72770 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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– 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72772 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

mg/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 Manufacturing .................................................. 327993 

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, 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 bestcontrolled 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 bestperforming 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72774 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

2Although 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. 

factors, an adverse environmental 

effect.’’ 1

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.) 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72775 

3Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (DC Cir. 

March 13, 2007). 4Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 

F.3d 855 (DC Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 5National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (DC 

Cir. 2000). 

6Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F. 3d 976 (DC Cir. 2004). 

7Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 

2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct 1735 (2010). 

8Consent Decree, Sierra Club v. Jackson (No. 09– 

cv–00152SBA, N.D. Cal., Sept. 27, 2010). 

9Wool 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. 

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 HAPemitting process in the Mineral Wool 

NESHAP. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72776 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 heavydensity 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72777 

10Letter from the North American Insulation 

Manufacturers Association (NAIMA). June 8, 2011 

Letter. 

11Chromium in Refractories. Sept. 2000. Dr. 

Mariano Velez, Ceramic Engineering Dept., Univ. 

Missouri-Rolla. 

12Notes of April 14, 2011 telephone discussion 

between Carlos Davis, Environmental Manager, 

Certainteed, Kansas City, KS; and Susan Fairchild, 

project lead, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD. 

13Region 7 Certainteed, Kansas City, KS; meeting 

and site visit notes. 

14Emissions Test Results from Certainteed, 

Kansas City, KS. 2005 and 2008. 

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 phenolformaldehyde resin based binder. 

According to the trade organization, 

only a few insulation products are 

currently made using a formaldehydebased 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. 

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 glassmelting 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

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

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: Glassmelting 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72778 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

15U.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. 

16U.S. EPA, 2010. SAB’s Response to EPA’s RTR 

Risk Assessment Methodologies. Available at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

fiberglass industry has voluntarily 

phased out most uses of phenolformaldehyde 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 phenolformaldehyde 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 noncancer 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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 MACTAllowable 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 ‘‘MACTallowable’’ 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 MACTallowable 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 MACTallowable 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72780 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

17U.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). 

18A census block is generally the smallest 

geographic area for which census statistics are 

tabulated. 

19These 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. 

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 doseresponse 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. 

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 doseresponse 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 × 10¥9 per mg/m3) was based on 

better science than the IRIS cancer doseresponse value (1.3 × 10¥5 per mg/m3) 

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 × 10¥5 mg/m3, 

whereas, the CIIT URE for formaldehyde 

is 5.5 × 10¥9 mg/m3. 

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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72781 

20NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for 

Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 

Chemicals, page 2. 

21ERP Committee Procedures and 

Responsibilities. November 1, 2006. American 

Industrial Hygiene Association. 

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, shortterm 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, highpriority 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.’’ 

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/m3) 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.’’ 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72782 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

22See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/ 

field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the 

source of these data. 

23Acute Factor Memo. Cindy Hancy and David 

Reeves, RTI; to Susan Fairchild, USEPA/OAQPS/ 

SPPD; EPA Project Lead. August 30, 2011. 

24The SAB Peer review of RTR Risk Assessment 

Methodoligies is available at: http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

25U.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. 

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). 

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

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 sitespecific 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 healthprotective 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 onehour 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). 

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/m3. 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72783 

26National 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. 

27WHO (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. 

28WHO (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. 

NIOSH 26 ‘‘for any 15 minute period in 

a work day’’ (NIOSH REL-ceiling value 

of 0.12 mg/m3; 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/m3; 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/m3; HQWHO = 5). 

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/m3. 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/m3; 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/m3; 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/m3; HQWHO = 

19). Id. 

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., multipathway 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, multipathway 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 doseVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:25 Nov 23, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25NOP2.SGM 25NOP2

wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72784 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

29Short-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. 

30U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January 

2001; page 85.) 

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. 

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 underpredict 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

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 cooccurrence of peak emissions and worstcase 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72785 

31 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/ 

help_gloss.htm). 

32An 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. 

33According 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. 

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 healthprotection, 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). 

Chronic noncancer reference (RfC and 

RfD) values represent chronic exposure 

levels that are intended to be healthprotective 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 effectspecific 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). 

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 shortterm 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72786 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

34The 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/EPASB-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. 

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 sitespecific 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 costeffective 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

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 industrysupported 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72788 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 phenolformaldehyde 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 beyondthe-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

Pollutant 

Emission limit (lb/ton of melt) 

Existing cupolas 

New and 

reconstructed 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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

Design Pollutant Emission limit 

(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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72790 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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] 

Pollutant Existing RS 

lines 

New and 

reconstructed 

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] 

Pollutant Existing FA 

lines 

New and 

reconstructed 

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] 

Pollutant Existing 

furnaces 

New and 

reconstructed 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72792 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

35Meeting between U.S. EPA, would fiberglass 

industry representatives and NAIMA (trade 

association). August 31, 2011. At USEPA offices in 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 

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 bestperforming 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 glassmelting 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

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 glassmelting furnaces show a significant 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72794 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 nonmalfunctioning 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72796 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

36The HAP metals emitted from mineral wool 

cupolas include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, manganese, 

nickel, lead and selenium. 

37Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658 (DC Cir. 

March 2, 1999). 

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 ‘‘MACTon-Unsupportable-StandardsErroneously-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. 

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 bindersprayed 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72797 

38We 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. 

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 Estimated 

population at 

increased risk 

of cancer ≥ 

1-in-1 million 

Estimated 

annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI 2

Maximum screening acute 

non-cancer HQ 3

Based on actual emissions 

level 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

level 

Based on 

actual emissions level 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

level 

4 .......................................... 10 1,650 0.0004 0.04 0.1 8 (REL) 0.4 (AEGL–1, 

ERGP–1). 

1Estimated 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. 

3The 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-in1 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. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72798 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 noncancer 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72799 

39The HAP metals emitted from wool fiberglass 

glass-melting furnaces include antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, 

manganese, nickel, lead, and selenium. 

40Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (DC Cir. 

March 13, 2007). 

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 HAPspecific emissions limits for phenol and 

methanol. 

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 noncancer 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72800 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 Estimated 

population at 

increased risk 

of cancer ≥ 

1-in-1 million 

Estimated 

annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI 2

Maximum screening acute 

non-cancer HQ 3

Based on actual emissions 

level 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

level 

Based on 

actual emissions level 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

level 

40 ........................................ 60 849,000 0.05 0.2 0.5 30 (REL) 2 (AEGL–1, 

ERPG–1). 

1Estimated 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. 

3The maximum HQ acute value of 30 is driven by emissions of formaldehyde. See section V.A. of this preamble for explanation of acute doseresponse 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 noncancer 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 worstcase 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. 

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 noncancer 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72801 

TABLE 9—WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING AUXILIARY INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Potential maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million) 1

Estimated 

population at 

increased risk 

of cancer ≥ 

1-in-1 million 

Estimated 

population at 

increased risk 

of cancer ≥ 

10-in-1 million 

Estimated 

population at 

increased risk 

of cancer ≥ 

100-in-1 

million 

Estimated annual cancer incidence (cases 

per year) Based on actual emissions level 

900 ................................................................................................................... 7,300,000 460,000 8,100 0.46 

1Estimated 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-in1-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-in1-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, multipathway 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72802 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 10—PROPOSED EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR GLASS-MELTING FURNACES

BASED ON RISK REVIEW

Pollutant 

Pounds of pollutant per 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 postcontrol 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 individual cancer risk (in 1 million) based on actual emissions 

level 1

Estimated 

population at 

increased risk 

of cancer ≥ 

1 in 1 million 

Estimated 

annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

chronic noncancer TOSHI 

based on 

actual emissions level 2

Maximum 

screening 

acute 

noncancer HQ 3

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 nonphenol 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 phenolformaldehyde 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72804 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

42NaOH Scrubber Information. Telephone 

discussion and emails between vendors, companies, 

and EPA. Steffan Johnson, Measurement Policy 

Group, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD. 

43Economic Impact and Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. September 2011. 

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

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

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

Pollutant 

Pounds 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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

Proposed amendment Estimated capital cost ($MM) 

Estimated 

annual cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP 

emissions reductions (tons 

per year) 

Cost effectiveness in $ per 

ton total HAP 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72806 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

44Excel spreadsheet provided by North American 

Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA). 

Non-CBI NAIMA Response to Cr Emissions 8.11.11. 

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. 

Additionally, NaOH scrubber solids 

are expected to contain high levels of 

hexavalent chromium removed from 

furnace emissions. The proper disposal 

procedures for hexavalent chromiumcontaminated 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 glassmelting 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

Proposed amendment Est. capital 

cost ($MM) 

Est. annual 

cost ($MM) 

Total HAP 

emissions 

reductions 

(pounds per 

year) 

Cost effectiveness in $ per 

pound 

Number of 

facilities 

Change out of refractory brick lining ................................... 6.0 0.3 900 333 1 

Installation of NaOH scrubber ............................................. 0.25 0.1 70 1400 2 

Additional testing and monitoring for glass-melting furnaces ................................................................................ 0 0.06 N/A N/A ........................

Additional testing and monitoring for FA lines for pipe insulation products .............................................................. 0 0.052 N/A N/A ........................

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 SocioEconomic 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°C. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72808 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 For Revised Emissions.Code description of the method used to 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 Hourly .................... Enter maximum hourly malfunction 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 Point Type .......... Enter revised Emissions Release Point 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 Code ...................... Enter revised Facility Category Code here, which indicates whether facility is a major or area 

source. 

REVISED Facility Name ..................................... Enter revised Facility Name here. 

REVISED Facility Registry Identifier .................. Enter revised Facility Registry Identifier here, which is an ID assigned by the EPA Facility 

Registry System. 

REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Level 

Code.

Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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®

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® 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72810 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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-forprofit 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 × 

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 lowincome 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72812 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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 oneyear 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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: 

§ 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 § 63.1188 of this subpart 

while manufacturing the product that 

requires a binder formulation made with 

the resin containing the highest freeformaldehyde 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 

§ 63.1185(a) of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(d) Following the performance test, 

monitor and record the freeformaldehyde 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: 

§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 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: 

§ 63.1191 What notifications must I 

submit? 

You must submit written or electronic 

notifications to the Administrator as 

required by § 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: 

§ 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 § 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: 

* * * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72814 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(b)(1) As of January 1, 2012, and 

within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test, as 

defined in § 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 § 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: 

§ 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 § 63.1197 to read as follows: 

§ 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] 

Pollutant 

Emission limit (lb/hr) 

Existing cupolas 

New and 

reconstructed 

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] 

Design Pollutant Emission limit 

(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 

Reference Applies to 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72815 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART DDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART DDD OF PART 63—Continued 

Reference Applies to 

subpart DDD Comment 

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. 

§ 63.7(a)–(d) .................................................................. Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) .................................................................... No ................ See 63.1180. 

§ 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), (h)(1) through (3), (h)(5) and 

(6), (i) and (j).

Yes. 

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’’. 

§ 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: 

§ 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 § 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 § 63.7 of 

this part, whichever date is earlier, 

(i) The owner or operator of each 

existing rotary spin (RS) manufacturing 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72816 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 63.7 of 

this part, whichever date is earlier, 

(i) The owner or operator of each 

existing flame attenuation (FA) 

manufacturing line that produces heavydensity 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 § 63.1384. 

* * * * * 

18. Section 63.1383 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 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: 

§ 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 glassmelting 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/gmol. 

(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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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). 

§ 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°C (350 ± 25°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: 

§ 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 

§ 63.9(b)(4) and (5) of this part); 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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: 

§ 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 glassmelting furnaces, rotary spin 

manufacturing lines, or flame 

attenuation manufacturing lines subject 

to emission limits in § 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 § 63.1386(g) and the 

electronic reporting provisions of 

§ 63.1386(d) and (f). 

* * * * * 

23. Section 63.1388 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
72818 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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) 

Pollutant Existing 

furnaces 

New and 

reconstructed 

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) 

Pollutant Existing RS 

lines 

New and 

reconstructed 

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) 

Pollutant Existing FA 

lines 

New and 

reconstructed 

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 

Reference Applies to 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 227 / Friday, November 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules 72819 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART NNN—Continued 

Reference Applies to 

subpart NNN Comment 

§ 63.7(a)–(d) ............................................... Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ................................................. No ................ See 63.1382(b). 

§ 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), (h)(1) through (3), 

(h)(5) and (6), (i) and (j).

Yes. 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2