p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 137 ) ll-E-9 7 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:07

AM Sheet 137 of 264P. 2 

### I 

# \\'i-?7 MEMORANDU

M 

### TO : FROM : DATE : Madeleine Stru m U.S . EPA/ESD/CCP G Melani e Procto r Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) Jun e 24 , 1997 SUBJECT : Minute s o

f Ma y 9 , 1997 , Meetin g Betwee n EP A and Representative s o f

th e Reinforced Plasti c Composite s Industr y LOCATION : EPA/Mutua l Building , Durham , NC , 1 1 th floo r 9:0 0 am-11:0 0 a

m ATTENDEES : Ms . Nancy Dehmlow Mr . Nelso n Dougla s Ms . Lind aHerrin g Mr . Bruc e Jorda

n * Mr . Richar

d Marten s Mr . Stev e McNall

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

r Ms . Madeleine Stru

m GL S Reichhol d Chemicals , Inc . EPA/ESD/CCP G EPA/ESD/CCP G Reichhol d Chemicals , Inc . Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n (CFA ) PE S EPA/ESD/CCP G PE S Composite s Institute of

th e Societ y of th e Plastic s Industr

y (SPI ) EPA/ESD/CCP G (312 ) 664-350 0 (919 ) 990-825 6 (919 ) 541-535 8 (919 ) 541-557 2 (919 ) 990-800 7 (703 ) 610-022 0 (919 ) 941-033 3 (919 ) 541-525 4 (919 ) 941-033 3 (313 ) 668-470 3 (919 ) 541-238 3 Mr . Jorda n wa s present

onl y initiall y t o introduc e th e purpos e of th e briefin g PURPOS E Th e purpos e o

f th e meetin g wa s to brie f

industr y representative s o n MAC T simplificatio n option s fo

r th e existin g sourc e MAC T analysis . Th e briefin g presente d proces s subcategor

y groupings , existin g sourc e MAC T floor leve l results , and existin g sourc e MAC T floo

r emissio n reductio n result s fo r noncorrosion-resistant

an d corrosion

resistant resins .P. 3 * \ Madelein e Stru

m Jun e 24 , 1997 Pag e 2 INTRODUCTIO N Mr . Jorda n introduce d th e briefin g b y statin g tha t th e MAC T floor

analysi s previousl y presente d to industr y appeare d t o b e extremely complex an d tha t he , therefore , instructe d hi s staf

f t o explor e other option s tha

t woul d simplif

y th e standard . Mr . Jordan furthe r explaine d tha

t th e goa l o f th e MAC T simplificatio n analysi s wa s t o offe r asimpl e wa y to compl

y wit h th e standar

d fo r thos e who wante d something simple , whil e stil l offering other , bu t

mor e complex , option s t o comply . A s Mr . Jorda n pointe d out , facilitie s tha t carr y ou t avariet y o f processe s woul d b e subjec t to severa l differen t standard s unde r th e previousl y presente d MAC T floor analysis . Mr . Jorda

n explaine d tha

t on e commonalit

y i n al l th e differen

t productio n processe s fo

r thi s sourc e categor

y i s th e us e o

f styren e and , therefore , thi s MAC T simplificatio n analysi s focused o n combinin g a s man y processe s a s possibl e into one proces s subcategor y an d providin g one resi n HA P content limit . Mr . Jordan continue d to explai n tha t i f afacilit y wante d to us e ahigher

resi n HA P conten t

a s determine d i n th e MAC T floor analysis , th e rul e coul d provid e other equivalent

option s t o comply . Mr . Jorda

n close d hi s introductio n by statin g tha t h e wa s please d wit

h th e result s o f th e MAC T simplificatio n analysi s and tha t th e EP A i s plannin g to mov e forwar d wit h thi s approac h unles s industr

y representative s coul d provid e stron g and convincin g argument s fo r usin g another

approac h to determin e MAC T floor s fo r thi s sourc e category . Mr . Jorda n als o strongl y encourage d industr y to help develop option s tha t woul d b e equivalent

t o th e HA P content

limi t fo r specifi c processes . DISCUSSIO N Ms . Strumbega

n to presen t

th e result s of

th e MAC T simplificatio n analysi s b y statin g tha t thi s presentatio n woul d focu s onl y o n existin g sourc e MAC T floors. Ms . Strum explaine d tha

t tw o majo r change s occurre d i n th e MAC T analysi s tha t wa s previousl y presente d t o industry : (1 ) Th e proces s subcategorie s wer e regroupe d to simplif

y th e MAC T floor analysis , and (2 ) th e MAC T databas e wa s expande d by addin g source s wit h actua l emission s o

f les s tha n 1 0 ton s o

f HAP per yea r t o th e databas e tha

t hav e potential HA P emission s i n quantitie s tha t the y woul d b e defined a s majo r sources . Accordin g t o Ms . Strum , thi s ste

p wa s taken becaus e th e revie w o f othe r rule s showe d amore conservativ e determinatio n o

f afacility' s potentia

l to emit . Fo r

example , afacility' s potential t o emi t wa s determine d by increasin g it s operatin g hour s to 3 shifts per day . Determinin g th e potential t o emi t

conservatively , ha s resulte d in alarger , mor e representative , and mor e robus t database . Ms . Strumproceede d b y discussin g th e outlin e o f th e briefin g packag e (se e Attachment

1) . Sh e pointe d out

tha t aseparat e MAC T floor

analysi s wa s conducte d fo r noncorrosion-resistan t

an d corrosion-resistant

resins . Ms . Strumstate d tha t sh e woul d firs t 

# - 2 -P. 4

Madeleine Stru

m Jun e 24 , 199 7 Pag e 3 discus s proces s subcategor y groupings , MAC T floor leve l results , and MAC T floor emissio n reductio n result s fo r noncorrosion-resistant

resin s and the n fo

r corrosion-resistan t resins . Ms . Stru

mreviewe d 3 differen

t option s tha

t wer e considere d fo

r th e MAC T floor analysi s fo r noncorrosion-resistant

resins . A s Ms . Strumpointe d out , Optio n 1 i s th e optio n tha t wa s previousl y presente d t o industry . Unde r Optio n 1 , th e reinforce d plasti c composite s industr

y i s subcategorize d into 1 2 differen t proces s subcategorie s a s show n i n Attachmen

t 1 . Ms . Strumstate d tha

t unde r thi s option , eac h proces s subcategor y ha s a differen t existin g sourc e MAC T standard . Accordin g to Ms . Strum , Optio n 2 present s apossibl e wa y to simplif

y th e MAC T floor analysi s conducte d under

Optio n 1 . Unde

r Optio n 2 , al l reinforce d plasti c composite s processe s are combine d int o one proces s subcategor

y excep t fo r entirel y close d moldin g processe s (RT

M and Compression/Injectio n Molding ) an d th e MAC T floor

i s base d o n th e resi n HAP conten

t an d th e resi n applicatio n metho d excep t fo r filled spra

y applications . Ms . Strumindicate d tha

t th e MAC T floor

fo r thi s optio n i s a3 0 percen t resi n content

limi t o r equivalent

an d non-spra y resi n applicatio n method s fo r Spra y Unfilled , Han d Unfilled , Hand Filled , Continuou s Lamination/Casting , Pultrusion , an d Filament

Windin g operations . Accordin g to Ms . Strum , aresi n applicatio n standar d wa s no t considere d for

fille d spra

y application s becaus e non-spra y resi n applicatio n devices , such a s flow coater s o r pressur e fe d rollers , ma

y no t b e abl e to b e use d t o appl

y filled resins . Ms . Strumadde d tha t facilitie s tha t spra y unfille d resin s ma

y continu e thei r

resi n spra y applicatio n provide d tha

t they ca n achiev e a n equivalen

t emissio n reductio n to anon-spra y facilit y tha t use s a3 0 percen t

resi n HA P content , whic h woul d requir e th e spra y facilit y t o lowe r it s resi n HA P conten t

t o a calculate d equivalen

t o f les s tha n 3 0 percent . Ms . Strumexplaine d tha

t th e projec t

tea mquestione d th e technologica l feasibilit y o f a3 0 percen t

resi n HA P conten t limi t fo r al l facilitie s groupe d under Optio n 2 and note d tha

t thi s resi n HA P conten

t limi t i s largel y drive n b y Polyme r Casting , SMC and BM C operations . Therefore , th e EP A examine d Optio n 3 , which present s anothe r possibl e wa

y to simplif y th e MAC T analysi s conducte d unde r Optio n 1 . The MAC T floor analysi s under Optio n 3 combine s a s man y processe s a s possibl e into on e proces s subcategor

y and establishe s aMAC T floor

tha t i s considere d technologically feasibl e fo r al l facilitie s withi n tha t subcategory . Optio n 3 group s semi-open/open reinforce d plastic s processes . Under thi s option , al l reinforce d plasti c composite s processe s ar e combined excep t

for Polymer Casting , SMC , BMC , an

d entirely close d molding processe s (RT M and Compression/Injectio n Molding) . Ms . Stru mexplaine d tha

t th e MAC T floor

fo r Optio n 3 i s determine d base d o n th e resi n HAP conten t an d th e resi n applicatio n metho d excep t fo r filled spra y applications . Ms . Strumindicate d tha t th e MAC T floor fo r thi s optio n i s a3 4 percen t resi n content

limi t o r equivalen t an d non-spra y resi n applicatio n method s fo r Spra y 

# 3_R5 _

Madelein e Stru

m Jun e 24 , 1997 Pag e 4 Unfilled , Han

d Unfilled , Han d Filled , Continuou s Lamination/Casting , Pultrusion , an d Filament Winding operations . Ms . Strumadde d that , a s describe d unde r Optio n 2 , facilitie s tha t spra y unfille d resin s ma

y continu e thei r

resi n spra

y applicatio n provide d tha t the y can achiev e a n equivalen

t emissio n reductio n to anon-spra y facilit y tha t use s a3 4 percen t

resi n HAP content , whic h woul d requir e th e spra y facilit y t o lowe r thei r resi n HA P conten t

to a calculate d equivalent

o f 3 2 percent . Th e MAC T floor fo r Spra y Fille d i s a3 4 percen t

resi n content limi t or equivalent

without aresi n applicatio n metho d standard fo r th e sam e reaso n a s explaine d under

Optio n 2 . Ms . Strumpointe d out tha t under thi s option , th e MAC T floor fo r Polyme r Castin g i s a2 8 percen t

resi n content

limi t o r equivalent . A s Ms . Stru m indicated , th e MAC T floor fo r BMC Manufacturin g under thi s optio n i s a6 percen t emissio n reduction . Accordin g t o Ms . Strum , th e bes t controlle d BM C Manufacturin g facilit y reduce s it s emission s by 9 5 percent b y usin g a

n oxidizer , th e secon d bes t controlle d facilit y use s pollutio n preventio n technique s to reduc e emission s b y approximatel y 7 0 percent , and th e third bes t controlle d facility , whic h set s th e MAC T floor, reduce s emission s b y a

n estimated^p^ehfthrougr T th e useo f carbo n filters. I n discussio n o

f th e resi n HAP conten

t limits , Ms . Dehmlo w aske d i f th e resi n HA P content onl y referre d to styren e o r

acombinatio n o

f HAP . Ms . Strumresponde d b y explainin g tha

t th e resi n HAP conten

t include s acombinatio n o

f al l volatil e organi c HAP . Afte r presentin g thes e 3 MAC T analysi s options , Ms . Strumexplaine d tha t th e EPA favor s "Optio

n 3 becaus e i t

offers asimple , technologically feasibl e complianc e option , whil e stil l offering other , bu t

more complex , option s to compl y throug h equivalencie s tha t ca n b e incorporate d into th e standard . Ms . Strumindicate d tha t the EP A woul d lik

e to ge t som e help fro mindustr y in incorporatin g equivalencie s int o th e standard . I n particular , Ms . Strumaske d fo

r informatio n o n whic h emissio n reductio n technique s coul d b e identifie d a s equivalencie s i n th e rul e an d ho w complianc e ca

n b e demonstrate d fo

r thes e emissio n reductio n techniques . Ms . Strumpointe d ou t tha t sh e woul d lik

e more informatio n o n ho w complianc e coul d b e demonstrate d i f emissio n reductio n technique s suc h a s vacuumbaggin g o r vapor-suppressant s woul d b e used . Ms . Stru mindicate d tha

t she di d no t

lik e t o us e th e SCAQM D ca n li d tes t t o determin e th e effectivenes s o f vapor-suppressant s becaus e th e tes t di d no t correlat e well wit

h emissions . Ms . Stru mproceede d by presentin g calculate d industr y emission s and th e MAC T floor emissio n reductio n result s fo r each o f th e 3 MACT analysi s option s fo r noncorrosion

resistan t resins . Ms . Strumemphasize d tha t whil e th e emissio n factor s use d t o calculate overal l proces s emission s fro mth e entire industr

y are believe d to b e agoo d overal l estimat e o f emissions , th e averag e proces s emissio n factor s shoul d no t b e use d t o calculat

e facilit y specifi c emission s becaus e th e emissio n factor s tha t are use d fo

r agive n proces s ma

y var y among facilitie s withi n th e sam e proces s depending o n proces s specifics , includin g ambien t conditions . 

# 4P. 6

Madeleine Stru

m June 24 , 1997 Pag e 5 Ms . Dehmlo w inquire d wh y th e proces s specifi c MAC T databas e table s tha t were recently distribute d to industr y showed acolum

n wit h th e pound s of

HAP emission s pe r

to n o f resi n use d fo

r onl y som e o f th e proces s databas e tables . Ms . Strumresponde d tha t thi s colum n wa s use d to rank

som e o f th e proces s subcategorie s considere d under Optio n 1 , bu t th e colum n wa s no t necessar y fo r al l proces s categorie s unde r thi s option ; no r

i s i t necessar y fo r Optio n 3 , th e curren t

option . Ms . Strumfurthe r explaine d tha

t under Optio n 1 som

e proces s subcategories , wher e differen t type s o f emissio n reductio n technique s were reporte d to b e used , were ranke d base d o n "pound s o f HAP emission s pe r

to n o f resin" . Accordin g to Ms . Strum , proces s subcategorie s tha t di d no t repor t an y emissio n reductio n technique s othe r than , fo r example , th e us e o

f resin s wit h lo w HAP contents , coul d b e ranke d directl y o n th e resi n HAP content . Ms . Strumcontinue d by presentin g th e MAC T floor analysi s an

d th e MAC T floor level result s fo

r corrosion-resistant

resins . Ms . Strumexplaine d tha t fo r th e corrosion

resistant MAC T analysis , corrosion-resistant resi n application s fromal l reinforce d plasti c composite s processe s are combine d int o one proces s subcategory . A s Ms . Strumpointe d out , th e processe s fo

r whic h corrosion-resistant

resi n application s hav e bee n identifie d ar e Hand Layup , Spra

y Layup , Filamen

t Winding , and Centrifuga

l Castin g operations . Ms . Strumexplaine d tha

t i n th e corrosion-resistant

MAC T floor

analysi s previousl y presente d t o industry , eac h proces s wit h corrosion-resistant

resi n application s wa s broke n out int o it s ow n proces s subcategory . Ms . Stru mpointe d out

tha t th e MAC T floor

unde r th e previou s MAC T analysi s wa s a4 2 percent resi n HA P content limi t fo r corrosion

resistant Spra y Layup . Ms . Stru

mindicate d tha

t afte r extendin g th e databas e to include potentia l majo r source s an

d afte r combining al l corrosion-resistant processe s into one proces s subcategory , th e MAC T floor under th e MAC T simplificatio n analysi s i s aresi n HAP content

limi t o f 3 8 percent

an d non-spra y resi n applicatio n methods . A s Ms . Strum pointe d out , th e non-spra

y resi n applicatio n requirement applie s to al l facilitie s i n thi s subcategory , sinc e n o significan t amount s o

f fille r usag e wer

e reporte d fo

r corrosion

resistant applications . Ms . Stru

mexplaine d tha

t switchin g to non-spra

y resi n applicatio n method s i s no t

expecte d to pos e aproble mbecaus e no significan t amount s o

f filler are bein g used . Mr . Schweitze

r inquire d i f th e non-spra

y applicatio n requirement

i s base d o n facilitie s i n th e databas e tha t reporte d th e us e o

f flow coaters . Ms . Strumreplie d tha t th e non-spra y requirement

i s no t base d o n th e us e o

f flow coaters , bu t

tha t i t i s base d o n facilitie s tha

t d o no t us e spra y technique s t

o appl y th e resin . Ms . Herrin g aske d if

equivalencie s would als o b e considere d fo r th e 3 8 percen t

resi n HA P content limi t fo r corrosion-resistant

resins . Ms . Stru

mresponde d tha

t equivalencie s coul d als o b e considere d fo r thi s proces s subcategory . Accordin g to Ms . Strum , ahigher 

# 5P. 7

Madelein e Strum Jun e 24 , 199 7 Pag e 6 resi n HA P content

limi t coul d b e allowed , fo

r example , i

f vacuumbaggin g i s bein g used . Ms . Stru mpointe d ou t

tha t som e facilitie s ma

y als o b e abl e to us e vapor-suppressant s for corrosion-resistan t

application , which woul d allo w thos e facilitie s to increas e thei r resi n HA P conten t

abov e 3 8 percent . Mr . Marten s aske d i

f ne w emissio n reducin g technologie s tha t coul d b e develope d i n th e futur e woul d b e allowe d a s equivalencie s i n complyin g wit h th e MAC T standard . Mr . Marten s adde d tha

t no t allowin g fo

r equivalen t new emissio n reductio n technologie s woul d preven t th e developmen

t o f thos e ne w technologies . Ms , Meye r responde d tha

t th e answer t o thi s questio n i s largel y dependen t o n ho w th e rul e wil l b e structured . Ms . Meyer pointe d out tha t aperformanc e standar

d woul d allo w th e greates t amoun t o f flexibility fo

r industr y to comply wit

h th e standard . Ms . Meye r als o pointe d out

tha t ther e i s alway s th e optio n o f amendin g th e rul e t o incorporat e ne w technologie s tha

t hav e evolved . Ms . Meyer explaine d tha t th e rul e coul d als o spel l out th e criteri atha

t woul d hav e t o b e fulfilled to determin e i f othe r mean s of emissio n reduction s ca

n b e considere d equivalent t o th e MAC T standard . Accordin g to Ms . Meyer , i t coul d the n b e decide d o n acase-by-cas e basi s if a n emissio n reductio n measur

e i s equivalent

t o th e MAC T standard . Mr . Marten s inquire d i

f th e case-by-cas e determinatio n woul d hav e to b e mad e o n a n emissio n reductio n metho d o r afacilit y basis . Ms . Meye

r replie d tha

t th e case-by-cas e determinatio n woul d hav e to b e mad e o n afacilit

y basis . Ms . Meye

r adde d tha t onc e a numbe r of facilitie s hav e shown tha

t aparticula

r emissio n reductio n metho d i s equivalen t to the MAC T standar

d fo r th e facilitie s tested , i t

usuall y become s easier

fo r other facilitie s t o demonstrate th e equivalenc y o f thi s particula

r emissio n reductio n method , whic h coul d lea d t o a n acceptanc e of

aparticula

r emissio n reductio n method . Ms . Procto r

aske d Mr . Marten s i

f he ha d an y particula

r emissio n reductio n method s i n min d whe n h e aske d about equivalencie s o

f upcomin g emissio n reductio n technologies . Mr . Marten s replie d tha

t h e wa s thinkin g abou

t technologie s lik

e U V curing , th e SCRIM P process , an d ne

w resi n formulation s wit

h higher strengt h characteristic s tha

t allo w th e us e o f les s resi n and monome

r pe r par t b y makin g th e par

t thinner . Ms . Strumpointe d ou t

tha t she woul d lik

e to allo w th e us e o

f th e SCRIMP proces s a s an equivalent

optio n to compl

y wit h th e MAC T standard . Ms . Strumagree d tha t ne w resi n formulation s coul d potentially resul t i n th e us e o

f les s resin , however , she pointe d ou t tha t sh e coul d no t

imagin e ho w th e us e of

les s resi n coul d b e incorporate d int o th e rul e withou t imposin g productio n limits . Mr . Marten s state d tha

t resin s wit h lowe r HAP content s generall y hav e lower molecula r weight s and th e low molecula r weigh t resin s are generall y les s stron g and more brittl e tha n thos e wit

h higher molecula r weights . Mr . Marten s pointe d ou t tha t facilitie s 

### (oP. 8

Madelein e Stru m Jun e 24 , 199 7 Pag e 7 migh t us e th e lo w HAP , lo w molecula r weigh t resin s tha t hav e inferior

strengt h propertie s t o compl y wit h th e MAC T standard , bu t facilitie s migh

t mak e th e par t thicker b y usin g mor e resi n to increas e th e strengt h o f th e part , whic h migh

t resul t in th e sam

e HA P emission s a s i

f the y wer e usin g aresi n wit

h ahigher HAP conten

t an d bette r strengt h properties . Mr . Marten s als o pointe d ou t tha t product s tha

t require hig h fille

r loadings , suc h a s corrosion-resistan t

polyme r concrete , ma

y need resin s wit

h ahighe r monome r conten t t o produc e agoo d product . Ms . Stru mresponde d tha

t there are facilitie s i n th e MAC T databas e wit

h hig h filler

loading s an

d lo w monome

r contents . Mr . McNally replie d tha t mos t product s wit

h high filler

content s nee d hig h resi n monome r contents . Mr . McNall y added tha t onl y product s such a s culture d marbl e bat h product s coul d hav e hig h filler loading s and resin s wit

h lo w HA P monome

r contents . Ms . Strumexplaine d tha

t in determinin g th e MAC T floors n o preferentia l treatmen t wa s give n to facilitie s tha

t us e hig h amount s o

f filler. Mr . McNally disagree d b y pointin g ou t tha t h e though

t tha t th e ter m"HAP percent

i n th e nea

t resi n plus " meant

tha t facilitie s were allowe d to includ

e thei r fille r to determin e th e resi n HAP content . Ms . Stru mreplie d tha t Mr . McNally' s interpretatio n wa s incorrec t and tha t th e ter m"HA P percen t

i n th e nea

t resi n plus " mean

t tha t an y additiona

l HA P tha t i s added to th e resi n a

t th e facilit y shoul d b e include d i n determinin g th e overal l resi n HAP content . Accordin g to Ms . Strum , fille r o r an y other resi n additive s excep t

fo r HA P monome

r shoul d no t

b e include d i n th e resi n HA P content calculation . Mr . Meardo n directe d th e focu s o f th e meetin g back

t o Mr . Jordan' s introductio n of th e briefin g and th e result s o f th e MAC T simplificatio n analysis . Mr . Meardo n aske d if industr y representative s coul d provid e an y feedbac k concernin g th e approac h and th e result s o f th e MAC T simplificatio n analysis . I n addition , Mr . Meardo n aske d industr y representative s to focu s o n equivalen t MAC T floor

option s i f possible . Mr . Schweitze

r responde d b y sayin g tha

t industr y woul d hav e to examine th e result s and th e implication s o f th e ne w analysi s mor

e carefull y befor e the y coul d provid e an

y specifi c coniments . However , Mr . Schweitze

r explaine d tha

t industr y would i n genera

l prefe r amore flexibl e standar d tha t woul d allo w the

mto b e innovativ e i n complyin g wit h th e MAC T standard . Mr . Schweitze

r furthe r pointe d out

tha t aperformanc e standar

d woul d provid e th e maximu mamoun t o f flexibilit y fo r facilitie s to compl

y wit h th e MAC T standard , whic h woul d encourag e th e developmen t o f innovativ e emissio n reductio n techniques . Ms . Stru memphasize d tha t th e EP A prefer s t o writ

e performanc e standard s whe n eve r possible , bu t

th e proble mfo

r thi s industr

y i s tha t ver y littl e emission s dat aar e availabl e t o set aperformanc e standard . Ms . Meye r added tha t aperformanc e standard woul d requir e 

# 1P. 9

Madelein e Strum Jun e 24 , 1997 Pag e 8 facilitie s to tes t

thei r emission s and to conduc t

continuou s proces s monitorin g t o demonstrate compliance . Mr . Schweitze

r aske d i f emissio n factor s coul d b e use d t o calculate aperformanc e standar d i n term s o

f "pound s o

f emission s pe r

to n o f resi n used " t o determin e th e equivalent performanc e standar

d to agiven resi n HAP content limit . Ms . Stru mreplie d tha t thi s migh t no t b e possibl e because , eve n withi n th e sam e process , individua

l facilit y emissio n factor s var y greatly . Ms . Strumadde d tha t th e EP A migh t furthe r investigat

e th e feasibilit

y of thi s option . I t wa s als o pointe d out

tha t i f th e standar

d wa s base d o n calculate d "l b emission/to n resin " a s a

n equivalenc y fo

r aresi n HAP content

limit , afacilit

y tha t conduct s emissio n testin g migh

t find tha t the y are no t i n complianc e wit

h th e calculate d equivalenc y eve n thoug h i t meet s th e resi n HAP content limit . Thi s migh

t occu r becaus e th e facility' s emissio n factor

i s no t th e sam e a s th e assume d proces s averag e emissio n factor tha t wa s use d to set

th e calculate d performanc e standard . I n adiscussio n abou

t th e possibl e option s to se

t th e MAC T floor

standard , Ms . Meyer describe d th e latitude th e EP A ha s i n stettin g MAC T standard s leadin g Mr . McNall y to th e ide aof

basin g th e MAC T standar d o n a n emissio n cap . Ms . Meyer pointe d ou t

tha t i n orde r t o set a n emissio n cap , th e EP

A woul d hav e to show tha t thi s emissio n limi t

i s equivalent to th e MAC T floor. Mr . McNally indicate d tha t th e approac h t o set

an emission s ca p coul d hav e som

e meri t i n tha t i t woul d stil l allo w innovatio n and flexibility fo r th e industry . Ms . Meye

r adde d tha t thi s approac h would , o

f course , stil l requir e facilitie s to tes t emission s an

d to do continuou s proces s monitoring . Concern s were raise d whether a n emission s ca

p woul d limi t

facilit y growth . Mr . McNally though t a n emission s ca

p woul d encourag e facilitie s t o find innovativ e solution s t o reduc e thei r emissions . Ms . Meyer , o n th e other hand , fel t a n emission s ca

p coul d limi t

afacility' s growt

h options . Th e industr

y representative s indicate d tha t the y woul d lik

e t o furthe r revie w th e material and th e option s discusse d i n thi s meeting . Mr . Schweitze r aske d i f afollo w u p meetin g coul d b e schedule d to allo w industr y to respon d t o th e issue s raise d toda y afte r discussin g thes e issue s wit h member s o

f th e industry . A tentativ e dat e wa s set for Jul y 8 , 199 7 t o mee t

a t th e EPA/Mutua

l Buildin g t o continu e the discussion . (Thi s date wa s later change d t o Augus t

14 , 1997) .P.1 0



# PROJEC T BRIEFIN G REINFORCE

D PLASTI C COMPOSITE S PRODUCTIO N EXISTIN G SOURCE MAC T ANALYSI S

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

Projec t Lead : Madelein e Stru

m Ma y 9,199 7



# °iP.1 1



## OUTLIN E

PartA Noncorrosion-Resistan tResin s - Existin g Source s

• Proces s Subcategor

y Grouping s MAC T Floo r

Leve l Result s

• MAC T Floo r

Emissio n Reductio n Result s

PartB Corrosion-Resistan tResin s - Existin g Source s

• Proces s Subcategor

y Groupin g

• MAC T Floo r

Leve l Result s

• MAC T Floo r

Emissio n Reductio n Result s



# oP.1 2



## PROCES S SUBCATEGOR Y GROUPING S FO R NONCORROSION-RESISTAN T RESIN S Optio n 1 - Al

l proces s subcategorie s separat e (presen t basis ) Optio n 2 - Combin

e al l subcategorie s excep

t fo r Close d Molding (RT M & Compression/Injectio

n Molding ) an

d determin e MAC T floor base d o n resin HA P conten t an d resin applicatio

n method excep

t fo r filled spra y application Optio n 3 - Combin

e al l subcategorie s excep

t fo r BMC , SMC , Polyme r Casting , an

d Close d Moldin g (RT M & Compression/Injectio

n Molding ) an

d determin e MAC T floo r base d o n resi n HA P conten t an d resin application method excep

t fo r filled spra y application

Par t A - Noncorrosion-Resistant Resin s 

# l l

## Compariso n o f Existin g Sourc e MAC T Floor s fo r Differen tGroupin g Option s i n Noncorrosion-Resistan tApplication s

^ Proces s Subcategor y Spra y Fille d Spra y Unfilled Han d Unfille d Hand Fille d Continuou s Lamination/Castin g

Pultrusio n Filament Winding Polyme r Castin g SM C BMC RT M Compression/Injectio n Moldin g Optio n 1 : Al l Separat

e 35 % HAP o r

38 % HA P VS R 33.5 % HAP o r

39 % HA P VS R 32 % HAP o r

40 % HA P VS R 35 % HAP o r

38 % HA P VS R t o b e determine d 3 0 lb s emission s pe r

to n o f resi n 33 % HA P 28 % HA P n o numerical limi t 6 % emissio n reductio n n o numerical limi t n o numerica

l limi t Optio n 2 :

Al l Combine d Excep t

Close d Moldin g 30%HA1><M

- «quiyaie*t t

non-spra y an d 30 % HA P o r equivalen t o r spray an d les s tha n 30 % HAP * o r

equivalen t

n o numerical limi t n o numerical limi t Optio n 3 : Al l Combine d Excep t Polyme r Casting , Close d Molding , SM C & BM C 34%HAi*a r eqaivalfiH t non-spray an d 34 % HAP o r equivalen t o r spra y an d 32 % HA P o r equivalen t

28 % HAP n o numerica l limi t 6 % emissio n reductio n n o numerica l limi t n o numerica l limi t Th e equivalen t

resin HA P content fo r spra y applicatio n i s stil l t o b e calculated . Par t A - Noncorrosion-Resistan t Resin s

# u > Compariso n o f Expecte d MAC T Emissio n Reduction s fo r Differen tGroupin g Option s i n Noncorrosion-Resistan tApplication s a tExistin g Facilitie s (Ton s pe r Year )

Proces s Subcategor y Spra y Fille d Spra y Unfille d Han d Unfille d Han d Fille d Continuou s Lamination/Castin g

Pultrusio n Filamen t Windin g Polyme r Castin g SM C BM C RT M Compression/Injectio n Moldin g TOTA L EMISSION S * * EMISSIO N REDUCTIO N Curren t Emission s 6,49 1 1,81 9 22 5 21 4 53 7 43 6 4 5 13 4 25 0 12 1 1 0 60 4 14,94 2 Optio n 1 :

Al l Separat e 2,59 7 86 0 8 7 3 5 > 0 * 26 4 0 2 8 0 6 0 0 Optio n 2 :

Al l Combine d Excep t Close d Moldin g 3,82 3 1,20 2 9 4 7 1 14 8 10 2 5 2 1 6 9 1 6 0 0 Optio n 3 :

Al l Combine d Excep t Polyme r Casting , Close d Molding , SM C & BM C 2,914 . 1,01 6 6 2 4 1 9 7 6 2 0 2 8 0 6 0 0 >3,87 7 5,55 1 4,22 6

* MAC T emissio n reduction s for thi s proces s are stil l t o b e determine d onc e testin g at LASC O i s completed . Th e curren t estimate i s conservativ e an d assume s n o emissio n reductio n fromthi s process . * * Total emission s includ e emission s fromge l coating . Par t A - Noncorrosion-Resistan t Resin s 5P.1 5 <*•• • 

## PROCES S SUBCATEGOR Y GROUPIN G FO R CORROSION-RESISTAN T RESIN S Combin e al l corrosion-resistan

t subcategorie s (Han

d & Spra y Layup , Filamen

t Winding , an

d Centrifuga

l Casting ) an

d bas e th e MAC T floo r o n the resin application method an d th e resi n HA

P conten t Existing Sourc

e MAC T Floo r fo r Corrosion-Resistan

tApplications Proces s Subcategor

y Han d Spra y Filamen t Winding Centrifuga l Casting Applicatio n Metho d & Resin HA P Percen t Non-Spra y Resi n Applicatio n & 38 % HA P o r equivalen t 

## Expecte d MAC T Emissio n Reduction

s fo r Corrosion-Resistan

t Application

s a tExisting Facilities (Ton

s per Year

)

Proces s Subcategor

y Han d Spra y Filamen t Winding Centrifuga l Castin g TOTA L EMISSION S EMISSIO N REDUCTIONS Curren t Emission s 14 6 427 33 7 21 7 Applicatio n Metho d & Resin HA P Percen t 4 0 

# BBBHHB ^ |^||||||||||||iHl||lllllISII| | ^^^^^^^^^ B 1,12 7 39 0

Par t B - Corrosion-Resistant

Resin s 

# I H