[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29490-29510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12585]



[[Page 29489]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 9 and 63



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 1999 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 29490]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[FRL-6345-4]
RIN 2060-AE08


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources in 
mineral wool production facilities. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) 
emitted by the facilities covered by this rule include carbonyl sulfide 
(COS), nine hazardous metals, formaldehyde, and phenol. Exposure to 
these HAPs may be associated with adverse carcinogenic, respiratory, 
nervous system, dermal, developmental, and/or reproductive health 
effects. The EPA estimates that the final rule will reduce nationwide 
emissions of HAPs from these facilities by 46 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) (51 tons per year (tpy)). In addition, emissions of particulate 
matter (PM) will be reduced by approximately 186 Mg/yr (205 tpy). This 
action also amends 40 CFR part 9 by updating the table of currently 
approved information collection control numbers to include the 
information requirements contained in this final rule.
    These standards implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (Act) 
by requiring all mineral wool production facilities that are major 
sources to meet hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission standards 
reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT). The emissions reductions achieved by these standards, when 
combined with the emissions reductions achieved by other similar 
standards, will provide protection to the public and achieve a primary 
goal of the Act.
    A supplement to the proposed rule was proposed in the Federal 
Register on February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7149). The EPA will give careful 
consideration to all comments on the supplemental proposal and will 
amend this final rule in a future action as appropriate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1999. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
concerning judicial review.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The docket for this rulemaking containing the 
information considered by the EPA in development of the final rule is 
Docket A-95-33. This docket is available for public inspection between 
8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal 
holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 260-7548. The 
docket is located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall 
(ground floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket 
materials.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated
                 Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  Mineral wool production
                                             facilities (SIC 3296).
Federal government........................  None.
State/local/tribal government.............  None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1177 of the 
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate regional 
representative:

Region I:
    Janet Bowen, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. EPA, Region I, 
CAP, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3595
Region II:
    Kenneth Eng, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290 
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4000
Region III:
    Bernard Turlinski, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region 
III, 3AT10, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 566-
2110
Region IV:
    Lee Page, Air Enforcement Branch, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta 
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, (404) 562-
9131
Region V:
    George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, 
Region V, 5AE-26, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-
2088
Region VI:
    John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VI, 
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-7220
Region VII:
    Donald Toensing, Air Permitting and Compliance, Branch Chief, U.S. 
EPA, Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 
551-7446
Region VIII:
    Douglas M. Skie, Air and Technical Operations, Branch Chief, U.S. 
EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2466, 
(303) 312-6432
Region IX:
    Barbara Gross, Air Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1138
Region X:
    Anita Frankel, Air and Radiation Branch Chief, U.S. EPA, Region X, 
AT-092, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1757

Plain Language

    The final rule is written in plain language. Plain language 
regulatory writing involves structuring the rule around questions the 
user may have. It takes the form of questions and answers and uses the 
words ``I'' and ``you'' to represent the owner or operator.

Judicial Review

    The NESHAP for mineral wool production plants was proposed on May 
8, 1997 (62 FR 25370). This action announces the EPA's final decisions 
on the rule. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the 
NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of 
today's publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the 
Act, the requirements that are the subject of today's rule may not be 
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce these requirements.

[[Page 29491]]

Technology Transfer Network

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
today's notice is also available through the Technology Transfer 
Network (TTN). Following promulgation, a copy of the rule will be 
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or 
promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html). The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, 
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Statutory Authority
II. Background and Public Participation
III. Summary of Final Rule
    A. Applicability
    B. Standards
    C. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions
    D. Monitoring Requirements
    E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
    A. Definitions
    B. Standards
    C. Performance Test Provisions
    D. Monitoring Requirements
    E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
V. Summary of Impacts
VI. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. General
    B. Definitions
    C. Selection of Emission Standards
    D. Monitoring
    E. Recordkeeping and Reporting
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    C. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership
    D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Regulatory Flexibility
    G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. Pollution Prevention Act
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    K. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

I. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this rule is provided by sections 101, 
112, 113, 114, 116, and 301 of the Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 
7412, 7413, 7414, 7416, and 7601). This rule is also subject to section 
307(d) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).

II. Background and Public Participation

    Section 112(d) of the Act directs the EPA to establish standards to 
control all major sources emitting HAPs. On July 16, 1992, the EPA 
published a list of major source categories, including ``Mineral Wool 
Production,'' for which NESHAP are to be promulgated (57 FR 3156). The 
NESHAP for mineral wool production (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD) was 
proposed in the Federal Register on May 8, 1997 (62 FR 25370). The 
public comment period ended on July 7, 1997. Industry representatives, 
regulatory authorities, environmental groups, and the general public 
had the opportunity to comment on the proposed standards and to provide 
additional information during the public comment period. Three comment 
letters were received. Comments were received from the association 
representing industry and from two representatives of air pollution 
control equipment manufacturers. Today's final rule reflects the EPA's 
full consideration of the comments. A summary of the major public 
comments along with the EPA's responses are summarized in this 
preamble. A more detailed discussion of public comments and the EPA's 
responses are contained in the docket (Docket No. A-95-33; Item V-C-2).

III. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability

    The final NESHAP applies to each existing, new, and reconstructed 
cupola and curing oven at a mineral wool production facility that is 
located at a plant site that is a major source of HAP emissions. 
Facilities that manufacture wool fiberglass are not subject to this 
rule but are subject to a separate NESHAP rulemaking for wool 
fiberglass manufacturing.

B. Standards

    Emissions of PM are regulated for existing cupolas. For new and 
reconstructed cupolas, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) are also 
regulated. Emissions of formaldehyde are regulated for existing, new, 
and reconstructed curing ovens. Particulate matter serves as a 
surrogate for metal HAPs and CO is a surrogate for COS. In addition to 
being a HAP itself, formaldehyde serves as a surrogate for phenol. A 
numerical emission limit for PM expressed in kilograms per megagram 
(kg/Mg) or pound per ton (lb/ton) of melt is promulgated in the final 
rule. For CO or formaldehyde, the owner or operator may comply with 
percent removal or numerical emission limits. The emission limits for 
existing sources and new sources are presented below.

             Summary of Emission Limits For Existing Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Source                     Pollutant           Emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cupola.....................  PM........................  0.05 kg/Mg
                                                          (0.10 lb/ton)
                                                          of melt.
Curing oven................  Formaldehyde..............  0.03 kg/Mg
                                                          (0.06 lb/ton)
                                                          of melt or 80
                                                          percent
                                                          formaldehyde
                                                          removal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Summary of Emission Limits For New and Reconstructed Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Source                     Pollutant           Emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cupola.....................  PM........................  0.05 kg/Mg
                                                          (0.10 lb/ton)
                                                          of melt.
                             CO........................  0.05 kg/Mg
                                                          (0.10 lb/ton)
                                                          of melt or 99
                                                          percent CO
                                                          removal.
Curing oven................  Formaldehyde..............  0.03 kg/Mg
                                                          (0.06 lb/ton)
                                                          of melt or 80
                                                          percent
                                                          formaldehyde
                                                          removal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The owner or operator must also comply with operating limits. 
Operating limits for cupolas are as follows:
    (1) Within one hour after the alarm on a bag leak detection system 
sounds, the owner or operator must begin, and complete in a timely 
manner, corrective actions as specified in their operations, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
    (2) When the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more 
than

[[Page 29492]]

five percent of the total operating time in a six-month reporting 
period, the owner or operator must develop and implement a written 
quality improvement plan (QIP) consistent with the compliance assurance 
monitoring requirements in Sec. 64.8(b)-(d) of 40 CFR part 64 (62 FR 
54900, October 22, 1997).
    (3) For each new or reconstructed cupola, the owner or operator 
must maintain the operating temperature of the thermal incinerator such 
that the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period 
never falls below the average temperature established during the 
performance test.
    The owner or operator must meet the following operating limits for 
curing ovens:
    (1) The owner or operator must maintain the free-formaldehyde 
content of each resin lot and formaldehyde content of each binder 
formulation at or below the specification ranges of the resin and 
binder used during the performance test.
    (2) The owner or operator must maintain the operating temperature 
of each thermal incinerator such that the average operating temperature 
for each three-hour block period never falls below the average 
temperature established during the performance test.

C. Compliance and Performance Test Provisions

    For existing sources, compliance with the standards must be 
demonstrated no later than three years from the effective date of the 
final rule. An extension for a fourth year may be granted by the 
Administrator under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act if necessary for 
the installation of controls. For new and reconstructed sources, any 
control devices or monitoring equipment necessary to meet the standards 
must be installed. Performance testing must be completed and compliance 
with all requirements of the final rule must be demonstrated by the 
dates in Sec. 63.7 of the general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR 
part 63. On and after these dates, the owner or operator must comply 
with the standards. The standards will apply at all times except during 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
    A performance test is required to demonstrate initial compliance 
with the percent removal or numerical emissions limits for cupolas and 
curing ovens. The performance test must be conducted while operating at 
the maximum production rate and must consist of three test runs. All 
monitoring systems and equipment must be installed, operational, and 
properly calibrated prior to the performance tests. To comply with the 
CO or formaldehyde emission limit for a cupola or curing oven 
controlled by a thermal incinerator, or the PM limit for a fabric 
filter-controlled cupola, measurements are made at the outlet of the 
control device. If the owner or operator elects to comply with the 
percent removal emission limit for CO or formaldehyde, measurements are 
required at the inlet and outlet of the control device.
    The owner or operator is required to measure and record the amount 
of raw materials, excluding coke, charged into and melted in each 
cupola during each performance test run, determine the average hourly 
melt rate for each performance test run, and determine the arithmetic 
average of the average hourly melt rates associated with the three 
performance test runs. The average hourly melt rate of the three 
performance test runs is used to determine compliance.
    The owner or operator must conduct the performance test for each 
curing oven while manufacturing the product that requires a binder 
formulation made with the resin containing the highest free-
formaldehyde content specification range. During the performance test, 
the owner or operator must record the free-formaldehyde content 
specification range of the resin used and the formulation of the binder 
used, including formaldehyde content and binder specification.
    During the performance test for each cupola that uses a thermal 
incinerator to comply with the emission limit for CO and each curing 
oven that uses a thermal incinerator to comply with the formaldehyde 
emission limit, the owner or operator is required to establish the 
average operating temperature of the incinerator. The owner or operator 
must continuously measure the operating temperature, determine the 
average temperatures in consecutive 15-minute blocks, determine the 
arithmetic average of the 15-minute block temperatures for each 
performance test run, and determine the arithmetic average of the 
average operating temperatures associated with the three performance 
test runs.
    With prior approval from the Administrator, operating limits 
established for control devices or processes during the initial 
performance tests and used to monitor compliance may be expanded by 
conducting additional performance tests to demonstrate compliance at 
the new levels. Also, owners or operators of curing ovens may conduct 
short-term experimental production runs without conducting additional 
performance tests with prior approval from the Administrator.

D. Monitoring Requirements

    Each fabric filter used on a cupola must be equipped with a bag 
leak detection system having an audible alarm that automatically sounds 
when an increase in particulate emissions above a predetermined level 
is detected. The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate 
plant personnel will be able to hear it. Such a device serves as an 
indicator of the performance of the fabric filter and provides an 
indication of when maintenance of the fabric filter is needed. The rule 
requires that in response to an alarm, corrective actions be initiated 
within one hour, and completed in a timely manner, according to the 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The owner or operator is 
in violation of this operating limit upon a failure to begin corrective 
actions within one hour of the alarm.
    When the alarm is activated for more than five percent of the total 
operating time during a six-month reporting period, the owner or 
operator must develop and implement a written QIP consistent with the 
compliance assurance monitoring requirements in Sec. 64.8(b)-(d) of 40 
CFR part 64 (62 FR 54900, October 22, 1997). Failure to develop and 
implement a written QIP that is consistent with the compliance 
assurance monitoring requirements is a violation of this operating 
limit.
    Each owner or operator of an affected curing oven must monitor and 
record the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the 
formulation of each batch of binder used, including formaldehyde 
content. Following the performance test, the owner or operator must 
maintain the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the 
formaldehyde content of each binder formulation at or below the 
specification ranges of the resin and binder used during the 
performance test. If the free-formaldehyde content of a resin lot or 
the formaldehyde content of a binder formulation exceeds the 
performance test specification ranges, the owner or operator is in 
violation of this operating limit.
    For each thermal incinerator used to control emissions from 
affected cupolas or curing ovens, the owner or operator must 
continuously measure the operating temperature of the incinerator. The 
owner or operator must determine the average temperatures in 
consecutive 15-minute blocks and then determine the arithmetic average 
of the 15-minute averages for each one-hour period. The average 
operating temperature of the

[[Page 29493]]

incinerator is based on the arithmetic average of the one-hour average 
temperatures for each consecutive three-hour period. Following the 
performance test, the owner or operator is required to maintain the 
operating temperature so that the average operating temperature for 
each three-hour block period never falls below the average temperature 
established during the performance test. If the average temperature in 
any three-hour block period falls below the average established during 
the performance test, the owner or operator is in violation of this 
operating limit. The owner or operator must operate and maintain each 
incinerator as specified in their operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan. Procedures for properly operating and maintaining an 
incinerator must include an annual inspection.
    Under today's rule, the owner or operator may change control device 
and process operating parameter levels established during performance 
tests and used to monitor compliance. The owner or operator must notify 
the Administrator and upon approval, conduct additional performance 
tests at the proposed new control device or process operating parameter 
levels to verify compliance with the applicable emission limits.

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for NESHAP 
are included in the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The 
general provisions include requirements for: (1) Initial 
notification(s) of applicability, notification of performance test, and 
notification of compliance status; (2) a report of performance test 
results; (3) a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, including a 
semiannual report when a reportable event occurs and the steps in the 
plan were not followed; and (4) semiannual reports of deviations from 
established parameters. If deviations from established parameters are 
reported, the owner or operator must report quarterly until a request 
to return the reporting frequency to semiannual is approved.
    Owners or operators of affected cupolas and curing ovens must 
submit an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as part of their 
application for a title V permit. The plan must include procedures for 
the proper operation and maintenance of processes and control devices 
used to comply with the emission limits, including an annual inspection 
of each thermal incinerator. The plan also must identify the process or 
control device parameters to be monitored for compliance; the 
established operating levels or ranges for each process or control 
device; a monitoring schedule; the corrective actions to be taken when 
process or control device parameters deviate from the levels 
established during performance testing; and procedures for keeping 
records to document compliance.
    In addition to requirements of the general provisions, the final 
rule specifies additional records to be kept by the owner or operator. 
The owner or operator is required to maintain records of the following, 
as applicable:
    (1) Cupola production (melt) rate;
    (2) bag leak detection system alarms, the date and time of the 
alarm, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the alarm, 
an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the cause of 
the alarm was corrected;
    (3) free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder 
formulation, including formaldehyde content, of each binder batch used 
in the manufacture of bonded products; and
    (4) incinerator operating temperature and results of incinerator 
inspections, including periods when the average temperature in any 
three-hour block period fell below the average temperature established 
during the performance test and periods when the inspection identified 
incinerator components in need of repair or maintenance, the date and 
time of the problem, when corrective actions were intiated, the cause 
of the problem, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and 
when the cause of the problem was corrected.
    The NESHAP general provisions require that records be maintained 
for at least five years from the date of each record. The owner or 
operator must retain the records on site for at least two years but may 
retain the records off site the remaining three years. The records may 
be retained on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer, on computer 
disks, or on magnetic tape disks. Reports may be made on paper or on 
labeled computer disks using commonly available and compatible computer 
software.

IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

    Changes have been incorporated into the final NESHAP for mineral 
wool production facilities in response to comments on the proposed 
rule, with the exception of the format change to plain language. A 
number of clarifications to the proposal language are reflected in the 
final rule as a result of this question and answer format. The 
principal changes made since proposal are summarized below. Additional 
discussion of the changes and the rationale for these changes is 
presented in section VI of this preamble.

A. Definitions

    In response to public comments, minor clarifying changes were made 
to the definition of mineral wool. Also, a definition for new source, 
that incorporates the May 8, 1997 date that the NESHAP was proposed, 
was added to the list of terms used in the final rule.

B. Standards

    The final rule incorporates some changes to the proposed rule 
regarding emission standards. Depending on available control and 
monitoring technologies for particular source categories, emission 
limits, as well as operating limits, are set forth as enforceable 
regulatory requirements. In addition to emission limits, operating 
limits are also included as part of the final rule regulating mineral 
wool production facilities. These operating limits were included in the 
proposed rule as monitoring requirements and have been moved into the 
sections containing the emission limits in the final rule. These 
operating limits specify the established requirements which are 
enforceable and will be used to determine compliance.
    As a result of additional PM emissions data from fabric filter-
controlled cupolas, the proposed PM emission limit of 0.03 kg/Mg (0.06 
lb/ton) has been revised to 0.05 kg/Mg (0.10 lb/ton) in the final rule. 
The additional data considered in making this determination are for 
three cupolas controlled by fabric filters with identical parameters as 
those previously determined to be representative of the MACT floor for 
existing and new cupolas. An emissions limit of 0.05 kg/Mg (0.10 lb/
ton) represents a level that can be achieved by the fabric filter-
controlled cupola upon which the proposed PM emission limit was based, 
as well as by these three fabric filter-controlled cupolas which are 
also representative of the MACT floor.

C. Performance Test Provisions

    A few changes were made to the performance test requirements in the 
proposed rule. Revisions were made to clarify the proposed requirements 
for performance testing by specifying in the final rule how to 
establish the average operating temperature of an incinerator. The 
proposed provision that would allow the owner or operator of curing 
ovens subject to the NESHAP to conduct short-term experimental 
production

[[Page 29494]]

runs without conducting additional performance tests was revised. The 
final rule clarifies that the process modifications referred to in the 
proposed rule mean pollution prevention process modifications.
    The proposed rule required the use of method 5 for determining the 
concentration of PM with a minimum performance test run time of two 
hours and a minimum sample volume of 2.5 dry standard cubic meters 
(dscm) (90 dry standard cubic feet (dscf)). The final rule specifies a 
minimum performance test run time of three hours and a minimum sample 
volume of 3.75 dscm (135 dscf). These revisions are the result of re-
evaluation of the test method procedures in response to public comments 
regarding the level of the proposed emission limit for PM, and are to 
ensure that an adequate amount of PM is captured on the filter for 
analysis and subsequent compliance determination.

D. Monitoring Requirements

    Several changes were made to the monitoring requirements in the 
proposed rule. The final rule does not include the proposed 
requirements to maintain the average hourly melt rate so that it does 
not exceed the average melt rate established during the performance 
test by more than 20 percent for more than five percent of the total 
operating time in each six-month reporting period, and to do a repeat 
performance test at the higher melt rate if the average hourly melt 
rate exceeds the average melt rate established during the performance 
test by more than 20 percent for more than five percent of the total 
operating time in a six-month reporting period. The EPA determined that 
these monitoring requirements are not necessary because compliance with 
the PM standards will be assessed through use of a bag leak detection 
system; compliance with the CO standards will be assessed through 
monitoring incinerator operating temperature; and compliance with the 
formaldehyde standards will be assessed through monitoring incinerator 
operating temperature, monitoring free-formaldehyde content of resin, 
and monitoring binder formulation. The average melt rate must still be 
determined during each performance test in order to assess compliance 
with the emissions standards. As a recordkeeping requirement, the final 
rule continues to require that records of cupola melt rate be 
maintained.
    As proposed, each fabric filter used on a cupola must be equipped 
with a bag leak detection system having an audible alarm that 
automatically sounds when an increase in particulate emissions above a 
predetermined level is detected. The final rule clarifies that each 
triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, operated, 
adjusted, and maintained according to the EPA's ``Fabric Filter Bag 
Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997) which is 
available on the TTN under Emission Measurement Center (EMC), 
Continuous Emission Monitoring. Other bag leak detection systems must 
be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained according to the 
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. In response 
to public comments and to maintain consistency with sensitivity (range) 
specifications in other regulations, the final rule requires that the 
bag leak detection system be capable of detecting PM emissions at 
concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains 
per actual cubic foot). To maintain consistency with bag leak detection 
system requirements in other regulations and to allow owners and 
operators flexibility to make necessary bag leak detection system 
adjustments, the final rule specifies that following initial 
adjustment, the owner or operator may adjust the range, averaging 
period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time as specified in the 
approved operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The final rule 
further specifies that in no event may the range be increased by more 
than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365 day 
period unless a responsible official, as defined in Sec. 63.2 of the 
general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, certifies in writing 
to the Administrator that the fabric filter has been inspected and 
found to be in good operating condition. The final rule clarifies that 
the alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant personnel 
will be able to hear it and that in response to the sounding of an 
alarm, the owner or operator must complete corrective actions in a 
timely manner.
    Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator would monitor and 
record the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder 
formulation, including the formaldehyde content of each binder batch, 
and would maintain the formaldehyde content of each binder formulation 
at or below the level established during the performance test. The 
final rule clarifies that the owner or operator must maintain the free-
formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the formaldehyde content of 
each binder formulation at or below the specification ranges of the 
resin and binder used during the performance test. The use of ranges in 
the final rule accommodates the fact that resins and binders are 
produced in accordance with specification ranges rather than levels as 
proposed.
    As proposed, the owner or operator would obtain, at a minimum, 
valid three-hour block average incinerator operating temperatures for 
75 percent of the operating hours per day for 90 percent of the 
operating days per six-month reporting period. This requirement is not 
included in the final rule in order to maintain consistency with the 
compliance assurance monitoring final rule (62 FR 54899, October 22, 
1997), which was revised based on comments received on its proposal and 
now requires monitoring devices to be operational at all times that the 
process is operational. Revisions were also made to clarify the 
proposed requirements for monitoring incinerator operating temperature 
by specifying in the final rule how to determine the average operating 
temperature.
    Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator could change a 
control device or process operating parameter level established during 
the performance test by conducting additional performance tests at the 
new parameter level. The final rule clarifies that the owner or 
operator must notify the Administrator of the desire to expand the 
range of a control device or process operating parameter level, and 
upon approval, conduct additional performance tests at the proposed new 
parameter levels before operating at these levels to verify compliance 
with the emission limits.

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    A few changes were made since proposal to the notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The final rule clarifies 
that notifications of performance tests must be submitted to the 
Administrator at least 60 days prior to the performance test. The final 
rule also clarifies what elements are required to be included in 
performance test reports. The proposed rule required an operations, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan for each affected source that would 
contain information on the proper operation and maintenance of control 
devices, the parameters to be monitored for compliance and their 
established operating levels, a monitoring schedule, corrective actions 
to be taken when parameters deviate from the levels established during 
performance testing, and procedures for keeping records to document 
compliance. The final rule

[[Page 29495]]

specifies some example corrective actions for bag leak detection system 
alarms that may be included in the operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plan. Consistent with the general provisions requirements to 
operate and maintain air pollution control equipment in a manner 
consistent with good air pollution control practices, the final rule 
clarifies that the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan 
procedures for properly operating and maintaining control devices must 
include, where applicable, an inspection of each incinerator at least 
once per year. The final rule also clarifies that records of when 
corrective actions were initiated and when the cause of the problem was 
corrected must be maintained.

V. Summary of Impacts

    The impacts estimated to be attributable to the final rule are the 
same as those estimated to be attributable to the proposed rule. 
Nationwide emissions of metal HAPs from mineral wool production cupolas 
are estimated to be 1.0 Mg/yr (1.1 tpy) at the current level of 
control. Existing PM emissions are estimated to be 239 Mg/yr (263 tpy). 
Implementation of the final rule will reduce nationwide metal HAP and 
PM emissions from existing cupolas by 0.91 Mg/yr (1.0 tpy) and 186 Mg/
yr (205 tpy), respectively. Formaldehyde and phenol emissions from 
existing curing ovens are estimated to be 54 Mg/yr (59 tpy) and 14 Mg/
yr (16 tpy), respectively. Nationwide emissions of formaldehyde and 
phenol will be reduced by about 30 Mg/yr (34 tpy) and 14 Mg/yr (16 
tpy), respectively, as a result of this final rule. Although the EPA 
does not anticipate any new cupolas or curing ovens within the next 
five years, installation of a new cupola with a 7.3 megagram per hour 
(8 ton per hour) capacity would result in estimated reductions of COS 
and CO emissions by 104 Mg/yr (114 tpy) and 1,256 Mg/yr (1,384 tpy), 
respectively, in addition to metal HAP and PM reductions.
    Because this rule is based on the use of fabric filters and thermal 
incinerators, there are no water pollution impacts. Solid waste 
generated by fabric filters in the form of ash is disposed of by 
landfilling. With the addition of fabric filters to five cupolas, the 
amount of solid waste is expected to increase by about 350 Mg/yr (390 
tpy) from the current level of 24,800 Mg/yr (27,300 tpy) nationwide. 
The rule is estimated to have no significant effect on energy 
consumption.
    The total nationwide capital and annualized costs for existing 
cupolas under the final rule are estimated to be $1.5 million and 
$608,900/yr, respectively. These costs represent the addition of fabric 
filters to five cupolas but do not include the monitoring costs of bag 
leak detection systems required on all affected cupolas. Capital and 
annualized costs for a bag leak detection system are estimated at 
$9,100 and $1,800/yr for each affected cupola, respectively.
    The total nationwide capital cost of complying with the 
requirements for existing curing ovens is estimated to be $795,800 with 
a nationwide annual cost of $641,600. These costs result from the 
addition of thermal incinerators to two curing ovens.
    Total nationwide capital costs for the standard are estimated at 
$2.6 million and nationwide annual costs are estimated at $1.4 million, 
including installation, operation, and maintenance of emission control 
and monitoring systems.
    Under the final rule, market-level price increases are estimated to 
range from 0.5 percent to 2.1 percent, resulting in quantity 
adjustments of -0.59 percent and -1.71 percent, respectively. The 
decreases in quantity demanded may lead to the loss of approximately 
nine jobs. There is no indication that the costs associated with 
achieving the reductions required by the final rule will cause facility 
closure.

VI. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

    The EPA proposed the NESHAP for the mineral wool production source 
category on May 8, 1997 (62 FR 25370). A 60-day comment period from May 
8, 1997 to July 7, 1997, was provided to accept written comments from 
the public on the proposed rule.
    The EPA received a total of three comment letters regarding the 
proposed NESHAP for mineral wool production. A copy of each comment 
letter is available for public inspection in the docket for the 
rulemaking (Docket No. A-95-33; see the ADDRESSES section of this 
document for information on inspecting the docket). The EPA has had 
follow-up discussions with commenters regarding specific issues 
initially raised in their written comments that were submitted to the 
EPA during the comment period. Copies of correspondence and other 
information exchanged between the EPA and the commenters during the 
post-comment period are available for public inspection in the docket 
for the rulemaking.
    All of the comments received by the EPA were reviewed and carefully 
considered by the EPA. Changes to the rule were made where the EPA 
determined it to be appropriate. A summary of responses to major 
comments received on the proposed rule is presented below. Additional 
discussion of the EPA's responses to public comments is presented in 
the document ``Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Mineral Wool 
Production NESHAP'' (docket item V-C-2).

A. General

    Comment: One commenter stated that there have been some shutdowns 
in the industry that affect the information presented in the preamble 
to the proposed rule. Currently, there are 15 mineral wool production 
facilities located in eight states. Five of the 15 plants manufacture 
bonded products and contain a total of ten cupolas and five curing 
ovens. Ten active plants manufacture only nonbonded products, with a 
total of 21 cupolas. Thus, the total industry currently operates 31 
cupolas and five curing ovens, rather than the 36 cupolas and six 
curing ovens reported by the EPA in the Federal Register document. The 
commenter further stated that six of the ten companies in the mineral 
wool production industry are small businesses, rather than seven of the 
ten companies being small businesses as stated in the EPA's Federal 
Register document.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges the information regarding shutdowns 
and changes in the industry profile as noted by the commenter. The EPA 
believes, however, that temporary shutdown of production lines is not 
unusual in this industry because the manufacture of mineral wool 
products is order-driven, and that these lines could be restarted in 
the future. The EPA, therefore, has not made any changes to the 
estimated impacts resulting from the rule. When considering these 
changes in the industry profile, the technology representative of the 
best controlled cupolas and curing ovens remains fabric filters and 
thermal incinerators, respectively. Therefore, these changes do not 
affect the proposed MACT floors for cupolas and curing ovens. Regarding 
the number of small businesses within the source category, two separate 
sources of information obtained by the EPA indicate that the company in 
question has less than 750 employees. Thus, the EPA continues to 
believe that seven of the ten mineral wool manufacturing companies are 
small businesses. No revisions to the final rule are necessary as a 
result of these comments.

[[Page 29496]]

B. Definitions

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``bonded 
product'' be amended to read ``Bonded product means mineral wool to 
which a hazardous air pollutant-based binder (e.g., phenol, 
formaldehyde) has been applied and cured.''
    Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided 
to leave the definition of ``bonded product'' as it is in the proposed 
rule to allow the broadest coverage of this term. Once binder has been 
applied to mineral wool, whether cured or not, hazardous air 
pollutants, which are the focus of the definition, have been introduced 
into the production process.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``mineral 
wool'' be amended to read ``Mineral wool means a fibrous glassy 
substance made from natural rock (such as basalt), recycled blast 
furnace slag, or a mixture of rock and slag; it may be used as a 
thermal or acoustical insulation material or in the manufacturing of 
other products to provide structural strength, sound absorbency, fire 
resistance, or other uses.''
    Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided 
to modify the definition of ``mineral wool'' by adding ``or other 
required properties'' rather than ``or other uses'' as suggested by the 
commenter. The EPA believes that this modification adequately expands 
the definition of ``mineral wool'' as the commenter requested, as well 
as provides more clarification than the commenter's suggested revision. 
The EPA does not believe it is necessary or technically correct to add 
``recycled'' to the definition.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of ``cupola'' 
be amended to read ``Cupola means a melting system consisting of raw 
material bins, weighing and charging equipment, electrical power 
system, controls, a large water cooled metal vessel with water cooling 
system, combustion air fans, duct work, tuyeres and oxygen enrichment 
system with combustion air preheater, molten slag handling and spinning 
equipment, off gas duct work, fan and a structure to support and house 
the melting system. The cupola is charged with a mixture of fuel, rock 
and/or blast furnace slag and additives; as the fuel is burned, the 
charged mixture is heated to a molten state, flows from the metal 
vessel and is spun into mineral wool.''
    Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided 
to leave the definition of ``cupola'' as it is in the proposed rule to 
allow the broadest coverage of this term. The EPA does not agree that 
all of the items in the commenter's suggested definition are part of a 
cupola. It is the EPA's intention to define ``cupola'' in general terms 
in order to cover all possible configurations. Some configurations may 
not include all of the items included in the commenter's suggested 
definition.

C. Selection of Emission Standards

    Comment: One commenter strongly supported the subcategorization in 
the proposed rule of plants with and without bonded lines. The 
commenter further stated that it is within the EPA's authority under 
the Act to define appropriate subcategories and that the differences 
between plants with and without bonded lines are substantial and 
consistent with the types of differences that the EPA has used to 
subcategorize other source categories.
    Response: No changes in the final rule are necessary as a result of 
this comment.
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposed MACT floor for 
new and existing sources.
    Response: No changes in the final rule are necessary as a result of 
this comment.
    Comment: One commenter strongly supported the EPA's proposed 
decision not to require an incinerator as above the MACT floor control 
for existing cupolas. Reasons cited by the commenter are that a cupola 
incinerator requirement would be unduly costly and economically 
devastating to an industry that produces an environmentally beneficial 
product using a waste product that would otherwise be landfilled, that 
a cupola incinerator requirement would not provide any significant 
health benefits, and that a cupola incinerator may even have negative 
net health impacts due to secondary emissions of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
    Response: No changes in the final rule are necessary as a result of 
this comment.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should require control 
of CO and COS emissions from existing cupolas. The commenter further 
stated that thermal oxidizers provide excellent control of cupola CO/
COS emissions and that the EPA incorrectly concluded that the costs and 
ancillary emissions from thermal oxidizers are too high for the EPA to 
require their use on existing cupolas. The commenter stated that in 
fact, thermal oxidizer costs have been declining in real terms, and 
NOX emissions from thermal oxidizers currently are 
guaranteed at very low levels. Further, the commenter believes that the 
EPA's subcategorization of mineral wool production facilities based on 
the production of bonded products, and leading to MACT floors for 
cupola CO/COS emissions of no control, is inappropriate. Where 
subcategorization does not result in distinct emission limits or 
floors, the commenter believes that regulatory simplicity dictates that 
it should be avoided. The commenter also believes that the MACT floor 
for existing cupolas does call for thermal oxidizer-based limits given 
that the MACT floor level of control would be the use of thermal 
incineration or its equivalent in the absence of subcategorization.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that subcategorization is either 
prohibited by the statute or unwise as a policy matter. While 
regulatory simplicity may be a consideration in how the EPA exercises 
its discretion, the statute does not dictate that this consideration 
supersede other legitimate considerations in establishing 
subcategories. As the EPA has noted in several rulemakings, the Act 
provides the EPA with substantial discretion to consider various 
factors when determining whether subcategorization is appropriate (see, 
e.g., 59 FR 29196-29200, June 6, 1994, Federal Register notice on 
determination of MACT floor for medium storage vessels at facilities 
subject to the hazardous organic NESHAP which indicates that the EPA 
may consider whether production processes used at different sources are 
sufficiently distinct to justify the creation of a subcategory).
    In considering whether it is appropriate to subcategorize in this 
rule, the EPA continues to believe the basis for subcategorizing stated 
in the preamble to the proposed rule is valid (see 62 FR 25376-25377, 
May 8, 1997). Another commenter supported the EPA's view that it has 
substantial discretion to subcategorize and agreed with the EPA's 
decision to subcategorize in the proposed rule. Further, the EPA has 
taken several steps to accomplish the goal of regulatory simplicity in 
this rulemaking. For example, the EPA has emphasized readability in the 
plain language format of the final rule. In addition, the EPA has 
promulgated the cupola standards in one section, rather than in 
separate sections for each subcategory. Therefore, the EPA believes it 
has accomplished the goal of making the regulations as simple as 
possible while at the same time recognizing appropriate distinctions 
between the different types of facilities in the industry through 
subcategorization.

[[Page 29497]]

    Regarding the commenter's statement about thermal oxidizer costs 
and ancillary emissions, the commenter did not provide any cost or 
NOX emissions data to substantiate the assertion that a 
requirement to install thermal oxidizers on existing cupolas would be 
cost effective. The EPA continues to believe that the data in the 
record does not indicate that CO/COS controls are cost effective or 
otherwise appropriate for either subcategory. The EPA has not made any 
changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposing thermal 
incineration as the MACT floor for both new and existing curing ovens 
and new cupolas. The commenter further stated that significantly higher 
control efficiencies can be achieved beyond the 80 percent discussed in 
the proposed rule with the use of catalytic incineration or oxidation 
and, in fact, volatile organic compound (VOC) reductions in excess of 
98 percent can be achieved. According to the commenter, catalytic 
oxidation is a cost-effective control option which has been used for 
many years in diverse applications and the commenter believes that 
significant further VOC reductions can be cost-effectively achieved by 
using the technology to also control the emissions from existing 
cupolas. The commenter stated that catalytic incineration minimizes the 
temperature required for the destruction of VOCs and consequently, 
minimizes the production of NOX and sulfur oxide 
(SOX) emissions from the combustion of sulfur bearing fuels. 
Another commenter stated that thermal oxidizers or equivalent controls 
can easily provide the proposed 80 percent reduction in curing oven 
formaldehyde emissions and suggested that the EPA mention the 
capabilities of regenerative thermal oxidizers to reduce fuel costs in 
the preamble to the final rule.
    Response: Neither commenter provided costs or data indicating 
destruction efficiency of catalytic oxidizers or regenerative thermal 
oxidizers on a mineral wool cupola or curing oven. In addition, 
catalytic oxidizers and regenerative thermal oxidizers are not 
demonstrated in the mineral wool production industry. The proposed 80 
percent reduction in curing oven formaldehyde emissions is based upon 
test data from a recuperative thermal incinerator representative of 
MACT for curing ovens in the mineral wool production industry. The EPA 
has not made any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed PM emission 
standard for existing cupolas be increased significantly from the 
proposed limit of 0.06 lb/ton of melt to 0.9 lb/ton to ensure that 
cupolas equipped with a fabric filter (also known as a baghouse) can 
comply with the standard. The commenter believes that emissions tests 
upon which the EPA based the proposed PM standard involved invalid 
tests that resulted in unrepresentative PM emission levels. According 
to the commenter, the baghouse had defects that resulted in the 
improper influx of air into the outlet stream, thereby diluting the 
observed PM emission level. The commenter stated that approximately 70-
90 percent more air was emitted at the outlet than entered the intake 
and that this defect prevents the test results from being used to 
establish emission levels representative of a properly functioning 
baghouse. The commenter also noted that the baghouse differential 
pressures varied widely during the emissions tests, which could 
indicate a number of problems with the baghouse including air leaks or 
problems with bag cleaning.
    Response: The commenter's request to increase the proposed PM 
emission standard to ensure that cupolas equipped with fabric filters 
can comply with the standard indicates a misunderstanding of the nature 
of section 112 of the Act, as well as the MACT determination process, 
which requires that emission standards for existing sources be set not 
less stringent than the level achieved by the average of the best 
performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 
30 sources. This determination is made assuming that some sources will 
need to install new emission controls or improve performance of their 
existing controls to meet a standard that is not less stringent than 
the MACT floor.
    Regarding the commenter's statement that baghouse defects resulted 
in improper influx of air into the outlet stream and dilution of the PM 
emission level, dilution air is of no significance given that the 
proposed PM emission standard is in pounds of PM per ton of melt. 
Emissions data from the baghouse-controlled cupola indicates a PM 
removal efficiency of about 99.8 percent, and therefore, casts doubt 
upon the commenter's assertion that the data are not representative of 
a properly functioning baghouse. In addition, EPA believes that if the 
commenter's statement about baghouse operational problems during the 
emissions testing upon which the proposed PM standard is based 
accurately assessed the situation, then the emission test results would 
be biased high and the emission standard would, therefore, be biased 
high. This certainly does not support raising the limit to an even 
higher level. When provided the opportunity to review the emissions 
test report, the facility did not have any comments regarding baghouse 
defects resulting in the improper influx of air into the outlet stream 
and diluted PM emission levels. Furthermore, when the EPA discussed the 
proposed PM emission standard of 0.06 lb/ton with industry 
representatives and State and local environmental agency 
representatives prior to proposal, no concerns were expressed. In 
addition, the commenter provided no basis for a PM emission standard of 
0.9 lb/ton of melt. Based on the above discussion, the EPA has not made 
any changes to the proposed PM emission standard as a result of these 
comments.
    During a follow-up meeting with the commenter (see Docket Item IV-
E-1), held at the commenter's request to provide an opportunity to 
present to the EPA clarification of the comments and issues of concern 
regarding the proposed emission standards, the commenter provided the 
EPA with additional PM emissions data from fabric filter-controlled 
cupolas. These data are from the Emission Factor Documentation for AP-
42 Section 8.16, Mineral Wool Manufacturing. These PM data are from 
three fabric filter-controlled cupolas at the same facility as the 
fabric filter-controlled cupola upon which the EPA based its proposed 
PM emission standard. Because the parameters for these three fabric 
filters are the same as those parameters previously determined to be 
representative of the MACT floor for existing and new sources and 
because these cupolas are at the same facility as the cupola tested by 
the EPA and would therefore experience similar operating and 
maintenance practices, the EPA has decided that the PM data from these 
three fabric filter-controlled cupolas should be considered in 
development of the final rule. When data from these three additional 
fabric filter-controlled cupolas are included in the data base, PM data 
representative of the MACT floor for cupolas now consists of the 
following: 0.04 lb/ton, 0.05 lb/ton, 0.065 lb/ton, and 0.099 lb/ton. 
Based on these data, the EPA has determined that a PM emission limit of 
0.10 lb/ton represents a level that can be achieved by all four cupolas 
controlled with well designed, operated, and maintained fabric filters, 
and is representative of the MACT floor in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter stated that emissions data from the second 
facility in the EPA test program indicate that PM emissions from a 
cupola also

[[Page 29498]]

controlled with a baghouse averaged 0.6 lb/ton of melt, an order of 
magnitude higher than the proposed PM standard of 0.06 lb/ton. Thus, 
emissions from this facility would not meet the EPA's proposed PM 
emission standard, even though the facility is equipped with the 
control technology that represents the MACT floor. The commenter 
acknowledged that the PM emissions data from this facility includes 
emissions from both the cupola and fiber collection process but stated 
that the facility is nevertheless required to meet the emission limit 
set by the EPA. The commenter further stated that at least one other 
mineral wool company vents the fiber collection process as well as the 
cupola through a baghouse and it would be infeasible for this facility 
to meet the proposed PM standard. Further, it would be very expensive 
and counter-productive with respect to emission levels to force the 
facility to rearrange its baghouse operation to exclude the fiber 
collection process air. Because it is possible that the collection 
chamber may require additional PM controls in the future as a result, 
for example, of the EPA's recently proposed PM2.5 ambient 
standard, an additional reason to set the cupola PM emission standard 
at a higher level is therefore to permit the facility to meet the 
proposed PM emission standard with its current configuration, and to 
provide other companies additional flexibility to reduce PM emissions 
in the future.
    Response: The EPA cannot foresee or accommodate all configurations 
of processes ducted to a common control device. Section 63.7 of the 
general provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 allows the use of 
alternative test methods and procedures based on review and approval by 
the EPA of relevant supporting information. The supporting data and 
information are submitted as part of the site specific test plan and 
are evaluated for approval by the EPA on a case-by-case basis. Because 
all facilities have the opportunity to request alternative methods and 
procedures for testing and demonstrating compliance with the cupola 
emission standards, the EPA again believes the proposed PM emission 
standard should not be raised to consider emissions not regulated by 
the MACT standards, and has therefore, not made any changes to the rule 
as a result of these comments.
    Comment: One commenter stated that other mineral wool manufacturing 
companies indicated that a 0.06 lb/ton PM standard would not be 
feasible with their existing installed baghouse controls. Earlier data 
collected by the EPA as part of a screening study not associated with 
the MACT standards development process found controlled particulate 
emissions from industry tests of six mineral wool cupolas equipped with 
baghouses ranged from 0.0044 to 0.70 lb/ton, while the average 
controlled emission level was 0.42 lb/ton. The commenter further stated 
that because most if not all mineral wool facilities will be unable to 
meet the proposed 0.06 lb/ton of melt PM standard on a consistent 
basis, the proposed standard is inconsistent with the intended 
objective of basing the standard on the existing baghouse technology 
installed by many facilities that represent the MACT floor.
    Response: The EPA reviewed the 1980 document ``Source Category 
Survey: Mineral Wool Manufacturing Industry'' which contains the 
earlier data referred to by the commenter. Upon review, it was noted 
that only one facility with a cupola controlled by a baghouse as 
referenced in the 1980 report is still operational and it is not 
apparent from the study what the PM emissions associated with the 
cupola at this facility were. It is apparent, however, from an 
information collection request response submitted by this facility to 
the EPA in 1993, that new baghouses were installed in 1986 and 1987 for 
each of their two operating cupolas. Thus, the test data supplied by 
this facility for the 1980 study is not relevant. The commenter did not 
provide any data on baghouse design, maintenance, or operation 
characteristics to show that the facilities tabulated in the 1980 study 
were representative of MACT.
    The commenter's statement that the proposed standard is 
inconsistent with the intended objective of basing the standard on the 
existing baghouse technology installed by many facilities that 
represent the MACT floor mischaracterizes the intent of the EPA and of 
section 112 of the Act. As previously stated, the statute requires the 
level of control to be not less stringent than the average level 
achieved by the best performing five sources, rather than be based on 
what all facilities can achieve with their current control and 
maintenance practices. The Act, through requiring all sources to meet a 
standard that is not less stringent than the MACT floor, assumes that 
existing controls may need to be replaced or upgraded at some sources. 
In many cases, bags within the fabric filter may need to be replaced 
and a more rigorous operation and maintenance plan may be necessary to 
meet the MACT. Accordingly, the EPA has decided that no changes in the 
final rule are necessary as a result of these comments.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed formaldehyde 
emission standard for existing curing ovens be increased significantly 
from 0.06 pounds of formaldehyde per ton of melt (lb/ton) to 0.4 lb/ton 
because the commenter has concerns that the proposed standard may not 
be consistently achieved by an incinerator on the curing oven. The 
commenter stated that for example, the EPA's data from one tested 
facility (Facility B) showed that formaldehyde emissions from a curing 
oven equipped with an incinerator were 0.4 lb/ton, which is almost an 
order of magnitude above the proposed formaldehyde standard. The 
commenter acknowledged that the EPA's background documentation explains 
that only a portion of Facility B's curing oven exhaust passes through 
the high temperature incinerator but nevertheless, the input 
formaldehyde concentration into Facility B's curing oven incinerator 
was still over six times higher (1.3 lb/ton) than the low measured 
formaldehyde input at the facility upon which the proposed emission 
standard is based (0.2 lb/ton) (Facility A). The commenter stated that 
because the Facility A input level was abnormally low, the low output 
after incineration may also not be representative of other curing 
ovens. The commenter further stated that assuming Facility B's curing 
oven incinerator is the least efficient of the three curing oven 
incinerators existing in the industry, Facility B would be the median 
of the 5 curing ovens remaining in the industry. Thus, the commenter 
concluded that the MACT floor should be set at the emission limit 
corresponding to Facility B's curing oven incinerator.
    Response: While the commenter characterizes the input formaldehyde 
concentration into Facility A's curing oven incinerator as strikingly 
low relative to the input formaldehyde concentration into Facility B's 
curing oven incinerator, the commenter did not submit data to indicate 
that the emissions measured for Facility A's curing oven incinerator 
are in error. The EPA recognized the potential variability in input 
formaldehyde, and for this reason proposed an alternative emission 
standard, also based on Facility A, requiring reduction of uncontrolled 
formaldehyde emissions by at least 80 percent. Regarding the 
commenter's concern that the proposed standards may not be consistently 
achieved by an incinerator, another commenter indicated that thermal 
oxidizers or equivalent controls can easily provide

[[Page 29499]]

the proposed 80 percent reduction in curing oven formaldehyde 
emissions. Furthermore, in the preamble to the proposed national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for wool fiberglass 
manufacturing (62 FR 15228), the EPA stated that emission test 
measurements demonstrate that a thermal incinerator installed at these 
facilities is at least 99 percent effective in the removal of 
formaldehyde and phenol from curing ovens. Additionally, under the 
relevant emission standard for Facility B, 80 percent removal would 
translate into a limit of 0.26 lb/ton of melt, not 0.4 lb/ton of melt 
as proposed by the commenter.
    Originally, Facility A's curing oven incinerator was selected as 
being representative of the MACT floor for existing sources and 
Facility B's curing oven incinerator was selected as being 
representative of MACT for new sources. These determinations were based 
on incinerator operating temperatures and gas residence times. After 
emissions testing was completed, the EPA decided to discount the data 
from Facility B because the curing oven incinerator was not operating 
properly as evidenced by a low formaldehyde removal efficiency of about 
69 percent. Also, discussions with Facility B personnel revealed that 
gas flows within the curing oven were not within design parameters 
during the emissions test. Based on the above information, the EPA 
determined that Facility A's curing oven incinerator represented MACT 
for existing and new sources. Accordingly, other facilities with curing 
ovens, including Facility B, will be required to install new 
incinerators, or replace or modify their existing incinerators, as 
necessary, to meet the curing oven formaldehyde emission standards. 
After consideration of these comments, the EPA has decided to leave the 
formaldehyde emissions standards at 0.06 lb/ton of melt and 80 percent 
reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde as in the proposed rule.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA include an emission 
limit for COS of 0.05 pounds of COS per ton of melt (lb/ton) as an 
alternative to proposed emission standards for new cupolas of 0.10 
pounds of CO per ton of melt (lb/ton) or 99 percent CO removal. The 
commenter stated that this alternative emission limit would give new 
sources in the future the flexibility to explore alternative methods to 
reduce COS through process modifications or other approaches. The 
commenter further stated that while they are not aware of any feasible 
process modifications that can significantly reduce COS at this time, 
it is possible that alternative designs or processes that reduce COS 
emissions may be developed in the future that could be feasible for a 
new plant. The commenter believes that because the relationship between 
CO and COS involves some fluctuation and uncertainty, a direct COS 
alternative would be helpful to encourage exploration of such 
alternative means of compliance in any future new mineral wool plants.
    Response: During development of the cupola emission standards, the 
EPA considered including an emission standard for COS for plants that 
choose to use process modifications, rather than thermal incineration, 
as a means of reducing COS emissions from new cupolas. When the EPA 
discussed this option with industry representatives, they considered 
this approach and strongly indicated, as the commenter does, that there 
are no feasible process modifications capable of reducing COS emissions 
to the level contemplated for a standard. In addition, the commenter 
provided no basis for a COS emission standard of 0.05 lb/ton of melt. 
Accordingly, the EPA has not made any changes to the rule as a result 
of this comment.

D. Monitoring

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the monitoring 
equipment for baghouses required to meet the proposed PM standard is 
overly sensitive, would be unduly costly, and would trigger false 
alarms. The commenter recommended revising the bag leak detection 
system specifications from 1 milligram per cubic meter (mg/m\3\) to 10 
mg/m\3\ in order to be consistent with other MACT standards, such as 
the secondary lead standard where the minimum detection capability of 
the bag leak detection system was revised from 1 to 10 mg/m\3\.
    Response: After consideration of this comment, the EPA has decided 
to modify the required minimum detection capability for bag leak 
detection systems to 10 mg/m\3\ (0.0044 gr/ft\3\). This change does not 
alter the intended function of the bag leak detector, which is to 
detect broken bags or other defects in baghouses, and is consistent 
with the specification for sensitivity in other EPA standards.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA allow the use of 
opacity monitors for bag leak detection because these monitors comply 
with Performance Specification 1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR part 60, and 
have been used for many years on electric arc furnace baghouses where 
the opacity limit is set at 3 percent.
    Response: The commenter did not submit data to prove that opacity 
monitors are as sensitive as bag leak detection systems or can meet 
their minimum detection capability specification. The facts that 
opacity monitors comply with Performance Specification 1 of Appendix B 
of 40 CFR part 60 and that opacity monitors have been used on electric 
arc furnace baghouses are no indication that opacity monitors are 
suitable for use on cupola baghouses. The EPA continues to believe that 
a bag leak detection system will provide the best indication of cupola 
baghouse performance at the low PM levels characteristic of these 
sources. The EPA has not made any changes to the rule as a result of 
this comment.

E. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Comment: One commenter stated that although they agree with the 
need for startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans, the proposed rule 
does not clearly provide that emissions may temporarily exceed the 
emission limits during startup, shutdown, or malfunctions. The 
commenter recommended that the proposed rule should therefore specify 
that emission limits may be temporarily exceeded during startup, 
shutdown, or malfunctions without violating the standard provided the 
company is taking appropriate actions consistent with its startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan. The commenter further recommended that 
the EPA should provide some flexibility in the rule for unexpected 
developments and upsets that are difficult to predict and control in 
the mineral wool industry. The commenter stated that there is no 
practical or legal reason why a single perceived deviation from a 
defined operating range should be deemed to be out of compliance, but 
rather, some margin of error should be permitted in the form of one or 
two allowable excursions per month.
    Response: Section 63.6(f) of the general provisions in subpart A of 
40 CFR part 63 provides that nonopacity emission standards shall apply 
at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction. The situation the commenter describes regarding unexpected 
developments and upsets are covered under the definition of a 
malfunction in the general provisions provided the failures are not 
caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation. The EPA, 
therefore, does not believe that an additional provision in the form of 
one or two allowable excursions per month is warranted. The EPA has 
specified in the

[[Page 29500]]

final rule, however, that the owner or operator must comply with the 
standards at all times except during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is intended to be an organized file of the 
administrative records compiled by the EPA. The docket is a dynamic 
file because information is added throughout the rulemaking 
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the docket will contain the record in case of judicial review. (See 
section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.) The location of the docket, which 
includes all public comments received on the proposed rule, is in the 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble.

B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this action is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of the Executive Order and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

C. Executive Order 12875--Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Under Executive Order 12875, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a 
State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government 
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
incurred by those governments, or the EPA consults with those 
governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 
requires the EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of 
the EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, 
local and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of 
any written communications from the governments, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive 
Order 12875 requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting 
elected officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on State, 
local or tribal governments, because they do not own or operate any 
sources that would be subject to this rule. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to 
this rule.

D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA 
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, 
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to the OMB, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. No affected facilities are 
owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, it must 
have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency 
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small 
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have 
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100

[[Page 29501]]

million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The EPA projects that 
annual economic impacts would be far less than $100 million. Thus, 
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 
of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that this rule 
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because it does not impose any 
enforceable duties on small governments; such governments own or 
operate no sources subject to the rule and therefore would not be 
required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of the 
rule.

F. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. The EPA has determined that seven of the ten firms that 
potentially would be subject to the final rule are small firms. The EPA 
has met with all of these small firms and their trade association. They 
have been fully involved in this rulemaking and their concerns and 
comments have been considered in the development of this rule. Also, a 
representative of the EPA's Office of the Small Business Ombudsman 
participated in the development of these standards as a work group 
member to ensure that the requirements of the standards were examined 
for potential adverse economic impacts and those impacts were mitigated 
to the extent feasible while still achieving the rule's environmental 
objectives.
    Five of the seven small firms would incur emission control costs 
that are less than 0.1 percent of sales; one firm would incur control 
costs estimated to be 2.4 percent of the firm's sales; and another firm 
would incur control costs believed to be in excess of 3 percent. (See 
Docket Item II-A-16 for a discussion of this analysis.) Thus, this rule 
affects only a small number of small businesses. Further, most of the 
small businesses impacted by this rule will experience minimal 
increases in costs. Only two small businesses are projected to incur 
costs exceeding 0.1 percent of sales.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not 
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be 
effective June 1, 1999.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB has approved the information collection requirements 
contained in this rule under the provisions of PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0362.
    The information collection requirements include the notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NESHAP general 
provisions, authorized under section 114 of the Act, which are 
mandatory for all owners and operators subject to national emission 
standards. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies in 40 
CFR part 2, subpart B. This rule does not require any notifications or 
reports beyond those required by the general provisions. Subpart DDD 
does require additional records of specific information needed to 
determine compliance with the rule. These include records of: (1) 
Cupola production (melt) rate; (2) all bag leak detection system 
alarms, the date and time of the alarm, when corrective actions were 
initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the corrective 
actions taken, and when the cause of the alarm was corrected; (3) the 
free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder formulation, 
including formaldehyde content, of each binder batch used in the 
manufacture of bonded products; and (4) incinerator operating 
temperature, including all periods when the average temperature in any 
three-hour block period fell below the average temperature established 
during the performance test, and the results of the annual inspection, 
including any problems discovered during the inspection, the date and 
time of the problem, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause 
of the problem, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and 
when the cause of the problem was corrected. Each of these information 
requirements is needed to determine compliance with the standards.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden to industry 
for this collection is estimated to be 6,107 labor hours per year at an 
annual cost of $196,206. This estimate includes a one-time performance 
test and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time preparation 
of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of 
any event in which the procedures were not followed; preparation of an 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan; semiannual excess 
emissions reports; notifications; and recordkeeping. The total capital 
cost associated with the monitoring requirements is estimated to be 
$309,400. This estimate includes the capital and startup costs 
associated with installation of a bag leak detection system for each 
affected cupola. The annualized cost of that capital is $44,059 per 
year, and the operation and maintenance of the monitoring equipment is 
estimated to be $17,000 per year.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. In 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the EPA is amending 
the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved information collection 
request (ICR) control numbers issued by the OMB for various 
regulations.

[[Page 29502]]

    This amendment updates the table to accurately display those 
information requirements contained in this final rule. The EPA will 
continue to present OMB control numbers in a consolidated table format 
to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the EPA's regulations, and in each 
Code of Federal Regulations volume containing EPA regulations. The 
table lists the section numbers with reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, and the current OMB control numbers. This display of the 
OMB control number and its subsequent codification in the CFR satisfy 
the requirements of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's 
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
    The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior 
to OMB approval. As a result, the EPA finds there is ``good cause'' 
under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to amend this table without prior notice and 
comment. Due to the technical nature of the table, further notice and 
comment would be unnecessary. For the same reasons, the EPA also finds 
that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

I. Pollution Prevention Act

    The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 states that pollution should 
be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible. During the 
development of these standards, the EPA explored opportunities to 
eliminate or reduce emissions through the application of new processes 
or work practices. By reducing or eliminating the formaldehyde and 
phenol in binder formulations, HAPs from the curing process would be 
reduced or eliminated without the use of air pollution control 
equipment. Alternative binders have been investigated by various 
mineral wool producers. Acceptable alternatives have been difficult to 
identify due to the higher costs of the potential alternative binders; 
the problems associated with requalification of altered products to 
meet required product specifications; the production process changes 
necessitated by the use of modified binders; and the concerns regarding 
potential toxicity of new binder ingredients. Thus, at this time an 
acceptable alternative binder has not been commercially demonstrated.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113 (March 7, 1996), directs the EPA to use 
voluntary consensus standards in regulatory and procurement activities 
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
(such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, 
and business practices) which are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standard bodies. Where available and potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the 
Agency to provide Congress, through the OMB, an explanation for not 
using such standards. This section summarizes the EPA's response to the 
requirements of the NTTAA for the analytical test methods promulgated 
as part of this final rule.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify 
voluntary consensus standards for the EPA's emissions sampling and 
analysis reference methods and industry recommended materials analysis 
procedures cited in this rule. Candidate voluntary consensus standards 
for materials analysis were identified for free-formaldehyde content. 
Consensus comments provided by industry experts were that the candidate 
standards did not meet industry materials analysis requirements. 
Therefore, EPA has determined these voluntary consensus standard are 
impractical for the mineral wool production NESHAP. The EPA, in 
consultation with the North American Insulation Manufacturers 
Association (NAIMA), has formulated an industry-specific materials 
analysis, consensus standard for free-formaldehyde content which is 
promulgated in this rule.
    The EPA search to identify voluntary consensus standards for the 
EPA's emissions sampling and analysis reference methods cited in this 
rule identified 17 voluntary consensus standards that appeared to have 
possible use in lieu of EPA standard reference methods. However, after 
reviewing available standards, EPA determined that 12 of the candidate 
consensus standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or 
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be 
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data 
and other important technical and policy considerations. Five of the 
remaining candidate consensus standards are new standards under 
development that EPA plans to follow, review and consider adopting at a 
later date. This rule requires standard EPA emission test methods known 
to the industry and States. Approved alternative methods also may be 
used with prior EPA approval.

K. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns the environmental 
health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and it is based 
on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Mineral wool production, Recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements.

    Dated: May 13, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title 
40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as 
follows:

PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

    1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 
1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq.,

[[Page 29503]]

6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

    2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry in numerical order 
to the table under the indicated heading to read as follows:


Sec. 9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

 * * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                40 CFR citation                      OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                 *        *        *        *        *
   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
                             Categories \3\
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
63.1178--63.1194...............................                2060-0362
 
                  *        *        *        *        *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the
  applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
  which are not independent information collection requirements.

 * * * * *

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

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

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

    4. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart DDD to read as follows:

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

Sec.
63.1175  What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.1176  Where can I find definitions of key words used in this 
subpart?
63.1177  Am I subject to this subpart?

Standards

63.1178  For cupolas, what standards must I meet?
63.1179  For curing ovens, what standards must I meet?
63.1180  When must I meet these standards?

Compliance With Standards

63.1181  How do I comply with the particulate matter standards for 
existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas?
63.1182  How do I comply with the carbon monoxide standards for new 
and reconstructed cupolas?
63.1183  How do I comply with the formaldehyde standards for 
existing, new, and reconstructed curing ovens?

Additional Monitoring Information

63.1184  What do I need to know about the design specifications, 
installation, and operation of a bag leak detection system?
63.1185  How do I establish the average operating temperature of an 
incinerator?
63.1186  How may I change the compliance levels of monitored 
parameters?
63.1187  What do I need to know about operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plans?

Performance Tests and Methods

63.1188  What performance test requirements must I meet?
63.1189  What test methods do I use?
63.1190  How do I determine compliance?

Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

63.1191  What notifications must I submit?
63.1192  What recordkeeping requirements must I meet?
63.1193  What reports must I submit?

Other Requirements and Information

63.1194  Which general provisions apply?
63.1195  Who enforces this subpart?
63.1196  What definitions should I be aware of?
63.1197-63.1199  [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart DDD of Part 63.
Appendix A to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Free Formaldehyde Analysis of 
Insulation Resins by the Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride Method.

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


Sec. 63.1175  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants emitted from existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas 
and curing ovens at facilities that produce mineral wool.


Sec. 63.1176  Where can I find definitions of key words used in this 
subpart?

    The definitions of key words used in this subpart are in the Clean 
Air Act (Act), in Sec. 63.2 of the general provisions in subpart A of 
this part, and in Sec. 63.1196 of this subpart.


Sec. 63.1177  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an existing, 
new, or reconstructed mineral wool production facility that is located 
at a plant site that is a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
emissions, meaning the plant emits or has the potential to emit any 
single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or 
any combination of HAPs at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more 
per year.

Standards


Sec. 63.1178  For cupolas, what standards must I meet?

    (a) You must control emissions from each cupola as follows:
    (1) Limit emissions of particulate matter (PM) from each existing, 
new, or reconstructed cupola to 0.05 kilograms (kg) of PM per megagram 
(MG) (0.10 pound [lb] of PM per ton) of melt or less.
    (2) Limit emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) from each new or 
reconstructed cupola to either of the following:
    (i) 0.05 kg of CO per MG (0.10 lb of CO per ton) of melt or less.
    (ii) A reduction of uncontrolled CO emissions by at least 99 
percent.
    (b) You must meet the following operating limits for each cupola:
    (1) Begin within one hour after the alarm on a bag leak detection 
system sounds, and complete in a timely manner, corrective actions as 
specified in your operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required 
by Sec. 63.1187 of this subpart.
    (2) When the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more 
than five percent of the total operating time in a six-month reporting 
period, develop and implement a written quality improvement plan (QIP) 
consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring requirements of 
Sec. 64.8(b)-(d) of 40 CFR part 64.
    (3) Additionally, for each new or reconstructed cupola, maintain 
the operating temperature of the incinerator so that the average 
operating temperature for each three-hour block period never falls 
below the average temperature established during the performance test.


Sec. 63.1179  For curing ovens, what standards must I meet?

    (a) You must control emissions from each existing, new, or 
reconstructed curing oven by limiting emissions of formaldehyde to 
either of the following:
    (1) 0.03 kg of formaldehyde per MG (0.06 lb of formaldehyde per 
ton) of melt or less.
    (2) A reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions by at least 
80 percent.
    (b) You must meet the following operating limits for each curing 
oven:
    (1) Maintain the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and 
the formaldehyde content of each binder formulation at or below the 
specification ranges of the resin and binder used during the 
performance test.
    (2) Maintain the operating temperature of each incinerator so that

[[Page 29504]]

the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period 
never falls below the average temperature established during the 
performance test.


Sec. 63.1180  When must I meet these standards?

    (a) Existing cupolas and curing ovens. You must install any control 
devices and monitoring equipment necessary to meet the standards in 
this subpart, complete performance testing, and demonstrate compliance 
with all requirements of this subpart no later than the following:
    (1) June 2, 2002; or
    (2) June 3, 2003 if you apply for and receive a one-year extension 
under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act.
    (b) New and reconstructed cupolas and curing ovens. You must 
install any control devices or monitoring equipment necessary to meet 
the standards in this subpart, complete performance testing, and 
demonstrate compliance with all requirements of this subpart by the 
dates in Sec. 63.7 of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.
    (c) You must comply with the standards in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179 
of this subpart on and after the dates in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section.
    (d) You must comply with these standards at all times except during 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Compliance With Standards


Sec. 63.1181  How do I comply with the particulate matter standards for 
existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas?

    To comply with the PM standards, you must meet all of the 
following:
    (a) Install, adjust, maintain, and continuously operate a bag leak 
detection system for each fabric filter.
    (b) Do a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 of this 
subpart and show compliance with the PM emission limits while the bag 
leak detection system is installed, operational, and properly adjusted.
    (c) Begin corrective actions specified in your operations, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.1187 of this 
subpart within one hour after the alarm on a bag leak detection system 
sounds. Complete the corrective actions in a timely manner.
    (d) Develop and implement a written QIP consistent with compliance 
assurance monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 64.8(b) through (d) when 
the alarm on a bag leak detection system sounds for more than five 
percent of the total operating time in a six-month reporting period.


Sec. 63.1182  How do I comply with the carbon monoxide standards for 
new and reconstructed cupolas?

    To comply with the CO standards, you must meet all of the 
following:
    (a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that 
continuously measures the operating temperature in the firebox of each 
thermal incinerator.
    (b) Do a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 of this 
subpart and show compliance with the CO emission limits while the 
device for measuring incinerator operating temperature is installed, 
operational, and properly calibrated. Establish the average operating 
temperature as specified in Sec. 63.1185(a) of this subpart.
    (c) Following the performance test, measure and record the average 
operating temperature of the incinerator as specified in 
Sec. 63.1185(b) of this subpart.
    (d) Maintain the operating temperature of the incinerator so that 
the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period 
never falls below the average temperature established during the 
performance test.
    (e) Operate and maintain the incinerator as specified in your 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.1187 
of this subpart.


Sec. 63.1183  How do I comply with the formaldehyde standards for 
existing, new, and reconstructed curing ovens?

    To comply with the formaldehyde standards, you must meet all of the 
following:
    (a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that 
continuously measures the operating temperature in the firebox of each 
thermal incinerator.
    (b) Do a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 of this 
subpart while manufacturing the product that requires a binder 
formulation made with the resin containing the highest free-
formaldehyde content specification range. Show compliance with the 
formaldehyde emission limits while the device for measuring incinerator 
operating temperature is installed, operational, and properly 
calibrated. Establish the average operating temperature as specified in 
Sec. 63.1185(a) of this subpart.
    (c) During the performance test that uses the binder formulation 
made with the resin containing the highest free-formaldehyde content 
specification range, record the free-formaldehyde content specification 
range of the resin used, and the formulation of the binder used, 
including the formaldehyde content and binder specification.
    (d) Following the performance test, monitor and record the free-
formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the formulation of each 
batch of binder used, including the formaldehyde content.
    (e) Maintain the free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and 
the formaldehyde content of each binder formulation at or below the 
specification ranges established during the performance test.
    (f) Following the performance test, measure and record the average 
operating temperature of the incinerator as specified in 
Sec. 63.1185(b) of this subpart.
    (g) Maintain the operating temperature of the incinerator so that 
the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period 
never falls below the average temperature established during the 
performance test.
    (h) Operate and maintain the incinerator as specified in your 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required by Sec. 63.1187 
of this subpart.
    (i) With prior approval from the Administrator, you may do short-
term experimental production runs using resin where the free-
formaldehyde content, or binder formulations where the formaldehyde 
content, is higher than the specification ranges of the resin and 
binder used during previous performance tests, or using experimental 
pollution prevention process modifications without first doing 
additional performance tests. Notification of intent to perform a 
short-term experimental production run must include the following 
information:
    (1) The purpose of the experimental run.
    (2) The affected production process.
    (3) How the resin free-formaldehyde content or binder formulation 
will deviate from previously approved levels or what the experimental 
pollution prevention process modifications are.
    (4) The duration of the experimental run.
    (5) The date and time of the experimental run.
    (6) A description of any emissions testing to be done during the 
experimental run.

Additional Monitoring Information


Sec. 63.1184   What do I need to know about the design specifications, 
installation, and operation of a bag leak detection system?

    A bag leak detection system must meet the following requirements:
    (a) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic 
foot) or less.

[[Page 29505]]

    (b) The sensor on the bag leak detection system must provide output 
of relative PM emissions.
    (c) The bag leak detection system must have an alarm that will 
sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM 
emissions greater than a preset level.
    (d) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant 
personnel will be able to hear it.
    (e) For a positive-pressure fabric filter, each compartment or cell 
must have a bag leak detector. For a negative-pressure or induced-air 
fabric filter, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of 
the fabric filter. If multiple bag leak detectors are required (for 
either type of fabric filter), detectors may share the system 
instrumentation and alarm.
    (f) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, 
operated, adjusted, and maintained so that it follows EPA's ``Fabric 
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 
1997). Other bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, 
adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written 
specifications and recommendations.
    (g) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of 
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways:
    (1) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
    (2) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (h) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm 
set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified 
in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan required by 
Sec. 63.1187 of this subpart. In no event may the range be increased by 
more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365 
day period unless a responsible official as defined in Sec. 63.2 of the 
general provisions in subpart A of this part certifies in writing to 
the Administrator that the fabric filter has been inspected and found 
to be in good operating condition.


Sec. 63.1185  How do I establish the average operating temperature of 
an incinerator?

    (a) During the performance test, you must establish the average 
operating temperature of an incinerator as follows:
    (1) Continuously measure the operating temperature of the 
incinerator.
    (2) Determine and record the average temperatures in consecutive 
15-minute blocks.
    (3) Determine and record the arithmetic average of the recorded 
average temperatures measured in consecutive 15-minute blocks for each 
of the one-hour performance test runs.
    (4) Determine and record the arithmetic average of the three one-
hour average temperatures during the performance test runs. The average 
of the three one-hour performance test runs establishes the temperature 
level to use to monitor compliance.
    (b) To comply with the requirements for maintaining the operating 
temperature of an incinerator after the performance test, you must 
measure and record the average operating temperature of the incinerator 
as required by Secs. 63.1182 and 63.1183 of this subpart. This average 
operating temperature of the incinerator is based on the arithmetic 
average of the one-hour average temperatures for each consecutive 
three-hour period and is determined in the same manner described in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.


Sec. 63.1186  How may I change the compliance levels of monitored 
parameters?

    You may change control device and process operating parameter 
levels established during performance tests and used to monitor 
compliance if you do the following:
    (a) You must notify the Administrator of your desire to expand the 
range of a control device or process operating parameter level.
    (b) Upon approval from the Administrator, you must conduct 
additional performance tests at the proposed new control device or 
process operating parameter levels. Before operating at these levels, 
the performance test results must verify that, at the new levels, you 
comply with the emission limits in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179 of this 
subpart.


Sec. 63.1187  What do I need to know about operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring plans?

    (a) An operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan must be 
submitted to the Administrator for review and approval as part of your 
application for the title V permit.
    (b) The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan must include 
the following:
    (1) Process and control device parameters you will monitor to 
determine compliance, along with established operating levels or ranges 
for each process or control device.
    (2) A monitoring schedule.
    (3) Procedures for properly operating and maintaining control 
devices used to meet the standards in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179 of this 
subpart. These procedures must include an inspection of each 
incinerator at least once per year. At a minimum, you must do the 
following as part of an incinerator inspection:
    (i) Inspect all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing 
devices for proper operation. Clean pilot sensor if necessary.
    (ii) Ensure proper adjustment of combustion air, and adjust if 
necessary.
    (iii) Inspect, when possible, all internal structures (such as 
baffles) to ensure structural integrity per the design specifications.
    (iv) Inspect dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation.
    (v) Inspect motors for proper operation.
    (vi) Inspect, when possible, combustion chamber refractory lining. 
Clean, and repair or replace lining if necessary.
    (vii) Inspect incinerator shell for proper sealing, corrosion, and/
or hot spots.
    (viii) For the burn cycle that follows the inspection, document 
that the incinerator is operating properly and make any necessary 
adjustments.
    (ix) Generally observe whether the equipment is maintained in good 
operating condition.
    (x) Complete all necessary repairs as soon as practicable.
    (4) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.
    (5) Corrective actions you will take if process or control device 
parameters vary from the levels established during performance testing. 
For bag leak detection system alarms, example corrective actions that 
may be included in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan 
include:
    (i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags 
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.

Performance Tests and Methods


Sec. 63.1188  What performance test requirements must I meet?

    You must meet the following performance test requirements:

[[Page 29506]]

    (a) All monitoring systems and equipment must be installed, 
operational, and properly calibrated before the performance tests.
    (b) Do a performance test, consisting of three test runs, for each 
cupola and curing oven subject to this subpart at the maximum 
production rate to demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable 
emission limits in Secs. 63.1178 and 63.1179 of this subpart.
    (c) Measure emissions of PM from each existing cupola.
    (d) Measure emissions of PM and CO from each new or reconstructed 
cupola.
    (e) Measure emissions of formaldehyde from each existing, new or 
reconstructed curing oven.
    (f) Measure emissions at the outlet of the control device if 
complying with a numerical emission limit for PM, CO, or formaldehyde, 
or at the inlet and outlet of the control device if complying with a 
percent reduction emission limit for CO or formaldehyde.
    (g) To determine the average melt rate, measure and record the 
amount of raw materials, excluding coke, charged into and melted in 
each cupola during each performance test run. Determine and record the 
average hourly melt rate for each performance test run. Determine and 
record the arithmetic average of the average hourly melt rates 
associated with the three performance test runs. The average hourly 
melt rate of the three performance test runs is used to determine 
compliance with the applicable emission limits.
    (h) Compute and record the average emissions of the three 
performance test runs and use the equations in Sec. 63.1190 of this 
subpart to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits.
    (i) Comply with control device and process operating parameter 
monitoring requirements for performance testing as specified in this 
subpart.


Sec. 63.1189  What test methods do I use?

    You must use the following test methods to determine compliance 
with the applicable emission limits:
    (a) Method 1 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the 
selection of the sampling port locations and number of sampling ports.
    (b) Method 2 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for stack gas 
velocity and volumetric flow rate.
    (c) Method 3 or 3A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for 
oxygen and carbon dioxide for diluent measurements needed to correct 
the concentration measurements to a standard basis.
    (d) Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for moisture 
content of the stack gas.
    (e) Method 5 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the 
concentration of PM. Each PM test run must consist of a minimum run 
time of three hours and a minimum sample volume of 3.75 dscm (135 
dscf).
    (f) Method 10 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for the 
concentration of CO, using the continuous sampling option described in 
section 7.1.1 of the method. Each CO test run must consist of a minimum 
run time of one hour.
    (g) Method 318 in appendix A to this part for the concentration of 
formaldehyde or CO.
    (h) Method to determine the free-formaldehyde content of each resin 
lot in appendix A of this subpart.


Sec. 63.1190  How do I determine compliance?

    (a) Using the results of the performance tests, you must use the 
following equation to determine compliance with the PM emission limit:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN99.015

where:
E = Emission rate of PM, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of melt.
C = Concentration of PM, g/dscm (gr/dscf).
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
K 51 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/7,000 gr).
P = Average melt rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).

    (b) Using the results of the performance tests, you must use the 
following equation to determine compliance with the CO and formaldehyde 
numerical emission limits:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN99.016

where:
E = Emission rate of measured pollutant, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of melt.
C = Measured volume fraction of pollutant, ppm.
MW = Molecular weight of measured pollutant, g/g-mole:
CO = 28.01, Formaldehyde = 30.03.
Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gases, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/453.6 g).
K2 = Conversion factor, 1,000 L/m3 (28.3 L/
ft3).
K3 = Conversion factor, 24.45 L/g-mole.
P = Average melt rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).

    (c) Using the results of the performance tests, you must use the 
following equation to determine compliance with the CO and formaldehyde 
percent reduction performance standards:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN99.017

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

Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting


Sec. 63.1191  What notifications must I submit?

    You must submit written notifications to the Administrator as 
required by Sec. 63.9(b)-(h) of the general provisions in subpart A of 
this part. These notifications include, but are not limited to, the 
following:
    (a) Notification that the following types of sources are subject to 
the standard:
    (1) An area source that increases its emissions so that it becomes 
a major source.
    (2) A source that has an initial startup before the effective date 
of the standard.
    (3) A new or reconstructed source that has an initial startup after 
the effective date of the standard and doesn't require an application 
for approval of construction or reconstruction under Sec. 63.5(d) of 
the general provisions in subpart A of this part.
    (b) Notification of intention to construct a new major source or 
reconstruct a major source where the initial startup of the new or 
reconstructed source occurs after the effective date of the standard 
and an application for approval of construction or reconstruction under 
Sec. 63.5(d) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part is 
required.
    (c) Notification of special compliance obligations for a new source 
that is subject to special compliance requirements in Sec. 63.6(b)(3) 
and (4) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.
    (d) Notification of a performance test at least 60 calendar days 
before the performance test is scheduled to begin.
    (e) Notification of compliance status.


Sec. 63.1192  What recordkeeping requirements must I meet?

    You must meet the following recordkeeping requirements:
    (a) Maintain files of all information required by Sec. 63.10(b) of 
the general provisions in subpart A of this part, including all 
notifications and reports.
    (b) Maintain records of the following information also:
    (1) Cupola production (melt) rate (Mg/hr (tons/hr) of melt).

[[Page 29507]]

    (2) All bag leak detection system alarms. Include the date and time 
of the alarm, when corrective actions were initiated, the cause of the 
alarm, an explanation of the corrective actions taken, and when the 
cause of the alarm was corrected.
    (3) The free-formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the binder 
formulation, including formaldehyde content, of each binder batch used 
in the manufacture of bonded products.
    (4) Incinerator operating temperature and results of incinerator 
inspections. For all periods when the average temperature in any three-
hour block period fell below the average temperature established during 
the performance test, and all periods when the inspection identified 
incinerator components in need of repair or maintenance, include the 
date and time of the problem, when corrective actions were initiated, 
the cause of the problem, an explanation of the corrective actions 
taken, and when the cause of the problem was corrected.
    (c) Retain each record for at least five years following the date 
of each occurrence, measurement, corrective action, maintenance, 
record, or report. The most recent two years of records must be 
retained at the facility. The remaining three years of records may be 
retained off site.
    (d) Retain records on microfilm, on a computer, on computer disks, 
on magnetic tape disks, or on microfiche.
    (e) Report the required information on paper or on a labeled 
computer disk using commonly available and compatible computer 
software.


Sec. 63.1193  What reports must I submit?

    You must prepare and submit reports to the Administrator as 
required by this subpart and Sec. 63.10 of the general provisions in 
subpart A of this part. These reports include, but are not limited to, 
the following:
    (a) A performance test report, as required by Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of 
the general provisions in subpart A of this part, that documents the 
process and control equipment operating parameters during the test 
period, the test methods and procedures, the analytical procedures, all 
calculations, and the results of the performance tests.
    (b) A startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, as described in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the general provisions in subpart A of this part, 
that contains specific procedures for operating and maintaining the 
source during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a 
program of corrective action for malfunctioning process and control 
systems used to comply with the emission standards. In addition to the 
information required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3), your plan must include the 
following:
    (1) Procedures to determine and record what caused the malfunction 
and when it began and ended.
    (2) Corrective actions you will take if a process or control device 
malfunctions, including procedures for recording the actions taken to 
correct the malfunction or minimize emissions.
    (3) An inspection and maintenance schedule for each process and 
control device that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions 
and recommendations for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (c) A report of each event as required by Sec. 63.10(b) of the 
general provisions in subpart A of this part, including a report if an 
action taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is inconsistent 
with the procedures in the plan as described in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of the 
general provisions in subpart A of this part.
    (d) An operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan as specified in 
Sec. 63.1187 of this subpart.
    (e) A semiannual report as required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of the 
general provisions in subpart A of this part if measured emissions 
exceed the applicable standard or a monitored parameter varies from the 
level established during performance testing. The report must contain 
the information specified in Sec. 63.10(c) of the general provisions, 
as well as the relevant records required by Sec. 63.1192(b) of this 
subpart.
    (f) A semiannual report stating that no excess emissions or 
deviations of monitored parameters occurred during the reporting period 
as required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v) of the general provisions in subpart 
A of this part if no deviations have occurred.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.1194  Which general provisions apply?

    The general provisions in subpart A of this part define 
requirements applicable to all owners and operators affected by NESHAP 
in part 63. See Table 1 of this subpart for general provisions that 
apply (or don't apply) to you as an owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of this subpart.


Sec. 63.1195  Who enforces this subpart?

    If the Administrator has delegated authority to your State, then 
the State, along with the EPA, enforces this regulation. If the 
Administrator has not delegated authority to your State, then the EPA 
enforces this regulation.


Sec. 63.1196  What definitions should I be aware of?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Act, in Sec. 63.2 of 
the general provisions in subpart A of this part, and in this section 
as follows:
    Bag leak detection system means a monitoring device for a fabric 
filter that identifies an increase in particulate matter emissions 
resulting from a broken filter bag or other malfunction and sounds an 
alarm.
    Bonded product means mineral wool to which a hazardous air 
pollutant-based binder (containing such hazardous air pollutants as 
phenol or formaldehyde) has been applied.
    CO means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of carbon 
monoxide that serve as a surrogate for emissions of carbonyl sulfide, a 
compound included on the list of hazardous air pollutants in section 
112 of the Act.
    Cupola means a large, water-cooled metal vessel to which is charged 
a mixture of fuel, rock and/or slag, and additives. As the fuel is 
burned, the charged mixture is heated to a molten state for later 
processing to form mineral wool.
    Curing oven means a chamber in which heat is used to thermoset a 
binder on the mineral wool fiber used to make bonded products.
    Fabric filter means an air pollution control device used to capture 
particulate matter by filtering gas streams through fabric bags. It 
also is known as a baghouse.
    Formaldehyde means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of 
formaldehyde that, in addition to being a HAP itself, serve as a 
surrogate for organic compounds included on the list of hazardous air 
pollutants in section 112 of the Act, including but not limited to 
phenol.
    Hazardous air pollutant means any air pollutant listed in or 
pursuant to section 112(b) of the Act.
    I means the owner or operator of a mineral wool production 
facility.
    Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that 
uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to 
noncombustible gases.
    Melt means raw materials, excluding coke, that are charged into the 
cupola, heated to a molten state, and discharged to the fiber forming 
and collection process.
    Melt rate means the mass of molten material discharged from a 
single cupola over a specified time period.
    Mineral wool means a fibrous glassy substance made from natural 
rock (such as basalt), blast furnace slag or other slag, or a mixture 
of rock and slag. It

[[Page 29508]]

may be used as a thermal or acoustical insulation material or in the 
making of other products to provide structural strength, sound 
absorbency, fire resistance, or other required properties.
    New source means any affected source the construction or 
reconstruction of which is commenced after May 8, 1997.
    PM means, for the purposes of this subpart, emissions of 
particulate matter that serve as a surrogate for metals (in particulate 
or volatile form) on the list of hazardous air pollutants in section 
112 of the Act, including but not limited to: antimony, arsenic, 
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium.
    You means the owner or operator of a mineral wool production 
facility.

  Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
                                                 DDD of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General provisions  citation            Requirement         Applies to subpart DDD?        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)...................  General Applicability..  Yes.....................
63.1(a)(5)..........................                           No......................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)-(a)(8)...................                           Yes.....................
63.1(a)(9)..........................                           No......................  [Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14).................                           Yes.....................
63.1(b).............................  Initial Applicability    Yes.....................
                                       Determination.
63.1(c)(1)..........................  Applicability After      Yes.....................
                                       Standard Established.
63.1(c)(2)..........................                           Yes.....................  Some plants may be area
                                                                                          sources.
63.1(c)(3)..........................                           No......................  [Reserved].
63.1(c)(4)-(c)(5)...................                           Yes.....................
63.1(d).............................                           No......................  [Reserved].
63.1(e).............................  Applicability of Permit  Yes.....................
                                       Program.
63.2................................  Definitions............  Yes.....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          in Sec.  63.1196.
63.3................................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes.....................
63.4(a)(1)-(a)(3)...................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes.....................
63.4(a)(4)..........................                           No......................  [Reserved].
63.4(a)(5)..........................                           Yes.....................
63.4(b)-(c).........................  Circumvention/           Yes.....................
                                       Severability.
63.5(a).............................  Construction/            Yes.....................
                                       Reconstruction
                                       Applicability.
63.5(b)(1)..........................  Existing, New,           Yes.....................
                                       Reconstructed Sources
                                       Requirements.
63.5(b)(2)..........................                           No......................  [Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-(b)(6)...................                           Yes.....................
63.5(c).............................                           No......................  [Reserved].
63.5(d).............................  Application for          Yes.....................
                                       Approval of
                                       Construction/
                                       Reconstruction.
63.5(e).............................  Approval of              Yes.....................
                                       Construction/
                                       Reconstruction.
63.5(f).............................  Approval of              Yes.....................
                                       Construction/
                                       Reconstruction Based
                                       on State Review.
63.6(a).............................  Compliance with          Yes.....................
                                       Standards and
                                       Maintenance
                                       Applicability.
63.6(b)(1)-(b)(5)...................  New and Reconstructed    Yes.....................
                                       Sources Dates.
63.6(b)(6)..........................                           No......................  [Reserved].
63.6(b)(7)..........................                           Yes.....................
63.6(c)(1)..........................  Existing Sources Dates.  Yes.....................  Sec.  63.1180 specifies
                                                                                          compliance dates.
63.6(c)(2)..........................  .......................  Yes.....................
63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)...................  .......................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)..........................  .......................  Yes.....................
63.6(d).............................  .......................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.6(e)(1)-(e)(2)...................  Operation & Maintenance  Yes.....................  Sec.  63.1187 specifies
                                       Requirements.                                      additional
                                                                                          requirements.
63.6(e)(3)..........................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Yes.....................
                                       Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f).............................  Compliance with          Yes.....................
                                       Emission Standards.
63.6(g).............................  Alternative Standard...  Yes.....................
63.6(h).............................  Compliance with Opacity/ No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                       VE Standards.                                      include VE/opacity
                                                                                          standards.
63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)..................  Extension of Compliance  Yes.....................  Sec.  63.1180 specifies
                                                                                          date.
63.6(i)(15).........................  .......................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.6(i)(16).........................  .......................  Yes.....................
63.6(j).............................  Exemption from           Yes.....................
                                       Compliance.
63.7(a).............................  Performance Test         Yes.....................
                                       Requirements
                                       Applicability.
63.7(b).............................  Notification...........  Yes.....................
63.7(c).............................  Quality Assurance/Test   Yes.....................
                                       Plan.
63.7(d).............................  Testing Facilities.....  Yes.....................
63.7(e).............................  Conduct of Tests.......  Yes.....................  Sec.  63.1188 specifies
                                                                                          additional
                                                                                          requirements.
63.7(f).............................  Alternative Test Method  Yes.....................
63.7(g).............................  Data Analysis..........  Yes.....................
63.7(h).............................  Waiver of Tests........  Yes.....................

[[Page 29509]]

 
63.8(a)(1)..........................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes.....................
                                       Applicability.
63.8(a)(2)..........................  .......................  No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          specifications.
63.8(a)(3)..........................  .......................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.8(a)(4)..........................  .......................  Yes.....................
63.8(b).............................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes.....................
63.8(c)(1)-(c)(3)...................  CMS Operation/           Yes.....................
                                       Maintenance.
63.8(c)(4)-(c)(8)...................  .......................  No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require COMS or CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          specifications.
63.8(d).............................  Quality Control........  No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require a CMS quality
                                                                                          control program.
63.8(e).............................  CMS Performance          No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                       Evaluation.                                        require CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          evaluations.
63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)...................  Alternative Monitoring   Yes.....................
                                       Method.
63.8(f)(6)..........................  Alternative to RATA      No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                       Test.                                              require CEMS.
63.8(g)(1)..........................  Data Reduction.........  Yes.....................
63.8(g)(2)..........................  .......................  No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require COMS or CEMS.
63.8(g)(3)-(g)(5)...................  .......................  Yes.....................
63.9(a).............................  Notification             Yes.....................
                                       Requirements
                                       Applicability.
63.9(b).............................  Initial Notifications..  Yes.....................
63.9(c).............................  Request for Compliance   Yes.....................
                                       Extension.
63.9(d).............................  New Source Notification  Yes.....................
                                       for Special Compliance
                                       Requirements.
63.9(e).............................  Notification of          Yes.....................
                                       Performance Test.
63.9(f).............................  Notification of VE/      No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                       Opacity Test.                                      include VE/opacity
                                                                                          standards.
63.9(g).............................  Additional CMS           No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                       Notifications.                                     require CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          evaluation, COMS, or
                                                                                          CEMS.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)...................  Notification of          Yes.....................
                                       Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4)..........................  .......................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)...................  .......................  Yes.....................
63.9(i).............................  Adjustment of Deadlines  Yes.....................
63.9(j).............................  Change in Previous       Yes.....................
                                       Information.
63.10(a)............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting- Yes.....................
                                       Applicability.
63.10(b)............................  General Recordkeeping    Yes.....................  Sec.  63.1192 includes
                                       Requirements.                                      additional
                                                                                          requirements.
63.10(c)(1).........................  Additional CMS           Yes.....................
                                       Recordkeeping.
63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4)..................  .......................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.10(c)(5).........................  .......................  Yes.....................
63.10(c)(6).........................  .......................  No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          specifications.
63.10(c)(7)-(c)(8)..................  .......................  Yes.....................
63.10(c)(9).........................  .......................  No......................  [Reserved].
63.10(c) (10)-(c)(13)...............  .......................  Yes.....................
63.10(c)(14)........................  .......................  No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require a CMS quality
                                                                                          control program.
63.10(c)(15)........................  .......................  Yes.....................
63.10(d)(1).........................  General Reporting        Yes.....................  Additional requirements
                                       Requirements.                                      in Sec.  63.1193.
63.10(d)(2).........................  Performance Test         Yes.....................
                                       Results.
63.10(d)(3).........................  Opacity or VE            No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                       Observations.                                      include VE/opacity
                                                                                          standards.
63.10(d)(4)-(d)(5)..................  Progress Reports/        Yes.....................
                                       Startup, Shutdown, and
                                       Malfunction Reports.
63.10(e)(1)-(e)(2)..................  Additional CMS Reports.  No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require CEMS or CMS
                                                                                          performance
                                                                                          evaluations.
63.10(e)(3).........................  Excess Emissions/CMS     Yes.....................
                                       Performance Reports.
63.10(e)(4).........................  COMS Data Reports......  No......................  Subpart DDD does not
                                                                                          require COMS.
63.10(f)............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes.....................
                                       Waiver.
63.11(a)............................  Control Device           Yes.....................
                                       Requirements
                                       Applicability.
63.11(b)............................  Flares.................  No......................  Flares not applicable.
63.12...............................  State Authority and      Yes.....................
                                       Delegations.
63.13...............................  Addresses..............  Yes.....................
63.14...............................  Incorporation by         Yes.....................
                                       Reference.
63.15...............................  Information              Yes.....................
                                       Availability/
                                       Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 29510]]

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

1. Scope

    The method in this appendix was specifically developed for 
water-soluble phenolic resins that have a relatively high free-
formaldehyde (FF) content such as insulation resins. It may also be 
suitable for other phenolic resins, especially those with a high FF 
content.

2. Principle

    2.1  a. The basis for this method is the titration of the 
hydrochloric acid that is liberated when hydroxylamine hydrochloride 
reacts with formaldehyde to form formaldoxine:

HCHO + NH2OH:HCl  CH2:NOH + H2O + HCl

    b. Free formaldehyde in phenolic resins is present as monomeric 
formaldehyde, hemiformals, polyoxymethylene hemiformals, and 
polyoxymethylene glycols. Monomeric formaldehyde and hemiformals 
react rapidly with hydroxylamine hydrochloride, but the polymeric 
forms of formaldehyde must hydrolyze to the monomeric state before 
they can react. The greater the concentration of free formaldehyde 
in a resin, the more of that formaldehyde will be in the polymeric 
form. The hydrolysis of these polymers is catalyzed by hydrogen 
ions.
    2.2  The resin sample being analyzed must contain enough free 
formaldehyde so that the initial reaction with hydroxylamine 
hydrochloride will produce sufficient hydrogen ions to catalyze the 
depolymerization of the polymeric formaldehyde within the time 
limits of the test method. The sample should contain approximately 
0.3 grams (g) free formaldehyde to ensure complete reaction within 5 
minutes.

3. Apparatus

    3.1  Balance, readable to 0.01 g or better.
    3.2  pH meter, standardized to pH 4.0 with pH 4.0 buffer and pH 
7 with pH 7.0 buffer.
    3.3  50-mL burette for 1.0 N sodium hydroxide.
    3.4  Magnetic stirrer and stir bars.
    3.5  250-mL beaker.
    3.6  50-mL graduated cylinder.
    3.7  100-mL graduated cylinder.
    3.8  Timer.

4. Reagents

    4.1  Standardized 1.0 N sodium hydroxide solution.
    4.2  Hydroxylamine hydrochloride solution, 100 grams per liter, 
pH adjusted to 4.00.
    4.3  Hydrochloric acid solution, 1.0 N and 0.1 N.
    4.4  Sodium hydroxide solution, 0.1 N.
    4.5  50/50 v/v mixture of distilled water and methyl alcohol.

5. Procedure

    5.1  Determine the sample size as follows:
    a. If the expected FF is greater than 2 percent, go to Part A in 
5.1.c to determine sample size.
    b. If the expected FF is less than 2 percent, go to Part B in 
5.1.d to determine sample size.
    c. Part A: Expected FF 2 percent.

Grams resin = 60/expected percent FF

    I. The following table shows example levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Sample
             Expected percent free formaldehyde              size, grams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..........................................................         30.0
5..........................................................         12.0
8..........................................................          7.5
10.........................................................          6.0
12.........................................................          5.0
15.........................................................          4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. It is very important to the accuracy of the results that the 
sample size be chosen correctly. If the milliliters of titrant are 
less than 15 mL or greater than 30 mL, reestimate the needed sample 
size and repeat the tests.
    d. Part B: Expected FF < 2 percent

Grams resin = 30/expected percent FF

    I. The following table shows example levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Sample
             Expected percent free formaldehyde              size, grams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..........................................................           15
1..........................................................           30
0.5........................................................           60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. If the milliliters of titrant are less than 5 mL or greater 
than 30 mL, reestimate the needed sample size and repeat the tests.
    5.2  Weigh the resin sample to the nearest 0.01 grams into a 
250-mL beaker. Record sample weight.
    5.3  Add 100 mL of the methanol/water mixture and stir on a 
magnetic stirrer. Confirm that the resin has dissolved.
    5.4  Adjust the resin/solvent solution to pH 4.0, using the 
prestandardized pH meter, 1.0 N hydrochloric acid, 0.1 N 
hydrochloric acid, and 0.1 N sodium hydroxide.
    5.5  Add 50 mL of the hydroxylamine hydrochloride solution, 
measured with a graduated cylinder. Start the timer.
    5.6  Stir for 5 minutes. Titrate to pH 4.0 with standardized 1.0 
N sodium hydroxide. Record the milliliters of titrant and the 
normality.

6. Calculations
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01JN99.018

7. Method Precision and Accuracy

    Test values should conform to the following statistical 
precision:

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

8. Author

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

9. References

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

[FR Doc. 99-12585 Filed 5-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P