[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 89 (Thursday, May 8, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25370-25388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11765]



[[Page 25369]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 63



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 1997 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 25370]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-5821-4]
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: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources in mineral wool 
production plants. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the 
facilities covered by this proposed rule include carbonyl sulfide, nine 
hazardous metals, formaldehyde, and phenol. Exposure to the hazardous 
air pollutant (HAP) constituents in these emissions may be associated 
with adverse carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous system, dermal, 
developmental, and/or reproductive health effects. Because there are 
only 16 plants and most of these plants are already meeting the floor 
level of control, implementation of the proposed requirements would 
reduce nationwide emissions of HAPs by an estimated 46 megagrams per 
year (Mg/yr) (51 tons per year (tpy)). In addition, emissions of 
particulate matter (PM) would be reduced by approximately 186 Mg/yr 
(205 tpy).
    The standards are proposed under the authority of section 112(d) of 
the Clean Air Act as amended (the Act) and are based on the 
Administrator's determination that some mineral wool production plants 
are major sources of emissions of one or more of the HAPs listed in 
section 112(b) of the Act from the various process operations found 
within the industry. The proposed NESHAP would provide protection to 
the public by requiring all mineral wool production plants that are 
major sources to meet emission standards reflecting the application of 
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or 
before July 7, 1997.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by May 29, 1997, a public hearing will be held on June 
9, 1997 beginning at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in 
duplicate, if possible) to Docket No. A-95-33 at the following address: 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The 
EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be sent to the 
contact person listed below. The docket is located at the above address 
in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). Comments and data may 
also be submitted electronically by following the instructions under 
section VII.A of this document. No Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) should be submitted through electronic mail.
    A copy of today's document, technical background information and 
other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in 
the docket. Copies of this information may be obtained by request from 
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 
260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    Public hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public 
hearing by the required date (see DATES), the public hearing will be 
held at the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle 
Park, NC. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring 
as to whether a hearing is to be held should notify Ms. Cathy Coats, 
Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division 
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5422.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
proposed regulation, contact Ms. Mary K. Johnson, Minerals and 
Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-5025, facsimile number (919) 541-5600, 
electronic mail address, ``[email protected]''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those industrial 
facilities that manufacture mineral wool. Regulated categories and 
entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated   
                 Category                             entities          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  Mineral wool production     
                                             plants (SIC 3296).         
Federal government: Not affected                                        
State/local/tribal government: Not                                      
 affected                                                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by final 
action on this proposal. This table lists the types of entities that 
the EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by final action on 
this proposal. To determine whether your facility is regulated by final 
action on this proposal, you should carefully examine the applicability 
criteria in section III.A of this document and in Sec. 63.1175 of the 
proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Technology Transfer Network

    The text of today's document also is available on the Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN), one of the EPA's electronic bulletin boards. 
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas 
of air pollution control. The service is free, except for the cost of a 
phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 BPS modem. The TTN 
also is accessible through the Internet at ``TELNET 
ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov.'' If more information on the TTN is needed, call 
the HELP line at (919) 541-5384. The HELP desk is staffed from 11 a.m. 
to 5 p.m.; a voice menu system is available at other times.
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as shown 
below.

I. Statutory Authority
II. Introduction
    A. Background
    B. NESHAP for Source Categories
    C. Health Effects of Pollutants
    D. Mineral Wool Production Industry Profile
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. Applicability
    B. Emission Limits and Requirements
    C. Performance Test and Compliance Provisions
    D. Monitoring Requirements
    E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
IV. Selection of Proposed Standards
    A. Selection of Emission Sources
    B. Selection of Pollutants
    C. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources
    1. Background
    2. MACT Floor
    3. Emission Limits
V. Impacts of Proposed Standards

[[Page 25371]]

    A. Air Quality Impacts
    B. Nonair Environmental and Health Impacts
    C. Cost and Economic Impacts
VI. Public Participation
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Public Hearing
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive 
Order 12875
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Regulatory Flexibility
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. Pollution Prevention Act
    I. Clean Air Act

I. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections 
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Introduction

A. Background

    Section 112(c) of the Act directs the EPA to list each category of 
major and area sources as appropriate emitting one or more of the HAPs 
listed in section 112(b) of the Act. ``Mineral Wool Production'' is one 
of the 174 categories of sources listed in a notice that includes an 
initial list of source categories. As defined in the EPA report, 
``Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List'' (EPA-
450/3-91-030, July 1992), the Mineral Wool Production source category 
includes any facility engaged in producing mineral wool fiber from slag 
or rock. Facilities that manufacture wool fiberglass from sand, 
feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, or other similar 
materials are not included in the source category. The MACT standards 
for this source category must be promulgated no later than November 15, 
1997.
    The EPA estimates that 2,590 Mg/yr (2,860 tpy) of HAPs are emitted 
from sources in mineral wool production plants at the current level of 
control. The HAPs released from cupolas include carbonyl sulfide (COS) 
and hazardous metals (arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 
lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium). Formaldehyde and phenol are 
released from curing ovens on production lines where binder 
formulations are applied. A total of 30,720 Mg/yr (33,860 tpy) of PM 
and carbon monoxide (CO) also are released from these emission sources 
in the 16 plants that make up this industry.

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

    Section 112 of the Act requires that the EPA promulgate regulations 
for the control of HAP emissions from both new and existing major 
sources. The statute requires the regulations to reflect the maximum 
degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any nonair 
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This 
level of control is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT). For new sources, MACT standards cannot be 
less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice 
by the best-controlled similar source. [See section 112(d)(3).] The 
MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than 
standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent 
of existing sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more 
sources, or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
    The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of 
technology-based emission standards under sections 112(d) and 112(f) 
and work practice standards under 112(h) for categories of sources that 
emit HAPs. Emission reductions may be accomplished through the 
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques 
including, but not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or 
eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process changes, 
substitution of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclosing 
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, capturing, 
or treating such pollutants when released from a process, stack, 
storage or fugitive emissions point; (4) design, equipment, work 
practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator 
training or certification) as provided in subsection (h); or (5) a 
combination of the above. (See section 112(d)(2).)

C. Health Effects of Pollutants

    The Clean Air Act was created in part to protect and enhance the 
quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public 
health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population. (See 
section 101(b)(1).) Section 112(b) of the Act lists HAPs believed to 
cause adverse health or environmental effects. Section 112(d) of the 
Act requires that emission standards be promulgated for all categories 
and subcategories of major sources of these HAPs and for many smaller 
``area'' sources listed for regulation under section 112(c) in 
accordance with the schedules listed under section 112(c). Major 
sources are defined as those that emit or have the potential to emit at 
least 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAPs.
    On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published the initial list 
of categories of sources slated for regulation. This list included 
mineral wool production. The statute requires emissions standards for 
the listed source categories to be promulgated between November 1992 
and November 2000. On December 3, 1993, the EPA published a schedule 
for promulgating these standards (58 FR 83841).
    As previously explained, in the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air 
Act, Congress specified that each standard for major sources must 
require the maximum reduction in emissions of HAPs that EPA determines 
is achievable considering cost, health and environmental impacts, and 
energy requirements. In essence, these MACT standards ensure that all 
major sources of air toxic emissions achieve the level of control 
already being achieved by the better controlled and lower emitting 
sources in each category. This approach provides assurance to citizens 
that each major source of toxic air pollution will be required to 
effectively control its emissions. At the same time, this approach 
provides a level economic playing field, ensuring that facilities that 
employ cleaner processes and good emissions controls are not 
disadvantaged relative to competitors with poorer controls.
    Emission data collected during development of the proposed rule, 
show that pollutants that are listed in section 112(b)(1) and are 
emitted by mineral wool production processes include HAP metals, 
formaldehyde, phenol, and COS. These pollutants would be reduced by 
implementation of the proposed emission limits. Following is a summary 
of the potential health and environmental effects associated with 
exposures to emitted pollutants that would be reduced by the standard.
    Almost all metals appearing on the section 112(b) list of HAPs are 
emitted from mineral wool production facilities. The most important of 
these nonvolatile metals that would be reduced by the standard are 
arsenic, antimony, cadmium, chromium, nickel, beryllium, manganese, 
selenium, and lead compounds. These metals can cause effects such as 
mucous membrane irritation (e.g., bronchitis, decreased lung capacity), 
gastrointestinal effects, nervous system disorders (from loss of 
function to tremor and numbness), skin irritation, and reproductive and 
developmental disorders. Additionally,

[[Page 25372]]

several of the metals accumulate in the environment and in the human 
body. Cadmium, for example, is a cumulative pollutant, which can cause 
kidney effects after the cessation of exposure. Similarly, the onset of 
effects from beryllium exposure may be delayed 3 months to 15 years. 
Many of the metals also are known (arsenic, chromium VI, nickel 
refinery dust and nickel subsulfide) or probable (cadmium, lead, nickel 
carbonyl, and beryllium) human carcinogens.
    Organic compounds that would be reduced by this standard include 
formaldehyde and phenol. Some of the effects of these pollutants are 
similar and include irritation from short-term exposures to eye, nose, 
and throat; respiratory effects (expressed as labored breathing, 
impaired lung function); and reproductive and developmental effects. 
Liver, kidney, and cardiac effects have been reported for phenol, which 
is considered to be quite toxic to humans via oral exposure. In 
addition to these noncancer effects, formaldehyde has been classified 
as a probable human carcinogen.
    Emissions of COS also would be reduced by the standard. Information 
as to the potential health effects of COS are limited. Short-term 
inhalation of a high concentration of COS may cause narcotic central 
nervous system effects and skin and eye irritation in humans. No 
information is available on reproductive or developmental effects from 
COS exposure, and the EPA has not classified this pollutant with 
respect to its potential carcinogenicity.
    In addition to HAPs, the proposed standard also would reduce some 
of the pollutants whose emissions are controlled under the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These pollutants include PM, CO, 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and lead. The health effects of PM, 
CO, VOCs, and lead that would be reduced by this standard are described 
in EPA's Criteria Documents, which support the NAAQS. Briefly, PM 
emissions have been associated with aggravation of existing respiratory 
and cardiovascular disease and increased risk of premature death. 
Volatile organic compounds (e.g., formaldehyde) are precursors to the 
formation of ozone in the ambient air, as well as cause effects on 
agricultural crops and forests. At elevated levels, ozone has been 
shown in human laboratory and/or community studies to be responsible 
for the reduction of lung function, respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, 
chest pain, throat and nose irritation), increased hospital admissions 
for respiratory causes, and increased lung inflammation. Animal studies 
have shown increased susceptibility to respiratory infection and lung 
structure changes. Carbon monoxide enters the blood stream and reduces 
oxygen delivery to the body's organs and tissues. Exposure to CO can be 
associated with reduced time to onset of angina pain, impairment of 
visual perception, work capacity, manual dexterity, learning ability, 
and performance of complex tasks. Depending on the degree of exposure, 
lead can cause subtle effects on behavior and cognition, increased 
blood pressure, reproductive effects, seizures, and even death.
    The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health 
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the 
health effects may be experienced is dependent upon: (1) The ambient 
concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as influenced by emission 
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain), (2) the frequency of 
and duration of exposures, (3) characteristics of exposed individuals 
(e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle) 
which vary significantly with the population, and (4) pollutant 
specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life in the environment, 
bioaccumulation, and persistence).

D. Mineral Wool Production Industry Profile

    Mineral wool is a fibrous glassy substance, consisting of silicate 
fibers typically 4 to 7 micrometers in diameter, made from natural rock 
(such as basalt), blast furnace slag, or other similar materials. 
Products made from mineral wool are widely used in thermal and 
acoustical insulation as well as for other products, where mineral wool 
fiber is added to impart structural strength or fire resistance.
    In 1980, 26 mineral wool production plants were in operation in the 
United States. Currently, 16 plants operate in 9 States. Seven of the 
ten companies that operate these plants are small businesses under the 
definition applied to this industry by the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (750 company employees or less). No new plants or lines 
are predicted to be constructed or reconstructed during the next 5 
years due to the current economic condition of the industry. At this 
time, capacity utilization is believed to be approximately 45 percent.
    In the mineral wool manufacturing process, rock and/or blast 
furnace slag and other raw materials (e.g., gravel), are melted in a 
furnace (cupola) using coke as fuel; the molten material is then formed 
into fiber. In the production of mineral wool products that do not 
require high rigidity, an oil typically is applied to suppress dust and 
add some strength to the fiber; the fiber is then sized and bagged or 
baled. This is known as a ``nonbonded'' product manufactured on a 
``nonbonded'' production line.
    For mineral wool products requiring a higher structural rigidity, a 
HAP-based (phenol/formaldehyde) binder may be applied to the fiber. 
This is known as a ``bonded'' product made on a ``bonded'' production 
line. The binder-laden fiber mat is then thermoset in a curing oven and 
cooled. The major differences between the ``nonbonded'' and ``bonded'' 
production lines are the application of binder and the presence of the 
curing oven process and the cooling area. Six of the 16 plants 
manufacture bonded products on a total of 6 production lines. Five of 
these six plants also have nonbonded products lines. Ten plants 
manufacture only nonbonded products. The 16 plants operate a total of 
36 cupolas and 6 curing ovens.
    No Federal air emission standards apply to HAP emissions from 
mineral wool production plants. However, emission control systems have 
been installed at some sites as a result of occupational safety 
regulations, primary and secondary ambient air standards for PM and 
PM10, and State standards for odors. Some States also have 
developed ambient standards for COS and formaldehyde.
    As a result of these State and Federal requirements, all of the 36 
existing cupolas are equipped with some level of emission control. Five 
of the cupolas are controlled by cyclones, and three are controlled by 
a cyclone in combination with a fabric filter (i.e., baghouse). The 
majority of the cupolas (24) are currently controlled by a fabric 
filter. Four cupolas are controlled with an incinerator and a fabric 
filter. Of the six curing ovens in use at the plants, four are equipped 
with an incinerator and two are uncontrolled.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

    The proposed standard applies to each new and existing cupola or 
curing oven in a mineral wool production facility that manufactures 
mineral wool fiber from slag, rock, or other materials (excluding sand 
or glass). All mineral wool production plants that are major sources 
would be subject to the standards. Two facilities that manufacture 
nonbonded products may be area sources. Because these two facilities 
are not believed to present an

[[Page 25373]]

adverse environmental or health risk, the EPA has determined not to 
include these facilities on the list of area sources. At both of these 
sites, the cupolas are equipped with above-MACT-floor level controls. A 
facility that is determined by EPA to be an area source would not be 
subject to the NESHAP.

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

    Emission limits for PM control are proposed for existing cupolas at 
plants with bonded processes and at plants without bonded processes. 
For new cupolas, emission limits for CO control, in addition to PM 
control, are proposed. Emission limits for formaldehyde also are 
proposed for each existing and new curing oven.
    A surrogate approach is used to allow easier and less expensive 
measurement and monitoring requirements. Particulate matter would serve 
as a surrogate for metal HAPs and CO would represent COS. A 
formaldehyde standard proposed for curing ovens would also serve as a 
surrogate for phenol emissions. Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or 
operator may elect to comply with a numerical formaldehyde or CO 
emission limit expressed in mass of emissions per unit of production 
(kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) or pound/ton (lb/ton) of melt) or a 
percent reduction standard. A numerical limit is proposed for PM 
emissions from the cupola. The proposed emission limits for existing 
sources and new sources are presented below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Source                                 Pollutant                         Emission limit         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for Existing Sources                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cupola................................  PM....................................  0.03 kg/Mg (0.06 lb/ton) of     
                                                                                 melt.                          
Curing oven...........................  Formaldehyde..........................  0.03 kg/Mg (0.06 lb/ton) of melt
                                                                                 or 80 percent formaldehyde     
                                                                                 removal.                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for New Sources                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cupola................................  PM....................................  0.03 kg/Mg (0.06 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 EPA also proposes to allow affected firms up to 3 years to 
comply. And, as allowed under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act, the 
Administrator or delegated regulatory authority also may grant 1 
additional year if necessary for the installation of controls.

C. Performance Test and Compliance Provisions

    The proposed NESHAP requires the owner or operator to conduct a 
one-time emissions test to determine initial compliance with the 
emission limits or performance standards for cupolas and curing ovens. 
The owner or operator would measure PM emissions from the cupola using 
EPA Method 5 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, ``Determination of 
Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources'' and Sec. 63.1180 
(Test methods and procedures) of the proposed rule. The owner or 
operator also would measure emissions of CO from incinerators on new 
cupolas using EPA Method 10, ``Determination of Carbon Monoxide 
Emissions from Stationary Sources'' in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and 
Sec. 63.1180 (Test methods and procedures) of the proposed rule.
    To determine emissions of formaldehyde from curing ovens, the owner 
or operator would use EPA Method 318, ``Extractive FTIR Method for the 
Measurement of Emissions from the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass 
Industries.'' 1 This Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) 
Spectrometry method uses a multicomponent measurement system to 
quantify a wide variety of pollutants, also can be used to determine 
compliance for the CO emission standard, and allows the measurement of 
additional HAPs and other pollutants [phenol, COS, sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), and nitrous oxide (NOX), among others] in 
one test at substantially lower costs than individual tests by manual 
or instrumental methods. Method 318 is an extractive FTIR procedure and 
has been validated by the EPA according to Method 301 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Proposed method published in the March 31, 1997 Federal 
Register (62 FR 15228).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To comply with the CO or formaldehyde numerical limit for a cupola 
or curing oven controlled by an incinerator or the PM limit for a 
fabric filter-controlled cupola, measurements would be made at the 
outlet of the control device. If the owner or operator elected to 
comply with the percent removal performance standard for CO or 
formaldehyde, measurements of CO or formaldehyde would be required at 
the inlet and outlet of the control device.
    During the initial performance test for each cupola and curing oven 
subject to the standards, the owner or operator would measure and 
record the amount of raw materials, excluding coke, being charged into 
and melted in each cupola during each test run and determine the 
average hourly melt rate for each test run. The arithmetic average of 
the melt rate for three test runs, plus 20 percent, would be used to 
monitor compliance. If the owner or operator plans to operate above the 
average melt rate established during the initial performance test, plus 
20 percent, the rule would require that another performance test be 
conducted to verify compliance.
    The owner or operator would conduct the initial performance test 
for each curing oven while manufacturing the product requiring the 
binder formulation with the highest formaldehyde content. During the 
performance test, the owner or operator would record the free 
formaldehyde content of the resin(s) used during the test and the 
binder formulation(s), including the formaldehyde content of the 
binder, used during the test. Although binder formulations can be 
changed as often as needed, if the owner or operator plans to use a 
binder with a higher formaldehyde content than that used in the initial 
performance test, the rule would require that another performance test 
be conducted to verify compliance.
    The proposed rule would allow the owner or operator of curing ovens 
subject to the NESHAP to conduct short-term experimental production 
runs, where the formaldehyde content or other process parameter 
deviates from levels established during previous performance tests, 
without conducting additional performance tests. The owner or operator 
would have to apply for approval from the Administrator or delegated 
regulatory authority to conduct such experimental production

[[Page 25374]]

runs. The application would include information on the nature and 
duration of the test runs including plans to perform emission testing. 
Such experimental production runs are important to industry and allow 
them to develop new products, improve existing products, and determine 
the effects on product quality and on emissions of process 
modifications being considered, such as binder reformulation.
    During the initial performance test for each cupola using a thermal 
incinerator to comply with the proposed emission limit for CO and each 
curing oven using a thermal incinerator to comply with the proposed 
formaldehyde emission limit, the owner or operator would determine the 
average operating temperature for each incinerator based on continuous 
temperature measurements and recorded 15-minute block averages during 
each of the three test runs. The arithmetic average of the three test 
runs would be used to monitor compliance. If the owner or operator 
plans to reduce the average operating temperature below the temperature 
established during the initial performance test, the rule would require 
that another performance test be conducted to verify compliance.
    Using the results of each test run and information generated during 
the performance tests (i.e., average melt rate in tph), the owner or 
operator would then use the equations and procedures in the proposed 
rule to convert the emission rate of PM, CO, and formaldehyde into the 
units of the standard.

D. Monitoring Requirements

    The EPA identified and analyzed several different options for 
compliance assurance monitoring of primary emissions from new and 
existing sources. In general, the options ranged from installation and 
operation of a continuous emission or opacity monitor to a one-time 
performance test. The EPA examined each option and numerous 
combinations of options to select the least-cost alternative suitable 
for use by small businesses (docket items II-B-34 and 36).
    Each owner or operator subject to the proposed NESHAP would submit 
an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan which becomes 
incorporated in the part 70 permit. The plan would include procedures 
for the proper operation and maintenance of processes and control 
devices used to comply with the proposed emission limits as well as the 
corrective actions to be taken when process or control device 
parameters deviate from allowable levels established during performance 
testing. The plan would also identify the process or control device 
parameters that would be monitored to determine compliance, a 
monitoring schedule, and procedures for keeping records to document 
compliance.
    The proposed monitoring provisions require the owner or operator to 
measure and record the average hourly cupola production (melt) rate. If 
the melt rate exceeds, by more than 20 percent, the average established 
during the initial performance test for more than 5 percent of the 
total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the owner or 
operator would be required to conduct additional performance tests at 
the higher melt rate to verify compliance. If the performance test 
results exceed any of the applicable emission standards, the owner or 
operator would be in violation of those emission standards for the 
entire period that the melt rate was more than 20 percent above the 
average level established during the initial performance test.
    Under the proposed NESHAP, the owner or operator must install a bag 
leak detection system for each fabric filter used on a cupola to 
monitor emissions exiting the PM control system since opacity is not a 
good indicator of performance at the low, controlled PM levels 
characteristic of these sources. The bag leak detection system would be 
equipped with an audible alarm that automatically sounds when an 
increase in particulate emissions above a predetermined level is 
detected. The proposed rule requires that the monitor be capable of 
detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 1.0 milligram per actual 
cubic meter (0.0004 grains per actual cubic foot) and provide an output 
of relative or absolute PM emissions. Such a device would serve as an 
indicator of the performance of the fabric filter and would provide an 
indication of when maintenance of the fabric filter is needed. An alarm 
by itself does not indicate noncompliance with the PM limit, but would 
indicate an increase in PM emissions and trigger an inspection of the 
fabric filter to determine the cause of the alarm. The owner or 
operator would initiate corrective actions according to the procedures 
in their operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The owner or 
operator would be considered out of compliance upon failure to initiate 
corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm. If the alarm is 
activated for more than 5 percent of the total operating time during 
the 6-month reporting period, the EPA proposes that the owner or 
operator develop and implement a written quality improvement plan (QIP) 
consistent with subpart D of the draft approach to compliance assurance 
monitoring (docket items II-B-38 and II-J-5).2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An owner or operator of an affected curing oven would monitor and 
record the free formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder 
formulation, including the formaldehyde content of each binder batch 
employed in the manufacture of bonded products. If binder formaldehyde 
content exceeds the initial performance test level, the owner or 
operator would be in violation of the formaldehyde emission standard.
    For each thermal incinerator used to control emissions from 
affected cupolas or curing ovens, the proposed monitoring provisions 
require the owner or operator to continuously measure the incinerator 
operating temperature and determine and record the temperature in 15-
minute block averages. The temperature monitoring device would be 
installed in the incinerator firebox. This is typically done using a 
thermocouple (a standard feature on most incinerators) and a strip 
chart recorder or data logger. Following the initial performance test, 
the owner or operator would maintain the temperature such that the 
average temperature in any 3-hour block period does not fall below the 
average temperature established during the initial performance test. If 
the average temperature in any 3-hour block period falls below the 
average established during the initial performance test, the owner or 
operator would be considered out of compliance with the applicable 
emission standard. At a minimum, valid 3-hour temperature averages 
would be required for 75 percent of the operating hours per day for 90 
percent of the operating days per 6-month reporting period that the 
facility is producing mineral wool. The operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan for an incinerator would include procedures to follow 
in the event of a temperature drop. Examples of procedures that might 
be included in the plan for incinerators include: (1) Inspection of 
burner assemblies and pilot sensing devices for proper operation and 
cleaning; (2) adjusting primary and secondary chamber combustion air; 
(3) inspecting dampers, fans, blowers, and motors for proper operation; 
and (4) shutdown procedures.
    The owner or operator may modify any of the control device or 
process parameter levels established during the initial performance 
tests for compliance

[[Page 25375]]

monitoring. The proposed NESHAP contains provisions that would allow 
the owner or operator to change control device and process parameter 
values from those established during the initial performance tests by 
conducting additional emission tests to verify compliance at the 
modified parameter levels.
    As required by the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A), each owner or operator also must develop and implement a 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The plan would include 
procedures for the inspection and determination of the cause of a 
process or control device malfunction and the corrective actions to be 
followed to remedy the malfunction. Procedures for routine and long-
term maintenance of process units and control devices, based on the 
manufacturer's instructions or recommendations, also would be included.
    The EPA believes that these monitoring provisions will provide 
sufficient information needed to determine compliance or operating 
problems at the source. At the same time, the provisions are not labor 
intensive, do not require expensive, complex equipment, and are not 
burdensome in terms of recordkeeping needs.

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    The proposed standard would incorporate all requirements of the 
general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), except for requirements 
pertaining to the use of a continuous emission monitor (CEM). The 
general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) include requirements for 
notifications of applicability, date of performance test, and 
compliance status. The owner or operator also would submit reports of 
performance test results and semiannual excess emissions, which would 
include deviations from established parameters. If excess emissions 
and/or 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. A startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan would also be required. The development and 
implementation of the plan, including procedures for incinerators and 
fabric filters, will aid in reducing emissions from these events and in 
reducing malfunctions. A semiannual startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
report to EPA is required only when a reportable event occurs and the 
steps in the plan were not followed. Semiannual excess emission reports 
are required to ensure that the permitting authority is aware of any 
potential operating or compliance problems at the source. In addition 
to the requirements of the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A), the owner or operator would maintain records of the following, as 
applicable:
    (1) Cupola production (melt) rate;
    (2) bag leak detection system alarms, including the date and time, 
with a brief explanation of the cause of the alarm and the corrective 
action taken;
    (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;
    (4) incinerator operating temperature, including any period when 
the average temperature in any 3-hour block period falls below the 
average temperature established during the initial performance test, 
with a brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the 
corrective action taken; and
    (5) identification of the calendar dates for which the minimum 
number of hours of valid 3-hour incinerator operating temperature 
averages were not obtained, including reasons for not obtaining 
sufficient data and a description of the corrective action taken.
    The NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) require 
that records be maintained for at least 5 years from the date of each 
record. The owner or operator must retain the records onsite for at 
least 2 years but may retain the records offsite the remaining 3 years. 
The files may be retained on microfilm, microfiche, on computer disks, 
or on magnetic tape. Reports may be made on paper or on a labeled 
computer disk using commonly available and compatible computer 
software.

IV. Selection of Proposed Standards

A. Selection of Emission Sources

    The mineral wool production source category, defined in the EPA 
report, ``Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category 
List,'' defines the emission sources as including, but not limited to: 
(1) The cupola furnace for melting the mineral charge; (2) a blow 
chamber in which air and, in some cases, a binder is drawn over the 
fibers forming them to a screen; (3) a curing oven to bond the fibers; 
and (4) a cooling area. Because little or no HAP emission data for this 
source category were available at the beginning of this study, the EPA 
collected information and data through review of existing literature, a 
detailed information collection request (ICR) issued to seven 
facilities (docket items II-D-1, 12, and 14-18), site surveys of 12 
facilities (docket items II-B-3, 4, 5, 8-14, 16, and 17), and EPA-
funded tests at two facilities (docket items II-A-11, 12, and 13). 
Based on this information and data, and for the reasons described 
below, the EPA selected cupolas and curing ovens as the emission 
sources for control under the proposed rule.
    Cupolas are typically large, water-cooled metal vessels with raw 
material melt capacities that range from 3.6 to 7.3 megagrams per hour 
(Mg/hr) (4 to 8 tons per hour (tph)). Alternating layers of fuel (coke) 
and raw materials are loaded into the furnace to melt the mixture of 
rock and/or slag and additives. Some units also use natural gas at 
startup to assist in melting the initial mineral charge. As the coke is 
ignited and burned, the mineral charge is heated to a molten state. 
Once the initial charge is melted, charging of raw materials continues 
to the top of the melt, where the raw materials melt and mix as the 
cupola temperature reaches 1,320 deg.C to 1,650 deg.C (2,400 deg.F to 
3,000 deg.F). Mixing is accomplished by natural convection, by gases 
rising from chemical reactions, and in many operations, by preheated 
air or oxygen injection into the cupola.
    Emissions of PM and a wide variety of HAP metals, including 
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, nickel, 
lead, and selenium, are released from the cupola. Emissions of CO 
result primarily from the incomplete combustion of carbonaceous 
materials, such as the coke used as fuel for the cupola. Carbonyl 
sulfide is formed from the CO passing over the heated coke and/or the 
blast furnace slag that may contain a high level of sulfur. Emissions 
from cupolas are typically controlled by fabric filters. In some 
instances, a thermal incinerator is also used.
    In the next stage of the process, fiberization, the molten mineral 
charge exits the bottom of the cupola into a water-cooled trough and 
flows onto a fiberization device. Various fiberization methods may be 
used, but in each process, fibers are formed as the melt is forced off 
the device by centrifugal force. Nonfiberized material, referred to as 
``shot,'' is either incorporated into the fiber to become part of the 
finished product or is separated from the fiber and becomes a waste 
product. Shot may account for as much as 50 percent of the weight of 
mineral wool fibers.
    Various chemical agents may be applied to the fiber immediately 
following fiber formation. An oil typically is applied to nonbonded 
products to suppress dust and to anneal

[[Page 25376]]

the fiber. If the fiber is intended for use as a nonbonded product, no 
further chemical treatment is necessary and it may be granulated for 
size, then bagged or baled.
    In the manufacture of bonded products, a binder (typically composed 
of phenol-formaldehyde resin, water, urea, silane, ammonia, and 
ammonium sulfate) is applied to provide structural rigidity. The binder 
composition and application rate may vary with product type. The binder 
may account for up to 10 percent of the weight of the final mineral 
wool product.
    After fiberization and binder and/or oil application, high velocity 
air streams direct the fiber into a collection chamber where the fiber 
is drawn down onto a wire mesh conveyor by fans located beneath the 
conveyor. Fiber collection processes are typically controlled by 
filterhouses and wet sprays that remove large particulates, but do not 
remove organic HAPs or other organic pollutants.
    For bonded mineral wool products, the binder-coated fiber mat is 
conveyed to a curing oven which is typically natural gas-fired with 
temperatures that range from 180 deg.C to 370 deg.C (350 deg.F to 
700 deg.F). Curing of the fiber mat occurs as the oven forces hot air 
through the mat, driving off excess moisture and thermosetting the 
binder in the product. Gaseous HAP emissions, including formaldehyde 
and phenol, result from the vaporization of the binder. Curing oven 
emissions are typically controlled by thermal incinerators.
    After curing, the fiber mat is conveyed to a cooling section, where 
ambient air is forced through the mat to eliminate ``hot spots'' in the 
product and to facilitate finishing and packaging. Cooling sections 
have low emissions and are all uncontrolled (docket items II-A-11, 12, 
and 13).
    The EPA selected cupolas and curing ovens as the sources for 
control under the NESHAP. Nationwide emissions from cupolas 
(considering current controls) are estimated to be 2,520 Mg/yr (2,780 
tpy) of COS and 1.0 Mg/yr (1.1 tpy) of metal HAPs. Nationwide emissions 
of CO and PM are estimated to be 30,480 Mg/yr (33,600 tpy) and 238 Mg/
yr (263 tpy), respectively. The curing oven also is a source of HAP 
emissions. Nationwide emissions are estimated to be 54 Mg/yr (59 tpy) 
of formaldehyde and 14 Mg/yr (16 tpy) of phenol.
    The EPA did not select fiber collection or cooling processes for 
control. Because no plants have equipped these sources with HAP 
controls, no MACT floor technology can be identified. This 
determination is further explained in section IV.C.2 of this document.

B. Selection of Pollutants

    A variety of HAPs are emitted from mineral wool production 
processes. Emissions of metal HAPs, COS, formaldehyde, and phenol were 
detected during EPA emission tests of mineral wool production plants 
(docket items II-A- 11, 12, and 13). All of these pollutants are 
included on the list of HAPs under section 112(b) of the Act. The EPA 
proposes to regulate PM, a surrogate for metal HAP emissions, from 
existing and new cupolas, and CO, a surrogate for COS, from new 
cupolas. Additionally, the EPA proposes to regulate emissions of 
formaldehyde, a HAP and also a surrogate for phenol emissions, from 
existing and new curing ovens.
    Large quantities of PM and CO are also emitted from the cupola 
(docket items II-A- 11, 12, and 13). Emissions test data collected from 
a cupola that is controlled by a fabric filter indicate a correlation 
between the removal of nonvolatile HAP metals and the removal of PM 
(docket item II-A-11). Thus, the EPA proposes PM as a surrogate measure 
of nonvolatile HAP metals for emission limits for existing and new 
cupolas.
    Emissions test data collected from a cupola that is controlled by 
an incinerator show that CO destruction correlates with COS destruction 
(docket items II-A- 12 and 13). Consequently, the EPA proposes to 
regulate emissions of COS using CO as a surrogate measure for the 
proposed emission limit for new cupolas.
    Emissions of formaldehyde from curing ovens result from 
volatilization of the binder. Formaldehyde is the most significant HAP 
emitted from mineral wool production processes in terms of potential 
carcinogenic hazard. Consequently, the EPA proposes to regulate 
formaldehyde emissions. Limits are not included in the proposed 
standard for phenol emissions from the curing oven because when the 
formaldehyde limit is met through use of an incinerator, phenol 
emissions are also reduced by the same incinerator. Therefore, 
formaldehyde is used in the proposed standard as a surrogate for 
phenol. The use of PM, CO, and formaldehyde as surrogates requires less 
testing and allows the use of less expensive measurement methods.

C. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources

1. Background
    After EPA has identified the specific source categories or 
subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, it must 
set MACT standards for each category or subcategory. As discussed in 
section II.B of this document, section 112 establishes a minimum 
baseline or ``floor'' for standards. After the floor has been 
determined for a new or existing source in a source category or 
subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT standards that are no less 
stringent than the floor. Such standards must then be met by all 
sources within the category or subcategory. In establishing the 
standards, the EPA may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of 
sources within a category or subcategory. (See section 112(d)(1).)
    The next step in establishing MACT standards is traditionally the 
investigation of regulatory alternatives. With MACT standards, only 
alternatives at least as stringent as the floor may be selected. 
Information about the industry is analyzed to develop model plants for 
projecting national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels 
and cost, energy, and secondary impacts. Regulatory alternatives, which 
may be different levels of emissions control equal to or more stringent 
than the floor levels, are then evaluated to select the regulatory 
alternative that best reflects the appropriate MACT level. The selected 
alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the control 
level selected must be technically achievable. The regulatory 
alternatives and emission limits selected for new and existing sources 
may be different because of different MACT floors.
    The EPA may consider going ``beyond-the-floor'' to require more 
stringent controls. Here, the EPA considers the achievable emission 
reductions of HAPs (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled), cost and economic impacts, energy impacts, and other non-
air environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve the maximum 
degree of emissions reduction without unreasonable economic or other 
impacts. (See section 112(d)(2).)
    Under the Act, subcategorization within a source category may be 
considered when there is enough evidence to demonstrate clearly that 
there are significant differences among the subcategories. The criteria 
to consider include process operations (including differences between 
batch and continuous operations), emission

[[Page 25377]]

characteristics, control device applicability, safety, and 
opportunities for pollution prevention.
    Mineral wool production plants and emissions are differentiated by 
the operations needed to produce bonded or nonbonded products. Plants 
that manufacture bonded products have phenol/formaldehyde-based binder 
application, curing oven, and cooling processes, whereas plants that do 
not manufacture bonded products do not have these additional processes. 
Therefore, the EPA proposes to subcategorize the mineral wool 
production source category into plants that manufacture bonded products 
and those that do not manufacture bonded products.
2. MACT Floor
    In establishing the MACT floor, section 112(d)(3) (A) and (B) of 
the CAA directs EPA to set standards for existing sources that are no 
less stringent than the ``average'' emission limitation achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent (for which there are emissions data) where 
there are more than 30 sources in the category or subcategory or the 
best performing five sources (for which there are emissions data) where 
there are fewer than 30 sources. Among the possible meanings for the 
word ``average'' as the term is used in the CAA, the EPA considered two 
of the most common. First, ``average'' could be interpreted as the 
arithmetic mean. The arithmetic mean of a set of measurements is the 
sum of the measurements divided by the number of measurements in the 
set. The EPA has determined that the arithmetic mean of the emission 
limitations achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing 
sources (or best five sources where there are fewer than 30 sources) in 
some cases would yield an emission limitation that fails to correspond 
to the emission limitation achieved by any particular technology. In 
such cases, EPA would not select this approach. The word ``average'' 
could also be interpreted as the median emission limitation value. The 
median is the value in a set of measurements below and above which 
there are an equal number of values (when the measurements are arranged 
in order of magnitude). This approach identifies the emission 
limitation achieved by those sources within the top 12 percent (or top 
five where there are fewer than 30 sources), arranges those emissions 
limitations in order of magnitude, and the control level achieved by 
the median source is selected. Either of these two approaches could be 
used in developing standards for different source categories. The 
``median'' approach was used in these proposed standards. For each 
source type, the median technology represented by the five best-
controlled sources was selected as the MACT floor. A source having 
control technology representative of the MACT floor was then tested in 
order to determine an appropriate emission limitation.
    Within the subcategory of plants that manufacture bonded products, 
there are 15 cupolas. Nine of these cupolas are controlled by fabric 
filters, three by cyclones, two by thermal incinerators and fabric 
filters, and one by a cyclone and fabric filter. Because there are less 
than 30 cupolas, the MACT floor is represented by the average, or 
median, of the best performing five sources. The MACT floor for 
existing cupolas within this subcategory is represented by a fabric 
filter. A fabric filter representative of this MACT floor is a pulse-
jet type with nylon fiber filter material, an air-to-cloth ratio of 
about 0.9 cubic meter per minute/square meter [3 standard cubic feet 
per minute/square foot (scfm/ft\2\)] and a pressure drop of 
approximately 15 centimeters (6 inches) of water column. Emissions 
tests were conducted on a cupola controlled by a fabric filter selected 
as representative of the floor control technology.
    Of the six curing ovens also in this subcategory, four are 
controlled by thermal incinerators and two are uncontrolled. Because 
there are fewer than 30 curing ovens, the MACT floor is represented by 
the average, or median, of the best performing five sources. The MACT 
floor for existing curing ovens is represented by a thermal 
incinerator. An incinerator representative of this MACT floor has a 
combustion temperature of about 650 deg.C (1,200 deg.F), and a gas 
residence time of approximately 1 second. A curing oven with an 
incinerator representative of the floor control technology was tested. 
Thus, a fabric filter for existing cupolas and a thermal incinerator 
for existing curing ovens are the MACT floor technologies for this 
subcategory.
    Within the subcategory of plants that do not manufacture bonded 
products there are 21 cupolas. Fifteen of these cupolas are controlled 
by fabric filters, two by incinerators and fabric filters, two by 
cyclones, and two by cyclones and fabric filters. Again, because there 
are less than 30 cupolas, the MACT floor is represented by the average, 
or median, of the best-performing five sources. The MACT floor is 
represented by a fabric filter. A fabric filter representative of the 
MACT floor within this subcategory has the same parameters as the 
fabric filter that represents the MACT floor for existing cupolas 
within the subcategory of plants that manufacture bonded products.
    The MACT floors for new cupolas and curing ovens are based on the 
best-controlled sources. For new cupolas, MACT is a thermal incinerator 
and fabric filter. Because the fabric filter that represents the MACT 
floor for existing cupolas also represents the best control for PM and 
particulate metal HAPs for new cupolas, the fabric filter parameters 
remain the same. A thermal incinerator representative of MACT for new 
cupolas operates at approximately 815 deg.C (1,500 deg.F), and has a 
gas residence time of about 1 second. Because the MACT floor for 
existing curing ovens, an incinerator operating at 650 deg.C 
(1,200 deg.F) with a gas residence time of 1 second, also represents 
the best-controlled source, MACT for new curing ovens is the same as 
the MACT floor for existing curing ovens.
    The EPA considered requiring thermal incinerators as beyond-the-
MACT-floor control for existing cupolas. To comply with this 
requirement, 32 cupolas would have to add incinerators at estimated 
costs ranging from $218,300/yr for 3.6 Mg/hr (4 tph) cupolas to 
$349,700/yr for 7.3 Mg/yr (8 tph) cupolas. As a result of the addition 
of incinerators, COS emissions would be reduced by approximately 52 Mg/
yr (57 tpy) for each 3.6 Mg/hr (4 tph) cupola and 104 Mg/yr (114 tpy) 
for each 7.3 Mg/hr (8 tph) cupola. In addition, CO emissions would be 
reduced by 628 Mg/yr (692 tpy) and 1,256 Mg/yr (1,384 tpy) for each 3.6 
Mg/hr (4 tph) and 7.3 Mg/hr (8 tph) cupola, respectively. However, 
secondary emissions of SO2 and NOX would result 
from the natural gas combustion of sulfur-bearing raw materials and 
fuel. The increased emissions would range from 55 Mg/yr (61 tpy) to 112 
Mg/yr (123 tpy) for SO2, and 42 Mg/yr (46 tpy) to 83 Mg/yr 
(91 tpy) for NOX, for each 3.6 Mg/hr (4 tph) and 7.3 Mg/hr 
(8 tph) cupola, respectively.
    Under this beyond-the-MACT-floor control option, price increases 
are estimated to range from 5.94 percent to 6.98 percent, resulting in 
quantity adjustments of -4.75 and -8.38 percent, respectively. 
Additionally, loss of 87 employees is estimated. Facility unit-cost 
increases would be very significant. Two facilities would have unit-
cost increases of more than 20 percent (one of 27 percent for bonded 
products and one of 22 percent for nonbonded products). Three other 
facilities would have unit-cost increases for at least one product of 
over ten percent, and an additional five facilities would have 
increases of over five percent. Seven facilities are projected to have 
control

[[Page 25378]]

costs greater than their increase in revenue due to the projected 
increase in market prices. This portion of the control costs that the 
facilities are projected to have to absorb ranges from 16 percent of 
before tax net income (B.T.N.I.) for one facility to 155 percent of 
B.T.N.I. for another facility. The projected market quantity decreases 
and changes in capital structure indicate that the costs associated 
with the beyond-the-floor control option would be expected to cause one 
or two facility closures. After assessing this information, the EPA 
concluded that the costs of increased control given the increase in 
secondary emissions do not justify beyond-the floor control for 
existing cupolas (docket items II-B-34 and 35).
    As discussed earlier, no MACT floor could be determined for fiber 
collection and cooling operations. The EPA considered requiring 
controls that reduce organic HAP emissions from fiber collection and 
cooling processes by going beyond the floor. The beyond-the-floor 
control technology would be thermal incineration for both processes. 
Six fiber collection and cooling operations would be required to add 
incinerators ranging in cost from $1.75 million/yr to $2.85 million/yr 
for each fiber collection process, depending upon the process size, and 
about $400,000/yr for each cooling operation. Assuming an incinerator 
control efficiency of 80 percent, organic HAP emissions (formaldehyde, 
phenol, methanol) from fiber collection processes would be reduced by 
about 29 Mg/yr (32 tpy) for each 3.6 Mg/yr (4 tph) process and 59 Mg/yr 
(65 tpy) for each 7.3 Mg/yr (8 tph) process. Cooling process organic 
emissions (formaldehyde) would be reduced by approximately 0.4 Mg/yr 
(0.4 tpy) and 0.6 Mg/yr (0.7 tpy) for 3.6 Mg/yr (4 tph) and 7.3 Mg/yr 
(8 tph) processes, respectively. NOX emissions from both 
processes would result from the combustion of natural gas used to 
operate the incinerator. Upon consideration of this information, the 
EPA concluded that the emissions reductions associated with controls 
beyond the floor do not offset the costs (docket items II-B-30 and 32).
3. Emission Limits
    As part of this rulemaking, the EPA conducted comprehensive 
emission tests to characterize uncontrolled and controlled emissions 
from the various processes and to evaluate the effectiveness of 
existing control devices. Sources tested were those selected as 
representative of MACT. Using the test data, the EPA established the 
proposed emission limits for existing and new sources (docket items II-
A-11, 12, and 13).
    Because a fabric filter that represents the MACT floor for existing 
cupolas in the subcategory of plants that manufacture bonded products 
has the same design as a fabric filter that represents the MACT floor 
in the subcategory of plants that do not manufacture bonded products, 
the emission limits proposed for PM within each subcategory are the 
same. The emission limit proposed for PM for existing cupolas, 0.03 kg/
Mg (0.06 lb/ton) of melt, is based on test results from a cupola 
equipped with a fabric filter, where PM emissions averaging 0.02 kg/Mg 
(0.04 lb/ton) of melt were measured. Because MACT for existing and new 
cupolas is the same, the EPA proposed the same PM limit, 0.03 kg/Mg 
(0.06 lb/ton) of melt, for new cupolas. In proposing the same PM 
emission limit for existing and new cupolas, the EPA recognizes that 
fabric filters used on existing cupolas are already efficient at 
controlling PM and particulate metal HAP emissions and there is no 
technology that has been documented to be more efficient.
    The proposed CO limit for new cupolas, 0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 lb/ton) of 
melt, is based on test results from a cupola that is equipped with an 
incinerator and fabric filter where CO emissions averaging 0.035 kg/Mg 
(0.07 lb/ton) of melt were measured after control. The measured average 
efficiency for CO reduction across the control system was 99.6 percent. 
The owner or operator may alternatively meet a performance standard of 
99 percent removal of CO across the control system. This alternative is 
offered because other cupolas may have a different inlet concentration 
and therefore may not meet the 0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 lb/ton) of melt 
numerical limit.
    The emission limit proposed for formaldehyde for existing and new 
curing ovens, 0.03 kg/Mg (0.06 lb/ton) of melt, is based on test 
results from a curing oven equipped with an incinerator where 
formaldehyde emissions averaging 0.02 kg/Mg (0.04 lb/ton) of melt were 
measured. The measured average efficiency for formaldehyde reduction 
across the control system was 80 percent. The owner or operator may 
alternatively meet a performance standard of 80 percent removal of 
formaldehyde across the control system because other ovens may have 
higher inlet concentrations and therefore may not meet the numerical 
emission limit.

V. Impacts of Proposed Standards

A. Air Quality Impacts

    Nationwide metal HAP and COS emissions from mineral wool production 
cupolas are estimated to be 2,522 Mg/yr (2,780 tpy) at the current 
level of control. Existing PM emissions are estimated to be 239 Mg/yr 
(263 tpy). Most of the existing cupolas are already well-controlled for 
PM and metal HAPs. Under the proposed NESHAP, it is expected that 
fabric filters would be added to the five cupolas currently controlled 
by cyclones, resulting in reductions in nationwide metal HAP emissions 
of 0.91 Mg/yr (1.0 tpy) and PM emissions of 186 Mg/yr (205 tpy). 
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 would be reduced by 
about 30 Mg/yr (34 tpy) and 14 Mg/yr (16 tpy), respectively, from the 
addition of thermal incinerators to two currently uncontrolled curing 
ovens. Because there is currently an estimated 55 percent excess 
capacity in the mineral wool production industry, the EPA does not 
anticipate any new cupolas or curing ovens within the next 5 years. If, 
however, a new cupola with a 7.3 Mg/hr (8 tph) capacity was built, COS 
and CO emissions would be reduced by 104 Mg/yr (114 tpy) and 1,256 Mg/
yr (1,384 tpy), respectively, as a result of the required addition of a 
thermal incinerator.
    Based on analyses of model processes, metal HAP and PM emissions 
from a cyclone-controlled small sized [3.6 Mg/hr (4 tph) melt capacity] 
cupola would be reduced by an estimated 24 Mg/yr (27 tpy). Estimated 
reductions of metal HAP and PM emissions from a large-sized [7.3 Mg/hr 
(8 tph) melt capacity] cupola similarly controlled would be 50 Mg/yr 
(55 tpy). Emissions of formaldehyde and phenol from an uncontrolled 
curing oven associated with a small-sized cupola would be reduced by 
approximately 10 Mg/yr (11 tpy) and 5 Mg/yr (5 tpy), respectively. 
Formaldehyde and phenol emissions from an uncontrolled curing oven 
associated with a large-sized cupola would be reduced by an estimated 
20 Mg/yr (22 tpy) and 10 Mg/yr (11 tpy), respectively (docket items II-
B-18 and 37).
    Secondary emissions of NOX from incinerator-controlled 
curing ovens are formed as a result of combustion of natural gas. 
Emissions of NOX from the affected sources are predicted to 
increase by about 124 Mg/yr (137 tpy)

[[Page 25379]]

from a baseline level of about 248 Mg/yr (273 tpy) (docket item II-B-
35).

B. Nonair Environmental and Health Impacts

    Because the air pollution control devices associated with the 
control systems for mineral wool production processes are of a dry type 
(fabric filters and thermal incinerators), there are no water pollution 
impacts resulting from their use. Solid waste generated by fabric 
filter systems in the form of ash is disposed of by landfilling. With 
the addition of fabric filter control systems 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.
    Reducing HAP levels may help lower occupational exposure levels and 
site-specific levels of PM and VOCs. Implementing the proposed 
equipment requirements may increase noise levels in the plant area.
    Operating fabric filters and thermal incinerators requires the use 
of electrical energy to operate fans that move the gas stream. The 
additional electrical energy requirements are estimated to be 788,000 
kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr) for five fabric filters to be added to 
existing cupolas and 431,000 kWh/yr for two incinerators to be added to 
existing curing ovens. Thermal incinerators also may use natural gas as 
fuel. An additional 126,000 kilocubic feet per year (kft3/
yr) of natural gas would be required for the two incinerators that 
would be added to curing ovens.

C. Cost and Economic Impacts

    The total nationwide capital and annualized costs for existing 
cupolas under the proposed NESHAP 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 per affected cupola, respectively.
    The total nationwide capital and annualized costs of complying with 
the proposed NESHAP for existing curing ovens are estimated at $795,800 
and $641,600/yr, respectively. These costs represent the addition of 
thermal incinerators to two curing ovens.
    Under the proposed NESHAP, market-level price increases are 
estimated to range from 0.49 percent to 2.13 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. Facility unit-cost increases would be less 
than one percent for all but three of the facilities. The highest unit-
cost increase would be 6.3 percent for one facility for nonbonded 
products. These three facilities are also the only facilities projected 
to have control costs greater than their increase in revenue due to the 
projected increase in market prices. This portion of the control costs 
that the three facilities are projected to have to absorb would be 38 
percent of B.T.N.I. for one facility and 29 percent for another 
facility. The third facility does not have positive B.T.N.I. in the 
pre-regulation baseline, so an estimate of a percentage change in 
B.T.N.I. is not meaningful (the unit cost increase for this facility is 
3.9 percent for bonded products and 0.1 percent for nonbonded 
products). Neither the projected market quantity decreases or changes 
in capital structure indicate that the costs associated with the MACT 
floor control option would be expected to cause facility closure. 
However, if a facility would be closing in the absence of a regulation, 
the control costs might result in an earlier facility closure.

VI. Public Participation

    The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final 
decisions and encourages comments on all aspects of this proposal from 
all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed analyses 
should be submitted with comments to allow the EPA to make maximum use 
of the comments. All comments should be directed to the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-95-33 (see 
Addresses). Comments on this document must be submitted on or before 
the date specified in DATES.
    Commentors wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information'' 
(CBI). Submissions containing such proprietary information should be 
sent directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, 
to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in 
the docket: Attention: Ms. Mary Johnson, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA 
Confidential Business Information Manager, OAQPS (MD-13); Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711. Information covered by such a claim of 
confidentiality will be disclosed by the EPA only to the extent allowed 
and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of 
confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by the 
EPA, the submission may be made available to the public without further 
notice to the commenter.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket 
is a dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking 
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of 
judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)
    The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public 
version, has been established for this rulemaking under Docket No. A-
95-33 (including comments and data submitted electronically as 
described below). A public version of this record, including printed, 
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any 
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official 
rulemaking record is located at the address in Addresses at the 
beginning of this document.
    Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA's Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center at: ``A-and-R-D[email protected]''. 
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use 
of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data 
will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or 
ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be 
identified by the docket number (A-95-33). Electronic comments on this 
proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

B. Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the 
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act. If 
a public hearing is requested and held, the EPA will ask clarifying 
questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the 
presentations or comments. Written statements and supporting 
information

[[Page 25380]]

will be considered with equivalent weight as any oral statement and 
supporting information subsequently presented at a public hearing, if 
held. Persons wishing to present oral testimony or to inquire as to 
whether or not a hearing is to be held should contact the EPA (see 
Addresses). To provide an opportunity for all who may wish to speak, 
oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each.
    Any member of the public may file a written statement on or before 
July 7, 1997. Written statements should be addressed to the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see Addresses), and refer to 
Docket No. A-95-33. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written 
statements will be placed in the docket and be available for public 
inspection and copying, or mailed upon request, at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center.

C. Executive Order 12866

    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 obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this regulatory action is not ``significant'' because 
none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, this 
action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order 
12875

    In compliance with Executive Order 12875, the EPA involved State 
regulatory experts in the development of this proposed rule. No tribal 
governments are believed to be affected by this proposed rule. State 
and local governments are not directly impacted by the rule, i.e., they 
are not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements 
of the rule. However, they will be required to implement the rule; 
e.g., incorporate the rule into permits and enforce the rule. They will 
collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resources burden of 
implementing the rule. Comments have been solicited from States and 
have been considered in the rule development process. In addition, all 
States are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule during the 
public comment period, and the EPA intends to fully consider these 
comments in the development of the final rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 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 to State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to 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, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. 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 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose 
obligations upon them. Therefore, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

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 7 of the 10 firms that 
potentially would be subject to the proposed standards 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 
proposed rule. Also, the EPA Office of Asbestos and Small Business 
Ombudsman, Office of Regulatory Management and Information, 
participated in the development of the proposed NESHAP as a Work Group 
member to ensure that the requirements of the proposed standards were 
examined for potential adverse economic impacts. The economic impacts 
are summarized in section V.C of this document and in the economic 
impact analysis (docket item II-A-16).
    Five of the 7 small firms would incur emission control costs that 
are less than 0.1 percent of sales, while one firm would incur control 
costs estimated to be 2.4 percent of the firm's sales. An estimate of 
control cost as a percentage of sales cannot be determined for one firm 
because they began producing mineral wool within the last year and 
sales information is not available. It is believed, however, that the 
emission control costs that would be incurred by

[[Page 25381]]

this firm would be in excess of 3 percent. 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. Based on this information, the EPA has concluded 
that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    In developing these proposed standards, the EPA has exercised the 
maximum degree of flexibility in minimizing impacts on small businesses 
through subcategorization of the source category. Also, these proposed 
standards, which are based on MACT-floor level control technology, 
reflect the minimum level of control allowed under the Act.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 
1799.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory 
Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The proposed information requirements include the notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NESHAP general 
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
owners or operators subject to national emission standards. These 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by 
section 114 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to 
the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded 
according to Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed 
rule does not require any notifications or reports beyond those 
required by the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 
Proposed 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) any bag leak 
detection system alarm, including the date and time, with a brief 
explanation of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken; 
(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, including any period when the average temperature in any 
3-hour block period falls below the average level established during 
the performance test.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the rule) is estimated to be 6,107 labor hours per 
year at a total 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 where the procedures in the plan were 
not followed; semiannual excess emissions reports; notifications; and 
recordkeeping. Total capital costs associated with monitoring 
requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR is estimated at 
$309,400; this estimate includes the capital and startup costs 
associated with installation of a bag leak detection system for each 
cupola at a plant subject to the standard. The total operation and 
maintenance cost is estimated at $17,000/yr.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search 
existing data sources; complete and review the collection of 
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in 
any correspondence. Because OMB is required to make a decision 
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after May 8, 1997, a comment 
to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by 
June 9, 1997. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments 
on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. Pollution Prevention Act

    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.

I. Clean Air Act

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. 
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation. 
This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of 
the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the 
existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in 
emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Mineral wool production,

[[Page 25382]]

Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: April 29, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, 
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

    2. 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  Applicability.
63.1176  Definitions.
63.1177  Emission standards for cupolas and curing ovens.
63.1178  Monitoring requirements.
63.1179  Performance test requirements.
63.1180  Test methods and procedures.
63.1181  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
63.1182  Applicability of general provisions.
63.1183  Delegation of authority.
63.1184--63.1199  [Reserved]

Appendix A to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Free Formaldehyde Analysis of 
Insulation Resins by Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride.
Appendix B to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, subpart A) to Subpart DDD.

Subpart DDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production


Sec. 63.1175  Applicability.

    (a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator 
of each mineral wool production facility that is a major source as 
defined in Sec. 63.2 of the general provisions in subpart A of this 
part.
    (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants, as measured according to the methods and 
procedures in this subpart, emitted from each new, existing, or 
reconstructed cupola and curing oven at a mineral wool production 
facility subject to this subpart.


Sec. 63.1176  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act as 
amended (the Act), in Sec. 63.2 of the general provisions in subpart A 
of this part, or 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 (e.g., phenol, 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 which charges 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 for 
subsequent 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 in the manufacture of bonded 
products.
    Fabric filter means an air pollution control device used to capture 
particulate matter by filtering gas streams through fabric bags; also 
known as a baghouse.
    Formaldehyde means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of 
formaldehyde that 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 those chemicals and their compounds 
that are included on the list of hazardous air pollutants in section 
112(b) of the Clean Air Act.
    Incinerator means an 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 for use in the production of mineral wool over a 
specified time period.
    Mineral wool means a fibrous glassy substance made from natural 
rock (such as basalt), 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, or fire resistance.
    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.


Sec. 63.1177  Emission standards for cupolas and curing ovens.

    (a) On and after the date the performance test is conducted or 
required to be conducted under Sec. 63.7 of the general provisions in 
subpart A of this part and Sec. 63.1179 of this subpart, whichever date 
is earlier, the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be 
discharged into the atmosphere any gases from an existing cupola in 
excess of 0.03 kilogram (kg) of particulate matter (PM) per megagram 
(Mg) (0.06 pound [lb] of PM per ton) of melt.
    (b) On and after the date the performance test is conducted or 
required to be conducted under Sec. 63.7 of the general provisions in 
subpart A of this part and Sec. 63.1179 of this subpart, whichever date 
is earlier, the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be 
discharged into the atmosphere any gases from a new or reconstructed 
cupola in excess of:
    (1) 0.03 kg of PM per Mg (0.06 lb of PM per ton) of melt; and
    (2)(i) 0.05 kg of carbon monoxide (CO) per Mg (0.10 lb of CO per 
ton) of melt; or
    (ii) The owner or operator shall reduce uncontrolled CO emissions 
by at least 99 percent.
    (c)(1) On and after the date the performance test is conducted or 
required to be conducted under Sec. 63.7 of the general provisions in 
subpart A of this part and Sec. 63.1179 of this subpart, whichever date 
is earlier, the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be 
discharged into the atmosphere any gases from a new, existing, or 
reconstructed curing oven in excess of 0.03 kg of formaldehyde per Mg 
(0.06 lb of formaldehyde per ton) of melt; or
    (2) The owner or operator shall reduce uncontrolled formaldehyde 
emissions by at least 80 percent.


Sec. 63.1178  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a device that measures and records the average hourly 
production (melt) rate for each cupola:
    (1) Following the performance test required in Sec. 63.1179 of this 
subpart, if the melt rate exceeds the average melt rate established 
during the performance test by more than 20 percent for more than 5 
percent of the total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, the

[[Page 25383]]

owner or operator shall conduct a repeat performance test at the higher 
melt rate to demonstrate compliance; and
    (2) If results from the repeat performance test exceed any of the 
applicable emission standards, the owner or operator is in violation of 
the emission standard(s) for the entire period that the melt rate was 
more than 20 percent above the average level established during the 
previous performance test.
    (b) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and 
continuously operate a bag leak detection system for each cupola fabric 
filter control system:
    (1) The bag leak detection system must be capable of detecting PM 
emissions at concentrations of 1.0 milligram per actual cubic meter 
(0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) and greater;
    (2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative or absolute PM emissions;
    (3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will sound when an increase in PM emissions over a preset 
level is detected;
    (4) For positive pressure fabric filters, a bag leak detector must 
be installed in each fabric filter compartment or cell. If a negative 
pressure or induced air fabric filter is used, the bag leak detector 
must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. Where multiple bag 
leak detectors are required (for either type of fabric filter), the 
system instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors;
    (5) The bag leak detection system shall be installed, operated, 
calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with available 
guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or, in the 
absence of such guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and 
recommendations;
    (6) Calibration of the system shall, at minimum, consist of 
establishing the relative baseline output level by adjusting the range 
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set 
points and the alarm delay time;
    (7) The owner or operator shall not adjust the range, averaging 
period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time after the performance 
test required in Sec. 63.1179 of this subpart without written approval 
from the Administrator;
    (8) Following the performance test, if the alarm on a bag leak 
detection system is triggered, the owner or operator shall inspect the 
control device to determine the cause of the deviation and initiate 
within 1 hour of the alarm the corrective actions specified in the 
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. Failure to initiate the 
corrective action procedures within 1 hour of the alarm is a violation 
of the PM emission standard; and
    (9) If the bag leak detection system alarm is activated for more 
than 5 percent of the total operating time during a 6-month reporting 
period, the owner or operator shall develop and implement a written 
quality improvement plan consistent with subpart D of the draft 
approach to compliance assurance monitoring.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) The owner or operator shall monitor and record the free 
formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder formulation, 
including the formaldehyde content of each binder batch used in the 
manufacture of bonded products:
    (1) Following the performance test required in Sec. 63.1179 of this 
subpart, the owner or operator shall maintain the formaldehyde content 
of each binder formulation at or below the level established during the 
test; and
    (2) If the binder formaldehyde content exceeds the level 
established during the performance test, the owner or operator is in 
violation of the formaldehyde emission standard.
    (d) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a device that continuously measures the operating temperature 
in the firebox of each thermal incinerator used to control process 
emissions from a cupola or curing oven and determines and records the 
temperature in 15-minute block averages:
    (1) Following the performance test required in Sec. 63.1179 of this 
subpart, the owner or operator shall maintain the operating temperature 
of each incinerator such that the average operating temperature in any 
3-hour block period does not fall below the average temperature 
established during the performance test;
    (2) Operation of an incinerator such that the average operating 
temperature in any 3-hour block period falls below the average level 
established during the performance test is a violation of the 
applicable emission standard in Sec. 63.1177 (b)(2) or (c) of this 
subpart; and
    (3) At a minimum, valid 3-hour temperature averages shall be 
obtained for 75 percent of the operating hours per day for 90 percent 
of the operating days per 6-month reporting period that the facility is 
producing mineral wool.
    (e) All monitoring systems and equipment must be installed, 
operational, and properly calibrated prior to the performance test 
required by Sec. 63.1179 of this subpart.
    (f) For all control device and process operating parameters 
measured during the performance test required by Sec. 63.1179 of this 
subpart, the owner or operator of cupola or curing ovens subject to 
this subpart may change the levels established during the performance 
test if additional performance testing is conducted to verify that, at 
the new control device or process parameter levels, the owner or 
operator is in compliance with the emission standards in Sec. 63.1177 
of this subpart.


Sec. 63.1179  Performance test requirements.

    (a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator subject to the 
provisions of this subpart shall comply with the requirements of this 
subpart by no later than:
    (1) [Date 3 years after effective date of the final rule] for an 
existing cupola or curing oven;
    (2) [Date 4 years following the effective date of the final rule] 
for an existing source that is granted an extension by the applicable 
regulatory authority under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act; or
    (3) Upon startup, for a new or reconstructed cupola or curing oven.
    (b) Performance test. The owner or operator of each cupola or 
curing oven subject to this subpart shall conduct a performance test to 
demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable emission standards 
in Sec. 63.1177 of this subpart according to the procedures in the 
general provisions in subpart A of this part and in this paragraph (b):
    (1) Using the test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.1180 of this 
subpart, the owner or operator shall measure emissions of PM (for each 
existing cupola) or PM and CO (for each new or reconstructed cupola) 
and emissions of formaldehyde from each existing, new, or reconstructed 
curing oven at the outlet of the control device (if complying with a 
numerical emission limit), or at the inlet and outlet of the control 
device (if complying with a percent reduction limit). The owner or 
operator shall compute and record the average of at least three runs 
and use the applicable equations in paragraph (b)(6) of this section to 
determine compliance with the applicable emission limit in the units of 
the standard. Compliance is demonstrated when the emission rate of the 
pollutant is equal to or less than each of the applicable emission 
limits in Sec. 63.1177 of this subpart;
    (2) The owner or operator of each cupola and curing oven shall 
monitor and record the amount of raw materials,

[[Page 25384]]

excluding coke, charged into and melted in each cupola during each test 
run and determine the average hourly melt rate for each test run. The 
arithmetic average of the melt rate for the three test runs, plus 20 
percent, shall be used to monitor compliance. If the owner or operator 
plans to operate above the average melt rate established during the 
performance test by more than 20 percent for more than 5 percent of the 
total operating time in a 6-month reporting period, another performance 
test at the higher melt rate shall be conducted;
    (3) The owner or operator shall conduct the performance test for 
each curing oven during the manufacture of the product using the binder 
formulation with the highest formaldehyde content. During the 
performance test, the owner or operator shall record the free 
formaldehyde content of the resin(s) used during the test and the 
binder formulation(s), including the formaldehyde content of the 
binder, used during the test. If the owner or operator plans to use a 
binder with a higher formaldehyde content than that recorded during the 
performance test, another performance test of the curing oven during 
use of the binder with a higher formaldehyde content shall be 
conducted;
    (4) With prior approval from the Administrator or delegated 
regulatory authority, an owner or operator of a curing oven regulated 
by this subpart may conduct short-term experimental production runs 
using binder formulations or other process modifications where the 
formaldehyde content or other process parameter values deviate from 
those established during previous performance tests without first 
conducting additional performance tests. An application to perform an 
experimental short-term production run shall include the following 
information:
    (i) The purpose of the experimental run;
    (ii) The affected curing oven;
    (iii) How the established process parameters will deviate from 
previously approved levels;
    (iv) The duration of the test run;
    (v) The date and time of the test run; and
    (vi) A description of any emission testing to be performed during 
the test;
    (5) During the performance test, the owner or operator shall 
continuously measure the operating temperature for each cupola or 
curing oven incinerator, determine and record the 15-minute block 
average temperatures, and determine the arithmetic average of the 
recorded temperature measurements for each test run. The arithmetic 
average of the three test runs shall be used to monitor compliance. If 
the owner or operator plans to reduce the operating temperature below 
the temperature established during the performance test, another 
performance test at the reduced operating temperature shall be 
conducted; and
    (6) Using the results of the emissions test, the owner or operator 
shall use Equation 1 to determine compliance with the PM emission 
standard for the cupola, Equation 2 to determine compliance with a 
numerical emission limit for formaldehyde or CO, and/or Equation 3 to 
determine compliance with the percent reduction performance standard 
for formaldehyde or CO:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY97.000

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);
K1=Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr); and
P=Average melt rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY97.001

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/m\3\ (28.3 L/ft\3\);
K3=Conversion factor, 24.45 L/g-mole; and
P=Average melt rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY97.002

where:

%R=Percent reduction, or collection efficiency of the control device;
Li=Inlet loading of pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton); and
Lo=Outlet loading of pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton).


Sec. 63.1180  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) The owner or operator shall use the following methods to 
determine compliance with the applicable emission standards:
    (1) Method 1 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the 
selection of the sampling port location and number of sampling ports;
    (2) Method 2 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for stack gas 
velocity and volumetric flow rate;
    (3) Method 3 or 3A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for 
oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) for diluent 
measurements needed to correct the concentration measurements to a 
standard basis;
    (4) Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for moisture 
content of the stack gas;
    (5) Method 5 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the 
concentration of PM. Each run shall consist of a minimum run time of 2 
hours and a minimum sample volume of 2.5 dscm (90 dscf);
    (6) 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 run shall consist of a minimum run 
time of 1 hour;
    (7) Method 318 2 in appendix A to this part for the 
concentration of formaldehyde or CO; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Proposed method published in the March 31, 1997 Federal 
Register (62 FR 15228).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (8) Method contained in appendix A of this subpart for the 
determination of the free formaldehyde content of resin.
    (b) The owner or operator may use an alternative method subject to 
approval by the Administrator.


Sec. 63.1181  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    (a) Notifications. As required by Sec. 63.9 (b) through (h) of the 
general provisions in subpart A of this part, the owner or operator 
shall submit the following written initial notifications to the 
Administrator:
    (1) Notification for an area source that subsequently increases its 
emissions such that the source is a major source subject to the 
standard;
    (2) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where 
the initial startup is before the effective date of the standard;
    (3) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where 
the source is new or has been reconstructed, the initial startup is 
after the effective date of the standard, and for which an application 
for approval of construction or reconstruction is not required;
    (4) Notification of intention to construct a new major source or 
reconstruct a major source; of the date

[[Page 25385]]

construction or reconstruction commenced; of the anticipated date of 
startup; of the actual date of startup, where the initial startup of a 
new or reconstructed source occurs after the effective date of the 
standard, and for which an application for approval of construction or 
reconstruction is required (See Sec. 63.9(b) (4) and (5).);
    (5) Notification of special compliance obligations;
    (6) Notification of performance test; and
    (7) Notification of compliance status.
    (b) Performance test report. As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of the 
general provisions in subpart A of this part, the owner or operator 
shall report the results of the initial performance test as part of the 
notification of compliance status required in paragraph (a)(7) of this 
section.
    (c) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and reports. The owner 
or operator shall develop and implement a written plan as described in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part 
that contains specific procedures to be followed for operating the 
source and maintaining the source during periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction and a program of corrective action for malfunctioning 
process and control systems used to comply with the standard. The owner 
or operator shall also keep records of each event as required by 
Sec. 63.10(b) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part and 
record and report if an action taken during a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction is not consistent with the procedures in the plan as 
described in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). In addition to the information required 
in Sec. 63.6(e)(3), the plan shall include:
    (1) Procedures to determine and record the cause of the malfunction 
and the time the malfunction began and ended;
    (2) Corrective actions to be taken in the event of a malfunction of 
a process or control device, including procedures for recording the 
actions taken to correct the malfunction or minimize emissions; and
    (3) A maintenance schedule for each process and control device that 
is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions and recommendations 
for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (d) Operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The owner or 
operator of each mineral wool production plant shall prepare for each 
cupola and curing oven subject to the provisions of this subpart, a 
written operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The plan shall be 
submitted to the Administrator for review and approval prior to being 
incorporated in the part 70 permit and shall include the following 
information:
    (1) Process and control device parameters to be monitored to 
determine compliance, along with established operating levels or ranges 
for each process or control device;
    (2) A monitoring schedule;
    (3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of control 
devices used to meet the emission limits of Sec. 63.1177 of this 
subpart;
    (4) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance; and
    (5) Corrective actions to be taken when process or control device 
parameters deviate from the levels established during initial 
performance testing.
    (e) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of the 
general provisions in subpart A of this part, the owner or operator 
shall report semiannually if measured emissions are in excess of the 
applicable standard or a monitored parameter is exceeded. When no 
exceedances of measured emissions or monitored parameters have 
occurred, the owner or operator shall submit a report stating that no 
excess emissions occurred during the reporting period.
    (f) Recordkeeping. (1) As required by Sec. 63.10(b) of the general 
provisions in subpart A of this part, the owner or operator shall 
maintain files of all information (including all reports and 
notifications) required by the general provisions in subpart A of this 
part and this subpart:
    (i) The owner or operator must retain each record for at least 5 
years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 
corrective action, report, or record. The most recent 2 years of 
records must be retained at the facility. The remaining 3 years of 
records may be retained off site;
    (ii) The owner or operator may retain records on microfilm, on a 
computer disk, on magnetic tape, or on microfiche; and
    (iii) The owner or operator may report required information on 
paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and 
compatible computer software.
    (2) In addition to the general records required by Sec. 63.10(b)(2) 
of the general provisions in subpart A of this part, the owner or 
operator shall maintain records of the following information:
    (i) Cupola production rate [Mg/hr (tons/hr) of melt];
    (ii) Any bag leak detection system alarm, including the date and 
time, with a brief explanation of the cause of the alarm and the 
corrective action taken;
    (iii) 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;
    (iv) Incinerator operating temperature, including any period when 
the average temperature in any 3-hour block period falls below the 
average temperature established during the performance test, with a 
brief explanation of the cause of the deviation and the corrective 
action taken; and
    (v) Identification of the calendar dates for which the minimum 
number of hours of valid 3-hour incinerator operating temperature 
averages is not obtained, including reasons for not obtaining 
sufficient data and a description of the corrective action taken.


Sec. 63.1182  Applicability of general provisions.

    The requirements of the general provisions in subpart A of this 
part that are applicable to the owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of this subpart are shown in appendix B to this subpart.


Sec. 63.1183  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State under section 112(d) of the Act, the authorities contained in 
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator 
and not transferred to a State.
    (b) Sec. 63.1180(b) of this subpart, for approval of an alternative 
test method.


Sec. 63.1184--63.1199  [Reserved]

Appendix A to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Free Formaldehyde Analysis of 
Insulation Resins by Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride

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:HClCH2:NOH+H2O+HCl

    b. Free formaldehyde in phenolic resins is present as monomeric 
formaldehyde, hemiformals, polyoxymethylene hemiformals, and 
polyoxymethylene glycols. Monomeric formaldehyde and hemiformals

[[Page 25386]]

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] TP08MY97.003

7. Method Precision and Accuracy

Test values should conform to the following statistical precision:

Variance = 0.005.
Standard deviation = 0.07.
95% Confidence Interval, for a single determination = 0.2.

8. Author

    This method was prepared by K. K. Tutin and M. L. Foster, Tacoma 
R&D Laboratory, Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. (Principle written by 
R. R. Conner.)

9. References

    9.1  GPAM 2221.2.
    9.2  PR&C TM 2.035.
    9.3  Project Report, Comparison of Free Formaldehyde Procedures, 
January 1990, K. K. Tutin.

Appendix B to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
                                                       DDD                                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                      Requirement         Applies to subpart DDD           Comment        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.  63.1176.     
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.....................                         

[[Page 25387]]

                                                                                                                
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.  63.1179 specifies
                                                                                          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.  63.1181 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.  63.1179 specifies
                                                                                          dates.                
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.  63.1179 specifies
                                                                                          additional            
                                                                                          requirements.         
63.7(f).............................  Alternative Test Method  Yes.....................  EPA retains approval   
                                                                                          authority.            
63.7(g).............................  Data Analysis..........  Yes.....................                         
63.7(h).............................  Waiver of Tests........  Yes.....................                         
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/CEMS 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.                                                        

[[Page 25388]]

                                                                                                                
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.  63.1181 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.  63.1181.     
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.....................  Authority for approval 
                                       Delegations.                                       of alternative test   
                                                                                          methods retained.     
63.13...............................  Addresses..............  Yes.....................                         
63.14...............................  Incorporation by         Yes.....................                         
                                       Reference.                                                               
63.15...............................  Information              Yes.....................                         
                                       Availability/                                                            
                                       Confidentiality.                                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 97-11765 Filed 5-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P