[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