p. 1


# OAR Box 1415 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 10)IV-E-1 0 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/15/20089:38:26

AM Sheet 10of 130

### < 4 P. 2

MEMORANDU M
TO : Keith Barnet t

U.S
. EPA/ESD/OC G FROM : Susan Cassidy

Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc
. (PES ) DATE : Ma y 29 , 2002 , revise dJanuary 3 , 2003
. EP A AI R Dona " SUBJECT : Minute s o f Ma y 23r dMeetin g Betwee n EP A an dth e Composit e Fabricator s Associatio n an dIndustry Representative s LOCATION : U.S
. EPA , Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 9:0 0 a m- 3:0 0 p m ATTENDEES : U
. S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) Keit h Barnet t U.S.EP A EP A Contractor s Susa n Cassidy PES , Inc
. Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n (CFA ) Joh n Schweitze r

CF A Bo b Lacovar aCF A Chuc k Elkin s CE& A (consultan t t o CFA ) Composite s Manufacturer s

Diann e Coo n Bruc e Crowel l Ashlan d Reichol d (919)541-560 5
(919 ) 941-033 3
(734 ) 622-016 2 (215)513-754 6 (202)686-351 8
Fre dDierk s Joh n Barke r Crai g Peterso n Perry Bennet t Monty Feli x Lowel l Mile s Mark Ake r Resi n Manufacturer s Aqu aGlas s Strongwel l Xerxe s Corporatio n MF G Alaglas s Mile s Fiberglas s (composite s Ake r Plastic s (731)632-255 4 (540)645-812 9 (952 ) 887-180 7 (731)632-255 4 (803)874-273 1 (503 ) 775-775 5 (219 ) 936-383 8
(614 ) 790-399 8 (919 ) 990-774 0P. 3 at)

Meetin g Minute s Ma y 23 , 200 2 Pag e 2

PURPOSE : Th e purpos e ofth e meetin g was for EP A t o brie f

CF A an dindustry representative s o n planne dchange s t o th e propose drul e an dt o discus s th e impact s ofth e update dcos t analysis
. EP A distribute da

n agend aan dhandout s addressin g th e final MAC T floors for existin g sources , th e cos t analysis , othe r

planne dchange s t o th e propose drule , an doutstandin g issues
. A handou t with th e summar

y ofth e regulator y optio n cos t effectivenes s wa s als o distributed
. Thes e item s ar e include da s attachmen t 1
. A secon dobjectiv e was t o obtai n additiona l informatio n fromCFA an dindustry representative s o n som e ofth e issue s raise ddurin g publi c commen t o n th e propose d rule , an dt o allo w th e CF A t o commen t o n th e change s t o th e propose drule
. Mr
. Schweitze r

state dtha t

CF A an dindustry' s objectiv e fo r th e meetin g i s t o discus s th e issue s the y feel ar e importan t an didentif

y option s tha t

can b e explore dwher e EP A doe s not forese e change s a s a

n option
. Fo r

example , ca

n EP A tal k

t o OC G abou t

othe r pursuin g othe r option s despit e th e implication s ofth e availabl e floor data?
. Th e EP A agree dt o includ e thi s i n th e day' s discussion
. A summar y o f CFA' s outstandin g issue s i s include da s attachmen t 2
. DISCUSSION : Propose d Change s Th e meetin g attendee s briefly discusse dth e "Informatio n o n Draf t Fina l Floors , Costs , and Planne dRul e Changes " handout
. Th e EP A indicate dtha t th e change s in th e MAC T floors ar e drive n by ne w facilit

y dat aobtaine din recen t

months
. Th e floor fo r mechanica l filledresi n applicatio n i s no w 38.4 % HA P with non-atomizatio n (a s compare dt o 42.8 % HA P wit h non-atomizatio n a

t proposal)
. Althoug h tha t floor ha s change d several time s durin g th e reanalysis , EP A doe s no t forese e any additiona l changes
. Th e corrosio n resistan t floor i s no w 46. 2 % HA P wit

h non-atomize dapplicatio n (compare dt o 48.3 % at proposal ) an dth e toolin g ge l coa t floor i s no w 40 % HAP , whic h i s th e sam e a s th e toolin g ge l coa t floor in th e Boa t

Manufacturin g MACT
. Th e EP A indicate dtha t

the y hadexpecte dt o se e mor e publi c comment s o n th e dat ause d t o se t th e floor number s becaus e the y hadhear dalo t o f discussio n abou t

error s i n th e database
. However , EP A receive dvery few comment s an dfoun dmos t peopl e wer e no t

helpful wit

h effort s t o followup , but

EP A di dmak e a

n effor t t o clarif y questionabl e data
. Industry expresse dsom e concern abou t th e floor for corrosion-resistan t

filament winding
. Th e provisio n tha t

allow s us e ofth e same resi n might work , bu t

the y not kno w i f the y ca n mee tP. 4



### Meeting Minute s Ma y 23 , 200 2 Pag e 3 th e ne w floor. Averaging i s essentia l fo r compliance
. I

n apreviou s meeting , a

n industr y representativ e wa s suggesting 45 % HA P wa s adequat

e fo r corrosion-resistan

t applications , bu

t the y neededt o revisi

t th e number

s becaus e compliance wa s tigh t usin g averaging t o achiev

e th e propose dfloor. Th e EPA responde dtha

t the y ranke dth e availabl

e informatio

n an dse t th e floo r according t o th e statutor

y requirements
. Ther

e i s not reall y an y flexibility t o chang e th e floor
. Industr y the n commente dtha t th e provision allowin

g afacilit y t o us e th e sam

e resi n i n al l proces s group s shoul

d b e sufficien

t t o overcom

e wha t industr y see s a s alow floor

fo r corrosion-resistan

t filamen t winding
. Th e EPA explaine

dtha t the y hav e ver y limite ddataon toolin g ge

l coat s becaus e us e o

f tooling ge l coat s wa s no t

reporte db

y man y companies , Du e t o th e lac k of data , EP A looke da t th e datafo r toolin g ge

l coat s i n th e Boa t Manufacturin

g NESHAP
. Th

e ne w floor o f 40 % HA P i s th e sam e as th e Boa

t MACT
. However , industr

y representative s statedtha t th e boa t manufacturers ar

e havin g troubl e meetin

g 40 % HA P fo r toolin g ge l coats . Industr y questionedth e discrepancy i n th e revisedfloors fo

r manua l an dmechanica

l corrosion-resistan

t proces s group s whe

n most peopl e us e th e sam

e resi n fo r bot h of thes e proces s groups . Th

e EP A respondedtha

t th e issue i s coveredb

y th e provision i

n th e rul e tha

t allow s a facilit y t o us e th e sam

e resi n fo r al l proces s groups . I

n som e proces s groups , th e floor ma y b e drive n b y afe w facilitie s wit

h low-HA P resins
. Th

e EP A lookeda

t combinin g th e corrosion

resistan t proces s group s an

dfoun dtha t woul dhave resultedi

n atighte r floor fo r everyone . Industr y aske dabou t flexibility fo

r custome r request s t o us e specifi

c resins , suc

h as fo r manufacturin

g wate r treatmen t products
. Th

e EP A respondedtha

t the y ar e going t o conside

r i f ther e i s awa y t o provid

e flexibility fo

r custome r contrac t requirements
. However , the y notedtha

t i t wil l b e importan

t t o avoidsettin g u

p aloophole wher

e everyon e couldget

their customer s t o issue contrac t

requirement s fo

r high-HA P resins
. Th e EP A note dtha

t th e 60 % HA

P limi t fo r fir e retardant/clas s 1 smok

e & fire resin s has not changed , bu

t EP A wil l chang e th e definitio

n fo r thi s process/produc t

grouping base

do n industr y comments t o mak

e i t mor e accurate . Th e EP A state dtha

t due t o th e result s ofth e update dcos t analysis , th e above-the-floo r option fo r add-on control s ha s bee

n droppedfo

r al l proces s group s except

centrifuga l castin g an d continuou s lamination/casting
. I n thos e proces s groups , th e spli t threshol dfo

r smal l busines s facilitie s has bee

n droppe dan

dth e above-the-floo

r optio n wil

l appl y t o al l facilitie s wit

h emission s o f 10 0 ton s pe r yea r (tpy ) o r mor e of HAP
. Ther

e ar e no existing smal

l busines s facilitie s i

n thes e proces s group s i

n th e 10 0 t o 25 0 tp y range , s o ther

e i s no impact

fromdropping th e spli

t threshold
.P. 5



### Meetin g Minute s Ma y 23 , 200 2 Pag e 4 CFA' s Issue s Prio r t o th e meeting , th e CF

A prepare dalis t

o f issue s tha t the y wante dt o address
. Mr
. Barnet t addedhi s ow

n comments t o th e lis t

an dincludedth e list

i n th e handou

t packag e a t th e meeting
. Grou

p discussion focuse

do n certain issue s i

n th e list , as discussedbelow
. Refe r t o attachmen t 2 fo r mor e informatio

n o n thes e issues
. Capture and

Control for New Sources (II-2) Industr y question : Wh

y doe s EP A not se e th e requiremen

t fo r 95 % captur

e an dcontro l fo

r ne w source s being removed
. EP A Response : Th

e bes t controlledsource s i

n th e industr

y ar e controlleda

t 95 % overal

l HA P emission s reduction
. For

ne w sources , MAC

T shouldb e equivalen

t t o th e "bes t

controlledsimila

r source " an dtha t i s define da s th e bes t

contro l o f HAP
. Therefore , issue s relate dt o other emissions , suc

h a s combustion emissions , ar e not th e focu s ofth e MAC

T determination
. The 10

0 tpy cutof f i n th e propose drul e wa s basedon America n Standard , whic

h ha s HA P emission s prior t o add-o n control s o f

approximatel

y 10 0 tpy . Belo w 10

0 tpy , th e requirement s fo

r ne w source s ar e th e sam e a s thos e fo

r existing sources . The EPA' s positio n a t proposa l wa s bes t contro l wa s existing facilitie s tha

t achieve dor wer e permitte da

t 95 % captur

e an dcontrol , an

dtha t positio n ha s no t changed
. The EP

A als o believe s tha

t facilitie s emitting les s tha

n 10 0 tp y typicall

y operate onl y one shift
. Thi s couldlikel y degrad e add-on contro l performanc e due t o frequent start-up s an dshut-downs
. A

t proposal , ther

e wer e no facilitie s emitting les s tha n 10 0 tp y tha t ha dactuall y demonstrate d95 % control , but 95 % captur

e an dcontro l i s demonstrate dfo r large r facilities
. Industr y Comment : On

e industr y representativ e note dtha

t America n Standar dneve r actuall y passedsourc e tests , ha s neve r actuall y achieved95 % control , an dma y neve r achieve that , s o tha

t facilit y shouldno t

b e useda s th e basi s fo

r th e rulemaking
. EP A Response : Th

e propose drequiremen

t i s base do n th e facility' s permit
. The facilit y agreed tha t th e requiremen

t i s "achievable " whe

n they accepte dth e permi

t condition
. Th

e facilit y say s tha t the y ca n achieve 95 % an

dth e fac t tha t they haven' t

achieve di t ye t i s no t acompellin

g argumen t tha t they cannot

mee t it
. I n addition , other

facilitie s identifie

dby EP A hav e demonstrate d95 % captur

e an dcontrol
. America

n Standar di s th e basi s fo

r th e 10 0 tpy cutof f bu t i t i s not th e onl y facilit y formin g th e basi s fo

r th e add-o n contro l requirement
. Additiona l Industr y Comments : The

y note dtha

t their issue i s th e 10

0 tp y threshold
. The

y believe ther e wil l b e alo t o f ne w source s i

n th e 10 0 t o 25 0 tp y rang e tha

t wil l mak e ver y larg e products
. I t wouldno t

b e economica

l t o buil dthes e facilitie s i

f atherma l oxidize r i s required
. The

y state d tha t facilitie s manufacturin

g larg e product s suc

h a s bridg e beams , panels , undergroundstorag e tanks , barg e covers , etc . canno t captur e emission s an

dachieve 95 % control
. The y d o no t foreseeP. 6



### Meeting Minute s Ma y 23 , 200 2 Pag e 5 aproble mfo r facilitie s above 25 0 tpy becaus e thos e facilitie s woul dmos t likel y b e producing smalle r product s using conveyorize dapplication s tha

t ar e better suite dt o therma

l oxidation
. EP A Response : Ther

e i s acusto mmoldin g facilit y unde r 10 0 tpy , an di t i s achievin

g 95 % captur

e an dcontrol , an

dapultrusion facilit

y makin g custompart s tha

t indicatedthe

y ha dbee n doing captur e an dcontro l fo

r 1 0 years . Th

e EP A usedAmerica

n Standar da s th e basi s fo

r th e 10 0 tpy threshol dbecaus e i

t seeme dt o b e th e bes t

cut-of f point
. Th e EP A cannot se e an y vali drational e no t t o us e America

n Standar das th e basi s fo

r th e thresholdcut-of

f becaus e th e facilit

y ha s indicatedtha

t the y wil l fix thei r problems an

dwil l mee t th e permi t condition o f

95 % captur

e an d control
. Withou

t usin g America n Standard , th e threshol dwoul dprobabl y have t o b e somethin

g eve n lower
. Industr y Comment : Tw o industr

y representative s askedhow A.R.E
. me t th e requiremen

t tha t th e ne w sourc e floor

b e basedo n a"simila r source"
. EP A Response : A.R.E.' s captur e syste mconsist s of

alarg e permanen

t tota l enclosur e (PTE ) wit h tunnel s t o mov

e produc t i n an dout . The dimension s ar

e i n th e trip repor

t an dalmos t anythin g couldb e buil

t insid e tha t PTE , although ai

r flow migh t b e a n issue
. The EP

A acknowledgedtha

t larg e part s migh

t requir e abuildin g withi n abuildin g whic h ma y b e mor e difficul t the n enclosin g alin e producing smal

l parts . Additiona l industr y comments : The

y state dtha

t i t i s "infeasible, " not

jus t mor e difficult
. A.R.E
. ha s smal l product s tha

t ca n b e move dthroug h tunnel s tha

t ca n b e treate da s natura

l draf t openings
. If

afacilit y make s larg e part s suc

h a s barg e covers , pools , etc. , th e facilit y woul dnee d hug e door s t o mov

e product s i

n an dout . Th e enclosur

e wouldno longe

r qualif y a s aPTE whe

n door s of tha t size ar e opene dan dthi s wouldlimi

t productio n t o on

e ite ma t atime , whic

h woul d not b e economical
. Whe

n CF A lookeda

t differen t P 2 options , the

y carve du p th e industr

y an d als o lookeda

t differen t type s of operation s t o se e wher

e add-on contro l migh

t work , suc h as bathware , but

the y wouldneve

r hav e put larg e part s int

o agrou p wher e add-on i s sai

dt o b e feasible
. Th

e example s useda s justification , suc h a s shipbuilding , wor

k becaus e the

y are onl y doing on e a t time
. Thos e product s ar

e s o larg e tha

t onl y on e ca n b e built
. Anothe

r industr y representativ e whos e compan y make s barg e cover s state dtha t PTE s wouldb e aseriou s proble m fo r hi s barg e cove

r operations
. A n industr y representativ e notedtha

t he visitedaBoeing facilit

y an dsa w tha t alarg e plan e suc h a s a74 7 ca n b e paintedi

n aPTE , but

onl y one ca n b e produceda

t atime
. H e aske

d EP A t o conside

r th e implication s i

f Boeing were trying t o achieve th e sam e volum e tha t auto manufacture s meet . O

r eve n trying t o produc e 5 larg e plane s pe r week
. H e believe s i

t woul dbe impossible
. H e als o state dalthoug h th e opportunit

y exist s fo r highl y specialize

dproduct s wit

h limite dproduction t o us e captur

e an dcontrol , i

t i s no t economica

l fo r amajorit y ofth e manufacturers i

n th e industr

y t o d o so . Source s suc

h a s poo l manufacture s ar

e reall y not simila rP. 7

Meetin g Minute s May 23 , 200 2 Pag e 6 t o operation s at

A.R.E. , American Standard , an dLasco
. EP A response : The y understan dCFA' s concerns , bu t the y hav e see n PTE s use dwit h larg e produc t operations
. Manufacturer s hav e com e u p wit h solutions , s o CFA' s argumen t i s les s compelling
. Th e EP A als o note dpossibl e difficultie s wit h asiz e cutoff

- ho w woul d"big " product s b e define dan dwha t happen s t o facilitie s tha t

chang e products , an dho w woul dfacilitie s producin g bot h larg e an dsmall product s b e handled ? Industry comment : I f

afacilit y increase s productio n s o emission s increas e from5 0 ton s t o 15 0 tons , woul dtha t

facilit y becom e ane w sourc e subjec t t o add-o n control?
. EP A Response : I t

woul dnot , a

n existin g sourc e remain s a n existin g sourc e base do n th e definition s an dapplicabilit y include di n th e rule
. Industry Comments : The y state dtha t th e propose drul e will probabl y resul t in companie s buildin g several smaller

facilitie s cappe dat

10 0 tp y t o avoi dcaptur e an dcontro l becaus e ther e i s n o incentiv e t o purchas e a

n oxidize r whe n smaller

facilitie s d o not

hav e to . The y believ e thos e facilitie s tha t

hav e installe dcaptur e an dcontro l hav e specia l circumstance s tha t

ar e bette r

suite d t o captur e an dcontrol , suc h a s truc k cap s produce di

n designe r

color s an d pain t

operations
. Anothe r industry representativ e note dtha t in market s wher e pric e an dquality ar e reall y important , companie s wil l no t

wan t t o buil dseveral smaller

facilitie s instea dof asingl e larg e one . H e use d th e exampl e o f

bridg e support s - thes e product s hav e ahig h liabilit y an dquality i s harde r

t o ensur e if productio n i s spli t

amon g several locations
. An industry representativ e indicate dtha t economic s ar e jus t

a s importan t

fo r ne w facilities
. I f abusines s i s growin g bu t canno t affor dt o construc t

ane w facilit

y becaus e ofth e captur e an d contro l requirement , the y ar e force dt o los e busines s t o companie s alread y operatin g i n thos e locations
. Industry the n aske di f

EP A woul dhav e mor e flexibility if convince dtha t

th e technolog y for captur e an dcontro l isn' t reall y there , fo r

example , for

small operation s with 1 productio n shif t o r larg e part

manufacturers
. EP A response : W e requeste dtha t h e sen dtha t

information
. Th e EP A i s no t oppose dt o lettin g facilitie s ou t

ofth e 95 % contro l requiremen t if ther e i s abasi s t o d o so , bu t the y canno t

commi t t o tha t now . Industry Comment : Coul dEP A chang e th e ne w sourc e threshol dfor captur e an dcontro l from 100 tp y t o 25 0 tpy ? EP A Response : The y canno t d o tha t becaus e EP A i s boun db y th e "bes t ofth e best " requiremen tP. 8

Meetin g Minute s May 23 , 200 2 Pag e 7 for ne w sourc e MAC T an danothe r facilit y les s than 25 0 tp y ha s achieve d95 % captur e and control
. Industry Comment : What constitute s ane w source , includin g movin g th e locatio n of afacilit y bu t keepin g th e sam e proces s o r doublin g th e productio n capacit y at a n existin g facility ? Industry representative s note dtha t recen t change s t o th e general provision s indicat e tha t movin g asourc e t o ane w locatio n i s no t

automaticall y ane w sourc e an dit i s a n issu e tha t

woul dhav e t o b e negotiate dwit

h th e state . EP A Response : Unde r

thi s rule , afacilit

y canno t becom e ne w b y reconstructing
. A ne w sourc e i s agreenfiel dsit e with n o reinforce dplasti c composite s operation s prio r t o construction
. Movin g existin g operation s t o ane w locatio n woul db e considere dane w source , but expandin g productio n at

a n existin g facilit

y woul dnot . Th e EP A representative s wer e not familia r wit h th e revisio n t o th e genera l provisions
. Nylon Containing Film (IV-B-2) Industry Comment : Nylon-containin g filmuse dfor shee t moldin g compoun dshee t moldin g compoun d(SMC ) ca

n very from25 % t o 100 % nylon
. Industry studie s sho w tha t 25 % nylo n film i s jus t a s goo da s 100 % nylo n fil mfor containin g emissions
. Industry representative s adde dtha t ther e i s aqualit

y issu e wit

h shee t moldin g compoun d(SMC ) an dmanufacturer s will wan t t o retai n styren e i

n th e shee t

moldin g compoun d(SMC ) unti l i t i s used , s o n o on e will wan t t o us e a fil mtha t allow s th e styren e t o evaporate . EP A Response : W e ar e no t tie dt o settin g aparticula r limit becaus e th e floor

facilit y doe s no t indicat e th e nylo n conten t o f thei r film
. W e will probabl y leav e th e wordin g a s "nylo n containin g film" in th e rule
. Pultrusion (III-E) Industry Comment : Th e floor settin g sourc e for

pultrusio n (Tecton ) lend s itsel f t o control , bu t

th e availabl e technologie s d o not wor k for larg e parts . Thi s i s no t

jus t ane w sourc e issue
. Averagin g ca n wor k for larg e facilitie s with multipl e products , but no t for smaller facilities
. Th e phas e 1 pultrusio n studie s sho w tha t ai r flow an dtemperatur e ar e th e only factor s tha t reall y affect emissions
. EP A Response : W e ca

n loo k at othe r option s an dwill conside r th e wordin g propose dby Strongwel l tha t

identifie s part s with greate r tha n 100 0 reinforcement s a s "large"
. W e sugges t tha t Strongwel l chec k

bac k in tw o o r thre e week s t o discus s th e issue
. W e d o not se e tha t a s abi g issu e an dacknowledg e tha t som e larg e part s woul db e difficul t t o full y enclos e with we t

are a enclosure s durin g production
.P. 9

Meetin g Minute s Ma y 23 , 200 2 Pag e 8 Mixing (V-A) Industr y Comments : I f

afacilit y ca n demonstrat e "closed " mixing , doe s tha t still requir e captur e an dcontrol ? Industr y note dtha t some facilitie s ar e lookin g at vacuu mmixin g becaus e the y nee d t o preven t

ai r entrainmen t

durin g mixing , andtha t

other s ar e usin g nitroge n blanketin g an dwoul d no t wan t t o pul l nitroge n int o th e mixer
. Anothe r industry representative aske di f vacuu massiste d i s considere dactiv e venting , an dathir dindustry representative note dtha t vacuum s onl y resul t

i n avery slight

increas e i

n evaporation
. MF G use s aclose dsyste mt o ad dfiller with acompute r controlle dconveyor . A switc h automaticall y open s th e cove r t o th e dus t

collecto r ven t an dturn s i t of f whe n th e conveyo r

stops . Mixin g start s u p afte r th e dus t collecto r ven t i s closed
. The y als o sweep s th e hea dspac e jus t before openin g th e mixture
. EP A Response : Th e rul e require s 95 % reductio n an ddoe s not specif y routin g emission s t o a contro l device
. An uncovere dmixer woul db e th e "uncontrolled " emissio n leve l t o us e a s th e baselin e fo r

measurin g 95 % reduction
. Th e EP A indicate dtha t the y wil l loo k

at thei r note s an d doe s not forese e thi s a s aproblem
. W e will loo k int o changin g th e rul e languag e t o clarif y tha t cover s ar e require donl y durin g mixin g an dwil l loo k int o changin g o r

deletin g th e wordin g relate d t o n o activ e venting
. In Mold Coating and

Liquid Composite Molding (V-F) Industr y Comment : Ther e i s aproces s calle din mol dcoatin g wher e th e compressio n mol dpres s i s opene dpartiall y for

abrie f perio dt o injec t

coatin g int o th e mold
. Industr y requeste dlanguag e t o allo w for th e slight mol dopenin g for

thi s process . Th e coatin g doe s contai n som e HAP
. Similarly , liqui dcomposit e moldin g was no t addresse din th e rule
. I n thi s process , glas s an dresi n ar e combine dat

th e mold
. Thi s issu e i s discusse din MFG' s an dCFA' s writte n comments . Repair, Patching, and

Bonding Materials (V-H) Industry comment : The y desir e t o avoi dcomplianc e issue s relate dt o patching , bonding , an d repai r material s an dreques t

tha t languag e in th e sourc e categor y descriptio n specifically includ e thes e material s with n o contro l requirements
. Thi s woul davoi dth e potentia l proble mo f stat e inspectors considerin g thes e material s plasti c coating s subjec t t o contro l requirement
. Switching Compliance Options (V-J) Industry Comment : Industr y requeste dth e abilit y t o switc h betwee n th e different complianc e option s in th e propose drule
. EP A response : W e wil l wor k o n rul e languag e t o allo w facilitie s t o switc h complianc e options
.P.1 0

Meetin g Minute s May 23 , 200 2 Pag e 9 Vapor Suppressed

Resin (V-L) Industry comment : Th e vapo r suppresse dresi n tes t

protoco l i s still in th e works , specifically wit h wor k nee dt o ensur e precisio n an drepeatability ofth e test . EP A Response : W e aske dt o b e copie do n communication s relate dt o th e tes t protoco l an d indicate dtha t

w e woul dlike t o hav e th e protoco l withi n 3 0 day s i f at all possible
. Performance Tests (V-M) Industry Comment : Languag e i n CFA' s comment s discusse daprocedur e t o allo w equipmen t manufacturer s t o demonstrat e tha t equipmen t

i s "non-atomized"
. EP A Response : W e wil l conside r rewordin g th e rul e t o includ e "non-atomize do r lowe r emitting " applicatio n technologies
. 12 Month Averaging (V-N) EP A Comment : W e wil l chang e th e for mofth e equation s for

1 2 mont h averagin g s o tha t

i t i s weighte db y resi n us e rathe r tha n simply averagin g th e result s for eac h month
. W e aske dabou t th e comment s h e receive drequestin g a1 2 mont h calenda r averag e rathe r

tha n rollin g averag e becaus e w e d o not

se e ho w acalenda

r mont h buy s mor e flexibility for facilities
. Industry response : The y originall y mad e tha t commen t base do n predictability andthe y will revisi t tha t comment . Specialty Gel

Coats (V-O-2 through V-Q) Industry Comment : The y ha drequeste dane w proces s produc t groupin g o f

fire retardan t

ge l coat . Fir e retardan t

ge l coa t i s generall y mad e from fire retardan t resi n an dtha t

th e HA P limit

for fir e retardan t resin s shoul db e adequat e for ge l coat s also
. Thes e ge l coat s d o hav e ahig h HA P conten t becaus e the y hav e alo t

o f methy l methacrylat e A ge l coa t HA P limi t

o f 60 % shoul db e adequat e for

lo w flame/smoke resins
. Industry suggeste dapropose dne w definitio n for clarity
. EP A Response : W e agree dt o loo k a t th e loo k a t th e rul e language
. Th e reques t fo r 48 % HA P corrosio n resistan t

ge l coa t can probabl e b e supporte dan ddefinitio n propose dby industr y look s adequate
. Gel Coat HAPLimits EP A Comment : W e ar e limite db y th e availabl e dat ai n th e HA P floor
. W e aske dfor example s o fP.1 1



### Meetin g Minute s Ma y 23 , 200 2 Pag e 1 0 th e product s fo

r which ahighe

r HA P i s neede dfo r technica l reasons . Industr y Comment : Severa

l industr y representative s explaine

dtha t th e culture dmarbl

e industr y ha s bee n particularly affecte

db y produc t failure s suc

h a s cracking an

dahighe r HA P ge l coa t seems t o b e th e onl

y solution
. Tooling Gel

Coat - 40% HAP Industr y Comment : Boa

t manufacture s ar

e havin g troubl e complyin

g wit h th e 40 % HA

P limi t fo r toolin g ge l coat . Boa

t manufacturers di

dnot push thi s issue i

n th e Boa t Manufacturing NESHA

P rulemakin g becaus e the

y assume dthe y coul dmee t th e requiremen

t throug h averaging , bu

t the y ar e now havin

g troubl e wit

h that
. Facilitie s tha

t ar e makin g tool s fo r othe r facilitie s cannot averag e an dcan' t mak e hig h qualit y tool s wit h low-HA P ge l coat . Few composite s manufacturer s submitteddatao n tooling ge

l coa t becaus e the

y assume dthe y woul db e abl

e t o mee t limits throug h averaging
. Facilitie s tha t ar e makin g tool s t o sel

l t o other s ar

e mos t affecte d becaus e the

y needhig h qualit y tool s i n orde r t o sel l them
. Whil

e most facilitie s wouldb e abl

e t o mak e or us e toolin g ge

l coat s wit h 40 % HAP , mos t

couldno t eliminat e al l toolin g ge

l coat s wit h HA P conten t greater tha n 40%
. EP A Response : W

e cannot chang e tha

t floor now but wil l conside r th e issue further
. Manual Gel Coat Application (V-O-7) Industr y comment : Ther

e i s no unifie

demissio n factor (UEF) equatio n fo

r manua l application of ge l coat . The

y suggeste dEP

A us e th e manua

l resi n UE F fo r manua l ge l coa t application
. EP

A als o nee dt o addres s manua

l application o

f ge l coa t wher e ge l coa t i s als o appliedusin

g non atomize dspray . EP A Response : W

e wil l ad dafootnot

e t o th e tabl e o f

emissio n factor s t o clarif

y how t o trea

t manua l ge l coa t fo r bot h complianc e an

demission s estimation
. Low Shrink

Resin (V-Q) EP A Comment : W

e wil l look int o creating asingle "specialty " categor y t o includ

e low shrin k resin s wit h Clas s 1 Smok

e an dFir e resin
. W e i s onl y awar e o f on e manufacture

r makin g th e resin
. HAPContent

Testing (V-R) EP A Comment : W

e do not pla n t o ad darequiremen

t t o tes t resin s fo r HA P content . However , w e wil l ad dth e +/

- 2 % allowanc e t o accoun t fo r norma l manufacturing tolerances
.P.1 2



### Meeting Minute s Ma y 23 , 200 2 Pag e 1 1 Corrosion Resistant

Filament Winding (V-S) Industr y Comment : The

y ar e concerne dabou t th e potentia

l proble mofth e lowe

r HA P conten t limi t fo r filament windin g fo r facilitie s tha

t d o not have othe r operation s an

dcannot tak e advantag e ofth e provision allowin g us e ofth e sam

e resi n acros s multipl

e processes . EP A Response : Th

e floor fo r filament windin g i s 42 % an

dw e ar e limite db y th e data
. Possible fixe s discussedinclude

dapplyin g som e resi n mechanicall

y t o th e mandre

l t o tak e advantag e ofth e "sam e resin " provision
. Centrifugal

Casting Definition (3/26-1) Industr y Comment : Th

e centrifuga

l castin g UE F i s basedo

n Fibercast , wh

o has aver y unique proces s of blowing hot

ai r through apip e whic

h result s i n emission s of

abou t 20 % ofth e styrene . Thi s numbe

r i s no t accurat e fo r typica l centrifuga

l caster s wh

o us e anearl

y close dproces s wit

h ver y minima l emissions
. Usin

g th e UE F basedo n Fibercas t

wouldpu t alot of smal l facilitie s above th e 10

0 tp y threshol dan

dwoul drequir e the mt o instal l captur e an dcontrol
. A suggested alternativ e i s t o defin

e thes e proces s a s "closedmolding " rathe r tha n centrifuga

l casting an

dhav e th e centrifuga

l casting definitio

n onl y includ e thos e proces s tha

t blow hot ai r through th e mold
. Som e centrifuga

l caster s put

resi n i n wit h flo w coater s an

dcouldb e consideredmechanica l application
. EP A Response : W

e wil l revisi t the UE F fo r centrifuga l casting an

dmak e an y appropriat

e changes
. Filament Winding (3/26-2) EP A Comment : W

e recentl y receive daphone cal

l abou t aproces s tha

t drip s resi n ont o winders
. Th e calle r wonderedwha

t facto r shoul db e used
. Industr y Response : Th

e proces s most

resemble s manua

l application an

dsuggestedchangin

g th e "filamen t winding " definitio

n t o "filamen

t application " using aresi

n bath
. Robotic Loaders (5/23-2) Industr y Comment : Roboti c loadin g device s usedfo

r compression moldin

g operation s ar

e essentiall y movin g ar mtha t cannot b e operate dproperl

y wit h th e requiremen

t tha t onl y on e charg e pe r cavit y ma y b e openeda

t time
. EP A response : W

e wil l revis e rule languag e t o allow th e us e o f roboti c loaders
.P.1 3



### Meetin g Minute s Ma y 23 , 200 2 Pag e 1 2 New Source Definition (5/23-3) Industr y Comment : Thi s i s n

o longe r a n issue
. All HAPAssumed to be Styrene (5/23-4) EP A Comment : W

e ma y nee dt o revis e th e rul e languag e t o clarif y tha t w e ar e onl y regulating organi c HAP
. I t

i s no t ou r intention t o cove

r solid s material s i

n th e resin becaus e w e do not believe the y ar e emitteddurin

g th e manufacturin

g process . Revisions to Table 1 for

New Technologies (5/23-5) Industr y comments : Industr

y i s intereste di s asimpl

e wa y t o incorporat

e ne w technologie s int

o th e emissio

n facto r equation s i

n Table 1 ofth e rule , s o the y ca n tak e advantag e of

ne w technique s without alength y approva l process . The

y indicatedtha

t th e rul e need s languag e describing how ne w dat aca n b e usedan

dneed s amechanismt o includ e ne w technologie s i

n th e UE F structur e without requiring amodificatio

n t o th e rule
. EP A Response : Ther

e i s a n "equivalen

t demonstration " i

n the genera

l provision s tha

t allow s facilitie s t o petition EP

A t o d o a n equivalency tes t

o n acas e b y cas e basis
. W

e acknowledg e tha

t th e proces s i s not

easy an dtha t perhap s w e nee

dt o put somethin g i n th e rul e t o simplif

y th e process . W

e nee dt o research how w e ca

n accomplish it
. EPA' s Issues Customer Requirements EP A Comment : EP

A has discussedth e proble

mof custome r contract s wit

h CF A an d acknowledgedtha

t i t ca n b e difficul

t t o get customer s t o chang e thei

r requirements
. W

e ar e considering aexclusion fo

r customer s wit

h resin-specific contract s but need s t o do i

t i n suc h a wa y tha t customer s have t o certif

y tha t the y nee dth e resi n rathe r tha n allowin g facilitie s t o g o t o th e state s themselve s fo

r a n exemption
. Thi s proces s wouldhel p preven t th e exclusion frombeing misused
. W

e wil l continu e t o wor

k o n thi s issue
. Industr y Comment : The Boa

t Manufacturing NESHA

P exempts certain governmen t specification s an dtha t coul db e apossibl e wa

y t o handle thi s problem
. DOD small

scale manufacturing & repair operations EP A Comment : Ar

e th e sam e resin s ar e use di n smal l scale DOD operation s a s th e res t ofth e industry ? I

f th e resin s ar

e usedfo r repai r operation s only , the

y woul dalread y b e exempt , bu

t the yP. M

Meetin g Minute s Ma y 23 , 200 2 Pag e 1 3 coul db e affecte di f

the y ar e use dt o manufactur e product s frommolds
. Industry Response : I n som e cases , DO D mus t us e highl y specifi c resins
. Prepreg Materials Industry Comment : Prepre g material s ar e primaril y use dfor i n th e aerospac e industry
. Howeve r tha t it reall y depend s o n ho w "prepreg " i s define dbecaus e differen t industry group s us e th e term t o refe r t o differen

t materials
. Ninety-nin e percen t o f prepre g material s ar e styrene-free
. Mos t ar e epox y an dther e ar e small quantitie s o f polyeste r prepregs . Prepre g i s simila r t o shee t moldin g compoun d(SMC ) an di s "preimpregnate d fiber." EP A Response : W e d o not pla n t o cove r

prepre g materials
. Resin Bath Covers Industry comment : Th e propose dheigh t limit for pultrusio n resi n bath cover s doe s no t allo w roo mfor adjustments
. The y woul dprefer tha t th e rul e no t

eve n mentio n heigh t

becaus e it

doe s no t impac t emissions
. Point Value Alternatives in Table 5of proposed rule EP A Comment : Thi s tabl e wa s adde dt o th e rul e a s a n afterthough t

i n a n effor t t o provid e greate r flexibility. W e receive dalo t o f comment s tha t

it i s to o stringen t

an dpla n t o g o bac k

and loo k a t it again
. Th e tabl e i s les s critical no w tha t th e add-o n contro l requiremen t ha s bee n droppe dfor

existin g sources , bu t

it might b e o f interes t for ne w sources . W e als o wan t t o reward peopl e wh o hav e already don e alo t o f pollutio n prevention
. Actio n Item s Th e EP A agree dt o th e followin g actio n item s a s aresul t o f thi s meeting : Determin e ho w th e boa t

industry plan s t o mee t

th e 40 % HA P conten t

limit for toolin g ge l coat . Chang e th e definitio n o f

non-atomize dapplicatio n technolog y t o clarif y th e type s o f technolog y

• Conside r

changin g th e centrifugal castin g definitio n an demission s factor s t o differentiate betwee n facilitie s tha t

blo w heate dai r

throug h th e mold , an dthos e tha t d o not .P.1 5



### Meetin g Minute s Ma y 23 , 200 2 Pag e 1 4 Wor k o n astrateg y fo

r incorporating ne

w application technologie s int o th e standards
. Conside r th e implication s o f

wet are aenclosure s fo

r pultrusio n o f

larg e part sP.1 6



### Attachmen t 1 Material s providedb

y EP A a t th e meetingP.1 7


### Meetin g Agend a 1
. Presentatio n o f

draf t final floors fo

r existin g source s (3 0 min)
. If

CF A stil l ha s an y floor issues , w e ca

n briefl y discus s these
. I don' t

se e an y abilit y fo r u s t o furthe

r chang e th e floors. I f there ar e area s o f concern , w e ma

y b e bette r abl e t o addres s thes e i

n complianc e option s (such a s th e existing provisio n allowin g us e o f on e resi n i n multipl e operations)
. 2
. Brief discussion of

revisedcos t

analysi s result s (1 5 min)
. Becaus e we ar e no longe r plannin g t o g o abov e th e floor

fo r ope n moldin g o r pultrusion , w e d

o not pla n t o prepar

e adetailed respons e t o CFA' s costing analysis , or t o discus s th e cos t

analysi s i n detail
. 3
. Othe r planne dchange s t o propose drule (3 0 min ) 4
. Outstandin g issue s (til 3 pm ) 5
. Wrap-u p an dlis t of an y action items
.P.1 8

INFORMATIO N O N DRAF T FINA L FLOORS , COSTS , AN D PLANNE D RUL E CHANGE S Propose d Rule : Th e rul e w e propose drequire dfacilitie s i n th e followin g process/produc t grouping s t o g o above

the-floo r ofth e facilit

y emitte dove r

100 tp y o f

HA P (25 0 tp y if

asmal l business) : Ope n Moldin g Centrifugal Castin g Continuou s laminatio n Continuou s Castin g Pultrusio n SM C Manufacturin g BMC/Mixin g Othe r facilitie s wer e no t

require dt o g o beyon dth e floor. Thes e facilitie s wer e projecte dt o b e abl e t o mee t

MAC T usin g pollutio n preventio n (lo w HA P materials , an dnon-atomize dspra y application ) Thi s proposa l ha da

n estimate demissio n reductio n o f 14,50 0 TP Y for

existin g facilities
. Th e overal l cos t

effectivenes s ofth e propose drul e wa s $2,10 0 pe r to n an dth e incremental cos t effectivenes s wa s $1,50 0 pe r to n for existin g facilitie s W e di dno t

g o above-the-floo r

for smaller facilitie s becaus e th e economi c impact s woul db e significant
. Planne d Majo r Change s fo r Fina l Rul e Convert t o us e o f unifie demission s factors
. Thi s eliminate s havin g facilitie s dea l wit h tw o set s o f equations
. On e t o determin e emission s an don e t o determin e complianc e wit h MACT
.

• Modif

y floor level s o f contro l a s aresul t

o f comment s t o th e propose drul e (se e tables)
. W e believ e tha t

existin g facilitie s shoul dstil l b e abl e t o mee t thes e level s wit

h pollutio n preventio n contro l techniques , thoug h som e facilitie s ma y hav e t o average .

• Limi t

th e above-the-floo r

requirement s t o centrifugal casting , continuou s lamination , continuou s casting
. Change s in ou r cos t algorithm s an dth e floor

hav e resulte di

n ane w incremental cos t

effectivenes s o f

wel l ove r $500 0 pe r

to n for al l process/produc t grouping s excep t

thes e three
. (Se e tables ) Thes e thre e processe s produc e hig h concentratio n emissio n streams , an dar e mor e cost-effectiv e t o control
. I n th e cas e o f continuou s laminatio n an dcontinuou s casting , th e floor leve l o f contro l require dadd-o n controls
. Wher e w e g o above th e floor, se t th e threshol da s 10 0 tp y for bot h larg e andsmallP.1 9



### businesses , rathe

r tha n 10 0 tpy fo r larg e businesse s an

d25 0 tpy fo

r small
. Ther

e wouldb e no additiona

l existin g smal l businesse s impacte

db y setting on

e threshol drathe

r the n two . (Se e tabl e of

centrifuga l casting an

dcontinuou s lamination/castin g facilities )P.2 0



### OUTSTANDIN

G ISSUE S T

O DISCUS S 1
. Smal l scal e manufacturin

g a t DO D facilitie s an

drepai r operation s 2
. Averagin

g (calenda r yea r verse s 12-mont

h rollin g averag e 3
. Combinin

g th e on e resi

n fo r multipl e operation s provision wit

h averaging 4
. Patching , bonding an

drepai r material s 5
. Prepre g material s 6
. Specialit

y materials/ge

l coats . Thi s include s conduction ge l coats , corrosio n resistan

t ge l coats , low shrin

k resins , hig h performanc e ge

l coats , surface ge

l coats , etc . 7
. Statu s of

VS Rtes t method 8
. Pigmented(non-white ) ge l coa t HA P limi t 9
. Change s i

n complianc e metho d(par

t o f CF A comments ) 10
. Heigh t limi t fo r resi n bat h cover s (pultrusion) , languag e fo r door s an dacces s panels , ventin

g th e enclosure
. 11
. Definin g nylo n containin

g film(SMC Manufacturing )Compariso n o f MAC T Floor s fo rOpe n Moldin g - Propose d Rul e an d Fina l Rul e

Proces s Grou p Manua l Corrosio n Resistan t Manua l Noncorrosio n Resistan t Manua l Toolin g Mechanica l Noncorrosio n Resistan t Unfille d Mechanica l Noncorrosio n Resistan t Fille d Mechanica l Corrosio n Resistan t Mechanica l Toolin g Filamen t Windin g - Corrosio n Resistan t Filamen t Windin g - Noncorrosio n Resistan t Ge l Coa t - Pigmente d Production-Whit e Ge l Coa t - Pigmente d Production-Non-Whit e Ge l Coa t - Clea rProductio n Ge l Coa t - Toolin g Propose d Rul e Floo r 12 3 8 7 12 2 8 6 12 6 15 9 25 4
17 1 18 8 26 7 37 7 52 2 39 8 Propose d Rul e

Maximu m Resi n HA P conten t (weigh t percent ) 40.0 0 33.6 0 39.9 0

- 3 8 nonatomize d 42. 8 nonatomize d 48. 3 nonatomize d 4 3 atomize d o r 55. 1 nonatomize d 42.0 0 45.0 0 30.0 0 37.0 0 44.0 0 38.0 0 Draf t Floo rfo r

Promulgate d Rul e 12 3 8 7 15 7 8 7 8 7 11 2 25 4
17 1 18 8 26 7 37 7 52 2 43 7 Draf t Promulgatio n

Maximu m Resi n HA P conten t (weigh t percent )

40.0 0 33.6 0 45.9 0 38. 4 nonatomize d 38. 4 nonatomize d 46. 2 nonatomize d 4 3 atomize d o r 91. 4 nonatomize d 42.0 0 45.0 0 30.0 0 37.0 0 44.0 0 40.0 0 Percen t

Chang e i n Allowabl e HA P 0.0 0 0.0 0
+ 6 +0. 4 -4. 4 -2. 1 Resi n HA P i s basicall y unlimite d fo rnonatomize d applicatio n 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
+ 2
Al l floo rchange s resul t i n a mor e lenien t floo rexcep t fo rMechanica l Noncorrosio n Resistan t Fille d an d Mechanica l Corrosio n Resistant
. W e believ e tha t facilitie s coul d stil l mee t th e floo rfo r Mechanica l Noncorrosio n Resistan t fille d withou t add-o n controls , thoug h som e averagin g ma y b e required
.

T J h oSummar y o f Cos t Effectivenes s fo r Recommende d Fina l Rul e fo r Reinforced Plasti c Composite s Sourc e Categ o

Existin g Source s

Proces s Ope n Moldin g Close d Moldin g Centrifuga l Castin g Continuou s Lamination/Castin g Polyme rCastin g Pultrusio n SM C Manufacturin g

Cleanin g Operation s BMC/Mixin g Operation s Storag e of HA P Containin g Mat'l s Total s fo r Sourc e Categor y Averag e impact s Tota J Reductio n ttpy ) 5916. 7 0. 0 748. 5 576. 5 0. 0 127. 8 0. 0 807. 1 164. 2 0. 0 8340. 8 Annua l

Cos t ($/yr- l $18,317,26 6 $65,57 1 $399,61 0 $1,161,82 9 $44,95 3 $312,74 6 $12,91 6 $367,32 2 $489,29 5 $324,09 2 $21,495,60 0 Cos t

Effectivenes s <$/tw } $3,09 6 N/ A $53 4 $2,01 5 N/ A $2,44 8 N/ A $45 5 $2,98 0 N/ A $2,57 7 incrementa f impact s

Recommende d Rul e Compare d t o Ftoo r Tota F Reductio n fowl 0. 0 0. 0 735. 3 218. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 953. 6 Annua l

Cos t <*/y*. ) $ 0 $ 0 $314,64 1 $561,06 8 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $875,71 0 Cos t

Effectivenes s {$«on > N A

N A $42 8 $2,57 0 N A N A N A N A N A N A $91 8 Not e 1 : Al l dollar

s ar e 199 8 calenda r yea r dollars .Summar

y of Regulator

y Optio n Cos

t Effectivenes s fo r th e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Sourc e Categor y Existin g Source s • 199 7 NOTE : Ad d Dat

a fo r facilitie s adde d t o th e databas e ~ number s liste d i n tabl e t o th e righ t Cos t Effectivenes

s Apri l 24-2002-Summary.xl s

10/8/200 2

Subcategor y Ope n Moldin g Proces s Manua l Resi n Applicatio n
Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n

Filamen t Windin g Ge l Coa t Applicatio n
Total s fo r Ope n Moldin g Subcategor y Close d Moldin g Compression/Injectio n Moldin g Resi n Transfe rMoldin g (RTM ) Total s fo r Close d Moldin g Subcategor y Centrifuga l Castin g Centrifuga l Castin g Total s fo r Centrifuga l Castin g Subcategor y Continuou s Lamination/Castin g Polyme rCastin g Pultrusio n SM C Manufacturin g Cleanin g Operation s BMC/Mixin g Operation s Storag e o f HA P Containin g Mat"I s Continuou s Lamination/Castin g Polyme rCastin g Pultrusio n SM C Manufacturin g Cleanin g Operation s BMC/Mixin g Operation s Storag e o f HA P Containin g Mat 1 I s Total s fo r Reinforced Plasti c Composite s Sourc e Categor y Process/Produc t Groupin g Corrosion-Resistan t No n Corrosion-Resistan t Toolin g / Mol d Manufacturin g Corrosion-Resistan t No n Corrosion-Resistan t (Unfilled ) No n Corrosion-Resistan t (Filled ) Toolin g / Mol d Manufacturin g Corrosion-Resistan t No n Corrosion-Resistan t Pigmente d Productio n Clea rProductio n Toolin g / Mol d Manufacturin g Compression/Injectio n Moldin g Resi n Transfe rMoldin g (RTM ) Corrosion-Resistan t No n Corrosion-Resistan t No t Applicabl e No t Applicabl e No t Applicabl e No t Applicabl e No t Applicabl e Mo t Applicabl e Mo t Applicabl e MAC T Floo r (Actual ) Total Reductio n (tpy ) 29. 6 61. 3 0. 8 474. 7 4291. 4 0. 0 48. 4 21. 2 0. 5 894. 7 74. 9 19. 2 5916. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0.3 12. 9 13. 2 358. 2 0. 0 127. 8 0. 0 807. 1 164. 2 0. 0 7387. 1 Annual

Cos t («yr. ) $1,681,68 3 $722,49 2 $111,01 7 $1,465,34 7 $6,460,32 0 $ 0 $204,75 2 $862,77 6 $8,87 0 $5,695,41 7 $406,22 4 $698,36 7 $18,317,26 6 $55,85 2 $9,71 9 $65,57 1 $41,56 7 $43,40 1 $84,96 8 $600,76 1 $44,95 3 $312,74 6 $12,91 6 $367,32 2 $489,29 5 $324,09 2 $20,619,89 0 Reg . Optio n w/ Siz e Limi t (Actual ) Averag e Tota l Cos t Reductio n Effectivenes s ($fton ) (tpy ) $56,77 2 $11,78 5 $131,74 0 $3,08 7 $1,50 5 N/ A $4,23 1 $40,77 2 $17,52 0 $6,36 6 $5,42 5 $36,35 5 $3,09 6 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $3,35 7 $6,44 5 $1,67 7 N/ A $2,44 8 N/ A $45 5 $2,98 0 N/ A $2,79 1 29. 6

170. 3 20. 0 500. 4 6216. 7 0. 0 181. 7 21. 2 134. 2 2435. 0 192. 6 59. 0 9960. 6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0.3 748. 2 748. 5 576. 5 0. 0 131. 1 0. 0 807. 1 252. 2 0. 0 12476. 1 Annua l

Cos t (Wyr) $1,681,68 3 $1,745,13 0 $569,62 4 $1,902,80 6 $26,901,53 2

$ 0 $1,368,29 0 $862,77 6 $4,170,64 1 $12,378,93 6 $1,519,62 2 $960,28 5 $54,061,32 4 $55,85 2 $9,71 9 $65,57 1 $41,56 7 $358,04 2 $399,61 0 $1,161,82 9 $44,95 3 $589,11 7 $12,91 6 $367,68 5 $1,548,36 2 $324,45 5 $58,575,82 2 Averag e

Cos t (Sfton ) $56,77 2 $10,24 4 $28,54 0 $3,80 2 $4,32 7 N/ A $7,53 0 $40,77 2 $31,07 9 $5,08 4 $7,88 8 $16,28 8 $5,42 7 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $47 9 $53 4 $2,01 5 N/ A $4,49 3 N/ A $45 6 $6,14 0 N/ A $4,69 5 Regulator y Optio n 1 (Actual )

Tota l Reductio n (tpy ) 170. 3 445. 4 47. 4 761. 6 7603. 5 0. 0 334. 4 319. 8 152. 0 3432. 7 597. 1 109. 7 13973. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 16. 5 881. 2 897. 7 678. 0 0. 0 258. 0 282. 5 807. 1 408. 2 0. 0 17305. 4 Annua l

Cos t (Vyr. ) $6,220,61 8 $8,798,42 4 $3,090,52 0 $15,714,91 2 $72,315,78 1

$ 0 $6,600,45 9 $11,058,51 5 $4,974,21 5 $30,315,84 8 $13,381,94 1 $2,910,61 0 $175,381,84 4 $55,85 2 $9,71 9 $65,57 1 $278,77 7 $881,72 2 $1,160,49 9 $1,625,10 9 $44,95 3 $18,170,67 7 $5,312,11 2 $371,99 4 $13,618,27 6 $328,76 4 $216,079,79 8 Averag e

Cos t ($/ton ) $36,52 5 $19,75 2 $65,23 2 $20,63 4 $9,51 1 N/ A $19,73 8 $34,57 9 $32,71 5 $8,83 2 $22,41 3 $26,53 5 $12,55 1 N/ A N/ A N/ A $16,89 6 $1,00 1 $1,29 3 $2,39 7 N/ A $70,42 6 $18,80 1 $46 1 $33,36 0 N/ A $12,48 6 Not e 1 : Al l dollar s ar e 199 8 calenda ryea rdollars
.Summar

y o f Regulator

y Optio n Cos

t Effectivenes s fo r th e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Existin g Source s -199 7 NOTE : Ad d Dat a fo r facilitie s adde d t o th e databas e - numbers liste d i n tabl e t o th e righ t Cos t Effectivenes

s Apri l 24-2002-Summary.xl s

10/8/200 2

Subcategor y Ope n Moldin g Proces s Manua l Resi n Applicatio n
Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n

Filamen t Windin g Ge l Coa t Applicatio n Process/Produc t Groupin g Corrosion-Resistan t No n Corrosion-Resistan t Toolin g / Mol d Manufacturin g Corrosion-Resistan t No n Corrosion-Resistan t (Unfilled ) No n Corrosion-Resistan t (Filled ) Toolin g / Mol d Manufacturin g Corrosion-Resistan t No n Corrosion-Resistan t Pigmente d Productio n Clea rProductio n Toolin g / Mol d Manufacturin g Total s fo rOpe n Moldin g Subcategor y Close d Moldin g Compression/Injectio n Moldin g Resi n Transfe rMoldin g (RTM ) Compression/Injectio n Moldin g Resi n Transfe rMoldin g (RTM ) Total s fo rClose d Moldin g Subcategor y Centrifuga l Castin g Centrifuga l Castin g Corrosion-Resistan t No n Corrosion-Resistan t Total s fo rCentrifuga l Castin g Subcategor y Continuou s Lamination/Castin g Polyme rCastin g Pultrusio n SM C Manufacturin g Cleanin g Operation s BMC/Mixin g Operation s Storag e o f HA P Containin g Ma f I s Continuou s Lamination/Castin g Polyme rCastin g Pultrusio n SM C Manufacturin g Cleanin g Operation s BMC/Mixin g Operation s Storag e o f HA P Containin g Ma f I s No t Applicabl e No t Applicabl e No t Applicabl e No t Applicabl e No t Applicabl e No t Applicabl e No t Applicabl e Total s fo rReinforce d Plasti c Composite s Sourc e Categor y Reg . Optio n w / Siz e Limi t (Incremental ) Total Reductio n (tpy ) 0. 0 109. 0 19. 1 25. 8 1925. 3 0. 0 133. 3 0. 0 133. 7 1540. 2 117. 8 39. 7 4043. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 735. 3 735. 3 218. 3 0. 0 3. 4 0. 0 0. 0 88. 0 0. 0 5089. 0 Annua l

Cos t (Wyr. ) $ 0 $1,022,63 7 $458,60 7 $437,46 0 $20,441,21 1

$ 0 $1,163,53 7 $ 0 $4,161,77 1 $6,683,51 8 $1,113,39 8 $261,91 8 $35,744,05 8

$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $314,64 1 $314,64 1 $561,06 8 $ 0 $276,37 1 $ 0 $36 3 $1,059,06 7 $36 3 $37,955,93 2 Averag e

Cos t ($/ton ) N/

A $9,37 8 $23,99 1 $16,98 6 $10,61 7 N/ A $8,72 7 N/ A $31,13 1 $4,33 9 $9,45 5 $6,58 9 $8,83 9 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A $42 8 $42 8 $2,57 0 N/ A $82,28 9 N/ A N/ A $12,03 2 N/ A $7,45 8 Regulator y Optio n 1 (Incremental )

Total Reductio n (tpy ) 140. 7 384. 1 46. 5 286. 9 3312. 1 0. 0 286. 0 298. 6 151. 5 2538. 0 522. 2 90. 5 8057. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0 16. 2 868. 3 884. 5 319. 8 0. 0 130. 3 282. 5 0. 0 244. 1 0. 0 9918. 3 Annua l

Cos t (Wyr. ) $4,538,93 5 $8,075,93 2 $2,979,50 3 $14,249,56 6 $65,855,46 1

$ 0 $6,395,70 7 $10,195,73 9 $4,965,34 5 $24,620,43 1 $12,975,71 7 $2,212,24 3 $157,064,57 8

$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $237,21 0 $838,32 1 $1,075,53 1 $1,024,34 8 $ 0 $17,857,93 2 $5,299,19 6 $4,67 1 $13,128,98 1 $4,67 1 $195,459,90 8 Averag e Cos t (Sfton ) $32,26 2 $21,02 4 $64,02 8 $49,66 5 $19,88 3 N/ A $22,36 2 $34,14 1 $32,76 6 $9,70 1 $24,84 9 $24,45 1 $19,49 4 N/ A N/ A N/ A $14,60 2 $96 6 $1,21 6 $3,20 3 N/ A $137,09 8 $18,75 6 N/ A $53,79 6 N/ A $19,70 7 Not e 1 : Al l dollar s ar e 199 8 calenda ryea rdollars
.P.2 5

Joh n Schweitze r To : Keit h Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EP A <jschwtzr@gte.net > cc : Subject : Ma y 2 3 worksho p 05/17/200 2 03:1 2 P M Pleas e respon d t o Joh n Schweitze r
Keith , i n preparatio n fo rou rMa y 2 3 worksho p p n th e propose d rule , we hav e prepare d th e attache d summar y o f "ope n issues. " Thi s include s issues identifie d i n ou rOct
. 2 5 comments an d i n subsequen t correspondenc

e wit h you . Th e summar

y als o contain s th e followin g items , whic h w e ma y no t hav e raise d previously : 1
. SM C manufacturing
. Ou rOct
. 2 5 comment s suggeste d tha t SM

C compoun d shoul d b e wrappe d o rplace d i n close d container s prio rt o shipment
. I n addition , w e als o suggest tha t compoun d edge s coul d alternativel y b e folde d o rsealed , i n thos e fe w case s where thi s i s technicall y feasible
. 2
. Compressio n molding
. Ou rOct
. 2 5 comment s suggeste d tha t th e rul e shoul d allo w sufficien t charge s t o b e ope n (uncovered ) a t th e press fo ron e press cycle
. I n addition , we als o sugges t that , whe n roboti c loadin g device s ar e employed , sufficien t charge s ma y b e ope n (uncovered ) fo r tw o press cycle s - on e ope n charg e wil l b e stage d i n th e loader , an d th e othe rcharg e read y t o b e place d i n th e loader
. 3
. Ne w sources . Becaus

e ofth e lo

w capita l investmen t needed fo rmany composit e manufacturin g operations , we sugges

t tha t a ne

w source b e clearl y define d a s on e a t a sit e wher

e previousl y ther e wa s n o composit e manufacturin g operations , an d tha t al l othe roperation s ar e considere d existin g sources . W

e understan d tha t thi s i s consisten t wit h comments yo u hav e mad e previously ; bu t i t need s t o be state d ver y clearl y i n th e fina l rule
. 4
. Definitio n o f HAP
. Sinc e EPA' s databas e an d floo rcalculation s assume d tha t al l HA P were styrene , th e fina l rul e shoul d clearl y stat e that , fo rth e purpose s o f MACT , al l HA P are assume d t o b e styrene
. (Th e formula s tha t w e suggeste d i n ou rcomment s fo ruse i n Tabl e 1 o f th e rul e are state d i n term s o f %HAP rathe rtha n % styrene. ) 5
. Ne w P 2 technologies
. Th e fina l rul e shoul d provid e a procedur e t o revis e Tabl e 1 o f th e rul e s o tha t ne w P 2 technologie s ca n b e use d t o meet th e MAC T emissio n limits
. I t migh t be helpfu l fo ryo u t o identif y i n advanc

e thos e ope n issues wher e yo u agre e wit h ou rpositio n an d expec

t t o readil y chang e th e fina l rule
. At th e start o f ou rMa y 2 3 meeting , w e coul d quickl y revie w thes e issues , an d the n spen d th e bul k o f th e meetin g o n issues wher e yo u eithe rdisagre e wit h u s o rar e no t sur e ho w t o solve th e problem
. W e loo k forward t o reviewin g th e item s i n th e attache d summar y wit h yo u o n Ma

y 23
. Than k

yo u fo r you rconsideratio n o f ou rcomments
. FROM============== = Joh n Schweitze r Sr
. Directo ro f Gov't
. Affair s Composite s Fabricator

s Assoc
. voice 734.622.016 2 fax 734.622.012 2 ischwtzr(a)Qte.ne

t 

# • www.cfa-ha.or g MAC T ope n issue s Ma y 2 3 2002. 1RP/ C NESHA P - Ope n Issue s CF A Ma y 23 , 200 2

Comment s sectio n II- l Issue an d CF A positio n

Remov e above-the-floo r

95 % captur e an dcontro l fo r large r existin g sources . I I - 2 j Remov e 95 % captur e an dcontro l for ne w sources . Analysi s

95 % C& C i s no t

technicall y feasibl e o r

affordable
. Man y likel y ne w plant s ar e no t simila r t o th e floor settin g sources , an dwil l no t b e abl e t o achiev e o r affor d95 % C&C
. Statu s EP A ha s decide d no t

t o requir e an y existin g source s t o instal l C& C (excep t centrifuga l castin g an dcontinuou s lamination)
. j Th e floor

fo r existin g an dne w pultrusio n II I - A j operation s shoul db e 60 % reductio n (compare dt o

! "n o control")
. Th e typica l larg e "custom " pultrusio n operation s ca n achiev e o n averag e onl y 60 % control , du e t o limit s i n th e availabl e contro l technologies
. III- B III- C Pre-for minjectio n shoul db e acomplianc e optio n

fo r pultrusio n wit h 90 % control
. Pultrusio n operation s shoul d b e abl e t o compi y wit h th e 60 % reductio n a s a12-month rollin g averag e acros s al l pultrusio n operations
. Pre-for minjectio n i s th e mos t effectiv e availabl e contro l fo r

man y products
. Allow s productio n flexibility whil e stil l achievin g th e require demissio n reductions
. III- D We t

are aenclosure s shoul db e permitte dfo r al l pultrusio n sources , an dth e requirement s fo r thes e enclosure s shoul db e modifie di n certai n way s t o allo w practica l comphance
. We t are aenclosure s ar e th e mos t effectiv e availabl e contro l fo r

man y products
. III- E IV- A Larg e pultrude d product s shoul db e exemp t from contro l requirements
. Ther e ar e n o effectiv e commerciall y availabl e an d practica l control s fo r

larg e pultrude dparts . Th e onl y sourc e i n thi s grou p usin g C& C need s t o amen dit s permi t

t o remov e 100 % captur e becaus e th e enclosur e unacceptabl y limit s production
. IV-B- 1 Captur e an dcontro l shoul dno t b e require dfo r SM C manufacturin g (compounding)
. Covere ddocto r

boxe s an dfolded/seale dedge s shoul dno t

b e require dfo r

SM C compounding
. Thes e technologie s wer e trie dbu t foun dt o b e no t practical
. Th e rul e shoul drequir e tha t compoun d b e wrappe do

r place di n close dcontainer s fo r storag e an dtransportation
. Se e als o 5/2 3 comment . IV-B- 2 V - A Th e requiremen t fo r nylo n fil mfo r

SM C compoun dshoul dallo w nylon-containin g film
. Cover s instea do f

add-o n control s shoul d b e require dfo r

large r mixin g operations
. Us e "Mixin g an d BM C manulfacturing. " Mos t o f th e barrie r

film s use dar e blend s o f nylo n wit h othe r

polymers
. Cover s achiev e th e sam e emissio n reductio n a s C& C fo r mixers , a t

muc h lowe r

cost . "BM C manufacturmg/mixing " i s confusing
. Opening s ar e neede d t o permi t entr y o f mixe r shaft s an dinstrumentation , an dt o allo w ventin g durin g filling o r

emptying , an dactiv e ventin g i s neede dwhe n addin g fillers. V - B V - C Opening s an dvent s shoul db e allowe di n mixin g

an dstorag e vessels
. Activ e ventin g shoul db e allowe dwher e needed
. V - D Styren e an dMM A shoul db e permitte dfo r

cleanin g i n close dsystems . Cure dresi n mus t b e remove dfrommixin g an d storag e tank s t o preven t

contamination
.RP/ C NESHA P - Ope n Issue s CF A Ma y 23 , 200 2

Comment s sectio n Issue an d CF A positio n

Unwrappe d compressio n moldin g charge s shoul d b e allowe dfo r

al l mold s i n on e cycl e of apress , fo r loadin g charge s int o ahopper , an dt o allo w th e us e o f slittin g machines
. Analysi s Statu s V - E Th e hoppe r ca n b e close dafte r

loading , an dth e sli t materia l ca n b e place di n acontaine r o r otherwis e covered
. Se e als o 5/2 3 comment . j "Compressio n molding " shoul dinclud e th e V - F I additio n o f

past e a t th e mold , an dth e us e o f

in

j mol dcoating
. Thes e operation s ar e very commo n a t compressio n moldin g source s an dar e considere dpar t o f thi s process . V - G V - H Source s shoul db e abl e t o us e emissio n factor s tha t

hav e bee n approve da s par t o f Titl e V permits
. Thes e factor s ca n b e mor e accurate , an dwil l

reduc e th e administrativ e burde n o f MACT
. Th e us e o f

patching , bonding , an drepai r material s shoul db e include di n th e sourc e category definition , wit h n o contro l requirements
. Thes e material s ar e widel y used , bu t i n smal l quantities
. V - I V - J R& D activitie s shoul db e exemp t fro mcontro l requirements
. Thi s i s EPA' s usua l practice
. Source s shoul db e allowe dt o switc h complianc e options
. Source s ma y occasionall y nee dt o switc h t o averaging , an dth e rul e shoul dprovid e guidanc e o n doin g so . V - K V - L Th e UE F shoul db e use dinstea dofth e PV
. Th e UE F ar e mor e accurate , an dthei r us e wil l reduc e th e administrativ e burde n ofth e rule
. j EP A ha s agree dt o us e th e UEF
. Th e rul e shoul dallo w th e us e o f CFA' s VS E test . Withou t atest , source s wil l no t

b e abl e t o tak e credi t fo r us e o f suppresse dresi n systems . CF A i s preparin g th e additiona l tes t dat arequeste d b y EPA
. V - M V - N A performanc e tes t shoul db e use dt o qualif

y "non

atomized " equipment
. Thi s wil l allo w th e developmen t o f ne w equipment , an dwill increas e clarit y ofth e rule
. Th e propose d rui e weigh s eac h mont h equally , eve n i f widel y differen t

amount s o f

resi n ar e used
. V-O- l Source s usin g averagin g shoul dcalculat e

emission s a s aweighte daverag e o f resi n used
. "White/off-white " ge i coat s shoul db e thos e tha t contai n 10 % o r

mor e b y weigh t

T1O2
. I Increase s clarity ofth e rule
.

j Neede d fo r

adequat e performance
. V-O- 3 V-O- 4 48 % HA P shoul db e allowe dfo r CR.ge l coat . 48 % HA P shoul db e allowe d fo r hig h performanc e ge l coat . Neede dfo r adequat e performance
.
V-O- 5 V-O- 6 Ther e shoul db e n o HA P limi t for fire retardan t

ge l coat . Neede dfo r adequat e performance
. 48 % HA P shoul db e allowe dfo r clear ge l coa t use dfo r culture dmarble
. Neede dfo r adequat e performance
. Neede dfo r

adequat e performance
. 49 % HA P shoul db e allowe dfo r pigmente d toolin g ge l coat , an d52 % fo r clear
.

^ 1RP/ C NESHA P - Ope n Issue s CF A Ma y 23 , 200 2

Comment s sectio n Issue an d CF A positio n Analysi s Statu s V-O- 7 Ge

l coa t shouldb e considere daresi n whe n applie d manually , andmanua

l applicatio n o

f smal l amount s o f ge l coa t shouldb e exempt

from recordkeepin g requirements
. Increase s clarit y andreduce s administrativ e burde n ofth e rule
. V - P Adopt

th e industry-suggeste ddefinitio n fo r "lo w flame/smoke." Increase s clarit y ofth e rule
. 50 % HA P shoul db e allowedfo

r low-shrin k resin
. Requirement s fo

r testin g HA

P conten t shoul db e th e sam e a s i n th e boa

t MACT
. Neede dfo r adequat e performance
. Increase s clarit

y andreduce s administrativ e burde n ofth e rule
. V - R V - S 48 % HA

P shoul db e allowedfo

r C Rfilament winding
. Remov e SI

C codes1282 1 and 3087
. Neede dfo r adequat e performance
. Thes e industrie s ar

e no t composite s manufacturers
. EP A aske dfo r example s o

f product s fo

r whic h th e highe r HA P limi t i s neede dfo

r technical reasons . V - T 3/1 9 Updat

e th e combinedmechanica

l database
. EPA' s new combine dfilled/unfilled mechanica l apphcatio n databas e contain s inaccurate information , an dwoul dresul t i n abefore-fille

r HA P limi t o f 3 5%
. EP A ha s reporte dtha

t th e databas e ha s bee n correcte dandth e floor s no w limi t before-fille

r HA P t o 39%
. 3/26- 1 Chang e th e definitio n o f "centrifuga

l casting " to include onl

y thos e operation s wher

e ho t ai r i s blow n into th e mold s to cur e th e product
. Als o updat e Tabl e 1
. Mos t centrifuga l castin g operation s us e ambient cur e or th e mold s ar

e close ddurin g cure . I n thes e cases , th e emissio n factor s fo r mechanica

l o r manua l apphcatio n shoul db e used , an dthes e source s shouldno t

have t o instal l C&C
. ; Chang e "filamen

t winding " to "filamen

t 3/26- 2 j apphcation, " andinclude onl y th e apphcatio n o

f | resi n usin g aresi n bath
. Als o updat e Table 1
. Increase s clarit y ofth e rule
. 4/ 8 5/23- 1 Chang e th e definitio n o f "polyme r casting " t o remove th e referenc e t

o "working " th e resin , o

r allo w workin g th e resi n afte r mold s ar e closed
. I f th e edge s o

f SM C compoun

d i s foide d or sealed , the n i t shoul dno t

have to b e wrappe dor

place di n close dcontainers
. Increase s clarit y ofth e rule
. Foldin g or sealing edge s i s technicall y feasibl e i n a fe w cases . Se e commen t IV-B-1
. 5/23- 2 Whe

n roboti c loadin g device s ar e employe dfo

r compressio n moldin g operations , sufficien t charge s ma

y b e open (uncovered

) per cavit y fo r tw o pres s cycles
. On e ope n charg e wil l b e stage di n th e loader , an d th e other ope n charg e (pre-stage ) read

y t o b e place di n th e loader
.RP/ C NESHA P - Ope n Issue s CF A Ma y 23 , 200 2

S£r? n t S ^ lssu e an d CF A P° sitio n I Analysi s j Statu s

i - i- -iI
. LUUIIJC J a : Becaus e ofth e lo w capita l investmen

t neededfo r ; A new sourc e shoul db e clearl y defineda s on e at

a; . . \
. . • , , . , v : man y composit

e manufactunn g operations , man y el -r, , : site wher

e previously there wa s no composit e n . . -^
.. 5/23- 3 - . . \. , ,, , , , . • small change s t o existin g source s ma

y trigge r ne w : manufactunn g operations , andal l othe r operation s ; u .TM. f . . . . ?
.. . . . , , ; . ,, , -j j • L : sourc e MAC T if thi s defimtion i s no t

clearl y I shoul db e considere dexistin g sources . : , , I The finai ride shouldcleariy stat e that , fo r th e I TM
. , . . , , „ , , . . ,„ . . i ,,» - . c-atkr^rr tiTTAr
. J a i

_! EPA s databas e an

d floor calculation s assume d tha

t : 5/23- 4 : purpose s of

MACT , al l HA

P ar e assumedto b e ; „ rT . _. • ^: al l HA P wer e styrene . I styrene . j Th e fina i rul e should provid

e aprocedur

e t o revis e \ Withou

t aciea r an d workable procedure , new an d 5/23- 5 ! Tabl e 1 ofth e rul e s o tha t ne w P 2 technologie s ca

n j effectiv

e emissio n reductio n technique s wil l no t b e j i b e use dt o mee

t th e MAC T emission limits
. j develope do r used
.