Division of Air Pollution Control Response to Comments ... · Rule 3745-21- 25 “Control of VOC...

Division of Air Pollution Control

Response to Comments

Draft Rule Language Comment Period Rule: OAC Rule 3745-21-25 Agency Contact for this Package Division Contact: Alan Harness, DAPC, 644-4838, [email protected] Rule 3745-21- 25 “Control of VOC Emissions from Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Operations” Comment 1: I have reviewed the proposed rule in greater detail, and discussed it with ACMA members who would be affected by it. In general, I understand and strongly support where you are going with this, so my concerns are largely over the details. Here are my comments/questions. 1. I understand this to be a RACT rule, yet the term RACT does not appear in the rule text. Further the rule applies statewide to both major and minor VOC sources. Don't VOC RACT rules apply only to existing major VOC sources in moderate or worse ozone nonattainment areas? Please clearly identify this rule as specifying and imposing RACT. Or is this a BAT rule? (David Lipiro, ACMA)

Ohio EPA provided a 30 day comment period which initially ended on November 14, 2008 was extended to November 28, 2008. This document summarizes the comments and questions received at the public hearing and/or during the associated comment period. Ohio EPA reviewed and considered all comments received during the public comment period. By law, Ohio EPA has authority to consider specific issues related to protection of the environment and public health. In an effort to help you review this document, the questions are grouped by topic and organized in a consistent format. The name of the commenter follows the comment in parentheses.

Rule Package: OAC Rule 3745-21-25 Response to Comments June 8, 2008 of 26

Response 1: This rule is considered to be a RACT rule for VOC emissions. The concept of RACT is indicated under the added paragraph (D)(11) on alternative requirements. Paragraph (D)(11)(a) states, “Best available technology shall be defined in accordance with division (f) of section 3704.01 of the Revised Code and, for purposes of this paragraph, shall provide, where an emission limitation is applicable, the lowest emission limitation that the emissions unit is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines RACT as "the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility" (44 FR 53761, Sept. 17, 1979). Comment 2: 2. One reason ACMA requested a Reinforced Plastic Composites (RPC) RACT rule was to ensure that going forward OAC 3745-21-07 and 21-11 would not be applicable across the board. Nothing in the text of this rule speaks to that - we really need language clarifying that these other sections of 3745-21 are not applicable to emission units covered under this rule. At facilities with composite and non-composite processes, only the latter would be covered under 21-11. (David Lipiro, ACMA) Response 2: OAC rule 3745-21-11 had been rescinded as of April 2, 2009. There is no rule that replaces it. Also, paragraph (A)(3) has been added to clarify that upon achieving compliance with this rule, the reinforced plastic composites production operations at the facility are not required to meet OAC rule 3745-21-07. Comment 3: 3. As noted in a prior email, I believe all minor HAP sources should be exempt from this rule. Under A(2)(d), the proposed rule does exempt facilities using less than 1.2 TPY total resin and gelcoat, a threshold adopted directly from 63.5785(d) of the MACT rule. That threshold should be maintained in this RACT rule, but in its original context: as applying to major HAP sources. As noted in the Preamble (FR Vol 68, No. 76, p 19391), the usage threshold was set primarily to exempt "those uses [that are] . incidental to a completely different manufacturing operation." This is consistent with the fact that any plant using less than 1.2 TPY resin and gelcoat must be doing mostly something other than RPC manufacturing to be a major HAP source. However, that fact says nothing about which HAP minor sources could meet MACT.


In my experience many (and perhaps a majority of) RPC plants in Ohio are totally or partially custom manufacturers (job shops). As such they are characterized by an unpredictable production mix dictated entirely by the nature of orders in hand at any given time. MACT-affected job shops are particularly challenged by the requirements set forth in Table 3 of the MACT rule, which you have included in Table 2 of the proposed rule. Customer specifications inevitable require that job shops employ some "noncompliant" combinations of material and application technique, so compliance can only be achieved through averaging. But unless a shop is large enough to have many products in process at any given time, averaging may not ensure continuous compliance. For this reason, many smaller RPC shops that would otherwise be major HAP sources have opted to avoid MACT by taking synthetic minor permits. [One example is the RL Industries plant visited by us last year.] The burden would be much worse for RPC shops that are small enough to be "natural" minor sources; for most of them successful averaging would clearly be impossible. But even if it were, the extensive material usage recordkeeping required would overwhelm the very limited resources of such small companies. (David Lipiro, ACMA) Response 3: Under paragraph (A)(1)(d), the applicability exclusion applies regardless of the facility’s VOC emission level. Also, paragraph (D)(12) has been added to provide an exemption for facilities that emit less than 10 tons of VOC per year from their reinforced plastic composites production operations. This 10 ton per year exemption level for VOC emissions is similar to the 10 ton per year emissions level for a single HAP emission (e.g., styrene) that many reinforced plastic composites manufacturing facility’s meet to maintain a non-major HAP status to avoid MACT requirements. There would be very little additional recordkeeping burden for these non-major HAP facilities. Comment 4: 4. If you don't exempt minor HAP sources, you will be processing hundreds of PTI mod applications for minor HAP sources consuming more than the usage threshold. This seems counterproductive to efforts to streamline the permit system. (David Lipiro, ACMA) Response 4: See Response 3. This may provide a streamlined permit for some facilities.


Comment 5: 5. For major HAP sources under 100 TPY actual emissions, I strongly support the RACT rule provisions that sources complying with applicable MACT provisions are meeting RACT. But I urge you to reference those MACT provisions by citation, rather than verbatim. Other states (most recently Indiana) have done this in their rules. (David Lipiro, ACMA) Response 5: Thanks for your support of the MACT-type requirements for MACT-regulated facilities that are under 100 TPY of VOC emissions. At this time, it is preferred to refer to the MACT provisions verbatim, rather than by citation, due to the nature of this rule that has some requirements different from MACT. Guidance on streamlining the writing of permits for facilities subject to MACT and this RACT rule is expected. Comment 6: The RPC MACT is evolving, and the RACT rule must keep up. MACT allows sources to petition USEPA for administrative modifications allowing new emission factor equations to be used to determine MACT compliance when using materials and equipment not considered when MACT was set. I know of two such factor petitions "in the works", and expect more. Beyond that, the rule is complex, has already been amended once, and will so again. (David Lipiro, ACMA) Response 6: If the MACT rule has administrative modifications in the future, Ohio EPA would consider making similar modifications to this RACT rule by whatever means are available. Comment 7: I can get you more details on future changes if you need them. But bottom line, the rule change/SIP approval process is too cumbersome to keep the RACT rule harmonized with its underlying MACT basis. If you must incorporate MACT verbatim, then please include the MACT citation also and allow future changes in those underlying MACT provisions to automatically supersede the analogous RACT provisions. Otherwise OH RPC plants will be faced with a dual compliance burden as MACT and RACT diverge. (David Lipiro, ACMA) Response 7: At this time, there is no mechanism for this RACT rule to automatically incorporate a revised MACT provision. Ohio EPA will make an effort to revise this


RACT rule, where needed, in the event the MACT rule is revised. Ohio EPA has other air pollution rules that are periodically revised due to revisions at the federal level. Comment 8: For sources over 100 TPY actual, my concerns would be answered if presumptive RACT of 95% control would be rebuttable by a RACT study, evaluating cost and noneconomic impacts consistent with the Federal definition of RACT. (David Lipiro, ACMA) Response 8: We agree that the presumptive RACT of 95% control should be rebuttable by a site-specific RACT study. A provision on alternative requirements has been added under paragraph (D)(11). Also, see response 1. Comment 9: I(5)(b) of the proposed rule specifies that "(f)or purposes of the average per cent reduction calculation, wet area enclosures reduce VOC emissions by sixty per cent, and direct die injection and preform injection reduce VOC emissions by ninety per cent." However, section F of the rule is silent on how VOC emissions for pultrusion should be calculated for purposes of comparing actual emissions to the 100 TPY rule threshold. Though F(3)(a) allows the use of emission factor equations set forth in Table 1 of the MACT rule, none of them apply to pultrusion. Consistent with I(5)(b), I suggest that the following text be added to either section E or F(3)(a): "For pultrusion operations employing enclosures or resin injection (direct or preform), actual emissions may be calculated as 60% and 90% respectively of open line emissions, where open line emissions are calculated as specified in air permits covering these operations." (David Lipiro, ACMA) Response 9: We agree with your suggestion. Paragraph (F)(3)(c) has been added with your text. Comment 10: Sections E and F of the proposed rule cite Table 1 of the MACT rule as an appropriate source for emission factors. However, Footnote (h) to Table 4.4-2 on RPC emissions in the May 2008 version of AP-42 references instead ". the emissions factors contained in the ANSI/ACMA/ICPA UEF-1-2004 Estimating Emission Factors from Open Molding Composite Processes ("UEF") document. . The UEF factor equations and all available supporting documentation regarding the development and validation of the UEF are


available at http://www.acmanet.org/ga/reg-emissions.cfm." The ANSI UEF is a consensus standard periodically updated by expert review panels that include EPA and state representatives. The equations in the MACT rule must be used to determine MACT compliance, and hence should be used to determine analogous compliance under section D of the proposed RACT rule. But for VOC threshold determinations, emission factor equations in the ANSI UEF rather than MACT table 1 equations should be cited by OEPA in the proposed rule. (David Lipiro, ACMA) Response 10: AP-42 is referenced under paragraphs (E), (F), and (P). Therefore, Table 4.4-2 in AP-42, including its footnote on the UEF document, would be acceptable under these paragraphs. Comment 11: For RPC processes other than open molding, centrifugal casting, and continuous lamination, there are neither MACT Table 1 equations nor ANSI UEF equations. For such sources, emission factors incorporated within current facility permits should be accepted as a basis for threshold calculations, to maintain consistency with those permits. In such cases, there is no reason for facilities to provide proof that USEPA has accepted the emission factor. USEPA reviews all major source permit applications prior to issuance, so the agency's acceptance of proposed permits should be taken as de facto acceptance of emission factors contained therein. However, I agree that USEPA acceptance of emission factors is appropriate whenever the RPC MACT rule requires it - for instance, the factor petition mechanism previously described . Incorporation of the RPC MACT by citation in this RACT rule would properly cover all such circumstances. (David Lipiro, ACMA) Response 11: Emission factors incorporated within previously issued permits may not be acceptable under this rule. Emission threshold calculations pertain to open molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, mixing, and BMC manufacturing. For such operations, the Ohio EPA is willing to work with ACMA and individual facilities on acquiring USEPA acceptance of any facility-specific emission factors. Comment 12: Recent emission tests have invalidated emission factors previously accepted for SMC machines in air permits. For tested machines, the proposed rule properly


recognizes that test data may be used to document emissions. As you know, based on regression analysis of those test results, ACMA will soon propose an SMC machine emission equation for incorporation within the UEF ANSI standard. In the interim, facilities with untested machines will need an emission factor. I suggest you modify E(1) to make it clear that OEPA will accept site-specific emission factors based on evaluation of emission test data from similar sources at other RPC plants. (David Lipiro, ACMA) Response 12: Regarding emission factors for SMC machines, it is not possible for Ohio EPA to modify paragraph (E)(1) to include site-specific emission factors based upon an evaluation of emission test data from similar sources at other sites. USEPA would not accept it. Hopefully, the incorporation of ACMA’s SMC machine emission equation within the UEF ANSI standard will be completed by the time this rule is adopted. Comment 13: 3745-21-25 (D)(2) - The 100 tons per year cutoff does not appear likely to require controls for all operations listed in (D)(2) for which add-on control is technically and economically feasible. Any operation (listed in (D)(2)) operating over 4,000 hours per year should also be subject to add-on control. Records would need to be kept of all hours in which production is occurring and/or VOC emissions are being generated. This would extend the applicability requirements to operations typically operating for three shifts, at which point add-on control should be technically and economically feasible. Also, the applicability cutoff should be revised to 100 TPY potential emissions on a rolling 12-month basis in which emissions are computed every month for the past 12-months. Sources would, of course, have the option of obtaining, prior to the compliance date, federally enforceable permit limitations pursuant to OAC 3745-31-05(F), restricting their emissions to below 100 TPY. (Steve Rosenthal, U.S. EPA) Response 13: The issue of a using 4,000 hours per year as a basis for add-on control was further discussed with USEPA. Due to the relatively high-cost effectiveness of add-on control, it was determined that the 100 ton per year cutoff for operations listed in paragraph (D)(2) should be retained. However, for SMC machines, an add-on control requirement has been added under paragraph (D)(8) and a 25 tons per year cutoff has been added under paragraph (D)(9). It has been determined that add-on control for an SMC machine is generally cost-effective, based upon cost data provided by USEPA. A rolling 12-month basis seems feasible. But it would not be consistent with the MACT determination of threshold which is based upon a calendar year and


includes semi-annual reporting. However, the provision in paragraph (F)(3) pertaining to an existing or new facility having an enforceable permit that results in VOC emissions less than 100 TPY prior to add-on control is being revised to include the statement "(per rolling twelve-month period)." The details on monthly recordkeeping for a rolling 12-month period can best be handled in a permit. Comment 14: (D)(3): There is insufficient information available to establish 2.4 lb/ton (from Table 3 of Appendix A) as an acceptable alternative to 95% control for SMC manufacturing operations. (Steve Rosenthal, U.S. EPA) Response 14: The basis for the 2.4 lb/ton limit as an alternative for SMC manufacturing operations is from the MACT rule. Upon investigating the MACT documentation and discussing the matter with USEPA staff, it has been determined by DAPC that the alternative to 95% control for SMC manufacturing operations should be removed from Table 3 due to insufficient information. Comment 15: (D)(5) is an unnecessary exemption and should be deleted. Companies should be required to plan sufficiently to maintain compliance on and after the compliance date. (D)(6) would therefore also need to be deleted. (Steve Rosenthal, U.S. EPA) Response 15: This exemption is patterned after the MACT rule, which is a national rule. We agree that companies in Ohio should be able to adequately plan to maintain compliance on or after the compliance date. Therefore, paragraphs (D)(5) and (D)(6) in the draft rule have been deleted and replaced with the following: “(5) Once a reinforced plastic composites production facility equals or exceeds the one hundred tons of VOC per year threshold of paragraph (D)(3) of this rule on or after the effective date of this rule, it is always subject to the requirements of paragraph (D)(3) of this rule, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (D)(6) of this rule.” “(6) In the event a reinforced plastic composites production facility equals or exceeds the one hundred tons of VOC per year threshold of paragraph (D)(3) of this rule on or after the effective date of this rule, but reduces its emissions to less than the one hundred tons of VOC per year threshold by no later than the compliance date of this rule, the facility is not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (D)(3) of this rule. If such reinforced plastic composites production facility subsequently equals or exceeds the one hundred tons of VOC per year


threshold of paragraph (D)(3) of this rule, then it becomes subject to the requirements of paragraphs (D)(3) of this rule.” Comment 16: (E)(1): It must be clearly stated that stack test data supersedes emission factors and other emission estimating techniques. Also the reference to the test procedures in 40 CFR 63.5850 is insufficient because this CFR cite refers specifically to testing when add-on control is used. A test method is needed for determining applicability when there is no add-on control. (Steve Rosenthal, U.S. EPA) Response 16: We agree that a stack test supersedes emission factors. Language on this has been added to paragraph (E)(1). MACT does not require a stack test to determine applicability for uncontrolled sources. A stack test in such situations would be overly expensive to demonstrate nonapplicability when compared to standard emission factors. Comment 17: (F)(3)(b): The reference to the test procedures in 40 CFR 63.5850 is insufficient because this CFR cite refers specifically to testing when add-on control is used. A test method is needed for determining applicability when there is no add-on control. (Steve Rosenthal, U.S. EPA) Response 17: We agree that a test procedure is needed when there is no add-on control. Therefore, a reference to paragraph (C) of OAC rule 3745-21-10 has been added to paragraph (F)(3)(b). Comment 18: The following comment refers to the relationship between this rule and the revised OAC 3745-21-07, which requires at least 85 percent control for operations using liquid organic material which emit more than eight pounds per hour or over 40 pounds per day when employing, applying, evaporating or drying any photochemically reactive material, or substance containing photochemically reactive material. There will most likely be reinforced plastic composite production operations in the Cleveland ozone nonattainment area which require to be controlled under the old (but still in the SIP) OAC 3745-21-07 and not under the new OAC 3745-21-07 and OAC 3745-21-25. A demonstration is needed as to how this is consistent


with the Section 193 (General Savings Clause) of the Clean Air Act. (Steve Rosenthal, U.S. EPA) Response 18: A demonstration on the General Savings Clause seems appropriate for operations subject to this rule and no longer subject to OAC rule 3745-21-07. Comment 19: This Draft Rule states in part: (D) VOC control requirements.

(1) The owner or operator of the reinforced plastic composites production facility shall meet the work practice standards in table 1 of this rule for affected operations.

(2) If the reinforced plastic composites production facility has VOC

emissions less than the threshold of one hundred tons of VOC per year from the combination of all open molding, centrifugal casting, continuous lamination/casting, pultrusion, SMC manufacturing, mixing, and BMC manufacturing, the owner or operator shall meet the VOC emissions limits in table 2 of this rule.

Table 2 of the draft Rule does not cite SMC manufacturing, mixing, and BMC manufacturing operations. (Ken Lazo, Premix) Response 19: It is correct that Table 2 does not specify VOC emission limits for SMC manufacturing, mixing, and BMC manufacturing operations. This is similar to the MACT standard, which does not have emission limits for those operations under Table 3 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63. Comment 20: This Draft Rule states in part: (E) Procedures for determination of VOC emissions factors for reinforced plastic composites production operations and determination of monomer content of resins and gel coats. (1) Emissions factors are used in this rule to determine compliance with certain

VOC emissions limits in table 2 and table 3 of this rule and to calculate VOC emissions. A person may use the equations in table 1 to Subpart WWWW of 40 CFR 63 to calculate such emissions factors or may use any VOC


emissions factor approved by USEPA, such as factors from AP-42. These equations and emissions factors are intended to provide a method for one to demonstrate compliance without the need to conduct a VOC emissions test. In lieu of these equations and emissions factors, the owner or operator can elect to use site specific VOC emissions factors to demonstrate compliance and to calculate VOC emissions provided the site-specific VOC emissions factors are incorporated in the facility's air emissions permit and are based on actual facility VOC emissions test data using the test procedures in 40 CFR 63.5850.

Premix supports the use of site-specific VOC emissions factors to demonstrate compliance and to calculate VOC emissions. Premix has expended considerable time and funds to acquire Method 204 stack test results for the SMC machines and intends to incorporate the emission rates in the Title V permit. (Ken Lazo, Premix) Response 20: The use of site-specific emission factors based upon actual facility VOC emissions testing has been maintained. Thanks for the supporting comment. Comment 21: OAC rule 3745-21-25(D)(3) requires that any facility with VOC emissions from the listed process types that are equal to or greater than 100 tons per year (TPY) must "reduce the total VOC emissions from these operations by at least ninety-five per cent by weight" or meet the restrictive VOC content specification in Table 3 of the draft rule. OAC rule 3745-21 -25(F) requires that facilities calculate VOC emissions for comparison to the 100 TPY threshold prior to any add-on controls. Thus, the draft rule requires companies that have reduced emission to less than 100 TPY with the use of an add-on control system to replace the original equipment (if it does not meet the 95% control requirement or Table 3 limits) with a more efficient control system while companies with actual emissions of slightly less than 100 TPY would only be required to meet the far less rigorous VOC emission limits in Table 2 of the draft rule. A.R.E. requests that Ohio EPA change the draft rule to allow facilities to use the control efficiencies associated with add on control systems when calculating whether VOC emissions are above or below the 100 TPY threshold. In addition, A.R.E. requests that Ohio EPA clarify that the threshold is based on actual emissions rather than potential emissions. (William P. Schweizer, A.R.E. Accessories, LLC) Response 21: The 100 TPY threshold pertains to VOC emissions prior to any add-on control device. This is needed in order to ensure that add-on control devices are subject to a 95% control requirement, where appropriate under this rule. The use of actual (i.e., after add-on control) does not ensure a minimum 95% control. In the


event a facility had installed add-on control less than 95% efficient prior to the adoption of this rule, and the facility believes it would be unreasonable or infeasible to make the add-on control more efficient up to the minimum 95% control, the facility can request an alternative requirement pursuant to paragraph (D)(11). Comment 22: OAC Chapter 3745-21-25 was drafted to protect the public from the affects of VOC emissions in the low level atmosphere causing ozone transformation. The VOC interaction with Nitrogen Oxides (NO) and sunlight to produce ozone occurs in warm months (specifically May first through September thirtieth). A.R.E. therefore believes that there is no need for VOC control to occur in the winter months (October first of a year through April thirtieth of the subsequent year). Control of VOC emissions during this time period provides no low level ozone reduction benefit and only applies an unbeneficial financial burden upon industry. A.R.E. furthermore believes that there is no substantiated reason to apply a more stringent time frame of control to improve ozone in the atmosphere on the reinforced plastic composites industry than on electric generating utilities regulated by OAC Chapter 3745-14. Sources regulated by OAC Chapter 3745- 14 are required to control NOx emissions only during the control period as defined by OAC Chapter 3745-14-01. Control period is defined to mean "the period beginning May first of a year and ending on September thirtieth of the same year, inclusive" A.R.E. is requesting that the 95% reduction of VOC required by OAC rule 3745-21-25 only be required during the summer ozone "control period" as defined by OAC rule 3745-14-01(B)(2)(s). (William P. Schweizer, A.R.E. Accessories, LLC) Response 22: VOC rules under a state implementation plan (SIP) for ozone generally do not provide seasonal shut-off of add-on control. This is due to the inherent increase in VOC emissions that can contribute to odor nuisances and potential adverse health affects from air toxic pollution. Any seasonal shut-off of add-on control that is a gas-fired afterburner can be handled as a SIP revision pursuant to USEPA’s “Revised Seasonal Afterburner Policy” (12/1/1980). Also, the facility would have to apply for a modification of its air permit, which would include compliance with BAT and DAPC’s air toxics policy. Comment 23: Table 1 of the draft OAC rule 3745-21-25 specifically restricts the type of cleaning solvents used in cleaning operations to non-VOC materials. It appears that this language appears because the draft rule mirrors the requirements in the 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WWWW MACT standards that prohibit the use-of HAP-containing clean up solvents. This restriction is too stringent as cleaning operations account for a fraction of the overall VOC emissions producing


operations. Although acetone (a non-VOC) is often used for cleaning operations, cleaners containing VOC may be necessary for some present and future cleaning operations. A.R.E. is requesting that Table 1 Work Practice Standards be changed to allow the use of VOC-containing cleaning materials. (William P. Schweizer, A.R.E. Accessories, LLC) Response 23: In order to allow the use of VOC-containing cleaners, the work practice standards has been changed to allow the use of low-VOC content cleaners that have a VOC content not greater than 0.42 pound VOC per gallon (based upon OAC rule 3745-21-23 and the CTG on industrial solvent cleaning operations). Comment 24: RL Industries, a manufacturer of diverse custom reinforced plastic composite (RPC) products, is pleased to submit these comments on proposed rule OAC 3745-21-25. After careful review, we have concluded that the proposed rule would have extreme negative impact on our operations by effectively negating the benefit of our synthetic minor operating permit and requiring compliance with the emission limits of 40 CFR 63 Subpart WWWW, the RPC MACT rules. For the reasons explained below, it is simply infeasible for us to meet those limits. RL Industries has invested heavily in closed molding technology and has converted 65% of component fabrication (as measured by resin usage) from high-emission open molding processes to low-emission closed molding processes. In the last five years, that investment has enabled us to triple our revenues and add 100 new jobs in southwest Ohio, while only slightly increasing our facility VOC emissions. When the RPC MACT rule was issued, we recognized that as a small custom manufacturer moving into closed molding, it would be impossible to meet. We cannot immediately convert all production to closed molding - the conversion process is gradual and is not always feasible. Frequently our customer specifications require the use of some combinations of material and open molding application techniques that could not comply with MACT, so compliance could only be achieved through averaging under MACT rules. But given that we have only a few jobs running at any time, there would be no way for us to ensure we would always have an appropriate mix of open molding jobs to average successfully. Capture and control of open molding emissions would be impossibly expensive. Further, our commitment to closed molding would only make matters worse if we were subject to the RPC MACT limits. The MACT rule specifically excludes closed molding from the open molding averaging provisions. So as open molding jobs migrate to closed molding, fewer would be left for averaging. For these reasons, RL Industries agreed to accept emission caps enforced through a synthetic minor permit that made us a minor source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) exempt from the RPC MACT. The operational flexibility this permit has provided is key to our success to date and vital to our plans ahead. We simply cannot sustain our business under the emission limits of the RPC MACT rule, which Ohio EPA now seeks to impose


on us. We do not understand how Ohio EPA concluded that the RPC MACT emission limits could reasonably be met be minor HAP sources. When USEPA determined what those limits should be, the agency did not consider minor sources, since they were never intended to be regulated by MACT. As an active member of the American Composites Manufacturing Association, we know our trade organization did not submit industry data to EPA on the feasibility of regulating minor-source shops or solicit comments from such companies, for the same reason. In summary, proposed rule 3745-21-25 would without justification impose impossibly stringent requirements on RL Industries and, we believe, many other minor-source RPC shops in Ohio. Accordingly, we respectfully request that Ohio EPA exempt minor HAP sources from this rule. (Brian M. Linnemann, RL Industries) Response 24: We believe that this rule should not apply to facilities that emit less than 10 TPY from their reinforced plastic composites operations, which is similar to the minor-source facilities that maintain a single HAP (e.g., styrene) emission below 10 TPY. Paragraph (D)(12) has been added to provide an exemption for facilities that emit less than 10 TPY for their reinforced plastic composites production operations. Comment 25: Our comments address (1) Ohio EPA’s arbitrary broadening of USEPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations for reinforced plastic composites to encompass VOC emissions and (2) specifically request clarification of certain ambiguous aspects to rule as well as address various technical feasibility issues associated with implementation of the proposed rule. These technical feasibility issues are central to RGC’s concerns regarding the potential cost and adverse operational impacts that could be associated with the proposed VOC regulations. General Comment on Use of USEPA NESHAP Regulation As a general comment, the overwhelming majority of the proposed OAC 3745-21-25 regulations have been copied verbatim from the 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart WWWW, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites. While RGC is subject to and in compliance with Subpart WWWW, LMG and RGC do not believe the Ohio EPA’s generic expansion of Subpart WWWW regulations promulgated as Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) for hazardous air pollutants to broad-based VOC emissions is consistent with Ohio criteria for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOCs.


Furthermore, Ohio EPA’s generic expansion of Subpart WWWW regulations promulgated as MACT for hazardous air pollutants have not been adequately evaluated for potential adverse cost and operational impacts to RPC plants, as required. (Labyrinth Management Group, on behalf of Rochling Glastic Composites) Response 25: Some RPC plants may be subject to requirements more stringent than MACT. We are concerned about the potential adverse cost and operational impacts associated with this rule. In order to minimize such costs and impacts, we have added paragraph (D)(11), which allows affected facilities to apply for alternative requirements. Comment 26: RGC’s comments related to specific sections of the proposed rule are provided below. 1. (I)(2)(e) The total open area of the enclosure shall not exceed two

times the cross sectional area of the puller window(s) and shall comply with the requirements in paragraphs (I)(2)(e)(i) to (I)(2)(e)(iii) of this rule.

The term “Puller Window” is not defined in OAC 3745-21-25 or OAC 3745-21-01. RGC is requesting that if Ohio EPA is to broaden the applicability of the NESHAP regulation to all VOCs that this term be explicitly defined by Ohio EPA as:

“The cross-sectional area of the largest part that can be passed through the machine’s puller mechanism(s) when in their fully open state in the absence of any shims or spacers.”

Figure 1 below represents a typical puller configuration in which two separate profiles with different cross sections are produced on the same pultrusion line. RGC’s interpretation of the term “Puller Window” is the value represented by the “X” dimension multiplied by the value represented by the “Y” dimension, regardless of the spacers, shims or grippers that might be placed within.


Figure 1: RPC Puller Configuration

In LMG’s opinion, any alternative definition of this term would lead to ambiguity when:

• Multiple parts with different profiles are simultaneously being produced on the same pultrusion line. Though the size of the actual puller does not change, the use of spacers and shims on one or more of the parts could be interpreted as a reduction of the puller window. Such an interpretation would result in the necessity to engineer and construct enclosures based on every conceivable combination of profiles that could be produced on a given machine.

• Parts with grossly different profiles are produced at different times on the

same machine with an identical wet-out bath configuration. In this circumstance, there would be no change in the effectiveness of the enclosure, however a dramatically reduced “puller window” resulting from the use spacers and shims in the puller mechanism may render the enclosure non-compliant.

To reduce the potential economic burden and regulatory uncertainty to RPC operations, we are requesting that Ohio EPA clarify this definition in their Response to Comments. (Labyrinth Management Group, on behalf of Rochling Glastic Composites) Response 26: This comment addresses requirements under MACT that have been incorporated into this rule. In order to properly address this comment, we will contact the developers of the MACT rule. In the meantime, we suggest that you work with


your Ohio EPA field office regarding this matter, including any clarification that can be inserted into your air permit. Comment 27: 2. (I)(2)(h)The enclosure may not be removed from the pultrusion line, and

access panels, doors, and/or hatches that are part of the enclosure shall remain closed whenever resin is in the bath, except for the time period discussed paragraph (I)(2)(i) of this rule.

(I)(5)(b) The weighted average reduction based on resin throughput of all pultrusion machines combined is sixty per cent. For purpose of the average per cent reduction calculation, wet area enclosures reduce VOC emissions by sixty per cent, and direct die and perform injection reduce VOC emissions by ninety per cent.

Sections (I)(2)(h) and (I)(5)(b) of the proposed rule are in conflict with one another. The purpose of Section (I)(5)(b) appears to be to encourage facilities to move toward direct die or perform injection, which are more costly alternatives to wet-out bath enclosures. The incentive being that one may forego the implementation of enclosures on pultrusion lines that may tend to do shorter production runs and require frequent job changes and thus numerous enclosure configurations. As (I)(2)(h) is currently written, there is no incentive to implement advanced controls, since compliance with (I)(2)(h) would imply that the reduction based on resin throughput of pultrusion machines combined is already sixty percent, therefore no additional controls are necessary. RGC is requesting that the following text be appended to section (I)(2)(h):

“unless the facility has achieved a weighted average reduction of 60 percent or more as specified in (I)(5)(b)”

This averaging methodology allows for some pultrusion lines to remain without enclosures so that resources can be dedicated to achieving greater control efficiencies on production lines with greater throughput, and therefore greater emissions, thus resulting in the same or a net increase in percent (5) control of emissions. Furthermore, without the ability to operate certain pultrusion lines without enclosures, the averaging provisions of (I)(5)(b) are meaningless. Therefore, the proposed RPC VOC regulations will pose a substantial additional cost and operational burden on existing RCP plants in Ohio. LMG has seen no information to suggest that Ohio EPA has evaluated the extent of this potential additional burden on RPC plants as part of this rule making process. (Labyrinth Management Group, on behalf of Rochling Glastic Composites


Response 27: This comment addresses requirements under MACT that have been incorporated into this rule. In order to properly address this comment, we will contact the developers of the MACT rule. In the meantime, we suggest that you work with your Ohio EPA field office regarding this matter, including any clarification that can be inserted into your air permit. Comment 28: 3. (I)(2)(g) The access panels, doors, and/or hatches that are part of the

enclosure shall close tightly. Damaged access panels, doors, and/or hatches that do not close tightly shall be replaced.

RGC is requesting that this portion of the proposed rule be modified to allow for access panels, doors and hatches that remain closed under their own weight. “Close tightly” implies that some form of latch or locking mechanism must be used. Such devices are prone to failure due to resin contamination in a production environment. Allowing access panels, doors and hatches to close completely under their own weight will not adversely affect the efficiency of the enclosure but will reduce the cost of implementing and maintaining the enclosures. 4. (I)(2)(i) The maximum length of time the enclosure may be removed from

the pultrusion line or the access panels, doors, and/or hatches and may be open, is thirty minutes per eight-hour shift, forty-five minutes per twelve-hour shift, or ninety minutes per day if the machine is operated for twenty-four hours in a day…

The time allotted for having access panels open is too short for pultrusion lines producing multiple profiles from the same wet-out bath. This scenario requires that job changes on one or more dies be conducted while production continues on the remaining dies. 5. (I)(2)(c) For open bath pultrusion machines without a radio frequency pre-

heat unit, the enclosure shall extend from the beginning of the resin bath to within 0.5 inches or less of the die entrance.

RGC is requesting that this language be modified to indicate that the upper horizontal surface of the enclosure extend to within 0.5 inches or less of the die entrance. It is impractical under certain circumstances for the wet-out bath, which comprises the lower horizontal surface of the enclosure, to be placed within 0.5 inches of the die. Further, ensuring that the vertical portions of an enclosure extend to within 0.5 inches of the die is impractical in light of the fact that multiple combinations and configurations of dies may be used on a pultrusion line. In this


scenario, a separate enclosure would need to be engineered for every potential combination of parts that could be produced on a given line. We do not believe that there is any added emission reduction benefit to having the vertical or lower horizontal surfaces of the enclosure come within 0.5 inches of the die entrance. The vertical surfaces of the enclosure will prevent cross-drafts from influencing emissions whether they are 0.5 inches away or 12 inches away. The lower horizontal portion of the enclosure (i.e. the die-ward lip of the wet-out bath) does little to suppress VOC emissions and acts only as a conveyance for resin drip. (Labyrinth Management Group, on behalf of Rochling Glastic Composites) Response 28: This comment addresses requirements under MACT that have been incorporated into this rule. In order to properly address this comment, we will contact the developers of the MACT rule. In the meantime, we suggest that you work with your Ohio EPA field office regarding this matter, including any clarification that can be inserted into your air permit. Comment 29: 6. Deminimus and research and development activities are not explicitly

exempted by the rule. RGC is requesting that an exemption for research and development or other permit exempt and deminimus activities be included in the rule. In the absence of such an exemption, new product and/or process development will be greatly hindered by the additional burden of the requirement to engineer and construct an enclosure for every prospective new product. Without an R&D exemption OR an averaging provision as discussed previously, RGC’s ability to develop and implement new product or process improvements will be unreasonably restricted. (Labyrinth Management Group, on behalf of Rochling Glastic Composites) Response 29: An R&D exclusion is listed under paragraph (C)(2)(i). Comment 30: 7. (F)(3)(a) Use a calculated emission factor. Calculate a weighted average VOC emissions factor on a pounds per ton of resin and gel coat basis. Base the weighted average on the prior twelve months of operation. Multiply the weighted average VOC emissions factor by resin and gel


coat use over the same period. The owner or operator may calculate this VOC emissions factor based on the equations in table 1 to subpart WWWW of 40 CFR 63, or the owner or operator may use any VOC emissions factor approved by USEPA, such as factors from AP-42, or site specific VOC emissions factors if they are supported by VOC emissions test data. RGC calculates VOC emissions using engineering estimates based upon the chemical composition of the specific resins being used. These engineering estimates are based on bench scale testing of the evaporative rates of the resin mixture constituents as well as specific production related values (i.e. the surface area of wet-out baths for pultrusion operations). This approach was confirmed to be reasonably accurate during source testing of RGC’s mixing operation conducted pursuant to the issuance of their most recent Title V permit. The emission factors present in AP-42, Table 4.4-2, which assume emissions to be a percentage of the monomer content of the production resin, are not representative of pultrusion operations at RGC. This approach does not account for production line speed, the surface area of the wet-out bath or advanced production methodologies such as preform or direct die injection. Pultrusion emission factors are not included in Table 1 to subpart WWWW of 40 CFR 63. This section of the proposed rule would require that RGC conduct source testing to verify the emission factors currently in use. RGC believes that these emission factors are representative of actual emissions and that source testing to confirm these factors would have an unnecessarily burdensome economic impact on RGC and other reinforce plastic composite manufacturers in Ohio. RGC is requesting that this section be modified to include the following text in the list of allowable VOC emission factor methodologies: “Engineering estimates derived from actual resin composition information which are based on documented physical and chemical properties of the resin constituents” (Labyrinth Management Group, on behalf of Rochling Glastic Composites) Response 30: Engineering estimates of emissions that are based upon documented physical and chemical properties of resin constituents could be acceptable to Ohio EPA for certain operations provided Ohio EPA obtains concurrence from USEPA. We will look further into this matter. In the meantime, we suggest you contact ACMA for any assistance.


Comment 31: General Comments RAPCA would like to comment on the complexity of this rule and possible difficulty that small facilities will have in comprehending it. First, although RAPCA agrees that the numerous compliance options are beneficial, they may not be easy to understand for smaller sources. RAPCA recommends that the compliance options be revised and written in simpler language. Also, the reference to requirements in 40 CFR 63 SS should be further clarified by specifying, by citation, the exact parts of the rule that apply. However, if this is not possible, RAPCA recommends that Ohio EPA develop examples of compliance methodologies along with other helpful information through the Office of Compliance Assistance and Pollution Prevention to aid small businesses in complying with this rule. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 31: At this time, it is not possible to write this rule in a simpler language. Your suggestion on working through the Office of Compliance Assistance and Pollution Prevention in order to aid small businesses in complying with this rule will be undertaken. Comment 32: In addition, RAPCA noticed that OAC rule 3745-21-25 does not address emissions from the use of catalysts added to the resins and gel coats and minimally limits the types and use of clean up materials. While RAPCA acknowledges that emissions from catalyst usage are quite small, the cleanup emissions can be significant. To eliminate confusion when permitting these sources in the future, RAPCA requests clarification as to whether it was Ohio EPA’s intention that there are no limits on catalyst emissions and/or more stringent requirements on clean up materials. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 32: This rule is intended to address the RACT requirements for VOC emissions from reinforced plastic composites production operations, which includes cleanup. Comment 33: Another concern is the discrepancy of how the equations within the rule are identified. Some have a number/letter while some do not. For consistency, a number/letter identifying each equation should be used throughout the rule. Also, the terms used in the equations are defined in two different manners, alphabetically and in the order the variables appear in the equations. RAPCA


recommends that the variables be defined in the same manner throughout the rule. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 33: The current formatting software for OAC rules does not readily accommodate equation numbering. The order of the variables being defined should not pose a problem due to the small number of such variables. Therefore, no changes have been made. Comment 34: Finally, RAPCA would like to comment on how OAC 3745-21-25 reflects the requirements in 40 CFR 63 WWWW and whether or not it will apply to sources in Ohio that are complying with the MACT rule. RAPCA recommends that the more stringent of the two rules apply to operations in Ohio to prevent confusion when trying to inspect and enforce rules at those facilities. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 34: This rule applies to sources that are subject to MACT and to sources that stay below the major source HAP threshold for MACT. In order to properly apply the more stringent requirement in inspections (and permit writing), the requirements under MACT and this rule can be streamlined to some extent. Comment 35: 3745-21-25(F)(1),(2),(3),(4) as well as other paragraphs in the rule refer to requirements for ‘new’ and ‘existing’ facilities; however these terms are not defined within the rule or in 3745-21-01(GG). These terms need to be defined. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 35: Definitions for “new facility” and “existing facility” have been added to paragraph (F)(1). This should provide the necessary clarification for these terms as used under paragraphs (F)(1) though (F)(5). These terms are not used elsewhere within this rule. Comment 36: 3745-21-25(F)(1)- the word ‘that’ in line 9 needs to be deleted. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency)


Response 36: The word “that” has been deleted. Comment 37: 3745-21-25(F)(2) & (3)(a) references equations in 40 CFR 63 WWWW which include the variable of % HAP. Clarify that while Table 1 of the rule is for calculating organic HAP emissions factors, these emission factors are equivalent to the VOC emission factor that must be calculated in 3745-21-25. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 37: The following clarification has been added to paragraphs (F)(2) and (F)(3)(a): “The organic HAP emissions factors in table 1 to subpart WWWW of 40 CFR 63 are equivalent to the VOC emissions factors for this rule.” Comment 38: 3745-21-25(F)(4) should reference 3745-21-25(R) and (S) in regard to the two compliance/notification reports. Furthermore, clarification is needed regarding the reference to the ‘initial compliance report’. RAPCA understands this report to be the first semiannual compliance report and believes that the report should be referred to as such. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 38: It is not necessary to add a cross-reference to paragraphs (Q), (R) and (S) for the compliance notification reports. The initial compliance report can be considered to be the first semiannual compliance report even though the first compliance report would likely not cover a complete semiannual period. Paragraph (Q)(2) refers to the submittal of “first and subsequent semiannual compliance reports.” Comment 39: 3745-21-25(G)(2): in the definition for ‘Actual Process Stream EFi’ the word ‘coat’ needs to be added after ‘gel’. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 39: The word “coat” has been added.


Comment 40: 3745-21-25(G)(4)(b) refers to an equation in paragraph (G)(2)(a)(i); however, the letter (i) is not used to identify this equation. The letter (i) needs to be added. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 40: The reference to “paragraph (G)(2)(a)(i)” has been changed to “paragraph (G)(2)(a).” Comment 41: 3745-21-25(I)(1): the word ‘by’ needs to be added after ‘weight’ in line 1. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 41: The heading for paragraph (I) and paragraph (I)(1) have been reworded to state “sixty per cent by weight.” Comment 42: 3745-21-25(K)(2) states that ‘capture efficiency of an oven is to be considered one hundred per cent, provided the oven is operated under negative pressure.’ Is the facility required to have any type of monitoring equipment or indicator (streamers) and record keeping to confirm that the oven is under negative pressure? (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 42: Paragraph (K)(2) is patterned after the MACT rule. The MACT rule appears to be silent on monitoring equipment and recordkeeping pertaining to “operated under negative pressure.” The inclusion of monitoring equipment and recordkeeping can be included in the facility permit. Additional information will be acquired from USEPA on this matter for consistency. No changes have been made to paragraph (K)(2). Comment 43: 3745-21-25(O)(1)(c) has a reference to ‘organic HAP’ which should be changed to ‘VOC’. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 43: “Organic HAP’ has been changed to “VOC.”


Comment 44: 3745-21-25(O)(2)(a)(iv) has a definition of monitoring malfunction. Is this definition written into any of the other OAC rules and if not would it make sense to put a definition into the rules? (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 44: Thanks for the comment and suggestion regarding other rules. Comment 45: 3745-21-25(P)(c)(ii)-(iv) has record keeping requirements for operations listed in tables 2, 3, and 4 of the rule which mimic those in 40 CFR 63 WWWW. However, the requirements stated in 3745-21-25(P)(c)(ii)-(iv) only apply to continuous lamination/casting operations in 40 CFR 63 WWWW. Paragraph (c) should be revised to state that ‘As applicable, for operations listed in tables 2, 3, and 4 of this rule:’ or to acknowledge that the record keeping requirements in this section do not apply to all operations. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 45: In order to correct a formatting error, draft paragraph (P)(1)(c) was reworded and split into paragraphs (P)(1)(c) and (P)(1)(d). Draft paragraph (P)(1)(d) was renumbered as (P)(1)(e). Comment 46: 3745-21-25(R)(1) needs to be revised to remove the word ‘in’ from the first line. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 46: The word “in” has been removed. Comment 47: 3745-21-25(S)(1)(e)(i) references permit to operate (PTO) and Chapter 35 which no longer exist. The language needs to be revised to reference PTIOs and Chapter 31. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 47: We agree with your comment. Paragraph (S)(1)(e)(i) has been reworded to refer to rule 3745-31-02 for permits.


Comment 48: 3745-21-25(S)(2) discusses ‘reactors and distillation units’ and inaccurately references paragraph (F)(1) of the rule. This paragraph needs to be rewritten with the proper terminology and references. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 48: Paragraph (S)(2) has been rewritten to refer to “affected operation” and “paragraph (S)(1).” Comment 49: Table 2 has limits for Open Molding. Under 2.b. non-CR/HS, filament application should be 188 opposed to 88 lb/ton. This is consistent with what is required of these types of operations in Table 3 of the 40 CFR 63 WWWW. (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency) Response 49: In Table 2, “88” has been changed to “188.”

End of Response to Comments

Division of Air Pollution Control Response to Comments ... · Rule 3745-21- 25 “Control of VOC...

Documents

Transcript of Division of Air Pollution Control Response to Comments ... · Rule 3745-21- 25 “Control of VOC...