[Federal Register: August 2, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 149)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 40323-40369] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Part II Environmental Protection Agency ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production; Proposed Rule [[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, barnett.keith@epamail.epa.gov. 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: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 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 ``farmer.sandy@epa.gov,'' 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