[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15228-15270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7214]
[[Page 15227]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 63
_______________________________________________________________________
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories; Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing: Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 15228]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-5695-8]
RIN 2060-AE75
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories; Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources in wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities. The hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted
by the facilities covered by this proposed rule include three metals
(arsenic, chromium, lead) and three organic HAPs (formaldehyde, phenol,
and methanol). Exposure to these HAPs can cause reversible or
irreversible health effects including carcinogenic, respiratory,
nervous system, developmental, reproductive, and/or dermal health
effects. The EPA estimates the proposed NESHAP would reduce nationwide
emissions of HAPs from these facilities by 530 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) (580 tons per year [ton/yr]), an approximate 30 percent reduction
from the current level of emissions. Emissions of particulate matter
(PM) would be reduced by an estimated 760 Mg/yr (840 ton/yr) under the
proposed NESHAP.
The standards are proposed under the authority of section 112(d) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and are based on the Administrator's
determination that wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities may
reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the 188 HAPs listed in the
draft 112(s) Report to Congress from the various process operations
found within the industry. The proposed NESHAP would provide protection
to the public by requiring all wool fiberglass plants that are major
sources to meet emission standards reflecting the application of the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule
until May 30, 1997.
Public hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA no later than April 21, 1997. If a hearing is held, it will take
place at 10 a.m. on April 30, 1997. Persons interested in attending the
hearing should call the contact person listed below to verify that a
hearing will be held.
Request to speak at hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact the person listed below (see ADDRESSES) by April
21, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in
duplicate, if possible) to Docket No. A-95-24 at the following address:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be
sent to the contact person listed below.
Docket. Docket A-95-24, containing supporting information used in
developing the proposed standard, is located at the above address in
Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from
8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of this
information may be obtained by request from the Air Docket by calling
(202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public
hearing by the required date (see DATES), the hearing will be held at
the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. Persons interested in presenting testimony should
contact Ms. Cathy Coats at (919)541-5422.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and any written statements
will be available for public inspection and copying during normal
working hours at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket in Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed regulation, contact Mr. William J. Neuffer, Minerals and
Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5435. For information regarding
Methods 316 and 318, contact Ms. Rima N. Dishakjian, Emissions,
Monitoring, and Analysis Division, telephone number (919) 541-0443.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action
are those industrial facilities that manufacture wool fiberglass.
Regulated categories and entities are shown in Table 1. This table is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers
regarding entities likely to be regulated by final action on this
proposal. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by final action on this proposal. To
determine whether your facility is regulated by final action on this
proposal, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
section III.A of this preamble and in Sec. 63.1380 of the proposed
rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entity category Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial................................ Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Plants (SIC
3296).
Federal Government: Not Affected ............................
State/Local/Tribal Government: Not ............................
Affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Statutory Authority
II. Introduction
A. Background
B. NESHAP for Source Categories
C. Health Effects of Pollutants
D. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Industry Profile
E. Pollution Prevention
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
B. Emission Limits and Requirements
C. Performance Test and Compliance Provisions
D. Monitoring Requirements
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
IV. Impacts of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
B. Air Quality Impacts
C. Water Impacts
D. Solid Waste Impacts
E. Energy Impacts
F. Nonair Environmental and Health Impacts
G. Cost Impacts
H. Economic Impacts
V. Selection of Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Source Category
B. Selection of Emission Sources
C. Selection of Pollutants
D. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources
1. Background
2. Selection of Floor Technologies
3. Emission Limits
E. Selection of Monitoring Requirements
F. Selection of Test Methods
G. Solicitation of Comments
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Public Hearing
[[Page 15229]]
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Clean Air Act
I. Pollution Prevention Act
I. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).
II. Introduction
A. Background
Section 112(c) of the Act directs the Agency to list each category
of major and area sources as appropriate emitting one or more of the
189 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The EPA published an
initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and
may amend the list at any time. ``Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing'' is
one of the 174 categories of sources listed in the notice. As defined
in the EPA report, Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List (docket item II-A-5), the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category includes any facility engaged in producing wool
fiberglass from sand, feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric
acid, or any other materials. Facilities that manufacture mineral wool
from rock, slag, and other similar materials are not included in the
source category. On December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941), EPA published a
schedule for the promulgation of standards for the sources selected for
regulation under section 112(c) of the Act. According to this schedule,
MACT standards for this source category must be promulgated no later
than November 15, 1997.
In the manufacture of wool fiberglass, molten glass is formed into
fibers, which are bonded by an organic resin to produce a wool-like
material used primarily for thermal and acoustical insulation. The EPA
estimates that at the current level of control, 1,770 Mg/yr (1,950 ton/
yr) of metal HAPs and formaldehyde are emitted from glass-melting
furnaces and manufacturing lines in wool fiberglass plants nationwide.
The HAPs released from glass-melting furnaces include arsenic,
chromium, and lead; an estimated 750 Mg/yr (830 ton/yr) of particulate
matter also are emitted. Organic HAPs (formaldehyde, phenol, and
methanol) are released from rotary spin (RS) forming, curing, and
cooling processes and from flame attenuation (FA) forming and curing
processes.
B. NESHAP for Source Categories
Section 112 of the Act requires that EPA promulgate regulations for
the control of HAP emissions from both new and existing major sources.
The statute requires the regulations to reflect the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable taking into
consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any nonair
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This
level of control is commonly referred to as MACT. For new sources, MACT
standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. [See
section 112(d)(3).] The MACT standards for existing sources can be less
stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources for categories and
subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the best-performing 5 sources
for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. In essence,
these MACT standards would ensure that all major sources of air toxic
emissions achieve the level of control already being achieved by the
better controlled and lower emitting sources in each category. This
approach provides assurance to citizens that each major source of toxic
air pollution will be required to effectively control its emissions. At
the same time, this approach provides a level economic playing field,
ensuring that facilities that employ cleaner processes and good
emissions controls are not disadvantaged relative to competitors with
poorer controls.
The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of
technology-based emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f)
and work practice standards under 112(h) for categories of sources that
emit HAPs. Emission reductions may be accomplished through the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques
including, but not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or
eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process changes,
substitution of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclosing
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, capturing,
or treating such pollutants when released from a process, stack,
storage or fugitive emissions point; (4) design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator
training or certification) as provided in subsection (h); or (5) a
combination of the above. [See section 112(d)(2).] The EPA may
promulgate more stringent regulations to address residual risk that
remains after the imposition of controls within 8 years of promulgation
of the NESHAP. [See section 112(f)(2).]
C. Health Effects of Pollutants
The CAA was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' [42 U.S.C.
7401(b)]. This proposed regulation would protect the public health by
reducing emissions of HAPs from wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities. This proposed regulation is technology-based, i.e., based
on MACT.
Emission data collected during development of this proposed NESHAP
show that several HAPs are emitted from wool fiberglass manufacturing
plants and will be reduced by implementation of the standard. The
proposed emission limits would reduce emissions of three particulate
metal HAPs: chromium, arsenic, and lead from glass melting furnaces.
The organic HAPs (formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol) are emitted from
wool fiberglass manufacturing lines and would also be reduced by the
proposed standard. In addition to these HAPs and as a result of the
control of the metal HAPs, the proposed standard also would reduce
emissions of PM, which is regulated under the CAA as a criteria
pollutant, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). More information on PM
can be found in EPA's criteria document for PM emissions. Following is
a summary of the potential health effects caused by exposure to these
pollutants.
Three metals--arsenic, chromium, and lead--appear on the section
112(b) list of HAPs and are emitted from glass melting furnaces. Long-
term inhalation exposure to arsenic is strongly associated with lung
cancer, and also irritates the skin and mucous membranes. The EPA has
classified arsenic as a Class A, known human carcinogen. The effects of
inhaling chromium depend on whether the oxidation state of the metal is
trivalent or hexavalent. Trivalent chromium is an essential nutrient,
and is substantially less toxic than hexavalent chromium. Both types of
chromium irritate the respiratory tract. Hexavalent chromium inhalation
is associated with lung cancer, and EPA has classified it as a Class A,
known human carcinogen. Data are insufficient to classify trivalent
chromium as to human carcinogenicity.
[[Page 15230]]
Lead exposure damages the central nervous system, especially in
children, who may suffer decreased IQ and other neurobehavioral
deficits. Children and adults exposed to higher doses of lead may
experience anemia, kidney damage, and high blood pressure. The EPA has
classified lead as a Class B2, probable human carcinogen, on the basis
of reports of kidney tumors in animal studies. (See docket items II-A-
4, II-A-6, II-A-10, II-I-6, II-I-7, II-I-8.)
Exposure to formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol irritates the eyes,
skin, and mucous membranes and causes conjunctivitis, dermal
inflammation, and respiratory symptoms. Formaldehyde exposure has been
associated with reproductive effects such as menstrual disorders and
pregnancy problems in women workers. The EPA has classified
formaldehyde as a Class B1, probable human carcinogen, on the basis of
findings of nasal cancer in animal studies, and limited human data.
Phenol has been shown to cause damage to the liver, kidney,
cardiovascular system, and central nervous system in animal studies.
Acute exposure to methanol (usually by ingestion) is well-known to
cause blindness and severe metabolic acidosis, sometimes leading to
death. Chronic methanol exposure, including inhalation, may cause
central disturbances possibly leading to blindness. Data are not
sufficient to classify either phenol or methanol as to potential human
carcinogenicity. (See docket items II-A-7, II-A-9, II-I-2, II-I-3, II-
I-4.)
Formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol also are VOCs, which are
precursors to ozone formation. Ambient ozone can cause damage to lung
tissue, reduction of lung function, and increased sensitivity of the
lung to other irritants. Several provisions of the CAA are aimed at
reducing emissions of VOC. Additional information on the health effects
of ozone are included in EPA's Criteria document, which support the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.
The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse health effects
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the
health effects may be experienced is dependent upon (1) the ambient
concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as influenced by emission
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain), (2) the frequency of
and duration of exposures, (3) characteristics of exposed individuals
(e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyles),
and (4) pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life
in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence).
D. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Industry Profile
Wool fiberglass products are primarily used as thermal and
acoustical insulation for buildings, automobiles, aircraft, appliances,
ductwork, and pipes. Other uses include liquid and air filtration.
Approximately 90 percent of the wool fiberglass currently produced is
for building insulation products.
Wool fiberglass is currently manufactured in the United States by
five companies operating 27 plants in 15 states. According to the size
definition applied to this industry by the U.S. Small Business
Administration (750 company employees or less), none of these firms is
classified as a small business. These plants operate a total of 74
manufacturing lines.
Wool fiberglass is manufactured in a process that forms thin fibers
from molten glass. A typical wool fiberglass manufacturing line
consists of the following processes: (1) Preparation of molten glass,
(2) formation of fibers into a wool fiberglass mat, (3) curing the
binder-coated fiberglass mat, (4) cooling the mat (not always present),
and (5) backing, cutting, and packaging. Wool fiberglass manufacturing
plants typically contain one or more manufacturing lines.
Raw materials for the glass batch are weighed, mixed, and conveyed
to the glass melting furnace, which may be gas-fired, electric, or gas
and electric combined. The primary component of wool fiberglass is
sand, but it also includes varying quantities of feldspar, sodium
sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, and many other materials. Cullet,
crushed recycled glass, is a primary component in most batches and is
required by Executive Order for Federal agency purchases and by law in
certain States. Two methods of forming fibers are used in the industry.
In the rotary spin (RS) process, centrifugal force causes molten glass
to flow through small holes in the wall of a rapidly rotating cylinder.
In the flame attenuation (FA) process, molten glass flows by gravity
from a small furnace, or pot, to form threads that are then attenuated
(stretched to the point of breaking) with air and/or flame.
After the fibers are formed, they are sprayed with a binder and
collected as a mat on a moving conveyor. The purpose of the binder is
to hold the fibers together and its composition varies with product
type. Typically, the binder consists of a solution of phenol-
formaldehyde resin, water, urea, lignin, silane, and ammonia. The
conveyor carries the newly formed mat through an oven for curing of the
thermosetting resin and then through a cooling section. Some products
do not require curing and/or cooling. FA manufacturing lines do not
have cooling processes.
No Federal air standards specifically apply to HAP emissions from
wool fiberglass production plants. Emission limits for PM in the new
source performance standards (NSPS) for glass manufacturing plants (40
CFR part 60, subpart CC) are applicable to gas-fired and modified
process glass-melting furnaces in the wool fiberglass industry that
were constructed, modified, or reconstructed after June 15, 1979. The
NSPS for wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing plants (40 CFR part
60, subpart PPP) limits PM emissions from wool fiberglass insulation
manufacturing lines using the RS forming process that were constructed,
modified, or reconstructed after February 7, 1984. The NSPS does not
require controls for VOC or organic HAPs.
As a result of the NSPS and State requirements, PM controls are in
place for most glass-melting furnaces. Of the 56 gas and electric
furnaces (including gas/electric combinations), 37 are equipped with
baghouses or electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). Among those furnaces
without add-on controls are 12 electric furnaces that control PM
emissions through their design and operation.
Controls also are in place for RS manufacturing lines. All 40 RS
forming processes control, to varying degrees, organic emissions using
one or more of the several process modifications available to this
industry. Of the 43 curing ovens, 14 are equipped with a thermal
incinerator. Cooling process emissions are uncontrolled for organic HAP
emissions.
Because of the differences in emissions potential, limitations on
the application of process controls, and the dedication of lines to
certain product categories, FA forming processes are separated into
four subcategories: light density, automotive, heavy density, and pipe
products. None of the light density or automotive FA forming processes
are equipped with HAP controls. In a few instances, FA forming
processes that produce heavy density products, are controlled using
process modifications. All FA forming processes producing pipe products
use process modifications. None of the 31 curing ovens on FA
manufacturing lines are equipped with HAP emission controls.
[[Page 15231]]
E. Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention is a partial basis for the emission standards
for RS and FA manufacturing lines. The emission standard for RS
manufacturing lines is formulated as the sum of the MACT floor emission
levels for forming, curing, and cooling where process modification is
the MACT floor for forming processes, incineration is the MACT floor
for curing ovens, and no control is the MACT floor for cooling
processes. The emission standards for new and existing FA manufacturing
lines producing pipe products and new FA manufacturing lines producing
heavy-density products are the sum of the MACT floor emission levels
for forming and curing (there are no separate cooling processes on FA
manufacturing lines). Process modification is the MACT floor for
forming processes and no control is the MACT floor for curing ovens. By
formulating the standard as a sum of the individual forming, curing,
and cooling MACT floor emission levels for RS manufacturing lines and
forming and curing MACT floor emission levels for certain FA
manufacturing lines, we have allowed tradeoffs for existing facilities
that will accomplish the same environmental results at lower costs and
will encourage process modifications and pollution prevention
alternatives. According to the industry, new RS manufacturing lines may
be able to meet the line standard without the use of costly
incinerators with their energy and other environmental impacts, such as
increased nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur oxides (SOX)
emissions, by incorporating pollution prevention measures. Pollution
prevention alternatives will also increase binder utilization
efficiency and reduce production costs for industry. In selecting the
format of the emission standard for emissions from manufacturing lines,
the EPA considered various alternatives such as setting separate
emission limits for each process, i.e., forming, curing, and cooling. A
line standard gives the industry greater flexibility in complying with
the proposed emission limit and is the least costly because industry
can avoid the capital and annual operating and maintenance costs
associated with the purchase of add-on control equipment.
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
The proposed NESHAP applies to each of the following existing and
newly constructed sources: glass-melting furnaces located at a wool
fiberglass manufacturing plant (Standard Industrial Classification
[SIC] code 3296), RS manufacturing lines that produce building
insulation, and FA manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation. The
proposed NESHAP also applies to new FA manufacturing lines producing
heavy density products. Facilities that manufacture mineral wool from
rock or slag are not subject to the proposed rule but are subject to a
separate NESHAP for mineral wool production. Provisions are included in
the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) for the owner
or operator to obtain a determination of applicability. A facility that
is determined to be an area source would not be subject to the NESHAP.
B. Emission Limits and Requirements
Emission limits for PM are proposed for glass-melting furnaces.
Because the MACT floor for existing and the MACT floor for new glass-
melting furnaces are the same, the same emission limit applies to both
new and existing sources. Emission limits for formaldehyde also are
proposed for each new or existing RS manufacturing line, each new and
existing FA manufacturing line producing pipe insulation, and each new
FA manufacturing line producing heavy density products.
A surrogate approach, where PM serves as a surrogate for HAP metals
and formaldehyde serves as a surrogate for organic HAPs, is employed to
allow easier and less expensive testing and monitoring requirements.
The proposed emission limits are in the same format (mass of emissions
per unit of production) as the existing NSPS for glass-melting furnaces
and for wool fiberglass plants--kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) or pound
per ton (lb/ton) of glass pulled. Application of the proposed emission
limits to the manufacturing line (forming, curing, and cooling) is
consistent with the existing NSPS and the use of a kg/Mg (lb/ton)
format recognizes that common industry practice is to vent more than
one process unit to common ductwork/controls. This format also provides
greater flexibility in achieving compliance with the use of pollution
prevention measures, especially process modifications that provide the
same environmental benefits without the need to purchase add-on control
devices. The proposed emission limits are presented in metric units in
Table 2(a) and English units in Table 2(b).
The proposed emission limits for existing sources are based on the
performance of the control technology identified as the MACT floor. The
MACT floor for existing glass-melting furnaces is an ESP or a baghouse.
Because well-designed and -operated ESPs and baghouses, which are the
MACT floor for existing glass-melting furnaces, represent the best
technologies available for controlling PM emissions, including HAP
metals, the MACT floor for new sources is the same.
Table 2(a).--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for New and Existing
Glass-Melting Furnaces and RS and FA Manufacturing Lines in Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants
[Metric units]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit
Process -------------------------------------------
Existing New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnace..................... 0.25 kg of PM per Mg 0.25 kg of PM per Mg
of glass pulled. of glass pulled.
RS Manufacturing Line....... 0.6 kg of 0.40 kg of
formaldehyde per Mg formaldehyde per Mg
of glass pulled. of glass pulled.
Pipe Insulation Pipe Insulation
FA Manufacturing Line....... 3.4 kg of 3.4 kg of
formaldehyde per Mg formaldehyde per Mg
of glass pulled. of glass pulled.
Heavy Density Heavy Density
None................ 3.9 kg of
formaldehyde per Mg
of glass pulled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15232]]
Table 2(b).--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for New and Existing
Glass-Melting Furnaces and RS and FA Manufacturing Lines in Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants
[English units]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit
Process -------------------------------------------
Existing New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnace..................... 0.50 lb of PM per 0.50 lb of PM per
ton of glass pulled. ton of glass
pulled.
RS Manufacturing Line....... 1.2 lb of 0.80 lb of
formaldehyde per formaldehyde per
ton of glass pulled. ton of glass
pulled.
Pipe Insulation Pipe Insulation
FA Manufacturing Line....... 6.8 lb of 6.8 lb of
formaldehyde per formaldehyde per
ton of glass pulled. ton of glass
pulled.
Heavy Density Heavy Density
None................ 7.8 lb of
formaldehyde per
ton of glass
pulled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MACT floor for each new or existing RS manufacturing line is
represented by the use of process modification(s) for the forming
process and a thermal incinerator for each curing oven. The MACT floor
for cooling processes on RS manufacturing lines is no control because
none of the existing cooling processes are controlled for HAPs.
According to the industry, some existing plants will have to upgrade
their process modifications on forming in order to meet the proposed
emission limit; none will have to install incinerators on curing to
comply with the standard. Process modifications are also the basis for
the proposed MACT floor for forming processes on each new and existing
FA manufacturing line producing pipe insulation and each new FA
manufacturing line producing heavy-density products. Because none of
the curing processes on FA manufacturing lines are controlled, the MACT
floor is no control.
C. Performance Test and Compliance Provisions
A one-time performance test would demonstrate initial compliance
with the proposed emission limits. Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner
or operator would measure PM emissions to the atmosphere from affected
glass-melting furnaces using EPA Method 5 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
and Sec. 63.1389 (Test methods and procedures) of the proposed rule.
EPA Method 316, ``Sampling and Analysis for Formaldehyde from
Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass
Industries,'' or Method 318, ``Extractive FTIR Method for the
Measurement of Emissions from the Mineral Wool and the Wool Fiberglass
Industries'' would be used to measure formaldehyde emissions. Methods
316 and 318 are being proposed concurrently with this proposed rule.
Using information from the tests, the owner or operator would determine
compliance with the applicable emission limit using the instructions
and equations in the proposed NESHAP. During the initial performance
test, the owner or operator also would monitor and record the glass
pull rate of the furnace during each of the three test runs and
determine the emission rate for each run in kilograms (pounds) of
emission per megagram (ton) of glass pulled (kg/Mg [lb/ton]). A
determination of compliance would be based on the average of the three
individual test runs.
If an ESP is used to control emissions from a glass-melting
furnace, the proposed NESHAP requires the owner or operator to
establish the ESP operating parameter(s) that will be used to monitor
compliance. For example, the secondary voltage of each ESP electrical
field may be monitored to determine proper ESP operations. During the
initial performance test, the owner or operator would establish the
parameters and the range of these parameter values to be used to
monitor compliance with the PM emission limit.
If a glass-melting furnace is operated without the use of an add-on
PM control device, the owner or operator must establish the furnace
operating parameter(s) that will be used to monitor compliance. On cold
top electric furnaces, for example, the temperature 18 to 24 inches
above the glass melt may be used to indicate proper furnace operations.
The owner or operator would establish the range of parameter values
during the initial performance test to be used to monitor compliance
with the PM emission limit.
To determine compliance with the proposed emission limits for new
and existing RS manufacturing lines, the owner or operator would
measure formaldehyde emissions to the atmosphere from forming, curing,
and cooling processes and sum the emissions from these processes. For
new and existing FA manufacturing lines producing pipe products and for
new lines producing heavy-density products, the owner or operator would
measure emissions to the atmosphere from the forming and curing
processes and sum the emissions. Using information from the tests, the
owner or operator would convert the emission test results to the units
of the standard using the instructions and equations in the proposed
NESHAP.
The owner or operator would conduct the initial performance test
for each new or existing RS manufacturing line while making building
insulation product. Building insulation is defined in the proposed
NESHAP as wool fiberglass insulation having a loss on ignition (LOI) of
less than 8 percent and a density of less than 0.03 grams per cubic
centimeter (g/cm\3\), or 2 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft\3\). Initial
performance tests for FA manufacturing lines would be conducted on new
lines while manufacturing heavy-density products (LOI of 11 to 25
percent and a density of 0.01 to 0.05 g/cm\3\ [0.5 to 3 lb/ft\3\]) and
on new and existing lines while manufacturing pipe products (LOI of 8
to 14 percent and a density of 0.05 to 0.1 g/cm\3\ [3 to 6 lb/ft\3\]).
During performance tests on RS manufacturing lines producing
building insulation and certain FA manufacturing lines, the owner or
operator would record the LOI of each product for each line tested, the
free formaldehyde content of the resin(s) used during the tests, and
the binder formulation(s) used during the tests. The performance tests
would be conducted using the resin having the highest free formaldehyde
content that the owner or operator expects to use on that line. After
the performance test, if the owner or operator wants to use a resin
with a higher free formaldehyde content or change the binder
formulation, another emission test must be performed to demonstrate
compliance. If the owner or operator uses forming process modifications
to comply, the process parameters (such as binder solids, binder
application rate, or LOI) and their associated levels that will
[[Page 15233]]
be used to monitor compliance must be established during the
performance test. After the performance test, if the owner or operator
wants to operate the forming process parameters outside the performance
test levels, additional performance tests would be required to verify
that the source is still in compliance. If a wet scrubbing control
device is used to control formaldehyde emissions from an RS
manufacturing line producing building insulation or from certain FA
manufacturing lines, the owner or operator must establish the operating
ranges of the pressure drop across each scrubber, the scrubbing liquid
flow rate to each scrubber, and the identity and feed rate of any
chemical additive. The owner or operator of a scrubber would also
monitor and record the LOI, the free formaldehyde content of the resin
used, and the formulation of the binder used during the performance
test. If the owner or operator plans to operate the scrubber in such a
way that the pressure drop, liquid flow rate, or chemical additive or
chemical feed rate exceeds the values established during the
performance tests, additional testing must be performed to demonstrate
compliance.
The proposed rule would allow the owner or operator of RS
manufacturing lines and FA manufacturing lines subject to the NESHAP to
conduct short-term experimental production runs, where the formaldehyde
content or other process parameter deviates from levels established
during previous performance tests, without conducting additional
performance tests. The owner or operator would have to apply for
approval from the Administrator or delegated State agency to conduct
such experimental production runs. The application would include
information on the nature and duration of the test runs including plans
to perform emission testing. Such experimental production runs are
important to industry and allow them to develop new products, improve
existing products, and determine the effects on product quality and on
emissions of process modifications being considered, such as binder
reformulation.
If a thermal incinerator is used to comply with the proposed
emission limit for formaldehyde, the owner or operator would measure
the incinerator operating temperature that will be used to monitor
compliance. During the initial performance test, the owner or operator
would continuously record the incinerator's operating temperature and
determine the average temperature during each 1-hour test run. The
average of the three test runs would be used to monitor incinerator
compliance.
D. Monitoring Requirements
All owners or operators subject to the proposed NESHAP would submit
an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as part of their
application for a part 70 permit. The plan would include procedures for
the proper operation and maintenance of processes and control devices
used to comply with the proposed emission limits as well as the
corrective actions to be taken when control device or process
parameters deviate from allowable levels established during performance
testing. The plan would also identify the control device parameters or
process parameters to be monitored for compliance, a monitoring
schedule, and procedures for keeping records to document compliance.
Under the proposed NESHAP, each baghouse used on a glass-melting
furnace would have installed a bag leak detection system that is
equipped with an audible alarm that automatically sounds when an
increase in particulate emissions above a predetermined level is
detected. The monitor must be capable of detecting PM emissions at
concentrations of 1.0 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.0004 grains
per actual cubic foot) and provide an output of relative or absolute PM
emissions. Such a device would serve as an indicator of the performance
of the baghouse and would provide an indication of when maintenance of
the baghouse is needed. An alarm by itself does not indicate
noncompliance with the PM emission limit. An alarm would indicate an
increase in PM emissions and trigger an inspection of the baghouse to
determine the cause of the alarm. The owner or operator would initiate
corrective actions according to the procedures in their operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan. The source would be considered out of
compliance upon failure to initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of
the alarm. If the alarm is activated for more than 5 percent of the
total operating time during the 6-month reporting period, the owner or
operator must implement a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) consistent
with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each ESP controlling PM emissions from a glass-melting furnace,
the owner or operator would submit as part of their operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan, a description of how the ESP is to be
operated and maintained, the ESP parameter(s) to be monitored, a
monitoring schedule, and recordkeeping requirements that document
compliance. Corrective action would be taken if the range of acceptable
values for the selected ESP operating parameter(s), such as secondary
voltage, established during the initial performance test is exceeded
based on any 3-hour average of the monitored parameter. A deviation
outside the established range would trigger an inspection of the
control device to determine the cause of the deviation and to initiate
corrective actions according to the procedures in the facility's
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. Failure to initiate
corrective actions within 1 hour of the deviation would be considered
noncompliance. If the ESP parameter values are outside the range
established during the performance test for more than 5 percent of
total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or
operator would implement a QIP consistent with subpart D of the draft
approach to compliance assurance monitoring.2 If the ESP parameter
values are outside the range for more than 10 percent of total
operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator
would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator of a glass-melting
furnace whose emissions are not exhausted to an air pollution control
device for PM control, would submit as part of their operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan a description of how the furnace is to
be operated and maintained, the furnace parameter(s) to be monitored
for compliance purposes, a monitoring schedule, and recordkeeping
requirements that document compliance. Corrective action would be taken
if the range of acceptable values for the selected operating
parameter(s), such as air temperature above the glass melt in a cold
top electric furnace, established during the initial performance test
is exceeded based on any 3-hour average of the monitored parameter. A
deviation outside the established range would trigger an inspection of
the glass-melting furnace to determine the cause of the deviation and
to initiate corrective actions according to the procedures in the
facility's operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. Failure to
initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of the deviation would be
considered noncompliance. If the furnace operating
[[Page 15234]]
parameter values are outside the range established during the
performance test for more than 5 percent of total operating time in a
6-month reporting period, the owner or operator would implement a QIP
consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.3 If the furnace parameter values are outside the range
for more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator would continuously
monitor and record the glass pull rate on all existing and new glass-
melting furnaces. The exception to this would be existing furnaces that
do not have continuous monitoring equipment. Such furnaces would
measure the glass pull rate at least once per day. If the pull rate
exceeds by more than 20 percent the average glass pull rate measured
during the performance test, the owner or operator must initiate
corrective actions within 1 hour. If the glass pull rate exceeds (by
more than 20 percent) the average established during the performance
test for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month
reporting period, a QIP must be implemented consistent with subpart D
of the draft approach to compliance assurance monitoring. 4 If the
glass pull rate exceeds (by more than 20 percent) the average
established during the performance test for more than 10 percent of the
total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, it is a violation
of the standard. Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator would
be allowed to do additional performance testing to verify compliance
while operating at glass pull rates that exceed the level established
during the initial performance test. The additional performance testing
would be required to demonstrate compliance with the applicable
formaldehyde emission limits for the affected manufacturing line only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RS manufacturing lines that produce building insulation and certain
FA manufacturing lines would monitor and record the free formaldehyde
content of each resin lot, the binder formulation of each batch, and
product LOI at least once each day. If resin-free formaldehyde content
exceeds the performance test levels, the owner or operator would be in
violation of the standard. Under the proposed NESHAP, the binder
formulation must not deviate from the formulation specifications used
during the performance test.
An owner or operator of affected RS or FA manufacturing lines that
use process modifications to comply with the emission standard would
include in their written operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan
how the process will be operated and maintained and identify the
process parameters to be monitored, a monitoring schedule, and
recordkeeping requirements that document compliance. Examples of
process parameters that might be used to monitor compliance include
product LOI, binder solids, and binder application rate. The plan would
also have to demonstrate that the parameter(s) to be monitored
correlate with formaldehyde emissions. The plan would include
procedures for establishing maximum or minimum values, as appropriate,
based on initial performance testing. Should the process parameter(s)
deviate from the range established during the performance test, the
owner or operator must inspect the process to determine the cause of
the deviation and initiate corrective action within 1 hour of the
deviation. If the process parameter(s) is outside the performance test
range for more than 5 percent of total operating time during a 6-month
reporting period, the owner or operator would implement a QIP
consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring. 5 If the process parameter(s) is outside the range for
more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An owner or operator who uses a wet scrubbing control device to
control formaldehyde emissions from an RS manufacturing line producing
building insulation or from certain FA manufacturing lines would
continuously monitor and record the pressure drop across each scrubber,
the scrubbing liquid flow rate to each scrubber, and the identity and
feed rate of any chemical added to the scrubbing liquid. Under the
proposed monitoring provisions, corrective action would be taken if any
3-hour average scrubber parameter is outside the range of acceptable
values established during the initial performance test. If there was a
deviation outside the established range, the owner or operator would
inspect the process to determine the cause of the deviation and to
initiate corrective actions according to the procedures in the
facility's operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The owner or
operator of the scrubber would be out of compliance upon failure to
initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of the deviation. If any
scrubber parameter is outside the performance test range for more than
5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month reporting period,
the owner or operator would implement a QIP consistent with subpart D
of the draft approach to compliance assurance monitoring. 6 If any
scrubber parameter is outside the range for more than 10 percent of
total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or
operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an incinerator is used to control formaldehyde emissions from a
manufacturing line or from individual forming or curing processes, the
owner or operator would continuously monitor and record the operating
temperature of each incinerator. The temperature monitoring device
would be installed in the incinerator firebox. This is typically done
using a thermocouple (a standard feature on most incinerators) and a
strip chart recorder or data logger. Following the initial performance
test, the owner or operator must maintain the temperature so that the
temperature, averaged over a 3-hour period, does not fall below the
average temperature established during the initial performance test. A
temperature below the performance test average would be considered a
violation of the standard.
The owner or operator may modify any of the control device or
process parameter levels established during the initial performance
tests for compliance monitoring. The proposed NESHAP contains
provisions that would allow the owner or operator to change add-on
control device and process parameter values from those established
during the initial performance tests by performing additional emission
testing to verify compliance.
As required by the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A), the owner or operator must develop and implement a separate
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The plan would include
procedures for the inspection and determination of the cause of a
process or control device malfunction and the corrective procedures to
be followed to remedy the malfunction.
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
All notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the
general
[[Page 15235]]
provisions would apply to wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
These include: (1) initial notification(s) of applicability,
notification of performance test, and notification of compliance
status; (2) a report of performance test results; (3) a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of any
reportable events; and (4) semiannual reports of deviations from
established parameters. If deviations from established parameters are
reported, the owner or operator must report quarterly until a request
to return the reporting frequency to semiannual is approved. In
addition to the requirements of the general provisions, the owner or
operator would maintain records of the following, as applicable:
(1) Bag leak detection system alarms, including the date and time,
with a brief explanation of the cause of the alarm and the corrective
action taken;
(2) ESP monitoring plan parameter values, such as the secondary
voltage of each electrical field, for each ESP used to control PM
emissions from a glass-melting furnace, including any period when the
parameter values deviate from those established during the performance
test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the
corrective action taken;
(3) Uncontrolled glass-melting furnace operating parameter values,
such as the temperature readings taken above the molten glass in cold
top electric furnaces, including any period when the operating
parameter values deviate from those established during the performance
test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the
corrective action taken;
(4) The LOI and product density for each bonded product
manufactured on an RS or FA manufacturing line subject to this NESHAP;
(5) The free formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder
formulation of each batch used in the production of bonded wool
fiberglass on RS or FA manufacturing lines subject to this NESHAP;
(6) Process parameters for RS and FA manufacturing lines that
comply with the emission standards using process modifications,
including any period when the parameter levels deviate from levels
established during the performance test and the corrective actions
taken;
(7) Scrubber pressure drop, scrubbing liquid flow rate, and any
chemical additive (including chemical feed rate to the scrubber),
including any period when the parameter levels deviate from those
established during the performance tests and the corrective action
taken,
(8) Incinerator operating temperature, including any period when
the temperature falls below the average level established during the
performance test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the
deviation and the corrective action taken;
(9) Glass pull rate including any period when the pull rate
exceeded the average pull rate established during the performance test
by more than 20 percent with a brief explanation of the cause of the
exceedance and the corrective action taken.
Initial performance tests and compliance assurance monitoring
requirements for forming process modifications apply only when building
insulation products are being manufactured on RS manufacturing lines
and when pipe products are being manufactured on new and existing FA
manufacturing lines and heavy-density products are being manufactured
on new FA manufacturing lines. The LOI must be monitored to demonstrate
to EPA the products being manufactured and which lines are subject to
the standard. During periods when other products are being
manufactured, it is expected that the parameter values, such as LOI or
binder solids, may vary from those levels established during the
initial performance tests for building insulation on RS manufacturing
lines and heavy-density or pipe products on FA manufacturing lines. The
NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) require that
records be maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each
record. The owner or operator must retain the records onsite for at
least 2 years but may retain the records offsite the remaining 3 years.
The files may be retained on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer,
on computer disks, or on magnetic tape disks. Reports may be made on
paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and
compatible computer software.
IV. Impacts of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability
All plants in the industry would be subject to the proposed NESHAP
unless the owner or operator demonstrates the facility is not a major
source according to the requirements in the NESHAP general provisions.
Seven of the 30 electric or gas/electric combination glass-melting
furnaces are not controlled and are expected to need to install a
baghouse or ESP to comply with the proposed emission limit. All gas-
fired glass-melting furnaces are well controlled and are expected to be
in compliance with the NESHAP. Certain uncontrolled glass-melting
furnaces, such as cold top electric furnaces, maintain low PM emissions
as a result of their design and operation and are expected to meet the
emission limits without the addition of control devices. Some RS
forming processes would need to upgrade their process modifications to
meet the emission limits for manufacturing lines.
B. Air Quality Impacts (Docket Item II-B-22)
Most of the existing glass-melting furnaces are already well
controlled. At the current high level of control, nationwide emissions
of PM are about 750 Mg/yr (830 ton/yr). Because of the existence of
controls on all gas furnaces and the emission limiting design and
operation of cold top electric furnaces, no emission reduction is
expected from gas or cold top electric furnaces under the proposed
NESHAP. There are 30 electric or combination gas/electric furnaces of
which 23 are well controlled. Under the proposed NESHAP, it is expected
that baghouses would be added to the seven uncontrolled electric glass-
melting furnaces, which would result in a reduction in nationwide PM
emissions of 600 Mg/yr (660 ton/yr) of which 40 Mg/yr (50 ton/yr) is
particulate matter less than 10 microns (m) in diameter (PM-
10) (docket item II-B-20). Impacts on new furnaces will vary. New gas-
fired glass-melting furnaces would be adequately controlled, even in
the absence of the proposed NESHAP, as a result of the NSPS for glass
manufacturing plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart CC). Because of their
design and operation, new cold top electric furnaces would meet the
proposed emission limit for new furnaces without add-on controls. Only
new electric furnaces are expected to be impacted by the proposed
emission limits for new glass melting furnaces. New electric glass-
melting furnaces are not subject to the NSPS for glass manufacturing
plants and are likely, under the proposed NESHAP, to need controls to
comply with the emission limit for new furnaces. The PM emission
reduction from new electric glass-melting furnaces resulting from the
proposed emission limit for new furnaces would be 160 Mg/yr (180 ton/
yr) in the fifth year of the standard. Current nationwide emissions of
metal HAPs from existing furnaces is 270 kg/yr (600 lb/yr). Under the
proposed NESHAP, metal HAP emissions from existing furnaces and new
furnaces would be reduced by 9 kg/
[[Page 15236]]
yr (20 lb/yr) and 2 kg/yr (5 lb/yr), respectively.
Nationwide emissions of formaldehyde from existing manufacturing
lines are estimated to be 1,770 Mg/yr (1,950 ton/yr) at the current
level of control. Emissions from RS manufacturing lines account for
about 70 percent of the formaldehyde emissions. Implementation of the
proposed NESHAP would reduce nationwide formaldehyde emissions from
existing sources by 410 Mg/yr (450 ton/yr). Emission reductions from RS
manufacturing lines producing building insulation constitute the entire
reduction; there would be no emission reductions from FA manufacturing
lines because, under the proposed emission limits, no additional
control of FA manufacturing lines is necessary and no new FA
manufacturing lines are anticipated. Reduction in formaldehyde
emissions from new RS manufacturing lines is estimated to be 120 Mg/yr
(130 ton/yr) in the fifth year of the standard. Nationwide baseline
emissions and emission reduction estimates for glass-melting furnaces
and manufacturing lines are summarized in metric units in Table 3(a)
and in English units in Table 3(b).
Table 3(a).--Nationwide Annual Emissions
[Metric units]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Emission
Source Pollutant emissions reduction
(Mg/yr) (Mg/yr)a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass-Melting Furnaces....................... Metal HAP............................ 0.3 0.01
PM................................... 750 760
RS Manufacturing Lines....................... Formaldehyde......................... 1,220 530
FA Manufacturing Lines....................... Formaldehyde......................... 550 0
All Sources.................................. Total HAPs........................... 1,770 530
PM (Non-HAP)......................... 750 760
Total Pollutants..................... 2,520 1,290
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Emission reduction in the fifth year of the standard. Includes emission reductions from new sources.
Table 3(b).--Nationwide Annual Emissions
[English units]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Emission
Source Pollutant emissions reduction
(ton/yr) (ton/yr)a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glass-Melting Furnaces....................... Metal HAP............................ 0.3 0.01
PM................................... 830 840
RS Manufacturing Lines....................... Formaldehyde......................... 1,350 580
FA Manufacturing Lines....................... Formaldehyde......................... 600 0
All Sources.................................. Total HAPs........................... 1,950 580
PM (Non-HAP)......................... 830 840
Total Pollutants..................... 2,780 1,420
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Emission reduction in the fifth year of the standard. Includes emission reductions from new sources.
An analysis of emissions from a medium-sized (27,200 Mg/yr [30,000
ton/yr] capacity) model electric furnace shows that metal HAP emissions
would be reduced by about 0.001 Mg/yr (0.001 ton/yr) and PM emissions
by an estimated 67 Mg/yr (74 ton/yr) from both an existing and a new
electric furnace over an uncontrolled electric furnace. For a medium
model plant (99,800 Mg/yr [110,000 ton/yr] capacity), metal HAP
emissions from existing and new electric furnaces would be reduced by
0.004 Mg/yr (0.004 ton/yr) over a plant with uncontrolled electric
furnaces; PM emissions would be reduced by an estimated 250 Mg/yr (270
ton/yr). Under the proposed NESHAP, there would be no emission
reductions associated with existing gas-fired or cold top electric
furnaces because all gas furnaces are already well controlled and no
additional controls would be required for cold top electric furnaces to
meet the proposed emission limits. Because new gas furnaces would be
controlled as a result of the NSPS for glass manufacturing sources (40
CFR part 60, subpart CC), no additional emission reductions from new
gas furnaces would occur under the proposed NESHAP. As with existing
cold top electric furnaces, new cold top electric furnaces would be
able to meet the proposed emission limit without additional control.
Based on model line and plant analyses, formaldehyde emissions from
a medium-sized (27,200 Mg/yr [30,000 ton/yr] capacity) RS manufacturing
line producing building insulation would be reduced by an estimated 8
Mg/yr (9 ton/yr). Emissions of formaldehyde from a medium-sized plant
(99,800 Mg/yr [110,000 ton/yr] capacity) containing two large RS
manufacturing lines would be reduced by an estimated 30 Mg/yr (33 ton/
yr). Formaldehyde emissions from a new RS manufacturing line would be
reduced an estimated 33 Mg/yr (37 ton/yr). No emission reduction would
be achieved for new or existing medium-sized FA manufacturing lines
producing pipe insulation since there would be no additional controls
under the proposed NESHAP. The formaldehyde emission reduction from a
new medium-sized (1,800 Mg/yr [2,000 ton/yr] production capacity) FA
manufacturing line producing heavy-density products would total about
2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr) although no new FA manufacturing lines are
projected. Additional information on model plants and lines is included
in the docket.
Because EPA proposes to regulate formaldehyde emissions as a
surrogate measure for organic HAP emissions from manufacturing lines,
only formaldehyde emissions data are presented here, although when the
formaldehyde emission limit is met, phenol and methanol emissions will
also be reduced. Where incineration is used to control formaldehyde
emissions
[[Page 15237]]
from curing, emissions of phenol and methanol will also be controlled.
Emissions data to quantify the degree of reduction in emissions of
phenol and methanol as a result of increased levels of forming process
modifications are not available. The results of emissions tests
conducted at wool fiberglass manufacturing plants, including phenol and
methanol test results, are contained in the docket.
C. Water Impacts
Because this standard is based on the use of baghouses, dry ESPs,
thermal incinerators, and process modifications, there are no water
pollution impacts. A few existing emission sources may use scrubbers to
control HAP emissions although no additional sources are expected to
add wet scrubbers for the control of HAP emissions. Therefore, no water
impacts are expected from the proposed rule.
D. Solid Waste Impacts
The PM captured by the baghouses added to the seven uncontrolled
electric furnaces will be recycled to the furnace and no solid or
hazardous waste is generated by the use of thermal incinerators. No
solid waste impacts are expected from the proposed rule.
E. Energy Impacts (Docket Item II-B-22)
Baghouses require electrical energy to operate fans. The additional
electrical energy requirements are estimated to be 1.8 thousand
megawatt hours per year (MWh/yr) over current requirements for seven
additional baghouses to be added to existing sources. Emissions of PM
associated with the additional energy requirements are estimated to be
0.1 ton/yr as compared to the PM emission reduction of 700 ton/yr
estimated for installing the seven baghouses on uncontrolled furnaces.
Projected new RS manufacturing lines would comply with the proposed
standard for new sources using process modifications on forming and
incinerators on curing. An additional 2.9 thousand MWh/yr for
electricity and 290 billion Btu/yr of natural gas would be required for
new incinerators although process modifications only may be used to
comply with the proposed standard for new RS manufacturing lines. The
total additional energy required as a result of this proposed NESHAP is
300 billion Btu/yr in the fifth year of the standard. No new FA
manufacturing lines are projected; thus there are no increased energy
requirements under the proposed standard for new FA manufacturing
lines.
F. Nonair Environmental and Health Impacts
Reducing HAP levels may help lower occupational exposure levels and
site-specific levels of PM and VOCs. New or upgraded process
modifications for forming operations would decrease the quantity of HAP
constituents in binder formulations. The addition of baghouses, ESPs,
and incinerators may increase noise levels in the plant area due to the
operation of pollution control devices where none are currently in
place.
G. Cost Impacts
The EPA analyzed the cost impacts of the proposed standards for
glass-melting furnaces by developing model lines based on site-specific
information included in the ICR survey responses (docket item II-B-21)
coupled with cost algorithms from the OAQPS Cost Manual (docket item
II-A-3). The cost impacts of the proposed standards on wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities are based on estimates supplied by wool
fiberglass companies for each of their manufacturing lines (docket item
II-D-65).
The total nationwide capital and annual costs for existing glass-
melting furnaces under the proposed NESHAP are $3.2 million and $1.5
million, respectively. This represents the cost of adding baghouses to
seven electric glass-melting furnaces as well as the monitoring costs
of bag leak detection systems installed on baghouses and temperature
monitors installed on cold top electric furnaces. Control cost
estimates assume the addition of pulse jet baghouses with polyester
filter bags, an air-to-cloth ratio of 0.9 actual cubic meters per
minute per square meter (3 acfm/ft\2\), and a pressure drop of 20 cm (8
in.) of water column. The estimated capital and annual costs of control
equipment for a medium electric furnace (production capacity of 30,000
ton/yr) are $432,000 and $209,000, respectively. The capital cost
includes the cost of the control device, auxiliary equipment, and
installation, and retrofit costs. The model furnace cost estimates do
not include the capital and annual costs for a bag leak detection
system required on all baghouses under the proposed NESHAP. The EPA
estimates the capital cost of this monitoring system to be
approximately $9,100 per furnace, with $1,800/yr in annual costs. Cold
top electric furnaces would incur costs for monitoring an operating
parameter that gives an indication of furnace performance; for cost
estimating purposes, the cost of monitoring the air temperature above
the molten glass surface was used. The estimated capital and annual
costs of monitoring the temperature of cold top electric furnaces are
$1,500 and $240, respectively. For ESPs, owners or operators are
expected to monitor ESP parameters that they commonly monitor, such as
secondary voltage, so that no additional monitoring costs would be
incurred. Because the NSPS for glass manufacturing sources would
regulate any new gas furnaces, there would be no additional control
costs for new gas furnaces under the proposed NESHAP. The NSPS for
glass manufacturing sources does not cover electric furnaces. Thus,
under the proposed NESHAP, new electric furnaces will incur the cost
associated with adding baghouses as well as bag leak detection
monitoring systems. The capital and annual costs associated with a new
baghouse would be $288,000 and $189,000, respectively in addition to
the capital and annual costs of a bag leak detection system, $9,100 and
$1,800, respectively.
Based on information supplied by the North American Insulation
Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), 30 RS forming operations would
upgrade their proprietary process modifications to meet the proposed
emission limit for RS manufacturing lines; none of the existing curing
ovens that are uncontrolled for HAPs would have to add an incinerator.
No control costs are associated with complying with the proposed NESHAP
for FA manufacturing lines. The proposed monitoring requirements for RS
and FA manufacturing lines, i.e., monitoring resin free-formaldehyde
content, product LOI and density, other process parameters, and
incinerator operating temperature, are current industry practices and
would not impose any additional costs. However, NAIMA estimates that
there would be a one-time cost per line for testing that would be
needed to establish a correlation between formaldehyde emissions and
the process parameters to be monitored.
NAIMA estimated the costs of complying with the proposed standard
for RS manufacturing lines for each of their lines. Capital costs per
line ranged from $150,000 to $4 million and annual expenses per line
ranged from $100,000 to $400,000. Nationwide capital costs of upgrading
process modifications on 30 RS manufacturing lines were estimated at
$16.3 million with annual costs of $4.8 million. Annual cost for new RS
manufacturing lines is estimated to be $0.9 million per line. No FA
lines would require additional controls under the proposed standard and
there would be no additional control costs. For all RS and FA
manufacturing lines subject
[[Page 15238]]
to the standard, there would be a one-time cost of $15,000 per line to
establish the process parameter values for compliance monitoring.
Because the process parameters that are likely to be used for
compliance monitoring are ones that industry currently monitors, no
additional costs will be incurred for monitoring beyond the one-time
cost of $15,000 per line.
Total nationwide capital costs for the standard are estimated at
$19.5 million and annual nationwide costs are estimated at $6.3
million/yr, including installation, operation, and maintenance of
emission control and monitoring systems.
H. Economic Impacts (Docket Item II-A-12)
The economic analysis of the proposed NESHAP finds impacts at the
facility and market-level to be modest. The average market price
increases for both structural and nonstructural wool fiberglass would
be less than 0.5 percent. The resultant decreases in quantity demanded
range from 0.17 percent for structural insulation markets to 0.22
percent for nonstructural insulation markets. None of the affected
firms are classified as small businesses and no closures are predicted.
For more detail, see the full economic impact analysis in the docket.
V. Selection of Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Source Category
Section 112(c) of the Act directs the Agency to list each category
of major and area sources, as appropriate, emitting one or more of the
189 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The EPA published an
initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and
may amend the list at any time. ``Wool Fiberglass Production'' is one
of the 174 source categories listed in the notice.
As defined in the EPA report, ``Documentation for Developing the
Initial Source Category List'' (docket item II-A-5), the Wool
Fiberglass Production source category includes any facility engaged in
producing wool fiberglass from sand, feldspar, sodium sulfate,
anhydrous borax, boric acid, or any other materials. Facilities that
manufacture mineral wool from rock, slag, and other similar materials
are not included in the source category. A separate MACT standard for
mineral wool production is currently under development.
Before this project began, no formaldehyde test methods and no HAP
data were available to assess the effectiveness of control devices in
this industry for controlling HAP emissions. The EPA and the wool
fiberglass industry worked in a partnership to address the data needs
for the purpose of establishing a MACT standard. Through a cooperative
effort, EPA and NAIMA developed methods for measuring formaldehyde
emissions from wool fiberglass manufacturing processes. Using
information supplied voluntarily by industry for each wool fiberglass
manufacturing line, EPA identified processes and control systems as
candidates for emissions testing that were considered representative of
the MACT floor and MACT for new sources. EPA and the industry were able
to obtain the necessary emissions data as a result of these cooperative
efforts.
Based on the information collected, EPA believes it is likely that
all but three wool fiberglass plants are major sources subject to the
proposed NESHAP. A major source must have the potential to emit 9.1 Mg/
yr (10 ton/yr) or more of a single HAP or 23 Mg/yr (25 ton/yr) or more
of a combination of HAPs. Three facilities (each with one line
producing bonded products) may be area sources. At these sites, two of
the three glass-melting furnaces and all three RS forming processes are
controlled at the MACT floor level. Because these facilities are not
believed to present an adverse environmental or health risk, EPA has
determined that it is not necessary to include these wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities on the list of area sources required by
section 112(c)(3) of the Act.
On December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941), EPA published a schedule for the
promulgation of standards for the sources selected for regulation under
section 112(c) of the Act. According to this schedule, MACT standards
for this source category must be promulgated no later than November 15,
1997. If standards are not promulgated by May 15, 1999 (18 months
following the promulgation deadline), section 112(j) of the Act
requires States or local agencies with approved permit programs to
issue permits or revise existing permits containing either an
equivalent emission limitation or an alternate emission limitation for
HAP control. (See ``Guidelines for MACT Determinations Under Section
112(j),'' EPA 453/R-94-026, May 1994.)
B. Selection of Emission Sources
The wool fiberglass manufacturing source category, as defined in
the EPA report, ``Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List,'' includes, but is not limited to: (1) The glass-melting
furnace, (2) marble forming, (3) refining unit, (4) fiber formation
process, (5) binder application process, (6) curing process, and (7)
cooling process. For the reasons described below, EPA selected the
forming, curing, and cooling processes on new and existing RS
manufacturing lines and the forming and curing processes on existing FA
manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation and on new FA
manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation or heavy-density products
for control under the proposed NESHAP. The proposed NESHAP also covers
glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities.
Glass-melting furnaces are generally large, shallow, and well-
insulated vessels that are heated from above by gas burners or from
within by electrical current. About 66 percent of the glass-melting
furnaces used in the wool fiberglass industry are all-electric, about
25 percent are gas-fired and about 9 percent are a combination of gas
and electric. Glass pull rates for furnaces range from 18 to 272 Mg/d
(20 to 300 ton/d).
In the glass-melting furnaces, raw materials (e.g., sand, feldspar,
sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid) are introduced
continuously or in batches on top of a bed of molten glass, where they
mix and dissolve at temperatures ranging from 1,500 deg.C to 17,00
deg.C (2,700 deg.F to 3,100 deg.F), and are transformed by a series
of chemical reactions to molten glass. Particulate emissions are caused
by entrainment of dust from batch dumping and the combustion process
and from volatilization of raw materials. Emissions of chromium result
from entrainment of materials eroded from the refractory lining of the
furnace and the furnace exhaust stack. Lead and arsenic are released
from the batch materials and from the use of contaminated cullet
(crushed recycled glass). Glass-melting furnaces may be either gas-
fired, electric, or a combination of gas and electric. Emissions from
glass-melting furnaces are typically controlled by baghouses or dry
ESPs. One type of electric furnace, the cold top electric furnace, has
low PM emissions without add-on controls as a result of its design.
Operators of these units maintain a thick crust of raw materials on top
of the molten glass, which impedes the release of heat and keeps the
air temperature above the molten glass at or below 120 deg.C (250
deg.F).
One of two methods may be used for the next stage of the process,
fiber formation. In an RS forming process, a regulated flow of molten
glass enters the center of a rotating spinner. Spinners are in a linear
arrangement, with 2 to 12 spinners on a single line. Centrifugal action
forces the molten glass out of the
[[Page 15239]]
spinners through hundreds of small orifices in the spinner wall to form
glass threads. As the threads exit the spinner, a high-velocity air jet
or a mixture of air and natural gas flame forces the threads downward,
which attenuates the threads to form glass fibers.
In the FA forming process, also known as the ``pot and marble''
process, glass marbles that were produced at separate on- or offsite
facilities are fed into ceramic pots (typically 6 to 28 pots per line)
that are heated to a high temperature. Glass strands flow by gravity
down through holes in the bottom of the pot and are directed by pinch
rollers. Following the pinch rollers, a high-velocity, high-temperature
mixture of air and gas flame is used to attenuate the fibers.
Particulate and organic emissions are released during the fiber-forming
process due to volatilization of raw materials and entrainment of
fiberglass particles in the process air stream.
After the fibers are formed, they are sprayed with a binder. A
typical binder consists of phenol-formaldehyde resin, water, urea,
lignin, silane, and ammonia. The binder composition used in the RS and
FA forming process is similar. Air, at a flow rate ranging from about
430 to 5,100 actual cubic meters per minute (15,000 to 180,000 acfm),
forces the fibers downward onto a continuously moving conveyor to form
a mat, which is conveyed to the curing oven. Emissions of formaldehyde,
phenol, and methanol occur as a result of the vaporization of the
volatile binder as it comes in contact with hot fibers and as a result
of binder that is not deposited on the mat but passes through the
conveyor and is exhausted to the atmosphere. HAP emissions from forming
are controlled by process modifications, such as resin and binder
chemistry and fiberization technology.
The curing oven drives off moisture remaining on the fibers and
sets the binder. The temperature of the curing oven varies for each
product, ranging from about 180 deg.C to 320 deg.C (350 deg.F to 600
deg.F). Fans are used to draw hot air through the mat within each of
the oven zones; the hot air may be recycled within each zone to
conserve energy. The total air flow exiting the oven ranges from about
200 to 850 actual cubic meters per minute (7,000 to 30,000 acfm) for
the RS process and from 85 to 480 actual cubic meters per minute (3,000
to 17,000 acfm) for the FA process. Emissions of formaldehyde, phenol,
and methanol are the result of vaporization of volatile compounds in
the binder. Emissions from about one-third of the curing ovens on RS
manufacturing lines are controlled by thermal incinerators; the
remainder are uncontrolled for organic HAP emissions. None of the
curing ovens on FA manufacturing lines are controlled for organic HAPs.
The quantity of binder solids sprayed onto the glass fibers is
governed by the type of product being manufactured. Typically, about 70
percent of the binder applied to the fiberglass remains on the product.
The remainder remains on the conveyor and is recycled back into the
process via the wash water or is exhausted with the forming or curing
oven air. Quality control checks are routinely performed to determine
the product LOI, which ensures that the correct weight percent of
binder is present in the product.
After curing, the fiber mat is conveyed to a cooling section, where
ambient air is forced through the mat to eliminate ``hot spots'' in the
product and to facilitate finishing and packaging. Cooling air flow
rates range from 140 to 990 actual cubic meters per minute (5,000 to
35,000 acfm). By the time the mat with its thermally set binder reaches
cooling, emissions of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol are relatively
small compared to forming and curing. Cooling processes are not
controlled for HAP emissions. Most FA manufacturing lines do not have
cooling sections because the product is able to cool adequately between
exiting the curing oven and reaching the finishing and handling
sections.
At the current level of control, existing glass-melting furnaces
emit approximately 270 kg/yr (600 lb/yr) of HAP and 750 Mg/yr (830 ton/
yr) of PM. Under the proposed NESHAP, EPA expects that seven currently
uncontrolled electric furnaces would install controls. Electric
furnaces (excluding cold top electric furnaces) emit an estimated 9 kg/
yr (20 lb/yr) of HAP and about 635 Mg/yr (700 ton/yr) of PM. Control of
these furnaces would ensure that all furnaces are controlled to the
MACT floor emission level.
Existing cold top electric furnaces (air temperature above the
molten glass of 120 deg.C [250 deg.F] or less) are not equipped with
add-on control devices. Particulate emissions from the 12 existing cold
top electric furnaces are limited by the thick crust maintained on the
molten glass surface. Emissions are estimated to be 27 kg/yr (60 lb/yr)
of HAP and about 55 Mg/yr (60 ton/yr) of PM. These furnaces are
expected to comply with the proposed emission limit without the need
for add-on control devices. The EPA considered requiring controls for
cold top electric furnaces and has determined that the cost
effectiveness of additional controls beyond the floor is not
reasonable.
Manufacture of wool fiberglass releases an estimated 1,770 Mg/yr
(1,950 ton/yr) of formaldehyde from RS and FA manufacturing lines. The
Agency selected forming, curing, and cooling processes on all new and
existing RS manufacturing lines and forming and curing processes on
existing FA manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation and new FA
manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation or heavy-density products
for control under the proposed NESHAP. Because no controls are
currently used, the MACT floor is no control and because the cost
effectiveness of additional controls beyond the floor is not
reasonable, the Agency is not setting emission limits for existing FA
manufacturing lines producing light-density, automotive, or heavy-
density products or new FA manufacturing lines producing light-density
or automotive products. Because no plants have equipped forming or
curing processes on these manufacturing lines with emission controls,
the MACT floor is no control. The EPA considered beyond-the-floor
controls for both RS and FA manufacturing lines and has determined that
the cost effectiveness of additional controls does not justify going
beyond the floor.
C. Selection of Pollutants
The EPA proposes to regulate emissions of formaldehyde, a HAP and
surrogate for phenol and methanol emissions, and PM emissions, a
surrogate for metal HAP emissions. Formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, and
the metal HAPs are included on the list of HAPs under section 112(b) of
the Act and are emitted from wool fiberglass manufacturing sources.
Formaldehyde is the only organic HAP emitted from the wool
fiberglass industry that has been identified to be a potential
carcinogen. EPA proposes to regulate emissions of formaldehyde, phenol,
and methanol using formaldehyde as a surrogate measure for the proposed
emission limits for manufacturing lines. Use of formaldehyde as a
surrogate allows a single emission limit rather than individual
emission limits for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol (which would
require separate measurements) because when the formaldehyde emission
limit is met, phenol and methanol emissions will also be reduced.
[[Page 15240]]
D. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources
1. Background
After EPA has identified the specific source categories or
subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, MACT
standards must be set for each category or subcategory. Section 112
establishes a minimum baseline or ``floor'' for standards. For new
sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory cannot be
less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice
by the best-controlled similar source. [See section 112(d)(3).] The
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more
sources, or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
After the floor has been determined for a new or existing source in
a source category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT
standards that are no less stringent than the floor. Such standards
must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. In
establishing the standards, EPA may distinguish among classes, types,
and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory. [See section
112(d)(1).]
The next step in establishing MACT standards is to investigate
regulatory alternatives. With MACT standards, only alternatives at
least as stringent as the floor may be selected. Information about the
industry is analyzed to develop model plants for projecting national
impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels and cost, energy, and
secondary impacts. Regulatory alternatives (which may be different
levels of emissions control, equal to or more stringent than the floor
levels) are then evaluated to select the regulatory alternative that
best reflects the appropriate MACT level. The selected alternative may
be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the control level selected
must be technologically achievable. The regulatory alternatives and
emission limits selected for new and existing sources may be different
because of different MACT floors.
The Agency may consider going beyond the floor to require more
stringent controls. Here, EPA considers the achievable emission
reductions of HAPs (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled), cost and economic impacts, energy impacts, and other
nonair environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve the maximum
degree of emissions reduction without unreasonable economic or other
impacts. [See section 112(d)(2).] Subcategorization within a source
category may be considered when there is enough evidence to demonstrate
clearly that there are significant differences among the subcategories.
The EPA examined the processes, the process operations, and other
factors to determine if separate classes of units, operations, or other
criteria have an effect on air emissions or their controllability. The
EPA considered developing subcategories of glass-melting furnaces on
the basis of the energy sources used to convert the raw materials to
molten glass and their emission potential. Glass-melting furnaces are
typically either gas-fired, electric, or a combination of gas and
electric. After examining PM emissions data for gas, electric, and
combination gas and electric furnaces, EPA concluded that there is a
large amount of variability in PM emissions regardless of energy source
and that most furnaces are already well controlled by either ESPs or
baghouses. Therefore, EPA decided not to develop subcategories of
glass-melting furnaces.
Wool fiberglass manufacturing lines can be classified by the type
of forming process (RS and FA) used. Approximately 90 percent of the
wool fiberglass manufactured by the RS forming process is building
insulation, whereas the wool fiberglass manufactured by the FA forming
process is specialty products, such as automotive or filtration
products. Because of the type of products, the RS and FA forming
process differ significantly in the way fibers are formed, production
rates, air flow and energy expended per ton of product, application of
process modifications, and the amount of binder applied to the wool
fiberglass. As a result of these differences in manufacturing
methodologies, levels of pollutant emissions, and application of
controls (such as process modifications), EPA subcategorized
manufacturing lines into those using the RS forming process (RS
manufacturing lines) and those using the FA forming process (FA
manufacturing lines). RS manufacturing lines consist of forming,
curing, and cooling. FA manufacturing lines consist of forming and
curing processes; cooling is not a distinct separate process on FA
manufacturing lines. FA manufacturing lines can be further
subcategorized by the type of specialty product made. The FA
subcategories include light-density, heavy-density, automotive, and
pipe insulation products. Each of these subcategories is characterized
by a specific range of LOIs and densities, which gives each subcategory
a different emission potential. Also, the control measures that can be
used to reduce HAP emissions, for example, process modifications, are
different for the FA subcategories. For all these reasons, the proposed
standards have different emission limits for RS manufacturing lines and
FA manufacturing lines and, within the FA subcategory, different
emission limits for two FA subcategories.
2. Selection of Floor Technologies
In establishing these proposed emission standards, the add-on or
process control technology representative of the MACT floor was
determined for each subcategory. In general, these determinations were
made on the basis of the performances of the technologies as reported
by emission test results. The technologies determined to be the MACT
floors are those determined to be the median of the technologies that
are representative of the best performing 12 percent of the sources
(for which there are emissions data) where there are more than 30
sources in the subcategory or the best performing five sources (for
which there are emissions data) where there are fewer than 30 sources.
Of the 56 existing glass-melting furnaces, 12 are controlled by
ESPs and 25 by baghouses (more than one furnace may be controlled by a
single control device). PM emissions data are available for 18
furnaces. Because the number of furnaces is greater than 30, the MACT
floor is represented by the average of the best performing 12 percent
of the existing sources. Based on PM emissions data for the best
performing 12 percent, baghouses and ESPs are equally effective in
controlling PM emissions from glass-melting furnaces. Therefore, the
MACT floor for existing glass-melting furnaces is represented by well-
designed and operated baghouses and ESPs. An ESP representative of the
MACT floor will have a specific collection area of 32 square meters per
1,000 actual cubic meters per hour (590 ft \2\/1,000 acfm); a baghouse
representative of the MACT floor is a pulse-jet baghouse with polyester
bag material and an air-to-cloth ratio of 0.9 actual cubic meters per
minute per square meter (3 acfm/ft \2\ ). Because the same well-
designed and -operated baghouses and ESPs are considered by EPA to be
the best control technology for PM emissions, including metal HAP
emissions, MACT for new furnaces
[[Page 15241]]
would be the same as the MACT floor for existing sources, a baghouse or
an ESP.
HAP emissions control on RS forming processes is achieved by
process modifications including resin and binder chemistry,
fiberization technology, binder application, and forming conditions
(docket item II-D-62). Resins are manufactured by an outside supplier
or in-house using proprietary technologies to meet the specifications
of the wool fiberglass manufacturer. Variables, such as the phenol-to-
formaldehyde mole ratio, resin cook procedures, and catalysts, control
both the free-formaldehyde and phenol levels as well as the types and
relative percentage of phenol oligomers, all of which influence the
levels of emissions and acceptability of a resin for a given process.
Resin purchase specifications are typically written so that the free-
formaldehyde content is ``not to exceed'' a certain level. In binder
chemistry, the addition of various additives can reduce formaldehyde
emissions. Urea, for example, added to the binder solution reacts with
free formaldehyde, which can form stable, nonreversible urea
formaldehyde compounds. In fiberization technology, temperature of the
fiber veil is a critical process variable (a lower temperature may
reduce HAP volatilization) affected by the fiberizer design and
operation as well as by air and water treatment of the fiber veil.
Binder application efficiency, the amount of binder that stays on the
fiberglass, is increased by matching binder droplet size to the fiber
diameter. Factors such as nozzle size geometry, configuration of the
nozzle assembly, and location affect binder droplet size. Forming
conditions, such as air volume and velocity affect binder application
efficiency; too much or too little air flow can increase emissions.
Each of these process modifications has been implemented on each of the
40 RS forming processes, although the degree to which each process
modification has been implemented is different for each line. Add-on
controls such as wet scrubbers or wet ESPs, primarily for PM control,
were shown to be ineffective for gaseous HAP removal. Thus, the MACT
floor for forming on existing RS manufacturing lines is represented by
process modifications. Because the number of RS forming sources, 40, is
greater than 30, the MACT floor is represented by the median of the
best performing 12 percent of existing sources, or five sources
(40x0.12=4.8). Based on HAP emissions data for the best performing 12
percent of existing sources, process modifications are the MACT floor
for forming processes on RS manufacturing lines. Because of differences
in application between companies and because of the proprietary nature
of process modifications, a detailed description of forming process
modifications cannot be presented.
Of the 43 curing ovens on RS manufacturing lines, 14 are controlled
using incinerators. Based on the median of the top 12 percent, the
thermal incinerator is the MACT floor for curing processes on existing
RS manufacturing lines. Thermal incinerators have been shown to be
highly effective in the control of emissions of organic HAPs and can
achieve destruction efficiencies in excess of 98 percent with an
adequately high temperature, good mixing, sufficient oxygen, and
adequate residence time. Low organic concentration gas streams, such as
those emitted from wool fiberglass curing processes, can be expected to
have low heating values and require auxiliary fuel. Heat recovery
through the use of a recuperative incinerator can reduce the energy
requirements. Emission test measurements demonstrate that a thermal
incinerator is at least 99 percent effective in the removal of
formaldehyde and phenol from curing ovens. Based on the median of the
best performing 12 percent of existing sources, a thermal incinerator
representative of the MACT floor has a combustion temperature of 700
deg.C (1,300 deg.F) and a gas residence time of 1 second.
While the MACT floor for cooling is no control, cooling is included
in the definition of RS manufacturing line, and therefore covered as
part of the proposed RS manufacturing line standard. This inclusion
prevents the shifting of emissions from forming and curing to the
cooling section.
The EPA's analysis of MACT floor control options for existing RS
manufacturing lines (described above) showed that the median of the
best performing 12 percent of existing forming processes control HAP
emissions using process modifications and the median of the best
performing 12 percent of existing curing ovens are controlled by
incinerators. As a result, the MACT floor for RS manufacturing lines is
forming process modifications coupled with an incinerator for curing
emissions. These controls were determined to be the most efficient for
the control of HAPs among the various controls used in the industry for
existing RS manufacturing lines. Based on the best controlled source,
MACT for new RS manufacturing lines is more stringent than the MACT
floor for existing RS manufacturing lines. MACT for new RS forming
processes incorporates a higher degree of process modifications than is
present on most existing forming processes but which is available to
all the industry and can be designed into new forming processes.
Because the MACT floor for existing curing ovens, incinerators
operating at 700 deg.C (1,300 deg.F) and a gas residence time of 1
second, represent the best-controlled source, MACT for new curing ovens
is the same as the MACT floor for existing curing ovens. None of the
cooling processes are controlled for gaseous HAPs; as a result, MACT
for new cooling processes is no control. Thus, EPA has determined that
the MACT floor for new RS manufacturing lines is represented by a high
level of process modifications on RS forming processes, incinerators on
curing ovens, and no control on cooling processes.
As discussed earlier, none of the forming processes on FA
manufacturing lines producing light-density or automotive products are
equipped with HAP emission controls. Thus, the MACT floor is no control
for forming processes on new and existing FA lines producing these
products. The median of the best performing five lines (fewer than 30
sources) producing heavy-density products was determined to be no
control; thus, the MACT floor for forming on existing FA manufacturing
lines producing heavy-density products is no control. The best-
controlled heavy-density forming process uses process modifications;
therefore, process modifications are the basis for the MACT floor for
the forming process on new FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-
density products.
Emissions from the forming process on all FA manufacturing lines
producing pipe insulation are controlled by the same level of process
modifications. Therefore, process modifications are the basis for the
MACT floor for the forming process on all new and existing FA
manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation.
No control systems have been applied for the control of HAP
emissions from curing ovens on FA manufacturing lines. Therefore, the
MACT floor for curing ovens on new and existing FA manufacturing lines
is no control. Although the MACT floor for curing is no control, curing
is included in the definition of FA manufacturing line and, therefore,
is covered as part of the proposed FA manufacturing line standard. This
inclusion prevents the shifting of emissions from forming to the curing
section.
The EPA's analysis of MACT floor control options for existing FA
[[Page 15242]]
manufacturing lines producing pipe product showed the best performing
five forming processes (fewer than 30 sources) controlled by the same
level of process modifications and curing ovens uncontrolled for HAP
emissions. As a result, the MACT floor for existing FA manufacturing
lines producing pipe products is process modifications for forming and
no control for curing. Because the same level of process modifications
is used on forming processes on all FA manufacturing lines producing
pipe products and because no HAP controls are used on curing ovens, EPA
has determined that the MACT floor for new FA manufacturing lines
producing pipe products is the same as the MACT floor for existing
sources.
As described above, the MACT floor for forming processes and curing
ovens on existing FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-density
products is no control; therefore, the MACT floor for existing FA
manufacturing lines producing heavy-density products is no control.
Based on the best-controlled source, MACT for new FA manufacturing
lines producing heavy-density products is process modifications on
forming. Because no curing ovens are controlled, the MACT floor for new
curing ovens is no control, the same as the MACT floor for existing
curing ovens. Thus, EPA has determined that the MACT floor for new FA
manufacturing lines that produce heavy-density products is represented
by process modifications on forming and no control on curing ovens.
The EPA considered requiring controls beyond the MACT floor for
glass-melting furnaces and RS and FA manufacturing lines. However,
based on an assessment of the impacts of beyond-the-floor controls, EPA
concluded that the cost effectiveness of an incremental reduction in
emissions would make additional controls unreasonable (docket items II-
A-12, II-B-17, II-B-22).
3. Emission Limits
As part of this rulemaking, emissions data were collected from
tests at 10 wool fiberglass plants and from other test data supplied by
NAIMA to characterize uncontrolled and controlled emissions from the
various processes and evaluate the effectiveness of existing control
systems. Sites tested during this rulemaking were selected based on
their use of the control technology identified as candidates for MACT
floor. Using the test data, EPA established the MACT floor emission
limits for existing and new sources.
Emissions data were evaluated for 18 furnaces controlled by
baghouses and ESPs (docket item II-I-20). Emissions ranged widely for
both gas and electric furnaces and for both well-designed and well-
operated baghouses and ESPs. Controlled PM emissions from all furnaces
ranged from 0.01 to 0.54 kg/Mg (0.02 to 1.08 lb/ton) of glass pulled.
Emissions of PM from baghouse-controlled furnaces ranged from 0.01 to
0.54 kg/Mg (0.02 to 1.08 lb/ton) of glass pulled and from 0.01 to 0.25
kg/Mg (0.02 to 0.5 lb/ton) of glass pulled for ESP-controlled furnaces.
Controlled electric furnace PM emissions ranged from 0.01 to 0.35 kg/Mg
(0.02 to 0.7 lb/ton) of glass pulled; controlled gas furnace emissions
ranged from 0.01 to 0.54 kg/Mg (0.02 to 1.08 lb/ton). In proposing
emission limits, EPA took into consideration the wide variation in
controlled emissions for both gas and electric furnaces and for well-
designed and operated baghouses and ESPs. The proposed PM emission
limits represent a level that can be achieved by all existing furnaces
that are controlled by well-designed and operated baghouses and ESPs.
Because MACT for new and existing furnaces is the same, EPA proposed
the same PM emission limit, 0.25 kg of PM/Mg (0.5 lb of PM/ton) of
glass pulled, for new furnaces as for existing furnaces. The proposed
PM emission limit for existing glass-melting furnaces, 0.25 kg/Mg (0.5
lb/ton) of glass pulled, is the same as the current NSPS level for gas-
fired glass-melting furnaces in the wool fiberglass industry (see 40
CFR part 60, subpart CC). Both baghouses and ESPs are used to control
emissions from gas-fired furnaces. In proposing the same emission limit
for new and existing furnaces, EPA recognizes that both baghouses and
ESPs used on existing furnaces are already highly efficient at
controlling PM emissions and there is no basis for a more stringent
emission limit based on this control technology.
The limited emission test data for metal HAPs show their emissions
to be low, often below the detection limits of the test method. In
cooperative efforts by EPA and NAIMA, tests for metal HAPs were
performed at six glass-melting furnaces (docket item II-B-15). For a
medium capacity controlled furnace (27,000 Mg/yr [30,000 ton/yr]),
emissions of arsenic would be 0.2 lb/yr, chromium emissions would range
from 1.2 to 18 lb/yr, and lead emissions would be 0.6 to 2.1 lb/yr.
Total metal HAP emissions from a large (50,000 Mg/yr [55,000 ton/yr])
controlled model gas-fired furnace are an estimated 60 lb/yr.
For RS forming processes, the number of sources is 40. Because the
number of sources is greater than 30, the MACT floor is represented by
the median of the best performing 12 percent of existing sources, or
five sources. Emissions of formaldehyde from forming processes
representative of the best performing five were measured (docket items
II-B-15, II-B-21, II-D-64). Emissions of formaldehyde from these five
forming processes were 0.15, 0.33, 0.49, 0.49, and 0.6 kg/Mg (0.3,
0.65, 0.97, 0.97, and 1.2 lb/ton) of glass pulled. Using these results,
the median emission level is 0.49 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (0.97
lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled. The emission level
selected as representative of new forming processes, 0.33 kg of
formaldehyde per megagram (0.65 lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass
pulled, reflects the performance of the best process modification
available to the industry. The emission level of 0.15 kg/Mg (0.3 lb/
ton) is from a proprietary forming process not available to the rest of
the industry. Therefore, it was not considered MACT for new sources.
Emissions test results for RS forming processes are summarized in Table
4.
Table 4.--Summary of Emission Test Results on RS Manufacturing Lines
[Docket Items II-B-15, II-B-21, II-D-64]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Formaldehyde
Emissions
Process and Plant Control -----------------------
kg/mg lb/ton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forming Process modificationsa
Plant P........................................... .................................... 0.15 0.3
Plant S........................................... .................................... 0.33 0.65
Plant T........................................... .................................... 0.6 1.2
Plant U........................................... .................................... 0.49 0.97
[[Page 15243]]
Plant V........................................... .................................... 0.49 0.97
Curing
Plant M........................................... Incinerator (1300 deg.F, 0.5-s
residence time)
Inlet............................. 0.497 0.994
Outlet............................ 0.00039 0.00078
Plant N........................................... Incinerator (1500 deg.F, 2.5-s
residence time)
Outlet............................ 0.00146 0.00292
Cooling
Plant O........................................... Uncontrolled........................ 0.004 0.007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Process modifications include resin chemistry, binder chemistry, fiberization technology, binder application,
forming conditions.
RS curing processes, controlled by incinerators, were tested at two
plants using the technology that EPA determined represented the MACT
floor for RS curing, resulting in one measurement of 0.0004 kg of
formaldehyde per megagram (0.001 lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass
pulled and another measurement of 0.0015 kg of formaldehyde per
megagram (0.003 lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled (docket
item II-B-15). Because results from just two tests were available, the
higher result (0.0015 kg of formaldehyde per megagram [0.003 lb of
formaldehyde per ton] of glass pulled) was chosen to represent MACT
floor emissions from existing and new curing ovens. The only test
result for emissions from cooling operations was 0.005 kg of
formaldehyde per megagram (0.01 lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass
pulled (docket item II-B-15); this emission level was selected to
represent the emissions from new and existing cooling processes.
Emissions data for RS curing and cooling processes are summarized in
Table 4.
The proposed formaldehyde emission limit for existing RS
manufacturing lines, 0.6 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (1.2 lb of
formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled, is based on the combined
manufacturing line emission levels from forming, curing, and cooling
with a 20 percent allowance to account for the use of short-term test
data as compared to long-term continuous monitoring data. In metric
units, the emission limit for existing RS manufacturing lines was
calculated as follows: (0.49 + 0.0015 + 0.005) x 1.20 = 0.6 kg of
formaldehyde per megagram of glass pulled. In English units, the
emission limit for existing RS manufacturing lines was calculated as
follows: (0.97 + 0.003 + 0.01) x 1.20 = 1.2 lb of formaldehyde per
ton of glass pulled. The proposed emission limit for new RS
manufacturing lines, 0.4 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (0.8 lb of
formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled, was derived using 0.33 kg/Mg
(0.65 lb/ton) for the forming emission level and the same emission
levels for curing and cooling as mentioned above. In metric units, the
emission limit for new RS manufacturing lines was calculated as
follows: (0.33 + 0.0015 + 0.005) x 1.20 = 0.4 kg of formaldehyde per
megagram of glass pulled. In English units, the emission limit for new
RS manufacturing lines was calculated as follows: (0.65 + 0.003 + 0.01)
x 1.20 = 0.8 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled.
For existing and new FA manufacturing lines that produce pipe
insulation, the MACT floor for forming is the same process
modification, which has been applied to an equal degree to all forming
processes. Because there are no formaldehyde emission controls on
curing on FA manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation, the MACT
floor for curing is no control. Emissions of formaldehyde have been
measured from forming and curing on six FA manufacturing lines
producing pipe insulation where the same MACT floors for forming and
curing were used (see Table 5). Results from short-term formaldehyde
emission tests on these FA manufacturing lines were 1.7, 2.4, 2.4, 2.4,
3.2 and 3.4 kg/Mg (3.4, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 6.5, and 6.8 lb/ton) of glass
pulled (docket item II-D-54). Even though the same control technologies
and methods on manufacturing lines (forming and curing) producing the
same product were used, the emissions varied widely from 3.4 to 6.8 lb/
ton. Because the test data for the same control technologies and
methods that represent the MACT floors show a range of emissions and
because emissions tests used short term tests (3 hrs) while the MACT
standard will need to be met at all times, EPA has set the proposed
formaldehyde emission limit for new and existing FA manufacturing lines
producing pipe insulation at 3.4 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (6.8
lb of formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled. The EPA believes that this
emission rate is the level that can be consistently achieved by the
control technologies and methods that are the MACT floor.
Table 5.--Summary of Emissions Data for FA Manufacturing Lines
[Docket item II-D-54]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde
emissions
Process and product Control ----------------------
kg/mg lb/ton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy density.............. Forming--process 2.3 4.6
modifications. 3.9 7.8
Curing--no control..
[[Page 15244]]
Pipe....................... Forming--process 1.7 3.4
modifications. 2.35 4.7
Curing--no control.. 2.4 4.8
2.45 4.9
3.25 6.5
3.4 6.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of new FA manufacturing lines that produce heavy-
density product, the MACT floor is represented by process modifications
on forming processes, which have been applied to the same degree on two
forming processes, and no control on curing. The emission limit
selected for new FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-density product
is based on the results of emissions testing on forming and curing
processes on two FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-density
products where the same process modifications have been applied to
forming and both curing ovens are uncontrolled (see Table 5). Emissions
of formaldehyde from these two FA manufacturing lines were 2.3 and 3.9
kg of formaldehyde per megagram (4.6 and 7.8 lb of formaldehyde per
ton) of glass pulled (docket item II-D-54). Because of the small number
of tests, the use of short-term test data (rather than long-term
continuous monitoring data), and to allow for the variability in
emission results from forming processes using the same floor level
process modifications, the 3.9 kg/Mg (7.8 lb/ton) level was chosen to
represent MACT floor emissions from new FA manufacturing lines
manufacturing heavy-density products.
E. Selection of
Monitoring Requirements
Several monitoring options were identified and evaluated for
sources in wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. Under the most
stringent option, a continuous opacity monitor (COM) would be required
for monitoring PM emissions from glass-melting furnaces, and a
continuous emission monitor (CEM) would be required for measurements of
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. No EPA-approved continuous
monitoring method is available for measuring PM, which is used as a
surrogate for metal HAP emissions.
Where continuous monitors do not exist or are too expensive,
monitoring would rely on parametric monitoring of one or more
parameters associated with the production process or control device,
coupled with corrective action for operating problems. Potential
parameters could include incinerator operating temperature, ESP
electrical readings, and binder formulation parameters. A bag leak
detection system could be used to monitor PM emissions from baghouses
and ensure proper operation and maintenance of the control devices.
Visible emissions observations by Method 9 could be required on a daily
or weekly basis to ensure proper operation of control devices on glass-
melting furnaces. For this industry, however, opacity is not considered
a good indicator of compliance because of the low grain loadings.
Therefore, this option was not considered further.
A one-time performance test is necessary to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable emission limit for glass-melting furnaces and
manufacturing lines. Using the surrogate approach, the owner or
operator would measure PM emissions from the furnace control system
using EPA Method 5 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and Sec. 63.1389
(Test methods and procedures) and formaldehyde emissions using EPA
Method 316 or Method 318. Methods 316 and 318 are also being proposed
today. The sampling and analytical cost for a three-run performance
test is estimated at $8,000 for Method 5 and $9,000 for Method 316. The
owner or operator could also use EPA Method 318, for measuring
formaldehyde emissions for compliance purposes as well measuring other
pollutant emissions. The method is also validated for use as a CEM. The
sampling and analytical cost for three Fourier Transform Infrared
(FTIR) gas-phase extractive runs, including other tests needed in
conjunction with Method 318, is about $15,000.
During the performance tests for each glass-melting furnace and
each RS and FA manufacturing line subject to the standard, the owner or
operator would monitor and record the glass pull rate and determine the
arithmetic mean for each test run. A determination of compliance during
the performance tests would be based on the average of the three
individual test runs.
Each owner or operator subject to the proposed NESHAP would submit
a written operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as part of their
application for a part 70 permit. The plan would include procedures for
the proper operation and maintenance of processes and add-on control
devices used to comply with the proposed emission limits as well as the
corrective actions to be taken when a process or control device
parameter deviates from allowable levels established during performance
testing. The plan would identify the process parameters and control
device parameters that would be monitored to determine compliance, a
monitoring schedule, and procedures for keeping records to document
compliance. Additional information may be required depending on the
add-on control device or process that is used to comply with the
emission standard.
The owner or operator of each furnace controlled by an ESP would
submit as part of their operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan
the ESP parameters (e.g., secondary voltage of each electrical field)
to be monitored, a monitoring schedule, recordkeeping procedures to
document compliance, and how the ESP is to be maintained and operated.
The proposed monitoring provisions specify that corrective actions be
taken according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan in the event of a deviation in any 3-hour average ESP
parameter outside the range established during performance testing.
Failure to initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of the deviation
would be considered noncompliance. If the ESP
[[Page 15245]]
parameter values are outside the range established during the
performance test for more than 5 percent of total operating time in a
6-month reporting period, the owner or operator would implement a QIP
consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.7 If the ESP parameter values are outside the range for
more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the performance test, the owner or operator of each
glass-melting furnace controlled by a baghouse would monitor emissions
exiting the PM control system using a bag leak detection system since
opacity is not a good indicator of performance at the low, controlled
PM levels characteristic of these sources. The bag leak detection
system must be equipped with an alarm system that will sound when an
increase in PM emissions is detected. On a positive pressure baghouse
where more than a single bag leak detection system probe may be
necessary, the instrumentation and alarm for the bag leak detection
system may be shared among detectors. Provisions are included in the
rule regarding installation, calibration, and operation of the system.
The monitoring provisions specify that when the bag leak detection
system alarm is activated, the baghouse be inspected for the cause of
the alarm and that corrective action be initiated according to the
procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. Failure
to initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm would be
considered noncompliance. If the alarm is activated for more than 5
percent of the total operating time during the 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator must implement a QIP consistent with
subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owner or operator of a glass-melting furnace whose emissions
are not exhausted to an air pollution control device for PM control
would submit as part of their operations, maintenance, and monitoring
plan a description of how the furnace is to be operated and maintained,
the furnace parameter(s) to be monitored for compliance purposes, a
monitoring schedule, and recordkeeping procedures for documenting
compliance. On cold top electric furnaces, for example, the air
temperature above the glass melt may be monitored as an indicator of
furnace performance. Corrective action would be taken if the range of
acceptable values for the selected operating parameter(s), such as air
temperature above the glass melt in a cold top electric furnace,
established during the initial performance test, is exceeded based on
any 3-hour average of the monitored parameter. A deviation outside the
established range would trigger an inspection of the glass-melting
furnace to determine the cause of the deviation and the initiation of
corrective actions according to the procedures in the facility's
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. Failure to initiate
corrective actions within 1 hour of the deviation would be considered
noncompliance. If the furnace operating parameter values are outside
the range established during the performance test for more than 5
percent of total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the
owner or operator would implement a QIP consistent with subpart D of
the draft approach to compliance assurance monitoring.9 If the
furnace parameter values are outside the range for more than 10 percent
of total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or
operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owner or operator would perform the one-time performance test
for each new and existing RS manufacturing line that produces building
insulation (defined as having an LOI of less than 8 percent and a
density of less than 32 kg/m\3\ [2 lb/ft\3\]) while manufacturing
building insulation. Similarly, performance tests would be performed
for each new FA manufacturing line that produces heavy-density (defined
as having an LOI of 11 to 25 percent and a density of 8 to 48 kg/m\3\
[0.5 to 3 lb/ft\3\]) or pipe insulation products (defined as having an
LOI of 8 to 14 percent and a density of 48 to 96 kg/m\3\ [3 to 6 lb/
ft\3\]) and each existing FA manufacturing line that produces pipe
insulation products.
During the performance test on RS and FA manufacturing lines, the
owner or operator would monitor and record the free-formaldehyde
content of each resin lot, the binder formulation of each batch used
during the tests, and the product LOI and density for each line tested.
The performance test would be run using the resin with the highest free
formaldehyde content that is expected to be used on each manufacturing
line subject to the standard. After the initial performance test, if an
owner or operator wants to use a resin with a higher free-formaldehyde
content or change the binder formulation, another performance test must
be conducted to verify compliance. Following the performance test, the
owner or operator would maintain records of the free-formaldehyde
content of each incoming resin lot, the formulation of each binder
batch, and daily product LOI and product density. If resin free-
formaldehyde content exceeds the performance test levels, the owner or
operator would be in violation of the standard. Under the proposed
NESHAP, the binder formulation must not deviate from the formulation
specifications used during the performance test.
If the owner or operator of an RS or an FA manufacturing line plans
to use forming process modifications to comply with the proposed
standard, the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan must specify
the process parameters (e.g., LOI, binder solids, and/or binder
application rate) to be monitored and their correlation with
formaldehyde emissions, the monitoring schedule, and recordkeeping
procedures for documenting compliance, in addition to procedures for
the proper operation and maintenance of the process modifications. The
owner or operator would monitor forming process parameters by adhering
to the procedures detailed in their operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan. Should the process parameter(s) deviate from the range
established during the performance test, the owner or operator must
inspect the process to determine the cause of the deviation and
initiate corrective action within 1 hour of the deviation. If the
process parameter(s) are outside the performance test range for more
than 5 percent of total operating time during a 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator would implement a QIP consistent with
subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.10 If the process parameter(s) are outside the range
for more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month reporting
period, the owner or operator would be in violation of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a wet scrubbing control device is used to control formaldehyde
emissions from an RS or FA manufacturing line subject to the standard,
the owner or operator must establish during the performance test the
pressure drop across each scrubber, the scrubbing liquid flow rate to
each scrubber, and the identity and feed rate of any chemical added to
the scrubbing liquid. If the owner or operator plans to operate
[[Page 15246]]
the scrubber in such a way that the pressure drop, liquid flow rate, or
chemical additive or chemical feed rate exceeds the range of values
established during the performance tests, additional testing would be
necessary to demonstrate compliance. Following the initial performance
tests, an owner or operator who uses a wet scrubbing control device to
control formaldehyde emissions from an RS or FA manufacturing line
would record the pressure drop across each scrubber, the scrubbing
liquid flow rate to each scrubber, and the identity and feed rate of
any chemical added to the scrubbing liquid. The proposed monitoring
provisions also specify that corrective action be taken if the range of
acceptable values established during the initial performance test is
exceeded. Deviation by any 3-hour average scrubber parameter outside
the established range would cause the owner or operator to inspect the
process to determine the cause of the deviation and to initiate
corrective actions according to the procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan. Failure to initiate corrective
actions within 1 hour of the deviation would be considered
noncompliance. If any scrubber parameter is outside the performance
test range for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-
month reporting period, the owner or operator would implement a QIP
consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.11 If any of the scrubber parameter values are outside
the range for more than 10 percent of total operating time in a 6-month
reporting period, the owner or operator would be in violation of the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an incinerator is used to comply with the applicable emission
limits for manufacturing lines, the incinerator operating temperature
would have to be continuously monitored and recorded using a device
such as a thermocouple with a strip chart recorder or data logger.
During the performance test, the owner or operator would continuously
monitor the temperature and record the average temperature during each
1-hour test. The average of the three 1-hour test runs would be used to
monitor compliance. Following the performance tests, the owner or
operator would maintain the temperature so that any 3-hour average does
not fall below the temperature established during the performance test.
If the temperature falls below the average, the owner or operator would
be considered out of compliance. The operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan for an incinerator would include procedures to follow
in the event of a temperature drop. Examples of procedures that might
be included in the plan for incinerators include: (1) inspection of
burner assemblies and pilot sensing devices for proper operation and
cleaning; (2) adjusting primary and secondary chamber combustion air;
(3) inspecting dampers, fans, blowers, and motors for proper operation,
and (4) shutdown procedures.
Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator would be allowed
to change the control device or process parameter levels established
during the initial performance tests. The owner or operator would be
permitted to expand the range or increase the level of any add-on
control device or process parameter level used to monitor compliance by
performing additional emission testing to demonstrate that at the new
levels, the affected source complies with the emission limits in
Secs. 63.1382, 63.1383, or 63.1384.
The EPA general provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, require
each owner or operator to develop and implement a startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan. Under the proposed NESHAP, the plan would include
procedures for routine and long-term maintenance of the control devices
according to the manufacturer's instructions or recommendations.
The EPA believes that these monitoring provisions will provide
sufficient information needed to determine compliance or operating
problems at the source. At the same time, the provisions are not labor
intensive, do not require expensive, complex equipment, and are not
burdensome in terms of recordkeeping needs.
F. Selection of Test Methods
Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator conducts a one-
time performance (emissions) test to determine initial compliance with
the emission limits for glass-melting furnaces and manufacturing lines.
Under the proposed rule, PM serves as a surrogate for HAP metals and
formaldehyde, a HAP, serves as a surrogate measure for all organic
HAPs.
The owner or operator would measure PM emissions from the control
device (baghouse or ESP) exhaust outlet for the furnace or from the
furnace exhaust outlet where no controls are in place using EPA Method
5 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Determination of Particulate
Emissions from Stationary Sources,'' and Sec. 63.1388 (Test methods and
procedures) of the proposed rule. To prevent sulfate formation in the
sampling apparatus, the method specifies that the probe and filter
holder be maintained at a temperature no greater than 17714
deg.C (35025 deg.F). To determine emissions of
formaldehyde from RS manufacturing lines, the owner or operator would
measure emissions of formaldehyde at the exhaust outlets of the
forming, curing, and cooling processes and sum the measurements to
determine manufacturing line emissions. To measure formaldehyde
emissions from FA manufacturing lines subject to this standard,
emissions from the forming process and from curing would be measured
and the results summed to determine manufacturing line emissions.
Formaldehyde emissions may be measured using EPA Method 316, ``Sampling
and Analysis for Formaldehyde Emissions from Stationary Sources in the
Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries,'' with formaldehyde
analyses by spectrophotometry using the modified pararosaniline method.
Method 316 is being proposed concurrently with this proposed rule.
Method 316 is a manual test method for the measurement of formaldehyde.
The method was developed by the industry trade group, NAIMA. The method
was validated at a mineral wool facility, which has been determined to
be a similar source, according to the procedures in Test Method 301, 40
CFR part 63, appendix A. In Method 316, gaseous and particulate
pollutants are withdrawn isokinetically from an emission source and are
collected in high purity water. Formaldehyde present in the emissions
is highly soluble in water. The water containing formaldehyde is then
analyzed using the modified pararosaniline method. Formaldehyde in the
sample reacts with acidic pararosaniline and sodium sulfite, forming a
purple chromophore. The intensity of the purple color, measured
spectrophotometrically, provides a measure of the formaldehyde
concentration in the sample.
Formaldehyde emissions can also be measured using EPA Method 318,
``Extractive FTIR Method for the Measurement of Emissions from the
Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries.'' The Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) spectrometry method is also being proposed today for
addition to appendix A to 40 CFR part 63. The FTIR spectrometry method
uses a multicomponent measurement system to quantify a wide variety of
pollutants in one test. Method 318 is an extractive
[[Page 15247]]
FTIR procedure and has been validated by the EPA according to Method
301 requirements. The Method 318 procedure involves removing a
slipstream of stack gas and filling a sample cell with the stack gas
sample, which is then analyzed by FTIR spectrometry.
Methods for determining the product LOI and the free formaldehyde
content of resins are also contained in the proposed rule. The owner or
operator also may use other alternative test methods subject to
approval by the Administrator.
Using the results of each test run and information generated during
the performance tests (i.e., average glass pull rate in tons per hour
for each test run), the owner or operator would then use the equations
and procedures in the rule to convert the emission rate of PM and
formaldehyde into the units of the standard.
G. Solicitation of Comments
The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final
decisions and encourages comments on all aspects of this proposal from
all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed analyses
should be submitted with comments to allow EPA to make maximum use of
the comments. All comments should be directed to the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-95-24 (see ADDRESSES).
Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before the date
specified in DATES.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information.''
Submissions containing such proprietary information should be sent
directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to
ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the
docket: Attention: Mr. William Neuffer, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA
Confidential Business Information Manager, OAQPS/MD-13; Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Information covered by such a
claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by the EPA only to the
extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no
claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received
by the EPA, the submission may be made available to the public without
further notice to the commenter.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is
a dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,
the contents of the docket, except for certain interagency materials,
will serve as the record for judicial review. [See section 307(d)(7)(A)
of the Act.]
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act. If
a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying
questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the
presentations or comments. To provide an opportunity for all who may
wish to speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each.
Any member of the public may file a written statement (see DATES and
ADDRESSES). Written statements and supporting information will be
considered with equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting
information subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866, thus OMB review of the proposed
regulation is not required. However, an economic impact analysis of the
proposed NESHAP was prepared and is available in the docket.
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875
In compliance with Executive Order 12875, we have involved State
regulatory experts in the development of this proposed rule. No tribal
governments are believed to be affected by this proposed rule. State
and local governments are not directly impacted by the rule, i.e., they
are not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements
of the rule. However, they will be required to implement the rule,
e.g., incorporate the rule into permits and enforce the rule. They will
collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resources burden of
implementing the rule. Comments have been solicited from States and
have been carefully considered in the rule development process. In
addition, all States are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule
during the public comment period, and the EPA intends to fully consider
these comments in the development of the final rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995 (109 Stat. 48),
requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before
promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section
203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from
and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may
be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative for State,
local, and tribal governments and the private sector that
[[Page 15248]]
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or unless the selection of this
alternative is inconsistent with law.
This rule is based partially on pollution prevention alternatives
and has been applied on a manufacturing line basis. Therefore, it is
the least costly and burdensome approach for industry since the
purchase of add-on control devices will be avoided by most of the
industry. The total nationwide capital cost for the standard is
estimated at $19.5 million; annual nationwide cost is estimated at $6.3
million/yr. Because this proposed rule, if promulgated, is estimated to
result in the expenditure by State and local governments, in aggregate,
or by the private sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the
Agency has not prepared a budgetary impact statement. Because small
governments will not be affected by this rule, the Agency is not
required to develop a plan with regard to small governments. Therefore,
the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this
action.
F. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities because no company that owns
sources in the source category meets the criteria for small business.
Companies in the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry are part of SIC
3296. Companies in SIC 3296 are classified as small by the U.S. Small
Business Administration if the company has fewer than 750 employees.
None of the firms in the industry have fewer than 750 employees and
thus, are not small businesses by this criterion. Therefore, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No.
1795.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The proposed information requirements include the notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NESHAP general
provisions, authorized under section 114 of the Act, which are
mandatory for all owners or operators subject to national emission
standards. All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in
40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed rule does not require any
notifications or reports beyond those required by the general
provisions. Proposed subpart NNN does require additional records of
specific information needed to determine compliance with the rule.
These include records of: (1) Any bag leak detection system alarm,
including the date and time, with a brief explanation of the cause of
the alarm and the corrective action taken; (2) ESP parameter values,
such as secondary voltage for each electrical field, including any
deviation outside the range established during the performance test and
a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the corrective
action taken; (3) uncontrolled furnace operating parameters, such as
air temperature above the glass melt of cold top electric furnaces,
including any exceedances of the established parameter values and a
brief explanation of the cause and the corrective action taken; (4) the
free-formaldehyde content of the resin being used; (5) the formulation
of the binder being used; (6) the LOI and density for each bonded
product manufactured on an RS or FA manufacturing line subject to the
proposed NESHAP; (7) forming process modification parameters, including
any period when the parameter levels are inconsistent with levels
established during the performance test with a brief explanation of the
cause and corrective actions taken; (8) pressure drop, liquid flow
rate, and information on chemical additives to the scrubbing liquid
including any period when the levels established during the performance
tests are exceeded and a brief explanation of the cause and the
corrective action taken; and (9) incinerator operating temperature,
including any period when the temperature falls below the level
established during the performance test, with a brief explanation of
the cause of the deviation and the corrective action taken. Each of
these information requirements is needed to determine compliance with
the standard.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection is estimated at 17,800 labor hours per year at an annual
cost of $571,000. This estimate includes a one-time performance test
and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time preparation of a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of any
event in which the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual
excess emissions reports; notifications; and recordkeeping. The
annualized capital cost associated with monitoring requirements is
estimated at $41,000. The operation and maintenance cost is estimated
at $3,000/yr.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating,
verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing, and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to
a collection of information; search existing data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques, to the Director, OPPE Regulatory
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Office for EPA.''
Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Because OMB is required
to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
March 31, 1997, a comment to OMB is most likely to have its full effect
if OMB
[[Page 15249]]
receives it by April 30, 1997. The final rule will respond to any OMB
or public comments on the information collection requirements contained
in this proposal.
H. Clean Air Act
In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of
the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in
emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
I. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes that pollution
should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible. The
emission standards for RS and FA manufacturing lines subject to the
standard are formulated as line standards, i.e., the sum of the
individual forming, curing, and cooling MACT floor emission levels for
RS manufacturing lines and forming and curing MACT floor emission
levels for certain FA manufacturing lines. By formulating the standard
as a line standard, tradeoffs are allowed for existing facilities that
will accomplish the same environmental results at lower costs and will
encourage process modifications and pollution prevention alternatives.
According to the industry, new RS manufacturing lines may be able to
meet the line standard without the use of costly incinerators with
their energy and other environmental impacts, such as increased
nitrogen oxides (NOX)and sulfur oxides (SOX) emissions, by
incorporating pollution prevention measures, such as binder
reformulation and improved binder application efficiency. Pollution
prevention alternatives will also increase binder utilization
efficiency and reduce production costs for industry. In selecting the
format of the emission standard for emissions from manufacturing lines,
the EPA considered various alternatives such as setting separate
emission limits for each process, i.e., forming, curing, and cooling. A
line standard gives the industry greater flexibility in complying with
the proposed emission limits and is the least costly because industry
can avoid the capital and annual operating and maintenance costs
associated with the purchase of add-on control equipment by using
pollution prevention measures.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass
manufacturing.
Dated: February 21, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart NNN to read as follows:
Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Sec.
63.1380 Applicability.
63.1381 Definitions.
63.1382 Emission standards for glass-melting furnaces.
63.1383 Emission standards for rotary spin manufacturing lines.
63.1384 Emission standard for flame attenuation manufacturing
lines.
63.1385 Compliance dates.
63.1386 Monitoring requirements.
63.1387 Performance test requirements.
63.1388 Test methods and procedures.
63.1389 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
63.1390 Delegation of authority.
63.1391 63.1399 [Reserved].
Table 1 to Subpart NNN--Applicability of general provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) to subpart NNN.
Appendix A to Subpart NNN--Method for the determination of LOI
Appendix B to Subpart NNN--Free formaldehyde analysis of insulation
resins by hydroxylamine hydrochloride
Appendix C to Subpart NNN--Method for the determination of product
density
Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Sec. 63.1380 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
the requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each
wool fiberglass manufacturing facility.
(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), as measured according to the methods
and procedures in this subpart, emitted from the following sources at a
wool fiberglass manufacturing facility subject to this subpart:
(1) Each new and existing glass-melting furnace located at a wool
fiberglass manufacturing facility;
(2) Each new and existing rotary spin wool fiberglass manufacturing
line producing a bonded wool fiberglass building insulation product;
and
(3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass
manufacturing line producing a bonded pipe product and each new flame
attenuation wool fiberglass manufacturing line producing a bonded
heavy-density product.
(c) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to the owner or
operator of a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that the owner or
operator demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, is not
a major source as defined in Sec. 63.2 of the general provisions.
(d) The provisions of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A--General Provisions
that apply and those that do not apply to this subpart are specified in
Table 1 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.1381 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
Bag leak detection system means systems that include, but are not
limited to, devices using triboelectric, light scattering, and other
effects to monitor relative or absolute particulate matter (PM)
emissions.
Bonded means wool fiberglass to which a phenol-formaldehyde binder
has been applied.
Building insulation means the bonded wool fiberglass insulation,
having a loss on ignition of less than 8 percent and a density of less
than 32 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m\3\) (2 pounds per cubic foot
[lb/ft\3\]), most frequently manufactured (as measured by hours of
production times glass pull rate) during the preceding calendar year.
Flame attenuation means a process used to produce wool fiberglass
where molten glass flows by gravity from melting furnaces, or pots, to
form filaments that are drawn down and attenuated by passing in front
of a high-velocity gas burner flame.
Glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a refractory vessel
in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature,
refined, and conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes
foundations,
[[Page 15250]]
superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat
exchangers, melter cooling system, exhaust system, refractory brick
work, fuel supply and electrical boosting 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 used in the
manufacture of wool fiberglass at a single manufacturing line in a
specified time period.
HAP means those chemicals and their compounds that are included on
the list of hazardous air pollutants in 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 comprising any
combination of a forming section, where molten glass is fiberized and a
fiberglass mat is formed; a curing section, where binder resin in the
mat is thermally set; and a cooling section, where the mat is cooled.
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 a thermal, acoustical, or other insulation
material composed of glass fibers made from glass produced or melted at
the same facility where the manufacturing line is located.
Sec. 63.1382 Emission standards for glass-melting furnaces.
On or after the date the initial performance test is completed or
required to be completed under Sec. 63.7, 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.
Sec. 63.1383 Emission standards for rotary spin manufacturing lines.
On or after the date the initial performance test is completed or
required to be completed under Sec. 63.7, whichever date is earlier,
the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere in excess of:
(a) 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
(b) 0.4 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (0.8 lb of formaldehyde per
ton) of glass pulled for each new rotary spin manufacturing line.
Sec. 63.1384 Emission standards for flame attenuation manufacturing
lines.
On or after the date the initial performance test is completed or
required to be completed under Sec. 63.7, whichever date is earlier,
the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere in excess of:
(a) 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
(b) 3.4 kg of formaldehyde per megagram (6.8 lb of formaldehyde per
ton) of glass pulled from each existing or new flame attenuation
manufacturing line that produces pipe product wool fiberglass.
Sec. 63.1385 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) (Date 3 years after effective date of the final rule) 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 may request from
the Administrator, or the applicable regulatory authority in a State
with an approved permit program, an extension of the compliance date
for the emission standards for one additional year if needed to install
add-on controls or process modifications. The owner or operator shall
submit a request for an extension according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.6(i)(3) of the general provisions.
Sec. 63.1386 Monitoring requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of each wool fiberglass manufacturing
facility shall prepare for each glass-melting furnace, RS manufacturing
line, and FA manufacturing line subject to the provisions of this
subpart, a written operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The
plan shall be submitted to the Administrator for review and approval as
part of the application for a part 70 permit and shall 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 of Secs. 63.1382, 63.1383, and 63.1384;
(2) Process parameters and add-on control device parameters to be
monitored to determine compliance; and
(3) Corrective actions to be taken when process parameters or add-
on control device parameters deviate from the levels established during
initial performance testing.
(b) 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.
(1) The bag leak detection system must be capable of detecting PM
emissions at concentrations of 1.0 milligram per actual cubic meter
(0.0004 grains per actual cubic foot) and greater.
(2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative or absolute PM emissions.
(3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound when an increase in PM emissions over a preset
level is detected.
(4) 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
[[Page 15251]]
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among the monitors.
(5) The bag leak detection system shall be installed, operated,
calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with available
guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or, in the
absence of such guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations.
(6) Calibration 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 setpoints and
the alarm delay time. Calibration of the system shall be done during
the initial performance test.
(7) The owner or operator shall not adjust the range, averaging
period, alarm setpoints, or alarm delay time after the initial
performance test without written approval from the Administrator.
(8) Following the performance test, if the alarm for the bag leak
detection system is triggered, the owner or operator shall inspect the
control device to determine the cause of the deviation and initiate
within 1 hour of the alarm the corrective actions specified in the
procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(9) If the alarm is sounded for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator
must implement a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) consistent with subpart
D of the draft approach to compliance assurance monitoring.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c)(1) Where an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is used to control
PM emissions from a glass-melting furnace, the owner or operator shall
include in the ESP operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan the
following information:
(i) ESP operating parameter(s), such as secondary voltage of each
electrical field, to be monitored and the procedures to be followed
during the performance test to establish the range of values that will
be used to identify any operational problems;
(ii) A schedule for monitoring the ESP operating parameter(s);
(iii) Recordkeeping procedures, consistent with Sec. 63.1389, to
show that the ESP operating parameter(s) is within the range
established during the performance test; and
(iv) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of the
ESP.
(2) Following the performance test, if any 3-hour average value for
the ESP monitoring parameter(s) deviates from the range established
during the performance test, the owner or operator shall inspect the
control device to determine the cause of the deviation and initiate
within 1 hour of the deviation the corrective actions necessary to
return the ESP parameter(s) to the levels established during the
performance test according to the procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(3) If the monitored ESP parameter is outside the level established
during the performance test more than 5 percent of the total operating
time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator must
implement a QIP consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to
compliance assurance monitoring.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) If the monitored ESP parameter is outside the level established
during the performance test more than 10 percent of the total operating
time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator is in
violation of the standard.
(d)(1) For a glass-melting furnace, including a cold top electric
furnace, where no add-on controls are used to control PM emissions, the
owner or operator shall include in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan the following information:
(i) The operating parameter(s), such as the air temperature above
the glass melt, to be monitored and the procedures to be followed
during the performance test to establish the range of values 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 Sec. 63.1389, to
show that the glass-melting furnace parameter(s) is within the range
established during the performance test; and
(iv) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of the
glass-melting furnace.
(2) Following the performance test, if any 3-hour average value for
the parameter used to monitor uncontrolled glass-melting furnaces
deviates from the range established during the performance test, the
owner or operator shall inspect the glass-melting furnace to determine
the cause of the deviation and initiate within 1 hour of the deviation
the corrective actions necessary to return the process parameter(s) to
the levels established during the performance test according to the
procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(3) If the monitored parameter is outside the level established
during the performance test more than 5 percent of the total operating
time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator must
implement a QIP consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to
compliance assurance monitoring.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) If the monitored parameter is outside the level established
during the performance test more than 10 percent of the total operating
time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator is in
violation of the standard.
(e)(1) The owners or operators of existing glass-melting furnaces
shall continuously monitor and record the glass pull rate except that
for glass-melting furnaces that are not equipped with continuous
monitors, the glass pull rate shall be monitored and recorded once per
day.
(2) On all new glass-melting furnaces, the owner or operator shall
install, calibrate, and maintain monitors that continuously record the
glass pull rate.
(3) Following the performance test, if the glass pull rate exceeds
the average glass pull rate established during the performance test by
greater than 20 percent, the owner or operator shall inspect the glass-
melting furnace to determine the cause of the exceedance and initiate
within 1 hour of the exceedance the corrective actions necessary to
return the glass pull rate to the level established during the
performance test according to the procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(4) If the glass pull rate exceeds by more than 20 percent the
level established during the performance test for more than 5 percent
of the total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or
operator must implement a QIP consistent with subpart D of the draft
approach to compliance assurance monitoring.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) If the glass pull rate exceeds by 20 percent the level
established during the performance test for more than 10 percent of the
total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or
operator is in violation of the standard.
(f)(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) Following the performance test, if any 3-hour average operating
[[Page 15252]]
temperature of the incinerator falls below the average established
during the performance test, the owner or operator is considered out of
compliance.
(g)(1) The owner or operator of each rotary spin manufacturing line
and flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall monitor and record the following information:
(i) The free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot;
(ii) The formulation of each batch of binder used; and
(iii) At least once per day, the LOI and density of each bonded
wool fiberglass product manufactured.
(2) Following the performance test, if the free-formaldehyde
content of the resin exceeds the levels established during the
performance test or the binder formulation varies from the binder
formulation specification established during the performance test, the
owner or operator is in violation of the standard.
(h)(1) The owner or operator of each rotary spin manufacturing line
and flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to the provisions of
this subpart who uses process modifications to comply with the
standards in Secs. 63.1383 and 63.1384 shall 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 parameters to be monitored to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable emission standards in Secs. 63.1383 and 63.1384.
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 parameters; and
(v) Recordkeeping procedures, consistent with Sec. 63.1389, to show
that the process parameters values established during the performance
test are not exceeded.
(2) Following the performance test, if the process parameter levels
exceed the levels established during the performance test, the owner or
operator shall inspect the process to determine the cause of the
deviation and initiate within 1 hour of the deviation the corrective
actions necessary to return the process parameter(s) to the levels
established during the performance test according to the procedures in
the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(3) If the process parameter is outside the level established
during the performance test more than 5 percent of the total operating
time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator must
implement a QIP consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to
compliance assurance monitoring.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) If the process parameter is outside the level established
during the performance test more than 10 percent of the total operating
time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator is in
violation of the standard.
(i)(1) The owner or operator of each rotary spin manufacturing line
and flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to the provisions of
this subpart who uses a wet scrubbing control device to comply with the
emission standards in Secs. 63.1383 and 63.1384 shall 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. 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 shall also continuously monitor
and record the feed rate of any chemical(s) added to the scrubbing
liquid.
(2) Following the performance test, if any 3-hour average of the
scrubber pressure drop, liquid flow rate, or chemical additive to the
scrubber exceeds the levels established during the performance tests,
the owner or operator shall inspect the control device to determine the
cause of the exceedance and initiate within 1 hour of the exceedance
the corrective actions necessary to return the scrubber parameters to
the levels established during the performance test according to the
procedures in the scrubber operations, maintenance, and monitoring
plan.
(3) If a scrubber parameter is outside the level established during
the performance test more than 5 percent of the total operating time in
a 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator must implement a QIP
consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance
monitoring.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) If a scrubber parameter is outside the level established during
the performance test more than 10 percent of the total operating time
in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or operator is in violation of
the standard.
(j) For all control device and process operating parameters
measured during the initial performance test, the owners or operators
of glass-melting furnaces, rotary spin manufacturing lines or flame
attenuation manufacturing lines subject to this subpart may change the
ranges established during the initial performance test if additional
performance testing is conducted to verify that, at the new control
device or process parameter levels, they comply with the emission
standards in Secs. 63.1382, 63.1383, and 63.1384.
Sec. 63.1387 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 standards in Secs. 63.1382, 63.1383, and 63.1384.
The owner or operator shall conduct the performance test, according to
the procedures in the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A)
and in this section.
(1) All monitoring systems and equipment must be installed,
operational, and properly calibrated prior to the performance test.
(2) The owner or operator shall monitor and record the glass pull
rate and determine the average of the recorded measurements for each
test run.
(3) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for each
existing and new glass-melting furnace.
(4) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for each
new and existing rotary spin manufacturing line producing building
insulation.
(5) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for each
new flame attenuation manufacturing line producing a heavy-density
product or a pipe product and each existing flame attenuation
manufacturing line producing a pipe product.
(6) 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 operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan required in Sec. 63.1386, which will be used to
demonstrate compliance after the initial performance test. If the owner
or operator plans a change in the ESP parameter levels from the levels
established during the initial performance test, another performance
test is required.
(7) The owner or operator of each rotary spin manufacturing line
and
[[Page 15253]]
flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated by this subpart shall
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. If the owner or operator of a rotary spin
manufacturing line or a flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to
this subpart plans to use a resin with a higher free-formaldehyde
content or a different binder formulation than that recorded during the
initial performance test, another performance test is required.
(8) With prior approval from 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 free-formaldehyde content or other process
parameter values would be outside those established during performance
tests without first conducting performance tests. An application to
perform an experimental short-term production run shall include the
following information:
(i) The purpose of the experimental run;
(ii) The affected line;
(iii) How the established process parameters will deviate from
previously approved levels;
(iv) The duration of the test run;
(v) The date and time of the test run; and
(vi) A description of any emission testing to be performed during
the test.
(9) During the performance test, the owner or operator shall
continuously record the operating temperature of each incinerator and
record the average of each 1-hour test; the average of the three 1-hour
tests shall be used to monitor compliance.
(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
standards in Secs. 63.1383 and 63.1384 shall monitor and record the
process parameter level(s), as specified in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan required in Sec. 63.1386, which will
be used to demonstrate compliance after the initial performance test.
If the owner or operator plans a change in the process parameter levels
from the levels established during the initial performance test,
another performance test is required.
(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
standards in Secs. 63.1383 and 63.1384 shall 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 to be used to determine compliance after the initial
performance test.
(b) To determine compliance with the PM emission standard for
glass-melting furnaces, use the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.000
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 standard for
formaldehyde for rotary spin manufacturing lines and flame attenuation
forming processes, use the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.001
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/m\3\ (28.3 L/ft\3\);
K3 = Conversion factor, 24.45 L/g-mol; and
P = Average glass pull rate, Mg/h (tons/h).
Sec. 63.1388 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The owner or operator shall use the following methods to
determine compliance with the applicable emission standards:
(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
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 (appendix A of this part) for the concentration of
formaldehyde. Each run shall consist of a minimum run time of 1 hour;
(7) Method 318 (appendix A of this part) for the concentration of
formaldehyde;
(8) Method contained in appendix A of this subpart for the
determination of product LOI;
(9) Method contained in appendix B of this subpart for the
determination of the free-formaldehyde content of resin;
(10) Method contained in appendix C of this subpart for the
determination of product density;
(11) 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. 63.1389 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
(a) Notifications. As required by Sec. 63.9 (b) through (d), 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 the effective date of the standard;
(3) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where
the source is new or has been reconstructed, the initial startup is
after the effective date of the standard, 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
[[Page 15254]]
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 the effective date of the standard, and for which an
application for approval or construction or reconstruction is required
(See Sec. 63.9(b)(4) and (5));
(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), 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 the general provisions 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 the general provisions 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 the general provisions.
(d) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v) of
the general provisions, the owner or operator shall report semiannually
if measured emissions are in excess of the applicable standard or a
monitored parameter is exceeded. The report shall contain the
information specified in Sec. 63.10(c) of the general provisions. When
no exceedances have occurred, the owner or operator shall submit a
report stating that no excess emissions occurred during the reporting
period.
(e) Recordkeeping. (1) As required by Sec. 63.10(b) of the general
provisions, 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 the general provisions, the owner or operator shall maintain records
of the following information:
(i) 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;
(ii) The ESP monitoring parameters including any deviation in the
ESP monitoring parameters with a brief explanation of the cause of the
deviation and the corrective action taken;
(iii) The monitoring parameter for uncontrolled glass-melting
furnaces including any exceedances and a brief explanation of the cause
of the exceedance and the corrective action taken;
(iv) The formulation of each binder batch 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 lot;
(v) Forming process parameters as identified in the approved
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan where process
modifications are used to comply with the applicable emission limits,
including any period when the process parameter levels were
inconsistent with the levels established during the performance test,
with a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the
corrective action taken;
(vi) Scrubber operating parameters where a scrubber is used to
comply with the applicable formaldehyde emission limits, including any
periods of exceedances with a brief explanation of the cause of the
deviation and the corrective action taken;
(vii) Incinerator operating temperature, including any period when
the temperature falls below the average temperature established during
the performance test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the
deviation and the corrective action taken; and
(viii) The LOI for each product manufactured on a rotary spin
manufacturing line or flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to
the provisions of this subpart.
Sec. 63.1390 Delegation of authority.
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 112(d) of the Act, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator
and not transferred to a State.
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States:
Sec. 63.1388(a)(11).
Secs. 63.1391-63.1399 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart NNN--Applicability of General Provisions
[40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A to Subpart NNN]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
General provisions citation Requirement NNN Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[[Page 15255]]
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 Standards Yes
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. 63.1385 specifies
Existing Sources. compliance dates.
63.6(c)(2)......................... .......................... Yes
63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4).................. .......................... No................. [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)......................... .......................... Yes
63.6(d)............................ .......................... No................. [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1)-(e)(2).................. Operation & Maintenance... Yes................ Sec. 63.1386(a) specifies
operations/ maintenance
plan
63.6(e)(3)......................... Startup, Shutdown Yes
Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)(1)-(f)(3).................. Compliance with Nonopacity Yes
Emission Standards.
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 Compliance. Yes
63.7(a)............................ Performance Testing Yes................ Sec. 63.1387 has specific
Requirements. requirements.
63.7(b)............................ Notification.............. Yes
63.7(c)............................ Quality Assurance Program/ Yes
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/Maintenance. Yes
63.8(d)............................ Quality Control Program... Yes
63.8(e)............................ Performance Evaluation for Yes
CMS.
63.8(f)............................ Alternative Monitoring Yes
Method.
63.8(g)............................ Reduction of Monitoring Yes
Data.
63.9(a)............................ Notification Requirements. Yes
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/Opacity No................. Opacity/VE tests not
Test. required.
63.9(g)............................ Additional CMS Yes
Notifications.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3).................. Notification of Compliance Yes
Status.
63.9(h)(4)......................... .......................... No................. [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6).................. .......................... Yes
[[Page 15256]]
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 Observations No................. No limits for VE/opacity.
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 Reference No.................
63.15.............................. Availability of Yes
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A to Subpart NNN--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 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--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.
1. The following table shows example levels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample
Expected percent free formaldehyde size,
grams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................................................ 30.0
5............................................................ 12.0
[[Page 15257]]
8............................................................ 7.5
10........................................................... 6.0
12........................................................... 5.0
15........................................................... 4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. It is very important to the accuracy of the results that the
sample size be chosen correctly. If the milliliters of titrant are
less than 15 mL or greater than 30 mL, reestimate the needed sample
size and repeat the tests.
d. Part B: Expected FF < 2="" percent="" grams="" resin="30/expected" percent="" ff.="" i.="" the="" following="" table="" shows="" example="" levels:="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" sample="" expected="" percent="" free="" formaldehyde="" size,="" grams="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" 2............................................................="" 15="" 1............................................................="" 30="" 0.5..........................................................="" 60="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" ii.="" if="" the="" milliliters="" of="" titrant="" are="" less="" than="" 5="" ml="" or="" greater="" than="" 30="" ml,="" reestimate="" the="" needed="" sample="" size="" and="" repeat="" the="" tests.="" 5.2="" weigh="" the="" resin="" sample="" to="" the="" nearest="" 0.01="" grams="" into="" a="" 250-ml="" beaker.="" record="" sample="" weight.="" 5.3="" add="" 100="" ml="" of="" the="" methanol/water="" mixture="" and="" stir="" on="" a="" magnetic="" stirrer.="" confirm="" that="" the="" resin="" has="" dissolved.="" 5.4="" adjust="" the="" resin/solvent="" solution="" to="" ph="" 4.0,="" using="" the="" prestandardized="" ph="" meter,="" 1.0="" n="" hydrochloric="" acid,="" 0.1="" n="" hydrochloric="" acid,="" and="" 0.1="" n="" sodium="" hydroxide.="" 5.5="" add="" 50="" ml="" of="" the="" hydroxylamine="" hydrochloride="" solution,="" measured="" with="" a="" graduated="" cylinder.="" start="" the="" timer.="" 5.6="" stir="" for="" 5="" minutes.="" titrate="" to="" ph="" 4.0="" with="" standardized="" 1.0="" n="" sodium="" hydroxide.="" record="" the="" milliliters="" of="" titrant="" and="" the="" normality.="" 6.="" calculations.="" [graphic]="" [tiff="" omitted]="" tp31mr97.017="" 7.="" method="" precision="" and="" accuracy.="" test="" values="" should="" conform="" to="" the="" following="" statistical="" precision:="" variance="0.005;" standard="" deviation="0.07;" 95%="" confidence="" interval,="" for="" a="" single="" determination="0.2." 8.="" author.="" this="" method="" was="" prepared="" by="" k.="" k.="" tutin="" and="" m.="" l.="" foster,="" tacoma="" r&d="" laboratory,="" georgia-pacific="" resins,="" inc.="" (principle="" written="" by="" r.="" r.="" conner.)="" 9.="" references.="" 9.1="" gpam="" 2221.2.="" 9.2="" pr&c="" tm="" 2.035.="" 9.3="" project="" report,="" comparison="" of="" free="" formaldehyde="" procedures,="" january="" 1990,="" k.="" k.="" tutin.="" appendix="" c="" to="" subpart="" nnn--method="" for="" the="" determination="" of="" product="" density="" 1.="" purpose.="" the="" purpose="" of="" this="" test="" is="" to="" determine="" the="" product="" density="" of="" cured="" blanket="" insulation.="" the="" method="" is="" applicable="" to="" all="" cured="" board="" and="" blanket="" products.="" 2.="" equipment.="" one="" square="" foot="" (12="" in.="" by="" 12="" in.)="" template,="" or="" templates="" that="" are="" multiple="" of="" one="" square="" foot,="" for="" use="" in="" cutting="" insulation="" samples.="" 3.="" procedure.="" 3.1="" obtain="" a="" sample="" at="" least="" 30="" in.="" long="" across="" the="" machine="" width.="" sample="" should="" be="" free="" of="" dirt="" or="" foreign="" matter.="" 3.2="" lay="" out="" the="" cutting="" pattern="" according="" to="" the="" plants="" written="" procedure="" for="" the="" designated="" product.="" 3.2="" cut="" samples="" using="" one="" square="" foot="" (or="" multiples="" of="" one="" square="" foot)="" template.="" 3.3="" weigh="" product="" and="" obtain="" area="" weight="" (lb/ft="" \2\).="" 3.4="" measure="" sample="" thickness.="" 3.5="" calculate="" the="" product="" density:="" density="" (lb/ft="" \3\)="area" weight="" (lb/ft="" \2\)/thickness="" (ft)="" 3.="" 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="" 10="">-10
lbs/cu ft (11.3 ppbv) or as high as 1.8 x 10 3 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 in subpart A of
this part.
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 EPA Method 5, 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, procedures. The sampling train consists of
the following components: probe nozzle, probe liner, pitot tube,
differential pressure gauge, impingers, metering system, barometer,
and gas density determination equipment. Figure 1 is as follows:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 15258]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 15259]]
6.1.1 Probe Nozzle: Quartz, glass, or stainless steel with
sharp, tapered (30 deg. angle) leading edge. The taper shall be on
the outside to preserve a constant inner diameter. The nozzle shall
be buttonhook or elbow design. A range of nozzle sizes suitable for
isokinetic sampling should be available in increments of 0.15 cm
(\1/16\ in), e.g., 0.32 to 1.27 cm (\1/8\ to \1/2\ in), or larger if
higher volume sampling trains are used. Each nozzle shall be
calibrated according to the procedure outlined in Section 10.1.
6.1.2 Probe Liner: Borosilicate glass or quartz shall be used
for the probe liner. The probe shall be maintained at a temperature
of 120 deg.C 14 deg.C (248 deg.F
25 deg.F).
6.1.3 Pitot Tube: The Pitot tube shall be Type S, as described
in Section 2.1 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or any
other appropriate device. The pitot tube shall be attached to the
probe to allow constant monitoring of the stack gas velocity. The
impact (high pressure) opening plane of the pitot tube shall be even
with or above the nozzle entry plane (see Figure 2-6b, EPA Method 2,
40 CFR part 60, appendix A) during sampling. The Type S pitot tube
assembly shall have a known coefficient, determined as outlined in
Section 4 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
6.1.4 Differential Pressure Gauge: The differential pressure
gauge shall be an inclined manometer or equivalent device as
described in Section 2.2 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A. One manometer shall be used for velocity-head reading and the
other for orifice differential pressure readings.
6.1.5 Impingers: The sampling train requires a minimum of four
impingers, connected as shown in Figure 1, with ground glass (or
equivalent) vacuum-tight fittings. For the first, third, and fourth
impingers, use the Greenburg-Smith design, modified by replacing the
tip with a 1.3 cm inside diameter (\1/2\ in) glass tube extending to
1.3 cm (\1/2\ in) from the bottom of the flask. For the second
impinger, use a Greenburg-Smith impinger with the standard tip.
Place a thermometer capable of measuring temperature to within
1 deg.C (2 deg.F) at the outlet of the fourth impinger for
monitoring purposes.
6.1.6 Metering System: The necessary components are a vacuum
gauge, leak-free pump, thermometers capable of measuring
temperatures within 3 deg.C (5.4 deg.F), dry-gas meter capable of
measuring volume to within 1 percent, and related equipment as shown
in Figure 1. At a minimum, the pump should be capable of 4 cfm free
flow, and the dry gas meter should have a recording capacity of 0-
999.9 cu ft with a resolution of 0.005 cu ft. Other metering systems
may be used which are capable of maintaining sample volumes to
within 2 percent. The metering system may be used in conjunction
with a pitot tube to enable checks of isokinetic sampling rates.
6.1.7 Barometer: The barometer may be mercury, aneroid, or
other barometer capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within
2.5 mm Hg (0.1 in Hg). In many cases, the barometric reading may be
obtained from a nearby National Weather Service Station, in which
case the station value (which is the absolute barometric pressure)
is requested and an adjustment for elevation differences between the
weather station and sampling point is applied at a rate of minus 2.5
mm Hg (0.1 in Hg) per 30 m (100 ft) elevation increases (vice versa
for elevation decrease).
6.1.8 Gas Density Determination Equipment: Temperature sensor
and pressure gauge (as described in Sections 2.3 and 2.3 of EPA
Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), and gas analyzer, if
necessary (as described in EPA Method 3, 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A). The temperature sensor ideally should be permanently attached to
the pitot tube or sampling probe in a fixed configuration such that
the top of the sensor extends beyond the leading edge of the probe
sheath and does not touch any metal. Alternatively, the sensor may
be attached just prior to use in the field. Note, however, that if
the temperature sensor is attached in the field, the sensor must be
placed in an interference-free arrangement with respect to the Type
S pitot openings (see Figure 2-7, EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A). As a second alternative, if a difference of no more
than 1 percent in the average velocity measurement is to be
introduced, the temperature gauge need not be attached to the probe
or pitot tube.
6.2 Sample Recovery.
6.2.1 Probe Liner: Probe nozzle and brushes; bristle brushes
with stainless steel wire handles are required. The probe brush
shall have extensions of stainless steel, Teflon, or inert material
at least as long as the probe. The brushes shall be properly sized
and shaped to brush out the probe liner, the probe nozzle, and the
impingers.
6.2.2 Wash Bottles: One wash bottle is required. Polyethylene,
teflon, or glass wash bottles may be used for sample recovery.
6.2.3 Graduate Cylinder and/or Balance: A graduated cylinder or
balance is required to measure condensed water to the nearest 1 ml
or 1 g. Graduated cylinders shall have division not >2 ml.
Laboratory balances capable of weighing to 0.5 g are
required.
6.2.4 Polyethylene Storage Containers: 500 ml wide-mouth
polyethylene bottles are required to store impinger water samples.
6.2.5 Rubber Policeman and Funnel: A rubber policeman and
funnel are required to aid the transfer of material into and out of
containers in the field.
6.3 Sample Analysis.
6.3.1 Spectrophotometer--B&L 70, 710, 2000, etc., or
equivalent; 1 cm pathlength cuvette holder.
6.3.2 Disposable polystyrene cuvettes, pathlengh 1 cm, volume
of about 4.5 ml.
6.3.3 Pipettors--Fixed-volume Oxford pipet (250 l; 500
l; 1000 l); adjustable volume Oxford or equivalent
pipettor 1-5 m'' model, set to 2.50 ml.
6.3.4 Pipet tips for pipettors above.
6.3.5 Parafilm, 2 deg. wide; cut into about 1'' squares.
7.0 Reagents.
7.1 High purity water: All references to water in this method
refer to high purity water (ASTM Type I water or equivalent). The
water purity will dictate the lower limits of formaldehyde
quantification.
7.2 Silica Gel: Silica gel shall be indicting type, 6-16 mesh.
If the silica gel has been used previously, dry at 175 deg.C
(350 deg.F) for 2 hours before using. New silica gel may be used as
received. Alternatively, other types of desiccants (equivalent or
better) may be used.
7.3 Crushed Ice: Quantities ranging from 10-50 lbs may be
necessary during a sampling run, depending upon ambient temperature.
Samples which have been taken must be stored and shipped cold;
sufficient ice for this purpose must be allowed.
7.4 Quaternary ammonium compound stock solution: Prepare a
stock solution of dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride (98 percent
minimum assay, reagent grade) by dissolving 1.0 gram in 1000 ml
water. This solution contains nominally 1000 g/ml
quaternary ammonium compound, and is used as a biocide for some
sources which are prone to microbial contamination.
7.5 Pararosaniline: Weigh 0.16 grams pararosaniline (free base;
assay of 95 percent or greater, C.I. 42500; Sigma P7632 has been
found to be acceptable) into a 100 ml flask. Exercise care, since
pararosaniline is a dye and will stain. Using a wash bottle with
high-purity water, rinse the walls of the flask. Add no more than 25
ml water. Then, carefully add 20 ml of concentrated hydrochloric
acid to the flask. The flask will become warm after the addition of
acid. Add a magnetic stir bar to the flask, cap, and place on a
magnetic stirrer for approximately 4 hours. Then, add additional
water so the total volume is 100 ml. This solution is stable for
several months when stored tightly capped at room temperature.
7.6 Sodium sulfite: Weigh 0.10 grams anhydrous sodium sulfite
into a 100 ml flask. Dilute to the mark with high purity water.
Invert 15-20 times to mix and dissolve the sodium sulfite. This
solution MUST BE PREPARED FRESH EVERY DAY.
7.7 Formaldehyde standard solution: Pipet exactly 2.70 ml of 37
percent formaldehyde solution into a 1000 ml volumetric flask which
contains about 500 ml of high-purity water. Dilute to the mark with
high-purity water. This solution contains nominally 1000 g/
ml of formaldehyde, and is used to prepare the working formaldehyde
standards. The exact formaldehyde concentration may be determined if
needed by suitable modification of the sodium sulfite method
(Reference: J.F. Walker, FORMALDEHYDE (Third Edition), 1964.). The
1000 g/ml formaldehyde stock solution is stable for at
least a year if kept tightly closed, with the neck of the flask
sealed with Parafilm. Store at room temperature.
7.8 a. Working formaldehyde standards: Pipet exactly 10.0 ml of
the 1000 g/ml formaldehyde stock solution into a 100 ml
volumetric flask which is about half full of high-purity water.
Dilute to the mark with high-purity water, and invert 15-20 times to
mix thoroughly.
This solution contains nominally 100 g/ml formaldehyde.
Prepare the working standards from this 100 g/ml standard
solution and using the Oxford pipets:
[[Page 15260]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volumetric
L flask
or 100 volume
Working standard, /mL g/ (dilute to
mL mark with
solution water)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.250......................................... 250 100
0.500......................................... 500 100
1.00.......................................... 1000 100
2.00.......................................... 2000 100
3.00.......................................... 1500 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The 100 g/ml stock solution is stable for 4 weeks if
kept refrigerated between analyses. The working standards (0.25--
3.00 g/ml) should be prepared fresh every day, consistent
with good laboratory practice for trace analysis. If the laboratory
water is not of sufficient purity, it may be necessary to prepare
the working standards EVERY DAY. The laboratory MUST ESTABLISH that
the working standards are stable--DO NOT assume that your working
standards are stable for more than a day unless you have verified
this by actual testing for several series of working standards.
8.0 Sample Collection.
8.1 Because of the complexity of this method, field personnel
should be trained in and experienced with the test procedures in
order to obtain reliable results.
8.2 Laboratory Preparation:
8.2.1 All the components shall be maintained and calibrated
according to the procedure described in APTD-0576, unless otherwise
specified.
8.2.2 Weigh several 200 to 300 g portions of silica gel in
airtight containers to the nearest 0.5 g. Record on each container
the total weight of the silica gel plus containers. As an
alternative to preweighing the silica gel, it may instead be weighed
directly in the impinger or sampling holder just prior to train
assembly.
8.3 Preliminary Field Determinations.
8.3.1 Select the sampling site and the minimum number of
sampling points according to EPA Method 1, 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A, or other relevant criteria. Determine the stack pressure,
temperature, and range of velocity heads using EPA Method 2, 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A. A leak-check of the pitot lines according to
Section 3.1 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be
performed. Determine the stack gas moisture content using EPA
Approximation Method 4, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or its
alternatives to establish estimates of isokinetic sampling rate
settings. Determine the stack gas dry molecular weight, as described
in EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Section 3.6. If
integrated EPA Method 3, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, sampling is
used for molecular weight determination, the integrated bag sample
shall be taken simultaneously with, and for the same total length of
time as, the sample run.
8.3.2 Select a nozzle size based on the range of velocity heads
so that it is not necessary to change the nozzle size in order to
maintain isokinetic sampling rates below 28 l/min (1.0 cfm). During
the run do not change the nozzle. Ensure that the proper
differential pressure gauge is chosen for the range of velocity
heads encountered (see Section 2.2 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A).
8.3.3 Select a suitable probe liner and probe length so that
all traverse points can be sampled. For large stacks, to reduce the
length of the probe, consider sampling from opposite sides of the
stack.
8.3.4 A minimum of 30 cu ft of sample volume is suggested for
emission sources with stack concentrations not greater than
23,000,000 ppbv. Additional sample volume shall be collected as
necessitated by the capacity of the water reagent and analytical
detection limit constraint. Reduced sample volume may be collected
as long as the final concentration of formaldehyde in the stack
sample is 10 (ten) times the detection limit.
8.3.5 Determine the total length of sampling time needed to
obtain the identified minimum volume by comparing the anticipated
average sampling rate with the volume requirement. Allocate the same
time to all traverse points defined by EPA Method 1, 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. To avoid timekeeping errors, the length of time sampled
at each traverse point should be an integer or an integer plus 0.5
min.
8.3.6 In some circumstances (e.g., batch cycles) it may be
necessary to sample for shorter times at the traverse points and to
obtain smaller gas-volume samples. In these cases, careful
documentation must be maintained in order to allow accurate
calculations of concentrations.
8.4 Preparation of Collection Train.
8.4.1 During preparation and assembly of the sampling train,
keep all openings where contamination can occur covered with Teflon
film or aluminum foil until just prior to assembly or until sampling
is about to begin.
8.4.2 Place 100 ml of water in each of the first two impingers,
and leave the third impinger empty. If additional capacity is
required for high expected concentrations of formaldehyde in the
stack gas, 200 ml of water per impinger may be used or additional
impingers may be used for sampling. Transfer approximately 200 to
300 g of pre-weighed silica gel from its container to the fourth
impinger. Care should be taken to ensure that the silica gel is not
entrained and carried out from the impinger during sampling. Place
the silica gel container in a clean place for later use in the
sample recovery. Alternatively, the weight of the silica gel plus
impinger may be determined to the nearest 0.5 g and recorded.
8.4.3 With a glass or quartz liner, install the selected nozzle
using a Viton-A O-ring when stack temperatures are < 260="" deg.c="" (500="" deg.f)="" and="" a="" woven="" glass-fiber="" gasket="" when="" temperatures="" are="" higher.="" see="" aptd-0576="" for="" details.="" other="" connection="" systems="" utilizing="" either="" 316="" stainless="" steel="" or="" teflon="" ferrules="" may="" be="" used.="" mark="" the="" probe="" with="" heat-resistant="" tape="" or="" by="" some="" other="" method="" to="" denote="" the="" proper="" distance="" into="" the="" stack="" or="" duct="" for="" each="" sampling="" point.="" 8.4.4="" assemble="" the="" train="" as="" shown="" in="" figure="" 1.="" during="" assembly,="" a="" very="" light="" coating="" of="" silicone="" grease="" may="" be="" used="" on="" ground-glass="" joints="" of="" the="" impingers,="" but="" the="" silicone="" grease="" should="" be="" limited="" to="" the="" outer="" portion="" (see="" aptd-0576)="" of="" the="" ground-glass="" joints="" to="" minimize="" silicone="" grease="" contamination.="" if="" necessary,="" teflon="" tape="" may="" be="" used="" to="" seal="" leaks.="" connect="" all="" temperature="" sensors="" to="" an="" appropriate="" potentiometer/display="" unit.="" check="" all="" temperature="" sensors="" at="" ambient="" temperatures.="" 8.4.5="" place="" crushed="" ice="" all="" around="" the="" impingers.="" 8.4.6="" turn="" on="" and="" set="" the="" probe="" heating="" system="" at="" the="" desired="" operating="" temperature.="" allow="" time="" for="" the="" temperature="" to="" stabilize.="" 8.5="" leak-check="" procedures.="" 8.5.1="" pre-test="" leak-check:="" recommended,="" but="" not="" required.="" if="" the="" tester="" elects="" to="" conduct="" the="" pre-test="" leak-check,="" the="" following="" procedure="" shall="" be="" used.="" 8.5.1.1="" a.="" after="" the="" sampling="" train="" has="" been="" assembled,="" turn="" on="" and="" set="" probe="" heating="" system="" at="" the="" desired="" operating="" temperature.="" allow="" time="" for="" the="" temperature="" to="" stabilize.="" if="" a="" viton-a="" o-ring="" or="" other="" leak-free="" connection="" is="" used="" in="" assembling="" the="" probe="" nozzle="" to="" the="" probe="" liner,="" leak-check="" the="" train="" at="" the="" sampling="" site="" by="" plugging="" the="" nozzle="" and="" pulling="" a="" 381="" mm="" hg="" (15="" in="" hg)="" vacuum.="" (note:="" a="" lower="" vacuum="" may="" be="" used,="" provided="" that="" the="" lower="" vacuum="" is="" not="" exceeded="" during="" the="" test.)="" b.="" if="" a="" woven="" glass="" fiber="" gasket="" is="" used,="" do="" not="" connect="" the="" probe="" to="" the="" train="" during="" the="" leak-check.="" instead,="" leak-check="" the="" train="" by="" first="" attaching="" a="" carbon-filled="" leak-check="" impinger="" to="" the="" inlet="" and="" then="" plugging="" the="" inlet="" and="" pulling="" a="" 381="" mm="" hg="" (15="" in="" hg)="" vacuum.="" (a="" lower="" vacuum="" may="" be="" used="" if="" this="" lower="" vacuum="" is="" not="" exceeded="" during="" the="" test.)="" next="" connect="" the="" probe="" to="" the="" train="" and="" leak-check="" at="" about="" 25="" mm="" hg="" (1="" in="" hg)="" vacuum.="" alternatively,="" leak-="" check="" the="" probe="" with="" the="" rest="" of="" the="" sampling="" train="" in="" one="" step="" at="" 381="" mm="" hg="" (15="" in="" hg)="" vacuum.="" leakage="" rates="" in="" excess="" of="" (a)="" 4="" percent="" of="" the="" average="" sampling="" rate="" or="" (b)="" 0.00057="" m\3\/min="" (0.02="" cfm),="" whichever="" is="" less,="" are="" unacceptable.="" 8.5.1.2="" the="" following="" leak-check="" instructions="" for="" the="" sampling="" train="" described="" in="" aptd-0576="" and="" aptd-0581="" may="" be="" helpful.="" start="" the="" pump="" with="" the="" fine-adjust="" valve="" fully="" open="" and="" coarse-valve="" completely="" closed.="" partially="" open="" the="" coarse-adjust="" valve="" and="" slowly="" close="" the="" fine-adjust="" valve="" until="" the="" desired="" vacuum="" is="" reached.="" do="" not="" reverse="" direction="" of="" the="" fine-adjust="" valve,="" as="" liquid="" will="" back="" up="" into="" the="" train.="" if="" the="" desired="" vacuum="" is="" exceeded,="" either="" perform="" the="" leak-check="" at="" this="" higher="" vacuum="" or="" end="" the="" leak-check,="" as="" described="" below,="" and="" start="" over.="" 8.5.1.3="" when="" the="" leak-check="" is="" completed,="" first="" slowly="" remove="" the="" plug="" from="" the="" inlet="" to="" the="" probe.="" when="" the="" vacuum="" drops="" to="" 127="" mm="" (5="" in)="" hg="" or="" less,="" immediately="" close="" the="" coarse-adjust="" valve.="" switch="" off="" the="" pumping="" system="" and="" reopen="" the="" fine-adjust="" valve.="" do="" not="" reopen="" the="" fine-adjust="" valve="" until="" the="" coarse-adjust="" valve="" has="" been="" closed="" to="" prevent="" the="" liquid="" in="" the="" impingers="" from="" being="" forced="" backward="" in="" the="" sampling="" line="" and="" silica="" gel="" from="" being="" entrained="" backward="" into="" the="" third="" impinger.="" 8.5.2="" leak-checks="" during="" sampling="" run:="" 8.5.2.1="" if,="" during="" the="" sampling="" run,="" a="" component="" change="" (e.g.,="" impinger)="" becomes="" necessary,="" a="" leak-check="" shall="" be="" conducted="" immediately="" after="" the="" interruption="" of="" sampling="" and="" before="" the="" change="" is="" made.="" the="" leak-check="" shall="" be="" done="" according="" to="" the="" procedure="" described="" in="" section="" 10.3.3,="" except="" [[page="" 15261]]="" that="" it="" shall="" be="" done="" at="" a="" vacuum="" greater="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" the="" maximum="" value="" recorded="" up="" to="" that="" point="" in="" the="" test.="" if="" the="" leakage="" rate="" is="" found="" to="" be="" no="" greater="" than="" 0.0057="" m\3\/min="" (0.02="" cfm)="" or="" 4="" percent="" of="" the="" average="" sampling="" rate="" (whichever="" is="" less),="" the="" results="" are="" acceptable.="" if="" a="" higher="" leakage="" rate="" is="" obtained,="" the="" tester="" must="" void="" the="" sampling="" run.="" (note:="" any="" correction="" of="" the="" sample="" volume="" by="" calculation="" reduces="" the="" integrity="" of="" the="" pollutant="" concentration="" data="" generated="" and="" must="" be="" avoided.)="" 8.5.2.2="" immediately="" after="" component="" changes,="" leak-checks="" are="" optional.="" if="" performed,="" the="" procedure="" described="" in="" section="" 6.5.1.1="" shall="" be="" used.="" 8.5.3="" post-test="" leak-check:="" 8.5.3.1="" a="" leak-check="" is="" mandatory="" at="" the="" conclusion="" of="" each="" sampling="" run.="" the="" leak-check="" shall="" be="" done="" with="" the="" same="" procedures="" as="" the="" pre-test="" leak-check,="" except="" that="" the="" post-test="" leak-check="" shall="" be="" conducted="" at="" a="" vacuum="" greater="" than="" or="" equal="" to="" the="" maximum="" value="" reached="" during="" the="" sampling="" run.="" if="" the="" leakage="" rate="" is="" found="" to="" be="" no="" greater="" than="" 0.00057="" m\3\/min="" (0.02="" cfm)="" or="" 4="" percent="" of="" the="" average="" sampling="" rate="" (whichever="" is="" less),="" the="" results="" are="" acceptable.="" if,="" however,="" a="" higher="" leakage="" rate="" is="" obtained,="" the="" tester="" shall="" record="" the="" leakage="" rate="" and="" void="" the="" sampling="" run.="" 8.6="" sampling="" train="" operation.="" 8.6.1="" during="" the="" sampling="" run,="" maintain="" an="" isokinetic="" sampling="" rate="" to="" within="" 10="" percent="" of="" true="" isokinetic,="" below="" 28="" l/min="" (1.0="" cfm).="" maintain="" a="" temperature="" around="" the="" probe="" of="" 120="" deg.c=""> 14 deg.C (248 deg. 25 deg.F).
8.6.2 For each run, record the data on a data sheet such at the
one shown in Figure 2. Be sure to record the initial dry-gas meter
reading. Record the dry-gas meter readings at the beginning and end
of each sampling time increment, when changes in flow rates are
made, before and after each leak-check, and when sampling is halted.
Take other readings required by Figure 2 at least once at each
sample point during each time increment and additional readings when
significant adjustments (20 percent variation in velocity head
readings) necessitate additional adjustments in flow rate. Level and
zero the manometer. Because the manometer level and zero may drift
due to vibrations and temperature changes, make periodic checks
during the traverse.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 15262]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.003
[[Page 15263]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.004
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 15264]]
8.6.3 Clean the stack access ports prior to the test run to
eliminate the chance of sampling deposited material. To begin
sampling, remove the nozzle cap, verify that the probe heating
system are at the specified temperature, and verify that the pitot
tube and probe are properly positioned. Position the nozzle at the
first traverse point, with the tip pointing directly into the gas
stream. Immediately start the pump and adjust the flow to isokinetic
conditions. Nomographs, which aid in the rapid adjustment of the
isokinetic sampling rate without excessive computations, are
available. These nomographs are designed for use when the Type S
pitot tube coefficient is 0.840.02 and the stack gas
equivalent density (dry molecular weight) is equal to
294. APTD-0576 details the procedure for using the
nomographs. If the stack gas molecular weight and the pitot tube
coefficient are outside the above ranges, do not use the nomographs
unless appropriate steps are taken to compensate for the deviations.
8.6.4 When the stack is under significant negative pressure
(equivalent to the height of the impinger stem), take care to close
the coarse-adjust valve before inserting the probe into the stack in
order to prevent liquid from backing up through the train. If
necessary, a low vacuum on the train may have to be started prior to
entering the stack.
8.6.5 When the probe is in position, block off the openings
around the probe and stack access port to prevent unrepresentative
dilution of the gas stream.
8.6.6 Traverse the stack cross section, as required by EPA
Method 1, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, being careful not to bump the
probe nozzle into the stack walls when sampling near the walls or
when removing or inserting the probe through the access port, in
order to minimize the chance of extracting deposited material.
8.6.7 During the test run, make periodic adjustments to keep
the temperature around the probe at the proper levels. Add more ice
and, if necessary, salt, to maintain a temperature of < 20="" deg.c="" (68="" deg.f)="" at="" the="" silica="" gel="" outlet.="" 8.6.8="" a="" single="" train="" shall="" be="" used="" for="" the="" entire="" sampling="" run,="" except="" in="" cases="" where="" simultaneous="" sampling="" is="" required="" in="" two="" or="" more="" separate="" ducts="" or="" at="" two="" or="" more="" different="" locations="" within="" the="" same="" duct,="" or="" in="" cases="" where="" equipment="" failure="" necessitates="" a="" change="" of="" trains.="" an="" additional="" train="" or="" trains="" may="" also="" be="" used="" for="" sampling="" when="" the="" capacity="" of="" a="" single="" train="" is="" exceeded.="" 8.6.9="" when="" two="" or="" more="" trains="" are="" used,="" separate="" analyses="" of="" components="" from="" each="" train="" shall="" be="" performed.="" if="" multiple="" trains="" have="" been="" used="" because="" the="" capacity="" of="" a="" single="" train="" would="" be="" exceeded,="" first="" impingers="" from="" each="" train="" may="" be="" combined,="" and="" second="" impingers="" from="" each="" train="" may="" be="" combined.="" 8.6.10="" at="" the="" end="" of="" the="" sampling="" run,="" turn="" off="" the="" coarse-="" adjust="" valve,="" remove="" the="" probe="" and="" nozzle="" from="" the="" stack,="" turn="" off="" the="" pump,="" record="" the="" final="" dry="" gas="" meter="" reading,="" and="" conduct="" a="" post-test="" leak-check.="" also,="" check="" the="" pitot="" lines="" as="" described="" in="" epa="" method="" 2,="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 60,="" appendix="" a.="" the="" lines="" must="" pass="" this="" leak-check="" in="" order="" to="" validate="" the="" velocity-head="" data.="" 8.6.11="" calculate="" percent="" isokineticity="" (see="" method="" 2)="" to="" determine="" whether="" the="" run="" was="" valid="" or="" another="" test="" should="" be="" made.="" 8.7="" sample="" preservation="" and="" handling.="" 8.7.1="" samples="" from="" most="" sources="" applicable="" to="" this="" method="" have="" acceptable="" holding="" times="" using="" normal="" handling="" practices="" (shipping="" samples="" iced,="" storing="" in="" refrigerator="" at="" 2="" deg.c="" until="" analysis).="" however,="" forming="" section="" stacks="" and="" other="" sources="" using="" waste="" water="" sprays="" may="" be="" subject="" to="" microbial="" contamination.="" for="" these="" sources,="" a="" biocide="" (quaternary="" ammonium="" compound="" solution)="" may="" be="" added="" to="" collected="" samples="" to="" improve="" sample="" stability="" and="" method="" ruggedness.="" 8.7.2="" sample="" holding="" time:="" samples="" should="" be="" analyzed="" within="" 14="" days="" of="" collection.="" samples="" must="" be="" refrigerated/kept="" cold="" for="" the="" entire="" period="" preceding="" analysis.="" after="" the="" samples="" have="" been="" brought="" to="" room="" temperature="" for="" analysis,="" any="" analyses="" needed="" should="" be="" performed="" on="" the="" same="" day.="" repeated="" cycles="" of="" warming="" the="" samples="" to="" room="" temperature/refrigerating/rewarming,="" then="" analyzing="" again,="" etc.,="" have="" not="" been="" investigated="" in="" depth="" to="" evaluate="" if="" analyte="" levels="" remain="" stable="" for="" all="" sources.="" 8.7.3="" additional="" studies="" will="" be="" performed="" to="" evaluate="" whether="" longer="" sample="" holding="" times="" are="" feasible="" for="" this="" method.="" 8.8="" sample="" recovery.="" 8.8.1="" preparation:="" 8.8.1.1="" proper="" cleanup="" procedure="" begins="" as="" soon="" as="" the="" probe="" is="" removed="" from="" the="" stack="" at="" the="" end="" of="" the="" sampling="" period.="" allow="" the="" probe="" to="" cool.="" when="" the="" probe="" can="" be="" handled="" safely,="" wipe="" off="" all="" external="" particulate="" matter="" near="" the="" tip="" of="" the="" probe="" nozzle="" and="" place="" a="" cap="" over="" the="" tip="" to="" prevent="" losing="" or="" gaining="" particulate="" matter.="" do="" not="" cap="" the="" probe="" tightly="" while="" the="" sampling="" train="" is="" cooling="" because="" a="" vacuum="" will="" be="" created,="" drawing="" liquid="" from="" the="" impingers="" back="" through="" the="" sampling="" train.="" 8.8.1.2="" before="" moving="" the="" sampling="" train="" to="" the="" cleanup="" site,="" remove="" the="" probe="" from="" the="" sampling="" train="" and="" cap="" the="" open="" outlet,="" being="" careful="" not="" to="" lose="" any="" condensate="" that="" might="" be="" present.="" remove="" the="" umbilical="" cord="" from="" the="" last="" impinger="" and="" cap="" the="" impinger.="" if="" a="" flexible="" line="" is="" used,="" let="" any="" condensed="" water="" or="" liquid="" drain="" into="" the="" impingers.="" cap="" off="" any="" open="" impinger="" inlets="" and="" outlets.="" ground="" glass="" stoppers,="" teflon="" caps,="" or="" caps="" of="" other="" inert="" materials="" may="" be="" used="" to="" seal="" all="" openings.="" 8.8.1.3="" transfer="" the="" probe="" and="" impinger="" assembly="" to="" an="" area="" that="" is="" clean="" and="" protected="" from="" wind="" so="" that="" the="" chances="" of="" contaminating="" or="" losing="" the="" sample="" are="" minimized.="" 8.8.1.4="" inspect="" the="" train="" before="" and="" during="" disassembly,="" and="" note="" any="" abnormal="" conditions.="" 8.8.1.5="" save="" a="" portion="" of="" the="" washing="" solution="" (high="" purity="" water)="" used="" for="" cleanup="" as="" a="" blank.="" 8.8.2="" sample="" containers:="" 8.8.2.1="" container="" 1:="" probe="" and="" impinger="" catches.="" using="" a="" graduated="" cylinder,="" measure="" to="" the="" nearest="" ml,="" and="" record="" the="" volume="" of="" the="" solution="" in="" the="" first="" three="" impingers.="" alternatively,="" the="" solution="" may="" be="" weighed="" to="" the="" nearest="" 0.5="" g.="" include="" any="" condensate="" in="" the="" probe="" in="" this="" determination.="" transfer="" the="" combined="" impinger="" solution="" from="" the="" graduated="" cylinder="" into="" the="" polyethylene="" bottle.="" taking="" care="" that="" dust="" on="" the="" outside="" of="" the="" probe="" or="" other="" exterior="" surfaces="" does="" not="" get="" into="" the="" sample,="" clean="" all="" surfaces="" to="" which="" the="" sample="" is="" exposed="" (including="" the="" probe="" nozzle,="" probe="" fitting,="" probe="" liner,="" first="" three="" impingers,="" and="" impinger="" connectors)="" with="" water.="" use="" less="" than="" 400="" ml="" for="" the="" entire="" waste="" (250="" ml="" would="" be="" better,="" if="" possible).="" add="" the="" rinse="" water="" to="" the="" sample="" container.="" 8.8.2.1.1="" carefully="" remove="" the="" probe="" nozzle="" and="" rinse="" the="" inside="" surface="" with="" water="" from="" a="" wash="" bottle.="" brush="" with="" a="" bristle="" brush="" and="" rinse="" until="" the="" rinse="" shows="" no="" visible="" particles,="" after="" which="" make="" a="" final="" rinse="" of="" the="" inside="" surface.="" brush="" and="" rinse="" the="" inside="" parts="" of="" the="" swagelok="" (or="" equivalent)="" fitting="" with="" water="" in="" a="" similar="" way.="" 8.8.2.1.2="" rinse="" the="" probe="" liner="" with="" water.="" while="" squirting="" the="" water="" into="" the="" upper="" end="" of="" the="" probe,="" tilt="" and="" rotate="" the="" probe="" so="" that="" all="" inside="" surfaces="" will="" be="" wetted="" with="" water.="" let="" the="" water="" drain="" from="" the="" lower="" end="" into="" the="" sample="" container.="" the="" tester="" may="" use="" a="" funnel="" (glass="" or="" polyethylene)="" to="" aid="" in="" transferring="" the="" liquid="" washes="" to="" the="" container.="" follow="" the="" rinse="" with="" a="" bristle="" brush.="" hold="" the="" probe="" in="" an="" inclined="" position,="" and="" squirt="" water="" into="" the="" upper="" end="" as="" the="" probe="" brush="" is="" being="" pushed="" with="" a="" twisting="" action="" through="" the="" probe.="" hold="" the="" sample="" container="" underneath="" the="" lower="" end="" of="" the="" probe,="" and="" catch="" any="" water="" and="" particulate="" matter="" that="" is="" brushed="" from="" the="" probe.="" run="" the="" brush="" through="" the="" probe="" three="" times="" or="" more.="" rinse="" the="" brush="" with="" water="" and="" quantitatively="" collect="" these="" washings="" in="" the="" sample="" container.="" after="" the="" brushing,="" make="" a="" final="" rinse="" of="" the="" probe="" as="" describe="" above.="" (note:="" two="" people="" should="" clean="" the="" probe="" in="" order="" to="" minimize="" sample="" losses.="" between="" sampling="" runs,="" brushes="" must="" be="" kept="" clean="" and="" free="" from="" contamination.)="" 8.8.2.1.3="" rinse="" the="" inside="" surface="" of="" each="" of="" the="" first="" three="" impingers="" (and="" connecting="" tubing)="" three="" separate="" times.="" use="" a="" small="" portion="" of="" water="" for="" each="" rinse,="" and="" brush="" each="" surface="" to="" which="" the="" sample="" is="" exposed="" with="" a="" bristle="" brush="" to="" ensure="" recovery="" of="" fine="" particulate="" matter.="" make="" a="" final="" rinse="" of="" each="" surface="" and="" of="" the="" brush,="" using="" water.="" 8.8.2.1.4="" after="" all="" water="" washing="" and="" particulate="" matter="" have="" been="" collected="" in="" the="" sample="" container,="" tighten="" the="" lid="" so="" the="" sample="" will="" not="" leak="" out="" when="" the="" container="" is="" shipped="" to="" the="" laboratory.="" mark="" the="" height="" of="" the="" fluid="" level="" to="" determine="" whether="" leakage="" occurs="" during="" transport.="" label="" the="" container="" clearly="" to="" identify="" its="" contents.="" 8.8.2.1.5="" if="" the="" first="" two="" impingers="" are="" to="" be="" analyzed="" separately="" to="" check="" for="" breakthrough,="" separate="" the="" contents="" and="" rinses="" of="" the="" two="" impingers="" into="" individual="" containers.="" care="" must="" be="" taken="" to="" avoid="" physical="" carryover="" from="" the="" first="" impinger="" to="" the="" second.="" any="" physical="" carryover="" of="" collected="" moisture="" into="" the="" second="" impinger="" will="" invalidate="" a="" breakthrough="" assessment.="" 8.8.2.2="" container="" 2:="" sample="" blank.="" prepare="" a="" blank="" by="" using="" a="" polyethylene="" container="" and="" adding="" a="" volume="" of="" water="" equal="" to="" the="" total="" volume="" in="" container="" 1.="" process="" the="" blank="" in="" the="" same="" manner="" as="" container="" 1.="" [[page="" 15265]]="" 8.8.2.3="" container="" 3:="" silica="" gel.="" note="" the="" color="" of="" the="" indicating="" silica="" gel="" to="" determine="" whether="" it="" has="" been="" completely="" spent="" and="" make="" a="" notation="" of="" its="" condition.="" the="" impinger="" containing="" the="" silica="" gel="" may="" be="" used="" as="" a="" sample="" transport="" container="" with="" both="" ends="" sealed="" with="" tightly="" fitting="" caps="" or="" plugs.="" ground-glass="" stoppers="" or="" teflon="" caps="" may="" be="" used.="" the="" silica="" gel="" impinger="" should="" then="" be="" labeled,="" covered="" with="" aluminum="" foil,="" and="" packaged="" on="" ice="" for="" transport="" to="" the="" laboratory.="" if="" the="" silica="" gel="" is="" removed="" from="" the="" impinger,="" the="" tester="" may="" use="" a="" funnel="" to="" pour="" the="" silica="" gel="" and="" a="" rubber="" policeman="" to="" remove="" the="" silica="" gel="" from="" the="" impinger.="" it="" is="" not="" necessary="" to="" remove="" the="" small="" amount="" of="" dust="" particles="" that="" may="" adhere="" to="" the="" impinger="" wall="" and="" are="" difficult="" to="" remove.="" since="" the="" gain="" in="" weight="" is="" to="" be="" used="" for="" moisture="" calculations,="" do="" not="" use="" water="" or="" other="" liquids="" to="" transfer="" the="" silica="" gel.="" if="" a="" balance="" is="" available="" in="" the="" field,="" the="" spent="" silica="" gel="" (or="" silica="" gel="" plus="" impinger)="" may="" be="" weighed="" to="" the="" nearest="" 0.5="" g.="" 8.8.2.4="" sample="" containers="" should="" be="" placed="" in="" a="" cooler,="" cooled="" by="" (although="" not="" in="" contact="" with)="" ice.="" putting="" sample="" bottles="" in="" zip-lock="" bags="" can="" aid="" in="" maintaining="" the="" integrity="" of="" the="" sample="" labels.="" sample="" containers="" should="" be="" placed="" vertically="" to="" avoid="" leakage="" during="" shipment.="" samples="" should="" be="" cooled="" during="" shipment="" so="" they="" will="" be="" received="" cold="" at="" the="" laboratory.="" it="" is="" critical="" that="" samples="" be="" chilled="" immediately="" after="" recovery.="" if="" the="" source="" is="" susceptible="" to="" microbial="" contamination="" from="" wash="" water="" (e.g.)="" forming="" section="" stack),="" add="" biocide="" as="" directed="" in="" section="" 8.2.5.="" 8.8.2.5="" a="" quaternary="" ammonium="" compound="" can="" be="" used="" as="" a="" biocide="" to="" stabilize="" samples="" against="" microbial="" degradation="" following="" collection.="" using="" the="" stock="" quaternary="" ammonium="" compound="" (qac)="" solution;="" add="" 2.5="" ml="" qac="" solution="" for="" every="" 100="" ml="" of="" recovered="" sample="" volume="" (estimate="" of="" volume="" is="" satisfactory)="" immediately="" after="" collection.="" the="" total="" volume="" of="" qac="" solution="" must="" be="" accurately="" known="" and="" recorded="" to="" correct="" for="" any="" dilution="" caused="" by="" the="" qac="" solution="" addition.="" 8.8.3="" sample="" preparation="" for="" analysis="" 8.8.3.1="" the="" sample="" should="" be="" refrigerated="" if="" the="" analysis="" will="" not="" be="" performed="" on="" the="" day="" of="" sampling.="" allow="" the="" sample="" to="" warm="" at="" room="" temperature="" for="" about="" two="" hours="" (if="" it="" has="" been="" refrigerated)="" prior="" to="" analyzing.="" 8.8.3.2="" analyze="" the="" sample="" by="" the="" pararosaniline="" method,="" as="" described="" in="" section="" 11.="" if="" the="" color-developed="" sample="" has="" an="" absorbance="" above="" the="" highest="" standard,="" a="" suitable="" dilution="" in="" high="" purity="" water="" should="" be="" prepared="" and="" analyzed.="" 9.="" quality="" control.="" 9.1="" sampling:="" see="" epa="" manual="" 600/4-77-02b="" for="" method="" 5="" quality="" control.="" 9.2="" analysis:="" the="" quality="" assurance="" program="" required="" for="" this="" method="" includes="" the="" analysis="" of="" the="" field="" and="" method="" blanks,="" and="" procedure="" validations.="" the="" positive="" identification="" and="" quantitation="" of="" formaldehyde="" are="" dependent="" on="" the="" integrity="" of="" the="" samples="" received="" and="" the="" precision="" and="" accuracy="" of="" the="" analytical="" methodology.="" quality="" assurance="" procedures="" for="" this="" method="" are="" designed="" to="" monitor="" the="" performance="" of="" the="" analytical="" methodology="" and="" to="" provide="" the="" required="" information="" to="" take="" corrective="" action="" if="" problems="" are="" observed="" in="" laboratory="" operations="" or="" in="" field="" sampling="" activities.="" 9.2.1="" field="" blanks:="" field="" blanks="" must="" be="" submitted="" with="" the="" samples="" collected="" at="" each="" sampling="" site.="" the="" field="" blanks="" include="" the="" sample="" bottles="" containing="" aliquots="" of="" sample="" recovery="" water,="" and="" water="" reagent.="" at="" a="" minimum,="" one="" complete="" sampling="" train="" will="" be="" assembled="" in="" the="" field="" staging="" area,="" taken="" to="" the="" sampling="" area,="" and="" leak-checked="" at="" the="" beginning="" and="" end="" of="" the="" testing="" (or="" for="" the="" same="" total="" number="" of="" times="" as="" the="" actual="" sampling="" train).="" the="" probe="" of="" the="" blank="" train="" must="" be="" heated="" during="" the="" sample="" test.="" the="" train="" will="" be="" recovered="" as="" if="" it="" were="" an="" actual="" test="" sample.="" no="" gaseous="" sample="" will="" be="" passed="" through="" the="" blank="" sampling="" train.="" 9.2.2="" blank="" correction:="" the="" field="" blank="" formaldehyde="" concentrations="" will="" be="" subtracted="" from="" the="" appropriate="" sample="" formaldehyde="" concentrations.="" blank="" formaldehyde="" concentrations="" above="" 0.25="">g/ml should be considered suspect, and subtraction
from the sample formaldehyde concentrations should be performed in a
manner acceptable to the applicable administrator.
9.2.3 Method Blanks: A method blank must be prepared for each
set of analytical operations, to evaluate contamination and
artifacts that can be derived from glassware, reagents, and sample
handling in the laboratory.
10. Calibration.
10.1 Probe Nozzle: Probe nozzles shall be calibrated before
their initial use in the field. Using a micrometer, measure the
inside diameter of the nozzle to the nearest 0.025 mm (0.001 in).
Make measurements at three separate places across the diameter and
obtain the average of the measurements. The difference between the
high and low numbers shall not exceed 0.1 mm (0.004 in). When the
nozzle becomes nicked or corroded, it shall be repaired and
calibrated, or replaced with a calibrated nozzle before use. Each
nozzle must be permanently and uniquely identified.
10.2 Pitot Tube: The Type S pitot tube assembly shall be
calibrated according to the procedure outlined in Section 4 of EPA
Method 2, or assigned a nominal coefficient of 0.84 if it is not
visibly nicked or corroded and if it meets design and intercomponent
spacing specifications.
10.3 Metering System.
10.3.1 Before its initial use in the field, the metering system
shall be calibrated according to the procedure outlined in APTD-
0576. Instead of physically adjusting the dry-gas meter dial
readings to correspond to the wet-test meter readings, calibration
factors may be used to correct the gas meter dial readings
mathematically to the proper values. Before calibrating the metering
system, it is suggested that a leak-check be conducted. For metering
systems having diaphragm pumps, the normal leak-check procedure will
not delete leakages with the pump. For these cases, the following
leak-check procedure will apply: make a ten-minute calibration run
at 0.00057 m\3\min (0.02 cfm). At the end of the run, take the
difference of the measured wet-test and dry-gas meter volumes and
divide the difference by 10 to get the leak rate. The leak rate
should not exceed 0.00057 m\3\min (0.02 cfm).
10.3.2 After each field use, check the calibration of the
metering system by performing three calibration runs at a single
intermediate orifice setting (based on the previous field test). Set
the vacuum at the maximum value reached during the test series. To
adjust the vacuum, insert a valve between the wet-test meter and the
inlet of the metering system. Calculate the average value of the
calibration factor. If the calibration has changed by more than 5
percent, recalibrate the meter over the full range of orifice
settings, as outlined in APTD-0576.
10.3.3 Leak-check of metering system: The portion of the
sampling train from the pump to the orifice meter (see Figure 1)
should be leak-checked prior to initial use and after each shipment.
Leakage after the pump will result in less volume being recorded
than is actually sampled. Use the following procedure: Close the
main valve on the meter box. Insert a one-hole rubber stopper with
rubber tubing attached into the orifice exhaust pipe. Disconnect and
vent the low side of the orifice manometer. Close off the low side
orifice tap. Pressurize the system to 13-18 cm (5-7 in) water column
by blowing into the rubber tubing. Pinch off the tubing and observe
the manometer for 1 min. A loss of pressure on the manometer
indicates a leak in the meter box. Leaks must be corrected. (Note:
If the dry-gas meter coefficient values obtained before and after a
test series differ by >5 percent, either the test series must be
voided or calculations for test series must be performed using
whichever meter coefficient value (i.e., before or after) gives the
lower value of total sample volume.)
10.4 Probe Heater: The probe heating system must be calibrated
before its initial use in the field according to the procedure
outlined in APTD-0576. Probes constructed according to APTD-0581
need not be calibrated if the calibration curves in APTD-0576 are
used.
10.5 Temperature gauges: Use the procedure in section 4.3 of
USEPA Method 2 to calibrate in-stack temperature gauges. Dial
thermometers such as are used for the dry gas meter and condenser
outlet, shall be calibrated against mercury-in-glass thermometers.
10.6 Barometer: Adjust the barometer initially and before each
test series to agree to within 2.5 mm Hg (0.1 in Hg) of
the mercury barometer or the correct barometric pressure value
reported by a nearby National Weather Service Station (same altitude
above sea level).
10.7 Balance: Calibrate the balance before each test series,
using Class S standard weights. The weights must be within
0.5 percent of the standards, or the balance must be
adjusted to meet these limits.
11.0 Procedure for Analysis.
a. The working formaldehyde standards (0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, and
3.0 g/ml) are analyzed and a calibration curve is
calculated for each day's analysis. The standards should be analyzed
first to ensure that the method is working properly prior to
analyzing the
[[Page 15266]]
samples. In addition, a sample of the high-purity water should also
be analyzed and used as a ``0'' formaldehyde standard.
b. The procedure for analysis of samples and standards is
identical: Using the pipet set to 2.50 ml, pipet 2.50 ml of the
solution to be analyzed into a polystyrene cuvette. Using the 250
l pipet, pipet 250 l of the pararosaniline reagent
solution into the cuvette. Seal the top of the cuvette with a
Parafilm square and shake at least 30 seconds to ensure the solution
in the cuvette is well-mixed. Peel back a corner of the Parafilm so
the next reagent can be added. Using the 250 l pipet, pipet
250 l of the sodium sulfite reagent solution into the
cuvette. Reseal the cuvette with the Parafilm, and again shake for
about 30 seconds to mix the solution in the cuvette. Record the time
of addition of the sodium sulfite and let the color develop at room
temperature for 60 minutes. Set the spectrophotometer to 570 nm and
set to read in Absorbance Units. The spectrophotometer should be
equipped with a holder for the 1-cm pathlength cuvettes. Place
cuvette(s) containing high-purity water in the spectrophotometer and
adjust to read 0.000 AU.
c. After the 60 minutes color development period, read the
standard and samples in the spectrophotometer. Record the Absorbance
reading for each cuvette. The calibration curve is calculated by
linear regression, with the formaldehyde concentration as the ``x''
coordinate of the pair, and the absorbance reading as the ``y''
coordinate. The procedure is very reproducible, and typically will
yield values similar to these for the calibration curve:
Correlation Coefficient: 0.9999
Slope: 0.50
Y-Intercept: 0.090
d. The formaldehyde concentration of the samples can be found by
using the trend-line feature of the calculator or computer program
used for the linear regression. For example, the TI-55 calculators
use the ``X'' key (this gives the predicted formaldehyde
concentration for the value of the absorbance you key in for the
sample). Multiply the formaldehyde concentration form the sample by
the dilution factor, if any, for the sample to give the formaldehyde
concentration of the original, undiluted, sample (units will be
micrograms/ml).
11.1 Notes on the Pararosaniline Procedure.
11.1.1 The pararosaniline method is temperature-sensitive.
However, the small fluctuations typical of a laboratory will not
significantly affect the results.
11.1.2 The calibration curve is linear to beyond 4 g/
ml formaldehyde, however, a research-grade spectrophotometer is
required to reproducibly read the high absorbance values. Consult
your instrument manual to evaluate the capability of the
spectrophotometer.
11.1.3 The quality of the laboratory water used to prepare
standards and make dilutions is critical. It is important that the
cautions given in the Reagents section be observed. This procedure
allows quantitation of formaldehyde at very low levels, and thus it
is imperative to avoid contamination from other sources of
formaldehyde and to exercise the degree of care required for trace
analyses.
11.1.4 The analyst should become familiar with the operation of
the Oxford or equivalent pipettors before using them for an
analysis. Follow the instructions of the manufacturer; one can pipet
water into a tared container on any analytical balance to check
pipet accuracy and precision. This will also establish if the proper
technique is being used. Always use a new tip for each pipetting
operation.
11.1.5 This procedure follows the recommendations of ASTM
Standard Guide D 3614, reading all solutions versus water in the
reference cell. This allows the absorbance of the blank to be
tracked on a daily basis. Refer to ASTM D 3614 for more information.
12.0 Calculations.
Carry out calculations, retaining at least one extra decimal
figure beyond that of the acquired data. Round off figures after
final calculations.
12.1 Calculations of Total Formaldehyde.
12.1.1 To determine the total formaldehyde in mg, use the
following equation if biocide was not used:
Total mg formaldehyde=
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.005
Where:
Cd=measured conc. formaldehyde, ``g/ml;
V=total volume of stack sample, ml;
DF=dilution factor.
12.1.2 To determine the total formaldehyde in mg, use the
following equation if biocide was used:
Total mg formaldehyde=
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.006
Where:
Cd=measured conc. formaldehyde, g/ml;
V=total volume of stack sample, ml;
B=total volume of biocide added to sample, ml;
DF=dilution factor.
12.2 Formaldehyde concentration (mg/m3) in stack gas.
Determine the formaldehyde concentration (mg/m3) in the stack
gas using the following equation:
Formaldehyde concentration (mg/m3)=
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.007
Where:
K=35.31 cu ft/m\3\ for Vm(std) in English units, or
K=1.00 m\3\/m\3\ for Vm(std) in metric units;
Vm(std)=volume of gas sample measured by a dry gas meter,
corrected to standard conditions, dscm (dscf).
12.3 Average Dry Gas Meter Temperature and Average Orifice
Pressure Drop are obtained from the data sheet.
12.4 Dry Gas Volume: Calculate Vm(std) and adjust for
leakage, if necessary, using the equation in Section 6.3 of EPA
Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
12.5 Volume of Water Vapor and Moisture Content: Calculated the
volume of water vapor and moisture content from equations 5-2 and 5-
3 of EPA Method 5.
13.0 Method Performance.
The precision of this method is estimated to be better than
5 percent, expressed as the percent
relative standard deviation.
14.0 Pollution Prevention. (Reserved)
15.0 Waste Management. (Reserved)
16.0 References.
US EPA 40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A, Test Methods 1-5
Method 318--Extractive FTIR Method for the Measurement of Emissions
from the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries
1. Scope and Application
1.1 Scope. The analytes measured by this method and their CAS
numbers are:
Carbon Monoxide: 630-08-0
Carbonyl Sulfide: 463-58-1
Formaldehyde: 50-00-0
Methanol: 1455-13-6
Phenol: 108-95-2
1.2 Applicability.
1.2.1 This method is applicable for the determination of
formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon
monoxide (CO) concentrations in controlled and uncontrolled
emissions from manufacturing processes using phenolic resins. The
compounds are analyzed in the mid-infrared spectral region (about
400 to 4000 cm-1 or 25 to 2.5 m). Suggested analytical
regions are given below (Table 1). Slight deviations from these
recommended regions may be necessary due to variations in moisture
content and ammonia concentration from source to source.
1.2.2 This method does not apply when: (a) polymerization of
formaldehyde occurs, (b) moisture condenses in either the sampling
system or the instrumentation, and (c) when moisture content of the
gas stream is so high relative to the analyte concentrations that it
causes severe spectral interference.
[[Page 15267]]
Table 1.--Example Analytical Regions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analytical
Compound Region (cm-1) Potential interferants
FLm-FUm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde................................ 2840.93-2679.83 Water, Methane.
Phenol...................................... 1231.32-1131.47 Water, Ammonia, Methane.
Methanol.................................... 1041.56-1019.95 Water, Ammonia.
COSa........................................ 2028.4-2091.9 Water, CO2, CO.
COa......................................... 2092.1-2191.8 Water, CO2, COS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Suggested analytical regions assume about 15 percent moisture and CO2, and that COS and CO have about the same
absorbance (in the range of 10 to 50 ppm. If CO and COS are hundreds of ppm or higher, then CO2 and moisture
interference is reduced. If CO or COS is present at high concentration and the other at low concentration,
then a shorter cell pathlength may be necessary to measure the high concentration component.
1.3 Method Range and Sensitivity.
1.3.1 The analytical range is a function of instrumental design
and composition of the gas stream. Theoretical detection limits
depend, in part, on (a) the absorption coefficient of the compound
in the analytical frequency region, (b) the spectral resolution, (c)
interferometer sampling time, (d) detector sensitivity and response,
and (e) absorption pathlength.
1.3.2 Practically, there is no upper limit to the range. The
practical lower detection limit is usually higher than the
theoretical value, and depends on (a) moisture content of the flue
gas, (b) presence of interferants, and (c) losses in the sampling
system. In general, a 22 meter pathlength cell in a suitable
sampling system can achieve practical detection limits of 1.5 ppm
for three compounds (formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol) at moisture
levels up to 15 percent by volume. Sources with uncontrolled
emissions of CO and COS may require a 4 meter pathlength cell due to
high concentration levels. For these two compounds, make sure
absorbance of highest concentration component is <1.0. 1.4="" data="" quality="" objectives.="" 1.4.1="" in="" designing="" or="" configuring="" the="" system,="" the="" analyst="" first="" sets="" the="" data="" quality="" objectives,="" i.e.,="" the="" desired="" lower="" detection="" limit="">i) and the desired analytical uncertainty (AUi)
for each compound. The instrumental parameters (factors b, c, d, and
e in Section 1.3.1) are then chosen to meet these requirements,
using Appendix D of the FTIR Protocol.
1.4.2 Data quality for each application is determined, in part,
by measuring the RMS (Root Mean Square) noise level in each
analytical spectral region (Appendix C of the FTIR Protocol). The
RMS noise is defined as the RMSD (Root Mean Square Deviation) of the
absorbance values in an analytical region from the mean absorbance
value of the region. Appendix D of the FTIR Protocol defines the
MAUim (minimum analyte uncertainty of the ith analyte in
the mth analytical region). The MAU is the minimum analyte
concentration for which the analytical uncertainty limit (AUi)
can be maintained: If the measured analyte concentration is less
than MAUi, then data quality is unacceptable. Table 2 gives
some example DL and AU values along with calculated areas and MAU
values using the protocol procedures.
Table 2.--Example Pre-Test Protocol Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protocol value Form Phenol Methanol Protocol appendix
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference concentrationa (ppm-meters)/K........ 3.016 3.017 5.064
Reference Band Area............................ 8.2544 16.6417 4.9416 B
DL (ppm-meters)/K.............................. 0.1117 0.1117 0.1117 B
AU............................................. 0.2 0.2 0.2 B
CL............................................. 0.02234 0.02234 0.02234 B
FL............................................. 2679.83 1131.47 1019.95 B
FU............................................. 2840.93 1231.32 1041.56 B
FC............................................. 2760.38 1181.395 1030.755 B
AAI (ppm-meters)/K............................. 0.18440 0.01201 0.00132 B
RMSD........................................... 2.28E-03 1.21E-03 1.07E-03 C
MAU (ppm-meters)/K............................. 4.45E-02 7.26E-03 4.68E-03 D
MAU (ppm at 22)................................ 0.0797 0.0130 0.0084 D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Concentration units are: ppm concentration of the reference sample (ASC), times the path length of the FTIR
cell used when the reference spectrum was measured (meters), divided by the absolute temperature of the
reference sample in Kelvin (K), or (ppm-meters)/K.
2.0 Summary of Method.
2.1 Principle.
2.1.1 Molecules are composed of chemically bonded atoms, which
are in constant motion. The atomic motions result in bond
deformations (bond stretching and bond-angle bending). The number of
fundamental (or independent) vibrational motions depends on the
number of atoms (N) in the molecule. At typical testing
temperatures, most molecules are in the ground-state vibrational
state for most of their fundamental vibrational motions. A molecule
can undergo a transition from its ground state (for a particular
vibration) to the first excited state by absorbing a quantum of
light at a frequency characteristic of the molecule and the
molecular motion. Molecules also undergo rotational transitions by
absorbing energies in the far-infrared or microwave spectral
regions. Rotational transition absorbencies are superimposed on the
vibrational absorbencies to give a characteristic shape to each
rotational-vibrational absorbance ``band.''
2.1.2 Most molecules exhibit more than one absorbance band in
several frequency regions to produce an infrared spectrum (a
characteristic pattern of bands or a ``fingerprint'') that is unique
to each molecule. The infrared spectrum of a molecule depends on its
structure (bond lengths, bond angles, bond strengths, and atomic
masses). Even small differences in structure can produce
significantly different spectra.
2.1.3 Spectral band intensities vary with the concentration of
the absorbing compound. Within constraints, the relationship between
absorbance and sample concentration is linear. Sample spectra are
compared to reference spectra to determine the species and their
concentrations.
2.2 Sampling and Analysis.
2.2.1 Flue gas is continuously extracted from the source, and
the gas or a portion of the gas is conveyed to the FTIR gas cell,
where a spectrum of the flue gas is recorded.
[[Page 15268]]
Absorbance band intensities are related to sample concentrations by
Beer's Law.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.008
where:
Av = absorbance of the ithcomponent at the given
frequency,
a = absorption coefficient of the ith component at the
frequency,
b = path length of the cell.
c = concentration of the ith compound in the sample at
frequency
2.2.2 After identifying a compound from the infrared spectrum,
its concentration is determined by comparing band intensities in the
sample spectrum to band intensities in ``reference spectra'' of the
formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, COS and CO. These reference spectra
are available in a permanent soft copy from the EPA spectral library
on the EMTIC bulletin board. The source may also prepare reference
spectra according to Section 4.5 of the FTIR Protocol. (Note:
Reference spectra not prepared according to the FTIR Protocol are
not acceptable for use in this test method. Documentation detailing
the FTIR Protocol steps used in preparing any non-EPA reference
spectra shall be included in each test report submitted by the
source.)
2.2.3 Analyte spiking is used for quality assurance. Analyte
spiking shall be carried out before the first run (a test consists
of three runs) and after the third run. Unless otherwise specified
in the applicable regulation, a run shall consist of 8 discrete
readings taken by the FTIR over an hour. Therefore, a test shall
consist of two analyte spike interferograms (assuming a mixture of
compounds was introduced simultaneously for the analyte spike; if
each compound was introduced individually, two analyte spike
interferograms would be recorded for each target compound), 24 stack
sample interferograms, and their corresponding background readings.
2.3 Operator Requirements. The analyst must have some knowledge
of source sampling and of infrared spectral patterns to operate the
sampling system and to choose a suitable instrument configuration.
The analyst should also understand FTIR instrument operation well
enough to choose an instrument configuration consistent with the
data quality objectives.
3.0 Definitions.
See Appendix A of the FTIR Protocol.
4.0 Interferences.
4.1 Analytical (or Spectral) Interferences. Water vapor. High
concentrations of ammonia (hundreds of ppm) may interfere with the
analysis of low concentrations of methanol (1 to 5 ppm). For CO,
carbon dioxide and water may be interferants. In cases where COS
levels are low relative to CO levels, CO and water may be
interferants.
4.2 Sampling System Interferences. Water, if it condenses, and
ammonia, which reacts with formaldehyde.
5.0 Safety.
5.1 Formaldehyde is a suspect carcinogen; therefore, exposure
to this compound must be limited. Proper monitoring and safety
precautions must be practiced in any atmosphere with potentially
high concentrations of CO.
5.2 This method may involve sampling at locations having high
positive or negative pressures, high temperatures, elevated heights,
high concentrations of hazardous or toxic pollutants, or other
diverse sampling conditions. It is the responsibility of the
tester(s) to ensure proper safety and health practices, and to
determine the applicability of regulatory limitations before
performing this test method.
6.0 Equipment and Supplies.
The equipment and supplies are based on the schematic of a
sampling train shown in Figures 1 and 2. Either the evacuated or
purged sampling technique may be used with this sampling train.
Alternatives may be used, provided that the data quality objectives
are met as determined in the post-analysis evaluation (see Section
13.0).
6.1 Sampling Probe. Glass, stainless steel, or other
appropriate material of sufficient length and physical integrity to
sustain heating, prevent adsorption of analytes, and to reach gas
sampling point.
6.2 Particulate Filters. A glass wool plug (optional) inserted
at the probe tip (for large particulate removal) and a filter rated
at 1-micron (e.g., Balston TM) for fine particulate removal,
placed immediately after the heated probe.
6.3 Sampling Line/Heating System. Heated (sufficient to prevent
sample condensation) stainless steel, Teflon, or other inert
material that does not adsorb the analytes, to transport the sample
to analytical system.
6.4 Stainless Steel Tubing. Type 316, e.g., \3/8\ in. diameter,
and appropriate length for heated connections.
6.5 Calibration/Analyte Spike Assembly. A three way valve
assembly (or equivalent) to introduce methanol spikes into the
sampling system at the outlet of the probe before the out-of-stack
particulate filter and just before the FTIR analytical system. See
Figure 1.
6.6 Mass Flow Meters. To accurately measure analyte spiking
flow rate, calibrated from 0 to 2 L/min (2 percent).
6.7 Gas Regulators. Appropriate for individual gas cylinders.
6.8 Teflon Tubing. Diameter (e.g., \3/8\ in.) and length
suitable to connect cylinder regulators.
6.9 Sample Pump. A leak-free pump (e.g., KNFTM), with by-
pass valve, capable of pulling sample through entire sampling system
at a rate of about 10 to 20 L/min. If placed before the analytical
system, heat the pump and use a pump fabricated from materials non-
reactive to the target pollutants. If the pump is located after the
instrument, systematically record the sample pressure in the gas
cell.
6.10 Gas Sample Manifold. A heated manifold that diverts part
of the sample stream to the analyzer, and the rest to the by-pass
discharge vent or other analytical instrumentation.
6.11 Rotameter. A calibrated 0 to 20 L/min range rotameter.
6.12 FTIR Analytical System. Spectrometer and detector, capable
of measuring formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, COS and CO to the
predetermined minimum detectable level. The system shall include a
personal computer with compatible software that provides real-time
updates of the spectral profile during sample collection and
spectral collection.
6.13 FTIR Cell Pump. Required for the evacuated sampling
technique, capable of evacuating the FTIR cell volume within 2
minutes. The FTIR cell pump should allow the operator to obtain at
least 8 sample spectra in 1 hour.
6.14 Absolute Pressure Gauge. Heatable and capable of measuring
pressure from 0 to 1000 mmHg to within 2.5 mmHg (e.g.,
Baratron TM).
6.15 Temperature Gauge. Capable of measuring the cell
temperature to within 2 deg.C.
7.0 Reagents and Standards.
7.1 Methanol/Sulfur Hexafluoride. Obtain a gas cylinder mixture
of 100 ppm methanol and 2 ppm SF6 in N2. This gas mixture
need not be certified.
7.2 Ethylene (Calibration Transfer Standard). Obtain NIST
traceable (or Protocol) cylinder gas.
7.3 Nitrogen. Ultra high purity (UHP) grade.
7.4 Reference Spectra. Obtain reference spectra for the target
pollutants at concentrations that bracket (in ``ppm-meter/K) the
emission source levels. Also, obtain reference spectra for SF6
and ethylene. Suitable concentrations are 0.0112 to 0.112 (ppm-
meter)/K for SF6 and 5.61 (ppm-meter)/K or less for ethylene.
The reference spectra shall meet the criteria for acceptance
outlined in Section 2.2.2.
8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, and Storage.
Sampling should be performed in the following sequence: Collect
background, collect CTS spectrum, QA spiking and direct-to-cell
measurement of spike gas, collect samples, post-test QA spiking and
direct-to-cell measurement, collect post-test CTS spectrum, verify
that two copies of all data were stored on separate computer media.
8.1 Pretest Preparations and Evaluations. Using the procedure
in Section 4.0 of the FTIR Protocol, determine the optimum sampling
system configuration for sampling the target pollutants. Table 2
gives some example values for AU, DL, and MAU. Based on a study
(Reference 1), an FTIR system using 1 cm -1 resolution, 22
meter path length, and a broad band MCT detector was suitable for
meeting the requirements in Table 2. Other factors that must be
determined are:
a. Test requirements: AUi, CMAXi, DLi, OFUi,
and tAN for each.
b. Inteferants: See Table 1.
c. Sampling system: LS', Pmin, PS', TS',
tSS, VSS; fractional error, MIL.
d. Analytical regions: 1 through Nm, FLm, FCm,
and FUm, plus interferants, FFUm, FFLm, wavenumber
range FNU to FNL. See Tables 1 and 2.
8.1.1 If necessary, sample and acquire an initial spectrum.
Then determine the proper operational pathlength of the instrument
to obtain non-saturated absorbencies of the target analytes.
8.1.2 Set up the sampling train as shown in Figure 1.
8.2 Sampling System Leak-check. Leak-check from the probe tip
to pump outlet as
[[Page 15269]]
follows: Connect a 0 to 250-mL/min rate meter (rotameter or bubble
meter) to the outlet of the pump. Close off the inlet to the probe,
and note the leakage rate. The leakage rate shall be 200
mL/min.
8.3 Analytical System Leak-check.
8.3.1 For the evacuated sample technique, close the valve to
the FTIR cell, and evacuate the absorption cell to the minimum
absolute pressure Pmin. Close the valve to the pump, and
determine the change in pressure Pv after 2 minutes.
8.3.2 For both the evacuated sample and purging techniques,
pressurize the system to about 100 mmHg above atmospheric pressure.
Isolate the pump and determine the change in pressure
Pp after 2 minutes.
8.3.3 Measure the barometric pressure, Pb in mmHg.
8.3.4 Determine the percent leak volume %VL for the signal
integration time tSS and for Pmax, i.e., the
larger of Pv or Pp, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.009
Where:
50=100% divided by the leak-check time of 2 minutes.
8.3.5 Leak volumes in excess of 4 percent of the sample system
volume Vss are unacceptable.
8.4 Background Spectrum. Evacuate the gas cell to 5
mmHg, and fill with dry nitrogen gas to ambient pressure. Verify
that no significant amounts of absorbing species (for example water
vapor and CO2) are present. Collect a background spectrum,
using a signal averaging period equal to or greater than the
averaging period for the sample spectra. Assign a unique file name
to the background spectrum. Store the spectra of the background
interferogram and processed single-beam background spectrum on two
separate computer media (one is used as the back-up).
8.5 Pre-Test Calibration Transfer Standard. Evacuate the gas
cell to 5 mmHg absolute pressure, and fill the FTIR cell
to atmospheric pressure with the CTS gas. Or, purge the cell with 10
cell volumes of CTS gas. Record the spectrum.
8.6 Samples.
8.6.1 Evacuated Samples. Evacuate the absorbance cell to
5 mmHg absolute pressure before. Fill the cell with flue
gas to ambient pressure and record the spectrum. Before taking the
next sample, evacuate the cell until no further evidence of
absorption exists. Repeat this procedure to collect at least 8
separate spectra (samples) in 1 hour.
8.6.2 Purge Sampling. Purge the FTIR cell with 10 cell volumes
of flue gas and at least for about 10 minutes. Discontinue the gas
cell purge, isolate the cell, and record the sample spectrum and the
pressure. Before taking the next sample, purge the cell with 10 cell
volumes of flue gas.
8.6.3 Continuous Sampling. Spectra can be collected
continuously while the FTIR cell is being purged. The sample
integration time, tss, the sample flow rate through the FTIR
gas cell, and the total run time must be chosen so that the
collected data consist of at least 10 spectra with each spectrum
being of a separate cell volume of flue gas. More spectra can be
collected over the run time and the total run time (and number of
spectra) can be extended as well.
8.7 Sampling QA, Data Storage and Reporting.
8.7.1 Sample integration times should be sufficient to achieve
the required signal-to-noise ratios. Obtain an absorbance spectrum
by filling the cell with nitrogen. Measure the RMSD in each
analytical region in this absorbance spectrum. Verify that the
number of scans is sufficient to achieve the target MAU (Table 2).
8.7.2 Identify all sample spectra with unique file names.
8.7.3 Store on two separate computer media a copy of sample
interferograms and processed spectra.
8.7.4 For each sample spectrum, document the sampling
conditions, the sampling time (while the cell was being filled), the
time the spectrum was recorded, the instrumental conditions (path
length, temperature, pressure, resolution, integration time), and
the spectral file name. Keep a hard copy of these data sheets.
8.8 Signal Transmittance. While sampling, monitor the signal
transmittance through the instrumental system. If signal
transmittance (relative to the background) drops below 95 percent in
any spectral region where the sample does not absorb infrared
energy, obtain a new background spectrum.
8.9 Post-run CTS. After each sampling run, record another CTS
spectrum.
8.10 Post-test QA.
8.10.1 Inspect the sample spectra immediately after the run to
verify that the gas matrix composition was close to the expected
(assumed) gas matrix.
8.10.2 Verify that the sampling and instrumental parameters
were appropriate for the conditions encountered. For example, if the
moisture is much greater than anticipated, it will be necessary to
use a shorter path length or dilute the sample.
8.10.3 Compare the pre-and post-run CTS spectra. They shall
agree to within 5 percent. See FTIR Protocol, Appendix
E.
9.0 Quality Control.
Use analyte spiking to verify the validity of the sampling
system for the analytes of interest. QA spiking shall be performed
before the first run begins and again after the third run is
completed. A direct-to-cell measurement of the spike gas should also
be performed before and after sampling.
9.1 Spike Materials. Use Protocol or NIST traceable analyte gas
standard, whenever possible. A vapor generation device may be used
to prepare analyte spike from the neat or solid sample of
formaldehyde and phenol (use this option only when certified
cylinder gas standards cannot be obtained).
9.2 Spiking Procedure.
9.2.1 Introduce the spike/tracer gas at a constant
(2 percent) flow rate 10 percent
of the total sample flow.
(Note: Use the rotameter at the end of the sampling train to
estimate the required spike/tracer gas flow rate.) Use a mass flow
controller to control and monitor the flow rate of the spike/tracer
gas.
9.2.2 Determine the response time (RT) by continuously
monitoring effluent until spike is equilibrated within the sampling/
analytical system. Wait for a period of twice RT, then obtain at
least two consecutive spectra of the spiked gas. Duplicate analyses
of methanol and SF6 shall be within 5 percent of
their mean value.
9.2.3 Calculate the dilution ratio using the tracer gas as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.010
where:
DF = Dilution factor of the spike gas; this value shall be
10.
SF6[dir] = SF6 concentration measured directly in
undiluted spike gas.
SF6[spk] = Diluted SF6 concentration measured in a spiked
sample.
9.3 Bias. Determine the bias (defined by EPA Method 301,
Section 6.3.1) as follows:
Calculate the expected analyte concentration in the spiked
samples, CS:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.011
where:
Ai dir = Analyte concentration measured directly in undiluted
spike gas.
DF = From equation 3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.012
where:
B = Bias at spike level.
Sm = Mean analyte concentration in the spiked samples.
Mm = Mean analyte concentration in the unspiked samples.
CS = Expected analyte concentration in the spiked samples.
DF = Dilution factor from Equation 3.
9.4 Correction Factor.
9.4.1 Calculate the correction factor, CF, using the following
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.013
9.4.2 If the CF is outside the range of 0.70 to 1.30, the data
collected during the compliance test are unacceptable. For
correction factors within the range, multiply all analytical results
by the CF for that compound to obtain the final values.
10. Calibration and Standardization.
10.1 Signal-to-Noise Ratio (S/N). The S/N shall be sufficient
to meet the MAU in each analytical region.
10.2 Absorbance Pathlength. Verify the absorbance path length
by comparing CTS spectra to reference spectra of the calibration
gas(es). See FTIR Protocol, Appendix E.
10.3 Instrument Resolution. Measure the line width of
appropriate CTS band(s) and compare to reference CTS spectra to
verify instrumental resolution.
10.4 Apodization Function. Choose appropriate apodization
function. Determine any appropriate mathematical
[[Page 15270]]
transformations that are required to correct instrumental errors by
measuring the CTS. Any mathematical transformations must be
documented and reproducible.
10.5 FTIR Cell Volume. Evacuate the cell to 5 mmHg.
Measure the initial absolute temperature (Ti) and absolute
pressure (Pi). Connect a wet test meter (or a calibrated dry
gas meter), and slowly draw room air into the cell. Measure the
meter volume (Vm), meter absolute temperature (Tm), and
meter absolute pressure (Pm), and the cell final absolute
temperature (Tf) and absolute pressure (Pf). Calculate the
FTIR cell volume VSS, including that of the connecting tubing,
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.014
11. Procedure.
Refer to Sections 4.6-4.11, Sections 5, 6, and 7, and the
appendices of the FTIR Protocol.
12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations.
a. Data analysis is performed using appropriate reference
spectra whose concentrations can be verified using CTS spectra.
Various analytical programs are available to relate sample
absorbance to a concentration standard. Calculated concentrations
should be verified by analyzing spectral baselines after
mathematically subtracting scaled reference spectra from the sample
spectra. A full description of the data analysis and calculations
may be found in the FTIR Protocol (Sections 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 and
appendices).
b. Correct the calculated concentrations in sample spectra for
differences in absorption pathlength between the reference and
sample spectra by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.015
where:
Ccorr = The pathlength corrected concentration.
Ccalc = The initial calculated concentration (output of the
Multicomp program designed for the compound).
Lr = The pathlength associated with the reference spectra.
Ls = The pathlength associated with the sample spectra.
Ts = The absolute temperature (K) of the sample gas.
Tr = The absolute gas temperature (K) at which reference
spectra were recorded.
13. Reporting and Recordkeeping.
All interferograms used in determining source concentration
shall be stored for the period of time required in the applicable
regulation. The Administrator has the option of requesting the
interferograms recorded during the test in electronic form as part
of the test report.
14. Method Performance.
Refer to the FTIR Protocol. This method is self-validating
provided that the results meet the performance specification of the
QA spike in Section 9.0.
15. Pollution Prevention. [Reserved]
16. Waste Management.
Laboratory standards prepared from the formaldehyde and phenol
are handled according to the instructions in the materials safety
data sheets (MSDS).
17. References.
(1) ``Field Validation Test Using Fourier Transform Infrared
(FTIR) Spectrometry To Measure Formaldehyde, Phenol and Methanol at
a Wool Fiberglass Production Facility.'' Draft. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report, Entropy, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68D20163,
Work Assignment I-32, December 1994 (docket item II-A-13).
(2) ``Method 301--Field Validation of Pollutant Measurement
Methods from Various Waste Media,'' 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.
[FR Doc. 97-7214 Filed 3-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
