# OAR Box 1415 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 11 ) IV-E-1 1 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/15/20089:38:26

AM •

Sheet 11 of 130 p. 1

,P. 2 

# N-e-n MEMORANDU M TO : Docke t

for Reinforce dPlasti c Composite s NESHA P FROM : Keith Barnett , U.S . Environmental Protectio n Agency , Emission s Standard s

Divisio n DATE : Jul y 31,200 2 SUBJECT : Meetin g with representative s ofth e Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s Industry O n Jul y 30 , 2002 , ameetin g wa s hel d i n th e Offic e ofth e Directo r ofth e Emission s Standard s Divisio n betwee n representative s ofth e reinforce d plasti c composite s industry an d th e U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Th e attendee s wer e a s follows : Representin g th e Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n (CFA ) Joh n Schweitzer , CFA , Senio r Directo r o f Governmen t

Affairs r Bil l Pedersen , Sha w Pittma n Chuc k Elkins , Chuc k

Elkin s & Associate s Representin g th e U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y . ' 1 ~ 'J '•..•*•. EP A AI R noCKR T ; Sall y Shaver , Director , Emissio n Standard s Divisio n Penn y Lassiter , Grou p Leader , Organi c Chemical s Grou p Keit h Barnett . Projec t

Lea dfor Reinforce d Plasti c Composite s ENESHA P Th e purpos e ofth e meetin g was t o allo w th e CF A representative s t o expres s thei r concern s abou t

ne w sourc e MAC T for

facilitie s producin g larg e parts . Attache d t o thi s memorandu mar e th e talkin g poin t fromth e meeting , an d tw o additional handout s provide d b y th e CFA . A s aresul t

ofth e meeting , i t

wa s agree d tha t

EP A woul d revie w th e analysi s prepare d b y Dr . Ro b Haberlei n (Attachmen t 3 ) an d respon d t o th e CF A whethe r not thi s informatio n support s CFA' s contentio n tha t

captur e an dcontro l i s not feasibl e for

larg e parts . Th e CF A representative s agree dt o respon dwit h additional informatio n o n wha t par t siz e the y conside r

t o b e large .P. 3



### Attachmen t 1 Talkin g Point s preparedb

y CF A fo r Jul y 3 0 meeting



# £P. 4

Composit e Fabricator s Associatio n - Jul y 30,200 2 "Talkin g points " fo r meetin g wit h EPA o n MAC T fo r ne w source s makin g larg e part s EPA' s propose d MAC T rul e fo r composite s woul d reqxiir e al l ne w source s wit h emission s o f lOOtp y o r mor e t o achiev e 100 % captur e an d 95 % contro l o f al l emitte d HAP . EP A ha s pointe dt o th e purporte d us e o f 100 % captur e an d 95 % contro l b y afe w existin g source s a s demonstratio n tha t thi s leve l o f

contro l i s achievable . Thes e sources , however , wer e designe d t o mak e onl y smal l parts , whil e man y ofth e likel y ne w source s wil l b e designe dt o mak e larg e parts . Th e followin g technica l factor s defin e th e dissimilarity betwee n thes e tw o group s o f source s an d explai n wh y source s makin g larg e part s ca n no tachiev e th e sam e hig h level s o f captur e tha tma y b e possibl e fo r source s makin g small parts : o Proces s enclosure s mus t hav e door s tha t

allo w mold s an d part s t o b e continuousl y o r frequently move dint o an d ou t ofth e enclosures . EProductio n continue s whil e th e door s ar e open , s o hig h level s o f captur e mus t

b e maintaine d a t

al l times . Maintainin g captur e i s possibl e i f small door s ar e used , bu tno tpossibl e i f door s size d fo r larg e part s ar e used . o Proces s area s for

smal l part s ope n int o large r buildings , protectin g the mfromwin d loads . Larg e parts , however , ar e move d fromproces s area s directl y ont o truck s for shipment , meanin g th e proces s area s fo r larg e part s ope n directl y t o th e outsid e o f buildings , makin g the msusceptibl e t o win d loads . W e kno w o f n o wa y t o maintai n captur e whe n eve n moderat e win d load s ar e present . o Worker s i n plant s makin g smal l part s ar e protecte d fromoverexposur e t o HAP s b y positionin g the mupstrea mofth e parts , an d b y usin g containe d proces s enclosure s ("spra y booths") . Spra

y booth s emplo y "pull " ventilation , wher e fresh ai r flow s int o di e booth s throug h di e doors , pas t di e workers , acros s th e parts , an d die n th e contaminate dai r

i s "pulled " ou t

di e exhaus t

vents . Worker s i n plant s makin g larg e parts , however , ar e positione d al l aroun d an d insid e ofth e parts , an d di e part s ar e locate d i n larg e ope n proces s area s (th e part s ar e to o larg e an d th e manufacturin g proces s to o comple x for

th e part s t o fit

int o spray booths) . Worker s ar e protecte d b y th e us e o f "push-pull " ventilation , wher e fresh ai r i s "pushed " int o on e sid e ofth e ope n proces s area , flow s acros s th e part s an d workers , an d the n contaminate d ai r i s "pulled " ou t

ofth e opposit e side . Som e o f di e "pushed " ai r

spill s int o th e ope n are a an di s no t capture d b y di e "pull " exhaust . I ti s impossibl e t o achiev e hig h level s o f captur e i n larg e ope n proces s area s tha tus e push-pul l ventilation . EPA' s curren t

approac h amount s t o aconstructio n ba n o n th e ne w plant s tha t wil l b e neede d t o mak e larg e parts . Th e final rul e shoul d se tdifferen tcontro l requirement s fo r ne w plant s makin g larg e versu s smal l parts . Thes e requirement s shoul d b e base d o n di e relevan t technica l characteristic s o f

dies e operations . 

# 3P. 5



### Attachmen t 2 Discussio n o

f 9 5 percen t captur e an dcontro l fo

r makin g larg e part s



# 4P. 6

Composit e Fabricator

s Associatio n Jul y 26 , 200 2

Discussion : 95 % Captur e an d Contro l fo r Ne w Source s Makin g Larg e Part s

W e discus s dies e an

dothe r issue s i n greate r detail below , but

i n summary : • The propose dMAC

T requiremen

t fo r ne w composit

e manufacturin

g operation s wit

h emission s o

f 10 0 tpy o r mor e - to emplo

y add-on control s achieving 100 % captur e an d 95 % overall contro l - will effectivel y preven t di e constructio n of

ne w plant s designed t o buil dlarg e products . • The rul e shoul ddistinguis h betwee n tiiose ne w source s constructed t o mak e primaril y smal l parts , wher

e enclosure s wit

h hig h captur e efficiencie s ca

n b e employed , an

d otiie r source s tha

t cannot feasibl y us e suc h enclosures . • EP A shouldrel

y o n the importan

t technica l an d operationa

l difference s betwee

n smal l an d larg e par t production t

o establis h the appropriat

e MACT requirements . • I n additio n to the technica

l considerations , achieving high level s of captur e fo r larg e part s woul db e s o expensiv e tha

t EPA' s proposed requiremen t amount s to aconstructio n ban . • New plant s wit

h emission of

10 0 tpy o r mor e makin g larg e part s should b e require d t o emplo y th e sam e effectiv e pollutio n preventio n control s as smalle r ne w plant s an

d existin g plants . Backgroun dan dEPA' s Propose dMAC T Rule Th e Clea n Ai r Ac t require s MACT fo

r ne w source s of

hazardou s ai

r pollutant s t o requir

e a t leas t the degree of

emission reduction "achieved i n practic e b

y th e bes t controlle d simila

r source. " CA A §112(d)(3) . I

n the proposedMACT standar d fo r composit e manufacturing (6 6 F

R40324) , EP A asserte dtha

t thi s "floor " languag e require d all new ope n molding an

d pultrusio n source s wit h potentia l emission s ove

r 10 0 ton s pe r yea r t o install add-on contro l system s achieving 100 % captur e an d95 % overall control . EP A pointedt o tw o plant s tha

t mak e smal l part s - th e A.R.E . an

d America n Standar d operation s i n Ohio - a s the justificatio n fo r imposin g thi s "floor " requiremen

t o n ope n molding sources . 6 6 F R40331 . Th

e justificatio n fo

r th e pultrusio n requiremen

t i s les s focused , but

appear s to res t

o n anothe r plan t - Tecton i n Nort h Dakota- tha

t als o make s onl

y smal l parts . As noted , the Clea

n Ai r Ac t require s ne

w sourc e "floor " control s onl y fo r source s tha

t ar e "similar " to the floor-setting sources . Th e proposal' s onl

y discussio n o f

thi s requiremen

t relate s to the siz e o f part s mad e b y the floor-setting facilities . EP A said : Th e tw o facilitie s [tha

t se t th e floor ] produc e part s tha

t rang e i n siz e fromtha

t o f bathtub s to truc k

caps . I t i s possibl e tha

t large r siz e part s ma

y requir e large r enclosures . We hav e no t

identified an

y facilitie s in th e reinforced plastic s composite s industr

y wher e processe s producin g larg e parts , suc h a s storag e tank s an dswimmin

g pools , hav e applied 100 % efficien t captur e systems . However , w

e 1 

## SP. 7

Composit e Fabricator

s Associatio n Jul y 26 , 200 2 hav e identifiedfacilitie s using 100 % efficien t captur e system s tha

t apply coating s t o larg e part s suc

h a s helicopter s an

d ships . Thes e coating operation s hav e simila r issue s of larg e air flows (due to worke

r exposur e concerns ) an

d lo w outlet

HA P concentrations . Basedo

n this , we believ e i

t i s technically feasible t o appl y 10 0 percent efficien t captur e system s t o large

r part s i n the reinforced plastic s composite s industry . 6 6 F R40332 . A s fa r a s w e know , EP

A restedthi s clai

mentirely o

n acontractor

stud y entitle d "VOC/HA

P Control System s fo

r the Shipbuilding an

d Aerospac e Industries " b

y M . Luke y an d V . Toothman . CFA' s Comment

s CFA' s comment s o

n th e ne w sourc e issue focused o

n th e stud y tha t EP A ha d cite d t o suppor

t it s floo r proposal . CF

A pointe dout

that , according to th e Luke y an d Toothma

n study , neithe

r o f di e tw o facilitie s studiedha

dactually achieved th e claimed leve l of control . Indeed , it

wa s not clea r they hadeven installe dadd-o n technology , or operate d i t

fo r an y meaningfu

l perio d i f the y ha d installe dit . Th e study' s estimat e of add-on contro l performanc e reste d entirely o n theoretica

l projections . Further , the stud y revealed that

seriou s worke

r overexposur

e coul d result . CF

A pointe d out

man y technica l an doperationa

l difference s betwee

n drydock s an d hanger s and composite s fabrication facilities , all o f which would mak

e captur e an d contro l mor

e difficul t fo r composit e manufacturing operations . CF A als o addressedth e captur e an dcontro l issu e mor

e generally , primarily i

n th e context

of EPA' s proposa

l of a n "above-the-floor " captur

e an d contro l requiremen

t for existin g sources . A s par t o f tha t argument , CF

A explained tha

t plant s making larg e part s ar e no t simila r t o thos e existin g plant s makin

g small part s tha

t EP A claim s achiev e 95 % control , becaus e o f problem s associate dwit

h captur e of emission s an

d moving product s an

d mold s int

o an d ou t of proces s enclosures . CF A als o pointe dou

t tha t ther e wa s no reason t o believ e tha t eve n th e plant s makin

g smal l part s tha t ha d installe dcaptur

e an dcontro l ha

d i n fact achieved th e 100 % captur

e efficienc y tha t EP A claims . I n particula r CF A argue dtha

t eve n though EP

A ha d proposed us e o f

Medio d 204 t o measur e or demonstrat

e captur e efficienc y at facilitie s subject

t o th e MAC T standard , th e condition s fo

r avali dMetho d20

4 enclosur e coul d no t

generally b e me

t a t composite s fabrication facilities , an

dwer e particularly har

dt o mee t a t facilitie s tha

t mad e larg e parts . See CFA' s Oct . 25 , 200 1 comments , p . 27-29 , an dals o comment s o

n th e propose d composit

e MACT from STAPPA/ALAPC O (IV-D-72 ) an dthe Indian aDepartmen

t o f Environmenta

l Managemen

t (IV

D-75) . EPA' s Curren

tPosition As we understandit , EPA' s curren t thinkin g o

n thi s issu e i s a s follows :

• Th e onl y dissimilaritie s betwee

n plant s making smal

l part s an d tiiose makin

g larg e part s ar e economic , an

dth e Ac t preclude s th e us e o f

economi c consideration s whe n establishin g differen

t contro l requirement s fo

r differen t type s of sources . • Th e proces s enclosur

e a t A.R.E . ( afacilit

y tha t produce s smal

l part s an d reportedly achieve s 100 % capture ) i s larg e enoug h fo r th e productio n o f

larg e part s suc

h a s barg e covers . 

# yP. 8

Composit e Fabricator

s Associatio n Jul y 26 , 200 2

• Moving product s an

dmold s int

o an d ou t ofth e enclosure s while maintainin g 100 % captur e will b e mor

e difficul t (mor e expensive) fo

r larg e parts , bu

t th e industr

y will find a solutio n if required . • Loca l regulator s wil

l sometime s waive the requirement s of Method 204 , an

d owners of new plant s makin

g larg e part s ca

n negotiat e favorable permit

condition s fo

r their proces s enclosures . CFA' s Respons e CF A still doe s no t

believ e tha

t 100 % captur

e o f composite s manufacturin

g emission s i s feasible . I n particular , plant s makin

g larg e part s ca

n no t achieve hig

h level s o f capture . Regarding MACT requirement s fo

r the ne w plant s tha

t wil l b e needed to mak

e thes e larg e products , CF

A believe s tha t EPA' s approac

h i s i n error i n severa l importan t ways : 1 . Ther e ar e importan

ttechnica l factor s tha tdifferentiat

e smal l par tfro m larg e par

t manufacturing , an

d for ne w sources , EP

A shoul d use thes e differences t

o se t appropriat

e contro l requirement

s fo r eac h group . Ne w plant s built

t o mak e larg e part s wil

l hav e t o b e technically dissimilar t o thos e existing plant s tha t reportedl y achiev e 100 % captur

e an d 95 % control . I

n particular , plant s making larg e part s wil l no t b e abl e to achiev e high level s of captur e becaus e ofth e followin

g technica l characteristics :

• Th e nee dto frequently mov

e mold s an d product s i

n an d ou t o f proces s areas , an

d t o provid e doors o r opening s tha

t ar e larg e enough , mean s tha

t enclosure s fo

r larg e part s ca

n no t practically achiev e high level s o f capture . Proces s enclosure s fo r composit e manufacturin

g operation s must

have door s o

r othe r opening s t o allo w mold s t o b e brough t int o an dproduct s ou

t ofth e enclosures . Thes e door s mus t b e opened frequently, during whic

h tim e productio n operation s (an d emission s of

HAP) continue . It

ca n tak e ove r a n hou r t o carefull y mov e alarg e comple

x product , during which time enclosur e door s must

b e open . Plant s makin

g smal l part s ca n us e continuousl

y ope n door s i n th e proces s enclosure s t o allo w the movemen t o f product s an

d molds ; thes e door s ar

e smal l enoug h s o tha t sufficien t negativ e pressur

e i s maintained in th e enclosure s even whe n th e door s ar e open . Th

e door s neede

d fo r larg e parts , however , will b e to o large ; whe n thes e doors ar e open , negativ e pressur

e will not b e maintained i

n th e enclosures , an

d hig h level s of captur e will no t b e achieved .

• Th e "push-pull " ventilatio n an d highe r air flows needed t o protec t

worker s makin

g larg e part s resul t i n muc h lowe r achievabl e captur

e efficiencies . Worker s i

n plant s makin

g smal l part s ar e protecte dfromoverexposur e to HAP s b

y positionin g the

mupstrea mo f th e parts , an

dby usin g contained proces s enclosure s ("spra y booths") . Spra

y booth s emplo y "pull " ventilation , wher

e fresh air flow s int o th e booth s throug h th e doors , pas t the workers , acros s the parts , an d then contaminated air

i s "pulled " out

th e exhaus t

vents . Workers i n plant s makin

g larg e parts , however , mus t b e positione d all around an d insid e ofth e parts , an

dthe part s ar

e located i n larg e ope

n proces s area s (the part s ar e to o larg e an dthe manufacturin

g proces s to o comple

x fo r the part s t o fit

int o spra y booths) . Workers ar

e protecte db

y th e us e of

"push-pull " ventilation , wher e larg e amount s o f

fresh ai r i s "pushed " int

o on e side ofth e ope

n proces s area , flows acros s the part s an d workers , an dthen contaminate dai

r i s "pulled " ou

t ofth e opposit

e side . Som

e ofth e "pushed " air spill s int o the ope n are aan di s not capture d b

y the "pull " exhaust . I t

i s impossible to achieve high level s of

captur e i n larg e ope

n proces s area s tha

t us e push-pull ventilation . 3 

# 7P. 9

Composit e Fabricator

s Associatio n Jul y 26 , 200 2 Muc h large r proces s area s ar

e needed to produc e larg e parts . Du e t o th e complexit y and thicknes s ofth e laminate , larg e part s requir e mor e lamination step s and longe r curing period s tha

n smal l parts . Further , larg e part s ar e typically buil t

a t fixedmoldin g stations , an dthen move

dt o othe r larg e ope n area s fo r finishin g an dassembly (wher

e HAP s ar e als o emitted) ; i

n th e small par

t operation s tha

t achieve hig

h level s o f capture , all.o f

th e HAP-emittin g step s tak

e plac e i n spra y booth s o r contained curin g rooms . Finally , larg e par t manufacturing typically require s greate r operationa

l flexibility, s o tha

t change s i n produc t size , shape , an

dmanufacturing method s ca n b e accommodated readily ; th e smal l par t operation s tha

t achiev e hig

h level s o f capture , o n the othe r hand , rarel y chang e th e basi c siz e o

r shap e of products . Consequently , the proces s area s neede d t o mak e larg e parts , comparedt o thos e needed fo r smal l parts , ar e muc h large r tha n woul d b e predicte d b y jus t comparing th e siz e ofth e parts . • T o accommodat

e loading o f

part s ont o trucks , larg e par

t operation s ofte

n open directly t o th e outside of

buildings , makin

g the enclosure s susceptibl e t o wind loads . Enclosure s fo r smal l part s typically ope

n insid e buildings , providing greate r resistanc e t o wind loads , an dconsequently highe

r achievabl e captur

e efficiencies . Fo

r an y proces s enclosur

e tha t open s directly t o th e outside , we know of no wa y to maintain captur

e when eve

n moderat e win dload s ar e present . Th e existin g plant s tha

t emplo y high captur

e efficienc y enclosures , al

l of whic h mak

e small parts , ca n not fairl y o r legall y b e usedby EP

A t o establis h contro l requirement s fo r plant s making larg e parts . Technically , they ar

e not similar . N o existin g composit e manufacturing plant s making larg e part s emplo

y - o r couldemplo

y - high captur

e efficienc y enclosures . As fa r a s we ca n tel l fromth e material s availabl e i n th e docket , the A.R.E . proces s enclosur e i s no t larg e enoug

h fo r th e practica

l manufactur

e of barg e cover s o

r othe r larg e products , contrar

y t o EPA' s claim . Eve

n if i t were , thi s enclosur

e i s in fact no t used t o mak

e such parts , an

d we believ e tha t i t i s unsuitabl e fo

r suc h use . For example , th e A.R.E . enclosur e ha s n o provisio n to , allow th e movemen

t of mold s an dproduct s int

o an d out of di e enclosur

e whil e stil l maintaining negativ e pressur

e i n th e enclosure , a s woul

d b e require d b

y di e MACT rule . Th e attache danalysi s b

y Dr . Ro b Haberlein o f

Engineering Environmenta l Consultin g Servic e contain s adetaile dcomparison ofth e A.R.E . facilit y an d anothe r plan t familia r t o EP A (Proform

) tha t make s larg e part s an

di s ver y simila r to th e ne w plant s tha

t the industr

y wil l need t o build . Dr . Haberlein demonstrate s tha t the A.R.E . facilit

y could no t

feasibl y b e use d t o mak

e larg e products , tha

t plant s built

t o mak e larg e product s could no t

feasibl y employ di e sam

e ventilatio n an dcaptur e technologie s a s A.R.E. , an d tha t plant s built

to mak e larg e product s coul d no t

feasibl y compl y wit h the ful l requirement s o

f Method 204 . 2 . Ne w plant s buil t

t o mak e larg e part s will no t b e abl e t o affor

d t o achiev e hig h level s o f capture . EP A ha s no t provide dan

y suppor t fo r its assertio n tha

t onl y economic factor s distinguis h plant s tha t mak e small part s fromplant s tha t mak e larg e parts . A s note

d above , CF

A believe s tha

t i n fac t aclea r se t o f technica l an doperationa

l difference s separat

e plant s tha

t mak e small part s from thos e tha t mak e large r parts . Bu t we als o believ e tha

t thes e plant s ar

e distinguishe d by economic considerations . Th e achievabilit

y an daffordabilit

y of captur e an d contro l fo

r agive n plant depend s largel

y o n th e hig h volum e productio n of

small an dunifor mparts . I t

i s les s difficul

t an d les s costly fo

r smal l 4 

# ?P.1 0

Composit e Fabricator

s Associatio n Jul y 26 , 200 2 part s to b e mad

e i n speciall y constructed booth s or

enclosure s wit

h opening s or

tunnel s tha

t achieve high captur

e efficiencie s while stil

l permittin g the necessar

y flow o f parts , molds , workers , an

dmaterial s int

o an dou t ofth e productio n areas . I t

i s not a n acciden t tha t all ofth e plant s o n whic h EP A ha s base

dthe 95 % captur

e an d contro l requiremen

t mak e smal l part s suc h a s tub/showe

r units , pick-u

p truck caps , an d window lineals . A n enginee r retaine db y CF A designed "maximu

mpractical " captur

e an d contro l system s fo

r a numbe r o f typica l plants , including severa

l tha t resemble likel

y ne w plants . On

e of thes e plant s make s tub/showe

r unit s (smal

l parts) , an d on e make s gasoline storag e tank s an d barg e cover s (larg e parts) . Installin g an

doperating the contro l system s (tha t d o no t necessarily achiev e 100 % capture ) woul

dcos t approximatel

y $5,000 pe

r ton of HA P controlle d fo

r th e plant makin g small parts , but ove r $25,00 0 pe

r ton of HA P controlle d fo

r the plan t makin g larg e parts . Se

e th e R . Haberlein report , "Cos t

o f Captur e an d Control, " attache d t o CFA' s Octobe r 25 , 200 1 addendu

m to comments o

n th e proposedrule . EPA' s proposedapproach amounts t o aconstruction ba

n o n ne w plant s making larg e parts . Suc h aprohibition i s frankly inconsisten t wit h Congress' s intent , whic

h i s tha t MAC T should b e achievable. Congres s di

dnot inten dth e MACT progra

mt o driv e industrie s out

o f an y of their existing line s o f

business . Instead , i

t intended MACT t o bring source s i n eac h o f thos e line s of busines s u p to floor control level . Tha

t i s the basi c polic y behin

d th e statutor

y requiremen

t tha t source s subject

to ne w sourc e MAC

T must b e similar

t o th e floor-setting source . Accordingly , th e Clea n Ai r Ac t wouldno t suppor t aMAC T standar d tha t prohibite d th e constructio n o f ne w source s t o mak

e a n importan

t range of composit e products . Suc h astandar dwoul dals o represen

t indefensible economi c an

d environmenta

l polic y eve

n i f i t wer e legal . Larg e composit

e product s wil

l b e needed t o serve severa

l market s tha

t ar e importan t fo r bot h the industr

y an ddi e country . Fo

r example ,

• composit

e bridg e beams , whic

h ar e jus t no w being studied b

y th e civi l engineering industry , wil

l provide muc

h longe r lif e tha n steel beams , an

d allo w th e loa

d capacit y of bridge s to b e increased , • composit

e windmil l blade s will provid

e a n importan

t alternativ e energy suppl

y fo r ou r country , • composit

e components fo

r moto r homes , trucks , an

d railroa d car s ar e ligh t weight , save energy an dreduc e emission s o f

greenhous e gases , • non-conducting composit e utilit y pole s an d electrica l transmissio n tower s allo w tighte r placemen t of conductors , providing increase d capacit y of transmissio n lines , an

d eliminat e the nee dfo r toxi c wood preservatives , • composit

e gasoline , chemica

l storage , an

d septi c tank s will not

rus t o r corrode , reducing the ris k of releas e int o the environment , an

d • composit

e barg e cover s d

o no t rus t o r corrode , preventing the contaminatio n ofth e transporte dgrain . Ou r industry' s succes s i

n providing thes e product s will depen d o n buildin g efficien

t an d moder n ne w plants . Th

e proposed95 % captur

e an d contro l requiremen

t fo r large r ne w source s i s not achievabl e o

r affordabl e fo r plant s makin

g larg e products , an

d will preven

t th e constructio n of plant s larg e enoug

h to enjo y the necessar

y logistics , product

flow , economie s of

scale , qualit

y control , an dmanagemen

t efficiencies . Nothing i n th e Clea n Ai r Ac t support s EPA' s claimtha t

economic factor s alon e cannot justif y differen t contro l levels . The la

w limit s ne

w sourc e MAC T "floor " requirement s t o source s tha

t 5 

# °>P.1 1

Composit e Fabricator

s Associatio n Jul y 26 , 200 2 ar e "similar " t o th e floor-setting sources . Th e la w doe s not specif y ho w t o determin e "similar " andtherefor

e set s n o limit s to EPA' s authorit

y t o interpre

t i t i n areasonabl e fashion . Moreover , th e la w als o provide s tha

t i n establishing MACT , th e Administrator shall "take int

o consideratio n th e cos t of achieving suc

h emission reduction. " I

n fact , EP A ha s regularly considere d cos t i n establishin g distinction s amon g MAC T contro l requirements . I

n thi s ver y rul e EP A propose d mor e lenien t requirement s fo

r facilitie s owne

d by smal l businesse s tha

n fo r othe r type s o f facilitie s becaus e ofth e unreasonabl e economi c impact of imposing th e tighter

requiremen

t on smal l business . Se

e 6 6 FR40333 . 3 . Th e fina

l rul e shoul db e achievabl e a s written , an d no trely o n th e flexibility of

loca l permittin g agencies . EPA' s assertio n tha

t eve n if it s metho d fo

r demonstrating 100 % captur e i s flawed, tha

t thi s ma y no t matte r s o muc h sinc e loca

l regulator s frequently mak e exception s t o allo w practica l compliance , i s har

dto fatho ma s the justificatio n fo

r aregulation - particularl y i n th e absenc e of

a forma l reproposal . EP

A ca n not defen d di e promulgatio n o f

atechnically indefensibl e rul e b y assertin g tha

t it will b e ignoredi

n practice . Moreover , w e cannot predic t th e exten t t o whic h loca

l regulator s will b e willin g to mak e exceptions . I

n som e case s o f which w e are aware , they hav e no t bee n willin g to mak

e any . Fo r EP A to promulgat

e arule tha

t require s loca

l regulator s t o mak e exception s to publishedEP A guidance , instea

d o f directl y addressin g th e shortcoming s o f suc h guidance , i s simpl

y ba dpolicy an

d i s indefensible . 4 . EPA' s apparen t

chang e in rational e require s reproposal . EPA' s curren

t approach , a s w

e understand it , woul

d violat e applicabl e rulemakin g procedur e requirements . EP

A proposedcaptur

e an d contro l fo

r all ne w ope n moldin g and pultrusio n source s a s a"floor " requirement . EP A conceded tha

t th e plant s o

n which i t base d th e requiremen

t onl y mad e smal l parts , an draisedth e questio n whethe r they wer e "similar " t o plant s tha

t mad e large r parts . EP A concluded , basedentirel

y o n th e contractor

repor t cite d above , that

th e tw o type s of plant s wer e indeed"similar. " Now EP A appear s to have completel y change d it s justificatio n an d abandone d all relianc e o

n th e contractor report . Instead , EP

A ha s offere

d ane w rang e o f justifications . Moreover , EP A no longe r appear s t o b e arguing tha

t plant s tha t ar e "similar " to plant s tha

t mak e larg e part s have demonstratedcaptur

e an dcontrol . Instead , EP

A seem s to contend tha

t suc h facihtie s ca

n mak e captur e an dcontro l wor

k eve n i f they hav e no t

don e s o already . If

thi s i s indee d EPA' s position , EP A i s arguing tha

t captur e an dcontro l fo

r thes e facihtie s ca

n b e justifie d a s a

n "above-the-floor " requiremen

t eve n i f i t cannot b e justifie d a s a"floor " requirement . Tha t i s acompletely differen

t theor y o f ne w sourc e MACT froman

y advanced befor

e i n thi s rulemaking . Ou

r comments would have addressedthi s ne

w line of reasoning ha

d i t bee n explaine d i

n th e propose d rule . W e have don e ou r bes t to respondto wha

t we understand to b e EPA' s new position . However , the la w require s a

n agency tha

t change s it s positio n s o fundamentall y to issu e asupplementa

l proposa l an dinvit e ane w roun do f publi c comment . Informa

l comment s base d o

n undevelope d understanding s ofth e agency' s evolving positio n ar e n o substitut

e fo r the government' s complianc e wit

h thi s basi c requirement .



### (OP.1 2



### Attachmen t 3 Comparison ofth e Characteristic s ofth e A.R.E . Massillon Plan t an dProfor mLLC Wes t Memphi s Plan

t tha t affec t Captur e of Emission s preparedb

y Dr . Rober

t Haberlei n



## i(P.1 3 

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QEP 

### Compariso n o

f th e Characteristic s o

f th e A.R.E . Massillo n Plan t an d th e Profor mLL C Wes t

Memphi s Plan t

tha t affec t Captur e o

f Emission s Jul y 26 , 200 2 EP A ha s propose dtha

t al l ne w ope n molding facilitie s wit

h HA P emission s ove

r 10 0 tp y mus t achiev e th e sam

e level of captur e & contro l as th e A.R.E . Massillon facility , which accordin g t o th e MACT databas e prepare dby EPA , has a95 % effective capture-and-contro l system . EP A believe s tha

t thi s level o f

contro l i s achievabl e fo

r al l type s o f ope n moldin g facilities , includin g plant s tha

t produc e larg e parts . CF

A askedEngineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s (EECS ) t o evaluat e thi s claimby comparing th e A.R.E . Massillo n facility , hencefort h calle d th e "Massillo n plant, " t o atypica l ne w plan t designedt o produc e larg e parts . Fo r th e purpos e o f

thi s evaluation , th e Profor

mCompan

y LLC plant

i n Wes t Memphis , Arkansas , hencefort h calle dth e "Profor mplant, " i s agoo dexampl e of atypica l new larg e facilit

y (mor e tha n 10 0 tpy ) tha t produce s larg e parts . The Profor

mplan t produce s barg e covers , undergroundstorag e tank s (UST) , an d chemica l storag e tanks . The Profor mplan t i s als o agoo dchoice , becaus e EP A recently visite dth e Profor mplan t sit e in Januar y 2002 . Durin g thi s visit , EP A receiveddetaile ddesig n dat afrom Profor man d observe dfirsthandth e man y technica l problem s pose dby th e fabricatio n o f larg e parts . Severa l characteristic s ofth e Massillo n plan t an dth e Profor

mplant ar e comparedi

n Tabl e 1 on th e nex t eleve n pages . Thes e characteristic s illustrate fundamenta l technica l difference s between thos e plant s tha t produc e smal

l part s an dthos e plant s tha

t produc e larg e parts . Th e ke y characteristic s include : Par t an dmol dsiz e Proces s complexit

y Proces s are arequire d Proces s HA

P emissio n rate s Ventilatio n requirement s Employe e exposur

e Enclosur e typ e an dsiz e Enclosur e opening s Metho d20

4 complianc e



### Page 1 of 1 3 I 2^

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QEP Tabl e 1 - Comparison ofth e Characteristics a tth e Massillo n an

d Profor m Plant s thataffec

tCapture o f

HAP Emission s



### W ) Cl^raeteri^ e

Part * produce d

'

l&rtsii&e s

- ' \

^ _ , ff • * : : ", r, _\

• / ' ' ' ' / / ' '•

, ' j . S ' * S fff f

'•_ : - * ' , , f f

f_ \ '"" ''A " ">> \ 

## KM&*MmMm

Truc k to p Non-corrosio n resi n an d pigmente d gelcoa t (probabl y Manua l an d Mechanica l application )

Truc k to p 6'W x 8'L x 3'H-typica l par t Profor m Wes tMemphi s Barg e cove r Non-corrosio n resi n an d pigmente d gelcoa t Manua l an d Mechanica l Non-atomize d applicatio n Specia l impregnato r

an d overhea d platform s Undergroun d storag e tan k (UST ) Corrosio n resistan t

resi n Manua l an d Mechanica l Non-atomize dapplicatio n Specia l larg e rotatin g mol d fixtures Vertica l tan k Corrosio n resistan t

resi n Manual , Mechanica l Non-atomize dan d Filamen t Win d applicatio n Barg e cove r 24 ' W x 30 ' L x 4'/2 ' H - typica l 26'W x 31'L x Mm - ma x 29'Wx36'L x 8 ' H - ma x Barg e cove r mol d US T 10 ' dia x 48' L - typica l 10 ' di ax 74 ' L o r

12 ' di ax 68 ' L - ma x Vertica l tan k 10 ' dia x 40' L - typica l 12 ' dia x 60' L - ma x Th e part s produce dat

Proformar e man y time s large r tha n th e relativel y smal l truc k to p part s produce d a t

Massillon. . Fo r example , th e par t

"bo x volume " (Wx L x H ) o f atyp i 4 % o f atypica l Barg e Cove r

par t a t Profor m 4 % o f atypica l US T par t 4 % o f atypica l Vertica l tan k ca l truc k to p par t i s only :



### Pag e 2 o f 1 3

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE P

- ^ Characteristi c

Proces s description s A,IU L Massillo n

Truc k to p Th e truc k to p part s ar e produce d o n acontinuou s productio n lin e tha t

employ s wheele d mold s tha t ar e manuall y pushe dalon g atrack . Th e lin e reportedl y ha s si x proces s steps : 1 . gelcoa t applicatio n i n agelcoa t

boot h 2 . gelcoa t

curin g i n agelcoa t

cur e tunne l . 3 . laminat e applicatio n i n aGlassroo mboot h 4 . laminat e curin g i n aresi n cur e tunne l 5 . gelcoa t

applicatio n t o th e insid e ofth e laminat e 6 . insid e gelcoa t

curin g i n agelcoa t

cur e tunne l Th e cure dtruc k

to p part s ar e remove d fro mth e mold s an dthe n exi t

th e Laminatio n Roo mthroug h aseparat e exi t tunne l attache dt o th e room . Th e truc k par t i s the n prepare d fo r

pain t applicatio n i n a separat e roo marea , th e preppe d par t i s move d int o on e o f fou r pain t spra y booths , an d pain t

i s applie d an d allowe d t o cur e whil e remainin g insid e th e booth . Profor mWes t Merophi s Barg e cove r 1 . gelcoa t applicatio n - tw o station s usin g aspecia l overhea d crane-mounte d wor k platfor m 2 . gelcoa t

curin g - on e statio n 3 . laminat e application s (several ) - tw o station s usin g a specia l overhea d crane-mounte d impregnato r devic e 4 . laminat e curin g - on e statio n US T Fixe d wor k

station s - fou r

specia l rotatin g mold s fixtures 1 . laminat e application s (several ) 2 . space r installation s (fo r

double-wal l tank ) 3 . laminat e curin g insid e mol d 4 . tan k sectio n pulle dfrommol d 5 . tan k section s assemble d int o final par t o n sho p floo r Vertica l tan k 1 . laminat e application s (several ) - o n sho p floor 2 . filamen t

win d (severa l layers ) - filament creel s 3 . laminat e curin g - o n sho p floor 4 . tan k sectio n pulle d frommol d 5 . tan k sections/part s assemble d Du e t o th e siz e an dcomplexit y ofth e larg e parts , th e laminatio n operation s a t Profor mar e intermitten t instea d o f continuous . Th e grea t

mas s an d multipl e laminat e layer s ofth e larg e part s a t Profor mrequir e th e worker s t o star t an d sto p laminatio n activitie s severa l times . Eac h laminat e laye r mus t cur e befor e th e nex t

laye r i s added . Shel l separatio n part s an dothe r reinforcement s mus t

b e inserte d betwee n som e o f thes e layers , an d th e worker s mus t tak e frequent wor k breaks . A typica l larg e par t mus t remai n i n it s mol d fo r

si x t o te n hour s fromstar t t o finish. Th e ventilatio n fan s mus t

operat e durin g th e entir e process . Du e t o thes e technica l factors , th e smalle r proces s enclosure s employe da t

Massillo n ar e no t

practica l fo r

th e larg e part s mad e a t

Proform . 

### Pag e 3 o f 1 3 T J o i

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QEP Characteristi c

Proces s area s j

\.,',,'Sy".,y ' , '\ ' i AJU L Massillo n

Onl y par t ofth e floo r

are aan d volum e insid e th e Laminatio n Roo mi s use d t o enclos e th e actua l laminatio n processes . Th e followin g partia l enclosure s ar e reportedl y containe dinside th e room : Gelcoa t Booth : 19 ' W x 25 ' L x 9V*' H Gelcoa t Cur e Tunnel : 11 ' W x 79 ' L x 8 3 / 4 ' H Glassroo mBooth : 28'Wx68'L x 8 3 / 4 ' H Resi n Cur e Tunnel : 10 ' W x 79 ' L x 8 3 / 4 ' H Insid e Gelcoa t

Booth : 19 ' W x 25 ' L x 9% ' H Gelcoa t Cur e Tunnel : 11 ' W x 79 ' L x 8 3 / 4 ' H Tota l proces s floo r

are a- 5,38 0 ft 2 proces s Tota l proces s volum e - 47,57 0 ft3 proces s Th e remainin g non-enclose d floor are a(abou t

5,77 0 ft 2 ) an dvolum e (abou t

231,20 0 ft 3 ) insid e th e Laminatio n Roo mi s use dt o contai n th e space s betwee n th e ope n booth s an dtunnels , an d t o provid e worke r an d mol d access . Not e tha t

th e entir e Laminatio n Roo mmeasures : 68'Wxl64'Lx25' H Xxoform WfeSt Memphi s Barg e cove r Gelcoa t - 50 ' W x 165 ' L x 24 ' H Resin-50'Wxl65'Lx24' H (10,00 0 ft

2 ofth e gelcoa t

an d resi n are ai s 40'H ) Smal l part s - 40 ' W x 100 ' L x 24 ' H Barg e cove r

proces s floor

are a- 20,50 0 ft 2 Barg e cove r

proces s volum e - 652,00 0 ft 3 US T Fou r US T moldin g station s - 85 ' W x 180 ' L x 24 ' H US T proces s floo r

are a- 15,30 0 ft 2 US T proces s volum e - 367,20 0 ft 3 Vertica l tan k (planned ) 85'Wxl80'Lx40' H Vertica l tan k

proces s floor

are a- 15,300ft 2 Vertica l tan k

proces s volum e - 612,00 0 ft 3 Th e combine denclose d proces s floor are ainside th e Laminatio n Roo ma t Massillo n i s onl y about : 26 % ofth e proces s floor

area s fo r th e Barg e Cove r

operatio n a t

Profor m 15 % ofth e proces s floor

area s for th e Barg e Cove r

& US T operation s 11 % ofth e proces s floor

area s fo r th e entir e "large-part " operatio n (a s planned ) Th e combine denclose d proces s volum e insid e th e Laminatio n Roo ma t Massillon i s onl y about : 7 % ofth e proces s volum e fo r th e Barg e Cove r

operatio n a t

Profor m 5 % o f th e proces s volum e fo r

th e Barg e Cove r

& US T operation s 3 % ofth e proces s volum e for th e entir e "large-part " operatio n (a s planned ) 

### Pag e 4 o f 1 3 T J

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE P

^ 

### Characteristi c

Proces s HA P • emission s (PT1 > AMM* Massillo n

Truc k to p Laminatio n - HAP (styrene ) 52 5 tp y Painting

- non-HAP VO C 500 tpy Tota l PTE (pain

t VO C & HAP ) - 1,02

5 tp y Profor m Wes tMemphi s Barge cove r - EHA

P (styrene ) 5 8 tp y US T - HA P (styrene ) 10 7 tp y Vertica l tank - EHA

P (styrene ) 8 4 tp y Tota l PT E (HAP ) - 24 9 tp y Abou t 48 % ofth e controlle demission s a t Massillo n ar

e emitte dfrom apaintin g operatio n that i s no t subjec t t o th e composite s MAC T an

di s relativel y eas y t o captur e in smalle r commercia

l paint booths . Not e tha t th e US T operatio n i s th e onl y individua

l activit y a t Profor mwit h apotential t o emi t

(PTE ) HA P that

woul d b e considere dalarg e (greater tha n 10 0 tpy ) operation , an

donl y b y a7 tp y margin . B y comparison , th e laminatio n operatio n a

t ARE . Massillon , b y itself

, ha s aPT E tha t i s mor e tha n five time s greate r

than th e large-plan t

threshol d set b y EPA . When combine dwit h th e paintin g emissions , th e controlle dPT E i s more than 1 0 time s greate r than thi s threshold . Thi s differenc e i n PT E demonstrate s tw o important consequence s o f

part size : 1 . "Large " plant s tha

t produce s smal

l part s typically employ automate do r semi-automate d productio n lines . Thes e productio n line s hav e hig h productio n throughput s containe dinsid e muc h smalle r floor area s andproces s volumes . Th e proces s emission s fromthes e inherently mor e "compact " small-par

t operation s can b e capture d i n smal l proces s enclosures . Thi s describe s practicall y ever y composit

e facilit y tha t currently attempt s plant-wid e captur e & control . 2 . Plant s tha

t produc e larg e part s requir

e muc h larger proces s floor

area s an d volume s i n orde r

t o creat e enoug h productio n throughput s t o reac h th e 10 0 tpy "new source " captur

e & contro l threshold . Fo r example , eve n i f

th e Laminatio n Roo mat

AR E Massillo n were capabl e o f producin g abarg e cover

par t (whic h i s no t

technicall y possibl e i n it s curren

t configuration) , th e productio n throughput wouldb e much les s and th e smal l amoun t o f HA P emission s create d in thi s hypothetica

l situatio n (perhap s 2 0 tp y o r less ) woul dno t

b e sufficien

t t o trigge r ne w sourc e MACT . Fo r suc h acompariso n t o b e accurate an duseful , al l thre e larg e part s produce d at Profor m(barg e cover , UST , and Vertica l tanks ) mus t

b e built i n th e Laminatio n Rooma t Massillon , whic h i s no t

technicall y possible . Pag e 5 o f 1 3

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE P Characteristi c A JU L Massgloi i Profor m Wes t Memphi s

N j Ventilatio n



### -y, A f '. Truc k to p

94,50 0 t o 99,20 0 cfi n fromsourc e tes t dat a nomina l 100,00 0 cf

mexhaus t

airflo w contro l capacit y 50,00 0 cf mfromth e fou r

pain t spray booth s (thi s exhaus t

airflo w capture s pain t

solvents , no t

HAP ) 50,00 0 cf m fro m th e Laminatio n Roo m (thi s par t ofth e exhaus t

captures th e styren e HAP ) Base dupo n th e availabl e information , th e ventilatio n syste mat Massillo n appear s t o wor k a s follow s - A substantia l par t

(perhap s mor e tha n 85% ) ofth e proces s emission s ar e capture dinside smal l open-ende d "pass

through " typ e proces s enclosure s erecte d aroun d mos t o f th e productio n lin e i n th e Laminatio n Roo m(se e previou s Enclosur e Descriptions) . Th e smal l amoun t o f emission s tha t escap e fromo r

ar e release d outsid e o f

thes e smal l proces s enclosures , probabl y diffus e int o th e Laminatio n Roo mair , an dthe n ar e eventuall y draw n bac k int o th e exhaus t strea mthroug h th e ope n end s ofth e boot h an d tunne l enclosures . Barg e cove r - 88,00 0 cf m Thre e larg e push-pul l crossflo w are aventilatio n system s installe d b y Free s Inc ! direc t fresh ai r fromsuppl y plenum s acros s th e mol d surfac e t o exhaus t plenums . Som e ofth e proces s emission s ar e swep t int o thi s directe d airflow , bu t

asignifican t

amoun t i s release d int o th e buildin g space . Som e o f thes e buildin g emission s ar e draw n bac k

int o th e exhaust , bu t

som e ar e als o los t throug h leak s i n th e buildin g envelop e an d throug h ope n exterio r doors . US T - 52,00 0 cf

m A n extractio n duc t

draw s buildin g ai r

int o eac h ope n mold . Thi s inwar d airflo w capture s an d exhaust s mos t o f th e proces s emission s insid e th e mol dspace . Th e assembl y emission s ar e release di n th e US T buildin g spac e an d ar e eventuall y draw n int o th e mold s o r los t whe n th e buildin g door s ar e opened . Vertica l tan k (planned ) - 52,00 0 cf m Loca l exhaus t

plenum s positione d nea r th e vertica l mol d mandre l wil l captur e an d exhaus t aportio n ofth e proces s emission s fromthes e larg e parts . Th e othe r portio n wil l b e release d int o th e buildin g space , an d wil l eventuall y b e draw n bac k

int o th e exhaus t

o r wil l escap e whe n th e buildin g door s ar e opened . Plant s tha t

produc e larg e part s insid e buildin g enclosure s typica l rel y upo n push-pul l are aventilatio n system s t o contro l worke r

exposur e t o styren e vapor . Thes e larg e push-pul l system s ar e fundamentall y differen t i n bot h desig n an doperatio n tha n smal l proces s enclosure s suc h a s spra y booth s an d cur e tunnels . Th e captur e o f emission s i s no t th e mai n purpos e o f

alarg e push-pul l system , an d thes e system s canno t achiev e th e hig h captur e efficiencie s tha t ar e possibl e wit h smalle r

proces s enclosures . Larg e push-pul l system s als o requir e greate r airflows . Fo r

example , th e 50,00 0 cf mexhaus t

airflo w a t

Massillon i s onl y 28 % ofth e 190,00 0 cf mplant-wid e exhaus t

airflo w (final ) a t Profor m Pag e 6 o f 1 3

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE P

o ^ 

### : Characteristi c

Employe e exposur e A. E JJ * MassHIo w

Truc k to p The exac t statu s o f employe e exposure a

t Massillo n ha s no t been revealed . However , i n general , positionin g th e worker s upstrea m nea r th e supply-side ofth e eac h boot h ca n readily minimiz e occupationa

l exposur e insid e small-par

t productio n lines . For

example , th e "gun " operator s ca n stan din th e fresh suppl

y airflo w an

dspra y acros s th e mold toward s th e exhaus t

inlets . Thi s techniqu e i s probably utilize da

t Massillon . ProformWes t Memphi s Barg e cover Du e t o th e larg e siz e ofth e part , employee s mus t routinely wor

k al l aroun d an

d even o n th e part , includin g severa l "hig h exposure " area s nea r th e downstream exhaus t inlets . The present

ventilatio n syste mi s jus t barely abl e t o mee

t th e OSH A PEL an dSTEL for

styrene . An y reductio n in ventilatio n airflo w o r increas e i n confinemen

t would likel y caus e th e exposure level s t o exceedth e PE

L o r STE L an d the n require th e us e o f persona l respirators . US T Persona l respirator s are no t

neede d insid e th e rotatin g US T mold s o r

in th e US T assembly areas . Vertica l tan k Du e t o th e larg e size , outer mandre l moldin g surface , and extrafilament

windin g equipment , th e vertical tan k operatio n als o wil l need apush-pul l ventilatio n syste m simila r t o th e barg e cover

systemt o contro l exposures . I t i s mor e difficul t t o predic t an dcontro l occupationa

l exposure s aroundlarg e parts , an d push-pul l are aventilatio n i s typically used . . A push-pul l are aventilatio n syste mi s designe dt o provide adirecte d flow o f minima l ventilatio n air tha t convey s th e styren e vapor s generate din th e wor k zon e fromth e suppl

y side toward s th e exhaus t sid e ofth e ventilate d area . Push-pul l are aventilatio n system s are primar y designe dt o protec t

worker s agains t

overexposur e t o styren e vapors , an

dar e no t intende dt o b e efficien

t captur e systems . Th

e "push " air

leavin g th e supply register s usually entrain s asigmfican t amount ofth e nearby ambien

t buildin g ai

r a s i t travel s acros s th e wor

k zone . Du e t o thi s entrainment , th e flow o f

ai r movin g acros s th e wor

k zon e toward s th e exhaus t

side i s greate r

than th e flo w fro mth e suppl y registers . I n man

y installations , asignifican

t portio n o f

thi s moving air

ca n spil l pas s th e exhaus t

inlet s and recirculate back

toward s th e supply registers . Mos t o f thi s recirculatin g air

i s the n re-entraine d int o th e ai r flowing acros s th e wor

k zone , bu t aportio n ma

y escap e int o th e genera

l buildin g space . Th e only way t o preven t thi s escap e t o th e buildin g spac e woul db e t o plac e th e entir e push-pul l syste

minside aproces s enclosure . Du e t o th e larg e are a an dvolume , th e onl

y practica l typ e o f enclosur e i s aBuildin g Enclosure . Pag e 7 o f 1 3

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE P Characteristi c A.R.E . Massillo n Profor m Wes t Memphi s

Enclosur e description s 

### -f c Truc k to p Th e laminat e productio n lin e i s enclose d withi n aro w o f spra y booth s an dcurin g tunnel s tha t hav e ope n ends . Thes e booth s an dtunnel s ar e house d inside aroo m enclosur e i n th e plan t

building . Th e exterio r

buildin g roo f form s th e roo mceilin g an d th e exterio r buildin g wal l form s on e ofth e roo mwalls . Neithe r th e ceilin g no r

th e exterio r wal l ha s an y outside openings . Al l ofth e NDO s ar e betwee n th e roo man d th e insid e ofth e Massillon plan t building . Th e spra y paintin g occur s inside smal l automotiv e spray finishin g booths , whic h ar e als o completel y inside th e plan t building . Barg e cove r Du e t o th e larg e siz e ofth e mold s an d presenc e o f overhea d impregnato r

equipmen t

an d cranes , barg e cove r productio n mus t

occu r insid e aBuildin g Enclosur e Smalle r proces s enclosures , suc h a s spray booths , whic h hav e muc h highe r

achievabl e captur e efficiencies , canno t b e used . US T Du e t o th e larg e siz e ofth e rotatin g mol d fixture , spac e for acces s t o th e rotatin g equipment , an d th e nee d t o assembl y larg e section s togethe r int o ver y larg e finished tan k parts , US T productio n mus t occu r insid e aBuildin g Enclosur e instea d o f

smalle r proces s enclosure s Vertica l tan k (planne d fo r futur e production ) Du e t o th e larg e siz e ofth e mold s an d spac e neede d fo r th e associate d filamen t

win d equipment , Vertica l tan k productio n wil l occu r

insid e aBuildin g Enclosure(instea d o f aspray boot h enclosur e wit h muc h highe r achievabl e captur e efficiency) . Th e thre e type s o f

larg e part s mad e a t

Proformmus t

b e buil t insid e Buildin g Enclosures , instea d o f smalle r proces s enclosur e tha t

hav e muc h highe r

achievabl e captur e efficiencies .

Pag e 8 o f 1 3

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QEP

. Characteristi c

-

Enclosur e (liraeastea s

-

'

: A.R.E . Massdlo n

Th e Laminatio n Roo m"total-enclosure " a t Massillo n measures : 68'Wxl64'Lx25' H (11,20 0 ft 2 an d278,80 0 ft 3 ) PrOforai Wes tMemphi s Barg e cove r Th e Buildin g Enclosur e fo r th e Barg e Cove r

operatio n measures : 140'W x 266'L x 24' H 10,00 0 ft 2 o f

thi s enclosur e ha s a40 ' H ceilin g (37,20 0 ft 2 an d 1,052,80 0 ft 3 ) US T Th e Buildin g Enclosur e forth e US T operatio n measures : 85'W x 180'L x 24' H (15,30 0 ft 2 an d 367,20 0 ft 3 ) Vertica l tan k Th e Buildin g Enclosur e fo r th e planne d Vertica l tan k operatio n measures : 100'Wxl80'L x 40' H (18,00 0 ft 2 an d 720,00 0 ft 3 ) Du e chiefl y t o th e differenc e i n par t sizes , th e "small-part " Laminatio n Roo menclosur e a t Massillo n i s onl y about : 30 % ofth e Buildin g Enclosur e fo r th e Barg e Cove r

operatio n a t

Profor m 21 % ofth e Buildin g Enclosure s fo r th e Barg e Cove r

& US T operation s 16 % ofth e Buildin g Enclosure s fo r th e entir e "large-part " operatio n (planned ) Eve n mor e significant , th e volum e ofth e Laminatio n Roo m"tota l enclosure " a t Massillo n i s onl y about : 26 % ofth e Buildin g Enclosur e volum e fo r th e Barg e Cove r

operatio n a t

Profor m 20 % ofth e Buildin g Enclosur e volum e fo r th e Barg e Cove r

& US T operation s 13 % ofth e Buildin g Enclosur e volum e fo r th e entir e "large-part " operatio n (planned ) 

### Pag e 9 of 1 3

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE P Characteristi c AJU&* . Massilfo n Profor m Wes t Memphi s

< Barg e cove r - (1,37 6 f r ope n area ) Two overhea d door s tha t

measur e 28 ' W x 16 ' H Two overhea d door s tha t

measur e 20 ' W x 12 ' H US T - (56 0 ft2 ope n area ) Tw o overhea ddoor s tha t

measur e 20 ' W x 14 ' H Vertica l tan k - (56 0 ft 2 ope n area ) Tw o overhea d door s tha t

measur e 20 ' W x 14 ' H

^ Enclosur e opening s

•/, „«''.'.','/ / -„i'„/„„,',">,• Truc k to p

Th e onl y "official " natura l draf t opening s (NDOs ) ar e fou r (4 ) 2 ' x 10 ' opening s i n on e indoo r wal l ofth e Laminatio n Roo mfo r

atota l o f 4 0 ft 2 o f ope n area . Th e roo menclosur e a t

Massillo n doe s not

hav e an y exterio r

buildin g doors . Presumably , al l ofth e materials , componen t

parts , an dmold s neede d t o operat e awor k shif t ca n b e house d inside th e roo menclosure . Theoretically , a smal l truc k

par t onl y require s aEND

O openin g o f

abou t 7 ' x 4 ' = 2 8 ft 2 t o exi t

th e roo menclosure . Th e larg e part s an dlarg e mold s at Proformrequir e commensuratel y large r doo r opening s tha t

mus t remai n ope n fo r longe r period s o f

tim e t o allo w for

th e passag e ofth e larg e part s an d molds . Fo r example , th e reporte d 4 0 ft o f END O i n th e Laminatio n Roo ma t Massillo n ar e onl y about: 3 % ofth e ope n doo r

are afo r th e Barg e Cove r

operatio n a t

Profor m(1,37 6 ft 2 ) 2 % o f th e ope n doo r

are afor th e Barg e Cove r

an d US T operation s (1,93 6 ft 2 ) 1. 6 % ofth e ope n doo r

fo r th e entir e "large-part " operatio n (2,49 6 ft 2 ) Th e amoun t

o f exhaus t airflo w neede d t o creat e a n averag e 20 0 fpminward ai r velocit y o r

-0.00 7 in.w. g pressur e differential (a s require dt o mee t Metho d 204 ) throug h th e outsid e door s at Profor mi s 500,00 0 cfm . I f onl y hal f o f thes e door s ar e open , abou t 250,00 0 cf

mo f extr aairflo w i s needed . A t aminimum , tw o door s ar e probabl y ope n a t an y on e time , s o at

leas t 112,00 0 cf

mo f extr aairflo w i s neede d fo r th e smallest

doors . Th e tota l ai r

flow neede d t o mee t th e Metho d20 4 criteri aa t Proform , assumin g onl y tw o larg e door s ar e ope n a t atime , woul d b e abou t

370,00 0 cf m(190,00 0 cf

mfo r th e push-pul l system s an d 180,00 0 throug h th e tw o larg e doors) , a s compare d t o th e tota l exhaus t ai r flo w o f 100,00 0 cf

memploye d a t

th e AR E laminatio n roo mThi s assume s n o wind .

Pag e 1 0 o f

1 3

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE P

•y E Characteristi c

Metho d20 4 A.R.E . Massillo n

Truc k to p Th e spray booth s an dcurin g tunnel s insid e th e Laminatio n Roo md o not mee t th e Metho d 20 4 criteria . Instead , th e roo mtha t

contain s thes e enclosure s i s designe dt o provid e amean s o f complianc e wit h Metho d 204 . Th e loca l stat e inspector s apparentl y waive d th e "closed

door " criteri ai n Metho d 20 4 fo r at leas t tw o othe r

large r 8 ' x 10 ' door s durin g th e testin g a t Massillon . Thi s willingnes s t o waiv e criteri ama y no t reoccu r at othe r ne w plan t sites . Al l ofth e enclosur e opening s a t Massillon, includin g th e large r doors , ope n int o th e plan t buildin g space , an d ar e therefor e not

directl y affecte d b y win d pressure . I f thes e opening s wer e i n exterio r walls , win d condition s coul d caus e th e airflo w throug h thes e opening s t o revers e an d flow ou t ofth e building . Profor mWes t Memphi s Barg e cove r Th e Barg e cove r

operatio n mus t

us e aBuildin g Enclosur e (instea d o f

smalle r proces s enclosure s wit h muc h highe r

achievabl e captur e efficiency ) tha t canno t mee t th e "close d door " criteri ai n metho d 204 , an d canno t maintai n adequat e negativ e pressur e acros s leakin g o r

ope n door s du e t o th e influenc e o f win d pressure . US T Th e US T operatio n als o mus t us e aBuildin g Enclosure , becaus e th e rotatin g mol d canno t mee t fou r ofth e five Metho d 20 4 criteria . Further , th e mol d size , rotatin g mol d design , an dmol d acces s requirement s preclud e th e us e o f

asmalle r boot h o r roo menclosure . Th e final assembl y o f

tan k section s int o finishe d part s als o require s aver y larg e area . Th e necessar y Buildin g Enclosur e canno t mee t th e "close d door " criteri afo r

Metho d 204 , an d canno t maintai n adequat e negativ e pressur e acros s leakin g o r ope n door s du e t o influenc e o f

win d pressure . Vertica l tan k Th e Vertica l tan k

operatio n als o wil l nee daBuildin g Enclosure . Th e mol d mandre l size , worke r access , an d extr aspac e fo r

filamen t windin g equipmen t

preclud e th e us e o f asmalle r boot h o r roo menclosure . Thi s Buildin g Enclosur e als o wil l fai l t o mee t th e "close d door " criteria .



### Pag e 1 1 o f

1 3

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE P Characteristi c A,BJ L Massillo n Profor mWes t Memphi s Whe n th e win di s blowing , ope n exterio r door s becom e a n insurmountabl e proble ma t Proform . Unlik e th e ENDO s an d roo mdoor s a

t Massillon, th e buildin g door s a t Proformmus t

ope n t o th e outsid e atmospher e an d therefor e canno t resis t th e effec t o f win d pressur e wit h mechanica l ventilation . Fo r example , accordin g t o ASHRAE , atypica l rectangula r

buildin g suc h a s Profor mha s awin d velocit y pressur e coefficien t valu e rangin g from+0.5 0 t o +0.8 0 alon g th e windwar dwall , -0.1 4 t o -0.4 3 alon g th e leewar d wall , an d -0. 6 t o -0. 2 alon g th e sidewall s paralle l t o th e wind . Fo r

a1 5 mp h wind , th e win d velocit y pressur e woul d b e 0.10 9 in.w.g . an d th e win d pressur e acros s a n openin g i n th e sid e o r

leewar dwall s coul d b e a s muc h a s -0.06 5 in.w.g. . I n orde r t o mee t th e alternat e -0.00 7 in.w.g . pressur e differentia l criteri ai n Metho d 204 , th e buildin g volum e mus t b e negativel y pressurize d t o a t leas t 0.00 7 + 0.06 5 = 0.07 2 in.w.g . b y th e exhaus t fan . Th e wal l pressur e alon g th e windwar d buildin g wal l coul d b e a s grea t a s -0.07 2 - 0.08 7 = + 0.15 9 in.w.g. . Thi s present s Proformwit h tw o technica l problems : 1 . Assumin g tha t

onl y sid e o r

leewar d door s ar e opened , th e minimu mnegativ e pressur e throughou t th e buildin g mus t b e -0.07 2 in.w.g . t o achiev e th e alternat e -0.00 7 in.w.g . pressur e differentia l criteri acite d i n Metho d 204 . Unfortunatel y suc h negativ e buildin g pressurizatio n woul d translat e int o a+0.15 9 in.w.g . pressur e differentia l acros s th e windwar dwal l an dacorrespondin g 2 3 poun d loa d o n atypica l leewar d man-doo r ( 4 x 7 = 2 8 ft

) . A t thi s pressure , a n outward-openin g doo r i s difficul t

t o ope n fo r

som e workers , an da n inward-openin g doo r coul d b e physica l hazar da s i t

flew open . However , th e pressur e o f win d increase s a s th e squar e ofth e win d speed , s o a3 0 mp h win dspeedha s four

times th e effec t

o n buildin g pressurization . A t 3 0 mph , th e necessar y minimu mbuildin g pressurizatio n become s +0.61 7 in . w.g . an d th e forc e o n awindwar d man-doo r become s 8 9 pounds . Th e sam e windwar ddoo r

i s no w ver y difficul t

o r eve n impossibl e t o ope n outwar d fo r som e worker s an d a n inwar ddoo r i s a tru e danger . Eve n greate r win d speed s tha n 3 0 mp h wil l occur , causin g eve n greate r impact s tha n calculate d above . 2 . Whe n alarg e windwar d an d alarg e leewar d doo r ar e simultaneousl y opened , th e buildin g enclosur e become s a "win dtunnel " an dmechanica l ventilatio n ca n n o longe r contai n al l ofth e proces s emission s insid e th e buildin g space . Th e buildin g spac e i s positivel y pressurize d b y th e win d flowing int o th e buildin g throug h th e windwar d opening , causin g th e negativ e buildin g pressur e t o becom e mor e positive . Th e exhaus t fa n ca n n o longe r

provid e sufficien t negativ e pressur e t o maintai n inwar d airflo w throug h ope n sid e o r leewar d doors , an d significan t portion s ofth e proces s emission s ar e los t throug h thes e doo r

opening s

Pag e 1 2 o f

1 3

## ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QEP I n conclusion : Th e Profor mplant , o r

an y plant built t o mak e larg e parts , cannot

emplo y th e sam

e captur e & contro l strategie s tha

t are useda

t th e Massillo n plant

du e t o severa

l fundamenta

l technica l difficultie s posedby large-size dpart s an dmolds . Th e larg e Buildin g Enclosure s neededt o hous e th e large-par t operation s a

t Profor mar e fundamentall

y differen t in bot h desig n an

doperatio n tha

n th e smalle

r proces s enclosure s an

d roo menclosur

e a t Massillon . Non e ofth e large-par

t operation s a

t Profor mcoul dfit

int o th e roo menclosure a

t Massillon . The roo menclosur

e a t Massillo n wouldnee

dt o b e severa

l time s large

r i n bot h floor are aan dvolum e t o hous e th e Profor

moperation . Th e larg e part s mad

e a t Profor mrequir e man y complex laminatio n step s wit h correspondingly long productio n times . Som e ofth e part s a

t Profor mma y sta y i n th e mol dfo

r ove r te n hours . Th e complexit

y an dtime needt o produc e thes e larg e part s result i n much larger

proces s area s t o achiev e sufficien

t productio n throughput . Extraproces s spac e i s neede dt o generate enough productio n throughpu t

t o becom e a"larg e operation. " However , b y virtu e o f siz e andassociate d productio n lin e efficiency , th e smal l part s a t Massillo n ar

e quickly produce din acompac t proces s area , which result s i n hig h productio n throughput

i n asmall space . Thes e "small-part " circumstance s are idea

l fo r captur e & control . Th e larg e part s a

t Profor mals o needspecia

l larg e molding equipment , such a s th e crane mounted impregnator , overhea dwor k platforms , larg e rotatin g moldfixtures, an doverhea d cranes . Thi s equipment

require s additiona

l workspace . B y virtu e o f

size , th e small part s a

t Massillo n do no t

requir e thi s extraequipmen

t or workspace . The Profor mplant mus t regularly open , an

dkee p ope n fo r extende dperiods , severa

l larg e exterior buildin g door s t o move materials , molds , an dpart s i n an dout ofth e proces s area s during productio n periods . The impac t of win dpressur e on thes e ope

n exterio r buildin g door s make s i

t technically impossibl e t o compl y wit h Metho d204 . Th

e roomenclosure a

t Massillo n doe s not have an y exterio r doors , an di s no t impactedb

y th e wind . Th e Profor mplant mus t us e larg e push-pull crossflo w are aventilatio n system s t o contro l worke r exposur e t o styren e vapor . Thi s typ e of larg e ope n ventilatio n syste

mha s inherentl y lowe

r captur e efficiency . B y virtu e ofth e siz e ofth e truc k top parts , Massillo n i s abl e t o us e smalle r an dtighter proces s enclosure s tha

t ar e housedinside aroo

menclosur

e wit h only 4 0 ft 2 

### of

NDO . Th e captur e strateg y use da

t Massillo n i s not

practica l fo r Proform . Th e Profor mplant , or , again , an

y plan t designedt o mak

e larg e part s usin g Buildin g Enclosures , cannot mee t Metho d204 .
Rober t A . Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE

P Engineerin g Environmenta l 

### Pag e 1 3 o f 1 3 ^ Y