[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29490-29510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12585]
[[Page 29489]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories and for Mineral Wool Production; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 29490]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[FRL-6345-4]
RIN 2060-AE08
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources in
mineral wool production facilities. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
emitted by the facilities covered by this rule include carbonyl sulfide
(COS), nine hazardous metals, formaldehyde, and phenol. Exposure to
these HAPs may be associated with adverse carcinogenic, respiratory,
nervous system, dermal, developmental, and/or reproductive health
effects. The EPA estimates that the final rule will reduce nationwide
emissions of HAPs from these facilities by 46 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) (51 tons per year (tpy)). In addition, emissions of particulate
matter (PM) will be reduced by approximately 186 Mg/yr (205 tpy). This
action also amends 40 CFR part 9 by updating the table of currently
approved information collection control numbers to include the
information requirements contained in this final rule.
These standards implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act)
by requiring all mineral wool production facilities that are major
sources to meet hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission standards
reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology
(MACT). The emissions reductions achieved by these standards, when
combined with the emissions reductions achieved by other similar
standards, will provide protection to the public and achieve a primary
goal of the Act.
A supplement to the proposed rule was proposed in the Federal
Register on February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7149). The EPA will give careful
consideration to all comments on the supplemental proposal and will
amend this final rule in a future action as appropriate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1999. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
concerning judicial review.
ADDRESSES: Docket. The docket for this rulemaking containing the
information considered by the EPA in development of the final rule is
Docket A-95-33. This docket is available for public inspection between
8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 260-7548. The
docket is located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall
(ground floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Johnson, Minerals and
Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number (919) 541-5025; facsimile number (919) 541-
5600; electronic mail address johnson.mary@epamail.epa.gov''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Mineral wool production
facilities (SIC 3296).
Federal government........................ None.
State/local/tribal government............. None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1177 of the
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate regional
representative:
Region I:
Janet Bowen, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. EPA, Region I,
CAP, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3595
Region II:
Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4000
Region III:
Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region
III, 3AT10, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 566-
2110
Region IV:
Lee Page, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, (404) 562-
9131
Region V:
George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,
Region V, 5AE-26, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-
2088
Region VI:
John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VI,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-7220
Region VII:
Donald Toensing, Air Permitting and Compliance, Branch Chief, U.S.
EPA, Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913)
551-7446
Region VIII:
Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical Operations, Branch Chief, U.S.
EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466,
(303) 312-6432
Region IX:
Barbara Gross, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1138
Region X:
Anita Frankel, Air and Radiation Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region X,
AT-092, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1757
Plain Language
The final rule is written in plain language. Plain language
regulatory writing involves structuring the rule around questions the
user may have. It takes the form of questions and answers and uses the
words ``I'' and ``you'' to represent the owner or operator.
Judicial Review
The NESHAP for mineral wool production plants was proposed on May
8, 1997 (62 FR 25370). This action announces the EPA's final decisions
on the rule. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the
NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the
Act, the requirements that are the subject of today's rule may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
[[Page 29491]]
Technology Transfer Network
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's notice is also available through the Technology Transfer
Network (TTN). Following promulgation, a copy of the rule will be
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html). The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed,
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Outline
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Statutory Authority
II. Background and Public Participation
III. Summary of Final Rule
A. Applicability
B. Standards
C. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
D. Monitoring Requirements
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
A. Definitions
B. Standards
C. Performance Test Provisions
D. Monitoring Requirements
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
V. Summary of Impacts
VI. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. General
B. Definitions
C. Selection of Emission Standards
D. Monitoring
E. Recordkeeping and Reporting
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
C. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Pollution Prevention Act
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
K. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this rule is provided by sections 101,
112, 113, 114, 116, and 301 of the Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401,
7412, 7413, 7414, 7416, and 7601). This rule is also subject to section
307(d) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).
II. Background and Public Participation
Section 112(d) of the Act directs the EPA to establish standards to
control all major sources emitting HAPs. On July 16, 1992, the EPA
published a list of major source categories, including ``Mineral Wool
Production,'' for which NESHAP are to be promulgated (57 FR 3156). The
NESHAP for mineral wool production (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD) was
proposed in the Federal Register on May 8, 1997 (62 FR 25370). The
public comment period ended on July 7, 1997. Industry representatives,
regulatory authorities, environmental groups, and the general public
had the opportunity to comment on the proposed standards and to provide
additional information during the public comment period. Three comment
letters were received. Comments were received from the association
representing industry and from two representatives of air pollution
control equipment manufacturers. Today's final rule reflects the EPA's
full consideration of the comments. A summary of the major public
comments along with the EPA's responses are summarized in this
preamble. A more detailed discussion of public comments and the EPA's
responses are contained in the docket (Docket No. A-95-33; Item V-C-2).
III. Summary of Final Rule
A. Applicability
The final NESHAP applies to each existing, new, and reconstructed
cupola and curing oven at a mineral wool production facility that is
located at a plant site that is a major source of HAP emissions.
Facilities that manufacture wool fiberglass are not subject to this
rule but are subject to a separate NESHAP rulemaking for wool
fiberglass manufacturing.
B. Standards
Emissions of PM are regulated for existing cupolas. For new and
reconstructed cupolas, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) are also
regulated. Emissions of formaldehyde are regulated for existing, new,
and reconstructed curing ovens. Particulate matter serves as a
surrogate for metal HAPs and CO is a surrogate for COS. In addition to
being a HAP itself, formaldehyde serves as a surrogate for phenol. A
numerical emission limit for PM expressed in kilograms per megagram
(kg/Mg) or pound per ton (lb/ton) of melt is promulgated in the final
rule. For CO or formaldehyde, the owner or operator may comply with
percent removal or numerical emission limits. The emission limits for
existing sources and new sources are presented below.
Summary of Emission Limits For Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Pollutant Emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cupola..................... PM........................ 0.05 kg/Mg
(0.10 lb/ton)
of melt.
Curing oven................ Formaldehyde.............. 0.03 kg/Mg
(0.06 lb/ton)
of melt or 80
percent
formaldehyde
removal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Emission Limits For New and Reconstructed Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Pollutant Emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cupola..................... PM........................ 0.05 kg/Mg
(0.10 lb/ton)
of melt.
CO........................ 0.05 kg/Mg
(0.10 lb/ton)
of melt or 99
percent CO
removal.
Curing oven................ Formaldehyde.............. 0.03 kg/Mg
(0.06 lb/ton)
of melt or 80
percent
formaldehyde
removal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owner or operator must also comply with operating limits.
Operating limits for cupolas are as follows:
(1) Within one hour after the alarm on a bag leak detection system
sounds, the owner or operator must begin, and complete in a timely
manner, corrective actions as specified in their operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(2) When the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more
than
[[Page 29492]]
five percent of the total operating time in a six-month reporting
period, the owner or operator must develop and implement a written
quality improvement plan (QIP) consistent with the compliance assurance
monitoring requirements in Sec. 64.8(b)-(d) of 40 CFR part 64 (62 FR
54900, October 22, 1997).
(3) For each new or reconstructed cupola, the owner or operator
must maintain the operating temperature of the thermal incinerator such
that the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period
never falls below the average temperature established during the
performance test.
The owner or operator must meet the following operating limits for
curing ovens:
(1) The owner or operator must maintain the free-formaldehyde
content of each resin lot and formaldehyde content of each binder
formulation at or below the specification ranges of the resin and
binder used during the performance test.
(2) The owner or operator must maintain the operating temperature
of each thermal incinerator such that the average operating temperature
for each three-hour block period never falls below the average
temperature established during the performance test.
C. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
For existing sources, compliance with the standards must be
demonstrated no later than three years from the effective date of the
final rule. An extension for a fourth year may be granted by the
Administrator under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act if necessary for
the installation of controls. For new and reconstructed sources, any
control devices or monitoring equipment necessary to meet the standards
must be installed. Performance testing must be completed and compliance
with all requirements of the final rule must be demonstrated by the
dates in Sec. 63.7 of the general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR
part 63. On and after these dates, the owner or operator must comply
with the standards. The standards will apply at all times except during
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
A performance test is required to demonstrate initial compliance
with the percent removal or numerical emissions limits for cupolas and
curing ovens. The performance test must be conducted while operating at
the maximum production rate and must consist of three test runs. All
monitoring systems and equipment must be installed, operational, and
properly calibrated prior to the performance tests. To comply with the
CO or formaldehyde emission limit for a cupola or curing oven
controlled by a thermal incinerator, or the PM limit for a fabric
filter-controlled cupola, measurements are made at the outlet of the
control device. If the owner or operator elects to comply with the
percent removal emission limit for CO or formaldehyde, measurements are
required at the inlet and outlet of the control device.
The owner or operator is required to measure and record the amount
of raw materials, excluding coke, charged into and melted in each
cupola during each performance test run, determine the average hourly
melt rate for each performance test run, and determine the arithmetic
average of the average hourly melt rates associated with the three
performance test runs. The average hourly melt rate of the three
performance test runs is used to determine compliance.
The owner or operator must conduct the performance test for each
curing oven while manufacturing the product that requires a binder
formulation made with the resin containing the highest free-
formaldehyde content specification range. During the performance test,
the owner or operator must record the free-formaldehyde content
specification range of the resin used and the formulation of the binder
used, including formaldehyde content and binder specification.
During the performance test for each cupola that uses a thermal
incinerator to comply with the emission limit for CO and each curing
oven that uses a thermal incinerator to comply with the formaldehyde
emission limit, the owner or operator is required to establish the
average operating temperature of the incinerator. The owner or operator
must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine the
average temperatures in consecutive 15-minute blocks, determine the
arithmetic average of the 15-minute block temperatures for each
performance test run, and determine the arithmetic average of the
average operating temperatures associated with the three performance
test runs.
With prior approval from the Administrator, operating limits
established for control devices or processes during the initial
performance tests and used to monitor compliance may be expanded by
conducting additional performance tests to demonstrate compliance at
the new levels. Also, owners or operators of curing ovens may conduct
short-term experimental production runs without conducting additional
performance tests with prior approval from the Administrator.
D. Monitoring Requirements
Each fabric filter used on a cupola must be equipped with a bag
leak detection system having an audible alarm that automatically sounds
when an increase in particulate emissions above a predetermined level
is detected. The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate
plant personnel will be able to hear it. Such a device serves as an
indicator of the performance of the fabric filter and provides an
indication of when maintenance of the fabric filter is needed. The rule
requires that in response to an alarm, corrective actions be initiated
within one hour, and completed in a timely manner, according to the
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The owner or operator is
in violation of this operating limit upon a failure to begin corrective
actions within one hour of the alarm.
When the alarm is activated for more than five percent of the total
operating time during a six-month reporting period, the owner or
operator must develop and implement a written QIP consistent with the
compliance assurance monitoring requirements in Sec. 64.8(b)-(d) of 40
CFR part 64 (62 FR 54900, October 22, 1997). Failure to develop and
implement a written QIP that is consistent with the compliance
assurance monitoring requirements is a violation of this operating
limit.
Each owner or operator of an affected curing oven must monitor and
record the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the
formulation of each batch of binder used, including formaldehyde
content. Following the performance test, the owner or operator must
maintain the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the
formaldehyde content of each binder formulation at or below the
specification ranges of the resin and binder used during the
performance test. If the free-formaldehyde content of a resin lot or
the formaldehyde content of a binder formulation exceeds the
performance test specification ranges, the owner or operator is in
violation of this operating limit.
For each thermal incinerator used to control emissions from
affected cupolas or curing ovens, the owner or operator must
continuously measure the operating temperature of the incinerator. The
owner or operator must determine the average temperatures in
consecutive 15-minute blocks and then determine the arithmetic average
of the 15-minute averages for each one-hour period. The average
operating temperature of the
[[Page 29493]]
incinerator is based on the arithmetic average of the one-hour average
temperatures for each consecutive three-hour period. Following the
performance test, the owner or operator is required to maintain the
operating temperature so that the average operating temperature for
each three-hour block period never falls below the average temperature
established during the performance test. If the average temperature in
any three-hour block period falls below the average established during
the performance test, the owner or operator is in violation of this
operating limit. The owner or operator must operate and maintain each
incinerator as specified in their operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan. Procedures for properly operating and maintaining an
incinerator must include an annual inspection.
Under today's rule, the owner or operator may change control device
and process operating parameter levels established during performance
tests and used to monitor compliance. The owner or operator must notify
the Administrator and upon approval, conduct additional performance
tests at the proposed new control device or process operating parameter
levels to verify compliance with the applicable emission limits.
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for NESHAP
are included in the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The
general provisions include requirements for: (1) Initial
notification(s) of applicability, notification of performance test, and
notification of compliance status; (2) a report of performance test
results; (3) a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, including a
semiannual report when a reportable event occurs and the steps in the
plan were not followed; and (4) semiannual reports of deviations from
established parameters. If deviations from established parameters are
reported, the owner or operator must report quarterly until a request
to return the reporting frequency to semiannual is approved.
Owners or operators of affected cupolas and curing ovens must
submit an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as part of their
application for a title V permit. The plan must include procedures for
the proper operation and maintenance of processes and control devices
used to comply with the emission limits, including an annual inspection
of each thermal incinerator. The plan also must identify the process or
control device parameters to be monitored for compliance; the
established operating levels or ranges for each process or control
device; a monitoring schedule; the corrective actions to be taken when
process or control device parameters deviate from the levels
established during performance testing; and procedures for keeping
records to document compliance.
In addition to requirements of the general provisions, the final
rule specifies additional records to be kept by the owner or operator.
The owner or operator is required to maintain records of the following,
as applicable:
(1) Cupola production (melt) rate;
(2) bag leak detection system alarms, the date and time of the
alarm, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the alarm,
an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of
the alarm was corrected;
(3) free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder
formulation, including formaldehyde content, of each binder batch used
in the manufacture of bonded products; and
(4) incinerator operating temperature and results of incinerator
inspections, including periods when the average temperature in any
three-hour block period fell below the average temperature established
during the performance test and periods when the inspection identified
incinerator components in need of repair or maintenance, the date and
time of the problem, when corrective actions were intiated, the cause
of the problem, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and
when the cause of the problem was corrected.
The NESHAP general provisions require that records be maintained
for at least five years from the date of each record. The owner or
operator must retain the records on site for at least two years but may
retain the records off site the remaining three years. The records may
be retained on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer, on computer
disks, or on magnetic tape disks. Reports may be made on paper or on
labeled computer disks using commonly available and compatible computer
software.
IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
Changes have been incorporated into the final NESHAP for mineral
wool production facilities in response to comments on the proposed
rule, with the exception of the format change to plain language. A
number of clarifications to the proposal language are reflected in the
final rule as a result of this question and answer format. The
principal changes made since proposal are summarized below. Additional
discussion of the changes and the rationale for these changes is
presented in section VI of this preamble.
A. Definitions
In response to public comments, minor clarifying changes were made
to the definition of mineral wool. Also, a definition for new source,
that incorporates the May 8, 1997 date that the NESHAP was proposed,
was added to the list of terms used in the final rule.
B. Standards
The final rule incorporates some changes to the proposed rule
regarding emission standards. Depending on available control and
monitoring technologies for particular source categories, emission
limits, as well as operating limits, are set forth as enforceable
regulatory requirements. In addition to emission limits, operating
limits are also included as part of the final rule regulating mineral
wool production facilities. These operating limits were included in the
proposed rule as monitoring requirements and have been moved into the
sections containing the emission limits in the final rule. These
operating limits specify the established requirements which are
enforceable and will be used to determine compliance.
As a result of additional PM emissions data from fabric filter-
controlled cupolas, the proposed PM emission limit of 0.03 kg/Mg (0.06
lb/ton) has been revised to 0.05 kg/Mg (0.10 lb/ton) in the final rule.
The additional data considered in making this determination are for
three cupolas controlled by fabric filters with identical parameters as
those previously determined to be representative of the MACT floor for
existing and new cupolas. An emissions limit of 0.05 kg/Mg (0.10 lb/
ton) represents a level that can be achieved by the fabric filter-
controlled cupola upon which the proposed PM emission limit was based,
as well as by these three fabric filter-controlled cupolas which are
also representative of the MACT floor.
C. Performance Test Provisions
A few changes were made to the performance test requirements in the
proposed rule. Revisions were made to clarify the proposed requirements
for performance testing by specifying in the final rule how to
establish the average operating temperature of an incinerator. The
proposed provision that would allow the owner or operator of curing
ovens subject to the NESHAP to conduct short-term experimental
production
[[Page 29494]]
runs without conducting additional performance tests was revised. The
final rule clarifies that the process modifications referred to in the
proposed rule mean pollution prevention process modifications.
The proposed rule required the use of method 5 for determining the
concentration of PM with a minimum performance test run time of two
hours and a minimum sample volume of 2.5 dry standard cubic meters
(dscm) (90 dry standard cubic feet (dscf)). The final rule specifies a
minimum performance test run time of three hours and a minimum sample
volume of 3.75 dscm (135 dscf). These revisions are the result of re-
evaluation of the test method procedures in response to public comments
regarding the level of the proposed emission limit for PM, and are to
ensure that an adequate amount of PM is captured on the filter for
analysis and subsequent compliance determination.
D. Monitoring Requirements
Several changes were made to the monitoring requirements in the
proposed rule. The final rule does not include the proposed
requirements to maintain the average hourly melt rate so that it does
not exceed the average melt rate established during the performance
test by more than 20 percent for more than five percent of the total
operating time in each six-month reporting period, and to do a repeat
performance test at the higher melt rate if the average hourly melt
rate exceeds the average melt rate established during the performance
test by more than 20 percent for more than five percent of the total
operating time in a six-month reporting period. The EPA determined that
these monitoring requirements are not necessary because compliance with
the PM standards will be assessed through use of a bag leak detection
system; compliance with the CO standards will be assessed through
monitoring incinerator operating temperature; and compliance with the
formaldehyde standards will be assessed through monitoring incinerator
operating temperature, monitoring free-formaldehyde content of resin,
and monitoring binder formulation. The average melt rate must still be
determined during each performance test in order to assess compliance
with the emissions standards. As a recordkeeping requirement, the final
rule continues to require that records of cupola melt rate be
maintained.
As proposed, each fabric filter used on a cupola must be equipped
with a bag leak detection system having an audible alarm that
automatically sounds when an increase in particulate emissions above a
predetermined level is detected. The final rule clarifies that each
triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, operated,
adjusted, and maintained according to the EPA's ``Fabric Filter Bag
Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997) which is
available on the TTN under Emission Measurement Center (EMC),
Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other bag leak detection systems must
be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained according to the
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. In response
to public comments and to maintain consistency with sensitivity (range)
specifications in other regulations, the final rule requires that the
bag leak detection system be capable of detecting PM emissions at
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains
per actual cubic foot). To maintain consistency with bag leak detection
system requirements in other regulations and to allow owners and
operators flexibility to make necessary bag leak detection system
adjustments, the final rule specifies that following initial
adjustment, the owner or operator may adjust the range, averaging
period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time as specified in the
approved operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The final rule
further specifies that in no event may the range be increased by more
than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365 day
period unless a responsible official, as defined in Sec. 63.2 of the
general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, certifies in writing
to the Administrator that the fabric filter has been inspected and
found to be in good operating condition. The final rule clarifies that
the alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant personnel
will be able to hear it and that in response to the sounding of an
alarm, the owner or operator must complete corrective actions in a
timely manner.
Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator would monitor and
record the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder
formulation, including the formaldehyde content of each binder batch,
and would maintain the formaldehyde content of each binder formulation
at or below the level established during the performance test. The
final rule clarifies that the owner or operator must maintain the free-
formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the formaldehyde content of
each binder formulation at or below the specification ranges of the
resin and binder used during the performance test. The use of ranges in
the final rule accommodates the fact that resins and binders are
produced in accordance with specification ranges rather than levels as
proposed.
As proposed, the owner or operator would obtain, at a minimum,
valid three-hour block average incinerator operating temperatures for
75 percent of the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the
operating days per six-month reporting period. This requirement is not
included in the final rule in order to maintain consistency with the
compliance assurance monitoring final rule (62 FR 54899, October 22,
1997), which was revised based on comments received on its proposal and
now requires monitoring devices to be operational at all times that the
process is operational. Revisions were also made to clarify the
proposed requirements for monitoring incinerator operating temperature
by specifying in the final rule how to determine the average operating
temperature.
Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator could change a
control device or process operating parameter level established during
the performance test by conducting additional performance tests at the
new parameter level. The final rule clarifies that the owner or
operator must notify the Administrator of the desire to expand the
range of a control device or process operating parameter level, and
upon approval, conduct additional performance tests at the proposed new
parameter levels before operating at these levels to verify compliance
with the emission limits.
E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
A few changes were made since proposal to the notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The final rule clarifies
that notifications of performance tests must be submitted to the
Administrator at least 60 days prior to the performance test. The final
rule also clarifies what elements are required to be included in
performance test reports. The proposed rule required an operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan for each affected source that would
contain information on the proper operation and maintenance of control
devices, the parameters to be monitored for compliance and their
established operating levels, a monitoring schedule, corrective actions
to be taken when parameters deviate from the levels established during
performance testing, and procedures for keeping records to document
compliance. The final rule
[[Page 29495]]
specifies some example corrective actions for bag leak detection system
alarms that may be included in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan. Consistent with the general provisions requirements to
operate and maintain air pollution control equipment in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices, the final rule
clarifies that the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan
procedures for properly operating and maintaining control devices must
include, where applicable, an inspection of each incinerator at least
once per year. The final rule also clarifies that records of when
corrective actions were initiated and when the cause of the problem was
corrected must be maintained.
V. Summary of Impacts
The impacts estimated to be attributable to the final rule are the
same as those estimated to be attributable to the proposed rule.
Nationwide emissions of metal HAPs from mineral wool production cupolas
are estimated to be 1.0 Mg/yr (1.1 tpy) at the current level of
control. Existing PM emissions are estimated to be 239 Mg/yr (263 tpy).
Implementation of the final rule will reduce nationwide metal HAP and
PM emissions from existing cupolas by 0.91 Mg/yr (1.0 tpy) and 186 Mg/
yr (205 tpy), respectively. Formaldehyde and phenol emissions from
existing curing ovens are estimated to be 54 Mg/yr (59 tpy) and 14 Mg/
yr (16 tpy), respectively. Nationwide emissions of formaldehyde and
phenol will be reduced by about 30 Mg/yr (34 tpy) and 14 Mg/yr (16
tpy), respectively, as a result of this final rule. Although the EPA
does not anticipate any new cupolas or curing ovens within the next
five years, installation of a new cupola with a 7.3 megagram per hour
(8 ton per hour) capacity would result in estimated reductions of COS
and CO emissions by 104 Mg/yr (114 tpy) and 1,256 Mg/yr (1,384 tpy),
respectively, in addition to metal HAP and PM reductions.
Because this rule is based on the use of fabric filters and thermal
incinerators, there are no water pollution impacts. Solid waste
generated by fabric filters in the form of ash is disposed of by
landfilling. With the addition of fabric filters to five cupolas, the
amount of solid waste is expected to increase by about 350 Mg/yr (390
tpy) from the current level of 24,800 Mg/yr (27,300 tpy) nationwide.
The rule is estimated to have no significant effect on energy
consumption.
The total nationwide capital and annualized costs for existing
cupolas under the final rule are estimated to be $1.5 million and
$608,900/yr, respectively. These costs represent the addition of fabric
filters to five cupolas but do not include the monitoring costs of bag
leak detection systems required on all affected cupolas. Capital and
annualized costs for a bag leak detection system are estimated at
$9,100 and $1,800/yr for each affected cupola, respectively.
The total nationwide capital cost of complying with the
requirements for existing curing ovens is estimated to be $795,800 with
a nationwide annual cost of $641,600. These costs result from the
addition of thermal incinerators to two curing ovens.
Total nationwide capital costs for the standard are estimated at
$2.6 million and nationwide annual costs are estimated at $1.4 million,
including installation, operation, and maintenance of emission control
and monitoring systems.
Under the final rule, market-level price increases are estimated to
range from 0.5 percent to 2.1 percent, resulting in quantity
adjustments of -0.59 percent and -1.71 percent, respectively. The
decreases in quantity demanded may lead to the loss of approximately
nine jobs. There is no indication that the costs associated with
achieving the reductions required by the final rule will cause facility
closure.
VI. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
The EPA proposed the NESHAP for the mineral wool production source
category on May 8, 1997 (62 FR 25370). A 60-day comment period from May
8, 1997 to July 7, 1997, was provided to accept written comments from
the public on the proposed rule.
The EPA received a total of three comment letters regarding the
proposed NESHAP for mineral wool production. A copy of each comment
letter is available for public inspection in the docket for the
rulemaking (Docket No. A-95-33; see the ADDRESSES section of this
document for information on inspecting the docket). The EPA has had
follow-up discussions with commenters regarding specific issues
initially raised in their written comments that were submitted to the
EPA during the comment period. Copies of correspondence and other
information exchanged between the EPA and the commenters during the
post-comment period are available for public inspection in the docket
for the rulemaking.
All of the comments received by the EPA were reviewed and carefully
considered by the EPA. Changes to the rule were made where the EPA
determined it to be appropriate. A summary of responses to major
comments received on the proposed rule is presented below. Additional
discussion of the EPA's responses to public comments is presented in
the document ``Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Mineral Wool
Production NESHAP'' (docket item V-C-2).
A. General
Comment: One commenter stated that there have been some shutdowns
in the industry that affect the information presented in the preamble
to the proposed rule. Currently, there are 15 mineral wool production
facilities located in eight states. Five of the 15 plants manufacture
bonded products and contain a total of ten cupolas and five curing
ovens. Ten active plants manufacture only nonbonded products, with a
total of 21 cupolas. Thus, the total industry currently operates 31
cupolas and five curing ovens, rather than the 36 cupolas and six
curing ovens reported by the EPA in the Federal Register document. The
commenter further stated that six of the ten companies in the mineral
wool production industry are small businesses, rather than seven of the
ten companies being small businesses as stated in the EPA's Federal
Register document.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the information regarding shutdowns
and changes in the industry profile as noted by the commenter. The EPA
believes, however, that temporary shutdown of production lines is not
unusual in this industry because the manufacture of mineral wool
products is order-driven, and that these lines could be restarted in
the future. The EPA, therefore, has not made any changes to the
estimated impacts resulting from the rule. When considering these
changes in the industry profile, the technology representative of the
best controlled cupolas and curing ovens remains fabric filters and
thermal incinerators, respectively. Therefore, these changes do not
affect the proposed MACT floors for cupolas and curing ovens. Regarding
the number of small businesses within the source category, two separate
sources of information obtained by the EPA indicate that the company in
question has less than 750 employees. Thus, the EPA continues to
believe that seven of the ten mineral wool manufacturing companies are
small businesses. No revisions to the final rule are necessary as a
result of these comments.
[[Page 29496]]
B. Definitions
Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``bonded
product'' be amended to read ``Bonded product means mineral wool to
which a hazardous air pollutant-based binder (e.g., phenol,
formaldehyde) has been applied and cured.''
Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided
to leave the definition of ``bonded product'' as it is in the proposed
rule to allow the broadest coverage of this term. Once binder has been
applied to mineral wool, whether cured or not, hazardous air
pollutants, which are the focus of the definition, have been introduced
into the production process.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``mineral
wool'' be amended to read ``Mineral wool means a fibrous glassy
substance made from natural rock (such as basalt), recycled blast
furnace slag, or a mixture of rock and slag; it may be used as a
thermal or acoustical insulation material or in the manufacturing of
other products to provide structural strength, sound absorbency, fire
resistance, or other uses.''
Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided
to modify the definition of ``mineral wool'' by adding ``or other
required properties'' rather than ``or other uses'' as suggested by the
commenter. The EPA believes that this modification adequately expands
the definition of ``mineral wool'' as the commenter requested, as well
as provides more clarification than the commenter's suggested revision.
The EPA does not believe it is necessary or technically correct to add
``recycled'' to the definition.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``cupola''
be amended to read ``Cupola means a melting system consisting of raw
material bins, weighing and charging equipment, electrical power
system, controls, a large water cooled metal vessel with water cooling
system, combustion air fans, duct work, tuyeres and oxygen enrichment
system with combustion air preheater, molten slag handling and spinning
equipment, off gas duct work, fan and a structure to support and house
the melting system. The cupola is charged with a mixture of fuel, rock
and/or blast furnace slag and additives; as the fuel is burned, the
charged mixture is heated to a molten state, flows from the metal
vessel and is spun into mineral wool.''
Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided
to leave the definition of ``cupola'' as it is in the proposed rule to
allow the broadest coverage of this term. The EPA does not agree that
all of the items in the commenter's suggested definition are part of a
cupola. It is the EPA's intention to define ``cupola'' in general terms
in order to cover all possible configurations. Some configurations may
not include all of the items included in the commenter's suggested
definition.
C. Selection of Emission Standards
Comment: One commenter strongly supported the subcategorization in
the proposed rule of plants with and without bonded lines. The
commenter further stated that it is within the EPA's authority under
the Act to define appropriate subcategories and that the differences
between plants with and without bonded lines are substantial and
consistent with the types of differences that the EPA has used to
subcategorize other source categories.
Response: No changes in the final rule are necessary as a result of
this comment.
Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposed MACT floor for
new and existing sources.
Response: No changes in the final rule are necessary as a result of
this comment.
Comment: One commenter strongly supported the EPA's proposed
decision not to require an incinerator as above the MACT floor control
for existing cupolas. Reasons cited by the commenter are that a cupola
incinerator requirement would be unduly costly and economically
devastating to an industry that produces an environmentally beneficial
product using a waste product that would otherwise be landfilled, that
a cupola incinerator requirement would not provide any significant
health benefits, and that a cupola incinerator may even have negative
net health impacts due to secondary emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Response: No changes in the final rule are necessary as a result of
this comment.
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should require control
of CO and COS emissions from existing cupolas. The commenter further
stated that thermal oxidizers provide excellent control of cupola CO/
COS emissions and that the EPA incorrectly concluded that the costs and
ancillary emissions from thermal oxidizers are too high for the EPA to
require their use on existing cupolas. The commenter stated that in
fact, thermal oxidizer costs have been declining in real terms, and
NOX emissions from thermal oxidizers currently are
guaranteed at very low levels. Further, the commenter believes that the
EPA's subcategorization of mineral wool production facilities based on
the production of bonded products, and leading to MACT floors for
cupola CO/COS emissions of no control, is inappropriate. Where
subcategorization does not result in distinct emission limits or
floors, the commenter believes that regulatory simplicity dictates that
it should be avoided. The commenter also believes that the MACT floor
for existing cupolas does call for thermal oxidizer-based limits given
that the MACT floor level of control would be the use of thermal
incineration or its equivalent in the absence of subcategorization.
Response: The EPA disagrees that subcategorization is either
prohibited by the statute or unwise as a policy matter. While
regulatory simplicity may be a consideration in how the EPA exercises
its discretion, the statute does not dictate that this consideration
supersede other legitimate considerations in establishing
subcategories. As the EPA has noted in several rulemakings, the Act
provides the EPA with substantial discretion to consider various
factors when determining whether subcategorization is appropriate (see,
e.g., 59 FR 29196-29200, June 6, 1994, Federal Register notice on
determination of MACT floor for medium storage vessels at facilities
subject to the hazardous organic NESHAP which indicates that the EPA
may consider whether production processes used at different sources are
sufficiently distinct to justify the creation of a subcategory).
In considering whether it is appropriate to subcategorize in this
rule, the EPA continues to believe the basis for subcategorizing stated
in the preamble to the proposed rule is valid (see 62 FR 25376-25377,
May 8, 1997). Another commenter supported the EPA's view that it has
substantial discretion to subcategorize and agreed with the EPA's
decision to subcategorize in the proposed rule. Further, the EPA has
taken several steps to accomplish the goal of regulatory simplicity in
this rulemaking. For example, the EPA has emphasized readability in the
plain language format of the final rule. In addition, the EPA has
promulgated the cupola standards in one section, rather than in
separate sections for each subcategory. Therefore, the EPA believes it
has accomplished the goal of making the regulations as simple as
possible while at the same time recognizing appropriate distinctions
between the different types of facilities in the industry through
subcategorization.
[[Page 29497]]
Regarding the commenter's statement about thermal oxidizer costs
and ancillary emissions, the commenter did not provide any cost or
NOX emissions data to substantiate the assertion that a
requirement to install thermal oxidizers on existing cupolas would be
cost effective. The EPA continues to believe that the data in the
record does not indicate that CO/COS controls are cost effective or
otherwise appropriate for either subcategory. The EPA has not made any
changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposing thermal
incineration as the MACT floor for both new and existing curing ovens
and new cupolas. The commenter further stated that significantly higher
control efficiencies can be achieved beyond the 80 percent discussed in
the proposed rule with the use of catalytic incineration or oxidation
and, in fact, volatile organic compound (VOC) reductions in excess of
98 percent can be achieved. According to the commenter, catalytic
oxidation is a cost-effective control option which has been used for
many years in diverse applications and the commenter believes that
significant further VOC reductions can be cost-effectively achieved by
using the technology to also control the emissions from existing
cupolas. The commenter stated that catalytic incineration minimizes the
temperature required for the destruction of VOCs and consequently,
minimizes the production of NOX and sulfur oxide
(SOX) emissions from the combustion of sulfur bearing fuels.
Another commenter stated that thermal oxidizers or equivalent controls
can easily provide the proposed 80 percent reduction in curing oven
formaldehyde emissions and suggested that the EPA mention the
capabilities of regenerative thermal oxidizers to reduce fuel costs in
the preamble to the final rule.
Response: Neither commenter provided costs or data indicating
destruction efficiency of catalytic oxidizers or regenerative thermal
oxidizers on a mineral wool cupola or curing oven. In addition,
catalytic oxidizers and regenerative thermal oxidizers are not
demonstrated in the mineral wool production industry. The proposed 80
percent reduction in curing oven formaldehyde emissions is based upon
test data from a recuperative thermal incinerator representative of
MACT for curing ovens in the mineral wool production industry. The EPA
has not made any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed PM emission
standard for existing cupolas be increased significantly from the
proposed limit of 0.06 lb/ton of melt to 0.9 lb/ton to ensure that
cupolas equipped with a fabric filter (also known as a baghouse) can
comply with the standard. The commenter believes that emissions tests
upon which the EPA based the proposed PM standard involved invalid
tests that resulted in unrepresentative PM emission levels. According
to the commenter, the baghouse had defects that resulted in the
improper influx of air into the outlet stream, thereby diluting the
observed PM emission level. The commenter stated that approximately 70-
90 percent more air was emitted at the outlet than entered the intake
and that this defect prevents the test results from being used to
establish emission levels representative of a properly functioning
baghouse. The commenter also noted that the baghouse differential
pressures varied widely during the emissions tests, which could
indicate a number of problems with the baghouse including air leaks or
problems with bag cleaning.
Response: The commenter's request to increase the proposed PM
emission standard to ensure that cupolas equipped with fabric filters
can comply with the standard indicates a misunderstanding of the nature
of section 112 of the Act, as well as the MACT determination process,
which requires that emission standards for existing sources be set not
less stringent than the level achieved by the average of the best
performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than
30 sources. This determination is made assuming that some sources will
need to install new emission controls or improve performance of their
existing controls to meet a standard that is not less stringent than
the MACT floor.
Regarding the commenter's statement that baghouse defects resulted
in improper influx of air into the outlet stream and dilution of the PM
emission level, dilution air is of no significance given that the
proposed PM emission standard is in pounds of PM per ton of melt.
Emissions data from the baghouse-controlled cupola indicates a PM
removal efficiency of about 99.8 percent, and therefore, casts doubt
upon the commenter's assertion that the data are not representative of
a properly functioning baghouse. In addition, EPA believes that if the
commenter's statement about baghouse operational problems during the
emissions testing upon which the proposed PM standard is based
accurately assessed the situation, then the emission test results would
be biased high and the emission standard would, therefore, be biased
high. This certainly does not support raising the limit to an even
higher level. When provided the opportunity to review the emissions
test report, the facility did not have any comments regarding baghouse
defects resulting in the improper influx of air into the outlet stream
and diluted PM emission levels. Furthermore, when the EPA discussed the
proposed PM emission standard of 0.06 lb/ton with industry
representatives and State and local environmental agency
representatives prior to proposal, no concerns were expressed. In
addition, the commenter provided no basis for a PM emission standard of
0.9 lb/ton of melt. Based on the above discussion, the EPA has not made
any changes to the proposed PM emission standard as a result of these
comments.
During a follow-up meeting with the commenter (see Docket Item IV-
E-1), held at the commenter's request to provide an opportunity to
present to the EPA clarification of the comments and issues of concern
regarding the proposed emission standards, the commenter provided the
EPA with additional PM emissions data from fabric filter-controlled
cupolas. These data are from the Emission Factor Documentation for AP-
42 Section 8.16, Mineral Wool Manufacturing. These PM data are from
three fabric filter-controlled cupolas at the same facility as the
fabric filter-controlled cupola upon which the EPA based its proposed
PM emission standard. Because the parameters for these three fabric
filters are the same as those parameters previously determined to be
representative of the MACT floor for existing and new sources and
because these cupolas are at the same facility as the cupola tested by
the EPA and would therefore experience similar operating and
maintenance practices, the EPA has decided that the PM data from these
three fabric filter-controlled cupolas should be considered in
development of the final rule. When data from these three additional
fabric filter-controlled cupolas are included in the data base, PM data
representative of the MACT floor for cupolas now consists of the
following: 0.04 lb/ton, 0.05 lb/ton, 0.065 lb/ton, and 0.099 lb/ton.
Based on these data, the EPA has determined that a PM emission limit of
0.10 lb/ton represents a level that can be achieved by all four cupolas
controlled with well designed, operated, and maintained fabric filters,
and is representative of the MACT floor in the final rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that emissions data from the second
facility in the EPA test program indicate that PM emissions from a
cupola also
[[Page 29498]]
controlled with a baghouse averaged 0.6 lb/ton of melt, an order of
magnitude higher than the proposed PM standard of 0.06 lb/ton. Thus,
emissions from this facility would not meet the EPA's proposed PM
emission standard, even though the facility is equipped with the
control technology that represents the MACT floor. The commenter
acknowledged that the PM emissions data from this facility includes
emissions from both the cupola and fiber collection process but stated
that the facility is nevertheless required to meet the emission limit
set by the EPA. The commenter further stated that at least one other
mineral wool company vents the fiber collection process as well as the
cupola through a baghouse and it would be infeasible for this facility
to meet the proposed PM standard. Further, it would be very expensive
and counter-productive with respect to emission levels to force the
facility to rearrange its baghouse operation to exclude the fiber
collection process air. Because it is possible that the collection
chamber may require additional PM controls in the future as a result,
for example, of the EPA's recently proposed PM2.5 ambient
standard, an additional reason to set the cupola PM emission standard
at a higher level is therefore to permit the facility to meet the
proposed PM emission standard with its current configuration, and to
provide other companies additional flexibility to reduce PM emissions
in the future.
Response: The EPA cannot foresee or accommodate all configurations
of processes ducted to a common control device. Section 63.7 of the
general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 allows the use of
alternative test methods and procedures based on review and approval by
the EPA of relevant supporting information. The supporting data and
information are submitted as part of the site specific test plan and
are evaluated for approval by the EPA on a case-by-case basis. Because
all facilities have the opportunity to request alternative methods and
procedures for testing and demonstrating compliance with the cupola
emission standards, the EPA again believes the proposed PM emission
standard should not be raised to consider emissions not regulated by
the MACT standards, and has therefore, not made any changes to the rule
as a result of these comments.
Comment: One commenter stated that other mineral wool manufacturing
companies indicated that a 0.06 lb/ton PM standard would not be
feasible with their existing installed baghouse controls. Earlier data
collected by the EPA as part of a screening study not associated with
the MACT standards development process found controlled particulate
emissions from industry tests of six mineral wool cupolas equipped with
baghouses ranged from 0.0044 to 0.70 lb/ton, while the average
controlled emission level was 0.42 lb/ton. The commenter further stated
that because most if not all mineral wool facilities will be unable to
meet the proposed 0.06 lb/ton of melt PM standard on a consistent
basis, the proposed standard is inconsistent with the intended
objective of basing the standard on the existing baghouse technology
installed by many facilities that represent the MACT floor.
Response: The EPA reviewed the 1980 document ``Source Category
Survey: Mineral Wool Manufacturing Industry'' which contains the
earlier data referred to by the commenter. Upon review, it was noted
that only one facility with a cupola controlled by a baghouse as
referenced in the 1980 report is still operational and it is not
apparent from the study what the PM emissions associated with the
cupola at this facility were. It is apparent, however, from an
information collection request response submitted by this facility to
the EPA in 1993, that new baghouses were installed in 1986 and 1987 for
each of their two operating cupolas. Thus, the test data supplied by
this facility for the 1980 study is not relevant. The commenter did not
provide any data on baghouse design, maintenance, or operation
characteristics to show that the facilities tabulated in the 1980 study
were representative of MACT.
The commenter's statement that the proposed standard is
inconsistent with the intended objective of basing the standard on the
existing baghouse technology installed by many facilities that
represent the MACT floor mischaracterizes the intent of the EPA and of
section 112 of the Act. As previously stated, the statute requires the
level of control to be not less stringent than the average level
achieved by the best performing five sources, rather than be based on
what all facilities can achieve with their current control and
maintenance practices. The Act, through requiring all sources to meet a
standard that is not less stringent than the MACT floor, assumes that
existing controls may need to be replaced or upgraded at some sources.
In many cases, bags within the fabric filter may need to be replaced
and a more rigorous operation and maintenance plan may be necessary to
meet the MACT. Accordingly, the EPA has decided that no changes in the
final rule are necessary as a result of these comments.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed formaldehyde
emission standard for existing curing ovens be increased significantly
from 0.06 pounds of formaldehyde per ton of melt (lb/ton) to 0.4 lb/ton
because the commenter has concerns that the proposed standard may not
be consistently achieved by an incinerator on the curing oven. The
commenter stated that for example, the EPA's data from one tested
facility (Facility B) showed that formaldehyde emissions from a curing
oven equipped with an incinerator were 0.4 lb/ton, which is almost an
order of magnitude above the proposed formaldehyde standard. The
commenter acknowledged that the EPA's background documentation explains
that only a portion of Facility B's curing oven exhaust passes through
the high temperature incinerator but nevertheless, the input
formaldehyde concentration into Facility B's curing oven incinerator
was still over six times higher (1.3 lb/ton) than the low measured
formaldehyde input at the facility upon which the proposed emission
standard is based (0.2 lb/ton) (Facility A). The commenter stated that
because the Facility A input level was abnormally low, the low output
after incineration may also not be representative of other curing
ovens. The commenter further stated that assuming Facility B's curing
oven incinerator is the least efficient of the three curing oven
incinerators existing in the industry, Facility B would be the median
of the 5 curing ovens remaining in the industry. Thus, the commenter
concluded that the MACT floor should be set at the emission limit
corresponding to Facility B's curing oven incinerator.
Response: While the commenter characterizes the input formaldehyde
concentration into Facility A's curing oven incinerator as strikingly
low relative to the input formaldehyde concentration into Facility B's
curing oven incinerator, the commenter did not submit data to indicate
that the emissions measured for Facility A's curing oven incinerator
are in error. The EPA recognized the potential variability in input
formaldehyde, and for this reason proposed an alternative emission
standard, also based on Facility A, requiring reduction of uncontrolled
formaldehyde emissions by at least 80 percent. Regarding the
commenter's concern that the proposed standards may not be consistently
achieved by an incinerator, another commenter indicated that thermal
oxidizers or equivalent controls can easily provide
[[Page 29499]]
the proposed 80 percent reduction in curing oven formaldehyde
emissions. Furthermore, in the preamble to the proposed national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for wool fiberglass
manufacturing (62 FR 15228), the EPA stated that emission test
measurements demonstrate that a thermal incinerator installed at these
facilities is at least 99 percent effective in the removal of
formaldehyde and phenol from curing ovens. Additionally, under the
relevant emission standard for Facility B, 80 percent removal would
translate into a limit of 0.26 lb/ton of melt, not 0.4 lb/ton of melt
as proposed by the commenter.
Originally, Facility A's curing oven incinerator was selected as
being representative of the MACT floor for existing sources and
Facility B's curing oven incinerator was selected as being
representative of MACT for new sources. These determinations were based
on incinerator operating temperatures and gas residence times. After
emissions testing was completed, the EPA decided to discount the data
from Facility B because the curing oven incinerator was not operating
properly as evidenced by a low formaldehyde removal efficiency of about
69 percent. Also, discussions with Facility B personnel revealed that
gas flows within the curing oven were not within design parameters
during the emissions test. Based on the above information, the EPA
determined that Facility A's curing oven incinerator represented MACT
for existing and new sources. Accordingly, other facilities with curing
ovens, including Facility B, will be required to install new
incinerators, or replace or modify their existing incinerators, as
necessary, to meet the curing oven formaldehyde emission standards.
After consideration of these comments, the EPA has decided to leave the
formaldehyde emissions standards at 0.06 lb/ton of melt and 80 percent
reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde as in the proposed rule.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA include an emission
limit for COS of 0.05 pounds of COS per ton of melt (lb/ton) as an
alternative to proposed emission standards for new cupolas of 0.10
pounds of CO per ton of melt (lb/ton) or 99 percent CO removal. The
commenter stated that this alternative emission limit would give new
sources in the future the flexibility to explore alternative methods to
reduce COS through process modifications or other approaches. The
commenter further stated that while they are not aware of any feasible
process modifications that can significantly reduce COS at this time,
it is possible that alternative designs or processes that reduce COS
emissions may be developed in the future that could be feasible for a
new plant. The commenter believes that because the relationship between
CO and COS involves some fluctuation and uncertainty, a direct COS
alternative would be helpful to encourage exploration of such
alternative means of compliance in any future new mineral wool plants.
Response: During development of the cupola emission standards, the
EPA considered including an emission standard for COS for plants that
choose to use process modifications, rather than thermal incineration,
as a means of reducing COS emissions from new cupolas. When the EPA
discussed this option with industry representatives, they considered
this approach and strongly indicated, as the commenter does, that there
are no feasible process modifications capable of reducing COS emissions
to the level contemplated for a standard. In addition, the commenter
provided no basis for a COS emission standard of 0.05 lb/ton of melt.
Accordingly, the EPA has not made any changes to the rule as a result
of this comment.
D. Monitoring
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the monitoring
equipment for baghouses required to meet the proposed PM standard is
overly sensitive, would be unduly costly, and would trigger false
alarms. The commenter recommended revising the bag leak detection
system specifications from 1 milligram per cubic meter (mg/m\3\) to 10
mg/m\3\ in order to be consistent with other MACT standards, such as
the secondary lead standard where the minimum detection capability of
the bag leak detection system was revised from 1 to 10 mg/m\3\.
Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided
to modify the required minimum detection capability for bag leak
detection systems to 10 mg/m\3\ (0.0044 gr/ft\3\). This change does not
alter the intended function of the bag leak detector, which is to
detect broken bags or other defects in baghouses, and is consistent
with the specification for sensitivity in other EPA standards.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA allow the use of
opacity monitors for bag leak detection because these monitors comply
with Performance Specification 1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR part 60, and
have been used for many years on electric arc furnace baghouses where
the opacity limit is set at 3 percent.
Response: The commenter did not submit data to prove that opacity
monitors are as sensitive as bag leak detection systems or can meet
their minimum detection capability specification. The facts that
opacity monitors comply with Performance Specification 1 of Appendix B
of 40 CFR part 60 and that opacity monitors have been used on electric
arc furnace baghouses are no indication that opacity monitors are
suitable for use on cupola baghouses. The EPA continues to believe that
a bag leak detection system will provide the best indication of cupola
baghouse performance at the low PM levels characteristic of these
sources. The EPA has not made any changes to the rule as a result of
this comment.
E. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Comment: One commenter stated that although they agree with the
need for startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans, the proposed rule
does not clearly provide that emissions may temporarily exceed the
emission limits during startup, shutdown, or malfunctions. The
commenter recommended that the proposed rule should therefore specify
that emission limits may be temporarily exceeded during startup,
shutdown, or malfunctions without violating the standard provided the
company is taking appropriate actions consistent with its startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan. The commenter further recommended that
the EPA should provide some flexibility in the rule for unexpected
developments and upsets that are difficult to predict and control in
the mineral wool industry. The commenter stated that there is no
practical or legal reason why a single perceived deviation from a
defined operating range should be deemed to be out of compliance, but
rather, some margin of error should be permitted in the form of one or
two allowable excursions per month.
Response: Section 63.6(f) of the general provisions in subpart A of
40 CFR part 63 provides that nonopacity emission standards shall apply
at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. The situation the commenter describes regarding unexpected
developments and upsets are covered under the definition of a
malfunction in the general provisions provided the failures are not
caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. The EPA,
therefore, does not believe that an additional provision in the form of
one or two allowable excursions per month is warranted. The EPA has
specified in the
[[Page 29500]]
final rule, however, that the owner or operator must comply with the
standards at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction.
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is intended to be an organized file of the
administrative records compiled by the EPA. The docket is a dynamic
file because information is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,
the docket will contain the record in case of judicial review. (See
section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.) The location of the docket, which
includes all public comments received on the proposed rule, is in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble.
B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of the Executive Order and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
C. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a
State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by those governments, or the EPA consults with those
governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875
requires the EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of
the EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State,
local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of
any written communications from the governments, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive
Order 12875 requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on State,
local or tribal governments, because they do not own or operate any
sources that would be subject to this rule. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this rule.
D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting,
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. No affected facilities are
owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, it must
have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
[[Page 29501]]
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The EPA projects that
annual economic impacts would be far less than $100 million. Thus,
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it does not impose any
enforceable duties on small governments; such governments own or
operate no sources subject to the rule and therefore would not be
required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of the
rule.
F. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. The EPA has determined that seven of the ten firms that
potentially would be subject to the final rule are small firms. The EPA
has met with all of these small firms and their trade association. They
have been fully involved in this rulemaking and their concerns and
comments have been considered in the development of this rule. Also, a
representative of the EPA's Office of the Small Business Ombudsman
participated in the development of these standards as a work group
member to ensure that the requirements of the standards were examined
for potential adverse economic impacts and those impacts were mitigated
to the extent feasible while still achieving the rule's environmental
objectives.
Five of the seven small firms would incur emission control costs
that are less than 0.1 percent of sales; one firm would incur control
costs estimated to be 2.4 percent of the firm's sales; and another firm
would incur control costs believed to be in excess of 3 percent. (See
Docket Item II-A-16 for a discussion of this analysis.) Thus, this rule
affects only a small number of small businesses. Further, most of the
small businesses impacted by this rule will experience minimal
increases in costs. Only two small businesses are projected to incur
costs exceeding 0.1 percent of sales.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective June 1, 1999.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The OMB has approved the information collection requirements
contained in this rule under the provisions of PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0362.
The information collection requirements include the notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NESHAP general
provisions, authorized under section 114 of the Act, which are
mandatory for all owners and operators subject to national emission
standards. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies in 40
CFR part 2, subpart B. This rule does not require any notifications or
reports beyond those required by the general provisions. Subpart DDD
does require additional records of specific information needed to
determine compliance with the rule. These include records of: (1)
Cupola production (melt) rate; (2) all bag leak detection system
alarms, the date and time of the alarm, when corrective actions were
initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the corrective
actions taken, and when the cause of the alarm was corrected; (3) the
free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder formulation,
including formaldehyde content, of each binder batch used in the
manufacture of bonded products; and (4) incinerator operating
temperature, including all periods when the average temperature in any
three-hour block period fell below the average temperature established
during the performance test, and the results of the annual inspection,
including any problems discovered during the inspection, the date and
time of the problem, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause
of the problem, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and
when the cause of the problem was corrected. Each of these information
requirements is needed to determine compliance with the standards.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden to industry
for this collection is estimated to be 6,107 labor hours per year at an
annual cost of $196,206. This estimate includes a one-time performance
test and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time preparation
of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of
any event in which the procedures were not followed; preparation of an
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan; semiannual excess
emissions reports; notifications; and recordkeeping. The total capital
cost associated with the monitoring requirements is estimated to be
$309,400. This estimate includes the capital and startup costs
associated with installation of a bag leak detection system for each
affected cupola. The annualized cost of that capital is $44,059 per
year, and the operation and maintenance of the monitoring equipment is
estimated to be $17,000 per year.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. In
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the EPA is amending
the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved information collection
request (ICR) control numbers issued by the OMB for various
regulations.
[[Page 29502]]
This amendment updates the table to accurately display those
information requirements contained in this final rule. The EPA will
continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated table format
to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the EPA's regulations, and in each
Code of Federal Regulations volume containing EPA regulations. The
table lists the section numbers with reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and the current OMB control numbers. This display of the
OMB control number and its subsequent codification in the CFR satisfy
the requirements of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior
to OMB approval. As a result, the EPA finds there is ``good cause''
under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice and
comment. Due to the technical nature of the table, further notice and
comment would be unnecessary. For the same reasons, the EPA also finds
that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
I. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 states that pollution should
be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible. During the
development of these standards, the EPA explored opportunities to
eliminate or reduce emissions through the application of new processes
or work practices. By reducing or eliminating the formaldehyde and
phenol in binder formulations, HAPs from the curing process would be
reduced or eliminated without the use of air pollution control
equipment. Alternative binders have been investigated by various
mineral wool producers. Acceptable alternatives have been difficult to
identify due to the higher costs of the potential alternative binders;
the problems associated with requalification of altered products to
meet required product specifications; the production process changes
necessitated by the use of modified binders; and the concerns regarding
potential toxicity of new binder ingredients. Thus, at this time an
acceptable alternative binder has not been commercially demonstrated.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113 (March 7, 1996), directs the EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in regulatory and procurement activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,
and business practices) which are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standard bodies. Where available and potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the
Agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation for not
using such standards. This section summarizes the EPA's response to the
requirements of the NTTAA for the analytical test methods promulgated
as part of this final rule.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards for the EPA's emissions sampling and
analysis reference methods and industry recommended materials analysis
procedures cited in this rule. Candidate voluntary consensus standards
for materials analysis were identified for free-formaldehyde content.
Consensus comments provided by industry experts were that the candidate
standards did not meet industry materials analysis requirements.
Therefore, EPA has determined these voluntary consensus standard are
impractical for the mineral wool production NESHAP. The EPA, in
consultation with the North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association (NAIMA), has formulated an industry-specific materials
analysis, consensus standard for free-formaldehyde content which is
promulgated in this rule.
The EPA search to identify voluntary consensus standards for the
EPA's emissions sampling and analysis reference methods cited in this
rule identified 17 voluntary consensus standards that appeared to have
possible use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, after
reviewing available standards, EPA determined that 12 of the candidate
consensus standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data
and other important technical and policy considerations. Five of the
remaining candidate consensus standards are new standards under
development that EPA plans to follow, review and consider adopting at a
later date. This rule requires standard EPA emission test methods known
to the industry and States. Approved alternative methods also may be
used with prior EPA approval.
K. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns the environmental
health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and it is based
on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Mineral wool production, Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
Dated: May 13, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title
40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as
follows:
PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq.,
[[Page 29503]]
6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry in numerical order
to the table under the indicated heading to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR citation OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories \3\
* * * * *
63.1178--63.1194............................... 2060-0362
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the
applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
which are not independent information collection requirements.
* * * * *
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
4. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart DDD to read as follows:
Subpart DDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Mineral Wool Production
Sec.
63.1175 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.1176 Where can I find definitions of key words used in this
subpart?
63.1177 Am I subject to this subpart?
Standards
63.1178 For cupolas, what standards must I meet?
63.1179 For curing ovens, what standards must I meet?
63.1180 When must I meet these standards?
Compliance With Standards
63.1181 How do I comply with the particulate matter standards for
existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas?
63.1182 How do I comply with the carbon monoxide standards for new
and reconstructed cupolas?
63.1183 How do I comply with the formaldehyde standards for
existing, new, and reconstructed curing ovens?
Additional Monitoring Information
63.1184 What do I need to know about the design specifications,
installation, and operation of a bag leak detection system?
63.1185 How do I establish the average operating temperature of an
incinerator?
63.1186 How may I change the compliance levels of monitored
parameters?
63.1187 What do I need to know about operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?
Performance Tests and Methods
63.1188 What performance test requirements must I meet?
63.1189 What test methods do I use?
63.1190 How do I determine compliance?
Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
63.1191 What notifications must I submit?
63.1192 What recordkeeping requirements must I meet?
63.1193 What reports must I submit?
Other Requirements and Information
63.1194 Which general provisions apply?
63.1195 Who enforces this subpart?
63.1196 What definitions should I be aware of?
63.1197-63.1199 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart DDD of Part 63.
Appendix A to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Free Formaldehyde Analysis of
Insulation Resins by the Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride Method.
Subpart DDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production
Sec. 63.1175 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants emitted from existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas
and curing ovens at facilities that produce mineral wool.
Sec. 63.1176 Where can I find definitions of key words used in this
subpart?
The definitions of key words used in this subpart are in the Clean
Air Act (Act), in Sec. 63.2 of the general provisions in subpart A of
this part, and in Sec. 63.1196 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.1177 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an existing,
new, or reconstructed mineral wool production facility that is located
at a plant site that is a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions, meaning the plant emits or has the potential to emit any
single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or
any combination of HAPs at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more
per year.
Standards
Sec. 63.1178 For cupolas, what standards must I meet?
(a) You must control emissions from each cupola as follows:
(1) Limit emissions of particulate matter (PM) from each existing,
new, or reconstructed cupola to 0.05 kilograms (kg) of PM per megagram
(MG) (0.10 pound [lb] of PM per ton) of melt or less.
(2) Limit emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) from each new or
reconstructed cupola to either of the following:
(i) 0.05 kg of CO per MG (0.10 lb of CO per ton) of melt or less.
(ii) A reduction of uncontrolled CO emissions by at least 99
percent.
(b) You must meet the following operating limits for each cupola:
(1) Begin within one hour after the alarm on a bag leak detection
system sounds, and complete in a timely manner, corrective actions as
specified in your operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required
by Sec. 63.1187 of this subpart.
(2) When the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more
than five percent of the total operating time in a six-month reporting
period, develop and implement a written quality improvement plan (QIP)
consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring requirements of
Sec. 64.8(b)-(d) of 40 CFR part 64.
(3) Additionally, for each new or reconstructed cupola, maintain
the operating temperature of the incinerator so that the average
operating temperature for each three-hour block period never falls
below the average temperature established during the performance test.
Sec. 63.1179 For curing ovens, what standards must I meet?
(a) You must control emissions from each existing, new, or
reconstructed curing oven by limiting emissions of formaldehyde to
either of the following:
(1) 0.03 kg of formaldehyde per MG (0.06 lb of formaldehyde per
ton) of melt or less.
(2) A reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions by at least
80 percent.
(b) You must meet the following operating limits for each curing
oven:
(1) Maintain the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and
the formaldehyde content of each binder formulation at or below the
specification ranges of the resin and binder used during the
performance test.
(2) Maintain the operating temperature of each incinerator so that
[[Page 29504]]
the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period
never falls below the average temperature established during the
performance test.
Sec. 63.1180 When must I meet these standards?
(a) Existing cupolas and curing ovens. You must install any control
devices and monitoring equipment necessary to meet the standards in
this subpart, complete performance testing, and demonstrate compliance
with all requirements of this subpart no later than the following:
(1) June 2, 2002; or
(2) June 3, 2003 if you apply for and receive a one-year extension
under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act.
(b) New and reconstructed cupolas and curing ovens. You must
install any control devices or monitoring equipment necessary to meet
the standards in this subpart, complete performance testing, and
demonstrate compliance with all requirements of this subpart by the
dates in Sec. 63.7 of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.
(c) You must comply with the standards in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179
of this subpart on and after the dates in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.
(d) You must comply with these standards at all times except during
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
Compliance With Standards
Sec. 63.1181 How do I comply with the particulate matter standards for
existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas?
To comply with the PM standards, you must meet all of the
following:
(a) Install, adjust, maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak
detection system for each fabric filter.
(b) Do a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 of this
subpart and show compliance with the PM emission limits while the bag
leak detection system is installed, operational, and properly adjusted.
(c) Begin corrective actions specified in your operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.1187 of this
subpart within one hour after the alarm on a bag leak detection system
sounds. Complete the corrective actions in a timely manner.
(d) Develop and implement a written QIP consistent with compliance
assurance monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 64.8(b) through (d) when
the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more than five
percent of the total operating time in a six-month reporting period.
Sec. 63.1182 How do I comply with the carbon monoxide standards for
new and reconstructed cupolas?
To comply with the CO standards, you must meet all of the
following:
(a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that
continuously measures the operating temperature in the firebox of each
thermal incinerator.
(b) Do a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 of this
subpart and show compliance with the CO emission limits while the
device for measuring incinerator operating temperature is installed,
operational, and properly calibrated. Establish the average operating
temperature as specified in Sec. 63.1185(a) of this subpart.
(c) Following the performance test, measure and record the average
operating temperature of the incinerator as specified in
Sec. 63.1185(b) of this subpart.
(d) Maintain the operating temperature of the incinerator so that
the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period
never falls below the average temperature established during the
performance test.
(e) Operate and maintain the incinerator as specified in your
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.1187
of this subpart.
Sec. 63.1183 How do I comply with the formaldehyde standards for
existing, new, and reconstructed curing ovens?
To comply with the formaldehyde standards, you must meet all of the
following:
(a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that
continuously measures the operating temperature in the firebox of each
thermal incinerator.
(b) Do a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 of this
subpart while manufacturing the product that requires a binder
formulation made with the resin containing the highest free-
formaldehyde content specification range. Show compliance with the
formaldehyde emission limits while the device for measuring incinerator
operating temperature is installed, operational, and properly
calibrated. Establish the average operating temperature as specified in
Sec. 63.1185(a) of this subpart.
(c) During the performance test that uses the binder formulation
made with the resin containing the highest free-formaldehyde content
specification range, record the free-formaldehyde content specification
range of the resin used, and the formulation of the binder used,
including the formaldehyde content and binder specification.
(d) Following the performance test, monitor and record the free-
formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the formulation of each
batch of binder used, including the formaldehyde content.
(e) Maintain the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and
the formaldehyde content of each binder formulation at or below the
specification ranges established during the performance test.
(f) Following the performance test, measure and record the average
operating temperature of the incinerator as specified in
Sec. 63.1185(b) of this subpart.
(g) Maintain the operating temperature of the incinerator so that
the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period
never falls below the average temperature established during the
performance test.
(h) Operate and maintain the incinerator as specified in your
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.1187
of this subpart.
(i) With prior approval from the Administrator, you may do short-
term experimental production runs using resin where the free-
formaldehyde content, or binder formulations where the formaldehyde
content, is higher than the specification ranges of the resin and
binder used during previous performance tests, or using experimental
pollution prevention process modifications without first doing
additional performance tests. Notification of intent to perform a
short-term experimental production run must include the following
information:
(1) The purpose of the experimental run.
(2) The affected production process.
(3) How the resin free-formaldehyde content or binder formulation
will deviate from previously approved levels or what the experimental
pollution prevention process modifications are.
(4) The duration of the experimental run.
(5) The date and time of the experimental run.
(6) A description of any emissions testing to be done during the
experimental run.
Additional Monitoring Information
Sec. 63.1184 What do I need to know about the design specifications,
installation, and operation of a bag leak detection system?
A bag leak detection system must meet the following requirements:
(a) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic
foot) or less.
[[Page 29505]]
(b) The sensor on the bag leak detection system must provide output
of relative PM emissions.
(c) The bag leak detection system must have an alarm that will
sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM
emissions greater than a preset level.
(d) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant
personnel will be able to hear it.
(e) For a positive-pressure fabric filter, each compartment or cell
must have a bag leak detector. For a negative-pressure or induced-air
fabric filter, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of
the fabric filter. If multiple bag leak detectors are required (for
either type of fabric filter), detectors may share the system
instrumentation and alarm.
(f) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed,
operated, adjusted, and maintained so that it follows EPA's ``Fabric
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September
1997). Other bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated,
adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written
specifications and recommendations.
(g) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways:
(1) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
(2) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(h) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm
set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified
in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required by
Sec. 63.1187 of this subpart. In no event may the range be increased by
more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365
day period unless a responsible official as defined in Sec. 63.2 of the
general provisions in subpart A of this part certifies in writing to
the Administrator that the fabric filter has been inspected and found
to be in good operating condition.
Sec. 63.1185 How do I establish the average operating temperature of
an incinerator?
(a) During the performance test, you must establish the average
operating temperature of an incinerator as follows:
(1) Continuously measure the operating temperature of the
incinerator.
(2) Determine and record the average temperatures in consecutive
15-minute blocks.
(3) Determine and record the arithmetic average of the recorded
average temperatures measured in consecutive 15-minute blocks for each
of the one-hour performance test runs.
(4) Determine and record the arithmetic average of the three one-
hour average temperatures during the performance test runs. The average
of the three one-hour performance test runs establishes the temperature
level to use to monitor compliance.
(b) To comply with the requirements for maintaining the operating
temperature of an incinerator after the performance test, you must
measure and record the average operating temperature of the incinerator
as required by Secs. 63.1182 and 63.1183 of this subpart. This average
operating temperature of the incinerator is based on the arithmetic
average of the one-hour average temperatures for each consecutive
three-hour period and is determined in the same manner described in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
Sec. 63.1186 How may I change the compliance levels of monitored
parameters?
You may change control device and process operating parameter
levels established during performance tests and used to monitor
compliance if you do the following:
(a) You must notify the Administrator of your desire to expand the
range of a control device or process operating parameter level.
(b) Upon approval from the Administrator, you must conduct
additional performance tests at the proposed new control device or
process operating parameter levels. Before operating at these levels,
the performance test results must verify that, at the new levels, you
comply with the emission limits in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179 of this
subpart.
Sec. 63.1187 What do I need to know about operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plans?
(a) An operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan must be
submitted to the Administrator for review and approval as part of your
application for the title V permit.
(b) The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan must include
the following:
(1) Process and control device parameters you will monitor to
determine compliance, along with established operating levels or ranges
for each process or control device.
(2) A monitoring schedule.
(3) Procedures for properly operating and maintaining control
devices used to meet the standards in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179 of this
subpart. These procedures must include an inspection of each
incinerator at least once per year. At a minimum, you must do the
following as part of an incinerator inspection:
(i) Inspect all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing
devices for proper operation. Clean pilot sensor if necessary.
(ii) Ensure proper adjustment of combustion air, and adjust if
necessary.
(iii) Inspect, when possible, all internal structures (such as
baffles) to ensure structural integrity per the design specifications.
(iv) Inspect dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation.
(v) Inspect motors for proper operation.
(vi) Inspect, when possible, combustion chamber refractory lining.
Clean, and repair or replace lining if necessary.
(vii) Inspect incinerator shell for proper sealing, corrosion, and/
or hot spots.
(viii) For the burn cycle that follows the inspection, document
that the incinerator is operating properly and make any necessary
adjustments.
(ix) Generally observe whether the equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(x) Complete all necessary repairs as soon as practicable.
(4) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.
(5) Corrective actions you will take if process or control device
parameters vary from the levels established during performance testing.
For bag leak detection system alarms, example corrective actions that
may be included in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan
include:
(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment.
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
Performance Tests and Methods
Sec. 63.1188 What performance test requirements must I meet?
You must meet the following performance test requirements:
[[Page 29506]]
(a) All monitoring systems and equipment must be installed,
operational, and properly calibrated before the performance tests.
(b) Do a performance test, consisting of three test runs, for each
cupola and curing oven subject to this subpart at the maximum
production rate to demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable
emission limits in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179 of this subpart.
(c) Measure emissions of PM from each existing cupola.
(d) Measure emissions of PM and CO from each new or reconstructed
cupola.
(e) Measure emissions of formaldehyde from each existing, new or
reconstructed curing oven.
(f) Measure emissions at the outlet of the control device if
complying with a numerical emission limit for PM, CO, or formaldehyde,
or at the inlet and outlet of the control device if complying with a
percent reduction emission limit for CO or formaldehyde.
(g) To determine the average melt rate, measure and record the
amount of raw materials, excluding coke, charged into and melted in
each cupola during each performance test run. Determine and record the
average hourly melt rate for each performance test run. Determine and
record the arithmetic average of the average hourly melt rates
associated with the three performance test runs. The average hourly
melt rate of the three performance test runs is used to determine
compliance with the applicable emission limits.
(h) Compute and record the average emissions of the three
performance test runs and use the equations in Sec. 63.1190 of this
subpart to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits.
(i) Comply with control device and process operating parameter
monitoring requirements for performance testing as specified in this
subpart.
Sec. 63.1189 What test methods do I use?
You must use the following test methods to determine compliance
with the applicable emission limits:
(a) Method 1 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the
selection of the sampling port locations and number of sampling ports.
(b) Method 2 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for stack gas
velocity and volumetric flow rate.
(c) Method 3 or 3A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for
oxygen and carbon dioxide for diluent measurements needed to correct
the concentration measurements to a standard basis.
(d) Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for moisture
content of the stack gas.
(e) Method 5 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the
concentration of PM. Each PM test run must consist of a minimum run
time of three hours and a minimum sample volume of 3.75 dscm (135
dscf).
(f) Method 10 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the
concentration of CO, using the continuous sampling option described in
section 7.1.1 of the method. Each CO test run must consist of a minimum
run time of one hour.
(g) Method 318 in appendix A to this part for the concentration of
formaldehyde or CO.
(h) Method to determine the free-formaldehyde content of each resin
lot in appendix A of this subpart.
Sec. 63.1190 How do I determine compliance?
(a) Using the results of the performance tests, you must use the
following equation to determine compliance with the PM emission limit:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN99.015
where:
E = Emission rate of PM, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of melt.
C = Concentration of PM, g/dscm (gr/dscf).
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
K 51 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr).
P = Average melt rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
(b) Using the results of the performance tests, you must use the
following equation to determine compliance with the CO and formaldehyde
numerical emission limits:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN99.016
where:
E = Emission rate of measured pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of melt.
C = Measured volume fraction of pollutant, ppm.
MW = Molecular weight of measured pollutant, g/g-mole:
CO = 28.01, Formaldehyde = 30.03.
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/453.6 g).
K2 = Conversion factor, 1,000 L/m3 (28.3 L/
ft3).
K3 = Conversion factor, 24.45 L/g-mole.
P = Average melt rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
(c) Using the results of the performance tests, you must use the
following equation to determine compliance with the CO and formaldehyde
percent reduction performance standards:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN99.017
where:
%R = Percent reduction, or collection efficiency of the control device.
Li = Inlet loading of pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton).
Lo = Outlet loading of pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton).
Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Sec. 63.1191 What notifications must I submit?
You must submit written notifications to the Administrator as
required by Sec. 63.9(b)-(h) of the general provisions in subpart A of
this part. These notifications include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) Notification that the following types of sources are subject to
the standard:
(1) An area source that increases its emissions so that it becomes
a major source.
(2) A source that has an initial startup before the effective date
of the standard.
(3) A new or reconstructed source that has an initial startup after
the effective date of the standard and doesn't require an application
for approval of construction or reconstruction under Sec. 63.5(d) of
the general provisions in subpart A of this part.
(b) Notification of intention to construct a new major source or
reconstruct a major source where the initial startup of the new or
reconstructed source occurs after the effective date of the standard
and an application for approval of construction or reconstruction under
Sec. 63.5(d) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part is
required.
(c) Notification of special compliance obligations for a new source
that is subject to special compliance requirements in Sec. 63.6(b)(3)
and (4) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.
(d) Notification of a performance test at least 60 calendar days
before the performance test is scheduled to begin.
(e) Notification of compliance status.
Sec. 63.1192 What recordkeeping requirements must I meet?
You must meet the following recordkeeping requirements:
(a) Maintain files of all information required by Sec. 63.10(b) of
the general provisions in subpart A of this part, including all
notifications and reports.
(b) Maintain records of the following information also:
(1) Cupola production (melt) rate (Mg/hr (tons/hr) of melt).
[[Page 29507]]
(2) All bag leak detection system alarms. Include the date and time
of the alarm, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the
alarm, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the
cause of the alarm was corrected.
(3) The free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder
formulation, including formaldehyde content, of each binder batch used
in the manufacture of bonded products.
(4) Incinerator operating temperature and results of incinerator
inspections. For all periods when the average temperature in any three-
hour block period fell below the average temperature established during
the performance test, and all periods when the inspection identified
incinerator components in need of repair or maintenance, include the
date and time of the problem, when corrective actions were initiated,
the cause of the problem, an explanation of the corrective actions
taken, and when the cause of the problem was corrected.
(c) Retain each record for at least five years following the date
of each occurrence, measurement, corrective action, maintenance,
record, or report. The most recent two years of records must be
retained at the facility. The remaining three years of records may be
retained off site.
(d) Retain records on microfilm, on a computer, on computer disks,
on magnetic tape disks, or on microfiche.
(e) Report the required information on paper or on a labeled
computer disk using commonly available and compatible computer
software.
Sec. 63.1193 What reports must I submit?
You must prepare and submit reports to the Administrator as
required by this subpart and Sec. 63.10 of the general provisions in
subpart A of this part. These reports include, but are not limited to,
the following:
(a) A performance test report, as required by Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of
the general provisions in subpart A of this part, that documents the
process and control equipment operating parameters during the test
period, the test methods and procedures, the analytical procedures, all
calculations, and the results of the performance tests.
(b) A startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, as described in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part,
that contains specific procedures for operating and maintaining the
source during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a
program of corrective action for malfunctioning process and control
systems used to comply with the emission standards. In addition to the
information required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3), your plan must include the
following:
(1) Procedures to determine and record what caused the malfunction
and when it began and ended.
(2) Corrective actions you will take if a process or control device
malfunctions, including procedures for recording the actions taken to
correct the malfunction or minimize emissions.
(3) An inspection and maintenance schedule for each process and
control device that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions
and recommendations for routine and long-term maintenance.
(c) A report of each event as required by Sec. 63.10(b) of the
general provisions in subpart A of this part, including a report if an
action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is inconsistent
with the procedures in the plan as described in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the
general provisions in subpart A of this part.
(d) An operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as specified in
Sec. 63.1187 of this subpart.
(e) A semiannual report as required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of the
general provisions in subpart A of this part if measured emissions
exceed the applicable standard or a monitored parameter varies from the
level established during performance testing. The report must contain
the information specified in Sec. 63.10(c) of the general provisions,
as well as the relevant records required by Sec. 63.1192(b) of this
subpart.
(f) A semiannual report stating that no excess emissions or
deviations of monitored parameters occurred during the reporting period
as required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v) of the general provisions in subpart
A of this part if no deviations have occurred.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.1194 Which general provisions apply?
The general provisions in subpart A of this part define
requirements applicable to all owners and operators affected by NESHAP
in part 63. See Table 1 of this subpart for general provisions that
apply (or don't apply) to you as an owner or operator subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 63.1195 Who enforces this subpart?
If the Administrator has delegated authority to your State, then
the State, along with the EPA, enforces this regulation. If the
Administrator has not delegated authority to your State, then the EPA
enforces this regulation.
Sec. 63.1196 What definitions should I be aware of?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Act, in Sec. 63.2 of
the general provisions in subpart A of this part, and in this section
as follows:
Bag leak detection system means a monitoring device for a fabric
filter that identifies an increase in particulate matter emissions
resulting from a broken filter bag or other malfunction and sounds an
alarm.
Bonded product means mineral wool to which a hazardous air
pollutant-based binder (containing such hazardous air pollutants as
phenol or formaldehyde) has been applied.
CO means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of carbon
monoxide that serve as a surrogate for emissions of carbonyl sulfide, a
compound included on the list of hazardous air pollutants in section
112 of the Act.
Cupola means a large, water-cooled metal vessel to which is charged
a mixture of fuel, rock and/or slag, and additives. As the fuel is
burned, the charged mixture is heated to a molten state for later
processing to form mineral wool.
Curing oven means a chamber in which heat is used to thermoset a
binder on the mineral wool fiber used to make bonded products.
Fabric filter means an air pollution control device used to capture
particulate matter by filtering gas streams through fabric bags. It
also is known as a baghouse.
Formaldehyde means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of
formaldehyde that, in addition to being a HAP itself, serve as a
surrogate for organic compounds included on the list of hazardous air
pollutants in section 112 of the Act, including but not limited to
phenol.
Hazardous air pollutant means any air pollutant listed in or
pursuant to section 112(b) of the Act.
I means the owner or operator of a mineral wool production
facility.
Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that
uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to
noncombustible gases.
Melt means raw materials, excluding coke, that are charged into the
cupola, heated to a molten state, and discharged to the fiber forming
and collection process.
Melt rate means the mass of molten material discharged from a
single cupola over a specified time period.
Mineral wool means a fibrous glassy substance made from natural
rock (such as basalt), blast furnace slag or other slag, or a mixture
of rock and slag. It
[[Page 29508]]
may be used as a thermal or acoustical insulation material or in the
making of other products to provide structural strength, sound
absorbency, fire resistance, or other required properties.
New source means any affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced after May 8, 1997.
PM means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of
particulate matter that serve as a surrogate for metals (in particulate
or volatile form) on the list of hazardous air pollutants in section
112 of the Act, including but not limited to: antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium.
You means the owner or operator of a mineral wool production
facility.
Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
DDD of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)................... General Applicability.. Yes.....................
63.1(a)(5).......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)-(a)(8)................... Yes.....................
63.1(a)(9).......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14)................. Yes.....................
63.1(b)............................. Initial Applicability Yes.....................
Determination.
63.1(c)(1).......................... Applicability After Yes.....................
Standard Established.
63.1(c)(2).......................... Yes..................... Some plants may be area
sources.
63.1(c)(3).......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.1(c)(4)-(c)(5)................... Yes.....................
63.1(d)............................. No...................... [Reserved].
63.1(e)............................. Applicability of Permit Yes.....................
Program.
63.2................................ Definitions............ Yes..................... Additional definitions
in Sec. 63.1196.
63.3................................ Units and Abbreviations Yes.....................
63.4(a)(1)-(a)(3)................... Prohibited Activities.. Yes.....................
63.4(a)(4).......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.4(a)(5).......................... Yes.....................
63.4(b)-(c)......................... Circumvention/ Yes.....................
Severability.
63.5(a)............................. Construction/ Yes.....................
Reconstruction
Applicability.
63.5(b)(1).......................... Existing, New, Yes.....................
Reconstructed Sources
Requirements.
63.5(b)(2).......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-(b)(6)................... Yes.....................
63.5(c)............................. No...................... [Reserved].
63.5(d)............................. Application for Yes.....................
Approval of
Construction/
Reconstruction.
63.5(e)............................. Approval of Yes.....................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
63.5(f)............................. Approval of Yes.....................
Construction/
Reconstruction Based
on State Review.
63.6(a)............................. Compliance with Yes.....................
Standards and
Maintenance
Applicability.
63.6(b)(1)-(b)(5)................... New and Reconstructed Yes.....................
Sources Dates.
63.6(b)(6).......................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7).......................... Yes.....................
63.6(c)(1).......................... Existing Sources Dates. Yes..................... Sec. 63.1180 specifies
compliance dates.
63.6(c)(2).......................... ....................... Yes.....................
63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5).......................... ....................... Yes.....................
63.6(d)............................. ....................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1)-(e)(2)................... Operation & Maintenance Yes..................... Sec. 63.1187 specifies
Requirements. additional
requirements.
63.6(e)(3).......................... Startup, Shutdown, and Yes.....................
Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)............................. Compliance with Yes.....................
Emission Standards.
63.6(g)............................. Alternative Standard... Yes.....................
63.6(h)............................. Compliance with Opacity/ No...................... Subpart DDD does not
VE Standards. include VE/opacity
standards.
63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14).................. Extension of Compliance Yes..................... Sec. 63.1180 specifies
date.
63.6(i)(15)......................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)......................... ....................... Yes.....................
63.6(j)............................. Exemption from Yes.....................
Compliance.
63.7(a)............................. Performance Test Yes.....................
Requirements
Applicability.
63.7(b)............................. Notification........... Yes.....................
63.7(c)............................. Quality Assurance/Test Yes.....................
Plan.
63.7(d)............................. Testing Facilities..... Yes.....................
63.7(e)............................. Conduct of Tests....... Yes..................... Sec. 63.1188 specifies
additional
requirements.
63.7(f)............................. Alternative Test Method Yes.....................
63.7(g)............................. Data Analysis.......... Yes.....................
63.7(h)............................. Waiver of Tests........ Yes.....................
[[Page 29509]]
63.8(a)(1).......................... Monitoring Requirements Yes.....................
Applicability.
63.8(a)(2).......................... ....................... No...................... Subpart DDD does not
require CMS
performance
specifications.
63.8(a)(3).......................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.8(a)(4).......................... ....................... Yes.....................
63.8(b)............................. Conduct of Monitoring.. Yes.....................
63.8(c)(1)-(c)(3)................... CMS Operation/ Yes.....................
Maintenance.
63.8(c)(4)-(c)(8)................... ....................... No...................... Subpart DDD does not
require COMS or CMS
performance
specifications.
63.8(d)............................. Quality Control........ No...................... Subpart DDD does not
require a CMS quality
control program.
63.8(e)............................. CMS Performance No...................... Subpart DDD does not
Evaluation. require CMS
performance
evaluations.
63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)................... Alternative Monitoring Yes.....................
Method.
63.8(f)(6).......................... Alternative to RATA No...................... Subpart DDD does not
Test. require CEMS.
63.8(g)(1).......................... Data Reduction......... Yes.....................
63.8(g)(2).......................... ....................... No...................... Subpart DDD does not
require COMS or CEMS.
63.8(g)(3)-(g)(5)................... ....................... Yes.....................
63.9(a)............................. Notification Yes.....................
Requirements
Applicability.
63.9(b)............................. Initial Notifications.. Yes.....................
63.9(c)............................. Request for Compliance Yes.....................
Extension.
63.9(d)............................. New Source Notification Yes.....................
for Special Compliance
Requirements.
63.9(e)............................. Notification of Yes.....................
Performance Test.
63.9(f)............................. Notification of VE/ No...................... Subpart DDD does not
Opacity Test. include VE/opacity
standards.
63.9(g)............................. Additional CMS No...................... Subpart DDD does not
Notifications. require CMS
performance
evaluation, COMS, or
CEMS.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)................... Notification of Yes.....................
Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4).......................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)................... ....................... Yes.....................
63.9(i)............................. Adjustment of Deadlines Yes.....................
63.9(j)............................. Change in Previous Yes.....................
Information.
63.10(a)............................ Recordkeeping/Reporting- Yes.....................
Applicability.
63.10(b)............................ General Recordkeeping Yes..................... Sec. 63.1192 includes
Requirements. additional
requirements.
63.10(c)(1)......................... Additional CMS Yes.....................
Recordkeeping.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4).................. ....................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)......................... ....................... Yes.....................
63.10(c)(6)......................... ....................... No...................... Subpart DDD does not
require CMS
performance
specifications.
63.10(c)(7)-(c)(8).................. ....................... Yes.....................
63.10(c)(9)......................... ....................... No...................... [Reserved].
63.10(c) (10)-(c)(13)............... ....................... Yes.....................
63.10(c)(14)........................ ....................... No...................... Subpart DDD does not
require a CMS quality
control program.
63.10(c)(15)........................ ....................... Yes.....................
63.10(d)(1)......................... General Reporting Yes..................... Additional requirements
Requirements. in Sec. 63.1193.
63.10(d)(2)......................... Performance Test Yes.....................
Results.
63.10(d)(3)......................... Opacity or VE No...................... Subpart DDD does not
Observations. include VE/opacity
standards.
63.10(d)(4)-(d)(5).................. Progress Reports/ Yes.....................
Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction Reports.
63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2).................. Additional CMS Reports. No...................... Subpart DDD does not
require CEMS or CMS
performance
evaluations.
63.10(e)(3)......................... Excess Emissions/CMS Yes.....................
Performance Reports.
63.10(e)(4)......................... COMS Data Reports...... No...................... Subpart DDD does not
require COMS.
63.10(f)............................ Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes.....................
Waiver.
63.11(a)............................ Control Device Yes.....................
Requirements
Applicability.
63.11(b)............................ Flares................. No...................... Flares not applicable.
63.12............................... State Authority and Yes.....................
Delegations.
63.13............................... Addresses.............. Yes.....................
63.14............................... Incorporation by Yes.....................
Reference.
63.15............................... Information Yes.....................
Availability/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29510]]
Appendix A to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Free Formaldehyde Analysis of
Insulation Resins by the Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride Method
1. Scope
The method in this appendix was specifically developed for
water-soluble phenolic resins that have a relatively high free-
formaldehyde (FF) content such as insulation resins. It may also be
suitable for other phenolic resins, especially those with a high FF
content.
2. Principle
2.1 a. The basis for this method is the titration of the
hydrochloric acid that is liberated when hydroxylamine hydrochloride
reacts with formaldehyde to form formaldoxine:
HCHO + NH2OH:HCl CH2:NOH + H2O + HCl
b. Free formaldehyde in phenolic resins is present as monomeric
formaldehyde, hemiformals, polyoxymethylene hemiformals, and
polyoxymethylene glycols. Monomeric formaldehyde and hemiformals
react rapidly with hydroxylamine hydrochloride, but the polymeric
forms of formaldehyde must hydrolyze to the monomeric state before
they can react. The greater the concentration of free formaldehyde
in a resin, the more of that formaldehyde will be in the polymeric
form. The hydrolysis of these polymers is catalyzed by hydrogen
ions.
2.2 The resin sample being analyzed must contain enough free
formaldehyde so that the initial reaction with hydroxylamine
hydrochloride will produce sufficient hydrogen ions to catalyze the
depolymerization of the polymeric formaldehyde within the time
limits of the test method. The sample should contain approximately
0.3 grams (g) free formaldehyde to ensure complete reaction within 5
minutes.
3. Apparatus
3.1 Balance, readable to 0.01 g or better.
3.2 pH meter, standardized to pH 4.0 with pH 4.0 buffer and pH
7 with pH 7.0 buffer.
3.3 50-mL burette for 1.0 N sodium hydroxide.
3.4 Magnetic stirrer and stir bars.
3.5 250-mL beaker.
3.6 50-mL graduated cylinder.
3.7 100-mL graduated cylinder.
3.8 Timer.
4. Reagents
4.1 Standardized 1.0 N sodium hydroxide solution.
4.2 Hydroxylamine hydrochloride solution, 100 grams per liter,
pH adjusted to 4.00.
4.3 Hydrochloric acid solution, 1.0 N and 0.1 N.
4.4 Sodium hydroxide solution, 0.1 N.
4.5 50/50 v/v mixture of distilled water and methyl alcohol.
5. Procedure
5.1 Determine the sample size as follows:
a. If the expected FF is greater than 2 percent, go to Part A in
5.1.c to determine sample size.
b. If the expected FF is less than 2 percent, go to Part B in
5.1.d to determine sample size.
c. Part A: Expected FF 2 percent.
Grams resin = 60/expected percent FF
I. The following table shows example levels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample
Expected percent free formaldehyde size, grams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.......................................................... 30.0
5.......................................................... 12.0
8.......................................................... 7.5
10......................................................... 6.0
12......................................................... 5.0
15......................................................... 4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. It is very important to the accuracy of the results that the
sample size be chosen correctly. If the milliliters of titrant are
less than 15 mL or greater than 30 mL, reestimate the needed sample
size and repeat the tests.
d. Part B: Expected FF < 2="" percent="" grams="" resin="30/expected" percent="" ff="" i.="" the="" following="" table="" shows="" example="" levels:="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" sample="" expected="" percent="" free="" formaldehyde="" size,="" grams="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" 2..........................................................="" 15="" 1..........................................................="" 30="" 0.5........................................................="" 60="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" ii.="" if="" the="" milliliters="" of="" titrant="" are="" less="" than="" 5="" ml="" or="" greater="" than="" 30="" ml,="" reestimate="" the="" needed="" sample="" size="" and="" repeat="" the="" tests.="" 5.2="" weigh="" the="" resin="" sample="" to="" the="" nearest="" 0.01="" grams="" into="" a="" 250-ml="" beaker.="" record="" sample="" weight.="" 5.3="" add="" 100="" ml="" of="" the="" methanol/water="" mixture="" and="" stir="" on="" a="" magnetic="" stirrer.="" confirm="" that="" the="" resin="" has="" dissolved.="" 5.4="" adjust="" the="" resin/solvent="" solution="" to="" ph="" 4.0,="" using="" the="" prestandardized="" ph="" meter,="" 1.0="" n="" hydrochloric="" acid,="" 0.1="" n="" hydrochloric="" acid,="" and="" 0.1="" n="" sodium="" hydroxide.="" 5.5="" add="" 50="" ml="" of="" the="" hydroxylamine="" hydrochloride="" solution,="" measured="" with="" a="" graduated="" cylinder.="" start="" the="" timer.="" 5.6="" stir="" for="" 5="" minutes.="" titrate="" to="" ph="" 4.0="" with="" standardized="" 1.0="" n="" sodium="" hydroxide.="" record="" the="" milliliters="" of="" titrant="" and="" the="" normality.="" 6.="" calculations="" [graphic]="" [tiff="" omitted]="" tr01jn99.018="" 7.="" method="" precision="" and="" accuracy="" test="" values="" should="" conform="" to="" the="" following="" statistical="" precision:="" variance="0.005" standard="" deviation="0.07" 95%="" confidence="" interval,="" for="" a="" single="" determination="0.2" 8.="" author="" this="" method="" was="" prepared="" by="" k.k.="" tutin="" and="" m.l.="" foster,="" tacoma="" r&d="" laboratory,="" georgia-pacific="" resins,="" inc.="" (principle="" written="" by="" r.="" r.="" conner.)="" 9.="" references="" 9.1="" gpam="" 2221.2.="" 9.2="" pr&c="" tm="" 2.035.="" 9.3="" project="" report,="" comparison="" of="" free="" formaldehyde="" procedures,="" january="" 1990,="" k.="" tutin.="" [fr="" doc.="" 99-12585="" filed="" 5-28-99;="" 8:45="" am]="" billing="" code="" 6560-50-p="">