National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories; Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Federal RegisterJun 14, 1999
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[FRL-6345-3]
RIN 2060-AE75
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories; Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources in wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities. This action also adds Method 316
and Method 318 for the measurement of formaldehyde from wool fiberglass
manufacturing lines to appendix A of part 63.
The hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the facilities
covered by this rule include compounds of three metals (arsenic,
chromium, lead) and three organic HAPs (formaldehyde, phenol, and
methanol). Exposure to these HAPs can cause reversible or irreversible
health effects including carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous system,
developmental, reproductive, and/or dermal health effects. The EPA
estimates the final rule will reduce nationwide emissions of HAPs from
these facilities by 530 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (580 tons per year
[ton/yr]), an approximate 30 percent reduction from the current level
of emissions. In addition, the rule will achieve an estimated 760 Mg/yr
(840 ton/yr) of particulate matter (PM) reductions.
These standards implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and are based on the Administrator's determination that wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities may reasonably be anticipated to emit several
of the 188 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the CAA from the various
process operations found within the industry. The final rule will
provide protection to the public by requiring all wool
[[Page 31696]]
fiberglass plants that are major sources to meet emission standards
reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology
(MACT).
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this action
also amends the table that lists the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control numbers issued under the PRA for this rule.
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 14, 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 No. A-95-24. This docket is available for public inspection
between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for 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: (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, at (919) 541-5025,
Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. For information regarding Methods 316 and 318,
contact Ms. Rima N. Dishakjian, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis
Division, at (919) 541-0443.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by the final
rule are facilities that manufacture wool fiberglass. Regulated
categories and entities are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity category Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial.......................... Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants (SIC 3296).
Federal Government: Not Affected.
State/Local/Tribal Government: Not
Affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1380 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, Chief, Air Permitting and Compliance
Branch, 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.
Judicial Review. The NESHAP for wool fiberglass manufacturing
plants was proposed on March 31, 1997 (62 FR 15228); this action
announces the EPA's final decisions on the rule. Under section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, 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 CAA, the requirements
that are the subject of today's notice may not be challenged later in
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Technology Transfer Network. In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of today's document, which includes the
regulatory text, is available through the Technology Transfer Network
(TTN) at the Unified Air Toxics Website (UATW). Following promulgation,
a copy of the rule will be posted at the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/
t3pfpr.html). The TTN facilitates the exchange of information in
various areas of air pollution control, such as technology. If more
information on the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-
5384.
Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading this
preamble to the final rule.
I. Background
A. Background and Purpose of Standards
B. Technical Basis of Regulation
C. Stakeholder and Public Participation
II. Summary of Final Rule
A. Applicability
B. Emission Standards
C. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
D. Monitoring and Operating Requirements
E. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
A. Definitions
B. Performance Test Provisions
C. Monitoring Requirements
D. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
E. Display of OMB Control Numbers
IV. Summary of Impacts
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. Selection of Pollutants
[[Page 31697]]
B. Selection of Emission Limits
C. Monitoring
D. Performance Tests
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
C. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility
F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Pollution Prevention Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
K. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
I. Background
A. Background and Purpose of Standards
Section 112 of the CAA requires that the EPA promulgate regulations
for the control of HAP emissions from both new and existing major
sources. The statute requires the regulations to reflect the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable, taking
into consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any
nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as MACT.
Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to establish national
standards to reduce air emissions from major sources and certain area
sources that emit one or more HAPs. Section 112(b) contains a list of
HAPs to be regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the Agency to
use this pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source
categories for which NESHAP will be developed and a schedule for
development of these NESHAP. The Agency must list all known source
categories and subcategories of ``major sources'' that emit one or more
of the listed HAPs. A major source is defined in section 112(a) as any
stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a
contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit in the aggregate, considering controls, 10 tons per
year or more of any one HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any
combination of HAPs. This list of source categories was published in
the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and includes wool
fiberglass manufacturing.
The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of
technology-based emission standards under section 112 for categories of
sources that emit HAPs. Emission reductions may be accomplished through
the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques
including, but not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or
eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process changes,
substitution of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclosing
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, capturing,
or treating such pollutants when released from a process, stack,
storage or fugitive emissions point; (4) design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator
training or certification) as provided in subsection (h); or (5) a
combination of the above. (See section 112(d)(2).) The EPA may
promulgate more stringent regulations to address residual risk that
remains after the imposition of controls. (See section 112(f)(2).)
Pursuant to section 112(d) of the CAA, on March 31, 1997, the EPA
proposed NESHAP for new and existing major sources in the wool
fiberglass manufacturing source category (62 FR 15228).
B. Technical Basis of Regulation
Since proposal, no changes have been made in the emission standards
or the MACT floor that is the basis for the emission standards. The
rationale for the selection of the standards, including their technical
basis, is discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (62 FR 15228,
March 31, 1997).
C. Stakeholder and Public Participation
Various stakeholders were involved in the development of these
standards. Individual wool fiberglass companies and the industry
association (the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association)
were consulted throughout the development of these standards.
Representatives from State and Regional enforcement agencies, as well
as representatives from other offices within the EPA, participated in
the regulatory development process by reviewing and commenting on the
standards during development.
The NESHAP for wool fiberglass manufacturing (40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNN) was proposed in the Federal Register on March 31, 1997 (62
FR 15228). The public comment period ended on May 30, 1997. Industry
representatives, regulatory authorities, and environmental groups had
the opportunity to comment on the proposed standard and to provide
additional information during the public comment period. Although the
Agency offered at proposal the opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule, no one
requested a hearing and a hearing was not held. The EPA received nine
letters containing comments on the proposed standard from various
groups including associations representing industry, regulatory
agencies, and air pollution control equipment vendors, as well as from
State regulatory agencies and a private citizen. This final rule
reflects the EPA's full consideration of the comments. The major public
comments, along with the EPA's responses to the comments on the
proposed rule, are summarized in this preamble. A more detailed
discussion of public comments and EPA's responses is contained in the
docket (Docket No. A-95-24; Item V-C-2).
II. Summary of Final Rule
A. Applicability
As stated in Sec. 63.1380, the final NESHAP applies to each of the
following existing and newly constructed sources located at a wool
fiberglass manufacturing facility: All glass-melting furnaces, rotary
spin (RS) manufacturing lines that produce bonded building insulation,
and flame attenuation (FA) manufacturing lines producing bonded pipe
insulation. The rule also applies to new FA manufacturing lines
producing bonded heavy-density products. RS and FA manufacturing lines
that produce nonbonded products, where no binder is applied, are not
subject to the standards. A facility emitting less than 10 tons per
year of any HAP or less than 25 tons per year of any combination of
HAPs is an area source and is not subject to this NESHAP. Facilities
that manufacture mineral wool from rock or slag are not subject to this
rule but are subject to a separate NESHAP for mineral wool production.
(See 62 FR 25370 (May 8, 1997), notice of proposed rulemaking.)
B. Emission Standards
No changes were made to the emission limits as proposed. The
emission standards are contained in the final rule in Sec. 63.1382.
C. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
As stated in Sec. 63.1387, new sources must demonstrate compliance
with the standard at startup. Existing sources must comply within 3
years of the effective date of the final rule but may request an
extension for a fourth year pursuant to the regulatory authority under
section 112(i)(3)(B) of the CAA.
[[Page 31698]]
As required by Sec. 63.1384, owners or operators must, by
conducting a performance test, demonstrate initial compliance with the
PM emission limits for affected glass-melting furnaces and the
formaldehyde emission limits for affected RS and FA manufacturing
lines. During the initial performance test, the owner or operator must
monitor and record the glass pull rate of the furnace and the glass
pull rate of each manufacturing line during each of the three test runs
and determine the emission rate for each run. A determination of
compliance will be based on the average of the three individual test
runs.
In Sec. 63.1384, the owner or operator is required to monitor and
record all parameter values at least every 15 minutes during the
performance test and to calculate an average using all of the parameter
measurements. However, the standard requires that the appropriate
parameters for incinerators and scrubbers be continuously monitored and
recorded.
The owner or operator of an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) that
is used to control PM emissions from a glass-melting furnace must
monitor and record the ESP operating parameter(s) and establish the
parameter limit(s) that will be used to monitor the ESP performance
following the performance test. Where a cold top electric furnace is
operated without the use of an add-on PM control device, the owner or
operator must monitor and record the air temperature above the surface
of the glass melt to ensure that the maximum temperature does not
exceed 120 deg.C (250 deg.F) at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18
to 24 inches) above the molten glass surface. The owner or operator of
a glass-melting furnace that is not equipped with an add-on PM control
device and that is not a cold top electric furnace must monitor and
record the furnace operating parameter(s) and establish the parameter
limit(s) that will be used to monitor the furnace performance following
the performance test.
To determine compliance with the emission limits for new and
existing RS and FA manufacturing lines subject to the standard, the
owner or operator must measure formaldehyde emissions to the atmosphere
from forming and, when present, curing and cooling processes, and sum
the emissions from these processes. The owner or operator must,
according to Sec. 63.1384, conduct the initial performance test for
each new or existing RS manufacturing line while making the building
insulation product with the highest loss on ignition (LOI) expected to
be produced on that manufacturing line. Initial performance tests are
required for new FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-density
products and on new and existing FA manufacturing lines producing pipe
products. Performance tests for each affected FA manufacturing line
must be conducted while producing the highest LOI heavy-density or pipe
product, as appropriate.
During performance tests on affected RS and FA manufacturing lines,
the owner or operator must record, as specified in Sec. 63.1384, the
LOI and density of each product for each line tested, the free
formaldehyde content of the resin(s) used during the tests, and the
binder formulation(s) used during the tests. The performance tests must
be conducted using the resin having the highest free formaldehyde
content that the owner or operator expects to use on that line. If the
owner or operator uses process modifications to comply with the
emission limits for affected RS or FA manufacturing lines, the owner or
operator must monitor and record the process parameter(s) and establish
the process parameter limit(s) that will be used to monitor the
performance of the process modifications following the performance
tests. If a wet scrubbing control device is used to control
formaldehyde emissions from affected RS or FA manufacturing lines, the
owner or operator must continuously monitor and record the scrubber
parameters and establish the operating limits of the pressure drop
across each scrubber, the scrubbing liquid flow rate to each scrubber,
and the identity and feed rate of any chemical additive. Where a
thermal incinerator is used to comply with the emission limit for
formaldehyde, the owner or operator is required to continuously measure
and record the incinerator operating temperature during the performance
test and determine the average temperature during each 1-hour test run.
The average of the three test runs will be used to monitor compliance.
Under Sec. 63.1384, the owner or operator may seek to broaden or
extend the operating limits established during the performance tests
for affected control devices and processes by conducting additional
performance tests to demonstrate compliance at the new limits.
Under Sec. 63.1384, the owner or operator of RS and FA
manufacturing lines may conduct short-term experimental production runs
without conducting additional performance tests. The final rule
requires the owner or operator to notify the Administrator at least 15
days in advance of an experimental production run. The experimental
runs must not exceed 1 week in duration unless a longer period is
approved by the Administrator. The owner or operator may conduct the
experimental production run unless notified of a decision to disapprove
the run or unless notified of a request for additional information
prior to the date of the run.
D. Monitoring and Operating Requirements
Owners or operators of affected sources must submit, under
Sec. 63.1383, an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as part
of their application for a part 70 permit. The plan must include
procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of processes and
control devices used to comply with the emission limits as well as the
corrective actions to be taken when control devices or process
parameters deviate from allowable levels established during performance
testing. The plan also must identify the procedures for the proper
operation and maintenance of monitoring devices including periodic
calibration and verification of accuracy.
Section 63.1383 requires that each baghouse used on a glass-melting
furnace 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. Such a device
monitors the performance of the baghouse, detects an increase in PM
emissions, and indicates that maintenance of the baghouse is needed.
The operating limits of Sec. 63.1382 require the owner or operator to
initiate corrective action within 1 hour of the alarm sounding
according to the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. If the
alarm is activated for more than 5 percent of the total operating time
during the 6-month block reporting period, the owner or operator must
develop and implement a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP). The QIP must be
consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring rule, 40 CFR part
64 subpart D (62 FR 54900, October 22, 1997).
The monitoring requirements of Sec. 63.1383 require the owner or
operator of each ESP used to control an affected glass-melting furnace
to monitor and record the established ESP parameter(s) according to the
procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The
final rule requires the owner or operator to initiate corrective action
within 1 hour, according to the procedures in the facility's
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan, if the monitored
[[Page 31699]]
parameter(s) deviates from the limit(s) established during performance
tests. If the monitored parameter(s) is outside the established
limit(s) for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period, the owner or operator must develop and
implement a QIP. The owner or operator must operate the ESP such that
the monitored parameter(s) does not deviate from the established
limit(s) for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period.
Under Sec. 63.1383 of the final rule, the owner or operator of a
cold top electric furnace, who complies with the PM emission limit
without the use of an air pollution control device, must monitor and
record the air temperature above the glass melt to monitor when the
temperature exceeds the maximum temperature of 120 deg.C (250 deg.F)
measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the
molten glass surface. The owner or operator must initiate corrective
action within 1 hour according to Sec. 63.1382 if the average air
temperature exceeds the maximum. If the air temperature as measured
above the molten glass exceeds the maximum for more than 5 percent of
the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period, the owner
or operator is required to develop and implement a QIP. The rule also
requires that the owner or operator operate the cold top electric
furnace so that the maximum temperature is not exceeded for more than
10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
The final rule (Sec. 63.1383) requires the owner or operator of a
glass-melting furnace, which is not equipped with an air pollution
control device for PM control and which is not a cold top electric
furnace, to monitor the glass-melting furnace according to the
procedures in the operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The plan
must include the furnace operating parameter(s) and parameter limit(s)
to be monitored to identify any operational problems, a monitoring
schedule, and recordkeeping procedures. As required by Sec. 63.1382,
the owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1 hour if
the monitored operating parameter(s) deviates from the limits
established during the initial performance. The rule also requires the
owner or operator to develop and implement a QIP if the monitored
furnace operating parameter value(s) is outside the established
limit(s) for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period. The owner or operator must operate the
affected glass-melting furnace so that the monitored furnace parameter
value(s) is not outside the established limit(s) for more than 10
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
The final rule, under Sec. 63.1383, requires the owner or operator
to monitor and record the glass pull rate on all existing and new
glass-melting furnaces. If the monitored pull rate exceeds by more than
20 percent the average glass pull rate measured during the performance
test, the owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1
hour as required by Sec. 63.1383. If the glass pull rate exceeds (by
more than 20 percent) the average established during the performance
test for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month
block reporting period, the owner or operator must develop and
implement a QIP. The final rule requires the owner or operator to
operate the glass-melting furnace so that the glass pull rate does not
exceed (by more than 20 percent) the average established during the
performance test for more than 10 percent of the total operating time
in a 6-month block reporting period.
If an incinerator is used to control formaldehyde emissions,
Sec. 63.1383 requires that the owner or operator continuously monitor
and record the operating temperature. Following the initial performance
test, the operating limits of Sec. 63.1382 require that the owner or
operator maintain the temperature so that the temperature, averaged
over any 3-hour block period, does not fall below the average
temperature established during the initial performance test. As
required in Sec. 63.1383, the owner or operator must also annually
inspect each incinerator to ensure its proper operation and
maintenance. The rule specifies that, at a minimum, the following be
included in the inspection:
(1) Burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing devices;
(2) Adjustment of combustion air;
(3) Internal structures, such as baffles;
(4) Dampers, fans, and blowers;
(5) Proper sealing;
(6) Motors;
(7) Refractory lining; and (8) Incinerator shell.
Section 63.1383 of the final rule requires that the owner or
operator, who uses a wet scrubbing control device to control
formaldehyde emissions from affected RS or FA manufacturing lines,
continuously monitor and record the gas pressure drop across each
scrubber, the scrubbing liquid flow rate to each scrubber, and the
identity and feed rate of any chemical added to the scrubbing liquid.
As required in Sec. 63.1382, the owner or operator must initiate
corrective action according to the procedures in the facility's
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan within 1 hour if the
average scrubber parameter for any 3-hour block period deviates from
the limit(s) established during the initial performance test. If any
scrubber parameter is outside an established limit(s) for more than 5
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period, the owner or operator must develop and implement a QIP. The
owner or operator must operate each affected scrubber such that none of
the monitored parameters deviate from the established limits for more
than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period.
As required in Sec. 63.1383, the owner or operator who uses process
modifications to comply with the emission limits for RS or FA
manufacturing lines must establish a correlation between the
parameter(s) to be monitored and formaldehyde emissions. The owner or
operator must also include as part of the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan information on how the process will be operated and
maintained, the process parameter(s) to be monitored including the
correlation between the parameter(s) and formaldehyde emissions, a
monitoring schedule, and recordkeeping procedures to document proper
operation of the process modifications. Section 63.1382 of the final
rule requires the owner or operator to initiate corrective action
within 1 hour of a deviation of a process parameter from the
established limits and to develop and implement a QIP if the process
parameter(s) is outside the established limit(s) for more than 5
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period. The owner or operator must operate the process so that the
process modification parameters do not deviate from the established
limits for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month block reporting period.
Under Sec. 63.1383 of the final rule, the owner or operator must
monitor and record the free formaldehyde content of each resin
shipment, the formulation of each batch of binder used, and, every 8
hours, product LOI and product density. Following the performance test,
Sec. 63.1382 requires that the owner or operator must formulate binders
using resins having a free formaldehyde content that does not exceed
the free formaldehyde content range contained in the resin
specification established and used during the performance test.
[[Page 31700]]
The final rule also requires that the owner or operator use a binder
formulation that does not vary from the specification and operating
range established during the performance test. For purposes of this
rule, the addition of urea and lignin to the binder formulation is not
considered changes in the formulation.
Failure to operate all affected processes and control devices
according to the operating limits of Sec. 63.1382, for example, failure
to initiate corrective actions or failure to develop and implement a
QIP, is considered a violation of the operating requirements.
Under Sec. 63.1383 of this rule, the owner or operator may modify
any of the control device or process parameter limits established
during the initial performance tests provided that the owner or
operator conducts additional emission testing to verify compliance at
the new parameter levels.
E. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for MACT
standards are included in the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A). The general provisions require: (1) Initial
notification(s) of applicability, notification of performance test, and
notification of compliance status; (2) a report of performance test
results; (3) a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual
reports of any reportable events; and (4) semiannual reports of
deviations from established parameters. When deviations in operating
parameters established during performance testing are reported, the
owner or operator must report quarterly until a request to return to
semiannual reporting is approved by the Administrator.
In addition to the requirements of the general provisions,
Sec. 63.1386 of the final rule specifies additional records to be kept
by the owner or operator. The final rule requires the owner or operator
to maintain records of the following, as applicable:
(1) Bag leak detection system alarms, including 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;
(2) ESP parameter value(s) used to monitor ESP performance,
including any period when the value(s) deviates from the established
limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when corrective actions
were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an explanation of the
corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the deviation was
corrected;
(3) Air temperature above the molten glass in an uncontrolled cold
top electric furnace, including any period when the temperature exceeds
120 deg.C (250 deg.F) at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24
inches) above the molten glass surface, the date and time of the
exceedance, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the
exceedance, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when
the cause of the exceedance was corrected;
(4) Uncontrolled glass-melting furnace (that is not a cold top
electric furnace) parameter value(s) used to monitor furnace
performance, including any period when the value(s) exceeds the
established limit(s), the date and time of the exceedance, when
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the exceedance, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the
exceedance was corrected;
(5) The LOI and product density for each bonded product
manufactured on a RS or FA manufacturing line, the free formaldehyde
content of each resin shipment received and used in binder formulation,
and the binder formulation of each batch;
(6) Process parameter level(s) for RS and FA manufacturing lines
that use process modifications to comply with the emission standards,
including any period when the parameter level(s) deviates from the
established limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the
deviation was corrected;
(7) Scrubber pressure drop, scrubbing liquid flow rate, and any
chemical additive (including chemical feed rate to the scrubber),
including any period when a parameter level(s) deviates from the
established limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the
deviation was corrected;
(8) Incinerator operating temperature and results of periodic
inspection of incinerator components, including any period when the
temperature falls below the established average or the inspection
identifies problems with the incinerator, 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;
(9) Glass pull rate, including any period when the pull rate
exceeds the average pull rate established during the performance test
by more than 20 percent, the date and time of the exceedance, when
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the exceedance, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the
exceedance was corrected.
The NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) require
that records be maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each
record. The owner or operator must retain the records onsite for at
least 2 years but may retain the records offsite the remaining 3 years.
The files may be retained on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer,
on computer disks, or on magnetic tape disks. Reports may be made on
paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and EPA-
compatible computer software.
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
Changes have been incorporated into the final NESHAP for wool
fiberglass manufacturing plants in response to comments on the proposed
rule. The principal changes made since proposal are summarized below.
Additional discussion of changes and the rationale for these changes is
presented in section V of this preamble.
A. Definitions
In response to public comments, minor clarifying changes were made
in Sec. 63.1381 to the definitions of building insulation, glass pull
rate, manufacturing line, and wool fiberglass. For purposes of
clarifying the applicability of the rule and because of changes in the
monitoring requirements for certain glass-melting furnaces, definitions
were added for cold top electric furnace, new source, and wool
fiberglass manufacturing facility.
B. Performance Test Provisions
In response to public comments, the EPA revised the proposed
provision that would allow the owner or operator of RS and FA
manufacturing lines subject to the NESHAP to conduct short-term
experimental production runs without conducting additional performance
tests. Section 63.1384 of the final rule requires that the owner or
operator notify the Administrator at least 15 days in advance of an
experimental production run. The duration of the test run may not
exceed 1 week unless the Administrator approves a longer period. The
Administrator may disapprove the experimental production run or request
additional information but such disapproval or request for additional
information must be made prior to the date of the experimental
production run.
[[Page 31701]]
Other revisions clarify the proposed requirements for performance
testing by specifying the frequency for monitoring and recording
process and/or control device parameters during performance tests. The
requirements to establish process and control device parameter limits
for compliance monitoring are more appropriately a part of the
requirements for performance testing and, thus, were moved from the
monitoring requirements section to the performance test requirements
section. The requirement for RS manufacturing lines to use the most
frequently manufactured building insulation when conducting performance
tests was deleted from the proposed definition of building insulation.
A requirement was added to the performance testing provisions
(Sec. 63.1384) for affected RS and FA manufacturing lines to conduct
performance test while manufacturing the product having the highest LOI
expected to be produced on the affected line. Because a glass-melting
furnace may supply more than one manufacturing line, the final rule
clarifies that, in addition to the furnace glass pull rate, the glass
pull rate for the manufacturing line must also be monitored during the
performance test.
Methods for measuring formaldehyde emissions from RS and FA
manufacturing lines were contained in the proposed rule. Because the
Agency now has an FTIR method (Method 320) that can be used at other
sources, a self-validating method is no longer necessary. Method 318
was modified by removing the spiking procedures, which simplifies use
of the method. The EPA has also clarified that this method is only
applicable at mineral wool and wool fiberglass manufacturing sources.
In response to comments, the final rule also contains editorial and
clarifying changes in Method 318.
C. Monitoring Requirements
The monitoring requirements section in the proposed rule specified,
for each control device and process, the parameter that was to be
monitored. In the final rule, the section on monitoring requirements
was revised. In the final rule, the monitoring requirements section
(Sec. 63.1383) specifies that process or control device parameters must
be monitored as well as monitoring frequency. The final rule recognizes
that a deviation of a process or control device parameter from a level
established during a performance test is more appropriately a violation
of an operating limit rather than a violation of an emission limit. The
operating limits are part of the standard and are specified in
Sec. 63.1382.
The proposed rule stated that the owner or operator of each
affected source had to submit an operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan containing information on the proper operation and
maintenance of process modifications and control devices, the
parameter(s) to be monitored that would be used to determine
compliance, and corrective actions to be taken when monitoring
indicated a deviation from the limit(s) established during the
performance tests. The final rule (Sec. 63.1383) clarifies that the
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan must also include
procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of all monitoring
devices. As proposed, each baghouse used on a glass-melting furnace
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. In response to
comments and for consistency with other regulations, Sec. 63.1383 of
the final standard requires that the monitor be capable of detecting PM
emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter
(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot). Also, because guidelines for the
operation and maintenance of triboelectric bag leak detection systems
have become available since proposal, these guidelines are specifically
cited in the rule. The EPA's ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997) is available on the TTN
under Emission Measurement Center (EMC), Continuous Emission
Monitoring. 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.
The final rule also specifies some example corrective actions for bag
leak detection system alarms that may be included in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator would continuously
monitor and record the glass pull rate on all existing and new glass-
melting furnaces. As a result of comments, Sec. 63.1383 of the final
rule clarifies what is meant by continuous monitoring of the glass pull
rate. Similar revisions were made to the monitoring requirements for
other control devices and process parameters to clarify the
requirements for monitoring frequency. Revisions were made to the
proposed rule to clarify when corrective actions are required in
response to monitored levels that are outside the limits established
during performance tests.
Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator would be in
violation of the standard if the binder formulation deviated from the
formulation specifications used during the performance test. In
response to comments, the final rule states that the addition of urea
and lignin to the binder formulation does not constitute a change in
binder formulation, and the operating limits in Sec. 63.1382 for the
binder formulation and the use of resins were clarified to incorporate
this change.
In response to comments, clarifying changes were made throughout
the monitoring and operating requirements to indicate that because some
control device or process parameters used for monitoring purposes may
be established as minimum and/or maximum values, it is not always
appropriate to have requirements that are in terms of exceeding control
device or process parameter values. Other minor editorial changes were
made throughout the monitoring and operating requirements to improve
clarity.
Consistent with the general provision requirements to operate and
maintain air pollution equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices, the final rule contains specific
provisions for the annual inspection of incinerators to ensure that
they maintain their performance in reducing formaldehyde emissions.
The proposed rule allowed the owner or operator of a glass-melting
furnace that complies with the PM emission limit without the use of
add-on control devices to determine the appropriate process parameter
or control device parameter to monitor to determine compliance. Section
63.1383 of the final
[[Page 31702]]
rule specifies that the owner or operator of a cold top electric
furnace is required to monitor the air temperature above the molten
glass surface. Section 63.1382 requires the owner or operator of a cold
top electric furnace to operate the furnace such that the air
temperature above the molten glass does not exceed 120 deg.C (250
deg.F) more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period.
D. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
The proposed rule specified additional records to be kept by the
owner or operator in addition to the requirements of the general
provisions. Editorial and clarifying revisions were made to the final
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements (Sec. 63.1386).
The final rule specifies that the time that corrective action is
initiated, as well as when the cause of the alarm, deviation, or
exceedance was corrected, must be recorded. In addition, product
density and glass pull rate were added to the list for which records
are required to be kept, consistent with the monitoring provisions in
Sec. 63.1383. Other revisions were made to the recordkeeping provisions
consistent with changes made in the monitoring and operating
provisions.
E. Display of OMB Control Numbers
The EPA is today amending the table of currently approved
information collection request (ICR) control numbers issued by OMB for
various regulations. Today's amendment updates the table to list the
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 Agency's regulations, and in
each CFR volume containing EPA regulations. The table lists the section
numbers with reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and the current
OMB control numbers. This listing of the OMB control numbers and its
subsequent codification in the CFR satisfy the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (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, EPA finds there is ``good cause'' under
section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(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.
IV. 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 (62 FR
15228, March 31, 1997). Nationwide emissions of formaldehyde from
existing RS and FA manufacturing lines are estimated to be 1,770 Mg/yr
(1,950 ton/yr) at the current level of control. Implementation of the
final rule will reduce nationwide formaldehyde emissions from existing
sources by 410 Mg/yr (450 ton/yr). Emission reductions from RS
manufacturing lines producing building insulation constitute the entire
reduction; there are no emission reductions from FA manufacturing
lines. Reduction in formaldehyde emissions from new RS manufacturing
lines is estimated to be 120 Mg/yr (130 ton/yr) in the fifth year of
the standard. Total reductions in formaldehyde emissions from both
existing and new RS manufacturing lines, therefore will be 530 Mg/yr
(580 ton/yr). Nationwide PM emissions from existing glass-melting
furnaces at the current level of control, are about 750 Mg/yr (830 ton/
yr). Under this rule, PM emissions from existing furnaces will be
reduced by about 600 Mg/yr (660 ton/yr), of which 40 Mg/yr (50 ton/yr)
is particulate matter less than 10 microns (m) in diameter
(PM-10). The PM emission reduction from new glass-melting furnaces
resulting from this rule is estimated to be 160 Mg/yr (180 ton/yr) in
the fifth year of the standard. Under the final rule, PM emissions from
existing and new furnaces will be reduced by a total of 760 Mg/yr (840
ton/yr). Current nationwide emissions of metal HAPs from existing
furnaces is 270 kg/yr (600 lb/yr). Under the final rule, metal HAP
emissions from existing furnaces and new furnaces will be reduced by 9
kg/yr (20 lb/yr) and 2 kg/yr (5 lb/yr), respectively.
The EPA expects no water or solid waste impacts from the final
rule. Because this standard is based on the use of baghouses, dry
ESP's, thermal incinerators, and process modifications, there are no
water pollution impacts. One existing RS manufacturing line uses
scrubbers to control HAP emissions from forming. This rule will not
affect the water pollution impact of the scrubbers. No additional
sources are expected to add wet scrubbers for the control of HAP
emissions. The PM captured by the baghouses added to existing
uncontrolled electric furnaces will be recycled back to the furnace and
no solid or hazardous waste is generated by the use of thermal
incinerators. The EPA estimates that the rule will have a minor impact
on energy consumption.
The total nationwide capital cost for existing glass-melting
furnaces under the final rule is $3.2 million; the total annual cost is
$1.5 million. These costs result from the expected addition of
baghouses to seven electric glass-melting furnaces as well as the
monitoring costs of bag leak detection systems installed on baghouses
and temperature monitors installed on cold top electric furnaces.
The EPA estimates the nationwide capital costs of upgrading process
modifications on 30 RS manufacturing lines to be $16.3 million, with
annual costs of $4.8 million. None of the existing curing ovens that
are uncontrolled for HAPs will have to add an incinerator. None of the
FA manufacturing lines subject to the rule will require additional
controls to comply with the emission standards. Therefore, no control
costs are associated with complying with the final rule for FA
manufacturing lines. For all RS and FA manufacturing lines subject to
the standard, there is a one-time cost of $15,000 per line to establish
the process parameter values for compliance monitoring. Because the
parameters that the owner or operator is required to monitor on RS and
FA manufacturing lines are currently monitored by the industry, no
additional costs will be incurred for monitoring beyond the one-time
cost of $15,000 per line.
Total nationwide capital cost for the standard is estimated to be
$19.5 million and annual nationwide cost is estimated to be $6.3
million/yr, including installation, operation, and maintenance of
emission control and monitoring systems.
The economic analysis of the rule finds impacts at the facility and
market-level to be modest. The average market price increases for both
structural and nonstructural wool fiberglass are expected to be less
than 0.5 percent. The resultant decreases in quantity demanded range
from 0.17 percent for structural insulation markets to 0.22 percent for
nonstructural insulation markets. None of the affected firms are
classified as small businesses and no closures are predicted.
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
The EPA received nine comment letters on the proposed NESHAP for
wool fiberglass manufacturing. A copy of each comment letter is
available for public inspection in the docket for the rulemaking
(Docket No. A-95-24; see
[[Page 31703]]
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for information on inspecting
the docket). The EPA has had follow-up discussions with commenters
regarding specific issues initially raised in their written comments.
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 comments received by EPA were reviewed and carefully considered
by the Agency. The EPA made changes to the rule where 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 Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP'' (Docket A-95-24,
Item V-C-2).
A. Selection of Pollutants
Comment: Two commenters stated that the issues of fine mineral
fibers as HAP and the health effects of wool fiberglass particles
greater than 1 micron in diameter should be addressed. One commenter
stated that because the definition of fine mineral fibers is under
review in response to new data on health effects and respirability, the
EPA should address in the final preamble the possibility of a new
definition for fine mineral fibers and its effects on the NESHAP.
Response: The rule does not include emission limits for fine
mineral fibers at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities because EPA
determined that the affected sources do not emit ``fine mineral
fibers,'' as presently defined by the CAA. Fiberglass emissions from
the affected manufacturing lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities consist of clumps of fibers that are much larger than 10
micrometers in diameter. The CAA, by contrast, defines ``fine mineral
fibers'' to include mineral fiber emissions from facilities
manufacturing or processing glass, rock, or slag fibers (or other
mineral derived fibers) of average diameter 1 micrometer or less. (See
section 112(b)(1)n.3.)
B. Selection of Emission Limits
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA determined the MACT
floor for glass-melting furnaces inappropriately by establishing
equipment standards as the MACT floor rather than a straightforward
determination of numerical MACT floors as specified in section
112(d)(3) of the CAA. Such an approach, according to the commenter, has
allowed the EPA to use emissions data from the worst performing units
to set emission limits that are no more stringent than the nearly 20-
year-old NSPS for glass-melting furnaces. The commenter believes that
new baghouses and precipitators, and low-cost upgrades of existing
ones, would allow much more stringent emission limits. The commenter
stated that the EPA should base the MACT floors on the numerical
emissions of the best performing 12 percent for existing sources and
the best performing source for new sources and revise the emission
limits to be consistent with the more stringent floors.
Response: In determining the MACT floor, the EPA is not limited
merely to examining emissions test data from the best performing
sources and calculating the numeric mean of such sources' emission
rates, because the test data may not translate directly to truly
achievable standards. Rather, the Agency has taken alternative
approaches to establishing MACT floors in the past, depending on the
type, quality, and applicability of available emissions information.
(See 62 FR 49051, 49060 (September 18, 1997) (describing various
alternatives)).
Among the standard options the EPA may follow is to establish the
floor in consideration of the emissions control technology used by the
best performing sources. Specifically, the Agency could establish the
new source MACT floor based on the technology employed by the best-
controlled similar source and the existing source MACT floor based on
the technology used by the average of the best-performing 12 percent of
sources (or, in the case of categories with fewer than 30 sources, the
average of the best-performing five sources). The EPA would then
calculate a numeric MACT emission limit that is achievable in practice
by sources employing that technology, in view of process and air
pollution control device variability.
The EPA followed this technology-driven approach in the present
rulemaking. Available emissions information indicates that both
baghouses and ESP's are equally effective in controlling PM emissions
from glass-melting furnaces, and that the best performing sources in
the wool fiberglass source category employ such technology.
Accordingly, the Agency determined that either of these technologies,
when well-designed and well-operated, would form the basis of the MACT
floor for controlling emissions from glass-melting furnaces in this
source category. The EPA then sought, consistent with the CAA, to
express the MACT floor in terms of a numeric emissions limit. To do so,
it evaluated existing test data from wool fiberglass facilities
controlling glass-melting furnace emissions with baghouses and ESP's.
Because the measured emission rates varied, even though each of the
sources had well-operated and maintained air pollution control
equipment, the Agency concluded that the measured rates were indicative
of equipment and process variability. The EPA therefore established the
MACT floor at an emission level achievable by the best performing
technology, after accounting for normal operating variability.
The Agency's approach in this rulemaking to determine the
applicable MACT floors is consistent with the CAA. The CAA requires a
standard that is ``achievable'' (42 U.S.C. 112(d)(2) (``Emission
standards * * * shall require the maximum degree of reductions in
emissions * * * that the Administrator * * * determines is achievable *
* * '')). However, the commenter's insistence on setting the MACT floor
based solely on a numeric average would require the Agency to establish
a standard that, in light of normal and unavoidable control equipment
and process variability, would not be achievable consistently by the
best performing sources in the category. The EPA's method in the
present rulemaking, by contrast, heeds Congress's attention to
achievability and is a prudent exercise of the discretion the CAA
grants the Agency ``to use its best engineering judgment in collecting
and analyzing the (available emissions) data, and in assessing the
data's comprehensiveness, accuracy, and variability, in order to
determine which sources achieve the best emission reductions.'' (59 FR
29196, 29199 (June 6, 1994)) (emphasis added). See also National Lime
Association v. E.P.A., 627 F.2d 416, 431 n. 46 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (``to
be achievable, we think a uniform standard must be capable of being met
under most adverse conditions which can reasonably be expected to
recur'').
Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA is not limited to
setting emission limits at the MACT floors and thermal and catalytic
incinerators could provide cost-effective 98 to 99 percent emission
reductions on RS forming, curing, and cooling and FA forming and
curing. According to one commenter, the emission limits for flame
attenuation manufacturing lines are much too high; more appropriate
formaldehyde emission limits are 0.068-0.078 lb/ton. Another commenter
stated that emissions as low as 0.02 kg/Mg for RS manufacturing, 0.13
kg/Mg for heavy-density flame attenuation
[[Page 31704]]
manufacturing, and 0.11 kg/Mg for pipe flame attenuation manufacturing
could be achieved if catalytic oxidation were used to control forming,
curing, and cooling processes. According to one commenter, the EPA
should also consider other creative control technology applications,
for example, ducting multiple sources, such as forming and curing, to a
single control unit at a much lower cost than separate controls on
individual process units while achieving 98-99 percent reduction in
forming and curing oven emissions. One commenter also stated that the
EPA has ignored the use of carbon-and zeolite-based concentrators,
which can reduce exhaust volumes thereby reducing the size and cost of
required control devices. According to this commenter, such
concentrators can reduce exhaust volumes to be treated at least tenfold
and sometimes much greater allowing the use of small control devices
after forming and curing. Alternatively, the concentrated exhaust could
be ducted to the curing oven or curing oven control device, thus
allowing for low-cost control of emissions from the entire wool
fiberglass manufacturing line.
Response: Even though incineration is demonstrated on rotary spin
curing ovens and is the MACT floor for new and existing rotary spin
curing ovens, incineration is not demonstrated for rotary spin forming
or for flame attenuation forming or flame attenuation curing. Further,
concentrators are not demonstrated in this industry for any process.
Although not demonstrated, the EPA considered the beyond-the-floor
control option of incineration for both rotary spin forming and flame
attenuation forming and curing processes. According to an analysis of
the cost effectiveness of beyond-the-floor controls for RS
manufacturing lines, the cost effectiveness of controlling formaldehyde
emissions from forming using incineration is $183,000 per ton of
formaldehyde reduction. On FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-
density products, the cost effectiveness of controlling formaldehyde
emissions using incineration is $1.95 million per ton of formaldehyde
reduction for forming processes and $13.5 million per ton of
formaldehyde reduction for curing processes. On FA manufacturing lines
producing pipe products, the cost effectiveness of controlling
formaldehyde emissions using incineration is $2.7 million per ton of
formaldehyde reduction for forming processes and $42.3 million per ton
of formaldehyde reduction for curing processes. At this time, the EPA
considers that the cost effectiveness of these beyond-the-floor
controls are not reasonable. Therefore, the EPA rejected beyond-the-
floor controls and set emission standards at the MACT floor level.
Comment: A commenter stated that, in light of formaldehyde
classification as a Class B1, probable human carcinogen, the EPA should
reconsider its use of the largest emission rates as the emission limits
for the flame attenuation lines producing pipe products and heavy-
density products. According to one commenter, the emission limits for
flame attenuation manufacturing lines are much too high with more
appropriate formaldehyde emission limits being 0.068-0.078 lb/ton.
Another commenter stated that emissions as low as 0.13 kg/Mg for heavy-
density flame attenuation manufacturing, and 0.11 kg/Mg for pipe flame
attenuation manufacturing could be achieved if catalytic oxidation were
used to control forming, curing, and cooling processes.
Response: In establishing emission limits for affected FA
manufacturing lines, the EPA followed the approach used for glass-
melting furnaces. Process modifications constitute the pollution
control technology used by the best performing sources, and each of the
facilities currently producing pipe insulation and heavy density
products employ an identical level of process modifications on their FA
manufacturing lines. Nevertheless, the measured emission rates of
formaldehyde from these sources varied. Because the same degree of
pollution control had different emission rates, the Agency concluded
that operational variability accounted for the differences and factored
such variability into the promulgated emission standard by setting the
MACT floor at a level achievable in practice by sources using the
identified technology.
Comment: Because the EPA is allowing averaging of emissions across
the various units making up the manufacturing line, one commenter
stated that this tends to increase emissions above those associated
with emission limits on separate process units and that EPA should set
emission limits more stringent than the sum of the floor limits rather
than allow averaging.
Response: In setting emission limits for rotary spin and flame
attenuation manufacturing lines, the EPA used available emissions data
for each process unit (forming, curing, and cooling for rotary spin
lines, and forming and curing for flame attenuation lines) to determine
the appropriate MACT floor for each process unit in the line. The
Agency then summed emissions from the MACT floors to create a resultant
line-based MACT floor emission limit. Therefore, the EPA disagrees that
these ``line'' limits are less stringent than the limits that would
have been established for individual process units if the source
subject to MACT had been defined more narrowly. For instance, because
the MACT floor for cooling on rotary spin lines and for curing on flame
attenuation lines is no control, the EPA may not have set emission
limits for these sources if limits were set on a unit-by-unit basis.
Thus, potentially higher emissions would have been allowed than are
currently being allowed under this rule.
C. Monitoring
Comment: Several comments were received concerning the use of bag
leak detectors for monitoring baghouses used to control emissions from
glass-melting furnaces. One commenter stated that because the industry
standard for sensitivity of bag leak detectors is 0.0005 gr/dscf, the
sensitivity cited in the rule should be changed from 0.0004 gr/dscf to
0.0005 gr/dscf.
According to another commenter, the requirements to install and
operate bag leak detectors according to EPA guidance
(Sec. 63.1384(b)(5)) will be difficult to enforce. The commenter
further stated that if EPA wants the guidance to be followed, it should
be contained in a rule; if not, it should be in the preamble as
recommended practice.
Another commenter asked if a source would be in violation of the
standard if the alarm on the bag leak detector is activated more than
10 percent of the total operating time during a 6-month block reporting
period.
Response: After reviewing technical data from a supplier of dust
detection equipment and reviewing other EPA standards that require bag
leak detectors for consistency, EPA has modified the required
sensitivity level to ``0.0044 gr/dscf or less.'' This change does not
alter the intended function of the bag leak detector, and is consistent
with the industry standard for sensitivity and other EPA standards.
Although EPA understands, as the one commenter indicated, that
enforcement may be more difficult, there are currently no performance
specifications available for bag leak detectors. EPA guidance on the
use of triboelectric bag leak detectors has been developed and is cited
in the rule along with information on its availability.
[[Page 31705]]
In the proposed and final rules, the source would not be in
violation of the standard if the alarm on the bag leak detector is
activated more than 10 percent of the total operating time during a 6-
month block reporting period. The EPA issued a supplemental proposal
(64 FR 7149, February 12, 1999) for wool fiberglass and other source
categories which, along with other compliance issues, deals with the
question as to the existence of a violation when the bag leak detector
alarm is activated and how it is enforced. The EPA will consider all
comments on the supplemental proposal and will amend this final rule in
a future action as appropriate.
Comment: For clarity with State agencies, one commenter recommended
that the requirement in Sec. 63.1386(e) to ``continuously monitor and
record'' as it applies to glass pull rate be defined to mean to
install, operate and maintain pull rate monitoring and recording
equipment per the written operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
Response: Based on additional information provided by the
commenter, EPA learned that the commenter would like the rule to
clarify the monitoring and recording frequency associated with
continuous monitors for glass pull rate. According to the commenter,
the process is very steady and there is not a need for minute-by-minute
monitoring and recordkeeping. EPA has revised the rule to require that
on existing glass-melting furnaces with continuous monitors and on all
new glass-melting furnaces, the glass pull rate must be monitored and
recorded on an hourly basis and every 4 hours an average is to be
calculated for purposes of determining compliance. At any time that a
4-hour average pull rate exceeds the average pull rate established
during the performance test by greater than 20 percent, corrective
action must be initiated within 1 hour. If a 20 percent or more
exceedance of the pull rate occurs for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in the 6-month block reporting period, a QIP is
required. The final rule requires the owner operate the glass-melting
furnace so that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20
percent, the established maximum glass pull rate for more than 10
percent of the total operating time in the 6-month block reporting
period.
As a result of this comment, the EPA examined the other monitoring
provisions and made similar clarifying changes throughout the
monitoring section as they pertain to monitoring frequency and
averaging period.
D. Performance Tests
Comment: One commenter recommended revisions to the monitoring
requirements of Sec. 63.1386(g)(2) to clarify that if changes are made
in the binder formulation that would not result in an increase in HAP
emissions, such as the use of resin extenders, additional emissions
testing is not required. The commenter explained that binder
formulations are developed and controlled centrally by technical
experts at each company and are not subject to modification at each
plant. According to this commenter, normal practice is for any new
binder formulation to be supported by additional emission tests. For
reasons of material availability and cost reduction, the commenter
explained that the binder formulation specification allows some
flexibility for substituting resin extenders. During subsequent
discussions with the commenter, it was explained that extenders replace
components of the binder and that urea and lignin are used as extenders
and replace some of the formaldehyde and phenol in the binder. The
extenders act to dilute the binder and because the rate of application
of the extended binder does not change, the emissions of formaldehyde
and phenol are decreased.
Response: Based on this comment as well as additional information
supplied by the commenter on the use of extenders and their effects on
formaldehyde emissions, the EPA has revised the rule to permit the
addition of the extenders urea and lignin in the binder formulations
without the need to perform additional emission testing.
During discussions to obtain additional information from the
commenter on this issue, the commenter was also concerned that the
occasional switching of resin suppliers where the resins are made to
the same specifications, may be interpreted by enforcement agencies as
a change in resin and require additional emissions testing. The EPA
does not intend for additional emission testing to be performed where a
facility switches resin suppliers as long as the resin from the new
supplier is made to the same product specifications as that used during
the performance test.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is intended to be an organized file of the
administrative records compiled by 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 CAA.) The location of the official rulemaking
record, including 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 if a regulatory action is ``significant,'' and therefore
subject to review by OMB and the requirements of the Executive Order.
The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this final rule 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
[[Page 31706]]
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. 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 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The EPA has determined that the total
nationwide capital cost for the standard is approximately $19.5 million
and the annual nationwide cost is approximately $6.3 million/yr. This
rule is based partially on pollution prevention alternatives and on a
manufacturing line approach. It is the least costly and burdensome
approach for industry since the purchase of add-on control devices will
be avoided by most of the industry. The only costs to State and local
governments are those associated with implementing this standard
through the permitting process, and these costs are recouped through
permit fees. 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 these rules and therefore would
not be required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of
the rule.
E. 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.
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA has also
determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because no company that owns
sources in the source category meets the criteria for small business.
The Small Business Administration defines ``small business,'' as the
term applies to SIC 3296, as a firm with fewer than 750 employees. None
of the firms in the industry have fewer than 750 employees and, thus,
are not small businesses by this criterion.
F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
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. 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 14, 1999.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The OMB has approved the information collection requirements
contained in this rule under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0359.
The information collection requirements include the notification,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of the NESHAP general
provisions, authorized under section 114 of the CAA, which are
mandatory for all owners or operators subject to national emission
standards. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency 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 NNN
does require additional records of specific information needed to
determine compliance with the rule. These include records of: (1) Any
bag leak detection system alarm, including the date and time, with a
brief explanation of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action
taken; (2) ESP parameter values, such as secondary voltage for each
electrical field including any deviation outside the limits established
during the performance test and a brief explanation of the cause of the
deviation and the corrective action taken; (3) air temperature above
the surface of the molten glass of a cold top electric furnace that
does not use an add-on control device for PM emission control,
including any air temperature above 120 deg.C (250 deg.F) with a
brief explanation of the cause and the corrective action taken; (4)
operating parameter(s) for uncontrolled glass melting furnace (that
[[Page 31707]]
is not a cold top electric furnace) that does not use an add-on control
device for the control of PM emissions including any exceedance of the
level established during the performance test and a brief explanation
of the cause of the exceedance and the corrective action taken; (5) the
free-formaldehyde content of the resin being used; (6) the formulation
of the binder being used; (7) the product LOI and product density for
each 8-hour period on a RS or FA manufacturing line subject to the
NESHAP; (8) forming process modification parameter(s), including any
period when the parameter level(s) deviate from the level(s)
established during the performance test and a brief explanation of the
cause of the deviation and the corrective action taken; (9) pressure
drop, liquid flow rate, and information on chemical additives to the
scrubbing liquid, including any period when there is a deviation from
the levels established during the performance tests and a brief
explanation of the cause and the corrective action taken; (10)
incinerator operating temperature, including any 3-hour block period
when the temperature falls below the level established during the
performance test, and the results of the annual inspection, including
any problems discovered during the inspection, with a brief explanation
of the cause and, the corrective action taken; and (11) glass pull
rate, including any period when the pull rate exceeds the average pull
rate established during the performance test by more than 20 percent,
with a brief explanation of the cause of the exceedance, the corrective
action taken, and the time the corrective action was initiated. All
records documenting corrective actions must include the time of the
alarm, deviation, or exceedance and the time that the corrective action
is initiated as well as when the cause of the alarm, deviation, or
exceedance is 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 at 17,100 labor hours per year at an
annual cost of $548,000. This estimate includes a one-time performance
test and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time preparation
of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of
any event in which the procedures in the plan were not followed;
semiannual excess emissions reports; notifications; and recordkeeping.
The annualized capital cost associated with monitoring requirements is
estimated at $41,000. The operation and maintenance cost is estimated
at $3,000/yr.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, 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. The EPA
is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR
control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations to list the
information requirements contained in this final rule.
H. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 states that pollution should
be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible. The emission
standards for RS and FA manufacturing lines subject to the standard are
formulated as line standards, i.e., the sum of the individual forming,
curing, and cooling MACT floor emission levels for RS manufacturing
lines and forming and curing MACT floor emission levels for certain FA
manufacturing lines. By formulating the standard as a line standard,
tradeoffs are allowed for existing facilities that will accomplish the
same environmental results at lower costs and will encourage process
modifications and pollution prevention alternatives. According to the
industry, new RS manufacturing lines may be able to meet the line
standard without the use of costly incinerators with their energy and
other environmental impacts, such as increased nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions, by
incorporating pollution prevention measures, such as binder
reformulation and improved binder application efficiency. Pollution
prevention alternatives will also increase binder utilization
efficiency and reduce production costs for industry. In selecting the
format of the emission standard for emissions from manufacturing lines,
the EPA considered various alternatives such as setting separate
emission limits for each process, i.e., forming, curing, and cooling. A
line standard gives the industry greater flexibility in complying with
the emission limits and is the least costly because industry can avoid
the capital and annual operating and maintenance costs associated with
the purchase of add-on control equipment by using pollution prevention
measures.
I. 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 product loss on ignition
(LOI), product density, and 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 standards were impractical for
the wool fiberglass manufacturing NESHAP. The EPA, in consultation with
the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), has
formulated industry-specific materials analysis, consensus standards
which are promulgated in this rule.
[[Page 31708]]
The EPA search to identify voluntary consensus standards for the
EPA's emissions sampling and analysis reference methods cited in this
rule identified 17 candidate 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 be 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.
J. 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 Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the 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.
K. 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 statue, 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 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 wool fiberglass
manufacturing 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.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirement
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass
manufacturing.
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., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. In Sec. 9.1, the table is amended by adding new entries in
numerical order under the indicated heading to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories \3\
* * * * *
63.1383.................................................... 2060-0359
63.1386.................................................... 2060-0359
63.1387.................................................... 2060-0359
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 NNN consisting of
Secs. 63.1380 through 63.1399 to read as follows:
Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Sec.
63.1380 Applicability.
63.1381 Definitions.
63.1382 Emission standards.
63.1383 Monitoring requirements.
63.1384 Performance test requirements.
63.1385 Test methods and procedures.
63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
63.1387 Compliance dates.
63.1388--63.1399 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart NNN of part 63--Applicability of general
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) to subpart NNN.
Appendix A to Subpart NNN of part 63--Method for the determination
of LOI
Appendix B to Subpart NNN of part 63--Free formaldehyde analysis of
insulation resins by hydroxylamine hydrochloride
Appendix C to Subpart NNN of part 63--Method for the determination
of product density
[[Page 31709]]
Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Sec. 63.1380 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
the requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each
wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is a major source or is
located at a facility that is a major source.
(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as measured according to the methods
and procedures in this subpart, emitted from the following new and
existing sources at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility subject to
this subpart:
(1) Each new and existing glass-melting furnace located at a wool
fiberglass manufacturing facility;
(2) Each new and existing rotary spin wool fiberglass manufacturing
line producing a bonded wool fiberglass building insulation product;
and
(3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass
manufacturing line producing a bonded pipe product and each new flame
attenuation wool fiberglass manufacturing line producing a bonded
heavy-density product.
(c) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to a wool
fiberglass manufacturing facility that the owner or operator
demonstrates to the Administrator is not a major source as defined in
Sec. 63.2.
(d) The provisions of this part 63, subpart A that apply and those
that do not apply to this subpart are specified in Table 1 of this
subpart.
Sec. 63.1381 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
Bag leak detection system means systems that include, but are not
limited to, devices using triboelectric, light scattering, and other
effects to monitor relative or absolute particulate matter (PM)
emissions.
Bonded means wool fiberglass to which a phenol-formaldehyde binder
has been applied.
Building insulation means bonded wool fiberglass insulation, having
a loss on ignition of less than 8 percent and a density of less than 32
kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3) (2 pounds per cubic foot
[lb/ft3]).
Cold top electric furnace means an all-electric glass-melting
furnace that operates with a temperature of 120 deg.C (250 deg.F) or
less as measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches)
above the molten glass surface.
Flame attenuation means a process used to produce wool fiberglass
where molten glass flows by gravity from melting furnaces, or pots, to
form filaments that are drawn down and attenuated by passing in front
of a high-velocity gas burner flame.
Glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a refractory vessel
in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature,
refined, and conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes
foundations, superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger
systems, heat exchangers, melter cooling system, exhaust system,
refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipment,
integral control systems and instrumentation, and appendages for
conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming processes. The
forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not considered part of
the glass-melting furnace.
Glass pull rate means the mass of molten glass that is produced by
a single glass-melting furnace or that is used in the manufacture of
wool fiberglass at a single manufacturing line in a specified time
period.
Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) means any air pollutant listed in or
pursuant to section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act.
Heavy-density product means bonded wool fiberglass insulation
manufactured on a flame attenuation manufacturing line and having a
loss on ignition of 11 to 25 percent and a density of 8 to 48 kg/m\3\
(0.5 to 3 lb/ft \3\).
Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that
uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to
noncombustible gases.
Loss on ignition (LOI) means the percent decrease in weight of wool
fiberglass after it has been ignited. The LOI is used to monitor the
weight percent of binder in wool fiberglass.
Manufacturing line means the manufacturing equipment for the
production of wool fiberglass that consists of a forming section where
molten glass is fiberized and a fiberglass mat is formed and which may
include a curing section where binder resin in the mat is thermally set
and a cooling section where the mat is cooled.
New source means any affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced after March 31, 1997.
Pipe product means bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured
on a flame attenuation manufacturing line and having a loss on ignition
of 8 to 14 percent and a density of 48 to 96 kg/m \3\ (3 to 6 lb/
ft\3\).
Rotary spin means a process used to produce wool fiberglass
building insulation by forcing molten glass through numerous small
orifices in the side wall of a spinner to form continuous glass fibers
that are then broken into discrete lengths by high-velocity air flow.
Any process used to produce bonded wool fiberglass building insulation
by a process other than flame attenuation is considered rotary spin.
Wool fiberglass means insulation materials composed of glass fibers
made from glass produced or melted at the same facility where the
manufacturing line is located.
Wool fiberglass manufacturing facility means any facility
manufacturing wool fiberglass on a rotary spin manufacturing line or on
a flame attenuation manufacturing line.
Sec. 63.1382 Emission standards
(a) Emission limits--(1) Glass-melting furnaces. On and after the
date the initial performance test is completed or required to be
completed under Sec. 63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier, the
owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be discharged into
the atmosphere in excess of 0.25 kilogram (kg) of particulate matter
(PM) per megagram (Mg) (0.5 pound [lb] of PM per ton) of glass pulled
for each new or existing glass-melting furnace.
(2) Rotary spin manufacturing lines. On and after the date the
initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under
Sec. 63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier, the owner or
operator shall not discharge or cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere in excess of:
(i) 0.6 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (1.2 lb of formaldehyde per
ton) of glass pulled for each existing rotary spin manufacturing line;
and
(ii) 0.4 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (0.8 lb of formaldehyde
per ton) of glass pulled for each new rotary spin manufacturing line.
(3) Flame attenuation manufacturing lines. On and after the date
the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed
under Sec. 63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier, the owner or
operator shall not discharge or cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere in excess of:
(i) 3.9 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (7.8 lb of formaldehyde per
ton) of glass pulled for each new flame attenuation manufacturing line
that produces heavy-density wool fiberglass; and
(ii) 3.4 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (6.8 lb of formaldehyde
per ton) of glass pulled from each existing
[[Page 31710]]
or new flame attenuation manufacturing line that produces pipe product
wool fiberglass.
(b) Operating limits. On and after the date on which the
performance test required to be conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.1384 is
completed, the owner or operator must operate all affected control
equipment and processes according to the following requirements.
(1)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within
1 hour of an alarm from a bag leak detection system and complete
corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in
the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must implement a Quality Improvement
Plan (QIP) consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring
provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the bag leak detection
system alarm is sounded for more than 5 percent of the total operating
time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(2)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within
1 hour when any 3-hour block average of the monitored electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) parameter is outside the limit(s) established during
the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 and complete
corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in
the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with the
compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64 subpart D
when the monitored ESP parameter is outside the limit(s) established
during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than
5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
(iii) The owner or operator must operate the ESP such that the
monitored ESP parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during
the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than 10
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
(3)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within
1 hour when any 3-hour block average temperature of a cold top electric
furnace as measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24
inches) above the molten glass surface, exceeds 120 deg.C (250 deg.F)
and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the
procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator of a cold top electric furnace must
implement a QIP consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring
provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the temperature, as
measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the
molten glass surface, exceeds 120 deg.C (250 deg.F) for more than 5
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
(iii) The owner or operator must operate the cold top electric
furnace such that the temperature does not exceed 120 deg.C (250
deg.F) as measured at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches)
above the molten glass surface, for more than 10 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month reporting period.
(4)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within
1 hour when any 3-hour block average value for the monitored
parameter(s) for a glass-melting furnace, which uses no add-on controls
and which is not a cold top electric furnace, is outside the limit(s)
established during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384
and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the
procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with the
compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR Part 64 subpart D
when the monitored parameter(s) is outside the limit(s) established
during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than
5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
(iii) The owner or operator must operate a glass-melting furnace,
which uses no add-on controls and which is not a cold top electric
furnace, such that the monitored parameter(s) is not outside the
limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in
Sec. 63.1384 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a
6-month block reporting period.
(5)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within
1 hour when the average glass pull rate of any 4-hour block period for
glass melting furnaces equipped with continuous glass pull rate
monitors, or daily glass pull rate for glass melting furnaces not so
equipped, exceeds the average glass pull rate established during the
performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384, by greater than 20
percent and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to
the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with the
compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D
when the glass pull rate exceeds, by more than 20 percent, the average
glass pull rate established during the performance test as specified in
Sec. 63.1384 for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a
6-month block reporting period.
(iii) The owner or operator must operate each glass-melting furnace
such that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20 percent,
the average glass pull rate established during the performance test as
specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than 10 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(6) The owner or operator must operate each incinerator used to
control formaldehyde emissions from forming or curing such that any 3-
hour block average temperature in the firebox does not fall below the
average established during the performance test as specified in
Sec. 63.1384.
(7)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within
1 hour when the average pressure drop, liquid flow rate, or chemical
feed rate for any 3-hour block period is outside the limits established
during the performance tests as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for each wet
scrubbing control device and complete corrective actions in a timely
manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with the
compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D
when any scrubber parameter is outside the limit(s) established during
the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than 5
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
(iii) The owner or operator must operate each scrubber such that
each monitored parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during
the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than 10
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
(8)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within
1 hour when the monitored process parameter level(s) is outside the
limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in
Sec. 63.1384 for the process modification(s) used to control
formaldehyde emissions and complete corrective actions in a timely
manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(ii) The owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with the
compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D
[[Page 31711]]
when the process parameter(s) is outside the limit(s) established
during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384 for more than
5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
(iii) The owner or operator must operate the process modifications
such that the monitored process parameter(s) is not outside the
limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in
Sec. 63.1384 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a
6-month block reporting period.
(9) The owner or operator must use a resin in the formulation of
binder such that the free-formaldehyde content of the resin used does
not exceed the free-formaldehyde range contained in the specification
for the resin used during the performance test as specified in
Sec. 63.1384.
(10) The owner or operator must use a binder formulation that does
not vary from the specification and operating range established and
used during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384. For the
purposes of this standard, adding or increasing the quantity of urea
and/or lignin in the binder formulation does not constitute a change in
the binder formulation.
Sec. 63.1383 Monitoring requirements.
On and after the date on which the performance test required to be
conducted by Secs. 63.7 and 63.1384 is completed, the owner or operator
must monitor all affected control equipment and processes according to
the following requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of each wool fiberglass manufacturing
facility must prepare for each glass-melting furnace, rotary spin
manufacturing line, and flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to
the provisions of this subpart, a written operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan. The plan must be submitted to the Administrator for
review and approval as part of the application for a part 70 permit.
The plan must include the following information:
(1) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of process
modifications and add-on control devices used to meet the emission
limits in Sec. 63.1382;
(2) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of
monitoring devices used to determine compliance, including quarterly
calibration and certification of accuracy of each monitoring device
according to the manufacturers's instructions; and
(3) Corrective actions to be taken when process parameters or add-
on control device parameters deviate from the limit(s) established
during initial performance tests.
(b)(1) Where a baghouse is used to control PM emissions from a
glass-melting furnace, the owner or operator shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak detection system.
(i) 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.
(ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must produce output of
relative PM emissions.
(iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative PM
emissions over a preset level is detected and the alarm must be located
such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
(iv) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak
detection system must be installed in each baghouse compartment or
cell. If a negative pressure or induced air baghouse is used, the bag
leak detection system must be installed downstream of the baghouse.
Where multiple bag leak detection systems are required (for either type
of baghouse), the system instrumentation and alarm may be shared among
the monitors.
(v) A triboelectric bag leak detection system shall be installed,
operated, adjusted, and maintained in a manner consistent with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency guidance, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). Other bag leak
detection systems shall be installed, operated, adjusted, and
maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations.
(vi) Initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum, consist
of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the range and the
averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set points
and the alarm delay time.
(vii) Following the initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall
not adjust the range, averaging period, alarm setpoints, or alarm delay
time except as detailed in the approved operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan required under paragraph (a) of this section. In no
event shall the range be increased by more than 100 percent or
decreased 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 that the baghouse has been
inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
(2) The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required by
paragraph (a) of this section must specify corrective actions to be
followed in the event of a bag leak detection system alarm. Example
corrective actions that may be included in the plan include the
following:
(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other conditions 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 baghouse 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.
(c)(1) Where an ESP is used to control PM emissions from a glass-
melting furnace, the owner or operator must monitor the ESP according
to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(2)The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan for the ESP must
contain the following information:
(i) The ESP operating parameter(s), such as secondary voltage of
each electrical field, to be monitored and the minimum and/or maximum
value(s) that will be used to identify any operational problems;
(ii) A schedule for monitoring the ESP operating parameter(s);
(iii) Recordkeeping procedures, consistent with the recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 63.1386, to show that the ESP operating
parameter(s) is within the limit(s) established during the performance
test; and
(iv) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of the
ESP.
(d) The owner or operator must measure and record at least once per
shift the temperature 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the
surface of the molten glass in a cold top electric furnace that does
not use any add-on controls to control PM emissions.
(e)(1) Where a glass-melting furnace is operated without an add-on
control device to control PM emissions, the owner or operator must
monitor the glass-melting furnace according to the procedures in the
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(2) The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan for the glass-
melting
[[Page 31712]]
furnace must contain the following information:
(i) The operating parameter(s) to be monitored and the minimum and/
or maximum value(s) that will be used to identify any operational
problems;
(ii) A schedule for monitoring the operating parameter(s) of the
glass-melting furnace;
(iii) Recordkeeping procedures, consistent with the recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 63.1386, to show that the glass-melting furnace
parameter(s) is within the limit(s) established during the performance
test; and
(iv) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of the
glass-melting furnace.
(f)(1) The owner or operator of an existing glass-melting furnace
equipped with continuous glass pull rate monitors must monitor and
record the glass pull rate on an hourly basis. For glass-melting
furnaces that are not equipped with continuous glass pull rate
monitors, the glass pull rate must be monitored and recorded once per
day.
(2) On any new glass-melting furnace, the owner or operator must
install, calibrate, and maintain a continuous glass pull rate monitor
that monitors and records on an hourly basis the glass pull rate.
(g)(1) The owner or operator who uses an incinerator to control
formaldehyde emissions from forming or curing shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures
and records the operating temperature in the firebox of each
incinerator.
(2) The owner or operator must inspect each incinerator at least
once per year according to the procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan. At a minimum, an inspection must
include the following:
(i) Inspect all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing
devices for proper operation and clean pilot sensor, as necessary;
(ii) Ensure proper adjustment of combustion air and adjust, as
necessary;
(iii) Inspect, when possible, internal structures, for example,
baffles, to ensure structural integrity per the design specifications;
(iv) Inspect dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation;
(v) Inspect for proper sealing;
(vi) Inspect motors for proper operation;
(vii) Inspect combustion chamber refractory lining and clean and
repair/replace lining, as necessary;
(viii) Inspect incinerator shell for corrosion and/or hot spots;
(ix) For the burn cycle that follows the inspection, document that
the incinerator is operating properly and make any necessary
adjustments; and
(x) Generally observe that the equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(xi) Complete all necessary repairs as soon as practicable.
(h) The owner or operator who uses a wet scrubbing control device
to control formaldehyde emissions must install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate monitoring devices that continuously monitor and record the
gas pressure drop across each scrubber and scrubbing liquid flow rate
to each scrubber according to the procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan. The pressure drop monitor is to be
certified by its manufacturer to be accurate within 250
pascals (1 inch water gauge) over its operating range, and
the flow rate monitor is to be certified by its manufacturer to be
accurate within 5 percent over its operating range. The
owner or operator must also continuously monitor and record the feed
rate of any chemical(s) added to the scrubbing liquid.
(i)(1) The owner or operator who uses process modifications to
control formaldehyde emissions must establish a correlation between
formaldehyde emissions and a process parameter(s) to be monitored.
(2) The owner or operator must monitor the established parameter(s)
according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(3)The owner or operator must include as part of their operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan the following information:
(i) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of the
process;
(ii) Process parameter(s) to be monitored to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. Examples of
process parameters include LOI, binder solids content, and binder
application rate;
(iii) Correlation(s) between process parameter(s) to be monitored
and formaldehyde emissions;
(iv) A schedule for monitoring the process parameter(s); and
(v) Recordkeeping procedures, consistent with the recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 63.1386, to show that the process parameter
value(s) established during the performance test is not exceeded.
(j) The owner or operator must monitor and record the free-
formaldehyde content of each resin shipment received and used in the
formulation of binder.
(k) The owner or operator must monitor and record the formulation
of each batch of binder used.
(l) The owner or operator must monitor and record at least once
every 8 hours, the product LOI and product density of each bonded wool
fiberglass product manufactured.
(m) For all control device and process operating parameters
measured during the initial performance tests, the owners or operators
of glass-melting furnaces, rotary spin manufacturing lines or flame
attenuation manufacturing lines subject to this subpart may change the
limits established during the initial performance tests if additional
performance testing is conducted to verify that, at the new control
device or process parameter levels, they comply with the applicable
emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. The owner or operator shall conduct
all additional performance tests according to the procedures in this
part 63, subpart A and in Sec. 63.1384.
Sec. 63.1384 Performance test requirements.
(a) The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. Compliance is demonstrated
when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each
of the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. The owner or
operator shall conduct the performance test according to the procedures
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and in this section.
(1) All monitoring systems and equipment must be installed,
operational, and calibrated prior to the performance test.
(2) Unless a different frequency is specified in this section, the
owner or operator must monitor and record process and/or add-on control
device parameters at least every 15 minutes during the performance
tests. The arithmetic average for each parameter must be calculated
using all of the recorded measurements for the parameter.
(3) During each performance test, the owner or operator must
monitor and record the glass pull rate for each glass-melting furnace
and, if different, the glass pull rate for each rotary spin
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line. Record the
glass pull rate every 15 minutes during any performance test required
by this subpart and determine the arithmetic average of the recorded
measurements for each test run and calculate the average of the three
test runs.
[[Page 31713]]
(4) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for each
existing and new glass-melting furnace.
(5) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a glass-
melting furnace controlled by an ESP shall monitor and record the ESP
parameter level(s), as specified in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan, and establish the minimum and/or maximum value(s) that
will be used to demonstrate compliance after the initial performance
test.
(6) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a cold
top electric furnace that is not equipped with an add-on control device
for PM emissions control, must monitor and record the temperature 46 to
61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the molten glass surface to
ensure that the maximum temperature does not exceed 120 deg.C (250
deg.F).
(7) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a glass
melting furnace (other than a cold top electric furnace) that is not
equipped with an add-on control device for PM emissions control, must
monitor and record the furnace parameter level, and establish the
minimum and/or maximum value(s) that will be used to demonstrate
compliance after the initial performance test.
(8) The owner or operator must conduct a performance test for each
rotary spin manufacturing line, subject to this subpart, while
producing the building insulation with the highest LOI expected to be
produced on that line; and for each flame attenuation manufacturing
line, subject to this subpart, while producing the heavy-density
product or pipe product with the highest LOI expected to be produced on
the affected line.
(9) The owner or operator of each rotary spin manufacturing line
and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated by this subpart must
conduct performance tests using the resin with the highest free-
formaldehyde content. During the performance test of each rotary spin
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated
by this subpart, the owner or operator shall monitor and record the
free-formaldehyde content of the resin, the binder formulation used,
and the product LOI and density.
(10) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a rotary
spin manufacturing line or flame attenuation manufacturing line who
plans to use process modifications to comply with the emission limits
in Sec. 63.1382 must monitor and record the process parameter level(s),
as specified in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan, which
will be used to demonstrate compliance after the initial performance
test.
(11) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a rotary
spin manufacturing line or flame attenuation manufacturing line who
plans to use a wet scrubbing control device to comply with the emission
limits in Sec. 63.1382 must continuously monitor and record the
pressure drop across the scrubber, the scrubbing liquid flow rate, and
addition of any chemical to the scrubber, including the chemical feed
rate, and establish the minimum and/or maximum value(s) that will be
used to determine compliance after the initial performance test.
(12) During the performance test, the owner or operator of a rotary
spin manufacturing line or affected flame attenuation manufacturing
line shall continuously record the operating temperature of each
incinerator and record the average during each 1-hour test; the average
operating temperature of the three 1-hour tests shall be used to
monitor compliance.
(13) Unless disapproved by the Administrator, an owner or operator
of a rotary spin or flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated by
this subpart may conduct short-term experimental production runs using
binder formulations or other process modifications where the process
parameter values would be outside those established during performance
tests without first conducting performance tests. Such runs must not
exceed 1 week in duration unless the Administrator approves a longer
period. The owner or operator must notify the Administrator and
postmark or deliver the notification at least 15 days prior to
commencement of the short-term experimental production runs. The
Administrator must inform the owner or operator of a decision to
disapprove or must request additional information prior to the date of
the short-term experimental production runs. Notification of intent to
perform an experimental short-term production run shall include the
following information:
(i) The purpose of the experimental production run;
(ii) The affected line;
(iii) How the established process parameters will deviate from
previously approved levels;
(iv) The duration of the experimental production run;
(v) The date and time of the experimental production run; and
(vi) A description of any emission testing to be performed during
the experimental production run.
(b) To determine compliance with the PM emission limit for glass-
melting furnaces, use the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.040
Where:
E = Emission rate of PM, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of glass pulled;
C = Concentration of PM, g/dscm
(gr/dscf);
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/h (dscf/h);
K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr); and
P = Average glass pull rate, Mg/h (tons/h).
(c) To determine compliance with the emission limit for
formaldehyde for rotary spin manufacturing lines and flame attenuation
forming processes, use the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14JN99.041
Where:
E = Emission rate of formaldehyde, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of glass pulled;
C = Measured volume fraction of formaldehyde, ppm;
MW = Molecular weight of formaldehyde, 30.03 g/g-mol;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/h (dscf/h);
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-mol; and
P = Average glass pull rate, Mg/h (tons/h).
Sec. 63.1385 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The owner or operator shall use the following methods to
determine compliance with the applicable emission limits:
(1) Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the selection of the
sampling port location and number of sampling ports;
(2) Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for volumetric flow rate;
(3) Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for O2
and CO2 for diluent measurements needed to correct the
concentration measurements to a standard basis;
(4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for moisture content of
the stack gas;
(5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the concentration of
PM. Each run shall consist of a minimum run time of 2 hours and a
minimum sample volume of 60 dry standard cubic feet (dscf). The probe
[[Page 31714]]
and filter holder heating system may be set to provide a gas
temperature no greater than 177 14 deg.C (350
25 deg.F);
(6) Method 316 or Method 318 (appendix A of this part) for the
concentration of formaldehyde. Each run shall consist of a minimum run
time of 1 hour;
(7) Method contained in appendix A of this subpart for the
determination of product LOI;
(8) Method contained in appendix B of this subpart for the
determination of the free-formaldehyde content of resin;
(9) Method contained in appendix C of this subpart for the
determination of product density;
(10) An alternative method, subject to approval by the
Administrator.
(b) Each performance test shall consist of 3 runs. The owner or
operator shall use the average of the three runs in the applicable
equation for determining compliance.
Sec. 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
(a) Notifications. As required by Sec. 63.9(b) through (h) of this
part, the owner or operator shall submit the following written initial
notifications to the Administrator:
(1) Notification for an area source that subsequently increases its
emissions such that the source is a major source subject to the
standard;
(2) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where
the initial startup is before June 14, 2002.
(3) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where
the source is new or has been reconstructed, the initial startup is
after June 14, 2002, and for which an application for approval of
construction or reconstruction is not required;
(4) Notification of intention to construct a new major source or
reconstruct a major source; of the date construction or reconstruction
commenced; of the anticipated date of startup; of the actual date of
startup, where the initial startup of a new or reconstructed source
occurs after June 14, 2002, and for which an application for approval
or construction or reconstruction is required (See Sec. 63.9(b)(4) and
(5) of this part);
(5) Notification of special compliance obligations;
(6) Notification of performance test; and (7) Notification of
compliance status.
(b) Performance test report. As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of the
general provisions, the owner or operator shall report the results of
the initial performance test as part of the notification of compliance
status required in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
(c) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and reports. (1) The
owner or operator shall develop and implement a written plan as
described in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of this part that contains specific
procedures to be followed for operating the source and maintaining the
source during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a
program of corrective action for malfunctioning process modifications
and control systems used to comply with the standard. In addition to
the information required in Sec. 63.6(e)(3), the plan shall include:
(i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of the malfunction
and the time the malfunction began and ended;
(ii) Corrective actions to be taken in the event of a malfunction
of a control device or process modification, including procedures for
recording the actions taken to correct the malfunction or minimize
emissions; and
(iii) A maintenance schedule for each control device and process
modification that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions
and recommendations for routine and long-term maintenance.
(2) The owner or operator shall also keep records of each event as
required by Sec. 63.10(b) of this part and record and report if an
action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not
consistent with the procedures in the plan as described in
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv) of this part.
(d) Recordkeeping. (1) As required by Sec. 63.10(b) of this part,
the owner or operator shall maintain files of all information
(including all reports and notifications) required by the general
provisions and this subpart:
(i) The owner or operator must retain each record for at least 5
years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance,
corrective action, report, or record. The most recent 2 years of
records must be retained at the facility. The remaining 3 years of
records may be retained off site;
(ii) The owner or operator may retain records on microfilm, on a
computer, on computer disks, on magnetic tape, or on microfiche; and
(iii) The owner or operator may report required information on
paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and EPA-
compatible computer software.
(2) In addition to the general records required by Sec. 63.10(b)(2)
of this part, the owner or operator shall maintain records of the
following information:
(i) Any bag leak detection system alarms, including 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;
(ii) ESP parameter value(s) used to monitor ESP performance,
including any period when the value(s) deviated from the established
limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when corrective actions
were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an explanation of the
corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the deviation was
corrected;
(iii) Air temperature above the molten glass in an uncontrolled
cold top electric furnace, including any period when the temperature
exceeded 120 deg.C (250 deg.F) at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18
to 24 inches) above the molten glass surface, the date and time of the
exceedance, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the
exceedance, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when
the cause of the exceedance was corrected;
(iv) Uncontrolled glass-melting furnace (that is not a cold top
electric furnace) parameter value(s) used to monitor furnace
performance, including any period when the value(s) exceeded the
established limit(s), the date and time of the exceedance, when
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the exceedance, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the
exceedance was corrected;
(v) The formulation of each binder batch and the LOI and density
for each product manufactured on a rotary spin manufacturing line or
flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to the provisions of this
subpart, and the free formaldehyde content of each resin shipment
received and used in the binder formulation;
(vi) Process parameter level(s) for RS and FA manufacturing lines
that use process modifications to comply with the emission limits,
including any period when the parameter level(s) deviated from the
established limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the
deviation was corrected;
(vii) Scrubber pressure drop, scrubbing liquid flow rate, and any
chemical additive (including chemical feed rate to the scrubber),
including any period when a parameter level(s) deviated from the
established limit(s), the date and time of the deviation, when
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the deviation, an
explanation of
[[Page 31715]]
the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the deviation was
corrected;
(viii) Incinerator operating temperature and results of periodic
inspection of incinerator components, including any period when the
temperature fell below the established average or the inspection
identified problems with the incinerator, 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;
(ix) Glass pull rate, including any period when the pull rate
exceeded the average pull rate established during the performance test
by more than 20 percent, the date and time of the exceedance, when
corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the exceedance, an
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of the
exceedance was corrected.
(e) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v) of
this part, the owner or operator shall report semiannually if measured
emissions are in excess of the applicable standard or a monitored
parameter deviates from the levels established during the performance
test. The report shall contain the information specified in
Sec. 63.10(c) of this part as well as the additional records required
by the recordkeeping requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
When no deviations have occurred, the owner or operator shall submit a
report stating that no excess emissions occurred during the reporting
period.
Sec. 63.1387 Compliance dates.
(a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this subpart by no later than:
(1) June 14, 2002, for an existing glass-melting furnace, rotary
spin manufacturing line, or flame attenuation manufacturing line; or
(2) Upon startup for a new glass-melting furnace, rotary spin
manufacturing line, or flame attenuation manufacturing line.
(b) Compliance extension. The owner or operator of an existing
source subject to this subpart may request from the Administrator an
extension of the compliance date for the emission standards for one
additional year if such additional period is necessary for the
installation of controls. The owner or operator shall submit a request
for an extension according to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(i)(3) of this
part.
Secs. 63.1388--63.1399 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NNN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
General provisions citation Requirement NNN Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)............... 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)(1)-(b)(3)............... Initial Applicability Yes.
Determination.
63.1(c)(1)-(c)(2)............... Applicability After Yes.
Standard Established.
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. 63.1381.
63.3(a)-(c)..................... 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)..................... ........................ Yes.
63.5(a)(1)-(a)(2)............... Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
63.5(b)(1)...................... Existing, New, Yes.
Reconstructed.
63.5(b)(2)...................... ........................ No.................. [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-(b)(6)............... ........................ Yes.
63.5(c)......................... ........................ No.................. [Reserved].
63.5(d)......................... Approval of Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
63.5(e)......................... ........................ Yes.
63.5(f)......................... ........................ Yes.
63.6(a)......................... Compliance with Yes.
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements.
63.6(b)(1)-(b)(5)............... ........................ Yes.
63.6(b)(6)...................... ........................ No.................. [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7)...................... ........................ Yes.
63.6(c)(1)...................... Compliance Date for Yes................. Sec. 63.1387 specifies compliance dates.
Existing Sources.
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. 63.1383 specifies operations/maintenance plan.
63.6(e)(3)...................... Startup, Shutdown Yes.
Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)(1)-(f)(3)............... Compliance with Yes.
Nonopacity Emission
Standards.
[[Page 31716]]
63.6(g)(1)-(g)(3)............... Alternative Nonopacity Yes.
Standard.
63.6(h)......................... Opacity/VE Standards.... No.................. Subpart NNN-no COMS, VE or opacity standards.
63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14).............. Extension of Compliance. Yes.
63.6(i)(15)..................... ........................ No.................. [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)..................... ........................ Yes.
63.6(j)......................... Exemption from Yes.
Compliance.
63.7(a)......................... Performance Testing Yes Sec. 63.1384 has specific requirements.
Requirements.
63.7(b)......................... Notification............ Yes.
63.7(c)......................... Quality Assurance Yes.
Program/Test Plan.
63.7(d)......................... Performance Testing Yes.
Facilities.
63.7(e)(1)-(e)(4)............... Conduct of Performance Yes.
Tests.
63.7(f)......................... Alternative Test Method. Yes.
63.7(g)......................... Data Analysis........... Yes.
63.7(h)......................... Waiver of Performance Yes.
Tests.
63.8(a)(1)-(a)(2)............... Monitoring Requirements. Yes.
63.8(a)(3)...................... ........................ No.................. [Reserved].
63.8(a)(4)...................... ........................ Yes.
63.8(b)......................... Conduct of Monitoring... Yes.
63.8(c)......................... CMS Operation/ Yes.
Maintenance.
63.8(d)......................... Quality Control Program. Yes.
63.8(e)......................... Performance Evaluation Yes.
for CMS.
63.8(f)......................... Alternative Monitoring Yes.
Method.
63.8(g)......................... Reduction of Monitoring Yes.
Data.
63.9(a)......................... Notification Yes.
Requirements.
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.................. Opacity/VE tests not required.
Opacity Test.
63.9(g)......................... Additional CMS Yes.
Notifications.
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.
63.10(b)........................ General Requirements.... Yes.
63.10(c)(1)..................... Additional CMS Yes.
Recordkeeping.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4).............. ........................ No.................. [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)-(c)(8).............. ........................ Yes.
63.10(c)(9)..................... ........................ No.................. [Reserved].
63.10(c)(10)-(15)............... ........................ Yes.
63.10(d)(1)..................... General Reporting Yes.
Requirements.
63.10(d)(2)..................... Performance Test Results Yes.
63.10(d)(3)..................... Opacity or VE No.................. No limits for VE/opacity.
Observations.
63.10(d)(4)..................... Progress Reports........ Yes.
63.10(d)(5)..................... Startup, Shutdown, Yes.
Malfunction Reports.
63.10(e)(1)-(e)(3).............. Additional CMS Reports.. Yes.
63.10(e)(4)..................... Reporting COM Data...... No.................. COM not required.
63.10(f)........................ Waiver of Recordkeeping/ Yes.
Reporting.
63.11(a)........................ Control Device Yes.
Requirements.
63.11(b)........................ Flares.................. No.................. Flares not applicable.
63.12........................... State Authority and Yes.
Delegations.
63.13........................... State/Regional Addresses Yes.
63.14........................... Incorporation by No..................
Reference.
63.15........................... Availability of Yes.
Information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31717]]
Appendix A to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Method for the Determination of
LOI
1. Purpose
The purpose of this test is to determine the LOI of cured
blanket insulation. The method is applicable to all cured board and
blanket products.
2. Equipment
2.1 Scale sensitive to 0.1 gram.
2.2 Furnace designed to heat to at least 540 deg.C (1,000
deg.F) and controllable to 10 deg.C (50 deg.F).
2.3 Wire tray for holding specimen while in furnace.
3. Procedure
3.1 Cut a strip along the entire width of the product that will
weigh at least 10.0 grams. Sample should be free of dirt or foreign
matter.
Note: Remove all facing from sample.
3.2 Cut the sample into pieces approximately 12 inches long,
weigh to the nearest 0.1 gram and record. Place in wire tray. Sample
should not be compressed or overhang on tray edges.
Note: On air duct products, remove shiplaps and overspray.
3.3 Place specimen in furnace at 540 deg.C (1,000 deg.F),
10 deg.C (50 deg.F) for 15 to 20 minutes to insure
complete oxidation. After ignition, fibers should be white and
should not be fused together.
3.4 Remove specimen from the furnace and cool to room
temperature.
3.5 Weigh cooled specimen and wire tray to the nearest 0.1
gram. Deduct the weight of the wire tray and then calculate the loss
in weight as a percent of the original specimen weight.
Appendix B to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Free Formaldehyde Analysis of
Insulation Resins by Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride
1. Scope
This method 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 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 to
determine sample size.
b. If the expected FF is less than 2 percent, go to Part B 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 % 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).
3.4 Measure sample thickness.
3.5 Calculate the product density:
Density (lb/ft3) = area weight (lb/ft2)/
thickness (ft)
5. Appendix A to part 63 is amended by adding in numerical order
methods 316 and 318 to read as follows:
Appendix A To Part 63--Test Methods
* * * * *
Method 316--Sampling and Analysis for Formaldehyde Emissions From
Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries
1.0 Introduction
This method is applicable to the determination of formaldehyde,
CAS Registry number 50-00-0, from stationary sources in the mineral
wool and wool fiber glass industries. High purity water is used to
collect the formaldehyde. The formaldehyde concentrations in the
stack samples are determined using the modified pararosaniline
method. Formaldehyde can be detected as low as 8.8 x
1010 lbs/cu ft (11.3 ppbv) or as high as 1.8 x
103 lbs/cu ft (23,000,000 ppbv), at standard conditions
over a 1 hour sampling period, sampling approximately 30 cu ft.
2.0 Summary of Method
Gaseous and particulate pollutants are withdrawn isokinetically
from an emission source and are collected in high purity water.
Formaldehyde present in the emissions is highly soluble in high
purity water. The high purity water containing formaldehyde is then
analyzed using the modified pararosaniline method. Formaldehyde in
the sample reacts with acidic pararosaniline, and the sodium
sulfite, forming a purple chromophore. The intensity of the purple
color, measured spectrophotometrically, provides an accurate and
precise measure of the formaldehyde concentration in the sample.
3.0 Definitions
See the definitions in the General Provisions of this Subpart.
4.0 Interferences
Sulfite and cyanide in solution interfere with the
pararosaniline method. A procedure to overcome the interference by
each compound has been described by Miksch, et al.
5.0 Safety. (Reserved)
6.0 Apparatus and Materials
6.1 A schematic of the sampling train is shown in Figure 1.
This sampling train configuration is adapted from
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.