National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources in

mineral wool production facilities. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)

emitted by the facilities covered by this rule include carbonyl sulfide

(COS), nine hazardous metals, formaldehyde, and phenol. Exposure to

these HAPs may be associated with adverse carcinogenic, respiratory,

nervous system, dermal, developmental, and/or reproductive health

effects. The EPA estimates that the final rule will reduce nationwide

emissions of HAPs from these facilities by 46 megagrams per year (Mg/

yr) (51 tons per year (tpy)). In addition, emissions of particulate

matter (PM) will be reduced by approximately 186 Mg/yr (205 tpy). This

action also amends 40 CFR part 9 by updating the table of currently

approved information collection control numbers to include the

information requirements contained in this final rule.

These standards implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act)

by requiring all mineral wool production facilities that are major

sources to meet hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission standards

reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology

(MACT). The emissions reductions achieved by these standards, when

combined with the emissions reductions achieved by other similar

standards, will provide protection to the public and achieve a primary

goal of the Act.

A supplement to the proposed rule was proposed in the Federal

Register on February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7149). The EPA will give careful

consideration to all comments on the supplemental proposal and will

amend this final rule in a future action as appropriate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1999. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section

concerning judicial review.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The docket for this rulemaking containing the

information considered by the EPA in development of the final rule is

Docket A-95-33. This docket is available for public inspection between

8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal

holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 260-7548. The

docket is located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall

(ground floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Johnson, Minerals and

Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711; telephone number (919) 541-5025; facsimile number (919) 541-

5600; electronic mail address ``[email protected]''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action

include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of regulated

Category entities

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industry.................................. Mineral wool production

facilities (SIC 3296).

Federal government........................ None.

State/local/tribal government............. None.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this

action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,

you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1177 of the

final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate regional

representative:

Region I:

Janet Bowen, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. EPA, Region I,

CAP, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3595

Region II:

Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290

Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4000

Region III:

Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region

III, 3AT10, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 566-

2110

Region IV:

Lee Page, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, (404) 562-

9131

Region V:

George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region V, 5AE-26, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-

2088

Region VI:

John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VI,

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-7220

Region VII:

Donald Toensing, Air Permitting and Compliance, Branch Chief, U.S.

EPA, Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913)

551-7446

Region VIII:

Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical Operations, Branch Chief, U.S.

EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466,

(303) 312-6432

Region IX:

Barbara Gross, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1138

Region X:

Anita Frankel, Air and Radiation Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region X,

AT-092, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1757

Plain Language

The final rule is written in plain language. Plain language

regulatory writing involves structuring the rule around questions the

user may have. It takes the form of questions and answers and uses the

words ``I'' and ``you'' to represent the owner or operator.

Judicial Review

The NESHAP for mineral wool production plants was proposed on May

8, 1997 (62 FR 25370). This action announces the EPA's final decisions

on the rule. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the

NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of

today's publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the

Act, the requirements that are the subject of today's rule may not be

challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to

enforce these requirements.

[[Page 29491]]

Technology Transfer Network

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of

today's notice is also available through the Technology Transfer

Network (TTN). Following promulgation, a copy of the rule will be

posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or

promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html). The TTN

provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air

pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed,

call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Outline

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Statutory Authority

II. Background and Public Participation

III. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability

B. Standards

C. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions

D. Monitoring Requirements

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

A. Definitions

B. Standards

C. Performance Test Provisions

D. Monitoring Requirements

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

V. Summary of Impacts

VI. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

A. General

B. Definitions

C. Selection of Emission Standards

D. Monitoring

E. Recordkeeping and Reporting

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

C. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership

D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Pollution Prevention Act

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

K. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

I. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this rule is provided by sections 101,

112, 113, 114, 116, and 301 of the Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401,

7412, 7413, 7414, 7416, and 7601). This rule is also subject to section

307(d) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).

II. Background and Public Participation

Section 112(d) of the Act directs the EPA to establish standards to

control all major sources emitting HAPs. On July 16, 1992, the EPA

published a list of major source categories, including ``Mineral Wool

Production,'' for which NESHAP are to be promulgated (57 FR 3156). The

NESHAP for mineral wool production (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD) was

proposed in the Federal Register on May 8, 1997 (62 FR 25370). The

public comment period ended on July 7, 1997. Industry representatives,

regulatory authorities, environmental groups, and the general public

had the opportunity to comment on the proposed standards and to provide

additional information during the public comment period. Three comment

letters were received. Comments were received from the association

representing industry and from two representatives of air pollution

control equipment manufacturers. Today's final rule reflects the EPA's

full consideration of the comments. A summary of the major public

comments along with the EPA's responses are summarized in this

preamble. A more detailed discussion of public comments and the EPA's

responses are contained in the docket (Docket No. A-95-33; Item V-C-2).

III. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability

The final NESHAP applies to each existing, new, and reconstructed

cupola and curing oven at a mineral wool production facility that is

located at a plant site that is a major source of HAP emissions.

Facilities that manufacture wool fiberglass are not subject to this

rule but are subject to a separate NESHAP rulemaking for wool

fiberglass manufacturing.

B. Standards

Emissions of PM are regulated for existing cupolas. For new and

reconstructed cupolas, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) are also

regulated. Emissions of formaldehyde are regulated for existing, new,

and reconstructed curing ovens. Particulate matter serves as a

surrogate for metal HAPs and CO is a surrogate for COS. In addition to

being a HAP itself, formaldehyde serves as a surrogate for phenol. A

numerical emission limit for PM expressed in kilograms per megagram

(kg/Mg) or pound per ton (lb/ton) of melt is promulgated in the final

rule. For CO or formaldehyde, the owner or operator may comply with

percent removal or numerical emission limits. The emission limits for

existing sources and new sources are presented below.

Summary of Emission Limits For Existing Sources

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source Pollutant Emission limit

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cupola..................... PM........................ 0.05 kg/Mg

(0.10 lb/ton)

of melt.

Curing oven................ Formaldehyde.............. 0.03 kg/Mg

(0.06 lb/ton)

of melt or 80

percent

formaldehyde

removal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Emission Limits For New and Reconstructed Sources

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source Pollutant Emission limit

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cupola..................... PM........................ 0.05 kg/Mg

(0.10 lb/ton)

of melt.

CO........................ 0.05 kg/Mg

(0.10 lb/ton)

of melt or 99

percent CO

removal.

Curing oven................ Formaldehyde.............. 0.03 kg/Mg

(0.06 lb/ton)

of melt or 80

percent

formaldehyde

removal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The owner or operator must also comply with operating limits.

Operating limits for cupolas are as follows:

(1) Within one hour after the alarm on a bag leak detection system

sounds, the owner or operator must begin, and complete in a timely

manner, corrective actions as specified in their operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(2) When the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more

than

[[Page 29492]]

five percent of the total operating time in a six-month reporting

period, the owner or operator must develop and implement a written

quality improvement plan (QIP) consistent with the compliance assurance

monitoring requirements in Sec. 64.8(b)-(d) of 40 CFR part 64 (62 FR

54900, October 22, 1997).

(3) For each new or reconstructed cupola, the owner or operator

must maintain the operating temperature of the thermal incinerator such

that the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period

never falls below the average temperature established during the

performance test.

The owner or operator must meet the following operating limits for

curing ovens:

(1) The owner or operator must maintain the free-formaldehyde

content of each resin lot and formaldehyde content of each binder

formulation at or below the specification ranges of the resin and

binder used during the performance test.

(2) The owner or operator must maintain the operating temperature

of each thermal incinerator such that the average operating temperature

for each three-hour block period never falls below the average

temperature established during the performance test.

C. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions

For existing sources, compliance with the standards must be

demonstrated no later than three years from the effective date of the

final rule. An extension for a fourth year may be granted by the

Administrator under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act if necessary for

the installation of controls. For new and reconstructed sources, any

control devices or monitoring equipment necessary to meet the standards

must be installed. Performance testing must be completed and compliance

with all requirements of the final rule must be demonstrated by the

dates in Sec. 63.7 of the general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR

part 63. On and after these dates, the owner or operator must comply

with the standards. The standards will apply at all times except during

periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

A performance test is required to demonstrate initial compliance

with the percent removal or numerical emissions limits for cupolas and

curing ovens. The performance test must be conducted while operating at

the maximum production rate and must consist of three test runs. All

monitoring systems and equipment must be installed, operational, and

properly calibrated prior to the performance tests. To comply with the

CO or formaldehyde emission limit for a cupola or curing oven

controlled by a thermal incinerator, or the PM limit for a fabric

filter-controlled cupola, measurements are made at the outlet of the

control device. If the owner or operator elects to comply with the

percent removal emission limit for CO or formaldehyde, measurements are

required at the inlet and outlet of the control device.

The owner or operator is required to measure and record the amount

of raw materials, excluding coke, charged into and melted in each

cupola during each performance test run, determine the average hourly

melt rate for each performance test run, and determine the arithmetic

average of the average hourly melt rates associated with the three

performance test runs. The average hourly melt rate of the three

performance test runs is used to determine compliance.

The owner or operator must conduct the performance test for each

curing oven while manufacturing the product that requires a binder

formulation made with the resin containing the highest free-

formaldehyde content specification range. During the performance test,

the owner or operator must record the free-formaldehyde content

specification range of the resin used and the formulation of the binder

used, including formaldehyde content and binder specification.

During the performance test for each cupola that uses a thermal

incinerator to comply with the emission limit for CO and each curing

oven that uses a thermal incinerator to comply with the formaldehyde

emission limit, the owner or operator is required to establish the

average operating temperature of the incinerator. The owner or operator

must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine the

average temperatures in consecutive 15-minute blocks, determine the

arithmetic average of the 15-minute block temperatures for each

performance test run, and determine the arithmetic average of the

average operating temperatures associated with the three performance

test runs.

With prior approval from the Administrator, operating limits

established for control devices or processes during the initial

performance tests and used to monitor compliance may be expanded by

conducting additional performance tests to demonstrate compliance at

the new levels. Also, owners or operators of curing ovens may conduct

short-term experimental production runs without conducting additional

performance tests with prior approval from the Administrator.

D. Monitoring Requirements

Each fabric filter used on a cupola must be equipped with a bag

leak detection system having an audible alarm that automatically sounds

when an increase in particulate emissions above a predetermined level

is detected. The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate

plant personnel will be able to hear it. Such a device serves as an

indicator of the performance of the fabric filter and provides an

indication of when maintenance of the fabric filter is needed. The rule

requires that in response to an alarm, corrective actions be initiated

within one hour, and completed in a timely manner, according to the

operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The owner or operator is

in violation of this operating limit upon a failure to begin corrective

actions within one hour of the alarm.

When the alarm is activated for more than five percent of the total

operating time during a six-month reporting period, the owner or

operator must develop and implement a written QIP consistent with the

compliance assurance monitoring requirements in Sec. 64.8(b)-(d) of 40

CFR part 64 (62 FR 54900, October 22, 1997). Failure to develop and

implement a written QIP that is consistent with the compliance

assurance monitoring requirements is a violation of this operating

limit.

Each owner or operator of an affected curing oven must monitor and

record the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the

formulation of each batch of binder used, including formaldehyde

content. Following the performance test, the owner or operator must

maintain the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the

formaldehyde content of each binder formulation at or below the

specification ranges of the resin and binder used during the

performance test. If the free-formaldehyde content of a resin lot or

the formaldehyde content of a binder formulation exceeds the

performance test specification ranges, the owner or operator is in

violation of this operating limit.

For each thermal incinerator used to control emissions from

affected cupolas or curing ovens, the owner or operator must

continuously measure the operating temperature of the incinerator. The

owner or operator must determine the average temperatures in

consecutive 15-minute blocks and then determine the arithmetic average

of the 15-minute averages for each one-hour period. The average

operating temperature of the

[[Page 29493]]

incinerator is based on the arithmetic average of the one-hour average

temperatures for each consecutive three-hour period. Following the

performance test, the owner or operator is required to maintain the

operating temperature so that the average operating temperature for

each three-hour block period never falls below the average temperature

established during the performance test. If the average temperature in

any three-hour block period falls below the average established during

the performance test, the owner or operator is in violation of this

operating limit. The owner or operator must operate and maintain each

incinerator as specified in their operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan. Procedures for properly operating and maintaining an

incinerator must include an annual inspection.

Under today's rule, the owner or operator may change control device

and process operating parameter levels established during performance

tests and used to monitor compliance. The owner or operator must notify

the Administrator and upon approval, conduct additional performance

tests at the proposed new control device or process operating parameter

levels to verify compliance with the applicable emission limits.

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for NESHAP

are included in the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The

general provisions include requirements for: (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, including a

semiannual report when a reportable event occurs and the steps in the

plan were not followed; 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.

Owners or operators of affected cupolas and curing ovens must

submit an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as part of their

application for a title V permit. The plan must include procedures for

the proper operation and maintenance of processes and control devices

used to comply with the emission limits, including an annual inspection

of each thermal incinerator. The plan also must identify the process or

control device parameters to be monitored for compliance; the

established operating levels or ranges for each process or control

device; a monitoring schedule; the corrective actions to be taken when

process or control device parameters deviate from the levels

established during performance testing; and procedures for keeping

records to document compliance.

In addition to requirements of the general provisions, the final

rule specifies additional records to be kept by the owner or operator.

The owner or operator is required to maintain records of the following,

as applicable:

(1) Cupola production (melt) rate;

(2) bag leak detection system alarms, the date and time of the

alarm, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the alarm,

an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of

the alarm was corrected;

(3) free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder

formulation, including formaldehyde content, of each binder batch used

in the manufacture of bonded products; and

(4) incinerator operating temperature and results of incinerator

inspections, including periods when the average temperature in any

three-hour block period fell below the average temperature established

during the performance test and periods when the inspection identified

incinerator components in need of repair or maintenance, the date and

time of the problem, when corrective actions were intiated, the cause

of the problem, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and

when the cause of the problem was corrected.

The NESHAP general provisions require that records be maintained

for at least five years from the date of each record. The owner or

operator must retain the records on site for at least two years but may

retain the records off site the remaining three years. The records 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

labeled computer disks using commonly available and compatible computer

software.

IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

Changes have been incorporated into the final NESHAP for mineral

wool production facilities in response to comments on the proposed

rule, with the exception of the format change to plain language. A

number of clarifications to the proposal language are reflected in the

final rule as a result of this question and answer format. The

principal changes made since proposal are summarized below. Additional

discussion of the changes and the rationale for these changes is

presented in section VI of this preamble.

A. Definitions

In response to public comments, minor clarifying changes were made

to the definition of mineral wool. Also, a definition for new source,

that incorporates the May 8, 1997 date that the NESHAP was proposed,

was added to the list of terms used in the final rule.

B. Standards

The final rule incorporates some changes to the proposed rule

regarding emission standards. Depending on available control and

monitoring technologies for particular source categories, emission

limits, as well as operating limits, are set forth as enforceable

regulatory requirements. In addition to emission limits, operating

limits are also included as part of the final rule regulating mineral

wool production facilities. These operating limits were included in the

proposed rule as monitoring requirements and have been moved into the

sections containing the emission limits in the final rule. These

operating limits specify the established requirements which are

enforceable and will be used to determine compliance.

As a result of additional PM emissions data from fabric filter-

controlled cupolas, the proposed PM emission limit of 0.03 kg/Mg (0.06

lb/ton) has been revised to 0.05 kg/Mg (0.10 lb/ton) in the final rule.

The additional data considered in making this determination are for

three cupolas controlled by fabric filters with identical parameters as

those previously determined to be representative of the MACT floor for

existing and new cupolas. An emissions limit of 0.05 kg/Mg (0.10 lb/

ton) represents a level that can be achieved by the fabric filter-

controlled cupola upon which the proposed PM emission limit was based,

as well as by these three fabric filter-controlled cupolas which are

also representative of the MACT floor.

C. Performance Test Provisions

A few changes were made to the performance test requirements in the

proposed rule. Revisions were made to clarify the proposed requirements

for performance testing by specifying in the final rule how to

establish the average operating temperature of an incinerator. The

proposed provision that would allow the owner or operator of curing

ovens subject to the NESHAP to conduct short-term experimental

production

[[Page 29494]]

runs without conducting additional performance tests was revised. The

final rule clarifies that the process modifications referred to in the

proposed rule mean pollution prevention process modifications.

The proposed rule required the use of method 5 for determining the

concentration of PM with a minimum performance test run time of two

hours and a minimum sample volume of 2.5 dry standard cubic meters

(dscm) (90 dry standard cubic feet (dscf)). The final rule specifies a

minimum performance test run time of three hours and a minimum sample

volume of 3.75 dscm (135 dscf). These revisions are the result of re-

evaluation of the test method procedures in response to public comments

regarding the level of the proposed emission limit for PM, and are to

ensure that an adequate amount of PM is captured on the filter for

analysis and subsequent compliance determination.

D. Monitoring Requirements

Several changes were made to the monitoring requirements in the

proposed rule. The final rule does not include the proposed

requirements to maintain the average hourly melt rate so that it does

not exceed the average melt rate established during the performance

test by more than 20 percent for more than five percent of the total

operating time in each six-month reporting period, and to do a repeat

performance test at the higher melt rate if the average hourly melt

rate exceeds the average melt rate established during the performance

test by more than 20 percent for more than five percent of the total

operating time in a six-month reporting period. The EPA determined that

these monitoring requirements are not necessary because compliance with

the PM standards will be assessed through use of a bag leak detection

system; compliance with the CO standards will be assessed through

monitoring incinerator operating temperature; and compliance with the

formaldehyde standards will be assessed through monitoring incinerator

operating temperature, monitoring free-formaldehyde content of resin,

and monitoring binder formulation. The average melt rate must still be

determined during each performance test in order to assess compliance

with the emissions standards. As a recordkeeping requirement, the final

rule continues to require that records of cupola melt rate be

maintained.

As proposed, each fabric filter used on a cupola must be equipped

with a bag leak detection system having an audible alarm that

automatically sounds when an increase in particulate emissions above a

predetermined level is detected. The final rule clarifies that each

triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, operated,

adjusted, and maintained according to the EPA's ``Fabric Filter Bag

Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997) which is

available on the TTN under Emission Measurement Center (EMC),

Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other bag leak detection systems must

be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained according to the

manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. In response

to public comments and to maintain consistency with sensitivity (range)

specifications in other regulations, the final rule requires that the

bag leak detection system be capable of detecting PM emissions at

concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains

per actual cubic foot). To maintain consistency with bag leak detection

system requirements in other regulations and to allow owners and

operators flexibility to make necessary bag leak detection system

adjustments, the final rule specifies that following initial

adjustment, the owner or operator may adjust the range, averaging

period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time as specified in the

approved operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The final rule

further specifies that in no event may the range be increased by more

than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365 day

period unless a responsible official, as defined in Sec. 63.2 of the

general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, certifies in writing

to the Administrator that the fabric filter has been inspected and

found to be in good operating condition. The final rule clarifies that

the alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant personnel

will be able to hear it and that in response to the sounding of an

alarm, the owner or operator must complete corrective actions in a

timely manner.

Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator would monitor and

record the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder

formulation, including the formaldehyde content of each binder batch,

and would maintain the formaldehyde content of each binder formulation

at or below the level established during the performance test. The

final rule clarifies that the owner or operator must maintain the free-

formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the formaldehyde content of

each binder formulation at or below the specification ranges of the

resin and binder used during the performance test. The use of ranges in

the final rule accommodates the fact that resins and binders are

produced in accordance with specification ranges rather than levels as

proposed.

As proposed, the owner or operator would obtain, at a minimum,

valid three-hour block average incinerator operating temperatures for

75 percent of the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the

operating days per six-month reporting period. This requirement is not

included in the final rule in order to maintain consistency with the

compliance assurance monitoring final rule (62 FR 54899, October 22,

1997), which was revised based on comments received on its proposal and

now requires monitoring devices to be operational at all times that the

process is operational. Revisions were also made to clarify the

proposed requirements for monitoring incinerator operating temperature

by specifying in the final rule how to determine the average operating

temperature.

Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator could change a

control device or process operating parameter level established during

the performance test by conducting additional performance tests at the

new parameter level. The final rule clarifies that the owner or

operator must notify the Administrator of the desire to expand the

range of a control device or process operating parameter level, and

upon approval, conduct additional performance tests at the proposed new

parameter levels before operating at these levels to verify compliance

with the emission limits.

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

A few changes were made since proposal to the notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The final rule clarifies

that notifications of performance tests must be submitted to the

Administrator at least 60 days prior to the performance test. The final

rule also clarifies what elements are required to be included in

performance test reports. The proposed rule required an operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan for each affected source that would

contain information on the proper operation and maintenance of control

devices, the parameters to be monitored for compliance and their

established operating levels, a monitoring schedule, corrective actions

to be taken when parameters deviate from the levels established during

performance testing, and procedures for keeping records to document

compliance. The final rule

[[Page 29495]]

specifies some example corrective actions for bag leak detection system

alarms that may be included in the operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan. Consistent with the general provisions requirements to

operate and maintain air pollution control equipment in a manner

consistent with good air pollution control practices, the final rule

clarifies that the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan

procedures for properly operating and maintaining control devices must

include, where applicable, an inspection of each incinerator at least

once per year. The final rule also clarifies that records of when

corrective actions were initiated and when the cause of the problem was

corrected must be maintained.

V. Summary of Impacts

The impacts estimated to be attributable to the final rule are the

same as those estimated to be attributable to the proposed rule.

Nationwide emissions of metal HAPs from mineral wool production cupolas

are estimated to be 1.0 Mg/yr (1.1 tpy) at the current level of

control. Existing PM emissions are estimated to be 239 Mg/yr (263 tpy).

Implementation of the final rule will reduce nationwide metal HAP and

PM emissions from existing cupolas by 0.91 Mg/yr (1.0 tpy) and 186 Mg/

yr (205 tpy), respectively. Formaldehyde and phenol emissions from

existing curing ovens are estimated to be 54 Mg/yr (59 tpy) and 14 Mg/

yr (16 tpy), respectively. Nationwide emissions of formaldehyde and

phenol will be reduced by about 30 Mg/yr (34 tpy) and 14 Mg/yr (16

tpy), respectively, as a result of this final rule. Although the EPA

does not anticipate any new cupolas or curing ovens within the next

five years, installation of a new cupola with a 7.3 megagram per hour

(8 ton per hour) capacity would result in estimated reductions of COS

and CO emissions by 104 Mg/yr (114 tpy) and 1,256 Mg/yr (1,384 tpy),

respectively, in addition to metal HAP and PM reductions.

Because this rule is based on the use of fabric filters and thermal

incinerators, there are no water pollution impacts. Solid waste

generated by fabric filters in the form of ash is disposed of by

landfilling. With the addition of fabric filters to five cupolas, the

amount of solid waste is expected to increase by about 350 Mg/yr (390

tpy) from the current level of 24,800 Mg/yr (27,300 tpy) nationwide.

The rule is estimated to have no significant effect on energy

consumption.

The total nationwide capital and annualized costs for existing

cupolas under the final rule are estimated to be $1.5 million and

$608,900/yr, respectively. These costs represent the addition of fabric

filters to five cupolas but do not include the monitoring costs of bag

leak detection systems required on all affected cupolas. Capital and

annualized costs for a bag leak detection system are estimated at

$9,100 and $1,800/yr for each affected cupola, respectively.

The total nationwide capital cost of complying with the

requirements for existing curing ovens is estimated to be $795,800 with

a nationwide annual cost of $641,600. These costs result from the

addition of thermal incinerators to two curing ovens.

Total nationwide capital costs for the standard are estimated at

$2.6 million and nationwide annual costs are estimated at $1.4 million,

including installation, operation, and maintenance of emission control

and monitoring systems.

Under the final rule, market-level price increases are estimated to

range from 0.5 percent to 2.1 percent, resulting in quantity

adjustments of -0.59 percent and -1.71 percent, respectively. The

decreases in quantity demanded may lead to the loss of approximately

nine jobs. There is no indication that the costs associated with

achieving the reductions required by the final rule will cause facility

closure.

VI. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

The EPA proposed the NESHAP for the mineral wool production source

category on May 8, 1997 (62 FR 25370). A 60-day comment period from May

8, 1997 to July 7, 1997, was provided to accept written comments from

the public on the proposed rule.

The EPA received a total of three comment letters regarding the

proposed NESHAP for mineral wool production. A copy of each comment

letter is available for public inspection in the docket for the

rulemaking (Docket No. A-95-33; see the ADDRESSES section of this

document for information on inspecting the docket). The EPA has had

follow-up discussions with commenters regarding specific issues

initially raised in their written comments that were submitted to the

EPA during the comment period. Copies of correspondence and other

information exchanged between the EPA and the commenters during the

post-comment period are available for public inspection in the docket

for the rulemaking.

All of the comments received by the EPA were reviewed and carefully

considered by the EPA. Changes to the rule were made where the EPA

determined it to be appropriate. A summary of responses to major

comments received on the proposed rule is presented below. Additional

discussion of the EPA's responses to public comments is presented in

the document ``Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Mineral Wool

Production NESHAP'' (docket item V-C-2).

A. General

Comment: One commenter stated that there have been some shutdowns

in the industry that affect the information presented in the preamble

to the proposed rule. Currently, there are 15 mineral wool production

facilities located in eight states. Five of the 15 plants manufacture

bonded products and contain a total of ten cupolas and five curing

ovens. Ten active plants manufacture only nonbonded products, with a

total of 21 cupolas. Thus, the total industry currently operates 31

cupolas and five curing ovens, rather than the 36 cupolas and six

curing ovens reported by the EPA in the Federal Register document. The

commenter further stated that six of the ten companies in the mineral

wool production industry are small businesses, rather than seven of the

ten companies being small businesses as stated in the EPA's Federal

Register document.

Response: The EPA acknowledges the information regarding shutdowns

and changes in the industry profile as noted by the commenter. The EPA

believes, however, that temporary shutdown of production lines is not

unusual in this industry because the manufacture of mineral wool

products is order-driven, and that these lines could be restarted in

the future. The EPA, therefore, has not made any changes to the

estimated impacts resulting from the rule. When considering these

changes in the industry profile, the technology representative of the

best controlled cupolas and curing ovens remains fabric filters and

thermal incinerators, respectively. Therefore, these changes do not

affect the proposed MACT floors for cupolas and curing ovens. Regarding

the number of small businesses within the source category, two separate

sources of information obtained by the EPA indicate that the company in

question has less than 750 employees. Thus, the EPA continues to

believe that seven of the ten mineral wool manufacturing companies are

small businesses. No revisions to the final rule are necessary as a

result of these comments.

[[Page 29496]]

B. Definitions

Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``bonded

product'' be amended to read ``Bonded product means mineral wool to

which a hazardous air pollutant-based binder (e.g., phenol,

formaldehyde) has been applied and cured.''

Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided

to leave the definition of ``bonded product'' as it is in the proposed

rule to allow the broadest coverage of this term. Once binder has been

applied to mineral wool, whether cured or not, hazardous air

pollutants, which are the focus of the definition, have been introduced

into the production process.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``mineral

wool'' be amended to read ``Mineral wool means a fibrous glassy

substance made from natural rock (such as basalt), recycled blast

furnace slag, or a mixture of rock and slag; it may be used as a

thermal or acoustical insulation material or in the manufacturing of

other products to provide structural strength, sound absorbency, fire

resistance, or other uses.''

Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided

to modify the definition of ``mineral wool'' by adding ``or other

required properties'' rather than ``or other uses'' as suggested by the

commenter. The EPA believes that this modification adequately expands

the definition of ``mineral wool'' as the commenter requested, as well

as provides more clarification than the commenter's suggested revision.

The EPA does not believe it is necessary or technically correct to add

``recycled'' to the definition.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``cupola''

be amended to read ``Cupola means a melting system consisting of raw

material bins, weighing and charging equipment, electrical power

system, controls, a large water cooled metal vessel with water cooling

system, combustion air fans, duct work, tuyeres and oxygen enrichment

system with combustion air preheater, molten slag handling and spinning

equipment, off gas duct work, fan and a structure to support and house

the melting system. The cupola is charged with a mixture of fuel, rock

and/or blast furnace slag and additives; as the fuel is burned, the

charged mixture is heated to a molten state, flows from the metal

vessel and is spun into mineral wool.''

Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided

to leave the definition of ``cupola'' as it is in the proposed rule to

allow the broadest coverage of this term. The EPA does not agree that

all of the items in the commenter's suggested definition are part of a

cupola. It is the EPA's intention to define ``cupola'' in general terms

in order to cover all possible configurations. Some configurations may

not include all of the items included in the commenter's suggested

definition.

C. Selection of Emission Standards

Comment: One commenter strongly supported the subcategorization in

the proposed rule of plants with and without bonded lines. The

commenter further stated that it is within the EPA's authority under

the Act to define appropriate subcategories and that the differences

between plants with and without bonded lines are substantial and

consistent with the types of differences that the EPA has used to

subcategorize other source categories.

Response: No changes in the final rule are necessary as a result of

this comment.

Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposed MACT floor for

new and existing sources.

Response: No changes in the final rule are necessary as a result of

this comment.

Comment: One commenter strongly supported the EPA's proposed

decision not to require an incinerator as above the MACT floor control

for existing cupolas. Reasons cited by the commenter are that a cupola

incinerator requirement would be unduly costly and economically

devastating to an industry that produces an environmentally beneficial

product using a waste product that would otherwise be landfilled, that

a cupola incinerator requirement would not provide any significant

health benefits, and that a cupola incinerator may even have negative

net health impacts due to secondary emissions of nitrogen oxides

(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).

Response: No changes in the final rule are necessary as a result of

this comment.

Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should require control

of CO and COS emissions from existing cupolas. The commenter further

stated that thermal oxidizers provide excellent control of cupola CO/

COS emissions and that the EPA incorrectly concluded that the costs and

ancillary emissions from thermal oxidizers are too high for the EPA to

require their use on existing cupolas. The commenter stated that in

fact, thermal oxidizer costs have been declining in real terms, and

NOX emissions from thermal oxidizers currently are

guaranteed at very low levels. Further, the commenter believes that the

EPA's subcategorization of mineral wool production facilities based on

the production of bonded products, and leading to MACT floors for

cupola CO/COS emissions of no control, is inappropriate. Where

subcategorization does not result in distinct emission limits or

floors, the commenter believes that regulatory simplicity dictates that

it should be avoided. The commenter also believes that the MACT floor

for existing cupolas does call for thermal oxidizer-based limits given

that the MACT floor level of control would be the use of thermal

incineration or its equivalent in the absence of subcategorization.

Response: The EPA disagrees that subcategorization is either

prohibited by the statute or unwise as a policy matter. While

regulatory simplicity may be a consideration in how the EPA exercises

its discretion, the statute does not dictate that this consideration

supersede other legitimate considerations in establishing

subcategories. As the EPA has noted in several rulemakings, the Act

provides the EPA with substantial discretion to consider various

factors when determining whether subcategorization is appropriate (see,

e.g., 59 FR 29196-29200, June 6, 1994, Federal Register notice on

determination of MACT floor for medium storage vessels at facilities

subject to the hazardous organic NESHAP which indicates that the EPA

may consider whether production processes used at different sources are

sufficiently distinct to justify the creation of a subcategory).

In considering whether it is appropriate to subcategorize in this

rule, the EPA continues to believe the basis for subcategorizing stated

in the preamble to the proposed rule is valid (see 62 FR 25376-25377,

May 8, 1997). Another commenter supported the EPA's view that it has

substantial discretion to subcategorize and agreed with the EPA's

decision to subcategorize in the proposed rule. Further, the EPA has

taken several steps to accomplish the goal of regulatory simplicity in

this rulemaking. For example, the EPA has emphasized readability in the

plain language format of the final rule. In addition, the EPA has

promulgated the cupola standards in one section, rather than in

separate sections for each subcategory. Therefore, the EPA believes it

has accomplished the goal of making the regulations as simple as

possible while at the same time recognizing appropriate distinctions

between the different types of facilities in the industry through

subcategorization.

[[Page 29497]]

Regarding the commenter's statement about thermal oxidizer costs

and ancillary emissions, the commenter did not provide any cost or

NOX emissions data to substantiate the assertion that a

requirement to install thermal oxidizers on existing cupolas would be

cost effective. The EPA continues to believe that the data in the

record does not indicate that CO/COS controls are cost effective or

otherwise appropriate for either subcategory. The EPA has not made any

changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposing thermal

incineration as the MACT floor for both new and existing curing ovens

and new cupolas. The commenter further stated that significantly higher

control efficiencies can be achieved beyond the 80 percent discussed in

the proposed rule with the use of catalytic incineration or oxidation

and, in fact, volatile organic compound (VOC) reductions in excess of

98 percent can be achieved. According to the commenter, catalytic

oxidation is a cost-effective control option which has been used for

many years in diverse applications and the commenter believes that

significant further VOC reductions can be cost-effectively achieved by

using the technology to also control the emissions from existing

cupolas. The commenter stated that catalytic incineration minimizes the

temperature required for the destruction of VOCs and consequently,

minimizes the production of NOX and sulfur oxide

(SOX) emissions from the combustion of sulfur bearing fuels.

Another commenter stated that thermal oxidizers or equivalent controls

can easily provide the proposed 80 percent reduction in curing oven

formaldehyde emissions and suggested that the EPA mention the

capabilities of regenerative thermal oxidizers to reduce fuel costs in

the preamble to the final rule.

Response: Neither commenter provided costs or data indicating

destruction efficiency of catalytic oxidizers or regenerative thermal

oxidizers on a mineral wool cupola or curing oven. In addition,

catalytic oxidizers and regenerative thermal oxidizers are not

demonstrated in the mineral wool production industry. The proposed 80

percent reduction in curing oven formaldehyde emissions is based upon

test data from a recuperative thermal incinerator representative of

MACT for curing ovens in the mineral wool production industry. The EPA

has not made any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed PM emission

standard for existing cupolas be increased significantly from the

proposed limit of 0.06 lb/ton of melt to 0.9 lb/ton to ensure that

cupolas equipped with a fabric filter (also known as a baghouse) can

comply with the standard. The commenter believes that emissions tests

upon which the EPA based the proposed PM standard involved invalid

tests that resulted in unrepresentative PM emission levels. According

to the commenter, the baghouse had defects that resulted in the

improper influx of air into the outlet stream, thereby diluting the

observed PM emission level. The commenter stated that approximately 70-

90 percent more air was emitted at the outlet than entered the intake

and that this defect prevents the test results from being used to

establish emission levels representative of a properly functioning

baghouse. The commenter also noted that the baghouse differential

pressures varied widely during the emissions tests, which could

indicate a number of problems with the baghouse including air leaks or

problems with bag cleaning.

Response: The commenter's request to increase the proposed PM

emission standard to ensure that cupolas equipped with fabric filters

can comply with the standard indicates a misunderstanding of the nature

of section 112 of the Act, as well as the MACT determination process,

which requires that emission standards for existing sources be set not

less stringent than the level achieved by the average of the best

performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than

30 sources. This determination is made assuming that some sources will

need to install new emission controls or improve performance of their

existing controls to meet a standard that is not less stringent than

the MACT floor.

Regarding the commenter's statement that baghouse defects resulted

in improper influx of air into the outlet stream and dilution of the PM

emission level, dilution air is of no significance given that the

proposed PM emission standard is in pounds of PM per ton of melt.

Emissions data from the baghouse-controlled cupola indicates a PM

removal efficiency of about 99.8 percent, and therefore, casts doubt

upon the commenter's assertion that the data are not representative of

a properly functioning baghouse. In addition, EPA believes that if the

commenter's statement about baghouse operational problems during the

emissions testing upon which the proposed PM standard is based

accurately assessed the situation, then the emission test results would

be biased high and the emission standard would, therefore, be biased

high. This certainly does not support raising the limit to an even

higher level. When provided the opportunity to review the emissions

test report, the facility did not have any comments regarding baghouse

defects resulting in the improper influx of air into the outlet stream

and diluted PM emission levels. Furthermore, when the EPA discussed the

proposed PM emission standard of 0.06 lb/ton with industry

representatives and State and local environmental agency

representatives prior to proposal, no concerns were expressed. In

addition, the commenter provided no basis for a PM emission standard of

0.9 lb/ton of melt. Based on the above discussion, the EPA has not made

any changes to the proposed PM emission standard as a result of these

comments.

During a follow-up meeting with the commenter (see Docket Item IV-

E-1), held at the commenter's request to provide an opportunity to

present to the EPA clarification of the comments and issues of concern

regarding the proposed emission standards, the commenter provided the

EPA with additional PM emissions data from fabric filter-controlled

cupolas. These data are from the Emission Factor Documentation for AP-

42 Section 8.16, Mineral Wool Manufacturing. These PM data are from

three fabric filter-controlled cupolas at the same facility as the

fabric filter-controlled cupola upon which the EPA based its proposed

PM emission standard. Because the parameters for these three fabric

filters are the same as those parameters previously determined to be

representative of the MACT floor for existing and new sources and

because these cupolas are at the same facility as the cupola tested by

the EPA and would therefore experience similar operating and

maintenance practices, the EPA has decided that the PM data from these

three fabric filter-controlled cupolas should be considered in

development of the final rule. When data from these three additional

fabric filter-controlled cupolas are included in the data base, PM data

representative of the MACT floor for cupolas now consists of the

following: 0.04 lb/ton, 0.05 lb/ton, 0.065 lb/ton, and 0.099 lb/ton.

Based on these data, the EPA has determined that a PM emission limit of

0.10 lb/ton represents a level that can be achieved by all four cupolas

controlled with well designed, operated, and maintained fabric filters,

and is representative of the MACT floor in the final rule.

Comment: One commenter stated that emissions data from the second

facility in the EPA test program indicate that PM emissions from a

cupola also

[[Page 29498]]

controlled with a baghouse averaged 0.6 lb/ton of melt, an order of

magnitude higher than the proposed PM standard of 0.06 lb/ton. Thus,

emissions from this facility would not meet the EPA's proposed PM

emission standard, even though the facility is equipped with the

control technology that represents the MACT floor. The commenter

acknowledged that the PM emissions data from this facility includes

emissions from both the cupola and fiber collection process but stated

that the facility is nevertheless required to meet the emission limit

set by the EPA. The commenter further stated that at least one other

mineral wool company vents the fiber collection process as well as the

cupola through a baghouse and it would be infeasible for this facility

to meet the proposed PM standard. Further, it would be very expensive

and counter-productive with respect to emission levels to force the

facility to rearrange its baghouse operation to exclude the fiber

collection process air. Because it is possible that the collection

chamber may require additional PM controls in the future as a result,

for example, of the EPA's recently proposed PM2.5 ambient

standard, an additional reason to set the cupola PM emission standard

at a higher level is therefore to permit the facility to meet the

proposed PM emission standard with its current configuration, and to

provide other companies additional flexibility to reduce PM emissions

in the future.

Response: The EPA cannot foresee or accommodate all configurations

of processes ducted to a common control device. Section 63.7 of the

general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 allows the use of

alternative test methods and procedures based on review and approval by

the EPA of relevant supporting information. The supporting data and

information are submitted as part of the site specific test plan and

are evaluated for approval by the EPA on a case-by-case basis. Because

all facilities have the opportunity to request alternative methods and

procedures for testing and demonstrating compliance with the cupola

emission standards, the EPA again believes the proposed PM emission

standard should not be raised to consider emissions not regulated by

the MACT standards, and has therefore, not made any changes to the rule

as a result of these comments.

Comment: One commenter stated that other mineral wool manufacturing

companies indicated that a 0.06 lb/ton PM standard would not be

feasible with their existing installed baghouse controls. Earlier data

collected by the EPA as part of a screening study not associated with

the MACT standards development process found controlled particulate

emissions from industry tests of six mineral wool cupolas equipped with

baghouses ranged from 0.0044 to 0.70 lb/ton, while the average

controlled emission level was 0.42 lb/ton. The commenter further stated

that because most if not all mineral wool facilities will be unable to

meet the proposed 0.06 lb/ton of melt PM standard on a consistent

basis, the proposed standard is inconsistent with the intended

objective of basing the standard on the existing baghouse technology

installed by many facilities that represent the MACT floor.

Response: The EPA reviewed the 1980 document ``Source Category

Survey: Mineral Wool Manufacturing Industry'' which contains the

earlier data referred to by the commenter. Upon review, it was noted

that only one facility with a cupola controlled by a baghouse as

referenced in the 1980 report is still operational and it is not

apparent from the study what the PM emissions associated with the

cupola at this facility were. It is apparent, however, from an

information collection request response submitted by this facility to

the EPA in 1993, that new baghouses were installed in 1986 and 1987 for

each of their two operating cupolas. Thus, the test data supplied by

this facility for the 1980 study is not relevant. The commenter did not

provide any data on baghouse design, maintenance, or operation

characteristics to show that the facilities tabulated in the 1980 study

were representative of MACT.

The commenter's statement that the proposed standard is

inconsistent with the intended objective of basing the standard on the

existing baghouse technology installed by many facilities that

represent the MACT floor mischaracterizes the intent of the EPA and of

section 112 of the Act. As previously stated, the statute requires the

level of control to be not less stringent than the average level

achieved by the best performing five sources, rather than be based on

what all facilities can achieve with their current control and

maintenance practices. The Act, through requiring all sources to meet a

standard that is not less stringent than the MACT floor, assumes that

existing controls may need to be replaced or upgraded at some sources.

In many cases, bags within the fabric filter may need to be replaced

and a more rigorous operation and maintenance plan may be necessary to

meet the MACT. Accordingly, the EPA has decided that no changes in the

final rule are necessary as a result of these comments.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed formaldehyde

emission standard for existing curing ovens be increased significantly

from 0.06 pounds of formaldehyde per ton of melt (lb/ton) to 0.4 lb/ton

because the commenter has concerns that the proposed standard may not

be consistently achieved by an incinerator on the curing oven. The

commenter stated that for example, the EPA's data from one tested

facility (Facility B) showed that formaldehyde emissions from a curing

oven equipped with an incinerator were 0.4 lb/ton, which is almost an

order of magnitude above the proposed formaldehyde standard. The

commenter acknowledged that the EPA's background documentation explains

that only a portion of Facility B's curing oven exhaust passes through

the high temperature incinerator but nevertheless, the input

formaldehyde concentration into Facility B's curing oven incinerator

was still over six times higher (1.3 lb/ton) than the low measured

formaldehyde input at the facility upon which the proposed emission

standard is based (0.2 lb/ton) (Facility A). The commenter stated that

because the Facility A input level was abnormally low, the low output

after incineration may also not be representative of other curing

ovens. The commenter further stated that assuming Facility B's curing

oven incinerator is the least efficient of the three curing oven

incinerators existing in the industry, Facility B would be the median

of the 5 curing ovens remaining in the industry. Thus, the commenter

concluded that the MACT floor should be set at the emission limit

corresponding to Facility B's curing oven incinerator.

Response: While the commenter characterizes the input formaldehyde

concentration into Facility A's curing oven incinerator as strikingly

low relative to the input formaldehyde concentration into Facility B's

curing oven incinerator, the commenter did not submit data to indicate

that the emissions measured for Facility A's curing oven incinerator

are in error. The EPA recognized the potential variability in input

formaldehyde, and for this reason proposed an alternative emission

standard, also based on Facility A, requiring reduction of uncontrolled

formaldehyde emissions by at least 80 percent. Regarding the

commenter's concern that the proposed standards may not be consistently

achieved by an incinerator, another commenter indicated that thermal

oxidizers or equivalent controls can easily provide

[[Page 29499]]

the proposed 80 percent reduction in curing oven formaldehyde

emissions. Furthermore, in the preamble to the proposed national

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for wool fiberglass

manufacturing (62 FR 15228), the EPA stated that emission test

measurements demonstrate that a thermal incinerator installed at these

facilities is at least 99 percent effective in the removal of

formaldehyde and phenol from curing ovens. Additionally, under the

relevant emission standard for Facility B, 80 percent removal would

translate into a limit of 0.26 lb/ton of melt, not 0.4 lb/ton of melt

as proposed by the commenter.

Originally, Facility A's curing oven incinerator was selected as

being representative of the MACT floor for existing sources and

Facility B's curing oven incinerator was selected as being

representative of MACT for new sources. These determinations were based

on incinerator operating temperatures and gas residence times. After

emissions testing was completed, the EPA decided to discount the data

from Facility B because the curing oven incinerator was not operating

properly as evidenced by a low formaldehyde removal efficiency of about

69 percent. Also, discussions with Facility B personnel revealed that

gas flows within the curing oven were not within design parameters

during the emissions test. Based on the above information, the EPA

determined that Facility A's curing oven incinerator represented MACT

for existing and new sources. Accordingly, other facilities with curing

ovens, including Facility B, will be required to install new

incinerators, or replace or modify their existing incinerators, as

necessary, to meet the curing oven formaldehyde emission standards.

After consideration of these comments, the EPA has decided to leave the

formaldehyde emissions standards at 0.06 lb/ton of melt and 80 percent

reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde as in the proposed rule.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA include an emission

limit for COS of 0.05 pounds of COS per ton of melt (lb/ton) as an

alternative to proposed emission standards for new cupolas of 0.10

pounds of CO per ton of melt (lb/ton) or 99 percent CO removal. The

commenter stated that this alternative emission limit would give new

sources in the future the flexibility to explore alternative methods to

reduce COS through process modifications or other approaches. The

commenter further stated that while they are not aware of any feasible

process modifications that can significantly reduce COS at this time,

it is possible that alternative designs or processes that reduce COS

emissions may be developed in the future that could be feasible for a

new plant. The commenter believes that because the relationship between

CO and COS involves some fluctuation and uncertainty, a direct COS

alternative would be helpful to encourage exploration of such

alternative means of compliance in any future new mineral wool plants.

Response: During development of the cupola emission standards, the

EPA considered including an emission standard for COS for plants that

choose to use process modifications, rather than thermal incineration,

as a means of reducing COS emissions from new cupolas. When the EPA

discussed this option with industry representatives, they considered

this approach and strongly indicated, as the commenter does, that there

are no feasible process modifications capable of reducing COS emissions

to the level contemplated for a standard. In addition, the commenter

provided no basis for a COS emission standard of 0.05 lb/ton of melt.

Accordingly, the EPA has not made any changes to the rule as a result

of this comment.

D. Monitoring

Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the monitoring

equipment for baghouses required to meet the proposed PM standard is

overly sensitive, would be unduly costly, and would trigger false

alarms. The commenter recommended revising the bag leak detection

system specifications from 1 milligram per cubic meter (mg/m\3\) to 10

mg/m\3\ in order to be consistent with other MACT standards, such as

the secondary lead standard where the minimum detection capability of

the bag leak detection system was revised from 1 to 10 mg/m\3\.

Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided

to modify the required minimum detection capability for bag leak

detection systems to 10 mg/m\3\ (0.0044 gr/ft\3\). This change does not

alter the intended function of the bag leak detector, which is to

detect broken bags or other defects in baghouses, and is consistent

with the specification for sensitivity in other EPA standards.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA allow the use of

opacity monitors for bag leak detection because these monitors comply

with Performance Specification 1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR part 60, and

have been used for many years on electric arc furnace baghouses where

the opacity limit is set at 3 percent.

Response: The commenter did not submit data to prove that opacity

monitors are as sensitive as bag leak detection systems or can meet

their minimum detection capability specification. The facts that

opacity monitors comply with Performance Specification 1 of Appendix B

of 40 CFR part 60 and that opacity monitors have been used on electric

arc furnace baghouses are no indication that opacity monitors are

suitable for use on cupola baghouses. The EPA continues to believe that

a bag leak detection system will provide the best indication of cupola

baghouse performance at the low PM levels characteristic of these

sources. The EPA has not made any changes to the rule as a result of

this comment.

E. Recordkeeping and Reporting

Comment: One commenter stated that although they agree with the

need for startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans, the proposed rule

does not clearly provide that emissions may temporarily exceed the

emission limits during startup, shutdown, or malfunctions. The

commenter recommended that the proposed rule should therefore specify

that emission limits may be temporarily exceeded during startup,

shutdown, or malfunctions without violating the standard provided the

company is taking appropriate actions consistent with its startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan. The commenter further recommended that

the EPA should provide some flexibility in the rule for unexpected

developments and upsets that are difficult to predict and control in

the mineral wool industry. The commenter stated that there is no

practical or legal reason why a single perceived deviation from a

defined operating range should be deemed to be out of compliance, but

rather, some margin of error should be permitted in the form of one or

two allowable excursions per month.

Response: Section 63.6(f) of the general provisions in subpart A of

40 CFR part 63 provides that nonopacity emission standards shall apply

at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and

malfunction. The situation the commenter describes regarding unexpected

developments and upsets are covered under the definition of a

malfunction in the general provisions provided the failures are not

caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. The EPA,

therefore, does not believe that an additional provision in the form of

one or two allowable excursions per month is warranted. The EPA has

specified in the

[[Page 29500]]

final rule, however, that the owner or operator must comply with the

standards at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, or

malfunction.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is intended to be an organized file of the

administrative records compiled by the EPA. The docket is a dynamic

file because information 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 docket will contain the record in case of judicial review. (See

section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.) The location of the docket, which

includes all public comments received on the proposed rule, is in the

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble.

B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 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 obligations of

recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this action is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' under the terms of the Executive Order and is

therefore not subject to OMB review.

C. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

Under Executive Order 12875, the EPA may not issue a regulation

that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a

State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government

provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs

incurred by those governments, or the EPA consults with those

governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875

requires the EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of

the EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State,

local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of

any written communications from the governments, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive

Order 12875 requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on State,

local or tribal governments, because they do not own or operate any

sources that would be subject to this rule. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation

that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects

the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA

consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to

develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. No affected facilities are

owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.

L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-

benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal

mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100

million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for

which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally

requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the

rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA

to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-

effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator

publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was

not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, it must

have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency

plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small

governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have

meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal

mandate that may result in expenditures of $100

[[Page 29501]]

million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The EPA projects that

annual economic impacts would be far less than $100 million. Thus,

today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205

of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that this rule

contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments because it does not impose any

enforceable duties on small governments; such governments own or

operate no sources subject to the rule and therefore would not be

required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of the

rule.

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. The EPA has determined that seven of the ten firms that

potentially would be subject to the final rule are small firms. The EPA

has met with all of these small firms and their trade association. They

have been fully involved in this rulemaking and their concerns and

comments have been considered in the development of this rule. Also, a

representative of the EPA's Office of the Small Business Ombudsman

participated in the development of these standards as a work group

member to ensure that the requirements of the standards were examined

for potential adverse economic impacts and those impacts were mitigated

to the extent feasible while still achieving the rule's environmental

objectives.

Five of the seven small firms would incur emission control costs

that are less than 0.1 percent of sales; one firm would incur control

costs estimated to be 2.4 percent of the firm's sales; and another firm

would incur control costs believed to be in excess of 3 percent. (See

Docket Item II-A-16 for a discussion of this analysis.) Thus, this rule

affects only a small number of small businesses. Further, most of the

small businesses impacted by this rule will experience minimal

increases in costs. Only two small businesses are projected to incur

costs exceeding 0.1 percent of sales.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not

a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be

effective June 1, 1999.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

The OMB has approved the information collection requirements

contained in this rule under the provisions of PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0362.

The information collection 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 and operators subject to national emission

standards. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of

confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies in 40

CFR part 2, subpart B. This rule does not require any notifications or

reports beyond those required by the general provisions. Subpart DDD

does require additional records of specific information needed to

determine compliance with the rule. These include records of: (1)

Cupola production (melt) rate; (2) all bag leak detection system

alarms, the date and time of the alarm, when corrective actions were

initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the corrective

actions taken, and when the cause of the alarm was corrected; (3) the

free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder formulation,

including formaldehyde content, of each binder batch used in the

manufacture of bonded products; and (4) incinerator operating

temperature, including all periods when the average temperature in any

three-hour block period fell below the average temperature established

during the performance test, and the results of the annual inspection,

including any problems discovered during the inspection, the date and

time of the problem, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause

of the problem, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and

when the cause of the problem was corrected. Each of these information

requirements is needed to determine compliance with the standards.

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden to industry

for this collection is estimated to be 6,107 labor hours per year at an

annual cost of $196,206. 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 were not followed; preparation of an

operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan; semiannual excess

emissions reports; notifications; and recordkeeping. The total capital

cost associated with the monitoring requirements is estimated to be

$309,400. This estimate includes the capital and startup costs

associated with installation of a bag leak detection system for each

affected cupola. The annualized cost of that capital is $44,059 per

year, and the operation and maintenance of the monitoring equipment is

estimated to be $17,000 per year.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and

verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. In

compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the EPA is amending

the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved information collection

request (ICR) control numbers issued by the OMB for various

regulations.

[[Page 29502]]

This amendment updates the table to accurately display those

information requirements contained in this final rule. The EPA will

continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated table format

to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the EPA's regulations, and in each

Code of Federal Regulations volume containing EPA regulations. The

table lists the section numbers with reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, and the current OMB control numbers. This display of the

OMB control number and its subsequent codification in the CFR satisfy

the requirements of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior

to OMB approval. As a result, the EPA finds there is ``good cause''

under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice and

comment. Due to the technical nature of the table, further notice and

comment would be unnecessary. For the same reasons, the EPA also finds

that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

I. Pollution Prevention Act

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 states that pollution should

be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible. During the

development of these standards, the EPA explored opportunities to

eliminate or reduce emissions through the application of new processes

or work practices. By reducing or eliminating the formaldehyde and

phenol in binder formulations, HAPs from the curing process would be

reduced or eliminated without the use of air pollution control

equipment. Alternative binders have been investigated by various

mineral wool producers. Acceptable alternatives have been difficult to

identify due to the higher costs of the potential alternative binders;

the problems associated with requalification of altered products to

meet required product specifications; the production process changes

necessitated by the use of modified binders; and the concerns regarding

potential toxicity of new binder ingredients. Thus, at this time an

acceptable alternative binder has not been commercially demonstrated.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113 (March 7, 1996), directs the EPA to use

voluntary consensus standards in regulatory and procurement activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards

(such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,

and business practices) which are developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standard bodies. Where available and potentially applicable

voluntary consensus standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the

Agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation for not

using such standards. This section summarizes the EPA's response to the

requirements of the NTTAA for the analytical test methods promulgated

as part of this final rule.

Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify

voluntary consensus standards for the EPA's emissions sampling and

analysis reference methods and industry recommended materials analysis

procedures cited in this rule. Candidate voluntary consensus standards

for materials analysis were identified for free-formaldehyde content.

Consensus comments provided by industry experts were that the candidate

standards did not meet industry materials analysis requirements.

Therefore, EPA has determined these voluntary consensus standard are

impractical for the mineral wool production NESHAP. The EPA, in

consultation with the North American Insulation Manufacturers

Association (NAIMA), has formulated an industry-specific materials

analysis, consensus standard for free-formaldehyde content which is

promulgated in this rule.

The EPA search to identify voluntary consensus standards for the

EPA's emissions sampling and analysis reference methods cited in this

rule identified 17 voluntary consensus standards that appeared to have

possible use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, after

reviewing available standards, EPA determined that 12 of the candidate

consensus standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or

surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be

practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data

and other important technical and policy considerations. Five of the

remaining candidate consensus standards are new standards under

development that EPA plans to follow, review and consider adopting at a

later date. This rule requires standard EPA emission test methods known

to the industry and States. Approved alternative methods also may be

used with prior EPA approval.

K. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any

rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as

defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns the environmental

health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety

effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned

regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that

the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the

potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject

to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant

regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and it is based

on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Environmental protection, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Mineral wool production, Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements.

Dated: May 13, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title

40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as

follows:

PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,

2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,

1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,

300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,

300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq.,

[[Page 29503]]

6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry in numerical order

to the table under the indicated heading to read as follows:

Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR citation OMB control No.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories \3\

* * * * *

63.1178--63.1194............................... 2060-0362

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the

applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,

which are not independent information collection requirements.

* * * * *

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

4. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart DDD to read as follows:

Subpart DDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Mineral Wool Production

Sec.

63.1175 What is the purpose of this subpart?

63.1176 Where can I find definitions of key words used in this

subpart?

63.1177 Am I subject to this subpart?

Standards

63.1178 For cupolas, what standards must I meet?

63.1179 For curing ovens, what standards must I meet?

63.1180 When must I meet these standards?

Compliance With Standards

63.1181 How do I comply with the particulate matter standards for

existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas?

63.1182 How do I comply with the carbon monoxide standards for new

and reconstructed cupolas?

63.1183 How do I comply with the formaldehyde standards for

existing, new, and reconstructed curing ovens?

Additional Monitoring Information

63.1184 What do I need to know about the design specifications,

installation, and operation of a bag leak detection system?

63.1185 How do I establish the average operating temperature of an

incinerator?

63.1186 How may I change the compliance levels of monitored

parameters?

63.1187 What do I need to know about operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plans?

Performance Tests and Methods

63.1188 What performance test requirements must I meet?

63.1189 What test methods do I use?

63.1190 How do I determine compliance?

Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

63.1191 What notifications must I submit?

63.1192 What recordkeeping requirements must I meet?

63.1193 What reports must I submit?

Other Requirements and Information

63.1194 Which general provisions apply?

63.1195 Who enforces this subpart?

63.1196 What definitions should I be aware of?

63.1197-63.1199 [Reserved]

Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General

Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart DDD of Part 63.

Appendix A to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Free Formaldehyde Analysis of

Insulation Resins by the Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride Method.

Subpart DDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production

Sec. 63.1175 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous

air pollutants emitted from existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas

and curing ovens at facilities that produce mineral wool.

Sec. 63.1176 Where can I find definitions of key words used in this

subpart?

The definitions of key words used in this subpart are in the Clean

Air Act (Act), in Sec. 63.2 of the general provisions in subpart A of

this part, and in Sec. 63.1196 of this subpart.

Sec. 63.1177 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an existing,

new, or reconstructed mineral wool production facility that is located

at a plant site that is a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)

emissions, meaning the plant emits or has the potential to emit any

single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or

any combination of HAPs at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more

per year.

Standards

Sec. 63.1178 For cupolas, what standards must I meet?

(a) You must control emissions from each cupola as follows:

(1) Limit emissions of particulate matter (PM) from each existing,

new, or reconstructed cupola to 0.05 kilograms (kg) of PM per megagram

(MG) (0.10 pound [lb] of PM per ton) of melt or less.

(2) Limit emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) from each new or

reconstructed cupola to either of the following:

(i) 0.05 kg of CO per MG (0.10 lb of CO per ton) of melt or less.

(ii) A reduction of uncontrolled CO emissions by at least 99

percent.

(b) You must meet the following operating limits for each cupola:

(1) Begin within one hour after the alarm on a bag leak detection

system sounds, and complete in a timely manner, corrective actions as

specified in your operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required

by Sec. 63.1187 of this subpart.

(2) When the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more

than five percent of the total operating time in a six-month reporting

period, develop and implement a written quality improvement plan (QIP)

consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring requirements of

Sec. 64.8(b)-(d) of 40 CFR part 64.

(3) Additionally, for each new or reconstructed cupola, maintain

the operating temperature of the incinerator so that the average

operating temperature for each three-hour block period never falls

below the average temperature established during the performance test.

Sec. 63.1179 For curing ovens, what standards must I meet?

(a) You must control emissions from each existing, new, or

reconstructed curing oven by limiting emissions of formaldehyde to

either of the following:

(1) 0.03 kg of formaldehyde per MG (0.06 lb of formaldehyde per

ton) of melt or less.

(2) A reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions by at least

80 percent.

(b) You must meet the following operating limits for each curing

oven:

(1) Maintain the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and

the formaldehyde content of each binder formulation at or below the

specification ranges of the resin and binder used during the

performance test.

(2) Maintain the operating temperature of each incinerator so that

[[Page 29504]]

the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period

never falls below the average temperature established during the

performance test.

Sec. 63.1180 When must I meet these standards?

(a) Existing cupolas and curing ovens. You must install any control

devices and monitoring equipment necessary to meet the standards in

this subpart, complete performance testing, and demonstrate compliance

with all requirements of this subpart no later than the following:

(1) June 2, 2002; or

(2) June 3, 2003 if you apply for and receive a one-year extension

under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act.

(b) New and reconstructed cupolas and curing ovens. You must

install any control devices or monitoring equipment necessary to meet

the standards in this subpart, complete performance testing, and

demonstrate compliance with all requirements of this subpart by the

dates in Sec. 63.7 of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.

(c) You must comply with the standards in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179

of this subpart on and after the dates in paragraphs (a) and (b) of

this section.

(d) You must comply with these standards at all times except during

periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Compliance With Standards

Sec. 63.1181 How do I comply with the particulate matter standards for

existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas?

To comply with the PM standards, you must meet all of the

following:

(a) Install, adjust, maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak

detection system for each fabric filter.

(b) Do a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 of this

subpart and show compliance with the PM emission limits while the bag

leak detection system is installed, operational, and properly adjusted.

(c) Begin corrective actions specified in your operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.1187 of this

subpart within one hour after the alarm on a bag leak detection system

sounds. Complete the corrective actions in a timely manner.

(d) Develop and implement a written QIP consistent with compliance

assurance monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 64.8(b) through (d) when

the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more than five

percent of the total operating time in a six-month reporting period.

Sec. 63.1182 How do I comply with the carbon monoxide standards for

new and reconstructed cupolas?

To comply with the CO standards, you must meet all of the

following:

(a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that

continuously measures the operating temperature in the firebox of each

thermal incinerator.

(b) Do a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 of this

subpart and show compliance with the CO emission limits while the

device for measuring incinerator operating temperature is installed,

operational, and properly calibrated. Establish the average operating

temperature as specified in Sec. 63.1185(a) of this subpart.

(c) Following the performance test, measure and record the average

operating temperature of the incinerator as specified in

Sec. 63.1185(b) of this subpart.

(d) Maintain the operating temperature of the incinerator so that

the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period

never falls below the average temperature established during the

performance test.

(e) Operate and maintain the incinerator as specified in your

operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.1187

of this subpart.

Sec. 63.1183 How do I comply with the formaldehyde standards for

existing, new, and reconstructed curing ovens?

To comply with the formaldehyde standards, you must meet all of the

following:

(a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that

continuously measures the operating temperature in the firebox of each

thermal incinerator.

(b) Do a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 of this

subpart while manufacturing the product that requires a binder

formulation made with the resin containing the highest free-

formaldehyde content specification range. Show compliance with the

formaldehyde emission limits while the device for measuring incinerator

operating temperature is installed, operational, and properly

calibrated. Establish the average operating temperature as specified in

Sec. 63.1185(a) of this subpart.

(c) During the performance test that uses the binder formulation

made with the resin containing the highest free-formaldehyde content

specification range, record the free-formaldehyde content specification

range of the resin used, and the formulation of the binder used,

including the formaldehyde content and binder specification.

(d) Following the performance test, monitor and record the free-

formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the formulation of each

batch of binder used, including the formaldehyde content.

(e) Maintain the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and

the formaldehyde content of each binder formulation at or below the

specification ranges established during the performance test.

(f) Following the performance test, measure and record the average

operating temperature of the incinerator as specified in

Sec. 63.1185(b) of this subpart.

(g) Maintain the operating temperature of the incinerator so that

the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period

never falls below the average temperature established during the

performance test.

(h) Operate and maintain the incinerator as specified in your

operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.1187

of this subpart.

(i) With prior approval from the Administrator, you may do short-

term experimental production runs using resin where the free-

formaldehyde content, or binder formulations where the formaldehyde

content, is higher than the specification ranges of the resin and

binder used during previous performance tests, or using experimental

pollution prevention process modifications without first doing

additional performance tests. Notification of intent to perform a

short-term experimental production run must include the following

information:

(1) The purpose of the experimental run.

(2) The affected production process.

(3) How the resin free-formaldehyde content or binder formulation

will deviate from previously approved levels or what the experimental

pollution prevention process modifications are.

(4) The duration of the experimental run.

(5) The date and time of the experimental run.

(6) A description of any emissions testing to be done during the

experimental run.

Additional Monitoring Information

Sec. 63.1184 What do I need to know about the design specifications,

installation, and operation of a bag leak detection system?

A bag leak detection system must meet the following requirements:

(a) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the

manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations

of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic

foot) or less.

[[Page 29505]]

(b) The sensor on the bag leak detection system must provide output

of relative PM emissions.

(c) The bag leak detection system must have an alarm that will

sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM

emissions greater than a preset level.

(d) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant

personnel will be able to hear it.

(e) For a positive-pressure fabric filter, each compartment or cell

must have a bag leak detector. For a negative-pressure or induced-air

fabric filter, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of

the fabric filter. If multiple bag leak detectors are required (for

either type of fabric filter), detectors may share the system

instrumentation and alarm.

(f) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed,

operated, adjusted, and maintained so that it follows EPA's ``Fabric

Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September

1997). Other bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated,

adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written

specifications and recommendations.

(g) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of

establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways:

(1) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.

(2) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.

(h) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm

set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified

in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required by

Sec. 63.1187 of this subpart. In no event may the range be increased by

more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365

day period unless a responsible official as defined in Sec. 63.2 of the

general provisions in subpart A of this part certifies in writing to

the Administrator that the fabric filter has been inspected and found

to be in good operating condition.

Sec. 63.1185 How do I establish the average operating temperature of

an incinerator?

(a) During the performance test, you must establish the average

operating temperature of an incinerator as follows:

(1) Continuously measure the operating temperature of the

incinerator.

(2) Determine and record the average temperatures in consecutive

15-minute blocks.

(3) Determine and record the arithmetic average of the recorded

average temperatures measured in consecutive 15-minute blocks for each

of the one-hour performance test runs.

(4) Determine and record the arithmetic average of the three one-

hour average temperatures during the performance test runs. The average

of the three one-hour performance test runs establishes the temperature

level to use to monitor compliance.

(b) To comply with the requirements for maintaining the operating

temperature of an incinerator after the performance test, you must

measure and record the average operating temperature of the incinerator

as required by Secs. 63.1182 and 63.1183 of this subpart. This average

operating temperature of the incinerator is based on the arithmetic

average of the one-hour average temperatures for each consecutive

three-hour period and is determined in the same manner described in

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.

Sec. 63.1186 How may I change the compliance levels of monitored

parameters?

You may change control device and process operating parameter

levels established during performance tests and used to monitor

compliance if you do the following:

(a) You must notify the Administrator of your desire to expand the

range of a control device or process operating parameter level.

(b) Upon approval from the Administrator, you must conduct

additional performance tests at the proposed new control device or

process operating parameter levels. Before operating at these levels,

the performance test results must verify that, at the new levels, you

comply with the emission limits in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179 of this

subpart.

Sec. 63.1187 What do I need to know about operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plans?

(a) An operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan must be

submitted to the Administrator for review and approval as part of your

application for the title V permit.

(b) The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan must include

the following:

(1) Process and control device parameters you will monitor to

determine compliance, along with established operating levels or ranges

for each process or control device.

(2) A monitoring schedule.

(3) Procedures for properly operating and maintaining control

devices used to meet the standards in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179 of this

subpart. These procedures must include an inspection of each

incinerator at least once per year. At a minimum, you must do the

following as part of an incinerator inspection:

(i) Inspect all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing

devices for proper operation. Clean pilot sensor if necessary.

(ii) Ensure proper adjustment of combustion air, and adjust if

necessary.

(iii) Inspect, when possible, all internal structures (such as

baffles) to ensure structural integrity per the design specifications.

(iv) Inspect dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation.

(v) Inspect motors for proper operation.

(vi) Inspect, when possible, combustion chamber refractory lining.

Clean, and repair or replace lining if necessary.

(vii) Inspect incinerator shell for proper sealing, corrosion, and/

or hot spots.

(viii) For the burn cycle that follows the inspection, document

that the incinerator is operating properly and make any necessary

adjustments.

(ix) Generally observe whether the equipment is maintained in good

operating condition.

(x) Complete all necessary repairs as soon as practicable.

(4) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.

(5) Corrective actions you will take if process or control device

parameters vary from the levels established during performance testing.

For bag leak detection system alarms, example corrective actions that

may be included in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan

include:

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags

or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in

emissions.

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise

repairing the control device.

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment.

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise

repairing the bag leak detection system.

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.

Performance Tests and Methods

Sec. 63.1188 What performance test requirements must I meet?

You must meet the following performance test requirements:

[[Page 29506]]

(a) All monitoring systems and equipment must be installed,

operational, and properly calibrated before the performance tests.

(b) Do a performance test, consisting of three test runs, for each

cupola and curing oven subject to this subpart at the maximum

production rate to demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable

emission limits in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179 of this subpart.

(c) Measure emissions of PM from each existing cupola.

(d) Measure emissions of PM and CO from each new or reconstructed

cupola.

(e) Measure emissions of formaldehyde from each existing, new or

reconstructed curing oven.

(f) Measure emissions at the outlet of the control device if

complying with a numerical emission limit for PM, CO, or formaldehyde,

or at the inlet and outlet of the control device if complying with a

percent reduction emission limit for CO or formaldehyde.

(g) To determine the average melt rate, measure and record the

amount of raw materials, excluding coke, charged into and melted in

each cupola during each performance test run. Determine and record the

average hourly melt rate for each performance test run. Determine and

record the arithmetic average of the average hourly melt rates

associated with the three performance test runs. The average hourly

melt rate of the three performance test runs is used to determine

compliance with the applicable emission limits.

(h) Compute and record the average emissions of the three

performance test runs and use the equations in Sec. 63.1190 of this

subpart to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits.

(i) Comply with control device and process operating parameter

monitoring requirements for performance testing as specified in this

subpart.

Sec. 63.1189 What test methods do I use?

You must use the following test methods to determine compliance

with the applicable emission limits:

(a) Method 1 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the

selection of the sampling port locations and number of sampling ports.

(b) Method 2 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for stack gas

velocity and volumetric flow rate.

(c) Method 3 or 3A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for

oxygen and carbon dioxide for diluent measurements needed to correct

the concentration measurements to a standard basis.

(d) Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for moisture

content of the stack gas.

(e) Method 5 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the

concentration of PM. Each PM test run must consist of a minimum run

time of three hours and a minimum sample volume of 3.75 dscm (135

dscf).

(f) Method 10 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the

concentration of CO, using the continuous sampling option described in

section 7.1.1 of the method. Each CO test run must consist of a minimum

run time of one hour.

(g) Method 318 in appendix A to this part for the concentration of

formaldehyde or CO.

(h) Method to determine the free-formaldehyde content of each resin

lot in appendix A of this subpart.

Sec. 63.1190 How do I determine compliance?

(a) Using the results of the performance tests, you must use the

following equation to determine compliance with the PM emission limit:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN99.015

where:

E = Emission rate of PM, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of melt.

C = Concentration of PM, g/dscm (gr/dscf).

Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).

K 51 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr).

P = Average melt rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).

(b) Using the results of the performance tests, you must use the

following equation to determine compliance with the CO and formaldehyde

numerical emission limits:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN99.016

where:

E = Emission rate of measured pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of melt.

C = Measured volume fraction of pollutant, ppm.

MW = Molecular weight of measured pollutant, g/g-mole:

CO = 28.01, Formaldehyde = 30.03.

Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).

K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/453.6 g).

K2 = Conversion factor, 1,000 L/m3 (28.3 L/

ft3).

K3 = Conversion factor, 24.45 L/g-mole.

P = Average melt rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).

(c) Using the results of the performance tests, you must use the

following equation to determine compliance with the CO and formaldehyde

percent reduction performance standards:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN99.017

where:

%R = Percent reduction, or collection efficiency of the control device.

Li = Inlet loading of pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton).

Lo = Outlet loading of pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton).

Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Sec. 63.1191 What notifications must I submit?

You must submit written notifications to the Administrator as

required by Sec. 63.9(b)-(h) of the general provisions in subpart A of

this part. These notifications include, but are not limited to, the

following:

(a) Notification that the following types of sources are subject to

the standard:

(1) An area source that increases its emissions so that it becomes

a major source.

(2) A source that has an initial startup before the effective date

of the standard.

(3) A new or reconstructed source that has an initial startup after

the effective date of the standard and doesn't require an application

for approval of construction or reconstruction under Sec. 63.5(d) of

the general provisions in subpart A of this part.

(b) Notification of intention to construct a new major source or

reconstruct a major source where the initial startup of the new or

reconstructed source occurs after the effective date of the standard

and an application for approval of construction or reconstruction under

Sec. 63.5(d) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part is

required.

(c) Notification of special compliance obligations for a new source

that is subject to special compliance requirements in Sec. 63.6(b)(3)

and (4) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.

(d) Notification of a performance test at least 60 calendar days

before the performance test is scheduled to begin.

(e) Notification of compliance status.

Sec. 63.1192 What recordkeeping requirements must I meet?

You must meet the following recordkeeping requirements:

(a) Maintain files of all information required by Sec. 63.10(b) of

the general provisions in subpart A of this part, including all

notifications and reports.

(b) Maintain records of the following information also:

(1) Cupola production (melt) rate (Mg/hr (tons/hr) of melt).

[[Page 29507]]

(2) All bag leak detection system alarms. Include the date and time

of the alarm, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the

alarm, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the

cause of the alarm was corrected.

(3) The free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder

formulation, including formaldehyde content, of each binder batch used

in the manufacture of bonded products.

(4) Incinerator operating temperature and results of incinerator

inspections. For all periods when the average temperature in any three-

hour block period fell below the average temperature established during

the performance test, and all periods when the inspection identified

incinerator components in need of repair or maintenance, include the

date and time of the problem, when corrective actions were initiated,

the cause of the problem, an explanation of the corrective actions

taken, and when the cause of the problem was corrected.

(c) Retain each record for at least five years following the date

of each occurrence, measurement, corrective action, maintenance,

record, or report. The most recent two years of records must be

retained at the facility. The remaining three years of records may be

retained off site.

(d) Retain records on microfilm, on a computer, on computer disks,

on magnetic tape disks, or on microfiche.

(e) Report the required information on paper or on a labeled

computer disk using commonly available and compatible computer

software.

Sec. 63.1193 What reports must I submit?

You must prepare and submit reports to the Administrator as

required by this subpart and Sec. 63.10 of the general provisions in

subpart A of this part. These reports include, but are not limited to,

the following:

(a) A performance test report, as required by Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of

the general provisions in subpart A of this part, that documents the

process and control equipment operating parameters during the test

period, the test methods and procedures, the analytical procedures, all

calculations, and the results of the performance tests.

(b) A startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, as described in

Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part,

that contains specific procedures for operating and maintaining the

source during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a

program of corrective action for malfunctioning process and control

systems used to comply with the emission standards. In addition to the

information required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3), your plan must include the

following:

(1) Procedures to determine and record what caused the malfunction

and when it began and ended.

(2) Corrective actions you will take if a process or control device

malfunctions, including procedures for recording the actions taken to

correct the malfunction or minimize emissions.

(3) An inspection and maintenance schedule for each process and

control device that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions

and recommendations for routine and long-term maintenance.

(c) A report of each event as required by Sec. 63.10(b) of the

general provisions in subpart A of this part, including a report if an

action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is inconsistent

with the procedures in the plan as described in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the

general provisions in subpart A of this part.

(d) An operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as specified in

Sec. 63.1187 of this subpart.

(e) A semiannual report as required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of the

general provisions in subpart A of this part if measured emissions

exceed the applicable standard or a monitored parameter varies from the

level established during performance testing. The report must contain

the information specified in Sec. 63.10(c) of the general provisions,

as well as the relevant records required by Sec. 63.1192(b) of this

subpart.

(f) A semiannual report stating that no excess emissions or

deviations of monitored parameters occurred during the reporting period

as required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v) of the general provisions in subpart

A of this part if no deviations have occurred.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec. 63.1194 Which general provisions apply?

The general provisions in subpart A of this part define

requirements applicable to all owners and operators affected by NESHAP

in part 63. See Table 1 of this subpart for general provisions that

apply (or don't apply) to you as an owner or operator subject to the

requirements of this subpart.

Sec. 63.1195 Who enforces this subpart?

If the Administrator has delegated authority to your State, then

the State, along with the EPA, enforces this regulation. If the

Administrator has not delegated authority to your State, then the EPA

enforces this regulation.

Sec. 63.1196 What definitions should I be aware of?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Act, in Sec. 63.2 of

the general provisions in subpart A of this part, and in this section

as follows:

Bag leak detection system means a monitoring device for a fabric

filter that identifies an increase in particulate matter emissions

resulting from a broken filter bag or other malfunction and sounds an

alarm.

Bonded product means mineral wool to which a hazardous air

pollutant-based binder (containing such hazardous air pollutants as

phenol or formaldehyde) has been applied.

CO means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of carbon

monoxide that serve as a surrogate for emissions of carbonyl sulfide, a

compound included on the list of hazardous air pollutants in section

112 of the Act.

Cupola means a large, water-cooled metal vessel to which is charged

a mixture of fuel, rock and/or slag, and additives. As the fuel is

burned, the charged mixture is heated to a molten state for later

processing to form mineral wool.

Curing oven means a chamber in which heat is used to thermoset a

binder on the mineral wool fiber used to make bonded products.

Fabric filter means an air pollution control device used to capture

particulate matter by filtering gas streams through fabric bags. It

also is known as a baghouse.

Formaldehyde means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of

formaldehyde that, in addition to being a HAP itself, serve as a

surrogate for organic compounds included on the list of hazardous air

pollutants in section 112 of the Act, including but not limited to

phenol.

Hazardous air pollutant means any air pollutant listed in or

pursuant to section 112(b) of the Act.

I means the owner or operator of a mineral wool production

facility.

Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that

uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to

noncombustible gases.

Melt means raw materials, excluding coke, that are charged into the

cupola, heated to a molten state, and discharged to the fiber forming

and collection process.

Melt rate means the mass of molten material discharged from a

single cupola over a specified time period.

Mineral wool means a fibrous glassy substance made from natural

rock (such as basalt), blast furnace slag or other slag, or a mixture

of rock and slag. It

[[Page 29508]]

may be used as a thermal or acoustical insulation material or in the

making of other products to provide structural strength, sound

absorbency, fire resistance, or other required properties.

New source means any affected source the construction or

reconstruction of which is commenced after May 8, 1997.

PM means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of

particulate matter that serve as a surrogate for metals (in particulate

or volatile form) on the list of hazardous air pollutants in section

112 of the Act, including but not limited to: antimony, arsenic,

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium.

You means the owner or operator of a mineral wool production

facility.

Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart

DDD of Part 63

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? Explanation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)................... General Applicability.. Yes.....................

63.1(a)(5).......................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.1(a)(6)-(a)(8)................... Yes.....................

63.1(a)(9).......................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14)................. Yes.....................

63.1(b)............................. Initial Applicability Yes.....................

Determination.

63.1(c)(1).......................... Applicability After Yes.....................

Standard Established.

63.1(c)(2).......................... Yes..................... Some plants may be area

sources.

63.1(c)(3).......................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.1(c)(4)-(c)(5)................... Yes.....................

63.1(d)............................. No...................... [Reserved].

63.1(e)............................. Applicability of Permit Yes.....................

Program.

63.2................................ Definitions............ Yes..................... Additional definitions

in Sec. 63.1196.

63.3................................ Units and Abbreviations Yes.....................

63.4(a)(1)-(a)(3)................... Prohibited Activities.. Yes.....................

63.4(a)(4).......................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.4(a)(5).......................... Yes.....................

63.4(b)-(c)......................... Circumvention/ Yes.....................

Severability.

63.5(a)............................. Construction/ Yes.....................

Reconstruction

Applicability.

63.5(b)(1).......................... Existing, New, Yes.....................

Reconstructed Sources

Requirements.

63.5(b)(2).......................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.5(b)(3)-(b)(6)................... Yes.....................

63.5(c)............................. No...................... [Reserved].

63.5(d)............................. Application for Yes.....................

Approval of

Construction/

Reconstruction.

63.5(e)............................. Approval of Yes.....................

Construction/

Reconstruction.

63.5(f)............................. Approval of Yes.....................

Construction/

Reconstruction Based

on State Review.

63.6(a)............................. Compliance with Yes.....................

Standards and

Maintenance

Applicability.

63.6(b)(1)-(b)(5)................... New and Reconstructed Yes.....................

Sources Dates.

63.6(b)(6).......................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.6(b)(7).......................... Yes.....................

63.6(c)(1).......................... Existing Sources Dates. Yes..................... Sec. 63.1180 specifies

compliance dates.

63.6(c)(2).......................... ....................... Yes.....................

63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.6(c)(5).......................... ....................... Yes.....................

63.6(d)............................. ....................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.6(e)(1)-(e)(2)................... Operation & Maintenance Yes..................... Sec. 63.1187 specifies

Requirements. additional

requirements.

63.6(e)(3).......................... Startup, Shutdown, and Yes.....................

Malfunction Plan.

63.6(f)............................. Compliance with Yes.....................

Emission Standards.

63.6(g)............................. Alternative Standard... Yes.....................

63.6(h)............................. Compliance with Opacity/ No...................... Subpart DDD does not

VE Standards. include VE/opacity

standards.

63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14).................. Extension of Compliance Yes..................... Sec. 63.1180 specifies

date.

63.6(i)(15)......................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.6(i)(16)......................... ....................... Yes.....................

63.6(j)............................. Exemption from Yes.....................

Compliance.

63.7(a)............................. Performance Test Yes.....................

Requirements

Applicability.

63.7(b)............................. Notification........... Yes.....................

63.7(c)............................. Quality Assurance/Test Yes.....................

Plan.

63.7(d)............................. Testing Facilities..... Yes.....................

63.7(e)............................. Conduct of Tests....... Yes..................... Sec. 63.1188 specifies

additional

requirements.

63.7(f)............................. Alternative Test Method Yes.....................

63.7(g)............................. Data Analysis.......... Yes.....................

63.7(h)............................. Waiver of Tests........ Yes.....................

[[Page 29509]]

63.8(a)(1).......................... Monitoring Requirements Yes.....................

Applicability.

63.8(a)(2).......................... ....................... No...................... Subpart DDD does not

require CMS

performance

specifications.

63.8(a)(3).......................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.8(a)(4).......................... ....................... Yes.....................

63.8(b)............................. Conduct of Monitoring.. Yes.....................

63.8(c)(1)-(c)(3)................... CMS Operation/ Yes.....................

Maintenance.

63.8(c)(4)-(c)(8)................... ....................... No...................... Subpart DDD does not

require COMS or CMS

performance

specifications.

63.8(d)............................. Quality Control........ No...................... Subpart DDD does not

require a CMS quality

control program.

63.8(e)............................. CMS Performance No...................... Subpart DDD does not

Evaluation. require CMS

performance

evaluations.

63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)................... Alternative Monitoring Yes.....................

Method.

63.8(f)(6).......................... Alternative to RATA No...................... Subpart DDD does not

Test. require CEMS.

63.8(g)(1).......................... Data Reduction......... Yes.....................

63.8(g)(2).......................... ....................... No...................... Subpart DDD does not

require COMS or CEMS.

63.8(g)(3)-(g)(5)................... ....................... Yes.....................

63.9(a)............................. Notification Yes.....................

Requirements

Applicability.

63.9(b)............................. Initial Notifications.. Yes.....................

63.9(c)............................. Request for Compliance Yes.....................

Extension.

63.9(d)............................. New Source Notification Yes.....................

for Special Compliance

Requirements.

63.9(e)............................. Notification of Yes.....................

Performance Test.

63.9(f)............................. Notification of VE/ No...................... Subpart DDD does not

Opacity Test. include VE/opacity

standards.

63.9(g)............................. Additional CMS No...................... Subpart DDD does not

Notifications. require CMS

performance

evaluation, COMS, or

CEMS.

63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)................... Notification of Yes.....................

Compliance Status.

63.9(h)(4).......................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)................... ....................... Yes.....................

63.9(i)............................. Adjustment of Deadlines Yes.....................

63.9(j)............................. Change in Previous Yes.....................

Information.

63.10(a)............................ Recordkeeping/Reporting- Yes.....................

Applicability.

63.10(b)............................ General Recordkeeping Yes..................... Sec. 63.1192 includes

Requirements. additional

requirements.

63.10(c)(1)......................... Additional CMS Yes.....................

Recordkeeping.

63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4).................. ....................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.10(c)(5)......................... ....................... Yes.....................

63.10(c)(6)......................... ....................... No...................... Subpart DDD does not

require CMS

performance

specifications.

63.10(c)(7)-(c)(8).................. ....................... Yes.....................

63.10(c)(9)......................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].

63.10(c) (10)-(c)(13)............... ....................... Yes.....................

63.10(c)(14)........................ ....................... No...................... Subpart DDD does not

require a CMS quality

control program.

63.10(c)(15)........................ ....................... Yes.....................

63.10(d)(1)......................... General Reporting Yes..................... Additional requirements

Requirements. in Sec. 63.1193.

63.10(d)(2)......................... Performance Test Yes.....................

Results.

63.10(d)(3)......................... Opacity or VE No...................... Subpart DDD does not

Observations. include VE/opacity

standards.

63.10(d)(4)-(d)(5).................. Progress Reports/ Yes.....................

Startup, Shutdown, and

Malfunction Reports.

63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2).................. Additional CMS Reports. No...................... Subpart DDD does not

require CEMS or CMS

performance

evaluations.

63.10(e)(3)......................... Excess Emissions/CMS Yes.....................

Performance Reports.

63.10(e)(4)......................... COMS Data Reports...... No...................... Subpart DDD does not

require COMS.

63.10(f)............................ Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes.....................

Waiver.

63.11(a)............................ Control Device Yes.....................

Requirements

Applicability.

63.11(b)............................ Flares................. No...................... Flares not applicable.

63.12............................... State Authority and Yes.....................

Delegations.

63.13............................... Addresses.............. Yes.....................

63.14............................... Incorporation by Yes.....................

Reference.

63.15............................... Information Yes.....................

Availability/

Confidentiality.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 29510]]

Appendix A to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Free Formaldehyde Analysis of

Insulation Resins by the Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride Method

1. Scope

The method in this appendix was specifically developed for

water-soluble phenolic resins that have a relatively high free-

formaldehyde (FF) content such as insulation resins. It may also be

suitable for other phenolic resins, especially those with a high FF

content.

2. Principle

2.1 a. The basis for this method is the titration of the

hydrochloric acid that is liberated when hydroxylamine hydrochloride

reacts with formaldehyde to form formaldoxine:

HCHO + NH2OH:HCl CH2:NOH + H2O + HCl

b. Free formaldehyde in phenolic resins is present as monomeric

formaldehyde, hemiformals, polyoxymethylene hemiformals, and

polyoxymethylene glycols. Monomeric formaldehyde and hemiformals

react rapidly with hydroxylamine hydrochloride, but the polymeric

forms of formaldehyde must hydrolyze to the monomeric state before

they can react. The greater the concentration of free formaldehyde

in a resin, the more of that formaldehyde will be in the polymeric

form. The hydrolysis of these polymers is catalyzed by hydrogen

ions.

2.2 The resin sample being analyzed must contain enough free

formaldehyde so that the initial reaction with hydroxylamine

hydrochloride will produce sufficient hydrogen ions to catalyze the

depolymerization of the polymeric formaldehyde within the time

limits of the test method. The sample should contain approximately

0.3 grams (g) free formaldehyde to ensure complete reaction within 5

minutes.

3. Apparatus

3.1 Balance, readable to 0.01 g or better.

3.2 pH meter, standardized to pH 4.0 with pH 4.0 buffer and pH

7 with pH 7.0 buffer.

3.3 50-mL burette for 1.0 N sodium hydroxide.

3.4 Magnetic stirrer and stir bars.

3.5 250-mL beaker.

3.6 50-mL graduated cylinder.

3.7 100-mL graduated cylinder.

3.8 Timer.

4. Reagents

4.1 Standardized 1.0 N sodium hydroxide solution.

4.2 Hydroxylamine hydrochloride solution, 100 grams per liter,

pH adjusted to 4.00.

4.3 Hydrochloric acid solution, 1.0 N and 0.1 N.

4.4 Sodium hydroxide solution, 0.1 N.

4.5 50/50 v/v mixture of distilled water and methyl alcohol.

5. Procedure

5.1 Determine the sample size as follows:

a. If the expected FF is greater than 2 percent, go to Part A in

5.1.c to determine sample size.

b. If the expected FF is less than 2 percent, go to Part B in

5.1.d to determine sample size.

c. Part A: Expected FF 2 percent.

Grams resin = 60/expected percent FF

I. The following table shows example levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample

Expected percent free formaldehyde size, grams

------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.......................................................... 30.0

5.......................................................... 12.0

8.......................................................... 7.5

10......................................................... 6.0

12......................................................... 5.0

15......................................................... 4.0

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. It is very important to the accuracy of the results that the

sample size be chosen correctly. If the milliliters of titrant are

less than 15 mL or greater than 30 mL, reestimate the needed sample

size and repeat the tests.

d. Part B: Expected FF < 2 percent

Grams resin = 30/expected percent FF

I. The following table shows example levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sample

Expected percent free formaldehyde size, grams

------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.......................................................... 15

1.......................................................... 30

0.5........................................................ 60

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. If the milliliters of titrant are less than 5 mL or greater

than 30 mL, reestimate the needed sample size and repeat the tests.

5.2 Weigh the resin sample to the nearest 0.01 grams into a

250-mL beaker. Record sample weight.

5.3 Add 100 mL of the methanol/water mixture and stir on a

magnetic stirrer. Confirm that the resin has dissolved.

5.4 Adjust the resin/solvent solution to pH 4.0, using the

prestandardized pH meter, 1.0 N hydrochloric acid, 0.1 N

hydrochloric acid, and 0.1 N sodium hydroxide.

5.5 Add 50 mL of the hydroxylamine hydrochloride solution,

measured with a graduated cylinder. Start the timer.

5.6 Stir for 5 minutes. Titrate to pH 4.0 with standardized 1.0

N sodium hydroxide. Record the milliliters of titrant and the

normality.

6. Calculations

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN99.018

7. Method Precision and Accuracy

Test values should conform to the following statistical

precision:

Variance = 0.005

Standard deviation = 0.07

95% Confidence Interval, for a single determination = 0.2

8. Author

This method was prepared by K.K. Tutin and M.L. Foster, Tacoma

R&D Laboratory, Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. (Principle written by

R. R. Conner.)

9. References

9.1 GPAM 2221.2.

9.2 PR&C TM 2.035.

9.3 Project Report, Comparison of Free Formaldehyde Procedures,

January 1990, K. Tutin.

[FR Doc. 99-12585 Filed 5-28-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P