p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

83) ll-E-43 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:05 AM Sheet 83 of 264 
P.2 

G_7£ 

O 

A-94-52 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Madeleine Strum 

U.S. EPA/ESD/CCPG 

FROM: Greg LaFlam 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

DATE: August 13,1996 

P:/N504 

• •**.' • 

"' 

% 

«V^:v*?V,.:,,.,,,. . 

6ECi5l99fi 

,°, EPA AIR DOCKET •*# 

* , 

SUBJECT: Minutes of July 29,1996 Meeting Between EPA and Representatives of the 

Plastic Composites Industry 

LOCATION: EPA/Mutual Building, Durham, NC, 11th floor conference room, 

1:00 pm-3:00 pm 

ATTENDEES: 

Mr. James Gauchel 

Mr. Rob Haberlein 

Ms. Linda Herring 

Mr. Bruce Jordan 

Mr. Norm Kaplan 

Ms. Rosemarie Kelley 

Mr. Greg LaFlam 

Ms. Karen Levy* 

Mr. Steve McNally 

Mr. WaltMcSherry 

Mr. Andy Miller 

Ms. Nancy Pate 

Mr. Isidro Pe 

Mr. Ron Ryan 

Mr. John Schweitzer 

Ms. Madeleine Strum 

Owens-Corning 

Engineering Environmental 

EPA/ESD 

EPA/ESD 

EPA/ORD 

Keller & Heckman 

PES 

EPA/OPAR 

Compos. Fabricators Assoc. 

Omega Pultrusions 

EPA/ORD 

EPA/ITPID 

LASCO 

EPA/EFIG 

SPI/Composites Institute 

EPA/ESD 

* Ms. Levy participated by telephone. 

(614)321-7724 

(410)268-7367 

(919) 541-5358 

(919) 541-5572 

(919) 541-2556 

(202)434-4208 

(919)941-0333 

(202)260-8952 

(703)610-9025 

(216) 562-5201 

(919) 541-2920 

(919) 541-5347 

(714)993-1220 

(919)541-4330 

(313)668-4703 

(919)541-2383 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a number of topics as reflected in material 

provided to EPA by the composites industry prior to the meeting, which included: 1) Agenda, 

2) Summary, 3) Issues for Discussion, and 4) Talking Points on SBREFA (see Attachment). 
P.3 

Madeleine Strum 

August 13,1996 

Page 2 

DISCUSSION 

Non-economic Impacts of Incineration 

To begin the meeting, the participants introduced themselves. The first speaker was 

Mr. Haberlein, a contractor to SPI who said he had performed a number of RACT and MACT 

analyses in several States. He gave a presentation that described non-economic impacts of 

incineration controls. (The presentation was based on a report authored by the speaker, which 

has been placed in EPA's rulemaking docket no. A-94-52 as an attachment to a J. Schweitzerto-M. Strum letter dated June 26,1996.) 

Mr. Haberlein said that the use of supplemental fuel (usually natural gas or propane) in 

incineration systems leads to the creation and emission of non-VOC pollutants, including Nox, 

SOx, CO, soot, and radionuclides. He presented calculations indicating that, in order for an 

incinerator to be self-firing (no supplemental fuel required), a styrene concentration of 

approximately 350 ppm is needed for regenerative units and 1,400 to 2,000 ppm is needed for 

catalytic units. Mr. Haberlein's calculations of utilities requirements assumed an input stream 

of 30,000 cfm (which he said is reasonable for spray booths) and 20 ppm styrene (new 

proposed TLV). He said that alternate input values could be selected, but his aim was to 

demonstrate the calculation method. EPA staff members at the meeting expressed an interest 

in examining and evaluating Mr. Haberlein's calculation methods, and he referred them to the 

report for details. 

Mr. Haberlein stated that the desirability of high concentrations for the control device 

are in direct conflict with the issue of employee protection from high exposures (OSHA 

requirements). Mr. Jordan asked whether the use of respirators and full "spacesuit" protection 

had been looked at as a means of addressing the problems of employee exposure to high 

styrene concentrations in the production area. Mr. Schweitzer pointed out that OSHA rules 

prohibit the use of such protection in cases where ventilation of the area, and subsequent 

lowering of concentrations to safe levels, is feasible. He also stated mat they consider 

incinerators to be a problem because they set difficult floors for new and existing sources. 

Ms. Strum requested a future meeting with Mr. Haberlein and the Composites Institute to 

explore issues related to add-on controls, and Mr. Schweitzer indicated that funding was 

available to allow Mr. Haberlein to attend such a meeting. 

Data Base and MACT Floor Issues 

Mr. McNally began by stating that the plastic composites industry is diverse and 

complex, and many facilities have co-mingled processes. He said that parts of EPA's data 

base for open molders is inadequate and inaccurate. Data were submitted to EPA by 

companies based on styrene content averages, and often do not represent the "maximum do 
P.4 

Madeleine Strum 

August 13,1996 

Page 3 

not exceed" values specified, for example, in the California regulations. He pointed out that, 

although one of EPA's floor values is 32 percent, no resins with less than 35 percent styrene 

are in use. Also, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) indicate the 35 percent figure. 

Mr. McNally extended an offer to reorganize EPA's data base for open molding and 

correct what he felt were errors in some of the styrene content determinations. He asked how 

EPA would treat the "new" data. The EPA responded by requesting facility-specific styrene 

data, as well as the MSDS's for the resins in use. Ms. Strum said that EPA would update the 

data base as appropriate after the CFA provided, and EPA reviewed, the new information. 

Industry members mentioned the A.R.E. facility in Ohio, which manufactures truck 

caps using resin sprayup, gel coating, and painting processes. They felt that the incinerator in 

use there was installed primarily to control emissions from spray painting, and that controls 

would not have been applied only for a resin sprayup operation. Ohio VOC rule 3745-21-07 

limits emissions to no more than 8 lb/hr and 40 lb/day from each emissions unit. Facilities 

often comply by dividing meir operations into several emissions units, each of which is able 

to stay below these limits. The EPA agreed that facilities with co-controlled processes may 

not be useful models in establishing MACT floors, if the control was installed primarily for 

the "other" processes). Ms. Strum expressed the main issue surrounding such co-controlled 

processes: how do you decide whether add-on controls are intended primarily for one process 

versus another, or equally for all of the controlled processes? Based on its review of this 

facility, EPA's conclusion on A.R.E. is that this facility with its incineration controls can be 

factored into the MACT floor determination for open molding (sprayup) processes. 

Another Ohio facility discussed was American Standard, which has a recently installed 

incinerator. Due to its recent installation, these controls may not be used in setting the floor 

for existing open molding sources, but may be used in setting new source MACT. (The EPA 

clarified that the facility can be. used for existing source MACT if the standards are delayed 

such that the facility has had its control operating for more than 18 months before proposal or 

30 months before promulgation of the standards.) 

Mr. Schweitzer suggested that a conference call be held concerning the incorporation 

of work practices into the NESHAP. Ms. Strum expressed me belief that work practices 

involving sprayup techniques used as an alternative means of compliance with other MACT 

requirements are too difficult to enforce such that continuous compliance can be verified. The 

industry nonetheless agreed to develop a proposal of its ideas. This may include a material 

specification (such as specifying an allowable material weight usage per part) as a means of 

ensuring controlled resin application. 

3 
P.5 

Madeleine Strum 

August 13,1996 

Page 4 

Emission Factors 

The industry asked EPA to address what industry feels to be the mis-use of 

information from the CFA and ORD/RTI emission studies as new emission factors. Mr. 

Schweitzer asserted that it is premature to use the current data to modify the AP-42 factors. 

Mr. Jordan stated that the EPA staff responsible for AP-42 will review the available 

information, and make a determination on the best way to estimate emissions from composites 

manufacturing. Following this review, EPA will issue appropriate guidance on the use of 

current or revised factors. This will occur in the near future. ^ " 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

Ms. Kelley described the primary goal of SBREFA as attempting to prevent 

companies from being driven out of business due to the burden of excessive regulations. She 

pointed out that small businesses are defined as 500 employees or less, and these constitute 

about 95 percent of this industry. Under SBREFA, the costs of achieving a MACT floor 

should be considered initially, and then the floor should be adjusted as needed so that the 

costs of the standard are reasonable. The EPA disagreed with industry's claim that SBREFA 

should take precedence over requirements of the Clean Air Act; in particular, those provisions 

of the Act that pertain to setting MACT floors. 

Mr. Jordan responded that the Agency is keenly aware of the need to consider small 

business impacts, and has incorporated these concerns into its rulemakings. He said that a 

Council will be appointed to review the draft rule, and the Small Business Administration will 

also participate in the review. 

Summary 

Mr. Schweitzer began his summarizatidn by stating that the "A" in MACT stands for 

"achievable;" just because a control is in use, this doesn't mean that it's good for the 

environment. He asserted tiiat Congress did not mean for a single control to dictate the 

standard for an entire broadly defined subcategory. Mr. McNally added that the industry's 

incentive to implement pollution prevention measures will be stifled by a requirement for 

incineration. Mr. Schweitzer emphasized that EPA should look at the economic and 

environmental impacts before the final floor determinations are made. Mr. Jordan asked how, 

if incinerators have negative economic and other impacts, the facilities with incinerators are 

continuing in operation. Mr. Schweitzer responded that such facilities are funded by the 

corporation or by the State; or they installed the controls to satisfy a VOC regulation, and then 

regretted the decision. 

H-
P.6 

Madeleine Strum 

August 13,1996 

Page 5 

ACTION ITEMS 

Follow-up activities agreed to by meeting participants: 

Party 

1. U.S. EPA (M. Strum) 

2. U.S. EPA (AP-42 group) 

3. CFA (S. McNally) 

4. SPI/CI (J. Schweitzer) 

Action Agreed to 

Set up meeting with SPI on the use of add-on controls 

Review emissions information and issue 

emission factor guidance 

Provide facility-specific styrene data/MSDS on 

open molding facilities for EPA's use in updating 

the data base 

Set up conference call to discuss industry proposal 

on work practices 

Attachment 

s 
>T6nvww_:n«_w1«~S«o«e^ """' D-t:70UM flmcBaMS 

PJ_ 

Composites Industry Meeting whh LPA 

EPA Offices, Durham, NC 

Jury 29,1996 

AGENDA 

1:00-1.05 Self-introductions 

1:05-1:15 Opening comments J. Schweitzer 

1 ;15-1:45 Non-economic impact of incineration of emissions from oomposile 

manufacturing operations R. Haberlein 

1:45-2:05 Database and MACT Floor issues S. McNally 

2:05-2:20 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness ACL Implications lor EPA 

promulgation of MACT for composites R. Kelley 

230-2:35 Summary J. Schweitzer 

2:35-3:00 Discussion 

EPA PARTICIPANTS 

Madeleine Strum, Emissions Standards Division, 919.541.2383 

Linda Herring, Emissions Standards Division 

Bruce Jordan, (.mission Standards Division 

Karen Levy, Office of Policy Analysis and Review 

Lcslyc Fraser, Office of General Counsel 

INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS 

Steve McNally, Composites I abricators Association, 703.610.9005 

Rob Haberlein, Engineering Environmental Consulting Services, 410.268.7367 

John Schweitzer, SPI Composites Institute, 313.668.4703 

Rosemarie Kelley, Keller and Heckman (counsel to SPI) 

Walt McSheny, Omega Pultrusions 

Sid Pe, LASCO Bathware 

C 
P.8 

.^TAu^_^^^^na^M-RMw)>inmw D_«7/ZM6 Tinr 2-2332 &&f l 

Composites Industry Meeting with H»A 

July 29,1996 

SUMMARY 

Congress did not intend that infeasible or environmentally, harmful controls 

be required, or be used to set MACT floors. 

• The"A'inMACTisforAcn/eva6fe. 

Yes, indnerators arc used at some fadlitics. However... 

• Feasibility is determined by fad%-$ped/fc factors. 

n

 For example, the presence of a high-VOC source such as a paint line may make 

incineration feasible and environmentally sound. 

° Each facility is essentially its own subcategory. 

Indncration of emissions from the vast majority of likely new or existing 

sources will be a net-negative for the environment 

• Significant releases of greenhouse gasscs. 

" Possibly-significant releases of radon, SOx, and NOx, and, to a lesser 

extent, PM,o and CO. 

• In most cases, indneration consumes large quantities of natural gas. 

MACT based on indnerators may discourage industry efforts to develop 

additional pollution prevention Ledinologies. 

MACT based on indnerators will be espedaliy harmful to small businesses. 

Therefore... 

• EPA should agree not Lo use incinerators lo set MACT Floors. 

• Industry will work with EPA to achieve the greatest possible reduction in 

emissions through the use of pollution prevention technology, and to 

evaluate emerging control technologies. 

? 
P.9 

rrgm:«ibi>r««.i»«nu*i~iu. miwtiiiWWUi'i; '""' Date:7/24/96 rrrrie:2^:l7i29

 |J '3<,^B2of2 

Issues For Discussion 

I. Survey Data Accuracy: 

1. The validity of the information. 

2. The interpretation of data by the EPA (specifically LASCO). 

3. Exclusion of facility information from Floor detenninations (Specifically 

A.R.E.). 

4. What format should we pursue to obtain infonnation from sources which 

submitted questionable information. 

5. What assurances do we have that the corrected informatiou will be 

regarded by the EPA as having "standing1'. 

6. What mechanism will the EPA employ to either rectify the infonnation 

submitted by these sources, or remove it from consideration. 

7. What assurances do we have that ihe EPA will abide by mis. 

II. Utilization of Data Which Is Excluded Under 112(d): 

1. A.R.E. 

2. American Standard 

ill. - Use of CFA Test Data in the MACT Standard: 

1. How will the EPA regard this data. 

2. How will the EPA incorporate it into the MACT Standard. 

IV. OAQPS* Responsibility to the AP-42 Emission Factors: 

1. Congressionally mandated update of AP-42. 

2. Fragmentary release of selective information regarding AP-42. 

3 Resulting interference by OAQPS in ihe Title V process. 

V 
P.10 

07-25-9 6 04:2 0 PM FROM KELLER i HECE11AN POZ 

Talking Points on SBREFA 

for meeting with EPA on July 29 regarding Composites MACT 

Representatives of small businesses are to be consulted by agencies for advice and 

recommendations regarding the potential impact of a proposed rule. In addition. EPA 

must notify 5BA before proposal; SBA ihen forms a small business advocacy review 

panel to review iht rule. This panel considers comments and recommendations from 

the selected small businesses. {244 

Prior to publishing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the Agency must consider 

the input of small businesses and "where appropriate, the agency (must] modify the 

proposed mle, the initial regulatory flexMby analysis or the decision on whether an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis Is required.' 1244(b)(6). 

SBREFA provides for a Small Business and Ajuicullure Eufuxwuieut Ombudsman. 

The Ombudsman's role is to ensure cooperation and communication between 

regulating agencies and the small business community, f 222. 

SBREFA requires each regulatory flexibility analysis to describe "the steps the agency 

has taken to wi<wfrwi»_ the significant economic impact on smaU entities." SBREFA 

§241 

SBREFA provides that a regulatory flexibility analysis is pan of the record for die 

purposes of judidal review of a rulemaking, f 742. 

.Vnhrtrie K sets out a series of procedures by which Congress may. at Its discretion, 

review all agency rules and enact "Joint resolutions of disapproval" which must be 

signed or vetoed by the President and which have (he effect of laws nullifying ihe 

rules at Issue. 9 251. 

SBREFA directs the federal government to issue fair rules while safeguarding die 

interests of small businesses. The Act secies to ensure that regulators do not drive a 

viable small business* out of business. 

EPA*s p_st leading of section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act concluded that the Agency 

may only consider costs and non-air quality health and environmental impacts and 

energy requirements when going above the MACf floor. $HRt_rA requires the 

Agency to consider costs as an initial matter. 

1