[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72770-72819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29454]
[[Page 72769]]
Vol. 76
Friday,
No. 227
November 25, 2011
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral
Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 72770]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-9491-9]
RIN 2060-AQ90
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the national emissions
standards for hazardous air pollutants for Mineral Wool Production and
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing to address the results of the residual
risk and technology review that the EPA is required to conduct by the
Clean Air Act. The proposed Mineral Wool Production amendments include
emissions limits for carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride and
hydrochloric acid for cupolas; add combined collection and curing
processes as new regulated sources; and include emissions limits for
formaldehyde, phenol and methanol for combined collection and curing
operations. Modifications to the testing and monitoring and related
notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements are also
proposed.
The proposed amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category include emissions limits for chromium compounds,
hydrogen fluoride, hydrochloric acid and particulate matter for glass-
melting furnaces at major sources; revised emissions limits for
formaldehyde, and the addition of emissions limits for phenol and
methanol for bonded product lines at major sources; and modifications
to testing and monitoring and related notification, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
These proposed rules only apply to major sources, but we plan to
regulate wool fiberglass area sources in a future action.
We are also proposing to revise provisions addressing periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction to ensure that the rules are
consistent with a recent court decision.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 24, 2012. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of
Management and Budget receives a copy of your comments on or before
December 27, 2011.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by December 5, 2011, a public hearing will be held on
December 12, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Numbers EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-1041 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042, by one of the following
methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042.
Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1041 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1041 or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC 20004, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 or EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1042. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments on the Mineral Wool RTR to
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 and direct your comments on the
Wool Fiberglass RTR to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. The EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and
be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket. The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking under
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 (Mineral Wool Production) and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing). All documents in
the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-5167; fax number: (919) 541-
[[Page 72771]]
3207; and email address: fairchild.susan@epa.gov. For specific
information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris
Sarsony, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541-4843; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address:
sarsony.chris@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Scott Throwe, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; U.S. EPA Headquarters Ariel Rios
Building; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Mail Code: 2227A; Washington, DC
20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7013; fax number: (202) 564-0050;
email address: throwe.scott@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
D. When will a public hearing occur?
III. Background Information
A. What are NESHAP?
B. What litigation is related to this proposed action?
IV. Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Source Categories
A. Overview of the Mineral Wool Production Source Category and
MACT Standards
B. Overview of the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category
and 1999 MACT Rule
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
V. Analyses Performed
A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source categories?
B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for
this proposal?
C. How did we perform the technology review?
D. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?
E. What analyses were performed for the Mineral Wool Production
source category under the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
VI. Summary of Proposed Decisions and Actions
A. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to the
Mineral Wool Production NESHAP?
B. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP?
C. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to
startup, shutdown and malfunction?
D. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to
electronic reporting?
VII. Rationale for the Proposed Actions for the Mineral Wool
Production Source Category
A. What data were used for the NESHAP analyses?
B. What are the proposed decisions regarding surrogacy
relationships?
C. What are the proposed decisions regarding certain unregulated
emissions sources?
D. What are the proposed decisions regarding subcategorization?
E. What are the results from the risk assessments performed and
the proposed decisions for the Mineral Wool Production source
category?
F. What are our proposed decisions for the Mineral Wool
Production source category based on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
G. What are the results from the technology review and proposed
decisions?
VIII. Rationale for the Proposed Actions for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Category
A. What data were used for the NESHAP analyses?
B. What are the proposed decisions regarding surrogacy
relationships?
C. What are the proposed decisions regarding certain unregulated
emissions sources?
D. What are the results from the risk assessments and analyses
and the proposed decisions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Source Category?
E. What are our proposed decisions for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category based on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
F. What are the results from the technology review and proposed
decisions?
IX. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts for the
Mineral Wool Source Category
A. What are the affected sources in the Mineral Wool Production
source category?
B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?
C. What are the air quality impacts for the Mineral Wool
Production source category?
D. What are the water quality and solid waste impacts?
E. What are the secondary impacts?
F. What are the energy impacts?
G. What are the cost impacts for the Mineral Wool Production
source category?
H. What are the economic impacts for the Mineral Wool Production
source category?
I. What are the benefits for the Mineral Wool Production source
category?
J. What demographic groups might benefit the most from this
regulation?
X. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category
A. What are the affected sources in the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category?
B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?
C. What are the air quality impacts?
D. What are the water quality and solid waste impacts?
E. What are the secondary impacts?
F. What are the energy impacts?
G. What are the cost impacts?
H. What are the economic impacts?
I. What are the benefits?
J. What demographic groups might benefit the most from this
regulation?
XI. Request for Comments
XII. Submitting Data Corrections
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations
Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes,
data inventories, and risk modeling are included in this preamble.
While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this
preamble and for reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms
are defined here:
ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AEGL acute exposure guideline levels
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
BLDS bag leak detection systems
BTF beyond the floor
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CA-REL California reference exposure level
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
CO carbon monoxide
COS Carbonyl sulfide
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP electrostatic precipitators
[[Page 72772]]
FA flame attenuation
GP General Provisions
GHG Greenhouse Gases
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HCl Hydrogen chloride
HEM Human Exposure Model
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3
HF Hydrogen fluoride
HI Hazard Index
HQ Hazard Quotient
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
kg/MG kilogram/megawatt
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emissions rate
lb/ton pounds per ton
lb/yr pounds per year
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/L milligrams per liter
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NaOH sodium hydroxide
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health
NRC National Research Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Conservation
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentrations
RfD reference dose
RS rotary spin
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review
SCC Source Classification Codes
SER Small Entity Representatives
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TC Toxicity Characteristics
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TLV threshold limit value
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling System
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UF uncertainty factors
[micro]g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
URE unit risk estimate
WHO World Health Organization
WWW worldwide web
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of
this proposed rule are listed in Table 1 of this preamble. Table 1 of
this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding the entities likely to be affected by this
proposed action. These standards, once finalized, will be directly
applicable to affected sources. Federal, state, local, and Tribal
government entities are not affected by this proposed action.
In 1992 the EPA defined the Mineral Wool Production source category
as any facility engaged in producing mineral wool fiber from slag or
rock. Mineral wool is a material used mainly for thermal and acoustical
insulation. This category includes, but is not limited to, the
following process units: a cupola furnace for melting the mineral
charge; a blow chamber in which air and, in some cases, a binder is
drawn over the fibers, forming them to a screen; a curing oven to bond
the fibers; and a cooling compartment.
In 1992 the EPA defined the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category as any facility engaged in producing wool fiberglass from
sand, feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid or any
other materials. In the wool fiberglass manufacturing process, molten
glass is formed into fibers that are bonded with an organic resin to
create a wool-like material that is used as thermal or acoustical
insulation. The category includes, but is not limited to the following
processes: glass-melting furnace, marble forming, refining, fiber
forming, binder application, curing and cooling.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral Wool Production...... Mineral Wool Production.. 327993
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Wool Fiberglass 327993
Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposal will also be available on the WWW through the EPA's TTN.
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed
action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. In addition, a copy of each rule
showing specific changes proposed under this action is available in
their respective dockets. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk
or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or
CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to
one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed
as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If
you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly indicating that it does not contain CBI.
Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and
the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
[[Page 72773]]
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 (Mineral Wool RTR) or Attention Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 (Wool Fiberglass RTR).
D. When will a public hearing occur?
If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 a.m. on December
12, 2011 and will be held at a location to be determined. Persons
interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a
public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Pamela Garrett, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, (D243-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-7996;
email address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov.
III. Background Information
A. What are NESHAP?
1. What is the statutory authority for NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, after the EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one
or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b), CAA section 112(d)
calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tpy or more of a
single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major
sources, these technology-based standards must reflect the maximum
degree of emissions reductions of HAP achievable (after considering
cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental
impacts) and are commonly referred to as MACT standards. Area sources
are those that emit less than major amounts of HAP.
MACT standards must require the maximum degree of emissions
reduction through the application of measures, processes, methods,
systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, measures that
(A) reduce the volume of or eliminate pollutants through process
changes, substitution of materials or other modifications; (B) enclose
systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (C) capture or treat
pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive
emissions point; (D) are design, equipment, work practice or
operational standards (including requirements for operator training or
certification); or (E) are a combination of the above (CAA section
112(d)(2)(A)-(E)). The MACT standards may take the form of design,
equipment, work practice or operational standards where the EPA first
determines either that, (A) a pollutant cannot be emitted through a
conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutants,
or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be
inconsistent with law; or (B) the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations (CAA sections 112(h)(1)-(2)).
The MACT ``floor'' is the minimum control level allowed for MACT
standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3) and may not be based
on cost considerations. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in practice by
the best-controlled similar source. The MACT floors for existing
sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they
cannot be less stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved
by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category
or subcategory (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on considerations of the cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
The EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards
and revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently
than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this
review, the EPA is not obliged to completely recalculate the prior MACT
determination, and, in particular, is not obligated to recalculate the
MACT floors. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir., 2008).
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any
remaining ``residual'' risk according to CAA section 112(f). This
provision requires, first, that the EPA prepare a Report to Congress
discussing (among other things) methods of calculating the risks posed
(or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT
standards, the public health significance of those risks, and the EPA's
recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. The
EPA prepared and submitted this report (Residual Risk Report to
Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 1999. Congress did not act in
response to the report, thereby triggering the EPA's obligation under
CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze and address residual risk.
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine, for source
categories subject to certain MACT standards, whether those emissions
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
If the MACT standards that apply to a source category emitting a HAP
that is ``classified as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen
do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most
exposed to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to
less than one-in-one million,'' the EPA must promulgate residual risk
standards for the source category (or subcategory) as necessary to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health (CAA section
112(f)(2)(A)). This requirement is procedural. It mandates that the EPA
establish CAA section 112(f) residual risk standards if certain risk
thresholds are not satisfied, but does not determine the level of those
standards (NRDC v. EPA, 529 F. 3d at 1083). The second sentence of CAA
section 112(f)(2) sets out the substantive requirements for residual
risk standards: Protection of public health with an ample margin of
safety based on the EPA's interpretation of this standard in effect at
the time of the CAA amendments. Id. This refers to the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP), (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989), described
in the next paragraph.
The EPA may adopt residual risk standards equal to existing MACT
standards if the EPA determines that the existing standards are
sufficiently protective, even if (for example) excess cancer risks to a
most exposed individual are not reduced to less than one-in-one
million. Id. at 1083 (``If the EPA determines that the existing
technology-based standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then
the agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking''). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA further authorizes the EPA
to adopt more stringent standards, if necessary ``to prevent, taking
into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant
[[Page 72774]]
factors, an adverse environmental effect.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Adverse environmental effect'' is defined in CAA section
112(a)(7) as any significant and widespread adverse effect, which
may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural
resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or
threatened species or significant degradation of environmental
qualities over broad areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(f)(2) expressly preserves our use of the two-step
process for developing standards to address any residual risk and our
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the Benzene
NESHAP. The first step in this process is the determination of
acceptable risk. This determination ``considers all health information,
including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit
on MRI [cancer] \2\ of approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1
million]'' (54 FR 38045). In the second step of the process, the EPA
sets the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety
``in consideration of all health information, including the number of
persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1-in-1 million, as
well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts,
technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each
particular decision'' (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level
of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The terms ``individual most exposed'', ``acceptable level'', and
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA.
However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) preserves the EPA's interpretation
set out in the Benzene NESHAP, and the Court in NRDC v. EPA concluded
that the EPA's interpretation of CAA section 112(f)(2) is a reasonable
one. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 (DC Cir. 2008), which says
``[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly incorporates the EPA's
interpretation of the CAA from the Benzene standard, complete with a
citation to the Federal Register.'' See also, A Legislative History of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate
on Conference Report). We also notified Congress in the Residual Risk
Report to Congress that we intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach
in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA-453/R-
99-001, p. ES-11).
In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall objective: * * * in
protecting public health with an ample margin of safety, we strive to
provide maximum feasible protection against risks to health from
hazardous air pollutants by (1) Protecting the greatest number of
persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no higher than
approximately 1-in-1 million; and (2) limiting to no higher than
approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million] the estimated
risk that a person living near a facility would have if he or she were
exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years.
The agency also stated that, ``The EPA also considers incidence
(the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious
health effects as a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be an
important measure of the health risk to the exposed population.
Incidence measures the extent of health risks to the exposed population
as a whole, by providing an estimate of the occurrence of cancer or
other serious health effects in the exposed population.'' The agency
went on to conclude that ``estimated incidence would be weighed along
with other health risk information in judging acceptability.'' As
explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, the EPA
does not define ``rigid line[s] of acceptability,'' but rather
considers broad objectives to be weighed with a series of other health
measures and factors (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The determination of
what represents an ``acceptable'' risk is based on a judgment of ``what
risks are acceptable in the world in which we live'' (Residual Risk
Report to Congress, p. 178, quoting the DC Circuit's en banc Vinyl
Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not
risk-free.
In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that ``the EPA will generally
presume that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is no
higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that risk level is
considered acceptable.'' 54 FR 38045. We discussed the maximum
individual lifetime cancer risk as being ``the estimated risk that a
person living near a plant would have if he or she were exposed to the
maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years.'' Id. We explained that
this measure of risk ``is an estimate of the upper bound of risk based
on conservative assumptions, such as continuous exposure for 24 hours
per day for 70 years.'' Id. We acknowledge that maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk ``does not necessarily reflect the true risk, but
displays a conservative risk level which is an upper-bound that is
unlikely to be exceeded.'' Id.
Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining
acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that
``consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account
the strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' Id.
Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 million (1-in-10
thousand) provides a benchmark for judging the acceptability of maximum
individual lifetime cancer risk, but does not constitute a rigid line
for making that determination.
The agency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP the following:
``In establishing a presumption for MIR [maximum individual cancer
risk], rather than a rigid line for acceptability, the agency intends
to weigh it with a series of other health measures and factors. These
include the overall incidence of cancer or other serious health effects
within the exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed within
each individual lifetime risk range and associated incidence within,
typically, a 50- km exposure radius around facilities, the science
policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties associated with the
risk measures, weight of the scientific evidence for human health
effects, other quantified or unquantified health effects, effects due
to co-location of facilities, and co-emissions of pollutants.'' Id.
In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the
exposed population than that provided by maximum individual lifetime
cancer risk alone. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ``[e]ven though
the risks judged `acceptable' by the EPA in the first step of the Vinyl
Chloride inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry,
determining an `ample margin of safety,' again includes consideration
of all of the health factors, and whether to reduce the risks even
further.'' In the ample margin of safety decision process, the agency
again considers all of the health risks and other health information
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional
factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be
considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties and any other relevant
factors. Considering all of these factors, the agency will establish
the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to
protect the public health and prevent adverse environmental effects,
taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, as
[[Page 72775]]
required by CAA section 112(f) (54 FR 38046).
2. How do we consider the risk results in making decisions?
In past residual risk determinations, the EPA presented a number of
human health risk metrics associated with emissions from the category
under review, including: the MIR; the numbers of persons in various
risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; and the
maximum acute noncancer hazard. In estimating risks, the EPA considered
source categories under review that are located near each other and
that affect the same population. The EPA provided estimates of the
expected difference in actual emissions from the source category under
review and emissions allowed pursuant to the source category MACT
standard. The EPA also discussed and considered risk estimation
uncertainties. The EPA is providing this same type of information in
support of these actions.
The agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP provides
flexibility regarding what factors the EPA might consider in making our
determinations and how they might be weighed for each source category.
In responding to comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, the
EPA explained that: ``The policy chosen by the Administrator permits
consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR
figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer
health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this
way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed
in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride
mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to
the public by employing [her] expertise to assess available data. It
also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did
not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk
from the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112
regulations, and, thereby, implicitly permits consideration of all
measures of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] judgment,
believes are appropriate to determining what will `protect the public
health.' ''
For example, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed
in determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene NESHAP explains ``an
MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper
end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this
benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section
112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and
information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the
agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR
less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the
light of other health risk factors.'' Similarly, with regard to the
ample margin of safety analysis, the Benzene NESHAP states that: ``the
EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be
considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be
determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.''
B. What litigation is related to this proposed action?
In 2007, the DC Circuit (Court) found that the EPA had erred in
establishing emissions standards for sources of HAP in the NESHAP for
Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing, 67 FR 26,690 (May 16, 2003), and consequently vacated
the rule.\3\ These errors included incorrectly calculated MACT emission
limits, instances where EPA failed to set emission limits, and
instances where EPA failed to regulate processes that emitted HAP. We
are taking action to correct errors in both the Mineral Wool and Wool
Fiberglass NESHAP for HAP that are not regulated. Some pollutants were
represented in the 1999 MACT rules by surrogates; other pollutants were
not regulated at all in the rule. In both these cases, we are
establishing pollutant-specific emission limits. With the exception of
PM as a surrogate for all HAP metals, where surrogacy relationships
exist, we are proposing to remove that surrogacy. We are also
correcting one unregulated HAP-emitting process in the Mineral Wool
NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (DC Cir. March 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In two earlier court decisions 4 5 the court found EPA
had erred in not setting MACT standards for every HAP emitted from a
source. Therefore, with the exception of PM as a surrogate for HAP
metals, in this action we are proposing emission limits for all HAP
emitted from Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass. We note that we have
established through previous analyses upheld by the court \6\ that PM
is an appropriate surrogate for HAP metals, therefore, we retain that
surrogacy relationship in these proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (DC
Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
\5\ National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (DC Cir. 2000).
\6\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F. 3d 976 (DC Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In separate litigation, the Court vacated portions of two
provisions in EPA's CAA section 112 regulations that govern emissions
of HAP during periods of SSM.\7\ Specifically, the Court vacated the
SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(h)(1) that are
part of regulations commonly referred to as the GP rule. When
incorporated into section 112(d) regulations for specific source
categories, these two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to
comply with otherwise applicable MACT standards during periods of SSM.
Because both of the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass NESHAP relied on
the GP rule for startup and shutdown provisions (40 CFR 63.1194 and
63.1386(c)), we are also proposing to revise these provisions for both
of the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert.
denied, 130 S. Ct 1735 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent litigation \8\ led to a consent decree under which we must
propose these amendments no later than October 31, 2011; and promulgate
no later than June 29, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. Jackson (No. 09-cv-00152SBA,
N.D. Cal., Sept. 27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Source Categories
A. Overview of the Mineral Wool Production Source Category and MACT
Standards
The NESHAP (or MACT rule) for the Mineral Wool Production source
category was promulgated on June 1, 1999 (64 FR 29490), and codified at
40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD. As promulgated in 1999, the NESHAP applies
to affected sources of HAP emissions at mineral wool production
facilities. As defined in the 1992 EPA report, ``Documentation for
Developing the Initial Source Category List'' (EPA-450/3/91/030, July
1992), a ``mineral wool facility'' is ``any facility engaged in
producing mineral wool fiber from slag, rock or other materials,
excluding sand or glass.''
The MACT rule for the Mineral Wool Production source category does
not apply to facilities that manufacture wool fiberglass from sand,
feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid or other similar
materials.\9\ Although there
[[Page 72776]]
are some similarities among rock that may be used for both mineral wool
and wool fiberglass production, the two industries are distinct.
Mineral wool is used in cases in which fireproofing, structural
strength and sound attenuation are needed, such as in high occupancy
commercial and industrial buildings. Wool fiberglass is used primarily
for insulation, in residential and small commercial buildings. Some
wool fiberglass facilities also operate a ceiling tile or pipe product
manufacturing line. The manufacturing of ceiling tile is not regulated
under the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Wool fiberglass produced from sand, feldspar, sodium
sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, etc. are a part of the wool
fiberglass source category, which is also addressed in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, there are seven mineral wool facilities that are subject to
the MACT rule. No new mineral wool facilities have been built in the
last 21 years and the agency does not anticipate new mineral wool
facilities will be built in the foreseeable future. According to the
size definition applied to this industry by the U.S. SBA (750 company
employees or less), 5 of the 7 firms, employing 540 employees
altogether, are classified as a small business.
Mineral wool is a fibrous, glassy substance consisting of silicate
fibers typically 4 to 7 micrometers in diameter, made from natural rock
(such as basalt, granite and other rock), blast furnace slag, glass
cullet, coke and other similar materials. Products made from mineral
wool are widely used in thermal and acoustical insulation and other
products where mineral wool fiber is added to impart structural
strength or fire resistance. In the mineral wool manufacturing process,
raw materials (e.g., rock and slag) are melted in a cupola using coke
as fuel; the molten material is then formed into fiber. In the
production of mineral wool products that do not require high rigidity,
oil is typically applied to suppress dust and add some strength to the
fiber; the fiber is then sized and bagged or baled. This is known as a
``nonbonded'' product which is manufactured on a ``nonbonded''
production line.
For mineral wool products requiring a higher structural rigidity,
typically a phenol/formaldehyde binder may be applied to the fiber. The
binder-laden fiber mat is then thermoset in a curing oven and cooled.
This is known as a ``bonded'' product which is made on a ``bonded
product'' line. The major differences between the ``nonbonded'' and
``bonded'' production lines are the application of binder during fiber
collection and the use of a curing oven. Four facilities only
manufacture nonbonded products, while the other three facilities
operate both bonded and nonbonded production lines. A total of 11
cupolas and 3 curing ovens are operated by the facilities in this
source category.
HAP emission sources at mineral wool production facilities include
the cupola where the mineral charge is melted; a collection chamber, in
which air and a binder are drawn over the fibers, forming them into a
mat against a screen; and a curing oven that bonds the fibers (for
bonded products). HAP are emitted from the cupolas, curing ovens and
collection operations when collection occurs with curing. Collection at
nonbonded product lines does not emit HAP. COS accounts for the
majority of the HAP emissions from these facilities (approximately 224
tpy and 51 percent of the total HAP emissions by mass). The majority of
HAP emissions (approximately 58 percent of the total HAP by mass,
including HF and HCl are from the cupolas. The remainder of the HAP are
from bonded lines, including phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol.
Although the majority of HAP are emitted from the cupola, the emissions
(primarily formaldehyde and phenol) that were significant in evaluating
risk are from the collection chambers on the bonded lines. Formaldehyde
and phenol are emitted only from bonded mineral wool production lines;
these lines include emissions from the application of the binder during
collection and curing.
The current NESHAP requires control of PM emissions, as a surrogate
for HAP metals, from the cupolas and formaldehyde emissions from the
curing ovens. Fabric filters are the control devices used by this
industry to reduce both PM and HAP metal emissions from cupolas.
Emissions from collection operations are not regulated under the
current NESHAP, but collection and curing ovens are generally
controlled using RTOs and fabric filters.
The existing MACT rule applies to each existing, new and
reconstructed cupola or curing oven in a mineral wool production
facility. All mineral wool production facilities that are major sources
are subject to the standards. For all cupolas, the 1999 MACT rule
specifies a numerical emission limit for PM, as a surrogate for metal
HAP. For new and reconstructed cupolas, emissions limits are specified
for CO, as a surrogate for COS. Emissions limits for formaldehyde are
also specified (as a surrogate for phenol emissions) for each existing,
new, and reconstructed curing oven. Under the 1999 MACT rule, a mineral
wool production facility may elect to comply with a numerical
formaldehyde or CO emission limit expressed in mass of emissions per
unit of production (kg/MG of melt or lb/ton of melt) or a percent
reduction standard. PM emissions from existing, new, and reconstructed
cupolas are limited to an outlet concentration of 0.05 kg/Mg (0.10 lb/
ton) of melt, 40 CFR 63.1178(a). CO emissions limits from new and
reconstructed cupolas are limited to an outlet concentration of 0.05
kg/Mg (0.10 lb/ton) of melt or 99 percent CO removal, 40 CFR
63.1178(a). Formaldehyde emissions limits from existing, new, and
reconstructed curing ovens are limited to an outlet concentration of
0.03 kg/Mg (0.06 lb/ton) of melt or 80 percent formaldehyde removal, 40
CFR 63.1179(a).
B. Overview of the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category and
1999 MACT Rule
The NESHAP (or MACT rule) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category was promulgated on June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695), and
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. As promulgated in 1999, the
MACT rule applies to affected sources of HAP emissions at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities. Although the source category
definition includes all manufacturers of wool fiberglass, the 1999 MACT
rule (40 CFR 63.1381) defines a ``wool fiberglass manufacturing
facility'' as ``any facility manufacturing wool fiberglass on a RS
manufacturing line producing bonded building insulation or on a FA
manufacturing line producing bonded pipe insulation and bonded heavy-
density products.'' The MACT rule for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category does not apply to facilities that manufacture mineral
wool from rock, slag, and other similar materials. In addition, RS and
FA manufacturing lines that produce nonbonded products (in which no
phenol-formaldehyde binder is applied) are not subject to the current
standards.
Wool fiberglass products are primarily used as thermal and
acoustical insulation for buildings, automobiles, aircraft, appliances,
ductwork and pipes. Other uses include liquid and air filtration.
Approximately 90 percent of the wool fiberglass currently produced is
used for residential and commercial building insulation products.
Today, wool fiberglass is currently manufactured in the United States
by 5 companies operating 29 facilities across 16 states. According to
the size definition applied to this industry by the U.S. SBA (750
company employees or less), none of these companies are classified as a
small business. One new wool fiberglass facility was recently built in
2007 and one wool fiberglass facility closed in 2010. Because several
[[Page 72777]]
furnaces have been idled across the industry, current production of
wool fiberglass is below production levels from previous years, and
several months of stockpiled products exist at wool fiberglass
companies, we do not expect new wool fiberglass facilities to be built
in the near future.
Wool fiberglass is manufactured in a process that forms thin fibers
from molten glass. Over 90 percent of the wool fiberglass industry
produces insulation; two plants also operate a pipe product line and
one plant operates a ceiling tile line (although the production of
ceiling tile is not part of this MACT standard). A typical wool
fiberglass manufacturing line consists of the following processes: (1)
Heating of raw materials and/or cullet in a furnace to a molten state,
(2) preparation of molten glass for fiberization, (3) formation of
fibers into a wool fiberglass mat or pipe insulation product, (4)
curing the binder-coated fiberglass mat, (5) cooling the mat (this
process is not always present), and (6) backing, cutting, and
packaging.
The primary component of most types of wool fiberglass is silica
sand, but wool fiberglass also includes varying quantities of feldspar,
sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, and may be made entirely
of glass cullet, crushed recycled glass. Wool fiberglass manufacturing
plants typically operate one or more manufacturing lines. Refined raw
materials for the glass batch are weighed, mixed, and conveyed to the
glass-melting furnace, which may be gas-fired, electric, oxygen-
enriched or a combination of gas and electric.
Two methods of forming fibers are used by the industry, RS and FA.
In the RS process, centrifugal force causes molten glass to flow
through small holes in the wall of a rapidly rotating cylinder. In the
FA process, molten glass flows by gravity from a small furnace, or pot,
to form threads that are then attenuated (stretched to the point of
breaking) with air and/or flame.
After the fibers are formed, they are sprayed with a binder to hold
the fibers together. These bonded fibers are then collected as a mat on
a conveyor. Binder compositions vary with product type. At the time of
development of the MACT standard, wool fiberglass mat was typically
made using a phenol-formaldehyde resin based binder. According to the
trade organization, only a few insulation products are currently made
using a formaldehyde-based binder because new formaldehyde- and HAP-
free binder formulations have been developed in recent years.\10\ Most
new binder formulations are now HAP-free. According to the information
collected through a survey by the industry, a few pipe insulation
products made from wool fiberglass are still made at two facilities
using a phenol-formaldehyde based binder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Letter from the North American Insulation Manufacturers
Association (NAIMA). June 8, 2011 Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After application of the binder and formation of the mat, the
conveyor carries the newly formed mat through an oven to cure the
thermosetting resin and then through a cooling section. Some products,
such as those made on FA manufacturing lines, do not require curing
and/or cooling.
Process emissions sources include the furnace where the charge is
melted; the collection process, in which air carrying a binder is drawn
over the fibers, forming them into a mat; and the curing oven that
bonds the fibers (for bonded products only).
HAP, including chromium compounds, are emitted from glass-melting
furnaces. Glass-melting furnaces are constructed using refractory
bricks or blocks (commonly called refractories), that provide thermal
insulation and corrosion protection. The refractory bricks re-direct
the heat of the furnace back into the melt. Refractories are produced
to withstand the extreme corrosive thermal conditions of a furnace and
may contain a variety of mineral materials, including chromium, and
more specifically chromic oxide.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Chromium in Refractories. Sept. 2000. Dr. Mariano Velez,
Ceramic Engineering Dept., Univ. Missouri-Rolla.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace, sufficient temperatures
are reached to drive the transformation of chromium from the trivalent
to the hexavalent valence state. Because of the corrosive properties of
the molten glass and the fining agents (salts added to the top of the
molten glass layer which act to draw the gas bubbles out of the molten
glass), the refractory of the inner furnace walls are eroded and fresh
refractory is continually exposed along the metal/glass line within the
furnace. As a result, when the glass-melting furnace is constructed
using refractories containing high percentages of chromium, the
emission levels of chromium compounds continuously increase over the
life of the furnace according to the increasingly exposed refractory
surface area.12 13 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Notes of April 14, 2011 telephone discussion between Carlos
Davis, Environmental Manager, Certainteed, Kansas City, KS; and
Susan Fairchild, project lead, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD.
\13\ Region 7 Certainteed, Kansas City, KS; meeting and site
visit notes.
\14\ Emissions Test Results from Certainteed, Kansas City, KS.
2005 and 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, organic HAP (formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol) may
be released from RS forming and curing processes and FA forming and
curing processes.
The 1999 MACT rule applies to process emissions from each of the
following existing, newly constructed, and reconstructed sources:
Glass-melting furnaces located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing
plant, RS manufacturing lines that produce building insulation, and FA
manufacturing lines producing pipe insulation. The MACT rule also
applies to FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-density products.
The 1999 MACT rule requires control of PM emissions from the glass-
melting furnaces and formaldehyde emissions from the RS and FA lines.
Typical control devices to reduce PM and HAP emissions from furnaces
include both wet and dry ESP and fabric filters. Low and high-
temperature thermal oxidizers are used to control phenol, formaldehyde,
and methanol from curing operations on bonded lines.
The 1999 MACT rule limits PM emissions to an outlet concentration
of 0.50 lb of PM per ton of glass pulled for both existing and new
furnaces, 40 CFR 63.1382. Emissions of formaldehyde from RS
manufacturing lines are limited to an outlet concentration of 1.2 lb/
ton of glass pulled for existing sources and 0.80 lb/ton of glass
pulled for new sources. Emissions of formaldehyde from FA manufacturing
lines producing pipe insulation are limited to an outlet concentration
of 6.8 lb/ton of glass pulled from both existing and new sources, 40
CFR 63.1382. Emissions of formaldehyde from FA manufacturing lines
producing heavy-density products are limited to an outlet concentration
of 7.8 lb/ton of glass pulled for new sources; no emission limit is
specified for existing FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-density
products, 40 CFR 63.1382. A surrogate approach, where PM serves as a
surrogate for HAP metals and formaldehyde serves as a surrogate for
organic HAP, was used in the 1999 MACT rule to allow for easier and
less expensive testing and monitoring requirements.
The industry trade association has advised us that because the wool
[[Page 72778]]
fiberglass industry has voluntarily phased out most uses of phenol-
formaldehyde based binders, there may now be only two wool fiberglass
facilities that are subject to the current MACT rule. If this is
accurate, 27 of the 29 facilities manufacturing wool fiberglass may not
be considered major sources due to the phaseout of phenol-formaldehyde
based binders. We are soliciting comment on our understanding that
there will be no major sources in the wool fiberglass insulation source
category (other than pipe insulation products) by the end of the 2012
calendar year.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
In June 2010, the industry conducted a voluntary survey among all
companies that own and operate mineral wool production and wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities. The survey sought test data for
PM, CO and HAP emissions and information on the process equipment,
control devices, point and fugitive emissions, practices used to
control point and fugitive emissions, and other aspects of facility
operations. Facilities were asked to seek and obtain prior EPA approval
where new test data for a subset of processes, control devices and
operations would be submitted as representative of an untested subset
of processes, control devices and operations. In addition, facilities
were allowed, in lieu of conducting new testing and with prior EPA
approval, to submit existing and well-documented test data that were
representative of current operations using the recommended test methods
in the industry survey. Furthermore, the EPA requested, and industry
agreed, that a subset of the facilities that were thought to be
representative of emission sources from both the mineral wool and wool
fiberglass industries would conduct additional emissions testing for
certain HAP from specific processes. The bases for representativeness
included design type and size of process units or equipment; fuel type;
operating temperatures; control devices; and raw material content.
Facilities completed and submitted responses to the industry survey in
the spring of 2011.
In summary, the EPA received existing emissions test data from all
7 mineral wool facilities and 26 of the 29 wool fiberglass facilities,
with some facilities submitting data for multiple years. Mineral wool
facilities provided existing test data on cupolas, curing ovens, and
collection operations. Wool fiberglass facilities provided existing
test data on one or more of the following emission sources: Glass-
melting furnaces, curing ovens, forming, and collection operations.
Emissions test data provided by facilities in both source categories,
including the emission unit and pollutant tested, varied widely by
facility.
The mineral wool industry included testing for most HAP metals, CO,
PM and certain organic HAP (formaldehyde, phenol, methanol and COS).
Pollutants tested for by the wool fiberglass manufacturing source
category included most HAP metals, including chromium and hexavalent
chromium, PM, formaldehyde, phenol and methanol. The EPA completed the
dataset by assigning emission estimates from tested processes and their
known production rates to the similar represented processes based on
production rates at the untested processes. A copy of the dataset can
be found in the docket to this proposed rule.
The results of these emission tests were compiled into a database
for each source category, which is available in the docket for this
action.
V. Analyses Performed
A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source categories?
The EPA conducted a risk assessment that provided estimates of (1)
The MIR posed by the HAP emissions from the 7 mineral wool facilities
and 29 wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities in the source
categories, (2) the distribution of cancer risks within the exposed
populations, (3) the total cancer incidence, (4) estimates of the
maximum TOSHI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause
chronic non-cancer health effects, (5) worst-case screening estimates
of HQ for acute exposures to HAP with the potential to cause non-cancer
health effects, and (6) an evaluation of the potential for adverse
environmental effects. In June of 2009, the EPA's SAB conducted a
formal peer review of the risk assessment methodologies used in its
review of the document entitled, ``Risk and Technology Review
Assessment Methodologies.'' \15\ We received the final SAB report on
this review in May of 2010.\16\ Where appropriate, we have responded to
the key messages from this review in developing the current risk
assessment; we will be continuing our efforts to improve our
assessments by incorporating updates based on the SAB recommendations
as they are developed and become available. The risk assessment
consisted of seven primary steps, as discussed below. The docket for
this rulemaking contains the following document, which provides more
information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Draft Residual
Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and
Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA-452/R-09-006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
\16\ U.S. EPA, 2010. SAB's Response to EPA's RTR Risk Assessment
Methodologies. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-
007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Establishing the Nature and Magnitude of Actual Emissions and
Identifying the Emissions Release Characteristics
For each facility in the Mineral Wool Production and Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories, we developed and compiled
an emissions profile (including emissions estimates, stack parameters,
and location data) based on the information provided by the industry
survey, the emissions test data, and various calculations. We used the
production rates of tested processes to assign emissions to untested
but similar processes based on known production rates at the untested
processes. The site-specific emissions profiles include annual
estimates of process emissions for the 2010 timeframe, as well as
emissions release characteristics such as emissions release height,
temperature, velocity, and location coordinates. We are requesting
comment on the assumptions used to complete the dataset, including
assumptions we made to assign emission rates.
The primary risk assessment is based on estimates of the actual
emissions (though we also analyzed allowable emissions and the
potential risks due to allowable emissions). We received a substantial
amount of emissions test data and other information from the industry
survey that enabled us to derive estimates of stack emissions of
certain HAP for all of the facilities in both source categories. The
wool fiberglass industry provided emission testing on all known
pollutants, including total chromium and hexavalent chromium, PM, and
other metals at furnaces they considered to be representative of other
furnaces operated by the company. Where different furnace types were
used to melt fiberglass, industry usually tested representative
furnaces for each furnace type. The representative furnaces were chosen
by industry according to production rates and furnace type. For
untested furnaces, industry provided
[[Page 72779]]
the normal operating rate in terms of tons of glass produced per hour.
We estimated emissions at untested furnaces by using data from the
representative tested furnaces. To do this, we used test data from
representative furnaces that provided emissions rates of all tested
pollutants on a pound per hour basis. We applied this pound per hour
basis to the untested furnaces with the known production rates of those
furnaces to estimate pounds per hour of pollutants. We considered
furnace type and company when making these assignments.
We consider these estimates to be very good because they are based
upon known emission test methods, have test reports that verify the
results, were signed as being true and accurate by authorized company
representatives, and also signed as being accurate by the testing
company. In addition, one testing company was used by the industry to
conduct all the emissions testing using approved EPA methods. We are
requesting comment on our use of the available test data to assign
emission estimates to untested emission points.
2. Establishing the Relationship Between Actual Emissions and MACT-
Allowable Emissions Levels
The emissions data in our data set consists of actual stack
emissions and, where we did not have actual emissions data, estimates
of emissions based on a subset of operations that were representative
of such emission points. In the EPA's experience, with most source
categories, we generally have found that ``actual'' emissions levels
are lower than the emissions levels that a facility is allowed to emit
under the MACT standards. The emissions levels allowed to be emitted by
the MACT standards are referred to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions
levels. This represents the highest emissions level that could be
emitted by facilities without violating the MACT standards.
As we discussed in prior residual risk and technology review rules,
assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is reasonable since
these risks reflect the maximum level at which sources could emit while
still complying with the MACT standards. However, we also explained
that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are
available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the
Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). Considering actual
emissions is reasonable because source categories typically seek to
perform better than required by emissions standards to provide an
operational cushion and to accommodate the variability in manufacturing
processes and control device performance. Facilities' actual emissions
may also be significantly lower than MACT-allowable emissions for other
reasons such as State requirements, improvements in performance of
control devices since by the MACT standards, or reduced production. In
this case, we are reducing the allowable emissions limits to the levels
of actual emissions. For this reason, for the pollutants emitted, we
are using only actual emissions in our risk analysis.
For both the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source categories, we evaluated actual and allowable
stack emissions. Appendices 1a and 1b of the Draft Residual Risk
Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Categories, available in the docket, further
describe the estimates of MACT-allowable emissions and the estimates of
risks due to allowable emissions.
a. Actual and allowable emissions for the Mineral Wool Production
source category.
The analysis of allowable emissions for the Mineral Wool Production
source category was largely focused on formaldehyde emissions, which we
considered the most important HAP emitted from this source category
based on our screening level risk assessment and the HAP for which we
had the most data. However, we also considered allowable emissions for
other HAP, including HAP metals and COS. To estimate the difference
between the actual and allowable emissions, we averaged the actual
formaldehyde emission rates of manufacturing lines provided by
facilities and compared those values to the maximum level allowed by
the existing MACT standard (i.e., 0.06 pounds of formaldehyde per ton
of melt) from all curing ovens.
We realize that these estimates of allowable emissions are
theoretical high-end estimates as facilities must maintain average
emissions levels at some level below the MACT limit to ensure
compliance with the standard at all times because of the day-to-day
variability in emissions. Nevertheless, these high-end estimates of
allowable emissions were adequate for us to estimate the magnitude of
allowable emissions and the differences between the estimates of actual
emissions and the MACT allowable emissions.
Based on this analysis, we conclude that all facilities in the
mineral wool source category are emitting formaldehyde at levels lower
than allowable and that the differences between actual and allowable
emissions are significant. For the facilities producing bonded product,
the estimated actual emissions were up to three times lower than
allowable emissions. That is, MACT-allowable emissions were determined
to be three times the actual emissions for all pollutants in the
Mineral Wool Production category. Therefore, we multiplied the actual
stack emissions from each facility by a factor of 3 to derive estimates
of allowable emissions for modeling (whether these emissions were
measured by testing or calculated based on representative emission
tests).
b. Analysis of allowable and actual emissions for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category.
The analysis of allowable emissions for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category was largely focused on emissions of
chromium compounds and formaldehyde because these are the only
pollutants emitted with significant health risks. To estimate the
difference between the actual and allowable emissions, we averaged the
actual formaldehyde emission rates of manufacturing lines provided by
facilities and compared those values to the maximum level allowed by
the existing MACT standard (i.e., 1.2 or 0.8 lb/ton of glass pulled for
formaldehyde).
We realize that these estimates of allowable emissions are
theoretical high-end estimates as facilities must maintain average
emissions levels at some level below the MACT limit to ensure
compliance with the standard at all times because of the day-to-day
variability in emissions. Nevertheless, these high-end estimates of
allowable emissions were adequate for us to estimate the magnitude of
allowable emissions and the differences between the estimates of actual
emissions and the MACT allowable emissions. Based on this analysis, we
conclude that allowable emissions are estimated to be three times
higher than actual emissions. Therefore, to develop the MACT-allowable
emissions, the actual stack emissions for formaldehyde, phenol and
methanol were multiplied by a factor of 3. The range of differences
between actual and allowable formaldehyde emission levels is
significant, that is, for some sources there was little difference
between actual and allowable emission levels, other times, allowable
emissions were up to 5 times greater than actual emissions. MACT-
allowable emissions for chromium compounds were determined to be equal
to actual emissions since there is currently no
[[Page 72780]]
emissions limit for chromium compounds.
3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, Determining Inhalation Exposures,
and Estimating Individual and Population Inhalation Risks
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risks from each source in both the source categories
addressed in this proposal were estimated using the HEM (Community and
Sector HEM-3 version 2.1 Beta). The HEM-3 performs three primary risk
assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate
the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and
short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 km of
the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level
inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-
response information.
The dispersion model used by HEM-3 is AERMOD, which is one of the
EPA's preferred models for assessing pollutant concentrations from
industrial facilities.\17\ HEM-3 draws on three data libraries to
perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk
estimates. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year of hourly
surface and upper air observations for more than 200 meteorological
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \18\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (Census, 2000). In addition, for each census
block, the Census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are used in dispersion calculations. A third library of
pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is used to
estimate health risks. These risk factors and health benchmarks are the
latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP and other toxic air
pollutants. These values are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html and are discussed in more detail later in this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\18\ A census block is generally the smallest geographic area
for which census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used
the estimated annual average ambient air concentration of each of the
HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the
source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block
centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We
calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with
a continuous lifetime exposure (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and
52 weeks per year for a 70-year period) to the maximum concentration at
the centroid of an inhabited census block. Individual cancer risks were
calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the
ambient concentration of each of the HAP (in micrograms per cubic
meter) by its URE, which is an upper bound estimate of an individual's
probability of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a
concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air.
For residual risk assessments, we generally use URE values from the
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic
pollutants without an EPA IRIS value, we look to other reputable
sources of cancer dose-response values, often using CalEPA URE values,
where available. We may use dose-response values in place of or in
addition to other values, if appropriate, in cases where new,
scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a
manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer
review process similar to that used by the EPA.
With regard to formaldehyde, the EPA determined in 2004 that the
CIIT cancer dose-response value for formaldehyde (5.5 x
10-\9\ per [mu]g/m\3\) was based on better science than the
IRIS cancer dose-response value (1.3 x 10-\5\ per [mu]g/
m\3\) and we switched from using the IRIS value to the CIIT value in
risk assessments supporting regulatory actions. Based on subsequent
published research, however, EPA changed its determination regarding
the CIIT model and in 2010 the EPA returned to using the 1991 IRIS
value. The EPA has been working on revising the formaldehyde IRIS
assessment and the NAS completed its review of the EPA's draft in May
of 2011. The EPA is reviewing the public comments and the NAS
independent scientific peer review. The EPA will follow the NAS Report
recommendations and will present results obtained by implementing the
biologically based dose-response (BBDR) model for formaldehyde. The EPA
will compare these estimates with those currently presented in the
External Review draft of the assessment and will discuss their
strengths and weaknesses. As recommended by the NAS committee,
appropriate sensitivity and uncertainty analyses will be an integral
component of implementing the BBDR model. The draft IRIS assessment
will be revised in response to the NAS peer review and public comments
and the final assessment will be posted on the IRIS database. In the
interim, we will present findings using the 1991 IRIS value as a
primary estimate, and may also consider other information as the
science evolves. As described in the risk assessment, the IRIS URE for
formaldehyde is 1.3 x 10-\5\ [mu]g/m\3\, whereas, the CIIT
URE for formaldehyde is 5.5 x 10-\9\ [mu]g/m\3\.
Incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
emissions from the source category were estimated as the sum of the
risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP (including those classified as
carcinogenic to humans, likely to be carcinogenic to humans and
suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential \19\) emitted by the
modeled source. Cancer incidence and the distribution of individual
cancer risks for the population within 50 km of any source were also
estimated for the source category as part of these assessments by
summing individual risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent with both
the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) and the
limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ These classifications also coincide with the terms ``known
carcinogen, probable carcinogen and possible carcinogen,''
respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA's previous
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR
33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the risks of these individual
compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach that
was recommended by the EPA's SAB in their 2002 peer review of EPA's
NATA entitled, NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess risk of noncancer health effects from chronic exposures,
we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ
system to obtain the HI for that target organ system (or TOSHI). The HQ
for chronic exposures is the estimated chronic exposure divided by the
chronic reference level, which is either the EPA RfC, defined as ``an
estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a
continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk
of deleterious effects
[[Page 72781]]
during a lifetime,'' or, in cases where an RfC from the EPA's IRIS
database is not available, the EPA will utilize the following
prioritized sources for our chronic dose-response values: (1) The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Minimum Risk Level,
which is defined as ``an estimate of daily human exposure to a
substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse
effects (other than cancer) over a specified duration of exposure'';
(2) the CalEPA Chronic REL, which is defined as ``the concentration
level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a
specified exposure duration''; and (3), as noted above, in cases where
scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a
manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer
review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use those dose-
response values in place of or in concert with other values.
Screening estimates of acute exposures and risks were also
evaluated for each of the HAP at the point of highest off-site exposure
for each facility (i.e., not just the census block centroids), assuming
that a person is located at this spot at a time when both the peak
(hourly) emission rate and worst-case dispersion conditions (1991
calendar year data) occur. The acute HQ is the estimated acute exposure
divided by the acute dose-response value. In each case, acute HQ values
were calculated using best available, short-term dose-response values.
These acute dose-response values, which are described below, include
the acute REL, AEGL and ERPG for 1-hour exposure durations. As
discussed below, we used conservative assumptions for emission rates,
meteorology and exposure location for our acute analysis.
As described in the CalEPA's Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk
Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference
Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL value (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined as ``the
concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are
anticipated for a specified exposure duration.'' Acute REL values are
based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported
in the medical and toxicological literature. Acute REL values are
designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by
the inclusion of margins of safety. Since margins of safety are
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the
acute REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.
AEGL values were derived in response to recommendations from the
NRC. As described in Standing Operating Procedures of the National
Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous
Substances (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),\20\ ``the
NRC's previous name for acute exposure levels--community emergency
exposure levels--was replaced by the term AEGL to reflect the broad
application of these values to planning, response, and prevention in
the community, the workplace, transportation, the military, and the
remediation of Superfund sites.'' This document also states that AEGL
values ``represent threshold exposure limits for the general public and
are applicable to emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8
hours.'' The document lays out the purpose and objectives of AEGL by
stating (page 21) that ``the primary purpose of the AEGL program and
the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances is to develop guideline levels for once-in-a-
lifetime, short-term exposures to airborne concentrations of acutely
toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' In detailing the intended application
of AEGL values, the document states (page 31) that ``[i]t is
anticipated that the AEGL values will be used for regulatory and
nonregulatory purposes by U.S. Federal and state agencies and possibly
the international community in conjunction with chemical emergency
response, planning and prevention programs. More specifically, the AEGL
values will be used for conducting various risk assessments to aid in
the development of emergency preparedness and prevention plans, as well
as real-time emergency response actions, for accidental chemical
releases at fixed facilities and from transport carriers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing
Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AEGL-1 value is then specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration of a substance above which it is predicted that the
general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience
notable discomfort, irritation or certain asymptomatic nonsensory
effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and
reversible upon cessation of exposure.'' The document also notes (page
3) that, ``Airborne concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure
levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient
and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain
asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' Similarly, the document defines
AEGL-2 values as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/
m\3\) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general
population, including susceptible individuals, could experience
irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or
an impaired ability to escape.''
ERPG values are derived for use in emergency response, as described
in the American Industrial Hygiene Association's document entitled,
Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and
Responsibilities (http://www.aiha.org/1documents/committees/ERPSOPs2006.pdf) which states that, ``Emergency Response Planning
Guidelines were developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \21\ The ERPG-1 value is defined as ``the maximum airborne
concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals
could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild
transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly
defined, objectionable odor.'' Similarly, the ERPG-2 value is defined
as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that
nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without
experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects
or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability to take
protective action.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities. November 1,
2006. American Industrial Hygiene Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen from the definitions above, the AEGL and ERPG values
include the similarly-defined severity levels 1 and 2. For many
chemicals, a severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has not been
developed; in these instances, higher severity level AEGL-2 or ERPG-2
values are compared to our modeled exposure levels to screen for
potential acute concerns.
Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure durations are typically lower
than their corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1 values. Even though their
definitions are slightly different, AEGL-1 values are often the same as
the corresponding ERPG-1 values, and AEGL-2 values are often equal to
ERPG-2 values. Maximum HQ values from our acute screening risk
assessments typically result when basing them on the acute
[[Page 72782]]
REL value for a particular pollutant. In cases where our maximum acute
HQ value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ value based on the next
highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1
value).
To develop screening estimates of acute exposures, we developed
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average
actual annual hourly emission rates by a factor to cover routinely
variable emissions. We chose the factor based on process knowledge and
engineering judgment and with awareness of a Texas study of short-term
emissions variability, which showed that most peak emission events, in
a heavily-industrialized four county area (Harris, Galveston, Chambers
and Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than twice the annual average
hourly emission rate. The highest peak emission event was 74 times the
annual average hourly emission rate, and the 99th percentile ratio of
peak hourly emission rate to the annual average hourly emission rate
was 9.\22\ This analysis is provided in Appendix 4 of the Draft
Residual Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories, which is available in the
docket for this action. Considering this analysis, unless specific
process knowledge or data are available to provide an alternate value,
to account for more than 99 percent of the peak hourly emissions, we
apply a conservative screening multiplication factor of 10 to the
average annual hourly emission rate in these acute exposure screening
assessments. The factor of 10 was used for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category, but we determined that a factor of 3 is
more appropriate for the Mineral Wool Production source category (for
more details see the Acute Effects Factor for Mineral Wool
Manufacturing Operations document in the docket for this rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the source of these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the mineral wool source category, we used data from the highest
formaldehyde emitting source among the mineral wool producers. That
company also presented the highest risk due to formaldehyde emissions.
This company provided the agency with 10 years of measurements of
binder formulation, formaldehyde content in binders, binder application
rates, and binder retention rates. Because the industry must
manufacture their product for use in fireproofing, they must keep
meticulous records of production specifics. These data are used to show
compliance with Underwriters Laboratories and other building
construction safety standards. From this specific 10-year data set, the
EPA determined that, on a worst-case possible basis, formaldehyde could
be emitted at levels no more than three times the actual rate. The
worst-case scenario is possible if the binder contained the maximum
amount of resin possible, the resin contained the maximum amount of
formaldehyde possible, was sprayed at the maximum rate possible, and
retained in the product at the minimum level possible. These data were
used to in the risk assessment to determine the acute health effects
hazard index. For Mineral Wool Production, the plant-specific acute
factors were calculated and ranged from 1.0 to 1.6. Based on these
results, and to allow for additional uncertainty in emissions, we used
an acute factor of 3.0. The calculation we used to determine this acute
factor is available in the docket to this rule.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Acute Factor Memo. Cindy Hancy and David Reeves, RTI; to
Susan Fairchild, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD; EPA Project Lead. August 30,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In cases where acute HQ values from the screening step were less
than or equal to 1, acute impacts were deemed negligible and no further
analysis was performed. In cases where an acute HQ from the screening
step was greater than 1, additional site-specific data were considered
to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for acute impacts
of concern. The data refinements employed for these source categories
consisted of using the site-specific facility layout to distinguish
facility property from an area where the public could be exposed. These
refinements are discussed in the draft risk assessment document, which
is available in the docket for each of these source categories.
Ideally, we would prefer to have continuous measurements over time to
see how the emissions vary each hour over an entire year. Having a
frequency distribution of hourly emission rates over a year would allow
us to perform a probabilistic analysis to estimate potential threshold
exceedances and their frequency of occurrence. Such an evaluation could
include a more complete statistical treatment of the key parameters and
elements adopted in this screening analysis. However, we recognize that
having this level of data is rare, hence our use of the multiplier
approach.
To better characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key
recommendation from the SAB's peer review of EPA's RTR risk assessment
methodologies,\24\ we examine a wider range of available acute health
metrics than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in
response to the acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps
and inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in chronic
reference values. By definition, the acute CA-REL represents a health-
protective level of exposure, with no risk anticipated below those
levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the health risk from
higher-level exposures is unknown. Therefore, when a CA-REL is exceeded
and an AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild
effects are anticipated in the general public for a single exposure),
we have used them as a second comparative measure. Historically,
comparisons of the estimated maximum off-site one-hour exposure levels
have not been typically made to occupational levels for the purpose of
characterizing public health risks in RTR assessments. This is because
occupational ceiling values are not generally considered protective for
the general public since they are designed to protect the worker
population (presumed healthy adults) for short duration (< 15 minute)
increases in exposure.\25\ As a result, for most chemicals, the 15-
minute occupational ceiling values are set at levels higher than a one-
hour AEGL-1, making comparisons to them irrelevant unless the AEGL-1 or
ERPG-1 levels are exceeded (U.S. EPA 2009). Such is not the case when
comparing the available acute inhalation health effect reference values
for formaldehyde (U.S. EPA 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The SAB Peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodoligies is
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
\25\ U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference
Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific
Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-09/061, and available on-line at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The worst-case maximum estimated 1-hour exposure to formaldehyde
outside the facility fence line for the mineral wool source category is
0.47 mg/m\3\. This estimated worst-case exposure exceeds the 1-hour REL
by a factor of 8 (HQREL = 8) and is below the 1-hour AEGL-1
(HQAEGL-1 = 0.4). This exposure estimate does not exceed the
AEGL-1, or exceed the workplace ceiling level guideline for the
formaldehyde value developed by the
[[Page 72783]]
NIOSH \26\ ``for any 15 minute period in a work day'' (NIOSH REL-
ceiling value of 0.12 mg/m\3\; HQNIOSH = 4). The estimate is
at the value developed by the ACGIH as ``not to be exceeded at any
time'' (ACGIH TLV-ceiling value of 0.37 mg/m\3\; HQACGIH =
1). Additionally, the estimated maximum acute exposure exceeds the Air
Quality Guideline value that was developed by the World Health
Organization \27\ for 30-minute exposures (0.1 mg/m\3\;
HQWHO = 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ National Institutes for Occupational Saffety and Health
(NIOSH). Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Formaldehyde;
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0293.pdf.
\27\ WHO (2000). Chapter 5.8 Formaldehyde, in Air Quality
Guidelines for Europe, second edition. World Health Organization
Regional Publications, European Series, No. 91. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Available on-line at http://www.euro.who.int/_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the wool fiberglass manufacturing source category, the worst-
case maximum estimated 1-hour exposure to formaldehyde outside the
facility fence line is 1.92 mg/m\3\. This estimated worst-case exposure
exceeds the 1-hour REL by a factor of 30 (HQREL = 30) and
the 1-hour AEGL-1 (HQAEGL-1 = 2). This exposure estimate
also exceeds multiple workplace ceiling level guidelines for
formaldehyde, including the value developed by the American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) as ``not to be exceeded
at any time'' (ACGIH TLV-ceiling value of 0.37 mg/m\3\;
HQACGIH = 5), and the value developed by the National
Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) ``for any 15
minute period in a work day'' (NIOSH REL-ceiling value of 0.12 mg/m\3\;
HQNIOSH = 16). Additionally, the estimated maximum acute
exposure exceeds the Air Quality Guideline value that was developed by
the World Health Organization \28\ for 30-minute exposures (0.1 mg/
m\3\; HQWHO = 19). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ WHO (2000). Chapter 5.8 Formaldehyde, In Air Quality
Guidelinies for Europe, second edition. World Health Organization
Regional Publications, European Series, No. 91. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Available on-line at http://www.euro.who.int_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicit comment on the use of the occupational values described
above in the interpretation of these worst-case acute screening
exposure estimates for both the Mineral Wool Production and Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories.
4. Conducting Multipathway Exposure and Risk Modeling
The potential for significant human health risks due to exposures
via routes other than inhalation (i.e., multi-pathway exposures) and
the potential for adverse environmental impacts were evaluated in a
three-step process. In the first step, we determined whether any
facilities emitted any PB-HAP in the environment. There are 14 PB-HAP
compounds or compound classes identified for this screening in the
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are cadmium
compounds, chlordane, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans,
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene,
hexachlorocyclohexane, lead compounds, mercury compounds, methoxychlor,
polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic organic matter, toxaphene and
trifluralin.
Since three of these PB-HAP (lead, cadmium, and mercury compounds)
are emitted by at least one facility in both source categories, we
proceeded to the second step of the evaluation. In this step, we
determined whether the facility-specific emission rates of each of the
emitted PB-HAP were large enough to create the potential for
significant non-inhalation human or environmental risks under
reasonable worst-case conditions. To facilitate this step, we developed
emission rate thresholds for each PB-HAP using a hypothetical worst-
case screening exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with
the EPA's TRIM.FaTE model. The hypothetical screening scenario was
subjected to a sensitivity analysis to ensure that its key design
parameters were established such that environmental media
concentrations were not underestimated (i.e., to minimize the
occurrence of false negatives or results that suggest that risks might
be acceptable when, in fact, actual risks are high) and to also
minimize the occurrence of false positives for human health endpoints.
We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model TRIM-Screen. The
facility-specific emission rates of each of the PB-HAP in each source
category were compared to the TRIM-Screen emission threshold values for
each of the PB-HAP identified in the source category datasets to assess
the potential for significant human health risks or environmental risks
via non-inhalation pathways.
None of the facilities in the Mineral Wool Production and Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories reported emissions of PB-HAP
that were greater than the de minimis threshold levels, indicating no
potential for significant multi-pathway risks from these facilities.
Therefore, multi-pathway exposures and environmental risks were deemed
negligible and no further analysis was performed. This analysis is
provided in the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool
Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories, which
is available in the docket for this action.
5. Assessing Risks After Control Options
In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening
for potential multi-pathway risks, where appropriate, we also estimated
risks considering the potential emission reductions that would be
achieved by the particular control options under consideration. In
these cases, the expected emissions reductions were applied to the
specific HAP and emissions sources in the source category dataset to
develop corresponding estimates of risk reductions. More information on
the risks remaining after controls are in place to meet the emissions
limits is available in the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the
Mineral Wool Production and Wool fiberglass Manufacturing Source
Categories, which is available in the docket for this action.
6. Conducting Facility Wide Risk Assessments
To put the source category risks in context, we also examine the
risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, for each facility that includes one or more
sources from one of the source categories under review, we examine the
HAP emissions not only from the source category of interest, but also
from all other emission sources at the facility. For both source
categories, all significant HAP sources have been included in the
source category risk analysis and there are no other significant HAP
emissions sources present. Therefore, we conclude that the facility
wide risk is essentially the same as the source category risk for both
the mineral wool and wool fiberglass source categories and that no
separate facility wide analysis is necessary.
7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk Assessment
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for the source categories
addressed in this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe
that our approach, which uses conservative tools and assumptions,
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A brief discussion of
the uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates and dose-
[[Page 72784]]
response relationships follows below. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the draft risk assessment
documentation (referenced earlier) available in the docket for this
action.
a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Datasets
Although the development of the MACT datasets involved quality
assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values
will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data
are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to
complete the datasets are inaccurate, errors in estimating emissions
values and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years that do not
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or
variations from year to year.
The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects
screening assessment were based on a multiplication factor of 10
applied to the average annual hourly emission rate, which is intended
to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
While the analysis employed the EPA's recommended regulatory
dispersion model, AERMOD, we recognize that there is uncertainty in
ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including
AERMOD. In circumstances where we had to choose between various model
options, where possible, model options (e.g., rural/urban, plume
depletion, chemistry) were selected to provide an overestimate of
ambient air concentrations of the HAP rather than underestimates.
However, because of practicality and data limitation reasons, some
factors (e.g., meteorology, building downwash) have the potential in
some situations to overestimate or underestimate ambient impacts. For
example, meteorological data were taken from a single year (1991) and
facility locations can be a significant distance from the site where
these data were taken. Despite these uncertainties, we believe that the
approach considered in the dispersion modeling analysis for off-site
locations and census block centroids should generally yield
overestimates of ambient HAP concentrations.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
The effects of human mobility on exposures were not included in the
assessment. Specifically, short-term mobility and long-term mobility
between census blocks in the modeling domain were not considered.\29\
The assumption of not considering short- or long-term population
mobility does not bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR, nor does it
affect the estimate of cancer incidence since the total population
number remains the same. It does, however, affect the shape of the
distribution of individual risks across the affected population,
shifting it toward higher estimated individual risks at the upper end
and reducing the number of people estimated to be at lower risks,
thereby increasing the estimated number of people at specific risk
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Short-term mobility is movement from one micro-environment
to another over the course of hours or days. Long-term mobility is
movement from one residence to another over the course of a
lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the assessment predicted the chronic exposures at the
centroid of each populated census block as surrogates for the exposure
concentrations for all people living in that block. Using the census
block centroid to predict chronic exposures tends to over-predict
exposures for people in the census block who live further from the
facility, and under-predict exposures for people in the census block
who live closer to the facility. Thus, using the census block centroid
to predict chronic exposures may lead to a potential understatement or
overstatement of the true maximum impact, but is an unbiased estimate
of average risk and incidence.
The assessments evaluate the cancer inhalation risks associated
with continuous pollutant exposures over a 70-year period, which is the
assumed lifetime of an individual. In reality, both the length of time
that modeled emissions sources at facilities actually operate (i.e.,
more or less than 70 years), and the domestic growth or decline of the
modeled industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in the number or size
of United States facilities), will influence the risks posed by a given
source category. Depending on the characteristics of the industry,
these factors will, in most cases, result in an overestimate both in
individual risk levels and in the total estimated number of cancer
cases. However, in rare cases, where a facility maintains or increases
its emission levels beyond 70 years, residents live beyond 70 years at
the same location, and the residents spend most of their days at that
location, then the risks could potentially be underestimated. Annual
cancer incidence estimates from exposures to emissions from these
sources would not be affected by uncertainty in the length of time
emissions sources operate.
The exposure estimates used in these analyses assume chronic
exposures to ambient levels of pollutants. Because most people spend
the majority of their time indoors, actual exposures may not be as
high, depending on the characteristics of the pollutants modeled. For
many of the HAP, indoor levels are roughly equivalent to ambient
levels, but for very reactive pollutants or larger particles, these
levels are typically lower. This factor has the potential to result in
an overstatement of 25 to 30 percent of exposures.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996.
(EPA 453/R-01-003; January 2001; page 85.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that should
be highlighted. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment
depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may
vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and human
activity patterns. In this assessment, we assume that individuals
remain for 1 hour at the point of maximum ambient concentration as
determined by the co-occurrence of peak emissions and worst-case
meteorological conditions. These assumptions would tend to overestimate
actual exposures since it is unlikely that a person would be located at
the point of maximum exposure during the time of worst-case impact.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties may be considered quantitatively, and
others generally are expressed in qualitative terms. We note as a
preface to this discussion a point on dose-response uncertainty that is
brought out in the EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ``the
primary goal of the EPA actions is protection of human health;
accordingly, as an agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including
default options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the
contrary, should be health protective.'' (EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines,
pages 1-7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the
next several paragraphs. A complete detailed discussion of
uncertainties and
[[Page 72785]]
variability in dose-response relationships is given in the residual
risk documentation, which is available in the docket for this action.
Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those that have
been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit).\31\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as
low as zero; however, in other circumstances, the risk could also be
greater.\32\ When developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to
provide risk values that do not underestimate risk, health-protective
default approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring
adequate health-protection, the EPA typically uses the upper bound
estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency estimates in our
risk assessments, an approach that may have limitations for other uses
(e.g., priority-setting or expected benefits analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm).
\32\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic noncancer reference (RfC and RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels.
Specifically, these values provide an estimate (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily oral exposure (RfD) or
of a continuous inhalation exposure (RfC) to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive
values that are intended to be ``without appreciable risk,'' the
methodology relies upon an UF approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 1994) which
includes consideration of both uncertainty and variability. When there
are gaps in the available information, UF are applied to derive
reference values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk
of deleterious effects. The UF are commonly default values,\33\ e.g.,
factors of 10 or 3, used in the absence of compound-specific data;
where data are available, UF may also be developed using compound-
specific information. When data are limited, more assumptions are
needed and more UF are used. Thus, there may be a greater tendency to
overestimate risk in the sense that further study might support
development of reference values that are higher (i.e., less potent)
because fewer default assumptions are needed. However, for some
pollutants, it is possible that risks may be underestimated. While
collectively termed ``uncertainty factor,'' these factors account for a
number of different quantitative considerations when using observed
animal (usually rodent) or human toxicity data in the development of
the RfC. The UF are intended to account for: (1) Variation in
susceptibility among the members of the human population (i.e., inter-
individual variability); (2) uncertainty in extrapolating from
experimental animal data to humans (i.e., interspecies differences);
(3) uncertainty in extrapolating from data obtained in a study with
less-than-lifetime exposure (i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to
chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in extrapolating the observed data
to obtain an estimate of the exposure associated with no adverse
effects; and (5) uncertainty when the database is incomplete or there
are problems with the applicability of available studies. Many of the
UF used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development
of acute reference values are quite similar to those developed for
chronic durations, but they more often use individual UF values that
may be less than 10. UF are applied based on chemical-specific or
health effect-specific information (e.g., simple irritation effects do
not vary appreciably between human individuals, hence a value of 3 is
typically used), or based on the purpose for the reference value (see
the following paragraph). The UF applied in acute reference value
derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity among humans; (2) uncertainty in
extrapolating from animals to humans; (3) uncertainty in lowest
observed adverse effect (exposure) level to no observed adverse effect
(exposure) level adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in accounting for an
incomplete database on toxic effects of potential concern. Additional
adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in
extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4
hours) to derive an acute reference value at another exposure duration
(e.g., 1 hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ According to the NRC report, Science and Judgment in Risk
Assessment (NRC, 1994) ``[Default] options are generic approaches,
based on general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are
applied to various elements of the risk assessment process when the
correct scientific model is unknown or uncertain.'' The 1983 NRC
report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the
Process, defined default option as ``the option chosen on the basis
of risk assessment policy that appears to be the best choice in the
absence of data to the contrary'' (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore,
default options are not rules that bind the agency; rather, the
agency may depart from them in evaluating the risks posed by a
specific substance when it believes this to be appropriate. In
keeping with EPA's goal of protecting public health and the
environment, default assumptions are used to ensure that risk to
chemicals is not underestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An Examination
of EPA Rick Assessment Principles and Practices, EPA/100/B-001
available at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all acute reference values are developed for the same purpose
and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute
assessment of human health effects relative to the reference value or
values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the
lack of short-term dose-response values at different levels of severity
should be factored into the risk characterization as potential
uncertainties.
Although every effort is made to identify peer-reviewed reference
values for cancer and noncancer effects for all pollutants emitted by
the sources included in this assessment, some HAP continue to have no
reference values for cancer or chronic noncancer or acute effects.
Since exposures to these pollutants cannot be included in a
quantitative risk estimate, an understatement of risk for these
pollutants at environmental exposure levels is possible. For a group of
compounds that are either unspeciated, or do not have reference values
for every individual compound (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively
use the most protective reference value to estimate risk from
individual compounds in the group of compounds.
Additionally, chronic reference values for several of the compounds
included in this assessment are currently under the EPA IRIS review and
revised assessments may determine that these pollutants are more or
less potent than the current value. We may re-evaluate residual risks
for the final rulemaking if these reviews are completed prior to our
taking final action for these source categories and if dose-response
metric changes enough to indicate that the risk assessment supporting
this notice may significantly understate human health risk.
When we identify acute impacts which exceed their relevant
benchmarks, we pursue refining our acute screening estimates. For the
Mineral Wool Production source category, we used a refined emissions
multiplier of 3 to estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the
average rates. For a detailed description of how the refined emissions
multiplier was developed for the Mineral Wool Production source
category see the memo on the Acute Effects Factor for Mineral Wool
Manufacturing
[[Page 72786]]
Operations, which is in the docket for this action. For the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category, data were not available to
develop a refined emissions multiplier; therefore, the default
emissions multiplier of 10 was used.
e. Uncertainties in the Multi-Pathway and Environmental Effects
Assessment
We generally assume that when exposure levels are not anticipated
to adversely affect human health, they also are not anticipated to
adversely affect the environment. For each source category, we
generally rely on the site-specific levels of PB-HAP emissions to
determine whether a full assessment of the multi-pathway and
environmental effects is necessary. As discussed above, we conclude
that the potential for these types of impacts is low for these source
categories.
f. Uncertainties in the Facility Wide Risk Assessment
Given that the same general analytical approach and the same models
were used to generate facility wide risk results as were used to
generate the source category risk results, the same types of
uncertainties discussed above for our source category risk assessments
apply to the facility wide risk assessments. Because the source
category processes are the only processes at each facility, there is no
greater uncertainty for facility wide emissions.
B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for this
proposal?
Based on our risk assessment we are proposing that risks due to
hexavalent chromium and formaldehyde are acceptable, with a maximum
individual cancer risk for the source category at 40-in-one million.
Emissions testing at the facility presenting this risk indicated that
92 percent of the total chromium compounds were hexavalent chromium. In
the second step of the process, the EPA sets the standard at a level
that provides an ample margin of safety.
We found from our risk assessment that risks due to hexavalent
chromium were acceptable at 40-in-one million. In the second step of
our risk assessment, we considered whether any cost-effective measures,
technologies or practices are available to reduce risks further to an
``ample margin of safety''. We found two methods whereby hexavalent
chromium emissions can be reduced at wool fiberglass facilities and we
are proposing in this action emission limits for hexavalent chromium
from wool fiberglass facilities that will provide an ample margin of
safety to protect the public health and prevent adverse environmental
effects. We discuss these methods further in Sections V.A., VIII. D and
VIII. E of this preamble.
In past residual risk actions, the EPA has presented and considered
a number of human health risk metrics associated with emissions from
the category under review, including: the MIR; the numbers of persons
in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-cancer HI;
and the maximum acute non-cancer hazard (72 FR 25138, May 3, 2007; 71
FR 42724, July 27, 2006). In our most recent proposals (75 FR 65068,
October 21, 2010 and 75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010), the EPA also
presented and considered additional measures of health information,
such as estimates of the risks associated with the maximum level of
emissions which might be allowed by the current MACT standards (see,
e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010 and 75 FR 80220, December 21,
2010). The EPA also discussed and considered risk estimation
uncertainties. The EPA is providing this same type of information in
support of the proposed actions described in this Federal Register
notice.
The agency is considering all available health information to
inform our determinations of risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety under CAA section 112(f). The agency acknowledges that the
Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility regarding what factors the EPA
might consider in making determinations and how these factors might be
weighed for each source category. Thus, the level of the MIR is only
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risks.
The EPA wishes to point out that certain health information has not
been considered to date in making residual risk determinations. In
assessing risks to populations in the vicinity of the facilities in
each category, we present risk estimates associated with HAP emissions
from the source category alone (source category risk estimates) and the
risks due to HAP emissions from the entire facility at which the
covered source category is located (facility wide risk estimates). We
have not attempted to characterize the risks associated with all HAP
emissions impacting the populations living near the sources in these
categories. That is, at this time, we do not attempt to quantify those
HAP risks that may be associated with emissions from other facilities
that are not included in the source categories in question, including
mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, and atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in these categories.
The agency understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. This is
particularly important when assessing non-cancer risks, where
pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., RfC) are
based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health
effects. For example, the agency recognizes that, although exposures
attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may
not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse non-cancer
health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions
from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other
sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may
be sufficient to result in increased risk of adverse non-cancer health
effects. In May 2010, the EPA SAB advised us ``* * * that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The EPA's response to this and all other key
recommendations of the SAR's advisory on RTR risk assessment
methodologies (which is available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SB-10-007-
unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memo to this rulemaking docket from
David Guinnup entitled, EPA's Actions in Response to the Key
Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment
Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility
wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. At this point, we believe that such
estimates of total HAP risks will have significantly greater associated
uncertainties than for the source category or facility wide estimates,
and hence would compound the uncertainty in any such comparison. This
is because we have not conducted a detailed technical review of HAP
emissions data for source categories and facilities that have not
previously undergone an RTR review or are not currently undergoing such
review.
C. How did we perform the technology review?
For our technology review, we identified and evaluated the
developments in practices, processes and control technologies that have
[[Page 72787]]
occurred since the 1999 MACT rules were promulgated. In cases where we
identified such developments, we analyzed the technical feasibility of
and the estimated impacts (costs, emissions reductions, risk
reductions, etc.) of applying these developments. We then decided,
based on impacts and feasibility, whether it was necessary to propose
amendments to the regulation to require any of the identified
developments.
Based on our analyses of the data, information collected under the
voluntary industry survey, our general understanding of both of the
industries and other available information on potential controls for
these industries, we identified potential developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies.
For the purpose of this exercise, we considered any of the
following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the 1999 MACT
rules.
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the 1999 MACT rules) that could result in significant additional
emissions reduction.
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the 1999 MACT rules.
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the 1999 MACT rules.
Any development in equipment or technology that could
result in increased HAP emissions.
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and technologies
that were not considered at the time we developed the 1999 MACT rules,
we reviewed a variety of data sources for the mineral wool and wool
fiberglass industries. Among the data sources we reviewed were the
NESHAP for various industries that were promulgated after the 1999 MACT
rules. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or technical
analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any
practices, processes and control technologies considered in these
efforts that could possibly be applied to emissions sources in the
Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass source categories, as well
as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with
the use of these technologies. We reviewed scientific and technical
literature regarding refractory products including high chrome
refractories and consulted experts in the refractory manufacturing
field.
Control technologies, classified as RACT, BACT, or LAER apply to
stationary sources depending on whether the sources are existing or
new, and on the size, age and location of the facility. We consulted
the EPA's RBLC to identify potential technology advances. BACT and LAER
(and sometimes RACT) are determined on a case-by-case basis, usually by
State or local permitting agencies. The EPA established the RBLC to
provide a central database of air pollution technology information
(including technologies required in source-specific permits) to promote
the sharing of information among permitting agencies and to aid in
identifying future possible control technology options that might apply
broadly to numerous sources within a category or apply only on a
source-by-source basis. The RBLC contains over 5,000 air pollution
control permit determinations that can help identify appropriate
technologies to mitigate many air pollutant emissions streams. We
searched this database to determine whether it contained any practices,
processes, or control technologies for the types of processes covered
by the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT
rules.
Additionally, we requested information from facilities regarding
developments in practices, processes, or control technology. Finally,
we reviewed other information sources, such as State and local
permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases.
D. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?
In addition to the analyses described above, we also reviewed other
aspects of the MACT standards for possible revision. Based on this
review we have identified several aspects of the MACT standards that we
believe need revision. This includes proposing revisions to the
startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions of the MACT rule in order
to ensure that they are consistent with a recent court decision in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008).
We are proposing HAP-specific emission limits for COS, phenol, and
methanol in place of surrogacy in the MACT standards. The proposed rule
also would regulate the collection process as a source of HAP emissions
of phenol, methanol and formaldehyde that were not included in the 1999
Mineral Wool MACT standard.
In addition, we are proposing other various minor changes with
regards to editorial errors and other revisions to promote the use of
plain language. The analyses and proposed decisions for these actions
are presented in Section VI of this preamble.
E. What analyses were performed for the Mineral Wool Production source
category under the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
Section 609(b) of the RFA requires a Panel to be convened prior to
publication of the IRFA that an agency may be required to prepare under
the RFA. The RFA directs the Panel to report on the comments of small
entity representatives and make findings on the following elements:
A description and estimate of the number of small entities
to which the proposed rule will apply;
A description of projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule; and
Descriptions of any significant alternatives to the
proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities. This analysis must discuss any
significant alternatives such as:
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities;
The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities;
The use of performance rather than design standards; and
An exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.
Once completed, the Panel Report presents the results of the
analyses identified in the above list, and is provided to the agency
issuing the proposed rule and is included in the rulemaking record. The
agency is to consider the Panel's findings when completing the draft of
the proposed rule. In light of the Panel Report, and where appropriate,
the agency is also to consider whether changes are needed to the IRFA
for the proposed rule or the
[[Page 72788]]
decision on whether an IRFA is required.
The Panel's findings and discussion are based on the information
available at the time the final Panel Report is published. The EPA will
continue to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed rule, and
additional information may be developed or obtained during the
remainder of the rule development process.
Any options identified by the Panel for reducing the rule's
regulatory impact on small entities may require further analysis and/or
data collection to ensure that the options are practicable,
enforceable, environmentally sound and consistent with the CAA and its
amendments. The Mineral Wool SBAR Panel convened on June 2, 2011, to
address regulatory flexibility alternatives and opportunities for the
mineral wool industry.
VI. Summary of Proposed Decisions and Actions
Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(6) and 112(f), we are
proposing to revise the 1999 MACT rules relative to mineral wool
production and wool fiberglass manufacturing to include the standards
and requirements summarized in this section. More details of the
rationale for these proposed standards and requirements are provided in
Sections VII and VIII of this preamble. In addition, as part of these
rationale discussions, we solicit public comment and data relevant to
several issues. The comments we receive during the public comment
period will help inform the rule development process as we work toward
promulgating a final action.
A. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to the Mineral
Wool Production NESHAP?
The following sections discuss the proposed decisions and actions
regarding unregulated pollutants and emissions sources (i.e., the MACT
floors), recordkeeping and notification, compliance and other proposed
decisions and actions related to subcategorization of emissions sources
and the findings of the SBAR Panel.
1. Addressing Unregulated Pollutants and Emissions Sources From Mineral
Wool Production
In the course of evaluating the 1999 MACT rule, we identified
certain HAP for which we failed to establish emission standards in the
original MACT (i.e., COS, HF, HCl, phenol, and methanol) and certain
unregulated processes (i.e., collection). Some of these HAP (COS,
phenol, and methanol) were not regulated under the 1999 MACT rule
because they were represented by surrogates (i.e., CO and
formaldehyde). The EPA did not regulate HF and HCl in the 1999 rule
although these HAP are emitted from cupolas. The 1999 MACT rule also
did not regulate any HAP emitted from collection processes that occur
on a bonded line even though these processes emit the HAP phenol,
formaldehyde, and methanol. According to National Lime v. EPA, 233 F.3d
625, 634 (DC Cir. 2000), the EPA has a ``clear statutory obligation to
set emissions standards for each listed HAP.'' As a part of the
information collected in 2010 to support this proposal, we specifically
evaluated COS, HF, and HCl from cupolas and formaldehyde, phenol and
methanol from collection and curing operations.
For the Mineral Wool Production source category, we are proposing
MACT limits for: (1) COS, HF and HCl for existing, new and
reconstructed cupolas; and (2) formaldehyde, phenol and methanol for
existing, new and reconstructed combined collection and curing
operations. The collection process emits HAP when a phenol-formaldehyde
based binder is sprayed during collection. Such collection processes
immediately precede curing ovens. Both processes emit HAP when they
occur on bonded production lines, but of the two processes, only the
curing oven was regulated under the 1999 MACT standard. This proposed
rule regulates collection and curing as a combined process on bonded
production lines under three subcategories (one subcategory for each
combined process design). The proposed emissions limits were calculated
using the 99 percent UPL method.
We considered beyond-the-floor options for COS, HF, and HCl
standards for all cupolas, and for formaldehyde, phenol and methanol
for all combined collection and curing operation designs, as required
by section 112(d)(2) of the Act. However, we decided not to propose any
limits based on the beyond-the-floor analyses for COS, HF, HCl,
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for these sources because of the
costs, potential disadvantages of additional controls (including the
cost of RTO and unintended SO2 emissions), non-air
environmental impacts, and adverse energy implications associated with
use of these additional controls. The beyond-the-floor analyses are
presented in the technical documentation for this action (see MACT
Floor Analysis for the Mineral Wool Production Manufacturing Source
Category and the MACT Floor Analysis for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Category), and are available in the docket for
this action.
In summary, we are proposing the following emissions limits for
existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas in the Mineral Wool Production
Source Category as presented in Table 2. We are not proposing changes
to the PM emissions limits in the 1999 MACT rule for Mineral Wool
Production, and for this reason they are not included in the proposed
limits in Table 2 below.
Table 2--Mineral Wool Production Proposed Emissions Limits for Existing,
New, and Reconstructed Cupolas, Pound of Pollutant per Ton of Melt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit (lb/ton of
melt)
-------------------------------
Pollutant New and
Existing reconstructed
cupolas cupolas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COS..................................... 3.3 0.017
HF...................................... 0.014 0.014
HCl..................................... 0.0096 0.0096
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Subcategorization
Under CAA section 112(d)(1), the EPA has the discretion to ``* * *
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or subcategory in establishing * * *'' standards. When
separate subcategories are established, a MACT floor is determined
separately for each subcategory. To determine whether
[[Page 72789]]
the mineral wool production facilities warrant subcategorization for
the MACT floor analysis, the EPA reviewed unit and process designs,
operating information, and air emissions data compiled in the industry
survey data set and other information collected by the agency for
development of the NESHAP for this source category. Based on this
review, the EPA concluded that there are significant design and
operational differences in the collection operations at each of the
three facilities that operate a bonded line in this source category.
For the unregulated process that emits HAP (i.e., collection and
curing for facilities that operate a bonded line), we are proposing to
subcategorize combined collection operations and curing ovens designs
into three subcategories based on what the industry is currently using:
Vertical, horizontal and drum. When separate subcategories are
established, a MACT standard is determined separately for each
subcategory. To determine whether the mineral wool production
facilities warrant subcategorization for the MACT floor analysis, the
EPA reviewed unit and process designs, operating information and air
emissions data compiled in the industry survey data set and other
information collected by the agency for development of the NESHAP for
this source category. Based on this review, the EPA concluded that
there are significant design and operational differences in the
collection operations at each of the three facilities that operate a
bonded line in this source category. The combined collection and curing
designs consist of three design types: Vertical, horizontal and drum.
For each existing, new, and reconstructed combined collection and
curing operation, we are proposing the following emissions limits as
presented in Table 3.
Table 3--Mineral Wool Production Proposed Emissions Limits for Existing,
New, and Reconstructed Combined Collection and Curing Operations, Pound
of Pollutant per Ton of Melt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit
Design Pollutant (lb/ton of
melt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertical.......................... Formaldehyde........ 0.46
Phenol.............. 0.52
Methanol............ 0.63
Horizontal........................ Formaldehyde........ 0.054
Phenol.............. 0.15
Methanol............ 0.022
Drum.............................. Formaldehyde........ 0.067
Phenol.............. 0.0023
Methanol............ 0.00077
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Reporting and Recordkeeping Notifications
We are proposing to revise certain reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD. Specifically, we are
proposing that facilities maintain records and prepare and submit
performance test reports on the frequency described below in Compliance
Dates and Approaches to comply with the proposed emissions limits for
COS, HF, HCl, formaldehyde, phenol, methanol and the existing PM limit.
Although the PM limits in the existing MACT do not change as a result
of this proposed rule we are proposing the same reporting,
recordkeeping requirements for PM as for the other pollutants addressed
under this proposed rule. We are also proposing language that would
require the use of electronic reporting for all test methods that are
supported by the ERT. Methods supported by ERT may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.
4. Compliance Dates and Approaches
We are proposing that facilities that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before November 25, 2011 must demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of this subpart no later than 3 years
after the effective date of this rule. Affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after the effective date of this rule
must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this subpart no
later than the effective date of the rule or upon start-up, whichever
is later.
We are proposing that compliance testing for PM, COS, formaldehyde,
phenol and methanol be conducted using the same test methods as
required by the 1999 MACT rule (i.e., Method 5 for PM and Method 318
for the organic HAP). We are proposing that sources can use either Test
Method 26A or Test Method 320 to determine compliance for HF and HCl.
We are proposing both an initial performance test and repeat
testing every 5 years or more often if the raw materials charged to the
cupola change by more than 10 percent of that used for the initial
performance test. Finally, we propose that continuous monitoring of
appropriate operating parameters for control devices (e.g., RTO),
cupolas, curing ovens and/or collection operations will be required as
parametric monitoring. This is to ensure continuous compliance with the
PM, COS, HF, HCl, formaldehyde, phenol and methanol emissions limits.
5. Other Decisions and Actions
In addition to the proposed decisions and actions discussed above,
we are also proposing changes to the use of surrogates in the existing
rule and to subcategorize the combined collection operations and curing
oven designs from those facilities operating bonded lines. We also
discuss here the findings of the SBAR panel.
a. Surrogacy
As described in Sections III.B and VII.B of this preamble, the
court, in the Brick MACT decision (Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC
Cir. March 13, 2007))\3\, found that the EPA has a ``clear statutory
obligation to set emission standards for each listed HAP,'' which does
not allow it to ``avoid setting standards for HAP not controlled with
technology.'' Because we did not conduct analyses that would support
the use of CO as a surrogate for COS, or formaldehyde for methanol and
phenol, we cannot demonstrate that we established emission limits for
COS, methanol and phenol in the 1999 MACT standard. Therefore, the
agency is proposing to add emission limits for both phenol and
methanol. Similarly, the agency is proposing to discontinue the use of
CO as a surrogate for COS, and to set emission limits for COS. The
proposed emissions limits for formaldehyde, phenol, methanol and COS
are presented in Tables 2 and 3, above. We are soliciting comment on
our decisions to discontinue use of
[[Page 72790]]
formaldehyde and CO as surrogates; any person wishing to establish or
reestablish surrogacy relationships of one pollutant for others should
provide emissions testing to support their conclusions.
b. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities, the RFA defines small entities as including ``small
businesses,'' ``small governments,'' and ``small organizations'' (5
U.S.C. 601). The regulatory revisions being considered by the EPA for
this rulemaking are expected to affect a variety of small businesses,
but would not affect any small governments or small organizations. The
RFA references the definition of ``small business'' found in the Small
Business Act, which authorizes the SBA to further define ``small
business'' by regulation. The SBA definitions of small business by size
standards using the NAICS can be found at 13 CFR 121.201. For the
Mineral Wool Production source category (NAICS code 327993), the SBA
size standard for a small business is 500 employees. Based on this size
designation, there are currently 5 small businesses operating with a
total number of 540 employees.
Under section 609(b) of the RFA, the Panel is to report its
findings related to these four items:
A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the
proposed rule; and
A description of any significant alternatives to the
planned proposed rule which would minimize any significant economic
impact of the proposed rule on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of the authorizing statute.
The Panel's most significant findings and discussion with respect
to each of these items are summarized below. To read the full
discussion of the Panel findings and recommendations, see Section 9 of
the Panel Report.
1. Number and Types of Entities Affected
Six companies exist in this industry; five of the six companies are
small businesses. All small businesses in the mineral wool production
industry operate under NAICS code 327993.
2. Recordkeeping, Reporting and Other Compliance Requirements
The proposed rule under consideration potentially impacts small
businesses by requiring new emission limits on processes that were not
regulated under the MACT standard promulgated in 1999, by requiring
emission limits for pollutants that were not regulated under the MACT,
or both processes and pollutants not regulated under the MACT. All
companies are subject to Title V operating permits requirements, and as
such will be required to add the newly regulated processes to their
operating permits along with compliance demonstrations that the
processes meet each pollutant emission limit in the rule. Compliance
testing will be required to be conducted using EPA methods for each
pollutant. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are not expected to
change from the MACT, with the exception of additional pollutants and
processes included in such reports.
3. Related Federal Rules
NAAQS: the most prevalent technology for reducing COS emissions
will increase emissions of SO2. Under the current NAAQS,
none of the small entities are in nonattainment areas, so installation
of emissions control equipment should not subject them to additional
permitting requirements under the SO2 NAAQS. However, the
EPA cannot make such assurances about future NAAQS or future
nonattainment zones, so there is a risk that future compliance with
this rule could trigger additional emissions control requirements
through the Title V/prevention of significant deterioration permit
program.
GHG: Most emissions control strategies identified by the EPA during
the Panel would increase the energy intensity of mineral wool
production. Although the Panel does not have specific information about
the GHG emissions of individual facilities in this industry, these
facilities could be subject to GHG permitting as that program is phased
in under the Tailoring Rule.
4. Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives
The Panel agrees that the EPA does not have discretion in a number
of areas that SER commented upon. Specifically, the EPA does not have
the discretion to set the MACT floor emission limits at levels
suggested by the SER. The Panel recognizes that EPA has the authority
to review the MACT standard for completeness, risk, and technology
improvements, and that the agency is currently under court order to
conduct the risk and technology review for the mineral wool source
category and propose amendments to the standard by October 31, 2011,
and promulgate the amendments by October 31, 2012. However, whenever
opportunities for regulatory flexibility arise, and when that
regulatory flexibility can work to lessen impacts to small businesses,
the Panel recommends that the EPA propose amendments to the mineral
wool MACT that offer such regulatory flexibility to the maximum extent
possible. Specifically, these opportunities arise in the following
situations:
Selection of the averaging method in calculating the MACT
floor for COS from cupolas and phenol, formaldehyde and methanol
emissions from collection and curing processes; and
Subcategorization of regulated processes, when
appropriate.
The Panel recommends that the EPA not require BTF emission limits
for the mineral wool industry. Such limits are likely to have
additional cost impacts to industry. In addition, the EPA did not
identify BTF measures for consideration and has found that the results
of the risk assessment show acceptable risks from this source category.
The Panel recommends subcategorization of collection along the
lines described in Section 3 of the Panel Report, specifically,
subcategorization for vertical collection and curing, horizontal
collection and curing, and drum collection and curing. Based on
available information, the Panel believes that emission standards based
on the average emission limits across both collection and curing
processes at each of the three subcategories would minimize the burden
on small entities while fully complying with the EPA's obligations
under section 112. The Panel also recommends setting MACT limits for
new sources equal to MACT limits for existing sources.
The Panel recommends that the EPA allow the maximum amount of time
within its discretion (3 years) and work with state permitting
authorities to provide for the additional year permitted by the
statute.
The Panel recommends that the EPA provide a detailed discussion in
the preamble to the proposed rule that outlines the manner in which
small entities may demonstrate compliance
[[Page 72791]]
with the rule, when finalized, during start-up and shutdown. The Panel
also recommends that the EPA propose allowing an affirmative defense
against compliance actions for malfunction events, consistent with
other section 112 rules recently promulgated. For more information on
the SBAR Panel review process and findings, see Section IV.E of this
preamble and the Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel on the EPA's Planned Proposed Rule Risk and Technology Review
(RTR) Amendments to the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Mineral Wool Production October 2011 in the
docket.
c. Technical Corrections to the Rule
We are also proposing revisions to certain terms in the existing
NESHAP. Specifically, we are proposing to replace the term
``incinerator'' with ``regenerative thermal oxidizer'' to avoid
confusion with rules promulgated under CAA section 129 and any new
requirement that may be imposed on something called an ``incinerator''.
We are also proposing to specify performance testing frequency for
RTOs.
B. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP?
The following sections discuss the decisions proposed by this
action with regard to the following topics: unregulated pollutants and
emissions sources; the risk review; the technology review; our plans
regarding area sources; recordkeeping, reporting and notification
requirements; compliance requirements; and other proposed decisions and
actions (i.e., changes in surrogacy and terminology cleanup).
1. Addressing Unregulated Pollutants and Emissions Sources
In the course of evaluating the 1999 MACT rule, we identified
certain HAP for which we failed to establish emission standards in the
original MACT (i.e., HF, HCl, phenol and methanol). As stated earlier,
the EPA has ``clear statutory obligation to set emissions standards for
each listed HAP''. National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 634 (DC Cir.
2000). The EPA specifically evaluated HF and HCl, from glass-melting
furnaces and formaldehyde, phenol and methanol from RS manufacturing
lines and FA manufacturing lines.
a. Surrogacy
As described in Sections III. B and VII.B of this preamble, the
Court, in the Brick MACT decision, also found that the EPA erred when
we did not establish emission limits for each HAP emitted from
industrial processes regulated by the MACT standard. We are proposing
to replace CO as a surrogate for COS with COS emissions limits. We are
also proposing to discontinue use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for
phenol and methanol. We are, therefore, proposing to add emission
limits for COS, phenol and methanol. The proposed emissions limits can
be found in Tables 4-6, below.
Table 4--Proposed Emissions Limits for Rotary Spin (RS) Manufacturing
Lines
[Pound of pollutant/ton of melt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and
Pollutant Existing RS reconstructed
lines RS lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde............................ 0.17 0.020
Phenol.................................. 0.19 0.0011
Methanol................................ 0.48 0.00067
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Proposed Emissions Limits for Flame Attenuation (FA)
Manufacturing Lines
[Pound of pollutant/ton of melt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and
Pollutant Existing FA reconstructed
lines FA lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde............................ 5.6 3.3
Phenol.................................. 1.4 0.46
Methanol................................ 0.50 0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Proposed Emissions Limits for Glass-Melting Furnaces
[Pound of pollutant/ton of melt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and
Pollutant Existing reconstructed
furnaces furnaces
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HF...................................... 0.002 0.00078
HCl..................................... 0.0015 0.00078
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Emission Limits for Unregulated HAPs
For the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category, we are
proposing MACT limits for HF and HCl for glass-melting furnaces;
formaldehyde, phenol and methanol from existing, new, and reconstructed
RS manufacturing lines; and formaldehyde, phenol and methanol from
existing, new, and reconstructed FA manufacturing lines. The proposed
emissions limits can be found in Tables 4-6 above.
Section 112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that the MACT standards
for existing sources be at least as stringent as the average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of sources (for
which the Administrator has or could reasonably
[[Page 72792]]
obtain emissions information) in a category with more than 30 sources.
The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category consists of 29
facilities with approximately 80 glass-melting furnaces. Since there
are more than 30 furnaces, we based the MACT floor limit on the average
emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of
furnaces.
The EPA must exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the
relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of
emissions control that has been achieved by the best performing sources
under variable conditions. It is recognized in the case law that the
EPA may consider variability in estimating the degree of emissions
reduction achieved by best-performing sources and in setting MACT
floors. See Mossville Envt'l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241-42
(DC Cir 2004) (holding that the EPA may consider emissions variability
in estimating performance achieved by best-performing sources and may
set the floor at a level that a best-performing source can expect to
meet ``every day and under all operating conditions''). More details on
how we calculate MACT floors and how we account for variability are
described in the MACT Floor Analysis for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Category which is available in the docket for this
proposed action.
We considered beyond-the-floor options for the HF and HCl standards
for all of the glass-melting furnaces and the formaldehyde, phenol and
methanol standards for all RS manufacturing lines and FA manufacturing
lines, as required by section 112(d)(2) of the Act. We decided not to
propose any limits based on the beyond-the-floor analyses for any of
these pollutants because of the costs, non-air environmental impacts,
and adverse energy implications associated with use of these additional
controls. The beyond-the-floor analysis is presented in the technical
documentation for this action (MACT Floor Analysis for the Mineral Wool
Production Source Category and the MACT Floor Analysis for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category).
2. Proposed Decisions Based on the Risk Review
Based on the results of our risk assessment and risk review (which
are described in more detail in Section VIII of this preamble), we are
proposing emission limits for chromium compounds under the authority of
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA of 0.006 pounds of total chromium per
thousand tons of glass pulled. As explained in Section VIII of this
preamble, we are proposing these limits as an outcome of our ample
margin of safety analysis.
3. Proposed Decisions Based on the Technology Review for the Wool
Fiberglass Industry
As explained in Sections VI.B and VIII.E of this preamble, we are
proposing emissions limits for PM, under section 112(d)(6) (see Table
12 of Section VIII in this preamble). Furthermore, as explained in
Section VIII.F of this preamble, we are proposing emissions limits for
chromium compounds under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA as part of our
technology review (see those sections for details) of 0.006 pounds of
total chromium per thousand tons of glass pulled, which is the same
limit we are proposing under Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA.
In our technology review for this industry, we discovered and
evaluated two new technology developments that affect emissions from
wool fiberglass manufacturing furnaces: furnace control technologies
and high chrome refractories. These are discussed below.
Wool fiberglass furnaces are now equipped with air pollution
control devices that achieve emissions of about 0.014 pounds PM per ton
of glass produced. This is about 50 times lower than required under the
MACT rule (0.5 lb PM per ton glass produced). In light of the record
and additional data we received on PM emissions, we are proposing
revised PM limits under the technology review of the wool fiberglass
source category (as described in Section VIII of this preamble).
Glass-melting furnaces are constructed using refractories, which
direct the heat of the furnace back into the melt. We are aware of a
new technology that is used to significantly extend the life of the
wool fiberglass furnace: refractories that are made of almost 100
percent chromium compounds and that are used to construct entire
furnaces or very large parts of furnaces. Based on emission testing of
one furnace, it appears that the levels of chromium compounds that can
be emitted when glass-melting furnaces are constructed from high chrome
refractories can be significant. This facility operates two furnaces.
The total chromium compound emissions at this facility are estimated as
913 lb/yr assuming that both furnaces emit at a similar rate. This
includes 840 pounds of hexavalent chromium. Industry information
indicates that the furnaces emitting the highest levels of chromium
compounds are constructed in whole or in part from these types of
refractories. (Notes of April 14, 2011; Region 7 Certainteed
Notes).12 13
It is our understandng that because of the corrosive properties of
the molten glass, fresh refractory is continuously exposed to the
molten glass along the metal/glass contact line in the glass-melting
furnace process. This increases the surface area of the refractory that
is exposed to the molten glass. As a result, when the glass furnace is
constructed using high chrome refractories, the emission levels of
chromium compounds continuously increase over the life of the furnace
(Please refer to notes of April 14, 2011, telephone discussion between
Susan Fairchild and Certainteed). One industry spokesperson estimated
that 20,000 lb/yr of refractory are worn away from the inside walls of
one wool fiberglass furnace and ducted to the control device before
venting to the atmosphere.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Meeting between U.S. EPA, would fiberglass industry
representatives and NAIMA (trade association). August 31, 2011. At
USEPA offices in Research Triangle Park, NC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 31, 2011, industry representatives met with the agency to
provide data, in an attempt to improve our understanding of the levels
of chromium content in refractory products used at wool fiberglass
furnaces and their impacts on chromium compound emissions. In the
meeting industry representatives stated the following:
The use of chromium in refractories is important to wool
fiberglass operations because it extends the useful life of the
furnace;
Chromium content of furnaces vary from 0 to 95 percent;
there is no distinction between the types of refractories used at the
highest chrome emitting furnace and the refractories used to construct
other glass furnaces that emit low levels of hexavalent chromium.
The type of furnace used at the high chromium emitting
facility may may be responsible for increased hexavalent chromium
emissions.
However, the information from the meeting appears to contradict
other information on the reason for certain furnaces to have elevated
chromium emissions. As previously discussed, emission test results from
the 2010 testing and previous statements made to the EPA from owners/
operators (Notes of April 14, 2011, Certainteed; Region 7 Certainteed
notes) seem to inply that the high chromium emissions are due to the
chromium content of the refractory. Because of this contradictory
information we are requesting
[[Page 72793]]
additional emissions testing of wool fiberglass furnaces (discussed
below). We are also soliciting comment on whether and how to
subcategorize industry according to furnace type, or type of
refractory. Commenters should also provide emissions test data to
support their assertions regarding the correct manner in which to
subcategorize the industry.
As shown in Table 12 of Section VIII of this preamble, we are
proposing chromium compound emissions limits of 0.00006 lb/ton of glass
produced. These limits would apply to wool fiberglass furnaces at major
sources. However, there are no differences in furnaces at major sources
and those at area sources. We are concerned about the levels of
hexavalent chromium that can be emitted by area sources where furnaces
may be constructed or reconstructed using high chrome refractories. We
are announcing today our plans to regulate wool fiberglass area sources
in a future action. We have issued a section 114 information collection
request to the wool fiberglass industry to collect comprehensive
information specific to the chrome content of the refractories used to
construct their glass-melting furnaces and obtain complete chromium
emissions test data. This information will enable us determine the
scope of the source category (in terms of the universe of wool
fiberglass producers that are area sources and that emit hexavalent
chromium) to be regulated in the future action.
We are requesting information specific to wool fiberglass furnaces,
including information on the chromium content of the refractories used
in furnace construction, process rates and emissions testing.
Nevertheless, we are soliciting comment from the public on our approach
to limit emissions of chromium compounds as well as other alternatives
to reducing emissions of chromium compounds, especially hexavalent
chromium.
4. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Notification Requirements
We are proposing to revise certain recordkeeping requirements of 40
CFR part 63, subpart NNN. Specifically, we are proposing that
facilities maintain records and prepare and submit performance test
reports to comply with the proposed emissions limits for PM, chromium
compounds, HF, HCl, formaldehyde, phenol and methanol. Because
refractory products can contain chromium compounds that can then be
emitted to the ambient air during wool fiberglass manufacturing, we are
proposing that owners/operators of glass manufacturing furnaces
maintain records of the refractory brick composition from which the
furnaces are constructed, including any rebricking or additional layers
of refractory that are added to the outside furnace walls. In addition,
owners and operators are required to keep records of the occurrence and
duration of each malfunction or operation of the air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment. We are also proposing requirements
for the use of electronic reporting for all test methods that are
supported by the ERT. Methods supported by ERT may be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.
5. Compliance Dates and Approaches
With regard to formaldehyde, HCl, HF, phenol and methanol, we are
proposing that facilities that commenced construction or reconstruction
on or before November 25, 2011 must demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this subpart no later than 3 years after the effective
date of this rule. Affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after the proposal date of this rule must demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of this subpart no later than the
effective date of the rule or upon start-up, whichever is later. We are
proposing an initial performance test within 90 days of promulgation of
the final rule.
With regard to total chromium compounds, we are proposing that the
requirements under CAA section 112(f)(2), if finalized, must be
implemented no later than 90 days after the effective date of this
rule, but the EPA may extend that timeframe for circumstances under
which we believe the additional time is necessary for installation of
air pollution control equipment or other measures to reduce HAP
emissions. We are, therefore, allowing affected sources up to one year
from the effective date of this rule to demonstrate compliance with the
chromium emission limits. Consistent with CAA section 112(f)(4)(B), we
are proposing that a one-year compliance period is necessary so that
affected facilities have adequate time to install additional controls
and demonstrate compliance, including the time necessary to purchase,
install and test control equipment. Because these limits reflect the
reductions from glass making furnaces required under both sections
112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2), we believe a one-year compliance timeframe is
needed for the same reasons provided above. In addition, we are
proposing that the PM emissions limit that would reflect reductions
required for the glass making furnaces pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6) must be met no later than one year after the effective date
of this rule. We believe this time is needed to either enable
installation of replacement bags, or if a facility decides to add a new
baghouse in series with an existing baghouse, seek bids, select a
vendor, install and test the new equipment; prepare and submit the
reports in this proposed rule, if finalized.
Therefore, we are proposing that wool fiberglass facilities would
be required to show compliance with both PM and the chromium limits
within 1 year of promulgation of this standard. We are soliciting
comments on this aspect of this proposed action.
Additionally, we propose that compliance with the proposed chromium
compounds emissions limits be demonstrated by annual performance tests
for all glass-melting furnaces subject to this rule as described in
Section VI.B.2 of this preamble. We are proposing additional annual
performance testing no later than 12 calendar months following the
initial or previous performance or compliance test to demonstrate
compliance with the chromium compounds emissions limit for furnaces.
We are proposing both an initial performance test and repeat
testing every 5 years on the RS and FA lines and each time the binder
formulation changes by more than 10 percent as compared to the binder
formulation used in the initial performance test. We are seeking
comment on whether the binder formulation variability of 10 percent as
used here is appropriate.
We are proposing that compliance testing for PM, formaldehyde,
phenol and methanol be conducted using the same test methods as
required by the 1999 MACT rule (i.e., Method 5 for PM and Method 318
for formaldehyde, phenol and methanol). We are proposing Test Method
26A be used to determine compliance for HF and HCl and Test Method 0061
be used to ensure compliance with the chromium compounds emission
limit.
We propose that continuous monitoring of temperatures of control
devices (e.g., fabric filters, wet and dry ESP, scrubbers) for glass-
melting furnaces, RS manufacturing lines, and FA manufacturing lines
will be required as parametric monitoring to ensure continuous
compliance with the PM, chromium compounds, HF, HCl, formaldehyde,
phenol and methanol emissions limits.
Because the recent test data for glass-melting furnaces show a
significant
[[Page 72794]]
portion of the chromium compounds are hexavalent chromium, we are
requiring Test Method 0061 be used to ensure compliance with the
chromium compounds emission limit and as the most cost effective method
to determine both total chromium and hexavalent chromium from wool
fiberglass furnace stacks. Sources must report both total chromium and
hexavalent chromium using this method or all chromium emissions are
assumed to be hexavalent chromium.
6. Other Decisions and Actions
In addition to the proposed decisions and actions discussed above,
we are also proposing surrogacy changes and some general cleanup in
terminology to the existing rule.
a. Surrogacy
As described in Sections III.B and VIII.B in this preamble, the
Court found that the EPA has a ``clear statutory obligation to set
emission standards for each listed HAP.'' Because we did not conduct
analyses that would support the use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for
methanol and phenol, we cannot currently demonstrate that we
established emission limits for the HAP methanol and phenol in the 1999
MACT standard. Therefore, we are proposing the emissions limits for
phenol and methanol, which are presented in Tables 4-6, above.
b. Technical corrections to the rule.
We are also proposing revisions to certain terms in the existing
NESHAP. Specifically, we are proposing to replace the term
``incinerator'' with ``RTO'' and specify performance test frequency.
C. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to startup,
shutdown and malfunction?
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of
a regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General Provisions Rule,''
that the EPA promulgated under CAA section 112. When incorporated into
CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these
two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emissions standard during
periods of SSM.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in
this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several
revisions to Table 1 to subparts DDD and NNN of part 63 (the General
Provisions Applicability table). For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate or
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting that related to the SSM
exemption. The EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not included in
the proposed regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate,
unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are
specifically seeking comment on whether there are any such provisions
that we have inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, is proposing emissions limits for those periods. Information on
periods of startup and shutdown received from the industry survey
indicate that emissions during these periods are less than emissions
during production. Control devices such as baghouses for PM and metal
HAP particulate control and RTO for COS control are started up before
the process units, and are operational during the shutdown phase of a
process. Therefore, no increase in emissions is expected during these
periods. Because the processes are ducted to the control device before
startup and after shutdown, and because emissions during startup and
shutdown are not more than emissions during production, startup and
shutdown emissions limits should be equivalent to the emissions limits
for production. Production based emissions limits are expressed in this
rule on a pound of pollutant per ton melt basis. However, during
startup and shutdown, there is no melt being produced. Therefore,
separate standards for periods of startup and shutdown were developed
by translating the production-based emissions limits from a pound per
ton basis to a pound of pollutant per hour basis and are being proposed
in this rule. Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are
all predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However,
by contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA
section 112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods
of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112
standards. Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources
must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best
controlled similar source and for existing sources generally must be no
less stringent than the average emissions limitation ``achieved'' by
the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is
nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the agency to consider
malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved'' by the best
performing or best controlled sources when setting emissions standards.
Moreover, while the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions
standards consistent with the CAA section 112 case law, nothing in that
case law requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. Section 112 of the CAA uses the concept of ``best
controlled'' and ``best performing'' unit in defining the level of
stringency that CAA section 112 performance standards must meet.
Applying the concept of ``best controlled'' or ``best performing'' to a
unit that is malfunctioning presents significant difficulties, as
malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events.
Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably''
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (DC Cir.
1999) (the EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of
data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. The court generally defers
to the agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect
scientific information, rather than to ``invest the resources to
conduct the perfect study.''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590
F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general
limit, individual permit or even any upset provision can anticipate all
upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of
regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,'
such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not
[[Page 72795]]
for specification in advance by regulation''). In addition, the goal of
a best controlled or best performing source is to operate in such a way
as to avoid malfunctions of the source and accounting for malfunctions
could lead to standards that are significantly less stringent than
levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning
source. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA
section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emissions standard (see,
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance and Malfunctions
(Feb. 15, 1983)). The EPA is, therefore, proposing to add to the final
rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of
emissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.542
(defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an
enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a
judicial or administrative proceeding). We also are proposing other
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to
establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set
forth in 40 CFR 63.552 (40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the
affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes an
exceedance of the emissions limit meets the narrow definition of
malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable
preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or careless
operation). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative
defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment,
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner
* * *.'' The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken
to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40
CFR 63.543(j) and to prevent future malfunctions. For example, the
source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs
were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable emissions
limitations were being exceeded * * *'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps
were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient
air quality, the environment and human health * * *.'' In any judicial
or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the
assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met
its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative
defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with CAA
section 113 (see also 40 CFR 22.27).
The EPA included an affirmative defense in the proposed rule in an
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation,
to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that
despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits may be exceeded
under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA must
establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.''
42 U.S.C. 7602(k)(defining ``emission limitation and emission
standard''). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 (DC
Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that section 112
emissions limitations are continuous. The affirmative defense for
malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where
there is a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable
through injunctive relief. While ``continuous'' limitations on the one
hand are required, there is also case law indicating that in many
situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical
realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus,
486 F.2d 427, 433 (DC Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit acknowledged that in
setting standards under CAA section 111 ``variant provisions'' such as
provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment
malfunction ``appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the
standards as a whole and that the record does not support the `never to
be exceeded' standard currently in force.'' See also, Portland Cement
Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (DC Cir. 1973). Though
intervening case law such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977
amendments undermine the relevance of these cases today, they support
the EPA's view that a system that incorporates some level of
flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for
a defense to civil penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be
beyond the control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative
defense, the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a
Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of
formalized approach when regulating ``upsets beyond the control of the
permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th
Cir. 1977). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58
(DC Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach is adequate). The
affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both
ensure that its emission limitations are ``continuous'' as required by
42 U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and thus support
the reasonableness of the standard as a whole.
D. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to electronic
reporting?
Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review, according to 63.10(b)(1). Electronic
recordkeeping and reporting is available for many records, and is the
form considered most suitable for expeditious review if available.
Electronic recordkeeping and reporting is encouraged in this proposal
and some records and reports are required to be kept in electronic
format. Records required to be maintained electronically include the
output of continuous monitors and the output of the BLDS. Additionally,
standard operating procedures for the BLDS and fugitive emissions
control are required to be submitted to the Administrator for approval
in electronic format.
VII. Rationale for the Proposed Actions for the Mineral Wool Production
Source Category
As discussed in Section VI.A of this preamble, we evaluated
emissions limits
[[Page 72796]]
for PM, COS, HF, HCl, formaldehyde, phenol and methanol at mineral wool
production facilities. This section of the preamble provides the
results of the RTR, our rationale for the proposed actions and
decisions concerning changes to the 1999 MACT rule for the Mineral Wool
Production source category.
A. What data were used for the NESHAP analyses?
To perform the technology review and residual risk analysis for the
Mineral Wool NESHAP, we created a comprehensive dataset based on
existing and new test data provided by the 7 mineral wool facilities.
As described in Section IV.C of this preamble, the voluntary industry
survey requested available information regarding process equipment,
control devices, point and fugitive emissions, practices used to
control fugitive emissions, and other aspects of facility operations.
In addition to the industry survey, each owner/operator was asked to
submit reports for any recent emissions tests conducted at their
facility and to conduct additional emissions tests in 2010 for certain
HAP from specific processes. Pollutants tested for the mineral wool
source category in 2010 included most HAP metals, CO, PM and certain
organic HAP (formaldehyde, phenol, methanol and carbonyl sulfide).
B. What are the proposed decisions regarding surrogacy relationships?
In the 1999 MACT rule, PM serves as the surrogate for metal HAP36
at existing and new cupolas, CO serves as the surrogate for COS at new
cupolas and formaldehyde serves as the surrogate for phenol and
methanol from curing ovens. The 1999 MACT standard does not have
emissions limits for COS, HCl or HF from existing cupolas; limits for
phenol or methanol from curing; or emissions limits for any pollutants
from collection operations. We are proposing HAP-specific emission
limits for these pollutants under CAA section 112(d)(3)in this action.
The agency is retaining use of PM as a surrogate for HAP metals. As
discussed in Sections III.B and VII.B. of this preamble, the Court
found that the EPA must set emission limits for each listed HAP (Sierra
Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (DC Cir. March 13, 2007)),\3\ and agreed
with the EPA that nothing in the CAA suggests that it is prohibited
from resetting the MACT floors in order to correct our own errors. They
also agreed that the approach our petitioners labeled ``MACT-on-MACT''
would be more accurately described as ``MACT-on-Unsupportable-
Standards-Erroneously-Labeled-as-MACT'' \37\. With regard to the
evaluation of potential MACT limits for HAP metals from this source
category, consistent with the explanation presented in the proposal of
the 1999 MACT rule (NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production, Proposed Rule,
June 1, 1997, 64 FR 29490) for this source category describing the
appropriateness of PM as a surrogate for HAP metals, we continue to
consider PM as an appropriate surrogate for HAP metals in the proposed
amendments to the NESHAP in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The HAP metals emitted from mineral wool cupolas include
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury,
manganese, nickel, lead and selenium.
\37\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658 (DC Cir. March 2, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is proposing emissions limits for phenol and methanol
because the concentration of formaldehyde in a specific binder
formulation is independent of phenol and/or methanol. The mineral wool
industry commented during the small business advocacy review that the
binder ingredients and formulation can vary from one mineral wool
company to the next, and that the test data from one company is not
necessarily relevant for or representative of another company.
In summary, under 112(d)(3) we are proposing emission limits for
COS, HF and HCl from cupolas; and for formaldehyde, methanol and phenol
from bonded lines.
C. What are the proposed decisions regarding certain unregulated
emissions sources?
In the course of evaluating the Mineral Wool Production source
category, we identified certain HAP for which we failed to establish
emission standards in the original MACT. See National Lime v. EPA, 233
F. 3d 625, 634 (DC Cir. 2000) (the EPA has ``clear statutory obligation
to set emissions standards for each listed HAP''). Specifically, we
evaluated emissions standards for COS, HF and HCl for cupolas and
formaldehyde, phenol and methanol for curing ovens and collection
operations at mineral wool production facilities, that are not
specifically regulated in the existing 1999 MACT standard. We are
proposing emissions limits for these pollutants and processes pursuant
to 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3) as discussed in Section V.A of this
preamble.
D. What are the proposed decisions regarding subcategorization?
The EPA collected information from the mineral wool companies that
operate bonded lines to better understand the different equipment
designs and whether all collection processes are the same, or whether
design and manufacturing process differences warranted consideration of
subcategories for the collection process. This process led to the
identification of three distinct process design subcategories:
Vertical, horizontal and drum. Because collection processes only emit
HAP if they occur on a bonded line, we are proposing to bundle
collection operations and curing ovens together for each of three
subcategories and propose new emissions limits for formaldehyde,
phenol, and methanol at combined collection/curing on bonded lines. The
following discussion involves the rationale for subcategorization of
collection operations into three subcategories:
1. The Vertical Collection Design
During the production of wool fiberglass on a bonded production
line using a vertical collection design, the molten rock/slag mixture
is poured from the cupola spout onto a group of stainless steel drums
spinning in opposite directions. The spinning drums form fine fibers of
the mineral mixture. High air volume directs the fibers off the
fiberization spinners toward a fast-moving porous vertical conveyor
belt. A strong vacuum is drawn on the opposite side of the belt causing
the fibers to lie against the vertical belt as it moves upward. At the
top of the conveyance, the belt travels around a curve, the vacuum is
released, and the fibers are moved onto a second belt that conveys the
layer of binder-sprayed mineral wool fibers into the curing oven.
Because the conveyor belt is vertical, the air volume drawn through the
belt and fiber layer must be very high and the resulting fiber layer
that is collected on the belt is thin. In this design, `shot' (BB-sized
black granules that are high in iron as a result of using slag from the
iron and steel industry) falls out of the fiber layer. The vertical
design is used to produce a specific type of mineral wool that is low
in `shot' and may be used in the hydroponic gardening market as well as
in a specialized market of insulation products in which shot is
undesirable.
Currently, only one facility operates this type of collection
design. Formaldehyde, phenol and methanol MACT floors for existing, new
and reconstructed sources in this
[[Page 72797]]
subcategory were based on emissions test runs for combined curing and
collection operations from this facility.
2. The Horizontal Collection Design
Horizontal collection is similar to vertical collection, but
because the conveyor belt is horizontal it works with gravitational
forces. The layer of mineral wool collected on a horizontal belt is
thinner than that collected on a vertical belt, and the `shot' is not
selectively removed. The air volume that is drawn through the fiber
layer is much lower than in the vertical design, and therefore the air
stream is conducive to thermal oxidation at the hottest part of the
cupola exhaust stack or the existing thermal oxidizer on the curing
oven.
Currently, only one facility operates this type of collection
design. Formaldehyde, phenol and methanol MACT floors for existing, new
and reconstructed sources in this subcategory were based on emissions
test runs for combined curing and collection operations from this
facility.
3. The Drum Collection Design
In the drum collection design, fibers are drawn using a very high
volume air flow into the center of a rotating drum. The sides of the
rotating drum have small holes that allow the air flow to exit, but
which trap the fibers. The angle of the drum and the use of a vacuum
and centrifugal force pull the fibers against the inside wall of the
drum and out the end. The entire drum is enclosed and the air flow may
be vented to the hottest part of the cupola exhaust stack or to the
existing thermal oxidizer on the curing oven.
Currently, only one facility operates this type of collection.
Formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol MACT floors for existing, new, and
reconstructed sources in this subcategory were based on emissions test
runs for combined curing and collection operations from this facility.
E. What are the results from the risk assessments performed and the
proposed decisions for the Mineral Wool Production source category?
As described in Section V.A of this preamble, we conducted an
inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted from the Mineral Wool
Production source category. We also conducted multipathway screenings
for cadmium, mercury, and lead. Details of the risk assessments and
additional analyses can be found in the draft residual risk
documentation referenced in Section V.A of this preamble, which is
available in the docket for this action. The agency considered the
available health information--the MIR; the numbers of persons in
various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-cancer HI; the
maximum acute non-cancer hazard; the extent of non-cancer risks; the
potential for adverse environmental effects; and the distribution of
risks in the exposed population (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989)--in
developing the proposed CAA section 112(f)(2) standards for the Mineral
Wool Production source category.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results for the Mineral Wool Production
Source Category
Table 7 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the results
of the inhalation risk assessment.
Table 7--Mineral Wool Production Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) \1\ Maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI
--------------------------------------------------------- Estimated Estimated \2\
Based on population at annual cancer ---------------------------------- Maximum screening acute
allowable increased risk incidence Based on Based on non-cancer HQ \3\
Based on actual emissions level emissions of cancer >= 1- (cases per actual allowable
level in-1 million year) emissions level emissions level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...................................... 10 1,650 0.0004 0.04 0.1 8 (REL) 0.4 (AEGL-1, ERGP-
1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\2\ Maximum TOSHI. The highest TOSHI for the Mineral Wool Production source category is for the respiratory system.
\3\ The maximum HQ acute value of 8 is driven by emissions of formaldehyde. It is also based on a refined emissions multiplier of 3 which was used to
estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the average rates. See section V.A. of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values.
The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment
indicate that, based on estimates of current actual emissions, the MIR
could be up to 4-in-1 million, with formaldehyde primarily driving
these risks. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source
category based on actual emission levels is 0.0004 excess cancer cases
per year or one case in every 2,500 years, with emissions of
formaldehyde and arsenic compounds contributing 64 percent and 33
percent, respectively, to this cancer incidence.\38\ In addition, we
note that no persons are estimated to have cancer risks greater than
10-in-1 million, and approximately 1,650 people are estimated to have
risks greater than 1-in-1 million as a result of emissions from 1
facility. When considering the risks associated with MACT-allowable
emissions, the MIR could be up to 10-in-1 million. The maximum modeled
chronic non-cancer TOSHI value for the Mineral Wool Production source
category could be up to 0.04 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating
those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic non-
cancer impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ We note that the MIR for this source category would not
change if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde had been used in the
assessment, although the total cancer incidence would decrease by 52
percent. The MIR for the source category would remain at 40 due to
Cr (VI). There is an ongoing IRIS reassessment for formaldehyde, and
future RTR risk assessments will use the cancer potency for
formaldehyde that results from that reassessment. As a result, the
current results may not match those of future assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts indicates the
potential for only one pollutant, formaldehyde, to exceed an HQ value
of 1 at only one facility in this source category, with a potential
maximum HQ up to 8. A refined emissions multiplier of 3 was used to
estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the average rates. Refer
to Appendix 7 of the draft residual risk document in the docket for a
detailed description of how the refined emissions multiplier was
developed for the Mineral Wool Production source category. The worst-
case acute impact estimate occurs at a facility that is located in a
rural area with a small population. Since the acute modeling
[[Page 72798]]
scenario is worst-case because of its confluence of peak emission rates
and worst-case dispersion conditions, and since the HQ estimates for
formaldehyde based on the AEGL-1 and ERPG-1 values for this facility
are well below 1, we are proposing to find that acute noncancer health
impacts of concern are unlikely.
With respect to the potential for adverse environmental effects
from non PB-HAP, we note that that there is a lack of information about
specific adverse environmental effects occurring at given
concentrations of the HAP emitted by this source category. However,
given that all chronic non-cancer HQ values considering actual
emissions are less than 1 using human health reference values, we
believe that it is unlikely that adverse environmental effects would
occur at the actual HAP concentrations estimated in our human health
risk assessment.
2. Multipathway Risk Assessments and Results
There were no exceedances of screening emissions rates for the PB
HAP emitted by the facilities in the Mineral Wool Production source
category, thus we have no concerns about potential multi-pathway risks
from this source category.
3. Facility Wide Risk Assessment Results
For all facilities in this source category, there are no other
significant HAP emissions sources present beyond those included in the
source category. All significant HAP sources have been included in the
source category risk analysis. Therefore, we conclude that the facility
wide risks are essentially the same as the source category risks.
F. What are our proposed decisions for the Mineral Wool Production
source category based on risk acceptability and ample margin of safety?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in Section V.A of this preamble, we weigh all health risk
factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the MIR; the
numbers of persons in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the
maximum noncancer HI; the maximum acute noncancer hazard; the extent of
noncancer risks; the potential for adverse environmental effects; and
distribution of risks in the exposed population; and risk estimation
uncertainty (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) in developing the
proposed CAA section 112(f)(2) standards for this source category.
Based on the inhalation risk assessment, we estimate that the
cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 4-in-1
million due to actual emissions and up to 10-in-1 million due to MACT-
allowable emissions, mainly due to formaldehyde stack emissions. We
estimate that the incidence of cancer based on actual emissions is
0.0004 excess cancer cases per year or one case every 2,500 years, and
that about 1,650 people face a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million
due to HAP emissions from this source category. Our assessments also
indicated a low potential for HAP emissions from these sources to pose
any significant adverse environmental effects or human health multi-
pathway risks or chronic noncancer human health risks due to
inhalation. While our acute risk screening ruled out the possibility of
acute impacts of concern for all pollutants except for formaldehyde at
one facility, we ultimately concluded that the potential for acute
impacts of concern at this facility is low. The risk assessment for
this source category was largely based on facility-specific stack test
data and emissions estimates, indicating a high degree of confidence in
the results. Considering all of the above information, we are proposing
that the current risks due to actual HAP emissions from this source
category are acceptable.
While the estimated chronic risks associated with MACT-allowable
emissions from this source category are slightly higher than risk
estimates based on actual emission levels, they are still well below
100 in one million and there are no other significant risks. Therefore,
we propose the risks due to allowable emissions are also acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety
As explained earlier in Section V of this preamble, the agency
again considers all of the health risks and other health information
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, we evaluate the
cost and feasibility of available control technologies and other
measures (including the controls, measures and costs reviewed under the
technology review) that could be applied in this source category to
further reduce the risks due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk
assessment.
Based on our research and analyses as discussed in Section V.C of
this preamble, we have not identified any feasible control options
beyond what we are requiring in our proposed standards for emissions
sources described above, and are therefore not proposing additional
controls, under section 112(f)(2). Therefore, we are proposing that the
MACT standards for the mineral wool production source category, as
revised per above, provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent adverse environmental effects.
Nevertheless, we are soliciting comments and information regarding
additional control measures and work practices that may be available
and their feasibility in further reducing stack emissions of COS, HF,
HCl, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol, or additional monitoring that
may be warranted to ensure adequate control of these emissions.
G. What are the results from the technology review and proposed
decisions?
Based on our technology review, we believe that the reductions in
HAP emissions since promulgation of the 1999 Mineral Wool Production
MACT rule are directly related to improvements in two areas: (1)
Improvements in fabric filter control technology (e.g., improved bag
materials, replacement of older baghouses) and (2) addition of
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) and oxygen injection to control
emissions from cupolas. Additional reductions have been achieved due to
the use of low-sulfur raw materials at one facility. The RTOs and lower
sulfur raw materials are discussed above (in Section VII.C of this
preamble) since these controls and measures are relevant to development
of the MACT standards for COS and other organic HAPs under Section
112(d)(2) of the CAA, and in the beyond the floor analyses (described
in Section VII.C of this preamble) that we also do as part of the MACT
standard evaluations under Section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3).
In this section, as part of our technology review, we describe
developments in development in fabric filter technologies and the
relationship to PM emissions.
Slight improvements in fabric filter control technology are
reflected in the emissions test data collected under the industry
survey. The emissions limit for PM under the 1999 MACT rule is a
production-based limit of 0.1 pounds of PM per ton of melt for new and
existing cupolas. Based on our analysis of survey responses and test
data collected under the industry survey, this industry primarily uses
fabric filters to control emissions of metal HAP, and sources affected
by the current PM limit are achieving PM concentrations at control
device outlets that are only slightly
[[Page 72799]]
below the current limit (see Technology Review for the Mineral Wool
Production Manufacturing Source Category). Given fluctuations in
control device performance and mineral wool production fluctuations, we
do not believe that developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies warrant revisions to the PM limit in the 1999 MACT rule to
reflect HAP metal emissions levels achieved in practice.
Moreover, the RBLC did not identify any practices, processes, or
control technologies applicable to the emission sources in this source
category that were not identified and evaluated during the original
MACT development.
In summary, we have not identified any additional relevant cost-
effective developments in technologies, practices or processes since
promulgation of the MACT rule to further reduce HAP emissions.
Therefore, we are not proposing any changes to the MACT standards in
this action as a result of our technology review under Section
112(d)(6) for Mineral Wool Production.
Additional details regarding these analyses can be found in the
following technical document for this action which is available in the
docket: Technology Review for the Mineral Wool Production Manufacturing
Source Category.
VIII. Rationale for the Proposed Actions for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Category
As discussed in Section VI.B of this preamble, we evaluated
emissions limits for PM, chromium compounds, HF, HCl, formaldehyde,
phenol, and methanol at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. This
section of the preamble provides the results of the RTR, our rationale
for the proposed actions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category, and our proposed decisions concerning changes to the 1999
MACT rule.
A. What data were used for the NESHAP analyses?
To perform the technology review and residual risk analysis for the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP, we created a comprehensive
dataset based on existing and new test data provided by 26 of the 29
wool fiberglass facilities. As described in Section IV.C of this
preamble, the voluntary industry survey requested available information
regarding process equipment, control devices, point and fugitive
emissions, practices used to control fugitive emissions, and other
aspects of facility operations. In addition to the ICR survey, each
facility was asked to submit reports for any recent emissions tests
conducted and to conduct additional emissions tests in 2010 for certain
HAP from specific processes. Pollutants tested for the wool fiberglass
source category in 2010 included most HAP metals, PM, and certain
organic HAP (HF, HCl, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol).
As discussed in Section IV.C above, in the emissions testing for
the survey, industry requested to conduct emission testing on furnaces
they believed were representative of the other furnaces in operation.
The EPA and industry agreed that the bases for representativeness would
include a variety of factors such as processing the same materials,
producing the same products and being the same type of furnace. Furnace
construction and refractory composition were not factors that were
presented by industry as having an effect on HAP emissions, and those
factors were not used as a basis of representativeness for the
resulting data set. During analysis of the test data, the EPA
discovered high emissions of chromium compounds, including hexavalent
chromium, and that these emissions were mostly from certain furnaces
constructed of high chrome refractories.
The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category consists of 29
facilities with 80 furnaces, 54 RS manufacturing lines and less than 30
FA manufacturing lines. Since there are more than 30 furnaces and RS
lines, we based the MACT floor limits on the average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of sources.
Therefore, the MACT floor for HF and HCl from glass-melting furnaces
was based on the 10 best performing furnaces; the 7 best performing RS
lines; and the 5 best performing FA lines.
The stack test data were used to calculate the MACT floors using
the 99 percent UPL for glass-melting furnaces, RS manufacturing lines,
and FA manufacturing lines from wool fiberglass manufacturing plants.
The UPL analysis is explained in more detail in MACT Floor Analysis for
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category, which is available
in the docket for this proposed action. The results from the MACT floor
analysis are presented in Section VI.B of this preamble.
B. What are the proposed decisions regarding surrogacy relationships?
A surrogate approach is used to allow for easier and less expensive
measurement and monitoring requirements. In the 1999 MACT rule for this
source category, PM serves as the surrogate for metal HAPs \39\ at
existing and new glass-melting furnaces and formaldehyde serves as the
surrogate for phenol and methanol from forming and curing at RS
manufacturing lines and forming and curing at FA manufacturing lines.
As described in Sections III.B and VIII.B in this preamble, the court
found that the EPA erred when we did not set emission limits for each
HAP emitted by industry processes in the MACT standards.\40\ Therefore,
the agency is proposing HAP-specific emissions limits for phenol and
methanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The HAP metals emitted from wool fiberglass glass-melting
furnaces include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, and selenium.
\40\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (DC Cir. March 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What are the proposed decisions regarding certain unregulated
emissions sources?
As discussed earlier in Section VI.B of this preamble, we
identified certain HAP for which we failed to establish emission
standards in the original 1999 MACT. In the 1999 MACT rule, we used
formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol, and we did not
establish HAP-specific emission limits for phenol, methanol, HF and
HCl. For this action we evaluated emissions standards for HF, HCl,
phenol, and methanol at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities,
described below, that are not specifically regulated in the existing
1999 MACT standard. The EPA is therefore proposing to set emissions
limits for these HAP emissions, under CAA section 112(d)(3) in this
action.
D. What are the results from the risk assessments and analyses and the
proposed decisions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category?
An inhalation risk assessment was completed for all HAP emitted for
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. Details of the risk
assessments and additional analyses can be found in the residual risk
documentation referenced in Section V.A of this preamble. The agency
considered the available health information--the MIR; the numbers of
persons in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-
cancer HI; the maximum acute non-cancer hazard; the extent of non-
cancer risks; the potential for adverse environmental effects; and
distribution of risks in the exposed population (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989)--in developing the proposed CAA section 112(f)(2) standards
for the Wool
[[Page 72800]]
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Category
Table 8 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the results
of the inhalation risk assessment.
Table 8--Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) \1\ Maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI
--------------------------------------------------------- Estimated Estimated \2\
Based on population at annual cancer ---------------------------------- Maximum screening acute
allowable increased risk incidence Based on Based on non-cancer HQ \3\
Based on actual emissions level emissions of cancer >= 1- (cases per actual allowable
level in-1 million year) emissions level emissions level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40..................................... 60 849,000 0.05 0.2 0.5 30 (REL) 2 (AEGL-1, ERPG-
1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. Hexavalent chromium is the primary driver
for cancer risk.
\2\ Maximum TOSHI. The highest TOSHI for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category is for the respiratory system.
\3\ The maximum HQ acute value of 30 is driven by emissions of formaldehyde. See section V.A. of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-response
values.
The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment
indicate that, based on estimates of current actual emissions, the
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (MIR) could be up to 40-in-1
million. The major contributor to this cancer risk is hexavalent
chromium that is emitted from the furnace refractory brick. The
greatest amount of hexavalent chromium emitted from a single source is
from a facility that currently uses a type of refractory brick that is
made almost entirely of chromium compounds. In addition, we note that
approximately 12,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater
than 10-in-1 million as a result of formaldehyde and hexavalent
chromium emissions at 2 facilities, and approximately 849,000 people
are estimated to have risks greater than 1-in-1 million as a result of
formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium emissions from 15 facilities. The
maximum estimated chronic non-cancer TOSHI value for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category is 0.2 with emissions of
formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant
potential for chronic non-cancer impacts.
Based on the acute REL to assess possible acute non-cancer effects
due to emissions of formaldehyde, our analysis indicates that the
maximum acute HQ value could exceed a value of 1 at a total of 7
facilities due to formaldehyde emissions,\41\ with one facility in this
source category indicating the potential to create a maximum worst-case
HQ value up to 30. This maximum worst-case acute impact corresponds to
a maximum HQ of 2 based on the AEGL-1 and ERPG-1 levels for
formaldehyde. Altogether, these results indicate that we cannot rule
out the potential for formaldehyde emissions from this source category
to cause acute impacts of mild concern, such as eye and nose
irritation. Repeated exposures to these levels (i.e., at or above the
AEGL-1 and ERPG-1) could cause further health concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Individual facility acute HQ values for all facilities can
be found in Appendix 6 of the risk assessment document that is
included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the potential for adverse environmental effects
from non PB-HAP, we note that that there is a lack of information about
specific adverse environmental effects occurring at given
concentrations for the HAP emitted by this source category. However,
given that all chronic non-cancer HQ values considering actual
emissions are less than 1 using human health reference values, we
believe that it is unlikely that adverse environmental effects would
occur at the actual HAP concentrations estimated in our human health
risk assessment.
2. Auxiliary Risk Characterization
As indicated in Section VIII.D.1 above, the MIR for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category could be up to 40-in-1-million
based on actual emissions. The major contributor to this cancer risk is
hexavalent chromium. The greatest amount of risk is from one facility
that uses a type of refractory brick that is described by the company
as ``high chrome.''12 13 ((Notes of April 14, 2011,
Certainteed); (Region 7 Certainteed Notes).
Because the use of high chrome refractories extends the life of the
furnace from a maximum of 10 years to at least 15 years, and the cost
of furnace construction is increased by about 15 percent when it is
reconstructed using high chrome refractories \12\ (Notes of April 14,
2011, Certainteed) we believe that there is a financial incentive for
other facilities to switch to this high chromium refractory at the time
they rebuild their furnaces. For this reason, we performed an auxiliary
risk characterization analysis to assess the potential maximum
individual lifetime cancer risks in the event that the other 28 Wool
Fiberglass facilities switch to the high chromium brick. For the
auxiliary risk characterization analysis it was assumed that the
hexavalent chromium emissions for each facility would be the same as
that for the facility with annual emissions of 420 lbs of hexavalent
chromium per furnace. Table 9 of this preamble provides a summary of
the results of this auxiliary inhalation risk assessment.
[[Page 72801]]
Table 9--Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Auxiliary Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential maximum individual cancer risk (in Estimated
1 million) \1\ Estimated Estimated population at Estimated
--------------------------------------------- population at population at increased risk annual cancer
increased risk increased risk of cancer >= incidence
Based on actual emissions level of cancer >= 1- of cancer >= 10- 100-in-1 (cases per
in-1 million in-1 million million year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
900......................................... 7,300,000 460,000 8,100 0.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
The results of the auxiliary analysis indicate that, under this
scenario, the estimated emissions from 14 facilities could lead to
maximum individual lifetime cancer risks greater than 100-in-1-million,
with the highest emitting facility posing a potential maximum
individual risk of 900-in-1-million. Under this scenario, 8,100 people
would be exposed to risks greater than 100-in-1-million, 460,000 people
would be exposed to risks of greater than 10-in-1-million, and over 7
million people would be exposed to cancer risks of greater than 1-in-1-
million.
In summary, the auxiliary risk analysis indicates that if other
facilities switch to high chromium refractory, emissions of hexavalent
chromium could potentially pose unacceptable risks to public health due
to inhalation exposures resulting from stack emissions of hexavalent
chromium.
3. Multipathway Risk Assessments and Results
None of the facilities in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category reported emissions of PB HAP that were greater than the
screening emission rates. Therefore, multi-pathway exposures and
environmental risks were deemed negligible.
4. Facility Wide Risk Assessment Results
For this source category, there are no other significant HAP
emissions sources present beyond those included in the source category.
All significant HAP sources have been included in the source category
risk analysis. Therefore, we conclude that the facility wide risk is
essentially the same as the source category risk and that no separate
facility wide analysis is necessary.
E. What are our proposed decisions for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category based on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in Section VIII.D of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the
MIR; the numbers of persons in various risk ranges; cancer incidence;
the maximum noncancer HI; the maximum acute noncancer hazard; the
extent of noncancer risks; the potential for adverse environmental
effects; and distribution of risks in the exposed population; and risk
estimation uncertainty (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) in developing
the proposed CAA section 112(f)(2) standards for this source category.
Based on the inhalation risk assessment, we estimate that the
cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to as 40-in-1
million due to actual emissions and up to as 60-in-1 million due to
MACT-allowable emissions, mainly due to formaldehyde and chromium stack
emissions. We estimate that the incidence of cancer based on actual
emissions is 0.05 excess cancer cases per year or one case every 20
years, and that about 850,000 people face a cancer risk greater than 1-
in-1 million due to the HAP emissions from this source category.
Our assessments also indicate a low potential for HAP emissions
from these sources to pose any significant adverse environmental
effects, human health multi-pathway effects, or chronic noncancer human
health risks. Our acute risk screening ruled out the possibility of
acute impacts of concern for all pollutants but one, formaldehyde, at
seven facilities, with a maximum worst-case HQ estimated to be 30 based
on the REL and 2 based on the AEGL-1 (or ERPG-1, which is equivalent).
While this means we cannot rule out the potential for acute concerns
due to formaldehyde emissions from these facilities, we note that the
use of formaldehyde is being phased out in this industry, and will be
eliminated from all but 2 facilities in the source category. Since the
cancer risks due to actual and allowable emissions (based on the
current composition of refractory bricks used by this source category)
are well within the acceptable range (i.e., less than 100-in-1 million)
and since we have no additional significant concerns regarding other
potential human health or environmental impacts, we are proposing that
the current risk levels due to actual and MACT-allowable emissions are
acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis and Proposed Decisions
As described above, we are proposing that the risks associated with
the actual and MACT-allowable stack emissions from this source category
are acceptable based on the current composition of refractory bricks
used by this source category. However, as discussed in Section
VIII.D(2) of this preamble, if other wool fiberglass facilities
reconstructed their furnaces with high chromium refractory bricks, the
maximum individual cancer risks would be higher and likely result in a
finding of unacceptable risks.
According to our 2-step process for assessing risks, after we
evaluate whether risks are ``acceptable'' we evaluate whether cost
effective measures are available to reduce risks further, to provide an
``ample margin of safety.'' As stated in Section VIII.F of this
preamble, both NaOH scrubbers and a furnace rebuild are considered cost
effective when hexavalent chromium levels are high. NaOH scrubbers
achieve at least 95 percent reduction in hexavalent chromium emissions
at other industries. Transferring this technology to the wool
fiberglass industry is reasonable and would reduce hexavalent chromium
to levels that would achieve an ample margin of safety. Therefore, we
are proposing emission limits of 0.06 lb of total chromium compounds
per thousand tons (or 60 lb of total chromium compounds per million
tons) of glass pulled in this action (as presented in Table 10) under
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA in this action. We believe this limit
would achieve an ample margin of safety to protect public health and
prevent adverse environmental effects.
[[Page 72802]]
Table 10--Proposed Emissions Limits for Glass-Melting Furnaces Based on
Risk Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pounds of
pollutant per
Pollutant thousand tons of
melt:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium compounds.................................. 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These emission limits apply to furnaces at major sources in the
wool fiberglass manufacturing source category. However, there are no
differences in furnaces at major sources and area sources. We are
concerned about the levels of hexavalent chromium that can be emitted
by area sources where furnaces may be constructed using high chrome
refractories. Therefore we plan to collect additional information from
industry to inform regulation of area sources in a future action.
The emission limits we are proposing for chromium compounds under
112(f)(2) are identical to the chromium compounds limits we are
proposing under 112(d)(6), as described in Section VIII.F of this
preamble.
Our assessments also indicate a low potential for HAP emissions
from these sources to pose any significant adverse environmental
effects, human health multi-pathway effects, or chronic noncancer human
health risks. Our acute risk screening ruled out the possibility of
acute impacts of concern for all pollutants but one, formaldehyde, at
seven facilities, with a maximum worst-case HQ estimated to be 30 based
on the REL and 2 based on the AEGL-1 or ERPG-1, which is equivalent
(formaldehyde). While this means we cannot rule out the potential for
acute concerns due to formaldehyde emissions from these facilities, we
note that the worst-case acute HQs are based on conservative
assumptions (e.g., worst-case meteorology coinciding with peak short-
term one-hour emissions from each emission point, with a person located
at the point of maximum concentration during that hour). Moreover, the
use of formaldehyde is being phased out in this industry, and will be
eliminated from all but 2 facilities in the source category. Since the
cancer risks due to actual emissions are well within the acceptable
range (i.e., less than 100 in 1 million) and since we have no
additional significant concerns regarding other potential human health
or environmental impacts, and since we have not identified any
additional cost-effective controls to further reduce formaldehyde
emissions, we are proposing that the MACT rule along with all the
proposed amendments described above (including the emissions limits for
chromium and formaldehyde) will provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects.
We are soliciting comments and information regarding additional
control measures, work practices that may be available, and their
feasibility in further reducing emissions of formaldehyde, chromium
compounds, HCl, and HF, or additional monitoring that may be warranted
to ensure adequate control of stack emissions. We specifically request
information on other criteria on which a chromium compounds emission
limit should be based that would reduce risks from hexavalent chromium.
3. Analysis of the Resulting Risk After the Proposed Requirements Are
in Place
We conducted an assessment to estimate the risks based on a post-
control scenario reflecting all the proposed requirements for the
emissions described above (including the proposed emissions limit for
chromium compounds). Details are provided in the Draft Residual Risk
Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Categories, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards Office of Air and Radiation, September 2011, which is
available in the docket to this rule.
Table 11 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the
results of the post-control inhalation risk assessment. As compared to
Table 8, the MIR decreased from 40 in 1 million to 20 in 1 million,
primarily as a result of one facility replacing the high chrome
refractory bricks at the facilities that currently exceed the proposed
chromium standard. These estimates are based on the dataset compiled
using the industry's emissions test data from their 2010 industry
survey responses, which show three furnaces would have to reduce
chromium emissions to meet the limit in the proposed rule.
Table 11--Post Control Inhalation Risk Estimates for Wool Fiberglass
[Result of chromium control]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum chronic
Estimated Estimated non-cancer Maximum
Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 population at annual cancer TOSHI based on screening acute
million) based on actual emissions level \1\ increased risk incidence actual non- cancer HQ
of cancer >= 1 (cases per emissions level \3\
in 1 million year) \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20.......................................... 282,000 0.02 0.2 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we estimated that the formaldehyde emissions would be
at or below the MACT standard for all facilities once this rule is
fully implemented and we are not proposing that additional control
options be implemented.
In a letter dated June 8, 2011, the industry trade association
(NAIMA) stated that ``NAIMA can provide documentation that all major
sources have already converted or have announced plans to convert to
non-phenol formaldehyde binders. Essentially non-formaldehyde binders
are or will be used industry-wide.'' A copy of this letter has been
placed in the docket for this action (see NAIMA's Response for the
Fiberglass Industry to EPA's Formaldehyde and Collection Questions).
Based on this information and the information provided by the industry
in their 2010 survey, we estimate that 27 of the 29 wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities will have HAP emissions below the 10 and 25
tpy thresholds and will not be subject to the major source MACT
requirements. We further estimate that there may be two facilities
manufacturing pipe insulation or heavy density insulation products that
will be major sources of HAP emissions on the compliance date of these
proposed amendments to subpart NNN. If NAIMA is correct in that
formaldehyde will be phased out by the compliance date of these
proposed amendments, we anticipate that the estimated inhalation risks
due to formaldehyde would further decrease.
[[Page 72803]]
In summary, we are proposing that the MACT standard, with the
changes we are proposing in this action, will provide an ample margin
of safety and prevent adverse environmental effects.
F. What are the results from the technology review and proposed
decisions?
Based on our technology review, we determined that there have been
advances in emissions control measures since the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP was originally promulgated in 1999. Since
promulgation, we estimate that industry-wide metal HAP emissions from
process sources have been reduced by approximately 76 percent. Due to
industry's efforts to replace phenol-formaldehyde binders, more than 95
percent of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions have been
reduced (or will be by 2012). As a result actual PM (metal HAP),
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions from process sources at
all wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities are significantly lower
than are allowed under the 1999 MACT rule.
We believe that the reductions in metal HAP emissions since
promulgation of the 1999 MACT rule are mainly directly related to
improvements in two areas: (1) Improvements in fabric filter control
technology (e.g., improved bag materials, replacement of older
baghouses) and (2) the use of electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). Our
review also indicates that high chrome refractories are a new
technology used in wool fiberglass furnaces that the available data
indicate result in an increase in emissions of chromium compounds. The
results of our analyses and our proposed decisions for these areas
under CAA section 112(d)(6) are presented in the following sections.
Based on these data, we believe that developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies warrant revisions to the 1999
NESHAP. Additional details regarding these analyses can be found in
Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source
Category.
The improvements in fabric filter control technology are reflected
in the emissions test data collected under the industry survey. Two
types of PM control are used in the wool fiberglass manufacturing
industry: fabric filters (baghouses) and electrostatic precipitators.
Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) may be configured as either wet ESPs
or dry ESPs. The emissions limit for PM under the 1999 MACT rule is a
production-based limit of 0.5 pounds of PM per ton of glass pulled
applicable to all glass melting furnaces. Based on our analysis of
survey responses and test data collected under the industry survey,
this industry primarily uses fabric filters to control emissions of
metal HAP, and the vast majority of sources affected by the current PM
limit are achieving PM emissions at control device outlets that are far
below the current limit. Id.
Most, if not all, sources reported PM emissions (coming out of the
stacks after the control devices) that are less than 10 percent of the
current limit, with several sources achieving PM emissions that are two
to three orders of magnitude lower than the current limit. Based on
these data, we believe that developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies warrant revisions to the 1999 MACT rule, under
section 112(d)(6). Our analysis of emissions data provided in the
survey conducted by industry indicates that stacks equipped with a
well-performing fabric filter or ESP can achieve exhaust PM
concentrations of less than 0.014 lb/ton of glass pulled. We estimate
that all of the wool fiberglass facilities would be able to comply with
this revised limit without additional controls. We estimate that this
would result in small reductions of metal HAP emissions since there
will only be a couple of facilities subject to the PM limits and the
available data on some of the furnaces at those facilities indicates
they are currently meeting the proposed PM emission limit. We do not
anticipate additional energy use associated with this revised limit.
Furthermore, we do not anticipate any adverse non-air environmental
impacts associated with the implementation of this revised limit.
Therefore, we are proposing that reducing the PM limit in the NESHAP
from 0.50 lb of PM per ton of glass pulled to 0.014 lb of PM per ton of
glass pulled (see Table 12) is both feasible and cost effective.
Therefore, we are proposing a revised PM limit in the NESHAP of 0.014
lb of PM per ton of glass pulled in this action. We have based these
statements on information we received from the industry in their survey
responses; nevertheless, we are seeking comment on our estimation that
all wool fiberglass manufacturers can meet the PM emission limits
without additional controls.
We conducted a review of the available test data for chromium
compounds including hexavalent chromium emissions from glass furnaces.
We found that for most furnaces, measured emissions were near or below
detection limits of the methods used for testing (EPA Method 29
followed by EPA Method 0061). In contrast, the chromium emissions for a
few furnaces were several orders of magnitude higher than the rest of
the industry. The facility emitting the highest level of hexavalent
chromium, at 840 lb/yr, advised us that the reason chromium tested very
high was due to the refractory products, high chrome refractories, from
which the furnaces are constructed (Notes of April 14, 2011,
Certainteed) \12\. Based on the emissions testing and information on
high chrome refractories, we believe changes to the 1999 MACT rule are
warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6).
The data indicate that well performing wool fiberglass furnaces
emit small amounts of chromium compounds, that is, they emit less than
0.06 pounds of chromium compounds (Cr) per thousand tons of glass
pulled. However, three facilities currently operate furnaces that emit
chromium in excess of this rate. Chromium emissions from these high
emitters range from 9 to 840 lb/yr. Furnaces operating below this rate
generally emit less than 1 pound per year; many of these tested below
the detection level of the test method. The data indicate that there is
a `break' between the furnaces emitting less than the proposed limit
and those emitting greater amounts of chromium. Data further indicate
there are no wool fiberglass manufacturers with low glass production
rates but high levels of chrome emissions. We are therefore proposing
to set a chromium compounds emission limit of 0.06 lb of chromium per
thousand tons of glass pulled as shown in Table 12.
Under section 112(d)(6), we are proposing this emission limit for
chromium compounds taking into account the developments in practices,
processes and technology by the wool fiberglass industry since
promulgation of the 1999 MACT standard. The emission limits we are
proposing for chromium compounds under 112(d)(6) are identical to the
chromium compounds limits we are proposing under 112(f)(2), as
described in Section VIII.E of this preamble.
We estimate that the 2 remaining major source wool fiberglass
facilities would be able to comply with this chromium compounds
emission limit. We estimate that if the high chromium emitting
facilities remain major sources, these new emission limits would result
in annual reductions of 1,155 pounds of chromium compounds,
specifically hexavalent chromium and there will be no reductions at the
remaining facilities because data indicate they are currently meeting
the proposed chromium emission limit.
[[Page 72804]]
Wet scrubbers are not generally in use in this industry. However,
we evaluated their use to achieve reductions in hexavalent chromium for
furnaces emitting chrome above the levels being proposed. Sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) scrubbers are in use for furnace operations at other
industries for chromium compounds reduction. We have evaluated the use
of NaOH scrubbers for the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry and
find that the control technology can be adapted for use in the wool
fiberglass industry from the chromium electroplating industry and from
certain high temperature metallurgical industries.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ NaOH Scrubber Information. Telephone discussion and emails
between vendors, companies, and EPA. Steffan Johnson, Measurement
Policy Group, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do anticipate an additional energy use associated with this
revised limit if sources choose to install NaOH scrubbers to remove
hexavalent chromium from the furnace gases. We anticipate the affected
sources may incur disposal costs of hexavalent chromium contaminated
materials associated with the implementation of this emission limit. We
anticipate that two sources which currently emit chromium at levels
slightly higher than the proposed limit will be able to meet it by
installing NaOH scrubbers (which selectively remove the hexavalent form
of chromium from the exhaust air). This cost is about $300 per pound
hexavalent chromium removed if these companies install a NaOH scrubber
in series with the existing furnace control. A wool fiberglass facility
could also choose to rebuild the glass furnace using refractories with
low chromium contents. The cost of that option would be prorated to
consider the remaining useful life of the existing high chromium
furnace and would cost about $12,000 per pound chromium compounds
removed. We expect that for the highest chromium emitting wool
fiberglass furnace emitting 500 lb chromium per year, this option would
be used to meet the proposed limit. We base this estimate on two
factors: (1) The furnace is at the end of its useful life and is
expected to be reconstructed in 2013 (Notes of April 14, 2011; Region 7
Certainteed Notes) 12 13 and (2) the NaOH scrubber achieves
about 95 percent reduction (NaOH Scrubber Information),\42\ which is
not quite enough to meet the proposed chromium emission limit. The cost
of the control equipment to wool fiberglass plants is about $225,000
for installation and annual operation and maintenance costs of about
$5000 per year. We compared the cost of the controls to the sales or
revenues of the companies that would incur costs to comply with the
chromium emission limits. The economic impact on these firms, measured
in annual compliance costs as a percent of sales or revenues, is less
than 0.001 percent for each of the affected firms.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Economic Impact and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. September 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We therefore, we propose that requiring the 0.06 lb chromium per
thousand tons of melt limit in the NESHAP is both feasible and cost
effective. We solicit comment on this comparison and the use of this
value as a reasonable cost to reduce chromium.
Table 12--Proposed Emissions Limits for Glass-Melting Furnaces Based on
Technology Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pounds
Pollutant pollutant per
ton of melt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM...................................................... 0.14
Chromium compounds...................................... 0.00006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed limit for chromium compounds (of 0.06 lb per thousand
tons chromium limit) under CAA Section 112(d)(6) is the same limit
being proposed under Section 112(f)(2) that was described earlier in
this notice. We believe that these proposed revisions for chromium and
PM are cost effective revisions and reflect the current developments in
processes and technology by this industry. (i.e., well performing air
pollution control).
IX. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts for the
Mineral Wool Source Category
Here we discuss the anticipated air, water, solid waste and energy
impacts in addition to the cost and economic impacts to the industry as
a result of the proposed amendments to the 1999 MACT rule.
A. What are the affected sources in the Mineral Wool Production source
category?
We anticipate that the 7 mineral wool production facilities
currently operating in the United States will be affected by these
proposed amendments.
B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?
For the proposed amendments to the Mineral Wool Production source
category, the air quality, water quality, solid waste, and energy
impacts were determined based on the need for additional control
technologies and actions required to meet the proposed emissions
limits. The Economic Impact Analysis considered annual sales and
revenue data from the facilities within this source category and their
ability to meet the proposed amendments. The following sections discuss
the cost, environmental, and economic impacts to the Mineral Wool
Production source category. (Economic Impact Analysis for the Mineral
Wool and Wool Fiberglass RTRs. U.S. EPA. October 2011.)
C. What are the air quality impacts for the Mineral Wool Production
source category?
The EPA estimated the emissions reductions that are expected to
result from the proposed amendments to the 1999 MACT rule compared to
the 2010 baseline emissions estimates. A detailed documentation of the
analysis can be found in: Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the
Mineral Wool Production Manufacturing Source Category.
Emissions of formaldehyde from mineral wool production facilities
have declined over the last 12 years as a result of federal rules,
state rules and on the industry's own initiative. The current proposal
would not reduce formaldehyde, phenol, or methanol emissions from their
current levels. Under the proposed emissions limits for cupolas, COS,
HF, and HCl emissions would be reduced by a combined 23 percent
compared to 2010 levels reported in the industry survey responses. We
estimated that the COS emissions reductions would be 41 tpy from
cupolas.
Based on the emissions data available to the EPA, we believe that
all facilities will be able to comply with the proposed emissions
limits for COS, HF, HCl, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol without
additional controls because they can reduce emissions using raw
material substitution or oxygen injection as discussed previously in
Section VII.F of this preamble.
D. What are the water quality and solid waste impacts?
We do not anticipate any adverse water quality or solid waste
impacts from the proposed amendments to the 1999 MACT rule because the
requirements proposed would not change the existing requirements that
impact water quality or solid waste.
E. What are the secondary impacts?
Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control
[[Page 72805]]
devices, as well as water quality and solid waste impacts (which were
just discussed) that might occur as a result of these proposed actions.
We anticipate that the mineral wool production facilities will be able
to comply with the proposed amendments without having to install
additional control technologies such as RTOs. In addition, those
facilities that switch to low-sulfur raw materials will most likely
reduce air emissions of SO2.
F. What are the energy impacts?
Energy impacts in this section are those energy requirements
associated with the operation of emission control devices. Potential
impacts on the national energy economy from the rule are discussed in
the economic impacts section. There would be little national energy
demand increase from the operation of any of the control options
analyzed under the proposed NESHAP amendments.
G. What are the cost impacts for the Mineral Wool Production source
category?
Each facility was evaluated for its ability to meet the proposed
emissions limits for PM, COS, HF, and HCl emissions from cupolas and
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions from combined collection
operations and curing designs. The memorandum, Cost Impacts of the
Revised NESHAP for the Mineral Wool Production Manufacturing Source
Category, includes a complete description of the cost estimate methods
used for this analysis and is available in the docket.
We identified several ways in which mineral wool producers reduce
the COS emissions from cupolas, enabling them to comply with the
proposed emission limit of 3.3 lb COS per ton of melt. These methods
include raw material substitution, oxygen injection, and installation
of an RTO. We found two approaches to raw material substitution: slag
and rock. One mineral wool manufacturer purchases low-sulfur slag, a
waste product from a local steel plant. Another plant owns and operates
a local quarry from which they obtain rock that does not contain
sulfur. The low-sulfur slag or rock is used in the cupola in place of
high-sulfur slag. Because sulfur is not added into the cupola with the
raw materials, it is not emitted as sulfur compounds from the stack in
the form of COS or SO2 during production. As shown in their
title V permit, another plant uses oxygen injection to accelerate the
reaction of COS to CO2 and SO2, thereby reducing
that company's COS emissions.
However, most mineral wool plants have installed regenerative
thermal oxidizers to convert the high concentrations of COS in the
cupola exhaust gas to energy that is returned to the cupola. This
technology reduces the consumption of coke up to 30 percent and,
because of the cost of coke, this technology pays for itself over a
period of several years. Emissions of COS are below 0.04 lb COS per ton
melt when an RTO is installed for energy reclamation and new source
MACT is based upon the use of this technology.
One facility is expected to incur an incremental annualized cost of
$360,000 for low-sulfur raw materials (rock) if they use that option to
comply with the COS requirement for cupolas. That cost would be
lessened to no more than $20,000 for installation of oxygen injection,
which is another alternative. We do not anticipate this plant would
install an RTO to comply with the rule. The total industry-wide costs
for monitoring for COS, HF, and HCl from the cupolas is $146,000, while
the total costs for monitoring for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol
from the combined collection and curing operations is $42,000.
The total annualized costs for the proposed rule are estimated at
$548,000 (2010 dollars). Table 13 provides a summary of the estimated
costs and emissions reductions associated with the proposed amendments
to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP presented in this action.
Table 13--Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Mineral Wool Production Proposed Standards in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total HAP Cost
Estimated Estimated emissions effectiveness
Proposed amendment capital cost annual cost reductions in $ per ton
($MM) ($MM) (tons per total HAP
year) reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COS limit; Low-Sulfur Materials................. 0 0.360 41 8,780
Additional testing and monitoring............... 0 0.243 N/A N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. What are the economic impacts for the Mineral Wool Production source
category?
We performed an economic impact analysis for mineral wool producers
nationally using the annual compliance costs estimated for this
proposed rule.(Economic Impact and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. October 2011).\43\ The impacts to most producers affected by
this proposed rule are annualized costs of less than one percent of
their revenues using the most current year available for revenue data.
One producer will experience an annualized cost of 6.7 percent of its
revenue, however. Both demand and supply in this sector are inelastic
to price changes. Thus, if producers could pass through the entire cost
of the rule to consumers, we would expect prices to increase by less
than one percent, with no change in output. Conversely, if producers
could not pass through any of the cost by increasing the price, we
would expect output to decline by less than one percent.
Hence, the overall economic impact of this proposed rule should be
low on most of the affected industry and its consumers. For more
information, please refer to the Economic Impact Analysis for this
proposed rulemaking that is available in the public docket. Id.
I. What are the benefits for the Mineral Wool Production source
category?
The proposed Mineral Wool Production NESHAP amendments are expected
to result in approximately 23 percent reduction in COS; HF, and HCl are
not reduced. We have not quantified the monetary benefits associated
with these reductions.
J. What demographic groups might benefit the most from this regulation?
The worst-case nature of our acute screening assessment suggests
that the potential for adverse effects carries a relatively low
probability of occurrence. The EPA concludes that, based on our
analyses, the risks associated with MACT-allowable and actual emissions
(primarily due to formaldehyde emissions from stacks) from this source
category are acceptable. Thus, a demographic analysis was not
conducted.
[[Page 72806]]
X. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category
A. What are the affected sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category?
We evaluated the impacts to the affected sources based on all
available information, including two significant sources: the 2010
emissions testing and subsequent conversations with NAIMA and
individuals operating industry facilities. According to the 2010
emissions test data, there are 3 furnaces at 3 facilities that do not
meet this proposed chromium emission limit. In their responses to the
survey conducted by the industry, facilities stated the tested furnaces
were representative of the untested furnaces. However, furnace
construction materials (refractory composition) were not one of the
factors considered in determining representativeness.
After the completion of the survey conducted by industry, we
received information that emissions testing for chromium may not
necessarily be representative of other furnaces that were not tested.
Therefore, we based our assessment of the impacts upon the tested
furnaces only, and did not include in that assessment untested
furnaces.
Based on this approach, we anticipate that all 29 wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities currently operating in the United States will
be affected by these proposed amendments, 2 of the 29 wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities currently operating in the United States will
install air pollution controls, and that one facility will reconstruct
a furnace to comply with these proposed amendments. Additionally,
industry has stated that no major wool fiberglass residential
insulation sources will still exist in this source category by the time
the proposed rules are promulgated. If their predictions come to pass,
we estimate that two facilities will be affected by these proposed
amendments; these are pipe insulation facilities. However, any major
sources still in operation at the time the amendments are promulgated
will be affected by this rule. One new facility was recently built, but
no facilities are expected to be constructed in the foreseeable future.
B. How are the impacts for this proposal evaluated?
For the proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP amendments,
the air quality, water quality, solid waste, and energy impacts were
determined based on the need for additional control technologies and
actions required to meet the proposed emissions limits. The Economic
Impact Analysis considered annual sales and revenue data from the
facilities within this source category and their ability to meet the
proposed amendments. The following sections discuss the cost,
environmental, and economic impacts to the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category. (Economic Impact Analysis for the
Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass RTRs. U.S. EPA. October 2011.)
C. What are the air quality impacts?
The EPA estimated the emissions reductions that are expected to
result from the proposed amendments to the 1999 MACT rule compared to
the 2010 baseline emissions estimates. A detailed documentation of the
analysis can be found in: Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category. We expect reductions of
formaldehyde, phenol and methanol, and chromium compounds.
Emissions of formaldehyde, PM, and HAP metals from wool fiberglass
manufacturing have declined over the last 12 years as a result of
federal rules, state rules and on the industry's own initiative. The
current proposal is expected to yield emission reductions for
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol from their current levels. However,
the proposed amendments are expected to discourage facilities in the
wool fiberglass industry from reintroducing formaldehyde to their
production lines. In addition, the proposed chromium compound emission
limit would prevent emissions of chromium compounds in the future and
discourage the replacement of currently operating furnaces with those
constructed of high chromium refractory bricks.
Based on the emissions data available to the EPA, we believe that
all affected facilities will be able to comply with the proposed
emissions limits for formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, HF, and HCl
without additional controls. Additional controls are required for major
sources with high-chrome refractories. Additionally, as discussed in
Section X.J of this preamble, the EPA has determined that the proposed
rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.
D. What are the water quality and solid waste impacts?
We anticipate water quality and solid waste impacts may result from
the disposal of high chrome refractories in landfills or in other areas
that are not designed or permitted to receive hexavalent chromium
waste. Water quality and solid waste impacts are also possible from
potential reuse of spent high chrome refractory products. Because of
their durability, we believe that use of refractory bricks made with
high chrome content are becoming widespread,\44\ (Chromium in
Refractories),\11\ as their use can nearly double the life of glass
furnaces (Notes of April 14, 2011, Certainteed; Region 7 Certainteed
Notes; August 31, 2011 Meeting).12 13 35 When glass furnaces
reach the end of their useful life and must be rebuilt, the high chrome
refractory brick from demolition of the old furnace is typically
discarded, as it typically cannot be used in new furnace construction.
As for any industrial waste, the bricks from an old glass furnace
would, when discarded, potentially be subject to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Excel spreadsheet provided by North American Insulation
Manufacturers Association (NAIMA). Non-CBI NAIMA Response to Cr
Emissions 8.11.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, NaOH scrubber solids are expected to contain high
levels of hexavalent chromium removed from furnace emissions. The
proper disposal procedures for hexavalent chromium-contaminated waste
are provided under RCRA regulations (40 CFR 262.11).
E. What are the secondary impacts?
Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices, as well as water quality and solid waste
impacts that might occur as a result of these proposed actions. We
estimate the proposed amendments will not result in any significant
secondary impacts from the requirements of the Mineral Wool MACT
amendments because facilities can meet the COS limits without
installing RTOs. We do not anticipate significant secondary impacts
from the proposed amendments to the Wool Fiberglass MACT.
F. What are the energy impacts?
Energy impacts in this section are those energy requirements
associated with the operation of emission control devices. Potential
impacts on the national energy economy from the proposed amendments to
the Wool Fiberglass MACT are expected to be minimal and will not result
in a significant increase in national energy demand.
[[Page 72807]]
G. What are the cost impacts?
The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the
ability for each facility to meet the proposed emissions limits for PM,
chromium compounds, HF, HCl, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. The
memorandum, Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Category, includes a complete description of the
cost estimate methods used for this analysis and is available in the
docket. Under the proposed amendments, the majority of wool fiberglass
facilities are not expected to incur any capital costs to comply with
the proposed emissions limits. The total costs estimated for compliance
with the amendments proposed in this action are $60,000 for compliance
testing on glass-melting furnaces and $52,000 for compliance testing on
the FA manufacturing line for pipe insulation products. The total
annualized costs for the proposed rule are estimated at $112,000 (2010
dollars). Table 14 provides a summary of the costs and emission
reductions associated with the proposed amendments if the three
facilities with high levels of hexavalent chromium install controls or
reconstruct furnaces to meet the emission limits of the proposed rule.
Because the industry is undergoing the phaseout of HAP binders, no
major sources are expected to exist by the compliance deadline for this
proposed rule, and no costs to industry beyond testing would be
incurred. However, in the event that the three facilities that do not
now meet the chromium compounds limit were to remain major sources, we
estimated the annualized control costs as between $100,000 to $300,000
per furnace, depending on which of two options is used. Nine hundred
seventy (970) pounds of chromium compounds per year would be reduced at
three major sources in the industry, 913 pounds of this from a single
facility. Hexavalent chromium is 92% of the total chromium compounds
emitted from wool fiberglass furnaces. Actual facility costs would be
determined by the number of furnaces, the associated level of Cr
emissions, and the major source status of the facility.
Table 14--Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Standards in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total HAP
emissions Cost
Proposed amendment Est. capital Est. annual reductions effectiveness Number of
cost ($MM) cost ($MM) (pounds per in $ per pound facilities
year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change out of refractory brick 6.0 0.3 900 333 1
lining.........................
Installation of NaOH scrubber... 0.25 0.1 70 1400 2
Additional testing and 0 0.06 N/A N/A ..............
monitoring for glass-melting
furnaces.......................
Additional testing and 0 0.052 N/A N/A ..............
monitoring for FA lines for
pipe insulation products.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. What are the economic impacts?
We performed an economic impact analysis for the wool fiberglass
industry using the annual compliance costs estimated for this proposed
rule (Economic Impact and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for
the Proposed Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Risk and Technology
Review).\43\ The impacts to producers affected by this proposed rule
are annualized costs of less than 0.1 percent of their revenues using
the most current year available for revenue data. With the
responsiveness of wool fiberglass demand and supply at less than 1:1
compared to a price change, and with the change in product price as
approximated by the cost to revenue ratio at less than 0.1 percent, for
this ratio is the maximum price change that producers may face, it is
expected that wool fiberglass price and output changes will be less
than 0.1 percent. Hence, the overall economic impact of this proposed
rule should be low on the affected industry and its consumers. For more
information, please refer to the Economic Impact Analysis for this
proposed rulemaking that is available in the public docket. (Economic
Impact Analysis for the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass RTRs. U.S.
EPA. October 2011.)
I. What are the benefits?
As stated in section X.C., we expect emissions reductions of PM,
phenol, formaldehyde, methanol, and chromium compounds. We have not
quantified the monetary benefits associated with these reductions.
J. What demographic groups might benefit the most from this regulation?
For the proposed wool fiberglass rule, the EPA has determined that
the current health risks posed to anyone by emissions from this source
category are acceptable. However, there are about 849,000 people
nationwide that are currently subject to health risks which are non-
negligible (i.e., cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million) due to
emissions from this source category. We performed an analysis of the
demographic makeup of these 849,000 people. The demographic
distribution of this ``at-risk'' population is similar to the national
distribution of demographics for all groups except for the ``minority''
group (defined as total population minus the white population), which
is 11 percent greater than its corresponding national percentage. See
the Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for
Populations Living Near Wool Fiberglass Facilities in the docket for
additional details on the demographic analysis.
The EPA has determined that the current health risks posed to
anyone by emissions from this source category are acceptable.
Therefore, the EPA has determined that the proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations.
XI. Request for Comments
We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed action.
All comments received during the comment period will be considered. In
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also
interested in any additional data that may help to address emissions of
chromium compounds from wool fiberglass manufacturing furnaces, such as
speciation of the different types of chromium compounds that may be
used in the manufacture of refractory bricks, shapes, and castables;
and the properties of different chromium compounds when exposed to
temperatures exceeding 1500[deg]C.
[[Page 72808]]
Specifically, we are interested in data we can use to support any of
the proposed alternatives and new data that could support an
alternative not proposed in these actions. We are also interested in
additional data that may help to reduce the uncertainties inherent in
the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested
in receiving corrections to the site-specific emissions profiles used
for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in
sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this
preamble provides more information on submitting data.
XII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses are available for download on the RTR web
page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files
include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for
the facility included in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR Web page, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information. The data fields that may
be revised include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data element Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Measure.............. Are control measures in place? (yes or
no).
Control Measure Comment...... Select control measure from list
provided, and briefly describe the
control measure.
Delete....................... Indicate here if the facility or record
should be deleted.
Delete Comment............... Describes the reason for deletion.
Emissions Calculation Method Code description of the method used to
Code For Revised Emissions. derive emissions. For example, CEM,
material balance, stack test, etc.
Emissions Process Group...... Enter the general type of emissions
process associated with the specified
emissions point.
Fugitive Angle............... Enter release angle (clockwise from true
North); orientation of the y-dimension
relative to true North, measured
positive for clockwise starting at 0
degrees (maximum 89 degrees).
Fugitive Length.............. Enter dimension of the source in the east-
west (x-) direction, commonly referred
to as length (ft).
Fugitive Width............... Enter dimension of the source in the
north-south (y-) direction, commonly
referred to as width (ft).
Malfunction Emissions........ Enter total annual emissions due to
malfunctions (tpy).
Malfunction Emissions Max Enter maximum hourly malfunction
Hourly. emissions here (lb/hr).
North American Datum......... Enter datum for latitude/longitude
coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if left
blank, NAD83 is assumed.
Process Comment.............. Enter general comments about process
sources of emissions.
REVISED Address.............. Enter revised physical street address for
MACT facility here.
REVISED City................. Enter revised city name here.
REVISED County Name.......... Enter revised county name here.
REVISED Emissions Release Enter revised Emissions Release Point
Point Type. Type here.
REVISED End Date............. Enter revised End Date here.
REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate... Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here (ft
\3\/sec).
REVISED Exit Gas Temperature. Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature here
(F).
REVISED Exit Gas Velocity.... Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/
sec).
REVISED Facility Category Enter revised Facility Category Code
Code. here, which indicates whether facility
is a major or area source.
REVISED Facility Name........ Enter revised Facility Name here.
REVISED Facility Registry Enter revised Facility Registry
Identifier. Identifier here, which is an ID assigned
by the EPA Facility Registry System.
REVISED HAP Emissions Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance
Performance Level Code. Level here.
REVISED Latitude............. Enter revised Latitude here (decimal
degrees).
REVISED Longitude............ Enter revised Longitude here (decimal
degrees).
REVISED MACT Code............ Enter revised MACT Code here.
REVISED Pollutant Code....... Enter revised Pollutant Code here.
REVISED Routine Emissions.... Enter revised routine emissions value
here (tpy).
REVISED SCC Code............. Enter revised SCC Code here.
REVISED Stack Diameter....... Enter revised Stack Diameter here (ft).
REVISED Stack Height......... Enter revised Stack Height here (ft).
REVISED Start Date........... Enter revised Start Date here.
REVISED State................ Enter revised State here.
REVISED Tribal Code.......... Enter revised Tribal Code here.
REVISED Zip Code............. Enter revised Zip Code here.
Shutdown Emissions........... Enter total annual emissions due to
shutdown events (tpy).
Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly Enter maximum hourly shutdown emissions
here (lb/hr).
Stack Comment................ Enter general comments about emissions
release points.
Startup Emissions............ Enter total annual emissions due to
startup events (tpy).
Startup Emissions Max Hourly. Enter maximum hourly startup emissions
here (lb/hr).
Year Closed.................. Enter date facility stopped operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 72809]]
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 for the Mineral Wool Production
source category and Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (through one of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To expedite
review of the revisions, it would also be helpful if you submitted a
copy of your revisions to the EPA directly at RTR@epa.gov in addition
to submitting them to the docket.
5. If you are providing comments on a facility, you need only
submit one file for that facility, which should contain all suggested
changes for all sources at that facility. We request that all data
revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[reg]
Access files, which are provided on the RTR Web Page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal
and policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) documents
prepared by the EPA have been assigned EPA ICR numbers 1799.06 for
Mineral Wool Production and 1160.10 for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing.
The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them. The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section
114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
For this proposed rule, the EPA is adding affirmative defense to
the estimate of burden in the ICRs. To provide the public with an
estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an
assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the
EPA has provided administrative adjustments to these ICRs to show what
the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated
with the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA's
estimate for the required notification, reports and records for any
individual incident totals $3,141 and is based on the time and effort
required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant
employees, and document the events surrounding a malfunction that has
caused an exceedance of an emissions limit. The estimate also includes
time to produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the
EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because
these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a
source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense.
Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess
emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number
would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition
above), and only a subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions
would result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense.
Thus, we believe the number of instances in which source operators
might be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will
be extremely small. For this reason, we did not estimate any such
occurrences for all sources subject to subparts DDD and NNN over the 3-
year period covered by these ICRs. We expect to gather information on
such events in the future and will revise this estimate as better
information becomes available.
We estimate 7 regulated entities are currently subject to subpart
DDD and will be subject to all proposed standards. The annual
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection
(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the
standards) for these amendments to subpart DDD (Mineral Wool
Production) is estimated to be $85,348 per year. This estimate includes
performance tests, notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping
associated with the new requirements for COS, HF, and HCl from cupolas
and formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol from combined collection and
curing oven designs. The total burden for the Federal government
(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the
standard) is estimated to be 22 hours per year at a total labor cost of
$970 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
We estimate 29 regulated entities are currently subject to subpart
NNN and only 2 will be subject to all proposed standards. The annual
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection
(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the
standards) for these amendments to subpart NNN (Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing) is estimated to be $14,000 per year. This estimate
includes performance tests, notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping
associated with the new requirements for PM, chromium compounds, HF,
and HCl from glass-melting furnaces and formaldehyde, phenol, and
methanol from both RS and FA manufacturing lines. The total burden for
the Federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of the standard) is estimated to be 6.3 hours per year
at a total labor cost of $283 per year.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information
[[Page 72810]]
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB
control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9. When these ICRs are approved by OMB, the agency will
publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register
to display the OMB control numbers for the approved information
collection requirements contained in the final rules.
To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1041 for the Mineral Wool Production source category and
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category. Submit any comments related to the ICRs
to the EPA and the OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this notice for where to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to
the OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since the OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after November 25,
2011, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if the
OMB receives it by December 27, 2011. The final rule will respond to
any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute 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 this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (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 not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field. For this source category, which has the NAICS code 327993
(i.e., Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing), the
SBA small business size standard is 500 employees according to the SBA
small business standards definitions.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities in the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source categories, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Five of the 6 Mineral Wool Production parent companies
affected are considered to be small entities per the definition
provided in this section. However, we estimate that this proposed
action will not have a significant economic impact on those companies.
The impact of this proposed action on these companies will be an
annualized compliance cost of less than one percent of its revenues.
Only one of the five small parent companies is expected to have an
annualized compliance cost of greater than one percent of its revenues.
All other affected parent companies are not small businesses according
to the SBA small business size standard for the affected NAICS code
(NAICS 327993). One Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing facility is
considered to be owned by a small business, but this facility will not
experience an impact from this proposed rule. We have determined that
the impacts do not constitute a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities in the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category (See: Economic Impact and Small Business
Analysis for the proposed Mineral Wool and Wood Fiberglass Production
Source Categories NESHAP).
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless
has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. For more
information, please refer to the economic impact and small business
analysis that is in the docket. 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.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate under the
provisions of Title II of the UMRA of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for
State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. The proposed
rule would not result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or the private
sector in any 1 year. The proposed rule imposes no enforceable duties
on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus,
this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
or 205 of the UMRA.
This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it
contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it
impose obligations upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It 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. None of the facilities subject
to this action are owned or operated by State governments, and, because
no new requirements are being promulgated, nothing in this proposed
rule will supersede State regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed
rule from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from Tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866.
[[Page 72811]]
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined under
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This
action will not create any new requirements and therefore no additional
costs for sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use sectors.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs the EPA to use VCS in its regulatory activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides
not to use available and applicable VCS.
The proposed rule involves technical standards. Therefore, the
requirements of the NTTAA apply to this action. We conducted searches
for the RTR for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP through the Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS
organizations and accessed and searched their databases.
Under 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDD, searches were conducted for EPA
Methods 5, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. Under 40 CFR
part 63 subpart NNN, searches were conducted for EPA Methods 5, 318,
320, 29, and 0061 of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. No applicable
voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Method 318 and
SW-846 Method 0061.
One voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-03 (2010),
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy is acceptable as an alternative
to Method 320 for both subparts DDD and NNN, but with several
conditions: (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the
Annexes to ASTM D6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and (2)
In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent R
(percent R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5).
In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, percent R
must be 70 percent >= R <= 130 percent. If the percent R value does not
meet the criterion for a target compound, the test data is not
acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that
analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be
adjusted before a retest). The percent R value for each compound must
be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be
corrected with the calculated percent R value for that compound by
using the following equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concentration
in the Stack x 100)/percent R.
In addition, ASTM D6784-02 (2008), Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated
from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method) is acceptable
as an alternative to Method 29 in the subpart NNN rule.
The search identified four other VCS that were potentially
applicable for the Mineral Wool Production rule in lieu of EPA
reference methods. However, after reviewing the available standards,
EPA determined that four candidate VCS (ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 [2005],
ISO 9096:1992 [2003], CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, ANSI/ASME PTC 38 1980
[1985]) identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their
surrogates subject to emission standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data
and other important technical and policy considerations.
Under the Wool Fiberglass rule, the search identified six other VCS
that were potentially applicable in lieu of EPA reference methods (EN
13211:2001, CAN/CSA Z223.26-M1986, ASTM D3685/D3685M-98 [2005], ISO
9096:1992 [2003], CAN/CSA Z223.1-M1977, and ANSI/ASME PTC 38 1980
[1985]). However, the EPA determined that these methods would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data
and other important technical and policy considerations.
The VCS searches are documented in the Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for the Risk and Technology Review for the Mineral Wool NESHAP
and the Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for the Risk and
Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass NESHAP memorandums as
provided in the docket.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
For the proposed mineral wool rule, the EPA has determined that the
rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, because it
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.
For the proposed wool fiberglass rule, the EPA has determined that
the current health risks posed to anyone by emissions from this source
category are acceptable. Therefore, the EPA has determined that the
proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Mineral wool, Wool fiberglass, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: November 4, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated 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--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
[[Page 72812]]
Subpart DDD--[Amended]
2. Section 63.1178 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) and
adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1178 For cupolas, what standards must I meet?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Limit emissions of carbonyl sulfide (COS) from each existing,
new, or reconstructed cupola to the following:
(i) 3.3 lb of COS per ton of melt or less for existing cupolas.
(ii) 0.017 lb of COS per ton of melt or less for new or
reconstructed cupolas.
(3) Limit emissions of hydrogen fluoride (HF) from each existing,
new, or reconstructed cupola to 0.014 lb of HF per ton of melt or less.
(4) Limit emissions of hydrogen chloride (HCl) from each existing,
new, or reconstructed cupola to 0.0096 lb of HCl per ton of melt or
less.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.1179 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1179 For combined collection/curing operations, what
standards must I meet?
(a) You must control emissions from each existing and new combined
collection/curing operations by limiting emissions of formaldehyde,
phenol, and methanol to the following:
(1) For combined drum collection/curing operations:
(i) 0.067 lb of formaldehyde per ton of melt or less,
(ii) 0.0023 lb of phenol per ton of melt or less, and
(iii) 0.00077 lb of methanol per ton of melt or less.
(2) For combined horizontal collection/curing operations:
(i) 0.054 lb of formaldehyde per ton of melt or less,
(ii) 0.15 lb of phenol per ton of melt or less, and
(iii) 0.022 lb of methanol per ton of melt or less.
(3) For combined vertical collection/curing operations:
(i) 0.46 lb of formaldehyde per ton of melt or less,
(ii) 0.52 lb of phenol per ton of melt or less, and
(iii) 0.63 lb of methanol per ton of melt or less.
(b) You must meet the following operating limits for each combined
collection/curing operations subcategory:
* * * * *
4. Section 63.1180 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(d), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1180 When must I meet these standards?
(a) Existing cupolas and combined collection/curing operations. (1)
Except as noted in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the compliance
date for an owner or operator of an existing plant or source subject to
the provisions of this subpart is June 2, 2002 or June 3, 2003 if you
applied for and received a one-year extension under section
112(i)(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
(2) The compliance dates for existing plants and sources are:
(i) [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations
subject to emission limits in Sec. Sec. 63.1178 and 63.1179 which
became effective [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(ii) [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] for the provisions related to malfunctions and affirmative
defense provisions of paragraph (e) of this section and the electronic
reporting provisions of Sec. Sec. 63.1192(d) and 63.1193(b)(1) and
(g).
(b) New and reconstructed cupolas and combined collection/curing
operations. For affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after November 25, 2011, you must demonstrate compliance
with the requirements of this subpart no later than the effective date
of the rule or upon start-up.
* * * * *
(d) See Sec. 63.1197 for requirements during startups and
shutdowns.
(e) Affirmative defense for exceedance of emissions limits during
malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set
forth in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim
for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused
by malfunction, as defined at Sec. 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of
the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense
must not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
(1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in
Sec. 63.1191 of this subpart, and must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that:
(i) The excess emissions:
(A) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
(B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
(C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
(D) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance.
(ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emissions limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs; and
(iii) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions; and
(iv) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and
(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health; and
(vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
(vii) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of
the malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction
event at issue. The analysis must also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that
were the result of the malfunction.
(2) Notification. The owner or operator of the affected source
experiencing an exceedance of its emissions limit(s) during a
malfunction, must notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business days
after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, s/he
[[Page 72813]]
wishes to be able to use an affirmative defense to civil penalties for
that malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an
affirmative defense, must also submit a written report to the
Administrator within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the
exceedance of the standards in this subpart. This report must
demonstrate that the owner/operator met the requirements set forth in
this paragraph (e) and must include all necessary supporting
documentation. The owner or operator may seek an extension of this
deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a written request
to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45 day period. Until
a request for an extension has been approved by the Administrator, the
owner or operator is subject to the requirement to submit such report
within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance.
5. Section 63.1182 is amended by revising the section heading, the
introductory text, and paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1182 How do I comply with the carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen
fluoride, and hydrogen chloride standards for existing, new, and
reconstructed cupolas?
To comply with the COS, HF, and HCL standards, you must meet the
following:
(a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that
continuously measures the operating temperature in the firebox of each
thermal incinerator. For the purposes of this rule, the term
`incinerator' means `regenerative thermal oxidizer' (RTO).
(b) Conduct a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 of
this subpart that shows compliance with the COS, HF, and HCl emissions
limits while the device for measuring incinerator (regenerative thermal
oxidizer) operating temperature is installed, operational, and properly
calibrated. Establish the average operating temperature based on the
performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1185(a) of this subpart.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.1183 is amended by revising the section heading, the
introductory text, and paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1183 How do I comply with the formaldehyde, phenol, and
methanol standards for existing, new, and reconstructed combined
collection/curing operations?
To comply with the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol standards,
you must meet all of the following:
* * * * *
(b) Conduct a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 of
this subpart while manufacturing the product that requires a binder
formulation made with the resin containing the highest free-
formaldehyde content specification range. Show compliance with the
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions limits while the device
for measuring the control device operating parameter is installed,
operational, and properly calibrated. Establish the average operating
parameter based on the performance test as specified in Sec.
63.1185(a) of this subpart.
* * * * *
(d) Following the performance test, monitor and record the free-
formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the formulation of each
batch of binder used, including the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol
content.
* * * * *
7. Section 63.1188 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d),
(e), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1188 What performance test requirements must I meet?
* * * * *
(b) Conduct a performance test, consisting of three test runs, for
each cupola and/or combined collection/curing operation subject to this
subpart at the maximum production rate to demonstrate compliance with
each of the applicable emissions limits in Sec. Sec. 63.1178 and
63.1179 of this subpart.
(c) Following the initial performance or compliance test to be
conducted within 120 days of the effective date of this rule, you must
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with each of the
applicable emissions limits in Sec. Sec. 63.1178 and 63.1179 of this
subpart at least once every 5 years and as often as the raw material
ingredients change by more than 10 percent of those processed during
the previous performance test.
(d) Measure emissions of PM, COS, HF, and HCl from each existing,
new, or reconstructed cupola.
(e) Measure emissions of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol from
each existing, new, or reconstructed combined collection/curing
operation.
(f) Measure emissions at the outlet of the control device for PM,
COS, HF, HCl, formaldehyde, phenol, or methanol.
* * * * *
8. Section 63.1189 is amended by revising paragraph (g) and adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1189 What test methods do I use?
* * * * *
(g) Method 318 in appendix A to this part for the concentration of
formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, or COS.
* * * * *
(i) Method 26A or 320 in appendix A to this part for the
concentration of HF and HCl.
9. Section 63.1190 is amended by revising paragraph (b)
introductory text and the ``MW'' entry under ``where:'' and by removing
paragraph (c).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 63.1190 How do I determine compliance?
* * * * *
(b) Using the results from the performance tests, you must use the
following equation to determine compliance with the COS, HF, HCl,
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol numerical emissions limits:
* * * * *
MW = Molecular weight of measured pollutant, g/g-mole:
COS = 60.07, HF = 20.01, HCl = 36.46, Formaldehyde = 30.03, Phenol =
94.11, Methanol = 32.04.
* * * * *
10. Section 63.1191 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.1191 What notifications must I submit?
You must submit written or electronic notifications to the
Administrator as required by Sec. 63.9(b) through (h) of the general
provisions in subpart A of this part. Electronic notifications are
encouraged when possible. These notifications include, but are not
limited to, the following:
* * * * *
11. Section 63.1192 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1192 What recordkeeping requirements must I meet?
* * * * *
(d) Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10 of the
General Provisions that are referenced in Table 3 to this subpart.
Electronic recordkeeping is encouraged.
* * * * *
12. Section 63.1193 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b)
through (f) as paragraphs (c) through (g), and adding a new paragraph
(b) and by revising the newly redesignated paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
* * * * *
[[Page 72814]]
(b)(1) As of January 1, 2012, and within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec. 63.2, and as
required in this subpart, you must submit performance test data, except
opacity data, electronically to the EPA's Central Data Exchange by
using the ERT (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/erttool.html/) or
other compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using test
methods compatible with the ERT are subject to this requirement to be
submitted electronically into the EPA's WebFIRE database.
* * * * *
(g) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section must be sent to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13. If
acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a
source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject
to paragraph (b) of this section in paper format.
13. Section 63.1196 is amended by removing the definitions for
``CO'' and ``formaldehyde'', adding definitions for ``affirmative
defense'' and ``combined collection/curing operations'', and revising
the definition for ``incinerator'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1196 What definitions should I be aware of?
* * * * *
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
Combined collection/curing operations means the combination of
fiber collection operations and curing ovens used to make bonded
products.
Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that
uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to
noncombustible gases. For the purposes of this rule, the term
`incinerator' means `regenerative thermal oxidizer' (RTO).
* * * * *
14. Add Sec. 63.1197 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1197 Startups and shutdowns.
(a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
(b) The owner or operator must not shut down items of equipment
that are utilized for compliance with this subpart.
(c) Table 1 to subpart DDD summarizes the emissions limits during
startups and shutdowns for existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas.
Table 1 to Subpart DDD--Emissions Limits During Startups and Shutdowns
for Existing, New, and Reconstructed Cupolas
[Pound of pollutant per hour]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit (lb/hr)
-------------------------------
Pollutant New and
Existing reconstructed
cupolas cupolas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM...................................... 1.0 1.0
COS..................................... 32 0.17
HF...................................... 0.13 0.13
HCl..................................... 0.092 0.092
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Table 2 to subpart DDD summarizes the emissions limits during
startups and shutdowns for existing, new, and reconstructed combined
collection/curing operations.
Table 2 to Subpart DDD--Emissions Limits During Startups and Shutdowns
for Existing, New, and Reconstructed Combined Collection/Curing
Operations
[Pound of pollutant per hour]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit
Design Pollutant (lb/hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertical.......................... Formaldehyde........ 4.5
Phenol.............. 5.0
Methanol............ 6.0
Horizontal........................ Formaldehyde........ 0.52
Phenol.............. 1.4
Methanol............ 0.21
Drum.............................. Formaldehyde........ 0.64
Phenol.............. 0.022
Methanol............ 0.0074
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 is redesignated as Table 3 to
subpart DDD of part 63 and revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart DDD of Part 63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart DDD Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1.......................... Yes. .....................
63.2.......................... Yes. .....................
63.3.......................... Yes. .....................
63.4.......................... Yes. .....................
63.5.......................... Yes. .....................
63.6(a), (b), (c)............. Yes. .....................
63.6(d)....................... No............... Section reserved.
63.6(e)(1)(i)................. No............... See 63.1180 for
general duty
requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)................ No. .....................
63.6(e)(1)(iii)............... Yes. .....................
63.6(e)(2).................... No............... Section reserved.
[[Page 72815]]
63.6(e)(3).................... No. .....................
63.6(f)(1).................... No. .....................
63.6(g)....................... Yes. .....................
63.6(h)....................... No............... No opacity limits in
rule.
63.6(i)....................... Yes. .....................
63.6(j)....................... Yes. .....................
Sec. 63.7(a)-(d)............ Yes. .....................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)............. No............... See 63.1180.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)...... Yes. .....................
63.7(f), (g), (h)............. Yes. .....................
63.8(a)-(b)................... Yes. .....................
63.8(c)(1)(i)................. No............... See 63.1180 for
general duty
requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(ii)................ Yes. .....................
63.8(c)(1)(iii)............... No. .....................
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2)............. Yes. .....................
63.8(d)(3).................... Yes, except for .....................
last sentence.
63.8(e)-(g)................... Yes. .....................
63.9(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), Yes. .....................
(h)(1) through (3), (h)(5)
and (6), (i) and (j).
63.9(f)....................... No. .....................
63.9(h)(4).................... No............... Reserved.
63.10(a)...................... Yes. .....................
63.10(b)(1)................... Yes. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(i)................ No. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(ii)............... No............... See 63.1193(c) for
recordkeeping of
occurrence and
duration of
malfunctions and
recordkeeping of
actions taken during
malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii).............. Yes. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)..... No. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)... Yes. .....................
63.(10)(b)(3)................. Yes. .....................
63.10(c)(1)-(9)............... Yes. .....................
63.10(c)(10)-(11)............. No............... See 63.1192 for
recordkeeping of
malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14).......... Yes. .....................
63.10(c)(15).................. No. .....................
63.10(d)(1)-(4)............... Yes. .....................
63.10(d)(5)................... No............... See 63.1193 for
reporting of
malfunctions.
63.10(e)-((f)................. Yes. .....................
63.11......................... No............... Flares will not be
used to comply with
the emissions
limits.
63.12 to 63.15................ Yes. .....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart NNN--[Amended]
16. Section 63.1381 is amended by adding a definition for
``affirmative defense'' and revising the definition for
``incinerator''.
Sec. 63.1381 Definitions.
* * * * *
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that
uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to
noncombustible gases. For the purposes of this rule, the term
`incinerator' means `regenerative thermal oxidizer' (RTO).
* * * * *
17. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and
(b)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1382 Emission standards.
(a) Emissions limits. (1) Glass-melting furnaces. On and after the
date the initial performance test is completed or required to be
completed under Sec. 63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier,
(i) The owner or operator of each existing glass-melting furnace
must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere in
excess of:
(A) 0.014 pound (lb) of particulate matter (PM) per ton of glass
pulled;
(B) 0.0020 lb of hydrogen fluoride (HF) per ton of glass pulled;
and
(C) 0.0015 lb of hydrogen chloride (HCl) per ton of glass pulled.
(D) 0.00006 lb of chromium (Cr) compounds per ton of glass pulled
(60 lb per million tons glass pulled).
(ii) The owner or operator of each new or reconstructed glass-
melting furnace must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere in excess of:
(A) 0.0018 lb of PM per ton of glass pulled;
(B) 0.00078 lb of HF per ton of glass pulled; and
(C) 0.00078 lb of HCl per ton of glass pulled.
(D) 0.00006 lb of Cr compounds per ton of glass pulled (60 lb per
million tons glass pulled).
(2) Rotary spin manufacturing lines. On and after the date the
initial performance test is completed or required to be completed under
Sec. 63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier,
(i) The owner or operator of each existing rotary spin (RS)
manufacturing
[[Page 72816]]
line must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere
in excess of:
(A) 0.17 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled;
(B) 0.19 lb of phenol per ton of glass pulled; and
(C) 0.48 lb of methanol per ton of glass pulled.
(ii) The owner or operator of each new or reconstructed RS
manufacturing line must not discharge or cause to be discharged into
the atmosphere in excess of:
(A) 0.020 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled;
(B) 0.0011 lb of phenol per ton of glass pulled; and
(C) 0.00067 lb of methanol per ton of glass pulled.
(3) Flame attenuation manufacturing lines. On and after the date
the initial performance test is completed or required to be completed
under Sec. 63.7 of this part, whichever date is earlier,
(i) The owner or operator of each existing flame attenuation (FA)
manufacturing line that produces heavy-density wool fiberglass and/or
pipe insulation must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere in excess of:
(A) 5.6 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled;
(B) 1.4 lb of phenol per ton of glass pulled; and
(C) 0.50 lb of methanol per ton of glass pulled.
(ii) The owner or operator of each new or reconstructed FA
manufacturing line that produces heavy-density wool fiberglass and/or
pipe insulation must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere in excess of:
(A) 3.3 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled;
(B) 0.46 lb of phenol per ton of glass pulled; and
(C) 0.50 lb of methanol per ton of glass pulled.
(b) * * *
(6) The owner or operator must operate each control device used to
control formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions from forming or
curing such that any three-hour block average temperature in the
firebox does not fall below the average established during the
performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384.
* * * * *
18. Section 63.1383 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1383 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(f) The owner or operator who uses a control device to control HAP
emissions from a glass-melting furnace, RS manufacturing line, or FA
manufacturing line must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
monitoring device that continuously measures an appropriate parameter
that is correlated to the emission limit performance test.
* * * * *
19. Section 63.1384 is amended by revising paragraph (c)
introductory text, variables E, C, and MW, and adding paragraphs (d)
and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1384 Performance test requirements.
* * * * *
(c) To determine compliance with the emission limit for
formaldehyde, phenol, or methanol for RS manufacturing lines and FA
manufacturing lines, and for chromium compounds, HF, or HCl for glass-
melting furnaces, use the following equation:
* * * * *
E = Emission rate of formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, chromium
compounds, HF, or HCl, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of glass pulled;
C = Measured volume fraction of formaldehyde, phenol, methanol,
chromium compounds, HF, or HCl, ppm;
MW = Molecular weight of formaldehyde, 30.03 g/g-mol; molecular weight
of phenol, 94.11 g/g-mol; molecular weight of methanol, 32.04 g/g-mol;
molecular weight of chromium compounds tested in g/g-mol; molecular
weight of HF, 20.0064 g/g-mol; molecular weight of HCl, 36.4611 g/g-
mol.
(d) Following the initial performance or compliance test to be
conducted within 90 days of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RULE] to demonstrate
compliance with the chromium compounds emissions limit specified in
Sec. 63.1382(a)(1)(i)(D) or (a)(1)(ii)(D), you must conduct an annual
performance test for chromium compounds emissions from each glass-
melting furnace (no later than 12 calendar months following the
previous compliance test).
(e) Following the initial performance or compliance test to
demonstrate compliance with the PM, HF, HCl, formaldehyde, phenol, and
methanol emissions limits specified in Sec. 63.1382, you must conduct
a performance test to demonstrate compliance with each of the
applicable PM, HF, HCl, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions
limits in Sec. 63.1382 of this subpart at least once every 5 years and
as often as raw material inputs change by more than 10 percent
following the previous test.
20. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5) and
(6), and adding paragraphs (a)(11), and (a)(12).
Sec. 63.1385 Test methods and procedures.
(a) * * *
(5) Method 5 and Method 202 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the
concentration of total PM including condensibles. Each run must consist
of a minimum run time of 2 hours and a minimum sample volume of 60 dry
standard cubic feet (dscf). The probe and filter holder heating system
may be set to provide a gas temperature no greater than 177 14[deg]C (350 25[deg]F);
(6) Method 318 (appendix A of this subpart) for the concentration
of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. Each run must consist of a
minimum run time of 2 hours;
* * * * *
(11) Method 0061 (appendix A of this subpart) for the concentration
of chromium compounds and hexavalent chromium. Each run must consist of
a minimum run time of 1 hour.
(12) Method 26A or Method 320 (appendix A of this subpart) for the
concentration of HF and HCl. Each run must consist of a minimum run
time of 1 hour.
* * * * *
21. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)
through (4); revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii); adding
paragraphs (d)(2)(x), (f) and (g).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where
the initial startup is before November 25, 2011.
(3) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where
the source is new or has been reconstructed the initial startup is
after November 25, 2011, and for which an application for approval of
construction or reconstruction is not required;
(4) Notification of intention to construct a new affected source or
reconstruct an affected source; of the date construction or
reconstruction commenced; of the anticipated date of startup; of the
actual date of startup, where the initial startup of a new or
reconstructed source occurs after November 25, 2011, and for which an
application for approval or construction or reconstruction is required
(See Sec. 63.9(b)(4) and (5) of this part);
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
[[Page 72817]]
(ii) The owner or operator may retain records electronically, on a
computer or labeled computer disks, or on paper; and
* * * * *
(iii) The owner or operator may report required information on
paper or on a labeled computer disk using commonly available and EPA-
compatible computer software. Electronic notifications are encouraged
when possible.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(x) You must report total chromium and hexavalent chromium
emissions from glass-melting furnaces using Method 0061.
* * * * *
(f)(1) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test, as defined in Sec. 63.2, and as
required in this subpart, you must submit performance test data, except
opacity data, electronically to the EPA's Central Data Exchange by
using the ERT (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/erttool.html/) or
other compatible electronic spreadsheet. Only data collected using test
methods compatible with ERT are subject to this requirement to be
submitted electronically into the EPA's WebFIRE database.
(2) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the
requirements in paragraph (f)(1) of this section must be sent to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13. If
acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a
source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject
to paragraph (f)(1) of this section in paper format.
(g) Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emission Limit During
Malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the standards set
forth in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim
for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused
by malfunction, as defined at Sec. 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed, however, if you fail to meet your burden of proving all of
the requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense
must not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
(1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in
Sec. 63.1386 of this subpart, and must prove by a preponderance of
evidence that:
(i) The excess emissions:
(A) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
(B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
(C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
(D) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance.
(ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emissions limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs; and
(iii) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions; and
(iv) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and
(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human
health; and
(vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
(vii) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(viii) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose
of which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of
the malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction
event at issue. The analysis must also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that
were the result of the malfunction.
(2) Notification. The owner or operator of the affected source
experiencing an exceedance of its emissions limit(s) during a
malfunction, must notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business days
after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if he/she wishes to be
able to use an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense must also submit a written report to the Administrator within
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standards in
this subpart. This report must demonstrate that the owner/operator has
met the requirements set forth in paragraph (g) of this section and
must include all necessary supporting documentation. The owner or
operator may seek an extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional
days by submitting a written request to the Administrator before the
expiration of the 45 day period. Until a request for an extension has
been approved by the Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to
the requirement to submit such report within 45 days of the initial
occurrence of the exceedance.
* * * * *
22. Section 63.1387 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1387 Compliance dates.
(a) * * *
(1) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
compliance date for an owner or operator of an existing plant or source
subject to the provisions of this subpart is [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(2) The compliance dates for existing plants and sources are:
(i) [DATE 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] for glass-melting furnaces, rotary spin manufacturing lines,
or flame attenuation manufacturing lines subject to emission limits in
Sec. 63.1382(a) which became effective [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(ii) [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] for the provisions related to malfunctions and affirmative
defense provisions of Sec. 63.1386(g) and the electronic reporting
provisions of Sec. 63.1386(d) and (f).
* * * * *
23. Section 63.1388 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1388 Startups and shutdowns.
(a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
(b) The owner or operator must not shut down items of equipment
that are required or utilized for compliance with the provisions of
this subpart during times when emissions are being routed to such items
of equipment, if the shutdown would contravene requirements of this
subpart applicable
[[Page 72818]]
to such items of equipment. This paragraph does not apply if the owner
or operator must shut down the equipment to avoid damage due to a
contemporaneous startup or shutdown, of the affected source or a
portion thereof.
(c) Table 1 to subpart NNN summarizes the emissions limits during
startups and shutdowns of glass-melting furnaces.
Table 1 to Subpart NNN--emissions Limits During Startups and Shutdowns
of Glass-Melting Furnaces (lb/hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and
Pollutant Existing reconstructed
furnaces furnaces
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM...................................... 0.25 0.033
Chromium Compounds...................... 0.0019 0.0019
HF...................................... 0.036 0.014
HCl..................................... 0.026 0.014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Table 1 to subpart NNN summarizes the emissions limits during
startups and shutdowns of rotary spin [RS] manufacturing lines.
Table 2 to Subpart NNN--Emissions Limits During Startups and Shutdowns
of Rotary Spin (RS) Manufacturing Lines (lb/hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and
Pollutant Existing RS reconstructed
lines RS lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde............................ 3.1 0.36
Phenol.................................. 3.4 0.019
Methanol................................ 8.8 0.012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Table 3 to subpart NNN summarizes the emissions limits during
startups and shutdowns of flame attenuation (FA) manufacturing lines.
Table 3 to Subpart NNN--Emissions Limits During Startups and Shutdowns
of Flame Attenuation (FA) Manufacturing Lines (lb/hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and
Pollutant Existing FA reconstructed
lines FA lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde............................ 100 60
Phenol.................................. 25 8
Methanol................................ 9 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63 is redesignated as Table 4 to
Subpart NNN of Part 63 and revised to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart NNN of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
Subpart NNN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart NNN Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1.......................... Yes. .....................
63.2.......................... Yes. .....................
63.3.......................... Yes. .....................
63.4.......................... Yes. .....................
63.5.......................... Yes. .....................
63.6(a), (b), (c)............. Yes. .....................
63.6(d)....................... No............... Section reserved.
63.6(e)(1)(i)................. No............... See 63.1382(b) for
general duty
requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)................ No. .....................
63.6(e)(1)(iii)............... Yes. .....................
63.6(e)(2).................... No............... Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3).................... No. .....................
63.6(f)(1).................... No. .....................
63.6(g)....................... Yes. .....................
63.6(h)....................... No............... No opacity limits in
rule.
63.6(i)....................... Yes. .....................
63.6(j)....................... Yes. .....................
[[Page 72819]]
Sec. 63.7(a)-(d)............ Yes. .....................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)............. No............... See 63.1382(b).
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)...... Yes. .....................
63.7(f), (g), (h)............. Yes. .....................
63.8(a)-(b)................... Yes. .....................
63.8(c)(1)(i)................. No............... See 63.1382(b) for
general duty
requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(ii)................ Yes. .....................
63.8(c)(1)(iii)............... No. .....................
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2)............. Yes. .....................
63.8(d)(3).................... Yes, except for .....................
last sentence.
63.8(e)-(g)................... Yes. .....................
63.9(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), Yes. .....................
(h)(1) through (3), (h)(5)
and (6), (i) and (j).
63.9(f)....................... No. .....................
63.9(h)(4).................... No............... Reserved.
63.10 (a)..................... Yes. .....................
63.10 (b)(1).................. Yes. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(i)................ No. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(ii)............... No............... See 63.1386 for
recordkeeping of
occurrence and
duration of
malfunctions and
recordkeeping of
actions taken during
malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii).............. Yes. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)..... No. .....................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)... Yes. .....................
63.(10)(b)(3)................. Yes. .....................
63.10(c)(1)-(9)............... Yes. .....................
63.10(c)(10)-(11)............. No............... See 63.1386 for
recordkeeping of
malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14).......... Yes. .....................
63.10(c)(15).................. No. .....................
63.10(d)(1)-(4)............... Yes. .....................
63.10(d)(5)................... No............... See 63.1386(c)(2) for
reporting of
malfunctions.
63.10(e)-((f)................. Yes. .....................
63.11......................... No............... Flares will not be
used to comply with
the emissions
limits.
63.12 to 63.15................ Yes. .....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2011-29454 Filed 11-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P