under Tide III, a major source is a 

facility with the potential to emit more 

than 10 tons per year of any single 

Hazardous Air Pollutant (more about 

HAPs in a minute), or 25 tons per year or 

more of any combination of HAPs. 

Once a facility is a major source (for 

either criteria pollutants or HAPs), then it 

must apply for and operate under a Title V 

operating permit. Many states have 

programs that allow facilities with potential 

emissions above the thresholds to nevertheless escape major source designation and 

Title V requirements; these Federally 

Enforceable State Operating Permit 

programs typically place operational limits 

on facilities, preventing them from exceeding the major source thresholds. 

Now to Title III. Title III of the 

Amendments modifies Section 112 of the 

Act. Section 112 tells EPA how to regulate 

air toxics. In general, EPA regulates air 

toxics by promulgating National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

Under the 1990 Amendments, NESHAPs 

are to require facilities to comply with 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology. 

Got it? No? Okay, let's stan from the 

very beginning. 

Clean Air Act Section 112(a), as 

amended in 1990, contains definitions, 

including "major source," "area source," 

"new source," "modification," et cetera. 

Section 112(b) lists 189 or so HAPs 

(some of the HAPs are groups of 

substances). Styrene, methyl methacrylate, 

methylene chloride, and "fine mineral 

fibers" are HAPs, while acetone and vinyl 

toluene are not. Congress cobbled 

together the HAP list from lists of 

substances regulated elsewhere. Being a 

HAP doesn't really mean that you're more 

toxic than non-HAPS; it just means that 

you're on the list. EPA is allowed to add or 

remove HAPs from the list, and has in fact 

removed one (caprolactam). 

Section 112(c) tells EPA to prepare a 

list of "all categories and subcategories of 

major sources" that emit HAPs. EPA did 

subsequently list "Reinforced 

Plastics/Composites" as a category of 

sources that emit styrene and other HAPs. 

For each of the listed categories or subcategories, 112(c) also directs EPA to establish emission standards as specified in 

112(d). And 112(c) tells EPA to list boat 

manufacturing as a separate subcategory. 
P.3 

Section 112(d) is the heart of Title III. 

i) directs EPA to establish emission 

ards for each category or subcategory 

urces listed under 112(c). It allows 

ro set different standards for different 

of sources within a category, 

vnd now we finally get to MACT. 

>n 112(d) requires that the emission 

ards (i.e., NESHAPs) established 

r this section shall require "the 

num degree of reduction in 

ions of the [HAPs] that [EPA]... 

nines is achievable... through the 

;ation of [control technology]..." 

s, "Maximum Achievable Control 

lology." 

EPA is allowed to take into consideracosts, environmental impacts, and 

Y use when determining what is 

-able. However, 112(d) tells EPA 

ie standard for new sources shall not 

> stringent than the emission control 

'ed in practice by the best controlled 

r source. And die standard for existurces shall not be less stringent than 

erage emission limitation achieved in 

:e by the best performing 12% of 

ig sources (or for the best performing 

mrces for categories or subcategories 

fewer than 30 sources). These 

mm stringency levels (or "MACT 

') are set without regard to cost or 

impacts. Congress assumed that, 

)ther facilities are using the controls, 

they are by definition feasible and achievable. This simple assumption, and EPA's 

derivation of the floors for composites, is 

causing us no end of trouble; more about 

that next month. 

Section 112(e) tells EPA to establish 

these standards according to a schedule. 

EPA is to promulgate all standards by 

November 15, 2000. (There's that pesky 

November 15 again.) The RP/C 

NESHAP was originally scheduled for 

promulgation in 1997, but was recendy 

moved to November 15, 2000 to allow 

EPA more time to collect data. 

Section 112(f) directs EPA to revisit 

the MACT standards and issue additional 

regulations if die MACTs are not sufficiently protecting the public health. 

112(f) is known as the "residual risk" 

provision. 

Section 112(g) requires MACT for 

new, reconstructed, and modified sources, 

even if EPA has not yet promulgated the 

appropriate MACT standard. You may 

recall a lot of heat and noise about 112(g) 

a few years ago. In its first proposed rule 

to implement 112(g), EPA classified 

styrene as a carcinogen, and required caseby-case MACT and permit revisions for 

many of the day-to-day operational 

changes commonly made in the composites industry (like changing to a new spray 

gun). The composites industry was instrumental in getting EPA to limit case-bycase MACT requirements to construction 

of new sources and reconstruction of existing sources (where 50% or more of a 

source is replaced). And EPA decided not 

to classify styrene or other HAPs as part of 

the 112(g) rule. 

For industries where it is not possible 

to enforce an emission limitation, Section 

112(h) allows EPA to establish MACT as a 

design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standard. Under the RP/C 

MACT, many parts of the industry will be 

required to employ certain equipment 

designs, materials, or work practices, rather 

dian comply with emission limitations. 

There are several odier parts of 

Section 112 (112(k), for example, requires 

EPA to limit emissions from non-major 

sources to reduce cancer risk in urban 

areas), but they don't have much to do 

with MACT. 

Next month: EPA's development of 

MACT for composites. O 

mically Speaking" continued from 42) 

apor-suppressed resin has produced 

ons in the range of 1-2% of resin 

t, which is extremely low. The flow 

>er has an advantage over bucket 

rush hand lay-up - the flow chopper 

ix. The faster the resin is transferred 

laminate the lower the emissions, 

onally, chop is generally easier to 

te and roll-out than chopped strand 

;o both the resin application stage 

he roll-out stage are truncated, 

ng in lower emissions. 

Should you use a vapor suppressant? 

The answer is a qualified yes. Is secondary 

bonding an issue for your products? If you 

are fabricating "one shot" laminates, or if 

structural bonding is not an issue, you are 

free to use almost any type of suppressant. 

However, if you are fabricating products, 

which use multiple laminates and have 

structural requirements, you should 

approach suppressants cautiously. You 

must select a suppressant that is effective 

with your specific resin system. 

Additionally, you must have procedures in 

9~ 

place, which specify laminate timing 

and/or sanding schedules. 

By working closely with your resin 

supplier, yor ^an take maximum advantage of spec, .iig a vapor suppressant 

that has the required adhesion characteristics, and is effective in reducing 

emissions. While styrene suppressants 

are not suitable for all applications, they 

can offer real emissions reduction 

benefits in a wide range on molding 

situations. O