National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Federal RegisterMar 31, 1997
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources in wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities. The hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted
by the facilities covered by this proposed rule include three metals
(arsenic, chromium, lead) and three organic HAPs (formaldehyde, phenol,
and methanol). Exposure to these HAPs can cause reversible or
irreversible health effects including carcinogenic, respiratory,
nervous system, developmental, reproductive, and/or dermal health
effects. The EPA estimates the proposed NESHAP would reduce nationwide
emissions of HAPs from these facilities by 530 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) (580 tons per year [ton/yr]), an approximate 30 percent reduction
from the current level of emissions. Emissions of particulate matter
(PM) would be reduced by an estimated 760 Mg/yr (840 ton/yr) under the
proposed NESHAP.
The standards are proposed under the authority of section 112(d) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and are based on the Administrator's
determination that wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities may
reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the 188 HAPs listed in the
draft 112(s) Report to Congress from the various process operations
found within the industry. The proposed NESHAP would provide protection
to the public by requiring all wool fiberglass plants that are major
sources to meet emission standards reflecting the application of the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule
until May 30, 1997.
Public hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA no later than April 21, 1997. If a hearing is held, it will take
place at 10 a.m. on April 30, 1997. Persons interested in attending the
hearing should call the contact person listed below to verify that a
hearing will be held.
Request to speak at hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact the person listed below (see ADDRESSES) by April
21, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in
duplicate, if possible) to Docket No. A-95-24 at the following address:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be
sent to the contact person listed below.
Docket. Docket A-95-24, containing supporting information used in
developing the proposed standard, is located at the above address in
Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from
8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of this
information may be obtained by request from the Air Docket by calling
(202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public
hearing by the required date (see DATES), the hearing will be held at
the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. Persons interested in presenting testimony should
contact Ms. Cathy Coats at (919)541-5422.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and any written statements
will be available for public inspection and copying during normal
working hours at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket in Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed regulation, contact Mr. William J. Neuffer, Minerals and
Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5435. For information regarding
Methods 316 and 318, contact Ms. Rima N. Dishakjian, Emissions,
Monitoring, and Analysis Division, telephone number (919) 541-0443.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action
are those industrial facilities that manufacture wool fiberglass.
Regulated categories and entities are shown in Table 1. This table is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers
regarding entities likely to be regulated by final action on this
proposal. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by final action on this proposal. To
determine whether your facility is regulated by final action on this
proposal, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
section III.A of this preamble and in Sec. 63.1380 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.
Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity category Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial................................ Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Plants (SIC
3296).
Federal Government: Not Affected ............................
State/Local/Tribal Government: Not ............................
Affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Statutory Authority
II. Introduction
A. Background
B. NESHAP for Source Categories
C. Health Effects of Pollutants
D. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Industry Profile
E. Pollution Prevention
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
B. Emission Limits and Requirements
C. Performance Test and Compliance Provisions
D. Monitoring Requirements
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
IV. Impacts of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
B. Air Quality Impacts
C. Water Impacts
D. Solid Waste Impacts
E. Energy Impacts
F. Nonair Environmental and Health Impacts
G. Cost Impacts
H. Economic Impacts
V. Selection of Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Source Category
B. Selection of Emission Sources
C. Selection of Pollutants
D. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources
1. Background
2. Selection of Floor Technologies
3. Emission Limits
E. Selection of Monitoring Requirements
F. Selection of Test Methods
G. Solicitation of Comments
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Public Hearing
[[Page 15229]]
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Clean Air Act
I. Pollution Prevention Act
I. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).
II. Introduction
A. Background
Section 112(c) of the Act directs the Agency to list each category
of major and area sources as appropriate emitting one or more of the
189 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The EPA published an
initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and
may amend the list at any time. ``Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing'' is
one of the 174 categories of sources listed in the notice. As defined
in the EPA report, Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List (docket item II-A-5), the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category includes any facility engaged in producing wool
fiberglass from sand, feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric
acid, or any other materials. Facilities that manufacture mineral wool
from rock, slag, and other similar materials are not included in the
source category. On December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941), EPA published a
schedule for the promulgation of standards for the sources selected for
regulation under section 112(c) of the Act. According to this schedule,
MACT standards for this source category must be promulgated no later
than November 15, 1997.
In the manufacture of wool fiberglass, molten glass is formed into
fibers, which are bonded by an organic resin to produce a wool-like
material used primarily for thermal and acoustical insulation. The EPA
estimates that at the current level of control, 1,770 Mg/yr (1,950 ton/
yr) of metal HAPs and formaldehyde are emitted from glass-melting
furnaces and manufacturing lines in wool fiberglass plants nationwide.
The HAPs released from glass-melting furnaces include arsenic,
chromium, and lead; an estimated 750 Mg/yr (830 ton/yr) of particulate
matter also are emitted. Organic HAPs (formaldehyde, phenol, and
methanol) are released from rotary spin (RS) forming, curing, and
cooling processes and from flame attenuation (FA) forming and curing
processes.
B. NESHAP for Source Categories
Section 112 of the Act requires that EPA promulgate regulations for
the control of HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources.
The statute requires the regulations to reflect the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable taking into
consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any nonair
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This
level of control is commonly referred to as MACT. For new sources, MACT
standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. [See
section 112(d)(3).] 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 for categories and
subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the best-performing 5 sources
for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. In essence,
these MACT standards would ensure that all major sources of air toxic
emissions achieve the level of control already being achieved by the
better controlled and lower emitting sources in each category. This
approach provides assurance to citizens that each major source of toxic
air pollution will be required to effectively control its emissions. At
the same time, this approach provides a level economic playing field,
ensuring that facilities that employ cleaner processes and good
emissions controls are not disadvantaged relative to competitors with
poorer controls.
The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of
technology-based emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f)
and work practice standards under 112(h) for categories of sources that
emit HAPs. Emission reductions may be accomplished through the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques
including, but not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or
eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process changes,
substitution of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclosing
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, capturing,
or treating such pollutants when released from a process, stack,
storage or fugitive emissions point; (4) design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator
training or certification) as provided in subsection (h); or (5) a
combination of the above. [See section 112(d)(2).] The EPA may
promulgate more stringent regulations to address residual risk that
remains after the imposition of controls within 8 years of promulgation
of the NESHAP. [See section 112(f)(2).]
C. Health Effects of Pollutants
The CAA was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' [42 U.S.C.
7401(b)]. This proposed regulation would protect the public health by
reducing emissions of HAPs from wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities. This proposed regulation is technology-based, i.e., based
on MACT.
Emission data collected during development of this proposed NESHAP
show that several HAPs are emitted from wool fiberglass manufacturing
plants and will be reduced by implementation of the standard. The
proposed emission limits would reduce emissions of three particulate
metal HAPs: chromium, arsenic, and lead from glass melting furnaces.
The organic HAPs (formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol) are emitted from
wool fiberglass manufacturing lines and would also be reduced by the
proposed standard. In addition to these HAPs and as a result of the
control of the metal HAPs, the proposed standard also would reduce
emissions of PM, which is regulated under the CAA as a criteria
pollutant, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). More information on PM
can be found in EPA's criteria document for PM emissions. Following is
a summary of the potential health effects caused by exposure to these
pollutants.
Three metals--arsenic, chromium, and lead--appear on the section
112(b) list of HAPs and are emitted from glass melting furnaces. Long-
term inhalation exposure to arsenic is strongly associated with lung
cancer, and also irritates the skin and mucous membranes. The EPA has
classified arsenic as a Class A, known human carcinogen. The effects of
inhaling chromium depend on whether the oxidation state of the metal is
trivalent or hexavalent. Trivalent chromium is an essential nutrient,
and is substantially less toxic than hexavalent chromium. Both types of
chromium irritate the respiratory tract. Hexavalent chromium inhalation
is associated with lung cancer, and EPA has classified it as a Class A,
known human carcinogen. Data are insufficient to classify trivalent
chromium as to human carcinogenicity.
[[Page 15230]]
Lead exposure damages the central nervous system, especially in
children, who may suffer decreased IQ and other neurobehavioral
deficits. Children and adults exposed to higher doses of lead may
experience anemia, kidney damage, and high blood pressure. The EPA has
classified lead as a Class B2, probable human carcinogen, on the basis
of reports of kidney tumors in animal studies. (See docket items II-A-
4, II-A-6, II-A-10, II-I-6, II-I-7, II-I-8.)
Exposure to formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol irritates the eyes,
skin, and mucous membranes and causes conjunctivitis, dermal
inflammation, and respiratory symptoms. Formaldehyde exposure has been
associated with reproductive effects such as menstrual disorders and
pregnancy problems in women workers. The EPA has classified
formaldehyde as a Class B1, probable human carcinogen, on the basis of
findings of nasal cancer in animal studies, and limited human data.
Phenol has been shown to cause damage to the liver, kidney,
cardiovascular system, and central nervous system in animal studies.
Acute exposure to methanol (usually by ingestion) is well-known to
cause blindness and severe metabolic acidosis, sometimes leading to
death. Chronic methanol exposure, including inhalation, may cause
central disturbances possibly leading to blindness. Data are not
sufficient to classify either phenol or methanol as to potential human
carcinogenicity. (See docket items II-A-7, II-A-9, II-I-2, II-I-3, II-
I-4.)
Formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol also are VOCs, which are
precursors to ozone formation. Ambient ozone can cause damage to lung
tissue, reduction of lung function, and increased sensitivity of the
lung to other irritants. Several provisions of the CAA are aimed at
reducing emissions of VOC. Additional information on the health effects
of ozone are included in EPA's Criteria document, which support the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.
The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse health effects
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the
health effects may be experienced is dependent upon (1) the ambient
concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as influenced by emission
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain), (2) the frequency of
and duration of exposures, (3) characteristics of exposed individuals
(e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyles),
and (4) pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life
in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence).
D. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Industry Profile
Wool fiberglass products are primarily used as thermal and
acoustical insulation for buildings, automobiles, aircraft, appliances,
ductwork, and pipes. Other uses include liquid and air filtration.
Approximately 90 percent of the wool fiberglass currently produced is
for building insulation products.
Wool fiberglass is currently manufactured in the United States by
five companies operating 27 plants in 15 states. According to the size
definition applied to this industry by the U.S. Small Business
Administration (750 company employees or less), none of these firms is
classified as a small business. These plants operate a total of 74
manufacturing lines.
Wool fiberglass is manufactured in a process that forms thin fibers
from molten glass. A typical wool fiberglass manufacturing line
consists of the following processes: (1) Preparation of molten glass,
(2) formation of fibers into a wool fiberglass mat, (3) curing the
binder-coated fiberglass mat, (4) cooling the mat (not always present),
and (5) backing, cutting, and packaging. Wool fiberglass manufacturing
plants typically contain one or more manufacturing lines.
Raw materials for the glass batch are weighed, mixed, and conveyed
to the glass melting furnace, which may be gas-fired, electric, or gas
and electric combined. The primary component of wool fiberglass is
sand, but it also includes varying quantities of feldspar, sodium
sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, and many other materials. Cullet,
crushed recycled glass, is a primary component in most batches and is
required by Executive Order for Federal agency purchases and by law in
certain States. Two methods of forming fibers are used in the industry.
In the rotary spin (RS) process, centrifugal force causes molten glass
to flow through small holes in the wall of a rapidly rotating cylinder.
In the flame attenuation (FA) process, molten glass flows by gravity
from a small furnace, or pot, to form threads that are then attenuated
(stretched to the point of breaking) with air and/or flame.
After the fibers are formed, they are sprayed with a binder and
collected as a mat on a moving conveyor. The purpose of the binder is
to hold the fibers together and its composition varies with product
type. Typically, the binder consists of a solution of phenol-
formaldehyde resin, water, urea, lignin, silane, and ammonia. The
conveyor carries the newly formed mat through an oven for curing of the
thermosetting resin and then through a cooling section. Some products
do not require curing and/or cooling. FA manufacturing lines do not
have cooling processes.
No Federal air standards specifically apply to HAP emissions from
wool fiberglass production plants. Emission limits for PM in the new
source performance standards (NSPS) for glass manufacturing plants (40
CFR part 60, subpart CC) are applicable to gas-fired and modified
process glass-melting furnaces in the wool fiberglass industry that
were constructed, modified, or reconstructed after June 15, 1979. The
NSPS for wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing plants (40 CFR part
60, subpart PPP) limits PM emissions from wool fiberglass insulation
manufacturing lines using the RS forming process that were constructed,
modified, or reconstructed after February 7, 1984. The NSPS does not
require controls for VOC or organic HAPs.
As a result of the NSPS and State requirements, PM controls are in
place for most glass-melting furnaces. Of the 56 gas and electric
furnaces (including gas/electric combinations), 37 are equipped with
baghouses or electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). Among those furnaces
without add-on controls are 12 electric furnaces that control PM
emissions through their design and operation.
Controls also are in place for RS manufacturing lines. All 40 RS
forming processes control, to varying degrees, organic emissions using
one or more of the several process modifications available to this
industry. Of the 43 curing ovens, 14 are equipped with a thermal
incinerator. Cooling process emissions are uncontrolled for organic HAP
emissions.
Because of the differences in emissions potential, limitations on
the application of process controls, and the dedication of lines to
certain product categories, FA forming processes are separated into
four subcategories: light density, automotive, heavy density, and pipe
products. None of the light density or automotive FA forming processes
are equipped with HAP controls. In a few instances, FA forming
processes that produce heavy density products, are controlled using
process modifications. All FA forming processes producing pipe products
use process modifications. None of the 31 curing ovens on FA
manufacturing lines are equipped with HAP emission controls.
[[Page 15231]]
E. Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention is a partial basis for the emission standards
for RS and FA manufacturing lines. The emission standard for RS
manufacturing lines is formulated as the sum of the MACT floor emission
levels for forming, curing, and cooling where process modification is
the MACT floor for forming processes, incineration is the MACT floor
for curing ovens, and no control is the MACT floor for cooling
processes. The emission standards for new and existing FA manufacturing
lines producing pipe products and new FA manufacturing lines producing
heavy-density products are the sum of the MACT floor emission levels
for forming and curing (there are no separate cooling processes on FA
manufacturing lines). Process modification is the MACT floor for
forming processes and no control is the MACT floor for curing ovens. By
formulating the standard as a sum of the individual forming, curing,
and cooling MACT floor emission levels for RS manufacturing lines and
forming and curing MACT floor emission levels for certain FA
manufacturing lines, we have allowed tradeoffs for existing facilities
that will accomplish the same environmental results at lower costs and
will encourage process modifications and pollution prevention
alternatives. According to the industry, new RS manufacturing lines may
be able to meet the line standard without the use of costly
incinerators with their energy and other environmental impacts, such as
increased nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur oxides (SOX)
emissions, by incorporating pollution prevention measures. Pollution
prevention alternatives will also increase binder utilization
efficiency and reduce production costs for industry. In selecting the
format of the emission standard for emissions from manufacturing lines,
the EPA considered various alternatives such as setting separate
emission limits for each process, i.e., forming, curing, and cooling. A
line standard gives the industry greater flexibility in complying with
the proposed emission limit and is the least costly because industry
can avoid the capital and annual operating and maintenance costs
associated with the purchase of add-on control equipment.
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
The proposed NESHAP applies to each of the following existing and
newly constructed sources: glass-melting furnaces located at a wool
fiberglass manufacturing plant (Standard Industrial Classification
[SIC] code 3296), RS manufacturing lines that produce building
insulation, and FA manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation. The
proposed NESHAP also applies to new FA manufacturing lines producing
heavy density products. Facilities that manufacture mineral wool from
rock or slag are not subject to the proposed rule but are subject to a
separate NESHAP for mineral wool production. Provisions are included in
the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) for the owner
or operator to obtain a determination of applicability. A facility that
is determined to be an area source would not be subject to the NESHAP.
B. Emission Limits and Requirements
Emission limits for PM are proposed for glass-melting furnaces.
Because the MACT floor for existing and the MACT floor for new glass-
melting furnaces are the same, the same emission limit applies to both
new and existing sources. Emission limits for formaldehyde also are
proposed for each new or existing RS manufacturing line, each new and
existing FA manufacturing line producing pipe insulation, and each new
FA manufacturing line producing heavy density products.
A surrogate approach, where PM serves as a surrogate for HAP metals
and formaldehyde serves as a surrogate for organic HAPs, is employed to
allow easier and less expensive testing and monitoring requirements.
The proposed emission limits are in the same format (mass of emissions
per unit of production) as the existing NSPS for glass-melting furnaces
and for wool fiberglass plants--kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) or pound
per ton (lb/ton) of glass pulled. Application of the proposed emission
limits to the manufacturing line (forming, curing, and cooling) is
consistent with the existing NSPS and the use of a kg/Mg (lb/ton)
format recognizes that common industry practice is to vent more than
one process unit to common ductwork/controls. This format also provides
greater flexibility in achieving compliance with the use of pollution
prevention measures, especially process modifications that provide the
same environmental benefits without the need to purchase add-on control
devices. The proposed emission limits are presented in metric units in
Table 2(a) and English units in Table 2(b).
The proposed emission limits for existing sources are based on the
performance of the control technology identified as the MACT floor. The
MACT floor for existing glass-melting furnaces is an ESP or a baghouse.
Because well-designed and -operated ESPs and baghouses, which are the
MACT floor for existing glass-melting furnaces, represent the best
technologies available for controlling PM emissions, including HAP
metals, the MACT floor for new sources is the same.
Table 2(a).--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for New and Existing
Glass-Melting Furnaces and RS and FA Manufacturing Lines in Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants
[Metric units]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit
Process -------------------------------------------
Existing New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnace..................... 0.25 kg of PM per Mg 0.25 kg of PM per Mg
of glass pulled. of glass pulled.
RS Manufacturing Line....... 0.6 kg of 0.40 kg of
formaldehyde per Mg formaldehyde per Mg
of glass pulled. of glass pulled.
Pipe Insulation Pipe Insulation
FA Manufacturing Line....... 3.4 kg of 3.4 kg of
formaldehyde per Mg formaldehyde per Mg
of glass pulled. of glass pulled.
Heavy Density Heavy Density
None................ 3.9 kg of
formaldehyde per Mg
of glass pulled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15232]]
Table 2(b).--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for New and Existing
Glass-Melting Furnaces and RS and FA Manufacturing Lines in Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants
[English units]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit
Process -------------------------------------------
Existing New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnace..................... 0.50 lb of PM per 0.50 lb of PM per
ton of glass pulled. ton of glass
pulled.
RS Manufacturing Line....... 1.2 lb of 0.80 lb of
formaldehyde per formaldehyde per
ton of glass pulled. ton of glass
pulled.
Pipe Insulation Pipe Insulation
FA Manufacturing Line....... 6.8 lb of 6.8 lb of
formaldehyde per formaldehyde per
ton of glass pulled. ton of glass
pulled.
Heavy Density Heavy Density
None................ 7.8 lb of
formaldehyde per
ton of glass
pulled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MACT floor for each new or existing RS manufacturing line is
represented by the use of process modification(s) for the forming
process and a thermal incinerator for each curing oven. The MACT floor
for cooling processes on RS manufacturing lines is no control because
none of the existing cooling processes are controlled for HAPs.
According to the industry, some existing plants will have to upgrade
their process modifications on forming in order to meet the proposed
emission limit; none will have to install incinerators on curing to
comply with the standard. Process modifications are also the basis for
the proposed MACT floor for forming processes on each new and existing
FA manufacturing line producing pipe insulation and each new FA
manufacturing line producing heavy-density products. Because none of
the curing processes on FA manufacturing lines are controlled, the MACT
floor is no control.
C. Performance Test and Compliance Provisions
A one-time performance test would demonstrate initial compliance
with the proposed emission limits. Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner
or operator would measure PM emissions to the atmosphere from affected
glass-melting furnaces using EPA Method 5 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
and Sec. 63.1389 (Test methods and procedures) of the proposed rule.
EPA Method 316, ``Sampling and Analysis for Formaldehyde from
Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass
Industries,'' or Method 318, ``Extractive FTIR Method for the
Measurement of Emissions from the Mineral Wool and the Wool Fiberglass
Industries'' would be used to measure formaldehyde emissions. Methods
316 and 318 are being proposed concurrently with this proposed rule.
Using information from the tests, the owner or operator would determine
compliance with the applicable emission limit using the instructions
and equations in the proposed NESHAP. During the initial performance
test, the owner or operator also would monitor and record the glass
pull rate of the furnace during each of the three test runs and
determine the emission rate for each run in kilograms (pounds) of
emission per megagram (ton) of glass pulled (kg/Mg [lb/ton]). A
determination of compliance would be based on the average of the three
individual test runs.
If an ESP is used to control emissions from a glass-melting
furnace, the proposed NESHAP requires the owner or operator to
establish the ESP operating parameter(s) that will be used to monitor
compliance. For example, the secondary voltage of each ESP electrical
field may be monitored to determine proper ESP operations. During the
initial performance test, the owner or operator would establish the
parameters and the range of these parameter values to be used to
monitor compliance with the PM emission limit.
If a glass-melting furnace is operated without the use of an add-on
PM control device, the owner or operator must establish the furnace
operating parameter(s) that will be used to monitor compliance. On cold
top electric furnaces, for example, the temperature 18 to 24 inches
above the glass melt may be used to indicate proper furnace operations.
The owner or operator would establish the range of parameter values
during the initial performance test to be used to monitor compliance
with the PM emission limit.
To determine compliance with the proposed emission limits for new
and existing RS manufacturing lines, the owner or operator would
measure formaldehyde emissions to the atmosphere from forming, curing,
and cooling processes and sum the emissions from these processes. For
new and existing FA manufacturing lines producing pipe products and for
new lines producing heavy-density products, the owner or operator would
measure emissions to the atmosphere from the forming and curing
processes and sum the emissions. Using information from the tests, the
owner or operator would convert the emission test results to the units
of the standard using the instructions and equations in the proposed
NESHAP.
The owner or operator would conduct the initial performance test
for each new or existing RS manufacturing line while making building
insulation product. Building insulation is defined in the proposed
NESHAP as wool fiberglass insulation having a loss on ignition (LOI) of
less than 8 percent and a density of less than 0.03 grams per cubic
centimeter (g/cm\3\), or 2 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft\3\). Initial
performance tests for FA manufacturing lines would be conducted on new
lines while manufacturing heavy-density products (LOI of 11 to 25
percent and a density of 0.01 to 0.05 g/cm\3\ [0.5 to 3 lb/ft\3\]) and
on new and existing lines while manufacturing pipe products (LOI of 8
to 14 percent and a density of 0.05 to 0.1 g/cm\3\ [3 to 6 lb/ft\3\]).
During performance tests on RS manufacturing lines producing
building insulation and certain FA manufacturing lines, the owner or
operator would record the LOI of each product for each line tested, the
free formaldehyde content of the resin(s) used during the tests, and
the binder formulation(s) used during the tests. The performance tests
would be conducted using the resin having the highest free formaldehyde
content that the owner or operator expects to use on that line. After
the performance test, if the owner or operator wants to use a resin
with a higher free formaldehyde content or change the binder
formulation, another emission test must be performed to demonstrate
compliance. If the owner or operator uses forming process modifications
to comply, the process parameters (such as binder solids, binder
application rate, or LOI) and their associated levels that will
[[Page 15233]]
be used to monitor compliance must be established during the
performance test. After the performance test, if the owner or operator
wants to operate the forming process parameters outside the performance
test levels, additional performance tests would be required to verify
that the source is still in compliance. If a wet scrubbing control
device is used to control formaldehyde emissions from an RS
manufacturing line producing building insulation or from certain FA
manufacturing lines, the owner or operator must establish the operating
ranges of the pressure drop across each scrubber, the scrubbing liquid
flow rate to each scrubber, and the identity and feed rate of any
chemical additive. The owner or operator of a scrubber would also
monitor and record the LOI, the free formaldehyde content of the resin
used, and the formulation of the binder used during the performance
test. If the owner or operator plans to operate the scrubber in such a
way that the pressure drop, liquid flow rate, or chemical additive or
chemical feed rate exceeds the values established during the
performance tests, additional testing must be performed to demonstrate
compliance.
The proposed rule would allow the owner or operator of RS
manufacturing lines and FA manufacturing lines subject to the NESHAP to
conduct short-term experimental production runs, where the formaldehyde
content or other process parameter deviates from levels established
during previous performance tests, without conducting additional
performance tests. The owner or operator would have to apply for
approval from the Administrator or delegated State agency to conduct
such experimental production runs. The application would include
information on the nature and duration of the test runs including plans
to perform emission testing. Such experimental production runs are
important to industry and allow them to develop new products, improve
existing products, and determine the effects on product quality and on
emissions of process modifications being considered, such as binder
reformulation.
If a thermal incinerator is used to comply with the proposed
emission limit for formaldehyde, the owner or operator would measure
the incinerator operating temperature that will be used to monitor
compliance. During the initial performance test, the owner or operator
would continuously record the incinerator's operating temperature and
determine the average temperature during each 1-hour test run. The
average of the three test runs would be used to monitor incinerator
compliance.
D. Monitoring Requirements
All owners or operators subject to the proposed NESHAP would submit
an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as part of their
application for a part 70 permit. The plan would include procedures for
the proper operation and maintenance of processes and control devices
used to comply with the proposed emission limits as well as the
corrective actions to be taken when control device or process
parameters deviate from allowable levels established during performance
testing. The plan would also identify the control device parameters or
process parameters to be monitored for compliance, a monitoring
schedule, and procedures for keeping records to document compliance.
Under the proposed NESHAP, each baghouse used on a glass-melting
furnace would have installed a bag leak detection system that is
equipped with an audible alarm that automatically sounds when an
increase in particulate emissions above a predetermined level is
detected. The monitor must be capable of detecting PM emissions at
concentrations of 1.0 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.0004 grains
per actual cubic foot) and provide an output of relative or absolute PM
emissions. Such a device would serve as an indicator of the performance
of the baghouse and would provide an indication of when maintenance of
the baghouse is needed. An alarm by itself does not indicate
noncompliance with the PM emission limit. An alarm would indicate an
increase in PM emissions and trigger an inspection of the baghouse to
determine the cause of the alarm. The owner or operator would initiate
corrective actions according to the procedures in their operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan. The source would be considered out of
compliance upon failure to initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of
the alarm. If the alarm is activated for more than 5 percent of the
total operating time during the 6-month reporting period, the owner or
operator must implement a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) consistent
with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each ESP controlling PM emissions from a glass-melting furnace,
the owner or operator would submit as part of their operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan, a description of how the ESP is to be
operated and maintained, the ESP parameter(s) to be monitored, a
monitoring schedule, and recordkeeping requirements that document
compliance. Corrective action would be taken if the range of acceptable
values for the selected ESP operating parameter(s), such as secondary
voltage, established during the initial performance test is exceeded
based on any 3-hour average of the monitored parameter. A deviation
outside the established range would trigger an inspection of the
control device to determine the cause of the deviation and to initiate
corrective actions according to the procedures in the facility's
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. Failure to initiate
corrective actions within 1 hour of the deviation would be considered
noncompliance. If the ESP parameter values are outside the range
established during the performance test for more than 5 percent of
total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or
operator would implement a QIP consistent with subpart D of the draft
approach to compliance assurance monitoring.2 If the ESP parameter
values are outside the range for more than 10 percent of total
operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator
would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator of a glass-melting
furnace whose emissions are not exhausted to an air pollution control
device for PM control, would submit as part of their operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan a description of how the furnace is to
be operated and maintained, the furnace parameter(s) to be monitored
for compliance purposes, a monitoring schedule, and recordkeeping
requirements that document compliance. Corrective action would be taken
if the range of acceptable values for the selected operating
parameter(s), such as air temperature above the glass melt in a cold
top electric furnace, established during the initial performance test
is exceeded based on any 3-hour average of the monitored parameter. A
deviation outside the established range would trigger an inspection of
the glass-melting furnace to determine the cause of the deviation and
to initiate corrective actions according to the procedures in the
facility's operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. Failure to
initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of the deviation would be
considered noncompliance. If the furnace operating
[[Page 15234]]
parameter values are outside the range established during the
performance test for more than 5 percent of total operating time in a
6-month reporting period, the owner or operator would implement a QIP
consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.3 If the furnace parameter values are outside the range
for more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator would continuously
monitor and record the glass pull rate on all existing and new glass-
melting furnaces. The exception to this would be existing furnaces that
do not have continuous monitoring equipment. Such furnaces would
measure the glass pull rate at least once per day. If the pull rate
exceeds by more than 20 percent the average glass pull rate measured
during the performance test, the owner or operator must initiate
corrective actions within 1 hour. If the glass pull rate exceeds (by
more than 20 percent) the average established during the performance
test for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month
reporting period, a QIP must be implemented consistent with subpart D
of the draft approach to compliance assurance monitoring. 4 If the
glass pull rate exceeds (by more than 20 percent) the average
established during the performance test for more than 10 percent of the
total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, it is a violation
of the standard. Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator would
be allowed to do additional performance testing to verify compliance
while operating at glass pull rates that exceed the level established
during the initial performance test. The additional performance testing
would be required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable
formaldehyde emission limits for the affected manufacturing line only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RS manufacturing lines that produce building insulation and certain
FA manufacturing lines would monitor and record the free formaldehyde
content of each resin lot, the binder formulation of each batch, and
product LOI at least once each day. If resin-free formaldehyde content
exceeds the performance test levels, the owner or operator would be in
violation of the standard. Under the proposed NESHAP, the binder
formulation must not deviate from the formulation specifications used
during the performance test.
An owner or operator of affected RS or FA manufacturing lines that
use process modifications to comply with the emission standard would
include in their written operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan
how the process will be operated and maintained and identify the
process parameters to be monitored, a monitoring schedule, and
recordkeeping requirements that document compliance. Examples of
process parameters that might be used to monitor compliance include
product LOI, binder solids, and binder application rate. The plan would
also have to demonstrate that the parameter(s) to be monitored
correlate with formaldehyde emissions. The plan would include
procedures for establishing maximum or minimum values, as appropriate,
based on initial performance testing. Should the process parameter(s)
deviate from the range established during the performance test, the
owner or operator must inspect the process to determine the cause of
the deviation and initiate corrective action within 1 hour of the
deviation. If the process parameter(s) is outside the performance test
range for more than 5 percent of total operating time during a 6-month
reporting period, the owner or operator would implement a QIP
consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring. 5 If the process parameter(s) is outside the range for
more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An owner or operator who uses a wet scrubbing control device to
control formaldehyde emissions from an RS manufacturing line producing
building insulation or from certain FA manufacturing lines would
continuously monitor and record the pressure drop across each scrubber,
the scrubbing liquid flow rate to each scrubber, and the identity and
feed rate of any chemical added to the scrubbing liquid. Under the
proposed monitoring provisions, corrective action would be taken if any
3-hour average scrubber parameter is outside the range of acceptable
values established during the initial performance test. If there was a
deviation outside the established range, the owner or operator would
inspect the process to determine the cause of the deviation and to
initiate corrective actions according to the procedures in the
facility's operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The owner or
operator of the scrubber would be out of compliance upon failure to
initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of the deviation. If any
scrubber parameter is outside the performance test range for more than
5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month reporting period,
the owner or operator would implement a QIP consistent with subpart D
of the draft approach to compliance assurance monitoring. 6 If any
scrubber parameter is outside the range for more than 10 percent of
total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or
operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an incinerator is used to control formaldehyde emissions from a
manufacturing line or from individual forming or curing processes, the
owner or operator would continuously monitor and record the operating
temperature of each incinerator. The temperature monitoring device
would be installed in the incinerator firebox. This is typically done
using a thermocouple (a standard feature on most incinerators) and a
strip chart recorder or data logger. Following the initial performance
test, the owner or operator must maintain the temperature so that the
temperature, averaged over a 3-hour period, does not fall below the
average temperature established during the initial performance test. A
temperature below the performance test average would be considered a
violation of the standard.
The owner or operator may modify any of the control device or
process parameter levels established during the initial performance
tests for compliance monitoring. The proposed NESHAP contains
provisions that would allow the owner or operator to change add-on
control device and process parameter values from those established
during the initial performance tests by performing additional emission
testing to verify compliance.
As required by the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), the owner or operator must develop and implement a separate
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The plan would include
procedures for the inspection and determination of the cause of a
process or control device malfunction and the corrective procedures to
be followed to remedy the malfunction.
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
All notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the
general
[[Page 15235]]
provisions would apply to wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
These include: (1) initial notification(s) of applicability,
notification of performance test, and notification of compliance
status; (2) a report of performance test results; (3) a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of any
reportable events; and (4) semiannual reports of deviations from
established parameters. If deviations from established parameters are
reported, the owner or operator must report quarterly until a request
to return the reporting frequency to semiannual is approved. In
addition to the requirements of the general provisions, the owner or
operator would maintain records of the following, as applicable:
(1) Bag leak detection system alarms, including the date and time,
with a brief explanation of the cause of the alarm and the corrective
action taken;
(2) ESP monitoring plan parameter values, such as the secondary
voltage of each electrical field, for each ESP used to control PM
emissions from a glass-melting furnace, including any period when the
parameter values deviate from those established during the performance
test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the
corrective action taken;
(3) Uncontrolled glass-melting furnace operating parameter values,
such as the temperature readings taken above the molten glass in cold
top electric furnaces, including any period when the operating
parameter values deviate from those established during the performance
test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the
corrective action taken;
(4) The LOI and product density for each bonded product
manufactured on an RS or FA manufacturing line subject to this NESHAP;
(5) The free formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder
formulation of each batch used in the production of bonded wool
fiberglass on RS or FA manufacturing lines subject to this NESHAP;
(6) Process parameters for RS and FA manufacturing lines that
comply with the emission standards using process modifications,
including any period when the parameter levels deviate from levels
established during the performance test and the corrective actions
taken;
(7) Scrubber pressure drop, scrubbing liquid flow rate, and any
chemical additive (including chemical feed rate to the scrubber),
including any period when the parameter levels deviate from those
established during the performance tests and the corrective action
taken,
(8) Incinerator operating temperature, including any period when
the temperature falls below the average level established during the
performance test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the
deviation and the corrective action taken;
(9) Glass pull rate including any period when the pull rate
exceeded the average pull rate established during the performance test
by more than 20 percent with a brief explanation of the cause of the
exceedance and the corrective action taken.
Initial performance tests and compliance assurance monitoring
requirements for forming process modifications apply only when building
insulation products are being manufactured on RS manufacturing lines
and when pipe products are being manufactured on new and existing FA
manufacturing lines and heavy-density products are being manufactured
on new FA manufacturing lines. The LOI must be monitored to demonstrate
to EPA the products being manufactured and which lines are subject to
the standard. During periods when other products are being
manufactured, it is expected that the parameter values, such as LOI or
binder solids, may vary from those levels established during the
initial performance tests for building insulation on RS manufacturing
lines and heavy-density or pipe products on FA manufacturing lines. The
NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) require that
records be maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each
record. The owner or operator must retain the records onsite for at
least 2 years but may retain the records offsite the remaining 3 years.
The files may be retained on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer,
on computer disks, or on magnetic tape disks. Reports may be made on
paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and
compatible computer software.
IV. Impacts of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
All plants in the industry would be subject to the proposed NESHAP
unless the owner or operator demonstrates the facility is not a major
source according to the requirements in the NESHAP general provisions.
Seven of the 30 electric or gas/electric combination glass-melting
furnaces are not controlled and are expected to need to install a
baghouse or ESP to comply with the proposed emission limit. All gas-
fired glass-melting furnaces are well controlled and are expected to be
in compliance with the NESHAP. Certain uncontrolled glass-melting
furnaces, such as cold top electric furnaces, maintain low PM emissions
as a result of their design and operation and are expected to meet the
emission limits without the addition of control devices. Some RS
forming processes would need to upgrade their process modifications to
meet the emission limits for manufacturing lines.
B. Air Quality Impacts (Docket Item II-B-22)
Most of the existing glass-melting furnaces are already well
controlled. At the current high level of control, nationwide emissions
of PM are about 750 Mg/yr (830 ton/yr). Because of the existence of
controls on all gas furnaces and the emission limiting design and
operation of cold top electric furnaces, no emission reduction is
expected from gas or cold top electric furnaces under the proposed
NESHAP. There are 30 electric or combination gas/electric furnaces of
which 23 are well controlled. Under the proposed NESHAP, it is expected
that baghouses would be added to the seven uncontrolled electric glass-
melting furnaces, which would result in a reduction in nationwide PM
emissions of 600 Mg/yr (660 ton/yr) of which 40 Mg/yr (50 ton/yr) is
particulate matter less than 10 microns (m) in diameter (PM-
10) (docket item II-B-20). Impacts on new furnaces will vary. New gas-
fired glass-melting furnaces would be adequately controlled, even in
the absence of the proposed NESHAP, as a result of the NSPS for glass
manufacturing plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart CC). Because of their
design and operation, new cold top electric furnaces would meet the
proposed emission limit for new furnaces without add-on controls. Only
new electric furnaces are expected to be impacted by the proposed
emission limits for new glass melting furnaces. New electric glass-
melting furnaces are not subject to the NSPS for glass manufacturing
plants and are likely, under the proposed NESHAP, to need controls to
comply with the emission limit for new furnaces. The PM emission
reduction from new electric glass-melting furnaces resulting from the
proposed emission limit for new furnaces would be 160 Mg/yr (180 ton/
yr) in the fifth year of the standard. Current nationwide emissions of
metal HAPs from existing furnaces is 270 kg/yr (600 lb/yr). Under the
proposed NESHAP, metal HAP emissions from existing furnaces and new
furnaces would be reduced by 9 kg/
[[Page 15236]]
yr (20 lb/yr) and 2 kg/yr (5 lb/yr), respectively.
Nationwide emissions of formaldehyde from existing manufacturing
lines are estimated to be 1,770 Mg/yr (1,950 ton/yr) at the current
level of control. Emissions from RS manufacturing lines account for
about 70 percent of the formaldehyde emissions. Implementation of the
proposed NESHAP would reduce nationwide formaldehyde emissions from
existing sources by 410 Mg/yr (450 ton/yr). Emission reductions from RS
manufacturing lines producing building insulation constitute the entire
reduction; there would be no emission reductions from FA manufacturing
lines because, under the proposed emission limits, no additional
control of FA manufacturing lines is necessary and no new FA
manufacturing lines are anticipated. Reduction in formaldehyde
emissions from new RS manufacturing lines is estimated to be 120 Mg/yr
(130 ton/yr) in the fifth year of the standard. Nationwide baseline
emissions and emission reduction estimates for glass-melting furnaces
and manufacturing lines are summarized in metric units in Table 3(a)
and in English units in Table 3(b).
Table 3(a).--Nationwide Annual Emissions
[Metric units]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Emission
Source Pollutant emissions reduction
(Mg/yr) (Mg/yr)a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass-Melting Furnaces....................... Metal HAP............................ 0.3 0.01
PM................................... 750 760
RS Manufacturing Lines....................... Formaldehyde......................... 1,220 530
FA Manufacturing Lines....................... Formaldehyde......................... 550 0
All Sources.................................. Total HAPs........................... 1,770 530
PM (Non-HAP)......................... 750 760
Total Pollutants..................... 2,520 1,290
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Emission reduction in the fifth year of the standard. Includes emission reductions from new sources.
Table 3(b).--Nationwide Annual Emissions
[English units]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Emission
Source Pollutant emissions reduction
(ton/yr) (ton/yr)a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass-Melting Furnaces....................... Metal HAP............................ 0.3 0.01
PM................................... 830 840
RS Manufacturing Lines....................... Formaldehyde......................... 1,350 580
FA Manufacturing Lines....................... Formaldehyde......................... 600 0
All Sources.................................. Total HAPs........................... 1,950 580
PM (Non-HAP)......................... 830 840
Total Pollutants..................... 2,780 1,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Emission reduction in the fifth year of the standard. Includes emission reductions from new sources.
An analysis of emissions from a medium-sized (27,200 Mg/yr [30,000
ton/yr] capacity) model electric furnace shows that metal HAP emissions
would be reduced by about 0.001 Mg/yr (0.001 ton/yr) and PM emissions
by an estimated 67 Mg/yr (74 ton/yr) from both an existing and a new
electric furnace over an uncontrolled electric furnace. For a medium
model plant (99,800 Mg/yr [110,000 ton/yr] capacity), metal HAP
emissions from existing and new electric furnaces would be reduced by
0.004 Mg/yr (0.004 ton/yr) over a plant with uncontrolled electric
furnaces; PM emissions would be reduced by an estimated 250 Mg/yr (270
ton/yr). Under the proposed NESHAP, there would be no emission
reductions associated with existing gas-fired or cold top electric
furnaces because all gas furnaces are already well controlled and no
additional controls would be required for cold top electric furnaces to
meet the proposed emission limits. Because new gas furnaces would be
controlled as a result of the NSPS for glass manufacturing sources (40
CFR part 60, subpart CC), no additional emission reductions from new
gas furnaces would occur under the proposed NESHAP. As with existing
cold top electric furnaces, new cold top electric furnaces would be
able to meet the proposed emission limit without additional control.
Based on model line and plant analyses, formaldehyde emissions from
a medium-sized (27,200 Mg/yr [30,000 ton/yr] capacity) RS manufacturing
line producing building insulation would be reduced by an estimated 8
Mg/yr (9 ton/yr). Emissions of formaldehyde from a medium-sized plant
(99,800 Mg/yr [110,000 ton/yr] capacity) containing two large RS
manufacturing lines would be reduced by an estimated 30 Mg/yr (33 ton/
yr). Formaldehyde emissions from a new RS manufacturing line would be
reduced an estimated 33 Mg/yr (37 ton/yr). No emission reduction would
be achieved for new or existing medium-sized FA manufacturing lines
producing pipe insulation since there would be no additional controls
under the proposed NESHAP. The formaldehyde emission reduction from a
new medium-sized (1,800 Mg/yr [2,000 ton/yr] production capacity) FA
manufacturing line producing heavy-density products would total about
2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr) although no new FA manufacturing lines are
projected. Additional information on model plants and lines is included
in the docket.
Because EPA proposes to regulate formaldehyde emissions as a
surrogate measure for organic HAP emissions from manufacturing lines,
only formaldehyde emissions data are presented here, although when the
formaldehyde emission limit is met, phenol and methanol emissions will
also be reduced. Where incineration is used to control formaldehyde
emissions
[[Page 15237]]
from curing, emissions of phenol and methanol will also be controlled.
Emissions data to quantify the degree of reduction in emissions of
phenol and methanol as a result of increased levels of forming process
modifications are not available. The results of emissions tests
conducted at wool fiberglass manufacturing plants, including phenol and
methanol test results, are contained in the docket.
C. Water Impacts
Because this standard is based on the use of baghouses, dry ESPs,
thermal incinerators, and process modifications, there are no water
pollution impacts. A few existing emission sources may use scrubbers to
control HAP emissions although no additional sources are expected to
add wet scrubbers for the control of HAP emissions. Therefore, no water
impacts are expected from the proposed rule.
D. Solid Waste Impacts
The PM captured by the baghouses added to the seven uncontrolled
electric furnaces will be recycled to the furnace and no solid or
hazardous waste is generated by the use of thermal incinerators. No
solid waste impacts are expected from the proposed rule.
E. Energy Impacts (Docket Item II-B-22)
Baghouses require electrical energy to operate fans. The additional
electrical energy requirements are estimated to be 1.8 thousand
megawatt hours per year (MWh/yr) over current requirements for seven
additional baghouses to be added to existing sources. Emissions of PM
associated with the additional energy requirements are estimated to be
0.1 ton/yr as compared to the PM emission reduction of 700 ton/yr
estimated for installing the seven baghouses on uncontrolled furnaces.
Projected new RS manufacturing lines would comply with the proposed
standard for new sources using process modifications on forming and
incinerators on curing. An additional 2.9 thousand MWh/yr for
electricity and 290 billion Btu/yr of natural gas would be required for
new incinerators although process modifications only may be used to
comply with the proposed standard for new RS manufacturing lines. The
total additional energy required as a result of this proposed NESHAP is
300 billion Btu/yr in the fifth year of the standard. No new FA
manufacturing lines are projected; thus there are no increased energy
requirements under the proposed standard for new FA manufacturing
lines.
F. Nonair Environmental and Health Impacts
Reducing HAP levels may help lower occupational exposure levels and
site-specific levels of PM and VOCs. New or upgraded process
modifications for forming operations would decrease the quantity of HAP
constituents in binder formulations. The addition of baghouses, ESPs,
and incinerators may increase noise levels in the plant area due to the
operation of pollution control devices where none are currently in
place.
G. Cost Impacts
The EPA analyzed the cost impacts of the proposed standards for
glass-melting furnaces by developing model lines based on site-specific
information included in the ICR survey responses (docket item II-B-21)
coupled with cost algorithms from the OAQPS Cost Manual (docket item
II-A-3). The cost impacts of the proposed standards on wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities are based on estimates supplied by wool
fiberglass companies for each of their manufacturing lines (docket item
II-D-65).
The total nationwide capital and annual costs for existing glass-
melting furnaces under the proposed NESHAP are $3.2 million and $1.5
million, respectively. This represents the cost of adding baghouses to
seven electric glass-melting furnaces as well as the monitoring costs
of bag leak detection systems installed on baghouses and temperature
monitors installed on cold top electric furnaces. Control cost
estimates assume the addition of pulse jet baghouses with polyester
filter bags, an air-to-cloth ratio of 0.9 actual cubic meters per
minute per square meter (3 acfm/ft\2\), and a pressure drop of 20 cm (8
in.) of water column. The estimated capital and annual costs of control
equipment for a medium electric furnace (production capacity of 30,000
ton/yr) are $432,000 and $209,000, respectively. The capital cost
includes the cost of the control device, auxiliary equipment, and
installation, and retrofit costs. The model furnace cost estimates do
not include the capital and annual costs for a bag leak detection
system required on all baghouses under the proposed NESHAP. The EPA
estimates the capital cost of this monitoring system to be
approximately $9,100 per furnace, with $1,800/yr in annual costs. Cold
top electric furnaces would incur costs for monitoring an operating
parameter that gives an indication of furnace performance; for cost
estimating purposes, the cost of monitoring the air temperature above
the molten glass surface was used. The estimated capital and annual
costs of monitoring the temperature of cold top electric furnaces are
$1,500 and $240, respectively. For ESPs, owners or operators are
expected to monitor ESP parameters that they commonly monitor, such as
secondary voltage, so that no additional monitoring costs would be
incurred. Because the NSPS for glass manufacturing sources would
regulate any new gas furnaces, there would be no additional control
costs for new gas furnaces under the proposed NESHAP. The NSPS for
glass manufacturing sources does not cover electric furnaces. Thus,
under the proposed NESHAP, new electric furnaces will incur the cost
associated with adding baghouses as well as bag leak detection
monitoring systems. The capital and annual costs associated with a new
baghouse would be $288,000 and $189,000, respectively in addition to
the capital and annual costs of a bag leak detection system, $9,100 and
$1,800, respectively.
Based on information supplied by the North American Insulation
Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), 30 RS forming operations would
upgrade their proprietary process modifications to meet the proposed
emission limit for RS manufacturing lines; none of the existing curing
ovens that are uncontrolled for HAPs would have to add an incinerator.
No control costs are associated with complying with the proposed NESHAP
for FA manufacturing lines. The proposed monitoring requirements for RS
and FA manufacturing lines, i.e., monitoring resin free-formaldehyde
content, product LOI and density, other process parameters, and
incinerator operating temperature, are current industry practices and
would not impose any additional costs. However, NAIMA estimates that
there would be a one-time cost per line for testing that would be
needed to establish a correlation between formaldehyde emissions and
the process parameters to be monitored.
NAIMA estimated the costs of complying with the proposed standard
for RS manufacturing lines for each of their lines. Capital costs per
line ranged from $150,000 to $4 million and annual expenses per line
ranged from $100,000 to $400,000. Nationwide capital costs of upgrading
process modifications on 30 RS manufacturing lines were estimated at
$16.3 million with annual costs of $4.8 million. Annual cost for new RS
manufacturing lines is estimated to be $0.9 million per line. No FA
lines would require additional controls under the proposed standard and
there would be no additional control costs. For all RS and FA
manufacturing lines subject
[[Page 15238]]
to the standard, there would be a one-time cost of $15,000 per line to
establish the process parameter values for compliance monitoring.
Because the process parameters that are likely to be used for
compliance monitoring are ones that industry currently monitors, no
additional costs will be incurred for monitoring beyond the one-time
cost of $15,000 per line.
Total nationwide capital costs for the standard are estimated at
$19.5 million and annual nationwide costs are estimated at $6.3
million/yr, including installation, operation, and maintenance of
emission control and monitoring systems.
H. Economic Impacts (Docket Item II-A-12)
The economic analysis of the proposed NESHAP finds impacts at the
facility and market-level to be modest. The average market price
increases for both structural and nonstructural wool fiberglass would
be less than 0.5 percent. The resultant decreases in quantity demanded
range from 0.17 percent for structural insulation markets to 0.22
percent for nonstructural insulation markets. None of the affected
firms are classified as small businesses and no closures are predicted.
For more detail, see the full economic impact analysis in the docket.
V. Selection of Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Source Category
Section 112(c) of the Act directs the Agency to list each category
of major and area sources, as appropriate, emitting one or more of the
189 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The EPA published an
initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and
may amend the list at any time. ``Wool Fiberglass Production'' is one
of the 174 source categories listed in the notice.
As defined in the EPA report, ``Documentation for Developing the
Initial Source Category List'' (docket item II-A-5), the Wool
Fiberglass Production source category includes any facility engaged in
producing wool fiberglass from sand, feldspar, sodium sulfate,
anhydrous borax, boric acid, or any other materials. Facilities that
manufacture mineral wool from rock, slag, and other similar materials
are not included in the source category. A separate MACT standard for
mineral wool production is currently under development.
Before this project began, no formaldehyde test methods and no HAP
data were available to assess the effectiveness of control devices in
this industry for controlling HAP emissions. The EPA and the wool
fiberglass industry worked in a partnership to address the data needs
for the purpose of establishing a MACT standard. Through a cooperative
effort, EPA and NAIMA developed methods for measuring formaldehyde
emissions from wool fiberglass manufacturing processes. Using
information supplied voluntarily by industry for each wool fiberglass
manufacturing line, EPA identified processes and control systems as
candidates for emissions testing that were considered representative of
the MACT floor and MACT for new sources. EPA and the industry were able
to obtain the necessary emissions data as a result of these cooperative
efforts.
Based on the information collected, EPA believes it is likely that
all but three wool fiberglass plants are major sources subject to the
proposed NESHAP. A major source must have the potential to emit 9.1 Mg/
yr (10 ton/yr) or more of a single HAP or 23 Mg/yr (25 ton/yr) or more
of a combination of HAPs. Three facilities (each with one line
producing bonded products) may be area sources. At these sites, two of
the three glass-melting furnaces and all three RS forming processes are
controlled at the MACT floor level. Because these facilities are not
believed to present an adverse environmental or health risk, EPA has
determined that it is not necessary to include these wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities on the list of area sources required by
section 112(c)(3) of the Act.
On December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941), EPA published a schedule for the
promulgation of standards for the sources selected for regulation under
section 112(c) of the Act. According to this schedule, MACT standards
for this source category must be promulgated no later than November 15,
1997. If standards are not promulgated by May 15, 1999 (18 months
following the promulgation deadline), section 112(j) of the Act
requires States or local agencies with approved permit programs to
issue permits or revise existing permits containing either an
equivalent emission limitation or an alternate emission limitation for
HAP control. (See ``Guidelines for MACT Determinations Under Section
112(j),'' EPA 453/R-94-026, May 1994.)
B. Selection of Emission Sources
The wool fiberglass manufacturing source category, as defined in
the EPA report, ``Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List,'' includes, but is not limited to: (1) The glass-melting
furnace, (2) marble forming, (3) refining unit, (4) fiber formation
process, (5) binder application process, (6) curing process, and (7)
cooling process. For the reasons described below, EPA selected the
forming, curing, and cooling processes on new and existing RS
manufacturing lines and the forming and curing processes on existing FA
manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation and on new FA
manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation or heavy-density products
for control under the proposed NESHAP. The proposed NESHAP also covers
glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities.
Glass-melting furnaces are generally large, shallow, and well-
insulated vessels that are heated from above by gas burners or from
within by electrical current. About 66 percent of the glass-melting
furnaces used in the wool fiberglass industry are all-electric, about
25 percent are gas-fired and about 9 percent are a combination of gas
and electric. Glass pull rates for furnaces range from 18 to 272 Mg/d
(20 to 300 ton/d).
In the glass-melting furnaces, raw materials (e.g., sand, feldspar,
sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid) are introduced
continuously or in batches on top of a bed of molten glass, where they
mix and dissolve at temperatures ranging from 1,500 deg.C to 17,00
deg.C (2,700 deg.F to 3,100 deg.F), and are transformed by a series
of chemical reactions to molten glass. Particulate emissions are caused
by entrainment of dust from batch dumping and the combustion process
and from volatilization of raw materials. Emissions of chromium result
from entrainment of materials eroded from the refractory lining of the
furnace and the furnace exhaust stack. Lead and arsenic are released
from the batch materials and from the use of contaminated cullet
(crushed recycled glass). Glass-melting furnaces may be either gas-
fired, electric, or a combination of gas and electric. Emissions from
glass-melting furnaces are typically controlled by baghouses or dry
ESPs. One type of electric furnace, the cold top electric furnace, has
low PM emissions without add-on controls as a result of its design.
Operators of these units maintain a thick crust of raw materials on top
of the molten glass, which impedes the release of heat and keeps the
air temperature above the molten glass at or below 120 deg.C (250
deg.F).
One of two methods may be used for the next stage of the process,
fiber formation. In an RS forming process, a regulated flow of molten
glass enters the center of a rotating spinner. Spinners are in a linear
arrangement, with 2 to 12 spinners on a single line. Centrifugal action
forces the molten glass out of the
[[Page 15239]]
spinners through hundreds of small orifices in the spinner wall to form
glass threads. As the threads exit the spinner, a high-velocity air jet
or a mixture of air and natural gas flame forces the threads downward,
which attenuates the threads to form glass fibers.
In the FA forming process, also known as the ``pot and marble''
process, glass marbles that were produced at separate on- or offsite
facilities are fed into ceramic pots (typically 6 to 28 pots per line)
that are heated to a high temperature. Glass strands flow by gravity
down through holes in the bottom of the pot and are directed by pinch
rollers. Following the pinch rollers, a high-velocity, high-temperature
mixture of air and gas flame is used to attenuate the fibers.
Particulate and organic emissions are released during the fiber-forming
process due to volatilization of raw materials and entrainment of
fiberglass particles in the process air stream.
After the fibers are formed, they are sprayed with a binder. A
typical binder consists of phenol-formaldehyde resin, water, urea,
lignin, silane, and ammonia. The binder composition used in the RS and
FA forming process is similar. Air, at a flow rate ranging from about
430 to 5,100 actual cubic meters per minute (15,000 to 180,000 acfm),
forces the fibers downward onto a continuously moving conveyor to form
a mat, which is conveyed to the curing oven. Emissions of formaldehyde,
phenol, and methanol occur as a result of the vaporization of the
volatile binder as it comes in contact with hot fibers and as a result
of binder that is not deposited on the mat but passes through the
conveyor and is exhausted to the atmosphere. HAP emissions from forming
are controlled by process modifications, such as resin and binder
chemistry and fiberization technology.
The curing oven drives off moisture remaining on the fibers and
sets the binder. The temperature of the curing oven varies for each
product, ranging from about 180 deg.C to 320 deg.C (350 deg.F to 600
deg.F). Fans are used to draw hot air through the mat within each of
the oven zones; the hot air may be recycled within each zone to
conserve energy. The total air flow exiting the oven ranges from about
200 to 850 actual cubic meters per minute (7,000 to 30,000 acfm) for
the RS process and from 85 to 480 actual cubic meters per minute (3,000
to 17,000 acfm) for the FA process. Emissions of formaldehyde, phenol,
and methanol are the result of vaporization of volatile compounds in
the binder. Emissions from about one-third of the curing ovens on RS
manufacturing lines are controlled by thermal incinerators; the
remainder are uncontrolled for organic HAP emissions. None of the
curing ovens on FA manufacturing lines are controlled for organic HAPs.
The quantity of binder solids sprayed onto the glass fibers is
governed by the type of product being manufactured. Typically, about 70
percent of the binder applied to the fiberglass remains on the product.
The remainder remains on the conveyor and is recycled back into the
process via the wash water or is exhausted with the forming or curing
oven air. Quality control checks are routinely performed to determine
the product LOI, which ensures that the correct weight percent of
binder is present in the product.
After curing, the fiber mat is conveyed to a cooling section, where
ambient air is forced through the mat to eliminate ``hot spots'' in the
product and to facilitate finishing and packaging. Cooling air flow
rates range from 140 to 990 actual cubic meters per minute (5,000 to
35,000 acfm). By the time the mat with its thermally set binder reaches
cooling, emissions of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol are relatively
small compared to forming and curing. Cooling processes are not
controlled for HAP emissions. Most FA manufacturing lines do not have
cooling sections because the product is able to cool adequately between
exiting the curing oven and reaching the finishing and handling
sections.
At the current level of control, existing glass-melting furnaces
emit approximately 270 kg/yr (600 lb/yr) of HAP and 750 Mg/yr (830 ton/
yr) of PM. Under the proposed NESHAP, EPA expects that seven currently
uncontrolled electric furnaces would install controls. Electric
furnaces (excluding cold top electric furnaces) emit an estimated 9 kg/
yr (20 lb/yr) of HAP and about 635 Mg/yr (700 ton/yr) of PM. Control of
these furnaces would ensure that all furnaces are controlled to the
MACT floor emission level.
Existing cold top electric furnaces (air temperature above the
molten glass of 120 deg.C [250 deg.F] or less) are not equipped with
add-on control devices. Particulate emissions from the 12 existing cold
top electric furnaces are limited by the thick crust maintained on the
molten glass surface. Emissions are estimated to be 27 kg/yr (60 lb/yr)
of HAP and about 55 Mg/yr (60 ton/yr) of PM. These furnaces are
expected to comply with the proposed emission limit without the need
for add-on control devices. The EPA considered requiring controls for
cold top electric furnaces and has determined that the cost
effectiveness of additional controls beyond the floor is not
reasonable.
Manufacture of wool fiberglass releases an estimated 1,770 Mg/yr
(1,950 ton/yr) of formaldehyde from RS and FA manufacturing lines. The
Agency selected forming, curing, and cooling processes on all new and
existing RS manufacturing lines and forming and curing processes on
existing FA manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation and new FA
manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation or heavy-density products
for control under the proposed NESHAP. Because no controls are
currently used, the MACT floor is no control and because the cost
effectiveness of additional controls beyond the floor is not
reasonable, the Agency is not setting emission limits for existing FA
manufacturing lines producing light-density, automotive, or heavy-
density products or new FA manufacturing lines producing light-density
or automotive products. Because no plants have equipped forming or
curing processes on these manufacturing lines with emission controls,
the MACT floor is no control. The EPA considered beyond-the-floor
controls for both RS and FA manufacturing lines and has determined that
the cost effectiveness of additional controls does not justify going
beyond the floor.
C. Selection of Pollutants
The EPA proposes to regulate emissions of formaldehyde, a HAP and
surrogate for phenol and methanol emissions, and PM emissions, a
surrogate for metal HAP emissions. Formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, and
the metal HAPs are included on the list of HAPs under section 112(b) of
the Act and are emitted from wool fiberglass manufacturing sources.
Formaldehyde is the only organic HAP emitted from the wool
fiberglass industry that has been identified to be a potential
carcinogen. EPA proposes to regulate emissions of formaldehyde, phenol,
and methanol using formaldehyde as a surrogate measure for the proposed
emission limits for manufacturing lines. Use of formaldehyde as a
surrogate allows a single emission limit rather than individual
emission limits for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol (which would
require separate measurements) because when the formaldehyde emission
limit is met, phenol and methanol emissions will also be reduced.
[[Page 15240]]
D. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources
1. Background
After EPA has identified the specific source categories or
subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, MACT
standards must be set for each category or subcategory. Section 112
establishes a minimum baseline or ``floor'' for standards. For new
sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory cannot be
less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice
by the best-controlled similar source. [See section 112(d)(3).] The
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 for categories and subcategories with 30 or more
sources, or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
After the floor has been determined for a new or existing source in
a source category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT
standards that are no less stringent than the floor. Such standards
must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. In
establishing the standards, EPA may distinguish among classes, types,
and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory. [See section
112(d)(1).]
The next step in establishing MACT standards is to investigate
regulatory alternatives. With MACT standards, only alternatives at
least as stringent as the floor may be selected. Information about the
industry is analyzed to develop model plants for projecting national
impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels and cost, energy, and
secondary impacts. Regulatory alternatives (which may be different
levels of emissions control, equal to or more stringent than the floor
levels) are then evaluated to select the regulatory alternative that
best reflects the appropriate MACT level. The selected alternative may
be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the control level selected
must be technologically achievable. The regulatory alternatives and
emission limits selected for new and existing sources may be different
because of different MACT floors.
The Agency may consider going beyond the floor to require more
stringent controls. Here, EPA considers the achievable emission
reductions of HAPs (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled), cost and economic impacts, energy impacts, and other
nonair environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve the maximum
degree of emissions reduction without unreasonable economic or other
impacts. [See section 112(d)(2).] Subcategorization within a source
category may be considered when there is enough evidence to demonstrate
clearly that there are significant differences among the subcategories.
The EPA examined the processes, the process operations, and other
factors to determine if separate classes of units, operations, or other
criteria have an effect on air emissions or their controllability. The
EPA considered developing subcategories of glass-melting furnaces on
the basis of the energy sources used to convert the raw materials to
molten glass and their emission potential. Glass-melting furnaces are
typically either gas-fired, electric, or a combination of gas and
electric. After examining PM emissions data for gas, electric, and
combination gas and electric furnaces, EPA concluded that there is a
large amount of variability in PM emissions regardless of energy source
and that most furnaces are already well controlled by either ESPs or
baghouses. Therefore, EPA decided not to develop subcategories of
glass-melting furnaces.
Wool fiberglass manufacturing lines can be classified by the type
of forming process (RS and FA) used. Approximately 90 percent of the
wool fiberglass manufactured by the RS forming process is building
insulation, whereas the wool fiberglass manufactured by the FA forming
process is specialty products, such as automotive or filtration
products. Because of the type of products, the RS and FA forming
process differ significantly in the way fibers are formed, production
rates, air flow and energy expended per ton of product, application of
process modifications, and the amount of binder applied to the wool
fiberglass. As a result of these differences in manufacturing
methodologies, levels of pollutant emissions, and application of
controls (such as process modifications), EPA subcategorized
manufacturing lines into those using the RS forming process (RS
manufacturing lines) and those using the FA forming process (FA
manufacturing lines). RS manufacturing lines consist of forming,
curing, and cooling. FA manufacturing lines consist of forming and
curing processes; cooling is not a distinct separate process on FA
manufacturing lines. FA manufacturing lines can be further
subcategorized by the type of specialty product made. The FA
subcategories include light-density, heavy-density, automotive, and
pipe insulation products. Each of these subcategories is characterized
by a specific range of LOIs and densities, which gives each subcategory
a different emission potential. Also, the control measures that can be
used to reduce HAP emissions, for example, process modifications, are
different for the FA subcategories. For all these reasons, the proposed
standards have different emission limits for RS manufacturing lines and
FA manufacturing lines and, within the FA subcategory, different
emission limits for two FA subcategories.
2. Selection of Floor Technologies
In establishing these proposed emission standards, the add-on or
process control technology representative of the MACT floor was
determined for each subcategory. In general, these determinations were
made on the basis of the performances of the technologies as reported
by emission test results. The technologies determined to be the MACT
floors are those determined to be the median of the technologies that
are representative of the best performing 12 percent of the sources
(for which there are emissions data) where there are more than 30
sources in the subcategory or the best performing five sources (for
which there are emissions data) where there are fewer than 30 sources.
Of the 56 existing glass-melting furnaces, 12 are controlled by
ESPs and 25 by baghouses (more than one furnace may be controlled by a
single control device). PM emissions data are available for 18
furnaces. Because the number of furnaces is greater than 30, the MACT
floor is represented by the average of the best performing 12 percent
of the existing sources. Based on PM emissions data for the best
performing 12 percent, baghouses and ESPs are equally effective in
controlling PM emissions from glass-melting furnaces. Therefore, the
MACT floor for existing glass-melting furnaces is represented by well-
designed and operated baghouses and ESPs. An ESP representative of the
MACT floor will have a specific collection area of 32 square meters per
1,000 actual cubic meters per hour (590 ft \2\/1,000 acfm); a baghouse
representative of the MACT floor is a pulse-jet baghouse with polyester
bag material and an air-to-cloth ratio of 0.9 actual cubic meters per
minute per square meter (3 acfm/ft \2\ ). Because the same well-
designed and -operated baghouses and ESPs are considered by EPA to be
the best control technology for PM emissions, including metal HAP
emissions, MACT for new furnaces
[[Page 15241]]
would be the same as the MACT floor for existing sources, a baghouse or
an ESP.
HAP emissions control on RS forming processes is achieved by
process modifications including resin and binder chemistry,
fiberization technology, binder application, and forming conditions
(docket item II-D-62). Resins are manufactured by an outside supplier
or in-house using proprietary technologies to meet the specifications
of the wool fiberglass manufacturer. Variables, such as the phenol-to-
formaldehyde mole ratio, resin cook procedures, and catalysts, control
both the free-formaldehyde and phenol levels as well as the types and
relative percentage of phenol oligomers, all of which influence the
levels of emissions and acceptability of a resin for a given process.
Resin purchase specifications are typically written so that the free-
formaldehyde content is ``not to exceed'' a certain level. In binder
chemistry, the addition of various additives can reduce formaldehyde
emissions. Urea, for example, added to the binder solution reacts with
free formaldehyde, which can form stable, nonreversible urea
formaldehyde compounds. In fiberization technology, temperature of the
fiber veil is a critical process variable (a lower temperature may
reduce HAP volatilization) affected by the fiberizer design and
operation as well as by air and water treatment of the fiber veil.
Binder application efficiency, the amount of binder that stays on the
fiberglass, is increased by matching binder droplet size to the fiber
diameter. Factors such as nozzle size geometry, configuration of the
nozzle assembly, and location affect binder droplet size. Forming
conditions, such as air volume and velocity affect binder application
efficiency; too much or too little air flow can increase emissions.
Each of these process modifications has been implemented on each of the
40 RS forming processes, although the degree to which each process
modification has been implemented is different for each line. Add-on
controls such as wet scrubbers or wet ESPs, primarily for PM control,
were shown to be ineffective for gaseous HAP removal. Thus, the MACT
floor for forming on existing RS manufacturing lines is represented by
process modifications. Because the number of RS forming sources, 40, is
greater than 30, the MACT floor is represented by the median of the
best performing 12 percent of existing sources, or five sources
(40x0.12=4.8). Based on HAP emissions data for the best performing 12
percent of existing sources, process modifications are the MACT floor
for forming processes on RS manufacturing lines. Because of differences
in application between companies and because of the proprietary nature
of process modifications, a detailed description of forming process
modifications cannot be presented.
Of the 43 curing ovens on RS manufacturing lines, 14 are controlled
using incinerators. Based on the median of the top 12 percent, the
thermal incinerator is the MACT floor for curing processes on existing
RS manufacturing lines. Thermal incinerators have been shown to be
highly effective in the control of emissions of organic HAPs and can
achieve destruction efficiencies in excess of 98 percent with an
adequately high temperature, good mixing, sufficient oxygen, and
adequate residence time. Low organic concentration gas streams, such as
those emitted from wool fiberglass curing processes, can be expected to
have low heating values and require auxiliary fuel. Heat recovery
through the use of a recuperative incinerator can reduce the energy
requirements. Emission test measurements demonstrate that a thermal
incinerator is at least 99 percent effective in the removal of
formaldehyde and phenol from curing ovens. Based on the median of the
best performing 12 percent of existing sources, a thermal incinerator
representative of the MACT floor has a combustion temperature of 700
deg.C (1,300 deg.F) and a gas residence time of 1 second.
While the MACT floor for cooling is no control, cooling is included
in the definition of RS manufacturing line, and therefore covered as
part of the proposed RS manufacturing line standard. This inclusion
prevents the shifting of emissions from forming and curing to the
cooling section.
The EPA's analysis of MACT floor control options for existing RS
manufacturing lines (described above) showed that the median of the
best performing 12 percent of existing forming processes control HAP
emissions using process modifications and the median of the best
performing 12 percent of existing curing ovens are controlled by
incinerators. As a result, the MACT floor for RS manufacturing lines is
forming process modifications coupled with an incinerator for curing
emissions. These controls were determined to be the most efficient for
the control of HAPs among the various controls used in the industry for
existing RS manufacturing lines. Based on the best controlled source,
MACT for new RS manufacturing lines is more stringent than the MACT
floor for existing RS manufacturing lines. MACT for new RS forming
processes incorporates a higher degree of process modifications than is
present on most existing forming processes but which is available to
all the industry and can be designed into new forming processes.
Because the MACT floor for existing curing ovens, incinerators
operating at 700 deg.C (1,300 deg.F) and a gas residence time of 1
second, represent the best-controlled source, MACT for new curing ovens
is the same as the MACT floor for existing curing ovens. None of the
cooling processes are controlled for gaseous HAPs; as a result, MACT
for new cooling processes is no control. Thus, EPA has determined that
the MACT floor for new RS manufacturing lines is represented by a high
level of process modifications on RS forming processes, incinerators on
curing ovens, and no control on cooling processes.
As discussed earlier, none of the forming processes on FA
manufacturing lines producing light-density or automotive products are
equipped with HAP emission controls. Thus, the MACT floor is no control
for forming processes on new and existing FA lines producing these
products. The median of the best performing five lines (fewer than 30
sources) producing heavy-density products was determined to be no
control; thus, the MACT floor for forming on existing FA manufacturing
lines producing heavy-density products is no control. The best-
controlled heavy-density forming process uses process modifications;
therefore, process modifications are the basis for the MACT floor for
the forming process on new FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-
density products.
Emissions from the forming process on all FA manufacturing lines
producing pipe insulation are controlled by the same level of process
modifications. Therefore, process modifications are the basis for the
MACT floor for the forming process on all new and existing FA
manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation.
No control systems have been applied for the control of HAP
emissions from curing ovens on FA manufacturing lines. Therefore, the
MACT floor for curing ovens on new and existing FA manufacturing lines
is no control. Although the MACT floor for curing is no control, curing
is included in the definition of FA manufacturing line and, therefore,
is covered as part of the proposed FA manufacturing line standard. This
inclusion prevents the shifting of emissions from forming to the curing
section.
The EPA's analysis of MACT floor control options for existing FA
[[Page 15242]]
manufacturing lines producing pipe product showed the best performing
five forming processes (fewer than 30 sources) controlled by the same
level of process modifications and curing ovens uncontrolled for HAP
emissions. As a result, the MACT floor for existing FA manufacturing
lines producing pipe products is process modifications for forming and
no control for curing. Because the same level of process modifications
is used on forming processes on all FA manufacturing lines producing
pipe products and because no HAP controls are used on curing ovens, EPA
has determined that the MACT floor for new FA manufacturing lines
producing pipe products is the same as the MACT floor for existing
sources.
As described above, the MACT floor for forming processes and curing
ovens on existing FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-density
products is no control; therefore, the MACT floor for existing FA
manufacturing lines producing heavy-density products is no control.
Based on the best-controlled source, MACT for new FA manufacturing
lines producing heavy-density products is process modifications on
forming. Because no curing ovens are controlled, the MACT floor for new
curing ovens is no control, the same as the MACT floor for existing
curing ovens. Thus, EPA has determined that the MACT floor for new FA
manufacturing lines that produce heavy-density products is represented
by process modifications on forming and no control on curing ovens.
The EPA considered requiring controls beyond the MACT floor for
glass-melting furnaces and RS and FA manufacturing lines. However,
based on an assessment of the impacts of beyond-the-floor controls, EPA
concluded that the cost effectiveness of an incremental reduction in
emissions would make additional controls unreasonable (docket items II-
A-12, II-B-17, II-B-22).
3. Emission Limits
As part of this rulemaking, emissions data were collected from
tests at 10 wool fiberglass plants and from other test data supplied by
NAIMA to characterize uncontrolled and controlled emissions from the
various processes and evaluate the effectiveness of existing control
systems. Sites tested during this rulemaking were selected based on
their use of the control technology identified as candidates for MACT
floor. Using the test data, EPA established the MACT floor emission
limits for existing and new sources.
Emissions data were evaluated for 18 furnaces controlled by
baghouses and ESPs (docket item II-I-20). Emissions ranged widely for
both gas and electric furnaces and for both well-designed and well-
operated baghouses and ESPs. Controlled PM emissions from all furnaces
ranged from 0.01 to 0.54 kg/Mg (0.02 to 1.08 lb/ton) of glass pulled.
Emissions of PM from baghouse-controlled furnaces ranged from 0.01 to
0.54 kg/Mg (0.02 to 1.08 lb/ton) of glass pulled and from 0.01 to 0.25
kg/Mg (0.02 to 0.5 lb/ton) of glass pulled for ESP-controlled furnaces.
Controlled electric furnace PM emissions ranged from 0.01 to 0.35 kg/Mg
(0.02 to 0.7 lb/ton) of glass pulled; controlled gas furnace emissions
ranged from 0.01 to 0.54 kg/Mg (0.02 to 1.08 lb/ton). In proposing
emission limits, EPA took into consideration the wide variation in
controlled emissions for both gas and electric furnaces and for well-
designed and operated baghouses and ESPs. The proposed PM emission
limits represent a level that can be achieved by all existing furnaces
that are controlled by well-designed and operated baghouses and ESPs.
Because MACT for new and existing furnaces is the same, EPA proposed
the same PM emission limit, 0.25 kg of PM/Mg (0.5 lb of PM/ton) of
glass pulled, for new furnaces as for existing furnaces. The proposed
PM emission limit for existing glass-melting furnaces, 0.25 kg/Mg (0.5
lb/ton) of glass pulled, is the same as the current NSPS level for gas-
fired glass-melting furnaces in the wool fiberglass industry (see 40
CFR part 60, subpart CC). Both baghouses and ESPs are used to control
emissions from gas-fired furnaces. In proposing the same emission limit
for new and existing furnaces, EPA recognizes that both baghouses and
ESPs used on existing furnaces are already highly efficient at
controlling PM emissions and there is no basis for a more stringent
emission limit based on this control technology.
The limited emission test data for metal HAPs show their emissions
to be low, often below the detection limits of the test method. In
cooperative efforts by EPA and NAIMA, tests for metal HAPs were
performed at six glass-melting furnaces (docket item II-B-15). For a
medium capacity controlled furnace (27,000 Mg/yr [30,000 ton/yr]),
emissions of arsenic would be 0.2 lb/yr, chromium emissions would range
from 1.2 to 18 lb/yr, and lead emissions would be 0.6 to 2.1 lb/yr.
Total metal HAP emissions from a large (50,000 Mg/yr [55,000 ton/yr])
controlled model gas-fired furnace are an estimated 60 lb/yr.
For RS forming processes, the number of sources is 40. Because the
number of sources is greater than 30, the MACT floor is represented by
the median of the best performing 12 percent of existing sources, or
five sources. Emissions of formaldehyde from forming processes
representative of the best performing five were measured (docket items
II-B-15, II-B-21, II-D-64). Emissions of formaldehyde from these five
forming processes were 0.15, 0.33, 0.49, 0.49, and 0.6 kg/Mg (0.3,
0.65, 0.97, 0.97, and 1.2 lb/ton) of glass pulled. Using these results,
the median emission level is 0.49 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (0.97
lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled. The emission level
selected as representative of new forming processes, 0.33 kg of
formaldehyde per megagram (0.65 lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass
pulled, reflects the performance of the best process modification
available to the industry. The emission level of 0.15 kg/Mg (0.3 lb/
ton) is from a proprietary forming process not available to the rest of
the industry. Therefore, it was not considered MACT for new sources.
Emissions test results for RS forming processes are summarized in Table
4.
Table 4.--Summary of Emission Test Results on RS Manufacturing Lines
[Docket Items II-B-15, II-B-21, II-D-64]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Formaldehyde
Emissions
Process and Plant Control -----------------------
kg/mg lb/ton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forming Process modificationsa
Plant P........................................... .................................... 0.15 0.3
Plant S........................................... .................................... 0.33 0.65
Plant T........................................... .................................... 0.6 1.2
Plant U........................................... .................................... 0.49 0.97
[[Page 15243]]
Plant V........................................... .................................... 0.49 0.97
Curing
Plant M........................................... Incinerator (1300 deg.F, 0.5-s
residence time)
Inlet............................. 0.497 0.994
Outlet............................ 0.00039 0.00078
Plant N........................................... Incinerator (1500 deg.F, 2.5-s
residence time)
Outlet............................ 0.00146 0.00292
Cooling
Plant O........................................... Uncontrolled........................ 0.004 0.007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Process modifications include resin chemistry, binder chemistry, fiberization technology, binder application,
forming conditions.
RS curing processes, controlled by incinerators, were tested at two
plants using the technology that EPA determined represented the MACT
floor for RS curing, resulting in one measurement of 0.0004 kg of
formaldehyde per megagram (0.001 lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass
pulled and another measurement of 0.0015 kg of formaldehyde per
megagram (0.003 lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled (docket
item II-B-15). Because results from just two tests were available, the
higher result (0.0015 kg of formaldehyde per megagram [0.003 lb of
formaldehyde per ton] of glass pulled) was chosen to represent MACT
floor emissions from existing and new curing ovens. The only test
result for emissions from cooling operations was 0.005 kg of
formaldehyde per megagram (0.01 lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass
pulled (docket item II-B-15); this emission level was selected to
represent the emissions from new and existing cooling processes.
Emissions data for RS curing and cooling processes are summarized in
Table 4.
The proposed formaldehyde emission limit for existing RS
manufacturing lines, 0.6 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (1.2 lb of
formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled, is based on the combined
manufacturing line emission levels from forming, curing, and cooling
with a 20 percent allowance to account for the use of short-term test
data as compared to long-term continuous monitoring data. In metric
units, the emission limit for existing RS manufacturing lines was
calculated as follows: (0.49 + 0.0015 + 0.005) x 1.20 = 0.6 kg of
formaldehyde per megagram of glass pulled. In English units, the
emission limit for existing RS manufacturing lines was calculated as
follows: (0.97 + 0.003 + 0.01) x 1.20 = 1.2 lb of formaldehyde per
ton of glass pulled. The proposed emission limit for new RS
manufacturing lines, 0.4 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (0.8 lb of
formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled, was derived using 0.33 kg/Mg
(0.65 lb/ton) for the forming emission level and the same emission
levels for curing and cooling as mentioned above. In metric units, the
emission limit for new RS manufacturing lines was calculated as
follows: (0.33 + 0.0015 + 0.005) x 1.20 = 0.4 kg of formaldehyde per
megagram of glass pulled. In English units, the emission limit for new
RS manufacturing lines was calculated as follows: (0.65 + 0.003 + 0.01)
x 1.20 = 0.8 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled.
For existing and new FA manufacturing lines that produce pipe
insulation, the MACT floor for forming is the same process
modification, which has been applied to an equal degree to all forming
processes. Because there are no formaldehyde emission controls on
curing on FA manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation, the MACT
floor for curing is no control. Emissions of formaldehyde have been
measured from forming and curing on six FA manufacturing lines
producing pipe insulation where the same MACT floors for forming and
curing were used (see Table 5). Results from short-term formaldehyde
emission tests on these FA manufacturing lines were 1.7, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4,
3.2 and 3.4 kg/Mg (3.4, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 6.5, and 6.8 lb/ton) of glass
pulled (docket item II-D-54). Even though the same control technologies
and methods on manufacturing lines (forming and curing) producing the
same product were used, the emissions varied widely from 3.4 to 6.8 lb/
ton. Because the test data for the same control technologies and
methods that represent the MACT floors show a range of emissions and
because emissions tests used short term tests (3 hrs) while the MACT
standard will need to be met at all times, EPA has set the proposed
formaldehyde emission limit for new and existing FA manufacturing lines
producing pipe insulation at 3.4 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (6.8
lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled. The EPA believes that this
emission rate is the level that can be consistently achieved by the
control technologies and methods that are the MACT floor.
Table 5.--Summary of Emissions Data for FA Manufacturing Lines
[Docket item II-D-54]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde
emissions
Process and product Control ----------------------
kg/mg lb/ton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy density.............. Forming--process 2.3 4.6
modifications. 3.9 7.8
Curing--no control..
[[Page 15244]]
Pipe....................... Forming--process 1.7 3.4
modifications. 2.35 4.7
Curing--no control.. 2.4 4.8
2.45 4.9
3.25 6.5
3.4 6.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of new FA manufacturing lines that produce heavy-
density product, the MACT floor is represented by process modifications
on forming processes, which have been applied to the same degree on two
forming processes, and no control on curing. The emission limit
selected for new FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-density product
is based on the results of emissions testing on forming and curing
processes on two FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-density
products where the same process modifications have been applied to
forming and both curing ovens are uncontrolled (see Table 5). Emissions
of formaldehyde from these two FA manufacturing lines were 2.3 and 3.9
kg of formaldehyde per megagram (4.6 and 7.8 lb of formaldehyde per
ton) of glass pulled (docket item II-D-54). Because of the small number
of tests, the use of short-term test data (rather than long-term
continuous monitoring data), and to allow for the variability in
emission results from forming processes using the same floor level
process modifications, the 3.9 kg/Mg (7.8 lb/ton) level was chosen to
represent MACT floor emissions from new FA manufacturing lines
manufacturing heavy-density products.
E. Selection of
Monitoring Requirements
Several monitoring options were identified and evaluated for
sources in wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. Under the most
stringent option, a continuous opacity monitor (COM) would be required
for monitoring PM emissions from glass-melting furnaces, and a
continuous emission monitor (CEM) would be required for measurements of
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. No EPA-approved continuous
monitoring method is available for measuring PM, which is used as a
surrogate for metal HAP emissions.
Where continuous monitors do not exist or are too expensive,
monitoring would rely on parametric monitoring of one or more
parameters associated with the production process or control device,
coupled with corrective action for operating problems. Potential
parameters could include incinerator operating temperature, ESP
electrical readings, and binder formulation parameters. A bag leak
detection system could be used to monitor PM emissions from baghouses
and ensure proper operation and maintenance of the control devices.
Visible emissions observations by Method 9 could be required on a daily
or weekly basis to ensure proper operation of control devices on glass-
melting furnaces. For this industry, however, opacity is not considered
a good indicator of compliance because of the low grain loadings.
Therefore, this option was not considered further.
A one-time performance test is necessary to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable emission limit for glass-melting furnaces and
manufacturing lines. Using the surrogate approach, the owner or
operator would measure PM emissions from the furnace control system
using EPA Method 5 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and Sec. 63.1389
(Test methods and procedures) and formaldehyde emissions using EPA
Method 316 or Method 318. Methods 316 and 318 are also being proposed
today. The sampling and analytical cost for a three-run performance
test is estimated at $8,000 for Method 5 and $9,000 for Method 316. The
owner or operator could also use EPA Method 318, for measuring
formaldehyde emissions for compliance purposes as well measuring other
pollutant emissions. The method is also validated for use as a CEM. The
sampling and analytical cost for three Fourier Transform Infrared
(FTIR) gas-phase extractive runs, including other tests needed in
conjunction with Method 318, is about $15,000.
During the performance tests for each glass-melting furnace and
each RS and FA manufacturing line subject to the standard, the owner or
operator would monitor and record the glass pull rate and determine the
arithmetic mean for each test run. A determination of compliance during
the performance tests would be based on the average of the three
individual test runs.
Each owner or operator subject to the proposed NESHAP would submit
a written operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as part of their
application for a part 70 permit. The plan would include procedures for
the proper operation and maintenance of processes and add-on control
devices used to comply with the proposed emission limits as well as the
corrective actions to be taken when a process or control device
parameter deviates from allowable levels established during performance
testing. The plan would identify the process parameters and control
device parameters that would be monitored to determine compliance, a
monitoring schedule, and procedures for keeping records to document
compliance. Additional information may be required depending on the
add-on control device or process that is used to comply with the
emission standard.
The owner or operator of each furnace controlled by an ESP would
submit as part of their operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan
the ESP parameters (e.g., secondary voltage of each electrical field)
to be monitored, a monitoring schedule, recordkeeping procedures to
document compliance, and how the ESP is to be maintained and operated.
The proposed monitoring provisions specify that corrective actions be
taken according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan in the event of a deviation in any 3-hour average ESP
parameter outside the range established during performance testing.
Failure to initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of the deviation
would be considered noncompliance. If the ESP
[[Page 15245]]
parameter values are outside the range established during the
performance test for more than 5 percent of total operating time in a
6-month reporting period, the owner or operator would implement a QIP
consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.7 If the ESP parameter values are outside the range for
more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the performance test, the owner or operator of each
glass-melting furnace controlled by a baghouse would monitor emissions
exiting the PM control system using a bag leak detection system since
opacity is not a good indicator of performance at the low, controlled
PM levels characteristic of these sources. The bag leak detection
system must be equipped with an alarm system that will sound when an
increase in PM emissions is detected. On a positive pressure baghouse
where more than a single bag leak detection system probe may be
necessary, the instrumentation and alarm for the bag leak detection
system may be shared among detectors. Provisions are included in the
rule regarding installation, calibration, and operation of the system.
The monitoring provisions specify that when the bag leak detection
system alarm is activated, the baghouse be inspected for the cause of
the alarm and that corrective action be initiated according to the
procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. Failure
to initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm would be
considered noncompliance. If the alarm is activated for more than 5
percent of the total operating time during the 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with
subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owner or operator of a glass-melting furnace whose emissions
are not exhausted to an air pollution control device for PM control
would submit as part of their operations, maintenance, and monitoring
plan a description of how the furnace is to be operated and maintained,
the furnace parameter(s) to be monitored for compliance purposes, a
monitoring schedule, and recordkeeping procedures for documenting
compliance. On cold top electric furnaces, for example, the air
temperature above the glass melt may be monitored as an indicator of
furnace performance. Corrective action would be taken if the range of
acceptable values for the selected operating parameter(s), such as air
temperature above the glass melt in a cold top electric furnace,
established during the initial performance test, is exceeded based on
any 3-hour average of the monitored parameter. A deviation outside the
established range would trigger an inspection of the glass-melting
furnace to determine the cause of the deviation and the initiation of
corrective actions according to the procedures in the facility's
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. Failure to initiate
corrective actions within 1 hour of the deviation would be considered
noncompliance. If the furnace operating parameter values are outside
the range established during the performance test for more than 5
percent of total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the
owner or operator would implement a QIP consistent with subpart D of
the draft approach to compliance assurance monitoring.9 If the
furnace parameter values are outside the range for more than 10 percent
of total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or
operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owner or operator would perform the one-time performance test
for each new and existing RS manufacturing line that produces building
insulation (defined as having an LOI of less than 8 percent and a
density of less than 32 kg/m\3\ [2 lb/ft\3\]) while manufacturing
building insulation. Similarly, performance tests would be performed
for each new FA manufacturing line that produces heavy-density (defined
as having an LOI of 11 to 25 percent and a density of 8 to 48 kg/m\3\
[0.5 to 3 lb/ft\3\]) or pipe insulation products (defined as having an
LOI of 8 to 14 percent and a density of 48 to 96 kg/m\3\ [3 to 6 lb/
ft\3\]) and each existing FA manufacturing line that produces pipe
insulation products.
During the performance test on RS and FA manufacturing lines, the
owner or operator would monitor and record the free-formaldehyde
content of each resin lot, the binder formulation of each batch used
during the tests, and the product LOI and density for each line tested.
The performance test would be run using the resin with the highest free
formaldehyde content that is expected to be used on each manufacturing
line subject to the standard. After the initial performance test, if an
owner or operator wants to use a resin with a higher free-formaldehyde
content or change the binder formulation, another performance test must
be conducted to verify compliance. Following the performance test, the
owner or operator would maintain records of the free-formaldehyde
content of each incoming resin lot, the formulation of each binder
batch, and daily product LOI and product density. If resin free-
formaldehyde content exceeds the performance test levels, the owner or
operator would be in violation of the standard. Under the proposed
NESHAP, the binder formulation must not deviate from the formulation
specifications used during the performance test.
If the owner or operator of an RS or an FA manufacturing line plans
to use forming process modifications to comply with the proposed
standard, the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan must specify
the process parameters (e.g., LOI, binder solids, and/or binder
application rate) to be monitored and their correlation with
formaldehyde emissions, the monitoring schedule, and recordkeeping
procedures for documenting compliance, in addition to procedures for
the proper operation and maintenance of the process modifications. The
owner or operator would monitor forming process parameters by adhering
to the procedures detailed in their operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan. Should the process parameter(s) deviate from the range
established during the performance test, the owner or operator must
inspect the process to determine the cause of the deviation and
initiate corrective action within 1 hour of the deviation. If the
process parameter(s) are outside the performance test range for more
than 5 percent of total operating time during a 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator would implement a QIP consistent with
subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.10 If the process parameter(s) are outside the range
for more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a wet scrubbing control device is used to control formaldehyde
emissions from an RS or FA manufacturing line subject to the standard,
the owner or operator must establish during the performance test the
pressure drop across each scrubber, the scrubbing liquid flow rate to
each scrubber, and the identity and feed rate of any chemical added to
the scrubbing liquid. If the owner or operator plans to operate
[[Page 15246]]
the scrubber in such a way that the pressure drop, liquid flow rate, or
chemical additive or chemical feed rate exceeds the range of values
established during the performance tests, additional testing would be
necessary to demonstrate compliance. Following the initial performance
tests, an owner or operator who uses a wet scrubbing control device to
control formaldehyde emissions from an RS or FA manufacturing line
would record the pressure drop across each scrubber, the scrubbing
liquid flow rate to each scrubber, and the identity and feed rate of
any chemical added to the scrubbing liquid. The proposed monitoring
provisions also specify that corrective action be taken if the range of
acceptable values established during the initial performance test is
exceeded. Deviation by any 3-hour average scrubber parameter outside
the established range would cause the owner or operator to inspect the
process to determine the cause of the deviation and to initiate
corrective actions according to the procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan. Failure to initiate corrective
actions within 1 hour of the deviation would be considered
noncompliance. If any scrubber parameter is outside the performance
test range for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month reporting period, the owner or operator would implement a QIP
consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.11 If any of the scrubber parameter values are outside
the range for more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month
reporting period, the owner or operator would be in violation of the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an incinerator is used to comply with the applicable emission
limits for manufacturing lines, the incinerator operating temperature
would have to be continuously monitored and recorded using a device
such as a thermocouple with a strip chart recorder or data logger.
During the performance test, the owner or operator would continuously
monitor the temperature and record the average temperature during each
1-hour test. The average of the three 1-hour test runs would be used to
monitor compliance. Following the performance tests, the owner or
operator would maintain the temperature so that any 3-hour average does
not fall below the temperature established during the performance test.
If the temperature falls below the average, the owner or operator would
be considered out of compliance. The operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan for an incinerator would include procedures to follow
in the event of a temperature drop. Examples of procedures that might
be included in the plan for incinerators include: (1) inspection of
burner assemblies and pilot sensing devices for proper operation and
cleaning; (2) adjusting primary and secondary chamber combustion air;
(3) inspecting dampers, fans, blowers, and motors for proper operation,
and (4) shutdown procedures.
Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator would be allowed
to change the control device or process parameter levels established
during the initial performance tests. The owner or operator would be
permitted to expand the range or increase the level of any add-on
control device or process parameter level used to monitor compliance by
performing additional emission testing to demonstrate that at the new
levels, the affected source complies with the emission limits in
Secs. 63.1382, 63.1383, or 63.1384.
The EPA general provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, require
each owner or operator to develop and implement a startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan. Under the proposed NESHAP, the plan would include
procedures for routine and long-term maintenance of the control devices
according to the manufacturer's instructions or recommendations.
The EPA believes that these monitoring provisions will provide
sufficient information needed to determine compliance or operating
problems at the source. At the same time, the provisions are not labor
intensive, do not require expensive, complex equipment, and are not
burdensome in terms of recordkeeping needs.
F. Selection of Test Methods
Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator conducts a one-
time performance (emissions) test to determine initial compliance with
the emission limits for glass-melting furnaces and manufacturing lines.
Under the proposed rule, PM serves as a surrogate for HAP metals and
formaldehyde, a HAP, serves as a surrogate measure for all organic
HAPs.
The owner or operator would measure PM emissions from the control
device (baghouse or ESP) exhaust outlet for the furnace or from the
furnace exhaust outlet where no controls are in place using EPA Method
5 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Determination of Particulate
Emissions from Stationary Sources,'' and Sec. 63.1388 (Test methods and
procedures) of the proposed rule. To prevent sulfate formation in the
sampling apparatus, the method specifies that the probe and filter
holder be maintained at a temperature no greater than 17714
deg.C (35025 deg.F). To determine emissions of
formaldehyde from RS manufacturing lines, the owner or operator would
measure emissions of formaldehyde at the exhaust outlets of the
forming, curing, and cooling processes and sum the measurements to
determine manufacturing line emissions. To measure formaldehyde
emissions from FA manufacturing lines subject to this standard,
emissions from the forming process and from curing would be measured
and the results summed to determine manufacturing line emissions.
Formaldehyde emissions may be measured using EPA Method 316, ``Sampling
and Analysis for Formaldehyde Emissions from Stationary Sources in the
Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries,'' with formaldehyde
analyses by spectrophotometry using the modified pararosaniline method.
Method 316 is being proposed concurrently with this proposed rule.
Method 316 is a manual test method for the measurement of formaldehyde.
The method was developed by the industry trade group, NAIMA. The method
was validated at a mineral wool facility, which has been determined to
be a similar source, according to the procedures in Test Method 301, 40
CFR part 63, appendix A. In Method 316, gaseous and particulate
pollutants are withdrawn isokinetically from an emission source and are
collected in high purity water. Formaldehyde present in the emissions
is highly soluble in water. The water containing formaldehyde is then
analyzed using the modified pararosaniline method. Formaldehyde in the
sample reacts with acidic pararosaniline and sodium sulfite, forming a
purple chromophore. The intensity of the purple color, measured
spectrophotometrically, provides a measure of the formaldehyde
concentration in the sample.
Formaldehyde emissions can also be measured using EPA Method 318,
``Extractive FTIR Method for the Measurement of Emissions from the
Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries.'' The Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) spectrometry method is also being proposed today for
addition to appendix A to 40 CFR part 63. The FTIR spectrometry method
uses a multicomponent measurement system to quantify a wide variety of
pollutants in one test. Method 318 is an extractive
[[Page 15247]]
FTIR procedure and has been validated by the EPA according to Method
301 requirements. The Method 318 procedure involves removing a
slipstream of stack gas and filling a sample cell with the stack gas
sample, which is then analyzed by FTIR spectrometry.
Methods for determining the product LOI and the free formaldehyde
content of resins are also contained in the proposed rule. The owner or
operator also may use other alternative test methods subject to
approval by the Administrator.
Using the results of each test run and information generated during
the performance tests (i.e., average glass pull rate in tons per hour
for each test run), the owner or operator would then use the equations
and procedures in the rule to convert the emission rate of PM and
formaldehyde into the units of the standard.
G. Solicitation of Comments
The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final
decisions and encourages comments on all aspects of this proposal from
all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed analyses
should be submitted with comments to allow EPA to make maximum use of
the comments. All comments should be directed to the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-95-24 (see ADDRESSES).
Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before the date
specified in DATES.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information.''
Submissions containing such proprietary information should be sent
directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to
ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the
docket: Attention: Mr. William Neuffer, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA
Confidential Business Information Manager, OAQPS/MD-13; Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Information covered by such a
claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by the EPA only to the
extent allowed and 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 submission may be made available to the public without
further notice to the commenter.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is
a dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. 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, except for certain interagency materials,
will serve as the record for judicial review. [See section 307(d)(7)(A)
of the Act.]
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act. If
a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying
questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the
presentations or comments. To provide an opportunity for all who may
wish to speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each.
Any member of the public may file a written statement (see DATES and
ADDRESSES). Written statements and supporting information will be
considered with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting
information subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) 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 obligation 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.
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866, thus OMB review of the proposed
regulation is not required. However, an economic impact analysis of the
proposed NESHAP was prepared and is available in the docket.
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875
In compliance with Executive Order 12875, we have involved State
regulatory experts in the development of this proposed rule. No tribal
governments are believed to be affected by this proposed rule. State
and local governments are not directly impacted by the rule, i.e., they
are not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements
of the rule. However, they will be required to implement the rule,
e.g., incorporate the rule into permits and enforce the rule. They will
collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resources burden of
implementing the rule. Comments have been solicited from States and
have been carefully considered in the rule development process. In
addition, all States are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule
during the public comment period, and the EPA intends to fully consider
these comments in the development of the final rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995 (109 Stat. 48),
requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before
promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section
203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from
and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may
be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative for State,
local, and tribal governments and the private sector that
[[Page 15248]]
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or unless the selection of this
alternative is inconsistent with law.
This rule is based partially on pollution prevention alternatives
and has been applied on a manufacturing line basis. Therefore, it is
the least costly and burdensome approach for industry since the
purchase of add-on control devices will be avoided by most of the
industry. The total nationwide capital cost for the standard is
estimated at $19.5 million; annual nationwide cost is estimated at $6.3
million/yr. Because this proposed rule, if promulgated, is estimated to
result in the expenditure by State and local governments, in aggregate,
or by the private sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the
Agency has not prepared a budgetary impact statement. Because small
governments will not be affected by this rule, the Agency is not
required to develop a plan with regard to small governments. Therefore,
the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this
action.
F. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities because no company that owns
sources in the source category meets the criteria for small business.
Companies in the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry are part of SIC
3296. Companies in SIC 3296 are classified as small by the U.S. Small
Business Administration if the company has fewer than 750 employees.
None of the firms in the industry have fewer than 750 employees and
thus, are not small businesses by this criterion. Therefore, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No.
1795.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The proposed information requirements include the notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NESHAP general
provisions, authorized under section 114 of the Act, which are
mandatory for all owners or operators subject to national emission
standards. All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in
40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed rule does not require any
notifications or reports beyond those required by the general
provisions. Proposed subpart NNN does require additional records of
specific information needed to determine compliance with the rule.
These include records of: (1) Any bag leak detection system alarm,
including the date and time, with a brief explanation of the cause of
the alarm and the corrective action taken; (2) ESP parameter values,
such as secondary voltage for each electrical field, including any
deviation outside the range established during the performance test and
a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the corrective
action taken; (3) uncontrolled furnace operating parameters, such as
air temperature above the glass melt of cold top electric furnaces,
including any exceedances of the established parameter values and a
brief explanation of the cause and the corrective action taken; (4) the
free-formaldehyde content of the resin being used; (5) the formulation
of the binder being used; (6) the LOI and density for each bonded
product manufactured on an RS or FA manufacturing line subject to the
proposed NESHAP; (7) forming process modification parameters, including
any period when the parameter levels are inconsistent with levels
established during the performance test with a brief explanation of the
cause and corrective actions taken; (8) pressure drop, liquid flow
rate, and information on chemical additives to the scrubbing liquid
including any period when the levels established during the performance
tests are exceeded and a brief explanation of the cause and the
corrective action taken; and (9) incinerator operating temperature,
including any period when the temperature falls below the level
established during the performance test, with a brief explanation of
the cause of the deviation and the corrective action taken. Each of
these information requirements is needed to determine compliance with
the standard.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection is estimated at 17,800 labor hours per year at an annual
cost of $571,000. This estimate includes a one-time performance test
and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time preparation of a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of any
event in which the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual
excess emissions reports; notifications; and recordkeeping. The
annualized capital cost associated with monitoring requirements is
estimated at $41,000. The operation and maintenance cost is estimated
at $3,000/yr.
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 purpose of collecting, validating,
verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing, and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to
a collection of information; search existing 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques, to the Director, OPPE Regulatory
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Office for EPA.''
Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Because OMB is required
to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
March 31, 1997, a comment to OMB is most likely to have its full effect
if OMB
[[Page 15249]]
receives it by April 30, 1997. The final rule will respond to any OMB
or public comments on the information collection requirements contained
in this proposal.
H. Clean Air Act
In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of
the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in
emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
I. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes that pollution
should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible. The
emission standards for RS and FA manufacturing lines subject to the
standard are formulated as line standards, i.e., the sum of the
individual forming, curing, and cooling MACT floor emission levels for
RS manufacturing lines and forming and curing MACT floor emission
levels for certain FA manufacturing lines. By formulating the standard
as a line standard, tradeoffs are allowed for existing facilities that
will accomplish the same environmental results at lower costs and will
encourage process modifications and pollution prevention alternatives.
According to the industry, new RS manufacturing lines may be able to
meet the line standard without the use of costly incinerators with
their energy and other environmental impacts, such as increased
nitrogen oxides (NOX)and sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions, by
incorporating pollution prevention measures, such as binder
reformulation and improved binder application efficiency. Pollution
prevention alternatives will also increase binder utilization
efficiency and reduce production costs for industry. In selecting the
format of the emission standard for emissions from manufacturing lines,
the EPA considered various alternatives such as setting separate
emission limits for each process, i.e., forming, curing, and cooling. A
line standard gives the industry greater flexibility in complying with
the proposed emission limits and is the least costly because industry
can avoid the capital and annual operating and maintenance costs
associated with the purchase of add-on control equipment by using
pollution prevention measures.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass
manufacturing.
Dated: February 21, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NNN to read as follows:
Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Sec.
63.1380 Applicability.
63.1381 Definitions.
63.1382 Emission standards for glass-melting furnaces.
63.1383 Emission standards for rotary spin manufacturing lines.
63.1384 Emission standard for flame attenuation manufacturing
lines.
63.1385 Compliance dates.
63.1386 Monitoring requirements.
63.1387 Performance test requirements.
63.1388 Test methods and procedures.
63.1389 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
63.1390 Delegation of authority.
63.1391 63.1399 [Reserved].
Table 1 to Subpart NNN--Applicability of general provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) to subpart NNN.
Appendix A to Subpart NNN--Method for the determination of LOI
Appendix B to Subpart NNN--Free formaldehyde analysis of insulation
resins by hydroxylamine hydrochloride
Appendix C to Subpart NNN--Method for the determination of product
density
Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Sec. 63.1380 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
the requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each
wool fiberglass manufacturing facility.
(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as measured according to the methods
and procedures in this subpart, emitted from the following sources at a
wool fiberglass manufacturing facility subject to this subpart:
(1) Each new and existing glass-melting furnace located at a wool
fiberglass manufacturing facility;
(2) Each new and existing rotary spin wool fiberglass manufacturing
line producing a bonded wool fiberglass building insulation product;
and
(3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass
manufacturing line producing a bonded pipe product and each new flame
attenuation wool fiberglass manufacturing line producing a bonded
heavy-density product.
(c) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to the owner or
operator of a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that the owner or
operator demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, is not
a major source as defined in Sec. 63.2 of the general provisions.
(d) The provisions of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A--General Provisions
that apply and those that do not apply to this subpart are specified in
Table 1 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.1381 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
Bag leak detection system means systems that include, but are not
limited to, devices using triboelectric, light scattering, and other
effects to monitor relative or absolute particulate matter (PM)
emissions.
Bonded means wool fiberglass to which a phenol-formaldehyde binder
has been applied.
Building insulation means the bonded wool fiberglass insulation,
having a loss on ignition of less than 8 percent and a density of less
than 32 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m\3\) (2 pounds per cubic foot
[lb/ft\3\]), most frequently manufactured (as measured by hours of
production times glass pull rate) during the preceding calendar year.
Flame attenuation means a process used to produce wool fiberglass
where molten glass flows by gravity from melting furnaces, or pots, to
form filaments that are drawn down and attenuated by passing in front
of a high-velocity gas burner flame.
Glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a refractory vessel
in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature,
refined, and conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes
foundations,
[[Page 15250]]
superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat
exchangers, melter cooling system, exhaust system, refractory brick
work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipm
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.