National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Related Material
[Federal Register: May 26, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 103)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34277-34299]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26my00-38]
[[Page 34277]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production; Proposed Rule
[[Page 34278]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6703-5]
RIN 2060-AH89
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is adding wet-formed fiberglass mat production to the
list of categories of major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)
published under section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and to the
source category schedule for national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP).
The EPA is, at the same time, proposing the NESHAP for new and
existing sources at wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities.
The HAPs emitted by the facilities subject to the proposed NESHAP
include three organic HAPs (formaldehyde, methanol, and vinyl acetate).
Exposure to these HAPs can cause reversible or irreversible adverse
health effects including carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous system,
developmental, reproductive, and/or dermal health effects. The EPA
estimates the proposed NESHAP would reduce nationwide emissions of HAPs
from the drying and curing ovens at these facilities by 199 megagrams
per year (Mg/yr)(219 tons per year or tons/yr), an approximate 74
percent reduction from the current level of emissions. Under section
112(c)(5) of the CAA, the wet-formed fiberglass mat production NESHAP
has a promulgation date of May 26, 2002.
The proposed NESHAP are based on the Administrator's determination
that wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities emit several of
the 188 HAPs listed in the CAA from the various process operations
found within the industry, and that these facilities can be major
sources of HAPs. The proposed NESHAP protect the public by requiring
all wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities that are major
sources to meet emission standards reflecting the application of the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
DATES: Comments. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received
on or before July 25, 2000.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held if requests to speak
are received by June 12, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in
duplicate, if possible) to Docket No. A-97-54 at the following address:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20460. A separate copy of the comments should be sent to
Mr. Juan Santiago, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-1084.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed rule, contact Mr. Juan Santiago, Minerals and Inorganic
Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-1084, e-mail address:
santiago.juan@epa.gov. For information regarding Method 316, contact
Ms. Rima N. Howell; Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division (MD-
19); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0443, e-mail address:
howell.rima@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Commenters wishing to submit
proprietary information for consideration should clearly distinguish
such information from other comments and clearly label it
``Confidential Business Information.'' Submissions containing such
proprietary information should be sent directly to the following
address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary
information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr.
Juan Santiago, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer, 411 W. Chapel Hill
Street, Room 740B, Durham, North Carolina 27701. Information covered by
such a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the
extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no
claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received
by EPA, the submission may be made available to the public without
further notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Anyone requesting to present oral testimony or
attend the public hearing must contact Ms. Tanya Medley at (919) 541-
5422 no later than June 16, 2000. A verbatim transcript of the hearing
and any written statements will be available for public inspection and
copying during normal working hours at the EPA's Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center in Washington, DC.
Docket. Docket A-97-54, containing supporting information used in
developing the proposed standards, is available at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500,
Waterside Mall, Washington D.C. 20460 and may be inspected from 8 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of this information may be
obtained by request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Electronic Access and Filing Addresses. The official record for
this rulemaking has been established under Docket No. A-97-54
(including comments and data submitted electronically). A public
version of this record, including printed, paper versions of electronic
comments, which does not include any information claimed as
confidential business information (CBI), is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to the EPA's Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center at: ``A-and-R-
Docket@epamail.epa.gov.'' Electronic comments must be submitted in
American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) file format.
Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect Version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format or ASCII
file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be
identified by the docket number (A-97-54). Electronic comments may be
filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Worldwide Web (WWW). The proposed regulatory text will be available
on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), a network of
the EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The TTN
is accessible through the Internet at ``TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov''.
If more information on the TTN is needed, call the HELP line at (919)
541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
are those industrial facilities that manufacture wet-formed fiberglass
mat. Wet-formed fiberglass mat production is classified under Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code 3329325, a subset of SIC code
3329, Pressed and Blown Glass, Not Elsewhere Classified. Regulated
categories and entities are shown in
[[Page 34279]]
table 1. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by final
action on this proposal. This table lists the types of entities that
EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by final action on this
proposal. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by
final action on this proposal, carefully examine the applicability
criteria in section III.A of this preamble and in Sec. 63.2981 of the
proposed rule. If there are any questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult Mr. Juan Santiago (See
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SIC code Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial............................. 3329325 Wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporation by Reference. A request for approval of the
incorporation by reference by the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register will be submitted prior to promulgation of this rule for the
following material: Chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A
Manual of Recommended Practice,'' American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (22nd edition, 1995). The procedures in this
material are used for designing the system for capturing and conveying
HAP emissions to the control device. The incorporation by reference of
this publication is expected to be approved by the Director of the
Office of the Federal Register upon promulgation.
Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. Introduction
A. Regulatory Background and Addition to Source Category List
B. Solicitation of Comments
C. Source of Authority for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Development
D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from this
source category?
E. Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Industry Profile and
Process Description
F. How were pollution prevention practices considered in the
development of these proposed NESHAP?
II. What are the requirements of these proposed NESHAP?
A. Do these proposed NESHAP apply to me?
B. What emission standards must I meet?
C. What operating standards must I meet?
D. What are the performance test and initial compliance
provisions of these proposed NESHAP?
E. What monitoring requirements must I meet?
F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of these proposed NESHAP?
III. What are the impacts of these proposed NESHAP?
A. What are the air emission impacts?
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
C. What are the energy impacts?
D. Are there any additional environmental and health impacts?
E. What are the cost impacts?
F. What are the economic impacts?
IV. How were these proposed NESHAP developed?
A. Selection of Emission Sources
B. Selection of MACT Floor
C. Emission Limits
D. Selection of Test Methods
E. Selection of Operating Standards and Monitoring Requirements
V. What are the administrative requirements of these proposed
NESHAP?
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
C. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination with
Tribal Governments
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Introduction
A. Regulatory Background and Addition to Source Category List
Section 112(c) of the CAA directs us to list each category of major
and area sources, as appropriate, that emits one or more of the 188
HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the CAA. The term ``major source'' is
defined in section 112(a)(1) to mean:
* * * any stationary source or group of stationary sources located
within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit, considering controls, in the aggregate 10 tons
per year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per year or more of any
combination of HAPs * * *
We published an initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57
FR 31576). Included on the initial source category list were major
sources of HAP emissions from the asphalt roofing and processing
industry.
During development of the asphalt roofing and processing NESHAP,
industry representatives alerted us about the existence of the wet-
formed fiberglass mat production industry, and its relationship to the
asphalt roofing production industry. They indicated to us that wet-
formed fiberglass mat production facilities have the potential to be
major sources of HAP emissions, and some wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities are collocated with asphalt roofing and
processing facilities. They expressed the opinion that there should be
a NESHAP for wet-formed fiberglass mat production developed separately
from the asphalt roofing and processing industry. We have decided to
propose a separate NESHAP for wet-formed fiberglass mat production
because the production processes and pollutant emissions differ from
those in the asphalt roofing industry. In addition, wet-formed
fiberglass mat is produced at both stand-alone facilities and those
collocated with asphalt roofing and processing facilities. The CAA
provides that we may amend the list anytime. Consequently, wet-formed
fiberglass mat production is being added to the source category list
under section 112(c) of the CAA.
Wet-formed fiberglass mat is the substrate for several asphalt
roofing products. In wet-formed fiberglass mat production, glass fibers
are bonded with an organic resin. The mat is formed as the resin is
dried and cured in heated ovens. The majority of HAP emissions
associated with wet-formed fiberglass mat production are emitted from
the drying and curing oven exhaust. Based on HAP emission data obtained
during the development of this proposed rule, we have determined that
wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities are major sources of
HAPs. Nine of the 14 facilities (10 of the 15 production lines) control
the drying and curing oven exhaust emissions. All five of the remaining
facilities that do not control the drying and curing oven exhaust are
major sources of HAPs (Docket No. A-97-54).
Today's action adds wet-formed fiberglass mat production to the
list of source categories for which MACT standards are to be developed.
Final standards for this source category are required to be promulgated
by May 26, 2002.
[[Page 34280]]
B. Solicitation of Comments
We are seeking full public participation in arriving at final
decisions and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal from
all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed analyses
should be submitted with comments to allow us to make maximum use of
the comments. All comments should be sent according to the information
given in the ADDRESSES section. Comments on this proposal must be
submitted on or before the date specified in the DATES section.
C. Source of Authority for National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants Development
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to promulgate standards for the
control of HAP emissions from each source category listed under section
112(c). The statute requires the standards to reflect the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable taking into
consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any non-air
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This
level of control is commonly referred to as MACT. The MACT standards
can be based on the emission reductions achievable through application
of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques including, but
not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions
of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials,
or other modifications; (2) enclosing systems or processes to eliminate
emissions; (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point;
(4) design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards
(including requirements for operator training or certification) as
provided in section 112(h) of the CAA; or (5) a combination of the
above (see section 112(d)(2) of the CAA).
For new sources, MACT standards cannot be less stringent than the
emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar
source (see section 112(d)(3) of the CAA). The MACT standards for
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources.
However, they cannot be less stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing
sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or
the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with
fewer than 30 sources.
In essence, MACT standards are designed to ensure that all major
sources of air toxic emissions achieve the level of control already
being achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in
each category. This approach provides assurance to the public that each
major source of toxic air pollution will be required to effectively
control its emissions. At the same time, this approach provides a level
economic playing field, ensuring that facilities that employ cleaner
processes and good emission controls are not disadvantaged relative to
competitors with poorer controls.
D. What Are the Health Effects of Pollutants Emitted From This Source
Category?
The CAA was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (see section
101(b) of the CAA). The proposed NESHAP would protect public health by
reducing emissions of HAPs from wet-formed fiberglass mat production
facilities.
Emission data collected during development of the proposed NESHAP
show that formaldehyde, vinyl acetate, and methanol are emitted from
wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities (Docket No. A-97-54).
The proposed emission limits would reduce emissions of formaldehyde,
vinyl acetate, and methanol emitted from drying and curing ovens. As a
result of controlling these HAPs, the proposed NESHAP would also reduce
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Following is a summary
of the potential health effects caused by exposure to these pollutants.
Exposure to formaldehyde, vinyl acetate, and methanol irritates the
eyes, skin, and mucous membranes and can cause conjunctivitis, dermal
inflammation, and respiratory symptoms. Formaldehyde exposure has been
associated with reproductive effects such as menstrual disorders and
pregnancy problems in female workers. We have classified formaldehyde
as Class B1, a probable human carcinogen, on the basis of findings of
nasal cancer in animal studies and limited human data. Acute exposure
to vinyl acetate is known to cause irritation of the lungs and nose,
and irritation or blistering of skin. Exposure to very high levels of
vinyl acetate can cause dizziness. Data are not sufficient to classify
vinyl acetate as a potential human carcinogen.
Acute exposure to methanol (usually by ingestion) is well known to
cause blindness and severe metabolic acidosis, sometimes leading to
death. Chronic methanol exposure, including inhalation, may cause
central nervous system disturbances possibly leading to blindness.
Methanol exposure has also been linked to developmental effects in
animals. Data are not sufficient to classify methanol as a potential
human carcinogen (Docket No. A-97-54).
The degree of adverse health effects associated with HAP exposure
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the
health effects may be experienced are dependent upon: (1) The ambient
concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as influenced by emission
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain); (2) the frequency and
duration of exposures; (3) characteristics of exposed individuals
(e.g., genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyles);
and (4) pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life
in the environment, and bioaccumulation).
Formaldehyde, vinyl acetate, and methanol are also VOC that are
precursors to tropospheric ozone formation. Ambient concentrations in
excess of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone
can damage lung tissue, reduce lung function, and increase sensitivity
of the lung to other irritants. Additional information on the health
effects of ozone are included in the EPA's ``Criteria Document'' (three
volumes, EPA/600/P-93-004aF through EPA/600/P-93-004cF, July 1996),
which supports the NAAQS for ozone. Many areas of the country,
including several in which wet-formed fiberglass mat production
facilities are located, are not in compliance with the NAAQS for ozone.
E. Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Industry Profile and Process
Description
Wet-formed fiberglass mat is currently produced in the United
States by nine companies operating 14 plants (15 production lines) in
nine States. These plants may be collocated with asphalt roofing plants
because wet-formed fiberglass mat can be used as a substrate for
manufacturing asphalt roofing shingles and roll roofing products.
Wet-formed fiberglass mat is used as a substrate for asphalt
shingles and roll roofing, as a reinforcement for reinforced plastic
composite products (including thermosets and thermoplastics) and for
cement and gypsum products, and in miscellaneous specialty applications
such as battery separators and for pipe-wrapping and flooring.
A typical wet-formed fiberglass mat production line consists of the
following processes: (1) Preparation of glass fibers;
[[Page 34281]]
(2) formation of fibers into a fiberglass mat; (3) saturation with
urea-formaldehyde binder solution; (4) curing and drying the binder-
coated fiberglass mat; (5) cooling the mat; and (6) trimming, cutting,
and packaging.
Fiberglass mat is manufactured by binding glass fibers with urea-
formaldehyde resin. The glass fibers are mixed with water and
emulsifiers in large (several thousand gallons) mixing vats to form an
aqueous slurry of fibers and water. The slurry is then pumped to
another large vat that acts as a surge tank and then to a third vat
that is the supply tank for the mat forming machine.
The mat forming machine consists of a slurry dispenser and moving
wire screen belt. The wire screen belt carries the glass fiber mat
throughout the production process. The glass fiber slurry is dispensed
from a slot onto the screen in a uniform curtain. After the slurry is
dispensed onto the screen, the screen passes over a vacuum slot into
which the excess water and emulsion are drawn, leaving only a layer of
fibers on the screen.
The mat of fibers then passes under a binder dispenser. An aqueous
solution of urea-formaldehyde binder is dispensed from a slot or a
curtain coater onto the mat of fibers in a uniform curtain. Just after
the binder is dispensed onto the mat, the screen passes over another
vacuum slot into which the excess binder solution is drawn.
The mat of fibers and binder then passes into a drying and curing
oven. This is a multiple-stage oven that uses heated, forced air to
carry away excess moisture. In the first stage, the moisture is driven
from the binder. This causes the binder to migrate to the points where
the glass fibers cross each other. In the second and third stages of
the oven, the binder cures and hardens. After leaving the oven, the
finished mat is wound into large rolls and prepared for shipment.
The information in the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper
Industry (TAPPI) survey responses (Docket No. A-97-54) and information
obtained from a single facility that did not respond to the TAPPI
survey (Docket No. A-97-54) indicate that drying and curing oven
emissions from 10 of the 15 glass mat production lines are controlled
by thermal oxidizers. Five facilities for which information is
available do not have add-on emission controls on either the binder
application vacuum or the drying and curing oven exhausts. No emission
control devices other than thermal oxidizers are used on the drying and
curing oven exhausts in this industry.
The thermal oxidizers used in this industry operate at temperatures
that range from about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit ( deg.F) (540
to 820 degrees Celsius ( deg.C)) with residence times from 0.5 to 4.8
seconds. Most existing thermal oxidizers are also designed for energy
recovery. Formaldehyde destruction efficiencies, for those facilities
for which there are data, range from about 90 percent to greater than
99 percent.
F. How Were Pollution Prevention Practices Considered in the
Development of These Proposed NESHAP?
The format of the proposed NESHAP is a mass emission limit
(kilograms of formaldehyde per megagram of wet-formed fiberglass mat
produced) and an equivalent percentage reduction requirement compliance
option. The mass emission limit allows for the use of pollution
prevention practices in place of add-on control devices. A potential
pollution prevention practice could be a process modification to reduce
the formaldehyde content of binder formulations.
II. What Are the Requirements of These Proposed NESHAP?
A. Do These Proposed NESHAP Apply to Me?
The proposed NESHAP would apply to each existing and newly
constructed drying and curing oven located at a wet-formed fiberglass
mat production facility that is a major source of HAPs or that is
collocated with a major source. A major source means any source that
has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or more of any one HAP or 25 tons/
yr or more of any combination of HAPs. If your facility is determined
to be an area source, you would not be subject to these proposed
NESHAP.
B. What Emission Standards Must I Meet?
The proposed NESHAP regulate emissions of formaldehyde as a
surrogate for total HAP emissions. Control of formaldehyde will also
result in control of vinyl acetate and methanol. A mass emission limit
and a percentage reduction requirement compliance option for
formaldehyde are proposed for each new and existing drying and curing
oven. The emission limits are the same for new and existing sources.
New source and existing source emission standards for the drying and
curing oven exhaust are a maximum formaldehyde emission rate of 0.03
kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) of wet-formed fiberglass mat produced
(0.05 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of wet-formed fiberglass mat produced) or
a minimum of 96 percent destruction efficiency of formaldehyde (as
shown in table 2). You can choose to comply with either the emission
rate limit or the percent reduction requirement. If you use a thermal
oxidizer or other control device to achieve the mass emission limit or
percentage reduction requirement, you must collect and convey the
emissions from each drying and curing oven to the control device
according to the procedures specified in chapters 3 and 5 of
``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice.''
Table 2.--Summary of Proposed Emission Standards for New and Existing Drying and Curing Ovens at Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Manufacturing Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Emission limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each existing and new drying and curing oven.............. 0.03 kg of formaldehyde per Mg of fiberglass mat
(0.05 lb of formaldehyde per ton of fiberglass
mat).
OR
96 percent reduction of formaldehyde.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What Operating Standards Must I Meet?
In addition to the emission standards, the proposed NESHAP contain
specific operating standards, summarized in Table 3. The operating
standards require you to maintain certain process or control device
parameters within the levels established during the initial performance
test. In general, the parameter values or ranges that must be
maintained, must be approved by the
[[Page 34282]]
Administrator based on the performance test demonstrations. You must
reference the operating standards in the operating permit that you are
required to obtain under 40 CFR part 70.
You must also submit for the Administrator's approval an
operations, maintenance, and monitoring (OMM) plan for the facility.
The OMM plan specifies the parameters that must be monitored, how they
will be monitored, and the corrective actions to follow whenever a
monitored parameter deviates from the operating standards. You must
also reference the OMM plan in your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit.
Table 3.--Summary of Operating Standards for New and Existing Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected source Monitor type/operation/process Operating Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drying and curing ovens.............. Resin free-formaldehyde content...... Use a resin with a free-
formaldehyde content no greater
than that of the resin used
during the performance test, as
determined by the resin purchase
specification or test method.
Binder formulation formaldehyde Use a binder with a formaldehyde
content. content no greater than that of
the binder formulation used
during the performance test.
Product urea-formaldehyde resin Do not manufacture a product with
solids content. a urea-formaldehyde resin solids
content per ton of product higher
than that of the product made
during the performance test.
Loss-on-ignition..................... Do not exceed the loss-on-ignition
value of the product made during
the performance test.
Solids content of urea-formaldehyde Do not exceed the solids content
resin. of the urea-formaldehyde resin
used in the product made during
the performance test.
Drying and curing ovens controlled by Thermal oxidizer operating Maintain the average temperature
a thermal oxidizer. temperature. for each 3-hour period at or
above the average operating
temperature achieved during the
performance test.
Thermal oxidizer operation........... Operate the thermal oxidizer in
accordance with the operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan;
annually inspect the thermal
oxidizer for structural and
design integrity.
Drying and curing ovens controlled by Process or control device parameters. Maintain the process or control
modifications or a control device device within the ranges
other than a thermal oxidizer. established during the
performance test.
All affected sources................. Corrective action.................... Initiate corrective action within
1 hour of an established
operating parameter excursion and
complete and document action per
operation, maintenance and
monitoring plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the operating parameters deviate from the values or ranges
specified in your OMM plan, you would be in violation of the standards.
Following the performance test, whenever a monitored parameter deviates
from the established operating standards, you must initiate the
corrective actions specified in the OMM plan within 1 hour. You must
complete the corrective actions in an expeditious manner and implement
them as specified in your OMM plan.
If you use a thermal oxidizer to achieve compliance with the
emission standards, you must operate the thermal oxidizer so that the
average operating temperature in any 3-hour block period does not fall
below the average temperature established during the performance test.
Additionally, an annual inspection of the thermal oxidizer is required
to ensure that the structural and design integrity of the combustion
chamber is maintained in the same condition as during the performance
test. If you use process modifications or an add-on control device
other than a thermal oxidizer to achieve compliance with the emission
standards, you must maintain the process or control device parameter(s)
within the required ranges that you established during the performance
test.
The operating standards also require you to maintain the resin
free-formaldehyde content, the binder formulation formaldehyde content,
the solids content of the urea-formaldehyde resin, the urea-
formaldehyde resin solids content of the product manufactured, and the
loss-on-ignition value of the wet-formed fiberglass mat produced within
the levels you established during a compliance test and as specified in
your OMM plan.
D. What Are the Performance Test and Initial Compliance Provisions of
These Proposed NESHAP?
You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission limits. The performance test must be
performed initially and every 5 years following the initial performance
test. A performance test is also required to change the value or range
of an operating standard. Under the proposed NESHAP, you must conduct
the performance test while operating at or near the maximum production
rate and while making wet-formed fiberglass mat with the highest urea-
formaldehyde resin solids content, loss-on-ignition value, using the
resin with the highest free-formaldehyde content, and using the binder
with the highest formaldehyde content. You must measure formaldehyde
emissions as the average of three test runs using EPA Reference Method
316 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, ``Sampling and Analysis for
Formaldehyde from Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool
Fiberglass Industries.'' This proposed method was published in the
March 31, 1997 Federal Register (63 FR 15288). You must demonstrate
compliance with either the mass emission limit or the percentage
reduction requirement using the instructions and equations contained in
the performance test requirement section of this proposed NESHAP.
During the performance tests, you must continuously monitor the
thermal oxidizer operating temperature and record the average
temperature in 15-minute blocks during each 1-hour test run. After
completion of the three required test runs, you must determine the 3-
hour average operating temperature of the thermal oxidizer. If you use
process modifications or an add-on control device other than a thermal
oxidizer to comply with the
[[Page 34283]]
emission standards, you must determine the appropriate control device
or process monitoring parameters to indicate whether compliance is
being achieved. You must include the process or control device
parameters, monitoring frequency, and the averaging periods in your
site-specific test plan required by the 40 CFR part 63 general
provisions and approved by the permitting agency prior to conducting
your initial performance test. You may perform multiple tests to
establish the least restrictive value or operating range for the
selected parameters that still demonstrate compliance.
During the performance tests, you must also monitor and record the
average hourly wet-formed fiberglass mat production rate prior to edge
trimming, the free-formaldehyde content and the solids content of the
urea-formaldehyde resin used to produce the mat, the formaldehyde
content of the binder used to produce the mat, the urea-formaldehyde
solids content per ton of product, and the loss-on-ignition value of
the product manufactured during each of the three test runs.
If you use a thermal oxidizer to comply with these NESHAP, you must
conduct a performance evaluation for the thermal oxidizer temperature
monitoring device prior to the initial performance test to determine
compliance. The evaluation must be conducted according to the
procedures in 40 CFR 63.8(e) of the NESHAP general provisions. The
temperature monitoring device must meet the following performance and
equipment specifications: (1) The temperature monitoring device must be
installed at the exit of the combustion zone of each thermal oxidizer;
(2) the recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the
average temperature; and (3) the reference method must be a National
Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated reference
thermocouple-potentiometer system or an alternate reference, subject to
the approval of the Administrator.
The proposed NESHAP would allow facilities subject to the NESHAP to
conduct short-term experimental production runs, where the formaldehyde
content or other process parameters deviate from the levels established
during previous performance tests, without conducting additional
performance tests. You must apply for approval from the Administrator
or delegated State agency to conduct such experimental production runs.
The application must be made at least 30 days prior to conducting the
run. The application would include information on the nature and
duration of the test runs including plans to perform emissions testing.
Such experimental production runs are important to industry and allow
them to develop new products, improve existing products, and determine
the effects on emissions of process modifications being considered,
such as binder formulation.
E. What Monitoring Requirements Must I Meet?
Continuous compliance is demonstrated after the initial performance
test and between subsequent performance tests by monitoring emission
control devices and process operating parameters. The allowable
monitoring parameter values or ranges are determined during your
initial performance test and must be approved by the Administrator.
If a thermal oxidizer is used to achieve compliance with the
emission standards, you must monitor the operating temperature of the
thermal oxidizer. If you use a thermal oxidizer to achieve compliance
with the proposed emission standards, you must: (1) Install, operate,
calibrate, and maintain a device that continuously measures the
operating temperature of each thermal oxidizer; and (2) determine and
record the temperature in 15-minute and 3-hour block averages. This is
typically done using a thermocouple (a standard feature on most thermal
oxidizers) and a chart recorder or data logger. You are also required
to monitor the resin free-formaldehyde content, the binder formulation
formaldehyde content, the solids content of the urea-formaldehyde
resin, the urea-formaldehyde resin solids content of the product
manufactured, and the loss-on-ignition value of the wet-formed
fiberglass mat produced. Because these process parameters affect the
amount of HAPs emitted from the drying and curing oven, you must
monitor them to ensure that operation of the production process is
consistent with the conditions of the performance test, and that the
production process does not vary in such a way as to increase HAP
emissions from the drying and curing oven exhaust.
If process modifications or a control device other than a thermal
oxidizer is used to achieve compliance with the emission standards, you
must monitor the parameters that were established during the
performance test and approved by the Administrator.
The proposed NESHAP contain provisions that would allow you to
change the thermal oxidizer operating temperature, add-on control
devices, and process parameter values from those established using the
initial and 5-year performance tests. These provisions would allow you
to make process changes or to demonstrate that different monitoring
parameter values would more appropriately demonstrate compliance with
the proposed emission standards. You may revise the monitoring or
process parameter values by conducting additional performance tests to
verify compliance at the revised operating levels. For example, if you
intend to use a urea-formaldehyde resin with a higher free-formaldehyde
or solids content, produce a wet-formed fiberglass mat with a higher
urea-formaldehyde resin solids content, or produce a product with a
higher loss-on-ignition value, you must perform additional performance
tests to verify compliance at the increased operating or process
parameters. You must request and obtain approval from the Administrator
to conduct these additional performance tests and must submit
performance data that justify and support the expanded parameter ranges
before the facility is allowed to operate under the revised monitoring
parameters.
F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
of These Proposed NESHAP?
All notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the
40 CFR part 63 general provisions, as well as additional requirements,
apply to wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing facilities. The
notification and reporting requirements include, but are not limited
to: (1) Initial notification of applicability of the rule, notification
of the dates for conducting the performance test, and notification of
compliance status; (2) a report of performance test results; (3) a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; (4) reports of any startup,
shutdown, and malfunction events that occur; and (5) reports of excess
emissions (i.e., monitoring parameter exceedances) and continuous
monitoring system performance. When no exceedances occur, you must
submit semiannual reports indicating that no exceedances have occurred
during the period. If exceedances or deviations from established
monitoring parameters occur, the frequency of submitting the excess
emission reports becomes quarterly until a request to return to
semiannual reporting is approved by the Administrator. You cannot
submit the request to reduce the frequency of the reporting period
until the affected
[[Page 34284]]
source's excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance
reports remain continually within the established parameter ranges for
1 full year.
You must maintain records of the following, as applicable: (1)
Thermal oxidizer operating temperature; (2) process parameters for
drying and curing ovens that comply with the emission standards using
process modifications or an add-on control device other than a thermal
oxidizer; (3) free-formaldehyde content of the resin; (4) binder
formulation formaldehyde content; (5) loss-on-ignition value of the
wet-formed fiberglass mat produced; (6) urea-formaldehyde resin solids
content per ton of the wet-formed fiberglass mat produced; (7) average
hourly wet-formed fiberglass mat production rate; (8) the date and time
an exceedance commenced if a parameter monitoring exceedance occurs,
the date and time corrective actions were initiated and completed, a
description of the cause of the exceedance, and a description of the
corrective actions taken; (9) the approved OMM plan; (10) maintenance
and inspections performed on control devices; and (11) any other
information required to be recorded in the general provisions.
The NESHAP general provisions require that records be maintained
for at least 5 years from the date of each record. You would retain the
records onsite for at least 2 years but may retain the records offsite
for the remaining 3 years. The records must be readily available and in
a form suitable for efficient inspection and review. The files may be
retained on paper, on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer, on
computer disks, or on magnetic tape. Reports may be made on paper or on
a labeled computer disk using commonly available and compatible
computer software.
III. What Are the Impacts of These Proposed NESHAP?
A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?
At the current level of control, nationwide emissions of HAPs from
the 14 facilities in the industry are about 268 Mg/yr (295 tons/yr).
Under the proposed NESHAP, it is expected that thermal oxidizers will
be added to the five uncontrolled drying and curing ovens, and that
existing thermal oxidizers will be replaced with new units for three
out of the ten controlled drying and curing ovens. This would result in
an estimated reduction in nationwide HAP emissions of 199 Mg/yr (219
tons/yr) (Docket No. A-97-54).
Formaldehyde emissions from wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing
lines account for about 65 percent of the baseline HAP emissions.
Methanol emissions account for approximately 30 percent, with vinyl
acetate comprising the remaining 5 percent of the baseline HAP
emissions. Estimated nationwide emissions of formaldehyde from existing
wet-formed fiberglass mat production lines are 174 Mg/yr (192 tons/yr)
at the current level of control. Implementing the proposed NESHAP will
reduce nationwide formaldehyde emissions from existing sources by about
130 Mg/yr (143 tons/yr) (Docket No. A-97-54), and combined emissions of
vinyl acetate and methanol will be reduced by 70 Mg/yr (77 tons/yr).
B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?
Because compliance with the proposed NESHAP is based on the use of
thermal oxidizers, no water pollution or solid waste impacts would
result from the proposed NESHAP.
C. What Are the Energy Impacts?
Thermal oxidizers require electrical energy to operate fans.
Additional electrical energy requirements are estimated to be 4,260
megawatt hours per year (MW-hr/yr). An additional 275,000 million
British thermal units per year (Btu/yr) of natural gas are estimated to
be required for eight additional thermal oxidizers that would be added
to existing sources. The total additional energy (electricity and
natural gas) required as a result of the proposed NESHAP is 290 billion
Btu/yr in the fifth year following promulgation of the NESHAP (Docket
No. A-97-54). No new glass mat production lines are projected in the 5
years after promulgation; therefore, no increased energy requirement is
expected for new glass mat production lines under the proposed NESHAP.
D. Are There Any Additional Environmental and Health Impacts?
Reducing HAP emissions will lower occupational HAP and VOC exposure
levels. The operation of thermal oxidizers may increase occupational
noise levels in the five facilities that currently do not control HAP
emissions.
E. What Are the Cost Impacts?
Cost impacts of the proposed NESHAP for drying and curing ovens
were analyzed using site-specific information included in the TAPPI
survey responses coupled with procedures from the ``OAQPS Cost Manual''
(Docket No. A-97-54). For some facilities where site-specific data
necessary for estimating costs (e.g., a vent flow rate) were not
available, average factors developed from industry data were used to
estimate the missing data.
The total capital costs to achieve the proposed NESHAP were
estimated to be $5,272,000. These capital cost impacts arise from the
purchase and installation of eight thermal oxidizers--five thermal
oxidizers for the five facilities without existing controls and three
thermal oxidizers for three facilities that must replace existing
thermal oxidizers that cannot meet the proposed NESHAP. The average
capital costs of installing a new thermal oxidizer is $658,000 per
oxidizer. The capital costs estimate to install a new thermal oxidizer
to achieve compliance includes the cost of auxiliary burners,
combustion chambers, primary heat exchangers, weather-tight housing and
insulation, a fan, flow and temperature controls, a stack, and
structural supports.
Ten of the 15 wet-formed fiberglass mat production lines have
existing thermal oxidizers. We have formaldehyde emissions data for
five of the existing thermal oxidizers. Based on an evaluation of the
emissions data, four of these five thermal oxidizers are already
achieving the formaldehyde control level required by the proposed
NESHAP. Therefore, no thermal oxidizer capital costs to comply with the
proposed NESHAP were estimated for these four facilities. The fifth
facility controls both the drying and curing oven exhaust and the
binder application vacuum exhaust. Since this facility is not achieving
the formaldehyde control level required by the proposed NESHAP, the
cost of a new thermal oxidizer was estimated for this facility. The
thermal oxidizer cost estimate is based on the flow rate from the
drying and curing oven exhaust only since the proposed NESHAP does not
require control of the binder application vacuum exhaust.
No formaldehyde emissions data are available for the remaining five
existing thermal oxidizers. Three facilities have thermal oxidizers
operating at temperatures and residence times that are as high as those
that have achieved the proposed formaldehyde control level. Therefore,
we expect that these three facilities will be able to comply with the
proposed NESHAP using their existing thermal oxidizers. No increases in
capital or annual costs were estimated for these facilities. The two
remaining thermal oxidizers have temperatures or residence times lower
than those at the facilities that are achieving the proposed control
levels. Capital costs were estimated to replace
[[Page 34285]]
these two thermal oxidizers with new thermal oxidizers that are
designed to meet the proposed NESHAP.
The proposed monitoring requirements for the thermal oxidizer
operating temperature are not current industry practice and are
expected to impose additional costs on facilities with existing thermal
oxidizers. To estimate the impact of the additional monitoring
equipment (i.e., a data logging system), a cost of $7,000 ($1,000 for
each of the seven facilities with an existing thermal oxidizer that is
achieving the proposed NESHAP) was included in the capital cost
estimate (Docket No. A-97-54). No additional capital costs were
estimated for monitoring equipment for the new thermal oxidizers since
temperature monitors and recording devices are standard equipment and
are included in the cost estimates for new thermal oxidizers.
The total annualized cost of the proposed NESHAP for eight new
thermal oxidizers is about $2,414,000. The average annual cost for a
typical facility that installs a new thermal oxidizer is $302,000. The
annualized cost estimate includes the cost of operation, maintenance,
supervisory labor, maintenance materials, utilities, administrative
charges, taxes, insurance, and capital recovery.
F. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The goal of the economic impact analysis is to estimate the market
response of the wet-formed fiberglass mat production industry to the
proposed emission standards and to determine the economic effects that
may result from the proposed NESHAP. As discussed above, 14 facilities
owned by nine different companies produce wet-formed fiberglass mat
domestically. These facilities may potentially be affected by the
proposed NESHAP.
The estimated nationwide annualized cost of the proposed NESHAP is
$1.595 million. This cost estimate represents approximately 0.069
percent of the 1995 sales revenues for domestically produced wet-formed
fiberglass mat. Based upon this estimate, it is reasonable to assume
that market price increases and production decreases resulting from the
proposed NESHAP are likely to be very small. Thus, we conclude that the
proposed NESHAP is not likely to have a significant economic impact on
the wet-formed fiberglass mat industry as a whole or on secondary
markets such as the labor market and foreign trade.
We performed a streamlined economic analysis to determine facility-
specific impacts. The facility-specific impacts are examined by
calculating the ratio of the estimated annualized costs of emission
controls for each facility to the estimated revenues per facility
(i.e., a cost-to-sales ratio) to assess the likelihood of facility
closures and employment impacts. Cost-to-sales ratios refer to the
change in the cost of emission controls divided by the sales revenue of
wet-formed fiberglass mat, the goods produced in the process for which
additional pollution control is required. This ratio can be estimated
for either individual firms or as an average for some set of firms such
as affected small firms. While it has different significance for
different market situations, it is a good rough gauge of potential
impact. If costs for the individual (or group of) firms are completely
passed onto the purchasers of the good(s) being produced, the ratio is
an estimate of the price change (in percentage form after multiplying
the ratio by 100). If costs are completely absorbed by the producer,
this ratio is an estimate of changes in pretax profits (in percentage
form after multiplying the ratio by 100). The distribution of cost-to-
sales ratios across the whole market, the competitiveness of the
market, and profit-to-sales ratios are among the obvious factors that
may influence the significance of any particular cost-to-sales ratio
for an individual facility.
For these proposed NESHAP, a cost-to-sales ratio exceeding 1
percent was determined to be an initial indicator of the potential for
a significant facility impact. Each of the 14 facilities affected by
the proposed NESHAP has cost-to-sales ratios of less than 1 percent of
sales. Therefore, the facility-specific impacts are not considered to
be significant for any facility affected by the proposed NESHAP. No
facility is likely to close as a result of the proposed NESHAP.
Facilities in the wet-formed fiberglass mat production industry are
likely to increase the price charged for the product in response to
market price changes, to absorb the costs with no price increase, or to
respond with a combination of these alternatives. The economic impacts
to consumers and producers of wet-formed fiberglass mat are anticipated
to be minimal. The generally small scale of the impacts suggests that
there will also be no significant impacts on markets for the products
made using wet-formed fiberglass mat. For more information, consult the
economic impact report entitled ``Economic Impact Analysis for the
Proposed National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants from
the Production of Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat,'' January 1999 (Docket No.
A-97-54).
IV. How Were These Proposed NESHAP Developed?
A. Selection of Emission Sources
In the wet-formed fiberglass mat production industry, HAPs are
emitted from two processes: binder application processes and drying and
curing processes. For the reasons described below, we selected the
drying and curing processes at new and existing wet-formed fiberglass
mat production lines for control under the proposed NESHAP.
The drying and curing oven drives off moisture remaining on the
fibers and sets the binder using heated air. Fans are used to draw hot
air through the mat within each of the oven zones; the hot air may be
recycled within each zone to conserve energy. Emissions of
formaldehyde, vinyl acetate, and methanol result from vaporization of
volatile compounds in the binder. Emissions from ten of the 15 drying
and curing ovens on wet-formed fiberglass manufacturing lines are
controlled by thermal oxidizers. Emissions from the remaining five
ovens are uncontrolled.
The emissions from the drying and curing ovens account for
approximately 90 percent of the total HAP emissions from wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities. Although one facility controls
the vent gases from the binder application vacuum exhaust along with
the drying and curing oven exhaust, we do not consider the control of
the binder application vacuum exhaust at this facility to represent
MACT for new sources. When the binder application vacuum exhaust is
controlled using an existing thermal oxidizer designed to control only
the drying and curing oven exhaust, the overall HAP reduction achieved
by the thermal oxidizer is decreased (Docket No. A-97-54). Introducing
the binder application vacuum exhaust into an existing thermal oxidizer
decreases the performance of the thermal oxidizer because of the
decreased residence time in the thermal oxidizer and the high moisture
content of the binder application vacuum exhaust. No binder application
vacuum exhausts are controlled using stand-alone thermal oxidizers. In
addition, the costs of controlling the binder application vacuum
exhaust by requiring a stand-alone thermal oxidizer would be
unreasonably high. For these reasons, we propose to regulate HAP
emissions at the MACT floor only from the drying and curing oven
processes.
[[Page 34286]]
B. Selection of MACT Floor
After identifying the MACT floors for new and existing sources, we
must investigate regulatory alternatives. Regulatory alternatives are
different levels of emissions control, equal to or more stringent than
the MACT floor levels. Information about the industry is analyzed to
project national impacts (which include HAP emission reduction levels
and cost, energy, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts)
and to select the regulatory alternative that best reflects MACT. The
selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the
control level must be achievable and reasonable in the Administrator's
judgement considering cost, non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. The objective is to achieve the
maximum degree of emissions reduction without imposing unreasonable
impacts (see section 112(d)(2) of the CAA). The regulatory alternatives
and emission limits selected for new and existing sources may be
different because of different MACT floors.
In establishing the MACT standards, we may distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory
when there are significant differences among the classes or
subcategories (see section 112(d)(1) of the CAA). For the wet-formed
fiberglass mat industry, we examined the processes, the process
operations, and other factors to determine if separate classes of
units, operations, or other criteria have an effect on air emissions or
their controllability that would justify subcategories. Because all the
wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities use similar processes
and emit the same pollutants, there is no basis for establishing
subcategories. Therefore, we decided to regulate wet-formed fiberglass
mat production as one source category.
Because the wet-formed fiberglass mat production industry has fewer
than 30 sources, the MACT floor for existing sources is based on the
average of the best-performing five sources. Nine facilities (10
production lines) of the 14 facilities (15 production lines) use a
thermal oxidizer to control HAP emissions from the drying and curing
oven exhaust. Emission reductions achieved by thermal oxidizers
represent the best emissions control technology achieved by sources
subject to the proposed standards. Thus, the MACT floor for existing
sources is the level of control achieved by a thermal oxidizer.
The new source MACT floor is based on the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. Because the
best-controlled drying and curing oven uses a thermal oxidizer and no
more effective control technology than thermal oxidation has been
achieved to control gaseous HAPs, this is also the MACT floor level of
control for new sources.
One facility currently controls the emissions from the binder
application vacuum exhaust using a thermal oxidizer originally designed
to control only the drying and curing oven exhaust. Because the
existing thermal oxidizer was not designed to control the binder
application vacuum exhaust along with the drying and curing oven
exhaust, a lower overall HAP reduction is achieved at this facility
than by facilities controlling only the drying and curing oven exhaust.
The overall HAP level of control is compromised due to the decreased
residence time in the thermal oxidizer and the high moisture content of
the binder application vacuum exhaust. Therefore, because it is not the
best controlled source, we do not consider the control of the binder
application vacuum exhaust at this facility to represent the MACT floor
for new sources.
Currently, we are not aware of any available controls that are
better than a thermal oxidizer for controlling gaseous HAP emissions at
wet-formed fiberglass mat production lines. We considered controlling
the binder application vacuum exhaust emissions in addition to the
drying and curing oven exhaust emissions. We have determined that
controlling the binder application vacuum exhaust emissions with a
stand-alone thermal oxidizer was the only available beyond-the-floor
option for existing sources. The incremental cost of controlling the
binder application vacuum exhaust with a dedicated thermal oxidizer is
approximately $39,200/Mg ($35,700/ton) of HAP reduced (Docket No. A-97-
54). As discussed above, it is not possible to combine the binder
application vacuum exhaust with the drying and curing oven exhaust at
existing facilities without decreasing the performance of the existing
thermal oxidizer. We did not select this control scenario because it
achieves a lower overall HAP reduction.
As with existing sources, the only option more stringent than the
MACT floor level of control for new sources is control of the binder
application vacuum exhaust in addition to controlling the drying and
curing oven exhaust. For new sources, a thermal oxidizer could be
designed to handle both emission sources. Therefore, for this analysis,
we assumed that a single thermal oxidizer would be used to control both
the drying and curing oven exhaust and the binder application vacuum
exhaust. This assumption was made since controlling the drying and
curing oven exhaust and the binder application vacuum exhaust in
separate thermal oxidizers would be more expensive than a single
thermal oxidizer for both emission sources (Docket No. A-97-54).
The estimated incremental cost for new sources to control both the
drying and curing oven exhaust and the binder application vacuum
exhaust with one thermal oxidizer is approximately $12,800/Mg ($11,600/
ton) of HAP reduced. The new source control cost estimates are based on
a representative wet-formed fiberglass mat production facility
controlling both the drying and curing oven exhaust and the binder
application vacuum exhaust with a single thermal oxidizer (Docket No.
A-97-54). Based on this evaluation, we concluded that the cost of
controlling the binder application vacuum exhaust at new sources is
unreasonable at this time.
For each of the cases evaluated above, we did not identify emission
control technologies or control of additional emission sources that
would reduce emissions to a level below the MACT floor without imposing
costs which we concluded are unreasonable at this time. Therefore, we
are proposing emission limits at the MACT floor level of control.
C. Emission Limits
We have performance data for five facilities in this industry that
use thermal oxidizers to control drying and curing oven exhaust
streams. Table 4 summarizes the available formaldehyde emissions data
from these facilities. However, data from only four thermal oxidizers
were used to determine the proposed emission limits. The performance of
the thermal oxidizer at the fifth facility was not considered
representative of the MACT floor level of control. This facility
controls the emissions from the binder application vacuum exhaust using
a thermal oxidizer originally designed to control only the emissions
from the drying and curing oven exhaust. Because the binder application
vacuum exhaust is a cooler and more dilute stream than the drying and
curing oven exhaust, the residence time in the combustion chamber is
decreased and HAP destruction efficiency is reduced. Therefore, data
from plant E in table 4 were not used to determine emission limits for
drying and curing ovens.
[[Page 34287]]
Table 4.--Summary of Formaldehyde Emission Test Results on Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Lines for Drying and Curing Oven Exhaust
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average formaldehyde emissions a
------------------------------------------------------- Calculated
Plant Thermal oxidizer parameters b Uncontrolled Controlled control device
------------------------------------------------------- efficiency (%
kg/Mg lb/ton kg/Mg lb/ton destruction)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................................... 1500 deg.F, 1.25 s RT 1.972 3.945 0.0065 0.013 99.7
B.................................... 1500 deg.F, 1 s RT 0.415 0.830 0.0018 0.0037 99.5
C.................................... 1350 deg.F, 0.75 s RT 0.296 0.591 0.0035 0.0070 98.8
D.................................... 1400 deg.F, 1.2 s RT 0.590 1.18 0.02 0.04 96.4
E c.................................. 1500 deg.F, 0.6 s RT 0.970 1.94 0.095 0.19 90.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Emission units are kg (lb) of formaldehyde per Mg (ton) of fiberglass mat product.
\b\ RT = Retention time.
\c\ This facility also controls the binder application vacuum exhaust with the thermal oxidizer that was originally designed to control only the drying
and curing oven exhaust. Therefore, this thermal oxidizer was not considered representative of the MACT floor level of control.
The controlled emission rates of the four thermal oxidizers that
represent the MACT floor level of control range from 0.0018 to 0.02 kg/
Mg (0.0037 to 0.04 lb/ton) and the destruction efficiencies range from
99.7 to 96.4 percent efficiency. We believe that the differences in the
performance achieved by the four thermal oxidizers are due to
differences in operating temperature, residence time, combustion
chamber design, and variations in uncontrolled emissions that occur in
this industry. Considering these variables, we consider the performance
of the four well-designed and -operated thermal oxidizers to represent
the MACT floor level of control. Based on the data from all four
sources with well-designed and -operated thermal oxidizers, and
considering the variability in performance of a thermal oxidizer
representative of the MACT floor level of control, we have selected a
mass emission limit of 0.03 kg/Mg as the standard for new and existing
sources. The 0.03 kg/Mg mass emission limit selected is somewhat higher
that the short-term test result of 0.02 kg/Mg for the fourth thermal
oxidizer. However, the selected mass emission limit allows for long-
term process and control equipment variability.
We are also establishing an alternative percentage reduction
efficiency standard to address situations in which a facility cannot
achieve the 0.03 kg/Mg mass emission limit due to process variations
while operating technology representative of the MACT floor level of
control. Considering the data from all four of the sources with well-
designed and -operated thermal oxidizers representative of the MACT
floor level of control, and considering the variability in performance
of a thermal oxidizer representative of the MACT floor level of
control, we have selected a 96 percent destruction efficiency as the
alternative standard. Sources subject to these emission standards would
be allowed to demonstrate compliance by either meeting a mass emission
limit of 0.03 kg/Mg (0.05 lb/ton) of product or achieving a 96 percent
destruction efficiency. For example, a facility with a high inlet
formaldehyde concentration may not be able to achieve the mass emission
limit but could comply with the percentage reduction.
D. Selection of Test Methods
Under the proposed NESHAP, you must conduct a performance test
using formaldehyde as a surrogate measure for all organic HAPs. You
must measure formaldehyde emissions using EPA Reference Method 316 or
any other alternative method that has been approved by the
Administrator under Sec. 63.7(f) of the general provisions.
The EPA Reference Method 316, ``Sampling and Analysis for
Formaldehyde Emissions from Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and
Wool Fiberglass Industries,'' is a manual test method that measures
formaldehyde by spectrophotometry using the modified pararosaniline
method. The method was validated at a mineral wool manufacturing
facility, which has been determined to be a similar source, according
to the procedures in EPA Validation Method 301, 40 CFR part 63,
appendix A. In Method 316, gases are withdrawn isokinetically from an
emission source and are collected in high-purity water. Formaldehyde
present in the emissions is highly soluble in water. Formaldehyde in
the sample reacts with acidic pararosaniline and sodium sulfite,
forming a purple chromophore. The intensity of the purple color,
measured spectrophotometrically, provides a measure of the formaldehyde
concentration in the sample.
Using the results of the performance tests, you would use the
equations and procedures in the rule to convert the formaldehyde
emission rate into either a kg/Mg (lb/ton) of product emission rate or
a percentage removal value. Appendix A to the proposed standards
contains a method for determining the free-formaldehyde content of
urea-formaldehyde resins. Appendix B to the proposed standards contains
a method for determining the loss-on-ignition of the product. You must
monitor these parameters to ensure compliance with the standards
between performance tests.
E. Selection of Operating Standards and Monitoring Requirements
We believe that the operating standards and monitoring requirements
discussed in sections II.C and II.E, respectively, will provide
sufficient information needed to determine continuing compliance or
identify operating problems at the source. At the same time, the
provisions are not labor intensive, do not require expensive or complex
equipment, and do not require burdensome recordkeeping. For example,
temperature monitoring and recording equipment are standard features on
thermal oxidizers. Resin free-formaldehyde content is a standard
purchase specification for resin. Finally, the solids content of the
urea-formaldehyde resins, the urea-formaldehyde solids content, the
binder formulation formaldehyde content, and loss-on-ignition value of
the product manufactured are monitored and recorded as part of normal
product quality control procedures.
V. What Are the Administrative Requirements of These Proposed
NESHAP?
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to
[[Page 34288]]
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. However, an economic analysis of
the proposed NESHAP was prepared and is available in the docket (Docket
A-97-54).
B. 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 EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, 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 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 proposed 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.
C. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely
manner.
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
This determination has been made since none of the affected facilities
under this proposed rule are owned or operated by State or local
governments. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order
do not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with State and local
officials in developing the proposed rule.
D. Executive Order 13084--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, 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 EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to 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 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 proposed 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 proposed 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, 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
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and
[[Page 34289]]
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 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 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 the 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 proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The total nationwide capital cost for the
proposed standard is estimated at $5.3 million; the annualized
nationwide cost is estimated at $2.4 million. Thus, today's proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statue 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that
has less than 750 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any non-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have
determined that only two of the nine companies producing wet-formed
fiberglass mat are small businesses. One of these small businesses is
not anticipated to incur emission control costs because it already has
controls in place which should achieve the MACT emission levels.
Therefore, only one small firm in the wet-formed fiberglass mat
production industry is expected to incur emission control costs as a
result of the regulation. This small business is expected to incur
control costs that represent 0.3441 percent of current sales revenues,
a cost-to-sales ratio substantially below 1 percent (the criterion
established as a first indicator of the potential for significant
impact). As a result of the increased costs of emission controls, this
small entity in the affected industry will likely increase the price of
its product in response to a market change in price, will absorb the
cost increase with no price increase, or will respond with a
combination of these responses. Since the estimated costs as a
percentage of sales are relatively minimal, it is anticipated that the
regulation will not have a significant impact on this company's
profitability.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities by
providing flexibility by offering a choice of compliance and monitoring
options. Compliance options include mass emission limits or percent
reduction standards. Compliance with the proposed standard can be
achieved through the use of a thermal oxidizer or other control device.
Pollution prevention practices, such as process modifications, are also
included in the proposed rule. We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such impacts.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No.
____), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Collection
Strategies Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The information requirements contained in the proposed NESHAP are
necessary to determine initial and continuous compliance with the
emission standards. The proposed information requirements include the
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NESHAP
general provisions, authorized under section 114 of the CAA, which are
mandatory for all owners or operators subject to national emission
standards. All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in
40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed rule does not require any
notifications or reports beyond the minimum required by the general
provisions. Proposed subpart HHHH requires additional records of
information specific to the wet-formed fiberglass mat production
industry which are needed to determine compliance with the rule.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection is estimated at 2,983 labor hours per year at an annual cost
of $98,183. This estimate includes an initial performance test and
report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time preparation of a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of any
event in which the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual
excess emissions reports; notifications; the operations, maintenance,
and monitoring plan; and recordkeeping. The annualized capital cost
associated with monitoring requirements is estimated at $2,300.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating,
verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing, and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to
a collection of information; search existing data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB
[[Page 34290]]
control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated
collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division,
Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA.'' Refer to ICR 1964.01 in any correspondence.
Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between
30 and 60 days after May 26, 2000. A comment to OMB is most likely to
have its full effect if OMB receives it by June 26, 2000. The final
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, directs all Federal Agencies 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 (VCS) are technical
standards (such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) which are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires Federal
agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with
explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
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 product loss-on-ignition and
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
VCS were impractical for the wet-formed fiberglass mat production
NESHAP. The EPA, in consultation with the Technical Association for the
Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI), has formulated industry-specific
materials analysis consensus standards which are proposed in this rule.
The EPA search to identify VCS for the EPA's emissions sampling and
analysis reference methods cited in this proposed rule identified six
candidate standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA
standard reference methods. However, after reviewing available
standards, EPA determined that four of the candidate consensus
standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or surrogates
subject to emission standards in the proposed rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, and validation
data. Two of the remaining candidate consensus standards are new
standards under development that EPA plans to follow, review and
consider adopting at a later date.
The EPA takes comment on compliance demonstration requirements
proposed in this rulemaking and specifically invites the public to
identify potentially-applicable VCS. Commentors should also explain why
this proposed rule should adopt these VCS in lieu of EPA's test
methods. Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted
for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used
to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40
CFR part 63, appendix A was used).
Section 63.2993 of the proposed NESHAP lists the EPA testing
methods. These testing methods have been used by States and industry
for more than 10 years.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 12, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart HHHH to read as follows:
Subpart HHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Sec.
Introduction and Applicability
63.2980 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.2981 Does this subpart apply to me?
63.2982 Where can I find definitions of key words used in this
subpart?
Standards
63.2983 What emission standards must I meet?
63.2984 What operating standards must I meet?
63.2985 When must I meet these standards?
63.2986 How do I comply with the standards?
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan
63.2987 What must my operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan
include?
63.2988 How do I get my operation, maintenance, and monitoring
plan approved?
63.2989 How do I change my operation, maintenance and monitoring
plan?
63.2990 Can I conduct short-term experimental production runs that
cause parameters to deviate from operating standards?
Performance Test Requirements
63.2991 When must I conduct performance tests?
63.2992 How do I conduct a performance test?
63.2993 What test methods must I use in conducting performance
tests?
63.2994 How do I verify the performance of monitoring equipment?
63.2995 What equations must I use to determine compliance?
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
63.2996 What must I monitor?
63.2997 What are the requirements for monitoring devices?
63.2998 What records must I maintain?
63.2999 For how long must I maintain records?
63.3000 What reports must I submit?
Other Requirements and Information
63.3001 What portions of the general provisions apply to me?
63.3002 Who enforces this subpart?
63.3003 Incorporation by reference.
[[Page 34291]]
63.3004 What definitions must I understand?
63.3005-- 63.3079 [Reserved].
Tables
Table 1 of Subpart HHHH--Minimum Requirements for Monitoring and
Recordkeeping
Table 2 of Subpart HHHH--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) to Subpart HHHH
Appendices
Appendix A to Subpart HHHH to Part 63--Method for Determining Free-
Formaldehyde in Urea-Formaldehyde Resins by Sodium Sulfite (Iced &
Cooled)
Appendix B to Subpart HHHH to Part 63--Method for the Determination
of Loss-on-Ignition
Subpart HHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Introduction and Applicability
Sec. 63.2980 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants for existing, new, and reconstructed drying and curing
ovens at facilities that produce wet-formed fiberglass mat.
Sec. 63.2981 Does this subpart apply to me?
You must comply with this subpart if you meet the criteria in
paragraphs (a), (b), (b)(1) or paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
(a) You own or operate a drying and curing oven at a wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facility.
(b) The facility at which your drying and curing oven is located
emits or has the potential to emit in the aggregate either:
(1) A single hazardous air pollutant at a rate of 9.07 megagrams
(10 tons) or more per year; or
(2) Any combination of hazardous air pollutants at a rate of 22.68
megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.
Sec. 63.2982 Where can I find definitions of key words used in this
subpart?
The definitions of keywords used in this subpart are in Secs. 63.2
and 63.3004.
Standards
Sec. 63.2983 What emission standards must I meet?
(a) You must control the formaldehyde emissions from each drying
and curing oven by either:
(1) Limiting emissions of formaldehyde to 0.03 kilograms or less
per megagram (0.05 pounds per ton) of fiberglass mat produced; or
(2) Reducing uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions by 96 percent or
more.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 63.2984 What operating standards must I meet?
(a) You must maintain operating parameters within established
limits or ranges specified in your operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan described in Sec. 63.2987. If any of the specified
parameters deviate from the limit or range specified in the operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan, an operating parameter excursion
occurs and must be addressed according to paragraph (b) of this
section. The operating parameters in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of
this section must be maintained:
(1) You must operate the thermal oxidizer so that the average
operating temperature in any 3-hour block period does not fall below
the temperature established during your performance test and specified
in your approved operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(2) You must maintain the process or emission control device
parameters within the ranges established during the performance test
and specified in your approved operation, maintenance, and monitoring
plan.
(3) You must not use a resin with a free-formaldehyde content
greater than that of the resin used during your performance test and
specified in your approved operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(4) You must not use a binder formulation with a urea formaldehyde
content greater than that of the binder formulation used during your
performance test and specified in your approved operation, maintenance,
and monitoring plan.
(5) You must not use a urea-formaldehyde (UF) resin with a solids
content greater than that of the resin used during your performance
test and specified in your approved operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(6) You must not manufacture a product with a higher UF resin
solids content per ton of product (including any material trimmed from
the final product) than that of the product manufactured during your
performance test and specified in your approved operation, maintenance,
and monitoring plan.
(7) You must not produce products that have a loss-on-ignition
value greater than that of the product manufactured during your
performance test and specified in your approved operation, maintenance,
and monitoring plan.
(b) When you detect that an operating parameter deviates from the
limit or range established in paragraph (a) of this section, you must
initiate corrective actions within 1 hour according to the provisions
of your operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The corrective
actions must be completed in an expeditious manner as specified in the
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(c) You must maintain and inspect control devices according to the
procedures specified in the operation, maintenance, and monitoring
plan.
(d) You must reference the operating standards and their allowable
ranges or limits and your operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan
in the 40 CFR part 70 operating permit application for the drying and
curing oven.
(e) If you use a thermal oxidizer or other control device to
achieve the emission standards in Sec. 63.2983, you must capture and
convey the formaldehyde emissions from each drying and curing oven
according to the procedures in chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice (22nd Edition).'' This
publication is incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.3003.
Sec. 63.2985 When must I meet these standards?
(a) Existing drying and curing ovens must be in compliance with
this subpart no later than [3 years after date final rule is published
in the Federal Register].
(b) New or reconstructed drying and curing ovens must be in
compliance with this subpart at startup or by [the date final rule is
published in the Federal Register], whichever is later. For the purpose
of this subpart, a new drying and curing oven is defined as each drying
and curing oven that commences construction or reconstruction after May
26, 2000.
Sec. 63.2986 How do I comply with the standards?
(a) You must install, maintain, and operate a thermal oxidizer or
other control device or implement a process modification that reduces
formaldehyde emissions from each drying and curing oven to the limits
specified in the emission standards in Sec. 63.2983.
(b) You must comply with the operating standards of this subpart.
The operating standards prescribe the requirements for demonstrating
continuous compliance, based on the operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan. Requirements for operating standards are specified in
Sec. 63.2984.
(c) You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance
for each
[[Page 34292]]
drying and curing oven subject to the emission standards of this
subpart and to establish the limits or ranges for process or control
device parameters that will be monitored to demonstrate continuous
compliance. You must repeat the test every 5 years as part of renewing
your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit. A performance test is also
required to change the limit or range for any operating parameter
specified in the operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. In
conducting performance tests, you must meet the requirements of
Sec. 63.7 for test dates; notifications; quality assurance program;
testing facilities; conduct of the test; use of an alternate test
method; data analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting; and requesting a
test to be waived. You must also conduct the tests under the conditions
specified in Sec. 63.2992 and after verifying the performance of
monitoring equipment as specified in Sec. 63.2994.
(d) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate devices that
monitor the parameters specified in your approved operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan at the frequency specified in the
plan.
(e) You must prepare and follow a written operation, maintenance,
and monitoring plan. The plan must be submitted to the Administrator
for review and approval and must be referenced by your 40 CFR part 70
operating permit. The plan must include, as a minimum, the information
specified in Sec. 63.2987.
(f) You must comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of this subpart. You must perform the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting required in Secs. 63.2996
through 63.3000.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan
Sec. 63.2987 What must my operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan
include?
(a) You must prescribe the monitoring that will be performed to
ensure compliance with the standards in this subpart. Minimum
monitoring requirements are listed in table 1 of this subpart. Your
plan must specify the items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of
this section:
(1) Each process and control device to be monitored, the type of
monitoring device that will be used, and the operating parameters that
will be monitored.
(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the
parameter values will be determined and recorded.
(3) The limits or ranges for each parameter that represent
continuous compliance with the emission standards in Sec. 63.2983.
Limits and ranges must be based on values of the monitored parameters
recorded during performance tests.
(b) You must establish routine and long-term maintenance and
inspection schedules for each control device. You must incorporate in
the schedules the control device manufacturer's recommendations for
maintenance and inspections or equivalent procedures. If you use a
thermal oxidizer, the maintenance schedule must include procedures for
annual or more frequent inspection of the thermal oxidizer to ensure
that the structural and design integrity of the combustion chamber is
maintained. At a minimum, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs
(b)(1) through (10) of this section:
(1) Inspect all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing
devices for proper operation. Clean pilot sensor if necessary.
(2) Ensure proper adjustment of combustion air and adjust if
necessary.
(3) Inspect, when possible, all internal structures (such as
baffles) to ensure structural integrity per the design specifications.
(4) Inspect dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation.
(5) Inspect motors for proper operation.
(6) Inspect, when possible, combustion chamber refractory lining.
Clean and repair or replace lining if necessary.
(7) Inspect the thermal oxidizer shell for proper sealing,
corrosion, and hot spots.
(8) For the burn cycle that follows the inspection, document that
the thermal oxidizer is operating properly and make any necessary
adjustments.
(9) Generally observe whether the equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(10) Complete all necessary repairs as soon as practicable.
(c) You must establish procedures for responding to operating
parameter excursions. At a minimum, the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3) of this section must include:
(1) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter
excursion.
(2) Actions for correcting the excursion and returning the
operating parameters to the allowable ranges or limits.
(3) Procedures for recording the times that the excursion began and
ended, and corrective actions were initiated and completed.
(d) Your plan must specify the recordkeeping procedures to document
compliance with the emissions and operating standards. Table 1 of this
subpart establishes the minimum recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 63.2988 How do I get my operation, maintenance, and monitoring
plan approved?
You must obtain approval for your operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan. The steps in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
are required to obtain approval of your plan:
(a) You must submit a draft plan to the Administrator for approval
60 days before conducting the performance tests required in
Sec. 63.2991.
(b) Within 60 days after conducting the performance tests required
in Sec. 63.2991, you must submit the final plan, including the results
of the performance tests, to the Administrator for approval. In
addition, you must submit the parameter levels or ranges to the permit
Agency for approval.
Sec. 63.2989 How do I change my operation, maintenance and monitoring
plan?
Changes to your operation, maintenance and monitoring plan require
the approval of the Administrator.
(a) If you are revising the ranges or limits established for your
operating standards, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section:
(1) Submit a request to and obtain approval from the Administrator
to conduct a performance test to revise your operating standard ranges
or limits.
(2) After you receive approval from the Administrator, conduct a
performance test to demonstrate that compliance with the emissions
standards can be achieved at the revised operating conditions.
(3) Submit the performance test results and the revised operating,
maintenance, and monitoring plan to the Administrator for approval.
(4) Pending Administrator approval of the revised operating,
maintenance, and monitoring plan, you must comply with the provisions
of your approved plan.
(b) If you are revising an aspect of the plan that does not require
an additional performance test, for example, maintenance procedures,
you must submit only a final plan to the Administrator for approval.
Pending the Administrator's approval of the changes, you must comply
with the provisions of your approved plan.
[[Page 34293]]
Sec. 63.2990 Can I conduct short-term experimental production runs
that cause parameters to deviate from operating standards?
With the approval of the Administrator, you may conduct short-term
experimental production runs during which your operating parameters
deviate from the limits or ranges in your operating standards.
Experimental runs may include, but are not limited to, runs using resin
with a higher free-formaldehyde content than specified in the
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan, or using experimental
pollution prevention techniques. To conduct a short-term experimental
production run, you must complete the requirements in paragraphs (a)
and (b)(1) through (6) of this section:
(a) Submit an application to the Administrator for approval at
least 30 days before you conduct the test run.
(b) Prepare an application. Your application must include:
(1) The purpose of the experimental run.
(2) Identification of the affected line.
(3) An explanation of how the operating parameters will deviate
from the previously approved ranges and limits.
(4) The duration of the experimental run.
(5) The date and time of the experimental run.
(6) A description of any emission testing to be performed during
the experimental run.
Performance Test Requirements
Sec. 63.2991 When must I conduct performance tests?
You must conduct performance tests for each drying and curing oven
subject to this subpart under the circumstances listed in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section:
(a) Initially. You must conduct an initial performance test
according to the dates specified in Sec. 63.7. This performance test is
used to demonstrate initial compliance and establish operating
parameter limits and ranges to be used to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the emission standards.
(b) Every 5 Years. You must conduct a performance test every 5
years as part of renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit.
(c) To change your operation, maintenance and monitoring plan. You
must conduct a performance test according to the requirements specified
in Sec. 63.2989.
Sec. 63.2992 How do I conduct a performance test?
(a) You must verify the performance of monitoring equipment as
specified in Sec. 63.2994.
(b) You must conduct the performance test according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.7.
(c) You must conduct the performance test under the conditions
listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section:
(1) The resin must have the highest specified free-formaldehyde
content that will be used.
(2) The binder formulation must have the highest urea formaldehyde
content of all formulations that will be used.
(3) The resin used must have the highest UF resin solids content of
all resins that will be used.
(4) The product made must have the highest UF resin solids content
per ton of product of all products that will be manufactured.
(5) The product made must have the highest loss-on-ignition of all
products that will be manufactured.
(6) You must operate at the maximum feasible production rate for
the specific product.
(d) During the test, you must monitor and record the operating
parameters that you will use to demonstrate continuous compliance after
the test. These parameters are listed in table 1 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.2993 What test methods must I use in conducting performance
tests?
(a) EPA Reference Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for
selecting the sampling port location and the number of sampling ports.
(b) EPA Reference Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for
measuring the volumetric flow rate.
(c) EPA Reference Method 316 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for
measuring the concentration of formaldehyde.
(d) The method contained in appendix A of this subpart for
determining the free-formaldehyde resin solids content or the resin
purchase specification and the vendor specification sheet for each
resin lot.
(e) The method in appendix B of this subpart for determining
product loss-on-ignition.
Sec. 63.2994 How do I verify the performance of monitoring equipment?
Before conducting the performance test, you must take the steps
listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:
(a) Install and calibrate all process equipment, control devices,
and monitoring equipment.
(b) Conduct a performance evaluation of the continuous monitoring
system (CMS) according to Sec. 63.8(e) which specifies the general
requirements and requirements for notifications, the site-specific
performance evaluation plan, conduct of the performance evaluation, and
reporting of performance evaluation results.
(c) If you use a thermal oxidizer, the temperature monitoring
device must meet the performance and equipment specifications listed in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) The temperature monitoring device must be installed at the exit
of the combustion zone of each thermal oxidizer.
(2) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the
average temperature required in Sec. 63.2984(a)(1).
(3) The measurement method or reference method for calibration must
be a National Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated
reference thermocouple-potentiometer system or an alternate reference
subject to the approval of the Administrator.
Sec. 63.2995 What equations must I use to determine compliance?
(a) Percent reduction for formaldehyde. To determine compliance
with the percent reduction formaldehyde emission standard, use equation
1 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.017
Where:
Ef=Formaldehyde control efficiency, percent.
Mi=Mass flow rate of formaldehyde entering the control
device, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
Mo=Mass flow rate of formaldehyde exiting the control
device, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
(b) Formaldehyde mass emissions rate. To determine compliance with
the kilogram per megagram (pound per ton) formaldehyde emission
standard, use equation 2 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.018
Where:
E=Formaldehyde mass emissions rate, kilograms (pounds) of formaldehyde
per megagram (ton) of fiberglass mat produced.
M=Formaldehyde mass emissions rate, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
P=The wet-formed fiberglass mat production rate during the emissions
sampling period, including any material trimmed from the final product,
megagrams (tons) per hour.
[[Page 34294]]
(c) Urea-formaldehyde (UF) resin solids content. To determine the
UF resin solids content, use equation 3 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.019
Where:
%UF=Percent of urea-formaldehyde resin solids of wet-formed fiberglass
mat produced, percent.
A=Ratio of the urea-formaldehyde resin solids to the total solids
content of the binder formulation.
LOI=The loss-on-ignition of the wet-formed fiberglass mat, percent.
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
Sec. 63.2996 What must I monitor?
You must monitor the parameters listed in table 1 of this subpart
and any other parameters specified on your operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan. The parameters must be monitored, at a minimum, at the
corresponding frequencies listed in table 1 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.2997 What are the requirements for monitoring devices?
(a) If formaldehyde emissions are controlled using a thermal
oxidizer, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(2) of this section:
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device to monitor
and record continuously the thermal oxidizer temperature consistent
with manufacturer's recommendations.
(2) Continuously monitor the thermal oxidizer temperature and
determine and record average temperature in 15-minute and 3-hour block
averages. You may determine the average temperature more frequently
than every 15 minutes and every 3 hours, but not less frequently.
(b) If formaldehyde emissions are controlled by process
modifications or a control device other than a thermal oxidizer, you
must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate devices to monitor the
parameters established in your operation, maintenance, and monitoring
plan at the frequency established in the plan.
Sec. 63.2998 What records must I maintain?
You must maintain records according to the procedures of
Sec. 63.10. You are required to maintain the following types of records
listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)(1) through (4) of this
section:
(a) All information required by the applicable general provisions.
Table 2 of this subpart presents the applicable requirements of the
general provisions.
(b) The approved operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(c) Records of values of monitored parameters listed in table 1 of
this subpart.
(d) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the control
devices.
(e) If an operating parameter excursion occurs, you must record:
(1) The date, time, and duration of the operating parameter
excursion.
(2) A brief description of the cause of the operating parameter
excursion.
(3) The dates and times at which corrective actions were initiated
and completed.
(4) A brief description of the corrective actions taken to return
the parameter to the limit or to within the range established in the
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
Sec. 63.2999 For how long must I maintain records?
You must maintain each record required by this subpart for 5 years.
You must maintain the most recent 2 years of records at the facility.
The remaining 3 years of records may be retained offsite.
Sec. 63.3000 What reports must I submit?
(a) You must submit all reports and notifications required by the
applicable general provisions. Table 2 of this subpart presents the
applicable requirements of the general provisions.
(b) You must include in the performance test reports required by
Sec. 63.10(d)(2) the values measured during the performance test for
operating parameters listed in table 1 of this subpart. For the thermal
oxidizer temperature, you must include 15-minute averages and the
average for the three 1-hour test runs.
(c) You must submit to the Administrator the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan required in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) within 180 days of the
compliance date. You must submit reports of any revisions to the plan
semiannually. If no revisions are made within a semiannual period, you
are not required to submit a report.
(d) If an operating parameter excursion occurs, you must comply
with the reporting requirements for excess emissions and parameter
monitoring exceedances in Sec. 63.10(e)(3), which specifies the
reporting frequency, excess emissions report content, and summary
report content. In addition to the information required by
Sec. 63.10(e)(3), the report must contain the information recorded as a
result of the operating parameter excursion, including the dates and
times when the excursion commenced, corrective actions were taken, and
the excursion ended and descriptions of the cause of the excursion and
of the corrective actions taken. As required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3), you
must report quarterly if an excursion occurs, semiannually if no
excursions occur.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.3001 What portions of the general provisions apply to me?
You must comply with the requirements of the general provisions of
subpart A of this part, as specified in table 2 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.3002 Who enforces this subpart?
If the Administrator has delegated authority to your State, the
State is the primary enforcement authority. If the Administrator has
not delegated authority to your State, only EPA enforces this subpart.
Sec. 63.3003 Incorporation by reference.
(a) The following material is incorporated by reference in this
section: chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of
Recommended Practice,'' American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists, (22nd edition, 1995). The incorporation by reference of
this material will be approved by the Director of the Office of the
Federal Register as of the date of publication of the final rule
according to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material is
incorporated as it exists on the date of approval and notice of any
change in the material will be published in the Federal Register.
(b) The materials referenced in this section are incorporated by
reference and are available for inspection at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capital Street NW, Suite 700, 7th Floor,
Washington, DC. The material is also available for purchase from the
following address: Customer Service Department, American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive,
Cincinnati, OH 45240, telephone number (513) 742-2020.
Sec. 63.3004 What definitions must I understand?
In addition to the definitions in Sec. 63.2, keywords used in this
subpart are defined as follows:
Binder application vacuum exhaust means the exhaust from the vacuum
system used to remove excess resin solution from the wet-formed
fiberglass mat before it enters the drying and curing oven.
Binder formulation urea formaldehyde content means the urea
[[Page 34295]]
formaldehyde concentration of the binder, prepared from the urea-
formaldehyde resin and water, as applied to the glass fibers to form
the mat.
Drying and curing oven means the process section that evaporates
excess moisture from a fiberglass mat and cures the resin that binds
the fibers.
Fiberglass mat production rate means the weight of finished
fiberglass mat produced per hour of production including any trim
removed after the binder is applied and before final packaging.
Loss-on-ignition means the percentage decrease in weight of
fiberglass mat measured before and after it has been ignited to burn
off the applied binder. The loss-on-ignition is used to monitor the
weight percent of binder in fiberglass mat.
Nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing means the
production of a fiberglass mat by bonding glass fibers to each other
using a resin solution. Nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass mat
manufacturing is also referred to as wet-formed fiberglass mat
manufacturing.
Operating parameter excursion means any time an operating parameter
deviates from the limit or range established in the operation,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
Thermal oxidizer means an air pollution control device that uses
controlled flame combustion inside a combustion chamber to convert
combustible materials to noncombustible gases.
Secs. 63.3005--63.3079 [Reserved].
Table 1 of Subpart HHHH.--Minimum Requirements for Monitoring and
Recordkeeping
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must monitor these And record for the
parameters At this frequency monitored parameter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizer Continuously..... 15-minute and 3-hour
temperature a. block averages.
2. Other process or control As specified in As specified in your
device parameters specified your OMM. OMM plan.
in your operation,
maintenance and monitoring
(OMM) b plan.
3. Resin free-formaldehyde For each lot..... The value for each
content. lot used during the
operating day.
4. Binder formulation urea For each product The value for each
formaldehyde content. manufactured. product manufactured
during the operating
day.
5. Urea-Formaldehyde (UF) For each product The value for each
resin solids content. manufactured. product manufactured
during the operating
day.
6. Product UF resin solids For each product The value for each
content per ton of product manufactured. product manufactured
manufactured. during the operating
day.
7. Loss-on-ignition........... For each product The value for each
manufactured. product manufactured
during the operating
day.
8. Average hourly nonwoven wet- ................. The value for each
formed fiberglass mat product manufactured
production rate c. during the operating
day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Required if a thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde
emissions.
\b\ Required if process modifications or a control device other than a
thermal oxidizer is used to control emissions.
\c\ Average production rate is a parameter that must be monitored,
however, it is not an operating standard.
Table 2 of Subpart HHHH.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart HHHH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Requirement HHHH Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)................ General Applicability.. Yes...................
Sec. 63.1(a)(5)....................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)-(a)(8)................ ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.1(a)(9)....................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14).............. ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.1(b).......................... Initial Applicability Yes...................
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)....................... Applicability After Yes...................
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)....................... ....................... Yes................... Some plants may be
area sources.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)....................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)-(c)(5)................ ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.1(d).......................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(e).......................... Applicability of Permit Yes...................
Program.
Sec. 63.2............................. Definitions............ Yes................... Additional definitions
in Sec. 63.3004.
Sec. 63.3............................. Units and Abbreviations Yes...................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(a)(3)................ Prohibited Activities.. Yes...................
Sec. 63.4(a)(4)....................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.4(a)(5)....................... ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)...................... Circumvention/ Yes...................
Severability.
Sec. 63.5(a).......................... Construction/ Yes...................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)....................... Existing/Constructed/ Yes...................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(2)....................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(b)(6)................ ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.5(c).......................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(d).......................... Application for Yes...................
Approval of
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e).......................... Approval of Yes...................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f).......................... Approval of Yes...................
Construction/
Reconstruction Based
on State Review.
[[Page 34296]]
Sec. 63.6(a).......................... Compliance with Yes...................
Standards and
Maintenance--Applicabi
lity.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(b)(5)................ New and Reconstructed Yes...................
Sources--Dates.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)....................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)....................... ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(c)(2)................ Existing Sources Dates. Yes................... Sec. 63.2985
specifies dates.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)................ ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)....................... ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.6(d).......................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e).......................... Operation and Yes................... Secs. 63.2984 and
Maintenance 63.2987 specify
Requirements. additional
requirements
Sec. 63.6(f).......................... Compliance with Yes...................
Emission Standards.
Sec. 63.6(g).......................... Alternative Standard... Yes...................
Sec. 63.6(h).......................... Compliance with Opacity/ No.................... Subpart HHHH does not
Visible Emissions specify opacity or
Standards. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)............... Extension of Compliance Yes...................
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)...................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)...................... ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.6(j).......................... Exemption from Yes...................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.7(a).......................... Performance Test Yes...................
Requirements--Applicab
ility and Dates.
Sec. 63.7(b).......................... Notification of Yes...................
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.7(c).......................... Quality Assurance Yes...................
Program/Test Plan.
Sec. 63.7(d).......................... Testing Facilities..... Yes...................
Sec. 63.7(e).......................... Conduct of Tests....... Yes................... Secs. 63.2991--63.299
4 specify additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.7(f).......................... Alternative Test Method Yes................... EPA retains approval
authority.
Sec. 63.7(g).......................... Data Analysis.......... Yes...................
Sec. 63.7(h).......................... Waiver of Tests........ Yes...................
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(a)(2)................ Monitoring Yes...................
Requirements--Applicab
ility.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)....................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)....................... ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.8(b).......................... Conduct of Monitoring.. Yes...................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)-(c)(3)................ Continuous Monitoring Yes...................
System (CMS) Operation
and Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)....................... ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)....................... ....................... No.................... Subpart HHHH does not
specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(c)(8)................ ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.8(d).......................... Quality Control........ Yes...................
Sec. 63.8(e).......................... CMS Performance Yes...................
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)................ Alternative Monitoring Yes...................
Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)....................... Alternative to Relative No.................... Subpart HHHH does not
Accuracy Test. require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems
(CEMS).
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)....................... Data Reduction......... Yes...................
Sec. 63.8(g)(2)....................... Data Reduction......... No.................... Subpart HHHH does not
require the use of
CEMS or continuous
opacity monitoring
systems (COMS).
Sec. 63.8(g)(3)-(g)(5)................ Data Reduction......... Yes...................
Sec. 63.9(a).......................... Notification Yes...................
Requirements--Applicab
ility.
Sec. 63.9(b).......................... Initial Notifications.. Yes...................
Sec. 63.9(c).......................... Request for Compliance Yes...................
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d).......................... New Source Notification Yes...................
for Special Compliance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(e).......................... Notification of Yes...................
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.9(f).......................... Notification of Visible No.................... Subpart HHHH does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)....................... Additional CMS Yes...................
Notifications.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2) and (g)(3)............ ....................... No.................... Subpart HHHH does not
require the use of
COMS or CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)................ Notification of Yes...................
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4)....................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)................ ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.9(i).......................... Adjustment of Deadlines Yes...................
Sec. 63.9(j).......................... Change in Previous Yes...................
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a)......................... Recordkeeping/ Yes...................
Reporting--Applicabili
ty.
Sec. 63.10(b)......................... General Recordkeeping Yes................... Sec. 63.2998 includes
Requirements. additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)...................... Additional CMS Yes...................
Recordkeeping.
Sec. 63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4)............... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
[[Page 34297]]
Sec. 63.10(c)(5)-(c)(8)............... ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)...................... ....................... No.................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(c)(15)............. ....................... Yes...................
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)...................... General Reporting Yes................... Sec. 63.3000 includes
Requirements. additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)...................... Performance Test Yes................... Sec. 63.3000 includes
Results. additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)...................... Opacity or Visible No.................... Subpart HHHH does not
Emissions Observations. specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)-(d)(5)............... Progress Reports/ Yes...................
Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)...................... Additional CMS Reports- No.................... Subpart HHHH does not
General. require CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)...................... Reporting results of Yes...................
CMS performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)...................... Excess Emissions/CMS Yes...................
Performance Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)...................... COMS Data Reports...... No.................... Subpart HHHH does not
specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(f)......................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes...................
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11............................ Control Device No.................... Facilities subject to
Requirements--Applicab subpart HHHH do not
ility. use flares as control
devices.
Sec. 63.12............................ State Authority and Yes...................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13............................ Addresses.............. Yes...................
Sec. 63.14............................ Incorporation by No....................
Reference.
Sec. 63.15............................ Availability of Yes...................
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A to Subpart HHHH to Part 63--Method for Determining Free-
Formaldehyde in Urea-Formaldehyde Resins by Sodium Sulfite (Iced &
Cooled)
1.0 Scope
This procedure corresponds to the Housing and Urban Development
method of determining free-formaldehyde in urea-formaldehyde resins.
This method applies to samples that decompose to yield formaldehyde
under the conditions of other free-formaldehyde methods. The primary
use is for urea-formaldehyde resins.
2.0 Part A--Testing Resins
Formaldehyde will react with sodium sulfite to form the sulfite
addition products and liberate sodium hydroxide (NaOH); however, at
room temperature, the methylol groups present will also react to
liberate NaOH. Titrate at 0 degrees Celsius ( deg.C) to minimize the
reaction of the methylol groups.
2.1 Apparatus Required.
2.1.1 Ice crusher.
2.1.2 One 100-milliliter (mL) graduated cylinder.
2.1.3 Three 400-mL beakers.
2.1.4 One 50-mL burette.
2.1.5 Analytical balance accurate to 0.1 milligrams (mg).
2.1.6 Magnetic stirrer.
2.1.7 Magnetic stirring bars.
2.1.8 Disposable pipettes.
2.1.9 Several 5-ounce (oz.) plastic cups.
2.1.10 Ice cube trays (small cubes).
2.2 Materials Required.
2.2.1 Ice cubes (made with distilled water).
2.2.2 A solution of 1 molar (M) sodium sulfite
(Na2SO3) (63 grams (g)
Na2SO3/500 mL water (H2O)
neutralized to thymolphthalein endpoint).
2.2.3 Standardized 0.1 normal (N) hydrochloric acid (Hcl).
2.2.4 Thymolphthalein indicator (1.0 g thymolphthalein/199 g
methanol).
2.2.5 Sodium chloride (NaCl) (reagent grade).
2.2.6 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH).
2.3 Procedure.
2.3.1 Prepare sufficient quantity of crushed ice for three
determinations (two trays of cubes).
2.3.2 Put 70 cubic centimeters (cc) of 1 M
Na2SO3 solution into a 400-mL beaker. Begin
stirring and add approximately 100 g of crushed ice and 2 g of NaCl.
Maintain 0 deg.C during test, adding ice as necessary.
2.3.3 Add 10-15 drops of thymolphthalein indicator to the
chilled solution. If the solution remains clear, add 0.1 N NaOH
until the solution turns blue; then add 0.1 N HCl back to the
colorless endpoint. If the solution turns blue upon adding the
indicator, add 0.1 N HCl to the colorless endpoint.
2.3.4 On the analytical balance, accurately weigh the amount of
resin indicated under the ``Resin Sample Size'' chart (see below) as
follows.
Resin Sample Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample
Approximate free HCHO weight
(grams)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5%.......................................................... 10
0.5--1.0%..................................................... 5
1.0--3.0%..................................................... 2
>3.0%......................................................... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.3.4.1 Pour about 1 inch of resin into a 5 oz. plastic cup.
2.3.4.2 Determine the gross weight of the cup, resin, and
disposable pipette (with the narrow tip broken off) fitted with a
small rubber bulb.
2.3.4.3 Pipette out the desired amount of resin into the
stirring, chilled solution (approximately 1.5 to 2 g per pipette-
full).
2.3.4.4 Quickly reweigh the cup, resin, and pipette with the
bulb.
2.3.4.5 The resultant weight loss equals the grams of resin
being tested.
2.3.5 Rapidly titrate the solution with 0.1 N HCl to the
colorless endpoint described in Step 3 (2.3.3).
2.3.6 Repeat the test in triplicate.
2.4 Calculation.
2.4.1 The percent free-formaldehyde (%HCHO) is calculated as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.020
[[Page 34298]]
2.4.2 Compute the average percent free-formaldehyde of the
three tests. Note: If the results of the three tests are not within
a range of 0.5 percent or if the average of the three
tests does not meet expected limits, carry out Part B and then
repeat Part A.
3.0 Part B--Standard Check
Part B ensures that test reagents used in determining percent
free-formaldehyde in urea-formaldehyde resins are of proper
concentration and that operator technique is correct. Should any
doubts arise in either of these areas, the formaldehyde standard
solution test should be carried out.
3.1 Preparation and Standardization of a 1 Percent Formalin
Solution.
Prepare a solution containing approximately 1 percent
formaldehyde from a stock 37 percent formalin solution. Standardize
the prepared solution by titrating the hydroxyl ions resulting from
the formation of the formaldehyde bisulfite complex.
3.2 Apparatus Required.
Note: All reagents must be American Chemical Society analytical
reagent grade or better.
3.2.1 One 1-liter (L) volumetric flask (class A).
3.2.2 One 250-mL volumetric flask (class A).
3.2.3 One 250-mL beaker.
3.2.4 One 100-mL pipette (class A).
3.2.5 One 10-mL pipette (class A).
3.2.6 One 50-mL graduated cylinder (class A).
3.2.7 A pH meter, standardized using pH 7 and pH 10 buffers.
3.2.8 Magnetic stirrer.
3.2.9 Magnetic stirring bars.
3.2.10 Several 5-oz. plastic cups.
3.2.11 Disposal pippettes.
3.2.12 Ice cube trays (small cubes).
3.3 Materials Required.
3.3.1 A solution of 37 percent formalin.
3.3.2 Anhydrous Na2SO3.
3.3.3 Distilled water.
3.3.4 Standardized 0.100 N Hcl.
3.3.5 Thymolphthalein indicator (1.0 g thymolphthalein/199 g
methanol).
3.4 Preparation of Solutions and Reagents.
3.4.1 Formaldehyde Standard Solution (approximately 1 percent).
Measure, using a graduated cylinder, 27.0 mL of analytical reagent
37 percent formalin solution into a 1-L volumetric flask. Fill the
flask to volume with distilled water.
Note: You must standardize this solution as described in section
3.5. This solution is stable for 3 months.
3.4.2 Sodium Sulfite Solution 1.0 M (used for standardization
of Formaldehyde Standard Solution). Quantitatively transfer, using
distilled water as the transfer solvent, 31.50 g of anhydrous
Na2SO3 into a 250-mL volumetric flask.
Dissolve in approximately 100 ml of distilled water and fill to
volume. Note: You must prepare this solution daily, but the
calibration of the Formaldehyde Standard Solution needs to be done
only once.
3.4.3 Hydrochloric Acid Standard Solution 0.100 M. This reagent
should be readily available as a primary standard that only needs to
be diluted.
3.5 Standardization.
3.5.1 Standardization of Formaldehyde Standard Solution.
3.5.1.1 Pipette 100.0 mL of 1 M sodium sulfite into a stirred
250-mL beaker.
3.5.1.2 Using a standardized pH meter, measure and record the
pH. The pH should be around 10. It is not essential the pH be 10;
however, it is essential that the value be accurately recorded.
3.5.1.3 To the stirring Na2SO3 solution,
pipette in 10.0 mL of Formaldehyde Standard Solution. The pH should
rise sharply to about 12.
3.5.1.4 Using the pH meter as a continuous monitor, titrate the
solution back to the original exact pH using 0.100 N HCl. Record the
milliliters of HCl used as titrant.
Note: Approximately 30 to 35 mL of HCl will be required.
3.5.1.5 Calculate the concentration of the Formaldehyde
Standard Solution using the equation as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.021
3.6 Procedure.
3.6.1 Prepare a sufficient quantity of crushed ice for three
determinations (two trays of cubes).
3.6.2 Put 70 cc of 1 M Na2SO3 solution
into a 400-mL beaker. Begin stirring and add approximately 100 g of
crushed ice and 2 g NaCl. Maintain 0 deg.C during the test, adding
ice as necessary.
3.6.3 Add 10-15 drops of thymolphthalein indicator to the
chilled solution. If the solution remains clear, add 0.1 N NaOH
until the solution turns blue; then add 0.1 N HCl back to the
colorless endpoint. If the solution turns blue upon adding the
indicator, add 0.1 N HCl to the colorless endpoint.
3.6.4 On the analytical balance, accurately weigh a sample of
Formaldehyde Standard Solution as follows.
3.6.4.1 Pour about 0.5 inches of Formaldehyde Standard Solution
into a 5-oz. plastic cup.
3.6.4.2 Determine the gross weight of the cup, Formaldehyde
Standard Solution, and a disposable pipette fitted with a small
rubber bulb.
3.6.4.3 Pipette approximately 5 g of the Formaldehyde Standard
Solution into the stirring, chilled Na2SO3
solution.
3.6.4.4 Quickly reweigh the cup, Formaldehyde Standard
Solution, and pipette with the bulb.
3.6.4.5 The resultant weight loss equals the grams of
Formaldehyde Standard Solution being tested.
3.6.5 Rapidly titrate the solution with 0.1 N HCl to the
colorless endpoint in Step 3 (3.6.3).
3.6.6 Repeat the test in triplicate.
3.7 Calculation for Formaldehyde Standard Solution.
3.7.1 The percent free-formaldehyde (% HCHO) is calculated as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26MY00.022
3.7.2 The range of the results of three tests should be no more
than 5 percent of the actual Formaldehyde Standard
Solution concentration. Report results to two decimal places.
3.8 Reference.
West Coast Adhesive Manufacturers Trade Association Test 10.1.
Appendix B to Subpart HHHH to Part 63--Method for the Determination
of Loss-on-Ignition
1.0 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to determine the loss-on-ignition
(LOI) of wet-formed fiberglass mat.
2.0 Equipment
2.1 Scale sensitive to 0.001 gram (g).
2.2 Drying oven equipped with a means of constant temperature
regulation and mechanical air convection.
2.3 Furnace designed to heat to at least 625 deg.C (1,157
deg.F) and controllable to 25 deg.C (45
deg.F).
2.4 Crucible, high form, 250 milliliter (mL).
2.5 Desiccator.
2.6 Pan balance (see Note 2 in 4.9)
3.0 Sample Collection Procedure
3.1 Obtain a sample of mat in accordance with Technical
Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) method 1007
``Sample Location.''
3.2 Use a 5-to 10-g sample cut into pieces small enough to fit
into the crucible.
3.3 Place the sample in the crucible. (Note 1: To test without
the use of a crucible, see Note 2 after Section 4.8.)
3.4 Condition the sample in the furnace set at 105
3 deg.C (221 9 deg.F) for 5 minutes 30
seconds.
4.0 Procedure
4.1 Condition each sample by drying for 5 minutes
30 seconds at 105 3 deg.C (22 5 deg.F).
[[Page 34299]]
4.2 Remove the test sample from the furnace and cool in the
desiccator for 30 minutes in the standard atmosphere for testing
glass textiles.
4.3 Place the empty crucible in the furnace at 625
25 deg.C (1,157 45 deg.F). After 30 minutes, remove
and cool the crucible in the standard atmosphere (TAPPI method 1008)
for 30 minutes.
4.4 Identify each crucible with respect to each test sample of
mat.
4.5 Weigh the empty crucible to the nearest 0.001 g. Record
this weight as the tare mass, T.
4.6 Place the test sample in the crucible and weigh to the
nearest 0.001 g. Record this weight as the initial mass, A.
4.7 Place the test sample and crucible in the furnace and
ignite at 625 25 deg.C (1,157 45 deg.F).
4.8 After ignition for at least 30 minutes, remove the test
sample and crucible from the furnace and cool in the desiccator for
30 minutes in the standard atmosphere (TAPPI method 1008).
4.9 Remove each crucible, and test each sample separately from
the desiccator, and immediately weigh each sample to the nearest
0.001 g. Record this weight as the ignited mass, B. (Note 2: When it
is known that no ash residue separates from the test sample during
the weighing and igniting processes, you may weigh the sample
separately without the crucible. When this occurs, the tare mass (T)
equals zero. With appropriate care, you can dry and weigh a single
piece of mat and place with tongs into the ignition oven on
appropriate refractory supports. When the ignition time is over,
remove the sample as an intact fragile web and weigh it directly on
a pan balance.)
5.0 Calculation
5.1 Calculate the LOI for each sample as follows:
% LOI = 100 x (A-B)/(A-T)
Where:
A = initial mass of crucible and sample before ignition (g);
B = mass of crucible and glass residue after ignition (g); and
T = tare mass of crucible, (g) (see Note 2).
5.2 Report the percent LOI of the glass mat to the nearest 0.1
percent.
6.0 Precision
The repeatability of this test method for measurements on
adjacent specimens from the same sample of mat is better than 1
percent.
[FR Doc. 00-12788 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}