Page 1 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release 

During Review ***

E.O. 12866 NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production and Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing 2060-AQ90 NPRM_20130225

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-*****]

RIN 2060-AQ90

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing;

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Gas-Fired Melting Furnaces located at Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Area Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: This action proposes chromium and particulate matter 

emission limits (as a surrogate for metals) for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces atused to make wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities that are located at area sources. It also adds these 

sources to the source category list pursuant to section 

112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)for the Urban Air Toxics Strategy of the 

Clean Air Act. Finally, it proposes amendments to the existing 

major source rules for Mineral Wool Production and Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing. The proposed area source standards for 

the gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located atused to make wool
Page 2 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

fiberglass manufacturing area sources would increase the level 

of environmental protection.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 

45 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. If anyone 

contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing by [INSERT DATE 10 

DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] requesting to 

speak at a public hearing, EPA], we will hold a public hearing on [INSERT 

DATE 15 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].April 18, 2013. 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 [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION IN

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on the proposed wool fiberglass 

area source rule and the major source RTR amendments, identified 

by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042, or the mineral wool 

RTR amendments, identified by EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041, by one of 

the following methods:

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 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. 

Formatted: Font: Courier New

Formatted: FR Paragraph, No widow/orphan

control

Formatted: Font: Courier New

Formatted: Font: Courier New

Formatted: Font: Courier New

Formatted: Font: Courier New

Formatted: Font: Courier New
Page 3 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

• Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR2010-1041 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 / Courier: 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 and proposed area source rule to 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. The EPA’s policy is that 
Page 4 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

all comments received will be included in the public docket 

without change to 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 

www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov website 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 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 

CDROM 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 
Page 5 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: The EPA has established dockets for these rulemakings

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

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, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in 

hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 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 Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about these

proposed actions, 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; 
Page 6 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email address: 

fairchild.susan@epa.gov. For information about the applicability

of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Scott Throwe, 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, US EPA 

Headquarters Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. 

W., Mail Code: 2227A, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 

(202) 564–7013; fax number: (202) 564–0050; email address: 

throwe.scott@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and

abbreviations are used in this document.

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels 

CAA Clean Air Act

CBI Confidential Business Information

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO Carbon monoxide

COS Carbonyl sulfide

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESP electrostatic precipitators

FA flame attenuation

GP General Provisions
Page 7 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

HAP hazardous air pollutants

HCl Hydrogen chloride

HF Hydrogen fluoride

HI Hazard Index

HQ Hazard Quotient

lb/ton pounds per ton

MACT maximum achievable control technology

MIR maximum individual risk

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NaOH Sodium hydroxide

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PM Particulate matter

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RS rotary spin

RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers

RTR residual risk and technology review

SBA Small Business Administration
Page 8 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction

tpy tons per year

TTN Technology Transfer Network

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Organization of this Document. The information in this 

preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the 

EPA?

D. When will a public hearing occur?

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

B. What are the HAP-emitting processes in Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing at area and major sources?

C. What is the regulatory history for Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing?

D. What is the authority for the development of NESHAP for 

area sources?

E. What sources did EPA look to in Assessing GACT?

F. Upon what set of data are the limits for glass-melting 

furnaces located at area sources based?

III. What are the proposed requirements for glass-melting 

furnaces located at area sources?

A. What are the proposed applicability requirements?

B. What are the proposed emission limits for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

area sources?

C. What are the proposed measurement methods, monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements for glass-melting 

furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area 

sources?

D. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions?
Page 9 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

IV. How did we develop the proposed standards for glass-melting 

furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area 

sources?

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule for 

glass-melting furnaces located at

C. How did the EPA determine the proposed emission standards 

for glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area sources?

D. How did the EPA determine the compliance and monitoring 

requirements for the wool fiberglass manufacturing area 

sources proposed rule?

E. How did the EPA determine compliance dates for the proposed 

wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources rule?

F. How did the EPA determine recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for the wool fiberglass manufacturing area 

sources proposed rule?

V. Impacts of the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area 

Source Rule

A. What are the air impacts for the proposed wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area source rule?

B. What are the cost impacts for the proposed wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area source rule?

C. What are the non-air quality health, environmental and 

energy impacts for the proposed wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area source rule?

D. What are the economic impacts of the proposed wool 

fiberglass manufacturing area source rule?

VI. What are the proposed changes to Mineral Wool Production 

(Subpart DDD) and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart 

NNN) major source rules?

A. Subpart DDD – Mineral Wool Production Major Source Rule

Based on comments on the November 2011 proposal and new data 

supplied by the industry, we are proposing the following 

revisions to the major source rule amendments:

B. Subpart NNN – Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source 

Rule

Based on comments on the November 2011 proposal and new data 

supplied by the industry, we are proposing the following 

revisions to the major source rule amendments:

VII. Impacts of the Proposed Changes to Mineral Wool Production 

(Subpart DDD) and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart 

NNN) Major Source Rules

A. Subpart DDD - Mineral Wool Production Major Source Rule

B. Subpart NNN - Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source 

Rule
Page 10 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

VIII. 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 LowIncome Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by 

this Proposed Action

Source Category NESHAP NAICS code1

Mineral Wool Production Mineral Wool 

Production 327993

Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing

Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing 327993

1 North American Industry Classification System 

Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this proposed action for the source categories 
Page 11 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

listed. To determine whether your facility would be affected, 

you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate 

NESHAP. 

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 

this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this proposed action will also be available on the 

worldwide web through the EPA’s TTN. Following signature, a copy 

of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed and promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/new.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. Additional information is available on 

the RTR web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

This information includes source category descriptions and 

detailed emissions and other data that were used as inputs to 

the proposed rule development.

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 
Page 12 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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, Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 (Wool Fiberglass).

D. When will a public hearing occur?

If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing, the EPA will hold a public hearing on is requested by

[INSERT DATE 1510 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 
Page 13 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

REGISTER]. If a public hearing is held,], it will begin at 10:00 

a.m. at the EPA facility located in be held on April 18, 2013, 

at the EPA’s Research Triangle Park Campus room C113, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, or a nearby 

location. Visitors must go through a metal detector, sign in 

with the security desk, be accompanied by an employee. The 

hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time) and 

show valid identification to enter the building. Contactend at 

2:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time). Please contact Pamela Garrett

at (919) (541–-7966) or at garrett.pamela@epa.gov to request a 

hearing, to determine if a hearing will be held and to register 

to speak if aat the hearing, if one is held. If no one contacts 

the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing If a hearing is 

requested, the last day to pre-register in advance to speak at 

the hearing will be Monday, April 15, 2013. Additionally, 

requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the 

hearing registration desk, although preferences on speaking 

times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you require the 

service of a translator or special accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the time of registration. If 

no one contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing to be held

concerning this proposed rule by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the hearing will be 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Page 14 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

cancelled without further notice. The] a public hearing will not 

take place. 

If a hearing is not requested by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] one will not be held. If a 

hearing is held it will provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning this

noticethe proposed action. The recordEPA will make every effort 

to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because 

this hearing, if held, will be at a U.S. governmental facility, 

individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to 

show valid picture identification to the security staff in order 

to gain access to the meeting room. In addition, you will need 

to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring 

with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to 

return this action will remain openproperty pass to the security 

desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras 

may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will 

not be allowed on federal property for 30 days after the date of 

the hearing to provide an opportunity for submission of rebuttal 

and supplementarysecurity reasons. The EPA may ask clarifying 

questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to 

the presentations at that time. Written statements and 
Page 15 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

supporting information. We will also specify the date and time 

of the public hearing on submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and 

supporting information presented at the public hearing. If a 

hearing is held on April 18, 2013, written comments on the 

proposed rule must be postmarked by May 17, 2013. Commenters 

should notify Ms. Garrett if they will need specific equipment, 

or if there are other special needs related to providing 

comments at the hearing. The EPA will provide equipment for 

commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized slide 

presentations if we receive special requests in advance. Oral 

testimony will be limited to 5 minutes for each commenter. The 

EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy of 

their oral testimony electronically (via email or CD) or in hard 

copy form. Verbatim transcripts of the hearings and written 

statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. 

The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely 

as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for 

the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. 

Information regarding the hearing (including information as to 

whether or not one will be held) will be available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/INSERT WEBSITE ADDRESS 

HERE/actionsttnatw01/woolfib/woolfipg.html and Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Page 16 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/html.. Again, all requests for a 

public hearing to be held must be received by [INSERT DATE 10 

DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?

In 1992, the EPA listed the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

major source category and defined that category to include 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 Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category includes, but is not limited to,

the following processes: glass-melting furnace, marble-forming, 

refining, fiber-forming, binder application, curing and cooling.

Though the listing was for major sources, all of the 

manufacturing process steps described here are applicable to 

both major and area sources. The only difference is that area 

sources use a formulation for some or all of their binders that 

does not contain HAP. This results in total HAP emission levels 

below major source levels, even though the process steps are 

identical for major and area sources., and thus, does not put 

Formatted: Font: Bold
Page 17 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

their emissions above the major source threshold. These changes 

to the bonded lines are independent of and occur downstream of 

the furnace. Also, furnaces located at major and area sources 

have the same emissions profiles. 

Wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities at major and area 

sources 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 gasfired, electric, oxygen-enriched or gas and electric combined. 

The glass-melting furnace is lined with refractory brick 

lining providesbricks, providing thermal insulation and 

corrosion protection. According to industry statements in 

product specification materials and in ICR responses regarding 

refractory composition and furnace design, these bricks may 

contain significant amounts (up to 93over 94 percent by weight) 

of chromium-containing compounds1. The primary component of wool 

fiberglass is silica (quartz) sand, but it also includes varying 

quantities of feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric 

acid, previously melted glass and many other materials. 

Previously melted glass in the form of marbles or crushed 

recycled glass (cullet) is a primary component in most batches. 

 

1 See product specifications from Saint-Gobain corporation (chromium 

refractory product line and SEFPRO) at saint-gobain.com and in the docket to 

this rule. 
Page 18 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

In the first step of wool fiberglass manufacturing, raw 

materials are introduced continuously or in batches on top of a 

bed of molten glass into glass-melting furnaces where they mix 

and dissolve at temperatures ranging from 2,700° F to 3,100° F

(1,500° C to 1,700° C), and are transformed by a series of 

chemical and thermal reactions to molten glass. 

In the second step of wool fiberglass manufacturing, fibers 

are formed using either of two methods: the rotary spin (RS) 

method or the flame attenuation (FA) method. 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 glassmelting 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. Both major and area sources use 

binders. The bonded fibers are then collected as a mat on a 

moving conveyor. Binder compositions vary with product type. 

After application of the binder and formation of the mat, the 

conveyor carries the newly formed mat through an oven for curing 

of the thermosetting resin contained in the binder and then 
Page 19 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

through a cooling section. Some products do not require curing 

and/or cooling and FA manufacturing lines do not have cooling

processes. Low and high-temperature thermal oxidizers are used 

to control emissions of phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol from 

curing operations on bonded lines at major sources.

B. What are the HAP-emitting processes in Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing at area and major sources?

Glass-melting furnaces emit metal HAP, (chromium, cadmium, 

beryllium, manganese, lead and arsenic), which are present in 

the particulate emissions. Particulate emissions are caused by 

entrainment of dust from batch dumping and the combustion 

process and from volatilizationmelting of the raw mineral 

materials. In addition, emissions of chromium also result from 

entrainment of materials eroded from the refractory lining of 

the glass-melting furnace and the glass-melting furnace exhaust 

stack. Several HAP metals, including lead and arsenic, are 

released from the batch materials and from the use of 

contaminated cullet i.e., crushed recycled glass (62 FR 

15238,(June 14, 1999). The)). As shown in Table 2 below, the

total metal emissions from all sources is about 1800 pounds per 

year (1300 from major sources and 500 from area sources ), of 

which 620 pounds are chromium compounds. Area sources contribute 

approximately 150 pounds per year, which includes 80 pounds of 
Page 20 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

chromium compounds; major sources contribute the balance of 540 

pounds of chromium compounds.

Table 2. Total metals and chromium emissions by furnace type and 

source, lb/yr.

Number of 

Furnaces

Total Metals 

Emissions (lb/yr)

Chromium Emissions 

(lb/yr)

Major Area Major Area Major Area

Electric 

Furnaces

21 46 10 10

Gas Fired 8 8 530 70

Total 29 54 760 420 540 80

Glass-melting furnaces may be either gas-fired, electric, 

or a combination of gas and electric. About 80 percent of the 

glass-melting furnaces used in the wool fiberglass industry are 

electric (e.g., steel shell or cold-top) and about 20 percent 

are gas-fired (e.g., air gas, recuperative air gas, or oxyfuel). 

Glass pull rates for glass-melting furnaces typically range from 

20 to 240 tons per day, but can go up to 435 tons per day.

Emissions from glass-melting furnaces are typically controlled 

by baghouses or ESP. Electric glass-melting furnaces typically 

have low PM and metal HAP emissions without add-on controls as a 

result of their design. Operators of these units maintain a 

thick crust of raw materials on top of the molten glass, which 

impedes the release of heat and keeps the air temperature of the 

glass-melting furnace below 300° F (120° C).
Page 21 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Glass-melting furnaces also emit acid gases (hydrofluoric 

and hydrochloric acid) that result from the presence of 

chlorides and fluorides in the raw materials. Total emissions of 

acid gases from both major and area sources are 2724 tons per 

year. (about 19 tons from major sources and about 5 tons from 

area sources).

The forming and binding step is presentoccurs at both area 

and major wool fiberglass manufacturing sources. Emissions from 

the forming and binding step include formaldehyde, phenol, and 

methanol. The majority of theseThese emissions result from the 

vaporization ofoccur post-furnace, when the volatile components 

of the binder as it comes in contact withthe hot fibers and . A 

portion of the binder that is not deposited on the mat but 

passescomponents pass through the conveyor and is exhausted to 

the atmosphere (62 FR 15239, June 14, 1999into the control

device (thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer or scrubber). 

However, at area sources some or all of the binders used are 

formulated to contain no HAP. Though air emissions of these nonHAP containing binders still occur, the overall emissions of HAP 

from binder application are either eliminated or significantly 

reduced (if some HAP containing binders are still used) to a 

level where the facility is now no longernot a major source. 
Page 22 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

As explained in our 1997 major source MACT rulemaking (62 

FR 15229-530), exposure to these HAPsthe HAPs emitted by wool 

fiberglass manufacturing can cause reversible or irreversible 

health effects including carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous 

system, developmental, reproductive, and/or dermal health 

effects. However, chromium emissions from furnaces are not 

affected by the reformulation of the binder. Chromium emissions 

are of particular concern. The effects of inhaling chromium 

depend on whether the oxidation state of the metal is trivalent 

or hexavalent. Trivalent chromium is substantially less toxic 

than hexavalent chromium. Both types of chromium irritate the 

respiratory tract. Hexavalent chromium inhalation is associated 

with lung cancer, and EPA has classified it as a Class A known 

human carcinogen. , per EPA’s classification system for the 

characterization of the overall weight of evidence for 

carcinogenicity.2

 

2 From “Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment”,51 FR 33991-34003, 

September 24, 1986. For more information on chromium’s inhalation 

carcinogenicity: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0144.htm - Section II: 

Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime Exposure. For more information on the 

support for the summary of the carcinogenicity of chromium in EPA’s 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS): 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0144tr.pdf. For the most recent guideline 

document for Carcinogen Risk Assessment: 

http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/CANCER_GUIDELINES_FINAL_3-25-05.PDF
Page 23 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Here, we have a situation where the agency had listed and 

regulated metal HAP emissions from wool fiberglass furnaces as 

part of Subpart NNN, the major source MACT. As explained above, 

many of the area sources at issue were, in fact, subject to 

Subpart NNN, and were required to meet the PM limits (as a 

surrogate for metal HAP) in that rule. These sources are no 

longer subject to Subpart NNN because they no longer meet the 

definition of a “wool fiberglass facility,” since they do not 

use a phenol-formaldehyde binder in their manufacturing lines. 

Recent data provided by industry confirm that the gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces located at area sources emit urban metal 

HAP, including significant amounts of chromium.

C. What is the regulatory history for Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing?

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires the agency to 

list and promulgate NESHAP in order to control, reduce or 

otherwise limit the emissions of HAP from categories of major 

and area sources. Pursuant to the various specific listing 

requirements in section 112(c), the agency published an initial 

list oflisted 174 categories of major and area sources that 

would be subject to NESHAP (57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992). The 

 
Page 24 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing major source category was on that 

list.

In the 1992 listing notice, we provided source category

descriptions and noted that the list, consistent with the 

statute, may be revised from time to time as additional

information became available. The agency also noted the 

requirement to list area sources pursuant to the Urban Air 

Toxics Strategy under section 112(c) and (k). (See 57 FR 31582). 

We proposed the NESHAP for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing major source category on March 31, 1997 (61 

FR15228). At proposal, we explained that we were aware of only

three facilities that were area sources. We further explained 

that two glass-melting furnaces located at these area sources 

had MACT floor level controls. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart NNN (62 

FR 31695). The EPA promulgated the final NESHAP for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing major source category on June 14, 1999 

(62 FR 31695), and those requirements are codified at 40 CFR 

Part 63, Subpart NNN. 

The requirements of the major source NESHAP apply to HAP 

emitted from the following new and existing sources at a wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facility:

1. Glass-melting furnaces located at a wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facility;
Page 25 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

2. Rotary spin wool fiberglass manufacturing lines

producing a bonded wool fiberglass building insulation product; 

and 

3. Flame attenuation wool fiberglass manufacturing lines

producing a bonded pipe product and bonded heavy density 

product. (40 CFR §63.1380).

With regard to the two manufacturing lines, rotary spin and 

flame attenuation, the major source NESHAP provides that a 

bonded product is wool fiberglass to which a phenol-formaldehyde

binder has been applied. (40 CFR §63.1381).

As explained previously, HAP emitted from glass-melting 

furnaces include acid gases and metals, such as chromium, 

cadmium, beryllium, manganese, lead and arsenic. Formaldehyde, 

phenol and methanol are the HAP emitted from forming, cooling 

and curing processes, which are the processes associated with 

the rotary spin and flame attenuation lines. 

The major source NESHAP set standards for PM (as a 

surrogate for non-Hg metal HAP) to address emissions from glassmelting furnaces and formaldehyde (as a surrogate for phenol and 

methanol) to address emissions from the forming, cooling, and 

curing processes. (40 CFR § 63.1382). Thus, the NESHAP regulates

emissions from both glass-melting furnaces and the manufacturing 

lines. The record supporting the major source NESHAP (Subpart 
Page 26 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

NNN) provides that regulation of PM, chromium and metal HAP 

emissions from the glass-melting furnaces would occur 

irrespective of whether the lines were producing a bonded 

product. The EPA did not intend to exempt any major sources or 

incentivize such sources to avoid MACT coverage by producing 

non-bonded products (i.e., wool fiberglass to which a phenolformaldehyde binder was not applied). Rather the EPA

contemplated that the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP would 

regulate emissions from both glass-melting furnaces and rotary 

spin and flame attenuation lines, the latter of which are part 

of the forming, curing and cooling process.3

 

3

For example, in the response to comments document supporting the final major 

source NESHAP, EPA clarified the applicability of the rule. Specifically, EPA 

rejected a request to limit the rule to the manufacturing lines, noting that 

the commenter’s suggested revision “would alter the applicability of the 

rule” such that glass-melting furnaces would not be covered. Further, in 

response to the commenter’s suggested change of the definition of “wool 

fiberglass,” EPA responded that “while the suggested change may help to 

clarify the EPA's intent to cover only manufacturing lines producing bonded 

wool fiberglass products, it would create confusion over the rule's coverage 

of glass-melting furnaces.” EPA stated: “Because the EPA's intent is to 

regulate all glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass plants that 

are major sources of HAP, and not just those melters that feed molten glass 

to manufacturing lines producing bonded wool fiberglass products, the EPA has 

decided to not modify the definition of ‘wool fiberglass’ by adding ‘bonded 

to the definition. The EPA believes that other definitions and the 

applicability section of the rule are clear on the EPA’s intent to regulate 

manufacturing lines that produce bonded products and not non-bonded 

products.” (Emphasis added). See Comments 2.2 and 2.3 of the response to 

comment documents for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category, 

which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
Page 27 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

The major source NESHAP, however, also defined the term 

“wool fiberglass manufacturing facility” as “any facility 

manufacturing wool fiberglass on a rotary spin manufacturing 

line or on a flame attenuation manufacturing line.” (§63.1381). 

As noted above, in order to have a rotary spin manufacturing 

line or a flame attenuation manufacturing line you must produce

a bonded product, which is a product to which a phenolformaldehyde binder has been applied. Thus, a facility that does 

not use phenol-formaldehyde binders does not manufacture a

bonded product, and therefore does not have a rotary spin 

manufacturing line or a flame attenuation manufacturing line as 

defined in the NESHAP. If the facility does not have a rotary 

spin manufacturing line or a flame attenuation manufacturing 

line it does not meet the definition of wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facility and therefore, would no longer be subject 

to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP. Thus, the wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facility definition appears to be in 

tension with the applicability provision, (in 40 CFR §63.1380,

which is described above), to the extent the provision states 

that the requirements of the NESHAP apply to HAP emitted from 

the glass-melting furnaces located at a wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facility (40 CFR § 63.1380).
Page 28 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

As shown in a 2002 applicability determination for Johns 

Mansville (JM), the narrow definition of a wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facility resulted in a determination that a rotary 

spin line that stopped making bonded products was no longer 

subject to Subpart NNN.4

However, the phase out of phenol-formaldehyde binders does 

not reduce or otherwise change emissions from the glass-melting 

furnace. This is because the first step of wool fiberglass 

manufacturing at both major and area sources (i.e., where raw 

materials are introduced) occurs in the glass-melting furnace

and as earlier explained total chromium compounds, arsenic, 

cadmium, beryllium, lead, manganese and nickel are some of the 

HAP emitted from glass-melting furnaces. These emissions are 

different from HAP emissions from the forming and bonding 

section of rotary spin and flame attenuation manufacturing 

lines; which as explained above are formaldehyde, phenol and 

 

4 The determination provided, in pertinent part, “Based on the definitions 

provided in section 63.1381, EPA agrees that if the [rotary spin line located 

at the] JM Penbryn Plant is no longer using a phenol-formaldehyde binder, the 

facility no longer meets the definition of a wool fiberglass manufacturing

facility in Subpart NNN.” Memorandum from Michael S. Alushin, Director for 

Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, 

USEPA to Karl Mangels, Air Compliance Branch, USEPA, Region II, (August 1, 

2002)). EPA also agreed “that as a result of the switch to a non phenolformaldehyde binder, the glass-melting furnace is not subject to Subpart NNN 

since it is no longer located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility.” 

(Memorandum from Michael S. Alushin, Director for Compliance Assessment and 

Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, USEPA to Karl Mangels, Air 

Compliance Branch, USEPA, Region II, (August 1, 2002)). 
Page 29 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

methanol or none of these where a facility has phased out the 

use of phenol-formaldehyde binders. Thus, sources that no longer 

meet the definition of a wool fiberglass facility because they 

no longer use phenol-formaldehyde binders on the rotary spin and 

flame attenuation lines are no longer subject to Subpart NNN. 

However, they still emit metal HAP from the glass-melting 

furnaces. These HAP include total chromium compounds, lead, 

arsenic, cadmium, beryllium, manganese and nickel, which are HAP 

that the EPA has identified under sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3) 

as part of the 30 urban HAP (the “urban HAP”).

On November 25, 2011, the EPA proposed revisions to the 

Mineral Wool and the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 

CFR part 63, subparts DDD and NNN, respectively, to address the 

results of the technology review and residual risk review that 

the EPA is required to conduct under sections 112(d)(6) and 

112(f)(2)(76 FR 72812). The limits in those proposed amendments 

apply to major sources, that is, sources emitting at least 10 

tons per year of a single HAP or 25 tons per year of any 

combination of HAP. 

In the November 2011 proposal, the agency noted that since 

promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP, sources had modified certain 

processes by using non-HAP binders instead of phenol -

formaldehyde binders (76 FR 72777). As noted above, a facility 
Page 30 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

that no longer uses phenol-formaldehyde binders does not meet 

the definition of “wool fiberglass facility” under Subpart NNN.

Many sources that were subject to the major source NESHAP 

(Subpart NNN) have eliminated the use of phenol-formaldehyde 

binders and these sources now emit less than 10 tons per year of 

a single HAP or 25 tons per year of any combination of HAP. We 

understand that 20 of the existing 30 wool fiberglass facilities 

have become area sources through the phase-out of phenolformaldehyde in the binders. However, the glass-melting furnaces 

at these sources continue to emit chromium and other HAP metal 

compounds. As explained above, emissions from glass-melting 

furnaces are completely separate and independent from emissions 

from the bonding portion of the process. Further, while 

replacement of phenol-formaldehyde binders with non-HAP binders 

is an environmentally responsible, or ‘green’ choice within the 

wool fiberglass manufacturing industry, recent data from 

industry show that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces specifically 

continue to emit chromium and other HAP metal compounds, and for 

furnaces located at area sources these emissions are not 

currently regulated pursuant to CAA section 112. 

While subpart NNN applies to wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities that are major sources, today’s proposed rule would 

apply to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at wool 
Page 31 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are area sources

(subpart NN). As explained below in section IV, we are listing 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities that are area sources pursuant to 

section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B).

D. What is the authority for the development of NESHAP for area 

sources? 

1. Authority under section 112(k) area source program

Sections 112(c)(3) and (k) of the CAA require the EPA to 

identify and list the area source categories that represent 90 

percent of the emissions of the 30 urban air toxics associated 

with area sources and subject them to standards under the CAA 

(section 112(d)). Cross referencing section 112(c)(3), section 

112(k)(3) requires the EPA to identify a list of at least 30 air 

toxics that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban 

areas (the “urban” HAP). Taken together, these requirements are 

known as the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy). These are the 

HAP that present the greatest threat to public health in the 

largest number of urban areas (section 112(k)(3)(B)(i) of the 

Act). The EPA is also required to “assure that sources 

accounting for 90 percent or more of the 30 identified hazardous 

air pollutants are subject to standards.” (Section 

112(k)(3)(B)(ii) and section 112(c)(3)). Under the Strategy, the 
Page 32 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

EPA has developed standards to control toxic air pollutants from 

area sources. For the Strategy, the EPA identified a list of 

3033 air toxics in the area source program under which a total 

of 68 area source categories were identified which represented 

90 percent of the emissions of the 3033 listed air toxics. Under 

the Strategy, EPA regulated these 68 source categories of urban 

HAP in 56 subparts of the CFR.5,6

As noted above, section 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) requires the EPA 

to “assure that [area] sources accounting for 90 percent or more

of the 30 identified hazardous air pollutants [the 30 urban HAP] 

are subject to standards.” (Emphasis added). Nothing in the Act 

prevents the agency from going beyond the statutory minimum of 

90 percent. Indeed, to date, we have established emission 

standards for sources accounting for almost 100 percent of area 

source emissions of certain urban HAP. For example, we have 

established emission standards for various source categories 

emitting dioxin, which is an urban HAP, and these categories 

represent 100 percent of area source dioxin emissions. 

To date, the agency has regulatedHere, we have a situation 

where the agency had listed and regulated metal HAP emissions 

 

5 For EPA’s notice on the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, see 64 FR 38706, 38715-

716 (July 19, 1999.) 

6 EPA issued final area source standards in the following FR notices:

Formatted: No underline
Page 33 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

from wool fiberglass furnaces as part of Subpart NNN, the major 

source MACT. As explained above, many of the area sources at 

issue were, in fact, subject to Subpart NNN, and were required 

to meet the PM limits (as a surrogate for metal HAP) in that 

rule. These sources are no longer subject to Subpart NNN because 

they no longer meet the definition of a “wool fiberglass 

facility,” since they do not use a phenol formaldehyde binder in 

their manufacturing lines. Recent data provided by industry 

confirm that the gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at 

area sources emit urban metal HAP, including significant amounts 

of chromium. To date, the agency has regulated only 90 percent 

of sources accounting for area source chromium, manganese, lead

and nickel emissions, all of which are urban HAP emitted by gasfired glass-melting furnaces, and 93 percent of sources 

accounting for cadmium emissions and 99 percent for arsenic and 

beryllium emissions.7 Consistent with the authority provided in 

section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), the agency is listing and 

proposing emission standards for these urban metal HAP emissions 

from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at area sources. 

With this regulation, pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and 

(k)(3)(B), the agency will have subjected additional sources to 

 

7 See. “Technical Memorandum. Emission Standards for Meeting the 90 Percent 

Requirement under Section 112(c)(3) and Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the Clean Air 

Act” From Nathan E. Topham, Environmental Engineer, USEPA February 18, 2011.
Page 34 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

regulation for urban metal HAP, which is wholly consistent with 

the goals of the Strategy. Under the Strategy, we went above the 

90 percent when it was feasible to do so.8 For example, EPA 

subjected 99 percent of sources of arsenic and beryllium 

compounds to regulation under the Strategy. We have no 

requirement to limit our regulation to the minimum of 90 percent 

of sources; we however must subject at least 90 percent of the 

sources of the urban HAP to regulation under the strategy.

As we are adding gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located 

at area sources to the source category list, we are also 

proposing standards for the category.9 See section III.B below 

re:regarding the proposed standards. 

2. Alternative standards for area sources under section 

112(d)(5).

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA may elect to promulgate 

standards or requirements for area sources "which provide for 

the use of generally available control technologies or 

 

8 For the listing notices of the Strategy, see 64 FR 38705, July 19, 1999; 67 

FR 43112, June 26, 2002; 67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002; 73 FR 78637, 

December 23, 2008; and 74 FR 30366, June 25, 2009. 

9 We have made several revisions to the section 112(c)(3) list since its 

issuance: 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002; 67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002; 73 FR 

78637, December 23, 2008; 74 FR 30366, June 25, 2009.
Page 35 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

management practices by such sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants." Additional information on generally 

available control technologies or management practices (GACT) is 

found in the Senate report on the legislation (Senate report 

Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT as:

. . . methods, practices and techniques which are 

commercially available and appropriate for application by 

the sources in the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and 

maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs 

and economic impacts in determining GACT. Determining what 

constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies 

and management practices that are generally available to the 

area sources in the source category. 

In setting GACT, we always look to the standards applicable 

to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine if 

the control technologies and management practices are 

transferable and generally available to area sources. In 

appropriate circumstances, we may also consider technologies and 

practices at area and major sources in similar categories to 

determine whether such technologies and practices could be 

considered generally available for the area source category at 

issue. In this case, the control technologies and managment 
Page 36 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

practices for major sources are transferable because major 

source glass-melting furnaces are no different than area source 

glass-melting furnaces. Finally, as we have already noted, in 

determining GACT for a particular area source category, we 

consider the costs and economic impacts of available control 

technologies and management practices on that category.

GACT differs from MACT in that cost can be considered in 

the first instance when establishing a GACT standard. By 

contrast, when establishing MACT standards pursuant to section 

112(d)(3), EPA must determine the average emission limitation 

achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources 

and the emission limitation achieved by the best controlled 

similar source for new sources, without regard to cost. 

As explained in greater detail in section III.B below, we

determined that GACT standards for area sources should be the 

same as the major source standards proposed for PM and chromium 

on November 25, 2011, pursuant to section 112(d)(6), based on

the similarity between production processes, emission points, 

emissions, and control technologies that are characteristic of 

both major and area source wool fiberglass manufacturing

facilities and considerations of cost10.

 

10 The EPA also considers the costs and economic impacts of available control 
Page 37 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

E. What sources did EPA look to in Assessing GACT? 

As noted above, determining what constitutes GACT involves 

considering the control technologies and management practices 

that are generally available to the area sources in the source 

category. We also consider the standards applicable to major 

sources in the same industrial sector, which is particularly 

relevant here as the control technologies and management 

practices are transferable and generally available to area 

sources. Given the above, it is appropriate to consider both 

major and area sources in assessing GACT. 

In order to identify all wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities we relied on the original listing of facilities from 

the 1999 NESHAP, based on industry comments. Major sources are 

subject to Title V, and are identified in a database used for 

Title V permitting purposes. The agency used this Title V 

database to identify major sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category. There are currently 30 facilities 

in this source category, of which 10 are major sources and 20 

are area sources. Currently, area sources operate 54 glassmelting furnaces while major sources operate 29 glass-melting 

furnaces. We also note that the industry has provided 

 technologies and management practices when determining whether to revise a 

standard pursuant to section 112(d)(6). 
Page 38 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

information that some of the major sources have already filed 

permit modifications with the appropriate permitting agencies to 

become area sources, but the permitting agency has not yet acted 

on the request. 

F. Upon what set of data are the limits for glass-melting

furnaces located at area sources based?

At the time of the November 25, 2011, RTR proposal, the EPA

had information that all glass-melting furnaces emit metal HAP 

in the form of particulate emissions. In addition, at time of 

the November 25, 2011, proposal, the EPA requested information 

through a section 114 information request regarding PM and 

chromium compounds that are either used in or emitted by glassmelting furnaces at facilities that engage in wool fiberglass 

manufacturing. The EPA has evaluated the responses and confirmed 

that over 90 percent of(15 out of 16) of gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces emit chromium compounds at measurable amounts. These

data have been compiled with previously submitted industry 

source tests into a database for this source category and serve 

as the technical basis for this area source rulemaking. 

The EPA reviewed the entire set of data for the wool 

fiberglass manufacturing industry, which includes both major and 

area sources. We conducted QA/QC analyses to ensure data
Page 39 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

accuracy, identified the area sources and arrayed those data 

according to the magnitude of the emissions and control device. 

We considered whether to include all glass-melting furnaces 

in the set of data or only those glass-melting furnaces located 

at area sources. We concluded it was most reasonable to base the 

emission limit on the entire set of data, and not on a subset of 

area sources for the reasons described below.

First, due to the definition of “wool fiberglass facility” 

in Subpart NNN, the set of area sources is constantly growing. 

When facilities change their status from a major source to an 

area source, they typically do so as a result of changes in 

their binder formulation, a process occurring downstream of the 

glass-melting furnace. In 2002, two out of 33 facilities were 

area sources; within 10 years that number had increased 10-fold, 

and by December 2012, 20 out of 30 had become area sources. The 

bonded lines are independent of glass-melting furnaces; the 

binder formulation change does not affect glass-melting furnace

operations, limits or production. 

Second, the glass-melting furnaces in use when the facility 

is a major source are the same glass-melting furnaces operating 

in the same manner as when it becomes an area source. Because 

there is no difference between the glass-melting furnace

operations at area sources and those at major sources, we found 
Page 40 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

no reason to differentiate the glass-melting furnaces located at 

major sources from the furnaces located at area sources. 

Third, there is no definitive cut-off date to determine 

when facilities that are major sources become area sources. As 

discussed earlier, the industry is phasing out its use of 

phenol-formaldehyde based binders, but each company/facility has 

its own schedule for the transition to non phenol-formaldehyde 

binders. As explained earlier, because the HAP emissions 

resulting from the use of phenol-formaldehyde binders place the 

facility in major source status (that is, the HAP emissions are 

at least 10 tpy of a single HAP or 25 tpy of a combination of 

HAP), when a facility discontinues the phenol-formaldehyde 

binder and begins use of a non-HAP binder, it becomes an area 

source, emitting less than major source levels. 

The limits we are proposing in today’s action are GACT 

limits, and are based on the “generally available control 

technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce 

emissions of HAP.” We note that this is the same data set on 

which technology review was based for the wool fiberglass RTR 

proposed rule.11 We therefore propose that the larger industry 

 

11 This is similar to our decision in the Portland Cement NESHAP (74 FR 21155, 

May 6, 2009), where we based the PM, mercury, and total hydrocarbon limits on 

all the kilns used by industry for which we had data because there were no 

differences between kilns located at major sources and those located at area 
Page 41 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

dataset, including glass-melting furnaces at both major and area 

wool fiberglass manufacturing sources, is the appropriate set on 

which to base the proposed GACT limits. 

III. What are the proposed requirements for glass-melting

furnaces located at area sources?

As previously discussed, we have determined the EPA’s 

intent in developing the 1999 Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP was to regulate metal HAP emissions from all glassmelting furnaces, but now many glass-melting furnaces are no 

longer regulated by the NESHAP. Based on industry-provided data, 

these glass-melting furnaces still have the same potential to 

emit metal HAP. However, we have determined that gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities have thecan emit higher potential to emit levels of

metal HAP, and also the potential to emit higher than expected 

levels of chromium than electric glass-melting furnaces. This is 

due to the use of high chromium refractories above the glass 

melt line, and use of these refractories is essential to obtain 

the desired glass-melting furnace life. Also, the industry has 

indicated that the current trend is to replace air gas glassmelting furnaces with oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces.12,13 Oxyfuel 

 sources.

12US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Industrial Technologies Program, Final Technical Report. 
Page 42 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

glass-melting furnaces have the highest potential for elevated 

chromium emissions as discussed further in section IV.A of this 

preamble. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate to add gasfired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities that are located at area sources to the list of area 

sources regulated in the Urban Air Toxics Program. 

The following sections present the applicability 

requirements, emission limits, measurement methods, monitoring, 

notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements we are 

proposing for these area sources. The rationale for these 

requirements follows this section.

A. What are the proposed applicability requirements?

The proposed rule would apply to gas-fired glass-melting

furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

that are at area sources. Gas-fired furnaces include, but are 

not limited to, oxyfuel, air gas and recuperative air gas glassmelting furnaces.

We also considered having the limits apply only to glassmelting furnaces constructed using chromium in the refractory of 

the glass-melting furnace. However, we also learned from the 

section 114 responses that most wool fiberglass glass-melting 

 

“Compressive Creep and Thermophysical Performance of Refractory Materials”. Oak Ridge National Laboratories. 

June 2006; 

13 Oxygen-Enhanced Combustion, Baukal, Charles E., Jr. 1998
Page 43 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

furnaces are constructed of refractory materials containing 

similar chromium content. The potential for chromium emissions

is related more to the amount of high chromium refractories

above the glass melt line and the air temperature above the 

glass melt. The furnace energy source (gas versesversus

electric) is a more reliable indicator of the potential for 

chromium emissions from the refractory than refractory chromium 

content. Therefore, we opted to use the energy source as a basis 

of determining the types of area source furnaces to regulate 

rather than the chromium content of the refractory. We therefore 

propose that all wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces located at area sources should be subject to the same 

emission limit being proposed today, regardless of the chromium 

content of the refractory bricks used to construct them. 

B. What are the proposed emission limits for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area 

sources?

We are proposing a GACT standard of 0.00006 pounds (lb) of 

chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled (0.06 lb per thousand 

tons glass). This is the same limit we previously proposed for 

glass-melting furnaces used by wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities at major sources, pursuant to section 112(d)(6)(76 FR 

72770).
Page 44 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

We found that emissions of glass-melting furnaces, 

including those located at area sources, are generally below 

this limit. Thus, most glass-melting furnaces, specifically gasfired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities, show this limit can be met using generally available 

control technologies and practices. 

We are also proposing a PM emission limit of 0.33 lb per 

ton of glass pulled. This is the same limit we are proposing for 

major sources in this action based on technology review showing 

most glass-melting furnaces using baghouses or electrostatic 

precipitators for PM control. Similarly, PM emissions from gasfired glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities are all below this limit. The above 

proposed limits apply at all times. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 

F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

Finally, because the analyses for technology review and for 

GACT both consider costs and analyze available technologies, and 

because major and area sources share the same control 

approaches, it is a reasonable outcome that the emission limits 

proposed for major sources under the technology review and the 

proposed GACT limits are the same.
Page 45 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

C. What are the proposed measurement methods, monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements for glass-melting

furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources?

To be consistent with the major source rule, we are 

proposing the same test methods and procedures for PM and 

chromium compounds contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.

In order to minimize the burden associated with stack 

testing, we are proposing a reduction in performance testing 

frequency. We are proposing that sources measuring chromium 

compounds in two successive performance tests that are less than 

75 percent of the limit of the rule be allowed to reduce their 

testing frequency (for chromium) to no less than every three 

years. We are also proposing that sources measuring PM emissions 

less than 75 percent of the limit in two successive performance 

tests be allowed to reduce their PM testing frequency to no less 

than every three years. With each of these performance test 

frequency reductions, the reduced frequency benefit is lost if a 

subsequent re-test shows PM or chromium emissions above 75 

percent of the emission standard. In that case, two successive 

performance tests demonstrating compliance below 75 percent of 

the emission limit would be required for a source to, once 

again, qualify for less frequent emissions testing.
Page 46 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

To be consistent with the wool fiberglass manufacturing 

major source rule, we are proposing that glass-melting furnaces 

located at area sources must meet all applicable monitoring 

requirements and all notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.

D. What are the proposed decisions and actions related to 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions?

In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken 

into account startup and shutdown periods, and we expect 

facilities can meet the proposed emission standards during 

startup and shutdown. For gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, 

control is achieved by routing the glass-melting furnace exhaust 

to baghouses or ESPs. During startup, it is common practice to 

start the baghouse and/or ESPs before glass-melting furnace 

exhaust emissions are routed to them. We are allowing sources to 

demonstrate compliance by performing these work practices during 

periods of startup and shutdown.

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 
Page 47 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA section 112 does not 

require that emissions that occur during periods of malfunction 

be factored into the development of CAA section 112 standards. 

Under 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 emission limitation 

“achieved” by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the 

category. There is nothing in section 112 that directs the 

agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level 

“achieved” by the best performing or best controlled sources

when setting emission standards. Moreover, while the EPA 

accounts for variability in setting emissions standards 

consistent with the section 112 case law, nothing in that case 

law requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. Section 112 uses the concept of “best controlled” and 

“best performing” unit in defining the level of stringency that 

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. Similarly, 

althoughAlthough standards for area sources are not required to 

be set based on “best performers,” we believe that what is 
Page 48 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

“generally available” should not be based on periods in which 

there is a “failure to operate.” 

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, 167F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (the EPA 

typically has a wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an 

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 (D.C. 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 for specification in advance by 
Page 49 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

regulation.”). The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with 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 a violation of an emission 

standard. (See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and 

SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Proposed rule, 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/ssm_prop_0

21213.pdf)
Page 50 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

The EPA is therefore proposingSimilar to the major source 

rule, the EPA is proposing in this area source rule to include

an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of 

emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 

63.881 of the proposed rule (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 63.886. (See 40 CFR 22.24). The 

criteria are designed in part to ensure that the affirmative 

defense is available only where the event that causes a

violation of the emission 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 the violation “[w]as caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and 
Page 51 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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 63.882(b) when 

finalized 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 a 

violation occurred...” 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 section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.27).

The EPA included an affirmative defense in this proposed 

rule in an attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types 

of air regulations, to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of 

efforts, emission standards may be violated under circumstances 

beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that “limit the quantity, rate, or 
Page 52 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, the EPA is required to ensure 

that section 112 emissions standards are continuous. The 

affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this 

requirement by ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, 

the emission standard is still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

recently upheld the EPA’s view that an affirmative defense 

provision is consistent with section 113(e) of the Clean Air 

Act. Luminant Generation Co. LLC v United States EPA, 699 

F.3d.427 (5th Cir. Oct. 12 2012) (upholding the EPA’s approval of

affirmative defense provisions in a CAA State Implementation 

Plan). While “continuous” standards, 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 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the 

D.C. 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 
Page 53 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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 

(D.C.Cir. 1973). Though intervening case law such as Sierra Club 

v. EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments call into question 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 violations 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). See also, 

Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. United States EPA, 2012 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 1056 (Jan 19, 2012)(rejecting industry argument that 

reliance on the affirmative defense was not adequate). But see, 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (holding that an informal approach is adequate). The 

affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to 

both ensure that its emission standards are “continuous” as 

required by 42 U.S.C. § 7602(k), and account for unplanned 
Page 54 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

upsets and thus support the reasonableness of the standard as a 

whole."

IV. How did we develop the proposed standards for glass-melting

furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources?

At proposal of the technology review and residual risk 

review of the major source NESHAP in 2011, we proposed emission 

limits for chromium compounds because hexavalent chromium is 

emitted from wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces and stated 

that we planned to regulate wool fiberglass glass-melting 

furnaces located at area sources in a future action. (76 FR 

72770). The highest emitting glass-melting furnace, an oxyfuel 

glass-melting furnace, was measured emitting at 550 pounds per 

year, while other glass-melting furnaces were emitting between

five and 250 pounds of chromium per year. We considered whether 

it was possible for other facilities to emit chromium compounds 

at the level of the highest emitting facility and proposed that, 

under the same circumstances, other wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities could emit at similar levels. We 

reasoned at proposal in 2011 that nothing prevents a wool 

fiberglass company from constructing a glass-melting furnace

identical to the glass-melting furnace with the highest chromium 

emissions. 
Page 55 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

As explained in the November 25, 2011, proposal, the 

industry trade association (National Association of Insulation 

Manufacturers of America (NAIMA) had conducted a voluntary 

survey of companies that manufacture wool fiberglass. The survey 

sought test data on HAP emissions, process equipment, control 

devices and other aspects of the wool fiberglass manufacturing 

operations. With regard to total chromium compounds, the survey 

requested information on the chromium content of glass-melting 

furnaces at different parts of the glass-melting furnace and 

required all glass-melting furnaces to be tested for both total 

chromium and hexavalent chromium emissions. This voluntary 

survey was followed by the EPA’s section 114 information request 

letter requesting test data on total chromium compounds 

emissions from all glass-melting furnaces and information on 

glass-melting furnace design and refractory chromium content. 

A. How did the EPA select the Emissions Sources and Pollutants 

to Regulate?

As previously discussed, wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities emit the following urban air toxics: arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel (PM 

(is regulated as a surrogate for metal HAPthese metals) from the 

glass-melting furnace; and phenol, formaldehyde and methanol

from the binding process. The emissions profile of glass-melting
Page 56 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

furnaces at area sources and major sources are identical. 

However, this is not true for emissions of formaldehyde from the 

binding operation. A facility becomes an area source by 

minimizing or eliminating binder formaldehyde emissions. For 

this reason, we determined that it is not necessary to include 

the binding operation in this proposed listing, and have limited

the listing to chromium and PM as a surrogate for the remaining 

metal HAP from glass-melting furnaces.

The glass-melting furnace design (layout and location of 

chromium refractory), energy source, and refractory age are the 

major factors affecting chromium emissions from glass-melting 

furnaces. 

There are two types of glass-melting furnaces in the wool 

fiberglass industry, gas-fired and electric. Oxyfuel, air gas, 

and recuperative air gas are gas-fired; cold-top electric and 

electric steel shell are electric glass-melting furnaces. All of 

these furnace types emit metal HAP in the form of controlled PM

emissions at similar levels. However, based on new information 

gathered since the November 25, 2011, proposal of the major 

source RTR, we have determined that gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities exhibit a 

greater potential to emit chromium compounds and PMother metal 
Page 57 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

HAP than electric furnaces, and also to convert trivalent 

chromium to hexavalent chromium. 

Table 23 of this preamble presents a summary of the 

chromium test data for wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces. 

The data show a significant range of chromium emissions. All of 

the glass-melting furnace types have some sources that emit at 

very low levels, but only gas-fired glass-melting furnaces show 

a potential to have chromium emissions levels above the 0.00006 

lb/ton glass pulled emissions level proposed for glass-melting 

furnaces. 

Table 23. Range of Chromium Compound Emissions by Glass-Melting 

Furnace Type

Glass-Melting Furnace Type Cr Compound Emissions (lb/1000 

tons glass pulled)

Electric Steel Shell 0.0022 – 00.039

Cold-Top Electric 0.00078 – 0.027

Air Gas .0025 – 0.96

Oxy Fuel .011 – 3.5

Available data indicate that all furnace types use high 

chromium refractory in some areas. However, information provided 

by the industry on furnace design indicates that gas-fired

glass-melting furnaces have a higher potential to emit chromium 

compounds due to the placement of the high chromium refractory, 

the physical layout of the furnace, the size and placement of 

the burners in relation to the sides and top of the glass-
Page 58 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

melting furnace, the depth from the burners to the top of the 

raw materials, the temperature at and above the melt, and the 

oxide concentration of the glass-melting furnace gas 

environment. In addition, gas-fired furnaces show the greatest 

potential to convert chromium to its most toxic form, hexavalent 

chromium, due to the significantly higher temperature above the 

glass melt line of a gas-fired furnace. 

These data (i.e., data submitted by the wool fiberglass 

manufacturing industry on glass-melting furnace type and 

construction materials in response to both NAIMA’s voluntary 

survey and the agency’s section 114 letter) indicate that the 

highest emitting glass-melting furnace is a gas-fired furnace, 

specifically, an oxyfuel glass-melting furnace constructed using 

chromium refractories. However, all glass-melting furnaces with 

the high chromium emissions were either oxyfuel or air gas 

glass-melting furnaces. The section 114 information letter 

required measurements of both hexavalent and total chromium as 

well as identification of the location and chromium content of 

the refractories used in glass-melting furnace construction. 

The reason for the higher emission potential for gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces is due to differences in design, 

construction materials, and operation of gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces compared to electric glass-melting furnaces. A chromium 
Page 59 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

refractory product has the greatest resistance to heat and wear 

of any refractory in use today. The temperatures above the melt 

in gas-fired glass-melting furnaces range from 2500◦ to 4500◦

F, 

while the temperatures in electric glass-melting furnaces are a 

few hundred degrees. Due to their higher operating temperatures, 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces are constructed using chromium 

refractories at various parts of the glass-melting furnace that 

are above the molten glass, including the crown. The presence of 

chromium above the glass melt line, high temperatures, and 

corrosive environment are what cause gas-fired furnace to have a 

higher chromium emission potential. In additionThe chromium in 

the refractory is the source of the chromium emissions from the 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.14 However, other influencing 

factors determine both the rate and magnitude of the chromium 

emissions when chromium is available in the furnace lining. The 

presence of chromium above the glass melt line, the percentage 

of chromium available in the refractory, the rate of degradation 

of the furnace interior, the chemistry of the wool fiberglass 

‘recipe’, the temperature of the furnace, the oxidizing 

atmosphere of the furnace, the placement and proximity of 

 

14 EPA Notes of meeting with Certainteed, April 14, 2011; Industry Meetings 

with EPA on March 19, 2012; April 30, 2012; and December 6, 2012; Email from 

Lauren P. Alterman, Saint-Gobain Corporation, Regarding Chrome emissions and 

refractory bricks, August 6, 2012)
Page 60 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

burners to the furnace wall, and other design and construction 

factors contribute to the corrosion and erosion of the gas-fired 

glass-melting furnace refractory and the formation of hexavalent 

chromium furnace. In addition, the high temperatures result in 

more of the chromium being converted to its hexavalent state

compared to electric furnaces.

Since our November 25, 2011, proposal, we have learned 

that, if a source of reasonably priced oxygen is available, the 

oxyfuel glass-melting furnace is the design favored for use by 

glass manufacturers due to the glass-melting furnace’s low NOx 

emissions (NOx is an ozone precursor), and low energy demands 

per volume output of glass. The low NOx emissions of an oxyfuel 

glass-melting furnace result from the fact that no air (which 

contains nitrogen) is introduced into the high temperature zone 

above the glass melt. Instead, the oxyfuel glass-melting furnace

design mixes the natural gas fuel with pure oxygen for 

combustion, thus reducing NOx emissions. 

The DOE’s office of Industrial Technology, in association 

with industry experts from the glass manufacturing, refractory 

production sectors and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

conducted studies to determine ways to optimize energy uses, 

needs and efficiencies in industrial sectors. In these studies, 

industry experts agreed (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, June 
Page 61 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

2006, p. 9) that oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces will ultimately 

replace air gas glass-melting furnaces by 2020 due to these 

economic and environmental factors. For example, industry 

experts participating in the Industrial Technologies Program

(ITP), under the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy program, described the demands an oxyfuel 

glass-melting furnace places upon the refractory lining: “The 

ITP has recognized that a reduction in overall domestic energy 

consumption will occur if the primary energy-consuming 

industries improve their own energy efficiencies. Recognizing 

this need, the glass industry is currently converting older, 

conventional air-fuel-fired furnaces to oxyfuel firing, or in 

the case of new construction, is building new oxyfuel-fired 

furnaces instead. This has caused oxyfuel technology to become 

one of the fastest growing technologies in the glass industry 

because it promises pollution abatement, increased glass-pull 

effectiveness, capital cost savings, and increased energy 

efficiency. For example, a recent study has shown that 

approximately $202M in energy savings per year in 2005 and a 

$445M per year savings by 2020 could be expected with the 

conversion of air/fuel to oxy-fuel–fired glass manufacturing 

furnaces. These results, which reflect energy savings of 2.8 and 

14.2 TBtu/year, respectively, are based on the projection that 
Page 62 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

61 percent and 100 percent furnace conversions will occur by the 

years 2005 and 2020, respectively.”

Other studies (Metallurgical and Materials Transactions, 

Lee,Y., Nassaralla, C.L., 1998) advise us that, under normal 

industrial temperatures, which can exceed 13000 F., and oxidizing 

conditions, trivalent chromium, which is present in the 

refractory, can oxidizeoxidizes to hexavalent chromium15. It was 

found that uncombined and available oxides were responsible for 

a higher yield of hexavalent chromium. Consequently, an 

increasing concentration of oxides in the oxyfuel glass-melting 

furnace environment increases the formation of chromium from the 

trivalent state to hexavalent state. The condition of high 

oxides in the oxyfuel glass-melting furnace environment is one 

characteristic of the highest emitting glass-melting furnace

(see Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 document number 0067: 

Region 7 Notes on CertainTeed Kansas City. June 10, 2011. 13 

pages.)

Moreover, while the degradation of the glass-melting 

furnace refractory indicates increasing chromium emissions, that 

process does not necessarily follow a normal and predictable 

 

15 Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B. “Minimization of Hexavalent 

Chromium in Magnesite-Chrome Refractory”. Y. Lee and C. L. Nassaralla. Vol. 

28 B, Oct. 1997-pp. 855-859.
Page 63 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

pattern. The degradation of refractories within the glassmelting furnace is a function of numerous factors, including 

temperature, time, stress, and the composite effects of aging 

and creep response. These processes are highly nonlinear, so the 

traditional equations that assume steady-state deformation rates 

are not appropriate (DOE and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, June 

2006 p. 63). 

Although all glass-melting furnaces are constructed using 

chromium refractories (NAIMA letter dated January 28, 2013. 

Industry Meeting Notes, August 31, 2011) at and below the line 

of contact defined by the refractory wall and the molten glass 

within the glass-melting furnace (the glass/metal line), oxyfuel 

and some air gas glass-melting furnaces have other glass-melting 

furnace parts constructed using chromium refractories, such as 

the crown and forehearth. The use of chromium refractories above 

the melt line is necessary to obtain the desired furnace life 

and reduce the necessity for hot repairs of the furnace. When 

the hot, corrosive and reactive gases of a gas-fired glassmelting furnace come in contact with the high chromium 

refractories lining the area above the glass melt in high 

temperature glass-melting furnaces, the chromium is available to 

be oxidized and converted into its hexavalent form. 
Page 64 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

The cost of rebuilding a wool fiberglass glass-melting 

furnace ranges from 10-12 million dollars; most of this cost is 

the cost of skilled labor (C. Davis, CertainTeed Corp., April

2011). While chromium refractories are more expensive than 

conventional refractories, they are only incrementally so (DOE 

and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, June 2006, p. 1). When 

conventional (high alumina/silica) refractories are used, the 

useful life of the glass-melting furnace is about seven years. 

Chromium refractories almost double the useful life of the 

glass-melting furnace. Therefore, industry has a strong economic 

incentive to develop and use longer lasting refractories in 

construction of the glass-melting furnaces. Industry 

spokespersons have indicated that they rely on using chromium 

refractories offering longer glass-melting furnace life, and 

have commented that the EPA should regulate the chromium 

emissions from wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces rather 

than regulate chromium content of refractories. (email from 

Lauren.P.Alterman@saint-gobain.com to persons at the EPA, July 

27, 2012, 10:32 am, regarding chrome emissions and refractory 

bricks).

We have also found that as the refractories of the gasfired glass-melting furnaces degrade, the chromium of those 
Page 65 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

refractories at and above the metal/glass line is emitted as 

particulate to the outside air. Chromium from the refractories 

below the metal/glass line is absorbed into the molten glass and 

becomes vitrified with the other raw minerals. Industry 

commented that refractory loss from degradation of the 

refractory walls in use is approximately 20,000 pounds of 

refractory annually (Minutes of the August 31, 2011 Meeting with 

Representatives of the Wool Fiberglass Industry and NAIMA).

However, much of the loss occurs below the glass melt line. The 

chromium released below the glass melt line is believed to stay 

in the glass.

The facility with the highest emitting glass-melting 

furnace (an oxyfuel glass-melting furnace) submitted chromium 

testing for state inventory reporting purposes over a seven-year 

period. As shown in Table 34 below, those test results are 

extrapolated using permitted production rates to calculate 

approximate annual emissions of chromium compounds. The 

calculations show that in 2004, chromium emissions are estimated 

to be less than five pounds annually. Repeated chromium 

emissions testing for the State reports in 2005 and 2008 and 

permitted production rates for those years show chromium 

emissions increased to 540 pounds per year for the same glassmelting furnace. Emissions testing conducted in 2010 speciating 
Page 66 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

chromium by its compounds show that 93 percent of the chromium 

was in the hexavalent state. 

Table 34. Summary of Chromium Emissions from 2004 – 2010

Year Glass-melting furnace Chromium Emissions at permitted 

production rate, pounds per year

2004 <5

2005 30

2008 114

2010 540

This glass-melting furnace was not reconstructed during 

this seven-year period covered by the chromium testing. This 

indicates that a degradation of the chromium refractory resulted 

in a significant increase in chromium emissions during this 

period. Though we have not identified other glass-melting 

furnaces that have seen this type of significant chromium 

emissions increase, we believe that this high emitting glassmelting furnace clearly demonstrates a potential for increased

chromium emissions for glass-melting furnaces where the chromium 

containing refractory is exposed to high temperatures. While 

thisWe collected source testing for all types of furnaces used 

in the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry. Specifically, 

each air-gas and oxyfuel furnace was tested, and facilities that 

operated identical electric furnaces provided testing for one 
Page 67 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

furnace along with design, construction, and refractory 

information for all furnaces operated. Industry provided 

schematics of all types of furnace designs showing that while 

all wool fiberglass furnace ‘tanks’ (holding the molten 

materials) are constructed of high chromium refractory, only the 

gas-fired furnaces may also be constructed from chromium 

refractories above the molten glass. In our review of all the

data submitted, only gas-fired furnaces are designed in a manner 

that, during operation, may emit significant amounts of chromium 

compounds. We therefore believe that because the gas-fired 

furnaces are the only furnaces in which the chromium refractory 

is exposed to oxidizing conditions at temperatures exceeding 

13000 F., gas-fired furnaces clearly demonstrate a greater 

potential for increased chromium emissions. While the highest 

emitting glass-melting furnace is located at a major source, we 

note, as we discussed in the proposed RTR rule, that there is no 

difference in a glass-melting furnace at a major source and the 

same design glass-melting furnace at an area source facility. 

The thermal, physical and chemical properties of molten 

wool fiberglass cause corrosion and erosion to the refractory 

lining of the glass-melting furnace, and the glass-melting 

furnace must be constructed of materials capable of resisting 

this environment. Because oxygen burns very hot, some of the 
Page 68 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

highest refractory performance requirements in the industry are 

placed upon wool fiberglass oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces (“New 

High Chrome Fused Cast Refractory for Use in Contact With Highly 

Corrosive Glasses”, T.A. Myles and F. Knee, in Ceramic 

Engineering and Science Proceedings, The American Ceramic 

Society, 1986). Consequently, an oxyfuel glass-melting furnace

used to produce wool fiberglass must be constructed of chromium 

refractories because these are the only types of materials 

currently available that are suitable for this use and meet the 

rigorous practical demands of wool fiberglass manufacturing. The 

industry has commented that the use of chromium refractories is 

economically essential to wool fiberglass manufacturing, because 

of normal high thermal and chemical stressors to oxyfuel glassmelting furnaces, chromium refractories are preferred by 

industry for economical and safe oxyfuel glass-melting furnace

operation. Construction using these materials significantly 

increases the life of the glass-melting furnace (see Region 7 

Notes on CertainTeed Kansas City. June 10, 2011. p. 5 of 13.;;

email from Lauren.P.Alterman@saint-gobain.com to persons at the 

EPA, July 27, 2012, 10:32 am, Regarding chrome emissions and 

refractory bricks).

In summary, because of the advantages of oxyfuel glassmelting furnaces over other wool fiberglass glass-melting 
Page 69 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

furnace technology described in the preceding discussions, we 

expect oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces constructed of chromium 

refractories to replace many existing wool fiberglass glassmelting furnaces of other designs (Letter from NAIMA to Ms. 

Susan Fairchild, EPA, January 28, 2013), particularly as sources 

of industrial oxygen are sited near wool fiberglass facilities 

(Oxygen-Enhanced Combustion, Baukal, Charles E. Jr., Prince B. 

Eleazar III, and Bryan C. Hoke, Jr. 1998). 

Emissions of the other metal HAP are very low for electric 

glass-melting furnaces. This low emission potential is inherent 

in the glass-melting furnace design. Electric glass-melting 

furnaces establish a crust on the raw material at the surface of 

the molten glass. They use electrodes which are embedded below 

the crust and within the molten glass to maintain the 

temperature of the melt, while the temperature above the melt is 

low. They also have lower air flows and low turbulence above the 

glass melt. Therefore the potential for metal emissions (in the 

form of PM entrained in the exhaust gas) from electric glassmelting furnaces is much lower than from gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces.

Electric furnaces also do not have the same potential to 

emit chromium as gas-fired furnaces. Although electric glassmelting furnaces are lined at and below the glass/metal line 
Page 70 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

with chromium refractories, they are constructed using either 

non-chromium refractories (cold-top electric) or steel in place 

of refractories (electric steel shell) above the glass/metal 

line. This design is used because electric glass-melting 

furnaces operate with a dry batch cover and are tapped at the 

bottom or end of the glass-melting furnace to draw off the 

molten glass. Raw materials are constantly added to the top of 

the glass-melting furnace in damp form and create a crust on top 

of the molten glass. Steel shell glass-melting furnaces have a 

steel enclosure above glass/metal the line and cold-top electric 

glass-melting furnaces use non-chromium refractories above the 

glass/metal line. The air above the melt inside an electric 

glass-melting furnace is below 3000F, and is not hot enough to 

warrant use of chromium refractories. Even if chromium 

refractories were used to construct the crown of the electric 

glass-melting furnace, the temperature of an electric glassmelting furnace above the glass/metal line is insufficient to 

drive the chromium to its hexavalent state. 

Consequently, electric glass-melting furnaces do not have 

the same potential to emit chromium compounds that gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces have, and accordingly, many of the 

chromium test data collected at electric glass-melting furnaces 

are below the detection level of the emissions measurement 
Page 71 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

method. All the electric glass-melting furnace test data were 

also below the proposed chromium limit for glass-melting 

furnaces at major sources in the November 25, 2011, proposed RTR 

rule amendments.

Gas-fired furnaces also have a higher potential to emit PM, 

and consequently metal HAP. This is because gas-fired furnaces 

require that combustion air or oxygen and natural gas be blown 

into the furnace. This increases the gas flow velocities and 

turbulence above the glass melt tine, which increases the 

potential for particle entrainment in the exhaust gas.

EPA’s original intent was to regulate metal emissions from 

glass-melting furnaces, which at that time included all existing 

furnaces. We have now determined that glass-melting furnaces at 

area source and major source facilities have the same emissions 

profiles. Therefore, it is appropriate to add glass-melting

furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities to the area 

source list, and as previously noted we have the statutory 

authority to do so. However, gas-fired furnaces have a greater

emissions potential than electric furnaces. Metal HAP emissions 

from electric glass-melting furnaces are inherently low, and 

more importantly, the potential to emit elevated amounts of 

chromium are low. Therefore we are limiting this listing to the 

furnaces with the greatest emissions potential, which are the 
Page 72 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

gas-fired furnaces. In addition, due to certain source category 

specific facts, we are proposing limits for both PM and a 

separate limit for chromium. (See Memo to File “Development of 

Background Information on Proposed Area Source Emissions 

Limits”, March 15, 2013.)

Wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces that are hybrid gasfired and electric glass-melting furnaces would be included in 

this action; wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces that are 

all-electric would not be included. Therefore, in today’s action 

we are proposing PM and chromium compounds emission limits that 

would apply to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are area sources. 

Electric glass-melting furnaces located at area sources would 

not be subject to this proposed rule.

In today’s proposal, we are soliciting comment on whether 

to regulate only gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at 

area sources or to regulate all glass-melting furnaces located 

at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are area 

sources. In addition we are soliciting comment on the pollutants 

regulated. 

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule for 

glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

area sources?
Page 73 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

The emission points covered by this proposed area source 

rule were selected to ensure control of chromium compounds and 

other metal HAP emissions from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces

located at area sources. We are proposing to establish numerical 

emission limits in the form of mass of pollutant (chromium 

compounds and PM) per mass of glass pulled through the glassmelting furnace. The same format is used for emission limits in 

both the area and the major source rules. 

The emission limits in the proposed rule provide 

flexibility for the regulated community by allowing a regulated 

source to choose any control technology or technique to meet the 

emission limits, rather than requiring each unit to use a 

prescribed control method that may not be appropriate in every 

case. The EPA solicits comment on the format of the proposed 

standards. 

C. How did the EPA determine the proposed emission standards for 

glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

area sources?

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may the Administrator may, in 

lieu of standards requiring maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) under section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate 

standards or requirements for area sources "‘‘which provide for 

the use of generally available control technologies 
Page 74 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

(GACT)[‘‘GACT’’] or management practices by such sources to 

reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants." In .’’. Further, 

legislative history describes GACT as standards reflecting 

application of generally available control technology, that is, 

‘‘methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 

available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 

category considering economic impacts and the technical 

capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions 

control systems’’ (S. Rep. 101–228 (December 20, 1989). In 

addition to technical capabilities of the facilities and 

availabilities of control measures, legislative history suggests 

that we may consider costs and economic impacts in determining 

GACT.

In this proposed rule, we have determined that area 

sourceare setting emission limits should be set for standards to 

address emissions of chromium compounds and other metal HAP that 

are emitted from wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces. As explained in other area source rules, the agency

has discretion to set standards for all urban HAP. 

(i.e. cadmium, beryllium, manganese, lead, and arsenic). 

In determining what constitutes GACT for this proposed rule, we 

considered the control technologies and management practices 

Formatted: Normal, Indent: First line: 0.5",

Line spacing: Double, Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust

space between Asian text and numbers
Page 75 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

that are generally available to gas-fired wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities that arefurnaces at area sources by 

examining relevant data and information, including information

collected from all known wool fiberglass manufacturing sources. 

We also considered the risk and technology review standards 

proposed for major sources (76 FR 72770, November 25, 2011), to 

determine if the control technologies and management practices 

are transferable and proposed for the major sources are 

generally available to area sources. (See section VI of this 

preamble for a summary of the proposed major source standards 

and section IV for further information on how the proposed 

standards were determined.) As part of the GACT determination, 

we as well. We also considered the costs and economic impacts

of available control technologies and management practices on 

area sources.

As previously discussed, in In setting GACT standards we 

first typically look to the standards for major sources. As 

explained in greater detail below, we determined that GACT

standards for area sources should be the same as the major 

source standards proposed under sections 112(d)(6), based on the 

similarity between production processes, emission points, 

emissions, and control technologies that are characteristic of 
Page 76 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

glass-melting furnaces located at both major and area source 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilitiesgenerally available for 

major and area sources. From the information that we have 

collected duringto date in conjunction with this rule 

developmentrulemaking, which includes stack testing and site 

visits at both major and area sources, we now know that area 

sources have the same types of emissions, emission sources, and 

controls (see control information below) as major sources. 

Information that we have collected to support development of 

these proposed standards indicates that the majority of Gasfired wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces are currently 

located at area sources.

As also earlier explained, available data which was 

collected from major and area sources for development of the 

today’s proposed rule indicate that most of the wool fiberglass

area sources, similar to the major sources, are achieving 

chromium compounds and PM emissions well below the emission 

limits being proposed in this rule. The glass-melting furnaces 

located at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are 

area sources use the same control technologies as the major 

sources. For example, for air gas and oxyfuel glass-melting 

furnaces, the area sources are using the same control 

technologies (baghouses or electrostatic precipitators) as most 
Page 77 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

major sources). The available emission data show no discernible 

differences between area source and major source furnaces. In 

fact, when a major source facility becomes an area source, the 

furnace emission and emissions controls do not change.

Therefore, the control technologies and management practices 

used by major sources are generally available for area sources. 

The data in the record show that all of the gas-fired 

furnaces at wool fiberglass area sources are currently achieving 

a PM emissions limit of 0.33 lb/ton glass pulled. Therefore, we 

chose this level as GACT for PM. All but three furnaces achieve 

a chromium emissions level of 0.00006 lb/ton glass pulled, and 

we choose this emission level as GACT for chromium.16 We believe 

that these data support that the proposed emissions limits 

represent GACT. 

As part of the GACT determination, we analyzed the cost 

impacts and emissions reductions for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces located at area sources. In the case of PM, all the 

gas-fired area source furnaces are currently meeting the 

proposed emissions limit, so there are no costs or emissions 

reductions associated with the proposed PM limit. We 

determinedHowever, the PM limit we are proposing will codify 

 

16 See “Technical Basis for Separate Chromium Emissions Limits for Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces, 

March 15, 2013 for the reason we are setting a separate emissions limit for chromium.

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Page 78 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

current actual current PM emissions levels to prevent any future 

increase in PM emissions.

We recognize that there are currently some furnaces that 

cannot meet the proposed GACT for chromium. However, data are 

available for industries with similar control requirements that 

demonstrate that chromium control technologies are generally 

available. We searched other industries for controls that would 

remove chromium and found that a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 

scrubber is used in both high temperature metallurgical 

industries and in the chromium electroplating industry for 

removal of hexavalent chromium.17 Based on the effectiveness of 

this technology on to two different types of exhaust gas 

streams, we believe this control technology is transferable to 

wool fiberglass furnaces. Though there are currently no NaOH 

scrubbers applied in the wool fiberglass industry, there is 

currently one gas-fired furnace equipped with a PM control 

followed by a wet scrubber for SO2 control. This exactly 

analogous to using a NaOH wet scrubber downstream of the PM 

controls to achieve additional chromium removal. 

Assuming that the facilities not currently meeting the 

proposed chromium emission limit opted to use the NaOH scrubbers 

 

17 NaOH Scrubber Information. Telephone discussion and emails between vendors, 

companies and EPA. Steffan Johnson, Measurement Policy Group. 

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD. 
Page 79 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

to achieve compliance, the cost of the proposed chromium 

emissions limit is $7,600 per pound of chromium. This is a 

reasonable cost per pound given that chromium is an urban air 

toxic and that a significant portion of the chromium emitted 

from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces is hexavalent chromium, 

which is extremely toxic and carcinogenic even in low amounts.

We note that we found $11,000 per pound chromium removed to be a 

reasonable cost in the final Chromium Electroplating RTR

rulemaking, where we regulated chromium compounds (77 FR 59220, 

September 19, 2012). For information on the methodology and more 

detailed results of this analysis, see the memorandum, Costs and 

Emission Reductions for the Proposed Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing NESHAP - Area Sources, in the docket and section 

V.DB of this preamble. The economic impact analysis (see section 

V.D of this preamble) showed that there are no significant 

economic impacts. 

We did consider the impacts of imposing MACT standards on 

glass-melting furnaces located at area sources for both chromium 

and PM. The PM MACT standardimplications of adopting other 

emissions levels for area sources. The proposed limits for area 

sources are identical to the limits we have proposed for 

furnaces located at major sources as part of out technology 

review under 112(d)(6). For example, we note that one furnace at 
Page 80 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

an area source is slightly above the proposed limit, and two are 

well above. We could adopt a less stringent chromium limit for 

area sources based on one area source furnace that is only 

slightly above the proposed limit. This would reduce the number 

of furnaces that currently do not meet the proposed limit to 

two. However, if we were adopt area source limits different from 

the proposed major source limits, major source furnaces which 

become area source furnaces would potentially be able to 

increase chromium emissions. We consider this outcome to be 

unreasonable. For that reason, we have made the area source GACT 

limit and the major source limits under 112(d)(6) the same.

Another alternative would be to adopt standards for area 

sources based on the performance of the best-performing area 

sources -- i.e. a MACT standard for area sources. We examined 

both a potential PM MACT standard, and chromium MACT standard. 

Because there are a number of extremely low-emitting area 

sources, the computed MACT floors would be very low: the PM MACT 

standard for area sources would be 0.0093 lb/ton glass for 

existing sources and 0.0018 lb/ton glass for new sources. The 

chromium MACT standard for area sources would be 0.000022 pounds 

(lb) of chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled (0.022 lb per 

thousand tons glass pulled) for new and existing sources.

However, applying a MACT standard to area sources would 

Formatted: Font: Bold
Page 81 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

potentially require glass-melting furnaces with very low 

chromium and PM emission levels to add controls, at significant 

cost. In addition, this would result in a situation where area 

source glass-melting furnaces would be subject to stricter 

regulations than the major source glass-melting furnaces, which 

we see as an unreasonable outcome. 

The cost per pound of chromium removed would be $34,400 annually 

($250,000 for 10 furnaces that currently do not meet the limit 

to remove 75 pounds of chromium compounds annually). The cost of 

PM reductions would be $480,000 per ton PM removal ($200,000 per 

furnace for a total of $2,400,000 for 12 furnaces that currently 

do not meet the limit to remove five tons of PM annually). 

Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of achieving the chromium 

emissions levels would be about five times higher than the GACT 

standard which we are proposing. These cost effectiveness values 

are significantly higher than any the Agency has accepted as 

reasonable for either PM or for chromium. 

Thus, if the computed MACT floor levels were adopted, 

overall emission levels would not be significantly reduced 

(because most of the area sources are relatively low emitters), 

and the cost and cost-effectiveness of achieving these emissions 

would be significantly higher than the cost of GACT standards 

without significant added environmental benefit. In addition, 

Formatted: Font: Bold
Page 82 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

this would result in a situation where area source gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces would be subject to stricter regulations 

than the major source gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, which we 

see as an unreasonable outcome. Accordingly, we are proposing 

GACT standards for PM and chromium.

For these reasons, we have determined, pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(5), that the PM controlall (or in the case of 

chromium all but three) of the furnaces located at area source 

are currently meeting the proposed GACT emission limits. Control

technologies and management practices necessary to meet the 

proposed major source PM emission standards are currently in use 

at all facilities, including area sources. The control 

technologies for chromium emissions for chromium are generally 

available for area sources in this source categoryfurnaces that 

do not currently meet the proposed GACT limit. Accordingly, we 

are proposing the GACT level of control for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces located at area sources to be the same as the 

proposed MACT level of control for major sources, under section 

112(d)(6) and that these area sources must meet the same 

standards as proposed for major sources..

The EPA solicits comment on the proposed approach. We 

further solicit comment on whether we should issue MACT 

standards for glass-melting furnaces located at area sources 
Page 83 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) in lieu of GACT standards 

under CAA section 112(d)(5) given the significant amount of 

additional information on the area sources that was not 

available to the EPA at the time of the November 2011 RTR 

proposal.

D. How did the EPA determine the compliance and monitoring 

requirements for the wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources

proposed rule?

We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to assure continuous 

compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule and that 

are consistent with the major source rule requirements in 

subpart NNN. In fact, the specific requirements in the proposed 

rule reference the requirements in section 63.1386 of subpart 

NNN. We solicit comment on the proposed compliance and 

monitoring requirements for area sources. These proposed 

requirements impose on facilities the minimum burden that is 

necessary to ensure compliance with the proposed rule.

E. How did the EPA determine compliance dates for the proposed 

wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources rule?

Section 112 of the CAA provides limits for the dates by 

which affected sources must comply with the emission standards. 

New or reconstructed units would be required to be in compliance 
Page 84 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

with the final rule immediately upon startup, or the date the 

final rule is published in the Federal Register, whichever is 

later. The proposed rule allows existing area sources up to one

year to comply with the final rule. The CAA provides that 

existing sources must comply as expeditiously as possible but 

not later than three years after promulgation of the final 

NESHAP. We do not believe that three years for compliance is 

necessary to allow adequate time to design, install, and test 

control systems. All facilities currently already meet the 

proposed PM limit. If an area source must apply additional 

control to meet the chromium limit, we believe one year is 

adequate time given the fact that there is only one pollutant 

involved, and the available chromium control technology can be 

added downstream of the current PM controls and is a well 

established technology. However, sources can always petition

their permitting authorities to allow for additional time to 

install controls pursuant to section 112(i)(3)(B). We solicit

comment on the proposed compliance dates for area sources. 

F. How did the EPA determine recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for the wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources

proposed rule?

Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to develop 

regulations that include requirements for reporting the results 
Page 85 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

of testing and monitoring performed to determine compliance with

the standards. In today’s action, we are proposing sources be 

required to comply with the applicable requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as 

referenced in Table 1 of the proposed rule. We evaluated the 

General Provisions requirements, and included those we 

determined to be the minimum notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting necessary to ensure compliance with, and effective 

enforcement of, the proposed rule. The reports that we are 

proposing to be required are found in 40 CFR 63.886 of the 

proposed rule. 

We also determined the necessary records that need to be 

kept to demonstrate continuous compliance with the proposed 

emission limits. These recordkeeping requirements are specified 

directly in the today’s proposed rule, and in the General 

Provisions to 40 CFR part 63. The recordkeeping requirements are 

found in 40 CFR 63.886 of the proposed rule. We are proposing 

that records be kept for five years in a form suitable and 

readily available for EPA review. We are proposing that records 

be kept on site for two years. Records may be kept off site for 

the remaining three years. 

The General Provisions include specific requirements for 

notifications, recordkeeping, and reporting. The reports are 
Page 86 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

specified in proposed 40 CFR 63.886. 

The notification of compliance status report required by 40 

CFR 63.9(h) must include certifications of compliance with rule 

requirements. The excess emissions and continuous system 

performance report and summary report required by 40 CFR 

63.10(e)(3) of the NESHAP General Provisions (referred to in the 

rule as a compliance report) would be required to be submitted 

semiannually for reporting periods during which there was an 

exceedance of any emission limit, or a monitored parameter, or 

when a deviation from any of the requirements in the rule

occurred, or if any process changes occurred, and compliance 

certifications were reevaluated.

V. Impacts of the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area 

Source Rule

The impacts presented in this section include the air

quality, cost, non-air quality, and economic impacts of 

complying with the proposed rule for wool fiberglass 

manufacturing located at facilities that are area sources to 

comply with the proposed rule.
Page 87 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

A. What are the air impacts for the proposed wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area source rule?

We have estimated the potential emission reductions from

implementation of the proposed emission standards to be 50 

pounds of chromium compounds per year. 

We estimated emission reductions of the proposed rule for 

each gas-fired glass-melting furnace. For all emission points, 

we first calculated emissions at the current level of control 

for each facility (referred to as the baseline level of 

control), and at the proposed level of control. We calculated 

emission reductions as the difference between the proposed level 

and baseline. 

B. What are the cost impacts for the proposed wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area source rule?

We considered the costs and benefits of achieving the 

proposed emission limits and identified five facilities with a 

total of eight glass-melting furnaces that would be subject to 

the proposed requirements. All eight glass-melting furnaces 

would have to conduct annual testing to demonstrate compliance. 

Based on the emission testing conducted in 2011 and 2012, three 

of the eight glass-melting furnaces would need to reduce their 

emissions to meet the proposed chromium compound emission 

limits. We found that the use of a sodium hydroxide scrubber is 
Page 88 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

effective in reducing emissions of hexavalent chromium from 

other industrial processes and that the technology can be 

transferred to this industry sector. We estimated the capital 

cost for a sodium hydroxide scrubber to be $250,000 and the 

total annualized costs, including operating costs, to be 

$100,000. 

Costs are also incurred for compliance testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the proposed rule.

Based on the most recent test data provided, all eight glassmelting furnaces currently meet the proposed PM emission limit. 

Because the scrubbers will be installed on three furnaces, 

the industry-wide total capital investment will be $750,000. We 

estimate that the total annualized cost of these controls will 

be $300,000, in 2011 dollars. The annual performance testing 

costs are $10,000 per gas-fired glass-melting furnace. Since 

there are a total of eight gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at 

the five facilities, the total annual testing cost is $80,000. 

The estimated HAP reduction is 50 pounds of chromium compounds 

resulting in overall cost effectiveness of $7,600 per pound of 

HAP reduced. 

While we do not anticipate the construction of any new wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities in the next five years, we 

do expect most, if not all, of the 10 major source facilities to 
Page 89 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

convert to non-HAP binders and become area sources. However, we 

did not estimate new source cost impacts for any additional 

facilities to avoid double counting the costs associated with 

the major source rule (subpart NNN) with similar gas-fired 

glass-melting furnace requirements. Table 45 below presents the 

costs to wool fiberglass area sources.

Table 45. Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Proposed Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source Standards (NN) in this 

Action

Proposed 

Amendment

Est.

Capital 

Cost 

($MM)

Est. Total 

Annualized

Cost ($MM)

Total HAP 

Emissions 

Reductions

Cost 

Effecti

veness 

No. 

Faciliti

es

Installation 

of NaOH 

scrubber

0.25 x 3 0.1 x 3 50 pounds 

per year

7,600

($ per 

pound)

2

Additional 

testing and 

monitoring 

for glassmelting 

furnaces

0 0.01 X 8 N/A 5

The analysis is documented in the memorandum, Costs and 

Emission Reductions for the Proposed Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing NESHAP – Area Sources, and is available in the 

docket.

C. What are the non-air quality health, environmental and energy 

impacts for the proposed wool fiberglass manufacturing area 

source rule?

We anticipate that three gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 
Page 90 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

would need to apply additional controls to meet the proposed 

chromium emission limits. These controls, sodium hydroxide 

scrubbers, use water. We estimate an annual requirement of 4.8

million gallons per year of additional wastewater would be 

generated as a result of additional water used for scrubbers. 

The energy impacts associated with meeting the proposed 

emission limits would consist primarily of additional 

electricity needs to run added or improved air pollution control 

devices. By our estimate, we anticipate that an additional 1,000

megawatt-hours per year would be required for the additional and 

improved control devices.

We anticipate the secondary air impacts from adding 

controls to meet the standards to be minimal. The combustion of 

fuel needed to generate additional electricity would yield 

slight increases in NOx, CO, SO2 emissions. Since NOx and SO2

emissions and electric generating units are covered by capped 

emissions trading programs, we do not estimate an increase in 

secondary air impacts for these pollutants for this rule form 

additional electricity demand. The combustion of additional fuel 

from additional electrical usage and supplemental fuel for 

incineration devices would yield CO emissions of less than 0.1

tpy. The analyses are documented in the memorandum, Secondary 

Impacts of the Proposed Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP -
Page 91 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Area Sources, which is available in the docket.

D. What are the economic impacts of the proposed wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area source rule?

We performed an economic impact analysis for wool 

fiberglass consumers and producers nationally, using the annual 

compliance costs estimated for this proposed rule. The impacts 

to producers affected by this proposed rule are annualized costs 

of less than 0.01 percent of their revenues, using the most 

current year available for revenue data. Prices and output for 

wool fiberglass products should increase by no more than the 

impact on cost to revenues for producers; thus, wool fiberglass

prices should increase by less than 0.01 percent. Hence, the 

overall economic impact of this proposed rule should be low on 

the affected industries and their consumers. For more 

information, please refer to the Economic Impact and Small 

Business Analysis for this proposed rulemaking that is in the 

docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042).

VI. What are the proposed changes to Mineral Wool Production 

(Subpart DDD) and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart NNN)

major source rules?

On November 25, 2011, the EPA proposed revisions to the 

Mineral Wool and the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 

CFR part 63, subparts DDD and NNN, respectively, to address the 
Page 92 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that 

the EPA is required to conduct under sections 112(d)(6) and 

112(f)(2)(76 FR 72812). Today’s notice also proposes several

revisions, corrections and clarifications to that proposal. 

A. Subpart DDD – Mineral Wool Production Major Source Rule

Based on comments on the November 2011 proposal and new 

data supplied by the industry, we are proposing the following 

revisions to the major source rule amendments: 

(1) In response to the limits proposed on November 25, 

2011, we received raw material content information from the

seven facilities producing mineral wool in the U.S. Of the seven 

facilities, three reported using slag and four reported only 

using minerals (rock) and coke (e.g., “no slag”). Slag is a 

waste by-product from the iron and steel industry and is 

location-specific depending on the type of facility/process 

generating the slag. Some slags have residual fluorides or 

chlorides which vary from location to location and from process 

to process. In response to this information, we are proposing to 

subcategorize the mineral wool cupolas into two categories: 

those that process slag materials and those that do not. Based 

on this subcategorization, we are proposing revised standards 

for HCl and HF. 
Page 93 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

The revised limits being proposed today are summarized in 

Table 56 below:

Table 56. HCl and HF Emission limits for Mineral Wool Cupolas 

(lb/ton of melt)

Pollutant

2011 

Proposed 

Limit for 

all Cupolas

2013 Proposed 

Limit for 

Existing, New, 

and Reconstructed 

Cupolas Using 

Slag

2013 Proposed 

Limit for 

Existing, New, and 

Reconstructed 

Cupolas Not Using 

Slag

HCl 0.0096 0.21 0.43

HF 0.014 0.16 0.13

(2) We are also proposing revised COS emission limits for 

cupolas based on additional information regarding cupola design 

supported by test data provided by industry in their comments on

the November 2011 proposal. In response to the information 

provided, we are proposing to subcategorize cupolas into closedtop and open-top cupolas. The revised COS emission limits being 

proposed in this action are summarized in Table 67 below:

Table 67. COS Emission Limits for Mineral Wool Cupolas (lb/ton 

of melt)

COS

2011 

Proposed 

Limit for 

Existing 

Cupolas

2013 

Proposed 

Limit for 

Existing 

Cupolas 

2011 Proposed 

Limit for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

Cupolas

2013 Proposed 

Limit for New 

and 

Reconstructed

Cupolas

ClosedTop

3.3 3.4 0.017 0.025

Open-Top 3.3 6.8 0.017 4.3
Page 94 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

(3) The formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emission limits 

for combined collection/curing operations proposed on November 

25, 2011, have been revised based on comments and additional 

facility information. The revised limits being proposed in this 

action are summarized in Table 78 below. As a result of new test 

data, limits for vertical and drum collection/curing would 

increase compared to the limits previously proposed on November 

25, 2011.

Table 78. Emission Limits for Mineral Wool Combined 

Collection/Curing Operations (lb/ton of melt)

Curing & Drum Collection

2011 Proposed 

Limit

2013 Proposed

Limit

Formaldehyde 0.067 0.18

Phenol 0.0023 1.3

Methanol 0.00077 0.48

Curing & Vertical Collection

Formaldehyde 0.46 2.7

Phenol 0.52 0.74

Methanol 0.63 1.0

Curing & Horizontal Collection

Formaldehyde 0.054 0.054

Phenol 0.15 0.15

Methanol 0.022 0.022

The updated draft risk assessment, located in the docket 

for this rulemaking, is based on actual emissions currently 

emitted by the industry. Due to new formaldehyde emissions data 

that were provided by the industry our estimate of risk from 

actual emissions has increased slightly compared to the risk 
Page 95 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

assessment conducted for the November 25, 2011, proposal. The 

risk from mineral wool production is driven by formaldehyde. The 

MIR at proposal for actual baseline emissions was 4-in-1 

million. The allowable MIR was estimated to be 10-in-1 million. 

The post control emissions MIR was estimated to be 4-in-1 

million. 

The actual MIR increased to 10-in-1 million, acute 

noncancer HQ increased from eight to 22 and the AEGL-1 increased 

from 0.4 to 1.1 based on the new test data characterizing actual 

emissions. While the risk increased slightly, we note that it is 

still very low, is evaluated using conservative methods, and is 

still well within a level we consider acceptable (that is, less 

than 100-in-1 million). 

(4) We are proposing definitions for open-top cupolas, 

closed-top cupolas and slag. 

(5) The Part 63 GP have been amended seven times since they 

were first promulgated in 1994 (59 FR 12430), and subpart DDD 

cites to the GP requirements as they appeared in 1999. As a 

result, numerous citations to the GP appear in subpart DDD that 

have since changed. In today’s action, we propose technical 

corrections to GP citations to accurately reflect the GP as they 

now appear. 
Page 96 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

(6) In response to industry comments we are proposing to 

remove the requirement for PM testing by EPA method 202 

contained in the original proposal. The PM emission limits were 

based on testing that measured only filterable particulate. 

Including Method 202 as a required test method would measure 

condensible particulate, which was not accounted for in 

determining the PM limit. 

B. Subpart NNN – Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Rule

Based on comments on the November 2011 proposal and new 

data supplied by the industry, we are proposing the following 

revisions to the major source rule amendments: 

(1) At the time of the November 25, 2011 proposal, we 

proposed that all glass-melting furnaces (electric or gas-fired)

located at major sources would be subject to the limit for 

chromium compounds we proposed pursuant to 112(d)(6) and (f)(2).

However, because of information we have developed since the 

November 25 proposal, we are now only proposing to apply the 

chromium emissions limit for glass-melting furnaces to furnaces 

fired with gas. This would include oxyfuel, recuperative air 

gas, air gas, and hybrid electric and air gas furnaces. Comments 

received indicated that a separate chromium limit is not 

necessary for electric furnaces. (See section IV.A for more 

information) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces would be required 
Page 97 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

to limit their emissions of chromium compounds to no more than 

0.06 pounds of chromium compounds per thousand tons of glass 

pulled (6 x 10-5 lb/ton). Glass-melting furnaces emitting at 

rates less than 75 percent of the proposed limit would be able 

to reduce their testing frequency from annually to every three 

years. Glass-melting furnaces emitting at or above 75 percent of 

the proposed limit would be required to test annually, as 

described in the performance test requirements (see section 

63.884) of the proposed rule.

(2) Consistent with our intent to propose PM standards 

resulting from our technology review, under section 112(d)(6), 

we are revising the PM limit for all glass-melting furnaces from 

0.5 to 0.33 lb PM per ton glass pulled. The limits proposed in 

the November 25, 2011, notice (76 FR 72815) were calculated 

incorrectly and did not reflect the technology review results as 

described in that notice. The revised limits proposed in today’s 

action are based on our technology review and reflect our 

analysis of the level of control being achieved by the majority 

of the industry using baghouses and electrostatic precipitators. 

(3) We are proposing work practice standards for control of 

HF and HCl emissions from furnaces, instead of the emission 

limits in the November 25, 2011, proposal. During the comment 

period, we received comment from industry that most of the test 
Page 98 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

data revealed results that were below the detection limits (BDL) 

of the method. Upon reexamination of our analysis of the acid 

gas data, we found that over 80 percent of the HF and HCl test 

data were BDL, and as such we now agree with the commenter and 

believe that rather than a numerical emission limit, a work 

practice standard is appropriate for this case. We are therefore 

proposing a work practice standard for HF and HCl emissions from 

furnaces. (See Memo to File “Development of Background 

Information on Proposed Area Source Emissions Limits”, March 15, 

2013.)

Under section 112(h) of the Act, the EPA may adopt a work 

practice standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard only 

if it is “not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to 

prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control of a 

hazardous air pollutant”. This phrase is defined in the Act to 

apply to any situation “in which the Administrator determines 

that ... the application of measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations.” CAA section 112(h)(1) 

and (2).

The EPA regards situations where, as here, the majority of 

the measurements are below the detection limit as being a 

situation where measurement is not “technologically practicable”
Page 99 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

within the meaning of section 112 (h)(2)(B) of the Act. (See 76 

FR 25046 where EPA proposed set work practice standards for 

dioxins and organic HAP for utility boilers). Unreliable 

measurements raise issues of practicability and of feasibility 

and enforceability (see section 112 (h)(1)). The application of 

measurement methodology in this situation would also not be 

“practicable due to ... economic limitation” within the meaning of 

section 112 (h)(2) (B) since it would just result in cost 

expended to produce analytically suspect measurements.

(4) In the November 25, 2011 proposal we proposed new MACT 

emission limits for RS lines for formaldehyde, phenol, and 

methanol. In today’s proposal, we are revising the emission 

limits for RS lines based on clarification of test data received 

from the industry during the comment period. During the data 

collection phase, we required companies to provide test data on 

bonded lines even if these lines had phased out the use of 

formaldehyde and were not producing a product that was subject 

to Subpart NNN. Many companies did not distinguish between the 

bonded lines that still used formaldehyde and those that did 

not. We mistakenly included some data for HAP-free lines with 

the data for lines still using formaldehyde. Today’s notice 

proposes to correct that error and to propose revised emission 
Page 100 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

limits for formaldehyde, phenol and methanol from RS 

manufacturing lines summarized in Table 89 of this preamble.

Table 89. Emission Limits for Rotary Spin Manufacturing Lines

Existing Sources (lb/ton of glass pulled)

HAP Current Limit 

(1999 rule) 2011 Proposal 2013 Proposal

Formaldehyde 1.2 0.17 0.19

Phenol --- 0.19 0.26

Methanol --- 0.48 0.83

New or Reconstructed Sources (lb/ton of glass pulled)

HAP Current Limit 

(1999 rule) 2011 Proposal 2013 Proposal

Formaldehyde 0.8 0.020 0.087

Phenol --- 0.0011 0.063

Methanol --- 0.00067 0.61

(5) In the original NESHAP, FA lines were subcategorized by 

product (heavy density wool fiberglass verses pipe product). In 

the November 25, 2011 proposal we included new MACT emission 

limits for FA lines for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol that 

applied to both heavy density wool fiberglass and pipe product. 

However, we did not clearly state that we were eliminating the 

FA line subcategories that existed in the original NESHAP. We 

are proposing to eliminate subcategories of FA manufacturing 

lines because we no longer believe that a technical basis exists 

to distinguish these subcategories. As part of rule development, 

industry provided test data that they claimed was representative 

of FA lines for both product types. The 2011 and 2012 ICR 
Page 101 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

response data indicate that only one company uses FA processes 

to produce several different products on the same lines. This is 

the company that provided the test data on which the limits for 

FA lines are based. 

(6) As with the amendments to subpart DDD discussed in 

section VI(A)(5) of this preamble, we are proposing to make 

technical corrections to the GP citations in the rule. These 

amendments would serve to accurately identify the requirements 

of the GP that apply to subpart NNN.

(7) An industry commenter stated that for measuring the 

concentration of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol the use of 

the proposed EPA Method 318 can result in non-quantifiable 

levels that are inappropriate to determine the proposed emission 

limits. The commenter requested the option to determine all 

organics by EPA Method 318 or, alternatively, to determine 

formaldehyde by EPA Method 316; determine phenol by EPA Method 

8270D; and determine methanol by EPA Method 308. The EPA agrees 

that EPA Method 318 may result in non-quantifiable levels that 

are inappropriate for compliance determination. Therefore we are 

proposing to allow compliance testing with EPA Method 318 for 

all organics or, alternatively, to determine formaldehyde by EPA 

Method 316; determine phenol by EPA Method 8270D; and determine 

methanol by EPA Method 308. 
Page 102 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

(8) In the November 25, 2011 proposal, we proposed to 

require Method 0061 to measure chromium compounds. An industry 

commenter stated that most existing compliance tests require the 

use of EPA Method 29 to measure chromium compounds, and asked us 

to allow Method 29 to also be acceptable for measuring chromium 

compounds. We agree with the commenter that Method 29 is an 

acceptable method for this purpose, and we propose to also allow 

compliance testing with EPA Method 29 for total chromium 

compounds.

C. Revisions to startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions 

In the proposed rules for mineral wool and wool fiberglass 

to which this supplemental proposal is added, the EPA proposed 

the removal of the exemptions pertaining to periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, and proposed standards that apply at 

all times. This supplemental proposal does not change our 

general approach to startup, shutdown, and malfunction set out 

in that proposal. 

In our proposal to revise subparts DDD and NNN for major 

sources, we proposed the elimination of the SSM exemption and 

other related requirements, including eliminating the 

requirement to develop and maintain a startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction plan. However, in the proposal notice, we neglected 

to revise section 63.1386(c), which contains planning, 
Page 103 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements related to SSM. In 

this supplemental proposal, we are correcting this oversight and 

replacing prior requirements with recordkeeping and reporting 

appropriate to standards applicable at all times. 

Consistent with our intent to revise the requirements 

related to SSM, we proposed several revisions to Table 1 (the 

General Provisions Applicability Table). The changes in the 

supplemental proposal here correctly correspond to the 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the rule 

revisions as proposed in 76 FR 72770. 

The EPA has attempted to ensure that the revisions we are 

proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or 

redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on whether we have successfully 

done so. 

For subpart DDD we are retaining the requirements that the 

emissions limits apply at all times, including startup and 

shutdown. We are adding requirements that you must not shut down 

items of equipment that are utilized for compliance with this 

subpart. We are defining startup to be when the coke 

interspersed with layers of rock and/or slag and other mineral 

products are ignited. Startup ends when molten mineral wool 

begins to flow from the cupola. We are adding a definition of 
Page 104 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

shutdown to be when the cupola has reached the end of the 

melting campaign and is empty. To demonstrate compliance during 

periods of startups and shutdowns you must keep records

establishing that your air pollution control devices were 

operated at the parameters established by the most recent 

performance test that showed compliance with the emissions

limit.

For subpart NNN we are also retaining the requirements 

that the emissions limits apply at all times, including startup 

and shutdown. We are adding a compliance requirement for startup 

that cold-top glass-melting furnaces would demonstrate 

compliance by melting only cullet until a crust on the batch 

cover has been established and for both startup and shutdown 

that compliance be demonstrated by operating all applicable 

control devices at the same parameters as they were operated 

during the most recent performance test that showed compliance 

with the standard. We are also adding a requirement that all 

other glass-melting furnaces would demonstrate compliance during 

startup and shutdown by preheating the empty glass-melting 

furnace using only clean fuels and by operating all applicable 

control devices at the same parameters as they were operated 

during the most recent performance test that showed compliance 

with the standard.
Page 105 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

As with the amendments to subpart DDD discussed in section

VI(A)(5) of this preamble, we are proposing to make technical 

corrections to the GP citations in the rule. These amendments 

would serve to accurately identify the requirements of the GP 

that apply to subpart NNN. 

VII. Impacts of the Proposed Changes to Mineral Wool Production 

(Subpart DDD) and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Subpart NNN) 

Major Source Rules

A. Subpart DDD - Mineral Wool Production Major Source Rule

Emissions of COS and formaldehyde from mineral wool 

production facilities have declined over the last decade as a 

result of federal rules, state rules and on the industry’s own 

initiative. Today’s proposed amendments would maintain emissions 

of COS, formaldehyde, phenol or methanol emissions at their

current low levels.

We do not anticipate any adverse water quality or solid 

waste impacts from the proposed amendments to the 1999 MACT rule 

because the proposed requirements would not change the existing 

requirements that impact water quality or solid waste.

The estimated cost impacts have been reduced from those in 

the November 25, 2011, proposal. In the November 2011 RTR 

proposal, we estimated the total annualized costs from the rule 

as $548,000. Those cost estimates included $360,000 for low 
Page 106 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

sulfur coke and other raw materials and $243,000 for additional 

testing and monitoring. In that proposal, annual testing was 

required for sources to comply with the rule. In this 

supplemental proposal, we reevaluated those costs and the 

compliance testing frequency, and the costs presented below in 

Table 10 wholly replace those estimated in the November 2011 

proposed rule. As explained in section VI.A., the EPA is 

establishing subcategories for mineral wool based on (1) whether 

slag is included in the raw materials melted in the cupola(s), 

and (2) whether the line has a closed-top cupola or an open-top 

cupola. All existing lines with closed-top cupolas are fitted 

with RTO which 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 0.03 lb COS per ton melt when an RTO is installed for 

energy recovery and new source MACT for closed-top cupolas is 

based upon the use of this technology. Open-top cupolas do not 

accommodate RTO. Today’s proposed rule establishes a limit of 

4.3 lbs COS per ton melt for new lines with open-top cupolas, 

and 6.8 lbs COS per ton melt for existing lines. All lines 

currently in operation can meet this limit without new control 
Page 107 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

equipment or different input materials, and thus will not incur 

additional costs.

The total annualized costs for these proposed amendments 

are estimated at $59,200 (2011 dollars) for additional testing 

and monitoring. Table 9Note also that the incremental cost

impacts for today’s proposed rule are about 10 percent of those 

proposed in November 2011. This reduction in cost is due to two 

factors. First, we have subcategorized cupolas according to 

design and use of slag. Second, cost changes for testing and 

monitoring are due to a reduced frequency of testing: from 

annual required under the proposed rule to testing every five 

years under this supplemental proposal. Other differences also 

affect the cost comparison. These include one new source in the 

source category (Roxul in Mississippi) and the change from cost 

estimates based upon 2010 dollars to 2011 dollars. Table 10

below provides a summary of the estimated costs and emissions 

reductions associated with today’s proposed amendments to the 

Mineral Wool Production NESHAP.

Table 910. 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

Additional 0 0.059 N/A N/A
Page 108 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

testing and 

monitoring

B. Subpart NNN - Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Rule

We evaluated the impacts to the affected sources based on 

all available information. Two significant sources were the 2010 

and 2011/2012 emissions testing and subsequent conversations 

with NAIMA and individuals operating industry facilities. 

According to the 2010 and 2012 emissions test data, there are 

three glass-melting furnaces at two facilities that do not meet 

the proposed chromium compound emission limit. 

Our assessment of impacts is based on the data from tested 

glass-melting furnaces only, and may not be representative of 

untested glass-melting furnaces. We anticipate that 10 of the 30 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities currently operating in 

the United States are currently major sources and would be 

affected by these proposed amendments. We estimate that two of 

the 10 wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major 

sources would install air pollution controls. 

We expect that today’s proposed RTR amendments would result 

in reductions of 442 pounds of chromium compounds. Hexavalent 

chromium can be as much as 93 percent of the total chromium 

compounds emitted from wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces. 
Page 109 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

We believe that all affected facilities will be able to 

comply with the today’s proposed work practice standards for HF 

and HCl without additional controls, and that there will be no 

measurable reduction in emissions of these gases. Also, we 

anticipate that there will be no reductions in PM emissions due 

to these proposed PM standards because all sources currently 

meet the revised PM limit.

Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts 

that will result from the increased electricity usage associated 

with the operation of control devices. We do not anticipate 

significant secondary impacts from the proposed amendments to 

the Wool Fiberglass MACT.

The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on 

the ability of each facility to meet the proposed emissions 

limits for PM, chromium compounds, formaldehyde, phenol and 

methanol. The memorandum, Cost Impacts of the Proposed NESHAP 

RTR Amendments 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 today’s proposed amendments, eight of the 10 major 

source wool fiberglass facilities will not to incur any capital 

costs to comply with the proposed emissions limits. Five

facilities would be subject to new costs for compliance testing 
Page 110 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

on gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, which will total $80,000 

annually for the entire industry. At this time, there are two

facilities with a total of three gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces that do not meet the proposed emissions limit for 

chromium compounds. We anticipate that these facilities would 

install a sodium hydroxide scrubber on each of three glassmelting furnaces, for a total capital cost of $750,000. The 

total annualized cost for the scrubbers, including operating and 

maintenance costs, is estimated to be $300,000. There are a 

total of eight gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at five 

major source facilities. Annual performance testing costs would 

be $10,000 per glass-melting furnace, resulting in total glassmelting furnace testing costs of $80,000.

The 10 major source facilities would incur total annualized 

costs of $80,400 for additional compliance testing on their FA 

and RS manufacturing lines and six of those facilities would 

incur a total cost of $750,000 for operation and maintenance of

their existing thermal oxidizers due to the proposed rule

emission limits. The total annualized costs for the proposed 

amendments are estimated at $1.21 million (2011 dollars). 

Table 1011 below summarizes the costs and emission 

reductions associated with the proposed amendments. 
Page 111 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

Table 1011. Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Proposed Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Source Standards (NNN) in this 

Action

Proposed 

Amendment

Est.

Capital 

Cost 

($MM)

Est. Total 

Annualized

Cost ($MM)

Total HAP 

Emissions 

Reductions

Cost 

Effecti

veness 

No. 

Faciliti

es

Gas-Fired Glass-Melting Furnaces 

Installation 

of NaOH 

scrubber

0.25 x 3 0.1 x 3 455 pounds 

per year

835

($ per 

pound)

2

Additional 

testing and 

monitoring 

for gasfired glassmelting 

furnaces

0 0.01 x 8 N/A 5

RS and FA Manufacturing Lines

Operation 

and 

Maintenance 

of thermal 

oxidizer

0 0.750 123 tons 

per year

6750

($ per 

ton)

6

Additional 

testing and 

monitoring 

for FA and 

RS lines 

0 0.080 N/A 10

VIII. 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 or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA

submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order
Page 112 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

12866 and Executive Order 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.

In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is 

contained in Costs and Emission Reductions for the Proposed Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP - Area Source, in Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. A copy of the analysis is available in the 

docket for this action and the analysis is briefly summarized in 

section V.B of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR No. 2432.01.

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 emission 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 
Page 113 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR 

part 2, subpart B.

The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of 

the control devices, and some notifications or reports beyond 

those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping 

requirements require only the specific information needed to 

determine compliance. The information collection activities in 

this ICR include the following: performance tests, operating 

parameter monitoring, preparation of a site-specific monitoring 

plan, monitoring and inspection, one-time and periodic reports, 

and the maintenance of records. Some information collection 

activities included in the NESHAP may occur within the first

three years, and are presented in this burden estimate, but may 

not occur until four or five years following promulgation of the 

proposed standards for some affected sources. To be conservative 

in our estimate, the burden for these items is included in this 

ICR. An initial notification is required to notify the 

Designated Administrator of the applicability of this subpart, 

and to identify gas-fired glass-melting furnaces subject to this 

subpart. A notification of performance test must be submitted, 

and a site-specific test plan written for the performance test, 

along with a monitoring plan. Following the initial performance 
Page 114 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

test, you must submit a notification of compliance status that 

documents the performance test and the values for the operating 

parameters. A periodic report submitted every six months 

documents the values for the operating parameters and 

deviations. Owners or operators of wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities are required to keep records of certain parameters 

and information for a period of five years. The annual testing, 

annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 

collection (averaged over the first three years after the 

effective date of the standards) is estimated to be $32,808. 

This includes 77 labor hours per year at a total labor cost of 

$6,088 per year, and total non-labor capital costs of $26,720

per year. This estimate includes initial and annual performance 

tests, conducting and documenting semiannual excess emission 

reports, maintenance inspections, developing a monitoring plan, 

notifications, and recordkeeping. Monitoring and testing cost 

were also included in the cost estimates presented in the 

control costs impacts estimates in section V of this preamble. 

The total burden for the Federal government (averaged over the 

first three years after the effective date of the standard) is 

estimated to be 16 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $695

per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Page 115 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

When a malfunction occurs, sources must report them 

according to the applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart NN. An affirmative defense to civil penalties 

for violations of emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions is available to a source if it can demonstrate that 

certain criteria and requirements are satisfied. The criteria 

ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where the 

event that causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the 

narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (e.g., sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor 

maintenance or careless operation) and where the source took 

necessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source 

must meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For 

example, the source must prepare a written root cause analysis 

and submit a written report to the Administrator documenting 

that it has met the conditions and requirements for assertion of 

the affirmative defense. The EPA considered whether there might 

be any burden associated with the notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements associated with the assertion of the 

affirmative defense. Any such burdens are only incurred if there 

has been a violation and a source chooses to take advantage of 

the affirmative defense. Therefore, the EPA estimates that there 

would be no additional costs for sources that choose to take 
Page 116 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

advantage of the affirmative defense for malfunctions since it 

is already required for compliance with the rule. However, there 

may be other malfunctions that are not currently regulated under 

the part 61 NESHAP that might prompt a source to take advantage 

of an affirmative defense. 

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 the ICR that 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, including the root cause analysis, 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 a violation 

of an emission 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 
Page 117 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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 estimate the number of malfunctions 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 violations caused by 

malfunctions would result in the source choosing to assert the 

affirmative defense. 

Thus, we expect 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 

estimate no more than one such occurrence will occur per year 

for all sources subject to subpart NN over the 3-year period 

covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information on such 

events in the future and will revise this estimate as better 

information becomes available.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
Page 118 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

required to respond to, a collection of information 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.

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-2010-1042. Submit any 

comments related to the ICR to the EPA and the OMB. See 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to 

submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to 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 EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best 

assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [INSERT

DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
Page 119 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, or any other statute, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include 

small businesses, small organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the SBA’s regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; 

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 

that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. For this 

source category, which has the general NAICS code 327993 (i.e., 

Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing), the 

SBA small business size standard is 750 employees according to 

the SBA small business standards definitions. 
Page 120 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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 seven Mineral 

Wool Production parent companies affected in this proposed rule 

are considered to be small entities per the definition provided 

in this section. There are no small businesses in the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. We estimate that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on any 

of those companies. 

While there are some costs imposed on affected small 

businesses as a result of this rulemaking, the costs associated 

with today’s action are less than the costs associated with the 

limits proposed on November 25, 2011. Specifically, the cost to 

small entities in the Mineral Wool Production source category 

due to the changes in COS, HF, and HCl are lower as compared to 

the limits proposed on November 25, 2011. None of the five small 

mineral wool parent companies are 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 
Page 121 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

affected NAICS code (NAICS 327993). Therefore, we have 

determined that the impacts for this proposed rule do not 

constitute a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities. 

Although these proposed rules would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the 

EPA nonetheless has tried to mitigate the impact that these 

rules would have on small entities. The actions we are proposing 

to take to mitigate impacts on small businesses include less 

frequent compliance testing for the entire mineral wool industry 

and subcategorizing the Mineral Wool Production Source Category 

in developing the proposed COS, HF and HCl emissions limits than 

originally required in the November 25, 2011, proposal. For more 

information, please refer to the economic impact and small 

business analysis that is in the docket.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 

in any one year. The total annualized cost of these rules is 

estimated to be no more than $150,000 (2011$) in any one year. 

Thus, these rules are not subject to the requirements of 
Page 122 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA, because they contain no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. These rules only impact mineral wool and wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities, and, thus, do not impact 

small governments uniquely or significantly. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action 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. The proposed rules impose requirements on owners and 

operators of specified major and area sources, and not on State 

or local governments. There are no wool fiberglass manufacturing

facilities or mineral wool production facilities owned or 

operated by State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

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 action from State and local officials.
Page 123 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The 

proposed rules impose requirements on owners and operators of 

specified area and major sources, and not tribal governments. 

There are no wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities or mineral 

wool production facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal 

governments. 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

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it is based solely on technology 

performance.
Page 124 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it 

is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. The EPA estimates that 

the requirements in this proposed action would cause most wool 

fiberglass manufacturers to modify existing air pollution 

control devices (e.g., increase the horsepower of their wet 

scrubbers) or install and operate new control devices, resulting 

in a small increase in the megawatt-hours per year of additional 

electricity being used.

Given the negligible change in energy consumption resulting 

from this proposed action, the EPA does not expect any 

significant price increase for any energy type. The cost of 

energy distribution should not be affected by this proposed 

action at all since the action would not affect energy 

distribution facilities. We also expect that any impacts on the 

import of foreign energy supplies, or any other adverse outcomes 

that may occur with regards to energy supplies, would not be 

significant. We, therefore, conclude that if there were to be 

any adverse energy effects associated with this proposed action, 

they would be minimal. 
Page 125 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA, Public Law No. 104-113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (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 VCS bodies. The 

NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore,

the agency conducted searches for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Area Source 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 NN, searches were conducted 

for EPA Methods 5 and 29. The search did not identify any other 

VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of 

EPA reference methods. 

We proposed VCS under the NTTAA for Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing (NNN) and for Mineral Wool Production (DDD) in 
Page 126 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

November 2011. Commenters asked to have the option to use other 

EPA methods to measure their emissions for compliance purposes. 

These are not VCS and as such are not subject to this 

requirement.

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 environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations,
Page 127 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

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. 

An analysis of demographic data shows that the average 

percentage of minorities, percentages of the population below 

the poverty level, and the percentages of the population 17 

years old and younger, in close proximity to the sources, are 

similar to the national averages, with percentage differences of 

3, 1.8, and 1.7, respectively, at the 3-mile radius of concern. 

These differences in the absolute number of percentage points 

from the national average indicate a 9.4-percent, 14.4-percent, 

and 6.6-percent over-representation of minority populations, 

populations below the poverty level, and the percentages of the 

population 17 years old and younger, respectively.

In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources, the EPA used census data at 

the block group level to identify demographics of the 

populations considered to be living near affected sources, such 

that they have notable exposures to current emissions from these 

sources. In this approach, the EPA reviewed the distributions of 

different socio-demographic groups in the locations of the 

expected emission reductions from this rule. The review 
Page 128 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

identified those census block groups with centroids within a 

circular distance of a 0.5, three, and five miles of affected 

sources, and determined the demographic and socio-economic 

composition (e.g., race, income, education, etc.) of these 

census block groups. The radius of three miles (or approximately

five kilometers) has been used in other demographic analyses 

focused on areas around potential sources.18,19,20,21 There was 

only one census block group with its centroids within 0.5 miles 

of any source affected by the proposed rule. The EPA’s 

demographic analysis has shown that these areas, in aggregate,

have similar proportions of American Indians, African-Americans, 

Hispanics, and “Other and Multi-racial” populations to the 

national average. The analysis also showed that these areas, in 

aggregate, had similar proportions of families with incomes 

below the poverty level as the national average, and similar 

populations of children 17 years of age and younger.22

 

18 U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics of People Living 

Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government Printing Office; 1995.

19 Mohai P, Saha R. Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic Disparities in 

Environmental Justice Research. Demography. 2006;43(2): 383–399.

20 Mennis J. Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze 

Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for Environmental Justice 

Analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 2002;83(1):281-297.

21 Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste and Race at 

Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.

22 The results of the demographic analysis are presented in Review of 

Environmental Justice Impacts: Polyvinyl Chloride, September 2010, a copy of 

which is available in the docket.
Page 129 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

The EPA defines Environmental Justice to include meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national 

origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and polices. To promote meaningful involvement, the 

EPA has developed a communication and outreach strategy to 

ensure that interested communities have access to this proposed 

rule, are aware of its content, and have an opportunity to 

comment during the comment period. During the comment period, 

the EPA will publicize the rulemaking via environmental justice

newsletters, Tribal newsletters, environmental justice

listservs, and the Internet, including the EPA Office of Policy 

Rulemaking Gateway website 

(http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/). The EPA will also 

conduct targeted outreach to environmental justice communities,

as appropriate. Outreach activities may include providing 

general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this important for 

my community) for environmental justice community groups, and 

conducting conference calls with interested communities. In 

addition, State and Federal permitting requirements will provide 

State and local governments, and members of affected communities 

the opportunity to provide comments on the permit conditions

associated with permitting the sources affected by the proposed 
Page 130 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft 2/21/2013

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review ***

rule.
Page 131 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass 

manufacturing.

______________________

Dated:

_______________________

Bob Perciasepe

Acting Administrator 
Page 132 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

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.

Subpart DDD – [AMENDED]

2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(10) 

to read as follows:

(p) * * *

(10) Method 8270D (SW-846-8270D) – Semivolatile Organic 

Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), IBR 

approved for §63.1385.

3. Section 63.1178 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a)(2); and

b. Adding paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5).

The revisions and additions read as follows: 

§ 63.1178 For cupolas, what standards must I meet?

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 
Page 133 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(2) Limit emissions of carbonyl sulfide (COS) from each 

existing, new, or reconstructed closed-top cupola to the 

following:

(i) 3.4 lb of COS per ton melt or less for existing closedtop cupolas.

(ii) 0.025 lb of COS per ton melt or less for new or 

reconstructed closed-top cupolas. 

(3) Limit emissions of COS from each existing, new, or 

reconstructed open-top cupola to the following:

(i) 6.8 lb of COS per ton melt or less for existing opentop cupolas.

(ii) 4.3 lb of COS per ton melt or less for new or 

reconstructed open-top cupolas. 

(4) Limit emissions of hydrogen fluoride (HF) from each 

existing, new, or reconstructed cupola to the following: 

(i) 0.16 lb of HF per ton of melt or less for cupolas using 

slag as a raw material. 

(ii) 0.13 lb of HF per ton of melt or less for cupolas that 

do not use slag as a raw material.

(5) Limit emissions of hydrogen Chloride (HCl) from each 

existing, new, or reconstructed cupola to the following: 

(i) 0.21 lb of HCl per ton of melt or less for cupolas 

using slag as a raw material. 
Page 134 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(ii) 0.43 lb of HCl per ton of melt or less for cupolas 

that do not use slag as a raw material.

* * * * *

4. Section 63.1179 is amended by revising the section 

heading and revising paragraphs (a) and (b) 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) 0.18 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less, 

(ii) 1.3 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and 

(iii) 0.48 lb of methanol per ton melt or less. 

(2) For combined horizontal collection/curing operations:

(i) 0.054 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less, 

(ii) 0.15 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and 

(iii) 0.022 lb of methanol per ton melt or less. 

(3) For combined vertical collection/curing operations:

(i) 2.7 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt or less, 

(ii) 0.74 lb of phenol per ton melt or less, and 

(iii) 1.0 lb of methanol per ton melt or less. 
Page 135 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(b) You must meet the following operating limits for each 

combined collection/curing operations subcategory:

* * * * *

5. Section 63.1180 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)

and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§63.1180 When must I meet these standards?

* * * * *

(d) At all times, you must operate and maintain any 

affected source, including associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 

emissions. Determination of whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used will be based on 

information available to the Administrator which may include, 

but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 

records, and inspection of the source.

(e) Affirmative defense for violation of emission standards 

during malfunction. In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in §63.1197, you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations of such 

standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 

63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed if you fail to meet 
Page 136 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

your burden of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief. 

(1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the 

affirmative defense in any action to enforce such a standard, 

you must timely meet the reporting requirements in §63.1191 of 

this subpart, and must prove by a preponderance of evidence 

that:

(i) The violation: 

(A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable 

failure of air pollution control 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) Was not part of a recurring pattern indicative of 

inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and

(ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred; and

(iii) The frequency, amount, and duration of the violation 

(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 

practicable; and
Page 137 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(iv) If the violation 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 violation 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 violation 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 violation resulting 

from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also 

specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, 

the amount of any emissions that were the result of the 

malfunction. 
Page 138 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense must submit a written report to the 

Administrator with all necessary supporting documentation that 

explains how it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph 

(1) of this section. This affirmative defense report shall be 

included in the first periodic compliance, deviation report or 

excess emission report otherwise required after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard (which may 

be the end of any applicable averaging period). If such 

compliance, deviation report or excess emission report is due 

less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, 

the affirmative defense report may be included in the second 

compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after 

the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant 

standard. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.1196 is amended by adding definitions in 

alphabetical order, for “closed-top cupola,” “combined 

collection/curing operations,” and “open-top cupola” to read as 

follows:

§63.1196 What definitions should I be aware of?

* * * * * 
Page 139 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Closed-top cupola means a cupola that operates as a closed 

(process) system and has a restricted air flow rate. 

Combined collection/curing operations means the combination 

of fiber collection operations and curing ovens used to make 

bonded products.

Open-top cupola means a cupola that is open to the outside 

air and operates with an air flow rate that is unrestricted and 

at low pressure.

* * * * *

7. Section 63.1197 was added to read as follows:

§63.1197 Startups and shutdowns. 

(a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all 

times.

(b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are 

utilized for compliance with this subpart.

(c) Startup begins when the coke interspersed with layers 

of rock and/or slag and other mineral products are ignited. 

Startup ends when molten mineral wool begins to flow from the 

cupola. 

(d) Shutdown begins when the cupola has reached the end of 

the melting campaign and is empty. No mineral wool glass 

continues to flow from the cupola during shutdown.
Page 140 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(e) For a new or existing affected source, to demonstrate 

compliance with the cupola emission limits in §63.1178 during 

periods of startups and shutdowns records establishing that your 

air pollution control devices were operated at the parameters 

established by the most recent performance test that showed 

compliance with the standard may be used to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit.

* * * * *

8. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 includes technical 

corrections to the General Provisions and revisions based on 

these proposed rule amendments and is revised to read as 

follows: 

Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63—Applicability of General 

Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart DDD 

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

DDDN

Explanation

* * * * * * *

63.1(a)(6) Yes

63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9) No [Reserved].

63.1(a)(10)-

(a)(12)

Yes

63.1(b)(1) Initial 

Applicability 

Determination

Yes
Page 141 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

DDDN

Explanation

63.1(b)(2) No [Reserved].

63.1(b)(3) Yes

* * * * * * *

63.1(c)(3)-(c)(4) No [Reserved].

63.1(c)(5) Yes

* * * * * * *

63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2) Prohibited 

Activities

Yes

63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5) No [Reserved].

* * * * * * *

63.5(b)(3)-(b)(4) Yes

63.5(b)(5) No [Reserved].

63.5(b)(6) Yes

* * * * * * *

63.6(e)(1)(i) General Duty to 

minimize emissions

No See §63.1180(d) 

for general duty 

requirement.

63.6(e)(1)(ii) Requirement to 

correct 

malfunctions as 

soon as possible

No §63.1187(b) 

specifies 

additional 

requirements.

63.6(e)(1)(iii) Yes
Page 142 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

DDDN

Explanation

63.6(e)(2) No [Reserved].

63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown 

Malfunction (SSM)

Plan

No Startups and 

shutdowns 

addressed in 

§63.1197.

* * * * * * *

63.6(f)(1) SSM exemption No

* * * * * * *

63.6(h)(1) SSM exemption No

* * * * * * *

63.7(e)(1) Performance 

testing

No See §63.1180.

* * * * * * *

63.7(g)(1) Data Analysis Yes

63.7(g)(2) No [Reserved].

63.7(g)(3) Yes

* * * * * * *
Page 143 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

DDDN

Explanation

63.8(c)(1)(i) General duty to 

minimize emissions 

and CMS operation

No See §63.1180(e) 

for general duty 

requirement.

* * * * * * *

63.8(c)(1)(iii) Requirement to 

develop SSM Plan 

for CMS

No

* * * * * * *

63.8(d)(3) Written procedures 

for CMS

Yes, 

except 

for last 

sentence, 

which 

refers to 

SSM plan. 

SSM plans 

are not 

required.

* * * * * * *

63.9(b)(1)-(b)(2) Initial 

Notifications

Yes

63.9(b)(3) No [Reserved].

63.9(b)(4)-(b)(5) Yes

* * * * * * *

63.10(b)(2)(i) Recordkeeping of 

occurrence and 

duration of 

startups and 

shutdowns 

No

63.10(b)(2)(ii) Recordkeeping of 

malfunctions

No See §63.1193(c) 

for 

recordkeeping of 

(ii) occurrence 

and duration and 

(iii) actions 

taken during 
Page 144 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

DDDN

Explanation

malfunction.

63.10(b)(2)(iii) Maintenance 

records 

Yes

63.10(b)(2)(iv)-

(v)

Actions taken to 

minimize emissions 

during SSM

No

63.10(b)(2)(vi) Recordkeeping for 

CMS malfunctions

Yes

63.10(b)(2)(vii)-

(ix)

Other CMS 

requirements

Yes

* * * * * * *

63.10(c)(7)-(8) Additional 

recordkeeping 

requirements for 

CMS – identifying 

exceedances and 

excess emissions

Yes

* * * * * * *

63.10(c)(10)-(11) No See §63.1192 for 

recordkeeping of 

malfunctions.

* * * * * * *

63.10(c)(15) Use of SSM Plan No

* * * * * * *

63.10(d)(5) SSM reports No See §63.1193(f) 

for reporting of 

malfunctions.

* * * * * * *

63.11(c) Alternative Work 

Practice for 

Monitoring 

Equipment for 

Leaks

Yes

63.11(d) Alternative Work 

Practice Standard

Yes
Page 145 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

DDDN

Explanation

* * * * * * *

Subpart NNN – [AMENDED]

9. Section 63.1380 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) 

to read as follows: 

§63.1380 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b)* * *

(3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass 

manufacturing line producing a bonded product.

* * * * *

10. Section 63.1381 is amended by adding definitions for 

“affirmative defense” and “gas-fired glass-melting furnace”. 

§63.1381 Definitions.

* * * * *

Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a 

refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at 

high temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and 

conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes 

foundations, superstructure and retaining walls, raw material 
Page 146 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

charger systems, heat exchangers, exhaust system, refractory 

brick work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipment, 

integral control systems and instrumentation, and appendages for 

conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming processes. 

The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not 

considered part of the gas-fired glass-melting furnace. Cold-top

electric glass-melting furnaces as defined in this subpart are 

not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.

* * * * *

11. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to 

read as follows:

§ 63.1382 Emission standards.

(a) ***

(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) For each existing, new, or reconstructed glass-melting 

furnace you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere in excess of 0.33 pound (lb) of particulate 

matter (PM) per ton glass pulled;

(ii) For each existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired 

glass-melting furnace you must not discharge or cause to be 
Page 147 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

discharged into the atmosphere in excess of 6.0E-5 lb of 

chromium (Cr) compounds per ton glass pulled (0.06 lb per 

thousand tons glass pulled).

(2) * * *

(i) For each existing rotary spin (RS) manufacturing line 

you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere in excess of:

(A) 0.19 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled; 

(B) 0.26 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and 

(C) 0.83 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled. 

(ii) For of each new or reconstructed RS manufacturing line 

you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere in excess of:

(A) 0.087 lb of formaldehyde per ton glass pulled; 

(B) 0.063 lb of phenol per ton glass pulled; and 

(C) 0.61 lb of methanol per ton glass pulled.

(3) * * *

(i) For each existing flame attenuation (FA) manufacturing 

line you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere in excess of:

* * * * * 
Page 148 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(ii) For each new or reconstructed FA manufacturing line 

you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere in excess of:

* * * * * 

12. Section 63.1384 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) 

and (e) to read as follows:

§63.1384 Performance test requirements.

* * * * * 

(d) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 

be conducted within 90 days of the promulgation date of this 

rule to demonstrate compliance with the chromium compounds 

emissions limit specified in §63.1382(a)(i), 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). 

(1) You must conduct chromium compounds emissions 

performance tests according to §63.1385 on an annual basis, 

except as specified in paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(4) of this 

section. Annual performance tests must be completed no more than 

13 months after the previous performance test, except as 

specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section. 

(2) You can conduct performance tests less often for 

chromium compounds if your performance tests for the pollutant 
Page 149 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

for at least two consecutive years show that your emissions are 

at or below 75 percent of the emission limit and if there are no 

changes in the operation of the affected source or air pollution 

control equipment that could increase emissions. In this case, 

you do not have to conduct a performance test for chromium 

compounds for the next two years. You must conduct a performance 

test during the third year and no more than 37 months after the 

previous performance test. 

(3) If your gas-fired glass-melting furnace continues to 

meet the emission limit for chromium compounds, you may choose 

to conduct performance tests for the pollutant every third year

if your emissions are at or below 75 percent of the emission 

limit and if there are no changes in the operation of the 

affected source or air pollution control equipment that could 

increase emissions, but each such performance test must be 

conducted no more than 37 months after the previous performance 

test. 

(4) If a performance test shows chromium compounds 

emissions exceeded 75 percent of the emission limit, you must 

conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until all 

performance tests over a consecutive 2-year period meet the 

required level of 75 percent of the emission limit.
Page 150 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(e) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the PM, 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, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol 

emissions limits in §63.1382 of this subpart at least once every

five years.

* * * * *

13. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraphs 

(a)(5) and (6), and adding paragraphs (a)(11) through (a)(14).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§63.1385 Test methods and procedures.

(a) * * * 

(5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the 

concentration of total PM. Each run must consist of a minimum 

run time of two hours and a minimum sample volume of two dry 

standard cubic meters (dscm). The probe and filter holder 

heating system may be set to provide a gas temperature no 

greater than 120±14oC (248±25oF);

(6) Method 318 (appendix A of this subpart) for the 

concentration of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. Each test 

run must consist of a minimum of 10 spectra;

* * *
Page 151 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(11) Method 316 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) for the 

concentration of formaldehyde. Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of two hours and two dry standard cubic meters (dscm) of 

sample volume;

(12) Method SW-846 0010 and Method SW-846 8760D 

(http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/) for the 

concentration of phenol. Each test run must consist of a minimum 

of three hours;

(13) Method 8270D for the concentration of phenol. Each 

test run must consist of a minimum of three hours;

(14) Method 308 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) for the 

concentration of methanol. Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of two hours;

(15) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the 

concentration of chromium compounds. Each test run must consist 

of a minimum of three hours and three dscm of sample volume;

* * * * * 

14. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) 

(1) through (4). The revisions read as follows:

§ 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements.

* * * * * 

(c) Records and reports for a failure to meet a standard. 
Page 152 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet a 

standard, record the number of failures since the prior 

notification of compliance status. For each failure record the 

date, time and duration of each failure.

(2) For each failure to meet a standard record and retain a 

list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the 

volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for 

which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description 

of the method used to estimate the emissions. 

(3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 63.1382, including corrective actions to restore 

process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to 

its normal or usual manner of operation.

(4) If an affected unit fails to meet a standard, report 

such events in the notification of compliance status required by 

section 63.1386(a)(7). Report the number of failures to meet a 

standard since the prior notification. For each instance, report 

the date, time and duration of each failure. For each failure 

the report must include a list of the affected units or 

equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the standard, and a description of the method used 

to estimate the emissions.

* * * * * 
Page 153 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

15. Section 63.1388 is being added to read as follows:

§63.1388 Startups and shutdowns. 

(a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all 

times.

(b) You 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, or are otherwise 

required to be, routed to such items of equipment.

(c) Startup begins when the wool fiberglass glass-melting 

furnace has any raw materials added and reaches 50 percent of 

its typical operating temperature. Startup ends when molten 

glass begins to flow from the wool fiberglass glass-melting 

furnace. 

(d) Shutdown begins when the heat sources to the glassmelting furnace are reduced to begin the glass-melting furnace

shut down process. Shutdown ends when the glass-melting furnace

is empty or the contents are sufficiently viscous to preclude 

glass flow from the glass-melting furnace. 

(e) For a new or existing affected source, to demonstrate 

compliance with the glass-melting furnace emission limits in 

§63.1382 during periods of startups and shutdowns, records 

establishing that your air pollution control devices were 

operated at the parameters established by the most recent 
Page 154 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

performance test that showed compliance with the standard may be 

used to demonstrate compliance with the emission limit.

16. Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63 includes technical 

corrections to the General Provisions and revisions based on 

these proposed rule amendments and is revised to read as 

follows: 

Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63—Applicability of General 

Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NNN 

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

NNN

Explanation

* * * * * * *

63.1(a)(6) Yes

63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9) No [Reserved].

63.1(a)(10)-

(a)(12)

Yes

63.1(b)(1) Initial 

Applicability 

Determination

Yes

63.1(b)(2) No [Reserved].

63.1(b)(3) Yes

* * * * * * *

63.1(c)(3)-(c)(4) No [Reserved].

63.1(c)(5) Yes

* * * * * * *
Page 155 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

NNN

Explanation

63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2) Prohibited 

Activities

Yes

63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5) No [Reserved].

* * * * * * *

63.5(b)(3)-(b)(4) Yes

63.5(b)(5) No [Reserved].

63.5(b)(6) Yes

* * * * * * *

63.6(e)(1)(i) General Duty to 

minimize emissions

No See §63.1382(b) 

for general duty 

requirement.

63.6(e)(1)(ii) Requirement to 

correct 

malfunctions as 

soon as possible

No §63.1382(b) 

specifies 

additional 

requirements.

63.6(e)(1)(iii) Yes

63.6(e)(2) No [Reserved].

63.6(e)(3) Startup, Shutdown 

Malfunction Plan

No Startups and 

shutdowns 

addressed in 

§63.1388.
Page 156 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

NNN

Explanation

* * * * * * *

63.6(f)(1) SSM exemption No

* * * * * * *

63.6(h)(1) SSM exemption No

* * * * * * *

63.7(e)(1) Performance 

testing

No See §63.1382(b).

* * * * * * *

63.7(g)(1) Data Analysis Yes

63.7(g)(2) No [Reserved].

63.7(g)(3) Yes

* * * * * * *

63.8(c)(1)(i) General duty to 

minimize emissions 

and CMS operation

No See §63.1382(c) 

for general duty 

requirement.

* * * * * * *

63.8(c)(1)(iii) Requirement to 

develop SSM Plan 

for CMS

No

* * * * * * *

63.8(d)(3) Written procedures 

for CMS

Yes, 

except 

for last 

sentence, 

which 
Page 157 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

NNN

Explanation

refers to 

SSM plan. 

SSM plans 

are not 

required.

* * * * * * *

63.9(b)(1)-(b)(2) Initial 

Notifications

Yes

63.9(b)(3) No [Reserved].

63.9(b)(4)-(b)(5) Yes

* * * * * * *

63.10(b)(2)(i) Recordkeeping of 

occurrence and 

duration of 

startups and 

shutdowns 

No

63.10(b)(2)(ii) Recordkeeping of 

malfunctions

No See 

63.1386(c)(1) 

through (3) for 

recordkeeping of 

occurrence and 

duration and

actions taken 

during a failure 

to meet a 

standard.

63.10(b)(2)(iii) Maintenance 

records 

Yes

63.10(b)(2)(iv)-

(v)

Actions taken to 

minimize emissions 

during SSM

No

63.10(b)(2)(vi) Recordkeeping for 

CMS malfunctions

Yes

63.10(b)(2)(vii)-

(ix)

Other CMS 

requirements

Yes

* * * * * * *

63.10(c)(7)-(8) Additional Yes
Page 158 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

Citation Requirement

Applies 

to 

Subpart 

NNN

Explanation

recordkeeping 

requirements for 

CMS – identifying 

exceedances and 

excess emissions

* * * * * * *

63.10(c)(10)-(11) No See §63.1386 for 

recordkeeping of 

malfunctions.

* * * * * * *

63.10(c)(15) Use of SSM Plan No

* * * * * * *

63.10(d)(5) SSM reports No See 

§63.1386(c)(iii)

for reporting of 

malfunctions.

* * * * * * *

63.11(c) Alternative Work 

Practice for 

Monitoring 

Equipment for 

Leaks

Yes

63.11(d) Alternative Work 

Practice Standard

Yes

* * * * * * *

Subpart NN—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources

§63.880 Applicability.
Page 159 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section, the requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or 

operator of each wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is 

an area source or is located at a facility that is an area

source.

(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of 

particulate matter (PM) and chromium compounds, as measured 

according to the methods and procedures in this subpart, emitted 

from each new and existing gas-fired glass-melting furnace 

located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an 

area source.

(c) The provisions of this part 63, subpart A that apply 

and those that do not apply to this subpart are specified in 

Table 1 of this subpart.

(d) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces that are not subject 

to NNN are subject to this subpart

(e) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces using electricity as a

supplemental energy source are subject to this subpart

§63.881 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air 

Act, in §63.2, or in this section as follows:

Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, 
Page 160 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

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.

Bag leak detection system means systems that include, but 

are not limited to, devices using triboelectric, light 

scattering, and other effects to monitor relative or absolute 

particulate matter (PM) emissions.

Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a 

refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at 

high temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and 

conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes 

foundations, superstructure and retaining walls, raw material 

charger systems, heat exchangers, exhaust system, refractory 

brick work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipment, 

integral control systems and instrumentation, and appendages for 

conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming processes. 

The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not 

considered part of the gas-fired glass-melting furnace. Cold-top

electric glass-melting furnaces as defined in Part 63, subpart 

NNN are not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.

Glass pull rate means the mass of molten glass that is 

produced by a single glass-melting furnace or that is used in 
Page 161 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

the manufacture of wool fiberglass at a single manufacturing 

line in a specified time period.

Manufacturing line means the manufacturing equipment for 

the production of wool fiberglass that consists of a forming 

section where molten glass is fiberized and a fiberglass mat is 

formed and which may include a curing section where binder resin 

in the mat is thermally set and a cooling section where the mat 

is cooled.

Wool fiberglass means insulation materials composed of 

glass fibers made from glass produced or melted at the same 

facility where the manufacturing line is located.

Wool fiberglass manufacturing facility means any facility 

manufacturing wool fiberglass.

§63.882 Emission standards

(a) Emission limits 

(1) Gas-fired 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) For each existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired

glass-melting furnace you must not discharge or cause to be 

discharged into the atmosphere in excess of:

(A) 0.33 pound (lb) of particulate matter (PM) per ton of 

glass pulled; and
Page 162 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(B) 0.00006 lb of chromium (Cr) compounds per ton of glass 

pulled (60 lb per million tons glass pulled).

(b) Operating limits. On and after the date on which the 

performance test required to be conducted by §§63.7 and 63.1384

is completed, you must operate all affected control equipment 

and processes according to the following requirements.

(1)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour 

of an alarm from a bag leak detection system and complete 

corrective actions in a timely manner according to the 

procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) 

consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions 

of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the bag leak detection system 

alarm is sounded for more than five percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

(2)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour 

when any 3-hour block average of the monitored electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) parameter is outside the limit(s) established 

during the performance test as specified in §63.884 and complete 

corrective actions in a timely manner according to the 

procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the 

compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64 
Page 163 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

subpart D when the monitored ESP parameter is outside the 

limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in 

§63.884 for more than five percent of the total operating time 

in a 6-month block reporting period.

(iii) You must operate the ESP such that the monitored ESP 

parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the 

performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than 10 

percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 

period.

(3)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour 

when any 3-hour block average value for the monitored 

parameter(s) for a gas-fired glass-melting furnace, which uses 

no add-on controls, is outside the limit(s) established during 

the performance test as specified in §63.884 and complete 

corrective actions in a timely manner according to the 

procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the 

compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR Part 64 

subpart D when the monitored parameter(s) is outside the 

limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in 

§63.884 for more than five percent of the total operating time 

in a 6-month block reporting period.
Page 164 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(iii) You must operate a gas-fired glass-melting furnace, 

which uses no add-on technology, such that the monitored 

parameter(s) is not outside the limit(s) established during the 

performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than 10 

percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 

period.

(4)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour 

when the average glass pull rate of any 4-hour block period for 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces equipped with continuous glass 

pull rate monitors, or daily glass pull rate for glass-melting 

furnaces not so equipped, exceeds the average glass pull rate 

established during the performance test as specified in §63.884, 

by greater than 20 percent and complete corrective actions in a 

timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, 

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the 

compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, 

subpart D when the glass pull rate exceeds, by more than 20 

percent, the average glass pull rate established during the 

performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than five

percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 

period.
Page 165 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(iii) You must operate each gas-fired glass-melting furnace 

such that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20 

percent, the average glass pull rate established during the 

performance test as specified in §63.884 for more than 10 

percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting 

period.

(5)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour 

when the average pH (for a caustic scrubber) or pressure drop

(for a venturi scrubber) for any 3-hour block period is outside 

the limits established during the performance tests as specified 

in §63.884 for each wet scrubbing control device and complete 

corrective actions in a timely manner according to the 

procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(ii) You must implement a QIP consistent with the 

compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, 

subpart D when any scrubber parameter is outside the limit(s) 

established during the performance test as specified in §63.884

for more than five percent of the total operating time in a 6-

month block reporting period.

(iii) You must operate each scrubber such that each 

monitored parameter is not outside the limit(s) established 

during the performance test as specified in §63.884 for more 
Page 166 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period.

§63.883 Monitoring requirements.

You must meet all applicable monitoring requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.

§63.884 Performance test requirements.

(a) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart 

you must conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance 

with the applicable emission limits in §63.882. Compliance is 

demonstrated when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to 

or less than each of the applicable emission limits in §63.882. 

You must conduct the performance test according to the 

procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and in this section.

(b) You must meet all applicable performance test 

requirements contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN.

§63.885 Test methods and procedures.

(a) You must use the following methods to determine 

compliance with the applicable emission limits:

(1) Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the selection 

of the sampling port location and number of sampling ports;

(2) Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for volumetric 

flow rate;
Page 167 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(3) Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for O2 and 

CO2 for diluent measurements needed to correct the concentration 

measurements to a standard basis;

(4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for moisture 

content of the stack gas;

(5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for the 

concentration of PM. Each run must consist of a minimum run time 

of two hours and a minimum sample volume of two dry standard 

cubic meters (dscm). The probe and filter holder heating system 

may be set to provide a gas temperature no greater than 120 ±14 

°C (248 ±25 °F);

(6) Method 29 (appendix A of this subpart) for the 

concentration of chromium compounds. Each run must consist of a 

minimum run time of two hours and a minimum sample volume of two 

dscm.

(7) An alternative method, subject to approval by the

Administrator.

(b) Each performance test shall consist of three runs. You 

must use the average of the three runs in the applicable 

equation for determining compliance.

§63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
Page 168 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(a) You must meet all applicable notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart NNN.

(b) 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 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed if 

you fail to meet the burden of proving all of the requirements 

in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall not be 

available for claims for injunctive relief.

(1) Assertion of affirmative defense. To establish the 

affirmative defense in any action to enforce such a standard, 

you must timely meet the notification requirements in paragraph 

(b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of 

evidence that:

(i) The violation: 

(A) Was caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable 

failure of air pollution control 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 
Page 169 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(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 a 

violation occurred and; and

(iii) The frequency, amount and duration of the violation

(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent 

practicable; and

(iv) If the violation 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 violation 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 violation were 

documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; 

and 
Page 170 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(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 violation resulting 

from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis must also 

specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, 

the amount of any emissions that were the result of the 

malfunction. 

(2) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an 

affirmative defense you must submit a written report to the 

Administrator, with all necessary supporting documentation, that 

meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (1) of this 

section. This affirmative defense report shall be included in 

the first periodic compliance, deviation report or excess 

emission report otherwise required after the initial occurrence 

of the violation of the relevant standard (which may be the end 

of any applicable averaging period). If such compliance, 

deviation report or excess emission report is due less than 45 

days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the 

affirmative defense report may be included in the second 

compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after 
Page 171 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant 

standard. 

§63.887 Compliance dates.

(a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart by no later than:

(1) Except as noted in paragraph (3) of this section, the 

compliance date for an owner or operator of an existing plant or 

source subject to the provisions in this subpart would be one 

year after promulgation.

(2) Except as noted in paragraph (3) of this section, the 

compliance date for new and reconstructed plants or sources is 

upon startup of a new gas-fired glass-melting furnace or at 

promulgation of the final rule.

(3) The compliance date for the provisions related to 

malfunctions and affirmative defense provisions of §63.886 and 

the electronic reporting provisions of §63.886 is at 

promulgation of the final rule. 

(b) Compliance extension. The owner or operator of an 

existing source subject to this subpart may request from the 

Administrator an extension of the compliance date for the 

emission standards for one additional year if such additional 

period is necessary for the installation of controls. You must
Page 172 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

submit a request for an extension according to the procedures in 

§63.6(i)(3) of this part.

§63.888 Startups and shutdowns.

(a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all 

times.

(b) You 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 to such items of 

equipment. This paragraph does not apply if the you must shut 

down the equipment to avoid damage due to a contemporaneous 

startup or shutdown, of the affected source or a portion 

thereof.

(c) Startup begins when the wool fiberglass gas-fired 

glass-melting furnace has any raw materials added. Startup ends 

when molten glass begins to flow from the glass-melting furnace. 

(d) Shutdown begins when the heat sources to the glassmelting furnace are reduced to begin the glass-melting furnace

shut down process. Shutdown ends when the glass-melting furnace

is empty or the contents are sufficiently viscous to preclude 

glass flow from the glass-melting furnace. 
Page 173 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

(e) For a new or existing affected source, to demonstrate 

compliance with the gas-fired glass-melting furnace emission 

limits in §63.882 during periods of startups and shutdowns, 

demonstrate compliance in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of 

this section. 

(b) During periods of startup and shutdown, records 

establishing that your air pollution control devices were 

operated at the parameters established by the most recent 

performance test that showed compliance with the standard may be 

used to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits.

§§63.889-63.899 [Reserved]

Table 1. Subpart NN of Part 63—Applicability of General 

Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN

General 

provisions 

citation Requirement

Applies to

subpart NN Explanation

63.1 Applicabilit

y

Yes.

63.2 Definitions Yes

Additional 

definitions in 

§63.881.

63.3

Units and 

Abbreviation

s

Yes.

63.4 Prohibited 

Activities Yes.

63.5

Construction

/Reconstruct

ion 

Applicabilit

Yes.
Page 174 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

General 

provisions 

citation Requirement

Applies to

subpart NN Explanation

y

63.5(a), (b), (c)

Existing, 

New, 

Reconstructe

d Sources 

Requirements

Yes.

63.5(d)

Application 

for Approval 

of 

Construction

/ 

Reconstructi

on

No [Reserved].

63.6(e)(1)(i) No

See §63.882 for 

general duty 

requirements.

63.6(e)(1)(ii) No.

63.6(e)(1)(iii) Yes.

63.6(e)(2) No

63.6(e)(3)

Startup, 

Shutdown, 

and 

Malfunction 

Plan

No

63.6(f)(1)

Compliance 

with 

Emission 

Standards

No

63.6(g) Alternative 

Standard Yes.

63.6(h)

Compliance 

with 

Opacity/VE 

Standards

No

Subpart DDD-no COMS, 

VE or opacity 

standards.
Page 175 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

General 

provisions 

citation Requirement

Applies to

subpart NN Explanation

63.6(i) Extension of 

Compliance Yes.

63.6(j)

Exemption 

from 

Compliance

Yes.

§63.7(a) – (d)

Performance 

Test 

Requirements 

Applicabilit

y

Notification

Quality 

Assurance/Te

st Plan

Testing 

Facilities

Yes. §63.884 has specific 

requirements.

63.7(e)(1) Conduct of 

Tests No.

§63.7(e)(2)-

(e)(4) Yes.

63.7(f), (g), (h)

Alternative 

Test Method

Data 

Analysis

Waiver of 

Tests

Yes.

63.8(a) – (b)

Monitoring 

Requirements 

Applicabilit

y

Conduct of 

Monitoring

Yes.

63.8(c)(1)(i)

CMS 

Operation/Ma

intenance

No

See §63.882(b) for 

general duty 

requirement.
Page 176 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

General 

provisions 

citation Requirement

Applies to

subpart NN Explanation

63.8(c)(1)(ii) Yes.

63.8(c)(1)(iii) No

63.8(c)(2) -

(d)(2) Yes.

63.8(d)(3) Quality 

Control

Yes, 

except for 

the last 

sentence.

63.8(e) – (g)

CMS 

Performance 

Evaluation

Yes.

63.9(a)

Notification 

Requirements 

Applicabilit

y

Yes.

63.9(b)

Initial 

Notification

s

Yes.

63.9(c)

Request for 

Compliance 

Extension

Yes.

63.9(d)

New Source 

Notification 

for Special 

Compliance 

Requirements

Yes.

63.9(e)

Notification 

of 

Performance 

Test

Yes.

63.9(f)

Notification 

of 

VE/Opacity 

Test

No Opacity/VE tests not 

required.
Page 177 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

General 

provisions 

citation Requirement

Applies to

subpart NN Explanation

63.9(g)

Additional 

CMS 

Notification

s Yes.

63.9(h)(1)-(3)

Notification 

of 

Compliance 

Status

63.9(h)(4) No [Reserved].

63.9(i) Adjustment 

of Deadlines Yes.

63.9(j)

Change in 

Previous 

Information

Yes.

63.10(a)

Recordkeepin

g/ReportingApplicabilit

y

Yes.

63.10(b)(1)

General 

Recordkeepin

g 

Requirements

Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(i) No

63.10(b)(2)(ii) No

See 63.886 for 

recordkeeping of 

occurrence and 

duration of 

malfunctions and 

recordkeeping of 

actions taken during 
Page 178 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

General 

provisions 

citation Requirement

Applies to

subpart NN Explanation

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)

Additional 

CMS 

Recordkeepin

g

Yes.

63.10(c)(10)–(11) No.

See 63.886 for 

recordkeeping of 

malfunctions.

63.10(c)(12)-

(c)(14) Yes.

63.10(c)(15) No

63.10(d)(1) – (4)

General 

Reporting 

Requirements

Performance 

Test Results

Opacity or 

VE 

Observations

Yes.

63.10(d)(5)

Progress 

Reports/ 

Startup, 

Shutdown, 

and 

Malfunction 

Reports

No.

See 63.886(c)(2) for 

reporting of 

malfunctions.

63.10(e) – (f) Additional Yes.
Page 179 of 179

***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (2/4/2013) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review ***

General 

provisions 

citation Requirement

Applies to

subpart NN Explanation

CMS Reports

Excess 

Emission/CMS 

Performance 

Reports

COMS Data 

Reports

Recordkeepin

g/ Reporting 

Waiver

63.11

Control 

Device 

Requirements 

Applicabilit

y

Flares

No

Flares will not be 

used to comply with 

the emissions 

limits.

63.12

State 

Authority 

and 

Delegations

Yes.

63.13

Addresses

Yes.

63.14

Incorporatio

n by 

Reference Yes.

63.15

Information 

Availability

/Confidentia

lity

Yes.