p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

158) ll-E-118 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:08 AM Sheet 158 of 264 
P.2 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

MEMORANDUM 

Madeleine Strum 

U.S. EPA/ESD/CCPG 

Robert Jemison 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

A 9* 52 

H:£fHS 

January 5, 1998 

SUBJECT: Summary of the December 8, 1997 Meeting Between EPA and Representatives of 

the Reinforced Plastics/Composites Industry 

* 

LOCATION: EPA/Mutual BuUding, Durham, NC 

11:00 am - 1:45 pm (6th floor) 

2:30 pm - 4:00 pm (11th floor) 

ATTENDEES: 

Mr. 

Mr. 

Mr. 

Mr. 

Ms. 

Ms. 

Mr. 

Ms. 

Ms. 

Robert Haberlein 

Robert Jemison 

Bob Lacovara 

Steve McNally 

Jan Meyer* 

Melanie Proctor 

John Schweitzer 

Candace Sorrell 

Madeleine Strum 

Engineering Environmental 

PES 

Composite Fabricators 

Association (CFA) 

CFA 

EPA/ESD/CCPG 

PES 

Composites Institute (CI) of the 

(410) 268-7367 

(919) 941-0333 

(703) 525-0511 

(703) 525-0511 

(919) 541-5254 

(919) 941-0333 

(313) 668-4703 

Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) 

EPA/EMAD/SCGA 

EPA/ESD/CCPG 

(919) 541-1064 

(919) 541-2383 

*Ms. Meyer attended the 2:30 pm meeting session only. 
P.3 

Madeleine Strum 

January 5, 1998 

Page 2 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of the meeting was for representatives of the Reinforced Plastic/Composites 

Industry and EPA representatives to discuss the following: 

(1.) A draft CFA document entitled "Development of a Standard Styrene Suppressant 

Effectiveness Test" (Attachment 1) which outlines a test method designed to measure the 

effectiveness of vapor suppressants. Attachment 2 contains Ms. Strum's initial comments (bold 

type) on the draft. 

(2.) The MACT point value model currently being considered by EPA for the open molding 

process grouping. 

DISCUSSION OF DRAFT CFA DOCUMENT 

The discussion started with Ms. Strum indicating EPA's desire to work with industry 

representatives to quickly develop a test method designed to measure the effectiveness of 

individual vapor suppressed resin systems. Mr. Lacovara indicated that industry was willing to 

work with EPA to quickly develop such a test method. He further indicated his belief that it 

would not take a long time to discern whether such a method would be feasible and as such the 

method could either be quickly developed or discarded and replaced with a more feasible 

alternative. 

The first issue raised concerned the terminology used to describe the various application 

techniques that comprise the open molding process grouping. Ms. Strum indicated that industry 

and EPA needed to reach an understanding on which application techniques will be described 

using the word "manual." Ms. Strum further indicated that she grouped the open molding 

application techniques into three basic groups: non-spray (bucket and brush, pressure-fed rollers 

and flow-coaters/choppers), spray and filament winding. Mr. Lacovara indicated that it may be 

desirable to avoid using the word "manual" as it may be confusing to some industry participants. 

Mr. Schweitzer stated that some people may consider flow-coaters to be "spray" devices and 

suggested calling equipment by its exact name, such as "flow-coater" or "pressure-fed roller", 

rather than attempting to come up with other descriptive names such as "manual" or "mechanical." 

Mr. Haberlein concurred with Mr. Schweitzer. Ms. Strum indicated that EPA will work on 

clarifying definitions to assure that flow coaters would not be considered spray devices, but also 

indicated that there must be some generic language in the final rule to cover new application 

devices (e.g. an application method other than a flow coater or pressure fed roller that does not 

involve breaking up the resin into distinct droplets). 

0. 
P.4 

Madeleine Strum 

January 5, 1998 

Page 3 

The next issue discussed concerned exactly which components of the resin system would 

be tested using the draft procedures. Ms. Strum asked if the resin would be tested with the fillers, 

catalysts, and additives actually used by the facility. Mr. Haberlein indicated that the combination 

of neat resin, fillers and reinforcement used by the facility would be tested and that the term 

"filler" includes all additives to the resin prior to it being applied to the mold other than catalyst 

and reinforcement. Mr. Lacovara stated that while reinforcement would be used in the test, the 

type and quantity would be specified in the test. Therefore, the test would not replicate the exact 

reinforcement used by the reinforced plastics manufacturing facility. Mr. Lacovara continued by 

stating that there was no need to specify the type of catalyst because the important factor was the 

gel time that would be used, not the type of catalyst used to produce a particular gel time. Ms. 

Proctor asked if it was possible that a reaction between a certain catalyst and me vapor suppressant 

would reduce the effectiveness of a vapor suppressant. Mr. Lacovara indicated that he could not 

think of a possible chemical reaction between the catalyst and the vapor suppressant. He further 

indicated that he had not heard of such a reaction in discussing vapor suppressants with industry 

members. 

Mr. Haberlein asked if the test method would specify the type or amount of catalyst to be 

used. Mr. Lacovara stated that different resins require different catalysts and the proposed test 

method would not specify the type or amount of catalyst to be used. He further added that 

specifying the gel time greatly simplifies the test method because using a specific gel time sets 

many of the parameters. Mr. Haberlein indicated that specifying gel time was more representative 

of an actual "as-applied" resin system than specifying the amount of catalyst because facilities will 

change the amount of catalyst used throughout the day in order to maintain the same gel time. 

He further added that these changes were made because changes in ambient temperature in the 

facility would change the resin gel time unless the amount of catalyst used was changed to 

compensate for the temperature change. 

Ms. Strum asked which gel time would be specified by the test method - the cup gel time 

or the laminate gel time? Mr. Lacovara indicated that cup gel time would be the gel time 

specified because cup gel time is determined by prescribed test procedures which produce 

scientifically accurate and repeatable results whereas the laminate gel time is very subjective and 

is often determined by touch to see if the resin has "gelled." He further added that the cup gel 

time is provided on the resin specification sheets provided by the resin manufacturer and these 

specification sheets indicate the type and amount of catalyst used to reach the target cup gel time 

at 77°F. Mr. Haberlein indicated that cup gel time is the lower bound for laminate gel time and 

that the laminate gel time varies at different sections of the part being manufactured. 

Ms. Strum indicated that she was confused with the specification of the cup gel time since 

as the composites manufacturer would add or subtract catalyst to the resin throughout the day (for 

example, to accommodate ambient temperature changes) the cup gel time of the resin would be 

different. She asked which cup gel time would be specified by the test method. Mr. Lacovara 

2> 
P.5 

Madeleine Strum 

January 5, 1998 

Page 4 

indicated that the gel time used by the test would be the same one used by the facility and gave 

the example that if the facility uses a fifteen minute gel time that would be the same cup gel time 

used by the test. Mr. Schweitzer asked how the user would specify gel time to the manufacturer 

when ordering a resin system. Mr. Lacovara indicated that the user specifies a cup gel time. Mr. 

Schweitzer indicated that if the laminate gel time varied from the cup gel time significantly, then 

the test method may yield results that are not representative of actual suppressant effectiveness 

values. Mr. Lacovara indicated that the test method was designed to look for average (standard) 

conditions. Mr. Lacovara added tiiat it would not be feasible to design a test that would be run 

at the actual laminate gel time, since as it was discussed earlier, there is no standard test method 

to determine laminate gel time, and laminate gel time can vary within die different sections of the 

part being manufactured. Mr. Lacovara felt that using the cup gel time of the resin, which does 

not vary, would be both reasonable and feasible. Ms. Strum indicated that she was still confused 

because she thought the cup gel time of the resin would vary if the amount of catalyst is adjusted. 

Mr. McNally explained that the user specifies a cup gel time (to a resin manufacturer) that is 

necessary to meet both product specifications and production schedules and as such is not likely 

to allow gel times to deviate substantially from the specified cup gel time. He also explained that 

the resin specification sheet that accompanied the resin would contain which catalyst and how 

much catalyst would need to be added to the resin to achieve that particular cup gel time. 

Ms. Strum indicated that if a particular cup gel time value was to be used for the test (rather 

than an exact amount and type of catalyst) then the cup gel time procedure would need to be part of 

the test method so that it could be verified that the cup gel time at which the test was done matched 

the cup gel time of the particular resin system tested. Mr. Schweitzer disagreed that this procedure 

should be part of the test because of the difficulty in getting repeatable values outside the resin 

supplier's laboratories. It was thus agreed that the test should be performed using the catalyst type 

and quantity that was provided with the resin specifications to achieve a specific cup gel time rather 

than allowing the tester to vary catalyst type and quantity to achieve the specific cup gel time. 

Mr. Schweitzer asked if the cup test is run with a filled or unfilled resin system. Mr. 

Lacovara indicated that the cup gel test is conducted with an unfilled resin system. Mr. Haberlein 

indicated that the filler does not affect the gel time of the resin. 

Ms. Sorrell inquired if the test ended at the gel time or some length of time greater than 

the gel time. Mr. Lacovara indicated that the test would go beyond the gel time. Mr. Haberlein 

indicated that it may be desirable to use a lack of change in the weight of the test sample as a basis 

to conclude that no further emissions would be given off by the test sample. He further added that 

one possible method to determine when no emissions were being given off would be if the 

measurement did not change within the precision of the scale. Ms. Sorrell stated that another 

possible way of specifying a lack of change may be to specify the lack of change as a percentage 

of loss, i.e. if the percentage weight loss of the test sample is less than a certain percentage when 

measured at required intervals, the test could be considered completed. 

H 
P.6 

Madeleine Strum 

January 5, 1998 

Page 5 

The next issue discussed was the type of glass fiber reinforcement and the glass to resin 

ratio specified in the draft test method. Mr. Lacovara indicated that he had specified chopped 

strand mat fiberglass reinforcement because this type of reinforcement was predominant in the 

industry and was easier to roll out than reinforcement composed of a continuous mat. He also 

indicated that with filled resin systems the reinforcement goes down (glass to resin ratio goes 

down). He did not know whether the effectiveness of the vapor suppressant would change with 

a change in the glass to resin ratio or the thickness of the laminate. Ms. Strum asked if testing 

could be done on different glass to resin ratios and different thicknesses to see how sensitive the 

results were to these particular parameters. Mr. Lacovara indicated that he felt that such testing 

could be conducted. 

The next issue discussed was the size and shape of the pan used to hold the resin and 

reinforcement. Mr. Lacovara indicated that the suggested size of 12" by 12" was practical for the 

amount of resin suggested by the draft method. He added that the pan would have to be large 

enough to roll out the resin. Mr. Haberlein suggested that a circular pan may be a feasible 

alternative as the roll out area could still be one square foot and may be easier to manipulate since 

many scales have a round weighing surface. Mr. Lacovara indicated his concern that a circular 

pan may make a uniform roll-out difficult. Mr. Schweitzer suggested a rectangular aluminum pan 

may be a feasible alternative. Mr. Lacovara indicated his concern that the bottom of an aluminum 

pan may flex during roll-out. 

The next issue discussed was the method of how the resin would be transferred into the 

mold and the method of roll-out. Mr. Lacovara indicated that it would have to be determined if 

the resin should be poured into the middle of the mold or if it should be poured in small, separate 

streams across the mold. Mr. Lacovara also indicated that the method of roll-out would have to 

be determined and suggested such possibilities as specifying how long the resin should be rolled 

out or how many strokes of the roller should be used. Ms. Sorrell asked about the importance 

of the roll-out process. Mr. Lacovara indicated that it is very important because emissions do not 

slope off as rapidly during roll-out and that roll-out delays the effect of the vapor suppressant by 

disturbing the surface of the applied resin system. Ms. Sorrell noted that based on videos that 

EPA representatives had reviewed, roll-out occurs fairly quickly and even a roll-out time of just 

one minute may be unrepresentatively long. Mr. Lacovara indicated that specifying an amount 

of time for roll-out may be unnecessary and it may be satisfactory to specify the number of passes. 

He further added that areas are usually rolled twice, left to right and top to bottom. Ms. Sorrell 

asked if the rolling would be done with the pan on the scale. Mr. Haberlein indicated that such 

a procedure would destroy the accuracy of the scale and that the rolling could be done with the 

pan on a set of blocks. Mr. Lacovara stated that tiie pan could also be placed on a set of jacks 

during roll-out. Mr. Jemison asked Mr. Lacovara if there would be validity problems with the 

draft test method if it is very sensitive to roll-out technique, since the roll-out technique used by 

facility workers may vary greatly. Mr. Lacovara agreed that that was a possibility and indicated 

that different roll-out techniques would have to be tested in order to determine the level of 

5 
P.7 

Madeleine Strum 

January 5, 1998 

Page 6 

sensitivity of the method to roll-out technique. Ms. Proctor indicated that the results could 

possibly be made more conservative by using a longer roll-out time and thus reducing suppressant 

effectiveness values. 

The next issue discussed concerned whether or not the tests on the suppressed and nonsuppressed resin systems should be conducted simultaneously or sequentially. Mr. Lacovara 

indicated his belief that simultaneous testing would not be necessary if the test method met 

repeatability requirements. Ms. Strum asked if the tests should be done sequentially. Mr. 

Haberlein indicated that sequential testing was not necessary if repeatability was established and 

the testing was conducted under standard conditions. Ms. Strum indicated that it may be desirable 

for the same person to conduct both the test on the suppressed and non-suppressed resin systems. 

Mr. Schweitzer indicated that a user may simply specify a desired percent emission reduction to 

the resin supplier and the supplier may have to try several suppressant/resin combinations to reach 

the desired suppressant effectiveness. In this type of situation, Mr. Schweitzer inquired as to 

whether the supplier would have to test a separate unsuppressed resin system for each 

suppressant/resin combination or if the supplier would be able to compare each suppressant/resin 

combination to a single tested unsuppressed resin system. Ms. Strum indicated that this was 

essentially a product development scenario and that it would probably be feasible to do trial and 

error to determine the suppressant/resin combination with the desired effectiveness and then test 

the final suppressed and non-suppressed resin systems using the test method. 

The next issue discussed concerned the enforcement vulnerability of a facility who relied 

on a suppressant effectiveness value supplied by a manufacturer. Mr. McNally asked if a facility 

can use the vapor suppressant effectiveness value that the manufacturer determined using the test 

method as long as the resin is unadulterated. Ms. Strum indicated that the facility could use the 

supplied effectiveness value so long as the resin was unadulterated. Mr. McNally asked if the 

facility would be subject to enforcement if the EPA tested the suppressed resin system and did not 

obtain the same suppressant effectiveness value supplied by the resin manufacturer. Ms. Sorrell 

indicated that the facility is always considered liable since they are responsible for ensuring that 

the measures used to control emissions are effective. 

The next issue discussed concerned the airflow across the surface of the pan during testing. 

Mr. Lacovara indicated that some airflow across the surface of the pan was needed to avoid 

saturation effects which would keep some styrene trapped in the pan that would not normally be 

trapped in a facility. Mr. Schweitzer asked how such an airflow would be measured. Mr. 

Lacovara indicated that a hot-wire anemometer (typically found in a laboratory setting) would be 

used. Mr. Schweitzer stated his concerns that too large of an airflow could affect the balance 

(scale) and that there may be difficulty measuring low airflow rates. Mr. Haberlein indicated that 

hot-wire anemometers typically work well at lower flow rates than typical pitot-tube type flow 

measurement devices. Mr. Lacovara indicated that it may be possible to use smoke tubes to 

determine existence and direction of air flow. Ms. Sorrell stated that usage of smoke tubes would 

io 
P.8 

Madeleine Strum 

January 5, 1998 

Page 7 

be difficult to standardize. Ms. Meyer indicated that it was necessary to quantify air flow. Ms. 

Strum stated it would be necessary to quantify air flow if air flow is shown to have an effect on 

the results of the test because the tester must ensure that the airflow across the pan is the same for 

both the suppressed and non-suppressed resin systems. Mr. Lacovara indicated that the laboratory 

hood could be expected to draw air at a constant rate for both tests unless the hood fan 

malfunctioned or there was a blockage in hood exhaust duct. Mr. McNally inquired if the method 

could be made simpler by not specifying a certain flow rate but merely requiring that the flow rate 

across the pan surface be the same when testing both the suppressed and non-suppressed resins. 

Mr. McNally stated his concern that specifying a specific flow rate would require laboratories to 

purchase new fans unnecessarily. Mr. Lacovara stated that these issues could be resolved by 

measuring air flow during preliminary testing and then conducting a sensitivity analysis on the test 

results to see if airflow had any affect on the suppressant effectiveness. 

The next issue discussed was the test procedure of stabilizing the resin sample temperature 

in a water bath to a temperature of 77°F. Ms. Sorrell stated that the type of thermometer used 

to measure the resin sample temperature would have to be specified in order to ensure the 

necessary levels of accuracy and precision. Mr. Lacovara indicated that he had a specific type 

of laboratory thermometer in mind and would add the appropriate specifications. Ms. Strum 

asked if the resin sample discussed in the procedure referred to both resin and filler or just neat 

resin. Mr. Lacovara indicated that it was intended to represent both resin and filler. 

The next issue discussed was whether or not it was necessary to prepare the test pan with 

a release agent to allow the easy removal of the cured resin system from the pan. Mr. Lacovara 

indicated that the use of a release agent was optional when conducting the test and that its use 

would allow the pan to be used again for additional testing. Ms. Proctor asked if the release agent 

would in any way affect the test results. Mr. Lacovara replied that the use of a release agent, 

would not affect the test results because it is applied as a very thin layer that cannot be weighted 

and would not interact with the resin or suppressant in such a way as to produce or reduce the 

emissions. Ms. Sorrell asked if the same release agent used by the facility would be used by the 

manufacturer. Mr. Lacovara replied that there were a large number of release agents and the 

release agent used by the resin manufacturer during testing may not be the same one used by the 

facility for production purposes. Ms. Strum suggested that if the release agent was not necessary 

to properly conduct the test method then perhaps it should be eliminated. Mr. McNally pointed 

out that the method aheady called for discarding the roller used during roll-out process so he saw 

no reason not to discard the pan as well. 

The next issue discussed was the nature of the emissions profile that occurs when resin is 

applied to a surface (through manual or mechanical means), during the roll-out of the laminate 

surface and during the post-roll out curing stage. Ms. Strum stated that EPA needed data 

regarding the emissions that occurred during the application, role-out, and curing phases because 

it was believed that the effect of the vapor suppressant would be negligible during the application 

n 
P.9 

Madeleine Strum 

January 5, 1998 

Page 8 

phase. She added that a multiplier would have to be developed to adjust for this effect in order 

to accurately determine the emissions from a suppressed resin system. Mr. Lacovara indicated 

that industry could provide EPA with data sufficient to determine the emissions profile. Mr. 

Haberlein suggested comparing the CFA Phase U emission test data collected on vapor suppressed 

resin systems with prelirninary test data from the vapor suppressant laboratory test to determine 

an appropriate multiplier. 

The final issue discussed concerning the draft test metiiod was the timetable for the 

preliminary testing. Ms. Strum asked Mr. Lacovara how soon industry would be able to conduct 

the preliminary testing. Mr. Lacovara indicated that the testing would probably be conducted in 

early January, 1998. 

DISCUSSION OF THE VARIOUS MACT MODELS 

Mr. Haberlein distributed the following materials prepared by himself and presented on 

behalf of the CFA, the SPI-CI, and the International Cast Polymer Institute: 

1.) A document dated November 25, 1997 and entitled "EPA's Power Law Models: curve 

fitting through the origin", 

2.) A document dated November 26, 1997 and entitled "Summary of CFA Emission Models", 

3.) A document dated November 28, 1997 and entitled "Piece-wise Linear/Power Law 

Model", 

4.) A document dated November 26, 1997 and entitled "Emission Models for Reinforced 

Plastics", 

5.) A document dated December 8, 1997 and entitled "Addenda to the Derivation and 

Verification of the CFA Emission Models", 

6.) A document dated December 8, 1997 and entitled "Further Analyses of the CFA & PES 

Emission Models and the Open Molding Database." 

7.) A diskette dated December 8, 1997 and entitled "MACT Matrix. "6 ^ ^ cUcre.fcA w^s ^ ^ 

These documents contained in Attachments 3 through 9, respectively. 

Mr. Jemison distributed graphs of the original and modified EPA MACT Model analyses 

as well as a tables comparing the effects of various options considered under those analyses. 

% 
P.10 

/^//e shm. f* fX 

From: <BLacovara@aol.com> 

To: RTP3.RTMU546(STRUM-MADELEINE) 

Date: 11/17/97 11:00am 

Subject: Re: Suppressant Test Draft 

Madeleine, 

Here is the initial draft for the development of a suppressant effectiveness 

test. This will be distributed to interested parties in the industry to get 

the ball rolling. If there is merit to this proposal, this work should be 

able to be accomplished in a reasonabably short time. If we have consensus to 

move forward, let's discuss a timeline. 

Bob Lacovara - CFA 

Note: Document in text format - will follow with fax copy. 

- & • 

10 
P.11 

DRAFT - WORK IN PROGRESS 

Proposal 

Date: 11/14/97 

From: Bob Lacovara - CFA 

To: MACT Summit Group 

Madeleine Strum - EPA 

Resin Suppliers 

Suppressant Suppliers 

Re: Development of Standard Styrene Suppressant Effectiveness Test 

I. Background 

Recent testing has documented the effectiveness and benefits of styrene 

suppressants in reducing emissions. However, it has been recognized that 

suppressant efficiency may be variable over the range of possible suppressant 

and resin system combinations. Because of the potential array of combinations, 

a standardized test method must be developed to document the performance of 

suppressants under specific conditions. 

During the course of the CFA Open Molding Test Project, attempts were made to 

correlate the California SCAQMD Rule 1162 "Pie Pan" test to the results of the 

large-scale emissions testing being conducted. It was found that the 1162 pie 

pan test exhibited little or no correlation to emissions developed in laminate 

samples. Therefore, it has been determined that a new test method is required 

to accurately determine the effectiveness of suppressant additives. 

This proposed test method incorporates a laminate and mechanical roll-out 

method to more closely approximate the conditions found in actual molding 

operations. 

This test is designed to be a direct comparison between a specific resin with 

and without a suppressant additive. It is not designed to determine actual 

emissions from the molding process. It is anticipated that the data generated 

from this test will be entered into the CFA emissions model as a suppressant 

modifier factor. This factor is part of a more comprehensive formula to 

determine overall process emissions. 
P.12 

II. Points of General Consensus 

1) The effects of suppressants can be variable with specific resin systems and 

specific suppressants. 

2) The SCAQMD Rule 1162 type "pie pan" test does not correlate well with 

actual laminate test results. 

3) There are distinct stages of emissions generation during the laminating 

process. 

a. Spray-up or flow chopping: 

Stage 1 - Spray or flow coater application of resin to mold surface. 

Stage 2 - Roll-out or mechanical manipulation of laminate surface. 

Stage 3 - Post roll-out curing stage 

b. Hand Lay-up (manual application): 

Stage 1 - Manual transfer of resin from container to mold surface. 

Stage 2 - Roll-out or mechanical manipulation of laminate surface. 

Stage 3 - Post roll-out curing stage 

4) The effect of suppression is negligible during the resin application 

portion of the process (i.e. during the spray transfer or manual transfer of 

resin to the mold surface). 

5) Suppressing action is effected by the roll-out, or mechanical manipulation, 

portion of the laminating process, when the laminate surface is being 

disturbed by FRP rollers, brushing, etc. 

6) Once the roll-out (mechanical manipulation) of the laminate is concluded 

the effects of suppressants become significant. 

III. Current Premise for Test Development 

1) Only emissions stages 2 and 3 need to be encompassed by the test method. 

2) Fiber reinforcement should be incorporated into the test sample to provide 

laminate surface effects. 

3) Mechanical roll-out is needed to encompass the stage 2 effects. 

II 
P.13 

4) Test method should be as simple as possible. 

5) Testing should be able to be duplicated and used on a broad scale. 

IV. Test Development Issues 

1) Determining weight loss by a gravimetric method is simple. 

* The use a lab balance as the primary measurement method would be 

appropriate, if repeatability can be established. 

2) Appropriate glass fiber reinforcement and resin to glass ratio must be 

selected. 

* 11/2 oz./ft2 Chopped Strand Mat (CSM) Fiberglass Reinforcement @ a ratio of 

25% glass to 75% resin by weight will be selected for initial trials. 

3) Test laminate size must be determined. 

* The test laminate size will be 12" x 12" for the initial trials. This size 

provides a convenient enclosure size and sample resin quantity. 

4) A method of distributing the resin across glass fiber reinforcement must be 

devised. 

* Initial trials will be carried out by manually pouring resin across the CSM 

surface. This method will be evaluated for repeatability. 

5) A method of controlling the action of the FRP roller may be required. 

* Initial trials will be carried out using manual rolling for a specified 

period of time. This method will be evaluated for repeatability. If 

repeatability cannot be established using this method, a mechanical rolling 

device will be devised. 

6) Length of test must be established. 

* Because this test is focused on stage 2 & 3 emissions, it is important that 

the test run be of duration that there is a reasonable certainty that styrene 

emissions have reached a baseline level. In the absence of the more complex 

requirements to establish a baseline, the following is proposed: 

- There is a relationship between gel time and overall cure time with a vast 

majority of resin and initiator systems. Therefore, using gel time multiplied 

by a factor can establish a period in which the laminate can be expected to 

have achieved baseline emissions. 

- It is proposed that the initial testing use the formula of gel time (min.) > 

6 to establish the test duration. 

- Using the examples of two common gel times of 15 and 30 minutes, the total 

test time would be 90 minutes and 180 minutes respectively. Previous testing 

has shown these times adequate for emissions to decline to baseline levels. 

13 
P.14 

7) Test procedure must be developed. 

* An initial test procedure is proposed in this draft. 

V. Initial Experimental Proposal 

1) Test Set-up: 

a. Test to be conducted in a temperature stable environment, at 770F ( 40F 

(250C (1.20C) 

b. The test is conducted in an enclosure of ( )" x ( )" x ( )" , which 

incorporates airflow of ( ) fpm through the enclosure. 

c. A shallow test pan ( )" x ( )" is positioned on a digital balance. 

d. Balance will be accurate within ( ( )g 

2) Required Equipment: 

a. Test enclosure w/ fan, baffles, NDO's, and doors 

b. Laboratory balance(s) 

c. Test Pan (dimensions to be specified) 

d. Constant temperature water bath 

e. Gel timer 

f. FRP roller, disposable (size & type to be specified) 

g. Plastic beakers - 200ml 

h. Glass stirring rods 

3) Required Materials 

a. 11/2 oz./ft2 Chopped Strand Mat (CSM) Fiberglass Reinforcement (12" x 12") 

b. Resin 

c. Initiator 

d. Suppressant additive 

4) Test Procedure: 

a. Stabilize resin sample temperature in water bath at 770F ( 40F (250C 

(1.20C) [*Tolerance TBD] 

b. Measure resin gel time with identical initiator percentage to be used in 

pan test [Use standard GT procedure] 

c. Establish length of pan test - Gel Time (min.) x 6 = Test Time Span 

[*appropriate multiplier TBD] 

d. Prepare test pan with release agent if required 

e. Place test pan on balance in enclosure 

f. Prepare CSM sample. 

1. Cut to 12" x 12" square 

2. Weigh sample (Target weight 42.5g (4.2g) [*acceptable tolerance TBD] 

g. Place CSM sample in test pan 

h. Place FRP roller on test pan 

i. Tare balance 

j. Measure 130g ( 2g resin into 200ml plastic beaker [*exact quantity & 

acceptable tolerance TBD] 

k. Measure appropriate quantity of initiator (and suppressant additive) into 

resin sample 

iH 
P.15 

1. Mix resin sample for 1 minute with glass stirring rod 

m. Remove stirring rod and set aside 

n. Start time 

o. Pour resin mixture into pan, distributing uniformly across CSM - set 

plastic beaker aside 

p. Record initial weight (Iw) - resin applied to laminate in pan 

q. Using the FRP roller, roll the laminate surface for 1 minute, using uniform 

strokes and speed [*time TBD] 

r. Place FRP roller in pan 

s. Close enclosure doors 

t. Stop time - Test Time Span (GT x 6 = TTS) 

u. Record final weight (Fw). 

v. Calculate weight loss and emissions percent 

a. Initial weight - Final weight = Styrene loss 

Iw - Fw = Sl 

Styrene loss / Initial weight x 100 = % Styrene emissions per resin weight 

Sl / Iw x 100 = % Styrene Emissions (RW) 

DRAFT - Development of Suppressant Effectiveness Test. 

15 
P.16 

/\ H& ekww ^tZ^ 

From: MADELEINE STRUM 

Xo: Internet."blacovara@aol.com" 

Date: 11/19/97 4:10pm 

Subject: comments on VSR test outline 

<WP Attachment Enclosed> 

Bob~ 

My comments are in bold. Candace Sorrell, the Emission Measurement Center 

lead for this test, has not gotten a chance to look at this yet. She may have 

more comments on the laboratory test procedures, repeatability issues, etc. 

Thanks for this early draft. 

Let me know if you'd rather do a conference call or meet in person on December 

2 and your preferred times. 

Madeleine 

CC: RTP 6.RTPEML.SORRELL-CANDACE 

16 
P.17 

A < 

DRAFT - WORK IN PROGRESS 

Proposal 

Date: 11/14/97 

From: Bob Lacovara - CFA 

To: MACT Summit Group 

Madeleine Strum - EPA 

Resin Suppliers 

Suppressant Suppliers 

Re: Development of Standard Styrene Suppressant Effectiveness Test 

I. Background 

Recent testing has documented the effectiveness and benefits of styrene suppressants in reducing 

emissions. However, it has been recognized that suppressant efficiency may be variable over the 

range of possible suppressant and resin system combinations. Because of the potential array of 

combinations, a standardized test method must be developed to document the performance of 

suppressants under specific conditions. 

During the course of the CFA Open Molding Test Project, attempts were made to correlate the 

California SCAQMD Rule 1162 "Pie Pan" test to the results of the large-scale emissions testing 

being conducted. It was found that the 1162 pie pan test exhibited little or no correlation to 

emissions developed in laminate samples. Therefore, it has been determined that a new test 

method is required to accurately determine the effectiveness of suppressant additives. 

This proposed test method incorporates a laminate and mechanical comment by M. Strum: 

maybe the word "manual" should be used instead since the roll-out is done by hand roll-out 

method to more closely approximate the conditions found in actual molding operations. 

17 
P.18 

This test is designed to be a direct comparison between a specific resin with and without a 

suppressant additive. It is not designed to determine actual emissions from the molding process. 

It is anticipated that the data generated from this test comment by M. Strum: add the words 

"will be entered into a model to estimate the performance of a particular suppressant/asapplied resin combination which will then be entered...." will be entered into the CFA 

emissions model as a suppressant modifier factor. This factor is part of a more comprehensive 

formula to determine overall process emissions comment by M. Strum delete "overall process 

emissions" and replace with "a MACT point-value system type model which reflects 

accurate emission reduction credits to the various emission reduction techniques which a 

facility could choose to meet MACT". 

II. Points of General Consensus 

1) The effects of suppressants can be variable with specific resin systems and specific 

suppressants. Comment by M. Strum: Add "For example, it has been demonstrated that 

suppressants are less effective when they are used with filled resins as compared to unfilled 

resins." 

2) The SCAQMD Rule 1162 type "pie pan" test does not correlate well with actual laminate test 

results. 

3) There are distinct stages of emissions generation during the laminating process. 

a. Spray-up or flow chopping: comment by M. Strum: may need to include pressure fed 

rolling and flow (non chopping) here since that is the way the industry proposed the 

process groupings to be. On the other hand, if we want to model flow chopping, versus 

flow non chop versus pressure fed roller differently, it would still be ok within the 

mechanical process grouping since I envision spray chopping would be different from flow 

chopping. May just want to change to "a. Mechanical application" 

Stage 1 - Spray or flow coater comment by M. Strum: "Mechanical" application of resin to 

mold surface. 

Stage 2 - Roll-out or mechanical manipulation of laminate surface. 

Stage 3 - Post roll-out curing stage 

b. Hand Lay-up (manual application):Comment: may not want to distinguish between manual 

(bucket and brush) and other non-spray mechanical means of application (such as flow 

coater, pressure fed roller, etc). 

Stage 1 - Manual transfer of resin from container to mold surface. 

ii 
P.19 

Stage 2 - Roll-out or mechanical manipulation of laminate surface. 

Stage 3 - Post roll-out curing stage 

Want to address filament winding here as well? 

I suggest this section be re-written to be kept very general, such that the three stages are: 

Stage 1 - Application of resin to mold surface. 

Stage 2 - Roll-out or mechanical manipulation of laminate surface. 

Stage 3 - Post roll-out curing stage 

Would these three stages address filament winding as well (I don't think so since resin is 

applied to filaments which are then applied to resin — would we want to combine these in 

defining application of resin to mold surface)? 

4) The effect of suppression is negligible during the resin application portion of the process (i.e. 

during the spray transfer or manual transfer of resin to the mold surface). 

5) Suppressing action is effected by the roll-out, or mechanical manipulation, portion of the 

laminating process, when the laminate surface is being disturbed by FRP rollers, brushing, etc. 

Comment: It is believed that there will be some effectiveness of the suppressant at this 

stage, but it may not be as great as the effectiveness in the curing stage. Note: the reason 

for assuming some effectiveness at the stage when the resin is being worked is that previous 

testing has shown a maximum overall suppressant effectiveness of 40% while only 25% of 

the total emissions were released during curing as indicated by emission profiles. Thus 

some of the emission reduction must also come from the other two stages. 

6) Once the roll-out (mechanical manipulation) of the laminate is concluded the effects of 

suppressants become significant. 

HI. Current Premise for Test Development 

1) Only emissions stages 2 and 3 need to be encompassed by the test method. 

Comment: Only emissions stages 2 and 3 will be encompassed by the laboratory part of the 

test method. A VSR effectiveness model will then use the laboratory test method results to 

provide the inputfor the MACT model. 

2) Fiber reinforcement should be incorporated into the test sample to provide laminate surface 

effects. 

M 
P.20 

3) Mechanical roll-out is needed to encompass the stage 2 effects. 

4) Test method should be as simple as possible. 

5) Testing should be able to be duplicated and used on a broad scale. 

Comment by M. Strum: Add: "If possible, the test method should be able to be conducted 

by resin manufacturers or suppressant manufacturers on the "as-applied" resins (may need 

definitionfof as-applied) so that these material suppliers (if asked by the composites 

manufacturer) could supply the data to the composite manufacturers. However, it is the 

composite manufacturers that are ultimately responsible for the result of the test. Would 

resin manufacturers be willing to do this on a gel time specific basis, since gel time is a very 

composite-manufacturer specific parameter? Would test method gel time be the cup gel 

time at a specific temperature or the actual gel time? It appears part of this test would 

require determination of the gel time of the resin so that the test would be specific for a 

specific gel time and results could only be used for that specific gel time tested. 

IV. Test Development Issues 

1) Determining weight loss by a gravimetric method is simple. 

* The use offa lab balance as the primary measurement method would be appropriate, if 

repeatability can be established. 

2) Appropriate glass fiber reinforcement and resin to glass ratio must be selected. 

* 11/2 oz./ft2 Chopped Strand Mat (CSM) Fiberglass Reinforcement @ a ratio of 25% glass to 

bJjjA •=—^l^olcsm^by weight will be selected for initial trials. Comment by M. Strum : could a few 

ratioTbe looked at and compared with this selection so that the effect of this parameter is 

known? 

3) Test laminate size must be determined. 

* The test laminate size will be 12" x 12" for the initial trials. This size provides a convenient 

enclosure size and sample resin quantity. 

Comment by M. Strum: The thickness of the laminate needs to be determined (the surface 

area of the laminate should not effect the effectiveness of the suppressant, but would it 

affect the repeatibility/accuracy?). 

4) A method of distributing the resin across glass fiber reinforcement must be devised. 

* Initial trials will be carried out by manually pouring resin across the CSM surface. This method 

will be evaluated for repeatabilityJfWe need to better define how the laminate sample is 

prepared. Are these following steps to prepare the laminate sample correct? (1) The 

' I/I!*/ 

lo 
P.21 

reinforcement is placed in the test pan, (2) a specified amount of resin is poured over the 

reinforcement, and (3) the resin is rolled out for a specified amount of time. 

5) A method of controlling the action of the FRP roller may be required. 

* Initial trials will be carried out using manual rolling for a specified period of time. This method 

will be evaluated for repeatability. If repeatability cannot be established using this method, a 

mechanical rolling device will be devised. 

6) Length of test must be established. 

* Because this test is focused on stage 2 & 3 emissions, it is important that the test run be of 

duration that there is a reasonable certainty that styrene emissions have reached a baseline level. 

In the absence of the more complex requirements to establish a baseline, the following is 

proposed: 

- There is a relationship between gel time and overall cure time with a vast majority of resin and 

initiator systems. Therefore, using gel time multiplied by a factor can establish a period in which 

the laminate can be expected to have achieved baseline emissions. 

- It is proposed that the initial testing use the formula of gel time (min.) x 6 to establish the test 

duration. 

- Using the examples of two common gel times of 15 and 30 minutes, the total test time would be 

90 minutes and 180 minutes respectively. Previous testing has shown these times adequate for 

emissions to decline to baseline levels. Comment by M. Strum: what about waiting for weight 

loss to achieve a constant value. Does a time need to be specified. 

7) Test procedure must be developed. 

* An initial test procedure is proposed in this draft. 

Comment by M. Strum. Should Suppressed and nonsuppressed resins be done at same \ , u 

time in same enclosure? If the samples are tested side by side, it needs to be assured that ^ JJ1". 

both samples are exposed to the same air flow in the enclosure. However, it would needs to Jy 

be assured that one sample does not affect the emissions released by the other sample. 

Should test include 3 sets of suppressed and non suppressed resins? ^ / 

V. Initial Experimental Proposal ^— -^f^P ) Vou) 

1) Test Set-up: 

a. Test to be conducted in a temperature stable environment, at\770p ( 40F (250C (1.20C) ^ 

Comment by M. Strum (need to delete degree sign since the translation of the email 

message made it impossible to read the temperature(s?) that are being proposed. 

Should a few temperatures be initially tried to see if there is an effect? If no effect we 

might be able to give a range of temperatures. If big effect we might need to work harder 

to come up with a realistic/representative/ best or worst case temperature. Is the 

z\ 
P.22 

temperature of the water bath in which the resin sample temperature is stabilized the same 

as the air temperature? 

b. The test is conducted in an enclosure of ( )" x ( )" x ( )", which incorporates airflow of 

( ) fpm through the enclosure. Comment by M. Strum: when enclosure is open, air flow is 

no longer a constant ( ) fpm through the enclosure. 

c. A shallow test pan ( )" x ( )" is positioned on a digital balance. Comment by M. Strum: 

do we need to specify depth of test pan as well as length and width? Do we need to specify 

the materials of the test pan as well (a too heavy a pan will give a large error due to small 

weight differences)? 

d. Balance will be accurate within ( ( )g 

2) Required Equipment: 

a. Test enclosure w/ fan, baffles, NDO's, and doors 

b. Laboratory balance(s) 

c. Test Pan (dimensions to be specified) 

d. Constant temperature water bath 

e. Gel timer 

f. FRP roller, disposable (size & type to be specified) 

g. Plastic beakers - 200ml 

h. Glass stirring rods 

3) Required Materials 

a. 11/2 oz./ft2 Chopped Strand Mat (CSM) Fiberglass Reinforcement (12" x 12") 

b. Resin .J^ *MA 

c. Initiator ^ K \ w ' y 

d. Suppressant additive (J"1 ^ ,h r* 

4) Test Procedure^/ . * ^ 

a. Stabilize resiniample temperature in water bath at 770F (40F (250C (1.20C) [*Tolerance 

TBD] 

b. MeasureTesin,gejJime-with identical-initiator percentagefb be used in panTe^tfiJse_standard 

GT piouedufe] 

c. EstablisTflengTh-of-pafHest-^ [*appropriate-multiplier K ^ 

^TBB] ^ ^_ — : 7 V^ 

d. Prepare test pan with release agent if required (Which (release agent is proposed for this 

test? Unless this release agent is typically used by all facilities during actual production, it 

should not be used during testing because it could affect emissions.) « Auh ^ i' ^ p 

e. Place test pan on balance in enclosure U ^ ^ - ^ r <y 

f. Prepare CSM sample. ~ \jj ^ f ]A^JL %6^ 

1. Cut to 12" x 12" square £ ^ ^ 

2. Weigh sample (Target weight 42.5g (4.2g) [*acceptable tolerance TBD] comment by M. 

Strum: don't understand parenthetical remark — must be an email transmission error. 

It 

a^ 
P.23 

g. Place CSM sample in test pan 

h. Place FRP roller on test pan 

I. Tare balance 

j . Measure430gX2g resin into 200ml plastic beaker [*exact quantity & acceptable tolerance 

TBD] Please explain this in more detail. Does this mean you measure 130g of resin with an 

acceptable measurement tolerance of 2 g? 

k. Measure appropriate quantity of initiator (and suppressant additive) into resin sample y, 

1. Mix resin sample for 1 minute with glass stirring rod » Jfud fn/^0 0^^ 

1

 <$J ^nfr ..,0s m. Remove stirring rod^and set aside ^____— —— / W\w' " V' » AC, L/^ " A 

n.Starttime^ ^V_rr-^"^~~'~ ^ ^° \^P 

, ~ ^ o. Pour resin mixture into panTa^strirjutrng^ CSM - set plastic beaker aside 

c\^ P-Record initial weight (Iw) - resin applied to laminate in pan (sample weight) ——z$ Ca^sb's '• /,/L,, 

^, ^JL q. Using the FRP roller, roll the laminate surface for 1 minute, using uniform strokes and speed ^vli ^ 

^ [*timeTBD] U\ cj\ | ^ ^ # *] ^' ^ , . . /a ^ 

r. Place FRP roller in pan-^^/ y p Uo< (n^l oj^W^J n^tyfrw^ 

s. Close enclosure doors comment by M. Strum: where are enclosure doors open? How to ^cccO oj 

make sure air flow is at constant/identical rate during rolling for different tests? £/ ?£^ 

t. Stop time - Test Time Span (GT x 6 = TTS) qu*A>'h 

u. Record final weight (Fw). f 

v. Calculate weight loss and emissions percent J t0 . , J ;. , . 

a. Initial weight - Final weight = Styrene loss t' 

Iw - Fw = Sl 

Styrene loss / Initial weight x 100 = % Styrene emissions per resin weight 

Sl / Iw x 100 = % Styrene Emissions (RW) 

Comment by M. Strum: results should be % reduction from non suppressed resin: 

{% Styrene Emissions (RW) of nonsuppressed - % Styrene Emissions (RW) of suppressed } 

divided by % Styrene Emissions (RW) of nonsuppressed 

DRAFT - Development of Suppressant Effectiveness Test. 

rb 
P.24 

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES 

Robert A Haberlein, Ph.D.. QEP 

robhab@erols.com 

/)!•/ttfhyru^f JIT 

TWO FISK CIRCLE 

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

(410) 268-7367 

(410) 267-8174 FAX 

Technical Memorandum 

November 25,. 1997 

EPA's Power Law Models; curve-fitting through the origin 

The OAQPS/PES proposes to fit the HAP emission models, derived for the reinforced 

plastics lamination processes, through the origin (Le., 0% HAP emissions at 0% HAP content) 

using a power law curve of the form Y = A XB. The following is a discussion of the technical 

advantages and disadvantages of this approach: 

Advantages: 

Simple approach 

This approach would treat a HAP monomers like a wood finish, where all the volatile 

HAP content is lost during drying. 

Avoids dealing with the extrapolation problem at low HAP contents 

All of the current EPA and CFA linear emission models become problematic at low 

monomer content levels, because the linear models show negative emission rates at low monomer 

contents. Forcing the emission model curves to pass through zero would avoid this inconsistency. 

Disadvantages: 

No factual basis 

There is no test data to support any conclusions regarding the emission rates for very low 

or very high HAP content resins. This applies to both the EPA and CFA models. 

EPA argues that the possible error caused by use of this approach will not be significant. 

However, how can any assertion regarding error be offered in the absence of data? Consider the 

significant differences between the linear and power law models. For example, the proposed EPA 

power model for mechanical application is: 

emissions (lb/ton) = 0.0011 x %styrene

: 3J041 

^k^ 
P.25 

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES TWO FISK CIRCLE 

Robert A Haberlein, Ph.D., QEP ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

EPA Power Law Model Technical Memorandum 

November 25,1997 

page 2 of 3 

and the proposed EPA linear model for mechanical application is: 

emissions (lb/ton) = 16.5714 x %styrene + 442.3750 

At 30% monomer content, the difference between the emission rate predicted by the two models 

is 84 lb/ton (power law) versus 55 lb/ton (linear), which is a 53% difference. 

"0% HAP emissions at 0% HAP content" is an illogical assumption 

A resin monomer is not like the vehicle contained in a wood finish. A significant portion 

of the monomer must react by crosslinking with the polyester resin chains to form the cured 

plastic product. By necessity, this portion of the monomer content must remain as part of the 

finished part. Resin chemists believe that a minimum monomer content of from 10 to 20% must 

be consumed during the cross linking reaction. This crosslinked monomer will never be emitted -

so this positive HAP content also corresponds to zero HAP emissions. 

EPA has apparently confused the concept of "lower bound" with the more appropriate 

concept of "the greatest lower bound." There are an infinite number of lower bounds, but only 

one greatest lower bound for each process. Indeed, while it may true that zero emissions will 

occur at zero HAP content, almost zero HAP emissions will also occur at some positive HAP 

content - perhaps 10 to 20% by weight. This content level is the true greatest lower bound, and is 

a more appropriate end point for any emission model. 

EPA argues that it may be possible for all of the monomer to escape, if the resin does not 

cure. This argument is misleading. The purpose of an emission model is to estimate HAP 

emissions from a real process - not hypothetical nor atypical situations. No facility will produce 

parts unless the resin cures. Hence, real world conditions require the monomer to crosslink. 

No resins are commercially available below 28% 

The monomer content of commercially available production resins is normally greater than 

33%, although a few speciality and experimental resins have monomer contents down to 28%. 

The lowest monomer content contained in the MACT database is 28%. Hence, the development 

of an emission model for monomers below 28% is not presently needed for the purposes of 

MACT development. 

2-5 
P.26 

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES 

Robert A Haberlein. Ph.D., QEP 

TWO FISK CIRCLE 

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

EPA Power Law Moa'el Technical Memorandum 

November 25,1997 

page 3 of 3 

EPA argues that their proposed model extrapolation to zero must be included in the 

MACT rule, because new lower monomer resins may be developed in the future below the 

present content levels. EPA believes this is necessary because the rule will be around for a long 

time and may difficult to change. However, this is better justification to not extrapolate the 

emission models at this time. Surely, an uncertain and potentially erroneous assumption should 

not be included in a rule that will be difficult to change. Instead, the rulemaking should note the 

lack of certainty beyond the available data, and should make provisions for the emission testing of 

new lower monomer resins.when these resins are developed. These test results could then be 

incorporated into an "equivalency determination" similar to a model prediction. 

The power law model predictions are physically impossible at higher HAP levels 

Forcing the emission curve to pass through the available data and zero results in a power 

law curve with positive curvature. This positive curvature causes the HAP emission rate to 

rapidly increase at higher monomer levels. This creates a physically impossible situation at higher 

HAP levels. For example, the proposed EPA power model for mechanical application is: 

emissions (lb/ton) = 0.0011 x %, 

3J041 

styrene 

Now consider a resin that contains 100% styrene - an unlikely, but possible scenario. All of the 

styrene would eventually evaporate resulting in 100% emissions, which is equivalent to a 2,000 

lb/ton emission rate. The proposed EPA power model results in a 4,462 lb/ton emission rate at 

100% styrene content. This is impossible, since one ton equals 2,000 pounds. In fact, the 

proposed power model for mechanical application would become imaginary at any monomer 

content greater than 71%, because the HAP emissions would exceed the total HAP content above 

that level. 

Conceals the extrapolation problem beyond the existing data 

By making an overly simplistic assumption, the underlying problem of extrapolation 

beyond the available data is concealed. A more accurate approach would be to acknowledge that 

the emission rate for very low and very high monomer content resins is presently uncertain. 

For Engineering Environmental, 

Robert A. Haberlein, PhTf., QEP 

to 
P.27 

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES 

Robert A Haberlein, PhD., QEP 

robhab@eroIs.com 

TWO FISK CIRCLE 

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

(410) 268-7367 

(410) 267-8174 FAX 

Technical Memorandum 

November 26,1997 

Summary of CFA Emission Models 

Manual Resin Application 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Vapor Suppressant Control Factor 

(%styrene > 28%) 

0.00286 x %styrene - 0.0529 

0.0004476 x %stvrene + 0.01289 

0.00286 x %styrene - 0.0529 

Mechanical Resin Application 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Vapor Suppressant Control Factor 

Controlled Spray Control Factor 

< or > 

Non-Atomizing Control Factor 

0.00714 x %styrene - 0.180 

0.62 

0.77 

0.51 

Filament Resin Application 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Controlled Spray Control Factor 

0.002746 x %styrene - 0.0298 

0.65 

Gelcoat Spray Application 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Controlled Spray Control Factor 

0.01036 x %styrene - 0.195 

0.73 

z-7 
P.28 

* ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES 

Robert A Haberlein. Ph.D.. QEP 

robhab@ero\s.com 

TWO FISK CIRCLE 

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

(410) 268-7367 

(410) 267-8174 FAX 

Technical Memorandum 

November 23,1997 

Piece-wise Linear/Power Law Model 

Pacific Environmental Services (the OAQPS ESD technical consultant), proposes to fit the 

styrene emission models, derived for the reinforced plastics lamination processes, through the 

origin (Le., 0% styrene emissions at 0% styrene content) using a power law curve fit of the form: 

Y = A*XB 

The CFA emission models currently use a linear curve fit of the form: 

Y= B*X + A 

The CFA has also suggested that the most prudent and defensible approach would be to truncate 

the linear model at the lower and upper bounds of the available test data. 

The OAQPS ESD (Madeleine Strum) believes that a fit through the origin must be a part 

of any emission model developed for the reinforced plastics MACT standard. The ESD believes 

this is necessary because new lower monomer resins may be developed in the future below the 

present content levels. Also, the rule will be around for a long time and may difficult to change. 

Without a fit through the origin, the ESD argues that the standard would be incomplete (with a 

truncated model) or could significantly overpredict the benefits of lower monomer contents in the 

future (extrapolation of the linear curve beyond the lowest bound of data). These are both valid 

arguments. 

However, the CFA recognizes several significant inconsistencies with the proposed power 

law model, particularly when applied to styrene emissions above and below the tested range of 

styrene contents. Please refer to the November 25,1997 EECS technical memorandum for a 

detailed discussion of the potential problems with a pure power law fit to the available data. 

Both the CFA and the OAQPS EMAD (Ron Ryan) agree that a consistent method should 

be used to estimate styrene emissions for both State EPA permitting and reporting purposes, and 

for MACT floor determinations and compliance purposes. Otherwise, serious inconsistencies 

could occur. For example, a linear emission model might show that a smaller facility emits less 

than 10 tpy of styrene, hence it would not be a major source subject to MACT. However, the 

power law model could predict HAP emissions greater than 10 tpy at lower styrene content 

levels. Hence, the initially "minor" source becomes a major source under the MACT modeL The 

opposite situation could occur for smaller facilities using higher monomer content resins. 

A piecewise emission model, described below, is one solution. 

v\ 
P.29 

7 ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES TWO FISK CIRCLE 

Robert A Haberlein, Ph.D.. QEP ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

Piecewise Model Technical Memorandum 

November 28,1997 

page 2 of 3 

A Piecewise Emission Model - a proposed compromise solution 

A piecewise power law/linear emission model could be developed that retains the best 

features of both the PES and CFA approaches. The piecewise model would use a power law 

approach below the lowest bound of tested styrene content levels (le., 33% for spray lay-up), and 

would use a linear fit approach above that lowest bound. The two curve pieces would be made 

functionally continuous (equal emission values at the linkage point), and could also have the same 

slopes at the linkage point (although the "equal slope" condition is not a necessity here). 

Using the PES equation as an example, a two-part piecewise emission model for 

mechanical application might appear as follows: 

below 33% styrene emissions (lb/ton) = 0.0011 x %6tyrena

350 

above 33% styrene emissions (lb/ton) = 16.6 x %6t;/r8n8 - 442 

Note that some slight adjustment in the model coefficients may be needed to smooth the two 

equation values at the linkage point. 

Indeed, the piecewise model does not really require much of a compromise in either the 

ESD or the CFA positions. Based upon the scientific merits, the CFA already believes the 

emission models should be truncated to the left of the available data. Based upon EPA policy, the 

ESD believes the form of the leftmost extrapolation of the model should be a power law curve 

through the origin. The two positions are not fundamentally different. 

Advantages to a Piecewise Model: 

Not overly complicated 

The expression of an emission model in two parts is not overly complicated. Most of the 

sources will probably use the simpler linear part, until newer low styrene resins become 

commercially available. 

24 
P.30 

i ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES TWO FISK CIRCLE 

Robert A Haberlein, Ph.D., QEP ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

Piecewise Model Technical Memorandum 

November 28,1997 

page 3 of3 

Deals with the linear extrapolation problem at lower HAP contents 

All of the purely linear emission models become problematic at low styrene content levels, 

because the linear models show negative emission rates at low styrene contents. By forcing the 

emission model to assume a power law curve below the lower bound of test data as a matter of 

policy, the EPA would avoid this inconsistency. 

Does NOT conceals the extrapolation problem beyond the existing data 

Instead of concealing the underlying problem of extrapolation beyond the available data, 

the piecewise model recognizes the problem of accurately predicting emissions for very low and 

very high styrene content resins, and clearly provides a policy decision in the absence of real data. 

Clearly separates the "factual" and "policy" parts of the model 

As discussed earlier, there is no test data to support any conclusions regarding the 

emission rates for very low or very high HAP content resins. This applies to both the EPA and 

CFA models. A piecewise model would consist of two, clearly separate parts - a factual part 

based upon the data and a policy part outside the available data. 

Avoids the fallacy caused by the power law curve at higher HAP levels 

As discussed in the earlier memorandum, the power law curve causes the styrene emission 

rate to rapidly increase at higher styrene levels. This creates a physically impossible situation of 

more than 100% emissions at higher styrene levels (above 70% styrene content for the mechanical 

model). With the piecewise model, the linear piece to the right would prevent this fallacy from 

occurring. 

The technical merit of"0% HAP emissions at 0% HAP content" is no longer an issue 

The technical merit of an EPA policy decision is not a pertinent issue. 

For Engineering Environmental, 

Robert A. Haberlein, Ph.D., QEP 

10 
P.31 

.*1 

fc /frty^tfir/n/rtfyE 

Emission Models for Reinforced Plastics 

presented to 

Mr. Ron Ryan 

EPA-EMAD 

by 

Robert A. Haberlein, Ph.D., QEP 

Engineering Environmental 

November 26,1997 

Topics: 

CFA emission models and latest revisions 

NMMA test results 

RTI test results 

PES "super set" emission data and linear models 

PES "power law" models 

31 
P.32 

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES 

Robert A Haberlein, Ph.D., QEP 

robhab@erols. com 

Technical Memorandum 

November 26,1997 

TWO FISK CIRCLE 

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

(410) 268-7367 

(410) 267-8174 FAX 

Summary of CFA Emission Models 

Manual Resin Application 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Vapor Suppressant Control Factor 

(%styrene > 28%) 

0.00286 x %styrene - 0.0529 

0.0004476 x %stvrene + 0.01289 

0.00286 x %styrene - 0.0529 

Mechanical Resin Application 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Vapor Suppressant Control Factor 

Controlled Spray Control Factor 

<or> 

Non-Atomizing Control Factor 

0.00714 x %styrene - 0.180 

0.62 

0.77 

0.51 

Filament Resin Application 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Controlled Spray Control Factor 

0.002746 x %styrene - 0.0298 

0.65 

Gelcoat Spray AppUcation 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Controlled Spray Control Factor 

0.01036 x %styrene - 0.195 

0.73 

31 
CFA Emission Models 

November 21,1997 Revision 

40% 

VP 

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

CFA Hand 

-&-

CFA Spray 

CFAFW 

CFA Gelcoat 

50% 
MACT MATRIX 

APPLICATION 

METHOD 

Current New 

Monomer Monomer Monomer 

Content Content Factor 

(%) (%) (%) 

November 26,1997 

Vapor Controlled Non-Atom Add-on %of Current 

Suppressant Spraying Equipment Control Add-on Emission 

Factor Factor or Factor Factor Control Factor 

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (lb/ton) 

Manual Resin 44.0% 38,0% 76.5% H I 100% fl&v ' 95% 

j^.wjrt.v-.-rt-.-.-.YJr nv^« W 

Gelcoat Spray 44.0% 40.0% 84.1% ^ifci^ y 73% 

Filament Resin 44.0% 44.0% 100.0% HI 100% ^ra!^^^a^^^^^^*^ 

0% 131 

Mechanical Resin 44.0% 42.0% 89.4% H i 100% H I 77% i| | 100% 95% 0% 254 

95% 0% 522 

95% 0% 

New New 

Emission Emission 

Factor Factor 

(lb/ton) (% resin) 

100 5.0% 

175 8.7% 

320 16.0% 

131 | 131 6.6% I 
P.35 

Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Addendum to the 

Derivation and Verification of the CFA Emission Models 

October 8,1997 

Robert A. Haberlein, Ph.D., QEP 

Following EPA's initial technical review, a correction has been made to the CFA Hand 

Model. Four of the thirty test data points used to derive the original Hand Model included the 

effect of vapor suppressant. These four data points are now excluded and a new regression is 

performed. The revised regression analysis is shown in Table A-l. Note that this new regression 

is a much better fit than the original regression (r2 = 0.503 versus 0.282). Based upon the new 

regression analysis, the new equation for hand lay-up emissions (expressed as a percentage of 

resin weight) is: 

Styrene emissions (% of resin wt.) = 0.00286 x % styrene - 0.0529 

As revealed on the next page, expressing styrene emissions as a function of resin weight is a much 

better fit than expressing emissions as a function of available styrene. 

The new equation replaces Equation 2 in the original report, and should substituted where 

appropriate throughout both reports. The new Hand Model is compared to the corresponding 

EPA Emission Equation in Figure A-l, and a revised plot of all the CFA Models, including the 

new Hand Model is provided in Figure A-2. Note how closely the new Hand Model matches 

both the EPA Equation and the "non-atomized" Mechanical Application curve. 

Based upon this new model and the original styrene monomer content of 40% listed in the 

Open Molding database, the new Manual Application floor value is 76 lb/ton. The new floor 

value for Manual Application and the new Hand Model have a negligible impact upon the baseline 

and emission reduction calculations for the Open Molding database. 

A-l 

35 
P.36 

Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Table A-l Revised Hand Lay-up Regression 

No. ID (in.) (%) 

1 100295B 0.041 35 

2 100295C 0.088 42 

aA 092095A 0.041 42 

3B 092695B 0.041 42 

4A 100395A 0.088 35 

4B 092695C 0.088 35 

5 092595A 0.041 42 

6 092695A 0.088 35 

7 092795A 0.041 35 

8 092795B 0.088 42 

9 092795C 0.041 35 

10 092895A 0.088 42 

11A 092895B 0.041 42 

11B 092995C 0.041 42 

12A 092895C 0.088 35 

12B 100295A 0.088 35 

13 092995A 0.088 35 

14 092995B 0.041 42 

15 091995A 0.041 35 

16 091995B 0.088 42 

052996B 0.176 44.4 

080196A 0.120 44.4 

060596A 0.088 33.2 

052996A 0.088 44.4 

053096B 0.088 44.4 

060396B 0.088 48.8 

•; " 0$O49«B 0M$ & * 

r \ > 9805968 * &8&t « ^ 

1

 " s O53096A; aofca * s M:4 S 

s , * nso496A ojas?

 s4&a> 

Regression Outpu (% resin] 

Constanl -0.05292 

StdErrofYEst 0.01278 

R Squared 0.50343 

No. of Observatioi 26 

Degrees of Freedom 24 

X Coefficient(s) 0.00286 

Std Err of Coef. 0.00058 

The shaded values are excluded from the 

(min.) (fpm) (%) (% resin wt)(% styrene) 

30 100 0 

15 50 0 

15 50 0 

15 50 0 

30 100 0 

30 100 0 

30 50 0 

15 100 0 

15 100 0 

30 50 0 

15 50 0 

30 100 0 

30 100 0 

30 100 0 

15 50 0 

15 50 0 

30 50 0 

15 100 0 

30 50 0 

15 100 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

* wr\ *

 - ' * ^ .JMO 

5

 ^ Vt „

 % 

W A s . rtv. "..ss s% ^ •• s w f sss ssvw ss>sss 

6.2% 

4.9% 

7.2% 

7.6% 

4.2% 

4.6% 

8.1% 

3.6% 

5.3% 

5.7% 

5.0% 

6.0% 

8.9% 

8.9% 

3.4% 

3.6% 

4.2% 

7.1% 

6.3% 

4.9% 

7.2% 

4.9% 

4.6% 

6.6% 

8.4% 

9.3% 

&$% 

$3% 

*&i+-

\&6% * 

17.7% 

11.7% 

16.7% 

17.7% 

11.7% 

13.1% 

19.2% 

10.1% 

14.7% 

13.5% 

14.0% 

14.3% 

21.2% 

21.0% 

9.6% 

10.1% 

11.9% 

17.1% 

17.6% 

11.5% 

16.1% 

11.0% 

13.8% 

15.0% 

18.8% 

19.0% 

' 8x7% -

* fc1*'5 

7U9U 

SSSS \f VAVWWW 

Regression Outpu (% styrene) 

Constanl 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observatioi 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coeff icient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

new regression analysis 

A-2 

36 

0.00353 

0.00143 

0.00941 

0.03144 

0.20351 

26 

24 

t 

-
Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Figure A-l Comparison of Revised CFA Hand Model to EPA Hand Equation 

10% 

9% 

Ol 

^ 

resin) 

^5 

O 

n Fac missio 

UJ 

8% 

7% 

6% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

28% 30 

Hand Lay-up 

Emission Factor versus Styrene Content 

EPA hand 

CFA hand 

% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% 42% 44% 46% 481 

Styrene Content (% wt) 

) % 

A-3 
oo 

Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

35% 

30% 

Figure A-2 CFA Emission Models widi Revised Hand Model 

CFA Emission Models 

Emission Factor vs Styrene Content 

^ 25% 

c 

"co CD 

S - 20% 

o 

t5 

re 

LJL 

c 

o 

'co 

to 

"E 

UJ 

15% 

10% 

Hand 

Non-Spray 

Spray 

Gelcoat 

—3fj— 

FWind 

28% 30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% 42% 44% 46% 48% 50% 

Styrene Content (% wt) 

A-4 
P.39 

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES 

Robert A Haberlein, Ph.D. 

robhab@erols.com 

TWO FISK CIRCLE 

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

(410) 268-7367 

(410) 267-8174 FAX 

Revised CFA Spray Model 

November 20,1997 

Run 

No. 

1 

2 

3A 

3B 

4A 

4B 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11A 

11B 

12A 

12B 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1 (&10) 

lg female 

Ig male 

thick lam 

Ig female 

Constant 

Data 

ID 

111595B 

111695A 

111695B 

113095A 

112895A 

112995B 

112895B 

112995A 

120495A 

120595B 

120695A 

120695B 

120795A 

121195B 

120895A 

121295A 

120895B 

121495B 

121295B 

121495A 

022296A 

092596B 

101796B 

061296B 

092696A 

120595A 

Laminate 

Thickness 

(in.) 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.040 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.187 

0.080 

Regression Output: 

StdErrofYEst 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

Styrene 

Content 

(%) 

35 

42 

42 

42 

35 

35 

42 

35 

35 

42 

35 

42 

42 

42 

35 

35 

35 

42 

35 

42 

42 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

-0.180228 

0.018177 

0.714468 

26 

24 

0.007138 

0.000921 

Gel 

Time 

(min.) 

30 

15 

15 

15 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

30 

15 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

30 

15 

30 

15 

30 

Resin 

Flow 

(Ib/min) 

4 

2 

2 

2 

4 

4 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

4 

2 

4 

4 

Air 

Flow 

(fpm) 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

100 

100 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

100 

50 

100 

100 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

6.6% 

13.9% 

13.0% 

14.2% 

6.7% 

6.9% 

15.0% 

6.4% 

8.2% 

16.0% 

8.0% 

9.4% 

12.1% 

12.8% 

6.3% 

5.6% 

6.5% 

10.4% 

7.2% 

10.7% 

9.1% 

12.1% 

13.4% 

10.6% 

12.5% 

16.0% 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

18.8% 

33.1% 

31.0% 

33.9% 

19.0% 

19.6% 

35.8% 

18.2% 

23.3% 

38.0% 

22.9% 

22.4% 

28.7% 

30.4% 

18.1% 

16.1% 

18.6% 

24.8% 

20.6% 

25.4% 

21.7% 

27.3% 

30.2% 

23.9% 

Emission Factor (%resin) = 0.714 x %styrene - 0.180 

5? 
Revised CFA Spray Model 

November 20,1997 

20% 

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

A 

CFA Spray Data 

CFA Spray Model 

50% 
20% 

% 15% 

CO 

CD 

•: 10% 

CO 

.2 5% 

oo 

_ 

•10% 

20% 

CFA Spray Model with 95% Limits 

November 21,1997 

25% 30% 35% 40% 

Styrene Content 

Lower 95% 

Mean 

Upper 95% 

X 

Data 

45% 50% 
NMMA Emission Factor Data 

P.42 

GELCOAT 

8 Test Runs -

Test 

Run 

, .* # 

NMMA-6-P 

NMMA-6-2 

NMMA-6-1 

NMMA-3-2 

NMMA-3-1 

NMMA-8-1 

NMMA-8-2 

NMMA-11-1G 

One HAP Content 

Test Run 

Description 

Material/MoW Size 

Gelcoat • 18 Deck 

Gelcoat-18 Deck 

Gelcoat-18 Deck 

Gelcoat-18 Hull 

Gelcoat-18 Hull 

Gelcoat - 28 Hull 

Gelcoat • 28 Hull 

Gelcoat - CFA 

Control 

Method 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

Styrene 

Content 

Ib/ib 

32.0% 

32.0% 

32.0% 

32.0% 

32.0% 

32.0% 

32.0% 

32.0% 

MMA 

Content 

ib/ib 

5.0% 

5.0% 

5.0% 

5.0% 

5.0% 

5.0% 

5.0% 

5.0% 

Method 25A 

HAP 

Emission 

Factor 

%HAP 

47.0% 

45.2% 

42.3% 

54.2% 

42.6% 

53.6% 

52.9% 

43.4% 

Method 18 

HAP 

Emission 

Factor 

%HAP 

54.1% 

46.4% 

43.1% 

53.5% 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

39.0% 

Method 25A/18 

Average HAP 

Emission 

Factor 

Group 

Average 

Emission 

Factor 

% resin/gel wt :: 

18.7% 

16.9% 

15.8% 

19.9% 

15.8% 

19.8% 

19.6% 

15.2% 

18.1% I 

15.2% 

FLOWCOATING 

8 Test Pairs - 2 HAP Contents 

Test 

Run 

NMMA-14-1 

NMMA-14-2 

NMMA-4-1 

NMMA-4-2 

NMMA-16-1 

NMMA-16-2 

NMMA-5-1 

NMMA-5-2 

NMMA-13-1 

NMMA-13-2 

NMMA-1-1 

NMMA-1-2 

Test Run 

Description 

Material/Mo« Size 

Resin -18 Deck 

Resin-18 Deck 

Resin-18 Deck 

Resin -18 Deck 

Resin-18 Deck 

Resin-18 Deck 

Resin-18 Deck 

Resin-18 Deck 

Resin -18 Hull 

Resin -18 Hull 

Resin -18 Hull 

Resin -18 Hull 

NMMA-15-1 Resin-18 Hull 

NMMA-15-2 Resin-18 Hull 

NMMA-2-1 Resin -18 Hull 

NMMA-2-2 Resin-18 Hull 

Control Styrene MMA 

Method Content Content 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Flowcoat 35.1% 

Flowcoat 35.1% 

no 35.1% 

no 35.1% 

Flowcoat 42.2% 0 

Flowcoat 42.2% 0 

no 42.2% 0 

no 42.2% 0 

Flowcoat 35.1% 0 

Flowcoat 35.1% 0 

no 35.1% 0 

no 35.1% 0 

Flowcoat 42.2% 0 

Flowcoat 42.2% 0 

no 42.2% 0 

no 42.2% 0 

Method 25A 

HAP 

Emission 

Factor 

%HAP 

11.1% 

12.1% 

11.9% 

16.1% 

12.2% 

14.0% 

20.4% 

20.8% 

10.5% 

10.5% 

15.3% 

13.9% 

11.6% 

10.6% 

22.3% 

18.2% 

Method 18 

HAP 

Emission 

Factor 

/%«***" ' 

10.4% 

11.1% 

n/a 

16.1% 

12.0% 

14.4% 

14.1% 

22.4% 

11.0% 

10.9% 

n/a 

13.2% 

11.7% 

10.8% 

24.1% 

14.2% 

Method 25A/18 Group 

Average HAP Flowcoat 

Emission Emission 

Factor Factor 

3.8% 

4.1% 

4.2% 

5.7% 

5.1% 

6.0% 

7.3% 

9.1% 

3.8% 

3.8% 

5.4% 

4.8% 

4.9% 

4.5% 

9.8% 

6.8% 

80% I 

68% I 

74%| 

57%l 

Overall Average Flowcoat Emission Factor: 70% 

4^-
P.43 

NMMA Emission Factor Data, continued 

SPRAY LAY-UP 

17 Test RunsTest 

Run 

, #. . 

NMMA-4-1 

NMMA-4-2 

NMMA-1-1 

NMMA-1-2 

NMMA-7-1 

NMMA-7-2 

NMMA-5-1 

NMMA-5-2 

NMMA-2-1 

NMMA-2-2 

NMMA-9-1 

NMMA-9-2 

NMMA-11-1R 

NMMA-11-2R 

NMMA-11-3R 

NMMA-12-1 

NMMA-12-2 

2 HAP Contents 

Test Run 

Description 

Material/MotrJ Size 

Resin-18 Deck 

Resin-18 Deck 

Resin-18 Hull 

Resin-18 Hull 

Resin - 28 Hull 

Resin - 28 Hull 

Resin-18 Deck 

Resin-18 Deck 

Resin -18 Hull 

Resin -18 Hull 

Resin - 28 Hull 

Resin - 28 Hull 

Resin - CFA 

Resin - CFA 

Resin - CFA 

Resin - CFA 

Resin - CFA 

Control 

Method 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no 

no . 

Styrene 

Content 

fc/Jb 

35.1% 

35.1% 

35.1% 

35.1% 

35.1% 

35.1% 

42.2% 

42.2% 

42.2% 

42.2% 

42.2% 

42.2% 

35.1% 

35.1% 

35.1% 

42.2% 

42.2% 

MMA 

Content 

lb/lb 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Method 25A 

HAP 

Emission 

Factor 

%HAP 

11.9% 

16.1% 

15.3% 

13.9% 

15.7% 

18.8% 

20.4% 

20.8% 

22.3% 

18.2% 

22.8% 

23.0% 

29.8% 

28.8% 

52.0% 

54.6% 

39.2% 

Method 18 

HAP 

Emission 

Factor 

%HAF 

n/a 

16.1% 

n/a 

13.2% 

18.2% 

18.4% 

14.1% 

22.4% 

24.1% 

14.2% 

25.5% 

23.5% 

37.1% 

26.8% 

44.8% 

44.8% 

38.2% 

Method 25A/18 

Average HAP 

Emission 

Factor 

Group 

Average 

Emission 

Factor 

% resin/gel wt 

4.2% 

5.7% 

5.4% 

4.8% 

5.9% 

6.5% 

7.3% 

9.1% 

9.8% 

6.8% 

10.2% 

9.8% 

11.7% 

9.8% 

17.0% 

21.0% 

16.3% 

5.4% I 

8.8% I 

12.8% I 

18.7%| 

| 

•*3 
* 

The summary of results for the NMMA Emission Study are compared to the CFA Emission 

Models for spray lay-up and gelcoat spray, with the following conclusions: 

A more conservative factor of 18.1% versus CFA's 13.7% for the spray application of 

32% styrene content gelcoat. The larger emission factor is probably caused by the 

additional VOC emissions from the 5% MMA content in the NMMA's gelcoat 

Close agreement with the average emission factors for the spray lay-up application of 

resin to both large boat molds and the smaller CFA mold (an average 9.1% versus 7.7% 

for 35.1% monomer, and an average 13.8% versus 11.7% for 42.2% monomer). 

The emission factors for the spray lay-up application of resin to the standard CFA mold 

were 12.8% versus CFA's 7.7% for 35.1% monomer, and 18.7% versus CFA's 11.7% for 

42.2% monomer. The emission factors for the spray lay-up application of resin to the 

larger boat molds were 5.4% versus CFA's 7.7% for 35.1% monomer, and 8.8% versus 

CFA's 11.7% for 42.2% monomer 

A less generous average 70% versus CFA's 51% reduced emission factor for nonatomizing flowcoater application of resin. 
RTI Emission Test Data 

P.45 

Emission Results, Sept 1995 draft - pages 36 & 44 

55 Test Runs 

Description 

GELCOAT 

Regular 

Low-VOC 

RESIN 

Low-profile (normal spray) 

Low-profile (controlled spray) 

Low-styrene 

Styrene-suppressed 

Styrene-suppressed + wax 

Neat BPO 

BPO + thickener 

Test 

Runs 

9 

9 

2 

5 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

Resin 

Formula 

GF-1 

GF-2 

RF-1 

RF-1 

RF-2 

RF-3 sup 

RF-6 sup 

RF-4 BPO 

RF-4 BPO 

Styrene 

Content 

Mb 

38.7% 

25.4% 

38.3% 

38.3% 

35.3% 

43.5% 

43.3% 

42.6% 

42.6% 

Styrene 

Emission 

Factor 

% styrene 

56.0% 

54.2% 

27.1% 

17.5% 

17.3% 

10.6% 

10.6% 

26.2% 

21.3% 

Styrene 

Emission 

Factor 

% pestnigel 

21.7% 

13.8% 

10.4% 

6.7% 

6.1% 

4.6% 

4.6% 

11.2% 

9.1% 

REDUCED EMISSION FACTORS 

Sept 1995 draft - page 60 

emissions expressed in g/m2 

Description 

Baseline - Normal Spray 

Controlled Spray 

Flowcoater 

Pressure-fed Roller 

Suppressed Resin (w and w/o wax) 

Lower Monomer 

Styrene 

Content 

Ib/ib 

38.3% 

35.3% 

Emission 

Reduction 

% 

0.0% 

29.9% 

52.0% 

53.0% 

38.0% 

11.0% 

Reduced 

Emission 

Factor 

% 

100.0% 

70.1% 

48.0% 

47.0% 

62.0% 

89.0% 

f5 
The summary of results for the EPA/RTI Emission Study are compared to the CFA Emission 

Models,for spray lay-up and gelcoat spray, with the following conclusions: 

Near-perfect agreement with the emission factor for spray application of gelcoat (21.7% 

versus CFA's factor of 20.2% for 38.7% styrene content gelcoat). 

Close agreement with the uncontrolled emission factor for spray lay-up application of resin 

(a more conservative 10.4% versus CFA's factor of 9.5% for 38.3% monomer). 

^ Near-perfect agreement (a more generous 48% versus CFA's factor of 51%) with the 

reduced emission factor for non-atomizing application of resin (Le., pressure-fed rollers 

and flowcoaters). 

Perfect agreement (62.0% versus CFA's factor of 62%) with the reduced emission factor 

for spray application of vapor-suppressed resin. 

Close agreement (a more generous 70% versus CFA's factor of 77%) with the reduced 

emission factor for controlled spray application of resin. 

Overall, the results of the EPA/RTI Study strongly verify the accuracy of the CFA Emission 

Models. 
P.47 

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES 

Eight Data Sources used by the EPA 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Dow Chemical 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI/NMMA 

plus EPA insists upon: 

Lower Bound h emissions at 0% HAP content 

Upper Bound 100% emissions at 100% HAP content 

4? 
P.48 

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES 

EPA's Ten "Super" Data Sets 

Manual BEF -

Manual VS 

Mech.BEFMech.VSMech. NonA -

Mech. CS 

Fila.BEFFila. VS -

Gel Coat BEF 

Gel Coat CS -

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Manual Resin 

Application Bucket and Brush 

6 CFAPhasel 

20 CFA Phase II 

... for Manual Resin Application with Vapor Suppression 

4 CFAPhasefl 

... for Mechanical Resin Application 

20 CFAPhasel 7 CFAPhaseH 

3 NMMA 2 RTI Unfilled 

... for Mechanical Resin Application with Vapor Suppression 

20 CFA Phase H 4 CFA Filled 

12 NMMA 12 RTI Unfilled 

3 RTI Filled 22 RTI/NMMA 

... for Mechanical Resin Application with Non-Atomized Application 

3 CFAPhaseH 8 NMMA 

6 RTI Unfilled 11 RTI/NMMA 

... for Mechanical Resin Application with Controlled Spray 

18 CFA Phase D 4 CFA Filled 

12 NMMA 12 RTI Unfilled 

4 RTI Filled 22 RTI/NMMA 

... for Filament Winding 

10 Dow Chemical 

... for Filament Winding with Vapor Suppression 

10 Dow Chemical 

for Gel Coat Application 

21 CFAPhasel 

7 RTI Unfilled 

CFAPhaseH 

for Gel Coat Application with Controlled Spraying 

5 CFAPhaseH 5 NMMA 

24 RTI Unfilled 7 RTI/NMMA 

4-9 
P.49 

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES 

KSKSSSiSSaSBBSSS 

Manual BEFEPA's Ten "Super" Data Sets Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Manual Resin 

Application Bucket and Brush 

6 CFAPhasel 

20 CFAPhaseH 

Manual VS - for Manual Resin Application with Vapor Suppression 

4 CFAPhaseH 

Mech. BEF - for Mechanical Resin Application 

20 CFAPhasel 7 CFAPhaseH 

3 NMMA 2 RTI Unfilled 

Mech.VS- for Mechanical Resin Application with Vapor Suppression 

20 CFAPhaseH 4 CFA Filled 

12 NMMA 12 RTI Unfilled 

3 RTI Filled 22 RTI/NMMA 

Mech. NonA 

Mech. CS 

for Mechanical Resin Application with Non-Atomized Application 

3 CFAPhaseH 8 NMMA 

6 RTI Unfilled 11 RTI/NMMA 

for Mechanical Resin Application with Controlled Spray 

18 CFAPhaseH 4 CFA Filled 

12 NMMA 12 RTI Unfilled 

4 RTI Filled 22 RTI/NMMA 

Fila.BEFFila. VS -

Gel Coat BEF 

for Filament Winding 

10 Dow Chemical 

for Filament Winding with Vapor Suppression 

10 Dow Chemical 

for Gel Coat Application 

21 CFAPhasel 

7 RTI Unfilled 

CFAPhaseH 

Gel Coat CS for Gel Coat Application with Controlled Spraying 

5 CFAPhaseH 5 NMMA 

24 RTI Unfilled 7 RTI/NMMA 

W 
P.50 

ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSULTING SERVICES 

Robert A Haberlein. Ph.D. 

robhab@erols.com 

TWO FISK CIRCLE 

ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401 

(410) 268-7367 

(410) 267-8174 FAX 

PES Model Data points R2 PES Regression Equations 

Manual BEF 

Manual VS 

Mech BEF 

Mech VS 

Mech NonA 

Mech CS 

Fila BEF 

FilaVS 

Gelcoat BEF 

Gelcoat CS 

26 

4 

32 

6 

27 

73 

10 

10 

31 

41 

0.504 

0.847 

0.401 

0.288 

0.418 

0.370 

0.737 

0.176 

0.552 

0.354 

0.2856 X%styrene 

0.04476 X%styrene 

0.6767 X%styrene 

0.1747 X%styrene • 

0.1808 X%styrene 

0.3790 X%styrene 

0.2761 X%styrene 

0.0480 X%styrene 

1.3278 X%styrene 

0.4371 X%styrene 

- 0.05283 

+ 0.01289 

- 0.1557 

• 0.004636 

- 0.0234 

- 0.07161 

- 0.03037 

+ 0.02716 

- 0.2968 

+ 0.02647 

XO 
P.51 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Manual Resin Application 

Data Legend 

Run No, 

Assumed 

12A 

6 

12B 

4A 

13 

4B 

9 

• 7 

1 

15 

2 

16 

8 

10 

14 

3A 

3B 

5 

11A 

11B 

Assumed 

Constant 

StdErrofYEst 

R Squared 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Data ID 

Assumed 

060596A 

092895C 

092695A 

100295A 

100395A 

092995A 

092695A 

092795C 

092795A 

100295B 

091995A 

100295C 

091995B 

092795B 

092895A 

092995B 

092095A 

092695B 

092595A 

092895B 

092995C 

080196A 

052996A 

052996B 

053096B 

060396B 

Assumed 

, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Monomer 

Content 

(% Styrene) 

fi 

33.2 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

48.8 

100.0 

Regression Output: 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.00286 

0.00058 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI/NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0.0% 

4.6% 

3.4% 

3.6% 

3.6% 

4.2% 

4.2% 

4.6% 

5.0% 

5.3% 

6.2% 

6.3% 

4.9% 

4.9% 

5.7% 

6.0% 

7.1% 

7.2% 

7.6% 

8.1% 

8.9% 

8.9% 

4.9% 

6.6% 

7.2% 

8.4% 

9.3% 

100.0% 

-0.05283 

0.01278 

0.50351 

26 

24 

- Bucket & Brush 

. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0,0% 

13.8% 

9.6% 

10.1% 

10.1% 

11.7% 

11.9% 

13.1% 

14.0% 

14.7% 

17.7% 

17.6% 

11.7% 

11.5% 

13.5% 

14.3% 

17.1% 

16.7% 

17.7% 

19.2% 

21.2% 

21.0% 

11.0% 

15.0% 

16.1% 

18.8% 

19.0% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

s\ 
P.52 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Manual Resin with Vapor Suppression 

Data Legend Lower Bound . 

CFAPhasel 1 

CFAPhaseH 2 

CFA Filled 3 

NMMA 4 

Upper Bound . 

RTI Unfilled 5 

RTI Filled 6 

RTI/NMMA 7 

DOW Chemical 8 

Run No. 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Data ID 

Assumed 

060496B 

060596B 

050396A 

060496A 

Assumed 

Monomer 

Content 

(% Styrene) 

0. 

33.2 

33.2 

44.4 

48.8 

100.0 

Regression Output: 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.00044758 

0.00013443 

Suppressant 

Level 

(% Resin) 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

0.01289156627 

0.00184932306 

0.84715102692 

4 

2 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0,0% 

2.9% 

2.7% 

3.1% 

3.6% 

100.0% 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0.0% 

8.7% 

8.1% 

7.0% 

7.4% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

2 

5A 
P.53 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Mechanical Resin Application 

Data Legend 

Run No, 

Assumed 

12B 

12A 

6 

13 

1 

4A 

4B 

15 

9 

7 

11-3 

RF1-EXP 

R10 

1 (& 10) 

10 

14 

16 

11A 

11B 

3A 

2 

3B 

5 

8 

12-2 

12-1 

Ig female 

Ig female 

Ig male 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Date ID 

Assumed 

081296B 

080896A 

080896B 

121295A 

120895A 

112995A 

120895B 

111595B 

112895A 

112995B 

121295B 

120695A 

120495A 

022296A 

120695B 

121495B 

121495B 

120795A 

121195B 

111695B 

111695A 

113095A 

112895B 

120595B 

092596B 

092596A 

101796B 

Assumed 

, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Monomer 

Content 

(% Styrene) 

0. 

33.8 

33.8 

33.8 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35.1 

38.33 

38.33 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42.2 

42.2 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

100.0 

Regression Output: 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.00677 

0.00151 

Upper Bound . 

RTI Unfilled 5 

RTI Filled 6 

RTI/NMMA 7 

DOW Chemical 8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) (% monomer) 

0.0% 

7.9% 

8.3% 

8.4% 

5.6% 

6.3% 

6.4% 

6.5% 

6.6% 

6.7% 

6.9% 

7.2% 

8.0% 

8.2% 

18.3% 

6.8% 

10.4% 

9.1% 

9.4% 

10.4% 

10.7% 

12.1% 

12.8% 

13.0% 

13.9% 

14.2% 

15.0% 

16.0% 

16.5% 

23.0% 

12.1% 

12.5% 

13.4% 

100.0% 

-0.15575 

0.03253 

0.40060 

32 

30 

0,0% 

23.3% 

24.6% 

25.0% 

16.1% 

18.1% 

18.2% 

18.6% 

18.8% 

19.0% 

19.6% 

20.6% 

22.9% 

23.3% 

52.0% 

17.7% 

27.1% 

21.7% 

22.4% 

24.8% 

25.4% 

28.7% 

30.4% 

31.0% 

33.1% 

33.9% 

35.8% 

38.0% 

39.2% 

54.6% 

27.3% 

28.2% 

30.2% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

4 

5 

5 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

53 
P.54 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Mechanical Resin Application 

with Vapor Suppression 

Data Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Date IP 

Assumed 

081396B 

081396A 

061396B 

080796A 

082796A 

081696B 

Assumed 

. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Monomer 

Content 

(% Styrene) 

0. 

33.8 

33.8 

44.4 

44.4 

48.8 

48.8 

100 

Regression Output: 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.00175 

0.00137 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI / NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Suppressant 

Level 

(% Resin) 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

-0.00464 

0.02117 

0.28820 

6 

4 

, 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0,0% 

6.3% 

4.2% 

5.8% 

10.1% 

9.2% 

6.0% 

100,0% 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0.0% 

18.6% 

12.4% 

13.2% 

22.9% 

18.9% 

12.4% 

100.0% 

. / 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

54~ 
P.55 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Mechanical Resin Application 

Data Legend 

Run No, 

Assumed 

13-3 

14-1 

13-2 

14-3 

13-1 

13-2 

13-1 

14-2 

14-1 

14-2 

R24 

R18 

R4 

R2 

R3 

R16 

9-FC 

15-2 

15-2 

15-1 

15-1 

16-1 

16-1 

16-2 

16-2 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Date ID 

Assumed 

022797A 

022797B 

022797C 

Assumed 

. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

I Monomer 

Content 

(% Styrene) 

Regression Output 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.0 

Mech 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

38.33 

38.33 

38.33 

38.33 

38.33 

38.33 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

100.0 

0.00181 

0.00043 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI/NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Control 

Equipment 

Iyjae 

Either FC or PFR 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

PF Roller 

Flow Coater 

PF Roller 

PF Roller 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

PF Roller 

with Non-Atomized Application 

, 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

1% resin wt) 

0.0% 

2.5% 

3.1% 

3.2% 

3.3% 

3.4% 

3.7% 

3.7% 

3.7% 

3.9% 

4.3% 

5.3% 

5.5% 

5.5% 

5.6% 

5.8% 

6.2% 

4.4% 

4.5% 

4.7% 

4.9% 

5.0% 

5.2% 

5.6% 

5.9% 

6.2% 

5.0% 

5.1% 

5.7% 

Either FC or PFR 100.0% 

-0.02340 

0.00762 

0.41751 

27 

25 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0.0% 

7.1% 

8.8% 

9.0% 

9.3% 

9.6% 

10.5% 

10.5% 

10.7% 

11.1% 

12.1% 

13.9% 

14.2% 

14.5% 

14.6% 

15.2% 

16.3% 

10.4% 

10.6% 

11.2% 

11.6% 

11.9% 

12.2% 

13.2% 

14.0% 

14.8% 

11.4% 

11.6% 

12.9% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

4 

4 

7 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4 

7 

4 

7 

4 

7 

4 

7 

2 

2 

2 

55 
P.56 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Mechanical Resin Application 

with Controlled Spraying 

Data Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

6 

5 

7-1 

7-2 

1-2 

7-4 

7-3 

1-2 

1-1 

1-3 

4-2 

4-4 

7-1 

4-2 

4-3 

7-2 

4-1 

11-3 

11-2 

11-1 

11-2R 

11-1R 

R14 

R13 

R8 

4 

R22 

R15 

R7 

R21 

R5 

6 

1 

3 

4 

5 

2 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Pate IP 

Assumed 

081296B 

080896A 

080896B 

110696A 

103096A 

103096C 

103196A 

103196B 

103096B 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Monomer 

Content 

1% Styrene) 

0 

31.6 

31.6 

33.8 

33.8 

33.8 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.34 

35.34 

35.34 

36.8 

38.33 

38.33 

38.33 

38.33 

38.33 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

Upper Bound . 

RTI Unfilled 5 

RTI Filled 6 

RTI / NMMA 7 

DOW Chemical 8 

Control 

Equipment 1 

Styrene 

Emissions 

Type (% resin wt) 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

Cont. Spraying 

0.0% 

4.4% 

4.6% 

7.9% 

8.3% 

8.4% 

2.9% 

4.0% 

4.6% 

4.6% 

4.7% 

4.9% 

4.9% 

5.2% 

5.2% 

5.3% 

5.5% 

5.7% 

6.0% 

6.6% 

7.9% 

8.7% 

9.3% 

9.3% 

10.1% 

10.5% 

5.7% 

6.1% 

6.5% 

6.5% 

6.3% 

6.5% 

6.6% 

6.7% 

7.4% 

5.1% 

5.4% 

5.5% 

5.5% 

5.7% 

5.8% 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0.0% 

14.0% 

14.6% 

23.3% 

24.6% 

25.0% 

8.1% 

11.4% 

13.2% 

13.2% 

13.4% 

13.9% 

14.0% 

14.7% 

14.7% 

15.1% 

15.7% 

16.1% 

17.1% 

18.8% 

22.4% 

24.9% 

26.4% 

26.4% 

28.8% 

29.8% 

16.2% 

17.4% 

18.4% 

17.7% 

16.5% 

16.9% 

17.1% 

17.6% 

19.2% 

12.6% 

13.3% 

13.7% 

13.7% 

14.3% 

14.3% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

6 

6 

2 

2 

2 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

4 

7 

7 

7 

7 

4 

4 

7 

4 

7 

7 

7 

7 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

6 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

5b 
CO 

a 

m 

x 

o 

o 

. CD 

- =* £

§ 

o ^* 

o CD CO • ^ CD CD CO -n CD CD Q. 

O 

3 

z — ? CO -* c OS CD a. W O S ° m oo a~ 

m CO 

CO 

c 

3 CD Q. 

-»• CO 4*. IO 

-riZJJJDrjrtrtcocoro

sr J M M TM ro i • • 

u >

->jcocnA.io

, 0

-'

— CD <5 > o CD (0 00 

£ £ £ 3 CD 5 * 

o°-

> 

c •s 

c 

o o o oo oo (O -* ro o 

ro co -i*. CO CO CO 

o o o > > 03 

o o o — CO CO 00 o o o o -«• cn 4*. ro **i CO CO CO CO 

ooo o > > > > 

ooo o co ro ro oo ro -^ — o cn co ro — co co co co 

ooo o > > > CD 

o o o o o o o co cn ~*J co co 

gcocfec^c^c^c^^^^^^^^N.fefeioiofefeioi

^oorororooooo*».*.*.^*.j».2 222wiorororor

0\ 

-*U 

P P o 

-*J ;*< ro lo SJ 

—»• co to _*. _; OJ ro o) co ro r; 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

oooooooooooooooooooooo

33333333333^33333333333

• •••••••••••••••••••••

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO

T3T3T3TJT3^T5T0^^-0-0

- O-O-g-

0-O-0-a-0-0-0T

3' 3* 3" 3" 3' 3" 3* 3* 3* 3* 3" 5' 3* 3* 3* 3* 3* 3* 3* 3" 3* 3* 

CQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQ

ScnroooPPcoooPr^ProoPPro^PP

bi a* It*. Ks

 w

 *• — io o <ocn^jv>jo^c©j

0^^ro.»*.ro

VJ *<•? ^ *V ..o ^o - *»? W ..o ^o ..o !V 'V ^o ^o "V *-~ ..o ^o ^o O 

*-5 

ff* 

•§ *5 *-9 *S ©*• ff* ff* ff* -S *S ff* ©*• >9 *S *S ff* cr* ff* ff* ff* ff* -5 *S co ff* CO ff* >9 *5 co ff* 

P vO vO 

CO ff* ff* f

ro 

ro ro ro ro -* -•• 

cn-*-ooo**ico^roro-*JC o 

ro ro 

00 03 

lo 

ro co co ro 

.- . ro ro 

ocococoro

X co ro ro — 

§ — cn — oo 

nbo*jblb-*A010)WUOOOOl(DOO)WtOOaJU

n sP %p <p SP XP NP^^><«P^I>P^>>P^>P^ ^ NP SP >p XP 

S " ^V. ^ X gX ^V Q*. QN. ^S. gS. ^s. ^ . QX. ^V ^ . Q*. ^\ . Q*^ Q** ^X. ^ V ^X gV 

roMCowo)wiorv3roroNiooioioioiMNiii^
P.58 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Filament Winding 

Pate Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

1 

9 

16 

14 

13 

2 

6 

19 

7 

18 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Date ID 

Assumed 

Assumed 

a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Monomer 

Content 

(% Styrene) 

Regression Output 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0. 

33 

33 

33 

33 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

100.0 

0.00276 

0.00058 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI/NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0.0% 

4.9% 

5.9% 

6.3% 

7.2% 

8.3% 

8.6% 

10.3% 

10.3% 

11.8% 

12.0% 

100.0% 

-0.03037 

0.01356 

0.73667 

10 

8 

. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0,0% 

14.9% 

17.9% 

19.1% 

21.8% 

17.4% 

17.9% 

21.4% 

21.4% 

24.5% 

24.9% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

5? 
P.59 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Filament Winding 

with Vapor Suppression 

Data Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

20 

17 

10 

4 

5 

3 

12 

8 

15 

11 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Date ID 

Assumed 

Assumed 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Monomer 

Content 

(% Styrene) 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

100 

Regression Output: 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.00048 

0.00037 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI / NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Suppressant 

Level 

(% Resin) 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

0.02716 

0.00871 

0.17599 

10 

8 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0,0% 

3.7% 

3.7% 

3.9% 

4.8% 

5.4% 

4.0% 

4.6% 

4.9% 

5.0% 

6.6% 

100.0% 

Styrene 

Emissions 

1% monomer) 

0,0% 

11.2% 

11.2% 

11.8% 

14.4% 

16.5% 

8.4% 

9.6% 

10.3% 

10.3% 

13.8% 

100,0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

5°i 
P.60 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Gel Coat Application 

Pate Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

Ig female 

5 

4B 

6 

12B 

12A 

13 

4A 

15 

7 

Ig male 

1 

9 

P6 

P11 

P12 

P2 

P4 

P8 

GF1-EXP 

2 

5 

16 

10 

1 (&14) 

3A 

14 

3B 

8 

11A 

11B 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Pate ID 

Assumed 

091796A 

091796B 

101695A 

101395B 

102395B 

101995A 

101995B 

101295B 

102495A 

101695C 

101596A 

101195A 

101795B 

101195B 

101395A 

102495B 

101895A 

030596A 

101295A 

101995C 

101695B 

101795A 

101895B 

102395B 

Assumed 

. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Monomer 

Content 

(% Styrene) 

Q. 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

100.0 

Regression Output: 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.01328 

0.00222 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI / NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0,0% 

13.0% 

13.8% 

14.6% 

15.2% 

15.7% 

15.9% 

15.9% 

15.9% 

17.5% 

17.7% 

18.5% 

18.8% 

20.3% 

23.0% 

23.1% 

23.2% 

23.7% 

25.4% 

27.0% 

29.1% 

18.3% 

19.6% 

20.5% 

21.0% 

21.1% 

21.3% 

22.4% 

23.2% 

24.3% 

24.7% 

24.8% 

100.0% 

-0.29680 

0.02811 

0.55249 

31 

29 

, 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0-0% 

37.4% 

39.8% 

41.7% 

43.4% 

44.9% 

45.4% 

45.4% 

45.4% 

50.0% 

50.6% 

52.8% 

53.7% 

58.0% 

59.3% 

59.5% 

60.0% 

61.2% 

65.7% 

69.6% 

75.2% 

45.8% 

49.0% 

51.3% 

52.5% 

52.8% 

53.3% 

56.0% 

58.0% 

60.8% 

61.8% 

62.0% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

(oO 
CO _ - to

0

 £ 

c ro^^oQQ^^2^^0T3TJTJo22

wV<P<

f

5<

f

,<

?

>

-

i<

?

)<

?

)c

?

,T<?>3 ® 2o3oS5553 c 

3

M

>ro w --wco-xi^rocoro-co«» 0 ^^^ioioro^ f Sro-oro^--g3^vi-^^^^5J^ 3 

2 "• ' CD = - CD 

Q . CD Q . 

> 

CO 

CO 

c 

3 

CD 

Q . 

W I P 

CO BI 

IE 

CD O 

-«• cococococococococococococococo rororororoiorororo 

o Alk^ttp3ro(B00000)0000p00C0O(Xlpu(0t0UUQUUUtdUQUOfn

f

n

}''}'

,

} '

l P P,

f '

l

f '

, o 

PoOOxJxixJxJxjxjx|x|xJxJx)xJxJxjxJ*4S*J*J*JS*J*J*J*J*J*J010lC0UWWUUW(d W 

o cncnuicncncnuiuicncncncncncncn cncncncncncnoioioi 

3 5 

r + «—* r * r * ••*• r * r * r * *"*• *••*• *•* ^* *"•• ••"•• «•* ^* r * r * ••* r * r * r * r * r * r * r * r * r * ••* r * r ^ r * r * r * sTM** r * r * r * !"*• r * r * r * *"•• * 

oooooooooooooo 

o 

3 

O O 

3 3 

O 

3 

r+ 

O 

3 

.-• • 

O 

3 

o 

3 

«-* 

o 

3 

o 

3 

o 

3 

i - * 

O 

3 

•^ 

o 

3 

^* 

O 

3 

.-* 

O 

3 

•-* 

9 

3 

• *• 

OOOO O 

O 

3 

t ^ -

O 

3 

O 

3 

^* 

o 

3 

•-• • 

O 

3 

«-* 

9 

3 

• ^ 

O O O 

o 

3 

•^ 

O 

3 

O 

3 

r+ 

999 

3 3 3 

r * •-•• i^ -

COCOCOCO(/>0)COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 

"0-OT3T3T3T3T3T3T3T3T3T3T3-OT3T3T3T3T3T3T3-OT3T3T3-0- 0 

-^ CU 

*< 

3 

CO 

CU 0) 

«< *< 

3 3 

CU 

«< 

3 

CU 

*< 

3 

CU 

*< 

3 

Cu 

*< 

3 

cu 

*< 

3 

CU 

*< 

3 

CU 

*< 

3 

cu 

•< 

3 

CU 

*< 

3 

CU CU Co 

*<»<*< 

3 3 3 

cu 

*< 

3 

CU 

• < 

3 

CU CU 

«< *< 

3 3 

0> 

•< 

3 

& 

CU CU 

- n 

CU 

—* ~1 —l 

CO CO CU 

*< *<*<«<*<*< «< 

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

COCOCOCQCQCOCQCQCOCQCOCQCQCQCOCOCQCQCQCQCQCQCOCQCQCQ 

9999999

QOQOOOOO

° o 

3 

O 

3 

O O 

3 3 

O O 

3

 — 

cococococococococococo co co co co co fcj'-

0"OT3"0"OT3

- O,

0

- OT3T3T3, OT3T3- O p a 

m fw m c» oi eo ta ta m to ta ta tn m ta m w S

C4S)p)9)cotnp>cacop)fi)S)p)cop)(i> 

»<«<

,

<'<

v

<*<

,

<

,

<*<*<*<»<«<

,

<«<»< 

3" 5" 5" 3 " 3 " 5 ' s " 3 " 3 ' 5" 3" 5" 3 ' 5" 3" 3 " 

CQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCOCQCQ 

C

-^^^rorowiororowiorororoioro-^-^torotororo^^^^^^-*^^^-*-^^-*-*-^^^. — -1 3 

Sroroiocoioiotororo^-^^o©oococorooooococoro^rorocn4*.ocn4*.4*.4*.cococoroioP< D s

S" s

3

 O 

S 3 

5- (0 

o 

*S o*-

-xi-xi«wcororowcocorowro4>.roioro-^4*.coro-^o*xi^*xi4*.*xi^*gco«ro4v4*.-^ro^ocooo 

p xP xP xP xP xP xP xP xP xP xP xP xP xP xP xP xP xP xP 

ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 0 * ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* o* ff* o* ff* 

XO x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P 

ff* ff* ff* CO o* ff* ff* ff* ff 

•S *$ *P 

ff* CO ff" 

SD xv xy xP xf xv xy xf xy xy xy xy xy xy xy xy xy xy xy xy iv 

o * o * o*. <v* ft*, o* ft* o * o*» r o ft** 0 * *?* ft** ft* o*. ox. ^x fjx jj* w S *9 *P •x? •*? 

<o <0 ff* ff* CO 

«P xP xP 

o^-*^ocorororo-xiroai4*.coioiorooco^roro4*.4*.co^o«xicjiwroj--j-co"*jrocn4*.-^-'oo P 

xco*xit*K3rocoK}bro4*.*xico^-xiK3^rord4*.4*.uio^coro 

axPxPxPxPxPxPx P xP >PNPSP^<^^SP^^ ^ XP >PNPNP>P>P>P^^^VPSP^>PSP^>P\P\P>.OSJ)^> Q >x 

xyffXffXffXffXfJXgXjJxgxgxgxgxgX^X^gxgX^xgxgX^XfJxgxgXfJxgxgxgX^sgX^gxgxgxgxgxgxgX^gx^^ O 

p- m 

3 

C

o 

3 

(D 

roroiocncncncncncncncncncncncncncncn**j^*xi4*.**j**i*xi*g4*.4*.4*.4*.rorocncncnrocncnuicncn 

9o

o c 

____, 

<D O 

C
P.62 

Regression 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

Output: 

0.00437 

0.00094 

0.02647 

0.03232 

0.35435 

41 

39 

Q?Z 
PES "Super Set" Models 

Manual BEF Data Points 

10% 

8% 

co 

CD 

£ 6% 

CO 

c 

g 

co 

"E 

UJ 

CD 

c 

>. +* 

co 

4% 

2% 

0% 

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

A 

CFA Phase I 

O 

CFA Phase II 

Manual BEF fit 

50% 
PES "Super Set" Models 

Manual Models - same as CFA Models 

10% 

e-

- * 

8% 

CO 

<D 

xP OY 6% o 

CO 

c g 

'co 

.co 

W 4 % 

CD 

C 

CD 

CO 

2% 

0% 

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

Manual BEF 

Manual VS 

50% 
PES "Super Set" Models 

Mechanical BEF Data Points 

c 

'tn 

8> 

CO 

£= 

g 

"co 

co 

"E 

LU 

CD 

C 

CD 

k-

>» 

CO 

20% 25% 

£.D/o 

ono/ 

c\J /o 

•i CO/ 

lOVo 

1 no/ 

luv o 

CO/ 

OVo 

no/ Uvo 

-5% -

1 1 

:2 

A 

— i — 

r 

. 

J^T 

—\ 

X 

3 

4e 

A 

& 

1— 

/ * 

§ 

r 

1 

30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

A 

CFA Phase I 

O 

CFA Phase II 

X 

NMMA 

• 

RTI Unfilled 

Mech BEF fit 

5 0% 
PES "Super Set" Models 

Mechanical Models 

20% 

^ 

s-

-5% 

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

Mech BEF 

Mech VS 

Mech NonA 

MechCS 

CFA Spray 

5 0 % 
Hi 

40% 

30% 

CO 

CD 

*5 20%-

CO 

c 

g 

"co 

.co 

_W 10%-

CD 

c 

£ 

CO 

0% 

-10% 

20% 

PES "Super Set" Models 

Gelcoat BEF Data Points 

+ 

25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

A 

CFA Phase I 

O 

CFA Phase II 

X 

RTI Unfilled 

Mech BEF fit 

5 0 % 
PES "Super Set" Models 

Gelcoat Models 

40% 

-10% 

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

Gelcoat BEF 

Gelcoat CS 

CFA Gelcoat 

CFA Gel CS 

50% 
PES "Super Set" Models 

Baseline Emission Factor Models 

40% 

^ 

-O 

-10% 

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

-*?-

Manual BEF 

Mech BEF 

Fila BEF 

Gelcoat BEF 

50% 
# 

'3 

4) 

CL 

c 

B 

CL 

< 

X 

vt 

JQ 

0 

C 

v> 

1 

UJ 

a. 

< 

x 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 -

100 

eo 

60 

40 

20 

DSifllFir 

Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Manual Resin Application 

CO 

i 

Linear (b = 0) 

y = 2.9889X 

t 

Linear (b = constant! 

y = 5.1786x-85.0000 

Power (n = constant) 

y = 0.1846x,-

753S 

2nd Order Polynomial 

y = 0.0576X2 + 0.7262* 

" 

- • • — 

*— 

__ . "i'. • •' 

. 

— -

i 

i 

^^^ 

i 

: i 

i 

i 

* / . 

A 

o 

O ,.' 

/.•_s^ 

o 

' / 

\S' 

• ^ 

% 

_./'" » , 

' f 

The equations shown are possible equations to be used 

in a MACT model point value system designed to 

accurately reflect emission reduction credits to the 

various emission reduction techniques that a lacilily 

could choose lo meet the MACT standard. The 

equations shown should not be used for predicting 

emissions. 

i 

4 

1 

0 

to 

CO 

c 

KS 

CJ 

m 

» 

H 

'jr. 

10 15 20 25 30 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

35 40 45 50 

D 

X 

0.041 tn 715 min 750 fpm 

0.088 in./15min./60 fpm 

- Lineai (b - 0) 

O 

-

0.041 in/15 min7100 tpm 

0.088 in715 min./lOO Ipm 

Linoar (b = constant) 

A 

o 

0.041 lnV30 mir»750 fpm 

0.088 in730 min/50 fpm 

•Power (n - constanti 

X 0.041 In/30 min7100 Ipm 

+ 0.066 In/30fnin./IOOcpm 

2nd Order Poly. 

0 

^1 

o 
o 

o 

•9 

ESflffT. 

Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Mechanical Resin Application 

450 

<-u 

10 15 20 25 30 

Resin Monomer Content {% HAP) 

35 40 45 50 

0 0.040 *i715mui72bs per mh. o 0.040 in715 minJ4 lbs per rth. & 

X 0.G80 h./15 ninJZ t>s per min. - ftOJOin./15nm44l>6permli o 

Linear (b = 0> Lhaar (b«constant) ... . 

0.040 ii/3G nia/Z fee par mki. x 

0.080 aiTM mtn./2 t* pet min. + 

•Power (n = constant) 

0.040 in 730 raktM bt per nan.: 

0.080 trt/30 minV4 tin net nwi.| 

* 2nd OrderPoVTi 

IMI . 
• ^ t* 

JJ n 

Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Gel Coat Application 

10 

a: 

c 

£L 

< 

c 

(0 I 

UJ 

0 . 

< 

X 

200 

100 

?nd Order Polynomial 

y = 0.2145^ + 2.2402X 

s,d s. 

/ 

/ 

T-

/ 

The equations shown are possible equations to be used 

in a MACT model point value system designed to 

accurately reflect emission reduction credits to the 

various emission reduction techniques that a facility 

could choose to meet the MACT standard. The 

equations shown should not be used for predicting 

emissions. 

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

0 

X 

0 018 inVIO miri/2 lbs per min. 

0.02-1 in 710 mln/2 lbs per min. 

Linear \o - u) 

o 

-

0.016 in710 min/4 lbs par min. 

0.024 in710 min/4 lbs per min. 

- Linear (b = constacrt) 

A 

O 

„ 

0.018 in720 min.? lbs pet min. 

0.024 in720 min/2 lbs per min. 

X 0.018 in/20 min/4 lbs par min. 

+ 0.024 in720 miaJA lbs per min 

- — • 2nd Order Poly. i 

co 

C* 

to 

c 

KJ 

CJ 

m 

01 

v. 

© 
HA 

250 

200 

w o 

-

c 

a: 150 

< 

X 

CO 

w 

c 

I

 10° 

1 

UJ 

a 

< 

x 

50 

ssaiFir 

Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Filament Winding Application 

Linear (b = 0) 

y = 3.9804X 

Linear (b s constant* 

y = 5.0889X - 46.4333 

I 

Power (n = constant) 

y = 1.2938xl M M 

2nd Order Polynomial 

y = 0.0293xz*2.7145x 

The equations shown are possible equations to be used 

in a MACT model point value system designed to 

accurately reflect emission reduction credits to the 

various emission reduction techniques thai a facility 

could choose to meet Ihe MACT standard. The 

equations shown should not be used for predicting 

emissions. 

10 15 20 25 30 35 

Resin Monomer Content (%HAP) 

40 45 50 

G 73 degiees/6 inches O 73 degrees/33 inches & 85 degreea/6 inches x 85 degrees/33 inches 

Linear (b = 0) Linear (b - constant) Power (n = constant) —• — • 2nd Older Poly. 
P.74 

M4ttokh**r?'f-_\lI[ 

Addenda to the 

Derivation and Verification 

of the CFA Emission Models 

by 

Robert A. Haberlein, Ph.D. 

Engineering Environmental 

on behalf of the 

Composites Fabricators Association 

International Cast Polymer Association 

Composites Institute 

December 8,1997 

7+ 
P.75 

Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Addendum to the 

Derivation and Verification of the CFA Emission Models 

October 8,1997 

Robert A. Haberlein, Ph.D., QEP 

Following EPA's initial technical review, a correction has been made to the CFA Hand 

Model. Four of the thirty test data points used to derive the original Hand Model included the 

effect of vapor suppressant. These four data points are now excluded and a new regression is 

performed. The revised regression analysis is shown in Table A-l. Note that this new regression 

is a much better fit than the original regression (r2 = 0.503 versus 0.282). Based upon the new 

regression analysis, the new equation for hand lay-up emissions (expressed as a percentage of 

resin weight) is: 

Styrene emissions (% of resin wt.) = 0.00286 x % styrene - 0.0529 

As revealed on the next page, expressing styrene emissions as a function of resin weight is a much 

better fit than expressing emissions as a function of available styrene. 

The new equation replaces Equation 2 in the original report, and should substituted where 

appropriate throughout both reports. The new Hand Model is compared to the corresponding 

EPA Emission Equation in Figure A-l, and a revised plot of all the CFA Models, including the 

new Hand Model is provided in Figure A-2. Note how closely the new Hand Model matches 

both the EPA Equation and the "non-atomized" Mechanical Application curve. 

Based upon this new model and the original styrene monomer content of 40% listed in the 

Open Molding database, the new Manual Application floor value is 76 lb/ton. The new floor 

value for Manual Application and the new Hand Model have a negligible impact upon the baseline 

and emission reduction calculations for the Open Molding database. 

A-l 

•?5 
Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Table A-l Revised Hand Lay-up Regression 

No. ID 

1 100295B 

2 100295C 

3A 092095A 

3B 092695B 

4A 100395A 

4B 092695C 

5 092595A 

6 092695A 

7 092795A 

8 092795B 

9 092795C 

10 092895A 

11A 092895B 

11B 092995C 

12A 092895C 

12B 100295A 

13 092995A 

14 092995B 

15 091995A 

16 091995B 

052996B 

080196A 

060596A 

052996A 

053096B 

060396B 

nmm 0695988 

053096A 

06Q496A 

(in.) 

0.041 

0.088 

0.041 

0.041 

0.088 

0.088 

0.041 

0.088 

0.041 

0.088 

0.041 

0.088 

0.041 

0.041 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

0.041 

0.041 

0.088 

0.176 

0.120 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

<fM$ 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

Regression Outpu 

Constanl 

StdErrofYEst 

R Squared 

No. of Observatioi 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.00286 

0.00058 

(%) 

35 

42 

42 

42 

35 

35 

42 

35 

35 

42 

35 

42 

42 

42 

35 

35 

35 

42 

35 

42 

44.4 

44.4 

33.2 

44.4 

44.4 

48.8 

33»s 

& & 

^W+Tt 

48.8^ 

(% resin; 

-0.05292 

0.01278 

0.50343 

26 

24 

(min.) 

30 

15 

15 

15 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

30 

15 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

30 

15 

30 

15 

X 

(fpm) 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

100 

100 

50 

50 

100 

100 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

50 

100 

% 

Constanl 

(%) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1.$ 

1.5 

1*5 

7* 

(% resin wt)(% styrene) 

6.2% 

4.9% 

7.2% 

7.6% 

4.2% 

4.6% 

8.1% 

3.6% 

5.3% 

5.7% 

5.0% 

6.0% 

8.9% 

8.9% 

3.4% 

3.6% 

4.2% 

7.1% 

6.3% 

4.9% 

7.2% 

4.9% 

4.6% 

6.6% 

8.4% 

9.3% 

&*% 

£7% 

a*i% 

3.6% 

17.7% 

11.7% 

16.7% 

17.7% 

11.7% 

13.1% 

19.2% 

10.1% 

14.7% 

13.5% 

14.0% 

14.3% 

21.2% 

21.0% 

9.6% 

10.1% 

11.9% 

17.1% 

17.6% 

11.5% 

16.1% 

11.0% 

13.8% 

15.0% 

18.8% 

19.0% 

8-7% 

1 1% 

7.0% 

7,4% 

Regression Outpu (% styrer 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observatioi 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.00353 

0.00143 

0.00941 

0.03144 

0.20351 

26 

24 

The shaded values are excluded from the new regression analysis. 

A-2 

=&> 
4* 

Hi 

Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Figure A-l Comparison of Revised CFA Hand Model to EPA Hand Equation 

Hand Lay-up 

Emission Factor versus Styrene Content 

a resin 

o 

t5 

cd 

LL 

C Emissi< 

9% •• 

8%-

7%-

6%-

5%-

4%-

3%~ 

Oo/ _ 

c. /o 

2c % 30 % 32 % 3' % 

j 

! 

i 

j 

i 

j 

1 

j 

i 

36 % 38 % 4C % 42 % 44% 46% 4* % 50% 

EPA hand 

CFA hand 

Styrene Content (% wt) 

A-3 

^i 

^i 
Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Figure A-2 CFA Emission Models with Revised Hand Model 

CFA Emission Models 

Emission Factor vs Styrene Content 

30% 

^ 25% 

c 

"co 

CD 

Z- 20% 

o 

t3 

ta 

u. 

c 

o 

'co 

CO 

E 

LU 

15% 

10% 

Hand 

Non-Spray 

Spray 

Gelcoat 

FWind 

Styrene Content (% wt) 

A-4 
P.79 

Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Second Addendum to the 

Derivation and Verification of the CFA Emission Models 

December 6,1997 

Robert A. Haberlein, PhD., QEP 

After reviewing the full data set contained in the CFA's final Phase II test report, the 

following two modifications have been made to the CFA emission models described in the 

September 18,1997 report entitled Derivation and Verification of the CFA Emission Models: 

* The linear regression for the Mechanical Resin Application Model has been revised 

*H The control factor for the Manual Resin Application Model has been revised to match 

EPA recommendations 

Mechanical Resin Application (Spray) Model Revision 

Seven of the thirty test data points used to derive the original Mechanical Resin 

Application (Spray) Model also included the effect of control spraying. These seven "controlled 

spraying" data points (080696A, 061396A, 080896A, 080896B, 081296B, 081596A, and 

081696A) are now excluded. Furthermore, three new "uncontrolled spray" test data points 

(061296B, 092696A, and 120595A) were listed in the final Phase II test report, and have been 

included in the revised data set. As discussed in a separate correspondence with the EPA, the 

three BPO-based uncontrolled spray data points have not been included in the revised data set. / 

new regression is now performed using the revised data set, with the exclusions and inclusions 

discussed above. The new linear regression analysis is shown in Table B-1. Note that this new 

regression results in a slightly better fit than the original regression (r2 = 0.714 versus 0.679). 

Based upon this new linear regression analysis, the revised equation for mechanical (spray) 

emissions, expressed as a percentage of resin weight is: 

B-1 
P.80 

Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Styrene emissions (% of resin wt.) = 0.714 x% styrene - 0.180 [eqB-i] 

The above, revised equation replaces Equation 5 and part of Equation 15 in the original 

report, and should be substituted where appropriate throughout both reports. The new 

Mechanical Resin Application (Spray) Model is plotted in Figure B-1, which includes a scatter 

plot of the data. The 95% confidence interval for the predicted mean modeled value is shown in 

Figure B-2. 

Based upon this revised Mechanical Resin Application (Spray) Model and the original 

"floor" styrene monomer contents of 35% (non-corrosion) and 38% (corrosion) listed in the 

September 18,1997 Open Molding database, the new Mechanical Resin Application floor values 

are 140 lb/ton for non-corrosion products and 183 lb/ton for corrosion products. These new floor 

values for Mechanical Application have an insignificant impact upon the baseline and emission 

reduction calculations in the Open Molding database. 

Manual Resin Application (Hand) Vapor Suppressant Factor Revision 

This modification is based upon a different approach for calculating control factors 

recommended by the EPA. The original approach for calculating control factors, as described in 

the September 18,1997 report, calculates an average control factor based upon "paired data" 

responses (le. the ratio of emissions for split test run trials using identical independent variable 

values, with and without vapor suppressants). The approach recommended by the EPA derives a 

separate equation for "vapor suppressed" manual application from vapor-suppressed data alone.. 

The EPA approach appears to be more suitable for vapor-suppressed manual application 

emissions because the available data (although limited) suggests a highly linear effect between 

vapor-suppressed styrene emissions and styrene content. The available data values for the various 

mechanical (spray) control options are more scattered, so the EPA approach does not appear to 

be appropriate for the spray control options. 

A linear regression is performed using the four available data points for vapor-suppressed 

manual application (hand). The new linear regression analysis is shown in Table B-2. Based 

upon this new linear regression analysis, the equation for vapor-suppressed manual application 

(hand) emissions, expressed as a percentage of resin weight is: 

B-2 

<?0 
P.81 

Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Styrene emissions (% of resin wt.) = 0.0004476 x % styrene + 0.01289 [eqB-2] 

In order to remain consistent with the original MACT control matrix format, this vaporsuppressed equation is converted into a control factor, which is then applied to the original nonvapor-suppressed manual equation: 

Vapor-Suppressed = 0.0004476 x % stvrene + 0.01289 

Control Factor 0.00286 x % styrene - 0.0529 [eqB-3] 

Note that this control factor is only valid for manually applied resins with styrene contents greater 

than 28%. As in the earlier reports, the control factor represents the amount of reduced emissions 

(ie. a control factor of 0.6 applied to emissions of 100 tpy will result in controlled emissions of 60 

tpy). 

The above, revised equation replaces Equation 9 and part of Equation 12 in the original 

report, and should be substituted where appropriate throughout both reports. The Manual Resin 

Application (Hand) Model is plotted in Figure B-3, which includes a scatter plot of the data 

points. A comparison of the Manual Model both with and without vapor suppressant is shown in 

Figure B-4. 

Revised CFA Models 

A plot of all the current baseline CFA Models, including the new Mechanical (Spray) 

Model, is provided in Figure B-5. A text summary of all the CFA Models, including the control 

factors, is provided in Table B-3. Finally, a revised "control matrix" spreadsheet program (in 

Lotus 1-2-3, Excel and Quattro Pro file formats) is included in an attached floppy diskette. 

B-3 
Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Table B-1 Revised Mechanical Resin Application (Spray) Regression 

Run 

No. 

1 

2 

3A 

3B 

4A 

4B 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11A 

11B 

12A 

12B 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1 (&10) 

Ig female 

Ig male 

thick lam 

Ig female 

Constant 

Data 

ID 

111595B 

111695A 

111695B 

113095A 

112895A 

112995B 

112895B 

112995A 

120495A 

120595B 

120695A 

120695B 

120795A 

121195B 

120895A 

121295A 

120895B 

121495B 

121295B 

121495A 

022296A 

092596B 

101796B 

061296B 

092696A 

120595A 

Laminate 

Thickness 

(in.) 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.040 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.187 

0.080 

Regression Output: 

StdErrofYEst 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

Styrene 

Content 

(%) 

35 

42 

42 

42 

35 

35 

42 

35 

35 

42 

35 

42 

42 

42 

35 

35 

35 

42 

35 

42 

42 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

-0.180228 

0.018177 

0.714468 

26 

24 

0.007138 

0.000921 

Gel 

Time 

(min.) 

30 

15 

15 

15 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

30 

15 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

30 

15 

30 

15 

30 

Resin 

Flow 

(ib/min) 

4 

2 

2 

2 

4 

4 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

4 

2 

4 

4 

Air 

Flow 

(fpm) 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

100 

100 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

100 

50 

100 

100 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

6.6% 

13.9% 

13.0% 

14.2% 

6.7% 

6.9% 

15.0% 

6.4% 

8.2% 

16.0% 

8.0% 

9.4% 

12.1% 

12.8% 

6.3% 

5.6% 

6.5% 

10.4% 

7.2% 

10.7% 

9.1% 

12.1% 

13.4% 

10.6% 

12.5% 

16.0% 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

18.8% 

33.1% 

31.0% 

33.9% 

19.0% 

19.6% 

35.8% 

18.2% 

23.3% 

38.0% 

22.9% 

22.4% 

28.7% 

30.4% 

18.1% 

16.1% 

18.6% 

24.8% 

20.6% 

25.4% 

21.7% 

27.3% 

30.2% 

23.9% 

B-4 

?a 
°0 

Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Figure B-1 Revised CFA Mechanical Application (Spray) Model with Scatter Plot of Data 

20% 

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

A 

CFA Spray Data 

CFA Spray Model 

50% 

B-5 
Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Figure B-2 Revised CFA Mechanical AppUcation (Spray) Model with 95% Confidence Intervals 

20% 

% 15% 

c 

'tn 

CD 10% 

CO 

.1 5% 

CO 

w 0% 

CD 

C 

CD 

% -5% 

•10% 

20% 

I — 

^ 

J _ 

w 

—1— -

X 

^ ^2 

> ^ >* 

\ - — 

^ Nr 

1 h— 

^ 

^ 

25% 30% 35% 40% 

Styrene Content 

Lower 95% 

Mean 

Upper 95% 

x 

Data 

45% 50% 

B-6 
P.85 

Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Table B-2 Revised Manual Resin AppUcation (Hand) Regression 

run thickness 

060496B 0.088 

060596B 0.088 

053096A 0.088 

060496A 0.088 

styrene 

content 

(% resin) 

33.2 

33.2 

44.4 

48.8 

Regression Output: 

Constant 

StdErrofYEst 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.0004476 

0.00013443 

suppressant 

level 

(% resin) 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

0.01289 

0.001849323 

0.847151027 

4 

2 

styrene emissions 

(% resin) (% styrene) 

2.9% 

2.7% 

3.1% 

3.6% 

8.7% 

8.1% 

7.0% 

7.4% 

B-7 

95 
Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Figure B-3 BaseUne CFA Manual AppUcation (Hand) Model with Scatter Plot of Data 

oO 

{T-^ 

O 

% 

c 

CO 

CD 

i _ 

^8 

cv* 

CO 

e 

o CO 

CO 

E 

UJ 

CD 

c CD 

> N 

t/> 

U7o 

0 0 / 

O /o 

C O / 

O /o 

AO/ 

4vo 

0 0 / 

d/o 

0 % - 1 

-

1 

4 

z 

y i 

1 

* A 

X 

1 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

hO 

O 

O 

O 

1 

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

A 

CFA Phase I 

O 

CFA Phase II 

Manual BEF fit 

50% 

B-8 
Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Figure B-4 Comparison of CFA Manual Application (Hand) Models with and without Vapor Suppressant 

10% 

<=0 

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 

Manual BEF 

Manual VS 

50% 

B-9 
Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Figure B-5 Baseline CFA Emission Models with Revised Mechanical Resin AppUcation (Spray) Model 

40% 

30% 

CO 

>P 20% 

CO 

CO 

CO 

i±i 10% 

CD c 

CD 

i _ 

>. 

CO 

0% 

•10% 

20% 

- -

- -

- -

^^^_ 

--

^ " 

25% 30% 35% 40% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

45% 50% 

- ^ 

CFA Hand 

-eCFA Spray 

CFAFW 

CFA Gelcoat 

B-10 
P.89 

Engineering Environmental 

Consulting Services 

Table B-3 Summary of Revised CFA Emission Models 

Manual Resin Application 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Vapor Suppressant Control Factor 

(%styrene > 28%) 

Mechanical Resin Application 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Vapor Suppressant Control Factor 

Controlled Spray Control Factor 

<or> 

Non-Atomizing Control Factor 

Filament Resin Application 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Controlled Spray Control Factor 

0.00286 x %styrene - 0.0529 

0.0004476 x %stvrene + 0.01289 

0.00286 x %styrene - 0.0529 

0.00714 x %styrene - 0.180 

0.62 

0.77 

0.51 

0.002746 x %styrene - 0.0298 

0.65 

Gelcoat Spray Application 

Baseline Emission Factor 

Controlled Spray Control Factor 

0.01036 x %styrene - 0.195 

0.73 

B-ll 
P.90 

Further Analyses of 

the 

CFA & PES Emission Models 

andthe 

Open Molding Database 

presented to 

Madeleine Strum, Ph.D. 

Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

by 

Robert A. Haberlein, Ph.D. 

Engineering Environmental 

on behalf of the 

Composites Fabricators Association 

International Cast Polymer Association 

Composites Institute 

December 8,1997 

°iO 
Engineering Environmental 12/05/97 Page 1 

CFA PHASE II MASTER DATA TABLES - from 10/3/97 file Phase II - Data Tables all runs.xls 

MECHANICAL DATA 

Run Parameters 

Run 

No. 

1 

2 

3A 

3B 

4 

Data 

ID 

022697A 

022697B 

022797A 

022797B 

022797C 

Application 

Method 

Hand Lay-Up 

Spray-Up 

Flow Chop 

Flow Chop 

P Roller 

Application Method Comparision Experiment - Sheet 1 

Data 

Resin 

Consumed 

(g) 

2072.0 

2130.0 

2132.0 

2160.0 

2115.0 

Available 

Styrene 

(g) 

910.2 

935.7 

936.6 

948.9 

929.1 

Emission 

Weight 

(g) 

69.8 

167.6 

106.4 

110.3 

119.7 

Emission 

%of 

AS 

9.9% 

17.9% 

11.4% 

11.6% 

12.9% 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/H2) 

6.41 

11.97 

7.60 

7.88 

8.55 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/m2) 

69.08 

128.92 

81.85 

84.85 

92.08 

Normalized 

Surf. Area 

Emission 

(g/ft2/kg GC) 

3.10 

5.62 

3.56 

3.65 

4.04 

Emission 

%of 

Resin 

(RW) 

4.3% 

7.9% 

5.0% 

5.1% 

5.7% 

Emission 

Lbs/Ton 

Resin 

Consumed 

86.7 

157.4 

99.8 

102.1 

113.2 

Controlled 

BPO vs MEKP Initiator Comparsion Experiment • Sheet 2 

^Run 

No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Run Parameters 

Data 

ID 

103096A 

103096B 

103096C 

103196A 

103196B 

110696A 

Initiator 

Type 

BPO 

BPO 

MEKP 

MEKP 

MEKP 

BPO 

Gel 

Time 

(min) 

13 

13 

13 

13 

10 

10 

Resin 

Consumed 

(g) 

5603.0 

5577.0 

5580.0 

5550.0 

5581.0 

5592.0 

Available 

Styrene 

(g) 

2263.6 

2253.1 

2237.6 

2228.6 

2238.0 

2259.0 

I 

Emission 

Weight 

(g) 

302.1 

321.5 

306.9 

305.5 

319.5 

285.2 

Oata 

Emission 

%of 

AS 

13.3% 

14.3% 

13.7% 

13.7% 

14.3% 

12.6% 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/R2) 

10.75 

11.45 

10.93 

10.88 

11.37 

10.15 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/m2) 

115.79 

123.23 

117.63 

117.09 

122.46 

109.31 

Normalized 

Surf. Area 

Emission 

(g/H2/kgGC) 

1.92 

2.05 

1.96 

1.96 

2.04 

1.82 

Emission 

%of 

Resin 

(RW) 

5.4% 

5.8% 

5.5% 

5.5% 

5.7% 

5.1% 

Emission 

Lbs/Ton 

Resin 

Consumed 

107.8 

115.3 

110.0 

110.1 

114.5 

102.0 

ALL 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Run 

No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Run Parameters 

Data 

ID 

082996A 

090496A 

090496B 

090596A 

090596B 

Filler 

Level 

High 

High 

Low 

0 

High 

Spray-Up Filled Systems Comparision Experiment - Sheet 3 

1 Data 

Styrene 

Supressant 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Resin 

Consumed 

(g) 

14329.0 

14238.0 

14319.0 

14260.0 

14329.0 

Available 

Styrene 

(g) 

2765.5 

2747.9 

4668.0 

6549.6 

2765.5 

Emission 

Weight 

(g) 

595.3 

477.3 

880.6 

1314.4 

486.8 

Emission 

%of 

AS 

21.5% 

17.4% 

18.9% 

20.1% 

17.6% 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/R2) 

21.19 

16.99 

31.35 

46.79 

17.33 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/m2) 

228.17 

182.94 

337.52 

503.79 

186.58 

Normalized 

Surf. Area 

Emission 

(g/ft2/kg GC) 

1.48 

1.19 

2.19 

3.28 

1.21 

Emission 

%of 

Resin 

(RW) 

4.2% 

3.4% 

6.1% 

9.2% 

3.4% 

Emission 

Lbs/Ton 

Resin 

Consumed 

83.1 

67.0 

123.0 

184.3 

67.9 

ALL 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

CO 
Engineering Environmental 12/05/97 Page 2 

Effects of Laminate Thickness and Spraying Method on Spray-Up Emissions - Sheet 5 

Run Parameters 

Run 

No. 

1 

2 

3 

4. 

5 

Data 

ID 

061296 A 

061296 B 

061396 A 

080196 B 

120595 A 

Laminate 

Thickness 

0.187 

0.187 

0.080 

0.187 

0.080 

Application 

Method 

Controlled 

Uncontrolled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Uncontrolled 

Data 

Resin 

Consumed 

(g) 

14272.0 

18538.0 

5531.0 

14138.4 

8071.0 

Available 

Styrene 

(g) 

6329.6 

8221.6 

2453.0 

6270.4 

3406.0 

Emission 

Weight 

(g) 

1073.5 

1965.1 

547.0 

862.3 

1295.0 

Emission 

%of 

AS 

17.0% 

23.9% 

22.3% 

13.8% 

38.0% 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/«2) 

38.22 

69.96 

19.47 

30.70 

46.10 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/m2) 

411.46 

753.20 

209.66 

330.51 

496.36 

Normalized 

Surf. Area 

Emission 

(g/tt2/kg GC) 

2.68 

3.77 

3.52 

2.17 

5.71 

Emission 

%of 

Resin 

(RW) 

7.5% 

10.6% 

9.9% 

6.1% 

16.0% 

Emission 

Lbs/Ton 

Resin 

Consumed 

150.4 

212.0 

197.8 

122.0 

320.9 

Spray-Up Effects of Styrene Suppressants Comparision Experiment - Sheet 7 

Run Parameters 

Data 

ID 

Resin 

Type 

Styrene 

Content 

Vapor 

Suppress 

Flow 

Rate 

(Ibs/mln) 

Data 

Resin 

Consumed 

(9) 

Available 

Styrene 

(g) 

Emission 

Weight 

(g) 

Emission 

%of 

AS 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/ft2) 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/m2) 

Normalized 

Surf. Area 

Emission 

(g/H2/kg GC) 

Emission 

%of 

Resin 

(RW) 

Emission 

Lbs/Ton 

Resin 

Consumed ALL 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

166.0 Controlled 

061396A GP 44% No 5531.0 2453.0 545.9 22.3% 19.43 209.24 3.51 9.9% 197.4 

061396B GP 44% Yes 5558.0 2465.0 324.4 13.2% 11.55 124.34 2.08 5.8% 116.7 

080696A GP 44% No 5566.0 2468.0 727.5 29.5% 25.90 278.84 4.65 13.1% 261.4 

080796A GP 44% Yes 5586.0 2477.0 566.6 22.9% 20.17 217.17 3.61 10.1% 202.9 

080896A VE-LS 43% No 5557.0 1878.3 461.2 24.6% 16.42 176.77 2.95 8.3% 

080896B VE-LS 33% No 5624.0 1900.9 474.9 25.0% 16.91 182.02 3.01 8.4% 168.9 Controlled 

081296B VE-LS 33% No 5608.0 1895.5 442.3 23.3% 15.75 169.53 2.81 7.9% 157.7 Controlled 

081396A VE-LS 33% Yes 5590.0 1884.4 234.6 12.4% 8.35 89.92 1.49 4.2% 83.9 Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

081396B VE-LS 33% Yes 5567.0 1887.7 350.0 18.5% 12.46 134.15 2.24 6.3% 125.7 

10 081596A VE-HS 49% No 5560.0 2713.3 862.7 31.8% 30.71 330.66 5.52 15.5% 310.3 

11 081696A VE-HS 49% No 5558.0 2712.3 697.6 25.7% 24.83 267.38 4.47 12.6% 251.0 

12 081696B VE-HS 49% Yes 5625.0 2745.0 339.7 12.4% 12.09 130.20 2.15 6.0% 120.8 

13 082796A VE-HS 49% Yes 5575.0 2720.6 513.1 18.9% 18.27 196.67 3.28 9.2% 184.1 

Run 

No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Effects of Mold Configuration on 

Run Parameters 

Data 

ID 

092596 A 

092596 B 

101796 A 

101796 B 

092696 A 

Mold 

Config. 

Female 

Female 

Male 

Male 

Female 

Application 

Method 

Controlled 

Uncontrolled 

Controlled 

Uncontrolled 

Uncontrolled 

Resin 

Consumed 

(g) 

21535.0 

21546.0 

21216.0 

21231.0 

21554.0 

Spray-Up Emissions (Large Mold) - Sheet 9 

Data 

Available 

Styrene 

(g) 

9537.9 

9542.7 

9396.6 

9403.2 

9546.2 

Emission 

Weight 

(g) 

2148.8 

2603.2 

2309.7 

2837.9 

2692.4 

Emission 

%of 

AS 

22.5% 

27.3% 

24.6% 

30.2% 

28.2% 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/«2) 

16.80 

20.35 

18.06 

22.19 

21.05 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/m2) 

180.88 

219.12 

194.42 

238.88 

226.63 

Normalized 

Surf. Area 

Emission 

(g/ft2/kg GC) 

0.78 

0.94 

0.85 

1.05 

0.98 

Emission 

%of 

Resin 

(RW) 

10.0% 

12.1% 

10.9% 

13.4% 

12.5% 

Emission 

Lbs/Ton 

Resin 

Consumed 

199.6 

241.6 

217.7 

267.3 

249.8 
Engineering Environmental 12/05/97 Page 3 

Run 

No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Effects of Spraying Method and Mold Size on Spray-Up Emissions - Sheet 10 

Run Parameters 

Data 

ID 

111695 A 

101796 B 

061396 A 

101796 A 

120595 B 

Mold 

Size 

Small 

Large 

Small 

Large 

Small 

Application 

Method 

Uncontrolled 

Uncontrolled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Uncontrolled 

Resin 

Consumed 

(g) 

8062.0 

21231.0 

5531.0 

21216.0 

8071.0 

Available 

Styrene 

(g) 

3458.6 

9403.2 

2453.0 

9396.6 

3406.0 

Data 

Emission 

Weight 

(g) 

1144.5 

2837.9 

547.0 

2309.7 

1295.2 

Emission 

%of 

AS 

33.1% 

30.2% 

22.3% 

24.6% 

38.0% 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/«2) 

30.70 

22.19 

14.67 

18.06 

34.74 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/m2) 

330.78 

238.88 

158.09 

194.42 

374.34 

Normalized 

Surf. Area 

Emission 

(g/ft2/kg GC) 

3.81 

1.05 

2.65 

0.85 

4.30 

Emission 

%of 

Resin 

(RW) 

14.2% 

13.4% 

9.9% 

10.9% 

16.0% 

- Emission 

Lbs/Ton 

Resin 

Consumed 

283.9 

267.3 

197.8 

217.7 

321.0 

MANUAL DATA 

"^ Hand Lay-Up Laminate Thickness Comparision Experiment - Sheet 4 

•' 

5;:Run:;i 

lliil 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Run Parameters 

Data 

ID 

052996 A 

052996 B 

053096 B 

080196 A 

Laminate 

Thickness 

0.080 

0.167 

0.080 

0.226 

Resin 

Consumed 

(g) 

5563.0 

9346.0 

4361.0 

11002.0 

Available 

Styrene 

(g) 

2467.3 

4145.0 

1934.1 

4879.4 

Data 

Emission 

Weight 

(g) 

369.5 

668.3 

364.3 

534.3 

Emission 

%of 

AS 

15.0% 

16.1% 

18.8% 

11.0% 

Surface 

Area Emiss, 

(g/«2) 

13.15 

23.79 

12.97 

19.02 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/m2) 

141.63 

256.15 

139.63 

204.79 

Normalized 

Surf. Area 

Emission 

(g/ft2/kg GC) 

2.36 

2.55 

2.97 

1.73 

Emission 

%of 

Resin 

(RW) 

6.6% 

7.2% 

8.4% 

4.9% 

Emission 

Lbs/Ton 

Resin 

Consumed 

132.8 

143.6 

167.1 

97.1 

, Run 

No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Data 

ID 

052996 A 

053096 A 

053096 B 

060396 B 

060496 A 

060496 B 

060596 A 

060596 B 

Hand lay-Up Effects of Styrene Suppressants Comparision Experiment -

Run Parameters 

Resin 

Type 

GP 

GP 

GP 

VE-HS 

VE-HS 

VE-LS 

VE-LS 

VE-LS 

Styrene 

Content 

44% 

44% 

44% 

49% 

49% 

33% 

33% 

33% 

Vapor 

Suppressed 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Resin 

Consumed 

(g) 

5563.0 

4295.0 

4361.0 

3649.0 

4344.0 

5693.0 

5515.0 

5686.0 

Data 

Available 

Styrene 

(g) 

2467.2 

1904.8 

1934.1 

1780.0 

2119.9 

1890.1 

1831.0 

1887.8 

Emission 

Weight 

(g) 

369.5 

133.4 

364.3 

338.1 

156.8 

165.2 

252.8 

152.5 

Emission 

%of 

AS 

15.0% 

7.0% 

18.8% 

19.0% 

7.4% 

8.7% 

13.8% 

8.1% 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/«2) 

13.15 

4.75 

12.97 

12.04 

5.58 

5.88 

9.00 

5.43 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/m2) 

141.63 

51.13 

139.63 

129.59 

60.10 

63.32 

96.90 

58.45 

Sheet 6 

Normalized 

Surf. Area 

Emission 

(g/ft2/kg GC) 

2.36 

1.11 

2.97 

3.30 

1.29 

1.03 

1.63 

0.95 

Emission 

%of 

Resin 

(RW) 

6.6% 

3.1% 

8.4% 

9.3% 

3.6% 

2.9% 

4.6% 

2.7% 

Emission 

Lbs/Ton 

Resin 

Consumed 

132.8 

62.1 

167.1 

185.3 

72.2 

58.0 

91.7 

53.6 

co 
Engineering Environmental 12/05/97 Page 4 

GELCOAT DATA 

Effects of Mold Configuration on Gel Coat Emissions (Large Mold) - Sheet 8 

Run Parameters 

Run 

No. 

1 

1 2 

3 

4 

1 5 

Data 

ID 

091796A 

091896A 

101596A 

101696A 

091796B 

Mold 

Conflg. 

Female 

Female 

Male 

Male 

Female 

Application 

Method 

Uncontrolled 

Controlled 

Uncontrolled 

Controlled 

Uncontrolled 

Resin 

Consumed 

(g) 

7942.0 

7998.0 

7944.0 

8040.0 

7963.0 

Available 

Styrene 

(g) 

2755.9 

2775.3 

2780.4 

2793.1 

2763.2 

Effects of Spraying Method and 

Run Parameters 

iHun||: 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Data 

ID 

101695C 

101596A 

030796B 

101696A 

101795B 

Mold 

Size 

Small 

Large 

Small 

Large 

Small 

Application 

Method 

Uncontrolled 

Uncontrolled 

Controlled 

Controlled 

Uncontrolled 

Emission 

Weight 

(g) 

1030J5, 

860.4 

1467.1 

1148.1 

1099.7 

Data 

Emission 

%of 

AS 

37.4% 

31.0% 

52.8% 

41.1% 

39.8% 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/«2) 

36.70 

30.63 

52.23 

40.87 

39.15 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/m2) 

395.09 

329.78 

562.32 

440.05 

421.50 

Normalized 

Surf. Area 

Emission 

(g/fl2/lcgGC) 

4.62 

3.83 

6.57 

5.08 

4.92 

Emission 

%of 

Resin 

(RW) 

13.0% 

10.8% 

18.5% 

14.3% 

13.8% 

Emission 

Lbs/Ton 

Resin 

Consumed 

259.6 

215.2 

369.4 

285.6 

276.2 

Mold Size on Gel Coat Emissions - Sheet 11 

Data 

Resin 

Consumed 

(g) 

2492.0 

7944.0 

1801.0 

8040.0 

2330.0 

Available 

Styrene 

(g) 

865.7 

2780.4 

728.7 

2793.1 

809.4 

Emission 

Weight 

(g) 

437.2 

1467.1 

228.5 

1148.1 

469.5 

Emission 

%of 

AS 

50.5% 

52.8% 

31.4% 

41.1% 

58.0% 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/«2) 

11.73 

11.47 

6.13 

8.98 

12.59 

Surface 

Area Emiss. 

(g/m2) 

126.35 

123.49 

66.04 

96.64 

135.69 

Normalized 

Surf. Area 

Emission 

(g/ft2/kgGC) 

4.71 

1.44 

3.40 

1.12 

5.41 

Emission 

%of 

Resin 

(RW) 

17.5% 

18.5% 

12.7% 

14.3% 

20.2% 

Emission 

Lbs/Ton 

Resin 

Consumed 

350.9 

369.4 

253.7 

285.6 

403.0 
P.95 

Review and Correction of 

CFA Phase II Data included in PES Data Sets 

95 
P.96 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Manual Resin Application 

- Bucket & Brush 

Data Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

12A 

6 

12B 

4A 

13 

4B 

9 

7 

1 

15 

2 

16 

8 

10 

14 

3A 

3B 

5 

11A 

11B 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Lower Bound . 

CFAPhasel 1 

CFAPhaseH 2 

CFA Filled 3 

NMMA 4 

OK 

Monomer 

Content 

Data ID (% Styrene) 

Assumed 

060596A * 

092895C 

092695A 

100295A 

100395A 

092995A 

092695A 

092795C 

092795A 

100295B 

091995A 

100295C 

091995B 

092795B 

092895A 

092995B 

092095A 

092695B 

092595A 

092895B 

092995C 

080196A ^ 

052996A S 

052996B ^ 

053096B f 

060396B >f 

Assumed 

Regression Outpul 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0. 

33.2 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

48.8 

100.0 

0.00286 

0.00058 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Riled 

RTI/NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0,0% 

4.6% 

3.4% 

3.6% 

3.6% 

4.2% 

4.2% 

4.6% 

5.0% 

5.3% 

6.2% 

6.3% 

4.9% 

4.9% 

5.7% 

6.0% 

7.1% 

7.2% 

7.6% 

8.1% 

8.9% 

8.9% 

4.9% 

6.6% 

7.2% 

8.4% 

9.3% 

100.0% 

-0.05283 

0.01278 

0.50351 

26 

24 

. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0,0% 

13.8% 

9.6% 

10.1% 

10.1% 

11.7% 

11.9% 

13.1% 

14.0% 

14.7% 

17.7% 

17.6% 

11.7% 

11.5% 

13.5% 

14.3% 

17.1% 

16.7% 

17.7% 

19.2% 

21.2% 

21.0% 

11.0% 

15.0% 

16.1% 

18.8% 

19.0% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

<?k 
P.97 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 • Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Manual Resin with Vapor Suppression 

Data Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

Assumed 

Constant 

StdErrofYEst 

R Squared 

Lower Bound . 

CFAPhasel 1 

CFAPhaseH 2 

CFA Filled 3 

NMMA 4 

t Monomer 

2£ Content 

Data ID (% Styrene) 

Assumed 0. 

060496BV 33.2 

060596B"' 33.2 

050396A' 44.4 

060496A S 48.8 

Assumed 100.0 

Regression Output: 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.00044758 

0.00013443 

Upper Bound . 

RTI Unfilled 5 

RTI Filled 6 

RTI/NMMA 7 

DOW Chemical 8 

Suppressant 

Level 

(% Resin) ( 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

0.01289156627 

0.00184932306 

0.84715102692 

4 

2 

Styrene 

Emissions 

[% resin wt) 

0.0% 

2.9% 

2.7% 

3.1% 

3.6% 

100.0% 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0.0% 

8.7% 

8.1% 

7.0% 

7.4% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

2 

9^ 
P.98 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Mechanical Resin Application 

Pata Legend 

Pun No, 

Assumed 

hJTttouJ—T) C 

12B 

12A 

6 

13 

1 

4A 

4B 

15 

9 

7 

11-3 

RF1-EXP 

R10 

1 (& 10) 

10 

14 

16 

11A 

11B 

3A 

2 

3B 

5 

8 

12-2 

12-1 

Ig female 

Ig female 

Ig male 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Es 

R Squared 

Lower Bound . 

CFAPhasel 1 

CFAPhaseH 2 

CFA Filled 3 

NMMA 4 

Monomer 

OK. < Content 

Data ID — (*%Styrenei 

Assumed 

' X 081296B 

X 080896A 

X 080896B 

121295A 

120895A 

112995A 

120895B 

111595B 

112895A 

112995B 

121295B 

120695A 

120495A 

022296A V' 

120695B 

121495B 

121495B 

120795A 

121195B 

111695B 

111695A 

113095A 

112895B 

120595B 

092596B ^ 

X 092596A 

101796B f* 

Assumed 

Regression Output 

t 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficients] 

Std Err of Coef 

/niSS/rWG: 

DATA 

12059?A 

OCoMfHoB 

092&9&A 

0. 

33.8 

33.8 

33.8 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35.1 

38.33 

38.33 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42.2 

42.2 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

100.0 

0.00677 

0.00151 

Upper Bound . 

RTI Unfilled 5 

RTI Filled 6 

RTI/NMMA 7 

DOW Chemical 8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) (% monomer) 

.0,0% 

7.9% 

8.3% 

8.4% 

5.6% 

6.3% 

6.4% 

6.5% 

6.6% 

6.7% 

6.9% 

7.2% 

8.0% 

8.2% 

18.3% 

6.8% 

10.4% 

9.1% 

9.4% 

10.4% 

10.7% 

12.1% 

12.8% 

13.0% 

13.9% 

14.2% 

15.0% 

16.0% 

16.5% 

23.0% 

12.1% 

12.5% 

13.4% 

100.0% 

-0.15575 

0.03253 

0.40060 

32 

30 

99 

0,0% 

23.3% 

24.6% 

25.0% 

16.1% 

18.1% 

18.2% 

18.6% 

18.8% 

19.0% 

19.6% 

20.6% 

22.9% 

23.3% 

52.0% 

17.7% 

27.1% 

21.7% 

22.4% 

24.8% 

25.4% 

28.7% 

30.4% 

31.0% 

33.1% 

33.9% 

35.8% 

38.0% 

39.2% 

54.6% 

27.3% 

28.2% 

30.2% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

4 

5 

5 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

• 

COhTTdOLXJEt) SPftAM 
P.99 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Mechanical Resin Application 

with Vapor Suppression 

Data Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

ALL ( 

ZVurROlL£T> J 

5?n*y ll ( 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Data ID 

Assumed 

' X081396B 

X081396A 

X061396B 

X080796A 

V082796A 

V081696B 

Assumed 

. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Monomer 

Content 

(% styrene) 

0. 

33.8 

33.8 

44.4 

44.4 

48.8 

48.8 

100 

Regression Output: 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.00175 

0.00137 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI / NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Suppressant 

Level 

(% Resin) 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

-0.00464 

0.02117 

0.28820 

6 

4 

_ 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wtt 

0,0% 

6.3% 

4.2% 

5.8% 

10.1% 

9.2% 

6.0% 

100,0% 

_ 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0,0% 

18.6% 

12.4% 

13.2% 

22.9% 

18.9% 

12.4% 

100,0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

°i°\ 
P.100 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 • Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Mechanical Resin Application 

with Non-Atomized Application 

Date Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

13-3 

14-1 

13-2 

14-3 

13-1 

13-2 

13-1 

14-2 

14-1 

14-2 

R24 

R18 

R4 

R2 

R3 

R16 

9-FC 

15-2 

15-2 

15-1 

15-1 

16-1 

16-1 

16-2 

16-2 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Lower Bound . 

CFAPhasel 1 

CFAPhaseH 2 

CFA Filled 3 

NMMA 4 

. Monomer 

Content 

Data ID (% Styrene) 

Assumed 

?? 

022797A * 

022797B S 

022797C S 

Assumed 

Regression Output 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

s~-^ (MecjO 

35TT 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

35.1 

38.33 

38.33 

38.33 

38.33 

38.33 

38.33 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

42.2 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

100.0 

0.00181 

0.00043 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI/NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Control 

Equipment 

Iyjjfi 

Either FC or PFR 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

PF Roller 

Flow Coater 

PF Roller 

PF Roller 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

Flow Coater 

PF Roller 

Either FC or PFR 

-0.02340 

0.00762 

0.41751 

27 

25 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

1% resin wt) 

0.0% 

2.5% 

3.1% 

3.2% 

3.3% 

3.4% 

3.7% 

3.7% 

3.7% 

3.9% 

4.3% 

5.3% 

5.5% 

5.5% 

5.6% 

5.8% 

6.2% 

4.4% 

4.5% 

4.7% 

4.9% 

5.0% 

5.2% 

5.6% 

5.9% 

6.2% 

5.0% 

5.1% 

5.7% 

100.0% 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0.0% 

7.1% 

8.8% 

9.0% 

9.3% 

9.6% 

10.5% 

10.5% 

10.7% 

11.1% 

12.1% 

13.9% 

14.2% 

14.5% 

14.6% 

15.2% 

16.3% 

10.4% 

10.6% 

11.2% 

11.6% 

11.9% 

12.2% 

13.2% 

14.0% 

14.8% 

11.4% 

11.6% 

12.9% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

4 

4 

7 

4 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4 

7 

4 

7 

4 

7 

4 

7 

2 

2 

2 

loo 
ro cn -j** 5^ 

nn 3D 3J 

3 -*• ro 

^ oi ro 

^>_Ut.^'Jm > > ' ' > J ' ' ' ' > 1 > > ' 

c o w ^^M^^^^roww-^^i\3co-'i*oo3^roro- ^ 

CO 

OIO) C 

CD 

Q. 

*X 

ooooo- * 

co co co co co o 

o -»• -»• o o o> 

CD CD CD CO CO CO 

o> O) co o> o> o> 

OJ 03 > O > > BPO 

•I* - o 

\\\TO0 D 

oo 

4». J*. 

o o 

•1*. o o o 

o o o 

00 00 00 

o o -* 

oo oo ru 

CO CO CO 

CJ> o*> c*> 

00 > OJ 

tn 

tn 

tz 

3 

CD 

CX 

a 

DJ 

B> 

a 

&&&&ScO&S££!wCOCOCOCOGaCOCOWWG30WCOCOCO O 

PPPPPc»£"H

1

y

1

cjicjioioioioioioioioioioioioioioioioioioiwwG5-*-» -

ououu^ouu*.*._i 1 * i - a _ i 1 i ii 4 - i liii 1 i 1 iii 4 i 1 * i : 

00 oo oo o> O J 

CO 

CD 

o 

S

3

§ 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o 

=3-33=]-3-33-3-3-3333333333 3 33333333333333=3-3 3 3 3 3 

G> 

cocowcocococowcocwcocowcowwcowcococowcocococow 

•O-OX)*O-0-O-O-O

- O, O, O, O"0, O, O'O"0, OT3T3T3TJ- O'0'O-0- O"OTJ"O1 O, O,

0

- O1 O T : 

PO)P)P|U|UP)p)()p)P)D)P)P)|l)|l)|l)|l)P)P>lVS)R)B)|l)D)P'D>'01»fil|U|l-BI9)! B 

5 ' 3 * 5" 3 ' 3 " 3 " 3 ' 3 " 3 ' 3 ' 5 ' 3 ' 5 ' 3 * 3 * Z3 5" 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 " 3 * 3 * 5 ' 5" 3 * 3 * 3 * 5 ' 3 * 3 * 3 * 5" 3

-

CQ CO CQ (QCQCQCQCQCOCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQC Q 

C/> CO COC O 

T J TJ TJ TJ 

-•» -^ -^ -^ 

ft) B> 0> ft> 

«<*<•<• < 

3 " 3 ' 5 ' 3 ' 

CQ CO CO CQ 

O 

o 

=3 

cox

1 

jS I® 

s 

E 

"o 

© 

3 

CO 

oic^cncnoicn^c*oo><**-><*na>o>CDW'5'5cococ-o^a^ 

jpp Ji*" *•* ff^ w* ff^ ff*

1

 ff^ ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 0 * 0

s

 ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 0 * ff* ff* ff* ff* 

00 

*S 

ff* 

**l Ol Ol -l"*. -•• 

N^ >p >p *p NP *P *P *P *P *p *p *p 

ff* o* ff* o* o

N

 o* ff* 0* ff* ff* o* 0

s

" 

e>*- tf* 

m 

O 

fe

3

CO 

•^-'^^l*ororo"*o^>•^•^•^•^•^-*•^-*^^^^-* m ^>^J 1 ^J•-*••- * 

>jo)u>oao>0)AMC»>pja(n(n^pUAUUUU-*r(n^u^ ^ 

^rrSl^S^SlQco^^fo^-^orocoo o 

^^.C0C0CON)CD-vJ^JO->O>'~sia ) 

ww^^cob*)K3b>^cocnki^"uKJbo»^^co*k.c » .__.... . 

*P *P *P *P *P *P *P *P *P *p *P *P *P *P *P *P <PP *P *P *P *P >P NP >P *.P ^P >P sp p^P sP .sP %p p^p ^p 

0

s

 O* <x* ff^ ^ ff* ff^ ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ^* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 

S *P *s •*? *s 

ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 

o 

ff* 

3 

o 

3 

o 

3 

to 

m 

3 

i

(0 

MI\)MMMMO1Cn«OiO10)«Cncn^^*JNJ*JNl^>I^A-*J*JNl>J**"Svlvl>l"OMIO0>0 > 

O

 W

 

O o 

© § 
CO X Coe tdEr fficient( 

r of Coe 

r*c2-

O Z DD CO tdEr Squ 

o. of 

egre 

rofY E 

ared 

Observ 

e

s of Fr 

st 

ation 

eedo 

3

 w 

onst o , 3 

•—* 

. 

> 

CO sumed 

JD 

CD 

CD CO 0 0 1596 sume ssior 

- > CO -U IO 

o ooooo-*ooo o 

OOOOCOCOCOOOOCOOJOJO O 

-•••ropopo-'-"*o-*--"- o 

OJCO^Ol^OJ**JOlCOIO- ^ 

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC O 

OJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJO J 

~a.>>>aj>>>>>>>a j 

TiDDDDDDr^-r^co

(

°*JUwA|f J M-

o o 

o b 

o o 

0 CO 

0 1 **J 

CO CO 

2SoDoioioioi55^S^^^^^!

u wioioioro*o-

OJ OJ O) OJ 

^ooooooooo5oo^^^^^^"*i"i"i^ioioiohJio

p p 6 

—•> CO <o _tv _JJ 

oo ro oj 

co OJ ri 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

3333333333333333 3 

COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 

TJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJ-OT3-OT3T J 

—» «- ^ - ^ - ^ —pp-^p"^-"i-^-^-^"^^-n"p'— * ^ 

0)0)0)ft)ftJft)0J0)p-*JftJftJ0)0)P)0J0JD J 

•<»<'<«<

,

<»<

,

<»<*<*<

,

<"<'<*<"<"<* < 

3" 3" 5' 3" 5" 5" 3' 5' 3' 5" 3" 3* 3' 3* 3" 3* 3

-

CQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQC Q 

OOOO

0 

3 

0 

3 

0 

3 

0 

3 

COCOCOCO

TJ TJ 

-*•* ! 

OJ 

•< 

3 

•^ 0> 

• < 

3 

• 0 

—r 

0) 

*•< 

3 

CQ CO CQ 

T3

- 1 

0> 

-< 

3 

CO C

OoiroooPpocoooPr^Pioofopoj^PP

•mo.kM

M

*Jub

o w

-

l MM*0

iub"^

ffi

^»^r

Onnon*P*Pnno*£*P*Poo*P*Poo*P*P*P*P*

^*^*jS**S**Sff*ff***5*5S*^ff*ff*ff**^**Sff*^

"iu^)Ml^)-»lo^)|oM-'-'W"o*olouu^)M

§-"•01 -«• W p>ip^iUIO^UCOUMpCOUUI*OlO

xb*Jcnb-^Acnbbiubbbibbo>uK)boow

-*x *P *P *P *P *P *P *P.*P *P *P *P *P *P *P *P *P *P *P *P *P 

*P ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 0 * ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 

o 

roMcococowi\>"o*oi*o*oi\joioioicn-*j*si^
P.3 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Filament Winding 

Pata Ugend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

1 

9 

16 

14 

13 

2 

6 

19 

7 

18 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Data ID 

Assumed 

Assumed 

, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

£ 

Regression Output 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

Monomer 

Content 

Vo Styrene) 

Q 

33 

33 

33 

33 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

100.0 

0.00276 

0.00058 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI / NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0.0% 

4.9% 

5.9% 

6.3% 

7.2% 

8.3% 

8.6% 

10.3% 

10.3% 

11.8% 

12.0% 

100.0% 

-0.03037 

0.01356 

0.73667 

10 

8 

. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomert 

0,0% 

14.9% 

17.9% 

19.1% 

21.8% 

17.4% 

17.9% 

21.4% 

21.4% 

24.5% 

24.9% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

103 
P.4 

Pacific Environmental Services, inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Filament Winding 

with Vapor Suppression 

Data Legend Lower Bound . Upper Bound . 

CFA Phase I 1 RTI Unfilled 5 

CFA Phase II 2 RTI Filled 6 

CFA Filled 3 RTI/NMMA 7 

Run No. 

Assumed 

20 

17 

10 

4 

5 

3 

12 

8 

15 

11 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

NMMA 

Data ID 

Assumed 

Assumed 

4 

Monomer 

Content 

(% Styrene) 

0. 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

100 

Regression Output: 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coeff icient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.00048 

0.00037 

DOW Chemical 

Suppressant 

Level 

(% Resin) 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

0.02716 

0.00871 

0.17599 

10 

8 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wti 

0.0% 

3.7% 

3.7% 

3.9% 

4.8% 

5.4% 

4.0% 

4.6% 

4.9% 

5.0% 

6.6% 

100,0% 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0.0% 

11.2% 

11.2% 

11.8% 

14.4% 

16.5% 

8.4% 

9.6% 

10.3% 

10.3% 

13.8% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

104-
P.5 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Gel Coat Application 

Data Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

Ig female 

5 

4B 

6 

12B 

12A 

13 

4A 

15 

7 

Ig male 

1 

9 

P6 

P11 

P12 

P2 

P4 

P8 

GF1-EXP 

2 

5 

16 

10 

1 (&14) 

3A 

14 

3B 

8 

11A 

11B 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Lower Bound . 

CFA Phase I 1 

CFA Phase II 2 

CFA Filled 3 

NMMA 4 

OK 

Data ID —• I 

Assumed 

091796A V 

091796B \A101695A 

101395B 

102395B 

101995A 

101995B 

101295B 

102495A 

101695C 

101596Af* 

101195A 

101795B 

101195B 

101395A 

102495B 

101895A 

030596A 

101295A 

101995C 

101695B 

101795A 

101895B 

102395B 

Assumed 

Monomer 

Content 

[% Styrene) 

0 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

100.0 

Regression Output: 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.01328 

0.00222 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI/NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0-0% 

13.0% 

13.8% 

14.6% 

15.2% 

15.7% 

15.9% 

15.9% 

15.9% 

17.5% 

17.7% 

18.5% 

18.8% 

20.3% 

23.0% 

23.1% 

23.2% 

23.7% 

25.4% 

27.0% 

29.1% 

18.3% 

19.6% 

20.5% 

21.0% 

21.1% 

21.3% 

22.4% 

23.2% 

24.3% 

24.7% 

24.8% 

100.0% 

-0.29680 

0.02811 

0.55249 

31 

29 

. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

M% 

37.4% 

39.8% 

41.7% 

43.4% 

44.9% 

45.4% 

45.4% 

45.4% 

50.0% 

50.6% 

52.8% 

53.7% 

58.0% 

59.3% 

59.5% 

60.0% 

61.2% 

65.7% 

69.6% 

75.2% 

45.8% 

49.0% 

51.3% 

52.5% 

52.8% 

53.3% 

56.0% 

58.0% 

60.8% 

61.8% 

62.0% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

105 
> 

CO 

CO 

e 

3 

CD 

CX 

\ ^ 

\2v 

IO 

> 

CO 

I CO 

"S > _L _i . CQ — CO 

>t30co^cnco*g-^iocoo)--

i

*ooic*o 00l -^^roioro- l ( i 5 io-oi o — -*-»3^-*«oo*'4^-*jcoo)io 3 

W

 CD = - CD 

CD Q 

31 

c 

I » I 

fssg 

I 

I I 

I / 

Q%0 

tj*oo 

•Ov O 

•€"*$*» 

> > 

i r 

CO 

CO 

c 

3 

CD 

cx 

o D) 

3" 

b 

cococococococococococococococo rororoiotoioroioio 

^^^cocncococooooocDCspoapjcopspouuuuuuuuuco u 

O O O *i Li '*i Lr Li Li *i Li Li *i Li *i *i *i *i *J *J vl *J -J »J *J *J *J *J *J »J Ol CJI r.i r.» ro r.i r.» r.» r.i r.i r.1 

o o o 

UU UU UU UU UJ UU UU UU UU UU UU UU UU UU UU {jj {jj ( £ (j j £ £ ^ J {^J y j £ J {^J { £ £ J £jj £ £ UTI Wl Wl UTI Wl UTI Wl Wl Wl 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Cflcococococococowc o 

oioioioioioioiuioicncnoioicno i oioioioioioioioio i 

s * 

CO 

<? 

"t 

CD 

*— 

o £-"*» Ki 

OQOOOOOOOOOOOOQQOOOOOQOQQOOQ Q 

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o 

3333333333333333333333333333 3 

w-+ i-+ *+ •—• #-*• i-+ »-^ ^ * ^ + r-* r+ 0-* ^ * r * ^ * r-* ^ + *•"#• ^ * *• • .p** *••• ^ * ^ * ^ * .p** »•* .p** j-***-

co co w co co <*o co co co co <w to co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co 

TJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT J 

ft)ft)ft)ft)0)ft)D)ft)ft)0)P)OJO)OJOJO)OJDJD)D)0)0)OJO)0)OJO)0)ft) 

*<«<»<'<*<»<*<«<»<«<«<*<«<»<«<^«<«<«<»<«<«<«<«<»<*<»<«<«< 

3333333333333333333333333333 3 

CO CO CO CO CQ CO CQ tOCQCQCQCOCQCQCQCOCQCOCOCQCQCQCOCQCQCOCQCQCQ 

OOOOOOOOOOOOO O 

OOOOOOOOOOO ' ~ " 

3 3 3 

o 

3 

O 

3 3 3 3 

O 

3 

CO CO CO CO CO COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 

3" 3 ' 5 ' 3 ' 5" 3" 3 ' 5" 3" 3 ' 5" 3" 3 ' 3 ' 

COCOCOCOCQCQCQCQCOCOCQCOCQCQ 

•^-••-^-'lo.vuioioioioioioMioiorara^-^ioioioMM- ^ 

§•o'olooolo*o"oro^^T

i

^7'pppppppppppppp^pppl^ool^^^wpwlolo" R 

"**i^bicococ»woiOJcDcj*wb)ikMKjbj^J^coc» 

ff* ff* ff* o * o*<""*ff*ff*ff*ff*p^ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*p^ff*ff*0*ff*ff*0 * O* ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*<J*o 

o 

0 * 

?

1

W

-^ 

I 

*^uuuc»cnuioicnuu(jiwuoioi(noiA*vi » 

o^^^O<DCD(»COSOlCnAU|ONMOlDi O)O)A*W-

- OS(flU"O-'^ 0 

o 

*s 

o* 

<ONiuroro«)roo<j)AM(o-» 

.^p P^P *p *P *P *P *P *P *p *p *P *P *p 

O* ff* O* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* o* ff^ 

•*jro-^cj)ro*.^corolcocT)^ o 

ff*ff*ff*ff*o*e*ff*e*ff*ff*ff*e*ff*o*ff* 

•&.COOJOOJOOJOOO) 

*p *p *p *p *p *p *p *p *p 

ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 

**l IO CO O) S 

*P *P *P *P iJ* 

ff* 0 * ff* 0*

 w 

ID (

3 

o 

3 

O 

3 

'OlOloolOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlcnolOlCn^^v|^-*J-g•*J*^l^^^^^^loolOlOlOlOlcnolOlOl O 

Q. 

O 
P.7 

Regression Output: 

Constant 0.02647 

Std Err of Y Est 0.03232 

R Squared 0.35435 

No. of Observations 41 

Degrees of Freedom 39 

X Coefficient(s) 0.00437 

Std Err of Coef. 0.00094 

ioi 
P.8 

U 

Derivation of 

Power" Law Emission Models 

\09> 
Power Law Models 

PES Power Models 

Manual BEF 

Manual VS 

Mech BEF 

Mech VS 

Mech NonA 

MechCS 

Fila BEF 

Fila VS 

Gelcoat BEF 

Gelcoat CS 

o" 

- 0 

CFA Power Models 

Manual BEF 

Manual VS 

Mech BEF 

Mech VS 

Mech NonA 

MechCS 

Fila BEF 

Fila VS 

Gelcoat BEF 

Gelcoat CS 

Data points 

26 

4 

32 

6 

27 

73 

10 

10 

31 

41 

Data points 

26 

26 

10 

21 

R

2 

0.505 

0.503 

0.768 

0.588 

R

2 

0.505 

0.782 

0.771 

0.665 

PES Power Regression Equations 

0.3407 %styrene1-

9035 

1.1787 %styrene25934 

Comments 

0.2799 %styrene 

2.5170 %styrene 

1.3865 

2.5930 

CFA Power Regression Equations 

0.3412 %styrene1-

9049 

1.4762 %styrene2-

9220 

1.3793 0.2781 %styrene 

1.3913 %styrene20215 

Comments 

Same as PES (rounding error) 

Same as PES (rounding error) 

CO 
PES "Super Set" Power Law Models 

Baseline Emission Factors 

O 

7 0 % 

6 0% 

c 

'co 

5 0% 

•^40 % 

CO 

tr 

g 

"co 

co 

'E 

UJ 

cu 

c 

OJ 

i— 

> • . 

55 

3 0 % 

•^20% -

10% 

0% 

Manual BEF 

-OMech BEF 

Fila BEF 

Gelcoat BEF 

20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 
CFA Power Law Models 

Baseline Emission Factors 

c 

'tn 

co 

cr 

g 'co 

co 

'E 

LU 

OJ 

1= 

OJ 

l _ 

>*. 

U) 

20% 25% 

l\J /o 

DU /o 

50%-

40%-

ono/ 

oUvo 

ono/ d\J7o 

10%-

0%-i 

v^° 

Manual BEF 

Mech BEF 

Fila BEF 

Gelcoat BEF 

30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 

Monomer Content (% styrene) 

55% 60% 
P.12 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Manual Resin Application • Bucket & Brush 

Data Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

12A 

6 

12B 

4A 

13 

4B 

9 

7 

1 

15 

2 

16 

8 

10 

14 

3A 

3B 

5 

11A 

11B 

Assumed 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefticient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

Data ID 

Assumed 

060596A 

092895C 

092695A 

100295A 

100395A 

092995A 

092695A 

092795C 

092795A 

100295B 

091995A 

100295C 

091995B 

092795B 

092895A 

092995B 

092095A 

092695B 

092595A 

092895B 

092995C 

080196A 

052996A 

052996B 

053096B 

060396B 

Assumed 

Regression Output 

Monomer 

Content 

•*% Stvrene) 

Q. 

33.2 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

48.8 

100.0 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI/NMMA 

DOW Chemical 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wti 

00% 

4.6% 

3.4% 

3.6% 

3.6% 

4.2% 

4.2% 

4.6% 

5.0% 

5.3% 

6.2% 

6.3% 

4.9% 

4.9% 

5.7% 

6.0% 

7.1% 

7.2% 

7.6% 

8.1% 

8.9% 

8.9% 

4.9% 

6.6% 

7.2% 

8.4% 

9.3% 

100.0% 

-0.052831804223 

0.012775089601 

0.503509613873 

26 

24 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Styrene Data 

Emissions Source 

(% monomer) Code 

0.0% 

13.8% 2 

9.6% 

10.1% 

10.1% 

11.7% 

11.9% 

13.1% 

14.0% 

14.7% 

17.7% 

17.6% 

11.7% 

11.5% 

13.5% 

14.3% 

17.1'% 

16.7% 

17.7% 

19.2% 

21.2% 

21.0% 

11.0% 2 

15.0% 2 

16.1% 2 

18.8% 2 

19.0% 2 

100.0% 

LOG10 

Monomer 

Content 

(% Styrene) 

-0.479 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.353 

-0.353 

-0.353 

-0.353 

-0.312 

LOG10 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomert 

-1.337 

-1.469 

-1.444 

-1.444 

-1.377 

-1.377 

-1.337 

-1.301 

-1.276 

-1.208 

-1.201 

-1.310 

-1.310 

-1.244 

-1.222 

-1.149 

-1.143 

-1.119 

-1.092 

-1.051 

-1.051 

-1.310 

-1.180 

-1.143 

-1.076 

-1.032 

0.002856087 

0.000578918 

POWER 

Regression 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coeff icient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

Output: 

1.903456758 

0.384493093 

Log A A 

-0.46765035982 0.3406823546 

0.093455882019 

0.505236867056 

26 

24 

Y = 0.3407 X1-

9035 

n-2_ 
P.13 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 • Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Mechanical Resin Application 

Data Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

12B 

12A 

6 

13 

1 

4A 

4B 

15 

9 

7 

11-3 

RF1-EXP 

R10 

1 (&10) 

10 

14 

16 

11A 

11B 

3A 

2 

3B 

5 

8 

12-2 

12-1 

Ig female 

Ig female 

Ig male 

Assumed 

Lower Bound . 

CFA Phase I 1 

CFA Phase II 2 

CFA Filled 3 

NMMA 4 

Data IP 

Assumed 

081296B 

080896A 

080896B 

121295A 

120895A 

112995A 

120895B 

111595B 

112895A 

112995B 

121295B 

120695A 

120495A 

022296A 

120695B 

121495B 

121495B 

120795A 

121195B 

111695B 

111695A 

113095A 

112895B 

120595B 

Upper Bound . 

RTI Unfilled 5 

RTI Filled 6 

RTI / NMMA 7 

DOW Chemical 8 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

092596B 

092596A 

101796B 

Assumed 

Regression Output: 

Monomer 

Content 

1% Stvrene) 

a 

33.8 

33.8 

33.8 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35.1 

38.33 

38.33 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42.2 

42.2 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

100.0 

Styrene 

Emissions 

.*% resin wt) 

0.0% 

7.9% 

8.3% 

8.4% 

5.6% 

6.3% 

6.4% 

6.5% 

6.6% 

6.7% 

6.9% 

7.2% 

8.0% 

8.2% 

18.3% 

6.8% 

10.4% . 

9.1% 

9.4% 

10.4% 

10.7% 

12.1% 

12.8% 

13.0% 

13.9% 

14.2% 

15.0% 

16.0% 

16.5% 

23.0% 

12.1% 

12.5% 

13.4% 

100.0% 

-0.1557539855 

0.03253160908 

0.40060254027 

32 

30 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0.0% 

23.3% 

24.6% 

25.0% 

16.1% 

18.1% 

18.2% 

18.6% 

18.8% 

19.0% 

19.6% 

20.6% 

22.9% 

23.3% 

52.0% 

17.7% 

27.1% 

21.7% 

22.4% 

24.8% 

25.4% 

28.7% 

30.4% 

31.0% 

33.1% 

33.9% 

35.8% 

38.0% 

39.2% 

54.6% 

27.3% 

28.2% 

30.2% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

4 

5 

5 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

LOGio LOGio 

Monomer Styrene 

Content Emissions 

(% Styrene) (% monomer 

-0.471 

-0.471 

•0.471 

-0.456 

•0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.455 

-0.416 

-0.416 

-0.377 

•0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.377 

-0.375 

-0.375 

-0.353 

-0.353 

-0.353 

-1.102 

-1.081 

-1.076 

-1.252 

-1.201 

-1.194 

-1.187 

-1.180 

-1.174 

-1.161 

-1.143 

-1.097 

-1.086 

-0.739 

-1.167 

-0.984 

-1.041 

-1.027 

-0.983 

-0.971 

-0.917 

-0.893 

-0.886 

-0.857 

-0.848 

-0.824 

-0.796 

-0.781 

-0.638 

-0.917 

-0.903 

-0.873 

0.006767379 

0.001511334 

POWER Regression 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

Output: 

2.593405647 

0.470747254 

Log A A 

0.07141729618 1.1787380317 

0.11399699117 

0.50290356061 

32 

30 

Y = 1.1787 X25834 

II3 
P.M 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Filament Winding 

Data Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

1 

9 

16 

14 

13 

2 

6 

19 

7 

18 

Assumed 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Data ID 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

Assumed 

Regression Output: 

Monomer 

Content 

1% Styrene) 

fl 

33 

33 

33 

33 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

100.0 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 

RTI Filled 

RTI/NMMA 

5 

6 

7 

DOW Chemical 8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

0.0% 

4.9% 

5.9% 

6.3% 

7.2% 

8.3% 

8.6% 

10.3% 

10.3% 

11.8% 

12.0% 

100.0% 

-0.03036666667 

0.01356274001 

0.73667179634 

10 

8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

0.0% 

14.9% 

17.9% 

19.1% 

21.8% 

17.4% 

17.9% 

21.4% 

21.4% 

24.5% 

24.9% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

LOGio 

Monomer 

Content 

LOGio 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% Styrene) f%monomeri 

-0.481 

-0.481 

-0.481 

-0.481 

-0.319 

-0.319 

-0.319 

-0.319 

-0.319 

-0.319 

-1.310 

-1.229 

-1.201 

-1.143 

-1.081 

-1.066 

-0.987 

-0.987 

-0.928 

-0.921 

0.002761111 

0.000583647 

POWER 

Regression Output: 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

-0.55298724564 

0.06796454385 

0.76777281696 

10 

8 

0.2799063521 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

1.386504253 

0.269597818 Y = 0.2799 X"865 

U4-
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis: One Variable (Styrene) Linear Regression for Gel Coat Application 

P.15 

Data Legend 

Run No. 

Assumed 

Ig female 

5 

4B 

6 

12B 

12A 

13 

4A 

15 

7 

Ig male 

1 

9 

P6 

P11 

P12 

P2 

P4 

P8 

GF1-EXP 

2 

5 

16 

10 

1 (&14) 

3A 

14 

3B 

8 

11A 

11B 

Assumed 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

Lower Bound 

CFA Phase I 

CFA Phase II 

CFA Filled 

NMMA 

Data ID 

Assumed 

091796A 

091796B 

101695A 

101395B 

102395B 

101995A 

101995B 

101295B 

102495A 

101695C 

101596A 

101195A 

101795B 

101195B 

101395A 

102495B 

101895A 

030596A 

101295A 

101995C 

101695B 

101795A 

101895B 

102395B 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Monomer 

Content 

(% Styrene) 

fl 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

38.75 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

Assumed 100.0 

Regression Output: 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.013278392 

0.0022191325 

Upper Bound 

RTI Unfilled 5 

RTI Filled 6 

RTI / NMMA 7 

DOW Chemical 8 

Styrene 

Emissions 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) i*% monomer) 

0.0% 

13.0% 

13.8% 

14.6% 

15.2% 

15.7% 

15.9% 

15.9% 

15.9% 

17.5% 

17.7% 

18.5% 

18.8% 

20.3% 

23.0% 

23.1% 

23.2% 

23.7% 

25.4% 

27.0% 

29.1% 

18.3% 

19.6% 

20.5% 

21.0% 

21.1% 

21.3% 

22.4% 

23.2% 

24.3% 

24.7% 

24.8% 

100.0% 

-0.2968040201 

0.028112465362 

0.55249274285 

31 

29 

0.0% 

37.4% 

39.8% 

41.7% 

43.4% 

44.9% 

45.4% 

45.4% 

45.4% 

50.0% 

50.6% 

52.8% 

53.7% 

58.0% 

59.3% 

59.5% 

60.0% 

61.2% 

65.7% 

69.6% 

75.2% 

45.8% 

49.0% 

51.3% 

52.5% 

52.8% 

53.3% 

56.0% 

58.0% 

60.8% 

61.8% 

62.0% 

100.0% 

Data 

Source 

Code 

2 

2 

2 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

LOGio 

Monomer 

Content 

i-% Styrene) 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

•0.456 

-0.456 

•0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.456 

-0.412 

-0.412 

-0.412 

-0.412 

-0.412 

-0.412 

-0.412 

-0.398 

-0.398 

-0.398 

•0.398 

-0.398 

-0.398 

-0.398 

-0.398 

-0.398 

-0.398 

-0.398 

LOGio 

Styrene 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

-0.886 

-0.860 

-0.836 

-0.818 

-0.804 

-0.799 

-0.799 

-0.799 

-0.757 

-0.752 

-0.733 

-0.726 

-0.693 

-0.639 

-0.637 

-0.634 

-0.625 

-0.594 

-0.569 

-0.536 

-0.738 

-0.708 

-0.688 

•0.678 

-0.676 

-0.672 

-0.650 

-0.635 

-0.614 

-0.607 

-0.606 

POWER 

Regression 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) -

Std Err of Coef. 

Output: 

2.5929656791 

0.4028871791 

Log A A 

0.400891525945 2.51704816425 

0.059378452731 

0.588194404024 

31 

29 

Y = 2.5170 X"930 

\\5 
Engineering Environmental 

Power Law Regression - CFA Manual (Hand) Model 

^ 

No. 

1 

2 

3A 

3B 

4A 

4B 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11A 

11B 

12A 

12B 

13 

14 

15 

16 

ID 

100295B 

100295C 

092095A 

092695B 

100395A 

092695C 

092595A 

092695A 

092795A 

092795B 

092795C 

092895A 

092895B 

092995C 

092895C 

100295A 

092995A 

092995B 

091995A 

091995B 

052996B 

080196A 

060596A 

052996A 

053096B 

060396B 

(in.) 

0.041 

0.088 

0.041 

0.041 

0.088 

0.088 

0.041 

0.088 

0.041 

0.088 

0.041 

0.088 

0.041 

0.041 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

0.041 

0.041 

0.088 

0.176 

0.120 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

0.088 

(%) 

35 

42 

42 

42 

35 

35 

42 

35 

35 

42 

35 

42 

42 

42 

35 

35 

35 

42 

35 

42 

44.4 

44.4 

33.2 

44.4 

44.4 

48.8 

(min.) 

30 

15 

15 

15 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

30 

15 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

30 

15 

30 

15 

(fpm) 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

100 

100 

50 

50 

100 

100 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

50 

100 

(%) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

(% resin wt) 

6.2% 

4.9% 

7.2% 

7.6% 

4.2% 

4.6% 

8.1% 

3.6% 

5.3% 

5.7% 

5.0% 

6.0% 

8.9% 

8.9% 

3.4% 

3.6% 

4.2% 

7.1% 

6.3% 

4.9% 

7.2% 

4.9% 

4.6% 

6.6% 

8.4% 

9.3% 

(% styrene) 

17.7% 

11.7% 

16.7% 

17.7% 

11.7% 

13.1% 

19.2% 

10.1% 

14.7% 

13.5% 

14.0% 

14.3% 

21.2% 

21.0% 

9.6% 

10.1% 

11.9% 

17.1% 

17.6% 

11.5% 

16.1% 

11.0% 

13.8% 

15.0% 

18.8% 

19.0% 

Logio 

Content 

-0.45593 

-0.37675 

-0.37675 

-0.37675 

-0.45593 

-0.45593 

-0.37675 

-0.45593 

-0.45593 

-0.37675 

-0.45593 

-0.37675 

-0.37675 

-0.37675 

-0.45593 

-0.45593 

-0.45593 

-0.37675 

-0.45593 

-0.37675 

-0.35262 

-0.35262 

-0.47886 

-0.35311 

-0.35311 

-0.31158 

Logio 

Emissions 

-1.20760831 

-1.30980392 

-1.1426675 

-1.11918641 

-1.37675071 

-1.33724217 

-1.09151498 

-1.4436975 

-1.27572413 

-1.24412514 

-1.30103 

-1.22184875 

-1.05060999 

-1.05060999 

-1.46852108 

-1.4436975 

-1.37675071 

-1.14874165 

-1.20065945 

-1.30980392 

-1.1426675 

-1.30980392 

-1.33724217 

-1.18045606 

-1.07572071 

-1.03151705 

Monomer only - emissions as % resin 

Regression Output: 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

-0.05292 

0.0127761 

0.5034313 

26 

24 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.0028587 

0.0005795 

Emission Factor = 0.286 x %styrene - 0.0529 

Monomer only - emissions as % resin 

POWER Regression Output: 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 1.9049159 

Std Err of Coef. 0.38486331 

-0.46699 0.341202 

0.093465 

0.505139 

26 

24 

Emission Factors 0.3412 %stvrene19049 
Engineering Environmental 

• ^ 

Run 

No. 

1 

2 

3A 

3B 

4A 

4B 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11A 

11B 

12A 

12B 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1 (&10) 

Ig female 

Ig male 

thick lam 

Ig female 

Data 

ID 

111595B 

111695A 

111695B 

113095A 

112895A 

112995B 

112895B 

112995A 

120495A 

120595B 

120695A 

120695B 

120795A 

121195B 

120895A 

121295A 

120895B 

121495B 

121295B 

121495A 

022296A 

092596B 

101796B 

061296B 

092696A 

120595A 

Power Law Regression - CFA Revised Mechanical Model 

Laminate Styrene Gel Resin Air Styrene Styrene 

Thickness 

(in.) 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.080 

0.040 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.080 

0.040 

0.040 

0.080 

0.080 

0.187 

0.080 

Content 

(%) 

35 

42 

42 

42 

35 

35 

42 

35 

35 

42 

35 

42 

42 

42 

35 

35 

35 

42 

35 

42 

42 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

44.4 

Time 

(min.) 

30 

15 

15 

15 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

30 

15 

30 

30 

30 

15 

15 

30 

15 

30 

15 

30 

Row 

(Ib/min) 

4 

2 

2 

2 

4 

4 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

4 

2 

4 

4 

Flow 

(fpm) 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

100 

100 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

100 

50 

100 

100 

Emissions 

(% resin wt) 

6.6% 

13.9% 

13.0% 

14.2% 

6.7% 

6.9% 

15.0% 

6.4% 

8.2% 

16.0% 

8.0% 

9.4% 

12.1% 

12.8% 

6.3% 

5.6% 

6.5% 

10.4% 

7.2% 

10.7% 

9.1% 

12.1% 

13.4% 

10.6% 

12.5% 

16.0% 

Emissions 

(% monomer) 

18.8% 

33.1% 

31.0% 

33.9% 

19.0% 

19.6% 

35.8% 

18.2% 

23.3% 

38.0% 

22.9% 

22.4% 

28.7% 

30.4% 

18.1% 

16.1% 

18.6% 

24.8% 

20.6% 

25.4% 

21.7% 

27.3% 

30.2% 

23.9% 

Logio 

Content 

-0.4559 

-0.3768 

-0.3768 

-0.3768 

-0.4559 

-0.4559 

-0.3768 

-0.4559 

-0.4559 

-0.3768 

-0.4559 

-0.3768 

-0.3768 

-0.3768 

-0.4559 

-0.4559 

-0.4559 

-0.3768 

-0.4559 

-0.3768 

-0.3768 

-0.3526 

-0.3526 

-0.3526 

-0.3526 

-0.3526 

Logio 

Emissions 

-1.18177 

-0.85692 

-0.88539 

-0.84655 

-1.17718 

-1.16368 

-0.82287 

-1.19586 

-1.08858 

-0.79697 

-1.0961 

-1.0265 

-0.91887 

-0.89388 

-1.19825 

-1.24911 

-1.18642 

-0.9823 

-1.14206 

-0.97192 

-1.04096 

-0.91721 

-0.8729 

-0.97469 

-0.90309 

-0.79588 

Regression Output: 

Constant -0.18023 

Std Err of Y Est 0.01818 

R Squared 0.71447 

No. of Observations 26 

Degrees of Freedom 24 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.00714 

0.00092 

Emissions (%resin) = 0.714 x %styrene - 0.180 

POWER Regression Output: 

Constant 0.16915 

Std Err of Y Est 0.06927 

R Squared 0.78167 

No. of Obsen/ations 26 

Degrees of Freedom 24 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

2.9220185 

0.3152273 

1.476214 

Emission Factor (%resin) = 1.4762 %styrene*J>

220 
Engineering Environmental 

Power Law Regression - CFA Filament Winding Model 

cQ 

Run ' 

9 

7 

16 

13 

14 

6 

19 

2 

18 

1 

Filament Winding tests 

%Sty 

33 

48 

33 

48 

33 

48 

48 

48 

48 

33 

Supp 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Temp 

85 

73 

85 

73 

73 

85 

85 

85 

85 

73 

Size 

6 

33 

33 

6 

33 

33 

33 

6 

33 

6 

Emissions 

Based on 

% Resin 

5.9 

11.8 

6.3 

8.3 

7.2 

10.3 

10.3 

8.6 

12.0 

4.9 

Emissions 

Based on 

Emissions 

Based on 

% Resin wt % Styrene 

5.90% 

11.77% 

6.29% 

8.34% 

7.21% 

10.28% 

10.28% 

8.58% 

11.96% 

4.93% 

17.9% 

24.5% 

19.1% 

17.4% 

21.8% 

21.4% 

21.4% 

17.9% 

24.9% 

14.9% 

Logio 

Content 

-0.48149 

-0.31876 

-0.48149 

-0.31876 

-0.48149 

-0.31876 

-0.31876 

-0.31876 

-0.31876 

-0.48149 

Logio 

Emissions 

-1.22915 

-0.92922 

-1.20135 

-1.07883 

-1.14206 

-0.98801 

-0.98801 

-1.06651 

-0.92227 

-1.30715 

Regression Output: 

Constant -0.0298 

Std Err of Y Est 0.013386 

R Squared 0.739632 

No. of Observations 10 

Degrees of Freedom 8 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.002746 

0.000576 

Emission Factor (% resin) = 0.275 x %styrene - 0.0298 

POWER Regression Output: 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

1.37932189762 

0.26593483533 

Emission Factor (% resin) = 

-0.5558 0.278096 

0.067041 

0.770785 

10 

8 

0.2781 %styrene137S3 
Engineering Environmental 

Power Law Regression - CFA Gelcoat Model 

Run# 

1 

2 

3A 

3B 

4A 

4B 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11A 

11B 

12A 

12B 

13 

14 

15 

16 

1 (& 14) 

ID 

101195A 

101195B 

101295A 

101695B 

101295B 

101695A 

101395A 

101395B 

101695C 

101795A 

101795B 

101895A 

101895B 

102395A 

101995A 

102395B 

101995B 

101995C 

102495A 

102495B 

030596A 

(in.) 

0.018 

0.024 

0.018 

0.018 

0.024 

0.024 

0.024 

0.024 

0.018 

0.018 

0.018 

0.024 

0.018 

0.018 

0.024 

0.024 

0.024 

0.018 

0.018 

0.024 

0.018 

(%) 

35 

40 

40 

40 

35 

35 

40 

35 

35 

40 

35 

40 

40 

40 

35 

35 

35 

40 

35 

40 

40 

(min.) 

20 

10 

10 

10 

20 

20 

20 

10 

10 

20 

10 

20 

20 

20 

10 

10 

20 

10 

20 

10 

10 

(Ib/min) 

4 

2 

2 

2 

4 

4 

2 

4 

4 

2 

2 

4 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2 

4 

2 

4 

4 

(fpm) 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

100 

100 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

50 

50 

100 

100 

50 

100 

50 

100 

100 

(% resin wt) 

18.8% 

18.3% 

21.3% 

23.2% 

15.9% 

14.6% 

19.6% 

15.2% 

17.7% 

24.3% 

20.3% 

21.0% 

24.7% 

24.8% 

15.9% 

15.7% 

15.9% 

22.4% 

17.5% 

20.5% 

21.1% 

(% styrene) 

53.8% 

45.8% 

53.2% 

57.9% 

45.3% 

41.8% 

49.0% 

43.5% 

50.5% 

60.7% 

58.0% 

52.4% 

61.8% 

62.0% 

45.4% 

44.8% 

45.4% 

56.0% 

49.9% 

51.3% 

52.7% 

Logio 

Content 

-0.45593196 

-0.39794001 

-0.39794001 

-0.39794001 

-0.45593196 

-0.45593196 

-0.39794001 

-0.45593196 

-0.45593196 

-0.39794001 

-0.45593196 

-0.39794001 

-0.39794001 

-0.39794001 

-0.45593196 

-0.45593196 

-0.45593196 

-0.39794001 

-0.45593196 

-0.39794001 

-0.39794001 

Logio 

Emissions 

-0.72515 

-0.737075 

-0.672028 

-0.635261 

-0.799834 

-0.834756 

-0.707744 

-0.817443 

-0.752641 

-0.614751 

-0.692504 

-0.678609 

-0.606952 

-0.605548 

-0.798876 

-0.804654 

-0.798876 

-0.649752 

-0.757831 

-0.687823 

-0.675718 

Phase I runs - emissions as % resin weight: 

Regression Output: 

Constant 

Std Err of Y Est 

R Squared 

No. of Observations 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

0.01036 

0.00173 

-0.1950 

0.0198 

0.6539 

21 

19 

Emission Factor (% resin) = 1.036 x %styrene - 0.1950 

Phase I runs - emissions as % resin weight: 

POWER Regression Output: 

Constant 0.143425798 1.3913161 

Std Err of Y Est 0.043680526 

R Squared 0.665084602 

No. of Observations 21 

Degrees of Freedom 

X Coefficient(s) 

Std Err of Coef. 

19 

2.02153452 

0.32910424 

Emission Factor (% resin) = 1.3913 x Vostyrene2-

0215 
P.20 

An Example of Piecewise Construction 

for the 

Derivation of Emission Models 

\7J0 
Linear and Power Models for Mechanical Application 

93 

25% 

.E 20% 

co 

0) 

~ 15% 

0) 

| 10% 

w 

<j> 

>-

55 

5% 

0% 

0% 

-o • i 

Lowei\ 

8OUWD\K 

\ 

^TRIMJCATE 

UPP& 

BOMO 

\ 

Tr?c//ocArg10% 20% 30% 40% 

Styrene Content (% resin wt) 

50% 

on4 fir 

Linear Model 

Power Model 

ho 
Linear and Power Models for Mechanical Application 

-y-t 

£ 

c 

(0 

<D 

•^5 

tn 

C 

o 

tn 

CO 

E 

UJ 

0) 

c 0 

> 

CO 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

/ 

-o » • J 

D/?4Fr 

Linear Model 

Power Model 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 

Styrene Content (% resin wt) 
Piecewise Model for Mechanical Application 

30% -

f 

c 

• MCO M 0 

^ 20% -

CO 

"co 

CO 

••• • 

uj 10% - ene 

i a 

U /o ^ 

0

C 

i • 

/o 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 

Styrene Content (% resin wt) 

0

*4/^ 

-*- Linear Piece 

-•- Power Piece 

t 

60% 

ro 
Noncorrosion - Resistant Manual Application DRAFT 

11/5/97 

p:\n801\dbase\new aer\manmech lin.xls 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DRAFT 

ImDortant Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine actual emissions at a specific facility. 

A facility's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore not be used. 

This database only contains facilities for which the Administrator has information. Other facilities that should be part of this database are likely to exist. 

EXISTING SOURCES 

Non Corrosion Resistant - Manual 

Plant Name 

Cor Tec Co. 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Southampton) 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Jacksonville) 

GHM, Inc. 

Custom Flbreglass Manufacturing Co. 

Plcken's Plastics, Inc. 

Prototype Concepts, Inc. 

Monarch Plastic, Inc. 

Ceramic Cooling Tower Co. 

Emslg Manufacturing Corp. 

Bowie Manufacturing, Inc. 

CDR Systems Corp. (Corcoran) 

CDR Systems Corp. (Palatka) 

Niagara Fiberglass, Inc. 

New York Blower Co. (Plant #2) 

Johnson Truck Bodies 

Universal Plastics, Inc. 

Teco, Inc. 

Retterbush Injection Molded Fiberglass Corp. 

Eckler Industries 

Fiber-Tech Industries 

Robroy Industries, Inc. (Belding, Ml) 

IMCO Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

Seal Reinforced Fiberglass 

Plastic Composites Corp. 

Diamond Coach Corp. 

Fiberglass Industries, Inc. 

Aero Transportation Products 

Resin 

IMI 

2,100 

70 

61 

3 

99 

249 

27 

44 

110 

252 

1 

152 

125 

59 

8 

195 

82 

33 

2 

3 

1,459 

34 

120 

26 

50 

138 

44 

547 

%HAP 

neat resin plus 

33.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.6 

44.9 

45.0 

46.0 

44.0 

32.0 

32.0 

33.5 

34.0 

34.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.4 

37.0 

37.0 

38.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

41.0 

41,8 

Resin 

Emissions 

iMl 

58.6 

2.1 

1.8 

0.1 

3.4 

8.5 

1.0 

1.6 

5.4 

12.4 

0.0 

7.9 

6.5 

3.2 

0.4 

10.5 

4.4 

1.8 

0.1 

0.2 

85.2 

2.1 

7.4 

1.6 

3.1 

8.5 

2.8 

35.2 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

fibs/ton) 

56 

61 

61 

$2 

68 

69 

70 

74 

98 

98 

103 

105 

105 

108 

108 

108 

108 

109 

114 

114 

117 

123 

123 

123 

123 

123 

126 

129 

Floor: 

Reduction 

Techniaues 

Vac. bagJResin + Cat Oxidizer/Gel Coat 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

Vac. Bag 

62 

MACT 

Emissions 

iMl 

58.6 

2.1 

1.8 

0.1 

3.1 

7.7 

0.8 

1.4 

3.4 

7.8 

0.0 

4.7 

3.9 

1.8 

0.2 

6.0 

2.5 

1.0 

0.1 

0.1 

45.2 

1.1 

3.7 

0.8 

1.6 

4.3 

1.4 

17.0 

Pagel 
Noncorrosion - Resistant Manual Application DRAFT 

11/5/97 

p:\n801\dbase\new aer\manmech lin.xls 

RanH 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

Plant Name 

ED Industries, Inc. (Sportsman Pickup Covers) 

McClarin Plastics, Inc. 

S. R. Smith, Inc. 

Chance Operations, Inc. 

Hy-Tec Fiberglass, Inc. 

Arrowhead Plastic Engineering, Inc. 

Gorman-Rupp Co. 

William Kreysler & Associates, Inc. 

IKG Industries 

Norton Performance Plastics Corp. 

Century Manufacturing Co. 

Oxford CMP, Inc. 

Gruber Systems, Inc. 

Simon-Telelect, Inc. 

Pillings SRP 

Larson Co. 

Blue Dolphin Fiberglass Pools 

Fowler Manufacturing, Inc. 

Sunrise Fiberglass Corp. 

M. C. Gill Corp. 

Total: 

Leaend: 

Assumed values - No dataprovided 

Resin 

(toy* 

412 

117 

125 

3 

80 

70 

4 

20 

127 

1 

74 

26 

63 

33 

2 

16 

87 

439 

16 

79 

7,884 

%HAP 

neat resin olus 

4!<8 

41.8 

41.5 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

44.0 

45.0 

45.0 

47.0 

48.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.5 

51.0 

57.4 

Resin 

Emissions 

(toy) 

26.5 

7.5 

7.9 

0.2 

5.3 

4.6 

0.3 

1.4 

8.8 

0.1 

5.5 

2.0 

4.8 

2.5 

0.2 

1.2 

6.7 

34.1 

1.2 

7.0 

403.6 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(|b?Aon) 

129 

129 

129 

132 

132 

132 

135 

138 

138 

145 

148 

154 

154 

154 

154 

154 

154 

155 

157 

177 

Reduction 

Techniaues 

MACT 

Emissions 

(toy) 

12.8 

3.6 

3.8 

0.1 

2.5 

2.2 

0.1 

0.6 

3.9 

0.0 

2.3 

0.8 

2.0 

1.0 

0.1 

0.5 

2.7 

13.6 

0.5 

2.4 

237.8 

Page 2 
^ 

€" 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Noncorrosion - Resistant Mechanical Application DRAFI 

11/5/97 

p:\n801\dbase\new aertmanmech lin.xls 

'GRAFT 

Important Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine actual emissions at a spedfic fadlity. 

A fadlityls specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the facility's actual emissions and should therefore not be used. 

This database only contains fadlities for which the Administrator has information. Other fadlities that should be part of this database are likely to exist 

EXISTING SOURCES 

Non Corrosion Resistant - Mechanlpa| 

Plant Name 

A. R. E., Inc. (MassiUon) 

American Standard 

Contemporary Products 

Baltek Corp. 

Livingston, Inc. 

Bristol Fiberlite Industries 

Fiber Pro (formerly Great Dane Trailers Indiana, Inc.) 

American Technology & Research Ind., Inc. 

Zane's Fiberglass Shop, Inc. 

Prestigious Accessories, Inc. 

Western Recreational Vehicles, Inc. 

S.W.C. Industries, Inc. (Swirl-Way Div.) 

LASCO Bathware (Elizabethtown) 

FG Products 

Tompkins - LASCO Bathware (Lancaster) 

Cedar Manufacturing, Inc. (Bremen Glas) 

American Reinforced Plastics 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Southampton) 

Warminster Fiberglass Co. (Jacksonville) 

GHM, Inc. 

Lawrence Wlttman & Co., Inc. 

Hood Manufacturing, Inc. 

Bathcraft, Inc. 

AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Martinsburg) 

Acme Fiberglass, Inc. 

AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Plymouth, Pidco Dr) 

AKER Plastics Co., Inc. (Plymouth, N Oak Rd) 

Bremen Glas, Inc. 

Resin 

iM} 

5,866 

% HAP 

neat resin ply? 

42.0 

1,000 43.0 

190 

44 

512 

247 

375 

15 

76 

432 

54 

liiliii 

2,125 

189 

2,279 

367 

288 

70 

61 

158 

26 

174 

945 j 

38.0 

35.0 

38.0 

28.2 

39.0 

40.0 

42.0 

33.0 

34.0 

35.0 

47.7 

36.0 

47.7 

38.0 

39.5 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.1 

410 

41.2 

2t058 43.0 

185 

165 

2,310 

1,159 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

44.0 

Resin 

Emissions 

Umi 

27.5 

4.8 

6.4 

1.8 

23.4 

11.4 

18.0 

0.7 

3.8 

23.4 

3.0 

40.1 

125.4 

11.2 

138.3 

22.9 

18.7 

4.6 

4.0 

10.4 

1.7 

11.7 

63.8 

145.1 

13.0 

11.6 

162.9 

83.6 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton) 

9 

10 

67 

84 

91 

93 

96 

96 

101 

108 

112 

115 

118 

118 

121 

125 

130 

131 

131 

131 

131 

134 

135 

141 

141 

141 

141 

144 

Floor: 

Reduction 

Techniques. 

Thermal Oxidizer (95% Control) 

Polyad (95% Control) 

VSR & Flow Coaters 

Pressure-Fed Roller 

Flow Chopper 

VSR 

Vacuum bagging 

Pressure-Fed Roller 

Pressure-Fed Roller 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

Thermal Oxidizer (24% Control), VSR 

VSR 

Thermal Oxidizer (22% Control), VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

Page 1 

112 

MACT 

Emissions 

(tov) 

27.5 

4.8 

6.4 

1.8 

23.4 

11.4 

18.0 

0.7 

3.8 

23.4 

3.0 

39.1 

119.0 

10.6 

127.6 

20.6 

16.1 

3.9 

3.4 

8.9 

1.5 

9.7 

52.9 

115.2 

10.4 

9.2 

129.4 

64.9 

• f 

r 

• 
Rank 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

Noncorrosion - Resistant Mechanical Application 

Plant Name 

U.S. Fiberglass Products, Inc. 

Custom Rbreglass Manufacturing Co. 

Vertex Plastics, Inc. 

Picken's Plastics, Inc. 

G. W. Fiberglass, Inc. 

Bowie Manufacturing, Inc. 

Eagle Craft, Inc. 

Kreider Manufacturing, Inc. 

Grayson Tool Co. 

Unfversal-Rundle Corp. (Ottumwa) 

LASCO Bathware (Moapa) 

Johnson Truck Bodies 

Style Crest Products 

ACME Reinforced Plastics, Inc. 

Newport Laminates 

Gibbon Fiberglass Reprod., Inc. 

Glass pec Associates, Ltd. 

New York Blower Co. (Plant #2) 

VMC Fiberglass Products, Inc./Tri-Glas 

Epoch Industries 

Marley Cooling Tower Co. 

Fiberglass Products, Inc. 

Glasstite, Inc. 

Astoria Industries 

Hess County Industries of WV, Inc. 

Americh Corp. (Hollywood, CA) 

Leer East, Inc. 

MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Adelanto) 

Universal Plastics, Inc. 

Odom Fiberglass, Inc. 

Sunset Plastics, Inc. 

LASCO Bathware (Three Rivers) 

LASCO Bathware (Anaheim) 

LASCO Bathware (Cordele) 

National Fiber Glass Products, Inc. 

Tompkins - LASCO Bathware (South Boston) 

Charloma Fiberglass, Inc. 

Molded Plastic Industries, Inc. 

LASCO Bathware (Yelm) 

Resin. 

(toy) 

375 

454 

68 

27 

738 

50 

60 

210 

157 

2,500 

6,259 

195 

84 

133 

180 

22 

18 

72 

1,156 

44 

634 

120 

330 

60 

494 

42 

534 

209 

82 

83 

254 

2,815 

3,136 

1,977 

640 

2,770 

344 

102 

2,754 

%HAP 

neat resin Dius 

46.0 

44.9 

33.0 

45.0 

45.0 

33.5 

33.5 

33.7 

34.0 

46.5 

47.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

35.0 

43.0 

47.7 

47.7 

47.8 

48.0 

48.1 

41.0 

36.0 

47.8 

Resin 

Emissions 

(toy) 

27.6 

33.4 

5.0 

2.0 

54.5 

3.7 

4.5 

15.8 

11.9 

190.7 

482.5 

15.2 

6.6 

10.4 

14.1 

1.7 

1.4 

5.6 

90.3 

3.4 

49.5 

9.4 

25.8 

4.7 

38.6 

3.3 

41.7 

16.3 

6.4 

6.5 

19.9 

220.3 

245.4 

154.8 

50.4 

219.6 

27.3 

8.2 

223.8 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton) 

147 

147 

147 

148 

148 

150 

150 

150 

152 

153 

154 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

156 

157 

157 

157 

159 

159 

161 

163 

Page 2 

DRAFT 

11/5/97 

p:\n801\dbase\new aer\manmech lin.xls 

Reduction 

Techniaues 

C filters, VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR (70%) 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

VSR 

Thermal Oxidizer (25% Control), VSR (72%) 

VSR (50%) 

VSR (90%) 

MACT 

Emissions 

(tov) 

21.0 

25.4 , 

3.8 

1.5 

41.3 

2.8 

3.4 

11.8 

8.8 

140.0 

350.5 

10.9 

4.7 

7.4 

10.1 

1.2 

1.0 

4.0 

64.7 

2.5 

35.5 

6.7 

18.5 

3.4 

27.7 

2.4 

29.9 

11.7 

4.6 

4.6 

14.2 

157.7 

175.6 

110.7 

35.8 

155.1 

19.3 

5.7 

154.2 
Noncorrosion - Resistant Mechanical Application DRAFT 

11/5/97 

Rank 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

60 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

Plant Name 

Retterbush Injection Molded Fiberglass Corp. 

Fibre Body Industries, Inc. 

Comtech Antenna Systems, Inc. 

Eckler Industries 

Dow Chemical (Russellville, AR) 

Fleetwood (Fontana - formerly Gold Shield) 

Continental Camper Co., Inc. 

Baja Products Ltd. (Salisbury) 

Tom Smith Fiberglass, Inc. 

A. R. E., Inc. (Mount Eaton) 

Murphy Body Co. 

Aqua Bath Co., Inc. 

20th Century Fiberglass, Inc. (Plant Four) 

Fiberglass Forms, Inc. 

Piedmont Fiberglass, Inc. 

Clark Manufacturing 

Universal Rundle Corp. (Union Point) 

Plastic Composites Corp. 

A-1 Fiberglass, Inc. 

Covermaster, Inc. 

Syntechnics 

Alliance Equipment Co. 

American Technology & Research Ind., Inc. 

Florida Line of Astatula, Inc. 

Fiberglass Spedalties, Inc. 

Seal Reinforced Fiberglass 

Phil Carter System, Inc. 

Mr. Tubs, Inc. 

Kohter Co. 

Plas-Tech, Ltd. 

Jason International, Inc. (N. Little Rock, AR) 

Fleetwood (Gold Shield Fiberglass, Decatur) 

Plasti-Fab, Inc. 

Millennium Products, Inc. 

Lund Industries, inc. 

Glas Master, Inc. (Plant #1) 

Glas Master, Inc. (Plant #2) 

GPM Industries, Inc. 

Michiana Fiberglass, Inc. 

Resin 

(toy) 

22 

250 

166 

28 

20 

684 

185 

100 

34 

987 

115 

450 

95 

120 

120 

661 

1,410 

50 

395 

131 

513 

llllll l 

2 

131 

77 

9 

46 

137 

550 

40 

87 

1,063 

92 

834 

493 

173 

173 

173 

55 

%HAP 

neat resin olus 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.0 

37.8 

38.0 

47.5 

44.0 

38.5 

39.5 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.2 

40.3 

40.7 

41.0 

41.0 

41.0 

41.0 

41.0 

Resin 

Emissions 

(toy) 

1.8 

20.6 

13.7 

2.3 

1.7 

57.7 

15.6 

8.5 

2.9 

84.9 

10.1 

40.2 

8.5 

10.7 

10.7 

59.0 

125.9 

4.5 

35.3 

11.7 

45.8 

21.4 

0.2 

11.7 

6.9 

0.8 

4.1 

12.2 

49.1 

3.6 

7.7 

95.3 

8.3 

75.8 

45.2 

15.8 

15.8 

15.8 

5.0 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton* 

165 

165 

165 

165 

165 

169 

170 

170 

170 

172 

176 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

179 

180 

182 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

Reduction 

Techniaues 

VSR (75%) 

Some VSR 

MACT 

Emissions 

(tov) 

1.2 

14.0 

9.3 

1.5 

1.1 

38.3 

10.3 

5.6 

1.9 

55.3 

6.4 

25.2 

5.3 

6.7 

6.7 

37.0 

79.0 

2.8 

22.1 

7.3 

28.7 

13.4 

0.1 

7.3 

4.3 

0.5 

2.6 

7.7 

30.8 

2.2 

4.8 

59.5 

5.2 

46.7 

27.6 

9.7 

9.7 

9.7 

3.1 

Page 3 
Noncorrosion - Resistant Mechanical Application DRAFT 

11/5/97 

W 

S) 

Rank 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

Plant Name 

Delta Fiberglass & Environmental Products, Inc 

Krueger International, Inc. 

Fiberglass Plus Recreational industries, Inc. 

C & K Fiberglass Plastics, Inc. 

Aero Transportation Products 

Olympic Fiberglass Industries, Inc. 

Fiberglass Industries, Inc. 

Northwest Bodies, Inc. 

Standard Glas, Inc. 

Electric-Glass, Inc. 

Global Glass, Inc. 

Elmore Truck Accessories, Inc. 

Fiberglass & Plastic Fab., Inc. 

Holiday Rambler Corp., Plant 36 and 37 

ED Industries, Inc. (Sportsman Pickup Covers) 

Mirade Recreation Co. 

McClarin Plastics, Inc. 

S. R. Smith, Inc. 

Eljer Plumbingware (Wilson) 

Chance Operations, Inc. 

Fiberdome, Inc. (Plant #1) 

Assodated Plastics, Inc. 

Glasgo Plastics, Inc. 

Leer Midwest 

Aqua Glass Corp. (Klamath Falls) 

Jason Industries, Inc. (Elkhart, IN) 

Images Products Corp 

Armorcast Products Co. 

Americh Corp. (Charlotte, NC) 

Arrowhead Plastic Engineering, Inc. 

Aqua Glass Corp. (Adamsville) 

Specialty Plastics Assodates, Inc 

Marquis Corp. 

Monarch Plastic, Inc. 

Gorman-Rupp Co. 

Miles Fiberglass & Plastics, Inc. 

Beaver Motor Coaches 

Simon-Telelect, Inc. 

Evelands, Inc. 

Resin 

(tov) 

199 

252 

37 

102 

547 

384 

36 

147 

125 

320 

276 

35 

55 

700 

412 

75 

117 

123 

699 

29 

100 

161 

699 

600 

699 

240 

109 

129 

63 

70 

10,143 

841 

105 

44 

35 

70 

182 

33 

59 

%HAP 

neat resin olus 

41.0 

41.0 

41.0 

41.0 

41.0 

41.0 

41.0 

41.5 

42.0 

42.0 

42.0 

42.0 

42.0 

42.0 

43,0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43,0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

43.0 

44.0 

44.0 

44.0 

44.0 

44.1 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

Resin 

Emissions 

(tov) 

18.2 

23.1 

3.3 

9.3 

50.1 

35.2 

3.3 

13.6 

11.7 

30.0 

25.9 

3.3 

5.1 

65.6 

39.5 

7.2 

11.2 

11.9 

67.1 

2.8 

9.6 

15.5 

67.1 

57.6 

67.1 

23.0 

10.5 

12.3 

6.1 

6.7 

973.5 

82.6 

10.3 

4.3 

3.4 

6.9 

18.2 

3.3 

6.0 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton' 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

183 

185 

187 

187 

187 

187 

187 

187 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

196 

196 

196 

196 

197 

201 

201 

201 

Reduction 

Techniaues 

CBI 

MACT 

Emissions 

(tev) 

11.1 

14.1 

2.0 

5.7 

30.6 

.21.5 

2.0 

8.2 

7.0 

17.9 

15.5 

2.0 

3.1 

39.2 

23.0 

4.2 

6.5 

6.9 

39.1 

1.6 

5.6 

9.0 

39.1 

33.6 

39.1 

13.4 

6.1 

7.2 

3.5 

3.9 

568.0 

47.1 

5.9 

2.5 

2.0 

3.9 

10.2 

1.8 

3.3 

Page 4 
Noncorrosion - Resistant Mechanical Application DRAFT 

11/5/97 

Rank 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

162 

163 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

169 

170 

171 

172 

173 

174 

175 

176 

Plant Name 

Melcher Manufacturing Co., Inc. 

Fiberglass Engineering Corp. 

Arrow Dynamics, Inc. 

Peterson Products 

Trail Wagons, Inc. 

Pillings SRP 

Prodelin Corp. (Catawba Facility) 

McClure Industries, Inc. 

Brunnel Products of Florida, Inc. 

Country Coach, Inc. 

KBK Industries, Inc. 

Eljer Manufacturing (Valdosta) 

Baja Products (Tucson, AZ)-

Fiber Pad, Inc. 

Attbar Plastics, Inc. 

Nordic Fiberglass, Inc. (Warren) 

Nordic Fiberglass, Inc. (Devils Lake) 

Pearl Baths, Inc. 

Oasis Industries, Inc. 

Space Tables, Inc. 

Fiberglass Systems, Inc. 

Ultra/Glas of Lakevilte 

Sunrise Fiberglass Corp. 

Kivett-s, Inc. 

Plastic Development Co. 

Amtech Corp. 

Accurate Glass, Inc. 

Larson Co. 

Great Lakes Plastics Corp. 

Dasco Pro, Inc. 

Universal-Rundle Corp. (New Castle) 

Total: 

Legend: 

Assumed values - No data provided 

fixtsrt^Sosra J^CTFloor - A'' ' 

Resin 

(tov) 

134 

75 

34 

23 

32 

39 

161 

140 

63 

99 

582 

363 

55 

95 

500 

246 

316 

325 

145 

12 

235 

154 

36 

43 

140 

47 

114 

11 

306 

15 

3,585 

90,333 

%HAP 

neat resin DIUS 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.9 

46.0 

47.0 

47.5 

48.0 

48.0 

48.5 

48.5 

48.7 

49.0 

49.0 

49.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

55.0 

60.2 

Resin 

Emissions 

(tov) 

13.5 

7.5 

3.4 

2.3 

3.2 

3.9 

16.2 

14.1 

6.3 

10.1 

59.8 

38.1 

5.9 

10.2 

53.6 

26.7 

34.2 

35.3 

15.9 

1.3 

25.7 

17.2 

4.0 

4.8 

15.6 

5.2 

12.7 

1.2 

34.2 

1.8 

481.7 

7099.1 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton) 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

205 

205 

210 

212 

214 

214 

217 

217 

217 

219 

219 

219 

223 

223 

223 

223 

223 

223 

223 

223 

246 

269 

Reduction 

Techniaues 

MACT 

Emissions 

(toy) 

7.5 

4.2 

1.9 

1.3 

1.8 

2.2 

9.0 

7.8 

3.5 

5.5 

32.6 

20.3 

3.1 

5.3 

28.0 

13.8 

17.7 

18.2 

8.1 

0.7 

13.2 

8.6 

2.0 

2.4 

7.8 

2.6 

6.4 

0.6 

17.1 

0.8 

200.8 

4689.4 

Page 5 
Noncorrosion - Resistant Filament Winding DRAFT 

11/5/97 

W 

RanK 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

DRAFT 

Important Nptes; 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine actual emissions at a spedfic fadlity. 

A fadlity's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the fadlity's actual emissions and should therefore not be used. 

This database only contains fadlities for which the Administrator has information. Other fadlities that should be part of this database are likely to exist 

Corrosion Resistant 

Plant .Name 

Water Heater Innovations, Inc. 

Velasco Scale Co. (Plastics Div.) 

Belding Tank Technology (F.K.A. D & R Fabrication, Inc.) 

Bridgewater Protective Coatings 

Mesa Fiberglass, Inc. 

Industrial Fiberglass Spedalties, Inc. 

Xenon Co., Inc. 

Beetle Plastics, Inc. 

Raven Industries, Inc. (Sioux Falls) 

Ameron, Inc. (Burkburnett) 

Fowler Manufacturing, Inc. 

Owens-Corning (Auburndale) 

Owens-Corning (Mount Union) 

Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Conroe) 

Owens-Corning Tanks (Valparaiso) 

Red Ewald, Inc. 

Rubber & Plastic Applicators 

Bittner Industries, Inc. 

Xerxes Corp. (Anaheim) 

An-Cor Industrial Plastics, Inc. 

Appalachian Plastics, Inc. 

Xerxes Corp. (Avon) 

Ershigs, Inc. (Wilson) 

Fibrex Corp. 

Simon-Telelect Inc. 

Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Uttle Rock) 

Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Wichita) 

ABC Industries, Inc. (Grand Junction, CO) 

ABC Industries, Inc. (Wallace, ID) 

Resin 

itea*) 

51.0 

13.0 

86.0 

9.7 

75.0 

16.5 

30.0 

177.3 

21.2 

2.5 

86.0 

86.0 

86.0 

86.0 

86.0 

294.7 

146.0 

23.0 

%HAP 

neat resin plus 

45.5 

38.7 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

42.0 

42.0 

42.2 

42.7 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

86.0 45.0 

86.0 45.0 

100.0 45,0 

86.0 45.0 

86.0 45.0 

86.0 .45.0 

65.0 45.0 

86.0 45.0 

86.0 45.0 

36.0 

30.0 

45.0 . 

45,0 

Resin 

Emisssions 

(ley) 

2.6 

1.0 

7.1 

0.8 

6.2 

1.4 

2.6 

15.4 

1.9 

0.2 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 

27.3 

13.5 

2.1 

8.0 

8.0 

9.3 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 

6.0 

8.0 

8.0 

3.3 

2.8 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton) 

103 

159 

165 

165 

165 

173 

173 

174 

176 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

Floor: 

Reduction 

Techniques 

VSR 

165 

MACT 

Emissions 

Oey] 

2.6 

1.0 

7.1 

0.8 

6.2 

1.4 

2.5 

14.6 

1.7 

0.2 

7.1 

7.1 

7.1 

7.1 

7.1 

24.3 

12.0 

1.9 

7.1 

7.1 

8.3 

7.1 

7.1 

7.1 

5.4 

7.1 

7.1 

3.0 

2.5 

Pagel 
Noncorrosion - Resistant Filament Winding DRAFT 

11/5/97 

to 

Rank 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

Rank 

1 

coirwton Res|8f.-.nl 

Plant Name 

ABC Industries, Inc. (Winona Lake, IN) 

International Paper (Hampton, SC) 

Nova Group, Inc. 

International Reinforced Plastics 

GPI Corp. 

Specialty Plastics, Inc. 

Ershigs, Inc. (Bellingham) 

Ecowater Systems 

Hastings Group, inc.-Viatec (Belding) 

Diamond Fiberglass Fabricators, Inc. 

MFG Justin Tanks, Inc. 

Owens-Coming Fiberglas (Bakersfield) 

Fibercast Co. 

Total: 

Leaerid 

Assumed values-no data provided • . -

&RAFT 

ImDortant Notes; 

Resin 

(tov) 

%HAP 

neat resin Dius 

45.0 45.0 

86.0 45.0 

52.0 

16.3 

131.5 

35.0 

153.0 

122.0 

178.0 

254.0 

153.3 

86.0 

83.0 

3604.0 

45.1 

46.0 

46.0 

47.0 

47.6 

48.0 

48.5 

49.0 

49.0 

50.0 

52.0 

Resin 

Emisssions 

im 

4.2 

8.0 

4.8 

1.5 

12.5 

3.4 

15.0 

12.1 

17.8 

25.6 

15.5 

8.9 

8.9 

337.3 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton) 

185 

185 

186 

189 

189 

194 

196 

198 

200 

202 

202 

206 

214 

Reduction 

Techniaues 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to determine actual emissions at a spedfic fadlity. 

A fadlity's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the fadlity's actual emissions and should therefore not be used. 

This database only contains fadlities for which the Administrator has information. Other fadlities that should be part of this database are likely to exist. 

EXISTING 

Non-Corrosion Resistant 

Plant Name 

Shakespeare Co. 

Leoend 

Assumed values - no data provided 

Resin 

(toy) 

739.4 

%HAP 

neat resin olus 

33.0 

Resin 

Emisssions 

(texl 

50.3 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton) 

136 

Reduction 

Techniaues 

MACT 

Emissions 

(tov) 

3.7 

7.1 

4.3 

1.3 

10.8 

2.9 

12.6 

10.1 

14.7 

21.0 

12.6 

7.1 

6.8 

295.7 

Page 2 
Corrosion-Resistant Manual Application 

Rank 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

mtVFT ',"<''* ' 

ImDortant Notes: 

The average emissions factors used in this spread sheet to calculate emissions should not be used to detennine actual emissions at s 

p:\n801\dbase\new i 

i spedfic fadlity. 

A fadlity's specific emissions shown in this spread sheet may not represent the fadlity's actual emissions and should therefore not be used. 

This database only contains fadlities for which the Administrator has infomnation. Otiier fadlities that should be part of this database are likely to exist 

EXISTING SOURCES 

Corrosion Resistant Products - Mechanical 

Plant Name 

Hasbrouck Plastics, Inc. 

William Kreysler & Associates, Inc. 

An-Cor Industrial Plastics, Inc. 

Yankee Plastic Co. 

Fibrenetlcs, Inc. 

Accra Industries, Inc. 

Pacific Tank, Ltd. 

KeameyAVestern Power Products 

Velasco Scale Co. (Plastics Div.) 

Magnum Plastics, Inc. 

Bridgewater Protective Coatings 

HEMCO Corp. 

Mesa Fiberglass, Inc. 

Hartzell Fan, Inc. (Bldg 275) 

Delta Fiberglass Structures, Inc. 

Beetle Plastics, Inc. 

LaVatley Construction Co. (Biloxi) 

LaValley Industries, Inc. (Vancouver) 

Ershlgs, Inc. (Bellingham) 

Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Littie Rock) 

Picken's Plastics, Inc. 

Owens-Coming (Mount Union) 

Owens-Corning Tanks (Valparaiso) 

Owens-Corning (Auburndale) 

Owens-Coming Fiberglas (Conroe) 

Xerxes Corp. (Lakeland) 

Xerxes Corp. (Williamsport) 

Xerxes Corp. (Tipton) 

Xerxes Corp. (Anaheim) 

Resin 

(toy) 

50 

45 

133 

23 

10 

77 

70 

186 

1 

23 

19 

35 

24 

40 

295 

24 

134 

41 

59 

% HAP 

neat resin DIUS 

45.3 

35.5 

53.0 

40.0 

50.0 

35.0 

35.9 

38.0 

38.7 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.8 

41.0 

41.0 

43.0 

43.1 

45,0 

78 45.0 

78 

78 

78 

78 

78 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

78 45.0 

78 45,0 

78 45.0 

78 45.0 

Resin 

Emissions 

ItEiQ 

2.7 

2.6 

8.5 

1.5 

0.8 

6.0 

5.6 

15.8 

0.1 

2.0 

1.7 

3.1 

2.1 

3.7 

27.0 

2.2 

12.9 

3.9 

5.9 

7.8 

7.8 

7.8 

7.8 

7.8 

7.8 

7.8 

7.8 

7.8 

7.8 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton) 

109 

116 

127 

m 164 

156 

160 

170 

173 

179 

179 

179 

179 

182 

183 

183 

192 

192 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

Floor: 

Reduction 

Techniques 

Pressure-Fed Roller 

VSR 

Pressure-Fed Roller 

VSR 

VSR 

aeAmanmech 

131 

MACT 

Emissions 

(toy) 

2.7 

2.6 

8.5 

1.5 

0.6 

5.0 

4.6 

12.2 

0.1 

1.5 

1.2 

2.3 

1.6 

2.6 

19.3 

1.6 

8.8 

2.7 

3.8 

5.1 

5.1 

5.1 

5.1 

5.1 

5.1 

5.1 

5.1 

5.1 

5.1 

DRAFT 

11/5/97 

in.xls 

Pagel 
Corrosion-Resistant Manual Application DRAFT 

11/5/97 

p:\n801\dbase\new aeiAmanmech lin.xls 

RanK 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

plant Name 

Xerxes Corp. (Avon) 

Appalachian Plastics, Inc. 

Belding Tank Technology (F.KA. D & R Fabrication, Inc.) 

Xerxes Corp. (Seguin) 

MFG - Molded Fiber Glass Co. (Union City) 

Ershigs, Inc. (Wilson) 

Raven Industries, Inc. (Sioux Falls) 

F.E. Meyers 

Non Metallic Resources, Inc. 

Nova Group, Inc. 

Hasbrouck Plastics, Inc. 

Red Ewald, Inc. 

GPI Corp. 

Bradley Spedalt'es Corp. 

Hastings Reinforced Plastics - Viatec (Hastings) 

Parkson Aeration & Fiberglas Corp., Inc. 

New England Plastic Coated Products, Inc. 

Diamond Fiberglass Fabricators, Inc. 

Spears Fabrication 

H & R Industries, inc. 

MFG Justin Tanks, Inc. 

Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Bakersfield) 

Ashworth Plastic Products 

I. M. Penna, Inc. 

An-Cor Industrial Plastics, Inc. 

Beden-Baugh Products, Inc. 

Total: 

Legend: 

Assumed values - No data provided 

Resin 

(tov) 

78 

40 

78 

78 

520 

18 

78 

77 

103 

47 

13 

105 

129 

26 

148 

25 

17 

76 

19 

86 

175 

78 

78 

15 

44 

87 

4,306 

%HAP 

neat resin DIUS 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.1 

45.3 

45.5 

46.0 

46.0 

46.2 

46.3 

46.7 

47.0 

47.0 

48.0 

48.7 

50.0 

50.0 

50.0 

53.0 

56.9 

Resin 

Emissions 

(tov) 

7.8 

4.0 

7.8 

7.8 

52.2 

1.8 

7.8 

7.7 

10.3 

4.7 

1.3 

10.7 

13.2 

2.7 

15.3 

2.6 

1.8 

8.0 

2.0 

9.2 

19.1 

8.7 

8.7 

1.6 

5.2 

11.1 

419.7 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton) 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

202 

203 

205 

205 

206 

207 

208 

210 

210 

214 

217 

223 

223 

223 

237 

254 

Reduction 

Techniaues 

MACT 

Emissions 

(toy) 

5.1 

2.6 

5.1 

5.1 

34.1 

1.2 

5.1 

5.0 

6.7 

3.1 

0.8 

6.9 

8.4 

1.7 

9.7 

1.7 

1.1 

5.0 

1.2 

5.6 

11.5 

5.1 

5.1 

1.0 

2.9 

5.7 

280.9 

Page 2 
Corrosion-Resistant Manual Application 

b4 

RenK 

i 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

Plant Name 

EXISTING SOURCES 

Corrosion Resistant Products - Manual 

Flbrenetlcs, Inc. 

Shenandoah Fiberglass Products Co. 

Micro-Fab, Inc. 

Velasco Scale Co. (Plastics Div.) 

Resolite 

Hartzell Fan, Inc. (Bldg 275) 

Magnum Plastics, Inc. 

Composites USA, Inc. 

Beetle Plastics, Inc. 

Industrial Linings, Inc. 

LaValley Construction Co. (Biloxi) 

LaValley Industries, Inc. (Vancouver) 

Hastings Reinforced Plastics-Viatec (Hastings) 

Ershigs, Inc. (Bellingham) 

Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. (Littie Rock) 

Fibergrate Corp. 

Picken's Plastics, Inc. 

Owens-Corning (Mount Union) 

Owens-Corning Tanks (Valparaiso) 

Xerxes Corp. (Avon) 

Rubber & Plastic Applicators 

Appalachian Plastics, Inc. 

Belding Tank Technology (F.KA. D & R Fabrication, Inc.) 

Fibercast Co. 

FibrexCorp. 

Ershigs, Inc. (Wilson) 

Raven Industries, Inc. (Sioux Falls) 

ABC Industries, Inc. (Grand Junction, CO) 

ABC Industries, Inc. (Winona Lake, IN) 

Bittner Industries, Inc. 

Peterson Products 

ABC Industries, Inc. (Wallace, ID) 

International Reinforced Plastics 

Nova Group, Inc. 

Parkson Aeration & Fiberglas Corp., Inc. 

Resin 

(tov) 

23 

86 

88 

13 

61 

8 

8 

33 

35 

31 

134 

41 

110 

47 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

22 

46 

67 

46 

39 

46 

36 

45 

23 

23 

30 

49 

5 

3 

%HAP 

neat resin Dius 

50.0 

50.0 

35.0 

38.7 

39.0 

40.0 

40.0 

40.0 

41.0 

42.0 

43.0 

43.1 

44.4 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

450 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

45.0 

46.0 

46.0 

46.3 

Resin 

Emissions 

(tov) 

0.9 

3.6 

4.7 

0.8 

3.6 

0.5 

0.5 

2.0 

2.2 

2.0 

8.9 

2.7 

7.5 

3.3 

3.2 

3.2 

3.2 

3.2 

3.2 

3.2 

3.2 

1.5 

3.2 

4.6 

3.2 

2.7 

3.2 

2.5 

3.1 

1.6 

1.6 

2.1 

3.4 

0.4 

0.2 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton) 

76 

85 

108 

119 

120 

123 

123 

123 

126 

129 

132 

132 

137 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

141 

142 

142 

D:\n801\dbase\new aer\manmech 

Reduction 

Techniques 

Floor 

VSR 

Vac. Bagging 

MACT 

Emissions 

(tov) 

108 

0.9 

3.6 

4.7 

0.7 

3.3 

0.4 

0.4 

1.8 

1.9 

1.7 

7.2 

2.2 

5.9 

. 2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

1.2 

2.5 

3.6 

2.5 

2.1 

2.5 

1.9 

2.4 

1.2 

1.2 

1.6 

2.6 

0.3 

0.2 

DRAFT 

11/5/97 

in.xls 

Page 3 
Corrosion-Resistant Manual Application DRAFT 

11/5/97 

p:\n801\dbase\new aetAmanmech lin.xls 

RanK 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

I 

Plant Name 

New England Plastic Coated Products, Inc. 

MFG Justin Tanks, Inc. 

Ashworth Plastic Products 

I. M. Penna, Inc. 

Beden-Baugh Products, Inc. 

Total: 

MNWnd; 

Assumed values - No data provided 

Resin 

(toy) 

2 

175 

45 

2 

10 

1,753 

%HAP 

neat resin olus 

46.7 

48.7 

50.0 

50.0 

56.9 

Resin 

Emissions 

(tov) 

0.1 

13.1 

3.5 

0.1 

0.8 

116.5 

Emissions 

per Ton Resin 

(lbs/ton) 

144 

150 

154 

154 

175 

Reduction 

Techniaues 

MACT 

Emissions 

(tov) 

0.1 

9.5 

2.5 

0.1 

0.5 

S3.3 

^ 

^ 

Page 4 
O^^sw^^E 

P.37 

u. 

U.S. EPA 

Keith W. Barnett 

Environmental Engineer 

Organic Chemicals Group (MD-13) 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 ^-

E-mail: bamettkeith@uyiM«ititfM8gr

 e<S>a

- * "S0 

(919) 541-5605 Fax: (919) 541-3470 \ 
Pacific Environmental Services, Ine. 

Project No. N801 • Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Table 1: Comparison of the Different Reinforced Plastic / Composites MACT Model Equations. 

I 

2nd Order Polynomial: 

y = rrvx' • mpt + b (b = 0) 

y = m, x (%HAP)* • m, x (%HAP) y «• c x m, x (%HAP) + c, x m, HAP emitted 

HAP emitted 

increases as % HAP increases. 

not equal to zero at zero % HAP. 

No 

Power y = mx- + b 

(n = constant, b = 0) 

y = m, x (%HAP)" y = c x m, x (%HAP*-' HAP emitted 

HAP emitted 

increases as % HAP Increases. 

equal to zero at zero % HAP. 

Yes 

Linear y = mx + b 

(b = constant) 

y = m, x (%HAP) + b y = cxm . + c,xb/(%HAP) HAP emitted 

HAP emitted 

decreases as % HAP increases. 

equal to Infinity at zero % HAP. 

No 

Linear y = mx + b 

(b°0 ) 

y = m, x (%HAP) y = c.xm, HAP emitted 

HAP emitted 

remains constant as % HAP increases. 

equals a constant at zero % HAP. 

No 

Note 1: The equations shown above are possible equations to be used in a MACT model point value system designed to accurately reflect emission reduction credits to the various emission reduction techniques that a facility could 

chose to meet the MACT standard. The equations shown should not be used for predicting emissions. 

Note 2: Criteria for acceptability: 1.) equation must produce zero emissions @ 0% HAP content and 2.) increasing emissions with increasing HAP content, when expressing emissions in Ibs HAP/ton resin arid lbs HAP/lbs Available HAP. 

Note 3: Equations for Emissions as Ibs HAP/lbs Available HAP obtained by dividing Equations for Emissions as Ibs HAP/ton Resin by % HAP/100. 

Note 4: Discussion assumes constant resin tonnage. 

Table 2: Comparison of the MACT Model Results Obtained from the 2nd Order Polynomial Equation, Power Equation and Linear Equation (b a 0) Compared 

to the MACT Model Results Obtained from the Linear Equation where b = constant for Manual and Mechanical Resin Applications. 

!B^!l£Sgg& 

mlc«fie«P 

0.0 

S.O 

10.0 

15.0 

20.0 

25.0 

30 0 

v '35 0~ „ 

40 0 

45.0 

50.0 

vmmmm 

2ndprdr£plya 

Ibs.rton 

0 

5 

13 

23 

37 

54 

73 

^96 * 

121 

150 

181 

&PM 

N/A 

200% 

200% 

200% 

72% 

21% 

5% 

',0 % « 

0% 

1% 

4% 

t&mmhBM'.APesmm&mmmm&mm 

l^?tklLI«wer, 

K 

0 

3 

10 

21 

35 

52 

71 

«894W 

119' 

146 

177 

mom 

N/A 

200% 

200% 

200% 

66% 

17% 

2% 

J-,2%? 

" 3%* 

1% 

1% 

liMftoar 

>y~9&*t> 

0 

15 

30 

45 

60 

75 

90 

104 

119 

134 

149 

i*&m 

&xwk 

N/A 

200% 

200% 

200% 

109% 

52% 

25% 

-.9% 1 

'2%. 

10% 

16% 

tWpearslbgjng 

JDsjton 

0 

0 

0 

0 

17 

44 

70 

•v"i96' i) 

122 > 

148 

174 

mm* N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N7A 

N/A 

N/A 

?N/A 

-N/A ' 

N/A 

N/A 

m^ateJ-^rtfJlMocharilcal ge^.^ppljca.Boat>jMBKiii,ana ^ . 

t£n3pnr£pjy 

lbs/ton 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

25 

75 

* 140,fi 

2201 

315 

425 

%'BIff 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

200% 

27% 

0%' 

1%' 

3% 

9% 

Best Flt.Ppweij 

lbs/ton 

0 

0 

2 

9 

23 

47 

84 

^139 

215 

316 

446 

,%_DIM. 

N/A 

200% 

200% 

200% 

200% 

200% 

38% 

tn'hM 

' 4%'» 

3% 

14% 

BUInaaiKb-ipK 

lbs/tori 

0 

26 

52 

79 

105 

131 

157 

'183 _\ 

f 210% 

236 

262 

'°ADIff 

N/A 

200% 

200% 

200% 

200% 

200% 

93% 

,27%.!, 

6%V 

26% 

39% 

>Unear.(b^,»),-

Itsiftorl 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

57 

,140 

W223 

306 

389 

3WBW. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

r'N/A 

iHIA 

N/A 

N/A 

TtTable 3: Comparison of the MACT Model Results Obtained from the 2nd Order Polynomial Equation, Power Equation and Linear Equation (b = 0) Compared 

to the MACT Model Results Obtained from the Linear Equation where b = constant for Filament Winding and Gel Coat Applications. 

Rtrtln or-GC 

HAP Content 

•*tr HAP>»» 

0.0 

5.0 

10.0 

15.0 

20.0 

25.0 

30 0 

•=* V35 0 r „ 

a,v*o<*r J*., 

& iC45 0>f, 

50.0 

,%' ' *H v*BuFllamentWindlngrAppll;aUcn) 

2nd Ord •Pol', • 

lb..iton 

0 

14 

30 

47 

66 

86 

108 

13,1 i 

,1*155 , 

t ,182*5 

209 

iVJMItj 

N/A 

200% 

148% 

45% 

18% 

6% 

1% 

;;i% « 

r-^1%;^ 

»1%<-i 

0% 

.Power 

lbs/ton 

0 

10 

26 

43 

63 

84 

106 

^130*fe, 

-1544< 

jf180*3 

206 

(n-* » 

rt piff* 

N/A 

200% 

141% 

37% 

13% 

4% 

0% 

n%~5;* 

'.2% 

rtiw* 

1% 

Linear; 

lb ../ton 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

119 

•4*139-' 

4169 

-TV179.; 

199 

thj.OIJ 

•PAHA 

N/A 

200% 

160% 

67% 

36% 

21% 

'12% 

••Sev-E 

y i % 

«as v 

4% 

LWiiWicgnn 

fcLlnoar,(b = ff). 

IjEs/ton, 

0 

0 

4 

30 

55 

81 

106 

#132/« 

<?-157ft 

5&183.B 

208 

iV.DIffi 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

?N/;A? 

•NI.A4 

JM7.A-S 

N/A 

rw^m«:,'^••'••-^^>^!^WiSmm-_ : •.•^••••r^r'-^ii 

2nd Ord'Poly 

lEsTton" 

0 

13 

37 

74 

122 

182 

255 

339J* 

435 

544 

664 

•MBi" 

N/A 

200% 

200% 

200% 

83% 

22% 

5% 

£0% '. 

-0,% 

2% 

6% 

n^mmmwixmmmps^mmm lbs ton 

0 

9 

32 

69 

119 

180 

253 

E338,« 

/433 . 

540 

658 

» iPJSi 

N/A 

200% 

200% 

200% 

81% 

20% 

4% 

"*£0%g 

t-f0% 1 

2% 

5% 

Jbsftqn 

0 

52 

104 

155 

207 

259 

311 

i?36Hr 

: 4is 

466 

518 

tfffi'H. 

N/A 

200% 

200% 

200% 

122% 

55% 

25% 

:

f

vt-i 

' 5% 

13% 

19% 

lbs/ton 

0 

0 

0 

0 

50 

147 

243 

*1339 ' 

' 435 

532 

628 

•fi.DllfN/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

I N /,As. 

«N/A"* 

N/A 

N/A 

Note 5: Percent Difference (% Diff.) is defined as {[|(a - b)| / (0.5 x (a+b))] x 100). 

Note 6: Bolded and shaded emission and percent difference values are values within the HAP content range tested by the Composite Fabricators Association (CFA). 
P.39 

j Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 

Project No. N801 - Reinforced Plastic / Composites NESHAP 

Analysis for Best Fit Power Equation Subject to Certain Conditions 

Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Manual & Mechanical Resin Application 

350 ... 

300 

250 

200 

•s 100 

Manual • Best Fit Linear Eqn. 

y = 5.228585x-87.102707 

Mechanical - Bert Fit linear Eqn. 

y = 16.583264X - 440.219842 

Manual - Best Fit Power Eqn. 

y = 0.171520xrm2" 

Mechanical • Bert Fit Power Eqn. 

y = 0.001300x""*"''" 

Manual - Constrained Power Eqn. 

y = 0.027860xJaMM 

Mechanical - Constrained Power Eqn. 

y = 0.014655x"61M00 

The equations shown a n possible equations to be used 

ti • MACT model point value system designed to 

accurately reflect emission reduction credits to the 

various emission reduction techniques that a facSty could 

choose to meet the MACT standard. In e equations 

shown should net be USM I for predicting emissions. 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

Hanoi-Bestn Unear Eqn. 

» Actual Mechanical 

— — Mechanical- Best Rt Unear Eqn. 

- Manual - constrained Power Eon. 

- Manual. Best Fa Power Eon. 

• Constrained 

Best FU 

Power Ear 

Eon. 

Target Cell 

Std [Error of Y-Estimate - Manual 

Std Error of Y-Estimate - Mech. 

Sum of Std Errors of Y Estimate 

Value 

(lbs/ton) 

24.94 

34.53 

59.47 

% of Average Changing Cells 

CFA Emission Coefficient m of y = mxn - Manual 

21.84 Exponent n of y = mxn - Manual 

17.42 Coefficient m of y = mxn - Mech. 

N/A Exponent n of y = mxn-Mech. 

(unitless) 

0.027860 

2.255000 

0.014655 

2.615000 

Constraint Description 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 lbs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAP/ton Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAPAon Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAPAon Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAPAon Resin 

Manual <= Mech. Rounded to 0.1 Ibs HAPAon Resin 

Coefficient m of y = mxn - Manual > 0 

Exponent n of y - mxn - Manual > 0 

Coefficient m of y = mxn - Mechanical > 0 

Exponent n of y = mxn - Mechanical > 0 

Std Errors of Y-Estimate - Manual > 0 

Std Enors of Y-Estimate - Mechanical > 0 

Constraint 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE i 

TRUE 1 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

TRUE 

%HAP 

0.01 

0.1 

0.25 

0.5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

45 

50 

Manual 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.3 

0.6 

1.0 

1.6 

2.2 

3.0 

4.0 

5.0 

12.5 

23.9 

39.6 

59.7 

148.9 

188.9 

Linear 

Manual 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

17.5 

43.6 

69.8 

148.2 

174.3 

Power 

Mechanical 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.3 

0.6 

1.0 

1.6 

2.4 

3.4 

4.6 

6.0 

17.4 

37.0 

66.3 

106.8 

308.4 

406.2 

Linear 

Mechanical 

0.0 

ao 

ao 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

ao 

o.o 

ao 

ao 

oo 

o.o 

57.3 

306.0 

389.0 

1: The analysis attempts to generate the best fit power equation (by minimizing the standard errors) subject to the constraint that mechanical 

emissions are greater than or equal to manual emissions when rounded to 1 decimal place (the nearest tenth). 

Note 2: Shaded Areas represent concentrations within the resin monomer content range tested by the CFA. 

13$ 
o 

Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Manual Resin Application 

200 

180 

-=- 160 

(0 

o 

a: 

c 

CL 

< 

X 

CO 

.g 

co 

c 

o 

'co 

CO 

E 

UJ 

Q. 

< 

X 

~o 

• a 

o 

140 

120 

100 

e equations shown are possible equations to be used 

a MACT model point value system designed to 

.urately reflect emission reduction, credits to the 

ous emission reduction techniques that a facility 

Id choose to meet the MACT standard. The 

uations shown should not be used for predicting 

issions. iff 

10 15 20 25 30 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

35 40 45 50 

o 

X 

0.041 in./15 min./50 fpm 

0.088 in./15min./50 fpm 

- Linear (b = 0) 

O 

-

0.041 in./15 min./100 fpm 

0.088 in./15min./100 fpm 

- Linear (b = constant) 

A 

O 

0.041 in./30 min./50 fpm 

0.088 in./30 min./50 fpm 

• Power (n = constant) 

X 

+ 

— - — 

0.041 in./30min./100fpm 

0.088 in./30 min./100 fpm 

- 2nd Order Polynomial 
CL 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

(0 

Q) 

Ct 

C 

< 

x 

CO 

CO 

c 

o 

S 200 CO 

CO 

E 

LU 

Q. 

< 

X 

"c> 

73 

O 

150 

100 

Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Mechanical Resin Application 

.inear(fr = Q) 

5.242706X 

5 he equations shown are possible equations to be used 

n a MACT mode! point value, system designed to 

accurately reflect emission reduction credits to the 

various emission reduction techniques that; a. facility 

^ould choose to meet the MACT standard.' The 

quations shown should not be used for predictinj 

/ , 

.7 

.'/ 

o 

<4-

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

a 

X 

0.040 inV15 min./2 Ibs per min. 

0.080 in./15 min./2 Ibs per min. 

O 

-

0.040 in./15 min./4 Ibs per min. 

0.080 in/15 min./4 Ibs per min. 

A 

O 

0.040 in./30 min./2 Ibs per min. 

0.080 in./30 min./2 Ibs per min. 

X 

+ 

0.040 in./30 min./4 Ibs per min. 

0.080 in./30 min./4 Ibs per min. 

- 2nd Order Polynomial 
Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Filament Winding Application 

250 

The equations shown are possible equations to be used 

in a MACT model point value system designed to 

accurately reflect emission reduction credits to the 

various emission reduction techniques that a facility 

could choose to meet the MACT standard. The 

equations shown should not be used for predicting 

emissions. 

10 15 20 25 30 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

35 40 45 

• 73 degrees/6 inches 

Linear (b = constant) 

73 degrees/33 inches A 85 degrees/6 inches 

• Power (n = constant) — - — - 2nd Order Polynomial 

X 85 degrees/33 inches Linear (b = 0) 

50 
CO 

(0 

CD 

c 

o 

C L 

< 

X 

700 

600 

500 

400 

(O 

e 

o 

lo 

« 300 

E 

LU 

Q. 

< 

X 0) 

TJ 

O 

200 

100 

Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Gel Coat Application 

Unear (b = 0) 

i = 10.366197x 

Linear (b = ponstapt) 

19.250357X-334.636714 

•ower (n = constant) 

y = 0.436189x 1.870872 

ie equations shown are possible equations to be used 

a MACT mode! point value system designed to 

ccurately reflect emission reduction credits to the 

arious emission reduction techniques that a facility 

could, choose to meet the MACT standard. The 

equations shown should not be used for predicting 

emissions. 

^ 

•*<*-

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 

Gel Coat Monomer Content (% HAP) 

a 0.018 in./10min/2 lbs per min. 

X 0.024 in./.O min/2 Ibs per min. 

Linear (b = 0) 

O 0.018 in./10 min/4 Ibs per min. 

0.024 in/10 min/4 Ibs per min. 

Linear (b = constant) 

O 

0.018 in./20 min/2 Ibs per min. 

0.024 in/20 min/2 Ibs per min. 

• Power (n = constant) 

X 0.018 in/20 min/4 Ibs per min. 

+ 0.024 in/20 min/4 Ibs per min. 

- — - 2nd Order Polynomial 
Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Manual Resin Application 

0.250 

Q. 

< 

X 

J2 0.200 

JO 

JH 

> 

< 

CO 

j£ 0.150 

< 

X 

CO 

to 

.2 0.100 

CO 

CO 

E 

LU 

CL 

< 

E 0.050 

0 

"O 

o 

0.000 

tear (b = 0) 

I 0.003821 x 

Linear (b = constant) 

/ = 0.002963X + 0.033303 

Power (n = constant) 

y = 0.008576X ,0.773214 

2nd Order Polynomial 

y = -0.000074X2 •+ 0.006851x 

ie equations shown are possible equations to be used 

I a MACT model point value system designed to 

accurately reflect emission reduction credits to the 

arious emission reduction techniques that a facility 

)uld choose to meet the MACT standard. The 

equations shown should not be used for predicting 

••missions. 

10 15 20 25 30 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

35 40 45 50 

a 

X 

0.041 inV15minV50fpm 

0.088 in./15 min./50 fpm 

O 

-

0.041 in./15min./100fpm 

0.088 in./15 min./100 fpm 

A 

O 

0.041 in./30 min./50 fpm 

0.088 in/30 min./50 fpm 

X 

+ 

0.041 in./30min./100fpm 

0.088 in/30 min./100 fpm 

- 2nd Order Polynomial 
Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Mechanical Resin Application 

0.500 

f£ 0.450 

< 

X 

.i22 0.400 

_n 

co 

CO 

> 

< 

CO 

A 

CL 

< 

X 

CO 

(0 

c 

o 

"co 

CO 

E 

LU 

Q_ 

< 

X 

"53 

•o 

o 

0.350 

0.300 

0.250 

0.200 

0.150 

0.100 

0.050 

0.000 

Uin-gpr(b-O) 

/ = 0.006632x 

Linear fb = constant) 

y = 0.014973x-0.323794 

'ower (n = constant) 

y = 0.000065x2257812 

2nd Order Polynomial 

y-= 0.000220X2-0.001987x 

equations;shown are pc -. used 

a MACT model point value system designed to 

;urately reflect emission • reduction credits to the 

ious emission reduction techniques that a facility 

jld choose to meet the MACT standard. The 

lations shown should not be used for predicting 

issions. 

/ ' ' 

/A 

/}'A 

/ 

% 

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

D 

X 

0.040 in/15 min./2 Ibs per min. 

0.080 in./15 min./2 Ibs per min. 

o 

-

0.040 in/15 min./4 Ibs per min. 

0.080 in./15 min./4 Ibs per min. 

A 

O 

0.040 in./30 min./2 Ibs per min. 

0.080 in/30 min./2 Ibs per min. 

X 

+ 

0.040 in./30 min./4 Ibs per min. 

0.080 in./30 min/4 Ibs per min. 

- 2nd Order Polynomial 
Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Filament Winding Application 

0.250 

0.000 

10 15 20 25 30 35 

Resin Monomer Content (% HAP) 

40 45 50 

73 degrees/6 inches 

Linear (b = 0) 

o 73 degrees/33 inches 

Linear (b = constant) 

85 degrees/6 inches x 85 degrees/33 inches 

Power (n = constant) 2nd Order Polynomial 
Reinforced Plastic/Composites MACT Model for Gel Coat Application 

9 

o 

OC 

c 

Q. 

< 

X 

V) 

c 

.0 

"5> 

co 

E 

LU 

Q. 

< 

X 

"3 

o 

0.700 

0.600 

0.500 

0.400 

0.300 

0.200 

0.100 

0.000 

ear(fr = Q) 

= 0.013708x 

inear (b = constant) 

y = 0.011951x + 0.066170 

Power (n = constant) 

y = 0.021809x0-

870872 

2nd Order Polynomial 

= -0.000047X2 + 0.015496x A 

The equations shown are possible equations to be used 

a MACT model point value system designed to 

accurately reflect emission reduction credits' to the 

/arious emission reduction techniques. that a facility 

x>uld choose to meet the MACT standard. The 

equations shown should not be used for predicting 

amissions. 

10 15 20 25 30 35 

Gel Coat Monomer Content (% HAP) 

40 45 

D 0.018 in/10 min/2 Ibs per min. o 0.018 in./10 min/4 Ibs per min. 

X 0.024 in./10 min/2 Ibs per min. - 0.024 in./10 min/4 Ibs per min. 

Linear (b = 0) Linear (b = constant) 

0.018 in./20 min/2 Ibs per min. x 0.018 in./20 min/4 Ibs per min. 

0.024 in./20 min/2 Ibs per min. + 0.024 in./20 min/4 Ibs per min. 

• Power (n = constant) — - — - 2nd Order Polynomial 

^ 

* 

50