[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40324-40369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17564]
[[Page 40323]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66 , No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2001 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 40324]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7005-6]
RIN 2060-AE79
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing reinforced plastic
composites production facilities. The proposed standards regulate
production and ancillary processes used to manufacture products with
thermoset resins and gel coats. Reinforced plastic composites
production facilities emit hazardous air pollutants (HAP), such as
styrene, methyl methacrylate (MMA), and methylene chloride
(dichloromethane). These HAP have adverse health effects including
headache, fatigue, depression, irritation of skin, eyes, and mucous
membranes. Methylene chloride has been classified as a probable human
carcinogen. These proposed standards will implement section 112(d) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources in this category
to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT). We estimate the proposed
NESHAP would reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from these facilities
by approximately 14,500 tons per year (tpy) (65 percent).
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before October 1, 2001.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by August 22, 2001, a public hearing will be held on
September 4, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-94-52, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by
courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number
A-94-52, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. We request
a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
Docket. Docket No. A-94-52 contains supporting information used in
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall
(ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Barnett, Organic Chemicals
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5605,
[email protected]. For public hearing information, contact
Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-
5607.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-
mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted
either as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and
encryption problems or on disks in WordPerfectTM version
5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All comments and data submitted in
electronic form must note the docket number: A-94-52. No confidential
business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic
comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Keith Barnett, c/o OAQPS
Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel Hill
Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information identified
as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it
is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the
public without further notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Maria
Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13),
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5607
at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in
attending the public hearing must also call Maria Noell to verify the
time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will
provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or
arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of the
information considered by the EPA in the development of this
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards
and their preambles, the contents of the docket, excluding interagency
review materials, will serve as the record in the case of judicial
review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and
other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in
the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by
calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the proposed NESHAP will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature,
a copy of the proposed NESHAP will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
[[Page 40325]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code SIC code Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................... 325211 2821 Reinforced plastic composites
326122 3084 production facilities that
325991 3087 manufacture and/or repair
326191 3088 intermediate and/or final products
using HAP containing thermoset resins
and gel coats.
........... 3089
327991 3281
327993 3296
332998 3431
33312 3531
33651 3531
335311 3612
335313 3613
335312 3621
33422 3663
336211 3711
336112 3711
336211 3713
33651 ...........
33653 3714
336399 3714
33612 3716
336213 3728
336413 3743
336214 3792
........... 3999
Federal Government............................ ........... ........... Federally owned facilities that
manufacture and/or repair
intermediate and/or final products
using HAP containing thermoset resins
and gel coats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.5785 of the
proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Introduction
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
C. What are the potential health effects of the HAP emitted by
the reinforced plastic composites production industry?
D. How were the proposed NESHAP developed?
E. What processes and operations are included in the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production source category?
II. Summary of Proposed NESHAP
A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by this
proposed rule?
B. What are the primary sources of HAP emissions and what are
the emissions?
C. What is the affected source?
D. What are the proposed emission limits, operating limits, and
other standards?
E. What is the MACT model point value and how is it used in
these proposed NESHAP?
F. When would I need to comply with these proposed NESHAP?
G. What are the proposed options for demonstrating compliance?
H. What are the proposed testing and initial compliance
requirements?
I. What are the proposed continuous compliance requirements?
J. What are the proposed notification, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements?
III. Rationale for Proposed NESHAP
A. How did we determine the source category to regulate?
B. What pollutants are regulated under these proposed NESHAP?
C. What is the ``affected source'' and how did EPA select the
operations to be regulated by these proposed NESHAP?
D. What is a new affected source?
E. How did we determine the MACT floor for existing sources?
F. How did we determine the MACT floor for new sources?
G. Did we consider options more stringent than the MACT floor?
H. Why are some reinforced plastic composites production
operations not subject to these proposed NESHAP?
I. How did we select the proposed compliance dates for existing
and new sources?
J. How did we select the form of these proposed NESHAP?
K. How did we select the test methods for determining compliance
with the proposed NESHAP?
L. How did we determine the proposed monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements?
M. How did we select the proposed notification and reporting
requirements?
N. What are some of the areas where we are specifically
soliciting comments?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What facilities are affected by the proposed NESHAP?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the water quality impacts?
D. What are the solid and hazardous waste impacts?
E. What are the energy impacts?
F. What are the cost impacts?
G. What are the economic impacts?
V. Relationship of Proposed NESHAP to Other Standards and Programs
under the CAA
A. National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control
Devices, Recovery Devices, and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a
Process (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS)
B. Operating Permit Program
C. NESHAP for Plastic Parts and Products
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
[[Page 40326]]
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production (major sources only) was included on the
initial list of source categories published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR
31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit
greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP.
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
The CAA requires NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction
in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is
commonly referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP.
This concept appears in section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. For new sources,
the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that
is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What Are the Potential Health Effects of the HAP Emitted by the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Industry?
Today's proposed NESHAP protect air quality and promote the public
health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP listed in section
112(b)(1) of the CAA.
The HAP emitted by the reinforced plastic composites production
industry include, but are not limited to, approximately 20,000 tpy of
styrene, 550 tpy of methyl methacrylate, and 1100 tpy of methylene
chloride. Exposure to these compounds has been demonstrated to cause
adverse health effects, including chronic health disorders (e.g.,
headache, fatigue, and depression) and acute health disorders (e.g.,
irritation of skin, eyes, and mucous membranes and decreased
respiratory function). Methylene chloride has been classified as a
probable human carcinogen and styrene as a possible human carcinogen.
In general, these findings have only been shown with concentrations
higher than those typically in the ambient air.
We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the
operations covered by today's proposed NESHAP (and the people living
around the operations) necessary to conduct an analysis to determine
the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these
facilities and the potential for resultant health effects. Therefore,
we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described
above occur in the populations surrounding these operations. However,
to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the proposed rule will
reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.
1. Styrene
Acute (short-term) exposure to styrene in humans results in mucous
membrane and eye irritation and gastrointestinal effects. Chronic
(long-term) exposure to styrene in humans may cause effects on the
central nervous system (CNS) such as headache, fatigue, weakness,
depression, and hearing loss. There is limited evidence that
occupational exposure to styrene is associated with an increased
frequency of spontaneous abortions and decreased frequency of births
and an increased risk of leukemia and lymphoma. The EPA considers this
evidence on occupational exposure to styrene to be inconclusive. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified styrene as a
Group 2B, possible human carcinogen. The EPA has not classified styrene
with respect to carcinogenicity.
2. Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl methacrylate irritates the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes
in humans. An allergic response to dermal exposure may develop.
Respiratory effects following acute (short-term) exposure include chest
tightness, dyspnea, coughing, wheezing, and reduced lung function.
Neurological symptoms including headache, lethargy, lightheadedness,
and a sensation of heaviness in the arms and legs have also been
reported following acute exposure to MMA. Effects to the liver, kidney,
brain, spleen, and bone marrow have been reported in chronic (long-
term) animal studies of MMA inhalation. Fetal abnormalities have been
reported in animals exposed to MMA by injection and inhalation. In
several animal studies, no carcinogenic effects were observed. The EPA
has classified MMA in Group E (not likely to be carcinogenic in
humans).
3. Methylene Chloride
Acute (short-term) exposure to methylene chloride by inhalation
affects the nervous system, causing decreased visual, auditory, and
motor functions. These effects are reversible once exposure ceases. The
effects of chronic (long-term) exposure to methylene chloride suggest
that the CNS is a potential target in both humans and animals. Limited
animal studies have reported developmental effects. Human data are
inconclusive regarding methylene chloride and cancer. Animal studies
have shown increases in liver and lung cancer and benign mammary gland
tumors following the inhalation of methylene chloride. The EPA has
classified methylene chloride as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.
D. How Were the Proposed NESHAP Developed?
We started the development of the proposed NESHAP by sending
information collection request (ICR) surveys to facilities with
applicable standard industries classification (SIC) codes. In addition
to these surveys, we consulted with numerous members of the reinforced
plastic composites industry, representatives of industry trade
associations, and material and equipment vendors in developing the
proposed NESHAP.
We held a series of approximately 35 meetings and visited
approximately 25 facilities over a period of 8 years. These meetings
and site visits were held to keep stakeholders informed and to gather
additional data and information on issues relevant to the proposed
NESHAP. The stakeholders helped in data gathering, arranged site
visits, identified issues and provided information to help resolve
issues in the rulemaking process.
We identified the MACT floor control level with information
obtained through survey responses, site visits, telephone contacts, and
operating permits. We assessed control options more stringent than the
MACT floor by identifying the level(s) and method(s) of control
achieved by the best controlled sources in the industry and conducting
analyses designed to determine the cost, economic, energy, and
environmental impacts of implementing the more stringent control
options.
[[Page 40327]]
E. What Processes and Operations Are Included in the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production Source Category?
The Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category
involves the production of plastic products from cross-linking resins,
usually in combination with reinforcing materials and inorganic
fillers. The production of products that do not contain reinforcing
materials is also included in this category, as well as the production
of intermediate compounds which are later used to make the final
plastic products. These non-reinforced products were included because
they are produced using the same types of resins, have similar emission
characteristics and would use similar emission controls. This source
category is limited to those resins which contain styrene, either by
itself or with a combination of other monomers or solvents.
There are a wide variety of operations that use styrene-containing
resins to make thermoset plastics. Such production operations include
manual resin application, mechanical resin application, filament
winding, gel coat application, compression/injection molding, resin
transfer molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/continuous
casting, polymer casting, pultrusion, and sheet molding compound (SMC)
manufacturing. There are also ancillary operations such as cleaning,
mixing/bulk molding compound (BMC) manufacturing, and storage that
occur in conjunction with these production operations. Many facilities
will use multiple operations in the manufacturing of their product.
This category does not include facilities which repair previously
manufactured reinforced plastic composites, but do not have any co-
located reinforced plastic composite manufacturing operations. The
reason is that we believe that repair operations that are co-located
with manufacturing operations use the same materials as the
manufacturing processes. Repair operations that are not co-located may
use different materials and application techniques.
II. Summary of Proposed NESHAP
This preamble section discusses the proposed NESHAP as they apply
to you, the owner or operator of a new or existing reinforced plastic
composites production facility.
A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by This
Proposed Rule?
Today's proposed rule applies to the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production source category. We evaluated the use of subcategories based
on size (i.e., tpy of HAP emitted). These subcategories played an
important role in defining the new source MACT floors. However, the
available data that we used to develop the MACT floor for existing
sources do not show significant differences between larger-emitting
versus smaller-emitting sources. Thus, we did not go through a separate
analysis for each subcategory of existing sources.
B. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
The primary source of HAP emissions from the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category is the evaporation of styrene and
other organic liquid HAP contained in the resin during the application
and/or curing of the resin. Since styrene participates in the curing
reaction, not all of it is emitted. The HAP emissions also occur during
ancillary operations such as cleaning, mixing/BMC manufacturing, and
storage.
Total baseline HAP emissions from the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production source category are approximately 22,200 tpy. Emissions from
spray lay-up and gel coating constitute approximately 56 percent and 19
percent of the total baseline emissions, respectively. The remaining
HAP emissions are primarily from hand lay-up/bucket and tool
application, compression molding/injection molding, filament winding,
SMC manufacturing, and centrifugal casting.
C. What Is the Affected Source?
Under this proposed rule, the affected source would be the
combination of all operations regulated under these standards at a
reinforced plastic composites production facility. The following
regulated operations are typically performed at reinforced plastic
composites production facilities and are part of the affected source:
open molding, closed molding, centrifugal casting, continuous
lamination/continuous casting, polymer casting, pultrusion, SMC
manufacturing, equipment cleaning, BMC/manufacturing/mixing, and
storage of HAP containing materials.
D. What Are the Proposed Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other
Standards?
We are proposing the requirements of these NESHAP in the form of
emission limits (i.e., point value, mass rate, or percent reduction),
operating limits, and work practice standards. Work practice standards
include design, equipment, work practices, and operational standards.
In developing proposed requirements for reinforced plastic
composites affected sources, we have provided an alternative format
where possible. For example, a facility meeting a 95 percent emission
reduction requirement for open molding processes can alternatively meet
a point value. We have also provided alternatives for meeting the
limits for continuous lamination and continuous casting processes.
We are proposing a threshold for existing sources to distinguish
between sources that would meet the floor requirements, that are
generally based on pollution prevention, and those that would have to
meet a more stringent above-the-floor requirement based on 95 percent
control of HAP emissions. For small businesses, the threshold is 250
tpy of combined HAP emissions for open molding, centrifugal casting,
continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, and SMC manufacturing. The
definition of a small business for this source category ranges from 500
to 1000 employees. More specific information on the definition of a
small business may be found in the discussion of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act in the Administrative Requirements section of this
preamble. For businesses that are not small businesses, the threshold
is combined emissions of HAP of 100 tpy from the same operations.
For all open molding operations (i.e., corrosion-resistant,
noncorrosion-resistant, tooling, and gel coat) and centrifugal casting
(corrosion-resistant and noncorrosion-resistant) at existing sources
below the threshold, and new sources with HAP emissions less than 100
tpy, you must comply with a HAP emission limit that is calculated for
your facility using MACT model point value equations for each open
molding and centrifugal casting operation. For open molding and
centrifugal casting operations at new sources with HAP emissions equal
to or greater than 100 tpy, and existing sources with HAP emissions
equal to or greater than the applicable thresholds (i.e., 100 tpy for
large businesses and 250 tpy for small businesses), we are proposing to
require owners and operators to reduce emissions by 95 percent from
these operations or comply with a corresponding HAP emission limit
calculated using the MACT model point value equations.
We are proposing to require owners and operators of continuous
lamination/continuous casting operations at existing sources below the
above-the-
[[Page 40328]]
floor applicability thresholds, and new sources with HAP emissions less
than 100 tpy, to reduce emissions by 58 percent. Other new and existing
sources must reduce emissions by 95 percent.
We are proposing to require owners and operators of pultrusion
operations at existing sources below the above-the-floor thresholds,
and new sources with HAP emissions less than 100 tpy, to reduce
emissions by 60 percent. This reduction is based on applying a wet
enclosure or using direct die injection to limit emissions. Other new
and existing sources must reduce emissions by 95 percent.
We are proposing to require owners and operators at both new and
existing sources using injection/compression molding operations to
reduce HAP emissions through the use of a work practice, whereby only
one charge per machine is uncovered, unwrapped, or exposed per mold
cycle per compression/injection molding machine.
We are proposing to require owners and operators of sheet molding
compound operations at existing sources below the above-the-floor
thresholds, and new sources with HAP emissions less than 100 tpy, to
reduce emissions by using a nylon film, or film with equal or lower
permeability to styrene, to enclose their SMC operation. Other new and
existing sources must reduce emissions by 95 percent.
We are proposing to require owners and operators of all new and
existing reinforced plastic composites affected sources to use cleaners
containing no HAP.
We are proposing to require owners and operators of resin mixing
and bulk molding compound operations at existing sources below the
above-the-floor applicability thresholds, and new sources with HAP
emissions less than 100 tpy, to limit HAP emissions by covering mixers
such that there are no visible gaps. For other new and existing
sources, we are proposing to require that you reduce emissions from
mixing and BMC manufacturing by 95 percent.
For existing sources that are subject to the above-the-floor
control level of 95 percent HAP emission reduction, we examined an
alternative, based on pollution prevention, that would be more
effective than the requirements of the MACT floor for existing sources.
However, we were unable to develop an acceptable alternative to include
in the proposed standards that meets the statutory requirements of
MACT. We are soliciting comment on a possible alternative.
We are proposing to require all owners and operators at any
existing or new affected source to keep all organic HAP-containing
storage vessels covered, except during the addition or removal of
materials.
E. What Is the MACT Model Point Value and How Is It Used in These
Proposed NESHAP?
The MACT model point value is a number calculated for each open
molding operation and centrifugal casting operation and is a surrogate
for emissions. The MACT model point value is a way to rank the relative
performance of different resin and gel coat emissions reduction
techniques. This approach allows you to create control strategies using
different resin and gel coat emissions reduction techniques. The
proposed standards provide equations to calculate MACT model point
values based on HAP content and application method for each material
that you use. These MACT model point values are then averaged and
compared to limits in the proposed standards to determine if your open
molding operations are in compliance.
The MACT model point values have units of pounds of HAP per ton of
resin or gel coat applied. It is important to note that the MACT model
point values are surrogates for emissions, and the MACT model point
value equations are used only for determining compliance with the
proposed Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. The MACT
model point value equations cannot be used in place of emission factor
equations to demonstrate compliance with other regulations.
The MACT model point value equations only account for HAP content
and application method. Other factors (including curing time, part
thickness, and operator technique) also affect emissions, and these
factors are not accounted for in the MACT model point value equations
for reasons discussed in section III-E. Determining the HAP content of
materials and the method of application is relatively simple, and these
factors are the most significant in affecting emissions. More
information on the development of this model is available in the
docket.
F. When Would I Need To Comply With These Proposed NESHAP?
We are proposing that all existing sources comply within 3 years of
publication of the promulgated NESHAP in the Federal Register. New
affected sources that startup before the promulgated NESHAP are
published in the Federal Register must comply no later than the
effective date of the NESHAP, which will be the same as the publication
date. New affected sources that startup after the promulgated NESHAP
are published in the Federal Register must comply upon startup.
Existing area sources that increase their emissions or their potential
to emit such that they become a major source of HAP must be in
compliance within 3 years of the date they become a major source. New
area sources that become major sources of HAP must comply upon becoming
a major source. All open molding and centrifugal casting operations
that comply by meeting a specified point value on a 12-month rolling
average will have 1 year from the compliance date to demonstrate
compliance.
We are proposing to provide new and existing facilities 3 years to
comply from the time their HAP emissions reach or exceed the
applicability thresholds requiring the installation of add-on controls,
if these HAP emissions increases occur after their initial compliance
date.
G. What Are the Proposed Options for Demonstrating Compliance?
Today's proposed NESHAP provide several options for compliance. We
are providing these options to afford industry the flexibility to
decide which method is best suited for each particular situation.
1. Open Molding and Centrifugal Casting Operations
For open molding operations at existing and new sources, this
proposal would allow you to choose to comply by meeting the individual
MACT point value for each operation at your affected source, or by
meeting the weighted average MACT point value for all open molding
operations at your affected source. In addition, if you have any
combination of manual resin application, mechanical resin application,
filament winding, or centrifugal casting operations at your affected
source, you could comply by meeting the MACT point value for any one of
these operations and by using the same resin for all the other
operations.
For open molding and centrifugal casting operations where the
proposed rule would require you to meet a percent reduction, you could
use an add-on control device to achieve the required reduction or you
may choose to meet a MACT point value that corresponds to that
particular operation's percent reduction.
2. Continuous Casting/Lamination Operations
For continuous casting/lamination operations at existing and new
sources, we are proposing that you could
[[Page 40329]]
demonstrate that each continuous casting line and each continuous
lamination line meets the appropriate standard. Alternatively, you
could average all your continuous casting and continuous lamination
lines together, and demonstrate that they meet the appropriate
standard. An additional alternative would be to capture your emissions
from your wet-out area in a permanent total enclosure that meets EPA's
criteria, as specified in Method 204 in appendix M of 40 CFR part 51,
and vent these wet-out emissions through a closed vent system to a
control device achieving 95 percent reduction of HAP emissions. Under
this proposed rule, these alternatives could be used in combination to
demonstrate compliance.
3. Pultrusion Operations
For existing and new pultrusion operations, under this proposed
rule you could capture and vent your emissions to a control device that
achieves the required percent reduction of HAP emissions. You could
also elect to use direct die injection pultrusion machines with resin
drip collection systems that meet the criteria specified. We are also
proposing an additional alternative only available to existing sources:
the use of a wet-area enclosure with a resin drip collection system.
For both new and existing sources, you could use the available options
in combination to achieve compliance under this proposed rule.
4. Ancillary Operations
For ancillary operations at all sources, such as cleaning, storage,
and mixing/BMC operations at existing sources, the only option we are
proposing is to comply with the specified work practice standards.
H. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
We are proposing to require owners and operators of all affected
sources which use a control device to demonstrate compliance to conduct
an initial performance test using specified EPA test methods. The owner
or operator would test at the inlet and outlet of the control device,
and using these results, calculate a percent reduction.
We are also proposing to require owners and operators that use
permanent total enclosures to conduct a design evaluation as specified
by EPA Method 204. If your enclosure does not meet the requirements for
a permanent total enclosure, you would need to test the enclosure using
EPA Methods 204B through E to determine the capture efficiency.
Prior to the initial performance test, owners and operators of
affected sources would be required to install the parameter monitoring
equipment to be used to demonstrate compliance with the operating
limits. During the initial performance test, the owners and operators
would use the parameter monitoring equipment to establish operating
parameter limits.
I. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
If you use an add-on control device, we are proposing that you
monitor and record the operating parameters established during the
initial performance test, and calculate average operating parameter
values averaged over the period of time specified in these proposed
NESHAP to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits.
If you use the MACT point value system to maintain a point value
less than or equal to the appropriate point value listed in today's
proposed NESHAP, we are proposing to require that you calculate the
point value one time if the resins or gel coats used in the operation
remain the same, or if all the resins and gel coats used individually
meet the required point values. You are required to calculate the point
value on a 12-month rolling average each month if the resin or gel coat
varies between operations or over time, and not all resins or gel coats
taken individually meet the required point value.
If you are complying with work practice standards, we are proposing
that you demonstrate compliance with the work practice standards in
today's proposed NESHAP by performing the necessary work practices and
by keeping a record certifying that you are in compliance with the work
practices.
J. What Are the Proposed Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping
Requirements?
We are proposing that you submit Initial Notification, Notification
of Performance Tests, and Notification of Compliance Status reports by
the specified dates in the proposed NESHAP, which may vary depending on
whether the affected source is new or existing.
You would also need to submit semiannual compliance reports. If you
take action that is inconsistent with your approved startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM) plan, then you would need to submit SSM reports
within 2 days of starting such action, and within 7 days of ending such
action.
We are proposing that you keep a copy of each notification and
report, along with supporting documentation for 5 years. Of this time,
the first 2 years must be on-site. You would need to keep records
related to SSM, records of performance tests, and records for each
continuous parameter monitoring system. Under this proposed rule, if
you must comply with the work practice standards, you would also need
to keep records certifying that you are in compliance with the work
practices for 5 years. If you are use the MACT point value system to
demonstrate compliance, you would need to keep all data, assumptions,
and calculations used to determine your MACT point value. For new and
existing continuous lamination/casting operations, you would also need
to keep the following records when complying with the percent reduction
or pound per ton requirements: All data, assumptions, and calculations
used to determine the percent reduction and/or pounds per ton, as
applicable; a brief description of the rationale for the assignment of
an equation or factor to each formula; all data, assumptions, and
calculations used to derive facility-specific emission estimations and
factors; identification and rationale for the worst-case scenario; and
documentation that the appropriate regulatory agency has approved all
emission estimation equations and factors.
III. Rationale for Proposed NESHAP
A. How Did We Determine the Source Category To Regulate?
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production was included on the
initial list of source categories published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR
31576). In establishing the source category list, we stated that we
would refine category descriptions during the rulemaking process, if
necessary, based on additional information available. We did not find
it necessary to refine the source category description for Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production. However, we did define a number of
different process groupings in order to develop representative MACT
floors as described in the section on MACT floor development.
B. What Pollutants Are Regulated Under These Proposed NESHAP?
The proposed NESHAP regulate total HAP rather than individual HAP
compounds. Standards for total HAP simplify compliance and enforcement
compared with standards for individual
[[Page 40330]]
HAP compounds. Styrene is the HAP emitted in the largest magnitude.
Other HAP emitted from reinforced plastic composites production
facilities include MMA and methylene chloride.
C. What Is the ``Affected Source'' and How Did EPA Select the
Operations To Be Regulated by These Proposed NESHAP?
To provide compliance flexibility, we defined the affected source
as the combination of all reinforced plastic composites operations at a
site. This broad source definition allows a manufacturer to determine
compliance by averaging the HAP content of different products used
throughout the facility, within certain defined operations, and to use
different application techniques as needed to meet product quality
specifications.
D. What Is a New Affected Source?
A new affected source is any reinforced plastic composites
production facility that meets both of these criteria:
It commenced construction after today's date; and
It is at a site that does not presently contain any
reinforced plastic composites production operations.
In section 112 of the CAA, the definition of new sources also
includes stationary sources that commence reconstruction after the
publication date of a proposed NESHAP. The Small Business Advocacy
Review (SBAR) Panel recommended that we carefully review our definition
of reconstruction for this industry. As defined in the General
Provisions for 40 CFR part 63, ``reconstruction'' means the replacement
of components of an affected, or a previously unaffected, stationary
source to such an extent that: (1) the fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be
required to construct a comparable new source; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible for the reconstructed source
to meet the relevant standards (as established by the Administrator or
a State) pursuant to section 112 of the CAA.
We envision that the types of changes that would typically occur at
existing facilities would include replacement of spray equipment and
molds. We do not believe that it would be technologically and
economically feasible for an existing source making these types of
changes to meet new source MACT. Thus, such changes do not meet the
definition of reconstruction in the General Provisions and would not
subject the sources making such changes to new source MACT.
E. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for Existing Sources?
Several considerations underlie our MACT floor determinations.
These considerations include: if/how the source category is to be
subcategorized, how emissions types within the affected source are to
be analyzed, and what are the best performing sources.
We identified 433 facilities that are major sources based on their
potential to emit or have the potential to be major sources based on
collocation with other HAP-emitting processes not part of this source
category.
If technical differences in emissions characteristics, processes,
control device applicability, or opportunities for pollution prevention
exist within the source category, it may be appropriate to set separate
floors based on these characteristics. In analyzing the available data
on this source category, it was apparent that reinforced plastic
composite facilities, as a whole, are extremely diverse in their
emissions characteristics, control device applicability, and
opportunities for pollution prevention. Therefore, we explored various
ways of grouping the operations that may be present at these
facilities.
For existing sources, it was apparent that almost all of the
existing source floors would be based on pollution-prevention
techniques such as lowering the HAP content in resins and gel coats,
covering baths and containers holding resins, and using nonatomized
spray applications. The extent and performance of pollution-prevention
techniques are dependent on the specific operation. For this reason,
the data were subdivided by specific operation, and a floor for each
operation was developed.
Operations were segregated by several factors. The first was mold
type (i.e., open, partially open, and closed). We also segregated
operations by resin and gel coat application method; these include
mechanical, manual, filament winding, and centrifugal casting. The type
of mold and resin application method impacts the emission potential of
a particular operation and also the effectiveness and applicability of
different control techniques. We also segregated continuous operations
such as pultrusion, continuous lamination, continuous casting, and the
manufacture of sheet molding compound.
The final criteria used was product type. The required properties
of the final product place certain constraints on the raw materials
that can be used. This, in turn, influences the limits on levels of HAP
in the raw materials. We identified several product criteria where the
raw materials required to produce the product are dissimilar enough
that a separate floor determination was required. The first is
corrosion resistance. Reinforced plastic composites can generally be
divided into two types--corrosion-resistant and noncorrosion-resistant
products. Corrosion-resistant products require resins specifically
formulated for corrosion-resistant applications. We also included high-
strength applications in the corrosion-resistant grouping. These
applications include products such as structural members and utility
poles. These require resins with higher HAP contents than general
purpose resins. The higher HAP contents for both corrosion-resistant
and high-strength applications are necessary to produce a laminate with
a greater concentration of styrene cross-linking. This higher level of
cross-linking is necessary for either corrosion-resistance or high-
strength.
We also separated gel coats from resins because these materials
have significantly different functions in the final product and are
formulated differently. Gel coats were further subdivided into clear,
white and off-white, and other colors. Clear gel coats require
significantly higher HAP content than pigmented gel coats, and are,
therefore, unable to be formulated to the same HAP levels. White and
off-white gel coats can be formulated to lower HAP contents on a
weight-percent basis than other colors due to the fact that white
pigments are heavier than other color pigments.
Class 1 fire and smoke rated products were separated from other
products because their unique properties require a resin with a
significantly higher HAP content than any other products. Separating
Class 1 fire and smoke rated products was also one of the
recommendations of the SBAR Panel.
Tooling resins and gel coats are used to make the molds that, in
turn, are used to produce reinforced plastic parts. Molds must have
different properties compared to the products they are used to produce.
These include a high level of dimensional stability and resistance to
heat compared to other reinforced plastic composites. Therefore,
separate floors were developed for tooling resins and gel coats.
Once the data were subdivided by specific operation, the data were
ranked by HAP emissions. Open molding and centrifugal casting
operations were ranked based on a surrogate emission factor called a
point value. As
[[Page 40331]]
previously discussed, point values are based on resin and gel coat
application method and HAP content, and provide a relative measure of
emissions between operations with varying resin and gel coat HAP
contents and application methods.
Other factors such as gel time, part thickness, application
temperature, and operator technique also affect emissions. However,
there are less data available to determine the effects of these factors
in a production setting. In addition, some of these factors, such as
part thickness, are inherent to the process and cannot be changed
without changing the final product. For this reason, other factors are
not included in the MACT model point value equations. The point value
system was also developed to allow a facility to average different
operations together to meet the applicable proposed standards. The
ability to average is intended to provide additional compliance
flexibility.
The individual operations were then ranked based on the point value
(for open molding and centrifugal casting), percent of emission
reduction (pultrusion, continuous lamination/casting, SMC
manufacturing), covering open containers or exposed resin (storage, BMC
manufacturing/mixing, injection/compression molding), or the use on
non-HAP cleaning solvents (equipment cleaning). The median facility of
the top 12 percent (or top 5 for operations with less than 30 sources)
was then selected as representing the existing source floor.
For some of these operations, the available data were insufficient
to perform a ranking. These were non-white pigmented gel coats,
products with a Class 1 fire and smoke rating, and high-strength
products.
We identified two facilities that produce products that require a
Class 1 fire and smoke rating. Both facilities use a resin with a 60
percent HAP content. We chose use of this resin as the floor. From a 60
percent HAP resin, we calculated different point values for mechanical,
manual, and filament winding resin application.
The data we used to set floors for pigmented gel coats were
weighted averages reported by the facilities. This data included some
information on colors, but not enough facilities reported color
information to perform a meaningful ranking. Because of the
predominance of white and off-white gel coats, these data are not
representative for other colors. However, many facilities offer other
colors. The pigments used in white and off-white gel coats are much
denser than the pigments used in other colors. For that reason, weight
percent HAP in white and off-white gel coats tends to be lower. A floor
based on white and off-white gel coat HAP contents would preclude a
facility using other colors.
Based on industry comments and the recommendation of the SBAR
panel, we determined that a HAP content of 37 percent is the minimum
that would provide acceptable gel coat performance for gel coats with
colors other than white and off-white. In the absence of any other
data, we adopted a 37 percent HAP as the floor for these gel coats. The
37 percent HAP content was converted to a point value using the
appropriate point value equation. (See the final report of the SBAR
Panel in the docket.) We request comments and supporting data on the
appropriateness of 37 percent as a minimum HAP content for acceptable
performance for gel coats with colors other than white and off-white.
The data supplied by industry did not differentiate products that
require higher than typical strength properties. Therefore, we could
not determine a floor with the facility data base. We discussed this
issue as part of the SBAR Panel with several manufacturers that produce
high-strength products. We also reviewed the requirements of South
Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1162. Rule 1162 specifically
addresses high-strength products and contains the same requirements for
high-strength products and corrosion-resistant products. As a result,
we determined using the data for corrosion-resistant resins would be
the most appropriate way to determine floors for high-strength
products. Therefore, we are proposing the same floors for high-strength
products and corrosion-resistant products. This is consistent with a
recommendation of the SBAR Panel. We solicit comments on this approach.
There are many facilities that use multiple operations to produce a
product. An example of this would be a facility producing corrosion-
resistant tanks using filament winding to produce the main circular
portion, mechanical resin application for the tank ends, and manual
resin application to join the parts together. Industry representatives
pointed out that the floors we had developed from the data base would
potentially require a facility to use three different resins to produce
a single product. This could potentially lead to problems of resin
compatibility and product failures. The SBAR Panel report included a
recommendation that we allow a facility to use the same resin for all
processes.
As a result, we reexamined the floors for facilities with multiple
processes. We determined that, based on the data available, the
appropriate approach would be to have a provision in the proposed
standards to allow a facility to select one operation, determine the
resin they could use to meet the floor, and then use that same resin in
all other operations. We did not have the data to determine what that
operation should be in all cases, so we are not specifying a particular
operation in the proposed standards. We assumed that a facility would
select the operation that allows them to use the highest HAP content
resin.
At the recommendation of the SBAR Panel, we also reexamined the
floors for tooling resins. Several of the small entity representatives
that advised the panel stated that the proposed floor for tooling
resins will result in inferior quality tools. We believe that the
current floor for tooling resins allows sufficient flexibility in resin
HAP content as long as the resin can be applied with nonatomized spray
technology. We are specifically soliciting comment on the applicability
of nonatomized spray technology to tooling resins. Based on any
comments, we intend to further examine the floor for tooling resins.
F. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor For New Sources?
In developing the floor for new sources, we developed two
subcategories--sources with emissions of 100 tpy or above and sources
with emissions below 100 tpy. Our reason for examining sources with
emissions below 100 tpy separately is that such facilities are likely
to have more difficulty maintaining and operating add-on controls than
larger-emitting sources, and we are unsure of the performance of add-on
controls at these facilities. Separating the data into large and small
HAP-emitting sources for developing new source MACT floors was also one
of the recommendations of the SBAR Panel.
In examining the facilities with emissions of 100 tpy or more, we
found two facilities that control emissions from open molding and
mixing by 95 percent overall. These facilities range in size from
approximately 100 tpy to 1000 tpy of HAP emissions prior to the add-on
control device. This level of control was chosen as the new source MACT
floor for open molding and mixing at facilities with 100 tpy or more of
uncontrolled emissions.
We also considered whether to evaluate the applicability of add-on
controls to each of the different
[[Page 40332]]
operations as was done in setting floors for existing sources. The two
facilities that control emissions by 95 percent have operations
including gel coat and mechanical resin application. The performance
and cost of add-on controls is mainly a function of air flows and HAP
concentration from the process. We have no data to suggest that the air
flows and HAP concentrations present in other open molding production
processes in this industry are not adequately represented by these two
facilities.
The two facilities produce parts that range in size from that of
bathtubs to truck caps. It is possible that larger size parts may
require larger enclosures. We have not identified any facilities in the
reinforced plastic composites industry where processes producing large
parts, such as storage tanks and swimming pools, have applied 100
percent efficient capture systems. However, we have identified
facilities using 100 percent efficient capture systems that apply
coatings to large parts such as helicopters and ships. These coating
operations have similar issues of large air flows (due to worker
exposure concerns) and low outlet HAP emission concentrations. Based on
this, we believe that it is technically feasible to apply 100 percent
efficient capture systems to larger parts in the reinforced plastic
composites industry.
We evaluated the applicability of the 95 percent control level as
the new source floor for other operations. Centrifugal casting,
continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, and SMC manufacturing are
similar in emissions characteristics to open molding. There are five
facilities that have applied highly efficient add-on controls to these
operations, with overall control efficiencies ranging from 90 to 95
percent. For this reason, we chose 95 percent control as the new source
MACT floor for these operations at facilities with uncontrolled
emissions of at least 100 tpy.
We also considered whether the new source MACT floor for the
previously mentioned operations should be incorporation of the
pollution-prevention measures that make up the existing source floors,
combined with 95 percent control. This approach would actually result
in a higher overall emissions reduction. In addition, incorporating the
pollution prevention measures would reduce the potential for worker
exposure in situations where processes have to be enclosed to meet the
95 percent control requirement.
However, we determined that selecting incorporation of pollution-
prevention techniques in addition to the 95 percent control requirement
as the new source floor was not appropriate because the facilities that
incorporate 95 percent control, which we determined represent the best
controlled facilities, do not also incorporate the best pollution
prevention techniques. Therefore, combining the pollution-prevention
requirements with the 95 percent control requirements would actually
result in an overall control level that exceeds the levels at the best
controlled facilities.
We are requesting comment on whether the new source floor for
facilities that must meet the 95 percent control requirements should
also incorporate the pollution-prevention requirements. We also request
that commentors provide any available data on worker exposure that
would help us quantify the benefits of incorporating pollution-
prevention requirements with the 95 percent control requirements.
We are not proposing 95 percent control for closed molding, polymer
casting, equipment cleaning, and resin storage, which have much lower
emissions than the other types of operations. One of the facilities
that sets the new source floor has a closed molding operation on site.
This operation is not controlled through the use of an add-on control
device. We attempted to identify other means of emissions reductions
for these processes. For compression/injection molding, which is a type
of closed molding, the only identified means of emission reduction was
the work practice of uncovering one charge at a time. Therefore, this
was chosen as the new source MACT floor for compression/injection
molding. For polymer casting and resin transfer molding, we were not
able to identify any means of reduction, either add-on controls or
process modifications such as the use of low HAP resins. Thus, the new
source MACT floor for these sources is no emissions reduction.
For equipment cleaning, the proposed new source floor is based on
use of cleaners with no HAP. Of the 433 facilities that reported
information on cleaning, 353 reported using no cleaning materials
containing HAP. However, we are not regulating solvents used for
cleaning cured resin or gel coat from application equipment because we
know of no means of reducing HAP emissions. Cured resin or gel coat
inside a gun is usually the result of operator error or an equipment
failure. To clean cured resin and gel coat, an aggressive solvent is
needed, and no low-HAP alternatives are available. The equipment is
usually soaked in a covered bucket resulting in little evaporation of
the solvent. The amount of solvent needed per year is determined by the
size of the facility, degree of operator error, and equipment failure
rates. Because operator error and equipment failure are hard to
predict, we could determine no basis for an annual limit of solvent
usage that would be achievable by all facilities. These proposed
NESHAP, therefore, allow HAP-containing solvents only for cleaning
cured resin and gel coat from the application equipment.
Over 250 facilities reported covering storage containers. We
selected covering storage containers as the new source MACT floor for
storage. We identified two facilities that vent the storage areas to a
control device; however, we determined that the available data are
insufficient to quantify additional emissions reductions that would
result from controlling storage tanks and containers by 95 percent
versus just covering the storage tanks and containers.
We calculated separate floors for facilities with less than 100 tpy
of emissions from open molding, centrifugal casting continuous
lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and BMC
manufacturing/mixing. Though there are facilities with emissions below
100 tpy that have add-on controls, data were not available to
substantiate their level of control. Therefore, we could not state that
they achieved a level of control above that achieved by the pollution-
prevention techniques, and thus, meet the definition of best controlled
facilities. Also, smaller-emitting facilities tend to operate with
fewer shifts than larger ones. The more frequent startups and shutdowns
could tend to make it more difficult to maintain and operate add-on
controls compared to larger-emitting facilities. For these reasons, the
floor for new sources with less than 100 tpy of emissions is based on
pollution-prevention techniques.
For these smaller-emitting facilities, we are proposing to set the
new source MACT floor at the same level as the existing source MACT
floor. This approach was recommended by the SBAR Panel. We believe the
existing source MACT floor represents the greatest degree of emissions
reduction that is achievable for small facilities under all
circumstances. For new sources, the CAA requires the MACT floor to be
based on the HAP emissions control achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator. The
reinforced plastic composites industry is extraordinarily diverse. The
products
[[Page 40333]]
produced, even in the same operation, can include skylights, bathtubs,
and parts for automobiles. Given this diversity, it is difficult to
identify the ``best controlled'' source. Products manufactured by this
industry generally must meet certain minimal strength and durability
requirements. The HAP content of the resin is a factor in meeting such
requirements. Use of a resin with a given HAP content may be the most
stringent level of control possible for a particular process, while it
may be possible to use a lower-HAP resin in a different process without
jeopardizing the strength or durability of the product.
While some facilities are using lower-HAP materials and techniques
than represented by the existing source MACT floor, we do not believe
that these examples are universally applicable to all new reinforced
plastic composites manufacturers. We have no data to precisely define
the particular combination of requirements where these lower-emitting
options can be used and still maintain the minimum required strength
and durability requirements of these products. Consequently, we have
set the proposed floor at the most stringent level that we have
determined all sources emitting less than 100 tpy can achieve.
We did not find that the quantity of HAP emissions from the source
had any effect on its ability to incorporate pollution-prevention
technology, or on the effectiveness of these technologies. For that
reason, we did not subdivide the data for existing sources where the
floors are based mainly on pollution prevention.
During the SBAR Panel discussions, many of the small entity
representatives expressed concern regarding the affordability and
technical feasibility of add-on controls, and commented that they may
be able to achieve similar HAP reductions using pollution-prevention
measures, which tend to be less expensive. For example, if a facility
could reduce its emissions by 50 percent each year for 3 years using
the pollution-prevention alternative, it may be able to achieve
reductions similar to thermal oxidation (nearly 90 percent versus 95
percent). The panel recommended that EPA explore with industry the
possibility of a more stringent pollution-prevention option as an
alternative to add-on controls. The panel believed that this option
should be more stringent than the pollution-prevention technology
present in the current existing source MACT floors.
We discussed with industry the possibility of a pollution-
prevention control option in lieu of add-on controls. We were unable to
develop an option that we believe meets the statutory requirements of
MACT. However, we are soliciting comment on a possible pollution-
prevention alternative to the 95 percent HAP reduction requirement. The
specific information we are seeking is the maximum level of control
that can be achieved by pollution prevention, and the time necessary to
incorporate pollution-prevention techniques. The pollution-prevention
techniques of which we are aware include low HAP resins and gel coats,
nonatomized resin and gel coat applications, vapor suppressed resins,
vacuum bagging, accelerated resin curing, and conversion of open
molding processes to closed molding. We are soliciting information on
other pollution-prevention techniques of which we are not aware, and
information on the maximum level of emissions reductions achievable by
these techniques.
The general concept of an alternative would be a facility that
elects to use this option to submit notification to the appropriate
permitting authority of their intent. The facility would then have to
submit a plan to meet specific emissions reductions through pollution
prevention. The plan would outline the techniques they intend to use,
the research and testing required, and a schedule with annual
milestones for achieving the goal.
In the next step, the facility would calculate an overall emission
factor for all processes at the facility that are required to meet the
95 percent emission reduction.
Once a facility has determined a base year emission factor, they
would be required to incorporate the pollution-prevention techniques
outlined in the plan and make annual reports of progress. If a facility
was unable to meet an interim milestone, they would be required to
provide an updated plan within a specified time.
We are also soliciting comment on determination of a base year and
baseline emission factor, and reporting requirements.
G. Did We Consider Options More Stringent Than the MACT Floor?
For existing sources, an above-the-floor control level was
evaluated which was based on the new source floor for sources with
emissions of 100 tpy or more. This above-the-floor control level would
require 95 percent control of HAP emissions from all open molding,
centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC
manufacturing, and resin mixing/BMC manufacturing.
We then looked at several options. These were selecting the floor
level of control as MACT for all facilities, selecting the above-the-
floor level as MACT for all facilities, or choosing an alternative
where facilities at or above a certain HAP emissions quantity would
meet the above-the-floor level, and the rest would meet the floor. In
looking at this third alternative, we also evaluated different HAP
emission thresholds.
The option of having all facilities meet the above-the-floor level
of control had an incremental cost of $4,300 per additional ton of HAP
emission reduction. The economic analysis for this option indicated
that 126 small businesses would be impacted at a level of 3 percent of
sales or more, and there were 90 projected closures of small
businesses. Because of the impacts on small businesses, we believe that
the benefit of controlling all existing sources to this level is not
commensurate with the economic impacts. Therefore, we are not proposing
this alternative as MACT.
We then looked at a combination of the MACT floor for facilities
below a specified HAP emissions quantity based on actual emissions
prior to any add-on controls, and the above-the-floor level of control
for larger-emitting facilities. We also examined the impacts from the
standpoint of small businesses and their ability to obtain the capital
to purchase pollution control equipment. We believe that the capital
costs of the above-the-floor option for most small businesses would be
prohibitive because they do not have the same access to capital as
large businesses. The available data indicate that at a threshold of
250 tpy, none of the existing small businesses in the data base would
be impacted significantly by the above-the-floor control level. For
this reason, we determined MACT for small businesses to be the floor
for facilities that emit less than 250 tpy of HAP, and the above-the-
floor control level for facilities that emit 250 tpy or more. For large
businesses, we determined MACT to be the floor for facilities that emit
less than 100 tpy of HAP, and the above-the-floor control level for
facilities that emit 100 tpy or more of HAP. The incorporation of the
250 tpy threshold for small businesses was one of the recommendations
of the SBAR Panel, and the economic impacts of the selected option are
reasonable.
Industry representatives independently developed costs for add-on
controls and submitted them to the Agency. Their analysis is in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking. The SBAR Panel recommended that we
reconsider our estimates of costs for add-on controls in light of that
study. The
[[Page 40334]]
industry cost estimates are at least three times higher than our cost
estimates. The major reason for these differences in cost are the
design assumptions for the permanent total enclosures and the estimated
air flows. Our cost estimates assume an inlet concentration of 100
parts per million by volume (ppmv). The industry study assumes lower
concentrations that vary based on the specific facility. However,
available test data for measured concentrations in the exhaust streams
for reinforced plastic composites facilities range from 61 to 249 ppmv,
with an average concentration of 120 and a median of 82. Based on this,
we believe our 100 ppmv estimate is still reasonable, and we have
decided not to revise our cost analysis at this time. We will review
the industry's cost analysis in more depth following proposal, and make
any appropriate changes based on our review and on comments we receive.
We are soliciting comment on the cost and feasibility of add-on
controls, data on design and operation of permanent total enclosures
from this or similar industries, and data on typical exhaust HAP
concentrations and air flows for reinforced plastic composite
facilities.
We did not identify an above-the-floor option for the following
operations: closed molding, polymer casting, and equipment cleaning. We
were able to find no examples where any closed molding process was
controlled using add-on controls. Therefore, we believe it is not
technically and economically feasible to use add-on controls for closed
molding processes. We do not believe it is technically feasible to use
add-on controls for equipment cleaning operations. In any case,
application of the floor level of control we are proposing would
eliminate HAP-containing cleaners, except for cases where cured resin
has to be removed from application equipment. This floor level of
control would achieve close to 100 percent HAP emissions reductions.
For new sources, we examined an above-the-floor option of requiring
all sources to meet the 95 percent control requirement for open
molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting,
pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and resin mixing/BMC manufacturing. We
determined that, even if we could resolve the issues surrounding the
performance of add-on control devices at the smaller-emitting sources,
the incremental cost would be $15,000 per ton of additional HAP
emissions reduction. For this reason, we chose the floor level of
control as MACT for new sources.
We also considered an even more stringent above-the-floor control
level for both existing and new sources. This control level would
require facilities to use add-on controls to meet a 95 percent HAP
emission reduction, and also require them to incorporate pollution-
prevention techniques such as the use of low HAP resins and gel coats,
and nonatomized resin application techniques. As previously discussed,
the benefits of this approach would be that by incorporating the
pollution-prevention measures in addition to the add-on control, the
overall HAP emissions reduction would be increased. In addition, the
potential for worker exposure in these situations would be reduced.
However, we determined that this control level would result in
approximately a 2 percent incremental HAP emissions reduction compared
to the above-the-floor control level based on a 95 percent emissions
reduction alone. The incremental cost of a control level that combines
95 percent HAP emissions reductions and pollution-prevention measures
would be $36,900 per ton of additional HAP emissions reduction. Though
there may be worker exposure benefits, we did not include this above-
the-floor control level in this proposed rule. This possibility is
still under consideration, and we are requesting comment. We also
request that commentors provide any available data on worker exposure
that would allow us to quantify the additional worker exposure benefits
of incorporating pollution-prevention requirements with the 95 percent
control requirements.
We did not identify an above-the-floor option for new sources for
the following operations: Closed molding, polymer casting, and
equipment cleaning for the same reasons as discussed above for existing
sources.
We also examined an above-the-floor control option for existing
sources based on pollution prevention. As was the case with the new
source MACT floor, we are unable at this time to develop an alternative
that we believe meets the statutory requirements of MACT. However, we
are specifically soliciting comments on pollution-prevention techniques
that could be used in lieu of the above-the-floor alternative as were
discussed in the section on new source floors.
In addition to the previous discussion, we also evaluated non-air
quality environmental impacts of these above-the-floors options. These
impacts are discussed in section IV, Summary of Environmental, Energy,
and Economic Impacts.
H. Why Are Some Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Operations Not
Subject to These Proposed NESHAP?
These proposed NESHAP would not regulate mold sealing and release
agents and mold stripping and cleaning solvents because we were unable
to set MACT floors or determine MACT for these operations. In both
cases, the information and data available to us suggest that mold
maintenance practices, part shape and size, and production schedules
determine emissions more than the HAP content of these materials. We do
not have sufficient data to identify and prescribe work practices to
reduce emissions from these operations. Therefore, these proposed
NESHAP do not require emissions reductions for these materials.
For mold stripping and cleaning solvents, the amount of HAP used
per unit of mold surface area applied depends on facility-specific mold
maintenance practices and production requirements. These may include
mold cycle time, how often the mold is used, and whether the mold is
stored indoors or outdoors. The size of the part may also influence
mold maintenance. We do not have sufficient data to identify those
differences in production requirements or work practices that determine
mold cleaning solvent usage. Therefore, we cannot identify a MACT floor
or MACT.
I. How Did We Select the Proposed Compliance Dates for Existing and New
Sources?
The CAA instructs EPA to establish a compliance date or dates for
existing sources that will provide for compliance ``as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after the effective
date.'' For existing sources, we are proposing a compliance date 3
years from [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register].
Existing sources complying with the point value limits, which is a
pollution-prevention approach, will need to make changes in application
equipment and raw materials. We believe these sources need the full 3-
year period provided by the CAA in order to evaluate the effect of
these changes on their production processes, particularly because they
may need to try out different resins. In addition, we believe that
providing the maximum amount of allowable time will provide more
sources the opportunity to change their raw materials and production
techniques so that each resin and gel coat can meet the MACT specific
to each process type rather than averaging the HAP content
[[Page 40335]]
of resins across the source, thereby reducing the amount of records and
paperwork needed to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance.
We are also proposing a 3-year compliance date for existing sources
that must use add-on controls. We believe the full 3 years provided by
the CAA is necessary for these sources as well to allow sufficient time
for them to design, purchase, install, and work out operational
problems that occur in trying to start up a new control device. In
addition, if an existing source's emissions exceed one of the
thresholds in the proposed rule that requires an add-on control device
to comply, the 3-year period would provide sufficient time to evaluate
whether there are pollution-prevention approaches that would get them
below the threshold. We encourage the use of pollution-prevention as a
control approach, and pollution prevention could be a significant cost
savings over add-on controls for these sources.
The CAA instructs EPA to establish compliance dates for new sources
that will provide for compliance upon start up, or the effective date
of the final rule, whichever is later. These are the dates we are
proposing in this proposed rule.
New and existing sources that comply by meeting point values on a
12-month rolling average must initiate collection of these data on the
compliance date. New and existing sources that comply using add-on
control devices must conduct the required performance testing within
the 180-day time period as specified in the General Provisions to part
63.
We are also proposing to provide sources 3 years to comply from the
time their HAP emissions reach or exceed the applicability thresholds
requiring the installation of add-on controls, if these HAP emissions
increase after their initial compliance date. We are providing this
compliance time for sources under these circumstances because, as
explained previously, we believe this is the necessary amount of time
to get these control devices installed and operational.
J. How Did We Select the Form of These Proposed NESHAP?
We decided to offer several forms for complying with the proposed
NESHAP. The purpose of multiple forms is to provide the flexibility to
comply in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. We considered
the following factors in selecting the form of the proposed NESHAP:
The form should allow for multiple compliance techniques
for the various types of facilities in the industry.
The form should simplify compliance and ensure that the
cost of compliance is not excessive.
The form should be enforceable.
The form of these proposed NESHAP is based on a combination of
emission limits (point values or percent reduction), equipment
standards, and work practice standards.
1. Emission Limits Based on Point Values
These proposed NESHAP for open molding operations and centrifugal
casting operations are based on point values which are in units of
pounds of HAP per ton of resin used. The point value development has
been previously described. This form was chosen over an absolute
emission limit because it accurately determines the amount of
pollution-prevention control a source has incorporated in its process,
but does not require a facility to perform emission testing. This form
also allows for averaging across open molding processes or across
centrifugal casting processes. This means that a source has the option
to over-control some operations, under-control others (relative to the
limit for that individual process), but still meet the overall limit
for such operations combined. This allows a source to have additional
flexibility in meeting the proposed standards.
The emission limits for open molding and centrifugal casting for
new sources are based on a percent reduction using add-on controls.
However, we have provided an alternative standard for new sources also
based on point values. These point values were determined by applying
the required percent reduction requirement to the existing source MACT
floors. The new source floor is based on a control efficiency, and the
facilities that have these controls do not have examples of every
possible type of open molding or centrifugal casting process.
Therefore, we were not able to use the best-controlled sources to
directly determine a point value that is equivalent to the 95 percent
emissions reductions requirement for all operations. For operations
where we could directly determine a point value equivalent, the
approach of using existing source floors and applying 95 percent
control is slightly more stringent. Therefore, we believe applying this
approach to all open molding and centrifugal casting operations will
produce a limit that is no less stringent, while providing
opportunities for facilities to incorporate pollution prevention into
their process, meet a percent reduction requirement less than 95
percent, but still meet the new source floor.
2. Emission Limits Based on Percent Reduction
The form of the standards for new open molding, centrifugal
casting, SMC manufacturing, and resin/mixing/BMC manufacturing, and the
standards for new and existing sources for pultrusion and SMC
manufacturing are based on a percent reduction. These standards were
all developed from facilities using add-on controls. It is possible to
design a control device to meet a specified percent reduction. But
based on the data available, it was not possible to determine an
uncontrolled emission factor for open molding, centrifugal casting, SMC
manufacturing, and mixing/BMC manufacturing that was generally
applicable. Therefore, we could not develop a standard based on an
emission factor. For continuous lamination/casting, we were able to
develop an absolute emission limit based on the facilities that set the
floor. These absolute emission limits are presented as alternatives to
the percent reduction limits. In the case of pultrusion operations,
there are alternative standards based on wet-area enclosures or direct
die injection. Emission testing has determined that using this
equipment as specified in the proposed rule will achieve the percent
reductions specified in the NESHAP.
3. Emission Limits Based on Equipment/Work Practice Standards
Section 112(h) of the CAA states that ``* * * if it is not feasible
in the judgement of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or
pollutants, the Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate a
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof * * *'' Section 112(h)(2) further defines the
phrase ``not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' as
any situation in which ``* * * a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants
cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit
or capture such pollutant, * * * or the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.''
The emission limits for equipment cleaning and storage at new and
existing sources are based on work practice and equipment standards.
The reason for choosing work practice and equipment standards for
storage is that storage areas may be located outside the rest of
[[Page 40336]]
the production area, and in some cases, may be located outside the
building. We do not believe it would be practicable due to economic
limitations to test storage areas, and we do not have sufficient data
to calculate an emission limit for the required work practice.
The standard for existing pultrusion facilities is based on the
equipment standard combined with a work practice. We have proposed the
standard as a percent reduction to allow the use of add-on controls.
However, we do not believe it would be technologically or economically
feasible to actually test facilities that choose to use a wet-area
enclosure or direct die injection.
The limits for SMC and resin mixing/BMC at existing facilities are
also based on work practices or equipment standards. We have no data to
determine a specific percent reduction to the work practices for these
operations. Therefore, we could not set a specific emission limit.
Cleaning operations may take place outside the regular production
area. It would not be technologically or economically practicable to
perform emission testing for cleaning operations.
4. Selection of Averaging Time for Demonstrating Compliance
As a reinforced plastic composites manufacturer, we are proposing
that you could show compliance with the proposed NESHAP on a 12-month,
rolling-average basis. A 12-month rolling average is determined at the
end of each month by calculating a weighted average actual point value
based on that month's resin and gel coat use, and a weighted average
floor value based on that month's resin and gel coat use. The floor
must also be calculated because the floors for different operations are
not the same, and the weighted average floor may change based on the
relative amounts of resin used in different operations. You would then
sum the current month's weighted averages (floor and actual) with the
monthly averages for each of the previous 11 months, divide the
resulting sums by 12, and compare the two results. If the actual 12-
month weighted average point value is less than or equal to the floor
12-month weighted average point value, you are in compliance.
We believe a 12-month averaging time provides a balance between
operating flexibility and enforceability of the proposed standards. The
12-month period is sufficiently long so that you can identify potential
compliance problems and change your operations in time to maintain
compliance. The rolling-average aspect provides an enforceable emission
limit 12 times per year.
Many reinforced plastic composites manufacturers already track
material usage monthly to comply with State regulations and permit
requirements, so we believe monthly tracking is consistent with current
practice. Tracking on a more frequent basis would be unnecessarily
burdensome for this particular industry. Reinforced plastic composites
manufacturers need a 12-month rolling-average period to respond to both
short-term variations in HAP content that are inherent in all chemical
products, and to account for short-term needs for higher-HAP materials
due to variations in product mix.
In order to calculate a 12-month rolling average, facilities must
have 12 months of data. For this reason, we are proposing to allow
facilities that elect to use a 12-month rolling average to demonstrate
compliance 12 months and 30 days after the compliance date. This
includes the time to generate 12 months of data to determine the
average plus 30 days to perform the necessary calculations and generate
the compliance report. If we were to establish a demonstration date
prior to this, as a practical matter, facilities would have to actually
achieve compliance prior to the compliance date. For reasons previously
discussed, we believe it is reasonable and appropriate to give
facilities the maximum time allowed by the CAA to comply.
K. How Did We Select the Test Methods for Determining Compliance With
the Proposed NESHAP?
The proposed NESHAP have several options for achieving compliance.
For open molding and centrifugal casting, this includes meeting a
specified point value for existing sources, or a percent reduction or
point value for new sources. For most other processes, you achieve
compliance by using an enclosure and add-on control device to meet a
percent reduction requirement or an absolute emission limit.
In order to calculate a point value, under this proposed rule, you
must determine the HAP content of the raw material. The method to
determine material HAP content is the use of the Material Safety Data
Sheets (MSDS) or other product specification sheets provided by the
material manufacturer. We chose not to propose requiring testing of the
material. The data used to develop the standards were mainly based on
MSDS; therefore, we believe it is reasonable that MSDS be used to
determine compliance.
Under the proposed NESHAP, if you chose to use an enclosure and
add-on control device, you would have to determine the capture
efficiency of the enclosure and measure the HAP from the control
device. To determine the capture efficiency of the enclosure, you would
use EPA Method 204 (Criteria for and Verification of Permanent or
Temporary Total Enclosure). If the enclosure meets the criteria in EPA
Method 204 for a permanent total enclosure, then you could assume that
its capture efficiency is 100 percent. If the enclosure is not a total
enclosure, then you would build a total temporary enclosure around it
that meets the definition of a total temporary enclosure in EPA Method
204. You would then have to measure emissions from both the control
device and the total temporary enclosure and use the combined emissions
to determine compliance.
To measure HAP, you would be able to use either EPA Method 18
(Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas
Chromatography) to measure the sum of individual species of HAP, or EPA
Method 25A (Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Matter Concentration
Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer) for total hydrocarbons (THC) as a
surrogate for total HAP. The EPA Method 25A would allow you the
flexibility to use a simpler method than EPA Method 18 which does not
speciate HAP in cases where measuring THC is sufficient to demonstrate
compliance. You could measure THC as a surrogate for total HAP if most
of the THC emitted from an enclosure were HAP, such as styrene and MMA
from resin and gel coat operations. For compliance determinations, the
EPA will assume that all THC measured with EPA Method 25A are HAP.
We have not included in this proposed rule a test method for
determining the effectiveness of vapor suppressed resins. A draft
protocol entitled ``Vapor Suppressant Effectiveness Test Protocol,''
dated April 7, 1999, has been developed by industry and is available
for review in the docket for this proposed rule. The draft protocol is
insufficiently detailed for inclusion in this proposed rule. We are
currently requesting additional details and soliciting comment on the
test protocol or an alternate test protocol.
L. How Did We Determine the Proposed Monitoring and Recordkeeping
Requirements?
Which monitoring and recordkeeping requirements you would meet
depend
[[Page 40337]]
on how you choose to comply with these proposed NESHAP. For each
compliance option, the proposed monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements are the minimum necessary to determine initial and ongoing
compliance and are consistent with the General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A).
This section describes how to comply with emission limits based on
point values, emission averaging provisions, equipment and work
practice standards, and the emission limit for an add-on control
device.
1. Compliance With Emission Limits Based on Point Values
For all operations subject to HAP content limits, we are proposing
four tasks: monitor and record the HAP content of the material used,
monitor and record the monthly consumption of the material, monitor and
record which operations use the material, and record the computations
to show that the weighted average point value over the past 12 months
meets the proposed standards.
The SBAR Panel recommended that we look for alternatives to
simplify reporting and recordkeeping. We have identified two
alternatives we believe simplify the reporting and recordkeeping
process. The first is that an owner and operator may use purchase
records to determine monthly consumption. However, an owner and
operator can track actual material flows to each process if desired. We
believe this is reasonable because facilities have no financial
incentive to keep significant inventories of raw material on hand, and
we have no evidence that keeping large amounts of raw material on hand
is a common practice. Therefore, purchases and actual consumption
should track fairly closely. We are requiring that the owner and
operator have a reasonable method to estimate the amounts of each resin
used by a specific operation. The second alternative applies where all
the materials used in an operation result in a point value that meets
the emission limit, in which case, an owner and operator only need to
record HAP content and the resulting point value and do not need to
track monthly consumption of each individual material.
2. Compliance With Averaging Provisions
To comply with the averaging provisions for open molding operations
and centrifugal casting operations, you must monitor and record HAP
content as well as how use of the material is split between different
operations, and you must record the computations needed to show
compliance. You must use these data as well as the MACT model point
value equations in the proposed NESHAP to calculate the point values in
that operation for the past 12 months. Compliance is then determined
relative to the allowable weighted average point value calculated for
those operations for the past 12 months. Compliance would be calculated
monthly, and monthly purchase records may be used to determine resin
and gel coat use.
3. Compliance With Equipment and Work Practice Standards
The proposed NESHAP require resin and gel coat mixing containers to
be fitted with covers that have no visible gaps. You will be required
to inspect container covers each month to ensure the covers are in
place and properly maintained. You must record the results of the
inspections. The inspections should be sufficient to ensure that the
covers are in place and properly maintained. We believe monthly
inspections are a reasonable interval because the nature of failure in
these pieces of equipment is likely due to wear and tear and not a
sudden failure. Longer time periods between inspections, however, would
allow a failure to go too long before being repaired.
The proposed NESHAP for production resin and tooling resin requires
most manufacturers to use nonatomized resin application methods to
comply. These methods include flowcoaters and pressure-fed resin
rollers, among others. We could identify no parameters to monitor
whether these methods are being used. Rather, compliance through the
use of these methods would be determined during enforcement
inspections. As long as flowcoaters, pressure-fed resin rollers, or
other similar devices are installed and operated according to
manufacturer's specifications, they will comply with the requirements
to use nonatomized resin application methods.
4. Compliance for Sources Using Enclosures and Add-On Control Devices
The requirements for enclosures and add-on control devices in the
proposed NESHAP are consistent with other air quality regulations that
require capture and control of emissions. They are the minimum needed
to demonstrate that the capture and control system is operated
properly.
We are proposing that you must initially demonstrate compliance
with the emission limit by demonstrating that the enclosure is a total
enclosure or by also measuring the fugitive emissions that escape the
enclosure. You would also need to measure the efficiency of the add-on
control using EPA Method 25A for THC (as a surrogate for HAP) or EPA
Method 18 for HAP. The EPA Method 18 measures individual HAP that you
sum to calculate total HAP.
After the initial compliance test, we are proposing that you must
monitor control device parameters to demonstrate that the control
device continues to be operated as it was during the initial test. In
the case of thermal oxidizers, you would need to monitor and record
combustion temperature every 15 minutes both during and after the
performance test. We are proposing that you must calculate the average
temperature achieved during the test. After the test, you would need to
maintain the average temperature at or above the temperature achieved
during the performance test. Temperature monitors and recorders are
standard features on thermal oxidizers. For other devices we are
proposing that you must determine appropriate parameters to monitor and
receive our approval to use these parameters.
M. How Did We Select the Proposed Notification and Reporting
Requirements?
We believe that the proposed notices and reports are the minimum
needed to determine if you are subject to the proposed NESHAP and
whether you are in compliance. We are proposing that you must submit an
initial notification stating that you are subject to the proposed
NESHAP. After the compliance date for your facility, you would need to
submit a notification of your compliance status. You would also need to
submit semiannual reports of your compliance status. If you have an
add-on control device and you become out of compliance, we are
proposing that you must submit quarterly reports of your compliance
status until we approve a request to return to semiannual reporting.
If your facility is a new source, we are proposing that you have
additional preconstruction notification requirements. You would also
have additional notification and reporting requirements if you use an
add-on control device, including notifications and reports for the
control device performance test. These proposed notification and
reporting requirements are consistent with those specified in the
General Provisions. We believe that these requirements are the minimum
needed for us to determine compliance for sources with add-on control
devices.
[[Page 40338]]
The SSM plan specified by the General Provisions will be required
only for sources using an add-on control device and will apply only to
the add-on control device. For operations not using a control device,
the nature of the materials and equipment used to comply with the
proposed Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP is such that
malfunctions will not lead to excess emissions.
N. What Are Some of the Areas Where We Are Specifically Soliciting
Comments?
The purpose of this section is to highlight particular issues of
concern to the EPA or to other parties. We solicit comments on these
issues, along with data to support the comments.
The proposed rule requires that certain new and existing sources
control HAP emissions by 95 percent. In order to meet this requirement,
facilities will likely have to capture 100 percent of their emissions
from the affected processes and route these emissions to an add-on
control device. We are soliciting data on the technical feasibility of
permanent total enclosures (PTE); factors that affect the feasibility
of PTE such as product size, operation grouping, and vent stream
concentrations and air flow from the processes where capture systems
are used; and interactions of these requirements with OSHA rules. For
example, the feasibility of 100 percent emissions capture using PTE is
based on data from two facilities. We believe that the process
operations in these facilities are representative of the industry as a
whole. However, we are soliciting comment on types of facilities that
may not be able to apply PTE, along with data to support these
comments. We solicit data on a facility's ability to maintain and
operate add-on controls. We are especially interested in cost and
design data from facilities in this industry that have successfully
applied add-on controls. Data on control device inlet air flows and HAP
concentrations combined with worker exposure monitoring data would be
especially useful. We solicit data on typical operating hours in this
industry, particularly in relation to the size of facilities and their
operations (e.g., resin use or number of employees) since operating
hours affect cost effectiveness and the number of start-ups and
shutdowns.
The proposed rule sets different thresholds for existing source
requirements at small versus large businesses, above which control of
HAP emissions by 95 percent is required. The higher threshold for small
businesses is based on concerns that it is more difficult for small
businesses to raise the necessary capital to purchase add-on controls
to comply with the 95 percent control level. We solicit comments on
this conclusion, along with data on capital availability for large and
small businesses and the impact of this threshold on large businesses.
We solicit information and data on other factors to consider in
evaluating control requirements more stringent than the MACT floor,
including data on costs to the industry.
We believe that we have captured the full range of processes and
products in our proposed operation groups. We request comments with
supporting data on any processes or products that might not be
adequately represented. Along these lines, we have specifically
provided separate process groups for products with a Class I smoke and
fire rating, and have defined high strength products as part of the
corrosion resistant process group because of specific product
requirements that require specialized raw materials. We solicit
comments on this approach and data on any additional processes or
products that have unique properties that may require separate process
groupings for MACT floor development.
This proposed rule contains point value equations for open molding
and centrifugal casting. We are soliciting comments on the data and
assumptions used to develop MACT point value equations, and information
on other methods or emission models that could be used to rank
facilities for the purposes of setting MACT.
We also solicit information on the adequacy or necessity of the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in this proposed
rule. We specifically solicit comments on the recordkeeping and
reporting burden estimates set forth in the Paperwork Reduction Act
discussion in this preamble and information on ways to minimize
respondent burden.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Facilities Are Affected By the Proposed NESHAP?
There are approximately 433 existing facilities manufacturing
reinforced plastic composites that are major sources and would be
subject to the proposed NESHAP. The rate of growth for the reinforced
plastic composites industry is estimated to be 84 new facilities over
the next 5 years.
B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
The 1997 baseline HAP emissions from the reinforced plastic
composites industry are approximately 22,200 tpy. The proposed NESHAP
would reduce HAP from existing sources by 14,500 tpy, a reduction of 65
percent.
The proposed NESHAP would result in small increases in other air
pollution emissions from combustion devices that will be installed in
the next 5 years to comply with today's proposed rule. These increases
result from both the combustion device directly, and estimated
emissions that occur at electrical generating plants to generate the
electricity necessary to operate the add-on controls and associated air
handling equipment. These emissions are estimated to be 38 tpy of
sulfur oxides (SOX), 69 tpy of nitrogen oxides
(NOX), 125 tpy of carbon monoxide (CO), and 1.5 tpy of
particulate matter (PM) emissions.
C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?
We estimate that the proposed Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP will have no adverse water quality impacts. We do not
expect anyone to comply by using add-on control devices or process
modifications that would generate wastewater.
D. What Are the Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts?
We estimate that the proposed NESHAP would decrease the amount of
solid waste generated by the reinforced plastic composites industry by
approximately 1,400 tpy. The decrease in solid waste is directly
related to switching to nonatomized resin application equipment (i.e.,
flowcoaters and resin rollers). Switching to flowcoaters results in a
decrease in overspray because of a greater transfer efficiency of resin
from flowcoaters to the part being manufactured. A decrease in resin
overspray consequently reduces the amount of waste from disposable
floor coverings, cured resin waste, and personal protective equipment
(PPE) for workers. Disposable floor coverings are replaced on a
periodic basis to prevent resin buildup on the floor. We estimate that
solid waste generation of floor coverings will decrease by
approximately 360 tpy and that cured resin solid waste will decrease by
approximately 1,040 tpy.
We project that the decreased overspray from flowcoaters will
result in a decreased usage of PPE, which also consequently reduces the
amount of solid waste. Workers who use flowcoaters typically wear less
PPE than
[[Page 40339]]
when using spray guns because of the reduced presence of resin aerosols
and lower styrene levels in the workplace. Because we did not have
information on the many different types of PPE currently used, we did
not estimate this decrease in solid waste.
Some facilities that switch from spray guns to flowcoaters may have
a small increase of hazardous waste from the used flowcoater cleaning
solvents. However, most facilities would not see an increase under this
proposed rule, and the overall impact on the industry will be small
relative to the solid waste reductions. Nearly all flowcoaters require
resin and catalyst to be mixed inside the gun (internal-mix) and must
be flushed when work is stopped for more than a few minutes. External-
mix spray guns do not need to be flushed because resin is mixed with
catalyst outside the gun. Facilities that switch from external-mix
spray guns to flowcoaters will use more solvent. Solvent usage should
not change at facilities switching from internal-mix spray guns to
flowcoaters. The most common flushing solvents are acetone and water-
based emulsifiers. Only a couple of ounces of solvent are typically
needed to flush the mixing chamber and nozzle of flowcoaters and
internal-mix spray guns.
We do not have adequate data to predict the potential solvent waste
impact from switching to flowcoaters. The magnitude of the impact
depends on the type of gun currently used (internal- or external-mix),
the frequency of flushing, and the type of solvent used. However,
because of the small amount of solvent used, and since most is allowed
to evaporate, we believe the overall solvent waste increase will be
small compared to the solid waste reductions.
E. What Are the Energy Impacts?
We determined that the overall energy demand for operations in the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category could increase
by 159 million standard cubic feet per year of natural gas, and 10
million kilowatt hours of electricity per year as a result of the
proposed rule. We determined this net increase based on the additional
energy demand for control devices installed to meet the proposed
standards. No information for comparison is available on the baseline
energy consumption for this source category.
F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
We have estimated the capital costs for emission control equipment,
including equipment such as open container covers, resin bath
enclosures, capture systems, and control devices as $73.9 million for
existing sources and $11.7 million for new sources. The capital costs
include the costs to purchase and install the control equipment.
We have estimated that annual costs of the proposed rule are $26.0
million per year for existing sources and $3.2 million for new sources.
Annual costs include fixed annual costs, such as reporting,
recordkeeping and capital amortization, and variable annual costs such
as natural gas. The estimated average cost of the proposed rule is
$1,600 per ton of HAP emissions reduction for existing sources and
$2,200 per ton of HAP emissions reduction for new sources.
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we will review in more
depth the industry's analysis on the cost of this proposed rule
following proposal. Where appropriate, we will make changes to our
estimates of costs based on our review and on comments we receive, and
make the results of our detailed review available in the public docket
at promulgation.
G. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The Agency conducted a detailed economic impact analysis to
determine the market- and industry-level impacts associated with the
proposed rule. We expect the aggregate price increase for reinforced
plastic composites would be only 0.3 percent, or $0.01 per pound, as a
result of the proposed standards. We project that directly affected
producers would reduce total production by 0.8 percent, while producers
not directly affected would increase their production by 0.3 percent.
Markets for reinforced plastic composites used in general construction,
corrosion-resistant products, and land transportation are expected to
be more heavily impacted with price increases of up to 0.5 percent and
reductions in directly affected domestic production of between 1 and
1.5 percent.
In terms of industry impacts, captive producers of reinforced
plastic composites are expected to fully absorb their compliance costs,
while merchant producers will attempt to pass through costs to their
customers. Through the market impacts described above, the proposed
NESHAP create both gainers and losers within the merchant segment. Some
merchant facilities are projected to experience profit increases with
the proposed rule; however, the majority that continue operating are
projected to lose profits. Furthermore, the economic impact analysis
indicates that 29 out of 299 merchant facilities (9.7 percent) and 73
out of 471 product lines (15.5 percent) at these facilities are at risk
of closure because of the proposed NESHAP. All of the facilities
determined to be at risk for closure are believed to be small
businesses. More information on the measures we have taken to minimize
these impacts may be found in the Regulatory Flexibility Act discussion
in this preamble.
Based on the market analysis, the annual social costs of the
proposed rule are projected to be $25.7 million. These costs are
distributed across the many consumers and producers of reinforced
plastic composites. Producers, in aggregate, are expected to bear $10.6
million annually in costs, with those directly affected by the proposed
NESHAP losing $19.3 million and those not subject to the proposed
NESHAP gaining $8.7 million. The consumers of reinforced plastic
composites are expected to incur the remaining $15.1 million in costs
associated with the proposed NESHAP. For more information, consult the
docket for this project.
V. Relationship of Proposed NESHAP to Other Standards and Programs
Under the CAA
A. National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control
Devices, Recovery Devices, and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a
Process (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS)
If you use an add-on control device(s) to control emissions, you
will need to comply with certain provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SS, for add-on controls. The standards in subpart SS cited by the
proposed NESHAP are applicable to most sources using an add-on control
device. The proposed NESHAP cite these sections in subpart SS rather
than repeating them in the proposed regulatory text.
B. Operating Permit Program
Under the operating permit program codified at 40 CFR parts 70 and
71, all major sources subject to standards under section 111 or 112 of
the CAA must obtain an operating permit (See Secs. 70.3(a)(1) and
71.3(a)(1)). Therefore, all major sources subject to these proposed
NESHAP must obtain an operating permit.
Some reinforced plastic composites production facilities may be
major sources based solely on their potential to emit even though their
actual emissions are below the major source level. These facilities may
choose to obtain a federally enforceable limit on their potential to
emit so that they are no longer considered major sources subject to the
proposed NESHAP.
[[Page 40340]]
Sources that opt to limit their potential to emit (e.g., limits on
operating hours or amount of material used) are referred to by the EPA
as ``synthetic area'' sources. To become a synthetic area source, you
must contact your local permitting authority to obtain an operating
permit with the appropriate operating limits. These operating limits
will then be federally enforceable under 40 CFR 70.6(b).
C. NESHAP for Plastic Parts and Products
There are currently NESHAP under development for proposal that will
regulate coating of plastic parts and products. The SBAR Panel
recommended that we consider the interaction of the Plastic Parts and
Product NESHAP with today's proposed NESHAP. The Plastic Parts and
Products NESHAP may potentially affect facilities that produce
reinforced plastic parts and then apply a coating to the finished
parts. We have coordinated with this project and have determined that
there should be no overlap (i.e., specific operations covered by
today's proposed NESHAP should not also be covered in the Plastic Parts
and Products NESHAP). We have not determined any requirements of the
proposed NESHAP that would overlap, conflict, or cause a duplication of
effort.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether a proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this rulemaking a ``significant regulatory
action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA submitted
this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to suggestions
or recommendations from OMB are documented and included in the public
record.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. ) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division
(2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460,
by e-mail at ``[email protected],'' or by calling (202) 260-2740. A
copy may also be downloaded from the internet at ``http://www.epa.gov/
icr.''
These proposed NESHAP contain monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements. We believe that the proposed notices and
reports are the minimum needed by us to determine if you are subject to
the NESHAP and whether you are in compliance. We believe the proposed
recordkeeping requirements are the minimum necessary to determine
initial and ongoing compliance. Based on reported information, we would
decide which reinforced plastic composites facilities and what records
or processes should be inspected. The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are consistent with the General Provisions of 40 CFR part
63.
These proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All
information submitted to us for which a claim of confidentiality is
made will be safeguarded according to our policies in 40 CFR part 2.
The EPA expects these proposed NESHAP to affect a total of
approximately 486 facilities over the first 3 years after promulgation
of the rule. This includes 433 existing facilities, and 53 new
reinforced plastic composites facilities will become subject to the
proposed NESHAP during the first 3 years.
The estimated average annual burden for the first 3 years after
promulgation of these proposed NESHAP for industry and the implementing
agency is outlined below. You can find the details of this information
collection in the ``Standard Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR No.
1976.01,'' in Docket No. A-94-52.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Affected entity Total hours Labor costs annual O&M Total costs
costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................................... 15,122 $673,120 $17,265 $690,385
Implementing agency......................................... 11,293 450,972 NA 450,972
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. Control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies
Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory
[[Page 40341]]
Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after August 2, 2001, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by September
4, 2001. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. No reinforced plastic composites
production facilities subject to these proposed NESHAP are owned by
State or local governments. Therefore, State and local governments will
not have any direct compliance costs resulting from this proposed rule.
Furthermore, these proposed NESHAP do not require these governments to
take on any new responsibilities. Thus, the requirements of section 6
of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175,
because we are not aware of any Indian tribal governments or
communities affected by the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is
approximately $29.2 million per year. This proposed rule contains no
mandates affecting State, local, or Tribal governments. Thus, today's
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
We have determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations upon them.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as (1) a small business ranging
from 500-1,000 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is
a government of a city, county, town, school district or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The
table below presents the size threshold for small businesses by SIC
Code.
[[Page 40342]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
number of
employees
Category SIC codes NAICS codes to be
considered
a small
business
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing.......................... 3621...................... 335312........................ 1000
3711...................... 336211, 336112................
3716...................... 33612.........................
3728...................... 336213........................
3743...................... 336413........................
.......................... 33651.........................
2821...................... 325211........................ 750
3296...................... 327993........................
3431...................... 332998........................
3531...................... 33312, 33651..................
3612...................... 335311........................
3613...................... 335313........................
3663...................... 33422.........................
3714...................... 33653, 336399.................
All other identified SIC All other identified NAICS 500
Codes in this source Codes in this source category.
category.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could reduce that impact. The IRFA is available for review in the
docket and is summarized below.
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and, in some cases, area sources of HAP
and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and
subcategories. Reinforced plastic composites production (major sources
only) was included on the initial list of source categories published
on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that
have the potential to emit greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy
of any combination of HAP.
The objective of this proposed rule is to apply standards based on
maximum achievable control technology to all major sources in this
source category. The criteria used to establish MACT are contained in
section 112 (d) of the CAA.
Based on SBA size definitions and reported sales and employment
data, EPA identified 278 of the 356 companies owning reinforced plastic
composites facilities as small businesses. Although small businesses
represent almost 80 percent of the companies within the source
category, they are expected to incur only 31 percent of the total
industry compliance costs of $26.0 million. The average total annual
compliance cost is projected to be $30,000 per small company as
compared to the industry average of $70,000 per company. Under the
proposed standards, the mean annual compliance cost, as a share of
sales, for small businesses is 0.7 percent, and the median is 0.4
percent, with a range of 0.01 to 7.5 percent. The EPA estimates that 17
percent of small businesses (or 47 firms) may experience an impact
greater than 1 percent of sales, but only 3 percent of small businesses
(or 8 firms) may experience an impact greater than 3 percent of sales.
The Agency also performed an economic impact analysis (EIA) that
accounted for firm behavior to provide an estimate of the facility and
market impacts of the regulation. This industry is characterized by
profit margins of 3 to 4 percent. Small businesses were found to have
higher per-unit production costs under baseline conditions and incur
slightly higher per-unit compliance costs. As a result of these
factors, the economic analysis indicates that almost 10 percent of
facilities owned by small business are at risk of closure because of
this proposed rule.
Although any facility closures are cause for concern, the number of
facilities at risk for closure would be the same if this proposed rule
required only the MACT floor level of control for all facilities. The
MACT floor is the least stringent level allowed by statute. As
discussed below, this proposed rule contains a significant number of
accommodations for small business. Without additional data, we do not
believe we can make the proposed rule any less stringent and comply
with the objectives of the CAA. In this regard, we have requested data
and comment elsewhere in this preamble on issues relevant to this
industry.
The EPA's efforts to minimize small-business impacts have
materially improved today's proposal. Economic analysis of provisions
under earlier consideration for inclusion in this proposed rule
indicated greater impacts on small businesses than those proposed
today. In earlier versions, almost 42 percent of the total industry
compliance costs would have been incurred by small businesses (compared
with 31 percent of costs incurred by small businesses in today's
proposal). The average total annual compliance cost would have been
roughly $50,000 per small company (compared with $30,000 in today's
proposal). About 22 percent of small businesses (or 60 firms) would
have experienced an impact greater than 1 percent of sales (compared
with 17 percent of small businesses in today's proposal). And 7 percent
of small businesses (or 19 firms) would have experienced impacts
greater than 3 percent of sales (compared with 3 percent of small
businesses in today's proposal). The reduction in small-business costs
from earlier versions of this proposed rule is attributable to EPA's
outreach and accommodation for small firms in keeping with both RFA and
CAA requirements, including the conduct of a SBAR Panel, as discussed
further below.
The proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements for these
small businesses include initial notifications, startup notifications
and compliance reports. These requirements were discussed in more
detail under the discussion of the Paperwork Reduction Act above. We
estimate that 302 existing facilities owned by small businesses will be
impacted by these requirements, and 53 new facilities will be impacted
in the first three years. The professional
[[Page 40343]]
skills required to complete these reports include the ability to
calculate emissions and resin use and read and follow report format
guidance. All facilities impacted by this proposed rule should have
personnel with the necessary skills because they would need these
skills to comply with other regulatory requirements such as Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) reporting.
Provisions to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
on small business have been incorporated into this proposed rule. These
provisions include allowing: The facility to substantiate resin and gel
coat HAP contents with Material Safety Data Sheets rather then
requiring testing of each resin and gel coat; use of resin purchase
records to determine resin use; and exemption of facilities that can
demonstrate that all their resin and gel coats comply with the required
HAP content limits from the requirement to keep records of resin use
and calculate point value averages. These provisions have also been
extended to all companies subject to today's proposed NESHAP.
These facilities may also be subject to the NESHAP being developed
for plastic parts and products. There should be no duplication of
effort as a result of this proposed rule and the Plastic Parts and
Products NESHAP being developed because these NESHAP will cover
different operations. Facilities subject to this proposed rule are also
subject to emissions estimate reporting under the TRI requirements. In
this proposed rule, we could determine no ways to combine TRI and the
reporting requirements of the proposed NESHAP because the objectives
and statutory authorities of these requirements are different. However,
we invite comments from all interested parties on ways to combine these
reports and still meet the statutory requirements of the CAA.
As indicated above, we have incorporated significant alternatives
into the proposed rule to minimize the impact on small business but
still meet the objectives of the CAA.
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, EPA conducted outreach to
small entities and convened a SBAR panel to review advice and
recommendations from representatives of the small entities that
potentially would be subject to the proposed rule requirements. The
panel convened on April 6, 2000 and was comprised of representatives
from OMB, the SBA Office of Advocacy, the EPA Small Business Advocacy
Chair, and the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards of EPA. The panel solicited advice from 17 small
entity representatives (SER) from a cross-section of the different
industry sectors likely to be directly regulated by this action. On
April 18, 2000, the panel distributed a package of descriptive and
technical materials explaining the rule-in-progress to the SER. On May
2, 2000, the panel met with the SER to hear their comments on
preliminary options for regulatory flexibility and related information.
The panel also received written comments from the SER in response to
both the outreach materials and the discussions at the meeting.
Consistent with RFA/SBREFA requirements, the panel evaluated the
assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to the
elements of the IRFA. A copy of the panel report is included in the
docket for this proposed rule.
The panel considered numerous regulatory flexibility options in
response to concerns raised by the SER. The major concerns included the
affordability and technical feasibility of add-on controls, the resin
and gel coat HAP contents required to meet some of the MACT floors, and
the regulatory treatment of speciality products.
These are the major panel recommendations and EPA's response in
today's proposal:
Recommend setting higher thresholds than EPA had initially
considered for requirements to use add-on controls.
Response: In today's action, EPA proposes to allow facilities owned
by small firms to emit 250 tpy (as distinct from the 100 tpy limit for
facilities owned by large firms) before installing add-on controls.
Recommend setting the new source floor for small-owned
sources at the level of the existing source floor.
Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
Recommend establishing separate floors for speciality
products.
Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
Explore pollution-prevention alternatives to add-on
controls.
Response: The EPA did explore this possibility with industry
sources. Although we could not devise a workable pollution-prevention
alternative to include in today's proposal, the Agency is requesting
comment on how such a mechanism might be structured within the
requirements of the CAA.
Recommend allowing individual facilities to use the same
resin in all resin application processes.
Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
Reconsider the resin HAP content requirement for tooling
resins.
Response: Today's proposal includes a revised provision.
Recommend separate floors for white and non-white gel
coats.
Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
Reconsider the Agency's estimates of the cost of add-on
controls.
Response: Even though today's proposal eliminates the likelihood
that existing small-owned facilities will be subject to add-on
controls, EPA has reconsidered its cost estimates in light of those
offered by the industry. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA
continues to believe our estimates are realistic. Nevertheless, as
mentioned in section III-M, we are soliciting comments on all data and
assumptions that affect add-on control costs. Moreover, as mentioned
previously, we will review in more depth the industry's analysis on the
cost of this proposed rule following proposal. Where appropriate, we
will make changes to our estimates of costs based on our review and on
comments we receive, and make the results of our detailed review
available in the public docket at promulgation.
Recommend grouping high-strength applications with
corrosion-resistant operations.
Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
Detailed information on all these recommendations is contained in
the panel report in the docket for this proposed rule.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory
and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA
proposes in this rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G,
3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 25, 25A, 204, and 204B, C, D, E.
[[Page 40344]]
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. One
voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable and EPA
proposes to use this standard in this proposed rule.
The one consensus standard, ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), is appropriate in the cases
described below for inclusion in this proposed rule in addition to the
currently available EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A.
Similar to EPA's performance based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also
a performance based method for measurement of gaseous organic
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18
where: (1) The target compound(s) are those listed in Section 1.1 of
ASTM D6420-99, and (2) the target concentration is between 150 parts
per billion (volume) and 100 ppm(v).
For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99,
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the regulation specifies
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run,
as detailed in section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed,
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water
soluble.
For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99,
and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 does
not apply.
As a result, EPA proposes to incorporate by reference (IBR) ASTM
6420-99 into 40 CFR 63.14 for application with proposed subpart WWWW of
part 63. The EPA will also cite Method 18 as a gas chromatography (GC)
option in addition to ASTM D6420-99. This will allow the continued use
of other GC configurations.
In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA proposes to
use in this proposed rule, the search for emissions monitoring
procedures identified 17 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA
determined that 13 of these 17 standards identified for measuring
emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the
proposed rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency,
detail, and/or quality assurance/quality control requirements. The
remaining four of the 17 consensus standards identified are under
development or under EPA review. Therefore, we do not propose to use
these voluntary consensus standards in this proposed rulemaking. More
information on the reasons we chose not to propose to use these
standards is available in the docket for this proposed rule.
The EPA takes comments on proposed compliance demonstration
requirements in this proposed rulemaking and specifically invites the
public to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards. Commentors should also explain why this proposed rule should
adopt these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to
EPA's methods. Emission test methods and performance specifications
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used
to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40
CFR part 63, appendix A was used).
Table 6 of proposed subpart WWWW lists the EPA test methods and
performance standards. Most of the standards have been used by States
and industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, under Sec. 63.7(f),
the proposal also allows any State or source to apply to EPA for
permission to use an alternative methods in place of any of the EPA
testing methods or performance standards listed in the proposed NESHAP.
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance
and not on health or safety risks.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous air
pollutants, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 22, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 63.14 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph
(b)(21) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporation's by reference
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(21) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec. 63.5798 and Sec. 63.5850.
* * * * *
3. Part 63 is proposed to be amended by adding subpart WWWW to read
as follows:
Subpart WWWW--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.5780 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.5785 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.5790 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.5795 How do I know if my reinforced plastic composites
production facility is a new affected source or an existing affected
source?
63.5797 What are model point values and how are they used in this
subpart?
63.5798 How do I determine my facility's HAP emissions on a tons
per year (tpy) basis?
[[Page 40345]]
63.5800 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Standards
63.5805 What standards must I meet to comply with this subpart?
Options for Meeting Standards
63.5810 What are my options for meeting the standards for new and
existing open molding and centrifugal casting operations?
63.5820 What are my options for meeting the standards for
continuous lamination/casting operations?
63.5825 What are my options for meeting the standards for new
pultrusion operations?
63.5830 What are my options for meeting the standards for existing
pultrusion operations?
General Compliance Requirements
63.5835 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.5840 By what date must I conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration?
63.5845 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.5850 How do I conduct performance tests, performance
evaluations, and design evaluations?
63.5855 What are my monitor installation and operation
requirements?
63.5860 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
standards?
Additional Compliance Calculation Procedures for Continuous Lamination/
Casting Operations
63.5865 What data must I generate to demonstrate compliance with
the standards for continuous lamination/casting operations?
63.5870 How do I calculate annual uncontrolled and controlled
emissions from my wet-out area(s) and from my oven(s)?
63.5875 How do I determine the capture efficiency of the enclosure
on my wet-out area and the capture efficiency of my oven(s)?
63.5880 How do I determine how much neat resin plus is applied to
the line and how much neat gel coat plus is applied to the line?
63.5885 How do I calculate percent reduction to demonstrate
compliance?
63.5890 How do I calculate an emission factor to demonstrate
compliance?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.5895 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.5900 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
standards?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.5905 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.5910 What reports must I submit and when?
63.5915 What records must I keep?
63.5920 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.5925 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.5930 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.5935 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart WWWW of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Model Equations to Calculate Point
Values for Specific Open Molding and Centrifugal Casting Process
Streams
Table 2 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Compliance Dates for New and
Existing Reinforced Plastic Composites Facilities
Table 3 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Emission Limits for Existing Small
Business Sources Emitting Less Than 250 TPY of HAP, or Other Sources
Emitting Less Than 100 TPY of HAP
Table 4 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
Table 5 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Alternative Emission Limits for
Open Molding and Centrifugal Casting Operations Where the Standard Is
Based on a Percent Reduction Requirement
Table 6 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Basic Requirements for Performance
Tests, Performance Evaluations, and Design Evaluations for New and
Existing Sources Using Add-On Control Devices
Table 7 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Options Allowing Use of the Same
Resin Across Different Operations That Use the Same Resin Type
Table 8 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limits
Table 9 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Work
Practice Standards for Existing Sources
Table 10 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Data Requirements for New and
Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines
Complying with a Percent Reduction Limit on a Per Line Basis
Table 11 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Data Requirements for New and
Existing Continuous Lamination and Continuous Casting Lines Complying
with a Percent Reduction Limit or a Lbs/Ton Limit on an Averaging Basis
Table 12 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Data Requirements for New and
Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines
Complying with a Lbs/Ton on a Per Line Basis
Table 13 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Applicability and Timing of
Notifications
Table 14 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 15 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart WWWW of Part 63
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.5780 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for reinforced plastic composites production.
This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and
continuous compliance with the emission standards.
Sec. 63.5785 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a reinforced
plastic composites production facility that is located at a major
source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. Reinforced plastic
composites production consists of operations in which reinforced and/or
nonreinforced plastic composites or plastic molding compounds are
manufactured. These operations use thermoset resins and/or gel coats
that contain styrene and/or methyl methacrylate to produce plastic
composites, which contain materials designed to enhance the chemical,
physical, and/or thermal properties of the product. Reinforced plastic
composites production also includes cleaning, mixing, and material
storage associated with the production of plastic composites.
Facilities that only repair previously manufactured reinforced plastic
composites are not covered by this subpart.
Sec. 63.5790 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source at
reinforced plastic composites production facilities.
(b) The affected source consists of all parts of your facility
engaged in the following operations: Open molding, closed molding,
centrifugal casting, continuous lamination, continuous casting, polymer
casting, pultrusion, sheet molding compound (SMC) manufacturing, bulk
molding compound (BMC) manufacturing, mixing, cleaning of equipment
used in reinforced plastic composites manufacture, material storage,
any other plastic composites operations.
Sec. 63.5795 How do I know if my reinforced plastic composites
production facility is a new affected source or an existing affected
source?
(a) A reinforced plastic composites production facility is a new
affected
[[Page 40346]]
source if it meets all the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) You commence construction of the affected source after August
2, 2001.
(2) When you commence construction, no other reinforced plastic
composites production affected source exists at that site.
(b) For the purposes of this subpart, an existing affected source
is any affected source that is not a new affected source.
Sec. 63.5797 What are model point values and how are they used in this
subpart?
The model point value is a number calculated using the equations in
Table 1 to this subpart. Equations are available for each open molding
operation and centrifugal casting operation. The model point values
have units of pounds (lbs) of HAP per ton of resin or gel coat applied.
Point values are used in this subpart to determine compliance with
certain emission limits in Tables 3 and 5 of this subpart. The model
point values are surrogates for emissions, and the model point value
equations are used only for determining compliance with this subpart.
The model point value equations cannot be used in place of emission
factor equations to demonstrate compliance with other regulations.
Sec. 63.5798 How do I determine my facility's HAP emissions on a tons
per year (tpy) basis?
To determine your facility's HAP emissions, you must use the
procedures in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and calculate
the combined HAP emissions in tpy from the following operations: Open
molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination, continuous
casting, pultrusion, sheet molding compound manufacturing, mixing, and
bulk molding compound manufacturing.
(a) For existing facilities, you may use the procedures in either
paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) Use point value equations or emission factors. Calculate a
weighted average emission factor on a lbs/ton of resin and gel coat
basis. Base the weighted average on the 12 months of operation prior to
the effective date of this subpart. Multiply the weighted average
emission factor by resin and gel coat use over the same period. You may
calculate this emission factor based on the point value equations in
Table 1 of this subpart, or you may use any emission factor approved by
us such as factors from the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42). This
calculation must be repeated and reported annually.
(2) Conduct performance testing. Perform performance testing using
the methods specified in this subpart to determine a facility-specific
emission factor in lbs of HAP emissions per ton of resin and gel coat
used. The test should be performed under conditions expected to result
in the highest possible HAP emissions, or the facility must stay within
10 percent of the same mix of operations that occurred during testing.
Multiply this factor by annual resin and gel coat use to determine
annual emissions.
(b) For new facilities, calculate a weighted average emission
factor on a lbs/ton of resin and gel coat basis. Base the weighted
average on your projected operation for the 12 months subsequent to
facility startup. Multiply the weighted average emission factor by
projected resin use over the same period. You may calculate this
emission factor based on the point value equations in Table 1 of this
subpart, or you may use any emission factor approved by us, such as
factors from AP-42, or emission test data from similar facilities. This
calculation must be repeated and reported annually.
Sec. 63.5800 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) You must initially comply with the standards in this subpart by
the dates specified in Table 2 to this subpart. Facilities meeting an
emissions standard based on a 12-month rolling average must begin
collecting data on the compliance date in order to demonstrate
compliance.
(b) If your facility is a new affected source and emits less than
100 tpy of HAP at the time of initial compliance with this subpart, and
subsequently increases its actual HAP emissions to 100 tpy or more,
then your facility must subsequently meet the standards in
Sec. 63.5805(d). You must be in compliance with these more stringent
standards within 3 years of the date your facility meets or exceeds the
100 tpy threshold.
(c) If your facility is an existing affected source and emits less
than 250 tpy of HAP (if you are a small business) or less than 100 tpy
of HAP (if you are not a small business) at the time of initial
compliance with this subpart, and subsequently increases its actual HAP
emissions to 250 tpy or more (small business) or to 100 tpy or more
(non-small business), then your facility must subsequently meet the
standards at Sec. 63.5805(b). You must be in compliance with these more
stringent standards within 3 years of the date your facility meets or
exceeds the 250 tpy or 100 tpy threshold.
Standards
Sec. 63.5805 What standards must I meet to comply with this subpart?
All facilities must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(f) of this section that apply. There are options to meeting these
standards described in Secs. 63.5810 through 63.5830.
(a) If you have an existing facility that is a small business, as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) regulations at
13 CFR 121.201, and emits less than 250 tpy of HAP, or a facility that
is not a small business and that emits less than 100 tpy of HAP from
the combination of all open molding, centrifugal casting, continuous
lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and mixing/BMC
manufacturing, you must meet the annual average emission limits in
Table 3 of this subpart and the work practice standards in Table 4 of
this subpart that apply to you.
(b) If you have an existing facility that is a small business as
defined by the SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 and emits 250 tpy or
more of HAP, or if you have a facility that is not a small business and
emits 100 tpy or more of HAP from the combination of all open molding,
centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC
manufacturing, and mixing/BMC manufacturing operations, you must reduce
the total HAP emissions from these operations by at least 95 percent by
weight and meet any applicable work practice standards in Table 4 of
this subpart that apply to you. As an alternative to meeting 95 percent
by weight, you may meet the emission limits in Table 5 of this subpart.
If you have a continuous lamination/casting operation, that operation
may alternatively meet an emission limit of 1.47 lbs of HAP per ton of
neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus applied.
(c) If you have a new facility that emits less than 100 tpy of HAP
from the combination of all open molding, centrifugal casting,
continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and
mixing/BMC manufacturing, you must meet the annual average emission
limits in Table 3 of this subpart and the work practice standards in
Table 4 of this subpart that apply to you.
(d) If you have a new facility that emits 100 tpy or more of HAP
from the combination of all open molding, centrifugal casting,
continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, and
mixing/BMC manufacturing, you must reduce the total HAP emissions from
these
[[Page 40347]]
operations by at least 95 percent by weight and meet any applicable
work practice standards in Table 4 of this subpart that apply to you.
As an alternative to meeting 95 percent by weight, you may meet the
emission limits in Table 5 of this subpart. If you have a continuous
lamination/casting operation, that operation may alternatively meet an
emission limit of 1.47 lbs of HAP per ton of neat resin plus and neat
gel coat plus applied.
(e) If you use an add-on control device to comply with this
subpart, you must meet all requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart SS.
Options for Meeting Standards
Sec. 63.5810 What are my options for meeting the standards for new and
existing open molding and centrifugal casting operations?
You must use one of the following methods in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section to meet the standards in Sec. 63.5805. The
necessary calculations must be completed within 30 days after the end
of the each month.
(a) Meet the individual model point values for each operation.
Demonstrate that you meet the individual model point values for each
open molding operation and for each centrifugal casting operation in
Table 3 or 5 of this subpart that apply to you. This is done in two
steps. First, determine a point value for each individual resin and gel
coat, application method, and control method you use in a particular
operation. Then, calculate a weighted average of those point values
based on resin and gel coat use. These calculations shall be performed
monthly, and within 30 days of the end of the month. You must either be
at or below the applicable point value in Table 3 or 5 of this subpart
each month, or at or below the applicable point value in Table 3 or 5
of this subpart, based on a 12-month rolling average. The procedures
are described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Calculate your actual point values for each different process
stream within each operation. Process streams within operations are
different from each other if any of the following three characteristics
vary: The neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus HAP content, the
application technique, or the control technique. You must calculate the
different process stream point values by using the appropriate model
point value equations in Table 1 of this subpart for open molding and
for centrifugal casting. If you want to use vapor suppressants to meet
the point value for open molding, you must determine the vapor
suppressant effectiveness by conducting testing to demonstrate the
vapor suppressant effectiveness. If you want to use an add-on control
device to meet the point value, you must determine the add-on control
factor by conducting capture and control efficiency testing as
indicated in Table 6 of this subpart. The point value calculated from
the equations in Table 1 of this subpart is multiplied by the add-on
control factor to calculate the point value after control. Use Equation
1 of this section to calculate the add-on control factor used in the
model point value equations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.000
Where:
% Control Efficiency = a value calculated from emission test
measurements made according to the requirements of Table 6 of this
subpart
(2) Calculate your actual operation point value for each calendar
month for each open molding operation and for each centrifugal casting
operation by calculating the weighted average of the individual process
stream point values within each respective operation. To do this, sum
the product of your actual process stream point values and the amount
of neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus used in each process stream
and divide the numerator by the total amount of neat resin plus and
neat gel coat plus used in the process streams. Use Equation 2 of this
section to calculate your actual individual point value for each
operation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.001
Where:
Actual Process Stream PVi = actual point value from
process stream i, lbs/ton
Materiali = neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus used
during the calendar month for process stream i, tons
n = number of process streams where you calculated a point value
(b) Point value averaging option. Demonstrate each month that you
meet the weighted average point value of the open molding operations
and the weighted average point value of the centrifugal casting
operations in Table 3 or 5 of this subpart that apply to you. When
using this averaging option, do not apply the procedures across open
molding and centrifugal casting operations.
(1) Each month calculate the weighted average point value for your
facility for that month to determine which point value you must meet.
To do this, you must sum the product of the individual point values in
Table 3 or 5 of this subpart, and the amount of neat resin plus or neat
gel coat plus used in each operation and divide the numerator by the
total amount of neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus used in the
operation. Use Equation 3 of this section to calculate the weighted
average point value.
[[Page 40348]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.002
Where:
PVi = point value from operation i, lbs/ton from Table 3
or 5 of this subpart
Materiali = neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus used
during the calendar month for operation i, tons
n = number of operations
(2) Each month calculate your actual weighted average point value.
Do this by summing the product of your actual operation point values
and the amount of neat resin plus and neat gel coat plus used in each
operation and dividing the numerator by the total amount of neat resin
plus and neat gel coat plus used in the operation groupings. You must
calculate your actual individual point values for each operation as
described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. Use Equation 4
of this section to calculate your actual weighted average point value.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.003
Where:
Actual Individual PVi = Actual point value from operation
i, lbs/ton
Materiali = neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus used
during the calendar month for operation i, tons
n = number of operations
(3) Calculate a 12-month weighted average floor point value and
actual point value by summing the values calculated in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section with the values calculated in the
previous 11 months and dividing the result by 12. If the actual value
12-month rolling average is less than or equal to the floor 12-month
rolling average, then you are in compliance.
(c) Select one resin point value for multiple operations. If you
have any combination of manual resin application, mechanical resin
application, filament winding, or centrifugal casting, you may elect to
meet the point value for any one of these operations and use that
operation's same resin in all of the resin operations listed in this
paragraph (c). If you select this option, for purposes of assigning
point values and determining compliance, use Table 7 of this subpart
which presents the possible combinations based on a facility selecting
the application process that results in the highest allowable HAP
content resin. The averaging provisions in paragraph (b) of this
section may still be used, but you must use the point value(s)
according to this paragraph (c) to calculate compliance.
Sec. 63.5820 What are my options for meeting the standards for
continuous lamination/casting operations?
You must use one or more of the options in paragraphs (a) through
(d) of this section to meet the standards in Sec. 63.5805. Use the
calculation procedures in Sec. 63.5865.
(a) Compliant line option. Demonstrate that each continuous
lamination line and each continuous casting line complies with the
applicable standard.
(b) Averaging option. Demonstrate that all continuous lamination
and continuous casting lines combined comply with the applicable
standard.
(c) Add-on control device option. If your operation must meet the
58.5 weight percent emission limit in Table 3 of this subpart, you have
the option of demonstrating that you achieve 95 percent control of all
wet-out area emissions.
(d) Combination option. Use a combination of options in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section or, for affected sources at existing
facilities, a combination of options in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of
this section (in which one or more lines meet the standards on their
own, two or more lines averaged together meet the standards, and one or
more lines have their wet-out areas controlled to a level of 95
percent).
Sec. 63.5825 What are my options for meeting the standards for new
pultrusion operations?
You must use one or more of the options in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section to meet the 95 percent emission reduction standard
in Sec. 63.5805.
(a) Add-on control device option. Capture the emissions and vent
them to a control device or any combination of control devices that
achieves a 95 percent reduction of HAP emissions. Conduct capture and
destruction efficiency testing as indicated in Table 6 of this subpart
to determine the percent emission reduction.
(b) Direct die injection with resin drip collection option. Use
direct die injection pultrusion machines with resin drip collection
systems that meet the following criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(3) of this section:
(1) All the resin that is applied to the reinforcement is delivered
directly to the die.
(2) No exposed resin is present except at the face of the die.
(3) Resin drip is captured in closed piping and recycled directly
to the resin injection chamber.
(c) Combination option. Use a combination of options in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section in which some lines meet the standards by
complying with paragraph (a) of this section, and the remaining lines
meet the standards by complying with paragraph (b) of this section.
Sec. 63.5830 What are my options for meeting the standards for
existing pultrusion operations?
You must use one or more of the options in paragraphs (a) through
(d) of this section to meet the 60 weight percent emission limit in
Table 3 of this subpart as required in Sec. 63.5805.
(a) Add-on control device option. Capture the emissions and vent
them to a control device or any combination of control devices that
achieves a 60
[[Page 40349]]
weight percent reduction of HAP emissions. Conduct capture and
destruction efficiency testing as indicated in Table 6 of this subpart
to determine the percent HAP emission reduction.
(b) Wet area enclosure with resin drip collection option. Design,
install, and operate wet area enclosures and resin drip collection
systems on pultrusion machines that meet the criteria in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (11) of this section.
(1) The enclosure must cover and enclose the open resin bath and
the forming area in which reinforcements are pre-wet or wet-out and
moving toward the die(s). The surfaces of the enclosure must be closed
except for openings to allow material to enter and exit the enclosure.
(2) For pultrusion machines with a radio frequency pre-heat unit,
the enclosure must extend from the beginning of the resin bath to
within 12.5 inches or less of the entrance of the radio frequency pre-
heat unit. If the stock that is within 12.5 inches or less of the
entrance to the radio frequency pre-heat unit has any drip, it must be
enclosed. The stock exiting the radio frequency pre-heat unit is not
required to be in an enclosure if the stock has no drip between the
exit of the radio frequency pre-heat unit to within 0.5 inches of the
entrance of the die.
(3) For open bath pultrusion machines without a radio frequency
pre-heat unit, the enclosure must extend from the beginning of the
resin bath to within 0.5 inches or less of the die entrance.
(4) For pultrusion lines with a pre-wet area prior to direct die
injection, the enclosure must extend from the point at which the resin
is applied to the reinforcement to within 12.5 inches or less of the
entrance of the die(s). If the stock that is within 12.5 inches or less
of the entrance to the die has any drip, it must be enclosed.
(5) The enclosure can only be constructed high enough to clear the
highest part of the pultrusion line that must be inside the enclosure.
(6) The total open area of the enclosure must not exceed 2 times
the cross sectional area of the puller window(s) and must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) All areas which are open need to be included in the total open
area calculation with the exception of access panels, doors, and/or
hatches that are part of the enclosure.
(ii) The area which is displaced by entering reinforcement or
exiting product is considered open.
(iii) Areas that are covered by brush covers are considered closed.
(7) Open areas for level control devices, monitoring devices,
agitation shafts, and/or fill hoses must have no more than 1.0 inch
clearance.
(8) The access panels, doors, and/or hatches that are part of the
enclosure must close tightly to avoid vapor leakage. Damaged access
panels, doors, and/or hatches that allow vapor leakage must be
replaced.
(9) The enclosure may not be removed from the pultrusion line and
access panels, doors, and/or hatches that are part of the enclosure
must remain closed whenever resin is in the bath except for the time
period discussed in paragraph (b)(10) of this section.
(10) The maximum length of time the enclosure may be removed from
the pultrusion line or the access panels, doors, and/or hatches and may
be open is 30 minutes per 8 hour shift (or 45 minutes per 12 hour
shift).
(11) No fans, blowers, and/or air lines may be allowed within the
enclosure. The enclosure must not be ventilated.
(c) Direct die injection with resin drip collection option. Use
direct die injection pultrusion machines with resin drip collection
systems that meet all the criteria in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) All the resin that is applied to the reinforcement is delivered
directly to the die.
(2) No exposed resin is present except at the face of the die.
(3) Resin drip is captured in closed piping and recycled directly
to the resin injection chamber.
(d) Combination option. Use a combination of options in paragraphs
(a) through (c) of this section in which different pultrusion lines
comply with different options described in paragraphs (a) through (c)
of this section.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.5835 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance at all times with the work practice
standards in Table 4 of this subpart, as well as emission limits in
Table 3 or 5 of this subpart, as applicable, that you are meeting
without the use of add-on controls.
(b) You must be in compliance with all emission limits in this
subpart that you meet using add-on controls, except during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(c) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
(d) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) for any
emission limits you meet using an add-on control.
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.5840 By what date must I conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration?
You must conduct performance tests, performance evaluations, design
evaluations, capture efficiency testing, and other initial compliance
demonstrations by the compliance date specified in Table 2 of this
subpart with two exceptions. Open molding and centrifugal casting
operations that elect to meet a point value on a 12-month rolling
average must initiate collection of the required data on the compliance
date, and demonstrate compliance 1 year and 30 days after the
compliance date. New and existing sources that are required to use add-
on controls to initially meet compliance must demonstrate compliance
180 days after the compliance date.
Sec. 63.5845 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
You must also conduct a performance test every 5 years following
the initial performance test for any standards you meet with an add-on
control device.
Sec. 63.5850 How do I conduct performance tests, performance
evaluations, and design evaluations?
(a) If you are using any add-on controls to meet an emission limit
in this subpart, you must conduct each performance test, performance
evaluation, and design evaluation in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, that
applies to you.
(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions that
40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, specifies.
(c) Each performance evaluation must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.8(e) and under the specific conditions that 40
CFR part 63, subpart SS, specifies.
(d) You may not conduct performance tests or performance
evaluations during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as
specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(e) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance
test required in this section, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each
test run must last at least 1 hour.
[[Page 40350]]
(f) You must conduct a design evaluation of any permanent total
enclosures as specified by EPA Method 204. If your enclosure does not
meet the Method 204 design and operation requirements for a permanent
total enclosure, you must test the enclosure to determine the capture
efficiency by Methods 2B through E or an alternative method that meets
the data quality objectives and lower confidence limit approaches
contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK. Test runs for Methods 2B
through E or alternative test methods must be at least 3 hours.
Sec. 63.5855 What are my monitor installation and operation
requirements?
You must monitor and operate all add-on control devices according
to the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS.
Sec. 63.5860 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
standards?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission
standard in paragraphs (a) through (d) of Sec. 63.5805 that applies to
you, as shown in Tables 8 and 9 of this subpart.
(b) If using an add-on control device, you must establish each
site-specific operating limit in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, that
applies to you.
Additional Compliance Calculation Procedures For Continuous
Lamination/Casting Operations
Sec. 63.5865 What data must I generate to demonstrate compliance with
the standards for continuous lamination/casting operations?
(a) For continuous lamination/casting affected sources complying
with a percent reduction requirement, you must generate the data
identified in Tables 10 and 11 of this subpart for each data
requirement that applies to your facility.
(b) For continuous lamination/casting affected sources complying
with a lbs/ton limit, you must generate the data identified in Tables
11 and 12 of this subpart for each data requirement that applies to
your facility.
Sec. 63.5870 How do I calculate annual uncontrolled and controlled
emissions from my wet-out area(s) and from my oven(s)?
To calculate your annual uncontrolled and controlled emissions from
your wet-out areas and from your ovens, you must develop uncontrolled
and controlled wet-out area and uncontrolled and controlled oven
emission estimation equations or factors to apply to each formula
applied on each line, determine how much of each formula for each end
product is applied each year on each line, and assign uncontrolled and
controlled wet-out area and uncontrolled and controlled oven emission
estimation equations or factors to each formula. You must determine the
overall capture efficiency using the procedures in Table 6 of this
subpart.
(a) To develop uncontrolled and controlled emission estimation
equations and factors, you must, at minimum, do the following as
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section:
(1) Identify each end product and the thickness of each end product
produced on the line. Separate end products into the following end
product groupings, as applicable: corrosion-resistant gel coated end
products, noncorrosion-resistant gel coated end products, corrosion-
resistant nongel coated end products, and noncorrosion-resistant nongel
coated end products. This step creates end product/thickness
combinations.
(2) Identify each formula used on the line to produce each end
product/thickness combination. Identify the amount of each such formula
applied (need to specify a time frame). Rank each formula used to
produce each end product/thickness combination according to usage
within each end product/thickness combination.
(3) For each end product/thickness combination being produced,
select the formula with the highest usage rate for testing.
(4) If not already selected, also select the worst-case formula
(likely to be associated with the formula with the highest HAP content,
type of HAP, application of gel coat, thin product, low line speed,
higher resin table temperature) amongst all formulae. (You may use the
results of the worst-case formula test for all formulae if desired to
limit the amount of testing required.)
(5) For each formula selected for testing, conduct at least one
test (consisting of three runs). During the test, track information on
HAP content and type of HAP, end product thickness, line speed, and
resin temperature on the wet-out area table.
(6) Using the test results, develop uncontrolled and controlled
emission estimation equations (or factors) or series of equations (or
factors) that best fit the results for estimating uncontrolled and
controlled emissions, taking into account the HAP content and type of
HAP, end product thickness, line speed, and resin temperature on the
wet-out area table.
(b) In lieu of using the method specified in paragraph (a) of this
section for developing uncontrolled and controlled emission estimation
equations and factors, you may use any of the methods specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, as applicable.
(1) For either uncontrolled or controlled emission estimates, you
may use previously established, facility-specific emission equations or
factors, provided they allow estimation of both wet-out area and oven
emissions, where necessary, and have been approved by the regulatory
agency. If a previously established equation or factor is specific to
the wet-out area only or to the oven only, then you must develop the
corresponding uncontrolled or controlled equation or factor for the
other emission source.
(2) For uncontrolled (controlled) emission estimates, you may use
controlled (uncontrolled) emission estimates and control device
destruction efficiency to calculate your uncontrolled (controlled)
emissions provided the control device destruction efficiency was
calculated at the same time you collected the data to develop your
facility's controlled (uncontrolled) emission estimation equations and
factors.
(c) Assign to each formula an uncontrolled emission estimation
equation or factor based on the end product/ thickness combination for
which that formula is used.
(d)(1) To calculate your annual uncontrolled emissions from wet-out
areas that do not have any capture and control from wet-out areas that
are captured by an enclosure but are vented to the atmosphere and not
to a control device, multiply each formula's annual usage by its
appropriate emission estimation equation or factor and sum the
individual results.
(2) To calculate your annual uncontrolled emissions that escape
from the enclosure on the wet-out area, multiply each formula's annual
usage by its appropriate uncontrolled emission estimation equation or
factor, sum the individual results, and multiply the summation by 1
minus the percent capture (expressed as a fraction).
(3) To calculate your annual uncontrolled oven emissions, multiply
each formula's annual usage by its appropriate uncontrolled emission
estimation equation or factor and sum the individual results.
(4) To calculate your annual controlled emissions, multiply each
formula's annual usage by its appropriate emission estimation equation
or factor and sum the individual results to obtain total annual
controlled emissions.
(e) Where a facility is calculating both uncontrolled and
controlled emission
[[Page 40351]]
estimation equations and factors, you must test the same formulae. In
addition, you must develop both sets of equations and factors from the
same tests.
Sec. 63.5875 How do I determine the capture efficiency of the
enclosure on my wet-out area and the capture efficiency of my oven(s)?
(a) The capture efficiency of a wet-out area enclosure is assumed
to be 100 percent if it meets the design and operation requirements for
a permanent total enclosure specified in EPA Method 204. If a permanent
total enclosure does not exist, then a temporary total enclosure must
be constructed and verified using Method 204, and capture efficiency
testing must be determined using Methods 204B through E.
(b) The capture efficiency of an oven is to be considered 100
percent provided the oven is operated under negative pressure.
Sec. 63.5880 How do I determine how much neat resin plus is applied to
the line and how much neat gel coat plus is applied to the line?
Use the following procedures to determine how much neat resin plus
and neat gel coat plus is applied to the line each year.
(a) Track formula usage by end product/thickness combinations.
(b) Use in-house records to show usage. This may be either from
automated systems or manual records.
(c) Record daily the usage of each formula/end product combination
on each line. This is to be recorded at the end of each run (i.e., when
a changeover in formula or product is made) and at the end of each
shift.
(d) Sum the amounts from the daily records to calculate annual
usage of each formula/end product combination by line.
Sec. 63.5885 How do I calculate the percent reduction to demonstrate
compliance?
(a) Compliant line option. If all of your wet-out areas have
permanent enclosures that meet the requirements of Method 204 for a
permanent total enclosure, and all of your wet-out area emissions and
oven emissions are vented to an add-on control device, use Equation 1
of this section to demonstrate compliance. In all other situations, use
Equation 2 of this section to demonstrate compliance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.004
Where:
PR = percent reduction
Inlet = emissions entering the control device, lbs per year
Outlet = emissions exiting the control device to the atmosphere, lbs
per year
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.005
Where:
PR = percent reduction
WAEu = uncontrolled wet-out area emissions, lbs per year
Ou = uncontrolled oven emissions, lbs per year
WAEc = controlled wet-out area emissions, lbs per year
Oc = controlled oven emissions, lbs per year
(b) Averaging Option. Use Equation 3 of this section to calculate
percent reduction.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.006
Where:
PR = percent reduction
WAEui = uncontrolled emissions from wet-out area i, lbs
per year
Ouj = uncontrolled emissions from oven j, lbs per year
WAEci = controlled emissions from wet-out area i, lbs per
year
Ocj = controlled emissions from oven j, lbs per year
i = number of wet-out areas
j = number of ovens
m = number of wet-out areas uncontrolled
n = number of ovens uncontrolled
o = number of wet-out areas controlled
p = number of ovens controlled
(3) Add-on control device option. Use Equation 1 of this section to
calculate percent reduction.
(4) Combination option. Use Equations 1 through 3 of this section,
as applicable, to calculate percent reduction.
Sec. 63.5890 How do I calculate an emission factor to demonstrate
compliance?
(a) Compliant line option. Use Equation 1 of this section to
calculate an emission factor in lbs/ton.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.007
Where:
E = emission factor in lbs/ton of resin and gel coat
WAEu = uncontrolled wet-out area emissions, lbs per year
WAEc = controlled wet-out area emissions, lbs per year
Ou = uncontrolled oven emissions, lbs per year
Oc = controlled oven emissions, lbs per year
R = total usage of neat resin plus, tpy
G = total usage of neat gel coat plus, tpy
(b) Averaging option. Use Equation 2 of this section to demonstrate
compliance.
[[Page 40352]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AU01.008
Where:
E = emission factor in lbs/ton of resin and gel coat
WAEui = uncontrolled emissions from wet-out area i, lbs
per year
WAEci = controlled emissions from wet-out area i, lbs per
year
Ouj = uncontrolled emissions from oven j, lbs per year
Ocj = controlled emissions from oven j, lbs per year
i = number of wet-out areas
j = number of ovens
m = number of wet-out areas uncontrolled
n = number of ovens uncontrolled
o = number of wet-out areas controlled
p = number of ovens controlled
R = total usage of neat resin plus, tpy
G = total usage of neat gel coat plus, tpy
(c) Combination option. Use Equations 1 and 2 of this section, as
applicable, to demonstrate compliance.
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.5895 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) You must collect and keep a record of data as indicated in 40
CFR part 63, subpart SS.
(b) You must monitor and collect data as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must conduct all monitoring in continuous operation (or collect
data at all required intervals) at all times that the affected source
is operating.
(2) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities for purposes of this subpart, including data averages and
calculations, or fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement, if
applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other
periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated
control system.
(3) At all times, you must maintain necessary parts for routine
repairs of the monitoring equipment.
(4) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring equipment to provide
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
(c) You must collect and keep records of resin and gel coat use,
HAP content, and operation where the resin is used if you are meeting
any emission limits based on a point value. Resin use records may be
based on purchase records if you can reasonably estimate how the resin
is applied. The HAP content records may be based on Material Safety
Data Sheets or on resin specifications supplied by the resin supplier.
(d) If you initially demonstrate that all resins and gel coats meet
the applicable point value emission limits, then resin and gel coat use
records are not required. If after this initial demonstration, you
change to a higher HAP resin or gel coat, or increase the resin or gel
coat HAP content, or change to a higher emitting resin or gel coat
application method, then you must either again demonstrate that all
resins and gel coats still meet the applicable point value emission
limits, or begin collecting resin use records and calculate compliance
on a 12-month rolling average.
(e) You must record all times that wet area enclosures on any
pultrusion machines are open, and resin is present in the resin bath.
Sec. 63.5900 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
standards?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each standard
in Sec. 63.5805 that applies to you according to the methods specified
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Compliance with emission limits for sources using add-on
control devices is demonstrated following the procedures in 40 CFR part
63, subpart SS. Sources using add-on controls may also use continuous
emission monitors to demonstrate continuous compliance as an
alternative to control parameter monitoring.
(2) Compliance with emission limits using the point value system is
demonstrated by maintaining a point value less than or equal to the
appropriate point value listed in Table 3 or 5 of this subpart, on a
12-month rolling average, or by including in each compliance report a
certification that all resins and gel coats meet the appropriate point
value limits, as discussed in Sec. 63.5895(d).
(3) Compliance with the work practice standards in Table 4 of this
subpart is demonstrated by performing the work practice required for
your operation.
(b) You must report each deviation from each standard that applies
to you in Sec. 63.5805. The deviations must be reported according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.5910.
(c) With the exception provided in paragraph (d) of this section,
during periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction, you must meet the
emission limits and work practice standards that apply to you.
(d) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, you do not
need to meet the standard(s) in Sec. 63.5805 that require an add-on
control device, but you must operate your affected source in accordance
with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and meet all standards
that do not require the operation of the add-on control device.
(e) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that
occur during a period of malfunction for those affected sources and
standards specified in paragraph (d) of this section are not violations
if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were
operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan. The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur
during a period of startup, shutdown, and malfunction are violations,
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
Notifications, Reports, And Records
Sec. 63.5905 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Table 13 of this
subpart that apply to you, by the dates in Table 13 of this subpart.
The notifications are described more fully in subpart A, General
Provisions, referenced in Table 13.
(b) If you change any information submitted in any notification,
you must submit the changes in writing to the Administrator within 15
calendar days after the change.
Sec. 63.5910 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in Table 14 of this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a),
[[Page 40353]]
you must submit each report by the date in Table 14 of this subpart and
according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in
Sec. 63.5800 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.5800.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.5800.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
requirements pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports
pursuant to Sec. 70.6(3)(iii)(A) or Sec. 71.6(3)(iii)(A), you may
submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to
the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section:
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(3) Date of the report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limit and operating limit) that applies to you, and there are
no deviations from the requirements for work practice standards in
Table 4 of this subpart, a statement that there were no deviations from
the emission limitations or work practice standards during the
reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring
system (CMS), including a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS),
and operating parameter monitoring systems was out of control as
specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods
during the which the CMS was out of control during the reporting
period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (i.e., emission
limit, operating limit) and for each deviation from the requirements
for work practice standards that occurs at an affected source where you
are not using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations or work
practice standards in this subpart, the compliance report must contain
the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section and in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. This includes periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (i.e., emission
limit and operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you
are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitation in this subpart,
you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of
this section and in paragraphs (e)(1) through (12) of this section.
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out of control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction, or during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of
the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each hazardous air pollutant that was
monitored at the affected source.
(9) A brief description of the process units.
(10) A brief description of the CMS.
(11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls
since the last reporting period.
(f) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected
source submits a compliance report pursuant to Table 14 of this subpart
along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by
Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any
emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice
requirement in this subpart, submission of the compliance report shall
be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in
the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance
report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the affected source
may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit
authority.
(g) You should submit compliance reports and startup, shutdown,
malfunction reports based on the requirements in Table 14 of this
subpart. You do not need to consider the requirements in Sec. 63.999
when submitting these reports.
Sec. 63.5915 What records must I keep?
(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
[[Page 40354]]
(3) Records of performance tests, design, and performance
evaluations as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) If you use an add-on control device, you must keep all records
required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, to show continuous compliance
with this subpart.
(c) You must keep all data, assumptions, and calculations used to
determine point values for operations listed in Tables 3 and 5 of this
subpart.
(d) You must keep a certified statement that you are in compliance
with the work practice requirements in Table 4 of this subpart, as
applicable.
(e) For a new or existing continuous lamination/ casting operation,
you must keep the records listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of
this section, when complying with the percent reduction and/or lbs/ton
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of Sec. 63.5805.
(1) You must keep all data, assumptions, and calculations used to
determine percent reduction and/or lbs/ton as applicable;
(2) You must keep a brief description of the rationale for the
assignment of an equation or factor to each formula;
(3) When using facility-specific emission estimation equations or
factors, you must keep all data, assumptions, and calculations used to
derive the emission estimation equations and factors and identification
and rationale for the worst-case formula; and
(4) For all emission estimation equations and emission factors, you
must keep documentation that the appropriate regulatory agency has
approved them.
Sec. 63.5920 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) You must maintain all applicable records in such a manner that
they can be readily accessed and are suitable for inspection according
to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must retain your records of the most recent 2 years onsite,
or your records must be accessible to an inspector while onsite. Your
records of the remaining 3 years may be retained offsite.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.5925 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 15 of this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.
Sec. 63.5930 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be administered by us, the EPA, or a delegated
authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal
agency, then that agency has the authority to administer and enforce
this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to find out
if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are not delegated.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section:
(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission standards in
Sec. 63.5805 under Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.5935 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40
CFR 63.2, the General Provisions, and in this section as follows:
Atomized mechanical application means application of resin or gel
coat with spray equipment that separates the liquid into a fine mist.
This fine mist may be created by forcing the liquid under high pressure
through an elliptical orifice, bombarding a liquid stream with directed
air jets, or a combination of these techniques.
Bulk molding compound (BMC) means a putty-like molding compound
that contains resins, catalysts, fillers, and reinforcements in a form
that is ready to mold. Bulk molding compound can be used in compression
molding and injection molding operations to manufacture reinforced
plastic composites products.
BMC manufacturing means a process that involves the preparation of
BMC.
BMC manufacturing/mixing means a grouping of processes that
involves BMC manufacturing and/or mixing.
Centrifugal casting means a process for fabricating cylindrical
composites, such as pipes, in which composite materials are positioned
inside a rotating hollow mandrel and held in place by centrifugal
forces until the part is cured.
Charge means the amount of SMC or BMC that is placed into a
compression or injection mold to complete one mold cycle.
Cleaning means removal of composite materials, such as cured and
uncured resin from equipment, finished surfaces, floors, hands of
employees, or any other surfaces.
Clear production gel coat means an unpigmented, unfilled, quick-
setting resin used to improve the surface appearance and/or performance
of composites. It can be used to form the surface layer of any
composites other than those used for molds in tooling operations.
Closed molding means a grouping of processes for fabricating
composites in a way that HAP-containing materials are not exposed to
the atmosphere except during the material loading stage (e.g.,
compression molding, injection molding, and resin transfer molding).
Composite means a shaped and cured part produced by using composite
materials.
Composite materials means a combination of the following materials:
resin, gel coat, monomer, catalyst, pigment, filler, and reinforcement.
Compression molding means a closed molding process for fabricating
composites in which composite materials are placed inside matched metal
dies that are used to cure the materials under heat and pressure
without exposure to the atmosphere. The composite materials used in
this process are generally SMC or BMC.
Compression/injection molding means a grouping of processes that
involves the use of compression molding and/or injection molding.
Continuous casting means a continuous process for fabricating
composites in which composite materials are placed on an in-line
conveyor belt to produce cast sheets that are cured in an oven.
Continuous lamination means a continuous process for fabricating
composites in which composite materials are typically sandwiched
between plastic films, pulled through compaction rollers, and cured in
an oven. This process is generally used to produce flat or corrugated
products on an in-line conveyor.
Continuous lamination/casting means a grouping of processes that
involves the use of continuous lamination and/or continuous casting.
Controlled emissions means those emissions that are vented from a
control device to the atmosphere.
[[Page 40355]]
Corrosion-resistant end-use applications means applications where
the product is manufactured specifically for an application that
requires a level of chemical inertness or resistance to chemical attack
above that required for typical reinforced plastic composites products.
These applications include, but are not limited to, chemical processing
and storage; pulp and paper production; sewer and wastewater treatment;
power generation; potable water transfer and storage; food and drug
processing; pollution or odor control; metals production and plating;
semiconductor manufacturing; petroleum production, refining, and
storage; mining; textile production; nuclear materials storage;
swimming pools; and cosmetic production, as well as end-use
applications that require high strength resins.
Corrosion-resistant industry standard includes the following
standards: ASME RTP-1 or Sect. X; ASTM D5364, D3299, D4097, D2996,
D2997, D3262, D3517, D3754, D3840, D4024, D4160, D4161, D4162, D4184,
D3982, or D3839; ANSI/AWWA C950; UL 1316 or UL 1746, or written
customer requirements for resistance to specified chemical
environments.
Corrosion-resistant product means a product made with a corrosion-
resistant resin and is manufactured to a corrosion-resistant industry
standard, or a food contact industry standard, or is manufactured for
corrosion-resistant end-use applications involving continuous or
temporary chemical exposures.
Corrosion-resistant resin means a resin that either: (1) Displays
substantial retention of mechanical properties when undergoing ASTM C-
581 coupon testing, where the resin is exposed for 6 months or more to
one of the following materials: material with a pH 12.0 or
3.0, oxidizing or reducing agents, organic solvents, or
fuels or fuel additives as defined in 40 CFR 79.2. In the coupon
testing, the exposed resin needs to demonstrate a minimum of 50 percent
retention of the relevant mechanical property compared to the same
resin in unexposed condition. In addition, the exposed resin needs to
demonstrate an increased retention of the relevant mechanical property
of at least 20 percent when compared to a similarly exposed general-
purpose resin. For example, if the general-purpose resin retains 45
percent of the relevant property when tested as specified above, then a
corrosion-resistant resin needs to retain at least 65 percent (45
percent plus 20 percent) of its property. The general-purpose resin
used in the test needs to have an average molecular weight of greater
than 1,000, be formulated with a 1:2 ratio of maleic anhydride to
phthalic anhydride and 100 percent diethylene glycol, and a styrene
content between 43 to 48 percent; or
(2) Complies with industry standards that require specific exposure
testing to corrosive media, such as UL 1316, UL 1746, or ASTM F-1216.
Doctor box means the box or trough on an SMC machine into which the
liquid resin paste is delivered before it is metered onto the carrier
film.
Filament winding means an open molding process for fabricating
composites in which reinforcements are fed through a resin bath and
wound onto a rotating mandrel. The materials on the mandrel may be
rolled out or worked by using nonmechanical tools prior to curing.
Resin application to the reinforcement on the mandrel by means other
than the resin bath, such as spray guns, pressure-fed rollers, flow
coaters, or brushes is not considered filament winding.
Filled means that fillers have been added to a resin such that the
amount of inert substances is at least 10 percent by weight of the
total resin plus filler mixture.
Fillers means inert substances dispersed throughout a resin, such
as calcium carbonate, alumina trihydrate, hydrous aluminum silicate,
mica, feldspar, wollastonite, silica, and talc. Materials that are not
considered to be fillers are glass fibers or any type of reinforcement
and microspheres.
Fluid impingement technology means a spray gun that produces an
expanding non-misting curtain of liquid by the impingement of low-
pressure uninterrupted liquid streams.
Food contact industry standard means a standard related to food
contact application contained in Food and Drug Administration's
regulations at 21 CFR 177.2420.
Gel coat application means a process where either clear production,
pigmented production or tooling gel coat is applied.
High strength resins means polyester resins which have a casting
tensile strength of 10,000 pounds per square inch or more and which are
used for manufacturing products that have high strength requirements
such as structural members and utility poles.
Injection molding means a closed molding process for fabricating
composites in which composite materials are injected under pressure
into a heated mold cavity that represents the exact shape of the
product. The composite materials are cured in the heated mold cavity.
Manual resin application means an open molding process for
fabricating composites in which composite materials are applied to the
mold by pouring or by using hands and nonmechanical tools, such as
brushes and rollers. Materials are rolled out or worked by using
nonmechanical tools prior to curing. The use of pressure-fed rollers
and flow coaters to apply resin is not considered manual resin
application.
Material storage means an ancillary process which involves keeping
HAP-containing materials, such as resins, gel coats, catalysts,
monomers, and cleaners, in containers for any length of time.
Containers may include bulk storage terminals, tanks, totes, vessels,
and buckets.
Mechanical resin application means an open molding process for
fabricating composites in which composite materials (except gel coat)
are applied to the mold by using mechanical tools such as spray guns,
pressure-fed rollers, and flow coaters. Materials are rolled out or
worked by using nonmechanical tools prior to curing.
Mixing means the blending or agitation of any HAP-containing
materials in vessels that are 5.00 gallons (18.9 liters) or larger.
Mixing may involve the blending of resin, gel coat, filler,
reinforcement, pigments, catalysts, monomers, and any other additives.
Model point value equations means algebraic expressions that were
derived to estimate the quantity of HAP emitted based on parameters
that can be regulated. Parameters that can be regulated include resin
and gel coat HAP content. Model point value equations were derived for
open molding and centrifugal casting processes. They are used to
calculate point values that reflect the relative emission control
status of a process. Model point value equations are not to be used to
estimate actual emissions because not all parameters that are known to
affect emissions are incorporated into the equations.
Mold means a cavity or matrix into or onto which the composite
materials are placed and from which the product takes its form.
Neat gel coat plus means gel coat plus any organic HAP-containing
materials that are added to the gel coat by the supplier or the
facility, excluding catalysts and promoters. Neat gel coat plus does
include any additions of styrene or methyl methacrylate monomer in any
form, including in catalysts and promoters.
Neat resin plus means neat resin plus any organic HAP-containing
materials
[[Page 40356]]
that are added to the resin by the supplier or the facility. Neat resin
plus does not include any added filler, reinforcements, catalysts, or
promoters. Neat resin does include any additions of styrene or methyl
methacrylate monomer in any form, including in catalysts and promoters.
Non-atomized mechanical application means the use of application
tools other than brushes to apply resin and gel coat that do not create
a fine liquid mist. Examples include flow coaters, pressure fed
rollers, and fluid impingement technology spray guns.
Noncorrosion-resistant resin means any resin other than a
corrosion-resistant resin or a tooling resin.
Noncorrosion-resistant product means any product other than a
corrosion-resistant product or a mold.
Operation means a specific process typically found at a reinforced
plastic composites facility. Examples of operations are noncorrosion-
resistant manual resin application, corrosion-resistant mechanical
resin application, pigmented gel coat application, mixing and storage.
Operation Group means a grouping of individual operations based
primarily on mold type. Examples are open molding, closed molding, and
centrifugal casting.
Open molding means a process for fabricating composites in a way
that HAP-containing materials are exposed to the atmosphere. Open
molding includes processes such as manual resin application, mechanical
resin application, filament winding, and gel coat application.
Pigmented production gel coat means a pigmented quick-setting resin
used to improve surface appearance and/or performance of composites. It
can be used to form the surface layer of any composites other than
those used for molds in tooling operations.
Point value means a relative measure of the use of emissions
reductions techniques and their effectiveness. Model point value
equations were developed for each open molding and centrifugal casting
process to calculate point values, which have units of lbs of HAP
emissions per ton of neat resin plus or neat gel coat plus used. Point
values are calculated by using the appropriate model point value
equation for a given process, multiplied by any applicable control
factors. Control factors are used to incorporate emissions reductions
achieved from add-on control devices.
Polymer casting means a process for fabricating composites in which
composite materials are ejected from a casting machine or poured into
an open, partially open, or closed mold and cured. After the composite
materials are poured into the mold, they are not rolled out or worked
prior to curing. The composite materials may or may not include
reinforcements. Products produced by the polymer casting process
include cultured marble products and polymer concrete.
Pultrusion means a continuous process for manufacturing composites
that have a uniform cross-sectional shape. The process consists of
pulling a fiber-reinforcing material through a resin impregnation
chamber or bath and through a shaping die, where the resin is
subsequently cured. There are several types of pultrusion equipment,
such as open bath, resin injection, and direct die injection equipment.
Resin transfer molding means a process for manufacturing composites
whereby catalyzed resin is transferred or injected into a closed mold
in which fiberglass reinforcement has been placed.
Sheet molding compound (SMC) means a ready-to-mold putty-like
molding compound processed into sheet form. The molding compound is
sandwiched between a top and a bottom film, and it contains resins,
catalysts, fillers, chemical thickeners, mold release agents,
reinforcements, and other ingredients. Sheet molding compound can be
used in compression molding to manufacture reinforced plastic
composites products.
SMC manufacturing means a process which involves the preparation of
SMC.
Tooling means mold production or repair.
Tooling gel coat means a gel coat that is used to form the surface
layer of molds. Tooling gel coats generally have high heat distortion
temperatures, low shrinkage, high barcol hardness, and high dimensional
stability.
Tooling resin means a resin that is used to produce molds. Tooling
resins generally have high heat distortion temperatures, low shrinkage,
high barcol hardness, and high dimensional stability.
Uncontrolled oven emissions means those emissions emitted from the
oven through closed vent systems to the atmosphere and not to a control
device. These emissions do not include emissions that may escape into
the workplace through the opening of panels or doors on the ovens or
other similar fugitive emissions in the workplace.
Uncontrolled wet-out area emissions means any or all of the
following: Emissions from wet-out areas that do not have any capture
and control, emissions that escape from wet-out area enclosures, and
emissions from wet-out areas that are captured by an enclosure but are
vented to the atmosphere and not to an add-on control device.
Unfilled means that there has been no addition of fillers to a
resin or that less than 10 percent of fillers by weight of the total
resin plus filler mixture has been added.
Vapor suppressant means an additive, typically a wax, that migrates
to the surface of the resin during curing and forms a barrier to seal
in the styrene and reduce styrene emissions.
Vapor-suppressed resin means a resin containing a vapor suppressant
added for the purpose of reducing styrene emissions during curing.
Tables to Subpart WWWW of Part 63
As required in Secs. 63.5797, 63.5798(a)(1) and (b), and
63.5810(a)(1), to calculate model point values for specific open
molding and centrifugal casting process streams you must use the
equations in the following table:
Table 1 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Model Equations to Calculate Point Values for Specific Open Molding and
Centrifugal Casting Process Streams
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use this Model Point
If your operation type is a new or And you use . . . With . . . Value (PV) Equation a b
existing . . . c . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open molding operation............ a. Manual resin i. Nonvapor-suppressed PV = 0.028 x
application. resin. (%HAP)2.275
ii. Vapor-suppressed PV = 0.028 x
resin. (%HAP)2.275 x (1-
(0.5419 x VSR test
value))
iii. Vacuum bagging/ PV = 0.028 x
closed-mold curing (%HAP)2.275 x (1-
with roll out. 0.2133)
iv. Vacuum bagging/ PV = 0.028 x
closed-mold curing (%HAP)2.275 x (1-
without roll-out. 0.4554)
[[Page 40357]]
b. Mechanical resin i. Nonvapor-suppressed PV = 0.028 x
application. resin and atomized (%HAP)2.425
application.
ii. Vapor-suppressed PV = 0.028 x
resin and atomised (%HAP)2.425 x (1-
application. (0.4559 x VSR test
value))
iii. Vacuum bagging/ PV = 0.028 x
closed-mold curing (%HAP)2.425 x (1-
with roll-out and 0.1535)
atomized application.
iv. Vacuum bagging/ PV = 0.028 x
closed-mold curing (%HAP)2.425 x (1-
without roll-out and 0.3261)
atomized application.
v. Nonvapor-suppressed PV = 0.028 x
resin and nonatomized (%HAP)2.275
application.
vi. Vapor-suppressed PV = 0.028 x
resin and nonatomized (%HAP)2.275 x (1-
application. (0.5419 x VSR test
value))
vii. Closed-mold curing PV = 0.028 x
with roll-out and non (%HAP)2.275 x (1-
atomized application. 0.2133)
viii. Vacuum bagging/ PV = 0.028 x
closed-mold curing (%HAP)2.275 x (1-
without roll-out and 0.4554)
nonatomized
application.
c. Filament winding.... i. Nonvapor-suppressed PV = 1.675 x
resin. (%HAP)1.225
ii. Vapor-suppressed PV = 1.675 x
resin. (%HAP)1.225 x (1-
(0.4693 x VSR test
value))
d. Gel coat application Nonvapor-suppressed gel PV = 0.890 x
coat. (%HAP)1.675
2. Centrifugal casting operation..... Centrifugal casting.... Nonvapor-suppressed PV = 11.16 x (%HAP)
resin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a To obtain the model point value for an operation with an add-on control device multiply the PV above by the
add-on control factor calculated using Equation 1 of Sec. 63.5810. The model point values have limits of lbs
of HAP per ton of resin or gel coat applied.
b Percent HAP means total weight percent of HAP in the resin or gel coat prior to the addition of fillers,
catalyst, and promoters.
c VSR test value means the percent reduction in HAP emissions expressed as a decimal measured by the VSR test
method.
As required in Secs. 63.5800 and 63.5840 you must demonstrate
compliance with the standards by the dates in the following table:
Table 2 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Compliance Dates for New and
Existing Reinforced Plastic Composites Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you must comply
If your facility is . . . And . . . by this date:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An existing source....... Is a major source on i. [Date 3 years
or before the after the
publication date of publication date of
the final rule. the final rule], or
ii. You must accept
and meet an
enforceable HAP
emission limit
below the major
source threshold
prior to [date 3
years after the
publication date of
final rule].
2. An existing source that Becomes a major 3 years after
is an area source. source after the becoming a major
publication date of source or [date 3
the final rule. years after the
publication date of
the final rule],
whichever is later.
3. A new source............. Is a major source at Upon startup or
startup. [publication date
of the final rule],
whichever is later.
4. A new source............. Is an area source at Immediately upon
startup and becomes becoming a major
a major source. source.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Secs. 63.5805 (a) and (c), 63.5810(a) through (b),
63.5820(c), 63.5830, 63.5835, and 63.5900(a)(2), you must meet the
appropriate emission limits in the following table:
Table 3 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Emission Limits for Existing Small
Business Sources Emitting Less Than 250 TPY of HAP, or Other Sources
Emitting Less Than 100 TPY of HAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your operation type is . Your emission limit
. . And you use . . . is a . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open molding--corrosion- a. Mechanical resin 190 lb/ton.
resistant (CR) b. application.
b. Filament winding. 163 lb/ton.
c. Manual resin 124 lb/ton.
application.
2. Open molding--non-CR..... a. Mechanical resin 110 lb/ton.
application- 144 lb/ton.
unfilled. 178 lb/ton.
b. Mechanical resin 83 lb/ton.
application-filled.
c. Filament winding.
d. Manual resin
application.
3. Open molding--tooling.... a. Mechanical resin 256 lb/ton.
application. 123 lb/ton.
b. Manual resin
application.
[[Page 40358]]
4. Open molding--products a. Mechanical resin 575 lb/ton.
that require class 1 fire application.
and smoke ratings.
b. Filament winding. 253 lb/ton.
c. Manual resin 311 lb/ton.
application.
5. Open molding--gel coat... a. Tooling gel 394 lb/ton.
coating. 265 lb/ton.
b. White/off white 377 lb/ton.
pigmented gel 504 lb/ton.
coating.
c. All other
pigmented gel
coating.
d. Clear production
gel coating.
6. Centrifugal casting--CR.. N/A................. 536 lb/ton.
7. Centrifugal casting--non- N/A................. 396 lb/ton.
CR.
8. Pultrusion............... N/A................. Reduce total HAP
emissions by at
least 60 weight
percent.
9. Continuous lamination/ N/A................. Reduce total HAP
casting. emissions by at
least 58.5 weight
percent or not
exceed an emission
limit of 15.7 lbs
of HAP per ton of
neat resin plus and
neat gel coat plus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Emission limits for open molding and centrifugal casting expressed as
lb/ton are point values calculated using the equations shown in Table
1 of this subpart. You must be at or below these values based on a 12-
month rolling average.
b Corrosion-resistant applications also include high-strength products.
As required in Sec. 63.5805 (a) through (d) you must meet the
appropriate work practice standards in the following table:
Table 4 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A new or existing closed molding Uncover, unwrap or expose only
operation using compression/injection one charge per mold cycle per
molding. compression/injection molding
machine.
2. A new or existing cleaning Not use cleaning solvents that
operation. contain HAP.
3. A new or existing materials storage Keep containers that store HAP
operation. materials closed or covered
except during the addition or
removal of materials.
4. An existing pultrusion operation Keep access panels, doors, and/
using a wet-area enclosure. or hatches closed whenever
resin is in the bath, except
that access panels, doors, and/
or hatches may be open 30
minutes per 8-hour shift, or
45 minutes per 12-hour shift.
5. An existing SMC manufacturing Close or cover the doctor box
operation. on each SMC manufacturing
machine.
6. An existing SMC manufacturing Fold or seal edges of SMC prior
operation. to storage and/or transport.
7. An existing SMC manufacturing Use a nylon film or a film with
operation. an equal or lower permeability
to styrene than nylon to
enclose SMC.
8. A new or existing BMC manufacturing/ Use mixer covers with no
mixing operation a. visible gaps present in the
mixer covers.
9. An existing BMC manufacturing/ Not actively vent mixers to the
mixing. atmosphere.
10. A new or existing BMC manufacturing/ Keep the mixer covers closed
mixing operation a. during mixing except when
adding materials to the mixing
vessels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Containers of 5 gallons or less may be open when active mixing is
taking place, or during periods when they are in process (i.e., they
are actively being used to apply resin). For polymer casting mixing
operations, containers of 21 gallons or less may be open while active
mixing is taking place.
As specified in Sec. 63.5805 (b) and (d), as an alternative to the
95 percent HAP emission reduction requirement, you may meet the
appropriate emission limits in the following table:
Table 5 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Alternative Emission Limits for
Open Molding and Centrifugal Casting Operations Where the Standard Is
Based on a Percent Reduction Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your emission
If your operation type is . . And you use . . . limit is \a\ . .
---------------.------------------------------------------------.-------
1. 0pen molding--corrosion- a. Mechanical resin 10 lb/ton.
resistant (CR). application. 9 lb/ton.
b. Filament winding... 7 lb/ton.
c. Manual resin
application.
2. Open molding--non-CR....... a. Mechanical resin 8 lb/ton.
application-unfilled. 6 lb/ton.
b. Mechanical resin 9 lb/ton.
application-filled. 4 lb/ton.
c. Filament winding...
d. Manual resin
application.
3. Open molding--tooling...... a. Mechanical resin 13 lb/ton.
application. 7 lb/ton.
b. Manual resin
application.
4. Open molding--products that a. Mechanical resin 29 lb/ton.
require Class 1 Fire and application. 13 lb/ton.
Smoke Ratings. b. Filament winding... 16 lb/ton.
c. Manual resin
application.
[[Page 40359]]
5. Open molding--gel coat..... a. Tooling gel coating 20 lb/ton.
b. White/off white 14 lb/ton.
pigmented gel coating. 19 lb/ton.
c. All other pigmented 26 lb/ton.
gel coating.
d. Clear production
gel coating.
6. Centrifugal Casting--CR.... N/A................... 27 lb/ton.
7. Centrifugal Casting--Non-CR N/A................... 20 lb/ton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The emission limits are calculated using the equations shown in
Table 1 of this subpart. You must be at or below these values based on
a 12-month rolling average.
\b\ Corrosion-resistant applications also include high-strength
products.
As required in Secs. 63.5810(a)(1), 63.5825(a), 63.5830(a), and
63.5870, you must conduct performance tests, performance evaluations,
and design evaluation according to the requirements in the following
table:
Table 6 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Basic Requirements for Performance Tests, Performance Evaluations, and
Design Evaluations for New and Existing Sources Using Add-On Control Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the
For . . . You must . . . Using . . . following requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each enclosure used to collect a. Determine the i. EPA methods 204 and (1) Enclosures that meet
and route HAP emissions to an add- capture efficiency 204B through E in the requirements for a
on control device. of each enclosure Appendix M of 40 CFR part permanent total
used to capture HAP 51, or. enclosure are assumed to
emissions to sent to ii. An alternative test have a capture
an add-on control method that meets the efficiency of 100%.
device. data quality objectives Enclosures that do not
and lower confidence meet permanent total
limit approaches for enclosure requirements
alternative capture must determine the
efficiency protocols and capture efficiency by
test methods contined in constructing a temporary
40 CFR part 63 subpart total enclosure
KK, appendix A. according to the
requirements of EPA
Method 204 and measuring
the mass flow rates of
the HAP in the exhaust
streams going to the
atmosphere and to the
control device, or,
(2) Use an alternative
test method that meets
the requirements of 40
CFR part 51, appendix M.
Follow the requirements
in 1.a.i (1) and (2) of
this table.
2. Each control device used to Determine the control The appropriate test Testing and evaluation
comply with an percent reduction efficiency of each methods specified in 40 requirements are
requirement, or a point value control device used CFR part 63, subpart SS. contained in 40 CFR part
limit. to control HAP 63, subpart SS.
emissions.
3. Each control device used to a. Determine the The appropriate test Testing and evaluation
comply with a emission factor control efficiency methods specified in 40 requirements are
limit for continuous lamination/ of each control CFR part 63 subpart SS. contained in 40 CFR part
continuous casting. device used to 63, subpart SS.
control HAP
emissions, or
determine the mass
HAP emission rate at
the control device
outlet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.5810(c), when selecting one resin point
value for multiple operations you must use the values in the following
table:
Table 7 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Options Allowing Use of the Same Resin Across Different Operations That Use
the Same Resin Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point
value
If your facility has the following resin The highest resin weight percent HAP assignd to
application operation . . . content you can use for . . . Is . . . all uses of
this resin
is . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Corrosion-resistant (CR) nonatomized a. CR mechanical...................... 48.3 190
mechanical. b. CR filament winding................ 48.3 190
c. CR manual.......................... 48.3 190
d. CR centrifugal casting............. 48.3 190
2. CR centrifugal casting..................... a. CR filament winding................ 48 536
b. CR manual.......................... 48 536
c. CR centrifugal casting............. 48 536
[[Page 40360]]
3. CR filament winding........................ a. CR filament winding................ 42 163
b. CR manual.......................... 42 163
4. Non-CR filament winding.................... a. Non-CR mechanical (filled or 45 178
unfilled. 45 178
b. non-CR manual...................... 45 178
c. non-CR centrifugal casting.........
5. Non-CR nonatomized filled mechanical....... a. non-CR nonatomized unfilled 144 42.8
mechanical. 144 42.8
b. non-CR manual...................... 144 42.8
c. non-CR centrifugal casting.........
6. Non-CR nonatomized unfilled mechanical..... a. non-CR manual...................... 110 38
b. non-CR centrifugal casting......... 110 38
7. Non-CR centrifugal casting................. a. non-CR manual...................... 35.5 396
b. non-CR atomized filled mechanical.. 35.5 396
8. Non-CR atomized filled mechanical.......... a. non-CR manual...................... 33.9 144
9. Non-CR manual.............................. a. Non-CR atomized unfilled mechanical 33.6 83
10. Tooling nonatomized mechanical............ a. tooling manual..................... 55.1 256
11. Tooling atomized mechanical............... a. tooling manual..................... 43 256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.5860(b), you must demonstrate initial
compliance with emission limits as specified in the following table:
Table 8 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
That must meet the demonstrated initial
For . . . following emission compliance if . .
limit . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Open molding and a. A point value i. You have met the
centrifugal casting emission limit appropriate point
operations. shown in Table 3 or value for these
5 of this subpart. operations as
calculated using
the procedures in
Sec. 63.5810 on a
12-month rolling
average 1 year plus
30 days after the
appropriate
compliance date,
or,
ii. You demonstrate
by using the
appropriate point
value model
equations in Table
1 that all resins
and gel coats
considered
individually meet
the appropriate
point value
emission limit.
2. Open molding, centrifugal Reduce total HAP Total HAP emissions,
casting, continuous emissions by at based on the
lamination/casting, SMC least 95 percent by results of the
manufacturing mixing/BMC weight. capture efficiency
manufacturing operations. and destruction
efficiency testing
specified in Table
6 of this subpart,
are reduced by at
least 95 percent by
weight.
3. Continuous lamination/ a. Reduce total HAP Total HAP emissions,
casting operations. emissions by at based on the
least 58.5 weight results of the
percent or. capture efficiency
and destruction
efficiency testing
specified in Table
6 of this subpart
and the calculation
procedures
specified in Secs.
63.5865 through
63.5890, are
reduced by at least
58.5 percent by
weight.
b. Not exceed an Total HAP emissions,
emission limit of based on the
15.7 lbs. of HAP results of the
per ton of neat capture efficiency
resin plus and neat and destruction
gel coat plus 95 efficiency testing
percent by weight. specified in Table
6 of this subpart
and the calculation
procedures
specified in Secs.
63.5865 through
63.5890, do not
exceed 15.7 lbs. of
HAP per ton of neat
resin plus and neat
gel coat plus.
4. Continuous lamination/ a. Reduce total HAP Total HAP emissions,
casting operations. emissions by at based on the
least 95 weight results of the
percent or. capture efficiency
and destruction
efficiency testing
specified in Table
6 of this subpart
and the calculation
procedures
specified in Secs.
63.5865 through
63.5890, are
reduced by at least
95 percent by
weight or,
[[Page 40361]]
b. Not exceed an Total HAP emissions,
emission limit of based on the
1.47 lbs. of HAP results of the
per ton of neat capture efficiency
resin plus and neat and destruction
gel coat plus 95 efficiency testing
percent by weight. specified in Table
5 and the
calculation
procedures
specified in Secs.
63.5865-63.5890, do
not exceed 1.47
lbs. of HAP per ton
of neat resin plus
an neat gel coat
plus.
5. Pultrusion operations.... a. Reduce total HAP i. Total HAP
emissions by at emissions, based on
least 60 percent by the results of the
weight. capture efficiency
and add-on control
device destruction
efficiency testing
specified in Table
6 of this subpart,
are reduced by at
least 60 percent by
weight, or
ii. As part of the
notification of
initial compliance
status, the owner/
operator submits a
certified statement
that all pultrusion
lines not
controlled with add-
on control device
are using direct
die injection and/
or wet-area
enclosures that
meet the criteria
of Sec. 63.5825.
6. Pultrusion operations.... a. Reduce total HAP i. Total HAP
emissions by at emissions, based on
least 95 percent by the results of the
weight. capture efficiency
and add-on control
device destruction
efficiency testing
specified in Table
6 of this subpart,
are reduced by at
least 95 percent by
weight, or,
ii. As part of the
notification of
initial compliance
status, the owner/
operator submits a
certified statement
that all pultrusion
lines not
controlled by an
add-on control
device are using
direct die
injection that meet
the criteria of
Sec. 63.5825.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.5860(b), you must demonstrate initial
compliance with work practice standards as specified in the following
table:
Table 9 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Work
Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
That must meet the demonstrated initial
For . . . following standard . compliance if . .
. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A new or existing closed Uncover, unwrap or The owner or
molding operation using expose only one operator submits a
compression/injection charge per mold certified statement
molding. cycle per in the notice of
compression/ compliance status
injection molding that only one
machine. charge is
uncovered,
unwrapped or
exposed per mold
cycle per
compression/
injection molding
machine.
2. An existing SMC Close or cover the The onwner or
manufacturing operation. doctor box on each operator submits a
SMC manufacturing certified statement
machine. in the notice of
compliance status
that the doctor box
on each SMC
manufacturing
machine is closed
or covered.
3. An existing SMC Fold edges of SMC The owner or
manufacturing operation. prior to storage operator submits a
and/or transport. certified statement
in the notice of
compliance status
that the edges of
SMC are folded
prior to storage
and/or transport.
4. An existing SMC Use nylon film or a The owner or
manufacturing operation. film with an equal operator submits a
or lower certified statement
permeability to in the notice of
styrene than nylon compliance status
to enclose SMC. that a nylon film
or film with an
equal or lower
permeability to
styrene than nylon
is used to enclose
SMC.
5. A new or existing BMC Use mixer covers The owner or
manufacturing/mixing with no visible operator submits a
operation. gaps present in the certified statement
mixer covers. in the notice of
compliance status
that each mixer is
equipped with a
cover that does not
contain any visible
gaps.
6. An existing BMC Keep the mixer The owner or
manufacturing/mixing covers closed operator submits a
operation. during mixing certified statement
except when adding in the notice of
materials to the compliance status
mixers. that mixer covers
are closed during
mixing except when
adding materials to
the mixers.
[[Page 40362]]
7. An existing BMC Not actively vent The owner or
manufacturing/mixing. mixers to the operator submits a
atmosphere. certified statement
in the notice of
compliance status
that mixers are not
actively vented to
the atmosphere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.5865(a), in order to comply with a percent
reduction limit for continuous lamination lines and continuous casting
lines you must determine the data in the following table:
Table 10 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Data Requirements for New and
Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines
Complying with a Percent Reduction Limit on a Per Line Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each line where the wet- You must determine .
out area . . . And the oven . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Has an enclosure that is a. Is uncontrolled.. i. Annual
not a PTE and the captured uncontrolled wet-
emissions are controlled by out area emissions;
an add-on control device. ii. Annual
controlled wet-out
area emissions;
iii. Annual
uncontrolled oven
emissions;
iv. The capture
efficiency of the
wet-out area
enclosure;
v. The destruction
efficiency of the
add-on control
device; and
vi. The amount of
neat resin plus and
neat gel coat plus
applied.
2. Has an enclosure that is a. Is uncontrolled.. i. Annual
a PTE and the captured uncontrolled wet-
emissions are controlled by out area emissions;
an add-on control device. ii. Annual
controlled wet-out
area emissions;
iii. Annual
uncontrolled oven
emissions;
iv. That the wet-out
area enclosure
meets the
requirements of
Method 204 for a
PTE;
v. The destruction
efficiency of the
add-on control
device; and
vi. The amount of
neat resin plus and
neat gel coat plus
applied.
3. Is uncontrolled.......... a. Is controlled by i. Annual
an add-on control uncontrolled wet-
device. out area emissions;
ii. Annual
uncontrolled oven
emissions;
iii. Annual
controlled oven
emissions;
iv. The capture
efficiency of the
oven;
v. The destruction
efficiency of the
add-on control
device; and
vi. The amount of
neat resin plus and
neat gel coat plus
applied.
4. Has an enclosure that is a. Is controlled by i. Annual
not a PTE and the captured an add-on control uncontrolled wet-
emissions are controlled by device. out area emissions;
an add-on control device. ii. Annual
controlled wet-out
area emissions;
iii. Annual
uncontrolled oven
emissions;
iv. Annual
controlled oven
emissions;
v. The capture
efficiency of the
wet-out area
enclosure;
vi. Inlet emissions
to the add-on
control device;
vii. Outlet
emissions from the
add-on control
device; and
viii. The amount of
neat resin plus and
neat gel coat plus
applied
5. Has an enclosure that is a. Is controlled by i. That the wet-out
a PTE and the captured an add-on control area enclosure
emissions are controlled by device. meets the
an add-on control device. requirements of
Method 204 for a
PTE;
ii. The capture
efficiency of the
oven; and
iii. The destruction
efficiency of the
add-on control
device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.5865, in order to comply with a percent
reduction limit or a lbs/ton limit on an averaging basis for continuous
lamination lines and continuous casting lines you must determine the
data in the following table:
Table 11 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Data Requirements for New and
Existing Continuous Lamination and Continuous Casting Lines Complying
With a Percent Reduction Limit or a Lbs/Ton Limit on an Averaging Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each . . . That . . . You must determine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wet-out area............. Is uncontrolled..... Annual uncontrolled
wet-out area
emissions.
[[Page 40363]]
2. Wet-out area............. a. Has an enclosure i. The capture
that is not a PTE. efficiency of the
enclosure; and
ii. Annual emissions
that escape the
enclosure.
3. Wet-out area............. Has an enclosure That the enclosure
that is a PTE. meets the
requirements of
Method 204 for a
PTE.
4. Oven..................... Is uncontrolled..... Annual uncontrolled
oven emissions.
5. Line..................... a. Is controlled or i. The amount of
uncontrolled. neat resin plus
applied; and
ii. The amount of
neat gel coat plus
applied.
6. Add-on control device.... N/A................. Total annual inlet
emissions; and
total annual on
outlet emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.5865(b), in order to comply with a lbs/ton
emission limit for continuous lamination lines and continuous casting
lines you must determine the data in the following table:
Table 12 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Data Requirements for New and
Existing Continuous Lamination Lines and Continuous Casting Lines
Complying With a Lbs/Ton on a Per Line Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each line where the wet- You must determine .
out area . . . And the oven . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Is uncontrolled.......... a. Is uncontrolled.. i. Annual
uncontrolled wet-
out area emissions;
ii. Annual
uncontrolled oven
emissions; and
iii. Annual neat
resin plus and neat
gel coat plus
applied.
2. Has an enclosure that is a. Is uncontrolled.. i. Annual
not a PTE, and the captured uncontrolled wet-
emissions are controlled by out area emissions;
an add-on control device. ii. Annual
controlled wet-out
area emissions;
iii. Annual
uncontrolled oven
emissions;
iv. The capture
efficiency of the
wet-out area
controlled
enclosure;
v. The destruction
efficiency of the
add-on control
device; and
vi. The amount of
neat resin plus and
neat gel coat plus
applied.
3. Has an enclosure that is a. Is uncontrolled.. i. Annual
a PTE, and the captured uncontrolled wet-
emissions are controlled by out area emissions;
an add-on control device. ii. Annual
controlled wet-out
area emissions;
iii. Annual
uncontrolled oven
emissions;
iv. That the wet-out
area enclosure
meets the
requirements of
Method 204 for a
PTE;
v. The destruction
efficiency of the
add-on control
device; and
vi. The amount of
neat resin plus and
neat gel coat plus
applied.
4. Is uncontrolled.......... a. Is controlled by i. Annual
an add-on control uncontrolled wet-
device. out area emissions;
ii. Annual
uncontrolled oven
emissions;
iii. Annual
controlled oven
emissions;
iv. The capture
efficiency of the
oven;
v. The destruction
efficiency of the
add-on control
device; and
vi. The amount of
neat resin plus and
neat gel coat plus
applied.
5. Has an enclosure that is a. Is controlled by i. Annual
not a PTE and the captured an add-on control uncontrolled wet-
emissions are controlled by device. out area emissions;
an add-on control device. ii. Annual
controlled wet-out
area emissions;
iii. Annual
uncontrolled oven
emissions;
iv. Annual
controlled oven
emissions;
v. The capture
efficiency of the
wet-out area
control enclosure;
vi. The capture
efficiency of the
oven;
vii. The destruction
efficiency of the
add-on control
device; and
viii. The amount of
neat resin plus and
neat gel coat plus
applied.
6. Has an enclosure that is a. Is controlled by i. That the wet-out
a PTE, and the captured an add-on control area enclosure
emissions are controlled by device. meets the
an add-on control device. requirements of
Method 204 for a
PTE;
ii. The capture
efficiency of the
oven;
iii. Inlet emissions
to the add-on
control are device;
and
iv. Outlet emissions
from the add-on
control control
device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40364]]
As required in Sec. 63.5905, you must determine the applicable
notifications and submit them by the dates shown in the following
table:
Table 13 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Applicability and Timing of
Notifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must submit . .
If your facility . . . . By this date . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Is an existing source An Initial No later than the
subject to this regulation. Notification dates specified in
containing the Sec. 63.9(b)(2).
information
specified in Sec.
63.9(b)(2).
2. Is a new source subject The notifications No later than the
to this regulation. specified in Sec. dates specified in
63.9(b)(3) to (5). Sec. 63.9(b)(4)
and (5).
3. Qualifies for a A request for a No later than the
compliance extension as compliance dates specified in
specified in Sec. 63.9(c) extension as Sec. 63.9(i).
of subpart A. specified in Sec.
63.9(c).
4. Is complying with model A Notification of No later than 1 year
point value averaging Compliance Status plus 30 days after
provisions. as specified in your facility's
Sec. 63.9(h). compliance date.
5. Is complying with HAP A Notification of No later than 30
content limits, application Compliance Status calendar days after
equipment requirements, or as specified in facility's
emission limit other than Sec. 63.9(h). compliance date.
model point value averaging.
6. Is complying by using an a. A notification of No later than the
add = on control device. intent to conduct a date specified in
performance test as Sec. 63.9(e).
specified in Sec.
63.9(e).
b. A notification of The date of
the date for the submission of
CMS performance notification of
evaluation as intent to conduct a
specified in Sec. performance test.
63.9(g).
c. A Notification of No later than 60
Compliance Status calendar days after
as specified in the completion of
Sec. 63.9(h). the add-on control
device performance
test and CMS
performance
evaluation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As required in Sec. 63.5910(a) through (b) and (f) through (g), you
must submit reports on the schedule shown in the following table:
Table 14 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit the
You must submit a(n) contain . . . report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report........ a. A statement that Semiannually
there were no according to the
deviations during requirements in
that reporting Sec. 63.5910(b).
period if there
were no deviations
from any emission
limitations
(emission limit,
operating limit,
opacity limit, and
visible emission
limit) that apply
to you and there
were no deviations
from the
requirements for
work practice
standards in Table
4 of this subpart
that apply to you.
If there were no
periods during
which the CMS,
including CEMS, and
operating parameter
monitoring systems,
was out of control
as specified in
Sec. 63.8(c)(7),
the report must
also contain a
statement that
there were no
periods during
which the CMS was
out of control
during the
reporting period.
b. The information Semiannually
in Sec. 63.5910(d) according to the
if you have a requirements in
deviation from any Sec. 63.5910(b).
emission the
limitation
(emission limit,
operating limit, or
work practice
standard) during
the reporting
period. If there
were periods during
which the CMS,
including CEMS, and
operating parameter
monitoring systems,
was out of control,
as specified in
Sec. 63.8(c)(7),
the report must
contain the
information in Sec.
63.5910(e).
c. The information Semiannually
in Sec. according to the
63.10(d)(5)(i). If requirements in
you had a startup, Sec. 63.5910(b).
shutdown or
malfunction during
the reporting
period, and you
took actions
consistent with
your startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
2. An immediate startup, a. Actions taken for By fax or telephone
shutdown, and malfunction the event. within 2 working
report if you had a days after starting
startup, shutdown, or actions
malfunction during the inconsistent with
reporting period that is the plan.
not consistent with your
startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan.
b. The information By letter within 7
in Sec. working days after
63.10(d)(5)(ii). the end of the
event unless you
have made
alternative
arrangements with
the permitting
authority. (Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As specified in Sec. 63.5925, the parts of the General Provisions
which apply to you are shown in the following table:
[[Page 40365]]
Table 15 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart WWWW of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to the
The general provisions reference . . That addresses . . . And applies to subpart following additional
. WWWW of Part 63 . . . information . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)..................... General applicability Yes.................... Additional terms
of the general defined in subpart
provisions. WWWW of Part 63; when
overlap between
subparts A and WWWW of
Part 63 of this part,
subpart WWWW of Part
63 takes precedence.
Sec. 63.1(a)(2) through (4)......... General applicability Yes.
of the general
provisions.
Sec. 63.1(a)(5)..................... Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.1(a)(6) through (7)......... General applicability Yes.
of the general
provisions.
Sec. 63.1(a)(8)..................... General applicability Yes.
of the general
provisions.
Sec. 63.1(a)(9)..................... Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.1(a)(10) through (14)....... General applicability Yes.
of the general
provisions.
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)..................... Initial applicability Yes.................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
determination. clarifies the
applicability in Secs.
63.5780 and 63.5785.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)..................... Title V operating Yes.................... All major affected
permit requirement. sources are required
to obtain a title V
permit.
Sec. 63.1(b)(3)..................... Record of the Yes.
applicability
determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)..................... Applicability of this Yes.................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
part after a relevant clarifies the
standard has been set applicability of each
under this part. paragraph of subpart A
to sources subject to
subpart WWWW of Part
63.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)..................... Title V operating Yes.................... All major affected
permit requirement. sources are required
to obtain a title V
operating permit. Area
sources are not
subject to subpart
WWWW of Part 63.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)..................... Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)..................... Requirements for an Yes.
existing source that
obtains an extension
of compliance.
Sec. 63.1(c)(5)..................... Notification Yes.
requirements for an
area source that
increases HAP
emissions to major
source levels.
Sec. 63.1(d)........................ Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.1(e)........................ Applicability of permit Yes.
program before a
relevant standard has
been set under this
part.
Sec. 63.2........................... Definitions............ Yes.................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
defines terms in Sec.
63.5935. When overlap
between subparts A and
WWWW of Part 63
occurs, you must
comply with the
subpart WWWW of Part
63 definitions, which
take precedence over
the subpart A
definitions.
Sec. 63.3........................... Units and abbreviations Yes.................... Other units and
abbreviations used in
subpart WWWW of Part
63 are defined in
subpart WWWW of Part
63.
Sec. 63.4........................... Prohibited activities Yes.................... Sec. 63.4(a)(4) is
and circumvention. reserved and does not
apply.
Sec. 63.5(a)(1) through (2)......... Applicability of Yes.................... Existing facilities do
construction and not become
reconstruction. reconstructed under
subpart WWWW of Part
63.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)..................... Relevant standards for Yes.................... Existing facilities do
new sources upon not become
construction. reconstructed under
subpart WWWW of Part
63.
Sec. 63.5(b)(2)..................... Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)..................... New construction/ Yes.................... Existing facilities do
reconstructed. not become
reconstructed under
subpart WWWW of Part
63.
Sec. 63.5(b)(4)..................... Construction/ Yes.................... Existing facilities do
reconstruction not become
notification. reconstructed under
subpart WWWW of Part
63.
Sec. 63.5(b)(5)..................... Construction/ Yes.................... Existing facilities do
reconstruction not become
compliance. reconstructed under
subpart WWWW of Part
63.
Sec. 63.5(b)(6)..................... Equipment addition or Yes.................... Existing facilities do
process change. not become
reconstructed under
subpart WWWW of Part
63.
[[Page 40366]]
Sec. 63.5(c)........................ Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)..................... General application for Yes.................... Existing facilities do
approval of not become
construction or reconstructed under
reconstruction. subpart WWWW of Part
63.
Sec. 63.5(d)(2)..................... Application for Yes.
approval of
construction.
Sec. 63.5(d)(3)..................... Application for No.
approval of
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(d)(4)..................... Additional information. Yes.
Sec. 63.5(e)(1) through (5)......... Approval of Yes.
construction or
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)(1) through (2)......... Approval of Yes.
construction or
reconstruction based
on prior State
preconstruction review.
Sec. 63.6(a)(1)..................... Applicability of Yes.
compliance with
standards and
maintenance
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(a)(2)..................... Applicability of area Yes.
sources that increase
emissions to become
major sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1) through (2)......... Compliance dates for Yes.................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
new and reconstructed clarifies compliance
sources. dates in Sec.
63.5800.
Sec. 63.6(b)(3) through (5)......... Compliance dates for Yes.................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
area sources that clarifies compliance
become major sources. dates in Sec.
63.5800.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)..................... Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)..................... Compliance dates for Yes.................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
new sources resulting clarifies compliance
from new unaffected dates in Sec.
area sources becoming 63.5800.
subject to standards.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1) through (2)......... Compliance dates for Yes.................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
existing sources. clarifies compliance
dates in Sec.
63.5800.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3) through (4)......... Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)..................... Compliance dates for Yes.................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
existing area sources clarifies compliance
that become major. dates in Sec.
63.5800.
Sec. 63.6(d)........................ Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1) through (2)......... Operation & maintenance Yes.
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)..................... Startup, shutdown, and Yes.................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
malfunction plan and requires a startup,
recordkeeping. shutdown, and
malfunction plan only
for sources using add-
on controls.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)..................... Compliance except No..................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
during periods of requires compliance
startup, shutdown, and during periods of
malfunction. startup, shutdown, and
malfunctions, except
startup, shutdown, and
malfunctions for
sources using add-on
controls.
Sec. 63.6(f)(23).................... Methods for determining Yes.
compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1) through (3)......... Alternative standard... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(h)........................ Opacity and visible No..................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
emission Standards. does not contain
opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1) through (14)........ Compliance extensions.. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(i)(15).................... Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.6(i)(16).................... Compliance extensions.. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(j)........................ Presidential compliance Yes.
exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)..................... Applicability of Yes.
performance testing
requirements.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)..................... Performance test dates. No..................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
initial compliance
requirements are in
Sec. 63.5840.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)..................... Section 114 authority.. Yes.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)..................... Notification of Yes.
performance test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)..................... Notification of Yes.
rescheduled
performance test.
Sec. 63.7(c)........................ Quality assurance Yes.................... Except that the test
program, including plan must be submitted
test plan. with the notification
of the performance
test.
Sec. 63.7(d)........................ Performance testing Yes.
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1) through (4)......... Conditions for Yes.................... Performance test
conducting performance requirements are
tests. contained in Sec.
63.5850. Additional
requirements for
conducting performance
tests for continuous
lamination/casting are
included in Sec.
63.5865.
Sec. 63.7(f)........................ Use of alternative test Yes.
method.
[[Page 40367]]
Sec. 63.7(g)........................ Performance test data Yes.
analysis,
recordkeeping, and
reporting.
Sec. 63.7(h)........................ Waiver of performance Yes.
tests.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1) through (2)......... Applicability of Yes.
monitoring
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)..................... Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)..................... Monitoring requirements Yes.
when using flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)..................... Conduct of monitoring Yes.
exceptions.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2) through (3)......... Multiple effluents and Yes.
multiple monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).................. Ensure immediate repair Yes.................... This section applies if
or replacement of CMS you elect to use a CMS
parts to correct to demonstrate
``routine'' or continuous compliance
otherwise predictable with an emission
malfunctions. limit.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)................. Report CMS malfunctions Yes.................... This section applies if
that are not addressed you elect to use a CMS
by the startup, to demonstrate
shutdown, and continuous compliance
malfunction plan. with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)................ Compliance with CMS Yes.................... This section applies if
operation and you elect to use a CMS
maintenance to demonstrate
requirements. continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2) through (3)......... Monitoring system Yes.................... This section applies if
installation. you elect to use a CMS
to demonstrate
continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)..................... CMS requirements....... Yes.................... This section applies if
you elect to use a CMS
to demonstrate
continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)..................... COMS minimum procedures No..................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
does not contain
opacity standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6) through (8)......... CMS calibration and Yes.................... This section applies if
periods CMS is out of you elect to use a CMS
control. to demonstrate
continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.8(d)........................ CMS quality control Yes.................... This section applies if
program, including you elect to use a CMS
current test plan and to demonstrate
all previous versions. continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.8(e)(1)..................... Performance evaluation Yes.................... This section applies if
of CMS. you elect to use a CMS
to demonstrate
continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.8(e)(2)..................... Notification of Yes.................... This section applies if
performance evaluation. you elect to use a CMS
to demonstrate
continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.8(e)(3) through (4)......... CMS requirements/ Yes.................... This section applies if
alternatives. you elect to use a CMS
to demonstrate
continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.8(e)(5)(i).................. Reporting performance Yes.................... This section applies if
evaluation results. you elect to use a CMS
to demonstrate
continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.8(e)(5)(ii)................. Results of COMS No..................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
performance evaluation. does not contain
opacity standards.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1) through (3)......... Use of an alternative Yes.
monitoring method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(4)..................... Request to use an Yes.
alternative monitoring
method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(5)..................... Approval of request to Yes.
use an alternative
monitoring method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)..................... Request for alternative Yes.................... This section applies if
to relative accuracy you elect to use a CMS
test and associated to demonstrate
records. continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1) through (5)......... Data reduction......... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(a)(1) through (4)......... Notification Yes.
requirements and
general information.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)..................... Initial notification Yes.
applicability.
Sec. 63.9(b)(2)..................... Notification for Yes.
affected source with
initial startup before
effective date of
standard.
Sec. 63.9(b)(3)..................... Notification that Yes.
subject to the rule
for new or
reconstructed affected
source with initial
startup after
effective date and for
which an application
for approval of
construction or
reconstruction is not
required.
[[Page 40368]]
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(i) through (iii).... Notification for a new Yes.
or reconstructed major
affected source with
initial startup after
effective date for
which an application
for approval of
construction or
reconstruction is
required.
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(iv)................. Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(v).................. Notification for a new Yes.................... Existing facilities do
or reconstructed major not become
affected source with reconstructed under
initial startup after subpart WWWW of Part
effective date for 63.
which an application
for approval of
construction or
reconstruction is
required.
Sec. 63.9(b)(5)..................... After effective date of Yes.................... Existing facilities do
standard, notification not become
of intended reconstructed under
construction or subpart WWWW of Part
reconstruction. 63.
Sec. 63.9(c)........................ Request for compliance Yes.
extension.
Sec. 63.9(d)........................ Notification of special Yes.
compliance
requirements for new
source.
Sec. 63.9(e)........................ Notification of Yes.
performance test.
Sec. 63.9(f)........................ Notification of opacity No..................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
and visible emissions does not contain
observations. opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)..................... Additional notification Yes.................... This section applies if
requirements for you elect to use a CMS
sources using CMS. to demonstrate
continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)..................... Notification of No..................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
compliance with does not contain
opacity emission opacity emission
standard. standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(3)..................... Notification that Yes.................... This section applies if
criterion to continue you elect use a CMS to
use of alternative to demonstrate continuous
relative accuracy compliance with an
testing has been emission limit.
exceeded.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1) through (3)......... Notification of Yes.
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4)..................... Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.9(h)(5) through (6)......... Notification of Yes.
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(i)........................ Adjustment of submittal Yes.
deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j)........................ Change in information Yes.
provided.
Sec. 63.10(a)(1) through (7)........ Applicability of Yes.
recordkeeping and
reporting.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1).................... Records retention...... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i) through (v)..... Records related to Yes.................... Only applies to
startup, shutdown, and facilities that use an
malfunction. add-on control device.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi)... CMS records............ Yes.................... This section applies if
you elect to use a CMS
to demonstrate
continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)............... Record of waiver of Yes.
recordkeeping and
reporting.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............. Record for alternative Yes.
to the relative
accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)............... Records supporting Yes.
initial notification
and notification of
compliance status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3).................... Records for Yes.
applicability
determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1).................... CMS records............ Yes.................... This section applies if
you elect to use a CMS
to demonstrate
continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.10(c)(2) through (4)........ Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.10(c)(5) through (8)........ CMS records............ Yes.................... This section applies if
you elect to use a CMS
to demonstrate
continuous compliance
with an emission
limit.
Sec. 63.10(c)(9).................... Reserved............... No.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1).................... General reporting Yes.
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2).................... Report of performance Yes.
test results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3).................... Reporting results of No..................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
opacity or visible does not contain
emission observations. opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4).................... Progress reports as Yes.
part of extension of
compliance.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5).................... Startup, shutdown, and Yes.................... Only applies if you use
malfunction reports. an add-on control
device.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1) through (3)........ Additional reporting Yes.................... This section applies if
requirements for CMS. you have an add-on
control device and
elect to use a CEM to
demonstrate continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
[[Page 40369]]
Sec. 63.10(e)(4).................... Reporting COMS data.... No..................... Subpart WWWW of Part 63
does not data contain
opacity standards.
Sec. 63.10(f)....................... Waiver for Yes.
recordkeeping or
reporting.
Sec. 63.11.......................... Control device Yes.................... Only applies if you
requirements. elect to use a flare
as a control device.
Sec. 63.12.......................... State authority and Yes.
delegations.
Sec. 63.13.......................... Addresses of State air Yes.
pollution control
agencies and EPA
Regional Offices.
Sec. 63.14.......................... Incorporations by Yes.
reference.
Sec. 63.15.......................... Availability of Yes.
information and
confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 01-17564 Filed 8-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P