44 Canal Center Plaza ▪ Suite 310 ▪ Alexandria, Virginia 22314 ▪ Tel: (703) 684
- 0084 ▪ Fax: (703) 684
- 0427

**VIA E -** **MAIL** April 13 , 2010
Mr. Jeff rey A. Telander Sector Policies and Programs Division Metals and Minerals Group (D243
- 02) Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 109 TW Alexander Drive Research Triangle P ark, NC 27711 Mr. William Neuffer Sector Policies and Programs Division Metals and Minerals Group (D243
- 02) Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 109 TW Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 RE : CBI and Related Issues in Enclosure 1 of IC R Dear Messrs. Telander and Neuffer: The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association ( “NAIMA”) appreciate s the opportunity

to discuss with the Environmental Protection Agency ( “EPA”) specific questions s et forth in Enclosure 1 of the draft Information Collection Request ( “ IC R” )
. The modification or removal of some of these questions would help to expedite the IC R process. S et forth below are the questions that NAIMA would like to discuss with EPA. The specific objections set forth in this letter share two elements: first, the relevance of these requests to residual risk or emissions of hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”) is not evident and an explanation is merited; and second, the information requested, in most cases, needs to be treated as confidential business information (“CBI”). Even where some of this data can be treated as CBI, NAIMA offers alternatives that can be equally e ffective in meeting EPA’s needs while providing more rigorous protection to sensitive trade information.Messrs . Jeffrey A. Telander and William Neuffer April 13, 2010 Page 2
ENCLOSURE 1 Form A
- 2 EPA asks for the number of employees attached to a manufacturing facility
. The number of employees is not relevant to residual risk. Therefore, the non-public companies should not be burdened with su

pplying this information. M oreover, the number of employees is sensitive/confidential information because the number of employees would plainly speak to the level of ongoing production. It is also confidential business information. The disclosure of thi s information is even more troubling because the data would most likely be inaccurate. Production is down throughout the industry and any numbers given to EPA would not accurately reflect ty pical production level employ ment. Therefore, the information would not only be irrelevant to residual risk, but would also not provide an accurate depiction of company employ ment in a healthy economy. I f EPA is concerned about exposure to HAPs in the workplace, NAIMA can authoritatively

state that no employee receive s any exposure in excess of the applicable Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (“OSHA”) limit. NAIMA and its members have a history of responsible product stewardship as an industry 1 and as individual companies. EPA ’s residual risk process and MACT standard setting are appropriatel y concerned with releases to the ambient air, not OSHA
-regulated work space s . Thus, the number of workers is irrelevant and NAIMA requests that the question on employees be removed from the ICR. Form B
- 2 EPA requests a list of raw materials and binder ingredients and the proportion of each of those ingredients. The specific and detailed proportions used by e ach manufacturer are a carefully guarded trade secret. H istorically, NAIMA has provided regulatory b odies an aggregated average of the percentage of product formulas from data collected by l egal counsel
. This approach ensure s EPA will know the identity o f the constituents without a proprietary l ist of detailed proportions. This approach has eliminated the risk of disclosing unique trade secrets to a third party and avoids the need for the Agency to take on the burden of managing confidential business information where inadvertent disclosure may o ccur. This approach also provides EPA with information it needs

– a list of the raw materials that go into product formulations and an accurate estimate of the proportion of each raw material ingredient. Form B
- 1, B
- 3, and B
- 4 NAIMA requests the “estimated remaining lifetime” and other rebuild information be removed from the list of requested information
. This information is not relevant to residual risk. Fiber glass insulation furnace rebuilds, though routine, are infrequent. At the end of a furnace’s lifecycle and during the subsequent furnace rebuild, refractory linings are removed and replaced. Certain repairs during a furnace’s lifecycle may also necessitate the removal and/or replacement

1 NAIMA, “NAIMA’s Health and Safety Partnership Program,” Pub. No. NO30, 12/02; G.E. Marchant, et al., “A Synthetic Vitreous Fiber (SVF) Occupational Exposure Database: Im plementing the SVF Health and Safety Partnership Program,” Applied Occupational and Environment Hygiene , 17(4): 276
- 285, 2002.Messrs . Jeffrey A. Telander and William Neuffer April 13, 2010 Page 3
of refractories, but such repairs are not furnace rebuilds. Furnace and melter refractory rebricking is crucial to maintaining a safe and reliable facility
. Refractory l ining replacement is driven largel y by

two inherent characteristics of the manufacturing process
– the high heat (approximately

2 500 degrees Fahrenheit) and the alkaline glass chemistry required to produce the molten glass that is used to manufacture fiber gl ass insulation. O ther factors that affect the frequency o f rebuilds include the size of the furnace, firing (gas/oxy, electric, etc.), the intensity of operations, and the corrosiveness of the gl ass melt. Ultimately, the furnace refractory bricks are eroded during normal operation of the facility and must be routinel y replaced. 2 Information concerning each member’s planned furnace rebuild dates is proprietary, confidential business information. Mineral wool companies do not use chrome
- containing refractories to rebuild cupolas as in the fiber glass industry; however, the liner of the cupola may be replaced. Form B
- 8 EPA asks for a description of “any work practices, pollution prevention techniques, and control strategies evaluated and/or implemented at each process unit at your facility . . . you must specify the ye ar in which the facility implemented the practice.” There are no legal requirements to maintain records at the level of detail requested b y EPA. Therefore, to request such extensive information is onerous and burdensome. NAIMA and its member companies are shouldering a significant burden to respond to the legitimate data requests. It is unreasonable to impose such time
- intensive exercises on the companies at this time. NAIMA requests that EPA modify the question to allow the companies to provide information regarding work practices, pollution prevention techniques, and control strategies that have actually b een implemented and that is available and responsive to the question. In addition, it seems the question on Form B
- 8 is repetitive of questions on Forms B
- 3 through B
- 6. Form C On Forms C
- 1, C
- 2, C
- 3, C
- 4, and C
- 7, EPA asks for the amount and method of wastewater and waste disposal. The vast majority o f wool fiberglass and mineral wool manufacturers do not discharge wastewater that contains or has been in contact with binder. That water is recycled in the production process. The recycling system does not involve storing wastewater in open reservoirs or collection ponds
. The closed
- loop systems , and in some facilities the holding tanks, are housed under the roof of the manufacturing facility where any emissions would likely b e drawn into the collection stack and be counted with thos e emissions
. A s such, there are no binder
-related air emissions from pond s. There may b e small levels of emissions from the holding tanks associated with this closed loop system. Further, it is ty pical for the holding tank units to include lids. In other words, the likelihood of HAPs being released from these wastewater systems is limited. Under these conditions, the relevance of wastewater discharge s

2 See Generally Fay V. Tooley, The Handbook of Glass Manufacture § 7 (3d ed. 1984).Messrs . Jeffrey A. Telander and William Neuffer April 13, 2010 Page 4
to a determination of residual risk from air pollutant emissions is not apparent. I f EPA is concerned about water pollution, it should not be explored in a Clean Air Act
-related ICR. Form F EPA requests highly

s ensitive cost, sales, and profit data that has no relevance to residual risk. Moreover, sales and profit data have no relation to emissions. S ales and profit data relate to economic conditions. Inother words, it is possible for a facility to have a high profit margin and healthy sales and very

l ow emissions, and in another year that same company c ould have low profits and sales and yet have hi gher emissions than previous ye ars. NAIMA strongl y objects to providing EPA with sales, profit, and cost data because it is not relevant to residual risk, emissions, or EPA’s mandate to regulate air emissions. In addition, it is confidential business inf ormation. M oreover, much of the cost information requested by E PA is not data that companies would possess. M ost accounting systems used in the industry do not have the details requested by

EPA. M ost companies within the industry do not maintain its rec ords in a manner that would allow this data to be readil y extracted. The effort to supply E PA with relevant data and information will require considerable time and resources. It is not equitable or prudent to divert those resources into areas that will not produce any data relevant to an assessment of residual risk. Therefore, NAIMA requests that these questions relating to sales, profit, and costs be removed from the ICR. As the wool fiberglass and mineral wool industries proceed with the completion of the ICR, there may b e additional inquires and requests for clarification. Therefore, NAIMA reserves the right to raise additional issues in the future. NAIMA also seeks clarification on how to handle electronic filing of CBI. Sincerel y, **Angus E. Crane** Angus E. Crane Executive Vice President, General Counsel